Embedded Files
OVERVIEW
Provide an overview of the issues you are addressing in your community of practice given school context and data? How did you prepare to co-facilitate a community of practice to engage in collaborative learning?
In my 5 years at my current site, teachers had yet to be provided professional learning opportunities or be a part of communities of practice. This year, we began affinity groups back in August. The thought was that each individual in the grade level would choose one Core Team and one Guidance Group to be a part of. Core Groups were divided into: Math, ELA, Arts, and Social Studies/Science. Guidance Groups were divided into: DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion), PBIS (Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports), Community, and Leadership. This was facilitated in a way, so that there would be at least one grade level representative in each Core Team and each Guidance Group. Every third Tuesday of each month, we met in these groups—first in Core Groups then in Guidance Groups. According to CalAPA Program Guide, “community of practice” can be defined as “groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly” (https://www.ctcexams.nesinc.com/ February 16, 2023). What we had in place met the partial definition of “community of practice”; however, I did not believe it led to true learning. There were often pre-set agendas and there was little to no time allotted to dig deeper into existing practices to examine what worked, what did not work, and what could be done to better ourselves and our student learning. We found ourselves circling the same topics without much progress. We also traditionally had monthly grade level meetings. We were given an agenda to go over that often covers school logistics where we were to finalize dates and time slots for upcoming events. It directly impacted student learning negatively because the students’ learning was not truly centered. Our meetings were not driven by student learning, student work, nor data, but rather by what we needed.
Currently, our professional learning at the school site follows a dual track system. The first track is at the district level; we are assigned PDs / learning opportunities as the district sees fit.The second track is what the school leadership team decides the teachers on-site may need. We do not have many professional learning opportunities, but the latest one we did have was led by one of our 5th grade teachers on Sean Layn’s Actor’s Toolbox and how it may be integral to be able to integrate arts into classroom activities. In theory, professional learning should facilitate collaborative learning at the school; however, this does not happen when much of the professional learning opportunities are done in silo without a goal or a vision in mind. When looking at teacher professional learning history as a school, it has been inconsistent and has not been implemented with collaborative learning in mind.
Some of the most important issues I considered in preparing to co-facilitate and support a community of practice to engage my school folks in collaborative professional learning was to take a temperature of the room to see where we were in regards to collaborative professional learning. Something to note is that some of my colleagues were content and at peace with the general direction of the school and our adult learning. Then, I also established a mutual understanding of what collaborative professional learning space looked like and what its purpose was. This was particularly important because this was not a common practice at Miller and we were all coming from different understanding of what this was or could be. It was extremely pivotal to lay a solid foundational understanding before we came together.
MAIN ACTIVITIES
Describe how the problem of practice was selected by the group, referencing data, marginalized groups selected, etc. Explain the rationale behind the collaboratively selected ways to address the problem of practice, and how you will monitor impact.
Collaboration was a driving factor as we worked as a team to identify and select a problem of practice together. The team was composed of two 1st grade teachers, a 5th grade teacher, and a Curriculum Specialist. The diverse makeup of the group was a definite strength as we were able to identify different areas of growth we saw on our school campus that others had overlooked. I co-facilitated the group to select a problem of practice by setting up a meeting structure that allowed room for exploration, elaboration, and dialogue. I also posed open ended questions to guide conversations and honored all contributions made by my colleagues. At our preliminary meeting, I shared a few data points with the team. First, I presented SBAC (ELA) test results for 3rd-5th graders comparing All Students and English Language Learners over the course of 3 school years. I, then, displayed the data points for California School Dashboard Academic Performance for ELA over the course of 3 school years comparing All Students and English Language Learners. Last, I also shared the Chronic Absenteeism Rate data over 3 school years comparing the same two groups. After each data set, I posed questions such as: “What do you notice?” “What do you wonder?” and gave them time to jot down some thoughts. The team, then, opened up and processed the data out loud together. Though initially, the team was dumbfounded at the disparity in scores and data presented, it was the chronic absenteeism that allowed for some deeper understanding of our English Language Learners’ performance on assessments. The team wondered: How can a student learn when the student is not present for the learning? More importantly, why is the student chronically absent? Is it by choice? What message does the student directly or indirectly receive when absent from school? The team came to a mutual agreement of honing in on EL students’ sense of belonging on campus for our problem of practice. If we can focus on ensuring that our ELL students feel welcomed, valued, and honored in our learning community, then we would see a decrease in their chronic absenteeism rate.
We came to a mutual agreement that to build and foster an authentic level of caring within our classrooms, we would meet with two students each day by inviting them to “Lunch Bunch” and spending 15 minutes of uninterrupted time with them. We demonstrated our consensus by utilizing Fist to Five strategy. The group saw that these intentional time carved out for students would allow for these relationships to form where teachers can get to know the students at a holistic level and vice versa. The group believed this evidence-based strategy will demonstrate the dire need for ELLs to authentically connect with caring adults on campus. We firmly believed that this was more than an attendance issue. We believed that there were many issues that were tightly interconnected. By intentionally carving out time for our EL students through the strategy of “Lunch Bunch,” our ELL students would come away feeling seen, valued, and loved. This authentic caring relationship was not a one-off, but one where ultimately, the student will have gained a greater sense of belonging at school. We believed that this strategy would have a positive impact on the student’s attendance and it may also impact his/her academic performance as well. The short-term improvement would be seeing a decrease in chronic absenteeism rate for ELs at Miller, but the long-term impact is far exponential.
The group was invited to come to our second implementation meeting with ideas to track and monitor the process as we hope to implement this strategy shortly. We partook in a round robin where each team member contributed as we did during our first implementation meeting. Each member had an opportunity to provide clarity as needed. We used a digital platform to collect data such as Google Forms, so that it would be easy to aggregate data as needed. After hearing from the group, I co-facilitated the group by inviting group members to share out potential questions they would like to include in the Google Forms. The group members filled out the Google Form that we co-constructed together in our second implementation meeting as they met with students. We reconnected for the third implementation meeting and made sense of the data we had collected together.
REFLECTION
Analyze your strengths and areas for growth in co-facilitating a community of practice to address an instructional problem.
After analyzing my ability to co-facilitate a community of practice, one area of strengths was utilizing visuals to help the group brainstorm. My prior knowledge and experience with fishbone diagram, driver diagram and Jamboard allowed our planning meeting to be efficient and productive. When attempting to find out why our EL students at Miller were experiencing chronic absenteeism at a higher rate, I found it easier to utilize the fishbone diagram to demonstrate the cause and effect relationship with many of the factors that were being brought up. Driver diagram was another tool we used to see what factors we would need to change for our ELL students to gain a stronger sense of belonging on our campus. This was truly a pivotal moment as we were able to identify primary drivers (big topics) and secondary drivers (more specific than primary drivers– broken down), as well as change ideas (what could help achieve the aim statement). The visuals and the online tools we used allowed for a mutual understanding for all four of us present in the room. It also clearly demonstrated the cause and effect relationships of many floating ideas. Another area of strengths I identified was my ability to welcome multiple and diverse viewpoints into the conversation. As a co-facilitator, it was imperative that my goal was not to “convince” my colleagues to be on the same page as me. I created a space and time to hear folks out. Not all of my colleagues were initially onboard and wondered if Lunch Bunch was feasible given the time constraints of a teacher and the amount of work that was already on our plates. Though she was in the minority (as three of us have echoed and murmured our liking for the suggested implementation strategy), I let my colleague know that I heard her. I invited my colleague to share a bit more because I wanted to understand her perspective and where she was coming from. This idea of lived experiences and positionality continue to be an important lens for me as I navigate spaces. I find myself being able to step back to hear from folks in the room to see what their thoughts are and why they think that way. After my colleague shared, I invited my group members to chime in because I believed in this being a collaborative process where open dialogue can take place.
After further reflection, one area I can grow in is to provide ample time for group members to think and process. I found myself chugging along for the sake of meeting our time. It is one thing to want to stay on track and follow the agenda with hopes of honoring the agreed time limit for our meetings, but I recognize what a disservice it is to rush through dialogues. In doing so, I am not allowing folks to make necessary connections and share out their findings and in turn, I am withholding the opportunity for my group members to learn from one another. Moving forward, this is something I want to be mindful of. Another area I can grow in while co-facilitating a community of practice is delegating tasks and trusting my team to follow through. This is something I have noticed about myself in my multiple roles: a student, an educator, a mother, and a wife. I have the tendency to carry all the responsibilities on my plate because I fathom, that is just how it is. In examining the makeup of CoP, there is beauty of being a co-facilitator. There is a prefix, “co.” It means: together, jointly, or with. Delegation is one component of leadership and I am recognizing the need to divide and conquer as it would be more efficient and it would also help with team buy-in as well.
CAPES
Supporting Documents
Page updated
Report abuse