Showing posts with label transformation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label transformation. Show all posts

Monday, August 27, 2012

Andy Hargreaves on transforming education in Alberta

This was written by Andy Hargreaves who is Thomas More Brennan Chair in Education at Boston College and co-author of The Fourth Way. This was written as the forward for A Great School For All: Transforming Education in Alberta which is a research update by the Alberta Teachers' Association.

by Andy Hargreaves

For more than a decade, Alberta has been Canada’s highest-performing province and the highest performing English- and French-speaking jurisdiction in the world on the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) tests of student achievement. Despite its superior educational performance in Canada and beyond, Alberta has so far been largely overlooked by influential international policy analysts and, therefore, also by the global media; the plaudits have gone largely to Ontario instead. To make this observation is not to imply that Ontario’s hard-earned international prominence is undeserved but, rather, to wonder why Alberta’s impressive educational record is largely unknown, even among Albertans themselves. 

Strangely, one of Alberta’s greatest challenges in the years to come will be to acknowledge its own success. In a world where education is easily hijacked by governments pursuing strategies that will produce short-term solutions for which they will then take credit in the next election, most other nations and their leaders are inclined to impute failure to the educational systems they have inherited and to the people who work in them, so that the incumbent government can claim victory in righting the wrongs of its predecessors. Alberta, however, has achieved increasing and sustained success over several decades with the same government. Alberta’s challenge, therefore, is to acknowledge and celebrate its educational successes, and to find a way to articulate and explain them to its own citizens and then to the world. Alberta will then stand tall as a recognized world leader in education alongside other creators of educational excellence, in Finland, Ontario and Singapore.

Celebrating success brings risks as well as opportunities, however. This is a second educational challenge for Alberta. Celebration can court complacency. In the teaching profession, it can encourage a belief in the value of untrammelled autonomy among individual teachers who might want to claim that they can now be left alone to get on with the job. Among governments, it can induce business-as-usual approaches that fail to prepare them for the challenges of the future and that maintain long-standing policies that might be preventing even greater success. 

Convincing policy-makers and system leaders to take new approaches when they have experienced educational and political success with existing ones can be difficult, but it is before the peak of performance that decline is often already occurring, even though the decline might not be evident in performance results. A paradox of improvement is that you have to quit your existing strategy even when you look as though you are still ahead. 

Knowing that most innovations fail, leaders and voters are often reluctant to ditch tried-and-true methods in favour of a new approach. In Great by Choice (HarperCollins 2011), influential business writers Jim Collins and Morten Hansen argue that the answer to this dilemma is disciplined innovation that is delivered “with high reliability and great consistency.” According to them, “the great task is to blend creative intensity with relentless collective discipline so as to amplify the creativity rather than destroy it.” Discipline requires relentless perseverance and complete indefatigability to ensure that a good idea comes to fruition in practice and that innovation continues alongside improvement, not at the expense of it.

Innovation in the public sphere is important not for its own sake but because it helps citizens and governments deal with new challenges and opportunities. This is especially true in a province like Alberta, with its increasing population, prosperous but vulnerable energy-based economy, and growing awareness of the needs of indigenous communities and the importance of developing a balanced approach to new technologies that will embrace their creative advantages while offsetting the damage and distraction they can inflict on younger generations.

In 2004, innovation guru Charles Leadbeater argued that the answer to all of these issues was not for some central body to mastermind and implement innovations through pipelines of policy delivery, from the centre to the individual. Instead, he argued, at their most sophisticated, governments should establish platforms that enable users to organize their own lives and behaviours more effectively together. In public services, therefore, promoting innovation is not only a question of relaxing or releasing control and responsibility to others. It is about building platforms where people are increasingly able to design learning supports and solutions for themselves.

This analysis raises important questions for educators. For example, what platforms do governments need to create so that teachers can develop their own curriculum and assessments together, instead of delivering curriculum and testing designed by government? What systems can be created and how can resources be reallocated so that peer-to-peer networks of schools can raise achievement themselves instead of having expensive intervention teams impose policy from the top? What is the best way for teachers to pursue their own professional development to meet their own needs without this becoming fragmented and self-indulgent on the one hand and overly controlled by central priorities on the other?

We have some good ideas about how to mesh innovation and improvement, and about why we should. We need to innovate before our improvement efforts flatten out and before improved student achievement stops. We need to innovate to respond to the new challenges that any system faces. We need to innovate because even the best systems have elements in their policies that could impede success. Effective innovation is disciplined; it should complement improvement rather than challenge it. Finally, innovation in public services such as education is not about governments withdrawing from public life, but about shifting responsibility from driving and delivering services to creating ways for people to develop better supports themselves.

Alberta is extremely well placed to address these issues in its education strategies. It already has an astounding and sustained record of educational success that matches the best in the world. For more than a decade, in comparison to most of its Canadian peers, but in line with best practice across the world, it has supported educational innovation through the Alberta Initiative for School Improvement. Like other high performers, Alberta has begun to benchmark its strategies by starting to network with other high performers in Finland and elsewhere. Albertans are not impelled to change strategy from election to election, because the province has been characterized by a high level of political stability that is typical of most successful systems. Again, like other high-performing peers, Alberta enjoys strong support and participation in the public education system from almost all of the province’s parents. And Premier Alison Redford has indicated a bold preparedness to review those parts of the government’s existing strategy that may be detracting from even greater success, such as the provincial achievement tests, which can undermine commitments to deeper and more creative learning in schools.

One of Alberta’s greatest advantages is common to high performers—a strong and committed teaching profession. Unlike its neighbour to the south, Alberta does not cheapen or demean the teaching profession; it understands that the human capital of its students depends on investing in the professional capital of its highly qualified teachers. Alberta does not involve only teachers in delivering change; it also engages principals and superintendents. And it creates and maintains platforms where educators can advocate for further innovations and improvements to benefit students and strengthen the profession that works with those learners on the front line, every day. Albertans understand that the teaching profession is not an obstacle to transforming the province, but an essential and inalienable part of the solution.

A Great School for All—Transforming Education in Alberta is another example of the outstanding intellectual and strategic leadership of the province’s teachers. It is a document that recognizes the successes of the province that the members of the Alberta Teachers’ Association proudly serve; challenges the province’s leaders to be the best they can be in the circumstances they face in partnership with teachers; draws on research, inquiry and international benchmarking to identify the most promising practices; and sets out 12 clear directions to move the province and its children ahead.

Developed by the Association’s research staff, this comprehensive document seeks not just an end to standardized testing but more-sophisticated and more-demanding processes of assessment for learning. It takes a balanced rather than a bullish or obstructive approach to the role of new technologies in schools, calls for a more inclusive approach to special educational needs, and identifies the best supports and partnerships to bring that about. It reasserts the importance of professional autonomy for teachers but understands that this autonomy is collective, not individual. And it argues for a profession that should be given and that must take greater leadership—teachers and principals need to take greater collective responsibility for the quality of professional work. 

Alberta is already a world leader in educational achievement, but its high ranking is not yet matched by international recognition. What Alberta needs now is a clear statement identifying the reasons for its success, champions who can explain that success in inspiring ways to people in the province and across the world, and a platform from which it can launch the innovations that will lead to even greater success in the future. There is no better time for the government and the profession together to show the world what an outstanding system has achieved and can achieve, and to establish a platform that will make Alberta a world leader in educational innovation and transformation in the decade to come. Alberta has no need to rent improvement and reform models that have been built by other systems. On the contrary, it has the proven ability, creativity and professional quality to own the future that it creates for itself. This report can and should become a significant contribution to that quest.

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

David King on Alberta's Education Act Part II

This was written by David King who is a former Alberta Minister of Education. This is 2 of 2 posts on Alberta's new Education Act. This post first appeared on King's blog here.

by David King

The new Education Act suffers in comparison to all the announcements of its coming. Ministers and M.L.A.s talked about a “new paradigm”, framing the conditions for a system that would anticipate the future and nurse it to reality.

The new Act simply doesn’t deliver. Ordinarily, Albertans could overlook the hype and be glad to see an important piece of legislation “cleaned up”, “sharpened”… — choose your adjective for modest incremental improvement.

The problem is that the Government of Alberta itself – and insistently — raised the subject of the 21st century being radically different from the 20th. The Government of Alberta, through the Inspiring Education process, encouraged Albertans to think about education in new ways, and repeatedly assured us that startling insights could be harnessed. The new Act, we were told, could assuredly be – would be — quite different from the familiarSchool Act.

It is a mixed blessing that Albertans bought the government’s line. Albertans were persuaded to see that we can’t continue educating as we have done in the past. They were persuaded to imagine a variety of new, positive, and possible educational outcomes, as well as a variety of new ways of organizing to provide education. They were persuaded to believe that Alberta could be “first into the future”.

The new Education Act suggests that we are going to be “last out of the past”.

Having been awakened, by the government and others, to the virtual certainty of great change, Albertans are now frustrated by the government’s lack of imagination and lack of courage.

Have you read Sir Kenneth Robinson’s latest book on what is coming to education? (Out of Our Minds: Learning to be Creative)

Are you familiar with what is happening in Finland? (Pasi Sahlberg – Finnish Lessons: What Can the World Learn from Educational Change in Finland?

Have you watched Sebastian Thurn, on Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkneoNrfadk&feature=player_embedded)?

There are three quick and effective measures of innovation in any piece of legislation.

First, does the legislation contain new words or phrases that are important enough to be defined for the purposes of the legislation. The proposed Education Act has two such words or phrases: “bullying”, and “non-school building” are not defined in the current School Act. Their context in the Act makes clear that they simply acknowledge longstanding practice: they are no springboard to the future of education.

Second, does the legislation have Parts and Divisions that suggest a new way of looking at the subject? The new Education Act has 2 new Parts (Opportunities for Learning; Responsibilities and Dispute Resolution), yet the sections contained within the Parts are lifted almost entirely from the existing School Act. Aside from legislating Bullying Awareness Week, and creating a Student Advisory Council, and implementing a Complex Education Needs Tribunal there is nothing new. Bullying Awareness Week can be celebrated without a legislative mandate, the previous Minister created a Student Advisory Council without the need of legislation, the Complex Education Needs Tribunal is an incremental improvement on a system already in place.

What is really interesting about Part 3, Division 1 (Responsibilities and Disputes Resolution: Responsibilities) is that the responsibilities of students, parents, boards, and trustees are specified (basically, these are consolidations of what is found in the current Act). The one critical actor left without specified responsibilities is the provincial government, notwithstanding the fact that for three years, throughout the Inspiring Education process, the government insisted that its role was “assurance”. The bullied might be more comforted if the government accepted responsibility for assuring freedom from bullying, perhaps by assuring that gay-straight clubs could operate in any publicly funded school in the province. Parents might be more comforted if the government accepted responsibility for assuring access to secular public education, on a timely basis, and in schools that are safe, healthful, and well-maintained. The parents of special needs students might be more comforted if the government accepted responsibility to assure funding for high cost special programs.

As a reader digs into the proposed new Education Act, are there any hidden gems?

Section 51(1) extends natural person powers to school boards. That is hardly an innovation, since municipal government has had the same benefit for more than 15 years. Nevertheless school boards have been lobbying for this: they should be grateful, shouldn’t they?

The problem is, the innovation is put forward in section 51(1) and rudely snatched away in section 51(2) “With respect to any right, power, or privilege exercisable by a board, the Minister may , by regulation, (a) prohibit or restrict the use of the right, power, or privilege; (b) provide that the right, power or privilege is to be exercised subject to any terms or conditions prescribed in the regulations.”

The Minister, without reference to the Legislative Assembly, can compromise the natural person powers of a school board, at any time, and in any way, and without any need to justify the compromise. Tomorrow, he could make it illegal for them to be doing something that is might be legal for them to do today.

The corresponding section in the Municipal Government Act says this: “6. A municipality has natural person powers, except to the extent that they are limited by this or any other enactment.”

The corresponding section of the Business Corporations Act says this: 16(1) A corporation has the capacity and, subject to this Act, the rights, powers and privileges of a natural person.

The introduction, in the new Education Act, of “natural person powers” for school boards is nothing but cynicism writ large. If the provincial government treated corporations the same way, the reaction would be immediate, immense, and unbearable for the provincial government.

The provincial government is not easily going to loosen its grip on school boards.

Yet, in the face of uncertainty, when the future cannot be known with confidence, experience and the natural sciences all confirm that the most intelligent way to confront the future is with diversity. As Willis Harmon once noted — in uncertain times, the best thing to do is decentralize (decision-making), disperse (resources), and diversify (responses). One only wants a highly centralized system when one is convinced that the central authority will be 100% correct, 100% of the time, about 100% of the issues. To put it another way, said Harmon, we don’t engineer survivability, in nature or in build systems, by making key components bigger. We introduce redundancy. Nature has not improved our eyesight by working on one better eye in the middle of our forehead: she has given us two eyes. NASA doesn’t improve the shuttle by concentrating on one computer: they connect redundant computers.

The proposed new Education Act should be rejected in principle. It embodies two principles, both of which are wrong. In principle it is mediocre, and we should expect better from our provincial government, especially when they themselves set a higher bar, especially when public conversation and evidence from other jurisdictions makes clear that we can do better. In principle, it faces us squarely into the past, rather than into the future. It is wrong that we should stifle our imagination and use our considerable resources to be the last out of the past, when we need to be – and can be – the first into the future.

Monday, February 20, 2012

David King on Alberta's Education Act Part I

This was written by David King who is a former Alberta Minister of Education. This is 1 of 2 posts on Alberta's new Education Act. This post first appeared on King's blog here.

by David King

In 2008 the then Minister of Education initiated a province-wide conversation about the future of K – 12 education in Alberta. The department contributed to the conversation by providing a structure – Inspiring Education – and Albertans contributed by providing content.

Although many of the participants felt that the government’s management of the Inspiring Education process was biased in favour of self-interest, and that this bias was reflected in the wrap-up, nevertheless the conversation was valuable.

From it came ‘standards’ by which to draft new legislation. These standards were never codified and agreed to in a formal way, but it would probably be fair to characterize public consensus around the following points.

  1. The new Act should be clear about the foundational principles. (As the Minister of the day said, the new Act should be principle-based.)
  2. The legislation should oblige the government to uphold foundational principles, without discretion to abdicate responsibility. The government itself claimed that its primary responsibility was to “assure” needful outcomes. (The legislation should hold the government’s feet to the fire, as much as the government sometimes holds others’ feet to the fire.)
  3. The new Act should represent a commitment to the future (with all the attendant risk and uncertainty), rather than to the past. (Albertans want to be first into the future, rather than last out of the past.)
  4. The role of the provincial government, as reflected in the new Act, should be to declare the goal and set the direction (by looking at the stars), and the role of the school operators should be to cover the ground and achieve the objectives that move us toward the goal(s).
  5. The new Act should provide a legislative framework for oversight for all types of educational delivery, with as much operational freedom as is useful for good government, sufficient boundaries to be clear about public purposes and goals, and openness to as yet unimagined types of educational delivery.
Assuming agreement about the ‘standards’, the next important focal point should be on principles. What principles should be clearly expressed in the new Act? Again, based on the Inspiring Education conversations, the following suggest themselves.
  1. The new Act should explicitly acknowledge and commit to the principle that public education is the preferred institution for education, recognizing that public school education is unique for three reasons: 1) it is inclusive without pre-conditions of any kind and it is inclusive of all who are students and of all adults as part of the community that governs it; 2) it is a deliberate model of a civil democratic community, so the government of public school education is democratic and public school education exists to promote an understanding of, and commitment to, democracy; and, 3) local democracy and local community are the ground from which springs every other community and democratic understanding. Public school jurisdictions should be given meaningful natural person powers.
  2. The new Act should explicitly acknowledge and commit to the principle that the public interest in assuring education for every child is not only for the benefit of the child: education serves the public purpose of creating and sustaining our society, and the provincial government controls education for the purpose of assuring that children are exposed to ideas and practices of good citizenship in a civil democratic society;
  3. The new Act should explicitly acknowledge that public school boards are a local general purpose government, dealing on a daily basis with the mandate of more than a dozen provincial government departments, and their range of freedom should reflect this.
  4. The new Education Act should embody democracy, including the following ideas:
  • all participants are worthy of trust;
  • inclusion, respect, and diversity, without pre-conditions of any kind;
  • the people who will be most effected by decisions are the people who should have most responsibility for making and implementing the decisions, and public school jurisdictions should have the capacity to accept mandates from local electors and accomplish locally determined mandates;
  • open, transparent government, at all levels; and,
  • elected representatives are accountable to their electorate, not to other elected representatives.
  • all participants(for example, students as well as teachers) are producers of education, not merely consumers of it.

The Education Bill introduced to the Alberta Legislative Assembly today (February 14th) should be tested against these standards and principles.

Probably the first thing that strikes a reader of the Bill is that it is very similar to the current School Act. It relies upon concepts and organizational structures that are more than 100 years old. Most notably, it relies upon well-used words and phrases because they have been tested in the courts (often more than 60 years ago), and their meaning is well known to anyone who wants to continue living and working in the historic paradigm. The government’s stated reason for rejecting new ideas and new language is that newness represents risk for the government, since the ideas and words have not been tested in the courts. In its organization and language the Bill represents an explicit rejection of new ways of thinking, new models, new language.

The second thing that might strike a reader is that there is no declaration of aspirations or principles within the body of the Act. Some of the “Whereas” clauses allude to aspirations and principles, but “Whereas” clauses are advisory only; they are not decisive. The Whereas clauses may make all of us feel good, but they are not in any way binding. There is no description, in the body of the Act, of the intended outcomes that the provincial government or local school operators are accountable for assuring. Consequently, the entire Act is procedural: it focuses on means, without regard for ends. The Minister and the department can direct or sanction any school operator at any time, for any reason, because, in the absence of ends statements in the Act the Minister and department can enforce whatever end they choose, and their choice can change from day to day. On the other hand, in the absence of clearly stated expectations in the Act, the Minister and the department can decline to assure anything. For example, the general public may believe that every child is entitled to access a public education that is non-denominational in flavour, and the Minister may agree that such access is fundamentally important for every child, while at the same time declining to act in a timely fashion to assure it. Or, the Minister may say that safe and healthy schools are essential to good education, while the government defers school renovations.

The Act treats all delivery systems as being essentially equal. There is only a procedural definition of public school education, or of any other form of education. There is nothing suggesting that public school education is the preferred means of education, and no statement that public school education is important to the attainment of public policy. There is nothing to make clear that a necessary work of education is to create and sustain a civil democratic society. There is no statement that the government of education is to be democratic.

More, in an upcoming post.

Saturday, October 1, 2011

Educational Transformation in Alberta via Collaboration

On September 22, I had the pleasure of representing Red Deer Public Local #60 teachers at Alberta's Fall Education Transformation meetings. This meeting hosted three parties who play an intricate part of public education in Alberta: Alberta Teacher's Association, Alberta School Boards Association and Alberta Education.

I spent the day at Barnett House in Edmonton, the home of the Alberta Teachers' Association, sitting with my school district's superintendent, two school board trustees, two members from Alberta Education and two other teacher representatives from my local.

The day was spent discussing these three focus areas:

 FOCUS AREA #1: SHARED UNDERSTANDING/SHARED OPPORTUNITY
OUTCOME: SUPPORT FOR THE IDEA OF TRANSFORMATION AS A SHARED PROCESS

  • What's the most important characteristic of education transformation for you?
  • If transformation is about moving from one reality to another, what does this entail (e.g., is this about learning outcomes being different, is it about the classroom, is it about how education is governed?)
  • Discuss the relationship enhancements that articulate a new way of working together -- what do we have to change about how we relate to one another?
FOCUS AREA #2: MOVING FORWARD TOGETHER: WHO DOES WHAT?
OUTCOME: SHARED COMMITMENT TO PRIORITY ITEMS / ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

  • If we are to collaborate on transformation, what's most important to work together on?
  • How do we define our respective roles and responsibilities in taking on these topics?
  • How do we hold one another accountable for our mutual success?
FOCUS AREA #3: NEXT STEPS
OUTCOME: SUPPORT FOR MOVING FORWARD TOGETHER

  • What are some ways Alberta Teachers' Association, Alberta School Board Association and Alberta Education can start taking action for transformation?
  • Is a plan required to guide the process? If so, what types of plans/planning are needed and who should lead their development?
  • How, when and at what levels (local/provincial) do we involve other stakeholders in the process?
-----------

I walked away from this event thoroughly impressed with the level of commitment each of the three organizations (teachers, school boards and government) showed for rethinking how we can work together. There was no finger pointing or blaming. 

Not once did we discuss test scores. 

Not once.

I can only imagine the legacy of hard feelings and grudges that have developed in Alberta between teachers, school boards and government, however, in spite of any potential desire to accuse, blame and criticize each other, there seemed to be a real commitment in the room to move forward together.

So what's next?

On November 4 & 5, The Alberta Teachers' Association and Alberta Education are hosting a Combined Professional Development Area Conference and Invitational Curriculum Symposium. This is remarkably cool because the government and the teachers together will collaborate on rethinking curriculum in Alberta schools. Essentially this event will provide the teachers and government an opportunity to work together to rethink curriculum with a focus on our partnership with Finland.

Perhaps the only hesitation I have with this opportunity is to ask what role the Alberta School Board Association will play in this rethinking curriculum process? Seeing as how they aren't invited.