John Key appears even less competent to talk on education than Anne Tolley.
To say that teachers need to pull their socks up is about as vague as advice can get. It is akin to a teacher telling class of students to ‘learn harder’.
John Key has resorted to clichés in his efforts to impose national standards on kids. His default setting is to resort to union bashing and teacher bashing.
He resorts to telling us what he hopes national standards will achieve rather than front with evidence they have succeeded overseas or explain why they have been ditched in the UK.
Maybe if he tells doctors to pull up their socks people won’t get sick, if he tells police to pull up their socks crime will be reduced and if Graham Henry pulls up his socks the All Blacks will win the World Cup.
Clichés aren’t the answer to a complex issue such as raising achievement.
“Maybe if he tells doctors to pull up their socks people won’t get sick, if he tells police to pull up their socks crime will be reduced …”
Poor analogies. The success of doctors is in *treating* the sick, and of the police in *solving* crimes and catching criminals. If they’re failing in these tasks he’d be right in telling them to pull their socks up. And I bet most people would agree.
Of course, based on specifics, that general advice would need to be expanded on to give specific guidance as to where that sock-elevating would need to be done.
There’s nothing to suggest in John Key’s comments that this won’t be forthcoming if/when underperforming teachers are identified.
Once again beware of the great disconnect, Kelvin. Only a fool would suggest that all teachers are competant and performing well. In the light of this I’m sure most people would think that the advice for this proportion of the profession to ‘pull their socks up’ was appropriate. To make a fuss about it just suggest a desire to cover up for poorly performing friends.
Budget 2010: Key tells English to pull up his socks and deliver more jobs and fairer taxes
Every day we seem to hear a series of opinionated, unscientific unsubstantiated motherhood statements about education from this government.
Maybe if they produced the research to back up their claims they might have some credibility.
Perhaps they could even talk to their own ERO office.
So I guess if you’re a teacher in a decile one school you’re going to need substantially longer socks than a teacher in a decile ten.
George – what does “pull your socks up” actually mean?
Research says that in order for kids to learn they need individual and specific feedback as to where they are and feed forward as to what they need to do to improve.
Why hasn’t Anne Tolley identified the teachers individually who aren’t performing to her expectation, (which she must be able to do since she says thirty percent aren’t doing it for her) and let them know specifically 1) what they aren’t doing right and 2) what they need to do to improve? If we are serious about raising achievement we need to invest in teachers not bash them.
Also by saying that thirty percent aren’t performing sort of implies those teachers all have the same need.
Is the need in literacy for example? Which part of literacy? Are they not performing in reading, writing or oral language?
If it’s writing – are they not performing in recount writing, procedural writing, exposition writing, explanation writing, report writing or narrative writing?
The “Best Evidence Synthesis” says that results are raised when teachers have professional learning specific to what they are teaching rather than generic professional learning.
Raising achievement is a complex issue requiring complex solutions and can’t be improved with cliches such as teachers need to ‘pull their socks up”. It simply highlights John Key’s ignorance.
@Kelvin – “Anne Tolley identified the teachers individually who aren’t performing to her expectation”
Yeah right – like she would know competence if it bit her on the backside! That would be far to easy, far better to brandish a whipping stick and ‘whip’ the public up to frenzy, feeding them a pack of lies, misinformation and statements designed to ’scare’ the public into thinking the whole system is broken. Judging from some of the comments made by some on this topic here at Redalert, you would have to say that they have achieved their mission.
Serious question – how can Lab, for the public sake, make the govt accountable by providing the evidence to back their claims? Furthermore, where is the data to show all these failing teachers? What data was this based on? And as you have said, what areas are they failing in? Did she get it from individual schools, ero, teachers council etc – surely the public has a right to know what data she bases this on.
I hope you and your team have plenty of questions to throw at them in parliament so that we can hold them accountable. If what she claims is true, then what support structures etc are they putting in place? Nat stds wont do it.
Kelvin Davis says: “George – what does “pull your socks up” actually mean?”
You know exactly what it means. If you don’t then may I suggest that your understanding of idomatic English isn’t up to the National Standard for an MP!
I did add to my post the following:
“Of course, based on specifics, that general advice would need to be expanded on to give specific guidance as to where that sock-elevating would need to be done.
There’s nothing to suggest in John Key’s comments that this won’t be forthcoming if/when underperforming teachers are identified.”
Your comments come over as smarmy and petty, Kelvin, and that’s exactly the sort of presentation problem that the Labour Party needs to address if it is to overcome the disconnect with ordinary people.
George, if Kelvin’s comments come across as smarmy and petty, then your comments come across as pathetic and meaningless.
National Standards should have been trialled first, plain and simple.
To be honest, if the government were at all concerned about the upskilling and improvement of teachers and their craft they wouldn’t have closed down PD outfits such as Team Solutions etc. It’s a load of PR crap designed to go back to the bad old days of marketised and privitised education.
George – if quoting from the Ministry of Education’s own research and the curriculum means I sound smary, then I guess that’s the risk I take. I use the research to back up what I say, neither John Key nor Anne Tolley have provided any research to say that national standards work, they only tell us what they hope national standards will do, and that’s just not good enough.
Kelvin – to clarify – it was the question re what ‘pulling socks up’ meant that sounded smarmy.
What is the meaning of ’smarmy’ and how is the word used?
“National Standards” testing regimes have been trialed -in the USA,in the UK – and found to be seriously flawed policies and programmes. Following the traditional NACT philosophies this means that the regime will work in NZ given sufficient No 8 wire and PR spin. When enough evidence builds up to demonstrate that it doesn’t work the NACT policy becomes “appoint a committee to investigate why it didn’t work but in the meantime launch a PR campaign with the headline “Blame the Teachers” for the failings of the government policies. NACT Cynicism in all its glory!!
Does this policy apply to private schools? Key’s children go to private schools that can do largely what they want with only minimal requirements to teach the curriculum, with the briefest of ERO oversight. What is his knowledge of today’s state primary school system?
I think its a given to say that the research shows it does not work – what I can not understand is why those who ardently support it (and there are a number on this site) and the govt (key and tolley and english in particular) can not step up and prove a)why it works b) show the research and evidence c) give specifics, with data, to support their statements.
Frankly, you would think that if its so wonderful, that the supporters would be able to trump up some evidence and research – anything – otherwise, why are people blindly following something they know is flawed? Since when did kiwis become so gullible?
It has only been in the last few weeks that I have known about this website and I am a little over it already. After this post I won’t be coming back – hooray say the lefties, but Labour, you should definitely consider it a loss as it means I will go back to being part of the silent majority – that is, the ones that are never polled and the ones that voted National into government at the last election.
While some of the posts raise good points, I am finding the constant attack on everything National does and the personal attacks against John Key tiresome and hypocritical. This current post is case in point. How many is this on the education saga? About 5? Come on people, have you nothing better to do? Aren’t there other issues that are also worthy of the same attention? What about the fact that this week there were kids turning up to school without having had breakfast and/or maybe got a closed fist ’smack’ by way of early morning greeting? NZ you need to get your head out of the clouds. This country is going to hell in a hand basket and I for one am ashamed to call myself a New Zealander.
As I have said many times via various posts, Labour you were in government for 9 years so you can’t possibly expect me to believe that everything that is wrong now is all National’s fault?
You attack any initiatives that do not fit the mould of the PC mould of the Labour party yet I have yet to see you come out with anything substantial. You accuse National of just PR spin and rhetoric yet you do exactly the same. Why should we ever vote you in again? What are you going to do differently? If you failed to get the health, education, welfare, tax & ACC systems up to scratch in the 9 years you were in government whereby loopholes were closed and people were paying for and receiving what they should, how can we trust that you will get things right in future? I am just not convinced. So instead of wasting our money by writing blog after blog on here regurgitating the same kind of attacks against National, how about you get busy proving to voters like me that you have something real to offer?
Next year is election year so it all comes down to this year in terms of you proving to voters like me that you have substance and that your policies will make a difference to this country. I want to see policy on how you are going to address and resolve our appalling rate of child abuse, address and resolve our major issues in the tax system & ACC and address & resolve the massive problems with our health and welfare system. When you have something of substance to say on these things – and no, that does not include intelligentsia garble where you use these issues to try & prove your worth as an academic (tax myths x 3 case in point!) – then let me know.
Having a ‘front man’ with little command of detail for a Prime Minister, was initially just embarrassing. But the joke is nearly over, the education sector was one of the earliest adopters of evidence based/action research methods and many teachers along with onto it boards and parents see straight through Key. Note: “onto it” means people that actually have recent or current direct experience in and around schools and the education sector.
An article in today’s NZ Herald from the head of the NZ principals Federations chief takes issue with John Key’s 30%.
He states that the ERO reports suggest 1-%, a big difference than 30%. So who’s lying? It would suggest John Key is lying like a trouper and is panicking and floating figures of the top of his head.
Is 10% an issue, yes and training needs to be given to bring those teachers up to a better standard. If not remove them from teaching and get some better one.
What a lot of rot Alan. Australia has just implemented NAPLAN, a similar national standards testing and reporting system. The education unions there have been using the same bullying and delaying tactics there. The Oz Gov hasnt given in to oz union calls for boycott, and they shouldnt give in here. Funny how the nzei cant even come up with original arguments against national standards, just repeating word for word the australian unions opposition.
Mel – I repeat again – show me why you are convinced its so great? Where is your evidence and research? I would love to see it.
40% of Australian schools are private but get taxpayer money, whereas only a fraction of ours are. Those private schools aren’t accountable as our state schools are and can have some very exclusionary and poor practices. The education system there is a state one, not federal, and there isn’t even one centralised curriculum. So requiring some accountability for schools that have resisted any is a different set up to what we are facing here.
@Conscientious
I feel almost the same as you.
I’m a disillusioned former Labour stalwart. I’ve occasionally contributed to Stuff blogs but ended up depressed by how they appear to go round and round in circles and end up with the same people making the same ad hominem attacks time and time again (from all sides).
When I came across this site a couple of weeks ago I was delighted. It gave me, I thought, the opportunity to give an opinion on why I no longer support the Labour Party to people who were genuinely interested in how non-activists, non-unionists etc were thinking.
Unfortunately this seems to have been a misguided hope. At first it seemed to have been achieving its aim, but over the recent past it has dengerated into the kind of thing you get on Stuff. As I think I’ve commented elsewhere – this might give people a nice warm feeling, but so does peeing yourself.
I don’t want to be converted, or preached at. I want you to listen. If you think I’m a nutter then don’t say so. Let me tell you what the nutters of this country are thinking! There are plenty of us, clearly. You’re totally free to discount every single word that I say. But if you engage in a coordinated effort to rubbish my comments then I might stop coming as well.
That may make some of you very happy. But it will leave you weaker. For the more you know about what your opponents think the stronger you will become.
Hilary, the australian education unions came up with the same standover tactics in australia about literacy and numeracy standards testing. Its now in its third year and has already led to an overhaul of the queensland education system, because the testing showed that queensland schools were well below other states performance. The UK and the US are hardly comparative examples either.
@barking, ability to “standover” is related to the amount of power you have in a given situation. I cannot recall teachers ‘standing over’ any government anywhere, they do best in consultation mode, which strangely enough occurs under sympathetic governments, which this National led one is not.
Well said George – couldn’t have put it better myself! Adios Labour.
Kelvin, as you believe that the under-achievement of Maori is because of teachers, I would have thought that this is a policy that you would agree with. Isn’t this about trying to improve things???
@george and Conscientous – This is a labour blog – therefore it makes sense that some people will be pro labour, and it would seem to me that having pro nat supporters is also important to provide some debate. I agree George, I come here in the hopes that Lab will be listening to the pov of the wider public – nat or lab supporters. I do not like the Nats and what they stand for – but it does not mean that I agree with all that has happened with Lab or that I will agree with everything they say either. It is ok to disagree – and I have yet to see where someone, including me, has rubbished your ideas. Asking for some research or data to support an idea like Nat stds is a genuine request. For my part, if it has offended, that is unfortunate and not intended. Not much value if we always agree.
Today I came across this National Standards Brochure which has just been released, and can be found here. They have also said that further information on the National Standards will be released here.
This evening I have put the following five very simple questions to the Minister, just to confirm the media speculation;
1. What evidence or research has the Minister seen that supports the
national standards she is implementing?
2. Does she believe that educational achievement will be raised by
the national standards?
3. Why does this just effect state schools?
4. Will state integrated schools be required to follow the National
Standards policy?
5. Will/ is the Minister consider/ing the implementation of league
tables for school comparison?
I will post up if/when I hear a reply, although I’m not too hopeful!
On one news tonight, there was an article that one of the journalists had put together on National Standards, and they tested a student, i think a yer three girl, at what looked like a ‘middle class’ school. I would like to see what the results are for a decile 1 or 2 school, as I think the results would be interesting.
Kelvin, my view- John knows just about as much as Tolley on Education-nil!
Apologies, this is the link
damn, third time lucky,
here it is
give up being fancy,
http://www.national.org.nz/files/NationalStandards/National_Standards.pdf
Just a thought. When Jon was running things in the financial world, what did he care about the underperforming or failing 20 percent aspects of his businesses? I reckon he would have just cut them loose and sent the employees to the scrap heap. Unlike the professionals in the education system – they have always had great concerns and tried to implement appropriate programs of learning for those “failing” in the system – and on limited resourcing.
“…less competent to talk on education than Anne Tolley”
All you progressives can ever do is smear and malign. Good on Tolley I say, teachers need be held to standards of performance . . and the more it makes the circle-jerking Left seethe and writhe in self-flagellating ecstasy, the more amusement I get.
“and the more it makes
the circle-jerking Left
seethe and writhe in
self-flagellating ecstasy,
the more amusement I get.’
Man, they don’t write poetry like that, any more.
My main issue with the debate about national standards is just how will those that fail them, be brought up to the acceptable level? This never seems to be addressed in the debate. Tolley and now Key have a great propensity to want to blame teachers for the failing students but don’t regard all the other variables like home environment, genetic factors or our society as having any responsibility for those who are said to be failing?
the rightwing nutter comments here are most entertaining! They seem to imagine Standards are going to do all manner of things that they will not – but I suppose that’s what happens in a world where the facts don’t get in the way of deeply-held opinion.
johnbt
“Kelvin, as you believe that the under-achievement of Maori is because of teachers, I would have thought that this is a policy that you would agree with. Isn’t this about trying to improve things???”
I believe that excellent teachers raise achievement and that it is the government’s responsibility to provide the conditions where excellent teachers can weave their magic.
Teachers make kids learn – so invest in teachers. $60m or so would have a huge impact on achievement if it was put into teachers professional learning.
There is no research to prove national standards raise achievement, hence teachers’ calls for a trial.
There are numerous strategies that are proven to raise achievement, but Anne Tolley has ignored them. If she was serious about improving things she would base her key policy on those proven strategies.
The government has now cut funding to teachers of deaf children. How this policy will help deaf children pass standards is beyond me.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/news/3288223/Deaf-kids-lose-sign-teaching-services
Kelvin, Clare and Trevor won’t answer my question, perhaps you will have the courtesy to. Will Labour campaign on repealing this policy for the next election?
The implementation of National Standards testing has been opposed through informed debate and argument by those who are being “bullied and stood over” to impose them on the curriculum and students.
In each situation where the political decision to implement “national standards testing” has been made the process required by the legislators and the final outcomes have not been achieved.
The UK, US and, no doubt, the Australian examples are based on a flawed educational model – that if you keep weighing the pig it will gain condition. Yes it does if, as in the UK & US examples, teachers teach to the test rather than the objectives of the over-arching document – the national curriculum.
I cannot help but laugh when the NZEI & PPTA are accused of stand over tactics and bullying whenever they decide to take an informed stand on issues and initiate debate on government policies regardless of the political suasion of the governing party.
Why do we have to email Parliament or the National Party for more information? I would have thought the Ministry of Education would be the contact point . . .
I have heard that the National Standards infrastructure is not fully in place at present. Is this true?
Dorothy, all you ever do here is call right wingers names. I’ve called your bluff here almost half a dozen times in as many days.
What would be YOUR strategy for improving education?
@Indiana – silly as it seems we haven’t actually had that direct discussion.
@Arts – no bits and bobs are being added along the way. Just last week John Key had a meeting with John Hattie and they’re setting up some group to do something that should have been thought through a while ago.
@BLip – its a bit of a shambles
National Standards in Maori medium schools are being implemented at a more sedate pace than in mainstream schools. Anne Tolley says, “the Maori medium standards have had to be developed from scratch”.
Fair enough that they take their time and make sure their t’s are crossed and i’s are dotted.
The reality is the mainstream national standards were started from scratch also, but these standards are being rushed into mainstream schools with indecent haste.
Where does that put students, parents and teachers of kids in immersion units in mainstream schools? Do the immersion teachers get to wait a year until the Maori standards are ready before reporting against the standards and risk confusion amongst parents? Or do they have to go along with the rest of their colleagues and implement Maori standards before they are ready?
It’s a shambles.
Interesting interview this morning by Mike Hosking with the chap who’s just been made the first New Zealander of the year – Ray Avery.
In it Mr Avery spoke of the ‘can do’ attitude that struck him when he first arrived in New Zealand, and which he claims has helped him in carrying out his tremendous work.
Unfortunately it seems that this default attitude, which we’re led to believe enabled the early settlers to hew a society from out of nothing, is changing. The usual attitude we seem to get presented with these days, for almost everything, is ‘can’t do’. Every change or initiative is greeted with a stream of reasons as to why it’s going to be a bad idea, or not work. If that sort of attitude had been around 150 years ago there’d be no New Zealand.
Look at the front page of today’s press. A headmaster complaining about how the change to the school terms next year because of the RWC is going to cause chaos for NCEA preparation. On a plate all of next years entrants now have a cast iron alibi for poor performance in NCEA. IT wasn’t the clubbing, or the TV watching, or lack of revision. It was the disruption caused by the world cup! Heaven forbid that we ever have to meet a genuine crisis in the country again!
I’m sorry, everyone, but the more the big guns with one vested interest or another weighs in on the standards issue, telling us why it can’t be done and won’t work, the more it appears that they’re supporting the ‘can’t do’ attitude.
It’s a bad look.
@George–referring back to your first comment: how do national standards (which tell us for each student how they are doing relative to others and to standards) tell us which teachers are under performing? I read your comment as suggesting that standards would help in this.
Thanks Kelvin. I look forward to seeing what Labour plans to campaign in regards to National Standards.
@SR – my first comment to this post was a response to Kelvin’s comment on the pulling up of socks.
Do you agree that it is possible to identify underperforming teachers (by whatever means)?
If the answer to this is ‘no’ then we have a problem.
If the answer is ‘yes’ then the general advice to get them to ‘pull their socks up’ would, I contend, be considered reasonable by most ordinary New Zealanders.
Smart comments about what ‘pull your socks up’ means smack of a mischevious third former engaged in a bit of teacher bating. And the only ones who find this sort of thing valid are normally the kid’s mates who would rather have a bit of fun at the teacher’s expense than get down to some real work. I’m sure that, given his background in education, Kelvin will have come across this sort of thing.
That was the basis of my first comment, Steve.
You’re free to ignore anything I post. Treat me as the nutter on the bus. I’m sure that Kelvin’s comments will go down really well at the next local party meeting. I just suggest that in the wider world they appear a bit childish.
Baiting, not bating. Oops!