Quality_ equality and creative leadership - No Slide Title

Document Sample
Quality_ equality and creative leadership - No Slide Title Powered By Docstoc
					        Quality, equality
     and creative leadership
              Louise Stoll
              Visiting Professor
 London Centre for Leadership in Learning
Institute of Education, University of London

              ICSEI 2009
       Vancouver, British Columbia
 Summary of historical perspectives on
    school effectiveness and
Challenges for school
   effectiveness and improvement
 A response – creative leadership
The purpose of ICSEI is to enhance the
quality and equity of education for all
students in elementary (primary) and
secondary schools.

 . . . achieved through the acquisition and
dissemination of information in a co-ordinated
effort amongst policy makers, practitioners
and scholars, using the Annual Conference,
the Congress’s related journals, the website
and any other appropriate methods.

. . . efforts to achieve this purpose are made in
diverse settings by many individuals and
organisations employing a variety of
                School Effectiveness
focus on students’ progress and development
      – value added
progress for all students, not just a few
     – differential effectiveness
contextual differences
nested levels
effect sizes
added value sustained over time
     – stability of effects
factors within control of leaders and teachers
      identified as statistically related to greater
      student progress, summarised in lists of
      effective schools characteristics
orientation to quantitative methodology
              School improvement
focus on process (journey) as well as outcomes
identifying necessary teaching and learning and other
     conditions to support successful change
 considering capacity to engage in and implement
     significant change
increasing interest in sustainability
contextually differences – ‘one size doesn’t fit all’
 initially qualitative methodologies, increasing use of
       mixed methodological approaches
R+D projects

Quality and equality

Global and local

Now and the future
                         Relationship                                                                                    Relationship                                                                                             Relationship
                         above OECD                                                                                      not different                                                                                            below OECD
                         average impact                                                                                  from OECD                                                                                                average impact
           Figure 4.10
                                                                                                                         average impact
600        Performance in science and the impact of socio-economic
           Average performance of countries on the PISA science scale and the relationship between performance and the index of economic, social and cultural status

                                                  Strength of the relationship between                       Strength of the relationship between                      Strength of the relationship between
                                                   performance and socio-economic                             performance and socio-economic                            performance and socio-economic                     Finland
                                                 background above the OECD average                       background not statistically significantly                   background below the OECD average
                                                                 impact                                   different from the OECD average impact                                      impact
550        Score
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Hong Kong-China
                                                                                                                                                          Chinese Taipei                                                 Canada
                                                                                                                New Zealand                                                                               Estonia                 Même couleurs que
                                                  Liechtenstein                               Netherlands                                                                                     Australia
                                                                          Germany                Slovenia                      Czech RepublicUnited Kingdom                                                                Korea dans la Figure 4.9
                                                                     Belgium                                                                                                                                                                                       Macao-China
                                             Hungary                                                          Switzerland             Austria                             Ireland
500                                                                France
                                                                                               United States                                                                   Croatia                                    Norway
                                                                                                                         Lithuania                                                                              Latvia                  Iceland
                                      Luxembourg                                                                                                           Spain
                                                                 Slovak Republic
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Russian Federation
                                                                                                                          Portugal                                                                            Italy

                                           Chile                                                                                                                    Serbia
                   Bulgaria                                                                                        Turkey
                                                                                                                                   Thailand                                                 Jordan
400                                                                                                                                                                                                    Indonesia
                                                                  Argentina                          Brazil                                                           Colombia                                  Tunisia

                                                            Percentage of variance in performance in science explained by the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (r-squared X 100)
           Note: OECD mean used in this figure is the arithmetic average of all OECD
           Source: OECD PISA 2006 database, Table 4.4a                                                                                                                                                                   Kyrgyzstan

      30                                                                  20                                                                                                                         10                                                                      0

           PISA 2006 Performance in science at age 15
           and impact of socio-economic background
 UNICEF child well-being in rich countries (2007)
         Average rankings on 6 dimensions

            Av ranking                   Av ranking

1. Netherlands    4.2    12. Canada           11.8
2. Sweden         5.0    12. Greece           11.8
3. Denmark        7.2    14. Poland           12.3
4. Finland        7.5    15. Czech Republic   12.5
5. Spain          8.0    16. France           13.0
6. Switzerland    8.3    17. Portugal         13.7
7. Norway         8.7    18. Austria          13.8
8. Italy         10.0    19. Hungary          14.5
9. Ireland       10.2    20. USA              18.0
10. Belgium      10.7    21. UK               18.2
11. Germany      11.2
 United Nations’ Education for All – UNESCO 2000
                     6 goals

1.   Expand + improve comprehensive early childhood
     care + education
2.   Ensure by 2015 all children have access to +
     complete free, compulsory, high quality education
3.   Ensure learning needs of all young people + adults
     met through equitable access to learning + life-skills
4.   Achieve 50% improvement in adult literacy levels +
     equitable access to basic and continuing education
5.   Eliminate gender disparities in primary + secondary
     education by 2005 + achieve gender equality by 2015
6.   Improve all aspects of quality of education + ensure
     excellence of all to achieve learning outcomes,
     especially literacy, numeracy + essential life skills
National Council for Curriculum and Assessment,
              Ireland – Key Skills
 The four pillars of learning

Learning to know
Learning to do
Learning to live together
Learning to be

                            UNESCO (1996)
   A response –

Creative leadership
             Four characteristics of
               creative processes

1. They all involve thinking or
   behaving imaginatively
2. Overall, this imaginative activity is
3. These processes must generate something
4. The outcomes must be of value in relation to
   the objective

                        K Robinson et al for DfESS (1999)
          All Our Futures: Creativity, Culture & Education
        Creative leadership
. . . collaborative, imaginative and
thought through responses to opportunities and
challenging issues that inhibit learning at all
levels. It’s about seeing, thinking and doing things
differently in order to improve the life chances of
all students.
Creative leadership is both:
 being creative leaders yourselves
providing the conditions and opportunities
    for others to be creative
                           Stoll and Temperley (2009)
Given what you have heard at
this conference about new
departures for a learning world,
does the concept of creative
leadership resonate with you?
Promoting creative leadership
Providing time and space –
physical and emotional
External challenge and
Taking people out of their
comfort zones
                         Promoting risk taking
                         Regular experience
                         Locating within a
                         supportive learning
When adult relationships in
schools are characterized by
trust, the stories about change
shift from indifference or
negativity to possibility and

                   Kaser and Halbert
                     (2009, in press)
Demonstrating creative leadership in
 action: school and district projects

Curriculum innovation

Internal and/or external
capacity building

Extending the use of
data and evidence
Demonstrating creative

    Three examples

1. Capacity building

2. Methodologies

3. Knowledge animation
     . . . allows [people, organisations or entire
     systems] routinely to learn from the world
     around them and apply their learning to new
     . . . situations so that they continue on a
     path toward their goals, even though the
     context is ever-changing.

                                        Stoll and
     Earl (2003)
                    Capacity building

Before                           Now + the future
                            Differentiated and
One size fits all           contextualised
 Instructional              + Authentic and deep
improvement                 learning
Current best practice       + Creativity, innovation
                            and next practice
Top-down                    Lateral – networked,
Dependence                  ‘Habit of mind’
                            Leadership capacity,
Principalship               including students
Individual + school        Systemic capacity, including
                           family and wider community
Hart’s ladder of    8. Child initiated,
 participation      shared decisions
                    with adults
    participation   7. Child initiated
    Degrees of

                    and directed
                    6. Adult initiated,
                    shared decisions
                    with children
                    5. Consulted and

                     4. Assigned but

                    3. Tokenism

                    2. Decoration

                    1. Manipulation
               Austrian Leadership Academy (LEA)

   Involves all types of schools and all levels of the system
   (connect horizontal and vertical system levels)



                                                dynamic system
 heads                                             system

             hierarchical system              NEW ENERGY
                                   Schratz and Schley (2007)
2.                New Methodologies
Robust measures of 21st Century outcomes
Extending development of:

     multi-level analyses to include different parts of the
     methodologies to explore intercultural similarities
      and differences
     methodologies to assess processes of improvement
     school, district and system self-evaluation
     participatory evaluation methodologies

Methodologies to capture innovation
Accountability systems and methodologies to capture new
ways of working eg networking and collaboration

        Knowledge Animation
     Ways of making knowledge
     accessible and mobile to fuel
     dialogue that promotes
     learning connections and use
Bridging research and practice is harder than it
looks. Simply communicating information may
help to raise awareness but it is unlikely to
stimulate behaviour change. The ‘mediation
infrastructure’ . . . Involves a raft of resources
that are crafted with as much attention to
pedagogy – to the needs of the professional
learner – as to the quality and relevance of the

                                          CUREE (2007)
         ‘Mediation infrastructure’ – Hillage et al (1998)
     Which of these strategies have you found most
     powerful in helping promote learning connections and
     use of external research findings?


keynote                       web resource
speech      professional article

            Research and development project
Which 2 of the following strategies have you found most
powerful in helping teachers share their knowledge and
ideas? Please rank your top 2 in order of priority
Learning conversation                                36
Coaching/mentoring                                   31
Networking                                           12
Videos of practice/audio examples                        7
Verbal presentations                                     6
Teacher designed materials                               4
Written stories and reflections                          2
Web resources                                            2
Responses from GTC Teacher Learning Academy March 2008

    . . . knowledge is created through dialogue or
    conversations that make presuppositions, ideas,
    beliefs and feelings explicit and available for
    exploration. It is in these conversations
    that new ideas, tools, and practices are created,
    and the initial knowledge is either substantially
    enriched or transformed during the process.
                               Earl and Timperley (2008)
            Three fields of knowledge

              What We                             What Is
               Know                               Known
              Knowledge of                   Knowledge from
             those involved.                 theory, research
              What we bring                     and best
               to the table                      practice

                               created together
NCSL: Networked                    through
Learning                         collaborative
Communities (2003)
In what ways could you and
your colleagues/peers
powerfully demonstrate
creative leadership to respond
to the improvement and
effectiveness opportunities
challenges facing your system?

Shared By: