Artichoke

A Giant Romance of Primitive Life and Unfettered Love.

Whatever happened between “Me” and “You”?

It was easy to understand our relationship in the beginning. It was what I like to think of as “a giant romance of primitive life and unfettered love” - a "Me Tarzan, you Jane" kind of thing.

Me: (pointing to herself) Consumer.
You: (he points at her) Consumer.
Me: And you? (she points at him) You?
You: (stabbing himself proudly in the chest) Producer, Producer.
Me: (emphasizing his correct response) Producer.
You: (poking back and forth each time) Consumer. Producer. Consumer. Producer...

With apologies to Tarzan, the Ape Man (1932)

I gave you money for the goods and services you produced - “Me Consumer, you Producer.”  

We still have “a giant romance of primitive life and unfettered love” but now instead of Me: (pointing to herself) Consumer….You: (stabbing himself proudly in the chest) Producer, Producer… there is a Me (producer) You (consumer) kind of thing going on.

Web 2.0 means I produce my own content and you, well you (and the other wannabe manipulators of the cloud) become the consumer.  You don’t care about the quality or integrity of what I produce it is enough that I broadcast content, for by taking control of the distribution channels, and using the information I produce, you profit.  You are Google, Apple, Amazon … and the rest.

It is a simple relationship where you leverage off my activity. And the more I/me can produce the more profit you generate – so you work hard to make production easy and attractive for me and the students I teach.

"The more links we click, pages we view, and transactions we make, the more intelligence the Web makes, the more economic value it gains, and the more profit it throws off." Carr 2008 cited in Lovink 2010.

In the educational world I inhabit the “me” do not question your generosity, we do not pause to ask why you shower us with so many applications and services. We love you big time – we love your work – we love what you do.  In the guise of e-learning we not only use your production tools, feed your clouds, and encourage our students to do likewise, we also worship what you provide. 

Watching the activities of edu-bloggers and self proclaimed elearning experts online it is a little like watching the ouroboros consuming its own tail. In a strange act of self-worship we use your production tools to worship your production tools.  In a testimony of our faith in you we create edu_blog posts on “Ten best XXX apps for educators”, we enshrine your apps in purpose built displays and descriptions in edu_wikis, and we upload video to explain how to use your apps and production tools. 

In the educational world we are your fevered but reverent producers. You, well you must know where you stand in this relationship.   

Web 2.0 has three distinguishing features: it is easy to use; it facilitates the social element; and users can upload their own content in whatever form, be it pictures, videos or text. It is all about providing users with free publishing and production platforms. The focus on how to make a profit from free user−generated content came in response to the dotcom crash. Geert Lovink MyBrain.net The colonization of real−time and other trends in Web 2.0

Web 2.0 has changed more than our me you relationship – Web 2.0 has changed me.  I am no longer the same me – I am no longer a privileged node in a network – I am no longer in charge – my me is blurred – With Web 2.0 I am a me that is part of a centralised infrastructure that is you – and you identify me and profit from, every click I/me make –

With Web 2.0 I am a “controlled and manipulated” me.

With Web 2.0 I am a “commodified” me.

Being commodified is an odd sensation – it makes me wonder about the temporal me.

Am I more me at some times than others? And if so when am I most me?

This feels like a vampiric question or even a Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde thing.

With Web 2.0 it seems I am me in the present more than I am me in the past. The information I am encouraged to produce focuses on knowing me in real time not me in any past time.

You - the controller of the centralised infrastructure – the clouds and the data streams – have an insatiable appetite for “the real-time data” me.   And this valuing of the real time data me privileges the present.

The pacemaker of the real−time Internet is "microblogging", but we can also think of the social networking sites and their urge to pull as many real−time data out of its users as possible: "What are you doing?" Give us your self−shot. "What's on your mind?" Expose your impulses. Frantically updated blogs are part of this inclination, as are frequently updated news sites. The driving technology behind this is the constant evolution of RSS feeds, which makes it possible to get instant updates of what's happening elsewhere on the web. The proliferation of mobile phones plays a significant background role in "mobilizing" your computer, social network, video and photo camera, audio devices, and eventually also your TV. The miniaturization of hardware combined with wireless connectivity makes it possible for technology to become an invisible part of everyday life. Web 2.0 applications respond to this trend and attempt to extract value out of every situation we find ourselves in.  The Machine constantly wants to know what we think, what choices we make, where we go, who we talk to. Geert Lovink MyBrain.net The colonization of real−time and other trends in Web 2.0 2010 http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2010-03-18-lovink-en.html

Asking “when am I me?” makes me realise that as a real-time me, I am an uncomplicated me, a me trapped in the present. This me is a product of a Simon Schama like “machine driven universe”. You know me by my most recent keyboard interactions with the screen

"For if the entire history of landscape in the West is indeed just a mindless race toward a machine-driven universe, uncomplicated by myth, metaphor, and allegory, where measurement, not memory, is the absolute arbiter of value, where our ingenuity is our tragedy, then we are indeed trapped in the engine of our self-destruction." Simon Schama Landscape and Memory Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1995 http://www.amazon.com/Landscape-Memory-Simon-Schama/dp/0679735127

Who is the real-time me?

The real-time me is the real “real-time me”. There is no place anymore for an alternative me; no space for the virtual “real-time me”. The “controllers of the cloud”, the “new overlords of the distribution channels”, want the real “real time me”.  They have no time for an alternative me – the Artichoke me, they want only the real me.  The new relationship between me and you values the old order, the existing power hierarchies’ of gender, race and position.

We constantly login, create profiles in order to present our "selves" on the global market place of employment, friendship and love. We can have multiple passions but only one certified ID. Trust is the oil of global capitalism and the security state, required by both sides in any transaction or exchange. In every rite de passage, the authorities must trust us before they let both our bodies and information through. The old idea that the virtual is there to liberate you from your old self has collapsed. Geert Lovink MyBrain.net The colonization of real−time and other trends in Web 2.0 2010

And when I give you information about the real time me I give you control and power. I give you an enduring digital memory of me that acts as both a spatial and temporal panopticon.

If Orwell was right, and … “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” Then by becoming a producer in your Web2.0 world I have given you control over my past, my present and my future.

And I am so excited by the ability to upload my own content and report on whatever I am thinking or doing in a real time stream of content that I neglect to interrogate the consequences.  What does it mean when I give up control and power, when I become part of someone else’s content stream, when I offer all that I do and think as an enduring digital memory?  What does it mean when I encourage my students to act in the same way?

Viktor Mayer-Schönberger has explored some potential responses to the challenges of this new relationship, the challenges of an enduring digital memory in “Delete.  The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age”. 

The first four chapters of”Delete” book focus on the consequences of failing to forget. They are well argued and although this is a topical issue for many Web 2.0 commentators Mayer-Schönberger introduced insights, ideas and content that were new to me.  His thinking around the role of remembering provided a far deeper analysis and critique of the topic than Gordon Bell and Jim Gemmell managed to collect in their book “Total Recall – How the e-memory revolution will change everything.”  Bell and Gemmell offer valorising description; in contrast Mayer-Schönberger offers critical analysis of the causes and consequence of remembering everything.  How remembering everything overload me with information, information that impairs my ability to reason, information I would be better off forgetting.

Delete is by far the more interesting read.  

The last two chapters of “Delete” – Chapter V “Potential responses”, and Chapter VI “Re-introducing Forgetting” best captured my attention.

Mayer-Schönberger has a useful categorisation of responses to living with an enduring digital memory.  So useful in fact that I spent a happy hour creating a CMap that used his classification to explore these in the context creating enduring digital memories through student eportfolios – an enduring affection of educators and one that I have been hearing about at edu_conferences since 2002. I could equally have explored the huge amount of data schools collect on their students and their families.

 Mayer-Schönberger clarifies that when we increase the amount of information about ourselves and our students in digital memory we risk:  

1.      Loss of control and power over the information we place online.

2.      Exposing student information and data in a digital panopticon (both spatial and temporal) where selective pieces of their information and data are under surveillance to people, and for purposes and times we have little to no control over.      

3.      Overloading with information we are better off forgetting, information that impairs reasoning.

What I enjoyed most was his interrogation of seven suggested responses to the challenges arising from the creation of enduring digital content. My notes describing each of the categories are included below – you will have to read the chapters to fully appreciate the critique.

Responding to the challenges of an enduring digital memory

The Relationship Responses:

Three of Mayer- Schönberger’s responses are based around the individual and relationships.  He explores ways in which the individual can decrease the flow of information between one person and another – between me and you. And critiques the potential success of each.

Responses framed around

1. Social Norms and Individual Self Control

Firstly an individual’s power to decrease the flow of information could arise through mechanisms of social norms and individual self control.  Personal behavioural change – Mayer- Schönberger refers to this as digital abstinence. So once educators and students appreciate “the implications of abandoning forgetting when digitising information we will stop providing information to others and digital memory of these outcomes will cease to exist.   

2. Formal Laws

Secondly an individual’s power to decrease the flow of information could arise through mechanisms of formal laws.  These information privacy rights would afford students “with a legally recognised claim over their personal information, thereby empowering them to maintain information control on whether and how the information is shared.” This would include a Purpose Limitation Principle whereby “the recipient of the personal information can only use it for the purposes to which you consented and no others”.   

 3.  Architecture

Thirdly an individual’s power to decrease the flow of information could arise through mechanisms of architecture – through a Digital Privacy Rights Infrastructure. Mayer-Schönberger argues that a Digital Rights Management (DRM) infrastructure similar to that developed for information in the context of copyright (movies, music, games, digital books) is used in the context of forgetting any personal information.  Your personal data is paired with meta-information about who can use it and how. Media players check this meta information and refuse to play information content if usage is not appropriately authorised. Individuals could add meta data to their personal information detailing who can use it for what purpose and for what price. 

Mayer-Schönberger notes this would require laws to prevent reverse engineering, requiring surveillance to protect us from surveillance – we create a panopticon to protect us from a panopticon.

The Cognition, Decision Making and Time Responses:

Responses framed around

1. Social Norms and Individual Self Control

Here Mayer-Schönberger suggests reducing the amount of information in digital memory by mechanisms of social norms and individual self control. He suggests that Cognitive adjustment at the cultural level will let us disregard old facts and information.  We will accept that people change and pay heed to only the recent online.

2.  Formal Laws

The formal laws approach could be used to reduce the amount of information in digital memory if we introduce an Information Ecology that allows for deliberate regulatory constraint of “what information can be collected, stored and thus remembered by who and for how long. However, Mayer-Schönberger notes that recent trends have seen a loosening of existing constraints on information in digital memory rather than a tightening and increasing calls for transparency legislation to fight corruption both of which would compromise this response.

3. Technology    

 The technological response to limiting the amount of digital content online made me smile.  It suggests a Gordon Bell like experience but with one notable difference the Gordon Bell like content collected is shared with everyone.  So we limit the negatives of storing content online by increasing the amount of information in digital memory.  This proposal identifies that it is not digital memory per se that is the problem – it is the selective nature of this digital memory that compromises us.  “When everything is transparent surveillance loses its power.”

The Re-Introducing Forgetting Response.

Mayer-Schönberger’s proposal for re-introducing forgetting by “making forgetting just a tiny bit easier than remembering” is elegant – both simple and powerful in its scope.  By prompting the user to set expiration dates each time they save and upload information and information bits - content, detail, comments - to digital memory they confront users with the problem. I enjoyed Mayer-Schönberger’s analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of re-introducing forgetting (for example, it fails to address privacy concerns). When the control remains with the producer of the content, and we shift the default back from retaining information forever to forgetting it after different time periods we restore something of what it is to live well with technology, we restore what it is to be human.  We allow a giant romance of primitive life and unfettered love to continue.

If you are someone who likes to count things …

… you will make something of the fact that the word “competition” only occurs once in the New Zealand Curriculum document.

Or “Why everything you have been told about genetics, talent and IQ is wrong”

Or “What students are” versus “What students do”

I will admit that I am a bit of a fanboy for the outcomes based thinking of educationalist and academic John Biggs.

I like using multiple alternative representations when I am trying to understand new ideas and ways of knowing and Biggs and Collis’ Structured Overview of Learning Outcomes is a representative framework that is never too far away when I stumble over something new.

Nudging up against SOLO Taxonomy is “a wash” experience for most of the educators I work with.  Not a “dry creek bed or gulch that temporarily fills with water after a heavy rain” kind of wash experience – that fleeting post conference charismatic keynoter euphoria kind of “wash” - but rather a “wash experience” where the overwhelming simplicity and power of the idea that washes over you leaves a small load of pigment that binds to all the fibres in the raw canvas of your experience and learning.

The effect of SOLO Taxonomy on the interpretation of teaching and learning is long lasting, it   pervades your imaginings, and it marks you in a way that influences all that follows.

My response to nudging up against SOLO Taxonomy in 2003 has been a sharpening of my educative focus – I now use the coarse focus knob, the fine focus knob and the diaphragm to explore the fine detail in “What students do”. 

To do this I try to be very clear about the;

• Intended learning outcomes - what I want students to do,

• Learning experiences that will help students achieve the intended learning outcomes – small steps that help students do, and the

• Self-assessment that helps students determine if what they have done meets the intended learning outcome. 

My attention is distracted every now and again by “What students are” as is the attention of every policy maker, academic, school and teacher.  The following extract from an academic’s  report to a local school reveals this well.  

Traditionally teacher expectations studies have examined why teachers have high expectations for some students and not for others. For example, the literature shows that teachers tend to have higher expectations for New Zealand European students than they do for Maori (Rubie-Davies, Hattie, & Hamilton, 2006), that they have higher expectations for students from middle class socioeconomic backgrounds than they do for students from poorer areas (Jussim, Smith, Madon, & Palumbo, 1998), that they have higher expectations for boys in maths and science and for girls in reading (Qing, 1999) and that they have lower expectations for students who have a diagnostic label, e.g. ADHD,  than they do for the same student who does not have a label (Stinnett, Crawford, Gillespie, Cruce, & Langford, 2001). These studies ask the question: what is it about a student that means their teacher may have high or low expectations for him or her? Rubie-Davies et al 2009.

And there is no end to the edu_bloggers whose online musings reveal their preferred educative focus as “what students are”.

But I am wary when I find myself thinking like this.

“What students are …” encourages us to place students on some kind of educational continuum, to blur these students across different gross demographic palettes of age, race, sex, sexuality, physicality, personality, culture, language, gender, family, class, and locale as explanation.

Gross demographics encourages us to smear students across a continuum from; gifted to special needs, engaged to disengaged, 21^st Century learner to 19^th Century luddite, digital native to digital immigrant, male to female, Maori to Pakeha, endemic to introduced, ESOL to monolingual , pinko grey to café au lait, North Shore to Westie, first born to last born, extrovert to introvert, kinaesthetic to visual learner, heterosexual to LGB, endomorph to mesomorph, South Aucklander to South Islander, middle class to upper class, high decile school to low decile school etc.   

This thinking encourages us to set up educational policy and lobby groups calling for educational funding by claiming that “This group of students are failing to achieve because they are [insert gross demographic] as a consequence they have special needs that are not currently being met … and as a consequence of having unmet needs we need access to [insert figure sought] from “budget education” to redress the inequality.”

Gross demographic thinking about “what students are” though seemingly easy to characterise and communicate, pretends to a quantitative reliability and validity that simply does not exist.  We assume a conceptual stability that ignores the influence of life world attributes.  

The gross demographics of “who students are” is unstable – it interacts with life experiences, interests and orientations, with values, dispositions sensibility, with communication and interpersonal styles.  This interaction introduces ongoing differences within the demographic that are far greater than the difference claimed for between demographics.

There is no gross demographic that determines with any degree of validity or reliability what a student is.

And thinking about “what students are” involves us in a second betrayal. 

Even if gross demographics could be shown to be stable and identifiable adopting gross demographics as explanation for success and failure carries an underlying assumption of blame – it suggests that “what students are” explains why students fail -

All of this thinking about “what students do” rather than “what students are” is why I have much enjoyed reading “The Genius in All of Us: Why Everything You've Been Told About Genetics, Talent, and IQ Is Wrong” by David Shenk. 

The Genius in All of Us is a book that undermines and reveals in equal measure.  It is a book that educators and government policy makers should interrogate if they want to understand why the nature nurture debate is both mis-framed and damaging to the way we educate young people for achievement.

Shenk’s argument is that current research into the dynamic interactions that occur between genes and the environment mean that we have got our notions of “giftedness” and achievement all wrong.  He uses research and wide ranging examples to argue that it is the interaction of genes and the environment (GXE) that determines who we are, that intelligence and its representation in great achievement is a process not a thing.

Intelligence is not an innate aptitude, hardwired at conception or in the womb, but a collection of developing skills driven by the interaction between genes and environment.  No one is born with a pre-determined amount of intelligence.  Intelligence (and IQ scores) can be improved.  Few adults come close to their true intellectual potential. Shenk 2010 p 29    

Much like his previous book "The Forgetting: Alzheimer's: Portrait of an Epidemic"  (which helped me better understand Alzheimer’s and other dementia related conditions) Shenk provides extensive support in his sources and notes section to clarify and amplify his argument. His extensive note making reminds me of the scholarship of Ivan Illich; it provides a valuable insight into assumptions and misconceptions made around achievement.  "The Genius in All of Us" is a well reasoned and thoughtful book.

Thinking about achievement as a process, and acknowledging the extraordinary plasticity of our genes interaction with environment, leads Shenk to make a series of recommendations for parents.

1.  Believe each child has enormous potential.

2.  Set high expectations, demonstrate persistence and resilience but do not use emotional rewards for success or punishments for failure.

3.  Reward persistence intermittently, develop delayed gratification.  Model self-control and give kids practice.

4. Embrace failure – present, monitor and modulate challenges.

 Many educators are also parents and would claim they understand intelligence as developmental.  Yet the ways we parent and the ways in which we do school - frame policy and provide programme - betray us. Reading Shenk will clarify how much of the research we undertake (and the programmes we provide for teaching and learning) suggest a mind set of genetic determinism rather than GXE development.

The chapter that captured my interest unpacked the significant role competition plays in achievement.

I know I generalise here but “competition” is not revered in teaching and learning in New Zealand primary and secondary schools. We tend to frame competition as harmful and unnecessary in terms of achievement.  You just need to leaf through the New Zealand Curriculum to see that the notion of competition it is absent from any recommendations around the effective pedagogies. The notion of competition is remarkable for its absence.

If you are someone who likes to count things - the word “Competition” only occurs once in the New Zealand Curriculum document.

Students learn most effectively when they have time and opportunity to engage with, practise, and transfer new learning. This means that they need to encounter new learning a number of times and in a variety of different tasks or contexts. It also means that when curriculum coverage and student understanding are in competition, the teacher may decide to cover less but cover it in greater depth. New Zealand Curriculum p34

Shenk’s writing helped me better understand the flaws in the arguments that have been used to eschew a competitive culture developing within New Zealand schools and classrooms.

The problem is that different people have very different attitudes towards competition.  In 1938, Harvard psychologist Henry A. Murray proposed that human beings could be separated into two distinctive competitive personalities: HAMs (“high in achievement motivation”) and LAMs (“low in achievement motivation”).  HAMs enjoy and perform better under directly competitive conditions than they do under non-competitive conditions.  LAMs dislike competition, do not seek it out, and are less happy and productive when pushed into it.  They do better when pursuing so-called mastery goals – improvement of a skill in comparison to oneself rather than to others. P121

In New Zealand these different attitudes HAM and LAM have been aligned with gender demographics – claims are made that the broad structure of our National Certificate for Educational Achievement (NCEA) awards removes competition and as such favours girls (who are represented as LAMs) over boys (who are represented as HAM’s). 

Interestingly Shenk reports research that reveals there is “no fixed male or female competive biology”.  

“In Western societies, a higher proportion of men are HAMs and a higher proportion of women are LAMs …. this is not universal or genetically hardwired.”    P121

We are once again betrayed by the ease of gross demographic thinking – Note to self: I must remember this the next time gender arguments around competition resurface in the media. 

A more interesting question is raised by Shenk. It is one I wish educators in New Zealand had grappled with before rejecting competition per se.

Shenk asks us to imagine “healthy rivalry”.

“How can we best create classrooms, offices, and communities where competitive instincts are rewarded but where less competitive individuals also feel energised rather than suffocated?

His suggestions startled me, they aligned so well with John Bigg’s proposals for engaging students through constructive alignment using SOLO Taxonomy. Refer: Teaching for Quality Learning at University.  Third Edition John Biggs and Catherine Tang.  

“Not surprisingly, the answer turns out to be making sure that near-term tasks are clear and meaningful.  If short-term tasks can be made relevant to log term goals, researchers have found that even LAMs will dive in and relish the challenge.  This fits perfectly with Ericsson’s “deliberate practice” – the satisfaction of working hard to master near-term goals, learning to enjoy the process rather than focus on the large gulf between current abilities and the far off ideal.  Shenk P122

It is not a contradiction to maintain high expectations of every student, and to show compassion and creativity for those who inevitably, do not immediately meet these expectations.  Failure should be seen as a learning opportunity rather than a revelation of a student’s innate limits.  Shenk P123

Shenk’s solution is for educators to focus on “What students do” rather than what turns out to be a genetic deterministic based misrepresentation and myth about “What students are”. 

And once we understand “achievement” as developmental rather than fixed perhaps we will be less bothered by “failure” which we will understand and more importantly represent to students as developmental.

We should have taken more notice of Heraclitus.

Is educational research asking the wrong questions about the enacted curriculum?

I have been lost for a while, reading and re-reading Jaron Lanier’s book You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto

Lanier’s book explores the unintended consequences of digital design on human culture, identity and what it is to be human This is a mind altering book, a provocative and powerful book, a book to interrogate, a book that ought to be on every teacher’s professional reading list, especially those of us who pretend to understand and interpret educational technology.  

I am not ready to blog about Lanier’s thinking yet but and as a consequence of reading Lanier I am adopting his list of suggestions for what an individual can do. 

• Don’t post anonymously unless you really might be in danger
• If you put effort into Wikipedia articles, put even more effort into using your personal voice and expression outside of the wiki to help attract people who don’t yet realise that they are interested in the topics you contributed to.
• Create a website that expresses something about you that expresses something about who you are that won’t fit into the template available to you on a social networking site.
• Post a video once in a while that took you one hundred times more to create than it takes to view.
• Write a blog post that took weeks of reflection before you heard the inner voice that needed to come out.
• If you are twittering, innovate in order to find a way to describe your internal state instead of trivial external events, to avoid the creeping danger of believing that objectively described events define you, as they would define a machine.

Reading Lanier made me better able to value the thinking in thought piece provided by cj. 

Edwards, R. (2009) Translating the Prescribed into the Enacted Curriculum in College and School Educational Philosophy and Theory.

Edwards’ 2009 paper Translating the Prescribed into the Enacted Curriculum in College and School asks me to think about the curriculum in quite different ways.  His paper contains two case studies to support his thesis that the prescribed curriculum (“in the form of unit descriptors —texts which inscribe the standards that students are meant to achieve”) - become (in)visible in the translations of the practices of curriculum-making and the people, spaces and artefacts that are translated in the process.

 

I am exploring a different tack, which assumes that difference and multiplicity is inherent in curriculum-making practices and therefore there is nothing to be explained as such. It is simply the case. This raises questions about the helpfulness of examining curriculum-making drawing upon the typology of the prescribed, described and enacted as it has largely been taken up (Bloomer, 1997). Edwards 2009

 

Edwards looks at curriculum through ANT description. 

Here order and stability are temporary network effects and not inherent in materials or objects. Unlike most framings therefore, ANT does not privilege human consciousness or intention. Both the animate and inanimate are treated as materially equal. The symmetry between inanimate and animate objects in ANT arises because  ‘human powers increasingly derive from the complex interconnections of humans with material objects ... . This means that the human and physical worlds are elaborately intertwined and cannot be analysed separate from each other’ (Urry, 2000, p. 14).

Edwards describes Callon’s classification of the translation process within ANT like interconnections or networks through four moments;

 

1. Problematisation – the inclusions and inclusions allowed in the network
2. Interessement – the practices through which barriers are built between network and not network
3. Enrolment – the practices of alliance within the network
4. Mobilisation

And uses these to understand the ANT network of a standardised curriculum

 

Curriculum-making is multiple precisely because the prescribed curriculum mobilises different networks of actors. Thus, as Mulcahy (1999, p. 97) suggests, lecturers and teachers engage in a ‘strategic juggling of representational ambiguity’ among the varied standards inscribed in the prescribed curriculum of unit descriptors and the like.  Difference and multiplicity in the curriculum is therefore to be expected and described rather than be identified as problematic and explained (away). This raises important educational questions about the status and equivalence of learning outcomes within a standardised curriculum and the type and amount of work that is necessary to exclude multiplicity in the name of standardisation. Edwards 2009

I am enjoying thinking about curriculum in a non-linear way; identifying how problematisation, interessement, enrolment and mobilisation allow me to understand its complexity in new ways.  But I am anxious that I misinterpret ANT and reduce it by my imaginings to yet another theory – all that “is understood as a diverse domain of conceptual and empirical work that explores how the people, objects, practices and ideas come to be organized and ordered in particular ways, while resisting its own authority as yet another reductionist theory” Edwards 2009

Most of all I am excited by the potential of ANT to help better represent e-learning curricula and pedagogy in school and by how arguments Jaron Lanier makes in You are not a Gadget will fit here.

Edwards paper launches with a quote from Latour that I am holding close

To translate is to betray: ambiguity is part of translation. (Latour, 1996, p. 48)

His paper forced me to look carefully at my day job as a curriculum describer and to go back to the beginning to re-examine my assumptions about curriculum.  The italicised content that follows comes from Edwards.

He makes me wonder if our struggle with the enaction of curriculum is doomed to be forever Sisyphean because we misunderstand “difference and multiplicity and the continuously generated effect of the webs of relation within which curriculum networks are located and instead search for reasons, problems and explanation. “  

I read the paper in the context of the New Zealand Curriculum and as I read it led me to ask the following questions. 

Question: Does our New Zealand curriculum prescription “specify certain learning outcomes to be achieved at a specified level within a hierarchical system of assessment”?

Answer: Yes – check out p44 onwards

Question: Does our New Zealand curriculum prescription “also make broad statements about expectations in relation to teaching, learning and assessment practices to achieve those goals, thereby seeming to limit the possibilities for diversity”?

Answer: Yes – p34 to 36 provide examples of this

Question: Do I believe that a “very standardised and rational” curriculum will “in principle enable and support student mobility and the portability of credit within the education system”?

Answer: Yes I don’t think this unreasonable

 

Question: When it comes to curriculum am I a prescriber, a describer or an enacter?

Answer: I am probably mostly “describer” sometimes “enacter”.

 

Question: How is what I understand about curriculum as a describer similar to what the prescriber or the enacter understands?

Answer: I keep a focus on describing learning outcomes which is something both prescribers and enacters purport to value.

 

Question: How is what I understand about curriculum as a describer different from what the prescriber or the enacter understands?

Answer: The understanding of curriculum can stray into blame based interpretations of outcomes based on “who students are” and “what teachers do” – I try to keep my description focused on “what students do”  

 

Question: Do I read blogs and websites devoted to curriculum describers - the “often idealised narratives of practice provided by teachers, lecturers and students”?

Answer: All the time

Question: Do I accept that the following factors influence my attempts and the attempts of others to enact the curriculum? 

For example

• contextual e.g. national policy, funding arrangements;

• organisational e.g. nature and size of institution and subject department, styles of management, level and type of resources, locus of decision-making, internal or external assessments;

• curriculum e.g. the ways in which the curriculum is prescribed, nature of the curriculum i.e. academic or vocational;

• micro-political e.g. collegial, hierarchical or individualistic, expectations of students and parents; and

• individual e.g. professional formation and dispositions of lecturers and teachers, student backgrounds and prior experiences
  

Answer: Yes I think I do

 

Question: How much time do I spend in professional learning communities talking, thinking, meeting, completing action research, blogging, and tweeting about these factors?

Answer: More than I wish to share here

 

Question: Is my expectation that this discourse will sort these factors in a way that will improve the enaction of the curriculum?

Answer: As Bauman notes In Does Ethics Have a Chance in a World of Consumers? (Institute for Human Sciences Vienna Lecture) quoting Havel “hope is not prognostication.” It is, alongside corage and will, a mundane, common weapon that is too seldom used.” So yes it is my expectation.

 

Question: Are my efforts to improve the enacted curriculum in New Zealand  based on a belief that learning outcomes are/ should be the same despite different contexts for and means of developing and demonstrating them.

Answer: I guess so

 

Question: Do I see the curriculum as a “black box” – “as a taken for granted object, bounded by a context which (mis)shapes it in unexpected ways”?

Answer: Given what I have claimed already I must

 

Question: When we research the unexpected ways in New Zealand - why differences in the enacted curriculum occur – do we assume that explanation will help us learn how to control them.

Answer: Yes

 

Question: Is this a warranted assumption?

Answer: Ahhhhh … I don’t know .. I have never really challenged it before

 

Question: Is enacted curriculum research in New Zealand that is framed on explanation, an unwarranted and ultimately unhelpful simplification of a more complex process?

Answer: Arghhhh…

 

Question: Is educational research around the enacted curriculum in New Zealand asking the wrong question/s?

Answer: This is a frightening question to contemplate

 

Instead of looking at the factors that can be positioned to explain differences between the prescribed, described and enacted curriculum to bring about their closer alignment, we need to examine more closely the actors in the multiplicity of curriculum making practices (Fountain, 1999). The emphasis then is on describing closely how things come to be the case without privileging human intention and agency. I am arguing therefore that much of the current shape of debate around these issues is unhelpful, as it suggests a possibility precisely for control and prescription based upon a priori distinctions, which is unavailable due to the heterogeneity and multiplicity of practices.Edwards (2009)

 

Question: Is implementation of the prescribed curriculum (in its enactments (described and enacted curriculum)) in a linear sense an educational fantasy?

Answer: It is possible

 

Question: Is what I do in school to help clarify and thus standardise the learning outcomes in the prescribed curriculum (describing the prescribed curriculum so that it may be “better” enacted) no more than fantasy?

Answer: That the expectations in the day job are no more than fantasy – to accept this is to betray my purpose – but I cannot reject it  

 

Question: Is standardisation of curriculum “an (un)stable and precarious achievement”?

Answer: It is disquieting that after reading Edwards this seems increasingly likely

Gawande’s Checklists: "I know what to do and why thinking".

I cannot remember a time when I haven’t been thinking and or reading about models of learning and designing for learning – it is a personal Pythonesque search for the educational holy grail – I am looking for a deeper logic or better understanding of the assumptions that sit underneath the models and processes we use in education – I can sense what I am after – but it remains tantalisingly out of my grasp.

I have been seeking connections by mapping intentional design processes across many contexts – I started with models for learning and learning outcomes (Biggs and Tang 2007) and  “effective pedagogies” for teaching diverse students (Alton-Lee 2003), but more recently have explored the exhibit design process in museums (Houtgraaf and Vitali 2008), traffic calming or designing roads for pedestrian and vehicle safety, conversational design to maximise oncology patient understanding of treatment options, archaeological constructs for description and interpretation of objects with or without inscriptions (Gardin 1980), agile iterative design for software development to meet clients needs, government initiatives designed to drive citizenship, GANTT charts as design tools for project management of critical paths and logical dependencies in engineering and construction, and most recently checklists designed for the World Health Organization’s Safe Surgery Saves Lives program (Gawande 2009)

Learners are complex, learning is complex and the processes that connect the two are exponentially more so.  Designing the processes that connect learning with learners is high stake stuff. The costs of mistakes or inefficiencies in any of the above are socially, economically, politically and environmentally dire. For example, our current Minister of Education is promoting the implementation of National Standards a process designed to raise student achievement of numeracy and literacy skills.

This Government is ambitious for all our children and young people. We know that many of our students are among the most successful in the world, but we also know that too many are falling behind. Nearly one in five of our young people leave school without the skills and qualifications they need to succeed. This has to change.

That’s why lifting student achievement is a key priority. Students need good literacy and numeracy skills to participate in the curriculum, to stay engaged in learning, to leave school with good options, and ultimately to succeed in the workforce.  Hon. Anne Tolley Minister of Education 2009 in National Standards Information for Schools.

When I look at learning in NZ schools there is a pedagogical tension between using “instrumental learning” processes where students are explicitly taught skills and strategies thought necessary for concept progression (more usually examination success in secondary schools) and using “relational learning” processes that build “I know what to do and why” understanding.  It is a tension that is particularly evident in secondary schools where the second approach is represented as time hungry, uncertain and inefficient. 

Many of those wanting to build relational understanding with students assume that spending time on rote procedural knowledge is an important precursor for developing deeper conceptual understanding. This seems like a common sense approach – a let’s keep a foot in both camps kind of approach.  However, research findings in math education suggest otherwise (Pesek and Kirshner 2000). It seems more likely that, in maths education at least, time spent building prior instrumental understanding is an interference to, not an aid to, developing relational understanding.

Designing instructional experiences and national curricula to build relational understandings is challenging. It is easy to imagine why we feel more secure with designing learning experiences for rote procedural knowledge or skill acquisition.  In fact, the only time I have been part of a dedicated approach to building teacher capability in designing learning experiences for relational knowledge was with the promise filled but ultimately of no consequence (aka now mostly forgotten) LISP (Learning in Science) projects in the 1970’s and 1980’s (Hipkins, R. et al. 2002)

The degree to which the LISP findings are reflected in the teachers' pedagogical practices and the students' received curriculum is less clear. Despite the pre-service programmes that include the LISP findings, and the in-service programmes run in some parts of the country as part of the 1993 science curriculum implementation work, the actual uptake and use of the LISP findings in classroom pedagogies and supporting resources is thought to be varied and has yet to be widely researched.  

It seems classroom teachers at the time found the pedagogical approaches suggested by the LISP academics too challenging and the effective pedagogies for building science understandings failed to be implemented across classrooms in New Zealand.

There is no guarantee of success even when teachers are given the conceptual progressions for learning.  We too often betray both the purpose and outcome of the progressions by turning them into teaching activities for instructional understanding. Given the conceptual understandings needed for solving linear equations (see below) we fragment the conceptual progressions and use/misuse them by teaching them as a sequence of memorisable facts/strategic routines rather than looking at them and designing learning experiences to build relational understanding of the I know what to do and why type.

Conceptual understandings needed for solving linear equations - NZC Level 5 Algebra (Petersen 2010)

1.      notion of variable [generalisation] and isolating variable [Number knowledge concepts required]

2.      notion of ‘equality’ [various meanings of ‘equals’ sign – not just ‘operate’ but equality]

3.      notion and application of ‘inverse operations’ [retaining the ‘balance’ of the equation and links to part-whole / additive thinking from Number strategies and basic knowledge such as inverse operations/facts of addition/subtraction and multiplication/division]

4.      notion of and operating with integers [Number knowledge and strategies to deal with operations with negative numbers]

5.      notion of like terms and ability to operate on like terms

6.      ability to understand and use the distributive principle [links to multiplicative thinking from Number strategies - generalisation]

7.      notion of and ability to use simplification through strategies such as the distributive principle

8.      ability to understand and have strategies to deal with multiple step/variable equations through the use of elimination and substitution

9.      ability to understand and choose from available strategies to deal with simultaneous equations

I loved Gawande’s  previous books “Better” and “Complications” but had been a little hesitant about purchasing his latest.  I work in schools that use checklists in their planning and reporting and the teachers who use them often struggle to explain what learning experiences they have designed to meet the expectations within the checked box.  Check listing seemed to me more often a form of pedagogical vacuity than anything else.

All of this is why I was surprised and undermined when I did succumb at the end of the summer break and order a copy of his latest book – “The checklist manifesto – How to get things right.” 

Medicine like teaching is complex – Gawande’s description of how the WHO attempted to remedy surgical practice allows many parallels to be drawn with teaching. When I got to page 90 I hit this … try swapping teaching literacy/numeracy for surgery throughout.

“On the one hand, everyone firmly agreed: surgery is enormously valuable to people’s lives everywhere and should be made more broadly available.  Even under the grimmest conditions, it is frequently lifesaving.  And in much of the world, the serious complication rates seem acceptably low – in the 5 to 15 percent range for hospital operations.

On the other hand, the idea that such rates are “acceptable” was hard to swallow.  Each percentage point, after all represented millions left disabled or dead. Studies in the United States alone had found that at least half of surgical complications were preventable.  But the causes and contributors were of every possible variety.  We needed to do something.  What though wasn’t clear.” (Gawande 2009 p 90 and 91)

Gawande goes on to describe the suggestions for improving surgical practice; these ranged from more training programs, to incentive approaches such as the pay for performance schemes, to using ever advancing technologies, to “the most straight forward thing for the group to do” – “to formulate and publish under the WHO name a set of official standards for safe surgical care.” 

Options that any educator who has sat around a table with others would be familiar with.

Eschewing these options (and I loved the reasoning used to reject them) Gawande goes looking for any examples of successful global public health interventions. 

When he teases out the important ideas underneath the globally successful WHO interventions he finds that the essential requirements for success were that the intervention was "simple, measurable, and transmissible".

How Gawande settles on a strategy that involves “searching out the patterns of mistakes and failures and putting a few checks in place” is what makes the book a must read for educators.  The solution seems such a simple thing and yet after many iterations and refinements it proves to be such a powerful strategy for improving the way surgical teams operate, for creating “the power for a group of people to work together.”

Gawande’s checklists are quite different from the ones I was familiar with in schools – these asked surgical teams to

Summarise and simplify what you do

Measure and provide feedback on outcomes.

Improve culture by building expectations of performance standards into work processes.

The Checklist Manifesto leaves me wondering if we might deal with the complexity of creating literate and numerate young people in a similar way.

Acting like a kite, witnessing the future and marshalling resources.

Asking how we identify the future – and how we bring the future into the present form a large part of current educational discourse – especially those edu_conference keynote conversations.  

Jensen (Witnessing the Future pdf) cites Serres and Latour and suggests that “assemblage”, “design”, “finish” and “slickness of advertising” all play a role in how we identify the future .  

"What are things contemporary? Consider a late-model car. It is a disparate aggregate of scientific and technical solutions dating from different periods. One can date it component by component: this part was invented at the turn of the century, another ten years ago … Not to mention that the wheel dates back to neolithic times. The ensemble is only contemporary by assemblage, by its design, its finish, sometimes only by the slickness of the advertising surrounding it" (SERRES & LATOUR, 1995, p.45). [1] 

It made me wonder why we focus so much of our attention on the future, when our educational present needs so much help.  

Jensen provided an answer when he identifies the critical shift in the conversation as being the shift from “"looking into the future to looking at the future, or how the future is mobilized in real time to marshal resources, coordinate activities and manage uncertainty" (BROWN & MICHAEL, 2003, p.4).  

So people like us to look at the future (or at least think we are), because the existence of a  classroom of the future (or a school of the future) allows resources to be marshalled.  

Marshalling resources is high focus activity in education. And it is not just the educational technology companies that are trying to do this. Monday’s NZ Herald  features a local special education centre that would like to marshall some resources to keep paying the salaries of two therapists.   

Finding out how to persuade people they are looking at the future so we can marshall resources would be useful for lots of people. 

Jensen’s study suggests that “looking at the future” is all about persuasion and witnessing; and that these strategies are not as different as you might imagine.  Both are artificial, constructed situations.

So if you want to marshal resources in education by marketing yourself as the future you will need to learn how to play with both. 

When reading  “Witnessing the Future” I realised that I had never really understood persuasion – nor did I have any clear measure of how to judge whether persuasion had taken place. 

In describing “the procedures and rhetorical strategies” used by a manager to persuade business journalists that it was “the office of the future”, Jensen argued that we can tell if “Persuasion has taken place if a second actor follows a first actor in such a way that the first actor's program is strengthened.”  

So power is understood as a consequence of an action rather than a cause.

The actions of others make me powerful.  

I take this to mean that when I am persuaded to RT a fellow tweetcher – I am enhancing their power. 

Persuasion has occurred because I have acted in a way that empowers/ strengthens the credibility of a fellow tweetchers message.  All that “repeating and disseminating” makes Twitter as much a strategy for persuading other tweetchers as it is a strategy for informing others. Something already understood by those educators controlling multiple accounts who regularly re-tweet themselves – an activity I found bewildering and just a little sad until now.  

So repetition reveals an act of persuasion; because repetition reinforces the power of the persuader.  “One hundred million blowflies can’t be wrong” thinking rules Ok. 

NetGen Sceptic’s recent post describes repetition as a Snark Effect strategy The Snark Syndrome and the Net Gen Discourse  

In Women and Science: The Snark Syndrome, Byrne says about women in science:

"By dint of repetition three times (or thirty), the educational community had internalized an oversimplified and often unscholarly selection of beliefs and premises which had descended to the 'everyone knows that...' level of slogan-like impact."

Thus the Snark Syndrome is the "assertion of an alleged truth or belief or principle as the basis for policymaking or for educational practice, although this proves to have no previous credible base in sound empirical research"

The Snark Effect is the application of the Snark Syndrome to implement specific educational policies and practices.

The post identifies the advantages to be gained/ resources that might be marshalled if repetition is used to persuade educators that the NetGen exists as being related to digital technology.

“I have lost track of the number of times I have heard educators repeat the stereotypes about the Net Generation: short attention span, expert mutitaskers, technologically savvy etc etc. Countless Michael Wesch-like You Tube videos are circulating urging us to wake up and change our ways or else risk losing an entire generation of learners who we are failing to engage. The answer, we are told, is more digital technology.”

I recognise high levels of “Snark Syndrome” repetitive NetGen and witnessing the future educational discourse in Twitter streams, blog posts, newsletters and educational conference presentations in New Zealand.  And it is working. Resources are being marshalled through digital technology because of it.

So once we have the repetition thing going how else do we mobilise the future in real time to marshal resources? 

 Jensen’s article moves from repetition to “Tricks of the Witnessing Trade” – many of which will be familiar to educators who are charged with witnessing digital classrooms bedecked with wirelessly lap-topped/mobile phoned students.   

Think of strategies of virtual witnessing, drawing in multiple allies and those courtroom strategies of highlighting, categorising and undermining.   

The United Spaces manager persuaded others they were witnessing the future by contrasting what was going on in the offices with what was happening elsewhere.  He used categories of social isolation, professional demarcations, stable patterns of work, and distrust.  The result was visitors “witnessing” the United Spaces offices as a place of community, boundarilessness, flexibility and trust.  

Interestingly Jensen identifies that in this case study the most effective strategy in persuading others (and thus marshalling resources) is to “act like a kite” – 

United Spaces gains upward drift by blocking and resisting. It works by posing itself up against something else. Thus United Spaces' source of persuasive power is that it draws contrasts rather than drawing things together. With its arrangements of tables and with the rule of sitting at a new place every day, it has found a way to articulate a number of problems or even absurdities of "normal work". And like a protest movement, it lifts off the ground at the moment when it is able to channel diffuse dissatisfaction with the existing state of affairs into support for a clear rallying point. 

Perhaps our local education centre needs to persuade others to witness how it is “the future” education facility by adopting repetition and act like a kite strategies – 

Remembering all the while that “The ensemble is only contemporary by assemblage, by its design, its finish, sometimes only by the slickness of the advertising surrounding it"   

Then it may marshall back some of the resources that went to those “we are the future / we are creating remarkable futures” independent schools who swallowed up an extra 35 million dollars in funding in the last budget.

Elgaard Jensen, Torben (2007). Witnessing the Future [59 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative
Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 8(1), Art. 1, http://nbnresolving.
de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs070119 .

On Creating A Wasn’t Good, Wasn’t Bad School for Every Child.

I didn’t buy Cyril Taylor’s newly released “A Good School for Every Child – How to improve our schools” because I wanted to read another book on how to do school better. 

At the moment I drift towards thinking and reading about museums rather than schools – probably because I am feeling burdened by the narrow perspective of what is written by people telling us what to do (and not to do) in school.

In truth when you work in a school it often feels like a big part of the problem is that there are too many people "telling" and not enough people "doing".

Still I relented and bought Cyril Taylor’s book because of his background.  All that cover blurb stuff - Taylor has “served as an adviser to ten successive UK education secretaries and four prime ministers, both Conservative and Labour, including Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair.”

Given some of the budget funding decisions made by our own New Zealand Minister of Education I wanted to understand the thinking of a ministerial adviser, albeit one from the UK.

As a litmus test I chose to start with Taylor’s take on “How information communication technology (ICT) can be used to improve learning.” This is an area that our minister chose to continue funding through things like the ictpd cluster contracts.  I intended to to follow this with the chapter on “Why and how our gifted and talented children should be nurtured” an area where funding for gifted and talented advisers has been pulled in New Zealand.  

In Chapter 9 “How information communication technology (ICT) can be used to improve learning.” Taylor asks –

“Does your school have an interactive whiteboard in every classroom?” This is a revolutionary teacher’s tool which has made obsolete the old school blackboard with chalk, as well as slide projectors.  Whiteboards can have a dramatic effect in raising standards. Not only can they show film clips and slides, and enable the teacher to write electronically instead of using chalk, they are also interactive with pupils being able to access them through their laptops.“

Given my sceptism over IWB's I immediately wished educational books were displayed in racks at supermarket checkouts so that I could have done a better flick/scan of the content before I ordered my copy from Amazon

I don’t know about you but I was underwhelmed by both the description of use and the claim over outcome for IWBs .... but in fairness to Taylor I continued reading to see what might be offered in defence of his claim “Whiteboards can have a dramatic effect in raising standards”.

In defence Taylor argues  ....

“A good example in the effective use of whiteboards is Kemnal Technology College, an all boys school in Bromley Kent, sponsored by Lord Harris.  Its outstanding head teacher, John Atkins, grew frustrated a few years ago with the difficulty in recruiting good maths teachers and the resulting poor performance of his boys in GCSE maths.

His solution was to convert, by knocking down the partition walls, three of his classrooms into one large classroom with up to ninety desks.  He then hired a master maths teacher at a high salary, plus three teaching assistants.  Every one of his boys was then given a laptop.  The large classroom was equipped with two interactive whiteboards.

I sat in on a maths class conducted by the outstanding maths teacher.  The boys were enthralled by his teaching skills, received personal help from the three teaching assistants, and were able to benefit from three whiteboards in front of them, including learning to solve maths problems.

As John Atkin says: ‘interactive whiteboards means that we can “teach the way the students learn”’

Despite its incoming 11 year olds having lower than average ability range, 64 percent of Kemnal Technology College students soon achieved five good grades at GCSE, compared to its expected results using the Jesson Value Added approach, of only 54 per cent.  They achieve 47 per cent including maths and English with a similar value added of 10 percent, and 63 percent of their boys now achieve A-C grades in GCSE Maths.”

Taylor uses the Temnal Technology College results to back his claim that when we introduce interactive whiteboards into a classroom we see dramatic effects in raising standards.

I don’t have enough information to tell whether the shifts from actual versus expected results he details are valid and reliable but the anecdote allows us to raise a number of alternatives.

For example what if instead of asking “Does your school have an interactive whiteboard in every classroom?  And following this question with the claim “Whiteboards can have a dramatic effect in raising standard”s

He had asked “Does your school have class sizes of ninety students?"  And followed this question with the claim “Raising class sizes to ninety students can have a dramatic effect in raising standard”s

What if:

We asked “Does your school have expert teachers?"  And followed this question with the claim  “Expert teachers can have a dramatic effect in raising standard”s

We asked “Does your school have teaching assistants in classrooms?"  And followed this question with the claim  “Having teaching assistants in a classroom can have a dramatic effect in raising standards”

We asked “Does your school increase the visibility of presentation surfaces in classrooms?"  And followed this question with the claim “Increasing visibility of presentation surfaces in a classroom can have a dramatic effect in raising standards”

We asked “Does your school have triple sized learning spaces?"  And followed this question with the claim “ Increasing the physical size of classrooms threefold can have a dramatic effect in raising standards”

We asked “Does your school give every student a laptop?" And followed this question with the claim “Giving every student a laptop can have a dramatic effect in raising standards”

We asked “Does your school pay teachers high salaries?" And followed this question with the claim “Paying high salaries to teachers can have a dramatic effect in raising standards”

We asked “Does your school change the learning environments available? And followed this question with the claim “Changing the learning environment can have a dramatic effect in raising standards”

We asked “Does your school measure teacher effectiveness through value added testing of students? And followed this question with the claim “Measuring teacher effectiveness through value added testing of the students they are teaching can have a dramatic effect in raising standards.”

Prof John Hattie's meta- analysis in Visible Learning - allows us to critique some of these claims BUT it makes me want to ask yet another question altogether -

Why did Cyril Taylor prefer to interpret any changes in student learning outcome at Kemnal Technology College as being causally related to the presence of two (or was it three) interactive whiteboards when so many other factors are in play?  Why did he privilege the IWB in all of this? What happens to our common sense thinking when we get too close to “simmering electrical” technologies?         

“I am haunted by you” flowers and impossible cream cakes.

I had an unexpected escape from the day job today – and I used it to push off from the screen and drift into the ordinary.  I used it to bump up against the stuff that had not been digitised – to see, hear, smell, touch and taste in a way not mediated through a screen - to nudge up against the real.

Escape is best shared.  I persuaded another to cut loose from what life expected of her for the day and we explored the local as if we were seeing it for the first time.

Along the way we visited the dementia centre, delivering impossible cream cakes and an exuberance of flowers; flowers whose colours cried out “I am haunted by you”.  We hugged and squeezed each of the dementia centre staff who had helped grandpa; those who reassured him when he puzzled over the fact that when he drank juice the horizon moved, and juice escaped out the side of his mouth and rolled down over his chin ... and those who flirted with him when he fancied sex on the glacier .... and then we moved on.

At the Onehunga Mall we called into a local cafe.  We laughed so much at our grandpa memories that when we drank coffee the horizon moved for us – and the coffee ran out the side of our mouths and rolled down our chins. 

Deferring to Kingswellian “We are capitalism made flesh” thinking  –All that “every moment of waking and sleeping life is shot through with commitment to the goods and services of the global economy..” we took our caffeinated and sticky surfaces to those emporiums of feckless consumerism – the many $2.00 Shops of Onehunga. 

Here we spent up large (but small) on enough froth, sparkle, glitter and glue to transform fifty self effacing wooden pegs into “off their faces” narcissistic transgendered celebrities.  We drifted into carpet overrun warehouses, admired taxidermy wild boar heads and 3m polystyrene Doric columns in second hand shops, bought charcoal sticks and rolled canvas at an art emporium and got lost upstairs in the New Zealand section of the “Hard to Find but Worth the Effort”  bookshop.  

How would you measure the meaning of a day like this? 

In Chapter 5 of Museums in a Troubled World – Renewal, Irrelevance or Collapse,  Jane cites the thinking of Douglas Worts in measuring the meaning of museums. 

Refer: Worts, D.  “Measuring Museum Meaning: A Critical Assessment Framework.” Journal of Museum Education, 31 2006, 41 - 48 

You will not be surprised if I admit that this captured my interest - given that any folksonomy of Artichoke would reveal that I am just a little obsessed with measuring “school meaning”. 

Wort’s CAF framework has three lenses – the individual, the community and the museum. 

The "community lens" focuses on the creation of public benefit, and requires that museum staff ask themselves how well their program(s) will do things like: 

Address vital and relevant needs/issues within the community.

Engage a diverse public.

Act as a catalyst for action.

Stimulate intergenerational interactions.

Link existing community groups to one another.

Initiate or enhance long term collaborative relationships.

Create partnerships that empower community groups.

Result in products/processes that have tangible impacts in the community.  

Jane notes on p 124 that – “this approach is a radical contrast to the typical Museum programme lens, which consists of questions such as “How much will it cost?”, “How many people will attend?”; “Will there be a catalogue?” and “Will there be shop merchandise?” 

I cannot help but think that these community lens questions might work well with school. 

Many of our schools seem obsessed with measurement questions such as “How much will it cost?”, “How many students will achieve [insert sought after qualification]?”; “Will there be media league tables?” and “What is our point of marketable difference?” questions. 

The alternative - measuring schools through a community lens -  Chris Bigum's 2004 “knowledge building through identifying local and community needs” - might give purpose to both our museums and our schools. 

After all, how many of the professional learning conversations held, and learning experiences planned in our schools, are measured against how well they ...  

Address vital and relevant needs/issues within the community.

Engage a diverse public.

Act as a catalyst for action.

Stimulate intergenerational interactions.

Link existing community groups to one another.

Initiate or enhance long term collaborative relationships.

Create partnerships that empower community groups.

Result in products/processes that have tangible impacts in the community.

“The money is always there, but the pockets change” Gertrude Stein

To allow oneself to be physically re-arranged by another is much like allowing oneself to be mentally re-arranged by another.  Both require compliance and conformity, and I guess both require deference to the “power” or “expertise” of another. 

Physical rearrangement has its attraction. 

For example when The Magnet and I became "a living topiary" for a Wreathed Hornbill, a Malay-Eagle Owl, a Chestnut-bellied Hawk Eagle, a Sulfur Crested Cockatoo and a couple of Macaws of the Scarlet and the Blue & Yellow varieties, in the Feathered Friends Photo Booth at the KL Bird Park - we sat where required, raised limbs as required and were perched upon as required.  The photo booth attendants had an expertise with arranging birds and making people into perches that was difficult to fault. The marketing of this expertise was clearly signposted in the “use your own camera” or “instant photo” charges at the front of the photo booth. The outcome and the compliance required transparent.   

I am less certain about the attraction in mental re-arrangement by another.  It is more usual to frame compliance and conformity of thought as indoctrination or an “extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds, or as a consequence of Keen's “the cult of the amateur”  .

Our New Zealand Ministry of Education funded by far the largest number of educators to The International Conference on Thinking, ICOT09, in Malaysia this July – reports from conference organisers put the figure at one hundred and sixty plus educators from "the wobbly isles".  In truth it was hard to escape the wobbly isle educators dusted over corridors, and conference rooms – all trying to find stuff to make sense of the New Zealand Curriculum Key Competency “Thinking” - and to find educators to network with from other places.   

On offer at ICOT09 was a continuum of mental re-arrangement expertise - academic expertise, edu_consultant expertise, edu_marketing expertise and the amateurs offering classroom educator expertise.  Though the schools’ “thinking journeys” were often an edu_road-trip better described as a support act for the professional elite than an amateur’s attempt to make meaning .

What surprised me and others when we discussed the days programme over Tiger Beer at the end of each day was the sense that “everyone had something to sell”

It is not that I am unused to applying Paul (1972)’s key questions to evaluate the claims made at educational conferences. For example this is one of my favourites ...

Does the acceptance of this information advance the vested interest of the person or group asserting it? 

It is a good question to ask about anything you read – offline or blogged online - by amateur, consultant or academic.

It is the question that usually allows me to discriminate between the conference claims made by educational consultants and marketers  and the claims made by academics. 

However, in the Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre, during ICOT09, the question didn’t work so well.  Many of the celebrity academics were conterminous with educational consultants – both professional elites appeared to be networking to extend their power and status –  lobbying for invites to the next ICOT conference in Belfast, and waving their latest book.  Some even offered autographs.  On some days it seemed more like a trade fair than a conference.

I was startled by the celebrity academics who chose to use chunks of their allotted speaking time for self promotional marketing and I was reminded of the BBC “Yes Minister” series  and its cynical take on academics

“The surprising thing about academics is not that they have their price, but how low that price is.”

 “No one really understands the true nature of fawning servility until he sees an academic who has glimpsed the prospect of money or personal publicity.”

By the end of the week any difference between the ICOT09  conference and the Petaling St Chinatown marketplace was largely a matter of the air-conditioning.

And all of it made me wonder;

Is the marketing of academia something new or just something I had failed to notice before because in other edu_conferences in New Zealand I have been distracted by the marketing of ICTs?

Is the celebrity academic at ICOT09 an indicator of the end of “freedom of access to knowledge and learning, where these are public goods, created in a nonprofit way that expects no revenue from their creation and distribution.” Stephen Downes The Future of Education cited in Unesco Chair Blogs

Is the validity and reliability of academic research compromised when we make revenue seeking celebrities of the academics themselves rather than ensuring free access to their research findings?

And although it seems that nowadays, at least in New Zealand’s popular media, Paglia is eminently “ Always loved that” baggable ...

As a bonus, here's the famous 1993 Julie Burchill-Paglia "fax war", in which Paglia comes off as humourless and smug, and Burchill signs off with the immortal:

Dear Professor Paglia,
Fuck off you crazy old dyke.
Always,
Julie Burchill

Always loved that.

My experience at ICOT09 means I cannot help but think that in “Sex Art and American Culture” Paglia buttoned what I observed seventeen years later

“The huge post 60s proliferation of conferences, produced a diversion of professional energy away from study and towards performance, networking, advertisement, cruising, hustling, glad handing, back scratching, chit chat, group think.”  Paglia in Sex, Art and American Culture 1992 p 221

All of which makes me wonder - will the future with its increasing digitisation of content make performance over study even more attractive for academics?

 Virginia Postrel’s NYTimes Review  of “Free: The Future of a Radical Price,” by Chris Anderson has a passage that explains why this may well be the case.    

 Postrel writes

Faced with collapsing business models, today’s journalists-in-denial rail against Anderson’s message. Free content cannot be the future, they say, because content is valuable. Fixed costs must be covered. We have bills to pay. The problem, they argue, is that we’re giving our work away.

As Anderson himself says, “I’ve got a lot of kids and college isn’t getting any cheaper.” His own strategy, one outlined by Dyson way back when, is to charge little or nothing for his writing and use it to generate lucrative speaking gigs. “You can read a copy of this book online (abundant, commodity information) for free,” he writes (not noting that the free offer expires shortly after the printed book’s publication), “but if you want me to fly to your city and prepare a custom talk on Free as it applies to your business, I’ll be happy to, but you’re going to have to pay me for my (scarce) time.”

So it seems when the internet increasingly allows everything to be free, the future will be all about the value we can leverage from time.

And when time is the new money, the pockets will change

Illich, prescient as ever, identified the role of “time” and “scarcity” with respect to consumption a while back [In “Towards a history of needs.” 1977 – p33]

Time scarcity may soon turn into the major obstacle to the consumption of prescribed and often publicly financed, services.

 Postrel puts it this way

“Unlike tangible commodities like T-shirts or plastics, most digital content doesn’t generate much new demand as its price falls toward zero. Even with no admission fee, videos, blog posts and online games soak up users’ time, and time has a hard limit. So as the supply of cheap content expands, it can’t simply fill ever-growing closets (or garbage dumps). Instead, the competition for time and attention becomes ever fiercer, and the market ever more fragmented. Any given producer will find profits elusive, especially since it’s so easy for amateurs to enter the market.”

When Gertrude Stein claimed “The money is always there, but the pockets change” she wasn’t necessarily thinking about freedom of access to public goods.  But it is worth noting that when we make celebrities of academics, we change the location of the pockets and when we change the location of the pockets we stand to lose an important freedom.

We stand to lose what Downes describes as the “freedom of access to knowledge and learning, where these are public goods, created in a nonprofit way that expects no revenue from their creation and distribution.”

What can recommendation systems in museums teach us about underachievement in school?

It is worth thinking about the detail in Anne Salmond’s opinion piece in this morning’s NZ Herald Anne Salmond Open Entry for Maori a near miss Monday July 6 2009.

In addressing Pita Sharples’ suggestion of open entry for Maori students to universities, Salmond uses research findings from the Starpath Project to make three disturbing claims about education in New Zealand.

Claim #1.  The management of educational data in New Zealand has more to do with the distribution of resources rather than with tracking the long-term success or failure of students.

As a result – “schools are often unaware when bright students begin to fail; or when groups of students (say, Maori boys) begin to follow pathways that lead to failure and early exit.”

Claim #2.  New Zealand educational investment in initiatives aimed at enhancing student achievement are “largely working blind”.  We not only do not know if the investment is making a positive difference we also do not know if the investment is targeting the real problem.  

A result – “leading to many uncoordinated, short-term initiatives (80 in one school that Starpath studied) and a failure to identify those approaches that really work, so that they can be adopted across the education system.”

Salmond also calls for a more careful monitoring on government funded initiatives that claim to enhance learning outcomes for Maori, Pacific and low-income students.

Those initiatives that don't have a positive impact on student outcomes should be dropped, while those that are highly successful should be adopted across the education system.

I find it somewhat disturbing that Salmond feels the need to recommend “dropping initiatives that don’t have a positive impact on student outcomes" – it suggests that this is not currently the case. 

If the Starpath Project has evidence of initiatives that do and initiatives that don’t – I hope they offered this evidence to Anne Tolley before the recent budget  - and that Anne Tolley respected their findings - so that we can be confident that we are no longer funding initiatives that don’t have a positive impact on student outcomes.

Claim #3 – Our qualification system NCEA is so complex that families cannot make wise decisions about which courses to study, which educational pathways to pursue.

As a result, “while most Maori, Pacific and low-income students aspire to gain university entrance (78 per cent in one study), it is too easy for them to find themselves on NCEA pathways that foreclose this option.”

I will admit to being attracted to chaos theory, fuzzy logic and ambiguity in what I read but it unnerves me just a little to realise that the Starpath Project research suggests the New Zealand Government is funding educational initiatives where uncertainty of focus and indeterminate outcomes rule.  In truth it is easier to understand Pita Sharples call for open entry for Maori to universities if you accept that  the current framing/ educational design and funding of the MoE initiatives designed to raise Maori and Pacific achievement is closer to whimsy than anything professionally responsible.

Claim#3 captures my interest this evening.  Our latest budget set aside “$8 million to ensure NCEA assessment tools are of a high-standard and well understood by teachers.” Presumably on the basis that teachers understanding of NCEA assessment leaves something to be desired.  Salmond’s remarks suggest that parents and students similarly lack the understanding needed to make good decisions about NCEA assessment.

It all makes me wonder how we could re-design the NCEA course options available at secondary schools so that students and their parents would find it easier to make wise choices

There is more to it than this of course - Any New Zealand student studying for NCEA can relate instances where they or their friends have been excluded from courses or dissuaded from certain option lines on the grounds that the institutions deems the chance of student success unlikely. 

In New Zealand secondary schools the right to try (and fail) is seldom available.  Like Etruscans divining the future from the entrails of sacrified animals, secondary teachers continue to confidently (and perhaps patronisingly) practice haruspicy on the NCEA course selections of their students.

So parents and students not only need to understand NCEA well enough to make wise choices they also need to understand it well enough to fight the institution for their right to access courses based upon these choices.

Nina Simon in the Musem2.0 Blog has been looking at ways museums can design recommendation systems for their visitors in Designing recommendation systems that go beyond “You’ll like this”  . 

Much of her thinking about customised museum tours can be usefully transferred to educational contexts – where museum exhibits become educational options and courses.  For example Simon’s thinking helps me think in new ways about the design of solutions to help students and their families make sense of the courses and learning pathways available to them.

When it comes to museums, recommendation systems are a natural solution for the problem of the customized tour. How can a museum offer each visitor suggestions for exhibits and experiences that will uniquely serve their interests? There are many lovely example of museums providing quirky tours based on particular interests. For example, The Tate Modern offers a set of pamphlets featuring different tours of the museum based on emotional mood. You can pick up the "I've just split up" tour and wallow in depression, or the "I'm an animal freak" tour and explore your wilder side. And the site I Like Museums lets you find whole institutions of interest based on your preference for trails like "making things," "nice cup of tea," or simply "pigs."

Salmond's call for more careful monitoring of student learning outcomes .... 

Above all, the compulsory education system needs re-engineering. Information systems in schools should be tracking the educational journeys of students, identifying the strengths and potentials of individual students (so that they and their parents get optimal advice), and patterns of success and failure across the student body (so that initiatives are accurately targeted).

... sounds like it could be answered in part by the design principles in the recommendation system Simon suggests for museums – one based upon collaborative filtering   (“like the one used to recommend new songs to you on Pandora or new movies on Netflix?”) –

Perhaps we can design a platform for the monitoring of individual educational journeys in New Zealand – one that could aggregate content about the strengths and potentials of individual students and build it into a Pandora/Netflix like recommendation system – a system alerting students and their families of the educational targets to be met and the course options available.

Then the patterns of success data available might allow students and their families to thoughtfully design learning pathways - pathways that not only meet their aspirations but also extend them to create alternative educational reach.

If school is disturbance, is it virtuous?

Reading Tactical Media by Rita Raley has provided both an escape from the tactical activism expected on the domestic front on a sodden  Sunday afternoon in Auckland and an escape from my current way of imagining the “future” of school.

I enjoy thinking about the future of museums, libraries and school.  They are all institutions that face precarity - uncertainty and challenge - in their current architecture. 

Raley’s critique let me think in a new way about Robert Jane’s questions in  Museums in a Troubled World: Renewal, Irrelevance or Collapse (London: Routledge, May, 2009) cited in Pallazo Strozzi Blog 

 Jane asks

If museums did not exist, would we reinvent them and what would they look like?

Further, if the museum were to be reinvented, what would be the public’s role in the reinvented institution?

 When I replace [museum] with [school] I get a much better start point for thinking about the future of school.

If schools did not exist, would we reinvent them and what would they look like?

Further, if the school were to be reinvented, what would be the public’s role in the reinvented institution?

Raley made me realise that whenever I think about the future of school through questions like Janes  - there is a unacknowledged sense of a permanence of place or places (real or virtual) –

If schools did not exist and I did re-invent them - then in my imaginings I create a spatial identity albeit in some cases a fractured spatial identity – what I mean is there is a sense of permanence in how I imagine school.  

You can see this assumption of permanence – this focus on a space/place is not mine alone - in the provocative thinking in “Witnessing the future”  – and in  “Just the other day I saw the future ...”    or school2.0 

It is interesting that our use of media in education is no different – we seem hell bent on using Web2.0 all that “participatory media” to create Raley’s “ever hardening totems of identity” – both personal and institutional – We use participatory media like attention whores - creating multiple textured “look at me spaces”.

When I read Raley on tactical media the focus is different – her analysis is on the “experiential” – the value of tactical media is to be found in its ephemerality.

Media tacticians challenge even the digital preservation of "the experience" - asking

“How can Tactical Media be preserved and made accessible without altering the value produced by its ephemerality?”  Politics of the Ephemeral: Rethinking the Archive  

This made me laugh for this weekend's media details an instance in New Zealand schools where we see the reverse happening –

Possibly because of our current focus on totemic place in education – our schools are intent on preserving and making accessible their places and space online.

It seems this extends to making claims over the ephemeral use of media for conversation.  

The Sunday Herald newspaper headline reads Dio girls suspended for Facebook comments   –

The irony is that by claiming the right to preserve a selection of their student ephemeral online conversation (by printing out selected conversations (from some but not all Dio students using FaceBook) and by handing these to school authorities); and then by making the ephemeral conversationalists accountable – and by withdrawing access to learning for those students whose conversations were chosen to be preserved by printing, the school has effectively preserved, archived and made the content of those ephemeral conversations accessible to much, much, much, wider audiences than the students themselves could ever imagine or have intended.   

It makes me wonder if the follow up headline will read “School stood down for actions that led to the preservation, publication and digital archiving of the ephemeral Facebook conversations of young people .”  

I am interested in what happens to our thinking about the future of school if we refuse anything that creates Bourriaud’s “ever hardening totems of identity” (p13). 

What happens if we imagine “school” as an experience – a learning experience where learning and the learners themselves are both flexible and ephemeral like the conversations we might hold when walking across a mall.   

“Future School” becomes an experience where afterwards there is little material trace – a concept where “living memory” rather than “products of learning” dominate our discourse.

When school is imagined as “nomadic” experience, then pedagogy becomes a “deliberately slippery and heterogenous practice”?

Raley describes the categorical unity of tactical media as “disturbance”.  What if we understood “school” as disturbance?

Citing Geert Lovink and “The Next Five Minutes” (N5M)  festival of media arts and politics - Raley argues that tactical media is intended to  disrupt dominant ways of thinking so that critical thinking can occur.

What if we understood “school” as any open to anyone at any time experience, where critical thinking can occur?

It is this inclusivity and flexibility of tactical media – that is powerful in reimagining “school” in this way.

Can “school” be imagined as a process – as a “tool for creating temporary consensus zones based on unexpected alliances”.  

And all this makes me wonder will our future questions about “school” reject notions of does it work? – or how well have the learners in an identified  physical or virtual space met “national standards”? – or Greg’s fear that the place of school might be ladder ranked in league tables.   

We would ask instead if the experience is virtuous?

 Virtuosity – described by Virno as “activity which finds its own fulfilment (that is, its own purpose) in itself, without objectifying itself into an end product or an object that survives the performance. p29

Does the experience - “future school” - strengthen interpersonal relationships in society?  

Raley cites Bourriaud who suggests ... the role of art is “learning to inhabit the world in a better way” p27

 So perhaps “future school” can be an experience rather than a place – and we can understand “school” as we do art – as something transitory, precarious, and uncertain that helps us learn how to inhabit the world in a better way.

 

Crack learning, the achievement gap and Sisyphean struggle.

Pruned Blog’s  "The Crack Garden"  post captured my attention right from the start –

 “The interventions into the site of The Crack Garden were primarily actions of removal rather than the addition of new layers and material. By eliminating portions of the existing concrete and exposing the soil beneath, potential is released, and new opportunities for the garden arise.”

“The design is conceived as an intervention that functions as a lens, altering perception of a place rather than completely remaking it.”

This made me think of “crack learning” and how we might understand learning based on actions of removal rather than by constantly adding new layers and materials to our schools, classrooms and students.

I wanted to ask ..

What would happen to learning if we removed "the din"?

“We approach our technologies through a battery of advertising and media narratives; it is hard to think above the din.”  Turkle, Sherry. (Ed.). The inner history of devices. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008. p4

What would happen to learning if we removed the expectation that "progress" requires unrelenting change and innovation  

One of the most critical problems our schools face is ... “not resistance to innovation, but the fragmentation, overload, and incoherence resulting from the uncritical and uncoordinated acceptance of too many different innovations” Fullan & Steigelbauer 1991 p197

What would happen to learning if we removed "the rush", if we slowed down, learned how to see and took time to realise that all things connect?

Crack gardens/learning made me think of a return to; slow pedagogy, to observation (see think wonder), to Geetha Narayanan like learning spaces squeezed into cracks between city buildings, to looking carefully at exploring and knowledge building around the local (existing) rather than all that costly rip snorting through the screen activity we favour to get to the global, to looking at ways to discover and develop all learning identities of the child rather simply addressing learning identities for the 9am to 3pm child.     

And I wondered if the coherence provided by the stripped back nature of "crack learning" would provide new opportunities for understanding individual potential.    

Whenever I read the latest policy initiative aimed at reducing disparity in New Zealand schools I have high apple pie in the sky hopes ... I imagine the MoE policy makers in Wellington as Pratchett’s “great minds”

These are great minds he told himself.  These are men who are trying to work out how the world fits together, not by magic, not by religion but by inserting their brains in whatever crack they can find and trying to lever it apart.  p199 in Pyramids by Terry Pratchett

and I hope that this time round we will be brokering something that makes a real difference to New Zealand’s alarmingly disparate achievement outcomes.   

That is undoubtedly why it was a little discomforting to read Gladwell's "Outliers" over the weekend.  Now Malcolm Gladwell has been accused of cherry picking his references in Outliers but I could not help but be affected by his description of Karl Alexander’s five year longitudinal analysis tracking the city of Baltimore’s profile of results for 650 first graders on the Californian Achievement Test math and reading skill exams. (pages 255 to 259)

Reading Gladwell made me fret that all our MoE sanctioned interventions to reduce our achievement gap are perhaps a Sisyphean struggle – made me think that perhaps we are doomed to always struggle because in targeting schools we are targeting the wrong intervention.

As Gladwell frames it, when we have disparate achievement outcomes from kids with different backgrounds we are tempted to attribute causality to either

1.  Kids from background X do not have the same inherent ability to learn as kids from background Y.

2.  Our schools are failing kids from background X.

This is certainly what has happened in the conversations about disparity in New Zealand – option 1 – deficit thinking - is rightly rejected leaving us with option 2 – our schools are failing [insert gender, socio economic status, ethnicity] students. Our latest solutions to not failing [insert gender, socio economic status, ethnicity] students is focussing on improving teacher student relationships, engagement, and feedback.

Gladwell makes me ask ... when we focus on reducing disparity in learning outcomes by changing the stuff happening in schools have we misidentified the contribution school makes?   

If for the purposes of this post I accept that The Californian Achievement Test measures something valuable in terms of learning outcome [and I know this may be unwarranted]  ... then using Alexander’s data below I can suggest that the achievement gap between students from “rich” and “poor” homes is exacerbated by attending school.

Californian Achievement Test Data from start of school year (June)

Socioeconomic Class	1st Grade	2nd Grade	3rd Grade	4th grade	5th Grade
Low	329	375	397	433	461
Middle	348	388	425	467	497
High	361	418	460	506	534
Achievement gap between low and high	32 points	43 points	63 points	73 points	73 points

 

Gladwell next reveals additional results from the same CAT testing carried out at the end of the school year (September) – This testing that excludes the summer holidays – and allows quite different conclusions to be drawn about the same group of students.

Socioeconomic Class	After 1st Grade	After 2nd Grade	After 3rd Grade	After 4th grade	After 5th Grade	Total - Cumulative classroom learning
Low	55	46	30	33	25	189
Middle	69	33	34	41	27	214
High	60	39	34	28	23	184

     

It seems that by testing at the end of the school year - the data showing “within school” learning gains between children from low and high socioeconomic backgrounds are not as “gappy” as we first imagined.

Which causes us to ask is “gappiness” due to what is happening in classrooms or is “gappiness” due to  what is happening outside of classrooms?

Is Glawell right?

Should our focus on reducing disparity look at the effect on learning of time spent outside of school rather than what happens within school?

To ask ...Does the break in schooling over the summer holidays differentially affect learning outcomes for children from lower, middle and high socioeconomic homes?

Look at Gladwell's data comparing student reading skill test scores before and after the summer break.

Class	After 1st	After 2nd	After 3rd	After 4th	Total
Low	-3.67	-1.70	2.74	2.89	0.26
Middle	-3.11	4.18	3.68	2.34	7.09
High	15.38	9.22	14.51	13.38	52.49

 

Now Gladwell, using Alexander’s data suggests that ..

 “When it comes to reading skills poor kids learn nothing when school is not in session.  The reading skills of rich kids by contrast, go up a whopping 52.49 points.  Virtually all of the advantage that wealthy students have over poor students is the result of differences in the way privileged kids learn   when they are not in school.”    p258

Leading me to wonder - Do we simply need to increase the number of days students attend school to reduce disparity?

Trying to validate Gladwell’s claims led me straight to Hattie’s Visible Learning meta-analyses where I checked out the number crunching on Summer Vacations (d=-0.09) p80 and 81.  

Hattie’s metanalyses on summer vacations confirmed that students “lost some achievement gains over the summer” and that “middleclass students appeared to gain on grade level equivalent reading tests over summer compared to lower class students".  And he also notes that the “negative effect of summer did increase with grade level.”  

However, Hattie doesn’t call this like Gladwell does - he suggests instead that the magnitude of these effects when compared to other achievement influences “are minor indeed”

Hattie concludes

“It may be that if teachers were more attuned to the proficiencies that students bring into their classrooms, then the first month of the school year could be used to recapture the losses from the school break reasonably quickly.”

I hope Hattie is right because, whether it is happening within schools or outside of school over the summer break, we have an awful lot riding on the inequality we are building into New Zealand society.

 

Fear is fungible.

I felt like an extra in Richard Scarry’s Busy Busy World yesterday morning.

Filling up with gas at the local garage I shared the forecourt with a huge red fire truck packed with firemen. Given the cell phone risk signs posted all around I was disconcerted to see one of the crew leap down from the truck and start texting in the pump bay.

Lowly Worm insight: The public’s perceived risk of taking or making any calls in a gas station forecourt is less than the actual risk.

Leaving the gas station I went to our local GP to pick up a script for one of the kids living off the corridor, only to be greeted by a laminated notice and a closed door.  To paraphrase - “Before you open door pause and consider whether you are feeling dodgy in a way that could be ‘flu like – if this is possible remain outside and Tom Jones like “knock three times” at a window to alert us inside of your possible H1N1 incubating self outside.”

Lowly Worm insight: The actual risk of catching something serious in GP’s waiting room is high enough to abandon those too enfeebled to knock three times and those too short to reach the window but not so high as to exclude those without the literacy and or the language to make meaning from the text.  [that is the 380,000 New Zealanders without the literacy to understand the instructions on a fire extinguisher and anyone else without the ability to make meaning from English]  

I then visited a friend who had a Richard Scarry “Great Pie Robbery” experience on Wednesday, where all her electrical goods stolen.  The home and contents insurance was up to date, the burglary happened when she was out, the forced windows and doors were quickly repaired and the police visited and detectives Sam and Dudley dusted for fingerprints.  But she feels vulnerable in a place that the week before had been her refuge.

Lowly Worm insight: The actual risk is not important – the perceived risk of Horace Wolf and Croaky Crocodile revisiting the house creates high levels of anxiety and outrage.  

To understand how we use risk management and risk communication, [or how it uses us] I reckon you cannot better reading Max Brook’s World War Z  but reading Peter Sandman  Talking about “Risk Communication Before and During Epidemics”  provides a framework that has helped me analyse our response to “swine ‘flu”, national testing and all the other stuff that frightens us. 

For example, I didn’t know that “how much harm a risk does” and “how upset people get” has a correlation coefficient of only 0.2. 

Those of you who remember your statistics know you can square a correlation coefficient to get the percentage of variance accounted for: If you square 0.2, you get 0.04, or 4% of the variance.
That is, the risks that kill people and the risks that upset people are completely different. If you know that a risk kills people, you have no idea whether it upsets them or not. If you know it upsets them, you have no idea whether it kills them or not.

Sandman frames these two as “hazard” and “outrage” and goes on to show that

“It doesn't seem to matter what your measure of harm is. Whatever your measure of harm, across a wide range of risks, the correlation between how much harm [a risk is] going to do and how upset people are going to get is this absurdly low 0.2 correlation.”

He elaborates on this research to show that “the correlation between hazard and perceived hazard is also very low, but the correlation between outrage and perceived hazard is very high.”

This analysis interests me as I try to understand the high levels of outrage at the Minister Anne Tolley’s suggested introduction of National Standards – outrage that is based on the “perceived risk” of league tables.

Sandman is smart ... he knows that correlation is not necessarily causality ... but that when it is ... then the directionality is contestable. 

Now, as soon as you have a high correlation, of course, what you want to know is: What's the direction of the causality. That is the question we're asking when we look at the high correlation between whether people get upset and whether they think [a risk is] dangerous. Are they upset because they think it's dangerous, or do they think it's dangerous because they're upset?
That's an important question, because if you want to manage the system, you have to know which one is the cause and which one is the effect. You don't want to be in the awkward position of trying to manage a cause by manipulating the effect. That's not likely to work. So you need to know the direction of the causality. This is much studied, and as usual in social science, it turns out to be a cycle, but one of the arrows is very robust and the other arrow is very weak. The strong arrow is from outrage to hazard perception. That is, for the most part, it is not true that people are upset because they think [a risk is] dangerous; it's much more true that people think [a risk is] dangerous because they're upset.

And I love the way he explains the negative

The same is true in the negative: It's not true that people are calm because they think [a risk is] safe; it's much more true that people think [a risk is] safe because they're calm. It follows, [therefore], that if you want people to think [a risk is] dangerous, then you'd better get them upset, and if you want them not to think [a risk is] dangerous--if you want them to think it's safe--then you need to calm them down.

If the outrage is the driver ... and the hazard perception is the result the message to Anne Tolley is quite clear – introduce communication strategies to reduce the outrage. The message to the NZEI is equally clear – introduce communication strategies that increase the outrage. 

However, it was the second part of Sandman’s analysis that I most enjoyed reading.

Here he talks about how risk management is also used by those with institutional authority to shelter the public from high risk information on the grounds that the ensuing panic will be more damaging than the risk itself.

All those “damage control”, “on a need to know basis” conversations that obscure transparency within institutions

The Argument: If we scare people this fear will escalate into panic.  Panic will exacerbate the situation.

However Sandman counters by arguing that our experience in New Orleans and 9/11show that we overrate panic. He distinguishes “feeling panicky” from “acting panicky” and he introduces a new idea – that of “panic panic”

Panic, in short, is rare. But official "panic panic" is common. That is, officials often imagine that the public is panicking or about to panic. And in order to allay panic, officials sometimes do exactly the wrong thing from a crisis communication perspective: They withhold information, they over-reassure, they express contempt for public fears, etc.

And this is a problem because in risky situations fear is tolerated, has an “adjustment reaction” which because it is a rehearsal has positive outcomes in terms of appropriate future reaction ...

• The underestimation of the frequency with which fearful people rise to resilient, pro-social, and even heroic behavior. We had ample evidence of that in 9/11, and I won't belabor the point.
• The failure to recognize the positive value of fear in encouraging preparedness, vigilance, tolerance of inconvenience and expense, and so forth.

And it seems contrary to what we commonly hold as true - that communication that makes people fearful in risky situations is a good thing.

So it's completely inconsistent to say we want the public to prepare, [but] we don't want the public to be frightened. The main incentive for people to prepare is becoming frightened.

The bit I liked best was Sandman’s notion that fear is fungible.

Greenpeace wants us afraid of genetically modified food, and the Christian Right wants us afraid of gay marriage, and I want us afraid of H5N1. You should not think of any of those three as trying to make people more afraid. What we are doing is competing with each other for our slice of the fearfulness pie.

Which brings me right back to thinking about  – what are the things that are currently competing for a slice of the fearfulness pie in education?

We like our flour canisters larger than our sugar.

Michael Doyle often nudges me into new thinking ...  Take this thought from his Science Teacher Blog.

 Humans like boundaries. We like borders and lines and straight thoughts. We like to categorize and sort. We like our flour canisters larger than our sugar. The Edges of the Sea Post

Michael Doyle is onto something .... I like thinking about boundaries of all kinds

This morning in Ponsonby Rd I was captured by the number of people I saw balanced on the strip of white paint that is only a few mm thick.  Clutching biodegradable trays loaded with cups of takeout coffee they were watchful in the precariousness of their boundary - waiting for an opportunity to swap their boundary for another albeit more elevated boundary in Auckland City  - the pavement strip. 

Those boundaries marked by white painted surfaces are not protected by armies, but they are marked by agreement and convention. The boundaries of white paint road markings might seem a little different from the boundaries of nationalism but many of the same rules apply –

John Stewart Mill describes it “nationalism” as when

“a portion of mankind, is united among themselves by common sympathies, which do not exist between them and any others.”

Those coffee clutching pedestrians standing on the painted strip boundary are united by common sympathies that do not exist between them and the motorist barrelling down Ponsonby Rd trying to get to work.  The motorists occupying a different boundaried surface have common sympathies that are not shared with the Ponsonby Rd already at work - office gopher.  

Common sympathies always make me anxious -  they suggest the existence of common antipathies.
Looking at “why we belong” requires us to identify those others that don’t ... and this is probably why the boundaries of nationalism make me anxious – as do the other boundaries people use to form collective identity.

I guess I can never escape that boundary ideas  that Tom Lehrer so cleverly captures in Who’s Next.

Those coffee clutching boundary perchers in Ponsonby Rd would have to re- position themselves if they attempted the same activity on the Auckland Harbour Bridge -  The lane boundaries on the harbour bridge are movable boundaries – great hunks of interconnecting concrete that make me think of global warming and those national boundaries drawn across glaciers that are not as immutable as we pretended when we talked about them in school.

Italy and Switzerland are preparing to make—or rather to recognise—alterations to the border that runs through the Monte Rosa massif of the Alps. Despite what romantically minded locals may say, the name of the massif has nothing to with the pink blush its peaks acquire at sunset. It comes from a dialect word meaning glacier.

Recognising that global warming will make any line based on the watershed of a glacier temporary, the understanding with Austria has for the first time introduced the concept of a movable border. Experts from both sides will be empowered to alter it at regular intervals. Until, presumably, the glaciers disappear altogether. A movable border

All of which makes me think again about the boundaries we have built between individual schools in New Zealand.

In education the boundaries and borders we create with our points of difference, our principals as robber barons, our school based curricula etc allows us to measure what fits and what doesn’t – allows us  to discriminate based upon assessment – both formative and summative – allows us Anne Tolley like national standards – allows us NZEI feared league tables.

In the L@S09 keynote Andy Hargreaves talked about creating “culture of collective responsibility” in education  – a culture based on

“sampling rather than a politically distorted insistence on testing every student” – a culture where “schools must support and learn from each other, become collectively responsible for all the children and youth in their city or community and commit to systems and dispositions where the strong help the weak.”- Hargreaves, A., and D. Shirley The Fourth Way. Educational Leadership. October 2008. p60

Collective responsibility – requires movable boundaries – responsibility without boundaries - it is a novel notion in a world predicated on right indexed to the might of a nation state, right indexed to the “successful school”,  and right indexed to the powerful individual. 

Collective responsibility is a certainly a novel notion in New Zealand education where we are encouraged to identify and market our boundaries with other schools as points of difference, to establish zones and where the NZC sees us exhorted to develop our own curriculum boundaries – aka our own school based curricula.

In such a boundary based educational landscape we should not be at all surprised to see principals talking like robber barons about owning the schools that employ them; to see principals passing around personal business cards that could be mistaken for those of our most entrepreneurial real estate agents; and to see as a consequence of this boundaried thinking - teachers and principals made anxious and defensive by talk about national standards and measurement targets.  

The boundaries of teaching and learning allow us vainglorious ambition but they also allow measures of boundaried accountability –

“Humans like boundaries. We like borders and lines and straight thoughts. We like to categorize and sort. We like our flour canisters larger than our sugar.”

... and yet it is the wantonness of learning sans boundaries that we need to imagine and make real.

When I imagine learning without boundaries in schools across New Zealand – I imagine that all that collective responsibility will be not unlike lovemaking, not unlike art

My feeling about technique in art is that it has about the same value as technique in lovemaking. That is to say, heartfelt ineptitude has its appeal and so does heartless skill; but what you want is passionate virtuosity. — John Barth

So how do we get movable boundaries and collective responsibility in New Zealand education – how do we achieve passionate virtuosity? How do we raise achievement outcomes for all young New Zealanders?

Two straight lines crossing over in the middle.

The Easter holiday represents a pause, a chance to catch breath and enjoy the texture of my world ... I have mostly caught up on promises made and promises broken  – and I am at last free to think about some of the approaches to building deep maths understanding and mathematical innovation  observed in the secondary schools I worked in this term - and from there the relationship of creativity to educational policy.

I know it’s only an impression but it seems that ever since the launch of the New Zealand Curriculum, we have been awash with calls to “bring back” creativity in classrooms.

"Creativity is now as important in education as literacy, and we should treat it with the same status". — Ken Robinson

I always smile grimly at this quote from Robinson - our adult literacy results - "380,000 Kiwi adults' whose “literacy skills are so poor they would be unable to determine how to use a fire extinguisher from the instructions written on the bottle.” (Prime Minister Helen Clark 2007) suggest that Robinson is not aiming high enough if he wants to lift creative potential/capital through educational endeavour. 

Still it seems the “call creative” is the new cry of the educational wild.  And it has grown louder and increasingly wilder with our Education Minister Anne Tolley’s call for the introduction of national standards. A call, which despite Tolley’s best efforts, (see Questions for oral answer 9 April 2009 below), is being widely and possibly unfairly represented in New Zealand schools, as a call for the introduction of league tables.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Firstly, I did not say in the Christchurch Press that I had a favourite. I want to make it very clear to that member that the Ministry of Education will not be publishing league tables. I will say that again to the member. The ministry will not be publishing league tables. This Government will be using the information that we gather from the national standards policy in a responsible way, to help to lift the literacy and numeracy standards of young New Zealand children. That is what this policy is about.

... and it is hard to counter the need for improving the ways in which we understand student achievement given the ERO statement that despite all the measuring going on in New Zealand schools - 56 percent of them were not using worthwhile achievement data to look at their student learning outcomes. 

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have seen a report that suggests that a number of schools are using formative assessment, and the data produced by it, to help their students. For those schools the national standards policy will complement the excellent work they are already doing. The same report from the Education Review Office states that 56 percent of schools were not using worthwhile achievement data. The national standards policy is about ensuring that those schools do use good assessment practices to help our young New Zealanders to read, write, and do maths at a much higher level than they do at present.

ERO’s 56 percent statistic reminded me of John Hattie’s key question at the end of Visible Learning.

"The key question is whether teaching can shift from an immature to a mature profession, from opinion to evidence, from subjective judgements and personal contact to critique of judgements." P259 Hattie, J. 2009.  Visible learning

In the New Zealand schools I work with there has been a lot of talk about national standards leading to league tables which if I take taxi drivers as a measure - seems a prospect that bothers educators much more than it does the rest of the country. 

There has also been the suggestion that creative endeavour and creativity, which is widely and for the most part approvingly received by teachers, will be lost if we adopt national standards.

To sum up these lunchtime conversations: we have Tolley’s - National standards  “a very bad thing – don’t let them in” , Robinson’s - Creativity in classrooms – “ a very good thing – let’s bring it back” 

The weird thing about any discussion about “creativity” in New Zealand is not the “let’s bring it back” sentiment – though that’s kind of weird since it never went away in a lot of the places I work - it is the creative conversation default setting.

When you join a conversation about creativity in education in New Zealand  - instead of finding yourself interrogating what creativity might mean in 2009, or evaluating how we might judge creative practice in New Zealand classrooms - you end up revisiting the writings of Elwyn Richardson in the 1950’s early sixties.

This default to the activities of just one male teacher and his mostly self described creative practices from nearly sixty years ago makes me suspicious.

I’d like to ask -

Why are we privileging Richardson’s descriptions of his classroom experiences?

Why was it that Richardson was published and promoted and other creative educators didn’t and aren’t?    

I ask this because I do not find it plausible that in a culture that is built upon “number eight fencing wire innovation” Richardson was, (or for that matter is), the only educator designing worthy creative adventures in learning in New Zealand classrooms.

I don’t find it credible that nothing creatively worthy was going on in New Zealand classrooms before Richardson, at the same time as Richardson, or since Richardson. 

And I also wonder why - if creative teaching did occur in the past and does occur in the present - we don’t we refer to it today? Why we don’t appear to even know about it?

You might jump in here and declare Richardson an iconic educator on the basis of his writings and the memories of teaching colleagues – but it does not explain why in our discussion and commentaries we fail to reference any creative educators before or since Richardson – For instance I have never climbed a mountain but I know the names of more New Zealand mountain climbers than I do New Zealand teachers famous for their creative teaching practice or creative student outcomes.

It makes me wonder if anyone at NZCER has done a historiography of creativity and creative practice in New Zealand education; has anyone looked at the way creativity has been represented and understood and the way creativity has been written about?

It seems more likely that we have neglected and undervalued the stories and practices of other creative teachers in New Zealand in a way that we haven’t done for mountain climbers both before and after Hillary.

If we did privilege Richardson in the past and if we continue to do so  - is this because of gender, or ethnicity, is it simply because our current day commentators are mostly contemporaries of Elwyn, or is it something else?

I suspect we need to clarify “creativity” and to more carefully distinguish creative acts of teaching from creative achievement outcomes if we are to progress.

To ask –
What are the assumptions we make when we identify a teacher and or their practice as creative?
Does creative teaching result in creative achievements by students who in turn become creative adults?
Should it?
Is a measure of the success of a creative teacher the measure of the creative success of their students?
Should it be?
What is the measure of the success of a creative teacher?
Without a measure of achievement success how can a creative teacher who is teaching creatively tell what they are doing, whether it is going well or not, and what they should do next?
Ditto for the student in a classroom with a teacher who identifies themselves as creative or who describes their teaching strategies as those developing creative outcomes.
Who do we judge to be creative adults in New Zealand today? 
Who taught the New Zealanders we judge as creative today, and how did they teach them?
What did these creative New Zealanders remember learning from their teachers that they believe enhanced their own creative abilities?

If we accept Ken Robinson’s definition of creativity

“I define creativity as the process of having original ideas that have value.”

Then J.J Thompson  must surely have been a highly successful in enhancing creative thinking in the science students he taught 

“I’d like to cite the example of J.J. Thompson, who had nine Nobel prize-winners, thirty two fellows of the Royal Society, and eighty three professors of physics among his pupils … Yet when you look – what were his rules of thumb?  How did he teach? You find practically nothing.”(Dedijer, 1966 cited in Root- Bernstein 1982, p.200) 

 And Bill Manhire -  jumps out as a New Zealand educator who is highly successful in enhancing creative writing in the writers he teaches.
.
Perhaps the researchers of a historiography of creativity in New Zealand education could start by asking the contributers to Manhire at 60: A Book for Bill (ed Fergus Barrowman and Damien Wilkins; 2007, VUP) to identify “How did he teach?” – "what were his rules of thumb?"

Published in a limited edition of 500 copies for Bill's birthday, this is an anthology including memoirs, essays, poems, stories and extracts from work-in-progress which have been contributed by over 40 writers who have been inspired by Bill as writer, teacher and friend: Michele Amas, Barbara Anderson, Angela Andrews, Hinemoana Baker, Fergus Barrowman, Rachel Barrowman & R.A.K. Mason, Jenny Bornholdt, William Brandt, James Brown, Kate Camp, Catherine Chidgey, Geoff Cochrane, Nigel Cox, Jim Crace, John Davidson, Kate De Goldi, Stephanie de Montalk, Ken Duncum, Laurence Fearnley, Cliff Fell, Bernadette Hall, Dinah Hawken, Janet Holmes, Ralph Hotere & Mary McFarlane, Keri Hulme, Eirlys Hunter, Andrew Johnston, Elizabeth Knox, Robyn Marsack, Paula Morris, Gregory O’Brien, Vincent O’Sullivan, Emily Perkins, Chris Price, Jo Randerson, Michael Schmidt, Iain Sharp, Elizabeth Smither, Kathryn Walls, Peter Whiteford, and Damien Wilkins.  http://www.bookcouncil.org.nz/writers/manhireb.html

Those staffroom claims – both simplistic and expansive, that our current educational focus on accountability, assessment and compliance are dangerously hampering the innovative and original classroom teacher need to be more carefully unpacked.

Because I don’t know that they can reliably or validly be used to reject the Minister of Education Anne Tolley’s push for a national standards policy.

Hargreave’s I’m stuck to the floor keynote address at L@S09 - “The Fourth Way” revealed a man and a mind that was funny, provocative and ever so smart – a great pick by the conference programme organisers to launch New Zealand teachers at the start of our school year.  His claims over the freedoms and innovation The First Way afforded teachers seem kind of relevant here

The First Way:  Over dependence on the state.
“These policies provided unprecedented levels of support for the poor, but they also fostered long term state dependency without providing any real foundation for long term civic engagement.  The First Way granted state professionals, including educators, considerable freedom. In education, it fostered innovation but also allowed unacceptable variations in quality.”

Rather like topology we shouldn’t be looking at the objects involved but rather at the ways in which they work together.

Creativity and creative endeavour is advanced by deep learning, and conceptual understanding and if national standards mean knowing what you are doing, whether it is going well and what to do next then it would seem that national standards and creativity may well be two straight lines that cross over in the middle.

One supports the other and X marks the spot.  

Teaching: working for the government and stealing chickens.

People were usually quite pleased to see them.  They taught children enough to shut them up, which was the main thing after all.  But they always had to be driven out of the villages at nightfall in case they stole chickens. The Wee Free Men Terry Pratchett P26

You won’t find Pratchett like imaginings about possible futures for teaching and learning in Time Magazine’s Annual Special Issue on “10 ideas changing the world right now”.

In fact you won’t find anything about teaching and learning in the ten ideas listed – except perhaps in the “seeking security in risk adverse careers is the new cool” suggestion woven into  #1 Jobs Are The New Assets –

“In this new era, a predictable salary is more appealing than the chance of scoring big with bonuses and stock options.  And having a government job – one of the last bastions of security – looks even better.” P 27 

 

The Annual Special Issue "10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now" claims - The global economy is being remade before our eyes. Here’s what’s on the horizon

• WHY YOUR JOB IS YOUR MOST VALUABLE ASSET
• REPURPOSING THE SUBURBS
• SURVIVAL-STORE SHOPPING
• BIOBANKS: SAVING YOUR PARTS
• NEED LAND? RENT A COUNTRY
• THE NEW CALVINISM
• ECOLOGICAL INTELLIGENCE
• AMORTALITY: FOREVER YOUNG
• AFRICA: OPEN FOR BUSINESS
• REINVENTING THE HIGHWAY 

The irrelevance of ideas around changing education (teaching and learning) in Time Magazine’s “changing the world” list captured my attention.

It worries me that children and their learning seem so easily excluded from these imaginings over remaking the global economy.

Are we as teachers so professionally predictable that when global remaking is going on we have nothing new/relevant to contribute?

Has our secure government salary meant that “paradigm shifting” edu_conferences and edu_ un_conferences – our “future focussed Web2.0” edu_blogs and edu_twitter streams –our “best evidence synthesis based” edu_professional learning communities – and our “knowledge waved” edu_policies and edicts allowed us a false sense of our own relevance?

Has being pre-disposed to risk adverse behaviours – behaviours like choosing to: train for a job with a predictable salary, apply for a job with a predictable salary, and work in a job with a predictable salary – excluded us from 10 ideas changing the world right now.

How would Time Magazine feel about us/ write about us if teachers were filchers of Black Orpingtons  ...  rather than Chomskiian ”tamers of the young of the bewildered herd”?

How might we alter our pedagogical approach if we thought we were working in uncertain careers in perilous times?

How might we alter our pedagogical approach if what we could offer was not needed every day?

How might we alter our pedagogical approach if what we could offer was only occasionally useful?

“The teachers were useful there.  Bands of them wandered through the mountains, along with the tinkers, portable blacksmiths, miracle medicine men, cloth pedlars, fortune-tellers and all the other travellers who sold things people didn’t need every day but occasionally found useful.  The Wee Free Men P26

In a remade global economy wandering teachers will undoubtedly have stalls offering Pratchett’s -

The Wonders of Punctuation and Spelling

1.  Absolute Certainty about the Comma.
2.  I before E Completely Sorted Out.
3. The Mystery of the Semi-Colon Revealed.
4.  See the Ampersand (Small extra charge)
5.  Fun with Brackets.

Will accept vegetables, eggs, and clean used clothing.

But the temporarily erected tent stall in The Wee Free Men – A Story of Discworld that interests me the most is the one with the sign outside that reads - “I can teach you a lesson you won’t forget in a hurry”

If I was a wandering teacher – living on baked hedgehogs and stealing chickens - whilst the global economy is being remade - what would I offer as a lesson that wouldn't  be forgotten in a hurry?