Let’s face it – schools are primarily about kids and their learning. Sure, we need buildings, teachers, furniture, timetables and the like to support that, but the primary focus should be on them.
This is why I am personally very pleased to see the recent announcement from the Ministry of Education regarding the Education (Update) Amendment Bill. The current Act under which our education system operates places huge emphasis on the structures and governance of our schools, but less on the kids themselves – in fact learners and learning are barely mentioned. This would work well enough if all of our learners were uniform in terms of their learning needs and they were all happy to take whatever courses their local school can provide – but that’s no longer the case. The world has become an increasingly diverse place, creating increasingly diverse opportunities – and demands – for our young people. As a result, their expectations (and those of their parents and whānau) have changed – and many parts of our current education system are struggling to address this.
The proposed changes to the Education Act will provide greater flexibility for the system to respond to these expectations – now and into the future. As with any change it will be necessary to discuss and debate the detail in order to ensure there are no ‘unintended consequences’ – and I welcome that as part of a participatory democracy, as long as we can move beyond the ‘sound-bite’ journalism we are subjected to from the media and politicians.
One part of the proposed Amendment that appears to have drawn lots of attention already is the proposal to enable new partnerships between schools and online learning providers, and enable children and young people to access their education through online delivery. It is proposed that online learning providers will come from the schooling, tertiary education, and private sectors, and will be able to seek accreditation as a Community of Online Learning (COOL).
Much of the discussion has immediately focused on suspicions around the entry of private providers into the education system (as if that hasn’t happened for decades already). The debate around corporate support of Education is crucial to the continuation of a public education system that is free and available to all and I support that. But within the rigors of this debate let’s not confuse the issues. If the concern rests with corporate participation, then let the debate focus on that –but let’s not pour scorn on the opportunities that are being created for learners to have their learning needs meet in ways that may be more creative, more flexible and more relevant to their needs, culture and interests.
It’s good to see that the first COOL off the block will be Te Aho o Te Kura Pounamu (Te Kura) – formerly the Correspondence School. This institution has been operating since 1922, catering for the needs of students who don’t “fit” the conventional education system – some because of isolation, some because of circumstance, and a good many because the areas of study they wish to pursue aren’t available to them in their local school – and so they become ‘dual enrolled’. What’s perhaps not as well known is that until now, Te Kura has operated under it’s own section of the Act, especially crafted to suit the way Te Kura operates as the provisions of the Act that applies to all other schools don’t work for it – for instance, the requirements around attendance, opening hours, staff contact etc.
As someone who used to work at this institution, I am very pleased to see that they will now be able to operate with greater flexibility and in a more coherent way with their site-based counterparts, particularly as around 50% of their over 20,000 students are already based in these schools.
The fact is that for over 90 years, Te Kura has been serving the education needs of a segment of our population who would otherwise have been denied the opportunity within the structure of site-based schools – and to my knowledge, they have done this as successfully as any other school. Many of our business leaders, politicians and even Prime Ministers have benefited from an education that has included time enrolled with the Correspondence School.
Learning at a distance in this way has always been about a choice for some, and the only viable option for others – either way, the quality of provision has ensured success for those participating as learners.
The prospect of this ‘distance’ engagement moving into an online environment brings with it even more opportunity, as well as issues to be addressed (i.e. equity, access, support etc.), but is nonetheless a welcome move in my view. And it’s not new! Te Kura have been using online technologies to engage with their students for over a decade, and around New Zealand, teachers in many of our remote and rural schools have been using online technologies to create opportunities for their students to access subjects of their choice for almost two decades.
The Virtual Learning Network (VLN) evolved from its beginnings in the early 1990s when a group of Area Schools in Canterbury started collaborating to enable their students to be able to access subjects being taught be teachers in schools other than the one they were physically attending. (Back in the day I coordinated and helped write a handbook to guide the development of these LCOs – how the cycles continue!) Around the same time many of the Kura in New Zealand began doing something similar to ensure their students could access their subject choices in Te Reo under the KAWM project. The data around students learning in these networks suggests that they are just as capable of experiencing success as their classroom-based counterparts – perhaps even more so. (Read more in my paper with Michael Barbour)
What these schools have in common is that in the interests of serving the needs of their students they have had to struggle with and become creative about the way they operate within the limitations of the current Act. Being unable to recognize students being enrolled with more than one school, or requiring a teacher to be a staff member at a specific school while their expertise may be spread among many are a couple of examples – along with the whole financial side of things which means money allocated to a student can only go to one school with no easy way of sharing that when that student may be accessing her or his learning from one or more other places. The changes proposed in the Act will, hopefully, allow a more equitable and fair way for these schools and teachers to operate within.
The important thing about these examples is that they aren’t about a “one-size-fits-all” approach. No-one is suggesting that learners spend the whole day in front of a computer, devoid of any social connection. Educational research strongly supports the fact that the role of schools in supporting children’s social and emotional development is just as crucial as their cognitive development. I’d argue that by creating the opportunities for learners to access the subjects they want from while still attending their local school gives them the best of both worlds. There are several schools in the Virtual Learning Network (VLN) that are now thriving because they have been able to retain their learners in the local community where their social and emotional needs can be nurtured and cared for, while also ensuring their academic potential is realized by providing access to high quality instruction in subjects of their choosing using online technologies. This is not to mention also the opportunity created for many of these teachers to grow and develop professionally while remaining as teachers in these rural settings.
This isn’t something only for rural schools – the opportunities apply equally in urban settings. While I was working at the (then) Correspondence School our records showed only two secondary schools in New Zealand that didn’t have students enrolled for distance education – which suggests that even in our urban schools, the limitations created by factors timetables and staffing availability mean that even there students’ needs can’t be fully met under the current structure. A good example for me arose in Christchurch following the earthquakes there where one secondary school that was (and still is) re-located as a result of damage joined the VLN to ensure its students could have access to a broad curriculum. Their roll stabilized, their community remains intact and they remain a part of the VLN today.
I am pleased to see that due attention is to be given to the accreditation and regulation of any COOL providers – as should be the case, and is with our current schools. According to the information released this week, COOL will have to meet criteria relating to their capability and capacity to deliver education to students in an online environment and some COOL will be subject to additional terms and conditions, like which students they can enrol. All COOL will be subject to a robust quality assurance regime, including requirements to meet specified student outcomes.
This is both good and necessary because, as has been reported this week, alongside the very successful models, there are some rather awful examples of attempts to introduce online learning into schools – particularly some of the US online charter schools. This is where the voice of informed educational and community leaders needs to be heard, and involved in the process of accreditation. Staff in organisations such as Te Kura, the VLN Community and the Flexible Learning Association of NZ (FLANZ) are all part of an established body of education professionals within our country who have been doing this sort of thing for many years now – they should be consulted to ensure the policy and implementation models are informed by experience and research evidence.
So let’s keep the discussions going, and tease out where the opportunities are, and where the potential risks and downfalls are. But let’s also focus our attention on what this is all really about – our kids, their future and how we can work together to ensure we create a system that is fully supportive of addressing that.
9 thoughts on “Schools, COOLs and Kids”
Great response. Keep an open mind to offering opportunities for learning.
Excellent article, Derek. I can understand fears about private providers but in European countries there are several examples of state schools with a COOL mission (such as Sofia Distans in Sweden) and state tertiary providers with spin-off operations of COOL nature (the SCHOLAR programme from Heriot-Watt University in Scotland). One does not necessarily need to partner with a separate online provider nor need that online provider be “commercial”. I am glad you drew attention also to the range of provision that could be deployed – supplementary, fully virtual, and blended with various different approaches to timetabling. I do hope that more attention is given than it appears to the opportunity to use open educational resources and the need for economies of scale (these are related). In contrast to your education ministry the Department of Education in England in its wisdom turned down the first online academy bid last year, but I suspect UK observers will be paying close attention to how things play out in New Zealand, as in the rest of Europe outside the UK online learning is in fact prohibited for most “domestic” students (exceptions for hospital-bound etc) and New Zealand is a much more relevant exemplar for all parts of the UK schools system than the US or indeed Canada. — Paul
Another great read thanks Derek. I’ve just left a similar comment on Claire Amos’s post @ http://www.teachingandelearning.com/2016/08/keeping-our-cool-about-cools-without.html. My autistic/aspergers stepdaughter hasn’t returned to school all year at 15yrs and stanine 9. The noise, stress and distractions were a barrier to her learning. Imagine what these possibilities could do for her and thousands like her? So timely, I’ve just been reading George Siemens, “Informal learning is a significant aspect of our learning experience. Formal education no longer comprises the majority of our learning. Learning now occurs in a variety of ways – through communities of practice, personal networks, and through completion of work-related tasks.” in, Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age http://er.dut.ac.za/bitstream/handle/123456789/69/Siemens_2005_Connectivism_A_learning_theory_for_the_digital_age.pdf?sequence=1
Thank you Derek for your insight. It’s so cool to know people like yourself who are really passionate about the evolution of education. It’s exciting to see how these new learning environments spill over to the rest of our social and work environments. Makes me want to redo school all over again ?
Yes – given I was teaching ESOL online with absolute beginners which certainly had its challenges but was still doable, I’m watching this with interest. We saw great results and I could definitely see we were having a positive impact. As a result, I’m not being as quick to jump on the negative bandwagon as some of my colleagues though I do see the big social spinoffs for kids being in a face to face school.
Derek, the difficulty with these kind of pieces of broad and general provisions for online learning is the slippery slope. I have seen time and again internationally, particularly in the United States, where legislation like this has been supported by supplemental programs that are doing good work and having great success, only to have the legislation co-opted by those who have little interest in our students learning and see our children primarily as widgets that can increase the bottom line. The fact that this legislation is being introduced by a more neo-liberal leaning Government, one that has already adopted several neo-liberal education policies from abroad that have been found time and again to be ineffective makes it even more suspicious.
Like you I agree that online learning can be an effective modality. But I as I read through the legislation I am unconvinced of the quality protections listed in the legislation. Many of these are quite similar to those listed in the digital learning model legislation from the American Legislative Exchange Council (an organization designed to bring corporations and right-wing legislators together in the United States to draft model bills to benefit both the corporations and the ideology of the legislators). There are many models available for this Government to have drawn from internationally that would have creates an environment more conducive to fostering primary and secondary online learning that has been shown to work. I’d look to the original legislation that created the Florida Virtual School or the model legislation published by the National Education Policy Center.
I am quite concerned that given the vague and loose language around COOL in the current legislation, the doom and gloom picture that the Labour Party are putting out into the public will be prophetic.
Are we then to do what we have always done…..taken poorly constructed legislation and make it work in the best interests of the kids and families we serve?…I guess we would all prefer to have been a party to the legislation..my understanding is this came as a surprise to everyone. If that’s the case, I have no confidence that there will be any meaningful discussion on the accreditation process! I think it is hard not to feel that agendas are being pursued behind the face of good intention!?
Thanks for this thoughtful piece Derek. In my experience as a nearly e-Principal when students have support in place and social interactions available then being able to choose a subject that interests them is motivating and can work well. Teachers have to ensure that feedback is very specific and instructions are super clear. All doable. I’m wondering if there are intersections between MOOCs and COOLs?
Hi Derek and greetings from Kaunas, Lithuania.
In this context, there is no reason why Kiwi educators should not join, and learn, from the European Distance Education Network. Although the apparent orientation is towards tertiary distance learning principles, the systems successfully applied are equally relevant in schools.