I’m interested in feedback on a clear sharp position statement on National’s education standards. How does this run with people as a proposed policy position:-
“Labour will abolish the requirement for primary schools to examine and report to the Ministry of Education against a set national standard and will require ERO to report in each of their reviews of primary schools on the quality of formative assessment used in the school and the clarity of the reporting to parents.”
Some previous posts on this issue :- Rushed law, What the real experts say, Hattie’s warnings, Excellent teachers, Too much focus on three rs counterproductive, Standards today. There are more if people want to go further back in Red Alert but I think these give the flavour.
@Banksie, first!!!!
If it’s going back to the status quo I’d be happy, but then I don’t have any kids.
I think you need to explain why you want to get rid of it. Also, I kinda think that policy rollback positions only work if there’s a lot of negative sentiment in the electorate towards the policy you’re attacking. I don’t think that exists for Tolley’s national standards.
The phrase “quality of formative assessment” isn’t particularly intelligible. Perhaps a move toward plain English policies as well as plain English reports
Very good. It’s not a rollback position at all but an extension of a policy that was working well. However plain English warnings are timely – when all said and done those not prepared to put in the work to understand new ideas barracked for the ’standards’ in the first place – including them in your thinking can’t be bad.
Here’s my attempt.
“Labour will abolish the requirement for primary schools to examine and report to the Ministry of Education against a set of national standards, and will require the ERO to report, in each primary school review, on the quality of pupil development assessment used in that school and the clarity of reporting it to parents.”
My Son is 5 next year so I am concerned for the effect that this policy will have on his generation.
Let me make this very clear – Standards are great! We absolutely need to identify individuals (students) that are struggling and provide intervention. Standards are great, but maybe not these ones?
Where I get very anti is when politicians (don’t care what color you are) start limiting a child’s potential to fit their policy in with a neat short soundbite. eg “the 3 Rs” or “real skills for real jobs”, read preparing kids for a life of indentured servitude. Why do we need to teach a cook about nature/history etc?
I see a large part of a schools role is to deliver the building blocks for college, when kids get to make choices.
To me this means an introduction to every possible subject, especially where the parents do not have the skills (eg sport/swimming/music/socializing/gardening/nature/budgeting (making choices)/consequences/basic critical and imaginative thought. In order to make an informed choice young children must be exposed to as many experiences as possible so they can find and develop their passion, and change their minds if needed.
What worries me is that the approach suggested is a precursor to focusing only on the three Rs and finding the 10% cuts from slimming down the content of delivery (to produce a nation of IT Grads). The assessment focus is too narrow (as it stands) and I worry that this increases the burden on teachers and students spending too much time in testing by rote rather than learning by exploration/experimentation.
Another point is that if 80% of kids are doing well, then why are we not developing interventions and supporting them, perhaps extra small classes (tutors) for these kids. Again we still need some form of assessment to find these kids. Should this then apply to the less sporty kids as well??
In short its not the standards that worry parents (apart from the workload)but the focus of the teaching content and the child’s development.
P.S. Was I the only one who read Anne Tolleys piece in the Dom Post and thought she should go back to school for a good does of English and reasoning skills?? especially this bit after I thought they slashed funding for science & arts.
“There have been hysterical claims that we are no longer investing in subjects such as art and the sciences. Wrong again. Teachers asked for professional development next year to support them with the teaching of literacy and numeracy and the introduction of national standards. We are delivering this to them, just as they asked.”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/opinion/3108071/Sorting-out-the-facts-from-the-fiction-about-national-standards
Had a bit of discussion with a couple of people on this and they suggested an entry point around the new curriculum.
Let’s be honest, some NZers are just thick so statements like “quality of formative assessment” aren’t going to sink in…. I hear Rudd is pretty good at dumbing these things down you guys should work on doing the same… It is important to note that standards are important and that people may think the review by the ERO is just a waste of time… maybe an alternitive would be good. Don’t just bag it, say how you’re going to fix it or atleast say that you are going to fix it… Also Tolley IMO has the intelligence of a small child it amazes me that she is a minister let alone the minister of education… Maybe Key is trying to make fun of the PPTA….
“a good does of English” – heh
Well done Bea. Ever been a teacher?
Had Phil in Gisborne today and education was a hot topic. Met with a number of primary principals and teachers who are horribly opposed to the national standards because not only were they were forced through with very little input from the sector but because they stifle the really good work thats been going on already.
There was huge resentment at the millions of dollars that have gone into the development of these standards at the expense of other programmes that work really well but have been cut, and the fact that there is no money for schools to help implement them (one of our intermediates recently had an unpaid PD day on national standards). There was also offense taken at the suggestion that schools dont test and monitor students now, and anger at the loss of advisers for subjects like science and arts etc as well as the national library service for our rural schools.
National standards is a clever phrase because everyone likes “standards” and human nature is to assume things are worse than when we were young and standards have slipped “since I was at school” but what is being offered here will not lift educational achievement. I’m not an expert in education, but I have read the research and this policy is not evidence based, in fact its the opposite.
It doesnt matter how many different ways you find to weigh the pig. Doesn’t make it any fatter.
The danger of a national standard, is that what is taught is centred around students gaining that skill only, because that is the skill that is tested and therefore valued. I am trying to write up my experience in the English system, which is very limiting for student experience and absolutely deskilling for teachers.
But as a principal in New Zealand I was very aware of parents being unaware of difficulties that their children had. So reporting to parents is absolutely vital. The work done in the asstle format is so important to be shared with parents. They can work with their children at home in raising the thinking skills that underlie all subjects.
So classroom assessment to check that each student has grasped the essentials, and the regular discussion with parents to build that partnership around the child is essential.
New Zealand was well on its way to extending this from junior primary through to secondary.
I think the ERO is in the best position to report on whether such informed discussions between teacher and parent are taking place. But I would feel secure only if these reports were at least every three years.
Trevor, if we are to win this argument we need to avoid the technical language and actually spell out. assttle needs to be explained. Stories need to be told of how a student is helped by school and parents working together to strengthen their ability to multiply or whatever.
But it is also true that labour and teachers need to spell out a clear alternative.
Danyl said:I think you need to explain why you want to get rid of it.
Those in the profession from acadamia downwards have been quite clear in their opposition and provided copious reasons.
Significant overseas examples have ben adduced in support.
Jeremy’s comments go some way towards describing how the elctorate might feel about these standards.
I agree with the idea that ERO should report on assessment quality & reporting.
By the way, ‘formative asessments’ are those which are part of helping students find out what they will be required to learn, and of assisting teachers to develop the right kind of learning mix for the child or group. ‘Summative’ assessment occurs after the teaching/learning process and is a measure of effective teaching & learning.
If Tolley’s interest in standards stems from the perception that education is failing too many students,(for example, employer groups have complained for years about literacy issues) she has identified a serious problem but imposed the ‘wrong’ solution. If this is left unchanged, we shall pay the price exacted by the Law of Unintended Consequences, as so many commentators have already pointed out in different venues.
With three kids in the education system I very much want to know how they are performing and for that reason I am very supportive of National Standards.
Many friends who all seem to have kids at primary school also want to know how their child is doing in comparison to kids in their class and against other schools both locally and nationally.
As I am from the right of the political spectrum I hope Labour retain your policy – already the left are looking down the barrel of a very long stint in opposition. Policy statements such this will only cement you in opposition.
Keep up the good work.
So Monty tell me how knowing how your kids are performing against others using the new standards is better than Asstle which right wing group Maxim described thus:-
“Also this week, Education Minister, Steve Maharey, announced that schools and parents will be able to access the Achievement to Learn test data (Asstle). Asstle is a CD-ROM based achievement test, which highlights gaps in pupils’ learning. Because Asstle has been going for five years, it is possible to compare achievement between similar schools and achievement over time, as well as to compare pupils’ achievement with the national average”
I am not necessarily in favour of these standards, or against, but quite neutral.
Whether your Anne Tolley, Catherine Delahunty, an everyday parent or Trevor Mallard, I think you’d all agree some sort of system that would do (ish) the same job that the proposed standards are made to do is necessary for the education of our children.
What I would be interested to know is what, if you, Mr. Mallard, were the Minister of Education at the moment, what kind of system you’d be implementing, if you’d be implementing one, and if not, why not?
Just a thought that went through my head yesterday
NOTE: This is my observations, and what I believe to be true. The thing is Trevor, as I understand it asTTle is not a Government provided software and needs to be paid for by the school.
Anne Tolley’s comment about how it is ridiculous that she, in her Ministerial role, can tell us how many toilets there are in a school, but not how our students are doing in Literacy and Numeracy. We can therefore conclude from this comment (under the understanding that this comment is true) that the asTTle results are not fed into a national database that is avaliable to the Minister and officials.
Conclusively, what I think we should do is provide asTTle as a governement/ministry provided software/program to all schools, at no cost, and have the results fed into a national system.
But then we face the problem of action, which for the national party is a problem. We need to use these results to fins out where we need to educate our kids.
So overall, what we need, is
1. Trevor Mallard as the Minister of Education
2. asTTle provided as a free resource
3. Teachers to feed results into national database
4. Ministry to provide support and resources to schools that can allow teachers to get under achieving students (as identified in step 2/3) up to the national curriculim level.
I am pleased to hear that Labour has come out strongly against the requirement to test against and report on national Stds. I am happy with the requirement for schools to be accountable for their assessment procedures and more importantly on how they use assessment data to improve teaching and learning. ERO is the logical agency to do this.
as Past President of NZPF i firmly oppose the standards as set out by National Govt and Anne Tolley. they will not raise the achievement as promised. We have standards, they work well, we report to our BOT and ERO checks our assessment policies and procedures. Labour idea as proposed I agree with.
there is a better way. experienced Principals seconded to provide advice will work. what is currently propsed will creat enormous strss, workload and division .
Trevgor
What I want to know is how well are my kids doing in comparison to other kids in the class and how well they (and the school is doing on a nationally comparative basis.
The teachers have flinched over the past 7 years when I have asked how my kids do in comparison – at Least under a National standards I may get some of the answers I am looking for.
@Monty I have 9 year old twins. In the same class. Very different. I have regular meetings with the teacher (and sometimes the principal too) to discuss their progress and any gaps in their learning. The Asstle tool is very good. I know that there are strategies within the classroom to assess my children’s particular needs and to assess where they are on a scale. I don’t need my school to be measured against other schools. I need to know that they are focussed on the needs of my children, and others in the class.
What I’d like is for National to release the research they’ve supposedly done which says parents want national standards where schools are assessed against each other.
@ Clare Curran:YES the asTTle system/scheme does work well but needs to be used on a national basis, and used as a tool for the Ministry aswell as schools. It would save all this fuss with the standards.
Wrote a bit about how standards are bad news for students on the Autistic spectrum http://humans.org.nz/2009/11/27/will-national-standards-fail-autistic-students/
Thanks Hilary – it is a pity the orginal legislation didn’t go to a Select Committee for you to provide expert comment.
I have deep concerns over these national standards as it will not deliver the alleged or overt intention of providing a clear analysis or assessment of a child educational learning and development at any given stage. The concept of matching a child’s learning and development performance against an idealised scale or table is at best deeply flawed and at worst a condemnation of the child’s ability and potential. As all of us know or should know children learn and develop at different rates, both on an individual and collective basis. That is to say a child will not learn all subjects at the same rate and no two children will learn at the same rate. In order to do any justice to this kind of approach the system would need to focus in each child separately and assess that child’s learning and development independently. That is to say, without comparisons to other children. I do not see the national standards being able to do this at all. I realise that assessing a child’s rate of learning and development is extremely complex and problematic that is another reason why the national standards concern me as they are a simplistic approach to this issue.
I have read about the British experiment with national standards in particular the recently published House of Lords report which is critical of the national standards and the subsequent affects on children as the system labels children who do not meet these standards as failures. National Standards and Tables are going to be used in the same way the American Standard Aptitude Tests (SATs) are used. The American SATs were originally designed to identify children who had learning difficulties so that resources could be better utilised to help improve their learning and development. However, to the despair of the SATs founder these tests are used more to exclude children from further educational and employment opportunities beyond school age. This I believe will be the result with National Standards in New Zealand.
Over the past 25 years we have been using our children as guinea pigs in various experiments in educational systems without any really thought for the long term affect this has on our children. This is a problem with adopting new concepts that have not even been properly analysed or assessed within our academic institutions beforehand. Sometimes these are merely at the conceptual stage and the intention of their originators is not to have them implemented as more work needs to be done to develop the concepts.
Finally, any educational system (primary and secondary) needs to put the needs of the child first. Of course what are these needs of the child? I would say that at the very least having the basic literacy and numeracy skills required to survive in the modern world. Also having the openness to learn new things and develop whatever talents children have. Not all of us have the same talents or dispositions. An encouragement to develop their own path. I realise this is a big thing to ask of any educational system to put the needs of the child first.
Les Gee
No one should oppose lifting genuine educational or learning standards.
The real argument is: What standards? And how should they be assessed?
The United States is mesmerised by “standardised testing” to assess such standards, and America is one country (there are many others) where the school system is based around standardised textbooks on every “subject” — and then “teaching to the test” so that students can be tested, in a one-dimensional way, by answering test questions that often tend to test just much someone has remembered about a particular subject.
Overall, we do not have that system in New Zealand.
However, on any measure, we have had now, for many years, an unfortunate “tail” of low-achievers in New Zealand schools: up to 20%, whichever way one assesses that. when assessed by written tests on basic mathematics and literacy (reading, writing spelling and confident communications) that tail often under-performs against our generally good overall “standards”.
In a world where innovation, creativity, ideas , problem-solving and “futures thinking” will determine the future for individuals and societies, most countries have not yet found agreed ways of testing these abilities. Yet these are the areas where New Zealand children — by their heritage, open-minded and generally egalitarian attitudes — generally thrive.
The best way to “test” or assess achievements in those fields are, I have found, simply the keys to good learning anyway: “To learn it, do it” – and then show the proof that you can.
Therefore, in my view, we should all accept the concept that New Zealand schools should strive to produce the world’s best achievers – and that everyone should be an achiever in his or her own way.
But being a high-achiever in literacy means “21st-century multimedia literacy”, not merely in written literacy. It means being a Peter Jackson who flowers in demonstrating that: 23 Academy Awards for his Lord of the Rings creative team; 11 in one night — not just reading Tolkien and answering questions on his writings – but recreating Tolkien in brilliant new ways with 21st-century tools.
In this way: don’t be seen as opposing “standards” but as leading in dragging 21st-century schools out of the system that “invented” them over 300 years ago.
Short summary: lead the drive for New Zealand to achieve the highest 21st-century standards, accepting that every student should be encouraged to flower and achieve in his or her own way — and then proving that in practice — as Peter Jackson, Ritchie McCaw, Irene van Dyke, Stephen Tindall, Kiri Te Kanawa, Richard Taylor and our great winemakers do with every performance.
I believe that children will only learn successfully if they are in the right frame of mind to learn. A love of learning is innate in children, butthe environment has to be condusive to learning, from the time they are conceived. Once the brain development is compromised they become incapable of learning at the “normal” rate and I’m sorry but even teachers with the best will in the world will not be able to bring them up to the required standard. John Key needs to look at VERY EARLY CHILDHOOD systems to bring about the changes needed. P.A.F.T is a system already in place. If he spent his money expanding it so that every child’s parent received this support it would change our education spectacularly.Consult with BRAINSTRUST too. They have all the data needed to prove that what I am saying is true.
National Standards for Primary Schools???… to identify who is behind and tell them in plain English that they are failing; so that they can hear THAT every year for the rest of their lives until they stop failing… probably when they leave school… Now that’s success… Let’s just put a tattoo on their heads with an F on it. Then National can blame the teachers and put an F on the teachers head and dock their pay. No money to implement a system to identify who is failing… ASK THE TEACHERS!!! in plain English… Here’s some plain English, this is really about making a difficult job more difficult and blaming teachers who don’t get paid enough to babysit 30 kids ALL DAY LONG. YOU TRY IT! Now, I can no longer tell little Johnny that although he sucks at Maths, he’s a gifted musician with a future… 3 Rs… gimme a break. Nats F! Tolly, good golly, she’d have an F on her forehead too. Go get ‘em Labour!!!
After a very quick look, this seems good to me. I am all for menaingful reporting. Do we need the bit about ERO checking? Where is the trust?
Nobody in education is anti standards but rather they are opposed to National Standards for many reasons including the resultant narrowing of the curriculum, league tables, and most importantly they way that they will negatively affect the new national curriculum.
I agree with the proposed policy and believe that ERO are the best method (at the moment) for assessing if schools are assessing children well and using the assessment data succesfully to guide future teaching.
There is a wide range of accepted assessment tools that schools can use and suggest that Asttle is simply one of these. Beware implementing this nation wide or it may become a national test instead leave the choice of assessment tools to the professionals.
In regards reporting there is always a lot of discussion at this time about their clarity – but this is just one opportunity for reporting and should be seen in conjunction with the many other discussion points that take place throughout the year. Quite frankly most if not all schools are quite happy to make time to discuss children’s progress at any time throughout the year – parents just need to make contact with the school. The issue of clearly advising progress is a little tricky and not as straightforward as is often made out. Take a five year old child’s report – a child who has not yet developed enough to make immediate progress – do you really want the teacher to write a report showing all that child’s deficiencies when it is most likely that another 6-12 months at school will see the child on track?
Good luck with your work.
The Key Government are only slowly showing us their hand. Education policy, though, shows us their agenda – Tolley is not clever enough to keep all her cards close to her chest and we see beneath the tip of the iceberg whenever she comments. She is dismissive of experts and practitioners (people whom really care about kids and education) and as a consequence she has alienated the State education sector and runs roughshod over the people who do all the work. She and her colleagues tighten the belts of State education but give more money to private schools. What is her message and the message of the smiling PM and his deputy – tame the unions, bolster the business and farming sector, user pays, lock up as many crims as possible, typical Tory stuff. National Standards are foolhardy and potentially very damaging and their introduction need to be fought.
Dear Trevor,
I am a Deputy Principal of a Napier Primary School and am fully supportive of your suggestion to drop National Standards and allow ERO to report on schools Assessments and Reporting to parents. My staff have worked really hard the last two years to get ready to implement the New Zealand Curriculum plus we have had a successful ERO Review this year. To have National Standards dropped on New Zealand teachers while implementing the NZC is totally inconsiderate.
I am sure you are following our NZEI Presidents reports on trialling National Standards.This would give us breathing space to get on with implementing the NZC.
Regards,
Ian Turbitt
I would love to see a change in policy – something like your suggestion suits me as a principal and as a parent. Current policy suggests that I, along with all my colleagues, have no professionalism and require the government (with all their educational knowledge and experience) to tell me what is best for children, to focus me on improved outcomes and to make me accountable. I guess I shouldn’t complain…I’ve obviously got away with being useless for the last 20 years of my career!
I’m a grandfather, never a teacher, but I am very concerned about National’s stance on primary school standards.
I agree with the sentiments of commentators such as Gordon Dryden, L Gee and others; I have read a little Henry Giroux who is greatly concerned at the ideology behind such standards and their results in the USA. I am inclined to think that this (neo-liberal) ideology infects the National Party thinking, and I don’t want it to eat away at the good that is being worked at in our own educational system.
I therefore support the intent of Mr Mallards policy statement for Labour that stands against National’s literacy and numeracy national standards.
Like others, I think its English needs simplifying and clafifying. I also think, as in so many othe things, Labour needs to explain, clearly, what it is doing, and why it is doing it, so that parents and all others involved can understand Labour’s position – that it is not against standards, but for a wider, deeper and creative education system that is adequate to the latest knowledge and to the needs of our children and society in our present “world”.
Trevor, I support your proposed policy. I have been a trustee, and Chair of the Board of Trustees of a medium sized Yr1-8 primary school for 7 years. I am concerned that the National Standards initiative will inevitably lead to a narrowing of the curriculum, and pressure on teachers to “teach to the test”.
The proponents of the initiative claim that this will lift student achievement, but in fact we already have very high standards that are the envy of many other countries. Why risk causing damage to a system that is already performing well by international standards, particularly given the depressing results of similar initiatives in other countries.
It is true that we need to focus more attention on the small percentage of students that are struggling to achieve. However, National Standards are unlikely to make any difference to these students, because typically the root cause of their learning difficulties are not poor teaching, but factors in their own lives and communities that schools will struggle to overcome.
The National Standards initiative is poorly conceived, and is being rammed through, against the advice of highly respected education professionals. The justifications advanced for National Standards appear very dubious on close examination, and I am concerned that there will be many risks and downsides.
Funniest thing I’ve read today from the Northern Advocate:
“Northland principals unanimously agreed to pass the resolution that “we will do nothing about national standards as the effect and impact is so far reaching and unknown until known”.”
They’re unknown until known? Golly.
LOL
As the principal of a low decile school I am very concerned about the National Standards. The home environment of many of our students is far from ideal and many have no support for their learning from parents. My teachers and I work extremely hard to try to get these children to want to learn and to improve, but unless they have support from home they may never reach the “acceptable standard”. And yes, their feeling of failure will be increased.
What exactly are we going to be given to help these kids? What they need is an encouraging and supportive home life but how National is going to do this, I’m not sure!
I can only see harm coming from the introdution of the standards.
My recently published letter to the NZ Listener -
With Education Minister Anne Tolley ignoring the warnings of our leading assessment academics and the failures of national standards systems around the world, as a teacher and now principal I want to offer my simple solution to lifting the achievement of those who find themselves at the “tail” of so-called league tables. It is indeed having National Standards, as the minister and her cronies suggest – not for literacy and numeracy but rather for housing, healthcare, income and equity.