Category Archive

(Cross-posted at Think :: Learn :: Do) 

I hate paper.

Well, that’s a very strong statement, and probably not 100% true, but when I do start to hate it is when there is more around than what is really necessary.  When you consider how much paper goes through my pigeon hole in the staff room, the notes that leave the office, and the sheets that come across my desk, it’s a lot of paper.  If I don’t need to have it printed on paper, I’d rather have it some other way.  So there’s my problem.

Then I know there’s a problem many of us have at school.  The photocopier.  It’s a frustrating mechnical animal.  Especially the older machine that seems to have been deliberately engineered to cause trouble after the service contract has expired, what with all its jams and misfeeds.

There’s a simple solution to our problems.  Stop photocopying.

There may be some times when it’s useful or even necessary, but are there ways that are more efficient in terms of cost, time, eco-friendliness and learning benefit?

Holy Family at Luddenham is obviously asking a similar question, so when I saw that somewhere there was thinking what I was secretly thinking here (ok, the office staff would say my thinking was not so secret to them), I thought it might be good to blog about it to get it out of my system.

Just don’t expect me to produce and photocopy a survey for people to complete about the topic.  Yes, I can see the irony.  I might email you if I feel so inclined…

Photo credit: Day in the Life by zebble

In a previous post, I mentioned our new Federal Government’s plan for an “Education Revolution”, which (among other things) made promises of increased technology hardware for school students and improved broadband Internet speeds across the country.

In fact, I remember finishing that post with “Of course, I could offer several far more revolutionary suggestions for education if the new government would like to hear them…”

Seems like Greg Whitby is thinking along the same lines I am on this matter.

He suggests in his post Revolution of the Mind that more hardware doesn’t go anywhere near far enough, and he’s right.  The government’s quoted desire for this “education revolution” is “to keep Australia prosperous beyond the mining boom.”  Fine.  Understand completely.  But how exactly will Australia remain prosperous beyond the mining boom?  Is it in skilling up Australian children in other trades?  Is it in simply ensuring that children can read, write, add and subtract?  Or is it in ensuring that today’s children have the skills and abilities to effectively respond to challenge and change so that they may remain constantly ready to work within occupations we haven’t even imagined yet?

What is the precise learning outcome that this revolution seeks to achieve?  Do we want to put computers in the hands of four grades of secondary students simply because we think it needs to be done?  What good will it do?  If we can answer that question, then we might be on track to making a difference.

Asking this question might also begin to see the ball rolling on a whole part of the education revolution that the government policy doesn’t seem to address.  Good educators already know that the hardware in itself doesn’t change learning, and doesn’t make a difference to learning results.  Australia’s schools need a revolution; one that begins in the minds and hearts of every teacher; one that is driven by a desire to see every student do their very best; one that challenges the students just as much as it challenges the system that governs their education.

Then, on top of that, all levels of educational leadership in this country, from the school level to federal government, need to provide the support to make this revolution happen.  For mine, the most important resource is not money, but rather the community’s faith in its professional educators to do their job well.

“My fellow Australians” would already know that this weekend we elected a new federal government.  The Labor party has swept to power, bringing to an end 11 years of the Liberal-National Coalition government.  In fact, this is proving to be quite an historic election, because for the second time ever in our 106 years of federal government, the Prime Minister could possibly lose his own seat.

Of course, this means our new government, lead by PM-elect Kevin Rudd will look towards implementing its policies.  One of these is its “Education Revolution“, which includes funding a year of pre-school for every child, and a computer for every student in years 9 to 12 of school.  Aligned with this strategy as well is an investment in improving Australia’s broadband Internet coverage and speed.

So, let the revolution begin!  Let’s see what forward directions education can take for the future, and let’s hope that future is bright.

Of course, I could offer several far more revolutionary suggestions for education if the new government would like to hear them…

I don’t believe it.

Not performance pay for teachers.  Really, seeing that idea rear its ugly head didn’t surprise me given the lengthy rumblings.  Also given how the federal government acted on “plain English” reporting (i.e. it employs the first five letters of the English alphabet), I’m not surprised to hear the proposal that performance pay would be ”tied to” (or, depending on your point of view, “used as blackmail to make school systems take it in order to get their…”) federal government funding.

What I don’t believe is that I agree with Alan Jones!

Many people either agree or disagree with Mr. Jones’ opinions, and one could suggest that he can encourage national debate on key issues.  But in his final editorial for the Channel Nine program, Today, he addressed the very issue of performance pay for teachers.  What’s more, I do believe what he says makes perfect sense.

At the end of the day, the problem is this:

1. What do we define as “performance” or “achievement” in the teaching profession, and,
2. How do we assess, report and reward such individual performance or achievement, especially that teaching is a collegial, cooperative, collaborative and inherently social profession.

Let’s also remember that teaching is just that - a profession, not an industry.  This is not to degrade one type of work against another, but simply to say they are different types of work that operate in different ways for different purposes.  If we must accept performance pay, does this mean that doctors will be paid according to the number of correct diagnoses, or how quickly a diagnosis can be made?  Some lawyers may adopt a “no win - no fee” approach, but remember, they can choose which cases to take.  Should we start paying our accountants according to how much of a tax refund they can get for us?  Is performance pay just another example in a long history of our profession being treated as an industry, thus “selling it short” yet again?  Surely, our classrooms are more than production lines.

As Jones said, we have no problem as teachers in being properly rewarded for doing our job to the best of our ability.  Just how you do that in a fair and just manner is extremely difficult to determine.  I seriously hope, especially in the Catholic sector, that our professional associations and system administrators address this issue with a Christian sense of social justice at the forefront of their minds.

The transcript of Alan Jones’ editorial is on the Radio 2GB website.  You can view video of the editorial on the blog idents.tv.

My thanks to our fantastic teacher-librarian, Judy, who first handed me a copy of the transcript of the editorial and alerted me to it.