Interview with Vicki Hornus, Co-Facilitator of the Community of Practice for Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) for TACommunities.org
Acrobat Word
NERRC Information Specialist Cybèle Elaine Werts interviewed Vicki Hornus for this interview which ran Special Libraries Association journal Information Outlook.
 TAcommunities.org is one of several forums available as part of the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Program's (OSEP) Technical Assistance initiative to exchange strategies and ideas that will improve outcomes for children with disabilities. The website itself is quite large and includes several communities of practice (CoP) including data, exiting, identification, early intervention settings, preschool, and Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). Facilitators of each topic organize a number of events from online conferences to web tours, as well as post a library of electronic documents. Members can join as many communities as they wish and set up profiles so that they can connect up with other colleagues with similar interests. In addition to participating in on-line events, members can post questions, concerns, or ideas to engage in conversation with parents and professionals across the country. The project is supported entirely by federal funds and there are no fees to the users.
 The Technical Assistance Communities CoP website includes many topics, but NERRC’s Vicki Hornus works only in the area of Least Restrictive Environment for Part B (children age 3-21). LRE is the part of federal law which requires public agencies to establish procedures to ensure that to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are not disabled, and that special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.
Werts: First I’d like to talk a little bit about the idea of a community of practice. A lot of people are familiar with listservs or discussion groups as ways for groups to share ideas. How is a community of practice different?
Hornus: As you’ve said, most of us have subscribed at one time or another to a listserv or discussion group. This is basically a service that puts all the e-mails of a group of people under one umbrella e-mail. That way, you only have to send one e-mail to the listserv to reach everyone in the group. When they reply, the reply also goes to everyone. The internet service Yahoo is well known for having thousands of these kind of listservs for lots of special interests from pigs to toy cash registers. Yahoo also includes a website which archives all the e-mails, as well as other files such as photos of the members. When you add these other features, the listserv is often described as a “discussion group.” Keep in mind that the word “Listserv” is actually a commercial product marketed by L-Soft
International, but the name has come into common usage. This is a lot like Kleenex, which may be a brand name, but which is used all the time for tissues of any brand.
On the other hand, a Community of Practice, or CoP, is a whole different animal. A CoP is a group of peers who are connected to one another by a common sense of purpose, most usually by their profession or their role or special interest. Through their joint problem solving, new knowledge is developed.
While a listserv or discussion group runs itself using a software application, a CoP has a foundation in people and community. One similarity is that there is often a central website where a listserv resides, as well as an archives of library material and other announcements and items of interest. But the CoP goes well beyond this by arranging for webcasts, conference calls, live meetings, and other electronic ways of communication. There is usually a group of leaders who commit to keeping the CoP active and vibrant, as well as reach out to new members.
Werts: In a recent article in the newsletter of the Council of Administrators of Special Education, author Patrice Linehan writes that, “ the concept of CoP has its roots in the educational theory of situated learning – i.e., when learning takes place within the context and culture of real situations rather than through representation of abstract concepts.” How has the TA Communities CoP extended this idea to the area of special education?
Hornus: Communities of practice are often formed to bridge the knowing/doing gap. COPs can create new relationships between and among policymakers, researchers, and implementers. Often, practices do not transfer across organizations or even across sites within a single organization. In particular, in the field of education, research and best practices discovered or developed in institutions of higher education or at research centers do not find their way to practitioners. And, if they do, the practitioners are often left on their own to attempt implementation. A CoP can foster a collaborative relationship that informs each from the other and results in greater positive impact for children, youth, and their families. Teachers are learning alongside the researchers, the researchers are learning from the teachers, and the policymakers synthesize it all in order to develop policies that foster and support best practices.
Whether in education or other professions and industries, there are often pockets of excellence, but without direct and ongoing support, others do not adopt the effective practices that have been shown to work.
Communities of Practice as a technical assistance strategy, as envisioned by OSEP when they developed the six Technical Assistance Communities two years ago, is a different purpose than many of the earlier communities established to manage and create knowledge.
Werts: Does a community of practice require a leader, or do they function well as a democratic society just moving along on their own?
Hornus: Some COPs form or evolve on their own, or organically, around a common interest and/or purpose – in those cases, I think that the community could function without an identified leader. Likely, the “leadership” would shift as needs, interests, time, etc., changed among the members, with members stepping up to the plate to do what needs to be done. In the case of the OSEP TA Communities, they were formed with designated facilitator and it has been somewhat difficult to turn leadership over to the membership as they have grown used to expecting the “official leaders” to do the work of coordinating and facilitating the community. We also have to remember that we are talking about a significant culture shift here. For years, OSEP has funded technical assistance centers to
“provide” TA to states and parent centers. Now we are asking those states and parent centers to be part of the development of new knowledge and share what they know and have learned with others. It is asking that they move from being somewhat passive recipients of information to proactive participants in the technical assistance process.
Werts: Despite the very positive response you’ve received to your community, one evaluation of the TA Community as a whole found that “many members do not understand the COPs model.” Being as you were one of the original facilitators of the Least Restrictive Environment Part B (LRE) section of the TA Communities CoP, what particular challenges did you face in starting up a community from scratch? Did you find that educating your members as to how exactly a CoP worked was a big part of your initial work?
Hornus: Interestingly, that issue did not seem to be a problem with our community. It may be because many of us have worked in less formal communities of practice before, and parts of the model were already familiar to our members. It always helps to have a base of understanding when you move to the next level. That said, the community of practice did struggle with a number of issues which included:
- The technology for the web-based platform
- Identifying who the targeted members were or should be
- Carving out time from existing work responsibilities to devote to developing and nurturing the community.
- Determining the array of activities that would serve the TA needs among community members in the most effective way.
There were also some challenges that were more specific to the LRE-Part B community, which were:
- Unlike the other communities, there were no designated LRE-Part B staff in State Departments of Education, so using existing groups or lists was not an option.
- The term LRE connotes different things to different people, so that some potential as well as actual members felt that we were promoting an agenda that they did not support.
- Staff changes within our partner technical assistance center were challenging in the beginning because they disrupted the continuity, but we now have four active co-facilitators including myself, Diana Autin of the Region I Parent Technical Assistance Center @ Statewide Parent Advocacy Network, Deidre Magee of the National Institute for Urban School Improvement, and Judy Shanley of the Access Center.
Werts: You have been instrumental in organizing events such as the Newark Collaboration’s recent webinar. Which events have been the most popular with your members, and why?
Hornus: Facilitated discussions that highlight the experiences and successes of others clearly fill a need among some of the membership. For those providing the guidance, I believe the experience has been useful as well.
The Newark Collaboration is a partnership between the Newark Teachers Union and its Professional Development Center, and the Statewide Parent Advocacy Network. Many schools were placed on the "Schools in Need of Improvement" list at least in part due to the scores of classified students and the Collaboration was designed to help address this issue.
In the case of the Newark Collaboration, the panel members from the Newark School District were reinforced for their really innovative work, and are now poised to share it in other venues. Without our invitation and opportunity, they might not have developed their overview into this fine presentation.
We have hosted a few conference calls on specific topics – no expert presenter, just an opportunity for interaction and conversation – which were successful for the participants. One of the things that we have learned is that there is no one activity which will meet the needs of all members, or even most members. We have also learned that people may be “members” for a period of time, get what they need, and then move on. That may not be a negative thing, but just the way communities operate.
Given the hits that we have had on the web portal for the resources posted there, I suspect that is also a strategy that works for some people – whether they would consider themselves members or not. That is one of the continuing challenges – what is a member? Are there different kinds or levels of members? And, ultimately, we’re finding that every kind of member brings something unique to the table.
A strategy that we are planning to use more in the near future is to identify potential practice groups among our “official” members and offer activities (probably mostly conference calls) specifically for them. Practice groups are groups within the community that are formed around a particular area of interest, or to tackle a special topic. They may be short term or long term. This is a place where community members could take the leadership for forming and guiding a practice group with general support from the official facilitators. For example, one of our facilitators, Diana Autin, has planned a series of calls beginning this fall for members who represent parent and advocacy groups.
Werts: Recently you offered an online tour of the Access Center, an OSEP Funded Technical Assistance & Dissemination Center focusing on access to the general education curriculum for students in grades K to 8. What kind of response did you get to offering this kind of tour?
Hornus: We had about 20 sites for the Access Web Tour – folks from across the country and representing a variety of roles – SEA staff, parent center staff, LEA staff. We have had very positive feedback about our web tours and have a series outlined for the next twelve or so months. Participants have shared that because they simply don’t know what is available on a TA Center website, they don’t think to look there, or they miss the link that would be most useful to them. The web tours also provide a great connection between our community and the federally funded TA&D network and give them visibility to an audience that might not otherwise know about them or use their resources.
Werts: This particular CoP focuses on special education. Do you think that CoP’s are better utilized in some areas of interest than others? For example, are some professions such as medical professionals more likely to be involved than others?
Hornus: From what I have read, heard from others in different fields, and have experienced, I suspect that communities are a viable communication and learning strategy for most professions and areas of work. For years people have valued the benefits of “getting together” with others in similar jobs or with similar responsibilities. Often that was only available to a few people because of the costs of getting together at a conference or meeting. With the current technology and the recognition that there is far too much information available for each person to sort out on his or her own, communities seem like a natural strategy to share the wealth, provide support, and encourage proactive learning. I also think that as we become more reliant on the internet, e-mail, and voice mail, as opposed to face-to-face human interaction, there is a need for more personalization which a community of practice can foster.
Werts: It wasn’t that long ago that most people really felt that colleagues needed “face time” to connect and learn from each other. How do you think that has changed in the new millennium? What do you think are the best tools available to help people connect with each other when they may never meet?
Hornus: I think that having a community facilitator who can “facilitate” the participation and sharing of knowledge and experiences by community members, and foster and nurture their leadership within the community helps the connections. There will always be members that are sometimes called “lurkers” who choose not to share their experiences or ask their burning questions. If a facilitator can find out more about those folks and invite their more active participation, I think it enriches and strengthens the community. This, however, takes time and dedication from the facilitators. And there is nothing in the CoP theory or practice that negates the importance of at least some “face time.” The on-line CoP platform merely provides ongoing opportunities for sharing in between those face-to-face conferences and meetings.
Werts: On the more positive side, the evaluation report also indicated that members indicated that the CoP website (54%) and conference calls (46%) were the most beneficial activities. Other activities of note were the listserv and face-to-face meetings and conferences. (Reference pg 29 of
the report). What is your sense about what members really want out of a community of practice?
Hornus: I think that members like opportunities to develop relationships with others, folks who they would ideally meet face to face at some point, but with whom they can at least have a virtual relationship. While teleseminars with experts allow for some interaction, it is the more informal conference calls where people begin to feel comfortable and build relationships. We have seen this with our advisory group. The members do not actually know one another, but over time they have developed a relationship, and as a result are much better able to give us feedback, suggestions, etc. When we held our very first advisory group call, as facilitators we had a clear agenda that we had sent out ahead of time. The members had all agreed to participate if it proved to be a worthwhile expenditure of their time, etc., and we were eager to get the most from them in the time allowed. As it turned out, they needed to chat and find out about one another, and pretty much threw out the agenda. Initially, we were frustrated because we didn’t get the guidance from them that we were looking for, but quickly realized that they did what they needed to do before they could begin to function as a group.
Werts: Looking toward the future, what technological changes do you see coming down the pike that will add to your capabilities in further development of the Communities of Practice?
Hornus: I think the biggest change is that people are becoming progressively comfortable both with technology and with using technology as a mode of communication instead of face-to-face meetings. This is such a change from historical ways of doing business that it will take a real shift over some generations for it to feel intuitive. I also think that as things like videoconferencing and other technologies become both common and easy to use, they will add to our feeling of being right there with our colleagues – even when we are thousands of miles apart. Unfortunately even though we obviously have this capacity now, it can often be fraught with technological glitches.
Werts: What is your high dream for the LRE community of practice?
Hornus: That the membership would step forward to provide leadership to the community, would offer resources, materials, and strategies that they have used for the benefit of others, and that there would be actual cross fertilization of ideas and knowledge across roles and areas of expertise – such as SEA staff, IHE staff, practitioners, and parents and families. During our most recent Advisory Committee call, two of our members did in fact “step up to the plate” and agree to co-facilitate some upcoming calls. So I think we are well on our way!
Werts: Thanks for chatting with me!
Hornus: It was my pleasure.
Cybèle Elaine Werts is an Information Specialist for Learning Innovations at WestEd, a research, development, and service education agency. Her personal website is www.supertechnogirl.com/ WestEd’s website is www.wested.org
Resources
TAcommunities (the website this interview is about)
Welcome to the TAcommunities website. This is one of several forums available to educators as part of OSEP's TA initiative. This project seeks to combine OSEP resources from the Monitoring and State Improvement Planning Division and technical assistance resources from the Research to Practice Division. Members can access many resources through this website.
http://www.tacommunities.org/
The Access Center: Improving Outcomes for All Students K-8
American Institutes for Research (referred to in the interview)
http://www.k8accesscenter.org
Communities of practice and organizational performance
by E. L. Lesser and J. Storck
http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/404/lesser.html
Communities of Practice at the Federal Highway Administration
by Mike Burk
http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/mayjun00/commprac.htm
Communities of Practice: Learning as a Social System
by Etienne Wenger
http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/lss.shtml
Community of Practice Overview by Fred Nickols
http://home.att.net/~discon/KM/CoPOverview.pdf
NASDSE Synthesis Brief: Communities of Practice; activities sponsored by the Office of Special Education Programs
http://www.nasdse.org/publications.cfm
Supporting Pioneering Leaders as Communities of Practice- by Margaret Wheatley
http://www.berkana.org/resources/pioneeringleader.html
Additional Readings
http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/rreading.shtml
http://www.tacommunities.org/ev_en.php?ID=1197_201&ID2=DO_TOPIC
|
