sWs - 07 REFS ComputerBasedCurriculum 2013q3

Table of Contents

Executive Summary:Memo to Texas RE: Alternative Education

1

Dropouts 2

Effects of Poverty

Educating beyond Irritating Behaviors

3

4Computer BasedConcerted Cultivation

5

Computer Based Curriculum (CBC)

6

7

8

Best Practices In Alt Ed9

Legacy of Success: Pathfinders10

A+LS Comprehensive System Description Authored by: D.A.Tijerina March 5, 2010

Prepared for Austin ISD Request for Proposal – Spring 2010 This document was never used, nor presented to the client.

Executive Summary

To: Curriculum Review Team

From: Derly Tijerina, Independent Consultant

Date: March 2010

Re: A+nywhere Learning System (A+LS)

About this Document

This proposal is about packaging and delivering effective instructional plans to any student based on

the guidance and control of a teacher. But first, we glance on how we got here.

For a variety of reasons, educators seek a way to help individual students with specific academic

progress. Campus and district administrators look to curriculum and technology to support teachers

in the quest. The blended art of instructional technology offers instructional content to teachers to

“supplement” traditional classroom instruction. Curriculum identifies the specific academic goals and

technology provides processes to store and deliver these supplemental materials to teachers, so that

they can help students.

When a student achieves the targeted goals, the process is effective. When a group of teachers help

targeted students, then their process is effective. A district that builds processes to help teachers to

deliver custom (individualized, targeted, aligned and packaged) instructional plans helps teachers to

effectively help students.

So again, this proposal is about packaging and delivering effective instructional plans to any

student based on the guidance and control of a teacher. With that as a focal point, we describe

content, tools and support systems that make your instructional technology efforts effective.


A+ Learning System Proposal March 2010

Page 2

Simply too Complicated

The simple goal is to help individual students learn. It quickly gets complicated when we separate

reading/ELA, math, science and social studies, then spread it over pre-k through college readiness,

offer a variety of instructional technology-products/delivery-mechanisms/coordinating-processes, add

dimensions for special needs, and finally factor-in constraints in human capital. But nobody really

wants it to be complicated.

So here, we will concentrate on helping individual students with targeted-learning and

effective processes used to plan (design, store and deliver) teacher-guided student-learning

experiences.

Specifically, that means that an individual learner, progressing through a custom learning plan, is the

cellular event in our plans. The only complexity that happens is due to variations of custom plans.

They don’t all have to be custom, but everyone needs simple rules. This provides some clarity in

how-and-when a plan is created, selected, replicated, modified and/or distributed. If a campus

designs “individual learning plans” for a group of learners, how-and-when does a teacher assign the

right learning plan to the right student?

“. . . an individual learner, progressing through

a custom learning plan, is the cellular event

in our plans.”



Page 3

Keep It Simple

To keep it simple, we focus on three steps in a process and three levels of operation.

Teachers: The teacher-student level is the most basic, but it also defines the minimum unit for the

process (i.e. the “cellular event” or smallest unit of “systemic” learning). That is, a teacher

guides the student to an individual learning plan. So s/he plans, then monitors the student during

the learning process and reports the progress as needed. A student progressing through an

individual learning plan for a specified period and recorded in data is one completed unit (i.e. a tutorial

sequence, an intervention, or a remediation plan).

Campus: At the campus level (level two of the three operational levels), we focus on types-of-

students and types-of-teachers who have access to types-of-delivery-mechanisms (which each

deliver an instructional plan to a student). Campuses design, store and deliver instructional

technology options for teachers to achieve as many units of success (one-student achieving one-

targeted-goal over one-time-period) as possible.

District: The district allocates resources in a formula that includes curriculum guidance (to

identify goals), technology infrastructure (networks, student-devices, instructional management

systems and training/professional development) and operational scheduling supports. The

district then, plans “capacity” by student populations and tries to match support capacity (i.e.

planning tools and reporting/monitoring systems to guide and assist campuses) to help their

teachers to help individual learners.

The whole system is simplified by coordinating all activities in a three-step process within each level.

Each level has their own details to 1) plan, 2) monitor and 3) report on student-learning-progress.

This proposal describes tools and instructional supplements that can fully support this three-by-three

process planning environment.



Page 4

Background

This memo provides an Executive Summary of the capabilities of the A+ Learning System and

introduces background and supporting materials, which distinguish the A+LS as a versatile and

comprehensive system of instructional supplements (content), assessments and planning

tools. The overall objective is to increase capacity in schools/school-systems to effectively deliver

individualized learning plans.

Individualized learning plans consist of instructional material (available for self-paced learning), which

can be selected in response to recent assessments and organized by LEA (Local Education Agency)

educators to meet immediate instructional needs on a student-by-student basis. A “system” of

instructional supplements provides building blocks, which educators use in a variety of planning and

delivery methods. These delivery methods vary and planning takes place at all levels (student, class,

non-local-group, school/campus/building and district levels). But ultimately, individual learners are

experiencing carefully sequenced content intended to achieve a goal (a named objective in terms of

skills or performance expectations.)

Capacity to deliver individualized learning plans increases when teachers can guide more

students to more effective learning plans. Therefore, capacity implies a process in which teachers

guide students and campus/district support systems guide teachers. American Education Corp (AEC

– publishers of the A+nywhere Learning System) and Educational Technology Learning, together,

build systems for campus/district planners to use to assist teachers and for teachers to use to help

students.



Page 5

What the A+ Learning System Includes

The goal of building capacity means that instructional content will be systematically selected

and delivered. That means that campus/district planners need to distribute pre-packaged learning

plans, while teachers maintain the freedom to adjust/refine a learning plan for an individual student.

Every learning plan is aligned to curriculum guides. Pre-packaged learning plans are designed for a

type-of-student and a type-of-academic-problem. Pre-packaged plans are ready-to-use when

needed. The teacher customizes a plan for one student, without disrupting other plans. The objective

is to balance between the two; distributed-pre-packaged plans vs. teacher-refined-custom plans.

This requires a single integrated system that includes tools to plan, monitor and report. But to be

complete, it also requires these tools to operate at all three levels:

Teachers must be able to effectively plan, monitor and report on the progress of

one learner (within campus/district guidelines).

Campuses must be able to define and pre-package learning plans, which are

targeted for use by a type-of-teacher with a type-of-student. And finally,

Districts must to able to efficiently and effectively provide a planning system

(which produces and distributes packaged learning plans), a monitoring system, a

reporting system and instructional materials/content to flow to the individual

learners via custom-or-packaged learning plans.

Therefore, the A+ Learning System includes the following:



Page 6

Therefore, the A+ Learning System includes the following:

Content

Instructional Content (also called lessons or “activities” within A+LS software) for delivery-to and use-by individual students or for teacher-directed class work

A Full Suite of Assessments ready-to-go for K-12+College Readiness

TEKS and TAKS Manuals, which are embedded and dynamically linked to activities/lessons

Tools: Plan, Monitor, Report

An Instructional Management System to plan, align, prepackage and distribute learning plans (includes Planning, Monitoring and Reporting Components)

A full set of Design, Management and Administration Tools to configure, adjust and create any of the above (lessons / assessments / monitoring & reporting processes)

A comprehensive Assessment Management System (130,000 aligned assessment items)

A Curriculum Framework for coordinating and synchronizing any third party Computer Based Curriculum (CBC) to extend and enhance existing content

Capacity-Building Support

Support and reference documents

Training (supplemented by A+ University Topical Training Video-Vignettes)

Professional Development

A+ Learning System CapabilitiesProblem‐Solving View

Individual Learning Plans Course Credit Recovery Curriculum

Ali

Student Class Campus District

PlanLearning Plans

RtI Level 2

RtI Level 3

Student Type

Grade Level

Remediation

Tutorial/RtI

Alignments

Course Definitions

Short/Frequent Assessments

Progress by Class

St d d

Universal Screening Benchmarks

Monitor Progress Reports

SSI Reports

Standards Attainment

RtI Level 2

Credits Earned

At‐Risk Students

Total Usage (by Site)

R t

Growth Measure (Post‐test minus Pre‐Test)

Progress by Lesson (activity time‐on‐task)

Class/Section

Grade Level

Graduation & Dropout Rates

Data for:

AYP

A biliReport (activity time on task)

Mastery (by TEKS Skill or TAKS Objective)

Grade Level

Non‐local Group(sub‐population)

RtI Level 2

RtI Level 3

Accountability

District‐Driven Assessments

Overview - Data UtilizationDelta9000 – Curriculum Systems Overview

delta 9000Curriculum Systems for

Continuous Improvement

Copyright 2008Delta 9000, LLCSlide 1

3 Info User Communities: Why Their Needs are Different

Title: Info Manufacturing


Goal: To build a useful framework for any learning system.

Educational Results, LLC helps educators design, build and operate district-wide curriculum systems. The following p y f gpages are intended to frame the discussion for stakeholders and project team members at various levels of planning.

Small districts and large districts alike must have full coverage with a local mix of people, products and processes. Educational Results helps you to monitor and operate an effective set of services which can provide continuous and


effective set of services, which can provide continuous and on-going support for classroom instruction.

The Challenge





3 Info User Communities: Why Their Needs are Different



Policy Level;Federal, State, Local

District Level

Organizational Layers: The balance between generalizations and details.

Teachers

Campus Level

Plan Level;Resource Allocation, Scheduling, Staffing

Teacher;Specific Student(s), TAKS

t TEKS kill


> > time > > > > time > >NOW

3 Levels of Needs

concepts, TEKS skills


Organizational Layers: Levels of Use Determine Details of Plans

District Level

Teachers

Funding

Campus Level

Projections(expectations)


> > time > > > > time > >NOW

Budget

3 Levels of Needs


Organizational Layers: Operations Reach from Campus Budget to Daily Support

District Level

Teachers

Campus Level Staffing

Logistics& Support

Planning


> > time > > > > time > >NOW

Budget

Scheduling

3 Levels of Needs


Organizational Layers: Teachers Need Detail & Privacy Protection

District Level

Teachers

Campus Level

TrainingPlanning

PrepReportingFollow-up


> > time > > > > time > >NOW

3 Levels of Needs


Organizational Layers: From Cycle to Cycle General Needs are the Same

Current NeedsDistrict Level

Future NeedsDistrict Level

Teachers

New Cycle BudgetCampus Level

HISTORY:Semester or Short Cycle


> > time > > > > time > >NOW

3 Levels of Needs





3 Layers of Information Delivery



School BoardCommunity,

Constituency, Teachers

Regulatory Agencies

Reporting: Info for External Use

Localization Layer

District Reporting

cted

Info

rmat

ion Protected Inform


Storage(Information Repository)

Prot

ec

mation

3 Levels of Delivery


District

Partners, Planners, Patrons

Community Meetings

Reporting: Publishing for Target Audiences

Localization Layer

Reporting

Published for Target Audience

orm

atio

n Protecte


Storage(Information Repository)

Prot

ecte

d In

fo

ed Information



DistrictPartners, Planners, Patrons

CommunityConcerns

Campus Information: Outside Influences on Information

Strategy & Goals

Reporting Objectives

Localization Layer

Reporting

Campus Info Instruments

Policies & Procedures


Data & Information

Models

Report Templates, Data Sets, Forms Data

Records



Request 1

Request 2 Request 3

Campus Information: Creating Reusable Models

Implementation 1

Localization Layer

Reporting


Implementation 2 & 3

Guidelines


Data & Information

Models


Records



Data/Documents: Using Models for Raw Data Delivery

Reporting


Archive Reports, Spreadsheet Views,

Unfiltered Data

Localization Layer


Data & Information

Models


Records

Data/Documents



Compliance Reporting, Domain-Specific Apps,

Portals by Topic

Dir Level

Ops Level

Activity Level

Data/Documents: User Interfaces (Skins), Applications and Views

Reporting


Data Marts, Spreadsheet Views,

Unfiltered Data

Localization Layer


Data & Information

Models


Records

Data/Documents







1

Best Practice Continuum (BPC)

T. Kuhn (1996) observe the “failure of existing rules is the prelude to a search for new ones”

(p.68).

The 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act allows

opportunities for the prelude of a powerful teaching and learning model to be developed,

implemented and monitored to accommodate the vast array of learning diversity within our

educational systems. Math and Reading content, presented through the Cognitive-Field

Interactionist Learning Theory leads to improved levels of learning as measured by the Texas

Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS).

Specifically, at Tiers II and III, a Best Practice Continuum will supply:

diagnostic, electronic assessments identify individual (TEKS)

identified TEKS needing immediate intervention

prioritized, target-specific intervention treatments for struggling students

support for least restrictive environment (LRE) goals, but also the quasi-concept of

Universal Design (UD)

tools targeted for electronic prescriptive and classroom Direct Teach

The overall intervention design must be productively implemented within various educational

case study scenarios.

The basis for the use of the Tier II intervention curriculum will emphasize relevancy and

engagement to motivate students to mastery, and beyond, state and national standards. The

constructivist approach (promoted by Dewey, Vygotsky, Bruner, and others) creates conditions

for outstanding student achievement by encouraging interactive learning in which students are

engaged in a dialogue with teachers rather than simply taking information on face value.

Previously passive students become interested in learning through personal involvement. Setting

an expectation that students will take ownership for their learning eliminates the fog that besets a

lecture-style learning environment of the mid 1900s.

Even the most disadvantaged students can be engaged by an interactive learning environment,

especially after they realize they have much to offer others. [1 Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991).

Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University

Press. 2 Brown, J.S., Collins, A. & Duguid, S. (1989). 3 Situated cognition and the culture of

learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.3 4 Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., and Hyde, A.

(1998). 5 Best Practice: New Standards for Teaching and Learning in America’s Schools,

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, p. 8.] The electronic curriculum, both diagnostic and prescriptive,

will facilitate this type of learning environment where students are encouraged to ask questions,

2

analyze and challenge hypotheses, and think independently. Teachers draw students into

discussions by asking questions that follow from previously presented information in the Tier II

intervention time.

The Socratic Method of questioning encourages students to come to their own conclusions and

construct their own meaning. During the additional 30 minutes within the Tier II intervention,

curriculum will engage students in deeper and more meaningful explorations of the core

academic contents, especially Reading and Math. The students work on the computers with the

A+ Learning System curriculum.

The research from Southwest Educational Development Laboratories (SEDL) found the

meaningful interaction between humans reinforces the Behaviorist Stimulus-Response provided

by the electronic curriculum. By forming and expressing conclusions based on available

information from the software and analyzing the opinions and conclusions of others through

dialogue, the students build a better understanding of concepts that spiral into specified goals of

increased independent, critical thinking.

The process further encourages student learning and personal growth through collaborative

relationships among fellow students, teachers, and families, within the learning environment. The

learning expands students’ academic, philosophical, social, and economic horizons, and better

prepares them to enter our 21st century Knowledge driven economy in a meaningful capacity.

The Three Tier Image and the Three Tier Process Concept Design & Schematic are visuals that

identify how the possible “intended audience” are determined by data. Based upon gathered

qualitative and quantitative data, students not meeting predetermined cut scores are reviewed by a

Student Support Team (SST).

The SST, at its most basic configuration, is composed of a teacher, administrator and

parent/guardian. At the SST meeting, questions regarding the cognitive and social/emotional data

are generated as the team reviews the possible reasons for the learning difficulty. If the review of

the data clearly indicates the student is not meeting the expectation of the Tier I learning

environment, the team will suggest and agree upon an Individual Learning Plan (ILP) for the

student.

The ILP will cover not only the possibilities of the cognitive and social/emotional interventions at

the Tier II level, but also instructional practices within the regular classroom to support and

transition the student back into the regular classroom. The amount of days the student receives

the additional 30 minutes of Tier II intervention service is at a minimum of 20 days or at a 110%

achievement level of the identified TEKS.

3

In addition, delivery of differentiated instructional practices within the classroom (RAFTS,

Webquest, Tiered Instruction based upon the individual student’s readiness, interest and student

profile) are established to further support the individual strategies/programs of the Tier II

intervention.

The ILP documents the expected academic results, which are best achieved when there is a tighter

fit through unification of electronic curriculum based upon identified, student need and alignment

of appropriate program intent with the student needs. The conversations within the SST and

among educators impacting the learning program of the student must focus upon the

target=specific TEKS, review the expectation of the TEKS, establish an agreed upon meaning of

the expectation, and craft instructional strategies to further facilitate the transfer of information

into sustainable, purposeful understanding with student worth and value interwoven throughout

the resources.

Individualized and formative assessments at frequent intervals, along with dialogue determining

what the data indicates, are established means of communication to insure teachers,

administrative staff, parents and student connect support and encourage one another in order to

achieve the increased levels of learning. Depending upon the age of the student, the software

material results can be shared at each session (S-R theory impacting learning) with the student.

The educator overseeing the Student Management System within the Tier II learning environment

will also report the bundled software results weekly to all SST members. All documentation, at a

minimum, will be reviewed monthly by the SST or earlier if requested and calendar space allows.

When the SST reconvenes to review the formative records, they determine if the child has made

adequate progress according to the ILP expectations. If so, the child is returned to Tier I with

continued monitoring by the SST over the next 20 days.

Based upon Cognitive-field Interactionist and Constructivist learning theories, authentic, project-

based evaluations, coupled with traditional pencil/paper assignments and assessments would best

reflect the progress within Tier I or the need to return to Tier II. For students placed in small

group, Tier II intervention of additional 30 minutes, not demonstrating adequate progress of the

documented data, the SST would recommend the change of assignment from Tier II to Tier III for

an additional 30 minutes added on to the intervention (total of 60 minutes) and one-to-one

instruction time to address the identified need(s). Continuation of target-specific, TEKS learning

tasks would be documented and reviewed as previously defined in Tier II. This process is

replicated for each student, in any classroom, at any campus not meeting the necessary academic

growth and development to meet the expectations of the foundation skills and competencies

specified in the Accountability Program.

4

Training/Staff Development

Training and Staff Development for the “Best Practice Continuum” requires 2-days of the

educators immediately following the staff training in the A+ software. After the initial 2-days, at

a minimum, there would be 2-days per month for the first semester. The 2-days, on site visit will

provide the following and other needs negotiated by the campus with the company:

o Review of data, ensuing dialogue regarding data driven decisions based upon identified

student needs;

o Review process of Individual Learning Plans (ILP), the templates to guide the Student

Support Team (SST) meetings;

o Review the communication cycle plan to insure two-way

collaboration/support/implementation;

o Purpose of the follow-up monitoring in the Tier II location, in the classroom, the student

achievement growth, professional development for continuous professional growth; and

o Familiarization with the guides, templates, data analysis sheets as tools to guide decisions

and coaching/modeling/monitoring purpose/forms/use of documentation for improved

student achievement.

The 2 days per month during the first semester will be documented, shared with the campus staff

and administration during an exit review. Discussion from the exit will establish specific follow-

up “next steps” to be observed and review during the next monthly visit.

During the second semester of implementation, as identified on the process and schematic sheet,

will have one day whole group (limit of 45 participants) review/adjust/plan for continuation of the

on-campus support. On site visits will continue, but the visits will only be 1 day per month,

unless renegotiated with the company and district staff.

The case load per each consultant will range from 90-120 Tier II students. Campuses with

greater needs will require additional consultant to facilitate the BPC, manage the case load and

assist with data collection/review/guidance/recommendation. Detail reports of the documentation

will be exactly as it was in the first semester. Transition monitoring of students as they return to

Tier I or move to Tier III will also take place during the second semester.

The identification of a “point educator” at the campus and at the district will assist the two-way

communication and dissemination of pertinent documentation. Special emphasis will be given to

relinquish process implementation of the BPC to the point educator in a trainer-of-trainers, field

based training. A continuation of follow-up, support, coaching, modeling and overall BPC

strategies may be up-dated and renewed annually, for a nominal fee, based upon negotiated

services between the company and the district. Depending upon the student population utilizing

the program and the campus utilization of categorical funding, the following fiscal resources

5

could be identified through coordinated efforts, to provide not only the initial start-up, but also

the sustaining fees of the services to meet identified student need(s) through the Three Tier

Intervention Model in Reading and in Math:

o Title I

o State Compensatory Education

o Title II A, Professional Development

o ARI/AMI funding for appropriate grade levels

o Texas High School Allotment

o Up to 15% of the Reauthorization of IDEA from 2004

o Local Funding as generated by state foundation formulae

o Specified amount from the local tax base generated funding

In closing, just one of many templates is attached with the proposal. The template is am

Implementation Plan used for planning and follow-up monitoring by the consultants and the

“point educators”. As with any new program, there will be identified needs unique to each

student, unique to each campus population and unique to each district. The BPC is flexible,

adjustable, and an ongoing, living resource to address the process identified, target specific needs

of students.

The attached power point is one that is used in the initial training overview, before we establish

the Professional Learning Community within the district, campus, classroom and Tier locations.

We adhere to the Texas Comprehensive Center competencies for working systemically with a

learning environment;

1. Create Coherence;

2. Collect, interpret, and use data appropriately;

3. Ensure continuous Professional Learning;

4. Build relationships through understanding of one another; and

5. Promote an atmosphere of continuous learning for adults as well as student by

responding to changing conditions.

To quote a former Golden Glove shortstop from the St. Louis Cardinals, Ozzie Smith, regarding

what it takes to be successful and achieve identified goals in our 21st Knowledge based society,

“Change is not an option. It is a necessity!”

Dr. Lura Davidson, PhD

1

Best Practices Using the A+ny Where Learning System

Lura Davidson, Ph.D.

Agenda

Presentation

Summarize

Questions & Answers

Copyright 2008 – Educational Results, LLC

2

A+ny Where Learning SystemWhat? Multi-Purpose, Electronic Curriculum Resource

Why? Identified student needs; Data Driven Decisions!

How? Questions resulting from the data; Training for

When? Immediately; Ongoing

Where? A+nyA+nyTimeTime and A+nyA+nyWhere Where by A+nyA+ny Educator Educator trained to implement A+ A+ for enduring understanding and


from the data; Training for the teachers

understanding and increased Student Learning! Student Learning!

A+ny Where Learning System:

Technology Learning Center (TLC)DesignDesign for “win win” resultsDesignDesign for win-win results

Instruct, Reinforce and Accelerate

Driven by a Student Profile used to generate an Individual Learning Plan (ILP)

Constant Monitoring and Communication

Vaughn-Gross Three Tier Intervention Model


3

Three Tier Intervention Model

Tier IIIResources? Data?

Tier II

Tier III

SupplementalIntervention

Intensive Intervention

Tier I

(Core Classroom Instruction)


Students identified as A+A+ t-Risk

Diagnostic/Prescriptive Courseware Assessments; g pDifferentiation of Content, Product and Process

Focused TEKS Intervention

Students learn “how” to learn; Work smart!

Students become responsible for their learningp g

Behaviorist Learning Theory is applied


4

Focused TEKS Intervention

Formative AssessmentsFormative Assessments

Courseware Assessments for Monitoring

ILP developed by a Student Support TeamClassroom Teacher friendly and able to authorAdministrators may monitor learning resultsy gTime, date and grades documented for program evaluation


Students Like the Program

“A+A+ gave me a second chance ”A+A+ gave me a second chance.

“I liked it. It is fun!”

“A+A+ broke things down for me to understand. Sometimes the teacher goes too fast for me.”

“Oh, WOWWOW, it helped me a lot!”Oh, WOWWOW, it helped me a lot!


5

SummarizeA+A+ Learning System

Auditory and visual units correlated to TEKS K-12l d Built-in Student Management System

Data applied to the Vaughn-Gross 3 Tier Intervention Model to determine the level(s) of intervention/accelerationTechnology Learning Center (TLC) Design Model

Win-Win Best Practice for allall stakeholders.

Alignment of Student Needs, Program(s) resources and Funding


Thank You!

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Educational Technology Learning 1256 Main Street, Suite 263 Southlake, Texas 76092

(888) 919-6100 (817)310-3901(fax) www.edtechlearn.com

Memo To: Invited Guests

From: Derly Tijerina, Educational Technology Learning

Date: April 2008

Re: Best Practices: A Systematic Approach to Response to Intervention

Overview

The Vaughn-Gross three tier model for RtI is now familiar to many educators. However, a

comprehensive systematic approach takes administrative planning, curriculum tools and hands-on

training.

You already have a powerful tool (A+ Learning System). Applying knowledge of curriculum goals to

specific enumerated (i.e. assessment data) needs is not obvious nor intuitive. In one abbreviated

symposium/conference setting you will hear about:

EXPERIENCE from Dr. Lura Davidson, Adjunct Professor Concordia University (see reference letter

attached from 2005). She retired from Southwest ISD, where she held the position of Assistant

Superintendent of Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment, then Executive Director of School

Improvement. She used A+ as one tool among several to build a systematic approach to meeting

educational needs.

SPECIFIC CAPABILITIES of assessment tools and reports to meet decision making needs.

PLANS and DIRECTIONS of other A+ users in your area.

DETAILS of WHY-TO, WHEN-TO and HOW-TO use specific tactics on your campuses.

Who Should Come

Superintendents that need to sustain budgets from 6100, 6200 and 6300 funds.

Curriculum specialists and those who establish their strategic plans, budgets and workloads.

A+ Learning System users who need to generate reports that are focused on curriculum goals.

SEE ATTACHED for baseline presentation for the Best Practices discussion.