It hasn't been an easy term with structural projects within the school being navigated whilst teaching programmes needed to continue. Whilst the process has been traversed as well as it could be, these things are not pleasant to be a part of and finalisation of them such that the focus of driving learning can be re-established will be a welcome change.
My first term as HoD is now nearly over. The departmental focus has been implementing resolution processes to ensure that a mutual understanding (teachers and students) of issues and consequences is effected. The issue is at the heart of teacher morale and having a HoD where responsibility lies seems to be making a difference. The outcome should be that teachers feel better supported and clear boundaries are set for students to work within.
There is an inbuilt conflict built into the HoD role in a small school as it has elements of student services (the "you'll be all right" care team type stuff) and the discipline ("this has gone on long enough, understand the consequences that follow") side. With struggling students you can be on both sides within short time frames.
Whilst doing the role I have tried to keep development of the teams going, working with teachers to develop skills, encouraging others to demonstrate their leadership capabilities within teams, develop behavioural support structures, identify professional development opportunities and allow staff time to demonstrate skills learned before intervening. With a challenging group of students, I always seem uncertain that I am doing enough, whilst the image seems to be that I have a lot of time and can be doing more.
The disappointing part is that I have not been able to achieve my core objectives for term 1, the completion of the math learning area plan and implement RTP in math/science. The learning area plan is incomplete although is evolving in structure to meet the needs of the school, but RTP is mired in the structural change, until classes become settled and administrative capacity available there seems little point to implementation.
There is a always a need for those in leadership positions to lead. With reduced numbers of L3 positions in the school I am mindful that this is ever more the case. Morale of staff is sometimes about pointing out the obvious achievements, keeping a focus on learning, identifying the positives, dealing directly with issues, discouraging negative perceptions and generating a culture around sound student achievement.
In the last few weeks in my own classes I have focused on student engagement, developing clear connections for students between assessment outcomes and the need to take ownership of results. It is evident that students often do not realise the need to utilise resources available, but it is equally evident that they need reasons made explicit to utilise these resources. One example was a test that students did poorly in - I provided two options for them - attend after school classes voluntarily to improve or I'll make calls to parents and make it involuntary. Needless to say they were empowered to turn up after school and enjoyed the well planned extension class (well done team!). It's ideas like this that can keep a group engaged and improving.
Having my computer stolen was devastating both in a loss of trust in my students and organisationally as it is a core element of my teaching. We had been working on iPad deployment with it, and without it we have had to stop. It's taken time to register with police and liaise with admin, time that would be better spent on learning programmes. I'm also disappointed that the work for the 1-1 iPad deployment was discarded for a shared model. This too has wasted a lot of effort in developing resources and deployment infrastructure.
The structural changes in the school will evolve the idea of HoD at our school and the school will have to decide whether my abilities fits the role. I'm doing my best to listen and enact changes as I see possible, but I need to recognise I can't be everything to everyone. It's week 9, and not a time to over think stuff - just execute and recharge over the holidays.
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Saturday, April 6, 2013
Supporting students after graduation
I have witnessed many wonderful things evolve at our school, but one of the most promising is the development of effective support structures for ex students. Developing Win-win situations for ex students and the school is very important to make these relationships work for all involved.
When I first arrived six years ago, graduating students often came back to the school and looked a bit lost. They said hello to teachers that barely remembered their names and I would get the feeling of loss that they would feel, coming back to a place where they were happy and felt safe that was now closed to them. This loss was heartfelt, as school is a launching pad for these students, a support that after graduation is lost.
Over the next few years we have looked at ways to engage ex-students, provide a level of support going forward and use the skills gained by students in navigating school to assist students within the system. It's a way of leveraging the goodwill gained during the 'best' times of their lives (though if it truly is the best, I'd be sad as it is a very small part of their lives).
The most obvious way was to encourage tertiary students to help at summer school. Students entering ATAR make mistakes preparing for the final two years and won't always listen to teachers as to the best method for preparing for one of the most stressful situations in their lives. By coming to summer school after graduation, they can share their experiences and have clear evidence of how far they have come in comparison to their fellow students. It's downtime for most students, so it only has minor impact on their commitments.
The recent emerging structure is seeing students come back as paid tutors after school. Students in first and second year university are finding that ICT is decreasing the number of required contact hours and they are now more free to engage in work related activities. We have found that our graduates are happy to come back and help out in after school programmes for high performing students and tutor. As effective tutors have typically been very difficult to find, it has been welcome to utilise they students as a resource (and fulfil a need of theirs to both belong and support their income).
A welcome aside is to assist our university bound students complete their courses. Our success is truly measured in their success and being able to give graduating students effective post-school support at critical times in their university journey may be the difference in completing their courses and failing. Assistance may be helping them through a first year math course and adapting to a more text orientated learning style with clear language differences than experienced in school. Support at tertiary institutions that work for a green leafy students, may not work for our headstrong students, who either do not fit in with peers well, or are too headstrong to engage in help structures and typically do not work well in groups. It takes them time to realise that there are students less intelligent that are completing successfully their courses and that they have something to offer beyond cynicism and self deprecating comments.
I have been pleasantly surprised by the number of students seeking math teaching as a pathway into the workforce. Having employed two of our mathematics practicum teachers in our team of four and having more on standby means that we have a pool of culturally aware teachers available to develop our mathematics department that can hit the ground running and avoid common issues found with our students. The fact that some of these are ex-students developing their peers is a whole of community bonus.
Much of this is officially non-core to our mission, but we know that many low-socioeconomic strategies have failed to increase tertiary engagement and effect social change. Post school programmes tied back to effective in school processes may be a factor that has not been sufficiently considered.
When I first arrived six years ago, graduating students often came back to the school and looked a bit lost. They said hello to teachers that barely remembered their names and I would get the feeling of loss that they would feel, coming back to a place where they were happy and felt safe that was now closed to them. This loss was heartfelt, as school is a launching pad for these students, a support that after graduation is lost.
Over the next few years we have looked at ways to engage ex-students, provide a level of support going forward and use the skills gained by students in navigating school to assist students within the system. It's a way of leveraging the goodwill gained during the 'best' times of their lives (though if it truly is the best, I'd be sad as it is a very small part of their lives).
The most obvious way was to encourage tertiary students to help at summer school. Students entering ATAR make mistakes preparing for the final two years and won't always listen to teachers as to the best method for preparing for one of the most stressful situations in their lives. By coming to summer school after graduation, they can share their experiences and have clear evidence of how far they have come in comparison to their fellow students. It's downtime for most students, so it only has minor impact on their commitments.
The recent emerging structure is seeing students come back as paid tutors after school. Students in first and second year university are finding that ICT is decreasing the number of required contact hours and they are now more free to engage in work related activities. We have found that our graduates are happy to come back and help out in after school programmes for high performing students and tutor. As effective tutors have typically been very difficult to find, it has been welcome to utilise they students as a resource (and fulfil a need of theirs to both belong and support their income).
A welcome aside is to assist our university bound students complete their courses. Our success is truly measured in their success and being able to give graduating students effective post-school support at critical times in their university journey may be the difference in completing their courses and failing. Assistance may be helping them through a first year math course and adapting to a more text orientated learning style with clear language differences than experienced in school. Support at tertiary institutions that work for a green leafy students, may not work for our headstrong students, who either do not fit in with peers well, or are too headstrong to engage in help structures and typically do not work well in groups. It takes them time to realise that there are students less intelligent that are completing successfully their courses and that they have something to offer beyond cynicism and self deprecating comments.
I have been pleasantly surprised by the number of students seeking math teaching as a pathway into the workforce. Having employed two of our mathematics practicum teachers in our team of four and having more on standby means that we have a pool of culturally aware teachers available to develop our mathematics department that can hit the ground running and avoid common issues found with our students. The fact that some of these are ex-students developing their peers is a whole of community bonus.
Much of this is officially non-core to our mission, but we know that many low-socioeconomic strategies have failed to increase tertiary engagement and effect social change. Post school programmes tied back to effective in school processes may be a factor that has not been sufficiently considered.
Labels:
goodwill,
graduate teachers,
teaching
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Combined 11/12 courses for Australian Curriculum
One of the surprising successes of the school has been the running of combined classes in 11 and 12. It has been made clear that SCASA ("the authority") does not want this to continue with Australian Curriculum. This was stated by teachers at the Swan Schools Conference that are part of math discussion groups with SCASA.
At the moment we can run 1BC / 1DE / 2AB / 2CD / 3AB / 3CD MAT, 3AB 3CD MAS and even PA/PB or 1A courses as needs arise with a high school cohort of 470. With an even smaller cohort this year, this will need to be reconsidered but is manageable.
We can do this because if we have 10-15 students from yr 11 and 10-12 students from yr 12, we can combine them to make a reasonable sized class (except the end courses 1DE MAT or 3CD MAT or specialist courses 3ABCD which can run at around 10 because of the larger classes). This structure provides differentiation for our students and has been effective.
If we could not run these combined yr 11/12 classes, specialist courses could not run having a detrimental effect on school marketing as an academic institution. Furthermore combining year groups has had the surprising effect of exposing yr 11s to students that have adjusted to yr 11/12 workloads providing the level of mentoring that MAG classes always promised (but never really delivered) because the endpoint is actually evident and the drive to work harder has clear reward. Using this method we have built our 3CD courses to 7-8 students, a respectable 12% of our yr 12 cohort (with MAT class averages over 60% close to state averages).
The school cannot run Australian Curriculum "Focus, Essentials/General, Methods and Specialist yr 11" with class sizes of 10-15 and "Focus, Essentials, Methods and Specialist yr 12" with classes of around 10. It will not fit within a small school math department staffing profile. It's going from 8 courses with reasonable numbers to 8 courses where the spread of students is not even, requiring additional classes (this is only evident when student cohorts are put to courses during timetabling). Add to this the increased focus on the WACE numeracy test with management of students failing the test in year 10 and then passing the test in year 11 (thus making general course sizes variable), I see issues on the horizon.
Given that a reasonable number of schools are in this predicament due to boundary degradation, half cohorts, yr 7s in private schools, gentrification and a host of local reasons, this will further degrade the offerings of small public schools, ultimately further reducing their competitiveness.
I hope this is a direction that SCASA will reconsider.
At the moment we can run 1BC / 1DE / 2AB / 2CD / 3AB / 3CD MAT, 3AB 3CD MAS and even PA/PB or 1A courses as needs arise with a high school cohort of 470. With an even smaller cohort this year, this will need to be reconsidered but is manageable.
We can do this because if we have 10-15 students from yr 11 and 10-12 students from yr 12, we can combine them to make a reasonable sized class (except the end courses 1DE MAT or 3CD MAT or specialist courses 3ABCD which can run at around 10 because of the larger classes). This structure provides differentiation for our students and has been effective.
If we could not run these combined yr 11/12 classes, specialist courses could not run having a detrimental effect on school marketing as an academic institution. Furthermore combining year groups has had the surprising effect of exposing yr 11s to students that have adjusted to yr 11/12 workloads providing the level of mentoring that MAG classes always promised (but never really delivered) because the endpoint is actually evident and the drive to work harder has clear reward. Using this method we have built our 3CD courses to 7-8 students, a respectable 12% of our yr 12 cohort (with MAT class averages over 60% close to state averages).
The school cannot run Australian Curriculum "Focus, Essentials/General, Methods and Specialist yr 11" with class sizes of 10-15 and "Focus, Essentials, Methods and Specialist yr 12" with classes of around 10. It will not fit within a small school math department staffing profile. It's going from 8 courses with reasonable numbers to 8 courses where the spread of students is not even, requiring additional classes (this is only evident when student cohorts are put to courses during timetabling). Add to this the increased focus on the WACE numeracy test with management of students failing the test in year 10 and then passing the test in year 11 (thus making general course sizes variable), I see issues on the horizon.
Given that a reasonable number of schools are in this predicament due to boundary degradation, half cohorts, yr 7s in private schools, gentrification and a host of local reasons, this will further degrade the offerings of small public schools, ultimately further reducing their competitiveness.
I hope this is a direction that SCASA will reconsider.
Labels:
Australian curriculum
Saturday, March 16, 2013
iPad journey
My iPad journey has hit a snag. I designed a model that sends the iPads home and it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that I won't be allowed to do it.
This means something that was meant to complement classroom activities has become something that dominates preparation time.
Let me explain...
Responsibility
In a 1-1 model, students are responsible for the iPads, tracking usage is relatively simple. In a classroom model, teachers are responsible. This means keeping them in locked stores, being aware of which student has and had each iPad at all times, being able to liaise with ICT when misuse happens and identify which student (in which class) had the iPad. If multiple teachers are involved this rapidly becomes untrackable as are issues with moving between rooms around the school (30 iPads are heavy).
Timing
In a 1-1 model, students take iPads out of their bags and put them back in - no real impact. In a classroom model, taking them from the store, issuing them to students and counting them back in at the end of the lesson is time consuming. 5-10 minutes is 10-20% of learning time.
Usage
In a 1-1 model, students are trained to do the same thing every lesson with the iPads, they become just another tool like pen and paper. In a classroom model, there is a novelty factor, they fiddle with them, it's harder to train them into desired behaviours (like putting them at the top of their desks when doing written work). Furthermore, each iPad is now being used over multiple year groups with a range of students, increasing the demands for identifying suitable materials than if it was focussed on one student at a particular skill level. There is little point designing ebooks to put on iPads if they are going to remain in cupboards rather than used in conjunction with homework. In a classroom model, levels of students have to be catered for if the iPads are to be used effectively. In a take home model, the iPad can be used more effectively as an intervention tool (where the student does not miss teaching whilst catching up).
Incidental usage
In a 1-1 model, incidental usage is possible. In a classroom model, because there is an overhead to allocating the iPads, incidental usage is not as likely - I'm not taking them out for 5 minutes of use, whereas I might let a student that has an iPad do tables practice if they have completed their work if there is one on the corner of their desk..
Retention of work
In a 1-1 model, the work is on the iPad and can be worked on over a number of lessons. In a classroom model, classwork has to be stored on resources linked to students rather than the device and this resource needs to be accessed from multiple devices. Although this is normally the preferred model, iPads are not well suited to this and workarounds need to be found. Any type of user authentication will slow down classes as authentication issues reduce available teaching time.
Behavioural incentive
In a 1-1 model, loss of the device is a real behavioural incentive. In a classroom model, it's only lost until the end of a class, a minor inconvenience.
I like using the iPads as mini whiteboards, doing quizzes on topics and giving students instant feedback to how they are doing, having lessons focussed on core numeracy. We can now video students attempting problems and use it for diagnostics of a range of tasks.. I get all that.. but ultimately...
Conclusion: Poorly suited to classroom mode use in high school
Most apps at the moment are rote learning practice based - something that is poorly suited to learning environments and better suited to play (in extension or after school classes) or at home - they are important, just not in a highschool classroom with the overhead suggested. Unless the student is able to use the device without impact on a learning programme it has the potential to be a distraction from the main game - learning. Unlike in primary (with the same students in a class), I can't see how I can get utilisation to a level where buying iPads is viable for students within learning area budgets for use in classrooms (IWBs, texts and exercise books are more cost effective in 95% of cases).
If you take into account that applications need to be found to use on the iPads and classes designed for their use, put these issues on top and my enthusiasm wanes rapidly. I am not saying that these issues cannot be overcome (and I have solutions for each issue), I question whether they are worth overcoming. The outcome at the moment is that rather than complementing classroom use, they are fast become an impact tool only, one that I'm not sure is worth the investment of time, cost and effort within a classroom compared to other techniques.
I'm sure I'm not making each point as clearly as I could but they are a basis for discussion. I'm also a little negative as I did a lot of work to ready the programme for take home use (with enthusiasm generated by students and parents) and now have to rethink it, something that I can't do now - it will have to wait until later in the year.
This means something that was meant to complement classroom activities has become something that dominates preparation time.
Let me explain...
Responsibility
In a 1-1 model, students are responsible for the iPads, tracking usage is relatively simple. In a classroom model, teachers are responsible. This means keeping them in locked stores, being aware of which student has and had each iPad at all times, being able to liaise with ICT when misuse happens and identify which student (in which class) had the iPad. If multiple teachers are involved this rapidly becomes untrackable as are issues with moving between rooms around the school (30 iPads are heavy).
Timing
In a 1-1 model, students take iPads out of their bags and put them back in - no real impact. In a classroom model, taking them from the store, issuing them to students and counting them back in at the end of the lesson is time consuming. 5-10 minutes is 10-20% of learning time.
Usage
In a 1-1 model, students are trained to do the same thing every lesson with the iPads, they become just another tool like pen and paper. In a classroom model, there is a novelty factor, they fiddle with them, it's harder to train them into desired behaviours (like putting them at the top of their desks when doing written work). Furthermore, each iPad is now being used over multiple year groups with a range of students, increasing the demands for identifying suitable materials than if it was focussed on one student at a particular skill level. There is little point designing ebooks to put on iPads if they are going to remain in cupboards rather than used in conjunction with homework. In a classroom model, levels of students have to be catered for if the iPads are to be used effectively. In a take home model, the iPad can be used more effectively as an intervention tool (where the student does not miss teaching whilst catching up).
Incidental usage
In a 1-1 model, incidental usage is possible. In a classroom model, because there is an overhead to allocating the iPads, incidental usage is not as likely - I'm not taking them out for 5 minutes of use, whereas I might let a student that has an iPad do tables practice if they have completed their work if there is one on the corner of their desk..
Maintenance
In a 1-1 model, students are responsible for charging iPads, uploading apps and fixing small issues, along with ICT staff. In a classroom model, teachers are responsible for identifying issues, finding solutions and liasing with ICT staff. This should not be underestimated, as anyone that is in charge of a computer lab will recognise.Retention of work
In a 1-1 model, the work is on the iPad and can be worked on over a number of lessons. In a classroom model, classwork has to be stored on resources linked to students rather than the device and this resource needs to be accessed from multiple devices. Although this is normally the preferred model, iPads are not well suited to this and workarounds need to be found. Any type of user authentication will slow down classes as authentication issues reduce available teaching time.
Behavioural incentive
In a 1-1 model, loss of the device is a real behavioural incentive. In a classroom model, it's only lost until the end of a class, a minor inconvenience.
I like using the iPads as mini whiteboards, doing quizzes on topics and giving students instant feedback to how they are doing, having lessons focussed on core numeracy. We can now video students attempting problems and use it for diagnostics of a range of tasks.. I get all that.. but ultimately...
Conclusion: Poorly suited to classroom mode use in high school
Most apps at the moment are rote learning practice based - something that is poorly suited to learning environments and better suited to play (in extension or after school classes) or at home - they are important, just not in a highschool classroom with the overhead suggested. Unless the student is able to use the device without impact on a learning programme it has the potential to be a distraction from the main game - learning. Unlike in primary (with the same students in a class), I can't see how I can get utilisation to a level where buying iPads is viable for students within learning area budgets for use in classrooms (IWBs, texts and exercise books are more cost effective in 95% of cases).
If you take into account that applications need to be found to use on the iPads and classes designed for their use, put these issues on top and my enthusiasm wanes rapidly. I am not saying that these issues cannot be overcome (and I have solutions for each issue), I question whether they are worth overcoming. The outcome at the moment is that rather than complementing classroom use, they are fast become an impact tool only, one that I'm not sure is worth the investment of time, cost and effort within a classroom compared to other techniques.
I'm sure I'm not making each point as clearly as I could but they are a basis for discussion. I'm also a little negative as I did a lot of work to ready the programme for take home use (with enthusiasm generated by students and parents) and now have to rethink it, something that I can't do now - it will have to wait until later in the year.
Monday, March 4, 2013
IPads and the classroom
I hate ICT when used without purpose.
Some of my favourite misuses of technology:
Some of my favourite misuses of technology:
- Social Networking
- Research assignments
- Interactives
- Online learning modules
- Portals
- Blogs & Wikis
If someone comes to you and says we should be doing this, immediately ask why. I wouldn't give a teacher a sledgehammer hoping that they will find something to do with it. That's what is happening all too often with ICT. You can do great things with these tools, but they need to be appropriate for the task.
Rather, start with a problem that inhibits learning. If ICT is the optimum solution for solving the problem - then use it.
I have a problem in one of our streams. Student work rate is low in the top class and self image is at risk in the focus class. There is no personal excitement in learning new concepts and little drive observed. The gap between the top and bottom class is quite large and there are issues with core numeracy skills in both groups.
I had 30 IPads at my disposal, so i designed a solution to bring both classes together (50 kids) and bring some excitement back to the group. I could have done it without the iPads but it saved me some work and was a motivational factor for the kids. I was lucky to have four teachers available to help on the day so student ratios (even though there were a lot of kids) were low.
Problem: Low motivation and low student output.
Solution: Use the iPads as motivation for completing a large amount of work to illustrate what can be done by students. Schedule high and low performing students together.
Method: Six worksheets on core numeracy (tables and basic number facts) were placed at the side of the room. All students were given the first sheet (25 questions). The next sheet was given on completion of the previous sheet. Students were given an iPad on completion of the last sheet. Students in the focus stream only had to complete 4 sheets in the timeframe. A math game (KingofMaths) was placed on the iPads($30 total cost) and high scores were recorded on the board (with the top stream students given a 10000 point handicap).
Outcome: Crazy, off the chart fun. Completely controlled chaos. Each student completed over 100 questions in the hour with little difficulty. The few disengaged students were identified for further work, other students were taking the incomplete sheets home to do them later. There was a sense of fun in the room and students were able to see what they could do when they tried.
It hasn't solved the problem (that takes time) but has given students a new way of looking at what they can do. Next week I have some puzzles to do to challenge their thinking, not just their computation speed, using a similar model. Given that the whole thing too about 30 minutes of preparation and was a first attempt, I think we can improve with more efforts. I would not do this every lesson, but once a week I can see how we can attack the type of topics used in NAPLAN and improve our results further. Teachers in the room responded that they thought it was awesome and something completely different to what we normally do. Hopefully it will stimulate ideas for driving teaching pedagogy further.
Saturday, February 16, 2013
IEPs and engagement
Students cannot sit and do nothing in my classes. It's a fundamental of my classes, something introduced to me by an EA when I first started in the school. She has now gone on to be a teacher, and I'm sure a fine one. It was an interesting lesson to me at the start of my career. Listen to those experienced around me and that a good EA is worth gold for what they are paid.
That's not to say all EAs are great. Some are decidedly ordinary - the issue being how to identify when an EA is being effective or ineffective... We need to be fair - is it the fault of the EA giving a student individual assistance, the fault of the teacher giving a poor instruction, not adequately meeting the needs of the student or are the expectations of the student/teacher/EA unachievable given a certain circumstance (medical, emotional, developmental, prior learning, attitudinal).
Given a circumstance when a student is not learning - and as HoD I am responsible for learning (where the care team are ultimately responsible for monitoring and improving behaviour/attendance through IBPs), I face a difficult task as often the circumstance of a particular student is "confidential" and the lines of communication are muddied by "who needs to know". With "at risk" students it is common to assign an EA to assist the student remain in class and learn. I'm not a believer in withdrawal for extended periods (students in life will rarely have personal tutors), and teachers are overpaid to be babysitters and not have students learning.
What I really need to know as HoD are the strategies that are expected to work (developed in conjunction with the care team), that the teacher involved knows what is necessary to enact the strategy, that they are equipped to do it, they have the required resources (such as an EA) and that the student is on the same page - then I need to monitor that it is in effect and check it's effectiveness. To my mind the performance contract is the IEP. I don't need to know the condition of the student, just the main effects of it, the strategies in place to ensure learning is happening and whether it is working.
The model I describe is teacher centric and unapologetically so. If the teacher has responsibility for learning in the classroom, then they are responsible for ensuring learning is adequately occurring - ensuring there is an effective learning programme. If a student is refusing to work, then it is the responsibility of the EA to make the teacher aware and then the teacher to enact change. If the assessment is that the EA is not enacting the strategy as designed - then and only then, can the EA be assessed as ineffective.
The EA/teacher role needs to be in synergy, realising that we don't live in a perfect world (things won't always work with difficult students) and with some amount of lookahead as materials will need to be modified by the EA to ensure that they are suitable for the student. The IEP has it's place here too as it documents the role of the EA and the tasks they need to do in preparing a lesson.
The bottom line is, it costs a lot to assign an EA to a student. If the cost/benefit analysis is not there - we need to recognise that it is an expensive intervention and that it needs to be given priority to design a new solution. After all, in a high or mid performing class, with a skilled EA, that person could be helping ten students rather than effectively helping none.
That's not to say all EAs are great. Some are decidedly ordinary - the issue being how to identify when an EA is being effective or ineffective... We need to be fair - is it the fault of the EA giving a student individual assistance, the fault of the teacher giving a poor instruction, not adequately meeting the needs of the student or are the expectations of the student/teacher/EA unachievable given a certain circumstance (medical, emotional, developmental, prior learning, attitudinal).
Given a circumstance when a student is not learning - and as HoD I am responsible for learning (where the care team are ultimately responsible for monitoring and improving behaviour/attendance through IBPs), I face a difficult task as often the circumstance of a particular student is "confidential" and the lines of communication are muddied by "who needs to know". With "at risk" students it is common to assign an EA to assist the student remain in class and learn. I'm not a believer in withdrawal for extended periods (students in life will rarely have personal tutors), and teachers are overpaid to be babysitters and not have students learning.
What I really need to know as HoD are the strategies that are expected to work (developed in conjunction with the care team), that the teacher involved knows what is necessary to enact the strategy, that they are equipped to do it, they have the required resources (such as an EA) and that the student is on the same page - then I need to monitor that it is in effect and check it's effectiveness. To my mind the performance contract is the IEP. I don't need to know the condition of the student, just the main effects of it, the strategies in place to ensure learning is happening and whether it is working.
The model I describe is teacher centric and unapologetically so. If the teacher has responsibility for learning in the classroom, then they are responsible for ensuring learning is adequately occurring - ensuring there is an effective learning programme. If a student is refusing to work, then it is the responsibility of the EA to make the teacher aware and then the teacher to enact change. If the assessment is that the EA is not enacting the strategy as designed - then and only then, can the EA be assessed as ineffective.
The EA/teacher role needs to be in synergy, realising that we don't live in a perfect world (things won't always work with difficult students) and with some amount of lookahead as materials will need to be modified by the EA to ensure that they are suitable for the student. The IEP has it's place here too as it documents the role of the EA and the tasks they need to do in preparing a lesson.
The bottom line is, it costs a lot to assign an EA to a student. If the cost/benefit analysis is not there - we need to recognise that it is an expensive intervention and that it needs to be given priority to design a new solution. After all, in a high or mid performing class, with a skilled EA, that person could be helping ten students rather than effectively helping none.
Labels:
Teacher assistants,
teaching
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Documentation
Coming from a world of litigation prior to teaching, I understand the reticence some have in writing down what you have said. For many, not writing something down leads to deniability and the ability to change position without having evidence of doing so.
I have never thought of written evidence that way. I was once told, don't write something down that you wouldn't want to appear in a court of law. Secondly I was told never to write an email in anger. I think these are both wise but are only part of the story.
Only today I was told that communications I sent last year were likely to come back and bite me, but they are opinions at best, that people can take or leave - I'm not precious about my opinions, nor do I have a monopoly on being right. I aim to help, and hopefully that is what I do most of the time.
The problem with not writing things down is that memory is fallible, and a lack of documentation (or inadequate documentation) means that definite positions are lost to the mists of time or worse still, history is re-written by those that have no evidence at all because no evidence to the contrary is available.
At our school I am seen as a supporter of IPS, but those reading this blog will realise that I criticised it before our implementation and that I continue to be wary of it. My support for it was based in the people that needed it to staff the school, not in what I thought it would achieve in other areas.
I have criticised OBE widely, but have supported ideas within OBE, and question its implementation more than the underlying concept. I've seen it work, and have seen the consequences of diabolical assessment policies, hoping that we have learned from the issues and won't repeat them with Australian Curriculum. The fact that we lack clear guidance for assessment and that an ambitious implementation plan set to political timeframes is occurring, means that we have some difficult years ahead.
I have watched the effects of delaying year 7 transition to high school and the effect of the half cohort on small schools. Schools continue to struggle with planning over the next few years, and the effort ensuring the ATAR courses in some guise will be practical under national curriculum requirements will be considerable. 2015 will be a watershed year for public school education.
By writing things down I can see how my opinions have formed and changed based on circumstance and perspective, I can reflect on my decisions (good and bad) and attempt to make better informed decisions in future. Though this may be a brave position, I think documentation of this sort is important for future planning and that a fear of documentation where honesty and positive intent is present is ill founded.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Head of Department.
Today was my first day as Head of Department of our high school. Six years and a fair bit of work has resulted in a position where I can monitor progress and instigate change to improve the learning programmes of students. It's a role gained through attrition to some degree with some people better than I passing through it on the way to other roles, but I'll take it and make it into how I see it. It's a two edged sword as I have to give up some class time, but it will free time to develop the courses further - which can only be a good thing.
Recently two bits of research crossed my desk. The first stated that self discipline was more important than IQ, something that I have believed for a long time (albeit I attribute it to work ethic rather than self discipline - but I see them as two sides of the same coin). The second indicated that social networks were detrimental to student learning, particularly for students of low self esteem (in hindsight, this is obvious like most insights into human behaviour).
We ran our summer school again this year and it was our most successful thus far, involving students from three year groups, graduating students, past students, practicum teachers, university students and teachers from the school. Student responses on day five were overwhelmingly positive, indicating that the format is working and students can see how it is helping them. It was interesting to note that the presenters believed we could have been more prepared, yet the students believed we were well prepared indicating that either we can do far better, or that the kids liked the responsiveness created by the flexibility required by being ill prepared. I'm not sure, but this year, with a plethora of presenters, I wasn't as pressured as in past years (and to all the presenters a big thank you!).
I played a game of LNOE tonight, and it was by far the best zombie game I have played so far. It plays in under an hour, so I look forward to playing it with the kids. Should be a bit of fun.
I had a quick look again at the National Curriculum progress, particularly for senior school today, and it was interesting to see how close the descriptions were to WACE outlines, making the transition a little easier. Having only looked at the essential (Voc type course like MwM or MiPs) and the general course descriptions, my anxiety levels are dropping as long as we can get the national curriculum courses working in 8, 9, 10.
I like the new found emphasis on delivering courses to pathways whether office, vocational or university. It gives guidance to the materials required in a way general courses did not. It will be interesting to see if course planners can continue to predict the needs of the pathways and stay ahead such that the right students are always available. Protecting the element of learning for learning's sake is important as it is how we future proof our courses - I would hate to see them only teaching what is required for today's industry.
We're a good team in 2013 and I look forward to some good results.
Recently two bits of research crossed my desk. The first stated that self discipline was more important than IQ, something that I have believed for a long time (albeit I attribute it to work ethic rather than self discipline - but I see them as two sides of the same coin). The second indicated that social networks were detrimental to student learning, particularly for students of low self esteem (in hindsight, this is obvious like most insights into human behaviour).
We ran our summer school again this year and it was our most successful thus far, involving students from three year groups, graduating students, past students, practicum teachers, university students and teachers from the school. Student responses on day five were overwhelmingly positive, indicating that the format is working and students can see how it is helping them. It was interesting to note that the presenters believed we could have been more prepared, yet the students believed we were well prepared indicating that either we can do far better, or that the kids liked the responsiveness created by the flexibility required by being ill prepared. I'm not sure, but this year, with a plethora of presenters, I wasn't as pressured as in past years (and to all the presenters a big thank you!).
I played a game of LNOE tonight, and it was by far the best zombie game I have played so far. It plays in under an hour, so I look forward to playing it with the kids. Should be a bit of fun.
I had a quick look again at the National Curriculum progress, particularly for senior school today, and it was interesting to see how close the descriptions were to WACE outlines, making the transition a little easier. Having only looked at the essential (Voc type course like MwM or MiPs) and the general course descriptions, my anxiety levels are dropping as long as we can get the national curriculum courses working in 8, 9, 10.
I like the new found emphasis on delivering courses to pathways whether office, vocational or university. It gives guidance to the materials required in a way general courses did not. It will be interesting to see if course planners can continue to predict the needs of the pathways and stay ahead such that the right students are always available. Protecting the element of learning for learning's sake is important as it is how we future proof our courses - I would hate to see them only teaching what is required for today's industry.
We're a good team in 2013 and I look forward to some good results.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)