The “what” to teach is typically prescribed, or mandated; for example, the National Curriculum (ACARA). There is little option except for a choice as to what part of the National Curriculum the teacher will teach (e.g. Year 9 science, general English, Year 3, etc.). The how is the school’s unique philosophy and purpose, the skills, dispositions it wants the students to develop, the guidelines for the teachers. The how gives the flavour to the learning and identity to the school and results in the type of person the school wishes to see graduate.
But the how goes beyond the ethereal, the hope, it provides the bedrock for successful learning in every classroom. The how provides consistency in the language and the expectations for students. It provides the teachers with clear guidelines and articulated expectations that they will be ‘appraised’ against. That consistency leads to everyone’s inculturation. Once a student knows what the language is, what the expectations are of them, the approach they are to take to their own learning it becomes second nature to them, they no longer need to think about it, it is the norm. Once a teacher knows what the expectations are of them, there can be no misunderstanding if ever their teaching is assessed. Communication and clarity bring confidence which leads to trust.
This is quite different to a school that has not thought deeply about a teaching and learning statement and successfully embedded it into the school’s DNA. Every time a student moves to another class they walk into a room where different learning language is used, where there are different expectations and understandings about learning. The approach to learning is not consistent so students are continually adapting to the constantly changing learning environment. Teachers have no clarity of what is expected of them and are left with a sense of uncertainty (and fear) as to how they will be appraised and supported in their professional growth (if indeed they ever are).
You can typically place a school into one of three buckets when it comes to the how of teaching.
- Schools that have embedded a particular philosophy or approach to learning, i.e. a teaching and learning framework, such as Montessori, Steiner, Learning by Design, Habits of Mind, International Baccalaureate;
- Schools that have developmed a Statement of Teaching and Learning; and,
- Schools that have not thought about the how at all.
You will find that schools in Bucket 1 are typically highly successful. They know who they are as a school, their teachers are all aligned to the approach and as a result, the students understand the language, how to approach their own learning and what the expectations are. Parents who come to enrol at the school know exactly what they will be getting, a particular approach which is consistent across the whole school. To illustrate that in an amazingly simple manner, they know that when they buy a can of Coke it will taste the same every time.
Of course, in bucket 1 there is a variety of success. The best is Montessori because they require their teachers to be fully trained in the Montessori way. At the other end of the scale, the Learning by Design, Habits of Mind, STEM, Personalised Learning, Project-based Learning, etc. schools, teachers receive professional development, coaching and mentoring, but there is not the requirement to be ‘qualified’ and appraisal systems are not incredibly effective. I would go one step further and suggest that these latter schools do not have a Position Description for teachers that clearly articulates the expectations and approach to learning that they should adopt in their classroom.
In the second bucket of schools, we have the group that have thought deeply about teaching and learning. They have established a committee to discuss and debate it. They might even have consulted with parents and students. As a result, they have produced a Statement, which might even include a diagram or infographic, along with detail descriptions of what good practice should look like and what the school’s expectations for teachers are. At the centre of the diagram, you can usually see the word, “student.” Many diagrams then have concentric circles identifying the other stakeholders. Much wonderful work has been done with these Statements, but the big question these schools need to ask is, “Yes, but so what?” The statements are published with great fanfare at a staff briefing, a parent night, on the website, posted on the wall of every classroom, even be the focus of some Professional Learning Circles (PLCs), but once the fanfare dies down everyone returns to the cultural norms and lasting change never results. The Statement is not supported with systems, procedures, policies, professional development to ensure the Statement of Teaching and Learning becomes a living document and evidence of its effect is seen everywhere.
In the third bucket we have a group of schools, and the biggest group of schools, who have not thought about the how. This does not mean that they are bad schools, definitely not. There are many aspects that make for a genuinely great school and a Statement of Teaching and Learning is but one of those aspects. These schools are getting on with the job. They are working to ensure they are doing well what is asked of them by the authority, typically demonstrated in standardised testing results. These include schools that are embedding evidenced-based practices that work for their clientele, like direct and explicit teaching.
Sadly, I do not believe enough people (governments and educators) think deeply enough about “What is the purpose of education?” For governments, education has become a political handball with the purpose being an economic one. Governments, authorities, schools, and educators should be wrestling with that question, “What is the purpose of education?” I suspect that the answer to that question will be slightly different for each school because each school serves a unique community. But in asking that question, schools then must think deeply about their belief about teaching and learning, and either adopt an existing approach/model or create their own. Doing so will enhance learning, create consistency, and bring safety and confidence and professional growth for teachers. But to move from bucket 2, they then need to ensure that systems, procedures, policies, and support mechanisms are embedded to make that Statement come alive in every classroom. Then your school will truly ‘sing’.
