A teacher's job is to teach, correct? What about planning? Of course we need to plan. We need to plan what we will teach, how we will teach it, and to whom we will teach it - in the current New Zealand system. To what level should we plan?
Too little detail in planning and teachers could end up stumbling through a lesson, not being as efficient as they need. They may not have resources ready for students.
Too much detail planning means teachers there might be detail that is forgotten or overlooked and the time gone to waste. Or worse, they will lose time from their personal lives.
Planning week to week. Is this meeting students' needs, or is it consuming time that teachers could use to be creative in their teaching, get upskilled/upskill other teachers, or take on leadership responsibilities?
Planning by term. Is this failing to meeting students' needs, or is it ensuring exposure to a full curriculum?
I have experienced all of the above, and I need to consider the balance in case I decide to become a school manager/leader. How much do I trust my teachers to do their job, especially in a modern context where it is difficult to fire someone for not doing their job? How much do I micro-manage my teachers, especially in a context where teachers aren't getting the pay and respect due to them? How do I create a culture where teachers want to help and have the time to help each other?
What is the Nature of Education? What is the purpose of Education? Is it to "foster a love of learning" or is it to provide children with the tools to do things in society, including learning new skills to be functional? To some this may seem an innocuous question or a pointless one since the end result is the same, isn't it? In an ideal world, I would certainly hope that the end result is the same. However as I see it, both the end results are different and the processes used are different.
The end result of fostering learning lovers is a population of young people who enjoy learning about anything. I am going to assume the hope is that young people will then have no inhibitions about learning anything new that they might need in the future. Really? I enjoyed primary school. I enjoyed parts of secondary school. I would say that I like, if not love learning about new things. However I actively procrastinate when I'm faced with needing to learn anything I find boring, pointless, or difficult/tedious. The end result of fostering learning lovers is just that: people who love learning. That doesn't necessarily mean that they can do, or even want to do.
How about teaching the core skills required to be functional in a multitude of jobs? This way at the very least, young adults (not the euphemism for children) have the option of taking any job that comes their way or to learn the skills needed to take on a job. It sounds archaic, but this was the purpose of the first education institutes developed during the Industrial Revolution. To get those children to at least the minimum level of functionality in society. At that time, it was to serve industry and companies. However did it also serve those children? As educators, shouldn't we be thinking about which serves children better: to love learning, or to be at least minimally functional?
I write as if they are two different things because the way I see it, the teaching approaches are fundamentally different. One requires a relaxed pace of teaching, and making sure to provide a wide range of enjoyable experiences to learn from. The keyword there being enjoyable. The other approach requires programmes/progressions of learning that build upon each other to meet a target level of ability.
Children are similar to adults, some will love learning, some with hate it, and some will be indifferent. In fact children are possibly more prone to enjoy learning than adults since all young need to learn the skills required of adulthood. If they already possess this attitude, then why bother trying to foster it? Why not change the methods of teaching, so that this natural curiosity isn't taken away from children while still learning the core skills?
There are people like Prince Ea espousing that the current approach to education is broken (see the video) and that school didn't teach the skills needed for everyday life. Really? Did he not learn to read? Did he not learn to think in different ways? Did he not learn information as a base to build, or in his case, to re-build from? How is he even a thinker of that level if school didn't teach him some fundamental thinking skills?
Sure, he is talking mainly about the American high school system. However to blatantly ignore the fact that he can do what he can because of school is also wrong.
School can never teach "the skills needed for the future". We cannot know the future. We can predict, but mostly we will be wrong. No one predicted YouTube and therefore "YouTuber" as a career pathway. No one predicted computer miniaturisation, 3D printing and their cost dropping to the point where MakerSpaces and "Maker" being a career pathway. No one predicted social media and "Influencer" as a career pathway. What skills do these all have in common? The abilities to read, analyse numbers, understand trends in people/populations, and plan. In other words, reading, writing, maths, history, science, critical thinking. Despite my desire to rag on influencers, the successful ones admittedly know how to manipulate people's perceptions and give them what they want...critical thinking of a kind.
Back to the point, Education or teachers at least, cannot teach the skills needed in the future. We can however, teach the fundamental skills needed to learn and adapt in the future regardless of whether a person loves what they're doing or not.
As previously mentioned, I enjoyed making films while I worked in the Manaiakalani cluster. In my time there I made and contributed to at least one film every year (except 2016). The record of them is below.
Contrasting my films to most of the other Manakalani films, you may notice that mine are more short film style rather than "learning videos", or what I call 'home video' style. In 2015, I had success in having students actually contribute to the development of the film, which was a learning experience for them. I thought this was a much more valuable experience for them compared to the teacher filming a PE session, or some other showcase of learning. You can see that style in my 2014 films, especially Along the Shore.
Later on, there was some feedback or a crackdown on certain types of film (films with violence?). Honestly, I can't remember what happened, but it made Ogilvie and me annoyed. That's when I started to put satire into my work.
Lastly, the 2021 book trailers were an idea from our principal. The idea was to have an easy idea that could be created anywhere in case of another lockdown. The LotR trailer was created by me alone due to the fact that we had run out of time and students due to Covid.
While most of the movies were fun to make, I obviously have my favourites. My favourites are:
PokeBlade. This wasn't submitted as the representative film for Panmure Bridge School at the Evening Showcase. However I had reports that during the day screenings, it was an audience (and adult supervisor) favourite.
COVID. I really needed to satirise the situation.
How to Hold a Netbook. Doing a "How to" series in the style of How to Dad was an inspiration by Ogilvie.
It's a Bit Dicey. Can you tell that this is where my effort to satirise everything started? This movie combined kung fu movies integrated into our class's Inquiry topic and used blue screening and animation. This was all before I started using HitFilm as a film editor, so it was not easy.
I worked in the Manaiakalani Cluster for eight years, starting as a beginning teacher (BT) in the Manaiakalani Digital Teacher Academy (MDTA). Seven years of that, I worked at Panmure Bridge School (PBS), as can be seen by my class site links. As of December 2022, that came to an end, and from January 2023, I started at a different school.
Panmure Bridge School and the various staff taught me a lot, helping me mature from a BT to a slightly experienced teacher. I learned various methods of teaching, how to work with a range of people, and a little of how to manage groups of people. I learned how to use assessment to inform my teaching, how to use data to continually improve my practice (admittedly, I haven't shown my data on my blog), and I developed a habit of keeping my lessons and teaching transparent.
In my time at PBS, I hope I have contributed to them as much as I think I have. I became their "digital guy", managing the accounts, taking care of equipment and minor hardware and software issues, and the film festival management. Making films was probably the most fun I had, especially trying to push the limits of what was considered for educational purposes. More on that in another post maybe. I also recreated their website in 2020, and created streamlined documentation formats which reduced digital clutter and helped keep information centralised.
The school (School) where I work now will remain unnamed until I understand their digital policies much better. School is quite different from PBS, having a different demographic of children and families, slightly different teaching philosophy, and different systems. So far it's been a huge learning curve and I haven't even started teaching yet. We'll see what happens. We've already had some professional development training. More on that later.
