Artifacts

Stories / Narratives

Observations

Student Work

​

Performances

​

Student Discourse

​

Professional Learning Agendas

​

Instructional Coaching Notes

​

SSC Agendas and Meeting Notes

Empathy Interviews

​

Writing Journals

​

Focus Groups/Parent Circles

​

Listening Campaign Quotes

​

Open Ended Survey Questions

​

Staff meeting feedback

Instructional coaching transcript

​

Meeting or classroom observation notes

​

Classroom walls

​

Parent meeting notes/transcript

​

Home visits

​

Classroom/school walk-throughs

Dimensions

Description

Academics

Implement a research-based, high-quality academic program that meets the needs of every learner

Network & School Culture

Ensure a positive culture across schools based on strong relationships and clear, consistent systems

Talent

Build an equitable and inclusive adult workplace that recruits, develops, and retains diverse talent

Leadership

Maintain inclusive leadership systems and structures that support strong school functioning

Community Engagement

Partner authentically and effectively with families and community

Governance

Ensure a high-functioning board that effectively supports and oversees the school

Operations

Implement strong systems that streamline school operations

Finance

Manage financial resources to ensure fiscal responsibility and alignment to strategy

Strategic Planning

Set clear organization-wide goals, plan intentionally to reach those goals, and regularly monitor organizational progress

March

April

May

3/11

3/18

3/25

4/1

4/8

4/15

4/22

4/29

5/6

Dimension

Academics - Implement a research-based, high-quality academic program that meets the needs of every learner

Component

Description

Program Vision & Design

• There is a clear academic vision for teaching and learning, which is informed by the organization’s overall mission and vision. The school / network has a clear set of desired academic outcomes and standards to drive instruction (CCSS or other).

​

• There is evidence that the academic program (curricula, instructional practices, schedule, staffing model) was intentionally designed to fulfill the academic vision. The overall academic program design is cohesive, clearly documented, well-understood throughout the organization.

Curriculum

• The school / network has a high-quality, research-based curriculum in place for all subject areas, grade levels, and tiers of instruction. Stakeholders value these curricular materials and use them with fidelity.

​

• There is clear guidance and support for the successful implementation of curricular materials, including guidance around modifications to scope + sequence, lesson planning expectations, and use of supplemental materials.

​

Instruction

• Instructional expectations are clear and codified for every grade level and subject area.

​

• There is a shared understanding of what good teaching looks like among staff, and effective support systems to help teachers achieve those outcomes. This translates to strong instructional practices throughout the school / network, resulting in high levels of student engagement and rigorous instruction across schools and classrooms.

​

Data + Assessment

• The school / network has intentionally selected (or designed) a set of high-quality assessments that 1) accurately measure student progress and 2) are aligned to the academic program.

​

• There is a system for regularly collecting and analyzing student mastery of content and then using that data to inform instructional design, teacher supports, and student supports.

​

Response to Intervention

• The school / network has a systematic and data-driven approach to differentiating instruction to meet every students' needs. This approach thoughtfully combines remediation with access to grade level content.

​

• There is a strong RTI system in place, including a way to refer students, assign interventions, and track progress. Staff assume responsibility for the progress of every learner.

Dimension

School / Network Culture - Ensure a positive network and school culture based on strong relationships and clear, consistent systems

Component

Description

Culture Vision & Expectations

• The school / network has a clear vision for their ideal school environment and a clear articulation of their desired non-academic program outcomes for all students.

​

• There is an intentional plan in place for how the program will achieve these intended environment and student outcomes.

​

Positive Relationships

• Relationships within school communities are positive and supportive. Members of the community feel that their identities are valued, and that they are treated with care and respect.

​

• There are caring and warm interactions between adults, between adults and students, and between students.

​

Community Building Practices

• The school / network has regular practices that build a sense of community and belonging among students, teachers within classroom, across the school community, and across the school / network.

​

• Community members report being proud of their school, and a shared understanding of what it means to be a part of that community.

Non-Academic Skill Building

• The school / network has an intentional process for developing the desired set of social, emotional, mental health, identity, cognitive skills in students.

​

• The skills are reinforced through common classroom practices (i.e. mindful minute, reflection space), shared vocabulary (i.e. “Take a Break), and regular, integrated opportunities for skill development (i.e. advisory).

Restorative/ Discipline

Practices

• There is a developmentally appropriate, culturally responsive process for upholding school culture expectations.

​

• This includes equitable systems for responding to students when they are escalated and for supporting the restorative return of student to the community. These processes are well understood, consistently applied, and effective.

​

Student Supports

• There is a proactive system of supports that matches students to needed comprehensive supports (social services, mental health supports, guidance counselor, group therapy) beyond what is offered in the Tier 1 classroom. This system allows for differentiation, as schools identify, refer, measure progress of students for whom Tier 1 supports are not sufficient.

Dimension

Talent - Build a equitable and inclusive adult workplace that recruits, develops, and retains talent at all levels

Component

Description

Talent Strategy

• The school / network has a clearly articulated talent strategy that is aligned to its overall mission and vision, and has an explicit commitment to DEI. The network's talent strategy is codified and well-understood throughout the organization, including a shared understanding of roles and responsibilities.

Recruitment, Hiring, & Onboarding Practices

• There are strong recruitment pipelines across various, diverse candidate pools (including an emphasis on internal promotions). Hiring structures are aligned to best practices (clear deadlines and steps, evaluation aligned to candidate profiles/rubrics, quick but thorough). There are effective onboarding processes in place that set new hires up for success.

Professional Development & Coaching

• The school / network has a clear system for professional development at all levels of the organization. This includes meeting structures, roles and responsibilities, and ongoing systems. Professional development is 1) explicitly aligned to relevant content areas (i.e. specific curricula) and essential practices for each role (i.e. instructional practices) 2) differentiated by staff need and 3) systematic/ongoing in nature.

​

• PD should include opportunities for self-reflection, goal-setting, and live coaching. Staff should regularly receive feedback on their performance in a coherent way.

​

Staff Collaboration

• The school / network has systems and norms that foster a community of staff collaboration and professional growth.

​

• Teachers and leaders regularly have the opportunity to collaborate, provide feedback, and observe one another's instruction. Staff reports shared sense of high expectations and shared commitment to students among colleagues.

Evaluation, Retention, & Promotion

• The school / network has a system clear, fair evaluation system that is focused continuous improvement. The system allowing high performers to see themselves taking addl responsibilities, including formal promotion. It also allows all staff members to identify areas for development and set goals to improve. The evaluation system is well understood and generally valued throughout the organization.

​

• The school / network generally has a strong track record of retaining high-quality staff, and makes concerted effort to do so. Data on staff attrition is compiled and analyzed for root causes in a way that prompts organizational reflection.

Dimension

Leadership - Maintain inclusive leadership systems and structures that support strong network functioning

Component

Description

Org Roles

• The school / network has a clear organization chart with well-documented roles, responsibilities, and reporting relationships. What is documented on paper aligns with actual activities at the school and network levels. Roles are right-sized and designed to align with school and network needs. The organization chart is well understood throughout the network, and staff reports clarity on who to go to for what. Most importantly, schools understand the role of the network in providing supports and leverage these to execute successfully at the school level.

Decision-Making Structures

• The school / network has clearly defined decision-making roles and processes. Processes are inclusive and transparent, but also efficient and consistent. Individuals at all levels of the organization are clear on their autonomies and where approval is needed and from whom. There is a practice of communicating decisions and rationale effectively.

Meeting Structures

• Relevant teams (school, network, leadership, grade levels, departments) have standing meetings that are calendared and built into the master schedule. When conducted, meetings are effective (agenda-driven, time-bound, and purposeful). Staff generally agree that meetings are intentional and a good use of their time.

Internal Communications

• Internal school / network communications are clear and consistent. The network and school leadership teams have structures to keep staff up to date on both long term decisions (i.e. strategic priorities) and day to day information (i.e. subs needed). Staff generally find the tone of communication throughout the school / network to be respectful and effective.

Culture of Distributed Leadership

• There is a sense of collective ownership at the school / network office and across schools that extends beyond formal leadership roles. Team members feel that leadership encourage new ideas, and receive support when bringing such concepts to them. Staff members feel that the leadership is approachable and receptive to feedback

​

Academics

Network & School Culture

Talent

Leadership

Community Engagement

Governance

Operations

Finance

Strategic Planning

C

O

M

P

O

N

E

N

T

S

Program Vision & Design

Culture Vision & Expectations

Talent Philosophy

Org Roles & Responsibilities

Family �Engagement

Board Membership & Composition

Technology

Financial Planning & Forecasting

Long-Term Planning

Curriculum

Positive Relationships

Recruitment, Hiring, & Onboarding Practices

Decision- Making Structures

Community Partnerships

Board Governance Structures

Data Systems & Processes

Budgeting Tools & Processes

Annual Planning

Instruction

Community Building Practices

Professional Development & Coaching

Meeting Structures

​

Strategic Oversight

Physical Environment

Fundraising Capacity

​

Data and Assessment

Non-Academic Skill Building

Staff Collaboration

Internal & External Communications

​

Board Culture

Daily Building Logistics

​

​

Response to Intervention

Restorative/ Discipline Practices

Evaluation, Retention & Promotion

Distributed Leadership

​

​

Student �Recruitment & Enrollment

​

​

​

​

Student Supports

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Component

Rating

Questions to consider

Rationale for rating

Academic Vision & Program Design

​

• Is there a clear vision for teaching and learning? Is this vision widely understood by stakeholders?

Curriculum

​

• Is there a rigorous, culturally relevant, standards-aligned curriculum, with lesson plans and assessments?

​

• Is the program implemented with fidelity across classrooms, grade-levels, and campuses?

​

Instruction

​

• Are teachers delivering deliberately planned, engaging, and rigorous lessons? Is there evidence of differentiation?

​

• Are there shared instructional routines in place to maximize learning time?

​

Component

Rating

Questions to consider

Rationale for rating

Data & Assessment

​

• Are rigorous state and norm referenced assessments regularly administered?

​

• Can teachers and administrators quickly access data to inform instructional choices?

​

​

​

​

Response to Intervention

​

• Does school have a systematic way to identify students not making adequate academic process, match interventions, and track progress?

​

• Is there evidence that this system effectively meets the needs of all students (especially SPED and ELL students)?

​

​

​

Component

Rating

Questions to consider

Rationale for rating

School Culture Vision & Approach

​

• Is there a clear school culture vision? Is that vision well understood throughout the org?

​

• Do the school’s daily systems and structures reinforce the culture vision?

Positive Relationships

​

• Are daily interactions between adults and students generally positive and productive?

​

• Do all students have a trusting relationship with at least one adult on staff?

​

• Do students treat one another with respect?

​

Community Building Practices

​

• Does the school have deliberate practices that build a sense of community and belonging among students and teachers, both within the classroom and across the full school community?

Component

Rating

Questions to consider

Rationale for rating

Non-Academic Skill Building

​

• Are there a set of desired non-academic outcomes for students (i.e. social, emotional, behavioral, and character skills)?

Restorative Discipline Practices

​

• Do students and teachers have a shared understanding of community norms/expectations?

​

• Is there a clear process to address violations?

​

• Do stakeholders perceive the process to be fair, effective, and consistently implemented?

Student Supports

​

• Does the school have a systematic way to identify students in need of additional behavioral supports, match services, and track progress?

​

• Is there evidence that this system effectively meet the needs of all students (especially SPED and ELL students)?

Component

Rating

Questions to consider

Rationale for rating

Talent Strategy

​

• Does the school have a clearly articulated talent strategy aligned to its overall mission and vision?
• Does the talent strategy include an explicit commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion?

• ​

Recruitment, Hiring, & Onboarding Practices

​

• Are there multiple and diverse candidate pools? Clear deadlines, consistent means of evaluating candidates, and timely communication?
• Are new staff, teachers, and leaders onboarded effectively?

• ​

Component

Rating

Questions to consider

Rationale for rating

Professional Development & Coaching

​

• Do teachers and leaders receive effective PD that has impact on teaching and learning?
• Are coaches well-equipped to develop teachers at various levels and in various roles?

Component

Rating

Questions to consider

Rationale for rating

Staff Collaboration & Teamwork

​

• Is there a high degree of cohesion and sense of mutual respect among the staff?
• Does the school climate foster staff longevity and sustainability?

Evaluation, Retention, & Promotion

​

• Do staff, teachers, and leaders have clear evaluation systems and performance goals?
• Is staff retention consistently high? Do all staff subgroups show similar retention trends?

Component

Rating

Questions to consider

Rationale for rating

Organizational Roles and Responsibilities

​

• Are responsibilities for various leadership positions clearly defined and well understood?

​

• Are these roles sustainable in their scope?

Decision-Making Structures

​

• Are there clear processes for decision-making?

​

• Does the leadership team regularly solicit input from stakeholders on key decisions and communicate rationale for decisions clearly/ consistently?

​

Component

Rating

Questions to consider

Rationale for rating

Meeting Structures

​

• Do teams have meetings that are calendared in advance and built into the master schedule?

​

• Are meetings agenda-driven, time-bound, and purposeful?

Internal & External Comms

​

• Are there effective communication structures in place to keep staff informed?

​

• Are communications perceived to be clear and respectful?

​

Distributed Leadership

​

• Is there a collective sense of responsibility for school progress? A sense that new ideas and taking initiative are encouraged?

​

• Do staff members feel the leadership team is receptive to feedback?

Component

Rating

Questions to consider

Rationale for rating

Academic Vision & Program Design

Some progress needed

• Is there a clear vision for teaching and learning? Is this vision widely understood by stakeholders?

• When asked, 'why Lighthouse?’ stakeholders struggled to provide clear responses and core values were rarely referenced
• While college and career programming seems to be a point of pride, senior leaders articulated the need for an inspiring and compelling vision and purpose beyond “a K-12 charter school”

Curriculum

Emerging Strength

• Is there a rigorous, culturally relevant, standards-aligned curriculum, with lesson plans and assessments?
• Is the program implemented with fidelity across classrooms, grade-levels, and campuses?

• Curriculum selected is rigorous and reputable, equity-centered, and includes high quality instructional materials; phonics is embedded into early literacy approach
• Interim and diagnostic assessments (CAASPP, MAP, etc.) are implemented with a high degree of fidelity
• Curriculum implementation varies greatly across campuses and is largely leader-dependent; in classroom observations, 75% of teachers were using grade level content and 55% utilizing designated curriculum

Instruction

Significant progress needed

• Are teachers delivering deliberately planned, engaging, and rigorous lessons? Is there evidence of differentiation?
• Are there shared instructional routines in place to maximize learning time?

​

• Varying degrees of instructional quality were observed, specifically 50% of teachers were observed implementing time-saving procedures, 40% gathered data, and 25% responded to data
• Leaders named classroom discourse as a stated instructional priority, however only 25% of classrooms were observed implementing classroom discourse strategies
• Missed opportunities to align culture and instruction were observed; school leaders identified the inconsistencies of Crew implementation as a contributing factor
• While demonstrating modest growth, LCPS’ academic performance lags behind OUSD, particularly with respect to math in upper grades

Component

Rating

Questions to consider

Rationale for rating

Data & Assessment

Some progress needed

• Are rigorous state and norm referenced assessments regularly administered?
• Can teachers and administrators quickly access data to inform instructional choices?

• Data platforms are largely in place and data collection is strong on assessments (CAASSP interims & MAP)
• Senior leaders have communicated that data analysis should be happening in weekly PD structures, but most school leaders named the data analysis is not happening
• Neither teachers nor leaders are consistently leveraging data to improve instruction
• Given the decline in math achievement, it is unclear how data is informing instructional decisions

Response to Intervention

Some progress needed

• Does school have a systematic way to identify students not making adequate academic process, match interventions, and track progress?

​

• Is there evidence that this system effectively meets the needs of all students (especially SPED and ELL students)?

• Students receiving support from the Special Education department have shown growth in their academic achievement, specifically in ELA
• Efforts to support students with life skills supports were cited by staff and families
• Leaders named the need for an MTSS platform and cited inconsistencies in the implementation of MTSS
• While ELD teachers / other staff have dedicated time for instruction, there is a need to train teachers to lead interventions
• LCPS is making efforts to partner with external providers to support students behavioral and non-academic needs

Component

Rating

Questions to consider

Rationale for rating

Professional Development & Coaching

Significant progress needed

• Do teachers and leaders receive effective PD that has impact on teaching and learning?
• Are coaches well-equipped to develop teachers at various levels and in various roles?

• LCPS staff, on the whole, do not feel like they are receiving effective, engaging professional development (e.g. 74% rated PD effectiveness a 3 or lower; 45% self-reported that they were “actively engaged”)
• Consistent organizational development goals and priorities were not evident in observations or conversations with staff
• While professional development structures are in place, school leaders described a lack of alignment between the structures, with org wide PD objectives, PLCs, and coaching each driving different priorities
• Development structures (e.g., PD, PLCs, coaching) were referenced as a strategy for developing staff members at all levels, however, varying degrees of quality and fidelity to implementation of the structures were observed. One leader explained, “PLCs are tricky because they are led by teachers but are not really trained”
• The leadership coaching model has shifted throughout the year, resulting in a lack of cohesion and varying degrees of coaching effectiveness across all levels; many referenced the deprioritization of coaching due to “crisis management” or insufficient time to accommodate the high demand for coaching. One leader described it by saying, “When you have a skilled principal who can manage time and priorities well, it’s an effective model. When you have a newer principal it is more challenging.” Another said, “a lot of development is learning on the job as opposed to really intentional development plans”

Component

Rating

Questions to consider

Rationale for rating

Organizational Roles and Responsibilities

Some progress needed

• Are responsibilities for various leadership positions clearly defined and well understood?
• Are these roles sustainable in their scope?

• There is an overarching lack of clarity around specific roles and responsibilities, specifically as it relates to how senior leadership roles work together to drive org-wide priorities (ex: CAO & Principals + Directors & APs)
• There are some departments being managed by leaders outside of the traditional approach, which stand out as an opportunity to rethink organizational structures (MTSS/SpEd; SpEd/CAO, etc.)

Decision-Making Structures

Significant progress needed

• Are there clear processes for decision-making?
• Does the leadership team regularly solicit input from stakeholders on key decisions and communicate rationale for decisions clearly/ consistently?

• There was not evidence of a clear decision making structure that defines and balances the need for network-wide consistency with school-specific needs; leaders described decision-making as “top down” and “one-size-fits-all”
• Conversations revealed limited structures to support departmental collaboration for making inclusive organizational decisions, particularly regarding academic matters; for example, the academics team may have little to no input in other departmental decisions or in initiatives that directly impact academic programming
• Leaders cited untimely and fragmented communication stemming from ineffective decision-making structures. One leader explained, “We don't have a real structure on how things are communicated or how decisions are made. There is not a clear chain of command.”

Component

Rating

Questions to consider

Rationale for rating

Meeting Structures

Some progress needed

• Do teams have meetings that are calendared in advance and built into the master schedule?
• Are meetings agenda-driven, time-bound, and purposeful?

• While meeting structures exist, leaders struggled to articulate the purpose and impact of leadership team meetings
• There is a lack of cross-department meeting structures which inhibits the pooling of resources, ideas, and expertise to tackle complex issues effectively. One senior leader noted that the agendas do not always seem “purposeful in moving the needle”

Internal & External Comms

Significant progress needed

• Are there effective communication structures in place to keep staff informed?
• Are communications perceived to be clear and respectful?

• The lack of cross-department meeting structures exacerbates communication and decision-making challenges, causing many leaders to feel “out of the loop” or that communication comes "last minute"
• Improving Internal communication systems will reduce the likelihood of misunderstandings currently arising from siloed decision-making

Distributed Leadership

Some progress needed

• Is there a collective sense of responsibility for school progress? A sense that new ideas and taking initiative are encouraged?
• Do staff members feel the leadership team is receptive to feedback?

• Most leaders felt a sense of responsibility and loyalty to their school, rather than the organization as a whole
• When asked if leaders felt they could give feedback, many of them shared they could but there isn’t a culture of giving feedback and doing so didn’t “register” to them
• LCPS has an opportunity to release responsibility and ownership to leaders