HOME

COMMUNITY 

 WHAT'S NEW

  EVENTS

 JOIN US

   CONTACT US


The collaborative

COMMON GROUND COLLABORATIVE

Please find CGC Blog below. If you would like to add comments please LOGIN

The CGC Blog

  • 31 Dec 2019 14:44 | Anonymous


    OK, it’s obvious. Schools are full of living people, so they are living organisms. Sure, superficially, but most of the time we don’t treat them that way. In any true living system, all elements have a key and critical role, a function that keeps the organism alive and evolving. Not so with schools. Most schools are more silo than system, more gap than connection, more separation than synergy.

    CGC is changing that. In schools all over the world we are working  with representatives of all learning stakeholders to create a common, connected culture.That means breaking the mold. It means reaching across traditional boundaries to speak to all people in the system. In the same room. At the same time. It means telling our learning stories…together. Developing our learning principles…together. Defining learning, in simple terms that give us a common learning language with which to communicate…together.

    Together we map out learning ecosystems. We ask: ‘What transportable gifts does each team of learning stakeholders bring to the community?’ ‘What kind of community shall we co-create, using those gifts?’. Together we come to understand our complementary, connected roles, and how we can collaborate in the most effective, efficient ways to create and sustain a truly great learning culture.

    This work is new, different, powerful. It closes gaps, connects siloes, brings people together. It honours everyone’s contribution. It generates new missions, visions, plans, focused on learning, expressed in simple, common language. It creates schools that are healthy, living organisms, with all learning stakeholders contributing to the optimum. It creates schools that are alive.

    Kevin Bartlett
    CGC Design Team/NFI Design Team

    Originally posted 17 May 2018

  • 31 Dec 2019 14:40 | Anonymous


    A blog by Greg Curtis

    I’ve noticed an interesting phenomenon in my work with schools.  Most schools will state their aspirations to make ambitious improvements to learning within their organisations in order to address the real and urgent needs of our students. Whether it’s “global citizenship”, “21st century learners” or “students who can thrive in an ever-changing future”, Mission and Vision statements are full of such noble aspirations.

    But, why do we see such little “real” change in schools? Lots of good intentions and lots and lots of hard work, but little progress towards transformation.

    When I ask schools with such goals in their Missions, “What does that look like and how do you know?” I often get puzzled looks and references to programs they’ve implemented. That’s great, but where is the evidence of achieving your Mission as demonstrated through real student learning?

    When I ask about how they are addressing their goal of global citizenship, they might answer that they have implemented a program and graduation requirements for service learning. Fantastic! And, how do you know that this is achieving your goal of supporting kids in becoming global citizens? And, by the way, what does global citizenship look like? What are the skills and dispositions that students can demonstrate that provide evidence that they are achieving this goal?

    I’ve experienced the same thing when asking about “21st century learning”: “Oh, we have a 1:1 program.”  Or, the goal of “creating responsible members of society”: “We have a character education program.”  These do not represent evidence of achieving your Mission-driven goals; they represent evidence of implementation of a program or structure. There is, I believe, a big difference.

    Having a 1:1 program does not automatically equate with developing “21st century learners”.  Having a character education program does not, shazam, result in everyone becoming “responsible”. If it were that easy and directly causal, we’d have solved many issues long ago. This is an example of schools conflating ends and means, or goals and vehicles.

    It’s as if wishing it were so was the same as making it so.

    I believe that the source of this confusion between activity and success is the lack of clarity around the learning goals at the heart of an organization’s Mission and Vision – what I call Impacts.

    Impact is a very common word, but I have a more specific set of descriptors:

    • An Impact represents the highest goals for student learning, often spanning academic areas.
    • An Impact should strive for a transformative goal, not one we traditionally view as cumulative learning in traditional areas.
    • An Impact should represent a “moral imperative” (or, as Michael Fullan would say, a “moral purpose”) for the organisation.
    • An Impact should clarify the “what” for the “why” of schooling with an eye to the future.
    • An Impact must be student centred, not organisationally centreed.
    • An Impact must be compelling and accessible to the broader community.
    • And, above all, an Impact must be learnable and demonstrable by students . . . we must be able to observe and capture demonstrations of the skills and dispositions related to important Impacts on a regular basis.

    I believe that most schools are very genuine about desiring these things for their students, but very, very few have been able to move from aspirational to intentional. As a result, they tend to anchor their perceived success in the actions they have taken or the programs they have implemented and not in the evidence directly derived from student learning and desired Impacts. This requires an alignment of their highest goals for learning and their curriculum, assessment, grading and reporting systems . . . not an easy task, but a necessary one.

    I wanted to help schools put these goals where they should be: front, center and the North Star towards which all efforts, programs and systems should gravitate. Instead of pushing transformation through the front door (through the implementation of programs), I’d rather pull from the end zone through a commitment to learning Impacts. This, in turn, led to the development of my Input-Output-Impact framework.

    Jay McTighe and I explore this issue in our book, Leading Modern Learning: A Blueprint for Vision-Driven Schools (Solution Tree, 2015 . . . second edition coming). In the book, we attempt to lay out a blueprint for the achievement of Impacts in very tangible forms and outline the ways in which various systems can be brought into alignment with these goals.

    It’s not a complex framework. Inputs and Outputs reflect the work a school does. Impacts, however, represent the core, transformational goals of a school or district. Input and Outputs can be measured by the completion of action steps and implementation plans. The achievement of desired Impacts can only be evidenced through the artifacts and products of student learning. And this requires appropriate metrics to assess student performance and growth in these areas. New metrics for new learning goals.

    I advocate for a few clearly articulated and unpacked Impacts to guide the development and alignment of all systems within a school or district. It is deceptively challenging, but I have also seen the powerful focus that this can provide for all members of a school community in a concerted effort to achieve these Impacts and a desire to know that they have through real evidence.

    The IOI model is really quite simple. I use it with schools to help bring the lofty ambitions of Missions and Visions down to a level that can actually be engaged with by teachers and demonstrated by students. I also use it as a way to guide the development of aligned strategic actions and products, the Inputs and Outputs, needed to achieve these Impacts. Finally, evaluation of evidence of Impact is the best way that I know for a school to demonstrate achievement of Mission and the correlation between the Inputs and Outputs undertaken and the realization of their desired learning Impacts.

    In short, I use the framework to backwards design for strategic design/planning and to develop forwards implementation actions (as far as I know, time moves forward in schools).


    Copyright Greg Curtis, 2018

    It may seem like a qualitative difference between traditional Mission and Vision statements and desired Impacts. They’re all just words, aren’t they?  But, when coupled with a commitment to focusing curriculum design, assessment design, grading and reporting on providing evidence of achievement of Impacts through the processes and products of student learning, the shift can be powerful.

    Try asking yourself these questions: “What are our highest learning goals to help prepare our students for their future?  What do these look like? “How will you know that they are being realized?”  This exploration may just help to start your organization down a powerful road of transformation.

    ____________________________

    Greg Curtis
    Contact the author at greg@gregcurtis-consulting.ca
    Copyright  2018 Greg Curtis


    This blog was originally posted 15 January 2018

  • 31 Dec 2019 14:02 | Anonymous

    "Culture eats strategy for breakfast" according to Peter Senge. While we may intuitively sense the truth of this, our actions tend to reflect a classic knowing-doing gap. Instead of spending our  time, energy and intelligence on the slow, steady construction of a school learning culture shared by students, parents, leaders, governors, teachers, we feel compelled to act on the next project...developing a new this, tweaking an old that...and then we wonder why our work never has the learning impact we hoped. Initiatives fail, leaders move on, teachers develop initiative fatigue...because the underlying culture never shifted.

    But things are changing. Schools in the CGC community are re-thinking...and starting from scratch. They're slowing things down and engaging their faculties and communities in a new beginning...shaped by arguably the two most important features of any culture: shared values and a common language..informed by the Learning Principles and Learning Definitions of the CGC.

    One example is the video below, from Lincoln School, Buenos Aires, with others to follow. It's a privilege to be collaborating with these innovative schools and seeing the sustained impact of putting culture first.

    Watch the Video below.


    This was originally posted 28 August 2017

  • 31 Dec 2019 13:00 | Anonymous


    Within the CGC, we see schools as evolving ecosystems, mutually interdependent living organisms where every stakeholder group plays a vital role in maintaining the health of the community. When it comes to powerful, engaging learning conversations, perhaps the most under-recognised group is the PTA, those willing volunteers who are constantly working to build community.

    At the International School of Havana, in September, we set out to change all that. The entire leadership team joined the PTA leaders and the volunteer Room Parents for an interactive workshop on the vital contributions that parent volunteers bring to a school. We told our stories, developed shared principles and mapped out “who does what?” in a great school.

    The role of the PTA in relationship-building, fostering genuine communication, friend-raising and community-building was recognised and celebrated. We looked at how the PTA and the Leadership Team can collaborate to support families optimally at every stage of their experience with the school, from initial attraction to eventual transition into a pro-active alumni community.

    For all concerned, this engaging PTA/Leadership learning conversation was a first, but, as everyone agreed, not the last. Great schools reach across traditional boundaries and talk openly, honestly, frequently to all learning stakeholders. An active, positive PTA has a vital role in creating and sustaining a great school. The International School of Havana is mapping its path to greatness…and making sure everyone is joining in the journey.

    This was originally posted 3 May 2017

The Common Ground Collaborative
Rue Montagne de l'Oratoire 28, Bte 46
1000 Brussels, Belgium

info @ commongroundcollaborative.org


© 2020 Common Ground Collaborative

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software