Page 1 of 32

Round 2 RTTT App for Seattle Teacher Residency
Copied from Online Form
A Minute before Clicking ‘Submit’
4/18/2014

Cover Sheet

1. District Name(s):
o Seattle Public Schools
2. Project Name:
o Seattle Teacher Residency
3. New or Continuing Request?
o Continuing/Expanded
4. Please select the proposal's length:
o 1 Year
5. District Project Lead- Primary:
o Name: : Clover Codd
o Email Address: : clcodd@seattleschools.org
o Title: : Executive Director of Strategic Partnerships
o Day/Work Phone: : 206-478-9948
6. District Project Lead-Secondary:
o Name: : Kevin Corrigan
o Email Address: : kgcorrigan@seattleschools.org
o Title: : Grant Director
o Day/Work Phone: : 206.252.0222
7. School Project Lead-Primary:
o Name: : Sandra Scott
o Email Address: : sjscott@seattleschools.org
o Title: : Principal, Hawthorne
o Day/Work Phone: : 206-252-7210
9. Partner Lead-Primary (if applicable):
o Name: : Mark Taylor
o Title: : Director of Grants
o Day/Work Phone: : 206-205-0342
o Email Address: : mark@alliance4ed.org
10. Partner Lead-Secondary (if applicable):
o Name: : Marisa Bier
o Title: : Program Director
o Day/Work Phone: : 206-205-0338
o Email Address: : marisa@alliance4ed.org






Page 2 of 32

P1 Round 2 Plan
The following section reflects the project status and implementation impact to date as well as any course corrections
and/or additional information you would like to provide. The narrative will be scored along with your district's Round 1
application using the Round 2 scoring rubric.
It’s important to note that it’s not necessary that your narrative matches every possible description in the scoring
rubric (exceeds standard), but that it reflects the most meaningful and impactful strategy for you to move forward with
to impact student success.

Please answer the following questions in a descriptive and concise way.

11. We are applying for a continuing grant for a project that ended in:
o 2014 (Applying for a continuation of a one-year grant)

12. Describe the status of implementation so far with your district's Round 1
award. Is implementation happening as planned? Please explain.

The Seattle Teacher Residency (STR) is a human capital strategy designed to
improve performance at Seattle’s low performing, high-need schools by elevating
teacher practice. It is a teacher recruitment, training, induction and support
system that will create a sustainable pipeline of teachers prepared for the specific
context of low achieving schools with high populations of students of color,
ENGLISH Language Learners (ELL) and/or Special Education (SPED) students.
Quality teaching is the most important school-based factor in the achievement of
students, and the STR is aimed at ensuring we attract, develop and hire highly
effective teachers into classrooms, focusing on placement in our high-need
schools.

STR, with the support of PSESD and other funders, achieved several key
milestones since launching Cohort One in July, 2013.

MILESTONES
A. The program placed 25 Residents in classrooms with highly effective mentor-
teachers at five Title I schools, including 8 Residents at two RTTT high-need
schools.

B. STR evaluation tools have been aligned with the state’s model for teacher
performance (Teacher/Principal Evaluation Project - TPEP) to identify indicators
of progress in the program. As a result, Residents are becoming familiar with the
process under which they will be evaluated as employees of the district.

C. A comprehensive analysis of the UW coursework developed for this program
is revealing alignment between course content and district programs and
practices. Residents are being prepared to use SPS curriculum in alignment with
the Common Core, policies, and practices; all of which is training that the district
typically provides to first-year teachers (a cost to the district).

D. Residents are steeped in the Charlotte Danielson Framework for Teaching
and set goals that ask Residents to analyze student growth data and reflect on
Page 3 of 32

teaching practice.

E. Mentor teachers have participated in monthly professional development
sessions focused on coaching skill development, Resident evaluation, and
program improvement. Mentor teachers also learn new pedagogy for ELL and
SPED instruction, alongside their Residents.

F. The school district amended its substitute teacher policy to allow Residents to
serve as substitutes when their mentors are unavailable (e.g., when sick or at
training). This meets fills a particular need in the highest needs schools
(classrooms are often left unstaffed when teachers are absent). This ensures that
the STR program itself does not add the burden of finding substitutes for hard-to-
fill positions, and allows mentor teachers to attend professional development
knowing a capable, consistent substitute is in his or her classroom.

ELL FOCUS IN 2013-14
Methods instruction in the residency is interwoven with ELL methods so that
residents learn from the start how to plan and enact instruction that is
personalized and differentiated consistent with the distinct needs of individual
students. Residents also learn how to engage families and build on the resources
students bring to school, enabling an asset-based approach to understanding
children’s home contexts and interpreting to children's needs. Content ensures
that residents have a strong foundation in Common Core and NEXT Gen
Science. Throughout each content area, residents are taught specific practices
that facilitate personalization through formative assessment and student-focused
teaching strategies. See Appendix A for detailed coursework descriptions.

ELL strategies are derived from both SIOP (Sheltered Instruction Observation
Protocol) and GLAD (Guided Language Acquisition Design); these practices
include
o Language objectives and identifying academic language
o Structured student-to-student talk (e.g. partner and small group)
o Providing comprehensible input
o Accessing prior knowledge/background knowledge/funds of knowledge
o Organizing language and information through graphic organizer


DATA LITERACY
In the fall of 2013, STR was honored with an invitation to participate with three
other far more established residencies (Boston, Denver and Chattanooga) in the
DATA LITERACY INITIATIVE, a pilot project funded by the Michael and Susan
Dell Foundation. The project has accelerated STR’s work preparing data-literate
teachers and has been a rich source of learning. Through this initiative, STR has
developed a data tracking tool that Residents and mentors are using to collect
and analyze classroom data. See Appendix B for a description of the tool and
how Residents are being trained to use it.
Page 4 of 32


It is critical that Mentors reinforce Residents’ data practices as well as their own
practices independent of the Residents. Therefore, learnings from the Data
Institute will continue to inform Residents’ training as well as professional
development (PD) for the STR Mentors who coach them daily. We are also
developing plans to have the data literacy work inform instruction not only among
STR Residents and Mentors, but also among other teachers in the STR schools
and other schools across the district. For example, we will invite other teachers,
particularly STAR Mentors* and Career Ladder Teachers, to the professional
development sessions for STR Mentors. Work is underway to align the tool with
the district’s data literacy definitions.

*STAR is an acronym for “Staff Training, Assistance, and Reflection.” STAR
Mentors are SPS teachers whose performance qualifies them to serve on special
assignment providing support and guidance to first teachers during their
“induction” year.

CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT
Surveys of Residents and Mentors conducted in January 2014 provided valuable
feedback about Residents’ development. The feedback includes information
about how STR is preparing Residents to teach English language learners (ELL)
and other priority groups, and how the teaching practice of Mentors is enhanced
by their involvement in the program. The surveys were developed by Urban
Teacher Residencies United (UTRU), the national technical assistance center for
20 urban teacher residencies in the United States (www.utrunited.org).

MENTORS
Among other things, the 25 STR Mentors were asked to indicate their agreement
with the following statements on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly
agree):
• “Being a UTR Mentor makes me a more effective teacher.” Average response
was 5.3.
• “The Resident with whom I worked improved student learning and achievement
in the classroom.” Average response was 5.3.

Qualitative responses from individual Mentors included:
• “It has been a great opportunity for growth for me.”
• “I have been very conscious of what I am modeling. My plans are very detailed
and I learned to clearly communicate my objectives to my Resident. I have
learned to use language that helps my Resident reflect on her practice.”
• “Explaining and reflecting on my teaching has made me a better teacher. It has
been extremely beneficial to have multiple teachers serving kids’ needs.”
• “I have grown more in my effectiveness as a teacher during the STR year than
in three years of teaching because of this reflective process.”

Mentors were also asked questions about their preparedness to coach Residents
Page 5 of 32

on supporting ELL students.

• “The program provided me with a variety of coaching strategies to support my
resident to meet the needs of English Language Learners.” Average response
was 4.3.
• “The program provided me with a variety of coaching strategies to support my
resident to meet the needs of students with Individualized Education Plans
(IEPs).” Average response was 4.2.

RESIDENTS
Residents were asked to assign a number between 1 and 7 to evaluate their
current level of preparedness in various areas including the learning environment
in their classroom and their preparation for professionalism and leadership.

• “Establish a culture of respect, rapport, and trust among students and between
students and self.” Average response was 5.1.
• “Engage all students in the learning process by limiting the loss of instructional
time.” Average response was 4.5.

• “Act as a teacher leader in the classroom and at the school by being punctual
and prepared, and having professional interactions with staff, students and
families.” Average response was 5.4.
• “Contribute to the professional learning community at your school”. Average
response was 5.1.

In addition, individual Residents provided the following comments (qualitative
feedback):

• The theory and practice offered for teaching Math, Science, and English
Language learners have been excellent. All have transformed my view of the
subjects (personally) and inspire me to teach each in a way that will activate and
empower my students. The focus on exploring the racial, economic, and societal
perspectives/assumptions each of us bring to the classroom (as well as the ways
in which our kids, their families and the urban/diverse communities we are aimed
to teach in most likely will view us) is unflinching and ground breaking.
• The coursework is immediately relevant and the instructors are amazing! I
appreciate the level of reflection and that goes on when it comes to teaching
academics, management in the classroom, teaching ELL students, those with
IEPs and issues of equity and race in the classroom. We are also learning how to
reach out to the community, include parents in process and develop a hub for
children, guardians, and teachers to connect.
• I love being in the classroom 4 days per week. This consistency has given me
the true experience of building relationships and becoming a trusted teacher to
the students. I feel that the majority of my learning how to teach comes from
actually being in a classroom, teaching and observing and working together with
my mentor.
Page 6 of 32


With respect to their preparation to teach ELL students, Residents were asked to
assign a number between 1 and 7 to indicate their level of agreement with these
statements:

“The program is providing me with the preparedness I need to meet the
academic needs of:
• “English Language Learners.” Average response was 4.6.
• “Students with Individualized Education Plans (IEPs).” Average response was
4.0.

The surveys were conducted in early January, just four months into the STR
coursework and internship. The feedback from Residents and Mentors has
informed, and will continue to inform, course corrections and refinements
described in our answer to #14 below. We will survey Residents and Mentors
again in late May and expect to learn how effective our mid-course refinements
have been. This twice-annual practice of conducting perception and
preparedness surveys will be common practice.


OTHER PROGRESS

• 22 of 25 Cohort 1 Residents have received contingency contracts making them
eligible for SPS Phase 1 hiring. (One Resident has been counseled out of the
program and two are on intensive coaching plans – an indication of the
seriousness with which the program takes its responsibility to prepare only highly
effective talent for Seattle students.) The performance of these Residents is
highly regarded and the principals of the partner-schools (i.e., the schools where
Residents are currently doing their clinical work) have identified several to fill
anticipated openings in the 2014-15 school year. In addition, principals from
other Title 1 schools have been invited to meet Residents prior to the hiring
process in an effort to ascertain best “fit”. All principals from RTTT schools in
Seattle were sent an invitation to meet Residents on 4/11/14 in our first annual
“Meet and Greet”. This event allowed principals to strategically recruit Residents
to interview for open positions during Phase 1 hiring. One problem of practice we
are working to solve is to ensure that high quality teaching candidates who are
prepared to work with a diverse group of students are being hired into our highest
need schools. STR is explicitly aimed at supporting this goal.

• The UW will recommend to the state authority that certification be offered to all
Residents who successfully complete the program and receive a passing score
on the edTPA (which is the acronym for “Teacher Performance Assessment.”
Passing the edTPA is a requirement to become a fully certified teacher in many
states, including Washington. According to the website, the edTPA, “…will give
teacher preparation programs access to a multiple-measure assessment system
aligned to state and national standards…that can guide the development of
Page 7 of 32

curriculum and practice around the common goal of making sure new teachers
are able to teach each student effectively and improve student achievement.”
http://edtpa.aacte.org/about-edtpa#Overview-0


• For the STR graduates who are certified and hired by SPS, the district, through
its STAR program, will provide induction support as it does for all first year
teachers. The Residency’s Induction Coordinator will collaborate with STAR
mentors during the STR graduates’ first year as teachers of record to augment
their induction support. In addition, the STR Induction Coordinator will support
STR graduates throughout the 5 years of their commitment to serving high-need
Seattle schools. (STAR support, by contrast, ends after the first year.)

• On April 11th, 2014, the STR Selection Team, comprised of district, university,
and community representatives, hosted 70 candidates who had applied to the
UW College of Education, and to the STR program in particular, to become
members of Cohort Two. These individuals were invited from a larger pool to
participate in “Selection Day,” a rigorous full day of interviews and exercises
designed to evaluate candidates on a number of criteria. These include
commitment to urban schools, collaboration skills, organization, and
communication. The day is designed to address the challenges and complexities
of teaching in high needs schools. . Out of this process came a consensus to
accept 35 applicants, including 10 committed specifically to the new SPED
pathway, to join Cohort Two which begins in June. More than 36% of the newly
admitted Cohort are people of color (compared to 20% of current SPS teaching
corps).


13. What has the project team learned about the impact of the project on the
target students? In what ways, if any, does this inform how you understand the
original problem of practice and theory of action in your 2013 proposal?

STR’s original theory of action is that a rigorous, district-specific, classroom-
based graduate school training program that embeds the work of teacher
preparation directly into practice at high-need schools, and which focuses
specifically on the needs of ELL, low income, SPED and students of color, will
improve academic achievement and narrow the opportunity gap.

STR has been serving high-need Seattle schools for less than a full school year,
so it is too early to have definitive outcomes data. However, there are several
positive indicators to describe. These include principals’ feedback, performance
evaluations of Residents, and Residents’ contributions to helping schools meet
their capacity challenges.

Principals of the schools where STR Residents are placed indicated that:

Page 8 of 32

• Residents have a high level of preparedness; and that
• Parents have a high level of satisfaction with Residents being in their children’s
classrooms.

STR conducts performance reviews of Residents to measure progress in the
program. The reviews are based on criteria identified in the “Gateways” that
reflect elements of the district’s teacher evaluation framework and elements of
professionalism based on STR’s Core Values. (Gateways are developmental
milestones reflecting the learning that Residents are expected to achieve during
their training year.) Mentors and instructional coaches from UW College of
Education collaboratively completed the reviews in March. For each criterion,
Residents were rated as “meeting expectations”, “nearing expectations”, or “not
meeting expectations”. It is important to note that most Residents were “nearing
expectations” if not “meeting” expectations in all areas. In addition, the criteria
measured are used to evaluate TEACHERS OF RECORD, and as such, it would
be unrealistic to expect RESIDENTS to be “meeting expectations” in all areas in
the winter performance review. Performance reviews will again be completed in
late May and we expect that Residents will be meeting expectations in most
areas. STR’s analyses of the 19 performance reviews completed to date indicate
the following:

• Impact on instructional practice - The following criteria demonstrate that
Residents’ learning of best practices has a positive impact on the practices of
their placement schools:

o Understands the active nature of student learning, and attains information
about levels of development for groups of students. The teacher also
purposefully seeks knowledge from several sources of students’ backgrounds,
cultures, skills, language proficiency, interests, and special needs, and uses this
knowledge when making student groups. Residents meeting expectations: 100%
nearing or meeting expectations (58% meeting)
o Plans and practices reflect familiarity with a range of effective pedagogical
approaches (from coursework and placement). Residents meeting expectations:
100% nearing or meeting expectations (53% meeting)

• Impact on classroom management - The following criteria demonstrate that the
presence of a co-teacher in the room who is focused on best practices in
management has a positive impact on the classroom culture and management
system:

o There is little loss of instructional time because of effective classroom routines
and procedures. Residents meeting expectations: 100% nearing or meeting
expectations (42% meeting)
o Response to student misbehavior is consistent, proportionate, respectful to
students and effective. 100% nearing or meeting expectations (47% meeting)

Page 9 of 32

• Impact on professional community - The following criteria demonstrate how the
presence of Residents in the school community brings attention to essential
elements of professionalism and school community for all staff members:

o Actively participates in building a positive learning community (displays a
positive attitude, contributes thoughtfully to discussions, appropriately builds on
the ideas of others, makes own practice public for feedback). Residents meeting
expectations: 100% nearing or meeting expectations (95% meeting)
o Responds to constructive feedback by making appropriate changes in
instruction or action; demonstrates an understanding of his/her own strengths
and weaknesses; makes adjustments based on his/her own reflection; appears
committed to being a “lifelong learner.” Residents meeting expectations: 100%
nearing or meeting expectations (79% meeting)

These data are a reasonable indicator of continued progress and effectiveness,
particularly with continuing program support when they become Teachers of
Record in the district.

Another indicator of impact includes activities in which Residents help their
schools meet capacity needs. For example:

• Residents participate as chaperones for overnight trips where educators are
required to attend (i.e., 5th grade trip to IslandWood, an environmental education
center on Bainbridge Island - http://islandwood.org/)
• Residents teach at MSP camps during school breaks
• As a result of a change in policy approved by the Seattle School Board,
Residents substitute for Mentor teachers who are participating in extended
Professional Development (this policy change itself is an indicator of the district’s
confidence in the program)

When Residents are able to fill these needs, it provides continuity for students
and creates rich learning opportunities for Residents as they take on leadership
roles, engage with students in “out-of-school” time, and participate in school-wide
activities.

Taken together, the indicators documented above demonstrate how the program
prioritizes learning, focuses on rigorous performance monitoring and feedback,
aligns with district practices, and nourishes a deep commitment to students.
Because we are creating experiences that fall along a continuum of teacher
development that is consistent with the district’s current programs, Resident
success should be a predictor of teacher effectiveness.

LEARNINGS
Round 1 implementation has been a source of deep and rich learning for project
planners and leaders. An important example is “Studio Days” (described fully in
the next section on course refinements). In the adaptation and implementation of
Page 10 of 32

the model, we learned two things with respect to impact:

• Intensive time working with a smaller group of Residents allows for deeper,
more focused support of ELL students.
• Creating opportunities for Residents, Mentors, Administrators and students to
learn simultaneously improves everyone’s practice and extends the support for
ELL students beyond what it would be if the learning opportunity was focused
solely on the Residents. All of the educators are able to observe more closely
how ELL students struggle with understanding and using academic language and
can generate strategies to immediately implement in classrooms. STR/UW
instructors contribute by providing real-time coaching and instructional support by
demonstrating various co-teaching strategies that model effective practice.

RANGE OF IMPACT
STR’s initial direct impact centers on the partner schools where the Residents
work with Mentor teachers (5 schools in 2013-14; 6 to 7 in 2014-15). However,
the scope of that impact will continually grow as Residents move out into other
high-need schools across the district. A broad range of impact is central to the
Residency’s Theory of Action. Please see #32 for further discussion on this
important topic.

14. What are course corrections that you have made, or would make based on
your implementation data?

Among other things, we learned that STR has the potential to have a much larger
transformative impact on the system especially with respect to low income, ELL
and SPED students. To leverage this impact, we are developing the ASSOCIATE
SCHOOL model (as distinguished from “Partner Schools,” which are the schools
where Residents are working in classrooms with their Mentors and students).
ASSOCIATE SCHOOLS are the elementary RTTT high-need schools other than
the three RTTT high-need schools where Residents will be placed in 2014-15.
We are developing a plan to reach out to most of the other 17 unchecked high-
need elementary schools identified in #19 in order to engage their participation in
STR, particularly in STUDIO DAYS (described in detail below). The objective of
the plan is that the leaders, STAR Mentors, and Career Ladder Teachers of the
Associate Schools observe a STUDIO DAY when hosted by a nearby school;
after observing, the leaders and Associate School teachers would then engage in
facilitated discussions with their learning communities to reinforce their learnings
and develop plans implement the promising practices in their own instruction. By
development of this Associate School model, STR and district staff will be
leveraging even more the promising practices and structures developed in the
placement schools for impact throughout the system.

In the rest of this section, we describe two areas in which we plan intensified
focus in 2014-15: ELL and SPED.

Page 11 of 32

During the first year of this project, we learned that there was a need for greater
focus on ELL students (on math in particular) and on students requiring special
education (SPED). The next two sections describe the evidence, the needs, and
the ways we are focusing and expanding the program to address them. These
course “corrections” are more in the nature of course “refinements” in that our
actions are completely consistent with our original theory of practice, and, if
anything, further validates it.

EVIDENCE OF NEED FROM STANDARDIZED ASSESSMENTS

Evidence for intensified focus on ELL and SPED is abundant. The evidence
includes the performance of 4th grade ELL students on the state’s assessments
of proficiency.

ELL
• On the NAEP* assessment, the READING proficiency rate of Washington’s ELL
4th graders was only 4%, compared to the 48% average for all students in the
state. In the NAEP MATH assessment, only 9% of the state’s ELL 4th graders
were at or above proficient, compared to the 40% average for all students in the
state.
• In the 2013 MSP,** the READING proficiency rate of Seattle’s 3rd to 5th grade
ELL students was 31%. This is 5 points less than the state average among
SPED 3rd to 5th graders, and 32 points less than the 73% average for all 3rd-5th
graders. The ELL MATH proficiency rate at SPS was 30%. This is 2 points lower
than the state average among ELL 3rd to 5th graders, and 34 points less than
the 64% average for all 3rd-5th graders.

SPED
• 12% of 4th grade SPED students statewide achieved proficiency in READING
vs. 48% average of all Washington students. In MATH, 22% of SPED students
statewide achieved proficiency vs. 40% average of all Washington students.
• In the 2013 MSP, the READING proficiency rate of Seattle’s SPED 3rd to 5th
graders was 31%. This is 9 points less than the 40% rate of SPED students
statewide, and 47 points less than the 78% rate of non-SPED students. The
MATH proficiency rate among Seattle’s 3rd-5th Graders was 23%. This is 6
points lower than the 29% proficiency rate of the same group statewide and 46
points lower than non-SPED students.

* NAEP data relevant to STR (which serves K-5) is limited to 4th grade;
moreover, it includes only a small number of Washington schools that are part of
the state sample and it is not available by district or school. Nonetheless, it is
reasonable to assume that gaps at the STR schools would be similar to the gaps
reported in the state sample. NAEP data was generated through the NAEP
Report Builder at http://goo.gl/6tyDeD.

**MSP data is generated from OSPI tables at http://goo.gl/3mPF0J.
Page 12 of 32


The SPED need is especially acute as evidenced by these data:

• 20% of the newly hired teachers over the last 3 years were SPED teachers
• As of Oct 1, 2013, 40 SPED positions were still unfilled; a large number of those
unfilled positions were elementary generalist positions serving students identified
as Levels 1 and 2 (these are students who are served in the Resource Room and
receive “pull out” services).
• When asked about hiring needs, principals uniformly indicate SPED teachers as
the greatest need and the hardest to fill positions

ENHANCEMENTS IN ELL and MATH
From the beginning, Residents have been learning and rehearsing general
differentiated instructional practices for English Language Learners (ELL), as well
as appropriate practices for high quality math instruction. STR’s ELL strand was
designed to prepare Residents to teach and advocate for the culturally and
linguistically diverse students that are and will be in their classrooms. Throughout
three quarters, this strand builds the Residents’ working knowledge related to:

• The ways ELL students learn language and content;
• The social and political contexts within which this learning takes place;
• The instructional approaches, methods, and strategies to support teaching and
learning; and
• Integration within other content areas so as to provide education on par with
that provided to native English speaking peers.

The UW/STR ELL instructor not only teaches courses but also participates in
both math and literacy “methods” courses to help Residents make connections to
the language demands of English language learners within the content areas.
For details about the coursework preparing Residents to teach ELL students,
please see Appendix A.

An innovative response to the need to intensify ELL and math focus is a model
called STUDIO DAYS. Studio Days are designed to help Residents integrate ELL
and math instruction so that they can more effectively support ELL student
learning. The STR Math Methods instructor and ELL Instructor (faculty members
at the UW College of Education) built upon a research based model developed in
other UW teacher preparation pathways. The model, which launched in STR this
winter, provides focused learning opportunities for Residents, classroom
teachers and elementary students simultaneously. STR Studio Days advanced
the model by integrating EL instructional strategies and considerations into
rigorous math instruction. The model embeds the work directly into classrooms at
high-need schools and focuses specifically on the needs of ELL students in a
content area (Math) that poses significant challenges, particularly when
considering the academic language of the content. Other teachers (both mentors
and non-mentors) as well as administrators in the host schools are also invited to
Page 13 of 32

Studio Days.

A Studio Day begins with the Residents from all STR schools who are working in
a particular grade level span (e.g. K/1, 4/5) convening with the UW/STR Math
and ELL instructors. Together they develop a math lesson containing the
instructional strategies consistent with the strengths and needs of ELL students.
A Resident then delivers the lesson in her or his classroom, paying special
attention to ELL students. Between 3 and 7 Residents observe and support
individual students while the Resident is teaching; thus, students are getting
intense individualized attention to help them understand the lesson. The
UW/STR instructors are in the classroom providing guidance, support and
intervention where needed. The mentor-teacher and some of the other teachers
in that school are observing as well.

After the lesson is presented, the Resident directs the students to break into
small learning groups where other Residents reinforce the learning. The lesson is
video-recorded and the other Residents take manual or audio notes to further
document what students are saying and doing. This provides important data to
reflect on during debriefing. The data provides Residents the opportunity to
anticipate challenges that other students will have and create new strategies for
increasing learning by the students.

After the lesson, the group returns to a meeting place to debrief and make
revisions. They develop a revised instructional plan that another Resident
teaches to a new group of students in a different classroom at the same or
another STR school in the afternoon. After that second presentation, the group
again debriefs and assesses how effective the revisions they made to the lesson
supported student learning.

BENEFITS OF STUDIO DAYS:

• Teachers and Residents are able to observe more closely how ELL students
struggle with academic language.
• Teachers and Residents develop assessment skills to inform instructional
decisions.
• STR/UW instructors can more closely monitor and support Resident learning;
they are able to provide real-time coaching and instructional support by
demonstrating various co-teaching strategies that model effective practice.
• Substantial debriefing allows for modifications to instruction prior to re-teaching
the task in another classroom; Residents and mentor teachers are able to
discuss unexpected linguistic challenges with evidence from their observations
and develop more effective ways to structure timing and participation.
• Observers see the impact of lesson-changes on students;
• Studio Days create a context for making practice public; instructors have the
opportunity to participate in reflective discussions about how ELL students
struggle to grasp math concepts and how to modify the instruction.
Page 14 of 32

• Teachers learn new strategies to support ELL student learning.

STR intends to leverage the program’s impact by:

• Increasing the number of Studio Days to 10 in at least six Title I schools
(including 4 that are RTT high-need schools: Concord, Emerson, Hawthorne and
Madrona)
• Encouraging the administrators and Career Ladder teachers of the host schools
to observe the lessons in the Studio Day classrooms.
• Inviting principals and Career Ladder Teachers from Associate Schools to
attend the Studio Days in the STR Partner Schools

Creating opportunities for Residents, Mentors, STAR Mentors, Career Ladder
Teachers, Administrators and students to learn simultaneously improves
everyone’s practice and extends the support for ELL students beyond what it
would be if the learning opportunity was focused solely on the Residents. All of
the educators are able to observe more closely how ELL students struggle with
understanding and using academic language and can generate strategies to
immediately implement in classrooms.

Since each Studio Day involves presentations in a single grade level classroom,
we anticipate there will be at least 10 in each of fall and winter quarters, or a total
of 20. At a minimum, this means that at least 20 different teachers of at least 300
low income students (assuming 15 low income students per classroom) will be
exposed to the program’s ELL-Math strategies. However, because the program
will actively engage with Career Ladder and STAR mentor teachers from STR’s
Associate Schools and recruit them to observe and dialog about the
demonstrations in guided discussions afterwards, we anticipate that the actual
number of teachers to be exposed to the strategies will be much higher.

Studio Days provide important learning opportunities for non-mentor teachers
and school administrators as they participate in learning new strategies to
support ELL students with math content, observe how the new strategies impact
students, and support the Residents in deepening their understanding of how
specific strategies can be implemented.

Studio Days are a structure within a school that can be used to build the
instructional capacity of the entire school, not just individual classrooms. Practice
is de-privatized and, in turn, leads to a more collaborative school culture.
Research indicates that schools who have an increased culture of collaboration
and trust realize gains in student achievement at higher levels (Drago-Severson,
2008, 2012).

STR has shared the plans for supporting ELL students with members of the SPS
Equity and Race Advisory Committee and directors within the district, including
Bernardo Ruiz, the Director of School Family Partnerships and Equity and Race
Page 15 of 32

Relations.


NEW SPED PATHWAY

Given the need for more SPED resources documented above, members of the
STR Steering Committee who represent SPS (Superintendent, Deputy
Superintendent and the Director of Strategic Planning) made the request to the
STR Steering Committee that STR add a Special Education pathway. The
Steering Committee approved the expansion of STR from 25 Residents in 2013-
14 to 35 Residents in 2014-15. The new slots are reserved specifically for
training SPED teachers.

STR will prepare the SPED Residents as Special Ed Generalists for elementary
level positions. By being prepared as elementary generalists, the ten SPED
Residents can participate with the rest of Cohort Two in most of the coursework
that is already in place.

WHAT THE SPED PATHWAY LOOKS LIKE

The Seattle Teacher Residency SPED track emphasizes field-based learning
and comprises two required practica. It includes a year-long practicum in an
inclusion classroom where students with disabilities are included with general
education students. In addition, Residents will engage in a summer intensive
practicum with students with severe disabilities receiving Extended School Year
(ESY) services. These experiences allow Residents to:

• Work with mentor teachers in special education;
• Apply their knowledge and build their professional network; and
• Engage in learning about research and evidence - based practice in the field of
special education through the UW College of Education Special Education
Program and faculty.
• Apply for open SPED positions once they have completed the program
requirements.

The STR SPED pathway is consistent with today's inclusive elementary and
secondary schools that are increasingly seeking teachers with multiple
endorsements. The pathway will address Washington state competencies in:
special education legislation; characteristics of learners with disabilities; special
education law; ethics, assessment; knowledge of planning content and practice;
positive behavior intervention support; assistive technology; and universal design
for learning.

SPED Residents will be placed in pairs or trios with a Lead Mentor teacher and a
special education team. This will not only provide a context for developing
practical skills for teaching students with disabilities but also for developing
Page 16 of 32

necessary skills for engaging with adult colleagues, skills that are so critical and
typical in special education settings. Upon successful completion of the STR
program, we will have 10 Residents ready to assume first year SPED teaching
positions in hard to staff schools.


15. Is there any other information you would like to provide that would give more
detail or clarity in addition to your original application?

There are five parts to this section:

• Addenda to Fields Where Text Is Not Permitted
• Description of Refinements in the Resident Admissions and Selection Process
• Description of Refinements in Resident Evaluation Process
• Description of Plan to Share Promising Practices (corresponds to Rubric #12)
• Description of STR’s Advisory Group (corresponds to engagement of
communities of color per Rubric #4)


A. ADDENDA TO FIELDS WHERE TEXT IS NOT PERMITTED

#23. Students to Be Served:
Embedded in STR’s theory of action is SYSTEMIC change, i.e., school-wide and
district-wide impact. While we assign Residents to individual classrooms, we
have structured the program to be a game-changer not only for students in
discrete classrooms, but for the ENTIRE school communities where Residents
are serving as well as the larger system through the Associate School
engagement described above. Accordingly, in our response to #21 below, we
project serving 800 low income students in the three RTT high-need schools
where we will place residents in 2014-15. This figure includes 225 in the
classrooms of the 15 Residents as well as 575 other low income students in the
same RTT high-need schools. Since the high priority groups are not exclusive
categories (e.g., most of the ELL students are likely to be low income), the
projection of serving 800 students is limited to the number of low income
students in order to avoid over-projecting. This number could actually be even
higher because we are considering adding Emerson as a Partner School where
Residents would be placed. (Emerson is a RTT high-need school.)


The percentages of students at the three schools who are in STR’s three high-
priority groups are as follows:
• FRL: 74.5%
• ELL: 28.5%
• SPED: 15.8%
(Data generated by SPS Data Services department 3/28/2014)

Page 17 of 32


#24. Percentage of The High Priority Student Group Who Will Be With Highly
Effective Teachers:

The target we set is that 45% of ALL the teachers at the three 3 RTT high-need
schools collectively (not just those teachers associated with STR) will be deemed
highly effective per the 2014-15 evaluations (see Data Collection Table). By
extension, this means that 45% of the priority group students at the three schools
will be served by highly effective teachers.

BASELINE (2012-13):
• Total evaluated teachers at all three schools (Madrona, Hawthorne, Concord):
43
• Number Highly Effective: 16
• Percentage Highly Effective: 37%


B. REFINEMENT OF THE ADMISSIONS AND SELECTION PROCESS

Since participation in STR requires application to the University of Washington
Graduate School, the admissions process is conducted in close coordination with
the College of Education (the dean of the college, Tom Stritikus, Ph.D., is a
member of the STR steering committee and is one of STR’s original co-
founders). In 2013, STR formed a Selection Team comprised of representatives
of the college, SPS, the Seattle Education Association and the Alliance for
Education. Beginning with the review of written applications, the team assesses
several things about each applicant including: prior academic record; references
documented on a structured reference form; leadership and collaboration skills;
experience with children in poverty-impacted communities; passion for teaching;
and commitment to the STR mission.

The heart of the admissions process is "Selection Day," which is a full day of on-
site interviews and exercises to which qualified applicants are invited. Selection
Day provides opportunities for candidates to demonstrate their experience,
skillsets, analytical and interpersonal skills, and motivations. The day is intended
to simulate the rigor of the STR program as well as the teaching profession; it
enables selection team members to determine which candidates are best
capable of handling pressure and juggling diverse tasks in a typical day of
teaching.

During the highly structured experience, candidates are expected to:

• Give a teaching demonstration;
• Engage in discussion with peers after receiving feedback about their teaching;
• Analyze student writing;
• Demonstrate cultural competence;
Page 18 of 32

• Analyze and critique a teaching video; and
• Draft a letter to parents to introduce themselves.

Last spring, 47 candidates were invited to Selection Day (out of 58 total
applicants). At the end of the rigorous day, the selection team reached
consensus on accepting 25 candidates who then became members of STR’s first
cohort. Cohort One Residents began work last August. Given that one of STR’s
goals is to increase the diversity of the teaching corps, it is worth noting that 55%
of Cohort One members are people of color; by comparison, only 20% of current
SPS teachers are people of color.

Selection Day was an invigorating, positive, high-energy experience. We are
pleased that the vast majority of Residents are performing very well in the
program this year. Moreover, the program is impacting not only the classrooms
where Residents are working with their mentor-teachers, but the rest of the
schools in which they are working and even the system beyond.

As we prepared for Cohort Two Selection Day on April 11th, we closely reviewed
the process and implemented changes based on lessons learned during our
launch year. While most of the Cohort One Residents are performing well, a
small number are struggling. That prompted us to correlate Residents’
performance during the year with their performance on Selection Day last spring.
Some of the struggling Residents are those who were not initially accepted and
were placed on our waitlist, or they are ones who struggled in particular tasks on
Selection Day. Areas of particular stress for some include:

• Ability to handle pressure - some Residents were quite nervous on Selection
Day, did not complete tasks, felt ill, or claimed they weren't their best selves. In
the program, some of these same individuals have time management issues, a
high number of absences, difficulty completing coursework assignments, and
experience unusual anxiety during observations.
• Ability to process feedback – the Residents who seem to resist feedback are
often those who did not engage much with others about the feedback they
received from the mock teaching exercise on Selection Day.
• Weak content knowledge (especially math) – the math video task has proven to
be an effective mechanism for predicting struggles teaching math content.

Accordingly, we are making several enhancements to the recruitment and
selection process for Cohort Two including:

• Refining the rubrics used to evaluate applicants on the 7 different tasks related
to the competencies deemed necessary for success in the program; this includes
adjusting the weight of each rubric based on what is needed to be successful in
this rigorous program;
• Further analyzing and clarifying for ourselves the link between the exercises
and the attributes we believe will contribute to a Resident’s success;
Page 19 of 32

• Improving orientation of Selection Team members so they have appropriate
time to prepare, sufficient understanding about the process and adequate
information about each task we ask them to assess;
• Encouraging team members to document impressions and anecdotes (in
addition to numerical scoring) because their observations “give life” to the
candidates and provide valuable insights that numbers alone cannot reveal;
• Facilitating an information/Q&A panel of current residents and mentors and
providing more opportunities for candidates to meet and mingle with current
Residents and staff (based on feedback from last year’s candidates); and
• Rolling out a digital tool that facilitates scoring and analysis of candidates’
performance across tasks.


C. REFINEMENTS TO RESIDENT EVALUATION PROCESS

STR was intentional in the developmental of Resident evaluation processes and
tools that are aligned with the district’s teacher evaluation framework. At the
same time, there are additional evaluation points throughout the year. For
example, Residents are assessed as they complete the 7 required “Gateways.”
The Gateways are assessed using components of the district’s teacher
evaluation rubrics. In addition, Residents are evaluated mid-year and at the end-
of-year via a Performance Review process that incorporates all criteria from the
completed gateways. These are examples of the continuous monitoring and
evaluation STR staff undertake in this program.

The language of the performance review tools is directly derived from the district
model. What this means is that Residents will be accustomed to the evaluation
practice of the district as they begin their first year as teacher of record. They
become familiar with the district’s specific expectations and understand the
criteria on which they will be evaluated. In addition, STR instructional coaches
are able to communicate clear expectations for Mentor support (which result in
their attention to improving their own practice) and make reasonable predictions
of the effectiveness of Residents as future teachers of record. Most importantly,
Residents view the process as a way to develop their teaching and learning such
that evaluation is a reflective process meant to build upon previous learnings and
address instruction in ways that better address student learning. In order to help
Residents better understand the value of these tools toward improving their
practice, course corrections made during the year have included:

• More fully integrating Resident reflection;
• Increasing the action planning; and
• More fully engaging mentor-teachers in the evaluation process.




Page 20 of 32

D. PROMISING PRACTICES; REPLICATION

During the second year of implementation, program leadership will convene the
Road Map districts to share learning from the program. As hiring rates increase
across the region, the STR team is confident that the model that provides an
opportunity for districts to reflect on both their recruiting and induction practices
and their relationships with teacher preparation institutions. STR leadership plans
to engage RTT/ESD staff on a communication and convening plan that aligns
with other funded projects and leverages the collected efforts of partner districts.

Initial conversations about the impact of the STR model have already occurred
among the UW College of Education and leadership in Highline and Tukwila
school districts. With respect to Highline specifically, its current superintendent,
Susan Enfield, was a key participant in the early thinking around the residency
initiative (during her tenure at SPS) and we would be pleased to participate in
ESD-facilitated conversations to facilitate potential collaboration.

The College of Education has leveraged the learning from this work with other
teacher education pathways within the college and other institutions. Initial
meetings have occurred with other colleges of education interested in developing
residencies with partner districts. The College will make a presentation about
STR at the fall 2014 meeting of the Washington Association of Colleges of
Teacher Education (WACTE). The twenty institutions that train teachers are in
regular communication about the field of teacher preparation. Innovations are a
constant topic of sharing and collaboration across institutions.

E. RESOURCE-SHARING AND SUPPORT BY COMMUNITIES OF COLOR

The STR Advisory Council established during STR’s planning year (2012-13)
continues to be a source of important and diverse input. The council is comprised
of multiple key stakeholders, including communities of color, and one of its key
functions is to provide input and feedback about implementation and needed
course corrections. The Advisory Council and meets approximately every 6
weeks. At each meeting, the STR director provides key program updates and
data. Feedback is then invited regarding implementation and possible course
corrections to make improvements. For example, the Advisory Council:

• Participated in a full review of the Selection Day process to update and revise
materials for the selection of cohort 2.
• Participated in the Selection Process including both applicant file reviews and
the full day of selection activities.
• Actively communicates and recruits candidates to program.

The Advisory Group is a key reason that STR has been able to recruit such a
high percentage of applicants and Residents of Color (approximately 36% for
Cohort Two).
Page 21 of 32


Please see page 2 of the “STR Organizational Structure” in the Appendix to see
a list of the diverse membership of the Advisory Group.


Project Implementation and Evaluation
Outcome based thinking and clear measurement are important to identify students that would benefit
most from this project. Well-defined project targets should include formative, interim and summative
evidence allowing frequent (more than annual) progress monitoring and course correction.
To clarify how your proposed P1 district project will help increase student achievement and decrease
achievement gaps, it is important to establish meaningful student performance targets for your district. In
this section, you will be asked to: [a] identify the group of students whose achievement are of highest
priority for your district; and [b] establish performance targets for this high-priority group of students[1] in
one or two of the RTTT-D Project’s goal areas or performance measures.

[1] It is important to think carefully about which student group is highest- priority for the purpose of target-setting.
Identifying the highest-priority student group (e.g., ELL students) for different grade levels (e.g., grades 3 and 4) and
of different ethnicities (e.g., every ethnicity) would require you to establish separate district targets for each
combination (e.g., 3
rd
-grade ELL Black students; 3
rd
-grade ELL Asian students, etc.) for each Performance Measure.
Therefore, we encourage districts to select only a few highest-priority subgroups for target setting.

Project Implementation and Evaluation
Due to the transition to SmarterBalanced in 2014-2015, districts are encouraged to set
new targets and measures. However, as a continuing applicant, you have the option of
using targets and measures from your original grant application. If you decide to use the
previously-set targets, please note that your application will be scored on the strength of
your previously set targets and measures with the new rubric.

16. We wish to use:
o New Targets and Measures

Project Implementation and Evaluation
Which student groups' academic achievement is your district's highest priority
for support and impact? Please choose the one or two highest priority target
groups and grades for this project.

17. Check all groups that are relevant.
o English Language Learners (ELL)
o Special Education
o Low-Income

18. Check all grade levels that are relevant.
o K-8
th






Project Implementation and Evaluation
Page 22 of 32

Identify the school(s) where your proposed P1 district project will be expected to impact
the academic achievement of your identified high-priority student group.

19. Which High-Needs School(s) will your project impact?

o Concord International School
o Hawthorne Elementary School
o Madrona K-8 School

20. Other schools (non-high needs)
1. : Leschi Elementary School
2. : John Muir Elementary School
3. : Olympic Hills Elementary School

21. In which one or two critical RTTT-D Goal Area(s) or Performance Measure(s)
do you anticipate that your proposed P1 district project will move achievement
for your high-priority student group?
Check no more than two from the list of relevant RTTT-D Goal Areas or
Performance Measures.

o Students with Highly Effective Teacher and Principal on New Evaluation System
(i.e., Rating Level 4)

22. Identify the school years when the proposed P1 district project is expected to
impact student targets in the identified goals areas or performance measures
identified above : Please check all that apply-
o 2014-2015

To see your district-specific Baseline data and District or subgroup specific 2012-2013
actual student performance for identified Goal Areas/Performance Measures, please
click the following link then save the document to your desktop.

Seattle_Round2P1.xls

23. What is the total number of students from this high-priority group that will be
served by your proposed P1 district project?
o 800

24. What percentage of the high priority student group served by your P1 district
project will be Student with Highly Effective Teacher and Principal on New
Evaluation System (i.e., Rating Level 4) in year 2014-2015?
o 45%

In answering this question, consider the total number of high-priority students entered in
response to previous question. Also, consider and use the Baseline and Actual student
performance data table that was provided.
Page 23 of 32


Data Collection Table
Instruction: Provide information in the table below that --
• Indicates what and how you will collect different aggregate data for district analysis and
reporting, and for use in within- and cross-district learning; and
• Helps document district program efficacy in impacting achievement among high-priority
students. This information is required by the U.S. Department of Education and will be used in
reporting and in contracts between the PSESD and districts. Please only fill out the rows needed
for your project (15 rows are not required). To reference an example Data Collection Table, please
click the following link DataCollectionTableExample.pdf

25. Data Collection Table
Data Type
(a)
Source (b) Specific Measures and
Summative Targets (c)
"Who Collects? When?
How often?" (d)
Reported to
PSESD (e)
1 Student
Formative
Fall and Winter MAP
Assessment
55% of students in the 3
schools achieving typical mid-
year (Winter) annualized
growth in math and reading
(Grades 1 to 5)
Research Evaluation and
Assessment department
aggregates after scores
available (annually)
March 1, 2015
2 Student
Summative
Spring MAP
Assessment
55% of students achieving
typical summative (Spring)
annualized growth in math
and reading (Grades 1 to 5)
Research Evaluation and
Assessment department
aggregates after scores
available (annually)
October 1,
2015
3 Student
Summative
Smarter Balanced
state assessment
Median student growth
percentile (SGP) of 55 or
higher in math and reading
(Grades 4th to 5th)
Research Evaluation and
Assessment department
aggregates after scores
available (annually)
October 1,
2015
4 Teacher
Formative
Fall administration of
Tripod student
perception survey
% Positive student responses
to survey (** new instrument -
target TBD)
Research Evaluation and
Assessment department
aggregates after scores
available (annually)
December 1,
2014
5 Teacher
Summative
Spring
administration of
Tripod student
perception survey
% Positive student responses
to survey (** new instrument -
target TBD)
Research Evaluation and
Assessment department
compiles after spring
survey administration
October 1,
2015
6 Teacher
Summative
Observations of
Teaching Practice
45% of teachers rated “highly
effective” in the new
Evaluation System (i.e.,
Rating Level 4) in year 2014-
2015
Research Evaluation and
Assessment department
aggregates after ratings
available (annually)
October 1,
2015
a
Data Type: Specify whether information collected is Student or Teacher data and whether it is formative, interim or summative.
b
Source: Identify the student assessment or adult/teacher progress tool.
c
Specific Measures and Summative Targets: Specify your target and performance measure (e.g., 57% of 4th-grade ELL students
will demonstrate math proficiency by 2015-16.) Note: Formative Measures do not need targets.
d “
Who collects? When? How often?”: Provide information on the district staff position(s) that is in charge of the data collection; when
data collection will occur (i.e., Month/Year); and frequency of data collection (e.g., for Formative Student Assessments -- weekly;
monthly, quarterly; semi-annually).
e
Reported to PSESD: Provide information regarding when (i.e, Month/Year) and how (e.g., electronic submission; “PSESD receives
data from CCER”). "PSESD Receives data from CCER on RTT Performance Measures and Goal Areas"- please note this in the
"Reported to PSESD" column as needed.

26. Describe how you will use data gathered from student formative assessment
in guiding district learning and mid-course correction.
SPS will administer the MAP computer adaptive assessment in the Fall and
Winter in order to measure whether students are on-track to achieve annualized
Page 24 of 32

typical growth in math and reading. Based on MAP results from the 2012-13
school year, the percentage of all 1st through 5th graders in STR schools
achieving typical growth was 47% in math (compared to 50% for all other
schools) and 46% in reading (compared to 51% for all other schools. Based on
historical trends, an aggregate result of 55% or more students achieving typical
growth is considered an above-average outcome and is therefore the target
established for STR schools in 2014-15.

SPS will use Fall-to-Winter MAP scores to calculate the percentage of students
who are on-track (by the middle of the year) to achieving typical annualized
growth in the spring. This formative data will be used with other classroom data
to make mid-year adjustments to each individual student’s personalized learning
plan.

For SUMMATIVE GROWTH, SPS will utilize student gains/growth on two spring
assessments: MAP and the Smarter Balanced state test. Based on student
growth percentiles (SGP) results from the state test (MSP) in 2012-13 school
year, the SGP of all 4th and 5th graders in STR schools was 35 in math
(compared to a median SGP of 53 for all other schools) and 34 for reading
(compared to 51 for all other schools). Based on historical trends, a median SGP
of 55 or higher is considered an above-average outcome and is therefore the
target established for STR schools in 2014-15.

Please see Appendix for tables comparing (1) MAP reading and math scores and
(2) Student Growth Percentiles of the three target groups at the three STR
schools with the scores and percentiles of comparable groups at all other
schools.

27. Describe how you will use teacher formative data in guiding district learning
and mid-course correction.
Our theory of action is that the STR will improve the practice of the resident,
mentor, and surrounding teachers. STR will use multiple measures to understand
the quality of teaching practice in STR and similar schools, including ratings
based on classroom observations (Danielson rubric), results from student
perception surveys (Tripod survey), and student achievement growth/gains
(MAP, Smarter Balanced). The Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) found that
each measure adds something of value: “Classroom observations provide rich
feedback on practice. Student perception surveys provide a reliable indicator of
the learning environment and give voice to the intended beneficiaries of
instruction. Student learning gains can help identify groups of teachers who, by
virtue of their instruction, are helping students learn more.”

A key finding from the MET study was that student perception surveys provide a
reliable indicator of the learning environment and are predictive of student
achievement gains. Student perception surveys provide meaningful feedback to
teachers, and “can also help system leaders prioritize their investments in
Page 25 of 32

professional development to target the biggest gaps between teachers’ actual
practice and the expectations for effective teaching.”

The MET student perceptions survey is based on a decade of work by the Tripod
Project founded at Harvard University. The Tripod questions are gathered under
seven headings, or constructs, called the Seven C’s. The seven are: Care,
Control, Clarify, Challenge, Captivate, Confer and Consolidate. Each of the C’s is
measured using multiple survey items. Tables 1 and 2 provides a list of the items
used to measure each of the Seven C’s on the elementary and secondary survey
respectively. The indices for the Seven C’s have proven highly reliable—the
range of 0.80 and above.

SPS will administer the Tripod survey both in the fall and spring to all classrooms
in STR schools and also a comparison group of classrooms in similar SPS
elementary schools. Results from the fall survey administration will be formative
in nature by providing meaningful and specific feedback to teachers and provide
a baseline for the spring survey administration. SPS will rely on established
national norms from the Tripod survey to interpret and score results as indicators
of quality teaching practice.

Here are other ways that we will use data to guide district learning:

• In semi-annual STR Mentor Surveys, we will learn and make adjustments
based on the degree of Mentors’ positive responses to questions such as:
o “Being a UTR mentor makes me a more effective teacher”
o “My resident improves student learning and achievement in my classroom”
o “UTR provided coaching strategies to support my Resident”
o “Preparedness to meet the academic needs of English Language Learners

• STAR Mentors will provide feedback on STR graduates based on their greatest
successes and challenges. Where appropriate, STR will adjust the program
updates to better address the areas of challenge.

• STR will survey the Principals of STR graduates to gauge their satisfaction with
the graduate’s performance.

28. Please fill out the Race to the Top Investment Fund Implementation Timeline
table below. This table will be used to inform contract writing and be submitted to
the U.S. Department of Education. It is suggested that each row represent one
month of implementation (25 rows are not required.) To reference an example
timeline, please click the following link: ExampleRFPTimeline.pdf


Projected
Date
Activity Person Responsible
1 September
Cohort 3 begins full year practicum Fall quarter coursework begins
including Literacy, Math, SPED, and Working in Schools (family,
community, politics strand) Seminar including assessment practices, data
literacy strand, and ELL throughout year Mentor monthly PD planned
STR team and Mentors
STR instructors Program
Director and STR team
Page 26 of 32


Projected
Date
Activity Person Responsible
2 October
Cohort 2 Studio Days in Resident classrooms Development of program for
Cohort 3
STR instructors STR
Design Team
3 November
Cohort 2 Studio Days in Resident classrooms Staff Perception Survey
administered
STR instructors Program
Director
4 December Studio Day with STR Mentors and Associate School CLTs STR instructors
5 January
Cohort 2 mid-year Performance Review UTRU mid-year Mentor & Resident
Surveys Winter Quarter coursework begins including Literacy, Science,
Classroom Management, and continuation of Working in Schools Review
and revision of selection process
STR instructional coaches
UTRU STR instructors
STR team
6 February
Cohort 3 application deadline Cohort 2 Studio Days in Resident classrooms
UTRU Instructional Rounds (network visit)
STR team STR instructors
UTRU and other
residencies with STR team
7 March
Cohort 2 Studio Days in Resident classrooms Review of cohort 3
applications
STR instructors STR team
8 April
Cohort 3 Selection Day Cohort 2 Studio Days in Resident classrooms
Cohort 2 applies to phase 1 hiring positions Spring quarter coursework
begins including Math, Social Studies, Phys Ed, and continuation of
Working in Schools
STR Team STR instructors
Residents
9 May
Cohort 2 ed TPA due Cohort 2 end of year Performance Review UTRU end
of year surveys (Mentor, Resident, Principal, Principals of graduates) Year
end staff perception survey
Residents with UW support
STR Instructional coaches
UTRU
10 June Cohort 3 begins Cohort 2 completes elementary endorsement work STR team STR team
11 July Cohort 2 begins ELL or SPED endorsement courses and practicum UW faculty and Residents
12 August Cohort 2 completes ELL and SPED endorsement courses and practicum UW faculty and Resident

Teaching and Leading Investment Fund: Continuing Project Annotated Budget
Instructions: Please complete the Continuing Project budget template with the support of your business
office.
o Contact Greta Bornemann (gbornemann@psesd.org) in order to receive a differentiated budget
spreadsheet based on your district's Round 1 budget. A blank budget sheet has been provided
below for reference.
o If applying jointly, specify individual district funds where appropriate.
o Complete this template by showing how you would invest P1: Teaching and Leading funds. For
example, if you are going to budget a portion of the funds for a salaried position, please include
the dollar amount, as well as a description of the responsibilities of that person.
o List district funding that contributes to this project in the “Other or In-Kind Funding” column.
Please notify us if you need a template with additional line item rows.
o It is encouraged that you share draft budgets with Greta Bornemann (gbornemann@psesd.org)
and/or Kerri Patterson (kpatterson@psesd.org) and ask questions 14 days prior to the final day to
ask questions in order to receive feedback.
NOTE: RTT-D funding must comply with Federal procurement procedures unless state or district
requirements are more strict (e.g., sealed bid, sole source, and adequate number of bids)
(Access the following website for more information about these procedures-
http://roadmapracetothetop.org/doing-business/grant-award-and-information-on-fiscal-guidance/)
Click the following link to access the continuing budget template file: Budget_Cont_newONEYEAR_.xls


29. When the Budget Template has been completed by your district, please
upload the file below in .xls or .xlsx (Excel) format.
o RTT_Budget_Cont_Seattle_FINAL.xlsx

30. Please provide a one page summary of the proposed project budget in the
text box below. (Copy and Paste text from word processing software)
Page 27 of 32

The Seattle Teacher Residency (STR) represents a collaborative effort of 4
partners: SPS, the Alliance for Education, the UW College of Education and the
Seattle Education Association. This proposal is submitted by SPS; however, the
Alliance has been providing a home for the project since work began in 2011.
Any grant awarded will fund an extension of the current Round I contract
between SPS and the Alliance.

Details about project costs are in the 14 lines under the CONTACTUAL category,
which is row 52 on the PSESD template. As it currently does, the Alliance will be
responsible for monitoring and paying STR program expenses related to this
project and will submit monthly invoices for SPS’ review. The Alliance documents
and tracks all expenses by program code consistent with Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles (GAAP). Each year the Alliance engages independent
auditors who verify the integrity of the Alliance’s accounting system, compliance
with internal controls and accuracy of financial reporting.

The 2013-14 Round I RTTT award from PSESD was $225,455. As of March
31st, with 50% of the project period reported, a total of $112,705 or 49% of the
funding had been spent.

This proposal requests $355,635 in RTTT Round II funding to support the
placement of 15 residents at 3 RTTT high-need schools (Concord, Hawthorne
and Madrona). The 15 Residents at the 3 RTT schools are among the 35 who
will be placed at 6 to 7 Title I schools, including these 3, in 2014-15. (The total
STR budget for 2014-15 exceeds $1.1 million). These dollars will fund 60% of the
$594,659 budget for the project at these three schools. (Because we are
requesting support on only four of the 14 line items, the percentages of each line
item vary.)

The $239,024 balance between the $594,659 three-school budget and this
request will be funded through other sources. The four partners have been
successful in securing support for STR and most of this support is continuing.
Fundraising is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding program. Current
supporters (many of whom have made multi-year pledges) include the Paul G.
Allen Foundation, Boeing, the Bezos Foundation, the Biller Foundation, the
Runstad Foundation, the John Stanford Endowment, Philanthropic Partnership
for Public Education, and several private individuals.

The project was designed to be catalyzed by private funding and gradually move
to a public-private partnership to establish sustainability. Over time, the rate of
private investment will decrease as the rate of public support increases. By 2018-
19, SPS is committed to taking responsibility for 51% of program costs, with
private and other sources of funds accounting for the remaining 49%.

Throughout the year, SPS contributes significant time and talent of several
administrators, principals and teachers to this project. The UW College of
Page 28 of 32

Education faculty and administration contribute abundant instructional support
and leadership. SEA President is actively involved in all policy and planning at
the Steering Committee level and numerous SEA members are involved as
Mentors and participants on various STR planning and curriculum teams.

Thank you for the opportunity to apply for these funds and for considering this
proposal.

31. Explain how the requested budget represents a strong projected return on
investment, as defined by the total dollar request compared with the numbers of
students in high-need schools who are projected to meet RTT targets as a result
of the project. How are the targets realistic and ambitious? Please refer to the
linked document: RTT Goals and Performance Measures

As indicated in #21 above, STR projects serving 800 low income students at the
three RTTT high-need schools at which STR will place Residents in 2014-15
(Concord, Hawthorne and Madrona). If the consideration of return on investment
is limited to a mathematical formula, then our request amounts to $437.50 per
student ($350,000 request divided by 800 students).

However, we believe much broader considerations should be factored into the
calculus.
While the initial direct school impact of STR centers on the 5 to 7 partner schools
where the Residents work with Mentor teachers, the scope of that impact
extends beyond, and will continually to grow as Residents move out into other
Title I schools across the district as teachers of record. They will bring with them
not only powerful and effective pre-service preparation, but also additional
momentum around the work of effective teaching practice (instructional
strategies, collaborative work, reflective work). They will be catalysts for
deepening the work these schools do in relation to school culture and academic
achievement, bringing additional capacity and energy. As Residents become
teachers of record, they will deepen these schools’ connection to the Residency
work overall (especially as multiple Residents are hired into schools over the
years), extending STR’s impact across the district.

Over time, as more and more STR-trained teachers populate the Seattle
teaching corps, the likelihood that a student attending a high need school will
have effective teachers in multiple consecutive years will grow. As such, an
investment in STR cannot be adequately considered based merely on a
projection of numbers served during a limited period of time. It would be more
appropriately considered as an investment in a carefully designed, research-
based, long term approach to improving teaching and learning in high-need
schools that will pay significant dividends over time. There is abundant research
documenting the impact of effective – and ineffective - teachers just 3 years in a
row. (See below.*)

Page 29 of 32

Seattle Public Schools and the University of Washington intend to do a
comprehensive evaluation of the Seattle Teacher Residency model over the next
few years. We will be researching effectiveness of STR-trained teachers and
compare them to first and second year teachers from other teacher preparation
programs. We will also study retention rates of STR teachers compared to other
teachers entering SPS. Retaining highly effective teachers is a high priority and
we believe this program is providing the district with fresh thinking and strategies
for recruiting, developing and supporting such teachers. The STR is a long-term
strategy aimed at improving the quality of the teaching workforce over time. It is
high-impact and designed to contribute to transformation at the district level.

IMPACT ON STR and STAR MENTORS

In #12, we documented the survey in which STR Mentors report that serving as a
mentor is enriching their own teaching practice. These mentors bring this
experience to their own PLC and less formal conversations with colleagues.
Considering that along with the positive reaction of principals in STR Partner
Schools, we believe there is synergy being built through this program that is
having a positive effect on the cultures of these schools.

With the expanding set of Residency-produced teachers, STR is positioned to
deepen and extend the existing induction work of the district’s STAR Teacher
Induction program. Because of the close connection between the Residency
project and STAR (numerous STAR mentors are involved in Resident Selection,
are part of the Curriculum Committee, and work as instructors in the program),
the induction year support can be customized for the residents entering SPS as
teachers of record. STAR already knows the individuals, and clearly understands
the training and preparation Residents have had. This means less remediation,
and more work of depth. Additionally, STR fosters the opportunity to extend
STAR’s reach by strategically configuring STAR support for the cohort.
Collaborating with STR on induction-support will not only extend the Residents’
potential as first year teachers, but will also allow the STAR program more
capacity for work with other new teachers.

Additionally, the STR-STAR relationship will allow STAR to extend new teachers’
visits to exemplar teachers’ classrooms. By collaborating with the Residency to
extend its capacity, the STAR program will deepen the impact of these visits,
fostering a consistent, instructionally powerful frame for visiting other classrooms.

CAREER LADDER TEACHERS
Seattle Teacher Residency is dedicated to building the professional ranks in Title
I schools, typically contexts with difficult-to-fill roles serving children who live with
poverty, have language demands, and/or face other challenges due to race,
culture, ethnicity, etc.

Therefore, beyond STAR, STR will provide an opportunity to coordinate and
Page 30 of 32

develop consistency in coaching/mentoring work with more experienced
teachers, specifically those who are considered Career Ladder Teachers.

STR will partner with 11 “Associate Schools,” all of which are identified as RTTT
high-need schools. The coaching and professional development that is being
offered to STR mentor teachers will be shared with the principals and Career
Ladder Teachers in Associate Schools. The idea is to build a strong network of
schools that become a community of learners, focusing on best practices in adult
learning, as well as content and pedagogy that supports the diverse needs of
students in our high need schools. Each of these schools will benefit from
common professional development and will begin to shape the contexts where
the residents will be welcomed as new teachers. Because the Career Ladder
Teachers and school leadership in the Associate Schools will have common
language within the constructs of data literacy and Standards Based Planning,
the Residents would be preferred hiring candidates at those schools and would
easily become part of the building culture.

STR Mentor Teacher coaching will overlap Career Ladder Teacher opportunities
with training and therefore extend funds by allowing for concurrent trainings
where appropriate. In addition, an integrated approach will result in the
development of a broad and deep cadre of teachers in the district skilled in a
consistent approach to coaching and mentoring.

SCHOOL LEADERS
With regard to school leadership, principals of STR partner schools have
identified the importance of having responsibilities more clearly defined and
structured to support the work and build school-wide impact. Principals will
participate in a professional learning community once every 2 months (five times
throughout year) to discuss how STR and Career Ladder Teachers can
contribute to the following:

• Community-building within the school culture
• Increasing and improving community engagement and parent/family
participation and communication particularly for schools whose children are
historically underserved
• Improvement to teacher evaluation – both better performance and improved
interpretation of process
• Increased data literacy
• Effective use of career ladder teachers

Also included in Principal commitments will be the Principals’ active participation
in Mentor PD sessions, Resident events, and school-based Resident and/or
Mentor meetings. All of the STR school leaders participated in a PLC to deepen
their knowledge and skills in leading instruction for diverse learners. The
principals from the Associate Schools will also be invited to become part of this
PLC. Our goal is to increase instructional capacity at all of our high need schools.
Page 31 of 32

The best practices we are learning from the STR program are allowing us to
bring this learning to scale.


*Research about the effect of effective and ineffective teachers in consecutive
years:
“Give high-need students three highly effective teachers in a row and they may
outperform students taught by three ineffective teachers in a row by as much as
50 percentile points.” (page 12 widget effect
http://widgeteffect.org/downloads/TheWidgetEffect.pdf) Also see Rivkin, S., E.
Hanushek, and J. Kain (2005). “Teachers, Schools, and AcademicAchievement,”
Econometrica, 73(2), 417-458; Sanders, W.L. and Rivers, J.C. (1996), “Research
Project Report: Cumulative and Residual Effects of Teachers on Future Student
Academic Achievement,” University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and
Assessment Center; and Rockoff, J. E. (2004), “The Impact of Individual
Teachers on Students’ Achievement: Evidence from Panel Data.” American
Economic Review 94(2), 247-52

Commitments Signature Page
Please read the Commitments of the Road Map Race to the Top Grant below and obtain signatures from
the District Superintendent, District Project Lead, School Project Lead, Community Project Lead and
Teacher Association President to assure their participation and support of the RTT-D Assurances and
Commitments. These signatures can be collected on the Blank Commitments Signature Page(Click the
following link to open this file: RTTCommitSignBlank1.pdf) and when all signatures are collected the file
can be scanned/uploaded to the uploading box found at the bottom of this page.
Region-wide Commitment 1: Summer Reading Program. The goals of this commitment are to support
AMO targets for third grade state reading, reducing proficiency gaps by half by 2017, and to scale the
program through the grant years to support for AMO targets for fourth and fifth grade state reading. We
will build on the success of Let’s Read! – our successful regional summer reading campaign. Summer
reading strategies and lesson plans for P-5 will be developed, together with online tools for parents and
children, including reading calendars and games. Implementation begins in the summer of 2013. This will
be scaled up to all Title I Elementary Schools by the summer of 2015.
Region-wide Commitment 2: Common Core Implementation. The goals of this Commitment are to
successfully implement the CCSS and corresponding state assessments to increase the number of
college and career ready high school graduates. Each district has developed an implementation plan with
support from PSESD. Federal Way Public Schools will act as a regional lead to assist other districts.
Implementation plans will address curriculum and assessment alignment, professional development, and
stakeholder engagement.
Region-wide Commitment 3: Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). The goals of this Commitment
are to successfully implement NGSS and the corresponding State Assessments, and to increase the
number of college and career ready high school graduates prepared to participate in our region’s STEM-
based economy. Initial implementation is slated for 2014-15. It will be completed by 2016-17. PSESD will
lead work to create professional development experiences and resources for NGSS implementation.
Corollary principal leadership and teacher capacity will be developed through the Principles of Science for
Principals, a partnership program with the UW and the Institute for Systems Biology, including a
framework for incorporating NGSS in teacher professional development and evaluation protocols.
Region-wide Commitment 4: Double Completion of Algebra or Higher by 8th Grade. Across the Road
Map region, only 36% of students take algebra or beyond in middle school. The Consortium commits to
doubling the number of students taking algebra or higher in the eighth grade by the end of the grant
period, targeting eighth grade students in high-need middle schools first. Implementation will begin in the
high-need middle schools first. This will be scaled to all Middle and K-8 schools by 2016-17. Effective
implementation of this commitment will be supported by increasing teacher capacity in algebra instruction
Page 32 of 32

through Project 1: Invest in Teaching and Leading and our regional Commitment to CCSS
implementation.
Region-wide Commitment 5: Full Integration of the High School and Beyond Plan. Washington State
currently requires all high school students to complete a High School and Beyond Plan (a policy aimed at
personalizing education and course-taking) before graduating. The Consortium will use the plan as an
integration mechanism, connecting the students' results from ReadiStep, career interests and projected
course taking preferences.
The Consortium commits to supporting student completion of the High School and Beyond Plan in the 8
th

grade and strengthening the support and guidance provided to students in developing their plans. The
districts are also committing to use the plans as input into the district course offerings and high school
scheduling decisions. Full Implementation will occur in 2013-14.
Region-wide Commitment 6: Teacher, Principal, and Superintendent Evaluations. The districts in the
Consortium are committed to the implementation of robust Teacher, Principal and Superintendent
Evaluation Systems by the 2014-15 school year. Teacher and Principal evaluations will be based on the
state’s approved policy (ESSB 5895), a comprehensive model emphasizing professional growth, support,
and improved student learning outcomes, incorporating student growth as a substantial factor in
evaluating the summative performance of classroom teachers and principals. The framework has a four-
tiered rating system that differentiates performance across eight evaluative criteria and is based on
multiple measures.
32. Upload the completed Commitments Signature Page here. Acceptable Formats: .pdf, .doc, .docx, .jpg
o 3 Sigs Sup-SEA-StratPlnner.pdf

Review Submission
If there are any other files or tables that you would like to include with your application- such as a table or
graphic that would not copy and paste correctly into a text box- please upload it below and include a title
for the appendix and a description of the file in the provided text box.

33. Description of Files:
o Appendix to Seattle Teacher Residency Application; Additional Commitments

34. Upload Extra Files Here:
o Appendix-Seattle Tchr Res RTTT P1-Rnd 2.docx
o COMMITMENT Sig-Alliance4Ed CEO.pdf
o Commitment-Concord Principal.pdf
Download PDF Version

Thank you for applying to the Race to the Top Project 1 RFP Round 2. Your response is very
important to us.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.