enhancing learning

Our district's technology coordinator and the "senior learning team" (not sure what that is) recently announced a meeting about district technology directions called "Enhancing Learning." Having been around the block a few times, I thought some preliminary thoughts were in order.

There has been a steady erosion of teacher involvement in district-wide technology over the last few years, so this meeting comes at a very interesting time. I have a feeling they'll drag out a few "new" tools we "customers" can access or maybe hint at where the district and province is going with so-called 21st century learning. New role for social media and distributed learning, etc., maybe a youtube video about paradigm shifts, maybe that dreadful picture of the baby grinning over a laptop.

Unfortunately, the skills and attitudes necessary to build this capacity are in fact the very areas that are hindered by a SBO that blocks projects and technologies, denies access to students and teachers to basic interactive tools and wireless networks, ignores mobile learning, and excludes educators from key elements and stages of educational design.

The interactive web, use of tools like blogs, wikis, and podcasts, and the long list of rich media and web 2.0 apps are not new to our district -- they have been the basis of action initiative grants, leadership teams, tech coaches, DTT planning, and coordinated pro-d and training in our district since 2003, with its roots going further back to the first Tech Support Teachers and teacher-managed network and communication systems. These were all supported by the SBO and many schools, and were part of a movement by teachers and students exploring the integration of technology into learning, particularly members of the TLITE program but also anyone else who wanted to get a handle on how to redirect existing student technology towards learning objectives. We might call this "21st Century Learning," at least the part that involves technology, and the work continues piece by piece and school by school, but now without support or inclusion from the SBO. From the dawn of networks, servers, images, and maintenance in our district, teachers have been involved building systems alongside building content, curriculum, and designs for learning. It is understandable now that much of the system-work has been taken out of the hands of teachers (the pursuit of "secure/stable/standardized networks"), but it is offensive that the educational piece is also being pulled away from educators, the very people who put tech ed design theory into practice with students.

It wasn't always this way -- I felt well-supported by the SBO in pursuing deep teaching & learning projects prior to 2007, as have many others through structures, grants, pro-d, and purchases. I realize these "capacities" were expensive and perhaps not sustainable without modification, but the silence and stonewalling of the last year on a range of key technology issues and processes has broken the will of many teachers for district-wide thinking on technology problems. The loss is not just confined to morale and momentum but also includes years of investment in hardware, software, and training. 

I hope for something more from this meeting, will be glad to be proven wrong and quick to admit it, but relevant past experience suggest a snow-job. Nonetheless, the SBO has some dedicated staff and I'm ready to listen and detach expectations. There are also many positive school-based stories around technology that deserve celebration, and perhaps the SBO knows this is where the interesting work takes place.

A few months earlier, I had posed these questions of the folks who are now setting up the meeting... perhaps I've set the bar too high but I'm hoping to see two or three of these addressed.

Every school district should foster inquiry around questions like:

1. How is basic digital literacy different from the capacity for transformative uses of technology to affect learning?
2. Where does the "digital divide" reside on this continuum, and how is it represented in the school district?
3. What barriers still exist for district students and staff crossing the digital divide?
4. What capacity does the district have for using technology to affect learning, and how is this assessed?
5. How did this capacity come to be; what's the tech history in the district?
6. What kinds of individual, school, district, and external (global/societal) factors and structures have influenced this capacity?
7. How does the district envision the next ten years in educational technology and how it will react?
8. From where (external, internal) should the district draw its knowledge of current practice and the impetus for its future goals?
9. How are district, school, and classroom based tech initiatives planned, funded, assessed, celebrated?
10. How are these "levels" part of a collaborative effort and how are they disparate trajectories? 

and our school district should ask specific questions like:

1. Does SD57 see a distict-level systems approach to technology planning as necessary and effective or does it see itself as primarily a support system for the variety of classroom and program based technology uses and initiatives?
2. What people and structures (collaboration, decision-making, data collection & analysis, models, professional development) would have to be in place in SD57 to make a district-level systems approach effective?
3. Do the tech needs of the non-educational parts of SD57 (e.g. offices) require different systems and standards than the frontline parts involved in teaching and learning?
4. Why did SD57 avoid the input and ignore the data and advice of its own technology structures and technology teachers when making a platform consolidation decision in 2010?
5. Why has their been no follow-up on the April/May 2010 committments by SD57 to supply a technology plan, specifically the part of a plan dealing with PC transition and pro-d support?
6. What will SD57 do to replace or mitigate the many technology-centered support systems, processes, and planning mechanisms it has allowed to lapse in 2010?
7. To what extent can SD57 still draw on the labour of past plans, experts, technologies, and processes or does SD57 need to acknowledge it has burned some bridges and needs to find new ways of connecting current and future theory and practice?
8. How does SD57 plan to build new bridges with a new group of teachers who want to use and improve the way technology is used for teaching & learning; will this support take the form of directives, opportunities to connect & share, or funding for projects?
9. How does SD57 plan to balance wide-spread generic technology needs with specific requests for innovative technologies and program allowances?
10. How does SD57 plan to balance district-level network security and tech support with school-based decision-making and differentiation, especially when these pull funds and support in different directions? 

What's at stake is a rare opportunity to address some of the disconnect between what happens at the board office and what happens in the classroom. Tech change, indeed responsible for some of this disconnect, can be a meeting ground or testing place to see if district, school, teacher-based planning can operate congruently. I would suggest that these groups can cut through politics and conflicting visions only if the tech change discussion is centered around how students (and others) can use technology to affect their own learning. This learning process has to be a creative one initiated by teachers and the district should be looking for ways to support this while at the same time providing standard service levels that provide a level playing field for a few basic computing environments. The district has seen a steady change in how technology decisions are made; the locus has slowly shifted over the last 12 years from teachers to others, and while this has achieved some district goals around networks, system stability, standardization, and fairness, there has been an unmistakable impact on teaching & learning for some key areas in the district that used to be centres of innovation and tech leadership.

Collaborative models

It appears from the March staff meeting minutes that we will not have a choice about collaborative models at our April staff meeting other than inside/outside timetable. I am curious as to why we wouldn't use this opportunity to confirm or challenge the need for either timetable model. There is nothing in District Policy/Planning (see below*) that requires that we have an altered timetable to allow for a collaborative model, so a review of the need for formal collaboration time should be on the table -- without it we are stopping short of evaluating practice. There are, however, statements from the District Plan that confirm the importance of teacher driven and directed staff development (see below*), suggesting that choice to have any collaborative model should be a staff decision.

I am also curious as to whether the staff meeting decision is meant as a survey with binding results (which option do you prefer) or an actual motion on a collaboration model (which could be subject to amendment, debate, and points of order). I don't think we necessarily need Robert's Rules (we have tended to pick and choose parts of these in the past 6 years, with no apparent discussion as to criteria); but we may want to be clear about what is fair game for a decision and decision-making process and be ready with rationale to back it up. I think one of the reasons we've had a hard time finding a staff meeting chairperson is the uncertainty over protocol.

In some ways I do not relish a decision at all as I support the current model. I have derived some value from it, and have been active in pursuing a "works for D.P. Todd model" for many years, so I would prefer that it continue with some adjustments and reflection. It seems the least intrusive on classtime and is not burdened with some of the silliness we've seen at other schools. I know how my needs for collaboration are fulfilled and our current model serves a small but important role for me towards these needs.

However, I would also like to be principled about the decision-making process and so I am presented with a dilemma. Do I participate in the process given the lack of choice or program review, or do I abstain from the vote/spoil my ballot? I think this will depend on the research or evidence that is presented to justify the model choices, and the criteria that will be used to evaluate our choice. This is a difficult decision but necessary to consider when I measure it against my values as an educator, of which non-coercion is near the top of the list.

I realize that many people put time into evaluating collaborative and tutorial models, and yet the validation of their work and the strength of our selected model requires an unfettered school-based path of staff development (see below*). If we want a model to be fully owned and developed as a staff, the choice to implement it should come from staff. I think our current model deserves a longer run so it can be evaluated, but I am not seeing any evidence that it will be evaluated. Putting the need for any model on the table assures that evaluation is taking place.

My aim in sharing these thoughts in this forum is to apply critical thinking to all aspects of public education, something which is a shared responsibility among all educators.

*References

from p. 11 of the 2010-11 District Plan for Student Success:

"The most effective staff development is that which occurs at the school level, driven and directed by teachers with the support and participation of the administrators. Many of our schools have developed timetables that allow for collaborative time for teachers, both within and beyond the regular instructional day."

[emphasis mine -- note Many but not All -- the presence and nature of models differ because staffs and schools differ]

from p. 36 of the 2007-10 District Plan for Student Success:

"RECOMMENDATION:
Continue to encourage and support collaboration within and among schools
ACTION:
Encouragement for schools to build in time for collaboration"

[emphasis mine -- encouragement but not requirement ]

[Note: the Plan listed 8 recommendations from an external review team and 45 actions planned in response, some of which were already part of practice in the district, some of which resulted in mandates, some as encouragement for actions, and some which did not happen at all]

Mount Nyiragongo in Africa

Looks like something one would find in Mordor... check out the amazing photo essays at http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/. This photo came from the one on Mount Nyiragongo.

mistaking networks for communities

A colleague of mine recently asked some questions about why certain topics that come up for staff discussion are relegated to "chat" forums or subcommittees and not looked at by the staff as a whole. She seemed concerned that we've missed an opportunity to take on the challenges of our school as a collective activity. The context for her questions is a year (or more) in which we've seen many teacher-guided processes in the school and district become the responsibility of administration. Some are relieved by the pattern (less work) but others see that they now have to deal with the aftermath of decisions they had no part in (or a reduced role).

I'm glad she asked this because I think she has tapped into three significant trends that are not confined to our school:

1. Mistaking networks and institutional structures for communities -- seen clearly when we try to solve individual and collective problems through email, digital forums, and social media. "Community thinking" is highly desirable as a context for teaching & learning, but runs into problems when it is applied to institutional structures. As teachers we have to be able to move between network and community frequently and it is neither easy nor a good fit with the overall change in society towards indirect communication and less privacy (but more personalized mediums and a much wider audience).

2. The difficulty of collaboration and shared leadership within institutional hierarchies. Although they may share the same general mission (e.g. service to student learning in the case of education), the goals of frontline workers (and their expectation of democracy and inclusion) are often not the same as the goals of management structures (for which democracy is a limitation on decision-making, and inclusion is strategic rather than pervasive), even if both of their goals are necessary to pursue. This basic (and perhaps inescapable) discrepancy is modeled at almost every layer of society from classrooms to the federal government.

3. Confusion of educational models with organizational models. Within education, this problem is partly due to the wholistic approach taken by many modern theorists. Not content to simply suggest better ways to approach teaching and learning, they also look (understandably) at institutional reform as part of their suggestions for transformation. The issues begin when the pedagogical changes are pursued by an organization but the organization is not capable of making the institutional change necessary for the theory to make sense. This confusion is also more prevalent in organizations (like ours) where management and frontline are so close in terms of background, workspace, and focus.

I would argue that these trends share common roots and have their own peculiar manifestations at our school, but I think we are not alone. I also think they share the same basic paradox in that "working together" is crucial for success (think universal health care, American Civil Rights, United Nations, Indian Independence Movement) but "working together" usually means significant compromise when it requires vertical alignment of goals (think waste in our medical system, Stalinism, League of Nations, India's Partition). I know these examples are beyond the scale of school workplace processes/folders/councils, and contain their own internal contradictions of the paradox, but they are all understandings of how rights and responsibilities are distributed across various societies. The issue of incongruent goals also informs this paradox. We've seen what can happen when governments deny rights and are not responsible to their citizens, but we would also not have a Charter of Rights in Canada without "management" cutting corners on democracy and inclusion. If we submit to the necessity of government, we have to expect some forfeiture of freedom. Our public education system is built on the basic notion that students must give up some freedom in order to receive the ministrations of society's decision-makers. The expectations placed on teachers are never completely clear (most, in fact, are self-imposed), and so we dwell in a dynamic spectrum of rights and responsibilities that are often in tension with the system in which we work, including the students. Personally, I don't mind the "spectrum" as it allows for individuation and the alternative seems very limiting and unimaginative.

The paradox takes on new dimensions when it is seen in our local context. Our school district has been affected by many trends in educational theory*, many of which I admire for different reasons on their own, but our schools have attempted a difficult project of combining many elements of these theories within existing hierarchical structures in order to put them into practice. While a "mashup" can be very creative, it can also result in confusion and lack of uptake. I think this flux compounds the three trends noted above and explains why they create added tension (creative or otherwise) in our workplace and are not simply part of the organizational issues that exist everywhere and throughout history. I think it is right, though, that individuals, schools, and districts experiment with educational and organizational theory, but I wish we put more thought and time into finding out the difference and realizing the limits of what teachers and students are able to assimilate given the other challenges of the classroom. I've come across some good professional resources, school organizational models, political paradoxes, and historical examples on these topics that I'll have to come back to as time allows.

* Many have been "tried" (found their way into school and district initiatives as evidenced by pro-d offerings, programs/policy, release funding, and travel expenditure). While they most often gained attention via our Curriculum & Instruction department, some were introduced from "above" (Ministry) or "below" (local educators). Others theories, like Mezirow's Transformative Learning or DeVries Constructivist Education, have simply been influential (e.g. from teacher training programs) but haven't been "sponsored." Of course, individual teachers have put a myriad of theories into practice, only some of which are/were even on the district's radar. Here's some of the theories that our district (and most secondary schools) have tried/are trying over the last 14 years; I'd be curious to know what other significant ones I've missed:

- Dimensions of Learning by David Brown and others (c.1995-2002 ?)
- Data-driven decision making or "D3M" (c.2000-2007 ?)
- Dufours' Professional Learning Communities (c.1998 ? -2009, less so after that)
- Assessment for Learning as put forward by Black and Wiliam (c.2004-2011)
- Inquiry model of the Network of Performance Based Schools (c.2006-2011)
- John Abbott's 21st Century Learning Initiative (c.2010-2011)

concerns with planning process

Open letter on concerns with the School District 57 District Planning Process from which the District Plan for Student Success (DPSS) and the School Plans for Student Success (SPSS) owe their origins.

The 2010-2011 DPSS, our annual achievement contract required by the Ministry of Education, has significant problems and needs to be challenged if the school district wants to take improvement plans seriously and if it actually wants staff at schools to consider the goal(s). The DPSS is not without merit -- many parts simply report what is happening around the district -- actions worth celebrating, as they involve the hard work of educators who are passionate about their subjects and care about the progress of their students. Other parts, such as the preamble, have been carried over from previous plans with few edits DPSS_2006-2007.pdf and DPSS_2007-2010.pdf. The core of the DPSS document (the goal and what is to be done with it) has some alarming deficits. As a backgrounder to these observations, I'd suggest taking a close look at the plan first DPSS_2010-2011.pdf, and maybe one or two of the SPSS documents (probably archived at sd57.bc.ca, if not, some samples: PGSS, Duchess Park, Kelly Road)

The District Planning Process describes the planning cycle that involves school plans and district plans for student success. It was laid out in the previous DPSS but was not mentioned in the 2010-11 DPSS. What has happened -- has the process changed? Has it been dropped as part of cutbacks (a reduced capacity to follow the process)? Has anything replaced it? Will anything meaningful be done with the new SPSS? Is it fruitful to submit a plan for which the recipient has given no indication that the plan will be used as intended? Specifically, what happened to the feedback cycle for the SPSS and its use in building the DPSS, neither of which has occurred as described or scheduled? While it may be difficult to answer all these questions, it will help to understand the context for the plans and problems with the planning cycle.

The SPSS on its own has not proven necessary to inform teacher practice or departmental collaboration, although it might serve other beneficial functions such as recording teacher practice and departmental collaboration. This was the direction taken in the last few plans at D.P. Todd and elsewhere -- to capture the dialogue among educators for the benefit of the plan's audience and the reflection of staff. These functions are not held in high esteem when they are not read or reviewed by the SBO that has asked for them as part of a Ministry requirement. Like those of most teachers I know, my own cycle of praxis draws from a deep well of professional literature and supportive colleagues at school and elsewhere; there is nothing explicit in the school plan that I need to complete this cycle. I believe there are strong possibilities for the power an SPSS can have, but when it becomes an obligation and is not useful either to the teacher or the school district, it is time to revisit individual department contributions that are a tradition rather than a requirement.

There was never any clear expectation that all departments would write a plan, nor in the absence of dep't plans that there should be one single school plan. The plans are also different from school to school. Some schools did not submit an SPSS last year -- Carney/ACS and Heather Park did not submit plans (understandably), but neither did CHSS. D.P. Todd, for example, started around 2004 with a few years of department-based plans, in 2006-2009 we had school-wide plans, and in 2009-present is back to dep't-based plans, so we have no standard model to follow. The only required aspect of the SPSS is that the principal must submit one, although administrators, too, may want to ask at the SBO why they should submit a plan that has limited usefulness for staff and what appears to be of no use at the SBO.

Our understanding of professional learning communities and the role of legitimate performance standards has come too far for us to simply disengage from critical thinking when asked to complete perfunctory exercises. Does administration have plans to address concerns with abandonment of the District Planning Process and the significant deficits of the DPSS? As teachers, we can offer a knowledgeable critique of plans and data, etc., but it is better suited for administration to ask difficult and necessary questions at the board office related to the DPSS. This is a great opportunity for administration to lead change by insisting that the SBO wake up on the DPSS/SPSS process and shorten the "knowing/doing gap" we hear about when theory does not meet with practice.

Here's what seems fairly clear to me having read the DPSS and the other SPSS documents that were posted last July, and having participated in and watched closely the district planning process for the last 9 years:

1. The DPSS contains a number of logical fallacies. The first is the inclusion of what should be two paths of inquiry in the same goal statement. Both independent learning and formative assessment are meaningful and complimentary goals, but are not mutually assured. Logical fallacies in the document also include the choice of data, confusing reference for rationale, mistaking correlation for causality, mismatching of the goal to objectives and strategies, and an unclear focus. The cover suggests the focus is independent learning, the puzzle pieces suggest a 4-part focus, the second page suggests the focus is a paradigm shift from teaching strategies to improved learning, and the footer suggests the focus is personalized learning. Again, complimentary, but not necessarily correlative. Additionally, there are some false statements in the District Strengths section such as "this distributed responsibility has led to a great degree of staff and partner group engagement in all aspects of decision making." Many of these errors could have been cleared up at the editing phase.

2. The DPSS goal is incorrectly matched to data. How should the wide-spread use of formative assessment should be measured? Uptake of concepts promoted through district pro-d (registration data)? Survey responses from teachers about their methods of instruction and assessment? External evaluation by experts in assessment? Anything qualitative or quantitative to do with formative assessment? None of the above -- the plan acknowledges how difficult this is to measure and instead displays the same statistics the SBO uses in all its reports: a panoply of summative assessments including success rates, grade transitions, FSAs, and provincial exam scores. It is ironic that while the district uses provincial exam scores to indicate the success of formative assessment, PGSS admin uses the same data to indicate the success of an attendance program, and the Fraser Institute uses the same data to rank schools and so on. Data can't be stretched like that and remain valid.

3. The desire to embed formative assessment everywhere is hollow. It is as productive to say "we want all of our teachers to be in the business of educating students and doing things that help students learn" -- that's not a goal, that's a condition for employment. Formative assessment has come to mean so many things, although the DPSS connects it to 5 principles, a definition of AFL, and 6 strategies for AFL. Anyone who has spent time with these ideas will recognize that assessment and instruction are intertwined and that FA, AFL, and inquiry are all tools to examine classroom practice, steer away from stoic or rigid delivery and focus on what/how students are learning -- these are very flexible ideas and are not new to the scene. When I started teaching in 1995 we called it "checking for understanding" and began our courses with "what do you know" assessments that we'd use to shape instruction. My dad Walt Thielmann talks about designing his English classes and curriculum at Connaught Jr. in the 1960s around the passions, problems, and questions of his students -- virtually all of the learning was formative and inquiry-based. They contracted for grades based on the projects and inquiry they chose (very 21st century!). At most we can say that formative assessment is a gathering of various educational philosophies under a banner defined by its users. The choice of words in the goal is also of note: to "embed" is to lodge something firmly in place, to make it part of the habit or environment. This will look different in every classroom (user-defined) and makes the goal more of a mantra or vision than something practical. With a distinct area of inquiry thrown in ("create independent student learners"), this plan doesn't know what it is or what it wants.

4. The Objectives are largely unrelated to the goal itself. These include: address unique needs of aboriginal learners, increase play-based learning, using the "UDL" strategy with special-needs students, and offering joint teacher-admin pro-d (please tell me where and when this is happening, I have not seen one of these for many years). These are great objectives, but do not depend on or flow from the goal -- without a context they appear quite random.

5. The Support Structures are not really support structures. The list includes "Families of Schools" -- this is simply a rebranding of Zones as a result of school closures last year -- this is not a support structure, it is a description of catchments. The possibility for improved communication between schools as a result of changing the name from zones to families is cynical, especially given the reduced capacity for district-wide communication in the wake of "right-sizing." The second structure listed is "Learning Teams" followed by a highly arguable narrative of how they came into being. The learning teams pre-date the goal and involve a small fraction of the district; they may be useful or positive but they are not substantive instruments driving change towards the stated goal. The third structure "Working Meetings" is mysterious as it describes unknown presenters and unknown ideas and/or strategies. Maybe there will be snacks at these meetings.

6. The Strategies are simply a list of projects already underway in the district and largely independent of the SBO. Seven of the objectives relate to Aboriginal learning and inner city schools, four relate to early childhood learning & literacy, three relate to special education resources, two relate to math education, one relates to writing, one relates to teacher mentorship, one to administrator pro-d, and one relates to AFL. So, only one of the twenty objectives is directly connected to the goal; the rest are projects, highly commendable, but would probably exist no matter what the goal stated. Imagine if we set out to teach a learning outcome and chose twenty activities to do this but only one related to the learning outcome.

7. The SBO's recent track record on implementing district-wide goals is not strong. To use a relevant past example, last year the SBO (superintendent, a trustee, and the tech support coordinator) publicly committed to having and following a real plan for supporting teachers in a changing technology service scenario that included a transition to single-platform PC. Almost a year later there is no plan, no district support mechanisms (e.g. in-service, replacement specs, timeline for transition), and no points of contact to even dialogue about the issue. This work has been left to schools -- perhaps as it should be -- but then why bother with the commitment for district-wide support? There is less collaboration and follow-through on tech planning and direction than at any time in the last 13 years. The disbanding of the District Tech Team was one of the final strokes, with impacts including the rejection of at least five project proposals this year involving "21st Century Learning" technologies. The lesson is that published goals are not useful if the walk doesn't follow the talk. This need not be seen as a criticism -- one of the consequences to the "right-sizing" at the SBO was surely to be some lack of capacity or even a total hiatus on goal-setting, decision-making, and follow-up. Perhaps we shouldn't expect more from the SBO unless we're willing to see more money taken from school allocations.

8. It is doubtful the SBO will take its part of the DPSS too seriously when it has not done the same for the School Plans for Student Success. They have apparently not been read by SBO staff, let alone assessed using their SPSS rubric or handled according to their own District Planning Process described in the previous DPSS. I've polled the staff reps at every elementary and secondary school and have yet to find one that has received feedback of any kind on its SPSS. If some schools are extracting value from their SPSS, fantastic, because the SBO is not. Although the SPSS exists as a school growth plan and accountability contract for submission to and review by the school board (this is in the School Act), it seems that SPSS feedback was a higher priority for the previous C&I department and that there are no known plans to review the current SPSS documents. There does not appear to be any plans to align the DPSS with the SPSSs, something required as part of the District Planning Process.

9. The SPSS/DPSS model is broken. Some of the SPSS documents contain their own contradictions and comical ironies, some schools did not submit an SPSS. Around 2008, the director of school services told a meeting of "POSRs" that after 5 years of District Plans for Student Success, they had produced no measurable results -- no impact!. I had to ask her to repeat that twice, and asked if I could quote her. She said that planning was still important as it provided a chance to discuss common goals, etc., but there was no illusion about these being anything but compliance documents. To her credit, she hoped that the SPSS would become a record of what teachers talked about in schools regarding student learning ("living documents"), and not so much a perfunctory collection of goals and data. The move towards inquiry-based SPSS documents was meant to address this, although many of the inquiries in the SPSS documents are indistinguishable from the old "data dumps" other than stating goals in the form of questions (like Jeopardy responses). A survey of school plans reveals many challenges to overcome: some looked slapped together, confuse correlation with causality, mash up bits of educational ideas or data types with the hopes that they are congruent, lack editing, and use backwards-engineered goals to describe ordinary activities in the school. This last characteristic is at least close to "recording the conversation about learning at your school." Again, those schools who take inquiry seriously (e.g. they leverage the best of what the Network of Performance Based Schools offers) should be commended; what they're doing is closer to what the SPSS could have been.

10. A report is a report. Having written a few SPSS documents, I probably feel more put out than I need to be that the last SPSS was "shelved" but I should not be surprised. Didn't we have the same concerns about the Accreditation process and documents? Isn't this common in bureaucracies? We hear far often that reports and plans are a waste of time, but it behooves us to move beyond derision and either abandon perfunctory exercises or redeem the process. I think we should take the DPSS for what it is worth, a compliment on the good work done by educators and students, and an encouragement to keep thinking about how your practice can improve. Actually, if one crossed out the whole goal part, the rest of the DPSS would make more sense as a living description of what is already happening in the district. I've read some excellent SPSS and school growth plans from our district and others, and many poor ones, but sensible, inspiring district-level growth plans are quite rare. Imagine how hard it is to built a tent over the diversity of teaching and learning that occurs across an entire district. We would be better off having a wiki, forum, or annual gathering in which to share successes and challenges than we are with the present format.

These are observations and, of course, opinions, but I believe they are factual and documentary evidence for all ten of these points are widely available (as well as suggestions for improvement and alternate models). These are not blunt criticisms (which are perhaps not appropriate for a blog post), but they are nonetheless critical in nature, as in "critical inquiry." I believe we work in organizational contexts that produces these kind of results regularly and perhaps inescapably, and so critical inquiry is needed if wish to improve public education. Any one of these ten observations should be enough to raise questions about the District Planning Process; the fact that there are ten (which is where I chose to stop), tells me the problem is endemic to a culture for which we are all responsible as public educators. These observations centre on processes used by our SBO, but should be owned by the whole district as we are all asked to contribute to the SPSS/DPSS cycle and have many opportunities to stop the comical parts in their tracks if we so choose. I would recommend starting this by ensuring that each of our own school's SPSS have goals that are legitimate and logical,  data that matches the problem, and inquiry that is worthwhile and engaging. I think we have ended up with reasonable SPSS documents at my school in the past, but our plan needs to change if the context in which they are received no longer complies with the District Planning Process. In particular, a survey of SPSS documents shows that there is confusion over what constitutes valid data and inquiry. This is a wide-spread problem that requires attention.

Again, I applaud the schools who use their SPSS to truly reflect the best of what they do, and I applaud the parts of the DPSS that recognize success where is it due. My motivation for sharing these thoughts is that school and district plans are published on the internet and reflect on all educators and can be linked to individual schools, administration, departments, and teaching staff. I consider myself responsible for a part of the "plan -writing culture" in our district as I was paid some money and time for five years to be, among other things, a plan author. As it stands now, the contradictions in the DPSS are embarrassing. SBO staff have talked about data-driven decisions and the knowing/doing gap; the first place these become an issue are in their own published plans. I really hope that trustees, school administrators, or SBO staff can take the time and form the resolve to let the writers of our DPSS know that their plan-writing is in need of some formative assessment.

2010 in review

That was quite a year... I'd have to say the highlight was our summer travels. The cruise to Alaska with my parents & family and the preceding camping across three provinces made for a great vacation. Kate had it all planned out and I’ll admit to some skepticism about it all working out. Our tent trailer was thoroughly broken in and we got to see some amazing sights and people. Cookes, Zimmers, Gorbys, Campbells, and a Friesen for good measure. Onboard the Volendam our Thielmann party of 15 comprised 1% of the passenger list. We had some time to reconnect; it was a blessing to see my parents surrounded by such a healthy, loving, and individuated family, a real witness to their 50 years of marriage.

This year, I find myself growing more... hmm... I’m not sure what word to use. Not conservative, if that’s what you were thinking. Perhaps more cynical (see the school stuff below), maybe stalwart or something like disaffected (in the misanthropic sense), and overall more grim. This has something to do with the time of year and the fact that my chopped woodpile is empty and it is -21˚C right now. Balancing this is the love and joy from a very amazing family; I really can’t or shouldn’t complain. I think 2011 will be less grim.

Our school district went through a rough patch in 2010 with a massive deficit brought on through changes in government funding, declining enrollment, and some delayed financial planning at the board office. I invested far too much time trying to keep our district accountable and honest in terms of spending, the nature of cuts, alternatives to school closures, and some sanity around technology decisions. I was also able to work with an amazing group of parents and teachers who modeled “sustainability” for the district as it offered its own plans and recommendations based on rigorous educational and community values, excellent research, and diverse perspectives. In the end we saved the French Immersion program from being dismantled and exposed some incompetencies, but I don’t think we were able to shift the basic narcissism that guides our local system. In the area of technology, our BC school system envisions that teachers will be able to use digital tools to increasingly guide students at a distance, and that face-to-face classrooms where the teachers are experts in their subject is an outdated mode of learning. As problematic as this may seem, our school district has embraced this vision while at the same time restricting access and planning to the very technologies that are supposed to bring about this brave new world. My own school mirrors many of these disturbing trends and ironies. So, that provides some context for all this talk of grimness and cynicism, but I am growing weary of being a whistleblower, especially when it is off the side of my desk and has come at a cost to my family, self, and students. Thankfully, I’ve been able to share this load with a dedicated and humorous group of teachers we’ve dubbed the Pacific Slope Initiative. Kate forgave me of many evenings locked away at a computer or at meetings, and was always the first one to push me into a good debate.

This is my 15th year as a teacher and I still feel lucky to be in the midst of so many stories, so many discoveries. I’ve had some challenging Grade 9s in Social Studies but I’ve tried to put their high energy to use. I haven’t taught SS9 for many years so it has been constant experimentation on my part, some of it pure disaster. New lessons, assignments, resources, assessments. Two projects in particular stand out. The first centered on Heritage Skills -- how people made a live for themselves, adapted the resources at hand to their needs “then and now.” One student brought out his grandpa’s hand-made woodworking tools and talked about the objects in his house (made by GP) that had special significance. Another talked of canning salmon with grandma and how this was one aspect of her ancient culture that she was keen to learn, remember, and pass on. Some of the projects were a bit rough -- I’ll admit that the students benefit from exemplars and previous trial-and-error but one must do what one can. The second project involved students examining a cultural landscape of 17th and 18th century North America and reporting back on their research and conclusions. We used “benchmarks of historic thinking” (a critical inquiry model) to explore the topics and each student used a modern example to compare with their topic. Order of Good Cheer & the Habitation at Port Royal, the Seigneuries of the St. Lawrence valley, draining the marshlands of Acadia, and so on. One of the students came across information that linked her family to one of the first habitants that were brought over by Jean Talon as settlers in the Royal Colony of New France. Her great x 10 grandfather turned the earth a few miles from Quebec in the 1660s. Another student examined the Jesuit subculture as they made deep impacts on the Huron people. His modern comparison was the humanitarian interventions in Haiti. There were some interesting parallels between clashing cultural values and also between the spread of smallpox (Huronia) and cholera (Haiti). Again, some of the projects evidenced incredible learning and some fell flat, but I think I’ll try this again the next time I teach SS9 and try to work out some of the kinks. I was also lucky to be a small part in the creation of Pearson Education’s new Social Studies 11 textbook over the last year, and I also had a contract to create and write an online course for the Distance Ed Consortium of BC -- Sustainable Resources 12 Forestry. As of this exact moment, it is not 100% complete!

I hope 2011 brings you health, happiness, and insight.

Premier Campbell's Vision for Education

I've just read through the Premier's Technology Council (PTC) vision for education: http://www.gov.bc.ca/premier/attachments/PTC_vision%20for_education.pdf

I think it is safe to say that the core of ideas come from John Abbott. This work appears to be the well from which the PTC has drawn most of its educational design theory.

Beyond that, the PTC vision has mashed up a few parallel (and not necessarily compatible) ideas from the Assessment for Learning "shift in global learning," charter/voucher school movements, technology-driven online learning as the future ("brick & mortar" is passé), and a right-wing privatization orientation.  It fits neatly at the conservative end of the growing body of "21st Century Education" research, near-research, and commentary. The PTC itself, the group that commissioned the vision, is comprised entirely of business leaders, corporate execs, and a few lawyers (see p. 40)s and handful of academics. The actual vision was written mainly by educators, albeit drawn from government, administration of various rank, and academia. There appeared to be a single practicing teacher on the team.

A lot of it is stuff our district has already seen. Some of it, in perfect world, appears positive (I am a fan of Ivan Illich's "Deschooling Society" after all). Some of it will be ugly, teacher-strike ugly, if it ever actually comes to be. A lot of it seems open for local interpretation. The technology part is, of course, offensive in our School District 57 as we've left virtually every one of the "advances" mentioned in the report out by the curb. The "teachers don't need to know more than their students" part is bizarre... will we be like gov't service agents at a help desk? I don't get that part, sounds like decertification. The parent involvement part is very weak, too. It almost suggest that parents who are not able to get involved can count on the school system to provide the parenting for them.

Get ready for another round of "moving forward." We're very used to having something whole and interesting broken down to something lacking and ineffective, so learn to recognize the PTC vision as it flows towards us. If you don't believe me, here's the pattern:

PLCs started as an attempt to revive staff culture by improving structures and focusing on student achievement but ends up as forumlaic pro-d model that assumes group adhesion without examining how collaboration actually works. The buzzwords remain, but the thrust of what DuFour was doing in his American context is pretty much opaque to most teachers. The most offensive use of "PLC" occurs when schools announce they are PLCs when many of the teachers (and students) don't even now what this means, haven't been baptized at a PLC conference, haven't studied the PLC literature, or haven't substantially changed the school structures to move in a new direction. At some schools, just rearranging the timetable to allow for a collaboration/tutorial block was enough for the schools to be rebranded as PLCs. It didn't matter if collaboration meetings continued to be dysfucntional department meetings or the student tutorial was mandatory with random students supervised by random teachers simply to fulfill contractual instruction time.

AFL starts out being about discarding some of the "sorting" that teachers do and making assessment about accountability for learning outcomes. Instead the emphasis shifts accountability away from students by finding a hundred ways for everyone to pass. I've seen some notable exceptions to this among colleagues who have managed to walk the line between meaningful assessment and no child left behind. The NPBS, drawing off of the AFL namely the work of Halpert and Kaser, and locally by caring educators like Francis Roch, aims at putting dynamic, flexible instruction and interactive learning at the heart of the classroom. What we often end up with are educators that have used this as a portmanteau for education change in general, and think that if teachers have seen a powerpoint about the stategies and principles of AFL they are now accountable for a new paradigm, or that using a rubric somehow solves all the problems with sorting-based marking.

Collaboration and Inquiry models pushed from the board office as a model for school staff to follow, but there is resistance and structural design to prevent collaboration or inquiry with the board office on issues like technology paradigms or district sustainability. Collaboration, them, is not a leadership model, only a curriculum and student support model. this is not compatible with the vision articulated in the PLC literature, nor does it show fidelity to any mainstream definition of inquiry-based education articulated in the last 41 years (since Postman and Weingartner). Even as a model for staff within schools, it breaks down -- inquiry is not about asking big questions with open-ended answers, but about completing the School Plan for Student Success.

Data-based decision making was supposed to change everything and give us the direction we needed and the tools to get there. Unfortunately there were no mechanisms developed to assess qualitative data or educational context, so we exchanged this for quantitative data that rarely fits the study subject (real, individual students in classrooms with a specific teacher). The SPSS became the dumping point for all this data, and was touted as a school growth plan when most of it is compiled after the fact and almost universally ignored by staff and the school district. My favorite quote from the board office (in 2007) was that after 5 years of growth plans, district goal-setting, and coordinated planning for student success, there had no measurable improvement of student acheivement, but the DPSS/SPSS process was still important as it showed we were still committed to change. The district's plan contains some of these very data and change issues that are hard to reconcile. For example, on the same page that emphasizes the importance of personalized learning and assessment specific to strategies, the district admits it can't find any specific assessment indicators to measure progress and so falls back to completion rates and FSA results. There is no way of knowing, not even an attempt at knowing whether completion rates and FSA results have anything to do with the school and district-approved strategies for student success. Some teachers may actually know what their department agreed to, or invented, as a yearly goal. Few could tell you what their school set as a goal, and fewer still have even look at the district's plan for stuent success.

DPA was intended to get kids healthy but devolved into a record-keeping game, reminicent of TAG, Grad Portfolio, and School Planning Councils (do we still have these?).

We can take these half-hearted implementation back quite a while. I was not yet a teacher during the "Year 2000" push, but from what I gather it fit the pattern, too -- the message seems to be that the bigger the plan, the better the chance it will get really messed up before it gets to the classroom. This new one may fall into the same groove, but in one fundamental way, it will prove to be different -- because of money. I don't think the government will take no for an answer with the PTC vision, and I fully expect it will form the basis of any new Ministry of Education plan and a bargaining condition for our next teacher collective agreement. This sounds a bit much, but, unlike Year 2000 and all the other trends I mentioned, this one represents huge cost savings and thus will be natural fit with deficit-reduction strategies, user-fees and private options attached to what used to be universal social services in Canada, and a way to shift funding from Education to Health Care as our province ages. This isn't just an Education vision, it is also a Political and Financial vision. Looks to be a corporate strategy, too, with plenty of business leaders lined up in support and no doubt privatized services ready to take up the slack in a leaner public education system. When the vision turns into the next Education Contract, expect the Ministers of Education, Finance, Labour, and Social Development to be there for the photo-op with the premier.

A message for my personal learning network...

Anyways, a progressive thing that caring, intelligent teachers could do is to actually stay ahead of the banal curve that our district and province will inevitably throw at us as the vision takes root. Imagine the renewed pleasure of sitting through another staff meeting presentation about a 10-yr-old idea that we must all embrace (with half the room saying "whaaaat" and the other half saying "been there done that").  I can't wait to be told, in 2011, that we should get ready for 21st century learning. Read up on the John Abbott & Co. stuff and think about how we could provide avenues for parents to co-develop the kind of citizenship and sustainability education we try to build as Socials teachers. The model has already been set in place this spring with the activism we helped awaken. Figure out what it is about technology that we need more of, and definitely less of. Reaffirm why story-telling is at the heart of your classroom -- your stories, the students' stories, the stories you build as you travel. Realize that the narrative requires more than just passion, that the need for skill and knowledge among educators has never been stronger. I'm not sure we'll need to refute the PTC vision, but need to upgrade our "crap detectors" (as Hemingway put it).

trying to take the long view

The average tenure of a teacher at most Prince George high schools looks something like a decade or more. Most teachers seek stability in their job situation and this means becoming rooted in a school community and establishing a long-term relationship with staff, students, and parents. They become the guardians of policy and programs, the historians, the practitioners, and the futurists. While the teacher's role in the classroom has seen more "adjustment" than radical change over the long term, the teacher's role in school leadership has often been difficult to nail down and has been subject to some significant change in the last 10 years.

High school administrators have seen their role change, too, in regards to the school leadership. There was perhaps a time when principals and sometimes vice-principals were embedded in the school culture and community, five or ten or more years of service with staff, students, and parents. The recent pattern has seen administrators move schools more often, a result of a change in direction from the board office, but also a reflection of demographic necessity. The retirement pool in the last few years includes many ex-teachers from the cohort that was hired in the 60s and 70s to teach the baby-boomers as they expanded our school system. With the majority of this "bump" retiring in the 2000s, administrator turnover has been high and thus movement has been a necessity. The result? It is not uncommon for our principals to be at a school for less than 4 years before moving on, and the average age of principals has steadily lowered as the retirement gap has been filled.

This trend may halt, again due to demographics, but for the moment we are in the midst of a school leadership culture that features long-term tenants and short-term landlords.

What does this mean for school communities? Assuming that the pattern is not going to change over the next few years, it means that all staff have some challenges they need to face unless they wish to practice resignation. Administrators have to develop portable skill-sets that include robust communication skills, flexible strategies, capacity for inclusion, and ability to dialogue. This is in addition to their regular and important duties related to student success & discipline, management of staff, budgets, parents, etc. This also means that teachers need to own the culture at their schools, take responsibility for program success, be proactive with staff development, and be mindful of their role in making collective efforts at student growth and sucesss work. This is in addition to their regular duties related to teaching & learning in the classroom, curriculum design, marking, etc.

Is the challenge presented by the trend any different than it has ever been? Perhaps not, but to be blunt, teachers have to realize that adminstrators are guests at their schools, 2-4 years, and that teachers have to step up to the plate and provide or share leadership on key areas that used to be outside their purview. Or they can hope for the best and simply shut out as much of the school culture as they can and focus on their classroom. I'll admit I am torn between these stances: do I make the success of the whole school (students, staff, parents, other stakeholders, the physical plant) my concern, or do I retreat into my class and try to do my best by my students. They are not often complimentary as they require different investments of time and energy. For adminstrators, there needs to be a recognition that their legacy will likely have more to do with the relationships they foster and less to do with their impact on policy, progams, and long-term impacts on school culture. These latter pursuits are hard to achieve in 2-4 years, yet positive relationships can begin immediately.

Much more could be said about "vision" and the role it plays in both teachers' investment in their schools and the ability of administrators to make a difference, but I'm not really sure that vision determines tenure. It is a great mystery to me how leaders are chosen and jobs retained in the education system. There appears to be a set of connections, relationships, and criteria at play that are outside of my capacity to understand.  I don't think these connections are actually unknowable, but I do think that peering behind the curtain to get a better understanding of local leadership structures would leave me more cynical than less.

Peace and Remembrance and the White Poppy

My daughter came home from school and asked "what does peace mean for you?" I think I told her "when you and your brother get along."
What a tough question., though. I took this as a Remembrance Day question, so that helps me frame the ideas I have.

War is hell. The veteran that spoke at my school's RD ceremony reminded us of this, the dead, the devastation. There is some glory in war, honour in service and sacrifice, but I think few would agree that war is the best way to solve problems. I think wars are an easy way out for countries who have alternatives, and I think that wars usually create more problems than they resolve. We tend to remember WWI and WWII in RD, maybe Korea and Afghanistan, and we emphasize the defense of freedom and the sacrifice of lives. WWI in particular, the origin of our Nov.11th pause, features prominently. I understand the need to remember -- as a Socials teacher most of what I do is remember -- but I think we often forget the other important stuff, like why WWI took place and what it accomplished. We need to confront the ugly past, even when the cause and consequence don't support the glorious view we take of our history. We also focus on "our wars" and are hesitant to make the connections to Rwanda, the Congo, Pakistan, etc.

Red poppy, white poppy, green or black, I think we need to invest more thought and meaning into the symbol rather than being so symbolic with our meanings. I don't think a white poppy is disrespectful, I think it is an attempt to tell a more inclusive and historically relevant story about what is important to remember. We owe it to the war dead to find ways of solving problems without resorting to war. That would be the ultimate respect born out of remembrance.

sense of relief

Nice to have a change... for five years (2005-2010), besides teaching I've had the small extra job of P.O.S.R. at D.P. Todd (sounds awful, I know, but it stands for Position of Special Responsibility). This involved Technology planning and assistance, Advocacy at school and in the district on educational issues, attending lots of meetings, supporting teaching & learning projects, and writing the annual "School Plan for Student Success." I learned a great deal from this role, not all positive, but it has certainly reinforced the need for me to pursue and model rigorous inquiry and self-governance. Our school system tries to accomplish too many things* (see below) to be great at any one of them, so it comes down to individuals and groups working together in free association for mutual benefit to achieve some of these things in context. To be succinct, I haven't got a lot of faith in groupthink, and I think this impacted the kind of job I was able to do as P.O.S.R. I think vision has a strong role to play in education, I just don't believe it comes from the places we normally look to find it. And I'm glad to take a break from it... I had unrealistic expectations of the system I worked in and found I had to keep setting the bar lower when trying to get issues taken seriously. This is not a criticism of my employer, but rather an admission that I was probably focused on criteria that was not shared by my superiors... my bad, so to speak.

*What does our system try to do?...
providing a general liberal arts education vs vocational training, addressing specific student needs while managing large groups of students, preparing citizens vs preparing consumers, sheltering/nurturing/warehousing young people during working hours, in-school attention vs distance learning, fostering inquiry vs coercing a focus on set outcomes, teaching responsibility vs vicarious parenting, socialization vs assessment of academic progress, class vs school vs distirct vs provincial-based goals and decisions. These and more each have their champions, their trends and philosophic underpinnings, and their political tendencies, and are at times incongruous, especially at the larger levels but even within a single classroom at times.

Trudeau's Memoirs

I just got around to reading this in the last couple of months... wow. I've got a lot more respect for someone who was already a hero to me, a deeper understanding of the Just Society, and a real sense that Canada would be in big trouble if he wouldn't have come to power. The vision of a caring, creative, resourceful middle power, not American but also not European is in such contrast to our current government's view. Trudeau's ego was a bit stunning at times, but admitted mistakes, too. Not to kind on Bourassa, Levesque, or Mulroney, but it's easy to see why.

thoughts on assessment

What kinds of values do I hope to encounter as I explore assessment?

fair, balanced, and reasonable measurement
balance of skills, knowledge, habits, means (process/path), and ends (outcome/goal)
strong orientation towards development of student identity
building self-governance, self-reliance, and responsibility in students
building community without coercion, interdependence not dependence
rigorous learning related to relevant and meaningful learning outcomes
respect for student inquiry and constructivist learning
creativity and diversity (multiple modes of knowing)
learning that is embodied, holistic, and well-rounded


What kind of assessment structures do I currently use in Social Studies?

1. Verifications of learning outcomes -- usually open-notes quizzes or assignments. These require the students to have made sense of some connected learning outcomes, most commonly through some notes or gathered evidence that answer focus questions and more detailed content questions. This tool is formative in that students are required to revise their work and responses if they have not met expectations on the first attempt (≥67%), and can also use other methods and formats to express their learning. It is “for/as learning” in that the assessment activity is a chance to reflect critically on the evidence gathered by students and prepares them for other learning outcomes and assessments in the course. It is also integrated (formative/summative/progressive), as their best mark for each verification is recorded, and their lowest verification score is dropped.

2. Projects -- usually long-term unit assignments and creative demonstrations of learning. Assessed with a rubric (usually one for students, one for teacher). I give a basic set of options for completion, often with use of exemplars, and sometimes with expected outcomes and products (e.g. a piece or writing or a class presentation). This tool is formative in that students are requested to revise their project if they have not met expectations on the first attempt, and can also use other methods and formats to devise their projects and express their learning.

3. Unit Tests -- summative assessments, usually closed notes, but sometimes taking the form of an assignment. Students not satisfied with (or missing) their first attempt are given an alternate test to complete (e.g. re-write), and can repeat this as many times as they like

The message is that i am interested in having students show what they have learned, by the methods I have designed or by the methods they have designed (by choice, i.e. if they have not met expectations or they wish to pursue another mode of expression).

I don’t give unalterable zeroes -- I have null scores that students can turn into a mark ≥67% any time within the current term. These scores turn into zeros if the student refuses all opportunities to meet expectations and reasonably address the learning outcomes. Why? Students can demonstrate they have learned something interesting or important any time it makes sense for them to do so. They get to decide when they are ready and they can decide what it is (if anything) they have learned.

I have due dates, but I do not have late penalties. The due dates usually coincide with natural breaks between topics, and often involve some class sharing (non-marks motivation). The due dates apply to unit projects, of which the number is few and the intake manageable.

What kinds of learning activities and formative assessment tools are used within these structures?

In no particular order, and probably incomplete: notes & written questions, exercises & problems, essays, maps, reports, presentations, timelines, readings, debates, webs & clusters, library work, posters, tests, portfolios, graphs, diagrams & drawing, scales & rubrics (teacher, student peer), journals, arts-based interpretations, group projects & groupwork (e.g. charts), video logs, field work, blogs, student-teacher conferences, digital mashups, direct questioning

How committed am I to this scheme?

I have set some core assessment values in front of me for 15 years, and every change I have made has been an attempt to draw closer to a system that embodies these values, more-or-less. I usually look at minor changes whenever they make sense, and I try to keep major practices in place for at least two years. I am currently one year in to a major set of changes, probably the fifth time I have done this. My values are, of course, the result of my own identity trajectory and an attempt at authenticity, but they also form an external horizon of significance, partly derived from the strong influences by the circle of friends and colleagues who have modeled successful pedagogy for me, and by the authors that have attended to my imagination.

How are students affected by my assessment practice?

The changes I've made to assessment over time affect students differently. Mainly, my concern has been how to find out if the students actually know or understand what is expected (learning outcomes and broader curriculum). Self-motivated students usually find a way to excel in any assessment context. Struggling and at-risk students have difficulty in almost every context as well. The rest will usually rise to the expectations that are set for them, but may often try to get through by minimally meeting expectations. I have developed structures now for helping (1) the weaker students meet expectations, (2) for ensuring that students in the middle are in fact meeting expectations and addressing the learning outcomes, and also (3) for any student to have a means to exceed expectations. These are all structures in addition to the regular assessment that establishes student achievement in my courses, and they involve the use of formative work, rubrics regarding expectations, alternate assessment, and multiple attempts. Some “quick research” on this semester’s classes reveals the following observations.

(1) within two weeks of the course’s end, about eight students of my current eighty-three were at risk of failing the course or term. Two of these would probably not thrive in any sound assessment regime within a regular academic stream, and six have some very clear and realistic means available to them to get through. These six would not have passed under the assessment scheme I have used in the past, and they will probably do and learn more under my present scheme. As of the semester end, the two did indeed fail, and the six ALL were motivated to complete some missing work, address some weaker learning outcomes, and fulfill some expectations regarding demonstration of understanding.

(2) I have a much clearer view of what students know -- as far as marks it has meant that most students are "repelled" from a mark in the 60s -- either they fall below this (no work handed in, no catch-up, no re-writes, etc.) or they have latched on to the support structures I've provided, found a way to meet the learning outcomes, and are getting 67% or better. It has definitely focused who I need to spend time with for certain purposes -- help for some, deeper learning for others.

(3) this is relatively untapped -- I've had only a handful of students try this out during this school year. Most students getting marks in the 80s or 90s are usually quite content and did not pursue more.

Success for all? 81 of 83 passed with an average mark of 75% (11 C-s, 10 Cs, 9 C+s, 30 Bs, 21 As). There are so many reasons why this is the way it is, but it appears to me an improvement on my classes from a few years ago, with no loss of “learning” as far as I can tell (i.e. I’m not “easing up” on expectations, if anything they are higher). The two that failed will be supported in an alternate program that meets their significant needs.
What was my previous assessment policy?

Same tools and similar structures, but they were used less “formatively” -- no requirement to meet expectations, less second chances, and 2 days dues, 2 days late (assignments due over two classes, then accepted for two more classes with 20% deduction). I used a series of technology solutions for dealing with missed or below-expectations work, and I did not allow rewrites on unit tests.

Why did I change it?

1. I saw other teachers using methods with their class and achieving similar goals more successfully
my understanding of multi-modal literacy convinced me that students needed a variety of ways to demonstrate learning that were authentic and elegant

2. the changes helped me draw closer to some of my values such as self-governance and non-coercion
the reading and research I have done on the inquiry method and role of student identity in engaged learning, as well as my work on ecosystem theory in education

3. my method did nothing for the students most at risk, it was superfluous to the high achievers, and it did not challenge the students in-between to wake up and try to really succeed at something

4. some students would “muddle through” and aim for the bare minimum in order to achieve 50%; the message sent was that mediocrity was encouraged and rewarded

What assessment tools or practices have I used through-out my career (sacred cows)?

open-notes assessments (test what they know as “larger selfs” not confined to a brain)
some form of self-assessment on major projects (what did you get out of it?)
some basic acknowledgement that student identity is the curriculum (the medium is the message)
reality timelines: the closer to the original assessment event, the more detailed and objective the marking and feedback
strong role for fairness: I want students’ final marks to reflect the degree to which they seized the opportunity to learn
not interested in marking for the sake of marking, e.g. collecting notes to check for completion or assigning new homework to see if they’ll work at home and then checking it off
students are ultimately responsible for their own learning

What should I probably do more of?

I’d like to use more co-creation of assessment tools, criteria, and timeline with students. I need to create shorter, tighter assessments more closely tied to focus questions, some of which need to be generated by students (inquiry-method). I’d also like to ensure that students know in advance how the assessment relates to marks, and to wean students from being motivated by marks and replacing this with intrinsic rewards and self-determined indicators of success.

What do I make of the current (e.g. SD57) emphasis on Assessment for Learning and some of the associated pressures on policy & practice?

1. I’ve come across some very good ideas, many of which I think I use in one way or another, and have used increasingly with time (e.g. more use of formative assessment, more use of multiple attempts to demonstrate learning based on student’s self-developed approach, more use of self-assessment).

2. Most of what I’ve read on assessment in the last six years seems to me to be educationally sound with some exceptions in the area of using coercion to follow up on assessment results and the “guide on the side vs sage on the stage” metaphor. Some of the very best and most successful teachers I know, and have ever known, are story-tellers with spartan assessment techniques.

3. A general skepticism that “AFL” proponents have not fully grasped context -- the realities of the classroom, the limits of a teacher’s work environment, and the nature of our public education configuration in B.C. preclude certain idealistic, trend-based, or expensive practices. For example, the district plan for student success speaks about focused support in every classroom and with every teacher to address the “knowing/doing gap.” How have they determined what teachers know, whether it is relevant or important for them to know this, and what is gained or lost in a shift in practice related to what should be known. I’m not convinced of the problem that needs fixing.

4. “AFL” has been blended with PLCs, SPSS, Continuous Improvement models, and Data-driven Decision-making as part of a then/now mashup, a shift from the bad old ways to the good new ways. Combining educational theories like this is incredibly complicated and often contradictory and seems to be done in order to convince practitioners that coordination exists when none is needed nor asked for. Criticizing specific past practices (with relevant evidence) can be beneficial, but to sweep away “the old way” is not respectful of what has worked well in the past nor does it reflect the incredible diversity that exists among current pedagogy.

5. To the extent that “AFL” has been a “conversation” I applaud the implication of respect for teacher autonomy; I also fear that when these conversations have been invitation-only, many teachers voices’ have not been heard, and yet the “conversation” seems to be the first step towards policy language. First it is a popular theory, then it is saturates the district “offerings,” then it becomes a recommendation, then an expectation. I appreciate that to date the plan to implement assessment strategies has been to provide opportunities (e.g. learning grants) as opposed to the use of directives.

6. Our district plan for student success makes some assumptions that a particular approach to “AFL” is the best way to achieve it’s goals and that teachers and administrators should make the “paradigm shift.” This does not seem congruent with the “AFL” strategy of allowing learners to be actively involved. In other words, if we expect students to construct their learning, we should expect teachers to do the same in regards to assessment. Assimilating an externally-determined teaching philosophy, even if the goals are the same as our own, takes away from teachers’ ownership of professional learning and bypasses a key step in the inquiry process.

What are my views on adopting school-wide assessment policies, non-binding or otherwise?

I believe, generally, that a compromise or “median” position does not serve a school well as it excludes the creative and robust theory and practice that exists on either side of the median. Compromises work best when a single solution is needed to address a single problem but multiple solutions exist. What we are facing in our school is not a single problem, but a set of conditions (most of which are not problematic) to which an appropriate response is a variety of approaches, each matched to a condition. To state this for my own practice, I believe, with thought and evidence to back it up, that what I do is successful, intelligent, fair, non-coercive, and focused on student learning. I can think of ways to move this “forward” as they say, but to align with an unnecessary compromise that might erode what I am developing is a “move backward.” Many aspects of an assessment discussion will benefit from cross-curricular collaboration, but much of it needs to be worked out with my Social Studies and classroom context. I can govern myself and be a teacher for my students, but it is not just for me to impose norms on the unwilling or take something that is individual in nature and apply it to a perceived community without appreciating difference or context.

What would be my recommendation for staff regarding assessment?

Continue articulating to each other and to students how and why you structure assessment the way you do. Be willing to adjust, change, experiment, and take risks with assessment. Probably the most difficult and important person you have to convince for permission to change is yourself. Beware of global solutions to hypothetical problems. Avoid sameness for the sake of being the same (this is frightening); it is more interesting to differentiate in all areas (including assessment) and look for internal consistencies. Trade a discussion about zeros and penalties for a more productive and transformative discussion about assessment values and what we intend for our students.

why I quit my tech committee

Sent to my school tech committee today...

I have already supplied the committee with some suggested agenda items: listed Apr 29 for meeting on May 25; meeting postponed and virtual agenda itemized May 25, meeting rescheduled for June 15. The committee is free to add or subtract from that list for tomorrow's meeting. You may also wish to postpone your meeting until such time as the district supplies it's "informational/FAQ note" that is meant to address our needs regarding a transition and support strategy -- without this your work may be speculative. I had thought that being proactive with some of our own transition plan was possible (explained Apr 29 email), but it was correctly pointed out that "it would be prudent to wait until the final document is out and approved in regards to what and what can be bought and supported at the school level before we start making plans." Without this action from the district, my position as chair is counterproductive and requires me to withdraw from the committee (explained May 25), and so you will need to select a new chair.

I have agreed to attend tomorrow's meeting as an observer (set expectations May 27 re: "where's the district plan?"), and will try to limit my involvement to sharing some thoughts and questions in advance about the district decision-making process that could undermine many successful educational technology adaptations at D.P. Todd and elsewhere. These impacts are, of course, avoidable and could be absorbed but to date the district has not supplied the necessary plan, assurances, or information that should have accompanied their decision to consolidate platforms and engage on an unspecified change in tech direction for our district (requested numerous times including May 21 email). It is acceptable and normal for the district to make decisions that some of us disagree with, but it is less than satisfactory for the district to have pulled the plug on an integrated set of teaching and learning resources without having worked through even a few of the tough questions that must accompany this level of decision-making (see questions below). It is just as problematic to promote structured collaboration and meaningful assessment at the district level and then skip this when given a relatively straight-forward opportunity to do so, not even a response to the many offers by teachers to work cooperatively for efficiency on tech budgets. I understand the board office has had a very busy Spring, but an established mechanism (the DTT) exists for the very purpose of providing collaboration and assessment for technology decisions, and would have been (could still be) one way for the district to meet expectations. If I am incorrect, and some of this work has been done in secret, then I beg (have begged) the board office for some transparency and answers to questions.

To repeat what I've said elsewhere (May 26), a negative outcome of the district's decision is not a foregone conclusion, but is much more probable if they do not follow up with the kind of planning that should have accompanied their decision to consolidate platforms and embark on unspecific changes in tech direction for our district. Indeed, the district may very well be considering some of the solutions to the problems we face at our school, but if so this is not yet public. This planning has been requested, described, modeled, and explained to the district before and after the April 27th decision to become a single-platform district. The board and board office staff at that meeting did not appear confused by what was being asked for, and indeed committed to making decisions according to a plan and that a plan would be forthcoming. As a final attempt to elicit the "mind of the district" on this matter, I have attached a list of questions below that the tech committee is encouraged to consider and pass on in some appropriate manner or format to the district. Many of these items and follow-up questions may be useful for the school tech committee as well.

I realize this may appear didactic in tone, and not particularly succinct, but I am truly interested in holding myself, my students, my colleagues, and the institutional structures in which I work to a high standard of planning, provision of evidence, rationale of decisions, and affected behaviour. My comments are not a blunt criticism of a decision or decision-makers, they are an assessment of a decision-making process, call for reflection, and some information for our school tech commitee. These sentiments and similar concerns were expressed by many others in the lead-up to the April 27th decision; as one colleague put it: "this process of asking parties what they think AFTER the ball has been put into motion is the sort that breeds disenchantment and disengagement." I think a timely analysis of the decision is needed to avoid disengagement. Just as the district's financial challenges can be framed alternatingly with fearful scenarios and also opportunities for growth, the district's tech planning has a similar "worlds" to sort out. I have confidence in the ability of school-based planning and our staff to fill the gap and turn from uncertainty to growth, but this would benefit greatly from a district context that opens the process with a clear plan for support. In the absence of a plan, even a clear statement of what is being left up to schools to figure out would be productive for our school's (next) tech committee.

Unfortunately, it has become quite clear that no district tech plan exists, not is it likely we will see one again. The DTT appears to be dead, it was May of 2009 when we last saw minutes published from a DTT meeting. Maybe I shouldn't complain, though, this is perhaps just a symptom of a larger trend. I think the model for how these things happen is changing, a function of cutbacks among other things. I know I'm guilty of expecting more than can be born by the resources at hand, and must lower my expectations for what the district provides in support of my educational practice. We have to accept that district will no longer be equipped to have a teacher-involved, collaborative mechanism for developing a vision of technology for learning. At any rate we haven't seen this for a while, and perhaps it never really functioned as intended. This is not necessarily negative, it just means that we'll be more of a "community of communities" than a collective. If I think of it that way its actually quite positive.

Not having a "invested core" (teacher-involved DTT, District Tech Plan, tech coaching/leadership/coordinators, tech-based pro-d, Key Tech Contacts, ICT goals, etc.) means teachers and schools will need to become more self-sufficient, and it may be a sign that we have differing needs that can't be met by central planning. I think teachers and schools were more self-sufficient in the 1990s and the centralizing trends of the 2000s were necessary to cross the digital divide. Teachers and district staff needed common ground to make sense of emergent technologies and the many gaps in basic computing skills among teachers and students. Perhaps we've cleared these hurdles... the era of tech-specific workshops, TLITE, questions about how/when to use technology with students, increased reliance on servers and tech support, teachers getting a handle on what their computers can or can't do, etc.

Maybe we should just accept that the district (SBO, administration) as a managing and collaborative entity is out of the "tech for learning" paradigm. This "calling" is now in the hands of schools and teachers within the prescriptions of security, stability, and purchasing restrictions (which appear significant). This ground does not appear fertile at the moment, but it does show a path towards self-sufficiency that is begged for when the district bows out of its role as coordinator. Have we passed through the heady days of the digital divide? Is technology still a stand-alone focus area?

My school's tech committee, such as it will become without a table of teachers, knows where to find me... right across the hall in room 180.  I resign from the tech committee after 7 years of work, 4 years as chair.  This time has seen amazing change at D.P. Todd, with educators and students entering the 21st century of digital technology. I'd like to think the vision started with teaching and learning in mind, and included plans for networks, lab environments, desktops, laptops, screen projectors, scanners, video cameras, software for everything, tech support, teacher training, student orientation, renewal, and so on.  Our evergreen plan was cost effective (we spent less per student on technology than PGSS, for example), and had a focus on staff development and student use, digital literacy, creativity, and purpose.  We may well have entered a new era of technology, one in which school-purchased equipment will increasingly play a background role, and so I leave the tech committee at a good time.

I am also resigning my role as P.O.S.R. (Position of Special Responsibility), a formal teacher-leader position I've held for 4 years, Key Tech Contact (6 years), and the Pro-D Committee (4 years, 2 as chair).

The 2010s will be interesting for sure. I think I've got a handle on what I need to make technology and learning work in my classroom, I know the people that can help me and what I can do to help others. I can also dial down my expectations and adjust the way my students and I use technology if there is less money or planning to support my needs & wants. I can look for mutual accountability among colleagues and try to see the silver lining -- when the organization stops providing vehicles for leadership and innovation, a very creative and wild landscape opens up in which we can practice self-reliance.

I have raised these recent concerns about the lack of technology planning and support at every level from tech committee, principal, district technology coordinator, senior administration, and trustees.  Having received nothing more substantial than "thanks for sharing your concerns" I should feel burned out but I also realize that others are counting on me to continue as an advocate for a funded, supported, thoughtfully planned and managed public education system.  And so I leave you with questions that  need to be discussed if this school district wants student learning to benefit from the creative potential of well-used, pedagogically sound digital technology.

District 57 Tech Process: what’s missing?

1. needs assessment, e.g. what do we use and why, what do we need, what do we expect, why students benefit from our tech choices? 
2. detailed/accurate total cost accounting, e.g. is there any factoring in of software replacement or training requirements, short-term cost of induced greening? 
3. meaningful consultation, e.g. under pressure, a consultation period was initiated but no forums were provided by the DSC excepting a presentation slot at a finance meeting... is this the new model for change? 
4. impact analysis, e.g. what value is placed on the time invested by teachers and others for platform and software specific course learning objects and lesson material? 
5. statement of intent, e.g. should we expect a reduction in service or quality of teaching tools, or should we expect reasonable replacement? how? when? by whom? 
6. transition plan, e.g. how long for emacs? imacs? when do macs have to go off network? grandfathering? role of mini-labs? exceptions? 
7. innovation plan, e.g. macs have been a key piece of adaptations for transformative learning... what's next? school-bought or teacher-bought? sandbox options? 
8. consider social/human capital, e.g. some of the district’s mac experts have spearheaded district initiatives and tech pro-d in part because they were supported on their macs, what’s the message to them? 
9. assessment timeline, e.g. no sense of whether this decision will receive further scrutiny... what process will be used to measure results and when will this happen? 
10. engage in inclusive discourse, e.g. no acknowledgement of cost analyses that challenged district numbers, nor formal discussion or answers to questions, specifically invitation or use of existing structures such DTT, KTCs, or school tech committees... why not?

District 57 Tech Process: some discussion questions

1. Do you plan a needs assessment for future district tech planning? Brainstorm some questions that could be used. 
2. Are you ready to take savings seriously and use detailed/accurate total cost accounting? Think of ways an asset inventory could move beyond just hardware and software. 
3. Will the district employ regular meaningful consultation on its future tech plans and decisions? Describe some methods of doing this, and groups that might be involved. 
4. Will an impact analysis have any bearing on the expectations placed on teachers? List some professional engagements that can come off of teachers’ plates so that they have time to mitigate district decisions. 
5. What is the district’s statement of intent concerning future levels of service and options for educational technology? Base your response on the premise that many answers to this question will be acceptable, but there needs to at least be an answer. 
6. What is the district’s transition plan, including some specifics on existing configurations and unique educational programs? Identify some programs at risk given reduced tech capacity. 
7. What is the district’s specific innovation plan and expected support for some of our rich-media adaptations? Decide what degree of program loss or failure is an acceptable outcome. 
8. Will the district consider social/human capital for its tech future? Think of ways to rebuild the bridges with tech practitioners in the district. 
9. Has an assessment timeline been developed? Discuss what future indicators or data would suggest another tech plan change is necessary. 
10. Will the district engage in inclusive discourse on its transition plan or mitigation for affected programs? In your response, compare the pros and cons of a collaborative decision-making model, and consider to what extent the DTT has a role in developing ed-tech vision in the district.

spinning my wheels

i still hear guitars in the air as we sat in the sand

where the wild things are

Just finished the 2009 film version. Like most people my age, I read that book a thousand times as a kid, imagined myself as Max whenever things weren't working out. This connection goes deep, and so watching the film was difficult. I felt as if my own subconscious was being payed just as Max's was given agency in the film. Powerful and very satisfying on some level, but I'm left a bit disturbed and I assume the fim is aimed at adults who remember the book, not for kids.

...?

Please don't segregate my child

The challenges facing our schools in Prince George are stunning. With demographic change, declining enrollment, transfer of provincial burdens, and spending of money on new school construction and facelifts, we are short $7 million. Sadly, there will be layoffs and cutbacks throughout the district. Shrinking schools, many of which are below 30% capacity, face "right-sizing" (as the superintendent put it). Rural students will face long commutes in exchange for a sustainable school with a range of services and programs. I completely get this; the district, due to past decisions and current economic crunches, has to cut programs that are not sustainable and look for ways to trim the fat off its self-admittedly top-heavy infrastructure (p 41 of the Sustainability Report).

The part that confuses me is why viable and successful programs have to be eliminated at the same time.

We have four successful dual-track French immersion schools in Prince George (English and French classes side-by-side). We've enrolled our daughter in one of these so she could learn French and reflect our vision of what it means to be an inclusive English Canadian in a bilingual nation scarred by separatism and racism. We have to drive her there (10 minutes each way), but it’s a school grounded in and reflective of its neighbourhood, the kind of place where English and French have a legacy of mutual understanding reinforced from kindergarten to Grade 7. We are very proud of our school and want to be involved with the school's success.

The district is proposing the idea of a segregated school where all the French Immersion students in our district would attend, no other options. The intended school needs expensive and extensive renovations to be ready for this, and the timeline is set for September 2010 (allowing two summer months for renos). It will likely require portables to house 650 students (it was designed for 450) or they'll simply have to cap enrollment. Families with one child suited for immersion and another not ready for it will now face the choice of sending siblings to two schools, or withdrawing one from the immersion program. This is segregation and it does not appeal to us on many levels.

Integrated French immersion is something our district does well and should continue to support. It needs tweaking, not dismantling. There are many alternatives to segregation (my wife and I have figured out at least 6!) that would save more money and keep one our district's success stories intact. I really hope the elected school trustees take French segregation off the table and focus on areas of decline, largesse, and mitigating the cutbacks on affected communities.

Going Prorogue

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15213212

Further evidence that we have a vacuum in leadership, this latest move by Harper is not just a slap on democracy, it's a slap on our intelligence. Harper is banking on voter apathy and Canadians being cynical about what happens in Parliament. What an amazing leadership style -- count on apathy, push aside the democratic structures that normally keep governments accountable and press on with new propaganda.

Olympics, yeah right. Mulroney managed to run parliament during the 1988 Calgary Olympics... they took a one-week scheduled break so the politicians could attend events, and then back to business. This one is different -- the prorogue means all gov't legislation is dead, all committees (and accountability) are suspended, and the gov't can disregard the parliamentary order to turn over documents related to Afghan detainees.

Here's a nice quote on the subject of prorogation: “It wouldn’t surprise me one bit if they decided to prorogue Parliament... I’m sorry if I sound a little cynical. This is a government (for which) the rules of engagement don’t apply. They’ll move the goal post, change the boundaries and bribe the referee.”

- Deputy Conservative Leader Peter MacKay commenting on unfounded rumours that the Liberal government planned to prorogue in 2005 (Nanaimo Daily News, July 18, 2005)