Dialogue: Teacher training ignored as curriculums change

By BRENDAN SCHOLLUM

Just three days before the start of another busy term, a 128-page report came across my desk. I could have ignored it, or briefly glanced at it, but with my strong interest and background in science and mathematics, I decided to start reading it.

I was intrigued. The report, In Time for the Future, compares the studying and resourcing of maths and science in primary schools, in particular, in Korea, Singapore, the Netherlands, Ireland and New Zealand. It was conducted by three officials of the Education Review Office over the past year.

The authors are to be congratulated for the clarity of the text, the quality of research questions asked and answered, and for the data provided - part of the third international mathematics and science study comparing students' achievements at ages 9 and 13.

What an eye-opener. In both subjects and in both years, New Zealand significantly underperformed many countries, including the four mentioned. (It was, however, similar to Ireland in science).

The Ministry of Education should be urgently seeking solutions to this evidence of underperformance. Fortunately, the report provides considerable analysis of the differences among the five countries, and it is not difficult to draw useful conclusions.

There are many possible reasons for the variation in performance among the countries. They include the nature of the curriculum in maths and science; the status and qualifications of teachers; the selection and training of teachers; class sizes; the commitment by the Ministry of Education to adequately support curriculum development; the professional development and training of teachers; the time taught for each subject; and parental support.

I could comment on all of these factors (drawing on the report findings) but some have a major influence on whether we can improve quickly.

Some people criticise our curriculum statements and the quality of our teachers. I do not.

Curriculum statements in maths and science (and English, technology and so on) could be more prescriptive, but basically they are fine documents, well constructed and open to providing excellent teaching programmes.

There are countries which value teachers highly, treat them as professionals and pay them accordingly. And there are others. In New Zealand, in general, we have an extremely dedicated teaching profession. I am impressed by our teachers' work ethic, their willingness to come to terms with new curriculums, new methods of assessment and qualifications.

But our teachers and the country have been let down badly by the Ministry of Education. The ERO report backs this assertion.

The ministry has badly underresourced support materials and training for teachers over many years. I can recall in the mid-1980s working with five teachers to develop resource material for teachers, when the new curriculum in chemistry at year 12 (form 6) was introduced.

The six of us developed resource material including teaching notes, assessment items and overhead transparency masters for the core (which was 80 per cent of the course). We were given five days' paid release from our positions and we all spent most of two holiday breaks improving the resource material to an acceptable level.

The ministry relied on our goodwill and professionalism while underfunding the development. For some reason New Zealand has rarely put sufficient funding into developing suitable teaching ideas and textbooks to support an existing or new curriculum.

In the case of the new science and maths curriculums, which all primary teachers are meant to teach, the precious little professional development that was provided was often spent at a philosophical level trying to unravel the meaning of the curriculum document.

Many teachers had less than three in-service days to come to terms with a completely new curriculum. Other countries fund considerable in-service training of teachers in using specific textbooks written by groups of teachers to support a new curriculum.

The ERO report shows that other countries often provide 10 days of professional development to train teachers in the implementation of a new curriculum.

This policy decision by the ministry is probably the key reason for our underperformance. Various groups, including subject associations, have continually asked the ministry for suitable units of work and, indeed, texts and assessment exemplars developed by groups of our best teachers and financed and published by the ministry, as happened in the past.

Instead, we have school after school having to interpret the curriculum statements, developing their own teaching programmes and assessment items. What a waste of time for busy professionals with so much else to do.

If the ministry and the Government are committed to improving the quality of learning at the primary level in each subject, there must be a shift in policy and greater support for teachers.

After all, when a new technology or process becomes available for, say, surgeons, they do not spend much time talking about the philosophy of the change. Rather, they learn how to use the technology or process.

Some of the best resource material from overseas does provide background content as well as the learning experiences and assessment exemplars. It is this type of material, as well as professional development that focuses on training teachers, that will help students.

We need a range of quality resource material, much of which teachers have worked through in pre-service or in-service teacher education. Then teachers will be in a stronger position to adapt this material to the specific need of students.

The ERO report should be required reading for the policy analysts and decision-makers in Wellington. But somehow I think the clear messages will pass them by. Our students deserve a better deal.

* Brendan Schollum is principal of Sacred Heart College.