What Would It Look Like If All Students Felt Included?

What Would It Look Like If All Students Felt Included?

This is the first in a three-part series of articles about a new project at College Place Middle School in Edmonds, Washington.

by Carol Frodge

Last spring, as our principal Andy Rogers and I were thinking about what we could accomplish during my internship, we decided to create a small school within our larger school. We wanted to put into practice some of the organizational development processes and learning principles I have been developing through Western Washington University's Administration Program and Leadership for Learning (LfL). LfL is a three-year international education leadership program. We saw this as a great opportunity to take part in collaborative leadership and transformational learning experiences.

All teachers interested in participating in the small school were invited to come to a meeting at the end of March 2004. From the beginning we made it clear that we had no extra time nor staffing nor money. The design was to have 4 core teachers at each of the grade levels (7th and 8th grade) and a special education teacher. To my surprise sixteen teachers showed up. This endeavor would have to support itself and it was important to assure teachers that we wouldn't take on any more work than what was reasonable and sustainable. The first year was supposed to be primarily a planning year; however, that's not how it has turned out.

At this initial meeting we discussed the value of a small school and why each of the teachers wanted to be a part of it. The reasons included:
· decreasing the frustration of being an isolated teacher,
· finding ways for students to receive more personal attention,
· discovering common threads between subjects,
· giving students a greater sense of school identity,
· giving teachers more opportunities to connect with the students,
· lessening fragmentation of curriculum
· making it easier for parents to know which teachers to contact, and
· improving student learning.

We also discussed the hurdles we would encounter which included:
· creating a positive mindset deciding who would be in the small school,
· discovering whether students in the small school would have a "better" experience in middle school which might result in creating an equity issue,
· discovering how to find the time to plan,
· learning how to work as a staff in the small school,
· finding clarity of purpose so we don't try to go in too many directions,
· and suffering from disillusionment when things don't work out to our expectations.

Finally we shared what our priorities were and what we would be willing to give up in order to make the small school work. The priorities included:
· having common planning time,
· having smaller classes,
· implementing cross curricular work,
· developing ways to work together as a team,
· finding ways to connect with other teachers,
· being in the "now"
· becoming more effective in helping all students to learn,
· developing better communication
· volunteering one night after school.

The teachers were willing to give up:
· individual planning time for team planning time,
· autonomy,
· their current teaching style in favor of more student-focused teaching
· smaller class size,
· math-coaching time, and
· other current practices as the program developed.

In the following weeks the principal, Andy Rogers, and I met to configure the staffing of the small school. We wanted to try out the small school model with a variety of both new and experienced teachers, as well as, teachers with different gifts and personalities. Due to the subjects and grade levels of the volunteers, it appeared that some teachers who did not volunteer for the small school would be affected. Those teachers were informed about what we were planning, and fortunately, all the teachers affected were willing to make the needed changes.

By the end of May the small school staff was selected and we were able to schedule meeting times within each grade level but not across grade levels. Then the challenge of actually trying to make a difference began and as a staff we started to do some initial planning.

In June, Stanly Pogrow from Seattle University made a presentation to our staff about using questioning techniques to increase higher order thinking skills. Lori Armstrong, the Special Education teacher, Gary Howlett, our Psychologist, and I were asked to put together an in-service training for August/September on Socratic Questioning and the Learning Cycle. It was through the preparation for this in-service that we learned about Appreciative Inquiry.

Appreciative Inquiry(AI), developed by David Cooperrider, is an organizational development process that changes the way organizations look at their work. In the traditional process, people look for problems that need to be fixed and try to fix them, usually without success. In the appreciative process people look for what is working well and try to learn from it and expand that work. After many years of trying the traditional model with limited success and extensive reading about AI, we decided to use this process in developing the small school. The first step in the Appreciative process is to decide the affirmative topic choice and then follow the 4-D process to develop the organization. (Cooperrider, 2003)

The small school staff decided that there are many ways to teach a concept, but if the student isn't emotionally involved the teaching technique doesn't matter. So our central question is, "What would it look like if all students felt included?" All of our work focuses on this quest. As the Director of the Small School I had to establish the appreciative process for all of our work and keep us focused on our central question.

In the early meetings in September we focused on the discovery of how we would operate as a group. Questions were posed such as:
· What was your best team experience?
· What went well the first week?
· What student success stories are there already?

Through the stories we shared, our small school culture began to emerge. It was in these first few meetings that the tone of our small school was set and continues. It is the natural tendency among teachers when they get together to want to talk about students who are difficult, and the challenge we faced was trying to keep our weekly meetings from being spent doing just that. We meet only one hour a week and it was important to use the AI process to focus on systemic changes that would benefit all students in the small school instead of focusing on the problem students. It seemed likely that if we were to focus on systemic changes then the number of students doing well would increase.

Next, we began the Dream phase. We decided that central to all students feeling included is that they feel "seen," so we discussed how we currently "see" students. Students who act out with behavior issues or students who are failing are generally "seen" right away. What about students who behave well or who are marginally successful? We wanted to develop ways to "see" all students and thereby create a better sense of school community.

Among several strategies to "see" more students, we decided to have mid-term progress report conferences with all of our students. We asked the students to fill out a reflection sheet. Using that and their progress report we had short individual conferences with each student over the following two weeks. The conferences proved to be very insightful and we were able to have meaningful conversations with all of our students. We continue to work in the design phase being mindful of choosing work that is sustainable.

In the school structure we designed, our special education students are mainstreamed and the special education teacher is free to float from class to class. Her time is contracted for by all of the regular teachers in the small school, this allows both the regular classroom teachers and the special education teacher to meet regularly with smaller groups of students. The special education teacher is also running a series of community building activities with our students. At our weekly meetings we decide in which classes she'll be offering these activities.

In many team or small school situations, creating cross-curricular programs is a central goal. We decided early on that because creating cross-curricular programs takes such a large commitment of time and energy, and because we have no additional resources and a commitment not to overload ourselves, we made that a low priority. It is interesting that as we work together longer, there is greater desire to know what each other's curriculum is and how we can use what students are doing in other classes to increase the impact of our own curriculum. We continue to experiment with convenient ways to share our curricula. We are trying a unit on homelessness that will have a component in each of the core classes.

While we try to focus on strategies that will benefit all in the small school, we do identify individual students that need special attention. We set up parent meetings with greater ease than was previously possible, and the parents feel their children are being "seen" more than in the past.

Our emphasis is on building a sense of community within the school and within our Small School staff. We are combining the use of team-building activities, a cross-curricular small school project on homelessness, and whole small school activities to work toward our goal. Initially, I set the agenda for the weekly meetings, but now, as our work evolves, we set the agenda cooperatively. The work we choose directs the future work.

Last spring, one of the early questions was whether we should give parents an opportunity to choose whether or not to have their child in the Small School. We decided not to offer the choice at that time because we had no clear vision about what being in the Small School actually meant. Would students in the Small School have a significantly different experience from that of other students? Would teachers in the Small School have a significantly different experience? The answers to these questions unfold as our adventure continues.

About the author

Carol Frodge is currently an Administrative Intern at College Place Middle School, Edmonds, WA. She has been teaching science for 18 years and is also Dean of Students at College Place Middle School. Carol is an active participant in Leadership for Learning, a Carpe Vitam project though Cambridge University, England. Her main interest is in implementing Appreciative Inquiry in a small school setting. Carol may be contacted at cfrodge@msn.com.

©December 2004 New Horizons for Learning
This information is provided by:
Office of State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Special Education
P O Box 47200
Olympia, WA 98504-7200
(360) 725-6088
Fax (360)586-1631
E-mail: dgill@ospi.wednet.edu