Confession time. I've been having a hard time getting motivated about starting up the K-16 CFG again. Last year, it was a true joy to gather monthly and simply do authentic work. We learned a lot by bringing our individual concerns to the table for feedback, and I think our time together was well spent.

While mulling over my malaise, I thought of an article that Lance passed out when our group first started meeting, Stages of Team Development, by Nancy Mohr and Alan Dichter. When I reread the article, I realized that it was no wonder that I was feeling a little trepidation about starting the new year. According to Nancy and Alan, after a group leaves the Honeymoon Stage, it must navigate through the Conflict Stage, the Confusion-about-Democracy Stage, the Messy Stage, and the Scary Stage before it reaches the MATURE GROUP Stage. I dread going through some of these stages since conflict and confusion give me heart palpitations!

At least I feel confident that we will get to the Mature Group Stage, and I feel assurance that my dear Critical Friends will be supportive of the group as we move forward together.

The K-16 CFG met on Tuesday, September 28, at the Northwest District Office. Present were Mary, Lance, Jonett, Madelyn, Sharon, Marcela, Carolyn, Michaelann, Josephine, Janet, and Donna. After Connections and calendars we briefly revisited the norms that were set at the group's first meeting back in February 2003. Click on the photo to read the norms.

The phrases "Be responsible for each others' learning" and "Don't put personal needs ahead of group needs" were lifted out for discussion, but in the end, we kept the norms as they are written now.

We then spent the bulk of the meeting engaged in a data web activity. Click on the photo to see a larger image.

The purpose of the activity was to refocus our conversations for the year on STUDENT LEARNING and produce a chain that shows how our actions are linked to the overall goal of improving student learning. When the web is completed, the perimeter of the web should indicate what we can use as data to show that we are affecting student learning. Unfortunately, we did not have time to complete this activity and the lack of closure seemed unsettling for some in the group. We will need to figure out ways to revisit and refine the ideas and questions that surfaced during the activity.

We did start a discussion around the question "What can this group affect?" As individuals, we are involved in activities like mentoring new teachers, planning staff development, facilitating CFG coaches clinics, increasing collaboration amongst teachers and schools . . . the list goes on. I liked the way that Lance summed it up--we are all involved in capacity building. We still need to figure out how to measure the effects that we have.

As our CFG begins the process of working as an inquiry group, I am left with so many questions:
·Is our purpose to extend knowledge or solve a problem? (Thanks, Michaelann, for that wording.)
·Do we have enough common interests to have a common inquiry for the group?
·What exactly can this group affect?
·How do we measure it?
·Why is it so difficult to talk about quality teaching and learning?
·How do you make it feel comfortable?