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.
George the asTTle system provides high quality, finely grained information on teacher strengths and weaknesses. The standards will add nothing to that and in many cases will provide much less.
Good principals use that information for teacher professional development and school organisation.
Using extra measures won’t cause that to change – in fact there are suggestions that it will cause things to go backwards.
I speak as a principal of a Decile 2 school that was just ERO’d last year in December and has also had independant research done on how we are performing, involving parents and community etc. Both these were superb. I have been a principal for over 28 yrs in a wide variety of schools throughout NZ, and have a reasonable profile in education in NZ. I include the above not to grandstand, but to validate hopefully my comments.
I am adamantly opposed to standards as discussed. I am not opposed to parents have good accurate information and they should be getting that now, and if not their parents should be loud and vociferous to get that info.
That also requires parents to pick up some responsibility to attend school, talk to their teachers and discuss their childrens p[rogress though!.
I am opposed because standards will not identify poor teachers and they shouldn’t anyway and in my opinion, there are already existing avenues for that to happen, that are working. The figures reasonably accurately thought to fit that category are about 1% at anyone time, not the 30% Key reportsd. He got that figure from a sample survey/report from ERO that said about 30% of junior children were not coming up to standards. That sounds appalling but the reality is about 30% of our NZ children are coming into schools at about a 3 year old level.
In my school only 12% attain standards in Yr 1 (for a 5 yr old), 28% in Yr 2 and by end of Yr 3 99%. I have superb teachers. We pour heaps into kids, and make 5 yrs progress in 3 yrs for most of them, yet under this proposed system my school would be deemed a failure!
We have had extra money for funding lots of targeted funding to assist witht his. Unfortunately this year that money has dried up and is going towards the nearly 60 million for standards and 30 million for private schools. Fopr us to get back some of this money under the new standards we have to be labelled as failing school!!!
Private schools and homeschooling are exempt. Although the government is paying tax payer funding to both, the government seems to take it for granted that they never have poor teachers, all their children are up to “Standard” etc…. reality is quite different!
Hopefully that might show some of you why many of us are extremely angry. I also suggest you google “No child left behind” and look at the parent group websites, and see its effect on American schools. I have visited schools overseas that are involved in such programmes and have seen the effect on genuine learning
I apologise for typos, but the message is what is important. One further point, for Keys and Queen Canute to state that those opposed are basically failing principals etc, is appaling. I sent Queen Canute a copy of our ERO Report and the research to refute this, and asking how we fund the programmes this year that she has siphoned the money away from. Her response was thankyou and National Standards will help you do this even better!!!!!!!
As well Keys stated that teachers have never got on with National Ministers of Education and that was the reason we opposed them.
I have worked with about ten Ministers of Ed in my time, many of them National. In fact Wyatt Creech I thought was superb. Trevor Mallard and I actually disagreed publically and privately on numerous occasions, but he wasn’t too bad as a Minister either.
The day that I can’t stand up an oppose a ‘no brainer” from a Minister of Ed from whatever party without being labelled as Key has done, is the day we all should start questioning what is being foisted upon us.
On the present set up, when has any other government ever had a Minister of Ed, so low in Cabinet rankings, which means no power, no say and little understanding. IIf Ed was really important you wouldnt have a 13 or 14th rank person as Minister of Ed.
Pat Newman says: “I am opposed because standards will not identify poor teachers and they shouldn’t anyway and in my opinion, there are already existing avenues for that to happen, that are working. The figures reasonably accurately thought to fit that category are about 1% at anyone time, not the 30% Key reportsd. He got that figure from a sample survey/report from ERO that said about 30% of junior children were not coming up to standards.”
I thought that the ERO report explicity said that 30% of teachers of year 1 and 2 weren’t up to standard. So I went back to check. In the report I read:
“In contrast, the remaining 30 percent of teachers had little or no sense of how critical it was for children to develop confidence and independence in early reading and writing. These teachers had minimal understanding of effective reading and writing teaching, set inappropriately low expectations and did not seek opportunities to extend their own confidence in using a wider range of teaching practices. In these classrooms learning opportunities to motivate, engage or extend children were limited.”
Notwithstanding that, I think it would be an exceptional profession where only 1% were underperforming. Unless performance was judged against a trivial yardstick.
Maybe if National pulled their socks up we’d not have the highest level of unemployment since 1999.
I’ll not hold my breath.
Kaplan: maybe is a big word.
Maybe we would not have had a recession if those in the financial sector were not so greedy, if consumers had not bought things that they could not afford and invested in high risk ventures that ultimately folded and if we didn’t have people such as those who are members of our major political parties, including Labour, who have specialised in various imports such as petrochemicals, industrial chemicals and food additives – all things that have known health risks and where the big man gets the dollars and the little man can still barely feed his family.
Maybe our education system wouldn’t be in the state it is now if Labour had had smarter fiscal policy and addressed the issues we are facing now in the 9 years they were in office…..
Maybe Labour should come up with some policy instead of just whinging on here.
Apologies, I meant to reference the politicians who do things like specialise in importing and trading HIGH VOLUME LOW-MARGIN petrochemical derivatives…..which is a fancy way of saying that they work to ensure that the big man gets to buy another porche while the little man – the slave – struggles to feed his family.
The Green Party, although a tad too left for my liking and a tad too activist, are the only ones that seem to actually be governed by integrity and genuine concern for our future including that of our children. I wonder what they have to say about this education nonsense?
@Kelvin – “Where does that put students, parents and teachers of kids in immersion units in mainstream schools?”
Really good question I was also wondering about – it effects a fairly large proportion of schools, and it shows how ill thought through this process was if they could not even get the stds for Maori medium sorted to concide with the release of the stds. Too rushed and once again, we see an MOE not able to meet the demand required of them. At meetings held last year across the country around Nat stds, the MOE were unable to answer simple questions about the implementation and how it can be balanced with the needs of ESOL, behaviour needs and social and emotional competencies needs. There have been no real guidelines provided to schools on how they are to implement them – the documents are glossy and pretty, but lack substance for the practical nature of implementation. Given schools set targets and report against them, you would think this would be aligned to this – but no. So, here we have all these schools starting back this week with no idea what really needs to happen.
Second point Kelvin – why have Lab not yet discussed what they will do about it? You have known about it for sometime and Lab has been vocal enough about being against them – surely there has been time for you all to discuss the way forward?
George
http://www.nzpf.ac.nz/nzpf-national-standards.php suggest you have a look at this link and the reputable articles, including some from even Hattie, the Prime Ministers own educational guru on National Standards.
I will also post you when I get it, a copy of the very well researched article that refutes major aspects of the ERO Report.
I havent it on me at the moment. However george, I would be very interested in your comments about the other statements I made above. You have only picked on one to comment on.
ERO REPORT 2009; IN YEARS 1 AND 2 ONLY
Minister of Education Anne Tolley said
•
two thirds of school leaders are not properly monitoring how well young people are achieving
•
around 30% teachers not doing a good job
•
principals not sharing achievement information
Facts
•
ERO report showed the majority of the 212 schools in the review evaluated and taught to a high or good standard
•
ERO reviewers did not provide evidence of what the students could do and acknowledged in the report “ERO reviewers recognised they were not able to see the eventual outcomes resulting from the lesson “(p6).
•
ERO rated teachers’ effectiveness (on its own criteria not a test) as high 26%, good 43%, adequate 21%, limited 10% (p8). The Minister’s 30% covers “adequate” as well as “limited.”
•
ERO’s statement that one in three teachers “had little sense of how critical it was for years 1 and 2 students to develop confidence in reading and writing…had minimal understanding of effective reading and writing and set inappropriately low expectations” is unsubstantiated in the report.
•
ERO’s claim that principals are not sharing achievement information is unsubstantiated.
•
No definition is provided of what ERO considers “effective” or “ineffective” and therefore the findings are merely the subjective views of reviewers.
ERO REPORT 2007; ON COLLECTION AND USE OF ASSESSMENT INFORMATION
undertaken in terms 1-2 in 314 schools both primary and secondary
Minister of Education Anne Tolley said
•
half the schools were not using assessment data well to inform better teaching
Facts
•
ERO found that 93% of primary schools were able to demonstrate effectively their students’ achievements in the curriculum areas of English and 91% in mathematics (p20).
•
The ERO 2009 reports on years 1 and 2 found that “the majority of teachers were good at using assessment to reflect on and improve their teaching of reading and writing” (p1).
INTERNATIONAL SURVEYS
PISA1: Literacy, mathematics, science assessments of 15 year olds
Minister of Education Anne Tolley quoted findings from PISA
•
the gap between top and lowest performing students was wide and increasing
•
unique situation in New Zealand as the gap is within schools not between schools
Facts
•
Literacy results in 2000 and 2003 showed Finland was the only country that performed statistically better than New Zealand in literacy
•
The achievement gap between highest and lowest 15-year old students in New Zealand is still very large reflecting New Zealand’s economic policies and socio economic picture
•
What is “unique” is not that there is a gap (as every country has one) but that New Zealand’s is so wide. Our brightest performing student group is very large and this makes the gap appear even wider when the data is aggregated
•
New Zealand was top of the IEA study in Reading Literacy in 1990-91 which was prior to the Tomorrow’s Schools reform. The number of countries participating has increased with each study.
PIRLS2 2005-2006; Literacy assessment of year 5
Education Minister Anne Tolley said that PIRLS 2005-06 showed
•
no progress in reading achievement
•
New Zealand fallen in country rankings from 1st to 24th
•
there were more countries outperforming New Zealand
Facts
•
The New Zealand mean was significantly higher than the international PIRLS scale mean (532 c.f. 500)
•
There was a relatively large group of year 5 students who demonstrated they were very good readers and notably sized group who were weaker readers. Our wide range of performance is persistent and mirrors our society profile of ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’.
•
Compared with PIRLS 2001, there was no change in mean achievement but when contextual issues are considered, New Zealand holding its own was an achievement.
1 Programme for International Student Assessment
2 Progress in International Reading Literacy Study
•
Contextual issues from 2001-2006: growth of students numbers in schools Maori 6.14%, Pasifika 11.58%; Special Education 11.6%; International students 17.5%; schools dependent upon community funding raising for ICT, changes in employment patterns from permanent to fixed term, 4.3% students in homes earning less than 50% of OECD median income.
IN SUMMARY
New Zealand’s top students are the best in the world, our middle and upper students are doing well, our low students are doing poorly. Language presents a particular challenge.
The gap between high and low achievers is evident in every assessment and has been for decades. It has got worse along with the change in our economic policies. Every country has a band of low achievers but in NZ our Maori and Pasifika students are disproportionately represented.
Our gap is large compared to most other high performing countries although England and Singapore had a similar large spread.
While no tail is acceptable, I forgot to mention NZ only country that includes all pupils. E.G. Australia doesn’t include all its aboriginal children. Soth Africa doesn’t include all its school age children etc. MOE can verify what This is one of the major reasons why our tail is showing bigger in comparison to other countries. I have said is correct on this. Standards will not help lower the tail.
Sorry to keep adding, but thought in the interests of informed debate, George may wish to read the following. Ivan Snook is wrold renowned educational academic, not a union member.
Ivan Snook, Emeritus Professor of Education Massey University recorded his response to the report. Rather than quote only certain aspects it is worth reading in its entirety. Particular points of note are highlighted.
1. The Dominion Post headline said “Schools set Sights too Low.” (15th December, 2009). Nothing in the ERO report supports this damning generalisation. Rather the report finds that the standard of goal setting, use of assessment data and methods of teaching are adequate or better.
2. According to the Dominion Post “some teachers and principals are ignoring achievement data for year 1 and 2 pupils that do [sic] not show positive results. In some cases the information had not been given to the boards of trustees and parents.” This suggests that schools typically hide relevant data but this is not substantiated. What the ERO review found was that “In some schools that were working with a cluster of other schools, a professional development facilitator had collected, or assisted with data analysis. However, some teachers and leaders ignored this information or did not share it with their school community.” (p 38). Thus, this comment refers to a particular type of inter-school analysis not to the normal gathering of data within a school and there may be good reason why such “independent analyses” were not seen as relevant to reporting to the “school community” regarding the achievement of students in the particular school. And surely, in a report which has been and will be used to criticise teachers, “some” is rather imprecise. The ERO looked at 212 schools and at least twice that number of teachers: “Some” may be as few as 20 teachers. On the other hand it could be a lot more. It is surely the responsibility of an official agency to state its findings more precisely.
3. “These teachers [one in three teachers who, allegedly, “had little sense of how critical it was for year 1 and 2 pupils to develop confidence in reading and writing”] had minimal understanding of effective reading and writing teaching and set inappropriately low expectations.” I could find no evidence of this in the report.
4. “Teacher stated that, if expectations were raised, too many children would be seen to be failing. Consequently, they set lower goals which they thought were more attainable.” This is an accurate quotation from the “executive summary” but the relevant section of the report is rather different. It found that “In some high decile schools, [my emphasis] teachers described how they preferred to give children time to consolidate new learnings and, accordingly, set expectations lower or just approaching, nationally referenced expectations. Teachers stated that if expectations were raised, too many children would be seen as failing [when they weren’t – My comment]. Consequently they set lower goals which they thought were more attainable.” (p 32). So “teachers” in general and teachers in low decile schools in particular (where many students may be struggling) are not reducing expectations. It is only teachers in “some [how many?] high decile schools” who “preferred to give children time to consolidate learning” and hence tended to say as it were, “they are achieving at or close to the accepted level of achievement and we will not force them on to a higher one until they have consolidated their learning at that level.” These teachers may be criticised on some educational grounds but they are certainly not obviously setting standards that are too low and no generalisations should be made about “teachers” doing so. Apart from this reference, there is nothing in the report relating to “setting sights too low.”
5. “In some schools, the “crucially” important role of monitoring the progress of year 1 and 2 pupils was left to teachers.” This is presented as a damning criticism of school leaders but the report itself found that these principals “trusted their junior school teachers or leaders who knew the students well.” While this position might be criticised from a gross ‘managerialist’ perspective, it is certainly not unreasonable and, in a collegial, system, might be seen as perfectly appropriate: obviously not all principals are experts in beginning reading and writing. Indeed the report noted that “School leaders were generally more confident discussing and sharing assessment results for the middle or upper primary school than for Years 1 and 2.” It has long been recognised that the supervision and monitoring of progress in the first years of schooling is a specialised activity. Principals and leaders may have sometimes been over optimistic in relying on the teachers but their “inaction” may well have been quite reasonable. It certainly does not deserve a generalised critique of school leaders.
6. In the ERO report itself the basic argument is viciously circular. The basic thrust is that there are successful (or “effective”) teachers and unsuccessful (or “ineffective”) teachers and that, teacher in these discrete categories exhibit patterns which the reviewers either approve or disapprove of. But there is NO separate definition of “effective” (or “ineffective”) teachers and certainly no linking of their work to student learning. Indeed the “ERO reviewers recognised that they were not able to see the eventual outcomes resulting from the lessons.” (p
8). Thus they were unable to show if the students of the “effective” teachers achieved better than the students of the “ineffective” teachers. The so called argument is quite circular.
7. Furthermore the criteria used to distinguish “effective” from “ineffective” teachers are not rooted in research on teaching but instead simply reflect the subjective judgments of the reviewers. Thus, for example, in “bad” schools, the topics for writing are set centrally, there is a lot of diary writing and the lessons are often repetitive. At other times teachers are criticised for engaging in “whole class” instruction. It is far from obvious (and no research is cited to prove) that such ways of teaching are inferior to other kinds. It might be argued that they are less desirable but this would constitute a legitimate debate among teachers. There is no reason to suppose that in matters like this the judgment of external reviewers is any better than that of practising teachers.
8. It should also be remembered that the reviewers do not have robust methodologies for distinguishing “high”, “good” “adequate” or “inadequate” teaching. The final results, expressed in what look like scientifically derived tables are nothing more than an aggregated set of the subjective judgments of individual reviewers.
9. Having derived these tables, they summarise them in ways which support a particular point of view. For example, under “Qualities of Teaching of Reading” we find: High: 26%, Good 43%, Adequate 21%, and Limited 10%. (p 8). In commenting on these the reviewers contrast the first two categories and the second two categories to “show” that a third of the teachers are “failing.” But surely, if the teaching is “adequate” it is “adequate” (not excellent or outstanding but adequate) and a more honest reporting would place the unsatisfactory teachers at 10% rather than 31%.
10. In the newspaper report, the Minister is quoted as saying “The problems are much greater than we had initially thought.” That is indeed an odd statement since the report tells us that two-thirds of schools are now using assessment data appropriately compared to only 52% in 2007. A Minister wishing to make a different political point would have said “schools are making steady improvement in the teaching of reading and writing.” There is little doubt that in a year or two, after National Standards are introduced, a Minister of Education will be proudly using every positive finding as “proof” that they have worked. That, sadly, is the way education “research” is used in New Zealand.
11. To sum up, the Dominion Post headline “Schools set sights too low” is a fiction engineered by a submissive state agency, politically motivated press releases and media that do not understand either educational research or the complexities of classrooms and are too passive to go to the original sources to check the soundness of the releases handed to them.
Ivan Snook
24th December, 2009
@Pat Newman – I’m just an ordinary bloke trying to make sense of what seems to have become a shouting match between interested parties.
A lot on ‘your’ side, have posted here and elsewhere that there’s no need for any change to the current methods of assessment because all the information needed is provided via the schools and ERO.
Then ERO puts out a report saying, in pretty basic language, that 30% of teachers of Yr 1 and Yr 2 have significant problems teaching a couple of the most fundamental of subjects.
Regardless of whatever the rest of the report says, and whatever other evidence there is to highlight the good things that are going on in schools (and I accept that many of our teachers (my wife included (!)) are deeply committed and doing fantastic jobs), this is a huge worry.
You appeared to have dismissed that particular report by saying that Anne Tolley misrepresented it.
I quoted verbatim from the report, which I obtained from the ERO website. What it was saying seemed pretty clear to me, and this was at great odds with your earlier comment, and your assertion that 1% was a more reasonable figure for under performing teachers in that area.
I just wanted to know whether, on this particular single point, I’d somehow got the wrong end of the stick.
It’s great that 70% of teachers of Yr 1 and 2 are doing well. But if ERO is right in what it says about the other 30% then as an ordinary Joe Blow I reckon we’ve got a really big problem on our hands which needs sorting, and pronto.
Some of the reaction from within the profession appears to be very defensive. Which it would be as it’s an appalling state of affairs when we’ve been told we have a world class education system. And when people like me, who try to recruit school leavers, find so many to be functionally illiterate and innumerate, we’re accused of scaremongering.
But remember that I don’t matter Pat. Ok?
I’m just trying to tell you how I, one unimportant person, looking on from the sidelines, sees it. And to caution you that many others see it the same way. You can do with that info whatever you wish. Feel free to disregard it. Or ridicule it. Or suffocate it under a pile of words from your own particular areas of interest and ideology. How you choose to use it is far more important for you than it is for me.
@Pat Newman – this is positively my last comment in this particular thread. Life is too short!
How can you say “1. The Dominion Post headline said “Schools set Sights too Low.” (15th December, 2009). Nothing in the ERO report supports this damning generalisation.”?
when the report says : “These teachers [30% of year 1 and 2 teachers in the study] had minimal understanding of effective reading and writing teaching, set inappropriately low expectations … ”
Again let me reiterate – I accept that I’m a fairly simple bloke, but these two statements (the latter taken directly from the ERO report) seem to me to be entirely at odds with each other.
Trevor,
You seem to be getting frustrated that the minister wont listen to sense, let alone listen. Certainly the Dom has only just realized that the teachers may actually know something about education.
But this is the point, unfortunately the standards are not about kids or education. The comments coming from the Nats suggest that this is all about who has bigger balls. Is it Tolley/Key/English or Labour/Unions/Experts?
It will be up to the parents to get educated themselves and decide the winner.
P.S. Take a honest look at history with Bulk funding and NCEA (still don’t get this one) and find out why one was stopped, and the other not.
Jeremy, not sure if i should say this, nothing to do with size, but some of those you named dont have any !!!!
Thank you Pat Newman for that piece by Ivan Snook. I’ve long been an admirer of his work in education. It needs to be published more widely.
Hi all
It has been suggested that we send back our national standards pamphlet that john key is sending to us (with tax payer money that could have gone to our kids).
Imagine his surprise if he gets thousands of pamphlets sent back to him.
Talk with your friends and pass the idea on.
Prime Minister John Key
Parliament Office
Private Bag 18888
Parliament Buildings
Wellington 6160
Except that the report doesn’t say that. It says that 10% may be low and that all the rest are adequate or better.
pat, ha ha ha ha.
typo’s in your first post. there is no excuse when you are a principal taking a stand against a political policy that is all about basic literacy and numeracy. I’m a salesman, i don’t need to worry so much, but if you were the principal of my child, or any child in my family, i would be pulling the kid. we don’t aim to be mediocre, and i don’t want any one who does near children
There is an interesting gulf between what voters believe and the facts as Pat has laid them out here.
We stack up very well against other countries. It seems that by year 3, the problem percentage is 1, not 30 or 10. It is nothing short of dishonest to take figures from the first two years and trumpet those as meaning there is a widespread problem.
Educational experts believe that these superfluous standards will not help parents or students just as they have failed overseas. It is clear there are real issues with communication with parents about their children’s progress. Standards won’t help – unless counting strawberries is your greatest aspiration and you believe all children are the same. Let’s put the scarce funds into fixing the real problem.
However, I respect that many reasonable Kiwis want Tolley’s standards to make a difference. We all want what’s best for our kids and no one wants to believe our leaders would lie to us.
The Herald’s small poll of its own readers said 73% supported standards – but only 54% believed it would be good for their children and 35% said they understood the difference between the existing standards and these add-ons.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10624503&pnum=0
That shows wishful thinking, not informed commitment. However, I’m sure some expensive propaganda will fix that.
The Front Page headlines in the Herald On Saturday, 6/2/10, reported that 73% of parents support the National Government’s national education standards policy.
I think that anyone with any interest in this issue should listen to the following contribution to this debate from professor Terry Crooks, the co-director of the national education monitoring project at Otago University, who was interviewed by Kathryn Ryan on Radio New Zealand, Nine to Noon on Thursday morning.
Listen to it here:
http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/ntn/ntn-20100204-0908-Terry_Crooks-048.mp3
Professor Terry Crooks, presents a sane sensible and balanced take on the Education Standards Policy. (in contrast to the National government’s right wing, punitive approach.)
From a position of knowledge, the first thing Professor Crooks does, is tear up the government’s emotive assertion that 20% of primary school students are not meeting expected primary standards of reading and writing and maths.
He points out that the government, in its shock horror assertion of a 20% failure rate, gets this 20% statistic from the number of students who leave high school without any NZCE qualification.
First of all, as the Professor points out, this figure is out dated, and in fact, this figure has dropped to 16% of students leaving high school without any NZCE qualification.
More tellingly, Professor Crooks, points out that at least 10% of this figure is due to these students, (for various reasons), having a lack of interest or engagement in the high school system, not because they lack fundamental basic primary literacy and numeracy skills.
He also points out that the remaining 6% of this statistic also includes the multiply handicapped who would struggle under any system.
This interview and the professor’s responses, may be a a bit dry and academic for some, (interspersed as it is, with the Professors sighs and considered pauses) but bear with it.
The kicker is in the end, where the professor puts up the diametrical contrasting example of what was done by the nation of Finland to lift their educational achievement levels to the highest in the world.
Professor Crooks said that instead of trying to determine failing teachers and schools, Finland put a concerted effort into raising the status of teachers and making teaching a high profile profession, and trusting them to do the job.
According to Professor Crooks it is no surprise that Finland came out top in international surveys of student achievement.
The following is from the exchange between Kathryn Ryan and the Professor Crooks over the Finnish education system.
Kathryn Ryan:
“Do they have anything approaching the performance based pay system that is part of this scheme?”
Professor Crooks:
“They have no accountability measures as I understand it…..”
Katheryn Ryan … (interrupting):
“They have no individual accounting?”
Professor Crooks:
“There is no individualised accounting, and there is also, no school accountability measures. They put the investment in quality teaching and quality teaching education. And then they trust teachers to do the best job”.
I think it would be wonderful if the leader of the opposition came out with a statement siding with the NZEI, to strongly condemn the National Government’s scheme as negative and punitive and holding up the Finnish example as a positive proven alternative.
I have just caught up with your blog’s debate on this issue. Your readers may find some stimulating discussion (and factual examples) on Russell Brown’s Public Address blog yesterday: http://publicaddress.net/6451#post6451
Hi Gordon,
Good to see you testing the waters out on the blogosphere. I bet in your years in media starting back in the 1940’s (I understand one of the articles you wrote impressed Peter Fraser) you would never have imagined something like the Web, and the blogosphere.
I read your book “Out of the Red” and found it to be interesting.
Anyway, back to the topic…
This quote by David Beatson in his pundit.co.nz column would sum up my opinion on the National Standards:
“…National standards are worth nothing if they are simply used to “name, blame and shame” schools, teachers, or pupils who don’t hit the “norm”….”
(Full column: Here)