Yesterday I spoke on a panel at the Sydney Morning Herald Schools Summit. In the morning Paul Martin from NESA spoke about NSW curriculum reform and decluttering, noting that a curriculum is a settlement, a compromise and NSW takes a cautious, conservative approach during a time of cultural contest. David de Carvalho from ACARA spoke about curriculum decluttering as taking a hedge-trimmer not a chainsaw, Marie Kondoing the curriculum in order to give time back to teachers and the ability to “linger longer on topics.” Andy Hargreaves spoke about exams at the end of Year 12 being a relic of the 20th century, emphasising the role of engagement as the centrepiece of education. 

The afternoon panel that I was on discussed Geoff Gallup’s comments about his impending report on changes to the teacher workplace commissioned by the NSW Teachers Federation. The panel, chaired by Jordan Baker from the SMH, included President of NSW Teachers Federation Angelo Gavrielatos and Head Teacher at Concord High Alice Leung. They are both education leaders who I hold in very high regard, so it was especially nice to be speaking alongside them.

Alice made the point that the school system is exactly the same now as when she went to school, but the needs are different and the expectations are different. She spoke about “dot point pushing” and emphasised the complexity of teacher work and the lack of time to do it well, with an inevitable impact on student outcomes. She also pointed out that teachers are not charity workers, or volunteers.

Angelo is a brilliant advocate for public school teachers. He stated that no profession is more noble than the teaching profession and argued for genuine recognition and tangible rewards with more time to concentrate on teaching and learning and a competitive professional salary that matches the complexity and intensity of the work.

I spoke to Geoff Gallup’s comments about red tape and the increasing use of data. While we know that the best professional learning is job-embedded, ongoing, and collaborative, we are increasingly pushed to box tick workshop hours for accreditation. Teaching is not a profession without accountabilities, but it is not an algorithm. Schools are addicted to quantitative data as if there was a secure relationship between input and output. Data is a diagnostic yardstick. As David de Carvalho had earlier argued, we should be data informed, not data-driven.

I tied back to the morning comments about decluttering the curriculum, talking about shifting the dial from covering content towards focusing more on the sorts of learners we would like  – curious, active, engaged, problem-solvers. I argued that it is not our job to ‘deliver the curriculum’, it’s our job to ‘bring it to life’. This requires respecting the agency and professionalism of teachers and our tacit knowledge. Teaching is one of very few professions where we are continuously being told by people outside our profession what we should be doing inside our profession.

Jordan asked me if I would accept higher class sizes as a compromise for more opportunities to professionally collaborate with colleagues. Angelo rescued me from the question, memorably arguing that we should not be asked to cannibalise ourselves.

I wish I had emphasised how rewarding teaching is as a career and I wish I had questioned the basic grammar of schooling – using marks as motivation and 50 minute periods. Next time!