I drove past a public primary school yesterday, only to see the message board out the front read:

INTERACTIVE
WHITEBOARDS K-6

Clearly this school sees it as its selling point.  I suppose there were schools that marketed themselves on the fact they had computers, or later, how many they had.  Some now even push that they have 1 to 1 laptop programs.

I suppose this also says something for the growth of the tool in Australia over the last few years.  It now looks like a boat that at least some schools don’t want to miss.

Now we can almost boast the same claim (I bet the school in question didn’t have 25 classes to install them in to!), but I’d rather boast about the learning that is achieved using them as a tool.

Not so easy to put up on the message sign, though.  I think we’ll stick with “Students Return Tuesday 14 October”.

I’ve just listened to the podcast of ABC Radio National’s EdPod episode from last month.  Brian Burgess, President of the Victorian Association of State Secondary Principals, was interviewed and gave his take on what he calls a “lazy policy” of withdrawing welfare payments.

It’s worth listening to.

EdPod – Tackling Truancy

Our Federal Government intends to introduce legislation that will see parents lose welfare payments for up to three months if their children are found to be habitual truants.

I’m sorry, I know I’m only a humble teacher, but even I can see that not only won’t it work, but it misses the point.

Firstly, since when has any principal had this discussion with a student?

Principal: “Why are you skipping school, Johnny?”
Johnny: “Because my parents are on welfare, sir.”

A quick Google search uncovers articles such as this one that remind us there are multiple reasons for student truancy.  Family dysfunction, cultural misunderstandings, substance abuse, bullying, poor health, and (goodness, gracious!) poor quality schooling and/or student disengagement are just some factors.  Family poverty or ineffective parenting skills are only one piece of the puzzle.

Secondly, given the multitude of reasons for truancy, the government’s proposed “solution” will fail because in many cases it will not address the root cause of the problem.  Stopping welfare payments is an easy way to satisfy voting taxpayers and give the appearance that something proactive is being done for the good of all.  A far more challenging, yet effective solution would be to drop the “Digital” from the government’s Digital Education Revolution and broaden the revolution to bring learning, not just the technology, into the 21st Century.  Has anyone considered that truancy would be reduced if all schools were safe places that every student wanted to attend?

Finally, this breaks the first rule of good classroom management, namely label the behaviour, not the child. This policy perpetuates a stereotype that truants come from families on welfare, or vice versa, that families receiving welfare payments produce truants.  Is there evidence that none of Australia’s truanting students come from well-off families?  Or is it that their truancy is not an issue because their parents aren’t costing the taxpayers of this country in social security?  Even if majority of truants come from low socio-economic backgrounds, they need support, not punitive punishment.  For a political party known as the champion of Australia’s working and lower classes, this policy could be considered to be not just ill-conceived, but offensive.

As a postscript, a survey of visitors to Yahoo!7 indicates that more than two-thirds of people think parents should lose welfare payments “for their kids wagging school”.  Of course, this survey has all the statistical integrity of a Today Tonight or A Current Affair phone poll.

Perhaps this is a topic that I should have treated with the contempt it deserves.

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 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.

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…

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.