A discussion about "critical friends" conversations among teachers
began rather tentatively in early October and picked up energy as Halloween
approached.
On Oct. 7, Anne Jolly from Alabama asked how schools were providing
time for teachers to collaborate on teaching/learning issues.
To which Kathy Renfrew from Vermont replied:
I thought I would respond with how our school provides collaborative time?
We are a K-6 school, but maybe some of this could be transferable. We have
team time every Wednesday afternoon from 1:30-2:50. Dismissal is at 2:50
Every Wednesday we have volunteers come in to the school to work with our
kids on different special projects as well as do Th. sometimes mundane types
of things such as study hall and library class.
During the winter, all of our kids either downhill or cross country ski.
that will occur on Wednesday afternoons. In the spring the 4-6 go swimming
at an area pool. What makes this work for us is that we made plans for the
kids before we shared the plans with the parents. In other words, we didn't
say to parents" We are collaborating on Wednesday afternoons, Your
child will go home at 12:30..you need to find daycare" We figured out
worthwhile, often curriculum-based activities for the students to do during
our collaborative time.
To go further than that, we are using one collaborative time per month for
us to meet as a Critical Friends Group. The CFG part has just begun. I think
that might need its own discussion thread, Actually I would like to talk
about some issues we seem to be having at some later date
This provides the opportunity for us to work together
-------------------------------------------------------------
A week later, Dick Fuller (Atlanta) wrote: "If we had more faith
in what we all do as individual teachers, I believe education would undergo
wondrous transformation. I am unconvinced that we need the experts all the
time."
To which Deborah Bambino (Philadelphia) replied:
"Dick's comments made me think about the conversation we've been having
about looking at student work. As teachers begin to open up their classrooms
to each other, first with student work and then with their own, a transformation
begins to take place.
"My Critical Friends Group began to take responsibility for schoolwide
professional development last year, not because we were individual experts,
but because together we felt we could respond to the needs of our colleagues.
Relying on ourselves and each other was truly empowering.
"Getting folks to use listserves and post work on the school's website
was next on our collective agenda.
"Making teaching and learning public in our buildings and beyond has
to be seen as part of our job. We need to support each other through conversations
like this one and we need to counter the negative PR that we get regularly
in the press.
"I believe that we need a real campaign around quality education, a
movement of teachers, students and families. We can't fight for better resources
if we aren't even communicating with each other... Sorry for going on, but
you have definitely struck a nerve!"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Two weeks later, Anne Jolly spurred further conversation about critical
friends groups and the idea of teachers working together on school reform
when she wrote:
The most practical research-based method of improving teacher practice (and
consequently student achievement) that I've been ever been involved with
has been the Whole-Faculty Study Group (WFSG) method by Carlene Murphy.
I ordered her book - titled appropriately "Whole-Faculty
Study Groups: A Powerful Way to Change Schools and Enhance Learning"
- from Amazon.com and implemented this process in two schools. Student
achievement in targeted areas showed remarkable improvement! It's a terrific
method for increasing teachers' knowledge about both content and pedagogy.
It engages teachers in reflecting on their current teaching practices, and
provides a specific process for creating and sustaining changes in practice
that lead to increased student performance. This process is actually a framework
into which you plug the programs and content you determine to be useful
in accomplishing your goals.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Then Mary Anne (Kosmoski?) wrote:
Anne: I am actively involved with setting up 'Critical Friends Groups' patterned
after the protocol developed by the Annenburg Institute at Brown University.
Our teachers participate in observing each other, discussing lesson plans
and student work with a "structured conversation." Each team has
a facilitator and we have worked to make sure each team is balanced with
teacehrs in different disciplines, different levels of experience etc. How
does this compare with the model you are using?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And Betsy Burch wrote:
I would be very interested in learning more about how your process was first
funded, how your faculty has responded, etc. How did you decide to select
the Critical Friends model?
Thanks for any info you have time to send my way!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Betsy:
In answer to your questions -- there really was no funding provided! We
are a magnet school and are required to have weekly "curriculum meetings".
My job title is "resource teacher" which means I don't have specific
teaching duties. However, I am there to be a resource to teachers, parents
and students. I get all the fun stuff to do--stuff like assessment and working
with the kids who don't get it and the kids who get to much and the teachers!
I also get to run these curriculum meetings with our Assistant Principal.
In researching how we wanted to set these meetings up, we stubled across
the Critical Friends piece. We ordered a training packet from Annenburg
and found that CFG's as they are called is a critical piece of the Essential
Schools movement and that led us to observe in a school that used them.
We started the year by discussing the situation with our teachers. We spent
alot of time discussing the ways we could set up our weekly meetings and
they liked this one the best--thinking that it would be the best use of
the time. We have no mentor program for a young teachers so this really
seemed like the next best thing.
We started out watching several videos and discussing the protocals and
decided a safe place to start would be the "looking at student work"
piece. At our next meeting, teachers gave a similar writing assingment to
a group of their students--short response--what we call an FCAT question.
Then, they used a simple rubric to score each others papers the similarities
in the papers and how the kids were scoring. Before we knew it, teachers
were video taping themselves and discussing teachng styles.. Oh yes, we
still have the grumblers, the ones who refuse to be videotaped--the ones
who won't change--but we are all working on getting them involved. I hope
that helps!
Mary Anne
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then Anne Jolly replied to Mary Anne's earlier inquiry:
Mary Anne, as to the differences between the Critical Friends groups and
the Whole-Faculty
Study Group (WFSG) model, I'm going to describe the WFSG process. I'll
rely on Deb - our resident expert on the Critical Friends groups (which
she wrote about in her wonderful book, "Teaching Out Loud") to
compare it with the Critical Friends process. So, jump in here, Deb!
WFSG involves the whole faculty. All faculty members at a given school are
members of professional study groups with the same focus. The goal of the
WFSG process is to focus the entire school faculty on researching, implementing
and integrating effective teaching and learning practices into school programs
-- with resulting increases in student learning and decreases in behavior
problems. The faculty uses student data to determine the study group focus.
Like the Critical Friends approach, this is a collaborative process. Teams
of teachers meet together on a regular basis - usually for an hour per week.
In WFSG, there is a protocol for the meetings to help guide the process
toward desired results for students. This protocol involves action plans
and logs which describe classroom applications, among other things. (These
items are shared with all faculty study groups in the school by posting
in the teacher workroom and in other ways.) WFSG also involves teachers
in reflecting, evaluating, and redesigning their practice. It's a good vehicle
for sustaining school change - especially with regard to teacher practice.
As an FYI, I kept a diary on establishing this process at www.aplusala.org
called "Writings From a Middle Grades Classroom."
As another aside - I received word from Carlene Murphy - who developed the
WFSG process - that she has an updated book coming out in March. In the
meantime, I thought her "old" one - Whole Faculty Study Groups
- A Powerful Way to Change Schools and Enhance Learning - was pretty darn
good! (see link above)
Okay - that's the skinny on WFSG. Deb (or anyone who has first-hand knowledge)
- what's the skinny on Critical Friends?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To which Deb Bambino replied:
Critical Friends Groups (CFG) sometimes involve the whole faculty, but generally
do not. Participation is generally voluntary. The agenda is not set in advance,
but evolves with the groups development into a learning community.
CFG's may form study or collaborative inquiry groups that do the work described
by Anne as the work of a WFSG. CFG's also examine specific lessons or problems
which members put before the group for focus. Discussion is generally organized
through a process using protocols.
Documentation of this work takes many forms, one notable example being the
development of teacher portfolios to assess their professional learning
and growth.
CFG members also act as peer coaches, who visit and observe each other,
in order to give focused feedback on questions and issues that teachers
have requested help about.
My CFG began to take on responsibility for whole school professional development
last year. We organized a session on Looking at Student Work as well as
an inservice about Exit Projects and Rubrics.
There isn't a set schedule, each CFG develops to help its members refine
their practice in order to boost student achievement.
I don't see these two forms as being mutually exclusive. They both seem
to understand the power of teacher reflection and collaboration to produce
meaningful change.
Deb
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Some time later, Anne Jolly invited Carlene Murphy to read the dialogue
on this page (!) and comment to the list:
Hi, Listservers!
I'm honored to post a message from Carlene Murphy, author of "Whole
Faculty Study Groups," to you. She read some of your listserv discussions
on the MiddleWeb site and responded. She asked me to post it for her. Here
it is.
Anne:
Thank you for referring me to this website to "hear" your great
conversation about teacher collaboration. All of the comments from the participants
give me hope that there is a great hunger among teachers to see each other
as "experts" and to rely on each other's knowledge and experience.
I developed the WFSG [Whole Faculty Study Group] model in 1986 in the district
(Augusta, GA) where I worked for 33 years - the last 17 as the director
of staff development. The work began out of the district's concern that
traditional staff development was not having much of an impact on student
learning. We concluded that if we wanted student achievement to increase
at a school, the whole faculty needed to be focused on how they teach and
what they teach - not just the volunteers. So, we organized faculties into
small groups (later to be called study groups) as the units to deepen the
teachers' knowledge of effective teaching practices and to reflect on how
the strategies were impacting student learning in their classrooms. For
14 years I have continuously worked on the evolution of the WFSG approach
to professional development.
I am very familiar with CFGs [Critical Friends Groups]. Several people who
work with me in training faculties in the WFSG approach taught in schools
that were members of the Coalition. These individuals were members of CFGs
before they were introduced to WFSGs. Since 1997, I have worked for ATLAS
Communities and Ted Sizer was one of the founders of ATLAS (a national comprehensive
school reform design). All ATLAS schools are WFSG schools, meaning that
every teacher in an ATLAS school is a member of a study group that meets
weekly and follows the guildlines that are the result of the research I
have collected over the years. It has been explained to me that what distinguishes
WFSGs from CFGs are the following:
- WFSGs are all inclusive. At the least, every certificated person is a
member of a study group. For the school, participation is voluntary. Once
the faculty votes and at least 80% want to have WFSGs, everyone is involved.
- In WFSG schools, what study groups do and how groups are organized is
determined by a Decision-Making-Cycle (Murphy 2000) that is data-based.
The whole faculty analyzes data and determines what the student needs are.
Based on the student needs (e.g. reading comprehension), each group develops
a plan for what the members will do when the group meets to address those
needs. This plan is the study group's agenda every time the group meets.
- WSFGs are driven by student needs
-WSFGs are no larger than 6.
-In WFSGs, leadership is rotated with each member taking a turn being responsible
for the logistical details. This is based on the belief that all teachers
are leaders. Equality is stressed and no one is trained to be in charge.
Like CFGs, WFSGs use protocols to examine student work, such as Wows and
Wonders. ATLAS schools have a close relationship with the Coalition and
Annenberg (Gene Thompson-Graves). If you want to know more about ATLAS and
the study groups in ATLAS schools, check out www.edc.org/FSC.ATLAS .
I don't think it matters who is who or what is what. The important thing
is that teachers are talking to teachers about their teaching and their
students. I hope we don't ever let names of processes get in the way. There
are lots of different kinds of candies. What you eat usually depends on
your taste at the moment and what is available to you.
I wish all of you the best. After 42 years in education, I continue to be
amazed by the wonderful, bright, hard-working, and caring individuals that
are in the profession.
God bless you all.
Carlene Murphy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
At one point, this conversation zeroed in on the examination of student
work, an activity that CFG's and WFSG's might be involved in. Also see
this discussion about student work.
Mary Anne wrote:
Our teachers are also following a strict protocol wiith time limits for
Looking at Student Work. One of the adaptations we have made is looking
at a students work in several classes and comparing and contrasting what
works for that particular child. Teachers have begun to branch out--bringing
both assignments and results to the table. The result of these conversations
is becoming--am I asking the right question? The discussion is rich and
we are all learning alot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Anne --
Would you be willing to share this protocol?
Jackie Ralston
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And Mary Anne replied:
We use variationson the protocol developed by the Annenburg Institute. (http://www.lasw.org)
We reserve a 30 minute block for looking at student work. Each team has
a facilitator who begins the meetings by greeting everyone and stating the
groups objective for that day. There are basically two objectives: To look
at the work of a particular student so we can design instruction to meet
that child's particular needs, or to look at a series of student work done
for a particular teacher to support his/her work in designing instruction.
If we are looking at the work of a particular child, two teachers present
that child's work --usually two or three assignments over a period of time.
Teachers who have the student then remain quiet for the next ten-15 minutes
while teachers at the table read and analyze the work. The facilitator uses
questions like--What are the student's strengths and weaknesses? Which of
the assignments is the strongest? Why? etc. They also look at the tyoes
of assignments the child was given and again analyze them for effectiveness.
In the last ten minutes, the student's teachers rejoin the table and participate
in a discussion on how to improve the students work. If we are looking at
the work of a particular teacher, the teacher prepares copies of several
student papers from the same asignment. He/she catagorizes them as strong,
medium and weak. The rubric used for assessment is also presented. Then,
the teachers at the table again discuss the student work--often categorizing
it differently than the origninal teacher--It is amazing how we can see
the strengths in others but have a hard time seeing them in ourselves! The
team discusses the rubric and how it supported the assignment.
Finally, the facilitator creates an agenda for the next meeting.
This has become an effective tool for working with student assignments again
with the goal of improving student achievement. Even the kids have started
asking-- "Did you talk about my essay today?"
Have fun--
Mary Anne
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And then "Jmberrid" wrote:
Our school district has adopted protocol for Looking at Student Work (for
the middle schools), and a few have been in the process for two years, with
others engaging this year. Our school happens to be one of the latter. Last
week, the dept. chm. visited a middle school that has been developing LASW
for two years. We got some helpful ideas. A group meets weekly and the teachers
rotate bringing in work. They try to bring in samples from low, middle,
and high quality. They follow the district adopted protocol, with designated
time limits for each step. At first, they said teachers were intimidated
because they felt that it was a criticism of their work--not the students.
They are very comfortable with it now.