Week 28 Indigenous Knowledge and Cultural Responsiveness in my Practice:

My understanding of indigenous knowledge and cultural responsiveness within an education field, is one that looks at and nourishes the entire child, looking at who they are, where they come from, their interests, passions, strengths and weaknesses and celebrates these concepts as an integral part of daily teaching and learning practice (Bishop, Berryman, Cavanagh & Teddy. 2009). Te Kotahitanga research has shown that Maori students feel valued and succeed when schools embrace ‘Maori language, curriculum content that involves Maoridom and Maori knowledge and involves teaching and learning shared relationships (Savage, Hindleb, Meyerc, Hyndsa, Penetito & Sleeterd, 2011). Kia Eke Panuku (2013-2017) describes 5 core elements required in order to develop Culturally Responsive and Relational Pedagogy as ‘Whanaungatanga - Relationships of Care and Connectedness, Mahi tahi Kotahitanga - Power shared and learners have the right to equity and self determination, Whakapapa - Culture counts, learners’ understandings form the basis of their identity and learning, Ako - Sense-making is dialogic, interactive and ongoing, Wanaga - decision-making and practice is responsive to relevant evidence, Kaupapa - Our common vision and interdependent roles and responsibilities focus on the potential of learners’.

As our school is made up of 422 students and 311 are Maori we have decided to go on our own journey of developing a more culturally responsive and relational pedagogy learning environment. As developing a learning place that is culturally responsive and shows relational pedagogy lifts Maori achievement and success for Maori. We have enlisted the support of Te Whare Wanaga o Awanuiarangi and our COL across school specialist teacher to guide as on our journey. We begin with getting a team of staff together that were interested in developing and leading our school on this journey. This team consists of senior management, teachers and support staff. We then brainstormed what each on the five core concepts (as indicated above) would look like in our school and in our classrooms. This provided us with expectations, from 1 to 5, that were tailored to our school’s needs and goals while embracing culturally responsive pedagogy. Then our surveys went out to all Year 4 to 6 students, all staff including and to our families. This provided us with both student and family voice. The team begun ‘Rongohia te Hau’ classroom walk-throughs, two people would sit in a classroom with a focus of gather all evidence. These were very structured, 5 minutes mapping, 10 minutes writing everything that the observer sees and hears from both teacher and children and then 5 minutes looking at the classroom environment. After each observation, a group of three or four people would moderate the observation against our 1 to 5 criteria. Our next step to to pull all our information together, information from our surveys and classroom observations and also our achievement, attendance, at risk, pastoral care, GIFTED, PB4L data to present our school with a real picture of how culturally responsive we are and also if we demonstrate a pedagogy of relational care.   

While our journey is only beginning, I have already learnt so much about developing a Culturally Responsive and Relational Pedagogy. Culturally Responsive and Relational Pedagogy can be present in every space in a school from the library to our restorative justice programme, every space is a learning space. Culturally Responsive and Relational Pedagogy is not limited to a bilingual environment, nor does it involved only speaking a language. Culturally Responsive and Relational Pedagogy may not exist simply  because you are an experienced teacher in a lead role within a school.  Culturally Responsive and Relational Pedagogy is developed by teachers and staff that truly care about children, that believe in empowering children, that coach and guided children to achieve success.

Our journey has provided us with the opportunity to begin to look more clearly and with focus at our practice, school wide systems, where we spend our money and how we teach and learn at Allandale School. Developing a more culturally responsive and relational pedagogy throughout our school will support our Maori students to reach their true full potential.  

Reference list:

Bishop, R., Berryman, M., Cavanagh, T. & Teddy, L. (2009).Te Kotahitanga: Addressing educational disparities facing Māori students in New Zealand. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(5),734–742

Savage,C, Hindleb, R., Meyerc,L., Hyndsa,A., Penetitob, W. & Sleeterd, C.(2011) Culturally responsive pedagogies in the classroom: indigenous student experiences across the curriculum .Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39(3), 183–198:

Kia ora and welcome to Kia Eke Panuku. (n.d.). Retrieved May 29, 2017, from http://kep.org.nz/

Week 27 Practice: The Broader Professional Context

Our children are facing an ever changing world,  a world where everything is accessible while some things can seem totally unattainable. Like our ever changing world the field of education is also ever changing as a result of the impact of global trends (OECD. 2016). Trends are many such as urbanization, the global economy, environmental change and the nature of conflict, the most pertinent to me and the children that I have is the impact of globalisation, especially surrounding ‘family matters’ (OECD. 2016).

In the OECD report (2016) ‘family matters’ identifies the move from historic notions of the makeup of a family to a new reality. We no longer have the traditional breadwinning dad, stay at home mum with four children (OECD, 2016). Children are now coming to school from diverse family groupings and these family dynamics have a huge impact of their education both positive and negative. More and more of our children come from families of divorce, single parents, grandparents bringing up grandchildren and smaller families with older parents and this has impacted on how we teach and how children learn.  

Children who live in a non-traditional family can face challenges and barriers. Evidence shows that many of our children are living in single parent families, same sex families and or being brought up by grandparents. The financial burdens and prejudice placed on these families have a negative consequences and this is evident in the OECD (2016) report. The consequences for these children are poor health, household debt, high stress levels and poverty. The consequences in schools are a raise in behaviour concerns, low achievement and success at school and total disengagement with education.

Children that have diverse family structures need to have strong positive relationship at school. Cowie, Otrel-Cass, Glynn, & Kara (2011) identify the importance of building positive relationships through developing a ‘Culturally responsive pedagogy’. ‘Teaching in a culturally responsive way involves power sharing—tuakana teina in action (Cowie, Otrel-Cass, Glynn, & Kara. 2011). A classroom that has developed shared power has built strong trusting relationships that embrace and celebrate who the child is,  where they come from and this is essential for today’s children. Developing relationships should also be extended to using these new family structures in the school and classroom. Utilizing all parents experiences and knowledge to support learning in the classroom from older parents, mixed race, mixed gender will prove our children with a balanced look at society (OECD, 2016).  

The world is an ever changing place and education mirrors the world, educators need to continually build positive relationships to ensure that diversity is celebrated and all our children are successful.   

References:

Cowie, B., Otrel-Cass, K., Glynn, T., & Kara, H., et al.(2011).Culturally responsive pedagogy and assessment in primary science classrooms: Whakamana tamariki. Wellington: Teaching Learning Research Initiative. Retrieved from http://www.tlri.org.nz/sites/default/files/projects/9268_cowie-summaryreport.pdf

OECD. (2016) Trends Shaping Education 2016, OECD Publishing, Paris. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/trends_edu-2016-en

Week 26 Reflection on critically analysing issues of socioeconomic factors, school culture and professional environments in relation to my practice.

Every school in the world has a school culture and our school is no different. How positive and effective your school's culture is determined whether the culture is by default or if the school culture is driven and steered by leadership, deliberate in its effect and purpose (Gargiulo, 2014). School culture as defined by Stoll (1998), as recognition of an organisation's beliefs, aspirations and assumptions. Positive school cultures are guided by a specified direction and are influenced by their stakeholders, environments and communities. In order to develop a positive school culture one must have an ultimate goal while understanding and recognising the perspectives of many.   

Our school is made up of a growing community with diverse strengths and needs. We are a decile 2 school with predominantly Maori students in attendance. Like many NZ schools our statistics show an over representation of Maori students not reaching their potential, especially Maori boys. There is an overrepresentation of Maori students displaying concerns in the areas of behaviour, learning and disengagement. The American Association of Psychology (2016) has shared that socioeconomic inequities provides barriers for students and that the negative impact of socioeconomic factors manifest into low education, poor health, low social standing, high chronic stress and low literacy.

I believe that as a school we currently use some of Stoll’s (1998) 10 norms to to continual make improvements of our school culture that will have a positive impact of our families and our children and should possibly look at the others in our future. Stoll (1998) identifies 10 norms as “shared goals, responsibility for success, collegiality, continuous improvement, lifelong learning, risk-taking, support, mutual respect, openness, celebration of humour”.

We have a shared vision and set shared achievement goals which are developed at the beginning of the year and reflected on throughout the year. Allandale staff have always been open to continuous improvement and many are actively portraying lifelong learners, this has been evident in the 8 teachers taking on high level study this year. Our staff take on the responsibility for success and support very seriously. Sometimes I feel that so much that can be detrimental to their personal life. Over responsibility and support can also perpetuate a victim culture of reliance and low expectation. Our school is an extremely busy place, supporting and leading new interventions and initiatives and while this develops an openness and risk taking it can also cause have a detrimental effect for our staff.  Staff become ‘all about the business’, work in silos and totally work in the defeatist therefore  perpetuating a lack of mutual respect, collegiality and the importance of celebrating through humour (Stoll, 1998).

As stated in the beginning of this reflection a positive and effective school culture is developed through being provided with direction in a shared purpose that supports the assumptions, aspirations and beliefs of all and at Allandale School I  believe that while we are still growing our school culture we are heading in the right direction with the right team (Gargiulo, 2014).  

References:

APA. (2016). Education and Socioeconomic Status. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/education.aspx

Stoll. (1998). School Culture. School Improvement Network’s Bulletin 9. Institute of Education, University of London. Retrieved from http://www.educationalleaders.govt.nz/Culture/Understanding-school-cultures/School-Culture

Gargiulo, S. (2014). Principal sabbatical report. Retrieved from http://www.educationalleaders.govt.nz/Leadership-development/Professional-information/Principals-sabbatical-reports/Report-archives-for-2007-2014/Secondary-award-recipients-2014/Gargiulo-Salvatore

Week 25 Reflection on Community of Practice:

With Wenger’s (2000) explanation of Community of Practice closely on my mind I identify with many Communities of Practice. However, while the field of teaching and learning supports multiple Communities of Practice the most powerful that comes to mind is between the six colleagues and myself that began the Mind Lab journey together.

Drew Manning, Sam Hamilton, Katrina Black, Kay Simpson, Janene Giordano and myself. These are the six teachers that are on the journey to complete the Mind Lab course. We began this journey with a common feeling of excitement to learn new things that could better our collective practice and also apprehension around meeting requirements and doing well. All six teachers are passionate about continual learning and improving teaching that builds on our own knowledge while lifting student achievement. Over the course our Community of Practice developed into many phrases, people willingly shared their expert knowledge and strengths and also shared their weaknesses. Kay Simpson, Janene Giordano and myself worked collaboratively throughout the entire course this transpired into weekly get togethers to discuss course materials and write assignments. While Drew Manning, Sam Hamilton and Katrina Black completed their assignments generally as individuals, we would all get together to discuss, clarify, reflect and share ideas. Wenger, McDermott & Snyder, (2002, p.4) identifies Communities of Practice as “groups of people who share a concern or a passion or about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interaction on an ongoing basis”

Kay Simpson, Janene Giordano and myself fully understood that due to our professional and personal responsibilities and our individual strengths and weaknesses  and in order to success through this course the journey would need to be a joint-enterprise (Wenger, 2000). We held regular weekly, both formal and informal meetings that focused on clarification of requirements, reflecting on course materials, writing,  completing assignments, discussion around implication of new learning (Jurasaite-Harbison & Rex, 2010). These meetings would equally take place at school and/or in our homes. The school meetings would begin at 3.00 and finish at 5.00 and focus of course material. Our home meetings, which were based around assignments, would be full day get togethers.  

All members of our Community of Practice fully participated within it and took lead roles that supported their field of expertise.   Kay Simpson would lead conversations about readings and course materials, a facilitator role within our Community of Practice (Wenger, E. 2000). This provided the community with clarity around expectations and opened the gates to in depth discussions about research articles.  I provided the continual drive and organisational component of the community and took a leader role in our Community of Practice (Wenger, E. 2000). After our discussions I would often start the ball rolling for assignments as I am very task oriented. Janene Giordano took the role of an active member within our Community of Practice (Wenger, E. 2000). Her contributions and work input and output was extremely high.  We have historically worked alongside each other and our strong positive relationship and connectedness  enabled us to gel together quickly and effectively. We have successfully learnt alongside each other, completing all requirements, overcome challenges while continually developing and strengthening of Community of Practice.

References:

Jurasaite-Harbison, E., & Rex, L. (2010). School Cultures as Contexts for Informal Teacher Learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(2), 267-277.

Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization,7(2), 225-246.

Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.