Dialogue about the curriculum
Posted by nmccann on April 1, 2007
I wanted to open up discussions about our curriculum. I have had a number of discussions about CLEs and hours lately and wanted to get everyone’s thoughts before we launch into planning stage 5. My only proviso for people making comments is that they are in line with our 10 L & T principles.
I will open it up our discussion with a comment Steve R made to me over the weekend.
Neil
Thinking about the converstaion that was occurring yesterday about eight week CLEs. (correct me if I am wrong in calculations). Could we have 4 CLES running at once per week and over a eight week period would mean that we would have 1840 minutes per CLE rather than the 1700 minutes we have now. This would mean that we would have less CLEs but it could also be that we have too many CLEs at the moment. It may be a good time and question to ask LAs if they have concerns about the integrity of hours and the coverage of content for each KLA. I know that the upcoming SDD is already set but people could be feeling a little concerned about moving into the next set of CLEs and are the CLEs really working as well as we would like them to. Monday staff meetings do not provide enough time to sort through this type of stuff. A number of times we have said that we want to hold onto that passion and vision about integrated curriculum. I could be wrong but I feel that we may need to talk this through honestly as a staff.
The other option, which is another kettle of fish, is offering different CLEs over a period of time and students choose when they do the CLE. This idea was coined many years ago when I attended a think tank on the learning agenda. One model that was looked at was the “Unlimited School” in New Zealand. In saying this I also appreciate the much more flexible curriculum in New Zealand.
Steve
April 30th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Thanks for your comment Steve. Given the effort and thinking we put into the current set of CLEs for year 7 & 8, I think we need to teach the program through a number of times before we consider changing the length of CLEs. However, your ideas ar significant in our thinking about Stage 5 CLEs. I don’t envisage changing the legth of Stage 4 CLEs this year, but we need to ientify the issues as we plan year 9.
I think you have identified a sigificant point when you bring up the concept of choice. Once again, significant thinking for Stage 5.
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Curriculum Evaluation
Currently, for RE the focus on the whole person is appropriate.
Community Relationships have been a limited focus. We have involved the local community initially when exploring our self concept, when exploring the local diocese and in preparing for the knit in. More could be undertaken in this area in Year 9.
Not enough of what I have planned has had an active inquiry approach. Reasons are probably my desire to control the path of learning for the students but also their age and limited ability to discriminate and evaluate what they read.
Definitely collaborative which I find enlivening.
At the moment we are so stretched in planning for the whole that we are not giving time to the needs of individuals.
Well integrated curriculum with good socio emotional links
Work spaces: We started off using these well term one 06 but not now. Too much is as a whole group. Not enough use of variety here.
May 5th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
A thought about ICLE and I say this keeping in mind the arrangement of space and how valuable it is to be with our learning circle.
The Thought: To have the Year Groups sitting together in iCLE.
The Reasons: The CLE teachers can be all together offering on the spot support and advice
The CLE teachers can sign off the tasks sheets with greater knowledge about the content of the CLE
I know at times I am getting students from the year 7 CLE that I am presently on wandering in from all over the place wanting to know information/advice/support. Many say because their learning advisor is not on a particular CLE it would be better to find a learning advisor that it is.
This could be more a stage 5 arrangement rather than stage 4?
Steve
May 7th, 2007 at 12:44 am
Our integration of the curriculum gives a greater focus of the whole person because we are endeavouring to move away from compartmentalised learning and in turn the person is less compartmentalised. I am beginning to notice in the students that our integrated learning is having a growing effect on how students see the world around them. I know that from a number of CLEs that I have been on the language that is slowly emerging from students is an integrated, interdependent and interconnected worldview, which has the growing potential to build a deeper understanding of the whole person
We are creating a culture in the school where community relationship is developing. We have had a few CLE related community relationship initiatives that have been very successful (eg last years knit it). The more we can develop our content and teaching strategies towards real community connections than students can feel that learning is not only a self accomplishing/pleasing/developing activity but can also be integral to reaching out to others and make a difference to the community around them both at the local, national and global level. In stage 5 I would support any steps that continue to build this focus. One of the significant developments in our community relationship building is the increasing amount of elders who are coming into the school. There can be practical reasons for this eg. – many are retired – but what we are stating and building is a culture of valuing the wisdom and experience of our elders.
One of the great successes of our school learning agenda is learning to learn. We are realising the value of such a session. I feel more focused about learning to learn. Connecting it in a much more supportive manner to the CLEs that are operating at the time helps the students with vital skills that you just do not get time to teach in a CLE.
The question “how well integrated is the curriculum, does it incorporate social and emotional learning” causes me to look back to Bellambi when we were given a large A3 sheet with a diagram outlining the mechanics of how we put together a CLE and what parts we need to include in a CLE. One of the challenges I have at the moment is having enough time to organise the CLE. More and more I feel that I am doing it more and more on the run. Last year when we had a session off to do the planning it felt that you could discuss the planning in greater depth. This year I feel that I am just scrapping through in the planning and development of a CLE. This then goes back to the question of authentically considering the incorporation of social and emotional learning. I can honestly say not too many of the CLE meetings that I have been involved in really gave considerable time to incorporating it into a CLE. This was not an intentional decision. It was more the fact that most of a CLE meeting was dedicated to subject content, teaching strategies and fulfilling required hours and outcomes. I don’t think having ICLE meetings in ICLE has helped.
Are we fostering an active inquiry approach to our learning? I hope in stage 5 I/we can do more. One of the great focus points we have for a CLE is the enduring understanding. The enduring understanding and fertile questions are a positive avenue to develop and support an active enquiry approach. In stage 5 we can build on the enduring understandings and fertile questions as one key underpinning of active enquiry.
Sometimes I wonder if the open spaces are too big for stage 4 students. There are times when we have used them well and they worked well because personally I felt we gave the students the confidence to work well within them. Some CLEs do work well together in open spaces. For example in the Japanese CLE there were sessions where students from other CLEs sat in the 8 space working quietly on self directed learning tasks while at the same time could be part of the Japanese CLE. It may just be a matter of planning CLEs that have more similarities being in the large space at the same time.
We are developing a hope filled, futures centred, flexible, engaging, supportive environment. In stage 5 a deeper focus on developing leadership would help this although the leadership may come in a unique way from this years Year 7 group.
A also feel that when you are amongst the every day action of it all you do not get enough time to stand back and give that impartial view of it. I hear from time to time what the outside world is saying about the school and a significant amount of what is said is very positive. In stage 5 I would support and hopefully initiate more the community engaging aspect as well as engaging the wider community into a deeper understanding of what learning is occurring in the school and how the implications of this learning are making a difference to the world. In turn helping the students to continue to know that their learning really does count and does make a difference now and into the future.
May 7th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
I think the 3 CLEs each 5 weeks works well in Stage 4. I haven’t taught any Year 8 CLES yet but I know my Year 8 students loved the first 5 weeks and were engaged overall in the second set of CLES. Generally in Stage 4 our curriculum seems to meet student needs in that usually students will tell me that they are really loving one CLE and at least one other CLE is OK to good and they seem ready to move on each 5 weeks. Their responses vary according to student’s learning styles and interests so I think overall we are giving them opportunities to work within their learning preferences whilst developing their least preferred areas (though in this set of year 8 CLES for the first time I ‘ve had students not enjoying any of the CLES so this particular group of CLES may need to be reworked in the Scope and Sequence-maths and Japanese have similarities in learning style. For students who do not relate to this the sad side of “In the Eyes of a Child” seems to give them little room for happy learning )
From the point of view of mathematics I think the combination of integration, Hotmaths and Skills booklets is very effective. I feel our students are learning maths in a much more meaningful way than text book learning but I am much happier with this year’s Year 7 program than last year’s when I felt the students themselves were not undertaking enough practice of skills. I think it is important to have the scope and sequence set in terms of outcomes for each stage to reduce the stress on staff as we set up Stage 4,5 and 6 and also to ensure that all students meet outcomes.
I would be interested to see the implications of longer CLES for Stage 5. Personally I’m not in favour of 8 weeks CLES preferring half term or whole term CLES. Would it be feasible to have a whole term CLE with one or two courses contributing over the whole CLE and other courses contributing at different times maybe 5 weeks each? I know that one of the disadvantages of Stage 4 has been finishing a CLE when there is so much more to do. Whilst this is probably a good idea in Stage 4 because students are ready to move on even if we are not, I feel that in Stage 5 it would be good to look at more in-depth response to key questions.
I really do not like CLE meetings happening in iCLE time. I’m realistic enough to realise that we have to take time out somewhere and maybe this is where it has to be but I think this is undervaluing the LA-student relationship. In a traditional setting this is sustained by regular subject related sessions and feedback. I am finding one less ICLE makes it much more difficult to give feedback to students, to support their learning and sign off task sheets. For me the combination of diminished relartionship through the subject base compared to traditional settings and through ICLE compared to last year is not ideal.
May 7th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
I agree that the five week CLEs are age-appropriate for Stage 4. I know that this makes it difficult when it would be preferable to develop projects or ideas over a longer period to allow student reflection and refinement of work, but we need to balance that against the intensive experience the CLEs offer for particular concepts. We immerse the kids in particular ideas and concepts for 85 mins, four times a week, which is more intensive than would ever occur in traditional subject classes. I think that any benefits of longer time frames would be lost by the fact that the students would be “over it” and their engagement would wane beyond five weeks. I do think, however, that it will be imperative to have longer periods of time in Stage 5. I know that timetabling logistics will make it difficult to have the Stages running on different time frames, but hopefully we can do some creative thinking about how to get around that.
I can also see why Steve has suggested seating students during iCLE in year groups, but I think that this would seriously diminish the Student-Learning Advisor relationship. I agree that the students going “visiting” has become an issue, but perhaps we need to look a bit more closely at this and why it has come about. I think one of the benefits last year of the fact that we were all in one area meant that the students could seek out our specific expertise, without having them too far away from their Advisor. I suspect, however, that there are many students “on tour” for other reasons now; I know that seeing other Advisors has become the “seeing Mr Carniato” of 2007 with some of my “work avoiders”, or even subterfuge to go chat to their friends. I know this isn’t necessarily the case for all students, but I suspect it may be for quite a few of them. Perhaps if we want the year groups seated together in iCLE this points to the need for year group based Learning Circles, but would this diminish some of the wonderful community benefits we have seen from vertically integrated Learning Circles this year? I feel that from a community standpoint that the Yr7/Yr8 LCs have been excellent and would hate to see them go. A tricky one, but I think it is important to work to preserve the Student-LA relationship.
I also agree that the planning meetings haven’t been ideal during iCLE. I have, like Steve, felt much more like I am doing things “on the hop”, and I have felt personally under a lot more pressure trying to develop quality resources for our CLEs. I was part of the group that first suggested the meetings during in iCLE, in fact it was me that first suggested it (sorry guys!), but I don’t think it has played out well and what seemed like a good idea at the time has become a train wreck.
On to the L&T principles – thanks if you have actually read this far, haha! I agree with Steve that the integrated structure of our curriculum is fostering a “connected worldview” and really has led to a focus on the whole person. As far as integrating SEL I think that we are doing a lot in this area but it is not always transparently stated in our programs and is in danger of being lost when the programs are taught in the future as staff who initially developed CLEs disperse across the year groups. I don’t think that ticking statements in PAROT is enough, because much of it comes through our pedagogy and the emphasis we put on particular ideas and concepts in our conversations with students and learning group discussions. I also believe there is much potential for explicit SEL skilling, which is beginning to come to fruition in L2L this year (eg. Kate’s “Cognitive Therapy” learning activities) but has a way to go yet.
I also believe that as our Stage 4 program fosters this connected worldview that it is shaping them as learners, and will inevitably have impacts on the way that they learn in Stage 5 and Stage 6. I’ve spent lots of time mulling over the place for “specialising” in particular curriculum areas in learning (ie. Subjects), both in my time at CCCHS and in the direction I saw the curriculum model heading at my previous school. In this I keep coming back to why we integrate in the first place; to foster this connected worldview and scaffold students into generalising their skills and knowledge to become more effective learners. I think it is also relevant to think about why, in traditional schools, students are exposed to a broader range of subjects in Stage 4, and are given the opportunity to make choices and specialise in particular subjects (electives in Stage 5, course selection in Stage 6). I think that this points to something that is key to maintaining our student’s engagement as learners; it is human nature to do that which we love. I’m an English teacher because I love my subject, and while I love the depth that the connections with other disciplines brings to my teaching of English, at the end of the day it is English that inspires me. If we are realistic, as the students grow as learners they too will get great benefit from being given more room to do what they love, in fact I’d say it is even appropriate as they move up through the curriculum stages. So I think there is a place for creating more room for particular “subjects” in our learning structures in Stage 5 and Stage 6 (in fact, given our BOS requirements it seems that it would be imperative in Stage 6…?).
That said though, we need to be prepared for the fact the our CCCHS Stage 5 and Stage 6 students will be unlike those we would meet in any other school, due to the benefits of our curriculum integration in Stage 4. They won’t respond to artificial boundaries put around ideas, and will see any subject in light of the way that it connects to other learning experiences in other subjects. Moreover, I believe they will respond better to the cross-curricular content of each course, which although a part of all syllabi, often becomes somewhat superficial in the lived reality of many subject classrooms, as we push through content due to time constraints etc. What, instead, I think we are working towards, is a shift in the pedagogy of how each and every one of us approaches our subject in the learning experiences we create for students, even when we are delivering “our subject”; a unique CCCHS, connected pedagogy for every subject. There is a danger if we allow ourselves to slip back into “subject teacher mode” that we will disengage students and won’t remain true to our L&T principles, so we need to look carefully at what “subject” programs would look like at CCCHS, to ensure that we remain true to this. We also need to think about how we can program to support new staff who are employed in later stages of the school’s development, so that they really understand this different approach to their particular subject. We’ve all come a LONG way, but we need to make our programs user-friendly in preserving our integrated approach, so that new teachers who come to CCCHS and still have their “subject teacher hats” firmly in place can understand how their subject should look in light of our committment to connecting learning experiences for our students. If we don’t manage this then there is a danger that as we begin to teach subjects in the later Stages that the committment to making those big picture connections will become lip service only, which would not only be sad, but won’t serve the unique learners that are growing under our current Stage 4 structure.
I was going to say more, but I won’t. I believe that the aim of the blog was to allow all of us to have a voice, and if you’ve read this far I’ve already taken up too much of that “space”. I guess what I was trying to say is that I think that our Stage 4 curriculum structure is really true to our L&T principles and will only continue to meet them better as we continue to refine it (and it does need refinement, we all know that). That said, I think we need to be pro-active in thinking about how subject specialisation in Stage 5 and Stage 6 will fit in with this, to ensure that we do this on our terms and remain true to our L&T principles, that we maintain the engagement of students, and most importantly, so that the constraints of time related pressures and subject-related accountability (when the time for external exams etc. rolls around) doesn’t take away the integrated way we teach, even if we need to specialise.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:44 am
Just adding to what Kelly has highlighted in her last paragraph. Even if we need to specialise the cultural language that is developing in the school is the language of integration. Once this becomes your worldview it becomes almost second nature to speak the integrated language and I notice this more and more when I am with learning advisors on a CLE. I believe that even if/when we become more specialised in stage 6 the integrated language will be part of our language and pedagogical practices. We won’t lose it that easy and in some ways we will feel naked not speaking/practicing it. The big challenge will be new staff who have not taught the integrated approach. Possibly it might mean that new staff will need a good dose of stage 4 teaching to initiate them into the culture of the school.
May 21st, 2007 at 12:37 am
I have some issues with being new to the school (but I’m not sure if this is the right place for them).
I think it is generally accepted that the current Year 8s are a “difficult” group. In first term, the only time I saw Yr 8 was in Focused Learning and Learning to Learn. Focused Learning was the only time when I had a normal interaction with a class of Yr 8s. It is therefore very difficult to establish any sort of relationship with the year group. When I started teaching Yr 8 in Term 2, I had to be “tough” to establish myself with them, but when team-teaching with people who know them well already, we had different expectations of acceptable behaviour. This is totally understandable – when you have taught a group for a year, you know each other well and the students know what they can get away with and the LA knows how to deal with individuals. But it is difficult for the novice to try to establish a more ordered working environment, especially when you don’t even know their names. It must also be difficult for the students if their behaviour can fluctuate from one lesson to the next,
From my experience, there is little checking of bookwork in class, and untidiness, scribbling, personal notes, and ripped pages seem to be rife. This indicates a real lack of pride in their work on the students’ part. Even work that has to be submitted is trashy to say the least. The students just don’t seem to care. If it were possible to agree to expectations for student work at the start of the CLE, LAs who ae not actively teaching in a lesson could be checking workbooks during lessons.
The task sheets seem to be getting longer in CLE 2.1. I think this puts extra pressure on the students. There doesn’t seem to be any communcation between concurrent CLEs about the amount of home learning, and the students also get work from Focused learning and Learning to Learn. I’m not sure what recommendations are for homework, but in the past, I wouldn’t have expected Yr 8s to do more than an hour of home learning each day. I think these students receive more than that.
From a Learning Circle point of view, students can show me “finished” work for all of their CLEs, but unless I was involved in that particular CLE, I have absolutely no way of knowing whether work has been finished satisfactorily, or even finished. For my current CLE, I know that students will get work signed off that is unfinished. I think it would be a better system if only the LAs in a particular CLE signed off work for their CLE.
Throughout CLE 2.1, we have been giving regular homework and checking it one week later, also in Focused Learning. I am finding that only a handful (at the very most) of students in a Learning Group are completing their homework. Most do not even start it. Some use the excuse of having been absent when it was set, or they lost a worksheet etc, but they are not coming to find out what was missed.
I realise that these are mostly negative comments but they are the things that have made teaching Yr 8s difficult this term. Everything else has been extremely positive and I am thoroughly enjoying the new approach and organisation of the school, as well as the extremely high professionalism of all of the LAs.
May 22nd, 2007 at 10:53 pm
I agree with Kerry in alot of her observations especially the work load that is expected from the Yr8 students. Could it be that one of the reasons that Yr8 students often submit work that is of a very mediocre standard be because of the number of assessment tasks asked from them. How I see it is that each CLE normally requires at least one assessment task per subject. That can be at least 9 major (sometimes more) assement tasks in the 3 five week CLE’s. These normally have a completion date towards week 4/5 of the CLE. Is this to much to to expect from students? 9 well completed assignments/assessment tasks per 5 weeks. Thats 18 per term or around 72 per year. Are they just getting to a stage where they pick and choose between the ones that they see more important/interesting knowing that they will start the next CLE with a clean slat? I don’t feel that this is a real good practise or of much benefit to students or LA’s. It would be much better to recieve one well constructed, well thought about, meaningful assignment instead of 10 “couldn’t care less about this one” pieces of rubbish.
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Hi All!
Brett has highlihgted an important issue for us, as those with ‘new eyes’ often do. I know that there was a lively discussion about his concerns in the staff study thisafternoon, and it would be good to let others in to the discussion on this forum.
I think that all of us could name the CLE that we’ve been involved in that has been assessed in an effective, integrated way. I think we’d all be able to describe the feeling of deep satisfaction that comes from assisting students to ‘draw the inference’ , make connections, create, synthesise and demonstrate deep understanding of content and its application to their world, because of an elegantly designed and engagingly delivered assessment task. We’ve all seen a number of these showcased this year alone. when it all comes together, it seems so easy and so simple, and we wonder why we have never taught that content in that way before. And we know we can never go back.
Likewise, we can all name the CLEs that just haven’t gelled (never written that word before…how do you spell it?). Sometimes ideas for integration that seemed perfectly logical at first havent stood up to closer examination of the meaning behind the outcomes. Sometimes the connections are strong, but because of time and stress and life in general, we haven’t been able to come up with the perfect task to tie it all together. Sometimes the pressures of accountabilities of different KLAs are just too descriptive and restrictive. Sometimes it’s the difficulties of human relationships that stop the integration from flourishing in a collaborative planning environment.
None of those latter scenraios should stop us from striving for the grand prize described in the former.
There is no road map to that holy grail, but I believe that a couple of things help us to get there…
First, we need to begin our planning by articulating an enduring understanding for the CLE. This should be beyond the syllabus outcomes, but encompassing of them. They’re not easy, and discussion about them is beyond the scope of this blog, but there are lots of ideas on this site:
(link not allowed…I’ll get Neil to put it up elsewhere on the blog)
If they’re written right, the design of the assessment is a little clearer.
Secondly, I can’t see the point of integrating unless it is to ‘transform our world’. To me, it’s the logical endpoint, and it’s present in all of the enduring understandings that have been articulated in CLE descriptions so far. Our L and T framework, to me, is our ‘enduring understandings’ for l and t, and so are a good reference point to for evaluating our enduring understandings before we even begin to teach the CLE.
Yeah..what the hell, I’ll put it up!
Kate
May 24th, 2007 at 1:18 am
Here, here Kate!
I also agree that Brett has highlighted an important issue, and think that Kate has nailed a lot of the issues that have led to some of the less-than-ideal assessment experiences that have unfolded, and I also agree that we should also acknowledge that we have had also designed some excellent assessments.
On a more pragmatic level, I wonder if an assessment map would help alleviate the over-assessment epidemic. When we were chatting about assessment in the staffroom this morning it became clear to me that we haven’t clearly articulated parameters for assessment, and how the assessment of each discipline fits within the integrated curriculum. Perhaps it is time for an assessment policy that encompasses the amount and style of assessment for each subject, relative to the indicative hours of each subject? Brett commented that it seems that every subject is assessed in a CLE it is included in, but should this be the case when not all subjects have the same indicative hours? (This is not an inference of the value of one discipline over another, just the reality of the proportion of learning time that is dedicated to each discipline) Generally, in a “traditional” English program we would assess students 6-8 times a year. With two CLEs per term, that means that we are on target for English to be assessed in most CLEs (but it doesn’t have to be in all of them). When I asked Brett how often students would usually be assessed in Technology in Yr 8 he said about four times (if I’ve got that wrong, please let me know Brett!), so he is right that on the simplest level we are over-assessing students. My question would be why have we been compelled to assess all of the subjects involved in each CLE, every CLE? And is this actually occuring? I have been involved in some CLEs that have done this, and others that have not. I have also been involved on CLEs that have designed great, integrated tasks, with students completing one task for the CLE. Others have compartmentalised subject assessment, the end result being multiple assessments as described by Brett. I think we need to map it so that we have a clear picture of what the case is, and so that we can identify areas where assessment can be culled. I also think that we need to educate one another on the assessment requirements of our subject, and perhaps we can be a bit more systematic in the way assessment occurs…
Another area that I think is relevant to this discussion is the notion of assessment for learning, and how “in-class” assessment tasks fit into this. If assessments are designed to facilitate learning, shouldn’t more of the assessment work be occuring in Learning Sessions, when the majority of learning should be occuring? My experience with Yr 8 this year has been that they have performed much better in assessments that they work on, over time, in Learning Sessions (I don’t only mean “class test” type tasks when I refer to “in-class” tasks). More assessment of this type could help with the over-work factor that has been commented on a number of times. Also, if we are designing “assessment for learning” type tasks (ie. formative assessment), why have we got an end-of-CLE assessment glut? Are we doing too much summative assessment?
May 24th, 2007 at 7:31 am
It is exciting to work with such a dynamic and professional staff. I notice that some of us look up close and notice that there a a few dropped stitches and mistakes in our tapestry. I prefer to stand back and look at the magnificent and alive work of art that we are part of. As novices at this new practice (and even with more that 20years in the ‘classroom’ I feel a novice at such a school) we are bound to get some of the detail wrong at times but I could show you students in my previous school with messy books and unfinished homework but they could not articulate what they have learnt in the last session nor could they inform me of the enduring understandings that were underpinning their learning. Brava Learning Advisors. I look forward to the challenge of continuing to work with you. Vote ONE for CCCHS Learning.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Hi all,
I’ve been ruminating on the nature of the middle management next year. I didn’t say too much in the meeting because I really wanted to have given the issue consideration before I voiced an opinion.
First of all I want to pick up on two main points that were raised. The first was raisied by Kelly, i think. That is that the “carve up” of duties in a piece-meal fashion would detract from what we are actually trying to achieve. In a brainstorm all sorts of ideas came out, and they were great, but we were only a couple of more suggestions from “Bus lines facilitator” and “birithday morning tea facilitator”.
The second point that i’d like to pick up on is the collaborative approach that Kylie mentioned. I think that, at its core, is a profound suggestion that I think was lost in the moment. So much of what we do at CC is about collaboration – its what we model to our students and its how we approach our pedagogy and curriculum. Anything that comes from this must surely fit into a collaborative structure. what is the collective noun of facilitators? a ‘dialogue’?
Anyway.
Just so we have something to work with, I’m going to propose a couple of teams and positions and then rationalise them. Consider this a continuation of our brainstorm (but please, be gentle in your replies)
Presuming we do get 14 points to play with, here is one model for discussion:
The following 4 positions could easily work collaboratively in a tightly knit team structure:
> L/T – facilitator of Professional Development / Learning (1 point) – Having gone through a fairly lite ‘induction’, and more of the ‘learn on the job’ or ‘baptism of fire’, I really do think that a new PD role would be a great asset to staff beginning next year. We are on the forefront of redefining the role of teacher. This role will go hand in hand with that, and is certainly something that if it isn’t picked up next year I would be arguing for again in future years.
> L/T – facilitator of Learning to Learn (1 point) – With much of the planning in place for years 7 & 8, this role would be one facilitator position to guide and support staff on L2L across all three year groups. They would be responsible for the overall mapping of the L2L curriculum and for making connections with CLEs. This facilitator would have the big picture for L2L, but would not “run” it, I would imagine that ths facilitator would collaborate with the PD facilitator and CLE teams.
> G/D – facilitator of Restorative Practice (1 point). Much of our leaders’ time is taken up with dealing with issues that happen in the playground or a too big for just one LA, a facilitator of restorative practice would be a half way point between an LA and a Leader. Other schools have ‘year co-ordinators’ and I feel most of that role has been taken up directly by LAs, which has a transforming effect on many children. Some of this role – the bringing together of large groups, following up of playground incidents, bullying in different forms, etc could be dealt with by facilitator that would act in support of an LA.
> G/D – facilitator of Special Needs / learning diversity (1 point). Diversity in our learning spaces is going to continue to be a challenging thing. Support in this area for all CLE teams and learning advisors is desperately needed and I feel will drmmatically impact upon the experiences of our special needs students and of course teaching staff. I would imagine that part of this role would be to provide expertise/assistance in differentiating material
> L/T – facilitator of Sports (1 point): A need, that i don’t think many would disagree with. this role would not be to facilitate PDHPE, but the sports programme of the school including carnival days and the weekly sports.
> (2 points!) I also think that we splurge on 24 support hours in Science and TAS . That is 4 school days to be shared between practical subjects like TAS and Science. Talk to any LA that organises a practical in science or TAS and you’ll see them pulling out their hair. I think these point will be well spent. If we consider that these management points are designed to support staff in their teaching and students in their learning, these support staff roles fit perfectly inside that framework. (thanks sharon for this figure. 1 point = 2 school days for support).
> 8x Learning Area integrity facilitators (1 point each = 8 points). These positions are not about splitting up the curriculum into “KLAs” quite the reverse. I would envisage that a Learning Area Integrity Facilitator would have the ‘big picture’, these integrity facilitators would always have integration as a prime focus and would work tightly in the collaborative team framework as Kylie suggested. I would hope these integrity facilitators would be responsible for forward planing, would pick apart exams analysis, have a greater understanding of each syllabus than just outcomes. They would be responsible for preparing a standard curriculum map and assessment map and would make budget recommendations to CLE teams. For example – a Science integrity facilitator would make a recommendation on an upcoming CLE to purchase ‘X’ chemical in order to complete ‘X’ skills, the actual decisions on spending would remain with CLE teams. I would imagine that we would have integrity facilitators in the learning areas of: Science; English; Mathematics; PDHPE; RE; HSIE; TAS; Creative And Performing Arts.
I feel these Learning area integrity facilitators make more sense than broken up bits of jobs, for instance, A careers/voc ed facilitator could be packaged into the “bigger picture” brief of as TAS integrity facilitator, the chemical safety and OHS in the science lab would be a concern for the Science integrity facilitator, the HSIE integrity facilitator would take a broader view than just outcomes and would ensure that all skills in history/geography syllabuses are being integrated into the curriculum like the mandatory field trip organisation or the use of various types of evidence in history. An English integrity facilitator would pick apart ELLA results and would take advantage of the feedback these tests provide us and feed back directly to CLEs areas to focus on and give specific strategies to work on. Obviously these are just examples – but I think I’ve picked up on some of the complexities in each learning that CLE teams are not designed to or capable to address.
Now, if you’ve been paying attention you’ll notice I’ve actually deliberately over spent – where do we cut the fat?
Simon.
July 23rd, 2007 at 12:45 am
There some strong ideas and sensible possibilities there Simon, but I will hold off my comments until tomorrow’s staff meeting. I am keen to put out to all staff a suggested curriculum appraoch to help us integrate the curriculum. i have briefly discussed this with Neil and some other staff members, so it was about time i aired it to all.
We all find our accountability to the outcomes are often restrictive. Sometimes there are too many, sometimes overalpping too much with another outcome, sometimes they are too specific and “I havent covered these ones and they need to somehow fit into this last CLE this year”. Sometimes, we have to shape the CLE around the nominated outcomes for the CLE, and a major concern is the protection of the integrity of the subject and trying to come to turns with the lost of the content and deeep understanding (knowlege and skills) that some/all subjects are experiencing. So, the amount and specific nature of the outcomes and trying to integrate them is a hassle sometimes (regardless of our lack of CLE planning time, differences in knowledge about other subject areas, stresses, etc). This is all part of the process, leading to a better form of integration.
Let us consider if we used the k-10 outcomes and not our syllabui outcome. The K-10 docu is the guiding framwework for all syllabui. Our outcomes from our current syllabui are based the k-10 outcomes. The syllabi writing teams had to draw their subject specific outcomes from these outcomes first. The k-10 was published before our current syallbui. The k-10 outcomes are broad outcomes, they underpin all subjects. Why teach the same thing many times, when could be teaching many braod skills,knoowledge. It is only stage4 and much of the material covered in stage 4 is revisited in stage 5 and the students are better able to hand the intelliectual demands of the outcomes at that age. Stage 4 material in many of the subjects an introduction to the subject.
We could build a case to use the outcomes from the k-10. because we would still be using a BOS approved doc and we are using a mandatory document. We could still dip in and use the outcomes from our syllabui if people feel it is required.
The BOS would say: as long as you allow students to demonstrate their achievement in relation to the outcomes. And why not the k-10 outcomes, it is an approved mandatory docu. the k-10 needs our “curriculum requiremnts[to} are designed to provide educational opoortunities that: engage and challenge all students… (see page 1 for the rest).
Once you read the k-10 outcomes you will see the possibilities. In fact they could be considered as the ’super enduring understandings’!!
If we used these outcomes, it would allow us to the flexibility to integrate our subject areas without the restriction all those outcomes we all need to cover. We still teach the content but with no the same obsession. remeber this is only stage 4 not mini HSC. We have becaome too booged down in content, so fixed on its security, that some might feel we are diluting our subjects. Keep in mind, how many times we read and hear how only 2%/%15/20% of the content we are teaching will students use in the future. (even the national currciulum will see a shaving back of the content material in our subjects)
How can we integrate with all these outcomes. Even Julia Atkins was shaking her head in disbelief at the amount and restriction of the outcomes and the difficulties these imposed on a school wishing to offer annintegrated curriuclum. The outcomes were only intended as a guide for teachers across the state. they were never intended by the BOS to be formally assessed. How it come to be that we did formally assessed is another story).
i would not suggest this for stage 5, as we have specific content in subjects that require an external exam at the end of year 10.
So consider if we developed the CLEs in the light of the k-10 outcomes. As long as the CLEs addressed the k-10 outcomes, we then have the scope to integrate more readily. Of course teachers are professionally trained and they would use their current professional knowledge for student learning.
We select the content to deliver, we select the appropriate material to address the k-10 outcomes. We need to look at the range of the madatory syllabui and see which outcomes from the syllabui link in closely to the outcomes.
This way we are not starting by grouping our subjects together. “This CLE will connect maths, visual arts and food technology”. I have heard many colledgues discuss the issue of whether we should even mention the name of the the subject. “Today we are doing maths”. Is that integration? I thought a fully integrated curriculum would not have these boundaries. But it is OK in the early years and we work things out.
We would need a CLE map (including assessment material IN THE SCOPE AND SEQUENCE.
i ask a few BOS people (sorry no name dropping here) if any school in nsw was doing this) and none knew of any. But how many schools in NSW are doing integrated curriculum this way! But the real person to ask is Paul Hewiiit, who looks after Registration.
Remeber when the new primary syllabui came out and all those outcomes. What more than 90 outcomes, ask Paul for the exact number). primary school teachers threw their arms up and complained. So the BOS went back and identified the essential or core outcomes – yues, some outcomes are more important thanothers. I think they cut it right back to 20 outcomes as the essentail ones to cover. The k-10 outcomes are our essentail outcomes.
It would be interesting for educators to build a case to identify the essentail outcomes for 7-10 a limted range. But doesn’t this already occur in the k-10.
Use them as our guiding light for the content…as long as we show were have assessed student achievement to approved outcomes, why not!.
The BOS role is to also support a range of schools – their beliefs and styles of delivery of the currciulum. 9as long as they show they are assessing to the BOS approved outcomes)There is nothing radical about what i have suggested, nor cutting edge. In fact, there is a lot os similarities of our school to other schools: Ashcam uses a modified Dalton plan,where the student undertake a 4 week unit of work, starting with 2 weeks of formal classes then 2 weeks of independently planned lessons, negotiated with their subject teacher, highly independant, sometimes they study from home, the student makes appointments to see the teachers. The montessori school, a philosohpy of “help me to help myself”, where the students have self-directed inquiry learning , the constructivist approach (this does not suit every child) and the Steiner schools use an arts integrated learning across all subjects.
The one – one laptop program will soon be a standard practice for all students. But the thing that makes a good school is the high level of consistency amongt the staff in the delivery the same vision and purpose for education. And what i have seen in the schools that do this (in their particular visions), is the ability to withstand the ‘trends’ in education at cause other schools to constantly make changes, many resulting in an horrible electic mess, with staff having little common vision or a shared community spirit. That God we have we have vision and community spirit.
There is no way I’m going back to check spelling and grammar. If your unsure of what i meant, just ask me to clarify. It might be patchy.
Thanks for the journey so far
Gabrielle
July 24th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
HI Gabrielle,
What do you mean by K-10 outcomes? Do you mena the curriculum framework??
July 25th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Hi Kate,
I mean the outcomes.i think the confusion lies in my quote of the first dot point of the actual Framework (first point on page 1 of a syllabus) I should have quoted from the outcome list such as “Understand, develop and communicate ideas and information…access, analyse, evaluate and use information from a variety of sources…” etc.
(it was pretty late at night)
But what do you think of the ideas?
August 1st, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Hi all,
I initially made the decision to be a Learning Advisor at CCCHS because of the exciting challenge of an integrated curriculum. Although we are fostering an active inquiry approach to learning, I still feel that we have a long way to go and I hope that in stage 5 we can do more. We talk about our integration of the curriculum aiming to give a greater focus of the whole person, however can we really be fostering the whole person when we are constrained to classroom walls? I have seen more personal growth of students through differing outdoor education camps throughout my career, and think that our students would benefit from well organised and integrated camps that fall in line of our Teaching and Learning principles.
Although I love doing Yr 7 and 8 Sport I also feel disappointed that I have not had the opportunity to see L2L in action. I love the concept and think that it is brilliant that we are giving students the skills to be more productive learners and be able to achieve in their assessments because they are not alone. Previously I have given assessment tasks and have not had the time to see if my students posess the knowledge and skills to be able to succeed in the task. I used to simply expect that my students knew what I was on about and what I expected and would wonder why they had done badly, when the system was really setting them up to fail. I definitely think L2L could have a place in stage 5 but I am not sure how or where with electives and sport.
Like Steve I also wonder if the open spaces are too big. During my first CLE I absolutely hated it and found that I was questioning my move to CCCHS. I found it really hard to engage with the students in the large space and I also thought that were not fostering the active enquiry approach that I was expecting. Learning was not particularly fun and I found that I was bored and I could definitely sympathise with our new cohort of students if they were feeling bored. Fortunately, I have since found that we have used the spaces much better, but I must admit for a while there I dreaded them!
I think it is worthwhile considering longer CLEs or more hours in stage 5, because we always seem to be on the back foot and plan too much in a CLE or have to rush through things.
I also agree that the planning meetings haven’t been ideal during iCLE. Like many other staff members I have felt under a lot pressure to develop quality resources and plan effective lessons with little time. I have also been concerned about the lack of the good old “traditional” faculty meetings. I am not that blonde and I do realise that the PD/H/PE faculty does not exist, but I would love the opportunity to really sit down with Steve to make sure we are on the same page with our planning for teaching and learning and that we have covered our outcomes. We have been caught out a few times already due to lack of communication and I think the lack of communication has been attributed to lack of quality time.
I also feel that at times we are not truly integrating because our planning meetings and hectic schedule do not allow us to really sit down and plan individual lessons together. We seem to divvy up parts of lessons or you plan a lesson that integrates for this day and I will do it for the next. Is this how it should be? I am not convinced. I also agree with Bret co. and I am concerned about how many assessments we are giving students. I must admit I am still struggling with this one, as there are almost three different types of assessment with the current CLE I am on. It’s strange that you know its wrong but you tell yourself it will be ok, next time we will integrate this assessment better or you tell yourself that you are just giving a grade for class work you would have given them anyway. Either way it is too much pressure on our students!
I agree with Kelly and believe that assessment mapping could definitely the answer. But when?
A point I wanted to mention is that more recently I found it difficult to know what I was meant to be teaching because I was not part of the initial planning of the yr8 CLE (Balancing Act). I had my outcomes but the day before the CLE was about to begin I still had no idea where we were heading with it and how we were going to integrate our subject areas. This is because there was no real information available to me. Is there somewhere where we document the initial CLE ideas (even if they were twelve months ago)? As I just wrote this, a little light bulb went off and beamed “STAFF SHARE!”
Yes I am passionate about my subject area and I would never have dreamed that I would enjoy teaching Maths, but I also believe our students will benefit from being given more room to do what they love, through electives. Are we going to find links between in stage 5 with electives? After that staff meeting where we presented our electives a number of links were clearly evident.
Anyway that is enough for one random Wednesday night. Now that I am well and truly part of CCCHS and have some shared ownership in the learning and teaching I must say I absolutely love what we are doing and I am proud to work with such wonderful and inspirational teachers. I must admit that at times it is really difficult to integrate some subjects such as PE, but we are continually proving it can be done! I believe that we just need more time to think and plan together and this will in tern help spark our creativity in CLEs and assessments. I am really looking forward to stage 5. Bring it on!
August 6th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
i agree with you Kylee and Steve. I find it very difficult to teach a large of students in a large space. I miss the intimacy involved in teaching, where we knew the student much better – their temperments, styles and particulars. here I feel it is mass education. It works well when we split the learning group in half. The adoption of the active enquiry approach is suitable for the large space. we are using too much the traditional teaching methods that are great for a classroom and sure we have to use them from time to time, they are still valid methods. The team teaching enquiry method requires us to plan the whole CLE or a great chunk of it before hand.
I miss working with fellow art teachers and the exchange of enthusaism for one’s dsicipline, where is the time to do this? and support one another.
It is a brillant idea to bring into l2l material about nutrition and year 7 will do this. Deb and myself were both on food for thought and did a lot of material of nourishing ourself. This is such important material and that it needs to be revisited from time to time. The two most important things for a growing person isgood education and good nutrition. The good nutrition got to be one of the top enduring understandings, If their parents have njot be able to give this to them, then they have teachers who can do their bit to help them
gab