Inquiry-Based Project by Cynthea Wieland

• Candidate will use the Sorenson & Goldsmith Integrated Budget
Model to engage in an inquiry-based project focused on the school budgeting process
• Candidate will gain, as a future administrator, first-hand experience with what is involved in preparing a school budget with all of its various components.

“It is incumbent on leaders to provide stakeholders with opportunities to envision, understand, and experience the school’s vision as they develop the school’s action plan using this model” (p. 81-82).
“Data originate from a wide array of sources” (p. 85).
“As data are gathered in an ongoing process, a school profile emerges” (p. 86).
Source: Sorenson, R. D. & Goldsmith, L. M. (2013). The principal’s guide to school budgeting. 2 nd ed.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

• ODE Website
• District Treasurer’s Website
• District Website
• Stakeholder Interviews
• Special Education Data from Previous Inquiry Project (Spring 2015)
• Interview Data from Previous Inquiry Project on Culture & Climate
(Spring 2015)

• Teacher Data
• Student Data
• Achievement Data
• AMO Data
• Indicators Met
• District Revenue
• District Expenditure – Classroom and Non-classroom
• District Expenditure - Nonoperating

Accessed from http://reportcard.education.ohio.gov/
Retrieved June, 2015

75% is Economically
Disadvantaged
37% is Economically
Disadvantaged
Spending per Pupil Compared to State
• The district spends
$6,262.00 per pupil compared to the State average of $9,189.00
(2012-1013 data)
Accessed from http://reportcard.education.ohio.gov/
Retrieved June, 2015

Accessed from http://reportcard.education.ohio.gov/
Retrieved June, 2015

Accessed from http://reportcard.education.ohio.gov/
Retrieved June, 2015

Accessed from http://reportcard.education.ohio.gov/
Retrieved June, 2015

Total
27% of total
58% of total
6% of total
9% of total
Accessed from http://reportcard.education.ohio.gov/
Retrieved June, 2015

Accessed from http://reportcard.education.ohio.gov/
Retrieved June, 2015

Accessed from http://reportcard.education.ohio.gov/
Retrieved June, 2015

• CUPP Report (FY 2013)
• Enrollment Trends
• Utilities Expenditure Costs
• Employees Health Insurance Premium Costs
• June 2015 Financial Report to the Board

What we can take away…
• Administrator average salary is approx. $30,000 more than Classroom Teacher; while teacher avg. salary is right with the State average, administrator avg. salary is 11% over the State average
• Per pupil revenue raised by 1 mill property tax for the district is 33% less than the State average and
17% less than a similar district in the State
• Average income for the district is 28% less than the
State average
• Local tax effort is 64% of State average
• Federal Revenue per Pupil is 42% less than the State average
• Salaries is 62% of Operating Expenditures, compared to a State average of 55%

While Open Enrollment is on an increasing trend…
…enrollment overall is decreasing.
Projections show that less kindergartners will be enrolling than there will be members of the
Senior Class.

This demonstrates areas where the district is making efforts to economize.
This aligns with Goal 6 of the district’s Five
Year Strategic Plan.

Five Year
Strategic
Plan
Goal 6

2015 shows differences in
Employee
Percentage/Cost
8 Years of Evidence:
In this arena
(education),
Insurance premiums increase. They do not level off, nor do they decrease.

The district ended the FY with a 3.5 million dollar carryover, using 98% of the total budget of 24.9 million unencumbered dollars.
The district has 6.9 million dollars invested, of which
48% is available cash.

The district is fulfilling its goal of
Fiscal Responsibility/Accountability.
For example, I have had easy opportunity to access a plethora of financial data about the district in which I work via the Treasurer’s
Webpage.
In addition, the Board and Treasurer are available to interview if you make an appointment. Furthermore, the treasurer is available 15 minutes before every Board meeting for you to approach with questions or concerns.

• Stakeholders included the following for this inquiry project:
• Families
• Students
• Teachers
• Principal
• Board of Education
• The District’s Treasurer was not available, however, I was able to glean meaningful data from the Treasurer’s Website.
• As a district in transition, I am able to interview the new Superintendent, new Curriculum Director, and new Treasurer. I have made those appointments, however those interviews will occur after the project is due.

1. School Fees
• This is a school district that charges instructional and equipment fees.
Area of
Consideration
Stakeholder
Group
Concerned
How are fees spent? Parent
Student
Teacher
What part of the building budget is fees?
Principal
Teacher
Level of Awareness and Types of Concerns
Parent Group – Little to no awareness; no effort by the school to inform
Student Group – Little to no awareness, no connection of fees paid to what they receive
Teacher Group – Some awareness to high awareness; depends on subject taught
& leadership provided
Principal Group – High awareness
Teacher Group – Low awareness - Where is the money kept? How do I know how much I have? How can I see it? When can I express a need? Does it have to be saved? Am I allowed to decide how to use it? Why doesn’t the principal tell us?
There is also high awareness in the Teacher Group – knowing the answers to some of the above questions.

2. Diversity
• The school district has very little racial and ethnic diversity.
Area of
Consideration
21 st Century Skill
Stakeholder
Group
Concerned
Parent
Student
Teacher
Level of Awareness and Types of Concerns
Parent Group – The community is not living in the 21 st century; Cultural awareness and acceptance is something kids should grow up with; it is absent here; they are not learning this skill; bring in speakers who can bring the awareness to the students
Student Group – The district I attend gives me a reputation as being racist among friends living in other communities when I am not like that
Teacher Group – We need to broaden initiatives to local diversity awareness, not just cultures around the world; younger students should be learning this, not just high school students

3. Stakeholder Involvement
• The district involves stakeholders, but do they listen to them?
Area of
Consideration
Being heard
Stakeholder
Group
Concerned
Parent
Student
Teacher
Level of Awareness and Types of Concerns
Parent Group – Parental involvement is awesome – the whole town comes to events, I am pleased with the district – the environment overall is good; However, school personnel should consider my experiences (background, income instability, childrearing philosophies) when engaging in dialogue and making decisions
Student Group – I have ideas that I want listened to; I was able to do a presentation to a teacher, but have not heard yet what the teacher has decided; The teachers need to have greater awareness of how important our outside lives are & what we are accomplishing outside of school to better our lives
Teacher Group – We are not cared for; when we express concerns, leadership does nothing; when we make study-based proposals, no one listens; leadership assumes we will just do our job & do it well; no show of care toward us & what our thoughts are

Let’s focus a bit more on stakeholder involvement…
3. Stakeholder Involvement
• The district involves stakeholders, but do they listen to them?
This is related to Goals 2, 3 & 4 of the district’s Five Year Strategic Plan.

4. Fiscal Responsibility and Transparency
• The district is accomplishing Goal 1 of their five year Strategic Plan.
Area of
Consideration
Fiscal
Responsibility and
Transparency
Stakeholder
Group
Concerned
Principal
Board
Superintendent
(previous)
Level of Awareness and Types of Concerns
Principal Group – High level of awareness; makes a list every year of what we spent student fees on; thus far, there has been no parental request asking for this information; practices are transparent & informative with teachers; has a broad understanding of funding across the district
Board Group– High awareness; currently playing a role in increasing fiscal responsibility by committee activism (meets 1x per mo.), making policy that aligns with the goal, reviewing monthly Treasurer’s reports, & making recommendations for areas in need to improvement
Superintendent Group – High awareness; The district has made strides on fulfilling this goal with most portions of the action steps done and/or in progress

5. School Funding for the District
• The district is underfunded, especially for mandated programs such as Special Education.
Area of
Consideration
School
Funding
Stakeholder
Group
Concerned
Board
Superintendent
(previous)
Level of Awareness and Types of Concerns
Board Group – Tax base is low; Funding is the biggest challenge we face as a district
Superintendent Group – it is in our interest to look into grant money, ex. Straight A
Grant (Goal 1 of Strategic Plan); we are taking steps to economize, spending less now for energy costs & repairs (some repairs are now done in-house) (Goal 6 of
Strategic Plan)

• ODE-acquired data reveals the district struggles with test achievement for this group
• 13% of the district’s student population is considered Special Education
• This allows me an opportunity to include data from a Spring project I completed on the district’s Special Education Program
• The following THREE SLIDES come from this earlier work, completed during the
Spring Semester, 2015


Summary of Interview with the Special Education Coordinator


Identification of special education students is on the rise.
Inclusion of special education students into the general education population is practiced more frequently.



The program is stretched thin due to the funding component:

Out of district placements are frequently requested & often granted – at very high cost



Scholarships often take the public funding component away from the school district
Needs within the special education student population are very diverse requiring diverse & specialist staffing credentials – often there is not enough funding to pay for a specialist, thus the generalist must do what they can to serve all needs
Funding is cut/reduced every year; we must do more with less every year

Equipment costs are great (vans, for example)

The district general fund is used mostly for salaries & rarely is able to meet extra needs beyond
Mandate compliance has timelines that can be challenging to meet

Mandate activity constantly drives change in special education

Compliance with testing mandates has been a particular challenge this year
The Special Education Staff is a dedicated & hard working group of professionals

Strive to meet needs of all special education students, regardless of label



1. This report was shared with me by the Special Education Coordinator. This report demonstrates whether the district has met indicators under 4 essential questions.

Under Essential Question 1 (relating to entering Kindergarten ready to learn)

All indicators were MET

Under Essential Question 2 (relating to achieving at high levels)

AMO for Students with Disabilities was NOT MET

Seven other indicators were MET

Four indicators related to discrepancy/disproportionality for discipline data went
UNREPORTED




This report was shared with me by the Special Education Coordinator. This report gives a summary of the Special Education Funding received for a fiscal year, in this case for fiscal year 2015.
Summary of Report

The Net State Funding for the district’s Special Education Programming for Fiscal Year 2015 is $14,267,272.04

Only $142,769.71 is allotted for Gifted Education

The following deductions were taken before creating the Net Amount:

-$86,703.98 for Education Service Center Transfer

-$409,733.68 for Community School Transfer

-$5,435.88 for STEM School Transfer

-$17,500.00 Scholarship Transfer

-$46,210.00 Other Adjustments
Consider potential resources that may have existed in the district had these funds been able to stay

• This brings about a sixth Emerging Area of Consideration
6. Special Education Achievement Data
• Special Education, while an underfunded mandate, reflects poor achievement data for the district.
Area of
Consideration
Stakeholder
Group
Concerned
Level of Awareness and Types of Concerns
Special
Education
Researcher While there were no stakeholders expressing concern about the Special Education program in the district, the acquisition of ODE data reveals this as an area in need of attention.
The AMO data also reveals the potential of Economically Disadvantaged students
(37.7% of the district’s student population) to slip below the Annual Measurable
Objective for Math Achievement on future assessments. Possibly for Reading as well

Let’s review the AMO Data slide again…
This group may slip below the mark in future assessments.
Accessed from http://reportcard.education.ohio.gov/
Retrieved June, 2015

•
•
School Fees
Diversity
• Stakeholder Involvement
• Fiscal Responsibility and Transparency
• Funding for the District
• Special Education
Inquiry Project Objectives:
1. Candidate will need to think critically about all data sources. They will need to identify and prioritize at least three of the needs identified.
Identify the significance of the need. Provide pertinent background information regarding systemic issues (macro and micro) impacting the need.
2. Identify research questions aligned with each need. Gather at least eight scholarly sources from peer-reviewed articles related to the present issues.
This list of six considerations can be narrowed down to Four Areas of Need:
1. Fees and Funding 2. Diversity 3. Special Education 4. Stakeholder Needs

EXPLAINING FEES
Significance of Need:
• This is very significant. Families and teachers want to have a greater understanding of how collected fees are used; what purchases are made and what do students receive as a result?
Background information regarding systemic issues (macro and micro) impacting the need:
• School funding from State and Federal sources are insufficient
• Local tax levy revenue is insufficient
• Families in the community may have unpredictable income due to fluctuating job market demands
• Voter confidence is a concern; levies have been hard to pass in the district
Goal 1 of
Strategic Plan

EXPLAINING FEES
Goal 1 of
Strategic Plan
Research questions aligned with the need:
1. Wassmer and Fisher (2002) sought to understand differences in fee revenue among the states in the US. Some of their findings are:
• “…state and local policymaker[s] need to explain the advantages of user fees clearly. Charges are not the expected or first-choice revenue source for schools.
If greater charges in public education are the goal … the case for them must be thoughtfully developed, carefully disseminated to the public, and fully understood by voters”(p. 99).
• Fees are used more frequently by districts if students with the inability to pay
(economic disadvantage) are forgiven the fees (p. 99).
• “If schools turn to [fee] charges when they find property tax options limited, then … [they] move toward increased use of [these] charges more out of revenue necessity…” (p. 98).
Source: Wassmer, R. W. & Fisher, R. C. (2002). Interstate variation in the use of fees to fund K-12 public education. Economics of Education Review, 21, p. 87-100.

EXPLAINING FEES
Research questions aligned with the need:
2. Dayton & McCarthy (1992) considered the legality of charging fees, and whether those who could not afford fees would suffer consequences:
• “Public school policy makers need to address what constitutes the integral components of a free public education and whether specific courses and extracurricular activities should be included in the school program if they are available only to those students who can afford to pay for them” (p. 141).
• They end their study advocating fee waivers to economically disadvantaged students so that participation remained an option for them.
• While this research is dated, explaining fee waivers for economically disadvantaged students may be part of explaining fees charged by the district.
Goal 1 of
Strategic Plan
Source: Dayton, J. & McCarthy, M. (1992). User fees in public schools: Are they legal? Journal of
Education Finance, 18 (2), p. 127-141.

STATE FUNDING ISSUES
Significance of Need:
• This is very significant to the district due the history of litigation in the State of Ohio concerning the constitutionality of public school funding
Background information regarding systemic issues (macro and micro) impacting the need:
• Local revenue is very small
• State Foundation revenue barely allows the district to meet annual budget needs
• Serving around 3,000 pupils on an annual budget of around 25 million dollars
• Per pupil expenditure is far less than the State average.
Goal 1 of
Strategic Plan

STATE FUNDING ISSUES
Research questions aligned with the need:
1. Scott Sweetland (2014), a researcher at the Ohio State University, completed a recent analysis regarding funding inequity in Ohio:
• Ohio school funding is inequitable, and it has been getting increasingly inequitable year after year (p. 80).
• “The Ohio school funding program is primarily a foundation program that requires a local contribution” (p. 81).
• “The primary sample for this analysis was drawn from an Ohio public school district dataset that pertained to fiscal year 2012. The sample included 602 of
610 total Ohio public school districts” (p. 91).
• To ensure meaningful data analysis, Sweetland also used the same data from
2007 taken from the same 602 districts (p. 91).
Goal 1 of
Strategic Plan
Source: Sweetland, S. R. (2014). An exploratory analysis of the equity of Ohio school funding.
Journal of Education Finance, 40 (1), p. 80-100.

Source: Sweetland, S. R. (2014). An exploratory analysis of the equity of Ohio school funding.
Journal of Education Finance, 40 (1), p. 80-100.
STATE FUNDING ISSUES
Research questions aligned with the need:
1. Scott Sweetland’s (2014) proposed recommendations include:
• “The most immediate and direct improvement to Ohio school funding from an equity standpoint would be to increase the minimum school district expenditure per pupil. The minimum school district expenditure per pupil could be increased to equal the most current statewide average school district expenditure per pupil” (p.98).
• “Based on the foregoing analysis of fiscal year 2012 data, each school district would then spend at least an average of $10,004 per pupil. If this intervention were paid for completely with state funds, an additional $827 million in state aid would be required. That amount of increase would be 4.4% of the approximately $18.8 billion statewide total of school district expenditures. This 4.4% rate of increase is not unrealistic. The amount of the increase could be absorbed by the revenue windfall that will likely occur as the Ohio economy expands. Alternatively, there are other sources of school funding that could be tapped. For example, monies that are spent on education vouchers and charter schools could be rededicated to the traditional public school system” (p. 98).

Significance of Need:
• The community’s residents are changing from ‘born and raised here’ to ‘moved in from elsewhere due to good schools.’
Background information regarding systemic issues (macro and micro) impacting the need:
• A community with enduring traditions
• School has historically reflected these traditions
• Lack of awareness of how to approach a new cultural element
This allows me an opportunity to include data from a Spring project I completed on Culture and
Climate in the district.
The following TWO SLIDES come from this earlier work, completed during the Spring Semester,
2015

II. Individual Teacher F
Discussion continued
Traditional ways are being replaced by new ways brought in by outsiders

III. Individual Teacher G
Discussion continued
Settler rather than pioneer
Open enrollment has amounted to cultural changes
Value of teachers has diminished & they are intimidated.

Pitcher, E. N. (2015). Another world is possible: Envisioning an intersectional social justice student affairs praxis. Journal of Critical Thought and Praxis, 4 (1) Art. 5, p. 1-32.
Research questions aligned with the need:
1. Pitcher (2015) explores questions concerning ways we approach differences among people existing together in educational settings.
• “…I define social justice as efforts intended to foster the full and equal participation of all groups by eliminating institutionalized domination and oppression” (p. 5).
• The author cautions about not respecting a culture’s history when merging different communities of people with different backgrounds (p. 19).
• “The values of marginalized cultures must be present within institutional spaces to ensure that dominant groups do not create a mono-cultural environment wherein dominant groups’ beliefs are seen as the only legitimate way of being” (p. 26).
• The author remarks on “cultural competence on the part of the professional staff,” asserting, “this shift
[in educator practice] must come from social justice oriented individuals or the efforts will fail to address the systematic issues that continually perpetuate such oppression” (p. 19-20).
• The author stresses the importance of approaching issues through the lens of social justice:
• “Developing programs that meaningfully address intersections of experience, which are created through a social justice process that engages inclusive pedagogical practice, better reflects an intersectional social justice framework. These programs can engage participants with the intersections of identity including race, class, gender, ability, and sexual orientation, even, or especially, when the training is not necessarily about these issues” (p. 23).

Research questions aligned with the need:
2. Braid (2014) examines a program at Butler University for Civic Engagement
• “[The required course focuses on] extending classrooms into the community, where students grapple with diversity, personal and social responsibility, and social justice. These experiences enhance students’ academic learning and help them become better citizens of their communities and of the world.”
• Follow up assessment of the effect the coursework had on students reveals “Many continue serving the communities they discovered through the ICR or make career choices based on living lives of purpose.”
• Citing an article he coauthored with Brabant in 2009, Braid takes this quotation from the article:
• “such teaching requires a deliberate focus on helping students develop “civic mindedness—a reflective disposition … [that] involves a developed awareness of others that engages our moral imaginations and enhances our sense of efficacy and empathy as human beings who dwell in civil society” (73).
Sources:
Braid, D. (2014). "Getting the community into the student": The Indianapolis community requirements. Diversity
and Democracy, 17 (3). Accessed from http://www.aacu.org/diversitydemocracy/2014/summer/braid
Brabant, Margaret, and Donald Braid. (2009). “The devil is in the details: Defining civic engagement.” Journal
of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 13: 59–87.

Source: Litvinov, A. (2015). The unfulfilled promise of IDEA. neaToday, Spring 2015, p. 46-49.
Significance of Need:
• High level of significance since Special Education data is a part of the AMO Data on the School
Report Card
• AMO Data specifically addresses the question, “Is every student succeeding, regardless of income, race, ethnicity, or disability?” (ODE 2015)
• Reading and Math Achievement for 2012-2013 & 2013-2014:
• 12-13 R 42.7% M 40.4%
• 13-14 R 58.3% M 48.9%
• State R 85% M 80%
• The district needs to ensure these gains continue in order to reach the State’s Objectives.
Background information regarding systemic issues (macro and micro) impacting the need:
• Special Education is an underfunded – or unfunded – mandate under the IDEA
• “Although Congress committed to paying 40 percent of the average cost to educate a child with disabilities, it has never even met half of that commitment” (Litvinov, 2015, p. 48-
49).
• “…the federal government’s failure to meet its funding obligation has wreaked havoc on state and local budgets and at times left districts scrambling to meet student needs”
(Litvinov, 2015, p. 48).

Research questions aligned with the need:
1. Kennedy (2014) analyzed successful programs in schools dealing with high levels of poverty and found:
• “A common characteristic of these models is the large allocation of time. In the United
States a 90-minute block is considered to be a minimum requirement, and if acceleration in literacy is required, between two and three hours per day is recommended (Shanahan,
2001; Calkins, 2001; Fountas and Pinnell, 1996). When one considers the number of essential skills for literacy outlined in the research above, it is clear that to teach them well and incorporate them all into a literacy program in ways that build motivation and engagement and that capitalize on children’s interests requires consideration of balance and blocks of uninterrupted time in order to foster the deep and thoughtful engagement that will contribute to development of reading and writing as lifelong habits” (p. 83).
Source: Kennedy, Eithne (2014). Raising literacy achievement in high-poverty schools: An evidence-based approach. New York: Routledge.

Source: Deneen, James (2010). Schools that succeed, students who achieve: profiles of programs helping all students to learn. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Research questions aligned with the need:
2. Deneen (2010) analyzed numerous programs aiding student achievement and reveals:
• “Struggling students are offered an extended day, in which tutors and mentors are available; the schedule also includes “homework Saturdays” and help with assignments during lunch period.
Students who are lagging behind their classmates can also attend summer school and participate in a special district program: Reaching Academic Potential (RAP)” (p. 47).
• “Each teacher posts and adverts to a daily class agenda essential study questions that relate to state-district standards. During the school day, teachers help students stay on track by referring to the posting” (p. 48).
• Parents are involved in learning about the mandated assessments and are asked to sign an academic and behavioral achievement contract for their child.
• “Academic goals for the district are set on a four-year cycle. Principals meet three times a year with the superintendent to establish objectives for each building; progress is reviewed at midyear, and success in meeting goals is evaluated at the end of the school year. Administrators also make a yearly retreat at which they review goals from the previous year and reinstate or revise them for the future” (p. 49).

Significance of Need:
• This is significant because my interview data reveal stakeholders do feel involved, but they do not feel like they are listened to, nor their experiences understood.
Background information regarding systemic issues (macro and micro) impacting the need:
• Top-down Leadership Style
• Mandates/policies/goal statements flow down, but responsive ideas are blocked from flowing up
• Teacher-Administrator Dynamic – teachers are told what to do, but ideas from teachers fall on deaf ears
• Parent-Teacher Dynamic – Perception among some parents that teachers ignore family dynamics
• Student-Teacher Dynamic – Perception among some students that teachers want their way exclusively, ignoring the needs of the whole child
• Teachers in the district have given up pay increases, have taken on insurance increases, and are teaching more classes in past rounds of negotiations.
• The district is utilizing teacher attrition to decrease expenditure on certified salaries. This has been in practice for many years now.
• Teacher Value is at an all time low, as perceived by teachers in the district.

Research questions aligned with the need:
1. Archer-Kuhn & Grant (2014) analyzed the merits of a case study that involved civic engagement of third graders navigating a partnership with a local college and businesses in the publication of a sustained local newsletter. The partnership was unconventional:
• “In our project, the partners had the implicit intent to use power to collaborate and educate by joining together for the purposes of data analysis.”
• “Power, then, can be positive, productive, and mobilizing, or negative and repressive. In our project, the process had aspects of power that were both. The fact that the partnership ignored the broader community in our project may represent a dominant/subservient position of power.”
• “It became clear to the community and agency partners through this project that there remains a need to engage community partners in dialogue about service visions and funding challenges.”
Source: Archer-Kuhn, B. & Grant, J. (2014). Challenging contextual factors in university-community partnerships. Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, 7 (2). Accessed from http://jces.ua.edu/challenging-contextual-factors-in-university-community-partnerships/

Research questions aligned with the need:
2. Daniels (2013) analyzed a case study that involved partnerships that were unconventional:
• “Some maintain that engagement essentially means people genuinely listening to each other across boundaries for the purpose of solving complex societal problems” (p. 39).
• “It is hard to imagine an engagement experience where the tables are turned and the timeline, needs, and, ultimately, the direction of the partnership is almost entirely a product of the community partner’s needs and interests” (p. 40).
• “Here, unconventional engagement would mandate that the community partner be at least equal since the partner is the director of the partnership” (p. 41).
Source: Daniels, G. L. (2013). A five-step model for “unconventional engagement.” Journal of
Community Engagement and Scholarship, 6 (1), p. 39-44.

Four Areas of Need:
1. Fees and Funding
2. Diversity
3. Special Education
4. Stakeholder Needs
Notebook in each Main Office; Treasurer-written article in newsletter;
Treasurer’s Website
- Utilize HS Diversity Initiative Club as primary entity to engage in a four step plan: Study Group, Resource Group, Training Sessions, Feedback
- Utilize Upstander Program & HS Diversity Initiative Club to bring in speakers and engage in activities with younger students
- Building-wide Literacy Goal w/ all teacher involvement
- IEP-specific Math Goal w/ rigorous expectations
- Staff engagement in seeking PD on own to develop skills for meeting all learners
- As much inclusion as possible
- Administrator Study Group and Summer Retreat on Positive School Culture
Theory