Developing the BC learning agenda: innovation and improvement Part 2: emergent policies

Valerie Hannon and Tony MackayInnovation Unit, UK

BCSSA:FALL CONFERENCE 2010Victoria, BC 18/19 November

Global Education Leaders Program

Jurisdiction Partners

Australia

Beijing, China

England

Finland

Ontario, Canada

New York City, USA

New Zealand

South Korea

Victoria, Australia

Consortium Partners

• To advocate the vision of 21st Century

Learning (‘Education 3.0 and beyond)• To develop leadership capacity to transform

education systems• To accelerate and sustain transformation

efforts within GELP members' local and national systems

• To grow a global community of education leaders and innovators

• To create a global movement towards 21st Century Learning (‘Education 3.0’)

The Global Education Leaders Program Objectives

Global EducationLeaders Program

www.GETideas.org

Assessment for learning

‘Next practice’ pedagogy

21st century curriculum

Flexible learning spaces

Integrated training –

technology & pedagogy

High standard of educational

technology

Technology vision led from

the top

Infrastructure & Technology

Integrated ecosystem of

partners

Innovation management

Data-driven accountability

& decisionmaking

Well-governed and managed

system

Policies, Procedures & Management

Ambitious, collaborative,

innovative culture

Excellent teachers,

principals and system-leaders

Visionary leadership

Leadership, People & Culture

Student-centred, personalised

learning

Curriculum, pedagogy & assessment

Leading transformati

on

Holistic

change

Pace &

urgency

Building

owner-

ship

Routes to scale

Sustain-

able

Delivered in

partner-

ship

The Education 3.0 Framework

• Ubiquitous technology, ubiquitous opportunity?

• Collaborative, social-constructivist learning

• Problem-based instruction

• Progressive inquiry, experimental study

• Peer feedback and peer cooperation

Finland’s Pedagogy for Tomorrow

video

Putting Children First

• John White, Deputy Chancellor, NYC Department of Education

New York City: GELP member

NYC: the old school system was not set up to succeed

Before Mayor Bloomberg took charge of New York City’s public schools in 2002, the system was failing too many families and students. It was a system characterized by:

9

No coherent standards > 40 distinct districts, setting

their own rules and standards

Limited accountability > No one responsible for results> Lots of finger pointing

Stagnant results for NYC students> Generations of students were

leaving school without the skills and knowledge they needed to succeed

Phase one: Depoliticize and foster coherence and capacity-buildingCreated a new management structure. We streamlined the bureaucracy, bringing stability and coherence to an unruly system. We created 10 regions, each comprising three or four community school districts and headed by a regional superintendent.

Focused on school leadership. Created the Leadership Academy to train and support new and existing principals.

Enhanced the curriculum. We implemented uniform math and English curricula and are introducing new curricula in the arts, social studies, and science.

Ended social promotion. We implemented a policy to ensure that promotion is always based on academic preparation.

Engaged families. Created new parent supports, placing a parent coordinator in every school.

Made schools safer. Major crimes are down more than 13% and other incidents are down by more than 45%.

Cut the bureaucracy. Between 2002 and 2007, we sent more than $190 million from the bureaucracy to schools and classrooms. (This has been independently confirmed by the City’s Independent Budget Office.)10

Phase two: Empowerment, accountability, and leadership

Once the system was ready, we empowered our school leaders, giving them more decision-making power, and we held them accountable for results. We also sent an additional $174 million to schools and classrooms, bringing the total money devolved from the bureaucracy to more than $350 million.

11

Decisions are being made close to students:Decisions can be best for students when they’re happening close to students at the school level.

Individualized support options:Principals used to get “support” from regions. Now, they choose what’s best for them from more than a dozen DOE and non-profit options.

Schools also have:More money and more power over budgets, staffing, and programs, letting them tailor instruction and programs to the specific needs of their schools.

New funding and more equitable distribution of resources to schools.

Holding schools accountable for results:Progress Reports (Grades A-F)Learning Environment SurveysQuality ReviewsRewards and consequences based on results

Tools for schools:ARIS provides student performance data to guide school improvement efforts.Periodic Assessments help schools identify  each student's strengths and weaknesses to target instructionChildren First Intensive professional development builds school-wide capacity to diagnose student needs and to develop evidence-based individualized instruction, self-evaluation, and continuous improvement  in student learning.

Empowerment Accountability

51 50 51

48 48 4850 50 50 51 51

53 54

5860

62

6668

46.549.1

52.8

56.459.0

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

12

After remaining nearly flat for 10 years, NYC’s graduation rate has increased by 33% since 2002

Percent of Students in a Cohort Graduating from High School in 4 Years

Class of

1992-2002+ 0%

2005-2009City

Method:+ 17%

State Method:

+ 27%

2002-2009 + 33%

NYC Calculation Method NY State Calculation Method

62.7

NYC TRADITIONAL CALCULATION METHOD

NY State Calculation Method with August GraduatesNotes: NYC traditional calculation includes Local and Regents Diplomas, GEDs, Special Education diplomas, and August graduates. It does not include disabled students in self-contained classrooms or District 75 students. The NYS calculation, used since 2005, includes Local and Regents Diplomas and all disabled students. It does not include GEDs and Special Education diplomas.

Today the U.S. ranks 15th in college completion, down from 2nd

Phase three: Schools organized around the needs of each child

Disciplined InnovationMethodology

Class A

Class B

Class C

Different classrooms, same structure

Schools re-imagined

Globally Competitive Standards• Student learning outcomes aligned to Common

Core, NAS Science, and international learning frameworks.

Personalized Learning Plans & Schedules• Time organized around the needs of students.Mastery-Based Assessment•Competency drives progression

Transforming the Whole School Toward Personalized Mastery LearningFive core principles guide the whole-school vision

Multiple Learning Modalities• Students work individually and in teams to

produce work that demonstrates mastery of complex, real-world challenges.

• Technology extends learning anytime, anywhere.Differentiated Teaching Roles• Adults play multiple roles (including advising,

tutoring, and teaching) to personalize learning pathways and create shared commitment to success.

• Schools customize learning around needs of individual students rather than by age, grade level, and subject

• Students take responsibility for directing and managing progress toward rigorous mastery objectives

• Adults support learning as tutors, advisors, and teachers

Knowledge• Common Core• Information & Tech

LiteracyCognitive Skills• Problem solving• Modeling, transforming,

creating• Research• Interpretation• Communication,

collaborationMindsets• Self-direction• Persistence

15

College and Career Ready Graduate

Innovation Zone School

At your tables…….

• What do you think is the learning for BC – if any – from the examples you have heard about? What do you think are their strengths?

• What would you like to know more about? How might you do so?

The Innovation

Lab Network

S

NEW YORKMAINEKENTUCKY

WISCONSINWEST

VIRGINIAOHIO

Terry HollidayCommissioner

Angela FahertyCommissioner

David SteinerCommissioner

Deborah DelisleSuperintendent of Public Instruction

Steven PaineState Superintendent

of Schools

Anthony Evers Superintendent of Public Instruction

Typical R&D Investments in Innovating Sectors

Pharma: 15%

Defense: 10%

Technology: 7%

Education: 0.7%

SCALINGNxGL

ENTRY POINTS

RAPID PROTOTYPING

CREATING CONDITIONS

The methodology

Scaling NxGL:Pioneering Change for

Next Generation Learning

How systems change

OLD SYSTEM

NEW SYSTEM

Healthy Systems Re-Generate

Education Does Not

Name

IdentifyPioneeringLeaders

Create Networks ofPioneering Leaders

Connect

DevelopCommunitiesOf Practice

Nurture

Foster Systems of Influence

Illuminate

We must cultivate new experiences

of next generation learning

Personalized Learning

World Class Learning/Skills

Authentic Student Voice

Performance-based Learning

Comprehensive System of Supports

Anytime, Anywhere Opportunities

To do that we must change

how the system supports learningHuman Capital

Time/PlaceAssessments

CommunityFinance

GovernanceTechnology

Personalized Learning

World Class Learning/Skills

Authentic Student Voice

Performance-based Learning

Comprehensive System of

Supports

Anytime, Anywhere

Opportunities

Outcomes of the Network

Proof Points

Knowledge

Diagnostics

We will start in places that have the most impact

Gov

erna

nce

Community Human Capital

Technology

Fina

nce

Assessments

Time / Place

Places thatinfluence the whole

system

Gov

erna

nce

CommunityHuman

CapitalTechnology

Fina

nce

Assessments

Time / Place

These are criticalEntry Points

Gov

erna

nce

CommunityHuman

Capital

Technology

Fina

nce

Assessments

Time / Place

NxGLDiagnostics

EducatorCapacity

NxGLAssessments

NxGL ASSESSMENTS

NxGL DIAGNOSTICS

EDUCATORCAPACITY

Provide indicators that focus on Next Generation student needs. Complex performance and engaged learning settings. 

Demonstrate the assessment of the kinds of complex student performance all students can achieve. 

Give leaders analytic capacity required to measure progress

NxGL Diagnostics

NXGL ASSESSMENTS

NXGL DIAGNOSTICS

EDUCATORCAPACITY

NxGL Diagnostics: Examples

Effective measures of core knowledge and skills

Indicators of higher order learning

Effective measures of genuine and persistent engagement

NXGL DIAGNOSTICS

EDUCATORCAPACITY

EXAMPLE EXAMPLE EXAMPLE

NXGL ASSESSMENTS

Reliable, real-time measures of NxGL indicators

Student ownership of learning

Continuous improvement

NxGL Assessments

NXGL DIAGNOSTICS

EDUCATORCAPACITY

NXGL ASSESSMENTS

NxGL Assessment: Examples

Portfolio-based performance/production assessments that demonstrate mastery of complex knowledge/skills

New ways of gaining credit for successful tasks undertaken inside and outside of school, thereby opening up alternative uses of time and space

NXGL ASSESSMENT

NXGL DIAGNOSTICS

EDUCATORCAPACITY

EXAMPLE

EXAMPLE

Commitment to personalization

Reframe the single-teacher model of learning to differentiated roles for adults

NxGL Educator Capacity

NXGL DIAGNOSTICS

EDUCATORCAPACITY

NXGL ASSESSMENTS

NxGL ASSESSMENTS

NxGL DIAGNOSTICS

EDUCATORCAPACITY

SCALING NxGL

ENTRY

POINTSRAPID

PROTOTYPINGCREATING

CONDITIONS

RAPID PROTOTYPING

SESSION

BREAKOUT

State Lab

2. Plan

3. Implement4. Share

1. Diagnose

24-Week Cycle

Diagnose Plan

ImplementShare

Diagnose Plan

ImplementShare

Diagnose Plan

ImplementShare

Diagnose Plan

ImplementShare

PIONEERING CHANGE

ENTRY

POINTSRAPID

TESTINGCREATING

CONDITIONS

CREATING CONDITIONS

Partnership Innovation Platform

Information and Analysis

Connectivity and Advocacy

Experts and Next Practices

InnovationMethods

At your tables…….

• What do you think are the strengths of the CCSSO approach: establishing innovation ‘labs’; rapid cycle prototyping?

• How do you assess their definition of next generation or breakthrough learning?

• What would you like to know more about? How might you do so?