The recent debate, it is all about context

By Steve Saville

The recent debate, it is all about context.

I’m sure that I am not alone in voicing my frustration that, all too often, the narrative around the challenges education currently faces is dominated by a simplistic binary approach.

It seems that this ‘either-or’ approach is often driven by the media, politicians and, in fact, anyone who isn’t in the classroom. Those who are, know full well that the binary does not exist in the kaleidoscopic world they inhabit.

Whether it be curriculum, attendance, assessment, flexible learning spaces, knowledge rich or skills based or an ‘approach’ like structured literacy we seem to be increasingly encouraged to be on one side or another.

So, I have actually been heartened by much of the debate that has centred around blog posts like Becca’s on DisruptEd. Not just because hers is a strident and passionate stand on behalf of teachers and learners but because these blogs have encouraged a conversation, a discussion, a debate, since this is how we make good decisions, by debating, challenging, listening and then, often, finding common ground to enable us to move forward together. It is through conversation, discussion and listening that we can move from a position of convergence to divergence.

The point of convergence that is particularly encouraging in this debate that I have been following is heartening because initially one side seems to be questioning an ‘’approach’  and the other is putting forward a case that an ‘approach’ can overcome all the obstacles currently faced in schools, moves from this point of divergence to convergence because  both have at their core a common goal. This is best summed up by a line from Joanne Bishop’s response to Becca’s post.

 Because before the programme comes the pedagogy. And before the pedagogy comes the child.

In other words what initially seemed like voices from across the divide, through discussion and debate becomes two perspectives on how to achieve the same objective.

-We know this to be obvious, as we have come across models like Kaner’s ‘Groan Zone’ and other models for navigating change.

Kaner's Groan Zone

-We know this to be obvious, because this is how our staff rooms have always functioned.

Ideas are put forward, we debate them, we contextualise them, we trial them, we nurture them and then we implement them in a way that is relevant and appropriate to context and in a way that can be sustained. This is what happens when teachers discuss solutions to the challenges we face. We may come from different starting points but ultimately we move together because we all care most about one thing, the children we have been trusted with to develop.

For this conversation and debate to move from divergence to convergence and meaningful implementation though, teachers have to be given the time, place, trust and respect to engage and decide what will work best for their students and their school, the current binary approach merely divides us into camps and all too often the context we exist  in is lost in the argument about who is right and who is wrong and  then it all changes again every three years when we have an election.

So now I want to add my bit to the debate because I think there is a simple way of seeing how we can move to convergence to sustainable and meaningful change. This can be best shown by the diagram.

In the middle [violet] area we have the two seemingly opposing standpoints already mentioned. On the one hand there are those who believe that before all else we need to have care for the child. This is the creation of a ‘warm’ classroom. Inclusive and safe and respectful. Without this there will be no trust and therefore no genuine, agentic learning.

Then there are the voices that say an ‘approach’ will bring about the desired results and this is the ‘demanding’ aspect of the classroom. Together they form a ‘warm and demanding’ classroom where care and an ‘approach’ combine to lift student attainment and mana in a caring, nurturing environment.

BUT… care itself will achieve little other than exactly that… care, and an ‘approach’ by itself will achieve nothing apart from routine task compliance with little relevance apart from the completion of a series of activities.

An ‘approach’ is vital and will work. Structured literacy will work towards overcoming reading and writing obstacles if it is implemented with fidelity [at least initially], with support, resources, training and with a vision. In fact, I would argue that almost any ‘approach’ will benefit student outcomes if it implemented with fidelity, long term support and vision. It is, however, not enough in isolation.

These two vital components are almost meaningless though unless they work together and are placed in the context they are expected to be effective in.

Context is everything.

The primary context that exists is Context 1 [the light blue section] that is the context of the child, their reality, their world and their needs. This is the Why of what we do. The violet section then is the What that we do [we care and we present learning experiences]. If this is where we stop we are likely to get compliance and engagement, we are likely to get settled classes and task completion but not quite reach the pinnacle of what a ‘warm and demanding’ classroom aspires to be.

For that to develop we need to acknowledge and actively develop the How aspect, this is the second context [the light green section]. This is the focus on the mahi, the work the students do. For students to see the purpose and validity of the tasks they are being asked to master they must see the work they are doing as being authentic, accountable, meaningful and relevant to them. Otherwise, the work is just a series of tasks.

This is where the immediate role of the teacher is paramount.

This is where Russell Bishop’s pleading for constant feedback and feedforward to students as deliberate acts of teaching needs to be highlighted…again.

This is where a teacher discusses the work in the ‘here and now’ because as Hattie explains, the best form of feedback is the immediate and the oral. Oral discussions about the student work with the student increase its mana and its value in the eyes of the student.

In the same way Hattie explains how a student needs to know, where they are at, where to next and how to get there. These class based, immediate and constant conversations around student mahi give the work purpose and import. It is here that we are likely to move from compliance and engagement to empowerment, agency, accountability, ownership and hopefully, joy. Caring about the student is not enough unless it is woven in with a care for their work. This is where the ‘warm and demanding’ becomes the norm and develops to a point where the ‘care’ and the ‘approach’ work together to develop and enhance the learning experiences of our ākonga.

Division and being in differing camps will achieve nothing, weaving through context will.

Ultimately the ‘approach’ will then have to flex to meet the needs of different contexts but if the training has been effective and if the support is ongoing and if the debate is encouraged then this is a good thing.

So, what am I saying?

Well, to reference another comment I read on a thread recently.

The goal of literacy is not to just understand the word but to understand the world.

This is what I am arguing for.

An ‘approach’ will likely give the basics that need to be mastered, will give the competence and confidence to encourage students to explore and grow but it is just the starting point. It is how they are used by a student to understand the world that makes a real difference and for this to happen an awareness of the dual contexts is key.

An example.

 I was in a class recently where the students were weaving individual tukutuku panels. The school had brought in a weaving expert who was a skilled and passionate artist. The learning was immediately elevated and given import. The students were taught the basics of tukutuku weaving and shown examples, this was the ‘approach’, the deliberate and explicit teaching. They then had to design their own small panel, the colours and the design. They had to write a brief explaining how the tukutuku panel was meaningful to them. Their learning was now relevant to them, the skill now had purpose and meaning. They had to write an explanation justifying and explaining their decisions around colour and design. The writing I saw was very good and there was genuine pride in what they wrote and how they wrote it. Because of the care for the mahi there was care for the word. They were then busy creating. This was serious to them, they knew they were accountable because they had been told that their weaving was going to be displayed in the school whare.

Finally, the tutor praised them… justifiably, but said she was returning next week because most of their knotting was still too loose and not quite perfect. ‘Warm and demanding’ in the context of care for the child and care for the mahi. And, yes, the class were joyful.

In the afternoon, the same room, similar students, same day. Again, the lesson plan looked great. Students were emulating the style of a famous Māori artist. But the purpose and relevance had not been made as clear so it remained a task. The good artists in the class flew but the rest of the class were, at best, compliant.

We need to converge.

We need to take ‘care’ and ‘approach’ and contextualise them into the world of the child and just as importantly in the work of the child.

We must engage in conversations with each other and with our students about this work, their work, our work if we are to develop the ‘warm and demanding’ classrooms where there is a joy of learning and a joy for learning.

It is not about knowledge or skills, straight rows or flexible spaces.

It is about convergence on context, the context of the child and their mahi.