Listening to the students!

   Whose ‘voices’ ought to be heard when it comes to what is going on in schools?

Who tells the schools story?

Who knows best what happens in classrooms?

School Reviews often listen to teachers’ views but rarely listen to parents or students. Parent views are all too often limited to school surveys and questionnaires but some schools are beginning the process of interviewing random groups of parents about important issues. In primary schools parents are a common sight visiting or helping in classrooms. Not so in secondary schools. There the parents are kept at a healthy distance. Often not even teachers visit each other. Privatization of practice is the norm.

The answer to who knows best about what goes on in the classrooms are the those closest to the action – the students themselves. They are the ultimate insiders and have the most intimate insight into the quality of the learning they receive. Teachers might supply a ‘bird’s eye’ view of the whole class and note patterns but it is the students who have the ‘worm’s eye’ view!

Students have the richest insight into the hidden life that goes on in individual classrooms.

Pupils are the school largest untapped source of information. Any organization that overlooks the experience of its ‘clients’ would be in trouble.

Information about suspension and behavior problem can indicate valuable information or indicators about student experience that all is not well, but only where the teachers do not hold ‘deficit theory ideas’ about students. Such teachers tend to blame everyone but themselves for student problems. If schools are alienating their students the question to ask is what would make all students want to attend school?

Schools ought to develop processes to add student ‘voices’ to school management and reviews far beyond having a student on the Board of Trustees or having a student council. Students have a pretty good idea about what makes a good teacher and sharing their perceptions would help any teacher improve their skill. Most students are fair and honest in their views but they can also be critics, challenging some of the assumptions current schools are based on.

Student group discussions based around a set of question would provide ideas for school and teachers to improve their performance. What would make an ideal school for students? What teacher behavior do they appreciate? What ‘turns students on’ to learning – or what ‘turns then off’?

Teachers could also share modern insights with each other about how students learn and how their teaching can leave students responsible for their own learning. How can students' questions and views be integrated into their teaching?

Many schools have made great advances, the past decade or so, in assisting students select study topics making use of their own question and valuing their own prior ideas as well as encouraging goal setting and self evaluation using criteria negotiated with the students.

In such schools, where students and teachers work in partnership, teachers would have nothing to fear from listening to their students ‘voices’.

Such schools would be well on the way to developing a personalized learning where students are leaders of their own learning and teachers see their role as assisting students gain the skills and knowledge the students need to achieve personal excellence

Such developments would require both trust in teachers and students but if realized would develop schools as true learning environments.

Creativity is more than process.

   As I visit schools I see the effects of heavy interventionist 'training' programmes – usually in the literacy and numeracy fields, that are being ‘delivered’ to school through contracts.

They all seem heavily biased towards ‘best evidenced’ and ‘well researched’ processes, procedures and techniques and, as a result, can hardly be called creative.

There seems an obsession with winning the ‘achievement ‘stakes – internationally, or year by year in every school. Teachers pore over variances in achievement with the intensity of voodoo priests staring at chicken bones.

There is no doubt that the heavily interventionalist ‘training’ programmes in literacy and numeracy are making a difference but at the cost of teacher creativity - the ‘life blood’ of real progress in any area of learning. The pressure/support schools receive ensure that ‘target setting’ (another imported technocratic ‘voodoo’ idea) is narrowly restricted to literacy and numeracy.
As a result, as one UK commentator says, ‘The evil twins of literacy and numeracy have all but gobbled up the entire curriculum.’ This has resulted in a lessoning of emphasis on creative learning in a range of areas.

As well, research is showing that although there have been impressive achievement gains these cannot be sustained and they eventually plateau out and trend down. This is being interpreted as the result of a real lack of 'ownership' of the process by teachers and the effects of growing feelings of dependency on outside providers. Teachers, by applying this well researched ‘one size fits all model, are becoming intelligent technicians.

I guess if there are good things about the imposed ‘efficiency’ and highly monitored programmes it has been that teachers are now talking more about teaching and sharing ideas so all is not lost! It is within this collegial sharing that future developments ought to lie.

A look around many classrooms with a ‘creative eye’ illustrates this heavy handed approach of imposed processes, pre set criteria, intentions, and exemplars. The students work on display, including of all things art, has the look of a high level of mediocrity.

Inadvertently what is being demeaned is the creative power of each teacher, particularly of the few really creative teachers who still exist in the bland managerial environment created in the past decades.

Let’s hope that an understanding develops that it is the wisdom lying untapped with the teachers themselves that is where real educational change resides.

Creative teachers have one obsession that protects them from 'managerialism'. They are passionate about developing the talents, passions, interests and dreams of the students rather than implementing, or ‘delivering’, curriculum guidelines. Because they understand the creative process ( which is often messy and always unpredictable) they gain their satisfaction, not in achieving set targets, but in the idiosyncratic thinking, language and creative expression of their students. Creative teachers are not distracted by their students having to achieve preset achievement goals but are energised by being continually surprised by the creativity of their students.

Creative differences are what we should be aiming for (along with agreed ‘foundation skills’) in our classrooms and schools

The skill of teachers (and school leaders) ought to lie in creating the conditions to develop the creativity and talents of all students. They need to be skilled in assisting students to generate ideas, to provide help in realizing such ideas (but with a ‘light’ hand) and by challenging each individual student to continually reach for personal excellence.

Excellence, it is said, is a journey not a destination. Creative exellence is hard to measure but easy to see or experience – it is the opposite to the dull conformity (called 'high achievement standards') so loved by technocrats.

Creativity must always be more than technique.

And if we want to be a creative country it is the most important educational quality of all to be nurtured in our students, teachers and schools.

We need a new view point!

   For centuries it seems those with expertise have determined what the rest of us want. Many of our current organization are based on this hierarchal authority – somebody always knows best!

This might have worked in earlier times but in an age of open information, information is available to anyone, anywhere, anytime. Wisdom is no longer restricted to those at the top and innovative businesses are developing ‘learning cultures’ based on agreed values, beliefs and behaviors to take advantage of the new environment. The wisdom and experience of those who interact with, or those who buy or use the services, needs to be tapped and shared with others. Expertise and leadership is to be found in all corners of any organization. The success of any future orientated organization needs to be built on accessing the insights of individual at the front line.

As well people are now demanding the right to develop their own perspectives on life and not to be judged or assisted by those distant from the reality of their own lives. As people search for their own identities they are not looking for organizations to tell them how to act and think. The 'one size fits all' mentality is long gone!

To tap into the energy and ideas of all people is the challenge of 21stC organizations including schools – in fact schools ought to re-position themselves to develop the talents of all students and not to see students as ‘consumers’ ( often unwilling) of their programmes. To do this they have to work in co-operation with all their students to develop individual education programmes. It is the subjective quality of the experience, not the graphed achievement level, that any student values. New metrics need to be developed to assess students’ experience – or any one who receives a service from any organization.

Innovative schools know that the best way to develop life long learners is to ‘engage’ students (a problem endemic in traditional schools). So measuring the success of engagement is vital .How do students’ rate their learning experiences? Teachers (and other serve providers) need immediate feedback on the impact of their actions. They need to access the wisdom and insights of those they are assisting.

In this sense all who provide ‘services’ (including teachers) need to serve people in a way that builds up each individuals capacity for coping. This will require changes and new ‘mindsets’ in all aspects of any organization.

All this is revolutionary. It is those in control who need to assess their ability to make such transformational changes.

We may need ‘new minds for a new millennium’!

Developing a learning identity

   Identity is an important idea for individuals and organizations.

Students who develop an open positive learning identity are indeed lucky. Ensuring all students develop such an identity ought to be the number one priority of all teachers well ahead of any content requirements. Unfortunately this is not always the case. Other agendas get in the way namely numeracy and literacy. Important as they are a positive learning identity (some call it ‘learnacy’) is more important.

The identify concept applies to organizations such as schools communities and countries as well.

Identity is hard to tie down but it is an essential element of such things as vision and culture - things you experience or feel. When individuals, or organizations, act within their beliefs they have coherence and integrity and are able to make confident informed choices. Without a strong sense of identity they fall apart or are indecisive. A strong sense of organizational identity or energy is based on congruent agreed behaviors.

A positive learning identity, at the individual or organizational level, provides a filter to help ‘us’ interpret and make sense of the world and gives us the confidence to be open to new possibilities. We all construct our world by what we choose to notice but the culture we live in provides the groundwork; culture can expand or diminish our identities.

A strong cultural identity reaches to every corner of a powerful learning environment – the ideas must be lived by all. Once such a strong learning identify or vision has been developed it will sustain and self renew itself continually adapting to whatever situation arises, providing all involved with the security of a unified sense of direction.

Organizations beginning such a journey must engage everyone to explore its purpose or vision so as to develop its identity; ‘what’s important around here’! What are the current concerns? What does the school want to achieve? What is possible now? How will things be different because of our actions? What beliefs and behaviors will we need to agree to? And, most important of all, everyone must say 'yes' to belonging.

If this is not done ‘we’ will end up with a jumble of contradictory behaviors with people going in all sorts of directions with an associated loss of energy.

A strong sense of identity provides the means of self reference for organizations, or individuals, allowing them to guide their choices. When we agree to work with others within such agreements we may sacrifice some of our freedom but we open ourselves to more creativity. Our individual and group identity co-evolves.

Vision, values, shared behaviours and beliefs provide ‘self reference’ giving coherence and allowing autonomous choices. Such cultural ‘relationships’ are preferable to imposed plans and procedures.

Appropriate behaviours and choices are guided by one rule – they must be consistent with guiding principles. If the culture and identity is strong then what is appropriate is not a problem.

A learning identity is all about making meaning- all positive individuals or organization are drawn, by their creativity and energy, to continually extend their knowledge. Identity is a strong ‘force’ – a seamless web of relationships, responsibity, participation, harmony, and recognition.

Organizations with a strong learning identity based on clear beliefs and trust are 'attractive' and 'inviting' to others, and those who live and work in them develop a strong passion for what they are trying to achieve. Those with rigid controlling identities cut themselves off from creative possibilities - as do individuals.

With a strong learning identity individuals and organizations are open to continual exploration, happy with the appreciation that there are no right answers and that life is a continual creative process of improvisation.

Only people or organizations with strong learning identities will have the capacity to thrive in the future.

Another 'buzz' phrase - 'building capacity'!

   What is this thing called ‘capacity’?

In the Minister of Educations recent speech, ‘Personalized Learning: putting the heart back into education', given to the 2006 Primary Principals Conference, he mentions that the role of government is to help school build ‘capacity’ to meet students needs.

To develop the transformation required by personalized learning, particularly to return the ‘heart’ or ‘spirit’ to education , will require more than the current system’s ‘capacity’.

Phillip Schlechty, in his paper ‘Creating the Capacity to Support Innovation’, provides some pertinent thoughts.

Schlechty says everyone wants to build capacity’ but it is not always clear what people mean. In the most generic sense the word ‘capacity’ has to do with potentials and limitations. A bucket can only hold the ‘capacity’ it was designed for – no more.

School reformers or leaders seldom take capacity issues into account when they are installing innovation and, because of this, many innovations end up as failures. Most current innovations are about improving the current system to make it perform up to capacity – filling the bucket. As such they are, according to Schlechty, ‘sustaining’ and as such have little impact on the structure or culture of the organization.

In contrast, he says, there are ideas, innovations or technologies that are ‘disruptive’ and are beyond the ‘capacity’ of the current system and require dramatic alterations of both the culture and the structures. They alter roles, rules and relationships and change dramatically the culture of the organization.

Personalization falls into this category – particularly for secondary schools.

Up until now most innovation have been ‘sustaining' rather than ‘disruptive’.

Schlechty believes there are three general capacities that schools and school systems must have in place if they are to transform school along the lines our Minister is suggesting.

1. The capacity to establish a focus on the future

2. The capacity to maintain direction once a clear focus has been established

3. The capacity to act strategically and to create new future rather than being dominated by problems with their origins in the past.

The key to transformation, Schlechty writes, lies in understanding that the present system was designed to produce attendance and compliance. He believes that if public education is to survive and thrive in the 21stC it will be necessary to focus on nurturing student engagement. ‘Schools must be positioned to be in the student engagement business rather than the compliance business.’ ‘They must attend to creating work that commands students' attention as well as commitment.’

If Schlechty’s view is accepted it is clear that school of the future must be organized in different ways and that teachers will need to do new things. Teachers will have to learn to rely less on tradition based authority and rely more on expert understanding that derives from a deep understanding of student motives and how to appeal to them.

To achieve such a transformational change goes beyond the current ‘capacity’ of the present system. The current 'bucket' is already leaking!

To develop 'disruptive' change requires ‘capacity building'. Leaders need to develop the ‘capacity’ to communicate new transformative beliefs, to commit to them, and to encourage a similar leadership ‘capacity’ throughout the school. Leaders need to be able to assess the ‘capacity’ of the school to support ‘disruptive' innovations and, most of all, they will need the moral courage to persevere when innovations go through the 'messy' middle stages of change when everything feels like a failure!

There are lots of barriers to such transformation other than loss of nerve as the current system has a tendency to maintain the ‘status quo'. ‘Disruptive’ innovations require people to do things they have never done and to thrive the school requires the ‘capacity’ to drive out fear and encourage responsible risk taking. Schools need to develop strong collegial bonds of trust so as to able to live at the ‘cutting edge of ignorance’ to be able to absorb uncertainty and failure and to 'stick' with the innovation long enough.

It may be, as Schlechty thinks, that the era of traditional school is past. We need to expect more from our schools. Schools need to contribute to the building of communities as well as engaging all students in meaningful activities. Schools need to transform themselves from organizations, with their genesis in an industrial society that focused on producing compliance, to ones that nurture and develop engagement of all students.

Our Minister of Education’s vision of transforming our system into one that personalizes learning is a true 'disruptive' innovation, one that will require new 'mindsets' from all involved if his words are to be transformed from rhetoric to reality.

If we want our schools to achieve personalization they will need to have the ‘capacity’, perseverance, persistence and real courage to reinvent themselves so all students can learn at the highest level.

It seems we need a new ‘post modern’ ever expanding bucket with an infinite capacity if we are to develop schools as 21stC personalized learning organizations!

Fundamental shift in Education

It is amazing how a new consensus can be realized by those who administer education that strikes creative teachers as common sense.

Suddenly those at the top, it seems, understand what really matters –that the most important factor in a child’s learning is the quality of the individual teacher, that high expectations are important as is involving the student’s family.

I guess it isn’t so strange when you consider that those at the top have been too busy imposing technocratic curriculums for the past 15 or so years, that relate to now a discredited market forces ideology, to see the wood for the trees.

What has been ‘rediscovered’ is ‘personalized learning’.

These are now becoming the ‘buzz words’ for our new Minister of Education Steve Maharey. Not that I disagree with him, far from it, I am enthusiastic, but lets not think it is anything new.

The Minister expanded ‘his’ ideas about the idea about personalized learning at the NZ Primary Principals Conference earlier this month saying that he believes, ‘it captures everything we’re trying to do in education at the present time’.

As the Minister said, however, it relates back to the ideas of John Dewey who saw education integrated into students lives and not, as Maharey continued, a ‘one size fits all’ ‘chalk and talk' approach. The ideas of people like John Dewey never made it up into the secondary system which was more concerned with what the Minister called ‘social sifting’. Our secondary system owes more to the mass production factory mentality of Henry Ford!

The best writing on the topic is coming from the UK and Maharey quoting their former secretary of education said personalized learning , ‘means shaping the teaching around the way different youngsters learn; it means taking care to nurture the unique talents of every student.’ It is about fitting the curriculum to the needs of the learner rather than fitting the students to the curriculum.

The Minister indicated this shift will be supported by the yet to be released revised simplified NZ Curriculum which will focus on: effective teaching, strengthening school leadership, and allow greater local ownership of the curriculum.

To me it is one ‘giant step to the left’ – or to the past; ‘Deju vu’, but it will allow schools the opportunity to become future rather than compliance orientated.

If there is a concern it is in the area of assessment which, although the Minister prefaced by a need to ensure all students understand their strength and weaknesses, could easily be 'bogged down' in the collection and interpretation of endless 'evidence' resulting in not being able 'to see the wood for the trees'. The Minister mentions requiring information about student’s progress in the essential learning areas, and gathering and analyzing data about student achievement, and the need to disaggregate student data; and all this on top of a current obsession with literacy and numeracy data above the more important concept I prefer ‘learnacy’!

While I am all in favour of ensuring students learn I would’ve thought information about their attitudes and strategies ( ‘key competencies’) would be more relevant along with information about the talents the students are developing – and this is best seen by what students can do, communicate, present, sing, perform and demonstrate

This spiritless obsession with endless data and analysis is not the approach of creative teachers (or scientists or artists) who work along amore enlightened trial and error approach, continually revising and extending their ideas.

Let’s assess what is important and be selective about it. Teachers have only so much time and energy and it would be a shame to waste it on endless analysis.

However you look at it, as the Minister says, the move towards personalized education is a fundamental shift in education. In a previous speech the Minister did relate it to the unrealized vision of Dr Beeby and Peter Fraser of the late 1930s. Those who taught in the late 60 and the 70s will also recognize the underlying philosophy.

The Minister is talking about creating a ‘high trust low compliance’ environment that will allow communities and schools to take a leadership role in developing learning chalenges to ensure all students gain success.

The Minister claims he has, ‘been challenging the education system – teachers, principals and others- to bring about changes’.

You have to ask who has been responsible for taking us in the wrong direction, creating the low trust high compliance environment? Certainly not the teachers, schools and BOTs who have been exhausted trying to keep up with all the compliance requirements of the past decades!

The Minister aslo needs to challenge the politicians and the bureaucrats – it has been their ‘mindsets’ that have impinged on the creativity of schools and in turn produced school and student failure.

And he should nave listened to the 'voices' of the many ‘critics’, and the creative teachers that have been ignored the past years.

But at least we are back heading in the right direction – hopefully.

The Minister might only have three years!

I for one am prepared to do what I can to assist! It is great being able to support the Minister, and the Ministry, for a change!

Whose learning is it?

   Recently I added a blog about 'what we steal from children' based on thoughts by Australian educator John Edwards. In his article he wrote that research says that for year 10 students in Australia that 75% of all tasks across the curriculum allowed students no choice in any aspects of the task.

He went on to say that UK research (Tizard and Hughes 86)showed that at home students discussed a range of interesting topics and had fruitful discussions about these things with their mothers. They puzzled over all sorts of things in their innate desire to make sense of their world. In contrast at school researchers were disappointed. Although students were happy the richness, depth, variety and intellectual struggle which characterized the home conversations were sadly missing. The questioning puzzling child was gone and their role was now largely answering questions not asking them.

Gordon Wells in his book, ‘The Meaning Makers’ (86), makes similar points reporting that at school utterances by a child to an adult were 63% less than at home and conversation initiated by students dropped 64% and questions by 70%.

The ownership of learning is vital if children are to develop learning identities.

Without meaning to many teachers not only diminish their student’s authentic sense of self but miss out in inspiration to develop engaging personalized programmes. As DH Lawrence wrote, ‘you have to know yourself to be yourself’. At school students learn to fit into a world designed by teachers and not all students will thrive in such an artificial environment.

This theme is expanded in a book by Elley and Smith (2000) on students writing. The authors say students from an early age expect others to make sense of their 'marks' but again, at school, these early attempts are often ignored in a desire to ensure reading is in place. At home students write about all sorts of things but at school it was found that they express fewer ideas and use less complex language. And they also found that genuine questions are replaced by ‘guess what I am thinking’ questions asked by teachers. As Heenan (86) says, ‘Children are soon conditioned to play it safe, sacrificing spontaneity, freshness and independence for correctness, teacher approval and dependency.’

All learning is about power – learning power, writing power- all in the need to make sense of life.

Classrooms ought to reflect the ‘voice’, the questions, the ideas, the theories, and the artistic expression of the students themselves not just teachers ‘curriculum’. This was, and still is, central to the philosophy of creative teachers.

Teachers ought to place at the centre of all they do that the students need to be in control of their own ‘meaning making’. Meaning making, in any learning task, is the students number one priority.

Are you my Mummy?

  Some of the work on display. 

Are you my Mummy?

  

Are you my Mummy?

   Last day of term I drove to see the culmination of an eight week integrated study based around the theme of Egypt – called ‘Are You My Mummy’?

It was well worth the trip and I spent a couple of enjoyable hours reading, viewing and absorbing the wealth of content the various classes had studied. Just as impressive was observing the obvious pride shown by the young children taking their parents and grandparents around the display to show them the work that they had done. And what I also liked was that all the work was of real artistic quality – the whole exhibition was simply impressive.

Each term the teachers at this school collaboratively plan a theme arising from suggestions gathered from the students themselves about what thay wanted to study. Earlier studies had focused around space and Harry Potter.

These are no superficial studies. The themes involve the whole school and for the first few weeks student work in family groups completing tasks devised by various teachers. This requires the teaching of co-operative learning skills so the older students can assist the younger students. As the study evolves, and as the students get greater depth of understanding, further questions develop and students then work at tasks in their own classes. Inquiry learning skills are learnt as students undertake their ‘action research’ and a full range of information technology is integrated as required. As well some students take on extra homework tasks that they complete with the help of their family members.

The theme was introduced by a mock presentation by teachers of getting a body ready for mummification – complete with body parts provided by the local butcher!

All the work culminates with a two open days and a night for parents and friends. Two spare rooms are converted with student murals based on the theme, lighting, and displays featuring the various topics the classes has researched. This includes a large sphinx, a pyramid with a model mummy inside, a life sized mummification process etc.

A data projector PowerPoint runs continually illustrating research on making pyramids, mummification etc, and computers screen various animations and plays.

A closer look at the displays illustrates the: science of building, model making, jewelry making, Egyptian style art, cooking, making paper, hieroglyphics, model mummified cats, pottery, Egyptian maths, and water clocks. Every area of the curriculum, and every intelligence, seems to be included. The study also asked the students to compare life in their town and ancient Egyptian life. I particularly liked the similarities between the Egyptian ad Maori myths of creation.

Being present is a powerful experience, from the overall effect, to the most intimate detail of each individual students work. Quality in depth learning!

The students have learnt a lot from their study other than content. They have learnt to work together and share ideas. They have learnt 'how to learn' and how to go about presenting their ideas with sense of aesthetic design. They have learnt to value their various strengths. Most of all they have gained in 'learning power' and pride.

And all this in school that a couple of years ago was struggling.

The greatest benefit of might well be in the new understandings about learning, and the power of working together collegiality, that the teachers have gained in the process.

Their pride was as obvious as their students - they are a true learning community

It was well worth the visit and I can't wait to see their next exhibition.

What did you steal from your students today?

  Painting by NZ artist Jan Nigro.  Many of you will have worked with John Edwards an Australian educator who works both in schools and in the business area. I came across an article he wrote about education for the gifted and talented impressed me and so I thought I would share a few of has ideas.

The thoughts below were inspired by John’s wife asking him, ‘what did you steal from your students today?’ He and his wife then sat down and wrote the following. I have only selected a few of their thoughts but you will get the meassge.

‘If where we go is always the decision of the curriculum or my curiosity and not theirs.
If I always decide on the topic to be studied, the problem to be worked on.
How will they ever know how to begin?

If I am the one who is always monitoring progress.
If bells and I are always in control of the pace and the flow
How will they learn to continue their own work?

If all the marking and editing is done by me
If the selection of work to be published or evaluated is made by me
If they do not have language of self assessment.
How will they find ownership, direction and delight in what they do?

If I speak of individuals but present learning as if they are all the same
If we do not take opportunity to think about our thinking.
If I never openly respect their thoughts.
If I never let them persevere with something really difficult.
If there is no time to explore.
How will they get to know themselves as thinkers?

If the never help anyone else.
If we do not teach them the skills of working cooperativelity.
How will they learn to work with others?

For if they
Have never experiences being challenged in a safe environment.
Have had all their creative thoughts explained away
Are unaware of what catches their interest and how then to have confidence in that interest
Have never followed something they are passionate about to a satisfying conclusion.
Have not clarified how they sabotage their own learning.
Are afraid to ask help and do not know who to ask.
Have not experienced at overcoming their own inertia.
Are paralyzed by the need to know everything before writing or acting.
Have never got bogged down.
Have never failed.
Have always played it safe.
How will the ever know who they are?’

So what are you stealing from your students?

I guess the real question is, what do we want our students to leave with so they can continue their learning journey? We need to discuss this with out colleagues.

I think the answers lie in the above thoughts.

The implication for teachers ( not just for those who teach the gifted and talented) is that. ‘Schools and curricula need to be redesigned so that teachers and their students can genuinely rediscover the joy of learning.

Perhaps this is what the new ‘buzz word’ personalization really means?