Showing posts with label strategic planning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label strategic planning. Show all posts
Monday, August 3, 2020
Springboard Trust - such an awesome opportunity to grow your strategic leadership skills
Thrilled to see this write up go public from Springboard Trust sharing the journey and positive outcomes that we experienced after I had the opportunity to participate in the SLPP - Strategic Leadership Programme for Principals.
I would highly recommend this professional development opportunity to all school principal's out there wanting to grow their understanding, knowledge and skills in strategic planning.
https://www.springboardtrust.org.nz/news/a-golden-plan-tamara-bell-on-how-slpp-helped-southbridge-school
Sunday, May 6, 2018
Strategic Leadership for Principals Programme 2018
I am a self confessed 'learning junkie'. I love learning - I constantly seek out new opportunities and challenges that will push me and help me to grow. I won't lie, there have been MANY times when I get pushed so hard that I swear I will just chill and take things easy for awhile but it is never long before I start getting the urge to dive into something new.
At the end of 2017, a principal colleague told me about a possible opportunity coming to Canterbury in 2018 - The 'Strategic Leadership for Principals Programme - SLPP' . I had heard lot's of great feedback about the Strategic Leadership for Principals’ Programme but had thought it was only available in Auckland. SLPP is a 10-month, free programme that leverages cross-sector expertise to provide strategic leadership development and support for New Zealand principals. Needless to say - this immediately interested me and so I submitted an application to be considered in the first group of principals selected for Canterbury.
Last term, I was selected for the Canterbury intake for 2018, alongside 5 other fantastic Canterbury principals: Blair Dravitski - Linwood Avenue School, Anthony Faitaua - Rowley Primary School, Denise Torrey - Somerfield School, Andrew Leverton - Geraldine Primary School and Shane Buckner - Wairakei Primary School.
So what is SLPP all about?
International research shows the pivotal importance of good strategic leadership for both improved school performance and student outcomes.
The Strategic Leadership for Principals’ Programme is an action-orientated curriculum which helps principals build robust strategic plans for their school.
Facilitated by senior business leaders and supported by skilled capacity partners, the programme is also designed to support each principal in their leadership development. Programme content is frequently updated by subject matter experts and tailored to meet the needs of individual participants by skilled facilitators.
Programme structure
In the Strategic Leadership for Principals’ Programme, we work intensively with cohorts of six principals over 10 months to develop strategic plans for their schools.
Senior business leaders facilitate a series of workshops in which principals learn about strategic planning in an education setting.
Peer collaboration encourages the development of problem-solving capabilities and the acquisition of new skills in an environment in which principals can speak frankly and openly.
98% of principals on the Strategic Leadership for Principals' Programme have indicated that they learnt a lot by sharing with other principals in their cohort.
2017 Programme Impact Report
A capacity partner is assigned to each individual principal through a careful matching process to further support them in the process of developing useful strategic planning skills. The capacity partner coaches the principal outside of the workshops to help them produce their own strategic vision, plan and goals that will address the unique issues they face in their school.
Capacity partners are drawn from a pool of knowledgeable skills volunteers with successful business or public sector leadership experience.
At the end of the programme, each principal has developed a three-year strategic plan for his or her school, a one-year action plan, and has gained an enhanced support network of peers and business people.
For more information, check out their website:
Springboard Trust: Strategic Leadership for Principals Programme
Capacity Partner
I am thrilled that my mentor on this journey is Sarina Finucane, the CVP Manager (customer values proposition) for IAG. We have lots in common but lots to learn from each other too. I am excited about participating in this awesome programme so early on in my principal career and all the learning and opportunties that may come from it!
Wednesday, October 28, 2015
My recommendations for colleagues considering transformation in education
The following review is a synthesis of key understandings and learning experiences that have emerged throughout the year that I would recommend to my colleagues considering transformation in education.
Exploring transformation and scoping educational change
Change can be difficult and stressful as it often stems from a ‘shifting context’, where the status quo is no longer the best way forward. For positive and sustainable change to occur, a ‘road map for leading change’ (Jansen, 2015) is important and must start with the why (Sinek, 2009). This not only supports leaders to understand the why but also to consider the key elements that will need to be explored while working through the change process, like the where, how, who and what. Once leaders have this roadmap in place, they can and should share it with all participants to ensure a shared understanding of the context for change and what elements will need to be explored when moving from the business as usual or ‘current state’, to the new business as usual or ‘future state’ (Jansen, 2015).
When scoping for change, the drivers for educational transformation should be identified. These are the things that are pushing or pulling your school towards the need to make changes. I would recommend that all key stakeholders have the opportunity to identify what external factors e.g. the global impact of technology or the identified new skills necessary for the jobs of tomorrow (OECD, 2012) and what internal factors, for example at my school, a whole school rebuild due to earthquake damage, are influencing or already changing your educational context. Once these factors have been identified by all key stakeholders, you can then begin to see what potential risks/threats and what potential opportunities there are as a result of these drivers of change in action.
Visioning and systemic thinking in strategic planning
Strategic thinking must be systemic, in that we need to be able to see the big picture before we can understand the parts within it. To be able to make considerate and effective decisions around whole school change, understanding the whole comes before understanding the parts but the key element is actually in the interaction. If we do not consider the way in which decisions or change in one area can impact on another, we can be left with ‘unintended consequences’. An example of this could be where a school decides to change the hours of instruction, starting and finishing earlier in the day. This is based on good research that children will learn better in those hours but the unintended consequences could be huge e.g. increase of parents in need of after school childcare or out of sync timetables for siblings at different schools. I would recommend using key questions, relevant to your context, to create conversations and a shared understanding of the bigger picture, the parts within it and how the interact or influence each other. These questions could be used as a framework when working with staff, leaders, governance, whānau and students, “what does a successful school look like?” and “what are the factors that contribute to this and how do they influence each other?” Another reputable change model I would recommend schools research and apply to their own context by having staff collaboratively map out the change arena applied to their kura, would be Davis’ ‘Arena of Change’ (2008), a model that applies an ecological perspective to understand how teacher learning may be promoted for educational renewal, and clearly identifies that “teachers are the keystone speciesin the education ecologies of the twenty-first century world”.
Pedagogical shifts
Successful change to better meet the needs of modern learners in today's and tomorrow's schools will require some dramatic shifts to traditional methods and practice of teaching. ‘New pedagogies’ (Fullan & Langworthy, 2014) will present plenty of challenges but excitingly, lots of opportunities to better engage and prepare our students for a world that requires people with inquiry and problem solving skills, who can effectively collaborate, innovate, create and communicate and who are culturally responsive, digitally literate and globally aware. Derek Wenmoth (2013) from CORE Education talks about the drivers for change being agency, connectedness and ubiquity and these are driving some of the pedagogical changes that need to occur so that schools become an environment that values and fosters student agency, collaboration, co-teaching, self regulated and personalised learning. I would recommend that when schools are considering pedagogical shifts, they need to begin with their students what do they need to know, understand and do to be successful? Secondly what does our learning practices and environments need to look like to accomplish this? Finally how will we know what impact this is having on student engagement, enjoyment and achievement?
Community, whānau and iwi engagement
When considering transforming education in your school context, it is imperative that all members of your school community are included on this journey and can participate in the decision making process he waka eke noa:a canoe on which everyone can embark. One of the first steps needs to be identifying all key stakeholders students, whānau, staff and Board of Trustees. As I identified earlier in the scoping process, it would also be recommendable to reach further abroad and look for other potential partners that could bring added value and richness to the transformation and future of the school through ‘civic engagement the action through which citizens join in new conversations that have the capacity to alter the future’, for example, libraries, community serviceshealth, police, social services, local community businesses or other educational institutions e.g. Polytechnic or Universities.
Iwi engagement is also critical for all New Zealand educational settings. We know that traditionally we have not met the needs of many of our priority learners, specifically Māori and Pasifika tamariki and their whānau (MoE, 2013). Culturally responsive practices embedded into the culture of our schools will ensure that schools are upholding their obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi (1840) and are providing educational experiences that are authentic, meaningful and relevant for all learners, that build on their prior knowledge and cultural connections and acknowledges and celebrates diversity and the potential each child has within them to succeed. I would recommend that schools reach out to iwi and build a reciprocal and meaningful relationship with them. You will need their input and guidance around what culturally responsive practices should be normalised in your school setting and perhaps even establishing a ‘cultural narrative’ for your school, where schools can ensure design and practice will reflect the rich history of your local iwi and whenua. More importantly, schools need to address will be their tamariki, whānau and staff can support the iwi. A reciprocal relationship built on respect and ongoing support for each other will reap rewards for all and ensure the vision for Ka Hikitia (2013) of ‘Māori enjoying educational success as Māori’ becomes a reality in your kura.
References
Davis, N.E. (2008). How may teacher learning be promoted for educational renewal with IT? In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (eds.), International Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education, (507520) Amsterdam: Springer
Fullan, M., & Langworthy. (2014).A Rich Seam: How new pedagogies find deep learning. Retrieved from http://www.michaelfullan.ca/wpcontent/uploads/2014/01/3897.Rich_Seam_web.pdf
Jansen, C. (2015). Road map for change: presentation at lecture #1 of EDEM630 course. University of Canterbury.
Ministry of Education. (2013). Ka HikitiaAccelerating Success 20132017.Wellington, New Zealand:Learning Media.
OECD (2012). Education Today 2013: The OECD Perspective. Retrieved from
http://abdigm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2013_12/20023619_educationtoday2013the oecdperspective.pdf
Sinek, S. (2009). Start with Why: How great leaders inspire everyone to take action. New York: Portfolio.
Te Tiriti o Waitangi (1840)
Wenmoth, D., (2012) EdTalks; Ubiquity, agency and connectedness. Retreived from
http://edtalks.org/video/ubiquityagencyandconnectedness
Davis, N.E. (2008). How may teacher learning be promoted for educational renewal with IT? In J. Voogt & G. Knezek (eds.), International Handbook of Information Technology in Primary and Secondary Education, (507520) Amsterdam: Springer
Fullan, M., & Langworthy. (2014).A Rich Seam: How new pedagogies find deep learning. Retrieved from http://www.michaelfullan.ca/wpcontent/uploads/2014/01/3897.Rich_Seam_web.pdf
Jansen, C. (2015). Road map for change: presentation at lecture #1 of EDEM630 course. University of Canterbury.
Ministry of Education. (2013). Ka HikitiaAccelerating Success 20132017.Wellington, New Zealand:Learning Media.
OECD (2012). Education Today 2013: The OECD Perspective. Retrieved from
http://abdigm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2013_12/20023619_educationtoday2013the oecdperspective.pdf
Sinek, S. (2009). Start with Why: How great leaders inspire everyone to take action. New York: Portfolio.
Te Tiriti o Waitangi (1840)
Wenmoth, D., (2012) EdTalks; Ubiquity, agency and connectedness. Retreived from
http://edtalks.org/video/ubiquityagencyandconnectedness
Labels:
change,
EDEM682,
iwi,
māori achievement,
māori success,
new pedagogies,
PTC10,
PTC12,
PTC3,
PTC4,
PTC5,
PTC6,
PTC9,
strategic planning,
transformation,
transformational education,
visioning,
whānau
Sunday, August 16, 2015
Mapping your e-Learning journey
What?
The e-learning planning framework is a tool to help teachers and school reflect on and evaluate their e-learning capability. It can be used to support schools through a process of self-review and ongoing development and improvements, by identifying their current position and therefore indicating what their potential next steps may be. There are five dimensions within the eLPF - Beyond the Classroom, Learning and Teaching, Technologies and Infrastructure, Professional Learning and Leadership and Strategic Direction. Running across the dimensions are five phases of 'e-maturity' that describe how technology is adopted and integrated into teaching and learning. The phases are pre-emerging, emerging, engaging, extending and empowering, and "the phases not only describe development in technology integration, but also describe pedagogical development, from teacher-directed to collaborative, co-constructed learning" (Enabling e-Learning).
In 2010, I was extremely fortunate to be a part of the original CORE Education team who created the eLPF and can assure you it was a difficult task to create succinct but relevant indicators for each dimension, across each stage, that fit the NZ educational context but aligned to other national and international research. We spent months researching prior to the consultation phase and Stephen Marshall's e-Learning Maturity Model-eMM played a huge part in informing our work, as did Hall & Hord's Concerns-based adoption model - CBAM and Mishra and Koehler's Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge - TPAK
What is really pleasing to see is the improvements to the original framework we produced. The first version was lacking any real and meaningful links to whānau besides within the Beyond the Classroom dimension, mainly due to the restrictions in the size of the document, trying to keep things concise and not too lengthy. Now, important links to whānau and the wider community are found throughout almost all dimensions. What also was missing was the ability for whānau and students to engage and offer their perspective. It is fantastic to see latest versions have made those improvements and the framework now offers the opportunity for students and whānau, as well as staff to complete it. What is also exciting is when we first released the eLPF, it was in a document form only, released on Enabling e-Learning and linked to form the Virtual Learning Network (VLN). It quickly became obvious that for this tool to be truly useful for schools, it needed a more in-depth, responsive way of administering the framework and allowing people to engage with it, collate the data and then provide an analysis of this data, as many schools were struggling with this part.
So What?
The development of the flexible and efficient eLPF online tool made the administration and analysis of the eLPF data so much easier and more valuable for schools as it provided them with an overall picture of where they were at and therefore, what their next steps might be. I I would encourage you, if you are able to and haven't already, to look at the using the eLPF online tool at your own school.
It is also important to consider what questions may go unanswered. What can the eLPF not offer or tell you? Having been involved with the eLPF from its conception here in NZ and used the tool as both a facilitator of professional development, a teacher and now as a school leader I feel I can accurately identify what is still unclear for me. The questions that I still have after using the eLPF is how accurate can you be when mapping you school position at each dimension against a phase of development? I know for a fact, every time I have administered the eLPF, there is a huge range of responses, but to be able to position your school overall, the average tends to become the default. How do you record this succinctly within your findings, without going into a blow by blow analysis of each staff member?
One of the biggest challenges I have seen happen often with the use of the eLPF in schools is the tendency for schools to travel backwards on their journey! Quite often the first time schools administer the eLPF and teachers complete the online tool, the results can indicate that a school is working at the extending and empowering phases. However, the next time the elpf is administered it shows a shift backwards, with the school now positioned at emerging or engaging. This can raise a lot of questions for staff and leaders in particularly. What I have found is the reason for this is that when staff start looking closely at what specifically is happening in their classrooms, what their next steps are and they start to research and plan changes necessary to better meet the needs of modern learners, teachers often find out that their original evaluation of where they thought they were was incorrect. It often comes down to 'You don't know what you don't know', meaning that as teachers learn more about what e-capability looks like at the empowering stage, the more they realise that there is still a long way to go. And that this is an ongoing process, often with a feeling of one step forward, two steps back. This is precisely why the image below shows circular arrows to indicate that this is a process of inquiry, where you will often need to re-work, re-learn things multiple times. It clearly shows that at each phase you may go around and around for sometime before finding your way forward. It also highlights that at the beginning phases, pre-emerging and emerging, the focus for schools and staff can often be driven by the technologies but as you move through the phases, the decisions within a school about relating to the 5 dimensions become driven by curriculum learning needs rather than just about the technology.
Now What?
Prior to me working at Cobham Intermediate, they used the eLPF online tool with staff and school leadership in 2014 to identify where they were placed. I would like to re-administer the online tool, bringing in members from our students, BoT and parents this time to add to the wider picture of where we now are. I want to use this information and data to help us design our new strategic plan for ICT/e-Learning at Cobham Intermediate for 2016-2018. I also hope that by re-administering the eLPF later in this term, we will be able to see some clear areas of shift for our staff and this will give them a good sense of achievement and confidence, being able to look back and see what impact the shift to BYOD is having on the development of teacher skills and knowledge and more importantly, the impact on student engagement and achievement.
References
Enabling e-Learning (2011) . Professional Learning: e-Learning Planning Framework. Retrieved from http://elearning.tki.org.nz/Professional-learning/e-Learning-Planning-Framework
Hall & Hord. (1987). The Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM): A Model for Change in Individuals.[Electronic version http://www.nas.edu/rise/backg4a.htm]
Mishra & Koehler. (2006) Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). [Electronic version http://www.tpack.org/]
Marshall, S. (2010). A Quality Framework for Continuous Improvement of E-Learning: The E-Learning Maturity Model. Journal of Distance Education 24(1):143-166. http://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/606/1030
The e-learning planning framework is a tool to help teachers and school reflect on and evaluate their e-learning capability. It can be used to support schools through a process of self-review and ongoing development and improvements, by identifying their current position and therefore indicating what their potential next steps may be. There are five dimensions within the eLPF - Beyond the Classroom, Learning and Teaching, Technologies and Infrastructure, Professional Learning and Leadership and Strategic Direction. Running across the dimensions are five phases of 'e-maturity' that describe how technology is adopted and integrated into teaching and learning. The phases are pre-emerging, emerging, engaging, extending and empowering, and "the phases not only describe development in technology integration, but also describe pedagogical development, from teacher-directed to collaborative, co-constructed learning" (Enabling e-Learning).
In 2010, I was extremely fortunate to be a part of the original CORE Education team who created the eLPF and can assure you it was a difficult task to create succinct but relevant indicators for each dimension, across each stage, that fit the NZ educational context but aligned to other national and international research. We spent months researching prior to the consultation phase and Stephen Marshall's e-Learning Maturity Model-eMM played a huge part in informing our work, as did Hall & Hord's Concerns-based adoption model - CBAM and Mishra and Koehler's Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge - TPAK
What is really pleasing to see is the improvements to the original framework we produced. The first version was lacking any real and meaningful links to whānau besides within the Beyond the Classroom dimension, mainly due to the restrictions in the size of the document, trying to keep things concise and not too lengthy. Now, important links to whānau and the wider community are found throughout almost all dimensions. What also was missing was the ability for whānau and students to engage and offer their perspective. It is fantastic to see latest versions have made those improvements and the framework now offers the opportunity for students and whānau, as well as staff to complete it. What is also exciting is when we first released the eLPF, it was in a document form only, released on Enabling e-Learning and linked to form the Virtual Learning Network (VLN). It quickly became obvious that for this tool to be truly useful for schools, it needed a more in-depth, responsive way of administering the framework and allowing people to engage with it, collate the data and then provide an analysis of this data, as many schools were struggling with this part.
So What?
The development of the flexible and efficient eLPF online tool made the administration and analysis of the eLPF data so much easier and more valuable for schools as it provided them with an overall picture of where they were at and therefore, what their next steps might be. I I would encourage you, if you are able to and haven't already, to look at the using the eLPF online tool at your own school.
It is also important to consider what questions may go unanswered. What can the eLPF not offer or tell you? Having been involved with the eLPF from its conception here in NZ and used the tool as both a facilitator of professional development, a teacher and now as a school leader I feel I can accurately identify what is still unclear for me. The questions that I still have after using the eLPF is how accurate can you be when mapping you school position at each dimension against a phase of development? I know for a fact, every time I have administered the eLPF, there is a huge range of responses, but to be able to position your school overall, the average tends to become the default. How do you record this succinctly within your findings, without going into a blow by blow analysis of each staff member?
One of the biggest challenges I have seen happen often with the use of the eLPF in schools is the tendency for schools to travel backwards on their journey! Quite often the first time schools administer the eLPF and teachers complete the online tool, the results can indicate that a school is working at the extending and empowering phases. However, the next time the elpf is administered it shows a shift backwards, with the school now positioned at emerging or engaging. This can raise a lot of questions for staff and leaders in particularly. What I have found is the reason for this is that when staff start looking closely at what specifically is happening in their classrooms, what their next steps are and they start to research and plan changes necessary to better meet the needs of modern learners, teachers often find out that their original evaluation of where they thought they were was incorrect. It often comes down to 'You don't know what you don't know', meaning that as teachers learn more about what e-capability looks like at the empowering stage, the more they realise that there is still a long way to go. And that this is an ongoing process, often with a feeling of one step forward, two steps back. This is precisely why the image below shows circular arrows to indicate that this is a process of inquiry, where you will often need to re-work, re-learn things multiple times. It clearly shows that at each phase you may go around and around for sometime before finding your way forward. It also highlights that at the beginning phases, pre-emerging and emerging, the focus for schools and staff can often be driven by the technologies but as you move through the phases, the decisions within a school about relating to the 5 dimensions become driven by curriculum learning needs rather than just about the technology.
![]() |
| Image retrieved from https://magic.piktochart.com/output/1650583-how-to-use-the-elpf |
Now What?
Prior to me working at Cobham Intermediate, they used the eLPF online tool with staff and school leadership in 2014 to identify where they were placed. I would like to re-administer the online tool, bringing in members from our students, BoT and parents this time to add to the wider picture of where we now are. I want to use this information and data to help us design our new strategic plan for ICT/e-Learning at Cobham Intermediate for 2016-2018. I also hope that by re-administering the eLPF later in this term, we will be able to see some clear areas of shift for our staff and this will give them a good sense of achievement and confidence, being able to look back and see what impact the shift to BYOD is having on the development of teacher skills and knowledge and more importantly, the impact on student engagement and achievement.
References
Enabling e-Learning (2011) . Professional Learning: e-Learning Planning Framework. Retrieved from http://elearning.tki.org.nz/Professional-learning/e-Learning-Planning-Framework
Hall & Hord. (1987). The Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM): A Model for Change in Individuals.[Electronic version http://www.nas.edu/rise/backg4a.htm]
Mishra & Koehler. (2006) Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). [Electronic version http://www.tpack.org/]
Marshall, S. (2010). A Quality Framework for Continuous Improvement of E-Learning: The E-Learning Maturity Model. Journal of Distance Education 24(1):143-166. http://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/606/1030
Labels:
CBAM,
CORE Education,
development,
e-maturity,
EDEM630,
eLPF,
eMM,
framework,
growth,
pathway,
reflection,
strategic planning,
TPAK
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)






