Early Signs of Distress: Identifying and Implementing Systemic Improvements
Danny Torres in conversation with Aimee Evans, John Carwell, and David Frank
David Frank:
This is not just about schools that are struggling. This is just about good systems improvement, going from good to great, but also helping those schools that need a little push along to get to good and then they can go from there.
Danny Torres:
Welcome to Leading Voices, a podcast brought to you by WestEd, a national nonprofit, nonpartisan, research development and service agency. This podcast highlights WestEd’s leading voices, shaping innovations and applying rigorous research in ways that help reduce opportunity gaps and build communities where all can thrive. I’m Danny Torres. I’ll be your host. On today’s program, we discuss how district and state leaders can identify signs of school distress long before the state accountability systems designate those schools as in need of improvement. Just as with weather events or finances, an early warning system can help identify patterns and trends in school data that can help leaders improve schools before they decline and affect students negatively.
Joining us today is Aimee Evan. She’s a senior research associate and school improvement specialist at WestEd. Aimee leads WestEd’s Indicators of Distress, an evidence-based early detection system that can help state and district leaders prevent school decline. We’re also joined by two state education agency leaders who have worked with Aimee and have adopted the Indicators of Distress approach. John Carwell, an education associate at the Delaware Department of Education, and David Frank, associate commissioner and former executive director of the Charter School Office at the New York State Department of Education. Aimee, John, and David, welcome to the program.
John Carwell:
Thank you for having us.
David Frank:
Thank you.
Aimee Evan:
Thank you.
Danny Torres:
So Aimee, I often hear about schools under distress being designated as in need of improvement under state or district accountability models. What does that designation mean? And how does it impact teachers, students, and communities?
Aimee Evan:
So, typically, when we encounter schools that have been identified either through the state accountability system or some other accountability framework, schools can exhibit signs such as only a few students achieving at appropriate levels, or we often see declines in student achievement, declines in students progressing, or declines in students making, what we would consider, grade-level growth. And in high school this might mean low or declining levels of students graduating. So these, what we call, manifestations of schools that are struggling to serve their students well, could mean a whole host of things that are going awry in school programming. And usually, when a school is at that point, we have attempts at improvement at the school level. And in the field we’ve been really conducting or studying school improvement in earnest for the last 30 years. At the same time, we’re identifying schools that need improvement and trying to turn those schools around, and these are some of the nation’s most underperforming schools. But what we’re finding is that the results have been pretty disappointing for students, families, and communities.
Danny Torres:
What are some commonalities that you’re seeing with the schools that are defined as underperforming?
Aimee Evan:
So, schools that have been identified for improvement have at least a couple of things in common. Typically, these schools overwhelmingly enroll historically underserved students, and these could be high proportions of students of color, students in poverty, and students with special education or English language needs. And our continued effort to improve schools and provide historically underserved students with equitable learning opportunities is really critical, especially at a time now when education is so important.
What we’re learning from our national and state research is that, schools don’t just decline out of the blue or all at once. A school slide into decline can be mitigated and actually prevented if and when issues are both identified and addressed early. So, our national and state research called the Indicators of Distress, as you mentioned, Danny, establishes an early warning system to really help decision-makers at the state, district, and geographic region to do two things. One, to identify the signs of a school that is struggling, hopefully before that decline is too systemic to recover. And two, helps establish the leading signs of school progress so that decision-makers can determine whether they’re moving toward progress and meeting students and communities needs.
Danny Torres:
Right. By the time schools are designated as needing improvement, they’ve likely seen several years of challenges that could have been identified, and addressed earlier, and perhaps avoided that distinction altogether. This makes me think of the preventative care approach in the medical industry where the goal is to prevent illness, rather than focusing treatment on symptoms. How does the Indicators of Distress approach help to prevent the designation in the first place?
Aimee Evan:
So, I’ll use an analogy from David Frank, who’s joining us today. And, when I first met with David, he posed this question. He said, “When is the best time to fix a leaky roof?” When is the best time? When the leak first starts? And at that point, maybe it requires a few shingles, maybe there’s additional damage underneath and that needs to be fixed. Maybe it requires a whole new roof to be re-shingled, but if you don’t address the leak, does it get any easier, any faster, any more complicated to fix? Nevermind that if you allow that leak to continue, over time, it can lead to potentially unhealthy conditions such as mold. It could lead to structural integrity issues, where the roof could cave in. And so, the way we look at and think about the indicators of distress is that schools are no different. Comprehensive improvements take a really long time. They’re often expensive and sometimes they might not even work.
So the hope is to identify schools, just like in medicine, before we hit that phase. And we really want to try to prevent them from spiraling to that level of decline, where they’ve been identified. But the way we navigate decline and distress is not just about being aware of the issues, but also doing something about them. So, you not only have to know that your roof is leaking, which is really important, but you have to do something about it, which I think, we could all collectively agree is more important. So, essentially, what we’re trying to do with Indicators of Distress is addressing the leaky roof at the time of the leak instead of waiting until it’s caved in.
Danny Torres:
Now I’d like to turn to John and David, can you tell us a little bit about your roles and what prompted you to seek out an early warning system, like the Indicators of Distress? Let’s start with John, and then we can hear from David.
John Carwell:
Sure. First, thank you for the opportunity to be a part of this podcast, and it’s been great to work with Aimee and David. I’ve been with the Delaware Department of Education’s Charter School Office since 2010. My experience includes all aspects of charter school oversight from opening charter schools to performance-based accountability and closure unfortunately. So our office sought out indicators of distress because traditional accountability was insufficient. When I first started in the sector, an authorizer’s role was limited to providing an annual performance review. Essentially, we would show a school a mirror and either tell them, “You look great. Keep up the good work.” Or, “You look terrible and get an extreme makeover. And we’ll see you in a year.” However, watching a school sink like the Titanic is unconscionable if there’s something we could do about it. So that’s why we were interested in pursuing this project and trying to get ahead of the curve. And I love the analogy that David provided regarding a leaky roof, because we’re trying to avoid that.
David Frank:
Yeah, thank you. And, my role is very similar to John. We oversee 97 board of regents authorized charter schools here in New York State. We also work with our state’s three other authorizers to oversee all 361 charters from Buffalo to the far end of Long Island. And we really saw that by the time we were coming into a charter school that was failing, there were so many systems failures that it was hard to address all of them, because parts of the organization that needed to be improved, where there needed to be additional support, that really wasn’t possible given the other issues that schools were facing. So, when I started the conversation with Aimee a few years ago, we said, “We can do better. We have so much data.”
Charter schools have been around in New York since 1998. And, we know what the precursors to failure are. We can go back in time and look at the warning flags. We like to say, the smoke that was there before the fire happened. And we can say, if we only would’ve intervened at this point, maybe earlier on, we only had to look at board governance issues, or academic issues, or fiscal issues. But by the time these schools were coming up to renewal or even potentially non-renewal closure, so many of those issues were pervasive that it was hard to correct course.
So having that data was really important to us. And what Aimee helped us do is actually operationalize the data, and say we can drive instructional and authorizing decision-making using past performance, lessons learned, and as an authorizer of new charter schools, we can make decisions on who we were opening, who we were asking to go back to the drawing board based on data regarding successes and failures of the past. It was taking that national research that WestEd and Aimee had done and bringing it to the local level here in New York, that was very important for us.
Danny Torres:
So, what has changed since you implemented Indicators of Distress?
David Frank:
So, some of the things that we’re doing differently are being more thoughtful and mindful about the schools that we’re authorizing, models that work with traditionally underserved communities, models that don’t work, looking at authorizing our renewal process. So, asking schools to create action plans at the beginning of a charter term, so that we’re helping them to think about the steps they’re going to take to address some of the indicators of distress that we’ve identified, or to help prevent them in the first place. This work isn’t just about schools that are struggling, it’s also a check for schools that are succeeding to ensure that they’re not going down a path that leads to an indicator of distress. So really, I think it’s worth reiterating, this is not just about schools that are struggling, this is just about good systems improvement, going from good to great, but also helping those schools that need a little push along to get to good, and then they can go from there.
Danny Torres:
John, what stands out for you in terms of how things have changed since you implemented Indicators of Distress?
John Carwell:
Yes. I would say, that our changes have fallen around three areas, collaboration, our continuous improvement efforts and our authorizing, and thirdly, better data. So, in terms of collaboration, we’ve increased collaboration in an effort to reduce the silos around these efforts. So, one example of that is even though folks work in the same agency, our efforts can be disparate and parallel, but not together. So, our office, through this work, collaborated with the Department School Improvement Work Group on the Indicators of Distress process. So, they have been doing school improvement around the federal mandates of school improvement for years, but they found synergy in the idea of trying to prevent schools from being identified in the first place, which is what we were trying to do. So, we collaborated on this project. The data not only looked at charter schools, but also schools that were showing indicators of distress, traditional schools that is. So secondly, around continuous improvement, we’re looking at schools and our oversight processes differently as a result of this project.
Let’s face it, the school turnaround process is very difficult. If it were easy, Indicators of Distress would not be necessary, and the federal government would not have designations such as comprehensive school improvement, CSI, or targeted school improvement, TSI. What we’ve seen for many, many years, and even more so since the pandemic, is a very heavy lift for educators on the ground to meet the needs of our students, do student centered work. You think about the mental health challenges that students are facing, what’s happening in communities, from poverty, and crime, and what have you. So, all that comes into schools. And, I really want to highlight the work of our educators. They are our first responders. If they knew what to do, they would do it already. It’s just they need some support in terms of innovations and additional ideas.
So thirdly, around measures and data, we are developing student centered measures of school quality. We need to be able to measure improvement as schools begin to turn around, data that is not reflected oftentimes in state accountability systems. So what we’re talking about is the difference between leading indicators and lagging indicators. So, the Indicators of Distress project helps us to look at is not only those factors that lead to the proverbial leaky roof, but as that roof is being repaired and the structure is being made more sound, what is the process for those improvements, and how do you know the contractor is doing that work well so that at some point there’s no worry about the roof? And we want to be able to measure that and track that.
Danny Torres:
I’m wondering about any challenges you may have faced when implementing the Indicators of Distress, and then how you overcame them.
David Frank:
One of the challenges that we faced is really disrupting the status quo and helping particularly our stakeholders think about this work in a different way. And the foundation of the charter sector is autonomy in exchange for accountability, and certainly we hold that autonomy promise sacrosanct. But seeing the work of the authorizer in a little bit of a different way, of a partner, rather than as bureaucrats or just the state coming in, being punitive, and just building that trust. So that trust that we’re looking to build is not only with school communities, but with parents, educators, even students. And looking at the authorizer as a center for technical assistance, a center of support, and a critical friend. And, we really believe that in order to be a true friend for high quality educational options for kids, sometimes that means having to have critical conversations and saying, “Here’s where you need to improve.”
But the benefit of Indicators of Distress is before, we would say, “Based on our framework, here’s where you need to improve.” And that’s where the conversation would end. Now, and I think it’s critical, we can say, “Based on 20 plus years of data looking at the specific needs of your community, other schools in similar situations weren’t able to provide the promise of opportunities for students because of these critical issues,” what we call the indicators of distress. “We are here to help identify ways that those schools have or unfortunately sometimes have not been able to address those issues to help them provide better supports for their students.” And, a lot of our stakeholders welcome that, but I think it’s making sure that each and every day, we’re keeping the needs of students first, we’re putting aside those adult issues, and we’re saying, “What’s best for kids here?” And we have some data to help us answer those questions.
John Carwell:
Great points, David. Our challenges are around, one, getting better data, which is crucial. Now, we do have a very rich data system, but as I mentioned, many state accountability systems do not tell the full story about school performance. So thus relying solely on state accountability data is limited for high stakes decisions. We don’t want to inadvertently close a school that is on the bubble. They may look exactly the same on paper, but one could be rising and the other one could be falling fast. And we never want to make the wrong decision about the future of that school. Secondly, to pick up on David’s point about changing the status quo, change management is essential for creating new habits, systems, and behaviors around the work. Seeing education through a new lens.
Education is, I would say, one of the rare sectors that hasn’t changed a whole lot in the last 30 years. We can all point at our iPhones. Things have changed a lot in 30 years. But, bringing those innovations, I’m just amazed at my kids in terms of their grasp and capacity around technology, and speaking their language in schools, I think is still a gap that needs to be met. But, along the lines of change management, it’s also capacity building, not only for educators and leaders, but also for school boards. So, one of the first opportunities that our office had to work with WestEd was around school board development and helping them to see what are the essential factors for school boards in terms of having a high quality school? There’s a big difference between governance of a nonprofit versus a school. Breaking out those essential factors has been very, very helpful. We’ve had that online free board governance training in place now for about five years, if not longer.
And so, we’re looking at a 2.0 version of that because it’s been so helpful. I’d say, thirdly, a challenge is building an ecosystem of high quality external partners. I would say, internal and external partners. It’s necessary to help us as a regulatory body, as an authorizer, and also to help schools think more broadly about high quality education. And when I say external, there are entities who we may need to help us see new thinking around what’s possible and what’s the process for turning around a school effectively. Like Aimee had mentioned, there’s data around how long it takes to turn a school around. So for a board or an authorizing body to expect it to happen in one year, it doesn’t align with the data. You have to change culture, you have to change expectations, you have to change rigor.
And then, internally, we can’t look past the folks in the system who are those humble, quiet, but very effective leaders who have done this work, but they’re not advertising it in major ways, but they’re getting it done. So we want to highlight that, disseminate those practices, and help kids everywhere that may be only being helped in just a few places.
Danny Torres:
Yeah. So I’m wondering about your aspirations for the future. What are some goals you have for the future in using this Indicators of Distress approach?
David Frank:
We have three main goals with this work moving forward. One is, are we measuring the right things? We have a performance framework that we use to evaluate charter schools. And we think that those are the measures at a macro level that will help drive student improvement and prepare students for college and career readiness. But we know that, that one size-fits-all approach doesn’t work in some parts of the state because of the data that we’ve analyzed and collected using Indicators of Distress. I’ll give you just one quick example, teacher retention. So we’ve long thought that teacher retention is an important metric to look at, that the longer a teacher is in a school, the better it is for kids. Through Indicators of Distress, we found that that’s the case for many parts of our state, particularly areas where the teacher labor market isn’t as robust.
But, in places like New York City, where there’s a very strong labor market for teachers, certainly of course not universally across every subject, that teacher retention doesn’t have the same impact that it does in places like Buffalo or Rochester. So really looking at the data and saying, “Are our measures impactful, and are they driving the needle for improvement for student achievement and outcomes for students?” So that’s number one. Number two is really developing the right supports. As we transition from looking at only high stakes accountability to what the National Association of Charter School Authorizers would call a community-focused authorizer, do we have the right technical assistance in place? Do we have the right partners, to John’s point before, doing that work? Right now, we’re really fortunate through our charter school program grant, we’re actually working with WestEd and some partners on providing that technical assistance. And as we’re thinking about our next charter school program grant, making sure that we have those right tools in place.
I would also say that changing that mentality from growth, which I think is part of the existing charter school program grant ethos, to quality is something that we want to double down on and using Indicators of Distress to help drive that change. And, the last piece of this puzzle is given my larger role here at the state education department, working not just with charter schools but with district schools, non-public schools, is getting this work beyond just this charter sector. We think these are really impactful educational practices that can benefit many different types of school. Using data to drive instructional decision-making, autonomy in exchange for accountability, isn’t just a monopoly for charters. And how do we not only share this ethos with other parts of the department, but also, looking at other schools, district schools for example, that engaged in meaningful turnaround efforts, and bringing that back to the charter sector or bringing success stories?
I actually was just talking to a colleague about a school called Discovery Charter School in Rochester that had an incredible turnaround effort that yielded great results for kids using that to help drive change in places like Rochester, Buffalo, New York City. So, just getting beyond just the four corners of our charter sector, results are really important for this work.
John Carwell:
Three areas for us as we look ahead. Success for us looks like having no charter schools identified for the lowest designations of performance, be they comprehensive school improvement or targeted school improvement. So, with that, we’re looking to develop a school improvement plan in partnership with our school improvement office that is based upon the Indicators of Distress and their menu of turnaround system supports, and move that a few steps ahead, and say, “Based upon Indicators of Distress, if a school is showing signs of failure, how do we intervene in a way that prevents them from going one level down?”
So, particularly with charter schools in Delaware, we have 23 charter schools total. Our office is the main authorizer. And so, for us, if there were schools identified, we can do that in a timely manner before their next renewal. Schools get a five-year charter term, so that they have this opportunity to, once identified as being in distress, they have time using time-tested strategies to build up so that by the time they’re up for renewal, our charter school accountability committee can say, “This school was at point A. They’ve done X, Y, and Z to get to this better place.”
Secondly, we want to pilot this work in charter schools and ultimately expand it statewide. So, if we could show that intervening early and providing a set of supports works, then we should do that system-wide. And then, as I mentioned earlier, continuing to build our data systems and engagement protocols. And, I want to stress engagement protocols, because when I first started in this work, back in 2010, there’s a certain perception about government officials. And it’s usually, we’re treated like we’re the IRS. We come in, it could be Mr. Rogers, but still viewed as the IRS. So you have to do extra work to overcome that barrier. It’s more than meeting schools halfway. It’s like meeting them 70% of the way to build trust. You could be offering the best systemic solutions in the world, but if they don’t trust you, they’re not going to take it seriously. So, our engagement protocols, first and foremost, begin with relationship building, trust, and then once the school allows us into the back room to see how the sausage is made, that’s when success can happen.
Aimee Evan:
I just want to say, every time I meet with you all, I pinch myself at how lucky I got to work with you both. Every time you talk about this work, it gives me goosebumps that we’ve been able to do this together. So, I just wanted to say thank you.
Danny Torres:
All right, Aimee. As we’ve heard from David and John, each state and system seems to experience different challenges and opportunities. What did you and your team learn about implementing Indicators of Distress and how best to implement this approach going forward?
Aimee Evan:
So, Danny, one of the things that our national research set out to do was to gather all of the ways in which a school can look, can behave when it’s in decline. So really, what we created at a national level was what I call a menu of indicators. It’s certainly not a recipe, but it’s more of a menu of how schools can look and behave in decline. One of our biggest lessons learned once we started doing these deep dives, first and foremost with New York and secondly in Delaware, is that, no surprise, states, and districts, and communities all have differing environments. And, context is really key. As David mentioned in New York with the teacher retention indicator, some of these menu of indicators had either different impacts or had sometimes no impact. So it’s really important to do a deep dive into the ways in which your schools have struggled.
And, one of our biggest lessons learned in Delaware, because we did this analysis, both on charter schools as well as traditional public schools, is again, not surprisingly, schools regardless of charter or traditional status, struggled in really similar ways. And, one really stark example was this happened in both charters and traditionals when a school began to struggle, very similar things happened across charter and traditional. Leaders left, teachers left, and the ratio of experienced teachers to new teachers almost flip-flopped within a time period of three to four years, where we went from schools having a pretty good cadre of experienced staff that could mentor and hold that historical knowledge to a much higher concentration of early career teachers. And that was really important both to John and his team, but also, as John mentioned, working with the school improvement office to think about what are the impacts of those changes that are happening at these schools? And really understanding the lead-up of a school in decline, so that the supports that are being provided are much more targeted to those schools’ contexts.
So, in moving forward, one of the things that we caution states, districts, authorizers is to do your own homework, is to do that deep dive, use the indicators as a starting point, but really take the time to examine the schools in your own state, in your own district, in your own locale, to really hone in on what is cropping up for you as the most prevalent and impactful to your schools. If we can learn to recognize what these signs of distress are in our own schools, we’re much better able to predict the schools that are on the verge of really struggling. And, what are those indicators that aren’t as prevalent or aren’t as impactful in your own? Let’s not use up limited resources on trying to tackle issues that are non-issues, as David mentioned with the teacher retention.
And, the other thing that I’ll say is, one of the things we learned too is while this analysis doesn’t necessarily require additional data, as John mentioned, relying on just the accountability data may not paint the full picture. It would really be beneficial to examine first the data that you have with an eye toward decline. And so, what do I mean by this? I mean, looking at not just annual teacher turnover, but maybe turnover over time. Take a look at what that teaching staff has done in the last three to five years, because sometimes, we miss those trends, those larger, more impactful trends by just examining our schools on an annual basis, rather than on an over time basis. So that would be our first. And then, the second thing is, really looking at and mapping the data you have and collect, and see where you may want to pull in additional information.
Because, again, what we want to be able to do is paint a full picture of what’s going on at schools. And oftentimes, those data are collected, but they may not be part of the accountability system. So, pulling in things like teacher retention over time, looking not just at academic achievement but looking at it over time, et cetera. And then, the last piece I’ll share with you, I feel like I’m on threes like John. The third thing that I’ll share is that don’t hold this information to just yourselves, as it’s really helpful and important for education leaders at the state and district level. But, it’s really beneficial and helpful to share this information with your building leaders as well. For example, in New York, we created a self-assessment for schools to really start and have conversations around where they are, where are they doing well, where are they struggling? And then, how do they want to plan to move forward? It’s not just about the school being solely responsible.
We talk about this at WestEd-wide, when we talk about turnaround, that school improvement is not just a school’s issue. We all have a role. And I would flip that to say, this analysis is not just for education leaders at the state and district level, but also the school leaders have a role in being able to identify their early signs of distress, and putting in measures to mitigate and address those early areas.
Danny Torres:
So, I wanted to talk about WestEd’s Four Domains Framework, because it identifies four areas of focus that research and experience point to as central to rapid and significant school improvement. And they include turnaround leadership, talent development, instructional transformation, and cultural shift. Can you tell us more about the Framework and how it informs your approach to the Indicators of Distress?
Aimee Evan:
Absolutely. So the Four Domains was really the anchor for the Indicators of Distress, as well as the way we frame all of our school improvement efforts. So, oftentimes, in schools that are struggling, we immediately look to academic declines. But, what we’ve learned by studying turnaround in schools that were successful in improving is that there are lots of areas that need to be addressed, like turnaround leadership, talent, culture that coincide with, or in some cases need to be addressed first, before we can see impacts in instruction.
And we took that very same idea with the Indicators of Distress to say, “Okay, if in improving schools we need to address leadership, talent, culture, and instruction, what are some of the precursors to instruction that may indicate that a school is on the verge of decline, on the verge of having impacts on those instructional and academic indicators?” Because really, the lagging indicators are those low and declining student outcomes. It could be also attendance. If students aren’t engaged in their education, then they’re not showing up to school. It could be in suspension rates. Maybe if kids are not engaged, again, in their instruction, they might be acting out, and getting punished, and being suspended.
But these indicators, these outcomes, these manifestations don’t just happen. They happen because there’s a breakdown in one or sometimes all of those four domains. And, like I mentioned, there are some differences, but the earlier we can identify schools, the better. Oftentimes, if we can’t identify them early, the decline and dysfunction and difficulties haven’t dominoed across all of the domains, but rather, they’ve started in one, like that leaky roof. Where is that start? If we can address, and patch, and mitigate that, then oftentimes, we don’t see the need for improvement across all of the domains. But again, each school experiences decline differently. I will say though, that one of the things we are starting to learn is that early interventions do look different from turnaround interventions. And so, the four domains for us provides a really great anchor and framework for improvement. But the early interventions that would be helpful for schools apply at a parallel, but almost at an earlier stage than what some of the interventions are included in the four domains framework itself.
Danny Torres:
Wow. This has been a rich and interesting conversation, and I wish we could just keep going. David, Aimee, and John, as we come to the end of our time together, do you have any last thoughts for our listeners?
John Carwell:
First, I want to thank Aimee for your kind words earlier. You and your team have been excellent thought leaders and thought partners in this work, and we appreciate the partnership with WestEd, and also being a part of a program like this. One thing I wanted to say in closing is that it’s truly awesome to see a school rise from the ashes. And, to be a part of that is even more awesome. And to build these bridges with schools and to work in partnership in terms of school turnaround is just a phenomenal experience. And to see, ultimately, students being better served. I see the charter school sector as the research and development arm of public education. We have an opportunity with the Indicators of Distress project to demonstrate innovative school improvement strategies. So, I’m grateful to work with innovative thinkers and thought partners like Aimee and David.
David Frank:
Thank you, John. I would wholeheartedly agree. I really think it takes an ecosystem to do this work. And, WestEd for us in New York is an integral part of that ecosystem to help take national know-how and transform that into local success for our kids and for us, that’s why we’re all doing this work is to create amazing opportunities for our students to navigate college and career and become the next leaders in our society. And our charter schools are designed to do that and to create options and choice. It’s really heartening to have thought partners in our other authorizers, so people like John in Delaware, or the whole ecosystem and larger team that WestEd has brought to the table, so that we can think deeply about how we transition as a sector from this historic high-stakes accountability, always be closing model, to how do we create success in each and every one of our communities that comes to this work?
I think, lastly, we don’t have all the answers. We need our schools to be part of that ecosystem as well, our communities, our parents, and if we really want to have an impact on the well-being and opportunities of our students, we need to have a large tent in this work. And, Indicators to Distress is a great tool for making that happen.
Danny Torres:
Well, Aimee, John, and David, it’s just been an honor to have you on the program today. I’m really, really grateful. And thank you so much for your time.
John Carwell:
Thank you, Danny.
Aimee Evan:
Thank you, Danny.
David Frank:
Thank you very much.
Danny Torres:
And thank you to all our listeners for joining us today. For more information about Indicators of Distress services at WestEd, visit us at www.wested.org/iod. You can find this and past episodes of the Leading Voices podcast online at www.wested.org/leadingvoicespodcast, or on Apple Podcast, YouTube music, iHeart Radio, Pandora, and Spotify. This podcast is brought to by WestEd, a national, nonprofit, nonpartisan research development and service agency. At WestEd, we believe that learning changes lives. Every day we partner with schools and communities across the country to improve outcomes for youth and adults of all ages. Today’s episode focused on one really important facet of the work that we do at WestEd, and I encourage you to visit us at www.wested.org to learn more. And special thanks to Marlee Arechiga for her contributions to the development of the content of this episode and for her editorial support. And to Sanjay Pardhani, our audio producer. Thank you all for joining us. Until next time.