The Rise and Fall of Balanced Literacy

Series 6 Leaders Coaching Leaders

[00:00:00.00] [MUSIC PLAYING]

[00:00:00.68] ANNOUNCER: Welcome to Corwin's Leaders Coaching Leaders podcast, with host Peter DeWitt. This podcast is from education leaders for education leaders. Every week, Peter and our guests get together to share ideas, put research into practice, and ensure every student is learning not by chance but by design.

[00:00:19.94] TANYA GHANS: Hey, Peter. Here we are in another episode.

[00:00:22.67] PETER DEWITT: Hey, Tanya. Yeah, it's good to see you again.

[00:00:25.32] TANYA GHANS: Yeah, very excited about today's topic and today's guest. Today's show is all about reading literacy, all that's going on with reading and literacy today. And we have been really lucky to get Pamela Snow on, Dr. Pamela Snow. She hails out of New Zealand, and she's a professor of cognitive psychology at La Trobe University.

[00:00:47.84] In 2020, she co-established the Science of Language and Reading Lab, SOLAR, to research things like teaching, advocacy, and graduate supervision. She's the author of, I think, a really well entitled or titled blog called The Snow Report. Everybody should read it. You'll hear about it during today's show.

[00:01:05.87] She is just a really fascinating guest who is very frank, another really frank and candid guest about what she believes children need to really excel. And I was-- I think readers are going to be-- or listeners are going to be really moved by her analogy of education as a health intervention. And that if we think about it like that, the impact of what we are or are not doing in schools on children, especially the children who need it the most, is absolutely profound. And I've always feel urgent about this, but I think it lit an even new level of urgency about getting closer to right when it comes to how we're giving instruction on reading to our children.

[00:01:51.63] PETER DEWITT: Yeah, you know, it's early in the morning for us on a Monday morning as we record this podcast. And getting up at 5:00 to 7:00 on a Monday morning to do a podcast, I was ready to go, but I am-- listeners are going to hear me ask her to tell a little bit about her background, and that's when she started talking about the fact that this is a public health issue. And the way that she frames this is, just to me, something we need to lean into because I certainly did.

[00:02:25.76] As soon as she started talking about that, that just opened up a whole host of other questions for me. And one of the things that I want listeners to hear, too, is that she had mentioned she doesn't want to offend anyone. And I had said it during the interview, I think when it comes to literacy, we do need to offend people.

[00:02:49.73] I wish, that as a former first grade teacher, that people offended me a little bit more as opposed to just accepting-- and I was surrounded by good people when it came to speech pathology and all of those kind of things, but I think we do need to offend more people because unfortunately, when you start talking about reading and literacy specifically, there are-- we kind of accept that these kids, they're just not going to read like others, or these kids, they can do it.

[00:03:23.91] And when Pam talked about it being a public health issue in the way in which she talked about it was just-- this is something that all-- she even said in The Snow Report-- because I was reading one of her blog posts-- 100% of our children deserve the right to read, 100%. And she even said in the particular blog that I wrote, not 60% to 70%. And I work in some school districts where that's-- I mean, that would be a dream.

[00:03:54.75] TANYA GHANS: It would be a dream.

[00:03:55.77] PETER DEWITT: Yeah. When she says 100% and then when it's supported by her public health issue argument, I just-- this was a brilliant-- this was a brilliant podcast. I'm not saying it because I'm hosting it. I'm saying it because this is a guest that you found. You came and said, what if we interviewed Pam Snow? And I'm so glad you did.

[00:04:19.08] TANYA GHANS: Yeah. I think when you said lean in, I think that is absolutely right. If you're going to listen in your car, wherever you are, you're going to want everything around you to quiet down and go away, and you are going to lean in and listen because every sentence is chock-full of so much information that is clearly full of the many years of research that she's done with. This comes out loud and clear. This is not opinion-based that she's talking about.

[00:04:45.84] And yet, again, really, I think gives people a new sense of urgency and just reason why we have to really rethink everything that we've been doing in this space, not maybe everyone. I know a lot of people are moving towards doing things that are more aligned with what actually works. And I think the content that she gives is one more step towards that.

[00:05:09.48] And it is true that in education, it's not uncommon to hear people have this-- this is my way of doing things and you can have your way of doing things. And it's like, how can that really be writ large with a lot of this stuff that there is personalized ways of doing this kind of work? So she certainly is speaking to push back at that myth, and I think listeners are really going to be persuaded or certainly have their curiosity piqued by what she has to say, about thinking more about this. So I'm really excited.

[00:05:42.76] PETER DEWITT: Yeah. So I would say the one thing I want people to know before they go into this podcast is regardless of what cult following you have been a part of-- and I do think that there are a lot of people that are engaged with science of reading, which is important, and they've criticized balanced literacy, but I think there have been people who have been on the balanced literacy bandwagon who are no longer-- they're the critics now, too. So we've all been guilty of some of this.

[00:06:12.52] And I think going into this podcast, I want people to have an open mind about what she focuses on, which is we need to challenge these ideas. And I want people going in to not give a confirmation bias and say yeah, yeah, yeah. I want people to go into this interview with more of an open mind to be able to say, how can we challenge the thinking of ourselves but challenge the thinking of the people that we're working with? So I really enjoyed this podcast, and I hope listeners do, too.

[00:06:42.53] TANYA GHANS: Well said. Peter, I'll see you on the other side. Enjoy, everyone.

[00:06:48.14] ANNOUNCER: Say goodbye to slow-paced teaching methods and join an innovative new framework. With Teacher Clarity Professional Learning Workshops, teachers can learn how to double the speed of learning with clear goals and measurable outcomes. Get started today at corwin.com.

[00:07:04.18] PETER DEWITT: Pam Snow, welcome to the Leaders Coaching Leaders podcast.

[00:07:07.30] PAMELA SNOW: Thank you so much, Peter. It's a delight to be here.

[00:07:11.05] PETER DEWITT: I just want to jump right into it because I was reading The Snow Report from the 1st of September. And I really liked the way-- I mean, I loved what you wrote about in the blog, but I also liked the way that you write the blog because you wrote, "Awkward reality, putting adjectives in front of the word "literacy" is not an acceptable substitute for teaching children how to read." Can we talk a little bit more about that, your background, and also your views on balanced literacy, and everything happening with the science of reading?

[00:07:47.97] PAMELA SNOW: Sure. Well, where do you want to start? My background is in speech language pathology. I am also a registered psychologist. And I guess like a lot of people my age, my journey has been a little circuitous.

[00:08:06.39] Reading is something that I've always been interested in. And I guess I started to think really seriously about reading and early reading instruction a bit over 20 years ago when I was doing research on what we might refer to as high-risk, very vulnerable young people-- young people in the youth justice system, in out-of-home care, in flexible alternative education systems. And of course, some young people are in all of those systems of different stages. They're not completely separate groups.

[00:08:42.37] And I had done some work through a role that I occupied early after my PhD in public health. And that work that I did, which was in a separate field, it was actually in drug and alcohol prevention research for school aged children, but it really was quite formative for me in helping me to apply a public health lens, a big picture lens, to what might look like a more granular problem.

[00:09:18.31] And so thinking about young people with those vulnerabilities invited me to think about risk and protective factors because we know that there's of a ledger, I suppose, of risk factors on one side for children who face adverse childhood experiences at the community, school, family, and individual level and then there are protective factors. And that public health experience that I had really got me thinking about language and literacy as protective factors. Nothing Teflon coats children against all kinds of adversity. We expect there to be some negative experiences in children's lives, but some children, of course, have a, really, disproportionate number of negative experiences.

[00:10:13.39] But for me, I suppose, there was a-- coming into the reading field via that public health doorway, it was quite illuminating for me to be thinking along the lines of-- well, all children go to school. Well, most children go to school. There are some children who are home schooled.

[00:10:34.48] But let's say for argument's sake, at a population level, all children go to school or are exposed to education. So that's a public health intervention. That's something that we can be offering to all children, and we should be offering it in an appropriate dose and an appropriate level of quality and impact to all children. And it's going to be more important potentially for some children than others, that we do get that impact and quality right.

[00:11:08.41] So that was a very important part of my thinking as I came into this field, that education is, in fact, an intervention. And at that stage, I hadn't heard of response to intervention, but it's interesting now that that's a big part of our discourse. And of course, for many teachers, I think when they hear that term response to intervention for the first time, it can perhaps be a little bit jarring almost or a bit mystifying. Why are we talking about intervention when tier one is about instruction? But again, that's that public health thinking that we need to be preventing problems at the outset. So that's sort of the backstory in a nutshell.

[00:11:51.35] Why do I say that it's not acceptable to put adjectives in front of the word "literacy" and then let ourselves off the hook? That's because reading is a verb. The word "reading" is a verb. It's something that children have to be actually able to do.

[00:12:08.86] It's a biologically secondary set of skills. It's something that most children are not going to just intuitively pick up. Of course, children, even only moderately optimal circumstances in the preschool years, are going to be exposed to print, and they're going to notice environmental print, and they're going to notice letters that are in their names, and so forth. But putting that all together in a highly systematized and efficient way such that it becomes a skill that supports learning over 13 years doesn't happen by accident.

[00:12:49.88] And I think the grown ups have let themselves off the hook by talking about literacy. And I get particularly frustrated with constructs like multiple literacies, digital literacies, critical literacies. To me, I don't want to offend anyone, but I think they're fluffy terms. But if we must have them, we need to accept, I think, that children can access those forms of literacy if they can first of all read, write, and spell. And we adults can't give ourselves a free pass on that.

[00:13:30.38] PETER DEWITT: So a few things. First of all, thank you for the background because the way you framed it is so important. And I think the way you framed it is also something we need to pay better attention to because it creates that sense of urgency that there very much is.

[00:13:48.11] I work in schools sometimes. I have a very low proficiency rate when it comes to literacy. And you're right about the adults. Sometimes they don't seem to see-- they let themselves off the hook. So I don't-- when you said you didn't want to offend anyone, I think we do need to offend some people because-- I think we need to challenge-- we need to be able to challenge our thinking.

[00:14:13.76] You were talking about balanced literacy. We know that there's the reading wars, and the science of reading, and readers-writers workshop, and those kind of things. Why do you think that those programs-- because that's what they are. Why do you think those programs can go on for decades?

[00:14:34.19] Not even like a few years, we're talking decades here where they've got this huge kind of cult following. Why is it that they can go on for so long without anybody really-- I don't want to say without anyone questioning it because people like you have questioned it, but without more people questioning what they're doing. Is it because we-- I was a former first grade teacher, so I taught first grade. For 7 out of 11 years, I taught students how to read.

[00:15:06.79] But I think back to our preservice college days where I didn't have a literacy background. So is that part of it, too? Is it not just that adults are letting themselves off the hook? Sometimes they're not prepared to be able to teach it, and they kind of go in with this confidence, well, anybody can teach somebody how to read.

[00:15:25.84] I know I just asked you a load of questions because you have my mind going very early in the morning for me, very late at night for you. So I'm going to start with the basic which is, why is it something like balanced literacy was allowed to go on for a couple of decades without more people questioning it in the first place?

[00:15:42.48] PAMELA SNOW: It's a very good question. And I guess like all com-- it is really a complex question, so there's probably lots of simple answers that are wrong. The answers are going to be complex and multifactorial. I think balanced literacy presented a pleasing fantasy for the adults, so the policymakers, the university academics, the school administrators, the classroom teachers.

[00:16:20.37] It was a mass fantasy that everyone wanted to buy into and was invested in making it true because in the world of balanced literacy, adults get to do the things with reading that they enjoy like reading beautiful children's books to children, and talking about beautiful children's books, and doing things in the classroom that make children look busy and engaged, and giving children paper and something to write with, and inviting them to write a page of text on a Monday morning about what they did on the weekend even though they can't yet write a sentence, and they don't have any actual mental schema of what a sentence is.

[00:17:16.60] I think there's been a complex domino effect that happened when something was taken away quite quickly in, let's say, for argument's sake, somewhere around the 1970s. No one can put their finger on this precisely, but it was part of the zeitgeist, I suppose, of the 1970s. There was a lot of social and political upheaval in that time, and a lot of so-called "old ideas" were being thrown out, and probably a lot of them needed to be thrown out. A lot of social ideas needed to be thrown out, but there was a lot of upheaval in that time.

[00:18:00.98] And I think some important educational constructs got caught up in that slipstream of what was happening in the 1970s. And people decided, under the influence of developmental psychologists like Piaget, for example, the idea that children construct their own learning, they construct their own understanding of the world. The influence of whole language theorists like Kenneth Goodman are saying things that were very appealing to the stakeholders because if those things had turned out to be true, then life would be a lot easier for education academics, and for classroom teachers, and for administrators.

[00:18:51.37] The problem is that those things were not true or accurate. They were not tested adequately. If you think about what has to happen in your country and in mine before a new drug or medical device can be taken to the market, to the population and applied at scale, there were no checks and balances in place in the 1970s. In many cases, there aren't great checks and balances now, I hasten to add.

[00:19:24.52] But everybody got very excited about the idea that we don't need to teach grammar anymore, we don't need to teach spelling anymore. And once this boulder starts rolling down the hill, and gathering momentum, and getting bigger and bigger as it rolls down the hill, it's very hard to push it back up the hill because now we've got a full generation of teachers who are themselves products of whole language classrooms who didn't gain an explicit understanding of how their writing system works, of spelling rules and conventions, of grammatical conventions, of the difference between spoken language and written language in terms of what that demands around knowledge of punctuation, the role of punctuation in conveying meaning.

[00:20:16.30] It's not just some dry, stuffy, old eat your vegetables Victorian set of habits punctuation. It's actually a way that a writer and a reader can share important information about the text. So this was all thrown out. It was thrown out quickly.

[00:20:36.28] I wrote a blog post a couple of years ago inspired by an interview that I heard with Stephen Fry, who I would imagine is familiar to most Americans. I don't know how to describe Stephen Fry. I think of him as a polymath because he's so clever at so many things, but he, in this interview that I listened to, was talking about a construct called Chesterton's Fence.

[00:21:01.52] And the idea of Chesterton's Fence is that if you see a standalone fence out in the middle of a field and you don't know why it's there, don't go and knock it down, ask questions, find out why it's there, assume that somebody put it there for a good reason in the first place. And I think that kind of first order thinking wasn't applied, in fact, in the 1970s. Why are we teaching these things? We're teaching these things because most children don't pick them up to a sufficiently high standard left to their own devices.

[00:21:39.23] We didn't have David Geary's language around biologically primary and biologically secondary skills back in the 1970s, but we did have a sense before then that some things needed to be taught in order to be learned well. And so I think that was very convenient for a lot of stakeholders. And I think it continues to be convenient, and I think that continues to be why so many people have dug in and why so many education academics have dug in.

[00:22:11.73] And universities in Australia, I think, are pretty anxious about recommendations that have arisen from our most recent inquiry or review of teacher initial education, which is saying this content needs to be there. And of course, most universities don't have staff with the knowledge and skills. This is not something that can be done overnight, any more than we can backfill the knowledge and skills of an entire teaching workforce overnight

[00:22:47.97] PETER DEWITT: I mean, I've worked with John Hattie over the past years, for many years. And two the questions that I always-- when I'm coaching leaders or I'm running workshops, two of the questions are, how is this going to have a positive impact on student learning? And how are we going to evaluate our own impact? And that's for everyone, whether we're talking about teachers, or leaders, or me as somebody who's facilitating workshops and doing coaching.

[00:23:12.39] I like Stephen Fry's analogy about the fence because I think that's really a brilliant one. Why are we doing what we're doing? And Tanya who is my co-host and producer of the podcast, who's also my editor, we worked on a book last year De-implementation-- Creating the Space to Focus on What Works. And one of the things that we talked about is overimplementation-- thin content, nice packaging. And I think that it goes back to me when you said I don't want to offend anyone. I think that's the problem, is that-- I mean, your blog is brilliant. I was--

[00:23:51.03] PAMELA SNOW: I'm sure my blog does offend.

[00:23:52.95] PETER DEWITT: Yeah. I was-- I like it, though. I was reading it this morning. It's not a matter of whether I like. It's an important blog that you're writing because you do pose questions that will get people to think, and I think that that's really important. But it does go back to the offending. We're so worried about not offending someone that we've actually engaged in educational malpractice on this journey because you're right.

[00:24:19.77] To me, it also goes back to when I asked you to give some background. This is a human right that we're making decisions to say, well, you deserve to have it, you don't deserve to have it, or you don't get it, and I'd like to help you, but whatever. So I mean, I think those things that you just talked about weave into this conversation really well. And we need to do more of that questioning of education as opposed to just being teachers and leaders who go in and follow the book and don't question what it is that we're doing.

[00:24:56.19] When you think about how to move forward, what are some of the things that you think would be important for listeners to know when it comes to-- with all of your experience and the issues that you've spoken about so far in the podcast, how do you feel that-- what do you think that people need in order to move forward?

[00:25:21.97] PAMELA SNOW: Hmm, that's a very good question. I sometimes say, Peter, that when teachers and schools are seriously considering a change, a transformation in their approach to reading instruction, that-- the analogy that comes to mind for me is the advice that we all get when we're on an airplane and we're told in an emergency-- if we have to evacuate, we have to leave everything behind.

[00:25:53.37] And I think that applies pretty largely to changing practice in this space. The only thing that we can hang on to is our desire and commitment to all children being proficient readers, writers, and spellers. I think everybody does genuinely want that to be the outcome, but we have to be prepared at some point to-- now, this might be a product name, this expression that I'm going to use. In Australia, we say rip the Band-Aid off.

[00:26:29.35] PETER DEWITT: Yes, Yes. I know that very well.

[00:26:31.17] PAMELA SNOW: You know what I mean? Yeah. So we have to make some hard decisions. Politically, that needs to have bipartisan support, but we need to be data-driven and we need to understand that learning is a product of teaching. If we go back to the idea of school being a public health intervention, what happens in the classrooms is really one of the few things that the grown ups get to, for one of a better word, control in children's lives.

[00:27:09.82] We don't get much control over what happens in their homes-- the way that they're interacted with, the amount of screen time, the amount of text exposure, the complexity of the conversation, the opportunities that they have to visit museums and other cultural places that build background knowledge and vocabulary.

[00:27:32.26] That's all almost impossible to directly influence, what happens in the home. The intervention levers that we can pull are what happens when children are in classrooms. And I think we need to have a serious conversation about valuing children's time in the same way that big corporations value the time of their senior executives. Look at the dollar value we put on CEOs. We should be putting that same dollar value on the time of children because a five-year-old who has half of their day effectively wasted doesn't get that time back again. That's just gone.

[00:28:16.54] We have to be building sequentially and incrementally so that we're investing in children's futures, not just patting ourselves on the back for keeping children busy doing things that adults find pleasing, and engaging, and aesthetically appealing. So it's not about the needs of the adults, it's about the needs of the children. That said, I think if we really rolled up our sleeves and took a different approach to reading instruction, it would be a game changer for the professional standing of teaching as a profession because at the moment, the message to teachers is some version of, well, you do what you think is best. You know your children best. You know your class best. You understand their home contexts and so forth.

[00:29:12.31] And of course, that's important, but we don't say to doctors and nurses, well, you know your patients best, so you give this person an ECG when they come into the emergency room with chest pain if you think that would be a good thing, but otherwise, don't worry about it. I often point out the paradox of the fact that the professions that we hold in very high esteem, in your society and mine, are ones that actually operate within very narrow parameters and who make their daily decisions according to checklists and processes that have been synthesized from high quality evidence.

[00:30:03.19] So pilots don't develop their own safety checklists, they use checklists that are provided to them by the aviation industry and that are updated and changed from time to time. And they're not told do the bits of this that you like or that you're familiar with. They're trained and they have to do continuous professional learning and show proficiency in using all aspects of the safety checklist. And we hold pilots in high esteem. They work within very narrow parameters as do doctors, psychologists, nurses, engineers.

[00:30:42.19] I think it would be tremendously beneficial for teachers to be given a highly specialized body of knowledge about the science of learning, the science of reading, as two big broad examples. Now, they're bodies of knowledge. They're not pedagogies. They're are pedagogies that come out of those bodies of knowledge and that-- and practice needs to evolve over time. But professionals are people who know things that other people don't know. And I'm not sure right now that when people graduate from university with a teaching degree that they have enough specialized knowledge that other people don't have.

[00:31:24.98] PETER DEWITT: Yeah. And that is so beautifully said because it also goes back to the responsibility piece that you were referring to earlier because you said bipartisan support. And when I think of politicians in the United States, the last thing they're doing is bipartisan support on education. They're bashing education.

[00:31:44.66] But also, I think about educators who don't think they need to be professionally developed and go to professional learning. So there's a lot of responsibility on the part of all of us. But I want to thank you because there's so many things you said that will give listeners-- they're going to pause, and they're definitely going to be listening to this podcast again, I think, because there are so many nuggets of information that you have provided, and I enjoy in which the way that you say it.

[00:32:16.67] So I think people definitely need to check out The Snow Report because I really enjoyed not just the content, but how you frame the content is very important. So Pam Snow, thank you for being on the Leaders Coaching Leaders podcast.

[00:32:31.34] PAMELA SNOW: Well, thank you so much, Peter. It's been lovely to chat with you. Enjoy your day. And thank you to Tanya as well.

[00:32:38.78] PETER DEWITT: Yes, enjoy your evening.

[00:32:40.32] PAMELA SNOW: Thank you.

[00:32:41.08] [MUSIC PLAYING]

[00:32:44.97] PETER DEWITT: So Tanya, that to me-- in the podcast, I think I said something for the first time that I have-- not that I don't want people to relisten to podcasts. And I know they do because they talk to me about that all the time. But this is a podcast interview that I'm going to listen to more than once because she has so many nuggets of wisdom that she talks about that are based in research. And I just-- the way-- I enjoy the way that she presents it as well.

[00:33:14.76] It's a very difficult topic. It's a well-nuanced topic. And I think she does a really good job of weaving you through all of those nuances where you're kind of thinking of oh, you know, that makes sense to me. I need to learn more about that. It was just-- I really enjoyed this interview.

[00:33:34.41] TANYA GHANS: Yeah. She said a couple of things that stand out. One, I'm going to be seeing Chesterton's Fences everywhere.

[00:33:42.72] PETER DEWITT: Yes.

[00:33:43.54] PAMELA SNOW: It's the third time I've actually bumped into that analogy, or way of framing, or thinking about how we should or should not move through the world. And this one is making it stick. And that's just the idea of you just-- and you can't throw out things that you don't understand. You must first understand them before you decide to jettison them.

[00:34:04.12] And I think going back to your earlier point about we're all maybe guilty of being in some kind of cult-like thinking, so that whatever side you're on for this, don't make the Chesterton's Fence mistake yourself. Don't think the answer is to get rid-- because everything has probably some grain of value to it which is why it lasts and it sticks as long as it does. So even for balanced literacy, if it's been popular for decades, there's something in there that made people-- that made it resonate with people. And there's probably something there that we don't want to throw out. So that's one thing that stood out with me.

[00:34:44.38] The other piece was just-- we always talk about wanting to treat teachers as professionals, we want them to be treated as professionals, and we will lament that they're not, but when she starts to outline how really well-revered professionals are treated in many societies-- pilot is one that she mentioned. She's like they have such tight parameters of what it is that they're supposed to do, and they're really held tightly to those standards, that they don't think that they can bring in their own ideas of what they think could work because they understand that these things must be tested because so much is at stake. And that we may not see that when we're in a classroom because we can't veer into a mountain if we get it wrong, but the stakes are actually just as large if we don't get it right.

[00:35:31.36] PETER DEWITT: Yeah. And as somebody who flies a lot--

[00:35:35.23] TANYA GHANS: You want your pilots--

[00:35:36.34] PETER DEWITT: [INAUDIBLE] saying, hey, you know what? I think I'm going to try it this way today. And as much as I might get frustrated when they say we have a mechanical issue and you're delayed or canceled, it's a whole lot better than when you find that up in the air, right?

[00:35:50.11] TANYA GHANS: Whole lot better. Whole lot better. And so that level of respect-- and think it's the same kind of work that gets done in schools, or should get done. It's just the immediacy of the breakdown is not felt the same way.

[00:36:03.11] So yeah, how do we help bring that to people's attention when it comes to this work? Because our children are relying on us. They don't really have a say. As much as we like the idea of voice, how can they voice it at five, six, and seven? They don't have the words to share with us yet. So--

[00:36:19.18] PETER DEWITT: And maybe that's part of what she's saying, too, is that part of this is to actually properly teach those students to have that voice and want to share. I think that where I'm going to end is just say it's a public health issue.

[00:36:37.67] TANYA GHANS: It's a public health issue. Agreed.

[00:36:40.72] PETER DEWITT: I want to thank everybody for listening. Please give us our feedback. Tanya, I still-- I continue to get tweets I continue to have people at workshops come up to me to talk about how much they enjoy the podcast and our guests. So this was a really good one. Good choice on your part. So thank you for bringing Pam Snow onto the Leaders Coaching Leaders podcast.

[00:37:07.51] TANYA GHANS: Yeah. I mean, together, we make one heck of a team. So look forward to seeing what we learn about next time. Please like us, subscribe, share, all of that stuff. Give us feedback wherever you're able to. We'd really appreciate it because we want to make sure we're bringing you the kind of content that you need.

[00:37:23.50] PETER DEWITT: Yeah. All right, Tanya. Always good to see you.

[00:37:25.87] TANYA GHANS: See you next time, Peter.

[00:37:26.83] [MUSIC PLAYING]