In This Issue:

1. Richard DuFour on PLCs and teacher evaluation

2. Charlotte Danielson on the best way to improve teaching

3. Doug Lemov describes the “stack audit”

4. Psychologists suggest a middle ground on keeping students back

5. Teaching students to write mathematical arguments

6. How librarians can help students become data-savvy

7. An “inside-out” approach to school improvement

8. A strategy for teaching students responsibility

9. Short item: Common Core curriculum resources

 

Quotes of the Week

“Teaching is the profession that creates all other professions.”

            Richard DuFour (see item #1)

 

“The way we’re going to improve schools is not by supervising and evaluating individual teachers into better performance; it’s by creating a culture in which teams of teachers are helping one another get better.”

            Richard DuFour (ibid.)

 

“In many schools and districts, teacher evaluation has become simply a matter of numbers, ratings, and rankings.”

            Charlotte Danielson (see item #2)

 

“Schools should not rely on evaluation as their main engine of teaching improvement.”

            Charlotte Danielson (ibid.)

 

“When you improve a little each day, eventually big things occur… not tomorrow, not the next day, but eventually. Seek the small improvement one day at a time. That’s the only way it happens – and when it happens, it lasts.”

            John Wooden (Wooden and Jamison, 1997)

 

“Joan Frye Williams’s analogy frames libraries as no longer being grocery stores stocked with ingredients but kitchens where ingredients are combined to create something new.”

            Priscille Dando in “Traditional Literacy and Critical Thinking” in Knowledge Quest,

May/June 2016 (Vol. 44, #5, p. 8-12), no e-link available

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Richard DuFour on PLCs and Teacher Evaluation

(Originally titled “Educators Deserve Better: A Conversation with Richard DuFour”)

            In this Educational Leadership interview with Naomi Thiers, veteran educator Richard DuFour takes note of the embattled status of U.S. teachers and contrasts it to the way educators are viewed in countries like Finland and Singapore. “They’re viewed as nation-builders,” he says. “They’re viewed as one of the most important professions. Teaching is the profession that creates all other professions.”

Nevertheless, DuFour continues, “A lot of things are within [U.S.] teachers’ sphere of influence… I haven’t seen anything in any law that prevents teachers from coming together and working as a team that takes collective responsibility for achieving goals… The fundamental message to get out to educators is, don’t wait for somebody else to do it. Superintendent, don’t wait for a more-enlightened state policy. Principals, don’t wait until the central office decides it’s a good thing to do. And teachers, influence up – go to your principal and say, could we do this?”

 The most effective thing schools can do, DuFour believes, is getting high-quality professional learning communities working. He lists the key factors in real PLCs (as opposed to the unfortunate “PLC lite” he sees in too many schools):

-   Teacher teams organized to meet by grade level and course (for example, all the third-grade teachers, all the biology teachers);

-   Absolute clarity about the nature of their work;

-   Supports so teachers can succeed at what they’re being asked to do;

-   Agreement on what exactly students are supposed to learn, and at what pace;

-   Techniques for assessing student learning minute by minute and day by day;

-   Common interim assessments crafted by the team;

-   Team analysis of the results and follow-up with struggling students;

-   Looking at the teaching practices that produced good results and emulating them;

-   Supporting colleagues who are less effective teaching particular skills;

-   Continuously improving teaching and learning.

 “When those things are in place for teacher teams,” says DuFour, “and the school has a systematic way of intervening when kids don’t learn, then the school is going to see gains in student achievement… Teachers in these schools virtually all report the highest levels of satisfaction in their careers, the greatest self-efficacy… Building shared knowledge, learning together, is essential to every step of the PLC journey… If you just put teachers together in a room and tell them to collaborate, there’s no evidence that that’s going to improve student achievement at all.”

            On the subject of teacher evaluation, DuFour is blunt: How helpful was it when he, an Illinois high-school principal who had taught social studies, evaluated a calculus teacher? “The way we’re going to improve schools is not by supervising and evaluating individual teachers into better performance,” he says; “it’s by creating a culture in which teams of teachers are helping one another get better.” DuFour advises principals to do the absolute minimum of teacher evaluation required by law and use the time and energy saved to orchestrate effective PLC work.

But will teachers really push one another when performance is less than effective? asks Thiers. Three things are essential to overcome “the gentlemen’s agreement that we won’t be critical of one another,” says DuFour. First, teams have to be looking together at the results of well-crafted common assessments. Second, conversations must be based on evidence – for example, “If we’ve given a test and I have 40 percent of my kids unable to demonstrate proficiency on a particular skill and you had 100 percent of your kids demonstrate proficiency, and these are heterogeneously grouped classes, the evidence speaks for itself.” Finally, team leaders need to be trained in leading discussions and presenting feedback in ways that aren’t hurtful.

This requires that principals constantly develop leadership at all levels, says DuFour. “I don’t think everybody needs to be a leader. But everybody needs to have an opportunity to lead. Some will choose not to, and that’s fine. But I don’t think the ability to lead is reserved for an elite few – it’s available to anybody who’s got passion and purpose.” And the best PD won’t come from off-site leadership workshops, he believes, but from doing the work in teacher teams and getting feedback.

 

“Educators Deserve Better: A Conversation with Richard DuFour” by Naomi Thiers in Educational Leadership, May 2016 (Vol. 73, #8, p. 10-16), http://bit.ly/1TuOrJD;

Back to page one

 

2. Charlotte Danielson on the Best Way to Improve Teaching

(Originally titled “Creating Communities of Practice”)

            In this Educational Leadership article, evaluation expert Charlotte Danielson says the time-consuming, top-down, bureaucratic nature of teacher evaluation in many schools is “undermining the very professionalism that’s essential to creating positive learning environments for students.” Of course evaluating teachers is essential to quality assurance, she says, but if only about six percent of teachers aren’t meeting basic standards, what about the other 94 percent? To answer this question, we need to acknowledge three basic realities in schools:

-   Teaching is complex work. “The impossibility of reaching perfection is in the very nature of creative, professional work,” she says.

-   Current evaluation systems are underperforming. “In many schools and districts,” says Danielson, “teacher evaluation has become simply a matter of numbers, ratings, and rankings… I receive frequent e-mails from teachers expressing their dismay over what they perceive as a serious distortion of their mission to engage students in meaningful learning.”

-   Even if they’re conducted well, evaluations “are not the best approach to stimulate teachers’ learning about their complex and important work,” she says. In other words, evaluations might be able to describe a teacher’s work, but they seldom improve it.

The bottom line: “Schools should not rely on evaluation as their main engine of teaching improvement,” says Danielson. “[I]t’s time to shift from an emphasis on high-stakes accountability for individual teachers to an emphasis on schoolwide communities of professional inquiry in which educators learn from one another.”

One of principals’ key jobs is orchestrating this process. And indeed, a symphony orchestra is a good metaphor, says Danielson: conductors lead individual players toward the goal of making beautiful music, and principals lead teachers toward the effective education of all children. Some essentials for good orchestrating in schools:

            • Create an environment that’s safe and challenging. Teachers must be able to express themselves and take risks, constantly seeking new and better approaches. Danielson suggests encouraging teacher teams to identify and share “high-quality mistakes” – approaches that didn’t work out but from which valuable lessons emerged. Principals might do the same.

            • Establish the expectation of collegial learning. “We know that teachers learn more from their colleagues than from their supervisors,” says Danielson. This may be an issue of principals’ limited subject-area expertise, but teachers also worry that admitting uncertainty or lack of mastery might end up as a negative evaluation. Principals need to affirm the key role of learning from colleagues and model openness about their own imperfections and struggles.

            • Flip the classroom observation process. Principals should encourage teachers to visit a specific number of colleagues’ classrooms, not to give feedback, but to learn. The principal might offer to cover teachers’ classes during these visits.

            • Schedule and guide team meetings. Common planning time for key groups, clear expectations for what teams should accomplish, and skilled facilitation can produce remarkable results, says Danielson.

            • Support teacher leadership. Many colleagues are ready to take on the role of mentor, instructional coach, department chair, or team leader. It’s the principal’s job to spot talent, delegate responsibility, and provide training and support. Some key skills: active listening, summarizing a discussion, acknowledging and building on others’ ideas, problem-solving, and problem identification. Principals also need to know when outside expertise is required.

 

“Creating Communities of Practice” by Charlotte Danielson in Educational Leadership, May 2016 (Vol. 73, #8, p. 18-23), available for purchase at http://bit.ly/1No9xwZ; Danielson can be reached at [email protected].

Back to page one

 

 

 

3. Doug Lemov Describes the “Stack Audit”

            In this online Teach Like a Champion article, author/educator Doug Lemov describes a way “to hold students accountable for their written lives in the classroom.” He believes the stack audit, used in a climate of mutual trust and respect, can help educators better understand their work and improve everyday practice. Lemov says it can be done as a school, a department, or with an individual teacher. Here’s how it works for a school.

            In advance, the principal is asked to gather all students’ written work in a particular category for the past two days, for example:

-   The homework every teacher has assigned;

-   The two most recent tests everyone has given;

-   The Do-Nows from all that day’s lessons;

-   All exit tickets from a particular time-frame.

The work is placed in a stack in the middle of a table and members of the leadership team (and perhaps a visitor – the ideal group size is 4-6) take 10-15 minutes to silently read and reflect. “You’d pull two or three from the pile and make some notes on strengths and weaknesses and put them back and take a few more,” says Lemov. “As we worked we’d all keep a big T chart: What were the best things that people were doing that could be replicated across the school? What were some problem points we could fix?”

Next the group goes around and people take 30 seconds to share their best observations about bright spots, and on the next go-around, their observations on trouble spots (someone is making a list). Then the principal comments on a few points that are priorities, others weigh in with feedback, and the principal decides whether to schedule a PD session or just send a memo to staff on strong points: “Here are 5 great things I saw; hope you can use them.”

            Lemov also recommends looking at students’ work – for example, every piece of homework students did on a particular day. In one school, what stood out was that students “were doing minimum possible compliance,” says Lemov. “They’d get it done because they had to get it done but some kids were producing – and practicing producing every night – awful-quality work: scrawled, done quickly in terrible handwriting with poor or ungrammatical sentences.” This sparked a strong push in the school: teachers read exemplary homework to classes, posted examples of excellent work, and clarified their expectations about what quality meant. Two weeks later, Lemov visited the school again and the improvement was “incredible.”

 

“The Stack Audit: Bad Name, Big Value” by Doug Lemov in Teach Like a Champion, January 19, 2014, http://teachlikeachampion.com/blog/stack-audit-bad-name-big-value/

Back to page one

 

4. Psychologists Suggest a Middle Ground on Keeping Students Back

            In this white paper from the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP), published in Communiqué, Franci Crepeau (University of Colorado/Denver) and Amanda Nickerson and Erin Cook (University of Buffalo) review three decades of studies on retention. Until recently, researchers were unanimous that there were few if any benefits for retained students and that retention might increase the risk of negative school outcomes, including dropping out before high-school graduation. However, say Crepeau, Nickerson, and Cook, most of these studies “are plagued by significant methodological limitations, the most important being lack of a comparison group of promoted peers equivalent prior to retention on achievement and other variables predictive of achievement.”

            A recent meta-analysis of 22 higher-quality studies showed that the impact of retention was somewhat less negative but “not statistically significantly different from zero.” Many retained students showed marked improvement in meeting grade-level standards during the repeat year, but this improvement often disappeared two to three years after retention. The recent analysis also found that retention had a less negative impact on students’ social-emotional adjustment than was shown by the previous generation of research.

Most educators agree that the best criterion for retaining a student is performance on grade-level expectations. The introduction of state tests aligned with specific curriculum competencies has therefore improved the quality of retention decisions, as compared with norm-referenced tests or subjective criteria. Some states, including Texas and Florida, have mandated that retained students not repeat the prior year’s experience. However, systems to monitor the implementation of these regulations are “virtually nonexistent,” says the NASP paper. And retention remains an expensive option: retaining 4.8 percent of Texas students in 2006-07 cost more than $2 billion.

Having established that keeping students back is not a magic bullet for improving their performance, the white paper says that promoting a student without competency in grade-level standards is not a good idea. So what is to be done? “NASP encourages school districts to consider a wide array of well-researched, evidence-based, effective, and responsive strategies in lieu of retention or social promotion,” say Crepeau, Nickerson, and Cook. This includes the key components of Response to Intervention, namely:

-   High-quality instruction, frequent assessment, and effective feedback for all students;

-   School-wide screening for early identification of academic and behavioral difficulties;

-   Prompt intervention for struggling students with intensive academic or behavioral support;

-   For students who are still not meeting standards, a third tier of more-intensive, individualized support;

-   Outside of school, high-quality pre-school and extended-day and -year programs.

Effective implementation of these tiers, say the authors, “will likely reduce the need for educators to choose between two undesirable options, grade retention and social promotion, to meet the needs of students who are struggling to meet grade-level academic and behavioral standards.”

            In addition, says the report, teachers need better professional development and not more of what are known to be ineffective: “one-time workshops removed from practice settings in which teachers are passive recipients of information.” The key components of better PD are:

-   Opportunities for teachers to observe effective classroom methods;

-   Practice in authentic classroom settings;

-   Responsive feedback and support as teachers implement new ideas;

-   Frequent progress monitoring and evaluation of interventions.

“When students continue to perform below grade-level standards and other causes for failure are ruled out (e.g., handicapping condition, limited English proficiency),” concludes the report, “and the student is retained in grade, the retention intervention must offer more than a ‘repeat’ of the previous year’s instruction…[A]n intensive individualized intervention plan and frequent progress monitoring should be employed to ensure the maximum benefit for the student.”

 

“Grade Retention and Social Promotion”, a National Association of School Psychologists White Paper by Franci Crepeau, Amanda Nickerson, and Erin Cook in Communiqué, May 2016 (Vol. 44, #7, p. 14-15), http://bit.ly/1WUcUNO

Back to page one

 

5. Teaching Students to Write Mathematical Arguments

            In this article in Teaching Children Mathematics, Connecticut elementary teachers Shannon Bostiga, Michelle Cantin, and Cristina Fontana, and their University of Connecticut/ Storrs professor Tutita Casa describe using “debate journals” to help students understand another person’s mathematical thinking, construct a math argument, and communicate it in writing – all aligned with Common Core ELA and math standards. Here’s how it worked.

            Bostiga, Cantin, and Fontana gave their students journals and asked them to respond to prompts that made them grapple with common math misconceptions. A few examples:

-   Becky says that 1/2 + 1/3 is 2/5.  Lisa says the answer is 5/6. Do you agree with Becky or Lisa? Explain why.

-   Greg rounded 2.345 to 2.35. Sean rounded it to 2.3. Do you agree with Greg or Sean?

-   In the number 6.534, Michael says the 3 has a value of 3/10. Brittany says it has a value of 3. Do you agree with Michael or Brittany? Explain why.

-   Evan bought six roses for his mother, 2/3 of them red. How many roses were red? Jada’s answer was 9. Luke answered 4. Do you agree with Jada or Luke? Explain why.

The authors used a debate format so students would have to consider different perspectives on each problem – which might not be their own. The debates were structured so in some cases only one argument was correct, in some both were correct, and in some neither was correct. “This forced students to consider multiple viewpoints and truly rely on their reasoning instead of any given pattern in the prompts,” explain the authors. “Prompts must be deep enough for debate and reasoning but not so deep that students do not have the level of understanding necessary to write.” Here’s an example of a prompt that went beyond students’ content knowledge:

-   Jania simplified 18/54 to 6/9. Lewis simplified it to 2/3. Whose idea do you agree with and why?

 “Although students had been exposed to simplifying factions,” explain the authors, “they were unable to digest what this problem was asking. Many could not make the jump from knowing how to simplify to knowing how someone else simplified. Consequently, students were quickly discouraged with the prompt and did not provide responses that were reflective of the work thy had been producing.”

            Bostiga, Cantin, and Fontana found it was important to go through several steps before asking students to write their arguments. First, the prompt was read aloud and students were asked what they thought it was all about (for example, in the first example above, students saw that each girl added the same fractions and came up with different answers). Next, teachers had students solve the problem themselves and compare their answers to those in the prompt (usually there were several students who agreed with incorrect answers). More debate ensued, with students using words and pictures to try persuade one another. Finally, students were asked to write what they believed was the best argument in their journals.

The teachers found that at first, students’ written arguments were weak and incomplete, and it took some time to get consistently high-quality responses. In mini-lessons, teachers showed students examples of good and not-so-good responses and discussed the characteristics of the best ones, then shared these guidelines for students’ responses:

-   State who you agree or disagree with.

-   Address both sides: Discuss student A’s thinking, then discuss student B’s thinking.

-   Be clear, use details, and explain fully.

-   Use pictures to support your thinking.

-   Make sure you are answering the question!

“After helping students understand the aspects of a quality response,” say the authors, “we continuously nudged them toward discussion and writing that included reasoning, details, and fully supported claims. Using the journals as a formative assessment, we were able to tailor our instruction.” Over time, students got better and better, with many including detailed arguments and illustrations to make their points.
            “Overall,” conclude Bostiga, Cantin, Fontana, and Casa, “students enjoyed the challenge of writing in mathematics, and their skills vastly improved over time. They became better at communicating their reasoning and explaining their thinking. We held high expectations and they stepped up to this challenge.” The authors have three additional observations: “Remember that this is a long-term process. Allow time for peer review and feedback. Allow students to rewrite and edit previous entries.”

 

“Moving Math in the Write Direction” by Shannon Bostiga, Michelle Cantin, Cristina Fontana, and Tutita Casa in Teaching Children Mathematics, May 2016 (Vol. 22, #9, p. 546-554), available for purchase at http://bit.ly/1NoFkxQ ; the authors can be reached at

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], and [email protected].

Back to page one

 

6. How Librarians Can Help Students Become Data-Savvy

            In this Knowledge Quest article, Kristin Fontichiaro and Jo Angela Oehrli (University of Michigan/Ann Arbor) say that as students begin doing research projects, they explore intriguing questions (What percentage of Americans own iPhones? How many toes does a polar bear have?) and enjoy the way data can lend an air of authority to their reports. But few students have well-developed skills in the areas covered by recent standards, for example: carefully collecting and analyzing data, creating figures and tables, integrating quantitative information, and moving fluidly between text and visually represented numerical information.

“There is a disconnect between classwork and the data and statistical literacy skills needed beyond the classroom,” say Fontichiaro and Oehrli. “Whether researching cancer statistics or the best car to buy, students don’t often have a strong sense of what those numbers mean… School librarians can play a significant role in helping students gain understanding of real-world numbers, statistics, charts, graphs, and visualizations. Librarians are unique cross-disciplinary pollinators who can fill the gaps between subject areas and help students gain skills in comprehending and critically evaluating data at home, at school, and in life.” Data-savvy people ask better questions and make better decisions.

Fontichiaro and Oehrli suggest six areas in which librarians, not always well-versed in data and statistics, should build their skills and teach students:

• Statistical literacy – “Discerning correlation from causation; recognizing the difference in the meaning of mean, median, and mode; understanding what margin of error signifies in polling data; and recognizing potential biases in collected data, among other skills, are critical for reading scholarly research, understanding arguments in popular media, and interpreting government documents,” say the authors.

• Data visualization – This includes helping students and colleagues make sense of (and create) mapped data, graphs, pie charts, and other visual displays.

• Data in argument – Students have a lot to learn about how to go beyond assembling random facts and effectively conveying information and persuading an audience.

• Big data and citizen science – Students need to be schooled in the way personal information is collected about family members, often without their knowledge, via social media, frequent-shopper cards, step counters, and more.

• Personal data management – “While students might like seeing relevant ads or music recommendations that match their favorites,” say Fontichiaro and Oehrli, “few know it is because of the breadcrumb trail they leave behind.” While they’re viewing news on CNN.com, as many as 14 bots are following their actions and converting their clicks into data. They may have learned to be cautious about revealing personal information online, but commercial interests still know a great deal about them and use it to pitch their products.

• Ethical data use – There is an understandable tendency for educators and students to view numbers and data as factual and infallible. “We must train our brains – and theirs – to remember to stop and analyze numerical arguments, not just text-based ones,” say the authors. “Ethical informational use is more than merely citing sources.” Students must realize that numbers can be used to manipulate and mislead – for example, a politician citing a small or outdated study, or a store saying, “Take an additional 25% off our half-off prices for 75% off.”

 

“Why Data Literacy Matters” by Kristin Fontichiaro and Jo Angela Oehrli in Knowledge Quest, May/June 2016 (Vol. 44, #5, p. 20-27), no e-link available

Back to page one

7. An “Inside-Out” Approach to School Improvement

            In this article in Changing Schools, Kristin Rouleau and Bess Scott (McREL) make the case for basing professional development on teachers’ own questions about how to get better. This is the opposite of the “outside-in” approach, which has the following characteristics:

-   Starting with deficit thinking – what’s wrong;

-   Looking for answers outside the district;

-   Scripting one-size-fits-all solutions that don’t fit the local context;

-   Giving order with little time or latitude for teachers to question or adapt;

-   Relying on summative measures like high-stakes annual testing, with results coming too late to be acted on;

-   Using instructional coaches as compliance workers;

-   Relying on extrinsic rewards and punishments;

-   Keeping the pressure on and pushing teachers to show results.

By contrast, the “inside-out” approach to improvement has these key components:

            • Develop a shared understanding of the moral purpose of schooling. Educators need to have answers to questions like, Why do our schools exist? What is our work all about?

• Reframe the goal. “Measuring student performance on standardized tests drives uninspired, low-level teaching and learning,” say Rouleau and Scott. Incorporating performance assessments creates a more robust and accurate measure of learning.

            • Fail forward with rapid-cycle improvement. Data will drive improvement only if educators feel safe to embrace and learn from mistakes and failures and use frequent assessments to test the impact of new ideas.

            • Put curiosity, engagement, and motivation at the center of schooling. Support teachers in tapping students’ natural curiosity – and their own.

            • Build on bright spots and strengths. Intrinsic motivation is more powerful than extrinsic carrots and sticks, and performance evaluation should be used to support, not sort, teachers.

            • Develop leaders as change agents and questioners. Principals must share leadership and be change agents, say the authors, “asking powerful questions that dig deeply into problems and reframing challenges to find new solutions.”

            • Re-discover peer coaching. Colleagues giving “critical friend” feedback can be a powerful engine of improvement.

 

“Professional Learning from the Inside Out: Putting Teacher Curiosity First” by Kristin Rouleau and Bess Scott in Changing Schools, Spring 2016 (Vol. 75, p. 6-11),

https://issuu.com/mcrel/docs/20160407_cs_final; the authors can be reached at [email protected] and [email protected].

Back to page one

 

8. A Strategy for Teaching Students Responsibility

            In this article in AMLE Magazine, writer/consultant Rick Wormeli lists some ineffective ways to teach students self-discipline and responsibility: F grades, berating students, standing them outside the classroom door, keeping them in from recess in perpetuity, removing them from sports, music, or martial arts. Here are Wormeli’s ideas for a more effective approach:

            • Know that students really want to be responsible and self-disciplined. “There is no such thing as laziness,” says Wormeli. “The natural state is to be curious, connect with others, grow, and succeed. When it looks like the student is lazy, there is always something else going on that we can’t see, or that we can see but can’t control. Investigation and removal of those factors will help the student reveal his or her core self.” It’s also helpful for a trusted adult to give students matter-of-fact feedback on the results of their less-than-responsible actions.

            • Embrace redundancy. Struggling students need more than one method to get better at being responsible – for example, breaking large tasks into smaller chunks; checking things off a list as they’re completed; using a graphic organizer to display salient points and see how they fit into the big picture; and experiencing the satisfaction of being “in the know” during a class discussion because of a close reading of the text.

            • Connect learning to students’ interests and the real world. “When something is meaningful,” says Wormeli, “we don’t have to cajole students into doing the task. They’ll work long hours, listen carefully to periodic feedback from classmates and teachers, and do high-quality work. If it’s drudgery, they’ll drag every foot, obstruct every enthusiasm.”

            • Provide tools and self-efficacy. “Sometimes we have to introduce students to their own competencies,” says Wormeli. And some students are much more fortunate than others in the resources they get from home.

 

“Teaching Students Responsibility” by Rick Wormeli in AMLE Magazine, May 2016 (Vol. 3, #9, p. 39-40), www.amle.org; Wormeli can be reached at [email protected].

Back to page one

 

9. Short Item:

            Common Core curriculum resources – In this article in Principal Leadership, Illinois school librarian Mary Jo Matousek recommends these resources to support the implementation of Common Core standards:

-   S.U.P.E.R Binders – www.tinyurl.com/ileadusuper

-   Graphite - www.graphite.org/standards/common-core

-   Literacy Design Collaborative – www.ldc.org

-   Inside Mathematics – www.insidemathematics.org

 

“Role Call: Common Core Curriculum Resources: A Scavenger Hunt?” by Mary Jo Matousek in Principal Leadership, May 2016 (Vol. 16, #9, p. 18)

Back to page one

 

© Copyright 2016 Marshall Memo LLC

If you have feedback or suggestions,

please e-mail [email protected]

About the Marshall Memo