CC02 PERFORMANCE TASK ASSIGNMENT

This assessment has three-parts.  Click each of the items below to complete this assessment.

Part I: Co-Teaching, Communication, and Collaboration

Using Document #1: Observation Report of a Co-Teaching Classroom, answer the following questions (two to three pages):

1. What is at least one benefit of using co-teaching strategies in the early childhood classroom?

2. What two co-teaching strategies would be useful for the teachers in the observation report to use? Why did you choose the strategies, and how can the teachers use them to make their co-teaching relationship more effective?

3. What is one piece of feedback you would provide for each of the two teachers in the observation report regarding communicating and collaborating more effectively?

4. Describe a specific strategy for building communication and collaboration skills in the co-teaching setting. Include a rationale for choosing this strategy.

Part II: In-Service Presentation: Communication and Collaboration

Based on Document #1: Observation Report of a Co-Teaching Classroom and the information provided in Barrera and Kramer’s “Cultural Competency as Skilled Dialogue,” create an in-service presentation on effective communication and collaboration techniques, incorporating the information provided in the scenario as well as from the professional knowledge base. Part II of this assessment is an oral presentation that is 5-7 minutes in length and accompanied by 7-10 PowerPoint slides. The presentation must include:

1. An overview of at least three effective respectful, reciprocal, and responsive communication and collaboration strategies, and a rationale for why you chose the strategies.

2. An explanation of the benefits of applying respectful, reciprocal, and responsive strategies when communicating with colleagues and other professionals.

3. An explanation of at least one strategy for resolving conflict in the workplace. Include examples relevant to the early childhood professionals in the scenario.

If you are unfamiliar with how to add audio to a PowerPoint presentation, please use this tutorial

Part III: PLC Plan

Submit a description of the PLC plan you will create to improve school readiness at the center. Base your PLC plan on Document #2: Preschool Staff Meeting Minutes, Document #3: Editorial on the Implementation of a PLC, and the information provided in “ What is a Professional Learning Community? ” by Richard DuFour. Your response should be three to four pages in length. Your description should include:

1. The visions and three measurable goals of the PLC.

2. Clearly defined roles and responsibilities of administrators and teachers.

3. How PLC teams will be structured, a protocol for meetings, and an explanation of how evidence-based decision making will guide the PLC.

4. The benefits of the PLC you have planned. In your explanation of the benefits of the PLC, address the concerns from the newspaper article in Document #3: Editorial on the Implementation of a PLC.

Document 1: Observation Report of a Co-Teaching Classroom

Co-Teaching Observation Report

Teacher 1: Corrine Hester

Teacher 2: Elliot Harden

Grade Level: Preschool

Observer: Joann Glover

Date and Time: 9:00am –10:00am on February 13th

Co-Teaching Strategies (Select All Observed):

|_|One Teach, One Observe |_|Station Teaching |_|Parallel Teaching

|_|Alternative Teaching |_|Team Teaching |X|One Teach, One Assist

NOTES or COMMENTS:

Ms. Hester was not present in the classroom when I arrived; she came in around 9:15am.

Mr. Harden instructed, while Ms. Hester assisted. They remained in these roles for the entirety of the class; it would have been beneficial to see them switch roles.

The students were working on identifying letters of the alphabet. They directed their questions to Mr. Harden.

Ms. Hester worked with individual students, but did not engage with the entire class at any point. Mr. Harden did not circulate among the students, but remained at the front of the class.

I would have liked to see both teachers engaged more equally with the students and to have shared more of the instruction.

When I followed up with each teacher individually, I learned that Ms. Hester had not been involved in the lesson planning for this particular class, citing a scheduling conflict. Mr. Harden mentioned that he felt that Ms. Hester was not interested in instructing the entire class; she had never outright expressed a desire to lead the class.

Ms. Hester expressed frustration about Mr. Harden’s availability for co-planning, which was limited as a result of his family obligations in the afternoons. When they are able meet and plan lessons together, she feels that she is unable to contribute at an equal level.

I would suggest that both Mr. Harden and Ms. Hester attend a training session on co-teaching and collaboration, as neither is familiar with co-teaching and different co-teaching strategies.

©2014 Walden University 1

Top of Form

Skip to Main Content

☰

Accessibility Information and Tips

Search Thoreau @ Walden University Library

· Select a Field (optional)

· AND

Select a Field (optional)

· AND

Select a Field (optional)

Add Row Remove Row

· Basic Search 

· Advanced Search 

· Search History

· Result List 

· Refine Search 

·  1 of 1 

Title:

Cultural competency as skilled dialogue

Barrera, Isaura Corso, Robert M.

Source:

Topics in Early Childhood Special Education. Summer, 2002, Vol. 22 Issue 2, p103, 11 p.

Publisher Information:

Sage Publications, Inc.

Publication Year:

2002

Subject Terms:

Multiculturalism -- Social aspects Early childhood education -- Research Special education -- Research

Language:

English

ISSN:

0271-1214

Rights:

Copyright 2002 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Accession Number:

edsgcl.102909990

Database:

Gale Academic OneFile Select

 Choose Languageالإنجليزية/العربيةанглийски език/български英语/简体中文英語/繁體中文angličtina/češtinaEngelsk/danskEngels/NederlandsAnglais/FrançaisEnglisch/DeutschΑγγλικά/ΕλληνικάEnglish/Hausaאנגלית/עבריתअंग्रेज़ी/हिंदीangol/magyarInggris/bahasa IndonesiaInglese/Italiano英語/日本語영어/한국어Engelsk/Norskانگليسی/فارسیangielski/polskiInglés/PortuguêsEnglish/PashtoEngleză/românăАнглийский/РусскийInglés/EspañolEnglish/SerbianAngleški/SlovenskiAngličtina/SlovenčinaEngelska/svenskaอังกฤษ/ไทยİngilizce/TürkАнглійська/Українськаانگریزی/اردو 

1. CULTURAL DIVERSITY AS A RELATIONAL AND CONTEXT-EMBEDDED REALITY

2. UNDERSTANDING CULTURE

3. CULTURAL COMPETENCE AS SKILLED DIALOGUE

4. Characteristic Qualities of Skilled Dialogue

5. DEVELOPING SKILLED DIALOGUE

6. Anchored Understanding of Diversity

7. 3rd Space

8. USING SKILLED DIALOGUE

9. Strategies Associated with Anchored Understanding

10. Strategies Associated with 3rd Space

11. Conclusions

12. AUTHORS' NOTE

13. NOTES

14. TABLE 1. Strategies for Anchoring Understanding of Diversity

15. TABLE 2. Strategies for Creating 3rd Space Options

16. REFERENCES

Full Text

Listen       American Accent       Australian Accent       British Accent      

There is a continuing need to competently serve children and families from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds. This article describes Skilled Dialogue, an approach to cultural competency developed by the first author in response to the challenges posed by cultural linguistic diversity. Skilled Dialogue focuses on cultural competency as the ability to craft respectful, reciprocal, and responsive interactions across diverse cultural parameters. The authors discuss key beliefs about cultural diversity and culture that provide the foundation of this approach, as well as the characteristics, component skills, and related strategies of Skilled Dialogue. Concrete suggestions are offered for engaging in the process of Skilled Dialogue as an approach to cultural competency.

There is a clear and growing need for early childhood special education practitioners to develop effective strategies for serving children and families whose cultural and linguistic backgrounds are different from their own. This article describes Skilled Dialogue, an approach developed by the first author in response to the challenges posed by cultural diversity in early childhood settings. Its specific form is based on action research over the past 10 years, during which its components were piloted with early childhood practitioners in various professional development and onsite contexts.

Three beliefs ground the Skilled Dialogue approach. The first belief is that diversity is a relational and context-embedded reality. The second belief is that understanding the dynamics of culture is a prerequisite to appropriately addressing the challenges posed by cultural diversity. Finally, a core belief is that the key to cultural competence lies more in our ability to craft respectful, reciprocal, and responsive interactions, both verbal and nonverbal, across diverse cultural parameters than in the breadth of our knowledge about other cultures. Each of these beliefs is discussed below, followed by a detailed description of Skilled Dialogue and specific strategies for using it in early childhood settings.

CULTURAL DIVERSITY AS A RELATIONAL AND CONTEXT-EMBEDDED REALITY

A brief scenario involving Anna and Doris, two mothers who are each breastfeeding a child past the age of 12 months, illustrates our discussion of cultural diversity as a relational context-embedded reality. Anna is following practices common in her community and cultural templates she observed and learned as a child. All credible persons around her value "late" breastfeeding as normative and desirable. Furthermore, Anna sees other mothers around her following the same practice. Anna was breastfed until she was 2 years old.

Doris, the second mother in this scenario, is also breastfeeding her 18-month-old child. In Doris' case, however, the behavior stems from a more conscious choice. She belongs to the La Leche League. Doris does not see many of her family or friends doing the same thing, although she does see other mothers who are in La Leche League breastfeeding their older children. However, she is aware of many "experts," including her own relatives, who would disagree with her practice. Doris was not breastfed past 6 months of age.

Early childhood practitioners working with these mothers face distinct challenges, especially if it is their belief that continuing breastfeeding will interfere with achieving age-appropriate self-feeding skills. For Anna, the decrease or cessation of breastfeeding carries an entirely different meaning than for Doris. Even though both mothers might see such cessation negatively, Anna has little or no framework for understanding it as other than "not normal." To change her behavior would mean going against all she has believed and experienced since childhood, as well as risking almost certain censure from her family and community. Doris, on the other hand, does have a framework for understanding the early cessation of breastfeeding, although not necessarily one that she values highly. She might even have access to specific literature supporting an early shift to bottle feeding. Doris also knows other moms who do not breastfeed their older infants. If Doris changed her behavior, it would mean going against her best beliefs, but it would probably not challenge her fundamental worldview to the same degree as it would for Anna and would, in all likelihood, carry a much smaller risk of censure from family and community.

This vignette illustrates the point that primary differences between persons from different cultures lie not only in differences in behaviors but also in the meaning associated with those behaviors (i.e., in their context) and, consequently, in the risk associated with changing them (Landrine, 1995; see Note 1). Assuming there is a valid reason for encouraging a behavioral change in the first place, the challenge to early childhood special education (ECSE) practitioners lies in understanding both the "meaning" the and the "risk" as accurately as they can within given contexts.

Cultural diversity is a term used to identify differences, such as those just described, that are attributed to cultural templates. Differences between persons may, of course, be perceived and explained through a variety of lenses, such as personality, trauma experiences, gender, and personal history. Culture is only one of several lenses through which one can look in seeking to explain behavior. The focus on culture in this article is an artifact of the authors' purpose and the constraints of time and length. It is not intended to discount or devalue other sources of diversity.

ECSE literature tends to identify only some populations as culturally diverse (Barrera & Corso, 2000), regardless of their context. Skilled Dialogue, on the other hand, assumes that cultural diversity is a relational reality. That is, diversity is contextual and does not exist as a static quality within individuals, as does ethnicity, for example. It is relatively accurate to say that someone is Hispanic regardless of context. It is not equally accurate to say that same person is culturally diverse without knowing the social and cultural environment(s) in which he or she lives. All of us are diverse in relation to some people and some settings. At the same time, it is also true that all of us are not diverse in relation to some people and some settings.

A second assumption on which Skilled Dialogue is based is that cultural diversity is a positive quality that is never problematic in and of itself. It is the responses given to that diversity by individuals and institutions that carry negative or positive consequences. For example, having little or no proficiency in English in a setting where only English is spoken is not, in and of itself, a problem. Limited proficiency in English only becomes problematic when no accommodations are made for that reality (e.g., when no one offers to translate or to find someone else to translate; when no one takes time to teach English or learn the other language; when no one seeks alternative means of communication). It is only within a social environment where individuals are truly respected and valued, no matter how different or similar they are to others, that diversity can achieve its full potential as a strength and resource.

UNDERSTANDING CULTURE

Responding appropriately to cultural diversity requires that we first place it in context as an artifact of culture itself. To accomplish that, we need to understand what culture is and how it functions. Culture is a pervasive and dynamic process that influences every aspect of how we perceive and interact with others. It includes the beliefs, language(s), and behaviors valued in a community (e.g., roles and rules for interacting with strangers). All cultures structure the transmission of these values and social mores from one generation to another (Polk, 1994). Children, for example, are socialized into the language, roles, and rules valued in their homes as a means of providing them with the tools for becoming successful participants in their family and community. Values, perceptions, and beliefs are transmitted from one generation to another, implicitly through modeling, as well as explicitly through verbal messages such as, "This is good"; "This is not good." This process is called enculturation (Damon, 1987; Hollins, 1996).

A family's template for promoting development and learning is rooted in what Moll and Greenberg (1990) referred to as cultural funds of knowledge, a concept analogous to cultural capital (e.g., Lubeck, 1994), which refers to the depth and breadth of funds of knowledge to which one has access. Moll and Greenberg (1990) defined funds of knowledge as an "operations manual of essential information and strategies households need to maintain their well-being" (p. 323). These "operations manuals" or "strategic bodies of essential information" are contained within and transmitted through a community's culture. Some might even say that culture is comprised of a set of such funds of knowledge transmitted across generations.

Knowing how to greet adults who are not family members, for example, requires a specific cultural fund of knowledge. The content of this fund differs across cultures. In some cultures, children will be taught to remain silent as a sign of respect. In other cultures, children will be expected to step up, say "hello," and shake hands when introduced. All settings call for different knowledge and skills to a greater or lesser degree. It is the degree of continuity or discontinuity between known and unknown that becomes a critical factor in relation to cultural diversity.

Once this aspect of culture is deeply understood, different behaviors and beliefs can be understood in their own context and not just in comparison to a selected culture. Consider, for example, the behavior of not asking direct questions. Examined outside its own context, it becomes a "diverse" behavior, an isolated behavior judged only in comparison to other cultural contexts. It may be viewed as somehow more or less effective than asking direct questions, a more valued behavior in Euro-American Normative Culture (ENC; see Note 2). Examined as a behavior grounded in its own cultural context, however, avoiding direct questions becomes only one of an interconnected cluster of behaviors developed by a community to most effectively meet particular goals. It can then be understood as a strategy that functions as well within its context as any alternative developed by other communities. From this perspective it becomes easier to understand how changing individual behaviors without attention to their context risks the coherence of related behaviors, as well as individuals' sense of self and power. Asking parents who speak only a little English to use only English with their child, for example, limits their ability to tell the stories or sing the lullabies they learned as children. This limitation can sabotage the desired goal of language development and adversely affect family relationships and socio-emotional development. Only when diverse skills and knowledge are accurately perceived as what they truly are--valued and deeply rooted expressions of self and community--can differences be respected without sacrificing connections.

CULTURAL COMPETENCE AS SKILLED DIALOGUE

The term cultural competence or cultural competency is typically used in reference to the knowledge and skill necessary for facilitating communication and skill acquisition across cultures (e.g., Lynch & Hanson, 1992). It has, however, not always been positively received. Nevertheless, for want of a better term, it is chosen by the authors to refer to "the ability.., to respond optimally to all children and families [in ways that acknowledge]... both the richness and the limitations of the sociocultural contexts in which children and families, as well as practitioners... may be operating" (Barrera & Kramer, 1997, p. 217).

Common approaches to cultural competency emphasize one key aspect of cross-cultural communication and learning: the need for information about (i.e., "knowing about") others (e.g., Lynch & Hanson, 1992). Although such information is both useful and necessary, it is not always sufficient. No matter how thorough or precise, it may not match individual families' more dynamic experiences as members of those cultures. In addition, ECSE practitioners can find it overwhelming and unrealistic to be familiar with cultural parameters for all the persons/ children with whom they are asked to interact, especially when these children and families participate in multiple cultures. Even with this information, practitioners may remain unable to respond to the question, "What do we do now, in this specific and concrete situation with these particular persons/children?"

Skilled Dialogue, designed to augment and balance knowledge-based perspectives, offers a relational approach to cultural competency. Within this approach, the crafting of respectful, reciprocal, and responsive relationships is understood to be the true measure of cultural competency. A discussion of Skilled Dialogue's characteristic qualities and component skills furthers defines its nature as a tool for achieving cultural competence.

Characteristic Qualities of Skilled Dialogue

Within the Skilled Dialogue approach, the absence or presence of three qualities--respect, reciprocity, and responsiveness--is key to determining whether interactions are skilled or unskilled (Barrera & Kramer, 1996). The following anecdote provides a practical context for the discussion of each of these qualities.

Betsy, an early interventionist, poses the following question:

How can I be culturally responsive when I go into the homes of families from cultures that make sharp distinctions between parents and "experts?" Take Karen, for example; she's a single mother from Puerto Rico whom I see weekly. When I ask her to tell me what she'd like for Maya, her child, or when I ask her to work with Maya, she tells me that I am the "expert" and that I should tell her what needs to be done. Sometimes she'll even go so far as to leave me alone with Maya. I know that Karen cares about Maya and is just expressing her respect for my professional skills, but how can I involve her more actively in Maya's activities while I am there?

Respect. Respect is the hallmark quality of Skilled Dialogue. As used in this context, respect refers to an awareness and acknowledgment of boundaries between persons. Boundaries are markers that both connect and distinguish us from others. They identify the parameters of the spaces that we choose to occupy. Physical boundaries delineate the physical space around us; when entered without our permission, we feel disturbed or even violated. When acknowledged and entered with our permission, they support trust and connection. Emotional boundaries identify parameters of relatedness; they define when words and actions convey insult or praise. Cognitive boundaries determine what we believe to be true. When these are crossed, we may not understand what is said, or we may feel confused and angry. When validated, we tend to feel a greater sense of confidence and competence. Spiritual boundaries are about our connection with those aspects of the universe larger than we are (e.g., God, Spirit, Energy, Self). When these boundaries are crossed, we may feel lost or somehow less well defined. The boundaries that we hold reflect our basic assumptions about others, the world around us, and ourselves. These assumptions lie at the core of the meanings that we attach to our actions and our words.

Awareness and acknowledgment of boundaries different from our own can be problematic when it challenges our own assumptions. Once differences are identified, it may seem as if we will no longer be able to maintain connections. Yet, what truly divides or connects are the meanings we attach to distinctions, not the distinctions themselves.

More specifically to ECSE, how can respect for diverse boundaries be communicated in situations such as that described in the anecdote about Betsy and Karen? Respectful communication requires remembering that neither Betsy nor Karen's truths define the whole of reality; there are many more aspects to who they each are and to the roles they choose to play in relation to Maya. Respecting a mother who, like Karen, leaves the room and leaves the practitioner alone means both acknowledging that her current experience of reality casts practitioners in the "expert" role and that she has the same right to that experience of reality as Betsy does to her perceptions. This acceptance establishes the foundation for Skilled Dialogue. It does not, however, mean that either Betsy or Karen need to accept the status quo and seek no further change. It only means that there is now a willingness to (a) acknowledge differing perceptions and boundaries and (b) suspend the need to immediately change them to match.

Reciprocity. Reciprocity, a second quality necessary to Skilled Dialogue, builds on respect. Harry, Kalyanpur, and Day (1999) addressed this quality, giving numerous examples of its development. Reciprocity seeks to balance power between persons in dialogue. At its core is the recognition that each person in an interaction is equally powerful. Reciprocity in this sense distinguishes between the common understanding of power as expertise and authority and the less common understanding of power as capacity or capability. This understanding is reflected in the Spanish word poder, which is used both as a noun meaning "power" and a verb meaning "to be able," as in "yo puedo" ("I can").

Reciprocity does not require denying that one person has more expertise or knowledge than another in particular areas or that one person may have more institutionalized authority (e.g., a social worker with the authority to remove children from their home). What reciprocity does require is acknowledging and trusting that the experiences and perceptions of every person in an interaction are of equal value to that interaction. Reciprocal interactions allow equal opportunity to contribute and make choices. The recognition that one point of view need not dominate or exclude a diverse point of view, and the consequent support of free choice over forced "either-or" choice, are two important aspects of reciprocal interactions.

When differences are acknowledged as potential contributions, no sense of debt is incurred by any of the persons involved; no one is solely "giver" or "receiver" (Dunst, Trivette, & Deal, 1988). Entering into interactions only to give--whether knowledge, support, direction, or something else--with no acknowledgement of what others can contribute, inhibits not only what we might receive but also the full potential of what we seek to give. In reciprocal relationships everyone has something to offer that enriches not only the persons involved but also the outcome of their interactions. Every interaction becomes about both giving and receiving.

Returning to our anecdote of Betsy, the early childhood practitioner who wants Karen to be more involved, how might reciprocity between these two be established? Respect yields a simple nonjudgmental acknowledgment that diverse perspectives are present. This acknowledgment suspends the need to impose one experience of reality on another (i.e., to push Karen to become engaged in the ways that Betsy values or, conversely, to acquiesce and offer no options for change) and sets the stage for reciprocity. Reciprocity requires acknowledgment of Karen's capacity to contribute in this particular situation and curiosity about how she is currently participating (e.g., trusting Betsy's expertise; allowing time and space for Betsy's agenda; listening). These can then lead to recognizing Karen's capacity to participate in similar inter actions with her child at other times and in other settings. Eventually, to establish reciprocity, Betsy must reach the understanding that Karen is already equally, if not more, involved with this child in a variety of ways. This understanding then provides a context for finding ways to respond to the differences in perceptions between herself and Karen, as well as to what Karen and Maya need.

Responsiveness. If respect is about recognizing different boundaries, and reciprocity is about acknowledging that every person has something of value to contribute, then responsiveness is about where we go from there. Being responsive "requires... an openness to allowing [others] to uncover who they are rather than shaping them into who we want or need them to be" (Freedman & Combs, 1996, p. 281).

Responsiveness is about turning all our assumptions into lightly held hypotheses (e.g., saying "I wonder if" and "Maybe" instead of "I know" and "I'm sure"). To be responsive is to allow ourselves to entertain a mystery: Who is this other person, really? We see this or that and we experience thus and so, but who are they really? If we seek only closure and forget mystery, we can all too easily confine children to the "boxes" of their diagnoses, and families to the circles of our own categories and labels. We reduce them to a singular identity (e.g., the child with ADHD, or the resistant mother) and are no longer being responsive to them--only to our ideas about them. Remembering mystery requires that we attend to children and families "with focused attention, patience and curiosity" (Freedman & Combs, 1996, p. 44).

In this sense, being responsive is about being willing to not know for sure, to not know exactly what to do or what to say. Remen (2000) wrote, "Knowing where we are going encourages us to stop seeing and hearing and allows us to fall asleep... [such knowing allows] a part of [us] to rush ahead to [our destination] the moment [we] see it" (p. 289). This is, unfortunately, all too apt a description of what can happen as we present families with all our diagnostic findings and recommendations for intervention options. Once we assess a child, it is all too easy to "rush ahead" to our conclusions about what needs to be done. Responding and responsiveness are not necessarily the same. Responsiveness requires leaving room for the unexpected and the unpredictable. Maybe this child will be different from all others; maybe he or she will be able to do X. Maybe this family will be much more resourceful than we can foresee; maybe they will be able to support their child in ways we can only imagine.

Being responsive is particularly important in culturally diverse situations because these situations, in their very diversity, challenge us to recognize that a person is always more than, and perhaps even radically different from, our ideas about who they are. While we cannot al ways eliminate our preconceived ideas and judgments (i.e., the "boxes" in which we place people and experiences), we can, through mindful attention, refuse to reduce reality to their limited space.

Returning once more to our anecdote about Betsy and Karen, how might Betsy be responsive to this situation? The answer, of course, lies in the specifics of the situation, but we can list some possibilities. Betsy might be responsive to Karen by

• not "freezing" her idea of Karen as a passive parent, unwilling or unable to change.

• understanding that some cultures believe in the "social distribution of knowledge" and that necessary knowledge need not be personally possessed because it is "available and accessible through social networks" (Moll & Greenberg, 1990, p. 323). Persons from these cultures may thus feel no need to duplicate someone else's expertise or may even feel that doing so would be disrespectful as it would usurp their contributions.

• accepting that Karen may desperately need respite time and lessening demands until she and Betsy can identify means of finding that time in ways that do not keep her from working with Maya during Betsy's sessions.

• respecting Karen's perception of Betsy as an "expert" and exploring what this means with questions such as the following: Does Karen truly believe that she has nothing to offer or only that what she has to offer would not be accepted or would not be appropriate? What specific responsibilities is she assigning Betsy with this perception? What have Karen's experiences with other "experts" been like? In what areas does she feel confident of her expertise? Is her withdrawal more an expression of her fear that she might do the "wrong" thing and harm her child? Is Betsy somehow unconsciously communicating her own need to be the "expert ?"

• sharing with Karen all that she has to offer in this situation and structuring sessions so that Karen can also contribute her knowledge (e.g., having her teach Betsy how to cook the child's favorite food as part of planned activities to elicit specific language).

• including materials and behaviors familiar to Karen in the session, rather than just using unfamiliar toys and routines.

These possibilities (and other similar ones) may not necessarily "solve the problem." They will, however, gradually redefine it and change the tenor of interactions between Betsy and Karen, increasing the possibility of arriving at more satisfactory and competent interactions between them.

DEVELOPING SKILLED DIALOGUE

The three qualities that characterize Skilled Dialogue are promoted and sustained through two component skills. Anchored understanding, the first skill, emphasizes compassionate knowing, a deeper experiential knowing that occurs as persons interact on a personal, face-to-face basis and learn each others' stories as an anchor for "knowing about" (i.e., having information). The second skill, 3rd Space, focuses on the creative construction of interactional space that integrates complementary aspects of contradictions (see Figure 1).

Anchored Understanding of Diversity

Anchored Understanding of Diversity refers to a compassionate understanding of differences "anchored" both experientially and cognitively. The experiential anchor that situates information and makes it truly comprehensible is the knowing that stems from face-to-face and hands-on experiences. The corollary cognitive anchor is the belief that all behaviors have a positive intent (i.e., that others' behaviors make as much sense as our own).

Anchored Understanding of Diversity is intentionally particular and reciprocal. It is designed to generate compassionate knowledge that "arises not from standing back in order to look at, but by active and intentional engagement in lived experience" (Groome, 1980, p. 141). It is one thing to talk generally about American Indians and another thing entirely to carry out that discussion over time with individual American Indians. Two contexts are created through such extended face-to-face interactions. First, previously held knowledge acquires a personal context--it becomes about someone whom we actually know. Second, interactions create conceptual contexts within which we can say, "Oh, so that's what it means that Navajos have differing perceptions of time." Within these contexts, previously held categories and assumptions can be challenged (e.g., "I thought that religion was only a one-day-a-week thing for Whites").

Remen (2000) told a story that further illustrates the distinction between knowing that is experientially anchored and knowing that remains unanchored. A young physician has an elderly Navajo woman as her patient. She had seen the elderly woman regularly for years, treating her for a variety of diseases. After the Navajo woman died at the age of 96, the physician received a call from a researcher writing a book about American Indian medicine traditions. He had been told about a great medicine woman. When he contacted her family he was told that this physician had cared for their mother and "would have the answers he needed" (p. 69). Remen recounted the physician's reflections many years later: "I had been so busy with my numbers and my tests. What I would give for even one hour with her now, to ask her any of my unanswered questions... Or simply to ask for her blessing" (p. 69).

As practitioners, we are the recipients and generators of a large volume of information about the young children and families with whom we work. Similar to the physician in Remen's (2000) story, we can name particular types of delay or syndromes a child exhibits; we can describe family dynamics and developmental concerns; we may even be able to describe the values associated with their culture. But, if asked to describe a particular child or family, would our answer match the family's answer? Could we talk about the family's hopes and dreams ? Could we tell someone who a particular child is without reference to developmental status or disability conditions? Could we define what "success" or "family" meant to a particular child and family? Our ability to answer these questions would reflect the degree to which we possessed Anchored Understanding of Diversity in relation to this family.

Respecting someone does not necessarily require that we admire the behaviors they exhibit. It does require that we understand how their behavior makes sense from their cultural, as well as their personal perspective. Otherwise we may simply believe that they have nothing of relevance to contribute. We may not admire the behavior of a caregiver that sets no firm bedtime for his or her 4year-old child. Anchoring our understanding of that behavior, however, would first require us to become curious as to the cognitive and emotional framework within which that behavior makes sense to that caregiver. What is her understanding of how the world works that underlies her intent? Why does she perceive this behavioral option as more appropriate than the option we might value (e.g., a set, consistent bedtime)?

Returning again to our anecdote about Betsy and Karen, how would Betsy know that she had achieved Anchored Understanding of Diversity? After spending time with Karen and following some of the suggestions given, Betsy would know that she had achieved Anchored Understanding of Diversity when she could in all honesty say and believe that under similar circumstances she, too, might behave as Karen did. As long as we can say, "I'd never do that" or "I can't believe someone would do that" we have probably not achieved Anchored Understanding of Diversity. These statements, as well as other similar ones, remain less than compassionate. They implicitly carry a judgment of one person as better or more competent than the other and thus preclude respect, reciprocity, and responsiveness.

3rd Space

The skill of 3rd Space complements that of Anchored Understanding of Diversity. Anchoring our understanding of diverse perspectives leads us to find common ground. It can also lead us to discover just how different the grounds are upon which we stand. Betsy can, for example, anchor her understanding of Karen's behavior and still remain convinced that Karen needs to give up her behavior in favor of a behavior that Betsy deems more desirable and productive. And Karen may, in fact, come to agree. If she doesn't, however, we are left with two apparently contradictory perspectives: Betsy's perspective that Karen needs to become more involved with Maya during intervention sessions and Karen's perspective that Betsy is the expert and should be the one to work with Maya. Anchored Understanding of Diversity can take us to a "both-and" perspective, and sometimes that is enough. Sometimes, however, this perspective does not take us far enough. It still leaves us within an either--or frame. In Betsy's case, it still leaves her wanting one set of behaviors and Karen wanting another. How can both working with Maya and not working with Maya be reconciled?

3rd Space is a skill and a mindset that focuses on creatively reframing contradictions into paradoxes. As a mindset, 3rd Space supports respectfully holding divergent and sometimes seemingly contradictory views in one's mind at the same time, without forcing a choice between them. ENC commonly polarizes reality into either-or dichotomies (Hall, 1996; Stewart & Bennett, 1991). In contrast, the skill of 3rd Space invites practitioners to make a fundamental shift from a dualistic and exclusive perception of reality to an integrative, inclusive perspective that focuses on the complementary aspects of diverse values, behaviors, and beliefs, which can lead to a 3rd choice. For example, how can Karen's present behavior (i.e., not staying to work with Maya) complement Betsy's goal (i.e., increasing parent-child interactions) so that there are more than two choices to resolving their "contradiction?" The strategy of 3rd Space considers the richness of both perspectives and promotes respect and reciprocity by not excluding one perspective in order to privilege another.

3rd Space capitalizes on the potential of diversity to enrich and expand. The following characteristics of 3rd Space give some indication of just how it does this:

1. Reality in 3rd Space is nondichotomous; it is better described as a spectrum than a continuum. In relation to Karen and Betsy, this aspect of 3rd Space introduces the possibility of conceptualizing each one's perspective in nonpolarized ways.

2. There are always at least three choices in 3rd Space. This aspect of 3rd Space requires creatively generating alternatives beyond the obvious (e.g., Betsy requires Karen to be present or gives up on her expectations that she be present).

3. The whole is more than the sum of the parts. The idea that two or more perspectives, no matter how seemingly contradictory, can be somehow combined or integrated is a core theme to 3rd Space. In 3rd Space, differences are understood to be complementary rather than divisive. Boundaries can serve both as distinctions and as points of contact that, like the poles of a battery, generate constructive rather than destructive tension when connected.

The following analogy further illustrates 3rd Space prior to discussing its applications to Skilled Dialogue in early childhood settings. Imagine actual rooms in physical space. We can perceive this space in several ways. From a singular space perspective, there is, literally, only one room: the one I'm in. I believe that my room (i.e., view or perspective) is the only one that exists, and I can neither see nor imagine other views. They are nonexistent or totally discounted. If I am told about them, I do not accept them as "real." Events and interactions can only take place in "my" room.

From a dualistic space perspective, I realize that mine is not the only room. I accept other views as real but place them outside of my space, thereby excluding them from my room. I am, so to speak, in one room, and persons different from me are in a different room(s). Events and interactions can only take place in one OR the other room (e.g., my way or your way, either this or that, right or wrong). In dualistic space, there is no common space. We cannot meet unless one or both of us moves: I must leave my room (i.e., comfortable space) OR you must leave yours OR we must both leave our rooms and go to another "neutral" room. If I hold a "both-and" perspective, we each remain in our separate rooms, side by side, unable to integrate our respective rooms (i.e., perspectives).

In contrast, a 3rd Space perspective invites us to consider the possibility that we could integrate our diverse perspectives. It asks the question, How can we both end up in the same space without moving? It challenges us to realize that it is the wall, and not our respective positions, that keeps us from occupying common space. Walls are different from boundaries. Boundaries are markers of space and identity. They may generate diversity "bumps," but they do not obstruct our "view" and can be permeable when we wish them to be. Walls, on the other hand, are opaque and impenetrable. Depending on their size and thickness, walls exclude and result in diversity clashes or, sometimes, outright crashes. A wall is often a boundary that has fossilized over time, becoming hard and dense in response to repeated assaults on it. From a 3rd Space perspective, I realize that if we can lower or remove the wall between our rooms, we can both be in the same room without having to move.

USING SKILLED DIALOGUE

Skilled Dialogue emerges out of the interweaving of the skills of Anchored Understanding and 3rd Space, although it may be useful initially to address each skill separately. Tables 1 and 2 provide concrete strategies and suggestions for engaging in the process of developing Anchored Understanding and creating 3rd Space (see Note 3). Additional strategies may be found in a variety of other sources (e.g., Bruder, Anderson, Schutz, & Caldera, 1991; Chen, Brekken, & Chan, 1997; Harry, 1997).

It is important to note that the strategies and suggestions presented in Tables 1 and 2 are not intended to be linear or discrete. While utilizing strategies for Anchored Understanding, you may also be utilizing strategies that support the creation of 3rd Space.

Strategies Associated with Anchored Understanding

Table 1 focuses on Anchored Understanding and lists strategies for promoting and sustaining respect, reciprocity, and responsiveness (i.e., engaging in Skilled Dialogue) in relation to this skill. Strategies for building respect are founded on a willingness to acknowledge that a variety of equally valid perspectives exist for achieving a particular goal. These strategies extend the opportunity to build respectful relationships with others by asking not only, "What do I believe?" but also, "What meaning am I attaching to another person's behavior?" and "How are my own assumptions affecting my interactions with others?" Several strategies for further clarifying each other's perspectives also exist. More detailed questions (e.g., "How would you describe what you want at this point?") can be used to anticipate potential cultural bumps or to help identify areas of needed information once such bumps Occur.

A second set of strategies is associated with reciprocity. These help concretize the intent of giving equal value to others' perspectives. Questions such as, "How do you see my actions?" and "What do you hear me saying/ asking?" are helpful to this end. Another strategy associated with reciprocity is that of recognizing others' contributions. Sample questions that can be asked to support reciprocity from this perspective are "What resources does this person bring to the interaction" (e.g., daily knowledge of child's behavior; connections with community) and "What can I learn from this person" (e.g., how to function in settings unfamiliar to me)?

The third quality, responsiveness, addresses our ability to communicate an understanding of others' perspectives with empathy. Strategies associated with this quality address our ability to reflect back to others our understanding of their perspective, along with our ability to keep that understanding fluid until their feedback confirms that we indeed know the meaning(s) that particular actions have for them. These strategies reflect the reality that responsiveness can only be established when we are perceived to truly understand others' perspectives.

Strategies Associated with 3rd Space

3rd Space, like Anchored Understanding, is best learned through practice. It may not be something we clearly understand until we experience it. Table 2 lists the three characteristic qualities of Skilled Dialogue as expressed in relation to 3rd Space and suggests strategies for sustaining and promoting each quality. Comments like "I see" and nonverbal cues that show interest in another person are the foundational components that build the respect necessary to create 3rd Space. By listening and observing without judgment, ECSE practitioners start the process of finding the current space of another individual. Through this process, similarities and differences (i.e., boundaries) are clearly established. Finding differences, however, can be a source of tension. Oftentimes when tension exists, ENC practitioners state that their first reaction is to minimize this tension. In creating 3rd Space, it is important to stay with the tension, even when significant contradictions are identified. Suspending judgment and delaying resolution are critical preconditions for the emergence of 3rd Space options.

Other strategies for creating 3rd Space revolve around building reciprocity to ensure that opportunities are developed for equalizing power across interactions. Practitioners can use comments or ask questions that reflect how two differing viewpoints may be simultaneously "right" or how they may complement each other (e.g., "Oh, I understand how that could be" or "You know, that is really helpful to what I think needs to happen"). A final strategy to create 3rd Space involves creating responses that access and integrate the strengths of diverse perspectives (e.g., tapping existing family skills, as well as suggesting new ones). Practitioners may be able to use analogies to elicit responses that are able to capture the complementary aspects of multiple perspectives (e.g., the glass is both half empty and half full). It is important that practitioners work to find multiple "third choices" until a choice is found that seems best to all parties.

Conclusions

Serving children and families from cultural and linguistic backgrounds diverse from their own continues to present ECSE practitioners with significant challenges. This article describes Skilled Dialogue--an approach to developing respectful, reciprocal, and responsive interactions across diverse cultural parameters. Its two component skills, Anchored Understanding of Diversity and 3rd Space, are discussed and suggested strategies for each are presented. The examples provided are drawn from actual applications of these skills by the authors and by other practitioners in professional development settings. The use of Skilled Dialogue complements existing information and approaches to cultural competency and has been well received by practitioners in the arenas in which it has been disseminated. It thus appears to have strong potential for expanding practitioners' skill repertoire in relation to cultural diversity. Further research into its use remains to be done to actualize this potential to its fullest. The Skilled Dialogue approach to cultural competency invites us to bring both compassion and creativity to our interactions with each other. These elements--compassion and creativity--are essential if we are to be truly competent in the face of the complex challenges posed by cultural diversity. Note. Adapted from Barrera, Corso, & Macpherson (in press). Worm without walls: Cultural competency as skilled dialogue. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing Co. (www.brookespublishing.com). Copyright © 2003 by Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. All rights reserved. Used with permission.

AUTHORS' NOTE

Grateful acknowledgement is given to the following persons who assisted in this process: L. Kramer, C. Alivado, E. Costello, D. Macpherson, C. VanEtten, and all the students and practitioners who attended classes and workshops on Skilled Dialogue.

NOTES

1.  Additional examples that illustrate this point can be seen in the video Diversity: Reconciling Differences (Gonzalez-Mena, J., Herzog, M., & Herzog, S., 2000).

2.  This term is used by Barrera, I., Corso, R. M., & Macpherson, D. (in press) to refer to the institutionalized cultural norms against which cultural linguistic diversity is defined. It is a term chosen over more common terms such as "White" or "European" in order to highlight the fact that it refers to institutionalized cultural norms rather than to the personalized cultural framework of particular individuals.

3.  These strategies and suggestions were developed as part of field testing done with Dr. Rosalita Mitchell and Donna Thompson at the University of New Mexico. Their support and contributions are gratefully acknowledged.

TABLE 1. Strategies for Anchoring Understanding of Diversity

Legend for Chart:

A - Qualities that characterize skilled dialogue
B - Related strategies
A
             B
1. Respect: Acknowledging range and validity of
   diverse perspectives
             Strategy 1.1: Get information about others'
             perspectives
             *Sample questions:
             Could you tell me more about X?
             Could you describe for me what X means to you?
             How would you describe what you want at this point?
              Could you give me a specific example?
             Strategy 1.2: Examine your own perspective
             *Sample questions (to yourself):
             What do I believe about persons who act in this
              fashion?
             What meaning(s) am I attaching to the behavior(s)?
             How are my assumptions affecting this interaction/
              communication?
2. Reciprocity: Establishing interactions that allow
   equal voices for all perspectives (i.e., not privileging
   one perspective over another)
             Strategy 2.1: Clarify others' understanding of
             your perspective
             *Sample questions:
             How do you see my actions?
             What do you hear me saying/asking?
             What are your thoughts when you see me do/say X?
             What will responding to my request mean to you?
             Strategy 2.2: Recognize others' contributions
             *Sample questions/statements
             What resources is X bringing to the interaction?
             What can I learn from X?
             What is positive about X's behavior?
3. Responsiveness: Communicating understanding of
   others' perspective
             Strategy 3.1: Reflect understanding of others'
             perspectives
             *Sample questions/statements:
             Let me see if I understand what you mean; are you
              saying that...?
             Can I use an analogy and see if I understand what
              you are saying?
             Is this kind of what you're talking about?
             Strategy 3.2: KEEP LISTENING AND ASKING QUESTIONS
             UNTIL YOU CAN CREDIBLY COMMUNICATE (verbally
             or nonverbally) "I know what you mean."

TABLE 2. Strategies for Creating 3rd Space Options

Legend for Chart:
A - Qualities that characterize skilled dialogue
B - Specific strategies
A
             B
1. Respect: Stay with tension of differing perspectives
             Strategy 1.1: Listen/observe without judgment
             * Sample statements:
             "I see"
             "That's interesting"
             Nonverbal indicators of interest or curiosity
             Strategy 1.2: Identify specific contradictions
             or culture bumps
2. Reciprocity: Develop opportunities for equalizing
   power across interactions
             Strategy 2.1: Shift focus of conversation to
             "equalize" participation
             *Sample questions/statements:
             Share "vulnerable" statement such as "I'm not
              sure of just where to go next"
             Use analogy/metaphor familiar to other, or
              unfamiliar to both
             Strategy 2.2: Reframe contradictions into
             complementary perspectives
             *Sample questions/statements
             What if we are both right?
             Suggest how others' behaviors or perspectives
              might complement what you are advocating
3. Responsiveness: Create a response that integrates and
   accesses strengths of diverse perspectives
             Strategy 3.1: Explore/create responses that
             incorporate multiple perspectives
             *Sample questions/statements:
             Use analogies (e.g., "half-full/half-empty" glass
              analogy presented in text)
             Come up with "third choices"; continue until you
              find one that seems best to all parties.
DIAGRAM: FIGURE 1. Skilled dialogue qualities and component skills.


REFERENCES


Barrera, I., & Corso, R. M. (2000, December). Cultural diversity and early childhood: A critical review of literature with implications for ECSE research, evaluation, and practice. Research Roundtable presented at the Division of Early Childhood National Conference, Albuquerque, NM.
Barrera, I., Corso, R. M., & Macpherson, D. (in press). Cultural competency as skilled dialogue. Baltimore: Brookes.
Barrera, I., & Kramer, L. (1996). Research into how cultural competency is developed: A case study. Unpublished pilot study.
Barrera, I., & Kramer, L. (1997). From monologues to skilled dialogues: Teaching the process of crafting culturally competent early childhood environments. In P. J. Winton, J. A. McCollum, & C. Catlett (Eds.), Reforming personnel preparation in early intervention (pp. 217-252). Baltimore: Brookes.
Bruder, M. B., Anderson, R., Schutz, L., & Caldera, M. (1991). Project profile: Niños especiales program: A culturally sensitive early intervention model. Journal of Early Intervention, 15(3), 268-277.
Chen, D., Brekken, L. J., & Chan, S. (1997). Project CRAFT: Culturally responsive and family focused training. Infants and Young Children, 10(1), 61-73.
Damen, L. (1987). Culture learning: The fifth dimension in the language classroom. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Dunst, C., Trivette, C., & Deal, A. (1988). Enabling and empowering families. Cambridge, MA: Brookline.
Freedman, J., & Combs, G. (1996). Narrative therapy: The social construction of preferred realities. New York: Norton.
Gonzalez-Mena, J., Herzog, M., & Herzog, S. (2000). Diversity: Reconciling differences. Crystal Lake, IL: Magna Systems.
Groome, T. (1980). Christian religious education. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Hall, E. (1996). The hidden dimension. New York: Doubleday.
Harry, B. (1997). Leaning forward or bending over backwards: Cultural reciprocity in working with families. Journal of Early Intervention, 21 (1), 62-72.
Harry, B., Kalyanpur, M., & Day, M. (1999). Building cultural reciprocity with families: Case studies in special education. Baltimore: Brookes.
Hollins, E. (1996). Culture in school learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Landrine, H. (1995). Clinical implications of cultural differences: The referential versus the indexical self. In N. R. Goldberger & J. B. Veroff (Eds.), Culture and psychology (pp. 744-767). New York: New York University Press.
Lubeck, S. (1994). The politics of developmentally appropriate practice. In B. L. Mallory & R. S. New (Eds.), Diversity and developmentally appropriate practice (pp. 17-43). New York: Teachers College Press.
Lynch, E., & Hansen, M. (1992). Developing cross-cultural competence. Baltimore: Brookes.
Moll, L., & Greenberg, J. (1990). Creating zones of possibilities: Combining social contexts for instruction. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education (pp. 319-348). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Polk, C. (1994). Therapeutic work with African-American families. Zero to three, 15(2), 9-11. Remen, R. N. (2000). My grandfather's blessings. New York: Riverhead.
Stewart, E. C., & Bennett, M. J. (1991). American cultural patterns: A cross-cultural perspective. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.
~~~~~~~~
By Isaura Barrera, University of New Mexico and Robert M. Corso, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Copyright of Topics in Early Childhood Special Education is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
· Result List 
· Refine Search 
·  1 of 1 


Top of Page

· iPhone and Android apps

· EBSCO Connect

· Privacy Policy

· A/B Testing

· Terms of Use

· Copyright

· Cookie Policy

· Contact Us

© 2020 EBSCO Industries, Inc. All rights reserved.
Bottom of Form

Document 2: Preschool Staff Meeting Minutes

North Falls Early Childhood Center Weekly Preschool Staff Meeting

Meeting Agenda/Minutes

Date: October 5th Time: 3:00pm –5:00pm

Facilitator: Mel Dennell Minutes Prepared by: Denise Garnett

ATTENDANCE

Key: Bold = in attendance; Italics = absent

©2014 Walden University 1

Document 3: Editorial on the Implementation of a PLC

In an effort to improve student achievement, North Falls Elementary School implemented a Professional Learning Community (PLC) last summer, before the beginning of this past academic year. For those not in the academic community, a PLC is an education model in which a group of educators meet regularly to discuss educational practices, reflect on their effectiveness, and work collaboratively to enhance student learning. Research has shown that, when implemented correctly, PLCs can increase collaboration and boost both learning and morale for both students and teachers.

North Falls Elementary, however, appears to be a case where the PLC model has failed. Student achievement has remained stagnant and staff morale has decreased rather than increased. Teachers at the school feel that the regular group meetings and discussions that are part of a PLC are an added burden to their already large workload.

“They wanted us to have these meetings every week to talk about teaching methods and student performance, but there’s never any time for it,” says Jaiden Page, a third grade teacher at the school. “Are we supposed to take time out of teaching or individual lesson planning to meet in these groups? It just doesn’t make sense.”

A related issue that has left many teachers and staff members frustrated is the lack of physical space to conduct these meetings.

“We meet in whatever room is available at the time,” says a first grade teacher who spoke on conditions of anonymity. “Sometimes the rooms are too small or there aren’t enough seats. It’s difficult enough finding time; it’s worse wasting it trying to find a space to do the work.”

Albert Mirza, a fifth grade teacher who supports the PLC model, has been disappointed by the implementation. “There’s no progress because they haven’t done it right. They think that just putting all of us in a room together is enough. It’s basically another weekly staff meeting; the only difference is that now we spend our time talking about how great we each think our way of doing teaching is."

Principal Paula Sokoloff, who spearheaded the development and implementation of the PLC, however, believes that some progress has been made. “There have been extremely engaging lessons plans that have come out of these meetings which, I think, would not have happened if our teachers weren’t asked to collaborate and discuss their practices. Those who use student achievement scores to suggest that this PLC has failed are ignoring the improvements we’ve made in professional development.”

She concedes that frustrations about time and space for the weekly meetings are valid, but is quick to point out that there are plans in place, for the next academic year, to set aside dedicated space for teachers to collaborate.

That might resolve the issue of meeting space, but the real question is whether it will boost student achievement the way that proponents claim it will. Or is it just another interesting educational model that works better in theory than in practice?

While Principal Sokoloff is certain that it will simply be a matter of time, teachers at North Falls Elementary are skeptical.

Page puts it bluntly, “We’ve given this PLC idea an entire school year, and it has done nothing but take teachers’ attentions away from what’s most important—educating our students. It’s time for the administration to give this up and let us get back to teaching.”

©2014 Walden University 1

Web address

http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/may04/vol61/num08/What-Is-a-Professional-Learning-Community%C2%A2.aspx

Use the web address above to access exact information below:

BUY THIS ISSUE

 Share |   

May 2004 | Volume 61 | Number 8 Schools as Learning Communities Pages 6-11

Issue Table of Contents | Read Article Abstract

What Is a Professional Learning Community?

Richard DuFour

The idea of improving schools by developing professional learning communities is currently in vogue. People use this term to describe every imaginable combination of individuals with an interest in education—a grade-level teaching team, a school committee, a high school department, an entire school district, a state department of education, a national professional organization, and so on. In fact, the term has been used so ubiquitously that it is in danger of losing all meaning.

The professional learning community model has now reached a critical juncture, one well known to those who have witnessed the fate of other well-intentioned school reform efforts. In this all-too-familiar cycle, initial enthusiasm gives way to confusion about the fundamental concepts driving the initiative, followed by inevitable implementation problems, the conclusion that the reform has failed to bring about the desired results, abandonment of the reform, and the launch of a new search for the next promising initiative. Another reform movement has come and gone, reinforcing the conventional education wisdom that promises, “This too shall pass.”

The movement to develop professional learning communities can avoid this cycle, but only if educators reflect critically on the concept's merits. What are the “big ideas” that represent the core principles of professional learning communities? How do these principles guide schools' efforts to sustain the professional learning community model until it becomes deeply embedded in the culture of the school?

Big Idea #1: Ensuring That Students Learn

The professional learning community model flows from the assumption that the core mission of formal education is not simply to ensure that students are taught but to ensure that they learn. This simple shift—from a focus on teaching to a focus on learning—has profound implications for schools.

School mission statements that promise “learning for all” have become a cliché. But when a school staff takes that statement literally—when teachers view it as a pledge to ensure the success of each student rather than as politically correct hyperbole—profound changes begin to take place. The school staff finds itself asking, What school characteristics and practices have been most successful in helping all students achieve at high levels? How could we adopt those characteristics and practices in our own school? What commitments would we have to make to one another to create such a school? What indicators could we monitor to assess our progress? When the staff has built shared knowledge and found common ground on these questions, the school has a solid foundation for moving forward with its improvement initiative.

As the school moves forward, every professional in the building must engage with colleagues in the ongoing exploration of three crucial questions that drive the work of those within a professional learning community:

· What do we want each student to learn?

· How will we know when each student has learned it?

· How will we respond when a student experiences difficulty in learning?

The answer to the third question separates learning communities from traditional schools.

Here is a scenario that plays out daily in traditional schools. A teacher teaches a unit to the best of his or her ability, but at the conclusion of the unit some students have not mastered the essential outcomes. On the one hand, the teacher would like to take the time to help those students. On the other hand, the teacher feels compelled to move forward to “cover” the course content. If the teacher uses instructional time to assist students who have not learned, the progress of students who have mastered the content will suffer; if the teacher pushes on with new concepts, the struggling students will fall farther behind.

What typically happens in this situation? Almost invariably, the school leaves the solution to the discretion of individual teachers, who vary widely in the ways they respond. Some teachers conclude that the struggling students should transfer to a less rigorous course or should be considered for special education. Some lower their expectations by adopting less challenging standards for subgroups of students within their classrooms. Some look for ways to assist the students before and after school. Some allow struggling students to fail.

When a school begins to function as a professional learning community, however, teachers become aware of the incongruity between their commitment to ensure learning for all students and their lack of a coordinated strategy to respond when some students do not learn. The staff addresses this discrepancy by designing strategies to ensure that struggling students receive additional time and support, no matter who their teacher is. In addition to being systematic and schoolwide, the professional learning community's response to students who experience difficulty is

· Timely. The school quickly identifies students who need additional time and support.

· Based on intervention rather than remediation. The plan provides students with help as soon as they experience difficulty rather than relying on summer school, retention, and remedial courses.

· Directive. Instead of inviting students to seek additional help, the systematic plan requires students to devote extra time and receive additional assistance until they have mastered the necessary concepts.

The systematic, timely, and directive intervention program operating at Adlai Stevenson High School in Lincolnshire, Illinois, provides an excellent example. Every three weeks, every student receives a progress report. Within the first month of school, new students discover that if they are not doing well in a class, they will receive a wide array of immediate interventions. First, the teacher, counselor, and faculty advisor each talk with the student individually to help resolve the problem. The school also notifies the student's parents about the concern. In addition, the school offers the struggling student a pass from study hall to a school tutoring center to get additional help in the course. An older student mentor, in conjunction with the struggling student's advisor, helps the student with homework during the student's daily advisory period.

Any student who continues to fall short of expectations at the end of six weeks despite these interventions is required, rather than invited, to attend tutoring sessions during the study hall period. Counselors begin to make weekly checks on the struggling student's progress. If tutoring fails to bring about improvement within the next six weeks, the student is assigned to a daily guided study hall with 10 or fewer students. The guided study hall supervisor communicates with classroom teachers to learn exactly what homework each student needs to complete and monitors the completion of that homework. Parents attend a meeting at the school at which the student, parents, counselor, and classroom teacher must sign a contract clarifying what each party will do to help the student meet the standards for the course.

Stevenson High School serves more than 4,000 students. Yet this school has found a way to monitor each student's learning on a timely basis and to ensure that every student who experiences academic difficulty will receive extra time and support for learning.

Like Stevenson, schools that are truly committed to the concept of learning for each student will stop subjecting struggling students to a haphazard education lottery. These schools will guarantee that each student receives whatever additional support he or she needs.

Big Idea #2: A Culture of Collaboration

Educators who are building a professional learning community recognize that they must work together to achieve their collective purpose of learning for all. Therefore, they create structures to promote a collaborative culture.

Despite compelling evidence indicating that working collaboratively represents best practice, teachers in many schools continue to work in isolation. Even in schools that endorse the idea of collaboration, the staff's willingness to collaborate often stops at the classroom door. Some school staffs equate the term “collaboration” with congeniality and focus on building group camaraderie. Other staffs join forces to develop consensus on operational procedures, such as how they will respond to tardiness or supervise recess. Still others organize themselves into committees to oversee different facets of the school's operation, such as discipline, technology, and social climate. Although each of these activities can serve a useful purpose, none represents the kind of professional dialogue that can transform a school into a professional learning community.

The powerful collaboration that characterizes professional learning communities is a systematic process in which teachers work together to analyze and improve their classroom practice. Teachers work in teams, engaging in an ongoing cycle of questions that promote deep team learning. This process, in turn, leads to higher levels of student achievement.

Collaborating for School Improvement

At Boones Mill Elementary School, a K-5 school serving 400 students in rural Franklin County, Virginia, the powerful collaboration of grade-level teams drives the school improvement process. The following scenario describes what Boones Mill staff members refer to as their teaching-learning process.

The school's five 3rd grade teachers study state and national standards, the district curriculum guide, and student achievement data to identify the essential knowledge and skills that all students should learn in an upcoming language arts unit. They also ask the 4th grade teachers what they hope students will have mastered by the time they leave 3rd grade. On the basis of the shared knowledge generated by this joint study, the 3rd grade team agrees on the critical outcomes that they will make sure each student achieves during the unit.

Next, the team turns its attention to developing common formative assessments to monitor each student's mastery of the essential outcomes. Team members discuss the most authentic and valid ways to assess student mastery. They set the standard for each skill or concept that each student must achieve to be deemed proficient. They agree on the criteria by which they will judge the quality of student work, and they practice applying those criteria until they can do so consistently. Finally, they decide when they will administer the assessments.

After each teacher has examined the results of the common formative assessment for his or her students, the team analyzes how all 3rd graders performed. Team members identify strengths and weaknesses in student learning and begin to discuss how they can build on the strengths and address the weaknesses. The entire team gains new insights into what is working and what is not, and members discuss new strategies that they can implement in their classrooms to raise student achievement.

At Boones Mill, collaborative conversations happen routinely throughout the year. Teachers use frequent formative assessments to investigate the questions “Are students learning what they need to learn?” and “Who needs additional time and support to learn?” rather than relying solely on summative assessments that ask “Which students learned what was intended and which students did not?”

Collaborative conversations call on team members to make public what has traditionally been private—goals, strategies, materials, pacing, questions, concerns, and results. These discussions give every teacher someone to turn to and talk to, and they are explicitly structured to improve the classroom practice of teachers—individually and collectively.

For teachers to participate in such a powerful process, the school must ensure that everyone belongs to a team that focuses on student learning. Each team must have time to meet during the workday and throughout the school year. Teams must focus their efforts on crucial questions related to learning and generate products that reflect that focus, such as lists of essential outcomes, different kinds of assessment, analyses of student achievement, and strategies for improving results. Teams must develop norms or protocols to clarify expectations regarding roles, responsibilities, and relationships among team members. Teams must adopt student achievement goals linked with school and district goals.

Removing Barriers to Success

For meaningful collaboration to occur, a number of things must also stop happening. Schools must stop pretending that merely presenting teachers with state standards or district curriculum guides will guarantee that all students have access to a common curriculum. Even school districts that devote tremendous time and energy to designing the intended curriculum often pay little attention to the implemented curriculum (what teachers actually teach) and even less to the attained curriculum (what students learn) (Marzano, 2003). Schools must also give teachers time to analyze and discuss state and district curriculum documents. More important, teacher conversations must quickly move beyond “What are we expected to teach?” to “How will we know when each student has learned?”

In addition, faculties must stop making excuses for failing to collaborate. Few educators publicly assert that working in isolation is the best strategy for improving schools. Instead, they give reasons why it is impossible for them to work together: “We just can't find the time.” “Not everyone on the staff has endorsed the idea.” “We need more training in collaboration.” But the number of schools that have created truly collaborative cultures proves that such barriers are not insurmountable. As Roland Barth (1991) wrote,

Are teachers and administrators willing to accept the fact that they are part of the problem? . . . God didn't create self-contained classrooms, 50-minute periods, and subjects taught in isolation. We did—because we find working alone safer than and preferable to working together. (pp. 126–127)

In the final analysis, building the collaborative culture of a professional learning community is a question of will. A group of staff members who are determined to work together will find a way.

Big Idea #3: A Focus on Results

Professional learning communities judge their effectiveness on the basis of results. Working together to improve student achievement becomes the routine work of everyone in the school. Every teacher team participates in an ongoing process of identifying the current level of student achievement, establishing a goal to improve the current level, working together to achieve that goal, and providing periodic evidence of progress. The focus of team goals shifts. Such goals as “We will adopt the Junior Great Books program” or “We will create three new labs for our science course” give way to “We will increase the percentage of students who meet the state standard in language arts from 83 percent to 90 percent” or “We will reduce the failure rate in our course by 50 percent.”

Schools and teachers typically suffer from the DRIP syndrome—Data Rich/Information Poor. The results-oriented professional learning community not only welcomes data but also turns data into useful and relevant information for staff. Teachers have never suffered from a lack of data. Even a teacher who works in isolation can easily establish the mean, mode, median, standard deviation, and percentage of students who demonstrated proficiency every time he or she administers a test. However, data will become a catalyst for improved teacher practice only if the teacher has a basis of comparison.

When teacher teams develop common formative assessments throughout the school year, each teacher can identify how his or her students performed on each skill compared with other students. Individual teachers can call on their team colleagues to help them reflect on areas of concern. Each teacher has access to the ideas, materials, strategies, and talents of the entire team.

Freeport Intermediate School, located 50 miles south of Houston, Texas, attributes its success to an unrelenting focus on results. Teachers work in collaborative teams for 90 minutes daily to clarify the essential outcomes of their grade levels and courses and to align those outcomes with state standards. They develop consistent instructional calendars and administer the same brief assessment to all students at the same grade level at the conclusion of each instructional unit, roughly once a week.

Each quarter, the teams administer a common cumulative exam. Each spring, the teams develop and administer practice tests for the state exam. Each year, the teams pore over the results of the state test, which are broken down to show every teacher how his or her students performed on every skill and on every test item. The teachers share their results from all of these assessments with their colleagues, and they quickly learn when a teammate has been particularly effective in teaching a certain skill. Team members consciously look for successful practice and attempt to replicate it in their own practice; they also identify areas of the curriculum that need more attention.

Freeport Intermediate has been transformed from one of the lowest-performing schools in the state to a national model for academic achievement. Principal Clara Sale-Davis believes that the crucial first step in that transformation came when the staff began to honestly confront data on student achievement and to work together to improve results rather than make excuses for them.

Of course, this focus on continual improvement and results requires educators to change traditional practices and revise prevalent assumptions. Educators must begin to embrace data as a useful indicator of progress. They must stop disregarding or excusing unfavorable data and honestly confront the sometimes-brutal facts. They must stop using averages to analyze student performance and begin to focus on the success of each student.

Educators who focus on results must also stop limiting improvement goals to factors outside the classroom, such as student discipline and staff morale, and shift their attention to goals that focus on student learning. They must stop assessing their own effectiveness on the basis of how busy they are or how many new initiatives they have launched and begin instead to ask, “Have we made progress on the goals that are most important to us?” Educators must stop working in isolation and hoarding their ideas, materials, and strategies and begin to work together to meet the needs of all students.

Hard Work and Commitment

Even the grandest design eventually translates into hard work. The professional learning community model is a grand design—a powerful new way of working together that profoundly affects the practices of schooling. But initiating and sustaining the concept requires hard work. It requires the school staff to focus on learning rather than teaching, work collaboratively on matters related to learning, and hold itself accountable for the kind of results that fuel continual improvement.

When educators do the hard work necessary to implement these principles, their collective ability to help all students learn will rise. If they fail to demonstrate the discipline to initiate and sustain this work, then their school is unlikely to become more effective, even if those within it claim to be a professional learning community. The rise or fall of the professional learning community concept depends not on the merits of the concept itself, but on the most important element in the improvement of any school—the commitment and persistence of the educators within it.

References

Barth, R. (1991). Restructuring schools: Some questions for teachers and principals. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(2), 123–128.

Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Richard DuFour recently retired as Superintendent of Adlai Stevenson High School in Lincolnshire, Illinois. He currently resides in Moneta, Virginia, and may be reached at (540) 721-4662; [email protected]. His forthcoming book is Whatever It Takes: How a Professional Learning Community Responds When Kids Don't Learn (National Educational Service, in press).