DOCSLIB.ORG

Race to the Top

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Race to the Top The School District of Philadelphia The Office of Research and Evaluation Race to the Top The Educator Effectiveness Project Year 2 September 2014 The School District of Philadelphia Race to the Top The Educator Effectiveness Project, Year 2 Prepared for: The Office of Human Resources Naomi Wyatt Chief Human Resources Officer Tennille Peeler Program Director, Race to the Top By: The Office of Research and Evaluation James Jack, M.S. Research Assistant Katherine Stratos, M.S. Senior Research Associate Tonya Wolford, M.Ed., Ph.D Deputy September 2014 Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................... 10 RACE TO THE TOP GRANT .............................................................................................................................................. 10 PENNSYLVANIA CONTEXT AND LEGISLATION....................................................................................................................... 11 LOCAL CONTEXT AND SDP PROGRAM DESIGN ................................................................................................................... 18 EVALUATION RESEARCH ...................................................................................................................................... 22 RESOURCES ................................................................................................................................................................. 22 TEACHER OBSERVATIONS AND OVERALL RATINGS ............................................................................................................... 23 Aligning Professional Growth System with new Act 82 mandate ....................................................................... 23 Identifying and Implementing a New Observation Rubric .................................................................................. 25 Identifying the Summative Rating Score for Temporary Professional Employees .............................................. 25 Incomplete or Missing Observation Data............................................................................................................ 26 Incorporating Building Level Data into Teacher Ratings ..................................................................................... 27 Summative Evaluation Results ............................................................................................................................ 28 TRAINING ON MULTIPLE MEASURES RATING SYSTEM AND DANIELSON FRAMEWORK ................................................................ 32 Principals ............................................................................................................................................................. 33 Teachers .............................................................................................................................................................. 33 Non-Teaching Professionals ................................................................................................................................ 36 All Educators ....................................................................................................................................................... 37 ESTABLISH STUDENT LEARNING OBJECTIVES (SLOS) ............................................................................................................ 38 District-wide SLO ................................................................................................................................................. 39 Teacher-created SLOs ......................................................................................................................................... 40 ESTABLISH PROCESS FOR PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT PLAN (PIP) ..................................................................................... 44 ESTABLISH PVAAS AND TEACHER SPECIFIC DATA PROCESSES ............................................................................................... 45 EVALUATION MONITORING SOFTWARE ............................................................................................................................ 48 INTER-RATER AGREEMENT AND RELIABILITY ...................................................................................................................... 50 IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT STAFF .................................................................................................................................. 53 DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................................................................... 55 IMPLEMENTATION CONCERNS ......................................................................................................................................... 55 CAPACITY ISSUES .......................................................................................................................................................... 59 POSITIONING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS SYSTEM ............................................................................ 61 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................................................... 62 WORKS CITED ...................................................................................................................................................... 63 APPENDIX A ......................................................................................................................................................... 65 APPENDIX B ......................................................................................................................................................... 73 APPENDIX C ......................................................................................................................................................... 81 APPENDIX D ......................................................................................................................................................... 89 i APPENDIX E ......................................................................................................................................................... 97 APPENDIX F ....................................................................................................................................................... 102 APPENDIX G ....................................................................................................................................................... 105 APPENDIX H ....................................................................................................................................................... 106 APPENDIX I ........................................................................................................................................................ 107 APPENDIX J ........................................................................................................................................................ 111 APPENDIX K ....................................................................................................................................................... 118 APPENDIX L ........................................................................................................................................................ 122 ii Executive Summary Background The primary objective of Pennsylvania’s Race to the Top (RTTT) Local Education Agency (LEA) Grant program is for participating local entities to adopt and implement Pennsylvania’s Educator Effectiveness System and use the evaluation process and results to inform local decisions in support of student achievement. The School District of Philadelphia (the District) applied for and received $11,112,128 for a three-year period (2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2014-2015) to adopt and implement the new Educator Effectiveness System. Methods The District’s Office of Research and Evaluation (ORE) conducted an implementation study (formative) and an impact evaluation (summative) of the RTTT work in 2013-2014. Data sources include program documents, observations, feedback surveys, as well as observation and evaluation rating data. In Year 2, the evaluation focused on how and to what degree the District has been successful in implementing the first stage of the new Educator Effectiveness System, and how the District is working to prepare for later stages of implementation. Findings 1. Through the first two years of the grant, the District has expended less than one-third of its award amount, and used RTTT funds as follows: Year 1: $1,171,413.10 Year 2: $2,135,491.99 Total Amount Years 1 and 2: $3,306,905.09 Amount Left to be expended in Year 3: $7,805,222.91 For the first two years, the top three expenditures were school computer equipment ($730,871.70), professional education and/or consulting services ($723,383.90), and expenses related to management and administrative costs ($710,171.70). According to the Pennsylvania Department of Education (the State), all funds related to the RTTT grant must be spent by June 30, 2015 (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2012b). Any funds not obligated (e.g.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2020 ISP Conference Program Book (Click)
    2020 Pennsylvania Title I Improving Schools Performance Conference January 26-29, 2020 • Sheraton Station Square, Pittsburgh, PA Sponsored by: Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) and Pennsylvania Association of Federal Program Coordinators (PAFPC) also Step By Step Learning Major Sponsor & Exhibitors Major Sponsor Step By Step Learning Exhibitors 95 Percent Group, Inc. Benchmark Education Company Educational Technology Consultants, Inc. Heinemann Publishing Company Istation MIND Research Institute OSS/Kroy Product Center Renaissance Learning, Inc. Teacher Created Materials ThinkStretch Take a break and visit our vendors: Monday 10:45-11:15 and 3:30-4:00 Tuesday 9:30-10:00 and 2:30-3:00 ii Table of Contents Major Conference Sponsor & Exhibitors .............................................................................................................. ii 2019 Title I Distinguished Schools ............................................................................................................................iv Theme & Purpose ..........................................................................................................................................................1 About the Conference Agenda ..............................................................................................................................2 Selecting Sessions to Attend ................................................................................................................................... 2 Daily Planner ...................................................................................................................................................................3
    [Show full text]
  • Resolution Summary
    Final SCHOOL REFORM COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING RESOLUTION SUMMARY JANUARY 19, 2017 I. SCHOOL REFORM COMMISSION SRC-1 (PRESENTED FOR REVIEW DECEMBER 15, 2016) Proposed Adoption of Policies #105.1 – Curriculum Review by Parents/Guardians and Students, #107 – Adoption of Planned Instruction, 113 – Special Education, #113.1 Discipline of Students with Disabilities, #113.2 – Behavior Support, #113.3 – Screening and Evaluations for Students with Disabilities, #113.4 – Confidentiality of Special Education Student Information, #122 – Extracurricular Activities, #123 – Interscholastic Athletics, #123.1 Concussion Management, #123.2 – Sudden Cardiac Arrest, #805.1 – Relations with Law Enforcement Agencies RESOLVED, that the School Reform Commission hereby adopts the following SRC Policies, in the forms attached, effective January 20, 2017: Policy 105.1 – Curriculum Review by Parents/Guardians and Students Policy 113.2 – Behavior Support Policy 113.4 – Confidentiality of Special Education Student Information Policy 123.1 – Concussion Management Policy 123.2 – Sudden Cardiac Arrest Policy 805.1 – Relations with Law Enforcement Agencies; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that the School Reform Commission hereby adopts amendments to the following SRC Policies, in the forms attached, effective January 20, 2017: Policy 107 – Adoption of Planned Instruction Policy 113 – Special Education Policy 113.1 – Discipline of Students with Disabilities Policy 113.3 – Screening and Evaluations for Students with Disabilities Policy 122 – Extracurricular Activities Policy 123 – Interscholastic Athletics Description: The School Reform Commission establishes general parameters in which the daily operations of the School District are to be governed. As such, the policies (listed above and attached) have been revised and updated to align with current local, state and federal law.
    [Show full text]
  • Nomination of Historic Building, Structure, Site, Or
    NOMINATION OF HISTORIC BUILDING, STRUCTURE, SITE, OR OBJECT PHILADELPHIA REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION SUBMIT ALL ATTACHED MATERIALS ON PAPER AND IN ELECTRONIC FORM (CD, EMAIL, FLASH DRIVE) ELECTRONIC FILES MUST BE WORD OR WORD COMPATIBLE 1. ADDRESS OF HISTORIC RESOURCE (must comply with an Office of Property Assessment address) Street address: 4105-09 Chestnut Street Postal code: 19106 Councilmanic District: 3rd 2. NAME OF HISTORIC RESOURCE Historic Name: Hamilton School; West Philadelphia Free Library; West Philadelphia Republican Club; Radio Church of God Current/Common Name: Church of God; Gospel Spreading Church 3. TYPE OF HISTORIC RESOURCE Building Structure Site Object 4. PROPERTY INFORMATION Occupancy: occupied vacant under construction unknown Current use: Church 5. BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION See Attached 6. DESCRIPTION See Attached 7. SIGNIFICANCE Please attach the Statement of Significance. Period of Significance (from year to year): from _________1891 to _________1968 Date(s) of construction and/or alteration:_____________________________________1891 _________ Architect, engineer, and/or designer:________________________________________Joseph Anshutz _________ Builder, contractor, and/or artisan:__________________________________________ _________ Original owner:_________________________________________________________LE Roy Bliss Peckham _________ Other significant persons:_________________________________________________Elder Lightfoot Solomon Michaux _________ CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION: The historic
    [Show full text]
  • User Guide 2018-2019 School Progress Report User Guide
    2018-2019 SCHOOL PROGRESS REPORT User Guide 2018-2019 School Progress Report User Guide Welcome This guide is intended to help you understand the various components that make up the SPR and will cover the following topics: Topic Content Page SPR Components This section provides an overview of the SPR layout and its main 3 & Scoring Overview components. It also provides details on how each metric and domain are scored. Report Types There are four SPR report types. This section explains how a 7 school's report type is determined. Domains The SPR is organized into four domains: Achievement, Progress, 8 Climate, and (for high schools only) College & Career. This section provides a brief overview of each domain. Domain Weights This section explains how each domain is weighted. Because the 9 District is committed to ensuring that all students are learning, the Progress domain is weighted most heavily. Performance Tiers This section explains how a school's progress at the overall, 10 domain, and metric levels is categorized into four performance tiers: Intervene, Watch, Reinforce, and Model. Appendices Additional information on metric definitions; floors, targets, and 11 points possible; peer groups; and schools with consecutive years of overall score improvement. Page 1 2018-2019 School Progress Report User Guide SPR Components & Scoring Overview School Demographics & Performance Tiers Each School Progress Report begins with some basic information about the specific school being evalu- ated. It is formatted as in the sample below. School Name, Address, and The left side of the school demographics section provides all relevant contact Contact Information information for the school being evaluated, including address, phone and fax numbers, and the school's website.
    [Show full text]
  • Mileage, Off-Campus Teaching Sites
    Off Campus Teaching Sites MapQuest Driving Shortest Distance/Suggested Route Starting Point: 400 East 2nd Street Mileage (One Mileage (Round Active School District Address way) Trip) Allegheny Intermediate Unit #3 475 East Waterfront Drive, Homestead, PA 15120 222 445 Annville‐Cleona Area School District 520 S White Oak Street, Annville, PA 17003 69 137 Annville Elementary School 205 S. White Oak Street, Annville, PA 17003 68 136 Cleona Elementary School 50 E Walnut St, Cleona, PA 17042 66 132 Annville Cleona Junior/Senior High School 500 South White Oak Street, Annville, PA 17003 69 137 Appalachia IU 8 4500 6th Avenue, Altoona, PA 16602 132 264 Bellefonte Area School District 318 North Allegheny Street, Bellefonte, PA 16823 80 159 Bellefonte Area High School 830 E. Bishop Street, Bellefonte, PA 16823 79 158 Bellefonte Area Middle School 100 North School Street, Bellefonte, PA 16823‐2396 79 158 Bellefonte Elementary 100 West Linn Street, Bellefonte, PA 16823 80 159 Benner Elementary 490 Buffalo Run Road, Bellefonte, PA 16823‐9789 82 165 Marion Walker Elementary 100 School Drive, Bellefonte PA 16823‐9032 70 140 Pleasant Gap Elementary 230 South Main Street, Pleasant Gap PA 16823 83 165 Bensalem Township School District 3000 Donallen Drive, Bensalem, PA 19020 140 280 Belmont Hills Elementary School 5000 Neshaminy Boulevard, Bensalem, PA 19020 139 278 Cornwells Elementary School 2215 Hulmeville Road, Bensalem, PA 19020 141 282 Samuel K. Faust Elementary School 2901 Bellview Dr, Bensalem, PA 19020‐1311 138 276 Benjamin Rush Elementary School 3400 Hulmeville Road, Bensalem, PA 19020 141 281 Russell C. Struble Elementary School 4300 Bensalem Blvd, Bensalem, PA 19020 143 285 Valley Elementary School 3100 Donallen Dr, Bensalem, PA 19020‐1838 140 280 Robert K.
    [Show full text]
  • No Choice John Barry School 30.73 19.79 49.48 William C
    Column Averages → 31.65 22.02 46.33 School Name PreK-2 Hybrid Choice PreK-2 Digital Choice PreK-2 Digital - No Choice John Barry School 30.73 19.79 49.48 William C. Bryant School 12.50 7.35 80.15 Joseph W. Catharine School 18.50 7.50 74.00 Benjamin B. Comegys School 9.30 11.63 79.07 Sadie Alexander School 67.69 16.59 15.72 Andrew Hamilton School 17.35 25.51 57.14 Avery D. Harrington School 21.55 16.38 62.07 Henry C. Lea School 22.42 9.09 68.48 William C. Longstreth School 32.04 28.16 39.81 Morton McMichael School 48.05 18.18 33.77 S. Weir Mitchell School 45.65 28.99 25.36 Thomas G. Morton School 21.23 10.85 67.92 Samuel Powel School 0.72 0.00 99.28 John M. Patterson School 31.96 44.29 23.74 James Rhoads School 61.49 32.43 6.08 Martha Washington School 49.15 15.25 35.59 Penrose School 33.90 13.56 52.54 Add B. Anderson School 12.24 10.88 76.87 Alain Locke School 18.94 12.12 68.94 Rudolph Blankenburg School 32.65 38.78 28.57 D. Newlin Fell School 36.30 40.00 23.70 Bache-Martin School 72.16 19.89 7.95 F. Amedee Bregy School 33.80 9.86 56.34 George W. Childs School 33.33 40.31 26.36 Stephen Girard School 30.14 19.18 50.68 General George A.
    [Show full text]
  • Elementary Schools- 81
    2011 School District of Philadelphia Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Schools Elementary Schools - 81 ALEXANDER ADAIRE SCHOOL CHESTER A. ARTHUR SCHOOL BACHE-MARTIN SCHOOL BARTON SCHOOL JAMES G. BLAINE SCHOOL BRIDESBURG SCHOOL JOSEPH H. BROWN SCHOOL LEWIS C. CASSIDY SCHOOL J.W. CATHARINE SCHOOL CAYUGA SCHOOL GEORGE W. CHILDS SCHOOL WATSON COMLY SCHOOL COOK-WISSAHICKON SCHOOL KENNEDY C. CROSSAN SCHOOL ANNA B. DAY SCHOOL JULIA DE BURGOS BILINGUAL STEPHEN DECATUR SCHOOL WILLIAM DICK SCHOOL JAMES DOBSON SCHOOL PAUL L. DUNBAR SCHOOL FRANKLIN S. EDMONDS SCHOOL ELLWOOD SCHOOL ELEANOR C. EMLEN SCHOOL FELTONVILLE INTERMEDIATE FITLER ACADEMICS PLUS EDWIN FORREST SCHOOL FOX CHASE SCHOOL ANNE FRANK SCHOOL ROBERT FULTON SCHOOL EDWARD GIDEON SCHOOL SAMUEL GOMPERS SCHOOL JOSEPH GREENBERG SCHOOL HORATIO HACKETT B. SCHOOL ANDREW HAMILTON SCHOOL JOHN HANCOCK SCHOOL AVERY D. HARRINGTON SCHOOL CHARLES W. HENRY SCHOOL EDWARD HESTON SCHOOL HENRY E. HOUSTON SCHOOL JULIA WARD HOWE SCHOOL ANDREW JACKSON SCHOOL ABRAM JENKS SCHOOL 2011 School District of Philadelphia Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Schools JOHN S. JENKS SCHOOL JUNIATA PARK ACADEMY GENERAL PHILIP KEARNY SCHOOL JOHN B. KELLY SCHOOL FRANCIS SCOTT KEY SCHOOL ELIZA B. KIRKBRIDE SCHOOL ROBERT E. LAMBERTON SCHOOL WILLIAM LEVERING SCHOOL ANNA L. LINGELBACH SCHOOL ALAIN LOCKE SCHOOL WILLIAM H. LOESCHE SCHOOL JOHN MARSHALL SCHOOL GENERAL GEORGE A. MC CALL SCHOOL JOHN F. MC CLOSKEY SCHOOL WILLIAM M. MEREDITH SCHOOL S. WEIR MITCHELL SCHOOL JOHN MOFFET SCHOOL GEORGE W. NEBINGER SCHOOL OVERBROOK EDUCATIONAL CENTER OVERBROOK ELEMENTARY PENN ALEXANDER SAMUEL PENNYPACKER SCHOOL PENROSE SCHOOL ROBERT B. POLLOCK SCHOOL POTTER-THOMAS SCHOOL SAMUEL POWEL SCHOOL ANNA B. PRATT SCHOOL RHAWNHURST SCHOOL WILLIAM ROWEN SCHOOL SOLOMON SOLIS-COHEN SCHOOL SPRING GARDEN SCHOOL EDWIN M.
    [Show full text]
  • The School District of Philadelphia
    The School District of Philadelphia Potential Impact of $94.5M Revenue Reduction on School Budgets Methodology and Notes Key Green Text = Can Be Cut Red Text = Cannot Be Cut Notes: The “Enrollment Teachers” category includes Enrollment Driven Prep Teachers. 2011-12 budget data is post mid-year (December 2011) budget cuts. The Operating Budget Allotment in 2011-12 and 2012-13 is equivalent to the Per School and Per Student Allotments in 2010-11. Enrollment numbers are as projected in the spring preceding each budget year for the purpose of developing school budgets. All data is from the Staffing Management System (SMS). Data is as of 4/26/12. What can and can’t be cut? A decrease in operating revenues would have to be offset by cuts in the Operating Budget only, not in Grants. Grants budget information is shown for reference only. This analysis assumes the Enrollment Driven Teachers category is not cuttable because of maximum class sizes in the PFT collective bargaining agreement. This analysis assumes the following are not “cuttable” in FY13 because of state and federal service requirements; the extent of budget cuts that were already made in FY12; and the time that that would be required to reduce costs by changing the School District’s service model. o Gifted Support o Nursing Services o Special Education – High Incidence and Low Incidence o English as a Second Language (ESOL) o Bilingual Counselor Assistants Why are enrollments and poverty rates provided? Enrollment is important for context for Enrollment Driven Teachers (100% enrollment driven) and Operating Budget Allotment (partially enrollment driven).
    [Show full text]
  • Education Outreach Programs Annual Report 2018–19
    Education Outreach Programs Annual Report 2018–19 PB THE BARNES FOUNDATION 2018–19 EDUCATION REPORT I Contents 2 About the Barnes 4 School Outreach Programs in Philadelphia and Camden 6 Look! Reflect! Connect! (Pre-K) 10 Pictures and Words (Grade 3) 13 Art of Looking (Grade 5–6) 16 Artist Voices (Grade 7) 19 Community Programming 19 Puentes a las Artes / Bridges to the Arts (Ages 3–5) 21 Additional Programming and Resources for Teachers and Students 21 Community Connections 22 STEAM Initiatives 24 High School Partnerships 25 Single-Visit Opportunities 25 Teacher Training 27 2018–19 Education Outreach Donors 28 Participating Schools Photos by Michael Perez, Sean Murray (p. 2) and Darren Burton (p. 19, 26) SECTION HEADER About the Barnes The Barnes Foundation was founded in 1922 by Dr. a teaching method that encouraged students to read Recent Highlights Albert C. Barnes “to promote the advancement of art as an artist does and to study its formal elements • Nearly 1.8 million visitors since 2012 education and the appreciation of the fine arts and of light, line, color, and space. Dr. Barnes wrote that horticulture.” As a nonprofit cultural and educa- his approach to education “comprises the observation • 240,000+ visitors in 2018 tional institution, the Barnes shares its unparalleled of facts, reflection upon them, and the testing of • 18,000+ member households in 2018 art collection with the public, organizes special the conclusions by their success in application. It exhibitions, and presents education and public pro- stipulates that an understanding and appreciation • 4 million+ online visitors engaged since the gramming that fosters new ways of thinking about of paintings is an experience that can come only launch of the new website in 2017 human creativity.
    [Show full text]
  • 15 Years of Arts Education & Advocacy
    15 YEARS OF ARTS EDUCATION & ADVOCACY PICASSO PROJECT: 15 YEARS OF ARTS EDUCATION & ADVOCACY At Picasso Project, we believe that all 15 YEARS OF IMPACT: students deserve access to the arts. This core belief sparked Picasso Project’s inception 15 years ago, when PCCY and a group of concerned citizens 40,750 177 joined together in response to lack of adequate funding students inspired school-based arts for public educaiton and the resultant near elimination of through the arts projects funded arts education from Philadelphia’s public schools. By providing grants to support innovative arts projects in Philadelphia public schools, and advocating for equitable access to arts education, Picasso Project has played a critical role in assuring that Philly’s kids have access to high quality arts education. It is with great pride that we celebrate 15 years of Picasso 813 256 Project and share our story here. As we look back at our teachers initiated arts & community roots, we simultaneously look ahead towards new and innovative arts projects organizations exciting directions for Picasso Project. partnered for projects Tim Gibbon Picasso Project Director Public Citizens for Children and Youth 1 2003 In 2003, the Picasso Project began with support and engagement from the community. Pennsylvania had just completed a “Give Back” initiative in which citizens were sent back “excess” funds collected by the State. At the same time, “Reminding the arts were disappearing from the Philadelphia’s public schools due to lack people of the of funding. A group of concerned individuals, including Vicki Ellis, Lucinda Post, Dennis Barnebey, and Germaine Ingram met with PCCY leadership and launched importance the Give Back the Give Back Campaign to urge citizens to help support the arts of the arts in in our public schools by sending in their ‘Give Back” funds.
    [Show full text]
  • Philadelphia's Renaissance Schools Initiative
    Philadelphia’s Renaissance Schools Initiative: 18 Month Interim Report February 2012 Prepared for the Accountability Review Council by Research for Action Authors Eva Gold, Ph.D. Michael H. Norton Deborah Good, M.S.W. Stephanie Levin, Ph.D. About Research for Action Research for Action (RFA) is a Philadelphia-based nonprofit organization. We seek to use research as the basis for the improvement of educational opportunities and outcomes for traditionally underserved students. Our work is designed to strengthen public schools and postsecondary institutions; provide research-based recommendations to policymakers, practitioners, and the public at the local, state, and national levels; and enrich the civic and community dialogue about public education. For more information, please visit our website at www.researchforaction.org. Acknowledgments This research was commissioned by the Accountability Review Council (ARC) for the School District of Philadelphia. We express our appreciation to Dr. Kenneth Wong, Executive Advisor to the ARC, and Dr. Tonya Wolford from the District, for their guidance of this project. We would also like to thank the District’s research staff, as well as ASPIRA, Mastery Charter Schools, Scholar Academies, and Universal Companies for providing data about the Renaissance Schools. In addition, a very special thanks goes to Central Office staff, the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers, and to the principals, assistant principals, teachers, and School Advisory Councils of the two Promise Academy case study schools for accommodating our requests for interviews and observations, and for graciously sharing their successes and challenges with us. This report was greatly enhanced by the contributions of many RFA staff and interns.
    [Show full text]
  • Recognition 2019-2020 School Year Papbs Network
    Positive ennsylvania PennsylvaniaP Behavior Support Pennsylvania’s Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports System Recognition 2019-2020 School Year PaPBS Network ol B o ase ch d S Pennsylvania Community B of Practice h e t h l a av e ioral H Positive ennsylvania P Behavior Support Recognition of Program Wide and School Wide Sites • Universal (Tier 1) Initial Implementation With Fidelity • Universal (Tier 1) Sustained Implementation With Fidelity • Universal (Tier 1) and Targeted (Tier 2) Implementation With Fidelity • Universal (Tier 1), Targeted (Tier 2), and Intensive (Tier 3) Implementation With Fidelity 2 The Pennsylvania Positive Behavior Support Network (PaPBS) is pleased to announce the 2020 recipients of recognition for high fidelity implementation of Positive Behavior Interventions and Support (PBIS). The PaPBS Network recognition system annually identifies and publicly distinguishes Pennsylvania’s Program Wide (PW) and School Wide (SW) sites for successful implementation of PBIS. This year has presented unprecedented challenges in education. Yet, our schools and early childhood programs have been steadfast in their support to all children to meet their academic, behavioral, and social/emotional needs, and remain committed to high fidelity implementation. Each fall, PBIS sites across the commonwealth submit an application in order to be considered for recognition, based on the following criteria: • In good standing of the PaPBS Network, • Supported by a PaPBS Network Facilitator, and • Submitted 2018-2019 annual data as
    [Show full text]