University 4 year degree, WACOT, WWC, Federal police clearance, Curriculum Council and NCOS, National curriculum, ACARA & league tables, Scope and Sequence documents, moderation, compulsory PD, A-E exemplars, Independent schools, union politics, DET's squillion policies on everything and now a national teacher standards body (Gees thanks Julia!).
Can we possibly put more bureaucracy and BS between teachers and students?
Yes we can!
Showing posts with label teaching. Show all posts
Showing posts with label teaching. Show all posts
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Friday, September 18, 2009
National map of Professional learning and development
Today the federal government released the following report on professional learning. I haven't read much of it, but have noticed that interest groups were included in the panel such as professional learning providers and universities. Unsurprisingly it has found that professional learning is a key driver for change in schools.
In the past I've been critical of PD for it's usual ineffectiveness. The survey confirms my suspicions.
Here are some important findings:
Most teachers are looking for ideas to incorporate in the classroom.
For all the money spent, 78% of the time, PD only affects at best, a bit of teaching practices. Critically this implies that most of the time it is a big load of useless.
I'm not saying that what people want is necessarily what they need, but it does raise the question - why spend so much money on ineffective training? Why do training if it has no impact?
I would suggest because the results of PD is rarely analysed.
Most of the time the goals of PD are ill defined and are sometimes/rarely followed up (74%)!
And who is responsible for all of this rather ordinary PD? Sadly it's schools theselves. In many cases the blind leading the blind with hastily prepared presentations for scheduled PD days with little or no budget and little time for finding quality speakers. PD days are scheduled at the start of term for all schools causing difficulty in organising quality presenters.
I am not saying that all PD is bad, but typically useful PD has been forward planning sessions or information desemination sessions about school policy (which is not the PD identified as most needed). If you calculated the hours spent, the cost of a PD day for all staff is scary.
Let's face the truth - if there are new ideas introduced at a school, it is either by new teachers to the school implementing something they already know, an administration lead/forced initiative or by practicum students - rarely is it via PD. With the changes in curriculum (especially in senior school) proper implementation of new ideas by teachers for the classroom have been shelved.
So, what's the answer? More PD? I hope not, it's a poor use of funds. Perhaps encouragement for teachers willing to take short term placements at effective schools to encourage cross pollination of ideas (perhaps in a TA/team teaching type role) or for teachers to engage in further higher education to improve their skills (with tertiary providers able to provide effective courses).
In the past I've been critical of PD for it's usual ineffectiveness. The survey confirms my suspicions.
Here are some important findings:
Most teachers are looking for ideas to incorporate in the classroom.
For all the money spent, 78% of the time, PD only affects at best, a bit of teaching practices. Critically this implies that most of the time it is a big load of useless.
I'm not saying that what people want is necessarily what they need, but it does raise the question - why spend so much money on ineffective training? Why do training if it has no impact?
Most of the time the goals of PD are ill defined and are sometimes/rarely followed up (74%)!
And who is responsible for all of this rather ordinary PD? Sadly it's schools theselves. In many cases the blind leading the blind with hastily prepared presentations for scheduled PD days with little or no budget and little time for finding quality speakers. PD days are scheduled at the start of term for all schools causing difficulty in organising quality presenters.
I am not saying that all PD is bad, but typically useful PD has been forward planning sessions or information desemination sessions about school policy (which is not the PD identified as most needed). If you calculated the hours spent, the cost of a PD day for all staff is scary.
Let's face the truth - if there are new ideas introduced at a school, it is either by new teachers to the school implementing something they already know, an administration lead/forced initiative or by practicum students - rarely is it via PD. With the changes in curriculum (especially in senior school) proper implementation of new ideas by teachers for the classroom have been shelved.
So, what's the answer? More PD? I hope not, it's a poor use of funds. Perhaps encouragement for teachers willing to take short term placements at effective schools to encourage cross pollination of ideas (perhaps in a TA/team teaching type role) or for teachers to engage in further higher education to improve their skills (with tertiary providers able to provide effective courses).
Labels:
teaching
Friday, September 11, 2009
Class sizes
There was a passing comment on the end of the Channel 2 news stating that the only net effect of smaller class sizes was more teachers. This is a bit of a bizarre statement.
There is no problem with bigger classes as long as you accept the following:
To accept blanket statements 'bigger class sizes is better' is like saying education was better in the 60's. It is possible to have bigger class sizes if you accept that the compromises above are acceptable. Australia is a tolerant and respected nation where people from all backgrounds can succeed in life - the basis of this premise is fair education. To offer low SEI parents a sub-standard education compared to high performing schools is breaking a promise with the nation.
It's not a fair go.
There is no problem with bigger classes as long as you accept the following:
- Classes must be fairly homogeneous - the is no way an average teacher can run 5 IEPs and manage students running a differentiated programme with 5+ levels of students effectively in a class of 30+ (and this is a likely requirement in a state high school with large class sizes)
- Discipline must be more rigid - expect more suspensions, timeouts and exclusions
- Intervention time per student is reduced - 30 students in a class + 15 mins instruction time per hour leaves a maximum of 2 minutes per student intervention/interaction time
- Marking time is increased or assessment frequency is reduced
- Decreased knowledge of individual students
- Increased chance that at risk/abused/neglected students will not be identified
- Additional needs students will need to be segregated out of the mainstream
- More teacher assistants will be required to manage the learning programme
- Reporting becomes more onerous
- Higher rate of disengaged students - dropout rates will be higher / graduation rates lower
To say that class sizes need to increase is ignoring the specific needs of low SEI schools that require individual intervention plans to redirect students back into the mainstream, or for plans for students that need higher levels of intervention (students with parents on working visas, refugees, indigenous students, additional needs, ESL, limited schooling, truants, drug and alcohol dependents, abused, single parents).
To accept blanket statements 'bigger class sizes is better' is like saying education was better in the 60's. It is possible to have bigger class sizes if you accept that the compromises above are acceptable. Australia is a tolerant and respected nation where people from all backgrounds can succeed in life - the basis of this premise is fair education. To offer low SEI parents a sub-standard education compared to high performing schools is breaking a promise with the nation.
It's not a fair go.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
The importance of community support
I listened to an inspiring sermon by our local minister last Sunday on the importance of community and how he was inspired by those he had worked with. This is ever so true in teaching as without support of the school community it is easy to become disheartened and contrariwise, with the support of community it is ever so much easier to stay inspired.
I'm hardly a chapter quoting churchgoer, but as he pointed out in his sermon, it's hard to find a like minded group of people honestly consistently wanting to do good in the community outside the church without an agenda. He maintained that you found it in the vocations such as teaching and nursing, but sometimes it feels like the system wants employees because they are easier to manage.
During the week I was asked to address our local parish as to why I teach and how this fits with gospel values. Teaching tends to be a vocation that gets under your skin and doesn't let go. I remember the teacher that made a difference for me - and probably doesn't even know it. He was the one that prodded me and kept me working when I would have rather slept at the back of the room. He had no real reason to try, there were more capable students, more engaged and less ornery. I'm glad he did - without his efforts in year 10, I wouldn't be able to write a sentence, nor structure my thoughts in any coherent manner.
When I entered teaching, I had a strong urge to return to the community what it had given me. Escape from poverty, a wonderful family, a successful career, an education, a home, a love of life and now a beautiful daughter. I felt I had a responsibility and an opportunity to do some good. Although opportunities arose to further my career or pursue further self development - teaching felt like the right thing to do.
My background tends to be what guides my teaching. When I am tempted to focus on an engaged student, I think what my life would have been like if I had been allowed to drift along doing the bare minimum. Giving students a prod, reminding them of their responsibilities, encouraging them. Finding students that have potential to do more. Encouraging a student to finish school. Talking to a student that hasn't been spoken to all day. Pointing out where students have failed to help others avoid the same pitfalls. Sharing my own success and failures. Inspiring as I had been inspired.
Another aspect of the decision to teach was the birth of our first child. As a parent, you are the front line of education with everyone else supporting cast. I needed to be a better parent and understand the teaching process. If I had the opportunity I needed to do something if I intended to raise a child.
Watching Mackenzie around the community, one observes her as a contributing member of society at age 6 months. It takes a very funny show (maybe a couple of times a year) or a talented comedian that has spent years honing his craft to give me a belly laugh yet she can make random people glow with joy with just a innocent smile. Ensuring she keeps that outlook and dodges cynicism and materialism is an awesome task. Teacher training and church involvement is just one element of that responsibility. Teaching is an opportunity to extend that responsibility outside the home.
A simple example is the child that swears without thinking, that makes inappropriate comments for effect or that wears suggestive clothing at an early age. Self image is so important at that age, telling a student to be a lady or giving them back the image that it is ok to play and be childlike (and to enjoy it!) is one of the pleasures of teaching. They look at me strangely when I say, 'you're too young to have a boyfriend - you should be playing with your dolly' or when I sit and play board games or basketball in the yard. It frustrates me when I watch kids play grown ups, iPods in ears or messaging each other via Facebook (don't get me started here - any organisation that redefines friend into acquaintance denigrates human relationships and interaction). Coming from an IT background I've seen the end product of people that cannot communicate - programmers are a classic modern phenomena and usually useless in society. We need to allow and model the framework to laugh and play, communicate ideas and ways of venting frustration in a modern world where both parents work and little time is actually spent developing these skills.
A year 10 student once said to me, in despair, how do I become a nice person. It was a heartbreaking moment. My response was to surround yourself with nice people. She did and it worked, a young child grew into wonderful young adult, that I'm sure has lapses but now thinks of them as the exception, no longer the norm, she no longer seeks to push boundaries unless to find improvement within herself. That has always been my outlook, we're not perfect. Find people that you can grow with, from my grandmother who lived "the gift is in the giving" to longstanding friends I have known forever.
I also tend to think that without the 'do-gooder' vocational teachers in education (as opposed to the 'I'm in it for the money and lifestyle' teachers) we lose something in the public system. Although values based education is 'embedded' in the curriculum, typically it is a token effort or bastardised by lobbyists such as the feminist and environmentalist movements. Values is not teaching care for the environment, it's creating an attitude where it is a natural response to care for others (and thus care for the environment). The value of 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' is much deeper than female salaries are too low, glass ceiling issues etc. Without an underlying message, trendy modern issues are a load of wafty nonsense that is irrelevant to a child's self. The idea of building your self concept on treating others as you would be treated (regardless of how they treat you!) is a fundamental in nonsecular education and something sadly missing in public education. We need to treat the cause not the symptoms. Back to my original point - without our 'do-gooder' teachers students would have little evidence that people do do good without rhyme or reason, only for the satisfaction that it is a pleasure to do so.
That's not to say there aren't big buzzes in teaching too - the moments when the lights go on and the sparkle appears when a students gets something they've struggled with for years, when a student says they're only in school because of your classes, the student that proudly says they want to be the first in their family to make to university/graduate/past year 10 (and does it), a disengaged student argues that they deserve a better grade, a truant starts turning up to school, a student starts offering answers in class, a student says that maths is their favourite subject, when they write you down as their favourite teacher in the yearbook, when you are offered classes others are more qualified to teach, when you design a summer school.. and the kids come.. and enjoy it.. during the school holidays for 5 days!
The interaction with the minister was enough to move my thoughts from issues within the school back towards improving my teaching practices. That's the importance of community involvement - it's a process of inspiring others as 'discipleship' inspires those in the church. Everyone plays a part in the community - especially media (it's why I'm frequently critical of them and their search for sensational byline and headlines)! We have to be careful to not only focus on the negatives and criticise; but to seek ways to make each other better emotionally, intellectually and in developing higher levels of motivation in our teaching practitioners and practices.
I'm hardly a chapter quoting churchgoer, but as he pointed out in his sermon, it's hard to find a like minded group of people honestly consistently wanting to do good in the community outside the church without an agenda. He maintained that you found it in the vocations such as teaching and nursing, but sometimes it feels like the system wants employees because they are easier to manage.
During the week I was asked to address our local parish as to why I teach and how this fits with gospel values. Teaching tends to be a vocation that gets under your skin and doesn't let go. I remember the teacher that made a difference for me - and probably doesn't even know it. He was the one that prodded me and kept me working when I would have rather slept at the back of the room. He had no real reason to try, there were more capable students, more engaged and less ornery. I'm glad he did - without his efforts in year 10, I wouldn't be able to write a sentence, nor structure my thoughts in any coherent manner.
When I entered teaching, I had a strong urge to return to the community what it had given me. Escape from poverty, a wonderful family, a successful career, an education, a home, a love of life and now a beautiful daughter. I felt I had a responsibility and an opportunity to do some good. Although opportunities arose to further my career or pursue further self development - teaching felt like the right thing to do.
My background tends to be what guides my teaching. When I am tempted to focus on an engaged student, I think what my life would have been like if I had been allowed to drift along doing the bare minimum. Giving students a prod, reminding them of their responsibilities, encouraging them. Finding students that have potential to do more. Encouraging a student to finish school. Talking to a student that hasn't been spoken to all day. Pointing out where students have failed to help others avoid the same pitfalls. Sharing my own success and failures. Inspiring as I had been inspired.
Another aspect of the decision to teach was the birth of our first child. As a parent, you are the front line of education with everyone else supporting cast. I needed to be a better parent and understand the teaching process. If I had the opportunity I needed to do something if I intended to raise a child.
Watching Mackenzie around the community, one observes her as a contributing member of society at age 6 months. It takes a very funny show (maybe a couple of times a year) or a talented comedian that has spent years honing his craft to give me a belly laugh yet she can make random people glow with joy with just a innocent smile. Ensuring she keeps that outlook and dodges cynicism and materialism is an awesome task. Teacher training and church involvement is just one element of that responsibility. Teaching is an opportunity to extend that responsibility outside the home.
A simple example is the child that swears without thinking, that makes inappropriate comments for effect or that wears suggestive clothing at an early age. Self image is so important at that age, telling a student to be a lady or giving them back the image that it is ok to play and be childlike (and to enjoy it!) is one of the pleasures of teaching. They look at me strangely when I say, 'you're too young to have a boyfriend - you should be playing with your dolly' or when I sit and play board games or basketball in the yard. It frustrates me when I watch kids play grown ups, iPods in ears or messaging each other via Facebook (don't get me started here - any organisation that redefines friend into acquaintance denigrates human relationships and interaction). Coming from an IT background I've seen the end product of people that cannot communicate - programmers are a classic modern phenomena and usually useless in society. We need to allow and model the framework to laugh and play, communicate ideas and ways of venting frustration in a modern world where both parents work and little time is actually spent developing these skills.
A year 10 student once said to me, in despair, how do I become a nice person. It was a heartbreaking moment. My response was to surround yourself with nice people. She did and it worked, a young child grew into wonderful young adult, that I'm sure has lapses but now thinks of them as the exception, no longer the norm, she no longer seeks to push boundaries unless to find improvement within herself. That has always been my outlook, we're not perfect. Find people that you can grow with, from my grandmother who lived "the gift is in the giving" to longstanding friends I have known forever.
I also tend to think that without the 'do-gooder' vocational teachers in education (as opposed to the 'I'm in it for the money and lifestyle' teachers) we lose something in the public system. Although values based education is 'embedded' in the curriculum, typically it is a token effort or bastardised by lobbyists such as the feminist and environmentalist movements. Values is not teaching care for the environment, it's creating an attitude where it is a natural response to care for others (and thus care for the environment). The value of 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' is much deeper than female salaries are too low, glass ceiling issues etc. Without an underlying message, trendy modern issues are a load of wafty nonsense that is irrelevant to a child's self. The idea of building your self concept on treating others as you would be treated (regardless of how they treat you!) is a fundamental in nonsecular education and something sadly missing in public education. We need to treat the cause not the symptoms. Back to my original point - without our 'do-gooder' teachers students would have little evidence that people do do good without rhyme or reason, only for the satisfaction that it is a pleasure to do so.
That's not to say there aren't big buzzes in teaching too - the moments when the lights go on and the sparkle appears when a students gets something they've struggled with for years, when a student says they're only in school because of your classes, the student that proudly says they want to be the first in their family to make to university/graduate/past year 10 (and does it), a disengaged student argues that they deserve a better grade, a truant starts turning up to school, a student starts offering answers in class, a student says that maths is their favourite subject, when they write you down as their favourite teacher in the yearbook, when you are offered classes others are more qualified to teach, when you design a summer school.. and the kids come.. and enjoy it.. during the school holidays for 5 days!
The interaction with the minister was enough to move my thoughts from issues within the school back towards improving my teaching practices. That's the importance of community involvement - it's a process of inspiring others as 'discipleship' inspires those in the church. Everyone plays a part in the community - especially media (it's why I'm frequently critical of them and their search for sensational byline and headlines)! We have to be careful to not only focus on the negatives and criticise; but to seek ways to make each other better emotionally, intellectually and in developing higher levels of motivation in our teaching practitioners and practices.
Labels:
teaching
ERG and the effect on schools
There's much talk about the place about being Erg'd. The expert review group comes to your school and makes adjustments to your teaching programme to improve results.
I'm beginning to wonder if being Erg'd is equivalent to being Nerfed, a common term in gaming and computer circles. To Nerf something is to take an overpowered component and effectively make it useless or less effective to empower some other component.
In talking to others, one concern about being Erg'd is the adjustment made to the school teaching offerings. If Erg suggests that a school is teaching above it's cohort, the inferences is that higher subjects get dropped from the curriculum - the usual suspects (level three subjects, Physics, Chemistry, Specialist Maths, History and the like) as class sizes for these subjects are small in a small school. As a parent you need to be aware if this is happening at your school, as your brighter student will be most affected. To gain access to more difficult subjects your student will be offered to be bussed to an adjacent school (and away from teacher and peer support) or through SIDE (distance education), not have the subject offered at all or be encouraged to take an easier or alternate subject.
Classes like Maths specialist and 3CD maths that require small class sizes in any school instantly get scrutiny. Sometimes we forget that to get league table support we need to support these kids most as they attract more capable students to the school and best publically demonstrate the true ability of the school to educate. They need specialist support in special learning environments (with relatively small class sizes!).
To maintain subject selection within smaller schools, other solutions are being trialled such as combining year 11/12 cohorts and running classes with mixed offerings (such as 2A and 3A in the same room). In some cases both at the same time. These have their own set of problems such as students with different ability, motivational and maturity levels and that finish/exam times are different for year 11 and 12 classes.
Issues for teachers from being Nerfed also arise as teachers unable to teach the upper range subjects (such as 3A and beyond) get pigeonholed and are not competitive when competing for transfers. This is equivalent to the issues faced by middle school teachers now on EIP as they have limited ability to teach upper school NCOS. When an application says needs 3A and beyond or G&T experience, the teacher can't apply. There is no compensation for this employment loss of capability (other than the hard to staff bonus) and teachers need to consider moving after a fairly limited time if they wish to continue developing their teaching skills (which again puts more pressure on HTS schools). With increased freedom to 'chose' teachers in independent public schools this becomes more of an issue.
When a school is Nerfed, further parity is lost between the independent and public system. This is something that needs careful consideration beyond the 'best use of resources' argument. Yes we currently have more kids that need academic support at lower levels - but it becomes ever more important that our top end is encouraged to grow and we as a sector show that we can effectively support bright students in all of our public schools without compromise.
I'm beginning to wonder if being Erg'd is equivalent to being Nerfed, a common term in gaming and computer circles. To Nerf something is to take an overpowered component and effectively make it useless or less effective to empower some other component.
In talking to others, one concern about being Erg'd is the adjustment made to the school teaching offerings. If Erg suggests that a school is teaching above it's cohort, the inferences is that higher subjects get dropped from the curriculum - the usual suspects (level three subjects, Physics, Chemistry, Specialist Maths, History and the like) as class sizes for these subjects are small in a small school. As a parent you need to be aware if this is happening at your school, as your brighter student will be most affected. To gain access to more difficult subjects your student will be offered to be bussed to an adjacent school (and away from teacher and peer support) or through SIDE (distance education), not have the subject offered at all or be encouraged to take an easier or alternate subject.
Classes like Maths specialist and 3CD maths that require small class sizes in any school instantly get scrutiny. Sometimes we forget that to get league table support we need to support these kids most as they attract more capable students to the school and best publically demonstrate the true ability of the school to educate. They need specialist support in special learning environments (with relatively small class sizes!).
To maintain subject selection within smaller schools, other solutions are being trialled such as combining year 11/12 cohorts and running classes with mixed offerings (such as 2A and 3A in the same room). In some cases both at the same time. These have their own set of problems such as students with different ability, motivational and maturity levels and that finish/exam times are different for year 11 and 12 classes.
Issues for teachers from being Nerfed also arise as teachers unable to teach the upper range subjects (such as 3A and beyond) get pigeonholed and are not competitive when competing for transfers. This is equivalent to the issues faced by middle school teachers now on EIP as they have limited ability to teach upper school NCOS. When an application says needs 3A and beyond or G&T experience, the teacher can't apply. There is no compensation for this employment loss of capability (other than the hard to staff bonus) and teachers need to consider moving after a fairly limited time if they wish to continue developing their teaching skills (which again puts more pressure on HTS schools). With increased freedom to 'chose' teachers in independent public schools this becomes more of an issue.
When a school is Nerfed, further parity is lost between the independent and public system. This is something that needs careful consideration beyond the 'best use of resources' argument. Yes we currently have more kids that need academic support at lower levels - but it becomes ever more important that our top end is encouraged to grow and we as a sector show that we can effectively support bright students in all of our public schools without compromise.
Labels:
teaching
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Week 8 rolls around again
So here is week 8 again.. and this time week 8 term 3. This is the time where students and teachers are tired and under the stress of preparing for exams. If the nasties are to appear it usually is this week.
Here's to hoping it's all smelling of roses for a change!
Here's to hoping it's all smelling of roses for a change!
Labels:
teaching
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Do unto others
Using the golden rule as a basis for personal ethics causes many philosophical dilemmas as a teacher as it constantly comes into conflict with the utilitarian nature of public schools. As an employer I faced the issue of overstaffing and needed to tread the path of redundancies for staff. It was not the most pleasurable event in my life and one I would not seek to repeat.
The half cohort is causing schools to take a long look and decide - do we keep young or less experienced talented staff that are the future of the organisation or do we keep staff members that have provided long service to the school and have a raft of experience with our kids.
I imagine the former could be rationalised by saying that long standing staff are compensated through long service leave, having continuous employment and having the opportunity to develop a depth of subject knowledge not possible when often coming to grips with the individual needs of students in new school environments.
To some degree, the criticisms I hear issued at long standing staff are often grossly unfair - I would be quicker to point the blame at past management that has allowed or even promoted issues that lead to less competitive performance of staff. Staff need to be managed - if staff are struggling they need real support to improve (this takes effort and planning) or assisted to find an environment that works for them (a controlled exit takes less effort and is a more likely event in teaching).
The bottom line is that if I worked for a school for a long period of time and was asked to leave instead of a younger and seemingly less experienced staff member, I would feel let down, hurt and angry. To start again mid or end career in a new school would be a daunting event (even after being at my current school 2.5 years I would still have some fear - imagine doing it after 10 years!). Could I put someone through that now (as I would have without blinking as an employer) with little warning? I think without maintaining 'management distance' that it would be very difficult.
I suppose it's reasons like this that I put leadership positions behind me and focus on the classroom and departmental development. Having that level of inner conflict again (doing what must be done vs the right thing to do) is not something that I relish and there would need to be some real compensation or financial need to consider it again.
The half cohort is causing schools to take a long look and decide - do we keep young or less experienced talented staff that are the future of the organisation or do we keep staff members that have provided long service to the school and have a raft of experience with our kids.
I imagine the former could be rationalised by saying that long standing staff are compensated through long service leave, having continuous employment and having the opportunity to develop a depth of subject knowledge not possible when often coming to grips with the individual needs of students in new school environments.
To some degree, the criticisms I hear issued at long standing staff are often grossly unfair - I would be quicker to point the blame at past management that has allowed or even promoted issues that lead to less competitive performance of staff. Staff need to be managed - if staff are struggling they need real support to improve (this takes effort and planning) or assisted to find an environment that works for them (a controlled exit takes less effort and is a more likely event in teaching).
The bottom line is that if I worked for a school for a long period of time and was asked to leave instead of a younger and seemingly less experienced staff member, I would feel let down, hurt and angry. To start again mid or end career in a new school would be a daunting event (even after being at my current school 2.5 years I would still have some fear - imagine doing it after 10 years!). Could I put someone through that now (as I would have without blinking as an employer) with little warning? I think without maintaining 'management distance' that it would be very difficult.
I suppose it's reasons like this that I put leadership positions behind me and focus on the classroom and departmental development. Having that level of inner conflict again (doing what must be done vs the right thing to do) is not something that I relish and there would need to be some real compensation or financial need to consider it again.
Labels:
teaching
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Successes in 2008/2009
It's been about a year since I started this blog, so I thought it was time to look at the successes.
Most of them have occurred being part of our team, so I can't take credit for them, but I can definitely identify them and take pleasure from contributing.
Firstly there are the kids that claim that they are still at school because of maths classes. Every year you get a few that you manage to spot and cause some sort of intervention that makes them want to be at school or even repeat year 12. The core group of students that like maths (and select it in year 11 at all levels) has grown and it has been great to watch these kids mature into more capable maths students.
Secondly there are the things we did to improve learning at the school. The summer school (run over the Christmas holidays) was a great success resulting in students passing subjects that they would have otherwise failed. The programmes that we wrote for junior school in 2007 has produced a stronger cohort to draw our year 11's from. The maths lab is operational, has the start of a resource library and has five computers to work with. Students across the school are using mathsonline as an adjunct to normal classes. Students attend catchup classes readily when suggested - even those that typically would run a mile from the idea, (it was great for our confidence when some of the C class beat the whole of the B class!!)
Thirdly there is a rapport amongst the mathematics teachers that promotes development of our skills from year 8-12. There is a growing interest in learning more about senior and the junior school. Despite the odds, we have an 3AB MAS class and will have a 3CD MAT class when many thought it was over-reaching our cohort. It's been great to watch my practicum student become an educator and see the rapport grow between him and our students. He will be a great teacher.
Fourthly (is there such a thing??) is this blog, an avenue to develop ideas without causing any conflict at school. 3500+ visitors and 6000+ pages shown. It's a great home for my soapbox!
Fifth was the birth of my wonderful daughter and time spent with my wife whilst she learns every little thing (this is really the biggest success, although has little to do with the school!).
I was worried that I wouldn't be able to manage the sleep loss issues, before Friday I had done quite well, I've learnt my lesson; 1 hours sleep = sick.
Lastly, behaviour management has been less of an issue in senior school this year and far easier than when I started here in 2007. I have watched changes in the attitudes of teachers and students, there is definite improvement - senior school again believes that university is a valid path from our school, a far cry from 2007. There is support from the principal down for curriculum initiatives that lead students to university.
Bring on the rest of term 3 and the end of the year. (Whoa.. all this affirmation is a bit to exciting and has worn me out.. off to bed!)
Most of them have occurred being part of our team, so I can't take credit for them, but I can definitely identify them and take pleasure from contributing.
Firstly there are the kids that claim that they are still at school because of maths classes. Every year you get a few that you manage to spot and cause some sort of intervention that makes them want to be at school or even repeat year 12. The core group of students that like maths (and select it in year 11 at all levels) has grown and it has been great to watch these kids mature into more capable maths students.
Secondly there are the things we did to improve learning at the school. The summer school (run over the Christmas holidays) was a great success resulting in students passing subjects that they would have otherwise failed. The programmes that we wrote for junior school in 2007 has produced a stronger cohort to draw our year 11's from. The maths lab is operational, has the start of a resource library and has five computers to work with. Students across the school are using mathsonline as an adjunct to normal classes. Students attend catchup classes readily when suggested - even those that typically would run a mile from the idea, (it was great for our confidence when some of the C class beat the whole of the B class!!)
Thirdly there is a rapport amongst the mathematics teachers that promotes development of our skills from year 8-12. There is a growing interest in learning more about senior and the junior school. Despite the odds, we have an 3AB MAS class and will have a 3CD MAT class when many thought it was over-reaching our cohort. It's been great to watch my practicum student become an educator and see the rapport grow between him and our students. He will be a great teacher.
Fourthly (is there such a thing??) is this blog, an avenue to develop ideas without causing any conflict at school. 3500+ visitors and 6000+ pages shown. It's a great home for my soapbox!
Fifth was the birth of my wonderful daughter and time spent with my wife whilst she learns every little thing (this is really the biggest success, although has little to do with the school!).
I was worried that I wouldn't be able to manage the sleep loss issues, before Friday I had done quite well, I've learnt my lesson; 1 hours sleep = sick.
Lastly, behaviour management has been less of an issue in senior school this year and far easier than when I started here in 2007. I have watched changes in the attitudes of teachers and students, there is definite improvement - senior school again believes that university is a valid path from our school, a far cry from 2007. There is support from the principal down for curriculum initiatives that lead students to university.
Bring on the rest of term 3 and the end of the year. (Whoa.. all this affirmation is a bit to exciting and has worn me out.. off to bed!)
Labels:
teaching
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Federal research report on rewarding quality teaching
Link here.
Quoted by Julia Gillard on the SBS Insight forum (transcript here). She is a right dill and my favourite IOTY candidate.
An expert stands and says, please don't create league tables for parents, their validity is seriously in question as variation between classrooms exceeds variation between schools. She consistently uses New York as an example (who has heard of a model school in New York)? Generally, even our worst schools are not at this level. A teacher, who has seen both schools in New York and Australia states to go the way of New York is the worst of mistakes.
A principal stands and pleads not to stigmatise schools.
Julia states again and again that she won't produce league tables yet the media states that they will use the data to do just that. She gently moves the discussion away from the failed curriculum direction given by government and places blame purely on schools. She agrees with anything that sounds positive and nods wisely yet continues with this destructive course of building league tables. We have enough problems with kids that think they are dumb, now we have whole schools that will be classed the worst (with kids that will take pride in being the worst). Gees, thanks Julia!
If she wants expert teachers in underperforming schools, will she also reward and recognise the experts that are already there or will they have to move to get recognition? It sounds like another rort to be exploited by the "look at me and how good I am brigade!" How will she produce the benchmark for existing performance (or should we act dumb and then make rapid improvement for financial reward?)
Can these experts transfer their knowledge across socio-economic sectors? Will expert teachers move between "like" schools (giving them some chance of success) and establish lasting programs, not just ones based on personality, material reliant on personal experience or quick fixes (such as teaching to the test)?
:-)
Quoted by Julia Gillard on the SBS Insight forum (transcript here). She is a right dill and my favourite IOTY candidate.
An expert stands and says, please don't create league tables for parents, their validity is seriously in question as variation between classrooms exceeds variation between schools. She consistently uses New York as an example (who has heard of a model school in New York)? Generally, even our worst schools are not at this level. A teacher, who has seen both schools in New York and Australia states to go the way of New York is the worst of mistakes.
A principal stands and pleads not to stigmatise schools.
Julia states again and again that she won't produce league tables yet the media states that they will use the data to do just that. She gently moves the discussion away from the failed curriculum direction given by government and places blame purely on schools. She agrees with anything that sounds positive and nods wisely yet continues with this destructive course of building league tables. We have enough problems with kids that think they are dumb, now we have whole schools that will be classed the worst (with kids that will take pride in being the worst). Gees, thanks Julia!
If she wants expert teachers in underperforming schools, will she also reward and recognise the experts that are already there or will they have to move to get recognition? It sounds like another rort to be exploited by the "look at me and how good I am brigade!" How will she produce the benchmark for existing performance (or should we act dumb and then make rapid improvement for financial reward?)
Can these experts transfer their knowledge across socio-economic sectors? Will expert teachers move between "like" schools (giving them some chance of success) and establish lasting programs, not just ones based on personality, material reliant on personal experience or quick fixes (such as teaching to the test)?
:-)
Labels:
teaching
Saturday, August 15, 2009
The Pirahna occupation
Something that I always looked forward to was being part of a collegiate profession. I observed as a student that teachers worked as a block and always supported each other publicly. How different it is from the inside.
Criticism of teachers by teachers is rampant, a common source of gossip in the staff room. That's not to say there aren't some outstanding people that seek to assist the teacher needing a hand ( and often it's those you least suspect ), but often given an opportunity the boot goes in spikes and all. Often this results in losing developing teachers or slowing their progress with them doubting their progress. Maybe it's hard for experienced teachers to remember back to their first couple of years where behaviour management was dodgy at times and content knowledge and delivery was far from perfect.
This has also grown a culture of defensiveness, where teachers take insult where none is intended. I had to laugh when I heard that insult was taken by overhearing a reference to a stereotype of the stinginess of a specific religion via a movie quote. If I took offence for every time a Scot was called stingy I'd be in a continuous flap about nothing.
It would be much better to see a developing mentality seeking constant improvement rather than seeking to attack the weakest link. I suppose it's always been in the back of my mind that one day it might be me that needs that support due to a range of issues out of my control (lack of sleep, personality conflict, family crisis, overload of work, poor timetable, teaching out of area etc.)
It's humorous that we criticise each other rather than our superiors (which is more common in other occupations). It's even stranger to hear the criticisms filter downwards from senior staff. Who would ever think to do that in a management position? To some degree though, I understand their frustration as the ways of actually performing any form of performance management seems to be limited to, 'this could be a good idea for your classroom' or going through dismissal procedures over serious misdemeanours.
The closed door policy of many classrooms also makes me scratch my head. I don't understand - 'this is my work and I'm not sharing' or the lack of interest in common planning activities. I suppose that idealism of 'we are here in the best interest of the kids first and foremost' still rules my thinking and the cynicism still hasn't fully kicked in.
I was also thinking about next year, and how classes will fall to teachers; how will admin arrange classes. Will it seek optimal learning (and place the strongest teachers with the strongest students) or will it take a capacity building role again giving teachers an opportunity to develop their skills. If it does the former, what will be done to support and prevent burnout of the developing teachers. If it does the latter how will it ensure that adequate student performance is maintained. If a middle road is taken how will that work?
On another note, again I was reminded of the need for revision and pre-testing yesterday, when students showed that they had limited recall work they had previously successfully completed. I'm glad I've noticed as I will now create a revision paper for the test. That should assist them further.
Criticism of teachers by teachers is rampant, a common source of gossip in the staff room. That's not to say there aren't some outstanding people that seek to assist the teacher needing a hand ( and often it's those you least suspect ), but often given an opportunity the boot goes in spikes and all. Often this results in losing developing teachers or slowing their progress with them doubting their progress. Maybe it's hard for experienced teachers to remember back to their first couple of years where behaviour management was dodgy at times and content knowledge and delivery was far from perfect.
This has also grown a culture of defensiveness, where teachers take insult where none is intended. I had to laugh when I heard that insult was taken by overhearing a reference to a stereotype of the stinginess of a specific religion via a movie quote. If I took offence for every time a Scot was called stingy I'd be in a continuous flap about nothing.
It would be much better to see a developing mentality seeking constant improvement rather than seeking to attack the weakest link. I suppose it's always been in the back of my mind that one day it might be me that needs that support due to a range of issues out of my control (lack of sleep, personality conflict, family crisis, overload of work, poor timetable, teaching out of area etc.)
It's humorous that we criticise each other rather than our superiors (which is more common in other occupations). It's even stranger to hear the criticisms filter downwards from senior staff. Who would ever think to do that in a management position? To some degree though, I understand their frustration as the ways of actually performing any form of performance management seems to be limited to, 'this could be a good idea for your classroom' or going through dismissal procedures over serious misdemeanours.
The closed door policy of many classrooms also makes me scratch my head. I don't understand - 'this is my work and I'm not sharing' or the lack of interest in common planning activities. I suppose that idealism of 'we are here in the best interest of the kids first and foremost' still rules my thinking and the cynicism still hasn't fully kicked in.
I was also thinking about next year, and how classes will fall to teachers; how will admin arrange classes. Will it seek optimal learning (and place the strongest teachers with the strongest students) or will it take a capacity building role again giving teachers an opportunity to develop their skills. If it does the former, what will be done to support and prevent burnout of the developing teachers. If it does the latter how will it ensure that adequate student performance is maintained. If a middle road is taken how will that work?
On another note, again I was reminded of the need for revision and pre-testing yesterday, when students showed that they had limited recall work they had previously successfully completed. I'm glad I've noticed as I will now create a revision paper for the test. That should assist them further.
Labels:
teaching
Friday, July 3, 2009
Defining students
How students see themselves impacts greatly on their performance. Lately I have been discussing with students how I see them and what that view indicates of their performance.
I have been examining classes and defining students motivational level under four categories: disengaged, coasting, good and determined. Each category is defined as following:
Disengaged: a student that will only complete work under strict supervision or under threat of detention. This is an at risk student that needs further analysis to seek why they are disengaged (personality conflict, lack of ability, reduced prior knowledge, low self confidence, low self esteem, peer issues, home issues, bullying etc.) This student retains very little knowledge and has to relearn each topic on re-presentation of material each year if not re-engaged. Typically there are only a few of these in each class.
Coasting: A student that will complete work if there is nothing better to do. One that does the bare minimum to avoid attention of the teacher. If allowed to develop at their own pace will progress very slowly and have little retention. Typically this can be up to 4-5 students.
Good: A student that does all tasks asked of by the teacher willingly. Is able to answer most questions asked by the teacher but rarely will offer to answer a question unless called upon. Is not disruptive, completes homework, is enthusiastic and asks questions of the teacher when difficulties are encountered. In mid streamed classes this is the majority of students.
Determined: A student that attacks their work and seeks deep understanding actively. This student finds reward in the act of learning, is self motivated and can learn independently. These are the students seeking promotion to higher classes, those working at the level of their ability or the majority of the 'academic' students. The number can vary greatly from class to class and teacher to teacher.
By identifying where a student is and what to do to reach the next higher level students can set goals that would improve their opportunities for success in the subject. It has motivated a range of students to seek improvement and has given areas of discussion to engage parents with.
I have been examining classes and defining students motivational level under four categories: disengaged, coasting, good and determined. Each category is defined as following:
Disengaged: a student that will only complete work under strict supervision or under threat of detention. This is an at risk student that needs further analysis to seek why they are disengaged (personality conflict, lack of ability, reduced prior knowledge, low self confidence, low self esteem, peer issues, home issues, bullying etc.) This student retains very little knowledge and has to relearn each topic on re-presentation of material each year if not re-engaged. Typically there are only a few of these in each class.
Coasting: A student that will complete work if there is nothing better to do. One that does the bare minimum to avoid attention of the teacher. If allowed to develop at their own pace will progress very slowly and have little retention. Typically this can be up to 4-5 students.
Good: A student that does all tasks asked of by the teacher willingly. Is able to answer most questions asked by the teacher but rarely will offer to answer a question unless called upon. Is not disruptive, completes homework, is enthusiastic and asks questions of the teacher when difficulties are encountered. In mid streamed classes this is the majority of students.
Determined: A student that attacks their work and seeks deep understanding actively. This student finds reward in the act of learning, is self motivated and can learn independently. These are the students seeking promotion to higher classes, those working at the level of their ability or the majority of the 'academic' students. The number can vary greatly from class to class and teacher to teacher.
By identifying where a student is and what to do to reach the next higher level students can set goals that would improve their opportunities for success in the subject. It has motivated a range of students to seek improvement and has given areas of discussion to engage parents with.
Labels:
motivation,
teaching
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Work Ethic
I had a discussion today as to whether work ethic could be taught.
My reply was no.. it couldn't be taught but it could be instilled. By this I meant that work ethic is not something that could be learned from a lesson, it was something that grew in a person over time.
As a school, fostering work ethic is something that needs to be done from an early age. Assuming that kids will instantly start doing 3 hours of assessment and study in year 12 is a recipe for disaster if they have only been doing the bare minimum until year 11.
So.. how do we instill a good work ethic? This is what I have considered thus far...
1. Model it at all times. If students see that you work hard they are more likely to think that adult behaviour requires work.
2. Build it up slowly. Start with little things like developing an assignment in class over a number of days, analysing a task, breaking it down into multiple steps and creating a timeline for completing the task. Homework is another good way to do this. Start with 15 mins in one learning area, develop the use of a diary and start giving homework in multiple learning areas.
3. Recognise achievement. Praise students that show signs of developing a work ethic. If a student does well, explicitly draw attention to what has contributed to the result.
4. Tie effort to reward. Without the effort being commensurate with the reward students cannot learn to value their effort. If a students does the work and fails, ensure that the failure is identified as a path to success.
5. Group students with a similar work ethic. This will create demand for students to work with like minded students and create an environment of success for these students.
6. Teach self correction and independent learning. A key component of work ethic is when a student feels empowered to teach themselves. A student with a good work ethic will not give up purely because the answer is not under their nose! In maths this could mean asking a friend, reading a worked example or checking answers in the back of the book and then correcting mistakes.
7. Being punctual and ready to start (not five minutes after the activity begins).
8. Being prepared and having all required materials.
9. Showing respect for those around them by being focussed on the task at hand and not distracting others needlessly.
I'm sure there's more - as I think of them I'll add them on.
Point 5. is a bit contentious, but I am a little sick of teachers sacrificing good students to assist with behaviour management or to "model" the behaviour to others. I think if we actually analyse the usual approach of mixed groups - the good kid is the one who usually suffers.
:-)
My reply was no.. it couldn't be taught but it could be instilled. By this I meant that work ethic is not something that could be learned from a lesson, it was something that grew in a person over time.
As a school, fostering work ethic is something that needs to be done from an early age. Assuming that kids will instantly start doing 3 hours of assessment and study in year 12 is a recipe for disaster if they have only been doing the bare minimum until year 11.
So.. how do we instill a good work ethic? This is what I have considered thus far...
1. Model it at all times. If students see that you work hard they are more likely to think that adult behaviour requires work.
2. Build it up slowly. Start with little things like developing an assignment in class over a number of days, analysing a task, breaking it down into multiple steps and creating a timeline for completing the task. Homework is another good way to do this. Start with 15 mins in one learning area, develop the use of a diary and start giving homework in multiple learning areas.
3. Recognise achievement. Praise students that show signs of developing a work ethic. If a student does well, explicitly draw attention to what has contributed to the result.
4. Tie effort to reward. Without the effort being commensurate with the reward students cannot learn to value their effort. If a students does the work and fails, ensure that the failure is identified as a path to success.
5. Group students with a similar work ethic. This will create demand for students to work with like minded students and create an environment of success for these students.
6. Teach self correction and independent learning. A key component of work ethic is when a student feels empowered to teach themselves. A student with a good work ethic will not give up purely because the answer is not under their nose! In maths this could mean asking a friend, reading a worked example or checking answers in the back of the book and then correcting mistakes.
7. Being punctual and ready to start (not five minutes after the activity begins).
8. Being prepared and having all required materials.
9. Showing respect for those around them by being focussed on the task at hand and not distracting others needlessly.
I'm sure there's more - as I think of them I'll add them on.
Point 5. is a bit contentious, but I am a little sick of teachers sacrificing good students to assist with behaviour management or to "model" the behaviour to others. I think if we actually analyse the usual approach of mixed groups - the good kid is the one who usually suffers.
:-)
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Lockharts Lament
Lockhart's Lament was recently /.'d and is a really good read about one person's thoughts of where mathematics has diverged from being an art to a science (yes you read that correctly, was an art form now a science). It was interesting to read how a classroom could be transformed from a fact finding mission to a place focusing on the development of ideas, more akin to a history and art class than as a science. I've read a few different variations on the same theme, but this is one of the better ones.
It would be funny (thinking of pure maths as an art form) if there wasn't some truth in it. True creativity and inspiration is at the heart of any discovery. On the other hand, if I was hiring people to build a bridge or a skyscraper I'd want a person doing it that had been drilled in maths and understood how to apply it rather than some introspective, dreamy, philosophy driven hippy. The approach suggested infers putting even more language in mathematics, running the risk of removing maths even further from those students that find it a refuge from humanities based subjects.
There's nothing stopping us implementing or re-introducing some of the ideas in the article into the curriculum. I'm always looking for ways to reinvigorate my classes and this may be one! I would though be wary of any approach that took more maths out of mathematics. After all, we don't all have the genius to discover maths the way of Gallileo, Pythagoras, Archimedes, Newton and Leibniz... but like the writer I can appreciate and revere the simplicity and elegance of their findings.
It would be funny (thinking of pure maths as an art form) if there wasn't some truth in it. True creativity and inspiration is at the heart of any discovery. On the other hand, if I was hiring people to build a bridge or a skyscraper I'd want a person doing it that had been drilled in maths and understood how to apply it rather than some introspective, dreamy, philosophy driven hippy. The approach suggested infers putting even more language in mathematics, running the risk of removing maths even further from those students that find it a refuge from humanities based subjects.
There's nothing stopping us implementing or re-introducing some of the ideas in the article into the curriculum. I'm always looking for ways to reinvigorate my classes and this may be one! I would though be wary of any approach that took more maths out of mathematics. After all, we don't all have the genius to discover maths the way of Gallileo, Pythagoras, Archimedes, Newton and Leibniz... but like the writer I can appreciate and revere the simplicity and elegance of their findings.
Labels:
mathematics,
teaching
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Right Angle Trigonometry Meta-language
My prac student is to deliver the right angle trigonometry unit and I was thinking about all the little things that I like to emphasize to students.
The first thing I would like him to consider is to design the course to make connections to previous courses of work (prior learning) especially with regard to language. Mathematics has such a rich history of precise language that it is important to identify ideas correctly to students in a manner that ties together topics to promote abstraction.
For instance before actually doing anything, we need to remind students what the LHS and RHS of an equation is, and how to identify the subject of the equation that we want to work with. Then we might think about how to eliminate coefficients and pronumerals/variables from one side on an equation, transpose terms/pronumerals/variables and multiplying through/simplifying to remove a denominator. What can we substitute into an equation? How do we solve the equation? Do we need simultaneous equations? We need to use every opportunity to reinforce concepts learned in previous algebra topics.
We have geometry prior learning to consider, three internal angles = 180°, a right angled triangle has one internal angle 90°. Line properties give us complementary, corresponding, co-interior, supplementary, adjacent, vertically opposite, exterior, alternate angles. Also the types of triangles, isosceles, equilateral and scalene help us find other angles. Circle geometry gives us tangents, subtended angles, cyclic quadrilaterals. Properties of 3D shapes!
Only after we consider possible connections to prior learning can we think about actually teaching the relatively small amount of new material. Without these connections we are just teaching students a new trick that will be forgotten immediately after assessment (a key issue exacerbated by the increased assessment required by OBE reporting requirements).
We have to introduce a range of new ideas such as opposite, adjacent and hypotenuse for right angled triangles. We have equations such as Pythagoras' and the three trigonometric ratios. .. and the dreaded bugbear bearings (until vectors makes bearings look easy!!)
We have conventions such as labelling the hypotenuse 'c' and the remaining sides a, b for Pythagoras' theorem problems and opp, adj and hyp in trigonometric problems.
We have good practice such as always writing the symbolic form of a trigonometric equation before substituting values, labelling diagrams, identifying right angles.
We have acronyms to help us remember trigonometric ratios SOH, CAH, TOA.
What is the correct sequence for introducing the material? What resources can we use or have available?
So now prac student, your job is to help students see how their prior learning is necessary to solve these problems!
The first thing I would like him to consider is to design the course to make connections to previous courses of work (prior learning) especially with regard to language. Mathematics has such a rich history of precise language that it is important to identify ideas correctly to students in a manner that ties together topics to promote abstraction.
For instance before actually doing anything, we need to remind students what the LHS and RHS of an equation is, and how to identify the subject of the equation that we want to work with. Then we might think about how to eliminate coefficients and pronumerals/variables from one side on an equation, transpose terms/pronumerals/variables and multiplying through/simplifying to remove a denominator. What can we substitute into an equation? How do we solve the equation? Do we need simultaneous equations? We need to use every opportunity to reinforce concepts learned in previous algebra topics.
We have geometry prior learning to consider, three internal angles = 180°, a right angled triangle has one internal angle 90°. Line properties give us complementary, corresponding, co-interior, supplementary, adjacent, vertically opposite, exterior, alternate angles. Also the types of triangles, isosceles, equilateral and scalene help us find other angles. Circle geometry gives us tangents, subtended angles, cyclic quadrilaterals. Properties of 3D shapes!
Only after we consider possible connections to prior learning can we think about actually teaching the relatively small amount of new material. Without these connections we are just teaching students a new trick that will be forgotten immediately after assessment (a key issue exacerbated by the increased assessment required by OBE reporting requirements).
We have to introduce a range of new ideas such as opposite, adjacent and hypotenuse for right angled triangles. We have equations such as Pythagoras' and the three trigonometric ratios. .. and the dreaded bugbear bearings (until vectors makes bearings look easy!!)
We have conventions such as labelling the hypotenuse 'c' and the remaining sides a, b for Pythagoras' theorem problems and opp, adj and hyp in trigonometric problems.
We have good practice such as always writing the symbolic form of a trigonometric equation before substituting values, labelling diagrams, identifying right angles.
We have acronyms to help us remember trigonometric ratios SOH, CAH, TOA.
What is the correct sequence for introducing the material? What resources can we use or have available?
So now prac student, your job is to help students see how their prior learning is necessary to solve these problems!
Labels:
teaching
Touchy.. Touchy...
Often speaking at school you think.. bloody hell.. that's not what I meant.
This seems to happen to me a lot as I am a bit introspective at times but will say what I think - and subsequently seem to live with a constant case of foot-in-mouth.
A couple of students came to me and said, "such and such teacher just doesn't understand.. I ask them for help and they don't listen." I sat down and talked with them about the kind of questions they were asking and it turned out to be a conversation like "I just don't understand anything!", to which even I would respond, "then go back to primary. I can't help you either." I then talked to the students about leading questions, redrafting and investigated what they did know. By the end of it, we realised that they had actually learnt a lot from the teacher already and that the angst they were feeling was that they now had to use this knowledge and that this required work.
.. so I said to myself... job well done.. and mentioned it to the teacher and asked if students resubmitting redrafted work was a problem and discussed the conversation I had with the kids.. this was turned on me as, "don't you think I provide scaffolding for my kids." OMG.. I'd just been praising this teacher to students and pointing out what they had already learned!
Another case in point occurred when I was asked did I have a preference to teaching boys or girls, to which I responded I thought I had a bit more experience teaching girls, therefore found it a bit easier.. to which the scamp teacher cheekily replied.. "I find boys easier to teach, are you saying I have less experience with girls?" ARGH!!!
These were jokey experiences, but sadly in teaching often analysis of our strengths and weaknesses, or sharing our ideas is seen as a prelude to punitive action to rectify a perceived issue. This fear often hampers any reform process and causes much angst with regards to performance management issues.
Oh and don't even think about robust discussion or sharing subject passion or investigating your own perceived flaws.
One of the ways of stopping teacher close mindedness is to nip it in the bud with practicum students and promote sharing of ideas (using new media where a young group of teachers is not at hand) to ensure that we become collegiate as a profession and welcome self and group analysis as a way of improving our performance. With many of our experienced teachers on the verge of retirement beaten down by OBE we will need to accelerate the speed that teachers become competent and we can no longer rely on the "closed door, hide in our classroom and teach ourselves" method of learning. It's inefficient, in a world where people change careers like underwear, it is also impractical.
That's my rant for today.
This seems to happen to me a lot as I am a bit introspective at times but will say what I think - and subsequently seem to live with a constant case of foot-in-mouth.
A couple of students came to me and said, "such and such teacher just doesn't understand.. I ask them for help and they don't listen." I sat down and talked with them about the kind of questions they were asking and it turned out to be a conversation like "I just don't understand anything!", to which even I would respond, "then go back to primary. I can't help you either." I then talked to the students about leading questions, redrafting and investigated what they did know. By the end of it, we realised that they had actually learnt a lot from the teacher already and that the angst they were feeling was that they now had to use this knowledge and that this required work.
.. so I said to myself... job well done.. and mentioned it to the teacher and asked if students resubmitting redrafted work was a problem and discussed the conversation I had with the kids.. this was turned on me as, "don't you think I provide scaffolding for my kids." OMG.. I'd just been praising this teacher to students and pointing out what they had already learned!
Another case in point occurred when I was asked did I have a preference to teaching boys or girls, to which I responded I thought I had a bit more experience teaching girls, therefore found it a bit easier.. to which the scamp teacher cheekily replied.. "I find boys easier to teach, are you saying I have less experience with girls?" ARGH!!!
These were jokey experiences, but sadly in teaching often analysis of our strengths and weaknesses, or sharing our ideas is seen as a prelude to punitive action to rectify a perceived issue. This fear often hampers any reform process and causes much angst with regards to performance management issues.
Oh and don't even think about robust discussion or sharing subject passion or investigating your own perceived flaws.
One of the ways of stopping teacher close mindedness is to nip it in the bud with practicum students and promote sharing of ideas (using new media where a young group of teachers is not at hand) to ensure that we become collegiate as a profession and welcome self and group analysis as a way of improving our performance. With many of our experienced teachers on the verge of retirement beaten down by OBE we will need to accelerate the speed that teachers become competent and we can no longer rely on the "closed door, hide in our classroom and teach ourselves" method of learning. It's inefficient, in a world where people change careers like underwear, it is also impractical.
That's my rant for today.
Labels:
teaching
Saturday, May 30, 2009
A different model for success for state schools
Permanency has always been a key goal in state schools with teachers falling into permanent positions and then staying in the same school for 7-10 years, perhaps reaching long service leave and seeking a new school.
Stability, one would think, would be a key advantage over the private sector. I would suggest that it is the exact opposite. What tends to happen is that schools in adjacent suburbs function like teachers in classrooms. Many not knowing what is going on in the school/classroom next door.
Another key advantage would be the non competitive nature of schools is of a reasonable distribution of students, with students being part of catchments removing competition between state schools. In the private sector it is counterproductive to assist neighbour schools find talented students as they are potential customers. Yet in state schools we find it is common practice to poach students (and thus lower a school's potential results) either through systemic planning (eg. G&T schools) or through informal discussions with year 7 groups across catchments.
I think that increasing the rotation of teachers in schools within a district would solve this problem. Teachers would be attached to districts rather than schools and key teachers (level 3 CT's perhaps) used as troubleshooters for schools that cannot reach benchmarks. Benchmarks would be created for districts rather than schools. Funding would be linked to performance of the district with underperforming schools being given proven troubleshooters to improve performance (Think similar to the AFL draft!).
This would promote common frameworks to assist teachers with transitions between schools (the new system couldn't work without them). It would also lessen the poaching aspect as we could distribute students freely between schools in the same district knowing common teaching methods were being used and that school based performance was irrelevant.
By being district teachers rather than school staff, needs based movement could be made based on cohort size and specific needs of schools. I imagine this was the original idea of central staffing. To maintain consistency of approach, pastoral, teaching assistants and administration staff would remain school based but would need to agree on baseline standards. Consideration could be made on how HoD's and level 2's are distributed and moved and on what basis. Movement of HoDs and level 2's would give graduate teachers a wider exposure to teaching methods and promote exchange of ideas and resources between our expert teachers. Similar to the movement of principals in the metropolitan area.
It would require a change in mindset from 'development of a school' to 'development of students for a district' - seeking the betterment of the system rather than the betterment of a school. It's a philosophical change of mindset.
I like this idea. I doubt many others would.
Stability, one would think, would be a key advantage over the private sector. I would suggest that it is the exact opposite. What tends to happen is that schools in adjacent suburbs function like teachers in classrooms. Many not knowing what is going on in the school/classroom next door.
Another key advantage would be the non competitive nature of schools is of a reasonable distribution of students, with students being part of catchments removing competition between state schools. In the private sector it is counterproductive to assist neighbour schools find talented students as they are potential customers. Yet in state schools we find it is common practice to poach students (and thus lower a school's potential results) either through systemic planning (eg. G&T schools) or through informal discussions with year 7 groups across catchments.
I think that increasing the rotation of teachers in schools within a district would solve this problem. Teachers would be attached to districts rather than schools and key teachers (level 3 CT's perhaps) used as troubleshooters for schools that cannot reach benchmarks. Benchmarks would be created for districts rather than schools. Funding would be linked to performance of the district with underperforming schools being given proven troubleshooters to improve performance (Think similar to the AFL draft!).
This would promote common frameworks to assist teachers with transitions between schools (the new system couldn't work without them). It would also lessen the poaching aspect as we could distribute students freely between schools in the same district knowing common teaching methods were being used and that school based performance was irrelevant.
By being district teachers rather than school staff, needs based movement could be made based on cohort size and specific needs of schools. I imagine this was the original idea of central staffing. To maintain consistency of approach, pastoral, teaching assistants and administration staff would remain school based but would need to agree on baseline standards. Consideration could be made on how HoD's and level 2's are distributed and moved and on what basis. Movement of HoDs and level 2's would give graduate teachers a wider exposure to teaching methods and promote exchange of ideas and resources between our expert teachers. Similar to the movement of principals in the metropolitan area.
It would require a change in mindset from 'development of a school' to 'development of students for a district' - seeking the betterment of the system rather than the betterment of a school. It's a philosophical change of mindset.
I like this idea. I doubt many others would.
Labels:
education,
social system,
teaching
Career development & Half cohort musings
Today I was thinking.. what's the best way to get better early in your teacher career and do the most good in the community? Is it better to stay in one place surrounded by people that are supportive and appreciate your contribution, developing your own ideas with a small group or move amongst a range of schools, view what they are doing and use that to cross pollinate ideas whilst developing your own skills?
The half cohort is a critical moment in state school teaching in WA, with DET very late realising that it is having a negative impact on both school morale and student intake. For Ms O'Neil to release a missive saying the half cohort is being managed properly is to ignore the fact that it is not! Something that is being managed properly would not endanger subject delivery at schools, would not reduce student numbers over a five year period (which to my knowledge is not happening at private schools), cause further loss of teachers, leading to a loss of teaching knowledge (both about content, cohort, process and individual students) and further loss of confidence in your employer.
Schools are contemplating busing students between schools such that they students will have access to courses that individual state schools will not be able to offer due to small cohorts (this includes core subjects, Maths, English, Science and S&E). This means that students are taken out of their social settings, have reduced access to their teachers, lose contact time due to travel. Teachers lose access to certain courses for periods of time, have to teach more often across learning areas, have to teach subjects with gaps or years between offerings (eg. 3A subjects offered in 2010 & 2011 at one school, would move to another school for 2012 & 13), teachers may have to flit between schools with all the associated issues with managing split shifts, marking, load and travel time (equivalent to moderation issues 8-12 all subjects, all year round). Schools have to manage timetabling across multiple schools reducing the flexibility for change and development, manage attendance, manage the different acceptable behaviours/pastoral care, the consistency of assessment requirements and manage differing academic, literacy and numeracy standards.
Other options include merging 8/9, 9/10, 10/11, 11/12 classes.
There is more potential for students to fall through the cracks; it is an awful lot to deal with.
Subjects with low numbers (typically academic subjects such as maths specialist, physics, chemistry, lit, politics, history, economics), drawcards for students when selecting schools, all of a sudden may not be offered by a school unless under the busing students model (parents will really need to read the fine print!).
Busing students could be positive especially when tied to more options for students - with adjacent schools specialising in areas such as aeronautics, dance, LOTE, drama, specialist science courses, maths enrichment, sporting initiatives, computing, shed work, VET courses and the like that could not normally be offerred in a single school of 400-700. My concern is when schools are diminishing their offerings rather than enhancing them. Perhaps restricting busing to non core subjects and limiting it to one/two afternoons a week is the commitment that could be made by DET to limit potential issues. MESS teachers would need to take an option/specialist class or have all their DOTT at once. Anyone with VET courses at schools knows the timetabling issues caused by kids being out for half or whole days. Running specialist courses over schools is something that could have been done without the half cohort issue which leads me to think that more than likely it has already been tried with limited success.
There are other potential indirect benefits: in small schools, class sizes of 5-6 are more difficult to develop cooperative learning opportunities; it is also more difficult to instill some level of competition between students; (and the big one) these classes are more difficult to justify in terms of cost per student. Courses that may only be offered occassionally based on demand may be able to be offered consistently under a busing model.
So... going back to my original question, in amongst all this uncertainty, what is the best option for doing good in the community and developing my teaching skills? Sadly, it could be the private system for the first time in two years, especially with my family on one income and having a temperament like mine that needs a level of stability. I'll continue to think it through and seek more of the positives in my current situation as I love working in the state school system otherwise.
The half cohort is a critical moment in state school teaching in WA, with DET very late realising that it is having a negative impact on both school morale and student intake. For Ms O'Neil to release a missive saying the half cohort is being managed properly is to ignore the fact that it is not! Something that is being managed properly would not endanger subject delivery at schools, would not reduce student numbers over a five year period (which to my knowledge is not happening at private schools), cause further loss of teachers, leading to a loss of teaching knowledge (both about content, cohort, process and individual students) and further loss of confidence in your employer.
Schools are contemplating busing students between schools such that they students will have access to courses that individual state schools will not be able to offer due to small cohorts (this includes core subjects, Maths, English, Science and S&E). This means that students are taken out of their social settings, have reduced access to their teachers, lose contact time due to travel. Teachers lose access to certain courses for periods of time, have to teach more often across learning areas, have to teach subjects with gaps or years between offerings (eg. 3A subjects offered in 2010 & 2011 at one school, would move to another school for 2012 & 13), teachers may have to flit between schools with all the associated issues with managing split shifts, marking, load and travel time (equivalent to moderation issues 8-12 all subjects, all year round). Schools have to manage timetabling across multiple schools reducing the flexibility for change and development, manage attendance, manage the different acceptable behaviours/pastoral care, the consistency of assessment requirements and manage differing academic, literacy and numeracy standards.
Other options include merging 8/9, 9/10, 10/11, 11/12 classes.
There is more potential for students to fall through the cracks; it is an awful lot to deal with.
Subjects with low numbers (typically academic subjects such as maths specialist, physics, chemistry, lit, politics, history, economics), drawcards for students when selecting schools, all of a sudden may not be offered by a school unless under the busing students model (parents will really need to read the fine print!).
Busing students could be positive especially when tied to more options for students - with adjacent schools specialising in areas such as aeronautics, dance, LOTE, drama, specialist science courses, maths enrichment, sporting initiatives, computing, shed work, VET courses and the like that could not normally be offerred in a single school of 400-700. My concern is when schools are diminishing their offerings rather than enhancing them. Perhaps restricting busing to non core subjects and limiting it to one/two afternoons a week is the commitment that could be made by DET to limit potential issues. MESS teachers would need to take an option/specialist class or have all their DOTT at once. Anyone with VET courses at schools knows the timetabling issues caused by kids being out for half or whole days. Running specialist courses over schools is something that could have been done without the half cohort issue which leads me to think that more than likely it has already been tried with limited success.
There are other potential indirect benefits: in small schools, class sizes of 5-6 are more difficult to develop cooperative learning opportunities; it is also more difficult to instill some level of competition between students; (and the big one) these classes are more difficult to justify in terms of cost per student. Courses that may only be offered occassionally based on demand may be able to be offered consistently under a busing model.
So... going back to my original question, in amongst all this uncertainty, what is the best option for doing good in the community and developing my teaching skills? Sadly, it could be the private system for the first time in two years, especially with my family on one income and having a temperament like mine that needs a level of stability. I'll continue to think it through and seek more of the positives in my current situation as I love working in the state school system otherwise.
Labels:
half cohort,
teaching
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Exam Time
My students are primed for their exams, have completed their practice and been given time to revise. They have completed the content designed for them and are busily refreshing their minds with the content.
They say they're not ready...
They say that they will forget it all...
They say that they can't remember.
... despite all this
THEY BETTER DO BLOODY WELL AFTER ALL THE EFFORT THAT'S BEEN PUT INTO THEM!
We'll see. I'm tired and am looking forward to them going off on their exam weeks..
My HoD came into class today and laughingly told my students I'd get fired if they didn't do well.. In industry that's what would happen.. trainer no good.. get a new trainer..
I suppose teaching doesn't have the luxury of firing teachers in the learning phase as a good teacher takes a few iterations of fairly mediocre teaching before making a good teacher. Maybe we're heading to more disposable teachers.. It wouldn't surprise me.
My personality is more to just stand aside and let a better person take over than tell everyone to f&ck off and let me do my job.. but standing aside is not the fastest way to my skills getting better and wouldn't give my students the best chance of success (they know me, I know them.. a bit of support and I'll get the capable ones over the line). The question has always been can I handle the mediocre phase until I get truly good as I have always been able to do in past occupations.. Do I have the skills to get past the mediocre phase? Can I recognise the real vs the perceived consequences of my failures for my students?
I think for now I just have to take a big deep breath and dive back in.. If I get fished out and benched for awhile I have to just take it on the chin or bite the bullet and find something I am good at with my existing learning. When I make it.. I'll finally be a skilled maths teacher able to teach all levels of 8-12.
Who knows when that will be.. Certainly not me!!
They say they're not ready...
They say that they will forget it all...
They say that they can't remember.
... despite all this
THEY BETTER DO BLOODY WELL AFTER ALL THE EFFORT THAT'S BEEN PUT INTO THEM!
We'll see. I'm tired and am looking forward to them going off on their exam weeks..
My HoD came into class today and laughingly told my students I'd get fired if they didn't do well.. In industry that's what would happen.. trainer no good.. get a new trainer..
I suppose teaching doesn't have the luxury of firing teachers in the learning phase as a good teacher takes a few iterations of fairly mediocre teaching before making a good teacher. Maybe we're heading to more disposable teachers.. It wouldn't surprise me.
My personality is more to just stand aside and let a better person take over than tell everyone to f&ck off and let me do my job.. but standing aside is not the fastest way to my skills getting better and wouldn't give my students the best chance of success (they know me, I know them.. a bit of support and I'll get the capable ones over the line). The question has always been can I handle the mediocre phase until I get truly good as I have always been able to do in past occupations.. Do I have the skills to get past the mediocre phase? Can I recognise the real vs the perceived consequences of my failures for my students?
I think for now I just have to take a big deep breath and dive back in.. If I get fished out and benched for awhile I have to just take it on the chin or bite the bullet and find something I am good at with my existing learning. When I make it.. I'll finally be a skilled maths teacher able to teach all levels of 8-12.
Who knows when that will be.. Certainly not me!!
Labels:
daily reflection,
teaching
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Subject selections
I had a call from my dad today who asked, "I've been told all along that your stepbrother is university bound by the school but I have his subject selections for year 11 and they are all level 1 subjects."
When I dug a bit further he had been counselled into 1C English, 2C Maths and some non NCOS subjects. He had been given not recommended for 3A MAT and 3A MAS and told that he would "struggle" in 2A English, 2A Physics and 2A Chemistry.
I think many parents may be getting suggestions like this soon where schools make cautious subject selections to ensure that only the best students seek university entrance and along the way maximise league table results.
This move from encouraging students to seek excellence and challenge themselves towards seeking subjects that they will definitely do well in is contrary to the human spirit (especially when many of the non NCOS subjects lead nowhere). When we seek the improbable, all too often we succeed as we have underestimated our own capabilities. So many students that develop late are currently thrown on the TEE scrap heap without being given an opportunity.
Worse still, many parents still do not understand that level 1 subjects (in general) condemn their child to TAFE and not university - with ECU now saying that level 2 subjects are minimum for entry to university. Schools are effectively moving the university entry point to year 10 rather than pushing students through the year 11/12 learning curve/ litmus test where they have a go. Many TEE students succeed/many fail but all learn about themselves from the experience.
Somewhere we gave up on our youth.. before they turn 16 we drown their dreams in politically correct statements about students finding success and designing courses suitable to their needs. Shoot, we can't even devise an assessment programme systemically that can measure their ability (yes, I am talking about the failed levelling experiment). How can we judge with 100% accuracy who will improve enough to reach university? We are failing the 5-10% of students (or maybe even more if we count those that benefit from the effort) by not making them try to extend to university levels - especially those without environmental or behavioural issues. We have an obligation to encourage them to try, extend themselves and seek excellence.
It always amazes me what kids can do when given opportunities and are taught to value them.
When I dug a bit further he had been counselled into 1C English, 2C Maths and some non NCOS subjects. He had been given not recommended for 3A MAT and 3A MAS and told that he would "struggle" in 2A English, 2A Physics and 2A Chemistry.
I think many parents may be getting suggestions like this soon where schools make cautious subject selections to ensure that only the best students seek university entrance and along the way maximise league table results.
This move from encouraging students to seek excellence and challenge themselves towards seeking subjects that they will definitely do well in is contrary to the human spirit (especially when many of the non NCOS subjects lead nowhere). When we seek the improbable, all too often we succeed as we have underestimated our own capabilities. So many students that develop late are currently thrown on the TEE scrap heap without being given an opportunity.
Worse still, many parents still do not understand that level 1 subjects (in general) condemn their child to TAFE and not university - with ECU now saying that level 2 subjects are minimum for entry to university. Schools are effectively moving the university entry point to year 10 rather than pushing students through the year 11/12 learning curve/ litmus test where they have a go. Many TEE students succeed/many fail but all learn about themselves from the experience.
Somewhere we gave up on our youth.. before they turn 16 we drown their dreams in politically correct statements about students finding success and designing courses suitable to their needs. Shoot, we can't even devise an assessment programme systemically that can measure their ability (yes, I am talking about the failed levelling experiment). How can we judge with 100% accuracy who will improve enough to reach university? We are failing the 5-10% of students (or maybe even more if we count those that benefit from the effort) by not making them try to extend to university levels - especially those without environmental or behavioural issues. We have an obligation to encourage them to try, extend themselves and seek excellence.
It always amazes me what kids can do when given opportunities and are taught to value them.
Labels:
league tables,
teaching,
TEE
Monday, May 18, 2009
Another IOTY candidate
The next nomination for idiot of the year goes to Barry McGaw chairman of the National Curriculum Board for his statement "the new standards will clearly show what skills and knowledge a student should aim for at each year level, making it easier for teachers to identify student progress and to help them."
A co-nomination goes to Caroline Milburn author of the article in The Age that says "Teachers will no longer be the sole judge of a student's work, after a landmark decision by the National Curriculum Board to introduce year-by-year achievement standards for pupils. For the first time, all teachers in Australian schools will have to use the same achievement benchmarks to measure student progress."
We know from MCJ in WA and how league tables are used that standards do not make it any easier to identify student progress as variables that define student learning are (in general) too various to adequately define. The only thing that standardised testing has done has reduced many good schools to "teaching to the test". No test has a better idea of student progress than a good teacher.
Caroline Milburn you are just publishing sensationalist tripe, if history repeats itself, we will just be given a load of generalist edubabble descriptions and unusable work samples that produce unscientific and statistically unsound assessment. Not to mention that standardising results across Australia has minimal use or effect other than for systemic discussion (which has no place in the hands of the public - see below).
My rant earlier today on this topic on the Education Matters forum went like this..
"I thought that we had learned from the smartie chart fiasco [in WA] that standardising grades is an exceptionally stupid idea.
Student A is trying their hardest but has little support at home. They are in a low socio-economic school, have peers in similar situations and have no chance to compete with students from leafy green schools. So each year, teacher has to give them a 'D' or somehow find them a scholarship, remove them from their social peers and hope that they can handle the social stigma attached to being in a higher SEI school.
The student without a scholarship gets sick of receiving D's (despite their attempts at catching up and working really hard). This is the same student that given a higher grade would have caught up and done really well in senior school, be a TEE candidate and contribute to urban renewal in low socio-economic areas (this kid was me - which is why I am so passionate about the idiocy of standardisation in this manner).
It also works the other way around. Student B does bugger all in school, but achieves an A because they have reached the benchmark. Without the motivation to push themselves further they don't learn a good work ethic.. Two years later they fail senior school as they hit their ability curve and have no drive to fall back on. It is just such a b*llsh*t idea.
School is about excellence and doing your best - not about standardisation and "fairness" in grading. Anyone with half a brain can see the flaws in it. TEE examinations provide the cross school moderation and that is where it should stay. I fear though that the drive for standardisation comes from government fear of litigation and the need to defer risk to schools where legislation and procedure provide some protection."
and then again later..
"Standardisation creates the same issues under a different guise. It potentially dictates that I teach material that is clearly beyond the student capabilities. I have no problem with suggested standards nor syllabus (syllabii?) but I do have an issue where I lack the ability to modify it where required. To demand that I teach algebra in term 1 year 7 when my kids can't do simple operations means that I would waste two terms teaching inappropriate material. To have to fill out twenty pages of documents to justify the delay (I know I'm projecting here but I have some understanding of how bureaucracies work) would do my head in.
Whilst we are on the topic of standardisation, to give these same students a standardisation test that tells them they are below benchmark (translate that to dumb in kidspeak) and destroy fragile confidence because the test is effectively two terms early is also wrong. I'm not sure of the purpose of these tests other than to satisfy curiosity of head office and parents. If they were internal tools that we could use to gauge performance and modify curricula to suit I would support them - but as yet all I have seen is judgements made about students, niggling comments about teachers, and misapplication of developmental/environmental causes rather than teaching or intelligence based assessment.
Either we value the judgement of our teachers or we use standardised testing. To continue the devaluation of teacher judgement in lieu of creating a better system needs further analysis as I don't think we are doing the education system any favours by pursuing a course of teaching to tests and the associated pressure of high stakes testing on children. "
Now I feel better.
A co-nomination goes to Caroline Milburn author of the article in The Age that says "Teachers will no longer be the sole judge of a student's work, after a landmark decision by the National Curriculum Board to introduce year-by-year achievement standards for pupils. For the first time, all teachers in Australian schools will have to use the same achievement benchmarks to measure student progress."
We know from MCJ in WA and how league tables are used that standards do not make it any easier to identify student progress as variables that define student learning are (in general) too various to adequately define. The only thing that standardised testing has done has reduced many good schools to "teaching to the test". No test has a better idea of student progress than a good teacher.
Caroline Milburn you are just publishing sensationalist tripe, if history repeats itself, we will just be given a load of generalist edubabble descriptions and unusable work samples that produce unscientific and statistically unsound assessment. Not to mention that standardising results across Australia has minimal use or effect other than for systemic discussion (which has no place in the hands of the public - see below).
My rant earlier today on this topic on the Education Matters forum went like this..
"I thought that we had learned from the smartie chart fiasco [in WA] that standardising grades is an exceptionally stupid idea.
Student A is trying their hardest but has little support at home. They are in a low socio-economic school, have peers in similar situations and have no chance to compete with students from leafy green schools. So each year, teacher has to give them a 'D' or somehow find them a scholarship, remove them from their social peers and hope that they can handle the social stigma attached to being in a higher SEI school.
The student without a scholarship gets sick of receiving D's (despite their attempts at catching up and working really hard). This is the same student that given a higher grade would have caught up and done really well in senior school, be a TEE candidate and contribute to urban renewal in low socio-economic areas (this kid was me - which is why I am so passionate about the idiocy of standardisation in this manner).
It also works the other way around. Student B does bugger all in school, but achieves an A because they have reached the benchmark. Without the motivation to push themselves further they don't learn a good work ethic.. Two years later they fail senior school as they hit their ability curve and have no drive to fall back on. It is just such a b*llsh*t idea.
School is about excellence and doing your best - not about standardisation and "fairness" in grading. Anyone with half a brain can see the flaws in it. TEE examinations provide the cross school moderation and that is where it should stay. I fear though that the drive for standardisation comes from government fear of litigation and the need to defer risk to schools where legislation and procedure provide some protection."
and then again later..
"Standardisation creates the same issues under a different guise. It potentially dictates that I teach material that is clearly beyond the student capabilities. I have no problem with suggested standards nor syllabus (syllabii?) but I do have an issue where I lack the ability to modify it where required. To demand that I teach algebra in term 1 year 7 when my kids can't do simple operations means that I would waste two terms teaching inappropriate material. To have to fill out twenty pages of documents to justify the delay (I know I'm projecting here but I have some understanding of how bureaucracies work) would do my head in.
Whilst we are on the topic of standardisation, to give these same students a standardisation test that tells them they are below benchmark (translate that to dumb in kidspeak) and destroy fragile confidence because the test is effectively two terms early is also wrong. I'm not sure of the purpose of these tests other than to satisfy curiosity of head office and parents. If they were internal tools that we could use to gauge performance and modify curricula to suit I would support them - but as yet all I have seen is judgements made about students, niggling comments about teachers, and misapplication of developmental/environmental causes rather than teaching or intelligence based assessment.
Either we value the judgement of our teachers or we use standardised testing. To continue the devaluation of teacher judgement in lieu of creating a better system needs further analysis as I don't think we are doing the education system any favours by pursuing a course of teaching to tests and the associated pressure of high stakes testing on children. "
Now I feel better.
Labels:
IOTY,
standardised testing,
teaching
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)