A student success system built around your school

The first year establishes the practices that allow a school to develop and sustain comprehensive Visibility.

True Progress ELA and math assessments contribute evidence alongside student work, classroom observation, educator knowledge, and student and family perspectives. The implementation defines how these sources come together and what educators do when they reveal a strength, difficulty, uneven profile, or need for greater challenge.

A finding may call for classroom inquiry, conversation with the student or family, closer assessment, or review with colleagues who know another part of the student’s experience. The school establishes how those questions move from evidence to action and how the team returns to determine what happened.

These practices are refined through use across the year. The goal is a system that makes thoughtful follow-through repeatable without making professional judgment mechanical.

Without established practices, the same questions consume time again and again: Who should review this result? Does the student need a closer look? Who contacts the family? Who coordinates the response? When will the team return to see whether it helped?

Implementation Design answers those questions before they have to be re-decided for every student. The school establishes repeatable pathways while preserving the judgment educators need when an individual situation does not fit the usual pattern.

The questions about your students

We begin with real questions already facing the school: a student whose difficulties persist despite intervention, a learner with an uneven profile, a student whose progress has slowed, or one ready for greater challenge. These cases help define what the system needs to do. We identify which evidence matters, whose knowledge is needed, what would trigger a closer look, and which decisions require shared review rather than an individual teacher response.

Evidence, triggers, and review points

Together, we determine when broad assessment is useful, which findings call for closer inquiry, when deeper assessment is appropriate, and when the school will return to a student’s progress.

These practices are placed within the existing school year, assessments, and faculty meetings rather than creating a parallel calendar. Practical setup includes rosters, access, devices, assessment procedures, and the review points that turn new evidence into a known next action.

Decisions and responsibilities

We define who reviews different kinds of evidence, who needs to participate in a decision, who carries the agreed response forward, and when the team returns to the student.

The design can include simple triggers that lead to a known next action while leaving room for exceptions. A result may indicate that a student should be discussed at the next team meeting; another may call for immediate classroom inquiry or deeper assessment.

Teachers, specialists, and leaders retain responsibility for interpreting what the evidence means for the student. The workflow organizes the response; it does not replace professional judgment.

Faculty and family conversations

We design meetings so time is spent understanding the student and making decisions rather than reconstructing history or debating the process. Preparation identifies what colleagues need in advance, what question the meeting should resolve, what decision is required, and what will be reviewed afterward.

Family conversations bring together strengths, concerns, the school’s current understanding, what it plans to do, and how everyone will know whether the response is helping. Faculty learning uses these same student questions and evidence.

Building on a familiar meeting

At one school, the design of data meetings drew on a literacy protocol teachers already knew and trusted. An established way of working together provided the starting point for examining new evidence.

Making responsibilities explicit

At a K–5 lower school, the curriculum coordinator developed follow-up guidance, a data-meeting agenda, and a framework for family communication during a working session. She then shared a one-page version with teachers. The session produced a concrete starting plan for the school's work.

The first-year implementation establishes documented practices that answer recurring questions before they have to be solved again for each student. The school establishes:

• An assessment and review calendar aligned with the school year.
• Shared definitions for interpreting learning levels, progress, and other evidence.
• Clear triggers for when a result or observation calls for closer inquiry, team review, or additional assessment.
• Defined responsibilities for reviewing evidence, making decisions, carrying out the response, and following up.
• Meeting structures that begin with the student question, record the decision, and return to what happened next.
• Guidance for connecting classroom knowledge, assessment evidence, student and family perspectives, and specialist expertise.
• A framework for family conversations that explains what the school understands, what it plans to do, and how progress will be reviewed.
• Transition practices that carry forward strengths, effective approaches, current learning aims, and unresolved questions.

These arrangements are refined through use. The goal is not more procedure. It is less repeated reinvention and more dependable attention to every student.

The annual subscription provides access to the complete True Progress Student Success System, including all five drivers, assessment technology, reporting, professional learning, frameworks, resources, and ongoing guidance and support.

The standard first-year implementation fee covers the design, establishment, and refinement of the school’s Visibility practices.

Once comprehensive, in-depth Visibility is established, the school and True Progress determine which driver to strengthen next based on what has been learned. Focused Curriculum, Instruction, Meaningful Data, and Workflows are already included in the annual subscription and can develop over time around the school’s students and priorities.

Bring us one part of your student-success process that repeatedly requires people to figure out what happens next.

It might be what happens after a Screener result raises concern, how students are brought to a team meeting, how intervention is reviewed, how families are updated, or how important understanding travels to the next teacher.

We can examine what already works, where responsibility or follow-through breaks down, and how Implementation Design could turn that recurring problem into a clear and sustainable school practice.

Schedule a Conversation