Activity 8: Changes in my Practice

http://www.itslifejimbutnotasweknowit.org.uk/files/RefPract/Osterman_Kottkamp_extract.pdf

Wow, I cannot believe that I am coming to the end of my 32 week Mindlab journey. It has been a journey which has taken me to the edge of my learning; at times terrifying as I worked through the research to realise ways in which I could apply to my practice.

I enjoyed the first 16 weeks of face to face presentations but went on to feel somewhat isolated in the next 16 weeks as we went online. In saying this I also believe my deepest learning has occurred in the last 8 weeks when sharing with others and reading a variety of blogs which have made me look at differing perspectives. Osterman & Kottkamp (1993) explain this by saying reflective practice is challenging, demanding and often a trying process that is most successful as a collaborative effort. I have found this to be true for me and now better understand how I work as a reflective learner.

My assumptions as an RTV have been challenged, and in many instances affirmed by research. Over time I have been challenged on topics that I had never really thought about before. By digging deep into the literature and the BLENNZ Expanded Core Curriculum (BECC) which is aligned to the New Zealand Core Curriculum I have found that I have a deeper understanding of ITL 21 Century learning skills required when working with blind, low vision and deaf/blind (BLV) akonga, I just hadn’t made or thought of the connection before when looking at e-learning. This goes well beyond using a device to replace pen and paper which we so often assess use on. I am a SAMR fan.

It has been hard for me to choose just 2 criteria as the biggest growth areas. All criteria have been scrutinised and intertwined along this journey. This I believe is how it is supposed to be, one does not sit alone.

Criteria 4: Demonstrate commitment to ongoing professional learning and development of personal professional practice

32 weeks of solid reading, research, planning and conceptualising is commitment. Not to mention the new online programmes I have learnt to use along the way. Mindlab study is something which I chose to do to enhance my practice in digital and collaborative learning for the purpose of supporting the learners which I have who are BLV and in doing so I have promoted an awareness of these learners.

I have gone on to participate and contribute my learning with colleagues. Some times through the passing of knowledge but I am hoping the deeper learning is happening when they join in with our learners at iPad club. 

Criteria 12: Use Critical inquiry and problem-solving effectively in their professional practice.

1) Sytematically and critically engage with evidence and professional literature to reflect on and refine practice.

I had always thought of myself as a problem-solver and it was easy to see problems in class pertaining to my learners. I would reflect on issues to find solutions but rarely used reflective practice to look at me and how I worked within each school environment. By engaging with evidence and professional literature I have looked at my pedagogical approach so as to empower those I work with rather than being seen as the provider of information.

      http://www.itslifejimbutnotasweknowit.org.uk/files/RefPract/Osterman_Kottkamp_extract.pdf

2) Respond professionally to feedback from members of their learning community.

Using a blog has been a new learning for me. I have learnt a lot from reading other peoples and from comments made on mine. This feedback has increased my own reflection and lead to deeper learning.

3) Critically examine their own beliefs, including cultural beliefs and how they impact on their professional practice and achievement of akonga

      http://www.itslifejimbutnotasweknowit.org.uk/files/RefPract/Osterman_Kottkamp_extract.pdf

The last reading on reflective v traditional professional development has really resonated with me and I believe is relevant to all learners. On the one hand my learning has been deepest when I can apply it to practice, on the other hand there are many priority akonga in classes taking subjects that have little relevance to them and we continue to wonder why they are not achieving.

      http://www.itslifejimbutnotasweknowit.org.uk/files/RefPract/Osterman_Kottkamp_extract.pdf

Where to from here?

It is time to relax a bit and put into practice what has been learnt. I am hoping that when I go into schools I can continue to make positive connections and offer needed support in digital and collaborative learning when working with akonga who have low vision. My aim has been to improve connections with high school teachers... so far going well.

I am also looking at the continual growth of the iPad initiative which has grown from one group to 3 groups this year utilising peer mentors.

References

Ministry of Education (nd). Practising tecaher criteria and e-learning. https://elearning.tki.org.nz/Professional-learning/

Osterman, K & Kottkamp, R (1993). Reflective Practice for Educators.California : Cornwin Press,Inc.

http://www.itslifejimbutnotasweknowit.org.uk/files/RefPract/Osterman_Kottkamp_extract.pdf

Activity 7:Crossing the Boundaries Discussions

Interdisciplinary Connections

Mindmap

In my role as a Resource Teacher Vision (RTV) my professional life is full of interdisciplinary collaboration as defined by Andrews (1990). He says occurrences of interdisciplinary collaboration happen "when different professionals possessing unique knowledge, skills, organisational perspectives, and personal attributes engage in coordinated problem solving for a common purpose." (cited in Berg-Weger & Schneider, 1998)

As an RTV the common purpose involves the learner who is blind, low vision or deaf/blind and the partnerships entered to enhance deeper learning and achievement for that learner. We take an holistic approach to goal setting. Jones (2009) suggests that this approach will help develop higher order thinking skills and be more creative.

Mulligan and Cuban (2015) identified three elements required for successful interdisciplinary collaborations to happen and this model has aided me in identifying areas for personal growth and improvement when considering my place in the secondary school team as an itinerant.

Common Goals 

There needs to be ownership by all stakeholders. This is seen in the Individual Education Plan (IEP) process which I lead or for which I am part of. 

Such IEPs in a secondary school are attended and/or lead by the SENCO who represents the teacher voice. Often there appears to be consensus at the meetings and SMART goals are established but it is what happens next where things can drift. 

As the subject teachers have not been directly involved in the process they may not buy in to the established goals. It can, and more likely does, happen that subject knowledge and NCEA assessment outweighs any other holistic and deeper learning goals when student successes are discussed.

Quality and Attitudes

When there are common emotional qualities, a collaborative relationship can remain collegial and productive (Mulligan et-al, 2015). At an IEP meeting all stakeholders are invited. The low vision learner is key in this process and often, but not always, has been involved since a young age. This, when all goes well, works to empower and gives student voice when at times they may feel unheard in class.

Barriers can start to appear at secondary level when classes become less collaborative and more subject based. Many more teachers are now involved and transparent communications can be challenging to maintain. I also need to clearly establish my presence.

Work Place and Conditions 

Even if we have the other two elements working, work place and conditions may impact on the success of the IEP. For example, most secondary schools I have worked in have very set plans of curriculum learning and what achievement looks like. This becomes even more evident in NCEA years where there appears little flexibility. IEP goals, regardless of deeper learning needs end up revolving around subjects and credits. Interdisciplinary connections can appear non existent at these times as interdepartmental collaborations are minimal.

An example is when I was in a school and had been speaking with a student in regards to the problems she was having in level 3 health on the topic of abortion. Later, in the same school, when supporting another student in philosophy I noted theme connections. Immediately I imagined if only these teachers had spoken to each other what a rich, cross department, deep learning experience could have been achieved for all.... but alas this had not happened.   

Then at another school, there was the student who had achieved excellence in a math paper in NCEA level 2. I was surprised when he had to do the paper again the following year. 

Why? The student, after experiencing a significant vision loss during the previous year needed to repeat his level 2. When discussing the fact that the student had already achieved excellence in this particular paper I was informed... "this is what the class is doing..., he is in this class..., he does it..."

I do not blame the teachers for these mindsets, for this is how the schools worked. Conditions are placed at management level as NCEA credit achievement becomes the norm.... But I still ponder, just because it is so, should it be so?

And finish with a strong inspired student voice who says, "Now we are in a globalised society everything is integrated throughout the world and you can not learn about one subject by themselves." (Ross Institute, 2015)... perhaps as educators we need to listen.

References

ACRLog. (2015). A Conceptual Model for Interdisciplinary Collaboration. Retrieved from http://acrlog.org/2015/05/14/a-conceptual-model-for-interdisciplinary-collaboration

Berg-Weger, M., &. Schneider, F. D. (1998). Interdisciplinary collaboration in social work education. Journal of Social Work Education, 34, 97-107. 

Jones, C. (2009). Interdisciplinary approach: Advanatages and disadvantages, and the furure benefits of interdisciplinary studies. ESSA17 (26), 76-81. retrieved from

Ross Spiral Curriculum: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Science. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHZhkB0FJik

Activity 6: Professional Online Social Networks

I’m not a prolific user of social media, in fact Mehuish (2013) would probably call me a “lurk”; that is someone who reads and uses the resources but doesn’t put themselves out there by commenting. The truth is I feel somewhat anxious and am unsure how my comments would be taken or if they are relevant. I fear offending someone

In my personal life I use facebook but rarely post. I prefer using messenger and communicating one on one or to small groups. I do SKYPE, respond to group emails, and have just signed up to whatsapp. I have an Instagram account as a follower; have attempted, but not got engaged yet with Twitter and am trying my best on the Mindlab G+ group. I confess with the last two I am out of my comfort zone writing and sharing. Mehuish (2013) is correct, I am a “Lurk”. Thankfully Arnold & Paulus (2010) argue that this is still a legitimate way of learning. I however do get that this approach doesn’t do much to build online community.

In my professional life as an RTV I am trying to get more connected with social media in a collaborative manner. I get inspired when I hear things like: “surround yourself with passionate educators” and “the most impactful thing that you can do in your profession is get connected.” (Connected Educators, 2013). But what does this currently look like for me?

Our schools national online development space has faded over time. Email and phone continues to be the preferred manner of communication amongst colleagues. This is not to say that individuals aren’t well connected, I’m just not one of them. I have pondered why the online site is not being used much. According to Sharples et al, (2016) the facilitator is key to ensuring people engage and are kept engaged. In the early days of the site this was so.  I would also add that there needs to be ease of access and relevance to your daily practice. I wonder whether it is time for our network to have a makeover with a new injection of "X factor" starting by asking the question: What do we want?

In School use.

Kathy Cassidy (2013) talks of the connected world in school needing to reflect what is happening out of school. Children of today have grown up with internet and are surrounded by devices. Through my practice I am guided by what is happening in schools and what support is needed by learner, whanau and teacher. As yet I have not seen much use of social media but feel it is “brimming” as talk is happening regularly and I read through the G+ community that this is in fact happening.

I first came across the use of facebook as a tool for learning in a high school in 2014. Although there was Educational purpose and learner uptake the student I worked with could not participate at this time due to his low vision. Things have changed since then with this platform becoming more accessible and equitable… but then, I now go into other schools and Facebook is blocked.

Currently I work with a learner doing distance lessons weekly. We use SKYPE, Google Docs, TeamViewer. I feel we are only at the very beginning of connectivity and would like to explore other ways of expanding this learners connected world for learning as he is in a rural school. I have also used SKYPE for connecting other learners in different schools.

The schools I visit are on many different platforms and social media use is evolving. Working with Low vision learners can have its challenges when using social media. I need to be aware of what is being used so as to aid access if/when required as sites are not always inclusive to all learners. All things being equal though social media can be a great tool for learners who are blind and low vision to collaborate as it can level the playing field in ways that they may have previously been excluded from. I agree with comments made by Sharples et al, (2016) stating that social media can bring learning to life. These sites can support creativity, collaboration, communication and sharing of resources.

Assumptions however can be made around the use of social media. It has been assumed that all students have a level of knowledge that has them “doing” and “knowing” how to, however the reality can be quite different. Careful scaffolding of skills are required.

References

Melhuish,K. (2013) Online social networking and its impact on New Zealand educators' professional learning. p36-44,Ch. 3. The University of Waikato. Retrieved 05/05/2015 from

 http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10289/8482/thesis.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y:

Office of Ed Tech. (2013, Sep 18). Connected Educators. [video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=216&v=K4Vd4JP_DB8T

Sharples, M., de Roock , R., Ferguson, R., Gaved, M., Herodotou, C., Koh, E., Kukulska-Hulme, A., Looi,C-K, McAndrew, P., Rienties, B., Weller, M., Wong, L. H. (2016). Innovating Pedagogy 2016: Open University Innovation Report 5. Milton Keynes: The Open University. Retrieved from http://proxima.iet.open.ac.uk/public/innovating_pedagogy_2016.pdf

voparents. (2013, May 21). Kathy Cassidy. Using Social Media in the Classroom.[video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riZStaz8Rno

Activity 5: Law & Ethics Influences

As a Resource Teacher Vision (RTV) we are responsible for trialling and writing applications for assistive technology's which are funded by the Ministry of Education (MOE). We work in partnership with whānau/family, school and learner.

In this example the funded technology is for low vision learners (LVL) for the purpose of access to the curriculum and homework. The device/s transfer from one school to another with the learner and are upgraded as necessary. The learner does not own the equipment and the school that they are at becomes responsible for it. There is high trust required from stakeholders. Cybersafe policy seem lacking in addressing this unique situation.

Ethical issues that come to mind:

Account ownership: The age of the student and who creates the account and password. Netsafe guidelines (2015) recommend consideration to ensuring that learners are above the minimal age and logons/passwords are not shared.

Previously the Ministry of Education (MOE) have created usernames for a device but in recent times have stopped this. Now for trial purposes the device has come to the RTV to set up.

Who should make the account?

Parents? who may or may not be experienced in such technologies but who can legally create an iTune account for their child.

School? Who are responsible for the device.

RTV? Who did the application and give post trial support for the use of the device as approved by MOE.

Is the password shared and to whom?

Sharing happens. Passwords have been used in the past to download non approved apps as well as approved apps. They have also been changed without notification and forgotten. Restrictions have gone onto devices and passwords lost.

Learners rely heavily upon adults to do the right thing. There is high trust needed on both sides.

Now looking forward, and analysing the issues in terms of the steps outlined by Hall (2001) 

What is the problem?
A LVL with individual learning needs requires a specialist device to access the curriculum and for homework. The device does not belong to the LVL but requires a username and password for the sole use of the learner.

Who are the main stakeholders? LVL, ,School, RTV, whānau/family, MOE (remembering they have funded the device)

Which stakeholders should be given priorities?

LVL,whānau/family, school followed by other stakeholders. 

What restrictions are there to my actions?  

Age restrictions for accounts, and sharing passwords.

What course of action is possible?

The device is set up with username and password by the school (or by parent, RTV, MOE) for the LVL for its intended purpose. The password is only held by the account holder who will do all updates or password is held by selected stakeholders for ease of support.

Username will be updated when the LVL moves school.

A moral dilemma is created when setting up an account and knowingly providing false information in breach of terms and conditions and sharing a password.

Which course of action should I follow?

The immediate hunch would be to follow the terms and conditions and have the parent create an account and password for the minor. However this is not always possible or desirable.

Otherwise I think the school should create an account and password and monitor the device in partnership with RTV and whānau.

Should we all have access to the passwords? Does it matter? Netsafe (2015) says “Yes”. I think this needs further discussion as all cyber policy I have read say “don’t share passwords”

How to implement the course of action

Establish rules through IEP in partnership with learner, whanau, RTV and school.

What does this incident teach about ethical decision making?

It is never as simple as first looks. Technology is evolving fast and at times you need to use best judgement. Policies and procedures need to be regularly updated and take into consideration individual needs.

References

Hall,A (2001) What ought I to do, all things considered? An approach to the exploration of ethical problems by teachers.

Family Sharing & Apple ID for a child. (2016) https://support.apple.com/en-ie/HT201084 

Ministry of Education. (2015). Digital technology - Safe and responsible use in schools. Retrieved from http://www.education.govt.nz/assets/Documents/School/Managing-and-supporting-students/DigitalTechnologySafeAndResponsibleUseInSchs.pdf

Activity 4: Indigenous Knowledge &Cultural responsiveness

Savage, Hindle, Meyer, Hynds, Penetito & Sleeter (2011) suggest in New Zealand disparities exist between the indigenous Māori and New Zealand European as Western practice prevail in our education system. They even suggest that schools that reflect a dominant culture represent invisible cultures that can privilege students who share that same cultural identities whilst simultaneously disadvantaging students who have a different culture.

Having taught in predominantly New Zealand European schools where Western Practices prevail I would reflectively say that the above is so. When I was a young teacher in the early 1980s I never really fully understood what cultural responsiveness meant or even looked like. I have very much valued the readings this week and can relate well to Bishops (2012) comments in regards to building on ākonga prior cultural knowledge and caring for Māori as Māori. I would extend this to caring for the person as the person for this responsive pedagogy is true for all ethnicity.

At teachers college in the early 1980s there was little training in diversity and indigenous culture... it was merely an option. I was influenced by early teacher mentors that represented European New Zealand. Being an immigrant myself to New Zealand I remember changing how I spoke some words so as to sound like my students when I was in teacher training... and remember vividly as a young english girl in class being laughed at by my teacher and peers for speaking "funny". At this time there was little cultural sensitivity.

It is not until I became a teacher at BLENNZ that I really understood and embraced the meaning of cultural responsiveness as a teacher. I have been privileged to visit many schools and have seen both successes and challenges that teachers have faced in developing culturally responsive programmes. I am still not confident or proficient in fully understanding Māori as Māori as this is not really spoken about within our Centre which is part of a National school.

Many of our BLENNZ ākonga have individual plans (IEP) with goals that are regularly updated, discussed and next steps planned for. Input is increasingly from student voice; whānau/families are partners in learning with RTV and class teachers. Each IEP can look very different as each child or young person has quite different needs. 

Immersion courses and curriculum days are regularly held throughout the year. These courses are tailored to individual needs of small groups and are learner centred where ākonga have voice and input. Diversity is encouraged and Resource teacher Vision (RTV) respond to needs and co-ordinate and listen to whānau/family and school.

As a RTV the most successful partnerships formed have been those that value relationships. Sometimes these may be seen in the family home, at school in the staff room, supporting at eye appointments, via phone or emails, joining ākonga in things that are important to them, or just as a sounding board for all.

I never assume how I should communicate within the team but always ask how they would like communication. For each person this too can look and feel quite different. You see, regardless of the predominant school culture everyone is an individual and need to feel respected and valued for who they are.

Our BLENNZ philosophy is to develop life-long learners based upon building long relationships and in supporting ākonga/students in their educational setting of choice. This means that as an RTV we need to be responsive and adapt our approach to those environmental and cultural needs.

At national level BLENNZ is getting better at promoting Māori learners as Māori. This is seen at our lead school in Auckland which has strengthened relationships with local iwi in order to promote success for all Māori, plus to raise the profile of biculturalism across the network (ERO, 2017)

In Christchurch our indigenous responsive pedagogy is evolving but I believe at this local level we could do better. Sure, many of us have done courses in Te Reo, Treaty of Waitangi, and share pepeha, attend powhiri, join in at schools with karakia and waiata and can get support from colleagues if we need help but it is on an individual basis rather than good plan and collaboration within our centre.

I do believe we try the best we can to respond to individual needs but have not got embedded bicultural practice. Individuals have best practice but at leadership levels this has not been utilised as could be. At times we have tried but then drift back to our New Zealand European predominant culture.

Being under the umbrella of a National school with a board of trustees BLENNZ is now working hard to address these gaps. First with a review of existing documentation to be used as a basis for a BLENNZ teacher inquiry into current practice and then results will be used to inform the next steps to aid RTV in developing culturally responsive pedagogy

References
BLENNZ ERO report (2017) http://www.ero.govt.nz/review-reports/blind-and-low-vision-education-network-nz-18-01-2017/

Edtalks.(2012, September 23). A culturally responsive pedagogy of relations. [video file].Retrieved from https://vimeo.com/49992994

Gay,G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2),106-116Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39(3), 183–198.
Savage, C, Hindle, R., Meyer L.H, Hynds, A., Penetito, W., Sleeter C., (2011) Culturally responsive pedagogies within the classroom: indigenous student experience across the curriculum.

Unitec. (n.d). Learning and Teaching at Unitec Institute of Technology: Unitec Poutama Tool. http://www.unitec.ac.nz/ahimura/publications/Poutama%20for%20Distribution%20and%20Publication.pdf

Activity 3:Broader Professional Context

90% of digital data in the world today was created in the last two years.
The above statement triggered me into thinking about my priority learners who are blind, low vision and deaf/blind who face barriers to learning on a daily basis due to limited accessibility to class materials. I was forced to ponder over statements which I have heard recently from different people:

"They turned me down from the course because it wasn't accessible".

"He's decided to come back to school because the course he wanted to do wasn't accessible."

You would think by now if digital data was being produced and updated at a fast rate then accessibility would be well and truly embedded at the design stage of production. Alas, in many cases this is still not the case and impact of this is evident for our priority learners.

Stoop (2012) states successful schools focused on adapting systems, programmes and resources to meet the needs of priority learners, but didn't go on to say "how" they did this. What if those resources could be produced without needing much adaptation? This could mean time saved and teacher focus more on teaching and learning rather than hunting and adapting.

With the advent of technology use in BYOD classes I believe discussions need to be had about accessibility and the positive impact such could have on priority learners. Learning experiences could be easier for all with an increased ability for individual access to many resources so that true inclusiveness can happen in learning.

Enabling technology can still be a myth for many priority learners due to lack of accessibility. Web accessibility refers to the inclusive practice of removing barriers that prevent interaction with, or access to websites, by people with disabilities. These disabilities may include: vision, hearing, dyslexia, motor disorders, developmental delay and so on. When sites are correctly designed, developed and edited, all users have equal access to information.

Eight years ago when I first started supporting a low vision learner I remember being told off by the class teacher. I was whispering what was on the whiteboard. "Who is that talking?" she exclaimed as she turned from the board...(I laugh now).

At this time, and really it wasn't that long ago, access to whiteboards was limited and either required peer/teacher support and/or expensive technology. Laptops were often slow and cumbersome and the learner was usually the only one in class with an assistive device which was mostly used as a replacement for pen and paper. Oh how things have changed.

Most students have devices now. The internet has a huge potential to revolutionise how people with disability work and have access to information but if we are not careful we can be placing more obstacles in front of these learners. These obstacles can lead to disengagement and labelling as lazy or unmotivated.

Often web sites/digital documents are not made accessible. That is, they cannot be used, for example by screen reader users or for enabling large print. At leadership and teacher level we may not know or understand what accessibility really means or looks like for some priority learners and thus have never considered this when making or purchasing resources. At BLENNZ school we are still trying to get our heads around this too.

Many schools who are unaware of web and document accessibility and who promote certain "one size fits all" devices and programmes for ease of management may without realising it be making school less inclusive for some priority learners. 

• Why isn't all data being made accessible at the design stage? 
• Why aren't new laptops being made with built in default settings?

I wonder will I be asking the same questions in two years?

if you would like to find out how to make and check accessible documents follow the link

Activity 2 : Current issues in my professional context

                                                                                

Werner (2015) states every school has its own personality, has its own feel. Something that is very apparent the moment you walk through the door. She challenges us to think: How does it feel?

As a Resource Teacher Vision (RTV) working for BLENNZ, a National school supporting learners that are blind, low vision or deaf/blind, I go into many schools as an itinerant. I sense the feeling of these schools I go into.There is an incredible array of differences, whether mainstream, high or low decile, in special units attached to a school, private and/or special character schools. The underlying factor of the students I see and work with in these schools is not defined by their families socioeconomic status (SES) but by their ability to see.

BLENNZ RTV support is not governed by SES but based upon the rating which the student is given as defined by the Ministry of Education guidelines or BLENNZ moderate rating for their visual needs. There is currently no data that has been collated defining what SES families fit or how our BLENNZ students as a group succeed academically against their sighted peers or those of similar SES. This would be interesting as it may give insight into what added value an RTV support, which works in partnership with whānau, educators and community may give these learners to reach their potential growth. My hunch, when partnerships work well, is that if materials are accessible and students are given enough time to complete work results would be more favourable than being left without support.

Our BLENNZ vision is: Equity through access: opening doors so all may learn. Our key value is to strive for an inclusive society by the removal of barriers (BLENNZ Charter, 2015). These barriers may look different for each individual learner and whānau.
In my professional environment BLENNZ to me represents a culture of support. Sometimes I think we may even be too supportive and giving. There is a fine line between empowering and disempowering learners, whānau  and educators; a tightrope we walk. I do believe that the key value of striving for inclusiveness through accessibility and removing barriers is in fact a right for all learners and needs to be built into all resources at the design level.

Stoll (1998) places the importance of understanding school culture as a starting point for leading change. Hongboontri and Keawkhong (2014) show that school culture impacts on teacher beliefs and instructional practices. Dunkelblau (2015) believes that a climate and culture of a place is made up of the people in it, he says; " students cycle through but staff remain", so the culture comes from the teachers and from history. Trushiem (2015) adding that it can sometimes happen by default. Lets make that positive climate and culture happen for all.

Going into different schools as an RTV I am faced with differing paradigms and these can impact how partnerships form with whanau, educators and learners. So my big question as I reflect about climate and culture is: what type of climate and culture am I presenting when I enter into a school or classroom?

Feedback please?
How do you feel as a teacher when an itinerant comes into your class? 

Supported or threatened?

What approach works best for you?

What doesn't work?