Tolley has cut funding to two little known but significant programmes.
When I became Minister too many of those in the education sector focussed on the negative. Pupils who were failing (or the system was failing) and schools that were in trouble.
I set up a group that looked at international research evidence on Gifted and Talented education. What they found was not that surprising – some of our most talented kids were the most disruptive in school. They were often bored and very rarely stretched.
There is a still unanswered question – whether it is better to get the kids out of the regualr classroom for at least sometime each week or to concentrate on teacher professional development to identify and challenge these kids. I decided to forget about the question and to put some resource into both areas. It was beginning to work well – especially by challenging teachers to accept that there are kids in their classes who know much more in specific areas than they do.
The other issue related to schools. We spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year dealing with schools that are failing – even if we just count the building costs for the neighbouring schools as “informed flight” occurs. We weren’t good at accepting that some schools were doing much better than average and trying to share that good practice between schools.
Somehow it was acceptable to identify losers but not leaders.
Again I put in some funding – a small amount into identifying the schools – not that hard – and more into getting them to share the +ve things they were doing.
Both programmes have been cut by Anne Tolley. Just stupid.
It’s a bloody crying shame mate!
A member of my family is pursuing her doctorate looking at provision for the gifted and talented within state secondary schools. There’s so very little input for these kids, yet these are our education system’s best hope to revolutionise our economy. Meanwhile my work is with adult workplace education and literacy – the ground floor of our productivity. Gifted kids and adult workplace literacy – both areas have been slashed by Tolley.
There’s no vision of our nation’s future here. Meanwhile private schools receive a $35million boost…
Yikes, I find myself agreeing with you Trevor. This is stupid from Tolley.
What was the justification for the $35 million spending on private schools?
I can’t believe National got away with stating that they were heavily investing in education in the Budget.
Shes our local M.P.
[deleted - personal abuse]
How many rats is this woman gonna have to learn how to eat, or are these stunning developments all her idea?
Junk food back in skools?
Why? Why? shall we all take up smoking again? To regain control over our lives?
Under Labour, Gifted and Talented through the likes of the excellent George Parkyn programme was completely user pays, unless the school contributed from the school’s operational funding. I know because I paid!
What are you referring to Trevor?
I recall in the term of the last government much lobbying on the above, so I am surprised to hear that you felt Labour did so much!
Arts
Certainly worked closely with and funded some of the one day schools led by Rosemary Cathcart of the George Parkyn Centre. I know they ended up running more than they were funded for.
Before Labour was in office neither of the major gifted and talented programmes got any funding whatsoever. Nats have got back to that position very quickly.
Trevor you say:
“There is a still unanswered question – whether it is better to get the kids out of the regualr classroom for at least sometime each week or to concentrate on teacher professional development to identify and challenge these kids.”
We found that for the 5 per cent or so of the kids at school that were nominated for the programme – it made best sense to give them a day at One-Day School with a specialist teacher of the gifted and with like-minded peers. At a school of say 400 you would find 20 students across 6 years of learning if you were lucky – a very thin layer.
The One Day School really extended these 10-11 year olds to think about topics like Justice and The Holocaust. The beauty of the programme was that these kids learned to drive their own learning – each day after a group session they could choose from a menu of options how they would research and investigate etc. For us, the benefits of this can be seen four years later.
Missing a day of standard school for kids like this was no hassle. The genuinely gifted student will learn in an hour what others would struggle with for a full day and more. There is even a huge difference actually between the gifted and the talented!
It is really hard to get the standard classroom teacher to focus properly into this area – and don’t forget there will be league tables in the future and they will be focusing on those at the margin!
A side benefit could be what a gifted child can take back to his or her class – to show and discuss with other students. I wonder how many teachers take advantage of this?
Advisory support for professional development in gifted and talented education has been cut by the National government in the 2009 Budget.
In the 2002 Initiatives in Gifted and Talented Education the number of advisers working across New Zealand was increased and supported by a national coordination team.
This cut is ironic given the Education Review Office concluded in 2008 that in 58 percent of the schools reviewed the provisions for gifted and talented students were not adequate.
“Gifted and talented students expressed dissatisfaction, boredom and frustration at the lack of challenge in their classroom programmes” (ERO, 2008, p. 30).
The ERO report strongly recommended the need for ongoing professional development and support for teachers, concluding that in the few schools where they did find good practice, professional development had been a strong contributing factor:
“However, in most schools there was little or no participation in professional development about gifted and talented education” (ERO, 2008, p. 44).
This ERO review of schools’ provisions was undertaken to determine schools’ progress towards meeting the requirements of the National Administration Guidelines for gifted and talented students (gazetted in 2003):
From Term 1, 2005 it became mandatory for all state and state-integrated schools to demonstrate how they are meeting the needs of their gifted and talented learners, as they are currently required to do for students who are not achieving, who are at risk of not achieving, and who have special needs.
The ERO results are similar to those reported in a Ministry of Education-commissioned research project undertaken in 2003-2004 and show failure by many schools to meet the requirements and expectations of the National Administration Guidelines.
There is no evidence-base for terminating advisory support for gifted and talented education.
Please raise questions in the House regarding the status of initiatives in gifted and talented education and the Government’s intentions for ongoing support for these students.
Since 2008 the Ministry has been undertaking a review of initiatives in gifted and talented education. The outcomes of this review remain unknown. There is great uncertainty as to the future of this field.
I must defend Trevor on this one. Wyatt Creech did a little, but Trevor was the first politician who really listened comprehensively to what we were trying to achieve, even before the 99 election. I remember sitting and talking with him well before that election, and I remember his positive response to an election meeting we held on gifted education. Thanks to him we got the Working Party and all that followed from that. And he’s quite right, he did put funding into both the One Day School (a number of scholarships were funded)AND into professional development. The point absolutely is that BOTH are needed if these children are to be properly catered for. But Arts is also right in saying that One Day School had to be paid for for his/her child. It’s lovely to read of that child’s experiences; that’s exactly what we sought to achieve. But remember, Arts, we started ODS in 1996, before the Labour Govt and at a time when the Ministry was refusing even to acknowledge requests for a statement of its policy on gifted education. There was no provision at all for these children. ODS HAD to begin by asking parents to pay fees, though we kept these as low as possible (ask my staff about their salaries!)and moved to a scaled set of fees as soon as we could to help low-income families. I do believe that programmes like this should be funded, but at least a start was made. We have shifted professional and community attitudes a long way from where they were 15 years ago, but there is still a long way yet to go before there is sufficient understanding and sympathy to support such full funding – which is why it so appalling to read of this senseless, short-sighted axing of the advisory positions. I am thankful that we still have Trevor ready to take up the cudgels on this one.
Certainly, as can be seen in the history of education in NZ, the Labour government has been the most supportive of initiatives for Gifted and Talent students, yet the 2008 Education Review Office report stated, we’re not there yet!!!! and the response to this from our present government is cut backs??? Hard to understand the logic in this.
An even more damning finding of the ERO report: only 17% of the schools reviewed had good quality provision for gifted and talented students across all five key evaluation areas (p. 46).
I know the Gifted Kids Programme, a one-day programme received support from the Labour government initiatives, this support also included help for state school teachers. Unfortunately the support did not cover all costs of the programme so my children’s school and our family also contributed, though not exorbitantly, however the value my daughters received from such an outstanding and quality opportunity was tremendous. I have one other child just starting the state education system, a 5 year old boy and huge concerns about whether his needs will be met well or at all, if the teachers in his school are to receive no support from the Ministry or outside agencies? Surely New Zealand supports equity and appropriate education is deservedly due to all? Please keep gifted and talented children’s needs to the forefront Trevor, there are those out here that appreciate your efforts.
Trevor have you read the ‘review’ that Tracy mentions in her response??? If so what does it say?
Annette :- Not yet just found it here http://www.ero.govt.nz/Publications/pubs2008/gifted-talented-jn08.doc
Many thanks Trevor, sorry for not being clearer I meant the ministerial review but the ERO report looks like it’s important to read too.
“Since 2008 the Ministry has been undertaking a review of initiatives in gifted and talented education. The outcomes of this review remain unknown.”
Is Tracy indicating it is not finished or that nothing is being done about it?
Sorry – i will try and find out, I presume it is something that followed the ERO report which at first glance shows somewhat patchy progress.
I agree it does indicate many areas of need which does seem to state more support is needed not less. I attended the NZ Gifted Conference (offered by the Ministry of Education I think) in 2006 as a parent and found the sharing of programmes inspiring but all seemed concerned about sustainability with little funding and yet at least they had some then, now what, no funding NO programmes?? As a parent it is hard to keep battling for my child to receive a challenging education and I do not believe that means, even if we had the finances, that I should have to take him to a private school, or that that option would necessarily be any better. Are there any studies of how private schools are dealing with their gifted and talented students? I am guessing if ‘teachers’ do not have many options or any options for professional development in this area it doesn’t matter if they are in private or state schools? Anyone know?
The only information about the review that is in the public domain is explained at:
http://www.tki.org.nz/r/gifted/tdi/funding_pool/apply/index_e.php
The initiatives in 2002 funded a range of provisions:
1. Between 2003 and 2008 the Ministry of Education funded thirty-eight Talent Development Initiatives. The Ministry has delayed advertising the next round of contestable funding (planned for 2009-2011) while it undertakes a review of gifted and talented education provisions.
2. Resources, including an online community page, a handbook for schools, and a book for parents have been developed by the Ministry of Education. However, some of these have not remained current and up-to-date, despite commissioned reviews and revisions.
3. In 2006, a national professional conference was sponsored by the Ministry of Education, attracting over 700 delegates. No further conferences, or support for the national association which grew from this conference, have been forthcoming from the Ministry.
4. A national study undertaken by staff at Massey University in 2003/2004:
http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/assessment/5451
Of course most important was probably the NAG change.
We were making inroads and getting international recognition for these, but …
Annette – I am not aware of any studies on private schools’ provisions for gifted and talented but the 2004 research was a bit surprising in that the provisions (or lack thereof) did not significantly relate to decile … despite ‘myths’ that there would be great differences.
All teachers, regardless of school, need professional development and support – ongoing! I have not yet read any research study in NZ that indicated otherwise.
Somebody may need to assist me here, but I remember that funding to George Parkyn was an issue in 2005/6. Late in 2005 I believe we were circulated by Sue Bariball and encouraged to write letters etc because less funding from other sources (presumably the state) was going to be provided. Scaled fees (referred to in this link) would have to go, limiting access for poorer families. I must admit, I did not hear the outcome of that.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10008536
Rosemary Cathcart – we were tested in your area, but participated after you departed. It is good to hear that the benefits we noticed were the intended benefits of the founder!
Hi Trevor
I read your Red Alert all the comments above with great interest. I have specialised in this field of education for over 20 years, and have been a teacher for almost 40 years. I’ve attended Annual Conferences for decades, and listened to more Ministers of Education make keynote speeches on gifted students than I care to name. Indeed, most of them were imminently forgettable. You are the first minister who really put his money where his mouth was, and for that, I will ever remain a fan!
Tracy and Rosemary have summed up most of what I would say. I too, point urgently to the ERO recommendations of only 12 months ago; particularly the one about teacher professional development. I agree with your two-pronged approach – a mix of professional development and funding of special programmes, and would have been VERY interested to see what the scheduled independent audit of the value of the advisory service professional development support and the TDI funding would have delivered, had it been completed. This was began last year, but due to the illness of the auditor, was never completed. However, we still had the ERO research (DO read it, those of you who haven’t) which is presumably unbiased and tells it like it is, and measures it against what could /should be.
New Zealand schools WERE beginning to change. Teacher professional development in this hugely complex, specialised area WAS beginning to make a difference. THis pulling of the funding sends a very unfortunate message to schools: “forget about that – it’s not important”.
The saddest thing about all this is the kids. As one superb Yr 10 gifted urban Maori student stood up and said to an MP and assembled VIPs at a Manukau City Maori Hui late last year: “You are always talking about spending heaps of money on those Maori who are failing, who aren’t contributing, who are criminal, and who are at the bottom of the heap. Why aren’t you investing in US? We are the ones who need to support to make it into the Universities, who need to be the role models, who can make a difference for those less able. We are the leaders. We need your support”.
Is investment in gifted worth it? Ask the students themselves; look at the research; …
…hurry back into Govt, Trevor – our gifted kids need you!
George Parkyn Centre received TDI funding in the 2003-2005 round for GO Gifted Online described here:
http://www.tki.org.nz/r/gifted/tdi/funding_pool/stories/gifted_online/index_e.php
And I believe (but Rosemary would have to confirm) some scholarships. Because the TDIs are a 3-year contestable funding pool, that funding would have ended in 2005.
In the 2006-2008 TDI round GPC received funding for professional development. See bottom of this page:
http://www.tki.org.nz/r/gifted/tdi/funding_pool/enhance_e.php
Re TDI funding for the George Parkyn Centre, we received a substantial chunk of money specifically for student scholarships in the first round of funding (2003-05), as Tracy says. I believe some of this did go to GO students, though most went to ODS students as they were far greater in number. I don’t know what happened in the next round as by then I’d moved to Rotorua and was no longer with the Centre. What’s important about this, whether the students were GO or ODS, is that it was yet another demonstration of the fact that gifted students come from all kinds of backgrounds – from memory about a third of our students came from low or lower-middle income families. Axing advisors hurts gifted children from every sort of background, but it hurts most of all those children whose families have fewest financial resources to support them. That’s what Trevor Mallard recognised and was prepared to support, and I repeat, that means supporting both PD for the classroom teacher who is with these children for the vast bulk of their learning time AND supporting opportunities for gifted children to have what other children can take for granted – opportunities to work and play on an equal footing with children who share their ideas, interests, way of learning, passions, sympathies, sense of humour and general perspective on life. I suppose if National is prepared so blithely to ignore a Royal Commision on something as major as Auckland City’s structure, it is not to be wondered at that they so blithely ignore reports such as that of ERO – experts pointing with real concern to an area of need – when after all it’s only children they’re hurting. Children don’t have the vote, do they. Perhaps National should remember that their parents and teachers do.
National may be ignoring ERO reports because of their variable quality when applied to schools. Cambridge High School was not an isolated example.
Tell me, when did you last see an ERO school report that filled you with surprise? When did they last take the battle to a popular Decile 9 or 10 school? How good have they been at ANTICIPATING future outcomes of schools they review?
The popular get more popular.
This is a hornet’s nest.
By the way ..
The GOOD thing about paying for George Parkyn was that we were paying for the INDEPENDENCE and CREATIVITY of their system.
I would not like to see this exciting programme under the detailed gaze of the bureaucracy – and for the type of vehicle it was, this would have been totally unnecessary.
I just hope we do not see the day when there are National Standards for Gifted and Talented Programmes, but given the chance, the current govt and bureaucrats would be keen on that!
Hey Trevor, maybe Heather has read your Red Alert? http://www.roy.org.nz/diary/heather-roys-diary-1
She is also saying gifted and talented students should not be forgotten. Do you think this will/could eventuate as anything considering the cuts you mention above?
Annette, Tracy she wasn’t that good in the House today. I’ve copied the question and the relevant supplementaries :-
10. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour-Hutt South) to the Associate Minister of Education: Which reductions within the appropriations in Vote Education in the 2009-10 Budget will adversely affect students with special needs, and what input did she have into those decisions?
Hon HEATHER ROY (Associate Minister of Education) : Some year-by-year appropriations that affect a small group of students with special needs will not be continued. However, this has been more than offset by additional funding that is being provided in other relevant programmes for students with special education needs. I have been consulted as part of the process of developing these decisions.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Does the Minister support the cutting of support to the most physically disabled children; if so, why?
Hon HEATHER ROY: As I said in the answer to the primary question, a small group of students with special needs will not have their programme continued, but this has been more than offset by the increase in funding provided to the Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Does the Minister stand by her blog post last Sunday supporting Gifted Awareness Week; if so, why?
Hon HEATHER ROY: Yes, I do. It is Gifted Awareness Week, and I hope the member is going take advantage of the many activities that are going on throughout the country. However, that question is completely irrelevant to the primary question; it is outside the scope of the appropriation that the member asked about in his primary question.
Hon Trevor Mallard: In light of the Associate Minister’s answer giving her support to Gifted Awareness Week, did she support the 100 percent cut to teacher professional development in this area?
Hon HEATHER ROY: As I just outlined in the previous answer, this area is outside the scope of the appropriation that is being talked about.
Mr SPEAKER: In providing her previous answer the Associate Minister opened up a field of legitimate questioning. When a Minister gives an answer, members are able to question that answer. I invite the Associate Minister to reflect on that. I note the member who asked that question has not sought any further clarification of it, but I am alerting the Associate Minister to that point.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Shall I put the question again, so that the Associate Minister has another chance to answer it?
Mr SPEAKER: I will allow the member to do that.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Why, in light of her answer to my previous supplementary question, did the Associate Minister support a 100 percent cut to the teacher professional development budget for gifted and talented students?
Hon HEATHER ROY: I support the initiatives put forward by the Minister of Education, as an Associate Minister.
So she failed to stand up for the views she expressed in her very +ve blog in the budget process. Pretty sad really.
Thank you Trevor,
I am delighted to see the question you raised in the House today about the funding cut to professional development in gifted and talented education.
This funding cut has been a very poor decision in view of the findings of last year’s ERO Review of Schools’ Provision for Gifted and Talented Students. As has been stated above, this document clearly showed that schools still have quite a way to go in meeting the needs of our gifted children. Surely professional development is the key to changing that result.
Thanks for raising this question Trevor. I agree the response is not as good as the question! Please keep advocating for gifted and talented kids and those who support their needs.
Thanks Trevor for asking this important question. Gifted and Talented children and their funding and programming are often the first things to go when the financial purse strings are pulled tighter… This group have the same rights as others. We appreciate your advocating for a vulnerable but vital group for NZ’s future. I am privileged to work with many gifted children in my private work as an educational psychologist. The stories I hear are not always positive about their programming options and provisions. We have started the journey but still have such a long way to go. These cuts may have put us back a huge step…
Ok, maybe the Minister has been reigned in?? Thanks Trevor, don’t give up, it took 120 years to get something started and you did it, what a great legacy…. if it stays around. This group of students needs support as much as we need them to lead our country in the future, perhaps there are plans a foot to fund this sector in different ways…..though no PD for the teachers will make it tricky.
An ever hopeful Annette
Please, please, please fight for teachers to have PD, I am trying desperately to improve the outcomes for gifted students at the high school I teach at, but without any funding how am I supposed to educate the already over-loaded teachers? Our gifted young people are our future leaders and scientists. If we do not invest in them, we are not investing in our future. They should be our TOP priority, not at the bottom, below all others.
Frustration and outrage from Northland.Regarding the funding cuts We have world class educators in the likes of Robyn Boswell, Michelle Parson- Sim, Debbie Green, Pam Scahill et al. We are always fighting for recognition in the north and have many geographic and demographic challenges in maintaining high quality PD for our region (in all areas of curriculum). Yet we seem to continually produce world beating results because of people like the aforementioned.
A bit like Northland rugby, when we do produce quality players we lose them bigger unions. We have lost Michelle this week to China. (N.Z.’s Loss) and we struggle to keep Robyn in the north as much as possible. Debbie has to try and pick up bits of contacts each year to sustain her income. This is ludicrous!
We have a government who knows the importance of developing confident, connected, lifelong learners and yet they are eliminating the tools and opportunities which will take us into the 21 century.
We have always supported the notion of collaboration and knowledge sharing. With the funding cuts, this will diminish for all regions not just our own.
Please know, Trevor, that your effective advocation for our gifted students has allowed a raft of improvements in awareness of their needs and provisions in some schools. As a parent, grandparent and past teacher of gifted children I acknowledge this with thanks and ask that you continue to point out that the cuts are a backward step that cannot BUT affect gifted and talented students, and ultimately New Zealand, adversly.
I have found this thread very illuminating. As someone with an interest in inclusive education for less able learners I thought the gifted and talented funding was somehow elitist. Anecdotal reports from some schools had their precious SEG money going to ‘G and T’ kids while the same schools discouraged special needs kids from enrolling. But I now realise that kids with high functioning autism, for example, were among those who benefitted from the G and T attention. Most kids with autism are not eligible for ORRS funding so will not benefit from the increase in ORRS – which is the one area that this govt has increased.
Another question today.
From Question Time Today. I am really worried that she is running down the little resource going into the gifted and talented area, relevant bits below:-
7. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour-Hutt South) to the Minister of Education: What changes did she make within Vote Education Budget 2009 relating to gifted and talented education?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) : The Government ceased funding for gifted and talented education professional development services through the school support service contracts. That yielded savings of $5.4 million over 4 years. The advice I received was that the funding had a limited effect in small pockets of the country but overall was not delivering system-wide changes in the practices of schools and teachers. The Government is still committed to helping gifted and talented students by providing funding of $5.28 million over the next 4 years to support initiatives for gifted and talented students.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Why were gifted and talented children such a low priority that the Minister singled out their programmes for budget cuts and did not put the savings into more effective programmes for those children?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As I have said to the member, the advice I received was that those professional development programmes had limited and isolated reach, with not many schools benefiting from them. But we are committed to ensuring that gifted and talented students-like all students at school-are supported through the large amount of funding we spend on professional development.
Nikki Kaye: What initiatives is the Government proposing in order to deliver system-wide change to help gifted and talented students?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: One example would be that in December of this year the Government plans to publish resources to support gifted education in all New Zealand schools, including identification tools and quality teaching standards. Those resources are designed to promote system-wide change to help gifted and talented students, rather than the very limited and isolated change that the spending on professional development has produced so far.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Why are children from a generally privileged background in private schools and elite integrated schools being given money taken from gifted children in State schools?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I said to the member that the professional development services that were being delivered-that $5 million that we have taken from the Budget-was not delivering system-wide change. We are looking for system-wide change for gifted and talented students across the country. They deserve to have support. That is what we are attempting to achieve through both professional development across the board and the specific initiatives we are putting into place.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Did she cut the money from gifted and talented education professional development because she was captured by politically correct officials who do not believe in nurturing tall poppies?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: No.
——————————————————————————–
Story Classifications:
Politics: Questions Of the Day
Education: Education Policy
Please Trevor keep asking those questions.
Decisions are obviously being made at present as to how gifted and talented students are being supported and someone needs to keep reminding the Minister that there are many people interested in these decisions. Thanks for keeping us informed.
Trevor, thank you for raising this question. Please keep asking!
I would be interested in who is advising the Minister and what evidence the advice is based upon. I would also question the resources being developed – who is developing these? when? how will they be released? and most importantly, how do resources such as identification tools and quality teaching standards impact system-wide change without professional development and support? In the budget savings statement there is also mention of other supports … how far can they stretch a measly $5.28 million over 4 years and actually impact system-wide change?!
The Minister has ignored the BES research about professional development which has identified in-depth on-going support to make any changes to teaching practice. This will not happen, as Tracy says, by giving schools resources without professional development support. ERO recommended that advisers were too thin on the ground NOT to cut professional development altogether. These are the students after all who will, given the right education, make a difference to the well-being of New Zealand
Tracy
I would think the Ministry of Education will be providing the advice. Danger signals there. Like all government departments they have been told to save a lot of money, and so they become Chopper’s chopper.
Additionally however, people who might also be expected to influence Anne Tolley could be John Key, Bill English (formerly the Education spokesman), Associate Minister Heather Roy, Chairperson of Education Subcommmittee Allan Peachey. Who did I leave out?
The Hon Anne Tolley mentioned that the Ministry would be publishing resources for schools in December. I understand that the Gifted Advisors have been required to submit to the Ministry any tools they developed during their tenure. It will be very interesting to compare these.
I’m very interested in the results of the Ministrial Review. I understand they may be looking into best practise for schools meeting the NAG of ‘identify and cater’ for G&T, please let it be so.
Trevor was going to look into when the Ministerial Review would be complete. Any result yet??
No will chase via wpq. thanks for the reminder.
Thanks. I see reference to review in Hon Heather Roy’s answer to WTQ 4595 and note that she often includes G&T as part of Special Education in speeches made around the country (last in Invercargill I think).
Would also be very interested to know if the ‘resources for school (Ministry publications) due out in December’ are developed by the -soon to be axed- education advisors (school support contracts).
Saw ‘Back benchers’ – AB’s win under Labour govt – nice one!
I’d just arrived – saw Le Sud and popped in for the last 15min. Carole seemed to be doing really well.
Associate Minister of Education was supposed to answer Trevor’s question for written answer about G&T review yesterday. I guess breath-holding is not a good idea.
It seems that the professionals in the field all endorse advisors to schools as being very worthwhile.
http://www.giftednz.org.nz/data/Gifted_Awareness_Week_Letter_to_MPs.pdf
I’m just a Mum but I would love to know how the Ministry came to the conclusion that advisors were not delivering system-wide change when ERO seemed to think there was good progress given the time the initiative had been running. Is it just a case of tinkering with things to claim National-led intiatives?