Activity 2 (Week 26)

Critically analyse issues of socio-economic factors, school culture and professional environments in relation to practice;

Our school’s 2016 ERO report showed 50% of our students identify as Pākehā, 37% Māori, 4% European, 3% Asian and 6% other. This shows a great variance in how we are made up ethnically, therefore bringing many different characteristics to our community in terms of socio-economic status; the socioeconomic status of a family is “a combination of education, income and occupation” (APA, 2016). This has brought about issues relating to the engagement and academic success for all students across the school. In our 2016 analysis of variance, 48/117 students identified as targets across reading, writing or numeracy. These 48 students had medical or behavioural needs, were ESL or had a referral made. To help these students succeed, target groups were made and monitored regularly by the team leaders. Teacher aides were trained through RTLB and SENCO in intervention programmes such as pause praise prompt, Lexia Core 5, Rainbow reading and Quick60. A ‘reading together’ programme was put in place and booster groups were taken in term 4, 5 sessions per week. This has impacted me directly by creating and inquiring into target groups and ensuring students attend these programmes throughout the year.

Hongboontri and Keawkhong (2014) show that the school culture impacts on teachers’ beliefs and instructional practices, but this relationship is also reciprocal. Stoll (1998) defines culture as; the deeper level of basic assumptions and beliefs that are shared by members of an organisation, that operate unconsciously, and that define in a basic ‘taken-for-granted’ fashion an organisation’s view of itself and its environment. This year I have had a mindset of ‘freedom to’ as opposed to ‘freedom from.’ This may indicate that our school is a moving school in relation to Stoll and Fink’s (1996) model; The moving school feels “freedom to” focus on its priorities; the stuck school seeks “freedom from” outside demands.

However, I do feel as though this comes down to opinion; it is people’s beliefs, values and the norms that will influence how they react to initiatives—as well as micro political issues and the emotions people bring to their work (Stoll, 1998).

This year a focus has been on collegiality but unless the team has set expectations and visions around this then it fails to have the intended outcome. This is due to the differences between staff; where two or more cultures coexist and interact, there will be conflicts of values in the day-to-day interaction (Stoll, 1998). Also, focusing the external assessment system only on core subjects at primary level, influences what is valued in schools (Stoll, 1998). Because our team is allowed the freedom to implement play based learning our focus is more on that of a holistic learning approach. This has been highly rewarding and refreshing. It has highlighted the importance of the key competencies and those 21^st century skills necessary for any future citizen and has allowed us to have ‘shared goals’ and learn from each other (lifelong learning) more readily.

In addition to school culture, professional environments are considered a factor that impact on the professional practice. Kraft and Papay, (2014) found that teachers working in more supportive professional environments improve their effectiveness more over time than teachers working in less supportive contexts. The example above of being in a team environment that allows us to work collegiately is consistent with this. Operating in a structure that allows for flexibility promotes a professional environment that is supportive of each other and our learners. We also promote a supportive environment by releasing each other during team and school assemblies and having respect for each other’s teaching and learning styles. Our team leader often encourages us to take on extra responsibilities and happily organises professional development in these areas; teacher improvement is strongly related to the opportunities and supports provided by the professional context in which they work (Kraft & Papay, 2014).

References;

APA. (2016). Education and Socioeconomic Status. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/education.aspx

Hongboontri, C., & Keawkhong, N. (2014). School Culture: Teachers' Beliefs, Behaviors, and Instructional Practices. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(5), 66-88. Retrieved from http://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2332&context=ajte

Kraft, M.A. & Papay, J.P. (2014). Do supportive professional environments promote teacher development? Explaining heterogeneity in returns to teaching experience. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(4), 476-500. Retrieved from http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mkraft/files/kraf...

Stoll. (1998). School Culture. School Improvement Network’s Bulletin 9. Institute of Education, University of London. Retrieved from http://www.educationalleaders.govt.nz/Culture/Understanding-school-cultures/School-Culture