Schwab 1973

Teacher/Learner/Subject Matter/Milieu

Grid with these deadings along the top along the side

In celebrating a strange anniversary I decided that I needed a new narrative and that I would use my assignment to fulfill this task of reconfiguring various details to create something new.

So far there are three visual aides in my new narrative – a bitterroot poster to talk about educational transformation, a map of Canada to talk about the significance of place, and a map of the brain to talk about personal and social purposes of learning.

I think that I am going to tie this to my diversity learning by creating a paper for diversity class on Aboriginal pedagogy (describe definitions, convergence, divergence, contextualized within the larger issues of diversity and the paradox that is multiculturalism in Canada).

Anyhow, my posters will have defining characteristics of Aboriginal pedagogy located on them… or I will bring it up somehow in my presentation.

Of today’s readings I was really excited to see a cool table on this article on learning theories http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-learn.htm

Instantly I was like, social and situational, that’s me! And then I was like, that’s Aboriginal pedagogy. And then I was like, that’s chapter 4 of the book in our diversity course… there were synapses exploding and connections all over the place and it’s a mess in my head right now but if I can turn it into words and diagrams with labels it will be… exquisite!

I was trained heavily in behaviouralist and cognitive learning theories and I know how to apply them, and I do have humanist tendencies, but my heart it social and situational.

Yes. I have a plan. A messy plan in the early stages of execution, but it feels good to have direction seeing as I have been pondering this road map assignment for some time now.

What are eco-schools?

Eco-schools develop students’ capabilities in six areas, experience, reflection, knowledge, vision for a sustainable future, action taking for sustainability and connectedness (Wilson-Hill, 2010). Students are trained in action competence, that is, their ability to plan for a more sustainable future as well as a meta-cognitive understanding that their learning is a tool of empowerment.

Eco-schools in the MAKER framework

• The MAKER framework is composed of five elements:
• Method: The skills and techniques teachers use to assist students in gaining the knowledge, understanding, and skill that teachers intend their students to achieve.
• Awareness: what the teacher knows about his or her students, including such things as their interests, talents, and concerns; their personal histories and family backgrounds; and their performance in previous years
• Knowledge: Covers what a teacher knows about the subject matter they are teaching
• Ends: The purposes a teacher has for his teaching and for his students
• Relationships: The kind of connection that teachers forge with their students

(Fenstermacher & Soltis, 2009)

These elements inform instructional priorities during all phases of planning, implementation, and assessment.

With its emphasis on understanding sustainability issues and developing student skills to take action on sustainability, the eco-schools are clearly ends driven.

Method is also emphasized in the eco-schools as teachers are expected to take students through a specific type of inquiry process.

Fenstermacher and Soltis’ Approaches to Teaching

Eco-schools fit well with the liberationist approach to teaching. According to Fenstermacher and Soltis, in the liberationist approach the manner in which students learn is as important as what they learn (49, 2009). In terms of eco-schools the focus on students being meta-cognitively aware that learning skills and knowledge must be purpose driven and must be eventually translated into some sort of action in order to be meaningful and relevant is an indicator that educators in these institutions value the means by which students are instructed. In learning about sustainability and inquiry for the purpose of supporting sustainability, students are exposed to a certain manner or principles of procedure appropriate to the study of sustainability.

Eco-schools are a good fit with the emancipatory branch of the liberationist approach. The emancipatory approach emphasizes a strong connection between theory and praxis which is reflected in the eco-schools emphasis on knowledge as a means to imagining and implementing praxis.

According to Fenstermacher and Soltis, in the emancipatory approach, “the students and their teacher must become collaborators, co-investigators developing together their consciousness of reality and their images of a possible, better reality.” (52, 2009).  Compare this to enviro-schools’ emphasis on helping students envision and strive for a better future, “It’s about working out how to live so that our society and economy nourishes the natural systems that give us life. Enviro-schools gives  young people an opportunity to explore real life challenges and to apply their abundance of energy and ideas.” (Eco-schools, n.d.). According to the enviro-schools’ website, through the inquiry students are encouraged to become teachers and leaders in their communities. This focus on helping students envision a better future and imagine how to take action to make it happen is reflective of an emancipatory orientation.

What about reading and writing?

With its emphasis on students co-constructing problems and solutions at first glance, eco-schools appear to be a free for all of sorts, and some may be concerned that the schools would neglect basic academic skills required for citizenship and future employment.

The enviro-schools, however, do not view a focus on literacy and an inquiry approach as mutually exclusive. Rather, they view the acquisition of literacy skills as an essential component of developing students’ capabilities to go through the action learning cycle.

While an executive might be concerned that learning about the environment will detract from the amount of time that students spend learning how to read and write, an investigation into the literacy learning going on in the schools found that the focus on knowledge with a social purpose enriched literacy learning through authentic learning activities, the development of critical reflective and thinking

Bloom on his head?

The approach, and in particular the success of literacy in this environment, challenges theories such as Bloom’s taxonomy which assumes that skills and knowledge are gained sequentially in a linear fashion going from least complex to most complex. This approach assumes that students go through cycles, and are capable of engaging in activities such as evaluation and synthesis at the same time as they develop the ability to recall information.

This school is a powerful argument for the emancipatory approach. While in the executive approach students learn literacy for literacy’s sake, literacy which serves the greater good of humankind leads to rich literacy opportunities.

References 

Enviroschools Foundation. (n.d.) The Enviroschools Programme. Retrieved from http://www.enviroschools.org.nz/Enviroschools-programme-overview

Fenstermacher, G. D. & Soltis, J. F. (2009). Approaches to Teaching, 5th Edition. New York, New York: Teachers College Press.

Wilson-Hill, F. (2010). Better Understanding Educational Outcomes Connected to the New Zealand Curriculum in Enviro-Schools. Hamilton, New Zealand: The Enviroschools Foundation.

Starleigh’s MAKER

When I think about my own practice I focus a lot of method, awareness, and relationships.  I think method and awareness and relationships are intertwined, especially when it comes to struggling students. I have found that if your method is not carefully constructed relationships suffer because students become frustrated if they don’t know what to do and what’s going on. I also think the rigor and high expectations is a sign of caring.

However, in order to know whether you are really stretching students’ capabilities, and in order to develop strong relationships, you need to have awareness about them.

Likewise, if you are going to challenge students academically you need to make sure that you establish a caring relationship with them, otherwise they’ll perceive you as just a slave driver!

I don’t ponder ends a great deal.

Knowledge is important, but it can be acquired. I am trained in middle school humanities, but I have taught science, elementary level literacy and arts, PE, and a course which required a great deal of technology. You can be very knowledgable about something, but if you don’t know how to work with students it’s all for naught.

Fenstermacher, G.D. & Soltis J.F. (2009). Approaches to Teaching. New York, New York: Teachers College Press.

Method: The skills and techniques teachers use to assist students in gaining the knowledge, understanding, and skill that teachers intend their students to achieve.

Awareness: what the teacher knows about his or her students, including such things as their interests, talents, and concerns; their personal histories and family backgrounds; and their performance in previous years

Knowledge: Covers what a teacher knows about the subject matter they are teaching

Ends: The purposes a teacher has for his teaching and for his students

Relationships: The kind of connection that teachers forge with their students

Page 17 of the 2005 government report which you can download here http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/inspection-reports/find-inspection-report/provider/CARE/SC024584 states that:

The school had some rules about internet use, regarding the issue of viewing and making screen savers of adult material. However the school had not responded to the issue raised at the last inspection regarding the lack of safeguards for young people using the internet. It was noted by the inspectors that the school had made a clear statement in the information provided to parents of boarders that access to the internet is not restricted at the school. The principal reported that the school had been advised that protective software was easily overridden, and that the system the school had in place, of supervision by each other, and the promotion of individual responsibility was sufficient. Due to the potentially serious nature of this issue, further recommendations have been made that the school produce a written risk assessment for the use of the internet, and a protocol be produced enabling the school to monitor the sites accessed by pupils via the schools computers.

 

In class yesterday we discussed Summerhill. I left class with a lot of questions so I went online and found government inspection reports of Summerhill.

The first report that I read was the 2007 report which was generally positive. Most of the issues raised in the 2007 report were logistical in nature (parent first aid permission forms were not filled out in some cases, some staff did not have complete employment history records on file) http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/inspection-reports/find-inspection-report/provider/CARE/SC024584

After watching the video I wasn’t surprised to discover that the school had a lax policy on smoking and older students are allowed to smoke if they choose to. It was also interesting to read in the report that younger students were discouraged from bringing personal electronics to school because they didn’t have outlets in their rooms.

The 2007 report was an interesting overview and description of the school, however, a report filed in 2000 proved to be much more interesting in terms of uncovering some of the controversies surrounding Summerhill http://www.selfmanagedlearning.org/Summerhill/RepMain.htm#Acc

The 2000 report addresses six complaints lodged against Summerhill, of which three were dismissed. Of these six, three were logistical rather than philosophical.

Of the three philosophical complaints, one was focused on assessment and not accepted by the school. Below is what the inspectors had to say about assessment –

 

Complaint 6 concerns the assessment of pupils. The school’s view is that the ‘formal’ assessment and testing of children should only be carried out with the child’s permission. The complaint alleges that this ‘inhibits pupils’ progress’ as the staff are unable to diagnose ‘pupils’ educational problems’. Our interviews with staff indicated that firstly they did keep records on children. They are, however, reviewing their procedures to see if they need to improve arrangements. We believe that this review is desirable and hope that the school can develop its procedures while keeping to its educational philosophy.

The school has a Special Attention List. This is used to track all new children and any with problems. There are also records on individual children. Baseline assessments of children’s literacy, oracy and numeracy skills are made on newcomers to the school. Teachers keep a record of academic progress and write termly reports on children attending their classes. The school has recently re-instated the procedure whereby houseparents write reports on children in their care. However the school does not send reports to third parties outside the school without the child’s permission.

The other factor that staff stressed is that this is a very small boarding school which is a tightly knit community. They feel that they are aware of any problems and that they can adequately deal with them. However they are clear that they are not prepared to coerce children into being formally tested against their will. They give feedback in class on children’s performance and see this as appropriate for assisting children with their learning. It appears that self-assessment by children is encouraged and this seems to be the mode valued by the children.

Set against the school’s policy on testing is the evidence of GCSE results. The children are clearly able to take such examinations and get good results. The conclusion by Ofsted that pupil progress is necessarily hindered is not supported by the factual evidence of GCSE passes (even though the school stresses that its main aim is not to produce high levels of passes at GCSE). Indeed, we are convinced, by the substantial evidence we saw, that several students have succeeded in academic terms at Summerhill, whereas they were previously failing academically in the state schooling environment.

The Ofsted inspectors appeared to assume that successful education necessarily implies entry for the maximum possible number of GCSE subjects and that anything less reflects ‘underachievement’. The Summerhill approach is that GCSE entry follows the pupil’s own informed purpose and choice, whether it be one of intrinsic interest or instrumental necessity for entry to higher levels of study or employment. If pupils successfully achieve these self-defined goals can this be accurately or fairly described as ‘under-achievement?’

Most children who choose to be entered for GCSE examinations leave Summerhill at the end of what in the state sector would be described as year 11 at the age of 16. National league tables are based upon GCSE examinations that are taken in that year (i.e. the academic school year in which pupils celebrate their sixteenth birthday) as in the state sector that is overwhelmingly when they are taken. In line with many independent schools this is not the case at Summerhill, where often examinations may be taken earlier or later to suit the needs of the individual. It is thus reasonable to compare the accumulated results attained in whatever year by Summerhill School leavers with national figures based on year 11 results.

These results are analysed in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1 – GCSE RESULTS ANALYSED Numbers are too low in any one year to have statistical significance. When aggregated over the four years prior to the Ofsted inspection (i.e.1995-98) a total of 35 pupils produced 198 entries of which 144 or 73% were at the higher grades of A*-C. The average number of subjects per pupil passed at grades A*-C was 4.2. The national benchmark of number of pupils gaining five or more grades A*-C was 46% at Summerhill over this period. This compares favourably with the average figure for all maintained secondary schools of 42.7%. The national trend is one of slight improvement year on year through this period. The trend at Summerhill is more sharply upward with the average number of graded entries per pupil rising for each successive year from 3.1, to 4.3, to 5.25 to 7.5 in 1998. The proportion of total entries being awarded higher A*-C grades rose from 72% in 1995 to 78% in 1998. The proportion of leavers attaining 5 or more A*-C grades moved similarly from 25% in 1995, to 33%, to 42%, reaching 67% in 1998. Although there were only 12 school leavers post GCSE in 1998, and to be fully statistically significant around 20 would be required, it is nonetheless interesting to note that the national maintained sector figure for 1998 was 44.4% compared to Summerhill’s 67%. It should also be noted that 63% of the 35 pupils in the aggregated group did not have English as their first language and that a significant proportion of these could barely speak English at all on arrival at Summerhill. Gender has been disregarded in this analysis as the four-year total would not have generated statistically significant groups and figures prior to 1994 were not available.

It can be stated with confidence that, even by what Summerhill would see as the narrow academic criteria of success emphasised by Ofsted, these GCSE results do not support the judgement made in the 1999 Ofsted report that the education of the Summerhill students has been adversely affected because the school has “… drifted into (our emphasis) confusing educational freedom with the negative right not to be taught”. On the contrary, in terms of examination success, the trend over time is clearly upward.

It could possibly be argued that given the level of parental support and economic status conventional attainment at GCSE should show a bigger differential from the maintained sector average than is the case. This would involve failure to recognise the level of trauma, damage to self-esteem and even health that the parental questionnaires indicate as being the prior experience of schooling for a significant proportion of Summerhill pupils. When seen in this light the GCSE results could be said to constitute a noteworthy achievement for pupils and teachers especially as the school would not claim that they represented its highest priority as an outcome.

On the issue of assessment and testing we have to conclude that the case presented by Ofsted and by the Secretary of State is not supported by the evidence. Rather it seems that Ofsted inspectors arrived at Summerhill with a predetermined template as to how schools must operate assessment, irrespective of the philosophy, character or circumstances of a school.