4. REVIEW FINDINGS
4.3.4 Teacher Education
The Review Panel had direct advice from the tertiary sector through four avenues: a S b m S o^from the New South Wales Teacher Education Councd; a heanng by £ e S w PaneTwith two members of the Council Executive; vtews expressed at the
^ J ^ a S m * * * Committee meetings; and participation
ma heanng w.th the NPDP Consortium.
The Review Panel was informed that outcomes and profiles have been treated as:
Core material in both the generic professional and education foundation studies units ZI specific curJlum units in both pre-service and in-service teacher education.
At the pre-service level:
Considerable attention is being given to the study of ^ ^ T a ^ S e the relationship between the slate documents and the national profiles, and the implications of these statements for teaching, assessment and learning.
At the in-service level:
Units are being offered in Conversion and M Ed courses zfch include a study fcunZluinaZs from the perspectives of profiles and outcomes .... Staff (from universities) assist in in-service courses as schools request.
From the point of view of the New South Wales Teacher Education Council:
The moves to profiles and outcomes is a welcome balance °™ ^ V™™
nerZpLis on norm-referenced assessment procedures within the State.
Focusing on Learning: Page 57
However, the new emphasis cannot be an exclusive focus upon criterion- referenced assessment. Tlie purpose of these procedures is to facilitate learning in students. Die emphasis adopted needs to be suited in any particular situation to the individual students involved and their characteristics.
A very strong point made by the Naw South Wales Teacher Education Council was that it did not wish to be "margine Iised from the planning and implementation of change procedures and strategies". In particular, it wished to become a "more equal partner in further government funded professional development activities focused on profiles and outcomes." The Council also indicated willingness to assist in research and evaluation projects in relation to the role of profiles and outcomes and their implementation in schools and school systems.
In many submissions reference was made to the importance of ensuring that young teachers are well prepared for the job they have to do. This means that the content of teacher education courses should be in tune with current curriculum documents.
On school visits, beginning teachers suggested that they had not been sufficiently prepared in all areas of the curriculum they were asked to implement. On several occasions comments were made by these teachers about "poor teaching" styles being used and the "lack of relevance" in regard to the tasks they were given and content presented as part of their profession i l preparation.
The comments of beginning teachers point to a major problem, referred to in the submission of the New South Wales Teacher Education Council. The contribution of teacher education to the facilitation of change through pre-service and in-service education is an important factor to consider.
4.4 IMPLEMENTATION
4.4.1 Timelines for Implementation
In the submissions and in hearings conducted with various organisations, it was very apparent that the pace with which outcomes (and profiles) were being introduced aaoss the different sectors, varied greatly. In the case of the non- government sector, some Catholic schools were moving into outcomes and profiles as a result of system imperatives or exposure to the training modules produced by the National Professional Developrr.ent Program (NPDP). Other non-govemment schools confined their activities more to "exploring the possibilities of outcomes", rather than move into rapid acceptance.
The Department of School Education, by contrast, moved rapidly. Undoubtedly, one of the major factors in their implementation timeframe was the Enterprise Agreement, signed on December 10, 1993 by the New South Wales Teachers'
Focusing on Learning. Page 56
Federation and the Department of School Education. The Agreement was to cover a period of two years.
Both the Department and the Federation were aware by April, 1994 that the timelines in the Agreement were demanding.
The timelines which were included in the Enterprise Agreement were very quickly seen to be inoperable, and they were withdrawn in April 1994.
However, the message which the Agreement contained remained the prevailing message within the system (NSW Teachers' Federation).
This latter point is significant as the earlier messages remained despite a memorandum to all Principals, (DG94. 2932) issued on July 8, 1994 and jointly signed by the Director-General of the Department of School Education and the President of NSW Teachers' Federation. The intent of the memorandum was clearly stated as being to clarify the implications of the Enterprise Agreement for the implementation of profiles and outcomes throughout 1994-95.
The broad objective is that:
• K-6 teachers will begin programming around outcotnes in English K-6 during 1995;
. Kindergarten teachers zvill begin to assess and report in terms of the Early Learning profiles in term 1, 1995;
all other primary teachers will begin to assess and report in terms of the profiles in English K-6 by the end of 1995.
At the end -of 1995 a joint Department of School Education and NSW Teachers' Federation Review will determine the extent lo which these things have happened.
A similar statement was contained in the memorandum regarding implementation in Year 7, with the same concluding sentence. It may be that it was the presence of that sentence overshadowed other statements in the memorandum such as:
The emphasis, however, is on the quality of implementation not speed.
Full implementation of an outcomes and profiles approach across K-10 will take a number of years and will proceed at a pace which teachers find comfortable.
There was a difference in the pace of implementation between the government and nongovernment sectors. A major factor in this difference appears to have been the influence of the Enterprise Agreement on government schools. It is fair to conclude that the precise proposals contained in the Agreement, and in the subsequent advice to government schools, were not fully appreciated.
Focusing on Learning: Page 59
4.4.2 Delivering National Professional Development Program Modules
A further important factor which impacted on all schools implementing profiles and outcomes was the funding available for inservicing through the Commonwealth- funded National Professional Development Program (NPDP). A highly significant influence was the training package, Introducing an Outcomes and Profiles Approach (Modules 1 and 2), and the various modules for implementing English K-6.
The NSW NPDP Consortium, which managed the development and delivery of the training packages, had Commonwealm-determined restrictions on the proportion of the funds available for teacher relief and the timeframe for expenditure of funds.
These restrictions resulted in some modules being hastily developed, and n-aining programs being undertaken before schools were in fact ready for them. The training packages were based upon the train-the-trainer model of delivery. Most training took place in the afternoon after school finished.
The NPDP Consortium calculated that its programs have readied 21,397 primary teachers and 988 secondary teachers across the State and across systems. Ninety percent of government schools had some or all of their staff trained in English K-6.
The train-the-trainer model used was criticised by both facilitators and teachers as leading to inadequately trained presenters who were using packages not based on adult learning strategies. A variant of the model using selected facilitators was adopted for English K-6. Despite this, the following comment summarises a point often made:
Inservicing arrangements to this point have been seriously inadequate. They have been largely addressed outside of school hours and at school expense. The train-the-trainer approach adopted with implementing the new English syllabus modules is seriously flawed in that trainers are not sufficiently trained themselves and do not appear to have a full understanding of the document.
Further, the large groups being inserviced leave little opportunity for meaningful practical activity and discussion (rural primary school).
Some facilitators, too, were uneasy with the model and their role in it:
We delivered the modules feeling insecure and uncomfortable, hoping like hell no-one would ask questions (regional consultant).
Facilitators suggested that the delivery of Modules 1 and 2 would have been more successful if they had been involved with the development and if modules had recognised that schools and teachers all had different levels of existing knowledge and readiness. Adult learning strategies needed to be recognised and acted upon.
The Training and Development Directorate of the Department of School Education acknowledged to the Panel that evaluations indicated that the "train-the-trainer"
model had not worked well in this instance and a review of the approach was needed.
Focusing on Learning: Page 60
The modules were perceived by most people to be overly prescriptive and not open for modification to suit local circumstances. Despite this, there were perceived benefits in several of the English K-6 courses:
Again, the train-the-trainer delivery underpinning these modules was criticised by some teachers. However, they appeared to be generally well- supported in schools, probably due to their KLA specific nature and the fact that teachers had an approved syllabus from which to work (a regional office).
A further issue is that the availability of NPDP funds had been critical in development of support material for teachers. It is also important to point out that in a hearing with the Review Panel, all members of the NPDP Consortium commented on the value of co-operation between the sectors in co-ordinating professional development programs for teachers.
Regional and System Strategies
The Department of School Education's stated position was to "encourage participation of key stakeholders in the change process" through "the development of regional and school implementation plans" (Department of School Education:
Additional Document Paper 3 submitted to the Review Panel: An Outcomes and Profiles Approach - Implementation Issues). Regional responses varied widely, reflecting different levels of discussion and planning already commenced in regions before system-imposed timelines and strategies were made known.
All Department of School Education regions developed an implementation plan which included time frames for the delivery of in-service modules. Some plans generally appear to focus more on quantitative matters such as costing rather than on the more fundamental issues of change management. Regional plans which were developed in the context of schools' reviewing their purpose and directions, with consultants and schools working together, were reported as being most successful.
This collaboration sometimes included action research on outcomes and profiles in classrooms with the provision of relief funding. Some regions worked closely with schools as schools developed their own "exit-outcome" statements.
It emerged in'discussions diat some regional personnel who adopted a more liberal approach with Modules 1 and 2, tailoring this approach more to regional concerns, felt a "sense of frustration" and "some guilt" that they may not have been following, or "were even undermining", the centrally-produced guidelines for implementation.
Not all members of the NPDP Consortium proceeded at the pace of the Department of School Education. For some, implementation, when it occurred, was at a rate determined by individual schools.
The Diocese had already made a decision not to adhere to the timelines of the other NPDP Consortium members (Parramatta Diocese, CEO).
Focusing on Learning: Page 61
Schools which are neither government nor Catholic systemic schools made decisions on implementation quite independently of any system initiatives.
It should be pointed out that, while there may have been a feeling that the introduction of outcomes and profiles was very "centrally driven", there is a positive side in that government schools were being asked to re-examine their current practices and consider hew teaching and learning programs might be modified. Undoubtedly, change ard the need to think about change have occurred as a result of the steps taken as part of the Enterprise Agreement.
Schools
Government schools were almost unanimous in their rejection of the timeline followed. It was seen to be undesirable, beyond reasonable expectation for change management, did not take into account other significant demands being placed on schools and it was imposed from above. The combined effects of the Enterprise Agreement, the NPDP guidelines, die introduction of new syllabuses (English K-6 and relevant secondary syllabuses), and the focus on outcomes and profiles which raised questions about assessment and reporting, overwhelmed many teachers and schools.
In submissions, schools regularly called for more time:
Teachers need time lo experiment with new ideas, methods and practices before they become mandatory (primary school principal).
Most principals felt that schoo.'s need much more time to consider the new syllabi and the use of profiles, 10 change beliefs and to educate staff, parents and students (NSW Primary Principals' Association).
Too many changes coming in far too quickly (country primary school principal).
The announced timeline appeared to operate independently of the release of appropriate support material and proposed structures. English K-6 presented teachers with a new syllabus, functional grammar, outcomes and profiles. Support documents were developed much later. The general view of many submissions was that:
Too many initiatives were attempted simultaneously (primary school principal).
Submissions raised the need for t h ; support of appropriate technology, materials, skilled personnel and high quality professional development. School-based implementation which was flexible and focused on the individual needs of all teachers was seen as essential.
By contrast, a small number of school submissions approved of the timeline:
Focusing on Learning: Page 62
At Primary School we believe the rate of implementation for profiles and outcomes in 1994 and 1995 was entirely appropriate. 1994 provided our school with the opportunity to discuss, debate, trial and reflect on the benefits of an outcomes approach for teachers, students and parents (primary school teacher).
On a similarly positive note;
We cannot t/iinfc of any other initiative in recent history which has inspired or motivated teachers to think about what they teach and what students learn and how to identify what has been learnt (high school principal).