Teaching the teacher
The Rudd Government’ drive for increased statistical information on school performance and student learning outcomes is well intentioned but will all this data actually improve teaching quality and classroom teacher performance?
In the same way that the USA’s No Child Left Behind program generated a wealth of statistical data the Australian government is moving along broadly similar directions with its MySchool website which publicises NAPLAN test results and other ICSEA statistical information.
An emerging bureaucracy of education statisticians will be able to develop more complicated and detailed statistical analysis on value added student performance, class sizes and eventually indicators of funding verses school performance.
When MySchool eventually carries information on sources of school funding there will be a concerted outcry that ‘rich, elite’ schools are receiving inordinate funding compared with the public sector.
Similarly an inquisitive media will devise yet other comparative measures to reveal that school A’s income was significant but its resources and facilities did not equate with supposed high academic outcomes for its pupils.
The inevitable question will arise: why would families pay high, ever-increasing tuition fees at school A when other (cheaper) schools achieve better academic results as verified – and totally transparent - on the government’s website?
The avalanche of statistical data for US and Australian institutions fails to critically analyse the most significant issue of schooling: how should teachers actually teach?
What classroom processes constitute exemplary teaching practice? What characteristics set apart and identify the exceptional teacher who achieves measureable improvement across student learning cohorts?
Some teachers consistently raise student outcomes irrespective of student ability, organisational practices and school culture and climate. Such improvements arise irrespective of curriculum practices or student training in achieving minimal national literacy and numeracy standards.
The Government maintains its drive for school and student transparency – part of its Education Revolution – will actually identify those schools achieving outstanding performance.
Reviewing best practice programs and teaching skills can then supposedly be incorporated into schools deemed to be underperforming in terms of learning and teaching practices.
In principle this approach appears sound. In practice it may not eventuate because the measurement criteria deemed important by government to implement change processes fail to recognise teaching’s intricacies and nuances.
How can teacher skills be measured and quantified when many practices lie within the passion, dedication and relational abilities of the individual classroom teacher?
Governments mistakenly assume the dead hand of education administration will unlock this teaching mystery.
In the USA and more recently in Australia the Teach For program has been implemented although Teach for Australia only commenced this year.
While the USA program has attracted numerical support the jury is out as to whether this ‘new breed’ of teachers diverted from other often more lucrative professions is actually making a lasting impression on student learning outcomes.
Government may also adopt a ‘market driven’ approach by implementing higher pay for better teachers.
‘Better’ is generally determined in part by measureable student results but many US teachers undertake extensive ‘training’ that merely enhances a student’s short term learning practices to pass such exams.
Does this pressure-cooker approach indicate good teaching practice or merely good training regimes?
What does this process reveal about student learning practices generally? What is achieved for those students who should be encouraged to raise their academic bar rather than lowing it to achieve acceptable community mediocrity?
Perhaps the Obama Administration’s $4.3 billion ‘Race to the Top’ program will give principals the ability to determine teacher performance although this program initially requires state legislatures to change laws to expedite such structural change.
Will this program merely throw good money at bad practices anyway? Will it change the classroom dynamic by developing better quality teachers?
Another issue to improve teaching practice relates to teacher tertiary training and continuing classroom improvement.
Assuming teachers are not born but must be made, should more resources be allocated to such programs?
The Obama Administration believes so by doubling the teacher training budget to $235 million in 2011.
Will such teacher training programs be successful if they are not premised on school structures and teaching strategies that produce justifiable student improvement?
It is no surprise that many Australian independent schools have implement joint classroom teaching practices especially for more highly technical or specialised course programs.
While such initiatives come at a cost they establish individualised learning pedagogy that parents are presumably willing to accept.
Is wider resourcing of teacher improvement merely throwing money at the problem in the absence of a tested protocol to guarantee better student outcomes?
Surely such considerations will constitute forward assessment strategies to motivate the Rudd Government to redirect financial and professional resources towards the student as part of its next education revolution phase.
Students clearly need adequate physical facilities in which to be taught and learn. Building classrooms, halls and computer centres is a relatively straight-forward educational imperative.
Taking the next step to grapple with the individuality of student learning and the accompany requirements of teacher professionalism is a more difficult and more highly subjective education challenge.
Background on some issues concerning USA teacher training and professional classroom evaluation can be read in the following article:
Building a better teacher, Elizabeth Green, New York Times, 7 March 2010. www.nytimes.com
Comments: