At the end of last year eighty Principals in Te Tai Tokerau said they were going to boycott the implementation of the National Standards until the Minister could produce evidence that they were going to make a difference to student achievement.
The most vocal of these Principals I know personally and they run hugely successful schools. They set high achievement standards, have high expectations of their staff and achieve excellent results – probably better than the National Standards expect.
If they go ahead with this boycott it will be interesting to see how the Minister responds. If they break the law then what will the consequences be?
Will the Minister sack them? Will she sack their Boards of Trustees? That would look great for the Minister, sacking successful Principals because they wouldn’t do what she told them to do. How naughty of them.
These Principals actually know how what it takes to make kids learn. All they are asking is for evidence that National Standards will make a difference. I’d like to see the research evidence that Anne Tolley referred to when she decided National Standards were the way to raise achievement as high and as fast as possible.
Kelvin – can you outline what makes this a successful school?? You seem to think these Schools up North are very successful? But to whose standard – to what measures? If it is just up to the Principal saying so – then none of our schools would have a problem…
One of the points of National Standards is to ensure that all schools are teaching at an expected level… A standard level.
I hope that the Education Minister stands firm, and seeks compliance of all schools… If there is continued non compliance then termination of the Principal is already justified as they are not meeting the expectations of their role. Just like its appropriate to terminate a contract with a House Painter for painting your house purple when you wanted yellow. They are employees, and are expected to meet the expectations of their role.
Matt – I think most use asstle. Much better quality information than Tolley’s subjective national testing provides.
There seems to be a misperception that schools don’t already set high standards, or are able to meet them now.
How does Anne Tolley know that her standards aren’t actually set lower than the schools current standards?
Schools were never given the opportunity to put their side of the story because the standards were passed under urgency. One argument against Nat Stds is that schools are expected to do more work, that is not proven to be as effective as what schools are already doing.
Schools are required to report their achievement results against their annual targets in a “Statement of Variance”.
I doubt if there is one Principal or teacher in New Zealand who doesn’t support high standards.
Why does Tony Ryall say that he’s not a doctor, so he seeks guidance from clinical practioners when making decisions about health, when Anne Tolley is by no way an educator but believes she knows what is best to raise achievement?
Where is the research that proves National Standards are the most efficient way of raising achievement?
I’ve spent the holidays reading the “Best Evidence Synthesis” which is about what does raise achievement. National Standards aren’t mentioned.
If some schools are not setting appropriate standards, or reporting appropriately to parents, why doesn’t ERO identify them and specific assistance given to those schools?
The $30m spent on developing and implementing National Standards would have gone a long way to helping those schools.
I’m glad someone is making a stand.
Good point re asttle Trevor.
At the end of last year eighty Principals in Te Tai Tokerau… …The most vocal of these Principals I know personally and they run hugely successful schools. They set high achievement standards…
No redeeming features. Go play with blowhole. Don’t come back. Trevor
I hope they remain firm – and that the rest of the country (as in bots and principals) stand alongside them, or will they be frightened into submission? (sack the bot, close the school, sell their land, sack the principal…)
I suspect there are not enought commissioners in the country to replace all the sacked bots, and there sure is not enough of a skill base to replace all the principals…so I hope they all stand together and teach ms troll doll a lesson in democracy, education and that it is inappropriate in the 21st century to act like a power tripping dictator who threatens rather than listens.
I won’t claim to know the pros and cons of a national standards regime, but what I do know is that Anne Tolley is a joke and a national disgrace. Do New Zealanders honestly believe that she is doing the education portfolio justice? She, like many National Party ministers actually, has proven time and time again that she is completely incompetent and out of her depth. She does not have the ability to manage a ministerial portfolio, let alone one as important as education, and her performance thus far has been nothing short of abysmal. I find it incredibly frustrating that the highest offices in the country can be held by people like Anne Tolley. It is high time New Zealanders demanded more from their MPs, and particularly government ministers.
Thursday, 21 January 2010, 4:13 pm
Press Release: NZSTA
Media release
Shotgun approach to standards issue by union not helpful
The continued “shotgun approach” by the primary teachers union (NZEI) and the Principals Federation (NZPF) to the Nationals Standards issue is not helpful to anyone says the New Zealand School Trustees Association.
President Lorraine Kerr says the constant shifting of the ground, and arguments, hoping that one of the approaches will score a response with the school community, Boards of Trustees, and others, does not strengthen the unions’ case at all. Indeed, if they are not careful, there is a risk they may end up shooting themselves in the foot by way of an ever increasing credibility gap.
Kelvin..if National Standards are not the answer then in your opinion what would be a better way to raise standards and to make sure the children of our country have a real chance at getting the best Education they can?
@Matt Collins. I would state that of the 15% that are not curtrently achieving, 10% of these are due to having parents who simply dont care and thus the students dont stand a chance, I have seen parents take there kids out of school so they can go home to mow the lawns. The other 5% possibly are never going to be able to acheive to high academic standards anyway, and this is simply part of life, “just because someone cant read good” doensnt mean they wont be a valuable member of society, we do not want a country full of academics anyway.
I hope the principals are able to stick together, even if National standards are the correct way to go, they need to looked at carefully and tested, And Trevor is correct schools already have the Astle tests, its just that the maine stream public who dont have children at school havnt heard about them.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/ – heard an interview uploaded on here quite a while ago now. Sounds like it’s her way or the highway:
Interviewer: Can I get it clear that you’re saying you’ll leave it in the hands of school boards to deal with any principals and schools refusing to implement this?
Tolley: Well I have to, they’re technically the employer.
Interviewer: So the Ministry of Education will not be taking any action of its own?
Tolley: If if if – if BOTs – if they… we will be supporting BOTs…. of course…
Interviewer: So schools can opt out, is what you’re telling me -
Tolley: – NO! No they can’t opt out.
Interviewer: Then what happens if the board doesn’t take action?
Tolley: Then I will take action because it’s in the law. *I* have the ability *in law*, in the Education Act, to implement the standards. So they would be breaking the law.
@Matt Collins – The one single thing that needs to happen in order for student achievement to raised it is to improve the way teachers teach. Invest in teachers’ professional learning.
There are other things of course, but if Tolley was to do nothing else that would have the greatest impact.
Paula Bennett needs to do her bit too.
@ Matt – where is the evidence that New Zealand children are not getting the best education possible? Anne Tolley and the rest of her National Party colleagues appear to have capitalised on the middle class angst of Aucklanders who are worried poor little Johnny isn’t going to be smarter than little Sammy next door. Parents live with their children, and should therefore know how well they’re doing. Can they talk? Can they read? Can they write? National standards are not going to tell any good parent anything they shouldn’t already know. The only thing national standards are going to do is further exacerbate the problems that our schools face with overbearing, unreasonable and anxious parents coming into the classroom and telling our teachers what to do to ensure that their little darling becomes the nuclear physicist he or she is destined to be.
@Matt Collins. There is a common misconception that standards assessment alone will do something to raise standards. Of course it won’t as it is just a snapshot of what a kid does on a particular day, or over several days (depending on how the school chooses to assess).
There is nothing in the policy about the next step which involves actually doing something about that particular child’s teaching and learning, and thereby raising their level of achievement. That involves investment in professional development, and resources, and families, and lots of other actions, and who knows if there are actually any plans to provide any of this as details have not been announced.
Can anyone produce the evidence these principals ask for that show National Standards are effective? Since National Standards are new to New Zealand, Tolley must have relied on international evidence. Where can I read the research?
national standards have been a disaster in Britain so why replicate that here? like so much this govt does, it plays to the gallery while flying in the face of the evidence, views of professionals and experts etc.
Meanwhile some really good work from other countries on raising standards in disadvantaged communities is ignored, eg http://tinyurl.com/yfjvypz
Ok thank you for answering my question Kelvin and thank you to all of you for your input into this.
While i at the moment would tend to agree with Tolley i can see where your coming from in the viewpoint that National Standards are quite narrow minded and that there does need to be a broader approach to the Issue but until i can see more in depth solutions to this i would have to go with National Standards as a starter… it might not be the most ideal situation but are there any other plans set out?.
I know Labour (and you of Course Kelvin) has talked about the Issue and i dont want to sound obnoxious or unessarily critical but has Labour come up with a suggestion to fix this issue?..if so i would love to hear what they are
Matt, not sure which issue you mean for us to fix. Do you mean the stand off with the Tai Tokerau principals?
No sorry Kelvin i appoligise i was quite Vague in my question what i mean is that National supposedly came up with the idea of National Standards in Schools to raise the acheivement levels of Children and while i dont entirely agree with it i havent heard from Labour what there solution to Underacheivement (if it does exist to the extent that Tolley seems to indicate) would be, other then to disagree with National Standards there doesnt to be any concrete solutions coming from Labour..i may very well be wrong here but that is the impression i have got from this.
@Matt – investng in teachers professional learning is the way to raise achievement. It’s quite simple really. The “Best Evidence Synthesis” which analyses all the top research supports this. It is quite specific. For example if you want to raise achievement in say transactional writing, then teachers need specific professional learning in transactional writing, not generic strategies. Because primary teachers teach such a broad curriculum, there is a heck of a lot of specific learning that they need. Just setting a standard, without specific support to reach the standard sets teachers up for failure. Just in writing alone there are handful of writing styles. If a child is working at a certain level in transactional writing, it doesn’t mean they’ll be working at the same level in recount writing or any of the other writing styles.
Ok i see where your comming from now and i agree with you on this,There is no point setting a standard if Teachers arent given enough support to reach the standard in the first place.
Kelvin that source you refered to,is it written in the form of a book and if so is it availible in ordinary bookstores or did you obtain it from a specific supplier?
Matt
Trevor Mallard earlier said to you ” I think most use asstle. Much better quality information than Tolley’s subjective national testing provides.”
Does this not answer your desire for concrete solutions? Academics and professionals agree that asstle works and National Standards a la Tolley come with enough fish hooks to exceed Talley’s fishing quota.
The solution is to keep using asttle and look at the issues that Hilary raises in response to you earlier in this thread, “which involves actually doing something about that particular child’s teaching and learning, and thereby raising their level of achievement. That involves investment in professional development, and resources, and families, and lots of other actions…”
Matt, the “Best Evidence Synthesis (BES)” was produced by the Ministry of Education and there are different “volumes”. For example the ones I have been reading over the break are “Teacher Professional Learning and Development” and “School Leadership and Student Outcomes: Identifying What Works and Why”.
Many find them heavy going because they are technical and practitioner specific, but I think a must-read for every teacher.
The MoE has a lot of excellent research and could possibly be requested via their website.
Ok thank you for your help in clearing all my misconceptions up Kelvin i realy appreciate your time and good luck facing up to Tolley
From what ive seen of her in the Media she portrays herself quite nicely as a pretty strong willed woman who isnt likely to back down from her position without a fight so to speak.
@Matt. Since 1990, the ERO has visited schools on a regular basis to do Assurance and Performance audits. In their first visits they appeared not entirely sure what they were looking for – it was after all the beginning of Tomorrow’s Schools and Self Management.
However, as they went round the various districts, they observed best practice, gained experience, and when they revisited schools, they we able to advise them of these best practices.
For your information, currently, Reading is assessed regularly and quite precisely using such tools as Running Records of Reading Behaviour and Comprehension. Writing is assessed using asTTle (and Reading and Maths are crossing to asTTle as well) Maths is precisely assessed using levelled Numeracy tools). And parents receive this information now.
So the benchmark moved up each time. Under-performing schools were advised where they should be.
Some 20 years down the track, along with other ministerial initiatives (e.g.NUMPA and asTTle) we have steadily “improved” the levels of achievement (or at least methodology for achieving better outcomes).
Professor Umbridge Tolley is not introducing National Standards to improve student learning outcomes. It is all about introducing performance pay for teachers and bulk funding of salaries. Unfortunately it is a blunt instrument – it takes no account of the learner’s ability to function (clothed/fed/rested) as he/she arrives at school each day.
And sadly, the focus on standards, will have a cost. Schools will look at the social curricula (sports/cultural exchanges) and decide whether they can afford the time.
Of course Professor Umbridge’s electorate will still demand these activities because that’s what they had when they were at school. However something will give as the pressure goes on and I would suggest that our wonderful learning institutions are not going to be quite the happy places we reflect on in our dotage.
H.Fee at 10.26pm appears to appreciate the issue.
yes Hilary was spot on when she says it’s about the ‘next steps’. Assessment of any sort is only as good as what you do with the information. Helping teachers to analyse individual students’ achievement and then make decisions about what to teach them next is the art of teaching. With so many curriculum areas and strands it is hard for (primary) teachers to have specific knowledge about everything.
This is happening in Australia.
Won’t rule out fines or docking teachers’ pay.
Julia Gillard will not rule out issuing fines or docking the pay of teachers who boycott the national tests that feed data into the controversial MySchool website.
The admission came as the Gillard, the Federal Education Minister, was grilled for a third day on the MySchool website that launches next week. MySchool will publish online the grades and performances of schools across the country.
Matt, I found it interesting that you stated national standards were “quite narrow minded” and that there needed to be “a broader approach to the Issue”, yet you were also totally in favour of such a regime. Having now discussed this with Trevor and Kelvin, I sense that your views may have changed a little. I think this demonstrates quite clearly why National has registered so well with the public – the public generally don’t understand, nor question or seek answers about, National’s policies. National’s PR machine is so well oiled that the public just accept what they are told without probing for substance. I think you have discovered for yourself, Matt, what one finds when they push past all of the political and PR spin that the National Party wraps its policies in.
There’s disquiet amongst a lot of parents about educational standards. I don’t think anyone disagrees with that.
This is seen by many (possibly not a huge majority, but a significant number) as something that might help.
It would be far more productive, from a general public support point of view, for both the various professional bodies and the Labour Party to give the process their best shot and then bombard us with the damning evidence if/when the initiative didn’t work.
From the outside (of the profession, the party) looking in could appear that at the moment we’ve got a bunch of vested interests with something to hide who are trying to stop a valid attempt to improve things (on the teachers side), and the inevitable but meaningless opposition-for-its-own-sake against anything the other party wants to do (on the political one).
If everyone is so certain it’ll be a disaster won’t that be obvious to everyone pretty soon?
Leftward leaning teachers and principals refusing to do what a popular government asks them to do could backfire spectacularly. If, having expressed your misgivings, you wait and things do eventuate as you predict any backfiring will be on the government.
Avoid the risks of trying to ‘get rich quick’ on this one. ‘Get rich slow’ might be more productive.
Yes H.Fee you make a great point. Raising educational achievement is not something that can occur through the creation of catchy slogans such as “National Standards” and “Plain English Reports”. It takes more than five words to get kids to learn. Unfortunately, a discussion on teaching and teaching strategies is a technical, practitioner specific, and, to be frank, damn boring conversation. It doesn’t stop everyone from believing they are experts based on their own or their kids’ experiences at school.
There are many variables, but excellent teachers can make a heck of a lot of difference despite those variables. The best way to get as many teachers a possible to be excellent is to provide access to research based professional learning. This is where Anne Tolley needs to put her money.
If she invested in teachers instead of being combative she would make better headway.
@Doug, yep I wouldn’t rule out all manner of retribution – docking pay, threats of sacking, public humiliation (which she’s already tried on one of these principals up north) – sort of reminds me of that lieutenant on Band of Brothers played by David Schwimmer, believing being tough will get the results, but while those on the outside thought progress was being made, resentment was brewing, moral was being undermined, and a mutiny was on the cards.
Yes that would be a good summery of views for National i9 admit that i voted for them in ‘08 but they have become far too close to the Right Wing of Politics and the way they handle their Coallition partners MP’s (notably Hone Harawira and Rodney Hide) when they do things like attack a certain group in society( White New Zealanders) or indulge themselves with taxpayers money to skimp of on a trip to paris when they should be in meetings representing our country.
To me National has become a Liberal Party run by a Weak leader,Although there are some good Nat Mps like Simon Power,Chester Borrows and Judith Collins as there are good Labour MP’s Kelvin Davis,Clare Curran,Phil Goff,David Cunliffe and Phil Twyford to name a few but i am definitly in regards to Economic Policies in the Centre of the Political spectrum and im on the Conservative side in regards to Social policies which is why i didnt particularly like Helen.
@George – yep, you do have a point. Despite there being no evidence to say National Standards will be successful, you’re saying, they might be.
I doubt if achievement will drop once Nat Stds are implemented because teachers wouldn’t let that happen,(it would make them look incompetent) so although they may not make things better, I doubt if they will make things worse. Educational achievement was already being lifted without Nat Stds, so will any further progress be because of them, or inspite of them? To ask teachers to do something else on top of what they already do, in a leap of faith that it may make a slight difference is a a big request. All these principals ask is that a trial happen before they impose an extra work burden on their staff. This was a great opportunity for Anne Tolley to come out smelling of roses. Those trials are always set up to succeed, and she would look like she’s listening to the sector. But she wants to look tough, and in control, just like the lieutenant in Band of Brothers.
@Matt – the education counts website is fantastic – this link will take you to the BES
http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/series/2515
@George – the problem with ‘just getting on with it’ is that experts know the problems, and once shes in and established stopping the ‘fly wheel’ will be harder than you think. And, its wrong. Full stop. Research is clear, and Kelvin is right – wheres Tolleys research she warbles on about – I have not seen it, its not on her website – does it actually exist? This is not about student achievement – if it was there would be other approaches in place (more money for targeting at risk students, more professional development for teachers on how to cater for at risk students – identify them and put programmes in place, support for the growing area of disruptive students, better targeted processes for special needs and GSE, more PD for literacy and numeracy etc…) National standards just can’t do this – they are, in reality, a set of directives on what weight the ‘pig’ should be – not what food to give said pig, or how much excersise it needs etc. Or, imagine it like a recipe book – it tells you that you need to cook a turkey at ‘x’ temp, but fails to tell you what the ingredients are – and does not have a section on what to do it the turkey is under or over cooked.
As for
part 2 – as for..
As for the Aussies – I hope Tolley does not take this form of publication – if she thought the sector was stroppy before – well, imagine the fall out if she does something like that. And, I suspect with Nat, it will come.
Oops, I have been advised by the Ministry that there has been work on professional development around standards (link below). It seems to be about how to administer standards with a comment about reviewing this information later on.
However, with much coming out of government these days (at the apparent request of ministers) it is presented as a diagram on one A3 sheet and is very short on details. And of course it is all voluntary as in our self-managing school system, each school can decide for itself whether and how they participate. There are also a series of ‘webinars’ ie on-line seminars – again optional. But little seems to be about the crucial question ‘what next’ and certainly no commitment to resourcing the professional development and time required to use whatever information comes out of standards to improve achievement on a kid-by-kid basis.
http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/National-Standards/Professional-development
@ Kelvin inter alia
This is also about choices for time use. Time is a limit and when teachers are forced to do this poor quality testing something else has to give. I think the minimum we can say is that the quality of education will not be as good as it otherwise would have been following the introduction of the Folley standards.
Spot on, Trevor.
The Australian educational expert John Edwards said that when superiors ask a subordinate to do something extra, the best response was, “So what do you want me not to do that I am doing now?”
He also said that when people criticise teachers for long holidays, short hours and good pay, the best response is to ask them to join the profession …… and watch the reaction.
I may have missed an answer to this in the comments, but if the principal’s believe they already have excellent schools that operate above the proposed standards, what is the problem? Implement them, and exceed them. Become a beacon of light to other schools around the country that are struggling.
@ George – who said all of the teachers and principals refusing to implement the standards are “leftward leaning”? This is precisely the type of smokescreen that National has thrown up around this issue – the National Party and all Kiwi parents support this regime, and those that don’t are card carrying Labour Party members. I think you’ll find that there is a huge amount of dissatisfaction across the political spectrum on this matter. Labeling and name calling only clouds debate and hides what the real issue is.
@ Fizzelplug – wasn’t this government elected on a platform of decreasing bureaucracy? If so, why pile more bureaucratic requirements on teachers in schools that have already demonstrated their students are excelling? Your approach sounds like a total waste of time and money to me, and thus something I thought this government would be dead against.
@ H. Fee – they have demonstrated that their students are excelling, using their own benchmarks. Implement the national standards. Excel compared to them. Be a benchmark for others to aspire to.
It’s a simple process, makes the schools recognised on the national stage as being high achievers, and hurts absolutely no-one.
This government was also elected on a clear platform of national standards. Or did you forget that?
@ HF : “@ George – who said all of the teachers and principals refusing to implement the standards are “leftward leaning”?”
Not me!
@ Fizzleplug – You haven’t answered the question – why add more red tape to the teaching profession, requiring teacher’s time and taxpayer’s money, when a school is already exceeding the proposed standards? Why measure something when we already know what the answer is? And no, I haven’t forgotten that (although the fact that only 14 percent of parents had something positive to say about national standards in response to questions from the Ministry of Education make that a rather dubious platform) but I suggest the two platforms are just incompatible in this case.
@ George – My apologies! Could you please clarify then what could happen to rightward leaning teachers and principals who oppose the introduction of national standards? And I don’t think anyone should take a “get rich slow” approach to our children’s education. I imagine that Taking the time to get it right in the first place would be what a prudent and sensible government would do.
@ HF – I have no idea what could happen to any who fail to do their job as instructed. It depends entirely on the employers and how they choose to react.
What I do think is that they will lose yet more of the goodwill that the public used to have for teachers. They’re not the most popular of professions as it is, and a deliberate move to hinder a popular policy (which was a government electoral pledge, I belive) won’t win them any friends in the wider world.
There have been plenty of retrograde policies adopted in the past couple of decades that to make a principle out of refusing to adopt this one on the grounds that even trying it will adversely affect our kids’ education is, frankly, a joke.
@George – can you provide evidence that teachers do not have the goodwill of the public? And if they used to have public goodwill as you claim, when did that disappear? And can you also provide evidence that this is a popular policy?
@George, which teacher described below do you say has failed?
a) the Year 8 (Form 2) teacher from a decile 1 school who moved a child’s numeracy ability from a level 1a to a level 3a (i.e. 6 sublevels), and just failing to meet the National Standard, or;
b) the Year 8 (Form 2) teacher from a decile 10 school who moved a child’s numeracy ability from a 3a to a 4b, (i.e. 1 sublevel) and meets the National Standard?
Sorry if it’s a bit jargon-ish but that’s the environment teachers have to operate in. What should the consequence for either teacher be?
@H. Fee – the % of parents that had something positive to say is irrelevant (and I imagine could be manipulated like all statistics). The platform existed, National was voted in. Their mandate exists whether you (or the principals) like it or not.
Why should these few schools be exempt from a national standard (where the word “national” doesn’t mean “everyone but those in Te Tai Tokerau who don’t like them”) just because their current performance is above the standard. The whole point of the standard is to put something comparable in place everywhere, otherwise we end up comparing apples and oranges, and no-one is happy except for those who get a good deal on kiwifruit. The excuse of “we are already performing and don’t need it” isn’t an excuse at all. It’s like me deciding on my own degree of performance at work and reporting back to my boss. I might think I’m doing awesome, but if I’m not meeting the KPIs then I need to lift my game. Everyone needs to be on the same page, which justifies the extra cost for these few schools, and the red tape and teachers time. Individual sacrifice for the greater good… something that I thought would have been popular around here haha.
@ Hilary – evidence that this is an unpopular policy? Decent sample size please, encompassing parents from a wide socio-economic base and geographic distribution. I seem to remember teachers having more goodwill with parents back in the 80’s and early 90’s, but my own memory is probably rose-tinted (I’m sure I disliked them at the time as a pupil). I do get the distinct feeling that sympathy for teachers will fade over this if they push back too hard. After all, they are employed (by the government) to teach, not decide which government policies they should implement.
@fizzleplug – in response to “After all, they are employed (by the government) to teach, not decide which government policies they should implement”, – are you saying that teachers and principals should simply ‘follow orders’, regardless of whether they believe the orders are wrong or not?
In a word – yes. The orders aren’t illegal. If I don’t like what I’m told to do at my job, I can leave. So can they. Their employer has decided the direction that they are to go in. It is their job to either implement it, or find a new job. If enough leave, then the employer might start to think they could perhaps be doing something wrong.
I think that you will find that this is the case across almost all sectors. Is it necessarily right? No. Is it reality? Yes.
I am not employed by my boss to decide the direction of her business. She does that. I am employed to carry our her instructions to further the business down the path she chooses. Substitute Government for my boss, and teachers for me. A little simplistic perhaps, but a lot of things are when it comes to education.
@Hilary : “@George – can you provide evidence that teachers do not have the goodwill of the public?”
Merely some of the comments I hear from ordinary people. My wife is a teacher and I try to explain how hard she works (frequently into the early hours, and at weekends, and during her ‘long’ holidays) but it’s a difficult job. If teachers were held in general respect it wouldn’t be.
“And if they used to have public goodwill as you claim, when did that disappear?”
I think that if you go way back – to the 50s perhaps – then teaching was a very respected profession. I think that increasingly since then many in the profession have been seen as having a mission to change society and that has rested uncomfortably with a population that is, by and large, socially conservative. I think that’s got something to do with it.
“And can you also provide evidence that this is a popular policy?”
Again, only what I hear. Lots of acquaintances saying things like ‘what have they got to hide’ etc etc. The only people I’ve heard against it are commited Labour supporters and some of my wife’s colleagues. And I can tell you, not all teachers think it’s as disasterous as is being made out…
@Kelvin Davis “which teacher described below do you say has failed? [see above for details...]”
I don’t think either has failed. If anyone has failed it was the teacher that delivered the child to teacher (a) at Level 1a in Year 8.