ICSEI 2018 Symposium Proposal:

Learning and achievement in creativity, social-emotional development, citizenship, and health: tensions inherent in addressing these areas as a core purpose in public education

Abstract

This symposium exposes both possibilities and problems ofjurisdictional support of four critical areas of learning;creativity, social-emotional learning, citizenship, and health in K-12 education. The symposium uses measurement and assessment to consider implications in supporting these areas of student successwithin schools. The session first discussesthe relevance of specific competencies associated with these four areas of learning in relation to the core purposes of public education. It then reviews a case study of schools and teachers using these competencies over a two-year period. The symposium usesthe case study findings to then examine central/jurisdiction approaches to establishing these areas in schools- how some approachesinhibit while others enhance local practices in schools. The session draws from large-scale survey and participant case study evidence to explore the connections and disconnections between policy and practice, centrally and locally. The symposium alignswith the six themes of ICSEI 2018, but most specifically with how measurement and accountability systems influence central and local policy and practice in relation to theme iv: Measuring and Evaluating School Change as well as the intersection(s), connections, and disconnections in translation(s) of policy into practice implicit in theme v:Converging Pathways for Policy, Research and Practice.

Paper 1:Measuring What Matters: The disconnect between the things we count and the things that count in public education

Issue: Canada has a considerable stake in the health and strength of public education. Ninety-three per cent of our young people attend publicly funded schools – a higher proportion than most Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries (OECD, 2011). Canadians’ expectation is that schools will adequately prepare the next generation to take on the challenges of the future. To do so, students requirecapacities to think creatively and critically, work collaboratively, have collective agency, and work productively with a diversity of ideas, identities and cultures (Bascia, 2014; Ferguson & Power, 2014; Sears, 2014; Shanker, 2014; Upitis, 2014).

Perspective: This paper opens the symposium by outlining a multi-stakeholder partnership, initiative Measuring What Matters (MWM) in Ontario, Canada that is pursing a systems approach to support of areas of learning largely defined by notions of creativity, citizenship, social-emotional learning, and health. The initiative explores assessment and measurement as an entry into addressing system implications in the pursuit of these areas of learning as a core purpose of public education.

The areas of learning at the core of this symposium are relevant in all academic disciplines; are critical for success in school and life; are salient and essential practices in kindergarten to grade 12 learning processes, as well as in post-secondary education; and are well established across Ontario, Canada’s policy and curriculum documents (Cameron, Watkins, & Kidder, 2015). However, they are not frequently measured and evaluated in explicit and coherent ways across the education system nor are they subject to good public reporting in consistent and evaluative terms.

Contribution: The initiative from which this symposium draws has exposed the complexity of both quantification and qualification of learning in these areas.But theabsence of attempts at explicit evaluation of these areas of learning diminishestheir perceived valuewithin education beyond policy rhetoric common in many jurisdictions (Kempf, 2014). Thereis a disconnect between society’s wide-ranging expectations of public education and the ways in which we assess, report on, and measure the success of the system. Attempts at supporting effective integration of these areas into learning environments in classrooms and schools will require jurisdictions to address a number of challenging implications that is the central subject of this symposium.

Paper 2:Classroom and school approaches to supporting creativity, social emotional learning, citizenship, and health through competency-based assessment

Issue: This paper describes a two-year case study of how educators make use of the MWM competencies and conditions to plan, teach and assess creativity, citizenship, health, and social-emotional learning.

Perspectives: A critical part of the MWM project overall is developing an understanding of the work that schools are doing in using competencies and associated learning conditions in creativity, social emotional-learning, citizenship, and health, as a central focus of planning, teaching and assessment. The project uses local, collaborative, and grounded classroom assessment processes as a means to explore the student learning experience in schools in relation to competencies in the project (Schon, 1995; Louis, 2015).

Methods and data sources: From 2015 to the present, approximately 100 educators participated in the case study. The case study used participant observation methods (Mishler, 1991). The studyis framed by 3 key questions regarding: 1) general implications of assessment in these areas; 2) potential interrelationships of competencies across the project; and 3) the translation of the competencies into learning experiences in schools for students and teachers. Focus groups, interviews and observations were primary methods used. Field notes, digital artefacts and audio transcriptions served as primary sources of data.

Interpretations: The case study reveals a set of interrelated themesthat involve personal, structural, and institutional policy and practice in relation to effective integration of these learning areas into a core aspect of learning and assessment in schools. Briefly and in no particular order:

  • Value of collaborative spaces for educators to do joint work and analysis,
  • Personalized approaches to assessment based on educator pursuit of specific areas of learning drawn from work with students,
  • Educator license and authority to personalize approaches to teaching and assessment,
  • Use of a specific competency lexicon for complex, often generally defined areas of learning e.g. creativity, social-emotional learning as an important tool for planning, teaching, and assessment,
  • The inclusive nature of student and educator joint assessment,
  • On-going experimentation and risk-taking for both teachers and students, and
  • Reframing out-of-classroom student experience as an areaofprofound learning.

Contribution: The case study provides insights into building synergistic relationships between theory and classroom-based expertise—infusing practitioner knowledge with scholarship and research. The case study furthers understanding of the implications for policy and accountability across the system in relation to specific bounded areas of student learning (e.g. 21st century learning or student well being). As such, the paper relates closely to ICSEI 2018 theme vi:Growing Innovative Culture for School Change

Paper 3:System implications in supporting classrooms and schools in the work: tensions and complexity ofpolicy and practice within local and jurisdictional contexts

Issue: This paper takes case study findings drawn from paper 2 to discuss jurisdictional policy implications of supporting learning in schools given the nature the work in schools that supports these areas of learning.

Perspective: This paper follows Ozga’s understanding of education policy (Ozga, 2005): that policy is more than the text from which it is created, and that policy experience – the ways that school boards, schools, students, and educators interpret and act within any particular policy frame – constitutes part of the policy itself (Ozga, 2005). This helpfully pulls the field of studies predominately interested in notions of ‘implementation’ and ‘school change’ into the field of policy studies, which, in turn, promotes a more careful understanding how policies are experienced in the school both within structured and unstructured time for students on a daily basis.

Methods:The paper draws from two predominate sources of information. A two-year case study of educators (n≈100) in seven school boards in Ontario, Canada discussed in paper 2 and a survey of Ontario schools (n≈1200) that collects information about school programs, resources, and infrastructure to monitor the capacity of public schools to provide a broad, enriched educational experience to Ontario’s 2.1 million students. As referenced, the case study used participant observation methods (Mishler, 1991). Field notes, digital artifacts and audio transcriptions served as primary sources of data. The survey uses open response, multiple choice, and Likert-scaled questions to build a representative picture of a variety of resources and programs in Ontario’s public education system e.g. art programs, English Language Learners, Special Education, and health and physical education. All data in the survey were analyzed using SPSS.

Interpretations:Over the past few years there has been an increased focus on and interest in teaching and learning competencies within jurisdictional, national, and international policy arenas (OECD, 2017). Our work over the past three years has exposed some significant hurdles that jurisdictions must face in order to effectively integrate academic achievement with the learning competencies in creativity, social-emotional learning, health, and citizenship.We must act now, but we must hold a realistic understanding of how this learning occurs in schools and how we might best establish conditions that provide the greatest opportunity for our students to develop these competencies. In so doing, jurisdictions face the following interrelated issues that will be more carefully discussed throughout the symposium:

  1. Policy coherence and integration versus policy overload and layering
  2. Policy rhetoric versus resource scarcity in schools
  3. Pedagogic responsiveness to students versus pedagogic adherence to content and curriculum
  4. Standardizing and quantifying specific achievement areas versus qualifying learning across a wide range of subjects and topics

Contribution:This paper attempts to locate the value and importance of the school-based experience within a jurisdictional policy context. As such, it connects closely to the intersections, connections, and disconnections in translation(s) of policy into practice implicit in theme v:Converging Pathways for Policy, Research and Practice.

References:

Bascia, N. (2014).The School Context Model: How School Environments Shape Students’ Opportunities to Learn. In Measuring What Matters, People for Education. Toronto: November 8, 2014.

Cameron, D., Watkins, E., & Kidder, A (2015). Measuring What Matters 2014-15: Moving From Theory to Practice. In Measuring What Matters, People for Education. Toronto: November 3, 2015.

Ferguson, B. and Power, K. (2014). Broader Measures of Success: Physical and Mental Health inSchools. In Measuring What Matters, People for Education. Toronto: November 8, 2014.

Kempf, A. (2014). The Pedagogy of Standardized Testing. London, UK: Palgrave MacMillan.

Louis, K. (2015). Organizational theory: Around the block again? Moving forward? Or both? Journal of Organizational Theory in Education 1(1). Retrieved from

Mishler EG (1991) Research Interviewing: Context and N. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2017). Global Competency for an Inclusive World. Paris, FR: OECD.

OECD. (2011). Lessons from PISA for the United States, Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education. OECD Publishing. Retrieved from

Ozga, J. (2005). Models of Policy-Making and Policy Learning.

Schon, D. (1995) Study of Organizations.In Goodman, R. (ED).Rethinking Knowledge: Reflections Across the Disciplines. Suny Press.

Sears, A. (2014). Measuring What Matters: Citizenship Domain. In Measuring What Matters, People for Education. Toronto: November 8, 2014.

Shanker, S. (2014).Broader Measures for Success: Social/Emotional Learning. In Measuring What Matters, People for Education. Toronto: November 8, 2014.

Upitis, R (2014). Creativity; The State of the Domain. In Measuring What Matters, People for Education. Toronto: November 8, 2014.

1