standards and education

We've recently had an election, won by the conservatives who, as part of their electioneering, decided that standards weren't good enough in our education system (despite PISA and TIMMS results to the contrary, and existing accountability and evidence processes in place). Their answer was to ram ahead with legislation forcing schools to test and report on primary school kids' achievement results.

Generally, I admire Pita Sharples' comments- they're usually sound and sensible. However, I have to say that his outpouring on behalf of Maori students, as a justification for intensifying testing regulations per se, is ill judged. That is not to say that Maori students have not been well served; his answer regarding testing just isn't the right one.

I think this new administration have forgotten to look at the evidence from elsewhere about the effects of such accountability. The evidence is easy to find, and is reported on in peer reviewed academic journals. Basically, it means at least the following are possible scenarios:

1. that a testing regime mooted by this government appears to assume, on the face of it, that all schools and students and all teachers are the same, with the same resources and opportunities (ie, that educational achievement is affected by neither poverty nor wealth, nor visual nor aural ability, physical dexterity (eg in holding a pen or using a keyboard), verbal or mathematical skills, or existing cultural capital/habitus students and teachers bring to school; or that all teachers are all highly competent and knowledgeable about their subject matter, students, and have a wide pedagogical repertoire to draw on, or that no classes contain disruptive students)... Given that this government wants to increase the amount of state money to private schools it is hoped it will also increase the the amount of money available to state schools, so that all can better balance the opportunities for learners.
2. that educational achievement is not affected by levels of maturity or readiness (in some domains of learning, there is documented evidence for specific levels of maturation before particular concepts or motor skills can be readily introduced)
3. that making results of primary-aged students' achievements public (ie via school/year etc) will not adversely affect teachers' and schools' desire to support all students, compared with those who will make them look best (as has sometimes happened at NCEA levels, where some students have been steered away from entering certain Achievement Standards and/or not counted in the school's attainment levels in order to improve the overall look of the published achievement rates)
4. that teachers won't begin to teach to the test, and forgo/bypass actual learning - which can be cumulative and gradual; there is quite a lot of evidence about the relationship between teaching to the test and suboptimal learning opportunities
5. that experimenting with risk-taking in learning wouldn't be in jeopardy, because when learners take risks with their learning, it often destabilises learning in the short term. In such cases, students and teachers can become disheartened, because it looks as if introducing this new concept/skill has had an adverse effect - they may be looking to the test, not the potential for learning - when it is temporary, and necessary in order to restabilise with the new knowledge/skill in place after practice.

I hope that this new regime will not end up with a withered plant- like the cartoon I saw years ago. A farmer kept pulling up a growing sapling to check the state of the roots as a measure of how well it was growing. Eventually, the plant withered and died from the exposure of the roots.

so what?

Ok, this is probably going to be a bit niche- but I don't care. I reckon that more people need to understand more about education. I know, everyone's been there (except maybe for the chronic truants) and so everyone's an expert. However, most of us have been tot he doctor or the hospital, but we don't think we're experts about being doctors or patients, do we? So why do people think that because they've been to school they know what school or education's about?
Other than the tales of woe about subjects people hated/disliked or loved, the other topic seems to be about teachers who inspired and teachers who astounded. Both have rather idiosyncratic anecdotes attached to them. Yes, yes, - it shows that schools and teachers are influential for both fair and foul reasons, but does that mean they know what learning means? So what it means to be a teacher?

There are many schools of thought about what a teacher is and does. Some would say it's about delivering a curriculum; some would say it's about subject specialty; some that it's a craft or profession. Some think it's a rather technical and straightforward job of filling kids full of stuff so they can come out the other end. And that this factory process can be used for political ends- the usual criticism is that it's about social engineering. This makes me laugh- since when has education NOT been about social engineering? Think about what people want schools to do - teach kids about being safe - drugs, road safety, sex; teach worthy skills like cooking, literacy and mathematics; teach students knowledge we think is important (whoever 'we' is). Even making decisions about whether or not students should have access to other languages and at what levels is about both social and knowledge engineering.

I reckon that education is about teaching students to be 'incendiary citizens' (Birmbaug & Emig) - able to change the world. We cannot do that if we chuck stuff at them, we need instead to teach them how to sift, sort and critique everything they read (and by 'read', I mean any kind of text - written, verbal, visual, physical, still, moving, wikied, blogged... whatever).

So, if this is the job of a teacher (as well as parents and other who have vested interests in what their kids are up to), then it cannot just be about filling kids full of stuff (aka subject content). It has to be about metacognition (aka understanding how to learn and think). Teachers have to challenge and take risks and invite students to do the same so they can learn how to create their own knowledge, while being guided and supported along the way. Even if they don't think they want to be, or even when other things in their lives are getting in the way.

So what? This is the quintessential scholarly question. 'So what' does this mean? 'So what' is a big question, implying critique and an ability to deal with the notion of significance. Developing this is a very BIG thing and takes time to help students do this naturally. It is not necessarily something everyone wants to be able to do, because it's hard work but is rewarding, and what kids, in my experience anyway, appreciate- eventually. However, at this time, they make be in their 20s and not around to talk to. If ever there was a profession about delayed gratification, then this is it! Those moments, when you're in a public place and someone bowls up and says, 'you may not remember me, but when I was in year 12, you taught me and....', are magical and hugely important to teachers. Knowing you've made a positive difference to someone's experience of school is the biggest thrill of all.

So, being a teacher is about doing hard things, not straightforward ones; complex rather than simple ones, with people who may prefer (especially if they're teenagers) to be somewhere else. And one of the hardest things is to guide kids about what they need to do to do even better; to praise, and also tell them hard things that make them uncomfortable so they can improve.

I think I'll have to carry this on another time...