I have spent a lot of time in schools and with parents and teachers since becoming an MP (and indeed beforehand). There is one thing I can say with certainty. I am yet to meet a parent or teacher who did not want the children they care for or teach to progress, succeed and fulfil their potential.
In that light what is disappointing to me in the debate about National Standards is that the National Party and its cheerleaders are trying to create the impression that schools and teachers have no idea how children are progressing and are somehow deliberately hiding this from parents.
Take this from Richard Long, former National Party Chief of Staff in the Dominion Post this morning.
I can’t help but feel sorry for Education Minister Anne Tolley as she valiantly battles away on this one. It would, after all, be easier to abandon the field to the teachers’ union, as previous governments have done, continuing to leave pupils and their parents in the dark over performance and standards.
What utter nonsense. The notion of “the field being abandoned to the teachers union” is reds under the beds stuff. In the last government Labour implemented ASttLE a world leading assessment system, along with massive investment in literacy and numeracy programmes and professional development. We wanted and still want parents and teachers to have quality information about how their children are progressing.
Further, pupils and parents are most certainly not “in the dark over performance and standards”. I am not sure if Richard Long has been near a school lately, but I have, and most every school has robust assessment and reporting practices. The schools I deal with are also all extremely open to parents talking with them regularly about their children’s progress, and working out how they can help with it.
Of course there are some schools that could do better- and much more importantly there are children who are not achieving their potential. The National Party is fond of quoting the statistic that 1 in 5 children leave school without the literacy and numeracy skills they need. That is a bad thing. But what teachers tells us is that we know who those children are from an early stage. Shouldn’t we be focusing on those children and improving their progress, than implementing an unproven blunt instrument such as national standards?
At the very least something that the National Party see as the most important issue in education deserves a trial period. National pushed this through under urgency to meet their 100 days of action programme. This meant it did not get the scruitiny it deserved then, and that has still not occured.
Well put. There’s a false premise in National’s argument that somehow NZ schools avoid rigourous assessment. NZ assessment arrangements are well regarded internationally (I recently attended a conference in Canberra where Terry Crooks work was specifically referenced as being world-leading). I’m certain improvements could be made, but I’m doubtful this approach will add much.
well, if the reporting in schools is already there and it’s so world class, why is there not a national framework for reporting it? and then the help could be given to the needy children you talk about. what are the teachers unions so afraid of?
There is also a myth that national wants top put more resources into those its identified as underachieving. Is that true or has Tolley said the money would be taken from other areas,
or the other alternative they go into the ballot for a private school voucher.
@george – why does it need to be nationally reported? Who gains from that? I would love to know what the benefits of a league table system is – because research and academics say its damaging – and in every country its implemented, it does not help student achievement. Furthermore, Asttle is a tool which shows the national cohort and students can be shown how they are achieving across a national norm. Along with other tools. The National Govt are on a private crusade that has nothing to do with the wellbeing of students.
Richard writes that Tolley ‘valiantly battles’ – really? She battles alright, but its a push to say ‘valiantly’.
The rabble rousing from the Nats and their supporters about teachers not knowing what they are on about, and all the Nats scaremongering is appalling. If the education sector is saying it is flawed then the public need to heed this – it is no different to the situation that if the govt tried to instigate a foolish policy into our health system and all the medical profession stood up and said it was bad for patients health – in that situation we would take their advice and do something about it. So, listen and learn from the sector – quite contrary to what the Nats spin, teachers and educationalists actually do know what they are talking about.
Funny how everyone that has been to school suddenly becomes experts in education – it naive and ignorant to think that ones experience with a school makes it so for all schools. If we use that logic then all of us are health experts because we have been to the doctors.
Richards comments about kids coming out of school not knowing how to read etc is more smoke and mirrors aimed to frighten the public into thinking our education system is broken. Utter rubbish and propaganda.
What would be far more appropriate for our at risk students would be for a govt to take a longer term view to intervention and fund the programmes that make a difference, fund ORRS, ESOL, Reading Recovery, Home School Partnerships, more SWIS workers and GSE etc properly, and continue to extend the work that has begun with the curriculum. It’s not rocket science – and if either party was actually serious about making a difference they would get off their collective band wagons and attempt to agree on some long term work plans that will actually make a difference. Its time to stop flogging off misinformation to the public and do what is right for our kids and for all of our futures.
- oh and while I am on my soap box, do something (as in work alongside MSD) to actually make sure our kids have food, sleep and good social, behavioural and emotional competencies – because if they don’t, research shows these kids go onto to costing us more as they drop out and hit the justice system. They will not reach their academic potential if they do not have these needs met. Again, it needs a long term approach to ensuring this happens. And it is obvious that our so called govt has no idea what makes a difference to ensuring success for all – not just the high decile kids – if they did they would NEVER have closed Aorangi or cut the funding to the programmes that are proven to make a difference (too many to list). No, their idea is to give private schools more money.
as I’ve said before, this sort of nonsense has been a disaster in Britain. And once stats are compiled there is NO WAY you can stop league tables being created. These will tell us what we already know about middle class advantage, but they do encourage some middle class parents to move their children out of certain schools, rapidly creating ghettos.
Responding to @George.
There is a national framework of reporting.
It is called SCHOOL REPORTS. These are done at least twice a year where the classroom teacher conveys to parents, in a written format, the progress of every child in the class. These are followed by parent teacher interviews. Where parents can have an in depth chat with teacher about the child and curriculum in the class.
If at any point parent wants to know more or is concerned about child the Principals door is always open, just make a phone call to arrange an appointment. This is a long held convention in New Zealand schools.
The thrust of the New Zealand education system is the education of the whole child, that is the individual. Teachers have to identify and develop children’s individual and independent strengths and to eliminate their weaknesses.
Our educaation systen is child focused and child centered. Taking on these National Standards severely shifts the system away from the child.
@George: The first para of what Paul said.
@Dorothy; What is more it is utterly wrong of Key and Tolley to say that the question of league tables can be dealt with later. Once the data is collected it will become subject to the Official Information Act.
My main wish to be ever partly convinced is to see just one statement from a teacher or principal currently teaching to support to standards.
One News yesterday had a good story about it. A follow up here,
follow up. article .
I found this ridiculous, a comment from a reader,
The national party would be much better supported on their educational progress if they changed their policies from scrutinising teachers to supporting and helping them. This National Standards policy does not do that!
Sorry about the much up around here, ” A follow up here, follow up. article . ”
Thats me trying to be fancy with hyperlinks
Dorothy says: “as I’ve said before, this sort of nonsense has been a disaster in Britain.”
At the moment in the UK the left wing NUT is talking about balloting its members on strike action against national testing. But at the same time the more moderate NAS/UWT has no problem with these tests.
Would you say that the tens of thousands of teachers in the NAS/UWT have no idea of what is effective and what not?
For every NUT member who doesn’t like measurement you can find an NAS/UWT member who is fine with it. Just like in NZ where there are as many teachers in favour of national standards as there are against. Don’t count the block vote, Dorothy, and claim that all NZEI members follow the union line on this because that’s far from the truth.
Vivienne says: : “There is a national framework of reporting … It is called SCHOOL REPORTS.”
And what’s wrong with publishing a couple of standardised measures in every one of them? How can any parent know what to expect from an average child at any given age? Why shouldn’t they be given an indication (in your SCHOOL REPORTS if necessary) of where their own kids lie vis-a-vis these norms? Do the parents not deserve to know?
(PS – I’m not the George who posted at 3:21 BTW)
@George 4.45. ASttle is a norm-referenced assessment system, ie it tells you where a student is at, compared with where the curriculum says they should be and where their year groups are. In other words it is relatively easy for parents to see how their child is progressing. The National Party’s desire for National Standards is mostly about comparing schools, which will not tell you much about what is important, each child’s progress.
Labour believes in standards and clear information for parents, not in an unproven, blunt instrument such as this government’s National Standards policy.
Resonding to George.
As the teachers are educating the individual child, why do you want the children compared against each other, which is compeditive. The comparison is of the child against themselves over time to see their progress.
Education is not competitive. It is cooperative and collaborative.
If you want competition head to the sports field. And if you understand anything about competitive sport you would know that competition is undepinned by cooperation!
James says: “My main wish to be ever partly convinced is to see just one statement from a teacher or principal currently teaching to support to standards”
From Stuff:
Cliff #78 01:05 pm Feb 02 2010
I have been teaching for 26 years, ran a junior syndicate for 5, taught every age group and currently am principal of a year 0 – 8 nine teacher school. Our staff and board, along with myself, are looking forward to implementing the National Standards
k #59 11:16 am Feb 02 2010
I am a teacher and I love the idea of national standards – if our kids are failing NCEA, then something hasn’t gone right sometime prior to that.
Katie #44 10:17 am Feb 02 2010
As a secondary teacher, it is our job to be accountable so I am confused as to why my union is being included in this debate
paul says: “Funny how everyone that has been to school suddenly becomes experts in education.”
Once again this sort of statement suggests contempt for the views of ordinary people. They don’t believe what you do so let’s ridicule them and over-trump them with the views of a few teacher cronies we have in the unions. Paul – there’s a view in the country that education is failing us. In the eyes of some that makes your friends in the NZEI and PPTA part of the problem rather than the solution. Beware of parading them as poster boys too often because you could just reinforce that view!
“Richards comments about kids coming out of school not knowing how to read etc is more smoke and mirrors aimed to frighten the public into thinking our education system is broken. Utter rubbish and propaganda.”
Recently I had the mixed pleasure of interviewing for a trainee position a large number of youths who had just completed NCEA Level 3. The lack of basic literacy of some of them was an eye opener. Some must have borrowed a friend’s results sheet for NCEA 1 and 2 because they surely couldn’t have passed with the standards they demonstrated to us. Could they?
Fortunately we managed to recruit a real gem.
Grant – ASttle is a useful tool, agreed. My son had his results as part of his report last year. BUT it was hellish to understand really. Once I had it explained it was fine.
There is something right about both sides of this argument. 20% failure is no good by anyone’s measure.
@Just Right. I know that ASttLE takes some getting used to, but the reality is that it is trying to reflect the variables. Over simplification is a real risk when it comes to assessment.
20% functional illiteracy is indeed poor, but having standards is only one part of addressing that- teaching, resourcing and curriuclum are to my mind much bigger parts.
the NASUWT is a tiny union compared to the NUT, but the opposition to standards testing is from students and parents and educational experts too. It is NOT about helping children – as others have explained, the current reporting system does that – it is about rating the school. One expert told a parent (who was worried about how stressed the tests were making her child) to ask the school to explain how the tests would help her child, and if they couldn’t do this to her satisfaction, to withdraw the child from them.
If current school reports are difficult for some parents to understand, do something about that, don’t create a hugely expensive exercise that serves no purpose.
Dorothy says: “the NASUWT is a tiny union compared to the NUT”
Current memberships (from Wikipedia):
NUT : 293,935
NAS/UWT : 274,911
NZEI : 44,000
PPTA : 17,000
Are they called National Standards because of the National Government? Will be more schemes named National?
National standards are going to be great for parents, we will be able to find the underperforming schools and not send our children there?
We as parents will be able to get copies of teh standard and make sure that our children can do well at them, after all that is all that is going to matter, and then when our kids are used to being above average they will do well at there exams and go on to good jobs because of this. Simple realy.
But wait, I want my child to have intiative, try different things, be able to think for himself, learn about the world, play sports and do all the kiwi things that are part of our culture.
Maths and English are not what made NZ great, they help, but must not be all that is focused on.
If principals and teachers have reservations about “National Standards” they should be listened to in the first instance as the professionals in the field. BOTs vary by school in resourcing and ability, and the NZSTA is full of tories, so it looks like a bun fight approaching for sure. This is a classic pandering to middle class voters exercise by National which will do little for the usual suspects-kids at low decile ‘borderline’ schools. Shonkey is spending several hundred thou on leaflets to try and deal to the NZEI, anyone remember “dob in a bludger” TV ads from the 90s? money that should have been spent on training etc. I look forward to giving John Carter an earful if he is the MP that does a Northland Govt. meeting.
If this policy had gone to a select committee and the Government not passed it under urgency in 24 hours days before Xmas 2008, and if they had then listened and adapted, and if they had piloted in a range of schools – then it wouldn’t be such a shambles. Then they could have saved the hundreds of thousands of dollars on a doomed PR exercise and put it into remedial reading in schools that can’t afford it, or more one-to-one for children who need extra attention, or professional development for teachers.
But no, it was has been bulldozed through in a blind ideological passion. What a waste of time and money. So sad.
@hilary – yes – you are right – bulldozed through with no regard to what is right – bulldozed through, under urgency, just like everything else.
National and ACT aren’t about what’s best for the community but doing what’s best for them and how much profit they can make. Misinformation is it’s prime tool to achieve this.
Labour does seem to have done what’s best for the community as far as education goes and a few other areas here and there. Unfortunately, they still think capitalism actually works.
What is angering me is the attempt by the National Party to seperate the union from the teachers. The Union IS the teachers. They act on behalf of the teachers and what they think.
This is an attempt to make it a fight against a nasty ‘leftie’ union, as opposed to a group of professionals that rank about 60 places ahead of politicians in the most trusted stakes. Notice that every time Tolley or Key speak they say the ‘unions are opposed’ or we will not be ‘bullied by the unions’. What they should really be saying is we will not listen to 95% of the teachers in NZ who have devoted themselves to young people and work hard every day to ensure that they succeed. People who receive wages far below what they could earn in other industries, that work a huge number of hours every week and have completed three or four years of rigourous academic study into their profession.
Just more spin for a policy that will be extraordinarily damaging to our young people. This makes me sad.
But wait, I want my child to have intiative, try different things, be able to think for himself, learn about the world, play sports and do all the kiwi things that are part of our culture
I don’t need a standard, of any kind, to tell me that a kid with some decent Math and Language skills is going to be much more likely to show intiative, try different things, be able to think for him/her-self, learn about the world, play sports and do all the kiwi things.
The way your comment reads, you think they’re mutually exclusive.
Tim the Union is NOT the Teachers although they do represent the views of some of the teachers but surely there must be some teachers that are not associated to a union.
You are right in saying that the Nats are taking a one sided view to this and are not prepared to hear the views of the teachers or the union but it is not right to say that every teacher is associated to the Union.
We wanted and still want parents and teachers to have quality information about how their children are progressing.
Further, pupils and parents are most certainly not “in the dark over performance and standards”. I am not sure if Richard Long has been near a school lately, but I have, and most every school has robust assessment and reporting practices.
An “ordinary parent” example of how robust reporting practices are not happening: A 13-year-old boy was streamed into the “middle” class for maths. He achieved at the top of that middle class through the year. In his end-of-year report, he received a row of “excellents” for maths. His parent interpreted that as being excellent in Year 9 maths, the equivalent of an old-fashioned “A”. Over Christmas, the parent discovered that children in the classes interpreted it as excellent for the middle class, the equivalent of an old-fashioned “C”, or maybe a “B” at a stretch. They interpreted that a child who had an “Achieved” in their report, but were in the top class, did better than a child who received an “excellent” in their report, but was in the middle class. The report was at the end of the year, so it cannot be cleared up by staff until school reopens, however it is an example of inadequate reporting.
There should not be two different interpretations. When a school report says “excellent”, does that mean excellent as compared to a standard, or excellent in that they did their best considering their limitations? I imagine it differs from school to school and from teacher to teacher.
Which leads me to the conclusion that we need the consistency of national standards.
Tim says: “What is angering me is the attempt by the National Party to seperate the union from the teachers. The Union IS the teachers”
Rubbish, Tim. A lot of teachers join the union for benefits such as ensuring that there’s a body to provide them with legal support if they’re subject to a malicious allegation in today’s hysterical child centric environment in which they work. They join DESPITE the political manoeuverings of the few who become activists.
The 20 Percent figure. What does it mean exactly?
How do we compare internationally?
Are we improving, or are we getting worse?
data please!
George, anything the union does requires a vote from the members.
The NZEI is more than just a teacher union. Its members include school librarians, teacher aides, administration and other school support staff. Some have lost jobs because of the cuts to night classes that schools ran. Others are facing cuts to their hours or budgets as resources go to the standards regime.
Seems to me that the only thing the Nats understand about this policy is “we campained on it (standards) and we are going to implement it” no refining it let alone loosing face by admitting they are wrong.
How bout we use some of the question time to ask what happened to our tax cuts etc “we campaigned on it and we implemented a bit of it for your boss, then took it back off you as ACC”!
figures from Wikipedia should always be approached with caution. The NUT represents the vast majority of teachers in state schools in England and Wales. There is a separate union (EIS) in Scotland, and it does not represent other staff eg head teachers who have their own union. The NASUWT however represents schools staff in a variety of jobs all over the British Isles as well as the Channel Islands, Germany etc. So the figures are rather misleading. Traditionally the NUT represent state schools (what you call public schools in NZ) while the NASUWT was for staff in private schools and colleges.
What do you do with these national standards? That is the work I am involved in currently in the UK. For me it is the practice and not the theory.
So the league tables get published. Parents take their kids from what they think is a failing school. And a pool of failing schools is created. This is not OK, but it is even more ridiculous down say the West Coast of the South Island or the East Coast of the North Island. To what neighbouring school does this disgruntled parent take their child. Do they drive 100 miles each day or does the state pick up the tab for a very expensive school bus service??
So the question is what do you do with the information, that is not already being done with ASSTTLE? Schools should be able to demonstrate to ERO or whomever that they are identifying through ASSTTLE where their weaknesses are and are moving to improve the teaching of reading to this particular class etc.
For my money I would much rather be putting in the money to develop ASSTTLE and to see it rolled out throughout the system and that there be a monitoring network of advisors to ensure that actions are taken within each school and classroom to improve the teaching and learning.
That can happen and does when the school is not in a defensive mode under the glare of league tables. Teaching and learning are built around trust. Break that trust between teacher and learner, between school and community and you have years to catch up.
NZers should be proud of what we have in our schools, but it could be so so much better. The problem is not so much between schools , but within schools and within classrooms, where the child without breakfast or the autistic child is not supported.
In the UK the schools have had to expend so much energy and have restricted their curriculum so narrowly by teaching to tests. Trevor Mallard saw an excellent example of this in one of the “successful” schools in the UK. The removal of the SAT tests at Key Stage Three have really allowed schools to adapt to the different learners in front of them. They still have to demonstrate learning progress, but they are freed from focussing on the tests alone.
I could write more…but I must return to the schools I am working with.
The unions are against parents finding out which schools are better than other ones so are punished for wanting to know how well their local school compares to another.
How is this encouraging parents and kids to be the very best they can be? Why do teachers unions oppose paying great teachers better than mediocre teachers?
It just looks like there is no wish to reward merit or to let the consumers have a say or choice in the matter.
Dorothy says: : “figures from Wikipedia should always be approached with caution.”
I wondered if someone would play the Wiki card! In fact the figures for the NUT and NASUWT membership are both certified figures from annual return of the unions for 2008 under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Today the NASUWT advertises itself on its website as the largest UK teaching union.
“The NASUWT however represents schools staff in a variety of jobs all over the British Isles as well as the Channel Islands, Germany etc.”
The figures for both the UK unions exclude members outside the UK.
“Traditionally the NUT represent state schools (what you call public schools in NZ) while the NASUWT was for staff in private schools and colleges.”
Nice attempt at misinformation, but rubbish. NASUWT did used to be smaller than the NUT but grew greatly in the 1980s and 1990s as a result of NUT radicalism that was unpopular amongst many teachers. You can’t risk being a teacher in the UK without the professional services of a union behind you, but many in the NUT got fed up with being used as footsoldiers by the activists in the union and left.
Dorothy says: “The NASUWT however represents schools staff in a variety of jobs”
All categories of membership for this union involve teaching.
The EIS, which you mention, has a membership of 60,000 or so which includes librarians, those involved in the tertiary sector etc.
But anyway – lets not get into the Stuff blog type of slogging it out. This blog was for Labour to connect with people it had lost, I thought. It seems to be degenerating into a bit of a glee club again.
@Martin February 2, 2010 6:10 pm
Muldoon’s “National Superannuation” clearly was.
They couldn’t call them the “Tolley Standards” could they? That would guarantee a very low standard indeed.
Thanks, Marian, for mentioning autistic kids. We have a huge issue supporting the teaching and learning of a growing number of autistic children in our schools. I fear the whole standards sideshow is going to sideline urgent challenges like better supporting kids in our local schools.
@George – “Once again this sort of statement suggests contempt for the views of ordinary people. They don’t believe what you do so let’s ridicule them and over-trump them”
Rubbish – its a valid point about how everyone thinks they know everything about education just because they went to school once upon a time. Come on – would you ask your mate to fix your brakes when they are not qualified to, but have driven a car that had shonky brakes once, so they have an opinion about it? Sure, you might ask them what they think about it, but you would not trust them to fix it. Same point here re education – the publics thoughts on it are important – but they are not the ones that have to go out and implement the Nat stds – and if they know it to be flawed then, jsut like you would listen to your mechanic about your brakes, same that you should listen to the education sector – its what they do!
@Clint – if you want to know how a school compares with the one down the road – get in your car and visit them, talk with the principal about vision and key areas, ask to see classrooms in operation (hint for primary – look at the walls – it tells you more than ANYTHING, and ‘feel’ the culture of the school – it is most enlightening), and let your fingers do the research – look up their ero report, and talk to parents that send their kids there. What the papers would tell you based on rankings is nothing but stats that means very little. Schools are so much more than that.
Re Union – most (not all, but most) teachers belong – and NZEI does not go ahead full steam on an issue until it has canvassed its people – the principals federation is the same. AND, its not about them all being ‘lefties’ – what a load of propaganda that is – teachers cross all aspects of the spectrum – a friend of mine is an Act member (and yes, they are still my friend) and a principal – and is against the stds. So we can put that little fib to rest.
At last count NZEI represented 93% of primary teachers. I apologise, not 100%, but quite close.
And yes these teachers are the ones clearly feeding through to the union what they want them to do.
Everyone that doubts that teachers think this policy is absolutely stupid and will increase failure needs to go down to their local primary school staff room and ask for their opinion. I can almost gauruntee what they will say.
From what I hear Tolley and Key are trying relentlessly to find some teachers to come forward and say they support the standards. So far they haven’t been very successful. And don’t be fooled by those that are writing online and saying they are teachers who want the standards – they are more than likely to be working in Tolley or Key’s office!
Hi Paul. If it was that easy then wonderful. However with zoning it would mean only wealthy familes could afford to buy into a zone to give their kids the best possible eduation. Surely this isn’t Labour policy?
No teacher in their right mind would enter a classroom without the security of a union’s legal department behind them to protect against potentially malicious allegations.
This has always been the case, but it’s increasingly important in the current climate of hysteria surrounding anything to do with children.
With no one else to provide this security is it any surprise that the high 90s % of teachers are in the NZEI? Fear ensures that teaching is, in effect, a closed shop.
Whilst there can be no certain answers it would be interesting to wonder how many teachers would join the political campaigning side of the teaching unions if the protection were provided by a separate body.