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

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!

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?

What do you mean by K-10 outcomes? Do you mena the curriculum framework??

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

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.

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?

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