PaCT... Yeah... Nah

Last September I blogged about PaCT and as predicted the tool will be in our schools within the next couple of years and we are finally beginning to see a commentary around it which is a welcome change.

Nat Torkington has written a post from his point of view explaining the tool and pointing our why it cost so much money to produce.

The thing is, is that the New Zealand Curriculum is (was?) a marvellous and flexible thing of beauty. The suggested 'age range' for curriculum levels were blurred and gradual allowing young learners (remember we're talking 5 - 12 year olds here) to learn in a flexible manner.

When I trained to be a teacher (early 2000s) we were given fantastic courses in The Arts, Social Sciences, Science, Technology, Health and PE as well as Numeracy and Literacy. We were taught in an integrated manner so that kids could, for example, achieve the AOs of, say, Maths while exploring such concepts through dance and movement.  Now in primary schools The Arts are often 'done' by participating in events such as Artsplash or Kids for kids choirs (tick that box). But such events are barely even one of 4 strands of the Arts Curriculum (remember Developing Ideas, Practical Knowledge, Communicating and Interpreting and Understanding Context?)

Assessments, as we know them today, were things that were done to kids in the UK and the USA. We celebrated that our fantastic and effective education system did not allow kids to be 'done to'. We learned about Maori pedagogies through researchers such as Bishop & Glynn who showed us that characteristics of these pedagogies (e.g. collaboration, empathy, holistic learning, and celebrating strength) not only benefited the learning of our Maori learners, but all learners.

The issue I have with PaCT is that it is neither flexible nor holistic . As Nathan has said - assessing Literacy AOs will be done in front of a computer screen, comparing my student's work to others, flicking through exemplars going yep, yep, nah, nah, yep, nah and then waiting for the answer...

Yeah, nah...

What if my students, when looking at the AOs (they should have access to them) interpreted, and responded to them in such a way that they could not be compared to anything else? Surely we should actually be encouraging this behaviour - not valuing 'work' that is comparable to others? What will happen to this kind of creativity? Will I be saying: "Yep, that is brilliant but could you write it up as a story so that I can run it through the assessment tool?" (and yes you could argue that they should be able to do both... but my issue is why value one over the other all for the sake of formal reporting?). Why not trust teacher's judgement? Isn't that what OTJ means? Can we at least be honest about it and call it Overall PaCT Judgements (OPJs)?

So as I said in a comment on Nathan's blog, the cost to me (as a teacher and mother) is not about $$$ but about educational implications:

PACT measures (thus values) only numeracy and literacy.

The implications of this is that it narrows our curriculum.

PACT assumes that learning is linear. 

The implications of this is focusing on areas of weakness (alleged gaps) as opposed to strengths.

PACT (NS) levels come from working backwards from level 2 NCEA. The formula:

All 5 year-olds = Year 12 minus 7 years
The implications of this is that the labels At, Below, Above get distributed by age 6. 

Once ‘below’ is issued, a child has to work twice as hard to get to ‘At’ as the ‘gap’ is cumulative. 

BUT REMEMBER this is only in numeracy and literacy. 

If you did happen to have an edge in another curriculum area you won’t have time to pursue that strength. Any additional learning time is likely to be spent on MORE reading.

PACT assumes tidy year levels where kids should achieve numeracy and literacy standards based on age.

The implication of this is factory model pedagogy.

PACT allows National Standards to take the focus of assessment. 

The (already) implications are that newer teachers are now only assessing to the National Standards (at, below, above) and not to curriculum levels.

PACT (NS) values Pakeha ways of Knowing over Maori and Pasifika pedagogies. 

The implications of this is assimilation. (i.e. whose standards?!)

PACT values other assessment tools that assume that achievement and success is something that is carried out in isolation (eg. eAsttle writing). Even worse, assessments that reward one clean correct answer (STAR, PAT) . 

The implication of this is a future population who have been rewarded for rote learning and problem solving (in timed isolation) independently – as opposed to collaborative, creative, critical thinkers.

And one last thing, that has to be addressed:

"But in a world of devolution, how does the state ensure that schools don’t suck?..."

PaCT will not magically fix any schools that 'suck'. From the bottom of my heart I truly believe that PaCT will instead make such schools suck even more.

Blogging at night vs writing during class

Jo and I are in the middle of preparing our talk for the Thinking Digital Conference in Newcastle next month. We want to pick up from where Sugata Mitra left off last year and show that the benefits of Minimally Invasive Education are not just for the wall kids but for all kids.

If we think about Minimally Invasive Education as chance for kids to self-teach (but at the same time being connected to experts via digital technologies) blogging is a fine example.

I began to notice that several of my students blog late at night. And that quality of the writing is significantly higher than when they write at school time. One student has jumped at least 2 curriculum levels since he started blogging.

I asked him (through a blog comment) why he thought this was the case. Here are his reasons why:

1. It’s quiet...

2. It’s a chance for me to wind down and it is a huge thinking time for me. I love writing at this time of night.

3. It is the technology. I can use a backspace button instead of writing arrows in my book and making a huge mess.

4. It’s a chance to stop and slow down so I can think (instead of the pressure of having to think). For example, in class, I have to think of something before I go to lunch and instead of thinking up a really cool story I think “I’ve got to get this done” over and over in my head and before you know it, it’s lunch time. But if I was in my bed I do have time to think of a really cool story, then I can simply go to sleep.

5. Spell check. I don’t use big vocab words in my book is because I don’t know how to spell them but if I use spell check I can look at the word and memorise it (instead of taking ten minutes to look it up in a dictionary).

6. At night I’m free from all my problems and can express myself through writing. That is something that I’ve learnt from you.

Teachers in control of their PD

Wouldn't it be cool if teachers could choose their own PD? Instead of BOTs and Senior Management deciding what (or even IF) they would benefit from?

Different teachers could chose different pathways depending on their needs. One teacher could choose to do a tour of all the Educamps, another could choose to blow the majority at uLearn, some could do a combo of MOOCs and smaller skill based stuff through night courses. It would be up to them!

Some may choose to go to a conference to connect with their PLN (as they would get more out of it than going with their school).

Some principals may have compelling arguments for why the staff should all go to a conference (but it would be up to them to make a good enough case for that).

Maybe teachers could 'save' their PD for up to two years to attend an international conference.

There could be a system that rewarded the sharing of ideas, where those who present at conference get PD credits (as opposed to paying full conference fees for the honour). If PD credits were available, this could also lift the quality of presenter.

If (after 2 years?) a teacher had not claimed all their PD could the excess be put into a contestable fund for other teachers to apply for extra PD funding?

I would like to see teachers taking control of learning, budgeting, taking risks, making bad decisions and learning. I would like to see management giving up control, showing teachers what is out there and acting as advisors (as opposed to the 'Santa Claus' role). I would like to see PD organisations marketing to teachers, offering PD credits for presenters, offering discounts for PLN bookings. But ultimately, I would like to see teachers in control of their own PD.

I don't know much about the government's 'PD for teachers' budget. It probably goes into one big school pot and is discretionary, but that doesn't really concern me. We can let the ministry accountants figure that out (much like what Ewan McIntosh said in his ICOT2013 keynote - it's the accountants job to get cheap buttons, it's not the concern of the creative clothes designer).

So I'm going to throw the figure $1000.00 per teacher per year out there (theory still stands ... figure can be adjusted to more or less).

Could this be the future of Maths?

Calculation and Meat

Will the time come
where one can refuse
the forcing of calculation into our brains
like meat into our gut?

Of course one should have the skills
to detect when there is a problem

To know when meat is off
is wise
To know when calculation is off
is Maths

At which point
did it become acceptable
to pass on the butchering skills
to machines and experts
and not declare it a basic life-skill?

Forcing meat
onto our vegetarian friends
is cruel
could this be the future
of Maths?

Valuing iNconSistenCies

A couple of notes on some holiday reading.

1. Teacher 'bias' gives better marks to favourite pupils, research reveals
Can you believe that People actually get paid to do this kind of research?
Well of course they do. Such research fits the government's agenda.   The agenda is that there is a consistency problem in education. If there is a problem it needs to be fixed... with an expensive tool

What astounds me about this piece is the assumption that all the 'favorites' are the high achievers.  Um I'm sorry, I know that we are teachers, but we do actually have different preferences!  For example, my favorite food will be different to yours (no, we dont all like apples) my favorite movie will be different to yours (no, we dont all like dangerous minds). So it stands to reason that our favorite students will be different too.  And who really has favorites anyway? I dont know about you, but I am yet to meet the perfect child...Different kids float our different boats for different reasons at different times. We're an inconsistent bunch, and you know what?  WE SHOULD BE.

2. Can You Measure an Education? Can You Define Life’s Meaning? via @traintheteacher

This post takes us back to the origins and purpose of schooling (reading and memorizing bible passages, the factory model of education, you know the story) and then asks:

"What, really, should be the purpose of education? Or, put otherwise, what are our goals for our children’s development? Most of us today don’t want our children to become unquestioning followers of authority figures. We have seen the evil that can happen from that orientation. And I don’t think most of us see the proper goal of education as that of performing well on the television show, “Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader?” We know that the trivia fifth graders (or any other graders) are supposed to know has little to do with life success. But what do we want? Or, maybe I should put it this way: What do YOU want, and what do I want? It is quite possible that you and I have different views of the meaning of life and hope for different things for our children..."

I think that it is these different hopes and dreams that we as teachers need to learn about and help create and achieve.

Standards (oh yes I did...)  are CRUSHING these hopes and dreams and it is all in the name of BIG business. 


Consistency is the enemy of education!(Which makes PaCT (what is pact?) PURE eVil)

I think we should pride ourselves on being inconsistent.  

I want my kid to get his own education - not the same one as the kids in his arbitrary reading group.  For sure - stretch him and challenge him.  Teach him how to voice politely that things seem irrelevant to him.  
PLEASE Be inconsistent - show him that somedays things will not go to plan, somedays you'll be pissed off for no apparent reason, somedays you'll encourage one kid do something on the computer (when the day before you said NO to him).  Somedays you'll reward a kid for doing something he did a week ago Somedays he'll be rewarded for something that he didn't actually find that difficult to do (writing often does this to us).  It'll frustrate the hell out of him. Teach him how to deal with that kind of stuff. That's a relevant skill.
BECAUSE... 
THAT'S LIFE!

We need to ask ourselves EVERY SINGLE DAY... 
WHY are we learning this? 

AND (if you dare) start asking questions of teachers and schools who produce classes of children that are all at the same (desirable) level. What are you doing in there?

Who is fudging the data?

When I first thought about standards and their implementation I thought (like many others) that if National Standards were aligned with Performance Pay we would have cases where teachers could corrupt the data to suit their needs. I thought that if League Tables came into play, that principals could manipulate their school's data so that their school looked like a 'good' one compared to their neighbours (who are now their direct competitors).

Maybe I am naive, I dont know, but never in my wildest dreams did I think that the Government would fudge the data. I guess underneath it all I thought that they did have good intentions and that the did actually want to lift achievement for our children. 

However, I have learned an even worse truth. It is not the teachers and principals fudging the data, it's our Ministry. They don't want to lift achievement, they just want to be seen to doing it.
 Click here for Exhibit one:   This changes the pool of students who are reported as 'Maori'. Why would you do this?

So that your government can be seen as the one who lifts achievement for Maori students. 

But they are not. They are fudging the data.

Click here for Exhibit two:
How can you make it look like achievement is on the rise? Fudge the test! Why would you do this?

  So that your government can be seen as the one who lifts literacy achievement. 

Exhibit three -

This question is being removed from the JAM numeracy test because it is 'too hard'.  

It's not too hard - all it requires is discussion based and relationship building teaching. 

But we won't shift achievement that way. Why? It's not efficient!

IT'S LIES!
LIES!
IT'S ALL LIES!

Capturing Evidence

As you know, I often rant about the evils of standardised assessment. Primarily my big concerns are how it:

• Narrows the curriculum
• Encourages teachers to 'teach to the test' 
• Reduces 'achievement' to mean 'successful at regurgitating what the test wants to hear'
• Is a 20th century European industrislised modernist model in an increasingly 21st Century multi-cultural post-modern era.

But not only do I rant... I also try to do something about it. I think, I read, I watch, I research. I am also in a great team who listen to (and value) children.
I want to share a little something we do alongside our standardized assessment regime.
Every term, we sit with our kids 1 on 1 and they set themselves learning goals. If you do not have the time to do this, may I suggest you set 2 minutes aside after your next round of running records and co-construct just 1 goal.  It's a great start.

Once they all have a goal(s) it is important that reflection time is timetabled (thus valued) into your learning programme. We do ours every Friday. During this time the kids reflect upon their week, their goal, their learning behaviours, their friendships, and they have opportunities to raise any general questions with us.

This started off fairly simple. They were given a bunch of questions on a Google Doc that they would answer. The same thing could be achieved on ordinary paper. But we found the Google Docs great especially for giving feedback.

After a while we (us and the kids) got tired of the format so we played around with video responses and audio responses. We're also looking at 'drawing' your reflections where SMARTpens could be useful. But good old pencil and paper would be just fine.

Kids are amazingly onto it when it comes to using the 'best' rather than the 'newest' technology.
For example:

• we taught the kids how to use the scan to email function on the school photocopier, (they showed us that you could achieve a similar result more efficiently) by snapping a page with an ipod touch. 
• We taught them how to use the easi-speak mics, (so they used the voice recorder on the ipod touch). 
• We taught them how to link their docs (so they instead started embedding them).

Then something amazing started happening. Kids started capturing 'evidence' of learning. So instead of writing about it. They started showing us excerpts of learning that they considered relevant.  They would find their best writing piece, they would submit pics directly from their maths books, we started receiving pictures of artworks, songs and song lyrics they had written, websites they had created, Google forms they had created at home for sports teams, YouTube vids of them learning the times tables strategies. Fridays are crazy and vibrant times!


Then one Tuesday, a kid wondered past with an ipad,
"What are you doing with that?" I asked in my best teacher voice.
"Oh," the kid said
"I just did some maths relating to my learning goal so I thought I would take a pic now so that I am not rushed on Friday..."
WOW
Another day a kid went up to Urs,
"Urs, I have achieved my learning goal. Here is my evidence. I think I am ready to move on ..."
WOW WOW WOW
By giving kids the technology and the knowledge of what learning evidence is, they are creating their own personalized assessment system. They are identifying their own next steps, and they are essentially creating their own learning portfolios. They won't be constricted by our oldfashioned ideas about how to capture because they are in a flexible environment. Just like there is no correct way to set out a maths book, there is no correct way to capture evidence.
Give it a go! Do it with what tools are available to you. It doesn't matter how your kids do it ... just let them do it!