Four Corners ran a fascinating documentary this week, Revolution in the Classroom. It followed
a state government pilot to give 47 schools more autonomy over staffing and
budget. The schools spent their money on strategies to provide teachers with
guidance and feedback on their work in the classroom. Toronto High, for
example, funded a Teacher Development position, to work with teachers in the
classroom and focus on their teaching. The schools’ HSC and NAPLAN results spoke
for themselves. It seemed to be a perfect ratification of the importance of
improving teacher quality by giving feedback.
The central point that I will be taking away from Revolution in the Classroom, though, is
the confirmation that feedback is key: both to teachers to tell them how they
are going, and back to students to let them know how their learning is going.
That doesn’t necessarily mean relying on another teacher in the room, or even
on student focus groups about how they think their learning is going, though
these are hugely valuable wherever they are possible. The feedback that is
continuously available to teachers is the student’s learning, and it is crucial
to make this learning as visible as possible as it happens.
As John Hattie says,
“The critical element is the way
in which teachers use assessment to find out how they’re having an impact and
with whom. The critical element is teachers getting feedback from the kids
about whether those kids are making growth, where they’re making a difference.
The critical element is schools that work with teachers to know that kind of
difference. (10 mins)
I couldn’t help wondering why the Teachers’ Federation would
be opposed to something that seemed so successful (11.55). Having dug into it a
little, I understand a bit more. The Boston Review makes clear that the State
Government sees devolution of power as a cost-cutting possibility: quite
simply, principals do the work that would previously have been done at head
office. Extra funding provided for the pilot scheme would not be budgeted for a
wider rollout.
The answer seems quite clear to me… The State Government
knows that to improve student outcomes it needs to improve teacher quality.
Even if it didn’t know that from the pilot, there is plenty of research
pointing that way. Having seen the strategies that work in the pilot, why can’t
it provide schools with the resources to implement similar schemes? If having a
Teacher Development officer works to provide teachers with feedback on their
lessons, why not give schools at least the choice of having one – not by
rearranging their own budgets to take resources away from somewhere else where
they are necessary. Maybe it’s
expensive – but it seems a small price to pay.
No comments:
Post a Comment