The Evolving Face of Critical Friends Groups (CFGs), by Debra Laidley - EdNews, April-May 2008 - A publication of the UCLA School Management Program

The Evolving Face of Critical Friends Groups (CFGs)

by Debra Laidley, UCLA SMP Faculty

In other settings, members of school communities learned of the power of CFGs as a vehicle for highly effective professional development — a means for learning together about teaching, embedded in the work of educators at their own sites. Often, the fervor to embrace CFGs’ potential power for professional learning overshadowed the importance of educators’ voice and choice regarding CFG membership. CFG protocols became broadly used in multiple situations: accreditation processes; school-wide program quality reviews; National Board Certification processes; grade level meetings; departmental meetings; study groups and lesson study teams; benchmark testing data analyses; peer observation programs, etc. All are intensely important aspects in the growth and vitality of a school, and school leaders and teacher leaders are right on target in their desire to tap into the power of protocols to support each of these efforts.

However, the need for care becomes evident in those instances when protocols are not used well. Often, ineffective use of protocols occurs because of schools’ time constraints. Sometimes the facilitator may have had no training in the effective use of protocols. Imagine this scenario:

Three fourth grade teachers have worked together to design English Language Development lessons to enhance the growth of their English Learner students who, they have noticed, are not progressing well with the mandated reading curriculum. They fervently wish to augment the program to provide greater access for students who are struggling.

The school’s literacy coach at the school has recently participated in a protocol during one of his district-level coaches’ meetings, and he is willing to use that protocol to help the teachers share work and get feedback. They get on the agenda for the next Tuesday afternoon professional development time, where they have 90 minutes to explain the protocol to the staff, get people to participate in a fishbowl setting, engage in the protocol, and debrief the process.

On Tuesday during lunch, the literacy coach receives a note from the principal letting him know that the mandatory training on blood-borne illnesses must take place during the professional development time, so the protocol time has to be reduced to 60 minutes. The literacy coach hurriedly lets the teachers know about the time change, and gives them each a copy of the ATLAS protocol, so they can read over it before they start. One of the teachers expresses concern that this protocol doesn’t allow their team to provide much instructional context, nor does it give them a chance to share what they’ve tried so far or to state a focus question. She explains that she’s heard her friend (who is in a CFG at a different school) talk about protocols that allow for this kind of background information and focus setting. They all agree it’s too late to do anything about it, and they proceed with some trepidation to the professional development meeting.

At a school across town in the same district, here is what is happening on that same Tuesday:

The school’s instructional leadership team has just led a text-based discussion of an excerpt from the book, The Power of Protocols, (J. McDonald, et al.). The authors encourage teachers to “pause periodically in our practice to become deliberate students of our students.” The faculty members talk together about their interest in learning how to effectively and thoughtfully engage in more than just looking at student work; they want to make sure that they are learning from student work.

They talk together further, and agree that their school is not convinced that formal, traditional CFGs will work for them at this time. They have a number of teachers who are completing credentials, or have young children, and cannot meet on their own voluntary time after hours. Additionally, they cite the need to work collaboratively as a whole school as part of their plan to move out of Program Improvement (PI) status. They want to use the protocols effectively to improve their work in grade level teams and in content area focus groups. They agree to send representatives from each grade level, along with their literacy and math coaches, to a CFG Coaches Institute, where they can learn how to facilitate the protocols effectively, to meet the groups’ needs.

Their reading and discussion has helped them see that protocols serve different purposes, and they want to explore that idea further. They have a hunch that these protocols may help them figure out how to do effective work when they meet as PLCs (Professional Learning Communities). They’ve been told that they are now PLCs, but haven’t had any guidance on what being called PLCs means in terms of how they work together.

Clearly, the two schools are positioning themselves to have vastly different experiences with the use of protocols. Both schools have courageous educators who are willing to risk feeling a sense of professional discomfort in the service of their students’ learning and in their quest for high-quality, equitable learning experiences for each pupil. However, as Steve Seidel of Harvard’s Project Zero has stated, there is a need for:

…a focus on the intersection of these methods for looking at student work and explicit school reform efforts. To be sure, everyone involved longs to see improvement in our public schools. At the same time, there are real differences in how folks see the role of these practices in that larger effort. Examining student work, no matter how well done, does not constitute an adequate model of school reform. The development of various methods of examining student work is a very positive development in professional educational practice and the life of schools. It is incredibly important to pay close attention to the philosophical foundations of those practices: articulate them, examine them, discuss them, refine them as we reconsider the practices themselves.

The expansion of CFG protocols into the broader work of the school can be a tremendously positive development. The school wide effort does not displace or diminish the important role of traditional, voluntary CFGs in any way. Instead, both whole-school settings and traditional CFGs serve as teaching and learning laboratories, each capable of strengthening the ways educators work collaboratively. Both settings serve, also, as evidence of the adaptive nature of CFGs. The groups began with an emphasis on educators’ adaptive practice – the ability to learn our way into increasingly effective methods of adapting our practices to meet students’ needs. CFGs themselves are continually adapting to meet adult learners’ needs, as always, in the service of student learning.

The Evolving Face of Critical Friends Groups (CFGs) by Debra Laidley, UCLA SMP Faculty (...continued from Page 1) In other settings, members of school communities learned of the power of CFGs as a vehicle for highly effective professional development — a means for learning together about teaching, embedded in the work of educators at their own sites. Often, the fervor to embrace CFGs’ potential power for professional learning overshadowed the importance of educators’ voice and choice regarding CFG membership. CFG protocols became broadly used in multiple situations: accreditation processes; school-wide program quality reviews; National Board Certification processes; grade level meetings; departmental meetings; study groups and lesson study teams; benchmark testing data analyses; peer observation programs, etc. All are intensely important aspects in the growth and vitality of a school, and school leaders and teacher leaders are right on target in their desire to tap into the power of protocols to support each of these efforts. However, the need for care becomes evident in those instances when protocols are not used well. Often, ineffective use of protocols occurs because of schools’ time constraints. Sometimes the facilitator may have had no training in the effective use of protocols. Imagine this scenario: Three fourth grade teachers have worked together to design English Language Development lessons to enhance the growth of their English Learner students who, they have noticed, are not progressing well with the mandated reading curriculum. They fervently wish to augment the program to provide greater access for students who are struggling. The school’s literacy coach at the school has recently participated in a protocol during one of his district-level coaches’ meetings, and he is willing to use that protocol to help the teachers share work and get feedback. They get on the agenda for the next Tuesday afternoon professional development time, where they have 90 minutes to explain the protocol to the staff, get people to participate in a fishbowl setting, engage in the protocol, and debrief the process. On Tuesday during lunch, the literacy coach receives a note from the principal letting him know that the mandatory training on blood-borne illnesses must take place during the professional development time, so the protocol time has to be reduced to 60 minutes. The literacy coach hurriedly lets the teachers know about the time change, and gives them each a copy of the ATLAS protocol, so they can read over it before they start. One of the teachers expresses concern that this protocol doesn’t allow their team to provide much instructional context, nor does it give them a chance to share what they’ve tried so far or to state a focus question. She explains that she’s heard her friend (who is in a CFG at a different school) talk about protocols that allow for this kind of background information and focus setting. They all agree it’s too late to do anything about it, and they proceed with some trepidation to the professional development meeting. At a school across town in the same district, here is what is happening on that same Tuesday: The school’s instructional leadership team has just led a text-based discussion of an excerpt from the book, The Power of Protocols, (J. McDonald, et al.). The authors encourage teachers to “pause periodically in our practice to become deliberate students of our students.” The faculty members talk together about their interest in learning how to effectively and thoughtfully engage in more than just looking at student work; they want to make sure that they are learning from student work. They talk together further, and agree that their school is not convinced that formal, traditional CFGs will work for them at this time. They have a number of teachers who are completing credentials, or have young children, and cannot meet on their own voluntary time after hours. Additionally, they cite the need to work collaboratively as a whole school as part of their plan to move out of Program Improvement (PI) status. They want to use the protocols effectively to improve their work in grade level teams and in content area focus groups. They agree to send representatives from each grade level, along with their literacy and math coaches, to a *CFG Coaches Institute*, where they can learn how to facilitate the protocols effectively, to meet the groups’ needs. Their reading and discussion has helped them see that protocols serve different purposes, and they want to explore that idea further. They have a hunch that these protocols may help them figure out how to do effective work when they meet as PLCs (Professional Learning Communities). They’ve been told that they are now PLCs, but haven’t had any guidance on what being called PLCs means in terms of how they work together. Clearly, the two schools are positioning themselves to have vastly different experiences with the use of protocols. Both schools have courageous educators who are willing to risk feeling a sense of professional discomfort in the service of their students’ learning and in their quest for high-quality, equitable learning experiences for each pupil. However, as Steve Seidel of Harvard’s Project Zero has stated, there is a need for: …a focus on the intersection of these methods for looking at student work and explicit school reform efforts. To be sure, everyone involved longs to see improvement in our public schools. At the same time, there are real differences in how folks see the role of these practices in that larger effort. Examining student work, no matter how well done, does not constitute an adequate model of school reform. The development of various methods of examining student work is a very positive development in professional educational practice and the life of schools. It is incredibly important to pay close attention to the philosophical foundations of those practices: articulate them, examine them, discuss them, refine them as we reconsider the practices themselves. The expansion of CFG protocols into the broader work of the school can be a tremendously positive development. The school wide effort does not displace or diminish the important role of traditional, voluntary CFGs in any way. Instead, both whole-school settings and traditional CFGs serve as teaching and learning laboratories, each capable of strengthening the ways educators work collaboratively. Both settings serve, also, as evidence of the adaptive nature of CFGs. The groups began with an emphasis on educators’ adaptive practice – the ability to learn our way into increasingly effective methods of adapting our practices to meet students’ needs. CFGs themselves are continually adapting to meet adult learners’ needs, as always, in the service of student learning. Return to the current issue of EdNews Read archived editions of EdNews
About UCLA SMP EdNews UCLA SMP EdNews is published quarterly. If this newsletter was forwarded to you, and you would like to subscribe to it, please email the with either “HTML” or “NO HTML” in the subject line (depending on whether you prefer to receive HTML emails that look like web pages or in plain text). If you are already subscribed, but would like to change your HTML or plain text preference, please follow the same protocol above. To unsubscribe, please contact the Administrator with “REMOVE FROM LIST” in the subject line. Any email requests regarding the content of this newsletter should be addressed to the
About UCLA SMP A nonprofit school reform initiative of the Graduate School of Education & Information Studies, the UCLA School Management Program (UCLA SMP) is devoted to the sustainable transformation of public schools into learner-centered organizations where all students can achieve at high levels. UCLA SMP works with educators, building and district administrators, and community members to improve student achievement by fostering well-managed schools where professional development enhances teacher effectiveness, builds community, and results in personal transformation. Since the program was launched in 1992, UCLA SMP has worked with over 800 schools in districts throughout California.

Copyright^© 2008 Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. The contents of this newsletter may not be reproduced in whole or in part by any person or entity without expressed written permission of UCLA SMP.

Please click on the Adobe PDF icon for a printer-friendly version of EdNews.