The balance between regulation and trust in the education system - part 1

The Van Leer Jerusalem Institute invited representatives from national educational authorities, educational researchers, school leaders and teachers for an international workshop and conference on 21 to May 25, 2012 in Jerusalem. The theme in both the workshop and conference section was "From Regulation to trust." The dialogue between representatives from different parts of the education system was used as the approach to the topic, and Professor Ben Levin from the University of Toronto, was a research coordinator in the work that was done.

The dialogue concluded that both regulation and trust must be present in what Ben Levin called the ecology in the educational system. This means that the authority levels and practice levels of education are mutually dependent on each other to succeed with the goals of education. The levels must maintain the ecosystem in balance through regulation and trust.

This notion is consistent with what Andy Hargreaves and Dennis Shirley argues in their book "The Fourth Way - The Inspiring Future for Educational Change" (2009). They emphasize that collaboration on learning between home, school and society and work in the school network where the strong support the weak, provide the best learning results.

A natural ecosystem is no harmony model. In nature the higher level in the food chain eat of the lower level’s surplus in order to maintain balance. This form of dynamic interaction creates a mutual dependence on each other in nature.

The balance in Ben Levin’s educational system is not based on the same mechanisms as in the natural ecosystem. It is rather a model based on a constructed interdependence between parties, where understanding and respect for each other's different approaches is a prerequisite for successful student learning.

Regulations come into force through political decisions nationally and locally, and are systemic. This means that they have clear expectations about results, and clarifies what levels of the educational system that is responsible for the decisions that follow.

Education Act is a regulation, and the regulations of assessment in school. As well as agreements dealing with Working Conditions, Working Environment Act, the national curriculum, the national tests, budget allocation, homework groups at grade 1 to 4, required physical activity every day, no grading at primary level, time figures for subjects, tuition time figures for teachers, publication of results and more.

The idea in Professor Ben Levin’s ecological education is that no decision by virtue of itself can improve student learning. It is the interacted follow-ups by Ministry of Education, local politicians, local education authorities, school leaders and teachers that together create the foundation for enhanced learning. Then the educational system should balance between trust and regulations.

If the ecosystem, however, is regulated and controlled too much, it's going out of balance. This returns the students, teachers and school leaders into a situation where learning and school development happens more in spite of regulation and control, than because of it (cf. the Hargreaves and Shirley's call for "Three paths of distractions" in the book The Fourth Way). Many students will then only achieve learning at a surface level.

The balance between regulation and trust in the education system - part 2

The state of Ontario in Canada had a significant systemic problem in the education sector in the early 2000's. Several years of unrest between government and teachers' unions created increased mistrust and stalled fronts. One result of that was that the students learning outcome was below what was expected. Parents' expectations of better schools and better results were an important catalyst for change.

During 2004 the Ontario Ministry of Education invited parents, teachers, school leaders, researchers, politicians and bureaucrats to a courageous, open dialogue. They achieved a balance between regulation and trust, which made it possible to focus on long-term educational improvements.

The article does not consider whether the agreements that were signed at the time, were only good. But the grip by addressing brave calls to regain trust, is essential. Ontario's recognition of, and commitment to succeed in balancing regulation and trust, has cost some principles for all parties, and a whole lot of money. In return, they obtained an ecosystem where parents, teachers, school leaders, researchers, politicians and bureaucrats are dependent on each other's mutual understanding, respect and ability to follow up to ensure that students get the learning environment they deserve.

The article is not thoroughly on the various parts of the agreement, but mentions that teachers' unions are most pleased with the salary increase, with the contractual fixed maximum number of students in the class, with a fixed number of days for annual further training, with a long-term approach to investment and mentoring program for graduated teachers.

The authority level is most pleased with the fact that the initiative to succeed with a long-term committed relationship passed through in 2004. Then they could meet the parents' desire for evidence-based knowledge about learning outcomes. The authority level is also pleased with the common choice of the few national development topics that they intend to improve, and the agreement to use teachers as external advisors in the development of learning communities. Researchers are satisfied because they have been actively involved in the design of national educational development topics. Parents are happy because they feel they have got actual knowledge of the school.

Ontario's results from international surveys such as PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment), TIMSS (Trends in Mathematics and Science Study) and PIRLS (Progress in International Reading Literacy Study), all show a significant progress and are located high on international tables. According to the authorities the results demonstrate that the effort has been successful. For eight years the ecosystem has balanced on the agreed regulations and the increased mutual trust between the levels of the educational system.

This year the relationships and the accumulated trust are put to the test. Difficult economic times require significant cuts in the Ontario budget ahead. Thus the ecosystem can quickly get out of balance. Unpopular measures will be the subject of discussions, such as freezing salaries for all employees in the school for a period. Other possible measures are cutting annual training days, reduce teaching positions and increase numbers of students in the class.

Under the current agreement, publication of results, as well as systems for evaluating teachers were the hardest parts of the agreement to accept for teachers and school leaders in Ontario. Therefore, these issues will likely be discussed again.

The slowly achieved confidence between the government level and practice level in Ontario is put to the test by the fall negotiations. If the dialogue continues and leads to an agreement, it should be possible to maintain a balance between regulation and trust in the ecosystem. However, if it ends up with stalled fronts the outlook is bleaker. The previous story in Ontario shows that imbalance at best creates a few winners and many losers. In the worst case, only losers, in which students are the ones who lose the most. If it ends up with an ecosystem still in balance, in the worst case, it will create some winners and some losers. At best, only winners, and the students no matter are the ones who benefit most.

The balance between regulation and trust in the education system - part 3

There is little research evidence that shows that publication of the results have any positive effect on student learning. The knowledge about the learning that emerges in the publication of school results on standardized tests is narrow, claim researchers as Andy Hargreaves and John Hattie.

The national political level in Ontario, however, can argue that the publication has had an impact. International studies show a significant progress from 2004 to 2011, and the state applies the published results in a dual purpose - to give parents the evidence based knowledge on student learning, and to insert supportive measures in schools where students over time perform below an expected level.

Much of the basis for change and reasons for measures in Ontario are transferable to Norwegian conditions.

The city of Oslo is the municipality that clearly and for the longest time, emphasize on testing and disclosure of results. Other municipalities and counties follow suit. The reasons for this development are strikingly similar to Ontario's reasoning: Parents have the right to have evidence-based knowledge about the school, and measures need to be implemented in schools with students that over time perform below the expected level.

The big question is whether this form of regulation - extensive testing and disclosure of results - actually develops learning environments and promotes student learning. Ontario's results would indicate that. Oslo's results in national tests and student survey also indicate that.

Andy Hargreaves and Dennis Shirley demonstrates in their book "The Fourth Way - The Inspiring Future for Educational Change" (2009) that education systems that emphasize extensive testing and disclosure of results helps to create an unwanted culture in schools, where an excessive amount of time is used in preparation for national standardized tests, mainly motivated by the desire to get positive results on the public ranking lists. In turn, these efforts insignificantly improves learning, claims Hargreaves and Shirley.

Although there has been created a reasonable suspicion of tricks culture, and that preparations to tests have taken time from sustainable learning, the Oslo school as a whole has achieved a leading position in our education system.

The escalated use of standardized tests and publication of results is not the explanation for this success, argues Ben Levin and Hargreaves / Shirley.

In contrary, Ben Levin, as Hargreaves and Shirley, places great emphasis on the interplay between the levels in the education system as the main key to learning success for all students. In Norway we call it to pull together.

Clear expectations, clear ambitions and clear support from teachers and leaders, who are dedicated to the art of teaching is a key factor for a good learning environment and for sustainable learning. Authorities and practice fields that have a common understanding of expectations, ambitions and follow-ups, and pull together, succeed. Hence a key factor in student learning is that education levels exert the interdependence in practice, built on a dialogue in ecosystems that ensure a sustainable balance between regulation and trust.

Sources:

Workshops and lectures at The Van Leer Jerusalem Conference in May 2012

Hargreaves, Andy and Shirley, Dennis "The Fourth Way - The Inspiring Future for Educational Change" (2009)

Hattie, John "Visible Learning for teachers-maximizing impact on learning" (2012)