Successmaker Enterprise Software Purchase - Harford County ...

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF HARFORD COUNTY 

INFORMATIONAL REPORT 

DECISION ON CONTRACT AWARD FOR 

NCS PEARSON – SUCCESSMAKER ENTERPRISE SOFTWARE PURCHASE ` 

Background Information: 

August 3, 2009 

On behalf of the Office of Special Education in collaboration with the Office of 

Curriculum and Instruction, the Purchasing Department is requesting a decision on a 

recommended contract to NCS Pearson, 3075 W Ray Road, Mail Stop 220, Chandler, AZ 85226. 

This one time purchase of the SuccessMaker Enterprise software intervention program provides 

for 110 concurrent site licenses, which allows for unlimited access to the software curriculum. 

This purchase cost includes support and maintenance; 1.5 days of on-site professional 

development; teacher support materials; and access to consultative services including detailed 

reports to maximize student performance. 

Discussion: 

Pearson is a global leader in educational publishing, providing research-based print and 

digital programs to help students learn at their own pace, in their own way. SuccessMaker 

Mathematics is a standards-based interactive multimedia courseware designed to develop and 

maintain fundamental concepts taught in mathematics across grades K – 8. 

SuccessMaker Mathematics is intended as an intervention to students with disabilities, 

grades 3 through 8, in three elementary schools and five middle schools not meeting AYP in the 

area of mathematics due to the special education subgroup. This supplemental support is 

provided in addition to the core curriculum, distributing content to each student individually 

adjusting concept areas in order to address need areas. Lessons are designed to provide 

immediate feedback for whole group, small group, and individualized instruction. Computer 

lessons are individualized. 

A favorable decision on this contract for the SuccessMaker Mathematics intervention 

program will provide a valuable teaching tool for students with disabilities and others who may 

benefit. The implementation of SuccessMaker Mathematics is a component of an initiative to 

improve student achievement by providing increased access to instructional methods using 

strategies that acknowledge a wide range of learning styles, preferences and cognitive skills. This 

purchase is funded via Special Education Passthrough and AYP Grant funds. Copyright material 

is not a competitively bid commodity, and pricing is established by the publisher. 

Superintendent’s Recommendation: 

The Superintendent of Schools recommends that the Board of Education approve the 

award of the contract in the amount of $122,325.00 to NCS Pearson.

HCPS SCHOOLS NOT MEETING AYP FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES IN THE AREA OF 

MATHEMATICS 

Student Need 

The percentage of all HCPS students achieving advanced or proficient in mathematics, as 

measured by MSA in 2008, was 79.8 % (+18.9% above the AMO of 60.9%) compared to 49.2% 

(-11.7% below the AMO) of special education students achieving advanced or proficient. There 

is a 30.6 percentage point gap in the performance of all students and special education students 

for MSA mathematics. As grade level increases, the performance of students with disabilities in 

the area of mathematics is declining or not making adequate gains; therefore, HCPS is at risk of 

significantly failing to meet the 2014 performance targets of 100% proficiency as mandated in 

the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. 

2008 Maryland Report Card – AYP Trend Data: 

Subgroup 

Math Proficiency 

Special Education 03 04 05 06 07 08 

AYP Met 

AYP Not Met 

2008 Maryland Report Card – HCPS MSA Grades 3, 5 and 8 

Advanced Proficient Basic 

Special Education Grade 3 12.7% 54.2% 33.2% 



% Advanced % Proficient % Basic 

MSA Eligible Schools in Harford County in the area of Mathematics 

Category 1: Met AYP in All Subgroup Areas Except Special Education 

Category 2: Met AYP in Special Education Through Safe Harbor and Met AYP in All 

Other Subgroup Areas [MSDE used an unduplicated count and counted schools with 

both qualifiers as in Category 2.] 

Category 3: Did not meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in schools that have Special Education 

enrollment of 90% or Greater 

Harford……………………..…..….Eligible 

Schools = 8 

School Name Category Math Safe 

Harbor 

% of 

SWD 

Scoring 

Basic 

Grade 3 

% of 

SWD 

Scoring 

Basic 

Grade 4 

% of 

SWD 

Scoring 

Basic 

Grade 5 

Riverside Elementary 1 Not Met 50% 66.7% 63.2% 

Deerfield Elementary 2 Met Y 60% 50% 75%

HCPS SCHOOLS NOT MEETING AYP FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES IN THE AREA OF 

MATHEMATICS 

William Paca/Old Post Road 2 Met Y 53.3% 37% 80.8% 

Elementary 

School Name Category Math Safe 

Harbor 

% of 

SWD 

Scoring 

Basic 

Grade 6 

% of 

SWD 

Scoring 

Basic 

Grade 7 

% of 

SWD 

Scoring 

Basic 

Grade 8 

Edgewood Middle 1 Not Met 70% 80% 100% 

Aberdeen Middle 1 Not Met 56.9% 77.3% 84.5% 

Fallston Middle 1 Not Met 67.9% 48.5% 78.8% 

North Harford Middle 1 Not Met 61.5% 74% 85.7% 

Havre de Grace Middle 1 Not Met 63.3% 78.6% 83.9% 

*Data based on 2008 Maryland Report Card* 

The following interventions are currently available at the target schools for students in grades 3 – 

8: 

Interventi 

on 

Knowing 

Mathemati 

cs 

Gra 

de 

Leve 

ls 

Deerfie 

ld 

Riversi 

de 

Wm 

Paca- 

Old 

Post 

Edgewo 

od 

Middle 

Aberde 

en 

Middle 

Fallst 

on 

Middl 

e 

Havr 

e de 

Grac 

e 

Midd 

le 

# of 

SWD 

North 

Harfo 

rd 

Middl 

e 

# of 

SWD 

# of 

SWD 

# of 

SWD 

# of 

SWD 

# of 

SWD 

# of 

SWD 

# of 

SWD 

4 – 8 3 5 40 32 12 

Navigator 6 – 8 20 11 8 5 8 

Do the 3 – 5 23 18 

Math 

Ramp-Up 8 30 10 13 9 

MSA Prep 6-8 36 17 

EDM + 

30 

minutes 

6 5 25 

Totals 3 23 28 126* 53 21 47 29 

# of SWD 

w/Math 

goals 

10 24 39 94 106 42 52 59 

% of 

SWD 

w/Math 

goals in 

Interventi 

on 

30% 95.8% 71.79 

% 

134% 

Intervention 

to SWD 

w/without 

Math goals 

50% 50% 90.38 

% 

49.15 

%

July 17, 2009 

Dr. Robert Tomback, Superintendent 

Harford County Public Schools 

102 S Hickory Avenue 

Bel Air, Maryland 21014 

Dear Dr. Tomback: 

The attached grant proposal Boundless Opportunities for MSA Success [Mathematics] provides 

information relative to the projected use of SuccessMaker – Mathematics as an intervention in 

the eight HCPS schools not meeting AYP due to the special education subgroup. In addition, I 

have included the decision-making process document used for considering needs germane to this 

initiative. 

The schools were identified as a result of the 2008 Maryland School Assessment (MSA), the 

schools were identified for eligibility in the SFY2010 State Discretionary Grant to address the 

State improvement priority for achievement--specifically for special education students--to 

promote improved achievement for these students to ensure they and their school system meet 

AYP for reading and mathematics. 

In addition to the data contained in the grant proposal, information from the 2008 – 2009 Title 

One pilot of SuccessMaker supports its implementation. SuccessMaker was piloted at Halls 

Cross Roads Elementary and Havre de Grace Elementary with a total of 83 third grade students, 

63 fourth grade students, and 65 fifth grades students utilizing the intervention. A preliminary 

review of student performance on the 2009 MSA – Mathematics demonstrates the following: 

Halls Cross Roads Elementary 

87% of third graders participating in SuccessMaker taking MSA 09 Mathematics scored 

Proficient or Advanced. 

81% of fourth graders participating in SuccessMaker taking MSA 09 Mathematics scored 


73% of fifth graders participating in SuccessMaker taking MSA 09 Mathematics scored 

Proficient of Advanced. 

Havre de Grace Elementary 

84.6% of third graders participating in SuccessMaker taking MSA 09 Mathematics scored 


87.5% of fourth graders participating in SuccessMaker taking MSA 09 Mathematics scored 

Proficient of Advanced. 

60% of fifth graders participating in SuccessMaker taking MSA 09 Mathematics scored 

Proficient of Advanced.

The criteria used to determine student participation in the SuccessMaker pilot is included as an 

attachement. 

Hopefully, the added information will clarify any questions related to the use of SuccessMaker. 

Please contact me should you have further questions or concerns. 

Respectfully, 

Alicia Palmer, Coordinator of Grants 

Office of Special Education

Harford County Public Schools – State Discretionary Grant – AYP FY 10 

Name of Applicant: 

PROPOSAL COVER SHEET 


STATE DISCRETIONARY 

Non-competitive 

Title of Project: 

Contact Person: 

Address: 

Boundless Opportunities for MSA Success [Mathematics] 

Ann-Marie Spakowski, Director 

Alicia G. Palmer, Coordinator 

HCPS – Office of Special Education 

102 S. Hickory Avenue 

Bel Air, Maryland 21014 

Telephone Number: 410 588 - 5246 

Fax Number: 410 638 - 4313 

Email: 

ann-marie.spakowski@hcps.org 

alicia.palmer@hcps.org 

Partner Organizations: 

HCPS Office of Curriculum and Instruction 

Interventions and Math 

Center for Technology in Education - JHU 

Amount Requested: $188,451.00 

Project Abstract: See page ii. 

___________________________________________ 

Local Director of Special Education of Grantee Agency 

_______________ 

Date 

Superintendent of Schools/Head of Grantee Agency 

Date 

FOR MSDE USE ONLY: 

Action and Date Taken: 

Funding Source: ___Capacity Building 

___ State Discretionary

Harford County Public Schools – State Discretionary Grant – HSA FY10 

Project Abstract: 

Problem: Harford County Public Schools (HCPS) is highly invested in developing and implementing targeted 

programs for students with disabilities who demonstrate a pattern of limited math proficiency as measured by the 

Maryland State Assessments. HCPS is cognizant of the growing achievement gap in mathematics between 

students in general education and students receiving special education services. Systemwide students with 

disabilities continue to demonstrate limited gains toward math proficiency. Of particular concern is the downward 

trend for students with disabilities as they progress from elementary to middle school grade levels. 

As a result of the 2008 Maryland School Assessment (MSA), three categories of schools were identified for 

eligibility in the SFY2010 State Discretionary Grant (SFY 2010 AYP Grant for Elementary and Middle Schools 

only) to address the State improvement priority for achievement--specifically for special education students--to 

promote improved achievement for these students to ensure they and their school system meet AYP for reading 

and mathematics. 

Category 1: 

Category 2: 

Category 3: 

Met AYP in All Subgroup Areas Except Special Education 

Met AYP in Special Education Through Safe Harbor and Met AYP in All Other Subgroup 

Areas [MSDE used an unduplicated count and counted schools with both qualifiers as in 

Category 2.] 

Did not meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in schools that have Special Education 


Of the eight HCPS schools eligible for participation in the content area of mathematics, six schools are considered 

Category 1 and two are Category 2. One of the eight schools is a Title I setting. School Profiles are located on 

pages A 1 – A 2 of the Appendix. 

An analysis of systemwide data reveals the following trends: 

1. The percentage of all HCPS students achieving advanced or proficient in mathematics, as measured by MSA 

in 2008, was 79.8 % (+18.9% above the AMO of 60.9%) compared to 49.2% (-11.7% below the AMO) of 

special education students achieving advanced or proficient. There is a 30.6 percentage point gap in the 

performance of all students and special education students for MSA mathematics. 

2. As grade level increases, the performance of students with disabilities in the area of mathematics is declining 

or not making adequate gains; therefore, HCPS is at risk of significantly failing to meet the 2014 performance 

targets of 100% proficiency as mandated in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. 

ii


Populations/Schools/ or Geographical Areas: 

2008 Maryland Report Card – HCPS AYP Trend Data: 

Subgroup 



AYP Met 

AYP Not Met 

2008 Maryland Report Card – HCPS Mathematics MSA Grades 3, 5 and 8 


Special Education All Grades 8.7% (1285 of 2528) 40.5% (1023 of 2528) 50.8% (220 of 2528) 




% Advanced % Proficient % Basic AMO Gap for 2008 -11.7 




Other Subgroup Areas [MSDE used an unduplicated count and counted schools with both qualifiers as in Category 2.] 

Category 3: Did not meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in schools that have Special Education enrollment of 90% or Greater 

Harford……………………..…..….Eligible Schools = 8 

School Name Category Math Safe Harbor % of SWD 

Scoring Basic 

Grade 3 

% of SWD 

Scoring Basic 

Grade 4 

% of SWD 

Scoring Basic 

Grade 5 


Deerfield Elementary 2 Met Y 60% 50% 75% 

William Paca/Old Post Road Elementary 2 Met Y 53.3% 37% 80.8% 







Scoring Basic 

Grade 6 

% of SWD 

Scoring Basic 

Grade 7 

% of SWD 

Scoring Basic 

Grade 8 







See Table 1 for project school demographic data and Table 2 for MSA profiles (trend data) for participating schools. 

iii


In an effort to address these needs, HCPS has developed a strategic professional development plan and project 

implementation plan for a mathematics intervention program targeted to support students with disabilities in 

schools designated as Category 1 and 2. This is a collaborative effort among the Office of Mathematics, the Office 

of Special Education, and the Office of Accountability. The project has the support of the Director of Special 

Education and the Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction. 

Outcome Statement(s) 

By June 30, 2010, each of the targeted schools will demonstrate an increase >10% of students with disabilities 

achieving a rating of proficient on the Mathematics MSA over the 2008 baseline in grades 3 – 8. 

Goals, Objectives and Benchmarks: 

Goal #1: Capacity – building: Boundless Learning 

By June 30, 2009, HCPS will increase the knowledge of general and special educators at the targeted 

schools through the regular delivery of high quality, targeted professional development and job-embedded 

coaching related to effective differentiated instruction utilizing Boundless Learning a collaborative process 

for planning and instructional delivery, as observed in daily instruction, and increased student 

achievement data. 

Goal #2: Intervention Strategies 

By June 30, 2009, HCPS will implement SuccessMaker as a mathematics intervention program at the 

targeted schools to supplement core instruction and improve student performance on the Mathematics 

MSA. 

Goal #3: Capacity – building: Co-Teaching 

By June 30, 2009, HCPS will increase the capacity of general and special educators at the targeted 

schools to provide high quality, differentiated, and rigorous instruction through an effective system of coplanning 

and co-teaching. 

Strategies identified in this proposal highlight components of effective instructional practice: 

Professional development, direct and embedded growth opportunities; 

Differentiated and explicit framework for instruction; and 

Effective collaborative teams. 

The Boundless Learning Co-Teaching model is aligned with the MD Co-Teaching Framework. This initiative is a 

key component of an MSDE School Improvement Grant focusing on building a MD Co-Teaching network. HCPS 

is committed to implementing this project with fidelity. 

Ongoing analyses of project implementation and fidelity will allow HCPS to evaluate the effectiveness of the 

project on a quarterly, semi-annual, and annual basis. Throughout the grant period, student achievement is 

monitored. Upon completion of the project, HCPS will create an evaluation report and summarize findings and 

recommendations in consideration of expanded implementation of the successful portions of the project to 

additional core content areas. 

iv


Professional Development Plan FY 10 


Boundless Opportunities for MSA Success 

Professional Development Plan page 1


Title of the activity or program: SuccessMaker 

Intended Participants: Special Education and General Education Teachers, School Administrators and 

Paraeducators 

Beginning and end dates: July 1, 2009 to September 30, 2010 

Estimated costs (as they appear in the budget included in Section of the plan) 

Direct costs: $37,337.00 

Materials: $3,145.00 

In-Kind Costs: $1,500.00 

Total Costs: $41,982.00 

Budget source of code (for Direct Costs only): Discretionary Grant 

Contact person(s): Alicia G. Palmer 

Position/Title: Coordinator, Special Education Grants 

Telephone: (410) 588 - 5246 

Email: alicia.palmer@hcps.org 

Fax: (410) 638 - 4313 

Mailing Address: 



Bel Air, MD 21014 

Members of the planning team (list with contact information): 

Ann-Marie Spakowski, Director of Special Educator 

Ann-marie.spakowki@hcps.org 

Alicia Palmer, Coordinator of Special Education Grants 

Alicia.palmer@hcps.org 

Roger Plunkett, Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction 

Roger.plunkett@hcps 

Sarah Morris, Supervisor of Mathematics 

Sarah.morris@hcps.org 

Susan Austin, Assistant Supervisor of Secondary Special Education 

Susan.austin@hcps.org 

Mary Lentowski, Assistant Supervisor of Elementary Special Education 

Mary.lentowski@hcps.org 



Plan Summary 

The use of SuccessMaker as an intervention is based on the following assumptions: 

Students with disabilities require the knowledge and skills to successfully meet the demands of the HCPS 

math curriculum and score proficient on the Mathematics MSA. 

There is a need to expand math intervention options for students with disabilities. 

Computer- assisted instruction improves instruction for students with disabilities by responding to 

individual needs and providing ongoing assessment of each student’s progress in grades 3 – 8. 

Intervention is intended to support – not supplant or duplicate- regular classroom instruction targeting 

students’ strengths and weaknesses. 

Section 1: Need 

Student Need 

The percentage of all HCPS students achieving advanced or proficient in mathematics, as measured by MSA in 

2008, was 79.8 % (+18.9% above the AMO of 60.9%) compared to 49.2% (-11.7% below the AMO) of special 

education students achieving advanced or proficient. There is a 30.6 percentage point gap in the performance of 

all students and special education students for MSA mathematics. As grade level increases, the performance of 

students with disabilities in the area of mathematics is declining or not making adequate gains; therefore, HCPS is 

at risk of significantly failing to meet the 2014 performance targets of 100% proficiency as mandated in the No 

Child Left Behind Act of 2001. 

Current interventions are not meeting individual needs. A review of current interventions demonstrates a need for 

additional time and alignment with the Voluntary State Curriculum. Progress is monitored using pre/post test 

measures rather than ongoing assessment. 

The following interventions are currently available at the target schools for students in grades 3 – 8: 

Intervention 

Grade 

Levels 

Deerfield Riverside Wm Paca- 

Old Post 

Edgewood 

Middle 

Aberdeen 

Middle 

Fallston 

Middle 

Havre de 

Grace 

Middle 

North 

Harford 

Middle 

# of SWD # of SWD # of SWD # of SWD # of SWD # of SWD # of SWD # of SWD 

Knowing 4 – 8 3 5 40 32 12 

Mathematics 

Navigator 6 – 8 20 11 8 5 8 

Do the Math 3 – 5 23 18 

Ramp-Up 8 30 10 13 9 

MSA Prep 6-8 36 17 

EDM + 30 6 5 25 

minutes 

Totals 3 23 28 126* 53 21 47 29 

# of SWD 

10 24 39 94 106 42 52 59 

w/Math goals 

% of SWD 

w/Math goals 

in Intervention 

30% 95.8% 71.79% 134% 

Intervention to 

SWD w/without 

50% 50% 90.38% 49.15% 

Math goals 



Approach to Student Learning Needs 

SuccessMaker is an integrated learning system developed by the Computer Curriculum Corporation and 

marketed by Pearson Digital Learning. It is a standards-based courseware providing real-time reporting of 

student’s progress for lesson customization and differentiated instruction. SuccessMaker is correlated with 

achievement levels on Maryland state assessments. CAI such as SuccessMaker is interactive and can illustrate a 

concept through attractive animation, sound, and demonstration. Computer-assisted instruction improves 

instruction for students with disabilities because students receive immediate feedback and do not continue to 

practice the wrong skills. Computers capture the students’ attention because the programs are interactive and 

engage the students’ spirit of competitiveness to increase their scores. Additionally computer-assisted instruction 

moves at the students’ pace and usually does not move ahead until they have mastered the skill. Programs 

provide differentiated lessons to challenge students who are at risk, average, or gifted. 

(http://www.k8accesscenter.org) 

Teacher Need 

To support student learning to meet high academic standards, teachers must use multiple sources of information 

to ―assess performance, diagnose specific areas of improvement, design effective classroom lessons, make 

decisions about the school’s goals and professional development opportunities and adapt best practices from 

other schools and teachers‖ (NAESP, 2002, p. 55). Teachers must be knowledgeable about their students’ 

achievement. Students, in turn, profit when they understand their performance in comparison to benchmarks of 

achievement (DuFour & Eaker, 1998, p.175). 

There is a need for teachers to utilize multiple data sources for the planning and delivery of effective instruction. 

Initial training relative to implementing SuccessMaker will focus on the actual use of the tool as a means of 

intervention. Follow-up professional development will emphasize the need for progress monitoring and 

remediation of skill deficits via direct instruction and additional practice opportunities. 

Use the following matrix to indicate who will participate in the professional development. (Check all that 

apply) 

Grade level: __ PreK-2 Gr. 3-5 Gr. 6-8 Gr. 9-12 

Subject area: English Math Science 

Social Studies Foreign Languages Fine Arts/Humanities Special Education 

English Language Learners Health/P.E. Career Prep Other 

Which of the following are also expected to participate in the professional development? 

Principals/ Other 

School Leaders 

Resource Teachers, 

Mentors, Coaches 

Paraprofessionals 

General Educators/ 

Special Educators 

Other 

Will the participants work as members of a group or team? YES NO 

Estimated number of participants: 48 Teachers, 8 Administrators/8 Mentors, 2 District Facilitators, 8 

Paraeducators 

Estimated number of participant groups or teams: School and grade level teams (8 schools/6 grade levels) 



Section 2: Professional Development Outcomes and Indicators 

Teacher Outcome #1 

Teachers will: 

Demonstrate an understanding of the SuccessMaker intervention. 

Indicator(s): 

Teachers will work collaboratively to explore the use of SuccessMaker intervention 

Teachers will employ a data-driven decision-making process to identify specific need areas 

requiring specific direct instruction 

Teachers will monitor student progress toward MSA targets using student progress data 

(SuccessMaker and EDM Unit Assessment skill analysis). 

Teachers will engage in high quality professional development in small group discussions, 

demonstrations and observations and large group presentations 

Teachers will contribute to feedback discussions re: mastery of knowledge and skills 

Student Outcome #1 

Students will: 

Describe represent or apply numbers or their relationships or will estimate or compute using mental 

strategies, paper/pencil or technology. 

Indicator(s): 

Students will participate in a regular schedule of intervention in addition to the core mathematics 

curriculum utilizing SuccessMaker 

Students will enhance their ability to analyze number relations and compute 

Students will extend their ability to apply knowledge of rational numbers and place value 

Students will increase their ability to represent, model, analyze, or solve mathematical or real 

world problems using patterns or functions 

Teacher 

Outcomes 

Outcome 

1 Demonstrate an understanding 

of the SuccessMaker 

intervention. 

Indicator /Data 

Source 

Quarterly Monitoring of 

Student Progress and 

Instructional Supports 

Date 

Observable 

November 2009 

February, April 

and June 2010 

Data 

Collector 

Grant Manager 

Date Data 

Collected 

Student 

Outcomes 

Outcome 

1 Students will describe, 

represent, or apply numbers or 

their relationships or will 

estimate or compute using 

mental strategies, paper/pencil 

or technology 


Source 

Analyze number relations 

and compute / 

Apply knowledge of 

rational numbers and 

place value 

Weekly progress 

monitoring using 

SuccessMaker outcomes 

Achievement on MSA 

Date 

Observable 

Begin date no 

later than 

September 30, 

2009 

Data 

Collector 

Math lab 

paraprofessional/ 

Co-teach Math 

Teams 

Date Data 

Collected 

Section 3: Professional Learning Activities and Follow-Up 

A comprehensive series of professional development will provide general and special educators with 

detailed information regarding use of SuccessMaker including; background information, research 



supports, process and procedures for implementation as an intervention for SWD in the area of 

mathematics 

Introductory Training: Accessing and using SuccessMaker 

Data driven decision making – progress monitoring and remediation of skill deficits 

Incorporating practice opportunities embedded in the core curriculum 

Activities 

Description 

Single Date 

Introductory Training By September 15, 2009 

Date(s) 

Ongoing 

Start/Stop Date 

Data-driven decision making November PD day 2009 

Ongoing monthly planning 

August 09 – September 

2010 

Incorporating practice opportunities embedded in the core curriculum January PD day 2010 

Ongoing planning & 

lesson implementation 

August 09 – September 

2010 

Large Group 

□ Action Research 

Section 4: Evaluation Plan 

Discussion/ study 

Groups 

Review of student 

work & planning 

instructional 

improvement 

□ Demonstrations 

Preparation of new 

instructional 

materials 

Professional Development Plan page 6 

□ Observation of 

participants 

□ Other 

□ Feedback on 

mastery 

―How has student achievement been influenced by the implemented activities?‖ Evidence collected will include 

longitudinal student achievement data (self-comparison); achievement data from the current year for students with 

disabilities in the same school (within school patterns) and achievement data for students with disabilities from 

participating schools (cross- school comparison). 

Section 5: Budget 

Budget Category, Direct Costs 

I. Personnel $2,269.00 

A. Staff (e.g., PD coordinator, principal, curriculum resource teacher) 

Planning stipends to 2 SuccessMaker trainers: 18 hours @ $20/hour x 2 = $720.00 

Fixed costs $720.00 x .07998 = $58.00 

Substitute coverage for 2 trainers: $91.50/day x 3 days x 2 trainers = $549.00 

Fixed costs $549.00 x .07998 = $44.00 

B. Consultants (e.g., presenters, facilitators, evaluator) 

SuccessMaker training and consultation fee – one year $2,500.00


$1,000.00 Direct cost $1,500.00 In-kind partnership with Title One 

II. Stipends/substitutes (for participants) $32,376.00 

Provide substitutes for staff participation in SuccessMaker training (.5 day training) 

$45.75/.5 day x 48 teachers = $2,196.00 

Fixed costs $2,196.00 x .07998 = $176.00 

Provide substitutes for data team planning and analysis 

$91.50/day x 3 substitutes x .5 day per month x 10 months x 8 schools = $10,980.00 

Fixed costs $10,980.00 x .07998 = $878.00 

Provide stipends for planning for Math Co-teaching Teams 

$20/hour x 2 hours/month x 10 months x 48 teachers = $19,200.00 

Fixed costs $19,200.00 x .07998 = $1,536.00 

III. 

Travel 

A. Personnel Travel 

B. Consultant Travel 

IV. Facilities, Equipment, Materials $3,145.00 

Math Tools Grades 3 – 12 $2,057.00 

ISBN 978-1-412957-82- 3 

$38.95 per book x 6 per school x 8 schools = $1,869.60 + 10% S/H $187.00 

SuccessMaker site license $8.50 per seat $1,088.00 

RES 8 seats = $68.00 Middle schools: 20 seats per school x 5 schools = $850.00 

DES 8 seats = $68.00 

WPOP 12 seats = $102.00 

V. Communications 

VI. Other Costs Fixed costs $2,692.00 

Total Direct Costs $ 40,482.00 



Title of the activity or program: Improving Student Outcomes by Building Teacher Capacity – 

Boundless Learning 

Beginning and end dates: August 2009 – September 2010 

Intended Participants: Special Education and General Education Teachers, School Administrators and 

Paraeducators 




In-Kind Costs: 





Telephone: (410) 588 - 5246 


Fax: (410) 638 - 4313 











Roger.plunkett@hcps.org 

Sarah Morris, Supervisor of Mathematics 

Sarah.morris@hcps.org 

Susan Austin, Assistant Supervisor of Secondary Special Education 

Susan.austin@hcps.org 

Mary Lentowski, Assistant Supervisor of Elementary Special Education 

Mary.lentowski@hcps.org 



Plan Summary 

The goal of this initiative is to promote maximum achievement for all students by combining the best principles of 

classroom management, peer assisted learning, and differentiated instruction into a comprehensive system 

focusing on accountability, measurable achievement, and improved access to the general education curriculum 

for diverse learners. Changing instructional practice is at the heart of improving learning outcomes for 

underserved and underachieving students. An emerging body of literature supports the use of learning 

communities and teacher collaboration as the kind of professional development that leads to such transformation 

(Grossman, Wineburg, & Woolworth, 2001). 


Student Need 

High motivation and engagement in learning have consistently been linked to reduced dropout rates and 

increased levels of student success (Kushman, 2000). Teachers are challenged daily to actively involve 

students in the learning process. By the time students reach middle school, lack of interest in schoolwork 

becomes increasingly apparent in more and more students, and by high school, as dropout rates attest, too 

many students are not sufficiently motivated to succeed in school (Lumsden, 1994). Such considerations are 

imperative to improved achievement for diverse student populations. 










Boundless Learning is an approach designed to improve teacher performance in co-teaching, differentiated 

instruction, technology integration and peer-assisted learning. Boundless Learning protocols and strategies are 

designed to: 

Create a positive learning environment; 

Integrate a wide-range of technology tools; 

Establish structured, high performing student learning teams; 

Increase student engagement and self-regulated learning; 

Implement effective co-teaching practices; 

Use data to identify goals, monitor progress, set improvement targets; and 

Celebrate accomplishments. 



Teacher Need 

Building teacher capacity to implement effective instruction is critical to student success. Professional 

development and on-going support provide teachers with access to the knowledge and skills essential to quality 

teaching instruction; data collection and analysis; problem-solving; lesson planning and implementation. This 

on-going professional development is necessary to develop and enhance instructional practice. Opportunities for 

collaboration, reflection and evaluation are components of this proposal. Teacher training related to the 

instructional environment, an explicit cycle of instruction, increased student engagement and the use of data to 

monitor student progress are priorities. 

Use the following matrix to indicate who will participate in the professional development. (Check all the 

apply) 

Grade level: __ PreK-2 Gr. 3-5 Gr. 6-8 __Gr. 9-12 












Other 


Estimated number of participants: 48 Teachers, 8 Administrators, 5 Instructional Facilitators , 8 Paraeducators 

Estimated number of participant groups or teams: 8 




Demonstrate an increased understanding of a comprehensive, technology-supported approach designed 

to promote collaboration between general and special educators facilitating access to and success in the 

general education curriculum among students with diverse needs, including students with disabilities. 

Indicator(s): 

Teachers will utilize an explicit instructional delivery system with evidence-based strategies that 

support instructional and assistive technology integration 

Teachers will engage in high quality professional development in small group discussions, webinars, 

demonstrations and observations and large group presentations 






Display an increased ability to demonstrate the processes of mathematics by making connections and 

applying reasoning to solve and communicate their findings. 

Indicator(s) 

Students will apply a variety of concepts processes and skills to solve problems 

Students will justify ideas or solutions with mathematical concepts or proofs 

Students will present mathematical ideas using words, symbols, visual displays, or technology 

Teacher 

Outcomes 

Outcome 

1 Demonstrate an increased 

understanding of 

comprehensive, technologysupported 

approach designed 

to promote collaboration 

between general and special 

educators and facilitate access 

to and success in the general 

education curriculum among 

students with diverse needs, 

including students with 

disabilities. 


Source 




Fidelity Checks 

Observation Feedback 

Date 

Observable 

November 2009 


and June 2010 

1 st and 2 nd 

semester fidelity 

checks 

Data 

Collector 

Grant Manager 

CTE /JHU 

Date Data 

Collected 

Student 

Outcomes 

Outcome 

1 Students will display an 

increased ability to 

demonstrate the processes of 

mathematics by making 

connections and applying 

reasoning to solve and 

communicate their findings. 


Source 

Apply a variety of 

concepts processes and 

skills to solve problems 

Justify ideas or solutions 

with mathematical 

concepts or proofs 

Students will mathematical 

ideas using words, 

symbols, visual displays, 

or technology 

HCPS Unit Assessments 


Date 

Observable 

September 1, 

2009 

Data 

Collector 

School Data 

Teams 

Date Data 

Collected 


Professional development will provide general education teachers, special educators and school administrators 

with explicit training related to the planning and implementation of instructional strategies focusing on and 

providing a structured cycle of instruction, a framework for student and teacher learning. Differentiated instruction 

and effective co-teaching teams are the primary focus of training. Training incorporates face – to – face and 

webinar approaches to professional development. Trainings are differentiated for administrators and teachers. 

Webinars: 

21 st Century Co-Teaching: What does it look like? 

Universal Design 

Monitoring Student Engagement 



Advancing Co-Teaching Through the Use of Technology 

ELC Boosters 

5 to 10 minute topic specific podcasts, articles or videos related to webinars focus 

Face to Face Institutes (Tailored to needs) 

Scheduling for Co-Teaching Success 

Problem-solving 

Data – driven Decision Making 

Summer Institute: Building 21 st Century Learning Environments 

Activities 

Description 

See Project Timeline submitted by CTE 

Single Date 

Date(s) 

Ongoing 


□ Large Group 



Groups 



instructional 

improvement 


Preparation of new 

instructional 

materials 

Observation of 

participants 

Other : Electronic 

Learning Communities 

& Webinars 

Feedback on 

mastery 


―How has student achievement been influenced by the implemented activities Evidence collected will include 


disabilities in the same school (within school patterns) and achievement data for students with disabilities from 


Section 5: Budget (see Appendix page A9 for CTE Draft Budget Proposal) 




Stipends to BL District Facilitators $20/hour x 6 hours per month x 10 months x 2 District Facilitators = 

$2,400.00 

Fixed costs = $2,400.00 x .07998 = $192.00 

B. Consultants (e.g., presenters, facilitators, evaluator) $56,500.00 

Contracted professional development, related planning and implementation of Co-Teaching – Fellows 

$54,000.00 

Contracted professional development for RippleEffects software for students and teachers 

$2,500.00 




Provide stipends to instructional staff for Boundless Learning/ Co-Teaching Fellows training 

$20/per hour x 4 hours x 48 participants = $3,840.00 

Fixed costs = $3,840.00 x .07998 = $307.00 

Provide substitutes for instructional staff for Boundless Learning/Co-Teaching Fellows initial training 

$91.50/day x 24 days = $2,196.00 

Fixed costs = $2,196.00 x .07998 = $176.00 

Stipends for Summer Institute 2 days 

$120/per day x 2 days x 48 participants = $11,520.00 

Fixed costs = $11,520.00 x .07998 = $922.00 

III. Travel $2,490.00 



Mileage CTE Trainers $990.00 

Airfare and accommodations for RippleEffects trainer $1,500.00 


Boundless Learning Implementation Resources $230.00 per class x 50 classes= 11,500.00 

Tool License for Teacher Compass and Co-Teaching Management Tool for 

Up to 100 participants $5,500.00 

Five RippleEffects computer student software licenses for 5 schools $2399.00 x 5 schools = $11,995.00 

Staff coaching software for 10 educators per school $3500.00 x 5 schools – 20% discount = $14,450.00 

Software S/H $450.00 



Total Costs $123,988.00 



Project Timeline 

August 2009-September 2010 

August 2009 

Task F2F Online 

District Facilitator Meeting 

x 

Principal Meeting 

x 

Sp Ed Director/Associate Sup. Meeting 

x 

IT Meeting 

x 

Webinar # 1 BL 

X 

Webinar # 1 Lead 21 

X 

September 2009 


Teacher Training: Co-Teaching Mgmt. Tool 

x 

Monthly Status Check 

x 

Quarterly Status Check 

x 

PD Booster #1 BL 

x 

PD Booster # 1 L21 

x 

October 2009 



x 


x 


x 

Webinar # 2 Lead 21 

x 


x 

November 2009 



x 

PD Booster #3 L21 

x 

Ripple Effects Training Preparation 

x 


x 

December 2009 


Marilyn Friend Follow Up Discussion 

x 


x 


x 


x 


x 

January 2010 



Webinar # 3Lead 21 




x 

x 

x 

x 

x 



February 2010 



x 


x 


x 

March 2010 


Webinar #4 BL 

x 

Webinar #4 Lead 21 

x 


x 


x 


x 


x 

April 2010 



x 


x 


x 

May 2010 


Summer Institute Preparation 

x 


x 


x 


x 

June 2010 


Summer Institute 

x 


x 


x 

July 2010 



x 

August 2010 



x 


x 


x 



Evaluation Report 

x 

End of Year Meeting 

x 



Title of the activity or program: Improving Student Outcomes by Building Teacher Capacity – Co-Teaching 

Seminars with Marilyn Friend 

Intended Participants: General Education Teachers, Special Educators and School Administrators 

Beginning and end dates: 




In-Kind Costs: 





Telephone: (410) 588 - 5246 


Fax: (410) 638 - 4313 









Roger.plunkett@hcps.org 



Jackie Tarbert, Coordinator of Professional Development 

Jacqueline.tarbert@hcps.org 

Plan Summary 

General education teachers, special education teachers and school administrators from the eight target schools 

will participate in professional development training with Dr. Marilyn Friend. Focus areas include skills for 



collaboration, inclusive school practices, shared problem solving, and interpersonal communication. Two sessions 

are scheduled one for co-teaching teams and another for administrators. The training aligns with and extends the 

professional development related to Boundless Learning. 

Marilyn Friend, Ph.D., has spent her career as a general education teacher, special education teacher, teacher 

educator, and staff developer. She is currently Professor of Education in the Department of Specialized Education 

Services at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro where she teaches coursework on inclusive practices 

and collaboration among service providers. She also serves on the Board of the Teacher Education Division of the 

Council for Exceptional Children. She has consulted with school professionals nationally and internationally (more 

than 1000 presentations and projects in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Asia) as they collaborate to 

educate their students, assisting them to form productive and efficient work teams, to learn the best ways to 

manage awkward or adversarial conversations, and to communicate effectively with parents. 


Student Need 

Delivery of high quality, rigorous instruction is inconsistent due to varying degree of mathematics content 

knowledge of general and special educators and the implementation of co-planning and co-teaching practices. 

Refined instructional practice is necessary to improve student achievement outcomes for SWD in the co-taught 

math class setting. 










Across schools and levels, as more students are served in co-teaching environments, student achievement on 

state assessments improved utilizing a comprehensive approach for academic intervention using co-teaching as a 

high-leverage strategy. Qualitative measures included student portfolio assessment, student enrollment in upperlevel 

classes in grades 10—12, and ongoing reflections of students and teachers who participated in the classes. 

A focus on teacher-student relationships, pedagogy, and engaging instructional practices created dynamic 

classrooms where all students could flourish. (Co-Teaching as a School System Strategy for Increased Student 

Achievement: Presentation to CEC 2009 Conference – Patricia Daley and Patricia Mackey (HCPSS)) 

Teacher Need 

School professionals have complex and demanding responsibilities complicated by increasing student diversity. 

Co-teaching enables educators to readily determine students’ needs, deliver instruction and assess student 

learning more efficiently by tailoring learning activities to the exceptional needs of their students. Co-teaching can 

significantly and positively assist educators meet the needs of struggling students. 



Use the following matrix to indicate who will participate in the professional development. (Check all the 

apply) 

Grade level: PreK-2 Gr. 3-5 Gr. 6-8 Gr. 9-12 












Other 


Estimated number of participants: 48 general education and special education teachers, 8 mentors, and 8 school 

administrators – 10 central office staff 

Estimated number of participant groups or teams: school, grade and content level teams (6 per building) 




Demonstrate an increased understanding of co-teaching as means of support to SWD in heterogeneous 

learning environments utilizing collaboration and cooperation among general education and special 

education teachers. 

Teachers will utilize shared and related instructional responsibilities including; instructional planning, 

delivery, and evaluating student outcomes 

Teachers will enhance and refine access to the general education curriculum using effective models 

of co-teaching 




Display an increased ability to demonstrate the processes of mathematics by making connections and 

applying reasoning to solve and communicate their findings. 

Indicator(s) 

Students will apply a variety of concepts processes and skills to solve problems 

Students will justify ideas or solutions with mathematical concepts or proofs 

Students will present mathematical ideas using words, symbols, visual displays, or technology 



Teacher 

Outcomes 

Outcome 

1 Demonstrate an increased 

understanding of co-teaching 

as means of support to SWD 

in heterogeneous learning 

environments utilizing 

collaboration and cooperation 

among general education and 

special education teachers. 


Source 




Fidelity Checks 

Observation Feedback 

Date 

Observable 

November 2009 


and June 2010 

1 st and 2 nd 

semester fidelity 

checks 

Data 

Collector 

Grant Manager 

CTE /JHU 

Date Data 

Collected 

Student 

Outcomes 

Outcome 

1 Students will display an 

increased ability to 

demonstrate the processes of 

mathematics by making 

connections and applying 

reasoning to solve and 

communicate their findings. 


Source 

Apply a variety of 

concepts processes and 

skills to solve problems 

Justify ideas or solutions 

with mathematical 

concepts or proofs 

Students will mathematical 

ideas using words, 

symbols, visual displays, 

or technology 

HCPS Unit Assessments 


Date 

Observable 

September 1, 

2009 

Data 

Collector 

School Data 

Teams 

Date Data 

Collected 


Activities 

Description 

Presentation by Marilyn Friend to teachers, administrators from the grant schools re: Effective Co- 

Teaching Teams: planning and implementing effective instruction and problem-solving strategies 

– emphasis on co-teaching in the math content 

Presentation by Marilyn Friend to HCPS administrators re: Administrative Issues Related to 

Structuring and Supporting Effective Co-Teaching Environments: scheduling for co-teaching, 

planning and implementing effective instruction, student groupings, and problem-solving strategies 

– Panel discussion ―What works in Co-Teaching?‖ Grant school administrators 

Large Group 




groups 



instructional 

improvement 


□ Preparation of new 

instructional 

materials 

Professional Development Plan page 19 

Single Date 

December 9,2009 

Observation of 

participants 

Other: Guest 

Speaker 

Date(s) 

February 25 and 26,2010 

Feedback on 

mastery 

Ongoing 


―How has student achievement been influenced by the implemented activities Evidence collected will include 


disabilities in the same school (within school patterns) and achievement data for students with disabilities from



Section 5: Budget 




B. Consultants (e.g., presenters, facilitators, evaluator) $7,000.00 

Speaker: Marilyn Friend – Co-Teaching Seminar for AYP Grant Co-Teaching Teams (December 2009) 

Generating Systemic Change – Co-Teaching for School Administrators (February 2010) 


Provide substitutes to instructional staff participating in Marilyn Friend Presentations 

$91.50/day x 48 substitutes x 1 day = $4,692.00 

Fixed costs $4,692.00 x .07998 = $878.00 

Provide stipends for planning for Math Co-teaching Teams 

$20/hour x 1 hours/month x 10 months x 48 teachers = $9,600.00 

Fixed costs $9,600.00 x .07998 = $768.00 

III. Travel $1,090.00 



Roundtrip airfare $300.00 

Overnight accommodations $440.00 

Meals: $150.00 

Taxi/Rental: $200.00 


110 copies of Co-Teach by Marilyn Friend x $25.00 ($2,750.00) + 10% S/H ($275.00) 



Total Costs $26,227.00 



LOGIC MODEL 

PROBLEM SUBPROBLEM(S) ACTIVITIES OUTPUT MEASURES OUTCOME MEASURES 

SWD at three elementary & five 

middle schools participating in 

Math MSA have not met with a 

consistent level of success and 

the performance gap between 

general and special education 

student achievement continues 

to persist and widen. 

Teachers are in need of an 

increased understanding of 

comprehensive, technologysupported 

approach designed 

to promote collaboration 

between general and special 

educators and facilitate access 

to and success in the general 

education curriculum among 

SWD. 

Goal(s) 

Goal #1: HCPS will increase the 

knowledge of general and special 

educators at the targeted schools 

through the regular delivery of highquality, 

targeted professional 

development and job-embedded 

coaching related to effective 

differentiated instruction utilizing 

Boundless Learning. 

Goal #2: HCPS will implement 

SuccessMaker as a mathematics 

intervention program at the targeted 

schools to supplement core instruction 

and improve student performance on 

the Mathematics MSA. 

Goal #3: HCPS will increase the 

capacity of general and special 

educators at the targeted schools to 

provide high-quality, differentiated, 

and rigorous instruction through an 

effective system of co-planning and 

Delivery of high quality 

rigorous instruction is 

inconsistent due to varying 

degree of: 

The need for teacher-focused 

interventions re: co-teaching, 

DI, technology integration and 

peer-assisted learning. 

Implementation of co-planning 

and co-teaching practices. 

Use of an integrated 

standards-based courseware 

that provides real-time 

reporting of student’s progress 

for lesson customization and 

differentiated Math instruction 

correlated with achievement 

levels on Maryland state 

assessments. 

Objective(s) 

Increase the capacity of 

general and special educators 

to provide high quality, 

differentiated and rigorous 

instruction through an 

effective system utilizing high 

quality content. 

Increase the percentage of 

SWD achieving AYP through 

the use of instructional and 

other accommodations, 

supplementary aids and 

services, research-based 

instructional strategies, and 

modifications to the delivery 

and response to the general 

education. 

Improve models for delivering 

instruction, such as coteaching 

to SWD that promote 

access to the general 

curriculum and enable 

students to meet state 

standards. 

Professional 

Development: 

Boundless 

Learning 

Co-Teaching 

Fellows 

SuccessMaker 

Number of teachers who participate in 

professional development activities 

Number of hours of professional 

development offered 

Number of hours of observation, 

coaching and feedback for fidelity of 

implementation of Boundless Learning 

and HCPS curriculum 

Number of students participating in the 

co-taught Math classes 

Number of students completing 10 or 

more hours of SuccessMaker 

Comparison of students completing 10 

or more hours of SuccessMaker and 

proficiency on MSA 

Short Term 

By the end of the grant, 

HCPS will increase the 

percentage of SWD scoring 

proficient on the 

Mathematics MSA. 

Long Term 

The project manager will 

report results of the project 

initiative to the HCPS 

leadership to determine the 

efficacy of the project 

based on collected data. 

Recommendations will be 

made to HCPS Leadership 

regarding the sustainability 

of the project and possible 

extension to other core 

content areas. 

co-teaching. 



Table of Contents 

Project Narrative Pages 1- 20 

Extent of Need Pages 1-9 

Goals and Objectives Pages 9 - 11 

Plan of Operation Pages 11 - 15 

Evaluation Plan Page 15 

Management Plan/Key Personnel Page 16 

Management Worksheet Pages 16 - 17 

Project Time Line Page 18 

Integration with Educational Reform Pages 19 - 20 

Future Plans Page 20 

Budget Narrative Page B 1 

Line Item Listing of Budgetary Expenses 

Pages B 2 – B6 

C-125 Pages B 7 

Appendix Page A 1 – A 32 

Letters of Support 

Boundless Learning – CTE Co-Teaching Fellows 

Pages A 2 – A3 

Pages A 4– A5 

Collaboration Look fors Page A 6 

HCPS Co-Teaching Fellows Plan 

CTE Projected Budget 


Page A9 

Collaboration Profile Self Assessment Page A 10 

RippleEffects 

NCTM Creating and Selecting Interventions 

Differentiating Math Instruction 

SuccessMaker 

School Profiles 

Pages A11 – A13 





Signature Pages Pages AA 1 – AA 2 

Assurances Page AA 1 -AA 2


Project Narrative 

Extent of Need 

Harford County Public Schools (HCPS) is highly invested in developing and implementing targeted programs for 

students with disabilities who demonstrate a pattern of limited math proficiency as measured by the Maryland State 

Assessments. HCPS is cognizant of the growing achievement gap in mathematics between students in general 

education and students receiving special education services. Systemwide students with disabilities continue to 

demonstrate limited gains toward math proficiency. Of particular concern is the downward trend for students with 

disabilities as they progress from elementary to middle school grade levels. 

As a result of the 2008 Maryland School Assessment (MSA), three categories of schools were identified for eligibility in 

the SFY2010 State Discretionary Grant (SFY 2010 AYP Grant for Elementary and Middle Schools only) to address the 

State improvement priority for achievement--specifically for special education students--to promote improved 

achievement for these students to ensure they and their school system meet AYP for reading and mathematics. 

Category 1: 

Category 2: 

Category 3: 

Met AYP in All Subgroup Areas Except Special Education 

Met AYP in Special Education Through Safe Harbor and Met AYP in All Other Subgroup Areas 

[MSDE used an unduplicated count and counted schools with both qualifiers as in Category 2.] 

Did not meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in schools that have Special Education 


Of the eight HCPS schools eligible for participation in the content area of mathematics, six schools are considered 

Category 1 and two are Category 2. One of the eight schools is a Title I setting. School Profiles are located on pages 

A21 – A32 of the Appendix. 


3. The percentage of all HCPS students achieving advanced or proficient in mathematics, as measured by MSA in 

2008, was 79.8 % (+18.9% above the AMO of 60.9%) compared to 49.2% (-11.7% below the AMO) of special 

education students achieving advanced or proficient. There is a 30.6 percentage point gap in the performance of all 

students and special education students for MSA mathematics. 

4. As grade level increases, the performance of students with disabilities in the area of mathematics is declining or not 

making adequate gains; therefore, HCPS is at risk of significantly failing to meet the 2014 performance targets of 

100% proficiency as mandated in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. 

1


Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) is designed to ensure continuous improvement each year toward the goal of 100% 

proficiency in 2014. The State of Maryland holds schools, school systems, and the state accountable for adequate yearly 

progress of all children enrolled for a full academic year. If our end goal is to improve student achievement to meet AYP, 

then a critical intermediate goal is to determine where each of our students is in relation to the state content standards. 

While the logic is clear, most schools do not collect evidence of or for learning on an ongoing basis. For this process to 

occur schools must understand the AYP targets, have a defined process for how teachers assess for learning and 

monitor student progress, and determine how and what data is used to adjust instruction based on student needs. 

To accomplish these ends there are specific needs: 

1. To understand and communicate student achievement targets; 

2. To engage staff in analyzing state assessment data to determine whether there were any gaps between the AYP 

targets and their performance; 

3. To evaluate school processes to ensure that teachers understand the target and have aligned their teaching and 

assessments to those standards they are responsible for teaching ; 

4. To structure time to regularly examine student work to inform instruction; 

5. To have teachers collect and analyze formative assessment data to monitor student performance on the content 

standard indicators on a daily basis; and 

6. To keep the school focused on student achievement goals as the primary work of staff (School Improvement in 

Maryland, http://mdk12.org/process/index.html). 

The overall goal of the grant initiative is to promote maximum achievement for all students by combining the best 

principles of classroom management, peer assisted learning, and differentiated instruction into a comprehensive 

system focusing on accountability, measurable achievement, and improved access to the general education curriculum 

for diverse learners. Changing instructional practice is at the heart of improving learning outcomes for underserved and 

underachieving students. To truly improve teaching, schools need to transform their culture of practice from one that 

assumes that barriers to learning reside in the students to one that expects teachers to collectively assume 

responsibility for making sure all students learn. An emerging body of literature supports the use of learning 

communities and teacher collaboration as the kind of professional development that leads to such transformation 

(Grossman, Wineburg, & Woolworth, 2001). 

Building teacher capacity to implement effective instruction is critical to the success of this proposal. Professional 

development and on-going support provide teachers with access to the knowledge and skills essential to quality 

teaching instruction; data collection and analysis; problem-solving; lesson planning and implementation. 

On-going professional development is necessary to develop and enhance instructional practice. Opportunities for 

collaboration, reflection and evaluation are components of this proposal. Teacher training related to the instructional 

environment, an explicit cycle of instruction, increased student engagement and the use of data to monitor student 

progress are priorities for this initiative. Professional development addressing the specifics of building and sustaining 

collaborative co-teach partnerships and high performing learning teams are also an emphasis. 

High motivation and engagement in learning have consistently been linked to reduced dropout rates and increased 

levels of student success (Kushman, 2000). Teachers are challenged daily to actively involve students in the learning 

process. By the time students reach middle school, lack of interest in schoolwork becomes increasingly apparent in 

more and more students, and by high school, as dropout rates attest, too many students are not sufficiently motivated 

to succeed in school (Lumsden, 1994). Such considerations are imperative to improved achievement for diverse 

student populations. 

2


A systematic and structured approach is necessary to address continuous improvement for all students. Training, 

implementation and monitoring of a consistent and effective instructional model are essential to student success. 

Additionally, there is a need to expand and enhance interventions available to student with disabilities in the area of 

mathematics. 

Current interventions are not meeting individual needs. A review of current interventions demonstrates a need for 

additional time and alignment with the Voluntary State Curriculum. Progress measures need to reflect ongoing 

assessment and achievement over time. Interventions that reference state standards or targets for obtaining proficiency 

on state assessments appear to be a means of directing instructional emphasis on specific areas of need. 

The following interventions are currently available at the targeted schools for students in grades 3 – 8 during the school 

day: 

Intervention 

Grade 

Levels 

Deerfield Riverside Wm Paca- 

Old Post 

Edgewood 

Middle 

Aberdeen 

Middle 

Fallston 

Middle 

Havre de 

Grace 

Middle 

North 


Middle 

# of SWD # of SWD # of SWD # of SWD # of SWD # of SWD # of SWD # of SWD 

Knowing 4 - 8 3 5 40 32 12 

Mathematics 

Navigator 6 – 8 20 11 8 5 8 

Do the Math 3 – 5 23 18 

Ramp-Up 8 30 10 13 9 

MSA Prep 6-8 36 17 

EDM + 30 6 5 25 

minutes 

Total s 3 23 28 126 53 21 47 29 

# of SWD 

10 24 39 94 106 42 52 59 

w/Math goals 

% of SWD 

w/Math goals 

in Intervention 

30% 95.8% 71.79% 134% 50% 50% 90.38% 49.15% 

Data: 

2008 Maryland Report Card – HCPS AYP Trend Data: 

Subgroup 



AYP Met 

AYP Not Met 

2008 Maryland Report Card – HCPS Mathematics MSA Grades 3, 5 and 8 


Special Education All Grades 8.7% (1285 of 2528) 40.5% (1023 of 2528) 50.8% (220 of 2528) 




% Advanced % Proficient % Basic AMO Gap for 2008 -11.7 

3









Scoring Basic 

Grade 3 

% of SWD 

Scoring Basic 

Grade 4 

% of SWD 

Scoring Basic 

Grade 5 


Deerfield Elementary 2 Met Y 60% 50% 75% 

William Paca/Old Post Road Elementary 2 Met Y 53.3% 37% 80.8% 







Scoring Basic 

Grade 6 

4 

% of SWD 

Scoring Basic 

Grade 7 

% of SWD 

Scoring Basic 

Grade 8 







See Table 1 for project school demographic data and Table 2 for MSA profiles (trend data) for participating schools. 

Table 1. Project School Demographics (one per participating school) 

School Name: Riverside Elementary 

School Enrollment : 504 

Schoolwide Number/Percentage FARMS N= 214 42.5% 

Schoolwide Number/Percentage of Students with Disabilities N= 77 15.3% 

Grade Span PK – 5 


School Name: Deerfield Elementary 




Grade Span K – 5 


School Name: William Paca - Old Post Road Elementary 

School Enrollment : 1,020 



Grade Span K – 5



School Name: Edgewood Middle 



Schoolwide Number/Percentage of Students with Disabilities N= 133 13% 

Grade Span 6 - 8 


School Name: Aberdeen Middle 






School Name: Fallston Middle 






School Name: North Harford Middle 






School Name: Havre de Grace Middle 





5


Table 2. MSA Profile of Schools Participating in the Project 

School 

Name 

or Number 

Riverside 

Elementary 

Deerfield 

Elementary 

William 

Paca/Old 

Post Road 

Elementary 

Edgewood 

Middle 

Aberdeen 

Middle 

Fallston 

Middle 

AYP 

MET or NOT MET for 

Special Education 

Reading or Math* 

2005 2006 2007 2008 

Met Met Not 

Not 

Met 

Met 

Not 

Met 

Project Focus – Reading or Math (Circle) 

Total Number of Students Number 

in Special Education of Special Education 

Subgroup 

Students Proficient 

2005 2006 2007 2008 

6 

2005 2006 2007 2008 

Percent 

of Special Education 

Students Proficient 

2005 2006 2007 2008 

63 58 59 52 31 34 29 20 49.2% 58.6% 49.1% 38.4% 

Met * Met* Met* 56 45 44 32 13 14 10 12 23.2% 31.1% 22.7% 37.5% 

Met Met Met* Met* 61 62 73 68 20 23 17 26 32.7% 37% 23.2% 38.2% 

Not 

Met 

Not 

Met 

Not 

Met 

Met Met Not 

Met 

Not 

Met 

Not 

Met 

Met Met Met Not 

Met 

195 157 155 127 18 23 22 22 9% 14.6% 14.1% 17.3% 

225 252 237 189 24 42 50 47 10.6% 16.6% 21% 24.8% 

122 115 112 94 30 27 32 29 24.5% 23.5% 28.5% 30.8% 

North 

Met Met Met Not 151 149 156 131 45 36 45 27 29.8% 24.2% 28.8% 20.6% 


Met 

Middle 

Havre de Met Met Met Not 102 95 92 89 11 22 15 20 10.7% 23.2% 16.3% 22.4% 

Grace 

Met 

Middle 

*Please asterisk all scores that met AYP through Safe Harbor 

Preliminary Needs Assessment: 

When considering the implementation of this initiative HCPS considered the following questions and responses: 

Does the available student data suggest the need for change in instructional practice or type of intervention? 

Student data from the project schools is indicative of inconsistent progress toward AYP as measured on Math MSA. 

SWD participating in targeted interventions in the area of math do not appear to be progressing toward proficiency 

as measured on pre/post test comparisons. Of particular concern is the need for an intervention aligned with or 

correlated to the VSC. SuccessMaker provides such alignment and a projected predicator of MSA proficiency. 

Access to instruction for SWD is impacted by high rates of suspension referrals especially at the middle school level. 

Literature review supports the premise that active and meaningful student engagement increases achievement and 

reduces the number of discipline/suspension incidents. 

What level of support is needed to improve student achievement outcomes as measured on state and local 

assessments? The team reviewing Boundless Learning determined teachers are in need of tools and resources to 

continually navigate a wide array of needs that must be met for all students to have appropriate access to the 

curriculum. These tools and resources are meant as a means to enhance daily practice and provide uniformity in a 

common system of instructional delivery and expectations across grade levels and/or content areas. The strategies 

employed are supplemental to targeted interventions. 

When considering instructional supports/interventions for students with disabilities the following criteria from the 

Maryland’s Response to Intervention Framework are discussed : 

o Scientifically-based evidence of effectiveness: The effectiveness of instructional interventions are


justified based on scientific research that involves the application of rigorous, systematic, and objective 

procedures to obtain reliable and valid knowledge on the instructional interventions. The major 

components of the instructional intervention include instructional methods and practices that have been 

verified through scientifically-based research. The research that documents improvement in student 

achievement has presented convincing evidence that the observed results were based on the 

instructional intervention. 

o Replicability: The instructional intervention effectiveness has been demonstrated through multiple 

investigations in numerous locations with low-achieving students. 

o Correlation with or adaptability to Maryland Voluntary Curriculum and Core Learning Goals. 

o Progress Monitoring to: 

- Identify the student's current level of performance 

- Establish educational goals for improving learning outcomes 

- Measure the student's academic performance on a regular basis 

Research demonstrates that there is no single best approach to mathematics intervention. Students require various 

modes of representation of concepts with opportunities for integrating real world applications. Explicit instruction is 

essential to expanding the language and structures of mathematics (Miller and Hudson, 2006). Computer-assisted 

instruction (CAI) is a supplemental approach to mathematics intervention. While outcomes of studies of CAI are highly 

variable, most studies do find positive effects and none significantly favored a control group. Outcomes are usually 

stronger for computations than for concepts or problem-solving. Because of the hierarchical nature of math 

computations, CAI has an advantage due to its ability to assess students and provide them with individualized practice 

on skills that they have the prerequisites to learn but have not yet learned (Slavin and Lake, 2007). CAI such as 

SuccessMaker is interactive and can illustrate a concept through attractive animation, sound, and demonstration. 

Computer-assisted instruction improves instruction for students with disabilities because students receive immediate 

feedback and do not continue to practice the wrong skills. Computers capture the students’ attention because the 

programs are interactive and engage the students’ spirit of competitiveness to increase their scores. Additionally 

computer-assisted instruction moves at the students’ pace and usually does not move ahead until they have mastered 

the skill. Programs provide differentiated lessons to challenge students who are at risk, average, or gifted. 

(http://www.k8accesscenter.org) 

What types of supports are necessary to enhance teacher knowledge and student achievement? 

o The TEAMS Protocol, five steps to effective collaboration, guides special and general educators 

through the process of Translating beliefs into a shared vision, Establishing regular communication 

cycles, Attaining an Advance Plan, Making time to communicate and evaluate, and Sticking to the plan. 

Collaborative partnerships complete supporting documents to plan and execute instruction and evaluate 

student learning. 

7


How are teacher and student progress toward outcomes measured and monitored? There are three specific goals 

related to this initiative: 

o Improved Student Performance using school improvement targets (Student compass and Teacher 

Compass); 

o Collection of Data to Create Representative Sample; and 

o Improved Quality by means of continuously monitoring fidelity of implementation and evaluating student 

progress continuously related to program implementation and services delivered to students. 

(See: http://cte.jhu.edu/aboutus_program2.html) 

Boundless Learning is an approach designed to improve teacher performance in co-teaching, differentiated instruction, 

technology integration and peer-assisted learning. Boundless Learning protocols and strategies are designed to: 

Create a positive learning environment; 

Integrate a wide-range of technology tools; 

Establish structured, high performing student learning teams; 

Increase student engagement and self-regulated learning; 

Implement effective co-teaching practices; 

Use data to identify goals, monitor progress, set improvement targets; and 

Celebrate accomplishments. 

Boundless Learning employs a comprehensive series of consulting, training, technical assistance, and evaluation 

procedures from planning to full implementation. To effectively lead projects, the Center for Technology in Education – 

Johns Hopkins University, engages in project management practices that: (a) assess the needs of the local school or 

schools in the related areas related to Boundless Learning; (b) build high performance project teams with roles and 

responsibilities; (c) establish clear missions, expectations, and cooperative operating standards; (c) support a ―trainer-oftrainers‖ 

professional development approach; (d) employ onsite technical assistance at key implementation milestones; 

(e) provide online support with multi-media enhancements; (f) allow for changes and project expansion; and (g) monitor 

and evaluate program effectiveness (JHU School of Education, 2008). 

School administrators and teachers have now been charged, unequivocally, with ensuring that "No Child Is Left Behind." 

As a result, conventions of accountability are being rethought, and educators are facing a new set of challenges, or at 

the very least, old challenges infused with the energy of new urgency. 

Teacher Compass is a Web-based application that provides school administrators and support personnel with an 

efficient tool for collecting teacher performance data in order to improve instructional delivery and decision-making for all 

students. Using Teacher Compass principals and administrators can enter teacher performance during observations and 

evaluations easily on handheld or desktop computers, disaggregate results rapidly, and generate easy-to-read reports. It 

also supports a more thorough approach to evaluation by allowing principals to 

Record and analyze accurate data on multiple variables; 

Generate reports that include reliable feedback; 

Customize evaluations for specific settings and to meet specific needs; and 

Conduct timely and more frequent observations that help ensure quality instruction. 

Furthermore, Teacher Compass gives principals and teachers immediate access to both current and past observations, 

which may enhance reflection on growth and insight into areas needing improvement. In the end, Teacher Compass 

saves time, increases the value of the observation process, and promotes teacher excellence by giving school 

administrators a tool that supports the production of high quality evaluations based on principles and practices of 

effective supervision. 

Student Compass, a Web-based tool that helps educators make effective instructional decisions and generate goals to 

improve academic and behavioral performance for all students, particularly students with disabilities an essential 

component of Boundless Learning. The Class Profile Matrix view, the ―touchstone‖ of Student Compass, provides a 

8


dynamic snapshot of the class detailing needed instructional accommodations. Student Compass also generates 

reports to facilitate frequent collection, monitoring, and analysis of both formative and summative assessment 

information. 

Student Compass includes several features to facilitate the decision making process. The Goal Wizard and PELOP 

(Present Educational Levels of Performance) Wizard are designed to work together to help teams write annual 

measurable goals that support students with disabilities in accessing and progressing in the general education 

curriculum invaluable to the development of IEP Goals and Objectives aligned with the VSC. The Accommodations and 

Assistive Technology Wizards support users in the selection of instructional accommodations and assistive technology. 

Through the ability of the Performance Tracking feature within Student Compass, teachers will be able to correlate 

instruction and assessment to state standards. The Performance Tracking module allows teachers to monitor student 

progress on a daily basis, resulting in instructional decisions that can impact student performance in a timely 

manner. Finally, the robust reporting module provides teachers with the information needed to be proactive when 

planning instruction 

SuccessMaker is an integrated learning system developed by the Computer Curriculum Corporation and marketed by 

Pearson Digital Learning. It is a standards-based courseware that provides real-time reporting of student’s progress for 

lesson customization and differentiated instruction. SuccessMaker is correlated with achievement levels on Maryland 

state assessments. Several Maryland school districts are utilizing SuccessMaker at the elementary and middle school 

grade levels. Worchester County has had positive results using SuccessMaker when it is used as part of a systemic 

improvement plan at the elementary level. Components for success include a regular schedule of lab time, monitoring of 

students’ success levels, customized homework support/practice and follow-up with direct instruction. Principals receive 

biweekly reports of student progress. Carroll County reports that middle school students are making progress in the 

second year of a limited pilot. Schools are most successful with the full support of school-based administration to 

develop an expanded schedule of mathematics classes, an additional 20 minute bi-weekly lab sessions and small group 

instruction based on needs groups as indicated through SuccessMaker reports. 

Outcome Statement(s) 

By June 30, 2010, each of the targeted schools will demonstrate an increase >10% of students with disabilities achieving 

a rating of proficient on the Mathematics MSA over the 2008 baseline in grades 3 – 8. 

Goals, Objectives and Benchmarks: 

Goals for this project reflect a multi-year initiative and are aligned with priorities identified by MSDE: 

To ensure academic achievement of students in the special education subgroup so that those students 

attending middle schools that met AYP in all subgroup areas except for special education will meet the state 

standards in Reading and Math. 

To promote the collaboration of special education service providers with content area instructional personnel in 

order to create a seamless educational system for all students. 

The objectives emphasize the need to: 

Increase the percentage of SWD achieving AYP through the use of instructional and other accommodations, 

supplementary aids and services, research-based instructional strategies, and modifications to the delivery and 

response to the general education; and 

Improve models for delivering instruction, such as co-teaching to SWD that promote access to the general 

curriculum and enable students to meet state standards. 

Goal #1: Capacity – building: Boundless Learning 

By June 30, 2009, HCPS will increase the knowledge of general and special educators at the targeted schools 

through the regular delivery of high quality, targeted professional development and job-embedded coaching 

related to effective differentiated instruction utilizing Boundless Learning a collaborative process for planning 

9


and instructional delivery, as observed in daily instruction, and increased student achievement data. 

Objectives/Benchmarks 

1. By August 31, 2009, designated mathematics co-teaching teams in grades 3 – 8 and administrators will 

participate in training necessary for the implementation of Boundless Learning Strategies. (Webinar 1) 

2. By September 30, 2009, site-based Boundless Learning instructional teams will meet with CTE to 

review Webinar 1 content and activities and receive training in the Co-Teaching Management Tool. 

3. By November 30, 2009, each of the Boundless Learning instructional teams will participate in Co-Teach 

Webinar 2 – Employing UDL and Explicit Instruction and introductory training for the use of 

RippleEffects as a differentiated support for students with academic and behavioral concerns. 

4. By March 31, 2010, site-based Boundless Learning instructional teams will complete Webinars 3 and 4 

and follow-up activities related to Monitoring Student Performance to Increase Engagement and 

Advancing Co-Teaching Using Technology. 

5. By June 20, 2010, each of the Boundless Learning instructional teams will participate in a minimum of 

two peer coaching/observation session and two fidelity checks. 

6. By August 31, 2010, designated mathematics co-teaching teams in grades 3 – 8 and administrators will 

participate in the Summer Institute for the implementation of Boundless Learning Strategies (Year 2) 

during the 2010 – 2011 SY. 

Goal #2: Intervention Strategies 

By June 30, 2009, HCPS will implement SuccessMaker as a mathematics intervention program at the targeted 

schools to supplement core instruction and improve student performance on the Mathematics MSA. 


1. By September 30, 2009, all general and special educators in the targeted schools will attend and participate 

in professional development on the use of SuccessMaker as a supplement to the mathematics curriculum. 

2. By September 30, 2009, all general and special educators in the targeted schools will participate in 

professional development on the data analysis and data-based decision making for informing instruction. 

3. By June 30, 2010, MSA grant monitors will provide monthly feedback to all general and special educators in 

the targeted schools on student progress data and the implementation of SuccessMaker as a supplement to 

the mathematics curriculum. 

4. By July 31, 2010, MSA grant monitors will analyze and report results of comparative data related to 

increased proficiency on the Mathematics MSA and participation in SuccessMaker as a supplement to the 

mathematics curriculum. 

Goal #3: Capacity – building: Co-Teaching 

By June 30, 2009, HCPS will increase the capacity of general and special educators at the targeted schools to 

provide high quality, differentiated, and rigorous instruction through an effective system of co-planning and coteaching. 


1. By December 10, 2009, general and special education co-teach teams will attend and participate in 

professional development targeting effective co-planning and co-teaching. 

2. By February 28, 2010, school administrative teams will attend and participate in professional development 

targeting effective co-planning and co-teaching: observational look-fors, scheduling, and problem-solving 

strategies. 

3. By September 30, 2010, MSA grant monitors/Boundless Learning Facilitators will conduct classroom 

observations of each targeted co-teaching team in order to monitor the fidelity of implementation of effective 

10


co-teaching strategies in the mathematics classroom environment and provide feedback relative to team 

effectiveness. (One per semester minimum). 

Strategies identified in this proposal highlight components of effective instructional practice: 


Differentiated and explicit framework for instruction; and 


Ongoing analyses of project implementation and fidelity will allow HCPS to evaluate the effectiveness of the project on a 

quarterly, semi-annual, and annual basis. Throughout the grant period, student achievement is monitored. Upon 

completion of the project, HCPS will create an evaluation report and summarize findings and recommendations 

consideration of expanded implementation of the successful portions of the project to additional core content areas. 

Plan of Operation 

Strategies 

Strategies identified in this proposal highlight the component of effective instructional practice: 


Differentiated and explicit framework for instruction; 

Data – driven decision-making using on-going assessment of programs, teachers and students; and 


The operational plan for the grant proposal addresses the following components: 

Identification of effective evidence -based models of instruction ; 

Professional development and training for the development of consistent and appropriate supports; 

Collaborative planning, data collection and analysis; 

Implementation of technological supports. 

SuccessMaker 

What it looks like: 

Implementation of SuccessMaker will utilize a Math Lab approach providing an additional 20 – 45 minutes daily (80 to 

100 minutes weekly) of mathematics intervention/remediation to SWD with identified math disabilities. Students will 

participate in SuccessMaker activities that are leveled based on individual need 4 times per week. The fifth day of 

intervention/remediation is designated for direct instruction based on common patterns of error or skill deficit. The Math 

lab will be staffed with paraprofessional support. This individual will be responsible for the daily implementation of the 

program and will generate weekly progress monitoring reports identifying common patterns of error or skill deficit. Direct 

instruction will be provided by the special education teacher to address student errors and needs. The special educator 

will utilize data provided by the paraprofessional in order to facilitate student understanding and concept knowledge. 

Professional competence 

Participants will receive training related to the implementation and use of SuccessMaker. In addition, supports will be 

provided relative to data analysis, error patterns and differentiated instruction. Paraprofessionals will work closely with 

the special educator and general education teacher to facilitate student understanding of math concepts and processes. 


11



The Boundless Learning Co-Teaching model is aligned with the MD Co-Teaching Framework. This initiative is a key 

component of an MSDE School Improvement Grant focusing on building a MD Co-Teaching network. HCPS is 

committed to implementing this project with fidelity. 

This grant initiative focuses on the development and use of structured high performance teaming for students and 

teachers. Communication is the emphasis of the collaborative teaming and is facilitated by contact with the district 

facilitators as well as CTE staff via the ELC. Principals and co-teaching partners will participate in professional 

development offering with an opportunity to become Johns Hopkins School of Education Center of Technology in 

Education Co-Teaching Fellows. Webinars are followed up with face to face seminars or electronic PD Boosters related 

to content. District Facilitators and school administrators receive feedback relative to progress via monthly status checks 

and quarterly fidelity checks. Data is gathered, summarized and reported to the staff and used in the decision-making 

process. Non-evaluative observations with feedback provide coaching and growth opportunities. Regular collaboration 

among participants ensures ongoing dialogue relative to instruction, enhanced practice, data analysis and problemsolving. 

The Class Profile Matrix is one of the Boundless Learning tools designed by CTE to help teachers organize instructional 

accommodations and teacher-selected interventions to support student learning. This tool facilitates implementation of 

accommodations, including the use of assistive technology, and differentiation according to students’ needs. The Class 

Profile Matrix also supports collaboration between general and special educators by providing a working document to 

discuss students’ goals, needs, and progress. 


In order for teachers to effectively design instruction, they must be armed with essential information regarding the 

composition of their class and the students’ individual learning needs. Educators need to be able to monitor students’ 

performance, identify needs in relation to grade-level standards and goals, generate objectives that facilitate goal 

attainment, select instructional strategies to enhance student performance, and assess the efficacy of the strategies 

employed. Boundless Learning tools facilitate this process of data-driven decision - making and instructional planning. 

See Appendix pages A4 – A10 for Co-Teaching Fellows HCPS Program Outline. 

12


Co-teaching/Collaboration 


HCPS’ efforts to incorporate co-teaching will be facilitated through a series of comprehensive professional development 

opportunities, as outlined in the Maryland State Professional Development Plan. The co-teaching professional 

developments are designed to increase the instructional capacity of general and special educators to provide high 

quality differentiated and rigorous instruction through an effective system of co-planning and co-teaching. Professional 

development targeting the following topics will be provided. 

• Roles and Responsibilities; 

• Collaborative Problem-solving 

• Guided Planning; and 

• Data Collection. 


Participants will receive a copy of Co-Teach (Friend), and the HCPS Co-Teaching Resource/Support Handbook. 

Training using these materials will occur during one half day session with follow-up throughout the school year. Two full 

day sessions of staff development are planned with Marilyn Friend to provide support to teachers and administrative 

teams related to scheduling, lesson planning for the co-taught setting, and problem solving. Stipends are available for 4 

hours per month per team member for after-school co-planning this is in combination with Boundless Learning. Lesson 

plans will be submitted with payroll requests. 

When establishing successful collaborative teams between general and special educators, school leaders maintain the 

expectation and provide the time and opportunity for teachers to build effective collaborative teams. Leaders also 

monitor instruction for student and teacher success. To support educators establishing successful collaborative teams, 

Boundless Learning provides the TEAMS Protocol, a five-step process guiding general and special educators through 

effective collaborative practices, and Collaboration / Co-Teaching Look-fors Guide, which facilitates the observation and 

feedback process for collaborative instruction. 

Table 3. 

Project Description 

Name of Project: Using Boundless Learning to Improve AYP 

Content Area Reading √ Math 

Format Print Software √ Both Print and Software 

Unique Features √ Co-Teaching Scripted Lessons Computer 

Delivered 

One-on-One 

Tutoring 

13 

√ Other Evidence 

–based 

instructional model 

Setting √ General Education Classroom Special Education Classroom 

Resource Room Pull- Out Computer Lab Other 

Frequency minutes per week √ 5 sessions per week – embedded structure w/in daily instruction in the math 

content 

Project Staff: minimum of one co-teach team per grade level (grades 3 – 8) and school administrators 

Project Delivery by √ General Educator √ Special Educator 

Consultant 

Other 

Staff Training √ hours per grant period sessions per grant period 

(estimated) 

Average Cost of Materials Per Student: 

Other Comments You Want To Include: 

40 hours of teacher planning outside of duty day Training costs, site –license and Teacher Kits 

Quarterly Fidelity Checks 

Incorporating Teacher to Teacher Coaching / Observation


Strategies/Activities 

All strategies and activities are aligned with MTPD Standards and Indicators and reflect embedded learning opportunities 

Promote collaboration through professional development, curricular planning and development utilizing Boundless Learning, 

differentiated instruction and co-teaching in HCPS mathematics classes, grades 3 – 8 to meet the needs of SWD. 

MTPD Standards/Indicators: 1.a, 3.a, 4.a, 8.c, 9.b 

Promote academic achievement of students with diverse student populations including SWD through consistent and valid implementation 

of instructional strategies that are evidence-based, outcome driven, engaging and aligned with VSC and Core Learning Goals. Emphasis: 

HCPS mathematics grades 3 – 8 

MTPD Standards/Indicators: 1.a,1.c 3.a, 4.c, 5.a, 7.c 

Date Strategy Audience Person(s) Responsible 

June – July 2009 Designate and meet with Boundless Learning instructional 

teams re: grant initiatives, goals and expectations and 

staff development 

Administrators, support staff, 

Special Education Director and 

Assistant Superintendent of C&I & 

CTE 

Grant Coordinator 

District Facilitators 

Central Office Leadership 

IT staff 

August 2009 Boundless Learning Administrators’ Academy School Leadership CTE 



August 2009 – 


August 2009 – June 

2010 

August 2009 – March 

2010 

November 2009 

January, March, and 

May 2010 

Provide staff development training to Boundless Learning 

co-teaching partners from participating schools 

Monitor and report student/teacher progress Monthly 

Quarterly fidelity checks to observe and provide feedback 

re: program implementation 

Participate in Co-Teaching Fellows Webinars and related 

Activities to enhance and refine co-teaching practice 

Boundless Learning – CTE quarterly fidelity checks 

Non-evaluative observations with feedback and coaching 

2 per year 

June – August 2010 Preparation and implementation of Summer Seminar – 

Introduction to specific differentiated instructional 

techniques for co-teaching teams 

Site – based co-teaching math 

teams and administrators 










CTE 




CTE 



CTE 



CTE 



CTE 



Promote collaboration through professional development, curricular planning and development utilizing Boundless Learning, 

differentiated instruction and co-teaching in HCPS mathematics classes, grades 3 – 8, to meet the needs of SWD. 

MTPD Standards/Indicators: 1.a, 3.a, 4.a, 8.c, 9.b 

Promote academic achievement of students with diverse student populations including SWD through consistent and valid implementation 

of instructional strategies that are evidence-based, outcome driven, engaging and aligned with VSC and Core Learning Goals. Emphasis: 

HCPS mathematics grades 3 – 8 

MTPD Standards/Indicators: 1.a,1.c 3.a, 4.c, 5.a, 7.c 


August and November 

2009 

January and April 2010 

Site-based co-teaching math teams 

June & July 2010 

SuccessMaker Training : 

Utilizing SuccessMaker as an intervention for SWD 

Planning direct instructional supports using 

SuccessMaker data 

Differentiated Instructional Strategies 

Monitoring and reporting student progress 

Review student progress data including: Unit 

Assessments, SuccessMaker data and MSA data for 

comparison to baseline and programming 

recommendations 

Site-based co-teaching math teams 

Grant Manager/District 

Facilitator 

School Administrators 

Site-based Facilitator 

Grant Manager/District 

Facilitator 



Math Supervisor 

14



December 2009, 

February and April 

2010 

Enhancing and Expanding Co-Teaching Practices 

Implementing an Effective Co-Teach Model at the 

Elementary and Secondary Level (teachers and 

administrators) 

Collaborative Problem –Solving (administrators) 

Site-based teams, mentors, 

administrators, central office staff 


Grant Manager 

Director of Special Education 

Assistant Superintendent of C&I 

Evaluation Narrative 

The evaluation of program effectiveness is essential to the success of the grant project. Student achievement is 

dependent on several variables; teacher training, program implementation, progress monitoring and related outcomes. 

Assessment and data review identify and validate the level of supports necessary to meet expected performance goals. 

This occurs at all levels of the project and is reflected in the evaluation questions. In order to effectively evaluate the 

project’s impact it is important to start with the questions used to indicate a need for change: 

Does the available student data suggest the need for change in instructional practice or type of intervention? 

What level of support is needed to improve student achievement outcomes as measured on state and local 

assessments? 

What types of supports are necessary to enhance teacher knowledge and student achievement? 

How are teacher and student progress toward outcomes measured and monitored? 

In addition to the above questions, HCPS will utilize the guide questions for Creating or Selecting an Intervention 

Program developed by the NCTM. (See Appendix pages A14 – A16) 

Evaluation Strategy Data Evaluator(s) Budget Dissemination 

Format 

Session Evaluations 

for Professional 

Development 

Participant feedback 

No additional costs 

anticipated 

Student Assessments 

Program 

Implementation 

Monitoring 

Comparison data 

collection and analysis 

Work samples, Unit 

Assessments, MSA 

and SuccessMaker 

progress monitoring 

On-going formative 

and summative 

assessments 

Quarterly Fidelity 

Checks 

Peer coaching 

Non-evaluative 

observation 

w/feedback 

Review of all available 

data sources for midterm 

and end-of year 

evaluation of student 

progress and program 

effectiveness 

Feedback is reviewed 

by relevant staff from 

Office of Special 

Education and Grant 

Manager to determine 

follow – up and 

additional supports 

Site-based teams 


Site-based Facilitator 

District Facilitator 

CTE – JHU Trainers 


Planning and data 

analysis sessions @ 

staff development rate 

Site-based facilitator 

stipend 

CTE – JHU trainer fees 

for fidelity checks 

Planning and data 

analysis sessions @ 

staff development rate 

Quarterly summary of 

Professional 

Development 

Monthly progress 

monitoring 

Quarterly progress 

reporting 

Observation feedback 

Checklists 

Conferencing 

Data Table 

15


Management Plan 

Key Personnel 

Key Personnel 

Director, Office of Special Education 

Assistant Supervisor of Special Education 

C & I Supervisors 

Coordinator of School Improvement 

Coordinator of Interventions 

School Leadership 

Grant Manager 

District Facilitator BL 

Boundless Learning Trainers CTE 

Site based instructional staff 


Coordinator of Interventions 

Roles and Responsibilities 

Oversee the projects and training initiatives related to special 

education and professional development 

Support the implementation of goals 

Participate in the ongoing evaluation of the grant project 

Manage the logistics of project implementation 

Collect and analyze data relevant to project implementation and 

success 

Coordinate professional development 

Forward payroll for paid collaborations and monitor budget 

Liaison with district facilitator, school administration and CTE – JHU 

Plans and implements staff development 

Meets with teachers to review data, coordinate coaching sessions 

and site visits 

Provide direct training re: Boundless Learning, observe, demonstrate 

and provide fidelity checks 

Provide regular support to students 

Assist in the review of progress and contribute to the planning 

process 

Assist in the delivery of staff development 

Provide direct support and guidance relative to the implementation of 

countywide interventions 

Management Plan Worksheet for 2009 – 2010 

Action Description 

Table 5. 

Management Plan Worksheet 

Single 

Date 

Date(s) 

Ongoing 


Person(s) Responsible 

Introductory Training – SuccessMaker 

Data-driven decision making – 

SuccessMaker and HCPS PD 

Incorporating practice opportunities embedded in the 

core curriculum 

By 

September 

15, 2009 

November PD day 2009 Ongoing 

monthly planning August 09 – 


January PD day 2010 Ongoing 

planning & lesson implementation 

August 09 – September 2010 

Collaboration with Title One 

SuccessMaker trainers 


Office of Special Education and Mathematics 


Office of Special Education and Mathematics 

16


Action Description 

Table 5. 


Single 

Date 

Date(s) 

Ongoing 



Presentation by Marilyn Friend to teachers, 

administrators from the grant schools re: Effective Co- 

Teaching Teams: planning and implementing effective 

instruction and problem-solving strategies – emphasis on 

co-teaching in the math content 

December 9, 

2009 

Grant Manager 



Coordinator of PD 

Presentation by Marilyn Friend to HCPS administrators 

re: Administrative Issues Related to Structuring and 

Supporting Effective Co-Teaching Environments: 

scheduling for co-teaching, planning and implementing 

effective instruction, student groupings, & problemsolving 

strategies – Panel discussion ―What works in Co- 

Teaching?‖ Grant school administrators 

February 25 

& 26, 2010 

Grant Manager 



Coordinator of PD 


District Facilitator Meeting 

Principal Meeting 

Sp Ed Director/Associate Sup. Meeting 

IT Meeting 

Webinar # 1 BL & Webinar # 1 Lead 21 

Teacher Training: Co-Teaching Mgmt. Tool 



PD Booster #1 BL & PD Booster # 1 L21 

PD Booster #2 BL & PD Booster # 2 L21 



PD Booster #3 BL & PD Booster #3 L21 

Ripple Effects Training Preparation & Implementation 


Marilyn Friend Follow Up Discussion 

PD Booster #4 BL &PD Booster #4 L21 



Webinar # 3 BL &Webinar # 3Lead 21 






PD Booster #7BL &PD Booster #7L21 





Summer Institute Preparation 








Evaluation Report 

End of Year Meeting 

August 

2009 

September 

2009 

October 

2009 

November 

2009 

December 

2009 

January 

2010 

February 

2010 

March 2010 

April 2010 

May 2010 

June 2010 

August – 

September 

2010 

17 

Grant Manager 

CTE 



Grant Manager 

CTE 


School-based Administration 

Grant Manager 

CTE 



Grant Manager 

CTE 



Grant Manager 

CTE 



Grant Manager 

CTE 



Grant Manager 

CTE 



Grant Manager 

CTE 



Grant Manager 

CTE 



Grant Manager 

CTE 



Grant Manager 

CTE 



Grant Manager 

CTE 


School-based Administration


Table 5. 


Action Description Single Date Ongoing 


Base data collection 

Classroom observations 

Report and recommendations to 

HCPS Leadership 

August 2009 

Final Evaluation Reporting October 2010 

Semester 

June 2010 


District Facilitators and site –based teaching teams 


Grant Manager 

Grant Manager 

Funder’s Requirements Date Person(s) Responsible 

Progress Report #1 January 2010 Grant Manager 

On site visit January – May 2010 Grant Manager 

On site visit Report due June 2010 MSDE Grant Project Manager 

Final / Annual Evaluation Process October 2010 Grant Manager 

Financial Report due December 2010 Grant Accountant 

Project Timeline 

Action 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 

Management 

Meet with relevant X x x x x x x x x x 

HCPS 

supervisory staff 

Manage budget X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 

Order support 

x x x x x x 

materials 

Reporting X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 

Professional 

Development 

Data Collection/ 

Analysis 


x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 

Evaluation 

Action 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 

Progress 

x x x x x 

Reporting 

Student 

x x x x x x x x x x x x 

Monitoring 

Data Collection X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 

Professional 

Development 

X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 

18


Integration with Educational Reform 

Under No Child Left Behind, each state has developed and implemented measurements for determining whether its 

schools and local educational agencies (LEAs) are making adequate yearly progress (AYP). AYP is an individual state's 

measure of progress toward the goal of 100 percent of students achieving to state academic standards in at least 

reading/language arts and math. It sets the minimum level of proficiency that the state, its school districts, and schools 

must achieve each year on annual tests and related academic indicators. Maryland has established standards for 

schools that serve as the context for school improvement. School progress toward the attainment of Maryland content 

standards is measured by MSA in grades 3 through 8 and by HSA in high school. HSA assesses students after they 

have completed selected courses – Algebra/Data Analysis, English, Government and Biology. The gap between the 

state standards and current achievement on these assessments provides the direction for school improvement. 

The Vision of Harford County Public Schools System provides the context for the system’s Master Plan. The Vision 

states: Harford County is a community of learners where educating everyone takes everyone. All students are 

empowered to contribute to a diverse, democratic and change-oriented society. Harford County Public Schools (HCPS) 

Master Plan is further aligned with the Mission of the school system: to foster a quality educational system that 

challenges students to develop knowledge and skills and inspires them to become life-long learners and good citizens. 

The Master Plan systematically addresses the four Board Goals: 

To ensure a safe and positive learning environment; 

To improve student achievement and close the minority achievement gap; 

To ensure the effective use of all resources; and 

To provide a high-quality workforce. 

This initiative aligns with federal, state and local requirements, educational priorities and school improvement plans. 

Annual data from the state assessments provides schools a snapshot of where students are at a single point in time. 

Daily instruction continues between when the tests are given and when the results are returned to schools. Teachers 

must know on a day to day basis where their students are in relation to the content standards to have the necessary 

information to inform instruction. This on-going monitoring is also the way teachers determine whether their instructional 

strategies are working for all students and which students need instructional interventions. Regular examinations of 

student performance on assignments and assessments enable teachers to make informed instructional decisions 

regarding teaching and re-teaching specific indicators/objectives. It is probably obvious, though not always practiced, 

that classroom instruction and assessment must be aligned with the state's content standards if a school wishes to attain 

state standards and meet their AYP target. 

Understanding the relationship between classroom instruction and student achievement is a prerequisite to clarifying the 

problem. Improved student achievement is based in large part on good alignment of instruction with the content 

standards and on knowing where each student is in relation to the indicators. Consequently, focusing the collection of 

data on what teachers need to know and do to align their instruction and understand where their students are in relation 

to the indicators/objectives they are expected to teach will produce the most useful information. 

Mortimore and Sammons (1987) found that teaching had 6 to 10 times as much impact on achievement as all other 

factors combined. Allen Odden and his colleagues conclude that ―improved classroom instruction is the prime factor to 

produce student achievement gains‖ (Odden & Wallace, 2003) 

The overall goal of the grant initiative is to promote maximum achievement for all students by combining the best 

principles of classroom management, peer assisted learning, and differentiated instruction into a comprehensive system 

focusing on accountability, measurable achievement, and improved access to the general education curriculum for 

diverse learners. Changing instructional practice is at the heart of improving learning outcomes for underserved and 

19


underachieving students. To truly improve teaching, schools need to transform their culture of practice from one that 

assumes that barriers to learning reside in the students to one that expects teachers to collectively assume responsibility 

for making sure all students learn. An emerging body of literature supports the use of learning communities and teacher 

collaboration as the kind of professional development that leads to such transformation (Grossman, Wineburg, & 

Woolworth, 2001). 

In addition to improved classroom instruction there is a need for additional intervention/remediation to address individual 

areas for deficit. This grant initiative provides access to intervention/remediation in addition to the core curriculum. 

Computer-assisted instruction (CAI) is a supplemental approach to mathematics intervention. While outcomes of studies 

of CAI are highly variable, most studies do find positive effects and none significantly favored a control group. Outcomes 

are usually stronger for computations than for concepts or problem-solving. Because of the hierarchical nature of math 

computations, CAI has an advantage due to its ability to assess students and provide them with individualized practice 

on skills that they have the prerequisites to learn but have not yet learned ( Slavin and Lake, 2007). 

Future Plans 

HCPS has struggled to identify an effective means of addressing the needs of diverse learners. Boundless 

Opportunities for MSA Success [Mathematics] Grant initiative offers an opportunity to refine instructional practice in 

order to promote maximum achievement for all students by focusing on the basics of good instruction. Barriers to the 

successful achievement of students must be addressed in a proactive manner. Marzano points to numerous studies 

demonstrating that two teachers working with the same populations of students can achieve starkly different results 

based primarily on the quality of instruction. Teachers and administrators engaged in continuous study learn how to 

prevent failure and how to provide effective intervention. This collaboration signals a community effort for the good of 

the community. 

Why co-teaching? Blackorby et al. (2005) reported on a comprehensive study of 11,000 students in the United States, 

which showed that students with disabilities who spend more time in general education classrooms are absent less, 

perform closer to grade level than their peers in pullout settings, and have higher achievement scores. Co-teaching is 

effective for students with a variety of needs, including ELL (Mahoney, 1997), those with hearing impairment (Compton 

et al., 1998; Luckner, 1999), those with learning disabilities (Rice and Zigmund, 2000; Welch, 2000), high-risk students 

and those in language remediation (Dieker, 1998; Miller et al., 1998). 

The Boundless Learning Co-Teaching model is aligned with the MD Co-Teaching Framework. This initiative is a key 

component of an MSDE School Improvement Grant focusing on building a MD Co-Teaching network. HCPS is 

committed to implementing this project with fidelity. 

The short term goals of this project is the piloting of an instructional delivery system that will improve the quality of 

instruction and increase learning outcomes for all students, especially those SWD additionally the grant allows for the 

provision of an intervention/remediation that supplements the core content.. Long term goals would extend over a multiyear 

period and demonstrate the impact of combining the best principles of classroom management, peer-assisted 

learning, differentiated instruction, and varied technology integration into a comprehensive system thus promoting an 

overall change in practice. It is the hope of the grant committee that the success of this project will lead to a systemic 

change of practice. Upon completion of the project, HCPS will create an evaluation report and summarize findings and 

recommendations consideration of expanded implementation of the successful portions of the project to additional core 

content areas. 

20


Budget Narrative 

The Boundless Opportunities for MSA Success [Mathematics] Grant will consider the following areas of need in the 

budget request; presenter and instructor fees to support professional development activities, stipends and related 

fixed costs for instructional staff development, material and supplies for the purchase of instructional software 

supporting intervention/remedial needs in addition to professional resources in support of teacher training. 

The budget reflects year one of a multi-year project incorporating initial start up costs of an initiative that has the 

potential for improved long - term learning outcomes. Professional development including specialized support from 

the Johns Hopkins University School of Education Center for Technology represents the majority of expenses. 

Included in the professional development costs are fees related to presentations by Dr. Marilyn Friend an educator 

and consultant specializing in effective inclusive practices and co-teaching. Utilizing this system of support Harford 

County Public Schools signals a commitment to enhanced practice and improved instruction. Training focuses on the 

development of teacher expertise related to mathematics content and instructional practice. Training, implementation 

and monitoring of a consistent and effective instructional model are essential to student success. Additionally, there 

is a need to expand and enhance interventions available to students with disabilities in the area of mathematics. 

Itemized costs are provided. 

Budget Line Items 

Salaries/Stipends – Staff 

Development Direct In Kind 

Salaries/Substitute 

Coverage - Staff 

Development 

Fixed Costs 

Stipends to teachers participating in BL/Co-Teaching Fellows 

$20/hour x 4 hours x 48 participants 

$3,840.00 

Stipends for Summer Institute 2010 

$120/day x 2 days x 48 participants 

$11,520.00 

Stipends to teachers serving as District Facilitators 

$20/hour x 6 hours/month x 10 months x 2 District Facilitators 

$2,400.00 

Stipends for Math Co-teaching Planning/SuccessMaker 

$20/hour x 1 hour/month x 10 months x 48 participants 

$9,600.00 

Stipends for Math Co-teaching Planning/BL 

$20/hour x 2 hours/month x 10 months x 48 participants 

$19,200.00 

Stipends to HCPS teachers providing SuccessMaker training 

$20/hour x 18 hours x 2 trainers 

$ 720.00 

Total Stipends for SD $47,280.00 

Direct 

Substitutes for HCPS SuccessMaker Trainers 

$91.50/day x 3 days x 2 trainers 

$549.00 

Substitutes for HCPS initial BL Training 

$91.50/day x .5 day x 48 participants 

$2,196.00 

Substitutes for HCPS initial SuccessMaker Training 


$2,196.00 

Substitutes for in-school planning and data management 

$91.50/day x 3 substitutes x .5 day x 10 months x 8 schools 

$10,980.00 

Total Salaries/Stipends – Staff Development $15,921.00 

$63,201.00 salaries x .07998 = $5,054.80 $5055.00 

Total Fixed Costs $5055.00 

In Kind 

B 1


Staff Development 

Other 

Marilyn Friend honorarium/speaker’s fees $3,500.00/session x 2 

sessions 

$7,000.00 

SuccessMaker consultant $2,500 for one year $1,000.00 $1,500.00 

Boundless Learning/Co-Teaching Fellows Trainers and TA $56,500.00 

Staff Development 

Supplies and Materials 

Training / Program 


Instructional Supplies and 

Materials 

RippleEffects software trainer $2,500.00 

Mileage for Boundless Learning Trainers $990.00 

Airfare and Accommodations for RippleEffects Trainer (CA to MD) $1,500.00 

Airfare and Accommodations for Marilyn Friend $1,090.00 

Total Staff Development Other $70,580.00 $1,500.00 

Direct 

110 copies of Co-Teach by Marilyn Friend x $25/book + 10% S/H $3,025.00 

$2,750.00 + $275.00 

Teacher Compass/Co-Teach Management Tool license fee for up to $5,500.00 

100 teachers 

RippleEffects staff coaching software $3,500.00 x 5 schools + 

$14,450.00 

S/H $450.00 -20% discount ( 

Math Tools ISBN 978-1-412957-82-3 

$2,057.00 

$38.95/book x 6 per school x 8 schools+ 10% S/H 

SuccessMaker software license 

$1,088.00 

$8.50/per seat x 128 seats 

Total Supplies and Materials for SD $26,120.00 

5 RippleEffects software licenses for 5 schools $11,995.00 

In-Kind 

50 Boundless Learning Implementation kits @ $230.00 each $11,500.00 

per quote 

Total Supplies and Materials for Instruction $23,495.00 

Total 

$188,451.00 $1,500.00 

B 2


V. INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES – OBJECT 3 

(SEE INSTRUCTIONS) 

BUDGET 

CATEGORY 

DESCRIPTION 

206 – 09 110 copies of Co-Teach by Marilyn Friend x $25/book + 10% S/H 

$2,750.00 + $275.00 

206 -09 Teacher Compass/Co-Teach Management Tool license fee for up 

to 100 teachers 

206 -09 RippleEffects staff coaching software $3,500.00 x 5 schools + 

S/H $450.00 -20% discount ( 

206 -09 Math Tools ISBN 978-1-412957-82-3 

$38.95/book x 6 per school x 8 schools+ 10% S/H 

206-09 SuccessMaker software license 

$8.50/per seat x 128 seats 

FUNDING 

SOURCE 

TOTAL 

COST 

$3,025.00 

$5,500.00 

$14,450.00 

$2,057.00 

$1,088.00 

206-04 5 RippleEffects software licenses for 5 schools $11,995.00 

206-04 50 Boundless Learning Implementation kits @ $230.00 each $11,500.00 per 

quote 

$49,615.00 

COMMENTS: 

TOTAL 

Please footnote with asterisk: Governor’s Transition Initiative = *GTI Parent Training Grant = **PTG 

FUNDING SOURCE 

CODES: 

(MSDE FORM J-2) 

State Grant Passthrough = P 

Preschool Passthrough = PP 

Least Restrictive Environment Allocation = LRE 

Personnel Development Plan = PDP 

Transition Initiative = TI 

Partners for Success = PFS 

Special Education Citizens Advisory 

Committee = SECAC 

Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic = 

RFB&D 

Midshore Consortium = MC 

Western Maryland Consortium = WMC 

B 3


VI. INSTRUCTIONAL EQUIPMENT (SEE INSTRUCTIONS) – OBJECT 5 

BUDGET 

CATEGORY 

DESCRIPTION 

UNIT 

COST 

QUANTITY 

FUND 

SRC 

TOTAL 

COST 

COMMENTS: 

TOTAL 

FUNDING SOURCE CODES: 

(MSDE FORM J-2) 







Special Education Citizens Advisory 

Committee = SECAC 

Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic = RFB&D 



B 4


VII. CONTRACTED SERVICES/CSPD/MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES 

SERVICE/ACTIVITY 

PROVIDER 

Training Services: CTE/BL, RippleEffects, SuccessMaker, Marilyn Friend 

CAT OBJ ITEM FUNDING 

SOURCE 

COST 

206 -09 04 Marilyn Friend honorarium/speaker’s fees $3,500.00/session x 2 

D $7,000.00 

sessions 

206-09 04 SuccessMaker consultant $2,500 for one year D $1,000.00 

206 -09 04 Boundless Learning/Co-Teaching Fellows Trainers and TA D $56,500.00 

206 -09 04 RippleEffects software trainer D $2,500.00 

206 -09 04 Mileage for Boundless Learning Trainers D $990.00 

206 -09 04 Airfare and Accommodations for Marilyn Friend D $1,090.00 

206 -09 04 Airfare and Accommodations for RippleEffects Trainer (CA to MD) D $1,500.00 

TOTAL $70,580.00 


PROVIDER 

Salaries/Stipends/Substitute 


SOURCE 

COST 

206-09 01 Stipends to teachers participating in BL/Co-Teaching Fellows 

$20/hour x 4 hours x 48 participants 

206-09 01 Stipends for Summer Institute 2010 

$120/day x 2 days x 48 participants 

206-09 01 Stipends to teachers serving as District Facilitators 

$20/hour x 6 hours/month x 10 months x 2 District Facilitators 

206-09 01 Stipends for Math Co-teaching Planning/SuccessMaker 

$20/hour x 1 hour/month x 10 months x 48 participants 

206-09 01 Stipends for Math Co-teaching Planning/BL 

$20/hour x 2 hours/month x 10 months x 48 participants 

206-09 01 Stipends to HCPS teachers providing SuccessMaker training 

$20/hour x 18 hours x 2 trainers 

206-09 01 Substitutes for HCPS SuccessMaker Trainers 

$91.50/day x 3 days x 2 trainers 

206-09 01 Substitutes for HCPS initial BL Training 


206-09 01 Substitutes for HCPS initial SuccessMaker Training 


206-09 01 Substitutes for in-school planning and data management 

$91.50/day x 3 substitutes x .5 day x 10 months x 8 schools 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

$3,840.00 

$11,520.00 

$2,400.00 

$9,600.00 

$19,200.00 

$ 720.00 

$549.00 

$2,196.00 

$2,196.00 

$10,980.00 

TOTAL 63,201.00 


PROVIDER 

Fixed Costs 


SOURCE 

COST 

212 04 FICA and WC / Fixed Costs D 5055.00 

$63,201.00 salaries x .07998 = $5,054.80 

TOTAL $5055.00 

FUNDING SOURCE 

CODES: 






Please footnote with asterisk: Governor’s Transition Initiative = *GTI Parent Training Grant = **PTG 


Special Education Citizens Advisory Committee = SECAC 

Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic = RFB&D 



B 5


B 6


APPENDIX 

B 7


Insert letters of Support 

Lynne Mainzer and Roger Plunkett 

A 1


A 2


A 3


Offering SCHOOL DISTRICTS 

Co-Teaching 

Fellows Program 

General Educators, Special Educators, Principals 

The Johns Hopkins University School of Education 

Center for Technology in Education 

Co-Teaching 

Fellows Program 

Professional Development 

Webinar Series 

“Just In Time, Just for You” PD Boosters 

Summer Institutes 2010 /2011 

Ongoing, Online, On-Target Consultation 

Opportunity to Receive CEUs 

Digital Tools 

Online Learning Community Membership 

Teacher Compass for Fidelity Checks 

Evidence-Based Behavior Training Software: Ripple Effects 

Evaluation 

Customized Annual Report 

. 

FOR MORE INFORMATION : 

Sue Stein 

Maureen Jones 

Director, LEAD21 

Coordinator, Boundless Learning 

Email: sstein@jhu.edu Email: maureenj@jhu.edu 

Phone: 410-516-9893 Phone: 410-516-9840 

Harnessing the Change with 21 st Century Solutions 

BEGIN FALL 2009 

Center for Technology in Education 

The Johns Hopkins University School of Education 

6740 Alexander Bell Dr. |Columbia, MD 21046 | Phone: 410-516-9800 

A 4


Harness Change 

LEAD21 

Empowers principals to facilitate effective collaboration 

between general and special educators within a 21 st Century 

learning environment. Principals employ effective leadership 

practices and digital tools to build productive partnerships, 

teams, and learning communities who are equipped to meet 

the needs of diverse learners. 

Two Solutions 


Empowers general and special educators with skills to 

build high performing, technology proficient co-teaching 

teams. Equipped with digital tools and evidence-based 

instructional strategies, these co-teaching teams create 

21 st century learning environments to maximize learning 

opportunities for students with special needs. 

Become a 

Co-Teaching 

Fellow 

THIS FALL 

Earn continuing education units (CEUs) 

Enjoy membership in vibrant learning networks 

Access a wide-range of online resources 

Advance student learning 

21 st Century Co-Teaching Teams 

I. Webinar Series 

Principals: LEAD21 

Creating the Infrastructure for Success 

Understanding the Nuts and Bolts of Co- 

Teaching 

Monitoring Co-Teaching Using Teacher 

Compass 

Using Data to Advance Co-Teaching 

II. PD Boosters 

“Just in Time/Just for You” online PD 

III. Summer Institute 

“Building 21 st Century Learning 

Environments” 

. 

A 5 

21 st Century Co-Teaching Teams 

I. Webinar Series 

Co-Teachers: Boundless Learning 

Building the 21 st Century Co-teaching 

Partnership 

Employing UDL & Explicit Instruction 

Monitoring Performance to Increase 

Engagement 

Advancing Co-Teaching Using 

Technology 

II. PD Boosters 

“Just in Time/Just for You” online PD 

III. Summer Institute 

“Building 21 st Century Learning 

Environments” 

Specialized Co -teachers 

Ready to . . . 

Teach diverse learners 

Collaborate with colleagues 

and 

. . . Harness Change 

POWERFUL SOLUTIONS 

HIGH PERFORMANCE TEAMS 

PROTOCOLS FOR OPERATION 

DIGITAL TOOLS FOR 

PRODUCTIVITY


Boundless Learning – Collaboration Look-fors 

Respect of 

Knowledge and 

Skill 

Established 

Communication 

System 

Common 

Understanding 

of the 

Classroom 

Environment 

Co- 

Accountability 

Look-fors 

Each educator contributes a set of knowledge about the content and the 

instructional accommodations that students need to access the curriculum 

Each educator recognizes the knowledge and skills that the other 

contributes 

Both educators take an active role in supporting student learning 

Collaboration teachers demonstrate mutual trust by sharing classroom 

instruction and management responsibilities 

Collaboration partners have designated a time to discuss student learning 

goals, accommodations, and instructional tools and strategies 

Regular communication about roles and responsibilities is evidenced by 

efficient cooperation during classroom instruction 

Interpersonal awareness is demonstrated by a willingness to discuss the 

professional relationship 

Each educator actively listens to understand the perspective of his/her 

collaboration partner 

Both educators understand and contribute to the following systems and 

practices: 

√ Classroom management 

√ Grading 

√ Physical arrangement and seating 

√ Implementing accommodations 

Collaboration partners demonstrate mutual ownership and expectations for 

student learning by actively participating in planning, instruction, and 

assessment 

Both teachers exhibit high acceptance for all students through their words 

and actions 

Both collaboration partners demonstrate a shared sense of responsibility to 

ensure access, involvement, and progress in the general education 

curriculum for all students 

Both teachers implement instructional accommodations according to 

students’ learning needs 

Both educators participate in planning, preparation, and evaluation of 

student learning 

Notes 

Additional Comments: 

A 6


Johns Hopkins University Center for Technology in Education 

Co-Teaching Fellows Program 


July 1 st 2009-September 30 th 2010 

Boundless Learning and LEAD21 will kick off in August 2009 with face-to-face sessions facilitated by JHU/CTE in Harford County. Meetings will address 

program components, delivery of content, and participant expectations. Principals and co-teaching partners selected to participate in the professional 

development offerings will have an opportunity to become Johns Hopkins University School of Education Center for Technology in Education (JHU CTE) Co 

Teaching Fellows. 

August 

CTE will conduct face to face meetings with the: 

o District Facilitator (identified by HCPS to manage the Program) – CTE will share the roles and responsibilities associated with this 

position, including timelines and means of communicating with CTE staff regarding program monitoring and implementation. 

o Principals and Site-Based Support Staff- CTE will meet with principals to share overall program information, schedule and means of 

professional development delivery and follow up for principals and teachers, and roles and responsibilities of District Facilitator as well as 

site-based support staff designated as program support (i.e. School Based Mentor, Math Intervention Specialist). Principals will be asked 

to identify and invite the Site-Based Support Staff to attend this meeting. The process for accessing Webinars and PD Booster will be 

shared. 

o Special Education Director and Associate Superintendent – CTE will meet with the Director of Special Education and Associate 

Superintendent to share program goals and information. 

o IT Staff – CTE will meet with member of the IT Staff at each site to ensure that the technical requirements needed are available in each 

building and that principals and teachers are able to access web-based resources. 

CTE will launch the Co-Teaching Webinar Series. Teachers will participate in the Boundless Learning Webinars and complete follow-up activities. 

Principals will participate in the Lead21 webinars and complete follow-up activities. 

Boundless Learning (Teachers) 

Lead21 (Administrators) 

Webinar 1 Building the 21 st Century Co-Teaching 

Creating the Infrastructure for Success 

Partnership 

September 

Teacher PD– CTE will meet with teachers to review the Webinar # 1 content and activities and to receive training in the Co-Teaching Management 

Tool. 

October 

CTE will conduct the second Co-Teaching Webinar. Teachers and administrators participate in webinars and complete follow-up activities. 



Webinar 2 Employing UDL and Explicit Instruction Understanding the Nuts and 

Bolts of Co-Teaching 

November 

CTE will coordinate training for introducing Ripple Effects. 

December 

CTE will participate in Marilyn Friend’s workshop and facilitate online follow-up discussion. 

January 

CTE will conduct the third Co-Teaching Webinar. Teachers and administrators participate in webinars and complete follow-up activities. 

Webinar 3 


Monitoring Performance to Increase Student 

Engagement 


Monitoring Co-Teaching and Using Teacher 

Compass 

A 7


March 

CTE will conduct the fourth Co-Teaching Webinar. Teachers and administrators participate in webinars and complete follow-up activities. 



Webinar 4 Advancing Co-Teaching Using Technology Using Data to Advance Co-Teaching 

May 

Preparation for Summer Institute with HCPS stakeholders. 

Monthly 

Monthly PD Boosters—CTE will post PD Boosters for teachers and principals. 

Monthly Status Check – CTE will provide online feedback to the District Facilitator, Principals, and School-Based Support Staff regarding completion 

of follow up activities by teachers. 

Quarterly 

Quarterly Status Check – CTE will meet face-to-face with the District Facilitator to review attainment of project goals 

A 8


JHU CTE Co-Teaching Fellows Program 

DRAFT Budget 

4/25/09 

Professional Development Activities and Resources 

Area 

Description 

Co-Teaching Webinar Sessions Deliver (4) Lead21webinars, (4) 

Boundless Learning webinars, and 

coordinating follow-up activities 

(Webinar delivery rate-$3,000 per 

event). 

FINAL COST 

24,000 


PD Boosters and Online Technical Assistance 

Implementation Resources 

Project Management Advisory Please provide specifics 

as to how this differs from Follow-up and TA 

Tool License: Teacher Compass and Co-Teaching 

Management Tool 

Conduct Two-Day Summer Institute 

in 2010 for up to 80 teachers and 

administrators: Building 21st Century 

Learning Environments (includes 5 

CTE Trainers for workshop planning 

and implementation based on $1,000 

daily rate). 

10 PD Boosters ($5,000)and 5 days 

($1,000 per day) of 0nline technical 

assistance 

Based on 50 classes includes (BL 

classroom set--$230 per class and 

video capture of exemplary models 

for sharing across district) 

Coordination with HCPS Special 

Education Project Leadership Team 

and Math Curriculum Specialists 

based on 5 (1/2 day) F2F visits by 

CTE Project Manager at $1,000 rate. 

License fee ($3,000 ) and ($2,500) 

per tool for up to 100 teachers 

10,000 

15,000 

11,500 

5,000 

5,500 

Travel, Mileage 

*Ripple Effects will be contracted separately. 

5 (F2F visits) @ 100 miles roundtrip x 

.55 x 2 trainers = $1,100 for Project 

Management Advisory & Summer 

Institute 

Add an additional $440.00 (4 Trainers 

x100 mile x 2 trips x .55) IF Summer 

Institute is held in HFC and not at 

CTE 990 

TOTAL 76,500 

A 9


Collaboration Profile Self-Assessment 

Respond to each statement below by circling the number that best describes your viewpoint. 

1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Agree 4 = Strongly Agree 

1) I value the knowledge and skill that my collaboration partner contributes. 1 2 3 4 

2) I feel that my collaboration partner values the knowledge and skill that I contribute. 1 2 3 4 

3) We both take an active role in supporting student learning. 1 2 3 4 

4) I trust in my partner’s teaching abilities. 1 2 3 4 

5) My collaboration partner and I have a designated time to discuss student learning goals, 

accommodations, and instructional tools and strategies. 

6) My collaboration partner and I have a clear understanding of each other’s roles and 

responsibilities that support student learning. 

1 2 3 4 

1 2 3 4 

7) I feel comfortable discussing my professional relationship with my collaboration partner. 1 2 3 4 

8) I actively listen to understand the perspective of my collaboration partner. 1 2 3 4 

9) My collaboration partner and I have a mutual understanding about classroom 

management and grading. 

1 2 3 4 

10) I am familiar with the curriculum and feel comfortable implementing accommodations. 1 2 3 4 

11) I feel that my partner is familiar with the curriculum and feels comfortable implementing 

accommodations. 

1 2 3 4 

12) I have a high sense of expectation and responsibility for student learning. 1 2 3 4 

13) I feel that my collaboration partner has a high sense of responsibility and expectation 

for student learning. 

1 2 3 4 

14) I regularly plan and prepare instruction with my collaboration partner. 1 2 3 4 

15) I regularly evaluate the implementation of lessons, instructional strategies and 

accommodations with my collaboration partner. 

16) It is my responsibility to ensure access, involvement, and progress in the general 

education curriculum for all students. 

1 2 3 4 

1 2 3 4 

Johns Hopkins University Center for Technology in Education 

A 10


Insert Ripple Effects 

A 11


A 12


Brief background on Ripple Effects 

Ripple Effects' evidence-based software for students and staff helps educators address the social, emotional, and behavioral needs 

of students with disabilities, in the least restrictive environment. 

Ripple Effects for Kids and Ripple Effects for Teens make hundreds of specific topics and evidence-based practices easily 

accessible though a media-rich, multi-modal learning system, and use diverse peer voices, images, and stories to communicate the 

content. Educators can use it to provide tiered intervention, to help all children develop the social skills that make collaborative 

classrooms work effectively, to provide targeted intervention to address group level risks for particular students, and to individualize 

treatment for students with specific challenges. Ripple Effects enables one-on-one and self-directed problem-solving, and helps 

educators more easily deliver personalized, effective behavioral training, in a format that engages students with special needs. 

11 studies conducted over the past decade that included special needs students, show that the software boosts grades, strengthens 

school engagement, and reduces in and out of school suspensions. It has also been shown to strengthen student empathy and 

problem-solving abilities. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the program strengthens relationships between students and adults, 

prompts disclosure of underlying problems, and engages and ―opens up‖ struggling or hard to reach learners. 

Ripple Effects for Staff provides individualized professional development for all educators in best practices for positive behavioral 

supports, managing diverse learners, and strengthening staff social-emotional competencies. 

All three applications integrate assessment, and provide data management tools to track learner progress completing the integrated 

assessments. 

Hundreds of school districts use Ripple Effects in a range of settings. Los Angeles Unified uses it to help students with disabilities 

succeed in the least restrictive environment, providing individualized interventions to address behavior problems and provide 

supports. It is also integrated into the district’s discipline policy. Other districts use Ripple Effects to help address overrepresentation 

of minorities in special education, and to provide early intervening services. 

While not fully accessible to all students with disabilities, it is accessible to students with some disabilities. Rich images and sound 

to text equivalents make Ripple Effects software fully accessible to students with hearing impairment, who can focus on the text and 

pictures, and to dyslexic students, who don’t need to actively decode in order to understand and analyze the main themes. The 

organizational structure of more than 5000 micro-tutorials, none longer than 90 seconds, makes the program accessible to students 

with short attention span, regardless of cause. The tutorials on social skills have been used successfully with students who have 

mild to moderate communicative disorders. Students with mobility-related disabilities have physical accessibility to the program 

wherever they have computer access. Specific tutorials on physical, cognitive, attention and emotional disorders directly help 

affected students to develop problem solving skills, as well as resilience and assertiveness, and help other students to develop 

increased empathy toward students with disabilities. 

A 13


Insert information related to NCTM Creating and Selecting Intervention Programs (3 pages) 

and Differentiated Instruction (2 pages) 

A 14


A 15


A 16


A 17


A 18


Success Maker is part of a Proven Formula for Success 

By Rosemary Heher, Coordinator of Mathematics Instruction 

Maryland has 24 public school systems, which participate in state assessments, as mandated by the federal No Child 

Left Behind Act. Recently, the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE) identified middle school students in 

the Worcester County Public School system as ranking first in the state on the Maryland School Assessments 

(MSA) in Mathematics, as reported in MSDE’s 2006 Master Plan Update report. In addition, the 2007 MSA 

Mathematics scores for grades 3 through 8 rank Worcester County Public School students first in the state in Grades 

3, 6, 7, and 8. (Grade 4 ranks second; Grade 5, eighth.)This extraordinary success does not happen by chance. It is 

a product of a clear vision and a well-developed and executed plan. The plan is dependent on many factors, including 

hiring and retaining the highest quality teachers; developing and implementing a state-approved mathematics 

curriculum; and providing students with engaging materials of instruction. In addition to these factors, our school 

system believes that academic success is most attainable when students are provided with individualized instruction. 

Individualized instruction can be achieved through small class sizes, as well as differentiated instruction, which takes 

into account how, and at what pace students learn. Worcester County Public Schools prides itself on having the 

smallest class sizes in Maryland. Small class sizes enhance a teacher’s ability to provide one-on-one instruction to 

students who need it. In addition to small class sizes, a new computer mathematics program has been adopted 

district-wide to further individualize our school system’s mathematics program. The Success Maker program, a 

computer-driven learning environment from Pearson Digital Learning, provides students with individualized 

mathematics instruction that engages and challenges students at their level and pace. Our school system can 

proudly say that SuccessMaker is part of a proven formula for success in mathematics. The results continue to add 

up. For nearly a decade, Worcester County Public Schools has utilized computer software to supplement math 

instruction. As more challenging computer software programs became available, our school system decided to pilot 

Success Maker at Ocean City Elementary School when the school transitioned to its new building. The program was 

an instant success with students and teachers, and was expanded soon after to all students in the school system in 

grades 1 through 6. 

Success Maker is being used as a supplement to daily mathematics classes, adding an additional hour of math each 

week. Students can also access Success Maker programs in their after-school academies, summer school 

academies, and during their math enrichment experiences. Pearson Digital Learning also provides an online 

component, which allows parents and students to access Success Maker elements from their homes. 

In the Success Maker mathematics lab, students work in a highly interactive computer graphics environment led by a 

Success Maker manager. Students enroll in Math Concepts and Skills/2, a skills-based program; Math Investigations, 

a program requiring students to demonstrate higher-order thinking and communication skills; and Algebra Topics 

which introduces symbolic manipulations and functions. Students are initially assessed using specialized adaptive 

software, which places them within their individual ―math comfort zone,‖ where they are able to solve most of the 

math problems. Students are then challenged to expand their repertoire of skills through increasingly more difficult, 

creative problem-solving activities. The software provides students with immediate feedback. 

Success Maker’s data management system monitors the progress of each student, enabling teachers to intervene 

with timely follow-ups in the classroom. While progress is, instantaneously monitored, periodic reports are generated 

for teachers and parents to review. Many of our schools issue a pair of weekly-individualized reports for every student 

enrolled in Success Maker. The first report describes a range of skills each student has mastered. The other report 

identifies a student’s single lowest skill area and provides computer-generated activities to help the student build 

strength in that skill. Teachers set aside time during the week to work one-on-one with each student until the student 

has mastered the identified lowest-skill area. Once a student has achieved mastery with this skill, Success Maker 

then targets the next lowest skill area and the process continues. By using these differentiated reports and 

customized activities, all stakeholders (students, parents, and teachers) are continually aware of the progress each 

student is making in the program. Children tell us that they enjoy the flat screen TV monitors, the colorfully animated 

A 19


computer graphics, and the high-interest, short games that appear periodically as students move through increasingly 

complex skill levels. Jackie Matrona, Ocean City Elementary’s SuccessMaker lab manager, likes the program 

because of the way students have responded to learning math. ―It is so exciting to work with this program,‖ said 

Matrona. ―The results are amazing! Children feel such confidence; they feel such pride when they master a skill.‖ 

Carrie Maynard, lab manager at Showell Elementary School, explained, ―Children today are very technology driven. 

They love to come to the Success Maker lab and are never ready to leave when their session is over. Students on or 

above grade level often choose to stay in at recess and work because they enjoy the program so much.‖ Susan 

Cropper, a fifth grade teacher at Berlin Intermediate School, appreciates the data she can access to help her 

students. ―As the classroom teacher,‖ said Cropper, ―I am able to see the areas where children are having difficulty, 

and through the customized [Success Maker] courses, the children are able to master them. The program enables 

me to use these areas to provide differentiated instruction to meet the needs of all my children at their individual level. 

It is a fabulous tool to enrich our children.‖ 

A 20


A 21


A 22


A 23


A 24


A 25


A 26


A 27


A 28


A 29


A 30


A 31


A 32


SIGNATURE SHEETS 

for 

FEDERAL FUNDS 

I. LSS/PA CERTIFICATION 

LSS: Harford County Public Schools DATE SUBMITTED: May 1, 2009 

The undersigned certify that all facts, figures, and representations made in this Application and budget submission, 

including exhibits and attachments, are true and correct. We further certify all information is based on locally maintained 

policies, procedures, and practices that support compliance with all special education federal and State regulations. 

Date 

Signature of Superintendent 

Date 

Signature of Director of Special Education 

II. 

MSDE APPROVAL 

(FOR MSDE APPROVAL USE ONLY) 

Date 

Grant Administrator 

Date 

Chief, Special Education Administration and 

Quality Assurance Branch 

Date 

Chief, Student Achievement and 

Professional Development Branch 

Date 

(MSDE FORM J-2-2) 

Assistant State Superintendent 

AA 1


III. 

Assurances 

1. Programs and projects funded in total or in part through this grant will operate in compliance with State and federal laws and regulations, including but not limited to the 1964 Civil 

Rights Acts and amendments, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 34, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Education 

Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR), the General Education Provision Act (GEPA), the Maryland Education That Is Multicultural Regulation, Section 504 of 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

2. The Maryland State Department of Education may, as it deems necessary, supervise, evaluate and provide guidance and direction to grantee in the conduct of activities performed 

under this grant. However, failure of MSDE to supervise, evaluate, or provide guidance and direction shall not relieve grantee of any liability for failure to comply with the terms of 

the grant award. 

3. Grantee shall establish and maintain fiscal control and fund accounting procedures, as set forth at 34 CFR Part 76 & 80 and in applicable State law and regulation. 

4. Grantee shall adhere to MSDE reporting requirements, including the submission of progress reports. 

5. Entities receiving $500,000 or more of federal funds need to have an annual financial and compliance audit in accordance with OMB Circular A-133 or A-128, whichever is 

applicable. 

6. Grantee shall retain all records of its financial transactions and accounts relating to this grant for a period of three years after termination of the grant agreement and shall make 

such records available for inspection and audit by authorized representatives of MSDE. The retention of records for Medical Assistance purposes is six years. 

7. Grantee must receive prior written approval from the MSDE Project Monitor before implementing any programmatic changes with respect to the purpose for that the grant was 

awarded 

8. Grantee must receive prior written approval from the MSDE Project Monitor for any budgetary realignment of $1000 or 15% of total object and/or total category of expenditure, 

whichever is greater. Grantee must support the request with reasons for the change. Budget alignments must be submitted at least 45 days prior to the end of the grant period. 

9. Requests for grant extensions must be submitted at least 45 days prior to the end of the grant period 

10. Grantee shall repay any funds that have been finally determined through the federal or State audit resolution process to have been misspent, misapplied, or otherwise not properly 

accounted for, and further agrees to pay any collection fees that may subsequently be imposed by the Federal and/or State government. 

11. If the grantee fails to fulfill its obligation under the grant agreement properly and on time, or otherwise violates any provision of the grant, MSDE may suspend or terminate the grant 

by written notice to the grantee. The notice shall specify those acts or omissions relied upon as cause for suspension or termination. Grantee shall repay MSDE for any funds that 

have been determined through audit to have been misspent, unspent, misapplied, or otherwise not properly accounted for. The repayment may be made by an offset to funds that 

are otherwise due grantee. 

12. Vendor, sub-grantees, and/or consultants; including officers and employees shall comply with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act at all times (20 

U.S.C. § 123g). 

12. Local School System (LSS) grantees are required to comply with Maintenance of Effort (MOE) regulation 34 CFR § 300.203. Funds provided to an LSS under Part B of the Act 

must not be used to reduce the level of expenditures for the education of children with disabilities below the level of those expenditures for the preceding fiscal year. 

14. Grantee work products resulting from grant funds must be reviewed and approved by MSDE; all intellectual property rights, records, documents, reports, and 

other materials shall be the property of MSDE and no such materials shall be subject to copyright, patent, or trademark, by or on behalf of, any sub-grant 

recipient. 

I accept the assurance, and certify that all of the facts, figures, and representations made with respect to the grant application and grant award, including exhibits and 

attachments, are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. 

Superintendent of Schools/Head of Grantee Agency 

Date 

(MSDE FORM – J-2) 

AA 2

Revised 09/08 

TITLE I SELECTION INSTRUMENTS AND SELECTION CRITERIA 

*Students meeting at least two criteria will be targeted for interventions. 

*Some students may be monitored due to lack of formal assessment data. 

Third Grade 

Mathematics 

Instrument 

1. Everyday Math Cumulative 

Mathematics Strand Report 

Criteria 

Student scores below proficiency on 3 out of 6 strands from the 

previous grade level 

Or 

Student scores below proficiency on algebra, patterns, and 

functions and/or number relationships and computation. 

2. Math Unit Assessments Student scores less than 70% on seventy percent of completed 

units or has a cumulative average less than 70% on math unit 

assessments. 

4. Teacher Observation Class Profile for 

Mathematics 

Teacher indicates student is below grade level. 

5.Everyday Math diagnostic assessments 

for beginning, middle, or end-of year 

Student scores less than 70% 

Third Grade 

Reading 

Instrument 

Criteria 

1.SRI Student scores at level less than 3. 

2.Running Record 

Student scores below instructional level on appropriate 

third grade benchmark text. 

2. Holistic Assessment Student scores “below.” 

3.Word I.D. 

4.Teacher Observation Class Profile 

Student scores at least 6 months below grade level. 

Teacher indicates student is below grade level.

Revised 09/08 




Fourth Grade 

Mathematics 

Instrument 

1.Maryland School Assessment 

Student scores “Basic.” 

Criteria 





Or 





assessments. 


Mathematics 





Fourth Grade 

Reading 

Instrument 



Criteria 


3.Running Record 

Student scores below instructional level on end-of-thirdgrade 

running record. 


5.Word I.D. 



Teacher indicates student is below grade level.

Revised 09/08 




Fifth Grade 

Mathematics 

Instrument 



Criteria 





Or 





assessments. 


Mathematics 




Fifth Grade 


Reading 

Instrument 



Criteria 



5.Word I.D. 




Note: If the above criteria for grades K-5 do not identify enough students to sustain the program, a decision will 

be made by the Title I office to adjust criteria or to use an alternative instrument.

Results-Based Decision Making Model 

HCPS - AYP FY 10 

What works... 

Criteria for Recommended Instructional Interventions 

1. Scientifically-based evidence of effectiveness: The effectiveness of 

instructional interventions are justified based on scientific research that 

involves the application of rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures to 

obtain reliable and valid knowledge on the instructional interventions. The 

major components of the instructionali ntervention include instructional 

methods and practices that have been verified through scientifically-based 

research. The research that documents improvement instudent achievement 

has presented convincing evidence that the observed results werebased on 

the instructional intervention. 

2. Replicability: The instructional intervention effectiveness has been 

demonstrated through multiple investigations in numerous locations with 

low-achieving students. 

3. Correlation with or adaptability to Maryland Voluntary Curriuclum and Core 

Learning Goals . 

4. Progress Monitoring to: 

- Identify the student's current level of performance 

- Establish educational goals for improving learning 

outcomes 

- Measure the student's academic performance on a regular 

basis 

Fidelity of Implementation 

1. Provision of systematic , effective instruction that is alignment with the VSC 

and local curriculum. 

2. Selection and implementation of core programs and materials of instruction 

to meet the identified needs for students and appropriately modified based 

on assessment data. 

3. Engagement in high quality professional development on the core program 

content, assessment instruments, data analysis, and decision-making team 

processes with data collected on teacher learning. 

4. Completion of frequent observations of school teams , interventions, and 

progress monitoring practices with feedback provided by school system 

leadership.

Population 



• Elementary and middle schools not meeting AYP in Math due to the subgroup 

special education or met AYP in the Safe Harbor (SH)designation: 

• Riverside Elementary Deerfield Elementary (SH) 

• William Paca/Old Post Road Elementary (SH) 

• Aberdeen Middle 

Edgewood Middle 

• Fallston Middle 

North Harford Middle 

• Havre de Grace Middle 

• Elementary and middle school SWD scoring Basic (B) on Math MSA 

• Riverside Elementary: 59.6% 31 of 52 SWD (B) 

• Deerfield Elementary (SH): 62.5% 20 of 32 SWD (B) 

• William Paca/OLd Post Road Elementary (SH): 57.4% 39 of 68 SWD (B) 

• Aberdeen Middle: 72.5% 137 of 189 SWD (B) 

• Edgewood Middle: 79.5 % 101 of 127 SWD (B) 

• Fallston Middle: 64.9% 61 of 94 SWD (B) 

• Havre de Grace Middle: 75.3% 67 of 89 SWD (B) 

• North Harford Middle: 74.0% 97 of 131 SWD (B) 

Result 

• SWD have the necessary knowledge and skills to successfully meet the demands 

of HCPS Math curriculum and score proficient on MSA in Math 

• General education and special education teachers will collaborate to provide 

mathematics instruction that is comprehensive and differentiated to meet needs 

of all learners 

Indicators 

• Number of SWD participating in a research-based, peer-reviewed mathematics 

intervention(s) 

• Regular intervals of progress monitoring and flexible grouping for SWD 

participating in mathematics intervention(s) 

• Number of teachers trained to plan for and implement differentiated instruction 

in the math content 

• Percent of teachers implementing effective differentiated instruction in the math 

content 

• SPP Indicators 3 A, 3B and 3C - Participation and performance of SWD on 

statewide assessment s



Baseline 

Trend data by School and Grade level 

Riverside Elementary 

Deerfield Elementary 

William Paca / Old Post Road Elementary 

Baseline 


Aberdeen Middle



Baseline 


Edgewood Middle 

Baseline 


Fallston Middle 

Baseline 


Havre de Grace Middle 

Baseline 


North Harford Middle

Successmaker Enterprise Software Purchase - Harford County ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?