Global city, global learning
Endpiece
Jason Morrow encounters the French Minister of Education in Manhattan The variety of approaches to school and opportunities to exchange ideas and experiences with educationalists, school leaders and teachers from around the world, continues to be one of the most exciting aspects of working in New York. In many ways we have been even more mindful of such opportunities over the past eighteen months as the school has designed the curriculum and wider learning opportunities for students in our newly opened Upper School. The eagerness and flexibility of other sporting, cultural and research organizations in the city to collaborate and develop partnerships adds to the overall experience for students, and will become even more critical as our pioneer classes move towards graduation, university applications and careers. I was fortunate to be able to attend a symposium recently exploring Franco-American approaches to education and what it means to offer a globally-minded education for students. The challenge for democracies of having citizens sufficiently informed, aware and intellectually confident to deal with the volume of information, misinformation and disinformation now found in the public sphere was a recurring theme in the discussions. The French Minister of Education spoke of wanting to have each classroom and school operate as a mini republic in which students could experience the value of debate, responsibility and respectful dissent. That is clearly an area on which most good schools have been working for a long time through student voice or leadership and responsibility posts. We have also ventured more into student participation in some aspects of curriculum review and development. There are currently three working groups composed of teachers and students reviewing our approach to the integration of technology into learning, financial literacy for students and making the most of home learning opportunities to support work in class. The students involved have undoubtedly helped to sharpen the focus in each of these groups on what we are trying to achieve in terms of outcomes, as well as forcing a rethink about some of the assumptions we held as teachers. It can be time-consuming and occasionally awkward to build in meaningful opportunities for this type of discussion and reflection, but there are many real positives to doing so, both in terms of refining current practice and in giving students a chance to be involved in helping to change and improve their experience of school. Whilst advocating the importance of nurturing civic values and student agency, I was a little surprised that the French Education Minister was also happy to celebrate his decision to ban the use of mobile phones from all classroom settings across France. Whatever the arguments for and against the policy, it doesn’t seem consistent with wishing to engage students in
taking responsibility for decisions or practice in their school and classroom. That tension between the desire to impose or drive a policy or approach from the centre or from government, and recognizing the benefits and value of allowing for greater autonomy or independence in schools is not new, but it has fresh urgency as a debate and potential threat for independent schools in New York. The phrase ‘substantial equivalence’ had popped up at a number of meetings and in updates from the state association of independent schools over the past year as a potential cloud on the horizon, but the hope was that it would not develop into a storm. The expectation underpinning ‘substantial equivalence’ is that all students in the state of New York should be receiving at least the equivalent of a New York public school level of education regardless of the type of school they attend. On one level that seems to be a perfectly reasonable expectation. The problem is how the current state Education Commissioner has decided to translate this into active monitoring and oversight of every school across New York. Local Superintendents of Education and School Boards, who have previously had very little (arguably too little) engagement with independent and non-public schools, have suddenly been authorized to conduct compliance visits in schools to determine if they meet the ‘substantial equivalence’ test. Many of these already overstretched and under-resourced Boards have also expressed their concerns over the viability of such an approach, and there is precious little consensus about what exactly constitutes ‘substantial equivalence’ and what the consequences of noncompliance might be. It is still not at all clear what the Education Commissioner is ultimately hoping to achieve with this very stark extension of control over independent and non-public schools, but the speed of movement is dizzying as many schools received emails on the evening of Friday 22nd March seeking to schedule evaluation visits for the first week of April. Inevitably in the US, redress is already being sought via the courts, with schools seeking an injunction to prevent visits and a full hearing to challenge whether or not the Commissioner even has the authority for such a course of action. Some school associations have simply refused to give access to their buildings or to co-operate with the process, as they see this as such a threat to their independence or their freedom to provide a specific religious education. Perhaps rather optimistically, I am hoping for an outbreak of common sense that might pave the way for more partnerships, collaboration and shared good practice between public (in US terms) and independent schools. I fear that an acrimonious court case and potential spill over into politics will make that even harder to accomplish. The uncertainty is
Summer 2019
61
