National School Reform Faculty

Gene's Wintermeeting Address
Date: January 16-24, 2005
Listserv: Coaches
Winter Meeting Address as a Word Document

Sunday, January 16, 2005 12:53 PM
As requested, this is my opening talk from this year's Winter Meeting -
Best,
Gene

A CALL TO ACTION
WINTER MEETING 2005
Good morning, and welcome to all three hundred and seventy-five of us, hailing from thirty-one states, from Maine to Hawaii.

It is an honor to open this year's 9th annual winter meeting - and a great joy for me to be back in Cambridge, close to home. For you old timers - you'll remember that we were last here at the Hyatt in March of 1998. Pat Wasley was our keynote speaker, along with teachers from Fenway High School. We debuted the video, Making Teaching Public, read a selection from Kids and School Reform, and tried out our first iteration of coaches' clinics. I am not sure we ever thought we would still be going strong - six years later.

Before I begin, some thanks are in order - first to the planning committee of Teri Schrader, Beth Graham, Jennifer Fischer-Mueller, Diana Watson, Annmarie Boudreau, and Katy Kelly - thank you, from the bottom of my heart. To the staff of the national center, Sarah Childers, Heidi Vosekas, Chris Jones and Elizabeth Simeri - I hope you know that this meeting couldn't have happened without you, and how much we appreciate your hard work. To all of the seminar facilitators, their critical friends, and the coaches' clinic facilitators - you continue to inspire me.

I also want to acknowledge my fellow co-directors, Daniel Baron and Debbi Laidley - if you know them, you know how lucky I am.

For those of you who know me well, you know I would much rather be facilitating a student work session, or sitting in a school at a conference table, puzzling with people about how to do this work in principled ways - with rigor, and in depth. My colleagues on the winter meeting planning committee have assured me that I can do this - open this meeting gracefully - with a call to action, reminding us all from where we have come, setting our sights on where we want to go as a network of committed educators, and setting a context for the journey we will take together in the next 2 1/2 days. They have variously told me to relax, to settle down, to speak from the heart, and to visualize all three hundred and seventy-five participants up here on the podium with me - which is, indeed, where you all should be. Many of them also shared their words with me, and since much of what I have come to understand over the years has been through my learning with them, you will hear their voices - and the voices of many others - as I speak to you this morning.

First, I want to say - out loud - that I love this work, and I am in awe of those of you who do it. I believe that our work together - if done honestly, done with integrity, and done with humility - holds the potential to help us successfully reach all of our students. It is the one reform initiative, in my experience, that makes any sense, because it is rooted in a belief that the learning of students - of ALL students - is what makes our relationship to each other, significant. And it is one of the few reform efforts that truly empowers teachers to be the authors of their own learning, that gives them the capacity to assume leadership around issues that really matter in their schools and districts.

Like you, I am in a CFG, and I coach a CFG. I have done so since 1995, when we started NSRF. I do this work myself because it focuses me squarely on children and their learning, and allows me to be part of a collective commitment to children. The processes and protocols we use enable authentic talk, and because CFGs make the work of everyone in the group public, it means we have to be accountable to each other. I do this work myself because my CFG constantly reminds me that the work of educating all students doesn't have to be done alone - indeed, can't effectively be done alone - and that neither we, nor our students, should be anonymous. CFGs are a real life manifestation of the belief that the obstacles and challenges we encounter should not be private, and should not be ours to carry by ourselves.

Who would have thought, back in 1994, that a simple question - with a very complex answer - would lead to the work we are all doing today? The question we asked a group of colleagues in schools was: If you could do anything to shape the professional development in your school, what would you do? What do you know works? And with that question - at a time when the research of people such as Milbrey McLaughlin, Judith Warren Little, Tom Sergiovanni, Fred Newmann, and Karen Seashore Louis - was mirroring the experiences of practitioners in schools, the notion of Critical Friends Groups was born.

I remember back to the summer of 1995, and our first CFG coaches seminars, when all of the facilitators were also participants, and we were all trying to figure out what CFGs could be, how they would operate, what members of the group would do together. We joke today that we had no idea what we were doing, but you know, in retrospect, I think we knew more than we realized. I remember one coach from Michigan saying, in the very first seminar of that summer - What does it mean to be in a CFG? It means that I am as committed to - and responsible for - your practice and your students as I am to mine. A simple statement, but in practice, complex work that is often very, very difficult to pull off, because, it seems, we are continually going against the tide.

We are going against a tide of voices that maintain that teachers just don't know what to do - that we need scripts and standards written by people who don't live in our communities and who don't know our children - that we need to be dictated to by outside experts.

In NSRF, we believe that there is an enormous amount of untapped expertise in schools - that teachers, kept isolated from each other by structures and strong cultural norms, need and deserve access to the time and the processes that will help them to learn with and from each other. We know that when we are really effective, we are smarter together. We also know that it is incumbent upon us to be aware of the times we need more than what is at that table - and in those moments - that we identify the outside resources our students need us to consider. In CFGs, we learn to use our professional judgment - not in isolation from others - but challenged by the perspectives and feedback of colleagues - colleagues who both support us, and hold us accountable.

We are going against the tide of governmental and other policy organizations that pretend there is one right answer and one quick fix - that issues in education can be reduced to one solution, can be fixed by one-size-fits-all legislation. We know better. Faced with standardization - we willingly embrace, grapple with, and hold the messiness, ambiguity, and questions that arise when the human dynamic is involved. In NSRF, we maintain that it is our duty to push back against simplified, and, in actuality, discriminatory solutions - solutions which continue to sort individuals by race, social class, and geography under the pretense of accountability.

Indeed, we are going against the tide - and the norms - of our own profession - norms that implicitly communicate that by the end of our second year of teaching, we should stop asking for help, and should at least pretend that we know everything we need to know. That we shouldn't publicly admit our frustrations or our shortcomings. That we should keep our heads down and ignore the teacher down the hall whom everyone knows is not doing right by her students. That we should shut our doors and keep our own practice and the work our students do private, between them and us. That we should keep our successes to ourselves, for fear of being seen as a braggart. That we should spend all of our time with students, and none of our time with adults, learning with each other. That we cannot possibly reach all of our students - that, in fact, we should expect to lose some of them - and furthermore, that we should hold, and privately mourn, all those we have lost along the way.

In schools with CFGs, we are about establishing new norms for our work as educators. We learn that we don't have to be right, that it is OK to not know everything all the time, that it is not how we look that is important, but how our students look, that when we say we need to be lifelong learners, we mean it. We also learn that it is not OK to pretend that we are reaching all children when we are not. We learn that being a professional means bringing our toughest challenges to others for feedback and help. We embrace the fact that if students aren't learning - then we must look at ourselves - with others - and not simply wish we had different kids. We make it a habit to unearth our assumptions - our assumptions about our students and their families, our assumptions about our colleagues and ourselves, our assumptions about the achievement gap and what constitutes a meaningful education - and to examine them with others - because we know, in Carl Glickman's words, that the most effective schools have adults in them who are the least satisfied with their practice.

All of this is, of course, hard work. It means we must, at times, slow down, and be reflective. We must develop the intellectual side of ourselves - and also honor our different ways of knowing. We have to enjoy thinking - and being - together. We have to become students of teaching and learning, for one another. We must be comfortable being uncomfortable - and get used to being in the place of not knowing more often, with a greater capacity for ambiguity. We must to be willing to collect and make public the evidence from our practice - the data and the student work. We have to learn to frame good questions, and to take an inquiry stance toward what we do. We can't be afraid of hard work, or of saying I was wrong. And we must have the courage to act on what we learn, even when it goes against conventional thinking.

It might be, in places, that the tide is turning. There is, currently, a great outcry in the educational community for the establishment of professional learning communities in schools and districts across the country. In Georgia, it has been decreed that every teacher in the state will be in a professional learning community. In some parts of NYC, teachers have been told that they can learn mandated best practices in professional learning communities. The superintendent of Miami-Dade County is leaning toward instituting professional learning communities - in all schools - no pilots. Rather than making me feel elated, however, I have to admit that much of makes me very nervous. As our work expands and grows, it has been more and more difficult to maintain high standards of quality for our work - to stay true to what we know - to hold on to our principles.

As I travel the country, I hear things like - I was in a CFG during one faculty meeting - it was OK, I guess. We are supposed to look at student work in our school - we have about forty minutes, and our principal has asked to try to get through two or three pieces at each meeting. All eighty of the faculty members at my school were trained in CFGs on a professional development day last year. And I get asked a lot of questions. Is a CFG a protocol? If we use protocols at a faculty meeting, is that CFG work?

We have, as a movement, remained committed to CFGs as being relatively simple structures, within which complex ideas can take hold, and we believe that people in schools must adapt CFGs to their own contexts. But there are a few big ideas that guide the development of CFGs, no matter what the context - CFGs keep students and their learning at the center, they make time for reflective dialogue, they value collaboration and inquiry, they pay attention to the norms and values that drive the work - and the decisions about practice - their members make, and they assume that everyone in the group will make their practice public.

So, a group of people reading together can be useful work, but that's a book group, not a CFG. People coming together to research best literacy practices is important work, but that's a study group, not a CFG. People learning to look at student work on a professional development day can produce new insights and new learning, but that's a workshop, not a CFG. Faculty participating in teambuilding and conflict resolution activities might be vital to the health of a school, but that's not a CFG. People being told by the district to bring curriculum units to a district-wide meeting to be tuned might produce better alignment of the curriculum to the standards, but it is not a CFG.

The protocols have the potential to make meetings more effective and conversations more productive, but CFGs ask something more of us. In CFGs, we use the protocols to create and sustain professional learning communities. We use them consistently to examine students' work in order to improve own practice, because we know that builds trust faster, and more meaningfully, than icebreakers and team builders. In CFGs, there are no spectators or drop-ins to the work; we all do the work we expect others to do - no matter what our position. If you come to the table, you are committing to making your practice public, to opening yourself to feedback. We don't do our work in shortened time blocks, because we know that deep thinking, reflective dialogue, and collaboration take time. And we don't do our learning in large groups, choosing instead to organize ourselves into smaller, consistent groups of ten or so people. We work together, over time, so we can move with patient urgency into the risk zone, our most fertile place for learning - the place where we can open up to others with curiosity and interest, where we can consider options or ideas we hadn't thought of before, where we can have the courage to identify and explicitly work on the questions that matter most to our students - the questions or aspects of our practice that perhaps make us the most uncomfortable.

And this is precisely the kind if work we hope to do here for the next 2 1/2 days. The planning committee for this meeting eschewed the notion of yet another theme, and yet another keynote speaker. Our thinking was that we know what we need to do. Victor Cary, our keynote speaker at last year's meeting, implored us to take up leadership for equity, which he defined as taking responsibility for what matters most. We took his message to heart. We know what the numbers say and what the stories tell us about young people and their learning, especially poor children, children of color, immigrant children, children who learn differently, children who don't fit the mode of mainstream education. It was time, we thought, to do the work ourselves at this meeting. Rather than talk about how we would work differently when we got home, we decided to use this time and this space to do really courageous, perhaps even risky, work - work we might not even be able to do yet in our own settings, because it's still too intimate or too risky to do it there.

We are aware that people are here with varying levels of experience, of understanding, and perhaps, of confidence. But I am confident that we will, each one of us, contribute to the learning that happens here - and I am confident that each one of us will leave having done learning that no one of us could have done alone.

How will we do this? We will use the tools and processes of our CFGs to press for insights, to develop new skills, and, in Sam Keen's words, to find courage in community. We'll spend lots of time in CFG sized seminar groups of 10, knowing that good work in CFGs is derived from the people in the group - with provocation from a thoughtful coach. We will look at student work, consider important dilemmas, ask tough questions, and take the time we need to do the work our students most need us to do. Along the way, will step back and ponder what we are learning about coaching and facilitating. The Coaches Clinics on Friday morning will give us an opportunity to share what we know, and what we still wonder, across our seminar groups.

We hope you are able to leverage the distance and relative "anonymity" of this setting to bring a part of yourself to the work that you couldn't possibly reveal among those who "know" you (or who think they know you), so that you can learn how to help others in your CFG to do the same when you return home.

And, at the same time, we hope that you don't allow the distance and unfamiliarity of others here to keep you at a safe, polite place, and instead, that you will trust that the rest of us at this gathering came with the same purpose: to get just the right thing that will help them to move, that will nudge/push/jolt/or jumpstart their work with children. Like in our CFGs, there is no workshop leader who owns the agenda, and there is no content except what we bring. As the old adage goes, the people we have been waiting for are us - and we are all here.

We have here a great gift - we have given ourselves the time, the space, the tools, and our collective wisdom so that courageous work can take root.

We know that this work is not for the meek or faint of heart. The dictionary defines courage as the ability to face danger, difficulty or uncertainty without being overcome by fear - and without being deflected from a chosen course of action. And the etymology of the word courage includes the same root words as those for heart, soul, spirit, and embolden.

Because we only have two and a half days, we don't have time to wait for our real work and our most important questions to surface. There is an urgency about what we are here to do - and the truth is, the same is true of our work back home. Our aim is to work as though our students' lives depended on it - because, in fact, they do. Our students need us to be about them, not about us: courageous, activist, willing to take a stand. And because the risks are real - it is critical that we remember why we must take them together.

When we first talked about desired outcomes for this meeting, back in September, what we imagined was all 375 of us, on Saturday - getting into our cars, settling into our seats on the plane or train, breathing a huge sigh of relief, and exclaiming softly to ourselves - "I am so glad I went to Cambridge. It was worth every minute of my time. I learned so much, and I had so much fun doing it!"

Thank you for coming. Our learning will be different because you chose to be here.

I want to acknowledge my colleagues, Beth Graham, Teri Schrader, and Jennifer Fischer-Mueller - for their support, their words, and their inspiration.
Gene, MA
Address as a Word Document

Sunday, January 16, 2005 5:35 PM
Thanks, Gene the Winter Meeting was quite inspirational.
Gwen, NY

Monday, January 17, 2005 12:21 AM
I've been a part of our winter meetings since the start, and this was one of the few I have not been able to attend. I am so glad Gene was the opening speaker, and shared her words with the listserv. My heart often falters when I feel I'm not involved with the National work as much as I want to. The opening speech reminded me deeply of how the organization has impacted my daily thinking and how our work is part of my life. No matter which school I lead, I will always share my commitment to collaborative learning and Critical Friends Groups. I am deeply inspired by how our small network has grown to influence the thinking of many practitioners. School is truly about teachers supporting each other in providing experiences that will support learning for students, parents, teachers, administration and the community. One voice can and does make a difference, many voices can and do make a bigger difference. Thank you to everyone in the organization for growing a better learning experience for all children.
Carol, PA

Monday, January 17, 2005 11:25 AM
Thank you so much for sharing your opening talk. I was just promoted two weeks ago into a new position, and couldn't make the Winter Meeting. Sharing this makes me feel like I was there, at least for a little while. I'm looking forward to hearing more from others.
Jonett, TX

Monday, January 17, 2005 12:12 PM
Hi Everyone,
I was unable to attend WM because of a scheduling conflict between my Comps and the meeting, but I was really happy to receive Gene’s opening. In particular, the section that deals with the well intentioned, watering down of CFG work so that it “fits” in one planning period or gets reduced to an occasional workshop, really spoke to me and my work.

I’m wondering how other coaches are dealing with the tension between going to scale and going deep with our work. I’m not expecting a quick fix solution, but I’d sure like to hear how others are responding to this ongoing dilemma.

Thanks for giving us this glimpse into the WM. I hope folks will share other learnings and questions on the list for the benefit of those of us who couldn’t attend.
Debbie, PA

Tuesday, January 18, 2005 8:26 AM
I think this is just what I needed to get me back in the swing of things. Most of us make resolutions for the New Year - and returning to quality collaboration and reflection is one of mine. Seems sometimes people go through the motions rather than being in the moment.
Thank you.

I also found Donna Reid's blog a great way to stay in touch at the winter meeting. I think as the school budgets tighten and standards bog us down -- I am glad we have technology to help us stay connected.
Michaelann, TX

Saturday, January 22, 2005 9:37 AM
Hello Debbie and all.
In response to your wondering “about the tension between going to scale and going deep” with our work, I am motivated to share an experience from last spring with a Superintendents’ CFG in Rhode Island.

The education editor of the Providence Journal read “At the Heart of Teaching: A Guide to Reflective Practice” written by Educators Writing for Change (EWC). EWC was formed some years ago by Grace McEntee who inspired a group from NSRF (Jon Appleby, Joanne Dowd, Simon Hole, Peggy Silva and myself) to gather for writing about our practice. Joe Check who had been involved with Grace in the monograph series at AISR joined us frequently.

When Julia Steiny read the book, she called to ask where she could observe a CFG in action. I asked permission of the superintendents, we chose a topic and invited Julia to a meeting. The superintendents and I certainly discussed our apprehension about the public scrutiny and the subsequent article that was to be published as an education editorial in the newspaper. The meeting, its debrief and feedback from Julia Steiny was an exhilarating experience.

I vividly remember one of Bill Nave’s workshops a few years ago when we talked about the work of CFGs. It was generally agreed that a “next step” was to go public with our work.

This may not be what you meant by going deeper, Debbie, but the experience came to mind. The Superintendents’ CFG moved to a courageous new place of risk-taking and making their work public.
Warm regards,
Jan, RI