Good intentions...
Tonight I attended a consultancy seminar held by the Victorian Institute of Teaching about the upcoming implementation plans for re-registration of teachers every 5 years. Like so much in life, the intentions behind the thinking of re-registration are not bad. It's just the implementation is. Or at least it comes across as being so.
Re-registration is dependent on demonstrating two things: maintenance of professional practice; and suitability for teaching. There's practically no problems with the second criteria (to screen out paedophiles and serious incompetence). The problem is that they define adequate maintenance of professional practice with just attending professional development (PD) activities. Now the VIT agrees it's not just about attendance of PD activities, but should involve adequate reflection and implementation of knowledge and skills gained from the PD. Their problem is that they believe they can't control the reflection and implementation part, so they will just control the amount of PD that is required. The other problem they have is that they want one re-registration system that equally applies to full-time teachers and casual relief teachers, across all sectors.
A good friend of mine believes the VIT's proposed use of mere PD attendance to 'demonstrate maintenance of professional practice' is based on flawed thinking, and is presented that unless this dubious requirement is met, teachers (who do demonstrate professional practice but choose not to follow this enforced process) will be de-registered. Additionally, the enforced process involve more unproductive work (keeping records of all PD attended) for teachers, is likely to encourage more dubious PD providers to emerge in order to meet these new demands created by this flawed definition of 'demonstration of professional practice,' and continue to alienate teachers from this body (VIT) that aims, among other things, to support teachers in their professional lives. He also questions whether all teachers should be treated the same, after all, although there are similar aspects to casual teachers as opposed to full-time teachers, surely there are quite different demands and expectations placed on full-time teachers than CRT in what they are responsible for and the expected results each are to produce.
My more specific concerns lie at how low the bar is set for teachers by this process as well as the process for initial registration as a teacher... not because I want to create more obstacles for people to become and stay a teacher, but if we're going to place any obstacles in the way - at least make them be worthwhile and relevant ones to overcome (and enhance one's performance as a teacher) rather than just mere annoyances (that seem arbitrarily set just so people can point to them and say 'hey being a teacher is hard, because we've had to prove we can sing the national anthem in Klingon and untie our shoelaces with our teeth'). In psychology we have a term called 'face validity' - they look on the surface as being related and beneficial for teachers, but at the end of the day - they are not. First year registration was an annoyance to me - yeah, maybe I'm not quite a typical first year teacher - but that's part of the problem with the one-size-fits-all options that exists around.
Reflecting on the process, I now realise all the good things about the first year teacher registration process - could probably have been achieved without the process in place for first year teachers - as most of them was about changing and moulding the culture of the school and its leadership. What were these things: mentoring and supporting each other (something that really benefits not just 1st years but all teachers); collegiate activities which is a fancy way of saying teaming up with another teacher to teach the one class, observing another teacher teaching, and getting feedback from another teacher observing you teach (again all things new and experienced teachers would welcome - if the school was better structured for it); and a proper induction program for new staff (again not specific to just first year teachers but any new staff - and also good ongoing reflection for any existing policies in place).
And likewise with the re-registration process, which is about ensuring teachers maintain an adequate level of professional practice - this could be achieved by educating schools and their leadership to value, acknowledge and encourage continuing maintenance of their professional practice which most schools already have in place. The enforcement approach seems to be motivated by the fear that unless it is mandated for all individuals teachers, the schools and their leaders that don't currently support this approach, won't fall in line.
VIT would be seen to do more for teachers by liaising with the schools and their leaderships on behalf of teachers about ensuring they have these opportunities - rather than putting the onus on individual teachers to make sure their schools are providing them with the right opportunities and jump through hoops.
However, the spanner in the works of my thinking here, according to the CEO of the VIT is that how do you ensure the 1/3 (or whatever the number he used) of teachers that are classed as casual and not full-time are also meeting the standard of professional practice of full-time teachers in the right environments. And this is where my friend's points has some bearing...
Why should we treat casual teachers the same way we treat full-time teachers? Do parents have the same expectations of full-time teachers as they do of casual relief teachers? Oh, that's ok you don't know my son who's been with you for the full year, after all you're just a (full-time or casual relief) teacher. Oh, that's right you had to teach a subject outside of your initial training, we can't really expect you to have a suitable year's plan for my daughter's learning in physics for VCE. Oh, that's fine, my son will enjoy singing pop songs for the whole day everyday for the rest of grade four.
This is not an issue of the competence of the Casual relief teacher... but of their practice.
Again at the end of the day it is an issue for the school and its leadership. Do you employ a CRT because they are capable or just because they are apparently 'well-trained'? I think most school leadership are happy to take on some CRTs because they are desperate in the short-term, whereas others they would be more than ecstatic to have them as full-time if that individual CRT decided to. How much PD attended by any potential CRT is hardly going to be the main decider for any school leader as to whether they actually feel confident that this person is right for their school.
Why is the world so caught up with trying to find the most efficient way of rolling things out - the one-size-fits-all, the love of 'face validity' as opposed to looking deeper for what will actually produce the results they are after in ways that convey their intentions properly? It happens everywhere - schools, churches, and other organisations... with most content to say, well if someone else is doing it that way (especially if they are big) that's good enough for us...
My friend said later "I wish I didn't have to think about these things, I wish I could trust someone with more experience and competence was actually working on this stuff so I could just play my playstation instead, maybe someone who is actually paid to do this stuff and work on this stuff was actually working on this stuff - so I wouldn't have to. But that just doesn't seem to be happening."
Amen.
Re-registration is dependent on demonstrating two things: maintenance of professional practice; and suitability for teaching. There's practically no problems with the second criteria (to screen out paedophiles and serious incompetence). The problem is that they define adequate maintenance of professional practice with just attending professional development (PD) activities. Now the VIT agrees it's not just about attendance of PD activities, but should involve adequate reflection and implementation of knowledge and skills gained from the PD. Their problem is that they believe they can't control the reflection and implementation part, so they will just control the amount of PD that is required. The other problem they have is that they want one re-registration system that equally applies to full-time teachers and casual relief teachers, across all sectors.
A good friend of mine believes the VIT's proposed use of mere PD attendance to 'demonstrate maintenance of professional practice' is based on flawed thinking, and is presented that unless this dubious requirement is met, teachers (who do demonstrate professional practice but choose not to follow this enforced process) will be de-registered. Additionally, the enforced process involve more unproductive work (keeping records of all PD attended) for teachers, is likely to encourage more dubious PD providers to emerge in order to meet these new demands created by this flawed definition of 'demonstration of professional practice,' and continue to alienate teachers from this body (VIT) that aims, among other things, to support teachers in their professional lives. He also questions whether all teachers should be treated the same, after all, although there are similar aspects to casual teachers as opposed to full-time teachers, surely there are quite different demands and expectations placed on full-time teachers than CRT in what they are responsible for and the expected results each are to produce.
My more specific concerns lie at how low the bar is set for teachers by this process as well as the process for initial registration as a teacher... not because I want to create more obstacles for people to become and stay a teacher, but if we're going to place any obstacles in the way - at least make them be worthwhile and relevant ones to overcome (and enhance one's performance as a teacher) rather than just mere annoyances (that seem arbitrarily set just so people can point to them and say 'hey being a teacher is hard, because we've had to prove we can sing the national anthem in Klingon and untie our shoelaces with our teeth'). In psychology we have a term called 'face validity' - they look on the surface as being related and beneficial for teachers, but at the end of the day - they are not. First year registration was an annoyance to me - yeah, maybe I'm not quite a typical first year teacher - but that's part of the problem with the one-size-fits-all options that exists around.
Reflecting on the process, I now realise all the good things about the first year teacher registration process - could probably have been achieved without the process in place for first year teachers - as most of them was about changing and moulding the culture of the school and its leadership. What were these things: mentoring and supporting each other (something that really benefits not just 1st years but all teachers); collegiate activities which is a fancy way of saying teaming up with another teacher to teach the one class, observing another teacher teaching, and getting feedback from another teacher observing you teach (again all things new and experienced teachers would welcome - if the school was better structured for it); and a proper induction program for new staff (again not specific to just first year teachers but any new staff - and also good ongoing reflection for any existing policies in place).
And likewise with the re-registration process, which is about ensuring teachers maintain an adequate level of professional practice - this could be achieved by educating schools and their leadership to value, acknowledge and encourage continuing maintenance of their professional practice which most schools already have in place. The enforcement approach seems to be motivated by the fear that unless it is mandated for all individuals teachers, the schools and their leaders that don't currently support this approach, won't fall in line.
VIT would be seen to do more for teachers by liaising with the schools and their leaderships on behalf of teachers about ensuring they have these opportunities - rather than putting the onus on individual teachers to make sure their schools are providing them with the right opportunities and jump through hoops.
However, the spanner in the works of my thinking here, according to the CEO of the VIT is that how do you ensure the 1/3 (or whatever the number he used) of teachers that are classed as casual and not full-time are also meeting the standard of professional practice of full-time teachers in the right environments. And this is where my friend's points has some bearing...
Why should we treat casual teachers the same way we treat full-time teachers? Do parents have the same expectations of full-time teachers as they do of casual relief teachers? Oh, that's ok you don't know my son who's been with you for the full year, after all you're just a (full-time or casual relief) teacher. Oh, that's right you had to teach a subject outside of your initial training, we can't really expect you to have a suitable year's plan for my daughter's learning in physics for VCE. Oh, that's fine, my son will enjoy singing pop songs for the whole day everyday for the rest of grade four.
This is not an issue of the competence of the Casual relief teacher... but of their practice.
Again at the end of the day it is an issue for the school and its leadership. Do you employ a CRT because they are capable or just because they are apparently 'well-trained'? I think most school leadership are happy to take on some CRTs because they are desperate in the short-term, whereas others they would be more than ecstatic to have them as full-time if that individual CRT decided to. How much PD attended by any potential CRT is hardly going to be the main decider for any school leader as to whether they actually feel confident that this person is right for their school.
Why is the world so caught up with trying to find the most efficient way of rolling things out - the one-size-fits-all, the love of 'face validity' as opposed to looking deeper for what will actually produce the results they are after in ways that convey their intentions properly? It happens everywhere - schools, churches, and other organisations... with most content to say, well if someone else is doing it that way (especially if they are big) that's good enough for us...
My friend said later "I wish I didn't have to think about these things, I wish I could trust someone with more experience and competence was actually working on this stuff so I could just play my playstation instead, maybe someone who is actually paid to do this stuff and work on this stuff was actually working on this stuff - so I wouldn't have to. But that just doesn't seem to be happening."
Amen.
posted by Andrew Chua @ 12:19 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home