Kate Sim explained her work with robotics as part school teacher and part Open University lecturer. The audience were grateful that there are still teachers like Kate who have found their way around the many constraints of finance, curriculum and formulaic testing to inspire students to world class achievements.

A question asked of Stephen Heppell when he proposed a computer science course; “Where will we get the teachers?” “Exactly”, was his reply.

.

.The discussion started with low spirits both Kate and Stephen highlighted what many of the audience knew, that computing and technology education needed for the 21^st century is damaged and under threat. However the fact that the system is under so much strain, and predicted by Stephen to eventually collapse, offers hope as growing pockets of innovation develop here and across the world. At a time when we are constantly reminded about the threat from terrorists, financial collapse and climate change it appears we should be grateful that there are subversives in education. They, Stephen argued, offered hope and pragmatic solutions.

The key points were focused around the inappropriate curriculum, testing and ‘quality control’ and attitudes communicated to girls in a variety of ways. Why is Lego in the boys’ section of ToysRUs? All of this restrictive mixture was considered to be compounded by a risk-averse culture.

Illustrations were given of ICT examination courses which supplant practice with theory and do not reflect the real world of computer technologies.

.

Ian Sillet raised the problem of risk aversion  in education

Ian Sillet raised the issue of risk aversion which was taken-up by Richard Green directorof DATA. Richard described how, very recently, a keen and capable young female teacher had carefully developed an interest and capability in systems and control in her school and approached her headteacher to ask if she could offer it at GCSE level. The headteacher refused on the grounds that it was a ‘difficult’ exam and risked the schools’ league table status.

.

Richard Green of DATA described how ‘Systems and Control’ was considered difficult and threatened league table positions

Kate Sim had earlier explained how she had only been able to finance her robotics activities by exploiting short term funding for the gifted and talented.

The debate continues but hopefully not too long before the country awakens to threat highlighted by Stan Owers and realises that to combat terrorism, global warming and computer dependent financial systems requires the practical, creative and problem solving skills of engineers.

Tweet Mobile pic

The Owers Lecture is sponsored by Oracle

Water, water, every where, And all the boards did shrink ; Water, water, every where, Nor any drop to drink. Samuel Taylor Coleridge, The Rime of the Ancient Mariner

Derek Wenmoth points out an Albatross, the bird of good omen, and I share his frustration at being becalmed.

He says, “But consider the following…

• a global shortage of skilled science and maths teachers means that we’ll never be able to staff all of our schools with specialists in these areas (and other areas besides!)”

We are on a planet which is mostly covered in water but still we cry drought when we are in the wrong place.

Derek raises the opportunity that technology provides to alleviate the drought.  I just wanted to expand on the HOW.

In the ‘Connate Model’ (combined in one) outlined in my blog post here I describe how the model is centred on the examination system. That is for two key reasons. Most teachers are involved in some external assessment process with their students. Insisting that communication, including some assessments,  happens in one place ensures that teachers have a purpose and are regularly engaged in the online community. It also serves another purpose it allows teachers to identify and communicate with others who can support students in specific ways. That same platform could be used by teachers and students for sharing expertise.

Computer education, for example, in the UK is in a dire state. In 2005 there were 7242 students sitting (815 were female) A Level computing exams. By 2014 that is predicted to drop to around 1500 and all of them will be male, based on figures released by the Joint Council for Qualifications (JCQ).

It ‘s wasteful to have one teacher to one school with the skills necessary to alleviate the drought when the thirsty are scattered around them. Even more unforgivable is the fact that other experts working day to day in that area of knowledge are only a mouse click away.

All this is obvious when pointed out but that still needs a mechanism for it to happen. It needs that utility, a common national or international grid which all can self manage and exploit.  If the grid is to endure it must be like the internet and have many interconnected nodes ensuring that the network remains robust even when one node fails. Many government initiatives along these lines are innately fragile because they are short term and localised. We need boldness and soon.

One final point, Derek raises the topic of Higher Education. The ‘Connate Model’ suggests participants could be rewarded with qualifications which recognise their expertise and the extent to which they share it. HE has to change too. Most degrees are instruments of selfish endeavour they reward students for what only they know not for how well they share and exploit that understanding. Radical change in H.E. regulations, systems, assessment and attitudes is needed.

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

CORE EDUCATION UK @ ULEARN 08

Core Education UK is offering six sessions at ULearn 08 in Christchurch New Zealand

1,700 educators from New Zealand and further afield descend on Christchurch New Zealand to take part in this massive event over three days from October 7th – 10th 2008.

Core Education UK is represented by Richard Millwood, Sarah Jones and Malcolm Moss and is presenting at five taster sessions:

‘New Theories of Learning in Practice’

‘Creating Reflective Practitioners’

‘Innovation in Assessment’

‘International Collaboration and Enterprise’

‘Patterns for Online ?Community of Inquiry’

and a session to tie it all together:

‘Towards a Connate Approach’

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 drafted the blog comment below several months ago but didn’t publish it. As you will gather from previous posts it’s topic I feel strongly about.

“Shirley Williams was the first Secretary of State for education to suggest that teachers should have guaranteed professional development time. Ken Baker claimed to deliver it by removing 5 days of school holidays for teachers. They are still called ‘B’ days (bidets) by older staff. Funding for PD has increased in the past decade. It was once ring fenced but is now subsumed in school budgets. The reality is that many staff will have limited opportunity to engage with their peers beyond their own school environment. To share ideas, discuss tactics and describe impacts. We have broadband for ICT but only a narrow band system for the sharing of tacit and explicit knowledge by professionals. England does not take PD seriously.”

My spirits lifted when I read this report heralding Institute for Public Policy Research in the Times Educational Supplement

There are a number of key points:

• will recommend that all teachers receive 20 days in-service training per year.
• decisions about what course they go on taken away from schools and given to teachers
• The IPPR will also recommend that responsibility for in-service training budgets is taken away from schools and given to the Training and Development Agency for schools (TDA).
• once a child’s background was taken into account, the quality of their teacher was the single most important factor determining the pupil’s performance
• It recommends making it compulsory for all teachers to watch colleagues teach four times a term
• Money would go to individual teachers who would select their own courses, conferences or visits for 10 days of external training every year.
• could create financial challenges for schools paying for cover.
• 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.”

See my next posting for comment on these points.

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.

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.