# data[].attributes.body
Love the idea that elements of the design thinking approach will under-gird the project based approach to the CCT. My concerns stem from two areas 1) Evaluation - in pulling in curricular overall expectations from various subject areas will there be a balance between the various subject area expectations in terms of evaluation of the project and if the curricular expectations are somewhat limited in terms of relevance will one subject area only be able to place this project in the term 70 percent as opposed to the final 30 percent.
2) Time Constraints - if we take away significant amounts of class time when we are already challenged for the same given the athletic and other commitments of our students, how are departments going to compensate for this.
Finally, one suggestion, I think one of the challenges that you are constantly running in to is based on the definitional constraints imposed when calling this endeavour a CCT. The definitional parameters here automatically impose constraints on thinking and flexibility. It would give you much more leeway if you stopped calling it the CCT and instead started calling it the "School Wide Modern Learning Project" (SWMLP) or a similar title. It would still meet all the things you are trying to achieve and eliminate the concerns and constraints based on the previous paradigm.
Daraius

# data[].attributes.headline
How do the department workshops work?  Are students choosing which ones to attend?  If they only attend one or two would that limit the ability to complete task in all sub

# data[].attributes.subject
How do the department workshops work?  Are students choosing which ones to attend?  If they only attend one or two would that limit the ability to complete task in all sub

# data[].attributes.headline
Thanks for the presentation today Jacopo.  Very articulate and well presented.  There have already been some postings that share my sentiments / ideas / questions…but here goes!

# data[].attributes.subject
Thanks for the presentation today Jacopo.  Very articulate and well presented.  There have already been some postings that share my sentiments / ideas / questions…but here goes!

# data[].attributes.body
While we as educators are inspired by the idea of open ended, inquiry based, meaningful learning…does the typical Grade 9 student share this same enthusiasm and 'maturity' for deep, purposeful, inquiry?

Could the 'leaping off point' be...as suggested...a small 'test group' of Grade 9's that volunteer to be involved, much like joining a school team or club like DECA?

Perhaps enthusiasm from a small group and smart marketing becomes contagious exponentially?

Way out on a limb here, but could the CCT become something other than a 'school / curriculum' task, and take on the life of a group task that works toward MAKING something meaningful? Something submitted to a competition run from the University / College / Private Industry level?  Just spit balling with this last thought!

Thanks again!

# data[].attributes.body
I still feel that I need more information and clarity regarding certain aspects of the CCT. That being said, at times, I feel like, in the past, we have been trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. What if we change groupings, in the future, that would allow certain subject areas to work more closely together. I believe I have read that other institutions that have tried implementing certain pedagogical approaches like the CCT created subject groupings that more closely align - e.g., History, English and Family Studies and/or science, math and business. With three different departments working together, you may have more richly designed summatives that may serve a more pragmatic purpose.

I think we need to remember, at times, to work towards goals in a progressive manner. As teachers, we always scaffold for students; this may be an area where we need to scaffold for ourselves.

Seiji

# data[].attributes.headline
Developing a Collective Vision - Reflecting on structure and implementation

# data[].attributes.subject
Developing a Collective Vision - Reflecting on structure and implementation

# data[].attributes.body
Thank-you for the focussed presentation Jacopo; it clearly outlined the actions the committee has taken thus far, our current sticking points, and emphasized the need for feedback and, for me, reinforced the need for collective visioning as a leadership team first and then whole school to follow. It's in the spirit of that collective visioning that I thought I'd share where I'm at in my thinking around the CCT with the group.

I love the idea of starting smaller because a solid foundation is key to sustainable success and the resiliency of this idea, however I don't think smaller is necessarily about number of days or even number of students.

I don't think starting smaller is about number of days because how can authentic engagement and depth of critical and creative thinking take place for any task in only one or two days? When I am called out to go to a workshop for a day - yes I can play around with some ideas in my head or I can produce something others require or think I need, but I can't truly engage or demonstrate what I know.

As a learner, I need time to figure out what I want to take from that workshop to bring into my own practice, gather some more knowledge to support my thinking (read the book, talk to colleagues, ask questions), sort through that gathered knowledge to generate my ideas/thoughts/ect and then showcase what is uniquely me - that thing I want to bring into my practice to try out.  4 steps.  So when I think about a student engaging authentically - similar in nature to the way that I engage because we are all learners - how could/why should I think three to four days are too big or too much. Yes, the number three or four is bigger than the number one, but isn't trying to accomplish all those four steps in one day bigger? Aren't we just trying to get it over with? Isn't that the type of thinking that breed our problems last time? I don't think four days are bigger because this structure allows the inquiry to be chunked for students, increasing the possibility for authentic, creative, and original  engagement, and meets the needs of our community regarding absences and flexible schedules.

Where/how these days fall and their length is another consideration - I do think there should be some time between an introduction to the big idea / selecting a focus stage and the concentrated work time because it gives all students time to reflect and a chance for those absent students to catch up.  I see the first day kick off happening in an assembly where we build excitement, sell the idea, generate buy in, etc.

Then there are nuts and bolts days, which could take that conference style suggested.  These should be focussed, full day events where we are all in it together - what Jacqui and Amanda identified as the key missing ingredient during our discussion at the October Leadership meeting.  I see these as days where students sign up for workshops, free flow time, and creation time based on needs and schedules.  They'd register just like we register for our OSSTF PA Day. A lot to coordinate? Definitely. Doable? I think so.  Up until a few years ago, each regional subject head team had the responsibility of coordinating the OSSTF regional PA day for all the teachers in their departments. Many of us may have experience in this process; we can lend support to these coordination efforts even though we do not have the time to sit on the CCT committee.

Finally, the show case day should come later - at least a week later I think- so that there is time for production, for absent students to catch up, for students to ask questions, for equitable access to and trouble shooting for technological resources, and for teachers to assess (more below).   For this final showcase day,  I see groups of 20 or 30 students gathered according to common subtopic/focus areas,  so they can share their learning with others who share their interest, hopefully building lifelong connections.

In that final showcase day, I love the idea of bringing in community members to judge/decide the strongest presentations - a powerful, relevant strategy that is reflective of our times (Dragons Den, Shark Tank, etc). Students identified as "leaders" in their focus area (i.e. winners) could be announced school-wide and become models for their peers (involved in next year's kick off assembly and speak about their journey).  Maybe they could also be celebrated at the awards assembly and receive a school grant to turn their projects into action (which could be their CCT the following semester/year while others revisit a similar cycle).

I don't think the assessment would happen at the showcase.  I see it taking place during the time in between the conference/focused work days and the showcase day. During this time I would connect with my students who would formally present to me evidence of their process to demonstrate their achievement of my targets.   We could talk about their learning face to face, or they could video tape their conversation for me to see, or they could go back over process work and add notes to metacognitively reflect on their learning - whatever approach works best for their style, my style, and realities surrounding us at that time.  The key is that they are responsible for showing me the evidence, I'm not responsible for finding it in their project. They are responsible for seeking me out to inquire about feedback (although obviously I will connect as well and ask how things are going, and yes there will be the need to chase some students, but that wouldn't be with all my students).

So, although it may seem like the whole grade and four days is bigger, I don't think it is in lived experience.  However, maybe second semester is not the time for implementation.  A lot of visioning work happened within the CCT committee last year  (release times with consultants, day long planning and discussion sessions), and as a result I thought we'd be in implementation mode this year. However, as time progresses this semester, the need for a collective vision is vital - not so much to figure out the nuts and the bolts and discuss the strategies (which yes are important) but to collectively develop the principles that will drive this practice. This collective visioning would also ensure we have a common language to navigate the development of the tools, strategies, and practices and share our vision with others.

Last year the CCT committee renamed the CCT Task the Me into Action project.  This re-branding effort was meant to infuse the principles we developed as a committee into the task itself.  The fact we are all still referring to it as the CCT is evidence that we're not there yet in our thinking.  And, if we are not yet there in our thinking, how can we possibly move to implementation? So maybe second semester is not the best time and we need to roll out 2017-2018.

But, how do we know when it's time to just take the risk and trust in the students to live up to our high expectations of them and be comfortable in our learning about this process through facilitation and implementation?  Is it best to take the leap semester 2 because 2017-2018 will inevitably become 2018-2019?  I guess I'm wondering - Are we at the top of that ski  hill not ready to push off even though we will be okay or are we still making our way to the top of that hill?  And that, for me, was the biggest question to come out of our discussion at yesterday's meeting.

So, I guess for me starting smaller is not about days or number of students, but about our expectations for success. Success is a scale, and there are degrees of success. I agree, we need to start small, but for me the small that we need to start with is the degree of our expectations for success. Of course we must high expectations for ourselves and our students, however we cannot be paralyzed by these high expectations into inaction. And that is how I think we need to scale back and go smaller, not in number of days or number of students (we've already scaled way back to one grade), but in our expectations. Success is incremental.

Right now, for me success with the CCT is about engagement and buy in. If we can get that next semester, or next year, then we've succeeded. As long as we remember to enjoy the ride and shake off the blunders along the way, because if we buy in then the struggle is fun and full of learning and growth, but if we don't then it's painful and simply evidence that the old way is the better way.

Thanks for reading and for providing this opportunity for the collective sharing of our feedback.

# data[].attributes.headline
I like the idea of a pilot with a few students suggested by SB.  We can work out any bugs before rolling it out for 100s.  Also I agree it is unfair that the same task is not given for both semesters

# data[].attributes.subject
I like the idea of a pilot with a few students suggested by SB.  We can work out any bugs before rolling it out for 100s.  Also I agree it is unfair that the same task is not given for both semesters

# data[].attributes.headline
Love the concept. Curious to know what we'll do if students are either sick, away for sports or other reasons. How can we ensure they complete their CCT if it's event-based.

# data[].attributes.subject
Love the concept. Curious to know what we'll do if students are either sick, away for sports or other reasons. How can we ensure they complete their CCT if it's event-based.

# data[].attributes.headline
How can we create a positive culture throughout the staff about this project so that they can deliver it with enthusiasm and have the drive to work with the committee and within their departments to meet the needs of the students?

# data[].attributes.subject
How can we create a positive culture throughout the staff about this project so that they can deliver it with enthusiasm and have the drive to work with the committee and within their departments to meet the needs of the students?

# data[].attributes.headline
How will this fit into each department, yet offer the opportunity for one project only, while still meeting course expectations?

# data[].attributes.subject
How will this fit into each department, yet offer the opportunity for one project only, while still meeting course expectations?

# data[].attributes.headline
How can me make this engaging for our students? 

# data[].attributes.subject
How can me make this engaging for our students? 

# data[].attributes.body
Perhaps three/four days might be too much to start. Maybe begin with one day and see how it goes? Baby steps.

# data[].attributes.body
I am excited about what we talked about today.  How great for our students to have the opportunity to create a truly multi-faceted project.
There will be a lot of logistics to work out, and I am concerned that we do not roll it out too soon, and that when we do it's really ready to go!

My questions:

Do you think it is realistic to think that this will be ready by semester 2?

Is it fair for students in Semester 1 to be doing a different CCT than those in the same course in Semester 2?

Would it be possible to try a pilot project this spring, with a selected group of Gr 9 students who have 3 or 4 Gr 9 Courses in common, to see how it goes, so that any unanticipated problems can be worked out before rolling it out to all Gr 9's in the fall of 2017?   I think we'll get better buy in from staff if the 'plan' is both solid and proven.