language arts and math, far outpacing
statewide gains. For example, from
2004 to 2009, the number of Sanger
students scoring proficient or advanced
in math increased 35 percentage points
(from 31 percent to 66 percent), versus
a 14-point increase for the state (from
40 percent to 54 percent).
English language learners (ELLs) in
Sanger show particularly dramatic gains,
not only outpacing gains in achievement
for ELLs statewide but also closing the
gap with English-only students. In 7th
grade math, English learners in Sanger
now outscore English-only students
statewide. Moreover, English learners in
Sanger are becoming fluent in English
more quickly. We do not believe this
progress is accidental. (See the graphs
at www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/
ed_lead/el_201202_thompson_figures
.pdf for more data on Sanger’s success.)
taught. Through intensive districtwide
professional development in explicit
direct instruction, Response to Intervention, and checking for understanding,
we have created a common framework
for instruction so that all teachers and
administrators in the district have a
shared understanding of what constitutes an effective lesson.
Guided by Data
Early in our reform effort, we commit-
ted ourselves to monitoring student
achievement. We realized that the stan-
dardized test scores we received back
from the state each fall pointed out our
failures during the previous year, but
there were no opportunities for schools
in the order of operations. They place
these students in a targeted inter-
vention group taught by the teacher
whose students were most successful in
the topic and then assess the students
again to determine the success of the
intervention.
We needed a GPS to tell us where
our students were and what they
Guiding Principles
Sanger’s appearance on the list of California’s lowest-performing districts in
2004 served as a dramatic wake-up call.
We immediately decided that before
we took any other actions, we needed
to identify a set of principles to serve
as our philosophical foundation. After
deep discussions of our core beliefs, we
created a set of three guiding principles:
1. Hope is not a strategy.
2. Don’t blame the kids.
3. It’s about student learning.
We’ve spent the past seven years
working hard to enact these principles
in everyday situations. Early in our district’s transition we heard teachers say
things like, “I taught it; they just didn’t
learn it.” Applying our guiding principles, we realized that we could not
simply hope that our students would
learn, and we could not blame students
if learning did not occur. Instead, school
leaders worked to cultivate the belief
that teaching effectiveness is measured
by whether students learn what we have
still needed if they were to reach
their learning destination.
or teachers to rectify the learning gaps
for those students.
We needed a “global positioning system” (GPS) to tell us where our students
were and what they still needed if they
were to reach their learning destination.
To obtain this crucial information, we
created a district progress assessment
that tests all students three times a year
on the most essential standards for each
grade level. The assessment provides us
with actionable student learning data
and enables our teachers to address
issues immediately.
For example, order of operations is
an essential tool for success in algebra.
So, as our 7th grade teachers receive
feedback from the district assessment
on their students’ mastery of this topic,
they identify students across the entire
grade who need intensive intervention
enables us to check student mastery of
these standards three times during the
year.
