Enseñanza para la comprensión y proyecto cero de la Universidad de

I began my work with the single school board in the hope that the second board would not be long in responding to my invitation to join the study. As a former principal, I also realized that there were natural entry points into the principal’s year: August, January, April and the end of June. In order that the PLT be convened and data

collection not drag out too long into the school year, I approached administrators in the designated research area early in January. I personally made contact with each principal in order to outline my research, invite them to join the PLT, and leave the Letter of Information (see Appendix E) for their consideration. I followed this introduction with an emailed Doodle Scheduler ® so that we could collectively establish the date and time of our first meeting. Rather than meeting at a school, or at an alternate venue that was available to me albeit with connections to the Mennonite community, I elected to rent a board room within a community centre that was central to most of the schools of the participating principals. I was initially concerned that my timetable for data collection would be at odds with that of the principals and the remembered ebb and flow of administrative demands. However, once the first meeting was held, the principals were

very open to meeting together in the late afternoon, after school, and even during the summer. I took this flexibility to be a sign not only of their willingness to participate, but also of their interest in the research and the importance of having an opportunity to meet together to discuss a topic that was “local” and not “system” in nature. While Skype and conference calls were offered to these administrators as alternatives in the event that meeting in person was not possible, this group always met face to face. The PLT came together several times over the course of the year as indicated by Table 2 (below)

including a meeting with a guest speaker, and a visit to another school board to meet with the principal, supervisory officer and staff of a school with a similar student demographic to those of the participants.

Date Location Participants Emergent focus of discussion/purpose of meeting

28.02.11 Rented boardroom

8 administrators

Reading through the consent form with the participants and their signing it, addressing questions, beginning discussion “What is

literacy?” 04.04. 11 Rented

boardroom

9 administrators

Transcript from last meeting shared. Discussion of cultural assumptions – of the

LGM and of the LGM of school. Policy related to EQAO 26.04.11 Mustang School library 10 administrators

Transcription from last meeting shared. Guest speaker from inside the Old Colony;

responses to questions of creating a welcoming space, policy conflicts and

language uses 12.05.11 Sabre School

library

9 administrators

Transcription from last meeting shared. Tour of school programs created to support LGM

students and parents; contributions for administrator primer

17.05.11 Hero School Tour

7 participants

Transcription of last meeting shared. Tour of LGM school in another jurisdiction. Debrief

in library of school. Discussion about possibilities in participants’ schools e.g.,

types of literature, signage

16.06.11 Boardroom 10

administrators

Transcription of last meeting shared. Debrief following LGM conference and tours of

parochial schools in area 24.08.11 Rented

Boardroom

10 administrators

Transcription of last meeting shared. Materials for constructing writing – photos, stems in dual language formats; dual language

texts from A-Z books 14.10.11 Various

schools of participating administrator

s

Transcription of last meeting, and interview transcription data where appropriate was shared. Delivery of master set of materials to

each school; discussion with principal (and often with additional teachers e.g., ESL, Literacy Coach) about suggestions for use 26.02.12 Sabres

School library

8 administrators

Discussion of future of PLT now that research concluded. Agreed by principals to continue

to meet. Set as goal a fall night for parents and children of those beginning school in

2014. 24.04.12 Sabres School library 10 administrators

Sharing of observations from research trip to Mexico to offer background on what schools

are like in Mexico – administrators made comparisons to Ontario and if/how

modifications can be made locally

Table 2: Principal Learning Team meetings

The content of the PLT meetings was shaped by the direction of the discussion, questions of the participants and sharing of narratives by the principals. Participant Aganetha described the meetings as “based on a lot of respect for each other. Obviously [we] aren’t here to learn how to change our students but are in the humble position of learning to be a better educator” (Field notes, 15.10.2011). I had anticipated that I would need to share my stories to stimulate discussion among the participants. I was wrong; there was no lack of productive talk during the meetings. The enthusiasm of the group was such that there was rarely a lull in the conversation or a lack of stories being recalled, shared, retold, deconstructed, or discussed. I noted that within the group, storytelling seemed a natural way to share experiences, and often the most salient lessons were learned through hearing the critical incidents of others in the PLT.