learning matters (nz)
Saturday, March 14, 2009
challenging learning
Every parent wants the best for their child. Almost invariably the same is true of schools and their staff. I'm confident that this is the case at Pakuranga.The challenge of course is balancing individuals' needs against available resources and the needs of the group. And this is not just a simple "If we had more money argument." In theory we could personalise learning to the extent of giving each student his or her own tutor. But then you lose the social dynamic, and the important interaction between students that drives both learning and motivation. I for one wouldn't want to teach one to one.
So somehow we want to group our students together in order to support their learning. Of course as soon as we do this, we risk delivering a "one size fits all" education, or rather a "one resource / assessment fits all".
The challenge is to create a timetable that allows us to deliver the most stimulating and challenging learning to students. In the case of high achievers, this means one of three options: enrichment, extension or acceleration. To clarify what I mean by these terms:
- Enrichment - students stay in their current year level, and do a similar level of work
... but the content is broader and allows for more in-depth study - Extension - students stay in their current year level, but do some work at a higher
level (e.g. students in Year 10 may do some Level 1 NCEA courses) - Acceleration - students skip one or more years, and study a subject at a higher level.
To deliver any of these effectively is challenging to a school. However it is a challenge schools must grasp if they are to do the best by their students and community.
Within all classes there should be opportunities for enrichment or extension. Teachers call this differentiation and is increasingly an expectation in the classroom. Extra worksheets, more challenging assignments, online wikis, are just some of the common ways to meet the needs of more able or more motivated students.
At Pakuranga, we went down the path of "multi-levelling". Most schools do this in the senior school, with students able to opt into courses at any level - timetable allowing. We went further down this path with the creation of semester courses in some subject areas further facilitating multi-levelling in our junior school. However this is expensive, possibly too so; and so it warrants review.
In the case of semester courses, we are accelerating our junior students. We must now review is this in the best interests of the students? For example, if accelerated, do some students progress through their courses more quickly, but with a lower grade that if they progressed with the rest of their year group ... and thereby reducing their options post-school?
And are we looking after the whole student when we accelerate the highly gifted, so that they finish their secondary schooling in four years or less? Whilst our primary purpose is student learning evidenced by qualifications, there is much more to school. Friends, sports, leadership, arts and culture are very important. And often the final Year 13 year is a major part of this, as these aspects culminate alongside academic achievement.
We must look at the pathways we create for our highest achievers, and the support we provide them. For example, could a student who sits Level 3 NCEA in year 12, resit the same course but with enriched material that further stimulates them? Is there greater scope for extension via distance tertiary learning?
I believe we do a good job right now for our students. But I want us to move from good to great. I want the very best for our students. It is time for us to review our thinking around differentiated learning, and come up with an effective, sophisticated solution.
Labels: learning, multi-levelling, student extension
Monday, March 9, 2009
Politix
Ah, the freedom of being in opposition. I'm sure Mr Carter thought these thoughts as Minister of Education, but never publicly stated them. Sadly this is a blatant case of anecdotal politicking."To be quite honest that's the problem with the North Shore high schools. They'd all employed extra staff based on their foreign fee-paying students giving them that extra revenue, because ... it's the biggest concentration of high-decile high schools in one area in the country and they're essentially in competition with each other for students.
"So they'd overextended themselves, parental donations were sliding, international student fees were falling - so somebody had to be blamed for the schools employing fancy ballet teachers, fancy swimming teachers, extra PE teachers, extra support for special needs."
Firstly I would struggle to argue that adding extra teachers in a core subject (PE) is luxury spending. Pakuranga College employs extra teachers - in Social Studies, English, Maths and most of the other core subjects. Are these luxury spending also?
Secondly it seems highly anecdotal to quote an example of "fancy" ballet teachers. Again we employ coaches for some of our sports teams, but only in the situation where we are unable to get sufficient unpaid coaches to provide sports. Mr Carter, and other politicians, must admit the different reality of schools these days.
20 years back sports were amateur, and people had more time to give to coaching. With more parents not at home, more economic stress and changed attitudes ... the free support for schools no longer exists. I'm sure the same is true of most charities. To continue delivering the same opportunities in and beyond the classroom, schools must pay more.
And to repeat a overquoted fact ... when will any government finally acknowledge the real cost of ICT?
Schools are underfunded. The model assumes generic, large classes ... with limited scope for (government funded) curriculum or timetabling innovations. And it assumes that high quality co-curricular opportunities will miraculously appear in schools free of charge. These will not appear until the government gets real about school funding.
In the meantime, my fear is a greater exodus to private schools. I have no problem with private schools per se, but am concerned at the long-term polarisation of our community. Parents seek to send their students to schools that are perceived as better and offering more opportunities.
The government has a social obligation to ensure the gap between private and public schools does not continue to grow.
Labels: education, politics, private schools, school funding
