On the first morning of the recent NSRF National Facilitator's Meeting in Indianapolis, Kevin asked us to consider what do WE need to know next. How do we take control of the research agenda and do things that would really help people in the field. The group used a modified Issaquah protocol to help Kevin think through this issue. Here are some of the comments that were mentioned at my table.

Listening Rounds
This is by no means a complete list of comments. What follows is just what I wrote down in my own notebook.
·I heard that we don't even know what's out there.
·I heard that we need a common language.
·I heard that we need to validate our work.

Probing Questions
·Does the National NSRF agenda have a singular focus?
·What are the priorities?
·What do practitioners need to validate?
·What is the purpose of the research?
-link CFG's to student learning?
-improve test scores?
-get $$?
·How will research be used?
·Why is money never discussed in this organization?
·Who funds the research?
·How do we get information from coaches?

Suggestions
·Look at CFG's that have been around for more than 2 years.
·Define a successful CFG.
·What makes them successful?
·What components of CFG work improve student achievement?
·What components of CFG work foster equity in the school community?
·Are student attitudes towards school changing because of CFG?
·How do coaches document and share their work?
·Could we create an on-line tool to report what our CFGs are doing?
·Give the process years.
·A priority must be defining terms such as effective CFG, success, student achievement, and equity.

Some people were obviously upset and felt excluded when a facilitator proposed an Open Space session and then said it wasn't really open. A group of people who had done much important, transformative work together before needed time and space together. Yet, there were plenty of clenched jaws and flared nostrils--a palpable sense of frustration and maybe even anger at being excluded.

I'm afraid that the body language was interpreted as hostility towards the equity work or hostility towards the people who are leading this work.

However, I think it's much simpler than that--it was a reaction to being excluded, left out, not picked for the team.

My daughters' preschool has a policy that families may pass out birthday party invitations at school only if the entire class is invited. Otherwise, the invitations must be mailed. This respects a family's right to associate with whomever they please while recognizing that the school itself must maintain an inclusive--not exclusive--environment.

I'm wondering if there is a way for the Sonoma Group to continue meeting during national events that are really geared towards other work or if their meetings would more appropriately take place at other times. It's very awkward now.

A colleague mentioned that he felt like the agenda of the facilitator's meeting had been hijacked. I found great value and even hope in the conversations and "surfacings" that occurred, yet I am also grieving for the conversations that did not take place. Where else can I go to get feedback on my dilemmas relating to supporting CFG's? As much as the organization may have needed the discussion about equity, accommodation, mission, belonging, etc., it came at the cost of violating the time and space set aside for talking about our work as facilitators.