Planning Resources for Teachers in small high schools. Summer 2003

PLANNING RESOURCES
for teachers in small high schools
Second in a Series of Four
Summer 2003
Adapting
Classroom Practice
Integrating Curriculum
Teaching for Equity

Summer 2003
Dear High School Educator:
As school leaders strive to improve teaching and learning, many are confronted by a lack of
information. They want to improve their classroom practice, but frequently don’t know what
good curricular and pedagogical resources are available. To support you in reexamining your
classroom practices within a small school context, the Small Schools Project has taken the first
step of researching programs, interviewing teachers and visiting schools around the country in
order to collect promising teaching and learning resources.
This collection represents a wide range of resources that can serve as the basis for conversations
about school culture, new directions for classroom practice, and your professional development
plan. This report, the second in a series of four, addresses adapting classroom practice, teaching
for equity, and integrating curriculum.* The resources come recommended by small school
practitioners from around the country and have been reviewed by a panel of experts.
Each section offers a variety of possible directions to pursue. You’ll find web-based resources,
school profiles, sample classroom activities, professional development options, and recommended
readings. This collection will be most useful to you during times of planning and reflection,
rather than during the daily rush. The resources included here will not teach you how to
implement programs in any of these areas, but will define or describe a methodology, helping you
to decide what might work in your unique school setting.
Each resource is summarized in a box at the top of the page and contains a web site address
where you can find more information. The resources are defined by five categories:
Tell us about your experiences using Planning Resources by emailing the Project at
info@smallschoolsproject.org. These resources, as well as the Spring 2003 collection, are
available on the Small Schools Project website at http://www.smallschoolsproject.org.
Sincerely,
The Small Schools Project
TOOL symbolizes something you can use to further your work, such as a
curriculum, pedagogy, planning guide, framework, or resource.
PROFILE describes an existing school culture or practice.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT outlines an available source for
professional development that supports a tool also included in the collection.
FIELD NOTE refers to a reproduced lesson plan, sample class handout, or
program structure that was developed for an existing school.
READINGS include articles, reports, and books that are recommended by
practitioners in the field as informative, provocative and useful.
*The collection is ever growing! Please suggest additional resources in these areas as well as
topics for future reports by returning the questionnaire at the end of this report.

ADAPTING CLASSROOM PRACTICE
An Introduction
By getting small, high schools are trying to become more personalized and equitable. To
accomplish this, teachers plan to implement several strategies, such as advisories and senior
projects, but may be unsure how personalization and equity will look in the classroom. What will
be different about teaching in a small school setting than teaching in a traditional, large school?
How does a teacher adapt her curriculum and instructional strategies from a comprehensive
school context to a small, more innovative school setting?
We posed these questions to teachers around the county who have made such a transition. Four
themes emerged from their reflections:
1. Teachers work more closely with their peers, developing a professional community.
2. Classrooms become more personalized.
3. Classes are often longer (block) periods.
4. Classes are heterogeneous, no longer grouping students by ability.
Although these four themes are addressed individually in this section, they are clearly
interconnected. Heterogeneous classes require teachers to meet the needs of diverse learners by
creating a more personalized class environment. Longer class periods allow teachers to get to
know their students better and incorporate projects, which allow for more individual instruction
time. By working more closely with other teachers, and at times combining disciplines, teachers
can create longer class periods as well as discuss the work and progress of individual students.
An effective professional community creates new expectations and ways of interacting among
teachers, administrators, and other school staff. Opportunities for quality professional
development include study groups, grade-level and cross-grade-level collaboration, peer teacher
observation, and ongoing feedback through coaching and modeling instructional strategies. Tools
to support these practices are introduced in this section. Several of the resources will require
training or modeling by an experienced practitioner to fully understand its application; support
organizations have been identified wherever possible.
The best classrooms often will not have a teacher standing in front of the students delivering a
lecture, but students noisily working together on projects or actively participating in class
discussion. Learner-centered instruction offers depth over breadth, makes collaboration between
students part of the learning environment, and is inquiry-based, such that students construct
meaning. This section, offers tools for creating learner-centered environments in the context of
longer class periods and heterogeneous classes, reflecting the way many teachers in small schools
work.
The following resources will help you and your colleagues continue to move beyond structure
and design issues toward the heart of the small schools reform effort—improving classroom
practice. They reflect several teachers’ responses to the question of how teachers can adapt their
classroom practice to be effective in their new small school.

PROFESSIONAL COMMUNITY
Critical Friends Groups
National School Reform Faculty Protocols
Tuning Protocol
Consultancy
Collaborative Assessment Conference
Whole Faculty Study Groups
Use Time for Faculty Study
Whole Faculty Study Groups in Everett, Washington
Lesson Study
Curriculum Inquiry Cycle
Curriculum Planning
Teaching for Understanding
Three Easy Pieces
CLASSROOM PERSONALIZATION
Student Learning Plan
Democratic Classrooms
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
5
11
11
14
19
23
23
32
35
40
43
49
52
57
60
62

LONGER CLASS PERIODS
Organizing a Block Period
Lesson Plan Comparison
Coaching Habits of Mind
HETEROGENEOUS CLASSES
Definitions
Implementing Heterogeneous Classes
Tracking Self Assessment
Pedagogical Principles of Heterogeneity
College Admissions Questions
Readings on De-Tracking
Differentiated Instruction
Inclusive Classroom: Meeting the Needs of Gifted Students
The Heterogeneous Classroom, IMP
Cooperative Learning
Group Activity Checklist
READINGS
65
68
70
76
79
82
84
84
86
88
90
91
96
106
110
112
114

1
Professional Community
An Introduction
Teachers we interviewed felt that an important component of working in a
small school was participating in a professional community, whose aspects
include:
ß Planning and/or teaching curriculum with colleagues
ß Discussing and solving classroom dilemmas with colleagues
ß Engaging in ongoing assessment of teaching practice
ß Mentoring and supporting new teachers
However, the following anecdotes may not reveal the inherent challenges in
creating or maintaining a more democratic governance structure, which
teachers said could be frustrating and complicated.
Teachers who have moved from large, traditional schools to small,
innovative schools believe that their mentality around working with their
colleagues has shifted. One teacher reported that faculty meetings at the large
school were often considered a waste of time. Responsibility was so diffused
that no one was accountable and students, parents, or others were blamed for
problems. In small schools, the staff can’t shift the blame so easily.
Because the trust can be so much stronger in small schools, teachers reported
that the interaction with their colleagues is very different. Cliff Chuang, math
department chair at Boston’s Academy of the Pacific Rim says, “People are
more open, come into your classroom, and offer or ask for help.” In a larger
setting, teachers can end up working in isolation, having to deal with a string
of interruptions. In a small setting, “you have more flexibility to plan around
events, like field trips, because you know what other teachers are doing.”
There is also a feeling of ownership for the school, “so any issue is your
issue and you want to be proactive in solving it.”
At the International School in Bellevue, Washington, part of participating
in a professional community means creating the schedule each year. Teachers
tell the principal who they would like to share planning time with (usually by
subject area or by grade level) and what class lengths work best with their
curriculum. For example, the music teachers want to meet with beginning
students every day for a shorter, fifty minute, class period in order to give
them the basics; a longer, ninety minute period, is appropriate for more
advanced students who can actually rehearse music.
The three French teachers discuss their curriculum and teaching practice
during their shared planning period. One year, they developed individual
four-week units, covering the same vocabulary but with different themes, and
rotated among their classes to teach them. This gave the teachers an
opportunity to perfect each unit while providing the students some variety.
Though the French teachers did not have common time to plan with other

2
subject area teachers that year, the International School is small enough that
they could find out what their peers were doing, and then build upon it. For
example, one French teacher introduced a poetry unit knowing that the
students had already learned poetry basics in their English class.
One French teacher reflected that working in a small school, “takes you off
of survival mode. Having longer periods and a smaller school somehow
allows you to feel less harried and feel happier than before. Not that I have
more time! But, I am more in control. I’m not reactive, but proactive and
creative, sharing ideas with my peers.”
Teachers at Parker Charter Essential School in rural Massachusetts rarely
design a course in isolation and are often building on someone else’s work.
Each summer, teachers meet for three weeks to decide on the broader
curriculum and design smaller units. Some grade level teachers plan
curriculum together while others plan separately, presenting their work to
their colleagues for feedback and discussion. Each year’s coursework centers
around a school-wide “Essential Question” as well as on specific concepts
and content in the academic Domains (Arts & Humanities, which includes a
Spanish team; Math, Science & Technology; and Wellness).
The professional team structure affects curriculum and instructional
strategies because teachers are conscious about creating consistency from
one class to the next. For example, the Challenge of the Week (see
Integrating Curriculum section) in seventh and eighth grades becomes a
“problem of the week” in eleventh and twelfth grades. While the complexity
increases, students know that both activities denote a problem to be solved
over the course of a week. Teachers also create consistency by using a
common method for writing up math/science labs and common exam
formats.
Diane Kruse, a math teacher at Parker Charter, believes it is critical that
teachers open up their practice. “The whole point of small schools is to build
a connection to kids and to colleagues.” She has deep conversations with her
peers about problems, questions, and dilemmas that they see in their classes
and together they figure out how to address them. These teachers are willing
to put their work on the line, and though they have no formal peer review
process, they work collegially and provide feedback on each other’s teaching
practice.
Kruse’s best tip is to carpool with a colleague or teaching partner. She
completed a lot of work and solved several dilemmas during the daily
commute. She also built trust and friendship with her carpool pals, which is
an important component to building a professional community. Teachers at
MATCH in Boston talk with their department peers and with teachers in the
same grade level during weekly meetings, which are built into the schedule.
Subject area groups develop a set of benchmarks together each year, around
which each teacher frames her curriculum. One teacher reports that, “The
group is small enough for everyone to be heard, things are agreed upon and
everyone’s pedagogy matches.” Bill Klann from Vanguard High School in
New York agrees that creating time in the schedule to talk is important,

3
“Even if teachers don’t have experience (working in a small school), talking
with their peers will spark creativity.”
When Cambridge Rindge & Latin High School made the switch to small
schools, teachers’ practice stopped being anonymous immediately. Teachers
found that some people were craving common planning time, while others
spent a lot of energy trying to avoid the contact. Joan Soble observed that
part of the challenge was how the school “moved to a structure that would
support collaboration before we valued collaboration. Now it’s seen as the
‘C’ word in many ways and we need teachers to recognize that we could
create something together that we couldn’t create individually. I think there
has to be that ‘ah-ha’ moment where people say ‘I never thought so-and-so
would say that brilliant thing that I’ve now incorporated into my mission
statement/school, event/lesson plan.’”
New Teachers
Many small schools establish a mentoring process for new teachers, which
plays a role in introducing newcomers to the unique school setting, as well as
helping them transition from a comprehensive school.
New teachers at High Tech High feel pressure to meet all of the school’s
high standards, including integrating curriculum, using technology,
displaying student work in the halls, and entertaining visitors. One veteran’s
advice is to start slow. “If you want to lecture or use textbooks, go ahead, but
do it well. The vision is still out there to do all the other stuff, but get your
feet wet and be relaxed before going into projects and other new practices.”
He adds that it always looks worse when someone is trying out a new
teaching strategy. “The students can appear out of control when they’re
doing projects and some may not be doing anything—though they probably
weren’t in the traditional classroom setting either.” High Tech High took on
too much in its first year and jettisoned some of the original ideas. Now,
teachers focus on doing a few things well: project-based learning and
working together in small, interdisciplinary teams that are responsible for a
group of students.
The International School gives each new teacher a partner in the same
subject area, ideally one who is teaching the same class. They develop the
curriculum together and revise their instructional practice during common
daily (or weekly) planning time. Teachers’ classrooms are physically
connected as well, with a shared office in between.
A first year teacher at the Urban Academy in New York doesn’t teach a full
load of courses. She is assigned a mentor who supports her in curriculum
building and course planning. Together, they look at what materials she
might want to use, the timing of it, and course goals. The new teacher has a
few weeks to observe the mentor teacher in the classroom, as well as teachers
in other disciplines. When the newcomer begins teaching, the mentor
observes her class and provides feedback during weekly meetings. One
veteran teacher also observed that, “it would be useful for teachers to
function as students and have them be taught with (an inquiry method) over

4
time. Then they would have experience tackling a problem the way students
do, including the initial disorientation.”
“The fact that we’re constantly trying to evaluate what we do and how we
teach makes Urban Academy an intellectual exciting place to work. There is
a sense of problem solving that is central to everything we do. We put
teaching at the center, and when you do that, you really put students at the
center.”
Academy of the Pacific Rim
http://pacrim.org
International School
http://belnet.bellevue.k12.wa.us/international.html
Parker Charter Essential School
http://www.parker.org/rtc
Media and Technology Charter High School (MATCH)
http://www.matchschool.org
Vanguard High School
http://www.vanguardnyc.com
Cambridge Rindge & Latin
http://www.cps.ci.cambridge.ma.us/crls
High Tech High
http://hightechhigh.org
Urban Academy
http://www.urbanacademy.org

5
Good school friends have always supported each other in the process of
professional growth. This article describes a professional development
practice created by the National School Reform Faculty, called Critical
Friends Groups (CFG). Teachers examine student work and discuss texts
related to student learning and teacher practice. (These techniques can also
be applied in the classroom, teaching students to give feedback to peers in
writing groups, for example.)
CFGs are most effective when first modeled by an experienced practitioner.
For more information on CFG workshops in the northwest, visit the CES
Northwest Center website at http://www.cesnorthwest.org.
What Does a Critical Friends Group Do?
Horace, September 1996 (Vol. 13, No.1)
http://ces.edgateway.net/cs/cespr/view/ces_res/40
A Critical Friends Group (CFG) brings together four to ten teachers within a
school over at least two years, to help each other look seriously at their own
classroom practice and make changes in it. After a solid grounding in group
process skills, members focus on designing learning goals for students which
can be stated specifically enough that others can observe them in operation.
They work out strategies to move students toward these goals and collect
evidence on how those strategies are working out. In a structured setting of
mutual support and honest critical feedback from trusted peers, they then
work to adapt and revise their goals and strategies and to modify conditions
within the school so as to better support student learning. A portfolio of each
member's work documents evidence of their progress.
How Friends Can Be Critical As Schools Make Essential Changes
Excerpts from an article by Kathleen Cushman
Horace, May 1998 (Vol. 14, No. 5)
http://www.essentialschools.org/cs/resources/view/ces_res/43
Many Essential school teachers have used avenues other than the university
to learn the habit of gathering and analyzing data with an eye to improving
their schools. Some train, for example, to coach colleagues in "critical friends
groups" either through the National School Reform Faculty at the Annenberg
Institute for School Reform, based at Brown University, or in institutes
offered by regional Coalition Centers. [The CES Northwest Center, housed at
the University of Puget Sound in Tacoma, offers CFG training.]
A critical friends group (CFG) coach typically facilitates monthly meetings
with six to eight colleagues who have agreed to look closely at one another's
practice and at student work. The group tries to articulate what constitutes

6
good teaching and learning, calling on both outside sources and their own
experience. Members visit each other's classes, give feedback on each other's
teaching strategies or curricula, and gather evidence of what works best for
student learning. Some compile portfolios to demonstrate and reflect on that
evidence; others meet with groups from different schools to share insights
and dilemmas.
Teachers in a CFG at Philadelphia's Taylor Elementary School, for instance,
have been working for years to enrich the array of assessments with which
they keep track of student progress in reading. Using "running records" and a
variety of other methods, and teaching in multi-age groups, they have a vivid
sense of what each child from this largely Latino, extremely transient
neighborhood knows and can do.
So when Federal regulations insisted that they report out student reading
scores in some standardized form to qualify for Title I funds, these teachers
worried about subjecting their students to a testing experience they believed
demeaned the painstaking progress they had already made. They laid out the
dilemma and brought it to a recent institute of similar teams focusing on
using data to improve schools.
"Do we really have to force a child who reads at a grade one level to spend
two weeks staring at a grade four text," Damaris Cortez asked the group,
"even if that undermines all the Essential School principles we believe in?
Our whole school sent us here to ask you that!"
After two hours of carefully structured discussion, they got their answer from
the two other school teams around the table-but it came in the form of a new
question.
"What counts as evidence?" one respondent asked. "Can you turn this
requirement around, so that the evidence you are already gathering translates
into a grade level equivalent?" Maybe Taylor's teachers had more latitude
than they believed, the group suggested, encouraging them to take advantage
of the high-quality data about student performance they already had in their
possession. It was a prime example of the usefulness of the critical friend
relationship between schools.
"People who work within the school community understand their context
better than anyone else," says Steve Jubb, who directs the Bay Area Coalition
of Essential Schools. "So as critical friends we do not offer advice; rather we
ask questions that promote further inquiry on the part of those in the school
community. Critical friends recognize what's positive in the work and help
imagine its potential."
Learning to Inquire Together
Within a school setting, one of the hardest ways for teachers to carry out that
delicate task is by sitting in on each other's classes, taking thoughtful note of
what they see and offering their observations to their colleagues. Many
Essential school critical friends groups take a whole year of building

7
Feedback's 3 Flavors: Warm, Cool, Hard
Essential school teachers have adopted terms suggested by former CES
researcher Joseph McDonald in providing feedback to each other during
the structured response sessions called "protocols." They often group
responses, for example, in these ways:
"Warm" feedback consists of supportive, appreciative statements about
the work presented.
"Cool" or more distanced feedback offers different ways to think about
the work presented, raises questions.
"Hard" feedback challenges and extends the presenter's thinking, raises
concerns.
understanding in other ways before they have the trust to open their doors to
each other.
They may practice using the "protocols" that Essential school people and
others have developed as a means of looking collaboratively at student work
or teacher practice [see page 28]. These carefully structured formats for
response, facilitated by someone trained in such discussions, aim to create a
sense of emotional safety for the presenter, at the same time encouraging the
new perspectives and probing critiques of their peers. Typically they require
the presenter to remain silent at some point, while the respondents talk
among themselves about what they have seen.
"Something happens to me while I am playing fly on the wall," says Kathy
Juarez, a teacher at Piner High School in Santa Rosa, California who has
used such protocols for many years. "I have the rare opportunity to hear
people talking seriously about my questions – and I know I will get to think
out loud about some of the issues they raise."
Or they may build a yearlong conversation around readings that inform their
practice. If they choose texts around a key theme, such as equity, this can
provide a framework for later discussions based on classroom experience and
the work of students.
Over time, these shared activities foster a sense of common purpose at the
same time that they honor differences in their members' styles of teaching
and learning, CFG participants say.
Because such sessions intend to enlighten, not to evaluate, at their best they
take on the air of professional seminars-like a group of doctors, lawyers, or
architects puzzling over a case together, or like an independent graduate
seminar in which teachers could explore their deepest concerns and interests.
As group members push toward a deeper reading of the evidence before

8
Among Friends: Norms for Inquiry and Analysis
It isn't easy to be both critical and friendly while working
collaboratively to make schools better. The Bay Area Coalition of
Equitable Schools has developed these norms to help its members as
they jointly inquire about and analyze their work:
ß Describe only what you see. Do not try to describe what you
don't see; express what you don't see in the form of questions.
ß Resist the urge to work on "solutions" until you are
comfortable with what the data says and doesn't say.
ß Surface the perspectives and experiences you bring to the
analysis. Effective teams use these as strengths.
ß Seek to understand differences of perception before trying to
resolve them. Early consensus can inhibit depth and breadth of
analysis. Hear from everybody.
ß Ask questions when you don't understand. Find the answers
together.
Surface assumptions and use the data to challenge them. Look actively
for both challenges and supports to what you believe is true.
them, their learning extends beyond addressing the question of the hour, to
sharpen the inquiry skills of every participant.
When the time does come to observe each other's classrooms, the habits of
inquiry developed through such activities can sustain teachers through the
trepidation they often feel. They can focus the visit on a specific question
posed by the teacher being observed (such as "How are my students using
evidence in this class?" or "Am I meeting students at the different challenge
levels they require?"). And they can structure the feedback in a way that both
supports their efforts and provokes new ideas.
What Difference It Makes
How does one measure the impact of such critical friendships on student
learning? Do test scores rise or graduation rates improve when teachers begin
to act like a professional community?
They do, according to both large-scale quantitative studies of school
restructuring and more focused, qualitative analyses of the links between
better teaching and student achievement.
A huge statistical survey of student achievement in restructuring high
schools, published in 1993 by University of Michigan professor Valerie Lee

9
and Julia Smith of the University of Rochester, showed that a more personal,
"communal" organizational style as opposed to a more traditional,
bureaucratic one contributes to student achievement gains across the
spectrum of socioeconomic and other differences.
And Milbrey McLaughlin's Stanford research concludes that networks of all
kinds – among schools or among teachers exploring new ways – contribute
to deeper student learning. Especially important to successful teaching, she
notes, is "a supportive professional community that discusses new teaching
materials and strategies and that supports the risk-taking and struggle
entailed in transforming practice."
The critical friend approach bears particular promise in the current high-
stakes accountability climate, and not just because it fosters among school
people a sense of mutual responsibility for improving teaching and learning.
If teachers spend time looking closely at how their practice affects student
learning, they might also start to turn an impossible array of externally im-
posed standards into more powerful, personal measures that they generate
from their own work and carry in their heads every day.
The sense of mission that results across a school will directly help its
students to achieve at higher levels, other research indicates. In their studies
of Catholic schools and of small schools in the Chicago area and elsewhere,
Anthony Bryk and his colleagues found that any strong shared ethos in a
school makes students take their work more seriously and do better at it.
Critical friendships also can take place on a larger canvas. A cluster of
independent schools involved in the Coalition has met for years to help each
other in their work, and now is launching a CES Center. A group of Essential
school librarians conducts a virtual critical friends group over the Internet,
coached by Mark Gordon in Santa Cruz, California. On-line discussion
groups thrive among members of CFGs who have met at regional and
national institutes and follow up by exchanging everything from reading lists
to lesson plans.
Taking the Next Step
The power of such experiences to make change on a larger scale is striking.
Where once only a few teachers at Houston's Westbury High School took
part in the regional Center's critical friends training, now fully a third of the
faculty has chosen to join such collegial groups. And while once their
professional development came largely from outside, now it almost always
takes advantage of expertise within the school.
But supporting this kind of horizontal learning requires new, non-hierarchical
structures that few schools or districts yet display, points out Theodore R.
Sizer, the Coalition's Chairman.
“The research shows us that it works,” he says. “So why do teachers still
have to fight for the time to work together in these ways? Why do schools
and policymakers still operate on the assumption that outsiders know best?”

10
The system must no longer work that way, he argues. Only when teachers
together explore the most fundamental aspects of their work and its results,
so as to make changes that support student learning, will they move beyond
mere technical fixes to a professional culture of continuous inquiry and
improvement. They will begin changing how they understand, not just what
they do. And as they take charge of their own professional growth, they are
supporting each other in the process as good school friends have always
done.
Norms for Sharing Work
To create trust among those sharing their work for critique, many teachers
begin by agreeing on clear norms of behavior within the group, which
they post for reference during the discussion that follows. One group's
norms read:
ß Give honest feedback, both supportive and more distanced.
ß Allow sufficient time to get to know the work.
ß Be specific; tie your feedback to the work; refer to its place in the
portfolio.
ß Presenter and participants may safely express their confusion,
stress, or needs; be sensitive to them.
ß Keep comments within the room. If you don't say it to the
presenter, don't say it.
ß Start with a question; check for understanding.
ß Use probing questions, not leading questions; don't jump to
solutions.
ß Monitor your airtime so others have equal chance to speak. Take
time to listen.
ß Be flexible, balancing spontaneity with equal access to speak.
ß Debrief what was helpful or not in the feedback process.

11
National School Reform Faculty (NSRF) Protocols
Harmony School Education Center
http://www.nsrfharmony.org/protocols.html
A “protocol” is a strict format that provides focus and structure to teachers’
conversations about their classroom practice. The following three protocols
provide a formalized way to get feedback on work in progress, to examine
student work as a means to refine curriculum, and to discuss a dilemma.
These are a sample of the many protocols available from NSRF, the
Coalition of Essential Schools, and Looking at Student Work
(http://www.lasw.org/methods.html).
An experienced facilitator can model how protocols are an effective and
efficient method for discussing complex issues. Workshops and coaching are
available through the CES Northwest Center (http://cesnorthwest.org) at the
University of Puget Sound.
Tuning Protocol: Overview
The following description is excerpted, with slight adaptations, from
Looking Together at Student Work by Tina Blythe, David Allen, and Barbara
S. Powell (New York: Teachers College Press, 1999)
The tuning protocol was originally developed as a means for the five high
schools in the Coalition of Essential School's Exhibitions Project to receive
feedback and fine-tune their developing student assessment systems,
including exhibitions, portfolios, and design projects. Recognizing the
complexities involved in developing new forms of assessment, the project
staff developed a facilitated process to support educators in sharing their
students' work and, with colleagues, reflecting upon the lessons that are
embedded there. This collaborative reflection helps educators to design and
refine their assessment systems, as well as to support higher quality student
performance. Since its trial run in 1992, the Tuning Protocol has been widely
used and adapted for professional development purpose in and among
schools across the country.
To take part in the Tuning Protocol, educators bring samples of their
students' work on paper and, whenever possible, on video, as well as some of
the materials they have created to support student performance, such as
assignment descriptions and scoring rubrics. In a circle of about six to ten
"critical friends" (usually other educators), a facilitator guides the group
through the process and keeps time. The presenting educator, or team of
educators, describes the context for the student work (the task or project) -
uninterrupted by questions or comments from participants.
Often the presenter begins with a focusing question or area about which she
would especially welcome feedback, for example, "Are you seeing evidence

12
of persuasive writing in the students’ work?" Participants have time to
examine the student work and ask clarifying questions. Then, with the
presenter listening but silent, participants offer warm and cool feedback -
both supportive and challenging. Presenters often frame their feedback as a
question, for example, "How might the project be different if students chose
their research topics?"
After this feedback is offered, the presenter has the opportunity, again
uninterrupted, to reflect on the feedback and address any comments or
questions she chooses. Time is reserved for debriefing the experience. Both
presenting and participating educators have found the tuning experience to be
a powerful stimulus for encouraging reflection on their practice.
Tuning Protocol
Developed by Joseph McDonald and David Allen
1. Introduction — 5 minutes
ß Facilitator briefly introduces protocol goals, guidelines, and schedule
ß Participants briefly introduce themselves (if necessary)
2. Presentation — 15 minutes
The presenter has an opportunity to share the context for the student
work:
ß Information about the students and/or the class — what the students
tend to be like, where they are in school, where they are in the year
ß Assignment or prompt that generated the student work
ß Student learning goals or standards that inform the work
ß Samples of student work — photocopies of work, video clips, etc. —
with student names removed
ß Evaluation format — scoring rubric and/or assessment criteria, etc.
ß Focusing question for feedback
ß Participants are silent; no questions are entertained at this time.
3. Clarifying Questions — 5 minutes
ß Participants have an opportunity to ask “clarifying” questions in
order to get information that may have been omitted in the
presentation that they feel would help them to understand the context
for the student work. Clarifying questions are matters of “fact.”
ß The facilitator should be sure to limit the questions to those that are
“clarifying,” judging which questions more properly belong in the
warm/cool feedback section.
4. Examination of Student Work Samples — 15 minutes
ß Participants look closely at the work, taking notes on where it seems
to be in tune with the stated goals, and where there might be a
problem. Participants focus particularly on the presenter’s focusing
question.
ß Presenter is silent; participants do this work silently.

13
5. Pause to reflect on warm and cool feedback — 2-3 minutes
ß Participants take a couple of minutes to reflect on what they would
like to contribute to the feedback session.
ß Presenter is silent; participants do this work silently.
6. Warm and Cool Feedback — 15 minutes
ß Participants share feedback with each other while the presenter is
silent. The feedback generally begins with a few minutes of warm
feedback, moves on to a few minutes of cool feedback (sometimes
phrased in the form of reflective questions), and then moves back
and forth between warm and cool feedback.
ß Warm feedback may include comments about how the work
presented seems to meet the desired goals; cool feedback may
include possible “disconnects,” gaps, or problems. Often
participants offer ideas or suggestions for strengthening the work
presented.
ß The facilitator may need to remind participants of the presenter's
focusing question, which should be posted for all to see.
ß Presenter is silent and takes notes.
7. Reflection — 5 minutes
ß Presenter speaks to those comments/questions he or she chooses
while participants are silent.
ß This is not a time to defend oneself, but is instead a time for the
presenter to reflect aloud on those ideas or questions that seemed
particularly interesting.
ß Facilitator may intervene to focus, clarify, etc.
8. Debrief — 5 minutes
Facilitator-led discussion of this tuning experience.

14
Consultancy: Overview
The following descriptions of the Consultancy, how to frame Consultancy
dilemmas and questions, and directions for preparing to present a dilemma
were written by Gene Thompson-Grove, Founding Co-Director of the
National School Reform Faculty (NSRF)
A Consultancy is a structured process for helping an individual or a team
think more expansively about a particular, concrete dilemma. Outside
perspective is critical to this protocol working effectively; therefore, some of
the participants in the group must be people who do not share the presenter’s
specific dilemma at that time. When putting together a Consultancy group, be
sure to include people with differing perspectives.
The Consultancy Protocol was developed by Gene Thompson-Grove as part
of the Coalition of Essential Schools’ National Re:Learning Faculty
Program, and further adapted and revised as part of work of the National
School Reform Faculty Project (NSRF).
Framing Consultancy Dilemmas and Consultancy Questions
A dilemma is a puzzle, an issue that raises questions, an idea that seems to
have conceptual gaps, something about process or product that you just can’t
figure out. Sometimes it will include samples of student or adult work that
illustrate the dilemma, but often it is a dilemma that crosses over many parts
of the educational process.
1. Think about your dilemma.
Dilemmas deal with issues with which you are struggling or that you are
unsure about. Some criteria for a dilemma might include:
ß Is it something that is bothering you enough that your thoughts
regularly return to the dilemma?
ß Is it an issue/dilemma that is not already on its way to being
resolved?
ß Is it an issue/dilemma that does not depend on getting other people to
change (in other words, can you affect the dilemma by changing
your practice)?
ß Is it something that is important to you, and is it something you are
actually willing to work on?
2. Do some reflective writing about your dilemma.
Some questions that might help are:
ß Why is this a dilemma for you? Why is this dilemma important to
you?
ß If you could take a snapshot of this dilemma, what would you/we
see?
ß What have you done already to try to remedy or manage the
dilemma?
ß What have been the results of those attempts?
ß Who do you hope changes? Who do you hope will take action to
resolve this dilemma? If your answer is not you, you need to change

15
your focus. You will want to present a dilemma that is about your
practice, actions, behaviors, beliefs, and assumptions, and not
someone else’s.
ß What do you assume to be true about this dilemma, and how have
these assumptions influenced your thinking about the dilemma?
ß What is your focus question? A focus question summarizes your
dilemma and helps focus the feedback (see the next step).
3. Frame a focus question for your Consultancy group:
Put your dilemma into question format.
ß Try to pose a question around the dilemma that seems to you to get
to the heart of the matter.
ß Remember that the question you pose will guide the Consultancy
group in their discussion of the dilemma.
4. Critique your focus question.
ß Is this question important to my practice?
ß Is this question important to student learning?
ß Is this question important to others in my profession?
Some Generic Examples of Dilemmas
ß The teaching staff seems to love the idea of involving the students in
meaningful learning that connects the students to real issues and an
audience beyond school, but nothing seems to be happening in reality.
Question: What can I do to capitalize on teachers’ interest and to help them
translate theory into practice?
ß The community is participating in visioning work, but the work doesn’t
seem to relate to the actual life of the school—it is just too utopian.
Question: How do I mesh dreams and reality?
ß Teachers love doing projects with the students, but the projects never
seem to connect to one another or have very coherent educational goals
or focus; they are just fun.
Question: How do I work with teachers so they move to deep learning about
important concepts while still staying connected to hands-on learning?
ß We keep getting grants to do specific projects with students and the
community, but when the money is gone, the work doesn’t continue.
Question: How does sustainability actually work? What needs to change for
it to work?
ß No matter how hard I try to be inclusive and ask for everyone’s ideas,
about half of the people don’t want to do anything new - they think
things were just fine before.
Question: How do I work with the people who don’t want to change without
alienating them?

16
Preparing to Present a Dilemma in a Consultancy Protocol
Come to the session with a description of a dilemma related to your practice.
Write your dilemma with as much contextual description as you feel you
need for understanding. One page is generally sufficient; even a half page is
often enough. If you prefer not to write it out, you can make notes for
yourself and do an oral presentation, but please do some preparation ahead of
time.
End your description with a specific question. Frame your question
thoughtfully. What do you REALLY want to know? What is your real
dilemma? This question will help your Consultancy group focus its
feedback. Questions that can be answered with a “yes” or “no” generally
provide less feedback for the person with the dilemma, so avoid those kinds
of questions. (See the previous pages for a process for framing Consultancy
dilemmas and questions.)
Dilemmas deal with issues with which you are struggling—something that is
problematic or has not been as effective as you would like it to be—anything
related to your work. Consultancies give presenters an opportunity to tap the
expertise in a group, and if past experiences offer any indication, you will be
able to rely on the people in your Consultancy group to provide respectful,
thoughtful, experienced-based responses to your dilemma.
A couple of caveats—we have found that Consultancies don’t go well when
people bring dilemmas that they are well on the way to figuring out
themselves, or when they bring a dilemma that involves only getting other
people to change. To get the most out of this experience, bring something
that is still puzzling you about your practice. It is riskier to do, but we
guarantee that you will learn more.
Consultancy Protocol
Developed by Gene Thompson-Grove,
Founding Co-Director of the National School Reform Faculty Project
Purpose: A Consultancy is a structured process for helping an individual or
a team think more expansively about a particular, concrete
dilemma.
Time: Approximately 50 minutes
Roles: Presenter (whose work is being discussed by the group)
Facilitator (who sometimes participates, depending on group size)
Steps:
1. The presenter gives an overview of the dilemma with which s/he is
struggling, and frames a question for the Consultancy group to
consider. The framing of this question, as well as the quality of the

17
presenter’s reflection on the dilemma being discussed, are key features
of this protocol. If the presenter has brought student work, educator
work, or other “artifacts,” there is a pause here to silently examine the
work/documents. The focus of the group’s conversation is on the
dilemma. (5-10 minutes)
2. The Consultancy group asks clarifying questions of the presenter—that
is, questions that have brief, factual answers. (5 minutes)
3. The group asks probing questions of the presenter. These questions
should be worded so that they help the presenter clarify and expand
his/her thinking about the dilemma presented to the Consultancy
group. The goal here is for the presenter to learn more about the
question s/he framed or to do some analysis of the dilemma presented.
The presenter may respond to the group’s questions, but there is no
discussion by the Consultancy group of the presenter’s responses. At
the end of the ten minutes, the facilitator asks the presenter to re-state
his/her question for the group. (10 minutes)
4. The group talks with each other about the dilemma presented.
(15 minutes)
Possible questions to frame the discussion:
What did we hear?
What didn’t we hear that they think might be relevant?
What assumptions seem to be operating?
What questions does the dilemma raise for us?
What do we think about the dilemma?
What might we do or try if faced with a similar dilemma? What have we
done in similar situations?
Members of the group sometimes suggest solutions to the dilemma. Most
often, however, they work to define the issues more thoroughly and
objectively. The presenter doesn’t speak during this discussion, but instead
listens and takes notes.
5. The presenter reflects on what s/he heard and on what s/he is now
thinking, sharing with the group anything that particularly resonated
for him or her during any part of the Consultancy. (5 minutes)
6. The facilitator leads a brief conversation about the group’s observation
of the Consultancy process. (5 minutes)
Some Tips
Step 1: The success of the Consultancy often depends on the quality of the
presenter’s reflection in Step 1 as well as on the quality and authenticity of
the question framed for the Consultancy group. However, it is not uncommon
for the presenter, at the end of a Consultancy, to say, “Now I know what my
real question is.” That is fine, too. It is sometimes helpful for the presenter to

18
prepare ahead of time a brief (one-two page) written description of the
dilemma and the issues related to it for the Consultancy group to read as part
of Step 1.
Step 2: Clarifying questions are for the person asking them. They ask the
presenter “who, what, where, when, and how.” These are not “why”
questions. They can be answered quickly and succinctly, often with a phrase
or two.
Step 3: Probing questions are for the person answering them. They ask the
presenter “why” (among other things), and are open-ended. They take longer
to answer, and often require deep thought on the part of the presenter before
s/he speaks.
Step 4: When the group talks while the presenter listens, it is helpful for the
presenter to pull his/her chair back slightly away from the group. This
protocol asks the Consultancy group to talk about the presenter in the third
person, almost as if s/he is not there. As awkward as this may feel at first, it
often opens up a rich conversation, and it gives the presenter an opportunity
to listen and take notes, without having to respond to the group in any way.
Remember that it is the group’s job to offer an analysis of the dilemma or
question presented. It is not necessary to solve the dilemma or to offer a
definitive answer.
It is important for the presenter to listen in a non-defensive manner. Listen
for new ideas, perspectives, and approaches. Listen to the group’s analysis of
your question/issues. Listen for assumptions—both your own and the
group’s—implicit in the conversation. Don’t listen for judgment of you by
the group. This is not supposed to be about you, but about a question you
have raised. Remember that you asked the group to help you with this
dilemma.
Step 5: The point of this time period is not for the presenter to give a “blow
by blow” response to the group’s conversation, nor is it to defend or further
explain. Rather, this is a time for the presenter to talk about what were, for
him/her, the most significant comments, ideas and questions s/he heard. The
presenter can also share any new thoughts or questions s/he had while
listening to the Consultancy group.
Step 6: Debriefing the process is key. Don’t short-change this step.

19
Collaborative Assessment Conference: Overview
The following description is excerpted, with slight adaptations, from
Looking Together at Student Work by Tina Blythe, David Allen, and Barbara
S. Powell (New York: Teachers College Press, 1999)
A piece of student work has the potential to reveal not only the student’s
mastery of the curriculum’s goals, but also a wealth of information about the
student him/herself: his/her intellectual interests, his/her strengths, and
his/her struggles. The Collaborative Assessment Conference was designed to
give teachers a systematic way to mine this richness. It provides a structure
by which teachers come together to look at a piece of work, first to determine
what it reveals about the student and the issues s/he cares about, and then to
consider how the student’s issues and concerns relate to the teacher’s goals
for the student. The last part of the conversation – the discussion of
classroom practice – grows out of these initial considerations.
The structure for the conference evolved from three key ideas:
ß First, students use school assignments, especially open-ended ones, to
tackle important problems in which they are personally interested.
Sometimes these problems are the same ones that the teacher has
assigned them to work on, sometimes not.
ß Second, we can only begin to see and understand the serious work that
students undertake if we suspend judgment long enough to look carefully
and closely at what is actually in the work rather than what we hope to
see in it.
ß Third, we need the perspective of others—especially those who are not
intimate with our goals for our students—to help us to see aspects of the
student and the work that would otherwise escape us, and we need others
to help us generate ideas about how to use this information to shape our
daily practice.
Since 1988, when Steve Seidel and his colleagues at Project Zero developed
this process, the Collaborative Assessment Conference has been used in a
variety of ways: to give teachers the opportunity to hone their ability to look
closely at and interpret students’ work; to explore the strengths and needs of
a particular child; to reflect on the work collected in student portfolios; to
foster conversations among faculty about the kind of work students are doing
and how faculty can best support that work.
In the Collaborative Assessment Conference, the presenting teacher brings a
piece of student work to share with a group of five to ten colleagues (usually
other teachers and administrators). The process begins with the presenting
teacher showing (or distributing copies of) the piece to the group.
Throughout the first part of the conference, the presenting teacher says
nothing, giving no information about the student, the assignment, or the
context in which the student worked.

20
Through a series of questions asked by the facilitator, the group works to
understand the piece by describing it in detail and looking for clues that
would suggest the problems or issues or aspects of the work with which the
student was most engaged. They do this without judgments about the quality
of work or how it suits their personal tastes. The facilitator helps this process
by asking participants to point out the evidence on which they based the
judgments that inevitably slip out. For example, if someone comments that
the work seems very creative, the facilitator might ask him or her to describe
the aspect of the work that led him or her to say that.
In the second part of the conference, the focus broadens. Having
concentrated intensively on the piece itself, the group, in conversation with
the presenting teacher, now considers the conditions under which the work
was created as well as broader issues of teaching and learning. First, the
presenting teacher provides any information that s/he thinks is relevant about
the context of the work. This might include describing the assignment,
responding to the discussion, answering questions (though s/he does not have
to respond to all the questions raised in the first part of the conference),
describing other work by the child, and/or commenting on how his/her own
reading or observation of the work compares to that of the group.
Next, the facilitator asks the whole group (presenting teacher included) to
reflect on the ideas generated by the discussion of the piece. These might be
reflections about specific next steps for the child in question, ideas about
what the participants might do in their own classes or thoughts about the
teaching and learning process in general. Finally, the whole group reflects on
the conference itself.
The following steps are a working agenda for a Collaborative Assessment
Conference. The time allotted for each step of the conference is not fixed,
since the time needed for each step will vary in accordance with the work
being considered. At each stage, the facilitator should use his or her
judgment in deciding when to move the group on to the next step. Typically,
Collaborative Assessment Conferences take from forty-five minutes to an
hour and fifteen minutes.
The Collaborative Assessment Conference Protocol
Developed by Steve Seidel and colleagues at Harvard Project Zero
1. Getting Started
ß The group chooses a facilitator who will make sure the group stays
focused on the particular issue addressed in each step.
ß The presenting teacher puts the selected work in a place where
everyone can see it or provides copies for the other participants.
S/he says nothing about the work, the context in which it was
created, or the student, until Step 5.
ß The participants observe or read the work in silence, perhaps making
brief notes about aspects of it that they particularly notice.

21
2. Describing the Work
ß The facilitator asks the group, “What do you see?”
ß Group members provide answers without making judgments about
the quality of the work or their personal preferences.
ß If a judgment emerges, the facilitator asks for the evidence on which
the judgment is based.
3. Asking Questions About the Work
ß The facilitator asks the group, “What questions does this work raise
for you?”
ß Group members state any questions they have about the work, the
child, the assignment, the circumstances under which the work was
carried out, and so on.
ß The presenting teacher may choose to make notes about these
questions, but s/he is does not respond to them now--nor is s/he
obligated to respond to them in Step 5 during the time when the
presenting teacher speaks.
4. Speculating About What the Student Is Working On
ß The facilitator asks the group, “What do you think the child is
working on?”
ß Participants, based on their reading or observation of the work, make
suggestions about the problems or issues that the student might have
been focused on in carrying out the assignment.
5. Hearing from the Presenting Teacher
ß The facilitator invites the presenting teacher to speak.
ß The presenting teacher provides his or her perspective on the
student’s work, describing what s/he sees in it, responding (if s/he
chooses) to one or more of the questions raised, and adding any other
information that s/he feels is important to share with the group.
ß The presenting teacher also comments on anything surprising or
unexpected that s/he heard during the describing, questioning and
speculating phases.
6. Discussing Implications for Teaching and Learning
The facilitator invites everyone (the participants and the presenting
teacher) to share any thoughts they have about their own teaching,
children’s learning, or ways to support this particular child in future
instruction.
7. Reflecting on the Collaborative Assessment Conference
The group reflects on the experiences of or reactions to the
conference as a whole or to particular parts of it.
8. Thanks to the presenting teacher!

22
Looking at Student Work
http://www.lasw.org
Teachers look at student work together for a variety of reasons, including
professional development, increasing accountability, setting standards,
and reflecting on student learning and development.
Challenging the Norms of Teaching
Looking at student work challenges accepted "norms" of the teaching
profession.
ß Rather than looking at all students work (if only to assign grades
or scores), teachers look at small samples—as small as one child's
drawing—for significant periods of time.
ß Rather than working in isolation from each other, teachers
engaged in looking at student work collaborate with colleagues.
ß Rather than practicing instruction and assessment in the virtual
privacy of the classroom, teachers bring their work and their
students' work to their colleagues for inquiry and reflection.
ß Rather than keeping the work of students inside schools,
protocols for looking at student work offer opportunities to
involve parents and community members in discussing student
work, student learning, standards, etc.
The Looking at Student Work website provides resources and research
related to everything from choosing an appropriate work sample to
processes for guiding teachers in discussing it.

23
Use Time for Faculty Study:
Getting the Whole Faculty Involved Focuses a School
Carlene U. Murphy
Journal of Staff Development, Spring 1999 (Vol. 20, No. 2)
http://www.nsdc.org/library/jsd/murphy202.html
When every faculty member at a school is working in a study group that
focuses on data-based student needs, the school is likely practicing the
Whole Faculty Study Groups (WFSGs) approach to professional
development. WFSG’s are less commonly used than Critical Friends Groups,
but present another option for building your professional community.
Developed and named by Carlene Murphy, a 45-year professional educator,
WFSG’s encourage faculty to determine the work each group is to perform
and the protocols that define the way they work. Study groups provide
authentic, democratic, and constructive learning experiences around
classroom practice. The following article, written by Ms. Murphy, outlines
the 15 Process Guidelines of WFSGs.
At Jackson Elementary School in Greeley, Colo., normal dismissal time is
3:25. But on Mondays, the students leave at 1:45, and the teachers stay until
5 for staff development activities.
For at least an hour during that time, all teachers and teaching aides attend
study group meetings. These small groups—no more than six people—work
on improving student writing in all content areas, which the whole faculty
agreed should be a major focus for this year’s groups. Teachers put their
heads together to examine classroom practice, and explore ways to improve
it. They look at research, create and practice teaching activities, and examine
student work together.
Jackson is one of more than 150 schools using the Whole-Faculty Study
Group process. In these schools, all certified staff belong to small groups that
meet regularly to focus on student needs. This is a whole school change
model that uses professional development as its central feature.
These schools say study groups are well worth the time devoted to them.
They help teachers focus on teaching, coordinate and collaborate with
colleagues, pass on experience, and develop a group understanding of the
school and its ongoing mission.
Whole-faculty study groups
All of the Whole-Faculty Study Group schools use the same data-based
decision model (Murphy and Lick, 1998) to make decisions about how to
organize study groups and what they will do. What their students need
determines what teachers do in a particular study group. If students at an
elementary school are not performing at the desired level in math, for

24
example, that school’s study groups could examine the math curriculum and
how it is taught.
The program provides a decision-making cycle and process guidelines,
which provide a format for organizing those discussions and ongoing support
for study groups. All teachers assume leadership roles, usually on a rotating
basis, and work together to teach all children in the school. This work can
take many forms, but the guiding principles are always the same: Teachers
need to continuously study and investigate teaching, and apply what they
learn. When the study group process is focused on appropriate content, it
changes what teachers and students do in classrooms.
Research conducted by Rosenholtz (1989), McLaughlin (1993), Little (1993)
and Louis, Marks and Kruse (1996) tell us that how teachers interact when
they are not in their classrooms is critical to the future of school restructuring
and the effects of restructuring on students. Louis, Marks, and Kruse also
confirm that the school's organization and the other faculty members and
administrators who compose the school staff create a larger context that
influences teachers' professional satisfaction.
The process guidelines
The Whole-Faculty Study Group process is defined and governed by the
following guidelines:
1. Keep the size of the group to no more than six.
The larger the study group, the more difficult it is to find meeting times when
all members can be present. Also, the larger the study group, the more likely
the group will splinter into two groups. With smaller study groups, each
member will participate more and take greater responsibility.
2. Don't restrict the composition of the study group.
The homogeneity or heterogeneity of the study group is not a critical
element. Study group members may have similar responsibilities (first grade
teachers, mathematics teachers, or elementary principals) or very different
responsibilities (across grade levels, across subject areas, or across schools or
districts).
A study group is most often composed of those who want to pursue or
investigate a specific student need that has been identified through an
analysis of student data. Every study group member must be willing to give
other members whatever is needed to be successful and effective in
classrooms. Members don’t necessarily have to like each other or have any
social contact outside of the study group.
3. Establish and keep a regular schedule.
Weekly meetings, for about an hour, keep the momentum at a steady pace
and give study group members ongoing learning and support systems.
Faculties have been very creative in finding the time for study groups to meet
(Murphy, 1997). Individuals should remain in the same study group for an
entire school year, and that group should establish a regular meeting time.
Groups have found that it’s usually better to meet more frequently for shorter

25
periods of time than to meet infrequently for a longer block of time. More
than two weeks between meetings is too long to sustain momentum and to
get regular feedback on classroom practice. An hour is the minimal meeting
time and seems adequate to accomplish the intent of a given meeting.
4. Establish group norms at the study group’s first meeting.
Study group members should collectively agree on the behaviors that will
facilitate the work of the group. Members may agree to begin and end on
time, to take responsibility for one's own learning, to be an active participant,
to respect each others' opinions and to bring to the meeting whatever is
needed for the group to do the agreed-upon work. Study groups are
encouraged to review the norms frequently.
5. Agree on an action plan for the study group.
It’s important that a study group develop its own action plan. If there are 10
study groups in the school, then there should be 10 action plans. The student
needs may have been identified by a larger body, but how a study group will
go about its investigation is for that group to decide. All of the action plans
for all of the study groups in a school are made public, usually on clipboards
in the faculty room.
Here’s a blueprint for an action plan along with examples for each element:
ß The general category of student needs: reading.
ß Specific student needs that the study group will address within that
category: increase amounts of independent reading in all areas.
ß The actions the group will take when the group meets to address the
student needs: prepare annotated bibliographies, design strategies for
book reports that cater to multiple intelligences, devise a reward
system.
ß Evidence that the intended results have been achieved: scores on
vocabulary tests, circulation reports from the school media center
and public library.
ß What resources will be used: book lists, computer software, the
Internet, student textbooks, media specialist, student work.
The action plan should be revisited at regular intervals and adjusted to be
consistent with current actions. This takes on a higher level of importance
when the group formally evaluates its progress toward intended results. If the
intended results for study group members and students aren’t appropriate or
adequate, the evaluation will indicate that the group missed its targets.
6. Focus on curriculum and instruction. [NOT school policies]
What study groups actually do determines the worth of the process. The need
for more challenging curriculum content for students means teachers will
also have to learn more challenging curriculum content, and how to teach it

26
(Loucks-Horsley, 1998). The content of any staff development approach
should have promise for positive effects on student learning.
Study groups support the implementation of curricular and instructional
innovations, integrate and give coherence to a school's instructional practices
and programs, target a schoolwide instructional need, and monitor the impact
of instructional changes on students. To accomplish these four functions,
group members can’t get sidetracked by administrative issues or issues that
have a low instructional impact.
Professional study groups take the following as their content:
ß Academic knowledge and understanding;
ß Curriculum materials;
ß Instructional strategies;
ß Curriculum designs;
ß Use of technologies;
ß Managing students and learning environments through effective
instruction; and
ß Assessment practices.
The intended results may be accomplished through training, reading books
and articles, viewing video tapes, demonstrating strategies to each other,
visiting classrooms and schools, designing materials, working with computer
software, and developing lessons that will be taught in classrooms. The one
question that will keep the study group instructionally focused is: Does the
content require the study group to examine student work?
7. List all learning resources, both material and human.
A study group designs its curriculum of study to include a comprehensive list
of resources. Initially, groups should spend some time brainstorming learning
resources that are easily accessible and those that are harder to obtain. Such
lists might include:
ß Textbooks and materials that students use;
ß Student work;
ß Teachers' manuals;
ß Trainers;
ß Resource people;
ß Workshops;
ß District/university courses;
ß Books;
ß Professional journals;
ß Video and audio tapes;
ß Computers and software; and
ß Professional conferences.
Collection boxes for each study group are put in a central location and
teachers deposit whatever they have or find to support other groups. This
encourages teachers to share resources they have in their classrooms.

27
8. Complete a log after each study group meeting.
A log is a brief, written summary of what happened at a study group meeting
and gives the study group a history. The group can go back and confirm why
it decided on a particular action. The members can see their progress in how
they relate to one another in their thinking and in their actions.
Members take turns completing the log. After a study group meeting, all
members get copies. So does the principal. The log is also posted in a central
location, along with logs from all the other study groups.
The study group log includes:
ß Date, time, location, and leader of the meeting;
ß Group members present and absent;
ß Classroom applications (the teachers share what they are doing in
their classrooms as a result of what they are doing in the study
group);
ß Brief summary of today's discussions and activities;
ß At the next meeting, "we need to bring/prepare . . . "; and
ß Concerns/recommendations.
9. Encourage members to keep a Personal Reflection Log.
Personal reflection is important and private. How often and when individuals
choose to chart their personal reactions is up to them. Such a log might
include:
ß Date
ß "Today, we accomplished . . .";
ß "We didn't get to . . .";
ß "For the next meeting, I need to . . .";
ß "I am learning . . .";
ß "I am disappointed that . . ."; and
ß "My students are benefiting from . . ."
10. Establish a pattern of rotating leadership.
Each member serves as the study group leader on a rotating basis. The
leadership rotation may occur weekly, biweekly, or monthly. Once a group
forms around a student need, group members decide what the rotation will
be. The rotation schedule is noted in the log from the first study group
meeting.
The leader for a given meeting is responsible for:
ß Confirming logistics, such as time and location, with all members;
ß Completing the study group log after each meeting; and
ß Communicating, as appropriate, with persons who aren’t study group
members.
Leadership is shared to avoid having one member become more responsible
than other members for the group’s success. All members are equally
responsible for obtaining resources and keeping the study group moving

28
toward its intended results and desired ends. Individual group members look
to themselves and each other, not to a single person, for direction. This sense
of joint responsibility for the group’s work builds interdependence and
synergy within the group. When every group member feels equally
responsible for the group’s success, there is a higher level of commitment.
There is no one leader to blame for the group’s failure to accomplish its
goals; all must share the burden of any failure and the joy of
accomplishment.
The most positive feature of rotation is the assumption that anyone from the
study group can represent the group at any point in time, expanding the
effective capacity for leadership at the school.
11. Give all study group members equal status.
Groups are more productive if individuals don’t feel intimidated, hesitant, or
anxious about differences in job titles or certifications, experience, and
degree levels among group members. No one is deferred to because of rank
or other factors. Contributions from each member are encouraged and
respected. The study group functions under the belief that all members have
something valuable to contribute to the study group, and provides an
opportunity for all to share fully their ideas and experiences.
12. Plan for transitions.
A transition is when there is a break in the flow of the group’s work. This
may be when a study reaches closure on what the group intended to do, when
a schoolwide need has to be addressed by all groups, or at the end of a school
year.
At the end of a school year, the study groups have several options. If a study
group has long-term work planned, it assesses its progress at the end of each
semester, revisits its action plan, makes appropriate adjustments, and
continues. If a study group completes its action plan and wants to stay
together, a transition would be the time to celebrate its success, return to the
list of student needs and agree on the student need that will be the group’s
new focus. When study groups reach closure on their planned work and
group members want to reconfigure, new groups are formed around
specifically identified student needs.
In any process, transitions can be difficult. These times especially require the
support and strong sponsorship from school and district administrators. The
question at transition times is not: "Do we continue having study groups?"
Instead the question is: "What changes should be made in what the groups do
and how they’re organized?"
13. Include training and other forms of staff development in the study
group's agenda.
Study groups don’t eliminate the need for teachers to participate in other
training and development opportunities. The groups are the centerpiece,
much like the hub of a wheel. Individuals in study groups often need the
expertise of trainers in areas where specific skill development is needed
(Joyce & Showers, 1995). One or more individuals in a study group may

29
attend workshops, take courses, and go to conferences. Many study groups
invite trainers to study group meetings. The study group provides a safe
environment for teachers to practice skills, design lessons together using
those skills, observe each other, and feel support in figuring out why some
lessons go well while others do not. The value of ongoing technical training
and support of effective classroom practices can't be overemphasized.
14. Evaluate the effectiveness of the study group.
When considering how to evaluate the efforts of study groups, attention is
given to the impact the study group’s work is having on students. Secondary
to student impact is the impact of the study group process on the school’s
culture, including the school’s underlying assumptions, beliefs, and
behaviors. How, for example, have study groups affected the school's norms
of collegiality? Murphy and Lick (1998) give examples of several formats for
assessing the progress of study groups.
15. Establish a variety of communication networks and systems.
For study groups to have an effect, over time, on the whole school and all
students, information must be shared among the study groups at a school.
Parents, district office administrators, board of education members, and the
community at large also should also be kept informed of the work of the
study groups.
Structures for keeping communication open are part of the design. Study
group action plans and logs are posted in a public place. Short reviews are
given at faculty meetings. Newsletters that give brief descriptions of the
work in progress are circulated. “Swap shops” and “showcases” are
organized so teachers can compare their work. Groups share speakers and
materials. Bulletin boards are dedicated to sharing and videos of specific
accomplishments are made. Portfolios of the work of groups are put on
public display.
Most importantly, parents and students are kept informed about what study
groups are learning and doing. A common practice is for teachers to tell their
students what they did in the study groups immediately after the study groups
meet. For school communities to support the late arrival of students, the early
release of students, and professional development days, everyone affected
should understand what the teachers are doing and how students will benefit.
Conclusion
Teachers have more to do than they can do. The number of initiatives that
constantly bombard schools overwhelm teachers. Teachers do not need
another thing to do. What teachers do seem to need is a vehicle to do what
they must in an atmosphere of understanding and helpfulness.
Study groups, as described here, are not another instructional initiative. They
help teachers accomplish what they’re already expected to do, what they’ve
been doing alone. With this structure, teachers share the work. Study groups
are the teachers' foxholes, where diverse members are willing to set and
accept common goals and to work in a genuinely cooperative and mutually

30
dependent manner with each other. When this happens, students are the
benefactors.
References:
ATLAS Communities (1998). Charting the course: Building ATLAS communities.
Boston: Educational Development Center.
Joyce, B. & Showers, B. (1995). Student achievement through staff development.
New York: Longman.
Little, J. (1993, Summer). Teachers' professional development in a climate of
educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 129-151.
Loucks-Horsley, S. (1998). Ideas that work: Mathematics professional development.
The Eisenhower National Clearinghouse for Mathematics and Science Education.
Washington, DC.
Louis, K.S., Kruse, S.D. & Marks, H.M. (1996). Teachers' Professional Community
in Restructuring Schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33 (1), 757-798.
McLaughlin, M.W. (1993). What matters most in teachers' workplace context? U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Washington, DC.
Murphy, C. (1995). Whole-faculty study groups: Doing the seemingly undoable.
Journal of Staff Development, 16 (3), 37-44.
Murphy, C. (1997). Finding time for faculties to study together. Journal of Staff
Development, 18 (3), 29-32.
Murphy, C. & Lick, D. (1998). Whole-faculty study groups: A powerful way to
change schools and enhance learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Rosenholtz, S. (1989). Teacher's workplace: The social organization of schools.
New York: Longman.
Carlene U. Murphy is a private consultant for the whole-faculty study
group process and is a staff development specialist for ATLAS Communities.
This article is based on material in Whole-faculty study groups: A powerful
way to change schools and enhance learning, which she co-wrote with Dale
Lick. Murphy is a past president of NSDC and the 1990 recipient of NSDC's
Contributions to Staff Development Award. She can be reached at 961 Heard
Ave., Augusta, GA 30904, (706) 736-0756, fax (706) 737-4019, e-mail:
cmurphy@poseidon.net.
Reprinted with permission of the National Staff Development Council, 2003.
All rights reserved.

31
This graph compares key characteristics of Whole Faculty Study groups,
Independent or Stand Alone Study Groups, and Committees.

32
Whole-Faculty Study Groups in Everett, Washington
When School Reform Lasts, Summer 2002 (Vol. 4, No. 1)
http://www2.edc.org/Mosaic/Mosaic6/Mosaic6_StudyGroups.htm
This article describes Everett High School’s experience using Whole-Faculty
Study Groups to solve curricular dilemmas. Key to their success was the
faculty’s support of the process. The article also provides helpful strategies
for finding time to implement WFSGs.
When Pat Sullivan started teaching at Everett High School 15 years ago, the
veteran teachers at his school didn't bother to learn his name until he'd been
there for a few years. "They wanted to see if I'd survive before they took time
to get to know me," he recalls. Today, as principal of Everett High in Everett,
Washington, Sullivan is leading a school reform effort built on the premise
that strong relationships among teachers are critical to improved student
learning. "We're creating a rich environment for young teachers to feel
supported and nurtured," he says. "There's an emphasis here on professional
growth." Young teachers at Everett stand on equal footing with the most
senior staff on everything from getting the chance to teach AP courses to
student teacher assignments to getting a seat on the management council.
Sullivan's work to transform the culture of teaching extends beyond Everett
High School to include several other schools (K–12) in the district. For six
years, these schools have worked together with the ATLAS Communities1
reform model to build teacher collaboration across traditional boundaries like
grade level, subject matter, and even school buildings. Bringing elementary,
middle, and high schools together is an example of what ATLAS refers to as
its "pathway" approach, and it's a big part of what drew Everett to ATLAS in
the first place. "We looked at several comprehensive school reform models,"
he says, "and most seemed to have either an elementary or middle school
orientation; ATLAS provided an opportunity to do something systemically,
K–12. That made a lot of sense to us. There was a lot of community support
for the model–frankly, parents were surprised that we weren't working this
way already. Most parents expect that teachers meet regularly K–12 to
discuss student learning. Not only weren't we doing that, we weren't even
meeting building–wide to discuss these things."
Today teachers from across the Everett pathway meet weekly in faculty study
groups to tackle a variety of topics in teaching and learning. The study
groups have taken different forms as they've evolved over five years, but they
are all driven by student and teacher needs and interests. For instance, when
new statewide performance standards in social studies were published,
faculty at the high school discovered some significant deficiencies in their
1
ATLAS is a comprehensive school reform design that works with an entire K-12
system as a seamless entity. The school wide professional development approach in
ATLAS schools is Whole-Faculty Study Groups.

33
geography and economics instruction. "In the past we would have said, 'Oh,
the history teachers need to add some classes in geography and economics,'"
says Sullivan. Instead, a group of teachers across subject matters formed a
study group to look at ways the whole school could support the social studies
department in bringing students up to speed in these areas. Explains Sullivan,
"They looked at what the math teachers could do to prepare students for
work in economics. What the science teachers could do with geography.
Even the physical education teachers looked at ways to incorporate the use of
charts and tables in their health lessons to reinforce what their students were
learning in social studies."
In another example, the high school decided to convene a group to work on
some problems discovered in the school's mathematics instruction. "When
we broke out our math data, we discovered that our students were not doing
well with story problems," Sullivan says. "We thought, 'Hey, here's a good
topic for a study group—how can we help our students improve in this area?'
So we pulled together a group to look more closely at the data and do some
research on strategies for teaching story problems." As a result, the math
department decided to begin each class with group work on story problems,
across the grades. Results soon followed: While traditionally the school has
finished last among the four high schools in the district in local mathematics
assessments, this year it finished first.
Finding Time to Implement WFSGs
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technlgy/te10lk44.htm
Finding the time to implement Whole-Faculty Study Groups may be a
problem. Murphy (1997) notes that schools have come up with the
following creative ideas for finding time:
ß Using teaching assistants to release teachers for study group
meetings.
ß Beginning classes 30 minutes later one day a week and having
teachers come in 30 minutes earlier to provide one hour of study-
group time.
ß Scheduling students for special classes (such as art, music, and
physical education) at the same time to allow their homeroom
teachers to meet.
ß Combining classes during the week so teachers cover for each
other; one teacher could cover two classes for an hour while the
other teacher has time for the study group.
ß Using designated professional development time for study
groups. For example, if two days of professional development are
scheduled for the year, teachers instead can meet after school in
one-hour study groups once a week for several weeks and not
report to school on professional development days.

34
Sometimes the study groups are less academic in focus, and instead take on
broader cultural topics that teachers may confront. Several years ago, a local
tribe of Native Americans wanted to resume whale hunting as part of their
tribal custom, triggering anger among the non–native residents because the
area's whales are protected under the Endangered Species Act. "It caused a
bit of a furor locally," explains Sullivan, "so we established a K–12 study
group to help all of us better understand why the Native Americans wanted to
do this." The group shared what they had learned about the tribal custom
with their colleagues across the pathway, easing some of the tension around
the issue in the schools.
Impact on Student Achievement
Amidst his work to enhance teacher learning, Sullivan doesn't forget that the
ultimate goal of the ATLAS reform model is improved student learning. This
has become more urgent, as the state of Washington has recently mandated
that every student will be required to pass state assessments by 2006 in order
to graduate. While apprehensive about how these high–stakes tests will affect
his students, Sullivan is also upbeat about his school's ability to prepare
students for these measures. He cites the new science program as one
example: "We used to have so many options in the science program that
many of our students were not learning the basics, what they needed to know
for the new assessments and for college work. So we've streamlined the
department's offerings and instituted new requirements. This year for the first
time, all students are required to take ninth grade physical science and tenth
grade biology. In the past, the biology course was reserved for our top
students—it was designed as a college prep class, with very high
expectations for regular attendance, nightly homework, class participation,
and lab work. This fall we have three teachers teaching biology all day to all
of our 400 sophomores. The teachers are bringing that same set of high
expectations into every class. Of the 400 students that took that class, 93
percent passed." Concludes Sullivan, "The assumption used to be that most
of our students simply would not be able to complete a course this rigorous.
Now the assumption is that they can and they must."
Copyright 2002 Education Development Center, Inc. Reprinted by permission of
Education Development Center, Inc.

35
Lesson Study
Teachers College Columbia University
http://www.teacherscollege.edu/lessonstudy/index.html
Many professional organizations promote teacher collaboration, but
supporters of lesson study say it goes beyond collaboration to co-planning
and observing actual lessons with a focus on student thinking. The real
"lesson" of lesson study is not product, but process. This model of ongoing,
teacher-led professional development has been applied most successfully and
widely in Japan. It has recently been adapted and initiated by teachers at
many sites across the U.S.
What is Lesson Study?
Lesson study* is a professional development process that Japanese teachers
engage in to systematically examine their practice, with the goal of becoming
more effective. This examination centers on teachers working collaboratively
on a small number of "study lessons". Working on these study lessons
involves planning, teaching, observing, and critiquing the lessons. To provide
focus and direction to this work, the teachers select an overarching goal and
related research question that they want to explore. This research question
then serves to guide their work on all the study lessons.
While working on a study lesson, teachers jointly draw up a detailed plan for
the lesson, which one of the teachers uses to teach the lesson in a real
classroom (as other group members observe the lesson). The group then
comes together to discuss their observations of the lesson. Often, the group
revises the lesson, and another teacher implements it in a second classroom,
while group members again look on. The group will come together again to
discuss the observed instruction. Finally, the teachers produce a report of
what their study lessons have taught them, particularly with respect to their
research question.
*“Derived from the Japanese word jugyokenkyuu, the term ‘lesson study’
was coined by Makoto Yoshida...it can also be translated in reverse as
‘research lesson’ [coined by Catherine Lewis], which indicates the level of
scrutiny applied to individual lessons.” –RBS Currents, Spring/ Summer
2002
Sample Lesson Plan
Although Japanese teachers use various formats for lesson study, all provide
the same key information. The following is a two-page excerpt of a longer
study lesson plan. The full document is available, along with a more detailed
explanation of lesson plans, on the Teachers College website,
http://www.teacherscollege.edu/lessonstudy/tools.html.

36

37

38
Links to Lesson Study Resources & U.S. Implementation Sites
(Education Development Center http://www2.edc.org/lessonstudy/)
Lesson Study Research Group – Teachers College, Columbia University
http://www.teacherscollege.edu/lessonstudy/
The Lesson Study Research Group website provides information, resources,
and networking opportunities to U.S. educators who are interested in learning
more about lesson study. This site provides readings, presentations, tools for
lesson study, and work samples. It also provides links to many other lesson
study related sites.
Lesson Study in Japan, U.S. Science Education
http://www.lessonresearch.net/
This site comes out of an NSF-funded research project from the Mills
College Education Department that is focused on studying 4 models for
spreading coherent, inquiry-based elementary science instruction. One of the
models being examined is lesson study. In addition to the research
information, this site provides videos and other publications related to lesson
study, as well as a resource list of other organizations involved in lesson
study.
The Teaching Gap Website
http://www.lessonlab.com/teaching-gap/index.htm
The Teaching Gap: Best Ideas from the World's Teachers for Improving
Education in the Classroom, by James W. Stigler and James Hiebert,
compares math teaching practices in Japan and Germany with those in the
United States. The authors essentially introduced the U.S. education
community to lesson study as their proposal for how to improve education in
the American classroom.
Research for Better Schools
http://www.rbs.org/lesson_study/index.shtml
Under the Research and Resources section of the RBS website, you can find
an overview of lesson study and a description of lesson study's connection to
the TIMSS report. There are also links to additional resources on lesson
study.
Bellevue, Washington
http://www.bsd405.org/lessonstudy.html
Bellevue, Washington has implemented a district-wide lesson study program
in all subject areas. Check out this site to find out how they are doing it and
what teachers and administrators have to say about their lesson study
experience.
Math Star, New Mexico State University
http://mathstar.nmsu.edu/lesson_study/
New Mexico State University is supporting teams of mathematics teachers
across the state of New Mexico. Check out this site to see videos and sample
lesson plans.

39
Loras College, Dubuque, Iowa
http://web.loras.edu/lessonstudy/index.html
Loras College is supporting elementary school mathematics teachers in
Eastern Iowa conducting lesson study in school-based teams. Check out this
site for extensive lists of lesson study and mathematics-related websites.
Readings on Lesson Study
Lewis, Catherine (2002). Lesson Study: A Handbook of Teacher-Led
Instructional Change. http://www.rbs.org/catalog/pubs/pd55.shtml
Hiebert, James and Stigler, James (1999). The Teaching Gap: Best Ideas
from the World’s Teachers for Improving Education in the Classroom.
"Lesson study is a very powerful way to bring teachers together to
structure and organize their thinking about classroom practices. However,
we must not lose sight of the fact that lesson study in and of itself is an
empty shell that will be filled according to the knowledge and skills
brought to bear by the group of teachers conducting this activity."
- Clea Fernandez, 1999

40
Curriculum Inquiry Cycle
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory
www.nwrel.org/scpd/ci/about.html
The success of your school’s conversion effort depends on the ability of
teachers to continually renew curriculum and instruction, the core of
educational practice. This core must reflect not only state and national
standards, but also teachers’ profound understandings of knowledge and how
it develops. The following three resources offer a few options for examining
your current practice and planning future curriculum.
These tools simply provide a starting point. Ideally, your curriculum team
will further develop questions and guidelines that drive your practice and
address areas not included here, such as the relationship between curriculum
and assessment.
In order to help teachers fulfill their new role of curriculum developer as well
as curriculum implementer, NWREL staff have developed a process known
as the Curriculum Inquiry Cycle. The ongoing cycle of curriculum renewal is
based on the premise that professional development should assist teachers to
get in touch with their implicit theories or beliefs about teaching and learning
to form coherent, rational theories based on evidence.
Curriculum inquiry improves the core of educational practice, since it
involves teachers in determining the critical experiences necessary to engage
students in meeting challenging standards. This is more than an instructional
innovation. Through inquiry, teachers plan learning environments that
provide and build on essential conditions for student learning. This process
helps teachers develop and articulate local standards which guide their
teaching in the context of broad state and national reform priorities. It
addresses such fundamental questions as: What knowledge is crucial? What
do we understand about this knowledge? What strategies are most powerful
for fostering student learning? What critical experiences must occur to
achieve standards? What forms of collaboration are necessary to provide
coherence and meaning in teaching and learning? How do we study our
classrooms and communicate our understandings to others?
Educators participating in this ongoing cycle of curriculum renewal examine
current curriculum practice in the school or district; clarify local needs,
content and performance standards to determine how to balance competing
demands; plan critical classroom experiences to achieve desired student
goals; and conduct classroom research on the selected practices in action,
assessing progress and making needed changes.

41
A major goal of this NWREL project is to assist teachers and schools to
create self-sustaining processes for improving curriculum and instruction.
The curriculum inquiry cycle diagram can be used to guide reflection on
current teaching practices. Use the critical questions that are outlined below
as prompts.
Examining Current Practice
What does my teaching look like? Why do I work this way? What does this
tell me about how I think about curriculum? Is my current practice making a
difference in student learning?
Making Decisions
Are my practices consistent with what is known about how people learn? Are
content and performance standards reflected in my teaching practice? Am I
aware of alternative models of teaching?
Creating an Optimal Learning Environment
What are the dynamics of an optimal learning environment? What learning
experiences are essential? What assessments are appropriate?
Expanding Teacher Knowledge through Classroom Research
What dilemmas, questions or concerns about teaching and learning do I want
to explore? How can I collaborate more with colleagues? How will I share
my research?

42
Assumptions Underlying the Curriculum Inquiry Cycle
ß Teachers are knowledgeable professionals.
ß Planning curriculum is the professional responsibility of teachers.
ß Curriculum inquiry is a vehicle for professional growth.
ß Curriculum inquiry leads to improved learning and teaching.
ß Teachers learn by building on current practice.
ß Teachers need to share professional expertise.
ß Curriculum planning is a team effort.
ß Curriculum Inquiry strengthens close connections among curriculum,
instruction and assessment.
ß Curriculum planning is a recursive process.
ß The classroom is the fundamental unit of school change.
ß Administrative support is essential for effective curricular and
instructional change.
“Teachers come to the task of developing curriculum… laden with the
baggage of their district’s history—its politics, its culture, and its
organizational structure. To develop new curriculum, they must often
challenge all that, setting into place an entirely new culture or inquiry
and professional growth. Where they begin, and how explicit they make
their assumptions and their process, can dramatically affect whether
anything ultimately changes in their schools and districts.”
- Kathleen Cushman
“Developing Curriculum in Essential Schools,” Horace,
March 1996 (Vol. 12, No. 4).

Planning Resources for Teachers in small high schools. Summer 2003

Planning Resources for Teachers in small high schools. Summer 2003

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (15)

Similar to Planning Resources for Teachers in small high schools. Summer 2003

Similar to Planning Resources for Teachers in small high schools. Summer 2003 (20)

More from Sarah Sue Calbio

More from Sarah Sue Calbio (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Planning Resources for Teachers in small high schools. Summer 2003