Deep knowledge, collaboration, and creativity

In conversation with a long time friend, we turned to education. To put some perspective on this, he is a recently retired university professor, currently holding the title 'Emeritus Professor,' someone who began life as a secondary teacher before progressing into doctoral study. He has lots of experience at the 'pointy end' of our sector in both secondary and tertiary teaching, study, and research. He is also NOT a 'boring old **', NOT one of those reactionary 'things were better in my day' people - refreshing, to say the least.

The kōrero got around to the issue of research, and how high level research, at doctoral level and beyond especially, often involves multiple perspectives that are brought to bear through collaboration, and how this is often a case of making connections between existing ideas, of creating new understanding by synthesising what we already know. He had a wonderful example of how a fresh water ecologist and a geneticist had combined their expertise to develop a method of DNA testing of fresh water stream water using DNA testing to build a picture of the biodiversity of life in fresh water. All of this requires what I was initially going to describe as 'expert subject knowledge', but I think I actually mean 'deep subject knowledge'. Our world seems to me to be filled with too may self proclaimed 'experts' who in fact operate from a very shallow knowledge base.

As he described some of his work, my mind fired off in all sorts of directions. The first is the importance of subject knowledge. One of the criticisms I still hear of NCEA is that it not longer values content knowledge (and by default that we as a teaching profession no longer value knowledge). For the record let me restate my position: NCEA focuses on thinking. However you can't think in a vacuum. So to teach deeper thinking you have to build knowledge. I suggest that the deeper the knowledge you can develop, the deeper the thinking you can attempt. However for that to happen teachers have to be 'deliberate and intentional' in teaching for both the deeper knowledge AND the deeper thinking. This is one of the reasons that in our Manaiakalani clusters across Aotearoa we share our mahi around the development of critical literacy skills, regardless of the age and stage of our learners.

If we refer back to Professor Peter O'Connor's Creative Schools Index, one of the eleven dimensions of the index is "Discipline knowledge: To develop expertise in a domain of knowledge that involves specialised content and process understandings." I've written about this idea before here.

But another idea struck me: how could we better leverage off the differing levels of 'deeper knowledge' that our kaiako, and our students, each have in order to build creativity, or 'creative capacity', in our learners? Here are some of my 'wonderings' (I'm still trying to decide if I love or hate that word!!) on the question.

Perhaps first and foremost this is a matter of leadership. By that I refer to leadership at all levels in our kura: the leadership of the Principal, the leadership of the teachers, and the leadership of our learners, our akonga. So, what would a Principal's leadership look like if that leadership were seeking to build collaboration amongst teachers, collaboration that might build new understandings of how to cause learning, and how to build new knowledge? What would a teacher's leadership look like as they sought to collaborate with others, and to build collaboration amongst and between akonga? And what would we be encouraging as attributes and habits amongst our akonga if we are trying to help them to understand the benefits, the power, of collaboration in their lives? 

Perhaps passion projects, project based learning, genius hour, call it what you will, is an important component, particularly where that work is undertaken in groups. Perhaps our Business and Enterprise kete is a great example because of requires students to collaborate in groups. Equally, participation in drama, in sports teams, or kapahaka, are important  and powerful ways to build the habits, the attributes, that akonga need to be able to collaborate later in their lives.

I always recall comments from Professor Eric Mazur of Harvard University in a conference address where he said (and I am paraphrasing here) that in his career to that point he had authored 84 academic papers, and not a single one of them was his work alone. Every one of them was a collaboration.

As a specific thought, it does seem to me that at the senior leadership level in secondary kura, encouraging and supporting thinking that connects traditional subject silos would do that. Encouraging new senior courses that leverage off the amazing flexibility of NCEA, where we recombine standards to create new cross-disciplinary courses, might also be an example of leadership. That thought in itself I hope will help inform an understanding of our own Hornby High School journey as we build cross curriculum courses for our learners.

And one final point: this all requires deep subject knowledge. Therefore we will still require subject specialists. We will still require the mathematics teachers, the biology teachers, the English teachers, the Te Reo teachers. It's just that their expertise needs to be layered across our curriculum and our mahi in a way that is different to what we have done for the last 150 years.

Creativity abounds.. more than just a cliche

Presumably in the beginning a cliche wasn't a cliche, but an observation of something that appeared to be true. It became a cliche because it seemed to be so true that people used it often, often as in a lot, and so it became over used, it became a cliche. Social media, and its tendency to cut every thought down to as few words as possible, has meant that a lot of our lives seems to be described in a series of cliches.

So something like 'If you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always got', was once someone's observation of what they thought they were seeing often  in the world around them., and so thought this was a wisdom about their world. I have come to the point where there is also another way of saying this: "If you think what you've always thought, you'll do what you've always done, and you'll get what you've always got". And in our mahi to improve learning and educational outcomes for learners, this has never been truer.

In this case however there is good research data to back this up. In a Manaiakalani wānanga yesterday I was reminded (as I often am) of Hattie's meta analyses that show (amongst a huge number of profound things) that teacher expectations have a very large effect size in terms of their impact on learners.

"With an average effect size of 0.4, Hattie finds the effect size of teacher estimates of achievement is 1.62 and the effect size of collective teacher efficacy is 1.57."

Reference: https://www.k12dive.com/news/teacher-expectations-top-list-of-effects-on-student-achievement/422029/

So its effect size is even greater than that of collective teacher efficacy, which I've written about before. So it should be no surprise that when you expect creativity, that's what you get. That ought to be exactly what you expect. That ought to be exactly what you get when a kura increasingly immerses itself in the Manaiakalani pedagogy 'Learn Create Share'.

And.. lo and behold (cue dramatic music, here!!), that seems to be what I am seeing at Hornby High School.  Over this term, our Year 10 and 11 students, as a part of their wānanga time, have been engaged in personalised passion projects (PPPs). Our aim here has been to improve student engagement with their learning, to harness their inner creativity, whatever that looks like. It's time for that reminder that we don't mean creativity in only the creative arts sense (although we definitely mean that too), but creativity across all learning areas for all learners. The PPP approach in wānanga has been an illustration of us not just expecting creativity, but also putting in place those systems, structures, and routines, that are necessary to support it. It offers student agency, it offers the possibility of doing just what Yong Zhao says we should.

He suggests that at the moment we do this:

Whereas we should be doing this:

This is a notion that sits at the centre of our Kāhui Ako plan and achievement challenges.

The net result? My feeling is that creativity is flourishing. I have dipped in to Year 10 and 11 blogs and gained an interesting insight into that flourishing creativity.

Here for example is the work of Lauren and Louise who set out to create a graphic book based around a story that Lauren had written.

Or here, the work of Johanna and Genica, who crated bubble tea, and designed a cafe in Minecraft.

There's Mya who designed and created a quilted blanket in the textiles room.

Or Tamsyn who looked at drawing as a means to improving wellbeing.

There are so many more, and my sample is purely random. I just jumped around on our list and 'browsed'.

And then outside of the PPPs, Nadia of Year 12 was chosen to be a "Member of the Shakespeare Globe Centre New Zealand Young Shakespeare Company 2022 (SGCNZ YSC 2022)", for which she will travel to London.

Creativity everywhere. Is this happening by pure chance? I suspect not. It happens because we have clarity around our pedagogy, a pedagogy that places creativity at its centre. It happens when we place creativity at the centre of much of teachers' thinking, and I hope at the centre of their expectations.

You get what you expect, you see what you are looking for.. the cliches go on, but you get the meaning.

Random 'reckons' and wonderings about creativity

I'm a Sir Ken Robinson 'fan boy'. There, I've said it publicly!!! And his 2007 Ted talk 'Do schools kill creativity' (still one of the most watched clips on Youtube??? Or is it one of the most watched Ted talks on Youtube? You get the idea, anyway) had a significant impact on my thinking, and consequently on my work as an educator, and now as a leader in education.

My connection with Professor Peter O'Connor (University of Auckland) a year ago took my thinking forward into the more immediate area of my work in leadership in a secondary school context at Te Huruhuru Ao o Horomaka Hornby High School. All of that is by way of background to the fact that I end up doing a lot of thinking about creativity, creativity in kura, and creativity in life.

Much of my thinking is about what creativity looks like in everyday life, and in our kura for our rangatahi, and what deliberate acts of leadership might support its growth and development in our kura. A few days away from the office allows me to think without distraction about this stuff. Rather than a coherent line of reasoning and argument, this piece is more by way of some random 'reckons' and wonderings about the topic of creativity.

My first wondering is if in fact creativity sits along a huge continuum of possibility. I 'reckon' that even simple acts like phrasing a conversation (which words it use, what inflection to place on those words), or deciding which way to turn as we walk, are in fact acts of creativity. That sort of thing perhaps sits down one end of the continuum. At the other end (if my 'reckon' was anywhere near correct) might be the creation of a great painting, the writing a poem or a ballad, or performing a beautiful piece of song. If that 'reckon' were correct, then we could place everything in life somewhere along this continuum of creativity. 

Why is that significant"? My wondering is if that would allow us to open our eyes to the myriad of creativity that is all around us. If so, my 'reckon' might be that this idea might help us to see that creativity isn't something that resides only in the hearts and minds of the 'creatives'. That in fact creativity resides in the heads and hearts of all of us. If we were able to accept that, could it then open the floodgates to allowing us to better harness this wellspring of creativity that I 'reckon' we all represent? If so, I wonder, would that mean that we might be better equipped to address the multitude of problems that confront us today?

As I wandered the streets of the little Canterbury village of Akaroa taking those few vital days to unwind, here are just a few of the things I saw.

One of my fave arts and crafts galleries, called 'Lava'. Retail 'galleries' like this abound in Aotearoa (as they probably do everywhere), and they reveal a depth and breadth of creative talent. I wondered if they are also small 'shrines to creative talent, places of worship that not only reveal that depth and breadth, but also the incredibly low value that we place on creativity. How may of the 'creators' whose work is on sale in such places can actually eke a living from their creative talents?  Do we love to go into these galleries as an act of worship, and a yearning for more creativity in our lives?

There was this little stall selling knitted goods to fundraise for the local health centre. Each and every item was the product of creative endeavour ftom someone, somewhere.

And as I sit writing this, there are these dudes sitting outside the motel unit next door to ours, quietly 'jamming' on their guitars, and singing. I suspect that they are more than your usual 'beer and BBQ' guitar strummers. They are sitting there enjoying the sun, creating by simply performing together. That's creativity too.

 Back in the school context, on the last day of term I went for a wander (as I frequently try to do.. being connected with our learners continues to be the best professional feeling ever), and I came across a myriad of cool stuff going on. Here was Anaru finishing a card table he'd designed and built.

There were students using a gizzmo called a 'makey-makey' to create circuits, and hence code games.  There was a banana being used as a 'controller' for a game, along with copious amounts of blue tack. These were all signs of creativity. And they all seemed also to carry the common theme of play as the students went about their mahi. 

I use the word mahi with some caution, because the mere act of play tends to imply that there is no mahi involved. How could there be when we are having fun? I 'reckon' that's wrong!!! It was reassuring given that Playfulness' is identified as one of the 11 creativity dimensions on the CAST Creative Schools Index. My own personal creativity is often really well demonstrated in the context of 'play'. 

On the last day of term I also had the privilege and pleasure of taking our for morning tea our first two student who this year had gained their NCEA with an Excellence endorsement (that is of course before they have even entered an exam room.. pretty awesome eh!, and I do this every year.. shout those students a morning tea, that is). We were accompanied by their Dean who is also our Head of Science. They reminisced playfully and laughingly about creating hokey pokey as a science experiment. The memory was clearly a rich warm memory. I had the impression that the experience was associated more with play than 'mahi' or 'learning', that it had created a richer deeper memory than may that 'best lesson ever' that we think we have delivered.

I 'reckon' that play is an essential component of our mahi as educators at Te Huruhuru Ao o Horomaka as we travel our journey towards that aspiration as a 'centre of creative excellence he puna auaha'.

But in secondary education we dismiss play as a valid way of learning, we do so far too often, I 'reckon' we do so at our cost, and to the cost and detriment of our learners. We allow ourselves to be driven by assessment and qualifications frameworks, we assume that we have to be 'grown up' about this 'education thing' and that this means we are meant to 'look like a university'. After all that is what we are meant to be preparing our learners for, right? And that's what learners and their whānau want, right?' 

That of course raised a whole new question of what a modern university actually looks like, but that might be a topic for another day.

The output of collective teacher action

 I've already written about what it looks like when teachers get together and share practice. I was sitting in a staff PLD session this week and our leaders of learning referred staff to the collective output of two terms of 'Teacher Summits', of two terms of teacher sharing.

I clicked on the link to the web page on which we have accumulated the outputs of these two terms of sharing. (Notice that I use the word 'output', because this is what our teachers from across Uru Mānuka have produced. To use the word 'outcome' would mean to talk about the impact on student learning.)

I was profoundly struck by what I was seeing: the distillation of just a little bit of the teacher wisdom, experience, and skill, just a little of the net result of years of that wisdom and experience in how to be more effective in. causing learning. A bit like 'creative commons' on the web.

This is ABSOLUTE GOLD. It is a resource of immeasurable value. It captures what I suspect almost every teacher in training might hope for: a direct statement of what good teaching practice might look like. Of course you don't need to be a teacher in training to see the value of this resource. All of us can find something here that we could apply almost immediately in our daily practice - the holy grail of teacher PLD, the thing that leaves every teacher feeling that their time has been well spent.

And this web page shares the output of just two Teacher Summits, of just one year's work in sharing practice. Wow!!!

This output is one of the many results of our participation in The Manaiakalani Programme in which we have clarity over our pedagogy, an agreement about what we believe matters, about what we believe works, in causing learning. It is the net result of our overt commitment to the pedagogy 'Learn Create Share', our commitment to ubiquity, visibility, and equity, in education. It reflects shared beliefs about what works, supported by strong positive achievement data. That is the Collective Teacher Efficacy I have discussed previously.

And it's deeper, even, than that. These resources are the collective wisdom of teachers cross all age groups. They represent the cross pollination of ideas and strategies across the primary/secondary divide. I hope that this mahi might well mean that we are on the way to eliminating that divide. Because we are all teachers of children.

The power of teachers sharing beliefs, practice, and data

That the Manaiakalani kaupapa works is hard to dispute. The data keeps accumulating: writing progress at twice national averages. As we also know, reading and maths less so (only 1.5x national averages).

Look at the fluency of writing from Jordan, of Year 7. The visual expression of Sofia in Year 10. The list goes on.

I tend to overthink things (too often) and often therefore wonder why this stuff works. I ask the question 'what is it about Leaner Create Share' that creates this acceleration? Is it the pedagogy itself, or is it the fact that we have a clear visible pedagogy that we promote, that is clear to all staff across the kura engaged with this Manaiakalani kaupapa? We should not assume that this is universally so. I have seen many (I suggest most?) schools that do not have a clear pedagogy, and far too many teachers who do not know what they stand for, nor how they will achieve it.

I settled on the view that it doesn't much matter, because it works, and that is the most important thing. I tend to use a phrase that a former colleague would often use, and I say of myself 'I'm not over bright, you know'. 

It was a comment by colleague Gary Roberts (Principal, Hornby Primary School) that generated another of those 'aha' moments for me as we talked about our Teacher Summits run across our Uru Mānuka kāhui ako. He said this is what Hattie calls 'Collective Teacher Efficacy'. Some will no doubt say 'what the ** is that?'

Easy:

The concept of Collective Teacher Efficacy itself is much older. It was introduced in the 1990s by Albert Bandura and is rooted in his concept of self-efficacy, Bandura (1993, 1997). He defines collective efficacy as “a group’s shared belief in the conjoint capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given levels of attainment.” Bandura found that the positive effects of CTE on student academic performance more than outweigh the negative effects of low socioeconomic status.

(Ref: https://visible-learning.org/2018/03/collective-teacher-efficacy-hattie/ )

In a video interview clip on the same page Hattie (https://visible-learning.org/2018/03/collective-teacher-efficacy-hattie/) makes the point that collective teacher efficacy is not only a matter of believing that students can achieve, that what we do makes a difference, but it is also a matter of backing it up with the data to show that it works. The 'effect size' of CTE is 1.57, the highest of any of the potential impacts that the Visible Learning team has investigated. As a point of reference the effect size of simply leaving learners to do their own thing is 0.2 i,e. that would be natural age related improvement.

We have the shared view of a consistent pedagogy, we are building this collective view that all learners are capable of being successful in their learning, we have the data to show that what we do works. We share practice across our kāhui ako, and across Manaiakalani's 100+ schools, practice that we have established works.

Collective Teacher Efficacy? Yup!!!

How do you eat an elephant?

It might be a generational thing, but this was a saying my parents used to use when talking about tackling really big projects .. How do you eat an elephant? And the philosophical answer is of course 'one bite at a time'. 

I was reminded of this on Tuesday afternoon as I walked from presentation to presentation during our second Uru Mānuka Teacher Summit. The summit brought together 106 teachers from across the Uru Mānuka kāhui ako to share great ideas and good practice. It is one of the many many benefits of our membership of the Uru Mānuka cluster, and the Manaiakalani kaupapa that we embraced six years ago.

My ffirst response was a sense of excitement at the incredible range of ideas and practice, and the passion of the presenters presenting. The list was sufficiently long that I had to take three screen shots scrolling down the spreadsheet in order to capture them all. I did so to illustrate my point. Look at the diversity of presentations.

I was also excited by the number of our secondary colleagues who felt sufficiently confident to present to a diverse audience that spanned both primary and secondary sectors. Ka mau te wehi e hoa mā!! That's a tough gig, and I am incredibly proud of you all.

This is the second cluster wide Teacher Summit we have run. How is my Mum and Dad's saying relevant? The summits are a great example of how we crack this problem of improving student achievement across our kāhui ako, across our whole community .. we share practice one idea at a time. 

I keep repeating the same statement, we have many of the answers within our community of teachers. Our best 'bang for buck' in trying to improve achievement is to share the wonderful practice that already exists. 

There is a time and a place for external providers of professional learning, without a doubt (and Hornby High School has been lucky to have worked with an outstanding provider over the past five years). However we can tend to assume that we always need to go to external providers to find the answers.

These summits allow our teachers to come together and share these wonderful ideas. They cross fertilise the primary and secondary sectors, which in my head has always made sense. After all regardless of sector, regardless of shoe size of our akonga, we all share the same core business: causing learning.

The one piece of the puzzle which I feel is missing is the early childhood sector. In my opinion teachers in that sector have some of the best practice of all. We now need to evolve our Teacher Summits so that we engage more effectively in this pedagogical layer with our ECE colleagues. We have slowly been working to bring our Hornby ECE's into the Kāhui Sko. Maybe engagement in our future Teacher Summits is the logical next step.

If we truly want to support community wide change for our akonga, then I think this is an essential next step.

Do I think this just happens by accident? Hell, no! Do I think it happens in all Kāhui Ako? Possibly, I don't have enough knowledge of other kāhui ako to judge. Do I think it is highly likely to happen because Manaiakalani is a community building initiative? Hell, yes!!

How do you eat an elephant?  'One bite at a time'.  How do you secure improved educational success across a community? One good idea at a time.

Relationships and technical skills: the synthesis and creativity of teaching

I love this whakataukī:

He aha te mea nui o te ao
He tangata, he tangata, he tangata
What is the most important thing in the world?
It is the people, it is the people, it is the people

If we were to paraphrase that for education, perhaps it might say:

'What is the most important thing that causes learning for the learner? 

It is the teacher, It is the teacher, It is the teacher'. 

Professor John Hattie, in his meta study that culminated in 'Visible Learning', states:

Teachers–     who  account  for  about  30%  of  the  variance.  It  is  what  teachers  know,  do,  and  care  about which is very powerful in this learning equation. (Hattie, Page 2).

I'd go as far as to say that a teacher's work can be reduced down to two major components: the ability to build and sustain learning focussed relationships with learners (which by the way I think must include a full kete of behaviour management techniques), and the technical ability to cause learning. In saying that, we have to be careful not to suggest that this is a binary thing i.e. it isn't one or the other. It is BOTH, simultaneously. I would go as far as to suggest that causing learning is a 'synthesis' of the two, a synthesis that I think is unique at every moment. As an act of synthesis, perhaps the act and the art of causing learning is in itself an act of creativity as we combine relationship building and technical mastery in our craft in order to cause learning.

My concern with that notion is that it may be interpreted by too many both in and out of the profession to mean that it is not possible to systematise the process of causing learning, and the corollary that to do so is to stymie this act of creativity. Reference to the work of Dr Kevin Knight, and Lois Chick, of the NZ Graduate School of Education, would show such a view to be the lie that it is.

With reference to the issue of teacher technical skill (perhaps better referred to as pedagogy, a word that I am not that keen on, if I am honest), as teachers we have been (if I may generalise) too poorly equipped by much of our initial teacher education. I know that my own initial teacher education 43 years ago included NOTHING about how to support low level readers. I am not seeing much of that in newer grads either, with the exception of one ITE provider. Therefore it is important that as professional educators we are supported to develop those skills. We are all teachers of literacy. How do we do that?

On the subject of reading for example, you only have to read the paper published in late 2020 by Professor Stuart McNaughton, Chief Education  Scientific Advisor (McNaughton, 2020), on the matter of reading, to see that well-espoused. To simplify his paper down to its simplest form, he states that there is no systematic, coherent, and consistent, approach to teaching reading in Aotearoa. Teachers in my opinion simply do not have the necessary skills (again, a huge generalisation, but one that I make on the basis of repeated observation).

Yet we have to 'know stuff' if we are to go about our daily work, and in teaching 'knowing stuff' doesn't just mean knowing about supply and demand diagrams of past participles as much as it means knowing how to cause learning. 

Take Professor Peter O'Connor's Creative Schools Index (well, I refer to it as his, but I know that the index is the result of significant work by a large team, my reference is one of convenience). The index uses eleven dimensions in order to assess levels of creativity in schools, and one of those is Mastery. Learners and teachers need to develop, and to show, mastery of their subject matter as a component part of the act of creation. Reframed, that might be interpreted in this way. Jane Gilbert in her book 'Catching the Knowledge Wave' (Gilbert, 2005) redefined knowledge as knowing stuff, AND doing something with the stuff. Contrary to some claimants at no stage did she say knowing stuff was unimportant. Au contraire!! As I have often said, thinking, and creativity, are higher order skills. However to think, and to create, requires 'stuff' to think about, 'stuff' to create from i.e. you have to 'know stuff' to be able to able to think about it, or to be able to 'create' from it.

To briefly shift the focus to another currently contentious learning area, that applies equally to maths. You have to know about columns and place values, you have to know tables, if you are to think about mathematical problem solving. Similarly you have to know how to support and develop reading in learners if you are to cause learning.

Criticism of teachers sometimes suggests that teachers resist change. I reject that notion. While in my career I have met the occasional teacher for whom that might be true, my over-riding experience is of teachers who essentially say 'I understand what you want to change, and why, but I have no idea what that looks like in my daily work, and so how to do it. Show me and I can change.' I recall that personal revelation and revolution in my own teaching and literacy practice when I attended a number of sessions of what at that time was called the 'Secondary Literacy Programme'. It was game changing for me, because it showed my HOW to support reading development  and required only a limited amount of synthesis on my part to be able to adapt that for learners in my subject area. I was learning how to cause learning.

So when I saw the latest work coming from the Manaiakalani team supporting the teaching of reading I was overjoyed. They have by observation identified specific examples of good practice in how to teach reading and literacy across curriculum levels,  from across the network of Manaiakalani schools, on a series of web pages titled 'Literacy exemplars'. They have brought these together as a series of resources, tagged within our "Learn Create Share' framework, organised in a way that is consistent with our high leverage practices in reading, and made them freely available to teachers. The resources cover the whole range of years and curriculum levels, and an increasing range of the specific subjects that students tend towards in middle and senior secondary school.

What's more (and this is the 'piece de la resistance' for me) they are accumulating video recordings of good practice via the Manaiakalani 'Class On Air' programme, video snippets of good practice, open to all. So teachers can see exactly what it looks and sounds like to employ good pedagogy.

This is the very best of sharing practice. Again at the risk of being highly repetitive, none of us individually knows all the answers, but between us all we quite possibly know most of them. I have seen a number of attempts to do this in the past, at least one sponsored by the Ministry, and one sponsored by my former subject association, but I am not aware of any that have lasted the distance. This is revolutionary. This is a game changer. In our hands we have (in my opinion) the means to liberate teachers and learners. This approach offers teachers the 'what it looks like' answers they crave, it offers the ability to create more consistent and coherent approaches to teaching reading in a more systematic way. It offers a level of creativity to teachers and learners while also supporting that more systematic approach to teaching reading.

It won't be the whole answer, and of course it won't be any answer at all unless Principals show strong leadership and encourage, support, and nurture, staff as we attempt to embrace the resources and the opportunity that this represents. Effective change always requires strong, positive, moral, leadership.

What would happen if we did the same with maths?

That's not a bad piece of thinking from a day at the Manaiakalani Cluster convenors' day .. a true tāonga!!

References:

Gilbert, J "Catching the knowledge wave",  2005

Hattie, J  "Teachers make a difference, What is the research evidence?', 2003

McNaughton, S  "The literacy landscape in Aotearoa New Zealand What we know, what needs fixing and what we should prioritise",2020