education reform

Whether with teachers, students or in workplaces generally, fostering individual self-efficacy and creating conditions minimising constraints on that, positively impacts performance. This is not so new but knowing how and when to tailor that for each person with their particular background, experience and need, is the real skill. The three examples provided are interesting case studies.

Whether they do it out of fear, for political leverage, or misguided cultural grounds, banning secondary education for girls is unjustified and an abhorrent practice. #LetAfghanGirlsLearn

There are many factors that contribute to teachers leaving the profession. Ones requiring immediate attention are those within the control of government, providers, and education leadership. They specifically relate to the workplace and nature of the work and being proactive in supporting teachers with a focus on well-being; empathetic and supportive leadership; coaching and mentoring opportunities; access to collegial learning communities; effective transition from pre-service training to continuous on-the-job training; and provision of high-quality resources and collaborative time.

An important point or two of reflection here for countries hoping to successfully reform education practice (supported by other research on high performing systems). First, teachers need to be active participants, if not drivers of the reform initiative, where they reflect on what they are doing and how it could be done differently. Second there needs to be a high degree of alignment across policy frameworks, stakeholders and partners working together as a system towards a shared goal for their context.

Apart from the Finnish education example elaborated here, can you think of any other new and newer education reforms (“edu-crazes”) we enthusiastically embraced only to be ultimately disappointed? Maybe one, or two…or three…Some interesting observations here about what I too believe has been “education’s susceptibility to faddishness”.

As a teacher a key challenge ensuring minimal disruptions to the teaching and learning program including distractions from a range of student misbehaviours. Four approaches mentioned here are helpful. For me the critical element for each follows the “BUT” and that is where some teachers may need further support in the form of training, modelling or coaching. Clear expectations should be set BUT need to be communicated, reinforced and modelled. A well thought out learning environment needs to be prepared BUT also maintained and in a way which is dynamic to meet the needs of the students and the learning. Student-teacher relationships need to be built BUT as positive, nurturing relationships and interactions with mutual trust. There needs to be appropriate responses to behaviour BUT positive behaviours need to be reinforced and disruptive behaviours require assertive, confident, fair, consistent and transparent responses.

Some of the challenge even represented here is the reference to STEM subjects or STEM as a subject. There are a number of subjects in the fields of science, technology, engineering and maths that collectively are referred to as STEM in broader conversations around education skills and career paths. STEM can also be a subject with an interdisciplinary approach across these four fields of study where connections are forged and where real-world problems are examined drawing on knowledge and skills across the four fields. I think generally it is the latter that causes more consternation for learners and teachers as they try to navigate the multi-disciplinary nature of the subject looking to integrate in some balanced way the content, assessment and pedagogy across the somewhat related disciplines.

Interesting international school-based perspective about the impact and implications of AI in classrooms. I like the points about need to integrate cross curricula skills and competencies into the curriculum; and the input from outside school and classroom for more relevant localised teaching and learning programs.

We’re currently experiencing the fad replacement theory (just made that up) in areas like teaching of reading where one long-standing approach to teaching is replaced by a different and purportedly more evidenced based approach. All approaches or philosophies one time or another were backed by some form of self-selecting research. Here, one approach to teaching is derided because there is no evidence to show it improves student achievement in maths. If we as educators believe a straight line can be drawn from a single teaching approach to improved outcomes, then what chance do politicians or community members have? No one approach, no one “fad” alone can do this - it needs a combination of variables and approaches. Teaching and learning is a complex nuanced process responsive to context, student home backgrounds and starting points; dependent on student engagement and motivation; reliant on teachers subject knowledge and high impact pedagogical strategies; and application of cross-subject skills and competencies, amongst other things. This approach to maths teaching researched in classrooms over many years, seems like good teaching to develop thinking skills. You would think in concert with other instructional strategies it’s not a bad start.

Interesting research that resonates with those of us who have ever been involved in system-wide education reform! Well intentioned, even well researched reforms can fail with poor implementation. For example, not knowing how to implement at scale; misaligning budgets, timelines, and roles; insufficient resources; discontinuity due to election cycles; lack of engagement and consultation with end users; and inadequate data and systems to evaluate and review. So, what have 14 systems with improved student learning outcomes done differently? Focused on small number of priorities with key driver on improvements in classrooms and teaching with high impact strategies; spent time in building and nurturing stakeholder understanding, engagement and buy-in; started where people were at and adopted a manageable and realistic timeline; and good data systems to monitor, review, intervene and adjust. Easier said than done! For all this to work we need committed governments, access to dedicated and expert school support personnel and resources, highly trained, open-minded and creative school leaders, some well-supported teachers in each school to take the lead, experiment, share and build local capacity, and supportive and engaged communities and parents. That’s all.

Part 1: A challenge for those of us who have been around a long time is to not be cynical about the latest pronouncements of what works. But I am cautious when I hear/read statements like “experts have proposed”, “dire number of instructional casualties”, informed by “best practice”, “best approach”, and the inspirational call to arms of “a six-pronged attack to banish the whole-language approach”! Yes, there is a problem. There are young people who fall behind in literacy in their early schooling because of background, prior teaching and learning, disposition, socio-economic disadvantage, lack of family/home support and this compounds as they move through school and are challenged to readily access more sophisticated subject/discipline language and content. This is a problem now, and it was a problem when I started teaching social studies 40 years ago. Over those years, well informed and meaning educators and policy makers identified so called best practices, committed to fulsome strategies over time, set targets, engaged in teacher training, revised curriculum and resources, and employed specialist personnel. So, what happened? Like now there were aspirational targets and expectations, but stuff got in the way. See Part 2 of this post.

Agree with some of this. Teaching is complex and teaching well requires ONE, application of a number of sophisticated skills and techniques that are so nuanced they require active observation of skilled proponents engaged in the art of teaching. These subtle micro techniques involving use of body language, tone, humour, focusing on the positives help in engaging young people, maximising participation and minimising distractions. But for these to be applied and to work they must be underpinned by TWO, a mindset of respect for the child, love of the job and willingness to continually grow and improve. And that mindset needs to be supported by THREE, a strong knowledge base of the subject/s, understanding the background and learning needs of children in your classroom, and an increasing repertoire of teaching strategies. So, I reckon ALL THREE of these facets of a good teacher need to be evident for there to be a positive impact on student engagement, learning and growth.

So, governments in Australia agree to move from bands to a smaller number of proficiency levels, setting higher and more reasonably demanding minimum literacy and numeracy standards than the previous exceedingly low ones. The first lot of national test results referenced to these new standards show that 60% of students at major city schools across years 3, 5, 7 and 9 reach those standards but fewer than 30% in very remote schools are rated as "strong" or "exceeding" in literacy and numeracy; !0% of students nationally need additional support compared to 30% of indigenous students; and students from higher socio-educational backgrounds performed better than those from the lowest. The percentages may be somewhat worse than they were with the previous low standards, but the overall patterns and trends are not much different. So, what are the proposed solutions? The same lines that have been repeated over many years. More money; more money for public schools; early identification and intervention; and the obligatory “our education system needs some serious reform to identify those children and then do something about it”. Surely we can do better?

Agreed!

Never ceases to amaze and impress. In the middle of a war but focusing positively on the future for their children. Would love to help!

When teachers are at the centre of any reform and when they are driving it, we must do everything we can to support countries like this because the main beneficiaries are the children.

Following the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 proclaiming the right of every child to an education, and the World Declaration on Education for All in 1990 proclaiming universal and equitable access to education for all, the Framework for Action on Special Needs Education as part of the 1994 Salamanca Declaration (https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000098427) is stunning in its unambivalent declaration on inclusive education, that: “… schools should accommodate all children regardless of their physical, intellectual, social, emotional, linguistic or other conditions [including] disabled and gifted children, street and working children, children from remote or nomadic populations, children from linguistic, ethnic or cultural minorities and children from other disadvantaged or marginalized areas or groups.” That all schools and education systems must be inclusive with “child centred pedagogy”, and that all governments ensure this is a matter of law and policy and budget priorities. With some progress over the last 30 years, globally we are still a way off achieving full inclusion in being able to meet every learner’s needs.

Could not agree more given my experience working with GEMS international schools. Replace the term British as it refers to teachers or international schools in this article with American or Indian, and so on, and the same would apply, generally with some exceptions. That is, international schools tend to be some of the highest performing schools globally with intense scrutiny, competition and accountability. Teachers in these schools tend to be put through external inspection and internal developmental processes with remarkable opportunities to further develop and grow in their teaching. They work in, and must adapt to, culturally and linguistically diverse environments; with exemplary support for students with special needs, and with opportunities for they and their students to interact with schools internationally on interesting global issues and initiatives related to civics and environmental education. The one small downside (sic) is that teachers have limited opportunities to deal with a range of disruptive class behaviours given the parents are fee-paying (along a scale), supportive of the school and there are few student behaviour issues.

Teachers have always been overworked and stressed but it feels now they are more alone in being so. As a young teacher working in disadvantaged schools the stress and the rewards were almost commensurate. But what made it bearable for our well-being were not well intentioned but mostly unhelpful well-being sessions, PD and counselling. It was the collegiality, humour and the informal (and formal) opportunities to discuss, whinge, get support, get angry and be listened to by colleagues, supportive school leaders, local networks and at that time supportive subject and school advisors and superintendents who made a point of knowing the staff in their schools. We didn’t have social media platforms but even if they existed it was those features of a nurturing supportive environment that made us feel we were not alone nor disempowered. I’m not sure those are generally available to teachers today.

These intellectual virtues which underpin deeper thinking and learning are virtuous to hold and most of us would probably not question their inherent worth. But what does it mean for teachers to be able to, as stated, “cultivate”, “foster”, “nurture” and “lean into” these virtues. That the values be modelled, taught, assessed or just referenced, promoted and organically infused as part of classroom culture and instruction? Either way, would we agree that teachers themselves should and do demonstrate these virtues, and have the knowledge and skills to help young people in their care do the same. They are the critical (and ambitious) starting points for this to work and for a school, system, organisation to move beyond the rhetoric.

Regarding teachers, I don’t begrudge their right to disconnect outside of work hours. For teachers, work out of school hours in marking and planning is an expected part of their duties. The online environment and technology have both assisted in creating efficiencies but also created some unreasonable expectations about teachers’ after-hours availability. The question is how to reconcile the right to disconnect with the fact that many schools/teachers now rightly engage with students and their parents using online secure platforms – for example, teachers posting tasks, activities, feedback, and correspondence; students posting completed work for marking or engaging in synchronous discussion with other students and their teachers; and parents viewing their children’s work and progress, correspondence from teachers and posing questions to teachers. Much of this activity is not typically done during classroom time but later in the day when students are studying and completing work, and parents are home to catch up on the day’s activities. The way to address this is for teachers to use their discretion and be clear about the expectations and the window available for their availability after-hours.

Part 2: The six-part strategy makes sense, but history shows we need to tackle things differently. Commit to a 10-year strategy? Makes sense but note how well that’s worked in the past given four-year election cycles and changes of government. Identify best practice and experts? But whose best practice and how transferable; and which experts - obviously different experts to those who suggested the previous strategy. Set targets to achieve? This requires effective and efficient systems for class and school monitoring, data collection, analysis and reporting! Provide teachers with reading guidelines and training? Of course, but along with new/revised curriculum, online assessments, impactful pedagogy, clear performance standards for students not just in reading, but writing and subject specific content, teachers can be overwhelmed. Universal screening? Sure, but what diagnostic and data systems; and whose time and resources and what capacity to effect change. Specialist literacy roles? Critical, but we already have teacher shortages, and when/how will they be trained and deployed and how do we ensure they will be effectively used by schools. Build into school and principal reviews? Ok, if the assumption is that these take place in any meaningful way in your system at the moment.

There is no doubt in my mind that, when it comes to good teaching, improved learning and effective school leadership, countries can and do learn from each other. This evidence and practice need to be contextualised, and often modified and adapted to suit local circumstances. But I don’t necessarily agree England has done it all better than Australia. My abridged argument is: Australia’s national curriculum irrespective of how its been interpreted at a local level, was initially developed with a focus on core, knowledge and skills with a strong discipline and cross-discipline focus; with an evidence based developmental coherence across K-10 and an explicit and exemplified set of standards; and even though subject and year based, designed with an inherent flexibility to be taught in ways that were cross disciplinary, and to meet the individual needs of students who may be beyond, or not yet be, at expected year level . In this way teachers could take the agreed curriculum and develop teaching programs and curate appropriate resources for their students. But where Australia didn’t do it better- implementation and support for schools is left to the whim of states, and every change in federal government and even Minister results in another curriculum review and upheaval for schools.

Not sure what this research evidence is correlating spelling ability with reading and writing outcomes…but how do you explain that I was champion speller at my school in Years 5 and 6 but was deemed at risk (and rightly so) in reading and writing by my Year 7 teacher?