Went to two in Auckland tonight.
She used the same presentation both times, seemed generic with no nod to the fact she was in Auckland.
Poor understanding of the research she was refering to – and mixed up different studies.
Problem definition not good – and objective, ( other than making sure ALL students leave with Level 2 NCEA, think about that one ) unclear.
Didn’t understand that the vague descriptions she was using are not standards.
Seemed to think that measuring was teaching.
Had a good cheer squad that moved from one meeting to the next – about ten people.
Had chairs who made the mistake of calling patsy questioners by their first names. The Standard highlights this in their report from the first meeting.
Was very wooden and rote like in responding to questions with what seemed like pre- prepared answers to different questions.
I got lots of material for use in the house but she seemed so fragile that I felt so sorry for her that I didn’t ask a question at the second meeting.
I’m convinced that she can’t last for long.
Epic FAIL.
I don’t see Tolley having the Education portfolio at the end of this term if Key actually opens his eyes. The questions is, who’s going to have it? PLEASE DON”T SAY PEACHEY!!!!!!!!
What questions did you ask at the first meeting Trevor? What was the response?
I hope this isn’t considered off-topic.
On the BBC website today there’s a good article on UK education spending over the past 50 or so years:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8562405.stm
If you follow this link you’ll see a graph which shows education as a % of GDP increasing massively between 1955 and 2005 (based on a baseline of 1981 = 100, 1955 was 50 and 2005 140).
Does anyone know if any similar analysis is available for educational spending as a percentage of GDP in NZ over a decent time period?
@ George off topic but interesting.
James asked about what she expected teachers to drop in order to spend time on her new standards. No answer at all.
I went to the Wellington meeting and find this whole thing so sad because:
-many parents really want more information about the teaching and learning of their child, and for their children to do better at school, and think this is going to deliver that (no, it is just a mark on a graph and a couple of sentences on a report, and it is not about doing the hard work of raising achievement)
-a huge amount of money is going into publicising and implementing it while the Ministry of Education is having to cut back (by a similar amount) on the real work of raising achievement such as professional development, school advisors, curriculum development, adminstrative support etc
-any PD around standards will not cover upskilling around special educational needs (the Minister said that at the meeting)
- The Minister was good at slogans and telling us what the policy isn’t (and it does not include resources for teachers to translate the complexities of teaching and learning into lay language), but there was very little detail about the what, where, how of what the policy is.
I have been around education a long time and have found there are people who understand how it all works and fits together and there are some who cannot see beyond their personal experience and anecdotes. I also remember a Minster of Education who was keen for every school to fly the NZ flag.
On the positive side, at the meeting I went to there were some high school students who demonstrated that polite, informed, critical thinking, is happening in our schools.
I also remember a Minster of Education who was keen for every school to fly the NZ flag.
The problem with this being?
Two decades on can you demonstrate how that policy raised student achievement?
It is off topic and not going to divert thread. Both of you.
I attended a National Standards BoT information evening meeting run by the School Trustees Association last night in Whangarei.
STA sent out a survey to all Boards of Trustees across New Zealand regarding Nat Stds.
As a result of the responses they believe that BoTs just want to get on with implementing the standards. Twice as many BoTs supported Nat Stds as opposed.
Total number of responses from BoTs across the country? – 18.
Those for 8, those against 4. The rest undecided.
Don’t feel sorry for her Trev. These people are systematically eroding the public education system.
I am sorry but our kids education is to important to be discarded due to right wing ideology.The Rich Schools get a 60 million increase while the public schools get cuts!
This woman wouldn’t last in any medium sized firms middle management, she is as bad as the ideology she is hawking.
She wanted the job and its trappings so she gets the stress that goes with such a poor policy and no buy in from the teachers. Remember this woman has refused to front the Principles meetings they where given a Video message from Tolly and told they could put there questions down in writing. So much for consultation.
Keep the pressure up I say, our kids learning should not be compromised.
Private schools do save taxpayers money though, don’t they? I mean those kids would be in a fully funded public school if not in a partially state funded and partially parent funded private school? That is a saving for us all.
Tolley’s days are numbered. In sport, if a Chairman announces absolute confidence in the Manager amidst rumours of impending demise, the Manager is gone within a week. Key said of Tolley yesterday
“he had confidence in Tolley’s ability to deal with the unrest, and he was happy with the implementation.”
Sounds like it was a great sideshow
Just before the last election i was selling veges at the local Farmers Market. Our local M.P Tolley came around – watched for a bit and then complimented me “….you’re a very good salesman…” she said.
I conclude she had been boning up on the pitch and rapport required to get onside with the customer.
Shall now set up a company specialising in training pollies in sales. And no – don’t feel sorry for her – i know you can’t risk being seen as a bully Trevor – but she and her rampant ambition put her there. Why? who knows..
I’m convinced that she can’t last for long.
Okay, but does the demotion of a minister actually effect the implementation of policy? Or will another National minister be appointed, and then be told ‘to go lightly but do the same thing’?
Good point Sean. Tolley is expendable to Key, Joyce and English, but the policy is not.
I once received a hospital pass in a game of Rugby that broke3 a bone, dislokated a joint and gave me concussion (and for you trolls i didnt have any time off work on acc), worst of all i droped the ball causing a scrum in our 22. They guy that passed me the ball shouted me a beer to say sorry for the pass.
Will john shout Anne a wine after she has gone i wonder?
Julie and Sean, I absolutely agree. Evidenced by John Keys latest photo opportunity at a nice school in Christchurch ( or just outside I think). It’s his policy and repayment to groups that supported him, Anne is the chosen (for now) mouthpiece.
Interesting he sas BOT will have to explain to parents why their children cant read because they didnt introduce national standards, thus perpetuating the party line that the Nat Standards will actually address illiteracy. By address mean put resources into changing a child from illiterate to literate…
Schools already identify them they want resources to change it.
Offensive. This is a warning. Clare
Have another go and improve your language Trevor
Fragile? LOL Funniest thing you have ever said Trev. Still laughing. Do not be fooled into thinking you should feel sorry for her – she could choose to soften her approach, read up on the subject, learn to view her advisors with a touch of distrust (the moe are not that reliable)and try to think for herself…but no, she made her bed – if its too hot in her kitchen, she should resign and go back to real estate. Go hard and make sure you get to the finish line – our schools deserve better.
I hope your prediction is right Trevor and she will soon be gone
The linked article portrays a picture similar to the Lincoln Bowling club meeting. Will be interesting to see if written questions submitted are answered as I was assured they would be.
Would be great if Minister Tolley had a website where people could submit questions and be referred to the answer (if similar to previous questions) or given supplementary information is necessary. Not the MOE one where questions disappear but similar to this forum. Similar to parliamentary written questions but focussed on National Standards policy and hopefullly answered more quickly…. look there’s a pig flying over the blue moon and Satan has borrowed snow-chains to get to work!
LOL
Linda – what a great idea – or at least the basis of one.
@ Paul 10.09pm I’m in two minds – do we want her to go or to stay. I also want to consider the way the Nats spin our question time – since I dropped Tau they are pretty keen on the bully label and use it especially when one of their women MPs is challenged. On Thursday after I asked a question and she made a real mess of it you could see the tears in her eyes. It was the subject of quite a bit of discussion afterwards including with two of the reporters who were there.
Soon afterwards I intervened to support her after she went off script on the question of ranges within schools v between schools and confused it with averages which made all those with a modicum of intelligence in the room surprised, amazed and in some cases angry because they thought she did it deliberately. The meeting was going downhill very quickly and I think my intervention meant that more people got to ask questions. I make no further comment at the moment on the quality of the replies.
Troll warning Trevor
“On Thursday after I asked a question and she made a real mess of it you could see the tears in her eyes.”
I am sorry, but it feels like you are being played big time by her and the rest of the Nats for exactly the issue re Tau (frankly, time they got over themselves – stuff happens and you move on) – having watched her in the house when asked questions, I am not convinced that she deserves the soft approach. I do believe that you are an easy target to label the bully, but I saw no evidence of that behaviour -esp the day you asked about moderation. In fact, what was good was how the rest of the team rallied around to plunge the knife in, all you did was sit back and listen to the resulting chaos as she flustered her way through it and Gerry tried to sort it – foolish man that he is.
I still think Key gave her that portfolio so she could be cut down later because she is not impt (and as I have said before, that is appalling old school leadership tactics and I am ashamed a leader would be such a pig) but we can not afford to give her sympathy – she chooses how she responds to poeple etc (as I said earlier)
You did not crumble when all the schools were being closed and you were given a heck of a hard time (at times deserved I think) and the shame about that time is that all the really good things you introduced were forgotten as people only remember the closures. However, you knew as Minister of Ed that your policy was unpopular and you wore the heat – well, she must also wear the heat, and some. At least the closures had some kind of rationale behind them.