Simulated dashboard · Week 6
All data on this page is SIMULATED and fictional — Bridge Math Tutoring and its six schools do not exist. The dashboard exists to demonstrate how a program manager reads fidelity data: find the seam, name the interpretation, commit to an action, set a check date.
The six schools (week 6 of the semester)
| School | Tutors | Avg min/student/wk | Students <60 min | Same-tutor % | Sessions w/ ticket | Mean rubric (1–4) | Flags open |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lakeside MS | 12 | 88 | 2 | 92% | 94% | 3.2 | 3 |
| Harborview MS | 10 | 91 | 1 | 88% | 96% | 3.4 | 2 |
| Cedar Grove MS | 9 | 84 | 3 | 84% | 91% | 3.0 | 4 |
| Maple Ridge MS | 11 | 58 | 14 | 71% | 88% | 2.9 | 9 |
| Summit MS | 8 | 86 | 2 | 90% | 89% | 2.4 | 5 |
| Riverbend MS | 10 | 83 | 4 | 87% | 93% | 3.1 | 4 |
Reading rules for this table: dosage benchmark is ~90 min/week (flag <60); same-tutor target ≥85%; ticket target ≥90%; rubric target mean ≥3.0 with no domain at 1. Measurement plan carries the definitions and sources.
The under-delivering school: Maple Ridge
What the row says: 58 min/student/week against a ~90 benchmark; 14 of ~120 students below 60 minutes; same-tutor continuity 71% (target 85); ticket rate 88% (just under target); rubric 2.9 — quality within sessions is near standard. Flags: 9, concentrated in MOVE·M2 and DIST·M3.
What it is NOT saying: Maple Ridge’s tutors are not weak — the rubric row is fine. This is a delivery problem: students are scheduled or pulled inconsistently, tutors are being reshuffled (71% continuity), and the ticket rate is drifting. The 9 flags are the downstream symptom: fragmented dosage produces exactly the misconception recurrence the tags are catching.
Interpretation (the story the data tells): scheduling debt. When the school’s master schedule loses rooms or test weeks eat pull-out slots, sessions get “made up” by whichever tutor is free — dosage fragments, continuity drops, and each student’s remaining minutes lose the compounding of a consistent adult who knows their last error.
Action plan (owned by the site coordinator, with the school’s scheduling lead):
| Action | Owner | By when |
|---|---|---|
| Pull the attendance log for the 14 under-dosage students; identify where the minutes die (Mondays? test weeks?) | Coordinator | Week 7 |
| Lock the 3×30 grid: every student has named slots with a named tutor; print it into the session plan headers | Coordinator + scheduling lead | Week 7 |
| Stop tutor reassignment for the flagged 14: continuity first for the students already below 60 minutes | Scheduling lead | Week 7 |
| Ticket-rate patch: exit tickets move to the end of every session with a printed “even if incomplete” rule re-briefed at the next site meeting ([T5]’s fix) | Coordinator | Week 8 |
| Re-check | — | Week 9: target ≥75 min avg, <8 students below 60, continuity ≥85% |
If week 9 shows the same row: escalate to the program director — the constraint is probably rooms or staffing, which scheduling goodwill cannot fix, and the measurement plan’s escalation path (program-level, week 9) exists for exactly that.
The other five, quickly
- Summit MS — the quality seam. Dosage fine (86), ticket rate fine, rubric 2.4. This is the opposite failure: the routine runs, the teaching inside it is generic (a rubric that low usually means Domain 3 — corrections instead of probing questions, [T6] patterns). Action: coaching cycles concentrated there, calibration re-check first (rule out a severe scorer before concluding a weak site), Session B materials in the next site meeting.
- Harborview MS — the healthy control. 91 minutes, 96% tickets, 3.4 rubric. Its value is comparative: what “working” looks like in this program’s own numbers (and a check on scorer drift — is Harborview’s observer generous or is the site genuinely strong? The calibration log answers).
- Lakeside MS — watch the flags. Good averages, 3 flags on BAL·M5 — all from one tutor’s group. One-group clusters mean a teaching-level misconception (the balance idea explained procedurally), not a program problem. Coaching-cycle work, exit-ticket bank items 3/14/18/19 as the re-teach set.
- Cedar Grove MS — mid-pack, stable. 84 minutes with 3 low students is a normal week-6 shape; the action is the per-student check, not a program intervention.
- Riverbend MS — the quiet one to watch. 83 minutes, 93% tickets, 3.1 rubric, but 4 flags and the same-tutor % is drifting (87 → check next month). Nothing to do today except notice it — which is precisely what leading indicators are for.
What a simulated dashboard can and cannot show
- CAN: demonstrate the reading discipline — find the seam, separate delivery from quality, act on the leading indicators, set a re-check date; show how the metric table becomes decisions.
- CANNOT: claim that any real school, program, or tutor behaves like this. Every number above is invented to be instructive, not representative. No real children, schools, or programs are depicted anywhere in this portfolio.