CANADA IS WIDELY RECOGNIZED as one of the most culturally diverse countries in the developed world. Not surprisingly, it is a preferred destination for immigrants and refugees seeking to build a better life for their children. Indeed, according to the latest data published in the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX, 2015), only Luxembourg, at 46 percent, has a higher percentage of first- and second-generation immigrant students within their school system than Canada, which has 29.6 percent.1 Canada’s openness is also evidenced by the arrival of more than 30,000 Syrian refugees over the last year.2 The responsibility for educating these immigrant and refugee students rests squarely with provincial governments, as Canada does not possess a federal ministry of education.
The integration of immigrant students within provincial education systems is essential for their future academic success and economic prosperity. One of the most frequently used ways to evaluate academic integration is through comparisons of international achievement test scores, such as those reported by the Programme in International Student Assessment (PISA). This international achievement test has assumed priority status around the world and has even been likened to the “Olympics of education” in the popular media,3 attracting considerable attention across Canada. It is worth noting that the PISA triennial survey is coordinated by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). It assesses three “life skill” educational domains – reading literacy, mathematical literacy, and scientific literacy – in approximately 70 educational jurisdictions around the world. What makes PISA particularly useful for Canadian policymakers is that provincial mean scores are reported separately from the national average. This allows provinces to judge their performance against one another as well as international standards.
Over its 15-year history, one of PISA’s most consistent findings is that immigrant students typically underachieve relative to their non-migrant counterparts.4 Interestingly, this pattern does not fully characterize the Canadian context. Rather, what is aptly called the “performance disadvantage” for immigrant students is actually an advantage in some provinces, at least in mathematics – as indicated by the statistically significant higher mean PISA 2012 mathematics scores in British Columbia and the Atlantic provinces.
Furthermore, when socio-economic status is accounted for in the analysis, B.C., Ontario and the Atlantic region have higher math scores for first-generation immigrant students, as does Alberta for second-generation immigrant students. Conversely, provinces such as Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan possess significantly lower levels of mathematics performance for immigrant student groups. In the case of Quebec, the difference between non-migrants and first- and second-generation immigrant students was also larger than the OECD average, when SES was controlled for in the analysis. So Canadian immigrant students may demonstrate anything from a performance advantage to an acute disadvantage, depending on the province in which they live.5
Collectively, Canada is a fairly anomalous jurisdiction in comparison to the international community. Indeed, only two out of 25 European countries (Slovakia and Hungary) had PISA 2012 mathematics results in which immigrants outperformed non-migrants after adjusting for SES,6 and these score differences were smaller than those reported in B.C. and the Atlantic region. Overall, the European Commission report noted the typical performance disadvantage for European immigrant students, noting that in some cases non-migrants outperformed immigrant students by more than 60 points, which translates to approximately 1.5 years of schooling.
Provincial variations in student achievement must also be interpreted in relation to other tested domains. For example, PISA surveys focused on reading literacy indicated that immigrant students performed at a lower level in comparison to their non-migrant peers in every province across Canada, with the exception of the Atlantic region, where the results were identical.7 In Quebec, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan, immigrant students’ reading scores were much lower, and the reported differences were statistically significant.8 Similarly, when the PISA survey focused on science literacy, the performance disadvantage was apparent in every province, with the largest differences observed in Quebec.9
Canada’s PISA results suggest that reducing the immigrant student performance disadvantage may be more challenging in the reading and science domains, as well as in individual provinces such as Quebec.
It is important to acknowledge that country of origin likely exerts a pronounced influence on student achievement. Hou and Zhang argue that variation by source region likely reflects cultural differences in the value placed on education and the level of effort put into the education of their children. In their Statistics Canada report, they argued that children of immigrants from East Asia (e.g. China) and South Asia (e.g. India) tend to have a higher educational attainment than those from Southeast Asia (e.g. Philippines), the Caribbean, Central and South America, and Southern Europe.
While country of origin may partially explain some of the achievement differences reported across provinces, there is a danger in making skewed assertions of the academic potential of particular cultural groups. As an open society, we should treat immigrant families as all having the potential to make an important social and economic contribution to Canada. Moreover, the available research is very clear in demonstrating the significant explanatory power of parental socioeconomic background for student achievement. Thus, the academic integration of immigrant children is invariably connected to the economic integration of their parents. This fact suggests that a comprehensive approach to the settlement of immigrant families may foster future academic success. In many respects, education policies for immigrant students cannot be separated from the influence of social and economic policies for immigrant parents.
High levels of educational achievement and educational equity are widely recognized around the world as the hallmarks of a successful public education system. Some have suggested that immigration makes it more challenging for nations to address both of these critical goals. Indeed, there are political parties across the Western world that have argued for very selective immigration measures, largely based on the country or ethnicity of applicants. The Canadian government, to date, has not taken this approach and continues to see cultural diversity as an important strength rather than a weakness. Nevertheless, the significant number of first- and second-generation immigrants, including refugees, who are making Canada their home presents a formidable challenge for provincial education systems. Proper supports, such as English- and French-language classes for arriving families, are essential for immigrant students’ academic success. At the same time, more research is needed to uncover under what conditions students with a migration background perform better and to discover the reasons why some groups of students face greater challenges than others.
It is clear that some countries and educational jurisdictions have done a better job of facilitating the transition for immigrants, which is reflected in their enhanced student achievement. Canada ranks significantly higher than the international average in the use of effective immigrant policies and has done a fairly good job of supporting the academic achievement of their immigrant student population. Nevertheless, the challenge of immigrant integration is still a pressing concern for national and provincial governments,10 as evidenced by the performance disadvantages that are present in several Canadian provinces. Ultimately, it is up to provincial governments to study and reduce these achievement gaps. To date, our PISA results suggest we have much to celebrate, but also some cause for concern.
Photo: iStock
First published in Education Canada, March 2017
1 T. Huddleston, Ö.Bilgili, A. L. Joki and Z. Vankova, MIPEX 2015 (Brussels: Migration Policy Group, 2015).
2 Government of Canada (2016). Canada Resettles Syrian Refugees. www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/welcome/
3 C. Alphonso, “Canadian teens ace OECD problem-solving test,” Globe and Mail (April 1, 2014).
4 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, “Can the Performance Gap Between Immigrant and Non-Immigrant Students Be Closed?” PISA in Focus No. 53 (Paris, France: OECD Publishing, 2015).
5 For a more detailed breakdown, see: Council of Ministers of Education, Canada, Immigrants in Canada: Does Socio-economic background matter? (2015). www.cmec.ca/Publications/Lists/Publications/Attachments/343/AMatters_No9_EN.pdf
6 European Commission, PISA 2012: EU performance and first inferences regarding education and training policies in Europe (Brussels: 2013). http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/strategic-framework/doc/pisa2012_en.pdf
7 Hou, F., & Zhang, Q. Regional Differences in the Educational Outcomes of Young Immigrants (Statistics Canada, 2015).
www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-006-x/2015001/article/14247-eng.pdf
8 Hou & Zhang, Regional Differences.
9 Hou & Zhang, Regional Differences.
10 Migrant Integration Policy Index, Education: Key findings (2015).
“Learning isn’t a destination, starting and stopping at the classroom door. It’s a never-ending road of discovery and wonder that has the power to transform lives. Each learning moment builds character, shapes dreams, guides futures, and strengthens communities.” Those inspiring words and the accompanying video, Learning makes us, left me tingling like the ubiquitous ‘universal values’ Coke commercials.
Eventually, I snapped out of it – and realized that I’d been transported into the global world of British-based Pearson Education, the world’s largest learning and testing corporation, and drawn into its latest stratagem- the allure of 21st century creativity and social-emotional learning. The age of Personalized (or Pearsonalized) learning “at a distance” was upon us.
Globalization has completely reshaped education policy and practice, for better or worse. Whatever your natural ideological persuasion, it is now clear in early 2017 that the focus of K-12 education is on aligning state and provincial school systems with the high-technology economy and the instilling of workplace skills dressed-up as New Age ’21st century skills’ – disruptive innovation, creative thinking, competencies, and networked and co-operative forms of work.
The rise to dominance of “testopoly” from No Child Left Behind (NCLB) to the Common Core Standards assessment regime, and its Canadian variations, has made virtually everyone nervous, including legions of teachers and parents. Even those, like myself, who campaigned for student achievement testing in the 1990s, are deeply disappointed with the meagre results in terms of improved teaching and student learning.
The biggest winner has been the learning corporation giants, led by Pearson PLC, who now control vast territories in the North American education sector. After building empires through business deals to digitalize textbooks and develop standardized tests with American and Canadian education authorities, and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the company was again reinventing itself in response to the growing backlash against traditional testing and accountability.
Critics on the education left, most notably American education historian Diane Ravitch and BCTF research director Larry Kuehn, were among the first to flag and document the rise of Pearson Education, aptly dubbed “the many headed corporate hydra of education.” A June 2012 research report for the BCTF by Donald Gutstein succeeded in unmasking the hidden hand of Pearson in Canadian K-12 education, especially after its acquisition, in 2007, of PowerSchool and Chancery Software, the two leading computerized student information tracking systems.
More recently, New York journalist Owen Davis has amply demonstrated how Pearson “made a killing” on the whole American testing craze, including the Common Core Standards assessment program. It culminated in 2013, when Pearson won the U.S. contract to develop tests for the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers, or PARCC, as the only bidder.
When the pendulum started swinging back against testing from 2011 to 2013, Pearson PLC was on the firing line in the United States but remained relatively sheltered in Canada. Standardized testing programs associated with Pearson were targeted in the popular media, most notably in one stinging HBO TV segment on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver attracting over 8,600,000 views. From Texas to New York to California, state policy makers scaled back on standardized assessment programs, sparked by parent and student protests. Pearson bore the brunt of parent outrage over testing and lost several key state contracts, including the biggest in Texas, the birthplace of NCLB.
Beginning in 2012, Pearson PLC started to polish up its public image and to reinvent its core education services. Testing only represented 10 per cent of Pearson’s overall U.S. profits, but the federal policy shift represented by the 2015 Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) tilted in the direction of reducing “unnecessary testing.” The company responded with a plan to shift from multiple-choice tests to “broader measures of school performance,” such as school climate, a survey-based SEL metric of students’ social and emotional well-being.
Measuring student “grit” and determination has been a key focus for American public school system ventures. Some schools are seeking to teach grit, and some districts are attempting to measure children’s grit, with the outcome contributing to assessments of school effectiveness. Angela Duckworth’s 2016 book, Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance, was one of the hottest North American non-fiction titles of the year. In spite of the flurry of public interest, it has yet to register in the Canadian educational domain.
“For the past four years, Pearson’s Research & Innovation Network has been developing, implementing, and testing its own assessment innovations,” Vice President Kimberly O’Malley recently reported. This new Pearson PLC Plan not only embraces SEL and is closely aligned with ESSA. It also looks mighty similar to an Ontario initiative — initially aimed at re-engineering the Ontario Education Quality and Accountability Office (EQAO) provincial testing program– and gaining traction in Canadian student assessment circles.
While the Pearson testing division was busy re-inventing itself, the Ontario-based People for Education (P4ED) advocacy organization has also been pursuing the goal of broadening the existing measures of student success to embrace “social-emotional skills” or competencies. With a clear commitment to “move beyond the ‘3R’s” and redefine the established testing/accountability framework, P4ED founder Annie Kidder and the Toronto-centric research team have been creating a “broad set of foundational skills” and developing a method of “measuring schools’ progress toward those goals.”
The Ontario initiative, billed as “Measuring What Matters “(MWM), proposes a draft set of “Competencies and Skills” identified as Creativity, Citizenship, Social-Emotional Learning, and Health — all to be embedded in what is termed “quality learning environments” both in schools and the community. The proposed Ontario model makes no reference whatsoever to cognitive learning and subject knowledge or to the social-emotional aspects of grit, perseverance or work ethic.
The P4ED project mirrors the Pearson Education venture, driven by a team of Canadian education researchers with their own well-known hobby horses. Co-Chair of the MWM initiative, former BC Deputy Minister of Education Charles Ungerleider, has assembled a group of academics with “progressive education” (anti-testing) credentials, including OISE teacher workload researcher Nina Bascia and York University self-regulation expert Stuart Shanker.
A 2015 MWM project progress report claimed that the initiative was moving from theory to practice with “field trials” in Ontario public schools. It simply reaffirmed the proposed social-emotional domains and made no mention of Duckworth’s research or her “Grit Scale” for assessing student performance on that benchmark. While Duckworth is cited in the report, it is for a point unrelated to her key research findings. The paper also assumes that Ontario is a “medium stakes” testing environment in need of softer, non-cognitive measures of student progress, an implicit criticism of the highly-regarded EQAO system of provincial achievement testing.
Whether “grit” or any other social-emotional skills can be taught — or reliably measured — is very much in question. Leading American cognitive learning researcher Daniel T. Willingham’s latest American Educator essay (Summer 2016) addresses the whole matter squarely and punches holes in the argument that “grit” can be easily taught, let alone assessed in schools. Although Willingham is a well-known critic of “pseudoscience” in education, he does favour utilizing “personality characteristics” for the purpose of “cultivating” in students such attributes as conscientiousness, self-control, kindness, honesty, optimism, courage and empathy, among others.
The movement to assess students for social-emotional skills has also raised alarms, even among the biggest proponents of teaching them. American education researchers, including Angela Duckworth, are leery that the terms used are unclear and the first battery of tests faulty as assessment measures. She recently resigned from the advisory board of a California project, claiming the proposed social-emotional tests were not suitable for measuring school performance. “I don’t think we should be doing this; it is a bad idea,” she told The New York Times.
Whether standardized testing recedes or not, it’s abundantly clear that “testopoly” made Pearson and the dominance of the learning corporations is just entering a new phase. Developing sound, reliable measures to assess social-emotional learning are already beginning to look problematic. It’s also an open question as to whether the recent gains in mathematics and literacy, however modest, will fade away under the emerging broader measures assessment regime.
I’m a parent of two children in Toronto, Ont., an administrator at the University of Toronto and a graduate student in higher education, also at U of T. I was taking a graduate course on the theories of Michel Foucault, the French philosopher, and for a fall-term assignment was asked by my teacher to “make strange” with something around me. He explained to us the idea of “making strange” by using the example of Bertolt Brecht. Brecht would design theatrical productions that exposed to the audience the lights and the ropes that were needed to put on the play. We were asked to deliberately look at something in a new way, to “expose the lights and the ropes,” make strange with something and challenge our taken-for-granted assumptions. That assignment not only made me “make strange,” it made me unsettled.
Earlier in the year, my son, then a Grade 3 student, wrote the Education Quality and Accountability Office Assessment, the EQAO. About a week before the EQAO began, my son was a bit nervous, and I told him that it wasn’t a test about him, but a test of the school and his teachers, adding that it would be good practice. He wrote the EQAO over the course of a few days and as usual, when asked how it went, his response to us was, “Okay, I guess.”
While I was starting my “making strange” assignment, my son had progressed to Grade 4 and we were waiting for his EQAO scores to come back. In the morning, I would drop my kids off at their before-school daycare, get on the streetcar to head to work, and read about torture and the formation of prisons in Foucault’s Discipline and Punish. I came across the chapter on docile bodies and thought of my ever-active eight-year-old son sitting down to write a standardized test over the course of a week. I read about manufacturing spaces, partitioning and enclosure and I remembered how happy my son was at the start of the school year when he got his own desk. Foucault writes, “In the eighteenth century, ‘rank’ begins to define the great form of distribution of individuals in the educational order… rank attributed to each pupil at the end of each task and each examination.”[1] I was starting to see connections. I would read about timetables and structure in Foucault and think about my own kids in their own structured environments like school and daycare. I read through the chapter titled “The Means of Correct Training” and I began to feel a bit uneasy.
My reading of Foucault continued that fall, venturing into surveillance and disciplinary spaces, efficiency, normalizing judgement, correction and hierarchy. Meanwhile, my friends were indicating that their own kids had received their EQAO scores back, but my son still had not. Finally, I emailed his teacher to ask about the results, and the next day my son said that he’d received them; then he told us that at some point between getting the form handed to him at the end of class and leaving his daycare, he had lost it.
What followed was not my finest parenting moment: “What do you mean, you lost your scores? We’ve been waiting for them since May! Are you telling me your private test scores are sitting somewhere in the school for anyone to see? How could you lose them – they’re important!” This went on. After the kids went to sleep, I purposefully reread parts of Foucault. “The examination,” he writes, “combines the techniques of an observing hierarchy and those of a normalizing judgement. It is a normalizing gaze, a surveillance that makes it possible to qualify, to classify and to punish. It establishes over individuals a visibility through which one differentiates them and judges them.”[2] This bewildering categorization to which the standardized test subjects my son to is a form of power: a form of power that schools exercise upon their students and that mothers exercise upon their sons.
My son eventually did bring home his EQAO assessment. His individuality had been reduced to a graphic, three grey bars and black squares set against four levels ranked against a provincial standard that is not even explained. I can only describe my feeling of reading the assessment as a combination of relief and utter disappointment: relief that he did okay – and disappointment that it mattered so much to me.
Illustration: Dave Donald
First published in Education Canada, June 2016
1 Michel Foucault. Discipline and Punish: The birth of the prison, trans. M. Sheridan (New York: Vintage Books 1995), p. 146.
2 Foucault, Discipline and Punish, p. 184.
International organizations are ideally positioned to influence education policies and large-scale reforms on a global scale. This article discusses the impact of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), United Nations’ Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the World Bank, and the European Union (EU) on transnational and global education policy. Although the previously noted organizations have been in existence for decades,[1] these prominent international bodies are increasingly influencing the global education discourse through their research and policy activities.
The OECD primarily exerts influence in the education sector through its Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), which is recognized as the largest survey of student achievement in the world. According to the OECD, the PISA triennial survey “assesses the extent to which students near the end of compulsory schooling have acquired key knowledge and skills that are essential for full participation in modern societies.”[2] More specifically, PISA assesses 15-year-old student performance in the areas of mathematics, science, and reading in OECD member states and in a growing number of non-OECD countries and economies. The most recent administration of this international assessment took place in 2015 and included 70 countries and/or economies from around the world. Given its global status, it is not surprising that the popular media in Canada and abroad have likened PISA to the “Olympics of education.”[3]
The current director of PISA, Dr. Andreas Schleicher, has indicated that PISA provides “policy makers and practitioners with helpful tools to improve quality, equity and efficiency in education, by revealing some common characteristics of students, schools and education systems that do well.”[4] In order to support and provide this type of guidance, the OECD provides resource documents within their online library. Policy brief series such as PISA in Focus, Teaching in Focus, and Education Indicators in Focus, help governments identify features and characteristics of the best-performing education systems around the world. Although the OECD is quick to point out they do not tell participating countries how to run their education system, their publications are designed to focus policymakers’ efforts in formulating and implementing specific policies that they contend will improve equity and educational achievement across schools.
UNESCO is also dedicated to supporting national policymakers in the development and implementation of education policies and strategies. This organization provides technical assistance in policy analysis, education sector development plans, and donor mobilization in support of national education priorities. UNESCO also provides easy access to its various publications, which include profiles of various education systems around the world. The United Nations’ international financial institution, the World Bank, also influences education policy and implementation through various programs. One particularly high-profile World Bank program, Education for All (EFA), is repeatedly cited for its laudable goals – namely, to bring the benefits of education to “every citizen in every society” by 2015. (UNESCO is currently formulating a post-2015 agenda through a consultative process that includes governments, civil society, the private sector, and academic and research institutions.) The EFA seeks to improve outcomes at various levels: early childhood education, primary education, secondary education, and adult education. In 2000, 189 countries adopted two key EFA goals: universal primary education and gender parity.
The EU is comprised of 28 member states that possess individual sovereignty in the formation and implementation of education policy. Nevertheless, the EU has developed research and communication strategies to facilitate the exchange of best practices, the gathering and dissemination of educational performance measures, and perhaps most importantly, advice and support for national policy reform. Additionally, shared programs have been implemented across EU nations, which have essentially led to the formation of one of the largest transnational policy networks in the world. The Education and Training 2010 program, for instance, led to the formulation of common targets and initiatives that encompass all types of education and training. The more recent and comprehensive Education and Training 2020 outlines four common objectives identified as priorities for EU member states’ reform efforts: making lifelong learning and mobility a reality; improving quality and efficiency of education and training; promoting equity, social cohesion, and active citizenship; and enhancing creativity and innovation, including entrepreneurship, at all levels of education and training. Collectively, these objectives have important implications for education governance and policy within national education systems.
In education, as in other sectors such as health, economics, or the environment, the uptake of recommended policies and reforms that are suggested by international bodies is influenced by geo- and socio-political forces. Thus, large-scale reforms, including those in compulsory education, must be juxtaposed against contextual issues that are dominant during particular historical periods. Why countries like Germany and Japan have embarked on a series of PISA-initiated reforms while other nation states have remained largely unaffected exemplifies the previous point. In the case of Germany, their mediocre performance on the initial administration of PISA in 2000 provoked “PISA-shock,” which is credited with initiating a sweeping set of reforms that have been characterized as the greatest shift in national educational policies to occur since the fall of the Soviet Union.[5] In both Germany and Japan, scholars have noted how the national context was ripe for large-scale educational change.[6]
Despite the previously noted context issues, a growing number of academics, particularly those focused on education, have expressed concern with the expanding role of international organizations on national education policymaking. In the case of PISA, a significant number of academics have disputed the “system improvement” claim that the OECD has touted. Academic condemnation of PISA is evidenced by an open letter to Dr. Andreas Schleicher, the director of the OECD program, from a group of more than 80 high-profile academics from around the world. The open letter essentially argued that PISA was damaging education worldwide by escalating testing, emphasizing a narrow range of measureable aspects of education, and shifting education policies to find “short-term fixes” designed to help a country climb in the rankings.[7] Originally published in the British national newspaper The Guardian, the points raised in the open letter were reiterated in a special edition of the academic journal Policy Futures in Education.[8] It is worth noting that the list of signatories grew from the initial 80 to more than 130 (as of May 6, 2014) in the most recent letter.
Critics of the World Bank have also voiced their concerns with the growing, and some would argue skewed, influence of this international organization in the education sector. Although the EFA is a global priority, some have suggested that the World Bank has focused too heavily on developing countries, and not held the U.S., Europe, and industrial democracies to the same level of scrutiny.[9] Similarly, agencies with specific educational mandates such as UNESCO have been criticized for not emphasizing the interdependence and importance of various education sub-sectors. Thus, it is fair to say that both the scope and the selective nature of large-scale education reforms promoted by the World Bank and UNESCO have not been immune to academic scrutiny.
The EU has also drawn criticism for the structure of education governance that is facilitated by their open method of coordination (OMC). Although OMC has never been given a formal legal definition, it is widely regarded as the principal means of spreading best practice to achieve greater convergence towards the main EU goals, including those in the education sector. OMC achieves these transnational goals through the establishment of indicators and benchmarks and their corresponding translation into national and regional policies. Critics have referred to OMC as “soft law” that seeks to undermine traditional constitutional doctrines and values that support a limited view of Social Europe.[10] In the education sector, the previously noted critics suggest that OMC impinges on education policies and that policy learning across member states is susceptible to highly politicised interests. The latter underscores how influential groups may skew priorities and large-scale reforms in the education sector.
Collectively, the previous critics raise important points to consider, particularly when a nation or regional government is put in the unenviable position of negotiating competing demands that impact their education system. However, the more general and overarching criticism that international organizations have eroded the power of nation states and now possess a hegemonic grip on education policymaking is overstated and simplifies important cross-cultural differences. Certainly, we need to guard against reductionist approaches to education that may distill a child’s educational experience to a test score. We also need to guard against policy networks that may set unrealistic targets and benchmarks that could strip schools and teachers of their professional autonomy. However, there is little evidence to suggest this has systematically occurred across a continent or the globe.
Certainly, we need to guard against reductionist approaches that may distill a child’s educational experiences to a test score.
Not all countries respond in a predictable or consistent fashion to the policy suggestions of international organizations – a finding supported by a large number of researchers. Similarly, one should acknowledge that regardless of important contextual issues, some policies promoted by international organizations, namely basic education and equity in educational opportunities for all children, should be non-negotiable. There is definitely merit in trying to ensure that these are truly global priorities, irrespective of a nation’s economic and/or political standing on the world stage. Rather, it is the implementation of these laudable goals that is often a source of contention and one that should be closely monitored. For their part, the academic community can play an important checks and balance function by conducting programs of research that evaluate the impact, intended and unintended, of policy reforms on national education systems.
From my perspective, the global community needs to be open to the opportunities and vigilant to the constraints that may be associated with the work of international organizations that facilitate large-scale education reforms. The contemporary forces of globalization suggest this challenge will have to be navigated by public policymakers and school systems for generations to come – and Canada is no exception. Interestingly, since education is a provincial/territorial responsibility under the Canadian constitution, we provide the rest of the world with a unique context to study the intersection of international organizations, education policy, and large-scale reform. In many respects, our provincial autonomy is an important characteristic in helping our vast nation successfully address external international pressures in a manner that is respectful of and consistent with our regional culture, history, and geography. Canada seems well positioned to meet the challenges of large-scale educational change that may be precipitated by international organizations.
En Bref : Les organisations internationales telles que l’Organisation de coopération et de développement économiques (OCDE), l’Organisation des Nations Unies pour l’éducation, la science et la culture (UNESCO), la Banque mondiale et l’Union européenne (UE) influent de plus en plus sur la nature et l’envergure des politiques nationales d’éducation dans le monde entier. Cet article indique certaines des influences les plus marquées sur les politiques d’éducation mondiales qu’ont engendrées ces organisations transnationales. L’auteur conclut que la communauté mondiale doit faire preuve tant d’ouverture aux possibilités que de vigilance à l’égard des contraintes susceptibles d’être associées au travail d’organisations internationales favorisant des réformes à grande échelle en éducation. Compte tenu des forces contemporaines de mondialisation, il s’agit d’un défi que devront relever les décideurs publics et systèmes scolaires pour les générations à venir.
Photo: Tuomas Kujansuu (iStock)
First published in Education Canada, June 2016
1 The OECD was formed in 1961, based on its predecessor the Organisation for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC), founded in 1948. The World Bank and UNESCO were formed in 1944 and 1945, respectively, and the EU, which presently comprises 28 member states, was established by the Maastricht Treaty in 1993.
2 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, About PISA (2014), 1. www.oecd.org/pisa/aboutpisa/PISA-trifold-brochure-2014.pdf
3 C. Alphonso, “Stakes high in OECD student testing,” The Globe and Mail (November 29, 2013), www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/stakes-high-in-oecd-student-testing/article15699429/; M. Scardino, “The Olympics of education,” The Guardian (December 11, 2008), www.theguardian.com/education/2008/dec/11/primary-maths-science-politics
4 A. Schleicher, “Can Competencies Assessed by PISA Be Considered the Fundamental School Knowledge 15-Year-Olds Should Possess?” Journal of Educational Change 8 (2007): 356.
5 V. Bank, “On OECD Policies and the Pitfalls in Economy-Driven Education: The case of Germany,” Journal of Curriculum Studies 44, no. 2 (2013): 193-210.
6 D. Niemann, Changing Patterns in German Policymaking: The impact of international organizations – TranState Working Papers No. 99 (Bremen, Germany: Transformations of the State Collaborative Research Center 597, 2009); K. Takayama, “The Politics of International League Tables: PISA in Japan’s achievement crisis debate,” Comparative Education 44, no. 4 (2008): 387-407.
7 P. Andrews et al., “OECD and PISA tests are damaging education worldwide – academics,” The Guardian (May 6, 2014). www.theguardian.com/education/2014/may/06/oecd-pisa-tests-damaging-education-academics
8 H. D. Meyer et al., “Open Letter to Andreas Schleicher, OECD, Paris,” Policy Futures in Education 12, no. 7 (2014): 872-877.
9 S. P. Heyneman, “The Failure of Education for All as Political Strategy,” Prospects 39, no. 1 (2009): 5-10.
10 B. Lange and N. Alexiandou, “New Forms of European Union Governance in the Education Sector? A preliminary analysis of the Open Method of Coordination,” European Educational Research Journal6, no. 4 (2007): 321-335.
I don’t think that I would be revealing any secrets if I told you that my mother has always been a better baker than a cook. Even to this day, she will call me when it comes to cooking the Sunday roast, but no one in the family—and I mean no one—can hold a candle to her butter tarts or rhubarb pie.
As a child, my ears were keenly-tuned to all sounds associated with baking: mixing bowls being stealthily removed from cupboards, the special flour sifter with the red wooden handle, the electric mixer—these were all cues to drop what I was doing and head to the kitchen to investigate. Sometimes, my curiosity would be rewarded with the chance to act as “batter taster”. But mostly it was all about the opportunity to watch Mom effortlessly (and without a recipe in front of her) mix, blend and knead to perfection!
I was always amazed at how efficiently she was able to work. She didn’t like wasting anything. In fact, some of my favourite treats were the ones that were created with the extra dough, filling and icing sugar that Mom collected prior to clean-up. These would be molded into no particular shape, tossed in the oven and put on a plate to cool. For Mom this, no doubt, resonated with the way that she was brought up, born as she was in post-depression/pre-WWII Hamilton. For me, however, there was something creative about her ability to see the potential in what wasn’t used as part of the main recipe.
These images came back to me last weekend, inspired by a couple of seemingly unrelated experiences. First, this past Sunday was Mother’s Day, and I always enjoy sharing these “growing up” stories with my own children. But these memories enabled a second type of connection.
There were two occasions in the past week where I was asked to make use of an assessement/evaluation rubric to, on the one hand, evaluate performances at a Battle of the Bands competition and, on the other, to help my seven year-old son prepare for an upcoming culminating task at school. (I realize how far apart these strands of thought might seem!)
In both “rubric” cases, I experienced a certain level of frustration, not because of what I was being asked to look at in terms of student performance. As rubrics go, both were clear, concise and well-constructed.
My frustration came from what might be missed if I focused only on the descriptions in the rubric categories. What subtleties or nuances in a particular musical performance might be filtered out? What do I do with the fact that the drummer had a unique way of holding the band together? What might my son’s teacher miss about his enthusiasm for a particular part of the assignment? What happens with the connections that he was able to make with other elements of his life? How do we account for the “spaces” that exist in between levels on the rubric?
I realize that these are not new questions. People have been asking them ever since the use of rubrics came into vogue in the mid-90’s. And, hopefully, we won’t stop asking them. To be sure, the idea of clearly defining for students, educators and parents what quality performance looks and sounds like has pushed the conversation on assessment forward a great deal.
At the same time, howevever, I’ve allowed these questions to bump up against my reading of Stuart Kauffman and, in particular, his work on emergence. The wonderful quote with which I ended my last entry resonates:
Not only do we not know what will happen, we often don’t even know what can happen.
Granted, Kauffman is talking about much larger systems than our classrooms and schools. But I think that there are some parallels that might be helpful in pushing our thinking a little. Just as we are, slowly but surely, being forced to admit that classical physics doesn’t hold all of the answers (or questions) when we start talking about the universe in terms of complexity, I also wonder whether we need to start attending to the fact that there is a lot more than can happen in the learning lives of our students when we loosen up the boundaries set by our curriculum expectations, our success criteria and, yes, our rubrics.
How do we hold true to the importance and value of establishing performance standards and criteria for our students while, at the same time, being aware of the wonderful things may be filtered out of our assessment and evaluation processes? How do we ensure that our efforts to inspire and guide our students do not become a type of cookie cutter template that leaves lots of good stuff on the baker’s table? How can we use more dotted lines to draw our rubrics, opening our assessment processes up to what can happen?
Are we ready for that? Are you already doing that? I would love to hear your stories!
Suppose that you go to your doctor to learn the results of your annual physical examination and blood tests. She warns you that your blood pressure is high and so is your cholesterol. She checks your weight and asks about your diet and exercise regime. She warns you that unless you make some serious lifestyle changes, you are at risk of a heart attack. You take her advice seriously and at your follow-up visit some time later, all of your risk indicators are back to a healthy level.
Contrast this scenario with the typical response to wide-scale national and international assessments like the Pan-Canadian Assessment Program (PCAP) and the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). In Manitoba, where our latest rankings, compared to other Canadian provinces, are seen to have slipped, the Winnipeg Free Press editorial argued, “Teachers’ salaries don’t match results” (September 4, 2015). Others point the finger at other supposed provincial culprits, such as the absence of provincial standardized tests or “educational fads, like discovery learning.”1
In the face of disappointing results, what should we do? Pay teachers less? Should we go back to the basics, have kids write more standardized tests, or remedy child poverty? It’s a little like arguing whether a fatal heart attack was caused by hereditary or lifestyle factors – either way, you are already dead! Basically there are precious few lessons to be learned from provincial and national rankings alone. If we want to improve our education systems, we need to look to other indicators, ones that: 1) reflect the range of important goals we have for our schools and 2) have predictive value.
It goes without saying that we – individual parents and students, teachers, administrators, politicians, and all members of the public – need to have reliable accounts of students’ individual and collective experiences in schools. It is also widely accepted that the academic well-being of students is a core responsibility of schools and something that needs to be properly accounted for. But there is far less agreement on the extent to which we can, or should, take national and international assessments, collected at specific times for specific subject areas and specific grade levels, as either appropriate indicators of “student success” or, more broadly, as indicators of overall school quality.
PCAP and PISA scores are highly influential examples of trailing or lagging achievement/assessment indicators; high school graduation rates are another. These may be important measures of student achievement across schools and school systems in selected academic subjects and they may report on important school and school system goals, but they are summative assessments and invariably the data from them – even where it is reported in a form that could be useful – arrives too late to help individual students who may be struggling.
While the media and politicians may pay more attention to these high-profile, narrowly focused, comparative data sets, educators and parents may be better served by focusing more of their attention on developing and sharing leading indicators. Leading indicators are progress-oriented measures that precede the eventual achievement gain/educational outcome. They tell us whether or not these gains are likely to occur in the future – and, critically, they are formative and have far more potential for individual teachers, with the support of school and school system administrators, to create positive futures for the actual students the data is being collected from. Here are five examples of what we mean.
We know that if children aren’t reading well by the end of Grade 3 they will struggle throughout their remaining school years. We can predict that and we need to do something about it, both before and after Grade 3. We also know that students who read for pleasure are stronger readers than those who don’t. Both these indicators have strong predictive value and they give us information we can do something about. They help us know what we should focus on.
Failing to pass even a single Grade 9 course and having to repeat it with students who are a year younger is highly predictive of failing to graduate. Using this measure provides high schools with a pretty good indication, within the first few months of Grade 9, of who will struggle to graduate four years later. With this data, we have the opportunity to provide extra help, opportunities to complete missing work, or a chance to complete the work in summer school in order to keep the student “on track” for graduation.
The level of a student’s intellectual engagement is highly predictive of student attainment. Intellectual engagement – by which we mean a personal commitment to and investment in learning – is nurtured by learning activities that are both challenging and appropriate to the student’s current skill level. Simply put, students who are more engaged work harder and learn more. They aren’t bored and they aren’t anxious. Schools can measure engagement. Teachers can simply observe it, and more importantly they can challenge bored students, support anxious students, and do more of what engages all students.
Schools should prepare students for life. Interestingly, extra-curricular involvement is a better predictor of success in life than grades. It’s really not all that surprising that students who are passionate and involved, who can manage their time and juggle competing demands, grow up to be successful adults. Can we expand opportunities for students to develop these important life skills?
An indicator of a whole school system’s effectiveness is how it is doing with regards to students with special needs. Are children with special needs identified and helped to succeed early in their education, as they are in Finland, which is the Western world’s top school system according to PISA results? Or do special education student numbers grow and grow, with few of them ever flourishing? The goal of extra help for students should be to increase their success rather than to limit their future. An indicator of a school system’s effectiveness is that students receiving special needs support become successful, not dependent.
Schools and school systems need to find a balance between leading and trailing indicators. Outcomes like having all children read fluently with understanding and having all children graduate are the destinations we want to reach. Reading for pleasure and getting full course credits in Grade 9 are the signposts that tell us we’re on the right track to reach those destinations. We need both destinations and signposts.
If we only know that a school or a province has high standardized test scores, we don’t know what is working and why. And if the scores are low, we don’t know how to improve them. Or, as Ellen Foley and her colleagues wrote:
Collecting information only on lagging [trailing] indicators… is like ‘playing with the scoreboard off.’ When the buzzer goes at the end of the game, you flip the scoreboard on and say ‘Wait a minute. I thought we were ahead.’ 2
And finally, we must recognize that key to student success is the daily work of schools and teachers asking, “What do we need to do to get this student back on the path to success?” The key to improvement lies in doing this daily work with skill and with heart. We cannot wait for the end to poverty and racism, and we cannot put our faith in simple solutions.
En bref: Dans cet article, les auteurs font ressortir les limites découlant du fait d’accorder trop d’attention aux comparaisons provinciales et nationales des résultats des évaluations à grande échelle comme le Programme pancanadien d’évaluation (PPCE) et le Programme international pour le suivi des acquis des élèves (PISA). Plutôt, selon eux, si nous désirons améliorer nos systèmes d’éducation, nous devons tenir compte d’un ensemble élargi d’indicateurs qui 1) reflètent l’éventail des objectifs importants que nous établissons pour nos écoles et 2) comportent une certaine valeur prédictive et nous permettent d’intervenir dans l’apprentissage des élèves de façon à promouvoir leur réussite. Le défi consiste à travailler avec un ensemble robuste d’indicateurs de « tendance » et de « suivi » – un équilibre d’objectifs visés et de marqueurs.
Photo: iStock
First published in Education Canada, March 2016
1 Anna Stokke, “No surprise in Manitoba students’ poor math showings,” CBC News, Oct. 8, 2014. www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/no-surprise-in-manitoba-students-poor-math-showings-1.27925422
2 E. Foley, J. Mishooke, J. Thompson, M. Kubiak, J. Supovitz, and M. Rhude-Faust, Beyond Test Scores: Leading indicators for education (Providence, RI: Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University, 2008). http://annenberginstitute.org/sites/default/files/product/206/files/LeadingIndicators.pdf
I have developed a practice in my own life that, as it turns out, is good for both my body and my mind. I head off to the gym each morning at about 5:00 with a bottle of water, my iPhone and two or three TEDTalks loaded into my playlist. I’ve tried the music thing but it just doesn’t keep me going in the same way that fresh, provocative ideas do. TEDTalks are perfectly keyed to my workout routine—a twenty minute session on the weight machines, followed by twenty minutes on the treadmill. And none of this “every-other-day” thing for me. Unless I make my journey to the gym a daily routine, I find excuses! That means I listen to quite a few Talks over the course of a year!
This morning, I listened to two inspiring pieces. The first was by singer/songwriter, Meklit Hadero who encouraged us to be attentive to the music around us: in nature, language and even in silence. But it was the talk by NPR Host, Celeste Headlee that had me thinking well beyond my 20 minutes on the treadmill. In 10 Ways To Have A Better Conversation, Ms. Headlee reminds us of that, while many of us are great talkers and some of us are great speakers, not many of us are great conversationalists. She points out that, when properly combined, the elements of honesty, brevity, clarity—and a generous scoop of listening will invariably result in good conversation.
Living in a connected world does not automatically mean that the quality of communication has gone up. Some would argue that it has actually gone down or, at least, flatlined. Sure, Twitter might force us into brevity and clarity. Blog writing may encourage a certain level of honesty and a culture of “listening in” to what others are thinking, but it’s the combination of Headlee’s elements in a personal and personalized context that makes for good conversation. As a seasoned NPR broadcaster, Celeste Headlee has interviewed a whole lot of people and she uses what she has learned to give us some sobering insights into conversational practices in our 21st century world.
In my own household, mornings are usually a hectic time. As I prepare breakfast for the family, Zoe gets lunches ready. We’re often working in the same space and, although we share words with each other, we have rarely engaged in conversation that has really connected us. In fact, we normally begin our days rather disconnected—never a great way to begin the day!
This morning, however, was different. I made a point of sitting down with Zoe and, applying some of what I learned from Celeste, attempted to engage in conversation. But it wasn’t until Zoe was heading out the door for the day, that I realized the power of the experience—for both of us. I felt a little more connected and I knew that she did as well. Her last words to me: “By the way, thanks for the conversation!”
I can’t help but wonder about how some of this might apply to our work as people dedicated to nurturing the health and well-being of our young people. You know, Communication appears as one of the “C’s” in whatever list of 21st Century Competencies you encounter. Most often, however, the focus is on the “push” of communication—getting your message out there in a coherent, compelling way. Rarely do we hear about Conversation as a type of “push-pull” process. So, in listening to Celeste Headlee’s TEDTalk I’m left with some questions of possibility:
What might happen if we spent time in our schools exploring the art of the conversation? What might happen to our online conversations—many of which can become polarized very quickly—if we tried to apply Ms. Headlee’s 10 principles for good conversation? How might our family lives be enhanced and enlivened if quality conversation became something around which we gathered? What would it look like if conversation found its way into our approaches to assessment?
I realize that some of you are likely already playing with some of these ideas. I would love to hear about what you are doing! I would also like to hear what ideas others have for engaging in the powerful conversations that could result in our spouses, our colleagues and our children declaring at the end of the day, “Thanks for the conversation!”
The term “decentralization” in public education refers to a process that transfers administrative and financial decision-making powers from central Ministries of Education to local governments, communities, and schools. Decentralization has unfolded (and is currently unfolding) in a variety of ways in Canada’s 13 provincial education systems.
Promise of decentralization: Decentralized education promises to be more efficient, better reflect local priorities, encourage participation of all stakeholders, improve learning outcomes and quality of teaching. Governments with severe fiscal constraints are also enticed by the potential of decentralization to increase efficiency of spending. But does it improve academic achievement?
Decentralization can work: Evidence suggests decentralization from provincial and territorial governments to local school districts may not be sufficient to improve achievement and that increased autonomy for communities and teachers is necessary to improve schools and learning. Decentralization works if local players are given the resources and empowerment to attain increased student achievement. For example, in the U.S., it has been found that in secondary schools where teachers feel more influential in school decision-making, the test scores in both math and language are significantly higher. It has been suggested that the best-case scenario is for a school district to articulate a clear concise vision, but then to allow schools to determine the best ways to attain it. The biggest danger is high performing schools don’t share their successful decision-making approaches with low performing schools, which can lead to inequity in students outcomes. So finding ways to share these approaches is another requirement for success.
Self-made decisions and greater accountability: When decentralization encourages increased local participation in school management, it improves accountability and responsiveness to student needs and fosters better use of resources, thus improving conditions for students. It is argued that the gap between government officials and schools is just too great to enable speedy and informed decisions. Closer parent-school partnerships can also improve learning in both the classroom and home environments. This parent collaboration can elicit commitment to self-made decisions and greater accountability on the part of teachers and principals who are better able to make the best decisions for improving school operations and learning.
Better classroom instruction and better student performance: One outcome of decentralization, as exemplified by school-based management reforms, is better classroom instruction and improved student performance. To achieve these, two things need to be addressed: 1) the quality and quantity of educational contributions from teachers, parents and others and 2) the efficiency with which these contributions are put into action. The belief underlying this theory is that more school and family engagement in the education process produces more learning – when highly educated teachers are more involved, more resources combined with parent feedback and ideas should lead to higher student achievement. When teachers are empowered and schools can make decisions that directly affect their own students – under the umbrella of a broader vision for a school district – decentralization is at its best.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RESOURCES
PISA IN FOCUS 42: When is competition between schools beneficial?http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/pisainfocus/PISA-in-Focus-N42-(eng)-FINAL.pdf
World Bank: Education and Decentralization
http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/decentralization/English/Issues/Education.html
Decentralization and Education – Definition, Measurement, Rationale, Implementation, School Finance, Effects of Decentralization
http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1903/Decentralization-Education.html#ixzz3yNvaITxP
Historica Canada: School Systems
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/school-systems/
OECD: Equity and Quality in Education SUPPORTING DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS AND SCHOOLS
http://www.oecd.org/education/school/50293148.pdf
PISA 2012 Results: What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices Volume IV
http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results-volume-IV.pdf
Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education Lessons from PISA for the United States
http://www.oecd.org/pisa/46623978.pdf
Center for Public Education: Eight characteristics of effective school boards: full report
http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Public-education/Eight-characteristics-of-effective-school-boards/Eight-characteristics-of-effective-school-boards.html
References
Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity. theory, research, critique. London: Taylor & Francis.
Boakari, F.M., Hopson, R.K. & Yeakey, C.C. (2008). Power, voice and the public good: schooling and education in global societies, Bingley: Emerald JAI.
Brown, D.J. (1990). Decentralization and school-based management. London: The Falmer Press.
Bullock, A. & Thomas, H. (1997). Schools at the centre?: a study of decentralization, London: Routledge.
Clear, D.K. (2015). Decentralization Issues and Comments, The Clearing House: A journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 44(5) pp. 259-267
Cristofoli, V.A. (1997). Decentralised centralism? A comparison of the administrative structure of France and Norwegian education. Thesis. University of Oslo, Department of Educational Research.
Hodgson, E. (1987). Federal involvement in Canadian education. Toronto: Canadian Education Association.
Kelsey, G. (1992). Change and the administration of education: The Canadian experience. Paper presented to Icelandic Educators. Reykjavik.
Kelsey, G., Lupini, D., & Clinton, A. (1995). The effects of legislative change on the work of British Columbia’s school superintendents. A Report Presented to the Annual Meeting of the British Columbia School Superintendents’ Association. Richmond.
Lauglo, J. (1995). Forms of decentralisation and their implications for education. Comparative Education, Vol. 31, no. 1, 5-29.
Levin, B., & Young, J. (1994). Understanding Canadian schools: An introduction to educational administration. Toronto: Harcourt Brace & Company.
McGinn, N. (1992). Reforming educational governance: Centralisation/Decentralisation. In Arnove, R., Altbach, P. and Kelly, G (Eds.), Emergent issues in education: Comparative perspectives. Albany: State University of New York Press.
McGuire, J.M. (2005). Decentralization for satisfying basic needs: an economic guide for policymakers, Greenwich, Conn.: Information Age Publications.
OECD. (1995). Decision-making in 14 OECD education systems. OECD: Paris.
Ungerleider, C.S. (1996). Globalization, professionalization, and educational politics in British Columbia. Department of Social and Educational Studies. University of British Columbia.
Zajda, J. (2006). Decentralization and privitisation in education: the role of the state, Dordrecht: Springer.
It’s becoming common knowledge that children in Canada and around the world aren’t getting enough physical activity. You may have even heard the most recent statistic from the ParticipACTION Report Card on Physical Activity for Children and Youth revealing that only 9% of kids aged 5-17 years old are meeting the recommended 60 minutes of moderate to vigorous-intensity physical activity per day.[1] We have a problem to address, but there are many reasons this issue needs attention.
In particular, when we talk about physical activity we immediately think of increased fitness and forget about the other benefits it brings. This makes sense because when we think of the physical activity superstars our children idolize, it’s easy to default to Jose Bautista and overlook Einstein.
But, as mentioned by Drs. Gunnell, Poitras, and Tremblay earlier in this series, physical activity is linked to improvements in almost every measure of intelligence, and psychosocial health.[2] Active children have higher self-esteem, improved social skills, fewer depressive symptoms, higher confidence and feelings of competence. They demonstrate better self-control, cooperation, sportsmanship and teamwork. Also, as Dr. Gunnell points out in her post, “evidence shows that adding activity into the classroom can have immediate and long-term benefits and there is little-to-no evidence of any negative impact on learning.”
A review on physical activity and academic achievement by the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the U.S. showed that there are only a minuscule number of studies (in the realm of 1.5% of the papers they included) that report a negative association with academic achievement. While the rest of studies report either null findings or a positive association.[3] This includes studies looking at school-based education on physical activity, recess, classroom physical activity, and extra-curricular programs. So it’s pretty safe to say that the likelihood of improving academic achievement by sneaking in some more activity far exceeds the risk of it doing any harm.
Convinced yet? Good. There are so many ways you can take action by sneaking in a few extra minutes of heart pumping activity into a child’s school day. Try some of the ideas below:
The activities above are all unique and will leave you and Canada’s kids huffing and puffing through the school day. And your physical health AND mental health will be better off for it!
References
1. ParticipACTION. The Biggest Risk Is Keeping Our Kids Indoors. The 2015 Report Card on Physical Activity for Children and Youth. Toronto, Ontario; 2015.
2. Voss MW, Carr LJ, Clark R, Weng T. Revenge of the “sit” II: Does lifestyle impact neuronal and cognitive health through distinct mechanisms associated with sedentary behavior and physical activity? Ment Health Phys Act. 2014;7(1):9-24. doi:10.1016/j.mhpa.2014.01.001.
3. Centres for Disease Control and Prevention. The Association between School-Based Physical Activity, Including Physical Education, and Academic Performance. U.S.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2010.
Written by Katie Gunnell, Veronica Poitras, and Mark Tremblay
Decades of research have shown that children who are physically active have a lower risk of diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, depression, and obesity. Researchers have also recently uncovered the beneficial effects of physical activity for healthy brain development, which can lead to improved learning and academic outcomes. Children who are active (e.g., as little as a 20 minute walk) have more active brains,[1] better standardized test scores,[2] and improved attention in the classroom.[1] Moreover, researchers are beginning to recognize that excessive sedentary behaviours (waking activities that are characterized by low energy expenditure – e.g., sitting, watching TV, or “screen time”) negatively influence brain health and may even counteract the benefits of activity.[3] Therefore, obtaining sufficient physical activity and limiting sedentary time are both important for healthy brain development.
How does it work?
In a recent review, Voss and colleagues[3] outline the benefits of increased physical activity and reduced sedentary time on brain health and how they work through at least three levels.
First, at the cellular level, physical activity is associated with the development of new blood vessels (which supply important nutrients and oxygen) and neurons (which transmit nerve impulses) in the brain. Physical activity is also associated with an increase in growth factors in the brain, which help with the development, maintenance, and plasticity (ability to change and adapt) of the nervous system.[3]
Second, at the system level, activity helps regulate stress responses (that are mediated in part by the brain). Physical activity also increases the size (volume) of parts of the brain that are important for learning and memory, and activates parts of the brain that are activated during cognitive activities such as math and reading.[3] Therefore, being active is like “training your brain” – not to say students can go for a walk instead of doing math homework, but being active might make that homework easier!
Finally, these cellular and system-level effects are expressed at the behavioural level. Physical activity is associated with improvements in IQ, academic achievement, executive function (including mentally holding and manipulating information, focusing, and multitasking), and attention, as well as reductions in depression, anxiety, and psychological distress. Being active can also reduce the risk of dementia later in life. [3]
Overall, being physically active and reducing sedentary time conveys a host of benefits, effectively improving healthy brain development to produce optimal learning conditions.
What types of activity are important for healthy development?
Moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) is the benchmark for conveying health benefits. MVPA is any physical activity that increases heart rate, breathing and perspiration. According to current guidelines developed through the Canadian Society of Exercise Physiology, children aged 5-17 years should get at least 60 minutes of MVPA every day to achieve health benefits – and more is better. Children should get at least 3 days per week of vigorous activity (e.g. causes sweating and heavy breathing) and muscle and bone strengthening exercises (e.g. lifting heavy objects, jumping). Sedentary behaviour guidelines stipulate that children should limit sedentary time and specifically limit recreational screen use to no more than 2 hours per day. These guidelines were developed using the best available research evidence concerning the impact of physical activity and sedentary behaviour on important health outcomes, including cognition and academic achievement.[4],[5]
Other types of physical activities that children can engage in include active play (e.g., climbing trees, swinging from monkey bars) and active transportation (e.g., biking to school). In a recent position statement released by ParticipACTION, researchers from the Healthy Active Living and Obesity Research Group (HALO) advocate for a return to self-directed outdoor play. Children who engage in play move more, sit less, play longer, have better peer relationships, are more resilient, and can better regulate their behaviours[6].[7] – all factors that translate into creating optimal learning environments. Together, active play and active transportation can help children increase overall activity levels.
Even as little as 45 minutes of MVPA per week appears to benefit cognition, academic achievement, behaviour, and psychosocial functioning.[8] It doesn’t take much activity to achieve some benefits, but more activity is better!
Sounds good, but what’s the problem?
ParticipACTION’s[9] Report Card on Physical Activity for Children and Youth shows that only 9% of Canadian children meet current physical activity guidelines and only 24% of children meet sedentary behaviour guidelines, earning a dismal “D-“ grade in both of these categories. This means that most Canadian children are missing out on the benefits of a healthy, active lifestyle.
How can activity be increased throughout the day and in the classroom?
With the current structure of a typical classroom and demands to meet curriculum requirements, it’s hard to imagine how educators can increase activity. However, adding activity into the classroom can have immediate and long-term benefits and there is little-to-no evidence of any negative impact on learning. Achieving 60 minutes of MVPA can be facilitated through daily physical education classes. Other types of movement can be incorporated into the classroom to break up long periods of sitting. Educators can take students on educational nature walks or encourage walking meetings for group work. Students can be encouraged to stand along the edges of the classroom when a lesson is being delivered, or take turns standing at an elevated desk. If feasible, a quiet stationary bicycle can be placed in the back of the classroom and children can take turns quietly cycling during lessons. Finally, educators can get the students involved and ask them how they’d like to incorporate activity into the class.
During recess, children should be allowed to engage in self-directed play. Restrictions on the types of play should be limited and reasonable, and children should be encouraged to be creative, run, explore, and play games with balls – even if it comes with the small risk of scraped knees.
Bottom Line
Any activity is better than no activity when it comes to healthy development and enhancing learning outcomes. Educators can incorporate activity and reduce sitting time in their classrooms and doing so may help students’ brain development and enhance learning. In effect, adding activity can help students “train their brains”! In our modern world where sedentary behaviour is omnipresent, the historical mantra of “sit still” needs to be replaced with deliberate attempts to re-engineer our lifestyles to incorporate more movement – the health of our bodies and brains depends on it!
References
Our school’s interest in utilizing physical activity to improve academic performance began in 2010. Ron Andrews, Head of the Physical Education Department, and Peter Kalbfleisch, Head of the Co Curricular Program, introduced our staff to the book SPARK: The Revolutionary New Science of Exercise and the Brain, by Dr. John Ratey M.D. (Ratey, 2008). Our staff became convinced that the positive associations between physical activity and academic performance that had happened in other schools could happen in ours. We felt compelled to act.
Being at school asks us to take risks and be vulnerable – show what we don’t know and risk failure in the finding out.
It’s hard to believe that people send their children to school – their wee little beautiful children – to experience the pain of “not”, of not knowing and not achieving and not enough. Many adults aren’t courageous enough to put ourselves in such a vulnerable position. Of course, those experiences help us develop the much talked about “grit” and resilience. But not for all; for some those experiences debilitate and alienate.
I am deeply grateful that this was not my experience of school. I failed at things, for sure. My work didn’t always meet the standard in the classroom and I wasn’t always comfortable on the playground. However, I was born into a family that (and had some teachers who) raised me to be, what Brene Brown would call, shame-resilient. I could face failure and exclusion because I didn’t often feel like my self worth was on the line. This shame-resilience enabled me to be vulnerable to the process of learning.
As a child, I managed to navigate a system which sought to rank and define me: the grading system that we all know so well.
I could survive putting out my best efforts and the potential of “not meeting” the standard because I had people who believed I was enough regardless of my achievement. I took on that belief as my own – even when my school work, my creativity, my ideas, my problem solving, my effort and my determination were not enough.
For children who are not shame-resilient, school structures like marking (read: ranking) place children’s self-worth on the line every, single day. When our self worth is on the line we cannot afford to be vulnerable. If we cannot afford to be vulnerable, we won’t engage in the effort and persistence learning requires.
“Shame-resilient cultures nurture folks who are much more open to soliciting, accepting, and incorporating feedback” says Brown in her bestseller Daring Greatly.
Soliciting, accepting and incorporating feedback? Sounds like a formula for learning.
If we want our schools to be shame-resilient cultures we teachers and school leaders must model ourselves as learners first and foremost – being as vulnerable as we ask our students to be. We must look at our systems critically and build in the supports necessary to nurture “engaged, tenacious people who expect to have to try and try again to get it right” (Brown, pg 64).
What supports have you built into your school or classroom to create a shame-resilient culture? What practices should we renounce? What supports should we create?
Assessment for Learning (AFL), sometimes referred to as formative assessment, has been an informal activity in Canadian classrooms for a long time. It became a more formal practice more than 40 years ago, when Bloom, Hastings and Madaus wrote a book entitled Formative and Summative Evaluation of Student Learning.1 In it, they highlighted how assessment was critical to student learning and classroom teaching and how evaluation data could be used to improve and extend student development and achievement. Not surprisingly, many educators and researchers began to advocate for educationally useful assessments. Likewise, the scholarly community began to focus on the value of everyday classroom assessment as a critical element in helping students learn.
The seminal work of Black and Wiliam2 provided the final stimulus to cement the importance of formative assessment. By synthesizing over 250 studies, these researchers found that the intentional use of assessment in the classroom promoted learning and improved student achievement. The Assessment Reform Group in England named assessment-based teaching assessment for learning (AFL), and described it as “the single most powerful tool we have for raising standards and empowering life-long learning.”3
Researchers, teachers, and policy makers now use the terms formative assessment and assessment for learning routinely – and often interchangeably, despite some subtle but important distinctions. AFL has permeated practice and policy spheres around the world, and there is increasing convergence on its core principles. AFL has made its way into policy frameworks throughout Canada (e.g. Ontario’s Growing Success4 and Manitoba’s Rethinking Classroom Assessment with Purpose in Mind5). The research base supporting AFL has provided the stimulus and rationale for this re-envisioning of contemporary classroom assessment.
This article chronicles the emergence of AFL within Canadian borders. The authors also discuss the implications of recent policy shifts in assessment with the ongoing need to support teacher learning in the area of assessment.
Each of Canada’s ten provinces and three territories is responsible for designing its own assessment policies to support and monitor student learning. Prior to 2000, many provincial assessment policies emphasized the traditional “diagnostic–formative–summative” assessment sequence. In this sequence, teachers used diagnostic and formative assessments to improve and tailor their instruction, while summative assessments were used to publically report on student achievement.
During the 1980s and 90s, diagnostic, formative, and summative assessments were valued differently across Canada, depending upon the province’s curricular orientation and testing program. In provinces with a longstanding history of large-scale testing (e.g. Alberta and British Columbia), summative classroom assessments were highly valued and regulated in relation to provincial test content and criteria. Provinces with minimal large-scale testing, such as Manitoba, Ontario, and Prince Edward Island, had a more balanced orientation toward formative and summative assessments. In these provinces, a holistic curricular orientation was used that involved less rigid provincial expectations, a constructivist learning approach, and a commitment to teaching toward the whole child. Formative assessment was seen as a tool to help inform teachers’ instructional practices and promote differentiated teaching for individual student learning.
In the late 1990s, calls began surfacing across Canada for a more unified educational standard coupled with greater public accountability for student learning, especially in provinces without large-scale testing programs. For example, the landmark 1994 For the Love of Learning report on the Ontario education system recommended common core standards for school districts and multi-year, provincial proficiency testing in literacy and numeracy beginning in Grade 3.6 This report inspired a rewriting of Ontario curriculum documents with greater emphasis on public accountability measures, standards-based teaching, and increased emphasis on both formative and summative assessment practices. Since 2000, the accountability movement has proliferated across educational systems in Canada, with teachers now needing to use assessments daily to monitor student learning and report on student achievement.7
Within the current accountability context of Canadian public schools, AFL policies and professional development opportunities are beginning to surface in an effort to support teacher practice in this area. Specifically, several provincial policies articulate the linkages between assessment for, of, and as learning and provincial curriculum expectations. For example, the Western and Northern Canadian Protocol for Collaboration in Education, which represents Ministries of Education in Western and Northern Canada, published a document in 2006 entitled Rethinking Classroom Assessment with Purpose in Mind. The document describes assessment as follows:
“Assessment for learning, assessment as learning, and assessment of learning all serve valuable, and different, purposes. It is not always easy, however, getting the balance right. If we want to enhance learning for all students, the role of assessment for learning and assessment as learning takes on a much higher profile than assessment of learning.”8
There are several subtle but important distinctions between earlier conceptions of formative assessment and more contemporary understandings of AFL. In relation to formative assessment, AFL:
Overall, current understandings of AFL are less teacher-centric, with greater participation of learners and other educational stakeholders in the assessment process.
Assessment for learning supports students’ growth toward educational standards while assessment as learning activities cultivate student autonomy, self-regulation and general learning skills.
Across provincial assessment policies, there is an explicit articulation of the value and benefits of integrating assessment for and as learning into classroom teaching and learning (see www.cafln.ca for complete listing of policies). These policies emphasize that AFL supports students’ growth toward educational standards while assessment as learning activities cultivate student autonomy, self-regulation, and general learning skills. Underpinning these policies is the assertion that supporting students’ ability to learn (i.e. assessment as learning) accelerates learning, improves summative assessment results, and contributes to lifelong learning commitments.
Despite widespread provincial policies aimed at assessment for and as learning, several researchers have noticed gaps in teachers’ capacity to implement contemporary assessment practices in their classrooms.9 These gaps are attributed to challenges related to teacher professional learning opportunities in assessment, practical barriers (e.g. time, class size, resources), and limited research on the nuances of integrating AFL in diverse classroom contexts. As a result of these systemic challenges, several Canadian provinces have engaged in various initiatives to support teachers’ integration of AFL. For example, since 1999 Alberta school divisions have been provided with provincial funding to engage in cyclical professional development projects aimed at improving student learning and performance, with many of these projects focused on AFL. The resulting projects are intended to build capacity in assessment at classroom and school levels, with results shared provincially to encourage systemic adoption of AFL.
Similarly, the Ontario Ministry of Education and Ontario teachers’ federations have supported teachers through various professional learning programs and funding for collaborative inquiries focused on AFL. Increasing teacher assessment literacy, specifically in the use of assessment for, of, and as learning, across the province is also a significant part of a larger effort toward a school-wide comprehensive reform model known as the School Effectiveness Framework. In this framework, school improvement is predicated on reliable and valid assessment information about student learning, teacher effectiveness, and school/district achievement of systemic goals. Accordingly, in Ontario, the use of assessment information is integral to the educational system, not only for enhancing student achievement but also for supporting teacher learning and school/district systemic goals.
Overall, AFL is taking hold as a key feature of educational assessment programs in Canada. Classroom assessment policies that integrate assessment for and as learning are evident across the provinces. Significant efforts are being made to support teachers and school administrators in interpreting and implementing these policies and assessment priorities. However, additional research is needed on effective professional learning structures to support teachers in implementing AFL in their diverse contexts of practice. Continued research is also required on the ways AFL is operationalized and integrated across curricular areas, teaching divisions, and with diverse student learning populations. Ultimately, there is an emerging effort across the country to integrate AFL to support teacher learning, inform school decision-making and district priorities, and most importantly, enhance student learning across Canada.
Note: Portions of this article have been adapted from sections of the following refereed journal article: M. Birenbaum, C. DeLuca, L. Earl, M. Heritage, V. Klenowski, A. Looney, K. Smith, H. Timperley, L. Volante and C. Wyatt-Smith, “International Trends in the Implementation of Assessment for Learning: Implications for policy and practice,” Policy Futures in Education 13, No. 1 (in press).
En Bref – Cet article porte sur la genèse et l’évolution de l’évaluation pour l’apprentissage (EPA) au Canada et associe ces développements récents à l’ensemble de la communauté internationale. Les auteurs analysent également les conséquences des changements récents de politiques dans un contexte de responsabilisation accrue, d’évaluation considérée pour et comme apprentissage dans les stratégies éducatives provinciales et de tensions toujours présentes entre l’EPA et les formes sommatives de l’évaluation dans les systèmes provinciaux d’éducation. Certaines lacunes dans la mise en œuvre de l’EPA, tant en raison d’obstacles pratiques que du nécessaire besoin de développer la capacité des enseignants, existent encore et sont abordées à travers des initiatives émergentes dans tout le pays afin de soutenir une intégration plus efficace de l’EPA.
Illustration: Dave Donald
First published in Education Canada, May 2015
1 B. S. Bloom, J. T. Hastings and G. F. Madaus, Handbook on Formative and Summative Evaluation of Student Learning (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971).
2 Paul Black and D. Wiliam, Inside the Black Box: Raising standards through classroom assessment (London: Kings College, 1998).
3 Assessment Reform Group, Assessment for Learning: Beyond the black box (Cambridge: University of Cambridge School of Education, 1999), 2.
4 Ontario Ministry of Education, Growing Success: Assessment, evaluation and reporting in Ontario schools (Toronto, ON: Queen’s Printers for Ontario, 2010).
5 Manitoba Education, Rethinking Classroom Assessment with Purpose in Mind: Assessment for learning, assessment as learning, assessment of learning (Winnipeg: Minister of Education, Citizenship and Youth, 2006).
6 Ontario Royal Commission on Learning, For the Love of Learning: Report of the Royal Commission on Learning (Toronto, ON: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 1994).
7 Council of Ontario Directors of Education, “Consistency in Classroom Assessment.” www.cpco.on.ca/ProfessionalDevelopment/Resources/CCA-Final.pdf
8 Manitoba Education, Rethinking Classroom Assessment with Purpose in Mind, 14.
9 Don A. Klinger, L. Volante and C. DeLuca, “Building Teacher Capacity Within the Evolving Assessment Culture in Canadian Education,” Policy Futures in Education, Special Issue: Developing sustainable assessment cultures in school learning organisations 10, No. 4 (2012): 447-460.
“Sorry I’m late,” says a young woman breathlessly as she walks in, halfway through the class. “My sitter was late, and then I missed my bus.” The student, in her early 20s, has two children under four, and is constantly juggling childcare arrangements while waiting for full-time subsidized spots in the daycare near her home.
“No problem,” says the teacher, as she continues writing a formula on a whiteboard. “We were in the middle of reviewing yesterday’s work. You’re just in time to join us as we cover the trickiest part.”
A little later, a man in his early 30s raises his hand. “Miss? Um…” He hesitates awkwardly before addressing the teacher by her first name. “…um, Michelle, could you tell me what’s on this week’s quiz?” Although they are the same age, he is unaccustomed to using a teacher’s first name. All staff, including the administration, in this mature student program are on a first-name basis. The man was recently laid off, and wants to complete his high school education in order to enter a post-secondary program that will lead to new career.
From the back of the classroom an F-bomb is dropped. A young man, who looks like he could easily be in a regular high school, pushes his chair back from a computer desk in frustration.
“That’s a loonie for the coffee fund,” says the woman sitting at the computer next to him. Now in her 40s, she came to Canada soon after her marriage at the age of 16. She always regretted not being able to complete high school, but waited until her youngest child was in school full-time before returning to a mature student program.
The hoodie-wearing 19-year-old rolls his eyes but digs into his pocket. The students developed their own ground rules for the way that they want their class to run, including the fine for swearing in front of others while in class. This young man left school – and home – at 17. He reluctantly returned at the age of 18 as a condition of receiving income assistance. He walks over to a desk covered with tea and coffee supplies and drops the loonie into an empty coffee tin. On most days, the teacher stays in the class and joins the students for their morning coffee break. Everyone takes turns doing the clean-up.
These vignettes reflect some key differences between many regular high school programs and adult high school completion programs. The students are, of course, older. But it is the overall environment that researchers, including myself, have identified as a key element in the success of these programs. A supportive environment means program planning and scheduling decisions are responsive to the busy and complex lives of adult students. A sense of acceptance contributes to supportive and respectful interactions with teachers and peers, which can help students overcome previous negative school experiences.1 Most importantly, “Teachers attuned to the unique needs and circumstances of adults [are] integral to a positive program experience.”2 During interviews, students in Ontario programs commented on their teachers’ genuine passion for their work, their patience and empathy, and their ability to use a combination of creative and explicit teaching methods.
Mature student programs and high school completion rates
Mature student programs focused on high school completion operate in a variety of ways across the country. There may even be several distinct pathways or approaches within a province, including adult language and literacy programs, which can prepare students to enter a credentialed secondary level program. The programs can be found in schools, colleges, and community organizations, in store-front locations and in correctional facilities. Whether referred to as adult upgrading, basic skills, adult credit, basic education, or GED programs,3 they all lead to a provincially sanctioned high school diploma or equivalency certificate.
These programs have become an important part of the education system, helping to ensure that Canada continues to achieve one of the highest rates of high school completion in the world, Between 1999 and 2007, nearly one-fifth (17 percent) of young people in Canada left high school without a diploma, but by the time the cohort was 26-28 years old, only six percent were without a high school diploma or post-secondary education.4
Figure 15 compares the percentage of graduates at age 18-19 in each province with the percentage at 20-24. It is likely that mature student programs helped boost the graduation rates in each province. Nationally, they generated 13 percent6 of graduates in 2009-2010. Programs in Nova Scotia, with one-fifth of young people obtaining a credential after the typical graduation age, play a particularly vital role.
Challenges facing mature student programs
Mature student programs are often referred to as “second chance” programs, suggesting that students somehow squandered their opportunities the first time around. However, adult students who attend these programs do so because they are compelled back into the secondary system or need an extended opportunity to complete secondary school. Those who are compelled back may need specific course pre-requisites for post-secondary education or may need to improve their marks. Some are recent immigrants who completed their secondary and possibly even post-secondary education, but who must now requalify in a system that doesn’t recognize or devalues foreign education credentials. Furthermore, as long as families live in poverty, there will be a need to offer an extended opportunity to adolescents and young adults to complete their diploma requirements. This is most apparent when looking at Aboriginal learners, who live in poverty at higher rates, and who are also more likely to delay their entry into the post-secondary system.7According to the Canadian Teachers’ Federation,8 living in poverty is connected to an inter-related and accumulating set of factors that can combine to compel students to leave high school, such as their readiness to learn; low self-confidence or motivation; social exclusion; frequent moves and interrupted attendance; and inability to participate in enrichment activities.
Adult education programs at the secondary level are a vital part of long-term poverty reduction strategies.9 They are also an essential conduit into the post-secondary system. However, these programs face their own inequities and a sort of “second class” status within the education system. Straddled between the concerns and interests of the regular K-12 system and post-secondary programs, mature student programs are rarely the focus of sustained policy attention, and are vulnerable to short-sighted funding decisions.
Two provinces, Newfoundland and Labrador and British Columbia, have recently instituted reforms in their college systems to either remove or substantially downsize adult programs leading to high school credentials. Newfoundland privatized its programs in the summer of 2013, removing them from the provincial college system and placing them in private career colleges. B.C. is eliminating funding for entry-level courses, after previously decreasing vital post-secondary access supports for social assistance recipients.10 B.C. is now focusing resources on those most likely to enter post-secondary education and decreasing access to those deemed less likely to proceed through all courses.11 There may be some room for optimism in Ontario which, after drastic cuts in the late 1990s, is beginning an extensive consultation process towards the development of a provincial adult education strategy centred on secondary completion and post-secondary access.
Mature student programs facilitate high school completion and access to post-secondary education, particularly for students living in poverty and for those compelled back into the secondary system. Given their importance to secondary graduation rates, especially for our most disadvantaged students, these programs deserve to have a more prominent place as an inherent and valued part of a comprehensive education system.
En Bref – Les programmes pour étudiants adultes visant l’achèvement des études secondaires offrent plus qu’une deuxième chance aux adultes. Ils sont maintenant une importante composante du système d’éducation pour les personnes qui doivent retourner au secondaire en vue d’entreprendre des études postsecondaires et pour celles qui ont besoin de ressources prolongées pour terminer leurs études secondaires. Un environnement de soutien tenant compte de la vie occupée et complexe des étudiants adultes se distingue des nombreux programmes réguliers d’études secondaires. Les programmes d’éducation de niveau secondaire pour adultes sont des éléments vitaux pour les stratégies à long terme de réduction de la pauvreté : ils contribuent à accroître les taux de diplomation d’études secondaires. Ils constituent également un mode essentiel de passage au système postsecondaire.
Photo: Chris Schmidt (iStock)
First published in Education Canada, May 2015
1 Christine Pinsent-Johnson, Shannon Howell and Rebekka King, Returning to High School in Ontario: Adult students, post-secondary plans and program supports (Toronto: Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario, 2013), www.heqco.ca/SiteCollectionDocuments/Formatted_CESBA.pdf ; Cassandra MacGregor and Thomas Ryan, “Secondary Level Re-Entry of Young Canadian Adult Learners,” Australian Journal of Adult Learning 51, no. 1 (2011): 143-160, http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ951990.pdf
2 Pinsent-Johnson, et al. Returning to High School, 37.
3 Students can prepare for and write a Canadian version of the General Educational Development (GED) test to receive a provincial high school equivalency certificate.
4 Statistics Canada, Interrupting High School and Returning to Education (Education Indicators in Canada: Fact Sheets, 2010). www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-599-x/81-599-x2010005-eng.htm
5 Statistics Canada, Interrupting High School.
6 From Kathryn McMullen and Jason Gilmore, A Note on High School Graduation and School Attendance, By Age and Province, 2009/2010 (Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 81-004-X, 2012).www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-004-x/2010004/article/11360-eng.htm The data do not directly distinguish between graduates with developmental disabilities, who complete modified diploma requirements at the age of 21, and graduates who complete standard diploma requirements between the ages of 20 and 24. However, related data do include the percentage of 20-24 year olds who had not graduated but were still in school; these would likely include students receiving a modified diploma. The percentage of these students is negligible in all provinces except Quebec, which has a different secondary/post-secondary system.
7 Educational Policy Institute, Access, Persistence, and Barriers in Post-secondary Education: A literature review and outline of future research (Toronto: Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario, 2008), 7.www.heqco.ca/SiteCollectionDocuments/Access%20Persistence%20and%20Barriers%20ENG.pdf
8 Canadian Teachers’ Federation, Supporting Education… Building Canada: Child poverty and schools. (Canadian Teachers’ Federation, 2009). www.ctf-fce.ca/Research-Library/FINAL_Hilldayleavebehind_eng.pdf
9 Shauna Butterwick, A Path Out of Poverty: Helping B.C. income assistance recipients upgrade their education (Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, B.C. Office, 2006).www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/BC_Office_Pubs/bc_2006/path_out_of_poverty.pdf
10 Butterwick, A Path Out of Poverty.
11 Katie Hyslop, “Literacy Bumbled among Three Ministries: SFU prof,” The Tyee, March 8, 2013. http://thetyee.ca/News/2013/03/08/BC-Literacy-Mismanaged/
Why do teachers’ organizations believe professional development is so important? In short, because effective student learning is dependent on effective teacher learning.
The Canadian Teachers’ Federation defines professional development (PD) as the continuous growth of personal and professional knowledge and expertise, the primary purpose of which is to enhance teaching in support of student learning and development. In teaching, as with any profession, the knowledge base about effective practice is constantly evolving. The continual renewal of knowledge and expertise, through a broad variety of activities and experiences, is thus a central concept of teacher professionalism.
Effective PD combines many qualities. It is reflective, interactive, practical, continuous, teacher-driven and embedded in teachers’ work. It encourages teachers to explore and take risks, to think actively and deeply about their professional practice. It engages teachers in collegial and collaborative dialogue. And it is grounded in current research on teaching and learning.
Effective PD also responds to each teacher’s unique set of learning needs, goals, styles, knowledge and skills. In order to do this, it utilizes a diversity of approaches including participation in courses, conferences and workshops, professional reading, fostering professional inquiry through action research and other approaches, and mentoring new teachers, to name a few.
Research about teachers’ work and learning in Canada entitled Beyond PD Days found that teachers embrace ongoing professional learning and the overwhelming majority actively engage in it through both formal and informal learning activities.1 In addition:
The study also found that increasing teacher workload has led to significant increases in stress which, must be taken into account when planning professional learning opportunities.
Another important finding from the research was the need to recognize and foster classroom teacher leadership. PD is key to building effective professional learning communities and to enhancing leadership capacity.
The Teacher Learning and Leadership Program (TLLP), a collaborative partnership of the Ontario Ministry of Education and the Ontario Teachers’ Federation, offers an exemplary model of the power of teacher-led PD to foster leadership and innovative teaching practice. The TLLP “operates on the belief that classroom teachers know their learning needs and the needs of their students best. Additionally, the program assumes teachers have the greatest knowledge of how to build and foster multiple learning networks in order to share their expertise both within and beyond their schools.”2
The three primary goals of the program are to support experienced teachers in undertaking innovative, self-chosen professional learning in areas that are meaningful to them; foster teacher leadership; and facilitate the sharing of exemplary practices with others for the broader benefit of Ontario’s students.
Since its inception in 2007, over 600 projects have been funded with 110 projects being implemented in the 2013-2014 school year. Project teams typically consist of two to five teachers. Not surprisingly, project themes are diverse and include differentiated instruction, literacy, integrating technology into curriculum, student assessment, math literacy, supporting students with special needs, gender-based learning, French (core & immersion), media literacy, and the arts. Social media is used by project teams to document and share their learning.3
Research conducted on the TLLP found that it has considerable benefits for teachers’ professional learning.4 TLLP teacher leaders reported improvements in their knowledge and skills, instructional and assessment practices, and leadership skills. Overall, researchers observed that TLLP teacher leaders “demonstrate the professional, educational, and financial value of self-directed, teacher-led innovative and effective practices.”5
This quote from a teacher who participated in the TLLP succinctly sums up the rationale for the program:
“Every day in classrooms, there are miracles happening. Absolute miracles. Teachers are doing fantastic things. And the teacher in the classroom next door has no idea about the miraculous things that the teacher next to him or her is doing. The teacher in the next school doesn’t know it, and the teacher in the next district certainly doesn’t know it. How do we take those miracles and share them?”
In their book Professional Capital, Andy Hargreaves and Michael Fullan describe two competing approaches to teaching – the business capital approach and the professional capital approach. These very different perspectives have implications for PD.
In the former view as Hargreaves and Fullan point out, “the purpose of public education is increasingly to yield a short-term profit with quick returns for its investors …. teaching is technically simple. Teaching doesn’t require rigorous training, hard work in universities, or extensive practice in schools. In this view, teaching can be learned over six weeks in the summer, as long as you are passionate and enthusiastic. Imagine if we said that about our doctors or architects or engineers.”6Programs such as Teach For America embody this narrow mentality.
The concept of professional capital on the other hand consists of three components: human capital (the quality of individual teachers); social capital (the collaborative power of teachers as a group); and decisional capital (the wisdom and expertise of teachers to make sound judgments about learners that are cultivated over time). As Hargreaves and Fullan note, unlike the business approach, this approach “requires technical knowledge, high levels of education, strong practice within schools, and continuous improvement over time that is undertaken collaboratively, and that calls for the development of wise judgment.”7
As in countries such as Finland, the success of Canada’s education system is due in no small part to the quality of its teaching profession and hence, to a recognition of the importance of continually investing in developing a high quality teaching profession for the benefit of all students.
Effective professional development is absolutely critical in this regard.
[1] Clark, Rosemary, et al. (2007). Beyond PD Days: Teachers’ Work and Learning in Canada. Ontario Teachers’ Federation / Centre for the Study of Education & Work, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
[2] Amato, Lindy, Anthony, Paul, & Strachan, Jim (April 2014). “Know how? Show how: Experienced teachers share best practices through Ontario program.” Journal of Staff Development, 35(2), pp. 46-49.
[3] Ibid, pg. 49.
[4] Campbell, Carol, Lieberman, Ann, & Yashkina, Anna (April 2014). The Teacher Learning and Leadership Program: Research Report 2013-2014. Ontario Teachers’ Federation. http://www.otffeo.on.ca/en/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/08/TLLP-Final-Report-April-2014.pdf
[5] As cited in Amato et al., p. 48.
[6] Hargreaves, Andy, & Fullan, Michael (June 2013). “The power of professional capital.” Journal of Staff Development, 34(3), pp. 36-39.
[7] Ibid. pg 37.
This blog post is part of EdCan Network’s focus on the state of Teacher PD in Canada, which is also connected to Education Canada Magazine’s Teachers as Learners theme issue and The Facts on Education fact sheet, What is Effective Teacher Professional Development?
Two students representing the Ontario Student Trustees’ Association shared their inspirational stories.
As a result of my experiences as an elementary school teacher, an educational researcher and a professor of education, it has become clear that fostering school communities requires a paradigm shift in our collective thinking about students, parents/guardians and the community context in which schools are located.
All stakeholders involved in education need to understand and position people connected and engaged in schools in ways that are asset rather than deficit-oriented. There are many factors that currently ensure that deficit constructions of communities engaged in and with schools remain intact. These problematic and limiting ways of seeing and responding to people require that we re-think what we understand about and what we do in education. An asset-oriented focused approach to creating and sustaining vibrant school communities requires that we conceptualize what students, parents and the school community context possess in the way of diversity (e.g.: learning, cultural, linguistic, physical, socioeconomic, gender, sexual, religious, etc.) as valued and valuable capitol that needs to be brought into the school and drawn on in ways that help to create co-constructed, negotiated and contextually specific curriculum.
All stakeholders involved in education need to understand and position people connected and engaged in schools in ways that are asset rather than deficit-oriented.
Curriculum therefore needs to be understood as something that is not just simply written, officiated and given to school communities to deliver, but rather what occurs through reciprocal interactions or transactions between teachers, students, parents and the larger community within a particular context. Curriculum is comprised of or shaped by the activities, events, practices, materials and decisions made within a particular space negotiated between everyone who has a stake in and is part of the school community in relation to its contextual specificities. The culture created in classrooms and the school at large by all of these factors constitutes the development of a curriculum that fosters vibrancy, inclusivity, and support through a responsiveness to the diversity of assets located within that school community.
It is therefore essential for asset-oriented ways of creating curriculum to be aligned with an asset-oriented assessment and evaluation paradigm and its practices.
This necessary shift in thinking and doing is in line with basic human rights that have been identified in various documents that are legally binding. It is therefore essential that curriculum, and therefore assessment and evaluation practices begin to be shaped by a vehement belief in – and a focused gaze on – the plethora of resources that a variety of people interacting with schools possess. Curriculum and assessment and evaluation are inextricably linked to how well educators are able to understand, come to know and draw on students, their parents and the larger context. It is therefore essential for asset-oriented ways of creating curriculum to be aligned with an asset-oriented assessment and evaluation paradigm and its practices.
Educational systems that discursively herald community building and diversity cannot simultaneously insist on and require tools and procedures that cast entire school communities as deficient, broken and pathological. The structural continuance and subsequent understanding of curriculum and assessment and evaluation as mandated (standardized and fossilized instruments of normalization) does not allow for the professional and personal autonomy required of school communities to create a culture that allows for multiple ways of knowing and being to be tapped into. This is in order to ensure that personhood and not politics remains at the forefront of collective thoughts and efforts to create vibrant, human rights focused school communities that help foster critical autonomous citizens who see their worth reflected in schools.
Reference
Heydon, R. & Iannacci, L. (2008). Early childhood curricula and the de-pathologizing of childhood. University of Toronto Press.
This blog post is part of CEA’s focus on The New School Community, which is also connected to Education Canada Magazine’s The New School Community theme issue and a Facts on Education fact sheet How does parent involvement in education affect children’s learning? Please contact info@cea-ace.ca if you would like to contribute a blog post to this series.
Parents’ involvement in children’s education has several forms. Parents who are behaviourally involved participate in activities such as attending school functions and volunteering at the school. Parents who are cognitively involved expose their children to stimulating activities and materials, such as reading books or visiting cultural institutions. Parents who are personally involved communicate positively with their children about school matters. They convey that they value school and expect their children to as well.
Many studies report on the effects of parent involvement on children’s standardized achievement test scores, school grades, and school-based behaviour. What is the effect of parent involvement on children’s learning? Answers depend on the type of parent involvement, type of learning outcome, and characteristics of families.
As a whole, research suggests parents can have a positive effect on children’s learning by being involved in their schooling. However,
Canadian educators and policy makers should continue to encourage and support parent involvement in education with particular attention to minority and low-income parents. All stakeholders, including parents, should be aware that the most effective form of involvement for supporting children’s learning is personal involvement; that is, parents communicating positively with children about school to convey that they value education and expect their children to as well.
References
Cheung, C.S. & Pomerantz, E. M. (2012). Why does parents’ involvement enhance children’s achievement? The role of parent-oriented motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 820-832.
Davis-Kean, P.E. (2005). The influence of parent education and family income on child achievement: The indirect role of parent expectations and the home environment. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 294-304.
Domina, T. (2005). Leveling the home advantage: Assessing the effectiveness of parental involvement in elementary school. Sociology of Education, 78, 233-249.
Epstein, J. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Froiland, J. M., Peterson, A. & Davison, M L (2013). The long-term effects of early parent involvement and parent expectation in the USA. School Psychology International, 34, 33-50.
Gonida, E. N. & Cortina, K.S. (2014). Parental involvement in homework: Relations with parent and student achievement‐related motivational beliefs and achievement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 376-396.
Graves, S. L. Jr. & Wright, L B (2011). Parent involvement at school entry: A national examination of group differences and achievement. School Psychology International, 32, 35-48.
Jeynes, W.H. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relation of parental involvement to urban elementary school student academic achievement. Urban Education, 40, 237-269.
Jeynes, W.H. (2007). The relationship between parental involvement and urban secondary school student academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Urban Education, 42, 82-110.
Jeynes, W.H. (2011). Parental involvement research: Moving to the next level. The School Community Journal, 21, 9-18.
Patall, E.A., Cooper, H., & Robinson, J.C. (2009). Parent involvement in homework: A research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 78, 1039-1101.
Pomerantz, E M, Kim, E M, & Cheung, C S (2012). Parents’ involvement in children’s learning. In Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Urdan, T., Graham, S., Royer, J. M., & Zeidner, M. (Eds). APA Educational Psychology Handbook, Vol 2: Individual differences and cultural and contextual factors. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association, pp.417-440.
Tan, E.T. & Goldberg, W.A. (2009). Parental school involvement in relation to children’s grades and adaptation to school. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30, 442-453.
Toren, N. K. (2013). Multiple dimensions of parental involvement and its links to young adolescent self‐evaluation and academic achievement. Psychology in the Schools, 50, 634-649.
Resources
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/parents/involvement/
As our modern economy shifts from the industrial era to an age of knowledge workers, we increasingly need an education system that teaches students to work in collaborative teams, master higher-order knowledge and skills, and creatively solve complex technical and social problems. For this kind of education to be possible, we need to be able to customize instruction in order to address each student’s unique learning needs.
In the last few years, many innovative educators have been leveraging technology to make this type of educational experience possible. They integrate online learning in their traditional schools to create new instructional models that are collectively referred to as “blended learning.” Sometimes people fear that online learning in schools will lead to a dehumanizing experience, where students are constantly plugged into devices and teachers are just passive monitors. In contrast to this conception, the leading pioneers in blended learning find that technology allows student and teacher interactions to be more meaningful and personal.
For example, high-quality blended learning frees up teachers from some administrative and instructional aspects of their jobs so that they have more time to focus on creating high-value learning experiences for their students. These teachers spend less time lecturing and more time mentoring and coaching. They offload basic instruction to online tools and resources so that they can focus their efforts on developing students’ critical thinking skills and fostering their character development. Additionally, blended learning allows students to take greater ownership of their learning.
In 2005, Rick Ogston found himself looking for a new campus for Carpe Diem Collegiate High School, the public charter school1 he had founded in 2002. The owners of the church facility that the school had been renting were selling the property. Finding a suitable school facility was a challenging task, but Ogston seized it as an opportunity to simultaneously transform the school’s instructional model and provide a more student-centered form of education.
The moment one walks in the door of a Carpe Diem school, the differences from the traditional classroom model are apparent. In Carpe Diem’s school in Yuma, Ariz., the center of the building is a large room filled with individual computer stations. On the periphery of that room are breakout rooms where teachers lead collaborative workshops.
Every 35 minutes, the students rotate among the computer stations and the breakout rooms according to individualized learning “playlists.” On the computers they learn using Edgenuity software, with paraprofessionals on hand to assist them if they get stuck. The software adjusts to the students’ learning needs by letting them test out of lessons they have already mastered, and provides them with rich video content of real teachers to explain the concepts they still need to master. In the breakout rooms, a face-to-face teacher reviews or applies the material introduced online through discussions and projects. The teachers are also aided by the software’s teacher dashboard, which alerts them when they need to intervene to help a student.
This model allows Carpe Diem to achieve noteworthy results. In 2010, Carpe Diem’s school in Yuma ranked first in its county in student performance in math and reading. Businessweek recognized Carpe Diem as one of the top high schools in America in its 2009 report, and U.S. News & World Report gave Carpe Diem the same recognition in 2010.
With online learning as the backbone of Carpe Diem’s instructional model, the role of teacher is substantially different from that of traditional teachers. Carpe Diem’s teachers do not have to present every single concept their students need to learn. Instead, they focus on figuring out how to intervene when students are struggling and how to push students to deeper understanding. Ogston explains that when online learning is used to provide basic instruction, teachers then get to do the exciting part of teaching, which is making the content applicable and relevant to students’ lives.
Blended learning affects not only how Carpe Diem’s students learn, but also how teachers and students interact with each other. As Ogston said, “When you’re leveraging technology like we are, people want to look at us in terms of technology. But the secret sauce is not the technology, it’s the relationships.”2
Carpe Diem’s teachers are able to spend more time working with students in small groups and on an individual basis. Carpe Diem’s online learning software also helps teachers better understand their students’ learning needs. The data generated by the software lets teachers know on a daily and hourly basis exactly how students are progressing in their learning and alerts them when they need to intervene. As one student describes it, “Here the teachers know where you’re at exactly, so if you have a problem they’ll talk to you about it and they help you with it.”3
Carpe Diem’s model also fosters longer-term relationships between students and teachers. Each school has one teacher per subject for all students in grades 6–12. As teachers work with students across multiple years, they get to know their interests, their career goals, their families, and their individual learning needs. They also get to see their students’ growth across their entire high-school experience. Luis Vanhook, one of Carpe Diem’s teachers, says that seeing students grow across multiple years “is the most beautiful part about my job.”4
A number of years ago, a group of parents from the San Francisco Bay Area came together to re-imagine the public middle and high school experience. In 2003 they founded Summit Prep, a charter school with the mission to prepare a diverse student body for success in college and to be thoughtful, contributing members of society. Today, Summit Public Schools operates six middle and high schools and enrolls 1,600 students. Its schools are some of the best in California, as they score consistently well above average on state tests and have over 96 percent of their graduates accepted into at least one four-year college or university. In 2011 Newsweek listed it as one of the top ten most transformational high schools in America.
Yet despite these successes, Summit’s leaders noticed a few years ago that many of its graduates were struggling to complete college. To address this problem, they began thinking about how to better prepare students with the content knowledge, cognitive skills, habits of success, and real-world practice necessary to succeed in college and as adults in 21st century society. What resulted was an innovative blended-learning model that aimed at helping students become self-directed learners.
To create its blended-learning experience, Summit had its teachers spend a summer writing out the learning objectives students needed to master each year and then developed online assessment items for measuring mastery of each of those learning objectives. The teachers then curated playlists of free online content – including articles, websites, videos, and web apps – to cover each learning objective. With these tools in hand, they redesigned their physical space and their instructional time during the school day to create a unique, student-centered learning experience.
Instead of assigning students to individual teachers and sending them to learn in separated classrooms, Summit’s students work in large, open learning spaces, and its teachers work as a team to serve the students they share. When students arrive at school, the first thing they do is power on their computers and sit down for an hour of “personalized learning time.” During this hour, they work through Summit’s playlists in order to master their personal learning goals for the current week. The playlists offer them multiple learning resources that they can choose among for learning the concepts they need to master. Once students feel they are ready to pass a learning objective, they go to their teacher to get the assessment for that objective unlocked. After taking assessments, they see their results immediately, along with a detailed explanation of their performance. This short-cycle feedback loop gives students actionable data on their progress that allows them to feel ownership over their learning. After the hour of personalized-learning time each morning, students then spend the rest of the day working with their teachers and fellow students on project-based learning activities. This gives them needed opportunities to apply what they have learned in a relevant, off-line context.
Summit’s blended-learning model has radically changed the roles of its teachers and their relationships with their students. Because teachers no longer spend the majority of the school day planning and delivering large-group instruction, they focus instead on developing personal, deep relationships with students as their mentors. Each mentor has stewardship over 10 to 15 students and meets with them at least weekly to review their progress toward their learning goals. Mentors also act as academic coaches, college counselors, family liaisons, and advocates for their students. School leaders knew that when they changed their model to put students in charge of their own learning, mentors would be vital to help them make progress toward rigorous but attainable goals.
For teachers, another benefit of Summit’s blended-learning model is that it relieves them from the siloed isolation of traditional single-teacher classrooms and gives them valuable opportunities to learn from each other. Emily Swegle, one of Summit’s teachers, says that co-teaching at Summit has allowed her to develop a trusting relationship with her co-teacher in which they each draw on their unique experiences and expertise to give each other ideas and constructive feedback.5
Summit’s founder, Diane Tavenner, acknowledges that when Summit first switched to a blended-learning model, the shift was difficult for teachers, but ultimately proved to be rewarding. “Teachers first had to mourn a little bit because they have this image in their mind of who they are, and now it suddenly looks a bit different. But our model has more of the stuff that teachers got into education for. There’s more meaningful one-on-one work, more opportunities to get to know their kids very well.”6
Schools like Carpe Diem and Summit offer a promising glimpse of what our education systems might look like in the future. They are showing that personalized education is about not only personalizing the instruction students receive, but also the ownership students feel for their work and the relationships between teachers and students. Fortunately, we live in a unique time in history when the technology finally exists to make this kind of personalized education possible.
Not many teachers or school leaders have the operational freedom to create blended-learning models that are as radically different as those found at Carpe Diem or Summit. But many educators from around the world are finding creative ways to implement blended learning within their existing classrooms and schools. Some are setting up computer stations within their classrooms and then having students rotate in small groups between teacher-led instruction and personalized online instruction. Others are finding ways to leverage their existing computer labs to create tighter integration between what students do during lab time and what they do in their other classes. Still others are finding ways to “flip” their classrooms by assigning students to learn core concepts online for homework and then refocusing class time on applying that learning to solve problems, work on projects, and collaborate with their teachers and classmates. In all of these cases, educators are leveraging technology to create innovative learning environments that better address their students’ needs.
Blended learning is a powerful enabler of personalized instruction, but the shift to high-quality blended learning is no small task. It is not merely a matter of purchasing devices and licensing good online learning software. Major shifts in aspects of school operations are often required, such as the schedule of the school day, the grouping of students, the roles and responsibilities of teachers, classroom procedures, classroom management strategies, classroom culture, and the architecture and layout of the physical learning environment.
Because blended learning is still a relatively new phenomenon, resources and best practices are just now emerging from the field. Fortunately, as more and more schools experiment with blended learning, successful models are providing lessons that can help streamline the planning and design processes for other schools that are looking to make the shift. Even so, the work of developing a successful blended learning model requires significant research, planning, collaboration, and reflective execution.
For more information on blended learning, please visit: www.christenseninstitute.org/blended-learning
Photos: courtesy Clayton Christensen Institute for Disruptive Innovation
First published in Education Canada, September 2014
EN BREF – L’apprentissage hybride, un modèle pédagogique novateur, intègre l’apprentissage en ligne à l’enseignement en personne afin d’engendrer des possibilités d’apprentissage personnalisé pour les élèves. De nombreuses écoles primaires et secondaires utilisent l’apprentissage hybride pour transformer les environnements éducationnels à l’école et pour aider tous les élèves à mieux se préparer aux études supérieures et à l’environnement de travail du 21e siècle. Un apprentissage hybride de qualité libère les enseignants de certains aspects administratifs et pédagogiques de leur travail de sorte qu’ils peuvent se concentrer davantage sur le mentorat et l’encadrement de leurs élèves. Il peut également aider les élèves à acquérir plus d’autonomie en tant qu’apprenants et engendrer des liens plus personnels entre les élèves et leurs enseignants.
[1] Both of the schools described in the article are U.S. charter schools. They are publicly funded and operated by private, non-profit organizations. They have open enrollment for any students living within their geographic areas, they do not charge tuition, and when they receive more applications than they can accommodate they admit students based on lottery.
[2] Frederick M. Hess and Bror Saxberg, Breakthrough Leadership in the Digital Age: Using learning science to reboot schooling (Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin, 2014), 19.
[3] Ian Murray, Carpe Diem Learning Systems (video, 2013), 7:14. http://carpediemschools.com/videos/
[4] Ibid.
[5] Silicon Schools Fund and Clayton Christensen Institute, Case Study #1: Teaching in a flex model at Summit Public Schools (video, 2014), 7:56. www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/ssf-cci/sscc-teaching-blended-learning/sscc-blended-case-studies/v/sscc-blended-summitteach
[6] Hess and Saxberg, Breakthrough Leadership in the Digital Age, 156.