TOD NCEA 19th November

 Five aspects of change: system changes

NCEA is changing radically and we were introduced to those changes during teacher only day en-masse... a lot to digest.

1) Well being - less assessments more big picture thinking.

2) Equity and inclusiveness - how do we build school courses that represent and honour the diversity in our society? 

3) Coherence - links from the NZC through to the outcomes will be clearer. At the moment, I don't feel like the NZC integrates with NCEA and that they can be taught quite independently from each other, so addressing this is a good thing.

4) Pathways - suitability - vocational type courses are unit standards based and that says they are worth less to the learner and at times community. If we continue to undervalue these areas we will continue 

5) Credibility - is this about the rigour of which we assess NCEA or the creditability of courses? One of the things our group noted was that our inherent course elitism at school possibly denies our students opportunities to just learn process, with this focus on content. If you want to go to Art school and didn't do Art at school you do a catch up course at uni if you have your UE and apply and most likely get in, likewise for all aspects of health sciences. Why are we so caught up with exactly what content kids are learning, when process is actually more important? 

Change one - removing fees, and making it easier to apply for SAC

Change two - opening te ao Māori pathways. Māori performing arts is not UE, yet dance and drama are. That is being addressed. Integrate mātauranaga Māori. This will be integrated into our outcome statements for NCEA. Unsure what that looks like. 

Change three - strengthen literacy and numeracy requirements - are they going to make this harder to attain? It sounds like they will streamline what and where literacy and numeracy will come from. There will only be lit and num from one 20 credit package to gain these standards and they can attain them from year 9 onwards.

Change four - less credits for each subject. Less fragmentation of learning. Every subject will have 4 AS and it will be a 50:50 split; externals will not necessarily be 'exams'. 

Change five - hard to understand? Simplify. Removing the 20 credit carry over, limiting resubs. Maximum enrolment of credits - 120 L1, 120 for L2 and 3.

Change six - show clearer pathways - vocational entrance award introduced, just like UE. graduate profile for each level of NCEA will be introduced and record of achievement will be simplified so it makes sense to employers.

Change seven - keep level one as optional. Level one kept broad, level two and three will be where specialisation occurs. 

Reflect on the following for the day as we go over the modules:

1 - Know and think - skills knowledge capabilities needed?

2 - Feel and believe - what are the attributes and capabilities required?

3 - Build and create - structures to  support change and implementation

4 - Actions to take away - need to do and think of now? 

1) We need to be willing to be process teachers rather than content teachers.  Let go of the elitism of particular subjects and particular pathways. There is a move to a vocational entry qualification like University Entrance. I note they seem to discuss how Māori Performing arts are not recognised as Achievement standards, yet when they moved to discussing other pathways other than traditional University ones, this was not a 'thing' that was acknowledged. 

Big picture planning rather than a pick and choose model of achievement standards will need to be thought through in order to be able to effectively tie the big ideas to the standards. It does concern me that student choice could be lost here in Visual Arts. Setting up a good selection of student choice that interrelates to the planning matrix is going to be necessary and is not a small task. 

We could/can look at adjusting our level one matrix in Art to be inclusive of the big ideas as a starting point that could lighten the change process load. Along with how we integrate T-shaped literacy within that matrix, it feels like a do-able and workable task. 

2) Feel and believe - acknowledgement of unintentional streaming of Māori/Pasifika learners. Is it happening at Hornby? If it is, it is an aspect of institutionalised racism that needs addressing.  

3) Build and create - it appears that we are being directed towards cross curricular structures, which given Hornby's start in this area with Hurumanu, could be an easier transition. I see that Rolleston College and Haeata are already well-entrenched in this direction. Looking at their course outlines along with thinking about the needs and wants of our students currently situated in Hurumanu would be useful. I am unsure what our leaders in this area are doing in regards to collecting data from the students experiencing Hurumanu currently, but one would presume they are and that this would help us plan further into NCEA levels. 

4) Actions to take away - how the big ideas direct the learning from above. I would like to break down my understanding of these in relation to art making outcomes more. I can see how they can be used to reconfigure our existing research and practical applications Artist models matrix for level one. I can also see how T-shaped Literacy would slot into that as well. We will make that our reality for 2021 in preparation to understanding how they work for the roll-out of the new standards in 2022. 

Implementing T-shaped Literacy in Visual Arts - starting with practice archietectures

“...When we learn things, then, we do not just learn words or language or ideas or concepts, and we do not just learn them as ‘internal’ representations that correspond to, or attach to, ‘external’ things or states of affairs in the world. We learn to use them in relation to, as part of, some kind of practice. Again: what we learn arises from, represents, recalls and returns to its use in practice…” Edwards-Groves and Kemmis 2018.


By tying the learning of implementing T-shaped literacy (Jesson and Wilson) directly to embedding the LCS Inquiry model to Hornby High School Tīkanga, one is effectively establishing a ‘practice architecture’ (Edwards-Groves & Kemmis, 2018).

Practice architecture as a noun was to begin with, a really confusing idea for me. It is essentially this concept of each practice having a construct or a ladder in behind it, supporting it. The supports come in the form of what we do, what we say and what we relate back again, in the process. Rather than these things that interrelate together existing in a vacuum, they are also influenced again by cultural, social and physical values that impinge upon them.

So the idea is that if we establish all new learning on the practice architecture model, it will be lasting learning.

The idea of practice architectures isn't new. However for me, it is new as I have never thought of the philosophy of how we learn like this; doing, saying and relating all being fundamental to the process, with full acknowledgement of the outside influences that come back in from the rest of the world the learner interacts with. I think this might be because previously, throughout my training and the latter part of my own schooling, we were 'schooled' in this idea that certain people are certain learner types; kinaesthetic, aural, reading-based (there was a fancy name for that one) and that 'learning' coloured my view without me noticing. The science of being a learner-type has since been debunked. But many don't know or want to know that because it does suit some personalities to ascribe people to 'type'. For instance, if you read through articles such as this, you would be hard-pressed to argue against their point of view. However, there is a catch. There is a testimonial page, so they are 'selling' something. And it's not even a sophisticated marketing approach. But a parent of a difficult child would go looking for answers in these kinds of places and take heart that maybe their teacher didn't understand their child's learning style, rather than the need for a multi-modal approach and a bit more of a relational conversation. 

"...No less than 71 different models of learning styles have been proposed over the years. Most have no doubt been created with students’ best interests in mind, and to create more suitable environments for learning. But psychological research has not found that people learn differently, at least not in the ways learning-styles proponents claim. Given the lack of scientific evidence, the authors argue that the currently widespread use of learning-style tests and teaching tools is a wasteful use of limited educational resources..." Association of psychological science

If there were truly 71 learning styles, we would be completely stuffed as educators. The whole sector would be futile.

However, this learning style concept is not to be confused with solid multi-modal teaching and learning. That is NOT about learning styles, its about capture. Learning styles has nothing to do with a child who missed out on being read to as a toddler, nor a child with a hearing deficiency that wasn't discovered until they were 9 years old. That is the gap that multi modal teaching covers. making sure what is on your google site is able to be accessed in written, aural, and visual form helps the learner who has missed a milestone, or has a disadvantage the kaiako may not necessarily know about, keep up. It isn't pandering, it is an ethically right thing to do.

Unfortunately we haven't been able to complete inquiry this year, as it has been just one of those things covid-19 has disrupted. In saying that, it will be my department goal to understand, express and explicitly apply practice architectures in the establishment of damned good literacy teaching in Visual Arts, starting Wednesday. T-shaped literacy will make a difference to how our learners cope and begin to succeed, before they thrive and it is a challenge we will be taking on starting very soon and hopefully with an inquiry style model, as Timperley, Kaser, et al (2014) makes very clear, is where the best professional development occurs.


Please bring on 2021...


References:

Learning Styles Debunked: There is No Evidence Supporting Auditory and Visual Learning, Psychologists Say. (n.d.). Retrieved November 16, 2020, from https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/releases/learning-styles-debunked-there-is-no-evidence-supporting-auditory-and-visual-learning-psychologists-say.html

Jesson, R., & Wilson, A. (2019). T-shaped literacy skills; An emerging research-practice hypothesis for literacy instruction. SET, 1, 15–22. https://doi.org/10.18296/set.0131

Edwards-Groves C., & Kemmis S.(2018) Education, Practice, and Practice Architectures. In: Understanding Education. Springer Texts in Education. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6433-3_4 pp 115-158

Timperley, H., Kaser, L., & Halbert, J. (2014). A framework for transforming learning in schools: Innovation and the spiral of inquiry. Centre for Strategic Education; Seminar Series Paper 234, 1–27.

Learn Create Share

As an elearning leader we have spent a lot of time trying to put this in place at our school. We have been struggling with how to keep this direction straight with 50 or so staff and that whole bell curve of change with the early adopters at one end and the laggards at the other.  We want to pull together where we are and align it, but it is clear that how we have started this journey in comparison to the model we have taken on, does have more of an impact than I initially wanted to accept. This is going to lead us to change our methods of leadership and direction.

Generally, we need our structural conditions to change or at least keep pace with our changes in pedagogy in order to be absolutely effective in making lasting change to 'the way we do things around here'. We would usually expect this structural change to come from the top down - government policy would change, the flavour of the month in how we design our buildings would turn around, funding systems would be revised and statements about why, how and what we do from government analysists, hopefully, backed up by academic research would be released to support it all. There would be a good chance that a pilot programme with a healthy funding fish hook would be attached to entice schools to be ready.

The original Manaiakalani set of schools made their own structural changes, without government systems to guide them, because no one had done this before. Mutually developed and agreed upon pedagogy (LCS) at Point England School came before devices. Point England School were doing what was best for their students over what was the done thing at the time, or what was expected of low decile schools. First by introducing devices to a community who was considered by most, too poor and then providing internet infrastructure on their own to back that up. They used the devices for the pedagogy, once it was already in place. Second, by sharing the learning with their neighbouring schools, rather than using this to promote their own worth within the community. A community of learning beyond 'your own patch' in the midst of a system that sets us up to compete in the 'educational market' (tomorrow's schools) was put in place - Manaiakalani.

Then structural conditions from the top were in fact changed, based on the success of schools like Point England in Tamaki pioneering and proving this was a healthy 'way we do things around here' providing accelerated success for students who start education under the line of whatever we have decided is normal western intelligence. That point may still need some fleshing out, another time though.

We always knew we were jumping into devices without establishing the pedagogy first. We were even carefully warned that this was going to make a difference to how things progressed for us in Hornby. I clearly remember both Dorothy and Russell stating this fact in our initial presentations around Learn Create Share. Optimistically I hoped this would not matter so much because we had been warned, we'd sort it out!

So here we are, new principal from when we started with our outreach, quite a few new staff, and we are still struggling with a consistent direction for LCS. It is harder at some levels in a high school, with multiple siloed disciplines.

Having pulled together the data from our most recent staff meeting, it is clear that the confusion still lies with 'Learn'. If we substitute the word for 'Activate' or 'Ignite' (thank you Kelsey), we have it. The rest of our time is Create and Share, bouncing back to 'activate' as needed. It is fluid, not isolated. Maybe more so at a high school level due to that change from concrete to abstract thinking.

While pondering this, it occurred to me that way back in the day when I was training to be a teacher, the best advice I got about planning lessons, units and the year of learning, was to break everything into three phases that you go back over and move forward from, repeatedly; "Catch'em, Teach'em, Learn'em". It lacks the depth of pedagogy and thought possibly of LCS, and you cannot see 'share' so obviously, except that as an Art teacher, that is implied. Art is not Art if it is not shared with an audience. 'Catch' is 'activate' or 'ignite'. Excite that desire to learn, engage prior knowledge - the best part of being in a classroom so often is seeing the ignition happen. 'Teach' is providing the students with new skills and ideas to create their own work with and 'Learn' is giving them the freedom and time to be able to do exactly that. Yip, 'Share' is just not there... But it is a useful start in my own analysing and breaking down how some of us get there and some of us don't in embedding the pedagogy.

Right in amongst all of that is a part of the confusion; Learn in LCS is not the Oxford dictionary definition of Learning. Hence when you come into LCS cold, you easily confuse yourself. Likewise, if you only pay lip service to it when your school says staff meeting is LCS based, and it is not within your planning and classroom practice explicitly, you end up talking yourself around in circles.

Our next steps must be: working with individual departments to help re-direct some individual thoughts over LCS, aligning the departments in how this looks, but managing this with distributive leadership in mind.  We need to make it explicit in our way of doing things starting with planning within the department - a whole school way of managing this. We cannot rely on whole staff meetings once in a while to get that message across clearly, there is just too much to be done. Likewise, we cannot rely on outsiders coming in once in a while to 'upskill' staff, as that is not the pedagogy that is being addressed (though it is still helpful). We cannot 'do' this for everyone, it needs to develop for us to become ours and be 'the way we do things around here' long after myself and the other elearning leader have moved on. It is time to start infiltrating ourselves rather than asking politely would you like help. Nicely of course.

Developing Scholarship as our new normal.

I keep threatening this idea that all of our senior students will complete scholarship pages as normal practice. The reality of making sense of this exam in Visual Arts is in fact, exhausting. At least I found it so.

For the second time in the time I have been at Hornby High School, we had a student submit a scholarship work book for painting. The work was beautiful, but the pages were regenerated based on work she had done to fit the exam. So she entered it blind.

The focus was on her completing the folio with an excellence (you cannot be considered for scholarship unless you first attain excellence in the field you are submitting for). And she did that. But missed out on the scholarship. The most beautiful Excellence board I have seen though maybe I am biased, as she was also one of the most beautiful people to know as well. 

Why are we doing this?

Three good reasons why;

1) If it is normal, it is achievable. High expectations allow for higher achievement, you get what you expect and that is in line with Carol C. Dweck's mindset theories too

2) Again being fed up with the idea that we can't because of the stigma of being in the wrong area of a not that big city anyway... my blood boils over that one. 

3) The tools we have with GaFE and digital learning, the support of Manaiakalani in developing resources, lends us to be able to support learners to achieve this exam with more surety. So why on earth wouldn't we? If we were encouraged to have low expectations of our learners and ourselves, I suppose we may not... that is to to be our pathway though. 

So the development of such a plan for our learners here begins. 

Steps in the process:

- Reaching out to other schools who already offer a scholarship programme without offering a scholarship class (I feel that defeats the whole purpose of what a scholarship is, though I do understand that many schools see this as a highly competitive thing that adds a special kudos to their wider community)

- Breaking down Scholarship into meaningful chunks of understanding and clearly relating them to how our students learn throughout the year, so they can be completed in real time alongside real work.

- Making sure all resources and supports are ubiquitous and accessible online

- Using SAMR appropriately to support online development. 

Now onto do the work. 

I'm starting with moving our site into the new google sites platform, within that, it may well just be easier to develop scholarship resources, as we are starting afresh somewhat. As e-learning is a role I already have, making the switch to the new platform is in my best interests.