Trust Building and Collaboration PDF
Preview Trust Building and Collaboration
28/06/2016 Trust Building and Collaboration Purpose of session • Make links with morning session • Provide an overview of the process of improvement for schools or CoLs. • Outline the theory and practice about building trust. • Provide some research based material about what works (in terms of improving outcomes for students). • Provide some tools that may help you. 1 28/06/2016 The Morning –‘what are the takeaways’ • No hands up What I have learnt? So what for me now? How can I use some of what I have learnt today to support more effective networked learning in my area? An overview of the process of improvement for schools or CoLs 2 28/06/2016 Process - Spiral of inquiry, learning and action What is our focus? What will we do differently? (Timperley, Kaser& Halbert, 2014) Problem – 2012 PISA Maths Literacy Country Rankings of Within-School SES Inequality 40 35 30 25 20 SES Indirect 15 SES Direct 10 5 0 JapanHungarySloveniaMexicoItalyNetherlandsTurkeyCzech RepublicKoreaGermanyChileBelgiumUnited KingdomAustriaAustraliaUnited StatesOECD AverageCanadaLuxembourgSpainEstoniaIrelandIsraelGreecePortugalFranceSlovak RepublicNew ZealandSwitzerlandFinlandIcelandDenmarkPolandSweden Copyright 2013 Michigan State University 3 28/06/2016 CoLs– what is the goal? • Relationships and collaboration are not the goal. • Nor is the establishment of adult career paths or development of leadership. • They are enablers to improve the outcomes for all students regardless of the SES or background factors of students. ©Auckland UniServices Ltd. 2015 Getting dizzy on the cycle…… Cassandra Jones, AP, St Anne’s, Albury, WaggaWaggaDiocese 4 28/06/2016 Conditions which enable CoLs to be effective • Clear problem identification leading to collective achievement challenge. • Clear goal focus –‘not all foci are equally worthwhile’ • High levels of trust within and between schools...which enable • High levels of challenge • Depth and breadth of formal and informal leadership • Strong systems and processes • Knowledge, skill and persistence in applying inquiry cycle • Strong adherence to evidence –what works, how do we know? • Embedding best practices as ‘standard practice’ • Holding all to account to those agreed practices • Engaging families and communities • Use of external expertise ©Auckland UniServices Ltd. 2015 Ticking the boxes? • How many of these boxes do you think your CoLtick? • What do you think youand your CoLneed to prioritise as part of your theory for improvement. • What other conditions for success seem apparent to you? 5 28/06/2016 Trust building – the theory and practice How trust develops Consequences of High Relational Trust Determinantsof Relational Trust for teachers for students… and schools… Interpersonal Positive attitude to Improving respect innovation and risk academic outcomes in high trust schools Personal regard More for others Relational outreach to parents Trust Higher likelihood Enhanced Competence in role of positive commitment social outcomes Enhanced (Robinson, 2011, adapted Personal integrity professional community from Bryk& Schneider, 2002) ©Auckland UniServices Ltd, 2013. 6 28/06/2016 Ticking the boxes? • How do you react to that model? Is it useful to have four determinants in mind? • Do you tick the four boxes? Typical Approach • You have a concern. In your view the CoLis moving too slowly and is being dominated by a few very assertive people. The meetings are not chaired decisively –meetings drift. • This has been going on for a few months now and you are increasingly unhappy at the lack of focus and progress. • You get an opportunity to talk to the person tasked with leading the CoL. 7 28/06/2016 Typical Approaches • Oblique – afraid to say something as it is (but respectfully). No one really knows what it is you are trying to say –so there is no impact. Well, I’m just a bit concerned. I am not sure we all share the same values and I wonder if we need to talk a bit more about how we are progressing as a group. ©Auckland UniServices Ltd. 2015 Typical Approaches • Combative, hard-hitting and rude I’ve had enough of the way this group is going – there is no chairing of it– it is a free-for-all where one or two grab all the air time and the rest of us cannot get a word in edgeways. As a result, the blind are leading the blind and we are going nowhere. ©Auckland UniServices Ltd. 2015 8 28/06/2016 Typical Approaches • Use of leading questions to persuade someone or bring them around to your way of thinking. How do you think the meetings are going? Are you happy with the balance of contributions? Do you think one or two people might be dominating? How do you think we could improve things? How can I help you? ©Auckland UniServices Ltd. 2015 Typical Approaches • Use of sandwiching techniques Hi Jo. I just thought I’d let you know what a great job you are doing of getting us altogether on a regular basis. Well done. I’m wondering though, do you think we are really making progress and everyone is having a fair say? I’m sure this group is going to be a great success. Well done. ©Auckland UniServices Ltd. 2015 9 28/06/2016 Which behaviours do you use? Expressing concerns while building trust ©Auckland UniServices Ltd. 2015 10
Description:The list of books you might like
