Argyll & Bute Council Community Services: Education department are now rolling out their second ‘curriculum for excellence – engagement days’ across the local authority. The purpose of these days is to have all staff discussing how to progress with a curriculum for excellence. The focus of ‘day two’ centres on what a ‘teacher for excellence’ is.
(NOTE: This is a huge post by my standards, but please read on if you are interested in how Argyll & Bute are engaging with staff regarding Curriculum for Excellence)
It would be fair to say that the reception to the first round of engagement days was ‘mixed’ – many staff had heard or read little about Curriculum for Excellence, so left the day asking big questions about the value of a day devoted to it at such an early stage in its development. (You can read the feedback for yourself from the first round of engagement days here on the local authority education website.) At the time, only draft guidelines had been published covering Science: Planet Earth, and Numeracy, so staff broadly felt that substantial development was far off for them. All credit to the Quality Improvement Team in Argyll & Bute, who stuck with the programme of seeking to engage staff in what is undoubtedly a significant process of change in the curriculum.
In October, I had the privilege of attending day two in Hermitage Academy, Helensburgh. This brought together the collected masses of all primary, secondary, special and network support teachers from all over the Helensburgh and Lomond area of Argyll & Bute.
If that was October, why write about it now? Today sees the same activity taking place in Islay High School for all the teaching staff of Islay and Jura, with a similar event next Friday in the brand new Lochgilphead High School, for all the staff in Mid Argyll.
Having had no keynote speaker on engagement day one, the Quality Improvement Team have done well to build on feedback. Keynote speaking for day two is Kier Bloomer, who always provides food for thought.
Before Kier takes to the stage, we are told to switch everything off! I have selective hearing, so I’ve kept my laptop on. (I can’t help but be a bit rebellious, sorry!)
Kier presents an interesting scenario to kick things off – if two time travellers leave the year 1957, one travelling back to 1907, and the other to 2007 – which would be the most disoriented? Kier proposes the second, but not for the obvious reasons. They are disoriented because of change of attitudes and belief – not because of the change in technology.
Ken Robinson – “raising standards is no good if they are the wrong standards”.
Many countries are presently involved in curriculum review. The Norwegians are asking the fundamental question – what kind of people do we want to have? They are discussing little about the curriculum, and focussing far more on methodology.
The changes proposed in a Curriculum for Excellence grew out of the conclusions of the National Debate on Education, in which there were roughly 2000 submissions. (AB – 2000? There are more than 300 educators in this room, representing a tiny part of Scotland – 2000 submissions is laughable for a national debate, and deeply troubling if this was the basis for change) – Scotland’s education is not failing, but needs to change as it is becoming increasingly out of date – particularly in secondary schooling age.
Interestingly, at the same time as Scotland composes 4 ‘capacities’, UNESCO announces 4 ‘purposes’ – ‘to learn’, ‘to be’, ‘to live with others’ and ‘to do’. (AB – I love this – why are we not just using these? What a fabulous purpose – ‘to be’!)
Kier proposes that a Curriculum for Excellence was well received. His reason for this is that teachers liked the stating of the values of a liberal education. People also liked the generality – people take it to mean what they want it to be. (AB – equally, there must be a considerable number that don’t like the stating of liberal values? I’d love to know what research he bases this statement on.)
Before our discussions today, he feels it is important that we bear in mind this is a long term programme. Making such wide-scale changes will take time and considerable effort.
Effective Contributors is the most utilitarian of the four capacities. This is largely what we do or achieve at work. Why is this important? Presently, we have around 5 million adults who lack functional literacy (UK figures). ‘Functional Literacy’ has been defined by some as the ability to read the front page of ‘the Sun’ newspaper. Kier then showed us the front cover of the Sun from the 1980’s and compared it with a front cover from today – the Sun seems to have achieved the impossible, of having lowered it’s own incredibly low standard of literacy required to understand the front page! 17 million people have difficulty with number. 1 in 6 have serious difficulties dealing with the most basic of things.
Kier would argue that functional literacy has changed significantly with to rise of new technology. Take the BBC news website for example. You don’t start at the top of the screen and read left to right, and then move on to the next line. Information is increasingly being presented in different ways. Our notion of literacy needs to reflect this.
Half of those with no qualifications are in work, compared to 90% with degree level. (AB – this too is a worrying statistic. Flipped on its head, then 50% of those with no qualification and 10% of those with a degree are out of work – whilst a degree increases your chances of employment, is it statistically worth the time and debt incurred? Possibly not – especially if the ‘content’ of your degree becomes dated quickly)
Kier proposes that we need to survive on the way of intellectual capital, as we can’t compete internationally on the grounds of production or labour. (AB – I would argue that we can’t do this either – if current trends in India are anything to go by, sections of certain parts of Indian society are prospering on intellectual capital at present, in a socio-economic climate that we can’t compete with. I would argue that our society needs all three areas of intellectual capital, production and labour to develop, otherwise we fail to have a rounded society?)
Confident Individuals – is all about personal development. He showed us a report from 1947 documenting what we wanted our citizens to be – ironically, little has changed in our outlook.
UNICEF published a survey into children’s perceptions of well being – we are bottom of the pile – the Netherlands top the list. – Average? Germany and Italy.
We need to find a better mix of experience for our teenagers – making use of their energy, instead of quashing it:
“All young people should have regular opportunities to take part in formative experiences such as:
- A residential outdoor education course
- Participation in a dramatic performance
- Learning a musical instrument
- Playing both team and individual sport
- Visiting a foreign country
- Contributing to a community project
- Assisting young learners
- Running a mini-enterprise
- Etc, etc.”
Responsible Citizens is really two things: knowledge of how to exercise influence, and a disposition to use influence in an informed, enlightened and responsible manner. Again, from the Advisory council on Education in Scotland, 1947:
“democrats are best produced in schools that are democratic in spirit and practice, and no school can be that if its life is too straitly ordered by external authorities, or its headmaster is autocratic towards colleagues and pupils, or the staff is authoritarian in its dealings with boys and girls, and leaves them no real part in regulating the life of their school community” (AB – bear in mind this report was 1947! For some schools, this could be describing today.)
Successful Learners – people learn best in situations of challenge, but not threat. The urge to learn is innate. As a species we are insatiably curious. John Abbott said:
“Children’s search for meaning starts young. It is the children who are already anxious to make sense of issues that matter to them in their own private lives who come to formal schooling anxious to use whatever it can offer them to help meet their personal objectives. Not the other way round. The greatest incentive to learn is personal; it is intrinsic”
Our job is to sustain the need to learn. Not to snuff it out with assessment etc.
The main purpose of schooling is to equip and motivate individuals to be lifelong learners.
How do we model or categorise this learning? Kier showed us a photo of one of the doors into the ‘Tower of the Five Orders’ of the Bodleian library, Oxford (AB – which totally gives me flashbacks to 1994, when I walked through this door on a daily basis!). This is a great example of reductionism – where all the knowledge and learning we had could be classified in a small number of categories. Now it has changed radically. The Institute for Global Ethics in 2002 proposed six key issues for the 21st Century:
- Mass destruction,
- Environmental sustainability,
- Population growth,
- The north/south divide,
- Education reform, and
- Breakdown in public and private morality.
Into which ancient category of knowledge would these issues sit? They clearly cross many categories.
We are therefore facing a double shift – not only do we need to do things better, but we need to make sure we are doing the right things. This is not a short term goal.
Argyll & Bute is well placed to tackle such a challenge, Kier says. Combining both our approach to a Curriculum for Excellence and ‘Our Learning Culture’ initiative is a great step down this path to reform.
Kier proposes there are three steps to achieving our values – at the top what the school hopes to achieve itself; in the middle what it hopes the young people will demonstrate to others; and at the bottom the value of learning in and of itself. Our challenge, is how we address this.
To finish, Kier quotes Michael Fullan:
“The education of a child is, first and foremost, a moral undertaking”
Thanks Kier – Elliot Morrison then introduced our next task:
What is a Teacher for Excellence? In groups, we had to discuss questions posed by means of a Promethean flipchart presentation, with data collected from each group by using an ACTIVote system. Everyone seemed to greatly enjoy using this technology, and immediately saw the potential use of such in a classroom setting. I’m sure Maggie Irving’s email and phone will be ringing hot with people wanting to try this technology out in class! My one criticism would be that the results may not accurately reflect opinion in the room. On many questions, our group were evenly split on the possible responses, with the ‘group leader’ having the deciding vote. Equally, the fact that the possible responses were already chosen skews the data returned?
The next task of the day was to then discuss in the group what a teacher for excellence was. Unsurprisingly, the returns from individuals were what I would regard as ‘vague’ or ‘woolly’ – for example – ‘a good listener’, ‘likes children’ etc. I’ve argued this in the past with many people – you could pluck someone off the street who meets this vague criteria. To me, a teacher for excellence is one who reflects on the standards for professional registration, so this was my contribution to the question. Two in my group did not realise there even was such a thing. This is in no way meant as a criticism, but I suspect that there would be many in the room in the same boat?
Our afternoon was spent looking at how we could see the outcomes working in practice. I must admit, I felt this a strange task, not being either a teacher of numeracy or science, but undertook the task as best I could. Well, saying that, my partner for the exercise and I took a huge diversion and ended up hideously off-task, when she found out what I did and spent the next half hour quizzing me about how she could use her new Mac to support the children she works with. I would argue that she got more of direct relevance out of this half hour than the rest of the day, as she left armed with possibilities with ComicLife and GarageBand that she had previously been unaware of. Sorry for going off-task, but I just can’t help myself!
I’ve had a few weeks to reflect on this, so what did I make of the day? I really enjoyed Kier Bloomer speak, and would encourage Argyll & Bute to always have a good keynote speaker when getting staff together on this scale. I have heard Kier speak on a number of occasions, and have always left thinking more deeply about the issues he raises. The voting quiz was fun, and whilst it brought to our attention questions worthy of focus, the exercise was largely meaningless – after all, if I disagree with the consensus, does that make me wrong? Are there right or wrong answers? What happens now for me in my development as a teacher for excellence? The exercise in the afternoon was largely irrelevant for me, as I’m not a teacher of maths or science (between a third and a half of the room must fall into this category). The exercise seemed to descend into one of finding the lowest common denominator of selecting which aspect of a certain capacity best fitted the activity (almost a ‘tick the box’ if you will). I’m sure had I been teaching the subject matter in hand, the activity would have been completely different.
Having said that, I applaud the Quality Improvement Team in Argyll & Bute for seeking to engage with staff on the development of a Curriculum for Excellence. Even though this seems early to be on ‘round two’ (when many local authorities haven’t even started a ‘round one’?), the benefits of getting all the teaching staff together in an area for in-service are great. Few will have left the day with nothing to take forward. Even the most cynical will have been provoked and challenged by Kier Bloomer. Asking us to examine the outcomes in relation to teaching and learning is a valuable exercise.
I’d have loved to have seen something akin to TeachMeet in the afternoon though. How beneficial it would have been to see 7 minute presentations on what people are actually doing on a daily basis in the classroom. Maybe ‘round three’ of engagement days could contain something like this?
