New job

After 23 years of teaching Social Studies, English, Geography, and other fun stuff, sometimes with various pull-outs blocks for leadership or support and coordination, I'll be out of the classroom next year, for at least one year.

I will be splitting my time between Pro-D Coordination (managing the local teacher Pro-D fund and organizing Pro-D events and conferences) and Curriculum Support for senior Humanities teachers.  The first job I've had for 5 years, but the second one is new for me.  I'm thrilled to start this -- in some ways it looks like the work I've done off the side of my desk for years, but it will also involve some new roles.  Here is the concept map that I used to prepare for the interview:

I would like to focus some of this "Curriculum Coach" time on our early career and new assignment teachers as they grow into their roles, even those who may not have senior courses next year.  I will be available for mentoring, curriculum & resource suggestions, inquiry & assessment design, co-teaching or classroom visits, and whatever else may be of use. I'm also envisioning a new addition ro our mentoring series in our district where we connect early career secondary teachers with experienced teachers in an interactive seminar setting -- something like a carousel with hands-on activities. The one-to-one and small cohort models have worked quite well for the elementary teachers but we have not drawn out the secondary numbers we hoped for. The goal here is to impact the development of a vibrant classroom, purposeful teaching & learning, and authentic assessment.

Of course, the other side of this is that I won't be at D.P. Todd next year, perhaps never again as I imagine landing at a new school or situation when my current seconded assignment ends.  I have been at this school for 15 years -- two-thirds of my career -- and I leave with mixed emotions. As I survey the vast hoard of books, lesson material, artifacts, and remainders of student projects that have accumulated in my classroom over the years, I am reminded, mainly, of the things I love about teaching. About teaching high school Social Studies students in particular.  There have been frustrating parts, too, but I've disposed of that evidence and generally suppress those memories because, hey, when you're in in for the long haul it has to be about the passion and positive stuff, otherwise it is time to get out.  I have been really fortunate to have some special students in the last few years, students who may not have been at the top academically, but really stepped up to conduct meaningful research and find creative ways to express their learning.  That's the group I have enjoyed teaching the most.

The Sourcebook

Along with 8 other BC teachers, I've had the pleasure of working on a teaching & learning resource for BC Social Studies 9 -- "Thinking it Through." The other teachers were Rob Lewis, Joe Pereira, JP Martin, Vince Truant, and Jennifer Pighin from Prince George, Paula Waatainen from Nanaimo, Janet Ruest from Chemainus, and Shannon Leggett from Vancouver. We each wrote some of the topics or case studies in the Sourcebook, and I had the fun job of editing, writing the introduction, and other tasks along the way. It was an enjoyable learning curve on curriculum design and publishing a book, and a good experience working with the folks from Pearson Canada.

Here's a little primer on the book for those that might consider using it in their classroom.

This “Thinking it Through” Sourcebook will help students develop their critical thinking skills as they explore selected topics from the revised BC Social Studies 9 Curriculum.

This book is organized according to seven CONTENT STANDARDS, each with four case studies in critical thinking: Revolution and Change, Imperialism and Colonialism, Migration and Shifting Population, Nationalism and Nation-Building, Regional and Global Conflict, Injustices and Rights, Land and People.

The authors have selected primary and secondary sources, all kinds of questions, and suggested extension activities for 28 case studies. Each one is a sandbox for teachers and students to explore CURRICULAR COMPETENCIES and apply historical (and geographic) thinking concepts. Students will push their thinking about what they can learn from evidence, and realize how the account changes depending on the evidence they use.

Finally, by developing the ability to think through historical, social, or geographic evidence, students will learn how BIG IDEAS have shaped the past and the present.

Perhaps the most important purpose of the Sourcebook is to suggest to teachers and students a method of “doing” Social Studies. Whether the focus is on instruction, discussion, inquiry, story-telling, or project-based learning, Social Studies should be grounded in the work of exploring relevant sources from the past and present, the work of creating valid accounts about important ideas and events through the examination of evidence and application of historic and geographic thinking concepts.

The Sourcebook can be an “untextbook” – not meant to be the only resource used by the teacher and students (which is sometimes the criticism of past textbooks), but something that appears at regular intervals in the classroom in order to develop the capacity for critical thinking. It also makes an excellent bridge between the many texts and resources designed for the previous BC curriculum and the “asks” and content shifts of the revised curriculum.

The authors hope that teachers and students replicate this process beyond the examples used in the Sourcebook -- that they develop the habit of finding provocative sources that delve into the heart of historic, social, and geographic problems, and then applying critical thinking concepts to discover their worth in building understanding about the relevance of history and place in everyday life.

To Trump or Not to Trump

"I may be 13, but I’m wide awake to the racism in America" reference: Opinion, Globe and Mail, August 23rd, 2017

A friend and colleague shared this article from a 13-yr-old student in Seattle... and it got me thinking about how discussions of privilege, race, current events, silence, and appropriate action will play out in my teaching practice this year.

With the return to school imminent, I am wondering how to approach the subject of Trump's America with my Social Studies students. With many others, I’ve watched on in both fascination and horror as the bizarro version of the American Dream has unfolded over the last eight months — the successful merger of reality television with their political system. While it’s been easy coming to my own conclusions about how Trump is contributing to racist, xenophobic, and anti-LGBTQ attitudes, it will be a bit harder to figure out how to bring fair and reasonable discussions about Trump into the classroom.

There is a tradition among Social Studies teachers of remaining politically neutral (if there is such a thing), and presenting many side of issues so that students can draw their own conclusions. This is especially important when it comes to current events and controversial topics. While not tantamount to silence, teachers often hold back on ethical judgments so as not to drag students towards their own beliefs. In practice this is hard to do -- should I be surprised that students, by the end of course, will share many of my own perspectives on the world? Hopefully they develop the skills to disagree with me as well.

Developing critical thinking in Social Studies is not a precise exercise in objectivity. As we examine evidence, consider the judgments of others, and develop our own opinions, we take up values and confirm beliefs, we align ourselves with causes, and we sometimes commit to a course of action as a result of our stances. This is what we want. But we also challenge the judgments of ourselves and others, question beliefs, redefine values, and change course from time to time -- hopefully as a result of carefully considering and reflection on evidence. There are "objective" aims and methods within these exercises, but always in some kind of dialectic with the subjective, with our experience and reaction. We also encounter turning points, where our (ideally) objective foray into the evidence makes some positions untenable, and others responsible. The scientific evidence of climate change comes to mind. Or confronting racism. There may be two sides to a story, or many sides, but it is not wrong to come to a critical assessment that implicates the untenable and promotes the responsible.

Trump's presidency has produced ample evidence on which we can and should make critical assessments. After Charlottesville, it has become clear to me that Trump has crossed a line into demagoguery, and that his growing negative legacy is now fair game for Social Studies teachers and their students.

How will I do this? I'm thinking of using articles on Trump, video clips, statements from public thinkers, Trump's tweets, reactions from American and non-American politicians, and sources from other demagogues, presidents, or maverick leaders in some kind of station activity. The proximate goal is for students to put Trump into some kind of historical perspective, but there are other intentions behind this activity. Maybe we can use this to introduce protocols for unpacking current events, for practicing critical thinking (the "competencies" in Social Studies), and for reinforcing that history is something we build based on evidence and interpretation, not something static that is received.

Or, I could simply write "Trump" on the board and see what students have to say.

BCSSTA conference and LSA inquiry

Van Tech Secondary

On Oct 21st I attended the BC Social Studies Teachers' Association annual conference at Van Tech Secondary in Vancouver. First of all, what an interesting school -- at the front entrance were annotated photo panels of Van Tech students who went off to WWI and WWII. The building is castle-like, but stark, and has been used as a movie set for a prison show. The vendor displays were interesting -- all related to Social Studies in some way. The keynote speaker was Mohamed Fahmy, the Canadian journalist who was imprisoned in Egypt for over 400 days due to his association with Al Jazeera, a news service based in Qatar and seen to be sympathetic towards the Muslim Brotherhood. I attended most of a session on teaching Economics, and then presented on the topic of Heritage Inquiry.

Last year I was approached by BCSSTA past president Wayne Axford, and also Kim Rutherford (who is also a member-at-large) about whether Prince George was interested in forming a Social Studies LSA (Local Specialist Association). At the time I did not get the sense that it would fulfill a need. There are already opportunities for Social Studies teachers to collaborate at their school and across the district, and our PD events for Socials teachers on PD days are rarely full. Those that have the time belong to various networks, and those that don't have the time quite possibly don't need "one more thing" with which to be affiliated. 

New information may have convinced me otherwise.

While at the BCSSTA conference I attended their AGM. The BCSSTA has funds for chapter support. At present, they have two LSAs that are properly affiliated with the BCSSTA -- North Peace (Ft. St. John) and Central Okanagan (Kelowna). There may be other Social Studies LSAs but they are not formally tied to the BCSSTA, e.g. I know there is one on the Sunshine Coast. Based on the 2015-16 BCSSTA budget, most of their annual allotment for chapter support remains unused. Being a Pro-D-minded fellow, I would love to see some funds support the work of local teachers and perhaps help us bring in great presenters and facilitators from time to time. I also learned that they are launching an academic journal that will require both an editorial board and contributing writers. I have joined their executive as a member-at-large and let them know that I will test the waters for an LSA.

I see the following as the main pros/cons of forming an LSA:

Pros: 

• new funding opportunities for Prince George SS teachers and their professional development
• opportunities to be involved with the activities of the BCSSTA e.g. their new journal
• connection to a broader network of teachers, resources, and ideas
• keep up the multi-year momentum of renewed focus on curriculum
• promote Social Studies Education, the need for the Humanities (i.e. History and other Social Sciences), as well as Physical Geography

Cons:

• we already have opportunities to collaborate (PD days, Learning/Innovation Grants, Pro-D Fund, small networks) and share resources (e.g. Teach BC website), etc.
• LSAs as source of teaching resources kind of faded away in conjunction with the rise of the internet
• there are currently few barriers to PD opportunities other than time (which is always in short supply)
• having an open inclusive group can create multiple agendas, leave the formation of a committed core to chance, and awaken personality dynamics (let's face it, some teachers go to great lengths to avoid each other)

For me, the tipping point is that there is not much to lose in giving this a try. I'm intrigued by the possibilities and think it can be wrapped up each year with a minimum of meetings (1 or 2 annually), a few good PD events (1 or 2 annually) and a greater sense of collegial bonhomie -- "cheerful friendliness, humour, and geniality." I feel that, along with others, I have been working hard on the "Social Studies" file for many years and that we have been doing some of the work of an LSA without actually being an LSA. We have literally provided thousands of hours to provide leadership on curriculum, build and share teaching resources, and mentor new teachers -- so my thinking is that these efforts might just as well be linked to similar work going on elsewhere in the province.

So, if there are any SD57 Social studies teachers that would like to discuss the inauguration of an LSA, perhaps look at a draft constitution and establish some roles, join myself and others at the Black Clover on Friday Nov 25th at 3:45 pm. If we can find support to get this started, we'll schedule a general meeting in the New Year. You can also email me about this.

BCPSEA confusion

If the BC Government set out to undermine the teacher contract negotiation process and frustrate all stakeholders in BC Education, they have found a winning strategy.

Students are heading into a week like no other in BC Schools. Rotating strikes by teachers will close some schools, but it is during the rest of the week when things get weird. The representative of the BC government and school districts, BCPSEA, has issued a "partial" lock-out notice for teachers that prevents them from working outside of classes and 45 minutes before or after school, and not at all at recess or lunch. Doing so will result in discipline that administrators will be forced to carry out. Teachers are also banned from doing certain voluntary activities listed in the lock-out notice. These restrictions are then used as the basis to deduct 10% pay from teachers. The catch? Teachers can still be on site during the "off-hours" as long they are doing other forms of voluntary work not listed in the lock-out order, again open to interpretation and different from teacher to teacher. Presumably, we know the difference in our minds and the administration will use the honour system in determining whether we are breaking the rules. All across the province principals and teachers are guessing and second guessing what the ridiculous lock-out really means and as a result have cancelled services to students like tutorials and extra help, curricular and extra-curricular field trips, events and concerts -- anything that walks the line between what has and has not been restricted by BCPSEA. Even lunchtime is now a question mark -- if we are found to be working (marking, planning, etc.) or engaging in voluntary collaboration or professional development, we can be disciplined or fined. Part of the original lock-out notice even restricts the evaluation of students, depending on whether BCPSEA actually meant what it wrote on a Wednesday vs what they backpedalled on Thursday. At the heart of the problem is BCPSEA's choice to focus on unpaid work as the basis of the lock-out and a deduction of pay, work that falls outside of our contract but work that teachers do because we are professionals -- the myriad extras that make sense of our time with students and allow the education system to function. This work runs the gamut -- professional development, coaching, sponsoring a club, collaboration, tutoring kids, developing learning resources, joining committees, reading, writing, staying caught up with technology, taking students on field trips, designing student projects or new courses, etc. -- all stuff we choose to do (mostly unrecognized), and which have nothing to do with our paystubs. BCPSEA has held its dowsing rod over this abstract list of professional/voluntary activities and chosen a few of them to add to a lock-out notice. No one is completely clear where the list starts or ends or how broadly the items can be interpreted, but we are clear about the penalties involved. We are set to lose 5% of our pay for not being able to volunteer as much as we normally do, and 5% more for skipping hallway supervision and staff meetings (which actually account for less than 2% of our paid time). All told, 10% pay deduction for exercising our legal right to strike.

Let's get into the details.

BCPSEA reference documents: http://www.bcpsea.bc.ca/ -- They move things around a bit but it is not hard to find the May 21 lock-out letter, and the May 22 and May 23rd follow-up memos (now called "Consolidated Q&A"). Also, see School Regs 4.1 g and subsections g.1 and g.2: http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/legislation/schoollaw/d/bcreg_265-89.pdf

BCPSEA starts on May 21 with a lock-out notice to BC Teachers, a legal order delivered to teachers via the BCTF to which we are bound, and then followed up by posting  a May 22 Q&A document on their website -- not actually delivered to the BCTF and thus not legally binding. The Q&A was supposed to clarify the lock-out notice but has instead led to chaos about what exactly is expected of teachers during a lock-out and what is expected of the management staff who are tasked with enforcing the lock-out. Both documents contain some wild assumptions about teachers' work, and have created uncertainty for teachers and administration alike as to what next week is supposed to look like in BC Public Schools.

One example of the uncertainty -- BCPSEA has locked out teachers from School Regulation Section 4.1 (g) "Evaluation of educational programs," e.g. curriculum committees and curriculum development. However, they did not specify whether this included subsections (g.1) and (g.2) which are the general orders for teachers to evaluate students and supervise/mark exams. It is quite normal to include subsections with sections unless stated otherwise, but BCPSEA has not actually come out and said that they have excluded (g.1) and (g.2). Assuming we are allowed to mark, Provincial Graduation exams take place on Tuesday June 24th in the morning and afternoon, but the teachers whose students write them are fully locked-out on June 25th-27th -- the only time available in which to mark the exams.

How about this one: "The performance of the following work will also be suspended until further notice: [a]ttending... collaborative and/or professional community meetings." The next day we're told that "[n]othing in the lockout order prevents individual teachers from discussing student needs or concerns with their colleagues or school administration." So -- we can't collaborate, but nothing prevents us from collaborating. The logic goes beyond oxymoronic to just plain moronic.

This is simply the beginning of BCPSEA biting off its nose to spite teachers. As if the May 22 BCPSEA Q&A memo wasn't confusing enough, they have posted Q&A #2, with statements like: "The guiding principle for all decisions with respect to extracurricular activities is that if they are voluntary (i.e., not part of a teacher’s work), they are not covered by the lockout order. Please contact BCPSEA directly at any time if further clarification is required."

So all voluntary work is back on? Does this include the voluntary duties described by the lock-out, or only if they happen outside of curricular time? And I can contact BCPSEA -- who do I call? I'll give up another day's pay just to have these questions answered. Seriously. I have lots of questions.

The original lockout notice contains items which, while often useful and something we do as a professional service to students and colleagues, are not paid work and are by definition voluntary. Example: attending pro-d outside of a NID, attending a staff committee meeting, sitting on a curriculum committee, joining a professional learning community discussion. The BCPSEA interpretation of "Evaluating educational programs" is limited to committee work and curriculum development which teachers choose to do (or are asked to do); this is not part of a regular paid day unless release time is provided. I have spent thousands of hours of my own time on curriculum development and professional development over the last 18 years -- evenings, weekends, and summer time that was never paid but willingly offered because I am a professional. This work, including the department meetings and so on that I opt to attend, is both curricular (because it often relates directly to my current classes), and extra-curricular (because it is often unrelated to my current classes and is sometimes meant to benefit only myself, other teachers, or the profession in general). By contract, and by direct observation, my "job" is to prepare for classes (unit and lesson plans, assignments, tests, learning resources), to teach students (almost exclusively within the school timetable), and deal with the aftermath of teaching (like assessment and reporting). Like most teachers, I do a tonne on top of that that is neither defined by contract nor absolutely essential to the paid part of my job -- pardon my Old English but I do the extras because I give a shit about my students' learning and the quality of both my own teaching and the public education system in which I work. It really chafes me that my employer wants to block me from the smallest slice of this volunteerism, and then use this plus the fact my union is exercising their legal right to strike in order to steal from my paycheque.

In short, we are locked out from work that we:
a) do on a voluntary basis because it augments our profession and practice
b) do when released from our regular work or do on our own time -- none of it is, by default, part of our paid work

The Q&A memos suggest that I can continue with some voluntary work, but the lock-out notice says I should cease other voluntary work. Maybe BCPSEA can produce Q&A #3 with an exhaustive list of the unpaid work from which I am banned or not banned. In the mean time, teachers should speak in hushed tones (for fear of being seen to collaborate), and put paper covers on all reading material (for fear of being caught doing professional development). The Eye is watching.

I really hope BCTF, BCPSEA, and the LRB will spend some time this week focusing on the bogus nature of the "partial" lockout (one colleague said a partial lockout is like being partially pregnant). I can actually accept that I should be fined or docked for unpaid work like striking, or withdrawing my supervision time which is about 1.8% of my work week, or my 1-2 hour staff meeting 7-10 times a year which is about 1.4% of my work week. I can't accept that I should lose 5 or 10% of my pay for not doing work that is unpaid to begin with and work that my employer doesn't understand or keep track of. If I am actually compensated based on a 9 hour day as BCPSEA suggests (which is about right considering the planning and marking I do), supervision and staff meetings in total account for less than 2% of my paid time. Here's my math: 540 minutes x 190 days = 102,600 minutes. 30 min/week of supervision plus a max of ten 1.5 hour staff meetings is 1980 minutes (although at my school we usually have eight per year that each last about an hour). Divided by the minutes worked in a year and we get 1.93%, not the 5% calculated by BCPSEA. I am not going to quantify written and electronic communication -- some teachers choose to spend hours a day on email, some check it once a week and ignore most of what they see. Actually talking with our adminstration has not stopped, and in fact has become more purposeful and fulfilling during the current job action. Problem-solving still happens, and is often slower when you can't just fire off an email.

So, BCPSEA, do you actually want me to resume voluntary work as you suggest in Q&A #1 and 2? Should I resume voluntary "evaluation of educational programs" (as you've defined it), voluntarily going to department meetings, voluntarily going to school org meetings, or voluntarily doing a professional development activity? Today (Saturday) I am reading some professional articles I accessed through Twitter -- by one of your definitions (the lockout letter), this is banned work and I could be subject to discipline (plus a cut in pay). By your Q&A #2 memo, though, I am free to pursue voluntary/unpaid work, so maybe my clandestine professional development is ok?

The "volunteer/don't volunteer message" has teachers and principals scratching their heads. My school's drama teacher was planning an evening performance -- but by BCPSEA's rules, the teacher would not be able to put this on because it is part of the curriculum and assessment plan for her class -- work that should not take place outside the lock-out hours. Yet, if it were to take place, I am free to attend because I would do so voluntarily? According to the lock-out letter I can't have a department meeting (where we often discuss student concerns) but according to BCPSEA's Q&A memo #1, I can meet with those same folks to discuss student concerns? What's the difference? Sitting or standing? Someone taking notes or being more bossy than the others? How about the Grade 10 field trip to Barkerville we had planned? It is extra-curricular in that we do not mandate that kids have to go, but we designed it (and the activities we do while we are there) to exploit learning outcomes and conduct research for projects in Social Studies 10. Should we proceed with the field trip because BCPSEA says it is ok, or do we cancel because we will be "teaching" before and after school hours and right through our lunch? Will I be disciplined if I incorporate ideas into my Social Studies class that I generated from the field trip? To do so would confirm that is was curricular in nature and in breech of lock-out duties hours.

What about lunch-time lock-out? Should I roll the dice on whether hanging out at school will lead to discipline? Is it my earned break time (eating lunch), my professional time (conversing with colleagues at lunch) or my voluntary time (having my room open for students). I feel bad for my principal -- as a manager, he will have to determine whether I am breaking the lock-out order or not and whether a letter of discipline is necessary. Should I hide all professional material in case he walks in and catches me engaging in professional development? Should I warn the students who use my class at lunch for a gaming club not to ask me questions that might be curricular in nature? Should I avoid talking with colleagues because it might be construed as a department meeting or a professional development activity? If he catches me reading a book, should I say "oh, the book is quite terrible. I really haven't developed professionally at all from reading this; please don't write up a letter of discipline." That sounds silly, but this is the position that BCPSEA has placed both teachers and administrators. The uncertainty is driving teachers out of the building -- most staff will now spend their "lockout lunch" off school grounds.

We could get sillier with this, and in fact we are -- these "what-if" scenarios are being played out across the province within groups of teachers, administrators, and boards. Who wouldn't be confused when BCPSEA's collection of notices can be summed up as: "do what you normally would do but only during the normal hours, unless it upset your plans. Don't do what you normally wouldn't do, especially during the normal hours, unless you don't have to do it, in which case you can do it, but only in the hours you normally wouldn't.  If you understand this you will lost 10% of your pay.  If you don't understand this, you could lose more and also be disciplined." Beyond the silliness, the wise ones on all sides of this issue are thinking about the mountain of grievances that await when the dust settles, perhaps more court cases and lawyer costs, too. BCPSEA's bizarre lock-out will place more pressure and hardship on management than BCTF's Stage 1 job action ever could.

Conclusion: BCPSEA threw out a blanket lock-out based on voluntary activities, and has added layers of confusion with two non-binding Q&A documents. It seems they are scrambling to ease the impact on the public by teasing out extra-curriculars from the long list of unpaid work that we do (a portion of which is now locked out). Confused? You should be -- one can only assume that the BCPSEA lock-out was designed hastily in a backroom by people who did not have the experience in schools to think through the consequences of banning voluntary work and then docking pay for it.

Lesson to be learned: BCPSEA should stay out of the business of disrupting the education system as a bargaining tactic. It barely works when teachers do it, and we've been pretty careful to structure our job action to minimize disruption (some would say too careful). When the government does it, the real impact is not on teachers, but rather on the prospects for a negotiated settlement and the confusion of all stakeholders. The acrimony will also leave a bitter taste behind for upcoming years: an unwillingness to give the extras that we do to keep our system working (the services offered voluntarily as professionals that go beyond the job), and a lack of enthusiasm for the ambitious project of education reform that is underway in BC.

May 24th UPDATE: The BCTF has asked us not to picket our school while locked out at lunch and before or after school, presumably to "place nice" and avoid affecting CUPE employees inside the building. Even when kicked in the dingleberries and threatened with a pay cut for volunteering, we've somehow found yet another way to prop up the system.  Speaking of nice, here's a nice article on the same topic by Victoria teacher Tara Ehrcke, and an excellent graphic that sums it up: http://www.staffroomconfidential.com/2014/05/when-is-lockout-not-lockout.html

May 25th UPDATE: BCPSEA has confirmed they are insane.  They have issued a second letter to BCTF president Jim Iker, reinforcing that "nothing in the BCPSEA lockout direction in any way restricts union members from participating in extracurricular and volunteer activities, including those that take place on school property at any time." The entire lock-out is based on voluntary activities. In effect they are rescinding their lock-out notice. That or crazy. BCPSEA also suggests that qualified management staff will mark provincial exams when the teachers are locked out completely on June 25-27. No doubt they'll get hardship pay. In our district we will have 400-500 Social Studies 11 exams to mark and we have only one or two administrators that have taught Social Studies before; I think only one has taught it since 2004 when the SS11 provincial exam was introduced. BCPSEA appears to be making up this lockout as they go along, and expecting it to be self-policing, based on the honour system.  No doubt teachers will work their hardest to make sure their own lockout goes smoothly.

teacher evaluation

I have been appointed to a new School District 57 committee to discuss what teacher evaluation might look like over the coming years. I'll edit this post once I get more information on what that process looks like (and once I get to the pre-reading!), but I'd like to start by soliciting some input from other teachers (and others in the educational community).  I assume the committee will include representatives from the employer (e.g. senior administration), principal/vice-principal association, and DTA exec with teachers (Debbie Page and myself), possibly a trustee and maybe others (?).

What issues do you see as we approach this topic? What questions do you want raised? Do you know of successful evaluation models we should consider?

Please leave a comment below if you'd like to register some input.  Our first meeting is Monday March 11th.

Here are some of my preliminary thoughts and questions as I give first consideration to this topic:

Issue #1: Diverse definitions, expectations, and competencies for professionalism

Standards exists, but how do we apply these to practicing teachers who typically define their own challenges and solutions? Within accepted standards, which goals and strategies take priority, those defined by the Ministry? School District? School? Teacher? How do we resolve stark differences that may exist between philosophies of education? What critieria should be used to assess competence? How important is mutual agreement on criteria when evaulation takes place? How important are the qualifications, skills, or experience of the person or persons conducting evaluation? Should the process be "blind" to the evaluator and evaluation subject, or should each bring something of their own skill-set and identity into the evaluation design and process?

Issue #2: Competing goals for professional evaluation

Is evaluation a means to identify problems that teachers are experiencing? Is evaluation a refocusing tool to bring classroom practice back to student development? Or to a position more in tune with a goal or philosophy (see issue #1)? Is it a means to identify opportunities for growth by the teacher (and on the teacher’s terms)? Is it possible to lay out agendas in the discussion process, or during the evaluation process itself? Perhaps we need more than one option for evaluation – a different tool for different evaluation scenarios -- for they are not exactly the same.  One can’t simply say the focus is on improvement vs discipline… if there is a role for both, this must be clear. We should also be careful to avoid educational cliches about "learners" or assume that we all agree as to the meaning and importance of terms like AFL, differentiated instruction, 21st century learning, etc.

Issue #3: Follow-up on evaluation and role of growth plans

What happens after an evaluation? Does something need to happen (and what would trigger this)? Is there an expected role for growth plans? How do we make this process positive, meaningful, and relevant? Is it important to make this process simple? How can instructional leaders model effective practice (e.g. through use of their own growth plans)? What implications does the evaluation process have on other aspects of our system? For example, if a problem is identified during an evaluation that can be traced back to the workplace (i.e. school or district contexts), is there an expectation that something will be done to repair the context that may be triggering a problem? How else might the evaluation process actually build a more positive work climate and culture of improvement in the school district?  For example, might teacher evaluations be paralleled with administrative evaluations?  Another example, could we use voluntary test or pilot evaluations to explore models and publicly celebrate the work done by teachers?

Please feel free to add to this or challenge what I have written.

open letter to trustees re new choice program

Dear trustees,

First of all, I notice this is your final meeting in the current composition, and I would like to thank you for your most recent three years of service to public education. You’ve been very busy with important work set in front of you, and the new board will probably face new challenges you did not but may also be able to avoid the incredibly difficult process of school closure and cutbacks. Good luck to those moving on to new opportunities.

Second, I notice that a choice program proposal for KRSS Northern Learning Centre is on the agenda for the Nov 22 board meeting. The proposal hits on all of the keywords of the new government plan, and will no doubt test the appetite for "21st Century Learning" among staff, students, and parents. It will also test some contract expectations related to distributed learning ratios, instructional time, school-based supervision responsibilities, etc. At this stage the proposal seems to be at the idea level and does not yet appear to be a teacher-driven program, as there are many teachers at KRSS that are unaware of this initiative, and have not been involved in the program planning. I realize, however, that staff-admin consultation is difficult during the current job action.

The proposal does have positive potential, though, and I believe the board should use the discussion of this program proposal as an opportunity to thaw some of the disconnect between teacher & student innovation with technology-embedded learning and a restrictive set of practices from the board office on similar projects elsewhere. Teacher buy-in, particularly by technology leaders, is required for success as they will do the heavy lifting for this program and have felt ignored and excluded by the school district on a range of technology issues over the last eight years. The last 3-5 years in particular has seen what has been referred to as a "chilly climate for 21st century learning" in our school district. There has been lots of talk about innovation and change, but the reality is that virtually every process for educators and district staff to align goals, leverage innovation, and dialogue about program development has been cut off (DTT, KTC, TFL, Tech Coach groups, Teacher Tech leadership positions, TLITE follow-up initiatives, workshop training program, etc.). In their place are a few learning team grants that allow schools to use release time for group study but do not affect district-wide approaches other than what teachers initiate themselves. The details of this “chilly climate” have been thoroughly documented in the feedback given to last April's "Enhancing Learning" presentation by board office staff - this multi-school contribution has been archived if you have not read it. The feedback from the PGSS tech team is an excellent place to start. Perhaps as the capacity for a district-wide collaborative approach to understanding technology for learning has diminished or been cut back, the ability to recognize "21st century learning" where it is thriving has also suffered. Six or more "21st century learning" projects proposed by teachers and administration in the last two years have been rejected by the board office, most of which have never received even an explanation of who did the rejecting, let alone an invitation to discuss why these innovative projects were dismissed. When passionate, talented educators volunteer to move the district's learning agenda forward, I cannot fathom why the default response has been "no.” Again, this irony, and the many restrictions encountered by teachers as they seek to understand how “21st century learning” notions might work for their students are well documented in the “Enhancing Learning” feedback. The proposed KRSS program looks like a proposal submitted at D.P. Todd two years ago (rejected) and also like one of the key recommendations from the QLG group in 2004. The QLG was a district- supported teacher & admin group that researched blended, distributed, personalized, and online education models. They suggested that all secondary schools encourage and be supported for pilots that combined dynamic teacher and student-group time with online learning and project-based learning. The QLG recommendations related to wide school-based online learning pilots were not well accepted by the board office admin and the mandate for developing online learning was instead given to CLA. While the CLA has done many excellent things in the interim, the focus on blended learning has not been a priority. Seven years later perhaps the board office is ready for a second look at these ideas with this KRSS proposal on the agenda. I am pleased that the focus for blended learning is going back out to schools as was suggested in 2004 -- this will help the board office walk its talk on educational change.

The proposal does raise many issues, however, the first of which might be jumping the gun on “21st century learning” prior to the ministry creating an overall plan and guiding framework, review of curriculum, etc. that were outlined in the new direction from the ministry. Aside from the reliance on vague keywords, the apparent lack of teacher buy-in (again, difficult during job action), and potential contract issues, the program does have merits that justify consideration if certain questions are answered. I would like to see a program like this work as I and others have proposed similar projects in the past, but we all need the foundation laid out and tough questions asked before this program is approved and before teachers can be asked to sign on. Getting this right could help warm up the chilly climate in SD57 for collaboration between the board office, admin, and teachers. Failing to do so will result in more misunderstanding and withdrawal from tech leaders and innovative teachers at KRSS and elsewhere.

As you review the proposal, I would suggest you start by asking a few questions:

1. How can teachers be better involved in the program planning and development? 
2. How will KRSS engage existing expertise in our district and UNBC regarding blended and/or distributed learning and independent project-based environments? 
3. Does the lateral growth described in 2.3.1.a) signify that other schools will be encouraged and supported to build similar programs? 
4. Does the program's existence mean that the board office is now willing to consider the kind of blended learning and 21st century learning projects it has rejected over the last two years? 
5. Will program support and review benefit by the restoration of some (any) district-level tables for discussion of common issues and aspirations regarding technology and learning? 
6. Does the program prejudice any contractual considerations re class size ratios, hours of instruction, hiring, and so on? 
7. The proposal states that schools and teachers are performing for students rather than working with them. What does this mean? 
8. Is there any accepted research backing the claims made about Grade 8/9 students being qualified to design their own learning plans and work with minimal supervision? 
9. Are digital devices affordable by all students and do they really replace the need for staffed libraries? 
10. How will the program address supervision of students when students are working independently, at home, or "out in the community?"