ideasfarm.net

My second reason for being cheerful is that James Dyson is displaying a key designer characteristic – persistence.

Despite numerous and painful setbacks in his crusade to alert the country to the importance of Design and Technology education he has refused to surrender. Keep going James!

This article in the Telegraph provides a wonderfully articulate argument to government. Better still James Dyson has been asked to advise the government on these areas:

Click to download the full PDF here

We need more advocates like the James Dyson and his  foundation. Website here

Design and Technology started well before 1989. I and others wrote a Mode 2 examination in the 1970s despite the awarding body saying it was not mainstream and there would be no demand. Before that the Schools Council produced a booklet called “Problem solving through the use of materials”.  The subject became compulsory in 1989 but has suffered from a shortage of appropriate teachers, a rigid examination system which was too tightly controlled by government and a reluctance to challenge both teachers and students. There is really excellent world class work out there in schools but it is achieved by working around the constraints.

In the 70s and 80s the subject advanced dramatically because teachers were in control (see Assessing Technology by Richard Kimbell OU Press) supported by Mike Ive, HMI, father of Jonathon Ive, the Apple chief designer. Mike Ive is most proud of introducing D&T into primary schools but he also fought hard to spare the subject from the dead hand of political interference and inappropriate examination frameworks. I was a student of Mike Ive – he was very young too!

If you’re reading this James a few suggestions:

• Ask for D&T to be taken out of the current assessment structure. Free it from the dead hand of conformity and political interference.
• Focus on D&T competencies i.e. energy, persistence, problem solving, materials, making/organisational skills, enterprise, collaboration, creative thinking and assess achievement of those attributes not prescribed lumps of knowledge. Allow any material or technology to be used and do not prescribe the approach.
• Assess holistically via peer, public  and teacher/facilitator judgement. Keep it simple, I have a model for this too. A failed product should not necessarily mean a failed assessment – that’s life. Technology allows us to compare and index standards globally
• Use technology to support all involved – collaborative working and assessment. The model’s here.
• Involve real clients and real experts in the process. An example from something I began earlier.
• Mingle students with real designers and technologists – Trevor Baylis visited and inspired two of my able students to start design and technology careers.

Be bold, take a risk – we desperately need that!

This quote returns to haunt us…

Teachers often receive little or no subsequent training which, given the pace at which IT develops, means their knowledge soon becomes outdated. And because there is no mechanism by which teachers can continuously learn and communicate with one another, it is hard – except perhaps within the largest schools – for teachers to share experience and ideas.

THE FUTURE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IN UK SCHOOLS,
McKinsey & Company, March 1997

Little has changed. We still have a CPD regime which employs an ineffective and wasteful model. A model which many research projects continually remind us fails to embed innovations. As society in general embraces technology to achieve change, education is not, despite millions of pounds of investment.

IDeA the Improvement and Development Agency for local government has established a secure  online communications system which offers a range of features to enable users to form and communicate with their own groups. If only this were to be employed by education professionals it would empower them to lead their own development. A tool to change the approach from top down to bottom up – the way research tells us it needs to be.

Yes, there are tools like this being used, but only by a few, and with only short term funding. They are fragile and the informal ones, using existing free communication tools, are really not the answer when confidential discussions may be stored on servers anywhere in the world. Nor is there a coherent structure for the  various elements which can be readily recognised and understood by users.

It needs the vision of a government to commit to the adoption of a UTILITY for the whole education service as suggested by the 1997 McKinsey report.

If it can be done for local government it can be done for education.

That alone will not kick start the activity. We need to move to ensure that all teachers use the tools not by coersion but because it improves their working lives and reduces burdens.

So what stops that happening? There is simply no requirement to use ICT despite all the investment. It is still possible for schools to, largely, duck the issue and continue as before.

How many awarding bodies offer fully online assessment systems?

By shifting assessment procedures online all teachers would have a need to log-on. Link that to the UTILITY and reward teachers for collaborating and then we have a true purpose which will drive the engagement.

“Teachers will not take up attractive sounding ideas, albeit based on extensive research, if these are presented as general principles which leave entirely to them the task of translating them into everyday practice—their classroom lives are too busy and too fragile for this to be
possible for all but an outstanding few. What they need is a variety of living examples of implementation, by teachers with whom they can identify and from whom they can both derive conviction and confidence that they can do better, and see concrete examples of what doing better means in practice.”
Inside the Black Box, Raising Standards Through Classroom Assessment, Paul Black and Dylan Wiliam

The UTILITY could address the need identified in 1997 and enable teachers to collaborate at their convenience and with whom they choose. Fully developed, to include access to academics and government, it would also enable a truly democratic approach to flourish. It would require institutions such as subject assocations and government agencies to adapt as the profession gained direct access to legislators and academics.  Some would still have a role others would be rendered irrelevant.

The 1997  McKinsey report was right, the tools are now available.  Who has the vision to commit?

More background here

Leading CPD in the School – Using Web 2.0 Tools a seminar lead by Professor Marilyn Leask at Brunel University. It was an invited audience representing DCSF, SSAT MirandaNet, academics and others.

There were a number of presentations including one by Steve Dale who has been a key developer of the IDeA knowledge management community. The IDeA KM platform employs a number of web 2 tools but in a secure environment. Crucially it is capable of finding individuals and communities with specific interests. If only that tool was used by the education service! Yes, web 2 tools are being used but they are scattered and fragile because they largely depend on volunteers or short term funding. I fear for an education service that hopes to innovate using such ad hoc arrangements.

Engaging teachers in a collaborative KM tool is essential and I argued that the examination system holds the key to not only ensuring teachers use ICT but it makes interaction unavoidable.

My presentation focused on CPD achieved by teachers collaborating online. I’ll let the PowerPoint available here tell the story. a

Other reports from Sarah Jones and  Richard Millwood

The term ‘killer application’ is perhaps overused but this one deserves the accolade. Core education NZ have created a very powerful tool which allows the whole school to ‘hold a mirror’ up to itself.  Carefully developed over 8 years it is currently being employed in hundreds of New Zealand schools and attracted considerable interest in the UK in the past month. The information it generates, with minimal time input, is displayed in a straightforward and readily understood way. I found it simple to use, yet very powerful, it enables users to identify the key points to address without time consuming interpretation, that’s done for you. I was genuinely impressed, even after allowing for my bias.
Dr Julia Atkin explains how she has employed 20 years of experience in this field to structure this sophisticated evaluation tool EPS2.0

More Details here

Imagine a group of schools determined to adapt to the rapidly changing and unpredictable demands of the 21st century. Recognising, that together, they can benefit by pooling ideas and resources. Accepting that teachers need to be empowered to innovate and be reflective professionals, constantly reviewing their practice.

At ease in a constant cycle of review and improvement or ‘perpetual beta’.

Determined as institutions to embark on joint curriculum innovation and enlightened pedagogy, focused on citizenship with a global perspective.

Imagine being invited to join that group to facilitate their founding conference and provide an overview of how technology can enable that vision. I was, and I am still smiling. The experience was exhilarating.

It was a three day conference in the Netherlands. School leaders and partnership coordinators representing schools across Europe, including Germany, Holland, Belgium, Lithuania and Romania, met with a determination to establish a deep and long-term collaboration. Schools in Turkey, England and Sicily could not attend but asked to be considered in the plans. Each school had a further global network of schools which cooperate on exchanges and other activities.
The focus is on European citizenship but with some exciting twists including international enterprise and entrepreneurship. This group, with huge potential, recognises the role of continuing professional development in transforming education. They are keen to extend teacher job shadowing teacher exchange and international student work experience.

The principle of distributed leadership and shared responsibility was accepted as necessary to achieve the objectives. Too many projects have failed when key staff have moved on. This conference, crucially, included headteachers and coordinators who could commit to a long term and enduring relationship on behalf of their schools. They also acknowledge that all stakeholders need to be consulted, informed and engaged in the process - parents, teachers, students and not forgetting education officials and politicians.

With all these connections the possibility of creating a robust networked cluster system, for sharing expertise ‘virally’, becomes a possibility.

This group need and deserve support to establish this relationship which could be a model for others to emulate. Please contact me if you can offer sponsorship of any kind or know of an organisation that may.

Some key issues arise here.

How do we accredit and reward practitioners who rise to this challenge?

When students seek, as they are, to personalise their experience and access part of their education from an international source how is that to be funded and accredited?

Where is the accreditation system and agile structure to support this? I have some ideas, so do these schools and they have the vision. I hope I can be useful.

At last common sense and not a little research evidence has prevailed. The proposal to increase CPD is the single best investment a government can make in education. Now please don’t waste the opportunity.

Scattered among the excellent conclusions of this report are some preconceptions based on a failed historical model which I hope will not survive as regulations.

“Twenty days” is seriously good provision. I hope that carries the postcript ‘of funding’ which would enable some creative innovation in approach to flourish.

“Course” Please stop talking ‘courses’. Courses are notorious for failing to result in impact UNLESS they are followed up with refreshers, reflection and dialogue between practitioners of mutual respect. The practitioners already embody a huge and largely untapped reservoir of experience, intuition and knowledge. They are professionals let’s respect them and recognise their contribution. Better still reward those who do support others

“decisions … taken away from schools and given to teachers” Teachers will not have true professional status until they are in control of their own standards and professional learning. It is not healthy for the teacher or the employer if the school controls ‘what’ and ‘how’ or even the ‘when’ of all professional development which takes place. I would like to see teachers take a wider global view of professional development. There are many good things happening in other countries from which we can learn. Some enlightened schools already encourage that by supporting teacher visits abroad.

“…making it compulsory for all teachers to watch colleagues teach four times a term.” First define ‘watch’ and then justify the number. Lets stop dictating and start recommending. Learning from other teachers is essential but leave the how and how often, as if it were a course, to creative teachers. This need not be a rigidly defined serial activity. It is possible with existing technology, for teachers to actually work with others continuously.

“Money would go to individual teachers who would select their own courses, conferences or visits for 10 days of external training every year.”

Replace “courses, conferences or visits” with ‘professional development activity’. Then this looks very much like the Dutch model which I admire. See what I mean about learning from others, globally?

“could create financial challenges for schools paying for cover.” and
Derek Davies, head of Stretford High, Manchester, said: “I agree with the principle of more training but increasing it to 20 days a year is just not going to be practical. It isn’t a problem that more money for extra cover would remedy; it is the break in the consistency of teaching that can be damaging for pupils.”

Both of these statements assume the method of operation will be based on traditional practice. The principle of more CPD is good but we need a ‘can-do’ attitude and an open mind. It can be done, other countries do it. Our country, our teachers and our students need deserve a better CPD approach.

I think I have discovered a new mathematical constant to join many others which are more familiar such as the circular constant Pi and the golden ratio (phi) or 1:1.6

The new one is less precise and will immediately be rejected by mathematicians but I still thinks it’s significant.

Naturally you will want to know how this discovery was made. For many years now I’ve taken a close interest in tracking change in education and often paused to make a permanent entry in my brain – multitasking is a challenge for me, I’m male.

I have a habit of asking those I meet, who visit many schools and have seen many teachers in action, a number of questions which include:

How many…

• teachers are ready to adopt new approaches to learning and assessment
• schools have ICT embedded as a tool for learning and management
• schools are learning schools, encouraging and empowering innovation

Almost without hesitation the reply is 15-20% usually followed by a pause and the comment “maybe nearer 15%”.

So this new constant is 15% and I feels it deserves a Greek letter but there isn’t one called ‘sigh’ but we will call it that anyway.

As you will have noticed this is not a scientific survey, it is anecdotal, but it is also indicative of a perceived problem.

The conversations I have mention new teachers who, confronted with a school and department which will not allow them to teach as they expected, become frustrated and leave the profession. I also hear of headteachers who seek new funding under the BSF programme but are unwilling adopt the spirit of the reforms and innovate.

We have some startlingly good schools and teachers who push the boundaries to create to create vibrant schools and new pedagogies. I knew some when I first started teaching ….maybe 15% were like that. Those schools are not the same ones leading the way today the change never became established.

The truth is the changes are dependent on key staff and governors who have engaged the support of parents and students and enthused them. Once those factors change, often by key players being promoted, the school slips into cautious, default mode.

This is not a revelation, twas always thus, research has shown over decades that teaching is cultural, teachers teach as they were taught and will default to that model if inhibited by the education system.

Do we know how to overcome this? Yes, that has also been known for decades too, sadly we have a situation at the moment were research to rediscover it is still being funded.

Teachers and schools need to feel empowered to take risks and innovate. They also need continuing support and to be trusted.

Unless we do change the constant constraints on innovation in education we will simply not achieve real change no matter how much is spent. If that happens I will sigh with relief.

It doesn’t seem so long ago that we called a vacuum cleaner a Hoover now many call it a Dyson. James Dyson has achieved cult status as an designer entrepreneur and icon for engineering not only in this country but also worldwide. This country produces some of the best engineers and designers in the world yet we take them for granted and believe they will continue to to blossom in the UK – wrong!

The greatest and best in manufacturing tend to have a practical, hands-on background to design and engineering and James Dyson recognises that fact. He is struggling to establish an inspiring vision, a very different kind of school but one with a designers pragmatic solution to an educational challenge. Designers and engineers need to have incredible persistence to succeed. If you need an illustration of this listen to the podcast below.

“What do we mean by engineering? Many people think of Mr Fixit as the bloke that fixes your washing machine or comes to the rescue when you dial the AA. In fact, the most famous engineer in Britain is rumoured to be none other than Coronation Street’s Kevin Webster, a car mechanic. And yes, maintenance is an important part of engineering, and thank goodness for the people that take care of our trains, boilers, cars and cookers. Without them, the wheels would stop turning, and our dinner would go uncooked. But it’s not the main picture. Engineering for me is about being inventive, solving problems, being creative, and actually making things. Like making the Maglev, or designing jet engines, or engineering more efficient wind turbines, or saving a life with a new kind of kidney machine. That’s engineering. So don’t let anyone fool you into thinking it’s dull, or that it doesn’t matter. It does.”

Podcast: http://podcast.timesonline.co.uk/serve.php/1499/dyson.mp3

A possible model to support the ideas outlined in previous posts. This version is suited to 11-19 education sectors. I also have a possible funding model for this which uses existing resources and would only need finance for the initial setup. The description is brief but a fuller model description is available.

The Practitioners are at the heart of the structure with their own community (or several) facilitated and supported by the HE sector. The practitioners have integral links to other specialist communities such as subject associations or an opportunity to enter dialogue directly with the DCFS. That would enable direct and democratic consultation by DCFS, QCA, TDA and others when necessary.

The model requires that every practitioner is required to be a member and that is reinforced by providing a clear unavoidable purpose. In this model all communication for student examinations uses the same platform. It also supports the notion of online learning and examination for students with the teacher/facilitator interacting with their own students and even other students they are assessing or supporting. These students need not be in the same country. It also provides a mechanism for sharing the knowledge and support of specialist teachers and others both with students and practitioners.

An example:

Some ‘subjects’, computing and electronics are but two, are struggling to survive as taught entities. That may be because of a shortage of specialist teachers and or low students numbers making a class in a school unviable. The specialist teacher need not be in the school. This approach also supports the notion of an expert supporting a teacher new to a subject or one wishing to develop expertise in that subject while in post. That teacher or learning facilitator could take the plunge confident that an expert was on hand to support them with difficulties and insight. The sharing of insight, experience or tacit knowledge depends, crucially on direct, timely and non-judgmental communication. Without this, research consistently shows, real change in learning and teaching is very limited.

Ask any school if they have a CPD programme for the staff and the answer will be yes. Each school should have a CPD coordinator but I know of teachers who rarely leave the school for CPD. Funding is included in the overall budget and schools can formulate their own policy. In practice that means that CPD funds may be the first to be reduced in a crisis.

In Holland CPD is supported with good funding and a specific time allocation.

An example of a Dutch teachers annual contracted hours:

Contracted to work 1659

Teaching 498

Marking and preparation 312

Professional development 116 (Teachers have considerable control over how this is exploited)

‘Other tasks’ such as management take up the remaining time.

Teacher are given a more detailed breakdown of their own allocations each year and can apply internally for funding of courses which they select. That is limited but appears to be considerably more generous than is typical in England.

Teachers appear to be more autonomous and have considerable authority when marking examinations for example. There will be a meeting each year at which standards are revisited but then are then left to exchange scripts with a teacher elsewhere in the country. A discussion may take place between them but the marker decides the level.

I asked who moderates the marking – there was silence which I interpreted as disbelief that I would consider that necessary.

Before we leap to a conclusion we may wish to think about what that means for the standard of education. The English system is quality controlled an approach which lends itself to monitoring by numbers, output and league tables. The Dutch system at least in the subject area in question is quality assured there is scope for professional judgement and therefore an onus on the professional not to embarrass himself or his profession. The teacher is the upholder of standards.

Where will you go for a meal? MacDonald’s were you know every aspect of the process meets precisely controlled standards wherever you are in the world or one which has a good reputation even a star rating? That is a star rating awarded by the customers or critics which is an indication of quality with meals as creatively diverse as sushi, Indian or French? I would rather eat where the staff have freedom to innovate and where they have confidence in their product, able to respond to the local clients and create an experience which may be very different from the restaurant next door. The customers decide.

The General Teaching Council are showing the way with their approach to teacher professional development but their are elements which could be included. In the past few years the GTC have reviewed, absorbed and acted  upon some of the latest and best research on the topic.

GTC – “Good teaching needs good networks and good networks need good teachers.”

The regular informal meetings of local teachers have all but disappeared for a variety of reasons. They served to provide social and professional support, an opportunity for practitioners to explain things they had tried and share the successes and failures. That crucial sharing of tacit knowledge helps move the pedagogy on for those who were keen to improve and innovate.

GTC – “The GTC Networks provide support by linking teachers nationally and putting them in touch with the latest research and evidence. They let teachers have a voice at national debates on changes to education.”

Well done for attempting to support networks (others are too) even better that you are feeding research outcomes into the networks. But remember who the real experts are, they are the teachers themselves and to simply “let teachers have a voice” is to deny them professional status. Teachers can and should be leading change, they should be at the centre of the system not hangers-on waiting for instructions. The GTC have the right spirit.

This is particularly crucial now in the current and well financed drive to fundamentally change the the learner framework. The research GTC has seen shows that, for a change of culture to to be achieved, requires the wholehearted and continuing involvement of the practitioners. All agencies should adopt a direct peer relationship with teachers. Their voice should not be filtered by agencies which have a specific government remit. That only reinforces the echo of government policies and direction by dogma rather than informed professionalism.

So should the GTC step aside? Yes, but only in the metaphorical sense. Please GTC carry on but consider these principles for establishing the networks.

• Networks build on social capital but require free and open dialogue in an atmosphere of trust. The GTC also have a disciplinary remit and should not be directly involved in dialogue between practitioners. The GTC need to be there and the practitioners should have the facility to dialogue directly with the GTC when they choose. This applies to other agencies who should also be linked including subject associations. ministries and even relevant companies.

• The practitioners should be required as part of their professional duties be involved in these networks but without that involvement being onerous. It can be done in my view and I’ll explore that in another posting.
• Any network or community requires sensitive, trusted and independent facilitation. I believe this is a role for higher education institutions. Their facilitation role could provide research input, the support of practitioners in research and provide an overview. That symbiotic relationship means neither party would lose touch with either the wider world or the reality of everyday teaching. Even better the practitioners could be rewarded for their contribution to innovation and improvement with academic awards supporting their professional progression and improving their status. This structure offers the prospect of creating a virtuous spiral of increasing social and professional capital for our education system. It also provides a mechanism for the viral sharing of knowledge and expertise.

Hans Hupperetz, headteacher at the Sophianum school in the Netherlands, helped conclude proceedings at the EU e-learning conference in Lisbon. Link to the full plenary session Hans appears after 1h 24 mins. He raised an issue which is easily forgotten as we invest in hardware and change curricula. None of this innovation will work unless teachers are supported in implementing changes to their practice. Research consistently shows that teaching is cultural, we all teach the way we were taught. Changing that culture requires intensive and continuing professional development and support. The technology exists to offer efficient and effective collaboration to achieve this but funding and appropriate arrangements rarely appear in any initiative. The short video of Hans is available at www.futureknowledge.org,

The content of this video may be familiar to those who have considered what education should be in the 21st century. The media and technology used are themselves recent innovations. The pace of technological innovation is increasing as it has throughout history. It is now at a mind boggling pace but the institutions that underpin our education ‘service’ have not fundamentally changed.

Changes in technology have been dramatic step changes, changes in education are slow and iterative. To ‘update’ and implement changes to an existing subject examination syllabus takes, typically, seven years. Seven years ago most people in this country had heard the word ‘internet’ and would not be using the web. Even the word itself was written with a capital ‘I’ then. We need a fundamental step-change in our approach to education.

We judge performance by assessment. Both performance and assessment need to be redefined.How brave is our government, how brave are we?

Video source: A Vision ofStudents Today by Michael Wesch and ANTH 200