Principal (le?) learning

We would scoff at any teacher who used a PAT student test script (for example) as the beginning point of their maths programme; so why on earth would the national standards be a beginning point for the planning of classroom programmes?

Are the NS not intended to be indicative rather than exhaustive?  If they capture all that is needed to be known about a particular curriculum area then why have the Literacy Progressions or the NZC at all?  The NS are one SMALL part of what it means to achieve in a particular curriculum area.  The NZC essence statements are the cover-all.  The NZC provides the guidance about what it means to be literate, numerate, scientific, etc.

It worries me that we know teaching to the test is insane and unprofessional and yet teachers are already using the NS to PLAN from.  ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!!

This quote struck me tonight:

In theory, each rung on the ladder represents a new grade level and when students reach the top of the ladder they should be prepared for the next step which is life beyond high school. One of the dangers of building a curriculum based on the wrong motives is that students may climb the ladder only to find the “ladder is against the wrong wall” (Covey, Merrill & Merrill, 1994, p. 138).

Lots of ideas began to race as a result ….

It seems that our National Standards rationale may in fact be a ladder against the wrong wall?
* do all children really need to achieve NCEA Level 2 to be successful? Is this really the best benchmark of educational success in our society? More importantly can we really then backwards map in equal chunks of learning to get way back to 5yr olds? To me this would seem to show an unbelievably simplistic understanding of learning theory and educational reality!
* Our ‘brown tail’ is a reality but is remediating the education system as a whole, and specifically excluding a large brown bit of it to begin with, going to focus resources in the right place to achieve the goals espoused?
*Do the negative impacts outweigh the positive spinoffs?  Is the whole shebang workable in any way or form?  When national information like the Numeracy Project and NEMP  show that the Standards are set all wrong who is providing the advice.  How can people paid to be well informed get it so wrong?

The list goes on ….

The ladder metaphor is a good one.  It assumes:
* the ladders is on the right wall, the goals are good ones.
* the rungs are evenly set, learning is in equal chunks over time and everyone will take even strides all of the time and never need to stop for a rest.
* everyone wants to climb the same ladder, all learning paths are the same and so are the ultimate destinations.
* what is at the top is worthwhile, all learners have the same goals and are prepared to work for something they can’t see and as yet may know precious little about.

So … are we climbing the same ladder? Should we be? Is it realistic to even have EEO ladder climbing as a goal for the education system anyway?

Lots of questions; and from one short quote.

I have always been troubled by the so-called “learning styles” theories.  It seems counter intuitive to me that you would be able to ‘test’ for a particular preference and then particularly that you would then try to tailor a childs instruction to simply cater to that strength.  We don’t assess a childs maths ability, find they are good at addition, crap at geometry and then spend the next term working on their addition.

Learning Styles would/should tell us what a child needed to focus on as much as what they are good at.

Came across this today:

… which backs this up. Well worth the 6 minutes to watch it!

ANY package deal, while seductive , is almost certainly a crock! The new NZC OBLIGES us to find out what the child knows and particularly what they UNDERSTAND (and there is a BIG difference between the two) and work from there. Build on their strengths and work on their needs. Be dynamic in the programme and meet the evolving needs, not pound through some rubric or prescriptive list.
Learning Styles, Blooms, etc are all fancy packages for a broad range of learning activities. Useful to frame teachers thinking and ensure variety but NOT a template and certainly not a prescriptive answer to all the educational ills they are often marketed as. All that does is line the pockets of the snake oil salesmen.

“Its never the kids fault that they can’t learn…” – Greg Whitby
now THERE’S a challenge!!

The power of theory based practice …. all kids can learn ….. what are you, as a teacher, doing to make sure it is so??!!

Ha … so its about teacher and programme effectiveness then …. what a revelation!

National Standards are beginning to emerge in the media again. The groundswell of opposition from the professional and other education organisations is building.
NZPF:

The Otago Primary Principals Association:

OPPA executive supports the stance taken by other regions to boycott the National Standards training, and recommends Otago schools also boycott the training.
The OPPA understands that schools are entitled to make their own decisions in relation to National Standards, and it also seeks to offer its support to schools that are looking for some guidance and direction about the matter.
The executive has taken its position in response to the feedback received from principals in the survey undertaken earlier this week. The survey was to get a clear expression of principal‚s thinking about the initiative. Of the 74 principals that responded to the survey, 87.5% do not support the standards (2 did not respond to that question); 66% do not support the training and a similar percentage (63.5%) support a boycott of the training.

Teachers and others are posting their thoughts on Social Media sites as well:

this is very clever!! Well worth watching and makes some good points …

and this one is good too ….

Jill Hammonds:

Challenges
- thinking about thinking.
- What are we doing that is preparing children for their future?
-

Jean Edwards:
BIG handout
- Models of Inquiry learning:
* Inquiry is not something new … it is an attitude.
* not just one approach!

* Left brain (concrete etc) – Right brain (creativity, spatial, hands on, etc)
* learning styles movement …. VAK
* important for children to know how they operate and how to maximise their learning as a result.

Understanding by Design
designed in the understanding at the beginning …. know what you want kids to understand from the beginning of the unit. This then becomes the assessment (this is what we do)
focus on concepts and understanding and not knowledge.
Wikipediaentry ….
Thinkshop resources
ASCD link

good model of the planning …. covers the structure very well.  3 stages – desired results/assessment plan/learning plan

If you have catering for diversity/DIFFERERENTIATING you will offer:-
Choice
[different] Complexity

Teachers need to provide the overview and the context. Children have the choice within that. Children don’t know what they don’t know as well. It is not all about children being set free on own choice topics.
Blooms requires working at many different levels at once. You can’t work at higher levels without also working at the lower ones as well!!
The onus is on the teacher to ensure children work at ‘intelligences’ they are not good at as well. Children do need to work on weaknesses as well as through strengths.

Clinton Golding
University of Melbourne. Background in teaching.
previous roles creating and promoting a thinking culture in schools he has been in.

at the heart of all good teaching and learning is good relationships!
the important things is what the kids do/think …. not the teachers actions. How can you tell what they think? What strategies are effective?
Thinking is at the heart of the curriculum …. we are teaching children to think mathematically (etc).
wrt key competencies – You manage yourself by managing your thinking, and so on.
everything is about making meaning and thinking is at the heart of this.

Thinking is not able to be taught …. it is an outcome of the culture you create as the teacher.
You have to be disposed towards thinking. How do you get children to value thinking?
Good thinkers DO things poor thinkers DON’T.
Have to have knowledge …. it is intrinsic to the thinking. You cant think about maths if you have no mathematical knowledge (for example).

We want students who ARE thinkers rather than simply know how to. We need to immerse children in a culture of thinking. It is also complex and abstract.

Competent thinkers don’t need to overtly think about things – tacit thinking (invisible and internal). Adults operate at this level if they are competent thinkers. How do we make the thinking visible for children? Key challenge.

We need to know how we do this ourselves so we can make our thinking overt for children. Questions provide a good insight into thinking. We can share this with children in the classroom as teachers.

The aim is for children to automatically do the things we model – that our self-talk as teachers becomes the internal dialogue for the children in our class.

Rules for active thinking (on topic)
1. Active thinking at all times
2. No hassles or put downs
3. Proper consideration of all ideas
4. One person speaks at a time, with actual listening
5. Respectful challenging is essential
6. Building on the ideas of others is essential.

the insight into who is a good thinker is “what they do and say”
teachers need to be clear about the kinds of thinking they want to see and consequently the things they want to see the children ask and do ….. these are the things that the teacher then needs to MODEL. This is the thinking about the teaching of thinking.

Importance of using the thinking phrases to practice and rehearse the thinking. 30+ times before things START to work. Changing culture takes time, effort and persistence.

The sharing of assessment and achievement information is a hot topic at the moment.  The National Standards have dictated to schools some of the content we now HAVE to report and the way it is done.  (Having said that good assessment practice has always included much of what the Standards have made explicit).

Nick Rate at CORE has been doing a lot of work around ePortfolios and I like this slideshow from him:

Stuff this morning has an article about an Iwi telling the NZEI to sharpen up and get on board with the Standards.  But then this:

Bird said the standards were supported by Nga Kura a Iwi because they mirrored the group’s philosophy, thinking and practice. The policy was an assessment of teaching, not learning, he said, and would give parents benchmarks, context and meaning.

This is EXACTLY why the Standards are a nonsense.

Surely the whole point is an an assessment of LEARNING so programmes can be improved. If the focus is on teacher performance then is is any wonder that teacher unions are in an uproar? I have had some interesting discussions with parents and BoT’s in the past about performance pay … saying I have no issue with it as long as I can correct for the factors outside the influence of the school like genetic potential and home environment. I have no issue with teachers (or me as principal) being accountable for things they actually have influence over, but lets not get confused over what these things actually are.
People like Hatttie show less than half of student achievement is attributable to school factors. This is one of the main reasons the Standards are such an issue … they assume a level playing field with the rest of the factors, which is so obviously NOT true.

We are told that the group who are hugely overrepresented in the tail of underachievement in NZ are maori and pacifica children and yet there is a trial of Standards in Kura. WHY? We start with the areas of highest need in our interventions at school. Isn’t this basic good practice?

The iPhone is one of those things you either love or love to hate. Like any leading edge piece of technology each model is soon out of date and the initial purchase cost is frankly insanely high. Having said that though they are also insanely cool and a wonderful piece of design and engineering.
Like any technology they are out of date AT launch – the next model is following closely behind and we are always give the minimum spec list to make them desirable and put the punters on an update cycle and NOT what is wanted or needed. Apple are particularly good at marketing and particularly predatory in their specs.  The put people on a treadmill of upgrades and replacement through software and hardware upgrades.

The NZPF conference last week was full of iPhones and talking to some colleagues who USE them rather them rather than simply HAVE one, they do make a big difference to their productivity, particularly of you have a mac laptop.

This is an interesting graphic though …. hmmmmm.

The  spec list I have been looking for:
* 64gb – though could live with 32gb
* n wireless capable – so it doesn’t slow down our whole network and is as fast as possible
* good camera and video
* multitasking
* GPS that WORKS well off-road and outside cell coverage
* effective tethering capability

…. and plans that you don’t have to take out a mortgage to afford.

For those of you with one, what do you actually use? What plan is sufficient? What apps are the ‘essential’ ones?