Leon Benade: Worrying signs of teacher-bashing in latest ERO report

Opinion

The Education Review Office national report on reading and writing has been linked in the media to national standards.

A troubling aspect of the standards debate is the return of teacher-bashing to the agenda. For several years, Professor Martin Thrupp, of the University of Waikato, has criticised the ERO for indulging in the "lingering politics of blame". Even though ERO has taken up a far more positive role in recent years, this national report pulls no punches.

School reviews are not an exact science. At review time, a school and ERO team leader settle on a focus for review.

There is also a compulsory review of "areas of national interest" (such as informed this ERO report on reading and writing in Years 1 and 2). ERO then sends a small team into the school for three days to form a view based on what its team reads, hears and sees.

In this time, the team has to read piles of documents and files, interview a range of people and visit classes. This is the raw material for the report. If a team fails to find the evidence it is looking for, or finds only some instances, this is what will be reported. Frequently, inadequate record-keeping by the school or an ill-advised comment by a staff or board member will influence a report.

That nearly one-third of teachers, school leaders and boards have been found wanting is because ERO teams across the country did not hear, read or see what they looked for in the 212 schools reviewed.

That the conclusion drawn from this is that teachers are intentionally setting low standards or that school leaders are hiding results from their boards sounds like teacher-bashing.

ERO uses the word "confidence" 15 times in the report, mostly applied to teachers, who are said to "lack confidence" in areas ERO has found them wanting.

If teachers "lack confidence", this will be because of a lack of experience, knowledge or guidance. Regarding experience, it seems that ERO found instances of beginning teachers working at the Year 1 and 2 levels. Clearly, ERO disapproves of this practice.

It is also clear that areas of concern for ERO are largely, but not exclusively, with low decile schools. Principals and boards of low decile schools can struggle to attract teachers, because these schools face great challenges.

Sometimes, those schools have no option but to put inexperienced teachers into junior classes. However, it is disrespectful to many highly effective beginning and immigrant teachers to suggest that they lack competence at that level.

Successive governments have, over the past decade or so, diluted teacher preparation programmes. The shift in focus for primary education to more theoretical degree programmes has provided the illusion of enhanced qualifications, but at the loss of the skills and knowledge of expert teaching.

A multitude of tertiary providers offer teacher education programmes, some of dubious quality. Government policy has been to carry teacher education over into the schools, some of which are better able than others to support new teachers.

A lack of guidance refers to the quality of leadership in schools. If assessment data is not being adequately or effectively analysed and acted upon, this is less likely to be the fault of the teacher and more likely the responsibility of school leaders. Many of the ERO criticisms are not the province of individual teachers to manage.

Their task is to develop as skilled, competent and knowledgeable professionals. This will include planning and executing a strong literacy programme. However, in most schools, that work is done in teams, each of which has a leader. It has to be said, however, that school leaders are flooded with paperwork and compliance, much of which is focused on regular ERO reviews.

ERO claims that two-thirds of schools have little evidence of systematic monitoring in Years 1 and 2. This means an absence of analysed data, procedures or strong assessment programmes or lack of robust reporting to the board. There is, however, no indication of how widespread this may be (212 schools were reviewed out of almost 2600).

Half of the country's primary schools are small. Most examples used by ERO of ineffective practice occurred in small schools, which could be as small as one teacher and a teaching principal. These isolated schools face incredible challenges. One-third of schools are low decile and several ERO examples of "ineffective practice" were found in these schools. There are nevertheless very many examples of highly effective low decile and small schools with inspiring leaders and teachers and delightful students who are achieving well.

School reviews are rather more about people and paper, than brute numbers and the ERO's averaging out can damage the reputations of teachers and schools.