Running header: A Practical System
1
Staff Evaluation and Development: A Practical System to Promote Growth, Collaboration and
Student Learning
Scott A. MacNamee
University of Vermont
A Practical System
2
Abstract
Over the past decade, the field of education has seen an influx, on an impressive magnitude, of
research-based conclusions that touch every corner of the profession (Dynaski, 2015). This
deluge of research, while no doubt informative, has led many school districts to implement datadriven initiatives at a frenetic pace. The volume of these data-driven reforms, and the velocity
with which they are implemented, is often staggering, and frequently overwhelms administrators
and teachers, ultimately compromising student learning (Danielson, 2015). Because staff
evaluation and supervision is both essential to the success of any school, and politically divisive,
research in this area has been particularly prolific, and subsequently, so have top-down attempts
by districts to overhaul and improve their current systems. This paper explores some of the most
recent, and most respected, research surrounding effective staff evaluation and supervision
systems in education, identifying their overarching goals, as well as common problems
associated with their practical implementation. Further, it uses a specific case study of a southern
New Hampshire high school to propose a dynamic and practical system of evaluation aimed at
improving teacher efficacy and student achievement.
A Practical System
3
Staff Evaluation and Development: A Practical System to Promote Growth, Collaboration and
Student Learning
An efficient and meaningful system of staff evaluation and development is paramount to
the efficacy of any school district. However, while this notion is widely accepted, instituting a
robust system that meets the needs of the administrators, teachers, and students has proven to be
a challenging proposition for many administrations nationwide. Each district and each school
faces its own unique challenges, but this paper will examine some research-based objectives that
all schools can aspire to, then propose a specific course of action for a southern New Hampshire
secondary school.
Goals of Staff Evaluation and Development
While staff evaluation and development is an integral component of any organization
looking to realize its full potential, in the context of public education – because of the number of
stakeholders and what hangs in the balance – the pursuit to effectively evaluate and develop staff
is often accompanied by a gravity, and permeated by an anxiety, that make it a daunting task for
all involved. However, even though reaching the goals identified by most evaluation and
development initiatives can be an arduous and complex process, there is a silver lining:
overwhelmingly, the research is consistent in identifying what those goals should be and how
crucial they are to the overall health of a school system. The following outlines these goals and
provides a rationale for school districts allocating the time and resources needed to meet them.
Improve Student Learning/Achievement.
Ostensibly, student learning frames everything we do in education, so it makes sense that
students be the primary driver of an effective system. And the link between teacher effectiveness
A Practical System
4
and student achievement is unequivocal, substantiated by numerous studies. Bill Sanders, known
for his work in this area at the University of Tennessee, is quoted by Tucker and Strong in their
book Linking Teacher Assessment and Student Learning:
…the results of this study well document that the most important factor affecting student
achievement is the teacher. In addition, the results show wide variation in effectiveness
among teachers. The immediate and clear implication of this finding is that seemingly
more can be done to improve education by improving the effectiveness of teachers than
by any other single factor. Effective teachers appear to be effective with students of all
achievement levels, regardless of the level of heterogeneity in their classrooms (2005, p.
4).
The first page of Kim Marshal’s 2013 book Rethinking Teacher Supervision and Evaluation
corroborates this sentiment with more concision and cites an exhaustive list of supporting
research, simply stating that, “Research has shown that the quality of instruction is the single
most important factor in student achievement (Ferguson & Ladd, 1996; Sanders & Rivers, 1996;
Sanders, Saxton and Horn, 1997; Haycock, 1998; Rivkin, Hanuscheck, & Kain, 2005;
Whitehurst, 2002; Hattie, 2002; Rice, 2003; Nye, Hedges, & Konstantopoulos, 2004; Clotfeller,
Ladd, & Vigdor, 2007). There seems to be little doubt regarding the best way to improve student
achievement: improve teacher effectiveness. That’s a pretty rational correlation, but systems that
successfully promote teacher growth – and of course student achievement – have been elusive
for many leaders.
Improve teacher effectiveness
A Practical System
5
Since the data overwhelmingly supports the idea that effective teaching is the best way
improve student achievement, the logical question is, what is the most efficacious way to use
evaluation and supervision to support teachers’ professional development? To help answer that
question, it might be useful to look at the common problems that have plagued administrator
attempts to implement successful evaluative and supervisory systems.
Challenges to improving teacher practice. The Accomplished California Teachers
network released a report in which they identified the following six issues as most problematic to
fostering meaningful evaluation:
1. Lack of consistent, clear standards of good practice
2. No focus on improving practice
3. Inadequate time and staff for effective evaluations
4. Little or no consideration for student outcomes
5. Cookie-cutter procedures that don’t consider teacher needs
6. Detachment of evaluation from professional development
(Darling-Hammond, 2014)
Further, Darling-Hammond also addresses the issue of the evaluators. Many good
teachers across the nation often face the hypocrisy of being evaluated by “educators” who have
little or no classroom experience and are not qualified to offer meaningful feedback about
pedagogy and student learning, let alone specific content. Darling-Hammond notes that, “Strong
evaluation systems need principals and other evaluators with deep knowledge of teaching and
learning…The lack of such knowledge and training has been a major problem for the validity,
fairness, and utility of many teacher evaluation systems” (2015, p. 116). Unfortunately, the
reality is that many districts lack the personnel and resources to provide all teachers with skilled
A Practical System
6
evaluators. With the recent influx of research pointing to the importance of teacher development,
it would seem wise for districts to deem skilled evaluators as essential to their mission of
educating students.
Although largely consistent with Darling-Hammond, Marshall offers some more specific
and practical issues to consider when analyzing the problems of the traditional evaluation
methods:
1. There isn’t a shared definition of good teaching
2. The principal sees only a small fraction of teachers’ work
3. The principal’s presence changes what’s going on in the classroom
4. Full-lesson write ups rarely change anything
5. The process is extremely time-consuming which keeps principals out of the classroom
6. Teachers are passive participants of evaluations and are evaluated in isolation of their
colleagues
7. Student learning is not part of the process
(2013)
It is apparent that there is no dearth of issues for administrators to think about when
trying to develop and implement a new evaluation system – and while the above list is
comprehensive, it is not exhaustive. Each of these issues can be unpacked in great detail, and all
are worthwhile discussions. However, the goal of this proposal is to create a useful and practical
evaluation design rooted in the real world. So, the following plan will look to answer our original
question regarding the best way to improve teacher effectiveness, as well as attempt to remedy
the most pertinent problems at a specific secondary school.
A Practical System
7
A Practical Proposal
The following will aim to improve a system of evaluation on philosophical, logistical,
and practical levels. First, let’s briefly get some context for this case and identify some
overarching goals for the plan.
Context. Our plan is going to be crafted for a southern New Hampshire secondary school
– we’ll call it Live Free or Die High School (LFDHS) - with an enrollment of 700 students. The
demographic is largely ethnically homogenous (white being the large majority), but
socioeconomically diverse. The school has a staff of 100 and four qualified administrators who
can administer evaluations (thankfully, this makes the problem of finding skilled evaluators a
non-issue). The school runs on a block schedule (see Appendix A for details) and the year is split
into two semesters.
Teachers are evaluated in the following manner (descriptions of the evaluation methods
follow).
Pathway 1 teachers: Pathway 1 teachers are those who are in their first five years at the school
and they receive 6 mini-observations and 2 formal observations per year and are also
evaluated on the degree to which they meet their Student Learning Objectives (SLO).
Pathway 2 teachers: Pathway 2 teachers are veteran teachers with “tenure” and they receive 1
formal observation every 2 years and are also evaluated on the degree to which they meet
their Student Learning Objectives (SLO).
Pathway 3 teachers: Pathway 3 teachers are on a probationary status and are subject to the
details of a personal improvement plan and are also evaluated on the degree to which they
meet their Student Learning Objectives (SLO).
A Practical System
8
Mini observations: mini observations are consistent with the method prescribed by
Marshall; administrators conduct unannounced visits that last a duration of 10 minutes and
evaluators look at a specific area of instruction or classroom management. Danielson’s rubric is
the evaluative tool and the teacher is given a rating of unsatisfactory, basic, proficient, or
distinguished. This score, along with a few sentences of feedback, are entered into My Learning
Plan, a web-based platform that can be accessed by teachers.
Formal Observations: formal observations follow the traditional Danielson format –
pre-observation meeting and lesson plan with discussion regarding intended outcomes; 80
minute observation by administrator; comprehensive rubric grade on the applicable Danielson
domains and a formal written evaluation accompanied by a debriefing meeting and verbal
feedback.
Student Learning Objectives: SLOs are teacher-driven goals for their students (i.e. by the
end of the semester 80% of English 11 students will score proficient or above on our schoolwide
reading comprehension rubric). The New Hampshire Department of Education defines an SLO
as the following:
SLOs are content- and grade/course-specific measurable learning objectives that can be
used to document student learning over a defined period of time. SLOs provide a means
for educators to establish learning goals for individual or groups of students, monitor
students’ progress toward these goals, and then evaluate the degree to which students
achieve these goals…(Student Learning Objectives, 2012)
Pressing concerns/goals for implementation. While I don’t want to spend too much time
analyzing the effectiveness of the current evaluation system of LFDHS, I do want to identify its
A Practical System
9
shortcoming in order to create meaningful goals for the proposed improvement plan. Remedying
the following three issues will be the priorities of my proposal.
1. Lack of collaboration with administrators and/or colleagues
2. Lack of time needed to engage in meaningful evaluation and improvement planning
3. Absence of meaningful and varied feedback
Lack of collaboration with administration and/or colleagues. Darling-Hammond takes a
strong stance on the importance of collaboration:
Of all lessons for teacher evaluation in the current era, perhaps this one is the most
important: that we not adopt an individualistic, competitive approach to ranking and
sorting teachers that undermines the growth of learning communities which will, at the
end of the day, do more to support student achievement than dozens of the most elaborate
ranking schemes ever could (2013, p. 3).
Darling-Hammond’s plea highlights the effectiveness of collaboration as well as the
consequences of rating teachers in isolation. The current system of evaluation at LFDHS is
largely isolationist, but also assigns each teacher a number grade, reducing the staff room to the
equivalent of a Freshman math class after a test, with teachers milling around asking, “what did
you get?”, and fostering feelings of resentment and superiority that divide, rather than unite, the
staff.
There are a number of reasons to embrace collaboration. One of the most important is
what Chris Palmer, a graduate student at the University of Vermont, calls “stoking the
professional fire.” The large majority of teachers are passionate about their craft, and extending
them the latitude to guide their own development engenders a feeling of professionalism that is
too often absent in a vocation that demands so much from its employees while paying so little.
A Practical System
10
Research also confirms the value of collaboration, as Dufour & Marzano quote research
suggesting that when teachers are given time and tools to collaborate they become exponentially
effective and student learning improves on a level not attainable when working in isolation
(2012, p. 67).
So, teacher evaluation should start with a teacher and an administrator – or a group of
teachers and an administrator – exploring curriculum and creating a goal, or goals, that they can
actively reflect on throughout the semester. These goals should be specific and intimately related
to the content planned for the semester. There are very few opportunities in professional
development for teachers to actually work on projects that will be employed as instruction for
students in the classroom. Teachers want to create dynamic and engaging lesson plans for their
students; if this is embedded into the evaluation process it will immediately become meaningful.
The collaboration could begin with the following questions:
1. What is it we want our students to learn?
Now, for a long time this was a nebulous question. But, with upwards of 40 states
adopting them, the common core standards (www.corestandards.org) are a reliable and
comprehensive set of standards that lessons can be aligned with. Teachers and
administrators can use the standards to drive the development of unique and compelling
lessons. Student achievement can also be measured, in part, by their performance in
relation to the standards.
2. What will good teaching look like?
Again, I feel the current teacher standards (Danielson) used by LFDHS are also viable
and useful. So, as the teacher and administrator decide which standards to evaluate the
students with, they can do the same for the teacher.
A Practical System
11
3. How will we know if the students are learning?
As previously mentioned, the objectives for student learning will be delineated at the
outset and align with the common core. These goals will be semester-long, so formative
and summative evaluations for students will be analyzed along with qualitative data
supplied by teachers, students, and administrators.
4. How will we respond when students do not learn? How will we extend and enrich
learning for students who are proficient?
The beauty of this model is that teacher(s) and administrator get to tackle these questions
together. As noted, the teachers and administrators will be engaging in this process over
the course of the semester, meeting on a monthly bases. At each meeting, these will be
questions they explore using student work and student feedback.
So, at the outset the teacher(s) and administrator will be charged with answering the following:
What aspects of the Danielson
rubric will I focus on?
What standards does this unit
align with?
What is a lesson/unit plan I am passionate about/want to improve?
1.
2.
3.
4.
What do we want our students to learn?
What will good teaching look like?
How will we know if students are learning?
How will we respond when students do not learn? How will we extend and
enrich learning for students who are proficient?
Then the teachers will be allotted time on a weekly basis to collect data, reflect on
effectiveness, and individualize instruction. Administrators will use the answers to these
questions, the common core, and the chosen Danielson areas as the basis for evaluations.
Evaluations will occur every other month, and determination of progress will be based on in-
A Practical System
12
class observation, students work, student feedback, and teacher reflection. A formative
debrief/progress check will occur in the months between observations to address any challenges
or developments. The final evaluation will be a cumulative grade based on a portfolio of
evidence collected over the course of the semester.
This system requires, at the very least, that the teacher, students, and administrator
collaborate and play an active role in the process. It has potential for teachers of similar
disciplines or common objectives to team up and use this as an opportunity to collaborate on a
larger scale. What it does require though, is time.
Lack of time needed to engage in meaningful evaluation and improvement planning. There
is no way of skirting this issue: meaningful evaluation and supervision take time. As a secondary
teacher for the better part of a decade, I find the number one thing that I desire, as someone
deeply invested in my students, is time to better serve them. I rarely have the time to meet all my
responsibilities, give the students timely feedback, and create engaging, relevant lesson plans. I
want time to create lessons and explore pedagogies that help my students achieve more; this
system of evaluation is based around that process of creating and implementing effective
lesson/unit plans, making it advantageous for all stakeholders.
However, I hold no illusions that this plan can be implemented without a real
commitment to carving out the time for this work to be done. There are some inherent obstacles
in the American education establishment that need to be scrutinized for the sake of student
learning. Many districts acknowledge the need to create time for evaluation, but this is often hard
to achieve as Dufour & Marzano note, “It is perplexing to see the number of districts that
proclaim the importance of staff members working collaboratively that provide neither the time
nor the structure to vital collaboration” (2012, p. 73). The challenge lies, they claim in “the
A Practical System
13
uniquely American notion that a teacher who is not presenting a lesson in front of a classroom of
students is not working” (p. 73). There are a litany of examples of countries who covet, and excel
in, education and insist on giving teachers extensive time for professional development and
reflection; The Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education illustrates this in a research
brief:
Whereas U.S. teachers generally have from 3 to 5 hours a week for lesson planning, in
most of these countries [OECD Countries], teachers spend from 15 to 25 hours per week
on tasks related to teaching, such as working with colleagues on preparing and analyzing
lessons, developing and evaluating assessments, observing other classrooms, and meeting
with students and parents” (Wei et al., 2009, p. 3).
LFDHS currently affords teachers roughly five hours of prep time per week, and one 60 minute
after-school meeting that is rarely used for collaboration. Obviously, going from almost zero
hours of collaborative time to 25 (like other developed countries) hours is not realistic, but the
research brief suggests that teachers should get at least 10 hours per week to collaborate and
reflect (Wei et al., 2009, p. 5).
This is going to take some conviction, as things entrenched in tradition (like the number
of hours American teachers spend administering face-to-face instruction) are often hard to
change, but we simply need to shift the way we currently allocate time for teachers and students.
Here is how we create time for the proposed evaluation system.
-3 full days will be allotted to teachers and evaluators prior to the start of school in order
to answer the initial questions laid out in the evaluation plan. This time should not be combined
with time devoted to other PD pursuits. The teachers and administrators need real time to
A Practical System
14
generate meaningful goals for both the teacher(s) and students, as well as explore creative and
engaging ways to help the students reach those goals. This can be done at the expense
superfluous professional development that often fails to connect to the classroom. I implore
administrators and principals to make time for this work that has such an immediate impact on
student learning.
-The proposed evaluation system requires that administrators devote 80 minutes per
month, per teacher to those under their supervision. Each administrator at LFDHS is charged
with evaluating roughly 25 staff members, which requires the administrators to devote an
average of 33 hours per month on face-to -face evaluative tasks, and to ballpark, about 7 hours
per month on clerical tasks. This results in the administrators averaging roughly 40 hours per
month on evaluation and supervision. With the current evaluative system at LFDHS,
administrators project that the system requires them to devote roughly 2/3 of their time to
inefficiently completing observations and formally entering feedback in the designated
repositories.
Admittedly, in theory, plans - whether it be building a house or evaluating teachers - tend
to be over-optimistic. So, I would expect a plan that projects to 40 hours of administrator time
would likely end up consuming more until all involved have time to iron out the wrinkles. But, at
first glance, this allocation of time seems reasonable.
-Where the rubber meets the road in this scenario is finding time in the school day for the
teachers to collaborate and reflect. This must come at the expense of direct student instruction,
and the most efficacious model I have seen is “the X block”. The X block is a time, once a week,
A Practical System
15
where class does not meet, and students and teacher are given time to work on their
responsibilities.
Table 1.1
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Prep
Prep
Prep
Prep
Prep
Eng 9 H
Eng 9 H
Eng 9 H
Eng 9 H
Eng 9 H
Eng 9 H
Eng 9 H
Eng 9 H
Eng 9 H
Eng 9 H
Adv. Writ Wrk
Adv. Writ Wrk
Adv. Writ Wrk
Adv. Writ Wrk
Adv. Writ Wrk
The above table (1.1) illustrates in bold the time allotted current LFDHS teachers for
prep, which is not exclusive, or even conducive, to collaboration. Each block represents 80
minutes, so the current model allows for 7.5 hours of prep time and nothing for collaboration.
With the advent of the X block (1.2) each class would only meet four times per week,
with each class having a designated “X” day where students could work on their responsibilities
and teachers could collaborate and reflect. So, if Tuesday were the X day for English 9 Honors
and Thursday were the X day for Advanced Writers’ Workshop, the schedule would look as
follows:
Table 1.2
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Prep
Prep
Prep
Prep
Prep
Eng 9 H
Eng 9 H
Eng 9 H
Eng 9 H
Eng 9 H
A Practical System
16
Eng 9 H
Eng 9 H
Eng 9 H
Eng 9 H
Eng 9 H
Adv. Writ Wrk
Adv. Writ Wrk
Adv. Writ Wrk
Adv. Writ Wrk
Adv. Writ Wrk
This immediately adds 4 hours of collaborative time per week for teachers, well below
the suggested 10 hours, but a start. I have reached out to the guidance staff to estimate the
viability of strategically creating shared X blocks for teachers who are working on joint
endeavors, but no one proclaims to know how it would work in reality until we decide to fully go
through the exercise.
Of course, having roughly 150 students per block who are now unsupervised creates a
challenge of human and facility resources. However, there are realistic options.
Students who are on their X period could congregate in both the cafeteria and library,
where they can use the time as a study hall or for remediation/supplementation. It might be
unfair to ask the librarians or cafeteria monitor to oversee that large of a group, so perhaps
teachers on their X blocks could assist supervision on a rotating basis.
Or, the more intriguing option – open campus. Hanover High School successfully
implements the X block with an open campus. This concept has worked out well, as students feel
trusted and don’t abuse the privilege. This option is closely tied to school culture and certainly
has potential drawbacks. However, LFDHS has a strong culture, and I believe this would only
move that forward, as the ultimate result would be an improvement in teacher efficacy, climate,
culture, and ultimately, student learning.
So, if we follow along with the bold text in this section, we see that the following time
must be created.
A Practical System
-
17
3 full days for professional development around this initiative before the school year
starts.
-
40 hours per month for administrators evaluate, meet with teachers, and perform
clerical duties.
-
20 additional hours per month for teachers to analyze and reflect.
This drastic shift in time utilization will be the toughest sell in this proposal, but perhaps
bear the most fruit.
Absence of meaningful and varied feedback. In the current LFDHS evaluative system
feedback is sporadic, not connected with teacher improvement, and one dimensional, as it mostly
comes from administrators. In this proposal, the teaching is informed by student work, student
feedback, frequent formal observations combined with formative administrator feedback, and
teacher self-reflection.
Once the teacher and administrator identify their goals, they move through the semester
assessing student learning, collecting data, and responding to feedback accordingly.
-
Student work: teachers will collect student work throughout the semester, and
together they will evaluate that work in relation to the goals they identified at the
outset. Darling-Hammond deems this valuable, saying “Teachers note that the process
of analyzing their own and their students’ work in light of standards enables them to
better assess student learning” (2013, p. 37). This process gives them the time and
tools do so.
-
Student feedback: Dr. Brian Ricca, superintendent of schools in Montpelier, VT,
fervently reminds his graduate students that “If you’re going to implement an
evaluation system and you don’t ask the students, you’re wasting your time.”
A Practical System
18
Qualitative feedback from the students is perhaps the most valuable, as understanding
the struggles and successes of those you’re guiding is the best way to meet their
needs. Students can respond to strategic questions regarding the effectiveness of
instruction. These answers can be contemplated by teacher and administrator, and
instruction can be adjusted accordingly.
-
Frequent formal observations combined with formative administrator feedback. This
is where collaboration happens, and administrators and teachers can tackle problems
and celebrate success together, as they both have a vested interest in, and intimate
knowledge of, the arc of student achievement over the semester. Evaluations will
logically be connected to future instruction, as the evaluative process evolves over
time. Pertinent qualitative and quantitative evaluation data can be added to the
portfolio, but I believe that the most useful form evaluation and reflection occurs in
the discussions teachers and administrator have about teaching. That’s why I propose
that a large part of the portfolio be made up of recorded dialogue. This will allow for
richer discourse that can efficiently be documented via mp3 or mp4 audio files,
creating a wealth of meaningful feedback documented in real-time.
Traditional evaluations often suffer from one-dimensional, limited feedback loops that
don’t promote teacher growth. This proposal offers the teacher multiple forms of feedback and a
structure that is a natural catalyst for instructional improvement. As the evaluation process
culminates, the teacher and administrator meet for a final analysis, at this point both having
played a part in a coordinated effort to improve student achievement. The portfolio will serve as
tangible basis for a summative evaluation, but chances are, by this point, both parties have a
clear idea of how effective the teacher and students were in reaching their goals.
A Practical System
19
Further, a process like this offers administrators a more consistent and thorough
evaluation method, and more opportunity to collect data, making choices about hiring and firing
more accurate and easier to execute.
Conclusion. Admittedly, there are big hurdles involved in affecting meaningful reform
in the areas of evaluation and supervision. Administrators and teachers are going to have to break
from traditional methods if they want to make use of the wealth of research generated in the last
decade. This modest proposal seeks to improve the practice of one New Hampshire high school,
but it’s overarching premises – that collaboration is essential to improving teacher efficacy, and
thus, student learning, that real time needs to be allocated for this endeavor, and that the
evaluation feedback process needs to be dynamic, involving the students, teachers, and
administrators – should be applied to any scenario.
A Practical System
20
References
Danielson, Charlotte. “Overcoming “Initiative Fatigue”.” Education Week 34.25 (2015): 25.
Print
Darling-Hammond, Linda. Getting Teacher Evaluation Right: What Really Matters for
Effectiveness and Improvement. Cheltenham, Vic.: Hawker Brownlow Education, 2014. Print.
DuFour, Richard, and Robert J. Marzano. Leaders of Learning: How District, School, and
Classroom Leaders Improve Student Achievement. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree, 2012. Print.
Dynarski, Mark. Content &Resources.” “Research Says…” Why Quality Research Matters for
Education. George. W. Bush Presidential Center, 31, Mar. 2015. Web. 26 Feb. 2017
Marshall, and Kim. Rethinking Teacher Supervision and Evaluation. N.p.: John Wiley & Sons,
2013. Print.
"Student Learning Objectives (SLOs)." Student Learning Objectives. N.p., 01 June 2012. Web.
27 July 2016.
Tucker, Pamela D., and James H. Stronge. Linking Teacher Evaluation and Student Learning.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2005. Print.
Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., Andree, A., Richardson, N., Orphanos, S. (2009).
Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the
United States and abroad. Dallas, TX. National Staff Development Council.
A Practical System
21
Appendix A
7:25am
Warning Bell 1
7:30am
Warning Bell 2
7:35am-8:54am
Block 1
8:58am-10:17am
Block 2
10:21am-11:04am
TASC
11:08am-12:57pm
Block 3
1:01pm-2:20pm
11:08am-11:33am
Lunch A
11:37am-12:57pm
Block 3 BC
11:08am-11:48am
Block 3 AC
11:48am-12:14pm
Lunch B
12:18pm-12:57pm
Block 3 AC
11:08am-12:31pm
Block 3 AB
12:31pm-12:57pm
Lunch C
Block 4
A Practical System
2:20pm
22
Dismissal