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

Throughout the course of the week  the central theme coming through for me is the vital importance of creating a sense of belonging, of valuing everyone and of being truly inclusive in our education systems. Yesterday Jeff Howard talked about the vicious circle of underdevelopment in American education where children are often viewed as having a ‘fixed’ intelligence and where educators and parents have low expectations of certain groups ability to achieve. He stated it is important to develop all in our schools because “developed people are free to find meaning to find quality lives and to leave a legacy of wisdom and humanity”. To him this quite simply means we must create proficient pupils and develop a strong character in all. If people have a strong character we realise that our behaviour matters, we understand the principle of proper conduct and we choose to apply these in our lives at all times, not just when we are being watched. To do this we must work with families and communities and understand that as members of society we have our part to play in teaching young people to behave and learn instead of thinking we can’t do anything about it. We are all responsible and can’t just blame society.

This message and the themes running through this summer school were brought sharply into focus for me last night when we visited the Holocaust memorial in Boston. The memorial consists of 6 number of high towers etched with millions of numbers representing the numbers tattooed on those killed in concentration camps. This was a very powerful, deeply moving experience for me. I had such overwhelming feeling of disbelief that man could do this to man, and equally disturbing is the thought that inhumanities are still occurring all over the world.

It was an extremely humbling experience and for me really drove home the message that if we do not actively foster a sense of belonging, of valuing people and of being truly inclusive we could create the circumstances which allow atrocities like the holocaust to take place and destroy the lives of individuals and whole sections of society.

 ‘Hurt people hurt people’ – Jeff Howard 

For me my challenge is to ensure that I do what I can do to stop this happening and to ensure that generations of children in our schools do not lose out. And that they receive the appropriate education which enables them to actively and constructively participate in our society.

link

Jim Honan led this morning’s session on “Change That Leads to Improvement”.

He explored how there is growing interest in the social return we gain from the investment we make in the education system.

The model he shared was the “Program Logic Model” derived from the Kellog Foundation.

The model goes as follows:

1. Resources —-2. Activities—-3. Outputs—-4. Outcomes—-5. Impact

I was particularly interested in stages 3, 4 and 5.

Outputs are the descriptive statistics, e.g. % attendance; courses run; number of participants; hours spent on an activity.

Outcomes describe what changed, e.g. attainment went up from x% to y%; attendance decreased; bullying incidents went up.

Impact is where we make some judgement about how successful our original vision might have been - the “so what question”

I recall a very interesting meeting I had with Rick Segal - a Canadian Venture Capitalist - back in October, where he had interrogated me by constantly drilling into the outcomes and impact of my practice in a very uncomfortable manner.

It was whilst listening to Jim Honan that I was struck by the possibility of reframing how we consider impact and how we might better link actions and measures of success.

The typical planning  process in Scottish education goes something like this:

1. AIM  e.g. Improve the health of young people 

2. ACTION  2 hours of weekly PE

3. MEASURE Provide 2 hours of PE each week

The problem with this approach is that our measures - which are derived from the action - can be disconnected from the aim, i.e. PE does not necessarily mean that health is improved - even if it’s high quality PE. The other problem associated with this example is that the measure is an output not an outcome

If I was funder and was putting money into the system to fulfil my aim, i.e. to improve health - then being told that all kids were now doing 2 hours of PE each week would not convince me that I’m getting a good social return on my investment.

So what if we considered an alternative relationship between these three factors?

1. Aim - Improve health

3. Measure - Children can run for 12 minutes without stopping

2. Action - Design and implement programmes which will improve children’s CV fitness.

By selecting a much more specific measure and linking it with the aim - prior to deciding upon what the action might be - we come up with a potentially more powerful change model which is very much directed towards IMPACT.

If you want to try this challenge have go at providing me with an aim, measure and action for making children more responsible citizens - remember your measure must be able to answer the funders’ “so what” question about any actions you take, i.e. can you demonstrate impact (not just an output)

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!
 

When I learned that I was going out to Harvard with five female colleagues I have to admit to some trepidation:

• What would my wife say?
• Would I feel out on a limb?
• Would they drive me nuts?

Well my experience so far - Day 5 - has been exceptional.  What a great group of people they are but perhaps more importantly I think I have gained an insight into what it is to “be one the girls”.

So what’s different from being “one of the boys”?

That’s actually more difficult to answer than you might think but there is definitely something.  The obvious answer would be to say that they are more caring, consensual and supportive and I suppose that these are characteristics that I have observed. However, it’s more subtle than that - and I think it’s got something to do with the way that they carry out conversations.

I know I shouldn’t generalise from my experience but I think they listen and want to hear from each other - rather than just always wanting to contribute or push their own ideas.  I wonder if male conversations aren’t just a little bit more ‘competitive’ i.e. I listen and then I want to top it by recounting my experience or idea.  The women don’t seem to work that way the conversations are all the more enjoyable and possibly productive for that. Now I know my presence is corrupting that true “girls” environment but at least I’ve been given an insight into a very different world.  Thanks Girls.

Oh and my wife - well I think I now understand why she likes a night out with the girls - she joins me out here on Thursday - so I’m looking forward to her meeting my “girls”

I thought I had a good handle on Inclusive Education - how wrong could I have been?!

Norman Kunc is a formidable personality who negotiated his own way into mainstream education at the age of the 13 having been educationally segregated from birth due to cerebral palsy.

My colleagues will focus on other aspects of his presentation but I thought I ‘d concentrate on how inclusive education relates to school culture for all.

Norman’s main premise is that the debate is not around the principle of inclusion - it’s about where that “line of inclusion” is - “we can take this child but we can’t take that child.” 

“But if there is a line you’d expect it to be the same everywhere” the reality is that this line varies hugely from school to school. 

 So Norman posed the $64,000 question

“Why do schools vary so much in the way in which they deal with variation?”

For Norman Kunc the answer is simple - Inclusion is about school culture “a school has to commit to all of it’s kids”

He wasn’t talking here about “benevolence” or “social kindness” but about a proactive commitment to promote a sense of belonging - for all children. Some schools have ot some don’t.

He used Maslow’s hierarchy to explore the relationship between self esteem  and belonging  i.e. we can only experience self esteem if we belong. Yet Norman Kunc would argue that our society reverses this by valuing self esteem - which relates to mastery and in turn such things as attainment - above belonging.  The extent to which we therefore feel a sense of belonging is therefore conditional upon how well we display mastery over the things which society values - his paper sets out more clearly

I was really taken by Norman’s assertion that we often replace belonging with allegiance - which is usually held together by focussing upon a common enemy - all to often leaders at all levels create a common enemy to build allegance but not belonging “it’s us against them” - whoever “they” might be.

So how do you go about build  a sense of belonging in your school? - for Norman Kunc you do it by asking yourself two questions:

Where does belonging get eroded in my school? and

What can I do about it?

For me it keeps coming back to unconditional positive regard - for every member of our school communities - so easy to say so difficult to achieve.

Last point - but as a consequence of this presentation I feel I need to come off the fence about one thing which I believe destroys a sense of belonging in many schools - and that’s setting or ability grouping - which we do to promote (without any evidence) academic attainment - i.e. valuing mastery over belonging.