Developing the BC learning agenda: innovation and improvement Part 2: emergent policies

1. BCSSA:FALL CONFERENCE 2010 Victoria, BC 18/19 November Developing the BC learning agenda: innovation and improvement Part 2: emergent policies Valerie Hannon and Tony Mackay Innovation Unit, UK

2. Global Education Leaders Programme Consortium Partners Jurisdiction Partners Australia Beijing, China England Finland Ontario, Canada New York City, USA New Zealand South Korea Victoria, Australia

3. The Global Education Leaders Program Program Objectives • to advocate the vision of 21st Century Learning (‘Education 3.0 and beyond) • to develop leadership capacity to transform education systems • to accelerate and sustain transformation efforts within GELP members' local and national systems • to grow a global community of education leaders and innovators • to create a global movement towards 21st Century Learning (‘Education 3.0’)

4. Global Education Leaders Program www.GETideas.org

5. Leading transformation Delivered in partnership Pace & urgency Routes to scale Sustainable Building ownership Holistic change Curriculum, pedagogy & assessment Infrastructure & Technology Leadership, People & Culture Policies, Procedures & Management Student-centred, personalised learning Technology vision led from the top Visionary leadership Well-governed and managed system 21st century curriculum High standard of educational technology Excellent teachers, principals and system-leaders Data-driven accountability & decisionmaking ‘Next practice’ pedagogy Integrated training – technology & pedagogy Ambitious, collaborative, innovative culture Innovation management Assessment for learning Flexible learning spaces Integrated ecosystem of partners The Education 3.0 Framework

6. Finland’s Pedagogy for Tomorrow • Ubiquitous technology, ubiquitous opportunity? • Collaborative, social-constructivist learning • Problem-based instruction • Progressive inquiry, experimental study • Peer feedback and peer cooperation

7. video

8. New York City: GELP member Putting Children First • John White, Deputy Chancellor, NYC Department of Education

9. NYC: THE OLD SCHOOL SYSTEM WAS NOT SET UP TO SUCCEED Before Mayor Bloomberg took charge of New York City’s public schools in 2002, the system was failing too many families and students. It was a system characterized by: • No coherent standards • 40 distinct districts, setting their own rules and standards • Limited accountability • No one responsible for results • Lots of finger pointing • Stagnant results for NYC students • Generations of students were leaving school without the skills and knowledge they needed to succeed

10. PHASE ONE: DEPOLITICIZE AND FOSTER COHERECE AND CAPACITY-BUILDING • Created a new management structure. We streamlined the bureaucracy, bringing stability and coherence to an unruly system. We created 10 regions, each comprising three or four community school districts and headed by a regional superintendent. • Focused on school leadership. Created the Leadership Academy to train and support new and existing principals. • Enhanced the curriculum. We implemented uniform math and English curricula and are introducing new curricula in the arts, social studies, and science. • Ended social promotion. We implemented a policy to ensure that promotion is always based on academic preparation. • Engaged families. Created new parent supports, placing a parent coordinator in every school. • Made schools safer. Major crimes are down more than 13% and other incidents are down by more than 45%. • Cut the bureaucracy. Between 2002 and 2007, we sent more than $190 million from the bureaucracy to schools and classrooms. (This has been independently confirmed by the City’s Independent Budget Office.)

11. PHASE TWO: EMPOWERMENT, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND LEADERSHIP Once the system was ready, we empowered our school leaders, giving them more decision-making power, and we held them accountable for results. We also sent an additional $174 million to schools and classrooms, bringing the total money devolved from the bureaucracy to more than $350 million. Empowerment Accountability Decisions are being made close to students: • Decisions can be best for students when they’re happening close to students at the school level. Individualized support options: • Principals used to get “support” from regions. Now, they choose what’s best for them from more than a dozen DOE and non-profit options. Schools also have: • More money and more power over budgets, staffing, and programs, letting them tailor instruction and programs to the specific needs of their schools. • New funding and more equitable distribution of resources to schools. Holding schools accountable for results: • Progress Reports (Grades A-F) • Learning Environment Surveys • Quality Reviews • Rewards and consequences based on results Tools for schools: • ARIS provides student performance data to guide school improvement efforts. • Periodic Assessments help schools identify  each student's strengths and weaknesses to target instruction. • Children First Intensive professional development builds school-wide capacity to diagnose student needs and to develop evidence-based individualized instruction, self-evaluation, and continuous improvement  in student learning.

12. AFTER REMAINING NEARLY FLAT FOR 10 YEARS, NYC’S GRADUATION RATE HAS INCREASED BY 33%SINCE 2002 NYC TRADITIONAL CALCULATION METHOD Percent of Students in a Cohort Graduating from High School in 4 Years 1992-2002 + 0% 2002-2009 + 33% 62.7 2005-2009 City Method: + 17% State Method: + 27% Class of NYC Calculation Method NY State Calculation Method NY State Calculation Method with August Graduates Notes: NYC traditional calculation includes Local and Regents Diplomas, GEDs, Special Education diplomas, and August graduates. It does not include disabled students in self-contained classrooms or District 75 students. The NYS calculation, used since 2005, includes Local and Regents Diplomas and all disabled students. It does not include GEDs and Special Education diplomas.

13. Today the U.S. ranks 15th in college completion, down from 2nd. CONFIDENTIAL13

14. PHASE THREE: SCHOOLS ORGANIZED AROUND THE NEEDS OF EACH CHILD. Different classrooms, same structure Schools re-imagined Disciplined Innovation Methodology Class A Class B Class C

15. Transforming the Whole School Toward Personalized Mastery Learning Five core principles guide the whole-school vision. College and Career Ready Graduate Innovation Zone School • Knowledge • Common Core • Information & Tech Literacy • Cognitive Skills • Problem solving • Modeling, transforming, creating • Research • Interpretation • Communication, collaboration • Mindsets • Self-direction • Persistence • Schools customize learning around needs of individual students rather than by age, grade level, and subject • Students take responsibility for directing and managing progress toward rigorous mastery objectives • Adults support learning as tutors, advisors, and teachers • Multiple Learning Modalities • Students work individually and in teams to produce work that demonstrates mastery of complex, real-world challenges. • Technology extends learning anytime, anywhere. • Differentiated Teaching Roles • Adults play multiple roles (including advising, tutoring, and teaching) to personalize learning pathways and create shared commitment to success. • Globally Competitive Standards • Student learning outcomes aligned to Common Core, NAS Science, and international learning frameworks. • Personalized Learning Plans & Schedules • Time organized around the needs of students. • Mastery-Based Assessment • Competency drives progression 15 CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT

16. At your tables……. • What do you think is the learning for BC – if any – from the examples you have heard about? What do you think are their strengths? • What would you like to know more about? How might you do so?

18. The Innovation Lab Network

19. KENTUCKY MAINE NEW YORK S Terry Holliday Angela Faherty David Steiner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner OHIO WEST VIRGINIA WISCONSIN Deborah Delisle Steven Paine Anthony Evers Superintendent of Public Instruction Superintendent of Public Instruction State Superintendent of Schools

20. Typical R&D Investments in Innovating Sectors Pharma: 15% Defense: 10% Technology: 7% Education: 0.7%

22. The methodology SCALING NxGL ENTRYPOINTS RAPID PROTOTYPING CREATING CONDITIONS

23. Scaling NxGL:Pioneering Change for Next Generation Learning

24. OLD SYSTEM NEW SYSTEM How systems change

25. Healthy Systems Re-Generate Bigger Title Tex t

26. Education Does Not Bigger Title Tex t

27. Name Identify Pioneering Leaders

28. Connect Create Networks of Pioneering Leaders

29. Nurture Develop Communities Of Practice

30. Illuminate Foster Systems of Influence

31. We must cultivate new experiences of next generation learning. Personalized Learning World Class Learning/Skills Authentic Student Voice Performance-based Learning Comprehensive System of Supports Anytime, Anywhere Opportunities

32. To do that we must change how the system supports learning. Personalized Learning World Class Learning/Skills Authentic Student Voice Performance-based Learning Comprehensive System of Supports Anytime, Anywhere Opportunities Human Capital Time/Place Assessments Community • Finance • Governance • Technology

33. Outcomes of the Network Proof Points Diagnostics Knowledge

34. We will start in places that havethe most impact Community Human Capital Governance Technology Finance Time / Place Assessments

35. Places thatinfluencethe whole system Community Human Capital Governance Technology Finance Time / Place Assessments

36. These are criticalEntry Points Community Human Capital Governance NxGL Diagnostics Technology NxGL Assessments Educator Capacity Finance Time / Place Assessments

37. NxGL DIAGNOSTICS NxGL ASSESSMENTS EDUCATOR CAPACITY

38. NxGL Diagnostics Provide indicators that focus on Next Generation student needs. Complex performance and engaged learning settings. Demonstrate the assessment of the kinds of complex student performance all students can achieve. Give leaders analytic capacity required to measure progress NXGL DIAGNOSTICS NXGL ASSESSMENTS EDUCATOR CAPACITY

39. NxGL Diagnostics: Examples NXGL DIAGNOSTICS NXGL ASSESSMENTS EDUCATOR CAPACITY EXAMPLE EXAMPLE EXAMPLE Indicators of higher order learning Effective measures of genuine and persistent engagement Effective measures of core knowledge and skills

40. NxGL Assessments Reliable, real-time measures of NxGL indicators Student ownership of learning Continuous improvement NXGL DIAGNOSTICS NXGL ASSESSMENTS EDUCATOR CAPACITY

41. NxGL Assessment: Examples EXAMPLE Portfolio-based performance/production assessments that demonstrate mastery of complex knowledge/skills NXGL DIAGNOSTICS NXGL ASSESSMENT EDUCATOR CAPACITY EXAMPLE New ways of gaining credit for successful tasks undertaken inside and outside of school, thereby opening up alternative uses of time and space

42. NxGL Educator Capacity Commitment to personalization Reframe the single-teacher model of learning to differentiated roles for adults NXGL DIAGNOSTICS NXGL ASSESSMENTS EDUCATOR CAPACITY

43. NxGL DIAGNOSTICS NxGL ASSESSMENTS EDUCATOR CAPACITY

44. RAPID PROTOTYPING SCALING NxGL ENTRYPOINTS RAPID PROTOTYPING CREATING CONDITIONS SESSION BREAKOUT

45. 24-Week Cycle State Lab 1. Diagnose 2. Plan 4. Share 3. Implement

46. Diagnose Plan Share Implement

47. Diagnose Plan Share Implement

48. Diagnose Plan Share Implement

49. Diagnose Plan Share Implement

50. CREATING CONDITIONS PIONEERING CHANGE ENTRYPOINTS RAPID TESTING CREATING CONDITIONS