1
Deakin University Faculty of Arts and Education School of Education Research Paper Title:
THE PROGRESSIVE CLASS
HOLISTIC LEARNING MODEL & FAMILY SCHOOL PARTNERSHIP
AT GREENVALE PRIMARY SCHOOL 2003-2009
Candidate Name ANDREW KOHANE Degree: MASTER OF EDUCATION E700
Andrew Kohane 2
B.A., (Melbourne University) Dip Ed (James Cook University)
Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Education. September, 2011.
Student ID No: 2000196107 Address 23 Waldemar Rd, Heidelberg, Victoria, 3084.
Supervisor: Jennifer Angwin
Examiner:
CANDIDATE'S STATEMENT
I certify that the Research Paper entitled:
THE PROGRESSIVE CLASS:
HOLISTIC LEARNING MODEL & FAMILY SCHOOL PARTNERSHIP
AT GREENVALE PRIMARY SCHOOL: 2003-2009
Submitted for the degree of Masters of Education EXR 796-7 is the result of my own work, except where otherwise acknowledged, and that this Research Paper/Minor Thesis (or any part of the same) has not been submitted for a higher degree to any other university or institution.
There has been no requirement for Ethics approval.
Signed
Date
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... 3
GLOSSARY OF TERMS ...... 6
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Context of the Research- Development of the Progressive Class Stream ...... 7
1.2 Research Questions ...... 9
1.3 Profile of the Progressive Class in Castlemaine ...... 10
1.4 Key Educational Challenges ...... 11
Chapter 2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY & LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 The Case Study ...... 15
2.2 Progressive Class Action Research Project ...... 16
2.3 Holistic Learning Research ...... 18
2.4 Family School Partnerships (2000-) ...... 19
2.5 Alternative and Progressive Education (1920s-) ...... 24
2.6 Reggio Emilia Learning Approach (1960s-) ...... 25
2.7 Community School Movement (1970s-) ...... 27
2.8 Holistic Education (1980s-) ...... 29
2.9 21st Century State education models VELS (2000-) ...... 32
CHAPTER 3 CASE STUDY – The Progressive Class at Greenvale PS 3.1 The context and setting ...... 36
3.2 Parent developed HELM model ...... 37
3.3 Developing Shared Values ...... 41
3.4 Parent Governance Processes ...... 42
3.5 Parent Involvement in the Learning Program ...... 44 4
3.6 School Readiness for FSP ...... 45
3.7 Building Whole School Connections ...... 47
CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS 4.1. Effective Parent Governance and Collaborative Decision Making ...... 51
4.2. Significant Levels of Parent Involvement ...... 52
4.3. Identified Learning Outcomes ...... 53
4.4 Gains in Social Inclusion...... 54
4.5 Increased Agency and Advocacy for Parents ...... 55
4.6 Authentic Parent Involvement and Leadership Roles ...... 55
4.7 Key Stages of Effective Partnership development ...... 56
4.8 HELM is an effective Holistic Learning Model...... 58
4.9 Integrated Curriculum and Assessment ...... 59
4.10 Key Holistic Elements, Learning Process and Definitions ...... 60
4.11 HELM is an adaptive and responsive Model ...... 61
4.12 Coming together of diverse Learning Paradigms ...... 61
4.13 Summary in response to Research Questions...... 62
CHAPTER 5 RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Ongoing development of the HELM model...... 64
5.2 Developing Holistic Learning Surveys ...... 64
5.3 Maintain Whole School Connections & broaden Action Research Project ...... 65
5.4 Collation and archiving of documents ...... 66
5.5 Employ Family School Partnership Coordinator ...... 66
5.6. Develop FSP Resource Kit ...... 66
REFERENCES ...... 68 5
APPENDICES
1. HENT Mind Map ...... 76
2. The HELM Learning Process ...... 77
3. Unit Plan based on HELM ...... 80
4. Progressive Class Strategic Goals 2006 ...... 81
5. Progressive Class Indicators (2005 Holistic Approach) ...... 82
6. Progressive Class Parent Roles …...... 84
7. Parent Volunteer Skills Registration Form ...... 85
8. Friday Bushwalks ...... 86
9. Curriculum Outline – Outdoor Learning ...... 87
6
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
AHPSA - Australian Health Promoting School Association.
PPARP – Progressive Class -Action Research Project (accessed at HELM website)
PCPH - Progressive Class Parent Handbook (accessed at HELM website)
DEECD - Department of Education and Early Childhood Development
DEEWR - Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relationships
FSP - Family-School Partnership (also referred to in literature as PSP- Parent-School Partnerships)
HELM - Holistic Educational Learning Model
HENT - Holistic Educational Network of Tasmania (website developed by R.Stack)
HLA – Holistic Learning Approach
HFRP - The Harvard Family Research Project
ILPs - Individual Learning Plans
KHE – Key Holistic Element
MIPs - Managed Individual Pathways
MYPRAD - Middle Years Pedagogy Research and Development
NNPS - National Network of Partnership Schools
PoLT - Principles of Learning and Teaching
PS - Primary School
SEI – Socio- Economic Index
STC - Schools Year Twelve and Tertiary Entrance Certificate
VELS - Victorian Essential Learnings
7
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Context of the Research – Development of the Progressive Class Stream
In this paper I document a model of holistic education and present the Case Study of a local Community Based Learning Stream that demonstrates the scope for innovation and change enabled by and aligned to recent developments in Victorian State Schools. The model of education developed by the parent group was called HELM, standing for ‘Holistic Educational Learning Model’. The research traces how the Family School Partnership (FSP) and HELM model developed. Key elements of holistic learning and proposed stages of effective FSPs are identified, and the scope for sharing the experiences and model with interested parents and school communities considered.
The initial vision, philosophy and planning took place on the Surf Coast (1999-2001) where the HELM model was developed through a series of community consultations and the Coastal Community College was registered and entered a pilot stage early in 2001. The decision, at this time, to not proceed as a small private community school was made and it was a fortuitous meeting a year later with Kevin Brown, Principal of Greenvale PS, that laid the foundation for the State School FSP that was to become the Progressive Class Stream.
Community consultations were again facilitated in Castlemaine in 2002 and an active parent group formed. Visits were made to study best practice models and parent feedback enabled further development of the HELM model. Proposals were discussed over six months, and in September of 2002, the model was presented to the Principal and Assistant Principal, Liz Grainger. Kevin Brown led discussions with Greenvale PS staff and won the support of the School Council. ‘The end result was that the school made the momentous decision to offer parents the choice of their children attending a Progressive Class within the existing structures of the school’ (Grainger, L. 2005, p.7-8).
Seven years later in 2009, and with the first Preps completing their Primary School education, the program was recognized as runner up in the Victorian Education Excellence Awards for Community Partnerships (DEECD, 2009). This was the first time an award had been presented for ‘Community Partnerships’ reflecting new recognition for FSPs. I then presented the research informing the current study to the ‘Federation of 8
Families, Parents and Care Givers,’ 2010 National Conference (Hughes, 2010) focusing on the identified ‘Stages of Effective Partnerships’. In turn, Sharon Butler has asked the Progressive Class parent group to submit the Case Study..
The Progressive Class Stream piloted a model of authentic parent involvement. Parents and teachers co-managed the three classes and further develop the model through a Steering Committee and Curriculum, Communications, Transition and the Built Environment subcommittees. Parents were actively involved in all parts of the life of the class: pedagogy, promotion, curriculum, teaching, employing, and facilities development. The Progressive Classes were supported by a management and governance structure that allowed parents to be part of all aspects of their children’s education from curriculum planning, to teacher support, to running class activities and projects, reviewing and assessing achievements and setting the strategic directions for the class. The focus has been on ‘the whole community taking responsibility for the education and development of a child’ (HELM, 2010).
Enrolments increased from 11 in 2003 to 72 in 2009, enabling a 30% enrolment growth at Greenvale PS, in contrast to other local primary schools that had decreasing enrolments over the same period. Increases in enrolments matched the Castlemaine Steiner School, demonstrating significant community interest and demand in the region for parents to access holistic learning programs.
STUDENT NUMBERS IN THE PROGRESSIVE CLASSES 2003-9
80 70 60 50 40 student numbers 30 20 10 0 2003 2005 2007 2009
This journey has not been without struggles and much needed negotiation and dialogue between school leaders, parents and teachers, and the Case Study traces and explores key stages of the developing Progressive Class, aligning these with current research in FSPs and Holistic Learning approaches. 9
1.2 Research Questions
After seven years of collaborative work between parents and the local school it is timely to bring together the key documents (see p.16) that have shaped the development of the Progressive Class. In documenting the development of the Progressive Class the current paper addresses the following research questions:
1. Does the Greenvale Progressive Class hold promise as a proven model for future Family School Partnerships in other Government Schools and communities?
2. Can the HELM model, implemented at Greenvale PS, be developed and successfully adopted at other Government Schools?
3. Within the field of alternative education are we seeing an evolving relationship between alternative, community and holistic education, and a coming together of diverse paradigms in government schools?
In Chapter 2 the Literature Review begins with recent research in FSPs recognizing that this has been the key context for the development of the Progressive Class. In turn, the research follows the path the parents have taken, bringing together the key learning paradigms that influenced the development of the Progressive Class and the HELM model. These include surveys of Alternative Education, the Reggio Approach, Community Schools and Holistic Education Streams that were identified by the Parents as best practice models. A section on DEECD develops the State Education context and the evolving relationship between mainstream and holistic approaches.
In Chapter 3 the Case Study documents the development of the FSP and the Holistic Model. The processes by which the parent group developed the model, learning philosophy and values are outlined. Increasing levels of parent involvement in the learning program are traced and relevant governance processes utilised by parents documented. School readiness for the FSP is examined along with the importance of building whole school connections. The role played by school leadership and changes in teacher practice are also considered. 10
The extent to which the FSP at Greenvale PS and the HELM model can be an effective resource for further parent groups and school communities is considered in the light of the Findings in Chapter 4 and in regard to the Recommendations outlined in Chapter 5.
1.3 Profile of the Progressive Class and Castlemaine
Castlemaine has proved an ideal setting for the piloting of the innovative family school partnership. Greenvale PS is situated in Castlemaine, Central Victoria and is one of five State Primary Schools and two private within a five-kilometer radius of central Castlemaine. The Mount Alexander Shire is renowned for its diverse and rich subcultures, its industry base, farming community and the evolving relationships between long term residents and people moving to the area over time. Artists and environmentalists, for example have moved to the Mount Alexander Shire over the past 40 years and settled in the community. Affordable housing for families moving from Melbourne, and high rates of social capital as tertiary educated parents choose to work less, and to devote time to their families, have enabled schools to access high levels of parent involvement.
The success of the local Steiner School demonstrated this since its opening in the late 80s and the scope for a program like the Progressive Class to flourish has been supported high levels of parent involvement and already established holistic approaches within the Greenvale PS. At the same time, there are complex relationships between diverse class groups and subcultures in Castlemaine and Greenvale PS, involving a range of tensions and changing dynamics without any one culture dominating.
Greenvale PS boasts beautiful grounds with a heritage listed Oak Forest, and teachers tend to ‘settle-in’ developing strong relationships with one another and with the children. Dja Dja Wrung Elders represent the small but active Koorie community in the Shire and aboriginal students have been involved in the Progressive Class program since its inception. Castlemaine and Greenvale PS, in particular, support an active and well- managed Home Schooling network that has also influenced the development of the Progressive Class.
The Parent Group at Greenvale PS were determined to be heard as a collective voice, to have a genuine say, and be active participants in developing the holistic learning 11
program for their children. While the Parent Group identified themselves as part of the alternative-community school movement the educational challenges they were articulating aligned with two key initiatives of the DEECD Blueprints: the new openness to holistic learning models as seen in the development of the VELS (2002) and a genuine determination to develop FSPs that was to be articulated in Blueprint 2 (DEECD, 2008). How to develop Holistic approaches and effective FSPs emerge as key 21st Century educational challenges.
Part 2 Key Educational Challenges.
Developing effective Family School Partnerships.
Family School Partnerships were identified as one of the Victorian DEECD’s top three priorities for school reform in 2010, while the development of the FSP Framework (DEEWR, 2008) was designed to help school communities build effective partnerships. The challenge facing schools and families alike is how to develop the field of FSPs and effectively implement the new policies in local communities.
Fundamental to this challenge is how to change and develop the relationship between schools and their families to enable genuine stakeholder involvement by parents. Capse, (2007, p.6) asks how there can be a move ‘from old models of token parent involvement, to enable genuine, authentic forms of engagement’. Obstacles to family involvement are identified by Epstein (2005) and Butler (2007), and traditional notions of ownership and control by teachers and schools challenged. Capse (2007, p.7) addresses the notion of ‘who schools are for?” and whether ‘schools are willing to trust and share key roles with parents?’ How schools can be ‘partnership ready’ is a further identified challenge as is the need for ongoing support, co-ordination and training of parents. In turn, the development of parent ‘leadership skills at grassroots levels’ is a developing focus of recent research by the Harvard Family Research Project (2010). As Butler contends (2007) ‘the challenge is to move FSP policy from aspiration to implementation (p.6)’.
Why the importance of Holistic Education? How to develop & implement holistic approaches? 12
Since the late 1990s schools at national, regional and local levels have made broad pedagogical statements in regard to the implementation of holistic 21st Century educational models. ‘The Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians Schooling, for example, leads with the affirmation that ‘ schools play a vital role in providing a foundation for the intellectual, physical, social, moral, spiritual and aesthetic development and wellbeing of young Australians’ (MCEETYA, 2008, p.4). While governments and education departments have articulated holistic approaches, the current paper examines how they can be implemented at the local level as parents work with schools to develop holistic learning initiatives and pilot programs like the Progressive Class Stream.
A key challenge facing holistic learning programs, as with Alternative Education Programs of the 1980s, is to be accepted as viable and effective educational models within schools. Like the Principles of Learning and Teaching (PoLT), the parent devised HELM model is a coherent pedagogical framework that synthesises developments in constructivist learning theory (Dewey 1938, Vygotsky, 1987) and inquiry based curriculum models, (Intuyu 2007, Harpaz, 2005) moving the emphasis from a fixed teacher, and content based model, to learner centred, meta-cognitive approaches. The HELM model is introduced in the paper as an effective framework for integrating curriculum and has evolved parallel to the development of the VELS, the New Basics in Queensland (mid 90s) and the SACSA in South Australia (2002). While each has implemented continuums of student centred learning and more holistic, inclusive and balanced curriculum, the challenge is to consolidate and develop the models through the transition to the National Curriculum and in the face of increased pressures exerted by discipline based subjects like Maths, English, Science and History.
Holistic approaches and curriculum are developing in the face of a highly contested curriculum landscape. Running against the more holistic trends, for example, is the renewed Australian focus on standardised NAPLAN testing and DEECD driven strategies to improve literacy and numeracy results. The challenge is to ensure that holistic approaches broaden this renewed focus on standardised testing and that the SPACE, HELM and VELS models discussed in this paper (see p.45) continue to provide inclusive models for the planning and assessment of student learning. The key challenge is how schools can ensure that ‘physical, social, moral and aesthetic learning’ are valued 13
as highly as ‘academic learning’ and become integrated foundations for the ‘well being’ of young learners. (MCEETYA, 2008, p.4).
The HELM model is an example of a balanced and holistic approach developed by parents and teachers in their local state school. The model developed through a series of community and parent led consultations, along with reviews of best practice holistic learning models and visits to alternative school settings both in Australia and overseas. What emerged was a surprisingly simple, cohesive and practical synthesis of all the feedback into 8 distinct learning elements or fields.
HELM : Key Holistic Elements (KHEs) (2003)
HELM Australia, 2011
Interestingly, the 8 Key Holistic Elements fell into 2 groups of 4 which were identified as Curriculum Areas and Guiding Values. In the image the Guiding Values form a cross while the Curriculum Areas form a pattern on the diagonals. The Curriculum Areas aim 14
for a balance, for example, between academic and creative learning, while equally valuing personal and physical learning. While these 4 Elements align with the 8 Intelligences identified by Gardner (2000) and provide a balanced model for the development of the ‘whole child’, the learner is also challenged to engage with Values, the Environment, Social Justice and their local Community.
This interplay between Learning Areas and Guiding Values is a foundation of the HELM approach, and it is interesting to trace how mainstream educational settings are also focusing on ‘community, social justice, sustainability and ethics/values’. The National Curriculum, for example, has identified Sustainability & Aboriginal Studies as key cross-curricular areas to be interwoven across Learning Areas, while there has been a focus on ‘values conversations’ and ‘moral purpose’ within state schools (ACARA, 2011).
For the parents of the Progressive Class, the HELM model addressed the needs of the ‘whole child’. As with the Melbourne Declaration, the parents believed ‘a holistic education aims to develop every person’s intellectual, emotional, social, physical, emotional, artistic, creative and ethical potentials’ (Helm Australia, 2010). The model has developed as a Learning Philosophy and Curriculum Framework in relation to the 8 Key Holistic Elements, (referred to in this paper as KHEs).
It is apparent that holistic pedagogy, curriculum and partnership policies are being developed by Education Departments and that the challenge is for local schools to develop their own approaches and implementing this change. While the policy initiatives outlined above were being introduced between 2002 and 2008, the Progressive Class was already developing at the local level as a working program that modeled and demonstrated the capacity to implement the new direction in FSPs and Holistic learning, moving them, as Butler affirms, ‘from aspiration to implementation’ (2008, p.6).
15
CHAPTER 2
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 The Case Study
A case study methodology has been chosen to begin what Garson (2008) describes as ‘an in-depth longitudinal investigation of a group (the Progressive Class 2003-09) with the aim of ‘exploring causation (Key Stages) in order to find underlying principles’ (KHEs) affecting the case’. As Ying (2009) argues, ‘the analysis is organized on the basis of the description of the general characteristics (KHEs and Stages) and relations of the phenomenon in question’ (p.3). As a parent and educator I have led and facilitated the Progressive Class stream and am thus a highly involved participant. In bringing together the current research I am ‘present as a witness gathering, organizing and synthesising the research’. (Stakes 1995, p.133)
The research is timely as it aligns with the recently developed DEEWR FSP framework, (2008) that ‘identifies the principles for effective partnerships and highlights strategies that schools and parents can use to guide and develop partnerships’ (p.3). The relation between the DEEWR key dimensions and the implemented stages of Progressive Class FSP are discussed in Chapter 4.
The case study methodology includes what Stakes (1995) describes as ‘a unique life. It is something we don’t sufficiently understand, yet want to – therefore we do a case study’, with the aim of better understanding ‘the complexity of the case key issues’ (p.133). As suggested by Garson (2008), although case study research may be used in its own right, it is more often recommended as part of ‘a multimethod approach using additional procedures, for example, grounded theory, survey research, focus groups , narrative analysis, archival data, or others’. In the current case, ‘multiple sources of evidence are used’ and the study ‘draws on a rich pool of records generated’ by the Progressive Class program. (Garson, 2008) As suggested by Robert K. Yin (2009, p.3), ‘a database’ is being created at the HELM website and through appendices attached to the current paper. The relevant documents informing the Case Study include: 16
• Action Research Project (PPARP 2006) that has shaped the culture & processes of the Progressive Class. • Vision and Values Processes (2002-2006) that inform the development and review of the HELM model and Class Values.
• Learning Philosophy (2002 and 2004) that defined the collective thoughts of the founding parents and informs the Progressive Class Curriculum.
• HELM Learning Model, Key Holistic Elements and Learning Process.
• Progressive Class Strategic Plans and Indicators of Success (2005-6) that inform the review, evaluation and planning implemented by the Parent Group.
• Parent Hand Book (2004-6) and Website (2009-10).
As outlined by Stakes (1995), the Case Study ‘draws on other research’ to shape ‘ongoing understandings and to develop perspective on the key research questions’ (p.135).
2.2 The Progressive Class Action Research Project
This Research Paper builds upon the themes identified in the Progressive Class Action Research Project (PPARP, 2006) and brings together key documents that are a foundation of the FSP. As identified in the research for Knowledge Bank the action research framework was ‘needed to ensure that all the voices of our partnership were heard and valued’ (Kohane and Collins, 2005). The PPARP has facilitated ongoing conversations and helped sustain parent involvement. The research questions are informed by the following themes and questions discussed by the parent group:
• How to develop holistic approaches that move from content and management based approaches to more learner centred approaches that are linked to integrated curriculums?
• How to develop processes that involve parents in their local schools and enable them to become authentic partners?
• How can parents reflect on and overcome obstacles and challenge to sustain their involvement over time? 17
• How to develop the Progressive Class program and identity while remaining connected and a part of the whole Greenvale PS culture?
• If key elements of HELM and stages of FSPs are identifiable can the parents share the model with other schools and in particular the Castlemaine Secondary College where most of their students are heading?
Relevant to these themes the current research identified the three connected research questions outlined above on p. 9.
‘The broad purpose of the Progressive Class Action Research Project (2006) was to engage, inform and involve parents in a genuine manner’; and to investigate, appraise and document the processes used to implement the holistic curriculum model, and the collaborative parent group structure.’ (PPARP, p.18)
Participatory or collaborative action research was chosen by the parent team as it was seen as ‘a method of enquiry of direct relevance to those involved, (being) driven by the concerns of those doing the research’ (p. 4). It was understood that the ‘collaborative process between the researcher and actors would help develop a process of critical inquiry, social practice and reflective learning’ (PPARP, p. 4). ‘As participant researchers, with limited background and understanding in the pedagogical theories explored this task was daunting. As such the study was undertaken with an acknowledgement of relative ‘inexpert-ness’, yet with the incomparable good intentions and interest of the passionate parent and teachers’ (PPARP, p. 3). In spite of being new to the research process the parent team developed a strong grasp of the methodology articulating how action research reconstructs past action on the basis of observation, and future action in the light of reflection. Within the chosen themes (parent voice, leadership, processes etc) the research group ‘constructed knowledge based on engagement in a cyclical process of planning, acting, observing and reflecting’ (Grundy and Kemis, 1981, p.323).
The action research approach and processes that provide parents with a voice are evident throughout the documentation drawn upon for the Case Study. The current research is also influenced by Grounded Theory (Glaser, 2011) and the Reggio Emilia method of ongoing documentation and reflection (Rinaldi, 2001). Both practices recognize the importance of looking for and identifying emergent themes, while the holistic approach 18
enables a synthesis of the diverse and rich documented thinking and processes as Key Stage and Elements. The Case Study work is thus ‘progressively focused, the organizing concepts changing somewhat as the study moves along’ (Stake, 1995, p.133) ‘the procedures utilised are ‘emergent’ (PPARP, p.4) and involve an unfolding series of questions that emerge through the research. Together, these approaches keep the participatory process open enabling the parent ownership and a sense of authentic involvement in the FSP.
2.3 Holistic Learning Research
The current research also recognises ‘from many anecdotal accounts that there are brilliant initiatives in many holistic schools, and that countless students and their parents recount benefits from holistic education which they were not experiencing from mainstream schooling (Forbes, 2004, p.3). As Forbes continues to argue, ‘if these benefits are to be extended to other schools, however, and to be enhanced by a larger understanding, much more research on holistic education needs to be done’ (Forbes, 2004, p.3).
Forbes (2003) identifies and explains the challenge in regard to ‘holistic education initiatives being extremely diverse, which hampers broader research’ (p.3). A key challenge of the current research is thus to begin the development of an effective model that constellates a framework of key holistic elements (KHEs), that can increase cohesion within the diversity and breadth of holistic approaches. Like Forbes, the Progressive Class Parent Group has set about developing ‘a philosophical framework establishing the key elements of holistic education’ (Forbes, 2004, p.3) and I trust that the HELM model contributes to holistic pedagogy and research into holistic Settings.
Literature review
As Stake argues it is crucial for the Case Study to locate itself in and to ‘draw on other research’ (Stake, 1995, p.133). Accordingly, the Case Study is informed by a Literature Review covering six key contexts and paradigms influencing the development of the Progressive Class Stream.
19
2.4 Family School Partnerships Research. (2000s-)
Family School Partnerships have developed over the past decade, creating new dynamics, opportunities and relationships between parents, families and their local schools. In her recent report, for the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust of Australia, Butler (2007) argued that ‘there is growing global recognition and advocacy for the scope and importance of FSPs’ and that ‘many studies have found that regardless of parental income or student background, students with involved parents are more likely to earn higher grades, have less absenteeism, stay at school longer, and graduate and go on to post-secondary education’ (p.38). The study involved visits to 3 countries and 15 schools to learn from innovative FSPs and to identify key drivers and obstacles to effective partnerships.
As Butler (2007) argues, the ’research is unambiguous: when parents engage with their children’s learning, outcomes improve and schools perform better’ (p. 11). FSP Research has influenced the OECD ‘Starting Strong’ global policy framework that argues ‘high levels of parental involvement and strong communities are critical to children’s development and learning’ and further, that ‘parents and families have the first and most enduring impact upon children’s learning and development, health, safety and wellbeing. (OECD, 2006)
The Harvard Family Research Project (2010) provides a thorough review of ‘Family Involvement’ research and evaluation. The series of research briefs by Bouffard and Weiss (2007) and Capse (2007) make the case that family involvement promotes school success for every child of every age. Likewise, The National Network of Partnership Schools at John Hopkins University has led research demonstrating how ‘families play a crucial role in their children’s success at school’ (Epstein, 2004). Founder and director of NNPS, Epstein argues that ‘parents are their children’s first and ongoing teachers, and their involvement in their children’s learning is critical through all the phases of schooling, including secondary schooling’ (Epstein, 2005). The Network provides 20
professional development, tools, and materials on FSPs while the web site features detailed research brief and case studies (NNPS, 2011).
Partnerships have progressed over the past 10 years and led to the development of FSP Frameworks, initially in the US, by Epstein (2005) and the Kentucky Education Dept. (2007), and more recently in Australia, with the launch of DEEWR Framework (2008). The Australian model was developed in collaboration with the Australian Council for State School Organisations, the Australian Parents Council, schools and other key stakeholders. Each model brings together effective principles, dimensions, case studies and strategies and these are compared and connections made with the Progressive Class in Chapter 4.
The DEEWR Framework (2008) outlines principles that underpin effective FSPs and ‘a set of strategies providing practical guidance to school communities and school systems in implementing and fostering FSPs’ (p.2). Seven key dimensions of effective FSPs are described and explored with examples from recent Case Studies. The Framework is based on existing good practice and provides an agreed national approach for schools and families, based on research ‘that demonstrates that effective schools have high levels of parental and community involvement’ (DEEWR, 2008, p.2).
FSPs are defined as ‘collaborative relationships and activities involving school staff, parents and other family members of students at a school’ (DEEWR, 2008, p.2). Effective partnerships are based on mutual trust and respect, and shared responsibility for the education of young people. Schools are encouraged to ‘value the diversity of families, viewing each partner as making equally valuable contributions, while respecting different contributions’ (DEEWR, 2008, p.6).
‘School Readiness’ is identified as a critical element in enabling parents to feel safe and genuinely welcomed as authentic partners. Likewise, the development of relevant policies and processes, and provision of relevant resources, training and support for parents and teachers are identified in the research as essential elements of effective FSPs. Leadership at the school and parent levels is recognized by both the DEEWR framework and by Capse, (2007) as critical to building, maintaining and renewing partnerships. Local research by the Foundation for Young Australians advocated for a broad vision of FSPs whereby successful schools are ‘linked to the community and build 21
partnerships with parents that enable parents to help shape all aspects of their schools’ (Black, 2008).
Importantly, family involvement is identified as having a major impact on student learning outcomes, attendance and behaviour, regardless of the social or cultural background of the family (DEEWR, 2008, Epstein, 2004 and Butler, 2007).
The research also identifies obstacles, risks and challenges that FSPs partnerships face. Butler (2007) documents a ‘lack of trust and relationships among families and teachers’ as a common obstacle as well as ‘difficulties communicating with families, especially those from indigenous and non English speaking background, and families and a lack of financial resources’(p. 21). In turn, ‘minimizing some of the common barriers to involvement at school, such as schedule conflicts, feelings of intimidation around school personnel, and language and cultural differences from teachers can lead to new opportunities for involvement’ (Bouffard and Weiss, 2007, p.3). As Epstein (2005) argues, the presence of obstacles ‘does not mean that parents are not interested in their child’s learning’ but that ‘active engagement and new approaches are needed to circumvent the barriers’. Moving towards partnerships requires a change in attitudes by schools and families in order to create relationships where they see one another as allies in education. As Butler (2007) argues, ‘a significant transition needs to be experienced by many of the teaching staff’ (p.5). In fact, much of the research on parental engagement states teacher reluctance to give up power as one of the key barriers and that for there to be a ‘genuine sharing of power’ there needs to be ‘a move away from blame – that is, from “who’s responsible” to “shared responsibility” for the partnership and for student achievement. (Bouffard and Weiss, 2007, p.3).
The Colorado Department of Education FSP (2011) program sees ‘shifting the relationship between parents and schools from adversarial to collaborative as a major step in transforming education in Colorado’. Through what is identified as ‘prevention initiatives’ staff work to promote FSPs that ‘actively seek parents' expertise and opinions for improving education and to create environments where frequent, clear and reciprocal communication occurs between staff and parents’ (Colorado Education Department, 2011). 22
Caspe (2007), argues that traditional definitions of family involvement, e.g.: volunteering, chaperoning, parent–teacher conferences persist, despite advances in research and practice that demonstrate that family involvement is broader, and most authentic and effective when it is intentionally ‘linked to learning’, and involves a wide range of opportunities for involvement (p.7). Likewise, Wakefield (2011) identifies complementary roles for parents including ‘Parents as Decision Makers (participate in school based decision making, curriculum appraisal and discipline policies), Parents as Supporters (assist in classroom or on field trips, share expertise with staff, students, and other parents and Parents as Partners (communicate with school staff, co-ordinate activities, parenting classes etc)’.
As Bouffard and Weiss (2007) and Capse (2007) argue, once parents are recognized as genuine stakeholders and partners, the challenge is to broaden and reframe the concept of their involvement, ensuring that it is authentic and ongoing, with genuine scope for decision making and leadership opportunities. Conducting research for the Harvard FRPs Bouffard and Weiss (2007) argue that ‘it is time to reframe the concept of family involvement and that doing so ‘requires a deeper understanding of what effective family involvement is, how to foster it, and how to assess it’ (p.2). A key component of the HFRP is that ‘family involvement must be co-constructed and characterized by mutual responsibility among families, schools, and other institutions and stakeholders (Bouffard 2007, p.3).
There is a trend in recent research to recognize that ‘authentic involvement involves real decision making influence for parents’ and ‘appropriate opportunities to contribute to school governance’ (DEEWR, 2008, p.6). Butler focuses on redefining the language of FSP. ‘Decision making’, for example, is seen as ‘a process of partnership, of shared views and actions toward shared goals, not just a power struggle between conflicting ideas, while parent "leader" is seen as ‘a real representative, with opportunities and support to hear from and communicate with other families (Butler, 2008, p 43).
While most research has focused on how education departments and schools can better facilitate parent involvement, Capse (2007) argues that the ‘family involvement field cannot be built from the top down but requires a co-constructed grassroots movement’ in which parents ‘stakeholders come together to demand and foment change’ (p.7). Capse (2007) recognizes that ‘unlike many other education movements, such as the effort to abolish segregated schools and classrooms, the family involvement field has not yet 23
become a movement with self-sustained demand and force’ (p.7). Capse (2007) argues, ‘the gatekeeper to parent involvement is too often the principal, ‘and affirms a model of ‘leadership that comes from both directions on a two-way street’ (p. 7).
The research recognizes that authentic FSPs represent a significant challenge and opportunity for schools. Importantly, family involvement in schools is coming to be seen, not as peripheral or an add on, but as ‘part of the core business of schools’ (DEEWR 2008 and Butler, 2008, p.5). The challenge of broadening and deepening parent involvement is addressed by the key 3 FSP frameworks developed by Epstein (2005), the Kentucky Education Dept (2007) and DEEWR (2008).
Key Dimensions of Parent Involvement DEEWR Australia Epstein’s NNPS Kentucky Education Dept 1. communicating Communicating Communications: 2. connecting learning to home Learning at Home Learning Opportunities 3. consultative decision-making Decision Making Decision-making 4. collaborating beyond school, Collaborating with Community Community Partnerships: 5. participating. Volunteering Advocacy 6. recognising role of the family Parenting 7. building community & identity Relationship Building
It is interesting to see the alignment between the Frameworks with 5 elements being common. The shared focus on ‘building communication’, ‘collaboration with local communities’, the focus on ‘student learning’, ‘authentic forms of involvement’ and ‘consultative decision making’, indicates an emerging shared strategic approach to FSPs. Each of the models identifies ‘decision making’ as a key element, but fall short of Capse’s (2007) identification of parent leadership as a key driver of FSPs.
The DEEWR Framework (2008) recognises that many positive developments and innovations are occurring in schools and that a ‘one size fits all approach is not feasible’ (p. 4). It is argued that ‘partnerships need to be underpinned by broad principles but remain specific to school context, including family and community characteristics, school size, levels of schooling and student needs’ (DEEWR, 2008, p. 4). This approach provides scope for individual Case Studies like the Progressive Class to build on the Framework by identifying, documenting and proposing Key Stages of effective FSPs. 24
The evaluation of FSPs is a further aspect of new research. The Pritchard Committee, for example, recently established a rubric for schools to assess the extent to which they meet the standards across six FSP objectives. Schools identify themselves as Novice, Apprentice, Proficient or Distinguished for each of these objectives and are assisted in identifying opportunities for improvement. (Butler, 2008, p.28)
It is important to also locate FSPs in the context of how schools are developing partnerships with community, philanthropic, corporate, and non- government organisations. As identified by Black (2009) the ‘willingness and capacity for these sectors to contribute to the work of government schools has never been greater’ (p. 5).
Schools in the 21st Century are influenced by accelerating changes in society, work and technology. The Sustainable School initiatives, for example reflects the impact of the Environment Movement, while Feminism was a strong force for positive discrimination and challenging sexism in schools. The Health Promoting School model involved Health organisations with schools around the challenges of drugs, alcohol, risk taking and depression (AHPSA, 2011), while Restorative Practices have been recently adapted from the Justice Field to school settings.
The coming together of schools with their various partners and government departments can transform schools from isolated and siloed institutions into 21st Century learning communities (HFRP, 2011 and DEEWR, 2008). As these movements and partnerships engage with schools they build a vision, policy framework and practice that enables schools to re-connect with their communities, moving from a stand-alone to complementary model of service delivery, taking advantage of the strategic positioning of schools in their communities. As Sanders (2005) argues, the challenge for schools is in developing strategies to connect and work effectively with their emerging partners.
2.5 Alternative and Progressive Education (1920s-)
Progressive Democratic educators in the 1910- 20s like Parker and Dewey (1939 & 2011) were amongst the first to articulate a radical learner centred view of education. A clear line of thinking comes from Dewey’s work and he is acknowledged as a key influence by alternative and holistic educators. Of particular importance was Dewey’s 25
view that learning was an active process, ‘knowledge being constructed through children’s activities, through pragmatic experimentation’ (Rinaldi, 2003, p.6).
Parallel to Dewey’s work were the Alternative School Movements led by Steiner and Montessori. The Montessori view of the child as an independent and capable was also developed in Steiner schools that aimed to develop the unique capacities of all learners. The Democratic and Progressive School Movements developed in the 1920s, applying constructivist approaches to educational choice, freedom and rights. The establishment of small private schools like Summerhill in the UK and Preshil in Melbourne reflected strong anti- authoritarian approaches to both current political contexts and to learning. Both schools were recognized as sharing ‘a deep opposition to totalitarianism and a new way of thinking about discipline and human rights’(ABC Hindsight, 2006).
Preshil, founded in 1931, is the oldest surviving progressive school in Australia, while Currambena was founded forty years later. Australia has its own tradition of progressive education going back several generations. ‘It's generally been less libertarian than Summerhill with an emphasis on making schooling more democratic, and giving children a say in what they learn, and how they learn it’ (ABC Hindsight, 2006). As the founder of Preshil, Margaret Lyttle, explains, ‘the children are allowed to make their own decisions’. ‘It isn’t easy, she continues, ‘it’s not easy to let the children know that it is their school’ (ABC Hindsight, 2006).
The Progressive Educational Association was the international body that circulated the radical thinking from 1915-55 while the New Educational Fellowship was the Australia organization that promoted democratic citizenship, social conscience, and educational alternatives. The challenge of maintaining minimal fees was also a key aspect of the focus on social justice, access for refugees and social welfare (ABC Hindsight, 2006). Together these models formed a foundation for Alternative and Progressive Education that has been sustained over 80 years. Importantly, these schools provided inspiration to the Parents not as models to be replicated but to be synthesized with the HELM model.
2.6 Reggio-Emilia Learning Model. (1960s-)
The 1960-70s witnessed the impacts of social revolution and radical challenges to all political, cultural and educational institution. Student protesters and educational radicals 26
demanded change and found their voices through reading seminal educational texts, including Illich’s, Deschooling Society (1971) and Freire’s, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1968). Doll (2005) also challenged educators to rethink learning theories and to question dominant discourses and their control over society and schooling. The constructivism associated with the earlier Alternative Schools was deepened as educators stood side by side with the political radicals of their time.
Humanistic educator Goleman (1996) focused attention on the self and development of intentional, purposeful learning, while Humanist Psychologists, Maslow, Rogers and Fromm challenged behaviorist models and laid the foundations for developments in learning theory (HENT, 2010). Building on Dewey’s work, Vygotsky (1987) articulated intrinsic and democratic learning approaches in specific social contexts.
After extensive reading and discussions of educational theorists the Parent Group identified Reggio Emilia as a best practice model with which to develop an ongoing dialogue. The Progressive Class Learning Philosophy was re-written in 2004 (HELM Philosophy, 2010) with the aim of synthesizing HELM and Reggio approaches.
The ‘image of the child’ is a foundational element of the Reggio Apporach. The child is seen as ‘strong, competent, full of resources and the constructor and co-constructor of their knowledge and understandings’. (Rinaldi, 2001) As with the Steiner and the Progressive Class approaches, the young person is seen as being rich in potential, ‘a rich child, a child of infinite capabilities’ (Rinaldi, 2006). Importantly, the Reggio view is rooted in Deweyan progressivism, Piagetian constructivism and Vygotskian social learning theory. Malaguzzi actively challenged notions of ‘a universal childhood’ while Rinaldi (2006) argues that ‘each society constructs its own understanding of who the child is and who they could be’. Influenced by Reggio approaches to emergent curriculum and project learning, the Progressive Class parents and teachers focused on researching the exploration, representation, communication and documentation phases of the Reggio learning process. (Malaguzzi, 1993).
The Reggio approach also emphasises the immediate relationships of children in small groups and the broader pedagogy of relationships involving family and community. Projects and research challenges emerge through shared conversation and group learning. Constructing curriculum with students is a lively process emerging from 27
collaboration and dialogue between students, teacher and parents and can lead to high levels of independent learning and individual knowledge. (HELM Philosophy, 2010)
Conversations around values are highly developed in the Reggio context. Values are seen as defining cultures; ‘they are related and co-related to the culture that holds them, they determine the culture and are determined by it.’ (Rinaldi, p.139, 2003). Rinaldi explores values broadening humanist, emotional and ethical frameworks from a post structuralist perspective. She discusses the value of subjectivity, which is closely connected with the value of difference arguing that ‘we need to understand differences rather than wanting to cancel them out’ while also ‘being open to doubt, and giving value to negotiation.’ (Rinaldi, 2003, p.140).
The integral involvement of parents, community and municipality is reflected through the history and development of the Reggio centres. Underpinning the Reggio approach is the view that ‘people learn best from others, therefore, people other than educators should be involved in the running of the schools.’ (Baldini et.al. 2005) Importantly, the origins of early childhood services in Reggio lie in ‘long traditions of collective life in cohesive communities, producing norms of reciprocity and trust, and networks of civic engagement,’ (Rinaldi, 2003, p.141) what Putman (1993) refers to as Social Capital. The alignment between Rinaldi and Putman is a context for further research in regard to community development and community school models.
Loris Malaguzzi’s (2010) notion of a ‘100 languages’ acknowledges and affirms the wide array of learning styles and intelligences that children draw on in their explorations, and the belief that children have the capacity for representing ideas in a wide variety of symbolic, creative and graphic modes. Teachers and parents learn to listen to the ‘100 languages’ that children use to express themselves as individual learners and teachers in their own right. In turn, Gardner’s collaboration with Reggio centres involved dialogue with 26 American and Italian authors co-authoring the Hundred Languages of Children. (Rinaldi, 2006, p.176).
While the Reggio approach developed as an early-childhood model, the Progressive Class parents believed the principles could be applied into primary school. Teachers and parents have been involved in Reggio Emilia study tours and conferences, and facilitated 28
the Castlemaine Reggio Emilia Network that brought together teachers from K-9 and with a focus on parent involvement in documentation of student work.
2.7 The Community School Movement and Educational Alternatives. (1970s-)
Following the new thinking about education in the 60s and with the funding support of the Whitlam government educational alternatives were introduced in the 70s and 80s that were to influence mainstream education. The Community School settings and annexes, the Preshil Senior School (Strauss, 2008), and alternative programs like STC (Holdsworth, 2003) provided experiences for teachers and communities to pilot new alternative and community based approaches.
Holdsworth (2003) traces the development of the Community School Movement in Victoria and the challenges it faces. ‘Increasingly, in the 80s and 90s he argues, ‘alternative programs developed within, without and between school, drawing on many sources including, ‘the idea of diversity and of choice, notions of ‘opting in’, plurality of learning approaches, differences in value systems, changed relationships between teacher and learner, rejection of compulsion and of conformity’(Holdsworth, 2003, p.2). Holdsworth reflects further on the development of alternative hands-on, community- based studies within working-class, inner-city, multicultural Government schools, that focused on the skills of the students and their capacity for success. The STC Course for example ‘was developed as an alternative Year 12 certificate, without competitive assessment and with negotiated student-teacher control of content and methods’ (Holdsworth, 2003, p.2). A range of alternative school units ranging from 30 to 500 students were established and ‘offered to a wide cross-section of students, basing selection on interest and desired ways of working’. (Holdsworth, 2003, p.2)
While the holistic approaches have evolved from and been influenced by the alternative educational models, it is important to recognize that such models were also developing within mainstream schools. Community Schools continued to model new practices through the 90s, for example, in personalized learning, middle year’s programs and negotiated curriculum, providing experiences of how to build State School teachers and their community’s capacity to pilot and take these models deeper into the mainstream. In summary, Holdsworth (2003) asks, ‘Are we ready to recognise that the educational 29
learnings from these ‘alternatives’ need to ‘come in from the cold’? Are we ready to shift these practices from the margins to the centre of what we do? (p.12)’
Community Schools like Lynall Hall, Sydney Rd and Swinburne survived the swing to educational basics in the 90s and are now providing valuable experience for the DEECD Innovations and Excellence programs (2002-6), Enterprise learning (2005-9) and more recently Community VCAL and Learning Community models being adopted across State Schools. (DEECD, 2010)
At the time of its inception The Progressive Class Stream entered into a close dialogue with key Community School leaders, in particular Noel Blenko, from Sydney Rd Community School, a successful annex of Brunswick Secondary College; and teachers from Fitzroy Community School, including John Marsden who was to adapt the Fitzroy pedagogy at the recently opened Candlebark School. Interestingly, Marsden (2010) was to distance himself from parent partnerships, while the community development models implemented by Community Schools were identified by the Progressive Class parents as key foundations for sustained parent involvement in community based education.
2.8 Holistic Learning Approaches and the Holistic Educational Movement. (1980s-)
Stack’s ‘Historical and Contemporary influences on Holistic Education’ (Appendix 1) provides a detailed picture of the theorists, social, political and educational movements that shaped the development of Holistic Education. In the 1970s ‘an emerging body of literature in science, philosophy and cultural history discussed holistic thinking’ (Forbes, 2004) and holistic learning approaches were further influenced by Systems Theory, Post Structuralism, Recent Physics and Gestalt Psychology. Core ideas of holistic education are also traced to Indigenous and Ecological thinkers.
As articulated by Stack (2010), Holistic approaches assert that ‘everything exists in relationship and in a context of connection and meaning’. Holistic thinking integrates layers of meaning and experience, focusing on the whole rather than parts. A holistic approach ‘absorbs diverse elements, synthesizes systems of thinking: to become whole is to integrate, to bring together, to join, to link, not in the sense of uniformity, or to iron out differences – but in the sense of unity- in- diversity’ (Beck and Cowen, 2006). 30
The term Holistic Education, was first used at the National Holistic Education Conference in California (1979) and developed by J. Miller (1988) through the Holistic Education Review in the late 80s. Since then, the perspective of “holistic education” has become the subject of conferences, articles and books, doctoral dissertations, and teacher training programs (Miller,1988). Several journals emerged, including Encounter, SKOLE and Paths of Learning, while University Departments were created such as at Ontario Institute and The University of Tennessee (Forbes, 2004, p. 3).
Miller (2008), Stack (2010) and Hare (2010) led the application of holistic thinking to the field of Education. As Hare argues, ‘it is about educating the whole child, not on a fixed model but where he or she is at bending the curriculum to meet the child and not the child to meet the curriculum.’(Hare, 2003). Holistic Education is influenced by humanist psychology and affirms ‘that each person should strive to be all that they can be in life. There are no deficits in learners, just differences’ (HENT, 2010). In turn, Wilbur draws on Maslow’s work affirming that ‘to be whole is to be fully human and to be able to use intuition, inspiration and wisdom enables the holistic learner to meet their needs for self-actualisation and self-transcendence’ (Wilbur, 2003).
Stack’s HENT website (2010) brings together key aspects of Holistic Learning theory and defines ‘Holistic Education as a philosophy of education based on the premise that each person finds identity, meaning, and purpose in life through connections to their communities, local and global, to the natural world, and to ethics and values, like respect, justice and peace’. In turn, Jorg (2004) argues that Holistic curriculum ‘is transdisciplinary and integrative’, transcending the ‘perspectives of individual disciplines, integrating them on the basis of a common and connected approach’ (p. 3).
It was the ‘coming together’ of this holistic view of learning, with alternative and community school movements, that inspired parents and schools to develop Holistic Learning Streams in Victorian State Schools. Steiner streams developed in seven State Primary Schools and two Secondary Colleges, including Castlemaine Secondary College. The Briar Hill Primary School was earmarked for closure when a group of Steiner parents suggested a partner approach to renew enrolments, while at Footscray PS the Steiner stream has given the school a higher profile leading to a doubling of enrolments in the mainstream classes as well. 31
Collingwood College is a unique model where Reggio, Steiner and Mainstream paradigms operate alongside one another in a P-12 State School. Faced with falling enrolments and the challenge of high non-English speaking and refugee populations the school leadership explored a range of options. A dialogue was initiated with Steiner families who were looking for an alternative to the nearby Sophia Mundi Steiner School. The success of this process led to the further inclusion of the Reggio stream, the first of its kind in a Victorian State School. Wooroona Primary school is a further recent example of a Reggio stream developing in an innovative state school.
The dialogue with holistic streams is guided by the Alternative Education Resource Organisation (AERO, 2011), by Holistic School networks such as HENT (2010) and models like HELM (2010). As well as facilitating local and global dialogue, these networks support local communities to access models and processes to enable them to develop Holistic Programs and Partnerships with their local Schools.
Hare’s (2003) paper, Holistic education: An interpretation for teachers in the International Bacalaureate programs’ was commissioned by the IB to address topics related to the IB’s philosophy and educational practices. The application of holistic approaches to system-wide models like the IB and the National Curriculum are progressing parallel to the development of the Holistic Learning Streams, and the coming together of local and system levels of research and program development is a key area for future research.
The Chicago Statement (2000) and the Environmental Education Model developed by the Gould League (Gough, 1997) each identify Ten Principles of effective learning, and their alignment with the HELM Key Elements is identified in the diagram below:
10 PRINCIPLES OF HOLISTIC LEARNING
HELM 2001-3 TORQUAY AND EDUCATION 2000 – CHICAGO ENVIRONMENTAL CASTLEMEAINE EDUCATION 1992-2001
Energized inquiring learners - 1. Educating for Human Thinking globally Development
Whole Self Emotional Intelligence 2. Honoring Students as Individuals Acting locally Integrated curriculum
Relational self and other kinesthetic 3. The Central Role of Experience Making personal connections
Values ethics meaning philosophy 4. Spirituality and Education Developing values 32
spirituality
Effective community based processes to 5. Educating for a Participatory Developing citizenship enable participation Democracy
Social justice Inclusion, justice, 6. Educating for Cultural Diversity A sense of place democracy citizenship and Global Citizenship
Ecology 7. Educating for Earth Literacy A sense of time
Aesthetic arts design and creativity 8. Holistic Education Exemplary practise
Synergy and alignment of all the above 9. Freedom of Choice
Professional development – reflective 10. New Role of Educators Noel Gough , Gould League 1992 practice - action research
Evaluative models are also evolving based on Holistic Learning Principles. To review Holistic Learning programs, Stack (2010) developed a survey tool to identify when an educational model is 'holistic'. The survey enables parents and school to identify ‘how holistic is your program’ just as 21st C drivers can go to ‘how safe is your car.com’. Stack (2010) asks; ‘can one say that a particular teacher, classroom or school is 'holistic'? If we say that a school is 'holistic' do we mean the educational experience is holistic for some students, or all students, or some of the time, or all the time?’ In turn, he suggests that ‘perhaps, it makes more sense to talk about a school or program being more holistic or less holistic’, using a 5 point scale continuum from ‘hardly ever’ to ‘frequently’ (Stack, 2010). The survey provides an evaluative tool comparable to that developed by the Kentucky Education Department for FSPs.
Caldwell (2008) has also developed indicators to measure school progress across five areas of ‘capital’ and a similar model is proposed in this paper based on the alignment between the HENT survey tool and the proposed HELM elements. As Forbes (2004) indicates, it is vital information for teachers to have an evidence base to reflect on their holistic programs and to present a clear picture of what holistic education is, thus enabling parents to make more informed choices.
2.9 21st Century State Blueprint models DEECD.
There is apparent within mainstream Education Systems, a greater openness and capacity to develop holistic approaches, not only in relation to pedagogy, curriculum 33
and assessment, but also school organization, leadership and FSPs (Senge, 2008 and DEECD, 2010).
The Middle Years Pedagogy Research and Development Project (MYPRAD 2002-3) led pedagogical change in the middle years of schooling, addressing issues of engagement and the ‘need for an interactive, engaging and purposeful pedagogy’ (DEECD, 2010). The Principles of Learning and Teaching (PoLT) and the E5 model developed from this research and inform teacher professional development and enquiry based student learning (DEECD, 2010). What is being implemented across the state system in Victoria is a ‘questioning pedagogy” rather than an ‘answering pedagogy’, an approach whereby students are empowered to ask questions to drive their learning (Harpaz, 2005). These ‘rich questions’ are explored through integrated curriculum frameworks and research- based projects enabling ‘students to follow their gifts, work on projects and gain a sense of travelling along learning paths’ (HELM, 2010). As Lake (2008) argues, 21st Century learning must provide’ customised, multiple entry points and multiple pathways for all students’.
What is significant is how this ‘view of the child’, as a whole, enquiring and an energized learner also underpins the DEECD focus on ‘Student Learning, Engagement and Pathways’ (DEECD 2010). The three interwoven strategic frameworks of the Blueprint provide a systems-based model for school leadership structures that replace traditional management and curriculum leadership roles (Senge, 2008). The move away from Management to Engagement and Wellbeing affirms that the learner is no longer in need of ‘managing’. School leaders can then focus on developing programs that build student capacity in the areas of leadership, mediation, well being and school culture. Furthermore, the Pathways role focuses on transitions, Individual Learning Plans (ILPs) and Managed Individual Pathways (MIPs), thus building students’ sense of being on a learning journey and the implied scope for Life Long Learning.
Bringing this work together, the Effective Schools Model (DEECD, 2006) provides an integral framework for connecting fields of leadership and school organization that support changes in pedagogy and curriculum (Sammons et. al. 2010) 34
The traditional curriculum landscape, dominated since the 19thC by Maths, English Science and Humanities’ Faculties was challenged from the mid 70s into the 80s by explorations of interdisciplinary and community based learning. There was a move away from discipline based learning, while whole language practitioners challenged phonics based teaching. As Holdsworth (2011) argues, the control of the educational landscape by the long privileged disciplines and their faculties appeared to be under threat, before a significant reaction swept through schools in the late 80s and 90s, calling for a return to the basics; to literacy and numeracy focused learning.
In 2002, The VELS introduced 3 new domains to replace traditional discipline based Key Learning Areas (KLAs). A creative and effective balance was struck at a system wide level in Victorian State Schools between Discipline Based Learning (Domain 2) and Interdisciplinary Learning (Domain 3), based on the strong foundation of Personal and Social learning (Domain 1) The VELSs focus on developing Thinking Skills, and on Personal Learning are elements of a more holistic approach that involve teachers becoming facilitators of learning and supporting students to develop learning projects and pathways (DEECD, 2010). Furthermore, organizational skills, independence and teamwork necessary for project based and authentic learning, are also valued as being of equal importance to the traditional subject areas.
How the opposition between discipline and interdisciplinary approaches can be depolarized remains a key educational challenge. Holistic approaches that move away from either/or positions and recognise the value of learning styles are a step forward. Likewise, as Jorg (2004) affirms, there is a coming together of diverse paradigms as educators ‘think inclusively and in complexity’ (p. 4).
The VELS is an example of a curriculum that enables deeper engagement with enquiry based learning that connects a range of subjects and teachers. The capacity of teachers and school leadership structures to adapt to the VELS varies significantly. As Bertolini (2011) identifies, ‘the challenge is how to practically and sensibly integrate the VELS. Teachers are challenged to ‘redefine their role in the classroom’. The shift away from Faculties has moved the focus from how to deliver curriculum content to how students learn and how to challenge, engage and enhance their learning capacity. As Bertolini 35
(2011) argues, ‘what is required is a shift in approach whereby ‘teachers must move from purely imparting knowledge through to being the facilitators of learning’.
As well as innovative pedagogy and curriculum, new assessment approaches are being introduced that assess ‘for’, ‘of’ and ‘as’ learning (DEECD, 2010). This involves a shift from seeing assessment solely as the ‘outcome’ of learning. The model identifies student skill levels, enables negotiation and documentation of the learning process. The VELS enables assessment to be personalised and occur along a continuum that is supported by developments in the use of criteria and rubrics. Ongoing assessment fosters understanding, and is not simply evaluation, while student led conferences are replacing traditional parent interviews and empowering students to evaluate their own learning.
The continuum based learning models implemented across state education departments, like the VELs, are recognized in the emerging National Curriculum, but are at risk of been narrowed in the face of calls for the inclusion of mandated content knowledge across disciplines like History and Math. The challenge of marrying standardized testing with the principles of ongoing learning is like integrating old and new paradigm approaches. Importantly, the broad mapping of student progress within the VELs needs to be sustained and not over-ridden by a focus on benchmarks and testing. As Tudball (2010) argues, ‘social education is under threat, and teachers are concerned about the ‘narrowing’ of curriculum within the National framework. ‘Personalised, imaginative and flexible approaches, learning in the community and wider school programs,’ are needed to ensure a balanced and broad approach (Tudball, 2011).
36
CHAPTER 3 THE CASE STUDY.
The Greenvale Progressive Class
3.1 The Context and Setting
The Greenvale Progressive Class is based on and inspired by the long established and evolving field of alternative and progressive education developed in Australia and overseas. For example, Reggio, Steiner and Montessori Streams have a deep and recognized validity within state schools, especially in Northern Europe and have become significant global models. In Germany, for example, Steiner schools are a part of the State System, while in Scandinavian countries a wide range of Montessori and Steiner Streams operate within State Schools. The Reggio Programs in Italy are funded and operated by the local Municipal Council.
The Progressive Class has benefited from the decentralization of education (late 80s) when School Principals and Councils were given increasing responsibility for staffing, school policies and financial management. A number of School Communities made the most of these opportunities and introduced a range of Learning Streams that now operate alongside mainstream programs.
The Case Study documents the processes by which the parent group developed the HELM model and the parental governance processes. Levels of parent involvement in are traced and school readiness for the FSP is examined. Changes in teacher practice are considered and the importance of building whole school connections outlined.
The Parent Group was driven by the desire to make a contribution to State Education and argued ‘there was a need for a model of education that fostered the ‘broad range of children’s intelligences and was inclusive of all learners’ (HELM, 2010). The concept for the partnership evolved in the community itself. The local community argued there was a need for ‘a model of education that fostered the broad range of children’s intelligences and was inclusive of all learners with a focus on the whole community taking responsibility for the education and development of a child’ (PPARP 2006).
37
3.2 Parent developed HELM model
Engaging the voices of parents in defining an educational vision for their children has been a foundational process for all Parent Groups. The HELM model developed over a series of parent led consultations. It was found that these meetings were most powerful when parents and young people were first able to talk about their own experiences of schooling and to recall times of significant experiences of learning.
This cleared the way for parents to imagine how their children could learn. Each person was given time to develop and share their thoughts and visions of education in the 21st century. Time to listen and hear each parent was vital and these processes were often emotional as parents shared their experiences of grief, isolation, bullying and failure associated with their memories of schooling, along with the nostalgia associated with significant teachers, memorable topics and times of connected learning. The openness and safety of the meetings ensured a genuine and inclusive process was established.
The questions that guided the process have been very simple and open. They have included:
• How do we imagine a learning environment for my child? • What would be my vision of a school? and • What do I wish for my child in their learning?’
Following the initial consultations, the Parent Group adopted a ‘grounded theory’ approach, identifying patterns and themes in the collected feedback. A series of drafts evolved in which key themes were identified.
Importantly, the model also arose as a result of the dialogue between the parent feedback and a review of best practice holistic learning models (see Literature review). As outlined in the Introduction what emerged was an effective synthesis of all the feedback into 8 distinct fields and elements.
The HELM model seeks to balance the 8 KHEs, affirming that academic learning, for example, is in balance with creativity, and that emotional awareness is complemented by physical health and experiences of the natural environment. An underlying aspect of HELM is that no one field or element is privileged over another and that all learners, and the curriculum itself, develop deepening connections to the 8 KHEs. 38
HELM ELEMENTS 2003 model
As outlined in the Progressive Class Learning Philosophy, ‘HELM respects the intelligences, strengths, learning styles and interests of the individual and endeavours to balance progressive and traditional learning approaches. The holistic approach facilitates academic achievement while ensuring a balanced approach to the children’s development’ (HelmAustralia, 2010).
Over a series of workshops the 8 Key Holistic Elements were defined, clarified and synthesised by the parent group: 39
Parent synthesis of HELM elements (2003)
KHEs Learning Areas and Processes
1 Academic Learning: Intrinsic learners, curiosity, motivation. Encouraging young people’s natural drive to learn,
2 Holistic nurturing of all parts of the self, emotional intelligence. Balance mainstream and alternate curriculum. Integrated approaches
3 Building relationships, communication skills, sense of connection, empowerment & valuing differences
4 What different people describe as values, ethics, philosophy, cultural and spiritual traditions and practices. Ethics and how to apply ethics.
5 Community based processes, families dovetail with school. Teamwork and partnerships. Practical and applied learning. Nurturing young peoples’ agency,
6 Study of indigenous cultures. Commitment to social justice, conflict resolution, mediation – develop ‘power within’
7 Environmentally based, creating connections to earth cycles, permaculture gardens, local sustainability programs and outdoor learning
8 Creativity & aesthetics. Student gifts and paths in are supported. Creativity through art, music drama.
With further discussions and reflection each Key Holistic Element developed as an evolving field, with each been understood in regard to seven connected terms and concepts. The Helm Matrix (see p. 40) demonstrates the breadth of the model and the scope for concepts to be built into units of work by the teachers. The KHEs also began to provide a basis on which to construct definitions of Holistic Learning (see p. 61). iKEY KEY TERMS 1CONNECTED 2 3 4 5 6 7 HOLISTIC TERMS ELEMENTS
KHEs 40
1 GENERATIVE HOLISTIC HEALTH VIEW OF THE INQUIRY BASED STUDENT. CONSTRUCTIVI LIFE LONG MULTIPLE LEARNING ENERGY BASED CHILD AS IN DEPTH CENTRED ST LEARNING PATH - WAYS ENERGISED CUSTOMISED NEGOTIATED MULTIPLE JOURNEY CURIOUS PERSONALISED ENTRY POINTS
2 INTEGRAL RECOGNITION OF GESTALT HOLISTIC SUSTAINING VELS EMERGENT EMOTIONAL CURRICUULM WHOLE CHILD HUMANIST CURRICULUM ENGAGMENT SPACE EVOLING INTELLIGENCE FRAMEWORKS HELM NEGOTIATED CURRICULUM
3 RELATIONSHIPS HEALTH EMOTIONAL EMBODIED SELF AND OTHER LANDSCAPES CONTEXT THE HEALTH PROMOTING INTELLIGENCE SELF – BODY DIALOGUE OF LISTENING PLACE BASED ENVIRONMENT SCHOOLS SUBJECTIVITY NARRATIVE LEARNING IS THE 3RD TEACHER
4 VALUES ETHICS TELEOLOGICAL BEING AND TIBETAN INDIAN REVERENCE APPRECIATING BELIEFS HOLISTIC BELIEFS PURPOSEFUL WELL BEING MANDALA HARMONY DIVERSE SPIRITUALITY PHILOSOPHY MEANING MEANING SELF ENERGY AWE WORLD THE SACRED DEEPENING EPISTIMOLOGY ACTUALISING SYSTEMS THE SOULFUL CULTURES PEDAGOGY
5 PARTICIPATION COMMUNITY COLLABORATIVE FACILITATION EFFECTIVE TEAMS ENTERPRISE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GOVERNANCE AGREEMENTS STUDENT ACTION AUTHENTIC PARTNERSHIPS MODEL PROCESSES TEAMS LEARNING
6 SOCIAL JUSTICE INDIGENOUS POLITICSAL JUSTICE RIGHTS DIVERSITY DEMOCARACY SOCIAL RESTORATIVE PARTICIPATOR CULTURES PROCESSES EQUITY INLCUSION CIVICS MOVEMENTS PRACTISE Y EMPOWERMENT FREEDOM UNIONS MEDIATION SRC
7 SUSTAINABLE DIVERSITY OUTDOOR ECO SYSTEMS SUSTAINABLE HOLISTIC INTER- RENEWABLE ENVIRONMENT COMPLEXITY LEARNING WEB DESIGN ORGANIC CONNECT- ENERGY HOMEOSTASIS EDNESS SYSTEMS BALANCE
8 CREATIVIVTY ART LANGUAGES DESIGN MULTI MEDIA AESTEHTICS INNOVATION STUDIOS MUSIC WRITING PROCESSES BEAUTY GALLERIES POETRY FOLIOS
SYNERGY OF FOR EXAMPLE FLOW SYNCHRONICITY INTUITION ZONE OF MUSIC MATHS ALL FIELDS 1-8 ALL LITERACIES SPIRIT PROXIMINAL DEVELOPMENT
The Helm Matrix, 2006 41
The 8 Key Elements also function as a Learning Process in which teacher planning and the learner’s experience move through each of the Elements. The HELM Learning Process reflects the developing coherence of the model and is included as Appendix 2.
Importantly, the developing model enabled parents, students and teachers to work together, using the HELM wheel as a tool for developing integrated curriculum. Each new learning theme and inquiry question is placed in the centre of the Wheel. Ideas and possibilities are shared enabling a broad exploration of how the theme and question can be developed. Parents and students play a leading role as co-designers of the learning program enabling ongoing involvement and sharing of knowledge and skills. Teachers then organize the ideas and develop the curriculum into Integrated Units.
The Technology and Shelter Learning Unit, for example (Appendice 3), explored a range of KHEs, including Academic Learning, Social Justice, Creativity and the Environment. The class camp to Barmah Forest, for example, provided a rich experience of indigenous cultures, while visits to local ‘green’ homes inspired students to think about creative designs, and effective use of natural building materials and renewable energies. Students explored a range of natural and built landscapes as they began to design shelters. They reflected on design processes and produced a folio of drawings that also involved the development of math, graphics and writing skills.
While the teachers and parent group were actively researching and synthesising Reggio Emilia and HELM approaches, the Principal proposed in 2005 that the Progressive Class become a ‘Reggio inspired’ program. As Gardner (2003) has argued ‘the Reggio approach cannot simply be imported, but it may inspire us to raise important questions about the role of schooling in our own culture.’ Alia, Collingwood College and Woorona PS were example of successful Reggio streams in both private and state schools and there were strong arguments for the Progressive Class to follow their example. After lengthy discussions, however, it was agreed by the Parent Group to not adopt the Principal’s proposal and to focus instead on developing the local HELM model in dialogue with Reggio approaches. This demonstrated the importance of the local model to the parent group and their trust in its ongoing development.
42
3.3 Developing Shared Values
While the HELM model successfully incorporated the parents’ visions, the next step was a sustained dialogue by parents, teachers and children, to establish the values and processes that would shape the developing culture of the Progressive Class. The shared values evolved through a series of workshops and are reviewed each year.
Identified Shared Values from Parent Workshop (2007).
1. Energy : a sense of energy, flow, spontaneity, rhythm, creativity in our learning. 2. Emotional wholeness, self aware, resilient. 3. Friendship – inclusive approaches. Everyone has something to offer and we can learn through friendship. Teach us to make life choices. 4. Respectfulness : that is aware of power differences and can be willing to let go of that power. 5. Engagement as a community ; collective consciousness 6. Contextual Authentic : real life / world relevance vs. abstract theory 7. Individuals actively engage with the challenges presented to them 8. Individuals are emotionally supported 9. Respect for yourself, others and the environment (safe within self – emotionally and physically) As little impact on the environment as possible tolerance – everybody deserves respect. 10. Freedom for children to be and choose for themselves & Individuals supported in self discovery 11. Diversity – exposure to diversity; e.g. cultures, ideas, belief systems. 12. Empowered: Intrinsic values that are expressed extrinsically to make the world a better place. 13. Love of lifelong learning : integration of self ; relationships ; intellect ; legacy.
The shared values lay a foundation for welcoming and working with differences and help resolve conflicting views. This has been the case in regard to a number of issues facing the Progressive Class where significant differences have and continue to arise, including the use of ICT, school uniform, home-learning and the children’s diet.
The values are explored in the classroom through student agreements and collaborative- restorative processes. Self discipline and emotional intelligence are aims of the learning program and involve ongoing conversations with students in regard to their behaviour. Children, teachers and parents are often involved in values discussions, whether in class, parent meetings, on excursions or at camps. These collaborative and often informal conversations help to develop the values. In the words of a parent quoted for the Parent 43
Handbook; ‘values, the shared values of the teaching community, as well as the parents and the principal, that’s why we’re here’ (Helm, 2010).
3.4 Parent Governance Processes
To sustain parent involvement the Parent Group then focused on developing meeting structures, protocols and decision making processes. In 2004, the second year of the Class, the parent group created a structure based on community development facilitation models. ‘Several members in the parent group had experience in the design, implementation and management of collaborative organisational processes. Key aspects of the process included, co-facilitation, effective agenda and time keeping, active listening, developing shared knowledge and language and being inclusive of others and their views’ (PPARP, 2006, p.15).
Supporting the inclusive and facilitated processes was a strong commitment to ‘Collaborative Decision Making’ that relies on dialogue, persuasion and negotiation when there is disagreement. It is a process during which people discuss a proposal, and keep changing it to take into account different ideas or disagreements. After extensive discussion it was agreed that ‘collaborative decision-making’ involved a ‘commitment to seeking consensus with a back-up plan of voting. (PPARP, p.16)
The Full Parents group is the key decision making body, or parliament, of the Progressive Classes. This group meets at least once per term to discuss concerns, views, and to make decisions. Class teachers discuss planning, and support parents to learn skills and be involved in learning activities. Major initiatives like the annual Class Camp and involvement in community events such as Sorry Day, the State Arts Festival or Hip Hop are discussed and decided upon in this forum. The Full Parent meetings also discus and help develop Class Theme.
To facilitate and enable effective Full Parent Meetings the Steering group meets every month to develop strategies, directions, policies and procedures. The HELM Philosophy and Values statement underpins discussions and proposals developed, which are then presented to the Full Parents Group (PPARP, p.16).
The Steering Committee has played important strategic and political roles, lobbying for facilities and resources and advocating for holistic approaches to learning. The Steering Committee facilitated the Castlemaine Reggio Emilia Learning Network in 2006-7, 44
organizes the annual Transition Program and co-ordinates the Built Environment, Fundraising and Communication Groups that operate from time to time. There have been concerns in regards to clarifying whether certain questions should be decided by the Steering committee or the full parent group meeting.
To secure much needed space for growing enrolments in 2006, the Steering Committee was involved in a successful lobbying process with the school and Regional Office. This involved a challenging dialogue with key educational stakeholders and local MPs, and resulted in the locating of a Mod 5 facility at Greenvale in 2006. As enrolments grew steadily the Steering Committee led discussion in regard to what defined an effective 21st C Learning Community and an ideal number of students. After extensive research the Whole Parent Group agreed in 2008 on a cap of 72 students across 3 class groups.
The Steering Committee developed ‘Strategic Plans’ (Appendix 4) for each 2 years and in 2005 established a detailed framework of Indicators (Appendix 5) to identify progress in relation to key strategic goals. The indicators form the basis for ongoing review of progress made by the class towards achieving its goals.
3.5 Parent Involvement in the Learning Program
Once strong foundations had been established for the Progressive Class, the parent group implemented structures for organizing parent involvement. A Parent Skills Register (Appendix 6) was established to identify the talents and skills within the parent group, and a Parent Co-coordinator appointed to organize the ‘parent classroom and excursions roster’. These vital structures enabled parents’ energies to be effectively deployed. Parents share their specialist skills and knowledge, help develop lesson plans and excursions. As outlined in the Parent Handbook, (HelmAustralia, 2010) ‘the aim is to ‘create an open space where parents, students and teachers discuss issues in the class and support self-paced and self-directed learning.’
The Parent Volunteer Register form (Appendix 7), ‘Invites families to be involved 2-3 hours a week either during school time or after school hours’. Importantly, it is also ‘recognised that our involvement will be flexible and vary over time’.
The Curriculum and Class Groups meet at least once every three weeks to develop the learning program, look at the day-to-day planning in the class, the timetable, organise 45
excursions and explore the Reggio approach to documenting student learning. Parents have taken the initiative in developing new units of work and programs such as the ‘Outdoor Learning Curriculum’ (see Appendix 9). Parents are regularly involved in leading activities for students. A significant number of parents have led Learning Programs over sustained periods of time enabling them to become recognized by the students as co-teachers and mentors. These Programs include:
• Democratic Classroom: 6 months program conducted over 3 years by parent skilled in Facilitation Training. • Environmental Excursions – Monthly excursions to observe seasonal changes in local environments – conducted over 5 years. • Leadership Program for older students –operated weekly over 2 years. • Indigenous Programs –Aboriginal , American Indian and Maori festivals, ceremonies and cultural events- ongoing each year. • Healthy Cooking and Living Program led by a parent, one day a week over a 4 year period. • Friday Bushwalks (see Appendix 8) – Regular Parent Led excursions to local environmental and community sites and connected curriculum developed by the parents. • Community Arts Projects – students involvement in Castlemaine Festivals, sculpture and mural projects. Intensive phases with parents playing role of Resident and Community Artists.
The time commitment and involvement by the parents has been a hallmark of the extent to which the parents have connected with the learning of the students. Another significant example of parent involvement is the Progressive Class Annual Camp and the extraordinary planning, work and involvement involved.
3.6 School Readiness for the Family School Partnership
A key element in development of effective school FSPs is the readiness of the school to work with parents and community groups (DEEWR 2008 and Butler 2008). This involves strong leadership, clear policy frameworks and effective processes for training of all partners and the ongoing review of programs. Support from teachers and strong community connections are also recognized as vital foundations (Epstein, 2005).
In the case of Greenvale PS the Principal saw the sustained success of the school in relation to the schools capacity to respond to the diverse needs and interests of the local 46
community. The school has gained significant funding through the Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden Program and won a National Bank School First Award for its hosting of local school cluster Chess Program. The Progressive Class represented a further potential community partnership that the school was open to developing.
A key factor supporting the alignment between the School and the Progressive Class Stream was the coming together of new pedagogical approaches and curriculum. It was timely that parent developed HELM (2002) and Greenvale SPACE (2001) models were closely aligned. Both were exploratory holistic models that prefigured the VELS (2003) and reflected the growing synergy between best practice local models and the VELs. At Greenvale PS the SPACE model had rebalanced the curriculum landscape by committing to a focus on Social, Physical, Creative and Emotional learning as a foundation for students to achieve Academic success. The HELM model , in turn, broadened and deepened the holistic approach by including a focus on Social Justice, Philosophy, Authentic, Community based, Ethical and Environmental learning.
NEW 21ST CENTURY CURRICULUM MODELS - SPACE HELM VELS (2001-3)
GREENVALE PROGRESSIVE CLASS MULITPLE VELS STRANDS VELS DOMAINS 16 HOLISTIC MODEL 8 INTELLIGENCES 5 parts fields 8-11
S SOCIAL SOCIAL JUSTICE interpersonal SOCIAL Interpersonal
Civics p PHYSICAL PHYSICAL MOVEMENT kinesthetic PHYSICAL Health and P.E LEARNING PHILOSOPHICAL (values)
A ACADEMIC ACADEMIC Language DISCIPLINE 8 DOMAINS
AUTHENTIC Numbers BASED Traditional Subject areas APPLIED LEARNING
C CREATIVE CREATIVITY Visual INTER- Creativity, design DISCIPLINARY and technology COMMUNITY Musical LEARNING Computer Communication
E EMOTIONAL EMOTIONALAWARENESS intrapersonal PERSONAL Personal ENVIRONMENT naturalist Metacognitive ETHICS existentialist Thinking Skills 47
Along with the alignment of SPACE and HELM approaches, the focus on multi-aged classes at Greenvale PS, was piloted by The Progressive Class. The first student group formed as a P-6 class in 2003, ‘enabling learners to learn at their own pace and from one another’ (HELM, 2010). This was also a learning structure strongly supported by the Principal and in 2005 all Greenvale classes were renamed Multi Age Classes thus broadening the model the Progressive Class had helped to embed.
Over seven years of partnership the Progressive Class teachers have been determined to ‘give-up old ways of relating to parents and challenged their existing assumptions about what engagement means’ (Butler 2008, p.5). The Progressive Class teachers have embraced the ‘transition process’ identified by Butler (2008) and been able to ‘adapt their practice’ (p. 5). Their alignment to the aims of the partnership and their willingness and flexibility have been recognized and valued by the parents, as expressed in the Parent Handbook; ‘the teachers are pretty amazing how they leave the space for the adults to interact with the class- they really leave the space for the adults to do whatever they are doing, then it is picked up by the teachers when the time is right’ (HELM, 2010).
There have been concerns too, for teachers being heavily involved in parent meetings and managing complex and time consuming dialogue with parents. It is also recognized that at times of reduced parent involvement teachers had to manage the parent involvement process. The work involved in partnership co-ordination can impact negatively on teachers and is time consuming for parents involved in the role. It is identified in the Recommendations that a position needs to be created for a Partnership Co-ordinator who would overview, co-ordinate and support the significant contributions being made by parents and teachers (see p. 64).
3.7 Building Whole School Connections
While there was a strong culture of partnerships with the local community, the introduction of the Progressive Class Stream was certainly a ‘momentous decision’ (Grainger, 2005) and was met with anxiety and resistance by some parents, school council members and teachers. As with other Learning Streams in State Schools there were significant challenges. Initial anxiety and resistance by the teachers was a real 48
concern in the early stages. Lack of information and understanding certainly contributed to the anxiety, particularly as the Progressive Class, while having a strong Learning Philosophy, was as yet, an unknown and evolving process in itself.
The Principal had led support for the proposal with the School Council and in briefings with staff and continued to challenge the School Community to welcome change and innovation. While acceptance of the Program grew some parents remained opposed, warning that the Progressive Class could split the School Community. The patience, strong leadership and resolve by the Principal and Progressive Class parents on School Council were vital factors in sustaining the support needed for the Stream to develop effectively, to build understanding and become a part of the whole school culture of Greenvale PS.
Possible the greatest challenge has been the perceptions of the Progressive Classes as ‘separate and privileged’. It has been a fine line for the stream to develop its identity as a pilot program while also integrating with the whole school. In the first few years class sizes were kept low to enable teachers work with cross-age groups and with the parents. In 2005 a new facility, a Mod 5 (relocatable building) was placed on site to cater for the fast growing numbers in the Progressive Classes. Whilst the building was nothing like new school facilities being built across the state, it was a new structure and seen as a privilege by some teachers and parents. Parents also organized an extensive camps program enabling their children to have broader experiences. Furthermore, parents have raised funds for Progressive Class gardens while it was argued by some that all fundraising should be for the whole school.
To counter or balance these trends Progressive Class parents have led environmental, arts and health programs with all classes ensuring that the expertise of parents benefits all students at Greenvale PS. There has also been increasing involvement of Progressive Class parents on School Council and a recognized perception that all parents and students are first and foremost part of the Greenvale School Community. Another influence has been the increasing movement of students and teachers between classes across the school and the development of year level identities that connect students from both the stream and mainstream.
49
Summary of challenges and enablers. (2009)
Summary of Challenges Summary of Enablers
1. School anxiety and resistance to the FSP. 1. School readiness for partnership Anxiety - from some staff and parents 2. Listening to staff and parents concerns 2. Teachers used to private spaces – parents and discussing openly on the outside 3. Teacher openess to change and working 3. Perceptions of the Learning Stream in partnerships gaining special treatment. Being seen as a privileged niche or ghetto. 4. Willingness to take risks -Understanding 4. Stereotyping of the Learning Stream as that problems are ok and part of the ‘the hippy kids’ ‘greenies’ ‘artists– hippy process polarity 5. Clear processes - Parents provided with 5. Too many disconnected students coming induction and role clarity to the stream
Ultimately, the accelerating growth in Progressive Class enrolments increased overall numbers at Greenvale PS from 180 to 250, making it the preferred local school in the shire and providing increased funding and opportunities for the development of whole school programs. The Principal’s gamble in 2002 had paid off and this was a strong argument to put to those still holding out against the changes.
The teachers have also played a vital role in building connections and allaying concerns regarding the Progressive Class Stream. All teachers work collaboratively whether in staff and curriculum meetings, on yard duty, or sharing at staff drinks and celebrations. The Greenvale staff is one group and share a strong professional identity that enables effective Professional Learning to be shared within the school.
The labeling and stereotyping of Progressive Class families as ‘hippy’, ‘greenies’ and ‘artists’ ’ has been a further challenge, reflecting the prevailing tension in rural communities between conservative and alternative cultures. The refusal of a significant number of families to support the ‘Uniform Policy’ for example has contributed to perceptions of the Progressive Class being a ‘privileged’ and ‘separate’ stream. As such, the need for compromise with the whole school culture is an ongoing challenge. 50
As a result of growing enrolments the school and the stream were also faced by a pivotal decision in 2006. Falling numbers at nearby Chewton PS led to a dialogue between the schools and a proposal that the Progressive Class stream consider relocating or running parts of the program at the beautiful heritage Chewton site. Following extensive discussions it was decided that the move would set back the integration of the stream within the whole school. Parents voted to continue the challenging process of building dialogue and improvement of learning for all children across the school.
As articulated in the Action Research Project deep thanks and appreciation is acknowledged to all partners of the Progressive Class Stream:
‘Special acknowledgement is also made of the staff, for their deep and authentic engagement, needs to go to our teachers Leigh Collins and Julie McHale (2006) who have given an extraordinary amount of time and energy to the continuing development of the Class. Also to the parents, families and friends of our children, without whose enthusiasm for a reflection of their values and choices in the public education sector, nothing would have happened. The faculty and management of Greenvale PS, without whose support, advocacy and work on the linking of the Class with SPACE and VELS has assisted the ongoing development of and confidence in the Class, and to the Regional and State Education Department for supporting and encouraging a locally inspired innovation in teaching and learning’(PPARP, 2006, p18-9).
51
CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS
Chapter 4 discusses the Findings based on the developed of the Progressive Class Program from 2002-9. Key indicators of the success of the Progressive Class Stream include growing enrolments, sustained levels of parent involvement, educational outcomes and significant gains in social inclusion. It is outlined how, the parents came to feel connected to and engaged in the Progressive Classes through the action research, governance and decision making processes that were a priority for the founding parents. High levels of parent involvement were generated over a sustained period. Increased agency and advocacy by parents in relation to the education system were also key factors in empowering parents. Importantly, involvement was authentic and enabled parents to take on significant leadership roles in their local school and facilitate a ‘ready’ school into an effective partnership.
4.1 Effective Parent Governance and Collaborative Decision Making
As identified in the PPARP, these processes led to better decisions, the airing of more opinions, and elicited more commitment from members. In particular, parents recognized that the collaborative approach assists the group in:
• Increasing learning and understanding within the parent group (new skills); • Increasing quality of and effective implementation time decisions made • eliciting more commitment of the group to decisions • Improving the personal satisfaction in the parent group by active participation; • Improving working relationships within the parent group, the whole school and broad community (PPARP, 2011, p.15).
These Findings align with Butler’s research that identified the importance of genuine leadership opportunities for parents, through their: • Input into policies that affect their children's education. • Feeling of ownership of school and awareness of parents' voices in school decisions. • Shared experiences and connections with other families. 52
• Awareness of school, district, and state policies. (Butler, 2007, p.45)
‘Awareness of parent perspectives in policy development and decisions’ as well as the valuing of ‘family representation on committees and in leadership roles,’ (Butler 2007, P. 45) have been highly valued in the Progressive Class context. There have also been occasions when there has been tension between expectations of parents and scope for school leadership to meet these. A lack of understanding by parents of constraints facing school administration has usually been identified and worked through at these times. Overall, parents have been empowered by and have benefitted from the Governance processes that they established.
4. 2 Significant Levels of Parent Involvement
As in any volunteer based organisation the level of parent involvement has fluctuated over the seven years. The decision not to mandate parent involvement has been debated extensively, particularly in those phases when it seemed intrinsic motivation was not enough to involve parents. Families struggling for economic, health, personal reasons were less able to be involved and a small number of families have not been engaged or involved.
As indicated in the Parent Skills Register (Appendix 6) the emphasis has been on modeling and inspiring parents to be involved:
We invite families to be involved 2-3 hours a week either during school time or after school hours. As families we recognize that our involvement will be flexible and vary over time. The challenge is to provide many opportunities and clear roles for us to be involved. We aim to create a learning environment where adults are curious and keen to witness and support the children’s learning. Parents and mentors are supported through information sessions that outline roles and times to review and reflect 53
Hours of Parent involvement in the Progressive Class (2006)
140
120 developing parent group and co- 100 managing classes 80 planning for learning 60 helping with learning 40 20 total hours 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
The aim of ‘2 hours a week of involvement per family’ has been achieved, thus significantly increasing adult engagement and mentoring of learning. The average involvement in 2006 was closer to 3 hours a week per family. The Parent Involvement data is recognized as significant. There is a sense of pride amongst the parent group that a key goal had been realized. The extent of success in this endeavour is also reflected in the range of Parent Roles that have been actively taken by parents. (See Appendix 5)
The data shows that Parents have continued to be extensively involved in co-ordinating and developing the Progressive Class. Gradually parents have also taken a stronger role in planning for learning and curriculum development. In turn, from 2005-2007 ‘helping with learning’ and involvement in the class and on excursion was a key focus. Parents reflected on the data and observed how the proportion of time spent developing governance processes, for example, was decreasing over time in favour of more time spent ‘helping with student learning’, which aligns with recent research on FSP by Butler (2007) and Epstein (2005). Importantly, the students are very comfortable learning from many adults and in seeing learning as occurring both in the classroom and in many community and environmental settings.
Over the seven years sustaining parent involvement has also been a challenge. The loss of initial levels of enthusiasm and reduced ownership of the holistic model, have been concerns and it is recognized that there can be less engagement by parents who are joining an established program. Ultimately the parent involvement data is heartening and affirms the potential that effective FSPs are able to harness. 54
4.3. Identified Learning Outcomes
For NAPLAN 2008, Progressive Class students were 100% above state median in Maths and 73% above state median in Literacy, both a significant improvement on their grade 3 AIM 2006 results. Results were 63% above state median numeracy and 27% above state median literacy results. Reading outcomes from students have increased significantly, with current Grade 5-6 students being average or above average in ACER PAT Math tests.
Research conducted in 2006 for Knowledge Bank involved interviews with students and observations over a 2 week period. It was apparent that students were ‘accepting more responsibility for their learning and becoming more engaged in authentic learning tasks. The opportunity to develop and negotiate the curriculum has resulted in a more vibrant breadth of topics and ultimately the children becoming more critical and creative in their thinking’ (Kohane and Collins, 2006). Student portfolios, presentations and leadership of community based projects are further evidence of significant learning outcomes and further documentation is identified as a key goal of ongoing research. Further documentation of Learning Outcomes is identified as needed in future research.
4.4 Gains in Social Inclusion
The Progressive Class has appealed to families of diverse backgrounds including:
• Home schooled children able to attend on a part time basis, • Koorie students wishing to be at school with their siblings in cross age classes • Students with special rights and learning needs drawn to the community setting • Students disconnected from mainstream schooling and looking for an educational alternative and more broadly, • Families looking for holistic approach that enables their children to grow at their own pace.
The holistic model, and the focus on students ‘learning at their own pace and following their interests and gifts’, (HELM, 2010) has addressed the needs of all the above learners by personalizing and differentiating learning with the support of a community based setting. The Progressive Class has been able to achieve high levels of social inclusion and support for all students and families, by effectively accessing resources 55
and reducing the adult-child ratio. A broad mix of diverse and gifted learners has been sustained since the inception of the Progressive Class in 2003.
The class has attracted a growing number of Aboriginal families. The scope for siblings to stay together and the availability of cultural programs run with the recognition and support of Dja Dja Wurrung Elders has led to substantial increases in attendance amongst Indigenous students, from 27% to 87%, since the inception of the Class.
The inclusive and holistic nature of the Progressive Class has proved attractive to a range of students not aligned to mainstream schooling. The diversity of learners is a challenge in itself and the classes face pressures not unlike most State Schools with a high SEI. At times the Progressive Class has enrolled a high proportion of at risk or disconnected students, which is not dissimilar to many Community Schools in the 1970s-80s. Maintaining an effective mix of students has been an ongoing challenge. Interestingly, the Steering Committee has been resolute in not excluding students and in providing support for disconnected learners. Rather than think in terms of their own children’s interests parents have advocated for a community responsibility to support all students, reflecting the values of ‘respect, inclusion, diversity and support’.
4.5 Increased Agency and Advocacy for Parents
It is also apparent that increased agency and advocacy by parents has been a feature of parent involvement. The Action Research Project identified, through parent feedback, that the ‘upskilling of parents enabled them to better support their children’s own learning and development’ (PPARP, p.16). Further, ‘parental engagement in the classroom and school management structures have increased parent understanding and appreciation for how the Victoria’s education system operates , allowing them to contribute in ways they would not have previously been able to. Indications of ‘agency’ and ‘efficacy’ were indicated, wherein parents were empowered as authentic informed partners able to advocate for the school and in developing the FSP.
The Progressive Class Case Study affirms that developing FSPs ‘is not always easy and requires commitment and time’ (DEEWR, 2008, p.3). ‘The results of this effort have been significant’, and this is confirmed by how the families have come to ‘understand the education system and the difficulties schools face (and become) a valuable source of 56
support which schools cannot afford to underestimate’ (DEEWR, 2008, p.3).
4.6 Authentic Parent Involvement and Leadership Roles
The Progressive Class Stream has piloted a model of authentic parent involvement Parents co-manage the three classes and develop the model through a wide range of committees. Parents have over a sustained period of time been actively involved in all parts of the life of the class including, pedagogy, promotion, curriculum, teaching and facilities development.
Importantly the Progressive Class parent group did in fact take the initiative and developed the FSP themselves. Within the broad context of the research this is unusual and possibly unique. While most studies, including Butler’s research, investigate how schools can effectively collaborate with and involve parents, the Progressive Class demonstrates how engaged parent groups can lead and facilitate a ‘ready’ school into an effective partnership.
In the past ‘parent involvement’ was conceived of as being on the school council, reading to students, helping in the canteen or joining excursions. Involvement of this nature, while of great value to schools was shaped and controlled by the school. What the Progressive Class model has done is transform parent involvement to a new level of authentic learning partnership. The Progressive Class has tested the boundaries, rather than accepting the status quo by forming a genuine shared partnership with parents. In doing so, the parents and teachers of the Progressive Class have challenged traditional notions of ownership and control of learning by teachers and schools alone.
As Butler affirms (2007), ‘parents need strategies and development opportunities to build their capacity to meaningfully engage with their children’s learning’ and, as she continues ‘for many parents, this capacity building is best provided by their peers, rather than by education staff (p.27). This is certainly true for the Progressive Class where the initiative has been led by parents working collaboratively with teachers and school leaders. All of the identified stages of the Progressive Class FSP are, in fact, characterized by examples of parent initiative and leadership and thus affirm the scope for parent leadership outlined in the research by Capse.
57
4.7 Key Stages of effective Partnership development
A central finding of the Action Research Project and the submission to Schools Excellence Awards was the identification of Stages of Effective Partnerships. Reflections on each are included and comparisons made with Sharon Butler’s research. The identified Stages include:
1. An active and co-ordinated Parent Group wanting to partner with a local school. The parent group has demonstrated sustained leadership, a key element identified by Capse and Epstein in developing the field of FSPs. Leadership capacity is seen also in regard to the initiative , drive , belief, commitment and trust shown by the Parent Group in their ongoing work.
2. The creation by the Parent Group of an Educational Vision and Learning Model. This is identified as a crucial stage involving; the exploring, and development of the parents’ vision of learning and understanding of best practice models. The trust and belief that parents have the interest, knowledge and capacity to work with teachers gives parents a sense of authentic involvement.
3. Developing and ongoing review of Shared Values and Agreements. As discussed by Rinaldi (2003) and Dattner (2011) the development of the values provides a foundation around which differences and disagreements can be welcomed and not become divisive.
4. School Readiness and openness to new partnership approaches. As Butler (2007) argues ‘effective FSPs need to be promoted and modeled from the top; the principal must be committed to making them happen’ (p. 5). This is borne out by the sustained leadership, support and facilitation of the FSP by Kevin Brown, the Principal of Greenvale PS.
5. Induction and Training for parents, teachers and school leaders to support relationships and develop role clarity. The need for ongoing support, resourcing and capacity building is recognised across the research and is a key challenge if DEECD is to implement the FSP Framework. The Progressive Class parents have volunteered at a very high level and it is apparent that this level of participation may not be sustainable without provision of Partnership co- ordination. (see Recommendations)
6. Effective processes in place for Parents to be actively involved in the learning program. – The Progressive Class has provided flexible roles and opportunities for parents to be involved. The inclusive curriculum development has proved a highly effective way to involve parents in the learning program.
7. Developing effective Governance Processes, Collaborative Decision Making and Planning has been a major focus of the parent group and its collaborative leadership. The values and processes aim have ensured all parents have a voice 58
and that decision making is inclusive. The Strategic goal setting process has also been a significant achievement for a non funded community group.
8. Review and evaluation processes to ensure sustained development of the FSP. The Action Research initiative has been a key evaluative method. The development and review of the Indicators enabled the parent group to reflect on their progress. These processes help to build an ‘effective model of Partnership research, evaluation and sustained planning’. (Butler, 2007, p.5)
9. Effective resourcing to sustain and develop all of the above As Butler (2007) argues, parental and teacher capacity building needs to be resourced on a sustainable basis. As outlined in the Recommendations below, funding for a parent co-ordinator and ongoing research are vital.
10. Sharing of the model with interested parents and schools through the development of effective and accessible FSP resource kit.
As outlined in the Findings, the Case Study has identified and provided detailed examples of the 10 stages of effective FSP development. These clearly outlined stages underpin the development of the Progressive Class stream.
The Progressive Class partnership has also realised the 6 Dimensions of the DEEWR FSP frameworks (see p.22) and is a proven model successfully applied at Greenvale PS. Over seven years communication and collaboration within the Progressive Class has been extensive; the focus on student learning, central; parent involvement, authentic; and decision making, consultative and innovative (Dimensions are in bold).
Through the effective stages, the parents of the Progressive Class have been empowered to be authentic strategic partners with their school, to develop leadership skills and become advocates for their children’s education and for the development of FSPs.
The stages identified through the Case Study operationalise the model and provide the basis of an effective strategy for interested Parent Groups to develop their own local FSPs. The stages also provide the basis of the proposed FSP kit, outlined in the Recommendations. It is also recognised that the stages that are not necessarily sequential and that over time particular stages are focused upon to ensure the full development of the FSP. 59
The Findings in regard to the Second Research question, affirm that HELM is developing as a viable that model that is near to the point where it can shared and adopted by other teachers, parents and schools interested in holistic approaches.
4.8 HELM is an effective holistic learning model
The HELM model has provided a foundation for the Progressive Class and been the platform through which the parents have articulated their wishes and vision of learning for their children. With each new group of parents HELM is reviewed. Importantly, the model is not fixed, but evolving and being refined by each new parent group. A strength of the model is its capacity to stimulate and synthesise diverse views, and involve parents in developing integrated curriculum based around current and relevant learning themes.
Holistic Indicators developed by the Parent Group identify the ‘number of fields’ that are explored in various themes over time, as well as the extent to which ‘parents are familiar with key elements’ and ‘see the wheel as a creative symbol that enables connection around areas of interest’ (Appendix 5). The Indicators identify how parents, teachers and students are ‘using a shared language’ and building a ‘shared understanding of the key HELM terms’. It is also recognised that ‘holistic and inclusive’ thinking ‘supports the culture to ‘work with difference’ and facilitate conflict resolution’ (Appendix 5).
A key aspect of the holistic approach is that no element is privileged. This is important as from time to time the Progressive Class has risked being stereotyped according to a specific learning paradigm or model. For example, as a Steiner (focus on art and spirit), Environmental (always on outdoor excursions, camps and field trips) or Free School (given focus on student directed learning & reluctance to follow school uniform policy) Over time the Progressive Class parent and teacher group are working towards a synthesis and balance of the identified KHEs and evolving learning paradigms. The 2008 review recognised that there was in:
2002 A strong emphasis on art and crafts through interests of teachers and community artists. 2003 A strong emphasis in social & emotional fields : and a recognized need to balance these with an academic focus. A detailed study of the Greeks and the place of ethics and philosophy 2004 A focus on environmental learning and the democratic classroom. 2005 Developing Reggio Emilia approach through in-services, presentations, study tours and the implementation of Project Based Learning. 2006 Ongoing research and planning around the built environment, team teaching and sustainability. 2007 Developing exploration of Aboriginal and Indigenous cultures. 60
The developing year by year focus of the Progressive Class demonstrates ‘how the coming together of diverse paradigms’ (in a holistic model) occurs over time, and is a process of collaborative relationships, between the parents, students and teachers, influencing its direction. It is also recognized that over time parents and teachers’ interests and skills change the balance and emphasis of the HELM elements. This is welcomed and the challenge of the holistic approach is to reflect the developing interests of the Progressive Class FSP.
4.9 Integrated Curriculum and Assessment The holistic model has also been effective in it is capacity to develop integrated curriculum. The Progressive Class program has provided a contextually relevant, flexible balance between generic subject based skills (discipline based learning) and an emergent curriculum (interdisciplinary studies and project work). There has been a coming together and balancing of academic and non academic paradigms and the HELM and SPACE models have aligned with and enabled effective implementation of new VELs based curriculum.
There is considerable scope here, for depolarizing the long standing opposition between discipline and interdisciplinary approaches. As Jorg (2006) affirmed Holistic models (like HELM) enable the ‘coming together’ of diverse paradigms, and a preference for ‘thinking inclusively and in complexity rather than through polarised ‘either or’ thinking (P. 3). What we have seen in the Progressive Class is a valuing of a range of learning styles and repertoires, and a willingness to explore a wide range of learning intelligences and paradigms.
The recognition of the holistic approach is also seen in the implementation of an alternative reporting format across the school at WFPS (Kohane and Collins, 2006). Teachers have explored and developed new Assessment and Reporting models based on the HELM elements. In 2004-5 the 8 KHEs formed the basis of student reports while in 2006 the Space Model became the ongoing Reporting Framework. The alignment of the two models has demonstrated the effective dialogue between the stream and mainstream. Recently, the SPACE framework has been a focus for research into best practice Assessment models by the Foundation for Young Australian and the Catholic Education Office. 61
4.10. Key Holistic Elements, Learning Process and Definitions
The Key Holistic Elements provide an effective learning model, learning process and basis for defining Holistic Learning. As the Key Stages of the Partnership aligned with the Dimensions of 3 FSP Frameworks, so too there is increasing clarity in regard to the Key Holistic Elements and their alignment with best practice learning models. As outlined in the Literature Review the KHEs align closely with the educational principles developed by the Chicago Statement (2000) and Gould League (1998). The KHEs have also developed through ongoing and sustained dialogue with the Reggio approach.
The HELM learning process demonstrates the strength of the KHEs as a learning continuum that can be accessed by parents and teachers to further develop the Progressive Class Learning Philosophy. Likewise the Helm Matrix (see p.45) provides a rich context for developing holistic learning principles across the 8 fields. While a review of the HELM model requires a longer investigation, initial reflections confirm its developing coherence as a pedagogical framework.
The KHEs also provide a rich basis for developing working definitions of Holistic Learning, based on a synthesis of key terms from the Helm Matrix. Holistic Learning can thus be defined as ‘constructivist, interdisciplinary, relational, values based, meaningful, participatory, diverse, and creative’. Alternatively, using connected terms from each KHE, Holistic Learning can be described as ‘generative, integral, contextual, meaningful, authentic, inclusive, sustainable and innovative’.
HELM is modular and definitions of Holistic Learning can comprise any combination of KHE terms that are relevant to a given context, thus demonstrating the scope and versatility of the developing model. As such, the HELM definitions deepen the Melbourne Declaration on National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-First Century (MCEETYA 2008) adding complexity and breadth to the initial statements.
4.11. HELM is an adaptive and responsive model The model is evolving over time and reflects the interests of the parents, teachers and students. With changing parent interests shifts in emphasis have been possible, in contrast to more traditional schools settings that may be less flexible and responsive to their FSP. 62
The HELM model has been the subject of ongoing review and scrutiny, as part of Knowledge Bank research (Kohane, 2005), the Action Research Project (2006) and ongoing feedback from parents. Parents, professors, principals and educators are regularly invited to critique the model and suggest further HELM elements. Interestingly, Gardner has gradually added a further 3 Intelligences to the original eight. Suggestions have been made that a 9th Key Holistic Element synthesise and integrate the existing 8 fields. Whilst these have been rich conversations the Parent Group has not yet been persuaded to change the model of 8 fields.
4.12 Coming together of diverse learning paradigms
Over seven years, the Progressive Classes have successfully worked alongside and with the mainstream classes of Greenvale PS demonstrating the scope for the coming together of learning paradigms and streams in Government schools. Unlike Steiner and Reggio Stream, that had imported (or franchised) models, the Progressive Class HELM learning paradigm was developed by the parent group, and is an integral part of the local school. It can be argued that the Progressive Class is unique in this sense and pilots a new framework for holistic models, one that is genuinely local and community based, yet offers an example than can be effectively used by any parent group seeking to partner with their local school.
The integration of Progressive Class into a mainstream school also demonstrates the capacity of Holistic Learning Programs to depolarise the long standing opposition between mainstream and alternative schooling. The Progressive Class is an early example of effective collaboration and new alignment between Holistic/Alternative and Mainstream education. In answer to Holdsworth’s (2007) challenge to mainstream education to connect and value ‘educational alternatives’, Greenvale PS is a promising example of a responsive and innovative school that has enabled diverse learning paradigms to work together, demonstrating how ‘educational alternatives’ are certainly coming ‘in from the cold’.
As identified in Chapter 1, and evident throughout the Case Study, the relationship between the FSP and the Holistic Model is pivotal. Although the two areas have been considered as separate research areas they ‘are interconnected through the holistic, multi-layered manner in which the Progressive Class operates, each reflecting and 63
affecting one another’ (PPARP, 2006, p. 2). The holistic model and the high level of parent involvement have continued to re-enforce and support one another. While the HELM model has expressed the parents’ wish for and vision of holistic learning for their children, the FSP has given them the voice and opportunities to be directly involved in their children’s education.
4.13 Summary in response to Research Questions
The development of the Progressive Classes demonstrates the creative role parents and families are playing in shaping the future of schools in Australia. The FSP piloted and implemented at Greenvale PS is a visionary example of how parents and teachers can work together, guided by a trusting and supportive principal, to enhance the learning and wellbeing of their students. What began as an isolated, single class stream, seen by parts of Greenvale PS as ‘alternative, hippy, privileged and receiving special treatment’ had grown into a Learning Community of 75 students and become an integral part of a mainstream state school and potential model for future partnerships.
The analysis of the Greenvale experience provides a strongly affirmative answer to Research Questions. The stages of partnership development provide a useful model for further FSPs to successfully address the key dimensions of the DEEWR Framework. Furthermore, the HELM model has been developed and refined through the direct experiences of teachers and parents, and become an effective framework for developing holistic curriculum and innovative assessment. The Key Holistic Elements have been identified clearly and the holistic learning process documented with increasing clarity. The HELM model is near to the point where it can be shared with further parents and teachers interested in developing holistic learning curriculum.
While the documentation of the Progressive Class is at an early stage it is argued that the Learning Stream is helping, as Butler (2007) affirms, to move FSP policy and Holistic Learning from aspiration to implementation’ (p. 6).
The extent to which the FSP at Greenvale and the HELM model can be a valuable resource for further parent groups and school communities does depend, however on the capacity to implement the Recommendations outlined in Chapter 5.
64
CHAPTER 5 RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recognized in regard to the following Recommendations that the continued development of the HELM model, the archiving of key documents, employment of a Partnership Co-ordinator and development of a FSP Resource Kit are all needed to sustain the Progressive Class Stream and enable future FSPs to benefit from the experiences gained at Greenvale PS.
5.1 Ongoing development of the HELM Model
It is important for the HELM model to continue to develop at the local level and that regular consultations are held to further engage parents in defining an educational vision for their children. Ongoing documentation of the ‘Vision Processes’ will develop the ‘grounded theory’ approach, identifying themes in the feedback and further clarifying and refining the Key Holistic Elements.
The challenge for the Progressive Class is to maintain a balance and to prevent strong interests from dominating, for example, by a ‘green’, ‘artistic’ or ‘spiritual’ emphasis. It is also identified that if this level of diversity is maintained it will reduce risks of labeling and stereotyping. By allowing for the complexity and diversity within the HELM model there is scope to build connections with broad sections of the community and for the model to continue to be accessible and transferrable. The ongoing development of the HELM model will ensure the Progressive Class continues to be holistic, diverse and inclusive.
Further research in regard to holistic pedagogy, paradigm shift and change theories are also essential in providing a foundation for the development of the HELM model. In particular, detailed studies of each Key Holistic Element and the HELM Learning Process have been drafted and can be developed as a future study. In turn, a test of HELM’s coherence can be measured by its ongoing capacity to sustain critical and reflective dialogue with best practice pedagogies, such as Reggio Emilia and the 21st Century educational models emerging within DEECD & the National Curriculum. The research needs to continue to be aligned with holistic models developing nationally and internationally.
65
5.2 To develop Holistic Learning Surveys.
There is scope to develop the Greenvale SPACE model and to align the Progressive Class Indicators and HELM key elements with the HENT survey. A Holistic Learning survey would enable schools to identify ‘how holistic their programs are’ and the extent to which the KHEs are incorporated. The effectiveness of responses to the survey will be an indicator of the model’s relevance to current educational practices. In turn, there is a need to evaluate current educational testing programs and surveys (i.e. Naplan, On Demand Testing, Parents, Staff and Student Attitudes to School Surveys) against the emerging holistic frameworks to ensure that testing practices become more holistic, diverse and complex than current practises, such as the My School website.
5.3 Maintain Whole School Connections and broaden Action Research Project
The challenge facing FSPs like the Progressive Class is in maintaining the identity of the Stream whilst building Whole School connections. It is important that the Progressive Class Stream and Greenvale Mainstream classes continue to be in open dialogue with one another and respectful of their differences.
As articulated in the Action Research Project (2006), ‘to continue to develop the Progressive Class ongoing support will be required in many areas including additional research, documentation and evaluation. The parents believe that they have in place the processes, structures, and strong relationships and partnerships to enable continued achievements in the offering of innovative and resilient learning opportunities for the children in our community (PPARP, p.17).
A further research project including the voices and views of all school stakeholders would be a valuable continuation of the Action Research. For example, as identified by Capse (2008), a proposed research project would involved ‘a dedicated family-school action team of teachers, school leaders and parents to develop and coordinate partnership plans and activities with the aim of improving partnerships more broadly’ (p. 30).
66
5.4 Collation & archiving of documents to create a history of the Progressive Class
Further research needs to continue to bring together documentation that builds upon the Action Research Project (2006), the current Case Study (2010-11) and the developing Helm website.
This can involve collation of vignettes, material from class journals, photo collections and video footage along with minutes from parent, school council and DEECD meetings. The collaborative work done by the Parent Group with like schools, networks and educational conferences is also available for collation. The continued archiving of this rich documentation will provide a valuable history of the Progressive Class and ensure ongoing ownership of the model by the parents. The archiving of the documents listed on p.15 will contribute to the development of the proposed Resource Kit.
Film maker and parent Davida Michielin is also interested in bringing together and completing the footage he has made of the Progressive Class. This involves interviews, discussions with students, parents and teachers in regard to learning processes, and observational footage capturing the students’ enthusiasm and participation in learning. The creation of a DVD celebrating and documenting the learning process of the Progressive Class will be an invaluable resource.
5.5 To employ a Family School Partnership Coordinator
Underpinning all Recommendations is the need to fund a FSP Co-ordinator to facilitate the work of the partnership. Over time it has been recognized just how significant is the workload involved in partnership co-ordination. Strategic co-ordination within a community development model would be an invaluable support and would increase the skills of all stakeholders to develop each of the identified stage of the FSP.
5.6 Develop FSP Resource Kit based on the identified Partnership stages.
The Progressive Class Program is recognized at a regional and state level as a model of local school based innovation in FSPs. There is scope now to develop a resource kit that will support teachers and parents to learn from the Greenvale experience and foster 67
stronger partnerships. The Stages of effective FSPs outlined in the Findings of the current paper provide an effective and adaptable framework for interested parent groups and could provide the basis of a Resource Kit. The Kit would be a practical tool, aimed at students, teachers and parents who are considering increasing their level of engagement, or are interested in establishing a FSP in their local community. There is scope for Progressive Class parents and teachers, and Greenvale school leaders to share their experiences and to act as mentors and facilitators of new FSPs.
Of particular relevance is the much discussed scope to develop the FSP model in the local Secondary College. As Butler (2008) identified, ‘teachers and school leaders need strategies and tools to enable them to welcome and work with parents as partners’ especially in the ‘Secondary School’ context (p.28). The progress of the FSP model into Year 7 is the current challenge facing parents as the original Progressive Class children graduate from PS and there is a recognized need to develop strategies learnt in the Primary setting.
68
REFERENCES
ABC. (2006, July 9). Free to learn - the history of progressive education in Australia Podcast. Retrieved 31/5/2011, from ABC Hindsight: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/hindsight/stories/2006/1674657.htm
ACARA. (2011). Retreived 4/3/2011, from Australian Curriculum and Assessment Authority: http://www.acara.edu.au/sustainability.html
Alternative Education Resource Orgnanisation. (2011). Retrieved 2/3/2011, from AERO: http://www.educationrevolution.org/
AHPSA. (2011). The Health Promoting Schools Framework . Retrieved 10/9/2010 from Australian Health Promoting School Association. http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/committees/etc/SH_Report/Ch2pdf
Baldini, Roger and Vecchi, Vania. (2005). Reggio Children. Reggio Emilia: Reggio Children.
Beare, H. (2001). Creating the future school. London: Routledge Falmer.
Beck, E & Cowan, C. (1996, 2006). Spiral Dynamics : Mastering Values, Leadership and Change. Cornwall, UK: Blackwell.
Bertolini, A. (2011). Intuyu Consuting. Retrieved 11/2/2011, from Empowering Learning for the 21st Century: http://www.intuyuconsulting.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id= 2&Itemid=2
Black, R. (2008). Beyond the Classroom: Building new school networks. Melbourne: ACER Press.
Black, R. (2009). Paper No 17. Boardroom to Classroom: the role of the corporate and philanthropic sectors in school education. Melbourne: DEECD.
Bouffard, S. and Weiss, H. (2007). The Evaluation Exchange XIV 1 & 2. Retrieved 2/4/2011, from Harvard Family Research Project: http://www.hfrp.org/publications- resources/publications-series/family-involvement-makes-a-difference/family- involvement-in-middle-and-high-school-students-education
Butler, S. (2007). Report for the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust Scholarship. Canberra: Winston Churchill Memorial Trust.
Caldwell, B. (2004). Re-imagining the self-managing school. London: Specialist Schools and Academies Trust. 69
Caldwell, B. (2008). Why not the best schools? What we have learned from outstanding schools around the world. Retrieved 7/10/2010, from Educational Transformations: http://www.educationaltransformations.com.au/files/UNESCO%20Caldwell%20Paper.p df
Caspe, M. (2007). The Evaluation Exchange XIV 1 & 2 Building the Field. Thinking Big. A new Framework for Family Involvement. Retrieved 2/4/2011, from Harvard Family Research Project: http://www.hfrp.org/evaluation/the-evaluation-exchange/issue- archive/building-the-future-of-family-involvement/thinking-big-a-new-framework-for- family-involvement-policy-practice-and-research
Ckoamsky, N. (1994). Manufacturing Consent. London: Vintage Press.
Colarado Education Department. (2011). Parent School Partnerships. Preventive Initiative Unit. Retrieved April 2/4/2011, from Colarado Education Dept: http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdeprevention/pi_parent_school_partnerships.htm
Castlemaine Secondary College (2009). Policy Documents Castlemaine Secondary College . Retrieved 1/12/2010, from https://intranet.csc.vic.edu.au/
Community Class Action Research Project (PPARP). (2006). Community Class Action Research Project. Castlemaine: Victoria. Retrieved 3/5/2011, from: http://www.helmaustralia.com/assets/CommunityClassActionResearchProject.pdf
Community Class Parent Group. (2007). Community Class Parent Handbook. Retrieved 10/9/2010, from http://www.helmaustralia.com/CommunityClass.html
Community Class Photo Archive (2011). Sample collections of photos from Community Class Excursions. Retrieved 5/3/2011, from: https://picasaweb.google.com/112409423641426655216/FryersMay2011?authkey=Gv1sRgCI2 wlr2_nq7HdA&feat=
Dattner, F. (2011, March ). Purpose and Values Development. Retrieved 6/6/2011, from Dattner Grant: http://www.dattnergrant.com.au/What_it_is_we_do/Purpose_Values_Strategy/Purpose_ Values_Development.aspx
DEECD. (2010). The E5 Instructional Model. Retrieved 1/5/2010, from DEECD: http://www.education.vic.gov.au/proflearning/e5/about/default.htm
DEECD. (2010). Families as partners in learning. Retrieved 11/1/2011, from DEECD : http://www.education.vic.gov.au/about/directions/familiesaspartners/challenges.htm
DEECD. (2009, March). Key Variables Defining Whole School Transformation. Retrieved 12/12/2010, from Leading Leadership Practice and Design: http://www.education.vic.gov.au/researchinnovation/lpd/variables.htm 70
DEECD. (2006). Characteristics of Effective Schools, Retrieved 7/10/2010, from http://www.education.vic.gov.au/studentlearning/teachingresources/english/improvstudli t.htm
DEECD. (2009). Schools as community facilities: policy framwork and guidelines. Retrieved from (http://www.sofweb.vic.edu.au/facility/pdfs/SACF-PolicyFramework- Guidelines.
DEECD. (2009). Student Action Teams Manual:. Retrieved 18/8/2009, from http://www.sofweb.vic.edu.au/mys/engagement/studentactionteams.htm
DEECD. (2009). Victorian Education Excellence Awards: Community Partnerships Award. Retrieved 9/4/2009, from: http://www.education.vic.gov.au/about/events/veea/default.htm
DEEWR. (2008). Enterprise Education. from Schooling and Programs: Retrieved 5/6/2009, http://www.deewr.gov.au/Schooling/Programs/Pages/vocational_education_enterprise_e ducation.aspx
DEEWR. (2008). Family-School Partnerships Frameowrk. A guide for schools and families. Canberra: DEEWR.
Dewey, J.(1938). Community of Learners. New York: Collier.
Dewey, J. (2011). Philosophy of Education. Retrieved 10/5/2011, from Wilderdom: http://wilderdom.com/experiential/JohnDeweyPhilosophyEducation.html
Doll, W., Fleener, J. and Julien, J. (2005) Chaos, complexity, curriculum and culture: a conversation. New York: Peter Lang.
Edwards, C. G. (1998). The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia Apporach: Advanced reflections. Greenwich: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Elmore, R. F. (2004). School Reform from the Inside Out Policy, Practice, and Performance. Harvard Education Press: Harvard.
Epstein, J. (2004). Partnering with Families and Communities. Volume 61. Number 8. Retrieved 6/6/2010, from Schools as Learning Communities: http://pdonline.ascd.org/pd_online/success_di/el200405_epstein.html
Epstein, J. (2002). School, Family, and Community Partnerships: Your Handbook for Action (2nd ed) . Baltimore: Corwin Press.
Epstien, J. (2005, September). Developing and sustaining research based programs of school, family, and community partnerships: Retrieved 7/4/2010, from National 71
Network of Partnership Schools: http://www.csos.jhu.edu/p2000/pdf/Research%20Summary.pdf
Fien, J. (1993). Environmental Education. A Pathway to Sustainability. Geelong : Deakin University.
Flake, C. (1993). Holistic Education Principles, Perspectives, and Practices. Brandon, VT: Holistic Education Press.
Fogarty, R. (1995). Best Practises for the Learner Centred Classroom. Illinois: Hawker Brownlow Education.
Forbes, D. S. (2004). What Holistic Education Claims About Itself: An Analysis of Holistic Schools’ Literature. San Diego: American Education Research Association: California.
Freire, Paulo. (1968) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership sustainability. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.
Fullan, M. (2008). What's worth fighting for in the Principalship. New York: Teacher College Press.
Fuller, A. (1998). From Surviving to Thriving: Promoting Mental Health in Young People. Melbourne: ACER Press.
Gardner, H. (2000). Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century. Basic Books: New York.
Garson, G. D. (2008). Case Studies. Retrieved 24/6/ 2010, from Quantative Research in Public Administration: http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/cases.htm
Glaser, B. (2008). Dr Barney Glaser and Classic Grounded Theory. Retrieved 7/92011, from Grounded Theory Institute: http://www.groundedtheory.com/
Goldsmith, E. (1992). The Way: An Ecological World View. Green Books: London.
Goleman, D. (1996). Emotional Intelligence. Bloomsbury: London.
Gough, A. (1997). Australian Education Review No 39, ‘Education and the Environment’, Camberwell, Victoria: ACER.
Gough, N. (1992). Blueprints for Greening Schools, Prahran, Victoria: Gould League.
Grainger, L. (2005) ‘Listening to the Community’. The Specialists Schools and Academies Trust Journal of Innovation in Education. Snapshots Vol. 2: Issue 3, December 2005 Primary Edition, p.7-8. 72
Grundy, S and Kemis, S. (1992). Educational Action Research in Australia: The State of the Art. Geelong: Deakin University Press.
Hare. (2010). Holistic education: An interpretation for teachers in the IB programmes. Retrieved 5/5/2011, from International Bacalaureate: http://blogs.ibo.org/positionpapers/files/2010/09/Holistic-education_John-Hare.pdf
Hare, J. (2003). ‘Towards an understanding of holistic education in the middle years of education’. Journal of Research in International Education. December.Vol. 5 No.3, p.301-322. Surrey. UK: Sage Publications.
Harpaz, Y. A. (2005). ‘Communities of Thinking’. The Branco Weiss Institute for the Development of Thinking, Israel: Branco Weiss Institute.
HFRP (2010). Family Involvement Makes a Difference. Retrieved 2/5/2010, from Harvard Family Research Project: http://www.hfrp.org/publications-resources#fimd
Helm (2011). Community Class Action Research Project Report. Retrieved 5/5/2011 from HelmAustralia: http://www.helmaustralia.com/Action Research Project.html
Helm (2010). Community Class Parent Handbook. Retrieved 7/5/2011, from HelmAustralia: http://www.helmaustralia.com/CommunityClass.html
Helm (2010). Community Class Philosophy and Values. Retrieved 1/5/2011 from HelmAustralia: http://www.helmaustralia.com/Philosophy.html
Henderson, A. (2007). Beyond the Bake Sale: The Essential Guide to Family¬School Partnerships, New York : The New Press.
HENT: Stack, R. (2010). HENT, Maps and Models of Holistic Education. Retrieved 1/5/2010, from HENT: http://www.hent.org
Holdsworth, R. S. (2003) Student Action Teams - An Evaluation: 1999-2000 . Working Paper 21. Melbourne: Australian Youth Research Centre.
Holdsworth, R.S (2011) Connect Journal, Supporting Student Participation, Retrieved 5/10/2010: from http://www.asprinworld.com/home
Hughes, V. (2010). Federation of Families, Parents and Care Givers 2010. Retrieved 7/6/2011, from Centre for Civil Society: http://www.civilsociety.org.au/summitflier.htm
Illich, I. (1971). Deschooling Society. Middlesex: Penguin.
Jorg, T. (2004). Holistic Education from a Complexity Perspective. Proposal for the SIG Holistic Education at AERA 2007. Utrecht, Netherlands: University of Utrecht.
Kennedy, A (2004). Integrated approaches to Learning, AARE Conference Paper Abstracts, retrieved 7/11/2009, from http://www.aare.edu.au/04pap/abs04.htm 73
Kohane, A. and Collins, L . (2006). Holistic Educational Learning Model. Retrieved 7/6/2010, from Knowledge Bank: http://www.knowledge.education.vic.gov.au/.../TPL_WSI_WintersFlatPS_CastlemaineS C_HolisticEducationalLearningModel_Team.doc
Kuhn, Thomas. (1996) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lake, R. (2008). New Aspirant Leaders Conference . Melbourne: Victoria.
Lyttle, D. (2002). Preshil Uniquely Different. Kew: Preshil.
Malaguzzi. (1993). For an Education Based on Relationships. Reggio Emilia: Reggio Children.
Malaguzzi, L. (2010). The hundred languages. Retrieved 5/10/2010, from The Innovative Teacher Project: http://www.innovativeteacherproject.org/reggio/poem.php
Marsden, J. (2010). Candlebark School. Retrieved 11/11/2010, from Candlebark School: http://www.candlebark.info/
Minsiterial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs, (MCEETYA, 2008). The Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians. MCEETYA, Melbourne. Retrieved 10/7/2010 from: http://www.mceetya.edu.au/
Miller, J. (1998 first edition). The holistic curriculum (Second Edition). Toronto: University of Toronto Press Incorporated.
Miller, R. (2008). The Self-Organizing Revolution: Common Principles of the Educational Alternatives Movement. Brandon VT: Holistic Education Press.
Neville, B. (1989). Educating Psyche. Melbourne, Australia: Collins Dove.
Nissen, Klein & Hirscheim.(1991). Information Systems Research: Contemporary Approaches & Emergent Traditions, Amsterdam: North-Holland.
National Network of Partnership Schools. (2004) Schools as Learning Communities May, Volume 61, Number 8, Ps.12-18.
National Network of Partnership Schools (2011). John Hopkins University National Netwrok of Partnership Schools. Retrieved 3/10/2011, from John Hopkins University: www.partnershipschools.org
OECD. Paris (2006). Starting Strong: Early Childhood Education and Care. Retrieved 6/10/2010, from OECD, 2011: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/14/32/37425999.pdf 74
Putnam, R. (1993). Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton University Press Centenary: Princeton
Rinaldi, C. (2006). In dialogue with Reggio Emilia Teacher: Listening, researching and learning, Reggio Emilia: Routledge .
Rinaldi, C. (2001). in Making Learning Visible – Children as Individual and Group Learners. Reggio Emilia: Project Zero & Reggio Children, 2001.
Rinaldi, C. (2003). Reggio Emilia; The teacher as research. Retrieved 4/7/2010 from University of Dayton: http://academic.udayton.edu/JamesBiddle/660%20RE%208.pdf
Rinalidi, Carlina and Moss, Peter (2004). What is Reggio? Reggio Emilia: Reggio Emilia Newseltters.
Robinson, K (2009) The Element: How Finding Passions Changes Everything. Viking: UK.
Sammons, Hillman and Mortimore. (2010). Effective Schools Model. Ret. 2/5/2011, from DEECD: http://www.education.vic.gov.au/studentlearning/teachingresources/english/htm
Sanders, M. (2005). Building school-community partnerships: Collaboration for student success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Senge, P. (2008). The Necessary Revolution: How Individuals And Organizations Are Working Together to Create a Sustainable World. New York: Doubleday.
Stack, R. (2010). HENT, Maps and Models of Holistic Education. Retrieved 1/5/2010, from HENT: http://www.hent.org/maps_models.htm
Stack, R. (2010). HENT, Principals of Holistic Education. Retrieved 3/2/2010 from Holistic Educational Network of Tasmania: http://www.hent.org/principles.htm
Stack, R. (2010). HENT, When is Education Holistic. Retrieved 2/4/2010, from Holistic Education Network of Tasmania: http://www.hent.org/when_holistic.htm
Stake, R. (1995). The Art of Case Study. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Steiner, R. (2010). Home Page. Retrieved 3/5/2010, from Castlemaine Steiner School: http://www.castlemainesteinerschool.com.au/
Strauss, E. (2008) Devleopment of the Preshil Secondary School, Kew: Melbourne.
Tudball, L (2010). Curriculum's narrow focus leaves students bereft of big idea. The Age, Melbourne (2/5/2010) retrieved 12/3/2011 from: 75
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/curriculums-narrow-focus-leaves-students- bereft-of-big-ideas-20100301-pdi2.html
Vygostsky, L. (1987). The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky. New York: Plenum Press.
Wakefield, C. (2011). Parent School Partnerships. Preventive Initiative Unit. Retrieved 2/4/ 2011, from Colarado Education Department: http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdeprevention/pi_parent_school_partnerships.htm
White, N. R. (1995) School Matters: The Preshil Alternative in Education. Port Melbourne: Mandarin.
Wilbur, K. (2001). A Theory of Everything. Dublin: Gateway.
Wilbur, K. (2008). Integral Practice. Boston and London: Integral Books.
Yin, D. R. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Applied Social Research Methods). Los Angeles: Sage.
Zero, P. (2001). Performances of Understanding (PoUs). Retrieved 2/2/2011, from Teaching for understanding framework Harvard University: http://pzweb.harvard.edu/research/TfU.htm
76
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1 Map of Historical & Contemporary influences on Holistic Education
Hent, 2010 77
APPENDIX 2
THE HELM LEARNING PROCESS – DEVELOPING THROUGH ELEMENTS)
The Community Class Learning Philosophy has also articulated the developing understanding of the KHEs as a Holistic Learning Process, with each KHE laying a foundation for the next.
The image below of concentric circle also captures the interconnected relationship between the KHEs:
crea vity 8
environment 7
social jus ce 6
par cipatory community 5
values ethics meaning 4
rela onships 3
integrated curriculum 2 learning paths 1
Element 1. Children are seen as curious, capable, Whole Beings whose Learning Energy and Engagement in Intrinsic and Strong enabling them to Co-construct their Inquiries and Learning Paths.
Element 2. The Holistic Approach enables the Learning Energy to continue to flow. Integrated Curriculum synthesizes Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary approaches enabling Learning Projects and Paths to be an expression of the Learners Energy and to build levels of Engagement. 78
Element 3. Relationships and Emotional Intelligence enable the Engaged Learner to develop Projects and Pathways with significant Others. Knowledge is created within Cultural Places and there is a stimulating and evolving relationship with the Learning Spaces and Built Environment.
Element 4. The Involved Learner is supported in exploring Values, Ethics, Diverse Cultures and Belief Systems, thus strengthening Relationships and enabling the learner to find Meaning, Purpose and Deepening Connections in their lives
Elements 1-4 lay a foundation for the holistic approach. As, Anne Kennedy articulates ‘We know that young children learn in integrated ways 2 through playing with ideas, deep engagement in meaningful tasks and experience 4 and in the context of respectful, continuous relationships with others 3 . They learn best where there is respect for their intelligences, strengths, learning styles (all fields) and interests 1 (Kennedy, 1999) In turn Stakes provides a more condensed definition seeing ‘Holism as a quest for understanding and meaning (KHE4). Its aim is to nurture healthy, whole (KHE2), curious persons (KHE1) who can learn whatever they need to know in any new context (KHE3), (HENT, 2009).
Introducing Elements 5-8: Through Community 5, Justice, Environmental 7 and Arts 8 based Projects; students respond creatively to project and design challenges, producing innovative, imaginative and lasting products (legacies) that make a real difference in their communities.
Elements 5-8 expand and build on this foundation as student learning, curriculum, relationships and values are deepened, understood and explored through community based, authentic 5, democratic 6, ecological 7 and aesthetic 8 processes and contexts. For example, ‘the realisation of this unity among human beings leads to social activity designed to counter injustice and human suffering. (Wilbur, 2008)
Element 5. Developing Governance and Collaborative Processes ensures Teams work effectively and individuals develop Emotional and Social Intelligences. Partnerships with Parents and Local Communities help build Enterprising Learning Communities in which Active, Authentic Learning enables young people to learn by doing and make a contribution to their society.
Element 6. Democratic, Inclusive, Just and Negotiated decision making enables and Empowers the emotionally intelligent, connected and socially aware learner to engage with issues of their time, to be Restorative Practitioners and Problem Solvers who contest harassment, respect diversity and advocates for fairness and justice.
Element 7. The energized, connected and empowered learner develops an appreciation for and understanding of nature, ecosystems and biodiversity. An Ecology of Learning builds on notions of Social Ecology bringing into play concepts of Complexity, Homeostasis and Holism. Outdoor learning and Environmental projects challenge 79
students to learn about survival, teamwork and effective risk taking. Learning becomes organic and sustaining, connecting indoor and outdoor spaces, generating dialogue between architecture & pedagogy.
Element 8. Creativity and design inspire self guided learning that expresses each learner’s gifts and talents. Innovation is valued, risk taking supported and mistakes welcomed. Effective learning ‘processes encourage the development of ‘original ideas that have value’ (Robinson, 2009)). There is support for innovation, novelty, creative problem solving and design.
The developing breadth and cohesion of the KHEs, and the scope for their articulation as a ‘Learning Process’ demonstrate the viability and versatility of the HELM model. A 9th element or field has also been discussed and explored, but as yet, not added to the original 8.
Definitions of Holistic Learning based on the Key Elements.
Through the evolving discussion definitions or descriptions of the holistic approach can be made that synthesise key elements, for example: ‘Holistic Learning is energetic and constructivist, 1 integrated and embodied 2, contextual, temporal, relational 3. It is meaningful, ethical, values based 4 , process driven, participatory, authentic 5 , just, inclusive multicultural 6 , sustainable, complex 7 creative, innovative 8 and in turn, aligned and synergising’ 9.
80
APPENDIX 3-
Learning Unit: Technology, Shelter, Cross Cultural and Outdoor –
Based on HELM model. 2006 Term 2
APPENDICE 4 COMMUNITY CLASS STRATEGIC GOALS - 2006 81
1. Continuing with multi age groupings : as our numbers grow we are looking at broadening the group and forming a third class in 2007
2. Developing roles of parent group.
A Steering Committee helps develop policies and processes that model emotional intelligences
B Curriculum Committee helps themes and projects evolve, plans a term ahead, and documents/ reflects on student work
C Building Committee develops gardens and extensions to the classroom.
D Philosophy Group continuing to synthesise HELM and Reggio approaches
3. Inclusion of visual artists for 1-2 days within the room to develop an Emilio Reggio approach. Applying Emilio approach to projects, documentation and research
4. Reduce adult child ratio: if parents involved 2-3 hs -week ratio is 1 adult to 10 children.
5. Regular environmental and community excursions: with Damien, to Castlemaine and to the Learning Centre at Barkers Creek.
6. Developing profile and identity of the class and Greenvale within the community
7. To continue to develop learning spaces adjacent to the classroom and planning for Sustainable Classroom and environmental architecture and community constructed buildings.
8. Developing HELM report formats and experimenting with digital portfolios
9. Exploring fund raising and funding applications as strategy to fund above goals
10. Visiting & learning from innovative school and educational organisations both locally and globally. Continuing travel dialogue with best practice global learning settings
11. Configure the Community Class journey and formation as a Research Process. To gather data and reflect on the effectiveness of our approach to learning and how we can keep our childrens’energy flowing. To establish partnerships with Universities.
12. to explore parenting skills in dialogue with teaching skills, and to support one another within our community
82
APPENDIX 5 INDICATERS FOR AN EFFECITVE HOLISITC APPROACH
Strategy Indicators Aim Short term Middle Term
To share current Reggio and HELM workshop. Parts of the Parents are familiar with key understandings of the learning elements of the Holistic Model holistic model and the Share clear explanations of the philosophy Feedback in survey shows developing understanding learning wheel model, of each field and explored in There is interest in reading connections across fields. newsletters about the model Working Party publishes brochure and article on model
To explore and further Workshop exploring what it Connecting with Parents, teachers and students develop the holistic means to think, teach, learn, live like organizations see the wheel as a creative philosophy holistically. to organize a symbol that enables connection around areas of interest. forum Apply and use indicators to Develop indicators for holistic investigating document our shift to holistic thinking holism and thinking paradigm change
To use the learning wheel to General meeting involves parents The theme is The wheel is being used to develop curriculum units in developing themes for coming reviewed at the develop class themes each term end of the term in term parents surveyed showing regard to the increasing connection to and fields understand the holistic model
Use a range of creative Publish enhanced computer Create a 3d The learning wheel is mediums to bring the wheel based image and applications sculpture experience through a range of to life intelligences Support local artists exploring Create a floor Parents respond and are mandala forms map / mosaic engaged by the representations Creative ideas are evolving for further representations /
manifestations We are making practical Develop unit for students around connections mandalas
To develop shared language Make a table of key models and Workshop using to describe the learning terms used in the shared wheel fields For Adults language Parents and teachers and HELM SPACE students are using a shared And for Young people Class activities language There is greater shared Multiple Intelligences MIs building Students and adults reflect on understanding of the terms understanding used and discuss which terms are and use of shared The language supports other preferred. language. areas of our work (i.e. conflict resolution) Include pictures, colours and 3d forms 83
Wheel is effective as a Develop Review Tool / Process : The wheel is used to review holistic review and similar to MI digital surveys now class themes each term evaluative tool. easily accessible on the NET 5-8 areas of the wheel are We are working towards explored in each theme – balancing the 8 areas of the projects wheel as a class, ourselves Graph the amount of time and focus given to each of the 8 and for our children fields Track and review progress of students across the 8 areas : document longitudinally Holistic approach is applied Dialogue through school teaching Develop Reporting includes guiding to assessment and learning group assessment tools values as well as curriculum to document and areas. student progress across the 8 Self evaluations include all 8 record student areas areas is clearly graphed and progress in each described field Parent feedback supports Parent / Teacher / student holistic approach conferences explore goals in Apply POLT Students understand and value relation to the 8 fields assessment feedback in regard to their model holistic learning
Holistic approach is in Dialogue between our Working with The Holistic Model is dialogue with SPACE, VELS, Community Class and DEET and Hannah understand and influences POLT Professional Leave team at to develop learning plans for Greenvale, the Collegiate and the Region. Greenvale assessment tools There is funding made available that link to further explore and outcomes across document the holistic model the models.
Using to wheel to reflect on An engaging workshop exploring Reflection after 6 our preferred / privileged Learning styles and preferences months on how approaches and thus be for adults and children. our preferences We are recognizing our able to see conflicts and and skills in each preferred fields / approaches and privileging these less differences from a holistic Identifying our points of entry to field are evolving. We are speaking reflectively the wheel. perspective. rather than reactively Looking at our We are using holistic language Understanding others styles and Developing a holistic, learning paths as to develop connective and reflective and inclusive building sense of teamwork adults as well as inclusive thinking about areas approach to conflict around complimentary styles. for children. of difference resolution and problem Develop surveys to identify solving. Look at how we how areas of difference / conflict are being managed Strategies for working with have worked as diversity and difference complimentary teams.
84
APPENDIX 6
COMMUNITY CLASS PARENT ROLES (2009)
(names removed – 14 of the 20 roles filled in 2008-9)
Co-ordinating ROLE INVOLVED IN ROLE INTERESTED IN for STEERING CO-ORDINATION GROUP -
CONVENING PHONE AND EMAIL CO- ORDINATION
SECRETARY – REGGIO – HELM TREASURER – DEVELOPMENT FUNDRAISING
WORKING BEES – 09 COMMUNITY CLASS BUILT ENVIRONMENT CAMP
TEACHER LIAISON SUPPORT FOR SMALL GROUP LEARNING
PARENT LIAISON PHOTOS – DOCUMENTING CLASSES
COMUNICATIONS BARKERS CREEK : HELPING TO CO- ORDINATE LEIGHS GROUP co- OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES – ordinators ROCK CLIMBING
JULIE’S GROUP co- ENVIRONMENTAL ordinators EXCURSIONS
JEANETTE’S GROUP DEMOCRATIC co-ordinators CLASSROOM
TRANSITION OTHER ROLES FOR 09
85
APPENDIX 7 PARENT VOLUNTEER REGISTER FORM 2006
GREENVALE COMMUNITY CLASS PARENT AND MENTOR ROLES We invite families to be involved 2-3 hours a week either during school time or after school hours. As families we recognize that our involvement will be flexible and vary over time. Our challenge as a parent group and teachers is to provide many opportunities and clear roles for us to be involved.
We aim to create a learning environment where adults are curious and keen to witness and support the children’s learning. Parents and mentors are supported through information sessions that outline roles and times to review and reflect our experiences are also documented in the class journal and provides valuable material for our ongoing action research project.
If each family organized an adult presence in or supporting the class for 2 hours a week we are effectively reducing the adult to child ratio from 1.22 to 1.11.
Research identifies this as an indicator of successful learning & social outcomes for students
‘THE INVOLVEMENT OF PARENTS AND MENTORS IS A KEY AIM OF THE COMMUNITY CLASS.’
PLEASE INDICATE YOUR AREA OF INTEREST – AREA OF SKILLS
SHARING AN AREA OF INTEREST JUST BEING IN THE CLASS
BEING A MENTOR FOR A PROJECT HELP WITH GROUP WORK
HEALTHY COOKING INTERIOR DESIGN
HELPING WITH READING: MATHS HELPING WITH EXCURSIONS NEWSLETTERS
LANDSCAPING BUILDING - WORKING BEES
CAMPING COMMUNITY ARTS PROJECT
GARDENING
REGGIO: DOCUMENTING WHAT IS OCCURING THE CLASS
BEING INVOLVED IN THE STEERING COMMITTEE
BEING PART OF THE CURRICULUM AND PLANNING GROUP
DEVELOPING THE LEARNING SPACE IN AND OUTDOOR
HELPING DEVELOP PLANS FOR SUSTAINABLE CLASSROOM 86
APPENDIX 8 PROGRAMS WITH STUDENTS in the COMMUNITY CLASS
PARENT’S NAME Libby Twigden and Peter McRostie
Friday Bushwalks with Starfish Group
STUDENTS INVOLVED (ages and year levels)
Starfish Group (up to 18) and Leigh and many parents, including; Mark W, Mark MacD, Denise, Davide, Di, Martine, Louise, Luke Isabelle, Dean, Emma, Jilli, Lars.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROGRAM – ACTIVITY Travel by car or walk within local area to be in nature, explore natural and historical places of interest. We have been to; Campbell’s Creek (x2), Vaughan Springs, Eureka reef near Chewton, Garfield Wheel near Chewton, and Anderson’s Mill in Smeaton.
INTERESTING LINKS TO CURRICULUM / PHILOSOPHY / VALUES Environmental, cultural, respect for YOE
EXPERIENCES AND LEARNING OUTCOMES FOR STUDENTS
Academic; wider exposure to and awareness of natural environment, historical and cultural resources, water issues, bush care, vegetation identification,
Social; greater interaction for students to be with each other in a different setting and with other kids’ parents, different setting for Leigh to be in with the children, peer learning, social and emotional and spiritual growth. Sharing, listening.
MY REFLECTIONS ON THE PROGRAM AND EXPERIENCE The students seemed to enjoy the opportunities to be in the outdoors, explore, run, laugh, be themselves, be around each other and a lot of parents who could help monitor their safety but also let them not be too constrained.
THOUGHTS ON FURTHER PROGRAMS I MAY DEVELOP WITH STUDENTS As the students get older, introduce a higher level of environmental awareness and responsibilities 87
Appendix 9 Curriculum Outline - Outdoor Learning Experiences
There are many who feel that we are becoming increasingly disconnected from the earth, and need to develop stewardship of the earth. In including 'outdoor activities' and 'experiences in the outdoors' in our approach to creating a life-learning centre, we hope to foster a deep love and respect for the planet. We hope to encourage a sense of connection with the earth, and a knowledge of belonging. I see outdoor experiences as being a potentially powerful way of learning. I see the possibility of learning happening at several different levels;
(1)Pure skills acquisition - In a world where most 'education' is geared toward an occupation through which to gain an income, this provides the knowledge and skills to maintain or resume hobbies/passions. It may also invite exploration of how one goes about researching and learning a new skill.
(2) Curriculum integration Some of the activities that may be considered are;
1. Bushwalking, Canoeing, Rock climbing, Surfing, Skiing, Caving 2. environmental studies ecology geology botany animals weather 3. map reading 4. cooking nutrition physiology 5. architecture (tent design, boat design?) 6. history of the places visited original land inhabitants - aboriginal culture 7. creating gear - e.g. boat building, designing and sewing gear
(3) Risk assessment and risk management - and an exploration of how that might be relevant to people in day to day life. Exploration of "safety" and what it is and how to recognise it.
(4) Group awareness and group living provides awareness of, and opportunity for the practice of interpersonal skills. Focuses on responsibility, clear communication and interpersonal skills.
(5) Decision making - how does one make decisions, and what are the variables that need to be taken into account, how are these contextual? Allows for the exploration of consequences to a group, of decisions taken by an individual and exploring different processes used to reach decisions.
(6)Spirituality - being in a natural setting often invites questions of spirituality, of how we fit in the scheme of things, and what paradigm best fits the way we choose to see ourselves fitting.
(7) Context - outdoor experiences can provide a different context where everyone is subject to the same conditions, weather and where there are natural consequences that occur as a result of action or inaction. It is for these reasons a good teacher in regard to responsibility. 88