VET
A moment that made a difference
A presentation helps one educator find the answer to a burning question about opportunity. By Stuart Middleton
A research report had just been released and after the launch I turned to a colleague and asked:“ Do you mean to say that education cannot do much about social class and socioeconomic factors?”“ Almost nothing,” he said in a resigned kind of way.
It seems to me to be defeatism of the lowest( or perhaps highest?) kind to think that a set of determinist forces conspire to overpower all the energy that education and learning can bring to bear in leading people to brighter and better futures. And it was in stark contrast to a presentation I attended the following day from Andreas Schleicher, deputy director for education and skills and special adviser on education policy to the OECD Secretary- General. The theme of his speech was predominantly that it is possible to improve the quality and equity of education in a short space of time.
He reminded us that if New Zealand raised the performance of its low-equity institutions, it would be number one in the world. But the challenge is not only in those institutions identified as serving communities of the disadvantaged( the majority of students from these communities are in bog-standard institutions). The challenge is there for all teachers in all institutions and schools.
This information was not entirely new to us but having it said with the authority of such a figure gives it added meaning and force. Schleicher identified six areas on which to focus. At the top was the necessary belief that all students can
38 | Issue 8 2013 achieve. How often do we hear the apologists for failure blame the home and other factors in depicting a scenario without hope? The message all students need is“ you can succeed”.
Schleicher went on to emphasise the importance of a well-developed delivery chain. This has notions of linkage and strength. It also echoes the ideas of pathways, managed transitions and seamlessness that have become increasingly prevalent in educational discourse. In New Zealand and Australia, we might well reflect on our respective strengths in providing such a connected and democratic learning environment.
There is no doubt that a strong education system places a clear importance on having the capacity at the point of delivery. This requires the creation of a profession that attracts the best teachers and leaders, retains them and gets them committed to system-wide development. There is the need for professional growth that goes beyond mere participation; not just doing a course, but activity involving reflection, a call for collaborative action with colleagues and a network of community-based support.
The importance of balancing autonomy with accountability was another strong point Schleicher made during his visit. A collaborative environment would ensure this is achieved in a manner that adds value to the system. I have thought often that New Zealand and Australia education professionals have an obsession with autonomy but a loathing for accountability. That is why the question,“ Who’ s accountable for educational failure in New Zealand and in Australia?” has long been sufficiently answered simply with,“ No one!” But that might be about to change with the new responsibilities for boards of trustees outlined in the most recent amendment to the Education Act. However, ascribed accountability is only part of the deal; real
accountability is a deeply seated part of professionalism.
There was another deeply challenging idea from Schleicher as well: put resources where they have the most impact. I didn’ t think it appropriate to ask whether, in light of this, the failure of our commitment to systems for describing the socioeconomic status of education providers and the lack of any significant indication that we are improving outcomes for the disadvantaged are simply dark and dirty secrets of education. We can choose, he concluded, to have an education system that moderates inequality or reinforces it.
Question time brought the tired old apologists to their feet. We are misunderstood! Do you realise how diverse we are? You can’ t compare us with A, B, C and D. And so on. Then I got on my feet and sought the microphone.
I got the chance to ask one question. It was the one that nags at me every day, a question that drives my argument for new and different ways of working.“ Does anyone have to fail?” After speaking about the complexities, the issues, the combination of factors, Schleicher answered,“ It is hard to change income inequality but changing levels of education inequality will bring change.”
I think I have an answer to the question I had asked the day before – education can do something to minimise the impact of socioeconomic factors.
And why does this matter to all of us? The 2013 OECD Yearbook is a good read and it’ s interesting to note the piece there by Andreas Schleicher, deputy director for education and special adviser to the Secretary-General. In it, he makes a simple point:
Countries that are unable to mitigate the impact of socioeconomic background on student performance during compulsory education are unlikely to solve that problem in higher education. n