Learning and networking in talk2learn
Watch an introduction to the benefits of talk2learn (flash).
February 2004
David posed three questions:
Participants felt that balance was difficult because "once you start thinking divergently you generate a huge number of ideas – you need to allow innovations time to develop and avoid the pitfall of pursuing too many disparate ideas at a time”. They felt that the choice was to "respond only to imposed initiatives and then moan that they don't work or be brave, seize the initiative and generate a curriculum that is right for our individual school context, sharing actively with others”. Participants suggested that the answer lies in resolving issues within a monolithic inspection system. David agreed that "if we are serious about creating an educational transformation in this country, then we all have to play a part in moving towards a high trust, innovative culture in which constructive partnerships flourish" and that inspectors should identify and spread good practice as a core part of the job.
| “ |
If we are serious about creating an educational transformation in this country, then we all have to play a part in moving towards a high trust, innovative culture in which constructive partnerships flourish... |
” |
|
It was felt that "in an innovative school, the question of how much innovation is answered by the children and staff, in addition to the head. If the school climate encourages innovation, it becomes a way of working, rather than an entity to be discovered and encouraged”. Innovation was described as energising and essential to move schools forward. David stated "that the hidden curriculum is often more powerful in its impact on children than the official or formal curriculum... teachers who model the right attitudes and behaviour have a huge impact on students... when we walk the talk, we influence”. This was seen to be vital since "young people need to learn to be creative and innovative if they are to be successful in work and in further and higher education, and they will not do this if teachers in schools are not creative and innovative too”.
Pace of change was seen to be an important consideration in controlling the amount of innovation and David agreed that "getting the right pace for both staff and students is crucial to successful innovation, for without this there will not be ownership and they will feel externally driven”.
Participants applauded key ideas from Education Epidemic and Working Laterally including: “the best reforms in education are based not on the dreams of politicians or the theories of academics, but on the inspiration of practitioners” and "innovation is learning to do things differently in order to do them better”.
Participants described the value of a change process in school that "aims to bring about a number of changes in a coherent programme which includes the freedom to be innovative and to take risks; responsibility without blame is very important”. They also felt it to be important to give such a process time – to allow people to "understand and assimilate the changes (and also to oppose them!), and then embed them, to spawn a tradition of innovation within the school”. Imposed initiatives that come "one after another with barely breathing time” were seen to be stressful and it was believed that innovation needed to be part of the everyday routine – to become the new culture. David agreed and stated "in school terms, this means that innovation cannot be located in non-routine activities, such as professional training days or even in teacher secondments. It has to take root in the normal everyday work of teachers, alongside the very activities that are to be transformed”.
| “ |
Innovation... has to take root in the normal everyday work of teachers, alongside the very activities that are to be transformed... |
” |
|
It was felt that in terms of focus "networked learning communities and the innovations site are most certainly a step in the right direction”. David agreed that innovative thinking and doing is becoming recognised as normal by heads – helped by the work of the College. However, participants described how "the networked learning initiative asks schools to work together and collaborate instead of compete, but ultimately schools are still ranked in performance tables on an individual basis” and felt this dichotomy needed to be addressed.
The effectiveness of lines of communication between the DfES, NCSL, the Innovation Unit, Ofsted, Becta, influential educationalist such as Tim Brighouse and practitioners was raised. "Are they talking to each other and to Charles Clarke? Are they sharing what is working well and what is not working well in the transformation agenda?" David responded "we do work together in ways that are not always visible to heads. Whilst we could probably be better co-ordinated, we all feel we are working in the same broad direction”. He indicated that the publication of working laterally by the innovation unit "gives me hope that some deeper changes are on the way, and makes me feel both more optimistic and more courageous”.
Comparing UK and Dutch systems, a participant noted that "what the teachers in Holland have, that has been systematically attacked in England, is the public acceptance that teaching is a skilled and important profession and that its practitioners have to be listened to”. It was then stated that "if we are going to move forward, we simply have to win back some space of our own – not what the very many powers that be are willing to allow us”. David asked for participant views on "how we can achieve a new dialogue – in which school leaders can agree on policy priorities and directions – and be seen by the media, parents and employers to be doing so”. He pointed to the growing number of practitioners and educationists who work alongside officials as a source "of my general optimism”. He called for "active support for the radical innovations that would transform the experience of both teaching and learning. In the absence of this, I think improvements are likely to continue to plateau to everyone's frustration”.
School leaders felt that "innovation is going on – unrecognised... it is also certainly true that we can only be innovative within the constraints of Ofsted and the government... we need more freedom and encouragement to be free!" Suggesting a need for change in the inspection system, one participant described how "colleagues will continue to press for change with courage, rather than fear, and with hope, rather than cynicism. This is why we teach”. Curriculum changes to help personalised learning were called for: "perhaps a slimmed-down National Curriculum could be the first step. Ofsted would still check for standards”. David responded that "we have left the issues of the content of the National Curriculum for far too long in the hands of ministers and QCA without offering a coherent approach from heads”.
| “ |
We have left the issues of the content of the National Curriculum for far too long in the hands of ministers... |
” |
|
Another suggestion was that "perhaps DfES/Ofsted could provide guidance indicators to share with school leaders and leadership teams on what well paced innovation looks like and what appropriately paced innovation feels like for staff, pupils and parents”. David responded that "Ofsted should now be pressed to build innovation into the framework and comment in the report on how well it is being managed in the interests of both staff and students, which would include pace, of course, as well as quality of outcomes. This seems essential if government talk of transformation is to make a difference in the lives of teachers and students”. One participant indicated "we have Ofsted next week and have already raised with them our focus on PSHE and our hope that this will be recognised in the report as a strength of the school and the corner stone on which our curriculum is built”.
David asked for further news and this was that "our initial feedback is resoundingly positive and the areas for development that were identified were areas that we had already mentioned on the S4 but this inspection has not yet left us with a feeling of celebrating our successes which we had hoped that it would do”. David commented that "it is clear to me that inspectors should always ask a school what they are particularly proud of in terms of new developments and be willing to comment on this in their reports. It should not be something heads have to squeeze out of Ofsted”. In contrast, another participant felt that their inspection team "recognised that we: only innovate if we believe it will improve the quality of teaching and learning; take calculated risks; believe in what were doing. Surely the key to what we are doing is teaching and learning and if we can demonstrate a considered approach for the benefit of the children we should not fear anyone... the only people who constrain innovation are the people who do not innovate”.
The place of practice-based research that is driven by development at the front line, and involving teachers as researchers and co-producers of new knowledge, was highlighted. David responded that "the traditional approach in which academics do research and others apply it to practice had some success, but it is limited and will not solve the extent and type of innovation that is now needed... we might need development, enquiry and research for innovation”. The untapped wealth of post-Master’s teacher research was believed to be very important and a fear was expressed that such findings may not compete with officially published strategies since, as teachers, they have limited status. David agreed that perhaps we need a suggestions box – not for single lessons ideas but for the big ideas that are surely out there.
The idea of "students taking more responsibility for their learning, for developing skills of teamwork, for learning how to solve problems is little more than waffle or rhetoric if we try to do this through the standard school day consisting of many short lessons”. Student online communities were felt "not only to have value in their own right, they are also powerful ways in which students develop and exercise their ICT and communication skills outside the formality of lessons”.
The value of teacher communities "through the medium we are now using, present enormous opportunities for informed innovation to flourish”, though time for this in the working day was called for. Collaboration between schools was seen to be at the heart of innovation and David described a collaboration continuum with "federations and collegiates of various kinds at the hard end and soft forms of school clusters limited to particular purposes or functions at the other”. He added, "I suspect that networks at the hard end may well have the advantage, because relationships between the institutions and the individuals will be more sustained, and thus will develop the mutual trust on which collaboration and innovation so crucially depend”.
Other points raised included the importance of sufficient teacher numbers, distributed leadership and the use of distant online communities to allow sharing between members of dispersed and dissimilar groups through the use of new technologies.
David concluded:
| “ |
As this dialogue comes to a close, may I thank all the participants most warmly for their contributions. You have all given me much to think about – as you will see from what I write as a follow up to Learning Laterally! May I end with a quotation? ‘Daring ideas,’ said Goethe, ‘are like chessmen moved forwards; they may be beaten, but they may start a winning game’. Good wishes and thanks to you all. |
” | |
find us | press office | vacancies | conference centre | about this site | legal | site map
© National College for School Leadership
