Milestones

6000 hits since July last year.. 750 hits & 499 unique visitors for May.. passed the 200 post mark... not bad if I do say so myself..

Hello to everyone out there !!

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.

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!!

Nature vs Nurture

Interesting article here outlining the limited effect of nature and how schools (and parents) can make a difference.

Content vs Process

Here is the first of (I imagine) many articles on the importance of teaching content in schools and the reemergence of the idea that developed conceptual understanding can only be achieved by having a baseline of subject knowledge.

It has always been to my mind counter-intuitive to request a student to "understand" a topic without having facts to scaffold that understanding upon. There is no use in giving students methods of learning information if time to learn the information is not given and valued. The constant devaluation of content knowledge vs developing process has lead to a flawed education system.

I have to agree with the writer that being a yr 11/12 subject teacher with a deep understanding of a course requires more ability than that of 6/7/8/9 or 10. These experts in their fields deserve to be paid more and gain recognition for the guiding of students at this critical point in their lives. It is high pressure work with success leading to recognition for the school and the making of careers for students. Failure can lead to pressure from parents, administration and (more damaging) self criticism and confidence depletion.

Having experienced now 7,8,9,10,11,12 there is no doubt in my mind that the pressure involved in getting students over the TEE line far outweighs anything in earlier years. I have utmost respect for those that do it successfully over long periods of time.

Mid Semester Exams

Yesterday I was asked why run exams in year 8 & 9.

I could think of 8 reasons:

1. To reduce fear of exams (students use the idea of exams as a bugbear for not attempting level 2 subjects.)
2. It gives an anchor to the idea of study/revision.
3. It is good practice for upper school and identifies students bound for more difficult courses.
4. It provides feedback on what has been achieved by individual students during the semester.
5. It supports grades allocated by teachers put into reports.
6. It provides a benchmark of performance from year to year.
7. It is the backbone of academic rigour in a school, short of doing a personal project (which is impractical in most public schools).
8. Students gain confidence in doing exams by.. well.. doing exams.

Then I heard the excuses and heard what was really going on:

1. Such and such is just rewriting the NAPLAN test (fine if that is all you have taught in Sem 1!).
2. It's a lot of work (it's our job!) for little return (see 1-7 above).
3. I have to mark it (well.. yes.. but we teach math, compare that to issues in English & S&E, we have it easy!).
4. The kids can't do exams (some can, and they are severely disadvantaged compared to the rest of the state if the first time they see an exam is term 2 year 10(think league tables, think school numbers people! No results.. no school)).
5. I can't write an exam (huh?? ..nor can anyone else, we don't know what you have taught, nor do we know the level of your students! If you need help with formatting we have loads of support staff and teachers willing to help).

There is some argument that there is a level of over testing in year 9 due to NAPLAN but exams and NAPLAN have very different focus. NAPLAN looks at the student compared to the student cohort of the state. The exam should show a snapshot of the learning and retention of the most recent semester.

I can also understand the argument that some students should not sit an exam. If a student has a learning difficulty or is miles below the level of the exam (and a special exam has not been prepared for them) then it makes sense to exclude them.. these are our 1B kids.

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.

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.