The UK are good at long term best evidence research. Their Cambridge Education Research project suggests that a narrow focus on the basics can take away kids enjoyment of learning, and that much of the 3R learning is incidental while kids are doing other subjects.
While it might be counterintuitive to some there is a good logical line there. Here’s the link to the RNZ audio.
Retail, Revenue and Riches.
It would seem that the english politicians are just as thick headed as ours – I read an article about the english standards and how they are being counter productive (big research having been completed on it) but the politicians seem staunch in their defence of a system that does not work – sound familiar?
Similar research evidence has come from the US where the NCLB testing achieved none or few of the Bush driven results expected. However with the NACT govt in NZ a few bits of baling twine & No * wire will make it work apparently even if all the wheels eventually fall off.
Trevor, I am a little disappointed at the tepid (from what I can see) Labour response to this issue. It seems to me that this is something you guys can get into boots and all because you don’t carry negative baggage from your time in power. In fact, Labour can and should be proud of the achievements of the education sector during that time.
It’s all very well to give the sound bite of the Cambridge report, but how about some detailed analysis of the findings as they relate to NZ? And joining forces with the NZEI in resisting this misguided initiative. The NZEI talking head on Close Up definitely needs some help in making a case to the general populace.
And then you can access OECD stats that put our education system in a pretty much global perspective. Here is what I have posted on Kiwiblog:
1. The NZEI and it’s members need to have the courage of their convictions and stand up to the government. I for one don’t want my daughter entering a backward school system in four years time.
Here is an extract from this article: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/richard-garner-a-study-that-should-sound-the-death-knell-for-league-tables-1803630.html discussing this report: http://www.primaryreview.org.uk/index.html
“Professor Robin Alexander’s team has come up with an impressive analysis of what is wrong with our present system. Too much testing, too much concentration on the three R’s to the neglect of a broad and balanced curriculum, and too many “Stalinist” directives from ministers as to how teachers should teach.”
This is scholarly research embodied in a comprehensive project employing 100 researchers. It is not gut instinct, seat of the pants, ideological whimsy as exhibited by Key and Tolley.
I showed here a week or so ago how Tolley misrepresented statistics. I’ll dig it up when I get time.
As the head of the NZEI pointed out, this initiative is from left field, a surprise sprung on a professional sector which has been carefully and methodically heading along a completely different path, utilising best practice from around the world. NZ can actually hold it’s head high in terms of country rankings in, for example, the OECD. More on that later.
Teachers need to get involved in the debate. They should be here, now, getting their points across.
End of earlier post
Isn’t it interesting that I have had 7 bad karmas already?
Since that post I have done a little research and now we can have a look at a some OECD indicators of education system quality, just in case facts come into consideration, for a change.
The latest OECD education figures, contained it its 2009 “Education Report: an OECD perspective,” surveying 15 year olds, puts NZ ninth out of 24 (9/24) in mathematics proficiency, seventh out of 24 (7/24) in science proficiency, and fifth out of 24 (5/24) in reading proficiency (2006 data)
On the other hand, our tertiary graduates are the lowest earners in the entire OECD (2006). And the premium for tertiary education over secondary school achievement only is the lowest in the OECD, a paltry 1.15, as opposed to the high of 2.19 in Hungary, believe it or not! And I won’t trot out the figure, it’s buried in the report somewhere, but we have a very high tertiary dropout rate. I’m not qualified to speculate why, but it has been suggested to me that we are sending too many to university.
Further, as regards the recent debate on the cuts in Community Education, from the same report, this is relevant:
Brain research confirms the wider benefits of learning, especially for
ageing populations: For older people, cognitive engagement, regular physical
exercise, and an active social life promote learning and can delay degeneration of
the ageing brain. The enormous and costly problems represented by ageing
dementia in ever-ageing populations can be addressed through the learning
interventions being identified through neuroscience. Combinations of improved
diagnostics, opportunities to exercise, appropriate and validated pharmacological
treatment, and good educational intervention can do much to maintain positive
well-being and to prevent deterioration.
Note the “good educational intervention.” One can debate the value of some classes run under our soon to be moribund CE system, but we have taken the opposite tack to that recommended in this report.
In fact, it’s a worthwhile project to examine just how many government policies are now taking us in the opposite direction of what the OECD considers as best practice. Anyone care to fund me to do the hard yards?
You can see the report for yourselves here: http://www.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/display.asp?sf1=identifiers&st1=962009021E1
I might just concentrate now on fact checking Tolley’s wild allegations and spurious statistics, but later – time to take a baby to a beach.
2. I appreciate the replies I have had to my earlier post, but I must say that each is lacking in one important area: evidence. That is, research and skilled analysis. Yet there is an abundant supply of this, as you will see below. To rely on anecdotal research when comprehensive data is available is just careless or, worse, evidence of an ideological bias.
For example, ben favours parents as education experts. I don’t. I am well educated (university qualification) but no way do I consider myself an education expert. I look to the MoE, principals and teachers to guide me in what is best for my child.
transmogrifier asserts that “literacy and numeracy are vitally important.” Who could seriously disagree with that? But I would add, so is a rich and varied wider curriculum that promotes the intellectual and social development of a well-rounded individual. Versatility and creativity (read the no. 8 wire mentality) are, after all, the great strengths of the kiwi character. Why are we so sought after as employees overseas? Why do we consistently punch above our weight in so many international arenas? Because we are practical, can think on our feet, have high levels of literacy and numeracy, and can apply those key competencies to a wide range of areas and disciplines.
And transmogrifier has, as have we all, met international Asian students brilliant at maths. Trouble is, they are often nowhere to be seen in other disciplines. Why? Because their thinking skills have been so narrowly focused during their development.
fale also makes general statements unsupported by evidence, aside from his account of the Grammar experience. He asserts, for example, that our education standards are declining when, in fact, all the evidence points to the opposite conclusion, see below. If you don’t bother to read it, bottom line is that our kids (0-17) are among the best educated in the world (read top 4 in the OECD).
And we all take guesses at the causes of the high tertiary dropout rate, but no-one calls for actual research. Probably the most useful paper I completed at university was Management of Quality. In this paper I learned the truth about guesses, intuition, gut feelings, call it what you will. The truth is, it’s invariably wrong. Sorry guys.
Now I’m going to present some real evidence about the New Zealand’s environment and education system for children aged 0-17.
(Start of cut and paste)
NEW ZEALAND
Country Highlights
OECD (2009), Doing Better for Children
Outcomes for New Zealand children are weak in several key areas, according to the OECD’s first
ever report on children. Co‐author of the OECD report Mr Dominic Richardson concludes that “New
Zealand needs to take a stronger policy focus on child poverty and child health, especially during the
early years when it is easier to make a long‐term difference. Despite a relatively good average
educational performance, gaps in education between top and bottom performers are higher than they
need be.
New Zealand government spending on children is considerably less than the OECD average. The
biggest shortfall is for spending on young children, where New Zealand spends less than half the OECD
average.
( Two graphs that don’t cut and paste, but the titles tell the story)
1. Early childhood spending in New Zealand is half of that spent in later stages.
2. New Zealand has the highest rates of youth suicide in the OECD
Material conditions for Kiwi kids are relatively poor. Average family incomes are low by OECD
standards, and child poverty rates are high. The number of New Zealand children who lack a key set of
educational possessions is above the OECD median.
Despite their relatively poor material living conditions, Kiwi kids manage high rates of educational
achievement – the fourth best in the OECD. However, unlike the other three high performing countries,
differences between good and poor performers in the education system in New Zealand are average,
not low.
In terms of child health, New Zealand has the highest rates of suicide in the OECD for youth aged
15‐19. Overall child mortality is also higher than the OECD average. Immunisation rates are poor for
measles (2nd worst in the OECD) and whooping cough (5th worst in the OECD).
New Zealand spends less than the OECD average on young children and much less than it does on
older children. Spending more on young children is more likely to generate positive changes and,
indeed, is likely to be fairer for more disadvantaged children. Based on international evidence, the OECD
concludes that New Zealand should spend considerably more on younger, disadvantaged children.
Equally, the New Zealand government should ensure that current high rates of spending on older
children are much more effective in meeting the needs of the disadvantaged amongst them.
(End of cut and paste)
So we perform poorly (no pun intended) in income and child poverty statistics, but perform very well in education outcomes.
And it’s all the fault of our education system and our teachers, right?
Yeah, right!
3. I promised earlier to dig up an example of Tolley’s dodgy stats. I actually posted about it on Red Alert here: http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2009/10/07/ncea-is-working/#comments
The main point is that Kelvin Davies wrote: “In 2006 twenty-five percent left school without a qualification, in 2007 it was eighteen percent and last year 16%. That’s a nine percent improvement over three years.”
I pointed out that in fact it is a 36% improvement over the three years, using 2006 as the base year. In anyone’s language, these are huge gains.
Even today, Anne Tolley is quoted as saying that 1 in 5 kids leave school without a qualification when the figure for last year was actually 1 in 6.25, and is obviously on track to be improved again this year. And as I have posted above, NZ is highly ranked in all the child education tables of the OECD in spite of our relatively low incomes and low government spending.
I don’t have access to the figures, but I would love to know the long term trends of leaving without qualifications from when I was in college in the late 1960s, when most kids seemed to leave at their 15th birthday (I was destined to be one of those but the Headmaster had a chat to my Dad
), many more left after School Certificate year, and the class was reduced to a decided rump for what is now 7th form.
If anyone can help there, I would appreciate it.
Trevor, I think there is a lot of good counterfactuals to beat the government around the ears with just with this information, let alone what else can be unearthed over time. I look forward to seeing a higher profile from Labour on this issue.
Sorry about the length of the post.
A very interesting interview with Sean Plunket.
I doubt whether national testing in the UK has improved the academic achievement of students right across the socio-economic landscape.
In New Zealand, the early numeracy project (used to teach maths in many schools) and ASSTLE/exemplar writing resources may have created a more consistent and structured approach to primary teaching. Yet, the move by many NZ primary schools to focus solely on explicit and isolated maths, reading and writing lessons up until lunchtime, without the adoption of phrases like ‘literacy hour’, as is the case in the UK, means that the ‘rich’ learning areas of science, social studies, PE/health, the arts (visual, music, drama, dance), technology (encompassing the old home economics, woodwork, etc), developmental/discovery time are being lost or slowly eroded.
This is an immense shame because from my limited teaching experience it would appear that it is the latter curriculum areas which largely excite, enthuse and engage primary aged students, and which can provide an authentic context for the development of literacy and numeracy skills – as suggested by the professor who spoke to Sean Plunket.
Thankfully there are examples of NZ primary schools that follow a more integrated and/or inquiry-based curriculum, however these sorts of progressive approaches risk being obliterated by Tolley’s conservative and unnecessary national standards, and the return to a strict adherence to the three Rs. This is not to mention the potential for bored, disengaged and disruptive students (mainly working class boys) who are already becoming increasingly desk bound and locked up in classrooms all day. Friday was a very sad day indeed.
@Luc – agreed – Labour – Trevor – your team really have an opportunity to dig in around this issue – your record in education over the last few years has been about taking the advice from the sector and improving outcomes for students by working on the areas that research show make a difference – teacher capability – 21st century curriculum – professional development – best practice and resourcing (staffing/ops grants etc) and your team used research to support the initiatives.
Theres quite a bit of research out there – will get back to it later.
@Kane – yes, there are some great examples of schools implementing great programmes for kids – from all deciles. These will be eroded by the nat stds.
(I note that one of these great schools where the academics that work with them in chch are hailing as a bed of innovation is facing closure from the minister – despite overhelming support from the community – even worse the ministry of education actually fudged the schools data so it looked like kids were failing and presented it to Tolley so she could use that as an additional excuse to close it after her fiscal argument was flawed – is this what we can expect for more schools? I hear leading assessment expert Lester Flocton (NEMP director) found the ministry to be wrong in this case and furthermore has said its one of the worst cases of moe muck ups – all schools should be worried if a good one can get picked on and the public should be concerned and standing up against this kind of injustice)
@Luc Hansen – it was signalled well before the election. Teachers are public servants, they serve at the government’s pleasure, and school communities will have little desire to get caught up in political campaigns. The UK system is very different from ours, as the Ministry does not have the hands on day to day control that they do in Pommieland, by any means.
@Kane – the “back to basics” approach has far more to do with all the PC nonsense that schools are expected to teach these days (for example, environmental education, healthy food, sex education, financial skills) – all of which detract and take away from the core curriculum subjects. Most of these are the responsibility of parents, yet Labour would rather undermine parental authority and hand parenting jobs over to the schools – at least there is recognition across the board that schools are not being resourced properly for these tasks, but more important is that there are only so many hours in the school year to fit in more and more wishy-washy feel good subjects.
Think this is a duplicate from another thread Trevor
I thought elements of all those topics you mentioned that been taught in some form for many years.
Inquiry-based learning is awesome. The children are engaged because they’ve basically picked the topic. Everyone is involved at their ability level because the teacher can guide who writes the letter vs. who draws the picture vs. who ‘google’ searchs further information. Though it’s quite a lot of work for the teacher compared to ’standardised’ lessons/tests, it is far more engaging and closer to emulating real life e.g. working in or for a team/company goal, working to your strengths, etc.
[...] [...]