This document provides text translation to a 2007 video taped presentation highlighting the work of the Snowline Joint Unified School District and its efforts to exit Program Improvement (PI) status under NCLB. The video (non-AAV), posted as a WMV, should be the version selected by most users.
The video features Jim Cantor, Assistant Superintendent, Snowline Joint Unified School District, Deidra Price, Coordinator of the Regional System of District and School Support Region 10, and Gordon Jackson, Administrator, California Department of Education who serves as the moderator.
Promising Practices to Exit PI Status Video (WMV; 43:26)
Promising Practices in Snowline Joint Unified School District
Presented by Gordon Jackson
California Department of Education, Sacramento, CA
June 2007
Gordon Jackson:
Hello, I am Gordon Jackson, an administrator in the School Improvement Division at the California Department of Education, and I am inviting you to a conversation here in Snowline Joint Unified School District, with Jim Cantor, Assistant Superintendent, and Deirdre Price, a Coordinator of the Regional System of District and School Support. Hello and welcome. And here we have this opportunity to glimpse inside the walls of Snowline Joint Unified School District, and talk to Assistant Superintendent Jim Cantor, and the Coordinator of Region's 10—Regional System of District and School Support—to have the kind of conversation that I think people are anxious to have. The kind of conversation where people get a strong sense of the how, and, at the same time, recognizing that this is one experience. So I say as a preface to all watching, this is not—today is not the silver bullet day. Today is an opportunity to hear of this experience, to have a dialogue. I'll try my best to ask the questions that you might be very interested in hearing. I’m going to ask the questions that I’m very much interested in hearing, and hopefully have a very candid, just good conversation. Shall we do that?
(Both in response):
Sounds good.
Gordon Jackson:
So let’s do that. So thinking of the questions that people want to know, we’re very much interested in that initial start. How did you come into the district in this position and make some observations about what needs to happen that’s going to make a difference? What were those initial steps?
Jim Cantor:
Good question, and I think I’ll refer to what Deirdre was talking about. Initially our superintendent was very much influenced by Jim Collins and his good work. And he took a long hard look at our district, especially during his vacation, and thought that especially fit our district; that we were recognized as a good district throughout our community.
I believe our teachers and our staff felt that we were a good district and we were making good progress. But he challenged us using Jim Collins’ mantra there; he challenged us to become great. And so, what that caused us to do was to take a good hard look at ourselves through self-study, a good hard analysis of the data, and then to have those initial dialogues about what would it take to become from good to great. And then during that process, all of a sudden, we found that we were notified that we were PI—we were Program Improvement.
We were PI, especially one area, and that’s English language arts; one subgroup, and that was Special Ed. And I had been looking at the data and had some initial conversations with some of our Special Ed teachers and leaders, and we knew that we were not progressing like we should be. So, there again, you know, we needed to move, certainly not from good to great, but at least to a proficiency level that we thought that we should be at with our Special Ed populations.
So, initially then, we studied and analyzed the data. We conducted a number of perception surveys.
And those included the DAS—the District Assistance Survey—which the county came in and assisted us with.
It also involved—I asked the county to come in and conduct what I called another set of eyes. I thought that a good external look at the district would be helpful. And they did, they came in.
We had some SELPA personnel—Special Education Local Plan Area county personnel. We went to all of our schools, a number of regular classrooms, and we visited Special Education classrooms, in particular. There were the Special Ed and the English Learner (EL) Surveys that the state provided that we conducted, as well. And so, we had a lot of good hard data, and also perception data. And then from there we had those initial conversations about what would program change be. And we had been working with the Pulliams—Barry and Leslie Pulliam from this county. And we adopted the focus on standards model. And that fit our district very well. And what that is, is it’s pretty much a five-step process, and that’s exactly what we needed, was a process for change.
That involved, like many districts are doing now, teaching to common standards—a standards-driven instructional program; pacing those standards. And we wanted to pace those, what I would call “loosely,” so that it’s not page by page of a text book, or day to day instruction, but rather particular standards and a particular time that teachers would address. And then we developed common assessments. But the very most important step was the collaborative process, where teachers were able to get together by subject matter and grade, and were able to examine the data very briefly, and then move into instructional practices.
Gordon Jackson:
I'll interrupt because you said on several occasions “data,” and you’ve made references to data. And I know in working with other districts and other schools some people embrace data as data-based decision making, and some people, well, they’re not necessarily engaged in that arena about data, and yet you’ve mentioned it.
Was that a solid foundation? Was that something that you had to introduce to the district or get people on board understanding the power of data? Did it come readily?
I mean, I am interested in this relationship with data because it seems as if, by your own comment, that that played such a huge role in these initial steps.
Jim Cantor:
I had been very much data-driven, and as a principal, and even going back as a teacher. And so, I embrace that concept. And our principals did, as well. They readily embraced that, as well. And so, we had principals on board—certainly I was on board with a data-driven system—and our superintendent also supported that. As a matter of fact, still up in his office is a slogan that says “in god we trust, everyone else bring data.” And he actually communicated that to the entire staff. And so, then what I did, as well, is I went through a series of board meetings, special board meetings, some of them as long as four hours long, where I brought the board together, and certainly the community was invited as well. And we introduced this data-driven system to them, and spoke about the importance of data, and that we really needed to be, especially in this standards-based system that we have now in the state of California and throughout the United States, a data-driven district.
Gordon Jackson:
Was there any resistance?
Was there people—
Jim Cantor:
Absolutely, there were teachers, there were nay-sayers certainly that had seen change before, and recognized that those changes went away. And so, they thought that this was another one of those changes. We also communicated to them that this was a five-year plan, at least, and that this was not going away. We knew that the state system was not going away. The CST’s (California Standards Test) were not going to go away. And this whole accountability movement—No Child Left Behind (NCLB)—was not going away. And so, I did my footwork also, and I went from school to school. I brought in teacher groups, and we talked about these facts. The most difficult—I wouldn’t say resistant—but the most difficult groups were Special Ed, for example. Well, how can we be involved in this, and EL groups, as well; but especially Special Ed. There is this tradition in Special Ed, certainly, and I’m a former Special Ed teacher, that these students are not expected to perform up to standards.
And so, they were initially resistant, I would say, or at least questioned the system.
Gordon Jackson:
And so, in those conversations when you recognize that you are coming face to face with, not necessarily nay-sayers, but with a level of resistance, whether it’s specific strategies or ways in which you approach that to cause people to relax and connect to this effort. I’m just curious because I know that, for other district leaders, that’s a challenge. You’ve got that collection of people who want to watch the doers do, and when the doers are successful “call me.” Up until that point, they’re resistant. Was there any specific strategy, or was it just about hammering it home?
Jim Cantor:
I would say especially two things: one is, is that I personally communicated with the teachers.
So I brought them together as, once again, grade level groups and subject matter groups, and talked about the changes that had occurred on the state and federal level, and then what our response needed to be to those changes. And that, certainly, then was a discussion about change within our district and, certainly, the focus on a standards-based driven system. And so, I think that helped me going out and speaking with teacher groups. I counted at one point, and I think I talked to as many as 21 different groups, and sometimes long and hard. The other thing I did especially with groups like Special Ed is I brought in some consultants; some well known consultants in the area that were well respected, and yet had embraced this standards-based instructional movement even for groups like Special Ed. And we began working with them, with the consultants. And I think that really helped a lot also.
Gordon Jackson:
Great. Well you’ve talked about these external eyes, the consultants, and that kind of opens the door to recognizing that, you know, you believe that.
Jim Cantor:
There is one more strategy that was—that I thought was imperative to make the system work. And probably the most important thing I did was I brought in teacher leaders. I brought them into the system. I first thought that principals would be able to facilitate this system along with me and my support. And that wasn’t the case I found. And later I actually read that there’s been some research to indicate that principals can only dedicate some 25 percent to 30 percent of their time as instructional leaders. I found that to be very true. So what I did was I brought in teacher leaders. And, at first, one of the external support systems that we used also was an instructional data management system. And so, I brought them in thinking that they would be the manipulators, really, of this instructional data management system. And then they would go back also, and be the trainer of trainers.
And they would train other teachers in how to use this. Well, that didn’t work. But what I did find in bringing them in was that this group should be the facilitators of this entire focus on standards. And so, we began developing their positions, providing them with support and training, such as facilitators. And now they are the ones that facilitate this collaborative process that I think that we have in our district that works so well.
Gordon Jackson:
Excellent. I’ll back up a little bit and recognize that, Deirdre, you work with so many districts, and here you are in this experience and sharing in this success, because it’s clear that Snowline is experiencing success. Was there a level of readiness in Snowline that was, perhaps, different than other districts? Or can you talk a little bit about just where they were as they were launching this new effort?
Deirdre Price:
And I believe, especially in looking back now, you can see how organized they were at the district office. And they already had like their focus on standards in place. And I remember Beth, Pat, and I met with you at the beginning. They had that in place. But once they found they were in PI then, like you said, you went deeper. You know what I mean? You went deeper into your data to see what we need to do to expand this focus on standards for our Special Ed students, and for our EL students. And so, I believe that, as a district, they were fairly together, even though, I must note, they’re very small and very lean at the top.
Jim Cantor:
Leans a good word.
Deirdre Price:
There’s a superintendent—and this is a district of 9,000 that’s growing—just added a new school this year, and others on the way. And, you know, has a superintendent—you’re the assistant sup. for educational services—and then you have a couple of others, like in personnel and in business, is that correct?
Jim Cantor:
Yes.
Deirdre Price:
Personnel and business, and so that’s it. Now I know you have staff development, and you have categorical programs.
Jim Cantor:
Yes, we already had the categorical program director.
Deirdre Price:
Right.
Jim Cantor:
What I did was I brought in the education technology director. I stole him from the district, and he is only responsible for curriculum now. And then, especially in response to initiating focus on standards and then responding to , I brought in, as well, a staff development coordinator. That’s pretty much it.
Deirdre Price:
So, we can meet with a fairly small group when we go up there. Yes.
Jim Cantor:
And that does have advantages.
Gordon Jackson:
Okay, excellent. Would you say, then, that they had a structure, and that was very helpful—So there was a plan. It wasn’t willy-nilly, let's just think about this. It also sounds as if, on occasion, you recognized that there were things that didn’t work, and you redressed, you recalibrated. You made an effort to stop and say, and to assess and say, this isn’t working; Just as much as when you talked about administrators kind of being in the driver's seat of the leadership and, so, that’s great. Would you say that “No Child Left Behind,” in terms of it’s—the advent of NCLB—was that a catalyst? Was that something that caused this plan and this structure to solidify with a focus? What was the reaction? I mean, how did “No Child Left Behind” fit in all of this?
Jim Cantor:
I think that, initially, certainly we responded, and we needed to know the law and, you know, the certain aspects of the law, and to respond to those. But I don’t believe that teachers did. And, once again, I think that they just saw that this was another program that a president had initiated that—and congress, certainly—that had initiated, and that it would probably go away with the next administration. I think once, though, that teachers found that Snowline School District was a PI district, I think that made a difference. And certainly that is a response to NCLB; that is part of NCLB is the PI status.
Gordon Jackson:
And that status and this process, did that assist you in, perhaps, building coherence and building a team with the focus?
Jim Cantor:
I think we had that in place already. What had helped was it helped bring in two sub groups, and that is Special Ed and Special Ed teachers, and EL, as well; and especially Special Ed, which initially was very resistant. And once we became PI, because of this one particular sub group, then they needed to look at the data and analyze that data, and find out why we were PI. They needed to know what that meant; certainly what the standards were. They needed to respond to, then, PI.
Deirdre Price:
And I know how you also broke up the students with disabilities group into sub groups, into the disability groups, and looked at that data. You really looked to see how the various students in various areas like speech and language are performing. And that was very informative when you found out how each of those sub groups, each of those parts of the Special Ed students with disabilities groups was performing.
Jim Cantor:
And I think helped us respond, also, to that PI status. When I looked at the sub group—and it’s easy to look at those accountability measures and see Special Ed sub group—I wanted to know exactly what that meant. And so, I broke down the data, especially using that instructional management data system. I broke that down into especially two groups, and those are predominant within the Special Ed and that’s the SLD (Specific Learning Disabilities), or specific learning disabilities sub group, or group within the sub group, and then, also, the speech language impaired. And then I broke that down even further. So I knew that 85 percent of our kids in SLD were classified as RSP (Resource Specialist). And I just thought that, at that time, we were 7 percent proficient in Special Ed. And I thought that even just that group could do much better in terms of proficiency on standards. When I looked at the “speech language impaired,” I found that 60 percent of those students, or about 150 kids, were actually identified because of speech. So I certainly thought that that group could do much better in terms of proficiency. So when we combined those and started talking to our speech language therapist about writing IEP’s (Individual Education Program Plan) now to address certain standards, possibly going into classrooms and assisting teachers within the classroom, rather than pulling out constantly.
We talked to RSP teachers, like I mentioned before, about writing two standards, about breaking those standards down and looking at specific skills which would help—that teachers could address—which would help, then, students learn those standards.
Gordon Jackson:
As I listen, it sounds like you are ever so willing to open the box and look deeply within, and that’s critically important. But at the same time there’s a bit of a sub text that has a sense of “we,” and a sense of collaboration.
And let’s talk a little bit about that level of collaboration, and about STPT (structured teacher planning time), which as a former teacher and principal, I am very much interested in, in terms of structured teacher planning.
Or is it SPTP?
Jim Cantor:
STPT.
Gordon Jackson:
Okay, that one, STPT.
Deirdre Price:
I know it’s very important to you.
Jim Cantor:
Yeah, very important. It’s “structured teacher planning time.” And I think the key word there certainly is—or actually a couple of key words there is “structured.” It’s very structured. And also “planning.” It allows teachers to plan and to look at student achievement. I think it’s probably the single most important thing that we do is allow teachers to collaborate. So let me say that again: the single most important thing that we do is to allow teachers to collaborate. What we did was, first of all, we had to look at the time, because in my district the school board actually was resistant to allowing that time. And so, rather than having 40 of those throughout the year, I minimized those, and actually we have 13 to 15 of those during the year. But what that allowed us to do—it worked—because what it allowed us to do was to provide more time. Because we banked that time, we extended the school day, banked that time and then had more time for collaboration during those minimal days. And so, teachers have, in Snowline, at least an hour-and-a-half to two hours to collaborate. And some of them go as long as two-and-a-half hours on a particular minimum day. Now we would love to have those staff development days that we had years ago back.
Gordon Jackson:
Yes, I remember those.
Jim Cantor:
But we actually have built those into the district. So the teachers agreed to give up, for example, a pre-school day in the beginning of the year in order to have a day during the year, so that they could have an entire day to collaborate. And we just actually had that a week ago. And those are incredible days.
Gordon Jackson:
Now was there some in-servicing of professional development to help teachers understand how to use this time?
Jim Cantor:
Yes, and that evolved also. At first, I have to admit, that those meetings became, first of all, gripe sessions, and then secondly conversations about the assessment instrument. And so, teachers may not have liked the wording on number 12 on a particular test. So what we needed to do was rely on our teacher leaders. And we brought them in. And we bring them in three to four times a year—just for training, just for this specific strategy. We train them in facilitation skills. We developed forms so that there are summary forms for every single collaboration meeting that goes on in the district. And I receive those, and the principals at each sight receive those.
And then what we do, and I’m bird walking a little bit here, but what we do then is I meet with the principals in what I call SPPT, which is structured principal planning time. And, as a matter of fact, those are tomorrow.
And we then review those forms, and we talk about instructional strategies, and maybe support for teachers. That form is a very simple form. All it asks teachers to do is, during the course of their conversation, to record what are the data statements—and this is data again. So what are the data statements that you see from these assessments?
And we have provided—once again, very structured—we have provided the data for them. Hard copies right there. They don’t have to go on-line to learn to do that. They have hard copies that our teacher leaders have already run off for them.
Gordon Jackson:
Oh, okay.
Jim Cantor:
And they analyze that, and we have taught them to analyze that data, in hopefully no more than 10 to 15 minutes of this, say, two-hour period of time. The rest of the time, what we would like them to do is engage in conversation about student achievement: instructional strategies, interventions, and those kinds of topics.
Gordon Jackson:
And it sounds like this is an integral part of what you do in Snowline.
Jim Cantor:
It is very much.
Gordon Jackson:
What is your evidence that it’s working?
Jim Cantor:
I think that it’s become institutionalized. It’s very much, or as our superintendent has said, “it’s part of our culture now; I believe in Snowline.”
Gordon Jackson:
And so are there moments when you stop and reassess or reevaluate? Or have artifacts to suggest that this is not only our culture and our climate, and the way we do business, but it is working as evidenced by exiting PI As a district? Perhaps—
Jim Cantor:
Exactly.
Gordon Jackson:
And any other evidence?
Jim Cantor:
I think within the forms themselves. I mentioned that I read every single form, and the principals read those as well. And they’re responsible for doing that, and then we discuss those. And so, we can see the success stories right there in the forms, because all they're asking for is the data statements. And then, secondly, what are those strategies that you have discussed that will help with student achievement. And so, we can see those right there. And then that also offers us a platform to help in terms of support; that support may be more time; that might be release time for collaboration; that might be materials needs. And we’ve found that. It might be, as we found, an entire reevaluation of our writing program, as an example. The second thing is, is that we’ve all observed the “ah-ha’s,” and we’ve seen the “ah-ha’s.” I went in and observed, just as one example of a hundred examples, a fourth grade group that was working, actually a couple of years ago, and they did just this. They quickly looked at the data; found that they saw some natural groupings. And so, they decided right there. Something that they had been resistant to before.
They decided right there that the data was indicating that they needed to group for part of their day, to offer, especially, low achieving students, some additional time in reading. And they did that. And then, that caught on in that school, and now several grades, if not almost every grade is now grouping in a similar fashion.
Gordon Jackson:
So, with that example, it sounds to me like this is a district that isn’t hesitant to make course changes, you know, along the way, when something that indicates that a course change is necessary.
Jim Cantor:
Absolutely. Yes.
Gordon Jackson:
When this was introduced, the STPT., and this became kind of the plan of action, were there any concerns with the bargaining association, with the union about teacher time? And how you were going to do this with minutes, or were they on-board and supportive and helpful?
Jim Cantor:
We are one of the largest districts in the state of California that has no bargaining unit for teachers. So we have no teachers union, but we want to keep it that way certainly, if we can. And so, what we are careful to do is bring in teacher leaders. And we also have some structure where we have what is called the superintendent’s counsel. And once a month, we bring in representatives from every school. And for about an hour-and-a-half in the morning, we address any issues that come up from the school sights. And so, we try to maintain this give-and-take, and this communication system with our teachers. But then what I did, once again, was I brought in the teacher leaders in instruction, and we had long conversations about this. And I have—we have, I should say—we’ve pretty much allowed them to take this program and run with it. And so, they are now the facilitators of this program. What we do is we offer support, like the trainings for example, and the structure, in order to assist them.
Gordon Jackson:
And I would imagine the school board, by now, I mean where there may have been some hesitancy early on, the school board now sees this as a viable addition to what Snowline does, and is supportive.
Jim Cantor:
Very—highly supportive. I think what’s helped there is that, very early on, I had special board meetings; once again, where the community was invited, as well. And we discussed, first of all, the data. And I went through the data with them very carefully. We involved them in some of that perception survey. And so, we had a board member or two that actually participated in, especially, the district-run survey. And then, I continuously communicate with them. I don’t believe that there is really anyone, even a custodian I was talking to recently, knew what FOS (focus on standards) meant, and knew what FOS was. And another important component, of course, is parents. And we did involve parents initially, with especially the surveying. We brought in Special Ed parents. We have within our district, though—and I rely on this system—we have an excellent family involvement program, and that is sight based. And so, I rely on that system. And it involves parent liaisons. They understand what FOS is.
And so they can speak to new parents coming in about FOS and our focus on standards. They’re also strategies, such as breakfasts with the principal. So every month, practically every principal in the district has breakfast time with parents, where for an hour to an hour-and-a-half they discuss programs within the school and within the district as well. And then they respond to questions by parents. So I rely on those as well.
Gordon Jackson:
Absolutely.
Jim Cantor:
I’ve gone out and I’ve spoken to different groups like the Chamber of Commerce’s, Kiwanis, and so on.
Gordon Jackson:
It sounds like you might have worn out a few pair of shoes.
Jim Cantor:
Yes, I have.
Deirdre Price:
I think that’s part of the success, really, is you look back and he went out personally. He didn’t send someone else to talk with the teachers about the coming events, whether it’s “focus on standards” or going into PI and what was going to be happening. And working with the board—the same way.
I think that is the real key to getting buy-in from everyone. And it’s just systemic all the way down. Also, you know, the fact that the STPT—the teacher planning time—the documents from that come back to the principal, if the principal reads that, and that it goes to the district office. I think it’s very meaningful in that it doesn’t go in the trash at the district, but it’s read and then discussed at the principals' meeting.
And so, I think it gives a lot of value to the teachers, plus they know that what they are doing is important, and is going to be read and is going to be followed-up on. I think those are key items.
Jim Cantor:
Another form that has really assisted is I found, like I mentioned before, I found that within this collaboration time there was too much emphasis on the test itself. So what we now did—I created a form that just has boxes for 1 thru 50 or whatever the number of test items there are. And teachers that want to address a certain question, they just filled that out. It comes to the district office, and then we bring that up with the teacher leaders when we modify the assessment. So what that did, just that simple form, was it took the conversation about test items completely out of that time, and then allows just a discussion about student achievement, not about test items.
Gordon Jackson:
With an opportunity for input being provided, so that’s great. I know that—and it sounds as if, Deirdre, you know this district really well. And yet at the same time I know that you have a relationship with so many other districts.
So this is exciting. And I also know that you have an interest in helping others connect, and replicating, and trying to share good news. So if there were—if you were limited, and you were talking to another district and you were pressed for time, and you only could offer three highlights about Snowline, what would those three highlights be?
Deirdre Price:
Okay, let me think.
Gordon Jackson:
I know there are more than three.
Deirdre Price:
Right, I think one would be how they really analyzed the data. They went deep on the data. And I’ve mentioned this to several districts that I work with in PI, at how they analyzed that data into the sub groups of that sub group, and then really didn’t leave it there. Then they went to see what interventions they were doing, and how they were going to work with those students and improve their instruction, and having them be focused on standards also. I would say that is part—that is one. I would say, also, that they’re systemic, in that they have, you know, like you said, when I was talking with Jim recently—you know the forms that they use—every one knows this form, you know for the STPT—for the structured teacher planning time; that where it goes when you are done, they know in the “focus on standards”; teacher leaders—they know what their role is. So everyone knows their role, and they know what happens afterwards. I was out at one of the schools last week, and she was showing me some of the forms, and she’s one of the principals—very well informed. All the way down, I’d say that there is a lot of consistency. Well, there is consistency throughout the district. There is a lot of consistency. And I would say another item is that—I’ll combine a couple together—but that they’ve used, you know, the teacher leaders.
And I know, Jim, you mentioned yesterday how important the teacher leaders are in that they could carry it on. You know what I mean? That a lot of them could really carry on. And I think that that’s not the situation in a lot of districts. And, also, that the teacher leaders—and they’ve also have aligned their staff development. They’re very selective. You know exactly what you want to do for staff development. It’s going to be consistent throughout. And it’s not, “oh, let’s just send folks to this, or send folks to that.” It’s very strategic. And when I went out to Phelan Elementary last week, that also got out of PI too. And she had up on her board the different trainings they were doing. I know that when I was in your office before, you had up on your board everything from the Local education Agency Addendum and your trainings. You know, it’s very systemic and you both were like checking things off, but there was just a lot of consistency going out, and hearing the same thing at the schools as I heard at the district office that the focus was on the teachers, on teaching, and on standards. And so, I say the consistency and the work with the teacher of leaders is very important.
Gordon Jackson:
And so, in your work, working with some of these other districts, you’re able to kidnap some of these great ideas and concepts.
Deirdre:
Sure. Sure. Yes. Yes.
Gordon Jackson:
And people are beginning to move in those directions of trying to replicate.
Deirdre Price:
Districts are always interested when you go out to do the DSA, the Academic Program Survey, or the DSLT meetings—district school liaison team meetings. They’re interested to know what is working. And I feel like presenting information about districts that have made it work -schools that have made it work. It brings hope to these districts that, you know, it is possible.
We know that there’s no silver bullet, but that we like to show that there are a lot of examples out there of schools and districts doing it, in often times challenging—very challenging situations.
Gordon Jackson:
Excellent. Thank you. As a former high school principal, and I’ve been a board member, and I’ve spent a lot of years in education, I’m just intrigued with what I sense is a very powerful effort to collaborate in very real ways.
And I just want to provide this opportunity--is there any other way that you might be able to share with us any other strategies or components of the Snowline plan that incorporates collaboration?
Jim Cantor:
Yes there is. There’s a, what we would call a second form of collaboration. It’s been called “lesson study.” I believe it’s from Japan, out of Japan, and we call it “collaborative coaching.” And what that entails is a group of teachers getting together, initially either the day before a lesson or that morning of the lesson. They plan a lesson together, then they actually conduct that lesson. They teach that lesson. One of the members of the group usually then volunteers to teach the lesson. The others observe. And they usually are observing for certain teaching strategies, certainly to see if students are getting the lesson, getting the concept, understanding the concept. And then, most importantly, then they reconvene, and they talk about the lesson through this collaborative process. They talk about the lesson, what they learned, and then they may actually still go out and teach the lesson again. That’s been very effective, and is very much taking off in our district.
Gordon Jackson:
Excellent. That sounds exciting. Well, you know, as we close here and now, we are going to go back full-circle and come back to this world of data. And I’ll ask you, as we start looking at some closure to this time we had together, what are the data telling you now about Snowline, in terms of your progress?
Jim Cantor:
Well, I think the data is pointing out that we have a lot of work to do, first of all; that we can’t rest; that that slippery slope is certainly going to increase by about 11 points every year. But more important than that, students need to achieve. And so we need to continue our focus on standards and collaboration. We were able to exit PI, and we did have sufficient and good progress in those two sub groups. In our EL, in the last three years, we’ve grown 11 points, which allowed us then to meet that 23 percent, with the increase to 23 percent AMO (Annual Measurable Objectives). And we actually tripled our proficiency rate in Special Ed. So we just missed the AMO at 22.6 percent. But we did qualify for the 20 percent add-on and so we were able to exit PI
Gordon Jackson:
Excellent. It’s very clear that you’re a work in progress, but what a work indeed. Thank you for this opportunity, Jim.
Jim Cantor:
And thank you for the opportunity.
Gordon Jackson:
And, Deidre, thank you very much.
Deirdre Price:
Thank you.
Gordon Jackson:
We’ll conclude with our time here, and you’ll be hearing about Snowline. Thank you.
Closed captioned by: Kevin Gentry and Joseph Flauta at Folsom Prison Visually Impaired.
