you need, fast.
Use these during the Implement and Spread & Sustain stages to gather evidence, calibrate observers, and protect the integrity of the model as it scales.
DNA Audit, whole-school fidelityWalk classrooms as a team, capture evidence against the DNA pillars, and track how fast practices take hold.
Innovation Configuration Maps define what a practice looks like in action; Instructional Practice Guides anchor subject-level observation.
Implementation teams are the engine. Schools with an active implementation team reach roughly 80% successful implementation in about three years; without one, roughly 14% (Fixsen et al., 2019). The team is the through-line that carries each playbook across all four stages, Decide, Plan and Prepare, Implement, Spread and Sustain.
- 5-8 members with diverse perspectives, clear roles, collaborative norms, and real decision-making authority.
- Typical seats: School Leader / ED (sponsor); a Coordinator or Champion (a transitional catalyst who builds distributed capacity, not a permanent hero); Instructional Leader / Dean; Data Lead; 2-3 Teacher representatives; a Family / Community voice.
- Choose members who build systems and structure learning for colleagues, not only strong individual practitioners. Excellence as a practitioner does not predict the ability to transfer capacity to a team.
What the implementation team does as a playbook moves through the four stages.
Assemble the team and guiding coalition. Name the problem and the WHY (resist jumping to solutions). Set SMART goals. Assess organizational readiness with R = MC² (Motivation × Innovation-specific Capacity × General Capacity). Select the evidence-based practice for fit and feasibility.
Identify the active ingredients (the non-negotiable core components). Select implementation strategies. Design the professional-learning plan and the communication plan. Run a de-implementation analysis: name what must STOP to make room. Build the fidelity tools (IC Maps, DNA Audit).
Stand up coaching and supportive structures. Run non-evaluative learning walks. Gather implementation/fidelity data with the DNA Audit and IC Maps. Use collaboration protocols (Four As, Cycle of Inquiry). Make intelligent adaptations from data, and hold steady through the early dip toward the ~50% fidelity target (taking hold).
Assess the eight sustainability indicators. Allocate resources for durability. Onboard new staff into the practice. Scale thoughtfully. Guard against champion dependency (run the “if this person left tomorrow, what stops?” test). Sustain through ongoing refinement toward the 80% embedded threshold.
- Meet on a regular cadence: a monthly implementation-team meeting, moving to weekly during an active launch.
- Use protocols to keep meetings productive: Four As, Feedback Carousel, Cycle of Inquiry, “What? So What? Now What?”.
- Three “keep it simple” monthly questions: What did we try? What does the data show? What will we adjust?
- Learning walks are non-evaluative and data-gathering, they look at implementation fidelity of the specific practice, not general teaching quality.
At every stage the team asks the Inclusion questions: Who benefits? Who is being left out? Whose voices are shaping the decision? Disaggregate the data so a network-level gain never hides students who are being missed.
The team measures and protects fidelity with the shared instruments.
This is Rooted's operating system for the model: every playbook, plus the team and tools that carry it into practice. It works two ways at once, a guide for new schools and an implementation tool for operating ones.
You don't put your school in a stage. Each playbook moves through four implementation stages on its own timeline. Your school can be in Spread and Sustain on one playbook while in Decide on another. Open any playbook to see its stage map, the four-stage arc for that work.
RSF label, with the implementation-science alias.
- By stage (home): tap a stage card to see what every playbook looks like at that stage, then tap into a playbook. Best for “where am I and what's the work right now?”
- By playbook (Full Playbook Library): open any playbook to see its full four-stage arc. Best for “show me everything about this playbook.”
- Filter by role inside any stage to see the playbooks that are your responsibility.
- New school leader (C.R. Neal, Cleveland): start in Decide, open Zero Year Pre-Opening, marked “Start here.”
- Operating school (Vancouver): jump to the stage you're in for a given playbook, and lean on the Fidelity Toolkit and Implementation Team.
- Implementation Team: the engine that carries every playbook through its stages.
- Fidelity Toolkit: the instruments the team uses to measure and protect fidelity (DNA Audit, IC Maps & IPGs).
- Ask the Playbook Knowledge Base: ask questions across every playbook in plain language (NotebookLM).
- Browse by DNA Pillar: explore the model through its pillars.
- Full Playbook Library: every playbook in the framework.
A READY playbook is fully built and linked to its content. Under Development means the content is still being written, it will appear in the stage flow once it's ready.
At every stage the work asks the same questions: Who benefits? Who is being left out? Whose voice is shaping the decision? Data is disaggregated so a network-level gain never hides students who are being missed.
Learning
Students set goals, use data, plan, monitor, and adapt their own learning: the AND Block, IC Map, and Student SDL Log are the daily instruments.
Who is trusted, coached, and supported to self-direct: and who is mostly managed or left alone?
SDL will deepen into the Academic Model Playbook as Playbook #5 is fully authored. This pillar hub will auto-update to surface new SOPs, tools, and deep-dive sections as they are completed.
Students set goals, use data, plan, monitor, and adapt their own learning to move outcomes: especially for students furthest from proficiency.
Who is trusted, coached, and supported to self-direct: and who is mostly managed or left alone?
The SDL pillar hub will expand as its anchor playbook and cross-referenced SOPs are completed. Tools and interactive resources will appear here automatically.
Students build financial capability, career literacy, and critical consciousness about systems that shape opportunity.
Whose economic realities and constraints are centered in examples, planning, and advice?
The C228 pillar hub will expand as its anchor playbook and cross-referenced SOPs are completed. Tools and interactive resources will appear here automatically.
Students use industry-standard tools and workflows to earn credentials that matter in the labor market.
Who gets hands-on time with real tools and IBC prep, and who mainly watches or gets filtered out?
The IBC pillar hub will expand as its anchor playbook and cross-referenced SOPs are completed. Tools and interactive resources will appear here automatically.
Students participate in real work experiences and structured reflection that build skills, networks, and clarity.
Who gets high-quality, well-supported placements and meaningful tasks: and who gets busywork or no placement?
The WBL pillar hub will expand as its anchor playbook and cross-referenced SOPs are completed. Tools and interactive resources will appear here automatically.
The school functions as a supportive, restorative, predictable garden where students feel safe, known, and able to grow.
Who experiences the school as safe and supportive: and who experiences it as policed or unpredictable?
The 360° pillar hub will expand as its anchor playbook and cross-referenced SOPs are completed. Tools and interactive resources will appear here automatically.
Adults work in a high-trust, high-expectations culture focused on real growth edges tied to student impact.
Whose growth is actively supported and protected: including BIPOC staff and staff in high-emotional-labor roles?
The DDO pillar hub will expand as its anchor playbook and cross-referenced SOPs are completed. Tools and interactive resources will appear here automatically.
Curriculum, pedagogy, and relationships are explicitly anti-racist and identity-affirming. Harm is named and addressed.
Who sees themselves, their histories, and their communities reflected with respect and complexity: and who is missing?
The ARC pillar hub will expand as its anchor playbook and cross-referenced SOPs are completed. Tools and interactive resources will appear here automatically.
Physical and digital environments visibly communicate Rooted's mission, Graduate Aims, and Closing 228 focus.
Whose work, images, and languages are on the walls and screens: and whose are absent?
The ENV pillar hub will expand as its anchor playbook and cross-referenced SOPs are completed. Tools and interactive resources will appear here automatically.
RSF-school meetings and rituals center student outcomes and the DNA, not just logistics. Data and power are shared.
Whose data and experiences shape RSF-school decisions: do we consistently center students furthest from opportunity?
The NET pillar hub will expand as its anchor playbook and cross-referenced SOPs are completed. Tools and interactive resources will appear here automatically.
Get the right people in the right seats before Day 1. This playbook covers sourcing, hiring, and developing the founding team: from the ED search through teacher onboarding, using an equity-centered, mission-aligned talent process.
Rooted's talent approach draws on the TNTP Irreplaceable framework (2012) and Pygmalion effect research showing that high-expectation hiring is the strongest predictor of first-year school performance. Founding team stability in years 1-2 is the #1 correlate with charter renewal success (CREDO, 2023).
Equity checkpoint: hiring
Before posting, audit the job description for coded language that screens out community-embedded candidates (e.g., "Ivy League," "fast-paced environment," "entrepreneurial only"). Use the RSF JD Review Checklist. Require that any finalist pool of 3+ includes at least one candidate who reflects the student community's racial/ethnic identity. Document if this standard cannot be met: do not proceed without a documented exception.
Common failure modes
- Starting too late. ED searches that open less than 12 months before launch consistently miss the best candidates: they're already committed.
- Hiring for enthusiasm over capacity. Mission alignment is necessary but not sufficient. Use the 3-round scorecard to assess execution skills explicitly.
- Skipping the reference check. 80% of hiring errors are visible in the reference check. Make it a real conversation, not a form.
- No retention plan. Founding team turnover in year 2 is the most common cause of school culture collapse. Build the development plan before Day 1.
State-specific variation
Build a board that governs instead of manages: one that holds the mission without running the school. This playbook covers recruitment, onboarding, meeting structure, and the board-ED relationship that makes or breaks founding-year culture.
Charter board effectiveness research (NACSA, 2022) identifies three predictors of school closure: board-ED boundary confusion, composition gaps in finance/legal expertise, and failure to conduct annual ED evaluations. Rooted's governance model is built around preventing all three from the start.
Equity checkpoint: board composition
Before finalizing the founding board, audit composition against the community demographics: Do board members reflect the race, language, and socioeconomic background of the families the school will serve? If the board is majority-white and the student body is majority-Black or Latine, name this gap explicitly and build a recruitment pipeline to address it within 18 months. Document the plan: authorizers increasingly review board composition during renewal.
The ESMA governance distinction
For RSSC / C.R. Neal Academy: The local board is the authorizer's governing entity: RSF operates as the Education Service Management partner. The board hires and evaluates the ED but delegates academic operations to RSF Central via the ESMA. Board members must understand this distinction clearly before they're seated, or role confusion will create operational paralysis. See the ESMA Term Sheet for precise decision-authority boundaries.
Common failure modes
- Board members who want to manage. Define the governance-management boundary in orientation: and enforce it consistently. Once a board member calls a teacher directly, the norm has been broken.
- No quorum culture. If board members don't show up, the school can't take formal action. Set attendance expectations in bylaws and enforce them.
- Skipping the ED evaluation. It feels awkward to evaluate someone you like. Do it anyway: the board loses credibility and the ED loses growth feedback.
- Composition drift. Every year, someone leaves and gets replaced by whoever is available. Without a composition matrix and deliberate recruitment, boards become homogeneous.
State-specific variation
Get a charter authorized, a facility secured, and a founding team in the door by Day 1. This playbook is the operational spine of pre-opening.
Launch readiness builds on the RSF model-fidelity framework and lessons from the 2023 Vancouver authorization cycle. See the Dependency Map for cross-playbook requirements.
Implement Self-Directed Learning at 80%+ fidelity from Day 1. The AND Block gives students daily structured practice building five SDL outcomes: Self-Awareness, Initiative, Goal Setting, Managing, and Monitoring.
Live digital versions of every paper-based SDL tool.
Downloadable documentsTap any section to expand. All content drawn from the full SDL Playbook.
§0
- Day 1-2: Post the Learning Pact; introduce AND Block structure using think-aloud
- Day 3-5: Students complete first SDL Log entry (sentence starters provided)
- Week 2: Begin IC Map orientation: students place themselves on the four-stage arc
- Week 3: First PLP conference with each student (10 min each)
- Week 4: First family communication about SDL goals and AND Block
- Self-Awareness: Identifies strengths, challenges, and learning preferences
- Initiative & Ownership: Takes action without prompting; advocates for learning needs
- Goal Setting & Planning: Creates specific, measurable goals with realistic plans
- Engaging & Managing: Sustains focus; manages time during independent work
- Monitoring & Adapting: Tracks progress; adjusts strategies; seeks feedback proactively
| Phase | Time | What Happens |
|---|---|---|
| Activate | 5 min | Goal-setting, SDL Log PLAN entry, transition from instruction mindset |
| Core Work | 20 min | Deep independent work on project or mastery task |
| Apply | 10 min | Practice, peer feedback, or iteration on work-in-progress |
| Transfer | 5 min | Reflection, SDL Log REFLECT entry, exit ticket |
§1
- Self-regulation is the #1 predictor of long-term academic and career success: more than IQ or prior achievement (Duckworth & Seligman, 2005)
- Students from under-resourced communities are disproportionately denied opportunities to develop self-direction in school: SDL is a justice intervention
- SDL + PBL is the academic model: PBL provides the meaningful context; SDL develops the skills to navigate that context independently
- The "college acceptance letter + job offer" promise requires students to own their implementation before they leave Rooted
| Study | Finding | Strength |
|---|---|---|
| Hattie meta-analysis (n=1,200+ studies) | Self-reported grades/student expectations: d=1.33 (top effect size) | Strong |
| EEF Metacognition Report (2021) | Teaching metacognitive strategies: +7 months additional progress | Strong |
| Zimmerman (2000) | Self-regulation is cyclical and teachable: not fixed personality | Strong |
| Wehmeyer et al. (2012, n=51 studies) | Self-determination interventions for students with disabilities: d=0.50 on goal attainment | Strong |
§2
| Stage | What It Means | What You See |
|---|---|---|
| Emerging | Learning SDL vocabulary and basic structures with heavy scaffolding | Needs prompts to open SDL Log; goals are vague; requires teacher direction for all transitions |
| Developing | Applying SDL tools with support; beginning to internalize routines | Opens SDL Log independently; sets specific goals with occasional support; manages Core Work with check-ins |
| Applying | Using SDL strategies independently across contexts | Self-starts AND Block; sets and monitors own goals; seeks feedback proactively; applies SDL in multiple classes |
| Extending | Leading and modeling SDL for peers; co-designing learning experiences | Mentors other students; designs own project structures; contributes to PLC discussions about SDL practices |
- Outcome 1, Self-Awareness: Emerging: can name one learning strength with prompting → Extending: independently identifies growth edge and adjusts approach before being stuck
- Outcome 2, Initiative & Ownership: Emerging: waits for teacher direction → Extending: proactively designs next steps and advocates for resources
- Outcome 3, Goal Setting & Planning: Emerging: writes a goal with sentence starters → Extending: creates multi-week project plans with contingencies
- Outcome 4, Engaging & Managing: Emerging: on-task with teacher proximity → Extending: manages competing priorities across projects independently
- Outcome 5, Monitoring & Adapting: Emerging: reflects when prompted → Extending: monitors in real-time and pivots strategy without adult cue
- Rate 3 students independently before the calibration meeting
- Share ratings + evidence: discuss discrepancies without judgment
- Goal: inter-rater reliability >80% within the first semester
- Update IC Map tracker quarterly; share with student before teacher enters rating
§3
- Co-create with students: post visibly and reference when norms slip
- Core elements: Right to productive struggle; Right to seek help; Responsibility to contribute to community focus; No put-downs for asking questions
- Learning Pit: Students sign a pact that says 'being stuck is where learning happens, not a sign of failure'
| Phase | Prompt | SDL Skill Built |
|---|---|---|
| PLAN | What is my goal today? What will I do first? How will I know I'm done? | Goal Setting & Planning |
| BUILD/GRAPPLE | What am I working on? What's hard? What have I tried? | Engaging & Managing |
| TEST/ITERATE | What's working? What do I need to change? What feedback did I get? | Monitoring & Adapting |
| RELEASE/REFLECT | What did I accomplish? What did I learn about myself as a learner? | Self-Awareness |
- Warm-up question: 'What are you working on right now?' (never 'are you on task?')
- Goal check: 'Read me your goal. How close are you to it?'
- Stuck protocol: 'What have you tried? What else could you try?'
- Celebrate the shift: Name explicitly when a student moves to the next stage: even small moves
- Keep conferences to 2-3 min; aim for 4-6 students per AND Block
| Problem | Likely Cause | Move |
|---|---|---|
| Students can't start without a prompt | Teacher still in Authority role; goals too vague | Use sentence starters for one more week; then fade |
| SDL Logs are one-word entries | Expectations unclear; no modeling of quality | Share exemplar logs anonymously; co-grade one together |
| AND Block feels chaotic | Norms not established; transitions unclear | Re-run Week 1 pact; add visual phase timer |
| Some students always done in 10 min | Goals too small; no stretch challenge embedded | Co-create a 'what comes next' challenge card at goal-setting |
§4
- Academic Evidence Dashboard: Current grade data, assessment scores, skills tracking
- SDL IC Map Progress: Current stage per outcome, quarterly growth notes
- Goal & Action Plan: 1-3 active goals with steps, deadlines, and evidence targets
- Reflection Archive: AND Block Transfer entries, conference notes, family feedback
- Post-Secondary Navigator: Career interest, credential progress, college notes
- Community Contributions: Service, mentoring, leadership evidence
| Day | Time | Activity |
|---|---|---|
| Monday | 5 min (AND Block) | Review last week's goal: was it met? Add evidence |
| Wednesday | 5 min (AND Block) | Mid-week progress check: on track or adjusting? |
| Friday | 5 min (AND Block) | Weekly reflection: one win, one challenge, next goal |
- 2 weeks before: Student selects 3 pieces of evidence + writes opening statement
- 1 week before: Practice with advisor (10 min); teacher reviews PLP for completeness
- Conference day: Student opens with 'Here's what I've been working on and why it matters': teacher & family ask questions only
- After: Student sets one goal for next quarter; family signs the action plan
- Target: 90%+ family attendance: offer virtual + evening options
§5
| Role | When | What Teacher Does | What Students Do |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority | Weeks 1-4 | Models every step; provides all structure; high talk ratio | Observe, follow, imitate |
| Motivator/Guide | Weeks 5-8 | Sets context; provides options; circulates with purpose | Choose within structure; ask questions; begin self-pacing |
| Facilitator | Weeks 9-16 | Conferences; asks questions; rarely directs; monitors data | Self-start; manage own time; seek feedback proactively |
| Consultant/Delegator | Month 5+ | Available on request; student-led; teacher as resource | Design own learning; mentor peers; co-create systems |
- Am I doing things for students that they could do for themselves?
- Do students know what to do when I'm absent?
- Do students ask ME for permission, or make decisions independently?
- Can I name 3 students ready for more autonomy AND 3 who need more scaffolding?
- Red flag: After 3 months, if students still can't begin AND Block without your explicit direction: the gradual release is stalled.
- SDL Log = practice journal. Map existing tools: practice log → PLAN+MONITOR; rehearsal notes → BUILD/GRAPPLE; self-assessment → TEST/ITERATE; performance/exhibition → RELEASE/CELEBRATE
- AND Block time flexibility: 40 min (full structure) | 20-30 min (SDL Minimum Viable Block: Activate → Core Work → Transfer) | No block (embed 3-min goal-setting + 2-min reflection per class)
- IC Map uses same 4 stages and 5 outcomes: evidence is domain-specific (artistic practice, fitness data, credential progress)
§6
| Tool | Frequency | Who | What It Measures |
|---|---|---|---|
| SDL Log | Daily | Student | In-the-moment self-direction: planning, monitoring, reflection |
| IC Map | Quarterly | Teacher + Student | Developmental stage across 5 outcomes |
| BEST Rubric | Per project | Teacher | Grade-band indicators: 9th-10th (foundational) vs. 11th-12th (transfer) |
| PBLWorks Rubric | Per project | Teacher | Self-regulation, autonomy, growth mindset, personal responsibility |
| IPG Walkthrough | Weekly | Dean/Leader | AND Block fidelity across classrooms |
| Equity disaggregation | Quarterly | Leadership | IC Map data broken by race, gender, IEP, ELL, grade |
- Hybrid Model: Core course grades = content mastery (standards-based); Separate 'Habits of Scholarship' section on every report card = SDL progression (IC Map stages)
- PBL rubrics: SDL process skills at ~30% weight alongside content criteria
- Growth recognition: IC Map stages reflect growth trajectory: a student at Emerging is not failing; a student who moves from Emerging→Developing in one quarter receives a narrative commendation
- Never: Use IC Map stages as letter grades (A=Extending, F=Emerging): this punishes developmental stage, not effort
- Never: Grade SDL Log completion as homework: turns a learning tool into a compliance task
| Signal | Action |
|---|---|
| 3+ missed SDL Log entries | Tier 2 conversation with student this week |
| No PLP evidence for 2 weeks | Teacher conference + parent contact |
| No IC Map stage movement in 2 quarters | Success Plan with Student Success Coach |
| Below Standard on 2+ BEST dimensions | Targeted support plan after next PLC |
| Disparate outcomes by subgroup | Equity investigation: before any other action |
§7
| Tier | Who | Support |
|---|---|---|
| Tier 1 | All students | AND Block daily, SDL Log, IC Map quarterly, weekly PLP updates |
| Tier 2 | Students with 2+ weeks stagnation or declining engagement | Daily 2-min check-ins, bi-weekly Success Coach, modified goal-setting scaffolds |
| Tier 3 | Students not responding to Tier 2 after 4 weeks | Restorative conference (student + family + teacher + coach), MTSS referral |
| SDL Structure | Engagement | Representation | Action/Expression |
|---|---|---|---|
| AND Block | Choice of workspace; sensory break in Core Work | Visual timer + audio phase cues | Verbal goal-setting; typed or recorded reflection |
| SDL Log | Color-coded phases; minimum viable entry option | Graphic organizer version; audio instructions | Speech-to-text; photo/video evidence; simplified template |
| PLP | Student selects evidence format | Icons + text; large-print option | Audio reflections; paraeducator scribes; adapted binder |
- Day 1: Welcome Conference: 'What was your last school like? What worked? What didn't?' + SDL Handbook walkthrough + peer mentor introduction
- Days 2-5: Peer mentor models SDL Log in real time; student attempts phases with decreasing support
- Days 6-10: Teacher conferences every other day; IC Map initial placement by Day 10
- Days 11-15: Student joins standard Tier 1 supports; PLP binder opens; first quarterly goal set
- Success check: Student independently completes AND Block; 10+ SDL Log entries; can name 3 of 5 SDL outcomes in own words
| What You See | Try This | Never Do This |
|---|---|---|
| Head down, refusing to start | Sit nearby quietly. 'I'll check back in 3 min.' | Demand immediate compliance; call out publicly |
| Agitation, frustration | 'Want to take 2 min in the reset space?' | Escalate; insist they 'just try' |
| Passive/consistent disengagement | 'I notice you've been in PLAN for 3 weeks. What's the real barrier?' | Assume laziness; increase pressure |
§8
| Role | Core SDL Function | AND Block Responsibility |
|---|---|---|
| Classroom Teacher | Primary SDL facilitator; IC Map rater; PLP conference lead | Facilitates all 4 phases daily; conferences 4-6 students |
| Student Success Coach | Tier 2/3 support; family bridge; cultural responsiveness | Pulls small groups for SDL skill workshops; co-facilitates restorative conferences |
| Paraeducator | Direct SDL support for IEP students during AND Block | Scribes SDL Logs; prompts by plan; collects observational data for teacher |
| Dean of Instruction | SDL fidelity guardian; teacher development | Conducts weekly IPG walkthroughs; same-day teacher feedback |
| School Leader | Vision holder; schedule protector; equity accountant | Ensures AND Block is non-negotiable in master schedule; reviews quarterly equity audits |
- Every classroom maintains a printed Sub Folder: AND Block schedule (laminated), class roster with Tier 2/3 highlighted, 5 rotating pre-written Activate prompts, SDL Log example
- Sub script: Activate: 'Open your SDL Log. Write your goal for today at the top of a new entry.'
- Sub script: Core Work: 'What's your goal for today?' (only redirect question needed)
- Sub script: Transfer: 'Write one sentence: Today I worked on ___ and the SDL skill I practiced was ___.''
- Multi-day absence (4+): Dean assigns long-term sub with 30-min SDL orientation; coach increases AND Block presence to daily
- Never: Skip AND Block structure; assign unrelated work; attempt student goal conferences without context
| Phase | Para Role | Observable Shift |
|---|---|---|
| Weeks 1-4 | Sit with student; co-complete SDL Log; model self-talk | Student tolerates AND Block without behavioral escalation |
| Weeks 5-8 | Adjacent support; prompt only if stuck >3 min | Student initiates SDL Log entry independently |
| Weeks 9-12 | Check in at start/end only | Student completes AND Block with ≤1 prompt |
| Week 13+ | Available on request; observational data only | Student self-advocates for accommodations |
§9
| Frequency | Activity | Owner |
|---|---|---|
| Weekly | Progress update on SDL + academic work (text/app, family's preferred language) | Classroom Teacher |
| Bi-weekly | Personal phone call: celebrate growth, address concerns | Teacher (T1) or Success Coach (T2) |
| Monthly | Family SDL Workshop (60 min: teach what SDL is, how to support at home) | Success Coach + School Leader |
| Quarterly | Student-Led Conferences | Student (presenter) |
| Quarterly | Family Input Session: families share feedback, ideas, cultural assets | School Leader |
| Session | Topic | Families Leave With |
|---|---|---|
| September | 'What is SDL? What does it look like?' | Understanding of 5 outcomes; video of AND Block in action |
| November | 'Reading your child's PLP' | Ability to interpret PLP evidence; questions to ask weekly |
| February | 'Supporting self-direction at home' | 3 concrete strategies for home goal-setting and follow-through |
| April | 'Preparing for Student-Led Conferences' | What their child will present; how to ask growth-oriented questions |
- All sessions in English + Spanish (or primary community language)
- Childcare provided on-site
- Evening time slot (6:00-7:00 PM) for working families
- Food provided
- Virtual option always available
- Materials in print and digital
- 6-10 family/guardian advisory group; meets twice per year
- Prioritize families of students at Emerging/Developing (who may be struggling with SDL) + Year 1 families (fresh perspective)
- Decisions made by this group ARE implemented: not advisory in name only
- Reviews: IC Map trend data, PLP template effectiveness, family communication quality, barriers to conference participation
§10
| Month | Focus | Key Milestone |
|---|---|---|
| Summer | Staff Onboarding: 5-day SDL PD intensive | All staff can facilitate AND Block; IC Map inter-rater reliability >80% |
| August | Student Onboarding: Week 1-2 protocol | Every student has completed at least 1 SDL Log entry |
| September | Establish Routines | AND Block at 80%+ daily fidelity |
| October | First IC Map Assessment | Baseline IC Map data for all students |
| November | Data Review & Adjust | Tier 2 supports in place for identified students |
| December | Mid-Year Check: first Student-Led Conferences | Measurable IC Map movement for 50%+ of students |
| January-March | Deepen Practice: gradual release coaching, equity audit #1 | At least 3 teachers in Facilitator role |
| April-May | Year-End: final IC Map, Year 2 planning | 70% of staff + students at Developing or above |
- Q1: SDL Log fully integrated into PBL projects; teacher role shifting to Facilitator for 50%+ of staff
- Q2: Student-led PLC contributions; peer mentoring program launches; student voice in school decisions
- Q3: Families contributing to PBL design; Student-Led Conferences become student-designed
- Q4: Pilot student-designed projects; cross-grade mentoring; Year 3 planning from 2-year data
- Students propose, plan, and execute community-connected projects
- 11th-12th graders mentor 9th-10th graders in SDL skills
- Teachers conducting action research on SDL; presenting at conferences
- SDL is no longer 'something we do': it is 'who we are'; new staff onboarded by existing staff and students
- Learning Design: Learner agency in goal-setting (PLP); authentic relevant learning (Fertile Questions); productive struggle (Learning Pit); student co-design (Teacher Agency §5.6)
- Assessment Practices: Transparent success criteria (IC Map descriptors); ongoing formative feedback (AND Block conferences); student self-assessment (IC Map protocol); portfolio evidence (PLP)
- School Culture: Safety to take risks (Learning Pact); student voice in governance; adult agency modeled (Teacher IC Map)
- Structural Conditions: Protected AND Block time; tiered support infrastructure (§7); family as co-designer (§9.4)
§11
- AND Block (40 min) appears in every student's daily schedule at the same time: typically 10:52-11:32 AM (Vancouver model)
- AND Block is NEVER scheduled against electives, PE, lunch, or required pull-out services
- Teachers have minimum 15 min before AND Block (prep conferencing notes) + 15 min after (document observations)
- Weekly 45-min PLC time is in the master schedule: not 'found time'
- Every student: including ELL, IEP, and AP, accesses AND Block daily
| Indicator | Evidence of Fidelity | Evidence of Concern |
|---|---|---|
| AND Block structure | All 4 phases visible; transitions clear | Phases missing or rushed; no visible structure |
| SDL Log use | Students have Logs open; actively writing; referencing goals | Logs closed; students waiting for direction |
| Teacher role | Teacher conferencing, circulating; student voice dominant | Teacher lecturing; standing at front; high talk ratio |
| Student agency | Students making choices; self-managing time | Students waiting for permission; all doing same task |
| Scenario | Time Available | Protocol |
|---|---|---|
| 2-hour delay | 20 min | Compressed: Activate (3) + Core Work (12) + Transfer (5) |
| 1-hour delay | 30 min | Trimmed: all 4 phases with compressed timers |
| Early dismissal (planned) | 15-20 min | Reflection Block: Transfer phase only: SDL Log REFLECT entry |
| Emergency early dismissal | 0 min | Async Recovery: post 10-min SDL Log prompt to LMS by end of day |
| AND Block cut 3+ times in one month | N/A | Persistent Erosion Protocol: document → leadership review → structural change → RSF escalation if continues |
- Are IC Map progression rates equitable across racial groups? → If not: investigate assessment bias, instructional practice, or structural barrier
- Are Tier 2/3 interventions disproportionately assigned to certain groups? → Review referral criteria; check for bias in teacher identification
- Are family engagement rates equitable? → Remove access barriers; adjust communication approach
- Are teacher gradual release rates equitable across student groups? → Coach on equitable release; examine assumptions
Build authentic community co-design infrastructure from the ground up: from pre-opening asset mapping through sustained family, student, and employer partnership at full fidelity.
Built on an 87-source research base. Community schools research (Dryfoos, 2005) and the PTHV national evidence base (Gonzalez et al., 2017) show that structured family engagement predicts student attendance and persistence more strongly than any academic intervention. Authentic co-design, not consultation, is the founding-year difference-maker.
Equity checkpoint: engagement design
Before launching the CAI, explicitly document whose voices have historically been excluded from school design in this community. Build the listening methodology to over-index those voices: not just survey whoever shows up. Pay community co-researchers. Translate everything. Conduct outreach where people already are, not where it's convenient for staff.
Common failure modes
- Listening without responding. If families never see their input reflected in decisions, trust evaporates. Loop closure is the most important SOP.
- YPAR becoming an honor society. The student co-design cohort must reflect student diversity: not just high-achievers. Recruitment requires active outreach.
- IAC without pipeline. Industry advisors who don't have active internship spots aren't partners: they're advisory board logo-holders. Validate pipelines before seating members.
State-specific variation
Equip every Rooted site with financial systems, compliance frameworks, and decision tools to maintain fiscal health and authorizer standing: across all three sites and the ESMA structure.
The three most common causes of charter school closure are academic underperformance, governance failure, and financial mismanagement. This playbook addresses the third. Built on 2 CFR Part 200 compliance requirements, NACSA's Fiscal Health Risk Analysis framework, and GASB 34/35/87 standards.
ESMA alert: C.R. Neal fiscal agent
At C.R. Neal Academy, the three-party structure (local board, RSF Central, VU-CIL) creates fiscal agent ambiguity. Before any Title I, IDEA, or CSP draw is processed, legal counsel must formally document which entity holds federal grant authority. ESMA payment routing may also create a 30-60 day cash gap: confirm SC apportionment flow with VU-CIL before building Year 1 cash flow model. Do not assume RSF Central holds this authority.
Financial red flags
- Cash reserves fall below 60 days without a Board-approved plan
- Accounts payable aging exceeds 60 days (vendors not paid)
- Payroll contingency fund below 1 month of payroll
- Enrollment more than 10% below budget without midyear revision
- Federal grant expenditures more than 30 days behind draw schedule
State-specific variation
Give every Rooted site a consistent, equity-centered system for student data governance, SIS management, dashboards, AI tool integration, and data-driven decision-making from Day 1.
Student data privacy is a legal floor, not a ceiling. FERPA, COPPA, and state-level privacy laws (WA SUPER Act, SC Code §39-1-90, Ohio ORC §1347.12) set minimum requirements: Rooted's equity standard requires going further. Data systems should reveal inequity, not obscure it through aggregation.
ESMA alert: C.R. Neal data governance
At C.R. Neal, the Board is the Data Owner: the ED cannot sign vendor DSAs without Board authorization. All DSAs must be logged in the DSA Registry and presented at the September Board meeting for annual approval. If the ESMA is ever dissolved, all student data must be returned or deleted within 30 days of dissolution.
AI adoption: the 12 questions
Before any AI tool touches student data, the review must answer: (1) Who is the data controller? (2) Is a DSA in place? (3) Does the tool use student data to train its models? (4) Has a bias audit been conducted? (5) Is the output explainable to students and families? (6) Are there opt-out provisions? (7) What is the data retention policy? (8-12) Site the relevant state privacy law and document compliance. If any answer is 'unknown,' stop and resolve before deploying.
State-specific variation
Prepare every new Rooted ED to navigate the civic, institutional, and relational terrain of their community: from the first 30 days of listening through Year 1 partnership portfolio establishment.
Built on civic ecosystem theory, implementation science (EPIS), charter school political legitimacy research, and WBL outcome data. Read this after your first 30 days, when ground-level experience connects theory to practice.
Research domains (4)
Draws from Putnam’s social capital work and Kania & Kramer’s collective impact framework. Core insight: sustainable institutions succeed by embedding within networks of mutual trust, not by building programs in isolation. Ecosystem positioning determines institutional resilience.
Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment. EPIS distinguishes outer context (political, community) from inner context (organizational capacity, culture). PB23 operates primarily in outer context, which is often more determinative of sustainability, yet leaders spend most of their time managing inner context.
Community trust and political legitimacy are consistent predictors of long-term authorization survival, independent of academic performance. A school can achieve strong outcomes and still face authorization challenges if it has failed to build credible community relationships.
The critical WBL variable is not the existence of a program, it is the quality of the employer relationship. Students with structured WBL pathways demonstrate higher post-secondary persistence and employment in credential-relevant fields. Ecosystem navigation is the infrastructure on which the “college + job offer” promise depends.
ESMA alert: C.R. Neal Academy (Columbia, SC only)
The 5 ED competencies
Failure modes & recovery paths (6)
- No community event attendance in 3+ weeks
- Stakeholder calls being rescheduled or cancelled
- Ecosystem Map not updated in 60+ days
- Partner communications are purely transactional (invoices, scheduling)
- No informal contact with Tier 1 partners in 90+ days
- Community concerns reaching the ED via third parties
- ED relies primarily on internal staff for community intelligence
- ED describes relationships as “great” without supporting data
- Stakeholder interviews stopped because “we know the community now”
- A program change was made under pressure without RSF Growth consultation
- ED framing Core-component changes as “adaptations”
- Feedback partners report that “nothing changes”
- Partners stop attending feedback conversations
This playbook is not yet authored to RSF standard. The Quick Start, SOPs, and templates will appear here once the content checklist is complete. Ask the NotebookLM knowledge base instead: cited answers from related playbooks.
- Authorizer portal shows "Received" status
- Submission confirmation PDF in RSF Drive
- RSF Central Finance signed off on the financial model
- All required exhibits attached (cover memo, academic summary, financials, LOIs)
Before you proceed, confirm the following are true:
- The community partners listed represent the actual neighborhoods the school will serve: not just established institutions
- Financial model does not assume a selection-bias student population
- Founding team composition reflects the student body you expect to serve
- Outreach plan names the specific languages and channels for your target families
- Submitting with a draft financial model: authorizers treat this as disqualifying
- Copy-pasting the mission statement across application sections: reviewers notice
- Missing the cycle cutoff by hours. Submit 48 hours early.
This SOP is not yet authored to RSF standard. Steps, prerequisites, and templates will appear here once the content checklist is complete.
For now, ask the NotebookLM knowledge base: it has cited answers from related playbooks and Rooted's implementation history.