High Tech High Chula Vista - that's more like it!

When I got picked up from Point Loma on Tuesday afternoon I met a cool Uber driver Francisco Moreno. I told him what I was doing in San Diego and that I had just visited Point Loma High Tech High. I then told him I was visiting the same school in Chula Vista. He was very interested because he lives in that area and went to school in that area. I googled where it was located and he talked about it being a newly developed area but that I would find it more diverse. If you follow me on Facebook you'll realise this chance connection resulted in Francisco taking me Leigh and Shirley on a guided tour of Tijuana and surrounding area later in the week. I hope to keep the connection going with him.

Anyway, he was correct about Chula Vista. While the structure  of the visit was similar (student tour - with just me), free-ranging (maybe better than Point Loma because their three schools were spread across several suburban blocks whereas Chula Vista, like us, is one building), lunch with 2 teachers (this time a neat conversation with both parties contributing) and a fruitful meeting with Lisa a senior leader the vibe of the place was warm and inviting.

My day started with sophmore (Year 10 - our Year 11) student, Iza, taking me throughout the school which is located on the edger of the desert.

Grade Structure

• 4 grade levels
• 3 teams per grade
• 2 classes per team
• Like Point Loma each grade level took set classes
• Iza liked this because it allowed teachers to collaborate with their projects

Programmes

• Project Based Learning
• Loosely defined by Stanford Model (Empathise, Ideate, etc) but a project could include anything that looks like an inquiry and does not follow any set process
• Usually teacher comes up with project idea (has been pitched to colleagues [other teachers in the team] and critiqued and strengthened)
• sometimes student feedback/input sought into project ideas
• Project is usually across 2 subjects eg:
• Engineering/Humanities
• design and build a haunted house/creative writing of horror stories
• Chemistry/Humanities
• study of sustainable, alternative energy culminating in a debate
• Biology/Humanities (in this case the Biology teacher was an artist)

• study of anatomy included a piece of visual art accompanied by a spoken word piece

• 
  
• Maths/Business
• Shark Tank - pitch a business and run it

• Projects mostly result in a product (see above) and also included:
• Particle Petting Zoo

• Political Cartoons

• Steam Punk

• Seniors (Final Year) could do a Senior Project on anything they liked (required teacher sign off) as long as it had a community aspect.
• Electives
• 1 per trimester
• multi-grade level
•  some student-led eg

Iza with some work from the Ethnic Studies elective she runs with another student (she will run this each semester for her reamining years at school)

• anything a teacher wishes to offer eg Peace Leadership League. They started by producing an impressive mural for front of school after a student died to show how bad can become good (this student had found solace in music)

Internships

• Carried out in Junior Year (our Year 12)
• last 4 weeks of the year
• pupils spend year planning and selecting
• often careers based
• driven by concept of "leave something behind" eg
• David, who was a Biology enthusiast, secured a placement at National History Museum. He will leave a presentation on what he learned by being involved in the Museum

Goal Setting

• Not sure how this occured but I assume it happened in Advisories (see below) but liked some of the evidence I saw

Advisories

• 30 minutes per day
• separate grade levels
• No curriculum but most seemed to follow a pattern of:
• Monday Management (administration)
• Tuesday Talk (current issues)
• Wednesday Worries (Ups and Downs)
• Thursday ???? (something to do with tracking grades)
• Friday Free Time (kick a ball, share favourite Youtube channels)

Student Comments

• love school
• love hands-on projects
• love lack of textbooks and little homework
• some anxiety about are we being prepared for the demands of university (but they know they are)

Teacher Comments

• Ëvery one teaches like an art teacher"
• Everything gets messy a lot of the time but we just keep talking
• "less control but more windows"= less rules etc but lots of visibility and lots of talk and noticing
• a maths issue
• a sizeable % do remedial maths at university so now finishing year with lots of revision and uni prep. This is an issue Maths is aware of but still committed to PBL notion

My Noticing

• student work on display everywhere - largely project outcomes and reflections eg

What did I take away?

• learning connected across a high-interest project, with hands-on opportunities, and a genuine outcome engages students and leads to great learning
• 95%+ college placement
• this model works across the demographics
• 50% students get free lunch
• it's ok when things get messy (this is a reminder to myself) as long as all parties keep talking
• learning in the real world makesit real (lots of expert speakers come in to take classes, exhibitions happen, when possible, in communty [art galleries, parks etc].
• get more student up (like what we do with the elements of the Learning Design Model)
• even more convinced of the Learning Design Model we use
• our use of student voice to help determine contexts is something special

That's it from San Diego. I'm looking forward to my experience at the Science Leadership Academy and Chris Lehmann in Philadelphia on Monday.

High Tech High Point Loma

Today I visited High Tech High at Point Loma in San Diego. On the one site (an ex Forces site) there are 2 High Tech Elementary Schools, 2 High Tech Middle Schools and 3 High Tech High Schools (High Tech High, High Tech High International and High Tech High Media Arts). I explored all 3 High Tech Highs but spent most of my time in High Tech High International.

I was really expecting this visit to be one of the highlights of my sabbatical and I came away a bit disappointed. The disappointment wasn't so much around my interaction with the students and some of my discussions with staff but more around  the visitor experience.

You pay to make a visit here (which is something I am not opposed to) but I must admit I felt a bit like a commmodity. I went on a tour with another visiting teacher which was led by a great student (Liz) who was in her final year. She did a great job of explaining the four year levels of High Tech High International and how the physical spaces worked.

I was then let free to range across the 3 High Schools for an hour and a half. This was quite different to free ranging at our school where the place is more open. Apart from some larger open spaces classes were mainly taught in closed off classrooms so you had to open closed doors and enter. I was surprised how challenging I found this. Despite being told that students and staff were used to visitors and that you could ask them anything I did feel as if I was interupting and, unlike at our school, no one  initiated discussions with you. I came across 12 other visitors in small groups and started to think that may be there are so many visitors that they almost turn a blind eye to you. However, I did have some conversations with students which helped me understand more their approach.

It was then lunch with all of the visitors and 5 staff. It was hard to get a word in. I was the only visitor from overseas and the other groups were flat out asking their questions which, naturally, mainly related to the USA context. I made an attempt to engage in conversation about our context and model to attempt to get a two-way thing going but I was unsuccessful.

After lunch I set off for what looked like an interesting session called Deeper Learning Field Study
which turned out to be another hour of free-ranging. I'd had enough of that by then so found a coffee shop and waited in anticipation for the Leadership Meeting with the Director of High Tech High. Over coffee I prepared my questions which included:

• In your role, how do you ensure your core principles for learning are kept front and centre?
• Do you have a well-defined PBL process?
• Do students have multiple ways of evidencing learning?
• What does goal setting look like?

Unfortunately, I never got to ask these questions as for reasons not explained that meeting did not go ahead and I joined another student-led tour. While it was a repeat of the morning tour Jazz gave another perspective and I got value out of it - it was like watching a movie for the second time and picking up stuff you missed first time around.

I headed off for my debrief but that person was busy in meetings so I moseyed on out.

Their Model

• Students have no choice in their subjects
• each grade level does 6 subjects (3 per semester)
• they do Maths 1 hour per day for both semesters
• they do 2 other subjects 2 hours per day for a semester and then pick up 2 more subjects to accompany the maths
• the 2 non-Maths subjects are taught separately but planned collaboratively
• Interesting observations:
• They do no Science in final year (4th year) but they do Chemistry for a semester in Year 1, Physics for a semester in year 2 and Biology for a semester in Year 3. However, they do Engineering in Year 4.
• They do English combined with History in a subject called Humanities and they do this every year for a semester.

• Grade composition
• There are  100 students in each grade level and are divided into 4 classes of 25. Two of the classes do Maths and 2 subjects for a semester while the other 2 do Maths and 2 other subjects. For the next semester the pairs of classes swap so by the end of the year all classes in that grade level have done maths all year and the 4 other subjects.
• Interesting observations:
• Each teacher teaches one "class" all year: eg A Humanities Teacher might teach Grade 11 class 1 for 2 hours per day and the same to Class 2. For the second semester they do the same for the next 2 classes. Teachers liked this! While they would definitely personalise the learning activities/projects for each class they were addressing the same learning objectives.
• Programme construction
• Teachers determine what is to be learned (the learning objectives).
• Teachers present possible project ideas
• Most teachers allow students to suggest project ideas
• All culminate in some sort of exhibition or product
• Interesting observations:
• I talked with students from a Grade 10 Humanities class and they described the course
• They read the same book (1984)
• They chose their own character
• They all had to write an essay
• They were about to embark on a PBL activity which they weren't clear on yet.
• I really wanted to ask the question re multiple ways of evidencing learning as I saw lots of examples of neat learning being presented in uniform ways.
• Teacher reflections
• Teachers loved teaching the one "class/subject"to one grade level for the year
• They loved that all of the students in their current class were all doing the one same subject with the same other teacher as this allowed for easier collaboration. In fact, when students were engaged in the PBL part of the semester it was often a project that drew on both subjects and could be completed as one.
• Advisory
• These contained about 20 students (5 from each of the 4 year levels). They met twice a week for 30 minutes each time.
• There is no Advisory curriculum and they were comfortable with that as the focus is on developing relationships and a caring, supportive culture.
• Interesting observations:
• One of the teachers I spoke to was a strong Advisor and he said his group largely sat in a circle for the 30 minutes and talked and used a variety of 'games'and activities to build relationships and grow culture.
• He did say that he knew of an Advisory where they often watched cartoons.
• X Block
• This is a 45 minute block per week where students could attend sports practice, go to study hall, work on areas of passion or try new things
• Internships/Externships
• 3rd Year Internships (4 weeks before start of 2nd semester)
• For a 4 week block these students would be on an internship (usually in San Diego but some travel far and wide including internationally - one last year worked in an orphanage in Columbia). They have to work on their internship for 40 hours per week and complete a project.
• These internships usually have a career focus
• They present their project on return
• The teachers of this grade level have no classes for those 4 weeks and are expected to check on the internships.
• 4th Year Externships (last 4 weeks of the year)
• They can go off and experience what they like (must be signed off). One dude I spoke with was off to Spain to investigate (I forgot now but it included something about education systems).
• There is no project to complete or present but they have to blog every day
• The teachers of this grade level have no classes for that period

What did I take from today?

• After 3 school visits I have still to meet a school leader (Principal)
• Remind my team to make sure I meet all visiting groups. This largely happens but I need to ensure it is practice
• We run bloody good visits, show great hospitality and like to listen to and learn about the context for each of our visiting groups so that we can truly personalise the experience
• I am even more in love with our model though I still lie awake at night worrying about sustainability for teaching staff
• Visibility of aspirations and norms
  
• Displaying kids'art work throughout the space is cool
  
  
  
  
• Kids are the same everywhere. If they have some choice, if they can pursue their passions and if their learning is set in or connected to the real world they will be engaged and best prepared for their lives. I met some wonderful students today who reminded me in so many ways of many of ours.

Tomorrow I'm off to the Chula Vista High Tech High Campus. Here's hoping.

Nueva School

The Nueva School has been open since 2014 and their first graduating class is about to graduate. Their impressive building makes a statement on the developing community in much the same way as does at Honsonville Point. I liked the seating and hire bikes outside the front door. The banners on the lamp post appealed as well and could be a neat way to feature our main entrance.










Getting through the front door provided some challenges for this country boy.

Once inside I was met with the memorabilia shop which could be something that we could think about.

I spent my hour and a half there walking around the school with their Admissions Officer, Davion.

The school is designed to meet the needs of gifted students. Davion was firm in the belief that their pedagogical approach was appropriate for any learner (I agree!) Their school seeks to inspire and challenge students, while equipping them with the academic foundations and social-emotional skills necessary to successfully navigate the transition to college life and beyond. Almost all of their students will be moving on to University. Universities have been telling them that too many students arrive without being able to write competently, having mental health issues (anxiety around schooling) and little resilience and self-regulation - hence their focus on social-emotional skills.

Design Thinking is at the core of their learning model:

I saw some students planning their Quest for next year (similar to our Impact Projects). They go through a structured and scaffolded approach to design thinking at the start of their Freshman Year. This reminds me to check that we are doing so with our Learning Model. Their first Quest spends a lot of time on the design thinking approach which I believe is similar to what we do with our Big Project model.

They run a 5 block day from 8 30 to 3 35. Advisories can meet from 8am to 8 30 or students can access teachers for support. The same is true at the end of lunch (12 50 to 1 20). During the 45 minute lunch break clubs occur or advisories can meet.

It's getting a bit repetitive but they are also driven by the need to personalise learning and for it to be as authentic as possible. I saw lots of evidence of students having multiple ways of evidencing their learning.

Apart from Quest, programmes are largely single-subject, or more accurately, single Learning Area (subjects from the same Learning Area sometimes combine). Their schedule is 8 courses 3 times per week. They choose one from Maths, one from History, Social Science and Civics, one from Lab Science, one from Literature and Communcations, one from Design Thinking, Engineering and Computer Science, one from Arts, one from World Languages and one from Additional Requirements (Quest, Athletics and Wellness, Interdisciplinary Studies, Science of Mind). Once they have met the coverage requirements of each (eg Maths 3 years, Arts 2 semesters in same subject, Interdisciplinary Studies 2 years) they are free to select from wherever and have free time.

Their MakerSpace area was cool (as ours is) and they have a permanent workshop manager based there who only teaches one class (3 blocks out of 24). George is available the rest of the time for students to call upon (prototyping is strongly present here). He had some cool machinery like these desk top things:

Learning Advisories were formed but had no set curriculum or, in fact, meeting times.

The highlight of my visit was an extended conversation with 2 students, Sophia and Celia (friends because their names rhyme). I asked them about things like wider student engagement, cyber bullying and misbehaviour. They responded by talking about being immersed in digital citizenship, about the dual elements of freedom and responsibility, how trust is infectious and the default response to an issue is to "solve a problem, find a solution" and described processes very similar to restorative practice.

What did I take away?

• personalisation and authenticity, personalisation and authenticity, personalisation and authenticity!
• Our Learning Design Model (including Project Learning Process) must always be to the front and continually scaffolded. In NZ, it is truly our point of difference
• I have to find ways to access funds on a reasonably grand scale to increase our staffing resource. Nueva is a private school and generates funds to maintain smallish classes and positions such as Workshop Manager, Writing Support teacher (in response to messages from Universities) who is available 8 00 - 4 30 every day to critique, scaffold writing for any student, Maths Lab (anytime access to Maths support) and Peer Tutoring Co-ordinator (I think this was the writing Support teacher).
  

• We run bloody good visits!
• For a state school, taking all from our community (wouldn't have it any other way!), and trying to prudently manage resources, we are out there!

Now for a debrief with Daniel and Lisa, a long weekend and then off to San Diego to check out High Tech High.

Design Thinking + Find, Develop, Use Technology = DesignTech High School

So this is where I kicked off with my school visits in the Silicon Valley. Daniel Birch and Lisa Squire from HPPS came along as well.  They had started their visits the day before and you can see Daniel's post and Lisa's post with their reflections from their visit to Brightworks.

DesignTech High School, like us, opened in 2014 and their first cohort graduates in 2018. The vision for their school closely matches ours so I was very keen to see how hey have brought that to life. The Mission on their website reads:

At d.tech, we believe that students are most successful when their education is personalized to their needs, and they are asked to use their knowledge to improve the world around them. " Dr. Ken Montgomery.

Design Tech High School makes students innovation-ready by helping them develop skills that are critical to success in the 21st century - skills like collaboration, creativity, self-management, and communication. Students develop these skills by building deep content knowledge and learning important problem-solving skills. The two principles that guide our educational model are extreme personalization and putting knowledge in action.

On arrival we met Julie Abraham! who was to be our host for the morning. Despite our best intentions we were unable to create a family connection, but it was uncanny when she started her presentation to us. She painted the same picture on the state of current schooling and the urgent need for change and what that change should look like that I do with our many visitors to our school. She spoke of stressed students, university dropouts, conflicted parents, subject siloisation and conveyor belt schooling. I liked her analogy of kids as cyclists biking faster and faster, competing with the rest of the field, but getting no nearer the finishing line.

The key principles that drove their learning design were personalisation and authenticity. Where have I heard that before? She also talked of the challenges that start-up schools like hers and ours face particularly in relation to the pressures from parents to revert to the norm, especially in relation to iincessant assessment and grading. Her approach to riding through that storm was to be "unalterably clear on what we are about and to not waver". I talk about this as being clear  on what we will "die in the ditch for".

Design thinking as promoted by D.School is a key driver of their approach. 

They capture the idea of personalisation through the ongoing search to "try to find everyone's super power". They see personalisation as being based on the concept of choice. Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays are devoted to Academics (we didn't get too much of an explanation of how that looked and couldn't see iit in action as it was a MAPS testing day). They did seem to follow a 2 week unit cycle beginning with comprehension check which was a process of using multiple means to assess each student's prior learning, followed by a Performance Task (which seemed quite prescribed) and culminating in a Unit Exam (which seemed quite open). The PT was often a bit of a test or essay (with choice of topic or context) and the UE seemed more creative.

Tuesdays and Thursdays were Labs. 4 blocks ran a day and each day at the start a student would select which Labs they will attend. Their LMS printed a schedule on which there may be a referral for them to attend (a compulsory session). It was up to teachers to refer students to these via the LMS. Where they did not have referrals they could select eiither the Design Garage (MakerSpace), Office Hours (individual or small group access to a teacher), PAB (independent work) or Fitness. This was a ramped up version of our Floor Time.

They capture the idea of authenticity through suspending thhe timetable for 2 weeks 4 times a year. Across those 10 days the mornings are dedicated to d.lab into which students opt for the 2 weeks to work on a solution to  a real-world problem. During this they follow a rigorous design process. This reminded me of our Big Project element in our curriculum. In the afternoons they work on intersessions which has the intention of "exposing them to interesting things"". These are all  delivered by outside partners and can happen on or off-site. They could be mini internships or being exposed to new interests and skills. Teachers are freed up during these 10 afternoon blocks to participate in professional learning.

Because of the  testing regime that was underway we did not talk with any students or see any of the learning in action. The school was in borrowed  premises (a converted warehouse - which had many advantages) but because of their developed relationship with Larry Elison and Oracle were moving into a purpose-built facility in January. Talking with Julie had many advantages as she had come there from Nueva School (where I am visiting on Thursday). Unfortunately we did not get to talk with Dr Ken but we passed briefly in the corridor.

What did I take away?

• DesignTech and HPSS are skinning the cat in similar  ways (this was affirming).
• The concept of FloorTime must be  preserved and further enhanced
• Both schools face similar obstacles when swimming upstream
• I was reminded of the whanaungatanga and manaakitanga we display through our hosting process
• Reminded of the importance of moral purpose and courage (one without the other is no good)

Now I'm looking forward to the visit to Nueva School on Tthursday.

Of course, if you follow my Facebook posts you'll see  the other attractions provided by this wonderfulsabbatical opportunity. (Though I'm still missing you all at HPSS).

Sabbatical Journey

After 4 1/2 years as Foundation Principal of Hobsonville Point Secondary School I'm about to embark on a 5 week visit of schools in the USA as part of my 10 week sabbatical. Typically you apply for a sabbatical about a year ahead of when you actually take it and it's no surprise that the planned focus might change in that time. As well, it takes time to confirm schools to vist so the final selection can affect the focus.

I initially planned to investigate good practice in project-based and inquiry learning, senior pathways programmes with a strong internship focus, and the development of a dispositional curriculum.

I consulted Grant Lichtman and colleagues who have visited the types of schools I wanted to vist and have confirmed the following:

• Design.Tech High School (San Francisco). I am intrigued to share our journeys. Like us, they opened in 2014 and their first cohort graduates in 2018. The vision for their school closely matches ours so am very keen to see how thhey have brought that to life. Hobsonville Point Primary School Principal, Daniel Birch, and Deputy Principal, Lisa Squire, will be part of this visit as they are in San Francisco for the week with an intense schedule of visits.
• Nueva High School (San Francisco). In 2013, along with Claire, I visited Nueva Elementary School and their learning design model had a big impact on my thinking. They were about to open their secondary school so I am keen to see how they have adapted their learning design to accommodate senior students and their programmes. Their first students graduate this year so are at a similar stage in their journey. Daniel and Lisa will be visiting their Junior School at the same time.
• High Tech High Port Loma (San Diego)
• High Tech High Chula Vista (San Diego). Ever since viewing the film Most Likely To Succeed when we screened it at HPSS I have been keen to see their model in action. Visits by the SLT from Rototuna Senior High School and one of our middle leaders, Danielle, and conversations with Grant Lichtman have heightened my desire to visit.
• Science Leadership Academy (Philadelphia). I have been a keen Twitter follower of Chris Lehmann over the last few years and Grant Lichtman wrote in very glowing terms of this school in his recent book #EdJourney. It has been operating for 11 years.
• NYC iSchool (New York). I wanted to visit this school after reading the following statement on their web site as I want to explore how they have carried out the merging of these sometimes conflicting pressures.
• The iSchool model is successfully merging the pedagogical ideal of meaningful and relevant learning experiences that teach big ideas and valuable skills, with the realities of accountability, college preparation, and adolescent development.   Most importantly, though, the iSchool model is rooted in a willingness to ask "why?" and "what if?" - to question what has always been, and to shift our focus from what's easiest and most efficient for adults or the system, to build an experience for each student that is personalized and that provides the range of experiences that will truly equip them with the academic foundation required for success in higher education and the critical 21st century skills required for success in life.

After having confirmed the schools I have decided to settle on 3 key questions to explore at each school:

• What principles have guided the design of learning at the school?
• Why were these principles decided upon?
• How do these principles play out in practice?

I believe a concentration on the defining principles will be of greater benefit to me as principles are more transferable across differing education contexts.

I'm excited by the opportunity to see the journey other innovative schools are on. This. along with the chance to have a break from the daily demands of principalship, will  ensure that I am in a good place to push on with our establishment journey. Of course, the other important benefit is the leadership opportunity given to others at HPSS to experience leadership at another level. The school will be in great hands (though I will miss being there!)

I hope you can follow my edjourney on this blog over the next 10 weeks.

Challenge of Biculturalism Lies With Pakeha

Disclaimer (if  that's the right term): I am a Pakeha and an atheist)

I've enjoyed revisiting this book several decades after I first read it. It was published  in 1992 and I bought it hot off the press. I had experienced my first 7 years as a teacher at Ngaruawahia High School in the heart of the Tainui Iwi and the Kingitanga movement.

While there I made my first foray into the Maori world. This included my first formal learning of Te Reo, experiencing powhiri, delivering whaikorero, participating in poukai and developing ways to support Maori aspirations in relation to education without charging in with the answers. I felt privileged to be made to feel at home at Turangawaewae and enjoyed many conversations with the late Maori Queen Dame Te Atairangikaahu. I had  a close relationship with her Private Secretary, Ngahia Gregory, who was on the teaching staff at Ngaruawahia High School. With her guidance and mentoring I was able to support the establishment of a "Bilingual Class" and was Chairman of the NHS Marae Committee that built the school Wharenui,Te Huingaongawai.

While these two (Bilingual Class and Wharenui) were physcically  visible outcomes the greatest outcome was the way in which, to make sure these projects came to fruition, Maori parents were supported to grow in confidence and move into key positions on the PTA and new-fangled BOTs.

None of these outcomes were my ideas. By listening to Maori students and their whanau their aspirations were clear, as were ideas on how to achieve them. I soon realised that where the support was needed was in navigating the Pakeha world and its institutions and ways of  operating. This is where I could help.

We had a great time - shooting geese on a farm and selling them at the Delta Hotel off the back of a trailer (fundraising), harvesting truckloads of ponga logs for the marae fence, and working alongside Rongo Wetere and his staff and students from Waipa Kokiri (soon to become Te Wananga o Aotearoa) to design and create our carvings for our whare and the wonderful murals for inside.

All through those 7 years this Pakeha atheist was finding ways to operate in a world rich with tikanga. At no stage was I asked or required to relinquish any important aspects of my Pakeha world. I truly hope I operated in a way that did not ask or require the same of the Maori I was working with.

The true winner out of these experiences was me. I began my journey of learning the reo and I came  to understand the concepts of whanaungatanga, manaakitanga, aroha, wairua, and mana motuhake.

I think I was beginning to develop an understanding of bi-culturalism: we all brought something to the table (our values, our principles, our world view, our practices ie our tikanga) and no one had to compromise on these important elements of  their tikanga.

When I  read James Ritchie's introduction in 1992 it resonated with me:

"There are two predominant cultures here, not one. Pakeha culture is dominant by power, history and majority. Maori culture is dominant by a longer history, by legacy and by its strength of survival and the passionate commitment of its people."  (p 6)

Without this understanding many view Pakeha culture as dominant and take this view to the concept of biculturalism. Such a position can lead to people exhibiting practices of ''biculturalism" in which the dominant culture requires the less dominant culture to have some important aspects of its tikanga pushed aside.

A case in point is the important tikanga element of wairua and its associated practices such as karakia. When I have participated in aspects of wairua within the Maori world such as karakia or himene, being an atheist, I have wondered how I can reconcile this. (Well, to tell the truth, I have rarely wondered about this and have felt little discomfort).

Reading James Ritche (a Pakeha atheist as well who's work was situated increasingly within the Maori world) has helped when I have felt I may have needed to reconcile (or more commonly justify the validity of wairua to Pakeha - even those who aspire to biculturalism):

"Spiritual concerns apply to all things. They are never obliterated and must be given full status and recognition. Pakeha are not expected to share such beliefs but are expected to respect them. Matters of the wairua are deeply and personally cultural; do not intrude upon them." (p 53)

In most cases in situations where there is a strong presence of wairua and spirituality such as karakia I simply close my eyes and think of things and people important to me. I do the same when at a Pakeha funeral and there are Christian prayers for the departed and their famiiliies. Sometimes I will not sing himene, but I must admit  I did belt out a strong Whakaria Mai at a recent funeral for a friend. No reconciling was necessary. I am proud of the fact that none of my responses show disrespect or require Maori to abandon what is important to them.

Too often in our institutions if Pakeha feel uncomfortable with aspects of wairua being incorporated in the institution's practices then such endeavours are abandoned. Once again the dominant culture requires the other to compromise and again the members of the less dominat culture continue to experience the levels of discomfort as a result to which Pakeha will not subject themselves.

In my view, it is too easy to play the "schools are secular" card to avoid Pakeha discomfort (while exacerbating discomfort of Maori). This is where the rubber hits the road and determines our true commitment to biculturalism. If we allow the "schools are secular" position to win the day we should, morally, remove our aspiration for biculturalism and reject the presence of Hauora (including) wairua from our Health and Dispositional Curricula.

I recently discussed these issues with a colleague who works within a major tertiary institution. He shared with me a reply he used to a Pakeha colleague who was opposed to karakia being used to start hui:

For me, inviting a Maori colleague to open a meeting is about giving more prominence and visibility to tikanga.  If for that person karakia is an important element of that opening then I am fine about that.

Most non-religious Pakeha would still attend religious-based funerals, with prayers and hymns, and find ways to respectfully be present. I assume they do this for the same reason I do: respect for others and their beliefs.

There is no doubt that much of what is seen as Maori spirituality has, since the mid 1800s, taken on a Christian belief system, but spirituality within the Maori world existed long before then. James Ritchie gives an interesting perspective:

"But to inflict my non-religious attitudes on Maori commits the same error as the early Christian missionaries did when they denied the validity of Maori belief." (p 54)

In schools, as Pakeha (who occupy most leadership and decision-making positions) we cannot dismiss these aspects of bi-culturalism because of levels of discomfort. For decades our Maori colleagues have had to endure high  levels of discomfort because the dominant culture has not acknowledged the important wairua aspects of their culture.

"The signature characteristic of 21st century schools is students at work"

Because staffing numbers and learning space (classroom) meterage are linked to student numbers the impact on pedagogy is strong.

These formulas mean there is only one thing you can do in a traditionally designed classroom and that is put one teacher with 30 kids. And when you put the traditional furniture in there, there's not a lot of room to swing the cat.  You certainly can't put 50 students and 2 teachers in those spaces, so the formula is saying that peer teaching cannot occur (so therefore is not valued.) As well, you can't put 1 teacher with 6 kids in those spaces because that will create overcrowding somewhere else, so the formula is saying that small group teaching cannot occur (so therefore is not valued.) And even when you go with the only possible combination of 1 teacher and 30 students you can do little beyond the teacher at the front, with some moving around with difficulty amongst the bags and 30 desks and chairs, while students remain at their allotted desk and chair.

Do we honestly think that even though this model might have been appropriate once that that is how learning has to occur? When even us baby boomers know that the world and the working environment is so different to what we experienced, that employability requires a completely different set of skills and dispositions (team work, problem-solving, critical thinking, multi-disciplinary, multi modal, communication, collaboration and creativity) and that our society needs people to develop a strong sense of contribution service and equity - even still we wish to limit pedagogy and learning to the one-size-fits-all model required by the traditional classroom.

If I had enough hair left to tear out I'd be even balder after reading articles like Bernadine Oliver-Kerby's ! Her title Children: Casualties of Flawed Teaching Theory suggests some sort of evidence based conclusions outlining the "Teaching Theory", identifying the flaws with evidence and pointing out the definition of "casualties". What we got was a piece of drivel based on, I suspect, casual observations at a surface level. The dismissive observations made at some point in time re handwriting are used to pan innovative teaching in innovative learning environments and given some national platform.

Thank you Bruce Hammonds for pointing me to Bob Pearlman's chapter from his book whch allows me to park the 'Casualties' article and its thinking in the trash.

I loved this from the chapter: "The signature characteristic of 21st century schools is students at work." Note, he does not mean students doing work (writing notes, reading quietly, answering questions from a textbook), but students at work. In my view, students  at work (meaningful work) has them exploring, making sense, generating ideas, testing assumptions, refining thinking, problem-solving, collaborating, seeking expertise, constructing, communicating, presenting, discussing, critiquing and evaluating.

To be at this type of work they need learning environments that allow for large group, small group, individual, teacher directed, student centred, multiple learning style opportunities. They also need 24/7 access to learning materials and supports (information, criteria, assessment rubrics, calendars, discussion boards and evaluation tools.)

Is Bernadine Oliver-Kerby really saying that these types of learning opportunities in these types of learning environments are not appropriate and relevant for our young people today and that the model and design that was appropriate in the 1950s is still so today? Why would we expect schools to operate on the same model in largely the same environment from then when we wouldn't tolerate it from our hospitals, transport systems, music industry, entertainment, legal, finance etc etc institutions?

I'm with Bob Pearlman. Let's have schools where students are at (meaningful) work. This may be, I suspect, a big part of the answer to the problems of student disengagement, under-achievement and anxiety.

NCEA - Deep Challenge and Inquiry

One of the Principles that has formed the foundations of our curriculum decision-making is to Inspire through Deep Challenge and Inquiry. When it came to making our decisions in relation to NCEA we were close to deciding to approach it in much the same way as all schools until we focused on this Principle.

Our approach which we settled on in early 2015 is described in an earlier post  by me and one by Claire. I included the following in that previous post:

I then explained why NCEA Level 1 was a qualification of little value; it leads to no employment or further training. Despite this all schools expose their 14 and 15 year olds to a full year of six subjects offering anywhere between 18 and 24 credits (both internal and external) meaning to get the 80 required (for a meaningless qualification) students were being exposed to 120-140 credits. It's like being hit by a tidal wave! All of a sudden their focus moves away from the joy of discovery and learning to credit chasing and teachers take their eye off the NZC and 'teach to the tests' - all for a qualification that has little value! Stress levels rise for everyone - students, teachers and parents.

Our plan is that our Year 11 students will achieve around 20 quality Level 1 or 2 credits that emerge from their co-constructed learning programmes. Most of these will be from their areas of interest and passion though if we identify that a learner will struggle to receive literacy and numeracy credits at Level 6 or 7 then we will direct them to the literacy and numeracy Unit Standards.

Our learners will take their 20 quality credits with them to Year 12. Their focus in Year 12 will be on 60 quality Level 2 or higher credits. When these are matched with the 20 they have brought with them they are awarded NCEA L1 and 2. They will have done this after having attempted around 100 credits over their 2 years rather than the 220-280 they may have had to attempt elsewhere.

So, as we approach our 4th year and have students moving into Year 12 (Q2 in our lingo), how did 2016 pan out for our Year 11 (Q1) learners?

We started 2016 by setting a target of every Q1 learner achieving 20 quality credits to lay the foundation for their 2 year journey to a quality NCEA L2. Programmes were set up in such a way that all learners would have the opportunity to attempt 20 - 40 credits.

This is what happened:

• 97% achieved at least 20 credits (the 4 who did not are high priority learners). This shows we came close to the quantity part of our target. What about the quality?
• 57% of all internal standards were awarded Merit or Excellence
• 62% of all external standards were awarded Merit or Excellence

How well have the foundations been laid for a quality NCEA L2?
On average, our Q2 learners arrive this year with 12 Level 2 credits, meaning they need 48 at Level 2 or higher to gain their Level 2.

Our programmes will allow our Q2 learners to access 60 - 80 credits at Level 2 or higher and I am confident that we will achieve the quantity part of our target for them. I am also confident we will continue to nail the quality element. Our Q1 learners have flourished in an environment that concentrates on deep learning while avoiding the downside of assessment anxiety as they chase 80+ credits for a largely meaningless Level 1 qualification.

At HPSS we are all determined to maintain an environment focussing on deep learning and not on assessment even as our learners move through Q2 and into Q3 in 2018.

Die in the Ditch - Non-negotiable Principles for Learning Design

Not everyone believes that schooling needs to be transformed but those of us at HPSS believe that it does. We simply do not believe that schools as an institutional phenomenon will escape the same demand and pressure for change as most other institutions.
An important and very rewarding part of our development journey has been sharing our thinking with the hundreds of visitors that we have hosted. This has reminded me of the passion and openness that so many teachers have to make schooling as engaging and relevant as possible for learners. Almost all have agreed that students are struggling to engage and find learning stressful. They also recognise that teaching has become a hard slog with reduced rewards. Many also acknowledge that schools are becoming more like centres of assessment rather than centres of learning.

All of the visiting schools want answers to the question of what can be done at their school and, in some cases, believe that after a visit they will discover a model they can transplant into their own environment. Of course, they soon realise this is unlikely.

When we have worked closely with schools that are in the process of opening as new schools it has been more possible for them to adopt and adapt some of the structures that we have developed while taking the thinking further as a result of their vision, values and principles. For existing schools, however, this is much less of a possibility (and not desirable anyway).

So, what is it that we can share which can be of value to any school in the world no matter their context? The following are three elements that I believe can be put in place in some way in any school and will help move the school in a future-focused direction. I think you can call them principles and they can be evidenced in so many different ways. They are my current non-negotiables; the principles I would die in the ditch for.

Linked Learning

I am convinced that the solution to the complaints teachers hear as to "why are we learning this", "when will I ever use this" lies in linking learning ie not treating subjects as silos. Every day I witness students seeing the relevance of what they are learning simply because the learning they are engaged with requires them to draw on more than one 'subject'.

But the power of linking learning lies in the increased depth of learning that results, both for students and teachers. Examples exist in every connected module our students enrol in, but a standout was seeing students' understanding of an aspect of biology being extended to unanticipated levels as a result of it being wrapped together with an aspect of geography (and being taught by 2 subject specialists).

Any school can take steps to apply this principle simply by reconceptualising the use of time and allocate it to groups of subject specialists who teach the same class and collaboratively plan how they will teach to a common big idea (while developing their subject's concepts,skills and knowledge) over a period of time. This requires no change to timetables and class structures.

Co-construction of learning contexts

There is no doubt that each subject has important concepts, skills and content knowledge and these are non-negotiable. I think, however, that we as teachers have taken ownership of the contexts in which the learning of these has to take place and then held very tightly to them. The sad fact is that often the contexts we create, despite our best intentions, are not seen as engaging, relevant or authentic by our learners. For years I taught a topic focusing on migration by getting students to look at why Victorian Englanders migrated to NZ in the 19th century - all 30 students in the classwould move through this 6 week unit, If I had co-constructed with my learners after justifying the importance of studying the movement of people across and throughout the world I could have had some students inquiring into this important social science concept by exploring the movement of refugees from Syria, others inquiring into their heritage by looking at Pacific Island migration to Auckland and others etc, etc. We would have then culminated in presenting the common and the particular reasons, impacts etc.

I encourage all teachers to invite students into the decision-making re the contexts for the learning. Use your knowledge of your subjects' learning objectives to set the learning and assessment framework and guide the students through a deep learning inquiry. It is not only the learning that will be more engaging, the act of teaching will also be so.

Collaboration

Collaboration is the fuel that drives our engine. Collaboration enables practices that allow learning to be linked and enables students to be involved in co-constructing learning contexts. It brings collegiality to our everyday experience and overtly develops the important 21st century skills of teamwork and inter-personal skills in all learners.

These three principles can and will look very differently wherever they are applied. Each of the three can be applied in any school. The sun will still come up and still go down. Teachers and students will be more engaged.

Have a rewarding and engaging 2017!