Reimagining Learning Final Reportweb.education.unimelb.edu.au/yrc/linked_documents/Reimagining Le… · findings, the Reimagining Learning research project seeks to gauge the overall

Reimagining Learning

For The Foundation for Young Australians

Helen Stokes and Malcolm Turnbull

Australian Youth Research Centre,

Melbourne School of Graduate Education, University of Melbourne

Email: [email protected]

Final Report: January 2009

Stokes, H and Turnbull, M. Reimagining Learning

2

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the students, teachers and school leaders, who gave their time to be interviewed for this project, in particular representatives of three case study schools, Wedderburn College, Cranbourne Secondary College and Hume Central Secondary College.

Thanks are due also to:

Staff and students interviewed or surveyed during the AYRC’s 2008 Evaluation of individual FYA Programs: including representatives of Bendigo Senior Secondary College, Bentleigh Secondary College, College, Dandenong Primary School, Eaglehawk Secondary College, Elwood College, Enfield High School, Fawkner Secondary College, Gagebrook Primary School, Korumburra High School, Loganlea State High School, Northcote High School, the Raleigh School, Redcliffe High School, Reservoir District Secondary College, South Fremantle Senior High School and Thornbury High School;

The Foundation for Young Australians staff, in particular Ros Black, Verina Faraday, Jane Fishburn, Josh Levy, Kath McCann, Kylie McGowan and Narelle Moloney and;

Rhonda Christopher at the AYRC for her feedback on the draft report.


3

Contents

Acknowledgments 2 Contents 3 Executive Summary 4 Introduction 9

Research context 9 Background to the project 10 FYA programs 10

Research Design 15 Literature Review 18

Combating Disengagement and Disadvantage 18 Educational Achievement and SES 18 Early School Leaving and Socioeconomic Disadvantage 20 Disengagement in the Middle Years 21 Curriculum and Pedagogy 22 Curriculum Responses 23

The Case Study Schools 25 Hume Central Secondary College 25 Cranbourne Secondary College 27 Wedderburn College 30

Program Outcomes 34 1. Student Engagement and Learning 35 2. Addressing Socioeconomic Disadvantage 42 3. Impact on Teaching 49 4. Facilitators and Barriers to Successful Participation 53

Conclusion 63 Recommendations 69 References 71


4

Executive Summary Context

In its commitment to ensuring educational equity and excellence within the public school system, The Foundation for Young Australians (FYA) has sought to address the complex learning needs of secondary students defined as “disadvantaged” and/or “disengaged from learning” through implementation of a range of educational initiatives and community partnerships.

Beginning in 2008, FYA has made a permanent commitment to the quality, independent evaluation of its current cluster of education programs by the Australian Youth Research Centre (AYRC). Evaluations of the City Centre (now Cityscape), Worlds of Work, Step Up, Back To School, ruMAD? and Opportunity Scholarships programs have been conducted with findings delivered in November 2008.

Further to this sequence of evaluations, and drawing where pertinent on their findings, the Reimagining Learning research project seeks to gauge the overall success of the programs in addressing issues of disadvantage and disengagement in schools through provision of student-centred learning activities, both at school and offsite.

Historically, FYA programs have been offered to schools as stand-alone, individual learning experiences. There is now a growing trend for schools to adopt a number of programs on an increasingly long-term and committed basis. FYA plans to consolidate this trend and begin delivery of its programs into schools as an integrated suite. The research aimed to:

Address the reasons schools in disadvantaged areas are making this commitment; and

Examine such variables as ♦ Involvement in multiple programs; ♦ Student and teacher participation in terms of strategic planning, Teacher professional development and innovative practice in schools; ♦ The impact of integrating program participation into general school curricula and structures; and ♦ Schools’ plans for future involvement with FYA.

Methodology

In preparing and compiling this report, the authors have drawn on interview data provided by focus groups with students, teachers and school leaders at three Victorian state secondary schools. The three case study schools were identified and engaged by FYA on the basis of (a) participation in both essential (i.e. Cityscape and ruMAD?) and optional FYA programs during 2006, 2007 and 2008; and (b) having been defined as facing disadvantage according to Victorian Government rankings.

Supporting data and information were drawn from the authors’ concurrent evaluations of individual FYA programs. Literature search, focus groups in schools, data analysis and collation of the report were undertaken during March- December 2008.


5

Literature

The literature review examines (a) the impact of socioeconomic disadvantage on young people’s engagement with education and learning, (b) challenges faced by schools in disadvantaged areas in improving educational outcomes; and (c) initiatives for helping improve outcomes in these settings.

Educational Achievement and Socioeconomic Status (SES)

The nexus between educational achievement, socioeconomic background and geography is more marked in Australia than in many OECD countries. (School leavers data confirms a strong correlation between socioeconomic status of students and corresponding parental education levels with school achievement and post school destinations, for instance). Increasingly defined by location in an era of highly concentrated regional/district poverty, schools more and more reproduce and reinforce existing patterns of privilege and disadvantage; accordingly, “entrenched disadvantage is re-entrenched”.

Research has found that official educational policy has tended to compound the problem through an over-emphasis on accountability, greater parental choice of schools and prescriptive curricula. The period 1975-2002 witnessed a significant shift in the sectoral composition of upper secondary schools in Victoria, with the Independent sector doubling its enrolment (resulting in the loss of a significant proportion of high SES students to the government sector).

Early School Leaving and Socioeconomic Disadvantage

Disengagement is recognised as arguably the biggest challenge confronting today’s secondary teacher, whether demonstrated actively (in such forms as truancy, disruptive behaviour, persistent lateness and peer conflict) or passively (in withdrawal, persistent switching off, simply failing to learn). One of the most serious indicators and outcomes of disengagement is ‘dropping out’ or early school leaving. While it should be stressed that the issue is complex and cannot always be defined in terms of educational failure, Government statistics indicate that early school leaving costs Australian taxpayers an estimated $2.6 billion a year in social welfare, health, crime prevention, lower tax revenue and GDP, and in tackling intergenerational problems of unemployment & poverty.

Disengagement in the Middle Years

There is widespread acknowledgement that disengagement has particular links to lack of success or underperformance in early adolescence, i.e. in the so-called middle years of schooling. Students surveyed by the Middle Years Research and Design (MYRAD) project in the 1990s typically demonstrated a decline in motivation, climaxing in a virtual “mid-school crisis” in Years 9 or 10. These findings have been confirmed by data from the Victorian Quality Schools Project and other surveys.

There is general agreement also that engagement or disengagement with learning is affected by variables both external (i.e. geography, socioeconomic background) and internal (curriculum and pedagogy) to school. As a result middle years reform of “what is taught and how it is taught” has become a priority within Australian schools.

Curriculum and Pedagogy


6

National research into factors disengaging young people from school has found that school related factors contribute overwhelmingly. Issues of school ethos and culture, teacher attitudes and teaching practices, and school structures have been cited consistently as reasons for not liking school.

There is strong agreement among scholars, analysts and educationalists that solution to the disengagement crisis lies in redefinition of the learning experience along personalised or person-centred lines within a re-shaped public education framework. For instance:

The Victorian Quality Schools Project has stressed the imperatives of off-campus learning, links with community organisations, appropriate role models, and access to information technologies.

The National Project on Middle Schooling has identified the principles of ‘learner-centred coherent curriculum’, ‘collaboratively organised powerful pedagogy’, ‘community-oriented partnerships’ and ‘adequately –resourced and experienced staffing’ as essential components of effective and inclusive middle schooling.

The Queensland School Reform Longitudinal Study (QSRLS) has developed the concept of ‘productive pedagogies’, focusing on four key dimensions: Intellectual quality, Connectedness, Supportiveness and engagement and Valuing of difference.

The MYRAD project has identified the need to present students with authentic tasks that provide for individual differences and learning styles, and focus on co-operation, communication, negotiation and social competencies.

Responses

A comprehensive range of short and long-term programs and policy initiatives have been trialled and implemented throughout the country, including community mentoring schemes, ‘Get Set for Work’, the Smith Family projects and individual school initiatives. Recognition of the need to motivate, challenge and re-engage Year 9 and 10 students has likewise underpinned development of the Victorian Essential Learning Standards (VELS) which emphasise opportunities for interaction with the real world.

There is acknowledgement that while schools have a “key role to play in developing skilled, flexible, responsible and creative young people”, curriculum has been slow to respond to the demands that society places on young people. It is clear that there needs to be some analysis of existing programs and assessment of what they offer schools.

Research findings

Analysis of the particular experiences and responses of three case study schools currently accessing FYA programs has been shaped and informed by four larger questions raised by the literature, i.e.

Which programs are currently working in schools in areas of socio economic disadvantage and why?

Which programs best support schools to address socio economic disadvantage?

Do the programs help these schools develop what they consider to be innovative or next practice? If so, how?


7

What support needs to be provided in schools and the community to foster the success of these programs in enhancing engagement in the middle years, developing innovative practice; and addressing socio economic disadvantage?

Discussion and amplification of key themes and findings have drawn on both case study findings and the authors’ concurrent reports on the delivery and effectiveness of individual FYA programs. Because the Cityscape and WOW programs have only been in operation from 2005 and 2007 respectively, none of the participants to date have completed Year 12. Accordingly, a comparison in outcomes cannot be made at this stage. The schools are confident however that the programs have made – and are continuing to make - a difference to these students. Information gleaned from focus groups and interviews with staff, students and leadership at the three case study schools confirmed:

That students and teachers are responding positively to the content, style and philosophy of the Cityscape and other FYA programs;

That schools are actively accessing the programs as part of their strategies to combat middle years disengagement;

That schools are increasingly seeking to integrate city learning experiences (and, in some cases ruMAD? or Back To School) into their general curricula and structures; and

That FYA programs appear to enjoy most impact at schools where they have been integrated in this way.

Feedback provided by the case studies and individual evaluations further confirmed a high level of teacher and student satisfaction with the programs in general, and offered compelling evidence that they are:

Enhancing engagement in the middle years, fostering reconnections with learning, and facilitating positive changes in student behaviour by providing students with authentic, challenging and community-focused learning experiences that differ significantly from much on offer in the traditional classroom.

Addressing issues of socioeconomic disadvantage and exclusion by: ♦ Facilitating the development of young people’s personal, interpersonal

and social skills; ♦ Providing young people with meaningful opportunities to move outside

the limits of their immediate environments and to experience the resource-diversity of the Melbourne CBD;

♦ Facilitating young people’s connections to community and development of personal and professional networks and linkages;

♦ Providing opportunities for young people to develop awareness of social and community issues and take ownership of specific initiatives (thereby “making a difference”) and;

♦ Providing young people with access to role models and mentors

Serving as effective models for teachers, providing them with professional development in student-centred learning, thereby enabling them to perpetuate and incorporate inquiry-based approaches as innovative or ‘next practice’ in schools.

Attracting growing interest from Victorian state schools (and, in the case of the school-based programs, from schools around the country).

As a result of successful experiences, growing numbers of schools are committing to an ongoing partnership with FYA, with program participation integrated – as ‘innovative’ or ‘next’ practice - into curricula.


8

Recommendations Based on overwhelmingly positive reports of their participation in the current cluster of FYA programs, and a marked degree of enthusiastic endorsement for each program by student and teacher interviewees, it is recommended:

That FYA continue to offer its current range of both city learning and school-based programs and, where possible, expand program delivery.

That FYA continue to make Opportunity Scholarships and Opportunity Grants available to individual and group applicants, and that schools continue to access the program and encourage applications by eligible students.

That funding continues to be sought, and be made available, to facilitate continued access to and delivery of the current range of programs.

In the interests of maximizing the programs’ impact, that participating schools seek, or continue, to incorporate the city learning programs, ruMAD? projects and Back To School events into their general school curricula and calendars rather than offer them as one-off electives or events.


9

Introduction

Research context The Foundation for Young Australians (FYA) is a non-profit, independent organisation now in alliance with Education Foundation. During the past decade FYA has focused particularly on the complex learning needs of secondary students defined as disadvantaged and/or disengaged from learning, and has sought to promote and facilitate school, community, government and business partnerships through the implementation of a number of initiatives.

Beginning in 2008, FYA has made a permanent commitment to the quality, independent evaluation of its education programs by an external evaluation partner. FYA’s evaluation strategy will enable it to:

Know whether its programs are meeting their aims and what future development or direction is required

Grow its own knowledge and practice

Show its achievements to its partners, donors, Board and stakeholders.

Evaluations have been completed for all FYA’s current programs. Findings for all evaluations were delivered in November 2008.

Further to this sequence of evaluations, and drawing where pertinent on their findings, the current research project will seek to gauge the overall success of the programs in addressing issues of disadvantage and disengagement in schools through provision of student-centred learning activities, both at school and offsite. Taking the form of case studies of three Victorian schools that have participated in FYA initiatives in 2006, 2007 and 2008, the research will then be used to inform the delivery of programs currently offered by FYA.

The research will address the following broad questions:

Why are schools in disadvantaged areas making a commitment to FYA programs?

Does involvement in more than one FYA program deliver better outcomes for these schools than involvement in an individual program? If so, how?

Is the schools’ involvement a planned strategy supported by school leadership? (If not, how did it come about? If so, what are the intended outcomes for the school? Do these differ from the individual program objectives?)

Do the programs help the schools develop what they consider to be innovative practice? If so, how?

Do the schools use the programs in relation to one another? If so, how? Do they integrate the programs into their permanent structures? If so, how?

What future opportunities exist for delivery of the full suite of FYA programs into schools in disadvantaged areas? What is the best approach for this delivery?


10

Background to the project Historically, FYA programs have been offered to schools as stand-alone, individual learning experiences. Also historically, the repeat involvement of schools in these programs has been fairly low. There is now a growing trend for schools to adopt a number of FYA programs on an increasingly long-term and committed basis. Some of these schools operate in Victoria’s most disadvantaged areas.

In 2009, FYA plans to consolidate this trend and begin delivery of its programs into schools as an integrated suite. This new mode of delivery responds directly to research findings (Black, 2007) that genuine improvement in student outcomes requires good teacher practice rather than short-term programs, and that schools in disadvantaged communities need models of proven practice and the tools to implement them in their own local context in a sustainable way. FYA’s programs are increasingly recognised as such models both by policy (Cole, Mahar & Vindurampulle, 2006; Keamy, Nicholas, Mahar & Herrick, 2007) and by schools.

Beyond their stated aims and objectives, some FYA offerings (i.e. Cityscape and ruMAD?) also promote next practice within schools. While it is assumed that this occurs most strongly where more than one program has been adopted, the current project will investigate just how this is happening in schools.

FYA programs

ruMAD?

The ruMAD? (i.e. are you Making a Difference) program is an inquiry-based pedagogical model or framework that (a) accords with state and federal policy emphasis on the incorporation of values education into school curricula; and (b) encourages, educates and empowers young people to “enact social change” and “make a difference” within their school and community.

Over 1,000 state primary and secondary schools have participated in a ruMAD? program since the model was piloted in 2001. Students throughout Australia have initiated, developed and led projects that have addressed or focused on a diversity of themes and issues, among them homelessness, depression, community values, bullying, health & well-being, poverty and climate change.

Ongoing delivery of ruMAD? is underpinned by four main educational objectives:

To engage young people in issues of social justice;

To engage young people with a high level of authenticity;

To promote student-led classrooms, thereby challenging teacher practice; and

To create real community change.

Schools (i.e. teachers and students) are able to participate in ruMAD? in four formal ways (aka the “four levels of MADNESS”): These are (1) by organising of an ruMAD? day, (2) by initiating and developing an ruMAD? Social change project; (3) by supporting an ruMAD? Student Foundation; and (4) by becoming


11

an ruMAD? ambassador. The program consists of three discrete phases or processes:

Understanding: a sequence of professional development workshops on ‘values, passions & vision’ and ‘eliciting shared values’, providing a theoretical basis for choosing a practical exercise. FYA staff act as facilitators.

Action: having identified the passions within the community, this phase includes creation of a vision statement and framework/methodology for the selected activity.

Celebration: an opportunity for teachers to evaluate and celebrate the processes and outcomes of the activity, their own and the students’ performances.

The usual length of any ruMAD program is two terms (i.e. a single semester). Term 1 typically includes staff professional development in the form of Understanding seminars and follow-up, directly facilitated by FYA. Once the project has been set, the school generally runs the Action phase autonomously (from the second half of Term 1 through Term 2). Celebration usually takes the form of a MAD Day at the end of Term 2.

Cityscape

The City Learning Centre premises function as a non-traditional “classroom without walls” in the heart of Melbourne’s CBD. Its flagship program, a direct response to extensive research into the issue of middle years disengagement, was simply called City Centre. At the time of writing, this name is being altered to Cityscape.

Cityscape provides and facilitates access to meaningfully interactive, ‘real world’ learning experiences that: (a) make appropriate and innovative use of community resources, and (b) offer students opportunities to explore their own needs and interests “beyond the classroom”. Financed annually through FYA’s partnerships with a range of corporate and philanthropic organizations, the program “unlocks the learning potential of the central business district and introduces young people to new worlds beyond the classroom during a week of independent learning”.1

The Cityscape program embraces the educational principles underlying the Victorian Essential Learning Standards (VELS), i.e. (a) Learning for All, (b) Pursuit of Excellence, (c) Engagement and Effort, (d) Respect for Evidence, and (e) Openness of Mind.

In the lead-up to the five day Cityscape experience, students complete a preliminary sequence of class-based exercises and activities, including preparation of a research brief, selection of work teams and topic of interest, and development of a hypothesis to be tested during the course of the program.

While at Cityscape, students take part in a range of educational and motivational workshops for which FYA draws on the skills and support of various partners including Reach, Fitness First, Urban Seed, The Collingwood Football Club and SYN. Independent investigation of a chosen topic/theme through discussion, interview, observation, Internet access and group/personal reflection (all within context of the CBD) provides opportunities for team-building and development of action research skills. On return to school, students are invited to reflect on

1 Rosalyn Black, ‘The City as Classroom’, Compak, #2, 2007, p.6


12

personal and team outcomes of the week, and to analyse the data they have collected prior to formally presenting their findings to peers, staff and parents.

Back To School Back To School is an initiative that seeks to celebrate the achievements of government schools by recognising and celebrating the achievements of their alumni. With its primary focus on providing the present generation of young people with inspirational role models, the program aims “to build and strengthen the relationship between public schools and their former students for the benefit of current students”. Back To School was piloted in 2002 and has been a national activity since 2004.

As a general rule a Back To School event takes the form of a morning visit. The visiting celebrities/alumni typically address school assembly, spend time with selected classes, tour the facility and join members of the school community at morning tea. While the length of the activity varies from setting to setting, Back To School events typically last around an hour. Over the years the program has facilitated visits by past students as diverse as ex- Premier Bob Carr, former Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile, Olympian Kyle Van Der Kuyp, motor racing legend Dick Johnson, and footballer Nathan Bassett.

In recruiting prominent former students to return to their educational origins and engage current students with accounts of their personal journeys, Back To School is driven by the key objectives of connect, inspire and succeed. Originally programmed to fall on a set day each year, the event is currently staged at the discretion and convenience of participants. Allowing schools to select a suitable date, usually in May but sometimes in June or July, enhances timetabling and scheduling options and optimises possibilities for promoting Back To School through media outlets. 368 schools registered for Back To School in 2008 and 110 high profile Australians took part. They included business leaders, politicians, community and local government leaders, Olympic athletes, footballers and other sporting identities, TV personalities, a judge, performers, writers and creative artists. In line with FYA’s mission of strongly targeting schools defined as facing disadvantage, Back To School literature indicates that 77% of participating primary and secondary settings fall within measures of moderate to severe disadvantage.

Opportunity Scholarships and Opportunity Grants

The provision and awarding of Opportunity Scholarships and Opportunity Grants articulate (a) FYA’s central vision of a public education system that “inspires every young person to achieve their best”, and (b) its central mission of developing school-business-community partnerships that will foster educational excellence and equal access to opportunity.

Opportunity Scholarships have been awarded bi-annually since 2003 as a means of assisting public school students to “pursue their talents and aspirations”. Sums of up to $1000 enable talented individual students, defined as “facing disadvantage” and currently in receipt of an educational allowance, to undertake curriculum-based programs and activities in a range of areas and disciplines (Arts, Performing Arts, Maths/Sciences, Sport, Communications, etc).


13

While Opportunity Scholarships target individual students, Opportunity Grants, initiated and piloted in 2007, provide funding of up to $4000 to enable schools to address collective programming needs of groups of students. In 2007 243 students successfully applied for Opportunity Scholarships while four schools were awarded Opportunity Grants.

Worlds of Work

The purpose of the Worlds of Work (WOW) program is to build the capacity of students from socially and economically disadvantaged communities to effectively participate in the future global worlds of work.

Initiated and piloted in 2007, the WOW program is based at the City Learning Centre and in proximity of a diversity of participating workplaces. The pilot comprised a five day sequence of activities and workshops aimed (a) at enhancing the students’ connectedness with the City of Melbourne; (b) at providing opportunities for them to explore definitions of success in work and life; and (c) at providing opportunities for the students to develop the skills and strengths needed “to create their own pathways” in work and life

Participants in the pilot were groups of Year 9 and 10 students, and their teachers, selected from eleven state secondary schools. Most of the schools were defined as “facing disadvantage”. In some cases the WOW week was offered as a “stand alone” educational experience; in other cases, it was offered as a follow-up to an earlier Cityscape experience and was an integrated part of a school’s careers syllabus. As well as providing exposure to the CBD and Melbourne’s public transport network, WOW activities included a range of opportunities to visit and interact with major city corporations and organizations (including Workplace Breakfasts, Classroom to Boardroom seminars), a series of skills development classes and workshops (‘Communicating with WOW’, ‘WOW Enterprise Skills’, ‘Imagine Me: Goal Setting / Dreaming’, ‘Brand Me’), and presentations by inspirational speakers and the students themselves.

Step Up

Step Up is a leadership program designed for Year 9 students in Victorian government schools. First offered in 2006, it is devised and delivered annually by staff at Cityscape.

Step Up is based in the City Learning Centre and takes advantage of its proximity to major Melbourne landmarks. The program is residential and comprises a five day sequence of activities and workshops aimed at (a) engaging participants through access to, and interaction with, appropriate role models and mentors; and (b) providing opportunities for the development of personal and interpersonal skills, networking, teamwork and leadership skills and qualities. In addressing and amplifying the central theme ‘What is Leadership? What does it mean to you?’, the program focuses on six key Learning areas: Independent Learning, Trust & Responsibility, Awareness of Self and Personal Strengths, Empathy, Teamwork & Leadership, and Connections to Melbourne.

The 35 participants in the 2007 delivery of Step Up were Cityscape graduates, identified by teachers and/or Cityscape staff as likely to benefit significantly from


14

an additional week of training and activities. All students were EMA2 recipients, selected for participation on the basis of formal application. Over the course of the program, they completed a range of tasks and exercises designed to illustrate and maximise connections between leadership skills and self-awareness, among them Teambuilding and Reflective workshops, Team Lunches, Tai Chi, evening leisure events, Playback Theatre and Westside Circus experiences, Interviews with Community leaders and a talk by an Inspirational Speaker, Group DVD Presentations and a ‘Great Race’ Melbourne Maze Challenge.

Youthink3

Youthink is an action research program for Year 9 students in government schools, coordinated by Cityscape staff, and piloted during 2007-8 in partnership with the Melbourne City Council. Focusing on “ways to make Melbourne better”, groups of three to six students plan, research and prepare formal proposals to be presented to a diverse audience of local government and business representatives, change-makers, educators and their peers. With its focus on formulating and testing hypotheses, surveying, and formally presenting findings, the program can be seen as a more intense variant on Cityscape with a specific City of Melbourne focus.

2 Educational Maintenance Allowance (EMA) is provided by the State Government to students whose parents have limited incomes 3 It should be noted that assessment of Youthink was not part of the AYRC’s evaluation schedule. FYA staff have indicated that the program, a two-year partnership with the City of Melbourne, will not continue in its current form. It is anticipated that elements of Youthink will be absorbed into other FYA initiatives in 2009


15

Research Design In preparing and compiling this report, the authors have drawn on interview data provided by focus groups with students, teachers and school leaders at three Victorian state secondary schools. The three case study schools were identified and engaged by FYA on the basis of:

Their participation in both essential (i.e. Cityscape, ruMAD?) and optional FYA programs during 2006, 2007 and 2008; and

Their having been defined as “facing disadvantage” according to LSG Ranking 6-9.

Supporting data and information were drawn from the authors’ concurrent evaluations of individual FYA programs. These reports are:

1. Succeeding in the Global Worlds of Life and Work: an Evaluation of the Worlds of Work (WOW) Program (Final report: June 2008) Published online at

2. Learning to Lead: an Evaluation of the Step Up Program (Final Report: June 2008)

3. Targeting and Engaging Talent: an Evaluation of the Opportunity Scholarships Program (Final Report: November 2008)

4. Reach, Research & Reflect: an Evaluation of the City Centre Program (Final report: November 2008)

5. Real Engagement with Real Issues: Evaluation of the ruMAD? Program (Final report: November 2008)

6. Celebrating and Modelling Achievement: an Evaluation of the Back To School Program (Final report: November 2008)

Interviews and surveys for all programs

Program Interviews Surveys

Schools Students School personnel

Schools Students School personnel

Reimagining Learning

3 - - -

City Centre 3 9 11 ? 1668 -

WOW 2 8 2 12 154 2

Step Up 3 3 3 - 18 -

ruMAD? 3 6 6 30 16 5

Opportunity Scholarships

4 6 6 - 30 -

Back to School

3 1 5 - 30 -


16

Totals 21 33 33 42 1916 7

Schools in which interviews were conducted by state and location

Victoria NSW TAS SA QLD WA

Rural Korumburra HS Wedderburn College P-12

Regional Bendigo SSC Eaglehawk SC

The Raleigh School

Redcliffe HS

Metro Bentleigh SC Cranbourne Secondary College Elwood College Fawkner SC

Hume Central Secondary College Northcote HS Reservoir DSC Thornbury HS Dandenong PS

Gagebrook PS

Enfield HS Loganlea SHS

South Fremantle SHS

* Cranbourne Secondary College and Hume Central were visited twice for different programs

Project Phases

Literature search, focus groups in schools, data analysis and collation of the report were undertaken during March- December 2008.

Phase 1

Literature search

Timeline March 2008 – June 2008

Phase 2

Development of research questions and ethics applications

Timeline - March 2008 – May 2008

Selection of case study schools –Three schools, identified and engaged by FYA on the basis of (a) participation in both essential and optional FYA programs during 2006, 2007 and 2008; and (b) having been defined as “facing disadvantage” according to Victorian Government rankings.

Timeline March 2008 – May 2008

Phase 3

Conducting group interviews in schools


17

Focus groups were conducted with students, teachers and representatives of school leadership in three secondary schools (two metropolitan and one rural settings).

Timeline July 2008 – September 2008

Phase 4

Data analysis and reporting

Timeline September 2008 – November 2008

Phase 5

Provision of Final Report

Timeline December 2008


18

Literature Review

Combating Disengagement and Disadvantage The literature review will broadly address the following questions:

What is the impact of socioeconomic disadvantage for young people in regard to engagement with education and learning?

What challenges do schools in disadvantaged areas face in improving educational outcomes for students?

What best supports such schools in their attempts to improve these outcomes?

At the beginning of the 21st century, the educational landscape increasingly reflects the deepening economic divide within Australia. At one end of the spectrum, our school students are reportedly performing “as well as the best in the OECD”. (In 2004, Australia was reportedly above the OECD average in terms of mean years of formal education and proportion of population with a tertiary qualification). At the other end, there is strong evidence to indicate that educational outcomes are worsening for many young people and that significant numbers of them are either under-achieving or in danger of opting out of the schooling process. As the full panorama of “work, family and community” undergoes sweeping and fundamental change, Australia is becoming more and more “a high performing and low equity country” (Black, 2006a: 1, Black, 2007a: 8-11; Dusseldorp, 1999: 3, AIHW 2007: 118).

Keating and Lamb (2004a: 4) note that schooling outcomes are located within “changing patterns of social geography in Australia”. While there are differing views as to the extent of poverty in Australia, Keating and Lamb maintain that relative levels of poverty have increased indisputably, with 31% of working age population having ‘a lack of work”. They note further that the benefits of national prosperity are “not distributed equally” and that “poorly educated people are more likely to face poverty, with children from poor households less likely to succeed and continue in education” and more likely to be concentrated in fewer schools with other children from low SES households.

Educational Achievement and SES In voicing concern at “the magnitude of the influence of social background on educational achievement” in Australia, researchers have noted that the nexus between educational achievement, socioeconomic background and geography is more marked here than in many OECD countries. By contrast with the situation in Canada, Finland, Japan, Korea, Iceland or Sweden, family background remains the single most important determinant of academic achievement in Australia (McGaw in Black 2007a, p2; Black, 2006a & 2006 b).

The destinations data of school leavers in Victoria (Teese, Nicholas, Polesel, & Helme, 2006) confirms a strong correlation between socioeconomic status of students and corresponding parental education levels with school achievement


19

and post school destinations. Nearly two thirds of all low achievers in year 12 come from low to very low socio economic backgrounds while two thirds of high achievers are from high to very high socio economic backgrounds. Children of tertiary-educated parents are more than twice as likely to enter university than children of parents who only completed primary or junior secondary schooling. Teese et al (2006) highlight though the role education can play in reducing intergenerational disadvantage, finding that “one quarter of the young people whose parents did not finish secondary school made a transition to higher education” and that a further one fifth made a transition to higher level VET courses (Teese et al, 2006: 21).

Rothman (2003: 9) speaks of growing and worrying “socioeconomic segmentation” in Australian schooling. Increasingly defined by location in an era of highly concentrated regional/district poverty, schools more and more reproduce and reinforce existing patterns of privilege and disadvantage. The so-called “circular pattern of disadvantage” finds less affluent students “clustered in schools with poor educational outcomes located in economically depressed areas with low educational profiles”. Accordingly, “entrenched disadvantage is re-entrenched”(Black, 2007b:1; Koshland, 2006b: 1). Further data from the NSW Commission for Children and Youth (2005) and the Australian Institute for Health and Welfare (2007) confirms the trend that young people from low socio economic backgrounds consistently have the poorest educational outcomes, are least likely to be in paid work, and have the poorest health outcomes. Other research has found that, far from fixing the problem, official educational policy tends to compound it through an over-emphasis on accountability, greater parental choice of schools and prescriptive curricula (Smyth & Fasoli, 2007).

Keating and Lamb (2004a: 5 - 6) note that Australia is “unusual in the size of the non-govt school sector, and unique in its high degree of autonomy, especially in enrolment practices”, with 32% of secondary students in non-government schools and with that percentage much higher in Years 11 and 12. Over the years 1975-2002 there has been a significant shift in the sectoral composition of upper secondary schools in Victoria. The Independent sector has doubled its enrolment with its social composition increasingly weighted towards high SES students (and a corresponding loss of high SES students to the government sector). The implication is that the trends towards non government schools “do not simply reflect patterns of social geography, but that they extend them”.

Black (2004) has expressed concern at the threat posed by an expanding private sector to our free public school network. While acknowledging this concern, Koshland (2006b:1) also highlights the need to be mindful of differences within systems. Referring to the persistence of “high and low performing schools” within all three systems (public, private and Catholic), she agrees with Keating & Lamb (2004b) that “the disparity within each sector is greater than the disparity between them”. In both Government and non-Government sectors, the schools facing the greatest hurdles are those with “the lowest social and cultural capital to support them”. Underlining the complexity of the dilemma, Considine & Watson (2003) use survey findings to question the common assumption that students from low socioeconomic backgrounds are a homogenous group, while Considine & Zappala (2001, 2002) note (a) that social and economic factors impact differently on educational outcomes; and (b) that contextual variables, such as levels of parental education, are of greater significance than economic considerations. “The erosion of educational aspirations is much more common amongst young people from low SES families where parents have limited


20

education and training than it is for students from homes with well-educated parents”, maintain Helme, et al (2005: 19).

Early School Leaving and Socioeconomic Disadvantage An extensive literature has proliferated in recent years, at both local and international levels, analysing and examining educational disengagement, its causation and ramifications, its linkage to poor school achievement, and its underlying connection to socioeconomic disadvantage. Previously termed ‘disconnectedness’, ‘detachment’, ‘disaffection’, ‘low attachment’, ‘alienation’, even ‘school regression’, Disengagement is recognised as “a growing problem”, arguably the biggest challenge confronting today’s secondary teacher, whether demonstrated actively (in such forms as truancy, disruptive behaviour, persistent lateness and peer conflict) or passively (in withdrawal, persistent switching off simply failing to learn). As Thomson notes:

“Alienated students generally refuse to actively engage with much of the curriculum on offer. Many are physically present and mentally absent, but the more energetically resistant typically attend only those few classes they enjoy, truant and openly challenge some of their teachers” (2002:52).

One of the most serious indicators and outcomes of disengagement is ‘dropping out’ or early school leaving (Hill & Russell, 1999: 3; Black, 2006a: 3-4).

Government statistics indicate that early school leaving costs Australian taxpayers an estimated $2.6 billion a year in social welfare, health, crime prevention, lower tax revenue and GDP, and in tackling intergenerational problems of unemployment & poverty (Black, 2007a; Department of Premier & Cabinet, 2005; Dusseldorp, 1999). It should be stressed, however, that the early school leaving issue is complex and cannot always be defined in terms of educational failure. Dwyer contests that there is ‘no typical school leaver’ and that:

[y]oung people dislike, disengage from and even leave school for a variety of reasons, at different stages of their schooling, with different attitudes towards education and different prospects for future careers (1996: 47).

Despite acknowledgement that there are a number of determinants of early school leaving, links are inevitably made between socio economic status of students and their families and the educational and work history of parents. The great majority of early school leavers come from the homes of skilled, semi skilled and unskilled manual workers (Teese and Polesel 2003:141). Teese and Polesel propose that early school leavers have a cultural model of manual work to follow and, especially in the case of boys, do not see themselves as having to succeed at school. They note that students in Year 10 and 11 have most often nominated being unable to see where school was heading (followed by school


21

work not being of interest) as the school-related reason for early leaving (Teese and Polesel 2003:143).

Other research (eg. Stokes & Wyn 2007: 5) challenges the assumption that early leavers are unambiguously at risk or “doomed to a life of unemployment, drug abuse or poor pay”. McMillan and Marks (2003), for example, cite levels of non-completer enrolment in post-secondary training as a significant indicator that disengagement from school does not necessarily mean disengagement from training/education. For some young people, on-the-job training leading to promotion through experience (within ‘single occupation’ career trajectories) remains a positive alternative to school curricula that are focused on university preparation and offer limited subject choices. Just as not all leaving is negative so not all retention is good, argue Teese and Walstab (2002).

While acknowledging that there is no typical early school leaver those least likely to remain in education to year 12 will have one or more of the following characteristics. They will be: male, indigenous Australian, lower socio economic status family background; English speaking background; living in non metropolitan areas, attending government schools, and exhibiting lower levels of numeracy and literacy (McMillan & Marks 2003). Vinson (2004) notes that early leaving is one of the indicators of community adversity.

Teese and Polesel (2003) have completed a geographical study of early school leaving in Victoria. They have found that, in Victoria, there is a one in five likelihood of boys leaving school after they reach year 10. This proportion differs dramatically according to the socio economic status of different areas. In the inner and inner eastern suburbs of Melbourne the rate is below 20 % while in the north western suburbs of Melbourne the rate is 46%. For girls, the rates reduce by about half but follow the same pattern in the different geographical areas. Although girls have a lower rate of early school leaving, they are far more vulnerable in the labour market when they do leave early, having less access to apprenticeships and relying more on part time and casual jobs.

Teese and Polesel (2003:143-144) make a distinction between the reasons young people leave school prior to completing year 12 and the year that they leave. They have found that the longer young people stay at school ‘the more the balance of motives for early school leaving shifts from rejection of school culture to engagement with work”. ‘Push’ factors such as weak learner self esteem, poor relations with teachers and lack of interest in school work are higher for those young people leaving school earlier, particularly in Year 10 and below.

Disengagement in the Middle Years While much early research focused on problems in the later school or transition years, there is now widespread acknowledgement that disengagement has particular links to lack of success or underperformance in early adolescence, i.e. in the so-called Middle Years of schooling. Students surveyed by the MYRAD (Middle Years Research & Development) project in the 1990s typically demonstrated a decline in motivation to learn from Year 5 onwards, climaxing in a virtual “mid-school crisis” in Year 9 or 10 (Black, 2007a:10; see also Hill, Jane, Mackay and Russell, 2002). The MYRAD findings were confirmed by data from the Victorian Quality Schools Project and other surveys. One such study, has gone further, suggesting that long-term disengagement may manifest itself as


22

early as Grade One, and speculating that efforts to improve engagement may need to encompass all levels of schooling (Murray, et al, 2005).

There is general agreement that engagement or disengagement with learning is affected by variables both external (i.e. geography, socioeconomic background) and internal (curriculum and pedagogy) to school. As a result middle years reform of “what is taught and how it is taught” has become a priority within Australian schools (Hill & Russell, 1999; Black, 2007a & 2007b; Department of Premier & Cabinet 2005; Chadbourne, 2001).

Curriculum and Pedagogy Research into combating disengagement through fundamental modification of curricula or teaching/learning styles has largely taken its lead from Connell, et al and their groundbreaking polemic Making the Difference (1982). A timely and pioneering indictment of socio-educational inequity, widely regarded as both a classic point of reference and milestone in research procedure (see Yates, 2002), Making the Difference openly called for wholesale rejection of the standard, ‘ruling class-based’, competitive/academic curriculum in favour of one that would serve the interests of the majority of the population.

Despite this work being completed over twenty five years ago, there is widespread agreement that little has changed, and not insubstantial evidence that the situation has indeed deteriorated, over the intervening quarter century. Teese and Polesel (2003), for instance, draw on data from the largest social survey of Secondary schooling ever conducted in Australia to affirm that the hierarchical secondary curriculum continues to act as a social differentiating mechanism between students, leading to frequent decline in motivation and school attendance. National research into factors disengaging young people from school has found that school related factors contribute overwhelmingly. Issues of school ethos and culture, teacher attitudes and teaching practices (with particular regard to the way young people felt they were treated) and school structures have been cited consistently as reasons for not liking school (Brown et al,. 2001).

There is strong agreement among scholars, analysts and educationalists that solution to the disengagement crisis lies in counter-attack, i.e. in redefinition of the learning experience along personalised or person-centred lines within a re-shaped public education framework. Revised pedagogy and curricula and improved teacher-student relationships can hardly be said to be the sole answer to “the complex issue of entrenched disadvantage”; still there is strong evidence that “changing the learning experience …[can] ameliorate the effects of disadvantage and provide a way out of it” (Black, 2006b: 1). Lingard (2005) believes teachers and their pedagogies can best contribute to better learning outcomes for all students, especially students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

In a report prepared for the ANTA Research Advisory Council, documenting young people’s own views, Angwin et al (1998: 19) posited the need for curriculum that took into account the “specific nature of the students and their contexts”, for programs that promoted practical engagement and realistic outcomes, and that were “different from schools where young people had often experienced years of failure”. The Victorian Quality Schools Project (also undertaken in the 1990s) stressed the imperatives of off-campus learning, the forging of close links with outside and community organisations, the provision


23

of appropriate role models, and greater access to information technologies in combating the bogey of ‘alienation’ or disengagement (Hill & Russell, 1999).

The National Project on Middle Schooling, initiated and managed by the Australian Curriculum Studies Association, identified the principles of ‘learner-centred coherent curriculum’, ‘collaboratively organised powerful pedagogy’, ‘community-oriented partnerships’ and ‘adequately –resourced and experienced staffing’ as some of the essential components of effective and inclusive middle schooling (Mukherjee, 1997: 2-3).

The concept of ‘productive pedagogies’ was developed by the Queensland School Reform Longitudinal Study (QSRLS). Building on Newmann’s research in the United States on ‘authentic pedagogy ’(Newmann & associates, 1996), the concept added social outcomes as well as academic outcomes to the research domains. The study located ‘productive pedagogies’ within four key dimensions: Intellectual quality, Connectedness, Supportiveness and engagement and Valuing of difference (Lingard, 2005).

In Victoria, the Middle Years Research and Design (MYRAD) project identified the need to embed a strong and pervasive thinking curriculum approach in schools as this appeared to offer the greatest potential for schooling experiences that fully engaged young adolescents. Teaching and learning processes within this framework acknowledged the need to:

Present authentic tasks that require complex thought and allow time for exploration;

Include processes involving co-operation, communication, negotiation and social competencies generally; and

Provide for individual differences in interest, achievement and learning styles (CAER 2002).

These findings are further emphasised when looking at research on young people who have disengaged with or rejected education but who regard it as ‘unfinished business’ (Munns & McFadden, 2000) and attempt to re engage with the educational process. These young people have been able to reclaim identities as ‘successful learners’ when the pedagogy practiced includes content that is relevant to them and accommodates and provides support for their needs and lifestyle issues. It has been found that module based work, combined with opportunities for group devised work (a) allows young people to work at their own pace while developing teamwork, negotiation and communication skills; and (b) allows young people to experience success both academically and personally (Stokes & Tyler 2003).

Curriculum Responses In the quest for flexible, student-focused, and rigorous learning opportunities, a comprehensive range of short and long-term programs and policy initiatives have been devised, trialled and implemented throughout the country. Recent years have seen the emergence of a wealth of Community Mentoring Programs, Positive Learning Centres and Youth Support schemes (like the Queensland-based ‘Get Set for Work’ or Smith Family projects in NSW). Multiple individual school initiatives include the successful personalised learning projects described by Healy, (2002); Dix, (2005) and Speight, (2005).


24

Recognition of the need to motivate, challenge and re-engage Year 9 and 10 students has underpinned development of The Victorian Essential Learning Standards (VELS) which emphasise opportunities for interaction with the real world, intellectual risk-taking and teamwork. Developed in 2005, VELS have responded to the need for a curriculum approach that addresses ‘the economic and social changes associated with the development of a global, knowledge based world and their implications for schools’. There is acknowledgement that while schools have a “key role to play in developing skilled, flexible, responsible and creative young people”, curriculum (a) has been slow to respond to the demands that society places on young people and (b) has not provided systemic support to “developing learners who can [then] apply their knowledge beyond the classroom to new and different situations” (VCAA 2007: 1).

It is clear from the literature that there needs to be (a) some analysis of programs that currently exist and (b) assessment of what they offer to schools. The literature therefore outlines a number of questions that beg investigation. These include:

Which programs are currently working in schools in areas of socio economic disadvantage and why?;

Which programs best support schools to address socio economic disadvantage?;

Do the programs help these schools develop what they consider to be innovative or next practice? If so, how?; and

What support needs to be provided in schools and the community to foster the success of these programs in:

♦ Enhancing engagement in the middle years; ♦ Developing innovative practice; and ♦ Addressing socio economic disadvantage?


25

The Case Study Schools In seeking to gauge the effectiveness for schools of their involvement in FYA programs, the authors of this report have drawn on evidence from three Victorian secondary school settings.

The selected schools were nominated and engaged by FYA. Each setting was identified as falling within the previous Victorian Government LSG measure [Like School Groups] 6-9 range, i.e. classified as facing moderate to severe disadvantage. The three schools have established a relationship with FYA through participation over at least three years in one or both of its essential programs (Cityscape and ruMAD?): and at least one of its optional programs (Back to School, WOW, Step Up, Opportunity Scholarships).

Analysis of the particular experiences and responses of the case study schools has been shaped and informed by the four larger questions raised by the literature, i.e.

Which programs are currently working in schools in areas of socio economic disadvantage and why?

Which programs best support schools to address socio economic disadvantage?

Do the programs help these schools develop what they consider to be innovative or next practice? If so, how?

What support needs to be provided in schools and the community to foster the success of these programs in:

♦ Enhancing engagement in the middle years; ♦ Developing innovative practice; and ♦ Addressing socio economic disadvantage?

Discussion and amplification of key themes and findings has drawn on both case study findings and the authors’ concurrent reports on the delivery and effectiveness of individual FYA programs.

Hume Central Secondary College Hume Central Secondary College is a new post-primary setting, serving approximately 2400 students in the northern Melbourne suburb of Broadmeadows. A traditional working class district, administered by Hume City Council, Broadmeadows is home to a diverse multicultural mix (an estimated 132 ethnic groups), and currently faces significant social challenges as a result of high levels of unemployment and generational poverty. An average 75% of school-age young people in the district (and at the new Secondary College specifically) access EMA. Hume City is the fourth fastest-growing municipality in Australia.

Established in 2007 as part of the Broadmeadows Schools Regeneration Project4, Hume Central Secondary College merged three existing settings, Hillcrest,

4 The Broadmeadows Schools Regeneration Project, a combined initiative of schools in the area to address critical issues of drastically declining enrolments and poor-outcome service. Delivery, has facilitated four substantial school amalgamation and rebuilding


26

Erinbank and Broadmeadows Secondary Colleges. According to its mission statement, the new facility “represents a new beginning for the diverse community of young people of Broadmeadows”, seeking to provide “opportunities for learning that equip students with the personal attributes, skills and qualifications needed for challenges in adult life in the 21st century”. The school will comprise three campuses: a Years 7-9 campus at Blair Street (currently under construction), a Senior campus at the Town Park (scheduled to commence construction at the end of 2008), and the current site in Dimboola Road. The design of the new facilities reflects current trends in teaching practice with traditional classrooms and corridors giving way to larger, more open spaces in which learning can be facilitated in multiple ways. The reorganisation of staff into Professional Learning teams represents a shift away from traditional discipline offices.

Staff at Hume Central Secondary College have reportedly embraced FYA programs enthusiastically in 2008, partly out of recognition that FYA’s philosophy and approach fit neatly with the new school’s commitment to community partnerships and non-traditional learning, and partly thanks to a history of successful Cityscape participation by staff and students of the former Hillcrest campus. Hillcrest groups:

Attended Cityscape in 2005-7;

Were part of the WOW and Youthink Pilot programs in 2007; and

Fielded several successful applicants for Step Up 2007.

Accordingly, teachers at the school described Cityscape as “embedded into what happens at the school”. The concept has been taken on board by team leaders and annual participation has become a “given”. One staff member commented: “It’s a bit like – do we question why we do Humanities?”

With only a handful of exceptions, all Year 9 students attend. Most recently the program has been delivered through SOSE classes under Hume Central Secondary College’s year 9 program entitled N.I.N.E. (i.e. Navigate, Investigate, Negotiate, Excel). According to one of the teachers of the program, N.I.N.E. encourages students “to actively engage in their learning, their community … to look outwards and to explore the possibilities the world has to offer in a structured way”.

The inclusion of Cityscape, WOW and Step up in the Year 9 curriculum

To successfully complete Year 9, students have been expected to accumulate at least ninety N.I.N.E. points over the course of four terms. In Term 1 they were withdrawn from their normal classes for four afternoon workshops, worth five points each The workshops (a) focused on group work and broad concepts of “niceness and goodness”, (b) encouraged participants to identify their own and others’ strengths and weaknesses, and (c) acknowledged and explored the existence of Multiple Intelligences (e.g. kinetic learning, musicality), Learning Styles and ‘Thinking tools’.

projects. As part of the agenda, teachers in all but one of the 17 State schools in the district have undertaken in-depth Professional Development programs such as ‘Action Improvement Zones’ and ‘Developing Leadership Capacity’ in an attempt to address the particular challenges facing the community in a concerted way.


27

Term 2 activities, worth 30 points, included completion of a five-day ‘Learning Journey’, i.e. preparation and presentation of a small research project in an area of choice. Projects undertaken this year included Animals Attack, Outdoor Adventure, Sport of Sorts, Art Attack, Body and Soul, Music and ‘Food Glorious Food’, and encompassed visits to the Vic Market and the MCG, participation in a Chocolate Walk, and animal handling at the Zoo and RSPCA. As the teacher commented: “This gets them working in teams and using research techniques and skills” in the lead-up to the week at Cityscape. As specific preparation for Cityscape, all Year 9 students subsequently spent an afternoon brainstorming Big Ideas and Big Issues (per newspaper articles and Internet searches), developed hypotheses to be tested, and compiled survey questions.

“Most of Term 2 SOSE is preparation for the City … [Accordingly] most of the kids hit the ground running when they got in there … They already have ideas about who to interview … ideas of what to do in their heads … [However] they don’t really get around to engaging the contacts until they get into the CBD”. [Teacher, Hume Central Secondary College]

Hume Central Secondary College’s 2008 Cityscape week was timetabled during the first half of TERM 3. Following return to school, students used their class-time to collate data. The teacher commented that the Cityscape material was integrated into the school curriculum through Maths and SOSE. She noted: “SOSE and Maths are the main [subject] tie-ins this year. The Maths teacher helps with graphs, Pi charts, etc”). Students also write and deliver group presentations to School Council and (in some cases) community forums (successful completion of Cityscape and related activities was worth 30 NINE points).

Based on very positive responses by Hillcrest students to the 2007 Pilot of WOW, Hume Central Secondary College elected to offer all Year 9 Cityscape graduates the opportunity to undertake WOW this year. As one teacher noted there was “huge enthusiasm … We had trouble fitting all the kids in … had to book two more WOWs”. As well, seven Hume Central Secondary College students successfully applied for Step Up 2008. (Participation in Step Up or WOW netted students 15 Term 4 NINE points). The school-community emphasis of Cityscape has been further reinforced this year (under the NINE umbrella) by Year 9 groups undertaking a gardening project for an aged care facility, Literacy Blocs at the local primary school, or three days of historical visits (again worth 15 points each). Individual students have elected to complete additional workshops run by Reach and SYN.

Cranbourne Secondary College Located 45 kilometres south of the CBD in the third fastest growing area of Australia, Cranbourne Secondary College currently caters for the educational needs of 1400 Year 7-12 students. According to school leadership, the setting reflects the changing demography and shifting ethnic profile of the district. The Assistant principal described the profile of the parents and students:


28

“Lots of trades, lots of two-income families – shopkeepers, small businesses. semi-skilled, retail. Only 1% of our parents have tertiary education … Unemployment’s not bad, not much of an issue. People move here for cheap housing, [because] you can get jobs … Ten years ago Cranbourne was very ‘waspy’ … [Now] we have a big Islander population … two Afghani families, a few Muslim girls, some Thai and Cambodian kids, our first families from Africa…”

With 40% of students on the Education Maintenance Allowance, Cranbourne Secondary College has been placed at the 20th percentile (i.e. “bottom of the range”) on the SFO [School Family Occupation] scale, but it was noted that the setting currently outperforms schools with similar backgrounds. Discretionary funding has enabled the school to increase its staff and continue to offer a comprehensive range of subject choices and school leadership reports “a high level of success in the VCE”, resulting in university and TAFE placements, apprenticeships and traineeships.

Like Hume Central Secondary College, Cranbourne Secondary College has responded pro-actively to research into middle years disengagement by radically re-inventing its Year 9 experience. Starting in 2006, Cranbourne Secondary College has offered Cityscape within its umbrella CHOICE initiative. CHOICE, (i.e. Cranbourne’s Higher Order Integrated Curriculum Experience) utilises team-teaching in large group situations to develop cross-curricular themes targeting numeracy, literacy, engagement, motivation, VELS dimensions and skill development in ICT. The year’s work is structured around three Learning Centre themes: (1) Think: an experiential language and literacy course (over eight periods a week); (2) Investigate: an Inquiry-based Numeracy and Critical thinking sequence (eight periods a week); and (3) Create: a sequence of three interest-based creative expression projects to be presented to a wider audience (arts, crafts, performance, self-sufficiency market, etc). The Year 9 syllabus also includes LOTE [Languages other than English] classes, HPER [Health, Physical Education and Recreation] sessions and a broad-based ‘Learning Communities’ component. According to the school’s own literature:

“Understanding the demographic profile of Cranbourne goes some way to explaining the impetus for the CHOICE project and the moral purpose behind it … A recent 2005 study commissioned by The Age newspaper rated it as very low in terms of liveability … An alarm has been sounded about the future prospects of young people in the suburb … In 2001 … about 30% of young Cranbourne males and females left school before finishing Year 11, which is almost double the rate of other young people in Melbourne. While 25% of young Cranbourne men attended TAFE, only 10% attended university. ENTER scores from the Cranbourne area school leavers were significantly lower than state averages … Combined with low levels of education and poor employment opportunities, a life of poverty and disadvantage is likely for many of the girls at Cranbourne [SC] … While many boys will enter employment through TAFE and family and local connections, it is currently expected that apprentices have


29

completed Year 12. Implicit in this is the likely outcome that while the boys will eventually get jobs, these will not be highly skilled or paid. To engage and retain young people at school in order to improve life chances in terms of education and employment, is the purpose of the Year 9 program at Cranbourne …”5

The teacher leading Cranbourne Secondary College’s Year 9 team explained the school’s decision to incorporate Cityscape into the CHOICE initiative:

“We needed a program that was different, that challenged the kids and gave teachers ideas on different approaches to Year 9. We wanted everyone involved …We had heard about [Cityscape], checked out the website … found it fitted in with our philosophy and [would be] a model for the staff involved” …

All Year 9 students at Cranbourne Secondary College (approximately 300 at present) are expected to complete the experience. (With only a handful of exceptions, either because of behavioural concerns or parental unwillingness, over the year, everyone goes).

The inclusion of Cityscape in the Year 9 curriculum

In 2008 teams of 4-6 students were formed, generally out of friendship groups, two weeks before the students were booked into Cityscape. The teams remained fixed throughout the three-stage Cityscape process, providing members with the chance to evaluate each others’ strengths in filling specific roles and responsibilities, among them Group Leader, Head of Communications & PR, Organiser, Recorder, Artefacts Producer, Anchor-Person, Advertising Executive. Hypotheses formulated at school were tested over the week in the CBD and the findings developed and recorded (via teacher-produced materials) and formally presented back at school. (Hypotheses tested by Cranbourne Secondary College teams in 2008 included: ‘Melbourne is a Green City’, ‘Melbourne has a bad graffiti problem’, ‘Melbourne does not have enough tourist attractions’, ‘Melbourne is an Exciting City’ and ‘Homelessness could happen to anyone’).6

In line with the cross-curricular approach to programming, staff at Cranbourne Secondary College have linked Cityscape with subjects across the board, most importantly Maths, Science, SOSE, ICT and English. Reflective writing exercises have included preparation of newspaper articles based on research findings while Pi graphs and Statistical analysis of survey data have helped “make Maths authentic”. As one teacher commented:

“… Learning how to find places, finding the way around the City and using grids … we fit Geography into [Cityscape] work. Everything fits in. (We once tried to do the Scavenger Hunt in German but it didn’t really work) … The [end-of-program] presentation looks at [Cityscape] in terms of VELS domains – Personal Learning, Thinking strands, Civics … High Order, Low Order Thinking skills

5 Julie White & Hilary Baxter, ‘Cranbourne Year 9 CHOICE Program: Purpose, Pedagogy and Progress’, in A CHOICE Evaluation: Year 9 (2008), Cranbourne Secondary College, p.6-7.


30

… The challenge is for the kids to do it well … to focus individually, then discuss, share ideas … That way the kids don’t get bored”.

Cranbourne Secondary College has both a strong record of FYA involvement and a strong commitment to a continuing relationship. Specifically:

Year 9 classes have participated annually in Cityscape since 2005. All Year 9 students are currently expected to complete the program.

Several Year 10 groups have participated in WOW, in 2007-8.

Individual students have successfully applied for Step Up during its three year history.

43 Year 9 students took part in the Youthink Program this year.

At the time of writing, Cranbourne Secondary College intends to make an active commitment to ruMAD? 2009. (The school has previously developed its own variant of ruMAD? as a built-in community project for Year 9).

Cranbourne Secondary College offers the WOW program as part of the year 10 Careers program. It was noted that having the Cityscape experience for all students in Year 9 made it easier to introduce the WOW program to a more selective group of students at Year 10. The careers teacher commented that while Cityscape was a good program for all students to attend he did not think the WOW program was for all students due to the intensive nature of the activities. He commented on the program and the value of having more than one FYA program offered in the school:

WOW connects with Work Experience. All our Year 10 kids do Work Experience and one semester of Careers Education. WOW fits into the curriculum [that way] … Because of [the Cityscape] experience, when you say ‘Here’s the next stage’ [i.e. WOW], the kids are eager to apply … they’re already on board. There’s no trouble getting the numbers … Two groups of 25 nominate to go [into the CBD], supported by two teachers … good keen kids … able to see the benefits … If not for [Cityscape], we wouldn’t get the same level of interest or enthusiasm … We have a Careers Expo arrangement [locally] but it doesn’t have the same depth as what’s available through WOW”. [Careers teacher, Cranbourne Secondary College]

Wedderburn College Wedderburn College is a Prep-12 setting, serving 260-300 students in North-Central Victoria, approximately 75km north west of Bendigo. Operating as a member of the North Central Schools Cluster (which includes Boort Secondary College, Charlton College, Donald High School, McAuley College, Pyramid Hill P-10 College, St Arnaud Secondary College and Wycheproof P-12 College), the College aims to offer and provide a comprehensive technological, rural and agricultural curriculum as well as a number of Vocational Education and Training units of study. Students living in outlying districts access bus travel while town dwellers are able to walk and cycle to school.


31

The College operates a sub-school structure for curriculum, welfare and administrative purposes. Sub-school managers have responsibility for student outcomes at Prep - Year 4, Year 5 - Year 8 and Year 9 - Year 12. In the early years the College emphasises literacy and numeracy skill acquisition, the middle school aims to develop independent and team oriented learning skills and the senior school provides pathways for students to pursue post compulsory school options. Cluster funding has enabled the school to participate in a Video Conferencing Network. The principal noted that “More and more of our post-compulsory is being done that way”.

The College is a focal point and major community resource for Wedderburn College, a former gold rush boom town (population currently at 750), and itself at the core of a rural area “doing it tough” because of Drought and high levels of situational poverty. Two-thirds of students access the Education Maintenance or Youth Allowance while the school rates at 7 on LSG ranking. Declining enrolments also impact on service delivery. As the Principal commented:

Low numbers places real pressure on flexibility and breadth … Existing staff have to take on areas they are not trained in … It’s nearly impossible to get a Maths teacher [for instance] … Electives fluctuate according to staff availability … … Next year there’ll be less flexibility again … we’ll have teachers in excess.

Wedderburn College’s relationship with FYA has included:

Implementing an ruMAD? project “a couple of years ago”; Three years attendance at Cityscape;

One experience (in Term 2, 2008) of WOW. .

As well, a handful of Wedderburn College students have successfully applied for Opportunity Scholarships. Like its metropolitan counterparts, Wedderburn College became involved with Cityscape as an integral part of change in Year 9 The principal commented that it was “in response to MYRAD and all the theory about Middle Years Disengagement” and that they recognised that the program fitted neatly with Stages of Learning Years 9 and 10. The College community is currently in the process of revising curricula and seeking to put together a different Year 9 syllabus with strong emphasis on “getting the kids out of school for camps and excursions … hiking, surfing, skiing … getting them out of Wedderburn”. The Principal commented: “According to all the research, kids need different experiences … [Cityscape] has been part of that”. Other initiatives designed to foster middle years engagement have included a Snow Camp, participation by some Wedderburn College students in the Alpine School, and a number of ruMAD?-style projects within the local community (see below).

Partly for funding reasons, Wedderburn College has run Cityscape as a residential camp through ADVANCE classes in 2007-8. ADVANCE is one of six core subjects undertaken at Wedderburn College during Year 9. It is an Office of Youth funding initiative, aimed at promoting community engagement and leadership. Cityscape supplements and complements other ADVANCE


32

partnerships at Wedderburn College, including projects with the local Country Fire Authority and Red Cross and a Council initiative to revegetate and refurbish the town reserve, Donaldson Park.

At Wedderburn College, Cityscape is not integrated into the curriculum through academic subjects such as SOSE, Maths or English as it is in a number of other schools. While students do post Cityscape presentations they do not, for example, have an opportunity to use survey material in their academic subjects or to do ‘authentic work’ in Maths using data that they have collected at the Cityscape program. The teachers commented:

“The kids were taken out of their general classes to do the pre-program work. They did a presentation to staff at staff meetings”.

This lack of integration into the mainstream curriculum is also reflected in the skills and teaching practices that teachers have experienced at the Cityscape and then taken back to try at school. While in the other two case study schools this was mentioned as a positive outcome of attending the Cityscape program, the teachers at Wedderburn College could not remember using any Cityscape approaches in their classes at school.

Apart from a few students, the whole year level (around 20 students) took part in what the school calls the ‘Melbourne Camp’. The Principal described what the school wanted from the week doing Cityscape:

“What we wanted to get out of it [Cityscape] was the urban experience …to give the kids the experience of Melbourne. We’ve got a lot of farming community kids who might never go to Melbourne … They can be very Wedderburn-focused

In 2008, the school also decided to do WOW at year 9. All students attended WOW for the week although there were reservations among two of the younger staff who accompanied them. They felt that a week focussing on work in the city was not connected enough to the working future that some of their students will have if they stay in the country. Students and other staff interviewed did not express this reservation and enjoyed another week in the Melbourne CBD. Another teacher commented:

… WOW, again, was experiencing working life in Melbourne … They really enjoyed catching the tram [etc] … getting to know their way around the City. WOW focuses on broadening students’ understanding of work … [Cityscape] [focuses] more on challenging thinking processes and engaging with people … They’re different enough to justify the students undertaking both. Both are enjoyable experiences”.


33


34

Program Outcomes Many of the young people who attended FYA’s city learning programs or who participated in school-based FYA learning experiences in 2007-8 are from schools in areas defined as facing a ‘circular pattern of disadvantage’ (Black 2007b:1) and where many students have low educational aspirations and attainment. A number of these schools are located in the northern suburbs of Melbourne which contain (a) half of all secondary schools in the bottom 20% of State VCE (year 12) performance and (b) almost 40% of primary schools in the bottom 20% of standard literacy benchmarks (Tomazin, 2008). Schools which took part in the WOW pilot had the lowest levels of post school university enrolments in Victoria and significantly high rates of post year 12 students looking for work (DEECD 2008). This figure correlates with research findings that lower achieving students are more likely to experience unsuccessful transitions from school to employment (Lamb and McKenzie 2001) and that students with the lowest academic achievement in the middle years have the lowest rates of participation in year 12 and higher education (Marks, et al 2000).

Because the Cityscape and WOW programs have only been in operation from 2005 and 2007 respectively, none of the participants to date have completed year 12. Accordingly, a comparison in outcomes at year 12 cannot be made at this stage. The schools are confident however that the programs have made – and are continuing to make - a difference to these students. Information gleaned from focus groups and interviews with staff, students and leadership at the three case study schools confirmed:

That students and teachers are responding positively to the content, style and philosophy of the city learning and other FYA programs;

That schools are actively accessing the programs as part of their strategies to combat Middle Years disengagement;

That schools are increasingly seeking to integrate City Learning experiences (and, in some cases ruMAD? or Back To School ) into their general curricula and structures; and

That FYA Programs appear to enjoy most impact at schools where they have been integrated in this way.

As noted earlier, analysis of the Cranbourne, Hume Central Secondary College and Wedderburn College school partnerships with FYA, has been one component of a comprehensive program of evaluation that has tapped multiple student, teacher and FYA staff perspectives on the current impact and effectiveness of the three city learning programs (Cityscape, WOW and Step Up), FYA’s school-based programs (ruMAD? and Back To School) and the Opportunity Scholarships/Grants initiative. In seeking to assess which of these programs are currently working best (and why) in schools facing disadvantage, we have drawn extensively on both the case study data and responses contained in that series of reports.


35

1. Student Engagement and Learning Cole (2006) notes growing consensus among educationalists that, in order to function effectively in the constantly changing information society, schools need to provide students with capacity and motivation to be: a community-builder; a team worker; intellectually curious; a problem-solver; self-regulating; reflective and independent, and flexible and adaptable. He notes that students tend to respond positively to curriculum that links to lives outside as well as inside the classroom (i.e. what is often called authentic curriculum), and that they do not respond to traditional, competitive curriculum that fails to cater for their skills, interests and futures. Staff and students at the three case study schools highlighted the attractiveness and authenticity of FYA’s city learning programs in this regard. Feedback from a range of student and teacher participants in FYA’s current cluster of programs underlined the programs’ capacity to engage, challenge and motivate students, in some cases young people defined as “at risk”.

(a) Student Engagement with the City Learning Programs I: Cityscape

The structure of the Cityscape program promotes engagement with learning through opportunities to be: a team worker; intellectually curious; a problem-solver; self-regulating; reflective and independent, and flexible and adaptable (Cole 2006) In the lead-up to the five day Cityscape experience, students complete a preliminary sequence of class-based exercises and activities, including preparation of a research brief, selection of work teams and topic of interest, and development of a hypothesis to be tested during the course of the program.

While at Cityscape students take part in a range of educational and motivational workshops with community organizations and group/personal reflection activities that promote self reflection while the independent investigation of a chosen topic/theme through discussion, interview, observation, internet access within context of the CBD, provides opportunities for team-building and development of action research skills. The Cityscape week also links to the students’ lives in the classroom and provides possibilities for authentic learning when back at school. On return to school, students are invited to reflect on personal and team outcomes of the week, and to analyse the data they have collected prior to formally presenting their findings to peers, staff and parents.

Although students at the three case study schools were quick to point out that their initial contact with Cityscape had been a requirement of Year 9 and while individuals admitted to having felt varying degrees of uncertainty or anxiety at the prospect of spending a week in the CBD, it was apparent from the focus groups that the program had generally met or exceeded expectations. Reported outcomes included: improved time management skills (catching trains, getting to appointments and interviews on time), demonstrated ability to work under pressure, enhanced skill at negotiating public transport, greater practical knowledge of the CBD, and increased confidence at speaking, asking questions and communicating. Confirmation of (a) the resonance of the Cityscape setting and CBD-based programs for students; (b) the value of integrating the CBD experience into the


36

curriculum; and (c) the flexibility, versatility and adaptability of Cityscape itself was provided by feedback from two other schools, Korumburra High School and Northcote High School. At Korumburra High School (a rural high school), Cityscape is a well-established feature of the Year 10 curriculum, and the focal point (since 2004) of a cross-curricular Learning Project, offered (as at Wedderburn College) as an annual ‘Melbourne Camp’. Korumburra High School students cited both the opportunity to spend time in Melbourne and “ownership” of their projects as key factors in their enjoyment/engagement with the program. They commented:

“It was something you wanted to do … our own choice …so it had interest. That made us more determined to finish the tasks, do well …We got lots of new information … got a say in what we did”.

Northcote High School’s Cityscape experience (like those of Cranbourne Secondary College and Hume Central Secondary College) has been part of a recent Middle School revolution that has witnessed construction of a purpose-built, interaction-oriented Year 9 Global Citizens Centre on campus. As part of the restructure, Cityscape was trialled by two Year 9 Northcote High School classes in 2007. Participating staff noted that they first became aware of the program through other schools (“word of mouth”) at a time when Northcote High School was considering setting up a variant of its own. A teacher commented:

“We thought ‘Let’s check out [Cityscape], see what it’s like … We grabbed a spot last year [and] were impressed enough to drop the [original] idea and take [their program] on board … Kids doing stuff and teachers taking a back seat … It fitted in [with our philosophy]”.

These responses were reinforced by positive survey data. 91% of a sample of 2008 participants agreed that Cityscape had added value to their education while 87% credited the program with having helped them “learn to think with an open mind, accept peoples’ differences and be open in new and unusual situations”. 83% of respondents declared themselves more likely to look for opportunities to engage in the world around them. 67% now felt more interested in learning.

(b) Student Engagement with the City Learning Programs II: WOW and Step Up

WOW

Student engagement is enhanced in particular through WOW as one of the strengths of the program is providing a curriculum that responds to young people thinking about their futures (Cole 2006). Survey data indicated that, as a result of attending the program:

82% of participants were thinking more about the kind of work experience they wanted to undertake;

79% of participants had a clearer view of how they would like to work in the future


37

87% of respondents felt that the week had expanded their sense of what was possible; and

90% now had a better understanding of “what it takes to succeed”.

Students found that the program had provided “a good chance to meet new people, make connections”. They noted that WOW had provided them with (a) useful exposure to the different ‘Worlds of Work’ within the CBD in the Banking, Legal, Arts, and Commercial sectors and (b) an understanding that the core skills of networking, co-operation, teamwork and self-management were essential to success within each sector.

Step Up

Acknowledging the importance of providing young people with the capacity and motivation to be team-workers and community-builders in the world of “now” (see Cole 2006), the Step Up program focuses strongly on the development of people, group and leadership skills with a particular emphasis on participants returning to their schools as ambassadors. Component workshops (e.g. Reach Leadership, ‘What is Leadership?’ or ‘Reflect and Recharge’) explore multiple meanings and aspects of Leadership and Teamwork and the personal qualities and skills needed for effective team-building while activities such as ‘Melbourne Maze’, ‘Circus Skills’ and ‘Team Lunch’ provide participants with practical and community-based teamwork experiences.

Interview data indicates (a) that most students accessed Step Up in search of a curriculum that catered for their interests; and (b) that they generally came away from the experience with markedly enhanced awareness of their personal strengths and improved understanding of group processes and dynamics. For example: one Hume Central Secondary College student reported that her initial interest had been “to learn more about me and the people and the world around me … and not be stuck in a classroom…[to be] more hands on” The student in question (self-described as “always a quiet person in everyone’s shadow”) reported enthusiastically having “got what I hoped” from the week and, subsequently, having been able to utilize her newly-developed organizational skills back at school. “I’ve gained so much … I’ve [since] organized a camp for the whole school”, she commented. Other young participants noted that they have since served as tour guide at a school Open Day, planned a farewell function for one of the Cityscape staff, captained a sports team, promoted World Homeless Soccer or addressed a parent group. One 2007 graduate was selected as a delegate to the Young Ambassadors Conference in Canberra.

A teacher actively involved in promoting Step Up at her school highlighted the program’s benefits for young people’s “emotional intelligence” as well as their research and people skills, noting that it provides, in effect, a practicum in “learning how to operate in a co-operative way”. Students cited the value of the week’s activities in teaching them how to tackle interpersonal tensions and group conflict positively (e.g. “learning to disagree on some things” in the interests of completing an activity successfully), and how to problem-solve in flexible and adaptable ways. (See Cole 2006).

(c). Student Engagement with School-based FYA Programs: ruMAD? and Back to School


38

As was the case with the City Learning programs – and based on positive experience of them - interviewees stressed the potential and capacity of ruMAD? and Back To School to engage students, this time within school and local environments. As Cole 2006 notes: students tend to respond positively to curriculum that links to lives outside as well as inside the classroom, what is often called authentic curriculum.

ruMAD?

The implementation of ruMAD? has been particularly successful at Gagebrook, a primary school in the lowest socioeconomic district of Tasmania, serving a community described as “generally disengaged from school …We have the highest rate of everything except employment”. Seen as a way of building positive bridges between school and community, ruMAD? was successfully trialled with one class in 2006, and has since been adopted wholeheartedly throughout the school, integrated into the curriculum under leadership of a designated ruMAD? coordinator, i.e. a teacher released from other duties, one day a week, to oversee and implement ruMAD? activities.

In 2008 Gagebrook Primary School classes have tackled three ongoing projects, a recycling initiative, a pollution project and a strategy for preserving the endangered eastern barred bandicoot. Staff described the activities as extremely successful at exciting and maintaining the student engagement as the activities are related to the students’ interests (Cole 2006). “It’s really nice to walk into groups and see how engaged the kids are”, noted the principal.

[It’s] because they chose the activities…. The kids are invited to share their passions and interests…. Narrow them down to one common passion they can share in, and then match that passion with local issues … Teachers can influence, coerce, but at the end of the day their choice is from their passion.

Staff at Gagebrook Primary School cited a hundred per cent support for the activities undertaken to date: “never yet a splinter of kids saying: ‘We like this idea better’ … They can see really good endpoints”.

A more recent commitment to ruMAD?, by Loganlea State High School in Queensland, has also provided strong evidence of increased student engagement with learning. (The school serves students in a district described as “an impoverished area with lots of violence and an over-riding sense of powerlessness”). Currently in its first year with ruMAD?, Loganlea State High School staff have embraced the program as “a legitimate framework … a vehicle for what the school’s already doing with the kids … ruMAD? fits in well with our way of thinking”. [School Leadership, Loganlea SHS] In 2008, three classes have initiated and developed projects addressing the common theme ‘The Need to be safe from Violence’: a funded Violence Awareness Day, an anti-smoking initiative and a fitness program.

Loganlea State High School’s ruMAD? co-ordinator (officially, the school’s SOSE co-ordinator) spoke eloquently of the empowering nature of the program, noting that the “very kids [usually] most disengaged are the ones wanting to drive the day”.


39

They were amazed … found they could take their ideas to Admin and be seen [by the Principal] as a person not just a student. It has provided a chance for adolescents to talk with peers rather than as children to adults.

Teachers at the school expressed similar pleasure at “significant changes in behaviour …The students who are [usually] most challenging are sitting in the front row”. As a down-to-earth example of re-engagement, one teacher (who has delivered ruMAD? through SOSE) recorded: “I have the same kids for English and SOSE … the kids much prefer SOSE …The program gives kids motivation”.

As with the city learning programs, the positive Gagebrook Primary School and Loganlea State High School experiences highlight the importance of staff and school leadership support, and effective integration of school-based FYA activities into the school year and structure, in maximising student engagement.

Back to School

Similarly, there was agreement among interviewees that the Back To School program provided greater opportunities for student engagement when tied in with other school activities than when offered as single one-off experiences. (“A bit of continuity would be beneficial” was one assessment). While a small sample of teachers involved with a Back To School visit agreed that the program had enjoyed either moderate or substantial success as (a) a learning exercise for students, and (b) as a means of re-engaging students with learning, there was feeling that there is scope for it to be woven into the SOSE syllabus or form the basis of an ongoing school-community partnership.

(d). Student Engagement and Learning Facilitated by Opportunity Scholarships and Grants

Examination and assessment of the awarding of Opportunity Scholarships and Opportunity Grants highlighted their value as agents of re-engagement with the learning process. FYA staff and nominating professionals at a range of state schools provided multiple examples of students reconnecting with school, or rethinking their educational futures, thanks to successful applications for an award. These examples included:

The case of a Year 9 recipient who has actively chosen to stay on to Year 12 based on his scholarship-funded term at the Alpine school;

The case of a talented young arts student, previously deemed likely to be lost to the education system, now reconnected and seeking post-Year 12 media training based on funding for a digital camera.

The case of a boy with a “social disability” who, also against expectation, has gone on to “specialise” [in Years 11 and 12]. (According to his nominator: “Without the [OS] he would have dropped out. His attendance was already suspect. It was encouraging for his family, significant for his self-esteem … I was deeply moved at the School Awards night to see him up on stage … The only thing that kept him travelling was the Scholarship”).


40

The case of a student who had been homeless in Year 11 enabled to complete Year 12 “with higher aspirations of further education”, and now representing her school as Community Liaison Captain and Leadership Council Representative.

The case of a student, described as “heavily into Goth sub-culture”, who accessed a scholarship for Music and, with it, “the opportunity to be a bit more mainstream while still being a sub-culture kid …That kid is now an Ambassador for the school”.

These examples supported survey findings that 66% of a (limited) sample of recipients planned to stay longer at school as a result of having received a scholarship, and that a further 16% had already gone on to university or accessed careers facilitated, in part, by the award. In other cases of participation (at a more modest level), co-ordinators of Opportunity Grant-funded programs at two schools provided several concrete examples of disengaged students responding positively to extra-curricular learning experiences in the areas of Dance, Theatre Arts and Crafts. These examples included the cases of:

A New South Wales fifth grade student with attention problems, a history of bullying, and confronting a reported “disaster scenario”, whose untapped talent for cooking was identified through the experiences. One teacher commented:

“He gets such a buzz out of the reaction when other kids try what he has made. For the first time in his life, he is a Provider. He’s now helping one of the mothers cook lunch one day a week”.

Several boys at a regional New South Wales primary setting, who “generally sit bored at the back of the class” being mesmerised by a visiting theatre arts acrobatic troupe (and the first to volunteer when audience participation was requested).

A student identified as “pretty much illiterate” who revealed an unexpected artistic streak, producing work “of a quite astonishing calibre”.

A group of Koorie students at a regional Victorian secondary college, whose involvement in a series of break dancing workshops positively affected their school attendance and demonstrably bolstered their confidence and sense of achievement.

Impact of Programs in Promoting Student Engagement back at School

Interview data and survey data indicated that students frequently exited their week(s) at Cityscape, or their involvement with an ruMAD? project with a renewed perspective on school and/or the learning process

One Year 9 focus group, interviewed shortly after completing a mid-year Cityscape week, felt that school had “changed a bit … It’s just school….But [we] feel more freedom now … [and] the chance to express what we’d like the teachers to do … They give us space, … let us learn from our mistakes … it’s looking good”. One ruMAD? facilitator spoke of that program’s capacity to reconnect students “who would normally sit back and watch things happening” to learning. “It was great to see the students come out of their shell … working as a team towards a common goal … [using] their talents and skills”.


41

Other comments included these assessments by two graduates of WOW.

You realise you have to have school. You can’t expect to leave at Year 8 and get a job over someone with Year 12 and College. As soon as you can you need to know what you want to do, know what you need to do. At Year 10 you need to think about what subjects you’ll need. School is really, really important.

Before I used to think ‘Oh no. School!!’ Now, in the last year, I’ve set my mind to work. Education only comes once. It’s important’. [Students Fawkner S C]

Staff at the three case study settings echoed and confirmed the impact of the programs in nurturing reconnections to schooling. At Cranbourne Secondary College, for example, a significant drop in absenteeism has been attributed to a curriculum revolution that has included the FYA programs.

“This way of learning - less of the teacher out front talking, more discussion, kids being responsible … has a real impact on kids, especially at Year 9 … In 2004 our absences were within the worst 20% of the State. With the change of program, in three years Year 9 [absences] have dropped dramatically, from 23 days to 19 per kid … That’s above the state mean. The kids can’t say they hate school as previously … The change is partly because they have their own location, own identity … [Cityscape] has helped shape the Year 9 program”. [School Leadership, Cranbourne Secondary College]

Cranbourne Secondary College staff noted that changes to absence statistics have been affirmed by an upswing at Year 9 in Student Attitudes to School data (previously “bouncing around the lowest 5% in the State”). While unable to provide similar “hard evidence” of wider change within their own Year 9 and 10 cohort, staff at Wedderburn College affirmed that “anecdotally the kids enjoy [Cityscape] and WOW” and expressed surprise at how much they actually got out of the week (as evidenced by their final Presentations). Other comments from Wedderburn College personnel included: “They got more than expected”, “the experience is great”, “activities like URBAN SEED and Lexus Centre broaden their experience” and “it was great to see the kids circulating [at Connell Wagner boardroom breakfasts], introducing themselves to the team … right out of their comfort zone”.

At Hume Central Secondary College, similarly, staff reported that the benefits of FYA programs have been “huge both in terms of attendance and engagement”. “There’s been a big change over the last three years…. Going from a passive to an active mode of learning”. In their view, the impact of these changes has been felt beyond Year 9. “The spirit has developed and the kids want to continue … [The spirit] has overlapped into Year 8 … [and] our Year 10s are doing a whole range of things … The stars of Year 9 are now the stars of Year 10”. There was acknowledgment also that there has been “substantial


42

improvement” and development in the activities offered at (or through) Cityscape.

While a far fewer number of students complete Step Up each year there were very positive results in regard to engagement with education for those who participated in the intensive activities. 93% of a sample of Step Up graduates felt they had a better attitude to school than previously. As a result of accessing the program, individual Step Up participants reported:

Greater involvement in extra-curricular activities back at school;

Greater openness to new opportunities;

Changed friendship groups (based on active choices about who they wanted to spend time with); and

Better relationships with teachers (i.e. as person to person rather than student to adult).

2. Addressing Socioeconomic Disadvantage

Analysts of the educational landscape have highlighted the impact of disadvantage in creating a range of exclusions (social, cultural, economic) that constrain and restrict the life experiences of many young Australians. Black (2007a: 17), for instance, points to the disturbing number of suburban Secondary school students

Whose knowledge of metropolitan Melbourne is largely confined to their immediate neighbourhood;

Whose leisure activities are frequently bounded by TV or “hanging out” at the local mall;

Who have developed and display low or inadequate social skills; and

Who reach the end of their formal schooling with little understanding of the opportunities that might be available beyond their local community (or the so-called “Five km radius”).

Recent research (eg. Pope 2006: 10) has also emphasized the importance for young people of mentors and role models (i.e. adults other than parents able to offer insights into the wider world and so affect or foster motivation and engagement) and of personal, associational and community networks and contacts that can connect them to career paths and labour markets. Black comments “Young people who live in disadvantaged communities have few links with people who are employed, university educated or living outside the area … and limited access to the networks and connections that can provide the opportunities for social and economic well-being”(2008:2). Citing 2001 PISA Report findings of the marked (and growing) gap between high performing and low performing students in Australian schools in a period of rapidly evolving social structures, and with particular reference to the current situation in the State of Victoria, Koshland (2006a: 1-2) affirms that:

Growing numbers of young people are without these networks (or contacts with supportive adults).

Growing numbers of young people do not have role models in their lives and have never heard success stories about their schools or the schools’ alumni.


43

Growing numbers of young people do not feel they are active members of their community or feel powerless to effect change within that community.

Many young people have never been into, or been exposed to the cultural and social possibilities of, the Melbourne CBD.

Recognition of these factors has underpinned the development and delivery of FYA’s current cluster of programs, with familiarization to the CBD a core component of Cityscape, WOW and Step Up (and Youthink); the facilitation of networks and provision of role models core features of WOW, Step Up and Back To School; and student-implemented social and community change the raison d’etre of ruMAD? Self-analysis and the development of social, interpersonal and communication skills are similarly key objectives of the City Learning initiatives.

The following themes have emerged as important elements for addressing socio economic disadvantage.

Development of Social and Interpersonal Skills

In recognition that young people facing SES disadvantage may not have had opportunities to develop adequate social skills, enhancing confidence and nurturing students’ social and interpersonal skills are important foci and priorities of the City Learning experience.

Interviewees highlighted the effectiveness of the suite of programs in providing progressive opportunities for participants to facilitate peer interactions and relationships. Although in some cases (e.g. combined Wedderburn College-Wheelers Hill Secondary College or Ballarat-Cranbourne Secondary College groups) more than one school had been required to share space and activities during the Cityscape program, students generally worked in pre-organised (and hence relatively safe) friendship groups. By contrast, WOW and Step Up activities required participants to team and interact with students from other settings.

There was acknowledgement that being compelled to talk to or team up with strangers could be challenging (“It didn’t always work” was one assessment). Alternatively, “meeting new people” and “getting together with people you normally wouldn’t mix with at school” were cited as particularly rewarding aspects of the week. (“You get to bond more … Spend time with kids you wouldn’t normally know”) In most instances, interviewees reported that initial distrust (“casual dress versus uniforms” or “blue against grey uniforms … blue down one end of the room, grey the other”) had gradually given way to camaraderie (“We made friends by the end of the week … [It was] a good opportunity to have to get to know each other … The groups merged thanks to the workshops … [Cityscape] was a safe environment in which to open up”). Instances were cited of Step Up graduates maintaining friendships well after the week had finished.

Likewise, students recognised that the challenge of approaching members of the public for interviews usually became less daunting with practice. “I now realise that Melbourne people are not really rude … Before now I never would have gone up to a stranger in the street … It opened our eyes to new cultures, other cultures in Melbourne”, was one student finding. .


44

Some students felt that they had come away from the programs with a much better understanding of their personal strengths, better understanding of others, a tendency to be less judgmental, “lots of concern for others” and increased capacity to think from others’ perspectives. (“I’m a nicer person now” was one self-conscious self-assessment). “The kids had do a lot of soul searching”, confirmed one teacher. “… [The City Learning workshops] developed their self-awareness to a high degree. It was quite emotional and self-revealing for some of them … Learning through self-analysis.” [Teacher, Bentleigh SC]. Wedderburn College students reported increased “confidence within the class group”, “knowing more about each other” and “confidence from being on my own … I’m not as shy now”, as welcome by-products of their Melbourne experiences. Wedderburn College’s Principal confirmed that “being forced to be able to converse, [to] be in a group, show leadership” has been a “boost to [the kids’] self-esteem … The kids are articulate … Pleased with themselves … They get a lot out of it. 99% would never get the opportunity [otherwise]”. He felt also that the City Learning experiences had been valuable “in countering parental perceptions that their children should know what they want to do [i.e. career-wise]. [Cityscape], and WOW tell them: ‘You don’t need to know … Just provide yourself with foundations’”.

Other students pointed to opportunities provided by the programs for meaningful connection with adults and/or more spontaneous communication with teachers. The confidence to talk with teachers is then sometimes extended when returning to the school setting. For example, in 2008 a small number of Year 10 students, all graduates of Step Up 2007, initiated and organized a lunch-time forum as a means of speaking to Hume Central Secondary College’s incoming new principal.

Moving Young People Beyond the Five Kilometre Radius

Opening up possibilities outside young peoples’ immediate environments is a key objective of the city learning programs, with structured access to the rich resources of the Melbourne CBD both a major attraction and learning strategy of the activities that make up Step Up, Cityscape, WOW and Youthink. Actively getting students “out” of Wedderburn, Broadmeadows, Cranbourne or other geographical areas of entrenched disadvantage was consistently cited by schools as a primary motivation for exploring partnerships with FYA. For example:

“The year we were planning [Cityscape], I took a Year 12 Legal Studies group into [the Legal precinct] … The kids had no idea where anything was. Half had never been on a tram … It’s the standard thing – kids do apprenticeships, don’t leave the local area. We’re actively aware of the problem – kids won’t travel to uni from here. Kids are offered places at unis but they knock them back because it is too far to travel and they are unsure. We wanted to broaden horizons”. [School Leadership, Cranbourne Secondary College]

“ A lot of kids are really wary about leaving their comfort zone … Believe me, it took a lot of cajoling and talking to get them to take


45

part … I had to reassure parents that they weren’t going to get lost, that they’d be safe in the City and on the trains travelling in … Out of Fawkner, out of here … [It] had to be done. For some kids it was the first time in the City … Just to see big buildings, sit in an office … By the end of the week they were managing the City easily … Every day was a day out”. [Teacher, Fawkner Secondary College]

Survey data underlines the success of the city learning programs in (a) building students’ sense of belonging and connectedness to the City of Melbourne, and (b) using the Melbourne CBD as a learning resource for young people. For instance, 91% of a sample of 2008 Cityscape graduates, and 87% of a sample of graduates of the WOW pilot, declared themselves more confident navigating the streets of Melbourne as a result of the programs. 82% of WOW graduates now saw themselves as part of both the City of Melbourne and their own suburban community. Elsewhere, Step Up graduates interviewed during that program’s evaluation uniformly cited heightened connectedness to Melbourne as an important personal outcome of the program. .

Enhancing Community Connections and Broadening Networks Black (2007a: 35) notes that students in high social capital schools typically enjoy access to enriching learning experiences that draw on parental links to business, industry and cultural organisations and networks, and that these experiences and linkages are often unavailable to young people in schools facing geographic and socioeconomic disadvantage. A central feature of both the Step Up and WOW programs is strong focus on the development of networking skills, thereby facilitating and fostering connections. Teachers and students stressed (a) the value of the contacts facilitated by WOW, in particular, through workplace interactions; and (b) the opportunities provided by all the city learning programs for meaningful liaison with mentors, role models and inspirational speakers.

In some cases, students found the interactions valuable in counteracting preconceptions or stereotypes. (“Everybody talked to someone in a suit … found that people in suits aren’t so bad”). Others derived value and insight from hearing varying perspectives on the meaning of success in life and work. (Contrasting viewpoints on balancing life and work or “the need to have a passion” were seen as particularly instructive). For many students, it was noted, accessing the programs (and the CBD) has effectively “opened up possibilities” such as work experience in the city, volunteer experience, or seriously re-thought career options. Specific examples included:

At one school no student had undertaken work experience outside the local community until the school’s involvement in WOW.

the case of a student hoping to follow a career in law; the WOW program enabled him to interview (and network with) representatives of a city legal firm at a Workplace Breakfast;

a talented Maths student, unsure of future paths pre-WOW, now contemplating actuary studies thanks to a fruitful interview with a university professor;

Eight Hillcrest (now Hume Central Secondary College) who volunteered to pack Christmas boxes at the Smith family after going there for a workplace visit during the


46

WOW Pilot. Some of these students have been given scholarships by the Smith Family to help them stay at school;

Program participants who generalised enterprising skills (developed through WOW) by successfully lobbying for work experience placements at Cityscape itself. (“One of our students networked with the staff. On his own initiative he spoke to the staff and asked for the work experience coordinator and got their email contacts”). [Teacher Hume Central Secondary College]

A student who credited an interview with a Macquarie Bank representative during WOW with “helping me figure out what I’m going to do”.

Another student described the WOW program as particularly “good for Year 10 kids thinking about pathways, VCE … What courses to take … WOW was about trying to find yourself … workplaces and yourself” while others suggested that some WOW contacts had been more instructive in showing them “where they didn’t want to end up”.

Three Step Up graduates became actively involved in promoting World Homeless Soccer.

One Step Up graduate was selected as one of 29 delegates to the Young Ambassadors Conference in Canberra.

Another Step Up graduate successfully organised a school camp for 30-40 Hume Central Secondary College students.

Issues of social justice and broader community concerns underpin FYA’s outreach with city learning workshops and activities such as ‘Urban Seed’, ‘The Big Issue’, ‘Painting Soccer Balls’ (for the Homeless World Cup), or motivational interactions with Inspirational speakers (including representatives of organisations like ‘Make Poverty History’), focusing explicitly on the potential for all individuals to take social action. The ruMAD? Program, in particular, articulates a strong belief in the capacity of members of the so-called Generation Y to become “active rather than dormant citizens”, to create real change and to make a difference in school or community. The program promotes:

Student awareness of both the community and issues in the community

Awareness of how individuals and groups can have a positive influence

Student ownership of specific initiatives.

In addition to examples listed above, the many ruMAD? projects implemented across the country in 2007-8 have included a ‘Celebrating Democracy’ conference, an Art auction to raise awareness of victims of landmines in Cambodia, Make Poverty History walks, and establishment of a community vegetable garden. As one teacher observed:

“The kids believe it gives them an idea of what the future looks like … That’s a major plus … [Both] teachers and kids believe they are making a difference”. [Teacher, Loganlea State High School]

According to a short survey of 2008 ruMAD? participants:

59% of the student sample felt they had made “some”, “quite a bit” or “lots” of difference to the community; while 47% felt they had made quite a positive mark on


47

their school. (For example, several Year 10 students felt they had made “quite a bit” or “a lot of” difference by (a) working in a soup kitchen for a few days and organising a raffle to raise money for homelessness; (b) involvement in dance and photographic displays. Other schools cited positive outcomes from fundraising for Homeless World Soccer or from contact made with the Big Issue and the Royal Children’s Hospital).

73% of the sample felt that the experience had significantly heightened their awareness of the world around them

80% of the sample cited varying degrees of heightened self-awareness as a result of the program.

Interviewees provided specific examples of students’ involvements in ruMAD? projects having strengthened school-parent-community connections. For example: Gagebrook Primary School’s involvement with ruMAD? has nurtured increased parent involvement and significantly improved public perceptions of both the school and local community. Where media mention of the Gagebrook-Brighton district of Tasmania has traditionally been negative (along the lines of reports of bus services being suspended because of rock-throwing or threats by Emergency Services not to attend because of violent incidents), Gagebrook’s ruMAD? coordinator noted:

“You wouldn’t believe how much positive press we’ve had … fantastic TV and radio coverage … the Sunrise Program … Really great stuff!” [Teacher, Gagebrook Primary School]

Gagebrook’s 2008 projects have facilitated and nurtured partnerships with a local conservation park and recycling business. Elsewhere, Loganlea State High School’s ruMAD? projects have drawn on partnerships with Griffith University and a local speedway with a view to making one project (a fitness track) self-sustaining through hiring it out to community groups. Other schools reported improved regional school-communal networks as a result of a dance display at the local show and a photographic display mounted to raise awareness of youth depression.

Providing Role Models and Mentors

Recognition that a lack of access to appropriate role models or mentors can be a major area of exclusion for many disadvantaged young Australians informs and underpins the content of the WOW and Step Up programs. Activities such as ‘Classroom to Boardroom’, Workplace breakfasts and lunches, talks by Inspirational Speakers, ‘Welcome to My World’, Reflection Tables and workplace Interviews all seek to provide participants with opportunities for meaningful dialogue, conversation and connections with adults other than their parents and teachers. (Participating role models/mentors and Inspirational Speakers are recruited from different sectors of the community, and include business and local government leaders or representatives, sports stars, motivational speakers, spokespersons for charities or philanthropic groups, social change activists or members of FYA’s own team).

Interaction with mentors and the potency of personal accounts by community or business leaders were identified by teachers and students alike, as memorable highlights of the city programs. One young participant’s insistence that “the role


48

models was one of the best things about [Step Up] … I’d like to be like them. The best guys ever” was reinforced by a teacher’s view that “the mentoring program with the young executives was fantastic … The way they bonded with the students was really good … [At the end-of-week presentation] I could see the closeness they had developed with the kids in a short time” [Teacher, Bentleigh Secondary College].

Students recognised that the programs had given them valuable opportunities to see or hear other people’s approaches to life and issues such as successfully balancing life and career. A number of WOW graduates, for instance, welcomed the opportunity to discuss career aspirations or uncertainties with sympathetic and informed adult listeners, including program facilitators and “guest people”. (“Our ideas about success changed over the week. Talks with the [Cityscape] staff helped us along the way”, was one summation [Student, Fawkner Secondary College]). In some cases student-adult interactions at WOW and in the various workplaces facilitated the development of mentor relationships, providing the students with contacts, awareness of options and sources of advice. One student, keen to access a career in forensics, was given useful follow-up guidance by one of the Inspirational Speakers. Another found talking with an ex-journalist at one of the workplaces “a real eye-opener”, and an incentive to study journalism herself. Another student credited WOW staff with giving her sufficient confidence “to stand up to my parents and tell them not to force me to be a doctor when I have no sincere passion to be one”.

Provision of role models is likewise a key objective of the Back To School program. Examination of the program’s implementation at a sample of schools in 2008 indicated that visits to schools by successful alumni can be highly positive and memorable experiences for student audiences. For instance: three biennial visits to his old primary school by a Victorian Bank executive and competitive sailing achiever have been a marked success.

“We’re keen to have him and he’s keen to come back. He’s had a very positive response from the kids … good rapport … He really appeals to some of the boys … We’ve now developed a relationship and that’s important for a school with such a transient population … lots of refugees … lots of families doing it tough … It’s good for him to see the diversity of backgrounds and for them to see how a kid can make it … It’s good for the teachers too. He’s very positive about their work and the challenges they face… He’s been a good role model. We’re very happy with the program”. [Principal, Dandenong Primary School]

“It’s good for disinterested boys, seeing someone who says ‘I really wasn’t much good at Maths … I wasn’t the best kid, wasn’t school captain’ … Kids can make that connection … you CAN make something of your life”. [Teacher, Dandenong Primary School]

Staff at a South Australian high school, described as an alternative setting, were similarly pleased with the capacity of their local mayor to interact with students during his Back To School visit. Noting that “our kids need to meet as many


49

people as possible … In some instances they lack role models [and] need someone else’s perspectives”, they reported that hearing the mayor’s life experiences and his message that “you don’t have to stay in one job” had diverted and interested the students. “From what I saw, the kids were certainly engaged by the speaker”. [Teachers, Enfield High School]

Student responses from other surveyed schools included:

“When someone special comes to tell you what you could achieve in the long run it makes you think. “ “I believe that the Back To School event was a great idea as it taught us so much about ourselves and what we could do in the future and what we can achieve”. It was a great experience. I think it should happen twice a year”.

Confirmation of positive student reactions to accounts of individual achievement (and the overriding message that success is attainable) was provided by survey findings. 73% of a (limited) student sample expressed moderate to very strong admiration for the visiting alumnus; 79%of the sample rated the Back To School experience either ‘good’ or ‘fantastic’. However, while this and other data highlighted the potential of the program, there were also clear indications that the effectiveness of Back To School is subject to a number of variables (most notably the capacity of the visitor/alumnus to engage and interact with students), and that the program works better in some situations than others. (Only 57% of the student sample identified significantly with the visitor as role model, for instance). Clearly, the ability to establish rapport can be more useful and important in this regard than celebrity status. There were also indications that a Back To School event works best (a) when it enjoys support from school leadership and the school community; and (b) when it is integrated into the school’s curriculum or structures. (See below)

3. Impact on Teaching

Value of FYA Programs as Teacher Professional Development

The re-orientation of teacher practice along student-centred, inquiry-based lines, is a cornerstone of FYA’s philosophy and fundamental to its outreach. (Both Cityscape and ruMAD? aim explicitly to serve as models for teachers of non-traditional independent learning; Cityscape incorporates a specific professional development component while the ruMAD? process involves FYA-directed training workshops). As one teacher commented:

“[Cityscape] touches us. It doesn’t change everything but it gives us a model. [Teacher, Hume Central Secondary College].

Responses from staff representatives at the three case study schools confirmed the value and impact of their FYA partnerships in this regard. Unsurprisingly,


50

feedback suggested that the impact is greatest where integration of programs into the curriculum has been streamlined.

At Cranbourne Secondary College, for instance, school leadership highlighted an evolution in teacher attitude over three years of attending Cityscape.

“[We’ve seen] changes from the very first year … our teachers saw different ways of doing things … [Initially] there were differences in expectations and style between the [Cityscape] staff and here … Now they come together a lot more …We have close on 30 staff who have visited [Cityscape], know the program well, understand how it works …. In the past [our Year 9 classes] were more teacher-directed … now there’s more balance between teacher responsibility or accountability and student-directed activity …Individual teachers take an interview-style approach in Careers Ed [for example]. At a recent teacher forum here, we recognised the need for an across the board teaching philosophy … there was unanimous agreement that our chief focus should be on the kids taking responsibility … That’s a miracle on a staff of a hundred”.

It was noted also that exposure to student-based learning in the CBD has complemented Cranbourne Secondary College’s own re-direction towards CHOICE. As the assistant principal noted:

“Our initial plan [in creating CHOICE] was to push the team-teaching barrow - directing learning, kids in teams, kids taking responsibility [etc], believing that our teachers would gradually pick up the idea. … That stuff was happening … [Cityscape] reinforced this – provided a practical model … Now they’ve all embraced it. We didn’t realise involvement in [Cityscape] would have such a positive effect [on staff] … weren’t aware that was a likely outcome. It’s been an ‘unforeseen bonus’ …

One teacher interviewee at Cranbourne Secondary College suggested that there might be potential for teacher veterans of FYA programs to take team-learning and community engagement concepts to the next level, i.e. to “franchise the idea out”, possibly establishing a local version of Cityscape (with funding from local councils) and/or offering professional development for other schools in the region.

In terms of impact on teachers and on teaching philosophy, Hume Central Secondary College staff, like their Cranbourne Secondary College counterparts, credited Cityscape activities with having enabled participants to “think about their craft differently”. A teacher commented:

“ … There are professional development opportunities every time we send people to [Cityscape] … [chances to] reflect on practice…. What is useful for learners to learn? How do we prepare for Inquiry? What do we need to do beforehand if we want outcomes?


51

[Opportunities for] finding common elements with other teachers … talking about kids in relation to sharing knowledge and skills … Bringing teachers together … acknowledging each others’ strengths … giving legitimacy to teachers’ additional skills”.

While there was acknowledgment that “some teachers change [but] not others” and that, in some cases, “teachers can work with the kids all week [at Cityscape] yet be back behind that desk by Monday”, it was felt that “at least it starts a conversation … if we’re lucky, seeds have been planted”. As at Cranbourne, school leadership noted that the fortuitous presence on staff of individual teachers with strong personal commitments to FYA’s philosophy and ideals had helped maximise the impact of the city learning programs. As a teacher commented:

“You need key people with natural or developed talent for weaving, insisting and talking … [to] weave a web of understanding … Eventually [they] can step back but other staff will take it on … People see success and feel they can be part of it … From being [one teacher’s] baby, the programs have been taken on by the larger staff … People who didn’t want to be part of the party are now on board”.

The particular instance was cited of a young second year teacher whose one day experience at Cityscape has deeply influenced “the way she writes curriculum in SOSE across the board … Finding out what students’ needs and interests are, and drawing on them … She has taken her approach from WOW”. Hume Central Secondary College staff noted also that sharing the Cityscape or WOW experience can impact very positively on teacher-student relationships. As one teacher commented:

“Teachers who have been at WOW or [Cityscape] have enormous kudos with the kids … Discipline is [generally] much easier to handle … They know what the kids’ capabilities and interests are … I told one group: ‘I am never taking second best from any one of you again because I know what you can do’”.

Individual teachers at Cranbourne Secondary College and Hume Central Secondary College credited the city learning programs with providing validation of their own strengths and career choices. One teacher expressed surprise at the work options identified by the WOW program (“I had no idea these jobs were out there”). Others felt that programs like WOW affirmed the meaning, purpose and value of their own work and their own professionalism. “Constantly learning about success and the avenues to success … sometimes [the information is] new, sometimes it’s confirmation of what we do”. One experienced Careers teacher recalled being offered a human resources position by representatives of a major urban corporation who had been impressed by the way he managed a highly diverse mix of Year 9 students.

While most teacher comments on the programs were based, understandably, on personal involvement in WOW and Cityscape activities, one teacher noted that the selection, nomination, application and post-program evaluation components of Step Up had also been valuable as teacher-student relationship-building


52

exercises. (“Step Up was a chance to look at leadership in differing ways – an opening up of possibilities … We made a big deal out of it”).

City Learning principles and practices appear to have had less impact, to date, on teaching at Wedderburn College. While conceding that seeing Cityscape in action can be a useful exercise for teachers, the principal doubted whether there had been significant follow-up on return. There was general agreement among interviewees that, to date, Cityscape and WOW have been “more about the [City] experience than anything … They [teachers] tend to see [Cityscape] in isolation. We don’t focus much on Inquiry stuff”. At the same time, there was (a) some feeling, particularly on the part of the principal, that FYA programs had potential as a blueprint for change at Wedderburn College; and (b) positive indications that staff were “gradually becoming aware of the bigger picture”, the constraints of declining enrolments and staff numbers notwithstanding. As the principal noted:

“Its hard to identify [specific] changes to teacher practice but we are seeing some … We’ve done a lot of professional development on teaching according to student needs … with real focus on different learning styles … and we’re gradually seeing it being introduced across the school … incorporating ICT into the curriculum …. As much team-teaching as possible across Years 7-10”.

Interviewees at other settings provided strong feedback that both the city learning and school-based FYA programs are providing teachers with first-hand experience of student-centred learning in action. The SOSE co-ordinator at Loganlea State High School, for instance, believed that the school’s current ruMAD? initiatives had been “a useful learning exercise for everyone”, most importantly as a means of allowing teachers to see “kids normally defined as not engaged” actually leading the activities. She commented:

“We forget teaching is not just about the curriculum, [that] we’re teaching the WHOLE child. Teachers think [disruptive] behaviours [occur because] kids are bad when really it’s just that they haven’t learned to love learning. … We have so many great kids – honest, gutsy … and ruMAD? gives them opportunities … [They’re] foregrounding their strengths rather than their weaknesses” .

This assessment was echoed wholeheartedly by other teachers at Loganlea State High School who identified the flexibility of the ruMAD? program as one of the most enjoyable aspects of the experience. “Being able to go where the students take the sessions” and “responding to where the students want to be” were among the responses. There was recognition that “teaching this way can be challenging, particularly for people not experienced in [working] this way”, but there was agreement that the potential benefits outweighed the difficulties. Comments included:

“This style of learning is excellent for staff if they are open-minded … There’s a lot of potential to see other ways of going about doing things … being facilitators rather than traditional teachers”. [Teachers, Loganlea SHS]


53

Teacher respondents to a survey of ruMAD? 2008 participants confirmed that their projects had enjoyed either “some success” or “lots of success” as prototypes of independent student-centred learning. One teacher (from Banksia-Latrobe Secondary College) indicated, for instance, that involvement with ruMAD? had influenced his own teaching style (“I like facilitating”). ”). Another survey respondent highlighted the potential value of ruMAD? for “ the wider community … and any ‘interest group’ who wanted an exceptional framework to spring from”. (The respondent in question plans to use ruMAD? in facilitating a ‘Koorie Pathways’ group in north-eastern Victoria).

4. Facilitators and Barriers to Successful Participation Each of the three case study schools has underlined its enthusiasm for an ongoing relationship with FYA, based on positive student responses and the perceived value of the city learning programs in (a) engaging and extending participants, and (b) in modelling next practice for teachers. This enthusiasm was echoed by interviewees at other settings. Barriers to Participation

There are indications, however, that the intensity of that relationship is, and will continue to be, subject to a number of variables, most crucially funding. It was noted that resistance on the part of parents, teachers or students themselves can also influence the success of the programs.

Funding costs for rural schools

The principal of Wedderburn College, for instance, noted that his school’s participation in Cityscape and WOW has been heavily – and necessarily – subsidised to date. Estimating that a week in Melbourne (including hire of a bus, program fees, staffing and accommodation) costs between $13,000 -14,000, he expressed concern at the school’s continuing capacity to find adequate funds. In 2008 Wedderburn College’s Cityscape week was able to draw on the ADVANCE grant and St Vincent De Paul drought money. He commented that: “The kids ended up paying only $70 each … that’s only a drop in the bucket but it’s important they make a contribution so they value it”. The WOW week was a “one-off”, funded through the LLEN North Central Local Community Partnerships initiative and he noted: “It wouldn’t have been possible without the subsidy”. With enrolment numbers (and income) declining, the principal observed:

We won’t be able to afford WOW next year … We hope to continue [Cityscape]. We’ve been lucky so far [re funding] … something has [always] come up. It won’t always … We’d like to do other [FYA] programs but we’re constrained by cost. Cost affects our other outdoor programs as well”.

Funding for metropolitan schools

Staff at Hume Central Secondary College likewise described funding for the programs as “a perennial problem”, noting that: “in 2007 every [Hillcrest] kid


54

went thanks to the generosity of the Myer Foundation. We were saved this year by ADVANCE and School-Youth Focus money … 75% of our kids are on EMA; they only pay half”. In this case, however, there were suggestions of growing cross-campus support for the City Learning concept (based on the enthusiasm of former Hillcrest Secondary College and Broadmeadows Secondary College staff and students) and the implication that future funding for Cityscape, at least, may be seen as a budgeting priority. This support was demonstrated in 2008 by the principal-supported decision to extend (and fund) the WOW experience to all Year 9 Cityscape graduates. While unlikely to be repeated (“ We have concerns at the effect of difficult kids on the WOW staff, plus we don’t know that all the group got what they should [out of it]”) there was a belief that the exercise had paid dividends in terms of engagement and strengthened teacher-student interactions. As one teacher commented:

“By the end of the week, they were lovely. It was a tough week discipline-wise but the kids were beautiful by Friday”. [Teacher, Hume Central Secondary College]

The funding situation, while a constant, appears to be less critical for Cranbourne Secondary College. Students noted matter-of-factly that Cityscape is “part of school fees”. While it was noted that some parents “don’t pay it off”, there was a feeling that program costs had become an expected (and, hence, accepted) aspect of Year 9. Parental Resistance

Parental resistance, either on the basis of cost or – more usually - out of concern at the unknown (i.e. possible risks within the CBD, potential dangers of public transport), was cited as another significant barrier to participation in the city learning programs. In some cases, parents have objected to activities that did not meet traditional criteria of school work. One teacher spoke at some length about the need to work hard on parents’ perceptions, providing them with “spot-on information” about FYA programs and promoting “a conversation to take away negative perceptions of the programs”. Not infrequently, parental resistance has been echoed by the students themselves in anxiety at the prospect of travelling outside the so-called “5km radius”. Another teacher highlighted the willingness of her peers to help allay parents’ (and students’) misgivings by personally superintending the students’ use of the metropolitan rail system. “We needed to tell the parents about it in Year 8 … get them used to the idea … Staff had to get to work by 7.30 and travel in with the kids”. (This appears to have been a factor at all three case study settings – and elsewhere). It was generally agreed that repeat involvement by schools in Cityscape, etc, impacts on parental concern, and that resistance has decreased as the programs have become an accepted part of the overall school year. Teacher Resistance

Notwithstanding the demonstrated success of FYA programs in challenging and influencing participating teachers (see above), there was some acknowledgment that teacher resistance can also be (and has been, on occasion) a factor in the success or otherwise of any City Learning experience. There was acknowledgment at Cranbourne Secondary College, for instance, that some


55

teachers have had real difficulty matching the “looseness” of Cityscape with their perceptions of duty of care. As one teacher commented:

“There have been tensions. School is an orderly, regimented place … Teachers have raised concerns about the environment at our weekly meetings … matching up our expectations with [Cityscape]’s expectations … Some staff adapt more readily than others … I think it’s important for the school – a lesson that we worry too much about some things”.

Cityscape staff confirmed a degree of fear and suspicion as typical of new teacher participants, noting that:

“We [generally] see that turned around by Thursday or Friday … They visibly relax … Their interactions with the students are more genuine, honest and open … There are tensions convincing teachers we’ve been doing this for a while … By the end of the week they [usually] let go and trust us for a bit … This is a fairly standard process. Most want to bring kids back in again. 70-80% of our schools are repeaters”.

Other interviewees reported that program success can be compromised by lack of interest on the part of fellow teachers (even active resistance to the concept of inquiry-based learning), or a by a general lack of support from school leadership or peers. (“There’s always resistance”, recognised Loganlea’s ruMAD? co-ordinator. “You need to keep going straight ahead … the wind tunnel syndrome … just do it!”). Instances were cited where:

Preparation for Cityscape could not be accommodated in the school’s timetable;

Attempts to incorporate city learning programs into the Year 9 syllabus were vetoed by sectors of the school community;

Schools had difficulty recruiting or releasing staff to attend or co-ordinate programs. (In the case of rural settings, this was sometimes compounded by the need to find staff prepared to undertake residential duties in Melbourne. “Staff have lives” conceded one principal).

Multiple demands on teachers meant that sufficient time could not be found to successfully implement programs and/or projects. (For example: Insufficient planning time as the chief obstacle faced by staff at Gagebrook Primary School in that school’s successful ongoing ruMAD? involvement. The principal noted:

“We’ve got a lot on our plates … Tasmania has just introduced a new curriculum with strong emphasis on Literacy and Numeracy … very strong literacy push … and we’re [getting into] that. You also need time to do quality planning for ruMAD?”)

Other barriers

Interviewees cited a number of other barriers to successful implementation or perpetuation of programs. These included:


56

Student fears about undertaking the programs;

Teacher or school concerns about student behaviour on program (resulting in exclusion of a handful of students). A common response was:

“We try and include as many kids as possible but each year about 5% are omitted – legal concerns … One kid in the last batch only did four out of five days – despite warnings, he couldn’t do the right thing … 95% benefit so strongly” [School Leadership, Cranbourne Secondary College )

Lack of integration of programs/activities into school structures, calendars or curricula;

Bureaucratic or policy constraints. (For example, Departmental regulations have dictated major changes to Loganlea’s ruMAD? anti-smoking initiative. Teachers conceded that the need to accommodate regulations constituted a learning exercise in its own right);

Lack of preparation for programs or activities. (In the case of Back To School, for instance, interviewees cited the failure of visitors to take into account changing school demographics or students’ life circumstances before addressing groups or assemblies).

Factors Facilitating Program Success

Conversely, student, teacher and FYA staff respondents identified a number of factors likely to enhance the value, profundity and long-term impact of programs and learning experiences. Program Location

Citing international research that buildings and physical environment affect the way people feel and learn, Black (2004: 1-2) notes that Cityscape breaks down boundaries separating schools and the world around them. There was general acknowledgment among respondents that geography (i.e. the Cityscape’s location at the heart of Melbourne, in close proximity to multiple inner-urban precincts and a diversity of real-life learning resources) is a key and crucial contributor to the attractiveness and memorability of the Cityscape, WOW and Step Up programs. As one observer has noted:

“The teaching methods and the student learning styles can be replicated [elsewhere] but the CBD itself cannot”.

Difference of the Programs from usual School Activities

According to student interviewees, much of the enjoyability and accessibility of WOW, Cityscape and other FYA programs lay in their difference from what was generally offered at school. “Being without teachers”, “seeing things I’ve never seen like the Channel 7 Building and alleyways filled with graffiti by very good artists”, “going around the City in a group”, “more hands on stuff instead of books and writing”, or “the workplace can get across different messages to school” were typical responses from students asked to nominate the best aspects of their week(s) at Cityscape.


57

“Instead of teachers telling us what to do, we had a lot of freedom. We were free to do what we liked … researched in our own way … We got lots of new information – we got a say in what we did … They didn’t treat us like kids” [Students, Cranbourne Secondary College]

“You learn more at [Cityscape] … public speaking, taking responsibility, confidence with talking … you wouldn’t do that at school. I’d rather be there than here” [Students, Hume Central Secondary College]

“[Cityscape] is different from school … a different environment … Activities at school are so different here in the country. Camps like these are really good … coming from the country, going there. It was a massive big experience for all of us … the people you meet, see … The freedom of it – going around Melbourne. It was all good”. [Students, Wedderburn College] “There are walls at school, no walls at [Cityscape]”. [Student, Cranbourne Secondary College]

Teacher interviewees endorsed student sentiment in this regard, one Hume Central Secondary College respondent lamenting that many of her peers regarded learning as happening “only when kids are in the classroom”. By contrast, initiatives like the WOW program “modelled a different way of working with kids that used community resources”.

One student participant in a ruMAD? initiative to raise money for homelessness, described the fundraising project as “better than just doing usual classes … meeting people from outside who are doing different stuff was good”. [Student, Banksia-Latrobe Secondary College] Other interviewees highlighted the motivating nature of ruMAD? projects through which students select topics, decide what information they wish to find out – and how they will go about doing so - and proceed to “steer” the hands-on “doing” and evaluation phases of the project themselves.

“It is their topic, their connection with a community issue that they feel strongly about. They invite the guest speakers and form relationships with them. They experience how it is possible to have an impact on an issue, from local to global … How I wish it were possible to facilitate the entire curriculum in such a democratic manner!” [Teacher, Gagebrook Primary School]

Support within Schools

Feedback consistently suggested that individual FYA programs tend to have greatest impact in schools (a) where they enjoy strong endorsement and support by leadership; (b) where they have been experienced by a number of teachers; and (c) where teaching philosophy and practice have evolved along student-


58

centred lines. Cranbourne Secondary College and Hume Central Secondary College serve as good examples of settings where the commitment of enthusiastic individual teachers has energised and influenced other staff, and where there is strong support from Senior Staff.

There was strong feeling, both on the part of FYA staff and teacher interviewees, that staff consistency (where possible) and having teachers “who actually teach the students accompany them to [Cityscape]”, tends to maximise the impact and value of the CBD experience for all concerned. Cityscape staff commented:

“It works best if you have the same two staff for the whole week, or at a minimum one. It’s all about transforming … the kids need to feel witnessed by someone who can see where they have come to by the end of the week”.

It is clear that the presence in schools of high profile teachers with strong personal commitments to FYA ideology can be a vital factor in the success or otherwise of programs and activities. Interview data affirmed the importance of schools being able to provide a designated contact person or co-ordinator with the time and commitment to administer applications, liaise with Cityscape staff or FYA personnel, facilitate student paperwork, and so on. Instances were highlighted, for example, of:

Individual teachers having developed packages of program-related program materials and resources for use by student participants in the City Learning initiatives. (eg. at Cranbourne Secondary College , Korumburra High School)

Teachers having taken on active responsibility for promoting and implementing ruMAD? activities or projects within their schools and local environments. (eg. at Loganlea State High School, Gagebrook Primary School)

Teachers co-ordinating and actively promoting visits back to schools by former students

Nominating Professionals (usually teachers or school welfare staff) identifying and engaging potential candidates for Opportunity Scholarships, supervising their applications, advising FYA of changed or special circumstances (where relevant), and ensuring smooth running of the grants process from the school’s end. (eg. at Eaglehawk Secondary College, Lilydale Secondary College, Elwood College, the Raleigh School)

Teachers identifying suitable candidates for the Step Up program, encouraging them to apply, overseeing the application process and “witnessing their journeys” at end-of-program presentations. (eg. at Hume Central Secondary College, Bentleigh Secondary College).

Adequate Preparation, Presentation and Follow-up

The importance to the city learning process of (a) adequate preparation; and (b) formal presentation of findings was recognized by students and stressed by teacher interviewees. (“ The CBD Experience would have been a disaster without preliminary work” commented one Hume Central Secondary College teacher; “The kids need preparation – otherwise they’re a bit lost”, concurred Wedderburn College staff).


59

Preparation at Hume Central Secondary College currently includes a test-run research exercise as part of a five-day Year 9 Learning Journey sequence. Cranbourne Secondary College formally familiarizes participating staff with the CBD and trials questionnaires through practice runs at the local shopping centre. This has been fine tuned over a number of years. As one teacher commented:

“We’ve altered what we do and the kids now get greater benefit out of [Cityscape] … It was very evident this year that the kids were well-prepared”.

There was recognition also that success at both school and on the Cityscape, WOW or Step Up programs depends on how much the individual is willing to put into the process: “You have to participate … Some kids don’t join in … so you don’t get much out of it” [Student, Hume Central Secondary College].

At the other end of the sequence, formal presentations to peers, parents and other school community groups were seen (a) as providing a meaningful endpoint to the city learning process; (b) as a useful demonstration of the potential of inquiry-based learning; and (c) as a catalyst for wider school and parent engagement with FYA’s philosophy. (In some instances presentations have been taken a step further with students mounting formal proposals for consideration by Melbourne City Council via the Youthink program).

Staff at Cranbourne Secondary College, Northcote High School and Korumburra High School expressed particular enthusiasm for the value of end-of-program presentations. Northcote High School teachers talked of their satisfaction at seeing what their students could do in front of an audience, and cited presenting to the greater school community as evidence of the students’ commitment. At Korumburra High School, students utilise Powerpoint and Audacity software in mounting Showcase presentations that are regarded as “a big thing …the highlight of the year”. At Cranbourne Secondary College:

“Kids presenting findings has been huge … We had never thought of it. [Cityscape] taught us – kids need audiences beyond teachers. Our two most recent Presentation nights, we had 60 parents at one and 90 at another … That’s a really big improvement in parent participation … Our Year 10 VCAL kids also use the Presentation style now and the WOW kids work on a Parent presentation of some kind”[School Leadership, Cranbourne Secondary College].

The formal presentation process was also seen as a valuable adjunct to the Opportunity Scholarships program and a means of maximising its impact. Teachers and other nominating professionals connected with the program’s 2007-8 delivery stressed the value of formal recognition for both the recipients and their families. Comments included:

“We hold presentations – the kids without fail turn up with their parents … only time you ever see the parents … It’s a real boost to their confidence and self-esteem”.


60

“The little ceremonies and certificates ought to be continued … recognition within the kids’ own communities. It’s all reinforcement”. [Nominating Professionals, Eaglehawk Secondary College and Elwood College]

Integration of Programs into the Curriculum and School Structure

In the case study schools the city learning programs (Cityscape and WOW) are seen as fitting readily with the direction and philosophy adopted by both metropolitan settings as part of their fundamental revision of Year 9/10 programming. In both cases its effectiveness has been maximised by actively integrating FYA experiences into the Year 9 culture and curriculum, through work experience in year 10, and by promoting the week in the CBD as a focal point of the year’s programming. The fact that programs and processes seem less smoothly integrated into the school culture at Wedderburn College would suggest that this school (described by the principal as “a school moving towards Inquiry-based Learning”) is taking longer to enact or embrace fundamental Year 9/10 change.

Most importantly, it is apparent that integration of programs maximises their value, accessibility and impact for all concerned. Feedback from the case study schools indicated, for instance, that integrating Cityscape, WOW, etc into the Year 9/10 curriculum, and making city learning experiences a standard and regular feature of the academic year, has:

Helped legitimise the programs and CBD experiences in the eyes of parents; and has

Helped offset the “five kilometre radius” factor.

Highlighting the inherent value of repeat involvement, Cranbourne Secondary College school leadership observed: “A one-off experience is likely to have limited impact … Now all you do is mention [Cityscape] and half the school knows about it … Year 8 kids are getting ready for it”. In regard to enrolment in more than one FYA program, it was felt: “[Cityscape] is good … the others are really good … Multiple participation extends horizons, gives the kids extra opportunities”.

The desirability of integrating programs is confirmed by the highly successful examples of Gagebrook Primary School and Loganlea State High Schoolin implementing their current suites of ruMAD? projects. Gagebrook PS’s Principal noted that, stylistically, ruMAD? reflects the school’s subscription to team-teaching and a needs-driven curriculum:

“[ruMAD?] is not just a fill-in activity… we try to link it with the Social skills and Community thrust of the curriculum [and] the Literacy program … [We realise that] the best literacy is achieved through relevance … The classes [already] work together for our Social Skills program, Book Buddies …. Work and interact together We do a lot of hands-on stuff and we get to meet a lot of people … It’s not a radically different way of learning”.


61

“We set our sights high”, confirmed the school’s ruMAD? co-ordinator. “Three classes working together [means] we combine 60 kids in one room … That requires social skills not normally needed …The topics are larger than in small groups … [it means] more fundraising capacity, more ideas … As teachers, it has allowed us to do things and tackle issues in a practical way … not just theory”.

At Loganlea State High School, ruMAD? has already been written into the school’s 2009 Humanities and SOSE curriculum. Staff at the school agreed that ruMAD? could easily be tied to other subjects, or even offered as an extra-curricular option.

“You can go ‘in’ in so many ways …. It fits in neatly with the Values and Essentials frameworks … It is a methodology that our teachers MUST adopt not only because it empowers students to become active generators of their own learning, but it increases their capacity to positively affect their own world – incredibly important for children from impoverished communities. It generates within them a “can do” attitude that enables them to envision a better world for themselves and gives them the courage and skills to actively seek it. Well done, I say” [School Leader, Loganlea State High School].

Similarly, the fact that a growing number of schools are choosing to make the Back To School program a regular feature of their calendars, suggests a growing perception that that event works more effectively when associated with existing school programs than when staged as a “one-off” or “stand alone” activity. By way of example, one principal felt (a) that her school’s event would have meant more had it enabled students to establish a lasting relationship with the visitor and (b) that a systematic sequence of interactions between alumnus and students “might work better as a regular mentoring exercise … The one-off thing is useless”. Staff at other schools (in Queensland, Victoria and South Australia respectively):

Anticipated weaving future Back To School experiences into the school calendar, either within the SOSE syllabus or through existing school-community partnerships.

Identified potential for aligning the Back To School event with meetings of a Year 6 ‘School Parliament’, thereby providing students with leadership workshop possibilities; or

Suggested (a) that events such as mayoral visits might be linked to student council or youth action group meetings, or (b) that recruiting alumni like Robyn Archer to mentor a Digital Arts class, could be productive. (“We’d like to be more strategic in doing Back to School …We’ll definitely participate again but we’d like to be more pro-active”).

Interview responses suggested also that the structure of the programs themselves can be a factor in their success and/or capacity to engage students. The hands-on, intensive student-driven nature of Cityscape, for example, contrasts with the more passive (and, arguably, more traditional) nature of Back To School, dependent as it is on the ability of the participating alumnus to establish rapport with his/her student audience. It is apparent also that the multi-faceted content


62

of the city learning programs holds more inherent interest and scope for young participants than single or “one off” events.


63

Conclusion Responses from teachers, students and leadership at the three case study schools, and at other settings surveyed during evaluations, demonstrated the effectiveness of FYA programs (a) in providing middle years students with engaging and productive learning experiences; (b) in addressing and countering aspects of socioeconomic disadvantage (e.g. facilitating access to role models and networks, fostering social and communication skills); and (c) in providing teachers with practical models of inquiry-based pedagogy.

Interview data is strongly supported by the results of several program surveys. For example: 91% of a sample of Cityscape graduates reported that the program had added value to their education. 82% of a student sample had either chosen to stay longer at school, had already commenced tertiary education, or had accessed careers, thanks (in part) to receiving an Opportunity Scholarship. 80% of a sample credited ruMAD? With having heightened their self-awareness. This marked degree of program success and impact confirms FYA’s own statistics that indicate:

That 3,541 students participated in the Cityscape program in 2008; and

That 45 out of 46 participating schools were “repeaters”

That groups from 16 schools (eight metropolitan, eight rural) completed the WOW program during the same period;

That 230-plus schools, across five states, participated in ruMAD? 2008 (more than 1000 schools have undertaken ruMAD? projects since the program’s inception));

That 368 Back To School events were staged this year; and

That 243 Opportunity Scholarships and four Opportunity Grants were awarded in 2007 (for implementation in 2007-8).

In each case, participant figures represent an increase over the previous year (when, for instance, 3,200 students accessed Cityscape or 274 schools coordinated a Back To School event).7 Where 77% of school participants in Cityscape 2007 were “repeaters” (i.e. schools that had previously enrolled students in the program and had developed ongoing relationships with the program and staff), the retention rate increased to 97% in 2008. Staff note that there is a substantial (and growing) waiting list for places on the program.

These figures indicate that a large number of schools, in particular Victorian schools, (a) have responded to FYA’s outreach by accessing one or more of its programs; and (b) are choosing to make an ongoing commitment by repeat enrolment/registration.

7 While fewer actual Opportunity Scholarships and Grants have been awarded in 2008 than in 2007, staff note that alliances with the Smith Family and the Gateways Project have resulted in different delivery of funds in some instances. 48 Smith Family Living for Life awards and 40 Gateways scholarships, funded by OS, have been awarded to recipients for 2008.


64

Why Schools are Making a Commitment to FYA Programs (i.e. accessing programs on an ongoing basis)

There was general acknowledgment amongst interviewees that FYA’s city learning experiences articulate contemporary research into middle school curriculum and pedagogy. Asked to nominate their reasons for accessing, and continuing to access, Cityscape, WOW, etc., teachers at Hume Central Secondary College, Cranbourne Secondary College, Korumburra High School, Northcote High School and elsewhere noted that FYA’s approach and philosophy meshed neatly with their schools’ fundamental re-thinking of Year 9 curriculum. (The development of CHOICE at Cranbourne, subscription to Co-operative Learning principles at Bentleigh Secondary College, the construction of Northcote High School’s Global Citizens’ Centre, or Hume Central Secondary College’s NINE, exemplify these research-based initiatives). Individual schools:

Highlighted as influential the City Learning programs’ connections with community partnerships and non-traditional learning;

Saw involvement with Cityscape as a potent strategy for retaining young people at school “in order to improve their life chances”;

Felt that the programs neatly fitted criteria of being different, challenging, instructive (for both students and teachers) and authentic; or

Recognised the programs’ connections with a part of VELS often found difficult, i.e. personal/interpersonal learning. (“It’s a major tick-box opportunity”, according to FYA staff).

At a more practical level, schools cited the opportunity to give students the urban or inner-urban experience, and the chance to get them out of their local environment, as a primary motivation for participation.

In regard to FYA’s school-based initiatives, a number of elements of the ruMAD? program and philosophy were identified as holding particular attraction and relevance for schools, i.e. for providing students and teachers with:

Opportunities for real community engagement (both within and beyond school grounds)

Opportunities for engagement with real issues

Opportunities for Active citizenship (“something new … somebody new in the school”)

Opportunities for effecting and sustaining change (“so that the change perpetuates”)

Opportunities for Independent Learning

Opportunities for changed teacher practice It works beautifully in regards to modelling for teachers … [It’s] being touted as a Best Practice model … ruMAD? provides schools with a great opportunity … it always comes back to the capacity of the teacher …. Some teachers [embrace it], some pull back … We support as best we can. [Program Director, ruMAD?]


65

Feedback provided by the case studies and individual evaluations confirms a high level of teacher and student satisfaction with the programs in general, and offers compelling evidence:

That the programs are engaging students by providing them with authentic, student-centred learning experiences

That the programs are reconnecting many students with the schooling process

That the programs are facilitating positive changes in student behaviour and attitudes to learning

That the programs are serving as effective models for teachers of Inquiry-based learning in practice.

Involvement by schools in more than one FYA program

Interview feedback indicated (a) that schools believe that involvement in more than one FYA program delivers better outcomes for students than involvement in only one program; and (b) that schools believe that repeat involvement in programs maximises the impact on both students and teachers. There was feeling among a number of interviewees that one-off experiences have limited or superficial impact on young people, and that repeat involvement in one or more programs has much more resonance or meaning. “The level of continuous involvement is important” was one finding. “If you do something and the kids are horrid, it means you need to do much more of it” was another. Because of the Cityscape experience, it was noted, students were often eager to apply for other programs.

It should be stressed, however, that multiple participation does not, of itself, ensure optimum student engagement or success. In some cases teacher and student enthusiasm for Cityscape (for instance) was greater at schools where it was the sole FYA initiative than at schools where it was the first stage of a city learning sequence. if and how an fya program is integrated into a school’s curriculum appears to be a much more influential factor. Other factors important for success are support from school leadership and enthusiasm and commitment by teachers.

Interview data highlighted contrasting experiences of schools where programs or activities have been offered in isolation (or as an “add on” to the school calendar) or where they have been successfully integrated into curricula. Among the former:

The example of a teacher, keen to implement a carbon neutral initiative at her school following attendance at a ruMAD? workshop, but hampered in doing so by timetabling problems and a lack of peer support.

The case of a school that successfully sent a group to the WOW pilot in 2007, but has since been unable to muster sufficient numbers for a second involvement, highly positive student feedback notwithstanding. The teacher (who declared WOW “the best week of my [working] life”) cited parental resistance, student fears, funding and conflicting timetabling priorities among the barriers to participation.

The example of a secondary school that found its Back To School experience irrelevant and superficial. (Other Back To School participants cited more positive experiences but expressed the view that such events would have more meaning and resonance if they could be linked to other school activities or subjects).


66

These examples contrast markedly with:

The case of Cranbourne Secondary College where, under the Year 9 CHOICE umbrella, Cityscape is linked to Maths, Science, SOSE, ICT, Geography and English; and WOW links into the Year 10 Careers Ed semester. (Cranbourne Secondary College students also access Step Up and Youthink, and the school plans to re-access ruMAD? in 2009). As a vital component of a redefined Year 9 experience at the school, the city learning programs are credited with helping dramatically reduce student absenteeism, facilitating a marked shift in Student Attitudes to School data, and significantly redirecting teacher practice towards Inquiry-based learning.

The Bentleigh Secondary College example, where Cityscape and Step Up are successfully integrated into a curriculum informed by Kagan’s Co-operative Learning principles.8

The Korumburra High School example, where Cityscape is part of a four-term Learning Journey in Year 10.

The case of Gagebrook Primary School where teachers facilitate ruMAD? projects by linking them with the Literacy, Social skills and Community focus of a needs-based curriculum delivered largely through team-teaching. Following three years of successful involvement, ruMAD? enjoys sufficient cross-school support to have warranted one teacher being released one day a week to co-ordinate the projects.

The Loganlea State High School example where, in response to marked success in 2008, ruMAD? projects have been written into the school’s Humanities and SOSE curricula for 2009.

Connections to Schools’ Strategic Planning and “Next Practice” It is apparent that schools access or come to FYA programs from a number of motives:

In many instances, involvement has represented a considered response to the disengagement dilemma and has been part-and-parcel of a school’s Middle Years reform agenda.

In some cases (e.g. Gagebrook Primary School), staff have seen the programs (in this case ruMAD? projects) as a vehicle to foster, promote and strengthen school-community partnerships.

In other cases (e.g. Enfield High School), schools have seen particular value in providing their students with exposure to potential role models via the Back To School program.

Many suburban or rural Victorian schools have accessed one or other city learning program out of a strong desire to give students experience of Melbourne and the CBD or simply to get them out of their everyday environments (i.e. outside their five kilometre radius)

In some cases, involvements facilitated by individual teachers have been of limited duration because of a lack of peer or senior teacher support within the school. In other cases (e.g. Korumburra, Northcote, Cranbourne, Hume Central Secondary College), programs and principles have been embraced by peers and school leadership and adopted on an ongoing basis. Some school-FYA partnerships have been relatively informal; others (increasingly frequently) have

8 Miguel Kagan, Laurie Robertson & Spencer Kagan (1995) Co-operative Learning Structures for Classbuilding. San Clemente, CA, Kagan Co-operative Learning


67

been planned commitments as authentic learning practices and personalised learning experiences are being carried back as “next practice” ideas and concepts to evolving school communities.

Wedderburn College staff noted that Cityscape and WOW related to the school’s Strategic Plan “in a broad sense”.9 By accessing Cityscape and WOW, they were seeking to providing a program that (a) reflected student needs at that stage of learning, and (b) increased student engagement and nurtured higher morale. The principal noted:

“[Cityscape] fits under Learning outcomes and Engagement and Well-being, WOW under Pathways and Transitions … WOW focuses on broadening students’ understanding of work, [Cityscape] more on challenging thinking processes and engaging with people … Both are enjoyable experiences and different enough to justify students taking both”.

Staff at Hume Central Secondary College noted that the FYA programs fit into the Strategic Plan in terms of literacy development, active learning and pathways (“allowing kids to do things differently … [providing an] opportunity for kids to come forward, find their own strengths”). At Cranbourne Secondary College , where the Strategic Plan was described as “currently at draft stage”, Cityscape was described as “already built in” within the domains of Student Learning and Engagement.

Cranbourne Secondary College ’s CHOICE Program, with its over-riding local community and Cityscape focus, is by now a well-established Year 9 experience in which “we do things differently”. In terms of “Next Practice”, School leadership noted that current goal priorities include extension of student-centred learning philosophies and processes through restructure of its Year 8 program, and redevelopment of Year 10 within the Senior School and with access to VCAL, VET and VCE.

What works in schools? Interview data highlights and confirms the fact that FYA programs are:

Enhancing engagement in the middle years by providing students with authentic, challenging and community-focused learning experiences that differ significantly from much on offer in the traditional classroom.

Feedback from students, teachers and FYA staff confirm that the workshops and activities have many of the productive pedagogies identified in the Queensland School Reform Longitudinal Study (QSRLS), i.e. higher order thinking tasks, depth of knowledge, connectedness to a world beyond the classroom, problem based curriculum, Student direction, student self regulation, cultural knowledges, and active citizenship, and so on. Similarly, the programs

9 Based on recommendations of a formal external Review panel, the Strategic Plan sets out a school’s overall educational aims, goals and priorities for the ensuing four years, pending further review. Key implementation strategies are developed annually by the school community within the three domains of Student Learning, Pathways and Transitions, and Well-being and Engagement.


68

articulate MYRAD recommendations that teaching and learning acknowledge the need to cater for individual differences, present tasks requiring complex thought, and focus on the processes of co-operation, negotiation, communication and social competencies. The programs also relate to the essential learnings from VELS with their emphasis on teamwork, intellectual risk-taking and interaction with the real world.

Addressing issues of socioeconomic disadvantage and exclusion by: ♦ Facilitating the development of young people’s personal, interpersonal

and social skills; ♦ Providing young people with meaningful opportunities to move outside

the limits of their immediate environments and to experience the resource-diversity of the Melbourne CBD;

♦ Facilitating young people’s connections to community and development of personal and professional networks and linkages;

♦ Providing opportunities for young people to develop awareness of social and community issues and take ownership of specific initiatives (thereby “making a difference”)

♦ Providing young people with access to role models and mentors

Providing teachers with professional development in student-centred, personalised learning, thereby enabling them to perpetuate and incorporate Inquiry-based approaches as innovative or ‘next practice’ in schools.

Attracting growing interest from Victorian state schools (and, in the case of the school-based programs, from schools around the country).

As a result of successful experiences, growing numbers of schools are committing to an ongoing partnership with FYA, with program participation increasingly integrated – as‘innovative or ‘next’ practice - into curricula.


69

Recommendations Based on overwhelmingly positive reports of their participation in the current cluster of FYA Programs, and a marked degree of enthusiastic endorsement for each program by student and teacher interviewees, it is recommended:

1. That FYA continue to offer its current range of programs and Learning experiences and, where possible, expand program delivery.

2. That funding continue to be sought, and be made available, to facilitate continued access to and delivery of the current range of programs.

In regard to the city learning programs:

3. That FYA continue to offer Cityscape to students in Victorian state schools; and

4. That participating schools continue to access Cityscape as a matter of course (and as an annual and ongoing commitment).

5. That FYA continue to offer WOW and Step Up programs to future groups of suitable Cityscape graduates.

6. That priority and funding be given to schools in disadvantaged communities to assist and encourage student participation in Cityscape and WOW.

7. In the interests (a) of maximizing the teacher professional development potential of the Cityscape and WOW programs, and (b) enhancing the experiences for students, that schools work, where possible, to ensure consistency of staff support (i.e. sending teachers who know the students for the full week).

8. In the interests of maximizing the impact and meaning of the city learning experiences, that schools attempt to ensure students have under taken adequate preparation for the week(s).

9. Again in the interests of maximizing the programs’ impact, that participating schools seek, or continue, to incorporate the city learning programs into their general school curricula and calendars rather than offer them as one-off electives.

In regard to the school-based programs:

10. That FYA continue to promote and facilitate ruMAD? projects and Back To School events throughout the country.

11. That support be given, where possible, to assisting participant schools in

(a) Maximizing connections between the ruMAD? and Back To School programs and existing school subjects and activities; and (b) Integrating ruMAD? projects and Back To School events into the general curriculum and calendar.

In regard to Opportunity Scholarships and Opportunity Grants:


70

12. That FYA continue to make Opportunity Scholarships and Opportunity Grants available to individual and group applicants.

13. That schools continue to access the Opportunity Scholarships/Opportunity Grants program and encourage applications by eligible students.

In regard to both school-based programs and Opportunity Scholarships:

14. That schools endeavour to provide or nominate a consistent contact person to facilitate smooth running of application and implementation processes.


71

References Angwin, J., Henry, C., Laskey, L., McTaggart, R. & Picken, N. (1998) Paths to Pathways: vocational education and training for educationally disadvantaged groups of young people. Geelong: Deakin University

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). (2007) Young Australians and their health and wellbeing 2007, Canberra: AIHW

Black, R. (2004) ‘City Centre: a Research and Policy Rationale. The Need: Engaging Years 9 and 10’. Melbourne: The Foundation for Young Australians.

Black, R. (2006 a) ‘Equity and Excellence: Where do We Stand?: an Education Foundation Fact Sheet’. Melbourne: The Foundation for Young Australians

Black, R. (2006 b) ‘Overcoming Disadvantage through the Innovative Classroom’. Melbourne: The Foundation for Young Australians.

Black, R. (2007 a) Crossing the Bridge: Overcoming Entrenched Disadvantage through Student-Centred Learning. Melbourne: The Foundation for Young Australians

Black, R. (2007b). ‘How Equitable are Our Schools: a Foundation for Young Australians Fact Sheet’. Melbourne: The Foundation for Young Australians.

Black, R. (2008) ‘Students and the City: Linking the classroom to the boardroom’. Melbourne: The Foundation for Young Australians.

Brown, J, Holdsworth, R, Mukerjee, D, & Stokes, H. (2001) Building Relationships: Making Education Work Canberra: DETYA

Centre for Applied Educational Research (2002) Middle Years Research and Development (MYRAD) Project A Report to the Learning & Teaching Innovation Division, Melbourne: Department of Education Employment & Training

Chadbourne, R. (2001) Middle Schooling for the MiddleYears: What might the jury be considering? Melbourne: Australian Education Union

Cole, P. (2006) ‘Reforming Year 9’: Propositions for School Policy and Practice, Occasional Paper # 96, Melbourne: Centre for Strategic Education

Cole, P. Mahar, S. & Vindurampulle, O. (2006) Understanding year 9 Students: A theoretical perspective, paper No.8 Part A, Melbourne, Department of Education and Training

Connell, R.W., Ashenden, D.J., Kessler, S. & Dowsett, G.W. (1982) Making the Difference: Schools, Families and Social Division. Sydney: Allen & Unwin

Considine, G. & Watson, I. (2003) Learning Experience of Students from Low-Income Families. ACIRRT Working Paper #83. Sydney: ACIRRT

Considine, G. & Zappala, G. (2001) ‘Factors influencing the Educational Performance of Students from Disadvantaged Backgrounds’, in T. Eardley & B.


72

Bradbury (eds), Competing Visions: Refereed Proceedings of the National Social Policy Conference 2001. SPRC Report 1/02. Sydney: University of NSW

Considine, G. & Zappala, G. (2002) ‘The Influence of Social and Economic Disadvantage in the Academic Performance of School Students in Australia’, Journal of Sociology, 38(2)

Department of Premier & Cabinet. (2005) Better Outcomes for Disengaged Young People: Initial Scoping, Analysis and Policy Review

Dix, K. (2005) ‘Are learning technologies making a Difference? A Longitudinal Perspective of Attitudes’ International Education Journal

Dusseldorp, J. (1999) ‘Australia’s Youth: from Risk to Opportunity: Practices and Potential of Community Partnerships’. Education and Industry in Partnership, 6(2)

Dwyer,P. (1996) ‘What do we know about non attenders?’ in Melbourne Studies in Education, Vol 37, No 1

Healy, J. (2002) ‘Shifting from traditional Teaching to an interactive learning environment’. Education Horizons, 7(3)

Helme, S., Polesel, J., Teese, R.., Tanya, N & Walstab, A. (2005) Raising Expectations: Improving Student Retention in NSW Schools. Final Report. Melbourne: Centre for Post-Compulsory Education & Lifelong Learning, University of Melbourne

Hill, J. & Russell, V. (1999) Systemic, Whole-school Reform of the Middle Years of Schooling. Melbourne: Centre for Applied Educational Research, University of Melbourne

Hill, J, Jane, G, Mackay, T & Russell, J (2002) Middle Years Research and Development (MYRAD) Project Executive Summary, February – December 2001. Melbourne: Department of Education, Employment and Training

Keamy, K. Nicholas, S. Mahar, S. and Herrick, C. (2007 personalising education: From research to policy and practice, Paper No 11 Melbourne, Department of Education and Early Childhood Development

Keating J & Lamb S. (2004a) Public education and public purposes: School quality, sectors and place. Seminar Series # 138. Melbourne: IARTV

Keating, J. & Lamb, S. (2004b) Public Education and the Community: a Report to the Education Foundation. Melbourne: MUP

Koshland, E. (2006a) Launch of Equity, Excellence and Effectiveness: Moving Forward in Schooling Arrangements in Australia: an Address. Melbourne: The Foundation for Young Australians.

Koshland, E. (2006b) ‘Quality Education for All: Mapping the Educational Landscape’, New Matilda.com

Linguard, B. (2005) ‘Socially just pedagogies in challenging times’. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 15 (2)

McMillan, J & Marks, G. (2003) School Leavers in Australia: Profiles and Pathways. Melbourne: ACER


73

Mukherjee, D. (1997) Full-Service Schools Linking Schools and Communities. aare.edu.au/97 pap/mukhb467.htm

Munns, G & McFadden, M. (2000) First Chance, Second Chance or Last Chance? Resistance and Response to Education in British Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol 21, No. 1.

Murray, S, Mitchell, J, Dale, T., Edwards, J. & Zyngier, D. (2004) Student Disengagement from Primary Schooling: a Review of Research and Practice. A Report to the CASS Foundation. Melbourne: Monash University

Newmann, F.M. & Associates (1996) Authentic Achievement: Restructuring Schools for Intellectual Quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

NSW Commission for Children and Young people. (2005) Children at Work. (Researched and written by Toby Fattore) Sydney: NSW Commission for Children and Young People.

Pope, J. (2006) Indicators of Community Strength: a framework and evidence. Melbourne: Department for Victorian Communities

Rothman, S. (2003) The Changing Influence of Socioeconomic Status on Student Achievement: Recent Evidence from Australia. Melbourne: ACER

Smyth, J. & Fasoli, L. (2007) ‘Climbing over the Rocks in the Road to Student Engagement and Learning in a Challenging High School in Australia’. Educational Research, 49(3)

Speight, G. (2005) ‘Customising the School for Student Learning’. Principal Matters

Stokes and Tyler. (2003) ‘Stepping Stones’, International Journal of Learning Vol 10, pp 187-200

Stokes, H. & Wyn, J. (2007) ‘Constructing Identities and Making Careers: Young People’s Perspectives on Work and Learning’. International Journal of Lifelong Learning

Teese, R. & Polesel, J. (2003) Undemocratic Schooling: Equity and Equality in Mass Secondary Education in Australia. Melbourne: M.U.P.

Teese, R. & Walstab, A. (2002) Early Leaving in Victoria: Geographical Patterns, Origins and Strategic Issues. Melbourne: Educational Outcomes Research Unit, University of Melbourne

Teese, R., Nicholas, T., Polesel, J. & Helme, S. (2006) The Destinations of School Leaves in Victoria: On Track 2005. Melbourne: Victorian Department of Education and Training

Thomson, P (2002) Schooling the Rustbelt Kids: Making the difference in changing times: Sydney, Allen & Unwin,

Tomazin, F (2008) ‘Pay lure for principals’ Age, May 8, 2008

Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority. (2007) Victorian Essential learning Standards – Overview: East Melbourne, Victorian Curriculum Assessment Authority


74

Vinson,T. (2004) Community Diversity & Resilience, Melbourne: Jesuits Social Services

Yates, L. (2002) ‘Effectiveness, Difference and Sociological Research’. Discourse, 23(3)

Documents

Reimagining Learning Final Reportweb.education.unimelb.edu.au/yrc/linked_documents/Reimagining Le… · findings, the Reimagining Learning research project seeks to gauge the overall