#acelconf15 – day three

Day Three marked the final day of #acelconf15. For many this was to be the highlight of the conference with the two big names (Andy Hargreaves and Michael Fullan) presenting. For me, it did not live up to the hype.

The student performances were outstanding everyday, but I was especially impressed on day three. I may be showing my Newcastle bias as two of the three came from Hunter School of Performing Arts though.

The opening keynote of the day was Andy Hargreaves. He delivered as expected. A slick and engaging presentation (based on the reactions of the people around me and the twitter stream) based on his books (which were adequately promoted) and supported by his work with other keynote presenters (which were mentioned often). For me, as a researcher, I found the work under developed and some of the contradictions in the arguments – namely schools are about more than literacy and numeracy measures, so we need to develop more measures for the things we want; and the critique of using PISA results to assess success yet then using PISA results to show what reforms work and what do not – not recognised. In such cases, Hargreaves falls into the textual apologist camp and despite the aspirational tone, the argument remains about playing the current game better than serious challenging the rules of the game and its formula for success.

At the conclusion of Hargreaves keynote a number of people raced to the door. This amazed me given that the next speaker was Jenny Shipley – the first female Prime Minister of New Zealand. While I found her argument essentialised gender (e.g. females do this, males do that), she raised some very interesting points about gender and leadership that require engagement.

Following morning tea was the final breakout session of the conference. I attended one focused on the impact of accountabilities on school leaders. I had a feeling it was going to be touch and go when the abstract claimed ‘the impact of such requirements [accountability] has received little attention in the literature’. After all, I have been researching and reading in educational leadership for almost 15 years and would say this is a major stream in educational leadership, parallel fields such as education policy, sociology of education, and broader fields such as management, public administration and organisation studies.

What was presented was a simple reporting of interviews with principals about how stressful and the impact of accountabilities on their time and practice. There was no analysis, no theoretical framing, and very little that could be offered from the data as no real work went into the conceptualisation of the project. I will admit to becoming ‘that guy’ and asking what contribution the presenter felt the work made. His response, ‘I have not had time to think about it’. Although he did say he used it in his teaching. I further inquired as to what exactly he was using given the lack of analysis, and he simply presents the findings to his students. Very disappointing in my opinion.

The final session of #acelconf15 was the William Walker Oration. As a student of educational leadership, I hold this as a very serious address that recognises one of the founding figures of the field in Australia (and the Commonwealth). This year it was presented by Michael Fullan. As with Hargreaves, he presented a slick and well paced address that was well received by the audience. Keeping with the trend of #acelconf15 keynotes (at least the education based ones), there was plenty of citing his own books, and work with fellow keynotes.

As a Bourdieusian inspired scholar, I find the use of ‘capital’ frustrating in popular educational leadership rhetoric. These terms have rich theoretical histories (note the plural) yet are used without any reference to that.

Personally, I found the insular nature of the keynotes at #acelconf15 sickening. The constant referencing to each other (in some cases giving the impression they were a package deal rather than stand alone – even if coherent – set of addresses), promotion of books and back slapping was problematic. had the cross referencing been analytical and advancing arguments, I could have handled that, but this was not the case.

If innovation is what we desire – a consistent theme across the addresses – then that is achieved not by listening to more of the same voices, but through different and potentially new voices. It is tough to critique the policy borrowing from afar when all the keynotes come from overseas. Where were the Australian education keynotes? Where were the critical voices?

Jim Watterson arguably addressed this with his dismissal of researcher in favour of those who had done it before. The privileging of the pragmatic over the scholarly – of course that simply reinforces the rather unproductive theory v practice division.

Overall, I am uncertain how I feel about #acelconf15. In many ways, it was a great three days. I met up with many people I do not see regularly – or only through twitter. I would have liked a greater diversity in the keynotes and more breakout sessions (or less running parallel). I hope future events strike a better balance between research and practice and seek to bring academics (especially those in Australia) into contact and conversation with the many school leaders (current and aspiring) who attend the event.

That said, the event ran smoothly – apart from the crowded nature of some rooms – and the ACEL team is to be applauded for their efforts.

 

2 thoughts on “#acelconf15 – day three

  1. Hi Scott,
    I enjoyed following your tweets from the conference and was pleased to see you’ve expanded on your comments here, as I was curious to know more.

    What you’ve described here seems to me to be a pattern at education conferences. The keynotes are usually high profile international male speakers who get people through the door, and the local speakers are either on panels or breakout sessions. There is a lack of diversity not only in gender, race and cultural background, but in the viewpoints represented. Not much is challenged.

    Credibility seems to be conferred by book sales and reach.

    The rise and marketing of education celebrities bothers me. Their voices become privileged, and educators listen uncritically, assuming they are hearing expert and uncontested ideas. Alternative voices aren’t provided platforms or are simply drowned out.

    I’m not sure what the answer is. I know that education conferences have a different purpose and audience than academic conferences. But I, as an educator, would prefer to attend events that have more rigour, don’t offer one view or certainty and instead push and challenge my thinking in multiple ways.

    However, I know that many other educators consider that sort of thing a waste of time. They want to be inspired by a charismatic speaker, and have practical ideas and solutions that they can use in their workplace straight away.

    Anyway, thank you for the post. I enjoyed reading it. It’s raised some further questions in my mind about how we provide professional learning and become a research literate profession.

    1. Thanks Corinne. I am glad the tweets were informative. Reading a number of blogs from the conference, there was a diverse set of opinions on the keynotes and overall program. You have named a number of really important points and hopefully the more such questions get raised the greater chance we have of serious dialogue and debate in education.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.