PROFESSIONAL LEARNING GROUPS
INTRODUCTION TO FACILITATION
August 2014
Seminars by
Senior Associates with the Great Schools Partnership, Inc.
ABOUT PROFESSIONAL LEARNING GROUPS
DEFINITION
Professional Learning Groups (PLGs) are small teams—often six to twelve teachers—who share
common students, interests, or teaching responsibilities, such as the same content area, grade
level, or team assignment. Some schools choose to develop random groups of mixed grade level
and content areas to deepen whole school collegiality and collaboration. These groups meet regularly
to discuss teacher work, student work, research, or data. The goal of these groups is to capture and
build on the knowledge and skills of participating teachers in ways that will help them increase the
aspirations and achievement of their students.
RATIONALE
Professional Learning Groups (PLGs) can be powerful vehicles for ongoing professional
development in any school. They honor the skills and knowledge of each participating teacher, as
well as the research and experiences of educators outside the PLG. Regularly examining and
reflecting on student work, classroom practices, student data, and educational research in a
supportive environment can improve teaching efficacy and student learning. PLGs give structure
to professional conversations and provide a safe forum in which colleagues can share
pedagogical philosophies, content knowledge, and instructional strategies, while also working
through challenging issues or dilemmas in collaboration rather than isolation. It is also important to note
that PLG practices need not be limited solely to PLG groups. The use of structured, small group
conversations using protocols can be a powerful learning tool in other professional, school-related
meetings, such as faculty, leadership team, community forums, departments, and committees.
COMMON EXPECTATIONS
The following common expectations will help ensure that PLGs use scheduled time effectively
and remain focused on raising student achievement and aspirations:
1. We will remain focused on improving student learning.
2. We will use protocols to help us structure conversations, examine teacher and student
work, analyze data, and engage in reflective dialogue about a variety of texts.
3. We will create norms and agendas to guide the use of our time and ensure that our
dialogue remains professional and respectful.
4. A trained PLG facilitator colleague(s) will guide us in our work.
Revised
8/3/11
A Brief History of Our Work with Professional Learning Groups
Our work with collaborative teacher groups began in the late 1990's as an outgrowth of
the National School Reform Faculty (NSRF) network at the Annenberg Institute for
School Reform at Brown University. Called Critical Friends Groups (or CFGs) by
NSRF, teachers met together for the main purpose of examining student work using
structured conversations (called Protocols) to ensure that the focus was centered on
what students were, or were not, learning. By collaborating with peers in the process,
teachers would both expand and deepen their understanding of their own practice to
ensure that all their students were learning and succeeding.
Numerous researchers examined this practice over time to determine if it had the
desired effect on student achievement. Among them were Judith Warren Little, Anthony
Bryk, Milbrey McLaughlin, Sharon Kruse, Linda Darling Hammond and Michael Fullan.
Most recent studies have been able to make a direct link between this collaborative
practice among teachers and an increase in student achievement. We have included
some of these studies in this booklet.
The term "Critical Friends" did not capture what we completely envisioned in these
conversations, We wanted to identify our work in a unique way and emphasize the
expansion of knowledge and skill resulting from these conversations. Consequently, the
Partnership began using the term Professional Learning Groups (PLGs) in collaboration
with educators involved in the network. In more recent years, Rick DuFour, an educator
from Chicago, has used the term Professional Learning Community (PLCs). Several
schools in Maine and around the country use this model. The DuFours model
emphasizes the analysis of data to examine teaching practice, which is an important
addition to this work. An article describing the DuFour’s work has been included in this
binder.
The original National School Reform Faculty work is now expanded in the newly formed
School Reform Initiative or SRI (http://schoolreforminitiative.org/). We encourage any
PLG facilitator or member to consider becoming part of this national organization to
expand their awareness, knowledge and skill with PLG work and to engage with other
facilitators across the country and the globe (there are PLGs in England, the
Netherlands, Japan and China!). Hundreds of teachers in Maine and New England
participate in Professional Learning Groups on a regular basis and over seven hundred
are trained facilitators.
We welcome you to this work and hope you and your profession will benefit in a deeply
meaningful way.
Revised June 2013
2
Feedback Principles
Developed in the field by educators.
Giving Feedback
Constructive feedback is indispensable to productive collaboration. Positive feedback is easy to give and
receive; when the response highlights a need to improve it is harder to say and much harder to hear.
When it is done properly, feedback is a very specific kind of communication: it focuses on sharing with
another person the impact of their behavior, and its purpose is to help that person become more effective.
Feedback is most useful when is it audible, credible, and actionable. Following the guidelines below will
help you achieve that goal.
Give it with care. To be useful, feedback requires the giver to want to help, not hurt, the other person.
Let the recipient invite it. Feedback is most effective when the receiver has invited the comments. Doing
so indicates that the receiver is ready to hear the feedback and gives that person an opportunity to specify
areas of interest and concern.
Be specific. Good feedback deals clearly with particular incidents and behavior. Making vague or woolly
statements is of little value. The most helpful feedback is concrete and covers the area of interest specified
by the receiver.
Include feelings. Effective feedback requires more than a simple statement of observed behaviors. It is
important to express how you felt so that the receiver can judge the full impact of the behavior being
discussed.
Avoid evaluative judgments. The most useful feedback describes behaviors without value labels such as
“irresponsible”, “unprofessional”, or even “good” and “bad”. If the recipient asks you to make a judgment,
be sure to state clearly that this is your opinion.
Speak for yourself. When giving feedback, be sure to discuss only things you have witnessed. Do not refer
to absent or anonymous people (e.g. “A lot of people didn’t like it”).
Pick an appropriate time and place. The most useful feedback is given at a time and in a place that make
it easy for the receiver to hear it (e.g., away from other people and distractions). It should also be given
sufficiently close to the particular event being discussed for the event to be fresh in the mind.
Make the feedback readily actionable. To be most useful, feedback should concern behavior that can be
changed by the receiver. Feedback concerning matters outside the control of the receiver is less useful and
often causes resentment.
Protocols are most powerful and effective when used within an ongoing professional learning community and facilitated by a skilled facilitator. To learn more
about professional learning communities and seminars for facilitation, please visit the School Reform Initiative website at www.schoolreforminitiative.org
45
Giving Feedback: Summary
1. Find out and respond to the receiver’s concerns.
2. Be specific about the behavior and your reactions.
3. Speak for yourself only.
4. Don’t evaluate.
5. Help the receiver figure out how to act on your feedback.
Receiving Feedback
Breathe. This may seem overly simple, but remembering to do it can make a difference. Our bodies are
conditioned to react to stressful situations as if they were physical assaults (e.g., muscles tense, breathing
becomes shallow and rapid, etc.). Taking full breaths will help your body to relax and your brain to focus.
Specify the behavior about which you want feedback. The more specific you can be about the feedback
you want, the more likely you are to be able to act upon it. For example, if you want to know how
students reacted to an assignment, ask, “What did the students in the small group you observed do after I
finished answering their questions?” rather than, “How did it go?”
Listen carefully. Don’t interrupt or discourage the person giving feedback. Don’t defend yourself (“It wasn’t
my fault … “) and don’t justify (“I only did that because … “).
Clarify your understanding of the feedback. You need to get clear feedback in order for it to be helpful.
Ask for specific examples (e.g. “Can you describe what I did or said that made me appear aggressive to
you?”).
Summarize your understanding of the feedback. Paraphrase the message in your own words to be sure
you have heard and understood what was said.
Take time to sort out what you heard. You may need time to think about what was said and how you feel
about it or to check with others before responding to the feedback. This is a normal response but should
not be used as an excuse to avoid the issue.
Check out possible responses with the person who gave you feedback. A good way to pre-test an
alternative approach to a situation that has caused problems for you in the past is to ask the person who
gave the feedback if s/he thinks it will be more effective. That provides a first screen, and makes the
feedback-giver feel heard.
Receiving Feedback: Summary
1. Be specific about the feedback that you want.
2. Be open to the feedback:
a) don’t ask for it if you don’t want to know
b) avoid defensiveness
c) don’t justify
3. Clarify/check your understanding of the feedback.
4. Summarize your understanding of the feedback.
5. Share your reaction to the feedback.
Protocols are most powerful and effective when used within an ongoing professional learning community and facilitated by a skilled facilitator. To learn more
about professional learning communities and seminars for facilitation, please visit the School Reform Initiative website at www.schoolreforminitiative.org
46
FOUR CORNERS
An exercise in understanding preferences in group work
This exercise is based on the work of Jung and most directly on the Myers-Briggs personality
inventory. It is intended to assist groups in understanding the differences in preference for ways
to approach group work. Begin with an explanation like this:
Have you ever come out of a wonderful, productive meeting and had someone next to you say,
“That was the worst meeting I’ve been to in months. We accomplished nothing. I am so sick of
useless meetings!”? There’s a good reason why your great meeting is someone else’s horror
show. When people work together in groups, each individual has a preference for how the
common work is best undertaken.
For some it is important that a structure be developed so that everyone knows “the rules of the
game” and everyone is clear about how and by whom decisions are made, the form of meetings,
the way in which visions will be developed and the progression of work. If a structure is not in
place, everything else seems useless or disorganized. For others a common understanding of the
meaning, the vision, of the work at hand is first and foremost. If the meaning is not clear, then
nothing else can be clear. From meaning comes clarity about what kind of structure is
appropriate and what kind of action will reflect the meaning. For others action is at the core of
meaningful work – don’t talk forever, do something, see how that feels, what can be learned,
refine the next set of actions, and just DO IT! A structure and meaning will come out of the
action. The fourth preference is for caring. For these people it matters that everyone is included,
time is taken to know each other well, to understand strengths and contributions that each person
can make, and that a process be developed that sets group norms, ways to maintain group
cohesiveness, ways to productively approach conflict and solve problems. For each of these
preferences, that preference is a starting place, not the only way. Most people recognize the need
for all these approaches, but definitely prefer one as a point of entry.
The Myers-Briggs personality inventory works from similar preferences, but in relation to
individuals. Four Corners uses the same set of preferences but directs them toward work in
groups. This helps groups understand how preferences affect group work.
1. The room is set up with 4 signs: Structure, Meaning, Action, and Caring – one in each
corner.
2. If you have established work groups, give each group some kind of identification, like a
colored badge, so that group members can watch each other as the exercise unfolds. You
can also do the exercise first and form groups that have someone from each corner. Or,
you can do the exercise for the benefit of the whole group, not for small work groups.
3. After the intro, invite people to get up and go to the corner of their preference. People do
this very easily. Occasionally a few people can’t go to any one corner and end up in the
middle. Don’t offer this as an alternative, but let the people who end up there stay there.
4. The task of the people in the four corner groups is to decide together on a persuasive
argument to convince the other groups that their place of entry is the best place to begin.
Each group tells the other groups why they are the best place to begin work. A discussion
Developed in the field by educators associated with the National School Reform Faculty
22
follows these presentations. The facilitator needs to notice these points and add to the
conversation:
 Look at the distribution in the 4 groups. If it is lopsided, ask what that might mean for
the group. For example one group I saw had nearly everyone in Meaning, with a few
people in Action and Caring, and no one at all in Structure. This group realized that
they would tend to ask far too much, frustrating the action people, and that they
would have to work together to be sure they developed some workable structures
since no one would take that on naturally.
 Help people see that Meaning people and Action people can drive each other crazy.
The need for balance between talking and doing is often at the core of group
dissatisfaction since Meaning people can be very powerful in their perspective – often
being the point people in a change initiative. It helps to name the nature of a meeting.
If Meaning has to be worked on, invite the Action people to bring their knitting –
seriously!
 For those in the Center: point out that two things can happen here – you have folks
who can see all preferences and can help facilitate a balance, and/or you have people
who can see all sides and therefore jump all over the place and can’t decide what is
most important.
 Notice the kinds of questions and language each corner uses: Caring folks ask if
everyone is OK…How is everyone feeling about this? Do we need to take a break?
Structure folks ask when, how, who says, how long, what time? Action folks say:
enough talk, let’s move, just DO it! Meaning people say: Why are we doing this?
What’s the purpose here? Does this matter? We need a vision. Check language with
each other.
 Another part of the discussion can be which preference each group feels least
comfortable with and why.
 There is a visual image that is important to present. Meaning, Action, and Structure
are at the three points of a triangle. The triangle is the strongest kind of shape.
Surrounding the triangle is a circle that represents Caring, as Caring holds the three
points of the triangle together and has to go on all the time. With a large body of
Structure and Action people, it becomes easy to ignore Caring, and the Caring folks
sometimes can look like “touchy feely” discomforts. Again, this is part of looking at
the distribution of preferences and acknowledging the advantages of each, and the
potential discomforts.
 Being aware of these preferences can be a GREAT help to the functioning of a group.
It can make all the difference in levels of understanding and balanced facilitation. It
often makes people laugh when they see what is going on rather than get mad at each
other.
Part II – An Extension into Continuum:
The purpose of the Continuum is to further explore differences in preferences. It is not about
judgment and that should be made very clear. If it begins to get judgmental in any way, stop the
action and find out why. You may have different reasons for wanting to continue this exploration
– be sure to state the intent.
Developed in the field by educators associated with the National School Reform Faculty
23
FOUR CORNERS REFLECTION AND DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. What are the strengths of your corner?
2. What are the limitations or potential weak spots of your corner?
3. What corner do you find most difficult to work with and why?
4. Tell what the other corners need to know about you so that you can work together
effectively?
Developed in the field by educators associated with the National School Reform Faculty
24
1. Have each Corner group identify themselves with some kind of visual identification like
a colored badge, or use the identification of the small working groups, so that they can
watch where people move on these continuums.
2. Invite people to line up according to their preference on two ends of a spectrum:
 Importance of time:
Always on time________________________________time doesn’t mean anything
 Physical proximity (personal space boundaries)
2 inches______________________________________2 feet
 Desk at school
White glove inspection___________________________Mt. St. Helens
 Time of day you do your best work:
Dawn________________________________________Deep in the dark night
 Tolerance for ambiguity
Written plans__________________________________Go with what comes
 Size of group you work best with:
Alone________________________________________The whole school, even the district,
maybe the world
3. Discuss what the group learned about each other and how that might impact the work
they do together. Things that will be an advantage, things they’ll have to be careful about.
4. Make up any other continuum your group would like to explore that might affect the
particular work you are doing, or that is just fun, or curious.
Developed in the field by educators associated with the National School Reform Faculty
25
GROUP NORMS
The following norms are intended to be a starting point, but individual groups should consider making
modifications or additions that reflect the values and needs of the group. (Note: Explanations in italics are
suggested definitions only.)
• Respect time: start/end on time; use time well during the meeting; be sensitive to the time constraints
of others.
• Allow others sufficient “air time”: monitor how frequently and how long you speak; allow
others the opportunity to enter into the conversation (a good rule of thumb is to allow at least two people
to speak before you speak again); pay attention to those who haven’t spoken and actively invite them into
the conversation.
• Use “I” statements: express your own opinions and experiences (“I think…”, “I’ve seen…”, etc.)
and avoid generalizations (“some people think…”).
• Listen well: give the speaker your full attention (do not engage in side tasks or conversations); if you
have not understood a colleague, repeat what you heard or ask a question to clarify your understanding
before responding.
• Respect differences: recognize that everyone has a different perspective, which may lead to
different perceptions and conclusions (an alternate formulation is “Assume good intentions”).
• Encourage and support risk-taking for learning: be willing to take risks; ensure that it’s safe
for participants to explore new ideas or go out on a limb in making suggestions without fear of being
criticized.
• Freely attend to personal needs: stand up, stretch, use the restroom, get drinks/snacks as needed
or appropriate given the task at hand—but maintain respect for the work of the group; agree on
text/email and cell phone use: e.g., silence ringer, step out for urgent calls or conversations.
• Foster good humor: smile, laugh, don’t take things too personally or seriously; find ways to have
fun and enjoy one another.
• Maintain confidentiality: “what we say here stays here;” remind group of this norm before
sharing particularly sensitive information
27
© Great Schools Partnership, November 2007
LEADERSHIP STRUCTURES
In order to effect systemic and ongoing school improvement, several structures are helpful for schools to
have in place: a shared leadership team to oversee the school’s mission, vision and annual action plan,
and to make decisions about the school’s use of resources (professional learning and planning time, as
well as financial resources); and Professional Learning Groups (PLGs), a structure for ongoing
professional learning and planning in small groups to ensure school wide implementation of effective
teaching and learning practices.
Leadership Team:
Configuration:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Principal
Guidance Counselor
Leaders of each major school program or initiative (e.g., head of advisory program,
content and/or grade level leaders, PLG facilitators)
In some schools: students, parents, community members as determined by school
mission, vision and goals
Define process for who’s on the team, how long, getting on/off the team
Optimum group size: 5-12
Meeting Schedule/Operation:
•
•
•
•
•
Minimum: once a month (2 hours); better: twice a month, 1 - 2-hour meetings
Agree to working norms (define, reflect on periodically, revise as needed)
Determine roles and responsibilities: facilitator, recorder, process observer, etc.
Maintain and distribute (to full staff) minutes of all meetings
Determine and distribute agenda prior to meetings
Responsibilities:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ensure decisions are made in line with school’s mission and vision
Develop short (1-year) and long range (5-year) goals and annual action plan
Oversee implementation of annual school wide goals and action plan
Determine data to review periodically (at least twice a year) to assess school’s progress
toward annual goals
Determine use of professional development time; reflect on effectiveness of professional
learning and planning time
Make and communicate decisions that have school-wide impact
Decision-making:
•
For each item the LT addresses, determine the purpose: FYI/awareness (often these items
can be circulated in a written format); dialogue (to explore new or controversial topics
with the goal of clarifying understanding and range of perspectives); discussion (to make
a decision about next steps)
Great Schools Partnership, February 2009
7
•
•
For discussions, determine what level of decision-making the LT has:
o A – Administrative decision (decisions made by organizational leaders without
consultation from others)
o B – Administrative decision with input (ultimately administrators make the
decision, but recommendations from the LT figure heavily in the decision)
o C – LT decision (ideally by consensus using thumbs up/down or “Fist to Five”;
LT members solicit input from those they represent)
o D – faculty and/or student consensus or vote (used relatively rarely in schools, but
occasionally for the best decisions to be made the full school community needs to
be actively involved)
Once decision has been made, before moving on to next topic, determine how decision
will be communicated and implemented
Professional Learning Groups:
Configuration:
•
•
•
Determine best configuration for school based on existing/desired school structures such
that members have something in common (shared students, common content area and/or
grade level, shared interests)
Optimum group size: 6-10
Determine facilitators for each group (co-facilitators is often a good model to ensure
good support: for co-planning and in case of absences)
Meeting schedule/operation:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Optimum: weekly meetings, each 45-60 min; minimum: once a month, 2-3 hour
meetings; or twice a month, 1 ½ - 2-hour meetings
Agree to working norms (define, reflect on periodically, revise as needed)
Determine roles and responsibilities: facilitator, recorder, process observer, etc.
Maintain and distribute (to PLG members, cc admin as appropriate) minutes of all
meetings
Determine and distribute agenda prior to meetings
Determine rotation of presenters, so each participant presents his/her work at least once
per year (ideally, twice a year or more)
Responsibilities:
•
•
Each participant will take an active role to learn, implement, present and receive
feedback on instructional strategies that enhance student learning
Base decisions about instructional practice on research, school-specific data and IB
recommendations
Great Schools Partnership, February 2009
8
Professional Learning Group/Team
Roles & Responsibilities
Facilitator:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Solicits the agenda and time frame for each agenda item for the meeting at least a week in
advance (often this is done at the end of a meeting in preparation for the next meeting)
Drafts and distributes the agenda, including time and place of meeting, far enough in advance to
give participants time to prepare (e.g., at least 24 hours ahead of weekly meetings, at least a week
before monthly meetings)
Confirms that logistics are in place for meeting (location, refreshments, presenter(s), materials,
etc., as appropriate)
Begins each meeting reminding members of norms and reviewing agenda items
Facilitates meeting within the framework of the agenda and the norms; directs processes; keeps
group on task; focuses group energy; encourages and protects participants’ engagement
Reviews decisions made (what, who, when, how, where) and develops tentative agenda for the
next meeting within last ten minutes of current meeting
Reviews the norms at the end of the meeting inviting comments from group members
Friend of the Chair:
•
•
•
•
Supports the facilitator in any way possible
Keeps a speakers’ list to ensure equity
Calls attention to norms as necessary
Serves as timekeeper for the agenda items
Recorder:
•
•
•
Keeps a record of the meeting using established template if necessary (including attendance, key
points of discussions, decisions made, etc.)
Determines accuracy of meeting events whenever necessary
Processes minutes and distributes to team members within a week of the meeting
Process Observer: (see reverse for guidelines)
•
•
•
Watches the process and reflects back to group regarding use of norms
Attends to decision-making process to monitor ideas put forward and action taken
Keeps track of unfinished business and puts on agenda for next meeting
Refreshment Manager:
•
•
Supplies food and drink for the meeting, sets it up prior to meeting if at all possible
Keeps receipts for all food and supplies and presents to principal for reimbursement if funding
allows, or collects contributions from group
Engaged Participant*:
•
•
•
•
Monitors own and others’ adherence to group norms
Seeks and provides data to support topic under consideration
Clarifies decision-making processes and levels of authority
Opens the door for others to speak; listens to own listening; tests consensus
Compiled by Jean Haeger, based on the work of Mary Hastings, Great Schools Partnership, February 2008
*Wellman, B. & Garmston, R. (2002) The Adaptive School: Developing and Facilitating Collaborative Groups. Eldorado
Hills, CA: Four Hats Seminars.
** adapted from work by Dennis DaRos, Great Island Consulting (dennis@greatislandconsulting.com)
9
GUIDELINES FOR PROCESS OBSERVATIONS**
While the Process Observer carries the primary responsibility of reflecting back the group’s
interaction and processes, in the most high functioning teams, all participants pay attention to the
group’s dynamics, energy and engagement levels, and mutual respect. The following guidelines can
help participants become more self-aware of their own and each others’ interpersonal
communication processes.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Be specific about the behavior you see.
Don’t interpret or judge; just describe. You cannot observe someone’s intention.
Notice the impact of the behavior on other people, the topic, the group, the decision, etc.
Observe patterns and avoid over generalizing from a single event or incidence.
Comment on strengths as well as areas of growth to enhance effectiveness of group.
Notice and Observe
1. What is the general atmosphere – tense? Relaxed?
2. What is the energy level of the group – high? Low? Excited? Exhausted?
3. What is the level of participation?
• Does everyone participate?
• Which procedures encourage or discourage participation?
• Who is talking? Who is silent? Who initiates?
• Who is “outside” the group…ignored…discounted?
• Who seems to be shutting down or moving out; silent, filled with feeling?
4. What is the quality of participation?
• How well are participants listening to one another?
• Are participants speaking to one another
• Did conflict arise? How is it handled?
• Who interrupts whom? Who has eye contact with whom?
5. How much clarity is there in the communication and processes used?
• Do participants understand the processes used in the meeting?
• Do participants understand what they are to do between meetings?
• Who appears confused, unsettled, unclear about next steps?
• How many questions were there about the process? Decisions? Next steps?
6. What is the content being talked about?
• Are there common themes or topics specific to particular grades, content areas, roles?
• Is the content related to the agenda or are new topics raised?
• Who introduces new topics or agenda items?
7. How clear is the decision-making process?
• When is the group ready for a decision? Who calls that?
Compiled by Jean Haeger, based on the work of Mary Hastings, Great Schools Partnership, February 2008
*Wellman, B. & Garmston, R. (2002) The Adaptive School: Developing and Facilitating Collaborative Groups. Eldorado
Hills, CA: Four Hats Seminars.
** adapted from work by Dennis DaRos, Great Island Consulting (dennis@greatislandconsulting.com)
10
Guide for Bringing Student Work
Developed in the field by educators.
Why bring student work?
The work of CFGs is centered on student learning. Thus, the work students do and the ways in which
teachers guide their work is essential. The same is true of practitioners who are not classroom teachers,
since the work done by those you interact with does, ultimately, effect student learning.
What kind of student work should you bring?
In our day-to-day work in schools we experience some successes, and usually some pitfalls. When we
think about choosing student work to learn from with our colleagues, we are faced with a choice: “Do
we strut our stuff by bringing an assignment that shows how successful we can be?” Or “Do we mine our
mistakes, by bringing the work that didn’t meet our expectations?”
If we accept that all of us want to do our best learning for the sake of our students, then we need to bring
our confusions, our failed efforts, our uncomfortable dilemmas, our wondering about individual students
and groups of students to the table. Being willing to work in our “risk” zones means opening up to the
kind of powerful learning that can help us reach the children we are not currently reaching. It means
asking the hard questions that get to the issues of equity and achievement in our classrooms and schools.
Playing it safe by remaining in our “comfort” zones means a continuation of the status quo, where the
achievement gap continues to grow.
So, as you think about what to bring to the session, please consider bringing the work you’d like to forget,
the work that keeps you up at night, the work that makes you question our craft and your role within it. If
you are not in the classroom full-time, you should bring work from students to whom you are connected
— either through their teacher, or because you work directly with them. In any case, bring work that links
directly to your practice.
Please bring ten copies of the student work, with the name removed from it, along with the appropriate
assignment, standards, and/or assessment that guided the creation of the work if appropriate. Think in
advance about the question you have about the work and your purpose for bringing it, and then select a
protocol that will best meet your needs.
Possible Samples
• A single piece of work from one student in response to a single assignment;
• Two or three pieces of work from one student in response to different assignments;
OR
• A single piece of work from a whole class in response to the same assignment — or a single piece of
work from two or three students in response to the same assignment. For the latter option, at least one
piece of work should be from a student who completed the assignment successfully, and at least one
piece of work should be from a student who was not able to complete the assignment successfully. If
you choose the latter option, also bring copies of the assignment itself, and any rubric or evaluation
criteria you used to assess the work.
Protocols are most powerful and effective when used within an ongoing professional learning community and facilitated by a skilled facilitator. To learn more
about professional learning communities and seminars for facilitation, please visit the School Reform Initiative website at www.schoolreforminitiative.org
63
Examples of Focusing
Questions for Looking at
Student Work Sessions
Developed in the field by educators.
1. About the quality of student work
• Is the work good enough?
• What is “good enough”?
• In what ways does this work meet or fail to meet a particular set of standards?
2. About teaching practice
• What do the students’ responses indicate about the effectiveness of the prompt or
assignment? How might the assignment be improved?
• What kinds of instruction support high quality student performances?
3. About students’ understanding
• What does this work tell us about how well the student understands the topic of the
assignment?
• What initial understandings do we see beginning to emerge in this work?
4. About students’ growth
• How does this range of work from a single student demonstrate growth over time?
• How can I support student growth more effectively?
5. About students’ intent
• What issues or questions is this student focused on?
• What aspects of the assignment intrigued this student?
• Into which parts of the assignment did the student put the most effort?
• To what extent is the student challenging him or herself? In what ways?
Protocols are most powerful and effective when used within an ongoing professional learning community and facilitated by a skilled facilitator. To learn more
about professional learning communities and seminars for facilitation, please visit the School Reform Initiative website at www.schoolreforminitiative.org
64
Learning From Student Work Form
Context
Developed in the field by educators in Salt Lake City, Utah.
Please attach a copy of this sheet to the original student work with the teacher assignment and assessment (if relevant).
Presenter’s Name
Date of Session
Class
Description of Student Work (The assignment or unit of study and any supporting materials or
assessments that accompany the work.)
Context for Student Work: (Who are the students? How many? Where does the work fit into your
curriculum? What are the expected outcomes or standards used when assessing this work? Was it
whole group, small group, student choice, teacher prompt, work we do every day, twice a week, etc.)
Framing Question: What do you want to know as it relates to your student learning goals? What are you
wondering about? What might collegial analysis and reflection help you to learn about your students
and your practice?
Revised Framing Question (from pre-conference)
Protocols are most powerful and effective when used within an ongoing professional learning community and facilitated by a skilled facilitator. To learn more
about professional learning communities and seminars for facilitation, please visit the School Reform Initiative website at www.schoolreforminitiative.org
74
75
WORK TO SHARE
Name: _____________________
www.greatschoolspartnership.org
Great Schools Partnership, July 2008
____ other:
If student work, please bring task, rubric, and copies of
work. Please check which best describes the work
you’re bringing:
____ single piece of work from one student
in response to single assignment
____ 2-3 pieces of work from one student in
response to different assignments
____ single piece of work from 2-3 students
in response to the same assignment
Student work? Lesson/Unit Plan? Other?
Grade/content area?
Work you plan to share:
Question/Concern you have about this Facilitator Notes – Protocol to use
work:
At our next PLG meeting you will be sharing some aspect of your work, either student work or a lesson/unit plan for feedback related to a
question or concern you have. Please describe what you’re planning to share by completing the first two columns below.
Professional Learning Group
A Rationale for Protocols
Developed by the Southern Maine Partnership
The word “protocol” has taken on a more specific meaning in education in recent years. In the context
of educators working to improve their practice, a protocol is a structured process or set of guidelines
to promote meaningful and efficient communication and learning. Gene Thompson-Grove, co-director
of the national CFG project, writes, “[protocols] permit a certain kind of conversation to occur — often
a kind of conversation which people are not in the habit of having. Protocols are vehicles for building
the skills — and culture — necessary for collaborative work. Thus, using protocols often allows groups to
build trust by actually doing substantive work together.”
Many protocols involve one or a small group of presenting educators and another small group of
“consulting” educators. The Tuning Protocol was one of the first, and that term is sometimes used as a
generic term for many similar protocols. Protocols are sometimes modified by their users, but it is highly
recommended that users try them exactly as they are written several times before making modifications.
Please feel free to contact SMP staff if you have questions about protocols.
Why should we use a process for communication that feels so artificial, awkward and restrictive?
This is probably the most frequently asked question about protocols. There are two “rules” in many
protocols that seem to cause the most discomfort; they are worth regularly acknowledging before using
these protocols with educators:
1. In many protocols there are restrictions on when the presenting educator(s) can talk and when the
consulting educators can talk; almost everyone feels awkward at first when told they “can’t talk now.”
2. In many protocols there is a segment during which the consulting educators talk among each other,
purposely leaving the presenter(s) out of the conversation — in the third person — almost as though
they were not present!
Benefits
However, both of these restrictions have benefits, as described below. The bottom line is that using
protocols almost always increases learning, even for those who generally don’t like the structure, by:
• giving the consulting educators time to listen carefully to the entire presentation without needing to
quickly generate questions or comments;
• giving the presenting educator(s) time to simply listen and write (during feedback time) without needing
to think about providing eye contact or immediately responding to consulting educators;
• having time limits that make it less likely that a small number of individuals will dominate the air time;
and
• providing guidelines that safeguard the vulnerability of presenters who put some of their weaknesses “on
the table”; these guidelines make it safe to ask challenging questions of each other.
Protocols are most powerful and effective when used within an ongoing professional learning community and facilitated by a skilled facilitator. To learn more
about professional learning communities and seminars for facilitation, please visit the School Reform Initiative website at www.schoolreforminitiative.org
78
Of course, guidelines alone are not enough to safeguard vulnerability. Participants still need to be
considerate in how they speak. “Cool” or “hard” feedback may be evaluative in nature, but it can be
heard much better if it’s expressed in the form of a question or with some qualification and a measure
of humility, e.g. “I wonder if...”, rather than “I think you should...” Doing this implicitly acknowledges
that the consulting educator doesn’t know the context of the situation well enough to tell the presenting
educator what they should do. Passionate discussion is wonderful as long as the tone is collegial; selfmonitoring of tone of voice and body language is important to maximize learning. We don’t want to shut
people down when we’re trying to support them opening up.
As with all protocols, the facilitator should move the group to the next section of the protocol before the
allotted time is up if the group seems ready. In addition, the group can give more time to a section before
the protocol begins, and the group may want to give the facilitator some flexibility to add a small amount
of time to a section during the protocol.
Remember, the point of a protocol is to have an in-depth, insightful conversation about teaching and
learning, not to do a perfect protocol.
Protocols are most powerful and effective when used within an ongoing professional learning community and facilitated by a skilled facilitator. To learn more
about professional learning communities and seminars for facilitation, please visit the School Reform Initiative website at www.schoolreforminitiative.org
79
121
ATLAS - Learning From Student Work Protocol
Learning from Student Work is a tool to guide groups of teachers discovering what students understand
and how they are thinking. The tool, developed by Eric Buchovecky, is based in part on the work of the
Leadership for Urban Mathematics Project and of the Assessment Communities of Teachers Project. The
tool also draws on the work of Steve Seidel and Evangeline Harris-Stefanakis of Project Zero at Harvard
University. Revised November 2000 by Gene Thompson-Grove for NSRF.
1. Getting Started
• The facilitator explains the protocol.
Note: Each of the next four steps should be about 10 minutes in length. The presenter is silent until,
“Reflecting on the Process,” step 5. The group should avoid talking to the presenter during steps 2-4.
It is sometimes helpful for the presenter to pull away from the table and take notes.
• The educator providing the student work gives a very brief statement of the assignment. The educator
should describe only what the student was asked to do and avoid explaining what s/he hoped or
expected to see.
• The educator providing the work should not give any background information about the student or the
student’s work. In particular, the educator should avoid any statements about whether this is a strong or
weak student or whether this is a particularly good or poor piece of work from this student.
Note: After the group becomes more familiar with this process for looking at student work, you may
find it useful to hear the educator’s expectations. However, this information will focus more of the
group’s attention on the design of the assignment, the instruction, and the assessment, rather than on
seeing what is actually present in the student’s work.
2. Describing the Student Work
• The facilitator asks: “What do you see?”
• During this period the group gathers as much information as possible from the student work.
• Group members describe what they see in the student’s work, avoiding judgments about quality or
interpretations about what the student was doing.
• If judgments or interpretations do arise, the facilitator should ask the person to describe the evidence on
which they are based.
• It may be useful to list the group’s observations on chart paper. If interpretations come up, they can be
listed in another column for later discussion during Step 3.
3. Interpreting the Student Work
• The facilitator asks: “From the student’s perspective, what is the student working on?”
• During this period, the group tries to make sense of what the student was doing and why. The group
should try to find as many different interpretations as possible and evaluate them against the kind and
quality of evidence.
• From the evidence gathered in the preceding section, try to infer: what the student was thinking and
why; what the student does and does not understand; what the student was most interested in; how the
student interpreted the assignment.
Protocols are most powerful and effective when used within an ongoing professional learning community and facilitated by a skilled facilitator. To learn more
about professional learning communities and seminars for facilitation, please visit the School Reform Initiative website at www.schoolreforminitiative.org
82
• Think broadly and creatively. Assume that the work, no matter how confusing, makes sense to the
student; your job is to see what the student sees.
• As you listen to each other’s interpretations, ask questions that help you better understand each other’s
perspectives.
4. Implications for Classroom Practice
• The facilitator asks: “What are the implications of this work for teaching and assessment?”
• Based on the group’s observations and interpretations, discuss any implications this work might have for
teaching and assessment in the classroom. In particular, consider the following questions:
—What steps could the teacher take next with this student?
—What teaching strategies might be most effective?
—What else would you like to see in the student work? What kinds of assignments or assessments
could provide this information?
—What does this conversation make you think about in terms of your own practice? About teaching
and learning in general?
5. Reflecting on the ATLAS
• The presenter shares back what s/he learned about the student, the work, and what s/he is now thinking. The discussion then opens to the larger group to discuss what was learned about the student, about
colleagues, and self.
6. Debriefing the Process
• How well did the process work-what went well, and what could be improved? If the group has designated someone to observe the conversation, this person should report his or her observations.
Protocols are most powerful and effective when used within an ongoing professional learning community and facilitated by a skilled facilitator. To learn more
about professional learning communities and seminars for facilitation, please visit the School Reform Initiative website at www.schoolreforminitiative.org
83
ATLAS
Looking at Data
Learning from Data is a tool to guide groups of teachers discovering what students, educators, and the
public understands and how they are thinking. The tool, developed by Eric Buchovecky, is based in part on
the work of the Leadership for Urban Mathematics Project and of the Assessment Communities of Teachers
Project. The tool also draws on the work of Steve Seidel and Evangeline Harris-Stefanakis of Project Zero at
Harvard University. Revised November 2000 by Gene Thompson-Grove. Revised August 2004 for Looking
at Data by Dianne Leahy.
Protocol
1. Getting Started
• The facilitator reminds the group of the norms.
Note: Each of the next four steps should be about 10 minutes in length. It is sometimes helpful for the
facilitator to take notes.
• The educator providing the data set gives a very brief statement of the data and avoids explaining what
s/he concludes about the data if the data belongs to the group rather than the presenter.
2. Describing the Data (10 minutes)
• The facilitator asks: “What do you see?”
• During this period the group gathers as much information as possible from the data.
• Group members describe what they see in data, avoiding judgments about quality or interpretations. It
is helpful to identify where the observation is being made—e.g., “On page one in the second column,
third row . . . “
• If judgments or interpretations do arise, the facilitator should ask the person to describe the evidence on
which they are based.
• It may be useful to list the group’s observations on chart paper. If interpretations come up, they can be
listed in another column for later discussion during Step 3.
3. Interpreting the Data (10 minutes)
• The facilitator asks: “What does the data suggest?” Second question: “What are the assumptions we
make about students and their learning?”
• During this period, the group tries to make sense of what the data says and why. The group should try
to find as many different interpretations as possible and evaluate them against the kind and quality of
evidence.
• From the evidence gathered in the preceding section, try to infer: what is being worked on and why?
• Think broadly and creatively. Assume that the data, no matter how confusing, makes sense to some
people; your job is to see what they may see.
• As you listen to each other’s interpretations, ask questions that help you better understand each other’s
perspectives.
Protocols are most powerful and effective when used within an ongoing professional learning community and facilitated by a skilled facilitator. To learn more
about professional learning communities and seminars for facilitation, please visit the School Reform Initiative website at www.schoolreforminitiative.org
135
4. Implications for Classroom Practice (10 minutes)
• The facilitator asks: “What are the implications of this work for teaching and assessment?” This question
may be modified, depending on the data.
• Based on the group’s observations and interpretations, discuss any implications this work might have for
teaching and assessment in the classroom. In particular, consider the following questions:
—What steps could be taken next?
—What strategies might be most effective?
—What else would you like to see happen? What kinds of assignments or assessments could provide
this information?
—What does this conversation make you think about in terms of your own practice? About teaching
and learning in general?
—What are the implications for equity?
5. Reflecting on the ATLAS-Looking at Data (10 minutes)
Presenter Reflection:
• What did you learn from listening to your colleagues that was interesting or surprising?
• What new perspectives did your colleagues provide?
• How can you make use of your colleagues’ perspectives?
Group Reflection:
• What questions about teaching and assessment did looking at the data raise for you?
• Did questions of equity arise?
• How can you pursue these questions further?
• Are there things you would like to try in your classroom as a result of looking at this data?
6. Debrief the Process (5 minutes)
• How well did the process work?
• What about the process helped you to see and learn interesting or surprising things?
• What could be improved?
Protocols are most powerful and effective when used within an ongoing professional learning community and facilitated by a skilled facilitator. To learn more
about professional learning communities and seminars for facilitation, please visit the School Reform Initiative website at www.schoolreforminitiative.org
136
Data Driven Dialogue
Developed by the Teacher Development Group, 2002.
“Dialogue comes from the Greek word dialogos. Logos means ‘the word,’ or in our case we would
think of the ‘meaning of the word.’ And dia means ‘through’ – it doesn’t mean two. A dialogue can
be among any number of people, not just two. Even one person can have a sense of dialogue
within himself, if the spirit of dialog is present. The picture or image that this derivation suggests is
of a stream of meaning flowing among and through us and between us. This will make possible a
flow of meaning in the whole group, out of which will emerge some new understanding. It’s
something new, which may not have been in the starting point at all. It’s something creative. And
this shared meaning is the ‘glue’ or ‘cement’ that holds people and societies together.” (Bohm, D.,
1990)
Data Driven Dialogue
Summary
Based on work presented by Nancy Love, author of “Using Data/Getting Results”, 2002.
This protocol builds awareness and understanding of the participant’s viewpoints, beliefs, and
assumptions about data while suspending judgments. All participants have equal voice. The three
phases of data-driven dialogue assist groups in making shared meaning of data. We encourage you
to use this tool with your entire school staff and/or with your school leadership team at a special
meeting on data. The dialogue tool helps to replace hunches and feelings with data-based facts,
examine patterns and trends of performance indicators, and generate “root-cause” discussions that
move from identifying symptoms to possible causes of student performance. In order to effectively
use this tool, participants will need to have grade level, school, or district data reports.
• Phase I Predictions
Surfacing perspectives, beliefs, assumptions, predictions, possibilities, questions, and
expectations.
• Phase II Go Visual
Re-create the data visually.
• Phase III Observations
Analyzing the data for patterns, trends, surprises, and new questions that “jump” out.
• Phase IV Inferences
Generating hypotheses, inferring, explaining, and drawing conclusions. Defining new actions
and Interactions and the data needed to guide their implementation. Building ownership for
decisions.
Protocols are most powerful and effective when used within an ongoing professional learning community and facilitated by a skilled facilitator. To learn more
about professional learning communities and seminars for facilitation, please visit the School Reform Initiative website at www.schoolreforminitiative.org
137
Data Driven Dialogue
Protocol Facilitation Plan
Developed by David Leo-Nyquist.
Time
60-70 minutes
Protocol
1. Review protocol (3 minutes)
2. Presentation by the “owner” of the data — overview of the context and focus (5 minutes)
3. Clarifying questions from the group (4 minutes)
4. Predictions
a. Group fills out Predictions sheet (3 minutes)
b. Round-robin report-out of predictions (one item each person, one round only — 3 minutes)
5. Distribution and examination of data (7 minutes)
6. Additional clarifying questions, if necessary (3 minutes)
7. Observations
a. Group fills out Observations sheet (5 minutes)
b. Round-robin report-out of observations (one item each person, continue rounds until new ideas
are spent — 5 minutes)
8. Check in with presenter Do we need to refocus our attention? (2 minutes)
9. Inferences
a. Group fills out Inferences sheet (5 minutes)
b. Round-robin report-out of inferences (one item each person, continue rounds until new ideas are
spent — 5 minutes)
10.Response from the presenter — What new thoughts are you having about your data now? What are
your next steps? (5 minutes)
11.Open discussion of IMPLICATIONS for teaching and learning (10 minutes)
12.Debrief the protocol (3 minutes)
Note: This protocol can be done in two sessions if desired, stopping after Step 8 between sessions.
Participants can fill out the Inferences sheet between meetings to allow for a fuller discussion of the results
in the next session.
Protocols are most powerful and effective when used within an ongoing professional learning community and facilitated by a skilled facilitator. To learn more
about professional learning communities and seminars for facilitation, please visit the School Reform Initiative website at www.schoolreforminitiative.org
138
Save the Last Word for ME
Developed by Patricia Averette.
Purpose
To clarify and deepen our thinking about a text.
Roles
Timekeeper/facilitator, who both participates and keeps the process moving.
Time
approximately 30 minutes.
Protocol
The process is designed to build on each other’s thinking, and not to enter into a dialogue.
Participants may decide to have an open dialogue about the text at the end of the 30 minutes.
Timing is important; each round should last approximately 7 minutes.
1. Create a group of 4 participants. Choose a timekeeper (who also participates) who has a watch.
2. Each participant silently identifies what s/he considers to be (for him or her) the most significant idea
addressed in the article, and highlights that passage.
3. When the group is ready, a volunteer member identifies the part of the article that s/he found to be most
significant and reads it out loud to the group. This person (the presenter) says nothing about why s/he
chose that particular passage.
4. The group should pause for a moment to consider the passage before moving to the next step.
5. The other 3 participants each have 1 minute to respond to the passage — saying what it makes them
think about, what questions it raises for them, etc.
6. The first participant then has 3 minutes to state why s/he chose that part of the article and to respond to
— or build on — what s/he heard from his/her colleagues.
7. The same pattern is followed until all four members of the group have had a chance to be the presenter
and to have “the last word.”
8. Optional open dialogue about the text and the ideas and questions raised during the first part of the
protocol.
9. Debrief the experience. How was this a useful way to explore the ideas in the text and to explore your
own thinking?
Protocols are most powerful and effective when used within an ongoing professional learning community and facilitated by a skilled facilitator. To learn more
about professional learning communities and seminars for facilitation, please visit the School Reform Initiative website at www.schoolreforminitiative.org
127
Four “A”s Text Protocol
Adapted from Judith Gray, Seattle, WA 2005.
Purpose
To explore a text deeply in light of one’s own values and intentions.
Roles
Facilitator/timekeeper (who also participates); participants.
Time
Five minutes total for each participant, plus ten minutes for the final two steps.
1. The group reads the text silently, highlighting it and writing notes in the margin on post-it notes in
answer to the following four questions (you can also add your own “A”s).
• What Assumptions does the author of the text hold?
• What do you Agree with in the text?
• What do you want to Argue with in the text?
• What parts of the text do you want to Aspire to (or Act upon)?
2. In a round, have each person identify one assumption in the text, citing the text (with page numbers, if
appropriate) as evidence.
3. Either continue in rounds or facilitate a conversation in which the group talks about the text in light of
each of the remaining “A”s, taking them one at a time – what do people want to argue with, agree with,
and aspire to (or act upon) in the text? Try to move seamlessly from one “A” to the next, giving each “A”
enough time for full exploration.
4. End the session with an open discussion framed around a question such as: What does this mean for
our work with students?
5. Debrief the text experience.
Protocols are most powerful and effective when used within an ongoing professional learning community and facilitated by a skilled facilitator. To learn more
about professional learning communities and seminars for facilitation, please visit the School Reform Initiative website at www.schoolreforminitiative.org
125
Text-Based Seminar
Developed by Gene Thompson-Grove.
Purpose
Enlargement of understanding of a text, not the achievement of some particular understanding.
Time
At least 45 minutes.
Ground Rules
1. Listen actively.
2. Build on what others say.
3. Don’t step on others’ talk. Silences and pauses are OK.
4. Let the conversation flow as much as possible without raising hands or using a speaker’s list.
5. Make the assumptions underlying your comments explicit to others.
6. Emphasize clarification, amplification, and implications of ideas.
7. Watch your own air time — both in terms of how often you speak, and in terms of how much you say
when you speak.
8. Refer to the text; challenge others to go to the text.
Notes to Facilitators
Text-Based Seminars can be remarkably engaging and productive for both students and adults. A TextBased Seminar facilitator has two primary tasks: posing the framing question and keeping the group
focused without pushing any particular agenda.
Facilitating a seminar is not terribly difficult, but it can be challenging. A few tips might make the job
easier:
1. Invest time in creating the framing question. It needs to be substantive, clear, relevant to the
participants’ experience, and likely to push their thinking in new directions. Above all, constructing
a response to the question should require close reading of the text. We recommend that the framing
question be genuine for everyone, including the facilitator, so that the entire group is engaged in the
inquiry. Framing questions are often based on a quote from the text, which begins to establish a pattern
of using the document as a basis for the conversation.
2. In addition to the framing question, create a few follow-up questions that seem to raise the level of
participants’ thinking. If the groups takes off, you may never use them (or you may create new ones that
Protocols are most powerful and effective when used within an ongoing professional learning community and facilitated by a skilled facilitator. To learn more
about professional learning communities and seminars for facilitation, please visit the School Reform Initiative website at www.schoolreforminitiative.org
128
come from the conversation itself), but it’s a good idea to have something in your hip pocket, especially
if you aren’t very experienced at this kind of facilitation.
3. Unless the entire group does Text-Based Seminars routinely, it is useful to go over the purposes and
ground rules before you begin. Because so many conversations (in school and out) are based more on
opinion than evidence, and aim toward winning the argument rather than constructing new knowledge,
it is often important to remind the group of the basics: work from the text and strive to enlarge your
understanding.
4. Give the group time (about 15 minutes) to re-read the text with the framing question in mind.
5. The most common facilitation problems in this kind of seminar come from two kinds of participants:
the folks who have to win, and those who want to express opinions independent of the text and will use
any quote they can find as a springboard. Usually, a reminder of the ground rules will pull them back,
although it is sometimes necessary to redirect the conversation if you are dealing with a particularly
insistent “winner.” With the “winner,” asking the group to examine closely the assumptions underneath
the arguments or opinions being presented sometimes helps. When someone doesn’t stick to the text,
it is often helpful to ask the group to look for evidence of the opinion being expressed in the text. What
you don’t want to do is ask these two types of participants a direct question, or ask them to cite the
evidence in the text for their opinions (although you might be tempted to do so). The goal is to redirect
the conversation away from these folks, not to get them to talk more!
6. It is sometimes useful to keep running notes of the conversation, and to periodically summarize for the
group what has been said.
7. It is also sometimes useful (especially if you are nervous) to have a “plant” among the participants —
someone who will model ideal participant behavior at an early point in the seminar.
8. As is always the case when facilitating, try to keep the conversation balanced. Don’t let one or two
people dominate. If there are many quiet people, asking them to speak in pairs for a few minutes on a
particular point can sometimes give them an entry into the conversation when you come back to the
large group. Sometimes you just have to say, “let’s have someone who hasn’t said much yet speak,” and
then use lots of wait time, even though it may feel somewhat uncomfortable to do so.
9. When debriefing the protocol, ask the group how they might improve their seminar skills, both
individually and collectively.
Protocols are most powerful and effective when used within an ongoing professional learning community and facilitated by a skilled facilitator. To learn more
about professional learning communities and seminars for facilitation, please visit the School Reform Initiative website at www.schoolreforminitiative.org
129
Collaborative Assessment Conference: Overview
Excerpted, with slight adaptations, from Looking Together at Student Work by Tina Blythe, David Allen,
and Barbara S. Powell (New York: Teachers College Press, 1999).
A piece of student work has the potential to reveal not only the student’s mastery of the curriculum’s
goals, but also a wealth of information about the student him/herself: his/her intellectual interests, his/her
strengths, and his/her struggles. The Collaborative Assessment Conference was designed to give teachers
a systematic way to mine this richness. It provides a structure by which teachers come together to look at
a piece of work, first to determine what it reveals about the student and the issues s/he cares about, and
then to consider how the student’s issues and concerns relate to the teacher’s goals for the student. The last
part of the conversation – the discussion of classroom practice – grows out of these initial considerations.
The structure for the conference evolved from three key ideas:
• First, students use school assignments, especially open-ended ones, to tackle important problems in
which they are personally interested. Sometimes these problems are the same ones that the teacher has
assigned them to work on, sometimes not.
• Second, we can only begin to see and understand the serious work that students undertake if we
suspend judgment long enough to look carefully and closely at what is actually in the work rather than
what we hope to see in it.
• Third, we need the perspective of others — especially those who are not intimate with our goals for our
students — to help us to see aspects of the student and the work that would otherwise escape us, and
we need others to help us generate ideas about how to use this information to shape our daily practice.
Since 1988, when Steve Seidel and his colleagues at Project Zero developed this process, the
Collaborative Assessment Conference has been used in a variety of ways: to give teachers the opportunity
to hone their ability to look closely at and interpret students’ work; to explore the strengths and needs
of a particular child; to reflect on the work collected in student portfolios; to foster conversations among
faculty about the kind of work students are doing and how faculty can best support that work.
In the Collaborative Assessment Conference, the presenting teacher brings a piece of student work to
share with a group of five to ten colleagues (usually other teachers and administrators). The process begins
with the presenting teacher showing (or distributing copies of) the piece to the group. Throughout the first
part of the conference, the presenting teacher says nothing, giving no information about the student, the
assignment, or the context in which the student worked.
Protocols are most powerful and effective when used within an ongoing professional learning community and facilitated by a skilled facilitator. To learn more
about professional learning communities and seminars for facilitation, please visit the School Reform Initiative website at www.schoolreforminitiative.org
Through a series of questions asked by the facilitator, the group works to understand the piece by
describing it in detail and looking for clues that would suggest the problems or issues or aspects of the
work with which the student was most engaged. They do this without judgments about the quality of work
or how it suits their personal tastes. The facilitator helps this process by asking participants to point out the
evidence on which they based the judgments that inevitably slip out. For example, if someone comments
that the work seems very creative, the facilitator might ask him or her to describe the aspect of the work
that led him or her to say that.
In the second part of the conference, the focus broadens. Having concentrated intensively on the piece
itself, the group, in conversation with the presenting teacher, now considers the conditions under which
the work was created as well as broader issues of teaching and learning. First, the presenting teacher
provides any information that s/he thinks is relevant about the context of the work. This might include
describing the assignment, responding to the discussion, answering questions (though s/he does not have
to respond to all the questions raised in the first part of the conference), describing other work by the
child, and/or commenting on how his/her own reading or observation of the work compares to that of the
group.
Next, the facilitator asks the whole group (presenting teacher included) to reflect on the ideas generated by
the discussion of the piece. These might be reflections about specific next steps for the child in question,
ideas about what the participants might do in their own classes or thoughts about the teaching and
learning process in general. Finally, the whole group reflects on the conference itself.
The following steps are a working agenda for a Collaborative Assessment Conference. The time allotted for
each step of the conference is not fixed, since the time needed for each step will vary in accordance with
the work being considered. At each stage, the facilitator should use his or her judgment in deciding when
to move the group on to the next step.
Protocols are most powerful and effective when used within an ongoing professional learning community and facilitated by a skilled facilitator. To learn more
about professional learning communities and seminars for facilitation, please visit the School Reform Initiative website at www.schoolreforminitiative.org
Collaborative Assessment Conference Protocol
Developed by Steve Seidel and colleagues at Harvard Project Zero.
1. Getting Started
• The group chooses a facilitator who will make sure the group stays focused on the particular issue
addressed in each step.
• The presenting teacher puts the selected work in a place where everyone can see it or provides copies
for the other participants. S/he says nothing about the work, the context in which it was created, or the
student, until Step 5.
• The participants observe or read the work in silence, perhaps making brief notes about aspects of it that
they particularly notice.
2. Describing the Work
• The facilitator asks the group, “What do you see?”
• Group members provide answers without making judgments about the quality of the work or their
personal preferences.
• If a judgment emerges, the facilitator asks for the evidence on which the judgment is based.
3. Asking Questions About the Work
• The facilitator asks the group, “What questions does this work raise for you?”
• Group members state any questions they have about the work, the child, the assignment, the
circumstances under which the work was carried out, and so on.
• The presenting teacher may choose to make notes about these questions, but s/he is does not respond
to them now--nor is s/he obligated to respond to them in Step 5 during the time when the presenting
teacher speaks.
4. Speculating About What the Student Is Working On
• The facilitator asks the group, “What do you think the child is working on?”
• Participants, based on their reading or observation of the work, make suggestions about the problems or
issues that the student might have been focused on in carrying out the assignment.
5. Hearing from the Presenting Teacher
• The facilitator invites the presenting teacher to speak.
• The presenting teacher provides his or her perspective on the student’s work, describing what s/he
sees in it, responding (if s/he chooses) to one or more of the questions raised, and adding any other
information that s/he feels is important to share with the group.
• The presenting teacher also comments on anything surprising or unexpected that s/he heard during the
describing, questioning and speculating phases.
Protocols are most powerful and effective when used within an ongoing professional learning community and facilitated by a skilled facilitator. To learn more
about professional learning communities and seminars for facilitation, please visit the School Reform Initiative website at www.schoolreforminitiative.org
6. Discussing Implications for Teaching and Learning
• The facilitator invites everyone (the participants and the presenting teacher) to share any thoughts
they have about their own teaching, children’s learning, or ways to support this particular child in
future instruction.
7. Reflecting on the Collaborative Assessment Conference
• The group reflects on the experiences of the conference as a whole or to particular parts of it.
8. Thanks to the Presenting Teacher
Protocols are most powerful and effective when used within an ongoing professional learning community and facilitated by a skilled facilitator. To learn more
about professional learning communities and seminars for facilitation, please visit the School Reform Initiative website at www.schoolreforminitiative.org
Success Analysis Protocol
With Reflective Questions
Developed by Vivian Johnson.
The facilitator’s role is to help the group to keep focused on how the success described by the presenter
is different from more routine work. The analysis of what made this so successful is the purpose of the
protocol. The facilitator is a full participant in this protocol, and each participant takes a turn as the
facilitator. “Success” is defined as something that proved to be highly effective in achieving an outcome
important to the presenter. Participants should focus only on the success of the presenter’s work and avoid
any comments that could be percieved as criticism or suggestions for improvement.
1. Identify a success. (5 minutes)
Write a short description of a success. [Note: you may want to specify here the arena of the success
— in terms of your work as a teacher, as a CFG coach, as an administrator, with a student, using a
particular teaching strategy, etc.] Describe the specifics of the success. Be sure to answer the question,
“What made this experience so different from others like it that I have had?”
2. Presenter describes the success. (5 minutes)
In triads, the first presenter tells the story of his or her “success,” in as much detail she s/he can
remember. The group takes notes.
3. Group asks clarifying questions. (3 minutes)
The rest of the group asks clarifying questions about the details of the “success” in order to fill in any
information the group needs to be helpful to the presenter.
4. Group asks questions that help the presenter reflect upon the success. (optional step)
The purpose of these questions is to help the presenter uncover why this was so successful—to see
more in the success. The presenter answers the questions, but there isn’t any back and forth discussion
with the group. Some examples of questions include:
• Why do you think…?
• What was different about…?
• Why did you decide to…?
(5 minutes).
5. Group reflects on the success story. (10 minutes)
Group members discuss what they heard the presenter say, and offer additional insights and analysis of
the success. The presenter is silent and takes notes.
6. Presenter reflects. (5 minutes)
The presenter reflects on the group’s discussion about what made this so successful. The group then
discusses briefly how what they have learned might be applied to all of their work.
Protocols are most powerful and effective when used within an ongoing professional learning community and facilitated by a skilled facilitator. To learn more
about professional learning communities and seminars for facilitation, please visit the School Reform Initiative website at www.schoolreforminitiative.org
114
7. Protocol begins again for the next group member.
Repeat steps 2 through 6 for each member of the group. Remember to keep the focus on the underlying
principles or processes that made for success.
8. Debrief protocol. (5 minutes)
What worked well? What misconceptions or confusions emerged? What adaptations to this protocol
might improve the process? How might we apply what we learned to other work? How might others
(teachers, administrators, students) use this process to reflect on their work?
9. Group Reflection
The triad identifies and lists the factors that contributed to their successes, and shares this in the
large group. The large group looks for trends across triads, and then discusses what it would mean to
consciously create conditions that lead to success. (Time permitting)
Protocols are most powerful and effective when used within an ongoing professional learning community and facilitated by a skilled facilitator. To learn more
about professional learning communities and seminars for facilitation, please visit the School Reform Initiative website at www.schoolreforminitiative.org
115
Consultancy Protocol
Developed by Gene Thompson-Grove, Paula Evans, and Faith Dunne as part of the Coalition of Essential
Schools’ National Re:Learning Faculty Program.
A Consultancy is a structured process for helping an individual or a team think more expansively about a
particular, concrete dilemma. Outside perspective is critical to this protocol working effectively; therefore,
some of the participants in the group must be people who do not share the presenter’s specific dilemma at
that time. When putting together a Consultancy group, be sure to include people with differing perspectives.
Time
Approximately 50 minutes
Roles
Presenter (whose work is being discussed by the group)
Facilitator (who sometimes participates, depending on the size of the group)
Protocol
1. The presenter gives an overview of the dilemma with which s/he is struggling, and frames a question for
the Consultancy group to consider. The framing of this question, as well as the quality of the presenter’s
reflection on the dilemma being discussed, are key features of this protocol. If the presenter has brought
student work, educator work, or other “artifacts,” there is a pause here to silently examine the work/
documents. The focus of the group’s conversation is on the dilemma. (5-10 minutes)
2. The Consultancy group asks clarifying questions of the presenter — that is, questions that have brief,
factual answers. (5 minutes)
3. The group asks probing questions of the presenter. These questions should be worded so that they help
the presenter clarify and expand his/her thinking about the dilemma presented to the Consultancy
group. The goal here is for the presenter to learn more about the question s/he framed or to do some
analysis of the dilemma presented. The presenter may respond to the group’s questions, but there is no
discussion by the Consultancy group of the presenter’s responses. At the end of the ten minutes, the
facilitator asks the presenter to re-state his/her question for the group. (10 minutes)
4. The group talks with each other about the dilemma presented. (15 minutes)
Possible questions to frame the discussion:
What did we hear?
What didn’t we hear that they think might be relevant?
What assumptions seem to be operating?
What questions does the dilemma raise for us?
What do we think about the dilemma?
What might we do or try if faced with a similar dilemma? What have we done in similar situations?
Protocols are most powerful and effective when used within an ongoing professional learning community and facilitated by a skilled facilitator. To learn more
about professional learning communities and seminars for facilitation, please visit the School Reform Initiative website at www.schoolreforminitiative.org
105
Members of the group sometimes suggest actions the presenter might consider taking. Most often,
however, they work to define the issues more thoroughly and objectively. The presenter doesn’t speak
during this discussion, but instead listens and takes notes.
5. The presenter reflects on what s/he heard and on what s/he is now thinking, sharing with the group
anything that particularly resonated for him or her during any part of the Consultancy. (5 minutes)
6. The facilitator leads a brief conversation about the group’s observation of the Consultancy process.
(5 minutes)
Protocols are most powerful and effective when used within an ongoing professional learning community and facilitated by a skilled facilitator. To learn more
about professional learning communities and seminars for facilitation, please visit the School Reform Initiative website at www.schoolreforminitiative.org
106
The Tuning Protocol:
Narrative
Developed by Gene Thompson-Grove and David Allen.
The Tuning Protocol is best suited to look at particular teacher or school-created projects and assessments
in order to improve them. So, for example, it is often used to look at writing prompts, open-ended
problems and other kinds of assignments, research project designs, and rubrics for all kinds of activities
and projects. It is less effective for learning in depth about a particular student’s understanding, interests,
or skills; for these purposes, the structure of the Collaborative Assessment Conference would serve better.
The focus of a Tuning Protocol is on a piece of curriculum, instruction, or assessment selected by the
presenting teacher. Typically, the teacher chooses something because some of the students weren’t
successful. The goal is to help the presenting teacher to improve, or “fine tune,” that piece of his or her
curriculum or assessment (hence the name Tuning Protocol), so that all students meet the expectations. If
a presenter wants to revise something he or she has done, the structure of the Tuning Protocol will likely
provide useful feedback.
• The scope of the group’s work is determined, at least in part, by a “focusing question” framed in
advance by the presenting teacher. For example, “How does this project support students’ application
and development of critical thinking skills in math?”
• A range of student work (typically from several students at different levels of accomplishment) is
presented to inform the group’s understanding and help the group “tune” the piece of curriculum/
assessment identified by the presenting teacher. The presenter should bring enough copies of the
student work, the assignment or prompt, the assessment tool or rubric, and the student learning goals,
standards or expectations.
• A crucial part of the tuning comes through “warm” and “cool” feedback offered to the presenting
teacher by the participants (after they’ve heard about the instructional context and looked at the student
work). The feedback tries to respond to the presenting teacher’s focusing question but is not limited by
it.
• “Warm” feedback asks participants to identify strengths, both in the teacher-created piece of instruction
or assessment and in the student work; “cool” feedback asks participants to identify possible gaps
between the teacher’s goals for the work and the students’ accomplishment—and ways these gaps
might be closed.
• The presenting teacher listens to the full range of feedback without responding immediately. Instead,
in the next step, s/he is asked to reflect on what s/he heard. In this step, the other participants listen and
don’t interrupt.
• A final step calls for all the participants to “debrief” the conversation, considering how the structure
helped them achieve the goals for the protocol.
Protocols are most powerful and effective when used within an ongoing professional learning community and facilitated by a skilled facilitator. To learn more
about professional learning communities and seminars for facilitation, please visit the School Reform Initiative website at www.schoolreforminitiative.org
116
Tuning Protocol
Developed by Joseph McDonald and David Allen.
The tuning protocol was originally developed as a means for the five high schools in the Coalition
of Essential School’s Exhibitions Project to receive feedback and fine-tune their developing student
assessment systems, including exhibitions, portfolios and design projects. Recognizing the complexities
involved in developing new forms of assessment, the project staff developed a facilitated process to
support educators in sharing their students’ work and, with colleagues, reflecting upon the lessons that
are embedded there. This collaborative reflection helps educators to design and refine their assessment
systems, as well as to support higher quality student performance. Since its trial run in 1992, the Tuning
Protocol has been widely used and adapted for professional development purposes in and among schools
across the country.
1. Introduction (5 minutes)
• Facilitator briefly introduces protocol goals, guidelines, and schedule
2. Presentation (15 minutes)
The presenter has an opportunity to share the context for the student work:
•Information about the students and/or the class — what the students tend to be like, where they are in
school, where they are in the year
•Assignment or prompt that generated the student work
•Student learning goals or standards that inform the work
•Samples of student work — photocopies of work, video clips, etc. — with student names removed
•Evaluation format — scoring rubric and/or assessment criteria, etc.
• Focusing question for feedback
3. Clarifying Questions (5 minutes)
•Participants have an opportunity to ask clarifying questions in order to get information that may have
been omitted in the presentation that they feel would help them to understand the context for the
student work. Clarifying questions are matters of fact.
•The facilitator should be sure to limit the questions to those that are clarifying, judging which questions
more properly belong in the warm/cool feedback section.
4. Examination of Student Work Samples (15 minutes)
•Participants look closely at the work, taking notes on where it seems to be in tune with the stated
goals, and where there might be a problem. Participants focus particularly on the presenter’s focusing
question.
•Presenter is silent; participants do this work silently.
Protocols are most powerful and effective when used within an ongoing professional learning community and facilitated by a skilled facilitator. To learn more
about professional learning communities and seminars for facilitation, please visit the School Reform Initiative website at www.schoolreforminitiative.org
117
5. Pause to reflect on warm and cool feedback (2-3 minutes)
•Participants take a couple of minutes to reflect on what they would like to contribute to the feedback
session.
•Presenter is silent; participants do this work silently.
6. Warm and Cool Feedback (15 minutes)
•Participants share feedback with each other while the presenter is silent. The feedback generally begins
with a few minutes of warm feedback, moves on to a few minutes of cool feedback (sometimes phrased
in the form of reflective questions), and then moves back and forth between warm and cool feedback.
•Warm feedback may include comments about how the work presented seems to meet the desired
goals; cool feedback may include possible disconnects, gaps, or problems. Often participants offer
ideas or suggestions for strengthening the work presented.
•The facilitator may need to remind participants of the presenter’s focusing question, which should be
posted for all to see.
•Presenter is silent and takes notes.
7. Reflection (5 minutes)
•Presenter speaks to those comments/questions he or she chooses while participants are silent.
•This is not a time to defend oneself, but is instead a time for the presenter to reflect aloud on those
ideas or questions that seemed particularly interesting.
•Facilitator may intervene to focus, clarify, etc.
8. Debrief (5 minutes)
•Facilitator-led discussion of this tuning experience.
Protocols are most powerful and effective when used within an ongoing professional learning community and facilitated by a skilled facilitator. To learn more
about professional learning communities and seminars for facilitation, please visit the School Reform Initiative website at www.schoolreforminitiative.org
118
Looking At Work Protocol – 20 Minute Version
(designed for groups of 3-5; stretch times for larger groups)
1. Initial Presentation (3 minutes)
Presenter(s) present a quick overview of the matter they have chosen (with or without handouts), and frame 1-3 questions
regarding problems or dilemmas that they want the response group to address.
2. Clarifying Questions (2 minutes)
Response group members ask questions of the presenter(s) that have factual answers of a word or phrase in length, e.g.
"who, what, where, when and how much" questions. Clarifying Questions do not include "why?" or "what other
approaches have you considered?" questions. The purpose of clarifying questions is to help the questioner better
understand the presenter’s situation and the handouts (if any have been distributed); these questions are not likely to offer
any "food for thought" to the presenter(s). Clarifying Questions may also be asked during any later section of this
protocol if necessary.
3. Probing Questions (4 minutes)
Response group members ask questions of the presenter(s) that help the presenter(s) clarify and extend their own thinking
about the matter they have presented to the response group. The response group asks open-ended questions such as:
•why...?
•what other approaches have you considered regarding...?"
•what do you think would happen if...?
The presenter(s) may need to think for a few moments before responding. Presenter(s) may choose to not respond - other
than to say, “I may need to think more about that question.”
Each response group member is given the opportunity to ask one question before anyone asks a second question.
4. Discussion (6 minutes)
The response group talks among each other while the presenter(s) listen and take notes; the presenter(s) are not allowed to
speak at this time (except to answer a clarifying question if one arises). It’s usually helpful for the presenter(s) to move
their chairs back slightly away from the group where they can more easily attend to listening and note taking without
feeling the need to talk or even give eye contact. The response group refers to the presenter(s) in the third person in order
to help maintain this separation throughout this section of the protocol. This often feels awkward, but it is only for a few
minutes and the benefits can be substantial. Response group members may offer their analyses of the situation and offer
possible but never definitive ideas about solutions. They may characterize their comments as "warm" or "cool" feedback.
Cool feedback is often best received if it comes after some warm feedback, and if it is expressed in the form of either a
question or with some qualification and a measure of humility, e.g. "I wonder if..." rather than "I think he should…" It is
also important for the presenter(s) to listen carefully, and in a non-defensive manner. Each response group member is
given the opportunity to make one comment before anyone makes a second.
5. Presenter(s) Response (3 minutes)
The presenter(s) respond to what the response group members said in the previous section of the protocol. The purpose of
this section is not for the presenter(s) to respond to everything the response group members said. Instead, the purpose is for
the presenter(s) to talk about what they heard that was most important to them, and any thoughts or questions that were
stimulated by the response group discussion.
6. Reflection/Debrief (2 minutes)
The presenter(s) are the first to speak in this section. It's important to give all participants a chance to discuss their
observations of and feelings about the process. Often hearing others talk about how the process worked for them helps
people see the value of using a structured protocol.
 Great Schools Partnership, JN, 8/27/07. Adapted from the Tuning and Consultancy Protocols.
May be copied, distributed or adapted with attribution, but may not be posted on a website without permission.
111
Great Schools Partnership
Reflection
Writing samples
Assessments
Projects
Student Work
Reflection
Data
Lesson/Unit Plans
Assessment
Classroom Maps
Adult Work
Improved Student
Learning Experiences
~~~~~~
Increased Student
Achievement
Attendance
Behavior
Course Success
SAT, NECAP, NWEA,
etc.
Instructional Strategies
Articles, websites
Book discussion
Video clips
Text
Trends & Patterns
Root Causes
August 2012
Professional Learning Group
Cycle of Inquiry & Action
182
Professional Learning Group
Planning Considerations
Planning with the “Four Corners” in mind:
Vision/Purpose for your Professional Learning Groups (PLGs): (Meaning)
•
•
•
What is a PLG? (concise working definition; statement of purpose)
What positive impacts on student learning do we expect to see? (How will we know PLGs are
“working”? Will we collect and review “evidence” periodically? What outcomes are we seeking?)
How will the vision be monitored and maintained? (role of principal and other leaders)
Structure/Expectations: (Structure)
•
What do we do there? (What are appropriate ways to use this time? Will there be expectations, e.g.,
for all teachers to present work at least twice a year?)
What isn’t a PLG? (What don’t we do there? How do we ensure PLGs stay focused on our vision?)
When do we meet? How often? How long?
What will the groups look like? (mixed or same content areas? grade levels? schools?)
Who sets the agenda? How? (decision-making processes; commonalities vs autonomy among groups)
What kind of records will we keep? (agendas, minutes, breakthroughs, celebrations, decisions)
What will we share with others? (administrators, PLG facilitators, others)
•
•
How/when will staff be informed? (Will others be included in the planning process?)
When will the first PLG meeting happen? What will it look like? (agenda)
•
•
•
How will norms be set, monitored and reviewed?
How will the work be shared? (presenting, facilitating, recording, etc.)
What kind of support will facilitators need? (e.g., monthly informal gatherings; ongoing professional
development)
•
•
•
•
•
•
Getting Started: (Action)
Ongoing Support: (Caring)
Other implementation considerations:
Principals, Building Leaders:
PLG Facilitators:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1. Agenda development:
 Decided by school, facilitator, PLG?
 Coordination with other PLGs in
building/district
2. Skill development:
 Giving/receiving feedback
 Asking good probing questions
 Selection and use of protocols (building
confidence and appreciation in group)
 Developing listening skills
3. Integrity (as for principals)
4. Support and professional development
Informing all (staff, school board, parents)
Groundwork laid for initial success
Ongoing facilitator support
Compliance/Accountability
Integrity:
 Moral courage
 Intent/spirit of PLGs
 Culture of collaboration
 Relationships
Great Schools Partnership, July 2008
195
www.greatschoolspartnership.org
Professional Learning Group
Planning Template
Vision/Purpose for PLGs in your school/district: (Meaning)
•
•
What is a PLG? (concise working definition; statement of purpose)
How will we ensure the integrity/spirit of PLGs is maintained?
Structure/Expectations: (Structure)
•
•
What do we do there? (What isn’t a PLG? What don’t we do there?)
PLG meeting schedule; configuration; agenda creation; record-keeping
Getting Started: (Action)
•
•
How/when will staff be informed?
What will the first PLG meeting look like? (agenda)
Ongoing Support: (Caring)
•
•
How will norms be set, monitored and reviewed?
How will facilitators get the support they need?
Great Schools Partnership, July 2008
196
www.greatschoolspartnership.org
PLG AGENDA/NOTES Date: ____________________ School: ______________________________________ PLG: __________________________________________ Facilitator: __________________________________ Recorder: ___________________________________ “Presenter” _________________________________ Topic: ________________________________________ Circle One: Data Text Adult work Student Work Focus Question: ____________________________________________________________________________________ Outcome(s): _________________________________________________________________________________________ Protocol/Process: __________________________________________________________________________________ AGENDA/NOTES: 1. Opening (3 min.) Facilitator presents overview of meeting plans and outcomes 2. Presenter shares work (Data, text) and participants respond (30-­‐40 min) Facilitator guides conversation using a protocol to accomplish the outcomes 3. Reflections; Implications for our work (what will we each leave with that will impact our interaction with students and improve their learning?) (5-­‐10 min) If this is not built into the protocol, facilitator ensures that the full group leaves with something they can use in their practice 4. Debrief (2 min) Facilitator guides group in reflection on how the process worked for presenter and others – what worked well? What might we want to adjust next time? 5. Agenda and roles for next meeting (5 min) Next Meeting: Topic: ________________________________________________________________________________ Presenter: ________________________ Facilitator: _______________________ Recorder: ___________________ Great Schools Partnership, February 2013 200
Our Vision
We envision an academically rigorous, equitable, and personalized education system that prepares every student
for college, work, and global citizenship.
Our Mission
In collaboration with educators, communities, and organizations across Maine and the nation, our mission is to
create effective and sustainable practices, policies, and partnerships that will support and enhance the ongoing
reinvention of our schools. We are committed to being a force of inspiration and innovation in secondary-school
design by developing, implementing, and advocating for the highest-quality instructional practices, effective and
expanded leadership, and student-centered organizational designs that are all built on strong community
connections.
Our Core Beliefs
The Great Schools Partnership stands behind the following core beliefs:
• Every student is capable of success.
• High-quality teaching and learning is every student's right, every day.
• A collegiate education must be an accessible and attainable option for every student who has earned a
high school diploma.
• Every student deserves high universal expectations that are measured by a variety of assessments.
• Schools must model equitable structures, practices, and beliefs that promote civic responsibility, social
justice, and multicultural understanding.
GREAT SCHOOLS PARTNERSHIP, INC.
482 Congress Street, Suite 500 | Portland, ME 04101
207.773.0505 | fax: 877-849-7052
greatschoolspartnership.org