team meeting

The ties that bind

Posted on by

Can Learning Circles strengthen Kāhui Ako?

learning circle
Tokomairiro Kāhui Ako’s Early Childhood, primary and secondary school teachers meet at Tokomairiro High School

Communities of Learning or Kāhui Ako bring together education providers who may have never met or shared a conversation with each other. So how can these teachers start talking together?

Harvard writers, Gratton and Erikson, in their Eight Ways to Build Collaborative Teams, tell us that it’s not an easy task to build new teams — the more experts we have in a group — the harder it is to build a community:

We found that the greater the proportion of experts a team had, the more likely it was to disintegrate into non-productive conflict or stalemate…

But they offer some hope…

Under the right conditions, large teams can achieve high levels of cooperation, but creating those conditions requires thoughtful, and sometimes significant, investments in the capacity for collaboration across the organization
(Gratton and Erikson, 2018)

So, what are the right conditions?

It might be useful to look at the Nordic countries where there is a long tradition of collaborative adult education and an established practice of lifelong learning through Learning Circles.

Sweden’s late Prime Minister, Olof Palme, often called Sweden ‘a study circle democracy’, which reflected the Swedish government’s policy around adult education. This national commitment currently sees nearly two million Swedish people annually benefitting from taking part in Learning Circles.

In small groups of 7–12 people, study groups share the knowledge and skills of their members or make use of external experts. They might be gaining new knowledge in a particular field or working to solve a problem. The most important factor at play here is that the focus for learning is decided by the participants themselves. Members choose a leader from the group, and the group’s activities are supported by a facilitator who is a representative of a learning organisation. The work of every group ends with an evaluation of results.

This enthusiasm for learning together is not surprising given the government policy on developing a love for learning. The Swedish government sees the practice of self-directed learning as essential to a healthy democracy because it:

  • supports equality and an understanding of the perspectives of others
  • starts from the individual’s voluntary, personalised search for knowledge
  • is characterised by shared values and cooperation
  • aims to strengthen individuals’ ability to gain agency and influence in their own lives and be able, together with others, to change society in accordance with their values and ideals.

Where did the idea come from?

The Swedes were by no means the first to popularise the learning circle as a mechanism for capturing the collective wisdom of the group.

The method has been central to many indigenous cultures for millennia. Early talking circles were often seen as wisdom circles, serving as more than just a place for talking together. Indigenous peoples in North America have always seen Circles as a way of life — they embody a philosophy, principles, and values that apply whether people are sitting in a circle or not.

Clearly, this powerful community process has merit, surviving over time and reaching across the cultures of the world. Civic organisations, neighbourhood communities, trade unions, churches, and social justice groups have used, and are using, learning circles to empower their members to share, make choices, and take action.

In the 1980s, The Quality Circle was a term used to describe the same practice in corporate settings. In Quality Circles, the hierarchical boundaries between workers and managers were flattened to encourage participatory management and shared team leadership.

Originally associated with Japanese management and manufacturing techniques developed in Japan after World War II, the business Quality Circle was based on the ideas of W. Edwards Deming. The goal was to encourage everyone to develop a strong sense of ownership over the process and products of their company — and the practice continues in many socially responsible businesses today.

It seems that no matter what the name — study circles, peer learning circles, talking circles, or dialogue-to-change programmes, the principles remain the same — they are spaces where learning is collaborative, participation is democratic, there’s respect for every voice, and participants learn from the collective wisdom of the group.

Back home in our Kāhui Ako, could this work?

Last year, the Lead Principal of the Tokomairiro Kāhui Ako, Tania McNamara, thought it might work, saying:

We know what we’re trying to do in terms of student learning – but we need a method to bring people together in a way that really engages everyone.

After seeing the potential of Learning Circles, Tania visited all the schools and centres in the Kāhui Ako and listened to leaders and teachers talk about their interests and passions. Getting a big-picture view of educators across the spectrum — in ECE, primary and secondary education centres — she was able to identify strong common themes of teacher interest and expertise.

The most interesting and exciting thing about mapping the educators’ passions in this way was the discovery that there were areas of common interest running across all these educators. This made for diverse, cross-level interest groups who might be able to share knowledge and collaborate in a genuine way.

The Tokomairiro Research Pods were formed with the focus areas including work on cultural responsiveness, co-teaching and collaborating in innovative learning environments, developing learner agency, integration of digital technologies, and passion for learning.

Tokomairiro Kāhui Ako is trialing the idea of Learning Circles — called Research Pods — by arranging for groups to meet together twice a term.

The initial buzz and enthusiasm as teachers make personal connections across areas of interest bodes well for this simple initiative.

To be continued…the next chapter is in process.

 

learning circle in education
Research Pod meetings at Tokomairiro Kāhui Ako

Sometimes the most important thing you get from the network isn’t an idea but the inspiration or courage to try something new
#innovatormindset George Couros

 

References:

Andrews, C. (1992). Study Circles: Schools For Life. Context Institute. https://www.context.org/iclib/ic33/andrews/

Bjerkaker, S. (2014). Changing Communities. The Study Circle – For Learning and democracy. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042814045534

Dennis, L., (2010).Talking Circles: An Indigenous-centred method of determining public policy, programming and practice. (2010). https://dspace.library.uvic.ca:8443/handle/1828/8304

Gratton, L., & Erickson, T. (2018). Eight Ways to Build Collaborative Teams. https://hbr.org/2007/11/eight-ways-to-build-collaborative-teams

Larsson, S., & Nordvall, H. (2010). Study Circles in Sweden: An Overview with a Bibliography of International Literature.
http://swepub.kb.se/bib/swepub:oai:DiVA.org:liu-57887?tab2=abs&language=en

Suda, L. (2018). Learning Circles: Democratic Pools of Knowledge.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED457363

 

Photo credits:

All photos by the author.

 

CORE’s Expert Partners can assist you to:

  • Develop robust and quality achievement challenges and plans that will accelerate student achievement
  • Strengthen evidence gathering practices.
  • Define problems; undertake evidence-informed action planning.

 

read more
Posted in
I am still learning

Finding the joy in learning. Harnessing the power of ‘What if…’

Posted on by

I am still learningI cannot believe that I have just spent the last four hours learning a new skill, so engrossed that I was totally oblivious to the passage of time. My goal was to become familiar with a new (for me) digital tool to share with teachers. I saw its potential to increase the engagement of students in their learning, allowing them to easily demonstrate their learning, to deepen their learning in a wide range of curriculum areas and key competencies. As an extra bonus, the end product looked cool to boot! I had spent most of the day fully focussed, going off on tangents to add to my kete of skills, exploring, being curious, failing, succeeding, failing again, pushing myself to go beyond just a basic level of competency by asking myself, “What if I…”, “How can I…”, “Where can I find more out about…”. I ended up with a skill set I could apply in my role as a facilitator AND with a product that I had created of which I was very proud. I would be able to share my creation and my learning on a wider global platform as well as share it with others as part of my facilitator practices (Learn, Create, Share1).

I can almost hear you saying, “nice story, but what has this got to do with anything?” It led on to my wondering, what if more of the learning within schools could be like this? What would need to change?

I know many schools are moving towards, or already include this style of learning with extended periods of time via project/problem-based learning, genius hour, inquiry learning, etc., but what if all students at all levels could feel as engaged and as excited about their learning as I did about mine today? Today, I experienced being lost in the joy of learning that is too frequently denied many of our students.

The OECD report on The Nature of Learning2 (2010) may have come out a while ago, but we still need to be cognisant of its seven principles of learning (pg 6-7). On reflection, many of those principles applied to me today:

  1. Learners at the centre — I was motivated to construct my own learning pathways and was actively exploring as I had a clear and authentic purpose for this learning.
  2. The social nature of learning — I may not have been working collaboratively with others at the time, but my purpose was to share the outcomes of my learning with others so that they were then empowered to create learning opportunities for their students, in a tuakana/teina way.
  3. Emotions are integral to learning — throughout my learning I developed a sense of achievement, encouraging me to explore further via a feedback loop of failure and success, to be proud of my final product. I became increasingly motivated to be curious and to persevere.
  4. Recognising individual differences — I was able to direct and manage my own learning based on my learning needs, abilities, and motivation. I had the freedom along with the support to explore, and I had options to refer to when I encountered difficulties.
  5. Stretching all students — not being satisfied with a basic level of mastery and asking, “how can I make this better?” pushed me to stretch my skills as did the final expectation of having to share my learning with an audience.
  6. Assessment for learning — I was clear on the ‘why’ of this learning. Achieving mastery as various stages provided formative feedback — I can do this, so what can I do next? Summative assessment came when I was successfully able to teach others, who were then able to teach their students, who in turn … (a cascade effect of learning/teaching).
  7. Building horizontal connections — learning for an authentic purpose allowed others to make connections to a range of learning areas, especially when I asked them, “how can this tool be used to support the pedagogy and learning within your context?”

We often forget that, as a teacher, we should also be a learner, and it is important to remember that the principles of how we all learn, which are condensed within the OECD report The Nature of Learning, apply to all teachers/kaiāko as much as it does to our ākonga.

“Understanding the fundamentals of how we learn allows us to address more effectively the conditions in which successful learning can occur.” (OECD, 2010, p3)

My challenge to you, then, is to find ways that you can (re)discover the joy of learning for yourself and for your learners and to not underestimate the power of “What if?”

References

 

Image Credits
Michelangelo quote: J. Young, CC0, adapted from image by Marcus53 on Pixabay under CC0.

1 “Learn, create, share — Manaiakalani.” http://www.manaiakalani.org/our-story/learn-create-share

2 “The Nature of Learning – OECD.org.” http://www.oecd.org/education/ceri/50300814.pdf.

read more
Posted in
iceberg

Beyond the tip of the iceberg

Posted on by

“What does ‘good’ look like?” This is a question I am often asked in my work in schools and kura across the country. In any change or improvement initiative, it is getting your head around what it is that is being asked, for that is often the biggest barrier for staff to engaging in the change process. This desire to understand the vision for good and effective is one of the key things that drives the enthusiasm for wanting to go and see ‘it in action’ in other settings. It has teachers and leaders hopping across cities, provinces, the country, and even the globe to visit schools who are perceived to be thought leaders and have the reputation for doing things well.

Visiting others is hugely valuable! One of the real challenges of visiting other settings, though, is that anything you see is always simply a thin slice of the reality. You miss a huge amount just walking around and looking. Even if you get to talk to leaders, teachers, and students you will still only scratch the surface. There is the metaphor of the tip of the iceberg, and the image is often shared of the iceberg with the visible stuff like buildings, routines, policies, etc., being ‘above the water’ and all the other factors like school culture, relationships, etc., being below the surface.

iceberg

The challenge is how to get a sense of all the things that have had an influence on where a school is today but may not be immediately visible in a one-off visit. Things like:

  • History — everything will be as it is for a reason. Events in the past will have influenced the trajectory and pace of change towards the current state. In order to understand where things are now you need to know where they have come from and what has influenced why they look like they do now.
  • Tangata Whenua — who are and have been the significant influencers of the change processes and directions? They may well have been those in formal positions of responsibility and leadership, but they may equally well be those who exerted informal and more ad-hoc leadership.
  • External people — who have been the ones who have influenced the influencers? Those who people have met, listened to, read or read about, or visited themselves. Also, those who the same people have been deliberately trying not to follow. Those who formed the negative examples.
  • Influencing voices — family and whānau, student, and community voices are all often overtly gathered and inform change.
  • Physical realities — things like budgets, buildings, and even which direction the prevailing wind is from, or natural disasters, can hugely influence what a school reality is like in its present form.

The list above could go on and on. The challenge is how to get a sense of these factors and the influence they have had on the reality you see before you, as you step into, and walk around, any educational context. I think of all the things that have influenced me in my career as an educator:

  • thinkers and authors like Sergiovanni, Peter Senge, and Michael Fullan
  • colleagues — both leaders and educators
  • bodies of thought and educational movements like Reggio and Waldorf/Steiner
  • all the settings I have taught in and led, and even my own classroom and other educational experiences.

One thing that has helped me make sense of all these different and competing things are graphic frameworks and models for how systems work. I really like pictures, and largely follow the mantra that if you can’t draw a picture of a system or idea then you don’t understand it well enough yet. Diagrams and models help me make sense of the complexity of ideas and are particularly helpful in explaining things to other people. If I am looking at any new ideas, I am particularly looking for ones that are supported by clear and concise graphics.

In the past few years I have become quite deeply involved in the New Pedagogies for Deep Learning programme led by Michael Fullan. One of the things that attracted me to this programme initially was the cohesive structure and concise diagrammatic outline of what ‘good’ looks like and the key components of effectiveness it describes.

pedagogies for deep learning

For me, and schools I am working with in the programme, the NPDL framework captures key elements of good practice and provides a structure for identifying what both next step and long-term improvement focuses could be. The tools and rubrics also give lenses for examining practices you observe in your own context as well as others you may be visiting. The experience and thinking of the NPDL Global Team, including Michael Fullan, means that there is also tremendous intellectual and practical rigour in the learning and change design processes NPDL uses. A key component is also being able to customise and personalise the NPDL experience to each context and having the ability to moderate and share practice in local, nation, and international forums.

In your context, and as you consider your change initiatives over time, here are some key questions to reflect on:

  • How do YOU ensure that you are getting beyond the ‘tip of the iceberg’ in understanding your setting and its history, people, etc?
  • How do YOU get a collective picture of ‘good’ and ‘effective’ you can move towards?
  • How do YOU measure and manage improvement and change in your setting?
  • How do YOU scale up what you find does work?
  • Can YOU draw a picture of what you are aiming to achieve?

To find out more about how the NPDL programme can support you do these things (and more) get in touch with one of the team.

 

The NPDL NZ Deep Learning Lab is taking place at Stonefields School in Auckland, 19-20 July 2018. This two-day conference will explore deep learning and give you the opportunity to connect with local and global experts. Register now.

 

Image credits:

  • Iceberg: By AWeith [CC BY-SA 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)], from Wikimedia Commons
  • NPDL diagramme from CORE blog

 

read more
Posted in
stand out

What’s your point of difference?

Posted on by

stand out

With Auckland’s ever-expanding population, marketing for roll growth is not something a large number of schools have as a priority at the moment. But, what of those schools with a declining roll? Or those that have a hanging legacy to try and cast aside? Getting students through the door and growing a school can, in some cases, be a real challenge. And it’s not just students, what about attracting high-quality teaching staff? Auckland is a prime example of an area that is crying out for teachers. The media is constantly full of articles sharing the stories of teachers who have left the metropolis for the regions. Whether it’s cost of living or simply trying to get onto the property ladder, some of New Zealand’s larger cities are losing teachers at an alarming rate.

As someone who visits a lot of schools, I often find myself wondering what each school’s point of difference is. With my ‘parent-of-a-child-who-is-just-about-to-start-school’ hat on, what is it that would make me send my son to your school? What I’m talking about is a school’s value proposition. In marketing terms, it is defined as ‘an innovation, service, or feature intended to make a company or product attractive to customers.’ In real-world terms, I’m asking to see not just what the school does very well, but also how it is different from other schools around it.

Now, please do not misunderstand me — I’m not looking to start a marketing war between schools with flying accusations of poaching one another’s cohorts. I’m simply wondering whether leaders who are responsible for enrolments and appointments have considered what it is that makes their school special. Of course, most of us value our teaching and learning environments. It’s what makes teaching in New Zealand such a pleasure, knowing that no two classrooms or schools are the same. We have the freedom to develop our own thinking, direction, and culture within our individual environments and at a wider school level. My question is: Has this been formatted into a ‘unique value proposition’?

“Also known as a unique selling proposition (USP), your UVP is a clear statement that describes the benefit of your offer, how you solve your customer’s needs and what distinguishes you from the competition. Your unique value proposition should appear prominently on your landing page and in every marketing campaign.” (Unbounce.com)

Whether it’s your extra-curricular options, your incredible inquiry model, and delivery plan, or sporting success, unfortunately, many prospective parents and employees start at the same place: Decile. With the upcoming system changes and transition to the MoE anonymous targeted funding initiative, or risk index, things are going to change. But, that is never going to extinguish any fires burning from previous negative associations and, until the new system is fully embedded, decile ratings (both past and present) will significantly influence people’s perceptions.

Do what you've always doneHaving recently visited a school with my parent hat firmly fixed on, I left with as many wonderings as when I stepped inside the doors. I couldn’t shake the question, ‘what else?’ Everything I was shown was fine. There were opportunities for growth and learning, steps being taken towards modern learning practice, and dabbling in the ILE world. All was absolutely… fine. So, why couldn’t I shake the question? It’s simple really. Being okay isn’t okay. Teaching and learning under the ‘That’s-What-We’ve-Always-Done’ mentality is just never going to be okay. I don’t for one second think this is the case in the school I visited. I wholeheartedly believe they had innovation and powerful opportunities for engagement and empowerment happening within the school; I just couldn’t see it. Their website touched on it, their inquiry model certainly talked about empowering learners and self-exploration, but as a visitor to the school and prospective parent, it wasn’t in front of me. No matter what question I asked or how subtly I pushed, the school’s uniqueness didn’t shine through. And it made me wonder… Is this what visitors to the school see? Is that okay? To a parent outside of education, what was shown was similar in some ways to the education they received. Surely that wasn’t the school’s unique value proposition?

Do more of what makes you awesomeIn the busy life of schools, the must-dos of governance and Ministry requirements are, at the very least, time-consuming. Little time is left for the ‘should dos’, and they are dealt with the best they can be. For example, we should be promoting teaching as inquiry and establishing strong relationships both within and across schools. We should be strengthening our repertoire of skills and letting the ‘pockets of promise’ shine through. But what about the ‘could dos?’ It’s here that schools have an opportunity to push beyond the norm and define themselves as genuine institutions of modern learning. After the charter has been submitted and the data has been analysed, many leaders have little time to engage in purposeful conversations around pushing the boundaries of education. This is by no means a criticism; just the reality of the incredibly high pressured life of a leader in education. So often I’ve seen the pendulum swing away from future-focused education towards governance and accountability. And, it’s here where facilitators and consultants like myself have an opportunity to help make a significant change. Our role is not to show schools the way. We don’t have the map. But we do have the paper with which leaders can draw their own and decide on just what it is that makes them special.

On seeking the advice of a very experienced and highly-regarded, forward-thinking principal recently, he shared his insights on the direction he felt schools were headed. So many of his colleagues and fellow leaders were so preoccupied with governance, property, and finance (their must-dos), that their ‘should-dos’ received just a fraction of their time. It left nothing for the big questions. Where were they going? Where did they see their school in 5, 10, or even 20 years time? How were they providing learners with purposeful, agentic learning and focusing on the skills sought by businesses and future employers? Were they focusing on the key competencies and values within The New Zealand Curriculum and promoting communication, organisation, and collaboration (see here for a 2016 article via Linkedin)? The list of questions was endless and all were very much in the wider, strategic direction space. I, like many of his colleagues, simply had no answer.

There are many great thinkers and edutainers out there. They enthrall us with their vision of the future and incredibly simple explanations of the most complex concepts. But, just how often does it transfer into genuine change? So, I direct my final comments to leaders who are asking the questions but simply don’t have the capacity to find the answers. Find your map. Collaboratively, creatively, and with the support of colleagues both within and outside of your organisation. Sometimes that means someone like me has the honour of coming along with you on your collective journey, and sometimes it’s just a case of finding the time to prioritise your could-dos. Whatever you choose, whatever it is that makes your school shine, sing it from every rooftop and do it with pride.

Whāia te iti kahurangi ki te tūohu koe me he maunga teitei, Seek the treasure you value most dearly: if you bow your head, let it be to a lofty mountain.

 

References

Images

read more
Posted in
engage with the nzc

Are you engaging with the New Zealand Curriculum?

Posted on by

engage with the NZ Curriculum

Most great conversations start with a really purposeful question. A question that’s simple but not simplistic. A simple question posed in conversation recently was, ‘Are you engaging with the New Zealand Curriculum?’ Before you answer, think carefully about what that question actually means. In my humble opinion the New Zealand Curriculum (NZC) is one of the finest documents created. It has guidance, it asks questions, it can define your view of education. In any purposeful conversation or debate, there is usually a catalyst. So, before I go any further, I’d like to extend my heartfelt thanks to Daniel Birch, Principal of Hobsonville Point Primary School, for being an incredible thought provoker in conversation today.

The New Zealand Curriculum is a 49-page document that should underpin the content and practice of every educator in every classroom in the country. But does it?

Most of us, myself included, focused initially on pages 16-33, studying the learning areas and objectives, planning carefully for good coverage and making sure that I was accountable. But that still leaves us 32 pages to explore. Taking out place-holder pages, covers, and glossaries, we are left with around 28 pages of information, advice, and guidance, and it’s these where tremendous value can be found. So, I return to my original question, are you engaging with the New Zealand Curriculum? Looking back at my own classroom practice, and allowing time for the question to genuinely percolate, no, not fully. You see, the document was never designed to simply be a reference point for teachers to choose what to teach. It’s an all-encompassing document that stresses the importance of teaching the whole child.

nzcWhen you look at the diagram, lifted straight from the document, it makes sense that about a third of the content is dedicated to Learning Areas. It could be argued that about a third of learning is assimilating knowledge in specific content areas. But what of the other two thirds?

Once again I return to the original question, are you engaging with the New Zealand Curriculum? All of it. With the pressure of National Standards and NCEA achievement targets, it stands to reason that there would be a logical slip towards knowledge in order to have something to summatively assess. Much of the brilliant research out there focuses on raising student achievement. As an example, John Hattie’s extremely highly regarded Visible Learning focuses on effect size and the influence on achievement. It’s a strong reminder that we are continuously surrounded by the language of achievement, value added and academic progress. But what of the main vision? What about the skills businesses value and are looking for? Don’t misunderstand my point, subject-specific knowledge very much has its place, but that place is just one piece of the complex puzzle that is teaching and learning. A wonderful colleague of mine mentioned recently that if we can get the values and key competencies right, the other things will sort themselves out. I think she has a point!

In recent years, the metaphorical pendulum has swung towards pedagogy and away from content. Most teachers and principals I engage with have a better understanding of research and how their students learn than ever before. Much of the challenge around maintaining this focus on powerful, meaningful learning opportunities lies with identifying our drivers. Why do we do what we do, not what we want as an outcome. Meeting a national standard or predetermined benchmark cannot and should not be a driver. It is an outcome. Put simply, achieving a standard is a result of good teaching practice with a balance of values, key competencies, and focus on learning areas.

Identifying Misconceptions

More recently, I was shared into a fantastic ‘What if’ style set of statements, post staff meeting in a large high decile school. The staff meeting had centred around inquiry and curriculum, however staff were given the opportunity to share statements at the end of the meeting to further discussion, challenge concepts, and share ideas moving forward. It was here that a statement was delivered by a teacher that reignited this post, displayed by a small pocket of teachers from within the school…

“What if the New Zealand Curriculum had been designed by educators and not politicians.”

Having not been present at the meeting, I am not fully aware of the conversations that took place and led to this statement being shared. However, I’m led to believe that the statement came as a result of discussion with a small group of teachers. I was left almost speechless. As someone who works alongside schools, my place is not to judge, it is to educate, facilitate, and provide opportunities to explore. It has never crossed my mind that there could be a pocket of people out there who believe the NZC was designed by politicians. In the design of the original NZC, the consultation process was long and extensive. Educators from across the sector were invited to share their thinking and shape the way we deliver education in this country.

The link between those engaging with only the subject matter and learning areas and those who believe the curriculum was constructed by people outside of education is immediately apparent. If you believe something has been constructed by someone who doesn’t understand your role, you simply won’t buy into it. It becomes learning that is done to you- the most ineffective of all professional learning.

Linking to Digital Technologies | Hangarau Matihiko

It has been a priority for many New Zealand teachers for several years and more recently has become a national priority via the Ministry. Much like the NZC, the current draft copy must not be interpreted as a set of learning intentions to be adhered to. It’s a broader, more holistic, approach to establishing digital fluency within today’s learners. It’s new, but it’s not really new. Many forward-thinking schools have continued to push the boundaries of education and digital possibilities for years. The development of the DT & HM curriculum is simply a step towards helping others be and do more. Like the NZC it incorporates a strong ‘why’ and detailed explanations around the value we need to place in developing wider skill sets to meet the needs of both future employers and our current learners. It is not prescriptive, nor is it a sequence of lessons or breakdown of modules to teach. Like every other learning area (both within and outside of the NZC), the intention is to use existing strengths within inquiry teaching and extend them using algorithmic and computational thinking.

However you view the curriculum, there are some things you simply cannot ignore. It was designed by educators for educators. The intention is to teach the whole child, not to teach the content areas. If you want to teach for success, there’s no better place than to start with the NZC and utilise it to its full extent.

 

Image Credits:

Engage image: Engage by Nick Youngson CC BY-SA 3.0 Alpha Stock Images
The New Zealand Curriculum

read more
Posted in