Principal Partners/Coaching

Q (No subject): Could you please elaborate on the District’s expectations regarding how principal coaching should contribute to improving student achievement, particularly in relation to student performance metrics and assessment scores?

A: District Expectations for Principal Partner Coaching Principal partner coaching should lead to real improvements in student achievement, especially in ELA and Math. That includes growth on state assessments, local assessments, and overall school performance (A–F, exiting improvement status). What This Looks Like Focus on results — coaching should show up in better student performance, not just plans or conversations Strong PLCs — teams using data to plan specific instructional next steps Better instruction — classrooms aligned to standards with clear, targeted teaching Clear systems — protected PLC time, aligned curriculum, and support for intervention Ongoing data use — regularly looking at CFAs, benchmarks, and adjusting instruction Consistent support — regular check-ins, site visits, and tracking progress in ELA and Math Coaching should lead to stronger teaching, more focused PLCs, and clear gains in student learning.

Q (No subject): Are there specific challenges or priority areas the District would like coaching to address?

A: Yes, coaching is still focused on a few key areas that directly impact student outcomes, but now the emphasis is on sustaining and building on the progress schools have already made. A major priority is strengthening PLCs so teams consistently move beyond reviewing data and into planning and implementing targeted instruction. There is also a continued focus on using data effectively, ensuring principals and teams regularly use CFA, benchmark, and state assessment data to guide instructional decisions and monitor growth. Coaching should support maintaining strong Tier 1 instruction by keeping lessons aligned to standards, with clear learning targets and appropriate rigor. In addition, principals should continue refining intervention systems so support for students is timely and effective, while also building greater consistency across classrooms so all students experience high-quality instruction. Ultimately, the goal is to sustain momentum and continue improving student performance in ELA and Math, ensuring gains are maintained and built upon over time.

Q (No subject): Will the selected vendor have access to relevant data (e.g., student performance data, staff surveys, school improvement plans) to inform coaching and progress monitoring?

A: Yes, the selected vendor will have access to relevant data needed to support coaching and monitor progress. This includes student performance data such as state assessments, benchmarks, and CFAs, as well as access to school and district plans that guide the work. The expectation is that this data will be used to inform coaching conversations, identify areas of need, and monitor progress over time. Data will also be used to ensure that coaching remains focused on improving instruction and student outcomes. All data sharing will follow district guidelines and expectations, with an emphasis on using information responsibly to support continuous improvement and decision-making.

Q (1GPA Vendor Status): As an approved vendor under 1GPA, can you please clarify how this RFP relates to existing cooperative agreements? Are vendors required to submit a proposal through this RFP to be considered for these services, regardless of existing 1GPA approval?

A: While vendors may already be approved through 1GPA, this RFP is being used to select a partner specifically aligned to the District’s continuous improvement work and priorities. Vendors are expected to submit a proposal through this RFP in order to be considered. Existing 1GPA approval does not replace the need to respond, as the District will use this process to evaluate alignment to the scope of work, approach, and ability to support the specific outcomes outlined. Being an approved 1GPA vendor allows for streamlined contracting once a vendor is selected, but participation in this RFP is still required for consideration.

Q (Prior Year RFP / Contract): For vendors awarded under last year’s RFP #26-102-07 for Staff and Leadership Professional Development Services, can you clarify whether those contracts may be utilized for services outlined in this RFP, or if a separate submission is required to be eligible for Principal Partner/Coaching engagements?

A: Contracts awarded under last year’s RFP #26-102-07 may support general professional development services; however, this RFP is specific to Principal Partner/Coaching services aligned to the District’s continuous improvement expectations. Vendors are required to submit a proposal through this RFP to be considered for these specific services. Prior awards do not automatically extend to or qualify vendors for Principal Partner/Coaching work under this scope. This process allows the District to ensure alignment to the specific expectations, deliverables, and outcomes required for this role.

Q (Pricing Structure): Can you provide guidance on the expected structure for the pricing proposal? Specifically, should pricing be submitted on a per-day or per-school, and are there any required formats or templates that vendors should follow?

A: Pricing should be structured in a way that clearly reflects the scope of services outlined in the RFP. Given the nature of the work, vendors may present pricing on a per-school or per-day basis, as long as it is clear, transparent, and aligns to the expected deliverables (e.g., bi-weekly meetings, site visits, ongoing support). Vendors should outline: What is included in the pricing (coaching sessions, site visits, preparation, follow-up, etc.) Any variations in cost based on level of support or number of schools Total estimated cost for the duration of services At this time, there is no required template, but proposals should be organized in a clear and detailed format that allows for easy comparison across vendors.

Q (Reporting Expectations): Can you provide additional detail regarding reporting expectations for selected partners? Are there established templates, required reporting intervals, or specific metrics (e.g., student achievement data, implementation fidelity, leadership indicators) that vendors are expected to track and submit?

A: Vendors will be expected to provide regular updates that show both implementation progress and impact. This includes documenting bi-weekly coaching interactions and submitting an end-of-year summary with evidence of progress in ELA and Math. The District already has an established goal-setting and reporting template that will be used to guide this work. Selected partners will be expected to align to this template, including setting clear implementation goals, monitoring progress, and providing evidence tied to both instructional practices and student achievement. Vendors should expect to contribute to quarterly updates using this structure and ensure their reporting clearly reflects progress toward goals and impact on student outcomes. Overall, reporting should show a clear connection between coaching actions, progress toward district goals, and improvements in student learning.

Q (Bi-Weekly Virtual Meetings): The RFP references bi-weekly virtual check-ins. Is there flexibility in the frequency and structure of these meetings based on school needs, and to what extent can vendors propose a customized support model?

A: The expectation is that vendors will provide at least bi-weekly virtual check-ins to ensure consistent support and progress monitoring. That said, there is flexibility in how support is structured beyond that minimum. Vendors may propose a model that is responsive to school needs, including adjustments to the focus, format, or additional touchpoints, as long as it maintains regular communication and aligns to the scope of work. Any customized approach should still ensure consistent coaching, clear progress toward goals, and alignment to Project Momentum priorities.

Q (School / Principal Assignment): How will vendors be assigned to schools or principals? Will assignments be based on vendor specialization, capacity, geographic considerations, or school-specific needs?

A: Vendor assignment will be determined by the District based on a combination of factors, including vendor capacity, experience, and alignment to school-specific needs. The District will prioritize matching vendors to schools where they can best support the work, particularly around Project Momentum priorities such as PLC development, data use, and instructional improvement. Consideration may also be given to logistics and geography when appropriate. Ultimately, assignments will be made to ensure each school is paired with a partner who can most effectively support continued growth in student achievement and strong implementation of the work.

Q (Project Momentum Alignment): Can you provide additional detail on the key components and expectations of the Project Momentum Arizona framework, and how external partners are expected to align their coaching model to this initiative?

A: Project Momentum is focused on building strong, consistent systems that lead to improved student outcomes. At its core, the work centers on ensuring clarity around what students need to learn, how learning is measured, and how instruction and support respond to student needs. Key components include a guaranteed and viable curriculum, aligned assessments, effective PLCs, strong Tier 1 instruction, and systems for intervention and extension. The framework emphasizes continuous cycles of planning, instruction, assessment, and response—driven by collaborative teams and data. External partners are expected to align their coaching to this work by supporting principals in building and sustaining these systems. This includes strengthening PLCs, improving how data is used to guide instruction, ensuring alignment between standards, instruction, and assessment, and helping leaders monitor and adjust practices based on evidence of student learning. Coaching should not operate as a separate initiative, but instead directly support and reinforce the District’s existing structures and priorities. The expectation is that all coaching work is tightly connected to improving instruction and ultimately leading to measurable gains in student achievement.

Q (Definition of Success): How does the District define success for this engagement at the principal and school level? Are there specific performance indicators or targets (e.g., A–F ratings, student growth metrics, implementation benchmarks) that will be used to evaluate effectiveness?

A: Success is defined by both improvements in student outcomes and strong implementation of key systems and practices at the school level. At the student level, success includes continued growth in ELA and Math performance, reflected in state assessments, benchmarks, and CFAs, with an expectation that schools demonstrate sustained or increasing growth over time. At the school level, success includes maintaining or improving A–F ratings, along with evidence that schools are sustaining the progress they have made and continuing to build on it. Equally important are implementation indicators, such as: Effective and consistent PLCs that use data to drive instruction Strong alignment between standards, instruction, and assessment High-quality Tier 1 instruction across classrooms Clear systems for intervention and support Success will be evaluated through a combination of student performance data, evidence of implementation, and progress toward district goals. The District is also using a defined goal-setting and reporting structure, and partners will be expected to show progress within that framework. Overall, success means that coaching leads to sustained systems, stronger instruction, and continued gains in student learning.

Q (Data Access): Will vendors have access to relevant school and student data to inform coaching and measure impact? If so, what types of data will be available?

A: Yes, vendors will have access to relevant school and student data to support coaching and measure impact. This will include student performance data such as state assessment results (AASA), benchmark assessments, and CFAs, as well as access to school and district plans that guide the work. Vendors may also have access to implementation-related data, such as PLC artifacts, walkthrough trends, and progress monitoring tied to district goals. The purpose of this access is to ensure coaching is grounded in evidence—helping identify needs, guide instructional decisions, and monitor progress over time. All data sharing will follow district guidelines, with an emphasis on using data responsibly to support continuous improvement and student achievement.

Q (Differentiation Across Schools): To what extent are vendors expected to differentiate their approach based on individual school needs, performance levels, or principal experience?

A: Vendors are expected to differentiate their approach based on each school’s needs, performance levels, and the experience of the principal. While there are clear, non-negotiable priorities tied to Project Momentum (PLCs, data use, instructional alignment, and student outcomes), how that support looks in practice should be responsive to the context of the school. This may include adjusting the focus of coaching, the level of support provided, and how quickly teams move through the work. For example, some schools may need deeper support in building foundational systems like PLC structures or data routines, while others may focus more on refining instruction, strengthening rigor, or sustaining strong practices already in place. The expectation is that vendors bring a flexible approach while still maintaining alignment to district goals and ensuring that all coaching remains focused on improving instruction and student achievement.