Reflective Entry 2 - The siloed situation through multiple perspectives...

-

The Current Context: 

When I reflect on the current situation - I see it as three fold:

  1. a Senior Leadership Team that might, though unintended, lack cohesion and clear communication streams with the stakeholders of their school. Shared expectations may, in fact, not be shared by all due to this lack of cohesion;
  2. Team Leaders who then interpret the murky expectations for delivering curriculum, and therefore teaching and learning in classrooms throughout the school, and;
  3. a fragmented curriculum, that due to siloed teams, delivers teaching and learning that is different for each group of Students.

It would then seem that for a Learner moving from team to team there would be a great deal of change each time they progressed throughout the school. Teaching and learning would look and feel different. Time would be taken with each transition to a new team to re-learn curriculum expectations. 

For the Classroom Teacher, it is delivering teaching and learning that is the interpretation of the curriculum through the eyes of their Team Leader. Should they move between teams, they too would have to change their teaching and learning practice and interpret the curriculum in a different way.

For the Team Leader, it is leading and delivering teaching and learning that is their interpretation of SLT expectations.

For the Senior Leadership Team there is an assumption that teaching and learning is delivered cohesively and consistently throughout the school. There is no testing of the assumption.



The Root of the Problem: 

It must start at the top! The Senior Leadership Team must have a cohesive hand  in the  core business of teaching and learning. This is more likely to have a positive impact on students and their learning outcomes (Robinson, Hohepa & Lloyd, 2009). How then does one ensure that the Senior Leadership Team uses such Leadership Theory to create cohesion, true collaboration and consistency with the curriculum across the school?


The Desired Context: 

What is it that we want to achieve? I choose to look a this through the lens of Transformational Leadership (Franciosi, 2012) where the leader must:

  • Be a motivator - the Senior Leadership Team must ensure Team Leaders understand the strategic aims of the school and how they can work towards achieving these collaboratively. The Senior Leadership Team must have a clear, shared AND consistent understanding of the strategic goals and how these are delivered through Curriculum / Teaching and Learning.
  • Be a communicator - the Senior Leadership Team must constantly remind Team Leaders, and other stakeholders, of the vision and how it is being worked towards. Clear communication, using easily accessible digital tools, must be paramount.
  • Be a facilitator of communication - teachers, team leaders and Senior Leadership Team cannot learn from each other if they are unaware of each others’ actions, so it falls to the leader to ensure that adequate and productive communication takes place.


This begs further questioning: 

  • Can cohesion, clarity and consistency in teaching and learning be achieved through engaging with digital and collaborative tools such as SCRUM and KANBAN? 
  • What would this look like in practice?
  • How could it impact positively on student learning outcomes?
  • Can decision making and subsequent action be enhanced by collaborative digital tools?
  • Can a shared understanding of collaborative and digital language, practice and decision making change the perspective of:
    • The learner?
    • The teacher?
    • The Team Leader?
    • The Senior Leadership?
  • Will each stakeholder then experience an aligned curriculum that achieves the desired outcomes, for teaching and learning, of the school?

I envision this research will develop, for my setting, alignment throughout the school.  This will start with a cohesive Senior Leadership Team that communicates and collaborates effectively with all other stakeholders to reach the shared vision of the school.


Why is this important to Education? 

I find myself asking what implications this might have for the wider Educational context and schools around the world? Can this research build on the theory of constructionism - learning by making - as we see our stakeholders exploring and using new digital tools to improve teaching and learning within their school settings? Or as Papert and Harel (1991) state, can new technologies expand the scope and quality of activities (in this case teaching and learning) for our schools? Can we use innovative pedagogy to foster collaborative practice?

Report by Google for Education




References: 

Franciosi, S. J. (2012). Transformational leadership for education in a digital culture. Digital Culture & Education, 4:2, 235-247. URL: http://www.digitalcultureandeducation.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/dce_4001_franciosi.pdf


Papert, S. & Harel, I. (1991). Constructionism. Ablex Publishing

Robinson, V., Hohepa, M., & Lloyd C. (2009). ​School leadership and student outcomes: Identifying what works and why: Best evidence synthesis iteration​. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Reflective Entry 8 - Evaluating the outcomes of a digital and collaborative innovation in my practice

-
Image
My Digital and Collaborative Innovation (abstract from Reflection 4): My digital and collaborative innovation began with the original question: If we use Kanban boards to streamline strategic decision making how will it affect the communication, cohesion and collaboration in a Team? (particularly, in this case, a Senior Leadership Team). This question has evolved as I have been on this reflective journey. What started as a critique focused on the existence of siloed teams within a school and how they came to be, narrowed to focus on the Senior Leadership Team. I see the actions of a team as a direct reflection of leadership - siloed teams could mean siloed leadership. The focus was narrowed even further to use the Kanban Board Innovation with Team Leaders (4) and one Associate Principal. The Kanban Board was then narrowed to streamlining communication connected to school-wide events / surveys / decision-making. KEY ASPECTS from RESEARCH: At the beginning of the innovation a survey was...
Read more