Steen Nepper Larsen argues that successful education teaches how to take a small step to the side and ask questions, bravely, insistently, and without hesitation. Steen’s thinking is introduced by Carly Boreland…

 In this relationship the most interesting thing is not me or you (i.e. the teacher and the student), but the issue that we are going to explore together – whether this is plankton or the teachings of Plato. The relationship between you and me is deprioritised in favour of the object being studied, which should make us both wiser as we study this object together.

(Larsen, in Henriksen, 2020)

In 2021 an Australian teacher might be forgiven for assuming there is a common set of values and purpose informing activities around education in the developed world. Whilst they might not necessarily agree in the correctness of these values or purpose, this sense of a tide moving in a singular, global direction can appear more and more real through increasingly common language, policies and ideology shared through organisations such as the OECD and especially between English-speaking education departments in the United Kingdom, United States and Australia.

However, recent experience in Denmark suggests that culture still counts for much when it comes to how education might be thought about and experienced by children born into 21st century nations with values we might consider to be quite similar to our own. Steen Larsen is a Danish academic working in the fields of educational sociology and philosophy at Aarhus University who thinks quite differently about pedagogy and the purposes of school education. In this article, Larsen (2017) explains the German concept of Bildung, the notion that education might lead to ‘the edification and the eloquent formation of the individual’s character, wisdom, judgment, and fertile curiosity’ (p. 175), inviting ‘the reader to ponder two fundamental questions that are seldom posed and even more seldom result in unexpected answers: what and why education?’ (p. 172).

Pedagogy: Counting to three in two ways

First, good learning processes teach us to look beyond ourselves, instead of just thinking about what the educator or teacher wants, spun into a psychosocial and learning goal-driven or curriculum-controlled spiral circle consisting of two actors, the teacher/educator on the one hand and the learner on the other. Real pedagogy is curiosity-licensing and freedom-creating. It is not competence-written, evidence-proscribed and box-ticking.

Secondly, we leave home and private space when we enter a kindergarten, school or university. Will we then become the property of the play and learning institutions? The children of the state, malleable clay and investment objects? No, when we step over the threshold of a social institution, it is not just a question of learning and practising working with other people: we are now about to see ourselves as equal citizens in the rule of law and as equal participants in the political debate and structure of society. We are not only interested private individuals and consumers of education and pedagogy, nor are we merely the benevolent objects of the competitive state. Ideally, we are brought up and civilized to become citizens and not just users to be serviced, ‘formatted’ and ‘designed’ in the right way. What we need to learn must not only match the current and future needs of the labour market or meet the requirements for a national display of great PISA test measurements.

In the best of all worlds that do not exist, but which we have to struggle to realise every day, educators can, in glimpses, create the opportunity for humans to practice counting to three in two different ways, while almost imperceptibly bursting free of both our own and external bonds.

Education: What and why?

Today, it is common to find hegemonic educational narrative discussions of means and ends, as if the educational system were a pool table with legislators and school leaders as cues, teachers as balls, and students as pins. It would be an exceptionally rare occurrence if the purpose of education were to be discussed in public. The question: “why education?” simply is not asked. Educational economists and politicians are generally content to demand greater effectivity and efficiency for their investments into the system.

However, the perpetual plurality of people (in pluralis) beseeches us to avoid conclusions based on singularity. For this author, it seems both impossible and incongruous to reduce the purpose of offering and undertaking an education to means (technologies of control, compulsion, enrolment procedures, economic incentives, scholarships and so on) and ends (to produce employable and competitive individuals). Not least due to the at once general and specific character of educational purpose: historically created, constitutive, idea-generated, and guiding. Critically investigating discussions of purpose elevates the phenomenon of education to a sphere in which it becomes possible to clarify why.

Moreover, critical thinking can contribute to and qualify public debates in society (res publica), and philosophy, with its courage to both create new concepts and reinvigorate outmoded ones by adding new layers of meaning, can serve to generating previously un(fore)seen analytical mappings.

Unlike our English-speaking colleagues, as speakers of Germanic languages (Danish and German), we are privileged in our ability to distinguish between ‘uddannelse’ [education] and ‘dannelse’ [coming to being or culturedness], between ‘Ausbildung’ [education, instruction and teaching] and ‘Bildung’, as is distinctly possible in the ‘germanophile’ part of the world (Kosselleck, 2002, pp. 170-207). It is a much more difficult task to advocate such a distinction in English, where ‘education’ is often linked to concepts such as ‘culture’ and ‘edification’, or French, where éducation is commonly used to denote the moral or practical aspects of child-raising (for example, l’éducation morale as the formation of character, as, for instance, the English philosopher John Locke also wrote about back in 1693 in the classic Some Thoughts Concerning Education).

What we referred to earlier as Bildung, is essentially a matter of training one’s attentiveness, developing the art of decentralisation and focal reorientation. Successful educational processes teach you how to take a small step to the side and ask, bravely, insistently, and without hesitation:

• where do we come from?
• how have we become who we are?
• why do we think as we do?
• what would happen if we began thinking and living differently?

Well aware that not all students are engaged in the study of philosophy, the history of ideas, and/or critical humanities or social sciences, I maintain that, in an ideal scenario, any carpenter, chef, doctor, or dentist will also be challenged to think and use their imagination during the course of their education.

Bearing this distinction in mind, we are in a position to more clearly perceive what we otherwise risk losing sight of when education is embroiled in questions of functionalistic servility and efficacy to secure a productive workforce for the future of society (human capital). What is at risk are the ‘inner’ elements of education… that always reaches beyond contemporary educational agendas (Batchelor, 2008). We must endeavour to retain these ‘inner’ elements; using the Germanic expressions, to protect ‘dannelse’ in ‘uddannelse’, ‘Bildung’ in ‘Ausbildung’.

Final thoughts

Undertaking an education is always a matter of experiencing.

Educational life is first-hand phenomenology for those living it; education presents itself as something that shapes your working life, but also your self-image and imagination. You are introduced, so to speak, to new ways of perceiving yourself the moment you devote yourself to an education. In this sense, an educational life is – ideally, at least – at once a creative and unpredictable process which, to the dismay of the most tenacious and unbending among us, risks plunging the student into a highly challenging and even painful transformation (or complete rejection) of her existing worldviews.

It is inherently risky to expose oneself to radical transformational processes. Returning home afterwards to old friends, places, or family can, for example, be difficult and challenging, with an air charged of mutual alienation. All of a sudden, one has become unrecognisable and unable to communicate on the same wavelength.

Ideally, at least, education can only occur through the self-transcending and self-realising conquest of new areas of knowledge and through the acquisition of new ways to think, speak, learn, analyse, and write. Some of these words might even find their way into the occasional toast at casual get-togethers; much unlike the pragmatic appropriation of job-ready and applicable lingua productiva within the current, dominant discourse in education policy and politics.

The French philosopher Jacques Rancière would agree and proclaim: Whoever teaches without emancipating stultifies (1991, p. 18).

References:

Batchelor, D. (2008). Have students got a voice? In R. Barnett & R. Di Napoli (Eds.), Changing identities in higher education: Voicing perspectives (pp. 40-54). Routledge.

Henriksen, C. (2020, November 4). A new perspective on John Hattie. Danish School of Education. https://dpu.au.dk/en/about-the-school/nyheder/single/artikel/spot-paa-ny-forskning-hvad-er-egentlig-meningen-hattie/

Koselleck, R. (2002). The practice of conceptual history: Timing history, spacing concepts (T. S. Presner et al., Trans.). Stanford University Press.

Larsen, S. N. (2017). What is education? – A critical essay. In A. B. Jørgensen, J. J. Justesen, N. Bech, N. Nykrog, & R. B. Clemmensen (Eds.), What is education? An anthology on education (pp. 157-185). Próblēma.

Rancière, J. (1991). The ignorant schoolmaster: Five lessons in intellectual emancipation. Stanford University Press.

Other suggested resources in English

Turnbull, S. (2020, June 14). [Review of the book The purposes of education: A conversation between John Hattie and Steen Nepper Larsen by John Hattie & Steen Nepper Larsen]. Schools Week. https://schoolsweek.co.uk/the-purposes-of-education-a-conversation-between-john-hattie-and-steen-nepper-larsen/

World Education Summit. (2021, April 5). The purposes of education – Steen Nepper Larsen & John Hattie [Video]. Vimeo. https://www.worldedsummit.com/

Steen Nepper Larsen (b. 1958) is Associate Professor in Education Science at The Danish School of Education, Aarhus University, Denmark, and has published numerous academic books and journal articles, including The Purposes of Education. A Conversation Between John Hattie and Steen Nepper Larsen (Routledge 2020), and together with sociologist Inge Kryger Pedersen edited Sociologisk leksikon (Hans Reitzels Forlag 2011). He is a critic connected to the Danish newspaper Information and has worked on several popular philosophy and sociology programs for Danmarks Radio P1.

Steen can be contacted via: stla@edu.au.dk . His university web-page is: https://pure.au.dk/portal/en/persons/steen-nepper-larsen(e2adfef2-212f-4742-b93c-a27e1008efbe).html

Carly Boreland is a History Teacher and Head Teacher who is currently the Editor of the Journal of Professional Learning (JPL). She is also the Assistant Director of the Centre for Professional Learning (CPL) and host of the CPL Podcast and Off Class podcast.
A note on the text: The sections of this article ‘Education: What and why’ and ‘Final thoughts’ are selected text from Larsen S. N., ‘What is Education? – A critical essay’.

The Purposes of Education – Steen Nepper Larsen & John Hattie.mp4

Discussion between John Hattie and Steen Nepper Larsen at the World Education Summit 2021, April 5 about their new book titled “The purposes of education – A conversation between John Hattie and Steen Nepper Larsen.”

Pasi Sahlberg and Amy Graham, Gonski Institute, UNSW, Sydney share the findings of their research entitled ‘Growing Up Digital Australia’. They explain some of the perceptions of teachers and parents about the consequences that an increase in the use of digital devices and digital learning has had on young people. They suggest some approaches for teachers to help their students thrive in an increasingly technological world. . .

Children are not who they used to be. This has become evident during the COVID-19 pandemic when many parents have spent more time with their children at home. One common notion has been how quickly children learn to navigate in the world of media and technology to find their way forward. Another thing that has become clear is how many children have become dependent on their gadgets. They walk, talk, and often also sleep, with their smartphones to keep up with what is happening around them.

Teachers have also realised that students have changed. Students find information, share it with others and present their ideas fluently using digital devices at school. But there is also the darker side of this change. More often than before, children come to school tired, struggling with emotional and social challenges, and not ready to learn. The question is: How do these changes affect students’ learning at school?

These are some of the findings in the new research at the UNSW’s Gonski Institute for Education. Our study, Growing Up Digital Australia (Gonski Institute for Education, 2020), explores teachers’ and parents’ perceptions of young people: how they are growing up, learning and how they use digital media and technology in their lives. In this article we share some initial findings and explain what you can do to help students navigate their digital childhoods.

Technology is a good servant, but a poor master

Childhood is a time for preparing young people to be kind, independent, responsible and balanced in their interests. It is a time of innocence and a time for shaping habits, expectations and choices. Now, more than ever, we are seeing childhood changing. A 2017 study by The Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne (Rhodes, 2017) found that young people, aged 13 to 18, spend on average, over 43 hours per week, on screens at home (6.2 hours a day). The vast majority of Australian teenagers, aged 13 to 18, were reported to own a smartphone or other digital gadget, while two thirds of primary school children, and one third of pre-schoolers, own their own mobile screen-based device. One could reasonably assume that these numbers have only increased since this collection of data, especially at a time when education has moved online and children are using screens for education more than ever, as well as for entertainment.

So, we know that most young people now have constant access to digital media and screen-based devices. We also know that for some children, they are using technology in ways that are harming childhoods and changing their potential for the future. The literature and media are replete with examples of the risks and pitfalls of digital media and screens for young people, so we need not repeat this argument. However, this does remind us that these issues will not resolve themselves or go away. We must act now and mindfully teach children how to grow up digitally.

The increased reliance on digital technologies in teaching and the consumption of media, during this time of disrupted schooling, makes it critically important to address this issue with children. Our young people have had to learn remotely from home and stare at screens more than ever before. When this digital learning time is piled on top of the entertainment and social purposes for which children are using digital media, the consequences could be dire and lifelong. The increasing use of digital media to ‘connect’ with others has done just the opposite for many young people. They, instead, feel more isolated and disconnected, as Sherry Turkle (2011), Jean Twenge (2017) and others have shown. It is important that parents and teachers help children to learn to find a healthy balance in consuming media and using digital tools in and out of school.

Growing Up Digital Australia: Teachers’ perspectives

In the first phase of Growing Up Digital Australia, in late 2019, we surveyed almost two thousand teachers and principals from across the country about the wellbeing and teachability of their students, as well as their views on media and digital technologies for students (Gonski Institute for Education, 2020). This study is being done in collaboration with Harvard University’s Medical School and Alberta Teachers Association. It was carried out for the first time in Alberta in 2016.

Almost all teachers thought that the number of children with cognitive challenges in their school has increased.

So, what did we learn? Firstly, young people are using screen-based technologies for everything: both in and out of the school. Educationally, teachers understand the possibilities of technology and the opportunities of using digital devices to enrich teaching and learning. But, they also recognise definite risks that come with the increased digital presence. As can be seen in Figure 1, the vast majority of teachers see digital technologies and media as growing distractions in the learning environment. The vast majority of teachers believe that, compared to 3 – 5 years ago, more students find it difficult to focus on learning tasks. Perhaps the most worrying message from teachers is that three out of five think that their students’ overall readiness to learn has declined. Almost all teachers thought that the number of children with cognitive challenges in their school has increased. If this is true, then it is no wonder that their learning outcomes are not improving.

Secondly, the teachers we worked with are particularly concerned with the declining social, behavioural and emotional wellbeing of their students (that is illustrated in Figure 1). This decline leads to classrooms being harder to manage than before.

(click on the image below to view)

Figure 1: Key findings from the Gonski Institute’s Growing Up Digital Australia study.

Finally, the dangers of technology are not experienced equally. One-third of teachers believe that students from disadvantaged backgrounds have unequal access to digital media and technology and that poverty stops them from getting what they need to learn in an increasingly digital world. Perhaps this is unsurprising, given that national statistics in Australia have clearly documented inequalities in connecting to digital services and the internet, and the lessons we have learnt from the emergency, remote teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic (Graham & Sahlberg 2020). Some teachers, our study reveals, believe students living in poverty are also more at risk of the harmful consequences, such as overuse of these devices, bullying and harassment and access to inappropriate content. These findings are very similar to those in Growing Up Digital Alberta from a few years earlier (ATA, 2016).

Australian children spend about one thousand hours each year at school. Teachers, as a result, often better than others, see how children are changing. The purpose of the Growing Up Digital project is not to point out problems and present more bad news about the state of our children. The main aim is to offer better evidence about the current situation so that teachers, parents and children can have more informed conversations to find out together what to do from here.

Four things schools can do

Teachers have an important role in helping all children to grow up healthy, safely and responsibly as they navigate in an increasingly technological world. But teachers can’t and shouldn’t do that alone. Parents and young people themselves should engage in these efforts from early on. Here are some strategies anyone can do.

1. Engage parents in conversations about safer living with digital technologies

Our research offers one perspective to understand the changing nature of children today. This dynamic issue, of living with media and digital technologies, must be better understood by parents, teachers and young people themselves. This can be achieved by opening up the conversation and discussing these issues, even when it is not simple. Talk about the potential risks to students. Talk about how parents mitigate these risks and how to do that more effectively. Most importantly, encourage young people to talk about their own experiences and problems that they are having with their gadgets. Where possible, seek to empower families and young people with information and resources, such as those developed by the eSafety Commissioner (Australian Government, 2015).

2. It is not about screen time, but what we do with it

Not all time children spend on screens is necessarily problematic. Reading about history, exploring data for science project, or composing music can be extremely beneficial. Yet, the only guidelines provided to young people are often specifically about time spent on digital screens. Earlier, when the Australian guidelines around screen time were developed, it was at a time when screen-based technology had not yet exploded and landed in the hands of almost every teenager and in every home. Now, much of a child’s school day is delivered through different digital screens, yet, within the current guidelines, there is no discrimination between educational and entertainment purposes and the idea of ‘screen time’ obscures that richness.

In your work with students, on how to live safely and responsibly with digital technologies, include conversations, drama and play about forming healthy media habits and about the quality of the screen-time. An hour watching randomly appearing YouTube videos, on a smartphone, isn’t the same as an hour spent on coding a robot with a friend. Teach young people to be mindful of what they are doing with their screens, and for what purpose, not just about how long they are on them for.

3. Teach the notion of moderation

All of us, especially young people, need to learn how to exercise moderation in the things we spend time on. Technology is fun and allows young people to stay connected to their friends and family, to play games and to learn about the world around them: all of which are important. However, so too is playing outside, reading books, playing musical instruments, eating well and, especially, having enough high-quality sleep. All of these are going to add value to their social, emotional, physical, and academic wellbeing. So, encourage students to learn to self-regulate their behaviours, to strive for a daily balance between digital exposure and plenty of play and movement and rest and down time, too.

4. Strive to engage students in learning off their screens

In Growing Up Digital Australia, teachers said that students often find non-technology related tasks at school “irrelevant” or even “boring”. Many teachers also talked about students’ lack of interest in applying themselves to learning basic skills like handwriting or doing mathematical calculations or computations by hand. What can we learn from this? Rather than simplistically thinking that we need to teach using mediums like iPads or computer games that children relate to, maybe we need to look at what makes digital media platforms exciting to children and how we can replicate these same attractions away from a screen. For example, sometimes designing teaching mathematics and science activities so that students can learn through play, active engagement in collaborative activities, or learning concepts through real problem solving can become equally interesting than studying these same things through digital screens in the classroom.

Use your experience and professional wisdom to reflect on your practice and the broader implications of showing children that a smartphone is a tool, not a treat. It is incredibly important to teach this distinction to children, both at school and at home, in order to shape their habits with digital technologies from an early age. In your students, encourage and value their self-directedness, creativity, divergent and flexible thinking, curiosity, collaboration and resilience. Because that is where the magic happens, and what is often missing when young people sit on digital screens and devices.

New games and social media platforms will replace the old. Apps will change. Devices break. Technology becomes obsolete. But one thing will stay: your teaching can change a young person’s life forever.

Works cited

Alberta Teachers Association ATA (2018). Growing Up Digital Alberta. Edmonton: Alberta Teachers Association 
https://www.teachers.ab.ca/SiteCollectionDocuments/ATA/About/Education%20Research/Promise%20and%20Peril/COOR-101-10%20GUD%20Infographic.pdf

Australian Government Office of the Chidren’s eSafety Commissioner (established 1 July, 2015) eSafety Commissioner.
Gonski Institute for Education (2020). Growing Up Digital Australia: Phase 1 technical report. Gonski Institute for Education. UNSW, Sydney.
Graham, A. & Sahlberg, P. (2020). Schools are moving online, but not all children start out digitally equal. The Conversation, March 27.https://theconversation.com/schools-are-moving-online-but-not-all-children-start-out-digitally-equal-134650

Rhodes, A. (2017). Screen time and kids: What’s happening in our homes. Detailed report. The Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne: Victoria. Retrieved from from https://rchpoll.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/ACHP-Poll7_Detailed-Report-June21.pdf

Twenge, J. (2017). iGen: Why Today’s Super-Connected Kids Are Growing Up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy–and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood–and What That Means for the Rest of Us. New York: Atria Books.

Turkle, S. (2011). Together Alone. Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York: Basic Books.

Pasi Sahlberg has been a schoolteacher, teacher educator, policy advisor and director general at the Ministry of Education in Finland. He has held senior expert posts in World Bank (Washington, DC) and European Commission (Torino, Italy) analysing and helping education systems around the world to improve. He has served as an advisor to a number of other governments; currently he is an international education advisor to the First Minister Nicola Sturgeon and her government in Scotland.

Currently Pasi leads research on learning through play, growing up digital, and equity in education. His latest book is “Let the Children Play: How more play will save our schools and help children thrive” with William Doyle (Oxford University Press, 2019) and forthcoming book with Tim Walker is titled “In Teachers We Trust: The Finnish way to world class schools” (Norton, 2020). Pasi is Professor of Education Policy at the University of New South Wales (UNSW) and Research Director at the Gonski Institute for Education. He lives with his wife and two sons in Sydney, Australia.

Amy Graham is an experienced mixed-methods researcher in education and has researched widely in the areas of children’s use of digital media and the use of technology in distance education, perfectionism, parental engagement, school readiness, and play in the school day. In all of her research, she strives to have a socially just focus, and believes that everyone must play a role in ensuring children reach their full potential.

Her PhD thesis was entitled “Getting ready to succeed at school: Investigating the role of parents” and this was completed in 2019. Prior to this, Amy has held a range of research roles and has previously worked as a Ministerial Adviser to the South Australian Minister for Education. Amy has also been a Policy Adviser in education in the government and non-government education and disability sectors, and a classroom teacher.

Since 2019, Amy has worked at the Gonski Institute for Education as a Research Fellow and enjoys seeing the research she does being translated into solutions for educators, policy architects and parents. Amy holds a position on the editorial board of AEL, and offers specialty research to the Parenting Research Centre.

Lloyd Bowen reveals some of the possible benefits for teachers of being involved in the Quality Teaching Rounds process. . .

Teaching, at its best, is a highly collaborative profession where we work together focused on student learning and wellbeing. Often our professional discussions revolve around the routine issues of the school day – “Who is on the oval during lunch? Can someone cover my classes so I can take my Year 9s on an excursion? Has anyone been sent to ‘buddy room’ today? Please read the teacher organisation for next week’s athletics carnival. Don’t forget to complete your mandatory training!”

These conversations are all important and form part of our day-to-day work as teachers. The excursion and athletics carnival can contribute to a child’s overall experience of school but when do we have meaningful discussions about the way we teach – our pedagogy?

What is Quality Teaching Rounds (QTR)?

Quality Teaching Rounds (QTR) is a high-impact approach to professional learning that provides time and structures for teachers of all career stages to engage in meaningful analytical discussions about pedagogy. Collaborating within a safe Professional Learning Community (PLC) of three (or ideally four) participants provides teachers with the time, concepts and language to collegially analyse and discuss pedagogy (Bowe & Gore, 2017), applying the lens of the Quality Teaching model.

A significant feature of QTR is its applicability across all learning contexts. PLCs can be formed across Key Learning Areas KLAs and stages, as well as across school sites and campuses, demonstrating that QTR is a powerful approach to meaningful collaboration within, and across, school settings.

Quality Teaching Rounds are: focused on the impact of teaching on student learning a respectful, safe forum for discussing practice onfidential an opportunity to build professional relationships, trust, and respect an approach to facilitation collegial and inclusive, with all PLC members contributing informed by rigorous research an opportunity to enhance our teaching deep discussions built on the Quality Teaching model impactful, improving teaching quality and teacher morale

Quality Teaching Rounds are not: an inspection focused on the teacher a scoring exercise focused on numbers a performance appraisal dominated by one member of the PLC a fad or gimmick expensive, especially given their demonstrated impact

Where there are four teachers in a PLC, a set of Quality Teaching Rounds occurs over a total of four days, ideally spaced one to two weeks apart.

The PLC stays together for at least one set of Rounds, with each member hosting a lesson observation for the other three members of the PLC (Bowe, 2016).

Each day of Rounds contains:

• Reading discussion that helps develop a shared knowledge base and build a sense of professional community;
• Observation of one PLC member teaching a lesson. Importantly, out of respect for teachers and for the teaching-learning process, an entire lesson is always observed;
• Individual coding by all participants, including the observed teacher, so that everyone comes into the collaborative analysis informed and ready to take part in a diagnostic conversation; and,
• Discussion of the observed lesson, and of teaching in general, drawing on the language and concepts of the Quality Teaching model and working towards a shared view of each element. All members of the PLC, including the observed teacher, take part in this discussion.

 Why does QTR work?

QTR Structures the knowledge base for teaching

Most of us, throughout our careers, have been on both sides of feedback discussions based on professional opinions. Sometimes these conversations are helpful, but they can often err towards polite subjective refrain, providing no clear path forward as to how we can improve our teaching. Rarely do they involve us, as the teacher, in the lesson analysis.

QTR respects teachers, ensures active involvement of all PLC members in all components, and provides teachers with clear direction for future practice.

I really like the way that you actually have the [Quality] Teaching framework there as the basis…. It’s not just a matter of “that lesson worked well”. It’s not a free-for-all discussion. It is actually guided by the framework which is really good because you’ve got that common language and everybody kind of understands where you’re coming from, and I think I really valued that. (Jade, primary teacher of 1 to 3 years) (Gore et al, 2017)

The evidence-based Quality Teaching model was developed by James Ladwig and Jenny Gore from the University of Newcastle for the NSW Department of Education. The model provides a comprehensive account of the pedagogical practices teachers employ, organised into the three dimensions of Intellectual Quality, Quality Learning Environment and Significance. It acknowledges the complexity of teaching and, in doing so, provides a conceptual knowledge base for teachers to talk about pedagogy and to guide practice (Gore et al., 2017). This deep thinking and analytical reflection using the Quality Teaching model as a lens empowers us to talk about teaching using a shared language.

Flattens power hierarchies to enhance collaboration

Gore et al. (2017) inform us that the underlying power dynamics and hierarchies within a school enable some teachers to dominate discussions, sometimes obstructing successful collaboration. QTR flattens these hierarchies by ensuring all teachers participate fully throughout the process. Everyone teaches a lesson, everyone observes, and all PLC members code the lesson and contribute to discussion through the lens of the Quality Teaching model. By doing so, all teachers fully engage in the learning and, given the shared vulnerability of opening their classrooms to colleagues, help to create a safe environment in which to discuss pedagogy (Bowe, 2016)

I think in terms of impact on myself and my colleagues and the kids, I think really this [QTR] has been the biggest winner to be honest [because we’re] … breaking down the barriers, going into other peoples’ classrooms to share – that collegiate feeling. The kids, probably giving them a more engaging set of activities and the way that I present the work in the classroom – just more thought goes into that. And I think as a whole school initiative, you know, everyone’s involved so everyone seems to be on board and we have that common goal to work towards.’ (Michelle, secondary teacher of more than 24 years) (Bowe, 2016)

Time for individual coding and analysis of the observed lesson is incorporated within the QTR process. Participants are provided with valuable space to consider the lesson through the Quality Teaching model, preparing the PLC members to make meaningful contributions to the lesson discussion. All PLC members formulate descriptions of the teaching they observe, informed by the Quality Teaching model. Through the mechanism of turn-taking within the discussion, the playing field becomes even and the contributions of all PLC members, regardless of their teaching experience, are valued. 

Enhances relationships to build a culture of learning among teachers

PLC members, through their shared, full participation in Quality Teaching Rounds, build a professional relationship, and often friendships, that help foster future collaborations. Although the focus of Rounds is squarely on improved pedagogy, there are many accounts of fresh insights about colleagues and about teaching that form the basis for change and future collaboration.

I think that it allows me to see colleagues in a different light, and even just be able to go into their classes. I learned a lot, and to have those conversations, those professional discussions and the discourse, was brilliant. I learned so much from those. (Karen, secondary teacher of 19 to 21 years).(Bowe, 2016)

 Typically, PLCs involve teachers from across stages and KLAs working together, treating teaching holistically, and, therefore, authentically. With the emphasis on pedagogy, QTR recognises that what teachers know always will be mediated by the teaching that happens in the classroom (Gore et al., 2017).

Why take part in Quality Teaching Rounds?

Teachers believe it helps student learning

Participants in the major suite of research studies that have investigated the effectiveness of QTR (Gore, 2018) deeply value the experience. Whilst a current randomised controlled trial, led by Professor Jenny Gore, Dr Drew Miller, Dr Jess Harris and Dr Elena Prieto (University of Newcastle) is investigating a causal link between QTR and student outcomes, we know from previous studies that schools and teachers believe participation in Rounds does help student learning.

They said, “Oh well? this class just can’t do that” … and I’m going, “But I’m giving them the option to achieve, I’m giving them the point”. That’s what I think is brilliant about this, and that’s why the Year 7 group are so happy, because they’re achieving, and they’re able to show it to an audience now, and sort of say, “We did this!” and “Look at this!” (Gore et al, 2017)

Improves collaboration

After participating in the collaborative processes of Rounds, teachers report being able to transfer the learning gained to their individual practice and to the work in which they engage collectively (Bowe, 2016). Teachers often form strong working relationships with the other members of their PLC. Collaboration not only occurs as part of the Rounds process but often continues after its completion.

It’s been the best PD that we have had because one, it has substance, and two, it has inbuilt in this delivery … an opportunity to see each other teach and that has brought about an openness to change. (Bowe, 2016)

 

Improves teacher morale and sense of recognition

Participation in QTR leads to improved morale and a greater sense of feeling valued by one’s colleagues. Teachers in the 2015 randomised controlled trial indicated significantly increased morale after participating in Rounds when compared to the teachers who had not. Teachers in the same study also reported a stronger sense of feeling recognised for the good work they do (Gore et al., 2017).

Where to next?

QTR in Schools

To successfully implement Quality Teaching Rounds, it is important that schools have at least two teachers completed a two-day workshop prior to commencing Rounds. Schools and teachers interested in implementing Quality Teaching Rounds can register for one of many workshops being held across NSW this year and next at www.newcastle.edu.au/qtr.

Alternatively, email the University of Newcastle’s Teachers and Teaching Research Centre at QTRPD@newcastle.edu.au to organise a workshop in your local area. Teachers in small and remote schools will shortly have opportunities to participate in a fully online digital mode of QTR, including the two-day workshop; for further details email QTR@newcastle.edu.au.

QTR Research

The current research being conducted by the University of Newcastle has the fundamental aim of building capacity for improving teaching across the entire workforce of Australian teachers, including teachers in settings that have traditionally faced barriers to accessing professional development. To find out more about this research, or sign up to participate in the current studies, visit www.newcastle.edu.au/qtr.

References:

Bowe, J., & Gore, J. (2017). Reassembling teacher professional development: The case for Quality Teaching Rounds. Teachers and Teaching, 23(3), 352–366.

Bowe, J., & Gore, J. (2016). Reassembling teacher professional development: The case for Quality Teaching Rounds.

Gore, 2018. Making a difference through Quality Teaching Rounds: Evidence from a sustained program of research. ACER Research Conference: Teaching practices that make a difference: Insights from research, Melbourne.

https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1336&context=research_conference

Gore, J., Lloyd, A., Smith, M., Bowe, J., Ellis, H., & Lubans, D. (2017). Effects of professional development on the quality of teaching: Results from a randomised controlled trial of Quality Teaching Rounds. Teaching and Teacher Education, 68, 99–113. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2017.08.007 (full article available open access)

Lloyd Bowen has recently returned to being Head Teacher Teaching and Learning in a southern Sydney high school. He has spent the last 12 months as one of the Department of Education’s Quality Teaching Rounds Project Advisors working with the University of Newcastle on their Building Capacity in Australian Schools project. In this role he trained teachers and schools in the successful implementation of Quality Teaching Rounds. He has previously worked in schools in Mount Druitt and the Sutherland Shire as a teacher, teacher mentor and head teacher.’

 

 Peter Johnson reveals some of the issues associated with conflict of interest…

       “But she was the best person for the job.”

That was the response from Ron when asked why his daughter was selected to fill a permanent teaching job at his school.

Ron, the principal, had put in place all the correct procedures so that there would be no chance of accusations of nepotism. He handed over the convening of the panel to a head teacher. He played no part in preparing his daughter’s application. He told the head teacher to keep everything confidential, even from him.

So Why Was it a Problem?

The Department of Education’s merit selection procedure document states 

“If any panel member believes that another panel member, including the panel convener, has a conflict of interest which could prejudice the outcome, this must be referred immediately to the Director, Recruitment and Employment”.[i]

Ron was not a member of the panel, so it wasn’t relevant to him. Or, so he thought.

Let us look more closely at the issue of conflict of interest.

The public sector, of which schools are part, has always had a much higher bar for issues of integrity, relating to the recruitment, selection and employment of staff, than the private and business sectors.

There are many examples of family being given “a leg up” in the private sector and business: Rupert Murdoch handing over to Lachlan Murdoch; Larry Adler to Rodney Adler; Frank Packer to Kerry Packer to James Packer. The list goes on.

That is their decision. It is their money.

In the public sector we, public servants and politicians, manage resources funded by the public purse. We are accountable to the taxpayer.

What may be termed succession planning in the private and business sectors is nepotism in the public sector.

So What is a Conflict of Interest?

The Department’s EPAC[ii] fact sheet refers to “circumstances where a member of staff could be influenced, or could reasonably be perceived to be influenced, by private interest when performing an official function”.[iii] These “can involve the interests of the staff member or his or her immediate family or relatives, friends, business partners or associates”.[iv]

The NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption views it as when a public official’s personal interests conflict with their public duties.

Personal interests may relate to that part of a person’s life not directly connected with their work; that may realise benefits to them or disadvantages to the public interest or other people.

So Why is That Relevant to Ron?

The Department’s Code of Conduct reminds staff that a “conflict exists when a reasonably minded and informed person would form that view”.[v]

In the case of Ron, the conflict of interest is multi-pronged. He is responsible for the employment of staff at his school. He has delegated the task of convener of the selection panel to a head teacher. A “reasonably minded person” may form the view that the head teacher may be influenced by their workplace relationship with Ron.

Why is That?

Ron leads the strategic direction of the school and effectively, in consultation with the executive, determines roles and responsibilities within the school. The head teacher’s performance is ultimately judged by Ron, perhaps through an organisational hierarchy involving a deputy principal, but Ron is still the judge. Ron is also the head teacher’s first referee when he or she applies for advertised positions.

The Department’s Code of Conduct requires staff to report situations where a person unduly influences a decision or is perceived to unduly influence a decision. There will be a definite perception that the head teacher will be tempted to keep Ron, and his daughter, happy; a perception that Ron has influenced the decision.

Perceptions of a conflict of interest can often be of more significance than the actual conflict of interest[vi].

The NSW Ombudsman is of the view that it is important to determine the nature and significance of the conflict of interest.[vii]

In Ron’s case, apart from the obvious pride in seeing his daughter achieve a permanent teaching position, and the satisfaction of other family members, Ron may actually derive a financial benefit with a boost to the household income, if his daughter is still living in the family home.

The appointment of his daughter may also disadvantage other teachers who have unsuccessfully applied for the position.

ICAC provides guidance in identifying whether a conflict of interest actually exists by referring to six factors which may or may not be relevant in Ron’s case:[viii]

• favour or disfavour – Ron, through a perceived influence over the head teacher, may have conferred favour on his daughter and disfavour on other applicants;
• “could” adversely influence – Ron’s influence in this situation may not have been real but it certainly “could” occur;
• convergence or commonality of interests – Ron’s personal interests, to have his daughter appointed, may be aligned with the interests of the public authority, to fill the vacancy, leading to a justification that “everyone benefits”;
• remote or insignificant – it could not reasonably be construed that Ron’s interest is so remote or insignificant that it could not be regarded as having the potential to influence the head teacher’s decision;
• conflicts of duties – Ron has two or more duties which are not compatible, in this case to maintain the integrity of the recruitment process and to, in his words, select the “best person for the job”;
• apprehended bias or conflicts of interest – whether a fair-minded observer might reasonably consider a lack of impartiality on Ron’s part.

The ICAC Act requires that the “principal officer” of a public authority, in this case the Department’s Secretary, notify it of possible corrupt conduct[xi]. The definition of corrupt conduct includes a public official adversely affecting, directly or indirectly, the exercising of official functions[x]. One of the matters included in the definition is “fraudulently obtaining or retaining employment or appointment as a public official”[xi].

Is There a Perception that Ron has Acted Corruptly?

Probably not directly, but there may be a perception that he has indirectly influenced an employment decision; an act which may fall under the definition articulated in the ICAC Act.

So how could Ron have handled this situation, the selection of a teacher to fill the vacancy at his school?

There are a number of possibilities:

1. Ron could have convened the panel. If his daughter applied for the position, there is a definite conflict of interest, real and perceived.
2. Ron could have delegated the convening of the panel to a member of his staff, in this case the head teacher. There may be a perceived conflict of interest due to the influence Ron has over the member of staff.
3. Ron could have delegated the convening of the panel to a principal colleague. There may still be a perception of Ron influencing the decision. “You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”, particularly if the colleagues relate closely professionally or socially.
4. Ron could have requested that his director convene the panel. It is unlikely that a director would find time in their busy schedule to convene a panel for a teacher position.
5. Ron could have requested that the director, or a colleague, identify someone remote to Ron and his school to convene the panel. This is possibly the safest suggestion, but there may still be some perception that Ron has played a part in the selection of the convenor.
6. Ron could suggest to his daughter that she not apply. Is this a fair outcome for his daughter?

A conflict of interest, or the perception of a conflict of interest, is an unfortunately common occurrence in the selection of staff in schools, particularly in rural and remote schools where the pool of likely applicants may be significantly restricted.

It is no less significant where the engagement of temporary staff, or the employment of casual staff, is concerned. The length or status of the tenure does not mitigate the seriousness of the action.

It is also no less significant if it involves “friends, business partners or associates”.[xii]

References:

[i] NSW Department of Education (2016), Merit Selection Procedure, Sydney, 10
[ii] Employee Performance and Conduct Directorate
[iii] NSW Department of Education and Communities (2013), Conflict of Interests, Sydney
[iv] ibid

[v] NSW Department of Education (2016), Code of Conduct, Sydney, 14

[vi] Longstaff S (1995), Most people have an intuitive grasp of what it means to have a conflict of interest., The Ethics Centre, Sydney [change font to be consistent with other references]

[vii] NSW Ombudsman (2017), Recognising and Managing Conflict of Interests, Sydney

[viii] NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (2019), Managing Conflicts of Interest in the NSW Public Sector, Sydney, 6-7

[xi] S11(1)(d) Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988

[x] S8(2) Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988

[xi] S8(2A)(e) Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988

[xii] NSW Department of Education and Communities (2013), Conflict of Interests, Sydney

Peter had an extensive and diverse career with the NSW Department of Education. Peter has been a teacher, primary school principal, demographic planner and human resource practitioner.

Peter’s last position with the NSW Department of Education was that of Executive Director, People and Services, with responsibility for the Department’s human resources and business services functions, Peter has over 37 years’ experience in the public sector. His human resource management experience spans the last 25 years across a range of senior roles.

He also represented the Department on the NSW BOSTES[i] Initial Teacher Education Committee and the AITSL[ii] Teacher Quality Advisory Committee, and represented the AEEYSOC[iii] on the AITSL National Initial Teacher Education Advisory Committee.

During his teaching career, Peter was the Federation Representative in the schools in which he worked, was a member of his local teachers’ association executive and represented teachers on the NSW Teachers Federation Council and at Annual Conference.

i] Board of Studies, Teaching and Educational Standards ( now known as NSW Education Standards Authority [NESA])

[ii] Australian Institute of Teaching and School Leadership

[iii] Australian Education, Early Childhood and Youth Affairs Senior Officials Committee