And I said in the conversation really was about OK, so we take the time to know who they are as readers and mathematicians. But do we know who they are as humans and when they walk in and what are the things are bringing in with them and how are we starting to make those connections right off the bat? So the first thing we have to know is what what do our students bring with them? So then we can talk about how are we going to respond to their needs? Now some of those needs are based on what is in our guaranteed and viable curriculum. The things that we have to make sure every kid gets that sandbox is designed for us and we have to make sure we know what that is. And that's that first CLT in our buildings you might call them PLC questions of what we want all students to know, understand and be able to do. And then we start to have conversations around that. The next thing that is driving that instruction was common formative assessments. As we're building through that, how are we actually looking at knowing are we getting the data? Are they making the learning in small increments that we need them to make? And if not, what is our lesson the next day need to look like?

Are they making the learning in small increments that we need them to make? And if not, what is our lesson the next day need to look like? A recent example of that is we had some recent phonics data where our reading team, our reading team of the reading specialists, our reading, our reading coach came in and met with each of the teams and went through some recent some recent data and said, is this a tier one initial instruction issue? Do we have a lot of students that didn't get this when we need it or is this something that we can use an intervention, a tier two or something else to address? And as we looked at it, we realized there might be some things we need to redo tier one wise, which means we go back and teach it more whole group and thinking about what does that look like? And so that's driven by the data that we're given from our students. And so that is what do we know about our kids? What are they telling us? And then how do we make those adjustments? How that's done is through those CLT. So that's that collaborative part where everybody is working together. I will. The other thing I mentioned in this is over the last few years is that we've had a good deal of new staff. We've had staff members that have retired.

The other thing I mentioned in this is over the last few years is that we've had a good deal of new staff. We've had staff members that have retired. We've been we've been bringing them in and part of what we have to do is when we're doing this is like making sure that there's a common understanding of what are we trying to teach and then having conversations around how we can actually teach it. So as we incorporate them or meeting in grade level teams, I will say we meet at least once a week. Most of our teams meet almost every day. They're meeting and collaborating and talking. And that's whether they're with a coach, whether they're with myself or our counselor meets with them, our instructional coordinator meets with them and they're having conversations about kids in a variety of ways. But they are really driving that through that data. But then part of that conversation is not just what do we know, but how are we actually going to instruct this? And that's where some of those structured autonomy comes in. Like I mentioned earlier, we do have a defined sandbox. That guaranteed and viable curriculum. We have to teach these things, but every teacher is also an individual and we have to appreciate that what they bring is unique to them. And if we're asking them to, we don't ask them to leave that the door either just in the way we wouldn't want our students.

We have to teach these things, but every teacher is also an individual and we have to appreciate that what they bring is unique to them. And if we're asking them to, we don't ask them to leave that the door either just in the way we wouldn't want our students. So they're going to approach that a little bit differently. So they do have some autonomy in how they're going to do it. But then we use that data to decide is it working or is it not working? And then if it's not working for a student, we want to think about what we can do to address that. What kind of interventions can we put in place? A lot of work around tier two. Like I said, I know some of these other are going to talk about some of those things a little bit more in depth. But at the end of the day, it's really it all is about how well do we know our learners and what are we doing to respond to their needs? Good evening. I want to talk a little bit about our tier one work at the high school.

Good evening. I want to talk a little bit about our tier one work at the high school. But if you'll remember, if you think back to two years ago, I think we were talking about concerns about science scores and what we talked about there was we were really we were really dedicating time to going back and looking at our curriculum and looking at those power standards, those priority standards within the state curriculum framework and seeing how they line up. And what we found was our theory of practice at the time was that that by just making some small adjustments, we could get some real gains. And last year we made some significant gains in that regard. And then one of the so what we did is we replicated that in all disciplines this past year. And one of the things that we spent a lot of time doing in our PLC groups is really unpacking the state standards and looking at how that aligns with our curriculum and looking at what those priority standards are and how those align and fit into the work that we're already doing in our in our building. And we feel like that had a large impact on some of the growth and the improvement that we saw this year as well. And what I think is really great about the work that we're doing this year is that we really kind of had this mental model of a rising tide lifts all boats.