Harvard Graduate School of Education - Leadership: an Evolving Vision 2007

One of the features of American education about which I have been suprised in the number of High School Principals who started their management careers in Elementary (Primary) schools.

One of the reasons that I’m so surprised is that the system here is so performance measurement oriented - in other words if something doesn’t improve the numbers it won’t be continued.  Yet there is no apparent difference in the performance of schools led by leaders who have only worked in the High School setting and those who are led by leaders who were first in the Elementary setting.

So where does that leave us in Scotland?

Well is doesn’t happen! - so why not? One of the reasons often given is that “Primary schools are so different from Secondary (High) schools “the examination system, the timetable,  pupil behaviour, structure of departments, and often the difference in the number of pupils “- yet one could argue that such elements are all at the techinical end of the spectrum - they can be learned.

What’s been reinforced to me here is that the big management issues - i.e. people and culture are completely the same between primary and secondary.

When I moved from being a High School Principal to being Head of Education - no one batted an eyelid - yet no one could have suggested that I had all the technical knowledge necessary for me to do the job. The reality is that I had developed a set of transferable leadership and management skills  which allowed me to take up my post and the rest I’ve had to learn on the job.

So why couldn’t an outstanding Primary Head Teacher be considered for a position as Head Teacher of a secondary school - especially when we are experiencing such a shortage of high quality candidates for such posts.

As the size issue - that would mean that any Head Teacher of a small secondary school could never be considered for the post of Head Teacher of a large secondary school - which would never happen.

I’d like to explore this further when I get home - no doubt teachers’ unions might have issues and parents might have concerns but I don’t think either are insurmountable - perhaps the greatest shift would have to come in the in the minds of people like me.

Mind you - if we did go  for such a shift, the direction of travel would have to be both ways.

Would I do it?  -  you betcha!!!

In the course of Norman Kunc’s thought provoking presentation about Inclusive Education, he described a situation, which is all too familiar, both in school and, in society as a whole.
Often, educators, at all levels, can find themselves, when working with disabled people, involved in providing an “unaccepted attack of help.” This is where the support that someone is offering to a disabled person is very different to that which is actually required – and all because no one has given the disabled person the opportunity to actually outline and detail the help they need.

The intention in a situation like this is well meaning. However people without a disability see things through their lack of disability and, as such, they do not always see things accurately. As Norman, a disabled person himself outlined, very often the disabled person does not require or indeed want the help, which is forced upon them.
We, as educators, need to be mindful of this and take account of it when engaging with disabled pupils in our schools. Such imposed, unnecessary help can actually do more harm than good in that it can inhibit the development of independence in a young person. Also it can be detrimental in allowing them to exist in as inclusive an environment as possible i.e. they can be made to feel unnecessarily different due to input which does nothing more than “single them out.” This can lead to stigma being attached to the disabled person and this goes against all we are trying to create in our schools in terms of inclusion for all pupils.
Norman Kunc feels that it is, more often than not, fairly straightforward, in avoiding such unacceptable attacks of help. The person who has the most relevant and accurate information about a child, his/her disability and the help he/she does actually require is the child themselves and/or their family. We need to ask them about the appropriate help and support that is required. Yes, other agencies can and should be involved but the child and their family should be central to the process wherever possible.
Kunc issues a warning in that, as practitioners we should never see expertise in working with disabled pupils and their families as giving us the power to decide upon the help they require. He says that this leads to generalisation and it often actually leads to the practitioner taking over and this undermines a child’s authority.   We should always “trust the experience over the expertise.” It is only the experience in working with each and every individual youngster and their family that then gives us the information required to make available the correct support for that person.
Kunc gives a very interesting example of approach in the “October Rule.” If a child enters school at the start of the session discussions regarding a support / help package should not take place until October. The reason for this is that the period between August and October should be used as a time of evaluation where a pupil and their family are able to assess the actual support they are going to need – an interesting consideration!
Kunc is of the view that we live in a society which values perfection and that this must change. I share his thinking here. Life is supposed to be messy and ambiguous and we, as practitioners, need to continue to try and assist all pupils, disabled or not, in finding those magical moments of learning where we all achieve our potential.
In Scotland, recent developments in terms of meeting the needs of all, are very encouraging. With the introduction of the Additional Support for Learning Act, each and every child is at the centre of all discussions about their needs and any additional help they may require. I emphasise here again the need to support and help every child - every child may, at some time in their development, require some additional support and the new Act allows us to take account of this and the wide and varied needs that may be involved here. This for me is what we mean by a real, inclusive approach to education!
 

This was a presentation by Millie Pierce on the pupose of public schooling. Some of us a had a difficulty separating schooling from education but we agreed to accept the term.

Millie set out an alternative 3 Rs – rigour, relationships and relevance:

1. Rigour: academic/disciplinary learning
2. Relationships: children need to have something to believe in – “I am here to save your life” - her challenge was to accept the role of being the interrupter in children’s lives in order to break the cycle of pernicious poverty
3. Relevance: relevant curriculum and connect to life skills

She then proposed that the role of the school leader is to be an advocate for every child in the school

Parents sometimes say - “I don’t care about other children in the school” – is this acceptable? We need to challenge this perception - all to often we compromise our values to keep a parent happy.

We felt that it’s the leaders job to maintain balance between the needs of the individual and the needs of the whole school.

We sometimes need to share the baggage carried by children with other staff – need to share confidential information – break free from traditional assumptions – trust the professionalism of teachers not to share – teachers need to learn not a to treat children’s behaviour as being personal attack.

Fact - Reading scores in third grade determine the number of prisons which will need to be built in 25 years time”

Corporate parenting responsibility – this is something which all teachers need to accept.

Fact - Measurable drop in discipline referrals following case conferences – touch teachers compassion – when they understand they change they the way they behave towards children in crisis.

Fact - 95% of children are capable of attaining their potential – only 5% have learning difficulties, which inhibit them from attaining their potential

Millie once stopped a teacher teaching by removing her from her class - she had damaged too many children - when she was asked by her superintendent what she was doing? - she reponded – “I can do anything I want – I’m the Principal”

Fact - If you have a bad teacher for one year sets you back three years and a bad teacher for two sets you back five – or perhaps for life?

Give every child what you want for your own children

“Do what you want to do and you’ll find a way to earn” - this is a message for children.

The group feel that there is incredible resonance with what Millie was saying and how it relates to what we are trying to achieve through A Curriculum for Excellence and Integrated Children’s Services.