Michael Fullan is familiar to many in education (for those not familiar, here is a list of freely available articles). He has long been an influential reformer in Canada and is currently Special Advisor to the Premier and Minister of Education in Ontario. Fullan’s May 2011 paper, Choosing the wrong drivers for whole system reform, tackles a topic many educators are looking at as we look beyond class, or even school reform. In his paper, Fullan lays out four criteria which, he argues, must be met by the drivers for change and reform at a district or system level:
- foster intrinsic motivation of teachers and students;
- engage educators and students in continuous improvement of instruction and learning;
- inspire collective or team work; and
- affect teachers and students — 100 per cent
His examination of the wrong drivers is compelling. He suggests his list of the four wrong drivers of change have a lot of appeal and will be hard to dislodge:
- accountability (vs capacity building)
- individual teacher and leadership quality (vs group quality)
- technology (vs instruction)
- fragmented strategies (vs systemic)
Fullan says, “The four wrong drivers are not forever wrong. They are just badly placed as lead drivers. The four right drivers — capacity building, group work, pedagogy, and systemness — are the anchors of whole system reform.”
All four of the ‘wrong’ and ‘right’ drivers are worthy of consideration, but I was particularly struck and reassured by his view of technology as a wrong driver, and rather instruction and smart pedagogy that must be the driver supported by technology. Fullan says, “Technology as solution is the more seductive partner.” He argues what we have been arguing in our district, “Teachers need to get grounded in instruction, so they can figure out with students how best to engage technology.” Of course, it is often simpler to discuss who has what tools rather than the pedagogy. Fullan, is clear that technology should not drive system change, but is also clear that we should “go all out to power new pedagogical innovations with technology.”
Key leaders can make a huge difference at this critical juncture. Jettison blatant merit pay, reduce excessive testing, don’t depend on teacher appraisal as a driver, and don’t treat world-class standards as a panacea. Instead, make the instruction-assessment nexus the core driver, and back this up with a system that mobilizes the masses to make the moral imperative a reality. Change the very culture of the teaching profession. Do so forcefully and you will find many allies. It is time to embrace, and relentlessly commit to the right drivers.
In a presentation last week, I discussed the changes we have seen in reform and focus in British Columbia. We moved from a system of school accreditation, to district accountability, to where we are now, considering system-wide reform. And this system-wide reform in British Columbia does not have us standing out there alone — there are similar conversations in other high-performing jurisdictions from Alberta and Ontario, to Finland.
Fullan’s list, while not breaking a lot of new ground for educators, is a good reminder of what should and shouldn’t drive our changes. The challenge is making them, in appropriate combination, come to life.
Chris
I appreciate you blogging about Fullan’s ideas. I am intrigued by his mention of “accountability” as a wrong driver for change. I often feel a unnerved with school’s (& school systems) increasingly adopting corporate accountability models (students & teachers & learning is more than a commodity that can be measured). Perhaps we will see a shift in the educational pendulum from a corporate accountability to capacity building. I would welcome that shift.
Hi Johnny – I think the “accountability” agenda which has occupied many jurisdictions (like we often hear from the US) has peaked. I don’t hear anyone discussing the next iteration of our system suggesting it needs to be characterized by more testing and ranking. The challenge is the need to change the attitude. We need to be transparent with results and practice but not use them in a “carrot and stick” way, but rather to build build and engage.
Thanks Chris, for your continued thoughtfulness from a district perspective. As a technology junkie and classroom advocate I love that you question it as a driver. I love tech and believe it is making the real drivers more visible, accessible, and applicable. Keep it going!
Thanks Ryan. As so many of us say – it is not about the technology. I really like that Fullan is also clear- that while it is not a driver – learning and instruction do need to ride the technology wave. He says, “we need to go all out to power new pedagogical innovations with technology.”
Great to have you in my network.
Thanks for the entry Chris. I’ve long followed Fullan’s work and am curious as to why the two systems that he has had the most influence on–Ontario and the U.K. seem to still be driven by accountability and Deliverology (Michael Barber).
Hmmm…
Interesting Stephen. I am impressed by Fullan’s vision, as described in this article and elsewhere – but, at least from a distance, it does not seem to be fully alive in Ontario.
Nice to connect with you here.
Thanks Chris. It’s great reading your work.
I’m getting increasingly discouraged here in Ontario, but I’m not willing to give up the fight yet.
I think that the vision expressed here by Fullan is what we want to see. It’s going to be hard to make it happen after years of being immersed in the accountability regimens and protocols that have now become part of our culture.
And with another Conservative provincial government knocking on the door, it may be years before the critical mass gathers at Fullan’s cocktail reception.
But it is a vision that resonates!
stephen
Fullan has an incredible way of sifting through complexities and cutting to the chase. I agree completely with your observations on the technology driver:
“He (Fullan) argues what we have been arguing in our district, ‘Teachers need to get grounded in instruction, so they can figure out with students how best to engage technology.'”
The emphasis must fall on shifting pedagogy and practice to build capacity. Too often, we hear that practice can’t change until resources are provided. At the risk of sounding flippant, I would say to this, “Ask not what an iPad can do for you, but what you can do for an iPad….”
Yes – it is unfortunate the debate around resourcing in often so closely linked to the discussion around pedagogy. All this said, I have found that when implemented correctly, technology can be an excellent driver to open up the conversations around pedagogy. While we are often unwilling to open up around our practice – we are happy to ask questions about technology and these conversations that start as a conversation about the tools – quickly turn to conversations about learning.
this is timely and helpful – and I like the idea of a reform cocktail party.
Linda
Chris, I think Fullan is right about technology. On one hand it has more power and potential than any other tool we have had at our disposal, but at the same time it is useless and reinforces poor instruction if used innappropriately. It too expensive and powerful to sit unused in a school and classroom. As eduators we need to embrace the idea of student centered classrooms and schools that utilize technology in the learning process.
Yes – his straight forward approach is a good reminder that technology is really important but it must first be a discussion around pedagogy and practice.
Chris, as a Superintendent of Curriculum in Ontario, Fullan’s work has indeed inspired, challenged and sometimes just simply reminded us to stay the course on the precision, personalization and professionalism journey. This notion of accountability will likely be explored in greater depth as we differentiate accountability from responsibility. I believe Andy Hargreaves, in THE FOURTH WAY (2009) gives us something further to consider about the relationship between accountability and responsibility. Simply framed, he states “responsibility precedes and supersedes accountability” and accountability is what is left when responsibility is unfulfilled. I think the fusion of systemic, capacity building focused on group learning for quality instruction will redefine accountability for all of us!
Thanks Patricia for the comment. It is interesting you reference THE FOURTH WAY – it is also been very influencing many BC School Districts as they look to make plans moving forward.
Thoughts on the technology piece…
Take a look at these guiding principles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Lgomk0x9VI
even in the most technologically driven form of education (distance education), there is realization that the technology is not the driver for learning. The instruction needs to be intentional and well-developed. This is recognized.
But the other piece (check at about 2.31 in the video) is that taking current learning pedagogy and simply transfering it to a technology (or distance) platform DOES NOT work.
So here’s the dilemma – using technology as a driver does not work…but technology is not going away and the way it is used as part of instruction requires a significant tweak in that instruction. Perhaps it’s too simplistic to say technology OR instruction should be the driver. Perhaps instruction based intentionally in the reality of today’s technology (and the reality of today’s technologically savvy learner) is the ideal driver.
Taken to a conversation about whole system reform, instruction needs to be a driver but it needs to be cognizant of the current context of that “whole system”. The whole system we’re addressing is imbedded in a world of technology that isn’t going away (thus our ability to even have this conversation via a blog…or Egypt’s ability to change a whole country via twitter/facebook).
Capacity building – that’s a whole other conversation – building capacity of the whole culture (including parents and community) to hold safe and encourage the intrinsic motivation of teachers and students…there’s the lynchpin:-)
Technology isn’t a driver because it is merely a tool. Where technology can help is in the area of student engagement. To capture the heads of our students we need to first capture their hearts. We need them to be excited and captivated by learning. Technology can help to capture their excitement and curiosity assisting us in advancing the goals of the curriculum. The use of technology does not supersede teacher collaboration, effective assessment strategies and effective instruction.
Absolutely – but done right it can definitely accelerate many of these drivers.
Hi Chris
The fundamentals that Michael Fullan brings forth resonated before via Seymour Papert in the 1970-80-90-2000’s. To those who understand the power of technology in the classroom, it has always been about transforming learning and teaching. We will ultimately have to conclude that the “system of education” as we know it now will simply have to move from large scale tinkering and involve major structural changes. Start with listening to the voices of students and analyze closer the world they are evolving in. As John Sealy Brown once said at a conference “the walls of our schools have grown increasingly permeable. The success of education will lie in how we respond to this new reality.”
Good bye Dr Frederick Taylor, hello again John Dewey
Nicely said Ron. It is why the recent New York Times article on technology got it wrong. The goal of technology is not to improve standardized test scores. I really like this response to that article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-mcleod/schools-technology-test-s_b_952886.html
[…] Michael Fullan is one of the architects of the current government of Ontario’s platform on education (here), and has recently written a widely cited paper Choosing the wrong drivers for whole system reform, which I have previously blogged about here. […]
[…] learning, and a road-map embracing personally owned devices while ensuring equity, and how, using Michael’s Fullan’s words “We ensure we have the right drivers for this […]
[…] made is that the goal is the learning and the technology is there to support the learning. It is an argument that Michael Fullan has been making for a number of years focused on the right and wrong system drivers. I think we can let people off […]