Katonah-Lewisboro board previews districtwide data‑literacy 'collaborative inquiry' for teachers

The Katonah‑Lewisboro Union Free School District Board of Education on Nov. 20 hosted a hands‑on demonstration of a district collaborative‑inquiry protocol designed to give teachers a shared process for interpreting data, setting instructional priorities and building SMART goals.

Jessica Kingsbury, introduced as the district’s new director of assessment, research and technology, said the goal is to make data the “keys that are going to help us get to that destination,” and described the session as a teacher‑facing workshop rather than a formal report to the board. Kingsbury introduced three assistant principals who joined the presentation to lead exercises across grade bands.

The presentation linked the protocol to the district’s Vision 20–30 priorities and professional learning communities (PLCs). Facilitators walked board members through a predict–go‑visual–observe–infer cycle: participants first made predictions about statewide Regents outcomes, then set green/yellow/red cutoffs to prioritize areas for attention before the data were revealed.

When the team revealed New York State 2023–24 Regents figures used for the exercise — 79% proficient in ELA, 62% in Algebra I and 74% in Physics — facilitators asked participants to record low‑inference observations and surface questions for further inquiry. David (an assistant principal introduced during the meeting) summarized a student‑problem example used in the workshop: “62 percent of high school students in New York State are scoring proficiently on the Algebra I Regents, while 35 percent of students with disabilities in New York State are scoring proficiently on the Algebra I Regents,” a framing the presenters used to show performance gaps and to prompt targeted follow‑up.

Presenters stressed that the protocol is iterative and asset‑based: teams should identify what students already can do, list missing or supplementary data they would need (for example, demographics, how many students take each exam, historical trends and subgroup breakdowns), and decide whether they have enough evidence to test causes or should cycle back for more localized data.

Board members asked practical questions about implementation timing and capacity. Presenters said PLC cadence will vary by level — weekly at elementary, a few times a week at middle school, and daily touchpoints at the high school where schedules permit — and described a district guiding coalition of principals, assistant principals and teacher leaders that will pilot and refine rollout. Presenters emphasized principals and APs will be responsible for coordinating school‑level implementation once central teams complete training and proof of concept.

Board members praised the workshop’s focus on collaboration and culture. One board member said the protocol helps shift conversations from blame to curiosity and highlighted the potential for the process to strengthen collective teacher efficacy — the belief that teachers, working together, can improve student outcomes.

Next steps noted by presenters include cycling the protocol through more datasets at the school level, disaggregating outcomes for local planning, and returning to the board with updates and localized evidence of SMART goals and action plans.

The board did not take formal action on the presentation itself; the session was presented as a workshop and preview of tools to be used in PLCs and teacher professional learning.