King Henry V:
The Manager
|
Welcome to the review meeting on the siege of Harfleur
The problem is that this was meant to be delivered in 7 days and here we are on day 91 and no progress has been made. The board of directors are on my case because of the unacceptable over run. Overtime has spiralled out of control not to mention the additional costs of health insurance brought about by the additional fighting.
Forecasts from Westmoreland suggest the cost of the overrun might be greater than the cock up at Ye Olde RBS.
Now, as you know, we have a no blame culture here but can you explain why we are still parked outside this town 84 days after we should be inside putting our feet up. I want a report on my desk by Monday as to why your department has not been able to assist us in reaching a satisfactory outcome.
I would also like you to come up with a revised strategy for successfully completing this siege. This strategy should be accurately costed and include financial penalties for late delivery.. Our engineers estimate that we can get up to 10 men at a time through the gap. Our risk managers estimate the kill rate for the earlier waves of 30% but as the bodies close the gap the kill rate will go up to 65%. I think it will be worth it for those who survive. May I remind you that we are English and as such take Health and Safety much more seriously than our continental neighbours
Finally this is your last chance to prove yourself as I have Swiss Mercenary PLC who claim they can do the job faster and cheaper.
|
Tuesday, 1 May 2012
What if Henry V had been a manager?
When doing NPQH I remember the question is there a difference between leadership and management? There is a speech in Shakespere's Henry V that is quoted time and again when identifying inspirational leadership. Henry's speech at the siege of Harfleur. But what if Henry had not been inpsirational? What if he had been a corporate suit?
We Are Not That Different
Have you ever noticed how people are willing to criticise? No! Don't believe you. It is human nature. What we do. So much easier than praising people. Why do we do it?
We do it because we are basically the same, human behaviour never changes, the view of it changes, but the behaviours themselves do not. Behaviours are viewed differently in different situations, because of the social status of the persons or person enacting them or perhaps because of the percieved power position of those people.
Lets get one thing clear, I am not a behavioural psychologist, nor an anthropologist I am an observer of people both as individuals and in groups. For over 25 years I have had the pleasure to work with people from all walks of life, different educational experiences, different socio economic, cultural and international backgrounds. From these experiences I would make a simple observation, we are not that different.
What do I mean? A statement made on Radio 5 a few months ago astounded me, the comment made was that 'the more money you earn the more choice you have about how much tax you pay' this was not new information but it was how seemingly ordinary this notion was. People can choose how much tax they pay and that's okay. I wonder if the person had made the statement 'the less money you earn the more choice you have in the amount of tax payers money you receive'.
We know that many wealthy people avoid paying tax, we also know many people claim more benefit than they are entitled to or make decisions that tax payers end up paying for. Essentially these groups are behaving in exactly the same way. They have placed their own needs above everything else, the concept of fair share does not enter the equation. They will celebrate their feats in cheating and be celebrated by those in their group, others will learn from them and repeat the exercise and some will even earn a living teaching others how to do it. One more thing you can be assured of is that one group will criticise the other for the way they behave! Before the rest of us feel too smug about not being in either group, how many times have you driven through a built up area ignoring the 30 mph speed limit?
'The Old School Tie' is a well used phrase and is often used to criticise wealthier people who help each other along the way. There is no doubt that certain people in a certain group learn things and get support from being part of a that group. Is it any different though from how other people act? Recently I was able to secure my son a summer working in Switzerland through family contacts, I have been able to secure him a work placement in an area he would eventually like to work because of the people I know. I have used my network to help him. People work and live in networks. For some the one they know is the benefits network, they are surrounded by people who are trying to live and they are learning from those people in the same way as a young person growing up in the surroundings of a private school is learning to live from the people they are surrounded by. The behaviours are not different but the same behaviours are valued in some groups and not in others.
What groups do is they help format the young, they instill values, ethics, language, attitudes and so much more. They can also ingrain prejudice, engender intolerance and instill a negative or selfish view of the world. The behaviours of individuals within the groups and the collective itself are basically the same and very often a small group for example a gang, a sports team or a school can reflect all the human behaviours of society in a small observable context.
So we take our behaviours into groups and as a result the value placed on our behaviours by others change. The behaviour of the Bullington Club members is high jinks, the behaviour of young people drinking in the park is vandalism and the sign of a community in meltdown. What value judgements do is make the same set of behaviours for one group desirable and those same behaviours for another group the very opposite, open to criticism and complaint.
This current government have brought class back into the political and social debate and with it a judgement of certain behaviours and actions being superior to those of another social class when in actual fact they are generally the same just displayed in different social setting. I remember a radio interview, just after David Cameron became PM, by a contemporary of his at Oxford. In the interview she suggested that he would make a good Prime Minister because he was well bred, whatever this meant I interpret it to mean that the behaviours displayed by him are somehow superior.
The message for us all is look at ourselves before we judge others because we may be doing exactly the same thing. Try to understand and help change negative behaviours wherever they are witnessed but, more importantly, as educators we have to be very aware of what we model for our students. There is always the danger we are saying one thing but modelling exactly the opposite, more importantly displaying exactly the same behaviours we are challenging. As Oscar Wilde said 'talent borrows, genius steals'
We do it because we are basically the same, human behaviour never changes, the view of it changes, but the behaviours themselves do not. Behaviours are viewed differently in different situations, because of the social status of the persons or person enacting them or perhaps because of the percieved power position of those people.
Lets get one thing clear, I am not a behavioural psychologist, nor an anthropologist I am an observer of people both as individuals and in groups. For over 25 years I have had the pleasure to work with people from all walks of life, different educational experiences, different socio economic, cultural and international backgrounds. From these experiences I would make a simple observation, we are not that different.
What do I mean? A statement made on Radio 5 a few months ago astounded me, the comment made was that 'the more money you earn the more choice you have about how much tax you pay' this was not new information but it was how seemingly ordinary this notion was. People can choose how much tax they pay and that's okay. I wonder if the person had made the statement 'the less money you earn the more choice you have in the amount of tax payers money you receive'.
We know that many wealthy people avoid paying tax, we also know many people claim more benefit than they are entitled to or make decisions that tax payers end up paying for. Essentially these groups are behaving in exactly the same way. They have placed their own needs above everything else, the concept of fair share does not enter the equation. They will celebrate their feats in cheating and be celebrated by those in their group, others will learn from them and repeat the exercise and some will even earn a living teaching others how to do it. One more thing you can be assured of is that one group will criticise the other for the way they behave! Before the rest of us feel too smug about not being in either group, how many times have you driven through a built up area ignoring the 30 mph speed limit?
'The Old School Tie' is a well used phrase and is often used to criticise wealthier people who help each other along the way. There is no doubt that certain people in a certain group learn things and get support from being part of a that group. Is it any different though from how other people act? Recently I was able to secure my son a summer working in Switzerland through family contacts, I have been able to secure him a work placement in an area he would eventually like to work because of the people I know. I have used my network to help him. People work and live in networks. For some the one they know is the benefits network, they are surrounded by people who are trying to live and they are learning from those people in the same way as a young person growing up in the surroundings of a private school is learning to live from the people they are surrounded by. The behaviours are not different but the same behaviours are valued in some groups and not in others.
What groups do is they help format the young, they instill values, ethics, language, attitudes and so much more. They can also ingrain prejudice, engender intolerance and instill a negative or selfish view of the world. The behaviours of individuals within the groups and the collective itself are basically the same and very often a small group for example a gang, a sports team or a school can reflect all the human behaviours of society in a small observable context.
So we take our behaviours into groups and as a result the value placed on our behaviours by others change. The behaviour of the Bullington Club members is high jinks, the behaviour of young people drinking in the park is vandalism and the sign of a community in meltdown. What value judgements do is make the same set of behaviours for one group desirable and those same behaviours for another group the very opposite, open to criticism and complaint.
This current government have brought class back into the political and social debate and with it a judgement of certain behaviours and actions being superior to those of another social class when in actual fact they are generally the same just displayed in different social setting. I remember a radio interview, just after David Cameron became PM, by a contemporary of his at Oxford. In the interview she suggested that he would make a good Prime Minister because he was well bred, whatever this meant I interpret it to mean that the behaviours displayed by him are somehow superior.
The message for us all is look at ourselves before we judge others because we may be doing exactly the same thing. Try to understand and help change negative behaviours wherever they are witnessed but, more importantly, as educators we have to be very aware of what we model for our students. There is always the danger we are saying one thing but modelling exactly the opposite, more importantly displaying exactly the same behaviours we are challenging. As Oscar Wilde said 'talent borrows, genius steals'
Monday, 26 March 2012
Finn Design. The Future Of Learning?
Recently, whilst searching the internet, I discovered an organisation called CELE (Centre for Effective Learning Environments) an organisation supported by the OECD. CELE was organising a conference in Finland on creative learning.The Finns are justifiably very proud of their international reputation for education, consistently performing at the top of the equally highly regarded PISA tests. I decided to take myself there and see for myself what the future design of Finnish education might be and what lessons I could learn for my own educational thinking.
So what have I learnt from my visit? Firstly, if you have never visited the country I suggest you do, the Finns are a very welcoming race and the country is unlike anywhere I have previously visited with its frozen lakes, snowy forests and the beautiful world heritage site at Raumu.
Educationally what have I learnt? For a start to compare the Finnish system with that of England and Wales is like comparing apples with pears. Why? The Finnish government take a long term view of education and there is a consistent role for the Finnish National Board of Education (FNBE) the majority of whom are ex teachers and university professors working in the field of education or indeed secondments from these sectors. Secondly state education is highly regarded and all children attend their local school. They start at the age of 7 and at 16 choose either to remain in senior high school or to take a vocational route both of which have university as an ultimate destination. The close cooperation, trust and understanding between the Political Elite and the Education Profession is something we in this country can only dream off.
However this post is not about Finnish Education per say but rather the direction a country at the top of the international comparison tables is taking to ensure they prepare their youth for a future world. Unsurprisingly, to those of us who believe that creativity, problem solving, selecting and synthesising knowledge, digital literacy as well as life long learning are key skills and attributes for the twenty first century the Finns want to make their curriculum more creative.They want to know how to develop a more creative curriculum and develop independence in learning whilst maintaining the high standards of literacy and numeracy which have led to world wide acclaim.
A pause for thought here, in ten years time we will have students in school the majority of whom are likely to see the beginning of the 22nd century. We need to create a system for learning that reflects the rapidly changing society these young people will become citizens in. We have to understand globalisation and internationalism, the importance of a digital economy, the place of sustainable leadership and understand the potential for democracy through social networking. For the first time we have the opportunity to break down the social and economic barriers that divide us, to challenge the existing networks that create advantage for a few at the expense of the many. The world has changed now is the time for a new vision in education.
What this conference highlighted for me was that all over the world we agree that creativity in learning is paramount but that nobody really understands how to achieve this goal. Hence we are stuck in the same cycle of chronological progression, chronological testing and these dictating what a learning experience looks like for a young learner. Nobody seems to believe this is right but is there anybody ready to take the first steps. Equally the teaching profession is the same the world over, conservative with a small c, teachers do not like change, instead they prefer to retreat into the security of their subject knowledge rather than bask in the wide open expanses of learning. This and the fact that governments quake at the thought of something they cannot test having high value means we are stuck in a traditional instruct and practice model.
So how does it shape my thinking? Firstly it reinforces for me that the journey we have embarked upon to develop a more dynamic curriculum model is the right one and although at times very uncomfortable it is worth pursuing. Secondly, it is okay to make mistakes. People will argue we are playing with students lives, I would argue that we have no choice if we are to equip them for the challenges the future will thrust upon them and do that today. The Finns know they have to change what they do and how they do it. At some point they have to step into that world and experiment with ideas and strategies to get what they need. When a 15 year old Finnish school boy stood infront of an international audience and proclaimed that he did not need a teacher to fill his head with facts rather help him to make sense of it all, I think I saw a glimpse of our future. Teaching has to move from an instruct pedagogy to a coaching one, teachers have to understand personal development. The curriculum requires less content instead place the focus on skills and attributes to allow students make sense of their world. Learning needs to celebrate diversity instilling an entrepreneurial spirit in our students. To help them make more sense of the world we need less conservatism in the profession and more risk taking, it is time to push the frontier of innovation and listen to those who make us feel a little uncomfortable.
.
So what have I learnt from my visit? Firstly, if you have never visited the country I suggest you do, the Finns are a very welcoming race and the country is unlike anywhere I have previously visited with its frozen lakes, snowy forests and the beautiful world heritage site at Raumu.
Educationally what have I learnt? For a start to compare the Finnish system with that of England and Wales is like comparing apples with pears. Why? The Finnish government take a long term view of education and there is a consistent role for the Finnish National Board of Education (FNBE) the majority of whom are ex teachers and university professors working in the field of education or indeed secondments from these sectors. Secondly state education is highly regarded and all children attend their local school. They start at the age of 7 and at 16 choose either to remain in senior high school or to take a vocational route both of which have university as an ultimate destination. The close cooperation, trust and understanding between the Political Elite and the Education Profession is something we in this country can only dream off.
However this post is not about Finnish Education per say but rather the direction a country at the top of the international comparison tables is taking to ensure they prepare their youth for a future world. Unsurprisingly, to those of us who believe that creativity, problem solving, selecting and synthesising knowledge, digital literacy as well as life long learning are key skills and attributes for the twenty first century the Finns want to make their curriculum more creative.They want to know how to develop a more creative curriculum and develop independence in learning whilst maintaining the high standards of literacy and numeracy which have led to world wide acclaim.
A pause for thought here, in ten years time we will have students in school the majority of whom are likely to see the beginning of the 22nd century. We need to create a system for learning that reflects the rapidly changing society these young people will become citizens in. We have to understand globalisation and internationalism, the importance of a digital economy, the place of sustainable leadership and understand the potential for democracy through social networking. For the first time we have the opportunity to break down the social and economic barriers that divide us, to challenge the existing networks that create advantage for a few at the expense of the many. The world has changed now is the time for a new vision in education.
What this conference highlighted for me was that all over the world we agree that creativity in learning is paramount but that nobody really understands how to achieve this goal. Hence we are stuck in the same cycle of chronological progression, chronological testing and these dictating what a learning experience looks like for a young learner. Nobody seems to believe this is right but is there anybody ready to take the first steps. Equally the teaching profession is the same the world over, conservative with a small c, teachers do not like change, instead they prefer to retreat into the security of their subject knowledge rather than bask in the wide open expanses of learning. This and the fact that governments quake at the thought of something they cannot test having high value means we are stuck in a traditional instruct and practice model.
So how does it shape my thinking? Firstly it reinforces for me that the journey we have embarked upon to develop a more dynamic curriculum model is the right one and although at times very uncomfortable it is worth pursuing. Secondly, it is okay to make mistakes. People will argue we are playing with students lives, I would argue that we have no choice if we are to equip them for the challenges the future will thrust upon them and do that today. The Finns know they have to change what they do and how they do it. At some point they have to step into that world and experiment with ideas and strategies to get what they need. When a 15 year old Finnish school boy stood infront of an international audience and proclaimed that he did not need a teacher to fill his head with facts rather help him to make sense of it all, I think I saw a glimpse of our future. Teaching has to move from an instruct pedagogy to a coaching one, teachers have to understand personal development. The curriculum requires less content instead place the focus on skills and attributes to allow students make sense of their world. Learning needs to celebrate diversity instilling an entrepreneurial spirit in our students. To help them make more sense of the world we need less conservatism in the profession and more risk taking, it is time to push the frontier of innovation and listen to those who make us feel a little uncomfortable.
.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)