Teachers are key to educational reform, yet they are very busy and subject to pressures from many sources. They rarely have time to really sit down and talk with each other, to share insights and build plans for the future. This is why NCRVE holds periodic institutes, where educators are invited to attend an intensive working retreat.
This summer, 19 Urban Schools Network teams applied for and were accepted to participate in a five-day intensive working institute held in Berkeley (the fifth such institute since 1992). This year's summer institute, Step by Step: Pathways to Connect Vocational and Academic Reform, was held in collaboration with the VOCED project of Hands and Minds Collaborative and the Center for Law and Education. The purpose of this institute was to give teams further technical assistance in advancing the implementation of the plans they had developed in Berkeley in previous years, plans which focused on either tech prep or the integration of academic and vocational curriculum.
Along with a faculty fellow (and, for 10 larger teams, a graduate fellow as well), teams of between three and 17 members spent the week in Berkeley in a range of working sessions, including action labs, discussion groups, and best practice demonstrations as well as daily team meetings.
Over 50 experts from around the country gave presentations on education reform, including team building, all aspects of the industry, performance-based assessment, scheduling models, and career academies. In addition, individual participants as well as teams were able to solicit one-on-one time with presenters at lunchtime table talks as well as at appointments arranged during team meetings.
Team building has always been behind the philosophy of NCRVE's technical assistance to schools and support of systemic educational reform. While traditional staff development involves sending one or two faculty members to a training session or conference, NCRVE designs its institutes to depend on team participation. From NCRVE's point of view, systemic reform depends on both bottom-up and top-down efforts, as well as significant buy-in and ownership at all levels of the education process.
To assist fellows and teams to identify real and imaginary barriers to open and productive discussion and decision-making, this summer's institute featured a computer network action lab. It featured 12 notebook computers (additional computers may be added for groups larger than 12) and a laser printer, all connected in a local area network. Teams were able to engage in a wide range of activities on the network, including brainstorming, prioritizing, discussing or analyzing problems, creating strategies, and writing or editing documents.
One-hour sessions were facilitated by Dr. Robert A. Briggs, Research Fellow at the University of Arizona, Management Information Systems Department. A representative from the team, generally a faculty fellow, had a brief discussion with Briggs prior to the session to discuss the purpose of the work session, potential barriers to communication, and objectives.
Computer-supported group decision-making efficiently uses technology to overcome process losses that occur during traditional group discussions.
Participants did not need to be familiar with computers, networks, or the software; Briggs provided sufficient training at the start of each session. Evaluations of the computer network were overwhelmingly positive. Teams that used it pointed out the convenience and ease of communicating via computer. Group discussions that had previously been inhibited due to power issues or lack of trust soon became lively and productive. Normally shy persons felt more comfortable typing anonymously, and normally dominant conversationalists discovered the wealth of knowledge and expertise in fellow team members. Teams left the session with complete results of their work in both paper and floppy disk forms.
At the Step by Step institute, teams tailored their work to suit specific needs. For example, some teams developed action plans for building a strong work-based learning component for a school-to-work system. Other teams focused on integrated curriculum development in specific subject areas, like health occupations and English, or social studies and environmental studies. Whatever the project, team communication skills were essential.
Team-building is one of the most powerful tools available to educators. Working as a team means a greater pool of skills to draw upon, increased flexibility in terms of time and curriculum planning. Although the costs of software and equipment may still prevent many schools and colleges from using computer-supported group decision-making, when possible, this approach yields tremendous benefits.
For more information, interested parties may contact Mayo Tsuzuki, Research Associate at NCRVE, at (800) (old phone deleted).