| Researchers have argued that writing is thinking | | | | & Broaddus, 2001). These four instructional |
| (Dean, 2006), yet members of the LLT reported that | | | | routines were identified by the literacy leadership |
| students at Western did very little writing. For much | | | | team from a host of possible ways for engaging |
| of the conversation about writing, the LLT focused | | | | secondary students in content literacy work. Given |
| on the role of the English teachers. The two English | | | | the block schedule at Western, teachers participated |
| teachers on the committee pushed back, saying that | | | | weekly in a 60-minute professional development |
| writing had to be a requirement in all classes. The | | | | session during their preparation periods. Historically, |
| debate about writing continued among members of | | | | these sessions focused on small learning communities, |
| the LLT without a decision. Following the lunch break, | | | | test preparation, guidance and counseling, and the like. |
| we asked members of the team to summarize in | | | | The LLT requested that at least three of the four |
| writing the arguments presented thus far for and | | | | meetings per month be dedicated to the literacy plan. |
| against writing as a school-wide initiative. We asked | | | | |
| them to talk with a partner from a different content | | | | Given our commute to the school, we could not be |
| area about what they had written. During the | | | | the primary providers of weekly professional |
| debriefing session, we clarified that writing to learn | | | | development. Instead, the literacy peer coach would |
| was not process writing and that teachers were not | | | | have to coordinate the sessions, and members of |
| expected MBT Shoe to grade the papers for spelling, | | | | the LLT would MBT Shoes engage their colleagues. |
| grammar, or mechanics. Instead, they could use their | | | | We developed a schedule of topics for the remainder |
| students' writing as a way to check for | | | | of the school year, and members of the LLT signed |
| understanding and to plan instruction. The LLT did | | | | up to lead the sessions. As part of the plan, teachers |
| eventually reach consensus about writing to learn and | | | | would be compensated for observing one another |
| recommended that students write to learn every | | | | teach during their prep periods. These peer |
| day in every class. | | | | observations were voluntary, and teachers could be |
| | | | | paid once per month for peer observations. The |
| The final component of the plan was dedicated | | | | literacy coach would also conduct feedback sessions |
| reading time. The current school schedule at the time | | | | aligned with the literacy plan, and we established a |
| of our visit provided an optional time for reading that | | | | classroom observation and coaching schedule for |
| could alternatively be used as a study hall or | | | | times that one of us would be on campus. The LLT |
| homework center. Members of the LLT reported | | | | understood that job-embedded training, teacher-led |
| that the majority of teachers allowed students to | | | | professional development, and collegial conversations |
| read, do their homework, or talk quietly during this | | | | about teaching and learning, as well as coaching and |
| time. In acknowledging the importance of reading | | | | feedback, were required if these school-wide |
| volume (Cunningham & Stanovich, 2003), the | | | | instructional routines were going to become |
| committee members decided that students should | | | | permanent features of the school (Joyce & |
| "just read" for 20 minutes of every school day (Ivey | | | | Showers, 2002). |