Shame on You!

An open letter to Queensland Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie

Jarrod pointing a generation of Queensland children to a life of crime

To Mr Jarrod Bleijie MP,

Your government took a disturbing step today in the fight against crime by announcing that you would bring in a policy to name and same repeat juvenile offenders in an effort to stop reoffending. On the outside this doesn’t seem like a bad idea but even a first year sociologist (or teacher of sociology such as myself) knows that this policy is far more dangerous that it sounds.

Firstly, the study of criminology is far more complicated than you are making out. Crime is not simply a joyful activity carried out by delinquent children that can be cured by a bit of community head shaking. Crime is a more deeply rooted social issue that often reflects a lack of education and care, with the criminals often committing crimes to meet basic needs such as food. While pretending to be tough on children by plastering their name all over the newspaper may win you votes with the uninformed, I expect politicians to make informed decisions that reflect expert advice rather than decisions that grab a good headline.

Secondly, the unintended consequence of this naming and shaming is to create a generation of kids who will only ever be criminals. I will put it as simply as I can so that you will understand: labelling someone a criminal majorly increases their chance of committing a crime. Moreover, according to sociology.about.com:

“Social research indicates that those who have negative labels usually have lower self-images, are more likely to reject themselves, and may even act more deviantly as a result of the label. Unfortunately, people who accept the labeling of others—be it correct or incorrect—have a difficult time changing their opinions of the labeled person, even in light of evidence to the contrary.”

Thus, you would like to condemn any repeat young offender in Queensland to a life of hardship because they will never be seen as anything but a criminal. What a way to stop crime: create a whole generation of criminals instead! Maybe they can rename Queensland the “Criminal State” as opposed to the “Sunshine State”.

Lastly, you clearly lack any sense of empathy. To deliberately shame someone is never helpful and can be very harmful. No one likes to feel a sense of shame, be it about a private or public act that we have done. That feeling of being less than you ought to be or acting in a way that makes you feel uncomfortable is never pleasant. I’m sure you have a memory or event that you can easily recall that makes you feel a sense of shame.

Spend a minute thinking about that memory.

Did you feel sick to the stomach? Did you wish you could relive that moment and make some better decisions? If you answered yes, then imagine living with that in a public way for the rest of your life.

So I hope you rethink your policy on naming and shaming young offenders. Any basic sociologist will tell you it is a bad idea and being a teacher it makes me sick to my stomach. It is clear that young criminals need our care and support not a public flogging to give you good headlines. Try implementing a policy that does this and it would be money well spent.

Yours sincerely,

James Purkis

Education in Australia?

Is the NSW government the only sensible player in education reform?

Now that the election has been run and won by Tony Abbott, attention is now turning back to three word slogans about boats and the economy. Fortunately, some people are also asking questions about the future of education in Australia too. While debate still rages about the long term impact and effectiveness of Labor’s reforms, commentators are starting to ask what an Abbott Coalition will do with schooling in Australia.

Peter Job has a decidedly broad view about what needs to be done and a clear idea of went wrong for Labor (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-23/job-labors-failed-education-revolution/4975262). Entitled “Labor’s failed education revolution”, he derides Labor’s Gonski/Better Schools Plan as failing because it focused too much on funding. He also accuses the Labor created NAPLAN, MySchool and performance pay policies as leading to poorer quality education. Ironically, he argues for more funding for public schools (can’t see Abbott doing that) and:

• recognising their unique role in addressing the needs of all - the gifted and the disabled, the advantaged and the disadvantaged
•  the adoption of the practices of countries which achieve above us in international measures rather than those which achieve below
• valuing teacher professionalism
• allowing teachers to use their professional knowledge as they judge best to address the diverse needs of their students.

While these are nice statements to address what he sees as the growing inequalities in the system, this doesn’t really address any of the practical aspects of achieving them. Sure the final Gonski package did miss some key aspects but it was better than doing nothing, which was the policy of the Coalition until just before the election when they agreed with Labor. However, his criticisms of NAPLAN and MySchool are genuine and have negative impacts on schools. I have experienced many a concerned parent quoting NAPLAN figures at me during interviews because their child may not have been above standard in all areas. They often fail to see that this is one measure at one point in time and that students improve over the course of the year, often doing better in the second half of the year when the tests are NOT held. Similarly, I have been at schools that have altered curriculum to prepare students for NAPLAN, although we officially do not do that, and thus upset a well thought out program. Finally, the pressure school administrators place on teachers to improve NAPLAN results or ensure certain children are absent on testing days has also been well documented.

Kevin Donnelly is clearly enraptured with the Abbott victory, so much so that he seems to be delusional. In the opening to his piece “Policy challenge: Abbott’s education plans” (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-19/donnelly-abbott-government-education/4967216) he states that: “The Abbott Government has clearly signalled school education as an important policy issue…” Clearly he saw something most of the voting public missed because despite following the election very closely I didn’t see any major announcements by the Coalition on school education. In fact, wasn’t it Chris Pyne that one day said he was dead set against Gonski but the next day agreed it was the best way to go forward then proceeded to not mention the issue again throughout the course of the campaign. That’s ok though, Kevin is often a little confused when it comes to what is best for school children. Having read a few of his books, he would like schooling to be about phonics and the three Rs – that’s it! So it is not surprising that he is in favour of decentralising education control from Canberra and reviewing both NAPLAN and the National Curriculum. It did surprise me though that he was a fan of letting non-qualified teachers into classrooms when he is so focused on improving Australia’s standing in international testing. Maybe he thinks the current lot do such a bad job that amateurs couldn’t do much worse. Apart from that he likes having reviews of everything so he doesn’t need to specify how he would transport education back to the 1950s.

Thus, these two pieces provide a contrast in political stand points but the same lack of clear direction for Australia’s education future. Peter Job may have some nice broad sweeping statements about how it should be but derides the one side of politics that could actually implement his schemes. Kevin Donnelly remains an outlying, conservative educational commentator that will probably have greater sway with Abbott so be ready for your phonics everyone. However, neither spoke of the reduced funding to the university sector, where reform and improvements to teaching can actually occur, or clear plans for improved teacher professionalism and development. Maybe we should start the conversation around the NSW government’s Great Teaching, Inspired Learning policy (http://theconversation.com/nsw-government-makes-a-positive-start-on-reforming-teaching-quality-8549) that actually brings all the aspects together and starts by respecting teacher professionalism.

Regardless of who is in power in Canberra or the states, education is not only about NAPLAN or international testing or funding. A real debate about the role of public funding and curriculum that respects the professionalism of teachers to make the best decisions (we wouldn’t question a doctor’s prognosis with quite the same vehemence we do that of teachers) is needed to address the perceived slide in standards in Australia. This has to begin now as we have already fallen behind and the new century will not wait for us to catch up.

"Because it's there"

Mallory on Everest, did he make it?

Two Sundays ago I had the pleasure of watching the inspiring documentary The Wildest Dream: Conquest of Everest on ABC2’s Sunday Best. The documentary examined the life of famous climber George Mallory and claims that he was in fact the first person to successfully climb Mt Everest. While the evidence might contradict history’s claim that this was done by Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay, George Mallory’s determination to conquer the impossible provides an important parallel to the work of teachers in classrooms: curricula and assessment.

To explain, George Mallory was once asked "Why do you want to climb Mount Everest?"

His response, "Because it's there".

While this has become arguably the most famous quote in mountaineering, importantly, it showed his determination to conquer the impossible. However, it might also be a response many teachers have to the question by students: “Why are we studying this topic?” or “Why do we have to do this task?” That is, we are often forced into covering material or grading students on tasks simply because they are written into curriculum documents or told to us by various heads of department. This can often be at the expense of material that genuinely engages the students and thus destroys a love of learning. Moreover, this view can be expressed in meetings or informal talks between subject teachers yet nothing gets changed at a departmental level because they lack the agency to make it happen.

I find myself struggling with this too when I teach history. The national curriculum has very clear guidelines in terms of content and topics to be covered. Unfortunately, this does not reflect the actual amount of time teachers have to teach the course or whether students want to relearn the same material in a slightly different way for the 10^th time. For instance, I recently taught the section on Movement of People and found that the topic that got the most complaints was Australian experiences of settlement. While I see the importance of looking at convicts, settlers and First Australians, this material is done to death in lower grades and thus students feel like they are being punished. Moreover, the lack of time I had to teach the material meant it was covered in a brief manner that did not do the topic justice.

However, in some senses I was happy to take this criticism. I spent most of the unit looking at the slave trade and William Wilberforce, topics that really engaged the students. We were able to explore the issue of modern slavery, Kony 2012 and the role of politics in creating change. From a curriculum stand point this was barely a quarter of the unit but based on the student’s reaction to and engagement with the topic, I judged it prudent to lose time on these other topics. Furthermore, I had a supportive head of department that was willing to allow me to do this as long as I covered certain topics in enough detail.

So coming back to Mallory: how often do we teach something “because it’s there”? Is this good enough? Should we all just throw out the curriculum and all go our own way? Is following the curriculum exactly the wildest dream after all?

In reality, curriculum is written to provide an outline for teachers with assessment as a way to mark student progress for report cards. Each school is different with some being stricter than others. For instance, at a middle school in Canberra they literally map out a lesson by lesson plan which they expect to be followed. In other cases, curriculum is just a guide with heads of department willing to negotiate certain aspects while ensuring assessment standards are maintained. Thus most teachers follow the curriculum for the most part, try to finish it if they can and if not they don’t get too stressed.

However, if Mallory could have the wildest dream of conquering Mt Everest, why can’t teachers have the wildest dream of freedom of curriculum? Clearly various forms of national or state curricula and testing lead to targeted lessons to help students do best in the final exam (and this is of course a natural outcome of this model) but is there an alternative?

If our focus of schooling is to ensure students can pass a written exam on a given day on a given amount of content then we are on the right track but this does not reflect the real world. No worthwhile job in the real world nowadays relies on a set amount of content with a written exam at the end. Most jobs require students to be flexible and creative thinkers: problem solvers who can adapt to a range of situations. The school model with its mandated curricula and assessment in no way reflects this reality.

Wouldn't it be better to give students a topic area and ask them to come up with a task to hand in? Of course guidelines would be required and students may not love every topic area but at least they could explore the topic area in a way that engaged them. Rather than saying we will study and do a test on First Australians, settler men, settler women and convicts, imagine if I had said to my class: choose an area on the settlement of Australia from 1788 to 1901 and decide on an assessment task to give me. I can now imagine a class full of students bursting with ideas about what to research and how to present it. Imagine: all the students with relatives who were convicts, students who had visited Indigenous communities and learnt some of their customs, students interested in the politics of early Sydney and the various other possibilities. Now imagine all the various ways they might like to show their knowledge: iPad apps, websites, computer games, museum displays, videos etc.

In summary, like Mallory, this post may meet its end in the death zone: starved of oxygen, not at the pinnacle and forgotten about until dug up 75 years later (see picture). However, just as Mallory had the wildest dream of conquering the impossible, there is nothing wrong with the wildest dream of education: genuinely engaging classes with all students buying into the process. This may not be achieved under current curricula and assessment practices but we need to start making attempts at the summit. Who knows, we one day might make it.

An Outbreak of Learning!

Today I nearly destroyed the planet. After initially failing to infect the entire planet with my deadly virus, I eventually worked out how to best spread the virus before beginning its destructive path to total annihilation. Fortunately, a few of my students did manage to destroy the planet so all in all it was a successful day.

The experience I described above came about due to my interest in the notion of gamification. Gamification is the process of using computer games, such as apps or fully fledged X-box games, to teach students. While this may sound like an excuse to play computer games in class, the upside to a proper implementation of gamification can be enormous.

I decided to try gamification with my Year 8 History class. We are studying Medieval Europe and I thought that the Plague might be a fun way to experiment with computer games. I had heard of this app called "Infect the World" and had seen some students play it in their spare time. After researching the app, and to my delight discovering it was free for a lite version, I decided that it fitted the criteria for good gamification:

1) Good content

2) Game joined seamlessly to content

3) Good game

Firstly, the Plague is the gory kind of topic that boys love because if they aren't infecting the room with their own odors, they often complain about the ones their friends make. Plus a quick inspection of any locker room towards the end of the year will reveal a plethora of never before seen bacteria and viruses fermenting in left over lunches and snacks.

Secondly, the game itself involved choosing the traits and environmental conditions to help spread your virus around the world. From sores to coughs, vomiting and diarrhea, these were all the classic symptoms of the Black Death and Great Plague that formed the historical content of the lesson. Moreover, the environmental conditions they could create in the game using heat and cold allowed them to mimic the conditions that caused these major outbreaks in history.

Finally, the game itself is reasonably fun to play. Once you get your head around the way to manipulate your virus and the frustration of quarantines and cures, it can be quite addictive. In fact, I originally only intended to play the game with the class for 30 minutes but extended this to 50 minutes because on my second turn I was actually winning and beating the game. This is even more surprising considering the relatively simple display but a dose of healthy competition in the class definitely helped.

The biggest reward however came in the wrap up to the lesson. After playing the game for almost an hour, I dreaded finishing up to do some basic research on the Black Death and Great Plague so that they could complete some scaffold summaries. However, the experience of playing the game made the students more willing to do this grunt work and when I showed them the connection between the viruses they had created and the actual plagues they were genuinely excited. As one student said to me at the end of the lesson, "Before I didn't get how the plague could spread but now I can see the ways that it did in real life." Moreover, the use of some Venn diagrams and bespoke scaffolds allowed me to effectively link the game with the historical content.

Thus, in summary, I would suggest everyone give gamification a go. Finding the right game for the content can be tricky, right now I am toying with the idea of a combat game to teach the Crusades, but when it fits nicely the results are spectacular. It is especially nice to see the kids that are usually so bored get into the game and furthermore see their eyes shine when they start to make the connections to the class content. But most importantly, I need to stop writing this blog so I can go back to infecting the world - my learning journey never ends.