New research from The University of Auckland’s Faculty of Education led by Professor Stuart McNaughton has achieved remarkable increases in reading comprehension at seven decile-one schools in south Auckland.
Teachers were taught how to use student achievement data and evidence from their own teaching to monitor and improve both their teaching and pupil learning.
So let me get this straight:
Teachers were taught how to use student achievement data
Teachers review the student's progress
and evidence from their own teaching
and notice what they are teaching that works
and improve both their teaching and pupil learning
and thus teach better.
No sh*t Sherlock. Are you going to copyright that, or can anyone use this amazing revolutionary technique?
“The programme recognises that effective teaching is dependent on understanding the strengths and needs of individual students.
Is there no end to the wisdom available to us as we make unimaginable leaps in education?
It begs the question, what have teachers been doing previously? Well, here's my theory (the whole point of having as blog, right?).
This so called breakthrough method of teaching simply indicates that when the goal is to educate individuals, then the methods will differ from when the goal is to simply deliver a lesson, and let the marks fall where they may.
Delivering a lesson, rather than targeted *teaching* is going to create worse outcomes both collectively and individually.
Re-inventing the wheel needn't earn resounding accolades from the educational intelligensia, and they needn't get excited at the remarkable 'breakthrough'. It only highlights the previous idiocy.
Now there are obviously a whole range of blended options in teaching to a class and incorporating individual follow-up. Fine. Let's not get distracted with basic logic, lest we think it another unexpected innovation.
Admittedly, there may be some real innovation buried in that article, and the reporter did not manage to articulate it. That too is a problem. After all, they are most likely a product from the NZ educational system. Another fail.
Perhaps I was hyper-sensitive to the implicit messages in this article because I had just come across another article where a Principal suggested that WHAT ones children were learning was not so important as getting an idea of the progress the child was making.
Now, I realise the point the Principal was making is valid, but I personally would have not dismissed the WHAT as readily in making his point.
WHAT the child is learning is also important for a parent to understand. Take an interest, and supplement your child's learning because it seems as if teaching lessons shaped to suit your child is an extremely novel concept.
Related Link: Reading Levels Soar at low-decile school. Apparently, teaching makes a difference.
And see Scrubone on Mars and Venus: Other Sherlock Moments
PS: Sarcasm aside, it's great to see some progress in literacy in the low decile schools. Let's roll this out where it is needed, rather than another million dollars spent on computers and broadband accounts (otherwise known as substitute teachers).
Teachers were taught how to use student achievement data and evidence from their own teaching to monitor and improve both their teaching and pupil learning.
So let me get this straight:
Teachers were taught how to use student achievement data
Teachers review the student's progress
and evidence from their own teaching
and notice what they are teaching that works
and improve both their teaching and pupil learning
and thus teach better.
No sh*t Sherlock. Are you going to copyright that, or can anyone use this amazing revolutionary technique?
“The programme recognises that effective teaching is dependent on understanding the strengths and needs of individual students.
Is there no end to the wisdom available to us as we make unimaginable leaps in education?
It begs the question, what have teachers been doing previously? Well, here's my theory (the whole point of having as blog, right?).
This so called breakthrough method of teaching simply indicates that when the goal is to educate individuals, then the methods will differ from when the goal is to simply deliver a lesson, and let the marks fall where they may.
Delivering a lesson, rather than targeted *teaching* is going to create worse outcomes both collectively and individually.
Re-inventing the wheel needn't earn resounding accolades from the educational intelligensia, and they needn't get excited at the remarkable 'breakthrough'. It only highlights the previous idiocy.
Now there are obviously a whole range of blended options in teaching to a class and incorporating individual follow-up. Fine. Let's not get distracted with basic logic, lest we think it another unexpected innovation.
Admittedly, there may be some real innovation buried in that article, and the reporter did not manage to articulate it. That too is a problem. After all, they are most likely a product from the NZ educational system. Another fail.
Perhaps I was hyper-sensitive to the implicit messages in this article because I had just come across another article where a Principal suggested that WHAT ones children were learning was not so important as getting an idea of the progress the child was making.
Now, I realise the point the Principal was making is valid, but I personally would have not dismissed the WHAT as readily in making his point.
WHAT the child is learning is also important for a parent to understand. Take an interest, and supplement your child's learning because it seems as if teaching lessons shaped to suit your child is an extremely novel concept.
Related Link: Reading Levels Soar at low-decile school. Apparently, teaching makes a difference.
And see Scrubone on Mars and Venus: Other Sherlock Moments
PS: Sarcasm aside, it's great to see some progress in literacy in the low decile schools. Let's roll this out where it is needed, rather than another million dollars spent on computers and broadband accounts (otherwise known as substitute teachers).
Yes, I think it was more about the teaching comprehension at these schools, not the reading comprehension. Just how many bad teachers are there out there? I think DPF did a post recently on performance-based remuneration for teachers and the structural benefits that come with that. Maybe this government will manage to change the way it is set up at the moment, because we should be doing better.
ReplyDeleteTeaching is a difficult career. The teachers may indeed have merely been applying techniques and tools that they should or did posses . Is teaching easy? No. Are teachers human? Yes. Are decile 1 schools typically more difficult to teach in? Yes. I would argue it can be be easy to lose hope and the ability to see potential in children who do not respond. When the environment becomes negative and people don't want to be there this will this effect how they teach? Yes.
ReplyDeleteWhen consultants come into a workforce they bring energy and vibrancy to a culture - if they do not typically that is where their success finishes.
Dr Mark Strom has worked closely with executives and government leaders. He himself was a consultant to schools and found that the majority of problems were not teaching tools (though there was a lot of red type that was not conducive to the core purpose that they are there for) but simply the heart, the conversation, the tone of the school. He has had much success in reinvigorating these schools turning them into education enigmas when measured by their decile.
I suspect that what did happen is that he gave different techniques and a second wind to teachers in the difficult circumstances of south Auckland.
So then if the wonderful Dr Mark Strom is doing here why aren't we doing it everywhere? Why? Because the variables that you are dealing with are humans. Any system that attempts to 'whack' them into a system will only meet with many difficulties and probable failures. You know wisdom is like wisdom, you can sense when you see it, you savour it, appreciate its beauty when you see it, but most of all it is apparent when it is not there. Teaching is like this, there is no easy way to capture the essence of it, to ensure its reproduction and quality control. Certainly though when a teacher loses their heart for what the reason they are there then none of those will be realized. Dr Strom is unique person who has the experiences and gifts to reinvigorate the core concersation of why we are there. Why aren't we all doing it because you cannot really teach someone the skills to do this.
In short in my experiences all teachers become so to make a difference, being human they are prone to disillusionment with the rest of humanity. I have not come across many bad teachers by the measure of 'tools.' Once a negative culture becomes the norm it can be very difficult to change but it can. It is sutble thigns, coffe conversations that evole aroudn such and such is such a toerag ... as opposed to such and such learnt this today. Coffee break finishes. One attitude is going to be one of endurance the one of optimism.
There are many challenges that the teacher/students face. Some may be technical but inevitably the majority are human. They not bad teachers they merely human. This is a challenge for us all - not the government, though they may play a role, to invest into schools, communities and families not money; but ourselves. As the previous generation did for us.
Your comment is far too reasonable for my sarcastic rant. Thank you for lifting the game.
ReplyDeleteI liked your point about negative reinforcement (over the coffee break) which likely starts out as a bit of venting but turns into a negative attitude.
These points apply to all professions, all people, and our personal challenge is to maintain the right attitude and the enthusiasm.
On the other hand...(code for the thread is far too quiet)
ReplyDeleteStripping out my sarcasm still leaves my original points for the education system to deal with.
If a pep talk from a consultant and improving results by err, teaching, makes such a big difference, how come the education profession need to relearn this?
"We are only human" doesn't really get the same degree of tolerance from some of the other professions (I'm thinking of Doctors for example).
What's NCEA for "could do better"?