Hijacked. What a word. I was hoping that the meeting would be more like letting the genie out of the bottle, but I felt hijacked, disregarded because of assumptions people made about my knowledge of equity.

One of the presenters likened our experience/training to having been given a parachute, but not told how to operate the ripcord. My take on the discourse was that we walked out onto the tarmack, looked at the plane, but did not even get off the ground. We did some of the ground training necessary for parachuting - but are not yet ready to take the leap.

Still thinking about how to word my reflections to NSRF.

I am wondering if this 'hijacking' of learning is the reason the CFG national is not as strong memeber number wise - because not everyone is on the same page.

I'm attaching a copy of my conference debrief that I just sent to NSRF.

The focusing question of the national facilitator's meeting was: What do I need to know and be able to do in order to be a National Facilitator in an organization with a mission driven by an equity focus?

After opening moves consisting of an agenda and outcome review, agreements (norms), and housekeeping, the two day session focused on coaching for educational equity. The group looked at the research agenda being led by Kevin Fahey, who I heard speak at AERA. We discussed the role of teacher research that establishes the efficacy of CFG and differentiates CFG from PLC.

The next session I attended was partially based on emotional intelligence and personal transformation necessary to better facilitate for equity. We discussed and participated in a very surface level examination of Discourse 1 and Discourse 2. (I realize now that I should have participated in the other session offered, as this session seemed to me to be based heavily on generalizations and assumptions. Because I had not attended training in Sonoma I felt very excluded from the discussion – like hearing about a party that I wasn't invited to.) Having previously studied the book Emotional Intelligence, I now realize that the tone of the meeting, as well as feeling excluded, caused me to downshift my thinking and disconnect somewhat. We learned several techniques for listening and asking difficult questions which would be very effective for our CFG work. The other session was on planning summer CFG institutes.

The afternoon session I attended was about reducing or eliminating tracking in schools. This was very thought provoking and had direct application for our work with schools. John Newlin (from Maine) presented alternatives to tracking and supplemental structures to reduce tracking.

The second day the meeting stalled….after an informative session on the support offered by NSRF's national staff, the group got mired in a 2 hour discussion of how to adapt open space so that the equity presenters could continue their agenda. Rather than discuss the issues some of us brought to the table, we spent much time clarifying and reclarifying the purpose for discussion, instead of having the discussion. After lunch, I did have the opportunity to attend a session on data collection and analysis from CFG training that was very helpful.

Overall, my attendance at the meeting was productive. I connected with others in the field nationally and had some good "ah ha's" that will help guide our work in Houston.

Tim