Submitted by nancy on Thu, 10/18/2007 - 6:13am.
Warning - Long Post - A Bit Rambly
There is a lot swirling around in my head in relationship to the kick-off, so it's hard to know where to begin. . . I guess I'll start with our 12:00 meeting with the district personnell. I was pleased with the organizational structure of that afternoon, and thought Gail Ritchie did for us just what she needed us to do -- I think we were definitely at the point in our work when it was good to bring in someone from the outside with knowledge and expertise to help us think about where we are going with the next step of this work.
When I listened to Gail and the teacher research practices at Fairfax County Public Schools, two things happened for me. First, the work we have been doing as a NEFEC group was reaffirmed! I saw so many parrallels between the organizational structures Fairfax County has in place, and the ways our work has evolved with NEFEC. Both my intuition and the data we've collected over the years has led me to believe we have been on the "right track," but it is always good to get affirmation from an outside source.
Second, when I listened to Gail and the teacher research practices at Fairfax County public schools, I was reminded of the importance of teacher incentives when introducing teachers to the process. I liked her use of the word "WIIFM," standing for "What's In It For Me?" I do believe that another important point for your districts to be thinking about as they strive to embed inquiry into their normal staff development practices is "What will constitute an effective incentive to draw teachers into this professional development process?," and "How can we creatively fund whatever incentives we come up with?" I thought the provision of 3 days of a substitute over the course of the school year so that teacher researchers can meet 6 times during the school day was a brilliant incentive that Fairfax County Public Schools provided. I think, more than anything, teachers need time! 6 meetings over the school year also coincide nicely with the critical junctures teachers face in the inquiry process. I also liked the differentiation for earning professional development points that Fairfax used (So many points for engaging in the process, so many additional points for presenting at their conference, and so many additional points if teachers write-up their work). Also, the points Fairfax County teachers received appeared to be fairly significant! Like NEFEC, they also provided a stipend for coaches. These are all points to be thinking about this year, and sharing with one another so we can learn from each other about how individual districts are tackling the "WIIFM" question.
Also, when I heard Gail speak about points, a random thought came into my mind -- can we provide points for others just to attend the showcase? If we do this, we'll accomplish two things - One, we will get more people from your districts to the Showcase so we potentially will have larger audiences for each presentation. Two, we will get potential inquirers to experience the Showcase, and they might be inspired to engage in the process themselves the following year. I'd really like to investigate this notion with Sabrina, and make a number goal for each district to bring other attendess besides the presenters themselves this year. If this is going to work, we've GOT TO START NOW, organizing the incentives for others from your districts to come, even if they are not presenting. I'll have to follow up with Sabrina on this . . .
OK, I'm off topic, but another thought swirling in my head after we met yesterday is the Showcase itself. I'm anxious to get a final count of how many teachers each facilitator is working with so I can begin to rethink the structure of the Showcase to adjust for our rapid growth over the last few years. . . this will come with time, and I'm sure we'll figure out a great plan.
Back to my reflections on our 12:00 meeting. I was glad to see so many district representatives in attendance, but of course, I also wished that every facilitator had representation from their districts with them. I worry some about the ways inquiry/action research might be interpreted by district administration if they do not have a knowledge base about the process. Two facilitators shared concerns that they think the way their districts might be going is that everyone has to action research on an assigned topic. This made me think a little more about the tension between the critical importance of the inquiry process being the teacher owning his/her wondering, and exploring something that he/she is really passionate about, and the power inquiry can hold for larger school improvement efforts, where wonderings might emerge from school improvement plans, or larger district efforts. I don't think the later is inherently a bad thing, but it certainly has the potential to become bad if the way it's translated into practice is district mandates that require teachers to do inquiry on a "canned" question. I am going to keep thinking about this and how we can effectively head-off the "canned question" approach.
I wonder what the nature of the discussions were between the facilitators and their district representatives when they had time to discuss Gail's talk.
I thought the Kick-Off itself was incredibly inspring! I ALWAYS love to hear teachers talk about their research, and all the facilitators who presented did an incredible job. I really liked Gail Ritchie's diagram that she shared about the differences between teaching and teacher research. All of the participants seemed ready to begin . . .AND, the cookies were really yummy! (Can't ask for more than that)!
I'm off to do another workshop today on teacher leadership, so I'll be really tired by Friday. Even though I'm fatigued, so many thoughts keep swirling around in my head about the kick-off . . . this blog helps me keep track of them and gives me a space to get them out of my head and lay them aside to come back to later.
Nancy