Author: gregmiller68

If you were responsible for advertising a pivotal position at your school, which advertisement would place in the local paper? Which advertisement would you place elsewhere? Where would elsewhere be?

 

 

TRADITIONAL AD…. TO READ SOMETHING LIKE THIS….

 

Recently, the College has undergone an expansive review of the structures which support learning at the College. This has resulted in the College adopting a new structure to support contemporary, cutting-edge learning. Pivotal to this new structure is a new promotional position known as

 

PEDAGOGY LEADER

 

Reporting directly to the Assistant Principal, TWO PEDAGOGY LEADERS will be appointed for the beginning of the 2013 school year. They will share the responsibility for the continued implementation of initiatives which support the strategic learning directions of the College and they will be responsible for leading innovative thinking and action which shapes a positive culture of student-centred learning at the College. A Pedagogy Leader is a relational person who can lead by example and show teaches ways to balance student-centred pedagogy whilst not losing sight of the outcomes mandated in current content-driven environment of NSW schools.

 

A complete role description can be found at ……

 

OR, would you place this Ad?  http://bit.ly/WDgQTE

 

I would appreciate your feedback.

 

Regards,

Greg.

At the school of which I am privileged to be Principal, a strong objective is for our students to become ‘self-directed learners’ through the provision of personalised learning. The eLearning Plan, developed in June of 2011, clearly articulates this with its overall objective of enabling learning opportunities which:

·         provide students with greater autonomy and choice of

o   subject matter

o   learning methods and

o   pace of study.

·         involve students in more decision‐making processes.

·         require extensive use of digital technologies.

·         result in memorable experiences where students ‘learn by doing’ with relevance to the real world. 

 

To ensure our commitment to the eLearning Plan is authentic, the College will implement two initiatives in 2013. They are:

1.      For Year 7, an inquiry based approach to cross curricular projects which result in richer, deeper learning; and,

2.      For Year 11 SOR, a blended approach to learning which results in acceleration of the cohort to sit the HSC at the end of Year 11.

These initiatives will need to be supported with:

1.      A group of teachers who are flexible, innovative and understand their role as one of coach and facilitator;

2.      Student centred pedagogy within a guided inquiry framework;

3.      Access to a reliable Learning Management System; and,

4.      Effective and efficient timetabling.

 

This term of preparation for Connected Learning in 2013, needs to be one that poses as many questions as we do have answers. With an inquiry mindset I have asked those inspirational educators involved, the following questions…

 

PROGRAMS

Yes, we do need to have programs at the end of this term; however, some questions about that.

1.      How detailed do those programs need to be?

2.      Do they need to follow the same current format?

3.      By adopting an inquiry/project based framework how thorough can our programs be when we wish for student to frame their own questions?

 

TITLES

–          Are you called teachers? Facilitators? Risk Takers or Experimentalists? 

–          Is your primary role to be ‘guardians of knowledge’ or ‘facilitators of curiosity’? 

 

LEARNING SPACES

There needs to be an understanding of the impact of Learning Space on Learning. This may the focus for one of the days. 

–          What is the Learning Centre Called?

–          What is the Connected Learning program called?

–          How do we ‘title’ the space and the program? Is it “Explore” in the ‘Stadium’?  Is it, “Challenge” in the ‘Coliseum/Colosseum’? A little bit too gladiatorial?

 

 

ASSESSMENT

–          Is there a “Learning to Learn” aspect to Assessment?

–          How can we provide the conditions to enable students to engage in develop richer learning which creates links across KLAs?

–          How do we ‘break down’ the siloed approached to secondary learning?

–          Do we need exams? Half-Yearly, End-of-Year exams?

 

WEB 2.0

–          Are blogs, online chats and other collaborative Web 2.0 possibilities a part of the project?

–          If so, can you be expected to blog?

 

WHAT QUESTIONS WOULD YOU HAVE?

The College of which I am Principal is about to advertise for a new position. The position is a two (2) point paid known as Pedagogy Leader (PL). In fact, there will be two PLs appointed for the beginning of the 2013 school year. The PLs will be responsible for leading innovative thinking and action which shapes a positive culture of student-centred learning at the College.

 

I am just wondering…. If the two persons to be appointed are to be “responsible for leading innovative thinking and action”, should we ask for a traditional application? Traditional applications require the usual covering letter, a response to selection criteria, a resume and the provision of referees. Again, if the College needs two persons who will be “responsible for leading innovative thinking and action”, is it best to ask for the “same old, same old” traditional application?

 

Could applicants provide a different style of application? If these persons are to be capable of “shaping a positive culture of student-centred learning”, shouldn’t they be capable of shaping their own application, an application that best supports their chances of appointment? Could it be that it is an “employee-centred application” where they exercise choice of the form, medium, and style of application?

 

Could prospective employees make their application by way of You Tube clip, iPad Application or other digital technology? Could it be a combination of hard copy and digital technology? Could they forward their application by traditional mail, email the College, forward directly to the school’s Facebook site or Direct Message (DM) the principal on Twitter?

 

Hhhhmmmm. Contemplations abound! Your thoughts?

 

Greg.

Recently, through the magic of Twitter, I was introduced to @D_wearne’s blog. One of Daniel’s entries read, “Teaching methods and styles are changing. However, how much has the structure of management changed?” The rest of the blog can be found at….

http://fifty5words.tumblr.com/post/30631404707/are-you-an-anchor-in-the-sand

 

Daniel’s blog entry resonated with me because the leadership/management structure which directly supports learning has come under question at the school of which I am Principal. Approximately six weeks ago, the Leadership Team forwarded a proposal to all teaching staff suggesting a change to the management/leadership structures which support learning. In short, the Leadership Team argued that the role description of the Key Learning Area (KLA) Co-ordinator, one that drives learning at the College, did not align with the future strategic learning directions of the College. Requirements around leadership of learning, understanding of contemporary pedagogy and using technology to support contemporary pedagogy are not articulated in the current role description. KLA Co-ordinators were addressing these ideals to some degree; however, they are not part of their role description.

 

In short, the proposal called for a re-writing of the middle manager/leader KLA role. With a new title of Pedagogy Leader, the proposed new role aimed to release a leader of learning from the mundane management of administration and compliance within their KLA. This new position of Pedagogy Leader would be complemented by a new and supporting KLA Administrator role. All in all, there were going to be more positions, more money and more time dedicated towards the proposed new structure to support learning at the College. The Leadership Team did not want the KLA Co-ordinator role to become, “an anchor in the sand with barnacles on it”. We were looking to develop a new role which best supported and more closely aligned with the strategic directions and learning priorities of the College.

 

To ensure there was deep consideration of the proposal, the Leadership Team ensured there was five weeks of consultation through various mediums including Staff Meetings, voluntary forums, an online “Q & A” document, one on one discussion and informal conversations. After reflecting on the feedback, the Leadership Team acknowledged there was confusion about the KLA Administrator role and accepted that not all teachers were in agreement with the proposed model. However, the Leadership Team reaffirmed its belief that the current KLA structure and the current KLA Co-ordinator Role Description would not support all strategic learning directions of the College into the future.

 

As a next step, the Leadership Team proposed an alternative structure which took into consideration the feedback and also fulfilled the desire of the Leadership Team to adopt a leadership/management structure which would best support the future learning directions of the College. The alternative model contained the following:

 

i)                    An updated KLA Co-ordinator role description to be known as KLA Leader. There will be nine (9) KLA Leaders and the role will contain a balance between subject specific priorities, student-centred pedagogy and matters of management. KLA leaders will work directly with the Dean of Curriculum, with occasional input from the Assistant Principal, to ensure cotemporary learning approaches within KLAs. To prepare for this, an initial draft Role Description will be developed by the Executive in consultation with KLA Co-ordinators throughout the first half of Term 4, 2012. The KLA Leader role description will finalised by the Principal in Week 5. After Week 5, there will be professional learning for KLA Leaders about their role in preparation of the 2013 school year.

 

ii)                  A new role to be known as Pedagogy Leader. From 2013, there will two (2) Pedagogy Leaders who will work directly with the Assistant Principal. Along with the Learning and Technology Co-ordinator and Inclusive Education Co-ordinator, this Pedagogy Team will work lead teachers to grow their understanding of teaching methods which allow for learning opportunities which involve students more in decision‐making processes about subject matter, learning methods and pace of study.

 

iii)                A change to meeting arrangements in order to maximise our professional learning opportunities and model how we wish learning to be for our students. If learning is to remain relevant for our students, teacher meetings need to adopt a far stronger focus on professional learning with far less focus on management, administration and the like.

 

So, the question, “How much has the structure of management changed?” At the school of which I am Principal, there will be a significant change in the structure of management with a real focus on leadership of learning. I look forward to the implementation of a new structure, one which will serve in the best interests of preparing students for the rapidly changing world which awaits them post school.

 

Greg Miller

24 September 2012

Appropriate pedagogy for the use of technology in secondary school classrooms requires learner-centred approaches (Sutherland 2004; Chang and Wang 2009). Learner-centred pedagogy involves students being actively involved in knowledge construction. Dwyer et al, (1991) in Fullan and Smith (2000) outline the differences between knowledge instruction and knowledge construction. Essentially, knowledge instruction is viewed as the transfer of thoughts from one who is knowledgeable to one who is not, and teacher work is perceived as direct instruction. Knowledge construction views learning as a personal, reflective, and transformative process where teacher work comprises facilitating students’ abilities to integrate ideas, experiences, and points of view into something new. The two approaches are not incompatible and simply position on a continuum of learning strategies.

 

Knowledge construction views learning as a personal, reflective, and transformative process where teacher work comprises facilitating students’ abilities to integrate ideas, experiences, and points of view into something new (Fullan and Smith 2000). According to them there are more possibilities with a classroom that enables knowledge construction.

“In a knowledge construction setting, technology becomes a tool to help students access information, communicate information and collaborate with others. In today’s classrooms there is certainly the need for some knowledge instruction but a great deal of student activity might involve knowledge construction given the explosion of information” (Fullan and Smith 2000).

These technology-based, learner-centred and knowledge constructivist pedagogical approaches are more readily appearing around the world. For example, Australian schools and teachers are integrating ICT to support experiential, constructivist learning in schools and across learning sites; engage students in personalized, collaborative, connected and interactive learning; and broaden and use new pedagogies (MCEETYA 2006).

Student centred pedagogy and its associated approaches have resulted in personalised learning environments for students. Personalised learning refers to the “school’s capacity to use ICT to extend and differentiate student learning opportunities, and to support students to manage and direct their learning” (MCEETYA 2008). Emerging technologies offer unique opportunities to personalise the learning environment for individual learners. A 2009 Horizon Report sponsored by the New Media Consortium identifies the ‘personal web’ as,

“a collection of technologies that confer the ability to reorganise, configure, and manage online content rather than just view it; but part of the personal web is the underlying idea that web content can be sorted, displayed, and even built upon according to an individual’s personal needs and interests” (Johnson, Levine et al. 2009).

 

The personal web enables students to experience school in a different way; a more ‘personalised’ way due to the advent of technology (Drexler 2010).

 

The personalised learning environment, “promotes inquiry-based learning and digital literacy, empowers the learner, and offers flexibility as new technologies emerge” (Drexler 2010). The requirements of personalised learning place high demands on teachers and schools, and it is not surprising that personalised learning is entering schools only slowly (ICT Cluster European Commission 2010). However, the development of personalised learning as part of a school learning environment, assists teachers adopt technology in their classrooms.

 

There is an implication that pedagogic change and greater personalisation of learning are both necessary for student centred, self-regulated and independent learning (Sebba, Brown et al. 2007; McLoughlin and Lee 2009). Addressing the need to rethink and reposition pedagogy for the new learning landscape of the 21st century calls for the active involvement of students in defining their learning goals and choosing both ICT tools and strategies for learning; it also requires recognition that user and learner generated content has a central place in a curriculum that fosters self-regulated learning.

 

To adopt new pedagogies which allow for increased use of technology, the design of programs and units of work within the guidelines of syllabus documentation, requires  problem-based learning and project-based activities (Rotherham and Willingham 2010). All of this signals a need to reconsider our notions of pedagogy so that learners are envisaged as active participants and co-producers of learning resources rather than passive consumers of content.

 

 

Chang, C. and H. Wang (2009). “Issues of inquiry learning in digital learning environments.” British Journal of Educational Technology 40(1): 169-173.

           

Drexler, W. (2010). “The networked student model for construction of personal learning environments: Balancing teacher control and student autonomy.” Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 26(3): 369-385.

           

Fullan, M. and G. Smith (2000). “Technology and the problem of change.” Curriculum Matters: 2-5.

           

ICT Cluster European Commission (2010). Learning, Innovation and ICT: Lessons learned by the ICT cluster Education & Training 2010 programme. Lisbon Set of Objectives, 2010., European Commission.

           

Johnson, L., A. Levine, et al. (2009). Horizon Report The K-12 edition. Four to five years: The personal web. Horizon Project.

           

MCEETYA (2006). Leadership strategy: Learning in an online world. . Carlton South, Australia, Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, Australia.

           

MCEETYA (2008). Learning in an online world: Making change happen. Learning in an Online World Series. C. Corporation: 1-22.

           

McLoughlin, C. and M. Lee, . (2009). “Personalised and self regulated learning in the Web 2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software.” Educational Technology 26(1): 28-43.

           

Rotherham, A. and D. Willingham (2010). “21st-Century” Skills. Not New, but a Worthy Challenge.” American Educator 34(1): 17-20.

           

Sebba, J., N. Brown, et al. (2007). An Investigation of Personalised Learning Approaches used by Schools. D. f. E. a. Skills., University of Sussex.

           

Sutherland, R. (2004). “Transforming teachning and learning: embedding ICT into everyday classroom practices.” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 20: pp413-425.

           

 

 

             

 

             

 

 

Recently, Chris Smyth posted an interesting blog on Twitter via @smythww. It was titled “Is the meta–analysis of John Hattie really relevant for today’s secondary school teachers?”  The full blog can be found at

http://chrissmyth.posterous.com/is-the-metanalysis-of-john-hattie-really-rele

 

Chris’s blog was posted after John Hattie and Deborah Masters presented over 200 leaders and teachers of schools in the Wagga Wagga Diocese of Catholic schools. The presentation reminded us of factors which have the greatest effect on student achievement in classrooms across the world. We were reminded regularly that the ‘effect size’ should be 0.4 or greater before we consider it as worthwhile. I commend Chris for taking the time to offer his thoughtful, reflective and, at times, provocative analysis of the data that was presented to us. It assisted with my reflection of the day and also resulted this follow up to Chris’s blog.

 

Firstly, Chris writes, “Hattie loves to tell the teacher audiences that class size has a 0.2 effect size when a positive effect should be greater than the average of 0.4. The contradictory looks of the 200 odd audience of teachers is enough to tell you that there are questions about this meta-analysis in the hearts and minds of young and experienced teachers alike.” Class sizes essentially are determined after extensive conversations held during Enterprise Agreement talks every three years. So, to an extent, schools and teachers will always have class sizes dictated to them. 

 

 The bigger the class the harder it is to ‘get around’ and provide regular, consistent and effective feedback. Therefore, the focus should be on ‘feedback’ with an effect size of 1.13; “Wow”! Chris writes, “Hattie’s preoccupation with learning intentions, success criteria and feedback is extremely positive.” The key is, as Hattie argues, “to build assessment capable learners”, probably through formative assessment (0.75). I look back at the (three-year) drive at our school on ‘quality assessment’ (more so on summative than formative), and acknowledge the increased learning among teachers as they talked and learnt from each other. Why couldn’t that model be replicated among students with a specific focus on formative assessment? Imagine the increased feedback within one classroom given by many rather than just one, the teacher.

 

Overall, I believe Hattie’s research to be strongly credible. I would be an idiot to say otherwise; after all, it is hard to argue with its validity considering the extensive nature of it. However, ultimately my concern about Hattie’s research is that the vast majority of it dates back decades with the majority of it referring to the ‘old paradigm of education’. This is confirmed when (as Chris reminded me) Hattie stated, “Learning is just bloody hard work and ‘engagement’ is a word used by those that think learning should be fun”. Hhhhhhmmmm.

 

The ‘new paradigm of education’ which includes agile learning spaces, mixed mode education, connected learning approaches and even online education, hardly got a mention. I did hear the word collaboration regularly throughout the day, but again, there was little input around ‘student choice and pace of learning’ and even less about ‘critical thinking, innovation and creativity’. I know the cynics may roll their eyes at the mention of these ‘buzz words of 21^st century education’; however, emerging research from places such as the OECD research unit and P21 in the USA, strongly argue these 21^st century skills (not content!) are required by students for future employees as they embark upon a very changeable future working life that will require a lot more than just finding answers on their phone, tablet or laptop.

Earlier today I listened to a presentation by the very well-known John Hattie and his trusty off-sider Deb Masters. It was about “Visible Learning”. I enjoyed the company of four colleagues from my school and the interaction with 200 colleagues across the Diocese of Wagga Wagga. Following are unedited notes and personal questions that derived from John Hattie’s first presentation.

 

With a Focus on “Achievement”….

 

Average effect size is 0.4. Effect size of smaller class size = 0.22.

 

From all his studies and meta-analysis, which involves one million students and tens of thousands of teachers, the message is that we need to adopt learning approaches and strategies which have an effect size of greater than 0.4. This is the benchmark! Keeping in mind that 0.4 is the benchmark…..

 

Out of school curricular experiences = 0.09 effect size. Why do we have excursions?

Ability grouping = 0.12. Why do we grade classes?

Homework = 0.31. Hhhmmmm

Team teaching = 0.19. What questions does this raise about 2013 “connected learning” with more than one teacher in the room?

Exposure to reading = 0.42

Not labelling students = 0.61. For one, this supports the ‘non-grading’ in Year 7. Should this only be for Year 7?

Acceleration = 0.68. Do we / should we accelerate students?

Classroom Behavioural = Does this explain the need/ongoing requirement for ‘Teach More, Manage Less’? How much does TMML assist with learning outcomes?

Classroom discussion = 0.82. The more the discussion among students, the more teachers have to listen to how students are thinking and talking. Teachers can therefore respond to the students and their needs rather than continue to lecture them on ‘what they need to know.

 

VISIBLE LEARNING IS…..

WHEN TEACHERS SEE THE LEARNING FROM THE EYES OF THE STUDENT AND WHEN STUDENTS SEE THEMSELVES AS THEIR OWN TEACHERS.

 

70 to 80 % of what happens in the classroom is not seen or heard by the teacher. WOW! Therefore, classroom observation by teachers should be about how kids learn not about how teachers teach. What implications does that have for those teachers involved with the “connected learning”  initiatives (at Mater Dei Catholic College, Wagga Wagga) next year?

 

Leave it with you,

Greg.

The extract below comes from an article I recently wrote for our College Newsletter. We are a 7-12 secondary high school where all Year 9-12 students have been given netbooks thanks to the funding of the Digital Education Revolution. However, these devices are slow, fragile and students tell me too bulky for them to carry in their school bags.

 

At the end of 2011, a commitment was made to purchase devices for Year 7 & 8 students in 2012. I cannot see why it is any less important for Year 7 & 8 students to have a device. There have been some extraordinary events at our school this year that have meant the purchase was not a priority until recently; however, within the last month, the matter of purchasing devices for Year 7 & 8 students has been fairly restored to the top of the agenda list.  For reasons I won’t go into, we are not going down a BYOD option and I know, “It’s not about the device”; however, it still is important! Here is the extract ….

 

As Neil Postman says in Technology: The surrender of culture to technology: “Every technology is both a burden and a blessing; not either‐or, but this‐and‐that.” This is the moment I am living right now.

 

Over the course of the last few weeks I have had many discussions with teachers, students, parents, CSO personnel and colleagues beyond the Riverina. I have asked many questions and listened to all and sundry about the pros and cons of laptops versus tablets, and the plusses and minuses of Microsoft Office as compared to the Apple suite of programs. The more I listened, the more I understood that there is no one device that will serve the diverse learning needs of a whole year group, let alone two year groups.

 

For the purposes of schooling, the technology (the device) needs to support the pedagogy (teaching and learning methods), not the other way around. The device needs to support our intentions for our pedagogy to be more and more student-centred; that means, providing students with greater choice of subject matter and pace of study. It also requires teachers to involve students in more decision‐making processes which result in memorable experiences where students ‘learn by doing’ with relevance to the real world. Examples of this approach would see students:

·         CREATE podcasts, video documentaries and websites;

·         COLLABORATE via wikis, blogs and Google share documents; and,

·         CRTICALLY ANALYSE the work of their peers using chat options and online media.

 

My desire is for Mater Dei students to more and more engage in activities that result in them Creating, Collaborating and Critiquing. They collectively need to move away from pre‐occupation of computer work being just “Word and PowerPoint”; and it is great to see that some are already doing this! The Google suite of applications is one option which supports “creating, collaborating and critiquing”. At the direction, and with the support of the Catholic Schools Office, the Google suite of applications will become available to all staff and students of Mater Dei from the beginning of 2013. Over the last few weeks when speaking with Year 7 & 8 students, I introduced them to the Google suite of applications and they were genuinely excited by the possibiliti
es. Furthermore, they were looking for a device that is ‘instant on’, connects quickly to the internet, portable, light (the lighter the better), had a keyboard and the battery needs to last the whole school day. Basically, they were telling me, “We want a tablet device.” The problem is that the Google suite of applications is very limited when applied to tablet devices. So, at this point we have two options:

–          Option One: Pursue ‘lightweight’ laptops which turn on quickly and can access the full suite of Google Applications; however, laptops that are durable enough for school bags, generally weigh a tonne!

–          Option Two: Wait until the Google suite of applications effectively can function on tablet devices, but no‐one can give a direct answer as to when this will be.

 

I am well aware that I am ‘on the record’ on saying that, in 2012, we will have portable devices for Year 7 & 8 students. I am still very keen to see this become a reality; however, I do not want to buy a device for the sake of buying a device. Also to be considered is that over the course of the next six months there will be some significant events including;

i)                    In September/October of this year there will be the release of a Windows Tablet which, by all accounts I am told, “will be a game changer”.

ii)                  By the start of 2013, the College will have a fully functioning Learning Management System.

iii)                As already stated, there is the knowledge that the suite of Google applications will be made available to students from the beginning of next year. I am told, “There will be an Google App for Tablets one day”. Yes, but when?

iv)                The College will be in receipt of a significant amount of government funding which directly contribute to the purchase of devices for Year 9 students in 2013. Some say we would be mad to spend our own money now when, in six months, the government will pay for them.

 

So, I refer to Postman’s quote at the beginning of this article, “Every technology is both a burden and a blessing; not either‐or, but this‐and‐that.” I think it prudent to ensure the device that we do purchase best supports our developing student‐centred pedagogy, and is therefore more of a blessing than a burden.

The most effective leaders use different leadership styles at the right times relevant to the task, the people and the situation (Fullan 2005; Leithwood, Day et al. 2006; HayGroup 2010) . Such leaders take into consideration the strengths and weaknesses of employees, the complexity of the task, time pressures and available resources (Caldwell and Spinks 2008; HayGroup 2010).  

 

Hay Group are a worldwide research company who has extensively researched the qualities, skills, attitudes and actions associated with leadership in varied fields including education, management, business and politics. Combining with the Education Faculty at the University of Melbourne, material has been developed since 2008 for the Leading Australia’s Schools Program. The Program identifies six leadership capabilities that were consistent across industries. They are:

i)                    Directive

ii)                  Affiliative

iii)                Pacesetting

iv)                Participative

v)                  Visionary and

vi)                Coaching.

 

In 2010 I attended the Leading Australia Schools Program. The program provides comprehensive information for participants derived from self-reflection tools and survey instruments designed by Hay Group and University of Melbourne. Data derived from these tools provides rich information about the individual principal’s Social Motives, Leadership Styles (outlined above) and the Organisational Climate of the workplace, and this enables one to reflect on practices that will sustain change and achieve school transformation.

 

Of the six leadership styles that need to be applied to any one situation the Visionary, Participative and Coaching styles are best suited to sustained, long term change or transformation (HayGroup 2010). By providing long-term direction the Visionary Style creates a sense of direction and influences others to follow it. By generating new ideas the Participative Style builds commitment of the stakeholders through participation. By engaging in long-term professional development of staff, the Coaching Style develops the unique strengths of others for the future (HayGroup 2010).

 

The complexities of leading school transformation in a time of such accelerated change, requires principals to do all they can to support the transformation process. In 2010, information specific to my context and my capabilities highlighted the need for me to:

i)        Enable Teacher Autonomy; that is, develop the feeling among staff that they can decide how to do their jobs without constantly consulting their co-ordinator.

ii)      Encourage Risk Taking among teachers; and,

iii)    Promote Innovation by encouraging people to develop new ideas and approaches.

Specifically, I reflected that I needed to (and still need to):

–          Delegate authority to the lowest appropriate level and set a minimum number of check-offs (depending on capability) in order to empower people;

–         Ensure that teachers to have sufficient room to act and encourage them to exercise individual judgement, take reasonable and calculated risks, and use their time well;

–        Encourage creativity, experimentation, and original, independent thinking in designing new systems, solving complex problems, exploring alternatives, and pursing new opportunities; and,

–          Be flexible and help put new ideas into practice.

 

It is eighteen months since I attended Leading Australia Schools. Since then an eLearning Plan has been developed, pilot programs implemented and constant opportunities for teacher professional development have been initiated. The evolution of the eLearning Plan has resulted in new initiatives for 2013. In particular, our energy and actions are focused on producing integrated, cross-curricular and connected lunits of work for Year 7 next year and also a blended, multi modal approach to Year 11 Studies of Religion.

 

I look forward to the planning of the next six months before implementation in January of 2013.

 

Greg Miller

11 June 2012.

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

Caldwell, B. and J. Spinks (2008). Raising the stakes: From improvement to transformation in the reform of schools, Psychology Press.

           

Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership & sustainability:
System thinkers in action, Corwin Pr.

           

HayGroup (2010). Leading Australia Schools Program. Leading Australia Schools Program, Melbourne Business School, Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership.

           

Leithwood, K., C. Day, et al. (2006). “Seven Strong Claims about Successful School Leadership. .” National College of School Leadership.

I have just spent three days in Sydney attending a Congress and a conference. Firstly, I attended Day One of the three day K-12 Technology Conference held at Darling Harbour, Sydney Australia. This was followed by two days at the Association of Catholic School Principals (ACSP) Conference held at the Sofitel Wentworth. Over the course of the three days I had the great pleasure to listen to many learned people about contemporary education; their strong message being that now is the time for schools and systems to dramatically change.

 

Alan November’s message is that it is more important to address pedagogy than it is to utilise technology. However, in saying that, there are many opportunities where technology can assist pedagogy which takes into account student choice and interest. If you wish, visit http://bit.ly/LW4AZI where Alan November speaks about the importance of ‘updating education’. Stephen Heppell spoke about the need to make learning spaces appear inviting and engaging for students. Part of his presentation displayed examples of some amazing learning spaces, very different to the traditional ‘rows of desks’ classroom. For an insight into his work, you can visit http://bit.ly/g1tGNb. Another one of three international speakers I heard was Sir Ken Robinson. He argues that education needs to change in order to prepare students for the world which awaits them. A fantastic summary of his message is a well-known You Tube clip, http://bit.ly/dtwXou. In one sense I did not learn a lot that was new; in fact, many other principals felt the same. The message has been around for a few years now; the message being, it is time for schools to be bold, be innovative and take a few risks when delivering an education for the students under their care.

 

There are some fine examples of ‘leading schools’ who were bold and took action a few years back. Schools such as Northern Beaches Christian School and Corpus Christi, Oak Flats changed their pedagogy by ensuring that student interests were addressed. Parramatta Marist is another such school. It is the oldest Catholic school in the country, but it is a great example of contemporary education and their story can be found at http://bit.ly/H7sroS. In summary, there is now far better engagement with students because of their commitment to be learner-centred. I am assuming that the students were not the only ones seen as learner! These ‘leading schools’ focused on pedagogy and then looked at how the technology could support learning which is student centred. They did not start with the technology, nor did they see it as the ‘magic bullet’.

 

A recent article by Charlie Osborne, found at http://zd.net/Im0Xdi, refers to a study by Economic & Social Research Council of America. The study finds that Web 2.0 technologies such as Twitter, Facebook, and Tumblr can be distractions rather than learning tools. From my witness, that is where leading schools have got it right. When necessary, they explicitly teach skills to use technology but only when it supports student-centred pedagogy. Often, it is the students who teach the use of such technology. They share, they collaborate and they critically think about how to use the technology. These “21^st century skills” are ones that Robinson, November and Heppell argue students will need when they enter the work force. Instead of just simply embracing Web 2.0 tools for information transmission, leading schools have decided to embark on creating a curriculum that utilises technology as part of a larger creation process. Like the writing process, which requires planning, prewriting, drafting, editing, and revision, leading schools commit to learning which sees student utilisation of audio, still photos, and video. Also, students learn how to collaborate using Google Docs, analyse images and video in the context of literature and narrative, and apply photo rules when they shoot, interview, edit, and sequence all of their raw footage and images. They create photo essays, audio slideshows, and short documentaries from start to finish, then collaboratively critique each other’s work. All the while, these schools continue to explore best practice pedagogy and test out new programs and technology applications to enhance the course.

 

Enough of the rhetoric and more of the action! I would dearly love the next conference I attend to be wholly and totally about hearing and seeing student generated evidence of what is working in schools. My hope is, that with the effort, energy and actions planned over the next 12 months, that the school I lead is one of those schools.