Experts in their field

According to the Australian council of professions, a profession is:

"A disciplined group of individuals who adhere to high ethical standards and uphold themselves to, and are accepted by, the public as possessing special knowledge and skills in a widely recognised, organised body of learning derived from education and training at a high level, and who are prepared to exercise this knowledge and these skills in the interest of others.

Inherent in this definition is the concept that the responsibility for the welfare, health and safety of the community shall take precedence over other considerations."

As a computer programmer, analyst and manager, I had a group of skills and worked ethically to provide a service.  There was both an effort and reward to what was being sought and achieved.  I was paid well for my knowledge and was accountable for any advice given.

As a teacher I bring my old skills and have a set of new skills, yet demand for this knowledge is limited to submission requests by national curriculum, moderation requirements by curriculum council and occasional tutoring programmes.

As teachers, the transition from seniority based government workers to teaching professionals is not being well managed.  Career progression is poorly defined and clearly needs additional work.  It's in nobody's interest to address this issue as it will make a large workforce considerably dearer to work with.

What no-one is considering is that the increasing requirements on teachers to perform to metrics is creating a specialised workforce that will increasingly require differentiation and alternate wage scales to retain key performing employees within the workforce.  When this starts to happen the knowledge of key employees will gain value, diminishing the willingness to share knowledge especially where a market advantage is gained by the organisation.


It reminds me that when WACOT release ethical standards for teachers (after they finish that wad of registrations that is their revenue source), we need to be certain to ascertain how limiting they are to ensure that the remuneration is consistent with expectations.

Specialisation and professionalism needs to be properly re-established at the teaching training level.  The image of a  teacher in a mortar board and gown, cane in hand, standing over students studiously working on chalkboards, feared by parents, admired for their knowledge is long gone.  Perhaps, with the rise of an 'education first' approach to teaching training, a teacher delivering developmentally relevant content to a group of engaged students that understand the consequences of under performance on their future vocations, teachers will become again become valued members of a community. Maybe this person should be paid more.

A teacher that performs at a high level within a community and is visible in promoting education of parents' children may even become respected again.  Maybe this is a viable pathway to raising the profile of groups of teachers in the profession at a local level.  Maybe these people should be paid more.

A teacher that brings a wider knowledge of life through experience would help make better citizens.  Maybe this person should be paid more.

Maybe when those in high places actually consider the fiscal issues of a metric based educational economy they will reconsider this whole notion.  Who is looking after or taking chances on the kids that don't make good metrics?

Teaching is and should be always be a vocation well supported by all so that what needs to be done, gets done.  Let's hope it stays that way.

Russ.

More work not less

Students in low socio-economic areas need to do more work in high school despite behavioural distractions.  I've listened to colleagues that studied in NSW espousing the benefits of a multi stage course in senior school. I've never really bought into the argument for the majority of students, but for our top end I'm not so sure.

We have the maths academy twice a week after school.  The year 10 students are a keen bunch and are willing to work.  Taking out the two advanced students (and placing them in with year 11 and 12's), the majority of the rest have shown a vast improvement through the extra two hours a week.

This attention for the middle has raised class averages from sixties to eighties (resulting in an avalanche of praise) something I have never been able to achieve before.  Given the statement - students that are behind have to work harder (such as in areas where students start with a social disadvantage) and the fact that extra attention can work for these students (who come in their own time for nothing but the potential for a better grade), it identifies an equity issue that is difficult to ignore.

We put vast amount of effort (and money) into students with behavioural issues - but in many cases we ignore those with academic needs because they cause little trouble and parents are unaware of their potential.  With the lack of performance data in this area - I would say not only parents are unaware of actual potential, I would say schools, teachers, administration and society are also unaware of this potential.  Since our middle management and bureaucracy comes from this pool, we endanger future performance with this neglect.  We are creating a large welfare/low income group onto which we will have to support well into the future.

Teachers are in some part to blame for this - as we individually protect these students by investing our own time, allowing the system to abuse the goodwill teachers have towards their students.  Why pay teachers for putting in extra time if they are willing to do it themselves?  Private schools take this one step further and write donations of family time into school time as a part of extra curricular requirements.  Good people enter teaching - and as such set themselves up to be burned out by unscrupulous employers.  It takes other teachers within the system to identify when this is happening as teacher management itself is near non-existent (as management focus is placed on behavioural issues with students rather than optimising teacher delivery).  If teacher management is attempted it usually a band aid prior to slingshotting them into another role or school.  Result - students fall through the cracks (chasm) on a regular basis.

Once upon a time schools protected academic performance as the core business of a school.  Since losing this focus schools now have other metrics such as attendance and suspensions (resulting in lower crime figures) and year 9 performance on standardised tests (resulting in funding advantages).  Neither of which examine the output of a school vs the input of a school.  It is difficult to take a snapshot of a school as the main metric is measured over 5 year periods.  During this time anything could have changed - especially as student performance can be greatly modified through teacher, principal or community involvement (positively or negatively).

Where schools seek to keep out of the news and have a status quo with students, rather than seeking excellence and pushing them to their limits, it raises students with little resilience and little understanding of their own capabilities.  This is a poor outcome for everyone.

Singstar Competition

It's interesting to see those that are willing to put themselves out there for kids, those that aren't and those that can't.  I've run Singstar competitions at the end of term 1 for a number of years.  I do it for a number of reasons:

• We don't have a music programme at our school, and it gives kids an outlet to express themselves
• It encourages students to make a fool of themselves and know there is no lasting consequence
• It's an opportunity to teach empathy - laughing with, not at
• It builds confidence for shy kids, who over a number of years learn to have a go
• It's an opportunity to talk about why building confidence is important
• It's class building
• It builds school spirit
• Students I don't teach get to see us have fun and the learning environment I expect (mildly chaotic but productive).
• It's a but of fun

Bridges get built during these lessons where students that don't perform academically are allowed to shine and it provides a talking point with those that can perform.  There is a purpose to it, a pastoral care activity with real academic outcomes.  We know from past experience that classes that participate are more willing to ask seemingly "stupid" (to them) questions and resolve issues quickly rather than hiding at the back of a room.  If I can sing in front of peers, then I can ask a peer of the class a question that everybody might need to know.

Our principal had a go at David Bowie, TA's had fun (best Math's lesson ever supposedly!), one of the other maths teachers beat his highest score of 850 (he doubled his previous best), an English teacher was mildly inappropriate but very humorous.. and my poor prac student looked like she was going to die when she was gently "encouraged" to have a go.  Our chaplain went white as a sheet when asked by 60 students to sing.  One of the deputies ran in fear.  I don't know if that was the best role modelling - but it was funny.

I was giving rewards to students randomly, to those that wouldn't normally perform (although I endeavoured to not make this obvious).  One performing/drama student felt that she deserved one and had a wee tanty when I declined.  It's interesting that students still believe that they deserve a reward for doing something that they enjoy rather than for something that extends them.  I felt like quoting the workers in the vineyard parable to her.  They're my rewards, I can give them to winners, losers and anyone inbetween.  The tanty showed an area we can work on before they go into the workforce and forever feel hard done, yet not knowing underlying strategic reasons for rewards!  Take pleasure in what is given - enjoy the pleasure others get by being rewarded.  Resentment is not a good path to be on.

The great thing is, from year 8 to year 12, by the end of each period the majority of students wanted to have a go and it identified those that could benefit from some leadership training to extend themselves.  I was later told that you could hear the better part of 60 students singing, enjoying themselves from 50m away outside the school.  It's days like this that remind you of why you teach.

Five hours and five classes is a bit much to do on my own, with typically 60 students in a room each time.  By the end of the day my head was throbbing.  Being careful to limit the songs that students can use, I would heartily recommend it, though be aware it may take a couple of years to create groups in the school that can "get the party started", a PS3 and about $500 worth of songs/microphones/CDs.

Knowing the quality of the singing I would always suggest turning the mics down to zero ;-)

Welfare and schooling

I read this article today and wondered at the effect welfare has on education.  The article discusses how different areas have large welfare elements and inferred that it needed fixing.  The Balga area (30% on welfare) and the Girrawheen area (21% on welfare) were mentioned as two of the highest areas on welfare in Australia.  They also happen to be two of the areas that I grew up in.

The cost of housing drives the low/no income population into areas,  welfare and those on subsistence incomes. Both areas mentioned in the article were also state housing areas before policy distributed state housing across all suburbs.  This population will always be grouped to some degree.  The article identifies how concentrated the "have nots" have become in WA compared to other states.

Gentrification is the only thing that "fixes" an area.  As the area becomes more desirable (due to proximity to jobs in the city), low income earners will "cash out" and move further away or be forced out by increasing rent values.  Although it does just create a new area elsewhere with the same issues.

Low levels of education drives this segment of the population people into low paid/subsistence jobs or welfare whether due to lack of language skills, poor health and hygeine, poor diet and obesity, large family caring requirements (3+ children), poor financial management ability, low base EQ or IQ, low levels of schooling or mental health issues.  Many see the education system as failing them (and it does in many cases fail to provide them with pathways into the workforce) and pass this prejudice onto their children.  This article talks about the entry point of children into year 1.  In these areas it is not surprising that children cannot read, where parents cannot model these behaviours to children prior to school.  Thus the cycle occurs from generation to generation.

This is most obvious in our indigenous or welfare families.  Those students not affected by alcohol and drugs in vitro, have difficult home environments in which to learn.  We need to rethink "quick fix" solutions and focus on long term measures.  Schools are succeeding across the state if with every generation (16-20 years) one level of schooling is achieved.  Education to year 7 and wishing for higher schooling, education to year 10 and work ready, and finally the holy grail of education: education to year 11/12 and achieving TAFE or  university entry.  This is not shown in NAPLAN results.  Furthermore, the problem doesn't go away with each generation, as the next wave of immigrants will have the same issues.

I don't know if any amount of "fixing" can actually correct this number of issues.  Certainly lack of public transport as mentioned in the first article is not a major solution.  Breaking up public housing was certainly a start as it gives families better role models than was available by grouping them together in state housing slums. 

The message that "education" is the only way out of the rut will not work until educational equality is again established for this group from a very young age.  This has been lost as many schools have a pastoral, rather than academic focus - attempting to ensure happy environments rather than taking a narrower focus and focusing on the long term issue of education.  Pastoral approaches need to be tied closely to curriculum success. To reach parity, students that start at a lower level, have to work harder and/or smarter.  They don't need pampering, school will not be the best time of their lives (if it is then it is to the detriment of their adult life).  Eggs will get broken along the way and they need caring for by a different system outside of schooling. 

Schools cannot be a catchall for social change.  They are one element of a big picture that can work for the majority of students.  If we allow diminishing returns (increasing support to students that cannot be supported without additional funding) then we will fail the majority of our students.

Where parents cannot provide adequate support, the welfare state must step in to assist and parents must support this assistance. It is a public service message that needs to be supported with real results for the majority of students and ultimately for Australian society as a whole.

Otherwise, sadly, a two class system (with the "haves" in private schooling and the "have nots" in underfunded public schooling) will be the result as opposed to the "occassional" problem family causing issues for society.  Creating and promoting a two class system through education would be a sad event indeed.