academic honesty

http://www.toonpool.com/

My school, D.P. Todd, is discussing changes to its school-based policy on academic (dis)honesty. I happen to have missed both staff meetings where this came up, and will not be attending the follow-up meeting to discuss, so I thought I'd add my two bits. My understanding of why this is on the radar is that we have disagreement between most staff and administration about how to handle serious cases of academic dishonesty, and that perhaps some policy renewal is needed to clarify the options and practices we employ around this topic.

So, with due respect to the variety of valid opinions on this subject, what I hope we are not confusing is:

1. ongoing assessment and attempts at learning (some successful, some not) which are aimed at improving students' competency and proficiency with course outcomes, and 
2. a breech of ethics and failure of judgement (destructive to the ongoing learning process) that is involved when a student cheats or plagiarizes. 

Student learning is part of a continuous spectrum from first attempts to final projects and exams. Likewise, assessment shifts depending on the intention behind student's demonstration of learning. At many steps along the way, students can make mistakes or failed attempts, but our assessment practice typically absorbs these as legitimate efforts to improve, often with marks attached. Cheating and plagiarizing are not "poor efforts," they are the ultimate rejection of the learning outcomes that carry academic consequences, increasingly serious with key assessments and repeated offenses. They are attempts to circumvent or sabotage learning, not merely an incomplete effort or false start. Additionally, there is a pedagogical factor that bears on the issues. The ethos at play is that students need to demonstrate proficiency with outcomes even if they don't get marks for them. This sentiment is present in virtually every academic honesty policy I can find in SD57 schools (see below), as well as BC colleges and universities. Therefore, I think the intention of our current policy has merit, although the wording could be updated. There is no District "policy" and there does not seem to be a rational basis for a District "philosophy" either -- opinions from a handful of colleagues at the board office at best, beliefs which may indeed be at odds with every school policy on academic honesty in our district. I can't be certain because I have not yet seen this "philosophy" -- can anyone point it out to me?

I think we need a policy, made for our school, that:

1. takes cheating and plagiarism seriously, including support for teachers who remove credit from the offending student's unethical work, 
2. allows both teacher autonomy and administrative flexibility for unusual cases, 
3. is not wildly disparate from other school policies in SD57 or the post-secondary institutions our students will attend, and, ideally, 
4. reflects at least some democratic approximation of what we believe about our students and their education. 

Over the last week, I've inquired about this topic at area schools. The most common policy in SD57 reads:

"Students at _______ are expected to apply themselves to their studies in a positive and honest manner. Copying other people’s work and claiming it as your own (plagiarism) or attempting to cheat on assignments/tests is serious forms of academic misconduct. Consequences for cheating or plagiarism will likely result in loss of credit for the assignment and could result in administrative action. Students will be required to demonstrate the learning targets of the Intended Learning Outcomes (ILO’s) of the Ministry Curriculum, even if no credit is given."

This policy is used, with almost no variation, at PGSS, Duchess, and CHSS, as noted in their respective policy manuals, e.g. http://www.pgss.sd57.bc.ca/fileadmin/sites/pgss.sd57.bc.ca/Documents/Student_Handbook_2012-13.pdf, p. 15]. Ours (see p. 94/95 in our "SOAP" manual) is a bit different because, unlike many schools, our policies have been "made at D.P. Todd," many of them dating back to the school opening and the "visioning" that took place in 1977.  Of course, our policy manual and practices have evolved since then, although we have ignored policy development in recent years.

I would suggest we blend what we already have with some of this wording (possibly with consideration to the policies from KRSS and CLA; see below), but replace ILOs with PLOs, and indicate a typical series of consequences after the mention of administrative action, similar to what we have now.

Additionally, we need to ensure our Grade 8s and new arrivals are oriented to our policy (not sure what we do about that now), and we need to use instances of significant academic dishonesty as opportunities for learning, in addition to (not instead of) the consequences -- e.g. involve the students and parents in the debrief. Our orientation should examine the spectrum of how research is conducted and expressed, from single author to collaborative work, and how each one varies in terms of acknowledgement. We should also find new ways to guide students away from the copy & paste culture, and surf/skim/regurgitate tendencies that have become too familiar. Lastly, we should examine why students cheat or plagiarize -- e.g. for some it is because they lack integrity and think they can get away with it, for some it is because they are desperate and frustrated with self and/or school.

FURTHER NOTES

District policy vs philosophy: 
It seems clear there is no District "policy" on this issue other than support for schools in creating their own policies -- this is logical because the School Board generally steers clear of policies that supersede teacher autonomy, whereas School Policy is usually designed to walk the line between teacher autonomy and shared goals among staff and educational community. If school administration wants an "opt out" clause to offer leniency or flexibility, that is their prerogative, but our basic policy needs to retain support for the actions that teachers consistently take to address academic honesty.

As to a District "philosophy," I think we need to dig deeper. District-level credibility on this issue could be questioned for a variety of reasons, including their own track record on academic rigour, and perhaps a lack of experience in secondary schools by those articulating the philosophy. This is not meant to be harsh -- but is meant to show that our board office counterparts are simply fellow educators, as prone to difference and controversy as we all are, and not necessarily experts on this topic. They have valid opinions, but if there is an actual "district philosophy" it has not expressed in any official capacity (that I can find) nor has it been developed with any kind of legitimate process (e.g. involvement of teachers). If the board office want to move into policy-formation on this topic, then it is a different matter, quite within their purview to attempt, anyways, within contract language on teacher autonomy. I would suggest that the district's Teacher-Librarian Association would be a more reputable source for leadership on academic honesty; they wrote an excellent open letter on this topic last year. We should also consider other existing policies in our district, the post-secondary institutions our students will attend, and other recognized experts in the field.

-------------------------------

Here is a somewhat more developed policy from CLA (http://cides.sd57.bc.ca/index.php?id=4166):

"If a CIDES teacher finds evidence of academic misconduct the following consequences will be applied:

First Offense - A letter outlining the problem will be sent by registered mail to the parents of school aged students (under 18 years) or directly to adult students. This letter will be copied to students’ files. A mark of ZERO (0) will be recorded for the test or assignment. The student will not be allowed to redo or resubmit the test or assignment.

Second Offense - A letter outlining the problem will be sent by registered mail to the parents of school aged students (under 18 years) or directly to adult students. This letter will be copied to the student’s file. The student will be withdrawn from the course with no final grade recorded on his/her transcript. If withdrawn, a student cannot reregister in this course at any distance education school in BC for one year.

Students and their parents have 30 days to request an appeal of any decision regarding academic misconduct. Appeals must be in writing and addressed to the Principal of CIDES. Appeals will be heard by phone or in person by the principal and will include input from the course teacher, student and/or parents. Decisions by the principal may be appealed to the Assistant Superintendent of Schools of School District No. 57 (Prince George) who can be contacted at 250.561.6800."

-------------------------------

Here is the KRSS Academic Honesty Policy from the most recent version of the Kelly Road Secondary Staff Handbook

"Policy
Students are expected to demonstrate honesty in their academic work.

Regulations
These regulations cover, but are not limited to, the following types of academic dishonesty: 1. Cheating on quizzes, tests, exams, or major assignments
2. Submitting copied assignments (or portions thereof)
3. Plagiarizing from print or electronic sources.

The following consequences will be applied when it has been confirmed that a student has been academically dishonest:

Step One
1. The classroom teacher will notify the parents and submit the student's name to the Principal or Vice Principals where a record will be kept.
2. The student may receive a zero for the work in question.
3. If another student enabled the cheating to occur, that student may receive a zero on the work in question.

Step Two - When it has been confirmed through the record kept in the office that a student has cheated for a second time:
1. The student may receive a zero for the work in question.
2. The Principal or Vice Principals will suspend the student from school for two days.
3. The Principal or Vice Principals will refer the student and parents to the counselling department to discuss the problem.

Step Three - When it has been confirmed through the record kept in the office that a student has cheated for a third time:
1. The student may receive a zero for the work in question.
2. The parents will be called in to review the educational placement of the student. The outcome of this review will be a consideration of a new educational placement for the student. Options for a new placement may include, but are not limited to a new school, correspondence, withdrawal from the course or transfer to a different section of the course."

-------------------------------

For comparison, here some post-secondary regulations on academic honesty:

CNC - http://www.cnc.bc.ca/__shared/assets/plagiarism-faq-student3247.pdf
UNBC - http://www.unbc.ca/calendar/undergraduate/regulations see #45 & 46
UBC - http://vpacademic.ubc.ca/integrity/ubc-regulation-on-plagiarism/

Common themes for CNC and UNBC include option for instructors to assign zeros.

-------------------------------

Methods of research, communication, use of technology, learning styles change over time of course, but the basic ideal of "the rational, autonomous self" is a cornerstone of education, along with pursuit of individual virtue. This virtuous and autonomous "self" needs to progressively own their ideas, thoughts, and communications -- this includes learning about and adhering to basic principles of academic honesty. Instances of cheating and plagiarism are unfortunate, but they are also one of the few places where we have a high-stakes opportunity to reinforce the ideals of student autonomy and virtue. We are not merely introducing the idea of academic honesty in secondary school -- the students are very much aware of the concept when they arrive. In other words, they are far enough along the learning curve that direct consequences are expected. If we start tolerating plagiarism and cheating as if they are little "whoops" or "don't do it again" moments then we are eroding at a key framework in education, and betray the efforts of teachers and parents to build up honesty and integrity in our students.

Recent (postmodern) critiques of the enlightenment view of education question the very nature of the rational, autonomous self and the illusion of virtue (cf http://ojs.ed.uiuc.edu/index.php/pes/article/view/3247/1150). As well, 21st century learning emphasizes collaboration and team projects, sharing of ideas, and a shift from knowledge being deposited and held in the learner to knowledge being constantly accessible via technology. We should not confuse this view of self nor the rise of co-created knowledge as a change in student responsibility for rigorous thinking and expression of research. In fact, it is even more important in a 21st century learning environment that students sift their own work through lenses they pick up during research, think through what a crisis of representation might involve, learn how to cite sources, etc. An example of this is when students need to choose what kind of creative commons label to place on the constructions they place online. Another example is the "mashup" -- students combining existing pieces of media in order to tell a new story (think youtube); this can just as easily be a learning opportunity about sources and acknowledgement as it can be about students struggling to find authenticity in a cultural milieu saturated by "borrowing." The "21st century student" is not off the hook for academic integrity, but has entered a creative zone in which foregrounding the identity of one's work is a careful, complicated, and valuable pursuit. The boundary between honest and cheat, between original and copied, will always be a source of discussion and place of learning, but criteria laid out by teachers for assignments and assessments draws fairly clear lines, and needs to be respected and supported by a policy that a majority of staff selects and administration can enforce. Anything less, and we might as well not have any policies.

-------------------------------

It is also important to consider "degrees." An employee who is poor at their job might be given opportunities to improve; an employee that steals from the company would likely be fired. For our context, students copying each others' worksheets before a quiz would be serious for some teachers and part of group-learning for another teacher. A student who is sloppy with references on a poster or webquest might irk one teacher and go unnoticed by another. These are great opportunities for discussion, articulation of values, etc. -- teachable moments where a typical consequence might be a redo or a revision. I think that is where the District "philosophy" should at least be considered. A student caught cheating on a test or exam, or submitting an intact piece of work (like a research project or essay) that contains plagiarized work is a few degrees more serious. There can certainly be a discussion and opportunity to learn from this breech of ethics and academic integrity, but there is an obvious and purposeful role for significant consequence. Commonly, in fact with virtual ubiquity in any secondary and post-secondary setting, this consequence is the teacher's option to give zeros for the work and a referral to the institution's administration for further action, gaining in seriousness with subsequent offenses.

-------------------------------

There's plenty more that could be added to this discussion, so I hope others on staff join the discussion. How do other schools navigate serious academic dishonesty? Is the "21st Century Student," who learns in a different informational paradigm than previous generations, off the hook for rigorous academic standards?

collaboration models

Currently, our school uses an altered weekly schedule to free up time for voluntary staff collaboration. We've taken about 40 minutes off of most Wednesdays (providing an early dismissal) and added the minutes elsewhere in the year. The process by which we arrived at this model is explained in part on p. 22-26 of our 2010 School Plan for Student Success.

At the time, we were informed that a model for collaboration time would be coming, and given a choice between two models. We commited to the current model with a positive plan and desire to see what would come of it, and have been at it for two school years.

Many of the staff have used this "common time" for project work, school improvement (e.g. a Social Responsibility group), department discussions, and staff presentations (Drug & Alcohol, Demographic Change at our school, Autism Spectrum), some ed philosophy conversations, offsite pro-d, and even a couple of union meetings. Because it is voluntary, staff have also used it to catch up on marking, gripe & complain with others, spend time with their kids, or book appointments at places that shut down by 4 pm.  A few have harboured "contraband" students who were not ushered out of the school -- for tutorial, missed work, projects, etc.

This year's teacher job action and response to the B.C. government's Bill 22 has put a strain on collaborative systems at all schools, and complicates our position as we re-evaluate how we manipulate our schedule to create benefits for student learning and staff practice.

Our school staff was recently informed that one of the results of Bill 22 is that decisions altering the length of working days must now go through a process involving local boards and local District Teacher Asssociations. This may jeopardize our school's current collabaration model, and begs the question of what we might do next if our model is removed.

For some perspective, I've asked about 14 teachers about the status of collaboration models at other SD57 high schools, and gathered input from our own staffroom table:

P.G.S.S.

• no model this year 
• previous years, variants on the scheduled tutorial/collab block model 
• last year was each Wednesday before lunch, half staff in collab, half staff with Gr. 8-10 students (Gr. 11-12 given extended lunch) 
• original model started with some staff input, same time as they discussed Attendance program, later changes were made directly by admin 
• problems around students and staff utilizing it well, led to frustration over the "TAG" effect (failed attempt in the 90s to have groups of students "check-in" with teachers each day) 
• these problems resulted in students not taking it seriously (skip, waste time, chaos) 
• attendance headaches or sense that attendance issues are being ignored 
• saw value in the idea of collaboration but weren't sure that was the best way to do it
• an organizational reality is that teachers that don't normally get along can't be expected to form functioning groups with common goals
• good for seniors (tutorial is needs-based, drop-in), bad for juniors (assigned, low expectations)
• no discussions for a model next year, just suggestions that the administration is considering a Wednesday early dismissal model 

College Heights Secondary

• no model this year 
• previous years used a scheduled tutorial/collab block model 
• previous model had major attendance problems or a sense that attendance issues are being ignored 
• each morning, mandatory for Gr. 8-9 students, 10-12s could be assigned but otherwise started later around 9:15 
• many staff preoccupied with upcoming lessons, might have been better placed at end of day 
• department groupings, week on, week off with collab worked for some, not for others
• challenges with incompatible goals within groups meant that groups fizzled
• highlighted the fundamental problem that just because teachers share a space or subject doesn't mean they will collaborate well 
• no discussions for a model next year, looks to be going back to a simple block rotation 

Duchess Park Secondary

• Wednesday early dismissal model this year 
• minutes added elsewhere in exchange for shortened days 
• voluntary participation, no tutorial blocks 
• difference in use often related to enthusiam within departments 
• many teachers would rather spend their time at work teaching students 
• collaboration is a form of Pro-D that they do on their own time anyways 

Kelly Road Secondary

• minutes are shuffled around to provide for a late start on Wednesdays (paid time, though) 
• one of the first schools to try a collab model (2005?), at the time related more closely to other PLC concepts than now 
• in the past staff "owned" the process and set its own goals and topics 
• currently get more direction on how the time is used, leading to intense frustration and lack of uptake 
• productivity is limited and colleagues have lost interest in the value of collaboration because of the prescriptive structure 
• no discussion yet as to the model next year 

D.P. Todd Secondary (my school)

• Wednesday early dismissal model for the last 2 years 
• time is voluntary (unpaid), so use of this time is highly varied 
• no direct value for students, value for staff depends on willingness to give up personal time
• leaving total instructional time unaffected has a high appeal for staff, as does the autonomous quality of contributions
• groups that have met express value in the results due to high level of participation when they have personally chosen to be there
• near consensus that no model would be better than an scheduled collab model with random tutorial & dismissal of senior students
• unsure of the value that any model can have if not designed and developed by staff, want a choice between a model and no model
• wondering about what tutorial could like if we could actually dial students into the help they've asked for or clearly need

Valemount Secondary

• same model for more than 7 years, voluntary PLC time
• monthly half wednesday model, adding minutes to other days
• problem with PLC not that is asks too much but tries to create too much conformity
• ed change as a focus for collaboration is fine, but then don't restrict access to technology
• less controlled collaboration might make it more about creativity than following trends

The anecdotal data from these schools leads me to believe that the local secondary tutorial/collab models are not working at other schools as intended and are creating confusion and attendance issues that outweigh the hypothetical benefit to students and teachers. If it takes using our own school as another test case to prove or disprove this, so be it, but I don't think it is necessary or productive without more work on design. The local evidence suggests that the various shades of "PLC" timetable changes have run their course with some pros and cons and now we need to rethink how and why we alter our schedule.

My personal preference would be to drop all models for three years and build a schedule around an hour-long lunch. I believe it would create natural opportunities for student help and informal tutorial, supervised formal tutorial that leaves time for students to recharge, school activities and student leadership, staff conversation and dialogue, SBT and department meetings, compensation for inconsistent prep-time, collaboration and discussion time, and simply a more relaxed, healthy, and enjoyable lunch. I think it would also provide a "cooling off" period as schools and districts figure out how to adapt to a shifting labour climate and changes in the education system. There a few ways to build such a schedule; I'd be happy to share if there is interest. There are also some supervision issues that would have to be acknowledged and dealt with.

More than tweaking a schedule, I think the larger issue is that there are competing and often incompatable visions of what scheduled collaboration time or tutorial models are meant to accomplish. The communication and discussion of these philosophies has also been problematic at the school and district level. For example, is a collab/tutorial model supposed to bring about a PLC? better teachers? closer alignment to goals? increased use of formative assessment? Dylan Wiliam, (who with Paul Black is known as a "father of AFL") spoke in December 2011 about how making a real difference involves something more personalized than a PLC, that PLC is not an effective way to improve teacher quality and support AFL even if it benefits in other ways. His research also claims that teachers sharing best practices in short sessions actually distracts us from the task of improving teaching; what we need is something more sustained and individual. Within this milieu (and Wiliam's thinking), the value of collaborative groupings would be to provide the collective responsibility for change while insisting on individual accountability -- interdependence and a means to consolidate and embed what teachers already know. Do teachers see this as a purpose behind a collaboration model? Would some argue that the groupings mask individual accountability? Are some indifferent because the they do not associate the model with their own development?  I chose to reference Wiliam's ideas because they highlights the need for further discussion and because Black & Wiliam's work are popular among district leaders.

So what do we want collaboration for? With no regular, legitimate, agreed-upon means of reviewing designs and goals, it is obvious that the level of support for collaboration models will dissipate among staff, and thus among students when teacher-led tutorial is involved. In this way the question of collaborative models is similar to the consideration of how to engage 21st century education, blended learning, problem-based learning, focused inquiry models, and other ideas that come and go in education. There are ways to achieve collective support for new programs and models, but this requires a dialogue-based culture that is largely absent from our school system as we experience it locally. I think this is a long-term trend that pre-dates job action and will only improve when both teachers and management put a higher value on dialogue.

It has been fascinating to see how schools in other districts have managed to embrace change and work with leadership despite the labour situation. I've followed the twitter conversation of about 100 teachers, administrators, and district staff around the province and it seems quite clear that there is a "dialogue spectrum" at play. The exchange on the purpose of education is vibrant (though not always congruent) and takes place with very few strings attached between educational leaders from teaching and management and many on the side (e.g. parents, ministry staff, business). We could learn great deal from other districts; ours has been very slow to join this conversation! Being slow isn't a crime, but we're missing out on what I see happening in other districts via twitter (and elsewhere) -- teachers and leaders at all levels holding each other accountable on educational issues and praxis. West Van superintendent Chris Kennedy often writes about how twitter is a powerful pro-d tool that flattens hierarchies and focuses on teaching & learning and the need for change. Other educators use social media to share, provoke, question all expressions of relevance, self-promote, define contexts, and delve into the politics and possibilities of education. In common, they share a feeling of importance (for both the work they do and the impact on students). Maybe if we had the same sense of urgency, not just for change but for meaningful dialogue, solving a collaboration problem would not be so wearisome.

The issue of student tutorials raises additional questions, the most sensitive of which appears to be the cynicism and regret expressed at other schools about how this time is often wasted. Knowing these issues in spring of 2010 was one of the factors that tipped staff towards our collaboration-only model. This fit with our perception of the school's strengths -- I think one of the things that has made our school appealing to parents in the past is the no-nonsense approach to scheduling and student responsibility. We shied away from a tutorial model (for better or worse) in large part because we thought it would not be a good use of students time and it would lead students to think of tutorial as a filler block where they could disengage with learning unless something was pressing upon them. My own department had a functioning tutorial program running for one year (in lieu of other supervision) but this was yanked in favour of a "classroom support program" that appears to have died.

I think a creative and caring staff could make tutorial something more than a chance to "catch-up" and erase mistakes, and might start to integrate cross-curricular learning, student-owned research and school-wide project work, or true subject and task-oriented tutorial personalized to each student's academic needs.  We might also use this time to advance a social agenda or develop study skills or employment profiles. Again, this creativity requires a culture and process for dialogue that is quite foreign to our school and district at the moment, but I suppose we have to start somewhere, and that somewhere would be the very basic conversation about what kind of collaboration and/or tutorial model we want for ourselves and our students.


What are the pros/cons of the collaboration or tutorial models used at your schools? Feel free to comment!

Staff Meeting Blues

As BC school administrators and teachers consider what will happen in the wake of Bill 22 and the better part of a year in "Phase 1" job action, it's time to take a closer look at the eventual return to staff meetings.

One of the most common quips heard during job action was "it's been real nice not having to go to staff meetings." That's dreadful -- if the meetings are that bad, why have them?

If your school staff is excited to return to the meeting table, then you really have cause to celebrate. But if you're with most schools and you are looking for ways to make staff meetings more effective, purposeful, engaging and generally less mind-numbing, you may want to read on for resources and challenges to your thinking.

Professional tools for administrators
This staff meeting assessment tool is from the Pacific Slope Consortium (critical thinking initiative, local/BC focus). It is intended to provoke some thought around what's working, what's not, and what's next. The discussion questions focus on the effort that takes place before a staff meeting begins.

First chance for new start
The stakes are high for the first get-together after job action. Local teachers have formally expressed their reticence to engage in email communications and professional development that is directed by administration, so the attention to detail at staff meetings is one of the most significant short-term actions an administrator can take towards positive patterns and intentions towards staff development. The "post-Bill 22" landscape may seem to have a chilly climate, but administrators are encouraged to see this as an opportunity to model a collaborative vision for their schools or even to make a fresh start on school culture.

Administrators have had ten months to plan for the "next" staff meeting; teachers will want to know what their team has prepared. Will we sort out how decisions are made? Revisit plans and projects that have been put on hold? How is the agenda set? How much "learning" or staff development can we expect, how much is just information, how will we be involved and valued? When we are unsure about process, do we establish some norms, use Robert's Rules, or make it up as we go along? Who gets left out when the process is in doubt? What value is placed on inclusion, on rigorous discourse? How much time should elapse between the introduction of an idea, a proposed action, and a staff decision? How unique is our experience at staff meetings? What other "elephants in the room" will we acknowledge and address? Each staff has a glut of questions and expectations, built up over months if not years, many of which they are reluctant to express.

Context for staff meeting success
As with most school-wide endeavours, the whole staff should own the success or failure of staff meetings, but the meeting at its most basic level is a chance for administration to involve staff in a collective effort for improvement of student learning and stakeholder satisfaction. The principal or his/her designate has a captive audience, sets the scope & tone of the meeting and usually the agenda. With that in mind, here some resources for

1. Developing a positive school improvement culture:
http://www.smallschoolsproject.org/pdfs/culture.pdf
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/reports/sihande.pdf
http://www.readingrockets.org/article/26095/
http://www.realjustice.org/pdf/IIRP-Improving-School-Climate.pdf
http://www.saskschoolboards.ca/research/leadership/95-14.htm
http://www.bcpvpa.bc.ca/downloads/pdf/Standardsfinal.pdf

2. Exploring ideas on fixing staff meetings:
http://thelearningnation.blogspot.ca/2012/04/communication-isnt-everything.html
http://justintarte.blogspot.com/2011/01/how-can-we-improve-pd-and-faculty.html
http://www.educationworld.com/a_admin/admin/admin277.shtml
http://www.shift2future.com/2012/10/technology-influenced-leadership.html

3. Professional growth plans with a focus on dynamic standards and staff development:
http://valkilbey.blogspot.ca/
http://pgp4cbirk.blogspot.ca/

4. Factors affecting staff motivation:
http://vodpod.com/watch/3461870-rsa-animate-drive
http://iel.immix.ca/storage/6/1307461574/seven-claims-about-successful-school-leadership.pdf (see claims 4-6)

New Expectations
The BCED plan highlights innovation, accountability, collaboration, flexibility, and use of technology. BCPSEA, the government's negotiator, aims to give more oversight for these things to administrators, so teachers are naturally wondering what this look like and whether their administrators will lead with something creative, accountable, collaborative, flexible, and digitally adept. At the same time, the current contract mediation raises issues of where the locus of control resides on job suitability, professional autonomy, and class/composition issues. Staff are looking for some concise and thoughtful reflections on how their administrators will approach these issues in their school context. Will these items come up at your next staff meeting? How important is the "reassurance" factor? What kind of meeting do you envision when the status quo has been dissociated? What are your other staff meeting issues or goals? How do you plan to take them on, either as leaders or as a whole? If you have the time -- administrators, teachers, or others -- I'm interested in your responses; please leave a comment below.