Wanna know how my literature review is going for my MEd project? Not well. Part of the problem is that I’m struggling to find resources directly applicable to my project, especially in terms of a BC context. But the other problem is that there is just too much out there to read and I am easily distracted. I have probably read more of the Ministry of Education documents concerning the “new” curriculum than many teachers. This is likely because they are relatively dry to read for enjoyment but also because, when the new curriculum came out, we were undersold it.
Curriculum implementation was given three in service days, I believe. It may have been two. They were not all done at the same time, I remember that. And they were led by district staff who were not in classrooms. To ease our worry, we were told, “It’s what you’re already doing”. And I think that statement alone made me complacent. There was no need to do anything differently, though this curriculum marked a significant pedagogical shift that was never allowed to flourish. Now, ten years later, I’m finally seeing the intent behind it and wishing someone had told me to get excited and prepare to change the way I think.
As I’ve started diving into the world of Change Theory, I have some thoughts on what might have gone wrong with curriculum implementation in BC. At least with how I interpreted it.
The redesigned curriculum was developed to help usher students into 21st century learning. That alone should have created both a sense of urgency and a moral purpose- we were changing lives after all. But, our belief that we were already doing most of the facets of the new curriculum already likely diminished our moral purpose. And being reminded that there are no curriculum police would have reduced our sense of urgency. Instead of using the concepts of Fullan and Kotter, we fell back on to good old Newton, and we stayed at rest.
Instead of focusing on the difference between Fullan and Kotter, I want to instead, focus on what they have in common. Both believe collaboration plays an important role in making lasting changes. While I have no doubt that collaboration existed between the government, unions, districts, and other stakeholders, I do think collaboration was lost during implementation. At least between the people who had boots on the ground and those who made implementation decisions. My school used the new curriculum right from the start but I don’t remember being asked for feedback on it beyond a survey. And I clearly remember the in-service days as presentation style. I won’t speak to leadership because I’m not sure whose I would be commenting on. I didn’t have access to leadership at the provincial level, I’m confident the leadership at the district level shared what they knew at the time, and I fully believe that my principal supported us as best he could in the circumstances we all found ourselves.
Looking at change as a process and ongoing efforts is where I think we went wrong. Without ascribing to the pedagogical shift of the redesigned curriculum, we did not need to see change as a process. By doing what we were already doing, no change was required. Instead, we had growing pains around assessment practices for the core competencies, new reporting criteria, and individual inquiries into the new curriculum. Our ongoing efforts were limited to sharing information instead of collaboratively building our understanding of the new curriculum. In short, I think we missed the most important part. Understanding that there needed to be a pedagogical shift to competency-based education (standards-based really) would have made all other aspects of change theory, from either Fullan or Kotter, a necessity.
So I guess I’m at a place now where I either give up and continue doing what I’ve always done, or find a way to share what I’ve discovered. Be the change and all that. “Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.” – Maya Angelou (attributed). When I began my journey with the “new” curriculum, I was doing my best. I was a new- to-elementary teacher and I was doing the best I could. Now that I’ve had some time, space, and encouragement to learn more about my own pedagogical practices in my learning journey, I know better. So how do I take what I know to be better (not best) practice and encourage others to do the same?
Most of my learning about this has fallen in line with Fullan’s point #4: learning in context. As I show teachers how to use SpacesEDU, I believe they will naturally come to the same conclusions that I have. All the conversations we have about skills vs competencies will be moot once we all have a shared language and understanding. Competencies = what students should be able to do (skills). Content = what students should know. Big ideas = what students are expected to understand. Core Competencies = intellectual, personal, and social and emotional proficiencies that all students need in order to engage in deep, lifelong learning (more skills, really). Because Spaces requires teachers to tag competencies (and content, big ideas, and even core competencies) they become very familiar very fast and the natural way to assess.
As I consider how to introduce my project to my peers, I am naturally aligning with Kotter’s principles of building a vision and strategy, as well as effectively communicating that vision—both of which will be key components of my project. The true impact of my project—and the new curriculum—will depend on how effectively my peers engage with these ideas. That’s where the real transformation happens. To support this, I will need to focus on the collaborative elements that both Kotter and Fullan emphasize. This is the most exciting part for me as building capacity through collaboration and a guiding coalition is one of the most inspiring things that can be done as an educator. This year, I was able to create a group of teachers to pilot Spaces in our district, but as they were all new teachers (district suggestion, not mine) it was difficult to really engage them for such a project. The first year of teaching has so many challenges and new tech (and a pilot program) shouldn’t be one of them. Our online school started using Spaces in the elementary cohort and several teachers in my building have been using it too so that’s the base on which I will build next year.
Fullan also believes that we need to have a coherent system that aligns across all levels. This is the idea that I’m having a difficult time wrapping my head around, mostly because I have no control over the other levels. I firmly believe that many teachers will embrace competency or standards-based instruction and assessment as intended by the curriculum when they have a tool (SpacesEDU) to help them manage this pedagogy. This aligns beautifully with both the curriculum and the new reporting order so I feel it can be supported from the top and the bottom levels. The middle level is where the issue is because this is where ideology meets policy. How can I gain district support to establish the multi-level alignment needed as a foundation for meaningful change?
This is where Kotter comes back in: Remove barriers, empower action. Though Fullan suggests that collaboration is more important than top down initiatives, I’ve found that support from the right people is a significant factor in success of any educational initiative. Although Spaces could significantly streamline my reporting—since it’s an ongoing process—my current reality is that many aspects of my job are being duplicated. Parents already have full access to the activities I assess, along with a breakdown of how each tagged competency was evaluated, yet, I’m still required to complete the same lengthy anecdotal report cards as every other teacher. I just finished the last set this week, adding 15.5 extra hours to my workload. Only with district support could this system be changed.
Additionally, I see other barriers that need to be addressed, including the feasibility of flexibility within the system, parent support, clear communication of expectations, time for professional development, the technology and infrastructure needed for Spaces, and alignment with district assessments. I have put a lot of thought and structures in place to counter these barriers but would require district support to implement them. I believe this support would empower teachers to try new things and raise the bar on what best practice looks like.
I wish my project was a sure thing. But like most efforts that drive meaningful change in education, it’s something I’m willing to support and refine—until I find an approach that’s even better or more effective.
Fullan, M. (2020). Leading in a culture of change (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass
Fullan, M. (2008). The six secrets of change: What the best leaders do to help their organizations survive and thrive. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kotter, J. P. (n.d.). Kotter on change. St. Oswald’s Maybole. https://stoswaldsmaybole.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/2011/05/Kotter-on-change.pdf
Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading change. Harvard Business Review Press.
Leave a Reply