As I read in Schauder’s paper about the civil society and the role that libraries play in the free flow of information and ideas I had a number of responses (Schauder, D. (2006). Libraries, ICT policy, and Australian civil society: isues and prospects from national consultations. Paper presented at the VALA 2006: Connecting with users. 13th biennial conference and exhibition 8-10 February 2006 Crown Towers, Melbourne, Australia. Conference proceedings. Retrieved from
http://www.valaconf.org.au/vala2006/papers2006/50 Schauder Final.pdf.
The civil society is certainly to be promoted and the role of libraries in the process needs to be recognised and encouraged. The notion of e-democracy, where citizens are able to vote on any and every issue is both one of Athenian utopianism and science fiction intrigue. The male Athenians could indulge in this practice because they had slaves and the female members of their households to attend to their other affairs. Science fiction and speculative fiction (including Dennis Potter’s Cold Lazarus) have highlighted the danger of instant populist democracy. We see glimpses of this already in the number of polls conducted on subjects as diverse as cricket, cars and politics.
The opening of the “Charter for Knowledge Societies” of the IAMCR could be read as a manifesto for Wikileaks. Does that make free access to information a positive or a negative principle to pursue? What are the implications for privacy? Why are the “conversations” of political leaders more in the public interest to disclose interesting than those of industrial leaders, who arguably have more influence on our lives? Is it because, as Browne (Browne, M. 1997, “The field of information policy: 1. Fundamental concepts”, Journal of information science, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 261-275) suggests governments continue to operate with a plethora of overlapping and disorganized policies, while companies and corporations have managed to have their interests protected by copyright and other laws. The recent iinet case in Australia ¬– as with the French (p. 62) and American (p. 68) cases referred to by Dearnley and Feather (2001. Information policy. In The wired world: an introduction to the theory and practice of the information society (pp. 60-93). London: Library Association) – demonstrates that these large companies may have met their match in the world wide web. Or is it because Freedom of Information has created the “right to know” and the technology has created an immediacy of access (legal or illegal) to such a vast amount of information that governments aren’t yet sure of the security implications of the information and certainly don’t have the time to assess it all. Given what Dearnley and Feather (2001, p. 67) say about freedom of information legislation in the USA, one wonders how that government can make the threats that is has allegedly made about the actions of Wikileaks.
The third point is that leaving the provision of knowledge “to the market” can lead to a continuing or new digital divide. This is part of the political debate in Australia at the moment over broadband.
The implication is that libraries have a significant role to play in providing access to a range of information that promotes the public good through the seeking and imparting of information. Libraries will no longer just be repositories or terminals of information, they will be the place where information is generated and from which it is disseminated. They also have an important role to play in the monitoring, critiquing and advocating of information.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Will Richardson
Will Richardson
Change Agent
Published Online: October 11, 2010
Published in Print: October 12, 2010, as Change Agent
http://www.edweek.org/tsb/articles/2010/10/12/01richardson.h04.html?cmp=clp-edweek
I found Will Richardson’s interview very challenging. I have, as I said above, used digital technology as a tool. I have eschewed social networking for employment and philosophical reasons and I have only a small and disorganized online profile. This is because most of my writing continues to be aimed at the print medium. My blog is largely anonymous and concerned with University studies.
I can see Richardson’s point but I need to ask how one fits in creating this online presence and joining learning or professional networks with the expanding demands that digital communications have placed upon our time.
I find it very frustrating that I cannot find suitable resources on the web for different ages and subjects that I teach or support but by the time I have exhausted that search I don’t feel that I have the time to create what is required. Even with Moodle these tend to end up “works-in-progress” rather than finished products.
I also see that Richardson supports teaching hypertext. There was a time when it was suggested that all students should learn a computer language as their second language, just as there was (and in some places, continues to be) an insistence on students learning or attempting to learn touch typing. Just as knowing Basic, Pascal and even machine language is no longer central to being able to use a computer, I wonder whether hypertext will also become superfluous to the effective use of computers for creative purposes.
Apart from universal applications such as email, desktop publishing, marking spreadsheets and school databases, teachers are most likely to become competent if nor masters at specialist software related to their domain: art, photography, CAD, music and so on. Such programs provide web accessibility, which makes them useful for students to share, compare and evaluate the work of others and, in turn, to display their own work. However, their main working environment is based on individual machines.
Finally, schools face or have created their own series of obstacles to e-learning, as any teacher who has tried to log on a Year 3 or 4 class to the school intranet, let alone allow them access to the wide world of the internet knows that we are a long way from reproducing the social experience of Web 2.0 outside school or making digital learning a seamless part of the school day.
Change Agent
Published Online: October 11, 2010
Published in Print: October 12, 2010, as Change Agent
http://www.edweek.org/tsb/articles/2010/10/12/01richardson.h04.html?cmp=clp-edweek
I found Will Richardson’s interview very challenging. I have, as I said above, used digital technology as a tool. I have eschewed social networking for employment and philosophical reasons and I have only a small and disorganized online profile. This is because most of my writing continues to be aimed at the print medium. My blog is largely anonymous and concerned with University studies.
I can see Richardson’s point but I need to ask how one fits in creating this online presence and joining learning or professional networks with the expanding demands that digital communications have placed upon our time.
I find it very frustrating that I cannot find suitable resources on the web for different ages and subjects that I teach or support but by the time I have exhausted that search I don’t feel that I have the time to create what is required. Even with Moodle these tend to end up “works-in-progress” rather than finished products.
I also see that Richardson supports teaching hypertext. There was a time when it was suggested that all students should learn a computer language as their second language, just as there was (and in some places, continues to be) an insistence on students learning or attempting to learn touch typing. Just as knowing Basic, Pascal and even machine language is no longer central to being able to use a computer, I wonder whether hypertext will also become superfluous to the effective use of computers for creative purposes.
Apart from universal applications such as email, desktop publishing, marking spreadsheets and school databases, teachers are most likely to become competent if nor masters at specialist software related to their domain: art, photography, CAD, music and so on. Such programs provide web accessibility, which makes them useful for students to share, compare and evaluate the work of others and, in turn, to display their own work. However, their main working environment is based on individual machines.
Finally, schools face or have created their own series of obstacles to e-learning, as any teacher who has tried to log on a Year 3 or 4 class to the school intranet, let alone allow them access to the wide world of the internet knows that we are a long way from reproducing the social experience of Web 2.0 outside school or making digital learning a seamless part of the school day.
Web 2.0
Roll on the NBN. I’ve just viewed the YouTube clip Web 2.0 The Machine is Us/ing Us, which stopped to reload every fifteen to thirty seconds or so. I was a bit overwhelmed by the html xml section, concerned that I may have to know these terms. Then I realized that the message was exactly the opposite. Now, I don’t need to know a programming language to create with a computer. It’s a bit like the old Word .rtf versus .doc or even the difference between DOS and the Mac GUI interface. As Apple said in their Macintosh ads at the time, the PC had been sent to school to think like a human. No special accolades for Apple here. They have long bought, borrowed or stolen some of the best ideas and marketed them effectively. However, there is an interesting corollary in Web 2.0, which I learnt from the clip. It is that, indeed, computers are learning from us and from the links we forge between different material.
I also appreciated the reminder that Web 2.0 isn’t just about blogs and wikis. Using Diigo to prepare, annotate and share web pages for my students is Web 2.0 in practice. I have always thought of the computer as a tool rather than a recreation source or a form of social media. If it allows me to do something more efficiently, effectively, or both, then it is worth using. If it adds time to a task or requires more understanding on my part or that of my students then it is possibly not the better alternative. This may just have to do with my limited knowledge, my age, learning style or possibly the limited time I have to play around with things and the capacity of the web to use up all the time that you can give it.
I also appreciated the reminder that Web 2.0 isn’t just about blogs and wikis. Using Diigo to prepare, annotate and share web pages for my students is Web 2.0 in practice. I have always thought of the computer as a tool rather than a recreation source or a form of social media. If it allows me to do something more efficiently, effectively, or both, then it is worth using. If it adds time to a task or requires more understanding on my part or that of my students then it is possibly not the better alternative. This may just have to do with my limited knowledge, my age, learning style or possibly the limited time I have to play around with things and the capacity of the web to use up all the time that you can give it.
Schools as Organisations
The school as an organisation
I’ve been thinking about how organisational theory might help to explain and address possible sources of disagreement and conflict within a school.
While a school may use many terms to describe its set of relationships, it is an organisation – a system of relationships and influences that combine to create structures and networks. The school effectiveness movement sees schools as examples of a rational open systems model. This makes it easy to view the educational process as one of value adding to the raw material of the input. This value-added aspect is what MySchool and the resultant league tables are concerned with. This approach emphasizes formalized social structure and relatively specific goals as well as the effective use of resources and the structural interrelationship of parts of the organisation (Bennett, 2001, p.99).
This type of organisation emphasises detailed job specifications, uniform procedures and consistency. Job descriptions define the lines of accountability and control that govern the work. These descriptions are important to the structuring of work in the organisation. These structures are fixed and only change as the result of specific decisions by those who control them. Those in management are overseers. Two relevant elements of this type of system are:
1) management has a responsibility to reduce the impact of change and upheaval so that they do not interfere with the basic task of the organisation’s members
2) each part of the organisation needs to be kept informed of things that are happening elsewhere that might affect its work.
For example, the management team may try to shelter their staff from the turbulence of issues such as changing enrolment numbers, the effects of the GFC, Naplan and MySchool, while keeping them as informed as was deemed appropriate. However, being informed is not the same as being consulted. The school executive may effectively use “deep coping” strategies such as re-staffing, restructuring and redesigning roles to deal with many of the changes. While some structural changes and new initiatives are introduced with a deliberate process of consultation, other learning programs associated with the structural changes may be altered without mutually agreed plans and no parameters for evaluation.
By comparison, organic views of the school organisation see them as being made up of members rather than tasks and therefore capable of developing a life of their own (Bennett, 2001, p. 100). In this view, the organisation is viewed as having the ability to adapt and grow as needs arise, without having to be changed by management decision.
In my view, the problem with schools is that the class teachers see themselves as part of an organic system, while the structures within which they operate and the expectations placed upon them are more mechanistic. One promotes a relational and nurturing approach, the other focuses on accountability and measurable outcomes. One sees the members as being able to devise and implement solutions to problems (using their skills, training and experience), the other sees management as the source of solutions.
In reality, a person’s place in the organisation defines their role and sphere of influence. Their significance is defined by their relationships with colleagues and the areas in which they are able to make decisions. In this regard, the members of the organisation are not equals. This inequality is an expression of the power that may be exercised by members. This power depends on two things. Firstly, the importance of the individual to the issue under consideration and the decision that has to be made. Secondly, the amount of individual discretion or freedom to act in response to decisions. Further, the power disparity between individuals is a major influence in shaping and defining the way that relationships develop within the organisation.
This power disparity leads non-managers to dismiss the legitimacy of some sources of power such as economic power (or power of dismissal). It may also determine whether a response to change is merely compliance and not full commitment. This is significant in the life of an organisation. Staff willingness and staff initiative has been identified as a factor that leads to successful implementation of change. This has been demonstrated to contribute to school improvement or school effectiveness or teacher effectiveness.
Power sharing is critical to securing staff willingness and initiative and crucial to stabilizing the change after implementation. In the effective schools scenario “the staff is given a considerable amount of responsibility and authority in determining the exact means by which they address the problem of increasing academic performance. This includes giving staffs more authority over curricular and instructional decisions and allocation of building resources” (Purkey and Smith, 1985, p. 358). However, empowerment tends to occur after the major decisions are made a rather than before.
One suggestion to promote stability and empowerment is the Collaborative School Management Cycle (Caldwell and Spinks, 1988). In this the policy group (principal, senior staff and Board) form the policy group, while teachers create programs to support the school activities associated with learning and teaching. The policy group is responsible for goal setting, needs identification, policy making, budgeting and evaluation programs. The program group takes responsibility for planning, budgeting, implementing and evaluating. With contentious issues, where there is disagreement on current practice among staff, it is recommended that a working party be appointed to prepare options for consideration by the policy group.
However, in the case of a disputed hypothetical program the policy group may dictate to the program group how a particular learning program will be designed and implemented. The withdrawal of discretion or authority from the program group by the policy group (teaching staff) may lead to resentment. The exercise of power by the policy group to ensure compliance and stifle debate may lead to feelings of impotence and devaluation. This power imbalance has the potential to weaken initiative and sustain instability. This works against the principle that “the potential of an organisation is realized through its people’s enthusiasm resourcefulness and participation” (Streeton Primary School, 2000).
References
Bennett, N. 2001, Power, structure and culture: an organisational view of school effectiveness and school improvement. In Harris, A. & Bennett, N. (eds) School effectiveness and school improvement: alternate perspectives. Continuum: London, pp. 89-122
Caldwell, B. J. and Spinks, J. M. 1988. The Self-Managing School. London: Falmer Press.
Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1985). School reform: The district policy implications of the effective schools literature. Elementary School Journal, 85(3), pp. 353-389.
Streeton Primary School. 2000, The 12 quality principles. In Q is for quality: continuous improvement in schools through quality management and quality learning (pp. 12-24). Yallambie, Vic.: Streeton Primary School.
I’ve been thinking about how organisational theory might help to explain and address possible sources of disagreement and conflict within a school.
While a school may use many terms to describe its set of relationships, it is an organisation – a system of relationships and influences that combine to create structures and networks. The school effectiveness movement sees schools as examples of a rational open systems model. This makes it easy to view the educational process as one of value adding to the raw material of the input. This value-added aspect is what MySchool and the resultant league tables are concerned with. This approach emphasizes formalized social structure and relatively specific goals as well as the effective use of resources and the structural interrelationship of parts of the organisation (Bennett, 2001, p.99).
This type of organisation emphasises detailed job specifications, uniform procedures and consistency. Job descriptions define the lines of accountability and control that govern the work. These descriptions are important to the structuring of work in the organisation. These structures are fixed and only change as the result of specific decisions by those who control them. Those in management are overseers. Two relevant elements of this type of system are:
1) management has a responsibility to reduce the impact of change and upheaval so that they do not interfere with the basic task of the organisation’s members
2) each part of the organisation needs to be kept informed of things that are happening elsewhere that might affect its work.
For example, the management team may try to shelter their staff from the turbulence of issues such as changing enrolment numbers, the effects of the GFC, Naplan and MySchool, while keeping them as informed as was deemed appropriate. However, being informed is not the same as being consulted. The school executive may effectively use “deep coping” strategies such as re-staffing, restructuring and redesigning roles to deal with many of the changes. While some structural changes and new initiatives are introduced with a deliberate process of consultation, other learning programs associated with the structural changes may be altered without mutually agreed plans and no parameters for evaluation.
By comparison, organic views of the school organisation see them as being made up of members rather than tasks and therefore capable of developing a life of their own (Bennett, 2001, p. 100). In this view, the organisation is viewed as having the ability to adapt and grow as needs arise, without having to be changed by management decision.
In my view, the problem with schools is that the class teachers see themselves as part of an organic system, while the structures within which they operate and the expectations placed upon them are more mechanistic. One promotes a relational and nurturing approach, the other focuses on accountability and measurable outcomes. One sees the members as being able to devise and implement solutions to problems (using their skills, training and experience), the other sees management as the source of solutions.
In reality, a person’s place in the organisation defines their role and sphere of influence. Their significance is defined by their relationships with colleagues and the areas in which they are able to make decisions. In this regard, the members of the organisation are not equals. This inequality is an expression of the power that may be exercised by members. This power depends on two things. Firstly, the importance of the individual to the issue under consideration and the decision that has to be made. Secondly, the amount of individual discretion or freedom to act in response to decisions. Further, the power disparity between individuals is a major influence in shaping and defining the way that relationships develop within the organisation.
This power disparity leads non-managers to dismiss the legitimacy of some sources of power such as economic power (or power of dismissal). It may also determine whether a response to change is merely compliance and not full commitment. This is significant in the life of an organisation. Staff willingness and staff initiative has been identified as a factor that leads to successful implementation of change. This has been demonstrated to contribute to school improvement or school effectiveness or teacher effectiveness.
Power sharing is critical to securing staff willingness and initiative and crucial to stabilizing the change after implementation. In the effective schools scenario “the staff is given a considerable amount of responsibility and authority in determining the exact means by which they address the problem of increasing academic performance. This includes giving staffs more authority over curricular and instructional decisions and allocation of building resources” (Purkey and Smith, 1985, p. 358). However, empowerment tends to occur after the major decisions are made a rather than before.
One suggestion to promote stability and empowerment is the Collaborative School Management Cycle (Caldwell and Spinks, 1988). In this the policy group (principal, senior staff and Board) form the policy group, while teachers create programs to support the school activities associated with learning and teaching. The policy group is responsible for goal setting, needs identification, policy making, budgeting and evaluation programs. The program group takes responsibility for planning, budgeting, implementing and evaluating. With contentious issues, where there is disagreement on current practice among staff, it is recommended that a working party be appointed to prepare options for consideration by the policy group.
However, in the case of a disputed hypothetical program the policy group may dictate to the program group how a particular learning program will be designed and implemented. The withdrawal of discretion or authority from the program group by the policy group (teaching staff) may lead to resentment. The exercise of power by the policy group to ensure compliance and stifle debate may lead to feelings of impotence and devaluation. This power imbalance has the potential to weaken initiative and sustain instability. This works against the principle that “the potential of an organisation is realized through its people’s enthusiasm resourcefulness and participation” (Streeton Primary School, 2000).
References
Bennett, N. 2001, Power, structure and culture: an organisational view of school effectiveness and school improvement. In Harris, A. & Bennett, N. (eds) School effectiveness and school improvement: alternate perspectives. Continuum: London, pp. 89-122
Caldwell, B. J. and Spinks, J. M. 1988. The Self-Managing School. London: Falmer Press.
Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1985). School reform: The district policy implications of the effective schools literature. Elementary School Journal, 85(3), pp. 353-389.
Streeton Primary School. 2000, The 12 quality principles. In Q is for quality: continuous improvement in schools through quality management and quality learning (pp. 12-24). Yallambie, Vic.: Streeton Primary School.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)