Findings

 

What follows are my findings from the actions taken during the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school years.  I held six Professional Development meetings over the course of these school years, in January 2013, February 2013, August 2013, November 2013, February 2014 and May 2014.  Each meeting lasted approximately three hours, with the exception of our Winter Retreat in February 2014, which was a full-day.  During our first meeting (January of 2013) we identified the topics that we most wanted to explore as a group.  All subsequent meetings were centered around the topics and areas for growth that were identified during our first meeting.  These topics included: transition planning, mental health, special education law, “vision for inclusion” at HTH, and supporting students on a modified curriculum. 

 

A Strong Professional Inclusion Community Needs Leadership Capacity

An important theme throughout our PD experiences was our relationships with classroom teachers.  Some Inclusion Specialists expressed frustration with what they perceived to be non-inclusive practice going on in some classrooms at their schools.  In response to the November 2013 exit survey question, “What would make you feel more supported in your practice?” four out of 24 people wrote about their frustration that teachers weren’t effectively including all students in their classroom.  For example, one person wrote,

 

“If our general education teachers could really try to understand what Inclusion is… to have them gain the confidence to differentiate their classrooms.”

 

Similarly, another person wrote,

“I receive great support from Inclusion but I do not always feel supported from Gen Ed.”

 

Though this theme surfaced only four times in the exit card data, I also triangulated these responses with my own field notes and my conversations with Inclusion Specialists.  The topic of the challenge to effectively collaborate with classroom teachers surfaced in at least eight of the 15 conversations I had with Inclusion Specialists this school year that I documented in my notes.  Based upon the above exit card data and my field notes from conversations and interviews, it appears that at least 12 of the 24 Inclusion Specialists (half of the group) feel a division between their practice and the practice of classroom teachers.  For this reason, it became extremely apparent to me that in order to be effective in our role, we needed to have the capacity to skillfully collaborate with classroom teachers in order to work together to build inclusive culture and foster inclusive practice. 

 

Based upon the feedback above from the November 2013 meeting, I decided that for our next meeting (February 2014) I would try modeling the use of a PD experience that Inclusion Specialists could replicate with classroom teachers back at their school sites.  Thus, at our winter retreat, we read a white paper by Camille Farrington (of the University of Chicago) that summarizes the literature about academic mindsets, and we used a discussion protocol that I adapted from the National School Reform Faculty’s “Final Word” protocol in order to hone and practice our facilitation skills.  I chose the Farrington reading because it succinctly summarizes the literature on academic mindsets.  Academic Mindsets are, “the psycho-social attitudes or beliefs one has about oneself in relation to academic work (Farrington, C. A., Roderick, M., Allensworth, E. A., Nagaoka, J., Johnson, D. W., Keyes, T. S., and  Beechum, N., 2012).  The literature on academic mindsets is a powerful framework to use when engaging in dialogue about inclusive practice, particularly with new teachers.  The four academic mindsets that Farrington summarizes in her work include: “I belong in this academic community; I can succeed at this; My ability and competence grow with my effort; This work has value for me” (Farrington, 2013).   

 

I opened the activity by sharing my thinking about how the literature about academic mindsets provides a concrete framework when supporting classroom teachers in seeing the importance of equity and access for all students in their classrooms.  My hope was that by modeling a way to unpack the text in small groups, Inclusion Specialists would be equipped to replicate this same opportunity for dialogue back at their school sites.  Though I don’t yet have data about how many people actually attempted this activity at their sites, the exit cards from our Retreat reveal that there is some momentum about engaging in collaborative dialogue with classroom teachers.  In response to the question, “What’s a potential innovation or change that excites you that surfaced today?” three out of 24 people’s responses indicate a feeling of excitement about working with classroom teachers:

 

“Supporting gen ed teachers, emotionally and professionally, is equally as important as supporting our kids.”

 

“More opportunities to collaborate effectively with teachers to ensure all students are successful.”

 

“Hopefully strip some of the mysticism away from sped so that teachers are empowered to make positive changes for kids.”

 

These responses are from only three individuals, but they indicate that after modeling a concrete tool to utilize back at their sites with classroom teachers, these three felt some excitement about pursuing this work on their own.  Further, my field notes indicate that Inclusion Specialists at five different school sites are currently planning a PD experience about inclusive practice to implement with classroom teachers.  Thus, there is momentum currently among more than one third of the Inclusion Specialists to facilitate professional learning and to engage in dialogue with classroom teachers at their school sites.  This is an improvement from where we started, when little planning of PD was taking place (to my knowledge) but frustration was being expressed (as indicated above).  It is important to me that our community does not simply vent and complain when things bother them, but that they have the skills necessary to affect change in a way that is respectful, collaborative, and positive.  My choice to model one way to engage in dialogue with classroom teachers appears to have impacted the thinking of at least one third of the Inclusion Specialists.  I am currently wondering about what additional supports Inclusion Specialists need to feel comfortable leading PD with classroom teachers back at their school sites.  One idea I have for next year is to co-plan PD experiences with Inclusion Specialists and perhaps even co-lead at their school sites.  I’m also wondering about the extent to which Farrington’s work on academic mindsets influenced the work they brought back to their schools

 

Improvement Questions and Site Visits Require Structure and Authenticity

At our PD in January of 2013, many people expressed a desire to visit the sites of other Inclusion Specialists.  I was drawn to the idea of using an “Improvement Question” (from Halbert and Kaser’s 2006 work) to frame a focus for these visits.  Ultimately I decided to pair people in “learning partnerships.”  Each person observed their learning partner’s school site in the weeks preceding our winter retreat in February of 2014, and then the partnerships met and debriefed their experiences during our retreat with a focus on their improvement questions.  Though a majority of people indicated that they had a positive experience with their learning partner, about 20% of the group indicated having a negative experience.  Below are the responses to the retreat exit card statement, “My time with my Learning Partner was valuable and helped me identify next steps to address my improvement question.”

            50%: Strongly Agree  

            30%: Agree                

            13%: Disagree          

            7%:  Strongly Disagree

 

To help me better understand these responses, I interviewed several people about their experiences with their learning partners.  The first person I interviewed, “A,” is in her second year of High Tech High’s Ed Specialist Credential Intern program.  She described what the experience was like for her:

“At first I felt like, “Ahh, I have to drive all the way up to North County!  But then I went up to see her [learning partner] co-teaching with one of the middle school teachers, and that was pretty cool to watch - I thought they did a pretty nice job of it.  Both times we observed each other we debriefed afterwards so the debrief at the retreat was not necessary - it didn't feel necessary.  We are all trying to learn from each other, so getting to talk about it in the moment was nice.  It was nice to commiserate with someone else about our challenges…”

This was a theme that surfaced in my field notes and was also reflected in the data: making time for our learning community often feels challenging and stressful.  Taking time out of already packed schedules to go off campus for a PD or to visit someone else’s site can initially add to feelings of stress, but in most cases, people expressed that making the time for this work was worthwhile and supportive for their practice (as evidenced by the exit card data above).

 

When asked about whether she had made progress toward addressing her improvement question, A wavered a bit.  She shared that they did discuss their improvement questions, but that their observations gave way to other discussions that were less focused on their particular questions.  A also expressed appreciation for being paired with someone she didn’t know very well (though she was initially disappointed about this), because, as she put it, “there wasn’t the temptation to make it an informal ‘visit,’ but instead we were like, ‘ok, how have you shaped your program?’”  A shared that she found the experience valuable and would like to continue the work.

 

I also spoke with D who is currently in his third year as an Inclusion Specialist.  His experience with his learning partner was much less positive.  He shared a little about the experience:

            “It sort of fizzled.  My learning partner  - we tried to set it up for about month, then

her dad got sick, we made an appointment and I showed up and she was out for a few

weeks…I didn't think that she would be able to answer my question because she was new.  And her question was very vague…”

He went on to share that ultimately he sought out his own Learning Partner experience, and went to visit the program of a veteran Inclusion Specialist at another school.  He shared that his visit was extremely valuable, because he had specific topics he wanted to learn about (Restorative Practice and Collaborative Problem Solving).  D also shared that he thought the Learning Partner experience would have been much more valuable if people had been paired based upon their improvement questions.  In other words, allow the content of each individual’s inquiry to drive the partnerships.

 

Based upon the feedback from D and A, and a review of my own observations and notes, I identified changes to the learning partner experience that would perhaps make them more effective. First, people needed more time to thoughtfully identify an improvement question.  I attempted to cram this process in to our November 2013 PD, and didn’t allow enough time for people to deeply reflect on a problem of practice.  Second, the site-visit process needed to be more thoughtfully structured.  Instead of simply asking people to identify a date and time, the visit should have been structured around an opportunity to observe something directly connected to the improvement question.  This would have allowed the debrief to remain focused on the improvement questions instead of becoming more tangential, as was the case with A and her learning partner.  Finally, I love D’s idea about placing people with a partner who is interested in addressing a similar improvement question – this way, the partnerships are made based upon the line of inquiry that people want to explore, allowing for more authentic connections and learning.

 

Significant Community Building Happens Informally

I put a lot of thought into how to build trusting, collaborative relationships among the Inclusion Specialists.  I agonized over which team-builders to use and I invested a lot of time in developing norms and working agreements, all in attempt to establish a strong sense of community.  Yet I also did something in my planning that was quite by accident but turned out to be an important element of building a collaborative community: I built in time for longer breaks and meals.  My decision to do this was not connected with a desire to build community, but because I didn’t want our time to feel rushed.  The feedback I received indicates that peoples’ sense of being a part of a professional learning community was enhanced by the informal opportunities to connect.  After our February 2014 retreat, one person wrote, “During break and lunch time, informal conversations about our job was very valuable.”  Three others wrote in their exit cards about the theme of enjoying simply getting to spend time together and being in the same place together.  Though these responses are not a high enough frequency to draw any conclusions, I wanted to explore the idea of informal community building a bit further.

 

Thus, I also interviewed M, an Inclusion Specialist who is currently in his third year in the role.  I asked him to tell me about how he experienced our whole-group PDs.  He said, “The most valuable time for me was the unstructured time - I created more of a community during lunch and during the breaks.  I spent a lot of time talking to D about graphic novels - that was really good.  We talked about advisory and he had great ideas about what he was doing and he was doing a really cool social group - that was super useful - we had long breaks for lunch.”  Similarly, during my interview with D, he expressed a very similar endorsement of informal connections during breaks being the most valuable learning opportunities.  D said, “At the retreat, I spoke with M about the graphic novel library - I sought him out and he sought me out, when we were meeting in the in-between times, based on questions we were really interested in...” 

 

I also found that in addition to valuing informal opportunities to learn and connect during PD meetings, Inclusion Specialists were regularly connecting and collaborating with colleagues outside of the context of our formal PD meetings.  When asked in November 2013, “How often do you collaborate with colleagues to work through dilemmas in your practice,” 69% of the 24 Inclusion Specialists responded “daily,” while 19% responded “weekly,” and 12% responded “monthly.”   Further, Inclusion Specialists felt that the quality of the support they get when they collaborate is good.  In response to the question, “When I collaborate with colleagues to work through dilemmas, I get great support, insight and direction,” 54% responded “strongly agree,” and 42% responded “agree.”  I wonder if people’s sense that they get good support and insight from colleagues may indicate that they trust in their colleagues?  One person explained her response by writing, “I feel very supported and am confident that when I need help, there are many individuals that will help me.”  The notion of increased trust as an outcome of informal opportunities to connect and collaborate is very interesting to me, and it’s something I would like to explore more next year.

 

Engaging PD is Driven by Teachers

One of my most important understandings is that relevance needed to be at the heart of the work in the adult learning community of Inclusion Specialists.  The feedback from my preliminary data collection was revealing: 14 of 24 Inclusion Specialists wrote in their January 2013 exit cards about their desire to generate their own areas of focus to explore in PD.   For example, one person wrote, “...topics can be decided by participants but will most likely be dictated by what we need at the time.”  And another suggested, “I think we could have a shared agenda that we add to.”  Inclusion Specialists were accustomed to the “teacher-led” culture at High Tech High, and they had a strong desire to have ownership of the topics we explored for our own professional learning experiences.  They wanted the topics to feel relevant and responsive to the unique needs within their settings.

 

When we first convened as a whole group of Inclusion Specialists in January of 2013, we did an exercise to identify both strengths and areas for growth in the area of inclusive practice at our schools.  We then noted the topics under “areas for growth” that we would like to explore in future PD.  I asked people to write a “star” next to any topic that they might like to lead.  Next, I compiled a comprehensive list of topics that we most wanted to learn about as a group.  In June of 2013, I sent out a survey that listed all of the areas, and asked people to rank their top choices for the coming school year.  The topics that were endorsed the most for the 2013-2014 school year included Mental Health, Supporting students on Modified Curriculum, Special Education Law, Transition Planning, and Leading PD with Academic Coaches and Classroom Teachers.  These topics became the focus of our whole group PD sessions.  What follows is a summary of the exit card data for each workshop:

 

Mental Health Workshop #1:

94% of respondents indicated that our first mental health PD was “helpful,”  “meaningful,” and “relevant to my practice.” 

 

Students on Modified Curriculum

94% of respondents indicated that our first workshop about supporting students who are on a modified curriculum was “helpful,” “meaningful,” and “relevant to my practice.” 

 

Transition Planning:

83% of people wrote positive comments about the Transition Planning PD.  For example, one person wrote,  “I feel better about transition planning.  Love the easy access to resources.”  Another wrote, “An amazing resource!  Thanks so much for putting it all together!  Love that I can come to one place for the info AND resources needed.”  And another wrote, “I am taking away a lot of information to support with finding outside agencies and resources to set families up for success after high school.”  Transition Planning is often seen as a tedious element of the IEP process, and I was thrilled to see that most people found the workshop relevant and supportive.

 

Mental Health Workshop #2:

In response to the statement “the mental health workshop will help me improve my practice and the support I give to students,” 90% (or 27 of the 30 of respondents) indicated that they “strongly agree.” 

 

These data indicate that the workshops (on topics of the Inclusion Specialists’ choosing) were received very positively.  As one person wrote after our winter retreat, “I think what has made the meetings worthwhile is having a group-produced list of topics for discussion.”