District presents 2025 instructional review findings; principals spotlight co‑teaching and PLCs
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
SubscribeSummary
District leaders summarized the 2025 Instructional Reviews across 27 schools, highlighting co‑teaching expansion, PLCs, data‑driven progress monitoring and job‑embedded 'learning labs' as levers to close gaps for multilingual learners and students with disabilities.
District instructional leaders presented a retrospective of the 2025 Instructional Review (IR) season, describing how reviews across 27 schools produced shared priorities—rigor and engagement, language acquisition support for multilingual learners, and stronger progress monitoring via PLCs.
Dr. Scott framed IRs as part of a continuous improvement cycle that includes classroom learning walks, 'glows and grows' feedback and school‑level IR action plans. Principals from Heatherwood, Jefferson and Emerson illustrated how those plans translate into classroom practice.
Heatherwood Principal Dr. Wellington described the school’s expanded co‑teaching model—growing from two to seven co‑taught classes serving more than 200 students—and reported, “Over 94 percent of students in co taught classes earned passing grades this first semester.” He said co‑teaching enables targeted differentiation, smaller groups and greater access for students with disabilities and multilingual learners.
Jefferson Elementary Principal Steve Hopkins described three 'big rocks': a scaffolding playbook for tier‑1 instruction, academic oral language supports, and specific success criteria to make feedback actionable. Emerson Principal Blythe Young emphasized PLC cycles, common formative assessments and walk‑throughs used to align instruction and adjust supports in real time.
Central office leaders said they support IR action plans through instructional coaches, monthly coach cohorts, and job‑embedded learning labs where teachers collaboratively plan, teach and debrief lessons. The district emphasized that IRs are iterative and that central staff will return for follow‑up visits to monitor implementation and tailor support.
Board members praised the visible classroom examples and the PLC structures. The presentation did not request board action; leaders described follow‑up supports and monitoring scheduled for high‑priority schools.
