I found myself reflecting on the contents of the two chapters in Zemelman in terms of my own experience and my own leadership. I cannot but agree on his statement (on page 273) that significant change needs clear, focussed and supportive leadership. I can think back to some changes that were controversial in a school (a new discipline policy and the role of sport in the school) that were doomed to failure without the support of the administration. The initiative for change came from some individual faculty members who were able to convince administrators that the proposed changes were worthwhile. It actually took much longer to convince all their colleagues of the wisdom of the changes. My experience has been that administrators are open to changes proposed by individual faculty members or a subject area in a school, but whole school changes come about more from external agencies, such as state or accrediting agency requirements.
One area that Zemelman did not comment on in discussing significant change was in the area of resources, except in terms of time. It has been my experience that significant change usually comes with a significant price-tag! The price-tag could come from all or some of the above new resources, teacher development programs, new rooms, new furnishings, new equipment, new technology, a new report system, adjustments to the school's timetable or class sizes and arrangements. Not only is the support of leadership required, it is necessary to see if the school can actually afford to implement and resource a significant change. I'm conscious of two Catholic schools in Australia who introduced significant curricular and teaching changes who lost students from their roll because parents weren't willing to gamble on their children's education. This in turn meant a decrease in the funding available for teachers and resources and eventually led to one of the schools being closed and the other being amalgamated.
The last high school I was in changed their teaching schedule from 40 minute periods to a combination of 40 and 80 minute periods. This scheduling change had quite a remarkable influence on classroom activities, as teachers realised that it was nearly impossible to sustain students' interests for 80 minutes if they organised their classes the same way as they did for a 40 minute period. This led to a rule-of-thumb that four different activities were desirable, and probably necessary, during an 80 minute period. A far greater range of teaching and learning experiences evolved from the change of schedule.
28 March 2009
24 March 2009
Senge Pages 3-27
I admit it - to date I'm not a big fan of Senge and his colleagues. It is not that I disagree with them, it is just that in reading the book I find that it is a bit like gold mining - there is an occasional nugget (or insight) that is worthwhile in amongst all the words that are written. There is no consistent style in the book - at one stage, there is a folksy tale of some teacher or parent, and then at other stages, philosophical reflections on the nature of teaching and learning. The outlook of Senge and his colleagues on the world and on education seems to be idealistic rather than realistic. I think I would far prefer them to write how they were part of a learning community at a school and how they did this, and what were the challenges and experiences of teachers or administrators who were reluctant to become engaged with the process. I would be especially interested to know if their ideas are implemented in their own universities.
The reading selection begins with the story of the student and the medellion. To me, that highlights the need for relationships between teachers and students. This is sometimes easier with some students than others, but to me it is the heart of what teaching and learning is about. I was pleasantly surprised when the story concentrated on what the student learnt that day. In my conversations with past and present students, they are more likely to remember the way the teacher related to them and their passion for teaching and learning than particular points that were made in lessons.
I must admit I find U.S. curriculum patterns confusing at the best of times. I may be misreading the situation, but it seems to me that accrediting organisations such as WASC have a huge impact on the curriculum and its implementation, but that the accrediting organisations are not curriculum organisations in themselves. I'm not sure how detailed the guidelines set by WASC are for curriculum (and other areas of school life), but in listening to teachers in California schools, it seems that the WASC criteria are the standards on which curricula design and implementation are used. If that is indeed the case, what sort of interaction is there between the teachers of any particular school and the accrediting organisation? If curricula are to be substantially changed, is WASC the reason for implementation, or does WASC change because of the insights of the school learning community? Perhaps a discussion around this matter could let teachers and administrators know the extent to which their school can become a learning community.
The reading selection begins with the story of the student and the medellion. To me, that highlights the need for relationships between teachers and students. This is sometimes easier with some students than others, but to me it is the heart of what teaching and learning is about. I was pleasantly surprised when the story concentrated on what the student learnt that day. In my conversations with past and present students, they are more likely to remember the way the teacher related to them and their passion for teaching and learning than particular points that were made in lessons.
I must admit I find U.S. curriculum patterns confusing at the best of times. I may be misreading the situation, but it seems to me that accrediting organisations such as WASC have a huge impact on the curriculum and its implementation, but that the accrediting organisations are not curriculum organisations in themselves. I'm not sure how detailed the guidelines set by WASC are for curriculum (and other areas of school life), but in listening to teachers in California schools, it seems that the WASC criteria are the standards on which curricula design and implementation are used. If that is indeed the case, what sort of interaction is there between the teachers of any particular school and the accrediting organisation? If curricula are to be substantially changed, is WASC the reason for implementation, or does WASC change because of the insights of the school learning community? Perhaps a discussion around this matter could let teachers and administrators know the extent to which their school can become a learning community.
02 March 2009
Ozar Chapter 5
Creating a Curriculum That Works was written in 1994. The only time I taught in a U.S. school was way back in 1984-5, so I’m unclear how much progress there has been in providing curriculum standards in the various subject areas. As a foreigner, the use of different groups working independently seems to be a very fragmented way of going about setting a framework and standards. I’m not sure what grades (K-12?) the standards are being set for, and I hope that the list is not exhaustive. The absence of Religious Education from the list is one subject area that I noted. Readers may or may not be aware that a curriculum framework is provided at a national or state level, and Catholic schools or education authorities adapt this so that Religious Education and gospel values are an integral part of the curriculum. Interestingly, some of these curriculum frameworks are for K-10 rather than K-12. The reason for this is that the last two or three years of high school are more closely linked with post-secondary school education. Schools are recognised as the normal (but not the only) pathway to obtain the qualifications necessary for further study or apprenticeships. You may wish to look at some of the following websites to see how different countries and states approach curriculum development:
I was surprised that Ozar included the statement that “Motorola must interview ten people to find one who meets their entry-level standards” (page 65). The reason I found the statement surprising was that I assume that Motorola is not hiring any or many people straight from high school, and that those applicants whom the company interviews have generally completed a college degree. There is an assumption that Motorola’s interview and assessment techniques are beyond question, and that their entry-level standards are realistic. I understand what Ozar was trying to demonstrate by the statement, but I question the choice of this example. The needs of Motorola might be far different from the many other businesses and enterprises in society. There is no comparison made with the other international branches of Motorola to suggest that this is just a U.S. ‘problem’ or whether it is the experience in other ‘first-world’ countries where the company operates. I have not seen any evidence in the media to suggest that Motorola's concerns are widespread.
I was surprised that Ozar included the statement that “Motorola must interview ten people to find one who meets their entry-level standards” (page 65). The reason I found the statement surprising was that I assume that Motorola is not hiring any or many people straight from high school, and that those applicants whom the company interviews have generally completed a college degree. There is an assumption that Motorola’s interview and assessment techniques are beyond question, and that their entry-level standards are realistic. I understand what Ozar was trying to demonstrate by the statement, but I question the choice of this example. The needs of Motorola might be far different from the many other businesses and enterprises in society. There is no comparison made with the other international branches of Motorola to suggest that this is just a U.S. ‘problem’ or whether it is the experience in other ‘first-world’ countries where the company operates. I have not seen any evidence in the media to suggest that Motorola's concerns are widespread.
24 February 2009
A Reaction to Ozar
There is really nothing that I disagree with in Ozar's first four chapters about learning outcomes, as it all seems very familiar. I don't know how widespread the use of learning outcomes is in the curriculum of U.S. schools, but learning outcomes have been an integral part of curricula for many years in all the schools in Australia. The learning outcomes for each subject and level are mandated by a central education and assessment authority in each state within the context of a national curriculum framework. Each school sector (public, Catholic and independent) provides representatives for the curriculum committees for each subject and level, and the curricula are circulated for comments and revision before being implemented for five-year periods before they have to be evaluated and revised. If you are interested, clicking here will give you some idea of how each state organises their curriculum for K-10 (note 'Grades' in the USA are called 'Years' in Australia). Years K-10 have a core curriculum with the exception of Years 9 and 10 where some electives are introduced. Each state has a different way of assessing Years 11 and 12, but each subject has an external assessment (usually a state-wide exam or external assessment of technics and art-related subjects) and some internal assessment. An example from the state of Victoria can be found by clicking here if you are interested. Curriculum development in Australia is largely driven by forces outside the school, particularly the state curriculum authority with some input from national educational authorities. Schools are free to choose their own texts and teaching resources, and publishers ensure that there is a variety of texts and resources available.
Australian teachers spend time at subject teachers meetings discussing possible ways to achieve the learning outcomes. It should be noted that the state curriculum documents also suggest possible methods and provide examples how the curriculum can be implemented. There are some things relating to curriculum that are big issues in Australia that are not mentioned in the opening chapters of Ozar and a scan of the contents page suggests that these issues are not covered later or given cursory mention.
Australian teachers spend time at subject teachers meetings discussing possible ways to achieve the learning outcomes. It should be noted that the state curriculum documents also suggest possible methods and provide examples how the curriculum can be implemented. There are some things relating to curriculum that are big issues in Australia that are not mentioned in the opening chapters of Ozar and a scan of the contents page suggests that these issues are not covered later or given cursory mention.
- The first issue in implementing outcomes is how much time to allocate in a program so that all the outcomes are addressed, and how and when the teacher should move on when individuals have not achieved a particular outcome.
- A second issue is reporting the outcomes to parents. I haven't seen any recent US school reports to know what the comparison is like, but reporting outcomes has been a source of debate in recent years in Australia. This has meant that there has been a change in terminology (and thinking) from outcomes-based assessment to standards-based assessment. You can see some sample report documents by clicking here.
- A third issue in Years (Grades) 9-12 is that each individual school has to decide which elective subjects will be offered. This is quite a challenge given the number of potential subjects that are available, especially at Years 11 and 12. Facilitities, teacher availability and interest, financial resources, student and parent interest and demand are all factors that are taken into account when these curriculum decisions are made.
- A fourth issue is deciding which texts and resources to purchase and use. There is a wide variety of texts and resources available because the same syllabus is used throughout the state.
12 February 2009
Learning Climate Blog 17 February 2009
I have spent 34 years as a teacher and administrator in seven Catholic secondary schools in New Zealand, Australia, and California. All of these schools could be described as Industrial-Age schools in the way that Senge uses the term, but few teachers, parents and students expressed the view to me over the years that this was how the school was viewed. Certainly the philosophy of each of the schools was far from mechanistic because there was a genuine care, concern and interest in each of the students. I believe that each of these schools were responding to the best of their ability to what parents wanted and children needed. The schools reflect some organisational and architectural features that are associated with the Industrial Age and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future because of the costs of changing or modifying buildings, and government and union requirements and agreements that are mandated for schools and teachers.
During my time as a teacher and administrator, particularly in Australia and New Zealand, there has been a significant evolution in the styles of teaching and learning, an expansion of the range of courses offered, and new forms of assessment introduced. Much of this has been done at a national, state, system or school level. In the last secondary school where I was a teacher and administrator, each classroom had data projectors available and computer rooms were plentiful and accessible. The school had about 450 computers available in rooms or pods for the 1250 students. Each student was required to have a memory stick. In-service days were devoted to new styles of teaching (especially multiple intelligences) and training in the use of technology. Courses introdued at the school while I was there that reflected New Science applications included Robotics, Media, Design and Technology, Studio Arts (Photography). Probably the most significant advance in catering for students' interests and society's needs was the ability of students to take one course (in topics such as animation, carpentry, music recording, pre-trade training) at centers that catered for students from a variety of schools, and also to spend one day a week at a workplace. Most subjects have a formal state exam at the end of their Grade 12 year of the pen-and-paper variety which harkened back to the Industrial Age. I claim some credit for the innovations, but the innovations were decided and implemented collaboratively. I have used technology in the classes that I have taught, but I would need some updating in areas such as 'smart-boards' and the possibilities that the iPod Touch offers for teaching and learning, two technologies that have been introduced into classrooms since I last taught in secondary schools in 2006. This in itself shows that schools do not stand still but change and adapt - and likewise, so do we all!
During my time as a teacher and administrator, particularly in Australia and New Zealand, there has been a significant evolution in the styles of teaching and learning, an expansion of the range of courses offered, and new forms of assessment introduced. Much of this has been done at a national, state, system or school level. In the last secondary school where I was a teacher and administrator, each classroom had data projectors available and computer rooms were plentiful and accessible. The school had about 450 computers available in rooms or pods for the 1250 students. Each student was required to have a memory stick. In-service days were devoted to new styles of teaching (especially multiple intelligences) and training in the use of technology. Courses introdued at the school while I was there that reflected New Science applications included Robotics, Media, Design and Technology, Studio Arts (Photography). Probably the most significant advance in catering for students' interests and society's needs was the ability of students to take one course (in topics such as animation, carpentry, music recording, pre-trade training) at centers that catered for students from a variety of schools, and also to spend one day a week at a workplace. Most subjects have a formal state exam at the end of their Grade 12 year of the pen-and-paper variety which harkened back to the Industrial Age. I claim some credit for the innovations, but the innovations were decided and implemented collaboratively. I have used technology in the classes that I have taught, but I would need some updating in areas such as 'smart-boards' and the possibilities that the iPod Touch offers for teaching and learning, two technologies that have been introduced into classrooms since I last taught in secondary schools in 2006. This in itself shows that schools do not stand still but change and adapt - and likewise, so do we all!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
