Updated: Jul 22, 2020


In this three-part series, I write a lot about three of my favorite educational words and concepts: PREVENTION, INTERVENTION and INTENTION. Each represents power-packed strategies that are a result of my research, evidence and experience; they are the ‘how to’s’ that finish incomplete, well-meaning educational advice telling us ‘what’ to do. In this series, Part 1 is PREVENTION: Data Walls Reveal ‘the Real Story’ of System, School and Student Performance; Part 2 is INTERVENTION: Case Management Meetings Provide System and School Knowledge-Building Forums; and Part 3 is INTENTION: System and School Learning Walks and Talks Answer: ‘How Do You Know All Students Are Achieving?”



INTERVENTION: Case Management Meetings Provide System and School Knowledge-Building Forums


We cannot say we’re putting FACES on our data unless the Data Wall co-construction and conversations are accompanied by follow-up Case Management Meetings (CMMs). By responding to conversations at Data Walls, the Case Management Meeting (CMM) process offers systems and schools a systematic way of providing precisely differentiated support to each school, teacher and student. The process is perceived by schools and systems, that I work with, to be very valuable because it focuses on learning and improving; it is understood to be in situ support; and it develops shared beliefs and understandings, Parameter #1 (Sharratt & Fullan, 2009, 2010) that addresses what the critical foundational beliefs are in moving system and school improvement forward.


At the school level, teachers most often make their own adjustments to instruction by gathering evidence of learning while they are teaching or by gaining helpful insights through informal conversations with colleagues. The need for intentional intervention for specific students becomes highly visible to everyone at the Data Wall. The immediacy generated by the centrality of co-constructed Data Walls is key to promoting meeting spaces that focus on solutions to persistent puzzles of practice. Glued to the Data Wall approach in knowing all FACES are Case Management Meetings that offer CLARITY of instructional practices about what works best in classrooms. Discussion relating to a specific student FACE on the Data Wall, for example, may resonate with other teachers who have students with similar learning needs or may just seem like a new, impactful teaching strategy to be tried.

It is my experience and research-supported belief that, while leaders in schools support and participate in informal and ongoing conversations generated by the Data Wall, it is critical to also embrace formalized Case Management Meetings for every noticeably trending student, student group, class, year level across the school. Case Management Meetings offer a forum where the expertise of teachers and leaders come together to collectively problem-solve the most challenging issues in moving all students’ forward.


Many leaders of the higher achieving systems begin their weekly leadership meetings at the system Data Wall with a discussion of the schools that appear to be causing concern and need assistance in leading improvement. The evidence on their Data Walls is provided by on going system data collection. From those discussions emerge a need for deep conversations about a school or group of students in need across schools. The formalized discussion following this realization is a Case Management Meeting as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: All System Leaders Own the Presented ‘School of Concern’

Source: Lyn Sharratt, Brisbane Catholic Education, 2017 in CLARITY, Sharratt, L. Corwin 2019.


At the school level, the Case Management Meeting is a formal decision-making meeting, purposefully built into the system or school calendar for follow-up improvement moves or instructional strategy suggestions leading from Data Wall discussions. It is not a supervisory or evaluative forum, it is truly a group of educators, including the school supervisor in System CMMs and the school principal in School CMMs alongside a Knowledgeable Other, who provide support and instructional advice. A community of trust is built through sharing their concerns and feeling confident in seeking the expertise of colleagues. This is a reciprocal process as a teacher may struggle to meet the instructional needs of one of her own students and in another Case Management Meeting may have exactly the right strategy to support a colleague’s student. At the school level, teachers come to the Case Management Meeting in two ways: 1. through a student concern raised at the Data Wall; or 2. teacher self-nomination to seek help with an issue of instruction. At the system level, the Data Wall information or a school supervisor can determine a school to be presented.

Key attributes of the CMM include:

  • Operating norms established and a protocol used (Sharratt, 2019);

  • School data or a student’s work sample are the data presented;

  • CMM is short, sharp and shiny: 20-30-minutes focused on help requested;

  • Sharing of what has already been tried,

  • Group assembled recommends strategies for consideration.

  • School supervisor or class teacher selects one arising from the discussion;

  • Time needed within which to honestly try the strategy recommended is determined; and,

  • Date set to report back to the same team in a follow-up Case Management Meeting.

During the intervening time, members from the Case Management Meeting team do regular Learning Walks and Talks (discussed in Part 3 of this series) that include this classroom to support the teacher before the follow-up Case Management Meeting. School supervisors and teachers should never feel alone in this journey as the Case Management Meeting outcome is for the team to “take on” the responsibility for helping each school supervisor and teacher with improvement strategies. “We all now own this student.”


System leaders and I who have implemented system and school Case Management Meetings, across contexts, have been extremely successful in providing CLARITY of vision and practice to teachers and to school leaders. In the process, we have also learned the following lessons: