I've just spent considerable time perusing the ANC (Version 8.2. It is in my view a great curriculum which provides the details across the range of subjects that teachers will welcome. I would love to be back in harness implementing this curriculum as a teacher and as a principal.
I realise that you will be implementing the version of the ANC that has adjustments made by your State or Territory as compulsory education is constitutionally a State or Territory matter in Australia.
Included in the detail F-10 and Senior Secondary are well explained achievement levels which will assist teachers to rate student performance and inform the structure of student reports.
The links from the general subject outlines to the underlying detail are excellent.
As a Principal I would be organising for my teachers to have ample time to get together to discuss the ANC in detail so that they are all on the same page when it comes to implementation. In a large primary school I would group the teachers of say the year 4 classes together; in a smaller primary school the groupings could be teachers of F-2, 3-4, 5-6. For very small primary schools I recommend the taking on of a mentor large primary school and utilising the results of their discussions or joining in with their discussions. For secondary schools discussions would be arranged within specialist subject departments. This is a also a standards setting exercise opportunity as discussion covers Achievement Levels as outlined in the various syllabuses.
Depending on how far you have moved in implementing ANC version 7.5 you may have to go slowly to guide your teachers as they transition to version 8.2. It is unfortunate that there is a change to version 8.2 but this is the way with major curriculum developments. Let's hope that this is it for the time being.
To all my colleagues out there enjoy working with this exciting document.
Enough already!
GD
Sunday 21 August 2016
Monday 15 August 2016
Independent Public Schools In Western Australia
It has been reported in TV news and by Bethany Hiatt, "Results for independent schools fail to improve", The West Australian, 16 August 2016, p6, that this trend to Independent Public Schools (IPSs) has "...failed to improve student outcomes and has increased existing inequalities between schools, a parliamentary inquiry has found."
The Western Australian (WA) scheme started in 2010 with 34 IPSs and now there are 445 (Hiatt p6). The inquiring Committee found that the IPS initiative "....had reinforced inequalities between public schools by giving some the chance to recruit the best teachers and not others." (Hiatt, 6) The Committee also reported that the monitoring system for IPSs lacked rigour with too much reliance on self assessment. (Hiatt p6)
As a retired school principal and regional superintendent of schools I have watched the trend to IPSs with interest and some concerns. These are:
Staffing the school:
Staffing what are known as disadvantaged schools and remote schools has always been an issue even under a fully centralised Education Department staffing system. The remote schools usually with an indigenous population of students tended to receive graduate teachers who rarely stayed beyond two years. These graduate teachers took at least six months in the initial year to come to terms with the cultural nuances of the remote communities so the schools probably got 18 months of good service then the teachers left. Such a turnover was not helping these schools. I wanted my Education Department to encourage young married couple teachers to take up the positions and remain for a lengthy period, giving them incentives like low interest home loans to purchase their home in Perth or wherever on the coast and if they had teen age children provide then with a free boarding place in a top coastal senior high school with free air fares in and out of the remote community.
Staffing large disadvantaged schools also had problems as one didn't find teachers clammering to teach in these schools. Effective principals of these schools could ensure best practice from their teachers by assisting them to feel good about the profession and creating a culture where the teachers sought to improve so that best practice was the status quo.
The actual process of recruiting staff is complex. Fortunately applicants would come to the school already accredited by a recognised Association that does this work in WA. Theoretically this should mean for example, that the principal does not have to carry out the difficult task of ensuring the bona fides of an applicant's qualifications to teach. I have come across independent schools where this process was not done with rigour and due care.
Interviewing applicants requires a lot of training and at best is a rough guide as to the quality of the applicant. Referee statements are very important and judging the bona fides of the referees is vital. Some referees do not fully understand the responsibilities of writing a reference and may shy away from refusing to do so when they should have done so. I have experienced a case of a reputedly high level teacher training institution letting a trainee through to teach, leaving a principal and yours truly having to deal with an incompetent teacher. I learnt from a contact from that training institution that they knew the young person would struggle with teaching. I am confident such cases are rare as I have assessed many wonderful young graduate teachers striving for permanent status with their employer.
Principals ensuring that their school is effective:
Every principal worth their salt would want their school to be effective broadly on two counts, the first being that as many students as possible achieve as many of the prescribed curriculum outcomes as possible and secondly that the students operate in an environment in which they feel safe, respected and even loved. I understand that Western Australian IPS schools are under a charter to accept regular external reviews however each principal would want the reviewers to come to an effective school as described. The Education Department external reviewers would need to be highly skilled as it is not an easy task to rigorously review a school. The reviewers must be able to see through the school's self review process to ensure that it is valid and reliable.
Choosing the learning program:
I hope that IPS schools do not have too much freedom in choosing a curriculum. Teachers do not have time to be curriculum builders. Their main role is to be curriculum implementers. All hail the advent of the Australian National Curriculum (ANC) . I love it. My understanding is that the States and Territories of Australia are embracing the ANC with some amendments as is their constitutional right as the authorities who provide compulsory education.
**
The IPS trend is a big deal and one hopes that it will not become another casualty to poorly conceived change process in education. We have been subjected to this in WA in the past with the major most recent example being the failed outcomes-based approach.
Good luck all principals out there whether yours is an IPS school or otherwise.
Enough already!
GD
The Western Australian (WA) scheme started in 2010 with 34 IPSs and now there are 445 (Hiatt p6). The inquiring Committee found that the IPS initiative "....had reinforced inequalities between public schools by giving some the chance to recruit the best teachers and not others." (Hiatt, 6) The Committee also reported that the monitoring system for IPSs lacked rigour with too much reliance on self assessment. (Hiatt p6)
As a retired school principal and regional superintendent of schools I have watched the trend to IPSs with interest and some concerns. These are:
- Whether principals will be sufficiently prepared for new responsibilities like one line budgeting and recruiting teachers? To be fair I note that the Education Department of WA has established in-service training opportunities for principals one of which is at an overseas prestigious university.
- Will the IPS principals have the training to run their schools on a development plan embedded with criteria of school effectiveness that enable them to know, based on hard evidence from measuring these effectiveness criteria, how their school is travelling?
- Will the IPS schools be required to follow a recognised curriculum like the Australian National Curriculum rather than have schools having too much freedom to do their own curriculum thing?
- Will the additional administrative responsibilities weigh the principals down and detract from what for me is their prime role of educational leadership?
- Will remote schools and non independent public schools in general be able to receive appropriate teachers? The central Education Department staffing system would need to ensure this.
Staffing the school:
Staffing what are known as disadvantaged schools and remote schools has always been an issue even under a fully centralised Education Department staffing system. The remote schools usually with an indigenous population of students tended to receive graduate teachers who rarely stayed beyond two years. These graduate teachers took at least six months in the initial year to come to terms with the cultural nuances of the remote communities so the schools probably got 18 months of good service then the teachers left. Such a turnover was not helping these schools. I wanted my Education Department to encourage young married couple teachers to take up the positions and remain for a lengthy period, giving them incentives like low interest home loans to purchase their home in Perth or wherever on the coast and if they had teen age children provide then with a free boarding place in a top coastal senior high school with free air fares in and out of the remote community.
Staffing large disadvantaged schools also had problems as one didn't find teachers clammering to teach in these schools. Effective principals of these schools could ensure best practice from their teachers by assisting them to feel good about the profession and creating a culture where the teachers sought to improve so that best practice was the status quo.
The actual process of recruiting staff is complex. Fortunately applicants would come to the school already accredited by a recognised Association that does this work in WA. Theoretically this should mean for example, that the principal does not have to carry out the difficult task of ensuring the bona fides of an applicant's qualifications to teach. I have come across independent schools where this process was not done with rigour and due care.
Interviewing applicants requires a lot of training and at best is a rough guide as to the quality of the applicant. Referee statements are very important and judging the bona fides of the referees is vital. Some referees do not fully understand the responsibilities of writing a reference and may shy away from refusing to do so when they should have done so. I have experienced a case of a reputedly high level teacher training institution letting a trainee through to teach, leaving a principal and yours truly having to deal with an incompetent teacher. I learnt from a contact from that training institution that they knew the young person would struggle with teaching. I am confident such cases are rare as I have assessed many wonderful young graduate teachers striving for permanent status with their employer.
Principals ensuring that their school is effective:
Every principal worth their salt would want their school to be effective broadly on two counts, the first being that as many students as possible achieve as many of the prescribed curriculum outcomes as possible and secondly that the students operate in an environment in which they feel safe, respected and even loved. I understand that Western Australian IPS schools are under a charter to accept regular external reviews however each principal would want the reviewers to come to an effective school as described. The Education Department external reviewers would need to be highly skilled as it is not an easy task to rigorously review a school. The reviewers must be able to see through the school's self review process to ensure that it is valid and reliable.
Choosing the learning program:
I hope that IPS schools do not have too much freedom in choosing a curriculum. Teachers do not have time to be curriculum builders. Their main role is to be curriculum implementers. All hail the advent of the Australian National Curriculum (ANC) . I love it. My understanding is that the States and Territories of Australia are embracing the ANC with some amendments as is their constitutional right as the authorities who provide compulsory education.
**
The IPS trend is a big deal and one hopes that it will not become another casualty to poorly conceived change process in education. We have been subjected to this in WA in the past with the major most recent example being the failed outcomes-based approach.
Good luck all principals out there whether yours is an IPS school or otherwise.
Enough already!
GD
Thursday 4 August 2016
NAPLAN
4/8/2016: NAPLAN has come under fire this week as an expensive exercise producing plateauing results. Is it all worth it? Watch this space.
9/8/2016: Today I read an article by Bethany Hiatt, "Test just part of school kit", The West Australian, 9 August 2016, p19, citing the evidence that students and teachers have become used to the routines of NAPLAN testing and the worry for both groups has diminished. The same article indicated the improvements from 2008 but also highlighted the plateauing that is now occurring. The ACARA Chief Executive Robert Randall was quoted as saying: "Plateauing results are not what we would expect or assume from our education systems." The Federal Education Minister Simon Birmingham agreed indicating that 'flat' results were not good enough. He was reported as complaining that "improvements to NAPLAN results had been insufficient despite a 23.7 per cent increase in Federal funding since 2013." Hiatt indicates that this is consistent with the Turnbull government's position that "the way education funding is spent is more important than the amount." Senator Birmingham calls for evidence-based measurements that will get results for our students..."
According to Hiatt the evidence-based measures referred to include "assessing children's skills in their early school years to see if intervention is needed.....and providing incentives for top teachers to work in disadvantaged schools."
As a school principal I would welcome the data that NAPLAN provides but maintain that the emphasis in the learning program is on having every student achieve as many of the outcomes required in the curriculum as possible based on effective teaching. This is the day to day data that teachers obtain : it is the bread and butter of explicit teaching. In the normal course of admitting early childhood students the teachers will ascertain what they can do and know and will proceed from there.
On the matter of top teachers for disadvantaged schools, I was a superintendent of a district containing many disadvantaged schools and I disagree with the top teacher sentiment. It is a naive and destructive view. The quality of the teachers is paramount to an effective learning program in an effective school. In an effective school every teacher wants to be the best that they can be and they work hard to keep up to date and to use best practice teaching because this is how it is in the culture of their school, disadvantaged or not. No child should have a teacher who is not as I describe. Effective school principals know this and work hard to ensure that quality teaching is a given within the culture of their schools.
Money is well spent if it is focussed on allowing and encouraging teachers to be the best that they can be. If changes are to be made within a school to achieve this best teacher goal then the money spent must be embedded in viable change process. I have witnessed so much money wasted because the change processes have been poorly designed. It is worth emphasising that some of the most effective in-service for teachers is when they are given the opportunity to discuss in relevant teams the various syllabus outcomes they will be working with so that they have an agreed position on what the outcomes mean and the student performance(s) that indicate the outcomes have been achieved. It is a standards setting activity whereby teachers share their expertise and learn from one another.
GD
GD
9/8/2016: Today I read an article by Bethany Hiatt, "Test just part of school kit", The West Australian, 9 August 2016, p19, citing the evidence that students and teachers have become used to the routines of NAPLAN testing and the worry for both groups has diminished. The same article indicated the improvements from 2008 but also highlighted the plateauing that is now occurring. The ACARA Chief Executive Robert Randall was quoted as saying: "Plateauing results are not what we would expect or assume from our education systems." The Federal Education Minister Simon Birmingham agreed indicating that 'flat' results were not good enough. He was reported as complaining that "improvements to NAPLAN results had been insufficient despite a 23.7 per cent increase in Federal funding since 2013." Hiatt indicates that this is consistent with the Turnbull government's position that "the way education funding is spent is more important than the amount." Senator Birmingham calls for evidence-based measurements that will get results for our students..."
According to Hiatt the evidence-based measures referred to include "assessing children's skills in their early school years to see if intervention is needed.....and providing incentives for top teachers to work in disadvantaged schools."
As a school principal I would welcome the data that NAPLAN provides but maintain that the emphasis in the learning program is on having every student achieve as many of the outcomes required in the curriculum as possible based on effective teaching. This is the day to day data that teachers obtain : it is the bread and butter of explicit teaching. In the normal course of admitting early childhood students the teachers will ascertain what they can do and know and will proceed from there.
On the matter of top teachers for disadvantaged schools, I was a superintendent of a district containing many disadvantaged schools and I disagree with the top teacher sentiment. It is a naive and destructive view. The quality of the teachers is paramount to an effective learning program in an effective school. In an effective school every teacher wants to be the best that they can be and they work hard to keep up to date and to use best practice teaching because this is how it is in the culture of their school, disadvantaged or not. No child should have a teacher who is not as I describe. Effective school principals know this and work hard to ensure that quality teaching is a given within the culture of their schools.
Money is well spent if it is focussed on allowing and encouraging teachers to be the best that they can be. If changes are to be made within a school to achieve this best teacher goal then the money spent must be embedded in viable change process. I have witnessed so much money wasted because the change processes have been poorly designed. It is worth emphasising that some of the most effective in-service for teachers is when they are given the opportunity to discuss in relevant teams the various syllabus outcomes they will be working with so that they have an agreed position on what the outcomes mean and the student performance(s) that indicate the outcomes have been achieved. It is a standards setting activity whereby teachers share their expertise and learn from one another.
GD
GD
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)