10 min read

Don Carter, University of Technology Sydney

Federal Education Minister Dan Tehan has announced the government will update the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians. This document sets out the agreed national purposes and role of schooling in order to deliver high-quality education regardless of cultural, linguistic and economic background.

It also aims to ensure schooling contributes to a socially cohesive society that continues to strengthen Australia as a democracy. The Melbourne Declaration is an important document nationally because it provides the basis of the Australian Curriculum.

As a nation, we face a range of national and international challenges such as mobile populations, so-called “fake news”, youth radicalisation, religious fundamentalism and a decline in public confidence in political and social institutions. A rigorous and quality education will provide students with the skills and knowledge to make sense of these and other challenges.

Read more: What sort of people do we want young Australians to be?

Four key changes could be made to help develop students into the skilled, knowledgeable and rational individuals Australia needs. These are:

• a greater emphasis on the development of soft skills
• a rethink of the ways teachers assess student learning in the classroom
• a strengthening of critical thinking skills
• closer attention to the language we use when talking about education.

What it’s about

The Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs issued the Melbourne Declaration in 2008. It was preceded by the Hobart and Adelaide Declarations.

As the overarching vision for Australian education, the document articulates two main goals:

1. the promotion of equity and excellence in Australian schools
2. that all young Australians become successful learners, confident and creative individuals and active and informed citizens.

These two goals are intended to ensure all students get high-quality schooling free from discrimination so they develop into knowledgeable, capable and articulate citizens.

Criticisms

A number of education experts have criticised the Melbourne Declaration. One, for example, argues a main driver behind the Melbourne Declaration is the promotion of education as a commodity, competing with other commodities in a global market. As a result, other important aims related to the development of students’ personal attributes as communicative, respectful and thoughtful individuals are not fully targeted in the document.

Similarly, other experts argue the document advocates a new type of education promoted by the OECD, which requires creative thinking, the ability to work flexibly and the ability to adapt to changes in the workplace and wider society. They argue the document is couched in language that promotes the economic aims of education and the economic prosperity of the nation over student well-being, environmental sustainability and democratic participation.

How can it be improved?

The scope for improvement in the Melbourne Declaration lies in the second goal, which focuses on the development of soft skills. The Melbourne Declaration needs to clearly require curriculum and educational policy across Australia to be geared towards developing students who are highly literate and numerate, able to solve problems (especially in the workplace), communicate effectively and develop and maintain positive relationships within and beyond the family unit.

Second, we need to rethink how we assess student learning in the classroom. Rather than being geared towards classmate-versus-classmate competition through tests and examinations, it should acknowledge and reward achievement in an ongoing way. For example, a student may try to write a narrative early in the year and then, following further learning and practice, re-attempt the writing activity. The teacher may identify specific features to track over the two attempts and provide feedback on the quality of those features.

This approach to assessment is called ipsative assessment. A student’s performance is not measured against their peers’ performance, but against their last attempt at a similar task. This approach eliminates competition with peers and the potential negative consequences of such competition.

It’s similar to approaches outlined in the Gonski 2.0 report. The Melbourne Declaration includes advice on approaches to assessment, but the inclusion of ipsative assessment would be a good option for schools.

We also need to be mindful of the language we use in education. In recent decades, education has increasingly been seen and talked about as a commodity. The language of the marketplace has infiltrated education with terms such as “agile”, “nimble”, “flexible” and “innovative” appearing in policy documents. These words narrow the goals of education to the development of workplace skills and little else.

An example of this is the New South Wales Stronger HSC Standards Blueprint, which states curriculum reform needs to be “agile and flexible”. This document as a whole is an example of the heavy emphasis on workplace skills and aptitudes at the expense of the development of individual, interpersonal skills.

We need to be mindful of the terms we use – education is more than a product to be consumed.

Read more: Gonski 2.0: teaching creativity and critical thinking through the curriculum is already happening

We live in a era of information saturation and overload. In an important Australian study, the Digital News Report: Australia 2018 found that 65% of Australians grapple with what’s real and what isn’t in the news. Another study found only 34% of young Australian respondents said they can identify fake news stories from real ones. Some 32% said they are unable to do so.

A revised Melbourne Declaration needs to emphasise critical thinking. This is the capacity to spot faulty arguments, generalisations and unfounded assertions.

Highlighting critical thinking will help equip students with the tools to identify how language can be used to persuade, compel and deceive. This capacity is increasingly important in democracies in an era of “fake news”, social media platforms and information saturation.

Don Carter, Senior Lecturer, Education, University of Technology Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

long read 10 mins

Communication Tips for STAFF (and Parents) to build a culture of TRUST, COLLABORATION and ENQUIRY.

When we read the results of the Bond Uni study by Assoc. Prof Peta Stapleton that indicate over half of Australian teachers suffer anxiety and approximately one fifth are depressed, according to the research that analysed 166 Australian school teachers, we must change things to reduce these alarming statistics.

Similarly when we read that Parent-related issues were one of a number of second tier stressors for principals, and is on the increase, according to data from The Australian Principal Occupational Health, Safety and Wellbeing Survey (2018 - Philip Riley), then change MUST occur to maintain and strengthen our profession for teachers and school leaders.

In July 2001 when I was first appointed principal of a Catholic primary School in the Brisbane Archdiocese my then Area Supervisor told me that my job is about the 3 Rs: Relationships, Relationships, Relationships. He may well have said our job is about Communication, Communication, Communication. Alternately he may have said our job is about building a culture of TRUST AND COLABORATION within your school community as you provide a high-quality education for the children at your school.

Communication is basis for all successful relationships and as such we must ensure the communication protocols between parents and staff create that culture of trust in collaboration. Parents trust teachers to know children, know the curriculum, know pedagogy while providing a safe work environment for their children to learn. Similarly, teachers are trusting parents to provide the basics so that a child can learn.  They trust parents to provide food, clothing, shelter and the resources necessary for a child to pursue their studies. Teachers and parents trust each other so we can create a climate in which their children, our children, can learn.

If we agree, understand and accept that teachers and parents are essential to a child's educational journey, and that we must work together, then a culture of collaboration should exist within the learning environment. Such collaboration can be very practical with parents assisting classrooms, taking leadership roles within the school such as a P&F Association and School Boards or similar structures. Collaboration may refer to open dialogue in communication. It may mean that parents keep abreast of what's happening in the school through reading the school communications: newsletters, blogs, parent portals or similar such communication strategies. It does mean that teachers need to be effective in their communication strategies and keep parents informed of what is happening in and around the school, particularly that impacts on the child's learning. Collaboration means that parents have a voice in the school, as do the students, as do the staff. This voice may involve them providing feedback, it may involve them suggesting initiatives, it may involve them fundraising, or being a marketing tool for the school, as parents are often the greatest advocates for the child's school. We need parents as part of our students’ educational journey and I believe that parents need teachers as part of their journey also.

Often when teachers feel stressed through parent engagement it is because the teachers have become defensive in responding to parent enquiries. I would like to suggest there are only three questions that teachers need to ask parents when a parent visits school with an issue (and there are 3 separate questions that parents need to ask teachers to maintain and promote a culture of trust in collaboration – that’s another article). These three questions will allow teachers to share information. It means the teachers do not need to get defensive when responding to parent enquiries. It simply means that they can clarify and expand on information that parents may be seeking. This is crucial if we are to build that culture of trust and collaboration. It also means that teachers can be happier, and hopefully healthier, and hence provide better teaching for students which will then, in turn, provide better outcomes for the learners.

Three Questions teachers and school leaders could ask parents when they visit.

First question could be: What do you need?

This question allows the parent to reflect as to the purpose of them coming to the school. When parents approach the school are often do so for one three reasons. The first reason might be they simply need to vent. They need to get something off their chest about school life and hence they will come and express something they feel passionately about. The second reason maybe  to seek a solution or resolution to a perceived problem. The third reason might be that the parents are seeking advice or guidance from the teacher or from a member of the leadership team. Those are three very valid reasons why parents may be approaching the school. If the they do it in such a way that is collaborative and through a sense of enquiry, then the school staff will simply be clarifying and sharing information and there would be no need for the staff to get defensive. The first question also means that the teacher is listening to the parent and the parent feels valued through that simple question. The parent can reflect and appreciate that the teacher is asking them what is important for them and what do they need to support our child's educational journey. the first question that teachers need to ask parents when they come for an enquiry is “What do you need?”.

Follow up to first question could be "What does the child need?” If the principal is facilitating a difficult conversation between parents and teachers then the principal could ask what are the needs of the child. Ideally there will be some alignment between the parent needs, the teacher’s needs and the child’s needs. Once all have been heard and needs identified a way forward in a climate of trust and collaboration is possible.

Second Question: What would that look like in our class or school? This second question allows the parent the opportunity to sit in the shoes of the teacher or a member of leadership and to think and to reflect about their request. Is the request valid? Is it realistic? and is it possible to be implemented in their child class or in their child school? Frequently if a parent has a demand or request of a teacher or a member of leadership and their request seems unrealistic to the staff member, instead of the staff member simply denying that request and saying no outright, they can it turn around and say to the parent “How do you think that would look in our class ?” The parents may reflect and come to the realisation that their request is unrealistic.  While they are processing the request in response to the teacher's question, the parents may arrive at a different position whereby they can work together with the school for the betterment of their child's education.

Third question: Is there anything else you would like to ask and tell me? This third question simply allows the teacher to bring the conversation to a close and for the parent to walk away content they have been heard and they have said all they need to say. This question is putting the emphasis on the needs of the parent and a way to address their issues.

(Please note that there are three questions that parents should use when approaching staff about a school matter).

Power of the pause

When having conversations with people who have elevated emotions, the ability to stay calm and to pause is critical. Inevitably when there is a space in a conversation one person will feel the need to fill that space. If the teacher or the member of leadership is having a conversation with an elevated parent and the staff member leaves a gap in the conversation and pauses then the parent, who may be an elevated state, will more than likely continue to speak. Once the parent has finished speaking the principal or teacher is in a position to respond. If the teacher or principal uses one of the three questions that have already been discussed then tension should be diffused relatively quickly.

The power of the pause cannot be underestimated and is used by the best negotiators and the best interviewers to leave a space so that the other member in the conversation feels welcome to continue talking and to express their opinion. It is important that when a parent comes to a teacher or a principal in an elevated state of emotion that they are heard, that they are listen to, so that they can feel that their needs are being met.

Three Point Communication

The importance of three point communication especially in potentially stressful situations could be highly valued. Direct eye contact between two people can elevate the tension, so having the capacity to legitimately look away to another place, without the participant feeling that you are distracted and not paying attention, is crucial. The third point of communication could be the notes you are taking, or it could be written material to which you are referring in the conversation or it could be a third party who may or may not be important to the whole discussion. If a parent initiated the conversation you can ask if it is ok for you to take notes as an accurate account of the discussion. If you initiate the conversation, you may have some work to which you will refer during the chat. Either way you have some material that you can either write on or point to as a place of focus for both people, particularly the agitated participant.

Using the power of the pause is another communication strategy which will allow open communication to occur between school and parents, whereby creating a culture of trust and collaboration, which is key for the success of the teaching process. As School leaders we need to look after our teachers, and parents need to look after teachers, as they are one of the most influential factors in a child's learning journey. If we can create a culture of trust and collaboration then the teachers will be able to perform at their optimum level whereby providing good learning and teaching experiences for the students, whereby improving student outcomes. If our teachers are thriving then principals should also be thriving.

Andrew has presentations for staff and parents about these communication tips to build a culture of TRUST, COLLABAORATION and ENQUIRY.

Andrew has drawn on the work of Allan Parker (world renowned negotiator, behavioural scientist and forensic linguist) and Michael Grinder (world expert in non- verbal communication).

Andrew has been a principal for last 17 years and wrote his first book "Are You Ready for Primary school This Year?" Which focuses on building a culture of Trust, Collaboration and Enquiry between parents and teachers.                                  Book avilable through website link.

Last year, the principal of a Sydney school communicated to the parent body in, perhaps, unusually clear terms that they needed to “chill out”.

It illustrates the widening gulf between parents, teachers and the school system, which is at breaking point, and the urgent need for policies to be put in place to prevent irreparable damage to the sector – not least children’s learning outcomes.

Parents are emotional creatures – especially when it comes to the performance of their children at school. As a group, they're just as diverse as students within a typical classroom. So why are we surprised when parent-teacher conflicts arise?

Labelling parents is neither constructive nor a solution to the problem. Already we read about ‘helicopter’ and ‘lawnmower’ parents, who are over-involved in their children’s lives, undermining schools in their pursuit of the best possible outcomes for the students. We see similar criticisms of parents reported in the university context, even once their children have crossed the threshold into adulthood.

Labelling parents in this way undermines parent interest and involvement. It devalues their expertise in knowing their own child, and it further generalises parents into the one group.

Labelling parents can also become an obstructive force – “parents” become something to manage; to be wary of; to avoid. School staff may feel hopeless in their ability to help children “with those parents”.

Schools can become hesitant to invite parents into their grounds to participate in school life in meaningful ways, yet this is to the detriment of the child, who ultimately benefits from parental involvement, and teachers and parents working as collaborative partners.

Not all parents are difficult. Many just want the best outcomes for their children, but don't always have the skills needed to communicate this in a nuanced manner; however, we all agree that any form of aggressive and violent behaviour is unacceptable.

School staff need to have sufficient training and professional development to ensure they're able to manage challenging parents and raise the alarm when parent behaviours may cross boundaries. When a relationship between a parent and a teacher is significantly broken, mediation services may be considered. However, at this point, there's much that can be done to prevent such scenarios from occurring.

Schools can show leadership by being preventative, ensuring their school staff communicate contact procedures with parents at the start of each year so that boundaries and expectations are established early. It's important that boundaries are communicated to allow parents to know acceptable ways to contact staff, and what are reasonable expectations of teachers.

When teachers communicate to parents, have them consider: Do messages that are going home ever communicate positives, or do the parents only hear from me when there is a problem? Achieving a balance in communication can help teachers reinforce to parents that they want to work with, not against them.

School staff should also have awareness that parents, like children, can come from myriad backgrounds. If a parent’s experience with their own schooling was negative, this can impact on how they may interact with a school. Parents who are anxious, for example, may have been anxious well before they became parents, and being responsible for the welfare of others is a new source of worry.

When parents hear about how hard it's going to be for their children to own their own home and cope with ever-increasing cost-of-living pressures, as well as the impacts of AI and the automation of industry, it may increase concern about whether their children will do well enough in school. We need to remember that anxiety can look like many things, anger included, and many parents agonise about their kids' future.

Ultimately, schools must not lose sight of the fact parents are ideal collaborative partners for teachers, working in unison towards positive and shared goals in the best interests of the children they have in common.

The 2006 Family-Schools Partnership Project, led by Dennis Muller, identified several elements of best practice in developing these partnerships. Among these were the need to be “sensitive to parents’ sensibilities”, as well as “realistic, patient, and a bit brave”. Being on the front foot in creating a school culture of best practice in parent engagement could well pave the way to more harmonious relationships between home and school.

School leaders, together with teachers, could also consider meaningful ways for parents to participate in the classroom or school. This may involve harnessing the unique skills, abilities and qualifications a parent may bring to enhance school life for all students. Opportunities for teachers to get to know parents, and vice-versa, may work towards breaking down barriers in communication and prevent an "us and them" dynamic forming.

Understanding that parents bring their own experiences, expectations and worries into this collaboration means that we need to consider what might be behind a parent’s behaviour. School staff need to be astute in both managing difficult behaviours and identifying when more support is required.

Not all parents are difficult; they may just be eager, and with time become a valuable educational resource within the wider school community.

This article was co-authored with Sally Kenney, educational and developmental psychologist, Kilvington Grammar School, and honorary fellow, Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne.

This article was first published on Monash Lens. Read the original article