Instead of rambling through a recital of my debriefing sessions with each Impact Team (a combination of "Ahas and Uh-ohs" that I'll save for my next and last diary entry), I'm writing an abbreviated case study that shows how one group of teachers approached the Impact Team process this year.

When this team kicked off its meetings last November, team members wrote an action plan describing what they intended to do. Their plan included splendid goals:

Next, according to their logs, the teachers set up some norms for how they planned to conduct business. They would meet twice a week for 30 minutes, be prepared and be on time. Teachers agreed to listen to each other and respect each other's ideas, and to make their Impact Team a "safe place" for sharing concerns and opinions. They would avoid being judgmental, share the group responsibilities equally, keep records of their meetings, and go to heroic lengths to avoid interruptions during meeting times.

Team members kicked off the process by looking at student writing samples. After four frustrating meetings, however, they decided that they weren't focusing on the right stuff - the need for their students to be more engaged in learning. So, in early December, the team rewrote its entire action plan. They unanimously decided to research and develop ways to motivate and challenge the high-performing students in their classrooms. Teachers chose this seemingly politically incorrect route for two reasons: (1) They were genuinely frustrated because they weren't stimulating these often overlooked and under-performing kids to work to their potential, and (2) they decided that developing successful approaches and experiences for high performing students would provide them with a toolkit of teaching/learning strategies that would spill over and help all of their students. With this "out of the box" approach in mind - developing strategies to motivate and involve high performing students and using these to raise level of expectation and achievement for all students - this team began breaking some new ground at the school, and possibly in the school system.

During the next few Impact Team meetings, these teachers became avid learners. They dug into recent research on modifying the regular classroom curriculum for high ability and gifted students. From their research and sharing process, teachers started constructing a toolkit stuffed with new strategies and ideas for teaching. Interestingly, the more strategies the team members packed into the toolkit, the more knowledge and training they felt they needed. To help them with their "know-how" needs, the team called in the school's gifted teacher as a consultant.

Meanwhile, the teachers tried out new strategies in their classrooms and discussed their results at team meetings. They experimented with strategies to stimulate higher-order thinking through open-ended questions, and encouraged students to express and defend their personal opinions. They incorporated interest-based research projects. Teachers offered some optional assignments built around students' strong areas instead of their weak areas. They offered compact assignment options for students who finish work quickly and correctly, score high, but do not show high ability and interest in their daily work. Teachers also began conferencing individually with these students, outlining what each assignment required, and establishing a time frame.

The math teacher reported on an optional assignment she offered students - a data analysis that involved open-ended questions which students had to defend with logic. Her students responded well to the assignment, and the teachers decided that the entire team should focus on this strategy to build student success in this kind of thinking. They noted in the team log that many students tended to be strongly opinionated but unable to back up their opinions through reason. Teachers also noted that when responding to open-ended questions, students became more interactive, took more ownership, and felt more empowered. Encouraged, the team continued to develop the open-ended question technique and incorporated this into student writing assignments. Each teacher required students to use open-ended questions as lead-ins for writing activities. Teachers also began searching for rubrics and other alternative assessment methods to evaluate student responses on open-ended questions.

Other "outside the box" teaching ideas began to dominate team meetings, as teachers added to their toolkit of teaching strategies. During team meetings, teachers examined methods for encouraging students to explore a topic in depth, ways to involve students in peer-editing groups, and ways of engaging students in publishing their own work. In the classrooms, teachers began providing some or all students with assignment options - assignments that students could do in place of regular assignments. The social studies teacher provided a challenging, optional assignment intended to motivate and stimulate the high-performing students in his classroom - an Internet Scavenger Hunt. To his surprise, over ninety percent of students of all levels opted for this more difficult assignment, completed it, and turned it in. The quality of the students' work exceeded that of other assignments, and students of all levels reported that they enjoyed doing it. The teacher reported that 84% of the regular students made high scores on the assignment, compared with 86% of the high-achievers. He felt that in this case, the optional assignment approach significantly reduced achievement gap between his low and high-achieving students. The language arts and science teachers also reported that, with the use of optional assignments, a higher percentage of their students turned in work, and that the work quality was generally better.

The math teacher also tried a new approach, based on some research the team examined. She grouped the students heterogeneously to design their own surveys, collect data, analyze it, and make class presentations. She reported that, in general, the students were actively engaged in figuring out what to do and how to do it, and they tended to take more ownership for their learning. She also provided opportunities for students who mastered mathematics concepts quickly and accurately to work together during class on optional assignments. She met with these students ahead of time and explained that these alternative assignments would be more difficult and mean more work. Nevertheless, all students approached opted for the alternative assignments and performed well as a team. In the meantime, she was able to direct more time toward helping students who did not master the math concepts as easily.

The teachers feel that one of the most rewarding and unexpected spin-offs of their efforts has been the high degree of parent satisfaction with their children's learning experiences. Parents have offered much positive feedback, both verbally and otherwise. On Teacher Appreciation Day, parents sent this group of teachers so much food that they were hard pressed to find a space for it on the team table.

According to these teachers, the Impact Team process compelled them to engage them in regular, collaborative thinking about their teaching practice that paid higher dividends for students than the usual, more fragmented approach. Team members also report that the process provided them with the confidence to try innovative teaching strategies and the support to stick with these strategies rather than to fall back into a more comfortable teaching routine. As one teacher put it, "I would not have tried a lot of this by myself. We challenge each other."

Teachers acknowledge that changing their practice is a lot of work and takes a lot of time. Yet, the team is currently discussing even more new ideas for next year. Most important, they plan to continue collaborating and learning how to improve their teaching.