Bertrand Richet: "Teachers have always been poorly paid"

BarcelonaBertrand Richet is a leading expert in School evaluation council, The French School Assessment Council. He was the Inspector General of the French Ministry of Education for almost a decade. His main task on the assessment council has been to design the new framework for evaluating schools and institutes. He is visiting Catalonia at the invitation of the Catalan Government through an Erasmus+ grant.

When you arrive at a school, what do you look for?

— The first thing evaluators look at is the self-assessment carried out by the school itself, which is the most important. Then, the external evaluation focuses on four areas. One is the typical one: teaching and learning, that is, everything related to teachers and students. Another is the school climate and well-being within the school. The other is the school's overall functioning and strategy. And the fourth involves looking at the school's surroundings and observing cultural and sports associations, and the type of relationship that exists between the school and the outside world.

Do the self-evaluation done by the center and the one done by the external evaluator coincide?

— Yes, they should agree, because when the analysis carried out by the external evaluators differs slightly from the analysis carried out by the school, it's discussed with the school. Therefore, if there are differences, they are explained. The process isn't based on opposition because ultimately, no one is going to do something they don't understand or agree with. In the end, the goal is to reach a shared conclusion. We only make recommendations, and they have autonomy. It's not a hierarchical relationship.

Within this school evaluation process, where does teacher evaluation fit in?

— France has a system in which teachers and principals are evaluated individually and regularly. This has been the case for decades, but now we've added a comprehensive school evaluation. Inspectors are used to evaluating teachers individually. Not only when there are new teachers or when teachers are underperforming, but teachers are observed and visited regularly. The same applies to principals. But if you only do individual evaluations, it doesn't work; you need to evaluate the school as a whole because otherwise, you find that a student has six different teachers every day, each using different methods and evaluating them differently.

And what about school autonomy?

— There are several levels, but as a public service, you need consistency and a degree of uniformity. In this sense, a school principal doesn't choose the teachers because they are assigned in some way, for various reasons. But a principal decides when and who will go to each class. For example, if you have a class with students who are struggling, is it a good idea to assign them a new teacher who is just getting to grips with the work? This is a decision the school makes.

How does the selection of teachers work in France?

— It's a points system. The number of points depends on where you teach, but you also gain points as you get older. For example, you earn more points if you teach at a disadvantaged school that no one wants to go to. And you have the right to change schools every year. Ultimately, it's a matter of supply and demand. So, headteachers find themselves with some teachers who want to be at their school, but also some who don't want to work there and are only thinking about leaving. This makes things difficult for headteachers sometimes, because they have to get all those people to work together and be happy. Just like with students, you don't choose them, but you have to deal with them.

After the latest PISA tests, all of Europe reported that France would separate students by ability levels. How has that gone?

— This was a short-lived reform, because the minister left soon after. Separating students into ability groups is the kind of idea that's fascinating at first. But then you realize it's only a good idea for those who are already good students. Hierarchy isn't so appealing when you're in the lower levels. This might work if you could move from one level to another. But in most cases, when you have groups, you stay in your group. If you're in the lower group, your feeling that you're not good will be reinforced. Teachers tell you that you're not good and don't assign overly challenging tasks in class because you're in the lower group. Therefore, they don't push you beyond your current level. What is known is that you need some heterogeneity so that average students can progress further.

And what might work?

— You can have spaces outside of the regular groups where they can learn. For example, if you have students who come from another country and don't speak French or Catalan, you can have them spend a certain number of hours each week in a separate group learning the language. This is temporary, and then they return directly to their group. But if you select and put people in boxes, in most cases you never even open those boxes. And we know that doesn't work.

In recent years, one message that teachers have been repeating is that they notice the profession has suffered a loss of prestige.

— The situation in France isn't so different from what you've described. But I think there's a certain myth surrounding it. As for prestige, I'm not sure there's ever been a time when teaching was considered a prestigious profession. Teachers have always been underpaid. It's true that at one point, especially for working-class people, teaching was a way for some to get ahead in society, but fundamentally, primary school teachers have always been underpaid. It's a historical fact.

And the students?

— That today's students are more ignorant than their predecessors is something I already felt when I was a student. And some of my classmates have become teachers. And now, as teachers, they say that students are simply awful today, but they're just as awful as we were at their age. It looks different only because it's a human thing. You always think things were better back then.

But shouldn't we change the way we treat them?

— It's true that adapting is clearly necessary in some way. But adapting doesn't mean simplifying things. If you think back to the great teachers you had as a student, they were the ones who pushed you further, to a place you never thought you'd reach. It's like Kennedy's 1961 speech about the moon landing: we don't do things to make them easy, we do them because they're hard. And with this, I'm not saying that improvement has to be hard, difficult, and fraught. I'm saying that making an effort when you know it's rewarding and gratifying takes you further.