An overwhelming creative experience

Astronauts entering the space shuttle: Zero Gravity theme.


I was invited to visit Opunake Primary School to see the culminating display of their current topic 'Zero Gravity'-  open to parents and the public the last two days of the term.

To make a change from suffering from the  endless wet days we had been having I decided to take up the offer. I knew more or less what to expect as I had visited several other end of term culminating displays. To add to the fun I decided to ask an old friend of mine to come just for the ride which is about 45 minutes from where I live. I didn't tell my friend we were going to visit a school. I didn't think it would be much of an enticement and when we pulled up at the school he said he would be happy to sit in the car until I had completed my visit.

I insisted he accompany me and to say that it was a mind changing experience for my friend would not be far from the truth.

Opunake school is a very special school. However, before the appointment of the current principal Lorraine, things were less than wonderful. Opunake is a decile four school with a forty percent Maori role and, at at the time of Lorraine's appointment, had little parental support and the staff somewhat demoralised.

Although I am a fan of individual creative teachers, believing they hold the power to develop ideas that can change schools, this power is magnified if a school is led by a creative principal

What makes the school special are the educational changes Lorraine has introduced to develop a more positive  inclusive learning community at the school. The changes are based around a collaborative approach to teaching combined with the use of a range of innovative teaching strategies.

At the end of each year students are asked to think about what concern they have and they would like to study.  This idea is based on the writings of American Middle School educator James Beane. Students contribute their ideas and from  their ideas common themes are  decided upon for the next years studies. Interestingly enough the students ideas easily cover normal curriculum requirements.

Once the theme has been decided upon a provocative title is decided upon and then the theme is explored for the term, or longer. Themes I have observed have covered 'Harry Potter' ( mainly maths and science)  'Are You my Mummy' ( Egypt), 'Shackleton', 'Space', 'The local Environment' - I can't remember the exact  more interesting titles.

The current thee was called ' Zero Gravity' - about space exploration.The photo  above does not do the study justice.

The  theme follows along the following process.

The teachers plan an interesting introductory experience to motivate a range of study  questions from the students which become the basis for the study.  For the Egyptian study the teachers put on a shadow play which involved  teachers acting as priests preparing body for the mummification  process. This was authentic enough for a year one student to tell his mum that the teachers cut up a year eight students but that it was OK because the young learner concerned said he had seen the 'victum' later in the library!

Following the introductory experience the  teachers plan activities for students, arranged in family groups, to be involved with.Older students are 'trained' to assist younger children. For the current study eighteen science experiments were planned - providing more physical science than most primary students experience in a year. This involves afternoons for the first week or two.

Literacy and numeracy programmes cover the mornings  no doubt content from current themes is involved.

The 'end on mind' is to prepare exhibits for the end of term display.These displays transform a room ( once two classrooms) into what can be best expressed as a school version of Te Papa. Once the displays are in place it is impossible to recognise the rooms as classrooms.

Following the family grouped experiences teachers, in their individual classrooms and teams, plan out their exhibits for the  display room and undertake  research about the theme. The school uses an inquiry approach across the school and a range of thinking skills but, as important as the process is, the whole point is to develop the end of term display/experience.

Back to our school visit.

Visitors enter the room through a Ground Zero Entrance Gate and are welcomed by an episode of Star Trek to add to the ambiance. Once over a a raised foiled covered entrance way the main room is entered.The entire space floor and ceiling is covered with black plastic.No outside light enters - light come from spotlights,computers and digital projector screens.  Visitors are confronted with large models of spaceships, moon buggies, alien tea parties, science experiments, white coated astronauts and a robot that has moving arms ( powered by students who take turns). Metres of tin foil has been used contrasted with white painted rockets, space shuttles, and moon buggies. And, as you get used to the experience, there are an endless range of childrens' research, art and language to admire.

To add to the excitement students are guiding their appreciative parents around and, while we were there, the local kindergarten was visiting. One can only imagine what they were thinking.

The next day I returned with a retired teacher who was, in my opinion, one of the most creative teachers of his time.I also invited a scientist ( who had been an adviser to the nearby Maui plant) who now writes science features for the local paper.

They too were impressed.

Opunake is a special school.

Sharing the wisdom of creative teachers - the agenda for the future.

Quote from Goethe.

Last week I attended a farewell for an excellent teacher.

All the principals who had been involved with the teacher's career, since she had returned to teaching after raising her family, were invited to her current school  be part of the celebration.

We were all asked to say a few words. The teacher concerned had returned to teaching when I was principal in the 90s. My comments centred around the thought that in our profession we do not really value, or take advantage, of such excellent teachers and that it is a shame that their wisdom is not able to be captured and shared with others.

Learning from other teachers, both within and between schools, is the most powerful form of professional development. Every teacher respects and appreciates the reality that any such advice is based in contrast to many current  advisers who , more often than not ,  give advice about things they have never put into practice.

That school leadership has not taken advantage  expertise between schools has meant that wisdom and an opportunity for teacher leadership  has been lost.

In my experience all the lasting innovations have been developed by , or in collaboration with, classroom teachers - particularly those few who are really gifted or creative.

In reply the teacher concerned thanked all who spoke and the support of all on the current school staff.

I was impressed with her thanks to me for helping her develop her teaching philosophy when she returned to teaching - particularly the idea of doing fewer things well, providing students with whatever help they need and expecting quality work from all students. Simple stuff but it makes all the difference. She even commented on the challenging staff meetings we used to have!

I had only been a principal for few years before the teacher concerned won her position at the school. Previously I  had been an art adviser, and prior to that, a science adviser. Hardly a typical background but during my previous experience I had learnt a lot from all my classroom visits and was the ideas gained from such experiences that I introduced into the school.

Visiting classrooms in the 1960s, helping teachers with their natural history programmes ( and later science generally), I soon began to appreciate teachers whose classrooms stood out as particularly exciting environments. In those early days such teachers were more often that not teaching principals of rural schools - teachers who had escaped from formality of the  more traditional  bigger town schools.

Such teachers took advantage of the ideas 'in the air' at the times.It was the 60s and schools were changing dramatically. Language experience  teaching, centres of interests, integrated programmes and related arts. The rigid timetables of the fifties were  breaking down with this emphasis on child-centred learning.

As an adviser I was able to observe some of the first integrated studies to be developed centred around science and social studies. In my advisory  position I was able to assist teachers with integrated studies  based around ecological community studies - seashore, bush and river life. Today ,I guess, It would be called inquiry learning. It was learning in depth and, as well, students expressed their ideas in language, art and drama. The local advisers worked together to develop and share innovative between teachers and the local inspectors made use of such teachers for professional development. The art and craft advisers, in particular, led the way with integrated related arts courses -and in rural  school principals they found their greatest supporters.

Added to the mix of ideas were idea about integrated learning coming out of the UK and ,after spending a year teaching in very creative school, I returned to work with a group of local teachers in the 1970s.

The creative work undertaken by such teachers became well known nationally as the Taranaki Environmental Approach. As a group we also discovered the ideas of pioneer creative teacher Elwyn Richardson through his book 'In The Early World'. For a few years I returned to the classroom to see if I could put ideas I had gained into action. Then, after a brief time back as science adviser I became an art adviser and then a principal.

It was the ideas gained from my experiences, working with and observing teachers, that I wanted to introduce as a principal.

The phrase 'Environmental Education' has since morphed into 'Quality Learning'. The term 'environmental approach' had originally meant placing importance of the total environment created ( today called culture), making use of the immediate environment for much of the schoolwork, and the quality of classroom displays and recorded work.

This brings me back to the ideas learnt and shared by the leaving teacher.

An overriding belief was that our student's can achieve far more than we currently expect.

A key idea I introduced when a principal was that integrated inquiry studies should provide most of the inspiration and energy for the days programme -everything should be introduced as a problem to be solved and that in the process we should value children's question and prior ideas. The inquiry model to be used was the Learning In Science Project model which required teachers to value and expand  children'sknowledge. Our rich local environment was to be our most valuable resource - and observational skills an important element.

Our role is to develop the gifts and talents of all students through exposure to a wide range of studies and means of expression.

Children's ideas should be celebrated in all subject areas and in particular we need to celebrate the children's personal experiences through language and art to develop, in all children, a positive sense of self; to celebrate their 'voice'.

Reading and maths should be planned to provide skills needed for inquiry studies as much as possible.

As teachers we need to 'slow the pace' of children's work to ensure they achieve quality work; to do 'fewer things well'.

To achieve quality all appropriate skills need to be taught ( often during the language block).This particularly applied to all written work where teachers and students ought to be able to show continual quality improvement in thought and presentation.

Expectations, tasks, and group work, need to be negotiated and clearly defined on blackboards to allow teachers to work as 'creative coaches' with selected students and for students to be able to work independently.

Room environments to feature well displayed finished work with appropriate headings to inform visitors.

All these idea were gained from ,and by working with, classroom teachers supported by local advisers.

Today the opposite is all but true.'Best practices' are imposed on schools by contracted advisers. Compliance and conformity are valued more than creativity; technique and process above in depth personal knowledge and creativity Standardisation is being asked for rather than personalisation.

Time for teachers to claim back centre stage to transform schools.

The 2007 National Curriculum provides inspiration with its vision of 'connected, confident life long learners'  - learners able to 'seek, use and create their own knowledge'. The current emphasis on testing,  achievement data, and standards in literacy and numeracy are reactionary steps back to the fifties - along with ability grouping and streaming.

We can't afford to lose the wisdom of our creative or retiring teachers.

But the battle now is to go beyond quality into creativity led by a  new group of creative teachers; and the key is to tap into the creative teachers between schools

Focussing on developing student's passions

Room environment from from the 70s! When creative teachers were rare but valued.

Here we are in 2011 still trying to solve the problem of failing or reluctant learners. The Minister and her tame officials are busy spreading the word that one in five children are failing - the so called 'achievement tail'. In the process they are giving the impression that our school system is failing and that the obvious answer is to introduce National Standards.

A few things ought to be clarified before New Zealand heads down the same failing solutions as the UK, the USA and Australia. Standards are not a new idea - once all classes were called standards and students sat tests to pass up to the next standard. In the UK, in the early years of the 20th century, teachers were even paid by results. In New Zealand, up until the 1950s, students were held back in the early years to give then extra assistance. The unintended consequences of such 'solutions' was a narrowing of the curriculum ( 'teaching to the tests') and, as well, students did not show any improvements - in fact their attitudes to being held back was less than positive.

And yet this is the solution the Ministry is pushing on to schools.This solution is political and populist answer that ignores deeper problems - that of the effects of poverty that limits the school success of students, the mono cultural bias of education and the limiting view of intelligences.

The debilitating effects of such a traditional approach  came to an end in the decades after World War Two as more democratic  liberating ideas were in the air - reaching its zenith in the 60s. Isolated teachers began to explore more creative ways of teaching based on engaging students in meaningful activities leading to self responsibility. It is now hard to believe that a simplistic transmission approach to teaching  once reached right down to infant classes.  The appropriate metaphor  for a school in those days  is one of a a factory - complete with waste products. One older teacher remembers unscrewing of the desks from the floor and class numbers up to the 60s! Students sat in rows , two to a desk. Knowledge came from the teacher.

The answer to failing students requires fresh thinking. Mass education and standardisation need to be replaced with a more  personalised approach  - one that values the individuality and uniqueness of every student and new roles for both teacher and students as co-learners. Subject centred teaching needs to replaced with learner centred education.

Pioneer creative teachers have been been using such approaches for decades but in recent times their insights have been ignored as a more managerial approach has been imposed on schools by the Ministry. Standardized tests and compliance, leading to a surveillance culture, has been preferred to encouraging creativity and innovation at the school level. This is ironic because New Zealand was once a world leader, at the primary level, in such a holistic and creative education. The Standards agenda  could well be the last straw unless teachers fight back.

The only real answer to the dilemma of failing students is to place the focus of schooling on the development of the gifts and talents - the variety of passions and interests that inspire intensive learning - in all students.

This requires students digging deeply into areas that have attracted their interests using all the  traditional disciplines to learn.This is  in contrast to assessing students against subject areas  - worse still, with the  standards agenda,  limited to literacy and numeracy. A passionate  education  is premised on developing students gifts and talents; it is an education  that values what students bring to their learning; one that values their particular cultures;  and one that values student's prior ideas, questions and theories.

What would happen if teachers spent their energy  helping students find out what attracts their attention no matter how fleeting the interest.With time students will become passionate about certain areas of learning and this could well lead to  them spending their lives pursuing ideas that appeal to them. Achieving dreams and personal goals are what motives successful learners.

It is worth thinking about why so many students lose their sense of wonder and desire to explore -attributes that are innate at birth - the human default way of learning.Consider the number of questions very young children ask and why this vital learning behaviour is lost during the school years.

Sir Ken Robinson, an expert on creativity has spend years speaking around the world about how we as a society beat the joy of learning out of our students and that b the time they reach high school the vast majority of them are standardized in thinking and in the way they seek answer to teacher's questions. His point is that we are destroying the very skills modern business desperately needs. 'Creativity' , he says, is as important as literacy and numearcy'.

Only few students are able to break out of the creativity killing cycle imposed on them by standardized teaching,  just at a time , Sir Ken writes, we as a culture value highly those that are creative and who pursue their passions as their vocations. And it is not only students who  lose their creative abilities - so do teachers who have to comply to uncreative requirements. Both student and teacher passions are left at the doorways of classrooms. For many students they are pursued out of school hours - school has become irrelevant.

New thinking is required . We need both teachers and students with 'new minds for a new millenium' - for what some call the Second Renaissance ' or the 'Age of Creativity'.

It is a simple truth that people of all ages get better at what they are good at and not by having their noses rubbed in what they are not able to do - feature of the current standards.

And the role of a creative teacher is demanding one involving considerable artistry.  Educationalist Jerome Bruner has written that , 'the canny art of the teacher is one of intellectual tempation'. All children are curious -and their curiosity is used by 'canny' teachers, to their advantage, to negotiate learning challenges with their students.

So what we want is not more  standardisation but  an educational transformation.

We already have the 2007 New Zealand to give schools the courage to act. This curriculum asks of schools to develop 'connected , confident life- long learners' able to, 'seek, use and create their own knowledge'. The teachers role is not to push knowledge into students heads but to pull ideas out and to celebrate their student's thinking and creativity The curriculum ask of teacher to develop positive learning identities for all students - not just the literate, numerate or academic important these may be.

There are a range of gifts and talents to develop. We need to give students back the power to learn they were born with and to create our classrooms as learning communities - students who live and act as scientists, artist, mathematicians, researchers, readers, painter, writers ...whatever it is they feel the need to apply their effort wholeheartedly in.

A creative eduction is a personalised approach that gives students more control,choice and responsibility. Teachers, to achieve this, will have to be knowledgeable about the range of curriculum area, or know where to go to get assistance. Unlike in earlier days knowledge is freely available through the Internet  but students will still need to be helped to interrogate and interpret it.

There is plenty of evidence that teachers and students can become creative passionate learners again.

The status quo is failing, the standardized past is not the answer, only a real transformation will solve the problem of failing students.  John Dewey wrote last century that the teachers role was , 'to keep alive the sacred spark of wonder; to fan the flame that already glows.The problem is to protect the spirit of inquiry, to keep it from becoming blase from over-excitement,wooden from routine, fossilised through dogmatic instruction, or dissipated by random exercise upon trivial things.'

Trivial standards or creativity and passion. A choice between the future or the past.

No choice!

Signs of a creative classroom

Deborah French's classroom

One thing seems obvious to me, after several decades visiting primary classrooms, is that real innovation only comes from creative teachers and not from imposed programmes. Unfortunately,  all too often, creative teachers are the last ones to be listened to in this era of school consistency and formulaic 'best practices'. It seem we are moving towards a standardised approach to learning at the very time when we need to value (and protect) our creative teachers and their creative students.

Creativity, of course, is a word  thrown around to describe much of the work students currently do. But true creativity is marked by originality and  idiosyncrasy and all too often is in opposition to what is expected. And creativity is not to be limited to the arts - it applies to all aspects of human activity.

For creativity to survive requires a school culture that values creativity.  Such schools are hard to find in these times of intrusive compliance.This does not mean every teacher doing whatever they like but rather for all teachers to be working within agreed beliefs. To develop a real creative learning culture requires considerable ongoing dialogue about the purpose of  an education for an evolving and creative world. To achieve such an environment is a balancing act for school leadership -the aim is for 'consistent creativity'. A number of important issues might need to be carefully defined and implemented while at the same time leaving plenty of room for teacher initiative and innovation. Creativity often works best within some form of constraint. Total freedom often leads to chaos and disorder;  creativity in any field requires considerable focused discipline.

The trouble is, in all too many schools, creativity is sacrificed to consistency and imposed requirements resulting in the heavy surveillance culture schools feel they need to impose. Schools have become test crazy valuing such testing above the insights of teachers. Testing narrows the learning while  in contrast teacher insight can take into account a number of variables. In this respect 'test crazy'  schools are already well on the way to National Standards - their only argument, it seems, is the worry about school comparisons through 'league tables'.

And associated with these compliance requirements, particularly the emphasis on literacy and numeracy, is a move for schools to reinforce traditional structures and expectations which are antithetical to creativity.

With this in mind it is easy to see a school that lacks creativity and vice versa.

Uncreative schools unconsciously  look back to the past for their direction. Such schools have let their literacy and numeracy programmes become the default curriculum.  A close look at such programmes will show if these two important 'foundation skills'  have become self contained areas taking up most of the available time. In contrast in  a creative school these areas have been 'reframed' and linked to skills required for current  inquiry studies. A further step back to industrial aged thinking is to have these areas streamed off into ability groups and, even worse still, taught by other teachers.

Creative teachers find no trouble in linking their language arts times ( a preferable term to literacy) with the current inquiry study/ies although integrating maths is more problematic.  Teachers need to give thought to the point of much of the maths that is currently taught and consider doing fewer things well. One writer ( Seymour Papert) has said that, 'all science and maths in schools should be applied not pure'. Maths thinking in most schools is determined by thinking from a past era .Thankfully The New Zealand Curriculum (07) has a more enlightened view of maths . With  'new maths minds'  teachers can introduce realistic contexts for their maths. Less maths, in realistic contexts, would be good advice and would result in maths being far more creative.

Standardised less creative classrooms feature 'intentionl teaching' ,  formulaic 'best practices', heavily defined group work in literacy and numeracy, WALTS,  predetermined criteria and learning objectives. None of these in themselves are bad things but taken to extremes they are all creativity killers. Inquiry programmes seem  to be seen as 'add-ons' and feature process more than deep content. And work displayed on the walls and in book all looks the same - even the art work!

So what would you see in a creative classroom ( in my opinion of course)?

Creative  classrooms need to be seen as communities of inquiry  where students  act as scientists and artists ( and historians, poets mathematicians etc) inquiring into whatever has attracted their attention. Students' range of inquiries would be the first thing to be seen when entering the room. Literacy programmes would relate to such studies (and reflect students 'voice') and ,where possible, so would much of the maths.What maths to be seen would feature maths investigations.

Both students and teachers would be continually assessing their progress and be considering making new choices on the basis their reflections. Attitudes , or 'feeling for'  the various learning areas, would be in the forefront of teachers minds not just recording sterile achievement. Assessment would largely be seen in the work of the students compared to  their previous accomplishments. Creative teachers can show evidence for improvement.

Creative teachers take to heart the phrase from the New Zealand Curriculum  that their students  need to be able to, 'seek, use, and create their own knowledge'. Creative teachers value each students' identity and do their best to focus on developing the talents and gifts of all their students along with ensuring that all students retain the innate learning attributes they were born with. Such teachers understand the importance of relationships and work alongside their students to help them  value their lives, thoughts and views through language and the arts. The work on display celebrates the diversity and 'voice'  of all  students and the quality of their thoughts. And the room environments are continuatully changing as a range of inquiries are completed.

Creative classrooms are personalised learning environments - traditional classrooms are still stuck in the standardised 'one size fits all' approach with its genesis in   a ,now faltering industrial, era.

 Everyone sees the point of school in a creative classroom.

A creative classroom is one where helping students develop their own ideas is more important than achieving what a teacher , or outside agency,has determined they should know.

A creative schools is one where leaders have created the conditions for both teachers and students to be creative learners - within those teaching beliefs  that they have come to believe in.

Creative classrooms are far and few  between but they hold the genesis for a creative future.

Creative schools are rare and endangered.

Guest Post by Allan Alach on the 'bigger picture' behind standards!

Traditional way of solving a problem - but what do you really know about National's Standards?

As the furore over the MOE imposed July 1st charter deadline passes, we need to be mindful that there’s a much bigger picture and not be distracted by the debate over competence in the ‘basics.” Of course all children need to ‘achieve’ in these. No dispute. Engaging in debates at this level obscures the need to lift our heads to see where the game is heading.

Regular readers of this blog will know that Bruce has been very passionate and articulate in attacking national standards. This week’s guest blog from Phil Cullen in Australia expressed very similar concerns about the situation in Australia. Are these similarities just coincidental? What about the similarities between government policies here and in England and the USA? Coincidence also?

Read what Lester Flockton writes in the latest New Zealand Principal magazine:

“Is it a coincidence that the ‘bold’ new frontline strategy being ‘rolled out’ has very strong resemblances to the strategy advocated by the UK-based McKinsey & Co., and particularly its chief strategist Sir Michael Barber - one time adviser to Tony Blair? We know for a FACT that the strategy for system improvement hasn’t succeeded in remedying their tail of underachievement. So why, in all sensibility, would we want to follow such a model here?”

Why indeed? Very good question, Lester.

I do wonder whether the full extent of the probable agenda is understood by the majority of principals, teachers and parents in New Zealand schools, even though there is no shortage of information, nationally and internationally, that points the way. Why are people seemingly blase about this? “She’ll be right, mate”

The government has been and still is being extremely clever with the introduction of the standards. This process has very neatly drawn attention away from their longer term agenda, with all the focus at the moment being on that 1st July charter deadline.

The New Zealand Curriculum (remember this?) has, as one of its themes, the development of inquiry learning. So, in the spirit of the New Zealand Curriculum, let’s look at the whole national standards situation, using our inquiry learning skills.

Reflect on these:

•       Why is the government ignoring the very wide range of national and international educational experts who are articulating the need for an educational system that will meet the needs of the 21st century? 

         

•       Why is it that standards based systems have been introduced into the ‘Anglo-Saxon’ countries (England, Australia, USA, Canada and New Zealand)? Why is the rhetoric to justify this very similar in each country, and especially so in USA states with a Republican Governor? What do American parents think? Parents Across America

         

•       Why do non-educators, especially politicians and business people (Bill Gates), profess to be experts in education and know all the answers?

         

•       How come the ‘common core standards’ in the USA are similar to our national standards?   Concerns about core standards. Why are we playing the ‘me too’ game in introducing standards, to the incredulity of experts such as Andy Hargreaves?

         

•       Why is everything being based on the scores in the PISA tests, when there are increasing numbers of experts, such as Stephen Heppell in the UK (http://heppell.net/pisa/) and Diane Ravitch in USA (http://tinyurl.com/pisa-ravitch) pointing out the flaws in these? How valid are the rankings when Shanghai is listed as number one? Just Shanghai? What about the rest of China?

         

•       Why is the emphasis being placed on the PISA test, to the exclusion of other data? Who defined the PISA test as the key indicator of educational performance? What does Ravitch say?

           “The lesson of PISA is this: Neither of the world's highest-performing nations do what our "reformers" want to do. How long will it take before our political leaders begin to listen to educators? How long will it take before they realize that their strategies have not worked anywhere? How long will it be before they stop inflicting their bad ideas on our schools, our students, our teachers, and American education?”

          Indeed.     Lots more here

         

•       Why is the McKinsey report “How the world's most improved school systems keep getting better?” being used to justify school reform? Who engaged them to be the experts?

•       Why doesn’t the government acknowledge that according to the PISA data, NZ’s primary school education spending per head is amongst the lowest in the ‘developed world’? On a ‘bang per buck’ model, New Zealand has the best results.

         

•       Why doesn’t the government chose to publicise the 2009 PISA results that has New Zealand statistically near the top of the rankings in every test? Hardly the sign of a failing system? What about this scale, which has New Zealand at the top?

•       Why doesn’t the government acknowledge that the countries who have instituted standards based systems are below New Zealand’s ranking on the PISA results?

•       Why is the government completely ignoring all the national and international evidence that standards a) don’t work  and b) will be harmful to children? There is well documented research querying the focus on standards and testing, so why press ahead?

         

•       Why is the government disregarding the increasing concern from overseas about the narrowing of the curriculum , the increasing emphasis on the 3Rs (Seymour Papert: “Obsolete Skill Set: The 3 Rs”,) to the detriment of the arts and the creative development of the whole child? Sir Ken Robinson:  “A Baffling Detour to the 19th Century”

•       Why is the government ignoring the evidence that the most successful school system is Finland and that the Finnish approach is the complete opposite to a standards based system? Singapore is moving towards the Finnish model while we are moving the opposite way.

         

•       Why is the government not acknowledging the national and international research about socio-economic effects being the major influence on learning? 

 If the politicians were as concerned as they profess to be about the educational development of NZ children, then surely it would be logical to take note of the evidence and expert opinions?

The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that any talk about the children’s learning is political rhetoric and that there has to be more to this.

And there is, and it’s not hard to find. The first agenda is naked politics in all its dubious glory. The aim of any political party is to be elected in the first place, and to stay in power for as long as possible.

One not particularly savoury aspect of this is the appeal to the baser instincts of the voters. In the case of education, it is being done through targeting parents’ fears that their children may not make the grade, hence the inaccurate “1 in 5” are failing. Extending this political fear-mongering further, if 1 in 5 children are failing, then that means that significant numbers of schools can be accused of not doing the job. I can hear the political rhetoric already.

 “Is your child in a ‘good’ school? How do you know? We will set up league tables to identify ‘good’ and ‘bad’ schools. We will use ‘data’ to identify and reward ‘good’ and to get rid of ‘bad’ teachers.” And so on…

Couldn’t possibly happen?  Just have a look at the USA. What do we find? Attacks on the teacher unions. Teachers losing ‘tenure’ if their test results are not good enough. Value added teacher appraisal. The worst example of all:  The Los Angeles Times published the test history of all teachers over the past five year period, to identify the best/worst teachers.

 Look closer to home - fancy working in Australian schools under their NAPLAN testing regime?  Australian Education Minister Peter Garrett (one time lead singer of rock band Midnight Oil, who sang protest songs about uranium mining and Aboriginal land rights  - figure this change of ideology) is promoting teacher performance pay against NAPLAN test results.

Why do politicians keep promoting performance pay for teachers, even though in practice this is unworkable and also flies in the face of research evidence?  Maybe they should all read Daniel Pink’s book “Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us”? Or what about this research “Giving Teachers Bonuses for Student Achievement Undermines Student Learning, Study Finds”

Is there a bigger agenda yet? I believe there is.  Once again, looking at the English and USA examples, we find that ‘failing’ schools are closed, and replaced by Academy and Free  schools in England, and charter schools in the USA - all supposedly to better reflect community wishes.

What happens? Vouchers in some states. Selective enrolment (‘good’ children only please), site based employment (no ‘nasty’ unions) and the opportunities for businesses to use schools as profit making enterprises,   even though research shows that their achievement levels are no better. Strange, that.

If you want to know more (and you really should), follow Diane Ravitch (www.dianeravitch.com) who is articulating the anti-testing/anti-standards campaign in the USA. Joe Bower in Canada (www.joebower.org) and Warwick Mansell in England (www.educationbynumbers.org.uk) also have much to contribute. There are many, many others.

And so the trail has led back to New Zealand, starting with national standards that will result in league tables (the Minister has now admitted this) and the identification of “good” schools and ‘poor” schools, who are ‘under-serving’ students.  “Under-serving”? Where did that emotive jargon originate? Why do we buy into all the political jargon? Really - what does ‘raising achievement’ actually mean? Let’s debunk the jargon.

Socio-economic indicators suggest a high correlation between decile rating and achievement against standards. Where does this lead?

Students in higher decile schools are likely to have much more educational ‘space’ to explore a richer curriculum. As the converse is more likely for students in lower decile schools who may struggle to achieve the ‘standard’, this risks increasing the gaps between the “haves’ and ‘have nots’  even further. Read Alfie Kohn: “How school reform damages poor children.” and also this:

“We know what it takes to help disadvantaged students do well, and we know what it takes to almost guarantee their failure. We know the reforms our students need—the really hard ones that are politically tough and not always popular. Let’s hope that when all the pretend reforms go away, at least a handful of good schools survive. After the sea change, when the tide goes out, perhaps a few beacons of hope will remain on the beach” (Carol Corbett Burris, the principal of South Side High School in New York.  She was named the 2010 New York State Outstanding Educator by the School Administrators Association of New York State.)

So the question needs to be posed? What is the government’s longer term agenda for New Zealand schooling, especially in light of the clear links to, and following in the footsteps of, developments overseas?

Vouchers? Corporatisation of New Zealand schooling? This would be consistent with other government policies and rhetoric, and so there’s no reason to suppose that education would be an exception.  Maybe we could start with private ownership of the buildings? Oh, that’s already happening...

As the saying goes, “If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, then it’s a duck.”

Quack.

National's standardisation agenda..

This morning I listened to a National Radio programme on the National Standards.

One one side Mary Chamberlain ( who I thought has left her curriculum role at the Ministry?),  Gary Hawke from Nationals Advisory Committee,  Mrs Tolley and a couple of supportive principals.

On the other side of the argument was Perry Rush ( who deserves a medal for his courage and clarity),  from Island Bay School, representing 350 plus schools ; a parent who  wisely said we ought to be focusing on the purpose of education in the 21stC and not just the Three Rs;  Peter Simpson from the Principal's Federation who introduced the 'gorilla'  missing in the argument - the issue if poverty and child abuse.( It is important to know that NZ rates very low in OECD counties for reducing child abuse and has the lowest investment in the first five years of life . And of course we all know where the children who need help are and the obvious answer! )

Mary C talked about 'signposts' on a journey.Evidently all children are on the same journey? and that it will take three years to get 80% success rate introduction of the standards. She also mentioned that other high performing countries were on a similar standards journey which is patently untrue as Finland has taken a totally different approach as has Singapore. She admitted the approach in the UK had been less than successful. Evidently standards are supposed to 'stretch' students. Mrs Tolley, for once , didn't mention the 'one student in five failing' but that the standards were to ensure new literacy and numeracy skills were required for the future. It was the extra help that would make the difference.

Perry Rush was concerned with the flawed thinking underpinning the standards and the inevitable lack of consistency between schools resulting from differences in teacher judgements and interpretations relating to  the vagueness of  standards.

Peter Simpson introduced the concept of league tables and said that comparing schools would result in consequences already seen in other countries. Such problems, Mrs Tolley said, would not eventuate due to the support such schools will get.

And as for those schools that are not convinced  ERO will identify them and 'help' will be sent!

What was missing from the programme were the views of a number of highly respected New Zealand educators and assessment experts who find little of value in the standardized approach .This was a shame.

Nor was it mentioned that teachers' attention will be diverted from the implementation of the 2007 National Curriculum which is regarded positively by schools. The emphasis on complying to standards will create a 'no risk' environment at the very time we need to develop the creativity of all our students. What is required for future success  is a move towards personalisation of education so as to realize the gifts and talents of all students; not assessing students against 'fuzzy' standards.

The programme interviewer summed up saying New Zealand had a highly successful education system -  in the top ten in the world for reading, maths and  at 15.

It is a shame that the government cares little for the trust and respect of teachers who do there best to ensure students succeed -often in difficult situations.

A warning for New Zealand from Aussie about National Testing/Standards

Standardized Blanket Testing - A Moral Issue for Principals.

By Phil Cullen

I was motivated to write this after reading the efforts of Bruce Hammonds and Kelvin Smythe in Leading and Learning  http://www.leading-learning.co.nz/  and  http://www.networkonnet.co.nz/ 

(This view comes from Australia where national testing is in place - it is presented warning to New Zealand schools - Bruce)

Standardised blanket testing on a national scale in schools is a malady that has spread over a number of countries under different names.

The United Kingdom calls it ‘National Testing’; New Zealand 'National Standards';  the U.S.A. calls it 'No Child Left Behind' [NCLB] named after its emotional political launch ; Australia calls it  'National Program Literacy And Numeracy' [NAPLAN] introducing the concept of minimalism and  political control of the curriculum. Naplan testing is a serious indwelling threat to Australia’s future.

Its introduction to Australia from New York was a political stunt, pure and simple. High stakes testing has nothing to do with learning nor achievement in any school subject.

Bruce Hammonds, New Zealand schooling guru, accurately describes these tests as  ‘pseudo-scientific incoherent accountability measures.’

In each country, the politicised use of  them has had a profound effect. Legislators in each country mentioned, support  the school culture of ‘drill and grill’ that treats children as test scores.  If school children had any say, they would plead for mercy and justice. The legislators, though,  continue to ‘play dumb’ about the dehumanisation of the acts of learning. Because of their disregard, the concept of holistic based learning and development of a love for learning is disappearing, except in countries like Finland, which prohibits blanket testing. Finland respects school children and provides well-trained professional teaching for them. Australian politicians don’t even give it a thought and should be ashamed. They used to know better. No present-day political party publically cares about the plight of Aussie children. Check their ‘education’ credos and policies.

The concept of fear-driven test-oriented schooling is now in vogue, acclaimed and supported by the politically powerful in the U.K., U.S.A., N.Z and Australia and, sadly, appears as if it will last for a few more years. There is no reliable evidence in any of these countries that, apart from promoting fear, blanket standardised testing works. Results are unreliable and untrustworthy. There is ample evidence that children fear the tests and their consequences; and that distress and counter-learning habits are increasing. Australia has a blatant fear-based curriculum. Ask your child’s teacher. 

In each place, the administration of the tests is forced on the unfortunate, uncomplaining children, mandated to be administered by compliant  principals. Nothing was first negotiated with pupils, parents, teachers nor state governments prior to Naplan’s introduction to Australia. Expectations were announced and commands given. It was introduced through deceitful, arrogant, mischievous bullying.  This makes for an uncomfortable position for those principals who believe that their position is a responsible one and that their professional task is to care about kids. This leads to a serious consideration of ethics. If any principal believes that they have been dealt a fair hand, that Naplan enhances learning and that it is okay to continue to threaten children to participate in it, they should seek some other job.  Really. They don’t know what is going on.

The politics of reform.

We have 'Job principals' - who just work at it - some of whom are 'Poster principals '[Smythe] – show offs - and we have 'Professional principals'. All behave as one at present, willingly submitting to corporate notions of managerialism [ introduced in the 1990s ]  and treating children as if they are warehouse products that can be pushed and shoved into shape with force [ introduced in 2009 ]. The primary principal’s national association in Australia supports Naplan and, therefore, this style of schooling!! Scary. Unwilling to resile from its early support for Julia Gillard’s introduction of the hard-data system, many members are now in a cleft stick.  They have been eichmannised or they believe in the imported ‘State Theory of Learning’ or they have just succumbed.  If they don’t believe in fear-driven, blame-and-shame testing, they have yet to proclaim it above a whisper.

Australian principals and their groups have remained resoundingly silent on issues affecting ‘Naplan in the classroom’. This hurts lots of old dogs like myself with limited years available.

It was Martin Luther King Jnr., who said,  “In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”  You’ve sure got it right, Reverend.

Almost everywhere, principals are the victims or products or supporters of stalinism; that is they tolerate overt centralised, totalitarian, coercive leadership; ... or of fascism: that is, approving a totalitarian and authoritarian political mentality, with uncompromising, strong leadership [ “ I will reform education !” ] that mandates for  punishment and economic class differences. Whatever it is that controls such attitudes, it is not related to respect for nor love of children, nor professional concern for their progress, nor personal professional pride. None of the  mentioned countries seems to have sufficient principals with gumption or a professional, democratic attitude towards the country’s  most precious citizens. That’s for sure.  Is injustice to children so hard to recognise?

The NAESP, the largest primary/elementary school principal’s association in the USA, could take the ethical high-ground, stand up for children now; and such an action would spell the end of hard-data testing around the world.

Time for moral courage.

There is despair that many principals have gone “....beyond acquiescence to active participation and become the willing executioners of our ideals.” [Kelvin Smythe] He was referring to the appointment of 50 New Zealand S.A.P.s [ Student Achievement Practitioners] whose counterparts exist in other places, willing to accept pieces of silver to straighten out those schools whose scores are not acceptable to the controllers. There are other ‘principals’ as well, offering advice to the overlords on how test compilation and scores can be improved, writing booklets that advise on how to practice for tests, preparing tests, counting the bubbles on the examination papers and marking the efforts of the children who have endured the test.  Blood money. 

The term ‘quisling principal’ seems a tough description when it is applied to those for whom one once had great respect; but that is the present state of schooling. One presumes that the aforementioned need the money. Our non-schooling measurement storm troopers, busy with their calculators, don’t care, as long as they have recruits. They live in a different world from the classroom.   Naplan, NCLB and ‘national testing’ has split the schooling community in a way that has never occurred in the history of schooling.  As far as Australia is concerned, she knew that it would happen. She said so at the outset. She arrogantly continues to encourage internecine blood-letting. She will have her way.

A few true-professional, child-oriented, curriculum-savvy Principals [capital P] in Australia have stood up for their children and their schools; and the parents of the school children have joined them. Since these are perilous times for school children, the names of these Principals and the names of their schools should be writ large in the history of schooling. They need more support from other professionals, their learned societies and their organisations; while observers like we wrinkled practitioners all await next May when the children in Naplan schools in Years 3,5,7,9 are assailed again with the evil purulence. Will there be increased numbers of conscientious objectors before then;  those with the moral courage to support their pupils and shake the shackles?  Ethically-concerned but worried principals who see the times as demonian, but hope to survive quietly until ‘it’ all passes are probably in the majority. What will they do?

Dante cautions them : ”The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.”

Phil Cullen

Ex Director of  Primary Education Queensland

cphilcullen@optusnet.com.au