College and Career Ready
Instructional Framework Non-Negotiables
Implementation Scale
FCIM: Florida Continuous Improvement Model
Critical
Element
Florida’s Continuous Improvement Model (FCIM) is based on the idea that student and teacher success must be a continuous effort. Analyzing data, developing timelines, quality
instruction and frequently assessing students for understanding are all key parts to the model. FCIM is a capacity-building approach focused on providing data-driven instruction for
all of Lake County students. FCIM assists the Lake County School District, schools, and educators with the instructional planning process by helping them to assess student needs using
data, focus instruction on the Next Generation Sunshine State Standards (NGSSS), refine teacher understanding of the areas where students are struggling or succeeding, and customize
instruction for student achievement. Lake County students using FCIM processes have assessments at regular intervals to measure the growth of their learning. Based on these assessments,
students who have achieved mastery level receive enrichment to challenge them further. Others receive remediation to bring their skills up to accepted standards.
Culturally Embedded
Level 3
Evidence that all members of the school community are
steadfast in this belief. All are willing to do what is necessary
to meet high standards. There is active implementation,
follow-up, and feedback.
Intentionally Structured
Level 2
Leaders clearly support the constructs of the concepts by
providing the formalized structures required. The work is
thought of as an obligation to be met. There is evidence of
follow-up and feedback.
There is a sense of commitment.
There is a sense of compliance.
Evidence supporting a Level 3 implementation…
Evidence supporting a Level 2 implementation…
In Name Only
Level 1
Concepts are talked about. Concepts are thought of as
“another thing to do.” Leaders tend to make broadbased decisions with no follow-up or feedback.
There is a limited sense of accountability.
Evidence supporting a Level 1 implementation…
Critical Elements of Florida Continuous Improvement Model (8-Step Process)
Plan: Data Disaggregation and Instructional Focus Calendar Development
Do: Direct the Instructional Focus
Check: Assessment, Maintenance, and Monitoring
Act: Tutorials and Enrichment
I1
College and Career Ready
Instructional Framework Non-Negotiables
Culturally Embedded
Level 3
PLAN
Data Disaggregation
Instructional Focus Development
•


Student data are disaggregated. Strengths and
weaknesses in the curriculum and instruction are
identified. Students are grouped using data to
inform instruction.
Instructional focus calendars and curriculum
timelines are developed based on data that
encompasses all subject areas. Timelines based
on the needs of the student groups are clearly
communicated to all.
Calendar allows additional time for tutorials and
enrichment and flexibility exists to allow for
adjustments.
Evidence
 School developed Instructional Focus Calendars to
sequence and map areas of focus to include
remediation and enrichment
 Data Binders used to drive conversation with student
about their achievement
 Student-created learning goals based on data.
 SIP identifies barriers and implementations to
overcome based upon each subgroup.
 Dedicated common planning is utilized for data
disaggregation for IFC and mini-focus lessons.
Intentionally Structured
Level 2

•
•
•
•
Student data are disaggregated and used to divide
students into groups.
Instructional focus calendars and curriculum
timelines are communicated to all.
A clear and concise instructional focus is provided
based on units, textbooks, and other instructional
resources.
Time is scheduled to reteach non-mastery students.
Time is scheduled to provide enrichment
opportunities but higher levels of thinking are not
incorporated.
Evidence
 Instructional Focus Calendars utilized but not based
upon student data
 Data Binders present
 SIP Plan identifies barriers not based upon each
subgroup or disaggregated data
 Student learning goals created by teachers
I2
In Name Only
Level 1
•
•
•
•
Student data use is not readily
present.
Teachers plan in isolation and
determine curriculum timelines
independently.
Time is not scheduled to reteach
non-mastery students.
Little to no enrichment
opportunities are scheduled.
Evidence
 Lack of school-wide plan for
instructional focus
 Little to no data disaggregated
 Little evidence of student learning
goals established
 SIP plan awareness
College and Career Ready
Instructional Framework Non-Negotiables
Culturally Embedded
Level 3
•
•
•
DO
Instructional Focus
•
A clear and concise instructional focus is driven by
the standards, data, calendar, and students’ needs.
Built in daily activities including mini-lessons
reinforce previously taught concepts for ongoing
maintenance.
Critical thinking and real-world problem solving
skills drives lessons for all students.
Teachers survey students’ understanding by
utilizing frequent comprehension checks and
scales to assist learning.
Evidence
 Lesson Study designed around non-mastery or partial
mastery skills as well as dealing with students’
misconceptions
 Instructional Focus Calendars are adjusted based upon
data
 Best instructional practices are implemented in all
content areas to address weaknesses in the form of
bellringers and mini focus lessons
 Teachers embed think-alouds and real world
application during instruction
 Teachers and students utilize rubrics and learning
scales to demonstrate understanding
 Common Board Configuration is aligned, present, and
utilized as an instructional tool
 Instruction and tasks aligned to the rigor of the
standards
 Textbooks supplements teacher’s instruction
Intentionally Structured
Level 2
•
•
•
Activities are periodically incorporated to reinforce
previously taught concepts.
Opportunities exist for higher order thinking
A clear and concise instructional focus is driven by
the Instructional Focus Calendar based on units,
textbooks, and Curriculum Blueprints.
Evidence
 Instructional Focus Calendars utilized
 Textbook sequence utilized with little adjustment
 Common Board Configuration aligned and present
 Standards present in lesson plans
 Moderate and higher order questions present in the
lesson/classroom
 Instruction and tasks are not completely aligned to the
rigor of the standards
I3
In Name Only
Level 1
•
•
Teaching occurs in a vacuum
without regard to standards and
timelines.
Textbook is primary tool to drive
instruction instead of a focus on
standards and outcomes.
Evidence
 Textbook sequence utilized without
adjustment
 Activity driven environment without
clear focus on standards
 Majority of the instruction is at low
complexity levels
College and Career Ready
Instructional Framework Non-Negotiables
Check
Assessment, Maintenance, and Monitoring
Culturally Embedded
Level 3
•
•
•
•
Assessment (formal and/or informal) and timely
feedback are provided to identify mastery and
non-mastery students. Non-mastery students are
retaught until mastery is achieved.
A systematic plan exists for frequent class visits
and feedback.
School principals and the instructional
coordinator assume the primary responsibility for
monitoring program success.
Teachers continuously work collaboratively to
reinforce skills and knowledge until students
reach mastery.
Evidence:
 Monitoring program in place along with specific and
timely feedback
 Aligned Mini Assessments utilized and results are
shared with teachers and students
 PLCs focus on student data and utilizes guiding
questions to drive discussion and collaboration
Intentionally Structured
Level 2
•
•
•
•
•
•
Assessments are administered and recorded after
instructional focus has been taught.
Personnel with instructional leadership
responsibility periodically visit classes and provide
feedback to ensure that teaching and learning are
taking place.
Teachers incorporate activities periodically to
reinforce previously taught concepts.
Instructional staff assumes the primary
responsibility for monitoring program success.
Teachers meet regularly to plan instruction.
Assessment (formal and/or informal) and timely
feedback are provided to identify mastery and nonmastery students.
Evidence:

Monitoring program in place
 Aligned Mini Assessments utilized and results are shared
with teachers individually
 PLCs focus on teacher concerns
I4
In Name Only
Level 1
•
•
•
•
•
Assessments are administered
without intent or purpose.
Classes are visited for annual
assessment or as problems arise.
Assessment items are not aligned to
specific standards, benchmarks, or
complexity.
Teachers meet seldom or not at all.
Assessments are administered
without regard to providing
feedback to identify mastery and
non-mastery students.
Evidence:
 Textbook based assessments
 Teacher created assessments
 Mini Assessments awareness
 Only required formal evaluation data
exists
 PLCs exist only as meetings
College and Career Ready
Instructional Framework Non-Negotiables
Culturally Embedded
Level 3
•
Act
Tutorials and Enrichment
•
•
•
•
School principal is the instructional leader and is
continuously involved in the teaching and learning
process. Leadership teams actively facilitate and
collaborate with teacher teams.
Teacher teams collaborate along with
instructional support staff and administrators to
determine next steps
Based upon assessment results, teachers provide
quality instruction with the purpose of students
achieving mastery or providing remediation
Opportunities for extension lessons are regularly
provided for both mastery and non-mastery
students
Time is provided to allow students to learn a
subject in greater depth
Evidence:
 Detailed lesson plan outlining content to be taught,
small group/differentiated instruction, and student data
utilized
 Mini-lessons aligned to student data and needs are
utilized to reinforce, reteach, and/or enrich
 Timelines for enrichment and remediation are followed
and adjusted.
 Extended learning is driven by critical thinking and
real-world application
 Teacher team logs and documentation are utilized to
drive common planning and/or PLCs
 Schedules reflect time allotted for extension lessons,
enrichment, and reteaching
Intentionally Structured
Level 2
•
•
•
•
•
•
Principal and leadership team participates in the
teaching and learning process.
Teacher teams collaborate to determine next steps
Activities are periodically incorporated to reinforce
previously taught concepts.
Time is scheduled to reteach non-mastery students
Enrichment mainly occurs as an elective
Time is provided for enrichment opportunities but
higher levels of thinking are not incorporated
Evidence:
 Detailed lesson plan outlining content to be taught and
small group/differentiated instruction
 Mini lessons utilized to reinforce, reteach, and/or enrich
 Teacher team logs and documentation present
 Schedules reflect time allotted for enrichment and
reteaching
I5
In Name Only
Level 1


•
•
Teachers determine next steps
individually
Enrichment is viewed as additional
homework
No plan to reinforce previously
taught concepts
Time is not scheduled to reteach
non-mastery students
Evidence:
 Standard lesson plan outline content to
be taught
 No plan to provide mini lessons to
reinforce, reteach, and/or enrich
 Schedule reflects no time allotted for
enrichment and reteaching