continuous improvement in education
I have been an educator for the entirety of my professional career- now a little over ten years. I’ve been teaching literature most of this time and have an undergraduate degree in the humanities. My bookshelf is full of novels and poetry, and I used to think I’d be a fiction writer. Now, can I be honest? The world of business and management has a great deal to offer educators. Yes. I also recognise that the thought of using structures and insights from the business world can be met with resistance and scepticism among front-line teachers.
Students, after all, aren’t products. For-profit educational institutions are suspect, so mixing these two worlds must be dangerous against the more noble ambitions of teaching and learning.
On the one hand, this view is understandable. After all, for-profit educational institutions are suspect. I’m distinguishing between running a school as a business and understanding how research-based leadership and management perspectives can be used as tools for academic development projects. Many lessons about leadership, project management and developing change initiatives from the business world offer essential strategies for the educator. Since I started the MBA degree last academic year, I’ve been thinking about ways to incorporate research-based approaches to team-building inside the classroom, for instance. So much of the work at the secondary school level is collaborative – but few teachers and even fewer students clearly understand what makes teamwork effective. In preparation for this article, I asked a handful of final-year students how many had worked in teams or groups for school assignments and how often. Not only was it frequent, but the group of ten also had more than one collaborative assignment ongoing in at least one class. I then asked what lessons, tools or strategies they had been given in any part of education that taught them how to work in teams. None had a single example.
This is too bad. There are many resources and tools for educators to learn from, but it comes from a domain underexplored in most educational institutions. The world of leadership and management is rich with ways to manage the processes and operations within the classroom, throughout the school organisation, and in the even more comprehensive school systems. For example, principles and frameworks like lean offer ways of streamlining unnecessary actions to better focus on improving the time spent on teaching, learning and relationship building. Efficiency in the classroom doesn’t mean robots; it means less time spent on actions and activities that don’t matter
Lean thinkers believe that they should not waste customers’ (i.e. students’) time, as that annoys and distracts them, and can result in the loss of future business. They believe that people left to guess about desired outcomes are not using time effectively and that ambiguity and variation in interpretation obscure expectations. Clarifying expectations, succinctly in writing and emphasised verbally, helps both student and teacher do a much better job. Smaller, more focused assignments are given weekly to smooth the workflow, with a balance between individual and team-based assignments. (Emiliani, 2004, p. 181)
Most critical, interventions like lean offer a line of inquiry into exploring what works in the classroom and help formulate an honest appraisal of the continuous learning process.
A lean approach to value and the value stream in education would aim to precisely specify the value of each learning experience and identify how it fits into the broader value stream, so that every step in the educational supply chain delivers value to the learner. To follow this approach, questions have to be continually asked, such as: Does this part of the curriculum offer value? Does this form of assessment deliver value? Does this step in the enrolment process deliver value? The constant focus should be on how the educator delivers value to the learner (Parsons & MacCallum, 2019, p. 13).
This view toward continuous improvement shifts the ways that educators might think about innovations in education and also help educators articulate whether new technologies and techniques might bring meaningful value to the students in a classroom. I wrote previously about the challenges educators and educational leaders sometimes face in developing and defining a strategic direction for teaching and learning activities. A lean focus on value might provide an additional perspective for educators to engage with practice – and offer a simple litmus test as to whether an initiative, project or process should be carried forward. Simply put, how does it add value and in which direction?
I still teach literature and spend many days discussing character development, poetry and metaphors. But there is room – and a critical need for educators and educational leaders to understand the knowledge and frameworks in the business and leadership domains. In earlier posts about my own innovative educational project, for instance, I spoke about the challenges I faced when trying to implement what I thought was a great idea that would help students. This project could have been constructed more appropriately – (collaboratively) with a defined aim. I could have led this initiative more ably if I had understood contemporary models of change leadership. Too late in the project, but at the exact right moment to appreciate the challenges of change management, one of the board members, a former senior consultant at McKinsey, spoke with me about the McKinsey influence model as a way of understanding the key drivers of change:
It was a casual conversation, but it meant a great deal to me . It was the first time I understood that there was a language to conceptualise these issues which has previously seemed not quite possible to grasp. Even though I was supposedly a leader in (what I later understood was) a change project, I had no understanding of the discipline that - although strictly speaking was outside the realm of education - was at the centre of what I was attempting to lead.
In these last few posts I have been attempting to explain this sort of ah-ha moment that I had in that room. There exists a great deal of resources and tools that educational leaders might investigate, but too often these tools and approaches are coming from other disciplines like change management, strategy and neuroscience.
(Basford & Schaninger, 2016, p. 2)
There are gaps in the ways that most teacher and principal training programs frame the practice of education and I'll argue that a great number of the competence models which emphasise “learning to learn” as a focus for student development projects should also be part of the ways teachers themselves approach professional development . Instead of hiring speakers and hosting workshops about tools and techniques, professional development might mean fostering an orientation towards. continuous learning . This is challenging work, no doubt. One place to begin teacher competence development might be to reorient and reframe our understanding of what fits inside the box of professional knowledge. There are answers and, more importantly, good questions about the scope of education and learning that go beyond the walls of the educational institution.
As I think about the research done in business and how we have adapted it to education, I am struck by how relevant it is—especially in the beginning. We can take the business concepts and apply them to our education world. However, as time passes we know intuitively that the research is incomplete and awkward to handle. Often over time, similar research is done within the context of education and it fits naturally. The research now belongs in the educational framework. We have made it ours. The development of the concept of organizational culture is an example, and it opens the possibility that education and the values it imparts will shape the cultures of business in the future (Klinck, 2007, p. 23)
five ways educational leaders promote continuous development:
• Institute a clear strategic position for teaching and learning activities which establishes actionable mechanics to define, evaluate and continuously develop learning programs. A successful strategic position should clearly define broader beliefs about learning and articulate concrete principles of how these beliefs are put into practice. Educational institutions should use these articulated educational principles to further develop metrics of impact for learning and guide decision-making throughout the organisation. This strategic position must be co-created inside the organisation and backed by thorough research. Where possible, affiliations external agencies might provide expertise for this type of development project to ensure the strategic measures are operationalised.
• Review organizational structures to prioritize leadership for learning. The curriculum of both national top-tier international schools is shifting towards a model where emphasis is placed on transversal skills beyond subject areas. Many current curricula do not reflect the scope and aims of these contemporary educational moves. To fully investigate these models and to build, assess and develop a globally competitive curriculum, schools need senior-lever dedicated leadership role(s) for the development of its learning program.
• Leverage middle and emerging leaders to support learning impacts. In addition to senior leadership roles ,organisations should also consider ways of supporting middle and emerging leaders to promote initiatives focused on learning impacts and bringing teaching practices in line with the contemporary state-of-the profession. These middle roles can help train, develop and support teaching and learning through coaching and mentorship initiatives, research based projects for sprint improvements and knowledge-management protocols to build clarity, commitment and capacity to the school's vision of learning.
• Develop and implement a continuous improvement model for the learning community. Shifts in global trends and local operating conditions mean that independent schools must be capable of ongoing development in its structures, programs and practices. Thees institutions can integrate members of the faculty and staff on this project by identifying its core value proposition: to provide impactful learning. There are already strong feedback mechanisms such as the 360 feedback review for the senior leadership team and the performance review cycle for all members of staff. These feedback measures can be more systematically integrated in practice and aligned with a broader learning strategy as early components of the continuous improvement model.
• Commit to cultural transformation. Critical to the ongoing success of educational institutions is the ability to develop and nurture the learning culture and orientation towards development throughout the organisation. The right cultural conditions are the essential ingredients for all other operational improvements. These will undoubtedly take time, energy and concerted efforts on the parts of leadership and change-makers inside the organisation. Small wins and process improvements can help empower teachers, equip them with strategies to develop instructional practices and facilitate a transformative mindset. Innovative initiatives and school transformation processes need careful and considerate change management at all stages and this skill set in particular should be part of the hiring considerations on the leadership team.
Basford, T., & Schaninger, B. (2016). The four building blocks of change Four key actions influence employee mind-sets and behavior. Here’s why they matter.
Emiliani, M. L. (2004). Improving business school courses by applying lean principles and practices. Quality Assurance in Education, 12(4), 175–187. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880410561596
Klinck, P. (2007). Observations on Leadership: Linking Theory, Practice and Lived Experience. In J. M. Burger, C. F. Webber, & P. Klinck (Eds.), Intelligent Leadership: Constructs for Thinking Education Leaders (pp. 13–25). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6022-9_2
Parsons, D., & MacCallum, K. (2019). Agile Education, Lean Learning. In Agile and Lean Concepts for Teaching and Learning (pp. 3–23). Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2751-3_1
ongoing developments (and half-formed ideas)
One of the rather absurd things about being a teacher is this recognition that at least some part of what we are doing in education is about preparing students for the world of work, yet what we are doing doesn’t prepare students for the world of work in a way that is particularly transparent or comprehensible. What I mean is that the things that are directly transferable to personal and professional development seem to be added in between the formal content. It’s like that cheesy youtube video where the professor fills a jar with stones and asks if it is complete. The students say yes, but he adds rocks, sand and water to fill the gaps further. The metaphor is the day will get filled no matter what, so we’d better put the important stuff in first.
I feel like the opposite is valid on most days. The excellent stuff in the classroom, like collaboration and the sense of discovery, rigour and idea generation, is happening in the spaces between the formal assessed curriculum. In addition to an add-on, a nice-to-have. The absurdity comes – at least for this teacher because the excellent stuff is happening to help facilitate learning of content, but (I sure hope none of my students is reading) most of the content for mandated assessment doesn’t seem particularly vital for success in life or broader society – personal or professional. My perception in reading research, blogs from pedagogical leaders and professional social media sites is that I am not alone in feeling this absurdity. And the feeling is not new:
During the twenty-five years from 1945 to 1970 educational systems and their environments the world over were subjected to a barrage of scientific and technical, economic and demographic, political and cultural changes that shook everything in sight. The consequence for education was a new and formidable set of tasks, pressures, and problems that far exceeded in size and complexity anything they had ever experienced. They did their heroic best to cope with these, but their tools of planning and management proved grossly inadequate in the new situation (Coombs, 1970, p. 20).
Oof.
The COVID pandemic shifted the ways that educators work and support students. It is unclear what the lasting impacts of these shifts might be. Still, I argue that one of the fundamental mechanisms for the status quo – external exit examinations – has shown at least some flexibility. The International Baccalaureate cancelled end-of-program examinations last year and calculated the grades based on coursework, teacher grades and a logarithm. True, there was criticism of how the grades were calculated, but I think this news coverage about widespread frustration missed the real significance – the examinations were cancelled. This year the end-of-program examinations have been modified to reduce to instructional and revision load for teachers and students. After these steps are taken in response to the shifting context, how can we ever argue again that there is no other way? My argument is not that there must be a revolutionary change to the global educational system (I’m sceptical about revolutionary innovations, after all). Still, the current context provides a meaningful opportunity for reflection and exploration of ways to integrate shifting technologies and needs into educational practice. In crisis response, we have found many adjustments and adaptations that could be made if the reasons were compelling and urgent. Although a meaningful policy change is most certainly not the same thing as a crisis response, the adjustments in domains like final assessment and university entrance procedures demonstrate, I think, that educational systems can adapt. This flexibility can provide a pathway for planned policy changes and pedagogical innovations in the proper context.
There is no shortage of research and protocols about how current realities in economics, shifting world populations and technological pressures demand a reorientation of global educational systems. Likewise, many pedagogical projects provide insights into what that reorientation might include. A recent report from the World Economic Forum explores how skill and competence development programs shape educational institutions worldwide. The report highlights several models of what a future school might include by investigating innovative schools already in operation.
(World Economic Forum, 2020)
Reports like this are not rare. There are many similar models about the future of education and the shifting need for education at all levels to place focus on skills and competence development as well as soft skills and learning how to learn. But how will these insights be put into practice?
One of the reasons I joined the MBA program in Tampere University of Applied Sciences was because I had heard so much about the success of the Finnish educational system. Most teachers will have at least a few statistics or soundbites about what makes the Finnish system so special. Most of these observations are wrong or at least fundamentally misunderstood. In my visits to educational institutions in Finland – both inside my own university and to also the various regional schools – it became quickly clear that there was nothing in terms of ideas, techniques or technologies that could be easily exported and result in major transformation of an educational organisation or system. The talking points often presented on social medial or praise of any particular element of the Finnish educational system (usually to support a particular ideological position about what education could be if only) does a major disservice to the truth of why the Finnish system works: it has been a real priority (not a political one) for several generations. There is widespread participation in the continuous development of the educational system and an honest recognition about the ongoing work required in making sure that education remain a priority in the country. What works in the Finnish educational system is that the stakeholders seem to recognise the complexity of the system – not a quick fix.
Coombs, P. H. (1970). What is educational planning? United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
World Economic Forum. (2020). Schools of the future: Defining new models of education for the fourth industrial revolution. World Economic Forum Reports 2020, January, 1–33. www.weforum.org
the challenges of innovation
Recently I looked back through previous publications of trends in education reports. I found myself vaguely remembering some of the ideas and strategies for use in the classroom – and plenty of buzzwords that were offered as a way of revolutionising education throughout the world. I reflected on several professional development cycles or workshops where some of these trends were in focus and thought about the significant budget expenses to update technology that didn’t ultimately affect how teachers taught in the schools I have worked in. I don’t think this experience is rare. (Don’t buy smartboards). There is an understandable reluctance when staff and stakeholders consider the prospect of education reform or initiatives to improve educational practice. Frequently, the next big thing in education comes and goes without moving the needle in terms of impacts on student learning or motivation.
I’ve been thinking a lot recently about why the education profession is slow to adapt to change. More precisely, I’m wondering why the profession seems to lack internal mechanisms for continuous development. Even in schools which offer in-service training, workshops and professional development, these initiatives seldom seem to inspire broader change. They are often met with a certain amount of cynicism from the teaching and instructional staff. When curriculum frameworks or innovative ideas have value for student development – what are the limiting factors for introducing these innovations into broader teaching practice? Are other industries similarly slow to adapt and view the prospect of change with similar levels of scepticism?
Leaving aside the specifics of the change or development project, continuous improvement mechanisms are fundamental to a business's ability to adapt and thrive under rapidly changing external circumstances. Why should the educational system be any different?
The concept of education and what constitutes a quality education is deeply complex. It is challenging to develop professionally unless the institution has articulated a clear and compelling strategy. Perhaps this is easier in a business setting where end measures are more quantifiable – profit margins are not constructs like " education “. And although there must undoubtedly be a robust debate about the ways and means within a corporate setting, I suppose the end goals are more mutually understood than in an educational environment with conflicting perspectives about what constitutes quality education. What is it that we are trying to achieve? In most settings, the consensus in a school building is out of reach, let alone a local or national system. Why should this be so? Since education operates in complexity and throughout various domains, change initiatives can seldom simultaneously hold and account for all these domains simultaneously. Reimers writes about the multidimensional nature of the educational system in his exploration of government reform projects:
In undertaking [these] reforms, governments have followed strategies that reflect a cultural, psychological, professional, institutional or political understanding of the change process, often depending on more than one perspective but seldom with a fully multidimensional view of the process. In some ways, these reforms have seen the process of change through one eye, sometimes two, but seldom accessing the kaleidoscopic perspective. (Reimers, 2020, p. 43)
With this perspective, it is no wonder why many educational initiatives fail to fundamentally change the experience and outcomes for the students these initiatives serve. I can think specifically of my project, where the inherent aims of the reform and its value for students were, for me, self-evident, but did my colleagues (or indeed the students) agree? Maybe. But I failed to establish the environment which might facilitate dialogue and consensus building. This same failure is abundant in local, regional and national reform initiatives. These reform initiatives almost inevitably fail to account for all simultaneously, leading to a lack of strategic coherence, which “is often elusive” (Reimers, 2020, p. 9). I wonder how many policymakers and educational leaders make the mistake of assuming that the benefits of a particular improvement program are self-evident to educators and stakeholders or need supporting data on a specific metric of success to prove the value of the program but are unable to articulate the broader complexities and strategic purpose of the initiatives. This elusive strategic direction must be fundamental to any meaningful reform initiative. What is it that the change is aiming for? And why is it so rare that educational change drivers find it difficult to articulate these aims?
“in complex environments such as education in which a multitude of actors are collaborating through formal and informal channels, the sheer amount of feedback and interactivity can seem impossible to navigate effectively” (Blanchenay, Patrick; Burns, 2016, p. 162)
I think this is a crucial point. Many individual actors in educational changes fail to appreciate the system's complexity and how the processes interact. The educational initiatives operate in so many domains simultaneously – pedagogical, political, organisational – that expertise and capacity for change are distributed in ways that make meaningful reform unwieldy to manage. I am reasonably sure that most teachers are unaware of these competing drivers and nearly as confident that most educational leaders don’t fully account for them. The relative success of the given change project is much less about the idea itself and much more about the ways the initiative is coherently managed and the extent to which the organisation has the mechanics, personnel and will to carry the change project forward.
In the early stages of my teaching career, I was in pursuit of the next big thing in education - something that might revolutionise the ways that students learn and develop. This stage mostly ended – I now understand – with the failed project I discussed at length in an earlier posting. The project was a valuable lesson in that the change process – collaboration, management, feedback and strategic purpose – is far more essential than any one idea or curriculum. It’s more difficult, less romantic and certainly less exciting to admit that educational development doesn’t come with a breakthrough model, brain research, or new technologies. It comes from continuous growth, ongoing reflection and the ability to generate shared visions and collaborative effort. This is far more challenging. Educational innovations and broader reforms require conviction, action, coherence, and strategy across impact domains.
Change knowledge is not a disembodied set of facts but rather a deeply applied phenomenon in the minds of people. Moreover for this knowledge to have an impact it must be actively shared by many people engaged in using the knowledge. There are more examples of such shared use in evidence, and if it continues to spread we may have the breakthrough required for change knowledge to have an enduring place in the field of education reform. As always the route to achieving such a critical mass is not to wait for it to happen but to be among those promoting its use even if those around us seem disinterested or against it. Large scale successful reform occurs in a thousand small ways during the journey. Don’t go on this journey without being equipped with an active and open ended grasp of change knowledge. (Fullan, 2007, pp. 39–40)
Blanchenay, Patrick; Burns, T. (2016). Policy experimentation in complex education systems. In Governing Education in a Complex World (pp. 161–186). https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264255364-10-en
Fullan, M. (2007). Change Theory as a Force for School Improvement. In Intelligent Leadership (Vol. 6, pp. 27–39). Springer Netherlands.
Klinck, P. (2007). Observations on Leadership: Linking Theory, Practice and Lived Experience. In J. M. Burger, C. F. Webber, & P. Klinck (Eds.), Intelligent Leadership: Constructs for Thinking Education Leaders (pp. 13–25). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6022-9_2
Reimers, F. M. (2020). Audacious education purposes: How governments transform the goals of education systems. In Audacious Education Purposes: How Governments Transform the Goals of Education Systems. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41882-3
a reflection on failure
I was involved in a large student competence development project at an international boarding school a few years ago. I have mentioned this program in passing on a few episodes of the podcasts and in detail with my colleagues. The project – and its challenges – was the core source of motivation for joining the MBA program in Educational Leadership at Tampere University of Applied Sciences. I wanted to understand how to undertake large-scale change and development projects and my leadership capacity. I have had many opportunities to do so throughout the program. I have yet to confront the content of the project itself directly – and how the insights from this project might be better understood from a more comprehensive view of competence development programs in particular and educational leadership more generally. What went wrong, and why didn’t the ideas and research about student skills development on the page have the results I had been working towards? Where was the gap between the vision and the reality? What are the limitations of the current educational reality, and how might it be bridged?
First, a story.
I worked for an ambitious boarding school in the Caucasus region as a teacher for nearly two years. The organisation’s board of governors had the vision and the funding to extend the scope of the school beyond the academic program and towards practical applications and partnerships with NGOs and local service needs. The students themselves had been selected on scholarship based on their motivation and capacity to engage in global change-making projects. Though it sounds like a lofty ideal, it was already happening. Students were creating and developing projects with the local community which had measurable impacts – staff and student teams set up sports camps with participants from throughout the country, started a recycling-based business that led to government funds and broader initiatives and even an art camp that hosted young children from neighbouring nations in conflict to open dialogues and promote peace in the younger generations. It was an exciting place to be. The wider mission of the organisation, the funding and the student and staff motivation were all in place, and the atmosphere was dynamic.
What was missing – and I was not the first to recognise it – was a formal skills development program that would support the students as they engaged in these ambitious projects. Our school had a rigorous academic program, and many competent staff members helped informally train students to manage and prepare for these undertakings. Still, these trainings were not formally organised or planned – and students were learning a lot through trial and error. Since the students were 16-18 years old with only two-year groups at the college at any one time, a great deal of institutional knowledge got lost along the way. Collaborative efforts with local and regional NGO partners were based on personal relationships that students had fostered – so many projects came and went and were replaced as the graduating class left. A new group of students and project initiatives began. This lack of institutional knowledge put a limit on what could be achieved in the real world, and the lack of formalised curriculum meant that the school had no means of ensuring all students had access to learning. There was also no means of measuring what was working and why.
I proposed a “toolkit” of competencies and skills that all graduating students might attain. The proposal was primarily built around 21st-century skills, and a needs assessment that I performed by interviewing students, staff and NGO counterparts to understand what worked in the service programs and what the missing ingredients for these programs were. I created the concept, proposed it to the leadership team and eventually was appointed to lead a project to create a curriculum to support the students in these leadership initiatives and service projects. The idea was that this co-curricular program would be equally important to the academic program and might be a key value added to our college’s educational offerings. It fit within the wider vision to support global change makers and students who have the capacity to manage and lead broad service projects. It was a dream job in every way. I felt that the core focus of the role was to develop a curriculum of what I hoped education could be – its position was fundamentally to support student competencies in soft skills, leadership, project management and personal development. It meant working on all the truly valuable aspects of education. Still, I often lost in the competition for space, time and attention against subject content, assessment and university entrance considerations. I could do the things I loved and felt deeply attached to and build them from contemporary research.
I had never been more dedicated, creative, and in love with the work as I was in that position. Ultimately, the project failed, and I failed. It was painful and humiliating. There is some solace – though not much – in the idea that this experience is not unique.
“Educational change initiatives, whether they involve new policy implementation or school reform, often fail to achieve the desired impact. The reasons are frequently framed in terms of either a poorly designed process on the part of the change initiator, or in terms of problems with the attitudes, skills and/or knowledge of those responsible for implementation” (Timperley & Parr, 2005, p. 227).
The fundamental mistake I made – and I imagine this might be common to other educational leaders as they embark on early career projects – was a misunderstanding of the leadership task. I thought my role as an educational leader was to design a compelling piece of research and a framework for teaching and learning rather than a carefully designed change process. In the early stages of the project, I retreated in research and created a nearly final version before I sought input from colleagues and stakeholders. Partly from a desire to demonstrate some expertise and partially because I didn’t understand that I was leading a change process, this decision meant that colleagues who should have been co-creators in the early stages of the work were left with little to meaningfully contribute.
The size and prettiness of the planning document is inversely related to the amount and quality of action, and in turn to the impact on student learning (Fullan, 2007, p. 34).
For teachers moving into leadership roles, this required shift in thinking from individual performance to facilitating dialogue and managing change is a critical distinction that can get overlooked. Innovations, ideas or improvements go nowhere without a clearly articulated strategy and methodology for change.
After the project launched and I recognised that things were not going according to plan, I made another critical error that I can recognise in too many educational initiatives – when the change project failed to gain widespread support, I spent much of my time and energy building administrative checklists and compliance measure. This was a fear and control move – of course, there are suitable applications for compliance and accountability, but compliance measures do not generate trust and a shared commitment to a common vision - the essential ingredients of any meaningful project.
“Educational change often fails because individual change efforts are poorly designed. The goals of the change may be unrealistic or unclear, so teachers cannot achieve what is expected of them. The perpetrators of change may have low credibility; their reasons may be politically suspect; the intentions regarding real improvement for students may be in doubt. Changes may be too complex and overwhelming, requiring teachers to work on too many fronts at once” (Hargreaves, 2002, p. 189)
The prospect of institutionalising educational reforms is challenging because it operates in the realm of professional identity – that is to say that in order for a change to be accepted there has to be either a consensus about how the reform fits into a faculty’s conceptualisation of the educational act or be compelling enough to demand a revisioning of some element of the teaching and learning process. Timperley and Parr refer to this dynamic as “theories in competition” and suggest that these underlying beliefs too often go unexplored resulting in misaligned goals, frustration and ultimately failed projects. It is too easy to assume alignment or mutual understanding - maybe because it is a challenging prospect to actually build it.
In the following few posts, I aim to explore the broader challenges of educational innovations as they relate to wider policy changes and change project. In particular, I aim to reflect on how educators might reorient themselves toward the prospect of educational change not as end state but rather a process of continuous development.
THEORIES IN COMPETITON
Timperley, H. S., & Parr, J. M. (2005).
Fullan, M. (2007). Change Theory as a Force for School Improvement. In Intelligent Leadership (Vol. 6, pp. 27–39). Springer Netherlands.
Hargreaves, A. (2002). Sustainability of educational change: The role of social geographies. Journal of Educational Change, 3(3/4), 189–214. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021218711015
Timperley, H. S., & Parr, J. M. (2005). Theory competition and the process of change. Journal of Educational Change, 6(3), 227–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-005-5065-3
why connected?
The idea for the podcast is simple. Here is a collections of shared conversations with educators and leaders around the world who are engaging in inspiring work. I hope that these recordings - the shared ideas and experiences of the guests - might spark further conversations, ideas and connections.
This podcast came as an extension of the conversations and dialogues originating in a MBA programme in Educational Leadership from Tampere University that I feel lucky to be part of. The MBA s a blended degree with intensive weeks and virtual teams meeting throughout the duration of the programme. There is much to be said about the value of the degree as a whole - and I will certainly write about this at some point - but the real magic of the programme are these moments of deep dialogue which occur as we think and work through this shared experience together. The podcast project is my attempt to extend those conversations and share them with a wider audience. In turn, I hope these conversations might be generative in the sense that the network of teachers, educators and leaders who might learn from one another - and rely on one another - grows as well.
While I wouldn’t call the teaching profession lonely work, what I do feel is that many of the conversations about education within organisations often revolves around the mundane - administrative work or first-order problem solving. There is seldom enough space, time (or the mechanics) to get to the stuff that might build up the capacities of teacher, leaders and the organisation as a whole. My belief is that real conversation is the critical piece.