schools

Matthew Lynch published in International Education

For Australia to improve in maths, policymakers need to make a plan and stick to it

This article was written by Vincent Geiger

Australia is struggling to improve its performance in maths due to a lack of continuity in policymaking.

While Australia tends to plan in three-year cycles, the countries that are performing the best – or making significant improvements – in international rankings for maths, such as Singapore, Finland and Japan – tend to revise their maths curriculum every five to six years.

This allows teachers to become fully acquainted with new initiatives and provides time for the bedding down of any changes to previous practice. It also allows curriculum developers and system administrators to evaluate the effectiveness of innovations.

So what impact has a lack of continuity had on maths education in Australia?

Slipping standards in maths

The last two international tests revealed that Australia is failing to improve in maths education.

In the 2015 version of Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), Australia was 22nd in Year 4 maths, and 13th in Year 8 maths, a decline from 18th and 12th respectively in 2011.

In the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), Australia was 18th in maths, down from 12th in 2012.

The results of these assessments indicate that the performance of Australian students is declining in both an absolute sense and in comparison to students from an increasing number of other nations.

The government and opposition have blamed each other for the situation, claiming the failure of respective policy direction and its implementation.

Impact of continuity in policy

It is hard to ignore the fact that there are nations that have made changes to their approach to maths education and made significant comparative progress.

In the case of Singapore, revision of the curriculum does not mean throwing out all aspects of previous practice and beginning again. Rather, it means a meticulous process of reviewing what has been effective and what needs to be improved or added to prepare students for the world they will move into – not just the world as it exists.

Curriculum is based on knowledge and practices that have served students well in the past, but is also future orientated.

This period of time also provides an opportunity for curriculum developers and system administrators to evaluate the effectiveness of innovations.

The approach to curriculum development is national, focused, carefully coordinated and then thoroughly evaluated.

In Australia, however, education is the responsibility of the respective states and territories. This poses a serious challenge for a coherent coordination of our curriculum development efforts.

Development of an Australian curriculum

The Australian Curriculum was heralded as a landmark in national cooperation in education.

Through the process of negotiation for its development and implementation, however, has emerged a determination by states and territories to preserve their differences and distinctiveness.

Some states have been accused of making superficial efforts to align with a national approach.

State efforts at curriculum development have a tendency to respond to whatever political pressure point is being stimulated at any time. For example, the most recent performance on NAPLAN results are prone to quick fix solutions.

Such flightiness brings into question how any long-term effective change brought about and rigorously evaluated.

Consequently, when looking at our national effort, it appears to be disjointed, unfocused, somewhat ad hoc in its development and close to impossible to evaluate in terms of student outcomes.

Introduction of teaching standards

Australia has created a number of measures to help improve its performance in maths. These include:

  • The introduction of the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) national teaching standards, which include a requirement that all graduating teachers have the ability to promote students’ numeracy capabilities across the curriculum.
  • A numeracy (and literacy) tests for initial teacher education students to ensure graduating teachers have the necessary level of personal numeracy to be effective in classrooms.
  • National programs aimed at strengthening initial teacher education students’ mathematics and science knowledge, such as Enhancing Training of Mathematics and Science Teachers (ETMST).
  • Restoring the Focus on STEM in School Initiative, which aims to support the teaching of science, technology, engineering and mathematics subjects in primary and secondary schools.

These initiatives demonstrate the commitment of considerable federal resources for the purpose of enhancing the nation’s mathematical (and scientific) capabilities.

Taken as a suite, this list seems to represent a comprehensive approach to improving students’ mathematics outcomes – all aspects of curriculum, teacher pre-service education and teacher in-service education receive attention.

So why has this (what appears to be) well thought-out plan proved to be seemly ineffective?

Continuity of funding

Having been part of a number of federally-funded programs aimed at strengthening the teaching capabilities, I think it is fair to say that most have been successful in what they set out to achieve.

Programs such as the Enhancing Training of Mathematics and Science Teachers, for example, were carefully scoped out and then thoroughly monitored throughout their implementation. They are now undergoing stringent evaluation.

But no matter how successful, no program has any chance of securing additional funding. We appear to set agendas, allocate funds, complete projects and then move on to something new – unlike many successful countries that value continuity in their approach to teacher professional learning.

While project leaders will always have in place plans for the sustainability of the work begun through a program, the hard reality is that without further funding those involved will be expected to find new projects and income streams and move on.

The Conversation

Vincent Geiger, Associate Professor and Research Fellow, Australian Catholic University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in International Education

Australia is very average when it comes to maths and science performance – here’s what needs to change

This article was written by Alan Finkel

As a school student, I awaited the arrival of the end-of-year report with a bracing mix of hope and fear.

Now, as Australia’s Chief Scientist, I’m worried once again about school reports.

Our proudly first-class country, with a prosperous economy and an egalitarian spirit, must not be fair-to-middling when it comes to science and maths in schools. On the evidence before me, we are.

Do I believe that international testing can capture everything of importance in Australian education? No.

But do I take these findings seriously? Yes, I do.

Be it the international studies Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), or the national scheme National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN), the message is clear.

Our performance in absolute terms is stalling, or in decline, and our position in global rankings continues to fall.

International comparisons

Canada now scores significantly higher across all PISA and Year 8 TIMSS domains. England has improved its TIMSS performance, while also decreasing the proportion of low-performing students.

Australia, by contrast, is one of only three countries with significantly decreased maths and science scores in this round of PISA. And the difference between children in Australia’s highest and lowest socioeconomic quartiles recorded by PISA is the equivalent of three full years of school.

While we demand to be top ten in sport, we are barely scraping top 20 in schools.

In PISA maths, we have fallen as low as 25. How much lower are we prepared to go?

My concern is not the temporary wound to national pride. It is the enduring harm we do when students leave school with malnourished potential – or worse, no interest at all – in disciplines that they require to navigate their world. We need to improve.

Let’s start by defining the aim: the best possible education in maths and science (and literacy) for every child, irrespective of gender, region, income or incoming ability.

In the 21st century, we can no more write off a child because “he’s not into numbers” any more than we would accept that “she’s not keen on the alphabet”.

Maths is not just the language of science and technology, but the foundation of commerce, the core of engineering, and the bread and butter of every trade from cooking to construction.

How can we hold governments to account if journalists can’t interpret data and citizens can’t make sense of charts?

How can we resist the prophets of the post-truth world? When everything we value is at stake, surely nothing less than our utmost will do.

So with that aim in mind, let’s agree to share the task: yes, we do bear individual responsibility; but, no, we cannot lay the blame solely on individuals, be they principals, teachers, parents or students.

There is no point in exhorting individuals to aim high unless we help them to make the leap. If we want excellence, we have to provide a system with the incentives, enablers and rewards for improvement built in.

Policy responses

For me, that comes down to a new three Rs for education.

Restore maths prerequisites for courses

Restore meaningful maths prerequisites for all university courses that, no-one could argue, need numbers.

This would reverse the exodus from advanced maths courses and set students up for success – in commerce and accounting, as well as science and engineering. Just as importantly, it would give principals a reason to make the quality of their maths programs a priority all the way from kindergarten to Year 12.

Respect teaching

The single most important factor in the classroom is the human up the front. The education system must be engineered around that fundamental premise, so that high-achieving students become highly qualified teachers with well-targeted professional development.

Crucially, teacher training and development need a strong discipline-specific focus. It should be expected that our science and maths teachers are experts in their fields, with both the technical and pedagogical knowledge to teach them well.

The Commonwealth Science Council strongly endorsed this principle at its last meeting in September, and requested the Department of Education to investigate options to bring it about.

Recognise the influence of school leaders

Principals set the tone in their schools and, with the right strategic focus, they can drive a culture of constant improvement. Without that senior leadership, it is simply too hard for individual teachers to keep the bar consistently high – another reality the Commonwealth Science Council has acknowledged.

Of course, ambitious aims have investment pathways attached. But money spent is not a proxy for effort invested, and it is certainly not a reliable predictor of success.

As a businessman, I learned that no project delivers what you want unless the how comes before the how much.

Face the hard truths, aim high, be strategic – and we might just receive a school report we can be proud to display.

The Conversation

Alan Finkel, Chief Scientist for Australia, Office of the Chief Scientist

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in International Education

NAPLAN results reveal little change in literacy and numeracy performance – here are some key takeaway findings

This article was written by Suzanne Rice

The national report on National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) outcomes has been released today, showing the test results of Australian students in Years 3, 5, 7 and 9.

The report outlines student achievement in reading, numeracy, spelling, and grammar and punctuation, and shows performance has stagnated.

Around 95% percent of students are included in NAPLAN results, meaning they provide a reasonable guide to how well Australian students are learning core skills.

Other than Year 9 writing, over the last few years, overall Australian achievement has flatlined – it hasn’t gone backwards but nor has it improved.

Here is a breakdown of the findings for each year group that’s assessed:

Year 3

Student performance in Year 3 reading and spelling, grammar and punctuation has improved since 2008.

Boys are on average doing better than girls in numeracy, but girls on average do better in reading, writing, grammar and punctuation, and spelling.

Since 2008, reading scores in Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Northern Territory, Victoria, Queensland, and West Australia have improved.

Year 5

Student performance in reading and numeracy is significantly better in 2016 than it was in 2008. Average reading scores rose from 484.4 in 2008 to 501.5 in 2016. Numeracy scores rose from 475.9 in 2008 to 493.1 in 2016.

Reading scores in Tasmania, Victoria, West Australia and Queensland improved between 2008 and 2016. Girls on average scored higher than boys in writing, spelling, and grammar and punctuation, but not in reading.

Year 7

Overall, there has been little change in any area for Year 7 students since 2008. Girls on average scored higher than boys in some of the literacy domains.

Year 9

Numeracy and reading achievement has remained the same for Year 9 students since 2008.

Writing achievement has decreased since 2011, however, there have been changes in the genre examined over this time – from narrative writing to persuasive writing – so this may be influencing the results. From 2016 the genre returned to narrative writing.

Students from non-English speaking backgrounds:

In a number of cases the achievement of students from non-English speaking backgrounds tends to have a bigger spread than that of students whose parents’ first language is English. Our strongest students from non-English speaking backgrounds are doing very well, but there is a long achievement tail.

Indigenous students

Indigenous students are still achieving well below non-Indigenous students.

Over the past 9 years, there has been some improvement for Indigenous students in Years 3 and 5 in reading, and in Year 5 numeracy. But as with the national data, the improvements appeared in the first few years of NAPLAN and there has not been much progress recently.

Impact of parents’ education

Student achievement analysed by their parents’ education and employment makes familiar reading.

The report shows that the higher the parents’ levels of qualifications, and the higher their level of employment, the better their children do in school.

In most cases, the biggest gap is between the achievement of students whose parents completed Year 12, and those whose parents finished school in Year 11.

Does location make a difference?

On average, students based at schools in major cities perform the best. This is followed by those in inner regional locations, then outer regional locations. In remote and very remote areas, average achievement is lowest.

These results tell us that as a country we are not doing particularly well at neutralising the effects of disadvantage, whether this is through location or as reflected in levels of parental education and occupation.

The recent PISA results already showed us that Australian education does not do well on equity compared to similar countries like Canada.

Our school systems are not good at reducing the influence of students’ home backgrounds on their achievement. We need to try harder here.

This is likely to require a range of government actions that include a more equitable school funding regime, quality targeted teacher professional learning, and actions to reduce the class divisions that riddle our education systems.

What doesn’t it tell us?

While the report tells us a lot about the impact of broad factors such as student background, it can’t provide information on what is happening at a school level, or the reasons behind the general lack of improvement over the last few years.

Establishing why student achievement has flatlined is a complex business and is not covered by the data collected or the analyses.

Where to?

There are two important responses to the report that governments can take.

First, we could apply what we know is likely to improve student achievement across the board: supporting quality teacher professional learning based on our knowledge about improving student learning from the work of people like education expert John Hattie.

Second, we can and must do more to reduce the impact students’ home backgrounds has on their achievement.

A funding system that targets funding much more strongly to high-needs students and schools is important.

Research shows that individual student background has an impact on achievement, but so does the mix of students in a school. Australia’s education system has become increasingly stratified.

So policies promoting a mix of student backgrounds in our schools, for example, by requiring that all schools enroll a percentage of students from more disadvantaged backgrounds to receive funding, would be another place to start.

The Conversation

Suzanne Rice, Senior Lecturer, Education Policy and Leadership, University of Melbourne

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in International Education

PISA results don’t look good, but before we panic let’s look at what we can learn from the latest test

This article was written by Stewart Riddle and Bob Lingard

The 2015 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) results have been released – and on first glance, it does not look good for Australia.

On global comparisons, Australia performed equal 10th in science (down from 8th in 2012), 20th in maths (down from 17th) and 12th in reading (down from 10th).

There is a steady decline in the results since 2000, both in terms of overly simple international comparisons and absolute mean scores.

No doubt, similar to the response to Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) results last week, the media, politicians and education commentators will go into a panic over Australia sliding down the international rankings, falling standards in classrooms, and poor quality teachers.

Beyond the panicked headlines, what can we actually learn from the results of an international test that compares 15 year olds’ science, maths and reading skills in 72 countries and economies?

We need to have a more considered discussion about these test results rather than leaping to quick conclusions about a failing education system.

Scientific literacy

The main domain of the 2015 test was scientific literacy – the application of scientific knowledge and skills to solve problems.

Australia’s average score was 510, significantly above the OECD average of 493.

However, there has been an overall decline of 17 points since 2006. With the exception of the Northern Territory and Tasmania, most states performed well above the OECD average.

Singapore achieved the highest score of 556, which equates to roughly one and a half years more schooling than Australia.

While 61% of Australian students achieved the National Proficient Standard, only 11% were high performers (OECD average was 8%) and 18% were low performers (OECD average was 21%). This suggests that the majority of students might be doing okay, but few are excelling.

Mathematical literacy

The OECD average for mathematical literacy was 490, with Australia achieving 494. This is significantly below 19 other countries, including Singapore at 564 points. This is the equivalent of two and a half years more schooling.

The number of students reaching the National Proficient Standard in mathematical literacy was 61% in the Australian Capital Territory, but only 44% in Tasmania.

Reading literacy

Singapore achieved the highest result of 535 in reading literacy, equating to about one year more of schooling than Australia’s score of 503. The OECD average was 493.

Once again, the Northern Territory and Tasmania performed significantly below the OECD average, while all other states gained much higher results. Also, the spread between the lowest and highest Australian performers was significantly wider than the OECD average.

What the results mean

It is unhelpful to use the single country ranking to determine how we are going as there are significant variances between states/territories and school sectors (government, independent, Catholic).

Instead, we need to carefully disaggregate the data and consider the social and economic factors that influence performance across states, between schools, as well as the correlations between gender, Indigeneity, class, race, geographical location, and so on.

Australia has one of the widest ranges of student achievement, with what can be described as a long tail of underachievement.

For example, the difference in performance of students from the Australian Capital Territory and those in Tasmania and the Northern Territory is worth considering.

These differences are similar to those evident in performance on National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN).

Furthermore, there is a difference of nearly three years of schooling between students in the highest socioeconomic quartile and the lowest, with similar differences when comparing Indigenous with non-Indigenous students.

Interestingly, boys only marginally outperformed girls on scientific literacy, with girls significantly outperforming boys on reading literacy, with no real difference on mathematical literacy.

It is also interesting to note that since the PISA tests began in 2000, the major federal education policy levers have included:

  • Significantly increased federal funding to private schools under John Howard, followed by a commitment by Julia Gillard that no school would lose a dollar.
  • Failure to implement Gonski’s needs-based funding of all schools.
  • The introduction of NAPLAN, MySchool, the Australian Curriculum and the AITSL national teaching standards by the Rudd-Gillard governments.
  • Increased emphasis on market measures for school provision, such as Independent Public Schools and school autonomy.

Yet over this time, the narrative of steady decline on PISA and TIMSS results continues, while educational inequality is on the rise.

Australia has one of the most segregated schooling systems in the world, and the OECD data provide a strong correlation between high-performing systems such as Singapore and factors of social cohesion and equity.

Further evidenced in secondary analysis of all PISA data over time is the strength of the correlation between equitable funding of schools and systemic performance on PISA.

If we want to address these sliding results then we must address the issue of educational inequality in Australia.

Social efficiency and social equity

There are competing tensions in the agenda of social efficiency and social equity, which is evident in how PISA results inform global and local education policy-making. This includes the emphasis on competing within a global knowledge economy.

It is worth noting how the economic rationalisation for greater educational equity plays out in the global policy field, particularly through testing regimes such as NAPLAN and PISA.

The challenge for policymakers, schools and teachers is how to respond to increasing pressure to lift test results on PISA, TIMSS and NAPLAN, while also addressing systemic inequality in order to ensure that every Australian student is given access to a meaningful
education.

Equitable funding of schools, including redistribution to schools serving disadvantaged communities, remains a pressing policy issue in Australia.

However, it is unlikely that we will see much more than panic and moral crusading in the media commentary over the coming days.

Once the hyperventilating dies down, we need to take a long, careful look at these results and what they mean for a more equitable and high-performing Australian schooling system.

The Conversation

Stewart Riddle, Senior Lecturer, University of Southern Queensland and Bob Lingard, Professorial Research Fellow, School of Education, The University of Queensland

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Education News, International Education

Keeping girls at school may reduce teenage pregnancy and STIs – but sex education doesn’t

This article was written by Amanda Mason-Jones

Worldwide, more than 65m adolescent girls have no access to school. And it’s not just poorer countries that suffer from bad education. In the UK, one in five young people don’t complete post-16 education, making it one of the worst performing countries in league tables measuring how well young people are educated. This affects not only life chances but also health outcomes and well-being.

Studies conducted as far afield as the US, Norway and rural South Africa, for example, have suggested that encouraging school attendance can help young people avoid early sexual activity – and girls to avoid unplanned pregnancy. But this has never been confirmed by experimental evidence – until now.

A comprehensive Cochrane review of studies from around the world combined the data from more than 55,000 young people aged on average between 14 and 16. And it has shown that providing a small payment or giving away a free school uniform can incentivise the young to stay in school for longer, especially in places where there are financial barriers to attending.

Most significantly, it also reveals that the approach could prevent three in every ten pregnancies among that age group globally, and may also delay sexual activity and reduce sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in both girls and boys – although further high quality studies are needed to confirm this. Additionally, it suggests that the mainstay of the current approach – “sex education” – isn’t working to achieve these ends.

Sex education is failing

The studies in the Cochrane review were all randomised controlled trials from Europe, Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa. Most were of high quality and had follow-ups at between 18 months and seven years.

The sex education programmes they investigated included peer and teacher-led education and the innovative uses of drama and group work. But most of the programmes did not provide access to the necessary health services, such as condoms or other contraception, especially for the youngest age groups.

What is clear is that we really don’t know what works and for whom when it comes to curriculum-based sex education in schools. We are often told that we do know, but the studies quoted previously have been based on self-reported behaviours of young people which are prone to bias.

Sex and sexuality are sensitive topics, especially when there are legal or moral ramifications for someone admitting to having sex. This new review, by contrast, has for the first time only included studies featuring measurable biological outcomes from records or tests of pregnancy and STIs. The fact that it points to sex education not working to reduce pregnancy and STIs among the young, therefore, is all the more significant. It seems we need a radical rethink.

Staying at school: a healthy contraceptive? Shutterstock

But what should be done? Most people agree that sex education should start early and focus on relationships, not just on the mechanics of sex. Most also agree that it should be inclusive and sensitive to a range of sexualities, including not assuming that all young people have started to have sex. Equally, few would disagree that we need to reform current approaches to take into account new risks from digital communications and social media, and that schools are a good place to encourage the development of healthy relationships.

However, MP Sarah Champion, whose Dare to Care national action plan calls for “compulsory resilience and relationships education” in UK schools, needs to consider this new evidence. She talks about young people needing “the tools to rebuff harmful requests and behaviour from abusers”. This focus solely on an individualised notion of resilience is flawed unless it incorporates more ecological and culturally sensitive definitions, and a clear understanding that it is not at all easy to “rebuff” violent approaches, especially in young people’s intimate relationships.

We need to build schools that are safe, welcoming and supportive – with adults, including parents, that are open and have the skills to talk to children about sexuality. We also need to think carefully about how the sexuality education offered by schools can effectively achieve its aims.

New ways of thinking about sex

Certainly, current strategies are failing. Talking about sex in schools doesn’t encourage young people to have sex, but equally – as the Cochrane review shows – it is not likely to delay them having it either, as some previous authors have suggested.

Some, for example, have claimed that programmes such as TeenStar, which encourage abstinence from sexual activity, are effective. But this conclusion is based on studies that are considered to have serious flaws.

The Cabezon study, for example, examined pregnancy outcomes from a programme in Chile that promoted abstinence from sexual activity. They suggested that the programme was successful by comparing the number of girls who were pregnant at the end of the study (19), with the number of pregnancies from a group who didn’t receive the programme (52). This made the programme look amazingly successful, but it excluded miscarriages and also illegal abortions that go unrecorded in Chile, so they were unlikely to have included all unwanted pregnancies that had occurred. The study also suffered from a number of biases including during randomisation and recruitment to the study, and selective reporting of the results.

In future, we need to rely on good quality evidence when developing public health policy. If sex education were to become compulsory, for example, it would be sensible to track its effectiveness experimentally to ensure that policies are working as expected.

While this study may highlight the failings of sex education at the moment, it also points to the effectiveness of school in general in the prevention of STIs and unwanted pregnancies. That, at least, is a good start.

The Conversation

Amanda Mason-Jones, Senior Lecturer in Global Public Health, University of York

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Education News, International Education

Expansion is no longer the answer to improving the Australian education system

This article was written by Dean Ashenden, University of Melbourne

For 50 years, Australia’s policymakers have been persuaded that growth at every level of the education system would be a good thing in itself – and would drive economic growth and social progress.

That faith is now under unprecedented pressure.

While massive expansion has brought the benefits of education to millions, it has also created new problems, and left old ones unresolved.

Human capital theory

Belief in the power of education to lift lives and societies is hardly new. But “human capital theory” gave it a new form.

Developed by a small group of US economists in the late 1950s, human capital theory arrived in Australia via the OECD in 1964, when L. H. Martin became the first in a long line of Australian policymakers to argue that education was not a necessary expense but an investment.

Investment in education would make individuals and economies more productive, triggering a virtuous circle of economic growth, more equal opportunity, higher levels of health and civic-mindedness, and cultural enrichment. The economic rain would follow the educational plough.

It followed (as one Australian human capital theorist argued) that,

“education spending should be expanded up to the point where the rate of return to additional spending is equal to the general rate of return on capital”.

Anything less will reduce the rate of economic growth and result in “a culturally impoverished and less cohesive society”.

In the meantime, education pays for itself (as another theorist put it) “many times over”.

Promise and performance

Governments have certainly done as advised.

In just two generations they have tripled the proportion of students completing 12 years of schooling, expanded numbers in vocational education and training (VET) from a few tens of thousands to around 1.5 million, and multiplied higher education numbers by thirteen.

But 50 years on it is clear the benefits of vastly expanded access to education are heavily offset in ways scarcely anticipated by the human capital argument:

  • Despite claims that education pays for itself, the chronic problem of funding it has recently become acute, pushing minister Pyne from his portfolio, and his government toward a near-death electoral experience.
  • Even the OECD, the leading apostle of human capital theory, concedes that “over-education” is relatively pronounced in Australia. Employment and salary returns to degree and diploma programs have fallen steadily, while at the lowest qualification levels returns are negligible or even negative. On the other side of the transaction, employers continue to complain about the employability and “job readiness” of graduates
  • Despite more years of schooling by many more people, a persistently large minority of students is “disengaged”, and an even larger proportion of adults lacks the skills “to meet the demands of everyday life and work”.
  • Research dominates the universities and they dominate the system as a whole. The universities have been allowed to pursue their own interests at the expense of teaching, and to undertake increasing amounts of educational work for which neither they nor their students are well equipped. Their dominance extends to the purposes and curriculum of schooling, and contributes to the perception of VET – under-funded and beset by scandal – as an educational last resort.
  • There have been few or no gains in the social distribution of opportunity in and through education. It seems likely that structural inequality – the distance between the best and worst educated, and the distribution of the population across that spectrum – has increased.
  • Growth has been in time served as well as numbers enrolled, causing costs for young people to rise as returns fall. They spend a steadily increasing proportion of their lives in a limbo between childhood and fully adult circumstances and responsibilities in pursuit of employment which may or may not materialise.

Growth still the solution?

There are those who argue or assume that growth should still be the first objective of policy.

The most recent substantial review of higher education, for example, relied on human capital theory to argue for a much-expanded, demand-driven system.

Deloitte Access Economics prosecutes the same case, claiming not just a long list of social, health and other benefits for expansion, but an 8.5% increase in GDP “because of the impact that a university education has had on the productivity”.

Australia’s most successful federal minister of education, John Dawkins, recently called for a comprehensive rethink, but with funding for further growth as the central question, a view apparently shared by the Grattan Institute.

The guns of policy are pointing in the wrong direction. We need a re-orientation for the next 50 years as substantial as that introduced by Martin 50 years ago.

A different orientation for public policy

The first question for policy should not be the size of the system or its funding but its disposition, character, and consequences:

  • Policy has concentrated on the supply of skills and knowledge; it should now concentrate on their use and development in the workplace.
  • The effort to load up individuals with economically useful skills and knowledge via front-end, formal education should give way to expanding career and training paths and work-based learning across the broadest possible range of industries and occupations, including most of the professions.
  • The focus on the social distribution of education should be widened to tackle structural inequality. Policy must be directed less toward opportunity to get the best, and more toward providing the highest possible proportion of the population with the best possible educational experience and attainment.
  • The priority currently given to the top half of the system and to those who do well at school and go on to higher education should be given to those for whom education is a bad experience with bad consequences.
  • Policy should above all stop equating human capital with the consumption of formal education. That conflation has allowed occupational groups, including particularly the professions and those aspiring to professional status, to combine with education providers to use credentials to drive up amounts of education consumed. Educational provision should be seen within the larger frame of learning and its recognition, irrespective of where, when or how undertaken, but particularly learning and its use in workplaces.

It is possible to detect the beginnings of such a re-orientation in some of the areas discussed; in others, it is not.

Learning the lessons of experience

Although human capital theory has gone largely unchallenged in policy debates, among economists it has been as much criticised and rejected as accepted.

Even those who work within the human capital framework often distance themselves from the growth argument appealed to by governments and others.

The rise of human capital theory from one among several accounts of the education-economy relationship to conventional wisdom owes as much to its political usefulness to governments and to the education industry as to its merits.

There is much more to the complex interaction of education and learning (on the one hand) and economic activity (on the other) than human capital theory comprehends, including particularly competition for economic advantage through education by occupational groups and by families and individuals.

There is also much more to education than its contribution to economic activity.

Martin depended upon a theory. Now we have experience. If the lessons of the past 50 years are to be learned, policymakers will need a much broader course of instruction than can be provided by human capital theory.

The Conversation

Dean Ashenden, Honorary Senior Fellow, Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Bullying, Education Leadership, First Year Teachers, Teachers

Why teachers are unable to stop bias-based bullying

SeriaShia J. Chatters, Pennsylvania State University

State and local lawmakers have put policies in place to address and prevent bullying. Many schools too have implemented interventions to improve school climate to reduce bullying behaviors.

Despite these efforts, in my research and experiences in schools as a counselor educator and school counselor, I have found bullying based on bias continues to be an issue in school settings.

“Bias-based” or “identity-based” bullying, defined as students being bullied specifically based on their race, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, disability, religion, socioeconomic status or weight, is far more difficult to recognize or address when compared to traditional forms of bullying.

Teachers too may fail to notice and address such behaviors and, at times, may even be involved in them.

Response to bullying

Bias-based bullying incidents involve explicit and implicit forms of racism, sexism and other forms of prejudice or discrimination. They are not only harmful emotionally, socially and psychologically to students, but are also a violation of a student’s civil rights.

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights urges schools to be vigilant in the identification and prevention of bias-based bullying and provides guidance on specific laws that prohibit bias based harassment such as Title IX, a federal law, that prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation, Section 504 or Title II, which protects individuals with disabilities, and Title IV, which protects individuals from harassment based on religion, ethnicity or shared ancestry.

Bias-based bullying behaviors can go unnoticed. Twentyfour Students, CC BY-SA

Despite this protection, however, bias-based bullying behaviors persist and can go unnoticed, or even be endorsed, by teachers in the field.

For example, a recent study investigated physical education teachers failing to respond to bullying behaviors against students being targeted due to their weight. Studies have also highlighted teachers failing to respond to students being bullied due to their sexual orientation.

Failure to recognize bias-based bullying behaviors can lead to tragic consequences.

Ryan Halligan, a 13-year-old student who committed suicide in October 7, 2003, was targeted primarily with homophobic slurs. A more recent case was that of Kennedy LeRoy, a teen who committed suicide in June 2015 after he was bullied partly due to having Asperger’s syndrome.

Bullying by teachers

Worse still, some students report being victimized not just by their peers but by their teachers as well.

In a study titled The Youth Voice Project published by my colleagues, Charisse Nixon and Stan Davis, students in special education testified that their teachers were more abusive toward them than toward their peers in general ed.

Although this information may seem surprising, teacher involvement in bullying students extends beyond special education settings to general and alternative education settings.

A 2011 study, for example, by researchers Christine Zerillo and Karen F. Osterman indicates that, although teachers were aware of colleagues who bully students, they felt more accountable to report peer bullying.

When teachers think they are outsiders

Although most schools are preparing educators and staff to recognize and respond to bullying, behaviors that are based on bias are often overlooked.

The results of a study I conducted indicated that educators may lack the knowledge of and skills to respond to bias-based bullying.

I investigated perceptions of undergraduate students in teacher education programs. I asked participants about their perceptions of their role when faced with a situation involving bias based bullying.

Most people consider themselves outsiders and do not respond to bullying. Denise Krebs

Approximately 50 percent of participants considered themselves to be outsiders or not involved in situations involving bias-based bullying. Additionally, participants believed that they lacked the knowledge and skills to respond to situations involving bullying and prejudice.

There was one encouraging finding, however. After participating in a full-day workshop that included bullying prevention and prejudice reduction, participants reported significant changes in attitude. Their knowledge and skills to respond to situations involving bullying and prejudice improved. And they also changed how they perceived their role – from considering themselves to be outsiders (57 percent pre-workshop, 20 percent post-workshop) to defenders of victims of bias based bullying (20 percent pre-workshop; 78 percent post-workshop).

Training teachers

So how can schools respond to bias-based bullying?

School administrators can include questions regarding bias-based bullying on their school environment, assessments and evaluations. This can help schools gain a better understanding of what forms of bias-based bullying are most common in their schools. Training teachers to recognize and respond to bias-based bullying could also improve the likelihood that they would intervene when they saw bullying.

These initiatives can be effective when implemented as a part of an intervention that includes the whole school, parents and the community.

The Conversation

SeriaShia J. Chatters, Assistant Professor of Education (Counselor Education) , Pennsylvania State University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in EdTech & Innovation

4 Types of Media That Schools Should Use to Tell Their Stories

Whether local, national, or social, each type of outlet serves a distinct purpose.

Guest post by Christopher Piehler

In the first part of this two-part series, I wrote that “Schools Should Shout Their Success Stories from the Rooftops.” This time around, I will take a look at the benefits of telling those stories in a variety of media outlets.

Local media is the best place to start. Whether your local news coverage comes from a massive daily newspaper and three TV stations or just a website run out of someone’s spare room, outlets that focus on your community are vital to telling your story to the people whose votes can change how you do your job. Yes, it’s nice for people in your immediate area to know about the great teaching and learning that happens every day at your school. But on a more practical note, the local media can be a crucial ally to a district that is presenting a bond measure to the public. If you aren’t working with them to tell your story, you are leaving it up to them to hopefully “get it right”.

I recently spoke to a superintendent in a district that serves 32,000 residents, more than 50 percent of whom don’t have kids in the school system. When he introduced a bond measure in 2015, he started his outreach to those non-parent voters by building an ongoing relationship with the local media—which in his case consisted of one local news site. As a result of this and other efforts (which I’ll get to later), he succeeded in passing a $67.5 million bond. And now, when he wants to share his district’s challenges and successes with those non-parents, he knows he has a place where his voice will be heard.

National media can be a harder nut to crack, but it’s worth the effort. If there’s a glaring need in your district, the more people you ask for help, the better chance you have that someone will help. For example, a teacher I know was trying to crowdfund four classroom audio systems for her school. She was far short of her goal—and then The Rachael Ray Show found out about her quest and devotion to her students. The next thing she knew she was on TV, answering the door to a mailman who delivered the donated audio systems.

Of course, national media coverage is about more than just pointing out a need and getting free stuff. Having a positive story about your school or district told by a high-profile TV show, magazine, or newspaper puts a powerful seal of approval on the work that you’re doing for your students and community. It’s also a great morale-builder for teachers and staff. As a bonus, the fact that a local school was featured in the national media will often become its own local news story, with a heartwarming headline like “Celebrity chef Rachael Ray gives teacher an on-air technology gift.”

One tip about approaching national media outlets: The bigger the organization, the more likely it is to have an education specialist. Find that person and follow his or her work for a few months before pitching your story.

B2B or trade publications are not as glamorous as The Rachael Ray Show or as widely read as Time magazine, but having your story showcased in Scholastic Administrator or eSchool News has both short- and long-term benefits.

In the short-term, sharing your story with your fellow educators around the country opens the door to fruitful collaborations. In the long term, developing a reputation for innovation serves as a job recruitment tool for educators who may be moving to your area.

Social media and community portals: In part 1 of this series, I wrote about the power of Twitter, so I won’t go over that again, but I will say that social media is an indispensable part of every school’s storytelling operation. On Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, you have complete control over the text, images, and timing of everything you post. These are fantastic places to solidify your brand with your community, parents, and staff. And because most people have personal social media accounts, they’re familiar with how the platforms work, so pretty much everyone can help their district maintain a positive social media presence.

If social media is the cake, community portals are the icing. Back to that superintendent in the district of 32,000: At the same time he was telling the story of his bond to the local media, he added a button to his district’s website that let anyone in the community ask a question, which would then be promptly answered by the appropriate person.

The superintendent said that this one-on-one communication played a big part in clarifying the benefits of the bond and ultimately getting it passed. Districts around the country are using various portals to connect with their communities, and they’re learning an important lesson: Sometimes the most important part of telling your story is listening first.

_________

Christopher Piehler is the Lead Storyteller at PR with Panache! The former editor-in-chief of THE Journal, he has worked for a variety of consumer and B2B publications. He has been an ed tech commentator on both TV and radio, has served as a CODiE award judge, and has been a speaker at the FETC and CoSN conferences.

Read all of our posts about EdTech and Innovation by clicking here. 

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Bullying, Teachers

Why don’t kids speak up about bullying?

**The Edvocate is pleased to publish guest posts as way to fuel important conversations surrounding P-20 education in America. The opinions contained within guest posts are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of The Edvocate or Dr. Matthew Lynch.**

A guest post by Jennifer Fraser

We keep telling kids they must not be bystanders, but what really happens when students speak up about bullying? Why are they so afraid?

Not only do they risk becoming the bully’s next target, but it seems that all too often when students report on bullying a reversal occurs and they become the ones who are in trouble. They are seen as a problem. If the bully is a teacher or a coach, these students might even be shamed or humiliated for daring to jeopardize the adult’s reputation.

If we truly do want students to report on peer bullying and report on abuse by adults in caregiver positions, then we need to change the way in which these complaints are handled in schools and in the law. The first thing a lawyer will ask a bullied child – whether it is by peers or teachers – why didn’t you transfer schools? Expecting the victim to leave suggests that the victim is at fault. If my house is robbed twice, the lawyer will not ask me why I didn’t move. If I’m sexually harassed at work, the lawyer will not ask me why I didn’t find another boss. So why do lawyers ask students bullied at school why they didn’t leave?

In Rod Mickleburgh’s Globe and Mail article, written after Amanda Todd’s suicide as a result of bullying, he consulted with another family whose son, Ashkan Sultani, also committed suicide after being bullied. Sultani’s father pointed out that both his son and Amanda were vulnerable because they had learning disabilities. Rather than be accorded special care, as the Ministry of Education documents state educators and administrators must use, Ashkan’s father found that there was a reversal: bullies were exonerated and victims were held accountable: “Too often, [Ashkan’s father] said, school officials become defensive when approached by parents with concerns their child is being bullied. ‘They don’t want to admit there’s a problem. Or, the first thing they do is try to find out what is wrong with the person getting bullied. How come he doesn’t fit in?’”[1]

This reversal is intensified when students report on teacher or coach conduct.

In the articles I have read about Assistant Coach and Whistleblower Eric Murdock, whose contract was not renewed after he went public with his concerns about basketball coach Mike Rice’s abusive conduct, there is a glaring lack of a proper process in place for reporting on bullying or abuse. Although Mike Rice yelled in apparent fury when coaching games, it was actually his conduct at practices that got him fired. As reported by Steve Eder in the New York Times, there were all kinds of warning signs that abuse was occurring and the administrators were already aware prior to video footage hitting the news:

There was the upperclassman who earlier in the year had come forward to say that he felt bullied. There was an outburst during a game that led to Mr. Rice’s ejection. And there were the months of allegations from a former assistant, who repeatedly claimed that Mr. Rice was abusive.

Tim Pernetti, the athletic director, knew all of that and had repeatedly tried to rein in Mr. Rice, according to a 50-page report that Rutgers commissioned outside lawyers to prepare. He personally reprimanded him, attended Mr. Rice’s practices and even assigned the university’s sports psychologist to work with the team, the report said.[2]

Note that the University commissioned a legal report, but they do not appear to consult Human Resources personnel in terms of the whistleblower’s vulnerable position nor do they consult experts in student health to assess the harm being done to student-athletes.

I acted as Whistleblower once at an independent school. Being Whistleblower is the adult version of not being a bystander and from my experience, I understand why students do not speak up. Just like it seems to do for bully victims, a reversal happened: I was treated as if I was a problem employee. The Headmaster exonerated the teachers about whom 14 students gave testimonies detailing bullying conduct and allowed a toxic environment to emerge around me so that I ultimately resigned.

There wasn’t just one student who came forward to say he was feeling bullied, there were 14. There was a Lawyer/ parent’s report informing the school that “child abuse” was occurring in 2011. There were at least thirty parent complaints in 2012 alone. There were many warning signs. It seems that at best, institutions like Rutgers and my former school lack the necessary processes for handling abuse situations; at worst, they have significant conflict of interest in themselves investigating student concerns. There is clearly work that needs to be done in terms of Human Resources, record keeping, anonymous reporting, proper oversight and so on if we truly do want students to not be bystanders.

In a 2013 article in The Atlantic psychologist, Dr. Joseph Burgo studies the power of reversal whereby the abuser positions himself as the victim and he uses cyclist Lance Armstrong’s conduct as an example. Witnesses who first spoke up about Armstrong’s performance enhancing drug-use were humiliated by the cyclist in the press: “To shore up his winner status, Armstrong wanted to make his detractors appear like contemptible losers; he tried to turn public opinion against them, enlisting the support of his many fans.” In Canada, disgraced Canadian musician, writer, and former CBC radio broadcaster, Jian Ghomeshi presented himself on Facebook as being the victim after being accused of sexual assault: “I’ve been fired from the CBC because of the risk of my private sex life being made public as a result of a campaign of false allegations pursued by a jilted ex girlfriend and a freelance writer.”[3] He has since been charged with multiple counts of sexual assault.

Notably, this dual personality type or charismatic bully appears to be especially attracted to competitive sports because of the win-lose dynamic. Dr. Burgo explains:

It helps to view the bully as a kind of competitor on the social playing field, one who strives not only to win but to triumph over the social losers and destroy their sense of self. As in competitive sport, where winners and losers exist in a binary relation to one another, the bully is yoked in identity to his victims. To a significant degree, his self-image depends upon having those losers to persecute: “I am a winner because you are a loser” [emphasis in the original].

The Headmaster and Board of Governors of my former School responded to students and parent reports of abusive behavior by the adult involved by publicly discrediting them in a report written by a lawyer that said the students were telling manufacturing evidence and lying.

This is why students do not speak up. This is why Whistleblowers are so rare. We can keep encouraging students to report bullying and more importantly abuse, but they won’t do it until they actually know that they will be respected and protected. At present, that is not the case. For further discussion, please see my forthcoming book: Teaching Bullies: Zero Tolerance on the Court or in the Classroom.

[1] Rod Mickleburgh, “Before Amanda Todd, the Sultani family suffered silently,” The Globe and Mail, October 23, 2012 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/before-amanda-todd-the-sultani-family-suffered-silently/article4633468

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/sports/ncaabasketball/rutgers-officials-long-knew-of-coach-mike-rices-actions.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&smid=tw-nytimes&partner=rss&emc=rss

[3] Staff, “Full Text: Jian Ghomeshi’s Facebook Post Why He Believes CBC Fired Him,” Global News, Oct 2014: http://globalnews.ca/news/1637310/full-text-jian-ghomeshis-post-on-why-he-believes-cbc-fired-him/

____

Jennifer Fraser has a PhD in Comparative Literature from the University of Toronto and is a published writer. She is presently teaching creative writing and International Bacclaureate literature classes at an independent school in British Columbia.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Bullying, Teachers

Why don’t kids speak up about bullying?

**The Edvocate is pleased to publish guest posts as way to fuel important conversations surrounding P-20 education in America. The opinions contained within guest posts are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of The Edvocate or Dr. Matthew Lynch.**

A guest post by Jennifer Fraser

We keep telling kids they must not be bystanders, but what really happens when students speak up about bullying? Why are they so afraid?

Not only do they risk becoming the bully’s next target, but it seems that all too often when students report on bullying a reversal occurs and they become the ones who are in trouble. They are seen as a problem. If the bully is a teacher or a coach, these students might even be shamed or humiliated for daring to jeopardize the adult’s reputation.

If we truly do want students to report on peer bullying and report on abuse by adults in caregiver positions, then we need to change the way in which these complaints are handled in schools and in the law. The first thing a lawyer will ask a bullied child – whether it is by peers or teachers – why didn’t you transfer schools? Expecting the victim to leave suggests that the victim is at fault. If my house is robbed twice, the lawyer will not ask me why I didn’t move. If I’m sexually harassed at work, the lawyer will not ask me why I didn’t find another boss. So why do lawyers ask students bullied at school why they didn’t leave?

In Rod Mickleburgh’s Globe and Mail article, written after Amanda Todd’s suicide as a result of bullying, he consulted with another family whose son, Ashkan Sultani, also committed suicide after being bullied. Sultani’s father pointed out that both his son and Amanda were vulnerable because they had learning disabilities. Rather than be accorded special care, as the Ministry of Education documents state educators and administrators must use, Ashkan’s father found that there was a reversal: bullies were exonerated and victims were held accountable: “Too often, [Ashkan’s father] said, school officials become defensive when approached by parents with concerns their child is being bullied. ‘They don’t want to admit there’s a problem. Or, the first thing they do is try to find out what is wrong with the person getting bullied. How come he doesn’t fit in?’”[1]

This reversal is intensified when students report on teacher or coach conduct.

In the articles I have read about Assistant Coach and Whistleblower Eric Murdock, whose contract was not renewed after he went public with his concerns about basketball coach Mike Rice’s abusive conduct, there is a glaring lack of a proper process in place for reporting on bullying or abuse. Although Mike Rice yelled in apparent fury when coaching games, it was actually his conduct at practices that got him fired. As reported by Steve Eder in the New York Times, there were all kinds of warning signs that abuse was occurring and the administrators were already aware prior to video footage hitting the news:

There was the upperclassman who earlier in the year had come forward to say that he felt bullied. There was an outburst during a game that led to Mr. Rice’s ejection. And there were the months of allegations from a former assistant, who repeatedly claimed that Mr. Rice was abusive.

Tim Pernetti, the athletic director, knew all of that and had repeatedly tried to rein in Mr. Rice, according to a 50-page report that Rutgers commissioned outside lawyers to prepare. He personally reprimanded him, attended Mr. Rice’s practices and even assigned the university’s sports psychologist to work with the team, the report said.[2]

Note that the University commissioned a legal report, but they do not appear to consult Human Resources personnel in terms of the whistleblower’s vulnerable position nor do they consult experts in student health to assess the harm being done to student-athletes.

I acted as Whistleblower once at an independent school. Being Whistleblower is the adult version of not being a bystander and from my experience, I understand why students do not speak up. Just like it seems to do for bully victims, a reversal happened: I was treated as if I was a problem employee. The Headmaster exonerated the teachers about whom 14 students gave testimonies detailing bullying conduct and allowed a toxic environment to emerge around me so that I ultimately resigned.

There wasn’t just one student who came forward to say he was feeling bullied, there were 14. There was a Lawyer/ parent’s report informing the school that “child abuse” was occurring in 2011. There were at least thirty parent complaints in 2012 alone. There were many warning signs. It seems that at best, institutions like Rutgers and my former school lack the necessary processes for handling abuse situations; at worst, they have significant conflict of interest in themselves investigating student concerns. There is clearly work that needs to be done in terms of Human Resources, record keeping, anonymous reporting, proper oversight and so on if we truly do want students to not be bystanders.

In a 2013 article in The Atlantic psychologist, Dr. Joseph Burgo studies the power of reversal whereby the abuser positions himself as the victim and he uses cyclist Lance Armstrong’s conduct as an example. Witnesses who first spoke up about Armstrong’s performance enhancing drug-use were humiliated by the cyclist in the press: “To shore up his winner status, Armstrong wanted to make his detractors appear like contemptible losers; he tried to turn public opinion against them, enlisting the support of his many fans.” In Canada, disgraced Canadian musician, writer, and former CBC radio broadcaster, Jian Ghomeshi presented himself on Facebook as being the victim after being accused of sexual assault: “I’ve been fired from the CBC because of the risk of my private sex life being made public as a result of a campaign of false allegations pursued by a jilted ex girlfriend and a freelance writer.”[3] He has since been charged with multiple counts of sexual assault.

Notably, this dual personality type or charismatic bully appears to be especially attracted to competitive sports because of the win-lose dynamic. Dr. Burgo explains:

It helps to view the bully as a kind of competitor on the social playing field, one who strives not only to win but to triumph over the social losers and destroy their sense of self. As in competitive sport, where winners and losers exist in a binary relation to one another, the bully is yoked in identity to his victims. To a significant degree, his self-image depends upon having those losers to persecute: “I am a winner because you are a loser” [emphasis in the original].

The Headmaster and Board of Governors of my former School responded to students and parent reports of abusive behavior by the adult involved by publicly discrediting them in a report written by a lawyer that said the students were telling manufacturing evidence and lying.

This is why students do not speak up. This is why Whistleblowers are so rare. We can keep encouraging students to report bullying and more importantly abuse, but they won’t do it until they actually know that they will be respected and protected. At present, that is not the case. For further discussion, please see my forthcoming book: Teaching Bullies: Zero Tolerance on the Court or in the Classroom.

[1] Rod Mickleburgh, “Before Amanda Todd, the Sultani family suffered silently,” The Globe and Mail, October 23, 2012 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/before-amanda-todd-the-sultani-family-suffered-silently/article4633468

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/07/sports/ncaabasketball/rutgers-officials-long-knew-of-coach-mike-rices-actions.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&smid=tw-nytimes&partner=rss&emc=rss

[3] Staff, “Full Text: Jian Ghomeshi’s Facebook Post Why He Believes CBC Fired Him,” Global News, Oct 2014: http://globalnews.ca/news/1637310/full-text-jian-ghomeshis-post-on-why-he-believes-cbc-fired-him/

____

Jennifer Fraser has a PhD in Comparative Literature from the University of Toronto and is a published writer. She is presently teaching creative writing and International Bacclaureate literature classes at an independent school in British Columbia.

  • no reactions
0
Share