Laying the Foundations
One teacher's journey
When you visit a dentist, you expect to receive treatment which reflects best practice. When you employ an architect, you expect their designs to meet all the current regulations. Chiropractors must adhere to government mandates. And when you visit a doctor, you expect them to follow stringent guidelines to cure your ailment. Why should teaching be different to these other professions? The ideal of 'teacher autonomy' is a pervasive one. It is evident in statements about individual teachers being the ones best able to meet their students' needs. It exists in the dismissal of experts in other fields "who wouldn't understand because they're not teachers". It is seen through the belief that the pedagogical knowledge of an individual trumps the collective wisdom of research. Idolisation of teacher autonomy is not only pervasive; it can be deeply unhelpful to our profession. The idea that an individual teacher is the one best placed to meet their students' needs is a seductive one. It can be seen in recruitment campaigns to "be that teacher". But what happens if you are not meeting the needs of a child? The premise of teacher autonomy has now placed that individual teacher to blame. I think about the number of newly qualified teachers who leave the profession and wonder how many leave because they have been overwhelmed with too much choice. Teacher autonomy also leads to the idea that we can not use resources that have been prepared by somebody else. This wastes countless hours of teachers and burdens them with an unnecessary workload. The reality is that teachers need to draw on our collective experience and wisdom. We need to support each other. Of course, children are unique, but this is an argument to uphold one another, not to be left to flounder in freedom. Teacher autonomy is an unhelpful seduction because it inadvertently isolates us from our colleagues. When we go to our GP, we are not surprised when we get a referral to a physio, or a psychologist, or told to get a blood test, so the pathologist can have a look. Health professionals work with each other to provide what an individual needs. Why then do we ignore (or even belittle) the advice of experts from other fields? Of course, we specialise in education but, given the complexity of children, we need to be willing to accept assistance and wisdom from other fields. This cannot be only when we ask for it, because that is not a healthy relationship. Teacher autonomy is an unhelpful seduction because it isolates us from other professions. Teacher autonomy enables teachers to self-select their own standards of evidence. This sounds enticing, but it allows for the anything to be considered acceptable research. A perfect example of this is the seemingly endless debates that exist around reading. The US's National Reading Panel (2000), Australia's Rowe Report (2005), and the UK's Rose Report (2006) all had similar findings that systematic phonics is essential for reading. Yet, the debate rages on because teachers are empowered to put ideology over evidence under the guise of 'autonomy'. If a doctor, dentist, or architect used their personal beliefs to ignore the evidence-backed guidelines, it would be called 'malpractice'. Teacher autonomy is an unhelpful seduction because it isolates us from implementing best practice. Teaching is the most noble profession. We are entrusted with the care and nurturing of children. It is our mission to enrich the lives of our students and teach the new concepts, help them master new skills, and learn how to be active participants in our world. Of course, teachers still need choice, but it cannot be unrestricted. Teachers still need voice, but we must also respect the wisdom of others. Teachers still get to rejoice as we enable strong research evidence to become embedded practice. Let's stop making the ideal of teacher autonomy into a false ideal so that we can collectively create a strong education for every child. Photo by Sven Mieke on Unsplash
0 Comments
To the attention of the Australian Education Union Victorian Branch, I am deeply appalled, devastated and hurt by the statement passed unanimously by the joint Primary and Secondary Sector Council on the 14th of June, 2024. As a passionate advocate for public education and a long-time member of the union I am puzzled by the stance put forward because it fails to support equality in education, downplays the importance of phonics in learning to read, and dismisses the hard work many members are already doing in their schools while increasing our workload. I am deeply appalled that the AEU Vic fails to recognize the huge leap that the Minister’s announcement at the Age Education Summit is for equality in Victoria. Literacy is a social justice issue. Every child, regardless of background, has the right to be literate. While I applaud the AEU’s advocacy around school funding, I am appalled that the union is objecting to a move to make literacy education equitable. Victoria may be leading the other states in our NAPLAN results for reading, but still 1 in 4 students in Grade 3 fail to be proficient readers. This situation is worse for our disadvantaged, regional, rural and First Nations students. This is not an acceptable situation and the union should be actively supporting moves to change this. Ensuring that phonics is taught in all schools is the biggest lever that education can pull to achieve equity in our state. I am devastated that the union has downplayed the importance of phonics in early reading. The willfully misleading phrase “that a range of teaching strategies to teach reading, including phonics” does not demonstrate a sound knowledge of critical importance of teaching phonics to all students. The National Inquiry into the Teaching of Literacy was conducted almost 20 years ago and clearly articulated the need for systematic phonics instruction, as the Minister is finally advocating. English is a morphophonemic language and all students need to be taught how to unlock the code that is written English. Early systematic, synthetic phonics is essential for all students. The Minister should be applauded for finally embracing this crucial aspect, not subjected to unfounded criticism for “a lack of understanding”. I personally witnessed the Minister engage with Professional Learning on early literacy, handwriting his own notes, staying for several hours after his address, and consulting with a wide range of teachers, principals and other educators during the breaks. The union should be applauding that we finally have a Minister FOR Education in the Education State. I am deeply hurt by the stance that the union has taken because it dismisses and disrespects the hard work that I, alongside many other teachers, have put into creating change for our students and in supporting teachers. I have introduced the explicit teaching of systematic phonics in multiple schools. Often this work has not been supported by the broader department and yet I, and many other members, have persevered- attending PL outside of contracted hours. A key piece of feedback from the teachers I support has been how much this approach has reduced their workload. Providing high-quality instructional resources results in teachers having a decreased burden in their workload. The union keeps highlighting this is the number one issue for their members. Why is the union objecting to a key reform that will alleviate the burden of workload from its members? Instead, the union has taken a stance that drives a wedge between teachers. I now do not feel supported, or even respected, by the union that is meant to stand with me in solidarity. It should also be noted that this reform will not only ease the burden of our early years teachers. Differentiating for the broad range of students’ abilities adds hugely to teachers’ workloads. Often this stems from poor instruction (typified by whole language or balanced literacy) in the early years that leads to our significant number of students not being able to read at a proficient level. This reform seeks to finally address this issue in a meaningful way. How does the union propose to reconcile the sense of appall, devastation and profound hurt that I, a loyal member and proud public teacher, feel in this statement against these reforms? These reforms have the potential to make a profound difference in not only our students lives, but also the wellbeing and professionalism of our teachers. I am carefully considering my future as a member of the Australian Education Union- Victoria Branch Yours in hopeful future solidarity, Edit: The AEU Vic Branch's statement can be found here |
I'm JamesI am a father of two (8 & 5), married to an incredible Early Childhood Educator. Archives
June 2024
Categories |