Jean Walker

Oh dear, what's that song? It's the same the whole world over!! The speech could have been given here in Oz and noone would have noticed it came from the UK. Well, at least not the bureaucrats and politicians. We've just done a survey of our 5500 teacher members about change in schools and new curriculums. The responses are overwhelmingly consensual: 1. the only people who will make a difference in schools are the teachers 2. they can and will do it if given proper incentives and support 3. top-down system change will be resisted and is therefore never properly implemented 4. they are completely cynical about continuous system reform which they know will be out the day after tomorrow if either the head bureaucrats or the govt change places 5. continuous measurement and testing achieves nothing except a few more jobs for bureaucrats Dear David Find the April edition of "Phi Beta Kappan" and read the article about systems change. It's spot on. But will any of this common sense make any impact on these people? Of course not, because common sense as someone once said, "butters no parsnips" or fills any back pockets.

John Where do I find the research on their website, I've looked but can't find the link - no doubt it's quite obvious to all but me!!

Thanks. I think you're right and this is what my colleague was talking about. I shall read it with interest.

What do people generally think about TAs doing the work of teachers?

Has anyone heard this term used in the UK? I've been asked to find out about them and have no idea what it means.

Where DO they get this rhetoric from? It sounds exactly like the stuff that's being thrust down our throats here, only we're going a step further with a new curriculim that contains no actual mandated knowledge. But, as long as we're "caterng for the individual" and "promoting life-long learning" and "creating pathways" and "going on exciting journeys" and "embracing the future", we'll be OK. Heavens, I've just realised I could write this stuff myself!!!!! :

What powers does the GTC have in Britain? We have a Teacher Registration Board which ensures quals for registration of teachers who cannot be employed in either public or private schools unless they are registered. I have been reading with interest the stuff about English TAs being employed as cover teachers and now doing Home Group duties instead of teachers. Can the Council not have any inflence on that? We would have to change an act of parliament for it to be possible here.

I absolutely agree, Maggie. I am not going to be driven away, and I apologise to any JFK fans who felt hurt, as my criticism wasn't about their right to post but about whether there was a better way of organising it. Now that I've had it explained to me how to go straight to what I'm interested in, that's fine. I didn't need to be told that I was just like all other teachers! However, I will try not to take it personally and continue to post on topics which interest me.

I worked in the only state non-selective all-girls high school in out town the last 2 years, and I think it is mainly the "girl thing". It converted me to single sex high schools - I know what the research says about boys being beter off with girls, but those girls by themselves were just fantastic. Uninhibited, work oriented, focused, nurturing of each other, generally pleasantly competitive, and their results and achievements were/are the best in our city. I loved it!!

No, it happens here too. Probably not so often because we're not so close to "foreign parts" but it generally does annoy teachers and is certainly more frequent than it used to be. I used to say, when asked for work: I'm sure they'll learn just as much from being there as being at school. Or "encourage them to keep a diary or read some books." Also much more prevalent than it used to be is being out of school for whole days to have their hair cut, go shopping, etc. However, such parents still expect all responsibility for their child's education to fall slap-bang on the teacher!!

Just came across this - very interesting. Klein on Charter Schools It's fair to say that Joel Klein has made some slips as chancellor of the New York City schools. It's also fair to say, however, that his intentions are right, his instincts mostly so, and he's wrestling with an extremely tough situation. To the latter points, do not miss his recent remarks on public charter schools which you can find here. A few highlights: So why is it, that I —the public schools Chancellor— am an unalloyed supporter of charter schools? Frankly it’s simple: educators, families, and children want good schools. Charters are one way to create them. Charters bring in new blood. These are leaders and entrepreneurs who are not otherwise part of the system. They are people with ideas, with creativity, and who are willing to give their all for their students. On that central basis, when we have a city where there are thousands of kids not getting the education that they need and deserve, I don’t see why we would in any way shut down more options and new opportunities. In the end, I want to see every kid in New York City in a school that each and every one of you will be proud of. If those schools come from the traditional public sector or the charter sector, that’s fine with me. I think we should support charters for another reason. Public education in large urban areas in the United States has failed. This is a somewhat heretical thing for a schools Chancellor to say. But if we are not going to be candid, I don’t think we can take the kind of steps we need to make the necessary changes. New York City is actually one of the best urban school systems in the United States, but by any measure, I guarantee you that at least half, probably more than half, of our students are not remotely getting the education they deserve... ...So why have we had so many decades of reform and so little change? I think it is because people continue to focus on program-based reform. They are unwilling to get their heads around the fact that in large urban areas the culture of public education is broken. If you don’t fix this culture, then you are not going to be able to make the kind of changes that are needed. Programmatic reform is important: curricula, class size, after-school programs, summer school—those things are very important. But unless we are prepared to deal with the culture in public education, I don’t think we can get the kinds of results that we need for our kids

Well, David, at least in Sweden it sounds as if the people got to have a say - which is, of course, a particularly good Swedish practice!! Here we just seem to lurch from idiocy to idiocy as far as I can make out. When I first started teaching, policy was not much driven by politicians. In fact I can't seem to remember that we had much "policy" apart from teaching kids subjects and keeping them as well behaved as possible, with some reasonable sanctions to do it and relatively sensible parents who usually supported teachers. Then came bureaucratic policy from enlarged departmental offices - they had to earn their money and their promotions from coming up with new ideas. Then came academic gurus who needed to sell their books and promote their theories in order to get known and get better academic positions, then came politicians thinking they knew better because they'd been to school once and look where it got them! So they boufgt into the theories of academics and popular education writers. Now we seem to have a combination of these all pouring in at the same time. I suspect there is eventually going to be a backlash to all this stupidity - you can sense it in some of the books coming out. The Hirsch one I mentioned before and a new Australian one called "Why Our Schools Are Failing" by K Donnelly, but like whole word reading, it will have done its damage to a generation of kids in the meantime. Am I too cynical? I'm told so by our powers that be!

I thought some of you could do with a bit of a laugh. If you think your govt is balmy, we can do better. Our Federal Minister for Ed (soon up for re-election) has just announced a scheme to solve our perceived literacy problems. Each parent of a Grade 3 child who hasn't reached the national literacy benchmarks will receive a voucher for $700 to buy after school literacy tutoring. And guess who he is suggesting MIGHT do it? Teachers IN THEIR SPARE TIME!!!! Or good-hearted community members. No consideration of our many kids who live in isolated areas, no requirement for "tutors" to have any qualifications or training, no understanding of the multi-faceted causes of illiteracy, no realisation that the very kids in need are hardly likely to want to do another hour of schooling after school, no understanding that many poor parents won't know how to use it to best advantage (eg our isolated indigenous and refugees). Can Blair beat that for stupidity do you think?

I agree with a lot of what is being said here, but how DO you reward good teachers at the top of the pay scale in order to keep them in the classroom? We're struggling with this issue at the moment. Our DoE is suggesting a standards approach - 3 levels of professional standards, first for entry, second for probation and third for "excellence" or "accomplished". But, as you say, who does the judging? I've suggested the reward should be a choice of money or time off. We lose a lot of teachers when they get to the top of the scale and don't want promotion.

I understand that some people are obsessed with JFK, but I have to add my complaint to some others. It's pretty off putting to those who (believe it or not) have absolutely no interest in it. Is it possible to put all the new postings on the subject into one category so that the entire new postings list doesn't read JFK all the way down? I think you're in danger of driving people away from the site unless you do.

These are a few I found. If you need more, let me know. http://www.naa.gov.au/Publications/researc...ig/chapter1.htm http://www.let.leidenuniv.nl/history/migra.../chapter51.html http://www.arts.monash.edu.au/ncas/teach/u.../yarwdfull.html http://ftp.newave.net.au/~stansu/main19.htm http://www.gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200471.txt http://www.hellas.com.au/history/migration/his.html http://www.ssn.flinders.edu.au/global/glob...2001book/a1.htm

I have lots of information in text books and on video because I taught it here in Tasmania for many years, but that's not much help to you. I will try to find some Australian school websites for you and get back to you.

Thanks for those ideas. I appreciate it. I suppose I came home last night particularly annoyed with what I'd had to put up with all day and just wanted to get it off my chest to someone "out there". I feel better for reading your supportive advice and intend to "rise above it" at least for the time being and see what happens. If nothing changes then I might need to go the harder line. I guess it's been a tough lesson in going from being "just" a classroom teacher (and ex-Board member) to head of a quite large organisation. All the previous presidents have been Principals, so I'm in a fairly unusual position and some of the "losers" were at a much higher level than me, and I guess have chosen to take it badly. I have also had this attitude from our Minister who is a very young woman and not used to dealing with a) older women and someone who has "jumped up" from the ranks. It's causing interesting scenarios about popwer and hierarchies!! Again thank you. It's nice to have friends in outer space!! If anyone else wants to add any other suggestions, feel free.

This is not a specifically educational topic, but I would welcome advice from some of you who have obviously been involved with meetings in "high places". And also from an objective and removed perspective. As I have already mentioned, I was recently elected state president of our teachers' union here. It was the most hotly contested election in our union's history, with 8 candidates. I was endorsed by our previous president. Four of the unsuccessful candidates are still on our 16 person executive board which I now chair. I am not highly experienced in this level of management, but am trying to do my best for everybody. Three of the unsuccessfuls have taken events sensibly and are being perfectly civilised. One, a woman, who was (unbelievably) so convinced that she was going to win, that when she didn't, apparently burst into tears at her workplace and has been ever since telling our members that I only won because I received the endorsement of the president and because she was "too honest". Now, all that would be fine and I could handle, if she hadn't decided to get her revenge by underminding me at every opportunity she gets, criticising almost everything I do as publicly as she can, and causing constant upheaval at our board meetings. I have the support of 99% of the others, and the total support of the union staff, but despite the best efforts of all of these people, she continues to make every second Monday a nightmare for me. I have tried various tactics, but to no avail. What would you do in the same situation? I would just be interested to hear from anyone who has dealt with these sort of people before.

Thanks, John - that makes sense of it. It makes our figures look very out of kilter with the rest of the world - 32% in private schools which are extremely heavily subsidised by the federal govt, plus 20-25% from their state govt, plus whatever fees they want to set. It boils down to the fact that there is not one single "private" school in Australia which is not heavily subsidised by a combination state and federal govt funding. This 32% therefore has 40% more to spend on their students than govt schools. As I said before I will be in Parliament House on Thursday in Canberra listening to what our esteemed leaders have to say about what they are planning for the upcoming budget and election.

I totally agree with you. but what worries me about what is happening here in Tasmania is that I believe most teachers had worked out over the last decade a pretty good balanced system - a basic curriculum covering a sequence of important knowledge eg the Yr 7 Social Science curriculum was Local Communities, our State history, indigenous people and their history, then in Yr 8 it was Ancient Civilisations and so on. Teachers here had worked out a facts based, but activity/skills enriched way of teaching which I believe (and so do a lot of them) was a sound, balanced methodology. We used criteria based assessment - each subject had a number of criteria which teachers addressed and assesssed so that no important aspect of the subject could be omitted. Now we are being told that it doesn;t matter WHAT you teach, provided you can at the end assess and report via "standards" and professional judgement that the child is literate, numerate, a communicator, an inquiry thinker, is "arts literate" and has a degree of "wellbeing". Nothing else has to be reported on - not maths, not English, not Science, not Languages etc. I cannot make myself believe that this is an improvement.

John Can you clarify the "private" and "independent" classifications in the UK. I read somewhere recently that almost 30% of Students in Britain go to "private" schools. Could that be right? How are catholic schools funded and what about charter schools and specialist schools? It all seems very complex. I just gave a talk to our Fabian society here about our system. They've published it and I'll send it to you if you're interested.

That's an interesting point and one my union here has to deal with quite often because our principals are also members of the same union. Ony this week we had a case in the office of a principal versus his two Yr 6 teachers who claim they are being bullied by him. After some fairly close investigation, the situation is that the teachers have both been teaching for over 30 years and are "stuck in their ways" to such an extent that parents are starting to complain about the sort of education their kids are getting. They are stiil dishing ou the same worksheets they've been using for 25 years and are both completely resistant to change and are backing each other up. The principal has the parents on his back, demanding better teaching for their children. Principal talks to teachers about their perceived problems and teachers come to us at union claiming harassment and bullying. What to do? I'd be interested in your ideas and then I'll tell you what our Welfare Officer actually did.

That is a very fair summary of Hirsch's ideas. Personally, I can't see much wrong with them. Anyone disagree?

Very interesting and thought provoking answers. Hirsch doesn't say skills and processes aren't necessary at all, but should be part of a knowledge based subject discrete curriculum - rather, I think, as Graham was describing. I think what he is saying is that the new paradigms are false when they suggest that you only need to learn to learn, that skills are very often not transferrable, that well-informed people can think better than poorly informed ones, that critical thinking skills are not a panacea in themselves and are not effective when taught in isolation, that it IS possible to select a suitable balance of knowledge to be learnt, and that not much is really learned from multi-disciplinary "projects", especially for those with learning difficulties. He has a website at www.corecurriculum which may be of interest. I am interested because we are having such a new paradigm curriculum imposed upon us, which dictates no particular content whatsoever, but only the required outcomes, which, to me, means that students/parents have absolutely no guarantee of any specific knowledge kids will learn. This seems like utter madness to me, but we are constantly told that it doesn't matter as long as they are "learning to learn".