Calculated epiphany now: the partial turning of John Hattie

John Hattie has fallen out with Anne Tolley. This remarkable turn-of-events was on display for us in the NZ Herald, Saturday, August 1, 2009.

The front-page headlining article is continued on pages 6-7.

We’ve had a victory of sorts.

Congratulations to the principals who have carried the fight wonderfully in their districts, NZEI, and the Principals Federation, also to the principals who piped up at various meetings and forums around the country questioning Hattie’s research and his ideology.  As well, thanks to Ivan Snook who always holds us together so well philosophically in these issues, Given education struggles are usually ones of attrition; this one has had a pretty decisive outcome.

The aim was to weaken Hattie’s dominance over education developments in this country by challenging his research and ideology, and separating him from his powerful connection with the government.

In the Sunday Star Times (January 4, 2009), Hattie (amongst promoting other conservative education ideas) made a play for performance-related pay, clearly positioning himself to take a major part in its implementation.

Tolley, in return, said (amongst other admiring things): ‘Hattie’s research will have a profound influence on how the new government approaches education’. She also said Hattie ‘had come close to defining what makes an excellent teacher’ and that she wanted him to be ‘involved in a cross-sector discussion’.

But they have fallen out over standardised testing.

Hattie said that ‘education will be set back 50 years by the reforms’ and that the ‘standards-based system will result in teaching mediocrity’.

There is more to come from Hattie and Tolley, but the question needs to be asked: Why has Hattie made a stand over this?

Hattie is a representative of the ‘school effectiveness and improvement’ research ideology; an ideology recognised by the way its proponents downplay socio-economic effects on learning; shape their research to appeal to conservative politicians; and are staunch in support of conservative ideas about education. What he has done is the opposite of staunch.

But Hattie is above all an academic entrepreneur and the commercial realities of his situation will have come home to roost. His brand has been sullied by recent publicity so that the likelihood of him assuming in a comfortable manner all sorts of government-allocated contracts has diminished. On the other hand, principals, the ones who will have the choice of buying asTTle and his professional development programmes, have been vigorous in making their views clear. Their sense of unity over the league tables issue would have been a revelation.

Perhaps, as well, somewhere in there, his conscience has been pricked.

But, whatever, we shouldn’t look a gift horse too closely in the mouth, especially a thoroughbred of Hattie’s academic background, and one careering in such a prolonged manner in the wrong direction against the race we are running.

As I state in the heading to this posting I consider Hattie’s change of direction a calculated one; well have to wait and see how permanent it is. As well, in any retreat, there’s always a bit of a mess left behind in the headlong dash for safer ground. That, however, is for later, tonight let’s party.

Do you want some music to your ears, well, hark to the latter-day Jack Shallcrass.

“The changes,” he said, “threatened to destroy one of the great strengths of the New Zealand education system, which was teaching children according to their own abilities.”

“It would make New Zealand more like the United States, where schools moved children mechanically through all subjects at the same pace. The result was mediocrity because teachers just aimed to meet the minimum standard.”

Tolley downplayed the prospect of league tables [another victory, well done all concerned]  and promised the new system will not revolve around passing a series of national tests, as in Britain and the United States.

But Hattie was not to be mollified: ‘The changes still looked likely to force teachers to teach children according to their school year, rather than their ability level, which is nonsense.’

He goes on to say that ‘a standards-based system clashed badly with the levels-based curriculum’ –  that will almost have to go out the window–  ‘and would send the wrong signals.’

As spot on as Hattie is in this point, it rather narrows his argument. He is not arguing against a national testing system per se, he is arguing against one that messes with his levels-based asTTle. He does not want the ministry turning his carefully calibrated asTTle results into national standards with their gross year-based component. (The competing standardised test, PAT, is more amenable to these shenanigans, which might have contributed to Hattie’s outspokenness.) A good point but it does not address our more fundamental concern of centrally imposed standardised tests as a whole. (On reflection, I think the asTTle issue might be fundamental with the ministry having problems aligning the asTTle levels with the curriculum levels: that would be very serious.)

Hattie in defending asTTle and what it stands for, is drawn in, it seems, into making statements that have much wider application.

‘If this system comes in the correct job for the teacher is to teach to the test. And that’s the problem.’

‘National standards were likely to make teachers less accountable to parents, contrary to the Government’s intention.’

Then comes the daddy of them all; the mother of all education statements; Beethoven’s Ninth to our ears – I can scarce forbear to cheer: ‘With some kids, there is much better information than a test score. It’s the teacher’s judgement. And it’s the teacher’s judgement that should be held accountable, not the test score.’

In part 3 of the Hattie series I say that ‘research has its place but our professional lives are more enriched when academics create education ideas greater than their research.’ I then comment that Hattie’s extra ideas are even ‘more dismal than his research.’ In his statement above, though, in which he expresses high confidence in teacher judgement, Hattie has not only succeeded in creating an idea streets ahead of his research, but in direct contradiction to it. A remarkable feat but hey! let’s take it and move on.

And that more-or-less is that, though on page 7, the principal who raised the matter of the early childhood children, scores well in the discussion on Hattie’s school reporting research when she says:  “… some parents were wary, especially of the actions they were supposed to take – the parents have more of an idea of a traditional report. They are saying, ‘Talk to us about that but don’t put it in writing.’

Hattie is quoted as saying that most reports had statements such as ‘achieving well’ or ‘a pleasure to teach’ which were meaningless to parents – well, all I can say, that in the case of my parents they would have carried a lot of meaning and brought considerable relief.

This posting has been written in haste so I hope it reads all right. My best friend, Frank Dodd, a former NZEI president, kept telling me to be gracious. I hope I have been, but, in the interests of children, as I see them, I also felt the need to be honest, as I see it.

 

How do I see the Hattie-Tolley relationship playing out? I think Tolley will try for a rapprochement; it would be the tactical thing to do. If it happens John, remember you are in there for us.

 

Every step take: every move you make.