Saturday 23 March 2013

Leadership

There probably never was a time throughout history when individuals did not look to someone else to take the helm, whether that was in families, tribes or nations. I also suspect that at other times, when people might have felt they were able to take care of themselves, some pushy individual muscled in on the act anyway and likely took them where they'd rather not have gone! Leaders are certainly not new to the scene. A world without leaders is unimaginable, but how have things changed over time?

Governments of all types see it as their right to lead. My view is, if we must suffer political leaders, surely we need to have more to say about it than simply putting an X in a box periodically. We don't want just anyone and we want to be able to review performance with the option to remove any dead wood, which is a useful function of our democratic process. But is that as far as our involvement goes and what are our expectations of leaders today? Should we be looking for something specific in their relationships with us?

I don't believe it is enough to simply rely on the recycling that goes on at election time. Naturally, it is the opportunity to get rid of the 'dead wood' mentioned, but it should also be a chance to compare the policies on offer from the different parties. This is where it gets tricky. I have yet to vote for a party that represented all my views. How could that even be possible in a modern democracy? My way around this is to identify which policy areas matter most to me and to look for the best match with what's on offer out there. Speaking personally, it's education, health and the environment. It isn't that I don't have other concerns, it's simply my needing to align with my primary priorities at election time.

Under my system, therefore, I need political parties to be clear about their policy priorities and I need to be able to rely on them upholding their pledges if they get into office. If I were a political leader right now, this is where I would be leading my party. However, I am sure I'm not alone in realising that we are a mighty long way from being able to have confidence in the system on either count.

As a general rule, I want political leaders to understand that my relationship with them and the system has changed from my father's days. Apart from demanding that politicians say what they mean and mean what they say, I need them to display a willingness to listen to the voice of ordinary people when they are in office, especially when a substantial number of individuals speak out.

I'm sufficiently street-wise to know how political leaders will react to this idea. They have come into office because of the free and open electoral process we enjoy in our country, so, why should the conflicting views of those seeking to challenge official policy be acted upon by them at any other time. My response to this is, while the electoral process continues to attract such low levels of support at the ballot box, it may be a step too far to assume that those who have not taken part agree with official policy over the views of those who disagree. Would not our leaders be wise to acknowledge that by engaging more openly with interested parties they might well enhance the quality of our democracy when significant dissent is registered by ordinary people?

The present debacle over education policy very aptly illustrates what I am saying and I would hope that at some point, our leaders would agree to pay heed to the substantial groundswell of opinion in opposition to the current direction of education reform.

Thursday 21 March 2013

Education Reform – Out with the old and in with the new.

The fact that another package of reforms is being foisted on the education system, in the absence of a genuinely open debate, may explain the siege mentality experienced by many teachers. Unlike the mood among professionals at other ‘crunch times’, on this occasion, it’s different. 

To an outsider, there is an overriding impression that teachers are consistently undervalued by ministers. In what should be an open debate over change in education, it is clear to the casual observer, the professional voice is being systematically ignored. This is not a healthy situation to encounter when, if it is to succeed, the major reform under consideration will require the cooperation of the very professionals being marginalised. The increasingly hostile environment is demotivating many teachers, adding to uncertainty about the future, and that future belongs to the young.

We may only speculate about their fate in the face of uncertainty over what that future holds. It’s not unreasonable to assume that their capacity to respond to rapidly changing circumstances is likely to become an abiding feature of their lives. Opportunities for them to flourish in such uncertainty and live hopeful futures, will depend on those occupying key positions of power today being able to take the long-term view of what needs to change. As things work at present, this is unlikely to happen. In the words of Professor Ken Robinson, "the system needs transforming."  http://sirkenrobinson.com/

The ongoing climate of political/professional wrangling has the capacity to damage young people’s life chances well into the future. It is clearly diverting public attention away from the need to generate a broad consensus about the aims and values that should underpin future education reform. Get the latest from Reiss and White on a new approach to curriculum planning at  An Aims-based Curriculum.

The benefits of changing the present system to secure longer-term objectives in education need to be articulated. I question why teachers' professional bodies aren't doing this more persistently? The challenges young people face will call for attitudes, skills and knowledge that are not being systematically developed in the present stop-go approach to education planning. If we are about to embark on further change, it would be better if we were able to work together.

In future, if they so choose, people are likely to directly influence decision-making at every level. Ordinary citizens already have the means to do so via mobile communication technologies, as we have repeatedly witnessed happening in other countries. Dictatorships and democracies alike, will be similarly affected in future because of this development and governments will find themselves having to listen to the voice of the people or face the consequences. The old ways will no longer deliver what we need.

Put simply, decision-making in our education system is out of step with what is required. The task of preparing learners to meet the challenges of greater participation in a changeable future is threatened by the short-term agenda of politicians under current arrangements. Tragically, the option that exists to change strategic decision-making isn’t even being discussed.

The first priority, therefore, must be to take this debate forward. The objective of doing so initially being, to re-frame the reform process. Re-defining responsibilities, clarifying roles and agreeing an appropriate balance between central and local decision-making will all require our urgent attention.

Evidence clearly indicates, decades of education reform have failed too many of our young people. Were this not the case, there would not be the present clamour for further hurried changes, at the expense of alienating the very people responsible for delivering reform.
In a changing global environment, decisions about education can no longer be coupled to the existing system of parliamentary power recycling, where parties need only a simple majority at the ballot-box to entitle them to determine the future direction (for a few years) of a crucially important service like education. The process we have, has consistently failed to deliver lasting, longer-term benefits to the service and to its users. Also, in recent years, successive governments have vastly increased their own powers at the expense of local democracy, despite their blatant denial of having done so. Too much quick-fix reform has proved to be economically wasteful, systematically demotivating for many working in education and ineffective in creating genuinely equitable opportunities to improve life chances for all pupils. Short-term solutions are no solutions at all.

To further illustrate the point, information and communication technology (ICT) is set to change the face of education. Considerable attention is already being focused on making individualised learning a viable option. Teachers understand the importance of this but they know that such a transition cannot be achieved over-night. Game-changing approaches of this kind require time to develop, to evaluate and to deliver. How, under the present system could there possibly be a commitment to the long-term success of such an important initiative? Politicians, quite obviously, do not have the time to commit to the long-haul; quick-fix and move-on has been disastrous so far in reforming education.

As new generations of educators expand their expertise, adapting tested ideas in their own domain to deliver real results (not tests and league table results), politicians should concentrate their energies on the strategic task for which their mandate is actually best suited. They should set global levels of funding for education in line with the wishes of a better informed electorate and guided by balanced input from highly committed professionals. Interestingly, it has been felt for some time that the first nation to transform its education service along these lines will accrue considerable lasting benefits for its citizens.

As to the past, it would be wise to preserve only what benefits the future, as seen from our present perspective. It is time to change the very culture of change in education. We owe it to our successors.

Monday 18 March 2013

Locally grown education communities for our changing global future.

Earlier today, I returned to look up Sir Ken Robinson’s work on creativity. Speaking at the close of the world summit of 'Learning Without Boundaries', at London's Barbican in June 2012, Ken Robinson emphasised his view that, above all, the main purpose of education is personal. As a primary practitioner, I fully support this view. If education is divorced from the needs, aspirations and expectations of the learner, it will never go deep. Of particular interest also, was his description of how he believes education for the new century has to be personalised and customised.

The increasing use of technology in the school system is bringing forward the day when the meaningful individualisation of learning will be possible. However, it was Ken Robinson's view that education in the future will have to be customised that prompted me to write here about 'locally grown' education communities. There is certainly unanimity about the global challenges that face humanity in the coming decades. What is not so widely accepted is the notion that, in seeking and applying local solutions, it is most likely that many of the pressing global issues will be resolved. The importance of local communities working together cannot be overstated. It is in this regard that education has a central role to play.

I found fresh material on Ken Robinson's blog site and other sources around the net, much of which has a direct link with current ideas about the reform of primary education in England. In the above presentation, I was struck by some of his findings that resonate with my own ideas:

The rationale for reform has been made, not only in this country but across the globe. It’s time to agree the precise reforms for each domain and construct an education system fit for purpose.

The energy to drive the necessary change is currently dissipated because of innovation fatigue. It is vitally important that further change must be allowed to evolve over time.

General principles and key values are widely shared but not unanimously held in professional circles – coordinated leadership is lacking.

Constructive support for fundamental change within political circles is limited and is largely determined by ideological perspectives along historical and party political lines. Unfortunately, progress is likely to be limited if this situation is not addressed.

Change has to be owned at a local level and for this to be possible, communities need the freedom to evolve within a very broad national framework.

For local responsiveness to flourish, central oversight of education has to be re-defined, if necessary, in law. Strategic decision-making about what needs to happen in local communities has to be shifted from the centre.

The primary curriculum is too constrained by the traditional subject model and blighted by a narrow testing regime where 'accountability mania' stifles the confidence to innovate.

Collaboration between families and providers of high quality early years provision helps establish the necessary foundation for all later learning, and needs to be strengthened.

Parents need greater recognition for what they do well, rather than being held responsible for all society’s ills under the crude scrutiny of tabloid journalism.

Education standards will still need to be monitored. But, first it has to be agreed what we will measure, for what purpose and to what effect.

Education funding continues to be based on the age of learners. There has to be an open, informed debate about funding allocations and it has to be based on need rather than on historical patterns.

Local schools, working in partnership under strong leadership and with a commitment to seek out and adapt the most promising pedagogical tools, require time and freedom. The needs of the local community of learners have to be acknowledged above the drive from central authority to 'dictate' what is appropriate. One size fits all, only ever worked for a small majority at a time that has long since passed. Now it’s different. We have to think and work more creatively, more globally. The future belongs to our successors, but they need us to envision that future both for them and with them, and it will be different from any past experience.