You are on page 1of 5

Walo 3 Leading up Im often not a big fan of morning meetings, sometimes viewing them as matter of going through a process

to preserve the ritual of having meetings. Parts I enjoy, such as having the time to build community, connect with colleagues and bounce ideas around, but I usually feel I could be addressing more pressing matters, especially when theres a lot of work to be done. As such, a part of me wasnt thrilled to be facilitating a morning disciplines meeting for my final WALO. On the other hand, I was a bit excited to have the opportunity to positively influence the direction of future meetings. It wasnt until recently that I became alienated with discipline meetings, ones where we break off into groups of teachers of similar subjects. When I began as an educator, they were incredibly helpful. I had access to colleagues who are familiar with my subject content and I found that we often shared similar experiences in our classrooms through our discussions. We would critique student work, discuss projects, and build our science resources. It was very supportive and collegial. Since, however, our meetings have become derailed and bogged down in discussions about equipment and chemical safety concerns within the school. Although this is important and was included in earlier meetings, somehow, science teachers have recently been charged with the responsibility to account for any hazards within the school and develop plans to properly address them. None of us are necessarily certified or trained to handle this task, so our meetings typically entail deliberations over random proposals and ideas. Its been nearly two years of this, and its become such a routine that I feared it would be a challenge to get back to the richness of earlier meetings. Preparation I considered questions in an attempt to refocus on earlier meeting values before becoming fixated solely on safety measures. What work is being done by our colleagues? What resources do we have? What are our goals for student learning? How do student experiences align with our goals for their learning? To me, a good starting point, or way to get back to discussing these concerns, was to begin by looking at a piece of student work. Ive participated in looking at student work protocols before, and felt confident in my ability to facilitate a meeting using one. There was something that ate at me, though. Perhaps it was the stakes this was my final WALO. It felt pressured that it had to be good. In an effort to come up with a foolproof plan, I remembered a colleague remarking about how a looking at student work protocol didnt work with fellow humanities teachers. I was curious about this. I

wanted to know what they tried and why it didnt work so that I could better plan for the science meeting. I met with my colleague, and when I questioned about why he felt it didnt work so well, he responded, it never went anywhere. Explaining further, he described how they merely looked at a piece of work from a student and offered their thoughts on it without any direction or purpose. Everyone said what they had to say, and then went on their way. There wasnt a sense that something was taken away or gained. For my meeting, he advised me to be sure to have a question to ground the discussion and create purpose. With this advice, I searched for a suitable protocol in The Power of Protocols and finally settled on one designed for looking at student work called What Comes Up, found on pages 78-79. As a fairly generic protocol, I worked with a fellow member of the GSE cohort to adapt it into something more suitable for the discipline meeting, ending with the version below. Some additional considerations were aimed at creating a structure for equitable contributions in a diverse group of old dogs, middle-aged folks, and newbies, in the sense of time theyve been working at the school.

What Comes Up Protocol: 1. Presentation (3 min) The facilitator presents the first piece of student work. Depending on the kind of work it is, the facilitator may pass out copies, post it on a wall, or read it aloud. Participants attend quietly to the work listening, looking, reading. Question (2 min) The facilitator then asks the participants to consider the question, What comes up for you when you examine this piece of work? or What comes up for you when you examine this work in terms of rigor? Participants take a few moments to ponder the question. It may be useful to come up with a couple responses in case one of your observations is discussed. Round of Response (3 10 min) Beginning with whoever seems most ready to start, the facilitator calls on people in turn, going around the circle. Each responds to the question. No one may speak out of turn. No one may repeat an observation. Depending on how much interest has been stimulated and how many people there are in the group the facilitator may choose to go one more round. Conversation (10 12 min) The facilitator invites open conversation based on what the group has learned from the round. Close the Loop (3 5 min) Participants journal about what they can take away from the conversation for their own work. Optional (3 min) A final round sharing out what participants will take away from the conversation or a debrief of the process.

2.

3.

4. 5. 6.

I felt good about this protocol and felt that it would adequately create purpose and equity for the meeting. My next step was to coordinate with the presenter, a 12th grade science teacher. We previously met when he agreed to present a piece of student work to look at. I met with him again to review the protocol and discuss the purpose of the meeting in greater detail. He told me he had just the right piece of work from a previous project that could help initiate discussion and get things moving again in the meetings, a sample video where students were challenged to demonstrate the process of unit conversion, found at this address: http://studentvideos.hightechhigh.org/video/360/Laurence+Tabalon+UC+Animation+Fall+2012 In brief, the video animates and details the calculations involved with determining the equivalent number of trees the average person in a lifetime uses as toilet paper. We worked to come up with a question to ground the discussion that is open ended and provokes thought. Since the video was created by a 12th grader, it provided the opportunity to gain insight into the science education that students receive through four years at our school. We decided on How do the skills involved in making this video appear throughout grade levels? Facilitating the meeting The day seemed to come quickly once I was prepared. I wanted to facilitate a casual, comfortable discussion, but the time I spent thinking and preparing was causing me to become a bit anxious. Additionally, I have a tendency to obsessively question every last little detail when I plan things, so I usually try to leave plans open enough to prevent that from happening. With how structured and preconceived everything was for this meeting, I feel I didnt have that luxury. During the drive into work I worried if the protocol would be effective, or how I would handle hypothetical situations that might arise, or how I would record any significant details I would need to write up the WALO. It was very nerve-racking. I arrived early so that I could arrange the room accordingly and have time to make any final preparations. These were minor tasks, but the extra time proved valuable. The presenter and I reviewed the protocol, arranged the room in seminar-style seating, and I made a few extra printouts of exit cards. These things did not take long or were difficult to do, but the total time it took to make those final preparations was more than I had anticipated and would have possibly interfered the meeting. I made a note of this being an important consideration for leading any future meeting. As teachers arrived and gathered, my anxiety slowly faded. I felt well prepared, and it felt as if it was just a matter of going through the motions. As we neared the start time, without request, everyone took a seat around the arrangement of tables. I introduced myself and shared my hope to get back to the elements I valued from older meetings. The teachers seemed agreeable with this, and then I began to preview the protocol, emphasizing its importance in facilitating our discussion and providing a structure for equitable sharing.

At this point I was confident that things would run smoothly, and they did, for the most part. The presenter showed his students work and posed the question for us to ponder. I encouraged everyone to consider the question for a few minutes and write down any thoughts that they could share. Things got a bit backed up during this sharing part of the protocol, however. I had people respond in a clockwise fashion after the first person, which I felt could have been better managed. Originally, I thought that we might have time to include two rotations of responses, yet once we began, I questioned whether we would finish one rotation within the 10 minutes that had been allocated for it. I became more assertive because I worried about running over time, which resulted in the people who were near the end of the rotation being somewhat rushed. I sensed some tension, so I tried to encourage anyone with remaining thoughts to offer them as we transitioned into an open conversation for the next 10 min. This part went really well. There was little tension in the group as conversation flowed freely. From my perspective, most had shared and offered some thoughts about the work and how it related to what students experience in their classes. I particularly liked how some teachers identified similar work in their classes and began to make plans to collaborate in the future. It felt like a rich, authentic conversation, which kind of threw me off a bit. I became so engaged in the discussion that I lost track of time, and we ran over by a few minutes. In order to have time to fill out exit cards, I decided to not perform the closing the loop part of the protocol and instead have a round of responses for take-aways and final thoughts. This went well. Everyone offered something that they got that was valuable. I thanked everyone for their participation and closed the meeting. I made one final request to fill out an exit card that included the questions below:
1. 2. 3. 4. Was this protocol useful? What was one take away? Was the facilitation effective in creating an equitable space? Was this an effective way to invigorate discipline meetings? If we were to do this again, do you have any suggestions for improvement?

Looking Back In looking back on how the meeting went and reflecting on the protocol, I found that the round of responses and conversation parts could have been combined. I liked how the round of responses supported equitable sharing, but I didnt like the awkward moments that occurred when people werent prepared and appeared to be put on the spot. I feel that if I were to do this again, I would move the time for this section to open conversation and be more diligent in inviting people into the discussion. I would also try to keep myself from being drawn into conversation and missing a transition.

I believe that the fact that this meeting took place at HTH worked in my favor. Many of the teachers there are familiar with using protocols for looking at student work and having colleagues facilitating meetings. Even still, there was a difference when compared to instances I had practiced facilitating meetings in the Teacher Leadership program. Within the program, the use of protocols is common, and some practices that contribute to better discussions have become almost intuitive, requiring less reinforcement. There were some moments during the meeting that I had to make greater efforts than I anticipated to refocus the discussion, which typically involved restating the original question and reiterating our goals for each part of the protocol. Although I did not receive an exit card from each member of the meeting, the ones I did get were very positive and emphasized the hope that we would continue running meetings in this manner. Some choice responses were: I think we need to do this more often. It was nice to hear everyones voices. It was a good strategy to do something different this time. I also appreciated the suggestions for improvement. Lets try a project tuning protocol. We should make more time to discuss the processes involved in student work. Bring coffee! Looking Forward What these responses tell me is that there is a demand for moving towards more productive and engaging discipline meetings, and that protocols can play an important role in meeting that demand. I do not know if this instance will cause a new direction for future meetings, yet I am confident that my colleagues are willing to explore new discipline topics, and I feel I should continue to look for opportunities to develop my leadership abilities. The use of a protocol was effective in focusing our discussion and facilitating the meeting in the time that was available. I imagine that the continued use of protocols will prevent us from being fixated on one topic in the future, and contribute to richer meetings by building a culture that leads to greater sharing and more fruitful discussion.

You might also like