Two more meetings

First meeting was a general staff meeting. Mostly information or taking a survey on ICT habits. This is ok as long as they don't call it professional development. I prefer the term, Professional Information. Part of the meeting included a short session on the on-going Dress Code development. Of all the processes going on at work, this is the best managed one. It has been on the go for about two years and we are now at the stage where dress amongst the staff - especially on formal occasions - has improved significantly. Almost to the point where I feel like a slob.
Anyway, todays process included a set of recommendations by the Consultative Committee sub-group on Dress Code. I won't go into the details but we use DeBono green, yellow and black hats to analyse the code. Each group discussed it and then some of the feedback was presented to the big group. The whole feedback will be presented to the committee for further refinement. Pretty superficial but at least we did it in groups which meant many people had a chance to have a say in the process.
Second meeting was a consultative forum. Shoddy start with half the group going one way and the other half going somewhere else. Eventually the two groups met but there were no items on the Agenda! So, let's make one up! No process agreed to .Some discussion on why the forum has such poor attendance - I think it is obvious. Poorly run session dominated by a few opinionated old farts. Whew! Hope this never gets out. Although THIS meeting was better, we still had situations where individuals talked over each other, determined to get their point across; a lack of clear process when discussing ideas or making opinions evident.
A good thing though is that they recognised this and attempted to run the meeting properly with acknowledgment of the speakers, people taking turns, a proper proposal, a somewhat lame attempt to get discussion on the proposal, an "Enough discussion, let's vote" comment from the chairperson and then a vote.

Another Meeting

This was a very different meeting. It included people from other schools and was designed to discuss the facilities we share and some of the issues that arise from it.
Not many decisions were made and most of the meeting was spent listening to the coordinator talk about the budget and future plans - something he could have quite easily sent out in an email. Boy, did he like the sound of his own voice!
Some observations during the meeting:

• It was all business.
• Seventeen people were present at the meeting and only six people spoke up. Of those six, four people, including the coordinator dominated the discussion. They were all senior, experienced teachers, mostly coordinators in the school.
• The meeting discussed the unsafe state of the labs., especially when numbers of students were big. The big four basically made statements about how we can lobby for action. Then the coordinator said "I presume that because people are not saying anything, that they agree with what we are saying here"!. A huge presumption

What it needs is more time in small, mixed groups where people can actually have a say in the issue not just making presumptions because people don't want to speak up. Again, this was not really a decision-making meeting but when a "decision" was made, the process was nonsense.

Learning Team Meetings

The last two days have seen the running of the four learning teams at school.
In the English/SOSE/RE Year 8 group we discussed successful research tasks in our classes. We decided to trial the Success Analysis protocol as one of the teachers spoke about researching the Roman and Greek ancient cultures. The protocol went well and the group stuck to the process stocially. In the end we used it again with another teacher to talk about a quick research task her class did comparing many religious charities.
Then the Science/Maths/IT Year 8 group met in the afternoon and were a little more difficult to contain. The first presenter took a long time to get through his presentation - not that there was a problem with this but other people were chafing at the bit to say something. Whilst the rest of the group were reflecting on his presentation, he was also very keen to join the conversation but held back. In the end the free-for-all conversation that followed was quite a contrast - although interestingly, people seemed much more polite in there interactions.
This morning the the English/SOSE/RE Year 9 group met and our focus was on identifying what an "A" was in our subjects. The presenter spoke brilliantly on developing the different skills needed to write poetry and the scaffolding she developed to achieve this. In the end, the students could reflect back on their work and the obvious improvements they made in their poems. We did not use the protocol with this group but have decided to use it next time.
Finally, in the afternoon it was the turn of the the Science/Maths/IT Year 9 group. Again, the group found it difficult to keep to the protocol - at one stage, one member could not help herself and took the discussion on a tangent that suited her. Eventually we got back on task and I think benefited on the discussion about using Generic Rubrics to help us review student achievement in Maths and Science. This included Rubrics on Research skills, orals, practicals, test results and movie reviews. We decided to trial one of them and bring back our results for the next meeting.
Very useful technique for these groups.

Started the ball rolling with the project.

Won't mention which meeting we attended...but needless to say it was a perfect example of how not to run a decision-making meeting.
Almost every aspect of the agenda was open to railroading - that is, someone at the meeting taking over the "discussion" of the issue and forcing the group to make a decision. Yet, almost every point on the agenda was for information only! I feel it needs to be clear beforehand what you want from each part of the agenda. If you want feedback - ask for it before the meeting and summarise at the meeting.
If you need to make a decision about something - put that on the agenda!
Then when questions were raised, the vague answer of: "We need to look at that next year when it comes up again". In other words, whatever you just said will be forgotten unless it is raised again next year - after the event!
Finally, the section on the agenda where a decision needs to be made. At least it was handed out prior to the meeting and the people most likely to have gripes were met with BEFOREHAND. This is unusual - usually any proposal is handed out at the meeting with no prior discussion. There was less discussion but still it went round and round in circles with no clear purpose, easily distracted and with no idea how to resolve the issue. I'm not sure it was resolved in the end or what decision the committee could have made on it.
The committee involved should not be a decision making committee unless you have protocols for making the decision or you have a smaller (e.g. 4-6) body.

AGQTP Day 7&8 I think!

Over these two days we focussed on using the teaching protocols with our groups. Members of the group presented student work and the protocols were used to analyse issues associated with student work.
For example, we used the consultancy protocol to look at some work from a very bright student of Roses. This student was clearly batting out of her league and this was seen in the high standard of her three responses. Rose's concern was that she didn't know how to challenge this very polite student further.
After Rose gave her input, she then had to answer clarifying questions (simple, easily answered questions focusing on getting the facts straight); this was followed by probing questions (more indepth and expansive) and then step back whilst we (the rest of the group) discussed her issue. She could not speak but had to take notes.
After hearing what we had to say, she then gave her response to the feedback. Having done this a second time now, it was much easier and we were much more efficient. So in summary:

1. Presenter gives overview of issue and then question they want help with (5 minutes)
   
2. The group asks clarifying (but not probing questions) to the presenter (2 minutes).
3. The group asks probing questions to the presenter (5 minutes)
4. The group talk with each other about the strengths and gaps. The presenter is not allowed to talk and should take notes.
5. The presenter responds to feedback.
6. The group reflects on the process.

Over the two days we tried a very difficult protocol called the Atlas Protocol. Its harder because, although we use student work as the basis for discussion, the focus is on the thinking and values that TEACHERS have about students.

My understanding of the process is something like this. It is best used with a completed, discrete piece of student work and also with a group of teachers that are from across the faculties. There needs to be a facilitator, time keeper, observer and presenter.

1. The facilitator starts the process by reminding or agreeing to the protocol norms. The presenter then hands out the task and the student response to that task. They give minimal background information about the task but nothing about the student or the standard of the student's response to the task. Note: this will require a silent time so that teachers (especially those unfamiliar with this type of task) can have the chance to take in all aspects of this assessment task. (2 minutes) . At this point the presenter steps back from the conversation.
   
2. Looking at student work. The group then analsyes the student response by looking for evidence of achievement. By this we mean simpling describing what they see that the student has done. Judgments should be avoided about the quality of the work. If they are mentioned the teacher should state what evidence they used to make the judgements. Noting this down would be useful. (5 minutes)
   
3. Then next step is to interpret the evidence. The group tries to make sense of what they student was doing and why. What does the student understand and how the student interpreted the assignment. Try to see the work from the student's persepective. Try to understand the perspective of your teaching colleagues. (5 minutes)
   
4. Implications for teaching this student. Having made the interpretations, teachers exchange ideas about where the teacher could go with the student, what other evidence of learning would be needed, what teaching strategies might work with this student and how the teaching and assessment could be better aligned with this students needs. (5 minutes)
5. Reflect on the process. The group reflects on the use and benefits of the process. The observer might have a thing or two to say at this point.

Whew. Having been a presenter at one point, I initially found it threatening but in the end the implications section resulted in some excellent ideas about how to extend the student. It will take a fair amount of trust to implement this with teachers back at school.

The final sessions looked the planning for the Action Research project we are undertaking this year. This is:

Project Questions:
What are the decision making protocols at formal meetings in our school?
Are the decision making protocols effective?

Steps we need to take:

1. Situation analysis - collect evidence at meetings, by observations, surveys, one-on-one interviews and /or using a focus group.
2. Source secondary information about models of effective decision-making protocols/styles and leadership styles
3. Analyse, evaluate and make recommendations on what we find.

What data/artefacts we will need to gather for our final presentation:

1. Process used
2. Summary of data
3. Recommendations

What will each group members role be in preparing our presentation?

1. Collecting data (AP and me)
2. Analysing data (me)
   
3. Research on models (AP)
4. Draft up recommendations (both of us)

Next meeting in October.