How Might We Lead With a Set of Common Beliefs (about learning!)

 

While exploring the Education Leadership group on Linkedin I came across this:

•  "A competent curriculum leader is able to clearly articulate their philosophy on 'how students learn best.' They and their team need to lead with a common belief."

This jumped out at me as I've been spending some time delving into what seems to be the most important factors/principles that determine whether a school is effective or efficient (see previous post). What I have discovered to be one of the most important principles is no surprise as it has driven my work as an educational leader and has been the area where I have been focusing most of my work with schools and organisations with my consultancy HMWLead.

The number one principle seems to be that effective schools have clearly articulated and shared beliefs about learning that are lived in every classroom (Modern Learners). The simple bit might be determining what the shared beliefs about learning should be. Often, the harder bit is ensuring that they are lived in every classroom. The Education Leadership quote above, in my view, is pointing the way towards this happens - it is, in fact, by everyone leading with these common beliefs. If this happens then the practices to ensure it is happening in every classroom will emerge.

The quote also points to the fact that it is important that the core beliefs that drive a school should be about learning and about how people learn. It is all very well to have a set of core beliefs and values that are largely behavioural (eg respect, honesty, integrity etc) but learning beliefs and values should be front and centre in a school.

Determining what these shared beliefs about learning are should start with answering the question:

• "How do children and adults learn most powerfully and deeply in their lives?" (Modern Learners).

The investigation I am carrying out certainly supports the assertion made by Will Richardson and Bruce Dixon from Modern Learners that without a collaboratively created/developed belief system about what makes learning powerful that is lived each day through classroom norms for learning and a common language, schools cannot develop each child to their potential as a learner.

If we accept that being a self-directed and self-determined learner is the most important skill to develop within our learners then it is vital that we take the time to discuss how we can create the conditions in our schools for these skills to develop. And when we have settled on the principles/beliefs that we believe create these conditions we have to make sure that they are visible everywhere in our school, in the language we use and the classroom practices we adopt.

Based on what we see in the research about what makes for powerful learning for today's students what are examples of some elements that could be the core of our beliefs about learning? Here are a few:

• Know your students (Education Leadership, Bishop)
• Learners at the centre (OECD, Innovation Unit)
• Student agency (Education Leadership, Wenmouth)
• Connect learning horizontally and to the real world (Innovation Unit, OECD)
• Inquiry based approaches (OECD, Innovation Unit)
• Experiential learning (Centre for Strategic Education, Innovation Unit)
• Promote collaboration and interaction (Fullan, Education Leadership, OECD)
• Measure what matters/A4L (Innovation Unit, OECD)
• Stretch and support all learners (OECD, Education Leadership)

This is by no means an exhaustive list and cleverer people than I will be able to add to it. It is a good starting point for discussion as groups of teachers interrogate their beliefs and the beliefs of others about what makes for deep learning.

The key, of course, is then to discuss and agree what impacts these beliefs would have on our teaching practice. For example:

• truly knowing my students and how they best learn will mean I'd have to adopt a relationship based approach to my pedagogy and implement culturally sustaining practices
• knowing my students would mean I'd be aware of their needs, interests and passions and would incorporate them into my learning design, and my belief in student agency would have me co-constructing learning and assessment programmes with individual learners
• belief in connected learning (across subjects and with the real world), inquiry-based approaches and experiential learning would have me exploring a relevant project-based learning model
• promoting collaboration and interaction would mean incorporating appropriately organised and structured co-operative group work throughout my learning design
• a belief that we should measure what matters will require me to search for ways to track how well my learners are collaborating, showing self-determination, being resilient in their learning etc. I will also need to ensure that all learners know what is expected of them and why that is expected
• if I'm wishing to stretch and support all learners I will need to be designing learning according to the principles of Universal Design for Learning

In the end, it doesn't matter too much what the core beliefs about learning are (though I'll cover that in another post). What matters is that the core beliefs about learning are known, understood, shared and drive the learning in all classrooms.

I wonder if all schools can say they have a set of clearly articulated and shared beliefs about learning. If they do, I wonder if they know that they are truly lived in every classroom. I also wonder if all leaders lead with those common beliefs. I know that I couldn't have answered 'yes' to those questions throughout much of my leadership.

Once again, this looks like demanding work, but it also looks like rewarding and exciting work.

Connected Learning Supporting Specialist Knowledge

 Connected Learning

Promoting Specialist Knowledge

David Hood, in his book The Rhetoric and The Reality, which I touched on in a previous post, refers to the paradigm of one.

The Paradigm of One (the traditional secondary school structure)

Students are grouped into one class, based on one age, and for one hour go to one room where one teacher teaches one subject and students, largely, do one set of learning activities and work according to one timeline and at the one same time complete the one assessment activity.

Then the bell goes and they go down the corridor and for one hour go to one room where one teacher teaches one subject and students, largely, do one set of learning activities and work according to one timeline and at the one same time complete the one assessment activity.

Then the bell goes and etc, etc.

And what they learn in each of those one blocks is completely siloed and there are no connections between them.

I remain to be convinced that this is the best way to learn. I suppose it is OK if your definition of learning is limited to the reception and processing of knowledge in isolation from other knowledge, This is, no doubt, a vehicle for a level of learning.

I prefer a model of learning that, without downplaying the importance of specialist subject knowledge, raises the possibility of deeper learning. I believe this deeper learning can come about when we explore the connections between these specialist areas of knowledge.

Connected Learning in Action

While hosting a group of 35 Australian teachers at our school yesterday we spent a lot of time talking with students while they were engaged in learning (in the last block on the last day in the last week of term!). The majority of classes we visited were our Foundation classes (combined Years 9 and 10).

• In one class (combined Visual Arts and English) students spoke confidently about how their exploration and research, involving close reading, comprehension and analysis of visual media (English) of graffitti and research on the topic of the difference between vandalism and art enabled them to produce thoughtful and high quality pieces of graffitti art (Visual Arts) with annotations linking their words and images to what they had learnt from their English.
• Another class (combined Visual Arts and Science) had students who had engaged in microscope use skills to analyse the individual features of a plant so that they could recognise, name and explain their purpose (Science) and were now free-hand sketching the plants to such a level that they would not be out-of-place in a professional botannical sketch publication.
• In another class (Maths and HPE) we came across students who had done some lessons previously on how statistics could be analysed, presented in grapic form, and explained in text. From there they had gone to the gymnasium where they had learned the skills involved in volleyball. At some point they collected data by video and written observation sheets and were now in class using the data to present their findings in graphic form. This class of 40 students were the most engaged I had seen in any Maths lesson

The above are only 3 examples of the numerous connected learning modules our students experience. None of them lack the important content, concepts or skills of any of the individual specialist subjects, but their learning and understanding is deepened when they explore the connections between the disciplines.

The Structure of Connected Learning

There is a bit of a view amongst some academics and commentators that when a school focuses on connected learning, or anything that looks like project based learning, and any model that incorporates student voice and co-construction that students are missing out on that all-important subject specialist knowledge. I do get frustrated by the limited lens that such commentators have with their belief that specialist subject knowledge must always be delivered by subject specialsists through a silo model with little co-construction with students.

At our school we absolutely believe in the importance of subject specialist knowledge delivered by absolutely specialist subject teachers ( we have at least one PHD in their subject area with the vast majority of staff with degrees, mainly at Masters level, in their subject area). We just believe that their are better, more engaging ways to deliver this important knowledge in a way that deepens learning.

When we started our school our specialist subject leads unpacked their curriculum area and backward mapped from a quality NCEA Level 2 what were the key foundational knowledge, concepts and skills students need to be strong in by the end of Year 10 to be successful in qualifications.

We then asked those specialist leads to group this key foundational learning into 8 episodes (1 per term over 2 years) and to identify in which term this learning would occur for our Foundation Learners. We did this so that it didn't matter whether a Science student was studying Science with Visual Art, or with Maths, or with Social Science they were all covering the same foundational learning. This is the case for all Learning Areas and it means students are not left with gaps in this key foundational knowledge.

To give even more coherence to their learning we settled on a big school-wide concept for each of the 8 terms which is addressed that term by each Learning Area.

 

This means that in the semester that is focusing on Identity  and Space and Place Social Science students might be focusing on Community/Migration, Science students might be focusing on DNA/Outer Space, English on how cultures and societies express themselves in and through Creative Writing etc, etc., while Maths students will be developing key mathematical competencies using the related learnig area as the context in which to apply their learning and develop their understanding.

Our approach certainly does not downplay the importance of specialist knowledge, in fact it increases its importance as we discover important connections with other specialist knowledge. It has the added bonus of having interesting contexts for learning that seem to engage our learners.

Get in touch if you'd like to explore how a focus on connected learning can happen in your school without any other changes to a school's way of structuring learning.

How to Manage NCEA in Covid-affected 2020

A Rider
I want to start by saying that I have no ulterior motive for putting forward the following suggested strategy. My focus is entirely on the well-being of students and staff and strongly believe the positive outcomes would easily outweigh any perceived negative outcomes. As well, I can't help but draw on our experience at Hobsonville Point Secondary School over the last 7 years where I have witnessed a deep engagement with learning and high quality qualification achievement by our learners, But, also, I cannot help but draw on my previous 20 years experience as a school leader in a decile 1 school (where, by the way, I would be implementing a strategy similar to that described here).

Covid-affected 2020
At some point we will return to our physical schools. At this stage we are not sure whether our students would have missed out on 3, 4 or more weeks of on-site, physical school. It is very important to remember that whatever that time of off-site is, the actual lost time to that important on-site face-to-face learning will be much longer.

Here's why:
Our students (and staff) will return to our sites affected by a number of issues:

• some will be grieving
• many whānau will be affected by health issues
• many students' whānau will be facing employment uncertainty
• most whānau will be faced with financial hardship
• all students will be spread across the full range on the continuum of what learning progress they made while off-site. Some may have flourished and soared, many may have managed to just keep up, and many more will have struggled

Areas we will need to focus on

• Whakawhanaunga - welcoming our staff and students back into the physical space and re-inducting into how we now work in our kura

• Accommodating the full range of well-being situations all will be in

• Establishing the full range of learning progressions and differentiating so that we can accelerate those who have struggled while maintaining the momentum of all

• Progress towards qualifications

As far as 2020 qualifications are concerned we must have the time and energy to focus on those students who are graduating this year, while ensuring we keep building the foundations for quality qualifications for those students not graduating this year.

In devising our strategies for how we navigate our way through the reality of what impact Covid 19 has had on our schools and learners, and will continue to do so, and which allow us to have the focus described above we may need to be reminded of the following points made in the latest NZQA Update which included a slide show (unfortunately these important points were buried as bullet point 4 on slide 8 under the heading NZQA advises you consider):

• using the flexibility of the qualification. 
• Students don't need to complete a lower level qualification before moving to the next level. If students don't manage to achieve sufficient credits, those they subsequently achieve from a higher level can fill any gaps in achievement at a lower level.
  
• Students can catch up and be awarded their certificate in 2021 if they are returning to school.

These points are a reminder that

• students do not need to achieve Level 1 to gain Level 2 or Level 3 and, in fact, don't need L2 to get L3. 
• on the way to achieving their final qualification students do not need to complete each lower level in a calendar year

HPSS example of the above in practice

• on average, students at the end of Year 11 have 20 Level 1 credits and 10 at Level 2
• during their Year 12 year, after picking up a further 50 credits (usually at Level 2), they are awarded Level 1 and are close to achieving Level 2
• at the end of Year 12 many students may well not have met the requirements for Level 2 (though we ensure those graduating at the end of Year 12 achieve Level 1 or 2 - whatever is appropriate for them). This is not a concern for us because on their return the following year as a Year 13 student they meet the requirements of Level 2 (usually early in the year) and most go on to achieve Level 3.

All such an approach takes is an acceptance of the NZQA advice above, a mindset that rejects calendar year achievement of each qualification level and a lack of concern for league tables. At our school, we believe the most important measure is the quality of qualifications of leavers, not the steps along the way.

Positive outcomes are the reduction in teacher workload (setting, marking, moderating, resubmitting), the creation of more time to focus on learning, a reduction (though not complete elimination) of student stress and anxiety in relation to assessment and qualifications, the uncoupling of the assessment 'tail' waving the learning 'dog', and an increase in the quality of qualifications achieved.

What about those who only achieve Level 1?

Once again I can only call on my last 7 years at HPSS and the 20 years in my previous decile 1 school.

The latest statistics I can find are as follows:

• 10% of students leave school without at least Level 1
• 10% leave school with Level 1 as their highest qualification

At least we know that by doing things differently we can't have a more negative impact on the first group than we are already having. (I do believe, however, that with a much less focus on NCEA in Year 11 eg not exposing struggling learners to a year of 100-120 credits, then we have more chance in engaging them in school and learning and increasing the possibility they might return for a 4th year and have more chance of gaining their Level 1. That is certainly my current experience). However, in the meantime let's accept at least we won't be making their situation worse.

Quite rightly, the focus is on the second group and the actual percentage will differ across schools. I encourage schools to examine the pathways of those students who have left to determine whether Level 1 was necessary for them to be on that pathway. We have students who leave our school with Level 1 as their highest qualification, most of them on appropriate pathways, but none of them actually needed Level 1 to get onto that pathway, so they would not have been disadvantaged without achieving Level 1. As well, it is my experience that many of the students who currently leave with just Level 1, if they are on a slower assessment journey, largely focused on their intended pathway, actually end up achieving Level 2 after the end of 4 years at school.

A Strategy Worth Considering? - Slow it down and go more deeply

I shudder to think what the reduced 2020 school year will look like for our Year 11 learners if they are still faced with programmes based on assessing them against 120 credits. So I suggest the following as worthy of consideration:

1. Depending on a school's particular context it considers suspending NCEA Level 1 as a full qualification for its Year 11 learners for 2020.

But what would their year, and the year of the teacher look like?

• Teachers would not have to amend their programmes. They would still teach the full important concepts, skills and knowledge of their specialist subject, laying strong foundations for success in the following year at Level 2
• The large amount of time usually dedicated to the assessment of NCEA standards would be freed up for more learning
• Schools could decide that each subject can offer a maximum of 2 standards per subject so that students are still progressing the qualification ladder (or whatever maximum suits them best in consultation with each Learning Area).
• Because of more time allowing for deeper learning, schools may find that they can offer some of their Year 11 students assessment pitched at Level 2.
• Feedback and reporting to students and parents could be as it currently is for Years 9 and 10 - against Level 6 of the NZC

2. Ease up on the credit chase for Level 2 for students in Year 12 who you know will be returning in 2021 as they will gain Level 2 during their Year 13 year.

Issues

There are lots, but the biggest shift is a mindset shift from school leaders, who then lead the mindset shift for their staff, students and parents. Putting a well-being lens over such a strategy is hard to argue against.

As well, if you are considering such a strategy it's good to know you are not alone. Over the last 10 days I have hosted 2 Zui (Zoom Hui) with 30 secondary school leaders who are seriously exploring suspending NCEA Level 1 as a full qualification this year and I want to thank them for sharpening my thinking and giving more detail to this proposed strategy.

It seems to me that the Ministry and NZQA are reluctant to message that a valid strategy for schools to consider, depending on their context, the suspension of Level 1 as a full year qualification in 2020. The closest to that we can get is the NZQA message above.

If you want to explore this type of strategy further, make contact and I can link a few people together.

Implications for HPSS - Part 2 - Challenges

My previous post concentrated on the aspects of my sabbatical which provided affirmations for what we are already doing at HPSS. This post attempts to capture what I see as the areas of challenge or further development.

Student Self-Regulation

I have been critical of conventional secondary schools which complain that their students are not independent, self-regulated learners but give them no opportunity to be so. In most schools, up until the age of 18 students are closely regulated by external factors: timetable, bells, rules, teachers. While such factors can make schools more ‘manageable’ and lead to great academic results, they do not promote self-regulation and, quite possibly, contribute to our high university drop-out rate.

I have always wanted our school to be one in which students were given daily opportunities to self-regulate. A simple representation of this is by having no bells. Another layer has been our Floor Time (originally MyTime) programme. It originally allowed students to opt into up to 3 workshops a week to “do whatever I need to do know, where I need  to do it and with whom I need to do it.” It has now become a more regulated time on our timetable with less self-regulation.

My visits have reinforced my view that we need to look for more ways for students to self regulate. I have reflected that too often we may not ‘loosen the leash’ and provide opportunities for self-regulation because not all students will cope so we end up tightening things to accommodate those students. I’d like to flip that and provide more self-regulation opportunities but have arrangements to accommodate those who are unable to manage.

Following are two examples I have been thinking about and want to explore with my staff:

• Learning Hub time be voluntary for Year 13s (and possibly Year 12s.)
• I think a large group would still attend and another large group would make excellent use of their time to continue their learning. A small group would waste the opportunity.
• With the Year 13s (and possibly Year 12s) this would give an opportunity for the senior Hub students (Year 11 or 12) to have a formalised leadership role in the Hub.
• This has the advantage of providing more time in a senior student’s timetable to determine how to use their time best to progress their learning.
• It would also give more opportunity for Learning Coaches to concentrate on developing our Foundation students and preparing them for self-regulation.
• I can’t think of a worst case scenario if this was implemented that would keep me awake at night.
• Non-staffed class time for Year 13 students.
• If a student had 3 blocks of time allocated in a week to a subject/module only 2 of these would be staffed. Direct teaching and support would occur in the staffed blocks and students would continue through the programme, independently, in the non-staffed block. Many programmes delivered at NYC iSchool were delivered in this ‘blended’ approach with access to resources and support made available on-line (as we do now).
• The added advantage would be that students could determine how they would use their 5 non-staffed blocks (assuming they were doing 5 subjects/modules) at any given time. Because of workload demands they might use 2 (or more) unstaffed blocks to work on one subject in one week.
• This provides further opportunity for self-regulation and moves closer to how they have to manage their time at university.

Students as Partners in Learning Design

There is no doubt that when I saw students engaged as true partners in the design of their learning, engagement levels were at their highest. This was sometimes at the level of choosing project topics but moved through the continuum to include planning a full project inquiry, with teacher support, determining the learning context and the product of or evidence of learning. I saw many examples of deeper than expected learning and all schools had excellent attainment levels in statewide assessment/testing.

At Hobsonville Point Secondary School we attempt to involve students in co-designing their learning. Before each semester’s module planning we get students to explore their understanding of the overarching concepts (Identity, Space and Place, Citizenship, Systems and How Things Work, Relationships, Cultural Diversity, Innovations and Transformations) and then to suggest contexts for learning (eg How Did The Universe Begin? How Serious is Climate Exchange? Why Are There Refugees?). Teachers then collaborate to plan modules to offer students. As well, within each module students have a part to play in designing their learning (see blog post comments included in previous post.)

I am finding myself asking how we could both embed and extend this concept further. What does a school look like when students are authentic partners in learning and schooling in general?

At this stage my plans are to:

• Carry out a stocktake of the current situation of “Students as Partners in Learning Design”.
• Explore the concept with the Learning Habitat and gather their views of the current situation
• Gather some staff voice via ‘Kitchen Table With Maurie’
• Explore further areas of opportunity to have students as authentic partners.
• Begin with Learning Habitat and then cast to wider student group.

Some opportunities I have been thinking about include:

• Ambassadors to host touring groups
• Involvement in staff appointments
• Formalise student involvement in feedback to staff re their teaching
• Involvement in restorative practice processes so that impact of behaviours and outcomes on wider student body is taken into account

Parents as Partners

A neat outcome of increasing the strength of partnership with students will be in supporting us to bring parents and the wider community on board. All schools I visited spoke of the challenge of ‘parental push-back’ in relation to their attempts to transform secondary education. This occurred in all schools, despite their vision and models of learning being well-known before families enrolled their children (in fact, most, if not all, of these schools were over-subscribed and had waiting lists).

In discussing this issue at each school the responses were similar. Julie Abraham, at Design Tech, captured the common message with “being unalterably clear on what we are about” and having the courage to stay true to the vision. I have often spoken of the need for a school leader to have a clear moral purpose and the courage to see that carried out. This was a common message from the schools I visited.

I am of the view that the most powerful and effective ambassadors of any school are its students. Because they are immersed in the daily life of a school and continually breathe the air of the culture of the place they know what a school is about and if it is the right place for them. Because I see our students interacting with our many visitors and I hear them talking about the school and their learning I know most of them are fully on board. More than one student has told me that their parents “now understand” and that while earlier on there was a risk that they would be removed by their parents they feel the relief of that increased understanding.

By increasing the opportunities for authentic partnership with our students, I believe they will be even more powerful and effective ambassadors for our school in their own families and the wider community.

Currently we have many practices in place to partner with parents. They include:

• Start the year with Individual Education Meetings (IEMs) and repeat throughout the year
• Waitangi Whanau Celebration in collaboration with Hobsonville Point Primary School
• Fortnightly Newsletter, Facebook updates and School App communications
• Hub Coach communication home
• Parent workshops/conference
• Morning Tea With Maurie

Later this year I plan to focus my collection of parent voice on the effectiveness of the current parent partnership opportunities and ask what else we could do to make it more effective.

Sabbatical Implications for HPSS - Part 1 - Strong Affirmations

What Are The Implications for Hobsonville Point Secondary School?

Affirmation

During my sabbatical I attempted to visit schools that would challenge my thinking and provide direction for further development and innovation for our school. In choosing the schools I consulted with Grant Lichtman, an internationally recognised thinker on innovative schooling, colleagues who had visited schools for the same reason as me, and searched lists such as “100 Most Innovative Schools”.

While my thinking was challenged in many ways, I cannot escape the conclusion that our school is at the leading edge of innovation. What was most pleasing was that the principles that we had decided on to drive learning design - Innovate by Personalising Learning, Engage through Powerful Partnerships, Inspire With Deep Challenge and Inquiry - were very similar to the common principles I saw in the schools I visited - Personalisation, Authenticity, Connection, Inquiry.

Our school is still very early in its development journey and we are certainly disrupting the conventional schooling model. The affirmations I received do provide the confidence to continue  to build on our foundations and to persist with our approach to learning design. This view was reinforced by a staff member’s comment on one of my recent blog posts:

This "They could then invite students to suggest which example of migration from across history, or in the present, they (individuals, small groups) would like to explore to increase their understanding of this concept." is very motivating for students I believe. This term we have had students carry out the generic research process into a biological issue. This started broadly with students collectively exploring what makes something an issue in general, with examples and some debate, ultimately ending in a challenge of could there actually ever be anything that wasn't an issue or potentially an issue!! Students were then given a very large list of biological concepts and ideas and were able to pick one of these or some other of their own design, in which they were intensely interested, to research. This is a Q1 course with students being assessed on their biological understanding of the issue (for bio) and also their research capabilities (for eng and bio). The teaching and learning and assessment of these ideas have been carried out over a period of 6-7 weeks, with multiple checkpoints along the way. We insisted that the students chose something they were intensely interested in, so they felt motivated to manage their time effectively throughout this extended time and work purposefully throughout. Anecdotal student voice around this suggests that students have enjoyed having choice in what they are researching and have been motivated to continue through the process. Currently students are seeking feedback on their work...I am pushing them to add more depth and to refine for deeper understanding. Students think this is to ensure they meet the standard at Level 1. Ha...some of the work is what I would have seen from L3 students in the past.... So choice, I believe is intensely motivating, as is investigating into something that an individual is intensely interested in. Previously in another school the bio is taught and assessed in one context only eg should NZ use 1080? Fine if this floats your boat but not fine if you are not interested in this particularly. Students in this class have chosen topics such as "Should we be concerned about the bees?", "Should abortion be funded by the state?", "Should smoking be banned?" "Should society allow designer babies?", "Why is ocean acidification a problem?", "What is the impact of endangered animal trafficking?, "What is the impact of habitat destruction?", "What is bioaccumulation?", "Is Donald right about global warming? and so on....I am really looking forward to finding out what the students have found out!!

In an earlier blog post I published a draft Elevator Statement in an attempt to capture the essence of what I found was common across the innovative schools that I visited. This is what I came up with:

If we want learning to be personalised, authentic, and connected and to be preparing students for their lives in the 21st century, learning must be centred on high-interest projects, drawing on a range of specialist subjects, with opportunities for hands-on application and partnering with the community. There should be a genuine outcome from the learning and students must be partners in designing the learning.

After writing this I revisited the Elevator Statement that we wrote in December 2014 in an attempt to capture the particular essence of our school:

The HPSS model of learning truly engages learners by drawing on their interests and has deep challenge and inquiry at its centre at a time when our country and world need people who are engaged learners, able to work in teams of diverse people, solve complex problems and who enhance their own well-being by contributing strongly to the betterment of their communities.

While there are many similarities, I like, in the more recent iteration, the more overt statement of connected learning (“drawing on a range of specialist subjects”), the partnering with the community, rather than “contributing to the betterment of the community”, and the identification that “students must be partners in designing the learning”.

A further area of affirmation was for the work we are doing in developing a dispositional curriculum. All schools had a form of Learning Advisory (ours is known as Learning Hubs) but none had the same allocation of time or the planning scaffolds and rigour that we are working on developing. Any investigation of the way to best prepare young people for their rapidly changing world identifies the importance of certain dispositions.

As well, while I saw processes of learning design, time did not allow me to delve deeply into each school’s model. I did come away proud of our model. The way our Learning Design Model drives Learning Objectives linked to each Learning Area’s key concepts, skills and content and draws on student voice to determine learning contexts which all determines the framework for identifying progression is sound and rigorous.

Teaching as Inquiry is second-nature in New Zealand schools and it drives teachers to continually inquire into our practice and to be continually asking about our impact on student learning. My main focus during my visits was on cross-curricular, inquiry learning, and I did not come across a similar emphasis on teaching as inquiry during my visits,  which is not to say it was not there. School leaders I met with were impressed with our model of critical friend and spirals of inquiry.

Implications

• Work collaboratively with a range of groups to design an amended Elevator Statement that captures the essence of what sets Hobsonville Point Secondary School apart.
• Use this work as a platform to work with BOT to revisit Charter
• Continue the ground-breaking work on developing the dispositional curriculum so it is very clearly part of the learning “we do around here.”
• Keep our Learning Design Model at the centre of teacher and student collaborative design processes and activities.
• Ensure the teaching as inquiry processes are resourced so that they continue to be central to teacher development and growth.

In my next post I will present what elements I see as ongoing challenges for us and areas on which we might need more focus to continue our development.

What Could Schools Do To Promote Personalisation and Authenticity

In this next post on my sabbatical I provide suggestions on what schools could do to explore PBL and make learning more personalised and authentic and forming connections between learning areas.

What Could Existing Schools Do To Reflect These Principles?

• Explore models of Project-based learning. A clear model that all staff understand and commit to and through which students are scaffolded is essential to provide rigour and prevent low quality experiences and outcomes. The following links could be a good place to start:
• Best brief introduction to current thinking I’ve seen for a while
• Buck Institute for Education is very useful not only with the ‘why’ but awesome for the ‘how?’ - great, easy to use tools
• Wiggins’ model of Understanding by Design used by the Science Leadership Academy
• The Stanford Model driven by Design Thinking and used at High Tech High, Nueva High School and DesignTech.
• Make every effort to provide opportunities for learning to be connected across subjects. Even with a traditional, single-subject timetable it’s not difficult to change mindsets and school practices to enable students to establish connections.
• Schools could start by determining common themes that could drive learning contexts across the whole school or particular year levels. This would, at least, allow all subjects to connect to the common theme.

  

  Grade level Themes at SLA

• Meeting structures could be turned on their head and regular meetings for the common teachers of each class to discuss how learning could be connected across more than one subject. Students could work on high-interest projects which they have had a say in creating in classes timetabled for 2 or 3 of their subjects. Completing one piece of work, drawing on several subjects and being supported by several teachers will not only result in a quality outcome and deeper learning, but reduce workload for students and for  teachers. Perhaps Departments could be required to find times to run their meetings when necessary, rather than having them scheduled. This reinforces that the focus in our school is on collaborative practice rather than subject silos.
• Teachers in all classes could share with their students the responsibility of determining the context in which learning could take place. Teachers would still take responsibility for developing the important learning/achievement objectives but invite students to be design partners in determining the context.
• Rather than informing a class that they are studying Migration and that they would do this by learning about Victorian English people and their migration to and settling in New Zealand, a Social Studies teacher could explore with students the concept of Migration and establish its worthiness of study. They could then invite students to suggest which example of migration from across history, or in the present, they (individuals, small groups) would like to explore to increase their understanding of this concept. Teachers and students would design activities together which allowed the important learning objectives to be met.
• Wherever possible, provide multiple opportunities for students to provide evidence of their learning.
• If all students have to write an essay to show their understanding of an important science concept, then those who are poor essay writers will not do well, despite perhaps having a high level of understanding of the science concept. As long as the learning objectives can be met allow students to show their understanding, whether it be by essay, piece of art, spoken word etc.
• Include some contact or experience with the community or expertise from beyond the school in all planning of learning programmes.
• At the very least, this could be a guest speaker/facilitator but can include off-site visits, individual/small group mentor relationships, on-line communication and connection with expertise, or a client relationship.
• Encourage the public sharing and discussion of student work.
• At the very least, this could be presenting findings back to the class with high expectations of how to make a quality presentation and how to provide quality feedback but can include presenting to students from outside the class or at another school, parents, and mentors and clients who have been involved in the learning.
• Think about where these presentations should take place.The school might be appropriate but so might a community space (library, parks, malls), a conference or place of work.

I hope these suggestions show how schools, no matter their context, can bring life to the principles of personalisation, authenticity, connection and collaboration.