I’ve read the ERO report “Reading and Writing in Years 1 and 2″.
It’s actually very good. It points out what 30% of teachers need to improve on, and what 70% of teachers do very well.
The closest it gets to endorsing National Standards is where it says, “Although high teacher expectations are important, they are not sufficient on their own to enable children to achieve. Expectations for high standards must be accompanied by good teaching that is mindful of the diverse nature of children’s learning needs.”
Which reinforces what I’ve been saying – excellent teachers (and teaching) raise achievement. The government’s responsibility is to provide the conditions where excellent teachers can weave their magic.
So instead of teacher bashing, Anne Tolley needs to recognise that 30% of teachers need some help, identify who they are and provide the professional development that will enable them to teach effectively.
Leave the 70% who are doing fine to get on with the job.
One of the conditions they need to weave their magic is to be given the time, space, freedom and resources to do even better.
Instead they have to conform to the one size fits all National Standards.
That seemed like a blatant spin this morning.
Kelvin – 30% need to improve is massive and that certainly is not an acceptable level as it is way to high. No business could survive if 30% of the staff “needed to improve”. We should not accept that from our teachers. It would be interesting to see if the same statistic applies to Private and intergrated schools as well. I suspect not as high standards are demanded and met in those schools.
That sort of mediocrity may be acceptable to Labour and to their supporting unions – but as a parent with three children at primary school I know this is a disgraceful statistic.
I look forward to Tolley making substantial progress and making the hard calls that for too long have not been made (under nine years of Labour) for fear of upsetting their lap-dog union.
Monty, 30% is totally unacceptable. Focus on the 30%, leave the 70% doing well to get on with the job.
Kelvin, 1 in 5 of the product teachers produce is has difficulty reading when they leave school. If you say that 70% of the teachers are okay, then can you point there out to me, so that I know what schools to avoid.
I have seen Govts, both sides, and Companies having issues with minorities behaving or performing badly by having to make rules/laws that cover everyone and this is an example. Another example is the drinking age. Some 18 & 19 year olds are total clowns when drinking but many are responsible but to sort out the bad ones, you punish the good.
On breakfast this morning, NZEI’s Francis Nelson appeared surprised by the report and seemed to acknowledge the upcoming stds as positive??
Why do people think that the National standards will improve the level of teaching. We need to get rid of or help the poor teachers improve. Forcing untried standards on teachers who already struggle isn’t going to get you better results. National standrads aren’t necessarly going to produce easy to understand reports either. If you don’t know what it means then get a dictionary or hassel the teacher until she tells you! Don’t introduce some silly standrad that isn’t going to help!!!
Sweetd, read the report. ERO says 70% are okay (The Minister commissioned this report remember).
My attention was grabbed by TV3, who talks about “year 1 and 2 teachers.” This is generally understood to be beginning teachers in their provisional two years of teaching. They should have said “teachers of years 1 and 2.”
I am curious why principals are not singled out for criticism, and Boards of Trustees for hiring so many (apparently) incapable principals. Perhaps BOTs don’t really know what they are doing, being given responsibility for doing some things they are entirely unqualified for. Just because you are a mother and grandmother and have been to school (Tolley) does not mean that you suddenly understand the complexities of teaching and educational environments.
Kelvin, yes, I know 70% are okay. What I want to know are the 30% they are not okay, the ones to avoid. Can you tell me who these teachers are and why we still employ them?
FFS, do you think Toyota would like only 70% of their factories producing okay cars?, or knowing 20% are shite? Do you think the consumer would buy Toyota’s if this was the case?
To sweetd
I don’t think one can dismiss the so-called 30% of teachers. What I want to know is what sort of professional culture exists in the schools with the underachieving or “secretive” teachers. Why doesn’t the school have a principal who inspires these teachers, ensures all staff have access to appropriate professional development, aims towards a collaborative relationship and sense of trust between the teachers? Why have 30% of Boards of trustees not appointed suitable staff/principals or are supportive of staff? Surely, this is not all just about teachers of junior children??
Kelvin… dig deeper ..30% not up to standard would not be tolerated in the top half of the OECD. The true shame is that some schools in your electorate and some that I have seen have about 70%+ of the bottom useless 30% in their schools. Standards may help better identify and help/retrain/redirect the bottom 30%. Again the spread isn’t even… some schools might have most of their teachers from the useless 30%.
Pedrovsky
If Anne Tolley wanted to identify which teachers and principals were not up to scratch she could have simply instructed ERO to identify them as part of their review process.
The MoE could have developed exemplars as to good practice in achievement standards and how to report to parents.
ERO could tell schools whether they thought the school’s standards were high/ clear enough in comparison and whether the reporting process to parents was of a high enough standard.
The ERO report actually says that 70% of schools do fine thank you and from what I’ve read in the section ‘what was working well in schools’ they have more thorough reporting systems to parents than Anne Tolley’s plunket charts could ever hope for.
She doesn’t know how to make progress and she isn’t listening to those that do so she isn’t going to be making an hard calls. She will be making the easy ones that make life harder and takes education in this country backwards. Not that I’m surprised by this – National are conservatives who always see the past as being perfect.
And how is national standards going to improve that?
The evidence from NZ and around the world shows that they don’t – they make things worse because people learn differently and at different paces. All the national standards are doing is making those who don’t learn well in the school environment to lose confidence in themselves which ultimately makes their schooling even worse.
Well, I suspect it’s because we don’t have enough teachers because we treat them like dirt and pay them peanuts.
Sounds like the existing ‘measuring’ is able to locate the teachers /schools that arent performing.
So Tolleys solution to that is more measurement rather than answers to the problems that have been revealed.
So if the new system comes up with say with 68.9% of teachers are Ok.
What will the solution be then.
Actually there wont be a solution, since she only talks in term of ideology
Merry Christmas Ghost
“Instead they have to conform to the one size fits all National Standards.”
I’m pleased you’ve seen the light that government trying to run things centrally just does not work.
The best option would be a voucher system or even better to privatise education so each school could choose the method that works for them, their students, and their parents.
No, it wouldn’t be because it would eventually become a monopoly with poor service, a one size fits all curriculum and teaching to the tests. Exactly as NACT are pushing through ATM.
The last government was putting in place all the flexibility needed and which can only be provided by government support. NACT are removing that flexibility.
Eric Olthwaite
Vouchers – a great way to reduce spending on education by reducing the vouchers’ value each year and starving schools of funds, exasperating underachievement. Private School vouchers would of course increase in value because that’s just the way a voucher driven government would do things.
Please learn to distinguish between “teacher bashing” and union bashing – the latter quite legitimate for the industrial wing of the Labour party.
The biggest problem I see is the part where it says information is being withheld by some boards – this is pretty reprehensible and once again they need reminding who they are working for. It is a myth that school boards are independent, they are merely at arms length from the education ministry yet still a Government agency.