Typically in an organisation, inspirational achievement is driven by recognition. By inspirational achievement, I mean achievement that goes beyond organic or inertial achievement - achievement that happens as a factor of time.
Allowing inspirational achievement to be driven by recognition is counterproductive as it breaks down the ability for future success as entities within the organisation confuse the success of organisational goals with the need for personal recognition (or more importantly the belief that others are taking credit where it is not due).
To prevent this occurring the process of organisational synthesis must occur, where credit is distributed to effective teams and the goals of the team are acknowledged first (and valued), with credit being accrued as leader and as individual participants in the team as a secondary and lessor factor. This is not a natural process, and although we commonly achieve this in sporting teams, it is rarely seen in organisations, especially those as filled with individuals as school staff rooms.
The idea of synthesis occurs where ideas are naturally shared with the team and the team develops the idea to fulfill a team goal. The idea of public personal credit is eliminated and only the goal is celebrated publically when it is achieved - by the whole team. Elements that caused the success are identified inside the team and only extraordinary and measurable contributions (motivational, leadership, content, skill, effort, time) acknowledged by the whole team are documented and/or rewarded further. This gives the appearance of a coherent and solid team and removes the perception of fractured teams (that may in fact only be debating different methods to the same goal). Loafers get credit but may not be invited to be part of the next team (thus eliminating a fractured element).
External input breaks the model, which dictates that the most capable people need to be in the team (or added to the team) and that any external inputs are donated without requirement for credit.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Sunday, September 20, 2009
A new economy
I was having a bit of a think this morning.
An issue with vocations, charity and volunteer work is that monetary reward is rarely satisfying for those involved, it "cheapens" the attempt. As soon as money is involved, the real motive of the practitioner is questioned. We can see the effect of this currently in newspapers with the media challenging the motives of teachers after recent pay rises.
Pay is not a motivator - and extra $5 per week does not motivate a person to greater performance. All it does it help pay the mortgage faster.
Yet for those that attempt these activities, motivation and burnout is an issue. Vocations tend to be poorly paid due to the nature of the people involved - money is not the reason for starting a vocation, if money doesn't motivate them there is no reason to increase wages. Is it possible to create a new economy better suited to those that find money a poor reward, yet still need some form of recognition such that they know that their efforts are achieving an outcome and are worthwhile?
For many of these people the line between home and work is blurred, they consider their occupation to be part of who they are, part of the enjoyment of life and relationships in society. I think they have it right too.. after all we spend most of our productive hours in the workplace - not at home!
To find a suitable reward we could identify their primary motivators and predict future motivating factors. Possible factors are public recognition of achievement, immediate recognition by peers, measurable improvement in conditions, happiness, more team involvement, socialisation activities, new learnings, leadership opportunities, co-working with family, improvement in public standing or improvement in home conditions. I'm sure the list is much longer than just pay them more and they will be happy.
Perhaps this new economy could have a currency that is not money - my initial thought is the "contribution point". Contribution points would recognise those that have achieved something in their field and after achieving a number of contribution points they would be redirected to an activity that would be aimed at recharging their motivation.
An example would be of the social worker, who is burning out caring for their cases, being sent to a resort where those employed know of the way the person earned their contribution points and can relate to the needs of the person. A psychologist helps them rebuild their confidence, a fitness trainer engages them physically, social functions are designed, so on and so forth.
Is there any reason in today's day and age that we can't identify those that are contributing to society and reward them (and similarly penalise those that aren't contributing!). The more contribution, the more often the reward. This removes the commodity of the dollar (the idea of basing a society on gambling on the stock exchange is backward if you think about it) and ties reward closer to actual effort and outcome.
The ways of accruing and spending the points for each person are defined at the start of the year. Then each year the formula is modified to suit the tasks required by society. If the outcome is not as expected, yet the task is completed, the goal is re-inspected the following year (and if ineffective may not be re-offered), the points are still accrued by the contributor, the rewards are still obtained.
I look at kids in classes that can't see what their futures are and they are despondent. Jobs that they could once fill are now mechanised, jobs that are available are more demanding - beyond the average student. Many can't recognise opportunity and seem resigned towards unfulfilling lives of poverty.
As a society we are moving towards a point where we will need to question whether we are all needed as workers 40 hours a week. We need to move our society to a stage where mutual happiness is the currency rather than the dollar. To get to this point, we need to consider whether the dollar as capital is going to be effective and consider needs of the individual instead.
Whoa! I hear you say - what of the cost to set up and maintain all of this? We maintain a banking sector, stock brokers, financial advisers, superannuation providers, real estate agents and the wealth of people that interact to facilitate swapping of capital. It's just a new economy with a different driver, one focused on valuing the 'self image' of the person and their achievements rather than their personal net worth. Larry Niven and Robert Heinlein have written on this issue and their predictions don't seem far off. We're not short on people - but we are coming to a point where they'll be short on things to do.
An issue with vocations, charity and volunteer work is that monetary reward is rarely satisfying for those involved, it "cheapens" the attempt. As soon as money is involved, the real motive of the practitioner is questioned. We can see the effect of this currently in newspapers with the media challenging the motives of teachers after recent pay rises.
Pay is not a motivator - and extra $5 per week does not motivate a person to greater performance. All it does it help pay the mortgage faster.
Yet for those that attempt these activities, motivation and burnout is an issue. Vocations tend to be poorly paid due to the nature of the people involved - money is not the reason for starting a vocation, if money doesn't motivate them there is no reason to increase wages. Is it possible to create a new economy better suited to those that find money a poor reward, yet still need some form of recognition such that they know that their efforts are achieving an outcome and are worthwhile?
For many of these people the line between home and work is blurred, they consider their occupation to be part of who they are, part of the enjoyment of life and relationships in society. I think they have it right too.. after all we spend most of our productive hours in the workplace - not at home!
To find a suitable reward we could identify their primary motivators and predict future motivating factors. Possible factors are public recognition of achievement, immediate recognition by peers, measurable improvement in conditions, happiness, more team involvement, socialisation activities, new learnings, leadership opportunities, co-working with family, improvement in public standing or improvement in home conditions. I'm sure the list is much longer than just pay them more and they will be happy.
Perhaps this new economy could have a currency that is not money - my initial thought is the "contribution point". Contribution points would recognise those that have achieved something in their field and after achieving a number of contribution points they would be redirected to an activity that would be aimed at recharging their motivation.
An example would be of the social worker, who is burning out caring for their cases, being sent to a resort where those employed know of the way the person earned their contribution points and can relate to the needs of the person. A psychologist helps them rebuild their confidence, a fitness trainer engages them physically, social functions are designed, so on and so forth.
Is there any reason in today's day and age that we can't identify those that are contributing to society and reward them (and similarly penalise those that aren't contributing!). The more contribution, the more often the reward. This removes the commodity of the dollar (the idea of basing a society on gambling on the stock exchange is backward if you think about it) and ties reward closer to actual effort and outcome.
The ways of accruing and spending the points for each person are defined at the start of the year. Then each year the formula is modified to suit the tasks required by society. If the outcome is not as expected, yet the task is completed, the goal is re-inspected the following year (and if ineffective may not be re-offered), the points are still accrued by the contributor, the rewards are still obtained.
I look at kids in classes that can't see what their futures are and they are despondent. Jobs that they could once fill are now mechanised, jobs that are available are more demanding - beyond the average student. Many can't recognise opportunity and seem resigned towards unfulfilling lives of poverty.
As a society we are moving towards a point where we will need to question whether we are all needed as workers 40 hours a week. We need to move our society to a stage where mutual happiness is the currency rather than the dollar. To get to this point, we need to consider whether the dollar as capital is going to be effective and consider needs of the individual instead.
Whoa! I hear you say - what of the cost to set up and maintain all of this? We maintain a banking sector, stock brokers, financial advisers, superannuation providers, real estate agents and the wealth of people that interact to facilitate swapping of capital. It's just a new economy with a different driver, one focused on valuing the 'self image' of the person and their achievements rather than their personal net worth. Larry Niven and Robert Heinlein have written on this issue and their predictions don't seem far off. We're not short on people - but we are coming to a point where they'll be short on things to do.
Labels:
philosophy
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Friday, September 18, 2009
National map of Professional learning and development
Today the federal government released the following report on professional learning. I haven't read much of it, but have noticed that interest groups were included in the panel such as professional learning providers and universities. Unsurprisingly it has found that professional learning is a key driver for change in schools.
In the past I've been critical of PD for it's usual ineffectiveness. The survey confirms my suspicions.
Here are some important findings:
Most teachers are looking for ideas to incorporate in the classroom.
For all the money spent, 78% of the time, PD only affects at best, a bit of teaching practices. Critically this implies that most of the time it is a big load of useless.
I'm not saying that what people want is necessarily what they need, but it does raise the question - why spend so much money on ineffective training? Why do training if it has no impact?
I would suggest because the results of PD is rarely analysed.
Most of the time the goals of PD are ill defined and are sometimes/rarely followed up (74%)!
And who is responsible for all of this rather ordinary PD? Sadly it's schools theselves. In many cases the blind leading the blind with hastily prepared presentations for scheduled PD days with little or no budget and little time for finding quality speakers. PD days are scheduled at the start of term for all schools causing difficulty in organising quality presenters.
I am not saying that all PD is bad, but typically useful PD has been forward planning sessions or information desemination sessions about school policy (which is not the PD identified as most needed). If you calculated the hours spent, the cost of a PD day for all staff is scary.
Let's face the truth - if there are new ideas introduced at a school, it is either by new teachers to the school implementing something they already know, an administration lead/forced initiative or by practicum students - rarely is it via PD. With the changes in curriculum (especially in senior school) proper implementation of new ideas by teachers for the classroom have been shelved.
So, what's the answer? More PD? I hope not, it's a poor use of funds. Perhaps encouragement for teachers willing to take short term placements at effective schools to encourage cross pollination of ideas (perhaps in a TA/team teaching type role) or for teachers to engage in further higher education to improve their skills (with tertiary providers able to provide effective courses).
In the past I've been critical of PD for it's usual ineffectiveness. The survey confirms my suspicions.
Here are some important findings:
Most teachers are looking for ideas to incorporate in the classroom.
For all the money spent, 78% of the time, PD only affects at best, a bit of teaching practices. Critically this implies that most of the time it is a big load of useless.
I'm not saying that what people want is necessarily what they need, but it does raise the question - why spend so much money on ineffective training? Why do training if it has no impact?
Most of the time the goals of PD are ill defined and are sometimes/rarely followed up (74%)!
And who is responsible for all of this rather ordinary PD? Sadly it's schools theselves. In many cases the blind leading the blind with hastily prepared presentations for scheduled PD days with little or no budget and little time for finding quality speakers. PD days are scheduled at the start of term for all schools causing difficulty in organising quality presenters.
I am not saying that all PD is bad, but typically useful PD has been forward planning sessions or information desemination sessions about school policy (which is not the PD identified as most needed). If you calculated the hours spent, the cost of a PD day for all staff is scary.
Let's face the truth - if there are new ideas introduced at a school, it is either by new teachers to the school implementing something they already know, an administration lead/forced initiative or by practicum students - rarely is it via PD. With the changes in curriculum (especially in senior school) proper implementation of new ideas by teachers for the classroom have been shelved.
So, what's the answer? More PD? I hope not, it's a poor use of funds. Perhaps encouragement for teachers willing to take short term placements at effective schools to encourage cross pollination of ideas (perhaps in a TA/team teaching type role) or for teachers to engage in further higher education to improve their skills (with tertiary providers able to provide effective courses).
Labels:
teaching
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Lack of respect for schools by government
Statements like "The Rudd Government believes it’s time we stopped averting our eyes from poor performance and ensure every Australian child is receiving a world class education" underlines a government directing blame for poor policy onto schools. Julia Gillard, you should be ashamed (see media announcement here). You are oversimplifying a complex problem and right about now you should be realising that this policy decision should quietly disappear.
Government is responsible for the performance of schools and "name and shame" is far from the most effective way to govern schools. In fact it is the clearest sign that government is unable to govern schools if it has to resort to such crass tactics. The Rudd government in particular has shown itself to be a big "criticise all, promise nothing, deliver nothing" blowhard.
To imply that schools are averting their eyes is to ridicule the very basis of public education - that schools and teachers are seeking to bring about the finest education possible for our children. Schools have been handed some very shonky curriculum and behaviour management practices by government - via ill-conceived, poorly researched, implemented and ill-managed government policy. If I was to point the finger it would be there!
To run something into the ground and then put the boot in lacks integrity. It seems to be another attempt at grabbing headlines and a couple of votes.
The best thing is that for Julia another ill conceived notion is backfiring and parents continue to see through the smoke and mirrors (see news poll here where 70% of parents believe league tables should be kept private).
If our community has a lack of respect for their own schools, we should expect the same from our students. Our leaders need to stand up and show leadership through public support for our schools and for the future development of our schools.
Government is responsible for the performance of schools and "name and shame" is far from the most effective way to govern schools. In fact it is the clearest sign that government is unable to govern schools if it has to resort to such crass tactics. The Rudd government in particular has shown itself to be a big "criticise all, promise nothing, deliver nothing" blowhard.
To imply that schools are averting their eyes is to ridicule the very basis of public education - that schools and teachers are seeking to bring about the finest education possible for our children. Schools have been handed some very shonky curriculum and behaviour management practices by government - via ill-conceived, poorly researched, implemented and ill-managed government policy. If I was to point the finger it would be there!
To run something into the ground and then put the boot in lacks integrity. It seems to be another attempt at grabbing headlines and a couple of votes.
The best thing is that for Julia another ill conceived notion is backfiring and parents continue to see through the smoke and mirrors (see news poll here where 70% of parents believe league tables should be kept private).
If our community has a lack of respect for their own schools, we should expect the same from our students. Our leaders need to stand up and show leadership through public support for our schools and for the future development of our schools.
Labels:
league tables
Monday, September 14, 2009
The need for sociable behaviour
Should unsociable behaviour be accepted in our schools?
I suppose this is the question that arises when we consider the role of schools in the community. Is it the primary role of schools to teach curriculum, do schools have a responsibility to teach children the limits imposed on citizens post-childhood or is it primarily the role of parents?
The Curriculum framework and its values places the answer firmly, for better or worse, with schools teaching sociability, with some parents unable to fulfil this role for many reasons. If a child comes socially ill-equipped for school, then it is up to the school to enable the child.
The statement, "this is the home environment mimicked at school " and "he only reacts this way until he knows a teacher" I don't really accept. To swear at the wrong person outside school or threaten violence with little provocation is to invite violence or incarceration in return. To condone such behaviour in school is to ill-equip these children for their time post school. A teacher is the token of authority in a school and all teachers deserve the same respect, whether known to the student or not, in the same way a policeman or judge is given the same respect in the real world. The alternative is to bring the justice system into schools - something to resist as it is a downward spiral or students to continue challenging authority in later life with dire consequences.
With declining community values, the acceptance of swearing and abusive language around (if not at) teachers, the abundance of emotional bullying by students of peers, the lack of effective strategies to deal with such bullying and the deferral of action until critical incidents occur is not teaching these kids respect for authority (in fact it is diminishing it), improving respect for others or ultimately creating respect for themselves.
I suppose it comes back to the niceness aspect of social interaction and the drift of community away from respect of the nice and considerate person to the glamorisation of the abusive idiot. Hopefully the pendulum will again swing back soon.
Sooner than later - as the perception that state schools have a bullying problem and an inability to deal effectively with students with social issues scares many parents away from our sector.
It is worrying.
I suppose this is the question that arises when we consider the role of schools in the community. Is it the primary role of schools to teach curriculum, do schools have a responsibility to teach children the limits imposed on citizens post-childhood or is it primarily the role of parents?
The Curriculum framework and its values places the answer firmly, for better or worse, with schools teaching sociability, with some parents unable to fulfil this role for many reasons. If a child comes socially ill-equipped for school, then it is up to the school to enable the child.
The statement, "this is the home environment mimicked at school " and "he only reacts this way until he knows a teacher" I don't really accept. To swear at the wrong person outside school or threaten violence with little provocation is to invite violence or incarceration in return. To condone such behaviour in school is to ill-equip these children for their time post school. A teacher is the token of authority in a school and all teachers deserve the same respect, whether known to the student or not, in the same way a policeman or judge is given the same respect in the real world. The alternative is to bring the justice system into schools - something to resist as it is a downward spiral or students to continue challenging authority in later life with dire consequences.
With declining community values, the acceptance of swearing and abusive language around (if not at) teachers, the abundance of emotional bullying by students of peers, the lack of effective strategies to deal with such bullying and the deferral of action until critical incidents occur is not teaching these kids respect for authority (in fact it is diminishing it), improving respect for others or ultimately creating respect for themselves.
I suppose it comes back to the niceness aspect of social interaction and the drift of community away from respect of the nice and considerate person to the glamorisation of the abusive idiot. Hopefully the pendulum will again swing back soon.
Sooner than later - as the perception that state schools have a bullying problem and an inability to deal effectively with students with social issues scares many parents away from our sector.
It is worrying.
Labels:
social system
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Independent public schools
Wondering if your school has applied for independent public school status? Wonder no longer!
Click here!
Click here!
Labels:
Independent public schools
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Restricting the damage from League Tables
Here's acknowledgement that ACARA will make mistakes when implementing league tables and that league tables have caused issues in other countries for those implementing them. I hope the Federal government realises the potential effect on public schooling straight after the damage done through the tragic implementation of OBE in WA.
This being the case Dr Hill (head of ACARA), it would be a good idea to limit the damage and make sure league tables actually work in one state/territory (I'd suggest NT as that's where NAPLAN shows the biggest issue is) before inflicting it on the rest of the nation. It is utterly irresponsible to do otherwise. We need to learn in education circles from the OBE fiasco... (Learning in education?? Don't be stupid!!) Oh and by the way, progress is not the best indicator of effective change in a school, if your progress is defined by invalid statistics.
On that topic, well done WA, we've taught to the test and improved our NAPLAN scores (see Saturday's West, 12 September p.7). There is still an absence of statistically valid evidence of curriculum improvement and retention of skills and knowledge beyond the test - at least none that I have seen. I wait to see the improvement in year 10's next year that should follow great NAPLAN results (highly unlikely due to changing demographics within the suburbs I teach due to increasing concentrations of refugees & 457 working visas) - I hope I get a performance pay rise too for being "super effective" as our results improve dramatically once normal demographics return and urban gentrification continues.
I hate to say it, as I'm as impatient for change as anyone but let's get the league table concept right (I don't see how but I'm open to rational argument) before implementing anything systemically across the nation. This takes time, which means political time lines of four years with political implementation periods of 2 years against educational timeframes of 14-16 years before success can be measured effectively. I hope someone other than government is given ownership of this issue (institutions, Curriculum Council, WACOT listen carefully), someone financially or legally independent from government interference needs to control the education debate. I can't believe I'm promoting three ineffective bodies but the government nonsense has to stop, the damage is potentially worse as Party politics swing with the latest trend.
Bring on the next batch of teacher bashing - we're whingers standing the way of progress. What would we know, we only teach, have degrees and live the education debate. We can't run when policy is wrong. Blaming teachers for poor results in the whole of WA is a cop out - after all teachers are not responsible for the systemic mismanagement of education over a long period of time, government is. We could probably also blame the union movement for something - that's a trendy way to shift blame too.
Politics is again in the way of common sense and we will again have to jump through hurdles for political necessity rather than good practice. Whatever damage is caused should be placed squarely in the lap of Julia Gillard and the Labor party (in the same way they will celebrate any successes). It's a big risk given the failures in other countries that could easily be mitigated through running a simple prototype and having statistically sound evidence of the positive effects first. The teaching fraternity cost the Labor party the state election in WA. Perhaps federal Labor too are forgetting (or have been ineffectively OBE taught) lessons learned in History classes.
Update 8-10-09: Here's another link about validity of league table findings.
This being the case Dr Hill (head of ACARA), it would be a good idea to limit the damage and make sure league tables actually work in one state/territory (I'd suggest NT as that's where NAPLAN shows the biggest issue is) before inflicting it on the rest of the nation. It is utterly irresponsible to do otherwise. We need to learn in education circles from the OBE fiasco... (Learning in education?? Don't be stupid!!) Oh and by the way, progress is not the best indicator of effective change in a school, if your progress is defined by invalid statistics.
On that topic, well done WA, we've taught to the test and improved our NAPLAN scores (see Saturday's West, 12 September p.7). There is still an absence of statistically valid evidence of curriculum improvement and retention of skills and knowledge beyond the test - at least none that I have seen. I wait to see the improvement in year 10's next year that should follow great NAPLAN results (highly unlikely due to changing demographics within the suburbs I teach due to increasing concentrations of refugees & 457 working visas) - I hope I get a performance pay rise too for being "super effective" as our results improve dramatically once normal demographics return and urban gentrification continues.
I hate to say it, as I'm as impatient for change as anyone but let's get the league table concept right (I don't see how but I'm open to rational argument) before implementing anything systemically across the nation. This takes time, which means political time lines of four years with political implementation periods of 2 years against educational timeframes of 14-16 years before success can be measured effectively. I hope someone other than government is given ownership of this issue (institutions, Curriculum Council, WACOT listen carefully), someone financially or legally independent from government interference needs to control the education debate. I can't believe I'm promoting three ineffective bodies but the government nonsense has to stop, the damage is potentially worse as Party politics swing with the latest trend.
Bring on the next batch of teacher bashing - we're whingers standing the way of progress. What would we know, we only teach, have degrees and live the education debate. We can't run when policy is wrong. Blaming teachers for poor results in the whole of WA is a cop out - after all teachers are not responsible for the systemic mismanagement of education over a long period of time, government is. We could probably also blame the union movement for something - that's a trendy way to shift blame too.
Politics is again in the way of common sense and we will again have to jump through hurdles for political necessity rather than good practice. Whatever damage is caused should be placed squarely in the lap of Julia Gillard and the Labor party (in the same way they will celebrate any successes). It's a big risk given the failures in other countries that could easily be mitigated through running a simple prototype and having statistically sound evidence of the positive effects first. The teaching fraternity cost the Labor party the state election in WA. Perhaps federal Labor too are forgetting (or have been ineffectively OBE taught) lessons learned in History classes.
Update 8-10-09: Here's another link about validity of league table findings.
Labels:
league tables
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)