Informal Support for Integrative Thinking - A Different Kind of PD

On Tuesday February 4 the HWDSB Integrative Thinking Initiative had its first informal support meeting. Part of the shift we are trying to make with this project is developing a professional Collaborative Culture as described in In Conversation: Leading the Instructional Core:

Fullan and Hargreaves (1991), in What’s Worth Fighting for: Working Together for Your School describe three noncollaborative cultures: 

1. Balkanization – separate and competing groups seek power and influence for their own ends.
2. Comfortable Collaboration – staff stay out of deeper, more extended relationships that
could foster problem-solving, exchange of craft knowledge and professional support.
3. Contrived Congeniality – characterized by a set of formal, specific, bureaucratic procedures
to increase the attention being given to joint planning, consultation and other forms of working together.

These noncollaborative cultures do not encourage the level of professional interaction, collegiality and pressure that supports school improvement. Collaborative Cultures, in contrast, are not balkanized, simply congenial, or only structures of shared work. Instead they are cultures that support deeper, richer professional exchange.

Because the Integrative Thinking Initiative is just getting started, we were not a large group, perhaps 10. What was interesting though was the make-up of the group: Teachers, a Principal, a Vice-Principal, Student Success Coaches, a Consultant and a Superintendent. We sat around a table and discussed Integrative Thinking from the perspectives of those working directly with students, those helping teachers develop Integrative Thinking curriculum and those at the board level who bring the larger board vision to the work we are doing. 

This was a conversation where I didn't feel the "hierarchy". There was a time when teachers would never have felt comfortable sharing their challenges understanding and implementing a new practice directly with  a Superintendent for fear of being judged inadequate. To be moving beyond that is refreshing and useful. 

Teachers brought ideas for lessons they are developing and results from initial attempts at Opposable Models and Causal Modeling as well as questions. 

Things we discussed:

1. Why we build extreme models.

2. When building models, being very conscious of describing the models and not attaching value judgements or perceived benefits to the models.

3. The difference between debating, which places people into conflict and Integrative Thinking, which is solution focused.

4. Suggestions on how to improve lesson ideas.

5. Clarification on mental models.

6.  Clarification on why we build models.

7. Causal modeling. 

8. Conflict - students need to recognize differences between bullying and conflict.  

The environment was relaxed and helpful. I'm looking forward to more of this!