VIEWS: 11 PAGES: 52 POSTED ON: 12/22/2010
BCSSA:FALL CONFERENCE 2010 Victoria, BC 18/19 November Developing the BC learning agenda: innovation and improvement Part 2: emergent policies Valerie Hannon and Tony Mackay Innovation Unit, UK Global Education Leaders Program Consortium Partners Jurisdiction Partners Australia Beijing, China England Finland Ontario, Canada New York City, USA New Zealand South Korea Victoria, Australia The Global Education Leaders Program Objectives • To advocate the vision of 21st Century Learning (‘Education 3.0 and beyond) • To develop leadership capacity to transform education systems • To accelerate and sustain transformation efforts within GELP members' local and national systems • To grow a global community of education leaders and innovators • To create a global movement towards 21st Century Learning (‘Education 3.0’) Global Education Leaders Program www.GETideas.org The Education 3.0 Framework Buildin Delivered Pace & Routes Leading Holistic urgenc g to Sustain- in change owner- able partner- transformation y ship scale ship Curriculum, Policies, Infrastructure & Leadership, pedagogy & Procedures & Technology People & Culture assessment Management Student-centred, Technology personalised Well-governed and Visionary vision led from learning managed system leadership the top 21st century High standard of Data-driven Excellent teachers, curriculum educational accountability & principals and technology decisionmaking system-leaders ‘Next practice’ Integrated training – Ambitious, Innovation technology & collaborative, pedagogy pedagogy management innovative culture Assessment for Integrated Flexible learning learning ecosystem of spaces partners Finland’s Pedagogy for Tomorrow • Ubiquitous technology, ubiquitous opportunity? • Collaborative, social-constructivist learning • Problem-based instruction • Progressive inquiry, experimental study • Peer feedback and peer cooperation video New York City: GELP member Putting Children First • John White, Deputy Chancellor, NYC Department of Education NYC: the old school system was not set up to succeed Before Mayor Bloomberg took charge of New York City‟s public schools in 2002, the system was failing too many families and students. It was a system characterized by: No coherent standards > 40 distinct districts, setting their own rules and standards Limited accountability > No one responsible for results > Lots of finger pointing Stagnant results for NYC students > Generations of students were leaving school without the skills and knowledge they needed to 9 succeed Phase one: Depoliticize and foster coherence and capacity-building Created a new management structure. We streamlined the bureaucracy, bringing stability and coherence to an unruly system. We created 10 regions, each comprising three or four community school districts and headed by a regional superintendent. Focused on school leadership. Created the Leadership Academy to train and support new and existing principals. Enhanced the curriculum. We implemented uniform math and English curricula and are introducing new curricula in the arts, social studies, and science. Ended social promotion. We implemented a policy to ensure that promotion is always based on academic preparation. Engaged families. Created new parent supports, placing a parent coordinator in every school. Made schools safer. Major crimes are down more than 13% and other incidents are down by more than 45%. Cut the bureaucracy. Between 2002 and 2007, we sent more than $190 million from the bureaucracy to schools and classrooms. (This has been 10 independently confirmed by the City‟s Independent Budget Office.) Phase two: Empowerment, accountability, and leadership Once the system was ready, we empowered our school leaders, giving them more decision-making power, and we held them accountable for results. We also sent an additional $174 million to schools and classrooms, bringing the total money devolved from the bureaucracy to more than $350 million. Empowerment Accountability Decisions are being made close to Holding schools accountable for students: results: Progress Reports (Grades A-F) Decisions can be best for students when Learning Environment Surveys they‟re happening close to students at the Quality Reviews school level. Rewards and consequences based on results Individualized support options: Tools for schools: Principals used to get “support” from regions. ARIS provides student performance data to Now, they choose what‟s best for them from guide school improvement efforts. more than a dozen DOE and non-profit options. Periodic Assessments help schools identify each student's strengths and Schools also have: weaknesses to target instruction More money and more power over budgets, Children First Intensive professional staffing, and programs, letting them tailor development builds school-wide capacity to instruction and programs to the specific diagnose student needs and to develop needs of their schools. evidence-based individualized instruction, New funding and more equitable self-evaluation, and continuous 11 distribution of resources to schools. improvement in student learning. After remaining nearly flat for 10 years, NYC’s graduation rate has increased by 33% since 2002 NYC TRADITIONAL CALCULATION METHOD Percent of Students in a Cohort Graduating from High School in 4 Years 68 1992-2002 2002-2009 66 + 0% + 33% 62 60 58 62.7 53 54 59.0 51 51 51 51 56.4 50 50 50 50 48 48 48 52.8 49.1 46.5 2005-2009 City Method: + 17% State Method: + 27% Class of 19 9 2 19 9 3 19 9 4 19 9 5 19 9 6 19 9 7 19 9 8 19 9 9 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 NYC Calculation Method NY State Calculation Method NY State Calculation Method with August Graduates 12 Notes: NYC traditional calculation includes Local and Regents Diplomas, GEDs, Special Education diplomas, and August graduates. It does not include disabled students in self-contained classrooms or District 75 students. The NYS calculation, used since 2005, includes Local and Regents Diplomas and all disabled students. It does not include GEDs and Special Education diplomas. Today the U.S. ranks 15th in college completion, down from 2nd Phase three: Schools organized around the needs of each child Different classrooms, same Schools re-imagined structure Class A Disciplined Class B Innovation Methodology Class C Transforming the Whole School Toward Personalized Mastery Learning Five core principles guide the whole-school vision College and Career Ready Graduate Innovation Zone Knowledge School • Common Core • Schools customize learning around needs of individual • Information & Tech students rather than by Literacy age, grade level, and Cognitive Skills subject • Problem solving • Students take responsibility • Modeling, transforming, for directing and managing creating progress toward rigorous • Research mastery objectives • Interpretation • Adults support learning as • Communication, tutors, advisors, and collaboration teachers Mindsets • Self-direction • Persistence Multiple Learning Modalities • Students work individually and in teams to Globally Competitive Standards produce work that demonstrates mastery of • Student learning outcomes aligned to Common complex, real-world challenges. Core, NAS Science, and international learning • Technology extends learning anytime, anywhere. frameworks. Differentiated Teaching Roles Personalized Learning Plans & Schedules • Adults play multiple roles (including advising, • Time organized around the needs of students. tutoring, and teaching) to personalize learning Mastery-Based Assessment pathways and create shared commitment to •Competency drives progression success. 15 At your tables……. • What do you think is the learning for BC – if any – from the examples you have heard about? What do you think are their strengths? • What would you like to know more about? How might you do so? The Innovation Lab Network S KENTUCKY MAINE NEW YORK Terry Holliday Angela Faherty David Steiner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner WEST OHIO WISCONSIN VIRGINIA Deborah Delisle Steven Paine Anthony Evers Superintendent of State Superintendent Superintendent of Public Instruction of Schools Public Instruction Typical R&D Investments in Innovating Sectors Pharma: 15% Defense: 10% Technology: 7% Education: 0.7% The methodology SCALING ENTRY RAPID CREATING NxGL POINTS PROTOTYPING CONDITIONS Scaling NxGL: Pioneering Change for Next Generation Learning OLD NEW SYSTEM SYSTEM How systems change Healthy Systems Re-Generate Education Does Not Name Identify Pioneering Leaders Connect Create Networks of Pioneering Leaders Nurture Develop Communities Of Practice Illuminate Foster Systems of Influence We must cultivate new experiences of next generation learning Personalized Learning World Class Learning/Skills Authentic Student Voice Performance-based Learning Comprehensive System of Supports Anytime, Anywhere Opportunities To do that we must change how the system supports learning Personalized Learning Human Capital World Class Learning/Skills Time/Place Authentic Student Voice Assessments Performance-based Learning Community Comprehensive System of Finance Supports Governance Anytime, Anywhere Technology Opportunities Outcomes of the Network Proof Points Diagnostics Knowledge We will start in places that have the most impact Places that influence the whole system NxGL Diagnostics NxGL Educator Assessments Capacity These are critical Entry Points NxGL DIAGNOSTICS NxGL EDUCATOR ASSESSMENTS CAPACITY NxGL Diagnostics NXGL Provide indicators that focus DIAGNOSTICS on Next Generation student needs. Complex performance NXGL EDUCATOR and engaged learning settings. ASSESSMENTS CAPACITY Demonstrate the assessment of the kinds of complex student performance all students can achieve. Give leaders analytic capacity required to measure progress NxGL Diagnostics: Examples NXGL DIAGNOSTICS NXGL EDUCATOR ASSESSMENTS CAPACITY EXAMPLE EXAMPLE EXAMPLE Indicators of Effective Effective higher order measures of measures of learning genuine and core knowledge persistent and skills engagement NxGL Assessments Reliable, real-time NXGL DIAGNOSTICS measures of NxGL indicators NXGL EDUCATOR ASSESSMENTS CAPACITY Student ownership of learning Continuous improvement NxGL Assessment: Examples EXAMPLE NXGL DIAGNOSTICS Portfolio-based performance/production assessments that NXGL ASSESSMENT EDUCATOR demonstrate mastery of CAPACITY complex knowledge/skills EXAMPLE New ways of gaining credit for successful tasks undertaken inside and outside of school, thereby opening up alternative uses of time and space NxGL Educator Capacity NXGL DIAGNOSTICS Commitment to personalization NXGL EDUCATOR ASSESSMENTS CAPACITY Reframe the single- teacher model of learning to differentiated roles for adults NxGL DIAGNOSTICS NxGL EDUCATOR ASSESSMENTS CAPACITY RAPID PROTOTYPING SCALING ENTRY RAPID CREATING NxGL POINTS PROTOTYPING CONDITIONS SESSION BREAKOUT 24-Week Cycle State Lab 1. Diagnose 2. Plan 4. Share 3. Implement Diagnose Plan Share Implement Diagnose Plan Share Implement Diagnose Plan Share Implement Diagnose Plan Share Implement CREATING CONDITIONS PIONEERING ENTRY RAPID CREATING CHANGE POINTS TESTING CONDITIONS Partnership Innovation Platform Experts and Innovation Information Connectivity Next Practices Methods and Analysis and Advocacy At your tables……. • What do you think are the strengths of the CCSSO approach: establishing innovation „labs‟; rapid cycle prototyping? • How do you assess their definition of next generation or breakthrough learning? • What would you like to know more about? How might you do so?
Pages to are hidden for
"to Download slides - Slide 1"Please download to view full document