The Professional Development Center at Eagle Rock School has been working through networks and organizations, bringing together schools in large numbers who are working with disenfranchised youth. We see General Powell's Grad Nation campaign as part of the mission we have been working on for the past 17 years.
Read more at Eagle Rock School and Professional Development Center for the role we play.
Showing posts with label strategy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label strategy. Show all posts
Thursday, March 04, 2010
Monday, March 01, 2010
Anger, Blame and Organizational Priorities
In a previous post, I mentioned two educators who widely share their materials on quality professional development. Their blogs show off some nice clips of their own professional development sessions. Meanwhile, I still have photos on my digital camera because I'm not sure how to download them onto my computer (more importantly, I'm never sure where these photos go when I download them or how to manage the files into logical categories). You will notice no nice clips on this blog. Using and integrating technology is not my area of expertise and I'm not always clear on how to direct my own learning in this area.
Recently, I filmed our instructors teaching lessons and wanted to post the video on a school server for other teachers to view. I spent hours one weekend trying to transfer the film from a camera to my laptop and then trying to move that clip to the server. These were hours confronting the difference between compressed and uncompressed film and learning that my conversions to Quick Time only pick up what is in my project library in iMovie. I couldn't transfer film to the server and didn't know how to manipulate the film I was importing. I wanted to toss the camera and laptop in the nearest trash bin, as I experienced the equivalent of road rage.
I wish I had been more reflective in that moment and thought -- "hey, it's my fault trying to do something on the weekend when no one is around to help and I probably should have listened better or taken better notes when I was instructed on how to do all this." Oh...how those opportunities to reflect just go whooshing by. Instead, I ranted. I sent an email to a colleague complaining about the lack of technology support.
My wise and thoughtful colleague replied, "I'm sure that we all have a perspective on something that could/should work better. I guess the trick is continuing to explore those things with an eye toward the overall priorities. Some things will rise in importance and some we'll just have to live with as is. I do think that in the absence of any guiding principles with regard to organizational priorities, any one of us can become consumed with our own perspective."
He got me thinking about how any one who is experiencing any problem at any time could be prone, as I was, to wondering how others could improve. We operate always and automatically from our own self-interests and forget about the needs of others. How many teachers are teaching right now while I'm composing this blog wishing that I or my department were in their classroom helping them with their instruction, taking more time to provide feedback on their lesson plans or working on their behalf to gather resources they need to teach? I am learning to be more patient in getting my own needs met as well as empathetic about what others need.
Another point raised in my colleague's response, is that some of the frustration could be mitigated if we were all clearer on organizational priorities. That way we would know what is on the horizon for planned improvement and how we were all playing a part.
Recently, I filmed our instructors teaching lessons and wanted to post the video on a school server for other teachers to view. I spent hours one weekend trying to transfer the film from a camera to my laptop and then trying to move that clip to the server. These were hours confronting the difference between compressed and uncompressed film and learning that my conversions to Quick Time only pick up what is in my project library in iMovie. I couldn't transfer film to the server and didn't know how to manipulate the film I was importing. I wanted to toss the camera and laptop in the nearest trash bin, as I experienced the equivalent of road rage.
I wish I had been more reflective in that moment and thought -- "hey, it's my fault trying to do something on the weekend when no one is around to help and I probably should have listened better or taken better notes when I was instructed on how to do all this." Oh...how those opportunities to reflect just go whooshing by. Instead, I ranted. I sent an email to a colleague complaining about the lack of technology support.
My wise and thoughtful colleague replied, "I'm sure that we all have a perspective on something that could/should work better. I guess the trick is continuing to explore those things with an eye toward the overall priorities. Some things will rise in importance and some we'll just have to live with as is. I do think that in the absence of any guiding principles with regard to organizational priorities, any one of us can become consumed with our own perspective."
He got me thinking about how any one who is experiencing any problem at any time could be prone, as I was, to wondering how others could improve. We operate always and automatically from our own self-interests and forget about the needs of others. How many teachers are teaching right now while I'm composing this blog wishing that I or my department were in their classroom helping them with their instruction, taking more time to provide feedback on their lesson plans or working on their behalf to gather resources they need to teach? I am learning to be more patient in getting my own needs met as well as empathetic about what others need.
Another point raised in my colleague's response, is that some of the frustration could be mitigated if we were all clearer on organizational priorities. That way we would know what is on the horizon for planned improvement and how we were all playing a part.
Friday, June 05, 2009
Fulfilling on vision for PDC effectiveness
The Eagle Rock Professional Development Center is working on behalf of Big Picture to support improvement, reflecting and ongoing learning. We will also be supporting the professional development and support of principals in the network. One of our first events was preceded by visits to the Bronx Guild, Mapleton Early College and Highline. Folks at the three sites agreed that it would be worthwhile to do some focused work on the academic quality of LTI projects. Collectively we designed an event that eventually attracted participants from Liberty and East Bay. Staff from the five schools met at Eagle Rock from Sun, May 31 to Tue, Jun 2 to conduct an assets-based study of various LTI projects that had yielded positive academic results. We used protocols throughout the 2 days to study our most successful work, develop action plans to implement at our home sites and envision a future where these plans were successfully implemented. The sequence of work will culminate with on-site follow up from the Professional Development Center.
This experience has also inspired some possible plans to conduct similar events on a regional basis. Participants left with the following to say...
"As a first year advisor, it was great to talk to other people who were doing the same work especially in a context that was so focused and well thought out." Ed Kessler, advisor, Highline
"This has been the most productive professional development day I have experienced in my time at the Met" David Cass, 11th gr. advisor, Liberty
"The conference energized me, taught me about best practices at other schools, and gave me time to develop a plan to implrement change at my school." Ben Schneider, advisor, Mapleton Early College
"I have a renewed focus on project depth, creative new ideas about how to bring it about, and an awakened memory of what I know works. The asset-based approach was a great paradigm shift for me." Arthur Baraf, Principal, Liberty
This experience has also inspired some possible plans to conduct similar events on a regional basis. Participants left with the following to say...
"As a first year advisor, it was great to talk to other people who were doing the same work especially in a context that was so focused and well thought out." Ed Kessler, advisor, Highline
"This has been the most productive professional development day I have experienced in my time at the Met" David Cass, 11th gr. advisor, Liberty
"The conference energized me, taught me about best practices at other schools, and gave me time to develop a plan to implrement change at my school." Ben Schneider, advisor, Mapleton Early College
"I have a renewed focus on project depth, creative new ideas about how to bring it about, and an awakened memory of what I know works. The asset-based approach was a great paradigm shift for me." Arthur Baraf, Principal, Liberty
Saturday, March 07, 2009
PDC Work - part 2
A few ideas I want to weave into the strategic stance I drafted in the last post.
1 - Sustained contact time on a single focus spread over time Consistent with a recent report titled "Professional Learning in the Learning Profession," our professional development center would emphasize choosing a focus, working together with a school for at least 50 hours and spread out over 6-12 months.
2 - People on the ground have the capacity to invent their own solutions This falls under our assets based approach. However, I think there are so many specific elements to the assets based approach that it warrants listing them out. The last post listed the concept of "positive deviance" and now we have the belief in the capacity of people to invent their own solutions. More can also be written on the "strengths based" movement, positive psychology, growth mindset, appreciative inquiry and learned optimism.
3 - Building teams in this work is a high leverage point More brains are better than one and only different perspectives can really produce new knowledge.
4 - Whatever theory or concept we are working on, it must be grounded in the work produced at the site Studying student work together or videotaping teacher practice provides the reality test when we are discussing more abstract concepts of differentiation, scaffolding, or project based learning. It takes far more disciplined energy to keep returning to our work than it does to have abstract debates on what works best for students. Our approach is more empirical.
1 - Sustained contact time on a single focus spread over time Consistent with a recent report titled "Professional Learning in the Learning Profession," our professional development center would emphasize choosing a focus, working together with a school for at least 50 hours and spread out over 6-12 months.
2 - People on the ground have the capacity to invent their own solutions This falls under our assets based approach. However, I think there are so many specific elements to the assets based approach that it warrants listing them out. The last post listed the concept of "positive deviance" and now we have the belief in the capacity of people to invent their own solutions. More can also be written on the "strengths based" movement, positive psychology, growth mindset, appreciative inquiry and learned optimism.
3 - Building teams in this work is a high leverage point More brains are better than one and only different perspectives can really produce new knowledge.
4 - Whatever theory or concept we are working on, it must be grounded in the work produced at the site Studying student work together or videotaping teacher practice provides the reality test when we are discussing more abstract concepts of differentiation, scaffolding, or project based learning. It takes far more disciplined energy to keep returning to our work than it does to have abstract debates on what works best for students. Our approach is more empirical.
Friday, March 06, 2009
Professional Development Center work
I'm drafting some ideas for how to best describe the strategy for The Professional Development Center at Eagle Rock School. Here's what I've got so far.
Guiding principles: Assets based and actionable. We begin from a place of working with schools and organizations from the stance that they already have all they need to move closer to their vision. They may need someone like us to unearth their assets and identify signs of positive deviance. Further, we are strict about turning any insights into actions. We provide clear descriptions of what the folks in an organization must do rather than just describe outcomes.
Given these principles, we engage in the following strategies.
1 – We choose to work with strategic partners. These are organizations that have a highly developed infrastructure for working (a) with small public schools and (b) directly addressing issues of high school drop out rate and secondary school experience for the kinds of students we work with at Eagle Rock School. Amongst our current partners are The Coalition of Essential Schools (CES), Alternative High School Initiative (AHSI) and the League of Democratic Schools (LoDS).
3- We partner strategically with technical assistance providers like PEBC and Buck Institute. They offer to either train us in their professional development or have us cofacilitate their work. That enables us to deliver our work having had the benefit of their high quality approach -- builds our capacity as trainers, adds value to ERS and adds values to the schools we work with. We are low to no-cost help to them as needed facilitators and we, in turn, learn from their work which is in high demand due to their quality and reputation.
3 – We are using our capacity to host visitors at our school site more effectively by working with fewer schools with whom we can conduct follow up visits. We combine the retreat nature created here while remaining embedded in a school environment. Our follow up visits to their school sites supports the needed contextualizing.
I will continue to flesh out these thoughts and develop a fuller strategy document.
Guiding principles: Assets based and actionable. We begin from a place of working with schools and organizations from the stance that they already have all they need to move closer to their vision. They may need someone like us to unearth their assets and identify signs of positive deviance. Further, we are strict about turning any insights into actions. We provide clear descriptions of what the folks in an organization must do rather than just describe outcomes.
Given these principles, we engage in the following strategies.
1 – We choose to work with strategic partners. These are organizations that have a highly developed infrastructure for working (a) with small public schools and (b) directly addressing issues of high school drop out rate and secondary school experience for the kinds of students we work with at Eagle Rock School. Amongst our current partners are The Coalition of Essential Schools (CES), Alternative High School Initiative (AHSI) and the League of Democratic Schools (LoDS).
3- We partner strategically with technical assistance providers like PEBC and Buck Institute. They offer to either train us in their professional development or have us cofacilitate their work. That enables us to deliver our work having had the benefit of their high quality approach -- builds our capacity as trainers, adds value to ERS and adds values to the schools we work with. We are low to no-cost help to them as needed facilitators and we, in turn, learn from their work which is in high demand due to their quality and reputation.
3 – We are using our capacity to host visitors at our school site more effectively by working with fewer schools with whom we can conduct follow up visits. We combine the retreat nature created here while remaining embedded in a school environment. Our follow up visits to their school sites supports the needed contextualizing.
I will continue to flesh out these thoughts and develop a fuller strategy document.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Making Change Stick: Steps
My newest version of presenting steps to change. I'll annotate each step at another time. This is what I've come up with after combining my experience with work by John Kotter, David Allen and the Vital Smarts folks who wrote Influencer. Wisdom of Teams also has a minor influence.
Making Change Stick Steps
Precondition: Establish champion, leadership
1 – Identify the dilemma
2- Focus on the desired behavior
3 – Create a project built around bringing that desired behavior into practice.
4 – Involve others (establish a team and invite community feedback)
5 – Establish boundaries
Making Change Stick Steps
Precondition: Establish champion, leadership
1 – Identify the dilemma
2- Focus on the desired behavior
3 – Create a project built around bringing that desired behavior into practice.
4 – Involve others (establish a team and invite community feedback)
5 – Establish boundaries
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Roles in life - The Value of Inputs
At Eagle Rock, we have houseparents who live in a house connected to residences for up to 16 students. Over time, I have heard houseparents struggle with how well they are doing. It caused me to wonder, how does a houseparent assess how well they are doing? It got me thinking about "roles" in life like being a father or husband. How do I assess myself in those areas. These are notes from a one-hour meeting I facilitated presenting my ideas on some answers to these questions.
Definitions
• A role is a relationship to others or something (like your finances) that you choose to maintain to a particular standard and according to a set of values. It’s never complete.
• A project is an outcome that can eventually be checked off as “done.” It takes more than one action to complete.
When confronted with work, you have to ask yourself, “Is this something I can check off as done” or “Is this something I have to manage?” If the latter (i.e., relationships, fitness, houseparenting) then that role comes with certain qualities. Misinterpreting those qualities or characteristics causes problems.
Qualities of a role:
1) You will always think there is more to do than you can possibly do – use this thought as a signal that you are in a role rather than as a signal that “something’s wrong.”
2) You will either never feel you are good enough or if you do sustain some sense of accomplishment, it will be punctuated by self-doubt from time to time – another signal that you are in a role.
3) Because of first two you will alternate between beating yourself up and blaming some 3rd party {both are versions of “blame” and escaping personal responsibility – even “beating yourself up” is a form of taking evasive action and not putting yourself in the driver’s seat}
4) With a role, boundary issues will emerge –
(a) boundary you need to put up between yourself & others AND
(b) boundary between our imagination of what we think we can do and what we realistically do (not thinking that we can actually meet ALL of our students needs, we would hope that we behave in such a way that our actions correlate to students getting what they need).
What follows are three ways to “measure” yourself. Some are more useful than others. Some cause harm when used inappropriately.
Attitudinal –(self-talk and "I’m being" statements) I’m open, I’m available, I could probably be doing more.
If a positive attitudinal desire helps to suggest some things you can do (see inputs), then attitudinal thoughts can be useful. However, if you are referencing these attitudinal statements to judge yourself (i.e., I want to be available but I’m not) then you are using an inappropriate measure. You will never be “good enough.”
Outputs – It’s totally appropriate to assess an organization or system on outputs: educating, serving or graduating students. It is even appropriate to assess yourself over the long haul and see that more or less, you have made a positive difference. However, in the short term and with individual events, this is also an inappropriate measure of your effectiveness. This is a boundary issue. You have only so much control over what a student does in the next day or so. You are not responsible for a choice some student made to leave the school.
Inputs- (things you are doing, actions you are taking) Inputs are what you do based on some theory of action you hold. For example, I will check in with my advisees once a week outside of advisory because I think that this establishes relationships better than only talking during advisory. That in turn will make it more likely that the student will stay in school.
So, the input becomes “one check-in per week outside of advisory.” Or in our houses, “I will open the door three times a week so students can come use the kitchen.”
It is these inputs that one should look at and ask, am I staying true to my commitments? Have I kept my word? If yes, then you are doing well in your role. If it turns out that students are not learning or they don’t stay in school, this is a failure of your theory of action, not you. Once you review the outputs, reflect and adjust. Commit to new and different actions based on your learning.
The world of inputs and what we can do with it
1. Sharing common practices provides new ideas for inputs. If you like what someone else is doing, adopt it as a practice. Use your colleagues as assets who have already been successful with some practice (i.e. putting out a newsletter).
2. Sharing your input commitments with fellow houseparents and with house team can create support and accountability groups around inputs.
3. Sharing input commitments with others (ie., supervisors) provides information for targeted training and professional development. It is much easier to figure out what houseparents need if their practices are shared rather than make some vague request for training and support.
All the above reflects real early thinking on the subject. As I apply these ideas more explicitly, I imagine some of my thinking on this will evolve.
Definitions
• A role is a relationship to others or something (like your finances) that you choose to maintain to a particular standard and according to a set of values. It’s never complete.
• A project is an outcome that can eventually be checked off as “done.” It takes more than one action to complete.
When confronted with work, you have to ask yourself, “Is this something I can check off as done” or “Is this something I have to manage?” If the latter (i.e., relationships, fitness, houseparenting) then that role comes with certain qualities. Misinterpreting those qualities or characteristics causes problems.
Qualities of a role:
1) You will always think there is more to do than you can possibly do – use this thought as a signal that you are in a role rather than as a signal that “something’s wrong.”
2) You will either never feel you are good enough or if you do sustain some sense of accomplishment, it will be punctuated by self-doubt from time to time – another signal that you are in a role.
3) Because of first two you will alternate between beating yourself up and blaming some 3rd party {both are versions of “blame” and escaping personal responsibility – even “beating yourself up” is a form of taking evasive action and not putting yourself in the driver’s seat}
4) With a role, boundary issues will emerge –
(a) boundary you need to put up between yourself & others AND
(b) boundary between our imagination of what we think we can do and what we realistically do (not thinking that we can actually meet ALL of our students needs, we would hope that we behave in such a way that our actions correlate to students getting what they need).
What follows are three ways to “measure” yourself. Some are more useful than others. Some cause harm when used inappropriately.
Attitudinal –(self-talk and "I’m being" statements) I’m open, I’m available, I could probably be doing more.
If a positive attitudinal desire helps to suggest some things you can do (see inputs), then attitudinal thoughts can be useful. However, if you are referencing these attitudinal statements to judge yourself (i.e., I want to be available but I’m not) then you are using an inappropriate measure. You will never be “good enough.”
Outputs – It’s totally appropriate to assess an organization or system on outputs: educating, serving or graduating students. It is even appropriate to assess yourself over the long haul and see that more or less, you have made a positive difference. However, in the short term and with individual events, this is also an inappropriate measure of your effectiveness. This is a boundary issue. You have only so much control over what a student does in the next day or so. You are not responsible for a choice some student made to leave the school.
Inputs- (things you are doing, actions you are taking) Inputs are what you do based on some theory of action you hold. For example, I will check in with my advisees once a week outside of advisory because I think that this establishes relationships better than only talking during advisory. That in turn will make it more likely that the student will stay in school.
So, the input becomes “one check-in per week outside of advisory.” Or in our houses, “I will open the door three times a week so students can come use the kitchen.”
It is these inputs that one should look at and ask, am I staying true to my commitments? Have I kept my word? If yes, then you are doing well in your role. If it turns out that students are not learning or they don’t stay in school, this is a failure of your theory of action, not you. Once you review the outputs, reflect and adjust. Commit to new and different actions based on your learning.
The world of inputs and what we can do with it
1. Sharing common practices provides new ideas for inputs. If you like what someone else is doing, adopt it as a practice. Use your colleagues as assets who have already been successful with some practice (i.e. putting out a newsletter).
2. Sharing your input commitments with fellow houseparents and with house team can create support and accountability groups around inputs.
3. Sharing input commitments with others (ie., supervisors) provides information for targeted training and professional development. It is much easier to figure out what houseparents need if their practices are shared rather than make some vague request for training and support.
All the above reflects real early thinking on the subject. As I apply these ideas more explicitly, I imagine some of my thinking on this will evolve.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Technical decisions provoke adaptive work
From Heifetz: “…with adaptive problems [complex, not solved via some technical fix], authority must look beyond authoritative solutions. [However] authoritative action may usefully provoke debate, rethinking, and other processes of social learning, …then it becomes a tool in a strategy to mobilize adaptive work toward a solution , rather than a direct means to institute one.”
There is an earlier blog post (Feb, 2005) where I describe instituting 4 authoritative fixes at the Bronx Guild: use of learning plans, grids, conferring with students and mentor meetings. The idea at the time was not necessarily that I had the correct solution and that faithful implementation of these measures would bring success. Rather, they were provocations. There was complacency around certain practices like tracking student progress or engaging with mentors. Perhaps these measures would help. However, certainly they would spur reactions. Folks who had a difference of opinion on the matter were now motivated to push back and come up with alternates solutions. New conversations were held that were not being held before. Dialogue, problem solving, creating new knowledge, and action were provoked.
Here at ERS, the authoritative "fix" of instituting a process for curriculum guide revision is of the same nature. Simply presenting the process has surfaced all kinds of feelings amongst staff: some love it, some feel discounted, others have alternative ideas. Could not have asked for better than this. It forces us to have these conversations: how can we include you more, what role will you play in the future of the school, what other ideas do you have? These are the conversations that need to happen.
There is an earlier blog post (Feb, 2005) where I describe instituting 4 authoritative fixes at the Bronx Guild: use of learning plans, grids, conferring with students and mentor meetings. The idea at the time was not necessarily that I had the correct solution and that faithful implementation of these measures would bring success. Rather, they were provocations. There was complacency around certain practices like tracking student progress or engaging with mentors. Perhaps these measures would help. However, certainly they would spur reactions. Folks who had a difference of opinion on the matter were now motivated to push back and come up with alternates solutions. New conversations were held that were not being held before. Dialogue, problem solving, creating new knowledge, and action were provoked.
Here at ERS, the authoritative "fix" of instituting a process for curriculum guide revision is of the same nature. Simply presenting the process has surfaced all kinds of feelings amongst staff: some love it, some feel discounted, others have alternative ideas. Could not have asked for better than this. It forces us to have these conversations: how can we include you more, what role will you play in the future of the school, what other ideas do you have? These are the conversations that need to happen.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Results of Assets Based House Focus Experience
I facilitated an assets mapping experience with those interested in working on improving the living village through houseparent orientation and houseparent staff development. This is the summary of that experience.
1.Asset Mapping for What
We want to establish some way to orient houseparents. Through developing an approach to orientation, we hope to develop ourselves. We have no idea yet what should be included in the orientation nor what form it should take. Now's the time we're going to look at what the assets suggest.
18 staff freely chose to work in this group today. All are on house teams and all 6 houses were represented. Only one house did not have its houseparents in attendance.
Rather than allow them to self-select smaller groups based on affinity, I had them count-off to create four groups. I wanted to increase the chances folks would connect with new folks and new assets.
2.Debriefing
I introduced the entire agenda and provided context for why I had decided to use this exercise when thinking about how to best help houseparents and think of orienting houseparents in the future. At this point, I had a couple of people who didn't understand why we were talking about assets. N. asked, “I don't see how this has any relevance to houseparents.” However, the majority seemed to either understand or be willing to go along with the activity.
Recognizing Our Assets
I used prompts from the following categories: individual, physical, associations, organizational (in place of institutional) and resources (in place of economic). I also made the final prompt a version of the “needs transformation” exercise. Had them think of needs and modeled finding the asset at the core of that need.
Approximately 200 assets were generated and posted on walls. The space wasn't great. Lots of furniture in the way of walls. People actually got on chairs and taped some assets to the ceiling. Others interesting spaces included podiums, windows, and a piano.
Connecting the Dots
Some confusion – J. asked, “Is this specifically for houseparents or can it include students?” My struggle here was trying to avoid censoring while maintaining some generally connecting towards the target of houseparent staff development and orientation.
One thing I think I did well here was use an example of something that has already happened at the school that was already an example of connecting assets: Current Events class on Saturday connected with the Science teacher = Science based current events that lead to meeting graduation requirements. The person was in the room who had thought of that, so I thought it made the connecting real. I also pulled together two random assets and asked folks to brainstorm an action. Classic Rock knowledge + Resiliency Skills teaching = putting a band together with resiliency lessons woven into meetings.
20 minutes later 14 actions had been generated. Tough to see them because they were somewhat buried within a sea of 200 other sheets of paper. I promoted noting where things were during the report out.
Here my only concern was that some of the actions were less within the locus of control of those suggesting them. For example: assets were that three different groups of people live on campus. These were connected to the action: “more staff presence in the houses.” When questioned, it seemed that they were thinking we “should” have more staff presence given these assets rather than “I want to take action on being more present since I live on campus.” I thought this was worth redirecting to what was within their control. I had to do that two or three times.
Another comment was “It's almost like these directions are limiting. I see one asset and it stimulates many ideas but I don't know what to connect it with.” I suggested that the participant share his idea with the small group and see if they could make any connections or suggestions.
Voting with your feet
With direction, folks moved to 5 actions out of the 14. Some actions were combined.
Some asked, “what if I can't decide or I want to do more than one?” I said for now just pick the most engaging and we'll revisit this work in the future.
While everyone moved into actions, I didn't feel there was the kind of energy described in the consultant's journal on p. 24: “...people would come out of the ...experience smiling, laughing, and bursting with new energy.” This did not happen. It was more slow movement to actions, some low level buzz of conversation. Nothing negative but definitely not what I would call uplifting.
Debriefing the experience
I asked (1) taken together, can you imagine the contribution these 5 actions will make to the houseparent body, (2) what do you need next and (3) what feedback do you have about the process itself?
About a two-thirds of the comments were “creative, liked it, good starting points, can imagine benefits, etc.” The remaining third were split between, “when will we do this or how will we do this” and “I'm confused...why did we do this?”
3.Readiness for next steps
I think EVERYTHING that follows depends very much on my ability and follow through to support the actions suggested. I feel like I need to find time in the schedule for the action groups. I also think I need to help some get clarity on how these actions are tied to the support of houseparents. As I've mentioned before in other threads, I did a full day Appreciative Inquiry Summit with design groups generated and no one ever met again after that day.
How do I best support follow through?
1.Asset Mapping for What
We want to establish some way to orient houseparents. Through developing an approach to orientation, we hope to develop ourselves. We have no idea yet what should be included in the orientation nor what form it should take. Now's the time we're going to look at what the assets suggest.
18 staff freely chose to work in this group today. All are on house teams and all 6 houses were represented. Only one house did not have its houseparents in attendance.
Rather than allow them to self-select smaller groups based on affinity, I had them count-off to create four groups. I wanted to increase the chances folks would connect with new folks and new assets.
2.Debriefing
I introduced the entire agenda and provided context for why I had decided to use this exercise when thinking about how to best help houseparents and think of orienting houseparents in the future. At this point, I had a couple of people who didn't understand why we were talking about assets. N. asked, “I don't see how this has any relevance to houseparents.” However, the majority seemed to either understand or be willing to go along with the activity.
Recognizing Our Assets
I used prompts from the following categories: individual, physical, associations, organizational (in place of institutional) and resources (in place of economic). I also made the final prompt a version of the “needs transformation” exercise. Had them think of needs and modeled finding the asset at the core of that need.
Approximately 200 assets were generated and posted on walls. The space wasn't great. Lots of furniture in the way of walls. People actually got on chairs and taped some assets to the ceiling. Others interesting spaces included podiums, windows, and a piano.
Connecting the Dots
Some confusion – J. asked, “Is this specifically for houseparents or can it include students?” My struggle here was trying to avoid censoring while maintaining some generally connecting towards the target of houseparent staff development and orientation.
One thing I think I did well here was use an example of something that has already happened at the school that was already an example of connecting assets: Current Events class on Saturday connected with the Science teacher = Science based current events that lead to meeting graduation requirements. The person was in the room who had thought of that, so I thought it made the connecting real. I also pulled together two random assets and asked folks to brainstorm an action. Classic Rock knowledge + Resiliency Skills teaching = putting a band together with resiliency lessons woven into meetings.
20 minutes later 14 actions had been generated. Tough to see them because they were somewhat buried within a sea of 200 other sheets of paper. I promoted noting where things were during the report out.
Here my only concern was that some of the actions were less within the locus of control of those suggesting them. For example: assets were that three different groups of people live on campus. These were connected to the action: “more staff presence in the houses.” When questioned, it seemed that they were thinking we “should” have more staff presence given these assets rather than “I want to take action on being more present since I live on campus.” I thought this was worth redirecting to what was within their control. I had to do that two or three times.
Another comment was “It's almost like these directions are limiting. I see one asset and it stimulates many ideas but I don't know what to connect it with.” I suggested that the participant share his idea with the small group and see if they could make any connections or suggestions.
Voting with your feet
With direction, folks moved to 5 actions out of the 14. Some actions were combined.
Some asked, “what if I can't decide or I want to do more than one?” I said for now just pick the most engaging and we'll revisit this work in the future.
While everyone moved into actions, I didn't feel there was the kind of energy described in the consultant's journal on p. 24: “...people would come out of the ...experience smiling, laughing, and bursting with new energy.” This did not happen. It was more slow movement to actions, some low level buzz of conversation. Nothing negative but definitely not what I would call uplifting.
Debriefing the experience
I asked (1) taken together, can you imagine the contribution these 5 actions will make to the houseparent body, (2) what do you need next and (3) what feedback do you have about the process itself?
About a two-thirds of the comments were “creative, liked it, good starting points, can imagine benefits, etc.” The remaining third were split between, “when will we do this or how will we do this” and “I'm confused...why did we do this?”
3.Readiness for next steps
I think EVERYTHING that follows depends very much on my ability and follow through to support the actions suggested. I feel like I need to find time in the schedule for the action groups. I also think I need to help some get clarity on how these actions are tied to the support of houseparents. As I've mentioned before in other threads, I did a full day Appreciative Inquiry Summit with design groups generated and no one ever met again after that day.
How do I best support follow through?
Monday, May 07, 2007
Hedgehog Implications
Does an ABCD Hedgehog mean we are going to spread our findings and produce resources – look at Northwestern ABCD Institute.
Mission of Assets Based Community Development Institute at Northwestern:
"Spread our findings on capacity-building community development in two ways: (1) through extensive and substantial interactions with community builders, and (2) by producing practical resources and tools for community builders to identify, nurture, and mobilize neighborhood assets."
I framed my work with Skyview through an ABCD lens. My strength was to script classes and then organize my notes in terms of what they wanted to work on: how to teach inquiry in an extended block of time (about 90 min). From my script I would find those elements of the block instruction that were strong. Everyone of my reports ends with Assets: What we can learn from this teacher. Over time, I will have observed every teacher and we will have mapped assets in terms of instruction. Then we would design PD -- probably a protocol -- based on the strengths analysis that would support their tapping into their local
knowledge and talent.
Sometimes Skyview and others have a need and ask us for direct answers on how to solve the problem. For example, they ask how to do POLs. With an ABCD lens, I'm less inclined to provide an answer "as expert" to address a deficit. Margrette did suggest ways we could still help with POLs from an assets based approach.
Michael
Mission of Assets Based Community Development Institute at Northwestern:
"Spread our findings on capacity-building community development in two ways: (1) through extensive and substantial interactions with community builders, and (2) by producing practical resources and tools for community builders to identify, nurture, and mobilize neighborhood assets."
I framed my work with Skyview through an ABCD lens. My strength was to script classes and then organize my notes in terms of what they wanted to work on: how to teach inquiry in an extended block of time (about 90 min). From my script I would find those elements of the block instruction that were strong. Everyone of my reports ends with Assets: What we can learn from this teacher. Over time, I will have observed every teacher and we will have mapped assets in terms of instruction. Then we would design PD -- probably a protocol -- based on the strengths analysis that would support their tapping into their local
knowledge and talent.
Sometimes Skyview and others have a need and ask us for direct answers on how to solve the problem. For example, they ask how to do POLs. With an ABCD lens, I'm less inclined to provide an answer "as expert" to address a deficit. Margrette did suggest ways we could still help with POLs from an assets based approach.
Michael
Friday, May 04, 2007
Themes Emerging for a Hedgehog
These are some themes that folks are noticing as we use ABCD or ABT (assets based thinking). These come from different conversations.
General focus on positiveness
Focus on specific assets people hold within the community.
ABCD seems to be about leveraging the specific assets within the community.
Generally interpreting it as a strengths based approach.
I wondered how an assets based approach can exist while we still address poor performance. My latest thinking is this: Yes, I acknowledge your strengths and I’ll help you leverage those strengths to meet all your performance expectations. But, there are no excuses to not meet performance expectations.
Michael
General focus on positiveness
Focus on specific assets people hold within the community.
ABCD seems to be about leveraging the specific assets within the community.
Generally interpreting it as a strengths based approach.
I wondered how an assets based approach can exist while we still address poor performance. My latest thinking is this: Yes, I acknowledge your strengths and I’ll help you leverage those strengths to meet all your performance expectations. But, there are no excuses to not meet performance expectations.
Michael
Friday, April 13, 2007
Hedgehog Concept: Reflection with Council
Hedgehog Council:
I cc'd or bcc'd you on the results of my meeting with Skyview because
it reflects my understanding of how our work might proceed with others
if we took an exclusive ABCD view.
I think if Eldon had asked that we come down and teach their teachers
how to do POLs, for example, I would have said no.
I said we could conduct observations of what they do and try to
capture the strengths and high points relative to their goal (block
instruction). Then we would develop some asset map: where can they
find the strengths within their own community.
Then we would design PD -- probably a protocol -- based on the
strengths analysis that would support their tapping into their local
knowledge and talent.
_______________
I'm wondering if this makes sense to you. I'm also wondering if you
have had any insights regarding using ABCD as our hedgehog concept?
I cc'd or bcc'd you on the results of my meeting with Skyview because
it reflects my understanding of how our work might proceed with others
if we took an exclusive ABCD view.
I think if Eldon had asked that we come down and teach their teachers
how to do POLs, for example, I would have said no.
I said we could conduct observations of what they do and try to
capture the strengths and high points relative to their goal (block
instruction). Then we would develop some asset map: where can they
find the strengths within their own community.
Then we would design PD -- probably a protocol -- based on the
strengths analysis that would support their tapping into their local
knowledge and talent.
_______________
I'm wondering if this makes sense to you. I'm also wondering if you
have had any insights regarding using ABCD as our hedgehog concept?
Skyview Work Plan: Applying the Hedgehog
Summary of our discussion today:
Skyview has identified "effective use of block instruction" as one of
your primary goals for next school year. Using an assets based
approach, Eagle Rock will spend 2 to 3 days at Skyview between now and
May 18th conducting observations and producing a strengths analysis.
With Skyview, we will codesign a PD session that is built upon the
strength analysis to be held on May 29th or May 30th. We will
schedule a follow up session to reflect upon the strengths analysis
and the PD session to plan for next steps for the 2007 school year.
You will confirm whether Apr. 24, May 4 and May 8 will work for
conducting the observations. We will try to coordinate the work with
Annie from PEBC.
You also mentioned wanting to visit Eagle Rock School over the summer
vacation. You can coordinate with Dan regarding whether or not there
are dates open for visits.
Skyview has identified "effective use of block instruction" as one of
your primary goals for next school year. Using an assets based
approach, Eagle Rock will spend 2 to 3 days at Skyview between now and
May 18th conducting observations and producing a strengths analysis.
With Skyview, we will codesign a PD session that is built upon the
strength analysis to be held on May 29th or May 30th. We will
schedule a follow up session to reflect upon the strengths analysis
and the PD session to plan for next steps for the 2007 school year.
You will confirm whether Apr. 24, May 4 and May 8 will work for
conducting the observations. We will try to coordinate the work with
Annie from PEBC.
You also mentioned wanting to visit Eagle Rock School over the summer
vacation. You can coordinate with Dan regarding whether or not there
are dates open for visits.
PDC Council creating a Hedgehog Concept
Our hedgehog was "We are the best at applying the lens of ABCD at Eagle Rock School." We agreed we would use this concept to reflect on our major activities until the end of Week 3 next trimester. We would consider what activities we might have eliminated, continued and new activities to begin but we were not obligated to take these actions....just journal and reflect. We are also paying attention to what it's like to live according to a hedgehog concept. What are the difficulties? the opportunities?
As I went through the day after our meeting, I journaled about 12 separate tasks I was involved in. I am finding myself asking the following question:
Are we focusing on how we can demonstrate to the world that we use an assets-based approach OR are we focusing on how we do use an assets-based approach for our own experience? OR both OR is it an overlap?
For example, one task was to meet with Margrette and carve out days for when I will do the FLS during ER42.
(1) If it's about me using ABCD, then I can say I like planning ahead...this is a strength...I like planning with Margrette....check...I'm using my assets.
(2) If it's what the PDC can be best at, then I can say I am scheduling FLSs so I can get to work on developing an ABCD influenced set of workshop for the fellows because this is what the PDC is best at.
Do you think my focus should be more 1 or 2? A mix? Something else entirely? How would you have reflected on this activity through an ABCD lens?
As I went through the day after our meeting, I journaled about 12 separate tasks I was involved in. I am finding myself asking the following question:
Are we focusing on how we can demonstrate to the world that we use an assets-based approach OR are we focusing on how we do use an assets-based approach for our own experience? OR both OR is it an overlap?
For example, one task was to meet with Margrette and carve out days for when I will do the FLS during ER42.
(1) If it's about me using ABCD, then I can say I like planning ahead...this is a strength...I like planning with Margrette....check...I'm using my assets.
(2) If it's what the PDC can be best at, then I can say I am scheduling FLSs so I can get to work on developing an ABCD influenced set of workshop for the fellows because this is what the PDC is best at.
Do you think my focus should be more 1 or 2? A mix? Something else entirely? How would you have reflected on this activity through an ABCD lens?
Sunday, April 08, 2007
Good to Great
Now in a new leadership position as Director of Professional Development at Eagle Rock School and Professional Development Center.
We have all read Good to Great by Jim Collins and we are committed to working through the framework.
I think I'll use the blog again to discuss leadership development issues. Different situation, similar questions.
We have all read Good to Great by Jim Collins and we are committed to working through the framework.
I think I'll use the blog again to discuss leadership development issues. Different situation, similar questions.
Saturday, January 28, 2006
From the Archives
We have all completed the course where we had to do this assignment. I'm looking over old email archives and ran across this email from Al who was helping us think about what we had to do next. I don't think we captured it in the blog.
January 2005 email from Al
What we need to do for the assignment:
Identify a cohort of students in need of support.
Gather as much data as you can about them, and look carefully at this data in order to assess current outcomes. Data should include but not be limited to: results of standardized- and curriculum-based assessments, student work, and teacher observations. Data should be analyzed and broken down by sub-groups.
Determine what structures, decision rules, and mental models underlie the practices that lead to these outcomes. To do this, ask yourselves: If these were in fact the desired outcomes, what would you have to think and do in order for this to make sense? What would one have to believe, and what current practices are logical outgrowths of these beliefs?
Our brainstorm and thinking
What we would believe if we wanted the outcomes that we got
1. believe that time is not a factor in how they get credit (that it always can be made up, easily)
2. hope that they would learn a lesson by not getting credit (so we’d use those credits as a tool for “teaching them a lesson”)
3. think that we have little or nothing to do with them getting credit (that it’s all up to the student)
4. believe we ought to allow them to figure out how best to be successful (we would assume that their reason for not being at school was about them doing the right thing)
5. believe that we don’t have to work very hard at improving our teaching practice
6. believe that we should make them guess what’s in our heads
7. believe we should give up on really difficult kids
8. believe that a “presenting” interest is what’s going to get us to their passion
These are the practices that we engage in that reflect the above beliefs
ª Tell them “you are not going to earn credit” (belief #2)
ª Tell them “it’s easy to make up credit”(belief #1)
ª Allow them “incompletes” (belief #1)
ª We don’t keep track of “abandoned” projects or “failed” classes (belief #3)
ª don’t use the grids well to show incremental progress (belief #6)
ª don’t have a standard policy for looking at what “makes up” a credit (belief #6)
ª we do not as a cultural practice, keep student work as artifacts of their learning (belief #3)
ª we don’t (as an institutional practice) share common criteria for what meets expectations (belief #6)
ª tell them that time is not a factor in how they get credit (that it always can be made up, easily) (belief #1)
ª we don’t have systems that identify and assist kids that are failing (we leave it up to the parents and kids) (beliefs #2 & 3)
ª we teach to compliant kids and allow non compliant kids space to fail (and then believe that they are “learning a lesson”) (belief #7)
ª when the interest projects don’t pan out, we blame the kids. (belief #8)
ª do not engage with staff development (belief #5)
These are the beliefs and practices that we abandoned because we don’t think we believe or practice these things:
ª believe that ability is innate and finite
ª change everything so that it’s unfamiliar
ª not check in to let them know where they are on their journey
ª ask them to do stuff that has no meaning for them
ª not care if they didn’t get it
ª not pay attention to how they learn
January 2005 email from Al
What we need to do for the assignment:
Identify a cohort of students in need of support.
Gather as much data as you can about them, and look carefully at this data in order to assess current outcomes. Data should include but not be limited to: results of standardized- and curriculum-based assessments, student work, and teacher observations. Data should be analyzed and broken down by sub-groups.
Determine what structures, decision rules, and mental models underlie the practices that lead to these outcomes. To do this, ask yourselves: If these were in fact the desired outcomes, what would you have to think and do in order for this to make sense? What would one have to believe, and what current practices are logical outgrowths of these beliefs?
Our brainstorm and thinking
What we would believe if we wanted the outcomes that we got
1. believe that time is not a factor in how they get credit (that it always can be made up, easily)
2. hope that they would learn a lesson by not getting credit (so we’d use those credits as a tool for “teaching them a lesson”)
3. think that we have little or nothing to do with them getting credit (that it’s all up to the student)
4. believe we ought to allow them to figure out how best to be successful (we would assume that their reason for not being at school was about them doing the right thing)
5. believe that we don’t have to work very hard at improving our teaching practice
6. believe that we should make them guess what’s in our heads
7. believe we should give up on really difficult kids
8. believe that a “presenting” interest is what’s going to get us to their passion
These are the practices that we engage in that reflect the above beliefs
ª Tell them “you are not going to earn credit” (belief #2)
ª Tell them “it’s easy to make up credit”(belief #1)
ª Allow them “incompletes” (belief #1)
ª We don’t keep track of “abandoned” projects or “failed” classes (belief #3)
ª don’t use the grids well to show incremental progress (belief #6)
ª don’t have a standard policy for looking at what “makes up” a credit (belief #6)
ª we do not as a cultural practice, keep student work as artifacts of their learning (belief #3)
ª we don’t (as an institutional practice) share common criteria for what meets expectations (belief #6)
ª tell them that time is not a factor in how they get credit (that it always can be made up, easily) (belief #1)
ª we don’t have systems that identify and assist kids that are failing (we leave it up to the parents and kids) (beliefs #2 & 3)
ª we teach to compliant kids and allow non compliant kids space to fail (and then believe that they are “learning a lesson”) (belief #7)
ª when the interest projects don’t pan out, we blame the kids. (belief #8)
ª do not engage with staff development (belief #5)
These are the beliefs and practices that we abandoned because we don’t think we believe or practice these things:
ª believe that ability is innate and finite
ª change everything so that it’s unfamiliar
ª not check in to let them know where they are on their journey
ª ask them to do stuff that has no meaning for them
ª not care if they didn’t get it
ª not pay attention to how they learn
Saturday, May 14, 2005
Rough Draft of Assignment 8
VERY ROUGH draft of Assignment 8
Following extensive analysis of the source of our problem situation (undercredited 11th graders) [see assignment 7 for analysis], we were confronted with the new challenge of developing a strategy to address this issue. Faced with an undercredited cohort we decided to develop a plan that would address key areas of instruction and procedure.
Using different logical processes to choose areas within instruction and procedure.
As an antidote to "arrogance" (i.e, we know what's best and don't need to improve our craft), we chose to focus on improving instructional practices. As an antidote to "uncertainty" (i.e, abandoning conventional practices leave staff confused), we chose to focus on improving selected procedures. From the vast range of instructional practices and organizational procedures, we had to narrow down what we would specifically focus on. This section describes the inductive and deductive approaches that led us to settle upon
instruction
conferencing
project development
procedures
mentor meetings
learning plans
grids
We used an inductive approach to brainstorm many possible areas of action
We had strategy meetings, small group meetings and email discussions. This generated a list of 30 different ideas.
We used a deductive approach to analyse decision rules within four different subsystems at school
(HERE I WOULD INCLUDE NOTES FROM THAT ACTIVITY - ON LEADERSHIP BLOG)
Rather than develop a plan of action we moved quickly into communicating our decisions for focus
We publicized latest thinking on the leadership blog.
Michael condensed decisions into one-page memo. [Mandated new norms in spirit of Heifetz (to be referenced) and using technical move to provoke adaptive work]
The memo was uploaded to a list serve, disseminated through email and hardcopy and followed up with a personal conversation between each member of the leadership team and a staff member.
We created specific staff development and resources to support staff in executing the plan.
We conducted PD on conferencing and use of grids. [NOT SURE ABOUT OTHER MEASURES]
We disseminated 4 page conferencing book which was an adaptation of "How is it going" by Anderson.
We developed practices for monitoring execution and collecting data on results
Leadership team formed into conferencing groups.
Michael required data in March and May for oversight.
In summary, we took our diagnosis of "arrogance" and "uncertainty" and developed a focus on instructional and procedural practices. These practices were aggressively communicated, supported and monitored.
Following extensive analysis of the source of our problem situation (undercredited 11th graders) [see assignment 7 for analysis], we were confronted with the new challenge of developing a strategy to address this issue. Faced with an undercredited cohort we decided to develop a plan that would address key areas of instruction and procedure.
Using different logical processes to choose areas within instruction and procedure.
As an antidote to "arrogance" (i.e, we know what's best and don't need to improve our craft), we chose to focus on improving instructional practices. As an antidote to "uncertainty" (i.e, abandoning conventional practices leave staff confused), we chose to focus on improving selected procedures. From the vast range of instructional practices and organizational procedures, we had to narrow down what we would specifically focus on. This section describes the inductive and deductive approaches that led us to settle upon
instruction
conferencing
project development
procedures
mentor meetings
learning plans
grids
We used an inductive approach to brainstorm many possible areas of action
We had strategy meetings, small group meetings and email discussions. This generated a list of 30 different ideas.
We used a deductive approach to analyse decision rules within four different subsystems at school
(HERE I WOULD INCLUDE NOTES FROM THAT ACTIVITY - ON LEADERSHIP BLOG)
Rather than develop a plan of action we moved quickly into communicating our decisions for focus
We publicized latest thinking on the leadership blog.
Michael condensed decisions into one-page memo. [Mandated new norms in spirit of Heifetz (to be referenced) and using technical move to provoke adaptive work]
The memo was uploaded to a list serve, disseminated through email and hardcopy and followed up with a personal conversation between each member of the leadership team and a staff member.
We created specific staff development and resources to support staff in executing the plan.
We conducted PD on conferencing and use of grids. [NOT SURE ABOUT OTHER MEASURES]
We disseminated 4 page conferencing book which was an adaptation of "How is it going" by Anderson.
We developed practices for monitoring execution and collecting data on results
Leadership team formed into conferencing groups.
Michael required data in March and May for oversight.
In summary, we took our diagnosis of "arrogance" and "uncertainty" and developed a focus on instructional and procedural practices. These practices were aggressively communicated, supported and monitored.
Monday, March 07, 2005
Strategic Planning Meeting
The Thinking in Systems Thinking - check it out for a one page synopsis.
Step 1. Constructing Hypotheses or Models
We used causal loops and system archetypes to create models that might explain the uncredited situation (our problem)
Archetypes
Shifting the Burden quick fixes: blaming student motivation, creating packets for easy credit
Tragedy of the Commons lots of uncoordinated individual activity limiting gains for each teacher
Fixes that Fail making one person responsible for the assessment of an individual student, banking seat time
Escalation teachers vs. students using credit vs. behavior as weapons
Drifting Goals desire to give away credits over improving instruction
Themes
Credits used as weapons.
Quick fixes preferred over improving instruction.
Isolating assessment: single person's responsibility
Credits seen as commodity
Delays, delays, delays inherent in anything that addresses fundamental problem.
Step 2. Designing a way to Test Hypotheses or Model
Variables we could consider: presence of principles of learning, conferencing events and quality, reduce performance expectations, sending PID letters, creating incentive system.
Measure outcomes we could consider: progress on grids, looking at student work, report cards, attendance
Our preference for Step 2.
Variable > Monitoring, supporting and improving conferencing.
Outcome> Progress as measured on grids
Another interesting thing to do
Variable > PID letters
Outcomes > Progress as measured by latest round of report cards
What's next? Questions. What was missing?
Some were concerned that we did yet more analysis at the expense of getting better at helping teachers with conferencing. What will we do about helping teachers with conferencing, grids and learning plans?
Our litmus test was whether or not we had something robust enough to serve us until June rather than act in day-to-day mode. Do we have that? What is it?
If the message we are sending is "we are dancing as fast as we can," what new message is replacing that? What systems, structures and decision rules will be changed? Because if none of it is changed then we will get what we have always been getting.
Michael
Step 1. Constructing Hypotheses or Models
We used causal loops and system archetypes to create models that might explain the uncredited situation (our problem)
Archetypes
Shifting the Burden quick fixes: blaming student motivation, creating packets for easy credit
Tragedy of the Commons lots of uncoordinated individual activity limiting gains for each teacher
Fixes that Fail making one person responsible for the assessment of an individual student, banking seat time
Escalation teachers vs. students using credit vs. behavior as weapons
Drifting Goals desire to give away credits over improving instruction
Themes
Credits used as weapons.
Quick fixes preferred over improving instruction.
Isolating assessment: single person's responsibility
Credits seen as commodity
Delays, delays, delays inherent in anything that addresses fundamental problem.
Step 2. Designing a way to Test Hypotheses or Model
Variables we could consider: presence of principles of learning, conferencing events and quality, reduce performance expectations, sending PID letters, creating incentive system.
Measure outcomes we could consider: progress on grids, looking at student work, report cards, attendance
Our preference for Step 2.
Variable > Monitoring, supporting and improving conferencing.
Outcome> Progress as measured on grids
Another interesting thing to do
Variable > PID letters
Outcomes > Progress as measured by latest round of report cards
What's next? Questions. What was missing?
Some were concerned that we did yet more analysis at the expense of getting better at helping teachers with conferencing. What will we do about helping teachers with conferencing, grids and learning plans?
Our litmus test was whether or not we had something robust enough to serve us until June rather than act in day-to-day mode. Do we have that? What is it?
If the message we are sending is "we are dancing as fast as we can," what new message is replacing that? What systems, structures and decision rules will be changed? Because if none of it is changed then we will get what we have always been getting.
Michael
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Changing Instruction / Behavior
There is nothing wrong with any of the following and in fact may be great ideas:
<<>>
BUT, am I the only one that thinks this has something to do with instruction or the educational interaction between the crew leader and student?
For example:
>>"We agreed that every teacher will have a specific concept in mind (as a learning goal) when they are conferencing with a student and will go through the I DO/You WATCH through YOU DO/I WATCH model." OR
>> "We agreed that all students will be in cooperative learning groups and each will be taught explicit roles to play as they check in on each other's learning with crew leader facilitation." OR
>> "We agreed that a 'bridging' activity will be used with every major concept (2 or 3 per quarter) to help forge a connection between new concepts and prior knowledge. The Building Background Knowledge sequence can be used as a bridging activity."
These samples address teacher behavior in the instructional interaction. I don't see any of that in the recommendations. Either that's because (1) y'all don't really think that's at issue -- fine, then let's discuss further or (2) y'all think you ARE doing it by doing the above -- then I need to understand better or (3) y'all agree but it's hard and all the above is a form of work avoidance.
I'm interested in where people are at with this.Michael
<<
BUT, am I the only one that thinks this has something to do with instruction or the educational interaction between the crew leader and student?
For example:
>>"We agreed that every teacher will have a specific concept in mind (as a learning goal) when they are conferencing with a student and will go through the I DO/You WATCH through YOU DO/I WATCH model." OR
>> "We agreed that all students will be in cooperative learning groups and each will be taught explicit roles to play as they check in on each other's learning with crew leader facilitation." OR
>> "We agreed that a 'bridging' activity will be used with every major concept (2 or 3 per quarter) to help forge a connection between new concepts and prior knowledge. The Building Background Knowledge sequence can be used as a bridging activity."
These samples address teacher behavior in the instructional interaction. I don't see any of that in the recommendations. Either that's because (1) y'all don't really think that's at issue -- fine, then let's discuss further or (2) y'all think you ARE doing it by doing the above -- then I need to understand better or (3) y'all agree but it's hard and all the above is a form of work avoidance.
I'm interested in where people are at with this.Michael
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
