This model starts with the vulnerably isolated – those who are (temporarily) disengaged, or unable to log into the social system (education) the disaster victim, the disadvantaged, disaffected and disappeared. We can judge a society by how it treats the most vulnerable (Jack Walsh “The Philosopher and the Wolf”. In the worst systems the vulnerably isolated have little, or no access to the ladderThe individual then moves to vulnerable dependence, now beginning to receive support, education, welfare etc and hopefully moves to a learned trust in safe dependence, where s/he has moved from Maslow’s survival level into some capacity to be an independent learner and citizen. But this is not the pinnacle, as some would have it – calling for independent learners – independent leaders etc and promoting a belief that the best can do it ALL themselves. The critical border crossing, realisation, epiophany (etc etc) is into interdependence and this sometimes begins with vulnerable independence (where, for example, the leader realises s/he cannot do it alone anymore but feels (knows) to admit this is a weakness. Vulnerable interdependence is the state where we want to, have to, need to rely on others – we need to be able to trust them. In this sense vulnerable interdependence is very similar to vulnerable isolation. We need others to help us move onwards and upwards.Finally, if we work hard and are surrounded by caring others we will reach safe interdependence. This represents the ideal and the kind of family, group, company, school and indeed world where I want to live. “Where everyone in the community feels secure in the knowledge that, as valued members of that community, they can partake in giving and receiving encouragement, guidance and support”. (Pearce and Clemett The Evaluation of Pastoral Care 1986)
Leading and learning for interdependence not independence A presentation especially for “Project Transformation” 6th February 2010 9.2.10
A few words on the curriculum I did not talk in detail about possibilities within the new curriculum because it is now so flexible, with great potential. For detail go to: www.qcda.org.uk NB: The curriculum is now defined as the total experiences a youngster has in school (not the subjects, or the timetable and so, there is no such thing as extra-curricular activities). NB: The new secondary curriculum includes some great statutory work….. Scan the Citizenship, Personal, Social and Health Education (PSHEE) sections and the Personal Learning and Thinking Skills (PLTS). You’ll see there is much to support “Project Transformation” also skim the DIMENSIONS…. It is good stuff….. Globalisation…Sustainability etc etc. NB: the AIMS and VALUES behind the statutory and some recent learning from our work with Local Authorities implementing the New Secondary Curriculum and about to implement the New Primary Curriculum…. so just one slide!
What do we want to achieve? The statutory aims of the New Secondary Curriculum…. successful learners who enjoy learning, make progress and achieve confident individuals who are able to live safe, healthy and fulfilling lives responsible citizens who make a positive contribution to society. Thoughts from work with Local Authorities The new curriculum is about: Raising standards andrecognising wider achievements Linking our work with Children’s Plan and ECM
“The challenge…..to prepare not just most but all children to make successes of their lives and develop the broader skills, knowledge and understanding they need for the future… “ White paper DCSF 2009
OK – enough about the curriculum - this session is about… 2 Visions, or approaches, to leading and learning… + 3 Fs ( functionality, philosophy & fulfilment ) = 5Outcomes
Every Child Matters 2003 - The Children Act 2004 The 5 outcomes Staying Safe being protected from harm and neglect Being Healthy enjoying good physical and mental health and living healthy lives Enjoying and Achieving getting the most out of life and developing the skills for adulthood Making a Positive contribution being involved with the community and society and not engaging in anti social or offending behaviour Economic well being not being prevented by economic disadvantage from achieving their full life S H A P E
In education and elsewhere we typically have processes like this to plan what we do…. Vision Action Measure How might you get there? Where do you want to be? Have you got there? Where are you now? Planning, Coaching, Self-Evaluating, Performance Management etc
PLAN RE PLAN REVIEW REVIEW DO DO and we use a range of similar models EVIDENCE? I M P A C T ?
Which is really this…. Where do you want to be? Where are you now? How might you get there? Have you got there?
and is also this… G R O W Goal, current Reality, Options and Will (coaching model) J Whitmore “Coaching for Performance” 2009
The Cycle of Apathy… and even this…. Nothing said There’s no point saying anything Nothing happens Told you so! J S Pearce 1993
So, simple concepts sometimesgetovercomplicated….
Wouldn’t it be better to collaborate and find common, simpler ways to describe what we are trying to do? One huge issue for us all is the lack of perceived time for teachers and leaders to make sense of it themselves…. What follows is my way of making sense of it all…
It is as though we have lost a holistic vision for education hence Project Transformation and similar movements… 2 Visions (approaches) to leading and learning MORAL PURPOSE NB these visions are complementary and not competing - they are not separate or exclusive… FUNCTIONALITY
MORAL PURPOSE (mainly) learning why and how to live based on values? Whose? Good or bad? philosophy – ethics - religion
My thoughts were once that there is a journey….. Interdependence Able (and willing) to look after others Independence Able (and willing) to look after himself/herself The red line is a borderline to a new (and better?) level of understanding Dependence Needs to be looked after by another John Pearce 2001
And then I realised others had invented this ladder….. Kosmocentric Worldcentric Ethnocentric Egocentric Kohlberg & Gilligan
Global Flux Functional Flow Growth and Cause Oriented Materialistically Oriented System Oriented Aggression Oriented Tribal Oriented Survival Oriented The Evolution of Values - Clare Grave’s System
Post Conventional Social Contract and Individual Right Universal Principles Conventional Good Interpersonal Relationships Social Order Pre Conventional Obedience and Punishment Orientation Individualism and Exchange Kohlberg’s stages of moral development
And so I updated my original….. (see explanation on notes page) Safe interdependence Vulnerable interdependence Vulnerable independence Safe independence Safe dependence Vulnerable dependence Vulnerable isolation (not even near the ladder) John Pearce 2010….. Ongoing…
Vision 2: Moral Purpose CARE RESPECT PASTORAL CARE VALUES CITIZENSHIP PHILOSPOHY ETHICS Social Education And so we should also have a moral purpose in our vision for education and this includes such things as…. MORAL PURPOSE Religious Education ALTRUISM
Functionality + Moral Purpose = Fulfilment? Capable Altruistic incapablealtruistic MORAL PURPOSE Leading learning for interdependence Capable egocentric unable egocentric FUNCTIONALITY
Borders and barriers on this journey….. Capable Altruistic incapablealtruistic MORAL PURPOSE Capable egocentric unable egocentric FUNCTIONALITY Vulnerable Isolated
Borders and barriers on this journey….. Capable Altruistic World centric MORAL PURPOSE ethnocentric independent interdependent FUNCTIONALITY Vulnerable Isolated
Playing with the model 1 saint Good citizen Poor student aesthete philosopher recluse Poet Interdependent living Not helpful! MORAL PURPOSE terrorist Interdependent learning Independent learning philanderer Skilled operative Good student (poor citizen) sinner dependent learner Banker athlete FUNCTIONALITY
Playing with the model 2 APPLIED WISDOM Interdependent capable, altruistic Citizenship P.S.H.E.E. Moral and some religious education P.L.T.S Personal Learning Thinking Skills Interdependent living CONSEQUENTIAL DECISION MAKING MORAL PURPOSE Interdependent learning PEER ASSESSMENT SELF ASSESSMENT Independent learning Purely academic Functional skills instruction dependent learning FUNCTIONALITY
Playing with the model 3 Philosophising Fulfilment Appreciating MORAL PURPOSE Experiencing Living Experimenting Achieving Functioning Learning FUNCTIONALITY
So, shouldn’t the x axis and the Yaxisbendto complement each other… But life isn’t all straight lines and arrows – it’s organic…
Playing with the model iii Philosophising Fulfilment Appreciating MORAL PURPOSE Experiencing Living Experimenting Achieving Functioning Learning FUNCTIONALITY
FULFILMENT Thinking leading to functioning PHILOSOPHY Flow of ideas -> <- Flow of ideas Functioning leading to purpose FUNCTIONALITY
Key questions for us all (not just teachers) How to engage the vulnerable isolated? (See, for one example, the project Narrowing the Gap) www.lga.gov.uk/lga/core/page.do?pageId=234484 How best to promote interdependent learning and leading in the dependent and independent?
Isn’t promoting interdependent learning and leading about: turning that line of functionality into a curve towards moral purpose…… i.e. trying to apply functional learning to a good purpose and bending the line of moral purpose towards functionality….. i.e. taking action about what we believe is right….. Unless we do this don’t we risk becoming: mere operatives - functionaries inactive thinkers or we separate our thinking and doing ignoring our beliefs in our behaviours….? ? discuss
And recognising that teachers/leaders/parents have authority to intervene in a range of ways and styles and that will expose our values… If we TELL predominantly – we will breed dependents If we move towards DELEGATE – we will build capacity, empower and encourage thinking… NB: Telling is not bad, neither is delegating (or coaching) inherently good….. The key concepts here are appropriacy of style and moral purpose. So the key judgement is … Judging the point and nature of any intervention… ? discuss See next (complicated) slides in animation and then their notes beneath, or vice versa,.,,
We chose appropriate blends of teaching and leadership styles to achieve functionality with moral purpose Judging the points & nature of interventions INTERDEPENDENT WITHDRAW We hand over responsibility to you as quickly as possible ABDICATE DEPENDENT DELEGATE SHARE NEGOTIATE CONSULT TELL SELL FUNCTIONALITY (Capacity) J S Pearce (2001) “Judging the point and nature of decision making and the PANINI model” Tannenbaum, A.S. and Schmitt, W.H. (1958)“Participative Leadership”
Judging the points & nature of interventions and similarly to achieve moral purpose with functionality WITHDRAW ABDICATE DELEGATE You allow us to think for ourselves as often as possible! SHARE INTERDEPENDENT MORAL PURPOSE (Altruism) NEGOTIATE CONSULT SELL DEPENDENT TELL Pearce JS (2001) “Judging the point and nature of decision making - the PANINI model” Tannenbaum, A.S. and Schmitt, W.H. (1958)“Participative Leadership”
FULFILMENT Thinking leading to functioning PHILOSOPHY Coaching zone? Flow of ideas -> <- Flow of ideas Functioning leading to purpose FUNCTIONALITY
The 3 Fs FUNCTIONALITY PHILOSOPHY FULFILMENT Final thoughts L E A F some acronyms….. Learning Experiencing Achieving Fulfilling Living Egotism Altruism Fulfilment Lead Empower Actualise Flow