Central Falls Transformation Report - Annenberg Institute for School ...

Common Planning Time
The primary mechanism for staff to collaborate with others was during common planning
time. All teachers met with their house or academy team for one period every day. This
space was created so instructional staff could plan interventions for specific students,
receive feedback and assistance from colleagues when developing lesson plans, and potentially
develop interdisciplinary instruction. Several teachers indicated there was a wide
range in ability/willingness to work collaboratively across individual teachers and different
teams. The math department was described as a particularly collaborative unit. Members of
the math department reported that common planning time was valuable to them. Even
teachers who were not a part of the math department recognized that team’s successful use
of common planning time. The self-contained special education team also described themselves
as a group who worked well together.
For other teams, the use of common planning time varied. Some teams reported difficulty
collaborating, and members described meetings that were unproductive complaint sessions
or unstructured, free-form discussions that varied in utility from week to week. As previously
noted above, classroom coverage due to teacher absences made it difficult for teachers
to participate during regularly scheduled common planning time. One team noted not
having been able to meet as a group “for weeks.” Another teacher mentioned that covering
classes was “threatening” common planning time, with a different team member being out
every day in a week. Finally, a few teachers also mentioned the lack of a necessary structure
for teachers to collaborate within subject areas, not just across teams.
Behavior Management
Behavior management was frequently cited as a challenge that negatively affected the culture
and climate at CFHS. In interviews and focus groups, especially those conducted in
late 2010, teachers, staff, and students reported a lack of consistent rules regarding behavior
management. In particular, they felt that using “restorative practices” as a behavior
management model was the major contributing factor for poor student behavior because
the model lacked firm consequences for students. Both staff and students felt that the inschool
support (ISS)/restoration room did not help in deterring behavior incidents. In fact,
students noted how some of their peers “use [ISS] as a way to get out of class. People go in
there and do nothing the whole period.” Students and staff noted, however, that the behavior
issues and classroom disruptions could be attributed to a “small percentage” of students,
specifically lowerclassmen. A leadership team member added, “Inconsistent rules
currently exist within the high school; more grounded policies and procedures need to be
communicated and enforced.”
Changes to Behavior Management Processes
Due to the concerns about student behavior, some mid-year changes were made to the
behavior management process. Four restorative specialists were hired to work with students
outside of the classroom to resolve behavior issues by using open communication and
problem-solving strategies that involve student participation and input. These specialists
39