I am privileged to be a trustee on three education focussed trusts in Ōtautahi Christchurch.
I wouldn't describe myself as a 'high value' trustee, there are others on each Board that do a heap more work, add a heap more value, than I do. However I make the occasional useful contribution, I hope. The three trusts have two things in common: they are each focussed on education and learning in some way, shape, or form, and each of them is working to address the issue of the digital divide that we have in Aotearoa New Zealand, the gap that exists between that 'haves' and the 'have nots' in terms of access to the online digital world. Each trust engages in different mahi but with this same end in mind. You wouldn't be surprised then to read me say that I too think that digital equity is important. Access to the online digital world is empowering, liberating, humanising, and wealth creating. These are benefits that we ALL ought to be able to hold as a right, regardless of birth, race, culture, or geographical location.
You have most probably seen this image many times, reflecting how I too see this world.
This is all background to last week's thinking, having just read a piece in The Listener (August 24-30 2024) titled 'Citizen Drain'. The piece was about funding for Citizens' Advice Bureaus around the motu, but it was the part about digital access that really 'spun my wheels' (in a very negative way). In recent years I have been one of those confronting the increasing digitisation of government services, but from my relatively privileged position as as someone used to this environment, and someone with the resources to continue to own the technology to access those services in that way. I confess to having been sheltered to some degree from the impact of this strategy on those less privileged than me. This part in particular is of interest:
I've copied the article in its entirety at the bottom of this post (noting that there is no intention to contravene the copyright of The Listener in any way, and in fact if you don't have a subscription I heartily recommend taking one out).
I have to confess that despite my relative privilege with regards to digital access, I have experienced my own moments of frustration and disempowerment when attempting access to some of those government services.
In my opinion, this stacks up as an incredibly anti-democratic thing. Forcing the population to access government services digitally, and then attacking the means by which that population is able to grow the skills, and the software/hardware capability, to access those services, is surely about as disempowering as it gets (trumped .. no pun intended.. only by such things as attacks on women's' reproductive rights, or LGBTQ rights, or suggestions of 'stolen elections' ... etc).
I'd always thought it was the role of government to protect the population, to enable people to live good fulfilling lives in safety. In my book, that has to include access to the full range of government services.
This all means that the work of these three trusts, and the many others in Aotearoa New Zealand that work hard every day to support the disadvantaged, is doubly important. The fact that these are charitable trusts means that they often receive very little government funding, and currently most probably even less. The future is looking shaky not only for the trusts, but for the people whom they attempt to serve.
https://natlib.govt.nz/records/22703273
We must double down in our efforts to support digital equity for the people mof Aotearoa New Zealand.
Like every other education professional, I've had, or done, my share of professional development/PLD. I've 'done' it, and I've had it 'done to me'. I've had those things I've really wanted to go to, those I knew I needed to go to, and those in which I really had no interest at all, but that someone else had decided I needed to do.
I've previously written about some of the factors I think are necessary for effective change in our kura. But even with the best strategic change management processes, if staff lack the requisite skills the change is doomed to failure.
There will be those who think that the problem lies with teachers. you know the sort .. "bloody lazy teachers", they'll say. Yet I have only rarely in my career met teachers who didn't care, who didn't want the best for their students (yes I have met a couple!!). It's not as if teachers get up in the morning and say to themselves 'Righto, let's go and screw over a few kids today'. Teacher resistance to change is often driven by the view that they know best, based on current knowledge. There are those who say 'well this has worked for the last *** years, so why would I change?'. However, often when presented with information, data, and alternatives, it is possible to change the practice of those teachers. I have often argued that rarely do teachers say 'I'm just not going to change and do what you want me to do'. It's more likely (in my opinion) that they are really saying 'yeah I get it, but I don't know what that would look like in my daily practice', or 'I don't have the skills necessary to do what you are asking'. They are often also saying 'I don't have the time', or 'I'm just bloody well exhausted'. I suspect you need to have been a teacher yourself to understand that. I think that those who have never been in the profession just don't understand.
I love this piece of wisdom which, I suspect, is true for most teachers.
So, what do we know about the best way to undertake PLD? What makes professional learning 'stick'? What gives us best bang for buck, at a time (which is not in the least unusual) when there are never enough dollars to provide all of the PLD we need?
I have seen, and experienced, two very different forms of PLD. There is the PLD that arises from teacher inquiry. Arguably this is the most effective because, if done with sincerity and application and good guidance and support (the 'critical friend' thing), sees each teacher get to the heart of what needs to be done next for the learners in front of them right now. I have said before that inquiry should be 'the way we do things around here'. It is certainly an expectation and a requirement for teacher registration, as it should be. What about the more traditional forms of PLD, those delivered by the 'expert', those that look more like 'courses'? THE most effective model I have ever seen is (sounding like a broken record here, but ...) the Manaiakalani network model which is so profoundly effective it hurts.
For a number of years (sorry, but don't know how many) the Manaiakalani network has run a 'course' called the Digital Fluency Intensive. It aims to create digitally competent teachers who can implement the 'learn, create, share' pedagogy daily in their classrooms.
It goes like this. The kura releases the teacher for one day a week for a term (so that's 9 days). The content itself has been delivered both F2F and online. The teachers are taken through the specific skills, and are then expected to use these in their classes over the following week, reflecting and reporting back on what they have done over that next week. The course does not just focus on skills development but offers a valuable chance to delve into the pedagogy and kaupapa that drives what teachers do in their classes in order to maximise the impact of effective teaching and learning. These teachers continue to be supported by the network, and the cluster Education Programme Leader, once the term is over.
It's that simple. Nah seriously, that's it. Hardly rocket science, eh. The kicker in the approach (apart from the incredible levels of skill of all of the facilitators) is the one day a week away from classes to allow the teacher to focus on the skills development. So at current rates (with relief costing $300 ish per day ??) this costs the kura around $3000 per staff member. But the point is that it works. Brilliantly. EVERY teacher I have spoken to who has attended one of these DFI's describes it as THE BEST PLD in their entire career. They are upskilled, supported, and motivated, to change their practice.
And.. yes there's more. The Manaikalani network has now employed specialists to distill the best in reading and maths teaching practices, and is using the same model to upskill teachers in the teaching of reading, and mathematics. It just takes time, time that money has to buy, because you can't do this stuff in the evenings after you have got home from an exhausting day teaching, attending staff meetings, running sports practices, and ... oh yes that parent meeting for the school trip, and then used the first half of your evening to mark the student work that you have brought home with you.
And... this creates those internal experts and change agents that Dr Kevin Knight talks about for sustainable change in kura. Each person who completes this DFI (or the equivalent in reading or maths or...) is an internal expert committed to this kaupapa, able and willing to sustain the changes in practice that our learners need.
And.. this is all evidence informed, the outcomes tracked with rigorous data collection and analysis undertaken by data specialists employed by MET, AND overseen by the academic team from the Woolf Fisher Research Centre, University of Auckland.
We KNOW how to do this stuff. We DON'T need no politicians telling us how to improve outcomes. We don't need no charter schools.
We need to be able to give teachers time, and we need the sorts of course that work exactly like the DFI. For goodness sakes, it's NOT rocket science. Is anyone listening?
