Revolution in the Classroom

On 6 February, 2012 a 4 Corners documentary aired about problems to do with secondary education.  The journalists were  Matthew Carney and Janine Cohen.  Updated February 6, 2012 20:30:00.  http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/02/02/3421391.htm.  As stated on the 4 Corners website:

For some time now there's been a bruising debate about the balance of funding handed out to public and private schools. No one doubts it's an important debate, but many educators believe it has helped obscure an even more fundamental question about where the money is spent. Over the past decade, the Federal Government has spent billions of dollars trying to lower class sizes, increase the use of computers and boost investment in school buildings. At the same time, Australia's educational performance relative to key neighbouring countries has been falling. The question is why?

For some the answer is simple. Money is being spent in the wrong places. Experts point to a growing body of research that says good teachers are the major determining factor in how a child performs at school. They claim that too little money is being spent on improving teacher performance. To make matters worse, state school principals are not empowered to make decisions about how their schools are staffed and run. As a result, some good teachers go unrewarded and bad teachers cannot be sacked.

To be fair to 4 Corners and the journalists there is a strength of this story.  For those that know nothing about secondary education the story provides a minuscule of highly simplified information that is typically available on Teachers TV or The American news and current affairs show The News Hour.  So, for instance, there is a scene of a principal shown out and about in the school mixing with the students.  An "expert" refers to class sizes (just in case you had forgotten about that).  There is a scene of what appears to be a beginning teacher being assessed on classroom technique and saying how wonderful this is.  Also, there is a scene of a derelict school being replaced by a wonderful new school.  So, if you knew nothing about secondary education (and let's face it most know very little other than what they see or read in the media), now you know a minuscule more.


Predictably, the story has a number of weaknesses and I'll try to be brief.  Firstly, as stated above "For some the answer is simple".  This does not mean that the answer is simple.  On the contrary, the overall impression that the story gives is that the answer is simple.  To do so, the narrator and the "experts" seem to dismiss everything but the simple answer that they are pushing.  So, for example, the question of class sizes (which the narrator and "experts" do not seem to see as simple) is just dismissed as a distraction.  Important stake holders such as the Teachers' Federation and the Department of Education are just mentioned as seeming bad guys that are part of the problem.  

Secondly, it is interesting that Kerry O'Brien introduces the story by saying that contrary to standard practice the material will be allowed to speak for itself.  So, the journalist is going to be value-neutral and the story is going to be something like reality TV.  On the contrary, the impression that I got as I was watching is that the journalist was not value-neutral and the material was not allowed to speak for itself.  In fact, it seems to be a highly manufactured story that is steered where the journalist and indeed 4 Corners with its politics raison d'etre want it to go. With the report of the Gonski review into funding  due out soon the the narrator and "experts" keep arguing that real issue is not funding and that it is unrealistic for public schools to want more funding.  Contrary voices are just not heard.  Moreover, this issue of principals hiring and firing which is not a simple question seems to be of very recent origin so it is difficult to see why the journalists pick this as their simple answer.  A cynical person might suggest that this is a distraction from the real issue.


Thirdly, as stated: "Experts point to a growing body of research that says good teachers are the major determining factor in how a child performs at school. They claim that too little money is being spent on improving teacher performance". This sure is simplistic.  Experts also point to a growing body of research that a number of other factors are a major determining factor in how a child performs at school, including parents, ICT, full-time permanent positions, teacher librarians, good community literacy standards, expenditure on school buildings (and yes, I have been in classrooms with broken desks, broken chairs, wood panelling that is so old that it smells real bad, schools that like prisons - replete with balconies and prison court-yards), funding, class sizes, more support for the classroom teacher by the school administration, and so on.  It is rather simplistic to just focus on "good teachers" and teacher performance.  Interestingly, given this focus on teacher performance it is unbelievable that the journalists do not even mention the Institute of Teachers; the government body that ensures that teachers meet standards of excellence and are accredited.

Fourthly, what is a good and what is a bad teacher (that is so bad that this person needs to be fired)?  With respect to the first, the narrator points to good classroom technique and mouthing a positive view of students.  Is this really all there is to being a good teacher?  I suppose in journalism fairly-land it is.  With respect to the second, the story gives no example of what a bad teacher is.  Maybe if one concludes that the journalists are confused then the example of a good teacher is actually an example of a bad teacher because she apparently does not yet know the names of the students.  Bad teacher, bad teacher. If a bad teacher is someone who tries to molest students no-one would have a problem with this teacher being fired.  But, what has this got to do with this story.  A child-molester can still achieve good results in relation to the curriculum.

Fifthly, what is apparent from this story is that to suggest that all blame for the failure of the education system lies with teachers the journalists seem to side with students against teachers and to construct students as passive, unknowing and unresponsible.  So, for example, we see the seeming beginning teacher being bad by not using the students' names but we do not see students screaming, yelling, eating, using their mobile phones inappropriately and so on.  Actually, the class seems to be either a very good class that I would love to teach or they are just mindful of the video-camera.  Moreover, as I was reminded the other day students tend to behave differently for male teachers than they do for female teachers, especially if that teacher is young and attractive.  It is important to note while it is often possible to find some male teachers teaching subjects such as Maths or Science, it is often rare to find a male English teacher.  Accordingly, students often misbehave (in my experience) for male teachers in English simply because they are not used to them.  Good or bad here has nothing to do with classroom technique, or indeed the teacher, and does not depend on simplistic things like putting up hands.

I could keep going all day, but I've got to go.  I have to say that the 4 Corners story is very un-original and not an example of 4 Corners journalism at its best.  It might have been better if they had stuck to the typical format.  I can't finish without referring to my favourite metaphor - Clayton's.  The "answer" provided in this story to the ills of the education system is a Clayton's answer.  The answer you have when you are seeminly too lazy or ignorant to have an answer.