As part of my contribution to the ADES network for A Curriculum for Excellence I have been working with some colleagues to begin to explore a possible a rationale for its implementation across Scotland.

Perhaps any such rationale needs to takes its lead from the new HMIe inspection regime, which could be described as a heroic leap into a new world of dialogue, professional trust and engagement?

In such a world the starting point for professional development and curricular development needs to reorient itself from assumptions where it is implicit that teachers are resistant to change, need to be “fixed” and are essentially passive receivers of information.

My colleagues today were adamant that if we are to match the aspirations of ACfE then a similar transformation, as that demonstrated by HMIe, needs to take place in how we conceptualise the development of teachers’ professional craft and associated curricular content. The following rationale begins to set out some possible building blocks for such a transformation:

Outcome: Our implementation strategy will result in an improvement in the educational progression of Scottish children and young people. 

In other words ACfE and associated Continuous Professional Development will not be effective unless the above outcome can be demonstrated.  All too often in the past huge investments in curricular and professional development have not led to any positive impact on the  lives of children.

The implementation of A Curriculum for Excellence will be based upon the following assumptions:

Teachers

1. Teachers are professionals who want to make a positive difference to children’s lives;
2. Where teachers are empowered to work together they can create outstanding learning environments for children and young people;
3. Teachers have an intellectual commitment to developing knowledge about their craft;
4. Teachers naturally want to talk and learn from each other about their practice;
5. Teachers want to engage in dialogue about their own educational practice with a view to improving their craft.

Schools:

1. The school is a key unit of curricular creation and professional development.
2. School leaders can create environments where teachers want to learn.
3. Teams of teachers working collectively towards a common purpose can have a more positive impact upon practice than any other strategy.
4. Parents relate best to their local school and communication about  ACfE should come through that route.

Curriculum

Where the curriculum is co-created between

Professional Development

1. Scottish Teachers are amongst the world’s most highly qualified professionals and already have sophisticated skills sets and related knowledge.
2. There is a place for directed learning but it will not be the dominant continuous professional development strategy.
3. Teachers learn best when they are enabled to network and share ideas and resources with colleagues.
4. Teachers

 Learning Communities

Community

More to follow……………………

There must be something in the air about awards?

We’ve just heard that our Education ICT Team at East Lothian Council has been short-listed for an ICT Excellence Award by BECTA.

This is an incredible achievement for such a small team. Karen Robertson, Elizabeth Cowan, David Gilmour, in particular, all support staff and the wider community of colleagues in East Lothian have all contributed so much to this development. 

Results are announced on the 7th November.

Fingers crossed.

I recently came across an interesting research paper* into the impact of parental involvement on children’s achievement and adjustment which confirmed my long held belief that:

“Differences in parental involvement have a much bigger impact on achievement than differences associated with the effects of school in the primary age range.”

In fact research has shown that parental involvement has a more significant effect than schools on children’s achievement and adjustment, even after all other factors (such as social class, maternal education and poverty) have been taken out of the equation between children’s aptitudes and their achievement.

It’s worth unpicking that assertion a little further to understand the implications of such a seemingly innocent statement – which to all intents and purposes has the power to undermine the edifice of  the schooling process. For what research seems to be revealing to us is that the education system can do little to impact upon the achievements of a child beyond that which can be more accurately predetermined by the extent of parental involvement in the child’s development.

If parental involvement is such a significant factor surely the holy grail in educational terms must be when these two elements of parental involvement and the schooling process, operate at the optimum level, come into alignment and complement each other to enable a child to achieve at the highest level possible?

There would appear to be five inter-connected challenges presented by such a seemingly simple aspiration:

1. The quality of education provided by the school
2. The extent to which parents are equipped with the skills, have the knowledge, or the inclination to be able to provide the level of home support which makes the difference;
3. The variation in the challenges facing parents in terms of their home circumstances to enable them to contribute fully to their child’s education.
4. The quality and commitment to communicate (two-way) with parents about the educational process necessary to establish a constructive partnership; and
5. The extent to which parents are equipped with the confidence, knowledge or inclination to actively engage with their child’s school.
In the traditional educational environment the school will tend to focus upon Number 1. i.e. trying to improve the level at which they operate, and Number 4. i.e. establishing communication channels with parents. Aside from these aspects it is relatively rare (although not unknown) for schools to engage in any of the other aspects which might be seen to be “beyond our sphere of influence”.

The problem facing schools is that research has also shown that top down intervention projects aimed at “fixing” parents are almost inevitably doomed to failure. The “deficit model”, i.e. “we are the educationalists and we’ll show you how to educate our child” serves no more than to get up the nose of those whom we set out to help. What has been proven to work are approaches which sets out to establish an equitable partnership with parents and carers and creates an environment where parents spontaneously become involved in the child’s development.

For me so much could be achieved by a shift in our focus to address all of the challenges I set out earlier. But how can a school with limited resources extend beyond the already stretched boundaries of educational involvement. It’s at this point that I wonder if we could tap into the community resource provided by the parental body and beyond?

My idea – for what it’s worth – is to suggest that a school creates an environment which is dedicated to seeing the educational process as a true partnership in the education of the child between the school and the parents. Now let me admit at this point that I’ve used such a phrase on many previous occasions both as a Head Teacher and Head of Education – but what I have in mind is a step change beyond what I’ve considered in the past.

There would be many elements to such a partnership which would involve the use of technology to open up classrooms, very different forms of parental inter-action with the school and teachers and a shift in the balance for responsibility for parental involvement in education matters from the school to the parents (I’m not advocating that school abdicate responsibility for this area – just shift the balance).

The practical idea I have in mind to go along with such a shift would be to create a buddy/supporter/befriender system where a more experienced parent – who’s been through the system – would link with a less-experienced parent to provide support and a listening ear.

The key to the success of such a venture would depend on valuing the existing family strengths and that we don’t don’t set out to “fix” them because they don’t conform to what we believe are the “correct” way to bring up kids. Obviously such an approach is fraught with difficulties and training would be required. But I don’t see this approach only being of benefit to those families who might be regarded as “vulnerable”. Many parents would benefit from the support of someone – “who’s been this way before”.

Above all else such an approach shifts the existing power relationship in schools where it’s the school or the authority who set out to develop parental partnership strategies – the model I have in mind is one where it is the community itself which sets out to support itself.

*Desforges, C and Abouchaar. A, 2003,  The Impact of Parental Involvement, Parental Support and Family Education on Pupil Achievements and Adjustment: A Literature Review. Department of Education and Skills, Research Report RR433

The phrase’s earliest recording is from 1546 as “wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?” (John Heywood‘s ‘A dialogue Conteinyng the Nomber in Effect of All the Prouerbes in the Englishe Tongue’)^[1] alluding to the impossibility of eating your cake and still having it afterwards; the modern version (where the clauses are reversed) is a corruption which was first signaled in 1812.

Paul Brians, Professor of English at Washington State University, points out that perhaps a more logical or easier to understand version of this saying is: “You can’t eat your cake and have it too”. Professor Brians writes that a common source of confusion about this idiom stems from the verb to have which in this case indicates that once eaten possession of the cake is no longer possible.^[2] Alternatively, the two verbs can be understood to represent a sequence of actions, so one can indeed “have” one’s cake and then “eat” it. Consequently, the literal meaning of the reversed idiom doesn’t match the metaphorical meaning.

The phrase came to mind this week in relation to the outcome approach that we’ve struck with schools.  Following the model established by the Scottish Goverment we struck a concordat with schools where they are free to deliver the outcomes in a manner which suits their circumstances – as long as they deliver the agreed outcomes.  The great temptation in such a scenario is for us to stray from the original concept and begin to interfere by:

1. instructing schools about the process of delivery;
2. directing the inputs that they must put into any outcome; or
3. directing the outputs (numbers/quantities) in relation to any intitiative.

I first explored the notion of moving from an output approach to an outcome approach last year when I came across the concept of social return on investment.  I’ve had to stop myself on a number of occasions over the last 12 months from directing schools towards outputs, e.g. the number of teachers who have gone through a certain course; or, the number of hours that must be spent on a subject.

I’ve stated on many occasions that I think the Scottish Government are to be congratulated for adopting an outcome approach – but like them we must guard against the temptation to interfere in the delivery process – which is better left to those who are responsible for delivering the desired outcomes.  I’m worried that if I were to jump in over the heads of headteachers and direct their actions from above it wouldn’t be too long before they became incapacitated by confusion about whether I really trusted them or not!