Over the course of the last week, I've had two separate conversations with two different principals about the critically important role that clearly articulated sets of norms play in governing the work of successful learning teams. 

Both principals are leading their buildings through the transition from traditional to collaborative schoolhouses -- and both underestimated the importance of the norming process.

That's understandable, isn't it? 

Norms are one of those ideas that seems overly-restrictive.  "Why EXACTLY do we need a set of rules for our learning teams?" the thinking often goes, "We ARE all adults, aren't we?  Why can't we just act like it?"

Here's the hitch: Norms are nothing more than the common patterns of beliefs, interactions and behaviors that define any collaborative group.  That means your team HAS norms, whether you take the time to articulate them or not. 

What I've always loved the best about time spent articulating the norms of my learning teams is that it gives us the chance to really wrestle with exactly what we believe in. 

Answering questions like, "What would we focus on if we were being especially productive in a team meeting?" and, "How do we best respect one another and the time that we spend together?" serves as natural openings to more significant questions like, "What does effective assessment of student learning look like?" and "How can we best serve struggling students?"

In a sense, writing norms becomes an identity building activity. 

Teams that embrace the process end up with a clear definition of who they want to be as a group of collaborative professionals -- and their norms can serve as a touchstone to return to whenever they feel collectively lost. 

I've worked with dozens of different learning teams over the past few years -- transition in middle schools makes that an inevitable reality -- and the teams that spent the most time developing norms were also the most cohesive and productive and excited about meeting with one another. 

Need a sample of what super-detailed norms can look like? 

Check out this set developed by a science team that I worked with a few years back.  Notice how we broke our norms into two categories -- expectations governing our work with students and expectations governing our work with each other. 

More importantly, notice that we added detailed rationale for each of our individual norm statements.  Doing so allowed us to really come to agreement around what each individual statement meant.  Doing so also allowed us to integrate new members into our team easily.  After all, who we were and how we worked was spelled out clearly. 

I'm also proud of this set of "We Believe" statements which help to guide the work of my current learning team.  They are an interesting hybrid between norms that govern and vision statements that guide our work.  I think they are a bit more approachable than the more formal norming document linked above.  They're also more inspirational. 

The hitch, though, is that they aren't as effective at addressing the kinds of tangible behaviors that sometime disrupt meetings.  They don't talk about how we'll handle conflict or the ways that we expect team members to make contributions to our work.  They largely govern what we will do when working with students.  Norms governing the work we do with one another are just as important.

The only real rule in writing norms is WRITE THEM.  And then talk about them.  Often.  Hold one another accountable for living up to them.  Decide what you're going to do when you -- or the peers on your learning team -- break them. 

While they seem skip-able, skipping the norming process is a mistake for anyone working in collaborative groups. 

_________________________________________________

 Related Radical Reads:

The Importance of a Clear Vision

How Much DOES the Composition of a Learning Team Matter?

Are YOU Leading by Cliche?

I just got back from a weekend at EduCon. The conference created a great space to think and collaborate about how to push progressive ideas and practices further.  One of the sessions I went to gave me something entirely new to think about: my introverted students.  Tony Baldasaro (@baldy7) gave a lot of food for thought on the subject.  Here's what I learned.

• There is such thing as an introvert.  We are all somewhere on the spectru, between extrovert and introvert, but introverts tend to me people who are shy, and don't like to talk much, especially in large groups. 

• Extroverts are almost always up for talking about something. They talk to think. They come up with many of their best ideas in conversation.  When stressed, tired, upset, they tend to want to hang out with friends, talk about the problem, etc.

• Introverts' thought processing is actually neurologically distinct, according to new research (I don't have a source to cite, but Baldasaro recommended Quiet by Susan Cain).  Their problem solving process takes a longer pathway, involving recal of long term memory.  They need time to formulate their thoughts carefully this way and tend not to want to speak until they have worked through the process. 

• When stressed, tired, upset, etc, introverts tend to want to be alone.  However, being alone doesn't mean something is wrong. They might just be thinking.

• Introverts are energized by solitude. Extroverts are energized by interactions with others.

How does this play out in school? At the conference we discussed whether school favors the introvert or the extrovert. 

I think traditional school doesn't particularly work for either type.  Extroverts are forced to be quiet and work independently most of the time.  Introverts are forced to formulate thoughts and answer questions on the spot without the time they need to process their responses.

Progressive education can often favor the extrovert because of the emphasis on cooperative learning and class participation. Do we have a responsibility to help introverts be a part of this kind of work?  Probably.  Do we also have a responsibility to make adaptations so that it is more comfortable for all students? Id' say so.

I came away with a few good suggestions from Tony and members of my discussion group.

1. Let introverts know in advance if you want to talk to them about something, or if you will expect them to speak about something in class. This is to give them time to work through their ideas.

2. Many introverts will speak up when asked to, but not always take the initiative.  Invite introverted students to share their thoughts--especially if there's advanced notice of the discussion and topic, find ways to equalize the airtime time, so that the extroverts don't dominate the conversation.

3. When given an in class writing task, many introverts might take a while to get started. Don't rush them, or assume they are being lazy or defiant.  They are probably thinking.  Fine to check in about it, though. And when possible, be generous about allowing extra time.

4. Many introverts in the session suggested allowing students to opt out of working in a group and complete a group project on their own.  I don't think this would always be possible, but certainly something to consider when assigning group work.  It is absolutely necessary that my studets work in groups on this?  Do I have any reason not to allow some students to work alone?

5. Finally, research has shown that introverts tend to be much more comfortable participating in discussions online.  This is probably because online is not time-based and takes away some of the built up perceptions of social pressure they've experienced in face to face groups.  They can be alone and part of a conversation or community at the same time. Find ways to allow students to initiate or extend discussions online, and watch the balance of who's communicating shift. 

Thank you, Tony Baldasaro, for bringing this topic to light!   

[image credit: theparentszone.com]

The education world is a big place.  Having explored some interesting reaches in and around that world, and at times having spread myself too thin, I've recently come back to the idea that the most important work I can do is in my classroom with students.  Nonetheless, it doesn't work for teachers to do their work with their heads in the sand, so to speak, ignoring the wider world of education research and policy that continues to dicate and influence aspects of our teaching, our students' lives, and our career paths.  It is equally necessary that policy makers, researchers, and others involved in education outside the classroom are in constant dialogue with teachers and school leaders so that their work makes sense and can have a positive impact on students.  

So I've been playing a lot in my mind with the balance between the classroom as the single most important place in the education world, and the need to be in dialogue with others in education, who occupy different spaces and roles, but nonetheless are pieces of the same puzzle. If we all really want a first rate education system in this country, then we need to communicate effectively about it. Communication takes time and effort.  

Writing this blog has been a good way to be both in my classroom/school community and in conversation with a wider educational community.  Here, as in many of my fellow teacher bloggers' sites (Check out TransformEd for a feed of our collective voices), the two worlds don't seem so divided. 

[image credit: canstockphoto.com]

I just wanted to provide some additional space for a comment left on my recent post, Teacher Leadership's Gaining Momentum: Where Are We Going?  In it, I share my observation that formal teacher leadership roles are becoming more common and more mainstream, which is quite a big change from where we were even 8 years ago when I started teaching. I ask where teacher leaders are taking the profession and schools?  Obviously we are not all doing the same work, nor do we all have the same priorities as we approach our work, so the question cannot be answered easily.    

In the comments section, a reader, Joetta Schneider, provided these important thoughts for teacher leaders as we shape our roles:

"Yes, it is important to think about "toward what are we leading?" At our school, teachers brainstormed what they thought would be best for students. We then looked at research and found ideas that we could use in the transformation of our school.

I feel as though there are many new corporations developing to take advantage of monetary opportunities in education, and teachers need to beware of quick fixes. Many times these are tied to politics. At our school we are steadfastly resisting packaged answers, because we feel we have the best interests of our students in mind, unlike many government and political entities. It was a rude awakening to us to find out that deals were being made behind the scenes involving selling out our students (and teachers.) I would advise others: "Keep your eyes wide open and do not make hasty teacher-leadership decisions. Always keep the sacred trust of your students' best interests at the forefront of your leadership decisions." We won't sell out our vision for our students, nor will we sell out the teachers who trust us to build their vision for change at our school. We will choose our partnerships carefully." 

Her comment reminds me of a conversation the Teaching 2030 writer's team had when we were working on our book.  We were talking about the myriad changes we imagined that would come to public education with technology and shifting infrastructures.  Renee Moore brought up the issue of equity of access to high quality education as we blend face-to-face and online learning environments.  

Then, late in the day, Shannon C'de Baca said, "In all of these changes, someone has to sort it all out and make sure that we are going in the right direction; that what we call progress benefits all children in their learning.  Someone has to be the keeper of the flame."  We began to imagine teacher leaders as the keepers of the flame, the protectors of public education for all.    

Joetta's right--money and corporate interests can complicate and confuse things, often providing quick fixes that seem to answer persistent funding and salary issues in schools and in teachers' lives.  As teacher leadership roles open up and we stand closer to the many other interests that guide decisions made for our schools, it's important to keep our eyes wide open and make sure we lead toward what we know is best for our students.

[image credit: http://future.teacherleaders.org/]

After writing my previous post, Teacher Leadership's Gaining Momentum--Where Are We Going?, I began to look at what my colleagues had written about teacher leadership. I came across this great post from fellow blogger Bill Ferriter called, What Do Teacher Leaders Need From Administrators?  In it, he shares some interesting data, quotes from teacher leaders, and this slide:

Would you say teacher leaders might feel like odd ducks in your teaching context?  In both my current and former school, I would say not so likely.  I often feel like an odd duck in terms of my teaching style, which tends to be more constructivist than that of my colleagues.  But I see teacher leaders in school-based roles becoming more and more commonplace.  

What does not seem commonplace, and what often makes me feel like an odd duck, is the idea of a teacher taking on leadership within the field of education, but outside the school context.  Teachers involved in education policy and politics is still odd, from where I stand.  Having been the rare teacher at a few policy events, I know that we are sometimes the odd ducks in both worlds.  Still, I'm convinced that teacher leadership at all levels is becoming more accepted and understood.  What do you think?