2-Green River High School Needs Assessment Report Final.pdf

Springboard

Green River High School Needs Assessment Report

Dr. Gregory Firn 3-23-2026

Contents Needs Assessment Report

Process

Context

Executive Summary

Theory of Action

Priority Focus:1

Priority Focus: 2

Scope of Work Considerations

Needs Assessment and Analysis of Causes

Four Quadrant Problem Identification

Student Learning Outcomes

Summary

Analysis: Technical Problems versus Adaptive Challenges

Summary and Analysis

Instructional Practices

Summary

Analysis: Technical Problems versus Adaptive Challenges

Summary and Analysis

Leadership

Summary

Analysis: Technical Problems versus Adaptive Challenges

Summary and Analysis

School Culture

Summary

Analysis: Technical Problems versus Adaptive Challenges

Summary and Analysis

Force Choice Activity

1. The “Student” Experience

2. Instructional & Staff Capacity

3. Leadership & Systemic Strategy

4. Community & Environmental Context

Control vs. Influence Analysis

Within School Control (High Influence)

Out of School Control (Low Influence)

Priority Focus Areas

Needs Assessment Report

Process Green River High School (Green River), as a designated Springboard school, participated in a three-step problem-based needs assessment process that included:

• Reviewing specific state of Utah accountability measures including current achievement and growth metrics and expected exit targets.

• Reviewing current reality and desired future

• The identification of problems and challenges with student outcomes, instructional practices, culture, and leadership1.

• Analyzing the causes and/or contributing factors to identified problems and challenges

• Differentiating technical problems (TP) from adaptive challenges (AC).

• Examining 1) patterns and trends, 2) systemic structures (policies, resources, schedules, etc.), and 3) the deeply held beliefs, assumptions, and/or values underpinning problems or challenges with current practices, tasks, activities, and routines.

• Prioritizing and analyzing TP and AC

Context Green River High School is a small, rural public secondary school located in Green River, Utah, within the Emery School District. Serving students in grades 7–12, the school operates in a close-knit community of fewer than 1,000 residents, where all students live in a fully rural setting.

The school’s small size contributes to a low student–teacher ratio, providing the opportunity for more individualized attention and stronger relationships between students and staff. However, like many rural schools, Green River High School faces unique challenges related to limited resources, staffing capacity, and geographic isolation.

Despite these challenges, Green River High School benefits from a strong sense of community, small class sizes, and the potential to implement targeted, personalized interventions. These contextual factors are essential for understanding the school’s current needs and for guiding planning efforts aimed at improving student outcomes, 1 Leadership is defined as distributed and not limited to a specific position or person.

strengthening instructional practices, and increasing engagement among students, staff, and families.

Green River is a Springboard school because the percentage of accountability points earned averaged over the past three years ranked the school as one of the two lowest performing non-Title I high schools.

To exit Springboard status, Green River is required to achieve a one-third reduction in the gap between the baseline of 42.44% (equivalent to 95.5 out of 225 points) and the target of 47.29% (or 106.40 out of 225 points). Additionally, the school must surpass the cut score set for the lowest 5% of Title I schools from the year it was identified.

Table 1:

Points Possible

Points Earned

Total Percent

Target Points

Exit Target

Delta of Points To Exit

225 95.5 42.44% 106.40 47.29% 10.90

The Utah Accountability Technical Manual provides detailed information on the points and weighting of indicators for high schools. In examining the accountability indicators trends for Green River (2016-2025), the school showed steady improvement beginning in 2019 through 2022. In 2023, performance decreased only to show a modest improvement in 2025. The increase achieved in 2025 stopped an 11% decrease experienced in the 2023 and 2024 school years.

Executive Summary In reviewing the needs assessment and current initiatives in motion, the analysis of the causes for low performance validate and affirm what the school and district have identified. The school and district in many respects are initiating strategy and action steps to address identified challenges and barriers.

Through the needs assessment process several challenges as well as opportunities were discussed. It is important to note, however, that these strategies and action steps are in many cases in an early implementation phase and will need continued support to move from promising results to sustain improvement or have been disruptive due to factors outside the control or influence of the school.

https://www.schools.utah.gov/assessment/_assessment_/_resources_/_accountability_/25AccountabilityTechnicalManualDRAFT.pdf

The assessment identified several system-related challenges in supporting instruction.

These include the presence and practice of instructional coaching and examining the purpose, value, and outcomes of professional learning communities (PLCs). Additionally, the assessment highlighted the importance of consistent systems at both the classroom and school levels to ensure clear expectations and uniform approaches to student conduct and behavior.

The needs assessment process identified two priority focus areas which, if executed with fidelity, are expected to enable the school to exit Springboard designation and establish a solid foundation for ongoing improvement. These focus areas have given rise to two theories of action that fall within the school's sphere of control or considerable influence.

Theory of Action School and district administration) created a theory of change (ToC) for Green River considering the specific leadership actions to effectively and efficiently initiate, lead, and manage the change necessary to realize the expected and desired outcomes produced by each theory of action (ToA).

The ToAs highlight the main priorities identified through an analysis of technical problems and adaptive challenges that contribute to inconsistent student performance. They are structured using "if," "then," and "because" statements.

Priority Focus:12 Establish a coherent, school-wide system of rigorous, student-centered instruction and aligned expectations that strengthens teaching practices, builds teacher capacity, and engages families as partners to ensure all students develop literacy, engagement, resilience, and achieve consistent, high-quality learning focused on mastery.

I f… Then … Because

• If the school implements a coherent, school-wide system of rigorous, student-centered instruction with aligned expectations—while strengthening teaching practices, building teacher capacity, and engaging families as partners,

• then students will demonstrate improved literacy, engagement, resilience, and consistent academic achievement, 2 See page 20 for specifics

• because they will experience clear, relevant instruction and unified support that promotes access to learning and sustained effort toward mastery.

Priority Focus: 2 Establish a school-wide culture that elevates academics as a shared priority by engaging families as partners, addressing student home and environmental barriers, and aligning expectations toward consistent attendance, effort, and mastery of learning.

If … Then … Because

• If the school builds a culture that prioritizes academics by actively engaging families as partners and addressing students’ home and environmental barriers,

• then students will demonstrate improved attendance, effort, and commitment to learning,

• because academic expectations will be reinforced through consistent support, aligned priorities, and reduced external barriers to engagement.

It is essential to acknowledge the challenges and external obstacles beyond the school's direct control, as these factors can often hinder, delay, or even counteract efforts to achieve the anticipated student outcomes.

Priority Focus 2 acknowledges these challenges. For Green River High School to make this priority focus actionable, the school must address both mindset (valuing academics) and barriers (real-life constraints) at the same time. This work is not just about increasing engagement—it is about realigning priorities while removing barriers. Schools that succeed here do not expect families to change first; they adapt systems to make academic success possible and visible.

Scope of Work Considerations Based on the two priority focus areas 1) Establish a coherent, school-wide system of rigorous, student-centered instruction and aligned expectations and 2) Establish a school-wide culture that elevates academics as a shared priority, the following areas should be considered as the scope of work to build sustainable structures rather than short-term fixes. The scope of work must take into consideration school level and district initiatives in place to support the school so as not to abandon nor conflict with existing school and district priorities.

The scope of work albeit provided by the required continuous improvement expert (CIE) or the LEA, USBE, or the school itself should support building a coherent, student-centered system of rigorous instruction and a school-wide culture including but not limited to:

1. Systems Alignment & Vision Setting

• Facilitate development of a shared vision for rigorous, student-centered instruction and academic priority.

2. Instructional Improvement & Teacher Capacity

• Conduct classroom observations and instructional audits to identify gaps in rigor, clarity, and engagement.

• Support implementation of evidence-based instructional practices, including:

o Clear learning objectives, scaffolding and differentiation, and frequent checks for understanding.

• Build internal capacity through instructional leadership development.

3. Data Systems & Continuous Improvement Cycles

• Establish or refine data cycles focused on:

o Student achievement (literacy, core content), attendance and engagement

• Support staff in using data to:

o Identify student needs, adjust instructions, and monitor progress toward goals.

• Implement regular review protocols (PLCs, leadership meetings)

4. Culture of Accountability & Collaboration

• Develop structures for consistent expectations across classrooms.

• Support implementation of Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) focused on:

o Common assessments, student work analysis, and Instructional alignment

• Strengthening a culture of professional responsibility and collaboration

5. Family & Community Engagement

Needs Assessment and Analysis of Causes The following are the responses and summaries from the School Improvement Committee (SIC) work completed Friday, March 6, 2026, at Green River High School.

Four Quadrant Problem Identification.

The Four Quadrant Problem Identification asked the SIC individually to reflect and record their perspective on specific challenges or problems impacting the school's performance, considering the data and their daily experiences in the following four areas:

1. Student Learning Outcomes: What academic struggles are evident?

2. Instructional Practices: What challenges exist in teaching and learning?)

3. Leadership: What are the challenges related to school administration and leadership?

4. School Culture: What are the social and emotional challenges?

The following are the responses, level of support (support being defined with agreement), choosing priority of importance (notes by asterisk or in some cases multiple asterisks) and identifying their priority as either a technical problem (TP), an adaptive challenge (AC) or both (I’ve used the label “hybrid” to signify both an identified TP and AC).

Student Learning Outcomes Summary

The responses provided highlight a complex web of obstacles affecting student learning outcomes. These can be grouped into four primary categories: academic foundations, home and environmental factors, student mindset, and systemic hurdles.

1. Academic & Communication Barriers

A significant portion of the feedback centers on fundamental gaps that prevent students from accessing the curriculum:

• Language & Literacy: Repeated mentions of "Language Barriers," "ELL" (English Language Learners), and basic literacy issues. Students struggle to read instructions or lack the background knowledge necessary to understand new subjects.

• Skill Gaps: A lack of critical thinking skills and "device dependence" (addiction to technology) are noted as inhibitors to deep learning.

• Instructional Clarity: A lack of clear learning objectives and a failure to make the curriculum feel relevant to real-world outcomes.

2. Home & Environmental Factors

Students are often bringing the "weight of the world" into the classroom, leaving little mental energy for academics:

• Stability & Basic Needs: Issues with sleep, food security, and general lack of supervision at home.

• Competing Responsibilities: Students are working late jobs for financial reasons or managing heavy family/cultural expectations.

• Lack of Support: A noted gap in parental support or "student support at home," often coupled with a physical distance from resources outside their immediate community.

3. Student Mindset & Behavioral Traits

There is a strong theme regarding a lack of "soft skills" or emotional resilience:

• Apathy & Low Motivation: Many students have a "minimum requirement mentality," procrastinate, or simply do not see the value of their education.

• Fear of Failure: A lack of "academic risk-taking" due to shyness, embarrassment about asking for help, or a lack of resilience when faced with challenges.

• Attendance: Chronic absenteeism is a recurring concern—if the students are not in the building, they cannot learn.

4. Emotional & Social Constraints

• Stress & Capacity: Many students have their "capacity taken by other life needs," leading to short attention spans and high stress levels.

• Peer/Social Dynamics: Some students feel forgotten because focus is shifted elsewhere, while others struggle with their own self-acceptance regarding their academic abilities.

Analysis: Technical Problems versus Adaptive Challenges Summary and Analysis

1. Technical Problems

These issues are often addressed through specific school policies, instructional programs, or logistical adjustments.

• Language Barriers: While complex, this is primarily a technical problem solved through ESL/ELL programming, translation services, and specialized instructional coaching.

• Consistent Mastery of Content (Demonstrating): This relates to assessment design and instructional alignment. It requires technical fixes like better grading rubrics, formative assessment tools, and data-tracking systems.

2. Adaptive Challenges

These issues are rooted in the culture, mindset, and heart of the students and the community. They cannot be "fixed" with a simple policy change.

• Resilience: Building a student's ability to bounce back from failure requires a cultural shift in how mistakes are viewed and a long-term psychological investment in student well-being.

• Students Do not See the Value of Education: This is a fundamental challenge of belief. It requires changing the narrative of the school’s role in the community and shifting student identity.

3. Both (Technical and Adaptive)

Many problems are "hybrids" where a technical solution is necessary but will fail without an adaptive shift.

• Attendance (How do we get kids here?): * Technical: Implementing automated calling systems, attendance rewards, or transportation fixes.

o Adaptive: Understanding the underlying apathy or home-life barriers that make a student choose not to come.

• Relevance (Connecting curriculum to outcomes):

o Technical: Rewriting curriculum maps and aligning lessons to career standards.

o Adaptive: Teachers must change their pedagogy to be more student-centered, and students must be willing to engage with the material in a new way.

Instructional Practices

Summary

The responses regarding instructional practices reveal a disconnect between intended learning outcomes and daily classroom execution. The challenges range from individual teacher pedagogy to systemic logistical hurdles.

1. Pedagogical & Instructional Gaps

At the heart of the feedback is a concern that instruction is sometimes "on autopilot" or lacks the necessary depth to challenge students.

• Rigor & Expectations: Issues include lowering expectations, grade inflation, and a "lack of rigor." There is a noted trend of confusing student entertainment with true cognitive engagement.

• Inconsistent Quality: Instruction is often described as lacking scaffolding or being "not clear or concise." This includes a failure to check for student understanding on a regular basis.

• Reliance on Software: A key concern is "relying on programs instead of instruction," suggesting that digital tools are sometimes replacing the active role of the teacher.

2. Teacher Support & Capacity

Many responses point to teachers being stretched too thin or lacking the specific support needed to excel.

• The "Multiple Preps" Burden: Teachers are often teaching a "broad range of subject knowledge" across various classes, leading to "multiple preps" that drain time and focus.

• Professional Development: There is a stated need for instructional coaches, up-to-date training, and opportunities to observe other teachers in action to improve practice.

• Certification Issues: Some concerns were raised regarding teachers' specific knowledge bases and endorsement/certification alignment with the subjects they teach.

3. Classroom Management & Logistics

Environmental factors and the diversity of student needs create significant friction in the learning process.

• Performance Gaps: Teachers struggle to manage a "broad academic range" and multiple performance levels within a single classroom.

• Behavior & Time: Classroom management issues, wasted time, and the inability to "bring the class back" once it gets off track are cited as major barriers.

• The Attendance Gap: A major instructional hurdle is figuring out how to address lessons missed by students who are frequently absent.

4. Cultural & Professional Accountability

The feedback suggests a need for a more unified professional culture.

• Lack of Consistency: Grading policies and expectations vary wildly from "teacher to teacher," creating confusion for students.

• Mindset: Some teachers are described as "just checking the box" or being "here for the job" rather than being personally invested in student connection.

• Collaboration: There is a call for a greater "willingness to collaborate" and more consistency in how standards are mastered across the high school career.

Analysis: Technical Problems versus Adaptive Challenges Summary and Analysis

1. Inconsistent expectations from teacher to teacher

Classification: Primarily Technical

This is a challenge of alignment and systems. While it requires teacher buy-in, the solution is structural.

• The Technical Fix: Implementing common grading rubrics, shared "non-negotiables" for classroom behavior, and Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) where teachers calibrate their standards.

• The Goal: Moving from individual "islands" of instruction to a unified school-wide standard.

2. How to connect with students when they are reluctant learners

Classification: Deeply Adaptive

This is the quintessential Adaptive challenge because there is no "instruction manual" that fixes a human relationship.

• The Challenge: It requires teachers to navigate the gap between their own expectations and the students' lived realities (stress, apathy, or lack of value in education).

• The Shift Required: Teachers must develop high levels of empathy and vulnerability.

It requires a change in the "heart and soul" of the classroom dynamic rather than just a change in the lesson plan.

3. Different ways of instruction/practices to gain student engagement

Classification: Both (Technical & Adaptive)

Reaching all students is a "hybrid" problem that requires both new tools and a new mindset.

• Technical Elements: Learning specific strategies like Universal Design for Learning (UDL), differentiated instruction, or new educational technology. It is about expanding the "teacher's toolkit."

• Adaptive Elements: It requires teachers to move away from comfortable, traditional "lecture-style" habits and embrace the messiness of student-centered learning. It also requires students to shift from being passive recipients of info to active participants.

Leadership Note: Leadership is distributed and not limited to a title or position.

Summary

The responses regarding leadership highlight a systemic strain where administrative "firefighting" often takes precedence over long-term vision. The primary challenges can be summarized into four key areas: capacity, geographic isolation, community engagement, and internal accountability.

1. Capacity & Principal Overload

A recurring theme is the unsustainable workload placed on a single leader.

• The "One-Man Band" Effect: The principal is described as being "spread thin," managing both high school and middle school duties simultaneously.

• Task Saturation: Because it is difficult to find others willing to volunteer for leadership roles, the principal often "takes on too many responsibilities" just to keep the school running.

• Operational vs. Instructional: Leadership is caught in a tug-of-war between managing daily school operations and focusing on instructional leadership (improving teaching and learning).

2. Geographic & District Isolation

The physical distance of the school creates more than just travel hurdles; it creates a psychological gap.

• Feeling "Forgotten": There is a strong sense that the district office is disconnected from the school's unique culture and student background, leading to inconsistent support.

• The PD Barrier: The distance makes traveling for Professional Development (PD) frustrating, and digital alternatives like Zoom are viewed as less effective than in-person collaboration.

• Square Peg, Round Hole: District-level "limits" are often felt because the school’s unique needs differ from the rest of the district’s portfolio.

3. Human Capital & Recruitment

Finding and keeping the right people is a persistent struggle.

• Staffing Gaps: Leadership faces significant difficulty in recruiting "qualified applicants" and staff who understand the specific school culture.

• Leadership Pipeline: There is a lack of people willing to "step up" into leadership or committee capacities, leaving a void in shared decision-making.

4. Accountability & Community Dynamics

Leadership is struggling to align the expectations of staff, parents, and the community.

• Inconsistent Standards: There is a noted need to hold all teachers to a consistent standard of accountability and "higher expectations."

• Reactive vs. Proactive: Groups like the PLC and Community Council are often stuck "putting fires out" rather than focusing on the big-picture educational goals.

• Cultural Representation: A specific challenge was noted in gaining representation and involvement from the Hispanic community and building support among parents for "high standards."

Analysis: Technical Problems versus Adaptive Challenges Summary and Analysis

1. Difficult to find those who will volunteer in leadership

Classification: Primarily Adaptive

While there is a Technical element to this (e.g., creating clear job descriptions, offering stipends, or scheduling meetings at better times), the core of the problem is Adaptive.

• The Challenge: It involves a lack of "buy-in" or a sense of "ownership" among the staff and community.

• The Shift Required: To solve this, leadership must change the school culture from one of "compliance" or "isolation" to one of "shared responsibility." It requires addressing why people feel overextended or undervalued, which is a shift in human behavior and belief.

2. Parental involvement (or lack of)

Classification: Both (Technical & Adaptive)

This is a classic "hybrid" challenge that many schools face:

• Technical Elements: Improving communication channels (apps, newsletters, bilingual flyers), providing childcare during meetings, or changing the time of events to accommodate work schedules.

• Adaptive Elements: This is the much harder part. It requires building trust between the school and families, especially those from different cultural backgrounds who may feel the school is an "intimidating" space. It involves redefining what "involvement" looks like—moving away from just "showing up to meetings" to "partnering in learning."

School Culture

Summary

The responses regarding school culture reveal a community that is supportive and tight knit yet deeply divided in its priorities. While there is a strong sense of "school pride," it is often tied to athletics or social belonging rather than academic achievement or post-secondary preparation.

1. The Hierarchy of Priorities

A central theme is that academics often rank low on the list of student and family values.

• Work vs. School: Many families are in "survival mode" due to being in a low-income area. Consequently, jobs and immediate financial needs often take precedence over classroom learning.

• Athletics & Socializing: Sports are cited as the primary "driver" for students and parents. School is often seen as a place to socialize or play sports rather than a place to gain an education.

• Path of Least Resistance: There is a culture of taking "easy classes" and focusing on the grade (A-seeking) rather than true mastery of the subject matter.

2. The "Horizon" Gap

Many students struggle to see a future beyond their current environment or their senior year.

• Short-Term Vision: There is a noted "lack of vision for the future" and little desire to pursue education or training after high school.

• Limited Exposure: Because of the school's location and socioeconomic status, students have limited "experiences outside of school/town," which may contribute to the perception that their options are limited.

• Graduation Perception: There is a damaging belief among some that graduating from this specific high school actually limits a student's future options.

3. Parental & Community Engagement

The community is described as "strong,” but its involvement is highly selective.

• Selective Support: Parents are highly visible at athletic events but notably absent from parent-teacher conferences or academic nights.

• Pressure vs. Partnership: Some parents expect high grades (grade inflation) regardless of effort yet provide "not much support or help from home" regarding actual study habits.

• Survival over Schooling: In many cases, "family survival" outweighs the perceived importance of education, leading to low commitment to school goals.

4. Belonging & Equity

Despite a "good culture," not all students feel equally seen or valued.

• The "Overlooked" Student: There is a perception that the school caters to specific groups or "honor students," while others are overlooked and fail to find a sense of belonging.

• Diversity: While diversity is noted as a characteristic of the school, it is also listed as a challenge in terms of ensuring consistent mastery and a sense of inclusion for all groups, specifically in gaining diverse representation in leadership/volunteering.

Analysis: Technical Problems versus Adaptive Challenges Summary and Analysis

Categorizing school culture through the Technical vs. Adaptive lens reveals that most of these issues are deeply "Adaptive," as they involve shifting the collective values and identities of students, families, and staff.

1. Technical Problems

These are challenges that can be addressed through standardized policies and administrative structures.

• Grade Inflation: This is primarily Technical. It can be corrected by implementing objective, mastery-based grading scales, common assessments across departments, and professional development on "rigor" versus "points."

• Attendance Consequences: Addressing the "importance of attendance and the consequences" has a strong Technical component—implementing clear, consistent attendance policies and legal/administrative follow-through.

2. Adaptive Challenges

These are the "heart and soul" issues that require people to change their hearts, minds, and long-standing habits.

• Student Apathy: This is a core Adaptive challenge. You cannot "policy" your way out of apathy. It requires a shift in classroom culture to build relevance and curiosity, and it requires students to find a sense of purpose.

• Importance of Education within Families: This involves deep-seated cultural and socioeconomic values. Shifting a family's view of education requires long-term trust-building and a change in the community’s relationship with the school.

• Not Looking Beyond Senior Year / No Desire for Higher Ed: These are identity-based challenges. They require shifting the student's self-perception from "someone who just gets by" to "someone with a future," which is a profound adaptive change.

3. Both (Technical and Adaptive)

These challenges require a "two-pronged" attack to be successful.

• Lack of Parental Involvement:

o Technical: Fixing the calendar, providing translators, and using better communication apps.

o Adaptive: Changing the perception that school is an intimidating place and convincing parents that their voice has an impact on their child's success.

• Parents Expecting A’s Regardless of Effort:

o Technical: Developing clear rubrics and transparent gradebooks that show evidence of learning.

o Adaptive: Managing the "loss" parents feel when their child is not an "Honor Student" anymore and shifting their value system from "the grade" to "the learning."

Force Choice Activity School and district leadership participated in a force choice activity using the identified problems and challenges from the Four Quadrant activity. The Force Choice Activity employed an affinity process using the identified technical problems and adaptive challenges grouped that were grouped into four distinct areas of influence.

The purpose of this analysis was to assist with distinguishing between the symptoms seen in the classroom and the root causes of challenges, problems, and/or barriers. The following are the results of the activity.

1. The “Student” Experience These are the immediate, lived experiences of the learners inside the school building.

1. Academic & Communication Barriers

3. Student Mindset & Behavioral Traits

4. Emotional & Social Constraints

16. Belonging & Equity

2. Instructional & Staff Capacity How teaching happens and the support provided to those doing it.

5. Pedagogical & Instructional Gaps

6. Teacher Support & Capacity

7. Classroom Management & Logistics

11. Human Capital & Recruitment

3. Leadership & Systemic Strategy The structural and cultural framework set by school and district leaders.

8. Cultural & Professional Accountability

9. Capacity & Principal Overload

13. The Hierarchy of Priorities

14. The "Horizon" Gap (The distance between current reality and future vision)

4. Community & Environmental Context External forces that shape the school's reality but exist largely outside the school walls.

2. Home & Environmental Factors

10. Geographic & District Isolation

12. Accountability & Community Dynamics

15. Parental & Community Engagement

Control vs. Influence Analysis A "Locus of Control" filter to identify or clarify areas for school improvement was applied to that resulted in the following results.

Within School Control (High Influence)

• The "Hierarchy of Priorities" (13): Leadership decides what is "first" on the list.

• Pedagogical Gaps (5) & Teacher Support (6): Professional development and coaching are fully internal levers.

• Classroom Logistics (7): Scheduling and physical environment are within your grasp.

Out of School Control (Low Influence)

• Geographic Isolation (10): You cannot move the town or the district's physical location.

• Home & Environmental Factors (2): Poverty, housing instability, or home language are external realities.

• Human Capital/Recruitment (11): While you can interview better, the pool of available teachers is often a regional/economic factor.

Priority Focus Areas The school and district leadership, through the Force Choice Priority Setting Activity identified the following of which were combined into priority focus area one.

13 Parental & Community Engagement

The community is described as "strong,” but its involvement is highly selective.

• Selective Support: Parents are highly visible at athletic events but notably absent from parent-teacher conferences or academic nights.

• Pressure vs. Partnership: Some parents expect high grades (grade inflation) regardless of effort yet provide "not much support or help from home" regarding actual study habits.

• Survival over Schooling: In many cases, "family survival" outweighs the perceived importance of education, leading to low commitment to school goals.

5 Pedagogical & Instructional Gaps

• At the heart of the feedback is a concern that instruction is sometimes "on autopilot" or lacks the necessary depth to challenge students.

• Rigor & Expectations: Issues include lowering expectations, grade inflation, and a "lack of rigor." There is a noted trend of confusing student entertainment with true cognitive engagement.

• Inconsistent Quality: Instruction is often described as lacking scaffolding or being "not clear or concise." This includes a failure to check for student understanding on a regular basis.

• Reliance on Software: A key concern is "relying on programs instead of instruction," suggesting that digital tools are sometimes replacing the active role of the teacher.

6 Teacher Support & Capacity

Many responses point to teachers being stretched too thin or lacking the specific support needed to excel.

• The "Multiple Preps" Burden: Teachers are often teaching a "broad range of subject knowledge" across various classes, leading to "multiple preps" that drain time and focus.

• Professional Development: There is a stated need for instructional coaches, up-to-date training, and opportunities to observe other teachers in action to improve practice.

• Certification Issues: Some concerns were raised regarding teachers' specific knowledge bases and endorsement/certification alignment with the subjects they teach.

7 Cultural & Professional Accountability

The feedback suggests a need for a more unified professional culture.

• Lack of Consistency: Grading policies and expectations vary wildly from "teacher to teacher," creating confusion for students.

• Mindset: Some teachers are described as "just checking the box" or being "here for the job" rather than being personally invested in student connection.

• Collaboration: There is a call for a greater "willingness to collaborate" and more consistency in how standards are mastered across the high school career.

Scope of Work Considerations