Field Investigation: Qualities of Effective Meetings

            In my experience and observations, an effective meeting is defined by the following criteria: Prior to the meeting, priorities are considered and an agenda is made that considers all the items for discussion or decision, provides a mechanism for participants to weigh in on those items being considered, and is composed in a manner that facilitates efficiency and adherence to time management. An effective meeting seeks to begin with positivity and celebration, engaging the participants in successes that build buy-in for long term and more difficult goals.  The meeting design is focused on addressing specific goals and keeping focus on those goals while discussing. Decision making and determining appropriate courses of action are clearly incorporated into the body of the meeting as well. The conclusion of an effective meeting clearly states follow-up actions and parties responsible for completion of those actions, answering questions such as: who will do what by when? Who will communicate with whom? What will be communicated and how? What are next steps as a group? When will subsequent meetings be held? Norms for an effective meeting vary by organizational context, but all effective meetings include consistent and sustained respect for all participants, observers, and stakeholders, evident through reflective and meaningful engagement with the items presented.

Part 1: Observation and Analysis of Meetings

 The first meeting I observed was a School District of Philadelphia School Reform Commission (SRC) Action Meeting. The SRC is the governing body of the School District of Philadelphia, and the SRC website describes Action Meetings as “Monthly meetings where formal actions are taken regarding the School District by Commissioners voting on resolutions”. The meeting was highly structured to the point where most of the non-public input portions of the meeting appeared highly scripted, and extremely formal. In order for members of the public to speak and participate at SRC meetings, there are strict requirements and deadlines for registration prior to the meeting.

Decision making appeared to be done by voting on resolutions via oral roll call, but there was no apparent discussion among SRC members prior to voting. The resolution was simply read and voted upon. It leads me to question if SRC members come to the meetings with their decisions already made, or if the decision to vote can be impacted by the public speakers. I am doubtful, however, that the public speakers are influencing the SRC members. During the public input portion of the meeting, most SRC members were clearly not attending to the speakers. They were talking to each other, playing with phones, shuffling papers, and generally acting as if no one was speaking. They would occasionally glance up at the speakers, but the SRC members were disengaged from the members of the public who had signed up to speak to them. It was actually quite disrespectful.

The SRC Action Meeting met some, but not all, of my personal criteria for an effective meeting. Besides the lack of obvious reflection on the elements of the meeting, the most glaringly obvious omission was the respect for participants in the form of public speakers. Many of the speakers were completely ignored by SRC members, and unceremoniously silenced when they went over their allotted time to speak and the microphones were simply disconnected. The meeting was also extremely long, with a resolution list for voting consisting of 42 separate items. The agenda was clear and prepared in advance, and decisions were made. Overall the business element of the SRC meeting was effective, but the areas of the meeting designed to connect with stakeholders and the public were largely ineffective. The celebration of “Students of the Month” was a highlight of the meeting.

Enhancing the effectiveness of a meeting of this size would be a difficult task, but clearly the SRC needs to reflect on their interactions (or lack thereof) with their audience and stakeholders during the public speaker portion of the meeting. I would also consider holding the meeting more frequently to reduce the amount of time spent on resolutions and increase the amount of public input heard (via public speakers) on a monthly basis. I would absolutely continue to highlight the positive occurrences that have happened since the last meeting, and perhaps bring in more students to participate.

I also had opportunity to observe a grade level professional development meeting at my school (Martha Washington). Although not explicitly stated, the goal of the meeting was to convey information and present a short professional development on math strategies. The meeting was not made available prior to the meeting but given out as participants entered the meeting space. Participants did not all arrive at the same time, instead arriving one or two at a time over the span of about 10 minutes.  The meeting was scheduled to start at 10:45, which is the same time that teachers are dropping their students off at various locations throughout the building. The meeting was led in a very top-down manner- led by the principal for all agenda items. Any decision making evident during the meeting was done by the principal in response to a teacher’s question. There was little teacher input sought on the “business” items in the agenda, items involving the scheduling and administration of benchmark tests and the establishment of a PSSA Countdown timeline for instruction and test prep. Teacher participation was rich during the professional development activity, although there were clear differences in teachers’ levels of proficiency with teaching problem solving strategies. The Math Lead teacher seemed slightly disengaged, only brightening and visibly enjoying the session when she was responding to questions about pedagogy or teachers asking her for advice. The conclusion of the meeting seemed rushed and did not explicitly restate next steps and/or follow up responsibilities.

Like the SRC Action Meeting, the Martha Washington Grade Group meeting met some, but not all of the criteria for an effective meeting. There was no opportunity for participants to provide input on the agenda and it was not available beforehand. An attempt was made to begin with positivity, as the principal in her role as meeting leader asked for teachers to relate positive news. Unfortunately, only two teachers contributed to this portion. (There were 6 teachers present.) Considering as the primary goal of the meeting as the conveyance of information to the teachers, the meeting was effective using that narrow criteria. Decision making was obviously the sole responsibility of the principal and not an important element of the meeting. Follow up actions, while discussed throughout the meeting, were not listed/restated at the conclusion of the meeting with the responsible parties attached. In fact, the meeting adjourned with no follow-up duties assigned to any of the teachers for the next meeting other than to fill out and submit their class PSSA Countdown Timeline according to the principal’s specified criteria. Teacher engagement with the professional development task was largely a success although certain elements could be improved to maximize the experience for all participants. Overall, everyone involved was very respectful of each other and engaged in listening carefully to the principal’s information.

To enhance the meeting, I would have made it more collaborative, starting with the planning and agenda development. Teachers could have input on items to discuss during the meeting and even perhaps choose the order of the various math strategies being presented over the course of the year to better complement their instructional timelines and planning. Another consideration to enhance the meeting would be to allow the Math Lead to structure and guide the professional development portion of the meeting. In addition, I would make sure follow up responsibilities are clearly delineated at the end of the meeting and encourage distributed leadership so that not all follow up is the responsibility of the principal.

The third meeting I attempted to observe was a parent meeting conducted by the school climate manager with the goal of informing the parent of the nature of disciplinary actions facing her child and preparing her for the process of the school referring her child for a disciplinary hearing. The meeting had no agenda or apparent structure, and the climate manager did not come prepared with the necessary forms and information for the parent. When I began observing, the parent was very clearly frustrated and upset, and the climate manager seemed unable to address the parent’s concerns in a way that satisfied her. As the parent became increasingly upset and angry, the climate manager asked me to step in and explain the referral process and the paperwork to the parent since I am well-versed in the process and I am able to establish a rapport with parents quickly and effectively in these situations. Once I became a participant in the meeting, I was unable to observe in a meaningful way.

This meeting did not meet any of the criteria for an effective meeting, and was essentially just spinning wheels but going nowhere. The first strategy I would implement for future meetings of this nature would be to thoughtfully prepare for the meeting, starting with an informal agenda for the parent in the form of a list of the things that will be discussed. All materials and paperwork would be organized and available, with additional parent resources included as appropriate to the situation. Before discussing the behavioral incident or the disciplinary process, connect with the parent and provide positive feedback about the student and the parent’s willingness to support their child by attending the meeting. This positive start shows respect for the parent and child participating and most times engenders a spirit of cooperation. Using the informal agenda, each step would be explained to the parent with frequent checks to gauge the comfort and understanding of the parent. Finally, I would very explicitly state the school’s next steps as well as the parents.

Part 2: Leading a Self-Planned Meeting

 I planned and led a meeting for the core subject academic teachers of the middle school grade band during our common planning time. The goal of discussing the status of students involved in the various tiers of academic RTII and determining appropriate action to move students up or down tiers as appropriate, as well as discussing students presenting with academic concerns that may need to be put into one of the tiers. Although only the core subject/homeroom teachers were able to attend to the meeting, input was sought from specialist teachers and school staff such as the climate manager and counselor who interact with the middle years students but do not have common planning time. (Unfortunately, no input was received.) The agenda was developed in consultation with the grade team, as was the list of students to be discussed.  Both the agenda and the student list were distributed a few days prior to the meeting. (Both are attached, with student initials changed for privacy.) Planning was slightly difficult due to the lack of response from members of the grade team. Only two teachers provided student-specific input, and it was these same teachers who were the only active participants in the meeting. During the meeting, the agenda was followed and at the conclusion of the meeting, very clear follow up responsibilities were identified and assigned.

It was difficult to gain support for this meeting despite its agreed-upon necessity. In reflection, I feel that this stems from a frustration with the imposed structures and lack of resources available to the team. This meeting was not the first (or second) focused on this specific task. We have been meeting throughout the past year and the list has not significantly changed with the exception of more at-risk students being added. Some students have been languishing on the RTII list for years, stagnant at Tier 2. Teachers are frustrated with the lack of available research-based interventions to implement with students who exhibit greater academic needs. Right now the only research-based interventions available to regular education teachers are Achieve3000 and STMath. Both are computer-based programs used as part of the Blended Learning Model and implemented for ALL students. There is nothing additional available to the severely struggling students. A small number of eighth graders receive additional Small Group Instruction with the Special Education teacher.

Disenfranchisement with the RTII system stems primarily from the fact that the five middle years grade teachers (Math, Literacy, Science, Social Studies, and Learning Support) receive NO outside support to remediate the deficits of consistently Below Basic and below grade level students. It is up to the grade level team to create and implement additional RTII interventions without access to research based programs and with few resources beyond what they carry in their personal toolkits. Compounding the problem of students stagnating on the list is a significant backlog of Special Education Evaluations and insufficient access to a school psychologist to facilitate these evaluations. Consequently, there is little motivation to discuss the RTII process for students who, despite clearly demonstrating criteria needed to move to a higher tier, languish on “the list” due to insufficient institutional support.

As the school leader in this situation, I would start by advocating for increased hours for the school psychologist in an effort to work through the backlog of evaluations in a more timely and efficient manner. I would also investigate additional research-based interventions that meet the district’s criteria and set aside money in the upcoming year’s budget to fund additional resources. Teachers would also be encouraged to seek out research based interventions that they feel would be beneficial for students in RTII, and as a team we would also consider those interventions for purchase. Along with the purchase of intervention materials, I would set aside Professional Development funds and strongly encourage teachers to take advantage and become proficient with interventions for students in need of the most significant interventions. Our school is also fortunate enough to have a fully-released School Based Teacher Leader. As the overall instructional leader, I would direct her to provide additional support to teachers and RTII students in the form of additional daily Small Group Instruction. I would hope that by addressing the systemic issues impacting the efficacy of my meeting, progress and success would be more readily apparent and a motivating factor in teacher engagement.