feedback, feedforward, Feedup, feeddown lester.flockton@otago.ac.nz
It is simplistic nonsense to think or suggest that within an education leadership context, positivism equates with “good”, “progressive”, “productive” or “forward thinking”, while negativism equates with “bad”, “backward looking”, or “unproductive”. Sure, in personality psychology, some so-called positive people do tend to have a shiny, optimistic and uncritical disposition, while some negatively skewed people can be over burdened by doom and gloom. But here we are not talking about personality. We are talking about professional minds. Discerning leaders recognise that positivism and negativism co-exist in much the same way as yin and yang, particularly those leaders who are genuinely committed to high order professional integrity in their leadership. They recognise that there are policies, programmes, and promotions that should rightfully withstand rigorous scrutiny and critique before they are willingly admitted to professional practice and belief (which is not negativism), just as there are policies that are readily acceptable because they are widely known to be well grounded in proven success and have genuine benefits for teaching and learning (which is not positivism). This particular column of School Lines was prompted after reading an editor's piece in a widely distributed weekly education publication. The editor noted that a principal, while commending the publication, urged less “negative” and more “positive” articles. The editor responded by saying that articles that critically examine policies and issues would continue. Two things struck me about this. First, I read this particular publication reasonably often and it has very few articles of any length or depth. Indeed, the critiques tend to be relatively mild on the scale of things. Second, the articles that the aforesaid principal presumably judge “negative” would very typically be critiques of current policies, programmes and promotions that are more often than not stamped “government”. Herein lies the professional calamity: critique is deemed negativity, which is a kind of thinking akin to flat earth postulation. Government and its agencies, like any others in a democratic society, are perfectly entitled to dream up, drum up, knit and spin their ideas about what should be done, why it should be done, and how it should be done. But for leaders to simply accept such stuff at face value, to have blind faith, or to rush to flutter the school's flag on the mast of the bandwagon, is to greatly dishonour the true essence of professionalism. After all, professionalism is about altruism (the practice of doing our best for others), competence (doing the job well), and autonomy of mind (forming and exercising our own judgments about what is put before us). So how well do we exercise our judgments, and how much
strength do they have? Sound judgments on serious matters can seldom be reached in an instant. They require skills of critical thinking, or “critical literacy”. Simply put, critical literacy involves the analysis and critique of the relationships among texts, language, power, social groups and social practices ■■ Shows us ways to see, question and challenge the attitudes, values and beliefs that lie beneath the surface of written, visual, spoken, multimedia and performance texts http://www.education.tas.gov.au/english/critlit.htm ■■
Too many principals and teachers, however, are vulnerable to the positivist ideologies that perpetuate a naive faith in the “promises” of policies, programmes and promotions that are put before them. It seems that most have little exposure to opportunities for critically exploring the implications of what
they might be asked or told to do, let alone the resources and know-how to do this. How much time, for example, is set aside at staff meetings for open and informed critical analysis and debate around programmes or approaches before the school decides to follow them, whether or not in the prescribed form? How much importance is given to developing a professional culture where this can happen without fear of sanction? Are skills of critical thinking and analysis learned and practised as part of professional development? Is professional authority distributed and shared or is it assumed and imposed by a few? These are important questions that every leader who subscribes to high order professionalism is obliged to tackle. Critical literacy is profoundly important in a nation state that professes democracy. Indeed, it is enshrined in The New Zealand Curriculum key competency of “thinking”. It would be sadly ironic therefore, for a school's leadership to deny itself and its colleagues ample opportunities for the exercising of critique within its own professional community, while expecting those same people to support students to develop the competency! If leaders and teachers don't do it, then how can we expect students to do it with confidence? We have come to expect politicians and those responsible for promoting and activating their policies to assign the dismissive label of “negativism” to those who might question or challenge what they conjure up. Yet there is a paradox here. Sometimes the so-called “negativisms” give rise to “positivism”. A case in point: the design and flimsy justification for “Investing in Educational
cs i s o a t B k c Ba
Success”. The insistent professional critique of this policy within the Primary sector led by sector leadership resulted in a distinctly positive outcome: its dismissal. Hurrah! It is possible for sense and sensibility to prevail. Education in a democracy relies on talented lead educators who are true to the principles of a profession. While we know that leaders are too often shaped and professionally weakened by the contexts in which they work, a serious disservice is nonetheless done to by those who are unwilling to admit to the legitimacy and importance of critical analysis and professional resolve. Professional resolve is misrepresented when the insights and learning derived from critical literacy are dismissed as negativism.
Engaging and interesting texts in a variety of genres TM
Questions divided between literal, interpretive and applied comprehension
Top tips to reinforce strategies
The Back to Basics series provides students with the opportunity to practise and consolidate the skills needed to achieve mastery in Literacy and Maths skills for Level 2, 3 and 4.
20 titles available at RRP $9.95
Sample pages from Back To Basics Comprehension and Vocabulary Year 3
Written for the New Zealand curriculum!
Glossary to explain tricky words
Contact Luigia Karim for a FREE no obligation inspection copy Pascal Press NZ Sales Representative Luigia.Karim@pascalpress.com.au