[ad_1]
Marte Gerhardsen, director of education, has not yet told us what she wants with the Oslo school.
The trained teachers and school leaders of the Oslo school are concerned about one thing: our students. We are proud of them and of our school. But not because of the Oslo school at the moment, the columnists write. Photo: Director of Education Marte Gerhardsen. Photo: Håkon Mosvold Larsen / NTB
Chronicle
This is a chronicle. Opinions in the text are the responsibility of the writer.
The most important social mission of the Oslo school is to provide all students with the same opportunities no matter where they live in the city. Our common mantra has always been that all students should be able to read, write and count at the beginning of the school year, in a safe learning environment.
Basic skills are a prerequisite for being able to absorb knowledge in school and master the challenges of life. The focus on this has been a common thrust and part of the identity of the Oslo school.
We have never doubted what our most important task is as school leaders. Now the organization is in an identity crisis.
Competition in school
All students deserve motivated school leaders, good teachers, high-quality teaching, and a good learning environment. To be equally successful in an organization as large and complex as the Oslo school requires strong professional leadership, concrete goals, and clear communication.
We are now experiencing a lack of direction and unclear guidelines. Management based on trust cannot be synonymous with the absence of management.
A top management group, where most people lack school competence, is one of the reasons. The group also constitutes an extra level of leadership between our closest leaders and Education Director Marte Gerhardsen. This helps to blur the message on the customer’s way to the field. And we are not so sure that the director knows where he is going.
also read
Mathilde Tybring-Gjedde and Silje Lutro: The directors win. Students lose at the Oslo school.
Map and compass missing
Without a clear allocation, we run the risk of losing sight of the objective and that there will be big differences in quality in the Oslo school.
After the reorganization, the schools are placed in learning networks with four or five other schools. It will contribute to school development and good practices. We demand common goals and guidelines, set by a superior leader. A leader who sets the course for the Oslo school. One that makes it clear to principals what requirements are established for a good learning environment and good teaching.
As the situation is now, we are missing a map and a compass. The management message is too vague. A serious consequence of this is that there can be as many directions as there are principles. Then the joint Oslo School project will be replaced by 187 individual schools with different practices.
It will be a big step away from the idea of equal opportunities for all students no matter where in the city they live and what school they attend.
You need leadership in times of crisis
The crown situation has not made it easy for a new leadership to create a common focus at the Oslo school. The education administration has also been reorganized. However, in times of crisis, the need for strong and clear leadership is greater.
As is the situation now, we lack a map and a compass
Unfortunately, schools have suffered damage during this period. We have received incomplete and late information regarding the closure and the transition to the red level and then the yellow level.
The organization of the school day, staff cohorts, and infection control routines are primarily left to the individual school. This implies great differences between schools in terms of interpretation and application of current infection control rules.
Some groups of teachers feel unsafe at work, others feel that infection control measures are taken satisfactorily.
The message from the Minister of Education, Guri Melby, to schools is that teaching should take place as normally as possible. We ensure that students receive their annual lessons, that the curriculum is followed, that development work and cooperation continue, as far as possible within the framework of the pandemic. We do our job. From the education administration it is quiet.
What about professional renewal?
This fall a new curriculum went into effect. The implementation phase is critical, but the school owner doesn’t seem to be very concerned about how this is going. Tracking implementation, momentum, and skill development is conspicuous by its absence. Guidance and research initiative for academic endeavors as well.
We have the experience that most things are put on hold. It is up to the individual school to solve its pedagogical task.
We believe that joint initiatives under the auspices of a competent academic environment yield better results for the pupils of the Oslo school than for the individual principal to find out where the shoe is pressing.
The purpose of the changes
An organization often benefits from critical review and a fresh look. But the consequences have turned into heavier administration with more directors than before, long and unclear guidelines with no free flow of information, and a full section with trained employees (the Learning Environment Team) ending in protest. So there are reasons to question the changes.
When the means seem incomprehensible, we at least need to understand the great purpose. We do not. Unfortunately, the measures taken are not accompanied by professional reasons.
Split salary for some
Split salary placements in connection with the reorganization are perceived as a mockery of teachers and school leaders. They have long gone the extra mile and received shiny buttons and images in return. While on the front lines of a pandemic, salary supplements are spilling over to directors who sit in central office.
Gerhardsen has justified the directors’ pay party several times on the grounds that their areas of responsibility have been expanded (most recently at Dagbladet, on November 5).
In an online meeting with the principal (October 29), we asked what this implies, since the tasks of elementary school principals are the same as before. We have not received a response to that. A falsehood does not become correct no matter how many times it is repeated.
Getting the City Council, the Principal and the County Leader of the Education Association coordinating the media strategy via SMS to sweeten the pill is tricky at best.
Among the fundamental values of the municipality of Oslo, we find honesty and respect. It should be unnecessary to remind you.
Now what?
The director of education is alternately busy apologizing and sad. You still haven’t told us what you want with the Oslo school.
Councilor Inga Marte Thorkildsen (SV) disclaims liability. When Thorkildsen also dismisses school leaders ‘concerns about Oslo students’ basic skills like a syringe (NRK, November 12), it’s hard to believe that she puts student learning first.
The trained teachers and school leaders of the Oslo school are concerned about one thing: our students. We are proud of them and of our school. But not because of the Oslo school at the moment.
Trust is not in short supply, it is gone.
The following is behind the article:
Elin Brandsæter, Headmaster, Fagerborg School
Tore Haugen, director of the Vinderen school
Andreas Mikkelborg, Deputy Head of Stenbråten School
Lene Rønning-Arnesen, director of the Smestad school
Gullborg Kristin Støldal, Head of Rosenholm School
Henriette Randsborg, Head of Kjelsås and Maridalen Schools
All are members of the Association of School Leaders (Oslo). The text is written in collaboration with the board of the Oslo School Leaders Association.
