Inspiring Education: some postscripts….

Some things are still nagging me after Inspiring Education. So here is my final blog related to the 2.5 days we spent on that journey (maybe!).

Change itself is neither a good thing or a bad thing – it is neutral until the content of change is defined. That’s why the direction and content matters so much. While technology and global citizenship might be the imperative for change, the changes to be implemented that are identified are more important than the mere fact that change needs to occur. During our discussions at various tables, I heard a number of assumptions on what needed to change, untested against reality or research. Here are some of them:

Assumption 1: In order to change the role of teachers (which was generally thought to be a required element of change), we had to remove tenure.

I think this is a dangerous direction without much careful thought. A workforce (unionized or not) will move along with a change that is necessary when they buy-in and have the right kind of leadership and support. And if individuals decide they don’t like the destination they will almost always self-select out of the frontline provided there are some clear exit options (and circumstances) or alternative career paths. Its just that it’s hard work and requires leadership and collaboration at many levels, including the ATA. There may be another path other than the most radical one.

Assumption 2: Teaching going on at schools currently is bad or deficient or backward.

Some learning environments and many teachers are in fact already leading us into the future right now. I have seen some stellar examples of incredible teaching and learning going on – that often go unnoticed by formal programs such as Excellence in Teaching Awards etc. or by Administration (too focused on test scores thanks to the government’s emphasis on this) and parents alike. But its happening and the students know it.

Assumption 3: Without great diversity in programming and “choice”(code for private and charter schools) , things will go awry in the public (and I use the word to include separate) system.

This is largely, for want of a better word, “piffle”. The Alberta public school system has embraced many different ways to deliver education. Much creativity and experimentation has occurred over the past 20 years. It is time to consolidate what has been learnt and drive it through a common, equitable public system so all Albertan children have similar opportunities regardless of where they live, and regardless of the unique strengths and challenges they face. Dividing resources according to a “market” mentality rarely brings equitable results in any public good and subsidizing alternatives to public delivery is not an efficient use of taxpayers’ money.

AISI was seen as a way to encourage experimentation and research-based practices. Why has it largely failed? In my opinion, the largest barriers to the ability to capitalize on initiatives like AISI have been:
- the ‘boom and bust’ and compartmentalized approach to funding by the provincial government (not allowing the system to develop resources to be used across all classrooms when a promising practice is identified, failing to fund technology infrastructure across all classrooms etc);
- the inability of the government to allow autonomy of schools boards who authentically engage their community and embrace research-based practices and in turn encourage communities of learners in a wholistic way. (Note: this might exclude some school boards!)
- stereotyping of people who are or should be attracted to teaching, ‘70’s style teacher training and belief that a singular pedagogy is king.

So, in order to fix things we need to decide what is truly broken. That’s a tricky but important task.