Trust Building and Collaboration

19 Pages·2016·2.04 MB·English

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