At the current time people across the world are very concerned by the growing spread of the coronavirus, and are right to be so, though, it is easy to despair at the reactions of some people and some politicians. The spectacle of people fighting over toilet rolls, and of empty shelves in shops and supermarkets, is perhaps more evidence, if we needed it, of the small mindedness of some as well as their inability to actually 'hear' what medical health experts are saying about the virus, how it spreads and the impacts on different sections on the population. It would seem that the people who are the least likely to be affected by the virus are the ones fighting over toilet rolls, and are clearing shelves, with little or no regard to the impacts for those who are most at risk. Governments struggle to keep up, not surprising given the level of capacity, and agendas, displayed by so many government and their ministers. In the USA, UK and Australia we have governments driven by ideology, neoliberalism and by their sublime over-confidence in their own abilities over actual science or evidence provided by experts. A lot of these in fact have gone on record to deride experts and expertise. Michel Gove and Dominic Cummings called them 'the blob' ignoring the messages or advice they tried to give, with Gove adding 'We have had enough of experts!'. As a consequence of such dismissive attitudes, we have Trump declaring he knows more than anybody about anything, and promising that 'the number of coronavirus infections in the United States would be zero in a couple of days.' When questioned about that, as well as other statements he had made criticising World Health Organisation predictions and advice, he responded with 'this is just my hunch.' This from a president who 'had no clue people could die from influenza' even though his grandfather had died of the virus, but now wants to convince Americans he and Mike Pence have everything under control. It is my hunch that they don't!
In the UK the has been a slow response to dealing with the spread of coronavirus, not helped by the fact that we have a Prime Minister who is suddenly very low-profile, and doesn't seem to like to have meetings at weekends. Again there is plenty of evidence that Johnson might lack the capacity to understand the evidence and advice given to him from medical experts and others. He, and his new right hand man Dominic Cummings, are ideologically driven and possess an unwavering confidence that they know better than any 'leftie' experts and academics. Many of the tactics applied so successfully by Trump and his allies, are now being deployed across UK politics, and elsewhere. Attacks on The Press, BBC, Channel Four and other media outlets that seek to challenge or ask awkward questions are a daily occurrence. Johnson will not appear on certain programmes or platforms that might seek to hold him to account, and, like Trump, has been shown to regularly lie with little challenge by 'favoured' journalists and media outlets, who are invited to private briefings. This model is happening in more and more countries, as right-wing governments come to recognise they don't really need to bother with the truth or expertise, as long as they focus on their core demographic that is nationalistic, protectionist and in many cases, downright racist.
It is within this growing and unfortunately thriving neoliberal backdrop that we need to consider where we are in education at the moment.
A friend of mine, Andrea Stringer, from Australia recently sent me an article written by Peter Goss for the Grattan Institute (@peter_goss ow.ly/YFyY50yhLYs ) where he proposes the development of a new class of 'Master Teachers' who will work with other staff to bring about the systematic improvements required to improve Australian Education and its standing in the PISA rankings. Andrea asked me for my opinion on the piece, which included a new hierarchical pyramid for the profession. After a few days to read and reflect, I did respond.
I can't say I was positive about what I read. The model being proposed aims to deal with two recommendations contained in the 2018 ''Gonski 2,0'' report: to create better teacher career paths, and more effective professional learning. This would involve the identification of 2900 'top teachers, to become Master Teachers (non-teaching), 8400 Instructional Specialists (0.35FTE release time) then a teacher workforce of 295000. You can check out the model yourselves for more detail.
What I replied to Andrea was that firstly, my heart sinks when I see PISA results being cited as the main driver/reason for any proposed new initiative or change in education and schools. Whilst the information contained in PISA may have some uses, the issues with governments and others using the improvement to PISA results as key drivers have been well covered by Pasi Salhberg, Alma Harris, Michael Fullan, Zhao Young and many others, for many years.
Across the UK, and numerous other systems, the creation and deployment of another layer of 'expertise' amongst the teaching profession has been trialled and failed. In Scotland we had the 'Charter Teachers' scheme, with very similar aims to the model being proposed in Australia. Whilst the training provided for such teachers was of a high standard, the scheme failed to achieve its initial intentions. There were lots of reasons for this failure including: Lack of consultation with school leaders, no time given for collaborative working and support, expertise in schools not matching the school's development needs, divisions caused by different pay-scales and expectations and inequity of access, were all some of the major ones. There had been high aspirations and expectations for this scheme but, without the necessary time, consultation and support, it was doomed to fail, as yet another well-meaning but poorly implemented or understood change. The issues we had in Scotland would seem to have been replicated in other systems like England, USA and Australia itself.
My main concern with the model Goss proposes is that, yet again, it positions teaching as a technical and hierarchical activity rather than a professional complex one. Such approaches view teaching as a technical activity, where you train people to deliver, rather than the professional identity which it actually is. I have long argued that you cannot mandate or impose improvement on individuals in any system. The main responsibility of any school principal, and their system leadership, is to create the conditions and cultures that support all in the system to want to develop their practice and understandings. They do this through collaboration and the development of high levels of teacher agency, adaptive expertise and empowerment. Such collaborative and collegiate cultures require high levels of trust, with a focus on learning and pedagogy. I do not believe the introduction of another hierarchical pyramid, supporting top-down direction, will aid the development of collaborative cultures. It is more likely to create division and surface-level compliance, promoting micromanagement, rather than deep-seated changes which become embedded in teachers' professional identities.
If we really want our schools and systems to keep improving, we need to identify the right drivers, of which Fullan and Hargreaves have written much, which are appropriate for the education system we are seeking. Then we need to give principals and teachers the time, resources and support they need to develop these, building on their strengths, to grow the learning cultures that will make a difference. More top down direction won't work, in my opinion, it hasn't so far.
Which brings me back to coronavirus and germs and the current modern political climate. Back in 2012, if not earlier, Pasi Sahlberg had identified the growth of what he termed as GERM ( the Global Education Reform Movement) in many education systems since the 1980s. These were characterised by standardization, a focus on core subjects, the search for low-risk ways to reach learning goals, the use of corporate management models, and test-based accountability policies. What he was describing was a neo-liberal approach to education that he described as 'infecting' systems globally.
The model being proposed by Goss and the Grattan institute in Australia is a continuation of those models that emerged in the 1980s, and it is my contention that we are going to see more and more such models as business and commerce have an 'open season' on education, with little challenge. The new Premier of New South Wales in a recent speech said 'Schools must earn the freedom to make decisions' and that that freedom will depend on NAPLAN and HSC results. She went on to talk about 'enforcing best teaching practice across our schools.' Good luck with that, and good luck in attracting and retaining teachers within such cultures. I this as more evidence of politicians displaying a level of arrogance and ignorance, which will be lapped up by right-wing media and those not having access to relevant evidence and research about school and system development. Nothing I have seen or heard from Scott Morrison convinces me he thinks any differently. Cutting public schools budgets, whilst giving more funding to the independent/private sector hardly gives one scope for hope. But he probably understands the demographic he wishes to appeal to.
In the USA, Trump has appointed a Secretary of State for Education, Betsy DeVos, who is avowedly anti-public education. She supports the education reform movement and the development and growth of independent Charter Schools. To her, education is very much a business, and she is seemingly bent on destroying public education in America. She likes the private health care system in the States, using this as her model, and is backed by individuals and companies seeking to make big profits from education provision. She faces little challenge to the legislation she has introduced that is detrimental to children, families and schools across the country, knowing she has the full backing of Trump and a Republican dominated Congress. Basically, they can do what they want, at whatever cost, to those who can least afford it.
Across the border in Canada, we are seeing the emergence of similar mindsets and approaches. Ontario has long been seen as an education system focused on the right things and heavily informed by research. Leading researchers located in Ontario have helped shaped an education system that many have sought to understand and learn from. People like Michael Fullan, Andy Hargreaves and Carol Campbell have all been active in helping develop Canadian education into a model that others have sought to emulate in their own context. However, a political change of direction is already threatening to derail much of the excellent work done by schools and teachers. It would seem that Premier Doug Ford and Education Minister Stephen Lecce in Ontario have decided a new approach is required and seem hell bent on attacking schools and teachers, taking very confrontational approaches to impose their high-accountability business model on education.
In the UK, education and schools have long been under attack by the Conservative government in England. Whilst not as overt as in some other systems, there is little doubt that the government is pushing a privatisation and selection agenda. Much of this started under Michael Gove and Dominic Cummings and has been continued since, through high accountability agendas that can see school leaders disappear quickly, forced academisation, 'Free schools', proscribed curricula and pedagogies, standardised testing, support for zero-tolerance and so on. It is the destruction of public education by stealth. With an overwhelming majority in Parliament, Johnson and Cummings will feel they have carte blanche to push forward with the privatisation of education and health, secure in the knowledge that this will be supported by their core voters.
All of this convinces me that the right to a universal free education is under attack, and at risk, just at a time when the United Nations, through UNESCO and The Convention on Children's Rights, and individual countries are arguing that this should be a basic human right for all children. It now looks as though this could become a right, only for those who can afford it!
In the UK the has been a slow response to dealing with the spread of coronavirus, not helped by the fact that we have a Prime Minister who is suddenly very low-profile, and doesn't seem to like to have meetings at weekends. Again there is plenty of evidence that Johnson might lack the capacity to understand the evidence and advice given to him from medical experts and others. He, and his new right hand man Dominic Cummings, are ideologically driven and possess an unwavering confidence that they know better than any 'leftie' experts and academics. Many of the tactics applied so successfully by Trump and his allies, are now being deployed across UK politics, and elsewhere. Attacks on The Press, BBC, Channel Four and other media outlets that seek to challenge or ask awkward questions are a daily occurrence. Johnson will not appear on certain programmes or platforms that might seek to hold him to account, and, like Trump, has been shown to regularly lie with little challenge by 'favoured' journalists and media outlets, who are invited to private briefings. This model is happening in more and more countries, as right-wing governments come to recognise they don't really need to bother with the truth or expertise, as long as they focus on their core demographic that is nationalistic, protectionist and in many cases, downright racist.
It is within this growing and unfortunately thriving neoliberal backdrop that we need to consider where we are in education at the moment.
A friend of mine, Andrea Stringer, from Australia recently sent me an article written by Peter Goss for the Grattan Institute (@peter_goss ow.ly/YFyY50yhLYs ) where he proposes the development of a new class of 'Master Teachers' who will work with other staff to bring about the systematic improvements required to improve Australian Education and its standing in the PISA rankings. Andrea asked me for my opinion on the piece, which included a new hierarchical pyramid for the profession. After a few days to read and reflect, I did respond.
I can't say I was positive about what I read. The model being proposed aims to deal with two recommendations contained in the 2018 ''Gonski 2,0'' report: to create better teacher career paths, and more effective professional learning. This would involve the identification of 2900 'top teachers, to become Master Teachers (non-teaching), 8400 Instructional Specialists (0.35FTE release time) then a teacher workforce of 295000. You can check out the model yourselves for more detail.
What I replied to Andrea was that firstly, my heart sinks when I see PISA results being cited as the main driver/reason for any proposed new initiative or change in education and schools. Whilst the information contained in PISA may have some uses, the issues with governments and others using the improvement to PISA results as key drivers have been well covered by Pasi Salhberg, Alma Harris, Michael Fullan, Zhao Young and many others, for many years.
Across the UK, and numerous other systems, the creation and deployment of another layer of 'expertise' amongst the teaching profession has been trialled and failed. In Scotland we had the 'Charter Teachers' scheme, with very similar aims to the model being proposed in Australia. Whilst the training provided for such teachers was of a high standard, the scheme failed to achieve its initial intentions. There were lots of reasons for this failure including: Lack of consultation with school leaders, no time given for collaborative working and support, expertise in schools not matching the school's development needs, divisions caused by different pay-scales and expectations and inequity of access, were all some of the major ones. There had been high aspirations and expectations for this scheme but, without the necessary time, consultation and support, it was doomed to fail, as yet another well-meaning but poorly implemented or understood change. The issues we had in Scotland would seem to have been replicated in other systems like England, USA and Australia itself.
My main concern with the model Goss proposes is that, yet again, it positions teaching as a technical and hierarchical activity rather than a professional complex one. Such approaches view teaching as a technical activity, where you train people to deliver, rather than the professional identity which it actually is. I have long argued that you cannot mandate or impose improvement on individuals in any system. The main responsibility of any school principal, and their system leadership, is to create the conditions and cultures that support all in the system to want to develop their practice and understandings. They do this through collaboration and the development of high levels of teacher agency, adaptive expertise and empowerment. Such collaborative and collegiate cultures require high levels of trust, with a focus on learning and pedagogy. I do not believe the introduction of another hierarchical pyramid, supporting top-down direction, will aid the development of collaborative cultures. It is more likely to create division and surface-level compliance, promoting micromanagement, rather than deep-seated changes which become embedded in teachers' professional identities.
If we really want our schools and systems to keep improving, we need to identify the right drivers, of which Fullan and Hargreaves have written much, which are appropriate for the education system we are seeking. Then we need to give principals and teachers the time, resources and support they need to develop these, building on their strengths, to grow the learning cultures that will make a difference. More top down direction won't work, in my opinion, it hasn't so far.
Which brings me back to coronavirus and germs and the current modern political climate. Back in 2012, if not earlier, Pasi Sahlberg had identified the growth of what he termed as GERM ( the Global Education Reform Movement) in many education systems since the 1980s. These were characterised by standardization, a focus on core subjects, the search for low-risk ways to reach learning goals, the use of corporate management models, and test-based accountability policies. What he was describing was a neo-liberal approach to education that he described as 'infecting' systems globally.
The model being proposed by Goss and the Grattan institute in Australia is a continuation of those models that emerged in the 1980s, and it is my contention that we are going to see more and more such models as business and commerce have an 'open season' on education, with little challenge. The new Premier of New South Wales in a recent speech said 'Schools must earn the freedom to make decisions' and that that freedom will depend on NAPLAN and HSC results. She went on to talk about 'enforcing best teaching practice across our schools.' Good luck with that, and good luck in attracting and retaining teachers within such cultures. I this as more evidence of politicians displaying a level of arrogance and ignorance, which will be lapped up by right-wing media and those not having access to relevant evidence and research about school and system development. Nothing I have seen or heard from Scott Morrison convinces me he thinks any differently. Cutting public schools budgets, whilst giving more funding to the independent/private sector hardly gives one scope for hope. But he probably understands the demographic he wishes to appeal to.
In the USA, Trump has appointed a Secretary of State for Education, Betsy DeVos, who is avowedly anti-public education. She supports the education reform movement and the development and growth of independent Charter Schools. To her, education is very much a business, and she is seemingly bent on destroying public education in America. She likes the private health care system in the States, using this as her model, and is backed by individuals and companies seeking to make big profits from education provision. She faces little challenge to the legislation she has introduced that is detrimental to children, families and schools across the country, knowing she has the full backing of Trump and a Republican dominated Congress. Basically, they can do what they want, at whatever cost, to those who can least afford it.
Across the border in Canada, we are seeing the emergence of similar mindsets and approaches. Ontario has long been seen as an education system focused on the right things and heavily informed by research. Leading researchers located in Ontario have helped shaped an education system that many have sought to understand and learn from. People like Michael Fullan, Andy Hargreaves and Carol Campbell have all been active in helping develop Canadian education into a model that others have sought to emulate in their own context. However, a political change of direction is already threatening to derail much of the excellent work done by schools and teachers. It would seem that Premier Doug Ford and Education Minister Stephen Lecce in Ontario have decided a new approach is required and seem hell bent on attacking schools and teachers, taking very confrontational approaches to impose their high-accountability business model on education.
In the UK, education and schools have long been under attack by the Conservative government in England. Whilst not as overt as in some other systems, there is little doubt that the government is pushing a privatisation and selection agenda. Much of this started under Michael Gove and Dominic Cummings and has been continued since, through high accountability agendas that can see school leaders disappear quickly, forced academisation, 'Free schools', proscribed curricula and pedagogies, standardised testing, support for zero-tolerance and so on. It is the destruction of public education by stealth. With an overwhelming majority in Parliament, Johnson and Cummings will feel they have carte blanche to push forward with the privatisation of education and health, secure in the knowledge that this will be supported by their core voters.
All of this convinces me that the right to a universal free education is under attack, and at risk, just at a time when the United Nations, through UNESCO and The Convention on Children's Rights, and individual countries are arguing that this should be a basic human right for all children. It now looks as though this could become a right, only for those who can afford it!
Comments
Post a Comment