Skip to main content
← The Evidence Wing

Gallery Two · EW · II

Three Schools

Where the investigation led.

Rooms in this gallery

  1. 01 The Investigations
  2. 02 Field Notes
  3. 03 Observed, Repeatedly

Room One · The Pattern

One school. One district. One very different setting.

Are schools that improve actually doing similar things?

Three documented investigations. Only what has been observed and recorded appears here; further investigations join the collection as their documentation is completed.

  1. Exhibit 01

    Documented Investigation

    Heatly School

    Green Island UFSD · New York

    Improvement is possible in a high-needs setting.

    One building. Pre-K through grade 12. High need, small staff.

    Field notes

    • Collaborative time appeared on the master calendar before anything else was scheduled.
    • Learning intentions were posted and students restated them when asked.
    • Teams reviewed the same student work on a weekly cycle rather than by request.
    • Staff described instructional decisions using the same shared language across grade levels.
  2. Exhibit 02

    District-Scale Investigation

    Billings Public Schools

    Billings, Montana · Eight corroborating school sites

    The same practices hold across an entire district, not one building.

    A district implementation observed across multiple schools over successive visits.

    Field notes

    • One set of district priorities was repeated without local rewording.
    • Leaders entered classrooms on a published schedule rather than by exception.
    • Prior initiatives were formally ended before new ones began.
    • Implementation was routinely monitored rather than assumed.

    Supporting investigations within the district

    • Arrowhead

      Success criteria written before instruction and referenced during it.

    • Rose Park

      Teachers compared student evidence in team meetings rather than describing activities.

    • Will James

      Feedback to students named the next step instead of scoring the last one.

    • Lewis & Clark

      The same instructional language appeared in three unrelated classrooms.

    • Castle Rock

      Team time was protected on the calendar and used for reviewing student work.

    • Senior High

      Departments named a single shared priority and could state it independently.

    • Eagle Cliffs

      Students could say what they were learning and what success looked like.

    • Alkali Creek

      Students independently described what they would do next when work was not yet correct, without waiting for the teacher to direct them.

    Eight schools. One district. The same instructional behaviors recorded at each site.

  3. Exhibit 03

    Corroborating Investigation

    FASNY

    French-American School of New York

    The same practices transfer to an entirely different educational setting.

    An independent, bilingual school — different students, funding, and governance.

    Field notes

    • Teachers across two languages of instruction described learning intentions in the same terms.
    • Team meetings began with student work rather than announcements.
    • Adults compared evidence before deciding what to change next.
    • Fewer priorities were carried, and they were carried across full years.
Educators leaning over a table of highlighted student work, sticky notes and observation forms.
Observed. Repeatedly.