Researchers consistently agree that teachers are far more likely to have a large and positive impact if they:
1. Know what needs be taught
2. Teach
3. Monitor what has been learned
4. Adapt their teaching as necessary
In other words, if teachers competently carry out the tasks they are paid to do, their positive impact will be greater.
This is stating the obvious. But what if they don’t?
Australian principals are charged with the management of multimillion-dollar budgets…
If teachers have deficits in any of these four key measures, there is very little, if anything, principals can do.
A report compiled by Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) paints a very telling picture of this very issue. Specifically, it notes that principals believe they lack influence or extensive authority with regard to their own teaching staff.
Here’s a snapshot showing the percentage of Australian principals who feel they have no authority to affect the teaching profession – their own staff – in 5 key areas:
· Reviewing teacher performance 40%
· Prioritising professional learning 50%
· Determining staffing profile 75%
· Dismissing poor performers 90%
· Rewarding high performers 98.8%
Australian principals are charged with the management of multimillion-dollar budgets, and the provision of quality education, but 90% know there is little they can do about poor performance among their staff.
…principals believe they have no authority to review teacher performance…
If that’s not bad enough, 40% of schools have no mechanisms to distinguish between high and poor performers. Their principals believe they have no authority to review teacher performance and, even if they had, 50% believe they have no authority to determine the professional learning required to lift poor teacher performance.
As terrible as this might seem, there is some good news. The statistics above come from a report published in November 2011.
Now, Australian principals who lead schools with multimillion-dollar budgets do have a level of control over the services their schools provide.
They are involved in professional learning, they have the authority to prioritise on-site professional learning, and they can distinguish poor performers from high performers.
What they still can’t do, however, is motivate the unmotivated, or break away from a deep and influential bureaucracy – that is, of course, unless they are personally willing to face dismissal or accept rewards, by placing their own professional performance on the line.
A difficult decision perhaps, but one that could lead the way to reform, and greater choice, in all areas of employment in Australian schools.
I suspect that could that have a widespread and positive impact on principals, teachers, parents, students and the wider community.
Copyright © Cheryl Lacey 2018
Email cheryl@cheryllacey.com and mention this post to receive your complimentary report on Sensible Strategy for Leaders of Education.
Cheryl Lacey is an educationist and advocate of agitating change in Australian education to face global challenges facing Australia and Australians.
If you would like to learn more about the outcomes achieved by educational leaders and teams who have worked with me, contact me at cheryl@cheryllacey.com or visit www.cheryllacey.com
