CC02 PERFORMANCE TASK ASSIGNMENTThis assessment has three-pa.docx

CC02 PERFORMANCE TASK ASSIGNMENT
This assessment has three-parts. Click each of the items below
to complete this assessment.Part I: Co-Teaching,
Communication, and Collaboration
Using Document #1: Observation Report of a Co-Teaching
Classroom, answer the following questions (two to three pages):
1. What is at least one benefit of using co-teaching strategies in
the early childhood classroom?
2. What two co-teaching strategies would be useful for the
teachers in the observation report to use? Why did you choose
the strategies, and how can the teachers use them to make their
co-teaching relationship more effective?
3. What is one piece of feedback you would provide for each of
the two teachers in the observation report regarding
communicating and collaborating more effectively?
4. Describe a specific strategy for building communication and
collaboration skills in the co-teaching setting. Include a
rationale for choosing this strategy.Part II: In-Service
Presentation: Communication and Collaboration
Based on Document #1: Observation Report of a Co-Teaching
Classroom and the information provided in Barrera and
Kramer’s “Cultural Competency as Skilled Dialogue,” create an
in-service presentation on effective communication and
collaboration techniques, incorporating the information
provided in the scenario as well as from the professional
knowledge base. Part II of this assessment is an oral
presentation that is 5-7 minutes in length and accompanied by
7-10 PowerPoint slides. The presentation must include:
1. An overview of at least three effective respectful, reciprocal,
and responsive communication and collaboration strategies, and
a rationale for why you chose the strategies.
2. An explanation of the benefits of applying respectful,

reciprocal, and responsive strategies when communicating with
colleagues and other professionals.
3. An explanation of at least one strategy for resolving conflict
in the workplace. Include examples relevant to the early
childhood professionals in the scenario.
If you are unfamiliar with how to add audio to a PowerPoint
presentation, please use this tutorialPart III: PLC Plan
Submit a description of the PLC plan you will create to improve
school readiness at the center. Base your PLC plan
on Document #2: Preschool Staff Meeting Minutes, Document
#3: Editorial on the Implementation of a PLC, and the
information provided in “ What is a Professional Learning
Community? ” by Richard DuFour. Your response should be
three to four pages in length. Your description should include:
1. The visions and three measurable goals of the PLC.
2. Clearly defined roles and responsibilities of administrators
and teachers.
3. How PLC teams will be structured, a protocol for meetings,
and an explanation of how evidence-based decision making will
guide the PLC.
4. The benefits of the PLC you have planned. In your
explanation of the benefits of the PLC, address the concerns
from the newspaper article in Document #3: Editorial on the
Implementation of a PLC.
Document 1: Observation Report of a Co-Teaching Classroom
Co-Teaching Observation Report
Teacher 1: Corrine Hester
Teacher 2: Elliot Harden
Grade Level: Preschool
Observer: Joann Glover
Date and Time: 9:00am –10:00am on February 13th
Co-Teaching Strategies (Select All Observed):

|_|One Teach, One Observe |_|Station Teaching
|_|Parallel Teaching
|_|Alternative Teaching |_|Team Teaching
|X|One Teach, One Assist
Observed
Somewhat Evident
Not Observed
Both teachers’ names are on the classroom board and the door
to the classroom.
X
There is an equal amount of space in classroom for both
teachers.
X
Both teachers are present in the classroom from the beginning
to the end of class.
X
Both teachers work with all of the students (provide feedback,
clarify ideas, etc.).
X
The students ask an equal number of questions of both teachers.
X
The students are engaged and participating in class.
X

Both teachers use multiple co-teaching strategies.
X
NOTES or COMMENTS:
Ms. Hester was not present in the classroom when I arrived; she
came in around 9:15am.
Mr. Harden instructed, while Ms. Hester assisted. They
remained in these roles for the entirety of the class; it would
have been beneficial to see them switch roles.
The students were working on identifying letters of the
alphabet. They directed their questions to Mr. Harden.
Ms. Hester worked with individual students, but did not engage
with the entire class at any point. Mr. Harden did not circulate
among the students, but remained at the front of the class.
I would have liked to see both teachers engaged more equally
with the students and to have shared more of the instruction.
When I followed up with each teacher individually, I learned
that Ms. Hester had not been involved in the lesson planning for
this particular class, citing a scheduling conflict. Mr. Harden
mentioned that he felt that Ms. Hester was not interested in
instructing the entire class; she had never outright expressed a
desire to lead the class.
Ms. Hester expressed frustration about Mr. Harden’s
availability for co-planning, which was limited as a result of his
family obligations in the afternoons. When they are able meet
and plan lessons together, she feels that she is unable to
contribute at an equal level.
I would suggest that both Mr. Harden and Ms. Hester attend a
training session on co-teaching and collaboration, as neither is
familiar with co-teaching and different co-teaching strategies.
©2014 Walden University 1

Top of Form
Skip to Main Content
☰
Accessibility Information and TipsSearch Thoreau @ Walden
University Library
· Select a Field (optional)
· AND
Select a Field (optional)
· AND
Select a Field (optional)
Add RowRemove Row
· Basic Search
· Advanced Search
· Search History
· Result List
· Refine Search
· 1 of 1
Title:Cultural competency as skilled dialogue
Authors:
Barrera, IsauraCorso, Robert M.
Source:
Topics in Early Childhood Special Education. Summer, 2002,
Vol. 22 Issue 2, p103, 11 p.
Publisher Information:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Publication Year:
2002
Subject Terms:
Multiculturalism -- Social aspectsEarly childhood education --
ResearchSpecial education -- Research
Language:
English
ISSN:
0271-1214
Rights:

Copyright 2002 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
Accession Number:
edsgcl.102909990
Database:
Gale Academic OneFile Select
Choose Language‫ايزيلجنإلا‬/‫زيبرعإلا‬английски
език‫ي‬български英英‫ي‬英英英英英英‫ي‬英英英英angličtina‫ي‬češtinaEngels
k‫ي‬danskEngels‫ي‬NederlandsAnglais‫ي‬FrançaisEnglisch‫ي‬DeutschΑγγ
λικά‫ي‬ΕλληνικάEnglish‫ي‬Hausa‫תירבנאيילגנא‬英英英英英英英英英‫ي‬英英英
英英angol/magyarInggris/bahasa
IndonesiaInglese/Italiano英語/日本語영어/한국가Engelsk‫ي‬Norsk‫زبلعإلا‬
‫ی‬/‫یيراف‬angielski‫ي‬polskiInglés‫ي‬PortuguêsEnglish‫ي‬PashtoEngleză‫ي‬r
omânăАнглийский‫ي‬РусскийInglés‫ي‬EspañolEnglish‫ي‬SerbianAngl
eški‫ي‬SlovenskiAngličtina‫ي‬SlovenčinaEngelska‫ي‬svenska英英英英英
ษ/ไ ทย İngilizce‫ي‬TürkАнглійська‫ي‬Українська‫ودفزيیزیفگنز‬
CULTURAL COMPETENCY AS SKILLED DIALOGUE
Contents
1. CULTURAL DIVERSITY AS A RELATIONAL AND
CONTEXT-EMBEDDED REALITY
2. UNDERSTANDING CULTURE
3. CULTURAL COMPETENCE AS SKILLED DIALOGUE
4. Characteristic Qualities of Skilled Dialogue
5. DEVELOPING SKILLED DIALOGUE
6. Anchored Understanding of Diversity
7. 3rd Space
8. USING SKILLED DIALOGUE
9. Strategies Associated with Anchored Understanding
10. Strategies Associated with 3rd Space
11. Conclusions
12. AUTHORS' NOTE
13. NOTES
14. TABLE 1. Strategies for Anchoring Understanding of
Diversity
15. TABLE 2. Strategies for Creating 3rd Space Options
16. REFERENCESFull Text

Listen American Accent Australian Accent British
Accent
There is a continuing need to competently serve children and
families from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds. This
article describes Skilled Dialogue, an approach to cultural
competency developed by the first author in response to the
challenges posed by cultural linguistic diversity. Skilled
Dialogue focuses on cultural competency as the ability to craft
respectful, reciprocal, and responsive interactions across
diverse cultural parameters. The authors discuss key beliefs
about cultural diversity and culture that provide the foundation
of this approach, as well as the characteristics, component
skills, and related strategies of Skilled Dialogue. Concrete
suggestions are offered for engaging in the process of Skilled
Dialogue as an approach to cultural competency.
There is a clear and growing need for early childhood special
education practitioners to develop effective strategies for
serving children and families whose cultural and linguistic
backgrounds are different from their own. This article describes
Skilled Dialogue, an approach developed by the first author in
response to the challenges posed by cultural diversity in early
childhood settings. Its specific form is based on action research
over the past 10 years, during which its components were
piloted with early childhood practitioners in various
professional development and onsite contexts.
Three beliefs ground the Skilled Dialogue approach. The first
belief is that diversity is a relational and context-embedded
reality. The second belief is that understanding the dynamics of
culture is a prerequisite to appropriately addressing the
challenges posed by cultural diversity. Finally, a core belief is
that the key to cultural competence lies more in our ability to
craft respectful, reciprocal, and responsive interactions, both
verbal and nonverbal, across diverse cultural parameters than in
the breadth of our knowledge about other cultures. Each of
these beliefs is discussed below, followed by a detailed
description of Skilled Dialogue and specific strategies for using

it in early childhood settings.
CULTURAL DIVERSITY AS A RELATIONAL AND
CONTEXT-EMBEDDED REALITY
A brief scenario involving Anna and Doris, two mothers who
are each breastfeeding a child past the age of 12 months,
illustrates our discussion of cultural diversity as a relational
context-embedded reality. Anna is following practices common
in her community and cultural templates she observed and
learned as a child. All credible persons around her value "late"
breastfeeding as normative and desirable. Furthermore, Anna
sees other mothers around her following the same practice.
Anna was breastfed until she was 2 years old.
Doris, the second mother in this scenario, is also breastfeeding
her 18-month-old child. In Doris' case, however, the behavior
stems from a more conscious choice. She belongs to the La
Leche League. Doris does not see many of her family or friends
doing the same thing, although she does see other mothers who
are in La Leche League breastfeeding their older children.
However, she is aware of many "experts," including her own
relatives, who would disagree with her practice. Doris was not
breastfed past 6 months of age.
Early childhood practitioners working with these mothers face
distinct challenges, especially if it is their belief that continuing
breastfeeding will interfere with achieving age-appropriate self-
feeding skills. For Anna, the decrease or cessation of
breastfeeding carries an entirely different meaning than for
Doris. Even though both mothers might see such cessation
negatively, Anna has little or no framework for understanding it
as other than "not normal." To change her behavior would mean
going against all she has believed and experienced since
childhood, as well as risking almost certain censure from her
family and community. Doris, on the other hand, does have a
framework for understanding the early cessation of
breastfeeding, although not necessarily one that she values
highly. She might even have access to specific literature

supporting an early shift to bottle feeding. Doris also knows
other moms who do not breastfeed their older infants. If Doris
changed her behavior, it would mean going against her best
beliefs, but it would probably not challenge her fundamental
worldview to the same degree as it would for Anna and would,
in all likelihood, carry a much smaller risk of censure from
family and community.
This vignette illustrates the point that primary differences
between persons from different cultures lie not only in
differences in behaviors but also in the meaning associated with
those behaviors (i.e., in their context) and, consequently, in the
risk associated with changing them (Landrine, 1995; see Note
1). Assuming there is a valid reason for encouraging a
behavioral change in the first place, the challenge to early
childhood special education (ECSE) practitioners lies in
understanding both the "meaning" the and the "risk" as
accurately as they can within given contexts.
Cultural diversity is a term used to identify differences, such as
those just described, that are attributed to cultural templates.
Differences between persons may, of course, be perceived and
explained through a variety of lenses, such as personality,
trauma experiences, gender, and personal history. Culture is
only one of several lenses through which one can look in
seeking to explain behavior. The focus on culture in this article
is an artifact of the authors' purpose and the constraints of time
and length. It is not intended to discount or devalue other
sources of diversity.
ECSE literature tends to identify only some populations as
culturally diverse (Barrera & Corso, 2000), regardless of their
context. Skilled Dialogue, on the other hand, assumes that
cultural diversity is a relational reality. That is, diversity is
contextual and does not exist as a static quality within
individuals, as does ethnicity, for example. It is relatively
accurate to say that someone is Hispanic regardless of context.
It is not equally accurate to say that same person is culturally
diverse without knowing the social and cultural environment(s)

in which he or she lives. All of us are diverse in relation to
some people and some settings. At the same time, it is also true
that all of us are not diverse in relation to some people and
some settings.
A second assumption on which Skilled Dialogue is based is that
cultural diversity is a positive quality that is never problematic
in and of itself. It is the responses given to that diversity by
individuals and institutions that carry negative or positive
consequences. For example, having little or no proficiency in
English in a setting where only English is spoken is not, in and
of itself, a problem. Limited proficiency in English only
becomes problematic when no accommodations are made for
that reality (e.g., when no one offers to translate or to find
someone else to translate; when no one takes time to teach
English or learn the other language; when no one seeks
alternative means of communication). It is only within a social
environment where individuals are truly respected and valued,
no matter how different or similar they are to others, that
diversity can achieve its full potential as a strength and
resource.
UNDERSTANDING CULTURE
Responding appropriately to cultural diversity requires that we
first place it in context as an artifact of culture itself. To
accomplish that, we need to understand what culture is and how
it functions. Culture is a pervasive and dynamic process that
influences every aspect of how we perceive and interact with
others. It includes the beliefs, language(s), and behaviors valued
in a community (e.g., roles and rules for interacting with
strangers). All cultures structure the transmission of these
values and social mores from one generation to another (Polk,
1994). Children, for example, are socialized into the language,
roles, and rules valued in their homes as a means of providing
them with the tools for becoming successful participants in their
family and community. Values, perceptions, and beliefs are
transmitted from one generation to another, implicitly through

modeling, as well as explicitly through verbal messages such as,
"This is good"; "This is not good." This process is called
enculturation (Damon, 1987; Hollins, 1996).
A family's template for promoting development and learning is
rooted in what Moll and Greenberg (1990) referred to as
cultural funds of knowledge, a concept analogous to cultural
capital (e.g., Lubeck, 1994), which refers to the depth and
breadth of funds of knowledge to which one has access. Moll
and Greenberg (1990) defined funds of knowledge as an
"operations manual of essential information and strategies
households need to maintain their well-being" (p. 323). These
"operations manuals" or "strategic bodies of essential
information" are contained within and transmitted through a
community's culture. Some might even say that culture is
comprised of a set of such funds of knowledge transmitted
across generations.
Knowing how to greet adults who are not family members, for
example, requires a specific cultural fund of knowledge. The
content of this fund differs across cultures. In some cultures,
children will be taught to remain silent as a sign of respect. In
other cultures, children will be expected to step up, say "hello,"
and shake hands when introduced. All settings call for different
knowledge and skills to a greater or lesser degree. It is the
degree of continuity or discontinuity between known and
unknown that becomes a critical factor in relation to cultural
diversity.
Once this aspect of culture is deeply understood, different
behaviors and beliefs can be understood in their own context
and not just in comparison to a selected culture. Consider, for
example, the behavior of not asking direct questions. Examined
outside its own context, it becomes a "diverse" behavior, an
isolated behavior judged only in comparison to other cultural
contexts. It may be viewed as somehow more or less effective
than asking direct questions, a more valued behavior in Euro-
American Normative Culture (ENC; see Note 2). Examined as a
behavior grounded in its own cultural context, however,

avoiding direct questions becomes only one of an
interconnected cluster of behaviors developed by a community
to most effectively meet particular goals. It can then be
understood as a strategy that functions as well within its context
as any alternative developed by other communities. From this
perspective it becomes easier to understand how changing
individual behaviors without attention to their context risks the
coherence of related behaviors, as well as individuals' sense of
self and power. Asking parents who speak only a little English
to use only English with their child, for example, limits their
ability to tell the stories or sing the lullabies they learned as
children. This limitation can sabotage the desired goal of
language development and adversely affect family relationships
and socio-emotional development. Only when diverse skills and
knowledge are accurately perceived as what they truly are--
valued and deeply rooted expressions of self and community--
can differences be respected without sacrificing connections.
CULTURAL COMPETENCE AS SKILLED DIALOGUE
The term cultural competence or cultural competency is
typically used in reference to the knowledge and skill necessary
for facilitating communication and skill acquisition across
cultures (e.g., Lynch & Hanson, 1992). It has, however, not
always been positively received. Nevertheless, for want of a
better term, it is chosen by the authors to refer to "the ability..,
to respond optimally to all children and families [in ways that
acknowledge]... both the richness and the limitations of the
sociocultural contexts in which children and families, as well as
practitioners... may be operating" (Barrera & Kramer, 1997, p.
217).
Common approaches to cultural competency emphasize one key
aspect of cross-cultural communication and learning: the need
for information about (i.e., "knowing about") others (e.g.,
Lynch & Hanson, 1992). Although such information is both
useful and necessary, it is not always sufficient. No matter how
thorough or precise, it may not match individual families' more

dynamic experiences as members of those cultures. In addition,
ECSE practitioners can find it overwhelming and unrealistic to
be familiar with cultural parameters for all the persons/ children
with whom they are asked to interact, especially when these
children and families participate in multiple cultures. Even with
this information, practitioners may remain unable to respond to
the question, "What do we do now, in this specific and concrete
situation with these particular persons/children?"
Skilled Dialogue, designed to augment and balance knowledge-
based perspectives, offers a relational approach to cultural
competency. Within this approach, the crafting of respectful,
reciprocal, and responsive relationships is understood to be the
true measure of cultural competency. A discussion of Skilled
Dialogue's characteristic qualities and component skills furthers
defines its nature as a tool for achieving cultural
competence.Characteristic Qualities of Skilled Dialogue
Within the Skilled Dialogue approach, the absence or presence
of three qualities--respect, reciprocity, and responsiveness--is
key to determining whether interactions are skilled or unskilled
(Barrera & Kramer, 1996). The following anecdote provides a
practical context for the discussion of each of these qualities.
Betsy, an early interventionist, poses the following question:
How can I be culturally responsive when I go into the homes of
families from cultures that make sharp distinctions between
parents and "experts?" Take Karen, for example; she's a single
mother from Puerto Rico whom I see weekly. When I ask her to
tell me what she'd like for Maya, her child, or when I ask her to
work with Maya, she tells me that I am the "expert" and that I
should tell her what needs to be done. Sometimes she'll even go
so far as to leave me alone with Maya. I know that Karen cares
about Maya and is just expressing her respect for my
professional skills, but how can I involve her more actively in
Maya's activities while I am there?
Respect. Respect is the hallmark quality of Skilled Dialogue. As
used in this context, respect refers to an awareness and
acknowledgment of boundaries between persons. Boundaries are

markers that both connect and distinguish us from others. They
identify the parameters of the spaces that we choose to occupy.
Physical boundaries delineate the physical space around us;
when entered without our permission, we feel disturbed or even
violated. When acknowledged and entered with our permission,
they support trust and connection. Emotional boundaries
identify parameters of relatedness; they define when words and
actions convey insult or praise. Cognitive boundaries determine
what we believe to be true. When these are crossed, we may not
understand what is said, or we may feel confused and angry.
When validated, we tend to feel a greater sense of confidence
and competence. Spiritual boundaries are about our connection
with those aspects of the universe larger than we are (e.g., God,
Spirit, Energy, Self). When these boundaries are crossed, we
may feel lost or somehow less well defined. The boundaries that
we hold reflect our basic assumptions about others, the world
around us, and ourselves. These assumptions lie at the core of
the meanings that we attach to our actions and our words.
Awareness and acknowledgment of boundaries different from
our own can be problematic when it challenges our own
assumptions. Once differences are identified, it may seem as if
we will no longer be able to maintain connections. Yet, what
truly divides or connects are the meanings we attach to
distinctions, not the distinctions themselves.
More specifically to ECSE, how can respect for diverse
boundaries be communicated in situations such as that described
in the anecdote about Betsy and Karen? Respectful
communication requires remembering that neither Betsy nor
Karen's truths define the whole of reality; there are many more
aspects to who they each are and to the roles they choose to
play in relation to Maya. Respecting a mother who, like Karen,
leaves the room and leaves the practitioner alone means both
acknowledging that her current experience of reality casts
practitioners in the "expert" role and that she has the same right
to that experience of reality as Betsy does to her perceptions.
This acceptance establishes the foundation for Skilled Dialogue.

It does not, however, mean that either Betsy or Karen need to
accept the status quo and seek no further change. It only means
that there is now a willingness to (a) acknowledge differing
perceptions and boundaries and (b) suspend the need to
immediately change them to match.
Reciprocity. Reciprocity, a second quality necessary to Skilled
Dialogue, builds on respect. Harry, Kalyanpur, and Day (1999)
addressed this quality, giving numerous examples of its
development. Reciprocity seeks to balance power between
persons in dialogue. At its core is the recognition that each
person in an interaction is equally powerful. Reciprocity in this
sense distinguishes between the common understanding of
power as expertise and authority and the less common
understanding of power as capacity or capability. This
understanding is reflected in the Spanish word poder, which is
used both as a noun meaning "power" and a verb meaning "to be
able," as in "yo puedo" ("I can").
Reciprocity does not require denying that one person has more
expertise or knowledge than another in particular areas or that
one person may have more institutionalized authority (e.g., a
social worker with the authority to remove children from their
home). What reciprocity does require is acknowledging and
trusting that the experiences and perceptions of every person in
an interaction are of equal value to that interaction. Reciprocal
interactions allow equal opportunity to contribute and make
choices. The recognition that one point of view need not
dominate or exclude a diverse point of view, and the consequent
support of free choice over forced "either-or" choice, are two
important aspects of reciprocal interactions.
When differences are acknowledged as potential contributions,
no sense of debt is incurred by any of the persons involved; no
one is solely "giver" or "receiver" (Dunst, Trivette, & Deal,
1988). Entering into interactions only to give--whether
knowledge, support, direction, or something else--with no
acknowledgement of what others can contribute, inhibits not
only what we might receive but also the full potential of what

we seek to give. In reciprocal relationships everyone has
something to offer that enriches not only the persons involved
but also the outcome of their interactions. Every interaction
becomes about both giving and receiving.
Returning to our anecdote of Betsy, the early childhood
practitioner who wants Karen to be more involved, how might
reciprocity between these two be established? Respect yields a
simple nonjudgmental acknowledgment that diverse
perspectives are present. This acknowledgment suspends the
need to impose one experience of reality on another (i.e., to
push Karen to become engaged in the ways that Betsy values or,
conversely, to acquiesce and offer no options for change) and
sets the stage for reciprocity. Reciprocity requires
acknowledgment of Karen's capacity to contribute in this
particular situation and curiosity about how she is currently
participating (e.g., trusting Betsy's expertise; allowing time and
space for Betsy's agenda; listening). These can then lead to
recognizing Karen's capacity to participate in similar inter
actions with her child at other times and in other settings.
Eventually, to establish reciprocity, Betsy must reach the
understanding that Karen is already equally, if not more,
involved with this child in a variety of ways. This
understanding then provides a context for finding ways to
respond to the differences in perceptions between herself and
Karen, as well as to what Karen and Maya need.
Responsiveness. If respect is about recognizing different
boundaries, and reciprocity is about acknowledging that every
person has something of value to contribute, then
responsiveness is about where we go from there. Being
responsive "requires... an openness to allowing [others] to
uncover who they are rather than shaping them into who we
want or need them to be" (Freedman & Combs, 1996, p. 281).
Responsiveness is about turning all our assumptions into lightly
held hypotheses (e.g., saying "I wonder if" and "Maybe" instead
of "I know" and "I'm sure"). To be responsive is to allow
ourselves to entertain a mystery: Who is this other person,

really? We see this or that and we experience thus and so, but
who are they really? If we seek only closure and forget mystery,
we can all too easily confine children to the "boxes" of their
diagnoses, and families to the circles of our own categories and
labels. We reduce them to a singular identity (e.g., the child
with ADHD, or the resistant mother) and are no longer being
responsive to them--only to our ideas about them. Remembering
mystery requires that we attend to children and families "with
focused attention, patience and curiosity" (Freedman & Combs,
1996, p. 44).
In this sense, being responsive is about being willing to not
know for sure, to not know exactly what to do or what to say.
Remen (2000) wrote, "Knowing where we are going encourages
us to stop seeing and hearing and allows us to fall asleep...
[such knowing allows] a part of [us] to rush ahead to [our
destination] the moment [we] see it" (p. 289). This is,
unfortunately, all too apt a description of what can happen as
we present families with all our diagnostic findings and
recommendations for intervention options. Once we assess a
child, it is all too easy to "rush ahead" to our conclusions about
what needs to be done. Responding and responsiveness are not
necessarily the same. Responsiveness requires leaving room for
the unexpected and the unpredictable. Maybe this child will be
different from all others; maybe he or she will be able to do X.
Maybe this family will be much more resourceful than we can
foresee; maybe they will be able to support their child in ways
we can only imagine.
Being responsive is particularly important in culturally diverse
situations because these situations, in their very diversity,
challenge us to recognize that a person is always more than, and
perhaps even radically different from, our ideas about who they
are. While we cannot al ways eliminate our preconceived ideas
and judgments (i.e., the "boxes" in which we place people and
experiences), we can, through mindful attention, refuse to
reduce reality to their limited space.
Returning once more to our anecdote about Betsy and Karen,

how might Betsy be responsive to this situation? The answer, of
course, lies in the specifics of the situation, but we can list
some possibilities. Betsy might be responsive to Karen by
• not "freezing" her idea of Karen as a passive parent, unwilling
or unable to change.
• understanding that some cultures believe in the "social
distribution of knowledge" and that necessary knowledge need
not be personally possessed because it is "available and
accessible through social networks" (Moll & Greenberg, 1990,
p. 323). Persons from these cultures may thus feel no need to
duplicate someone else's expertise or may even feel that doing
so would be disrespectful as it would usurp their contributions.
• accepting that Karen may desperately need respite time and
lessening demands until she and Betsy can identify means of
finding that time in ways that do not keep her from working
with Maya during Betsy's sessions.
• respecting Karen's perception of Betsy as an "expert" and
exploring what this means with questions such as the following:
Does Karen truly believe that she has nothing to offer or only
that what she has to offer would not be accepted or would not
be appropriate? What specific responsibilities is she assigning
Betsy with this perception? What have Karen's experiences with
other "experts" been like? In what areas does she feel confident
of her expertise? Is her withdrawal more an expression of her
fear that she might do the "wrong" thing and harm her child? Is
Betsy somehow unconsciously communicating her own need to
be the "expert ?"
• sharing with Karen all that she has to offer in this situation
and structuring sessions so that Karen can also contribute her
knowledge (e.g., having her teach Betsy how to cook the child's
favorite food as part of planned activities to elicit specific
language).
• including materials and behaviors familiar to Karen in the
session, rather than just using unfamiliar toys and routines.
These possibilities (and other similar ones) may not necessarily
"solve the problem." They will, however, gradually redefine it

and change the tenor of interactions between Betsy and Karen,
increasing the possibility of arriving at more satisfactory and
competent interactions between them.
DEVELOPING SKILLED DIALOGUE
The three qualities that characterize Skilled Dialogue are
promoted and sustained through two component skills.
Anchored understanding, the first skill, emphasizes
compassionate knowing, a deeper experiential knowing that
occurs as persons interact on a personal, face-to-face basis and
learn each others' stories as an anchor for "knowing about" (i.e.,
having information). The second skill, 3rd Space, focuses on the
creative construction of interactional space that integrates
complementary aspects of contradictions (see Figure
1).Anchored Understanding of Diversity
Anchored Understanding of Diversity refers to a compassionate
understanding of differences "anchored" both experientially and
cognitively. The experiential anchor that situates information
and makes it truly comprehensible is the knowing that stems
from face-to-face and hands-on experiences. The corollary
cognitive anchor is the belief that all behaviors have a positive
intent (i.e., that others' behaviors make as much sense as our
own).
Anchored Understanding of Diversity is intentionally particular
and reciprocal. It is designed to generate compassionate
knowledge that "arises not from standing back in order to look
at, but by active and intentional engagement in lived
experience" (Groome, 1980, p. 141). It is one thing to talk
generally about American Indians and another thing entirely to
carry out that discussion over time with individual American
Indians. Two contexts are created through such extended face-
to-face interactions. First, previously held knowledge acquires a
personal context--it becomes about someone whom we actually
know. Second, interactions create conceptual contexts within
which we can say, "Oh, so that's what it means that Navajos
have differing perceptions of time." Within these contexts,

previously held categories and assumptions can be challenged
(e.g., "I thought that religion was only a one-day-a-week thing
for Whites").
Remen (2000) told a story that further illustrates the distinction
between knowing that is experientially anchored and knowing
that remains unanchored. A young physician has an elderly
Navajo woman as her patient. She had seen the elderly woman
regularly for years, treating her for a variety of diseases. After
the Navajo woman died at the age of 96, the physician received
a call from a researcher writing a book about American Indian
medicine traditions. He had been told about a great medicine
woman. When he contacted her family he was told that this
physician had cared for their mother and "would have the
answers he needed" (p. 69). Remen recounted the physician's
reflections many years later: "I had been so busy with my
numbers and my tests. What I would give for even one hour
with her now, to ask her any of my unanswered questions... Or
simply to ask for her blessing" (p. 69).
As practitioners, we are the recipients and generators of a large
volume of information about the young children and families
with whom we work. Similar to the physician in Remen's (2000)
story, we can name particular types of delay or syndromes a
child exhibits; we can describe family dynamics and
developmental concerns; we may even be able to describe the
values associated with their culture. But, if asked to describe a
particular child or family, would our answer match the family's
answer? Could we talk about the family's hopes and dreams ?
Could we tell someone who a particular child is without
reference to developmental status or disability conditions?
Could we define what "success" or "family" meant to a
particular child and family? Our ability to answer these
questions would reflect the degree to which we possessed
Anchored Understanding of Diversity in relation to this family.
Respecting someone does not necessarily require that we admire
the behaviors they exhibit. It does require that we understand
how their behavior makes sense from their cultural, as well as

their personal perspective. Otherwise we may simply believe
that they have nothing of relevance to contribute. We may not
admire the behavior of a caregiver that sets no firm bedtime for
his or her 4year-old child. Anchoring our understanding of that
behavior, however, would first require us to become curious as
to the cognitive and emotional framework within which that
behavior makes sense to that caregiver. What is her
understanding of how the world works that underlies her intent?
Why does she perceive this behavioral option as more
appropriate than the option we might value (e.g., a set,
consistent bedtime)?
Returning again to our anecdote about Betsy and Karen, how
would Betsy know that she had achieved Anchored
Understanding of Diversity? After spending time with Karen
and following some of the suggestions given, Betsy would know
that she had achieved Anchored Understanding of Diversity
when she could in all honesty say and believe that under similar
circumstances she, too, might behave as Karen did. As long as
we can say, "I'd never do that" or "I can't believe someone
would do that" we have probably not achieved Anchored
Understanding of Diversity. These statements, as well as other
similar ones, remain less than compassionate. They implicitly
carry a judgment of one person as better or more competent than
the other and thus preclude respect, reciprocity, and
responsiveness.3rd Space
The skill of 3rd Space complements that of Anchored
Understanding of Diversity. Anchoring our understanding of
diverse perspectives leads us to find common ground. It can
also lead us to discover just how different the grounds are upon
which we stand. Betsy can, for example, anchor her
understanding of Karen's behavior and still remain convinced
that Karen needs to give up her behavior in favor of a behavior
that Betsy deems more desirable and productive. And Karen
may, in fact, come to agree. If she doesn't, however, we are left
with two apparently contradictory perspectives: Betsy's
perspective that Karen needs to become more involved with

Maya during intervention sessions and Karen's perspective that
Betsy is the expert and should be the one to work with Maya.
Anchored Understanding of Diversity can take us to a "both-
and" perspective, and sometimes that is enough. Sometimes,
however, this perspective does not take us far enough. It still
leaves us within an either--or frame. In Betsy's case, it still
leaves her wanting one set of behaviors and Karen wanting
another. How can both working with Maya and not working with
Maya be reconciled?
3rd Space is a skill and a mindset that focuses on creatively
reframing contradictions into paradoxes. As a mindset, 3rd
Space supports respectfully holding divergent and sometimes
seemingly contradictory views in one's mind at the same time,
without forcing a choice between them. ENC commonly
polarizes reality into either-or dichotomies (Hall, 1996; Stewart
& Bennett, 1991). In contrast, the skill of 3rd Space invites
practitioners to make a fundamental shift from a dualistic and
exclusive perception of reality to an integrative, inclusive
perspective that focuses on the complementary aspects of
diverse values, behaviors, and beliefs, which can lead to a 3rd
choice. For example, how can Karen's present behavior (i.e., not
staying to work with Maya) complement Betsy's goal (i.e.,
increasing parent-child interactions) so that there are more than
two choices to resolving their "contradiction?" The strategy of
3rd Space considers the richness of both perspectives and
promotes respect and reciprocity by not excluding one
perspective in order to privilege another.
3rd Space capitalizes on the potential of diversity to enrich and
expand. The following characteristics of 3rd Space give some
indication of just how it does this:
1. Reality in 3rd Space is nondichotomous; it is better described
as a spectrum than a continuum. In relation to Karen and Betsy,
this aspect of 3rd Space introduces the possibility of
conceptualizing each one's perspective in nonpolarized ways.
2. There are always at least three choices in 3rd Space. This
aspect of 3rd Space requires creatively generating alternatives

beyond the obvious (e.g., Betsy requires Karen to be present or
gives up on her expectations that she be present).
3. The whole is more than the sum of the parts. The idea that
two or more perspectives, no matter how seemingly
contradictory, can be somehow combined or integrated is a core
theme to 3rd Space. In 3rd Space, differences are understood to
be complementary rather than divisive. Boundaries can serve
both as distinctions and as points of contact that, like the poles
of a battery, generate constructive rather than destructive
tension when connected.
The following analogy further illustrates 3rd Space prior to
discussing its applications to Skilled Dialogue in early
childhood settings. Imagine actual rooms in physical space. We
can perceive this space in several ways. From a singular space
perspective, there is, literally, only one room: the one I'm in. I
believe that my room (i.e., view or perspective) is the only one
that exists, and I can neither see nor imagine other views. They
are nonexistent or totally discounted. If I am told about them, I
do not accept them as "real." Events and interactions can only
take place in "my" room.
From a dualistic space perspective, I realize that mine is not the
only room. I accept other views as real but place them outside
of my space, thereby excluding them from my room. I am, so to
speak, in one room, and persons different from me are in a
different room(s). Events and interactions can only take place in
one OR the other room (e.g., my way or your way, either this or
that, right or wrong). In dualistic space, there is no common
space. We cannot meet unless one or both of us moves: I must
leave my room (i.e., comfortable space) OR you must leave
yours OR we must both leave our rooms and go to another
"neutral" room. If I hold a "both-and" perspective, we each
remain in our separate rooms, side by side, unable to integrate
our respective rooms (i.e., perspectives).
In contrast, a 3rd Space perspective invites us to consider the
possibility that we could integrate our diverse perspectives. It
asks the question, How can we both end up in the same space

without moving? It challenges us to realize that it is the wall,
and not our respective positions, that keeps us from occupying
common space. Walls are different from boundaries. Boundaries
are markers of space and identity. They may generate diversity
"bumps," but they do not obstruct our "view" and can be
permeable when we wish them to be. Walls, on the other hand,
are opaque and impenetrable. Depending on their size and
thickness, walls exclude and result in diversity clashes or,
sometimes, outright crashes. A wall is often a boundary that has
fossilized over time, becoming hard and dense in response to
repeated assaults on it. From a 3rd Space perspective, I realize
that if we can lower or remove the wall between our rooms, we
can both be in the same room without having to move.
USING SKILLED DIALOGUE
Skilled Dialogue emerges out of the interweaving of the skills
of Anchored Understanding and 3rd Space, although it may be
useful initially to address each skill separately. Tables 1 and 2
provide concrete strategies and suggestions for engaging in the
process of developing Anchored Understanding and creating 3rd
Space (see Note 3). Additional strategies may be found in a
variety of other sources (e.g., Bruder, Anderson, Schutz, &
Caldera, 1991; Chen, Brekken, & Chan, 1997; Harry, 1997).
It is important to note that the strategies and suggestions
presented in Tables 1 and 2 are not intended to be linear or
discrete. While utilizing strategies for Anchored Understanding,
you may also be utilizing strategies that support the creation of
3rd Space.Strategies Associated with Anchored Understanding
Table 1 focuses on Anchored Understanding and lists strategies
for promoting and sustaining respect, reciprocity, and
responsiveness (i.e., engaging in Skilled Dialogue) in relation
to this skill. Strategies for building respect are founded on a
willingness to acknowledge that a variety of equally valid
perspectives exist for achieving a particular goal. These
strategies extend the opportunity to build respectful
relationships with others by asking not only, "What do I

believe?" but also, "What meaning am I attaching to another
person's behavior?" and "How are my own assumptions
affecting my interactions with others?" Several strategies for
further clarifying each other's perspectives also exist. More
detailed questions (e.g., "How would you describe what you
want at this point?") can be used to anticipate potential cultural
bumps or to help identify areas of needed information once such
bumps Occur.
A second set of strategies is associated with reciprocity. These
help concretize the intent of giving equal value to others'
perspectives. Questions such as, "How do you see my actions?"
and "What do you hear me saying/ asking?" are helpful to this
end. Another strategy associated with reciprocity is that of
recognizing others' contributions. Sample questions that can be
asked to support reciprocity from this perspective are "What
resources does this person bring to the interaction" (e.g., daily
knowledge of child's behavior; connections with community)
and "What can I learn from this person" (e.g., how to function
in settings unfamiliar to me)?
The third quality, responsiveness, addresses our ability to
communicate an understanding of others' perspectives with
empathy. Strategies associated with this quality address our
ability to reflect back to others our understanding of their
perspective, along with our ability to keep that understanding
fluid until their feedback confirms that we indeed know the
meaning(s) that particular actions have for them. These
strategies reflect the reality that responsiveness can only be
established when we are perceived to truly understand others'
perspectives.Strategies Associated with 3rd Space
3rd Space, like Anchored Understanding, is best learned through
practice. It may not be something we clearly understand until
we experience it. Table 2 lists the three characteristic qualities
of Skilled Dialogue as expressed in relation to 3rd Space and
suggests strategies for sustaining and promoting each quality.
Comments like "I see" and nonverbal cues that show interest in
another person are the foundational components that build the

respect necessary to create 3rd Space. By listening and
observing without judgment, ECSE practitioners start the
process of finding the current space of another individual.
Through this process, similarities and differences (i.e.,
boundaries) are clearly established. Finding differences,
however, can be a source of tension. Oftentimes when tension
exists, ENC practitioners state that their first reaction is to
minimize this tension. In creating 3rd Space, it is important to
stay with the tension, even when significant contradictions are
identified. Suspending judgment and delaying resolution are
critical preconditions for the emergence of 3rd Space options.
Other strategies for creating 3rd Space revolve around building
reciprocity to ensure that opportunities are developed for
equalizing power across interactions. Practitioners can use
comments or ask questions that reflect how two differing
viewpoints may be simultaneously "right" or how they may
complement each other (e.g., "Oh, I understand how that could
be" or "You know, that is really helpful to what I think needs to
happen"). A final strategy to create 3rd Space involves creating
responses that access and integrate the strengths of diverse
perspectives (e.g., tapping existing family skills, as well as
suggesting new ones). Practitioners may be able to use
analogies to elicit responses that are able to capture the
complementary aspects of multiple perspectives (e.g., the glass
is both half empty and half full). It is important that
practitioners work to find multiple "third choices" until a choice
is found that seems best to all parties.Conclusions
Serving children and families from cultural and linguistic
backgrounds diverse from their own continues to present ECSE
practitioners with significant challenges. This article describes
Skilled Dialogue--an approach to developing respectful,
reciprocal, and responsive interactions across diverse cultural
parameters. Its two component skills, Anchored Understanding
of Diversity and 3rd Space, are discussed and suggested
strategies for each are presented. The examples provided are
drawn from actual applications of these skills by the authors

and by other practitioners in professional development settings.
The use of Skilled Dialogue complements existing information
and approaches to cultural competency and has been well
received by practitioners in the arenas in which it has been
disseminated. It thus appears to have strong potential for
expanding practitioners' skill repertoire in relation to cultural
diversity. Further research into its use remains to be done to
actualize this potential to its fullest. The Skilled Dialogue
approach to cultural competency invites us to bring both
compassion and creativity to our interactions with each other.
These elements--compassion and creativity--are essential if we
are to be truly competent in the face of the complex challenges
posed by cultural diversity. Note. Adapted from Barrera, Corso,
& Macpherson (in press). Worm without walls: Cultural
competency as skilled dialogue. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing
Co. (www.brookespublishing.com). Copyright © 2003 by Paul
H. Brookes Publishing Co. All rights reserved. Used with
permission.
AUTHORS' NOTE
Grateful acknowledgement is given to the following persons
who assisted in this process: L. Kramer, C. Alivado, E.
Costello, D. Macpherson, C. VanEtten, and all the students and
practitioners who attended classes and workshops on Skilled
Dialogue.
NOTES
1. Additional examples that illustrate this point can be seen in
the video Diversity: Reconciling Differences (Gonzalez-Mena,
J., Herzog, M., & Herzog, S., 2000).
2. This term is used by Barrera, I., Corso, R. M., &
Macpherson, D. (in press) to refer to the institutionalized
cultural norms against which cultural linguistic diversity is
defined. It is a term chosen over more common terms such as
"White" or "European" in order to highlight the fact that it
refers to institutionalized cultural norms rather than to the
personalized cultural framework of particular individuals.

3. These strategies and suggestions were developed as part of
field testing done with Dr. Rosalita Mitchell and Donna
Thompson at the University of New Mexico. Their support and
contributions are gratefully acknowledged.
TABLE 1. Strategies for Anchoring Understanding of
DiversityLegend for Chart:A - Qualities that characterize
skilled dialogueB - Related strategiesA B1. Respect:
Acknowledging range and validity of diverse perspectives
Strategy 1.1: Get information about others' perspectives
*Sample questions: Could you tell me more about X?
Could you describe for me what X means to you? How
would you describe what you want at this point? Could
you give me a specific example? Strategy 1.2: Examine
your own perspective *Sample questions (to yourself):
What do I believe about persons who act in this
fashion? What meaning(s) am I attaching to the
behavior(s)? How are my assumptions affecting this
interaction/ communication?2. Reciprocity:
Establishing interactions that allow equal voices for all
perspectives (i.e., not privileging one perspective over
another) Strategy 2.1: Clarify others' understanding of
your perspective *Sample questions: How do
you see my actions? What do you hear me
saying/asking? What are your thoughts when you see
me do/say X? What will responding to my request mean
to you? Strategy 2.2: Recognize others' contributions
*Sample questions/statements What resources is X
bringing to the interaction? What can I learn from X?
What is positive about X's behavior?3. Responsiveness:
Communicating understanding of others' perspective
Strategy 3.1: Reflect understanding of others'
perspectives *Sample questions/statements: Let
me see if I understand what you mean; are you saying
that...? Can I use an analogy and see if I understand
what you are saying? Is this kind of what

you're talking about? Strategy 3.2: KEEP LISTENING
AND ASKING QUESTIONS UNTIL YOU CAN
CREDIBLY COMMUNICATE (verbally or nonverbally)
"I know what you mean."
TABLE 2. Strategies for Creating 3rd Space OptionsLegend for
Chart:A - Qualities that characterize skilled dialogueB -
Specific strategiesA B1. Respect: Stay with tension of
differing perspectives Strategy 1.1: Listen/observe
without judgment * Sample statements: "I see"
"That's interesting" Nonverbal indicators of interest or
curiosity Strategy 1.2: Identify specific contradictions
or culture bumps2. Reciprocity: Develop opportunities for
equalizing power across interactions Strategy 2.1:
Shift focus of conversation to "equalize" participation
*Sample questions/statements: Share "vulnerable"
statement such as "I'm not sure of just where to go
next" Use analogy/metaphor familiar to other, or
unfamiliar to both Strategy 2.2: Reframe contradictions
into complementary perspectives *Sample
questions/statements What if we are both right?
Suggest how others' behaviors or perspectives might
complement what you are advocating3. Responsiveness: Create
a response that integrates and accesses strengths of diverse
perspectives Strategy 3.1: Explore/create responses that
incorporate multiple perspectives *Sample
questions/statements: Use analogies (e.g., "half-
full/half-empty" glass analogy presented in text)
Come up with "third choices"; continue until you find
one that seems best to all parties.
DIAGRAM: FIGURE 1. Skilled dialogue qualities and
component skills.
REFERENCES
Barrera, I., & Corso, R. M. (2000, December). Cultural
diversity and early childhood: A critical review of literature
with implications for ECSE research, evaluation, and practice.

Research Roundtable presented at the Division of Early
Childhood National Conference, Albuquerque, NM.
Barrera, I., Corso, R. M., & Macpherson, D. (in press). Cultural
competency as skilled dialogue. Baltimore: Brookes.
Barrera, I., & Kramer, L. (1996). Research into how cultural
competency is developed: A case study. Unpublished pilot
study.
Barrera, I., & Kramer, L. (1997). From monologues to skilled
dialogues: Teaching the process of crafting culturally competent
early childhood environments. In P. J. Winton, J. A. McCollum,
& C. Catlett (Eds.), Reforming personnel preparation in early
intervention (pp. 217-252). Baltimore: Brookes.
Bruder, M. B., Anderson, R., Schutz, L., & Caldera, M. (1991).
Project profile: Niños especiales program: A culturally sensitive
early intervention model. Journal of Early Intervention, 15(3),
268-277.
Chen, D., Brekken, L. J., & Chan, S. (1997). Project CRAFT:
Culturally responsive and family focused training. Infants and
Young Children, 10(1), 61-73.
Damen, L. (1987). Culture learning: The fifth dimension in the
language classroom. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Dunst, C., Trivette, C., & Deal, A. (1988). Enabling and
empowering families. Cambridge, MA: Brookline.
Freedman, J., & Combs, G. (1996). Narrative therapy: The
social construction of preferred realities. New York: Norton.
Gonzalez-Mena, J., Herzog, M., & Herzog, S. (2000). Diversity:
Reconciling differences. Crystal Lake, IL: Magna Systems.
Groome, T. (1980). Christian religious education. San
Francisco: Harper & Row.
Hall, E. (1996). The hidden dimension. New York: Doubleday.
Harry, B. (1997). Leaning forward or bending over backwards:
Cultural reciprocity in working with families. Journal of Early
Intervention, 21 (1), 62-72.
Harry, B., Kalyanpur, M., & Day, M. (1999). Building cultural
reciprocity with families: Case studies in special education.
Baltimore: Brookes.

Hollins, E. (1996). Culture in school learning. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Landrine, H. (1995). Clinical implications of cultural
differences: The referential versus the indexical self. In N. R.
Goldberger & J. B. Veroff (Eds.), Culture and psychology (pp.
744-767). New York: New York University Press.
Lubeck, S. (1994). The politics of developmentally appropriate
practice. In B. L. Mallory & R. S. New (Eds.), Diversity and
developmentally appropriate practice (pp. 17-43). New York:
Teachers College Press.
Lynch, E., & Hansen, M. (1992). Developing cross-cultural
competence. Baltimore: Brookes.
Moll, L., & Greenberg, J. (1990). Creating zones of
possibilities: Combining social contexts for instruction. In L. C.
Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education (pp. 319-348). Cambridge,
MA: Cambridge University Press.
Polk, C. (1994). Therapeutic work with African-American
families. Zero to three, 15(2), 9-11. Remen, R. N. (2000). My
grandfather's blessings. New York: Riverhead.
Stewart, E. C., & Bennett, M. J. (1991). American cultural
patterns: A cross-cultural perspective. Yarmouth, ME:
Intercultural Press.
~~~~~~~~
By Isaura Barrera, University of New Mexico and Robert M.
Corso, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Copyright of Topics in Early Childhood Special Education is
the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.
· Result List
· Refine Search
· 1 of 1
Top of Page

· iPhone and Android apps
· EBSCO Connect
· Privacy Policy
· A/B Testing
· Terms of Use
· Copyright
· Cookie Policy
· Contact Us
© 2020 EBSCO Industries, Inc. All rights reserved.
Bottom of Form
Document 2: Preschool Staff Meeting Minutes
North Falls Early Childhood Center Weekly Preschool Staff
Meeting
Meeting Agenda/Minutes
Date: October 5th Time: 3:00pm –5:00pm
Facilitator: Mel Dennell Minutes Prepared by: Denise
Garnett
ATTENDANCE
Key: Bold = in attendance; Italics = absent
Mel Dennell
Lisa Dorsey
Denise Garnett
Brian Bell
Corinne Hester
Carolyn Acconci
Elliot Harden
Katharina Tosi
Patrick Dreda
Rina Szwarc
Joann Glover
Jason Kleid
ID

Topic
Discussion
Action Item
1
Welcome
Roll call was taken; agenda approved
2
Approval of Minutes
Minutes from October 5th approved
3
Planning for the Student Art Show
Art show is scheduled for 12pm on November 1st, when all the
students will be present at the center.
Drew up a list of guidelines for snacks to be sent to parents.
Discussed having students create frames for their pictures
during arts and crafts.
Mel will send out letter notifying parents about snacks.
4
Room Repairs
The far right window in Room 1 is stuck shut. (Carolyn)
The faucet in Room 2 is dripping even when handles are turned
all the way shut. (Corinne)
Denise will contact building maintenance to have repairs made
within the next week.
5
Supplies Requests
Class A needs two boxes of colored pencils and a ream of
colored paper for arts and crafts.
Class C needs a replacement scheduling pocket chart.
Requests will be submitted to office manager for purchase.
6
Classroom Issues
A student in Carolyn’s class is refusing to socialize with other
students, preferring to sit alone during arts and crafts and

playtime. She has spoken to the child’s parents, but they’re not
concerned.
Jason has a student who is disruptive during story time, which
often breaks the concentration of the rest of the students. He has
tried a variety of guidance strategies, none of which have been
effective. Corinne suggests offering the student an option of a
different activity, such as coloring or doing a puzzle.
Document 3: Editorial on the Implementation of a PLC
In an effort to improve student achievement, North Falls
Elementary School implemented a Professional Learning
Community (PLC) last summer, before the beginning of this
past academic year. For those not in the academic community, a
PLC is an education model in which a group of educators meet
regularly to discuss educational practices, reflect on their
effectiveness, and work collaboratively to enhance student
learning. Research has shown that, when implemented correctly,
PLCs can increase collaboration and boost both learning and
morale for both students and teachers.
North Falls Elementary, however, appears to be a case where
the PLC model has failed. Student achievement has remained
stagnant and staff morale has decreased rather than increased.
Teachers at the school feel that the regular group meetings and
discussions that are part of a PLC are an added burden to their
already large workload.
“They wanted us to have these meetings every week to talk
about teaching methods and student performance, but there’s
never any time for it,” says Jaiden Page, a third grade teacher at
the school. “Are we supposed to take time out of teaching or
individual lesson planning to meet in these groups? It just
doesn’t make sense.”

A related issue that has left many teachers and staff members
frustrated is the lack of physical space to conduct these
meetings.
“We meet in whatever room is available at the time,” says a
first grade teacher who spoke on conditions of anonymity.
“Sometimes the rooms are too small or there aren’t enough
seats. It’s difficult enough finding time; it’s worse wasting it
trying to find a space to do the work.”
Albert Mirza, a fifth grade teacher who supports the PLC model,
has been disappointed by the implementation. “There’s no
progress because they haven’t done it right. They think that just
putting all of us in a room together is enough. It’s basically
another weekly staff meeting; the only difference is that now we
spend our time talking about how great we each think our way
of doing teaching is."
Principal Paula Sokoloff, who spearheaded the development and
implementation of the PLC, however, believes that some
progress has been made. “There have been extremely engaging
lessons plans that have come out of these meetings which, I
think, would not have happened if our teachers weren’t asked to
collaborate and discuss their practices. Those who use student
achievement scores to suggest that this PLC has failed are
ignoring the improvements we’ve made in professional
development.”
She concedes that frustrations about time and space for the
weekly meetings are valid, but is quick to point out that there
are plans in place, for the next academic year, to set aside
dedicated space for teachers to collaborate.
That might resolve the issue of meeting space, but the real
question is whether it will boost student achievement the way
that proponents claim it will. Or is it just another interesting
educational model that works better in theory than in practice?
While Principal Sokoloff is certain that it will simply be a
matter of time, teachers at North Falls Elementary are skeptical.
Page puts it bluntly, “We’ve given this PLC idea an entire
school year, and it has done nothing but take teachers’

attentions away from what’s most important—educating our
students. It’s time for the administration to give this up and let
us get back to teaching.”
Web address
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-
leadership/may04/vol61/num08/What-Is-a-Professional-
Learning-Community%C2%A2.aspx
Use the web address above to access exact information below:
BUY THIS ISSUE
Share |
May 2004 | Volume 61 | Number 8Schools as Learning
Communities Pages 6-11
Issue Table of Contents | Read Article AbstractWhat Is a
Professional Learning Community?
Richard DuFour
The idea of improving schools by developing professional
learning communities is currently in vogue. People use this term
to describe every imaginable combination of individuals with an
interest in education—a grade-level teaching team, a school
committee, a high school department, an entire school district, a
state department of education, a national professional
organization, and so on. In fact, the term has been used so
ubiquitously that it is in danger of losing all meaning.
The professional learning community model has now reached a
critical juncture, one well known to those who have witnessed
the fate of other well-intentioned school reform efforts. In this
all-too-familiar cycle, initial enthusiasm gives way to confusion
about the fundamental concepts driving the initiative, followed
by inevitable implementation problems, the conclusion that the

reform has failed to bring about the desired results,
abandonment of the reform, and the launch of a new search for
the next promising initiative. Another reform movement has
come and gone, reinforcing the conventional education wisdom
that promises, “This too shall pass.”
The movement to develop professional learning communities
can avoid this cycle, but only if educators reflect critically on
the concept's merits. What are the “big ideas” that represent the
core principles of professional learning communities? How do
these principles guide schools' efforts to sustain the
professional learning community model until it becomes deeply
embedded in the culture of the school?
Big Idea #1: Ensuring That Students Learn
The professional learning community model flows from the
assumption that the core mission of formal education is not
simply to ensure that students are taught but to ensure that they
learn. This simple shift—from a focus on teaching to a focus on
learning—has profound implications for schools.
School mission statements that promise “learning for all” have
become a cliché. But when a school staff takes that statement
literally—when teachers view it as a pledge to ensure the
success of each student rather than as politically correct
hyperbole—profound changes begin to take place. The school
staff finds itself asking, What school characteristics and
practices have been most successful in helping all students
achieve at high levels? How could we adopt those
characteristics and practices in our own school? What
commitments would we have to make to one another to create
such a school? What indicators could we monitor to assess our
progress? When the staff has built shared knowledge and found
common ground on these questions, the school has a solid
foundation for moving forward with its improvement initiative.
As the school moves forward, every professional in the building
must engage with colleagues in the ongoing exploration of three
crucial questions that drive the work of those within a

professional learning community:
· What do we want each student to learn?
· How will we know when each student has learned it?
· How will we respond when a student experiences difficulty in
learning?
The answer to the third question separates learning communities
from traditional schools.
Here is a scenario that plays out daily in traditional schools. A
teacher teaches a unit to the best of his or her ability, but at the
conclusion of the unit some students have not mastered the
essential outcomes. On the one hand, the teacher would like to
take the time to help those students. On the other hand, the
teacher feels compelled to move forward to “cover” the course
content. If the teacher uses instructional time to assist students
who have not learned, the progress of students who have
mastered the content will suffer; if the teacher pushes on with
new concepts, the struggling students will fall farther behind.
What typically happens in this situation? Almost invariably, the
school leaves the solution to the discretion of individual
teachers, who vary widely in the ways they respond. Some
teachers conclude that the struggling students should transfer to
a less rigorous course or should be considered for special
education. Some lower their expectations by adopting less
challenging standards for subgroups of students within their
classrooms. Some look for ways to assist the students before
and after school. Some allow struggling students to fail.
When a school begins to function as a professional learning
community, however, teachers become aware of the incongruity
between their commitment to ensure learning for all students
and their lack of a coordinated strategy to respond when some
students do not learn. The staff addresses this discrepancy by
designing strategies to ensure that struggling students receive
additional time and support, no matter who their teacher is. In
addition to being systematic and schoolwide, the professional
learning community's response to students who experience
difficulty is

· Timely. The school quickly identifies students who need
additional time and support.
· Based on intervention rather than remediation. The plan
provides students with help as soon as they experience
difficulty rather than relying on summer school, retention, and
remedial courses.
· Directive. Instead of inviting students to seek additional help,
the systematic plan requires students to devote extra time and
receive additional assistance until they have mastered the
necessary concepts.
The systematic, timely, and directive intervention program
operating at Adlai Stevenson High School in Lincolnshire,
Illinois, provides an excellent example. Every three weeks,
every student receives a progress report. Within the first month
of school, new students discover that if they are not doing well
in a class, they will receive a wide array of immediate
interventions. First, the teacher, counselor, and faculty advisor
each talk with the student individually to help resolve the
problem. The school also notifies the student's parents about the
concern. In addition, the school offers the struggling student a
pass from study hall to a school tutoring center to get additional
help in the course. An older student mentor, in conjunction with
the struggling student's advisor, helps the student with
homework during the student's daily advisory period.
Any student who continues to fall short of expectations at the
end of six weeks despite these interventions is required, rather
than invited, to attend tutoring sessions during the study hall
period. Counselors begin to make weekly checks on the
struggling student's progress. If tutoring fails to bring about
improvement within the next six weeks, the student is assigned
to a daily guided study hall with 10 or fewer students. The
guided study hall supervisor communicates with classroom
teachers to learn exactly what homework each student needs to
complete and monitors the completion of that homework.
Parents attend a meeting at the school at which the student,
parents, counselor, and classroom teacher must sign a contract

clarifying what each party will do to help the student meet the
standards for the course.
Stevenson High School serves more than 4,000 students. Yet
this school has found a way to monitor each student's learning
on a timely basis and to ensure that every student who
experiences academic difficulty will receive extra time and
support for learning.
Like Stevenson, schools that are truly committed to the concept
of learning for each student will stop subjecting struggling
students to a haphazard education lottery. These schools will
guarantee that each student receives whatever additional support
he or she needs.
Big Idea #2: A Culture of Collaboration
Educators who are building a professional learning community
recognize that they must work together to achieve their
collective purpose of learning for all. Therefore, they create
structures to promote a collaborative culture.
Despite compelling evidence indicating that working
collaboratively represents best practice, teachers in many
schools continue to work in isolation. Even in schools that
endorse the idea of collaboration, the staff's willingness to
collaborate often stops at the classroom door. Some school
staffs equate the term “collaboration” with congeniality and
focus on building group camaraderie. Other staffs join forces to
develop consensus on operational procedures, such as how they
will respond to tardiness or supervise recess. Still others
organize themselves into committees to oversee different facets
of the school's operation, such as discipline, technology, and
social climate. Although each of these activities can serve a
useful purpose, none represents the kind of professional
dialogue that can transform a school into a professional learning
community.
The powerful collaboration that characterizes professional
learning communities is a systematic process in which teachers
work together to analyze and improve their classroom practice.

Teachers work in teams, engaging in an ongoing cycle of
questions that promote deep team learning. This process, in
turn, leads to higher levels of student
achievement.Collaborating for School Improvement
At Boones Mill Elementary School, a K-5 school serving 400
students in rural Franklin County, Virginia, the powerful
collaboration of grade-level teams drives the school
improvement process. The following scenario describes what
Boones Mill staff members refer to as their teaching-learning
process.
The school's five 3rd grade teachers study state and national
standards, the district curriculum guide, and student
achievement data to identify the essential knowledge and skills
that all students should learn in an upcoming language arts unit.
They also ask the 4th grade teachers what they hope students
will have mastered by the time they leave 3rd grade. On the
basis of the shared knowledge generated by this joint study, the
3rd grade team agrees on the critical outcomes that they will
make sure each student achieves during the unit.
Next, the team turns its attention to developing common
formative assessments to monitor each student's mastery of the
essential outcomes. Team members discuss the most authentic
and valid ways to assess student mastery. They set the standard
for each skill or concept that each student must achieve to be
deemed proficient. They agree on the criteria by which they will
judge the quality of student work, and they practice applying
those criteria until they can do so consistently. Finally, they
decide when they will administer the assessments.
After each teacher has examined the results of the common
formative assessment for his or her students, the team analyzes
how all 3rd graders performed. Team members identify
strengths and weaknesses in student learning and begin to
discuss how they can build on the strengths and address the
weaknesses. The entire team gains new insights into what is
working and what is not, and members discuss new strategies
that they can implement in their classrooms to raise student

achievement.
At Boones Mill, collaborative conversations happen routinely
throughout the year. Teachers use frequent formative
assessments to investigate the questions “Are students learning
what they need to learn?” and “Who needs additional time and
support to learn?” rather than relying solely on summative
assessments that ask “Which students learned what was intended
and which students did not?”
Collaborative conversations call on team members to make
public what has traditionally been private—goals, strategies,
materials, pacing, questions, concerns, and results. These
discussions give every teacher someone to turn to and talk to,
and they are explicitly structured to improve the classroom
practice of teachers—individually and collectively.
For teachers to participate in such a powerful process, the
school must ensure that everyone belongs to a team that focuses
on student learning. Each team must have time to meet during
the workday and throughout the school year. Teams must focus
their efforts on crucial questions related to learning and
generate products that reflect that focus, such as lists of
essential outcomes, different kinds of assessment, analyses of
student achievement, and strategies for improving results.
Teams must develop norms or protocols to clarify expectations
regarding roles, responsibilities, and relationships among team
members. Teams must adopt student achievement goals linked
with school and district goals.Removing Barriers to Success
For meaningful collaboration to occur, a number of things must
also stop happening. Schools must stop pretending that merely
presenting teachers with state standards or district curriculum
guides will guarantee that all students have access to a common
curriculum. Even school districts that devote tremendous time
and energy to designing the intended curriculum often pay little
attention to the implemented curriculum (what teachers actually
teach) and even less to the attained curriculum (what students
learn) (Marzano, 2003). Schools must also give teachers time to
analyze and discuss state and district curriculum documents.

More important, teacher conversations must quickly move
beyond “What are we expected to teach?” to “How will we
know when each student has learned?”
In addition, faculties must stop making excuses for failing to
collaborate. Few educators publicly assert that working in
isolation is the best strategy for improving schools. Instead,
they give reasons why it is impossible for them to work
together: “We just can't find the time.” “Not everyone on the
staff has endorsed the idea.” “We need more training in
collaboration.” But the number of schools that have created
truly collaborative cultures proves that such barriers are not
insurmountable. As Roland Barth (1991) wrote,
Are teachers and administrators willing to accept the fact that
they are part of the problem? . . . God didn't create self-
contained classrooms, 50-minute periods, and subjects taught in
isolation. We did—because we find working alone safer than
and preferable to working together. (pp. 126–127)
In the final analysis, building the collaborative culture of a
professional learning community is a question of will. A group
of staff members who are determined to work together will find
a way.
Big Idea #3: A Focus on Results
Professional learning communities judge their effectiveness on
the basis of results. Working together to improve student
achievement becomes the routine work of everyone in the
school. Every teacher team participates in an ongoing process of
identifying the current level of student achievement,
establishing a goal to improve the current level, working
together to achieve that goal, and providing periodic evidence
of progress. The focus of team goals shifts. Such goals as “We
will adopt the Junior Great Books program” or “We will create
three new labs for our science course” give way to “We will
increase the percentage of students who meet the state standard
in language arts from 83 percent to 90 percent” or “We will
reduce the failure rate in our course by 50 percent.”

Schools and teachers typically suffer from the DRIP
syndrome—Data Rich/Information Poor. The results-oriented
professional learning community not only welcomes data but
also turns data into useful and relevant information for staff.
Teachers have never suffered from a lack of data. Even a
teacher who works in isolation can easily establish the mean,
mode, median, standard deviation, and percentage of students
who demonstrated proficiency every time he or she administers
a test. However, data will become a catalyst for improved
teacher practice only if the teacher has a basis of comparison.
When teacher teams develop common formative assessments
throughout the school year, each teacher can identify how his or
her students performed on each skill compared with other
students. Individual teachers can call on their team colleagues
to help them reflect on areas of concern. Each teacher has
access to the ideas, materials, strategies, and talents of the
entire team.
Freeport Intermediate School, located 50 miles south of
Houston, Texas, attributes its success to an unrelenting focus on
results. Teachers work in collaborative teams for 90 minutes
daily to clarify the essential outcomes of their grade levels and
courses and to align those outcomes with state standards. They
develop consistent instructional calendars and administer the
same brief assessment to all students at the same grade level at
the conclusion of each instructional unit, roughly once a week.
Each quarter, the teams administer a common cumulative exam.
Each spring, the teams develop and administer practice tests for
the state exam. Each year, the teams pore over the results of the
state test, which are broken down to show every teacher how his
or her students performed on every skill and on every test item.
The teachers share their results from all of these assessments
with their colleagues, and they quickly learn when a teammate
has been particularly effective in teaching a certain skill. Team
members consciously look for successful practice and attempt to
replicate it in their own practice; they also identify areas of the
curriculum that need more attention.

Freeport Intermediate has been transformed from one of the
lowest-performing schools in the state to a national model for
academic achievement. Principal Clara Sale-Davis believes that
the crucial first step in that transformation came when the staff
began to honestly confront data on student achievement and to
work together to improve results rather than make excuses for
them.
Of course, this focus on continual improvement and results
requires educators to change traditional practices and revise
prevalent assumptions. Educators must begin to embrace data as
a useful indicator of progress. They must stop disregarding or
excusing unfavorable data and honestly confront the sometimes-
brutal facts. They must stop using averages to analyze student
performance and begin to focus on the success of each student.
Educators who focus on results must also stop limiting
improvement goals to factors outside the classroom, such as
student discipline and staff morale, and shift their attention to
goals that focus on student learning. They must stop assessing
their own effectiveness on the basis of how busy they are or
how many new initiatives they have launched and begin instead
to ask, “Have we made progress on the goals that are most
important to us?” Educators must stop working in isolation and
hoarding their ideas, materials, and strategies and begin to work
together to meet the needs of all students.
Hard Work and Commitment
Even the grandest design eventually translates into hard work.
The professional learning community model is a grand design—
a powerful new way of working together that profoundly affects
the practices of schooling. But initiating and sustaining the
concept requires hard work. It requires the school staff to focus
on learning rather than teaching, work collaboratively on
matters related to learning, and hold itself accountable for the
kind of results that fuel continual improvement.
When educators do the hard work necessary to implement these
principles, their collective ability to help all students learn will

rise. If they fail to demonstrate the discipline to initiate and
sustain this work, then their school is unlikely to become more
effective, even if those within it claim to be a professional
learning community. The rise or fall of the professional learning
community concept depends not on the merits of the concept
itself, but on the most important element in the improvement of
any school—the commitment and persistence of the educators
within it.References
Barth, R. (1991). Restructuring schools: Some questions for
teachers and principals. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(2), 123–128.
Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating
research into action. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Richard DuFour recently retired as Superintendent of Adlai
Stevenson High School in Lincolnshire, Illinois. He currently
resides in Moneta, Virginia, and may be reached at (540) 721-
4662; [email protected]. His forthcoming book is Whatever It
Takes: How a Professional Learning Community Responds
When Kids Don't Learn (National Educational Service, in
press).

CC02 PERFORMANCE TASK ASSIGNMENTThis assessment has three-pa.docx

More Related Content

Similar to CC02 PERFORMANCE TASK ASSIGNMENTThis assessment has three-pa.docx (20)

More from zebadiahsummers (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

CC02 PERFORMANCE TASK ASSIGNMENTThis assessment has three-pa.docx