Every Wheel Gets the Grease!

WALO #3: Facilitation Leadership Opportunity

The squeaky wheel gets the grease, is a clichd saying among teachers. For me, however, it rings true.
During my two-year term as a fifth grade teacher, I often circulated the classroom reacting to hand-
raisers, desk-petitioners, and off-task students. The quieter, easy-going kids often the kids in the
middle were not always at the forefront of my mind. In fact, with so many children to manage, it was
possible to go an entire day without engaging in a meaningful one-to-one interaction with these
individuals. They take care of themselves, go about the business, and can fade into the background.
Looking back, several specific students come to mind. I can remember thinking, I need to take a closer
look at their work, or I need to find a way to challenge them, but then I would get caught in
conversation with a chatty student or spend precious planning minutes resolving a dispute. Like any
teacher, my immediate goal was to have a peaceful, smoothly functioning classroom, and the quieter
kids were already helping to make that happen. It was the squeaky wheel who got the grease.

Even today, in my work with a master teacher, our conversations often focus on a few individuals, the
kids who demand our attention. While these conversations can lead to important actions, I wish that I
could find the time to think more deeply about every child. I wish I could be as proactive with every
student as I am reactive to our high-need students. After all, all children deserve the thoughtful
attention of their teachers. Reflecting on my struggles, I wondered if a protocol could help me to zoom
out from persistent individual concerns and re-examine the needs of all students. My thinking was
driven by a search for equity. Accordingly, I turned to the Working Towards Equity section in
McDonalds (2003) The power of protocols, the go-to text for structured conversations between
educators. While there were connections between my aims and these protocols, they tended to focus
explicitly on racial equity and did not provide a structure for reflecting about every student, one of my
main goals. Consequently, I resolved to create my own original protocol.

The protocol I envisioned would be less of a conversation and more of an exercise. Unlike many of
protocols employed by High Tech schools, there would not be a designated presenter; everyone would
work through the exercise and share their thinking. Instead of whole-group conversation, teachers
would balance their time between private reflection and partner talk. Borrowing the perspective of
Susan Cain (2012), an advocate for introverts, some teachers need quiet and privacy to do their best
work (para. 26). The protocol would be divided into two parts. During the first part, teachers would
reflect about each child in their class for one minute. To spark their thinking, teachers would be
encouraged to look at a work sample by each child. For convenience, they could bring a class set of
project drafts, writing assignments, or math worksheets. The second part of the protocol would be
dedicated to making sense of these reflections through journaling and dialogue. In pairs, teachers
would share patterns and priorities emerging from their reflections and brainstorm next steps for
classroom practice. In this way, I hoped that teachers would walk away with concrete plans and
strategies that they could immediately implement. (The full text of the protocol is included as Appendix
A.)

Excited about my new creation, I shared it with colleagues, who offered constructive feedback. On two
occasions, colleagues commented on my questions to spark thinking about students needs. This
subject is undoubtedly complex, and teachers would only have one minute to reflect about each child.
Should I ask about each childs struggles, challenges, strengths, or skills? What language would be most
helpful? If the text was unclear, we might easily get ourselves in a muddle. Eventually, I distilled my
thinking into two questions, which I hoped would also clarify the process for participants: 1) What is one
of the childs growth areas, i.e. something she/he/ze is working on? 2) What does she/he/ze need to
continue growing? By focusing on students development, I hoped to prevent teachers from jumping
immediately to interventions; as Elise MacDonald (2011) contends, rigorous collaborative discourse
begins with an understanding of students (p. 47). To support participants during this stage and
throughout the protocol, I created a document (Appendix B) where they could record their thoughts.

Given the busy schedules of my colleagues, I wondered how I might persuade them to make time for
this grand experiment. Looking at the school calendar, I saw that student-led conferences and report
cards were coming up in the next few weeks. Perfect, I thought! Since the protocol would make time
for teachers to reflect about each student in their class, I presented the protocol as a way to prepare for
these important events. I did not, however, wish to make assumptions about what might motivate my
colleagues to participate. Maybe they shared my concerns around equity, irrespective of SLCs or report
cards. In crafting my email to faculty, I wanted to offer different entry points for engagement. The
opening lines read, In your work with children, have you ever felt like the squeaky wheel gets the
grease? Are you interested in dedicating reflection time to every student in your classroom? In
preparation for SLCs, would you like to gain a broader view of student needs in your class? After briefly
outlining the protocol, I pasted a link to a doodle poll, where teachers could display their availability for
potential meeting times. Within twenty-four hours, five teachers had responded, an encouraging sign.
Before long, a date was set for the protocols debut!

At the start time, I was joined by three colleagues. Although I had hoped for more participants, I was
deeply grateful for their support, a testament to the culture of collegiality at High Tech Elementary
(Barth, 2006, p. 9-10). Compared with conventional protocols, the tight structure and emphasis on
individual reflection demanded less from me as a facilitator; as I watched the clock, I felt more like the
time-keeper of a basketball game than an official. That said, as I explained each part of the protocol, I
sometimes felt like I was talking too much, an insecurity that I confessed to the group. As a participant,
the time seemed to fly by. I barely had time to write a note about each student before the timer
beeped, and it was time to grab the next work sample. On more than one occasion, I was tempted to
give myself a few extra seconds with each student, but ultimately deferred to Richard Farsons precept
(1997): In a well-functioning group, the behavior of the leader is not all that different from the behavior
of other responsible group members (p. 145); in other words, I should stick to time, just like the others!
One my colleagues was similarly taken aback by the speed of this stage, exclaiming after the first beep,
Wow! So that was a minute. Okay! At the end of twenty-two minutes (one for each child), I couldnt
help but break the schedule and ask, How was that for everyone? Responses were positive. We all
agreed that the time flew by, and joked that we probably wouldnt have made any more progress if
wed spent ten minutes thinking about each child. As educators, we knew what it felt like to overthink
about a child and tie ourselves in knots. The remainder of the protocol progressed smoothly. After
analyzing our notes independently, we shared our thoughts and planning ideas in partners. Finally, we
closed the loop by describing one next step and offering one reflection about the experience as a whole.

For its first run-out, the protocol seemed to have many positive outcomes. During the final stage,
Closing the Loop Together, participants explained how they were walking away with a concrete action
step that they had not arrived with. After examining her students writing pieces, one teacher decided
to change her writing instruction on the following day and committed to work with more small groups.
Connecting the dots from her personal reflection, another teacher discovered a group of writers who
focused on how much they wrote instead of content; in response, she began planning a workshop for
this group that would emphasize quality over quantity. In addition, teachers mentioned how the
reflection process had yielded helpful notes for writing progress reports. The data from exit card
surveys was also encouraging. Although only two participants were able to complete the form, both
strongly agree that reflecting about each child, using work samples, and the zoom in/zoom out
technique were helpful. In the free response section, one teacher wrote, I like pairing up too so it
wasnt just about our individual reflections and the verbal communication helped me develop my
thinking too. Although Im curious whether this exercise might be successfully completed alone, Im
glad that this teacher benefited from partner talk. After all, group-based protocols should take
advantage of the experience and wisdom of everyone in the room. Surprisingly, there were no
suggestions for improvement. While I am certain that this protocol is not perfect, this first outing felt
like a success.

When I wrote my professional learning plan at the beginning of the school year, I set myself the goal of
developing a new protocol that might advance the teaching profession. Now, as I approach the end of
my residency with High Tech High, I am pleased to have created a structure that might help teachers
foster more equitable classrooms. As I reflect on my development as a leader, I am embracing
collaboration more than ever before. In this case, I was eager to receive feedback on drafts of the
protocol. In my work with the first-grade team at High Tech Elementary, I strive to support my
colleagues ideas and contribute new ones. To facilitate collaboration among a group, one must be able
to adopt multiple perspectives, one of the five habits of mind Deborah Meier (2002) describes in The
power of their ideas (p. 50). When one can see where another is coming from, he or she possesses a
broader perspective and is able to engage in a richer dialogue. Whether incorporating peoples ideas at
a staff meeting or presenting this protocol to fit my colleagues needs, Ive learned to think outside of
myself and consider others viewpoints. Great leaders always seek to understand the people they lead.











Works Cited

Barth, R. S. (2006). Improving relationships within the schoolhouse. Educational Leadership, 63(6), 8.

Cain, S. (2012). The rise of the new groupthink. The New York Times, 15.

Farson, R. (1997, March 13). Management of the Absurd. Simon and Schuster.

MacDonald, E. (2011). When nice wont suffice. Journal of Staff Development, 32(3), 45-47

McDonald, J. P., Mohr, N., Dichter, A., & McDonald, E. C. (2003). The power of protocols.

Meier, D. (2002). The power of their ideas: Lessons for America from a small school in Harlem. Beacon
Press.
Appendix A: Protocol

Every Wheel Gets the Grease (Total Time: 65 minutes)

This is a grand experiment. It may be a grand success. It may be a grand failure. Thanks for your open-
mindedness on this journey. :)

The purpose of this protocol is to consider the needs of every student in our classrooms, with particular
attention to students who may fly under the radar. By dedicating a brief portion of think time to every
student and then fleshing out our ideas in partners, I hope well uncover patterns and priorities that
bring purpose to our work with every child and set us up for rich conversations at SLCs.

Essential Questions:
- What do each of my students need?
- What can I do to support my least demanding students?
- What small steps can I take to provide this support?

This protocol is less of a structured conversation though there will be plenty of conversation and
more of a structured exercise.

1. Pair up. Find a critical buddy. Youll work together later on! (1 minute)

2. Review Norms: (1 minute)
a. Assume positive intent about our students and ourselves.
b. Commit to the process!

3. Reflect. The first part of the protocol is an individual written reflection. You will have one
minute to think about each of your students needs. For each student, ask yourself . . .

a. What is a growth area for this student?
b. What does this student need to continue growing?
1


Given the time constraint, your responses to each question will be brief just a few jottings!
The idea here is to dedicate an equal share of mental energy to each child.
2
Today, we can go
home today knowing, I have thought about every child in my classroom! (22-26 minutes.)

To spark your thinking about each child, you may want to refer to the work sample you brought.
Alternatively, you may think back to a recent observation or interaction between you and your
student.


1
My aim with these two questions is to help you quickly hone in on a growth area and then briefly explore needs
in this area. Here is another possible frame to guide your thinking: This student is working on
__________________________________________________________ and needs more opportunities to
________________________________________________________________________.

2
In my own experience, Ive felt guilty because, to borrow the 80/20 ratio, Ive spent roughly 80% of my mental
energy thinking about 20% of my students, usually the squeaky wheels.
4. Fill in the gaps. Did you struggle to come up with responses particular children? If so, a few
minutes to ponder and fill in the gaps and/or flesh out a note. (3 minutes)
3


5. Brain Break. That was a lot of thinking, huh? Lets take a quick brain break to recharge our
batteries: Pass the Clap . . . or participants choice! (3 minutes)

6. Zoom out. Review your jottings. If you would like to journal your thoughts, feel free!
Some questions to consider:

a. Whats jumping out at you?
b. Do you see any students with similar needs?
c. Are there any themes emerging?

Pair and share with your critical buddy. Buddies help to clarify and confirm each others big-
picture thinking. (8 minutes: 4 minutes to review; 2 minutes each to share.)

7. Zoom in. Select a student or group of students to whom you would like to dedicate more
planning time. Then, ask yourself: What can I do to meet their needs? You may not have the
perfect solution - just get down some initial ideas! (If you are focusing on a group of students,
perhaps your idea involves grouping students by common needs?)

Pair and share with your critical buddy. Buddies listen and contribute planning ideas! (12
minutes: 4 minutes for planning; 4 minutes each to share and brainstorm.)

8. Closing the Loop Together! Form a whole-group circle. First, share one next step that you will
to take to meet the needs of the student or group of students who you focused on. Second,
share one reflection about this experience, warm or cool. (8 minutes)

9. Debrief/Evaluation. If you are able, please take the time to fill out the super speedy evaluation
form and leave comments. Please be honest as well as kind. Thank you! :) (3 minutes)
















3
If youre still struggling to figure out a students needs or how to challenge them, this is an important discovery!
It lets us know that we should keep wrestling with these questions on behalf of this student.

Appendix B: Protocol Guide















































Appendix C: Protocol Exit Card


Every Wheel Gets the Grease Protocol
Exit Card

1. Taking the time to think briefly about each of my students was helpful.

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree



2. Using student work samples to spark my thinking about each child was helpful.

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree



3. Zooming out and then zooming in helped to frame my thinking.

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree



4. What worked for you about this protocol?








5. What didnt work for you about this protocol?









6. Suggestions for improvement?