Instructional review: district sees stronger Tier‑1 instruction; schools to sharpen multilingual, progress‑monitoring supports

The Everett Public Schools Board of Directors received the district's annual instructional review (IR) summary on Jan. 14, which described systemwide strengths in Tier‑1 classroom instruction and identified next steps to sharpen supports for multilingual learners, progress monitoring and targeted math interventions. The presentation was led by the district’s instructional team and included a school‑level case study from Garfield Elementary.

The district reported visits to more than 300 classrooms across 27 schools during the 2024 IR season. Doctor Scott, who introduced the summary, said the IRs aim to ensure equitable access to “powerful learning” by linking school improvement plans to classroom practice and to the district strategic plan. The presentation highlighted common “glows” — observable strengths — and “grows” — areas for improvement that appear across schools.

Why it matters: The IRs guide school‑level action planning and district support. Findings feed directly into 90‑day action plans and the professional learning embedded in schools, which the district says is the primary lever for sustaining improvement.

Most notable strengths reported were clear learning targets, high student engagement (including use of vertical whiteboard spaces), more aligned teacher teams and stronger use of shared progress‑monitoring tools such as i‑Ready and Panorama. The IR summary also singled out effective use of paraeducators and positive behavior interventions and supports (PBIS) in common areas.

At the same time, presenters said several common improvement priorities emerged: further integrating multilingual learner assessment (including expanded use of the WIDA assessment and Imagine Language & Literacy), deepening secondary progress monitoring for multilingual learners, expanding high‑leverage planning to individualize instruction, and refining math assessment so teachers can track individual student mastery while maintaining group engagement.

Garfield Elementary principal Kathy Stilwell described how the school translates IR findings into practice through a three‑year goal (“eliminate poverty as a predictor of student achievement”), grade‑level professional learning communities (PLCs), frequent progress monitoring and targeted intervention cycles. Stilwell said Garfield doubled PLC meeting time this year and uses student‑by‑student diagnostic work to define intervention cycles and measure progress.

The instructional team also showed a brief video of job‑embedded professional learning (an OEL cycle, Observation for Evidence of Learning) at Everett High School. Secondary math facilitators and teachers described how focused, short‑cycle professional learning led to next‑day implementation of strategies such as thin‑slicing problems and the use of non‑permanent vertical surfaces to increase student thinking and peer feedback.

Board members and the student representative asked clarifying questions about timelines and how findings will be scaled. The district said IR action plans are nested within school improvement plans and monitored through ongoing PLCs and central office supports.

The presentation closed with two systemwide recommendations: “preserve the core” (keep working the established school improvement plans) and “evolve the practices” (iterate with focused reinvestment and course correction). The district said the IRs will inform targeted supports and are part of the continuous improvement cycle tied to the strategic plan.

Sources and evidence: the IR presentation, principal comments and classroom examples were provided to the board during the Jan. 14 meeting.