Performance Improvement and Accountability
7.3 THE CLASSROOM
7.3.1 State Standards for Reports to Parents
Teachers must be accountable to the parents or guardians of the individual children they teach. They do this by providing reports of each child's progress and achievements.
History shows a trend away from reporting a child's performance in comparison with other children across the State. The government school system began with outsiders examining the achievements of children and gradually moved through a system based on the examination of teachers to one based on the examination of schools as a whole.
The colony's education regulations of 1846 provided for "visitors", appointed by the Governor, whose job it was to examine the students. With hindsight, we can say that this
64
was a student-centred system of dual accountability - to parents on the one hand and to the community at large through the Governor, on the other2.
The first (part-time) Inspector of Schools, William Adkinson, was appointed in 1866 by the General Board of Education and his first report on student achievement across the system was completed in 1868. In the language of today, his report might be called "a Statewide audit of student achievement":
The inspector's statistics revealed that irregularity of attendance and early school leaving were prevalent weaknesses, and that with few exceptions the work of schools was unsatisfactory. The report contained many suggestions for improving instruction in the basic subjects, including a strong plea for the removal of the antiquated Irish readers.
(Mossenson, 1972:35).
An outcome of the report was the introduction in 1869 of a standardised syllabus and examination system.
As the system expanded, full-time inspectors were appointed and the position of Chief Inspector created. Three years after the establishment of the Education Department the government created the position of Inspector-General3 above that of Chief Inspector.
The first Inspector-General, Cyril Jackson, advocated the inspection of teachers rather than students and consequently in 1902 the annual examination of students was devolved to principals.
The first external examinations of secondary students were conducted in government schools in 1899, under the auspices of the University of Adelaide. Following the foundation of the University of Western Australia in 1913, the State's own Public Examinations Board was established. In 1914, secondary students sat the Junior and Leaving Certificate examinations for the first time under its direction (Mossenson, 1972:114).
The Junior Certificate system gave way to the Achievement Certificate in the early 1970s. The Achievement Certificate in turn was replaced by the Unit Curriculum system in 1987-88. This latter transition ended the 140-year-old practice of basing reports of achievements during the compulsory years on some form of direct or indirect (through a moderation test) Statewide testing". The Leaving Certificate system for students in the post-compulsory years has progressively been made more inclusive, although its traditional link to selection for university places remains intact, albeit under a different name: the Tertiary Entrance Examinations. These are the only Statewide external examinations remaining in the system.
Considerable variations now exist in the way in which children's performance is reported to parents during the years of compulsory schooling. There is a perception that parents are not receiving quality information which enables them to gauge the standards their children are achieving5. We believe that the Curriculum Framework recommended in Chapter 5 should be used as the basis for the development of a common standards framework. The technical skill shown by the Education Department in the development of the Monitoring Standards in Education tests is indicative of the system's capacity to develop such a framework.
RECOMMENDATION 12
That the Education Department establish a policy which requires all schools to report to parents the educational progress and achievement of their children, using a common set of standards based on the Curriculum Framework.
7.3.2 Teachers' Accountability for Improving the Learning Outcomes of Students
The formal assessment of teachers by inspectors (later superintendents), in the form of
"teaching marks" for purposes of certification and promotion, was introduced in 1912 and discontinued in the early 1970s. However, until 1987, the superintendents continued to play an important role in the formal assessment of all new teachers and those seeking promotion. Better Schools recommended that the new-generation district superintendents should not have responsibilities in staffing and direct supervision of programs in schools because this would diminish the authority of the school principals.
It was also recommended that principals be responsible for the supervision of all school- based staff, a significant statement, given that many principals exercised only a limited role in this area.
With the then government's acceptance of these recommendations came the end to a long tradition of central monitoring of teachers' performance. In keeping with the overall thrust of the report, the baton was passed from the superintendents to the principals.
Useful feedback to teachers in classrooms is arguably the greatest need in schools.
Teachers work in relative isolation from one another and from principals. Schools are
"loosely-coupled organisations", which is to say that people operating at one level are not closely connected to those operating at other levels. While principals may have clear views of what is required, often this does not connect to teachers' behaviours in the classroom. Many principals say they cannot find sufficient time to spend in classrooms.
They use the term "incremental creep", to refer to what they see as a steady increase in their non-educational administrative duties. Many feel isolated from classrooms and staff and hard-pressed to find the time to do anything about it.
Under current policy, principals must complete annual reports on beginning temporary and permanent-on-probation teachers, and all other temporary teachers, at least once every three years. A literal interpretation of the current requirements is that, in schools with no teachers in these categories, the principal need never set foot in a classroom.
An additional concern, especially for principals of senior high schools, is that they may lack the subject-matter expertise they feel they need to evaluate and provide advice in some areas of the curriculum.
To the extent that the system allows classrooms to become isolated places, it denies teachers:
• the feedback which triggers the processes of reflection and review that lead to improvement of performance;
• the opportunities to make practical connections between the whole-school plan and their classrooms: in many schools, the school development plan has not penetrated the classroom;
• a process whereby their profession can provide the assurance the public needs to feel comfortable with the system's policy of giving greater decision-making powers to schools;
• a way to demonstrate their accountability, in a supportive, collegial environment, for ensuring that each child makes the greatest possible progress along a continuum of achievement defined by the curriculum;
66
• access to advice and support tailored to their performance improvement needs (all the "best practice" strategies known to the profession, including collegial support, professional development and action research); and
• a way to build up a continuous, authenticated record of performance that can be tendered in applications for promotion and other career opportunities.
We stress that to the extent that classrooms have become isolated places, they are as much so for the many dedicated teachers doing an excellent job as they are for the minority of teachers who, for whatever reasons, are unable to perform adequately. The current arrangements may not only be failing to provide teachers with an appropriate professional environment, but are also possibly failing to provide principals with appropriate ways of registering concerns about teachers who are consistently unable to respond to performance improvement strategies. Similarly, they are not providing the Director-General, as the delegated employer, with the information to take appropriate action, up to and including termination of employment.
We have concluded that a well-conceived system of performance management should be developed. While such a system must of necessity incorporate both appraisal and development, it must not become (as in many organisations) a set of contrived bureaucratic procedures related to a sequence of interviews quite detached from actual performance. The process must fit into the school routines and be connected in a logical way to everyday classroom activities and their supervision.
We believe that among the people best placed to advise the Director-General on the development of an appropriate performance management framework for teachers are practising teachers themselves.
7.3.3 Is the Regulatory Framework Appropriate?
Understandably, teachers and principals want greater opportunities to demonstrate that they are true professionals. A professional, it is argued, is left to get on with the job without excessive, time-consuming intrusions by third parties to check. Teachers, like other professionals, have a vocation; they are highly trained when they begin their careers and build on that base through further professional development both on and off the job. We believe that the principles behind our recommendation for performance management are in keeping with this.
The behaviour of teachers, like that of other professionals, is regulated. However, the relevants formal regulatory provisions are geared to disciplining teachers rather than to improving performance in a positive manner. The most relevant provisions are:
• Education Act Regulation 86А, which permits action against a teacher on the ground of inefficiency; and
• Education Act Regulation 135, which permits a formal inquiry into a complaint made against a teacher by a parent, student or some other person.
These are usually invoked only as a last resort. They were not framed as performance improvement strategies and are adversarial in nature, although the procedures for each includes checks and balances to protect properly the interests of teachers.
The whole thrust of our report is to focus greater attention on outcomes from the classroom rather than the classroom activities themselves. We are seeking to link teachers' accountability to children's progress - what children are getting out of their
classroom experiences - and to link teachers' professionalism to what goes on in the classroom.
The regulatory framework is not framed to take account of our analysis of improvement, accountability and professionalism. In extreme cases the Regulations pit people who should be joint partners in a positive enterprise against one another.
We believe that if a recommendation for a performance management approach which incorporates the principles set out in the previous section were to be accepted, there would be a strong case for also reviewing the current regulations governing teachers' efficiency and conduct.
RECOMMENDATION 13