Political behaviour

Embed from Getty Images

On Tuesday, I complained about the proposed phonics check becoming a political football in Australia. The problem with turning what should be a technical question about evidence into a political question is that people stop looking at the evidence and start asking which position they are meant to line-up with politically. This is a big problem in education where most teachers and academics are left-leaning and an idea can be killed-off by dubbing it conservative, no matter how inappropriate that label is.

Think of it this way: If you have built a career and reputation around downplaying the role of phonics in early reading and advising teachers to teach three-cuing strategies then it is far easier to defeat your opponents by dubbing them conservative than by deploying research evidence.

I think that classroom management is another issue that receives similar treatment. There is a perception that tackling classroom behaviour issues is somehow a conservative agenda. This might explain why we are not even having the conversation about behaviour in Australia, despite disturbing evidence that it is a particular issue here.

In 2017, we learnt the results of an OECD survey of students across 68 education systems who were asked about their experience of science lessons. Australia ranked near the bottom on a measure known as the ‘index of disciplinary climate’, indicating a negative disciplinary climate.

Yesterday, a separate survey of teachers, TALIS 2018, was released. Again, this points to problems with the disciplinary climate in Australian classrooms. It therefore follows that improving classroom behaviour should be a key priority for Australian politicians and education bureaucrats. It is true that the evidence for the most effective approaches is not as strong as for phonics, but Blaise Joseph reminded me earlier on Twitter of a 2014 paper by Sue O’Neill and Jennifer Stephenson that surveyed the literature as it stands. O’Neill and Stephenson report a list of practices that are supported by varying levels of evidence and it is striking that, while some of these could be applied by individual teachers, most make much more sense as part of a consistent, whole-school policy.

So why are we not having conversations about whole-school approaches?

Firstly, I think there is shame for teachers in admitting they have a problem with behaviour, so they tend to play it down. This is exacerbated when people suggest that poor behaviour is the teacher’s fault. There is also a dynamic where the more senior you are, the better the students will behave and so those with authority may see behaviour as less of a problem than graduate and early career teachers.

However, I also think that the political framing of whole-school behaviour policies as authoritarian and somehow right-wing plays a significant role.

And yet this is perverse. Left-leaning teachers should, at least in theory, be concerned for the disadvantaged. Yet who do you think suffers most from disrupted classroom environments? Is it wealthy, privileged children or poor, disadvantaged ones?


3 thoughts on “Political behaviour

  1. I think sometimes it’s easy to assume that the crowd of Robinsonite squawkers among the teachers on Twitter and Facebook constitutes the majority of the teachers who lean leftwards, but in my experience there is a solid cohort of experienced “old left” teachers who have a very healthy contempt for all the fluffy thinking around behaviour and curriculum these days. The thing is, such teachers tend not to make as much noise on social media (or in the media proper).

  2. Another reason student behaviour is not focus currently, is due to Hattie’s effect sizes and rankings.

    “Reducing Disruptive Behaviour” is ranked around #80 in Visible Learning 2009.If you look at the research Hattie used, his interpretation is highly questionable. Hattie used 3 meta-analyses, none of which had anything to do with reducing disruptive behaviour! One meta-analysis Hattie reports got an effect size of -0.69.

    A simple question is how can reducing disruptive behaviour DECREASE achievement by that extent?

    This just contradicts any sort of practical experience.

    When you look at the study, it compared the achievement of emotionally disturbed kids (EBD) with ‘normal’ kids, the study concludes-

    ‘students with EBD performed at a significantly lower level than did students without those disabilities across academic subjects and settings’ (p130).

    Teachers need to scrutinise the so-called evidence to stop the domination of this sort of pseudo-science.

    More details about the 3 studies here – https://visablelearning.blogspot.com/p/behaviour.html

  3. Pingback: Flipping the switch – Filling the pail

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.