Over the Easter weekend there was outcry at the NASUWT conference because of students interviewing teachers and taking more control. In a typical polarisation of opinions Jeremy Vine interviewed Stephen Heppell and some other professor (I only know this much because this professor wasn’t given much of a chance to speak). Heppell made some good points about how students can offer real insight into how teachers can improve and respond to student learning needs. The other professor made a contrasting point about a breakdown in school’s authority to lead. This didn’t contradict Heppell but his argument was to suggest that non-one would be daft enough to make their decisions entirely in response to student popularity.
The problem is that the idea that schools are suffering a crisis of confidence is a reality. Many school leaders are looking for the next big idea to improve their results and there will be some who are following the idea of student voice without really understanding the point. They are doing what they are told. The government are telling them to jump to the latest Ofsted scaremongering or to reach even more challenging targets and they are so keen to jump they are forgetting to question why they are jumping or if it will make a difference.
Meanwhile some student from a student’s association was interviewed on Saturday and he said that schools need to realise that students are the customer and they should be meeting their needs. This seems to fly in the face of a partnership. If students are passively waiting for things to be as they want them and disown their responsibility then of course things aren’t going to improve.
The National Strategies for secondary have developed this great website for those interested in learning conversations. It is a systematic development towards a theory of practice. Well Done!
This presentation from the Futurelab learner conference challenges the “notion of [students], as learners, being able to conceive of the future of their learning, being able to articulate that, and it seems to us very problematic”. It is a good question. The usual idea is that we ask the children but children can state preferences. They are less likely to be able to tell us what they want. Invariably they can only choose from the things that are currently available. This is another example of defining children with greater agency than they have. It also disempowers or disaggregates responsibility from those responsibility for learning or care etc.
The key stage 3 and 4 materials, The Learning Challenge, have a range of materials to support children in recognising their attitude to learning.
One idea is the metacognative plenary. Taking some time at the end of lessons to discuss how they learned during the lesson and talking about what the teacher did that was helpful.
These statements are taken from Learner Voice, a handbook by Futurelab
• letting learners know why something is important to learn
• showing learners how to direct themselves through information
• relating the topic to the learners’ own experiences and background
• understanding learners will not learn effectively until they are ready and motivated to do so
• helping learners to overcome inhibitions, behaviours and beliefs that may represent a barrier to their effective learning.
|Is this BECTA document an example of future thinking incorporating the word personalisation but presenting a future where ICT has delivered an independent rather than personalised learning environment?
“Priority 2 asserts that traditional educational approaches have not achieved enough, and that we need to develop an understanding of how ICT can support the transformation of education so that it makes use of pedagogies appropriate to the 21st century. Central to the e-strategy is the drive for personalisation of education, so that learners are supported at times and places that are appropriate to their needs and in ways that suit their personal dispositions, in order to maximise learning outcomes.” (page 51)
I suppose I feel that ICT will follow pedagogic, curriculum and assessment changes rather than leading the change. In fact without these broader changes ICT will enshrine current practices and the ‘modern’ technology will mask the lack of actual change. This is a common situation where leaders point to children using PDAs or the new technology and make this a proof that things are changing.
|This workshop from Futurelab is a useful discussion around personalisation. It outlines key principles and opens up a conversation about how far we expect personalisation to impact the ways we currently work.|