Principals and the learning of the students - instalment #1

I've gone on about the well-being of students on the grounds that if a student has a strong sense of well-being about being at school it should enhance their learning of the syllabus learning outcomes as stated in the required curriculum.  I don't claim that it will guarantee successful learning as many other factors also come into play.

Across Australian schools students are generally grouped into year levels based on age and these year levels are generally expected to complete the year's work as in the prescribed syllabuses for the particular year level.  At the end of an academic year that age group moves on to the next year level.  Ideally all students would have mastered the prescribed learning outcomes but my reality is that many students move on to the next year level with serious gaps in their learning.  New learning becomes increasingly difficult as the foundations for it are not there. To cite an example from my own state of WA.

Patrick Garnett, chairman of the School Curriculum and Standards Authority (formally the Curriculum Council of Western Australia) which is a quasi government body that has responsibility for the curriculum offerings of Western Australian government schools opens an article “Giving students their best chance of success”, The West Australian, 10 March 2014, p16 as follows:

“Students, their families and the community have a right to expect that after 13 years of schooling, our young people should emerge prepared for success at university, in training or the workplace.  And, after 13 years of schooling, students should be able to demonstrate an adequate level; of literacy and numeracy.”  He indicates that  “…significant concerns have been raised regarding the standards achieved by students who are leaving school with a WA Certificate of Education.”

As a result of such concerns he notes that:  “Starting this week, Year 10 students across WA will for the first time, sit an Online Literacy and Numeracy Assessment, designed to measure their levels of literacy (reading and writing) and numeracy.” The aim is to use these tests to ascertain whether some year 10 students need to take “…new foundation English and/or foundation mathematics courses which are designed to focus on achieving the minimum levels of literacy and numeracy…..”

Garnett indicates that:  “The minimum standard of literacy and numeracy represents Level 3 in the Australian Core Skills Framework, a set of benchmarks for a range of essential skills.  The framework was established by the Commonwealth government in 2008.”  Level 3 is viewed “…as the minimum standard required to live and work in a knowledge-based economy.”

There was a follow up article that added to my concern.  In The West Australian, 10 August 2015, p3,  the Education Editor Bethany Hiatt wrote an article titled “Tests reveal teens’ shortfalls,” in which she cites the preliminary results of the first round (held in March 2015) of the above compulsory Online Literacy and Numeracy Assessment (OLNA) tests, which students “must pass to get a WA Certificate of Education” awarded at the end of a successful year 12. Hiatt reports:

“One in three Year 10 students was unable to meet the minimum numeracy standard to graduate from high school…”

“34 per cent of Year 10s did not meet the benchmark for numeracy.”

“About 27 per cent of Year 10s did not make the reading standard and 29 per cent did not meet the writing benchmark.”

“…two-thirds of Year 10s had met the standard required of them by the end of year 12.”

“So far 26 per cent of year 11 students have not met the numeracy standard after what may have been the third attempt for some.”

“In reading, 21 per cent of Year 11s did not make the standard and 23 per cent did not meet the writing benchmark.”

Those WA Year 10s who were required to do the OLNA tests did not reach band eight level on the Year 9 NAPLAN tests.  “They have six chances to complete the test before the end of year 12 or they can return to sit it after leaving school”.

While it is laudable that the problem of students exiting year 12 illiterate and innumerate has been recognized this seems to be shutting the stable door after the horse had bolted.  I have always believed that we  move students on to new learning based on mastery of necessary precursors from the very first years at primary school.  The aim is to eliminate cumulative deficits in learning and make such year 10 testing unnecessary.  If an accumulation of gaps is allowed to develop up to year 10 there is a grave danger of the those experiencing the gaps being seriously disillusioned about school and well before they reach year 10.  Also the OLNA tests would create a new pressure following on from the NAPLAN testing.

I am an advocate of standards moderation amongst the teachers in a school whereby through discussion about the required learning outcomes of the curriculum syllabuses the teachers come to a consensus about what they mean and about what represents mastery of them.  Such discussions need to be focussed on selected syllabuses like maths and language for primary schools so as to make the standards moderation load manageable for teachers. The aim is to move students on to new learning once they have mastered the foundations of the current learning.  No more gaps (apologies to Selleys). I've written a lot about this but it is too much for this blog.  I have done this standards moderation with teachers and it takes less time than one might imagine.  Also the in-service benefits of this peer interchange are legion.  My approach is also relevant at secondary school level.  Moving on to new learning based on mastery sets up many challenges for teachers who have to be very patient and find innovative ways to have students overcome the roadblocks to their successful learning.  Not the least of the problems is bringing the parents along with this and the considerable pressures of the requirements of NAPLAN testing.  It is heartening to note that NAPLAN testing is to be based on the Australian National Curriculum requirements.

The students most likely to experience the gaps I call the Leopards.  Let me explain.

 In each age cohort it is my experience that there are:

A set of students who will have completed the prescribed work for their age/year level in less than the academic year and will need extension.  Some will be accelerated to skip a year level if doing really well. I call those students the Panthers (my primary teaching roots).

A set of students who will need the whole academic year to complete the prescribed work for their age/year level. I call these students the Jaguars.

There will be a set of students who will not complete the prescribed work for their age/year level.  I call these students the Leopards. Amongst the Leopards will be many who have learning issues that are difficult to diagnose and a minority of students who have very special needs related to conditions such as autism and dyslexia and hopefully there will be teacher aides to offer one on one assistance.  In primary school classes grouped heterogeneously by general ability the Leopards often sit in class being very quiet and working hard not to be noticed.  A few misbehave. In secondary schools where cross setting is common there are whole classes of Leopards.

Separate from the so-called normal stream will be another set of students with such special needs that they will experience a special education placement.  I acknowledge this group and their wonderful teachers who over the years enabled the Downs syndrome child, the cerebral palsied child, the hearing challenged child and others with various conditions to learn and be strong participants in the wider community.  We have much to learn from the mastery methods of teaching and learning in this setting.  I bow in awe at the feet of these teachers in special education.

This blog post is concentrated on the Panthers, the Jaguars and the Leopards who learn in the so-called normal stream.