Interview with Michele Widmier
Federal Programs Director/District Test Coordinator for Minidoka County School District #331, Idaho
Jackson Consulting: Tell us about your district, the student population, community and parent involvement.
Michele Widmier: I have been Minidoka County's Federal Programs Director, responsible for ESL, migrant education and Title One programs, for three years. The district is a small rural community made up of a student population of about 3,900 students that is 47% Hispanic and 53% Caucasian. There is a low turnover rate of the district's teachers – which has been very helpful in program implementation.
The parent population, while a caring group who want the best for their children, has a number of challenges, such as irregular work hours and low wages that make parent volunteering at the schools – especially in the middle and high schools – very limited.
JC: What is the "history of literacy" instruction in your district and why did you have to make changes?
MW: Prior to "No Child Left Behind," each school implemented their own programs and classroom teachers, to a large extent, taught those programs their own way. True collaboration and a shared vision across the district were not the norm. We weren't hitting the mark on the test scores and we knew that, working as a district, we had to pool what resources we had and focus on what we knew was working and implement that uniformly across the district.
With grant funding, three of our four elementary schools implemented the Open Court Reading program in conjunction with literacy coaches within the parameters of Reading First grants. It was so successful our district provided the fourth elementary school with the resources to implement the same program with the same level of intensity. It was also becoming evident that perhaps we should be using a similar approach to teaching in our middle schools and high school.
We looked at the data – and like many districts across Idaho and throughout the nation, we found that our limited English proficient student population were some of our lowest achievers – overcoming this achievement gap was a big part of the reason our district made the decision to modify teaching methodologies.
JC: What were the non-negotiables of instruction that you set up in order to ensure student success?
MW: The administration had to be a part of the process. Administrators were trained in the Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol, as were coaches– they had to be included in the coaches' program. We were very careful in determining what approach would be best in introducing a new program. We knew in advance that like anything new, there were those who would be interested and those who would take more of a "stay out of my classroom" approach. We had to find a way to get both the middle schools and the high school to work together, that was the easy part, and to find the best way to get all the teachers on board. We had to work on transitioning everyone from "teaching their own way" to accepting the idea of and using SIOP methodologies and instructional coaching. Also, we had to stay within the financial resources we had available; whatever plan we chose, had to work within our budget.
The way we approached this was to select and train in SIOP methodologies four master teachers, one from each of the four content areas (reading, math, science and social studies), at each of the middle schools and high school to act as instructional coaches. All these teachers remain full-time teachers, but they have been given extensive training in SIOP and with Jill Jackson to learn how to coach their peers in the program. Jill was wonderful in adapting to this approach. We used the grant money to train the master teachers in the coaching program and to pay for substitute teachers on the one day a week each master teacher was coaching.
JC: Was there any point during your district transformation that you thought "Forget it! It's not worth it!" What kept you going?
MW: Fortunately no, not yet! We were also fortunate that our teachers were trusting and willing to implement the new instructional practices. We have attempted to attach college credit to the training and implementation process so that teachers are motivated to participate in the program. Part of our approach at introducing changes was to use small, incremental steps that helped the teachers focus on specifics in their instruction so that small, deliberate changes would result in their instructional practice. Having specially trained peers to work along side of their colleagues is making it more of a collaborative process.
JC: Who were your key players in supporting and sustaining the efforts when things got rough?
MW: In addition to the support provided by our local school board and district administration, the building administrators and coaches are key to the success of this program. We are three months into applying the program in the secondary schools and so far we are not encountering a lot of resistance. Before we introduced the program into the secondary schools our local school board, the district's administrative council, building administrators and our elementary reading coaches supported our efforts. Elementary instructional coaching is a huge success and their support is proving to be invaluable. They were so positive on the program's benefits to a wide range of students, including special education, non-English speaking and gifted. The elementary coaches are a great resource, in that they help answer questions and reinforce Jill's training, which in turn helps counter resistance. Because instructional coaching has been so successful in the elementary schools, the secondary school teachers can't just say, "This doesn't work."
JC: How does student performance and leadership look differently now?
MW: We'll have to wait until the end of next year to give a full answer – or at least until the end of this school year for a partial answer in terms of student performance. However, school leadership is more focused on instructional practices in the classroom that will improve student performance. The feedback from the teachers so far is good – now that we have got it going, there is the will to keep it going and look for grant money so we can continue to hire substitutes for the master teachers when they are coaching and add more professional development.
JC: What do you wish you would have know then that you know now?
MW: That Jill would be so perfect – so willing to adapt to our unique situation and help develop a solution that would work. I wish we had been able to participate in the training last August, that way we could have started at the beginning of the school year instead of three months into it.
JC: What advice do you have for school districts/states that need to make significant improvement in their student achievement but have not yet begun to make adjustments?
MW: Be intentional and methodical about what you want to change and how you want to change it. Even if the idea is big, start small, get your foot in the door. Be very specific about what you want to change. Big changes can be much more easily accomplished if parceled into small, easy-to-swallow, pieces. Keep the comfort level high so implementation is not a fight. Bring enough zest to the introduction of the program to get enthusiasm up. Be aware that there will always be discomfort for some during the implementation process, but help everyone know it has to happen and that everyone will be going forward together.
JC: So now what? Where does your focus remain at this point? When do you think you'll be done and can rest?
MW: We are going to keep moving forward with this project and try to find additional grant money to help us expand. As with everything in education, it is a work in progress, you are never done! We are going to continue to focus our efforts on student achievement and implementing research-based instructional strategies.