The Bulletin
Division of School & District Effectiveness
September 2015
"Improving on Your Previous Best"
Purposes
The SDE Bulletin: to provide regular, timely information to increase the shared understanding of our team of School & District Effectiveness professionals
Our Shared SDE Purpose: to increase collective leadership capacity to understand what effective schools and districts know and do, and to support the leaders to own their improvement processes
Previous Editions of The Bulletin
August 2014- https://www.smore.com/700mx
September 2014- https://www.smore.com/huyyh
October 2014- https://www.smore.com/std20
November 2014- https://www.smore.com/09uva
December 2014/January 2015- https://www.smore.com/09uva
February- https://www.smore.com/hrzfv
March 2015- https://www.smore.com/6wsrq
April 2015- https://www.smore.com/9vbmj
May 2015- https://www.smore.com/gwjuk
June 2015- https://www.smore.com/4suf4
July 2015- https://www.smore.com/kk5zr
August 2015- https://www.smore.com/uek4p
This Month
Welcome aboard to the following new folks in School & District Effectiveness!
Phillip Luck- North Area Program Manager
Andrea Cruz- Professional Learning Program Specialist
Karen Suddeth- SIG Program Specialist
Jovan Miles- School Effectiveness Specialist, Northwest Region
Gladys Fisher- School Effectiveness Specialist, Southwest Region
Karen Waldon- School Effectiveness Specialist, Southwest Region
We have gathered some questions we have been receiving, and have provided answers below. Please let your supervisor know of any additional questions you may concerning the re-alignment and the new Waiver.
QUESTION:
Is there a specific number of coaching comments that SESs should share per school, per week, per month, etc.?
Focus on quality comments and consistent comments. Schools should get feedback that is regular and that is quality. Leads and DESs and Area Program Managers will monitor comments. RESAs should follow their own guidelines.
QUESTION:
Will RESA SISs be responsible for monitoring the Focus schools (just as our Lead SESs monitor the Priority schools)?
They will give comments and feedback via Indistar to Focus Schools. GaDOE will monitor 2 times per year to ensure Focus Schools are using Indistar.
QUESTION:
Will it be the responsibility of the RESA Core SIS, or is it the responsibility of the SDE DES, to support the districts that have only Focus schools?
If there are barriers to the Focus School coming from the District level, the GaDOE will step in to assist.
QUESTION:
Who will be responsible for training the Focus schools and districts with only Focus schools on Indistar?
RESA and GaDOE are collaborating to provide Regional Indistar training for both Priority and Focus Schools and Districts. Ongoing training will be provided by RESAs for Focus and GaDOE for Priority.
QUESTION:
Will RESAs conduct GSAPS?
RESAs that have the capability will complete a G-SAPS if it makes sense to do so for their Focus Schools.
QUESTION:
Will Focus Schools be required to use the GaDOE Frameworks?
If there are no district content frameworks aligned to the standards provided for the Focus School, then yes. All schools should be subscribing to, and following, high quality content frameworks (maps) aligned to the state-adopted standards.
QUESTION:
Is FLP for Priority Schools only?
FLP is required for both Priority and Focus Schools. Any questions/concerns about FLP are to be directed to Title I for them to answer. Please do not attempt to solve a District or Schools FLP concerns. Instead, be very helpful in connecting the leader(s) to the appropriate Title I personnel in the Region so that they can assist the leader(s).
QUESTION:
What does involvement with staff selection look like for Priority and Focus?
“Involvement” should be reasonable and appropriate. The intensity level of involvement will most likely increase from Focus to Priority to SIG. There are many different kinds and levels of involvement in this area of staff recruitment, selection, development, and retention. And remember that a key standard for districts covers all the processes surrounding hiring personnel and retaining personnel, so it is a focus of our work with schools and districts. But the type and level of involvement will look different from one setting to another.
QUESTION:
How will the Region Workbooks be kept up-to-date and available for the Region Teams?
The Area Program Assessment Specialists maintain the Workbooks for their Areas/Regions. We are working on a way to make them available at all times to any GaDOE and RESA staff and even GLRS staff.
QUESTION:
Is there a form for the self-assessments that schools and districts will complete?
The forms will be in Indistar (will be uploaded soon). The self-assessments are due November 15 for Focus and Priority.
QUESTION:
If a school meets all criteria to come off the list before the three years, will the school continue to receive funding and other supports? Would they have to continue to input data in Indistar?
They will continue to receive funds; however, the amount of funding for these schools will be less than the full amount. Districts will work with GaDOE and RESA leadership to determine the levels and kinds of supports they wish to continue. If a school/district elects to receive 1003(a) funding and/or personnel support from RESA/GaDOE, then Indistar is required. Schools are encouraged to continue in the practices that helped them meet the exit criteria.
QUESTION:
When will the district and schools receive Indistar training?
The goal for Regional Indistar training is to be complete by October 1.
QUESTION:
When will schools be notified as to who their Point of Contact is?
POCs should be assigned at the latest during the MOA signing. Reminder: we have POCs, but they are not the sole "owners" of schools. They are the contact between the school and the SES team.
QUESTION:
Will schools continue to receive information regarding math and ELA training for their staff/coaches?
Yes.
QUESTION:
If a school has been consolidated, do they start fresh or does last year’s records still count?
Accountability makes that decision.
QUESTION:
Which year’s data did you take into consideration to determine this list of schools?
SDE does not make any determinations about school identification. SDE serves the schools that Accountability identifies. Accountability used 2012, 2013, and 2014 data.
QUESTION:
Can non-Focus or non-Priority Schools use Indistar?
Yes, we have a state license.
QUESTION:
Do schools/districts self-assess on Key School or District Standards, or all?
Districts should self-assess on the 8 Key District Standards and schools on the 12 Key School Standards. They have the option of self-assessing on all 27 District Standards or 48 School Standards. Schools work on improvement efforts on any of the 12 Key School Standards where they are not Operational; Districts work on improvement efforts on any of the 8 Key District Standards where they are not Operational. GaDOE and RESA staff should work shoulder-to-shoulder with their assigned schools during the self-assessment process to help with accuracy of completing the self-assessments. GaDOE is available to assist with district self-assessments. As a reminder, it is most effective to be focusing on 2-3 goals at any given time. Too many goals/areas of focus can hamper improvement efforts. It is at this point that we rely on the professional judgement of GaDOE and RESA teams to assist schools and districts in prioritizing their improvement efforts.
From Areas/Regions
Phillip Luck, North; Sam Taylor, Metro; Patty Rooks, South
Hello! My name is Phillip Luck and I am pleased to be named the North Area Program Manager for the Division of School and District Effectiveness.
I have been an educator for the past 20 years as a teacher, trainer, principal, and director. Most recently, I was the Managing Director of Districts, School and Community Partnerships for Teach For America in metro Atlanta where I regularly collaborated with and provided support to district and school leadership.
As an educator, I strongly believe that there is nothing more important and exciting than the work that is happening everyday in our schools. However, our district and school leaders are increasingly faced with a variety of challenges and responsibilities that makes their work more difficult. Therefore, now more than ever, our targeted and meaningful collaboration with and support for our districts and schools is invaluable to school improvement efforts. It is my hope that we can build upon the hard work that the team is already doing and together continue to make a lasting impact for schools in the North region.
This is an exciting time for our team and the Georgia Department of Education. I'm excited and eagerly looking forward to working with each of you in engaging and supporting our schools!
Regards,
Phillip Luck, Ed.D.
From the Atlanta Support Office
Professional Learning Support
Christy Jones
Mark Your Calendars
Our upcoming SDE PL will be September 9th and 10th at the Courtyard Marriott in Decatur. Please mark your calendars and plan to attend. As with all of our events, make sure to bring your laptops and power cords. The tentative agenda includes: Data Literacy series, MOA/Waiver series, and a Multiplier Effect session. The second day will be devoted to our region work. Also, our ILA will be October 28th and 29th at The Classic Center in Athens. Both PL opportunities will be an exciting time for us to come together and unify our purpose.
Professional Learning Tidbit
With our movement into regions, the focus on collaboration is imperative to our success. I found an article that addresses how to build a strong professional learning culture. Some of the key points include:
Teaching practice needs to be ‘de-privatized’ so that a culture of professional sharing, experimentation and critique can flourish in schools.
Without a strong professional learning culture, the potential benefits from engagement in professional learning will be dissipated.
There are numerous strategies that schools can adopt to strengthen staff interaction and trust and build a strong professional learning culture.
Although the article specifically addresses the teaching profession, it is applicable to our region work as well. We continue to build a professional learning culture that will benefit our schools/districts toward improving student academic achievement.
Strategy of the Month
Each month we’ll provide a PL strategy that could be used with adults or students. Our goal is to deepen learning and engage the learner.
Title: We're All Connected by Yarn
Description:
Using skeins of yarn participants can see interconnectedness with others in the group.
Directions:
Gather 2-5 different colored skeins of yarn.
Label each colored skein of yarn with a theme. (For example, who uses twitter, someone who has traveled to Europe, sports fan, taught over 16 years, etc.)
Inform the group of the color themes.
Ask them to grasp a section of yarn if it applies to them. (For example, I use twitter.)
They then pass the skein on to someone else.
Continue passing until every participant has at least one color of yarn in their hands.
Discuss the interconnectedness of the group, how it takes everyone in the community, and other analogies.
See how quickly they can wind the yarn back up.
Intended Audience: Students or Adults
Source: http://teach.oetc.org/node/11244
Operational Support
Cindy Popp, Region Resources; Gary Wenzel, Operations
Please submit ongoing website feedback, including for the System of Effective School Instruction webpage, to schoolimprovement@doe.k12.ga.us.
The System of Effective School Instruction webpage is reviewed quarterly.
All other School and District Effectiveness webpages are reviewed on an ongoing basis.
IT Updates Webinar, 9:00 AM – 10:00 AM on Friday, October 2, 2015.
Please email Cindy Popp if you would like to participate on a document review team (see her email from Thursday, August 20, at 4:15 PM).
Please remember to register for our meetings by the registration deadline so that we can ensure accurate attendance numbers. We have to pay the facility based on registration and number of people who lodge at the hotel so your timely cooperation is greatly appreciated.
GaDOE staff, please remember to copy Will Rumbaugh and Cindy Popp on all Dtickets and send them to dticket@doe.k12.ga.us. Please DO NOT send them to helpdesk@doe.k12.ga.us.
Federal Support
Pat Blenke- SIG/1003(g)
Cohort 3 (July 1, 2013-September 30, 2016)
Bibb County- Matilda Hartley Elementary School; Westside High School
Fulton County- Frank McClarin High School
Gwinnett County- Meadowcreek High School
Quitman County- Quitman County High School
Twiggs County- Twiggs County High School
Wilkinson County- Wilkinson County High School
Cohort 4 (July 1, 2014-September 30, 2017)
Atlanta Public Schools- Frederick Douglass High School
Bibb County- Southwest Magnet High School and Law Academy
Dougherty County- Dougherty Comprehensive High School; Monroe Comprehensive High School
Muscogee County- Fox Elementary School; Jordan Vocational High School; William H. Spencer High School
September is a very critical month. All Cohort 3, Year 2, and Cohort 4, Year 1, funds must be encumbered by September 30, 2015. Only funds encumbered by September 30th can be liquidated and paid out by October 31, 2015.
Reminder: These funds cannot be carried over into the new fiscal year. If a district has over spent their allotted FY15 funds they must pay the difference from a local funding source.
By now, FY16 budgets should have been inputted into Con App. If this has not been completed, please do so immediately. If you are changing your programmatic or fiscal needs from your original or last year’s budget you must submit an amendment for approval.
LEA Monitoring of SIG Schools
This year LEA’s will be responsible for monitoring and submitting three (3) reports for their SIG school(s). Toward that end, the LEA will review evidence and assess their school’s level of progress in the implementation of the SIG indicators. The SIG LEA’s will also be responsible for self-assessing on the Indicators that require district involvement and writing short-term action plans for those indicators that are not progressing at an expected. The electronic LEA Monitoring Report forms can be accessed from the District Dashboard and are to be completed and submitted within Indistar by September 30th, January 30th, and April 30th. District Effectiveness Specialists will provide support to the SIG Coordinator and district team with the monitoring process.
Leading and Lagging Indicators Report
As you know, the Leading and Lagging Indicators Report is now open in Indistar to complete the metrics for this year’s data (2014-2015) and, in addition, report the projected 2015-2016 preliminary data for Metric 5. The Leading and Lagging Indicators Report is to be submitted no later than September 30, 2015. This will allow adequate time to finalize the 2015-16 ILT plan necessary for the completion of Metric #5-Number of Minutes and Types of Increased Learning Time. The “Submit” button will appear August 1st and the Report will remain open through September 30th, 2015 for submission.
The September 30th submission requirements are as follows:
Cohort 3
Metric 5—Preliminary Data, Year 1 Data, Year 2 Data, Year 3 Data (Projected)
Metrics 13, 17, 18—Preliminary Data, Year 1 Data, Year 2 Data
Cohort 4
Metric 5—Preliminary Data, Year 1 Data, Year 2 Data (Projected)
Metrics 13, 17, 18—Preliminary Data, Year 1 Data
Critical Dates for 1003(g) SIG Schools
September 1st – FY16 Con App Budgets loaded and approved for Cohorts 3 – Year 3; and Cohort 4-Year 2, schools
September 20th – FY 15 drawdowns for all expenses encumbered to date
September 20th – FY16 drawdowns for all expenses encumbered to date
September 30th –Deadline for submission of 2014-15 Leading & Lagging Indicator Report (Cohort 3 – Year 2; Cohort 4 - Year 1)
September 30th –Deadline for submission of the Leading & Lagging Indicator Report – Metric 5:
Minutes and Types of Increased Learning Time Offered (Projected 2015-16 for Cohort 3 Year 3; Cohort 4 – Year2)
September 30th – Cohort 3 –all allotted Year 2 funds encumbered
September 30th – Cohort 4 - all allotted Year 1 funds encumbered
September 30th – First LEA Quarterly Monitoring Report due in Indistar (completed and submitted)
October 20th – End of September FY15, draw down of encumbered expenses
October 20th – FY16 draw down to date
October 31 – All FY15 encumbered expenses for (Cohort 3 – Year 2; Cohort 4- Year 1) must be liquidated and paid out by this date. FY15 Completion report due.
From the Literature
Getting Unstuck
Bryan Goodwin
Top-down leadership can get things started, but to keep improvement moving forward, schools need to work from the inside out.
As a kid, I spent many summer afternoons riding in the back of my grandpa's Ford pickup on his farm. The farm was located in a flood plain in Iowa, which made for rich soil and muddy driving. Ostensibly, our purpose was usually to go fishing, or more vaguely, to "check something out." But my mother suspected another motive: to see if we could get stuck—and unstuck—in the mud. Usually, turning the wheel to a new angle and hitting the gas would do the trick. The truck would fishtail and then lurch out of the dip in which it was stuck. Sometimes, though, cranking the wheel and gunning the engine only made things worse, sinking us deeper into the mud.
In a way, education in the United States seems to be stuck in a similar rut. We're hitting the gas harder and harder on approaches that worked in the past, but we're spinning our tires.
Getting Started, Then Getting Stuck
By now, we're probably all familiar with the phenomenon of the implementation dip, a term coined by Michael Fullan (2001) to describe the slump in performance that often occurs when innovations require new knowledge and skills.
Fullan and others have told us a lot about what leaders need to do to overcome implementation dips, including
- Maintaining focus and urgency to quash any this-too-shall-pass syndrome.
- Monitoring implementation to avoid backsliding into familiar (yet inferior) practices.
- Listening to naysayers and, as appropriate, incorporate their ideas into change efforts.
- Working in teams to buck one another up when the going gets tough.
Much like revving the engine and cranking the wheel to get a truck out of a dip in a cornfield, these strategies work well … until they don't anymore. Researchers have found that schools often do what it takes to overcome initial difficulties, achieve results for a while, but then find themselves stuck in a rut:
- In Virginia, many so-called turnaround schools improved for three years, then hit a performance plateau (Hochbein, 2012).
- In Texas, test-based accountability drove performance gains for a while, but results then leveled off (Schneider, 2011).
- In 25 states, testing pressure created initial gains before student performance plateaued and declined (Nichols, Glass, & Berliner, 2012).
- Worldwide, education systems show a "pattern of a steep rise followed by a plateau," likely because "once the 'easy wins' have been achieved in classroom instruction, further improvements take longer to embed and are harder to achieve" (Mourshed, Chijioke, & Barber, 2010, p. 50).
Schools are not alone. Plateau effects are common in many endeavors—from exercise to the arts to business (Sullivan & Thompson, 2013). In exercise, the recommended treatment is to switch up one's routine. In business, the treatment is much the same. Business coach Bill Bishop (2010) says that companies typically hit a performance plateau when they stop improving their products because they believe they've found that one right way to do things. Similarly, Jim Collins (2009) has observed that one of the first signs of trouble among declining companies is that they "lose sight of the true underlying factors that created success in the first place" (p. 21). In short, they believe they were successful because they did certain specific things, but they've never built an understanding of why these things worked—or, more important, the conditions under which they would no longer work.
Adopt, Then Adapt
Schools and districts often demonstrate the same myopia when they hit performance plateaus. There's a tendency to double down on what they've been doing—tightening the screws to get everyone to follow the prescribed program to a T. Or maybe they patch the first program by layering a second program on top of it.
The trouble with these responses is that they both view the problem as what Heifetz and Laurie (1997) call a technical problem—something for which we assume there's an existing solution. To solve a technical problem, we just need to find the solution and implement it well. However, performance plateaus may really be caused by adaptive challenges, which cannot be as easily identified or solved with neatly packaged solutions. Adaptive challenges require changes in beliefs, roles, and approaches to work. They demand collaboration, creativity, and experimentation—in a word, innovation.
In her profiles of high-poverty, high-performing schools, Karin Chenoweth (2007) observed that many of these schools achieved quick wins by adopting prepackaged curriculums, such as America's Choice, Success for All, Everyday Math, Open Court, or Core Knowledge. Which program they chose seemed to be less important than the fact that they picked one and implemented it faithfully throughout the school. Once the school was able to get everyone on the same page, achievement soon rose.
However, within a few years of adopting the curriculum, most schools saw that it wasn't a perfect fit. Instead of dropping the program or simply forging ahead, high-performing schools began to adapt it to align with student needs. Unlike failed companies, they weren't wed to the specific program that led to their early success. Instead, they understood the principles underlying their success—for example, the importance of having a consistent and aligned curriculum. And because they remained focused on the needs of their customers (that is, students), they saw the need to develop a version 2.0 of their new curriculum.
Elements of Inside-Out Improvement
Making this shift is not always easy. Often, powering through initial implementation dips requires top-down direction from a leader who assigns roles, monitors performance, and holds people accountable. Sure, the leader listens to others' concerns, but he or she knows what needs to be done. Research suggests that this style of leadership can, in fact, be effective—when the improvement strategy is straightforward (Goodwin, 2015).
However, when schools face thornier challenges in which the way ahead is less clear, they need to find a different approach—one that drives improvement not from the top down, but from the inside out. The following elements are characteristic of inside-out school improvement.
Deep Understanding of the Problem
Carnegie Foundation researchers note that educators are prone to solutionitis, or "the propensity to jump quickly on a solution before fully understanding the exact problem to be solved" (Bryk, Gomez, Grunow, & LeMahieu, 2015, p. 24). Real solutions, they note, come from better insight. For example, when Proctor and Gamble wanted to develop a new product for mopping floors, the company did not simply formulate a better soap. Instead, product developers visited homes and conducted detailed observations of how people mopped their floors. They gained a thorough understanding of the physical challenges, and even the psychology, of floor mopping. Then they took that deeper understanding and invented the Swiffer (West, 2014).
In the same way, schools can benefit from looking more closely at a problem before plugging in a solution. For example, in 2011, Austin Independent School District in Texas teamed up with researchers from Harvard and the Carnegie Foundation to gain a deeper understanding of a problem that seemed intractable: high rates of teachers, especially new ones, leaving the district. The obvious place to focus efforts to fix this problem—improving hiring and placement practices—was off-limits, largely because this solution would require time-consuming changes in collective bargaining agreements and district policies. This obstacle was actually serendipitous, because it forced the research team to look deeper. Through careful thought and analysis, the research team surfaced another driver of teacher retention that seemed so obvious it had been overlooked: principals giving frequent feedback to new teachers (Bryk et al., 2015).
Rapid-Cycle Improvement
Paralysis by analysis can keep many good ideas from ever leaving the drawing board. That's why Silicon Valley designers have learned to develop minimally viable products, test them with real people, and then improve them before launching them more widely. In schools, this might entail designing a novel approach—say, combining project-based learning with reciprocal teaching—studying its effects over a few weeks, improving it, studying the improved version, and continuing in ongoing, iterative cycles.
In Austin, the team working on principal feedback faced another serendipitous challenge: The start of the school year was rapidly approaching, so the customary district process of spending countless meetings to develop a new protocol for principal feedback wasn't an option. An experienced principal working on the team listened to the group's brainstormed ideas and then jotted down six prompts to guide principal-teacher conversations (creating a minimally viable product). He tried the prompts out in an on-the-spot conversation with a second-year teacher working on the team. The group listened to the conversation and offered some tweaks. Over the next few days, the prompts were tried and tweaked further. Soon, all the principals on the team were using the prompts with their teachers. As more data rolled in, the team fleshed out a process for supporting teachers following the conversation and added a technology platform. The practice of providing principal feedback to teachers in addition to their formal evaluations spread districtwide (Bryk et al., 2015).
Peer Observation and Coaching
Deep instructional change requires more than training teachers in the new curriculum and setting them free to implement it. Teachers need support and feedback as they transfer new ideas into practice. Coaching can be top-down (coach to teacher), but it's usually more powerful when it's reciprocal (teacher to teacher).
Joyce, Hopkins, and Calhoun (2014) found that for professional development practices to produce long-lasting and significant change, peer coaching duos or triads must take what they learned in training sessions, apply it in classrooms, and collaboratively study student response and student learning. They assert that "everybody, from the leaders to paraprofessionals, needs to engage in continuous action research that links PD content to the study of implementation, engagement in problem solving, and the study of student response (learning) in the short and long term" (p. 10).
In Melbourne, Australia, reformers used all three of these elements to improve math and reading achievement, as well as to foster student curiosity. First, they used instructional rounds to discern the best practices of effective teachers and then codify those practices into a new teaching framework. Next, they grouped teachers into peer-coaching triads that used six-week cycles to apply, study, and improve on the practices in their classrooms. The result? Student scores on the Australian national exam rose significantly across the 80,000-student region (Hopkins & Craig, 2011).
Getting Unstuck
When my grandpa's truck got truly stuck, we had two options: (1) concede defeat and seek an outside solution (that is, walk back to the farmhouse to fetch the tractor), or (2) rely on our wits and collaboration (find a nearby branch to wedge under the tires and push together on the truck). But really, there was only one option. No one ever walked back to the farmhouse.
References
Bishop, B. (2010). Beyond basketballs: The new revolutionary way to build a successful business in today's post-product world. Bloomington, IN: iUniverse.
Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, P. (2015). Learning to improve: How America's schools can get better at getting better. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Chenoweth, K. (2007). It's being done: Academic success in unexpected schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Collins, J. (2009). How the mighty fall: And why some companies never give in. New York: HarperCollins.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Goodwin, B. (2015). To go fast, direct. To go far, empower. Educational Leadership, 72(5), 73–74.
Heifetz, R. A., & Laurie, D. L. (1997). The work of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 75(1), 124–134.
Hochbein, C. (2012). Relegation and reversion: Longitudinal analysis of school turnaround and decline. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 17(1–2), 92–107.
Hopkins, D., & Craig, W. (2011). Going deeper: From the inside out. In D. Hopkins, J.
Munro, & W. Craig (Eds.), Powerful learning: A strategy for systemic educational improvement (pp. 153–172). Camberwell, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research Press.
Joyce, B., Hopkins, D., & Calhoun, E. (2014). Winning with coaching: Strengthening the links between professional learning, CCSS, and STEM. Changing Schools, 72(3), 8–10.
Mourshed, M., Chijioke, C., & Barber, M. (2010). How the world's mostimproved school systems keep getting better. New York: McKinsey and Company.
Nichols, S., Glass, G., & Berliner, D. (2012). High-stakes testing and student achievement: Updated analysis with NAEP data. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 20(20), 1–30.
Schneider, M. (2011, December 15). The accountability plateau. Education Next. Available at http://educationnext.org/the-accountability-plateau
Sullivan, B., & Thompson, H. (2013). The plateau effect: Getting from stuck to success. New York: Penguin.
West, H. (2014, June 14). A chain of innovation: The creation of Swiffer. Retrieved from Technology Marketing Corp at www.tmcnet.com/submit/2014/06/14/7876042.htm
Upcoming Meetings & Events
School & District Effectiveness Professional Learning
Wednesday, Sep 9, 2015, 09:30 AM
Courtyard Marriott 130 Clairemont Ave, Decatur, GA 30030
Your GaDOE SDE Leadership Team
North Area
Area Program Manager- Phillip Luck
Area Program Assessment Specialist- Wendell Christian
Northwest Region:
District Effectiveness Specialist- Terri Gaspierik
Lead School Effectiveness Specialist- Vacant
Northeast Region:
District Effectiveness Specialist- Susan White
Lead School Effectiveness Specialist- Kali Raju
Metro Area
Area Program Manager- Sam Taylor
Area Program Assessment Specialist- Mike O'Neal
Metro West Region:
District Effectiveness Specialist- Diana Forbes
Lead School Effectiveness Specialist- Lyn Wenzel
Metro East Region:
District Effectiveness Specialist- Iris Moran
Lead School Effectiveness Specialist- Vacant
South Area
Area Program Manager- Patty Rooks
Area Program Assessment Specialist- Keith Barnett
Southwest Region:
District Effectiveness Specialist- Deborah McLendon
Lead School Effectiveness Specialist- Steve Olive
Southeast Region:
District Effectiveness Specialist- Darrel May
Lead School Effectiveness Specialist- Paula Cleckler
Atlanta Support Office
Program Manager- Joann Hooper
Director- Will Rumbaugh