The power of video/Bump It Up Wall conversations and reflecting on our students leads to a spontaneous fourth parameter voting

Our next staff meeting on July 12th asked staff to think back to the last session. What did they remember? The responses indicated that staff sat in very different spaces. Some remembered:

- the visuals of the parameters created

- the shared beliefs we had regarding 'our' kids (that we are all accountable for)

- the importance of putting faces on the data to ensure they are all catered for

- the conversation around how data helps us to react both in the moment of learning/teaching and during planning

- how they could not see how the parameters were interconnected (yet)

- how they had rated students the 'lowest' when asked whether they believed students could articulate their learning

The collaborative team shared some insights after listening to Cohort 1 schools - particularly a video where a student was able to talk about their learning. This honest representation clearly indicated that the student knew what they were learning and why. They could use the Bump It Up wall as a guide and explain where they could go if they needed help (listing peers, the 3rd teacher exemplars/continuum, vocabulary lists, resources (such as books, texts, etc.), teachers.).

After the video staff reflected and shared what they noticed/wondered about:

- students knowing where to go to for assistance 

- the power of the 3rd teacher

- the use of common language by both students and teachers

- self-sufficient learning and how this was developed

- Is this a workable model for our younger students? 

- the confidence of the student when self-assessing - using the room before the teacher

- the power of the Bump It Up Wall with goal setting - students deciding for themselves where they were up to

The Collaborative team then asked staff to consider their surprises and challenges and reflect upon what needed to change. As a teacher what impact could they have? What strategies and actions could they begin with to get students to be this articulate? To know the expectations? Staff began to share:

- our students are capable of this

- training or processes set them up for this success

- the importance of un-packing the 5 questions and allowing students time to practice each

- that our focus needs to shift from content but to transfer and application of learning

When some staff questioned how were our additional needs students going to be able to do this, another staff member suggested giving every child access to something they need was key. When another staff member asked, 'how do we create 'good examples' for children to refer back to?' Another staff member answered, 'by giving as much time as it takes to co-construction of the actual doing.'

Staff had a moment to then journal responses: What could they do tomorrow? How could they influence or control what they do?

The Collaborative team posed the question: What do you think about our data, why wasn't it a 10? Why did we believe that all students can articulate what they do and why they do it? Do we keep debating reality versus our belief? Is that because we believe that only 'most' can achieve? Is it about time and support?  Are we doubting our own capabilities in being able to get students to a 10? Aren't all students equal to a 10? The team was able to ascertain from the room that our students can do what's in the video. We have talked about the challenges of why they might have difficulty but we can INFLUENCE these outcomes. Things we have tried in the past (or done already) might not have had the impact we needed to have. We need to learn from these. The benefit of being a cohort 2 school is that we have the opportunity to ask questions and learn from other schools so that we can build the knowledge needed to be effective.

Staff teams were asked to share any 'aha' moments they were having. These included:

- how vital it is to break down a task so students have success as soon as they start (can see themselves in the learning which would lead to higher levels of engagement)

- that Bump It Up Walls can be visual, not just written and for any subject but these need to be strategic (consider what message the student might receive from it both directly and indirectly)

- Bump It Up Walls need to show a range of success and teacher made examples might be necessary

- the classroom can't be pretty but instead 'pretty useful' (a learning tool). For one staff member they yelled it out, 'it can be both!'

We must ask ourselves, what do students see as their first reference point when they are in the classroom? What is at their physical level or through their lens?

So as a result, what will we pull down or make space for? What are the students not using at the moment and how will we build our walls together? Students need to be part of the process for each Key Learning Area, including those subjects used as RFF or under a strict time frame.

Staff were asked to think of there 3 biggest strugglers - what does their day look like? As a teacher how much time do we spend with them each day? How often do they go out for intervention? How often do they have intervention with their class teacher? How creative are we with the people who come into the classroom? Can we do this differently? Is the classroom teacher the students first port-of-call or is it someone else for them? Is this for every subject? Is this true for every student? 

It was becoming evident to our Learning Collaborative team that staff were beginning to want something tangible. They were beginning to ask where is my time being spent? Our Principal acknowledged this and reiterated how vital it is to spend the time on our beliefs - learning from one another and perhaps shifting in our beliefs as a result of this learning. We need to spend time looking at how things could be different and that time spent on this how and why would ensure the work DOES enhance student outcomes. Staff were feeling uncertain about the practicalities of Case Management Meetings and wanted further information on the how, when and where.

After re-reading pages 23-25 of Clarity staff shared:

- data walls helped the analysis of who are our students needing intervention and where

- that Tier 1 classroom teaching is intervening in the learning every day

- adjusting in the classroom to meet needs integrates the idea of intervention in the classroom and that sharing instruction and practice across the grade, stage, school would assist us further in this space

- Tier 2 and 3 intervention has a particular role or purpose but the skills here are utilized by the teacher even in Tier 1.

For our Learning Collaborative team we felt staff were at a point. By thinking about a student in their care and the instruction/adjustment/intervention they do for them and the people they seek to assist with that - what parameter could they see is in action? For many staff they could see most parameters in action, some more than others and some needing improvement. When staff were asked what child did they chose? Not many chose an 'average achieving' student. Another light bulb! Staff could see that the Case Management Meetings by their description were for all students, using assessment to consistently reflect on whether the instruction was having enough impact and whether all the parameters were at work for that child. 

The Learning Collaborative weren't prepared but we quickly re-grouped and thought staff were ready to vote on a 4th parameter. It wasn't going to be set in stone. We hadn't looked at our school data but based on the discussion of the day where did they feel we should spend more energy?

Photos show the placement of votes at this point in time.

Parameter 2 - 8 votes

Parameter 3 - 6 votes

Parameter 5 - 2 votes

Parameter 7 - 1 vote (this person jumped to 8 once hearing others' reasons)

Parameter 9 - 2 votes 

Parameter 11 - 5 votes

Staff shared their reasoning for their placement.

Learning from others who were knowledgeable others to build skills was mentioned. Teacher Assistants chose the resource room allowing accessibility and find-ability for all. For those who picked parameter 11 they highlighted the consistency of review, having systems in place and using data to inform the big picture.

Did staff see all the parameters as inter-connected? The average number response was 10.

Do they see why 1, 6, 14 are non-negotiable? The ranger was from 7 to 10.

Why not a 10? 6 was still unclear and weren't all the parameters non-negotiable? Then a staff member raised his hand, 'I don't know if this helps anyone but this is what I have broken it down to. Parameter 1 articulates our vision, Parameter 14 accounts for the transference of this vision and Parameter 6 gives us the tools to do it.'