How Might Our Beliefs Overcome Constraints?

I really liked this recent post from Rebecca Thomas where she is moving us from the 'possum in the headlights' space to a place where we can be proactive and to contribute with our wisdom, in the belief that our voices will be heard.

It certainly helped me move from the place of anger that I was in to one in which I can feel more positive, which I was trying to be in my last post.

It got me thinking about how I responded to what I believed were unhelpful 'requirements' when I was a principal. I thought about how the school I was helping to lead responded to the formal qualifications environment. I know delivering NCEA Level 1 was never something required of us, but it was almost believed back in 2014 that it was.

We had founded our school on a set of beliefs and values that included learning being driven by deep challenge and inquiry, with the needs and interests of the learners at the centre. When we decided that we would not deliver NCEA Level 1 as part of our Year 11 programme that decision was based on the belief that that would enable us to keep our focus on deep challenge and inquiry.

Any of you who have read my posts over the last few years will know that I strongly believe that our decisions around our practices need to be driven by a set of values and beliefs. This is what we did back in 2014 in relation to NCEA Level 1.

I have found using Julia Aitken's Circles a great template to base decision-making on.

You start with your core values and beliefs and determine the principles or guidelines for action that will help you to decide on your practice.

This is all very well, but we do operate in a wider system and, unless you're a Charter School, there are parameters in which we are required to operate. Some of these might be strictly mandated (unless you're a Charter School!) such as phones, an hour per day of reading, writing and maths etc.

A way to navigate this, I suggest, is to see these as enabling constraints - requirements that we need to follow but open us up to the possibilities of thinking innovatively.

My approach would be to still begin with and be driven by your core beliefs and values and to follow your agreed principles/guidelines for action before accommodating the mandated requirements. I've attempted to capture this thinking in the following model:

I know in the past this is how I have made decisions (without being fully aware I was doing so).

If you're a principal out there who sees some difficulties in some of the recent mandates, starting with your core values and beliefs first, as shown in this model, might be useful. I know many, many principals do operate in this way.

The Crisis in Political Leadership of Education: How Might We Respond?

I’m still reeling a little from Minister Stanford’s comment on Hosking's radio show (and quoted in the NZ Herald 5 August), "No more of this 'your kid turns up to school and decides what they want to learn'".

This comment implies that she believes a few things such as:

• Teachers have handed over all autonomy to children in our classrooms and let them do as they wish

• Students should turn up, sit down, shut up and do the work that the teacher has determined, in the context the teacher has determined, at the pace the teacher has determined and have their understanding assessed in the way and at the time the teacher has determined without students having any voice in any of those matters.

These beliefs do explain why she is pursuing the one-size-fits-all, mandated model in our state schools (under her watch she is allowing Charter Schools to be established to operate outside her beliefs).

I'm wanting to find a positive way to respond to the upheaval we are experiencing and I’m all for beliefs driving practice. However, it is important for beliefs, especially those that will drive decision-making across our sector, to be founded on evidence and that they are able to act as touchstones around which we can all rally together and which help us make sense of the decisions and practices being foisted upon us.

I find it difficult to be inspired and motivated by the beliefs above which sit behind her comments on the radio show as they are disrespectful of and insulting to teachers and school leaders and disrespectful of and dismissive towards our students.

It is disingenuous to claim that teachers are not driving the direction of learning towards focused learning outcomes, the ‘what’ of learning, and much of the ‘how’ of learning while skillfully constructing ways to assess student learning.

Teachers know that there are important bodies of knowledge that students need to learn and they are delivering on this admirably within the resource constraints under which they operate.

And students, at all year levels, have the desire and more capability than many policy makers realise to contribute to the decisions around how learning is designed for them.

This is not the same as, 'your kid turns up to school and decides what they want to learn'. This is all about seeking relevance for their learning (how are many adults, especially our policy makers, motivated to learn when they struggle with the relevance?) and about meeting the requirement in the New Zealand Curriculum to design learning programmes based on the needs and interest of our learners.

Looking for the middle ground

All of us want to increase student achievement. All of us know that we can be doing better, especially for some cohorts amongst our diverse learners. This is the ’What’. 

The disagreement is over the ‘How’.

The conflict emerges when we buy into a dichotomy of ‘either/or’ rather than ‘and’.

We can all agree on what important knowledge all students need to master and we can agree on a suite of teaching and learning approaches for teachers to draw on for the right student at the right time.

Saying it is all about knowledge or it is all about skills will get us nowhere. (To be fair I’ve heard more opinion about it being about knowledge with little, or any, about it all being about skills.)

Where does research point us?

There is plenty of research indicating that increased student agency in learning can lead to improved student achievement. 

Research, such as that from Journal of Further and Higher Education, RTI International and The Education Hub, has made some of the following findings:

• Student agency, which involves students taking intentional and autonomous actions in their learning, has been shown to significantly impact academic performance, cognitive development, and perceived learning experiences.

• Agency is a strong predictor of valued academic outcomes. Students who actively engage with their learning environment, seek clarification, and request assistance from teachers tend to score higher on standardised exams. Moreover, students who connect deeply with their assignments and evaluate their learning strategies achieve better academic outcomes.

• Student agency is closely tied to motivation and self-regulation, which are critical for learning. By fostering autonomy and ownership over their learning process, students become self-regulated learners who are motivated and poised for academic excellence. This empowerment allows students to make decisions about their educational paths and shape their academic experiences based on personal interests and goals.

• Implementing instructional approaches that promote student agency, such as student-designed units, can enhance learning outcomes. These approaches require students to identify learning goals and determine how best to achieve them, fostering a sense of ownership and engagement in their education.

The following image is a capability sequential process, led by the teacher, AFTER teacher directed learning of the necessary knowledge, which increases student agency.

From Trevor MacKenzie Dive Into Inquiry

Rallying around an inspiring vision

I’d love to have a Minister, supported by a Ministry, which sets about to determine, in consultation with a diverse range of stakeholders, an impelling vision for an effective curriculum and pedagogical model which recognises the body of specialist knowledge necessary for every young person to flourish now and in the future and promotes a suite of teaching practices that invites students, at appropriate times, into the learning design process.

Teachers who see themselves as learning designers and who invite their students into that design process: that’s something we could rally around.

The Crisis In Schooling Is Not In Schools But In Political Leadership

I am no longer based in a school but I am still working closely with schools and leadership teams. I see colleagues struggling to align what they see happening in their schools as a result of their strong leadership, the awe-inspiring work of their teachers and the efforts of their students with the picture being hurled out of the mouths of our political leaders.

My unease was first raised when we were hit with the mixed messages from the Minister of Education (Stanford) and the Associate Minister of Education (Seymour). Very quickly Stanford has moved to promoting a one-size-fits-all model for the teaching of Reading and Mathematics with mandatory requirements for all state schools because this is what the research and evidence says is the way to go. But on the other hand we have Seymour moving at apace, taking a lot of the money that could be spent in the state sector, to introduce Charter Schools that will not be bound by any of these mandatory requirements which, apparently, research says is the answer. Surely they can't both be right.

There is no doubt, in my mind, that a crisis is being manufactured by our political leaders. I am really worried about what the purpose might be for such a determined intent to manufacture this crisis.

Found on Twitter

So many projectiles are being launched that it would be easy, but ultimately futile, to be reacting and responding to each. But somehow we have to find a way to overturn this narrative of crisis about our schools.

Ministerial Missteps 1: Stanford on Hosking

I have always rejected the positioning of knowledge against skills and believe it is a combination of both that serves our young people the best so that they can thrive in and beyond school. I have tried to resist it being an 'either or'. I lost all respect for Stanford when she said on Hosking's radio show (and quoted in the NZ Herald 5 August), "No more of this 'your kid turns up to school and decides what they want to learn'".

Any belief that I may have had that she was going to be a Minister worth rallying behind has been thrown out the window with such an ignorant and outlandish statement, with no basis in fact, and designed to manufacture a false view of what happens in schools and to contribute to the crisis narrative.

Ministerial Missteps 2: Luxon and Stanford on Maths

Based on an assessment attempted by 853 students in 42 schools which assessed students' Maths ability at Year 8 in a curriculum not yet being taught! Luxon and Stanford pound the pulpit about a crisis in Maths. They then use this 'data' to launch, 1 year ahead of schedule, a mandatory approach to Maths, with twice a year testing, using texts issued to all teachers, and workbooks issued to all students. This is because they believe evidence tells them this is the right way to do it. Charter Schools won't be required to follow this approach though!

Some people might say using data in this way meets the definition of lying.

Some people are also saying that by using such irrelevant data at this point which shows low level of achievement, that, when after 1 year of teaching in the new way, the assessment will, unsurprisingly, show dramatic improvement - which is what always happens when you teach to the test.

Ministerial Missteps 3: Luxon and Stanford on Maths Resources

We've been told in August that every single primary student will receive their very own workbook in their hands at the start of next year and every primary teacher will get their manual. Someone is going to be paid a huge amount to produce, publish and issue these huge quantities. If proper and transparent procurement processes are to be followed (they will won't they?) how can this possibly occur by the end of this year? 

I can't recall the exact dollar figure that was announced for the professional development support that is necessary for such a shift. I know it seemed like a big number, but calculations done at the time showed that it equated to about $400 per teacher. That's about the cost of the relief teacher to cover them for one day while they attend training.

Ministerial Missteps 4: Luxon on Art and Music

Luxon takes the cake for his ignorance on what makes up an effective school curriculum with what he said on Hosking's radio show (what is it about this show or its host which results in such ignorant outbursts) on 6 August:

"We are focused on outcomes: achievement in Maths and Reading and getting kids to school. That may well mean we're going to defer our arts and music curriculum for now."

Now I know that he is not saying that we won't be teaching art and music (I hope that is correct), but what I do know is that every art and music teacher in the country, every student with a passion for art and music, and every parent who knows that it is art and music that is keeping their child engaged in education and helping them with their Maths and Reading has heard our Prime Minister relegate those learning areas to the bottom of the heap. What a way to lead and inspire!

Why Is A Crisis Being Manufactured?

I don't know, but I have some fears.

Are they preparing us for more privatisation of our schools? Are they channeling scarce resources into the hands of publishers and others who support their ideology? Are they looking to create a crisis so blame can be directed at groups such as, let's say, unions?

I'm not sure about any of those, but one thing I do know is that, despite what they claim, our political leaders do not have the best interests of our children, their parents, or teachers at the centre of their decision making.

What to do?

We have great schools in NZ full of great teachers doing outstanding work. Of course we want to do better, especially for those still disadvantaged within the system. We have the desire and capabilities to do better, but to do so we need inspiring political leadership, not that what we have now which is doing its best to manufacture a crisis.

We have to find ways to push back against this narrative of a crisis in our schools.