College Station ISD updates instructional coaching, MTSS and new‑teacher supports

College Station ISD instructional staff delivered a Teaching and Learning Department workshop to the board on practices aimed at raising the consistency and quality of instruction across the district.

The presentation, led by Tiffany Parkerson (executive director of secondary education) and Letty Roman, focused on three department areas—curriculum and instruction, early childhood and special services—with particular emphasis on districtwide instructional coaching, multi‑tiered systems of support (MTSS) and professional learning. Parkerson said the district’s teaching–assessing–learning cycle is intended to promote “consistency, clarity and continuous improvement” through shared curriculum resources, common assessments and data‑driven conversations.

Staff reported 1,070 campus visits this year—about 1,500 hours on campuses—for observations, coaching and collaborative‑team meetings. Those visits, staff said, are used to identify needs and target professional learning. The district described a K–8 model with two full‑time instructional coaches per elementary campus and a hybrid coaching model at the high school level.

On MTSS, presenters said the district has concentrated recent work on Tier‑2 and Tier‑3 interventions and has partnered with special education staff to improve behavioral supports. At the elementary level, the district highlighted an ongoing partnership with Texas A&M University for the CAP (Knowledge Acquisition and Transformation) reading strategy; staff said second‑ and third‑grade teachers at all 10 elementary campuses have been trained and that fourth‑grade training is in progress.

New‑teacher supports were a key topic. Staff described the redesigned three‑day August program called Spark (district welcome day, campus day, and targeted supports) plus a mentor program for teachers in their zero‑ and one‑year. Each mentor is assigned by campus administration, receives a stipend and must document mentoring activities; presenters said the stipend is $500 per mentee and that Title II funds are being used to pay the stipends.

Trustees probed implementation details: which staff conduct campus visits (department staff and content coordinators, not campus‑based instructional coaches), how PLCs are scheduled, and how much training is district‑required versus optional. Staff said campuses have discretion over PLC frequency and length but that the PLC work itself is expected districtwide; a common parameter shared with principals was one to two collaborative meetings per week, typically 30–45 minutes, adapted to campus schedules.

Board members also raised technology and artificial‑intelligence use in classrooms. Presenters said teachers retain classroom autonomy for day‑to‑day technology decisions; the district’s technology staff routinely presents instructional tools to coaches and principals. Staff noted that Natalie (technology staff) is assembling an AI committee to develop district guidance over the coming year.

On professional learning, staff reviewed a recent district PD survey with modest participation (226 respondents). The highest‑rated needs were content‑specific professional development, protected planning time and hands‑on sessions; the district plans summer “trade days” (summer PD that can be traded for teacher work days during the school year) and a district choice conference in August.

The board was told a curriculum audit completed last spring remains under review; staff said they will present the audit findings to the board when the review is finished. Trustees thanked the presenters; no formal actions were taken during the workshop.