Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Instructional Empowerment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cedar Rapids schools report double‑digit ISASP gains after yearlong rollout of Instructional Empowerment
Summary
District officials and school leaders told the board that a year of coaching and classroom practice using the Instructional Empowerment model produced measurable gains in student engagement and scores, with some schools reporting double‑digit growth on ISASP for targeted subgroups.
The Cedar Rapids Community School District on Monday told its Board of Education that a yearlong rollout of the Instructional Empowerment (IE) model produced measurable gains in classroom practice and student outcomes, including double‑digit increases on this year’s ISASP tests for some schools and subgroups.
District leaders described a structured program of classroom coaching, principal rigor walks and “look and learns” by instructional coaches that touched thousands of visits and prompted targeted changes to learning targets, student tasks and teaming. “When students know what the outcome of their learning is, their achievement rises,” Chief of Schools Maura Hobson said.
The district’s presentation said administrators completed 4,962 classroom visits and instructional coaches delivered 2,397 focused coaching sessions this school year. Kenwood Leadership Academy, one of the district’s early implementer sites, reported that its targeted subgroups outperformed overall building growth in literacy, math and science on ISASP. Principal Jessica Westerkamp said IE gave teachers “structures that build lifelong skills” and allowed special‑education and ELL staff to run the same student‑led structures in pull‑out settings.
Teachers who volunteered as early implementers were singled out during the presentation. One teacher, Holland Eggert, was quoted in district materials saying, “IE has shifted the way I deliver instruction in my classroom… I can see the way they hold one another accountable, the way they challenge each other, and how it truly puts the learning onto them.” The board heard classroom video clips and student remarks demonstrating team roles, student facilitation and collaborative problem solving.
Board members asked for clarifications about differences between administrator “rigor walks” and instructional coach “look and learns” (Hobson described rigor walks as trend‑focused building reviews and look and learns as teacher‑specific coaching cycles) and about plans to scale coaching. Hobson said the district will continue to expand guided supports and expects some schools to need fewer touch points as IE becomes standard practice. Several board members praised the program’s early results and urged continuing support for coaching and professional learning.
District leaders said next steps include moving guided and focused schools deeper into the model (MOI 201) and continuing professional learning for principals, coaches and teachers to strengthen teaming, rigor and sustained implementation. Hobson said many schools requested additional support, which the district will try to meet as capacity allows.
Board members framed the year’s results as early evidence that the board’s investment in the model is producing returns in student engagement and achievement, particularly for schools that implemented IE with sustained coaching support.
Less urgent details: presenters said individual school growth varied; some schools are farther along than others. The presentation included classroom excerpts, a snapshot of ISASP gains at highlighted schools and plans to continue principal monthly professional learning to support cross‑building continuity.
