Principal-led change in Technology
A large urban intermediate school
Decile 3
Four specialist Technology teachers
Strategy 1:
Principal must be actively involved in the change process.
Full implementation of the Technology curriculum (2007) has been variable between schools. This snapshot looks at one principal's recognition of the need for change in programme delivery from Manual to Technology and the strategies he used to achieve this, based on his awareness that the head of a school should be actively involved in any significant change process within the school.
First impressions
The principal of a large, urban intermediate says that when he arrived in 2005 at "a first-rate school" it was perceived by the community as high-performing.
"There had been an effective principal and a good paper trail, and all indications were that things were ticking along really nicely."
As an experienced principal, he spent the first six months getting a feel for the school – looking, listening and having conversations. Fortunately, he reflects, he didn't have to make any changes quickly and had the time to work out a strategic approach to school development.
The main issue facing the school was a rapidly changing student demographic. Previously the school roll consisted of 30% New Aealand European (Pakeha) and a large number of Māori and Pasifika students. The roll change since 2005 has seen a reduction in the number of New Zealand European students and a rapid increase in migrant and refugee student numbers. The current roll (2010) is based on 35% Indian students, many of whom arrived with limited English and required ELL (English Language Learner) support and resources.
This meant that the most important challenge for the school, and one which took priority during 2006/2007, was that of literacy. Having experienced how ICT can be used to differentiate the curriculum for different levels of learners, the principal was enthusiastic about its advantages in supporting literacy, so the school undertook a dual focus of literacy and ICT which included a three-year professional development (PD) contract in ICT.
Recognising the need for change
Strategy 2:
Collect anecdotal data from a range of sources.
While his focus and energy were on literacy and ICT development, the principal became aware that things "weren't as they might be" in Technology. He recognised that the teaching programmes were not aligned to the Technology curriculum through several different sources of evidence. In his classroom walk-through visits he saw that the teaching (in Food, Fabrics, Hard Materials, and Design Technology) was generally based on practical activities and that staff did not appear to be adapting their programmes to the Technology curriculum. The students rotated through each technology area on a seven-week cycle, with little differentiation between the Year 7 and 8 programmes. The Technology team displayed little "buy in" for the new (then draft) Technology document which they justified with comments such as "The children in this community need..."
The difference was highlighted for the principal because he observed that things were significantly different in one Technology classroom where the teacher was providing basic Technology understandings. In that room the students were exposed to some Technology language and introduced to the beginnings of a design brief and aspects of the Nature of Technology strand.
The students enjoyed the hands-on activity of making things and taking them home. Liking Technology appeared to be one aspect of the students' general high degree of satisfaction with their school. This was noted in a 2006 NZCER (New Zealand Council for Educational Research) Me and My School survey and the principal comments, "They love coming to school and we have an interesting scenario where school is more attractive than home; they'll spend all day here, all night if you let them, and they often don't want to go home for the holidays. With an average of 93% daily attendance against a national average of 88%, non-attendance is not a big issue here."
Although there wasn't much negative feedback from students, the principal did get comments from parents – the most common being that their children were making exactly the same things that they, the parents, had made when they attended the intermediate. Other long-serving teachers also commented, sometimes when reviewing school systems and sometimes when directly asked, that the Technology team was doing the same things they'd seen when they arrived and that there had been little change in their practice.
Realising that the Technology programme as it was being delivered had to change, the principal asked a local Technology advisor to come in and work with the team. The advisor spent some time during 2007 with the team but became increasingly frustrated at their lack of willingness to change their practice. The advisor encouraged the principal to send the team on PD courses and, within budgeting constraints, they were allowed to choose what to attend. They also attended regular after-school cluster meetings exploring the new Technology curriculum.
Using a staff-created observation tool
Strategy 3:
Have the same expectations of teaching and learning of all teachers, including Technology teachers.
Throughout 2006-2009, all the school's teachers were involved in whole-staff PD to discuss the new New Zealand Curriculum and the effect on the school from any change in direction that would result from the creation of their school curriculum. During 2007, as part of the development of the school curriculum, the staff collaboratively developed an instrument for assessing what effective learning and teaching looks like in classrooms. A set of criteria was drafted and redrafted for use as an observation tool in each classroom, and has been reviewed by the entire staff, including the Technology teachers, every year since.
The principal first used the observation tool in 2007, when he visited all of the classrooms in the school and found that he needed to work with the Technology team to assist them in the change towards Technology. Having initially based his opinion on anecdotal feedback and his walk-through visits, the principal had now begun to gather his own data using the observation tool and found that it appeared to fit with what he had been told by other sources.
School-wide priorities
Strategy 4:
Involve Technology teachers in school-wide PD, but scaffold and support them to identify the transfer into their specialist programmes.
Although he had made an effort to promote change in Technology, the principal says his energy remained focussed on changing classroom practice throughout the school. In 2008, the school moved from literacy/ICT to a numeracy PD project and establishing differentiated teaching in classrooms. While the Technology team was involved in the same PD as the other staff, there was little noticeable transfer of literacy/ICT/numeracy/differentiation into their teaching practice.
The principal realised that while having the Technology staff fully involved in school-wide professional development is vital, it is also essential to scaffold for specialist teachers how these new understandings and skills can be transferred into a specialist classroom. An example of how he plans to address this can be seen within the school's current school-wide PD in relation to ELL teaching strategies and resources. Their ELL facilitator commented on the need for Technology teachers to be actively teaching subject-specific vocabulary. She is planning to run a workshop in late 2010 using the Making Language and Learning Work 3 DVD which features a Technology teacher working with their team, and presents effective teaching of literacy strategies for all students based on ELL principles.
School commitment to Technology
Strategy 5:
Regularly observe in Technology classrooms and provide timely, specific feedback and feed forward.
In 2009, the principal was ready to use the staff-created observation tool to specifically focus on effective learning and teaching in Technology classrooms. Each Technology teacher chose the class he would observe, and all four selected a Year 7 class. He met individually with each teacher after the observation and his feedback gave them clear evidence that, from what he had observed, their delivery of Technology concepts was highly variable.
After one-on-one feedback meetings, the principal brought the team together and discussed with them his observations and concerns. The team pointed out how unhappy they were with the process he had followed, saying that he should have been a lot clearer in letting them know he had previously been dissatisfied with the situation and that he should have been more open about the purpose behind the observation visits.
The principal reflects that they were right and he should have been more up-front with his thoughts on Technology and why he wanted to particularly focus on their classes in 2009. His reasoning had been that he didn't have any evidence other than second-hand and anecdotal reports. Furthermore, he wasn't sure if the tool could actually be used effectively in a Technology room and he wanted a sense of what was currently happening. The principal notes that if he had been clearer about his intentions it would have better prepared his teachers for what were very difficult messages to hear. [As a result of the team's comments, and to keep them informed of his actions, this snapshot was shared with them before publication]. Two of the team were also quite critical of the observation tool, stating that it wasn't able to measure what was happening in a Technology classroom. As a result of this criticism, a Technology advisor was asked, in 2010, to design a specific Technology observation tool (See below).
Curriculum Focus Year
Strategy 6:
Have an annual curriculum area as a focus for professional development and review.
As a result of the feedback meeting in 2009, Technology was chosen as a focus curriculum area for 2010. The school has a curriculum focus each year in which funding is allocated for in-school and external PD. Additional teacher-release days are allocated so that teachers can create an action plan and rewrite policies and procedures for their curriculum area. By the end of Term 3, the Technology department was informed of the available funding and given a specific action plan setting out the expected outcomes to be achieved by the end of 2010. The team is expected to report against these outcomes to the Board of Trustees in late 2010.
Strategy 7:
Regularly join Technology team meetings.
As part of the curriculum focus development, the team was asked to meet every fortnight. Following the research presented in the School Leadership and Student Outcomes BES, the principal stated that he would attend every meeting and was willing to lead discussions or have the team leader do so. One of the school learning leaders (a member of the senior management team) was kept fully informed of the process so that she could attend meetings if the principal couldn't "to keep that focus 'that management is interested in what you are doing'". The expectation was shared that during each of the four whole-day PD sessions the team had in 2010, a Technology advisor would also attend to support them.
Shared student booklet
Strategy 8:
Create shared team-wide generic student material (e.g. a plan of action booklet). The process is of much value as the finished booklet.
With a new structure established, the principal asked the Technology advisors if they would attend meetings, where possible, with specific agenda items to be addressed. The presence of the principal in all meetings held with advisors ensured that each meeting remained focussed on the outcomes set out in late 2009. The meetings focussed on the Technological Practice strand and the team was assisted to develop a shared student booklet (a design booklet based on Technological Practice) and a common vocabulary to use with the students. The principal notes that the process of creating the student booklet was an excellent conversation starter for four diverse teachers who saw their subjects as distinct from an entity called Technology. Having to create something that tied them together was a powerful method of getting them to talk about the common factors, common activities, and a common way of moving forward. The team has embraced their shared booklet as a team-wide tool and regularly reviews and improves it.
Unfortunately, the HOD perceived the presence of the principal and the Technology advisors as undermining her position and a loss of faith in her leadership of the team. At the end of Term 1 in 2010 she resigned.
Strategy 9:
Explore and discuss support material and resources on Techlink.
During a Term 2 workshop the advisor set Techlink homework (PDF download, 227kb) to encourage the staff to use their laptops to visit the Techlink website. The principal, who also did the homework, notes that it was a positive thing for the team to see he had done the same work.
Subsequently, the shared student booklet led to the development of shared assessment criteria which naturally led to moderation discussions about "What does this criteria mean?" and "What does it look like in our classrooms?" Moderation meetings had begun in a "This is my work and I'm showing you" frame of mind, rather than looking at how staff could work together on student progression. To overcome this, the advisor suggested that the teachers weren't allowed to bring any outcomes with them to the moderation meeting, only the student booklets.
Contrary to Ministry guidance that during 2010 schools should be teaching the Nature of Technology and Technological Knowledge strands, the decision was made that the team would focus on Technological Practice only and get that right first. In reply to arguments about needing to teach the two new strands and what ERO (Education Review Office) might think, the principal stated that he would take responsibility for the decision.
A Technology classroom observation tool
Strategy 10:
Make use of a Technology Classroom Observation Tool.
To address the issue raised earlier – that the observation tool wasn't relevant to Technology classrooms – the principal asked the advisor for a mini-observation tool to help him assess if the Technology teachers were delivering Technological Practice and to help him distinguish between Manual and Technology teaching. He believes that the development of a Technology-specific observation tool "is a really important development because the Technology teachers have to feel comfortable that it's actually looking at the things they're involved with". The mini-observation tool consisted of a brief checklist stating that students should have the opportunity to:
- design and create their own product (Technological Practice) individually, in pairs or in groups;
- create a plan for how they will achieve this;
- write a design brief (also known as a conceptual statement). What are they making? Who are they making it for? Why are they making it?
- write attributes/specifications for their product;
- create drawings/designs/recipes of what they are making; and
- evaluate their product and their progress, during the process and at the end. They should evaluate their product against their attributes/specifications.
The advisor's mini-observation has been further developed into a Technology classroom observation tool.
Appointing a change leader
Strategy 11:
Appoint a change leader, not just a head of Technology.
The other major undertaking in 2010 was the appointment of a new HOD Technology. It was decided that as this was an important position and the person would be leading change in the school, the process of filling the vacancy wouldn't be rushed and that the school would cover those classes in the interim. They were fortunate, says the principal, in having a first-year teacher with a talent for Technology. Flexibility in the school structure allowed her to be seconded to develop and teach a Technology programme for a term, which meant the delay wasn't an issue.
The principal asked the advisor to assist the school with the process of advertising and appointing an HOD and it was decided to make use of the Best Evidence Synthesis leadership dimensions. Consequently, the "person description", letter of advertisement, and interview questions were all based around the leadership dimensions. "What we're saying is that the HOD Technology is actually a leadership position in change, rather than specifically a Technology position," the principal explains.
There was a lot of interest in the position and another strategy was introduced to the selection process. Applicants were asked to visit the school prior to applying, which provided the opportunity to discuss the role and find out what the school wanted. This resulted in a strong pool of applicants who were informed that if successful they would be involved in writing their job description. A member of the technology team was invited to be on the appointments panel and helped decide on the successful applicant.
The new HOD, who started at the beginning of Term 3, met the principal and the advisor in late Term 2 to write his job description in collaboration with them. This specified the responsibility he had accepted, the team he would lead, and joint expectations for successful outcomes. His previous school released him to spend a day with the principal and the advisor to write an action plan looking at: "What are the steps we need to work towards?" and "How are we going to get there?" The plan was regarded as a first draft and would be worked on in further meetings in August and Term 4, so wouldn't come into force until 2011.
Student voice
Strategy 12:
Consider student voice in relation to Technology in your school.
The new HOD requested a survey of the students' opinion of Technology before he joined the school and devised some questions around this. The survey was presented by a relatively neutral person to groups of students from each class who had completed at least two technology subjects that year. The students were interviewed in groups of five and their comments recorded, and they also completed individual questionnaires.
The results of the interviews were presented by the survey facilitator at a Technology team meeting with the HOD (the principal absented himself so that his presence didn't detract from issues raised). The survey showed that the 2010 student cohort perceived Technology as two distinct things: a design brief and a manual product, rather than a design brief as an integral part of undertaking Technological Practice. The students also commented that they thought there was too much writing. This set the team the challenge of discussing the writing aspect and its balance with other aspects of an effective Technology programme.
Where to next?
Strategy 13:
Invite external facilitators to work with teachers and support them by joining their sessions.
In mid-2010, the school is moving forwards with a leader passionate about the full implementation of the Technology curriculum. The Technology advisors have continued to run workshops for the team during the year and the principal supports the facilitators through attending their sessions and giving them opportunities to give feedback to him on the team's progress. He comments that the Technology booklet, developed by the team during their meetings, has been successful as it has led them to use the same language and to hold subsequent debates such as "What does this word mean in your room?" and "What does it mean in mine?" Using the same booklet means using the same assessment criteria, which has led on to shared moderation activities – often the moderation isn't actually for student assessment purposes but about developing shared understandings.
When reflecting on progress over the five years the principal says he believes that, as the educational leader in the school, it is the principal's responsibility to participate in the process when an area of the school needs to change. While this process has meant a major commitment of his time and energy, the change needed is now underway. He acknowledges that expecting such a significant shift in one year was probably too much of a challenge for the team and comments that getting everyone thinking about Technological Practice has taken more energy than he thought would be required. Given that the team also has to get used to a new leader, he is considering having Technology as a focus year again in 2011. This would maintain the momentum as teachers begin to incorporate the other two strands into their programmes.
Technology specific and generic leadership strategies (diagram)
RSS Feed
