Overview

Challenges such as Covid-19 and students changing year levels and teachers, meant that the project did not proceed as intended. Nevertheless, the project did bring about some substantial shifts in practice for the kaiako involved, and this led to improvements in ākonga agency and wellbeing.

"During the break, I met with colleagues from my learning team, and we planned out storytelling sessions for term 4. Prior to this, I had been working with my tamariki on our TLIF and we had been discussing how this was about ākonga voice and co-creating what we did in our classroom. At our first storytelling session in Term 4, I presented to my students the “teacher’s well-formed collaborative plan”, with a small space to additional comments for student voice — only to be stopped in my tracks when one of my tamariki said, “Hey, you did it without us!” enabling several children around her to protest with statements like “That’s not fair!”

This troubled me because what they had said was true — I realised that I was not walking the talk and this presented me with a challenge. I discussed this with the TLIF team, who suggested I make a radical move by ripping it up. Which I did. The reactions to this were incredible — the students looked totally astonished and then, when they realised I was for real, they got to it with great gusto.

Teacher reflection

Productive learning partnerships were generated in an environment in which ākonga learned that it was safe for them to take risks and share their ideas. Likewise, the support of senior leadership and participation in coaching and mentoring enabled kaiako to try practices that sometimes felt risky. The inquiry reinforced the fact that for both adults and youth, trust is the foundation of these partnerships.

The inquiry story

This project was led by a team of people in leadership roles, including the deputy principal and members of the Curriculum Design Team. It involved seven kaiako and their ākonga.

What was the focus?

Ōpawa School was working towards redesigning its curriculum. The school wanted to develop a local curriculum that was built around the local river, Ōpāwaho; developed in consultation with local iwi, Ngāi Tahu; and driven by its cultural narrative. At its core, the school wanted to design a curriculum that had a strong ākonga voice that was developed and strengthened through youth-adult partnerships.

The direction of this project was informed by the fact that one of the co-leads of the project had previously been  involved in a TLIF project at another school that explored how an agentic learning environment might nurture student’ wellbeing and contribute to improved learning outcomes (Nurturing ākonga wellbeing through agentic learning environments, Cobden Primary School, TLIF 3-077). This teacher brought his learning from that project to this one.

The project team developed the following innovation statement:

We would like to know whether redesigning our localised curriculum, through youth-adult partnerships, improves the way kaiako engage with, listen to, and work with ākonga. We want to know whether this will have a positive impact on the confidence of ākonga to share their ideas and questions and [their belief] that they will be taken seriously. We want to know whether this will impact positively on their engagement, participation, learning, and wellbeing.

What did the teachers try?

The project team planned a two-part inquiry, with three rapid-learning cycles and one summative one, all to be completed over four school terms. The term ‘rapid learn’ was used to describe a curriculum design process of trying, playing, and innovating, a process through which both kaiako and ākonga would be challenged to take risks and try new things.

The first part of the inquiry involved kaiako in delving deeper into their practice to explore how to move from a consultative approach to curriculum design with ākonga, to one in which ākonga and kaiako partner in the processes of planning, innovation, and evaluation. This involved two cycles of inquiry.

In the first cycle of inquiry, the team gathered baseline data through a series of tasks and mini challenges intended to explore questions about adult and youth identity. The central question was “Where are we now?” Activities included teachers creating suitcases of their professional journeys and writing journals and ākonga creating photo walls and videos about ‘what we do now’. Professional development included the use of the GROWTH model to coach kaiako how to reflect on themselves and their current practice.

The second cycle of inquiry was called the “What if?” cycle. Kaiako and ākonga engaged in rapid-learn challenges intended to help develop and strengthen more structured working relationships that ensured the ākonga voice was heard. Ākonga were encouraged to contribute their ideas about the design of learning experiences and the learning environment. For example, one teacher left the classroom bare for students to set up at the start of the new term, and another stepped back and allowed a small group of ākonga in years 1–2 to lead their peers in designing and planning a classroom mural.

The second part of the project was intended to develop and deepen the strategies and capabilities that enable ākonga and kaiako to co-design the curriculum. The cycle was called “How might we?” The intention was to continue with the rapid-learn process, with ākonga and kaiako trialling initiatives that would provide an authentic pathway towards co-design of the local curriculum. The final cycle was intended to be a reflective one, including a two-day hui at which ākonga and kaiako would explore what had been learned and experienced, and what the way forward might be. Unfortunately, staff and student turnover, and Covid-19 combined to mean the school had to suspend the second part of the project.

What happened as a result of this innovation?

Despite the challenges, the project team identified some important changes to kaiako practice that had a meaningful impact upon ākonga.

All kaiako reported that they were listening to ākonga differently. They reported that they were:

• using student voice as part of the decision-making process
• encouraging students that no suggestions or ideas were ‘bad’
• using voting systems in their classrooms to determine outcomes
• listening for opportunities to follow up things the ākonga talked about, wondered about, and were interested in.

The teachers used two tools to map their shifts in practice: Hart’s Ladder of Participation and the Organisational Freedom and Thinking Tool. These indicated that the biggest shifts were in:

• ‘Sharing’, for example, increased opportunities for ākonga to share, improvements in the quality of discussion and dialogue, a lessening of teacher control
• ‘Moving’, for example, greater flexibility in the learning environment, greater freedom for ākonga in making decisions about how they would move around the learning space, and greater access to resources
• ‘Recording’, for example, increased opportunities for ākonga to make their own decisions about when and how to take notes
• ‘Spending time’, for example, increased time for ākonga to work on problems and increased opportunities for exploring different interpretations, methods, and answers.

The data show that ākonga have appreciated the time that has been spent building positive relationships. They mentioned teachers being kind and giving hugs and that they value the incidental chats that are happening. Their responses in one-to-one interviews demonstrated that they appreciate that their kaiako take time to listen to them. Trust has been built and ākonga feel that they can share their feelings and express themselves when they are feeling sad or upset. Kaiako report being frequently surprised at the ability of ākonga to recognise and share their learning needs when they were given the opportunity to express them.

What did they learn?

Despite the interruptions to the project, the team was able to demonstrate shifts in practice that gave ākonga greater ownership of their learning and led to improved wellbeing. They learned that trust was the foundation of productive relationships and this needed to be established before expecting ākonga to share in a partnership approach. Ākonga need to see that their ideas will be valued and acted upon, not just listened to. They are capable of co-constructing learning and participating in decision making when scaffolded to do so within a safe environment.

The progress made in kaiako practice was an outcome of active support from the senior leadership team, (Principal / Deputy Principal) and the provision of a robust coaching and mentoring programme. The team were reminded of the iterative nature of inquiry. There is never a fixed end point, and new questions and challenges will always arise.

Inquiry Team

Justin Hickey and Rachel Howard led this project. The team also included Tracy Te Hēmi, Verity Blakemore, Eleanor Barton, Amy Thompson, and Shevaun Karipa (DP).

Carol Butel (University of Canterbury) and Dr Louise Taylor (Extend Education) provided external expertise.

For further information

If you would like to learn more about this project, please contact the project leaders, Justin Hickey, at justin.h@opawa.school.nz and Rachel Howard, at rach@opawa.school.nz or Principal, Sally Ormandy sally@opawa.school.nz

Reference List

Bolstad, R. (2011). From ‘student voice’ to youth-adult’ partnerships. He Whakaaro Anō. Set 1. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.

Cammarota, J., & Fine, M. (2008). Revolutionizing education: Youth participatory action, research in motion. New York: Routledge.

Education Gazette editors. (2016). A seat at the table: Student voice in action, Education Gazette 95(19).

Education Gazette editors. (2018). Students link emotional wellbeing to learning, Education Gazette 97(16).

Emdin, C. (2016) For white folks who teach in the hood … and the rest of y’all too: Reality pedagogy and urban education. Boston: Beacon Press.

Hart, R. A. (1992). Children’s participation. From tokenism to citizenship. Florence, Italy: UNICEF International Child Development Centre.

Office of the Children’s Commissioner. Children’s convention - the basics. Wellington: Author.

Roberts, J. & Bolstad, R. (2010). Better than a professional? Students as co-contributors to educational design. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.

Toshalis, E., & Nakkula, M. J. (2012). Motivation, engagement, and student voice. The Students at the Center Series. Retrieved from: https://studentsatthecenterhub.org/