Visited a primary school in my electorate today. Close to 400 pupils. Good school, mixture of kids from different socio-economic backgrounds, middling decile range.
Like every school I’ve visited (don’t know where Anne Tolley gets her figures) this school has a Board of Trustees which believes Tolley’s national standards are inept and poorly thought out. Being pragmatic, they’ll implement them, because it’s the law.
But, I was told, they’re a clumsy overlay above what is already being done reporting effectively to parents. And what do they mean for teaching and learning? Zilch I was told.
It’s the new curriculum that matters and that’s what they’re focusing on. And they fear that these “inept and poorly thought out” national standards will get in the way of the new curriculum. Good for teaching and learning? I don’t think so.
And a waste of taxpayer money.
Pragmatism is leading to schools having to at least think about what needs to be done re these most ridiculous standards. I haven’t met many people at all, who know anything about the standards, who support them. Teachers, Principals and Boards have been bullied into submission. Not sure that this is the way to successful implementation of any policy let alone one that it is so important for our kids.
Why be pragmatic – Follow the bulk funding example and walk out. Disclaimer – My eldest is off to school in June.
One point has come out loud and clear – parents do not feel like the school is communicating, or that they cover up for ‘bad’ teachers. Whether real or an impression this should be dealt with, preferably without Nat Standards.
What can be done though?
Yes spud, a waste of money.
Hi A Mother
– Get dem Nats out of power. 
@ Mother – Bulk funding was defeated, even after trustees signed up (a legally binding contract w govt) by all teacher quitting at each school. It lasted a week and teachers rehired after a bit of bluster. This can be overturned if the will is there. The NZEI wants to include it in contract talks mid year. Personally I would like to see it earlier.
I hope most schools are focusing on the new curriculum
i’m a teacher. the ‘new’ curriculum is terrible. poor. tragic.
must do better. fail.
it teaches people to not be people. it teachers people to fail. it’s pathetic.
@Simon. Why do you think that? I’m having difficulty determining your actual problem with the curriculum. Perhaps punctuation could help.
From all the teachers I’ve spoken to, they love it. What aspect is it that you don’t like?
@ Simon – “the fraud is out there. my business is in the firing line. my grandpa has his power bill to pay and wants to keep warm this winter”
& “i’m a teacher”.
Would you care to elaborate on what your business is and how its in the firing line? And I do hope you are not talking about the school you work at?
@Jeremy and Linda. Looking at the IP address for Simon it may have been a spam email that got through. Doesn’t make sense and I doubt there’ll be a response. We do our best to keep the spammers and the trolls out, but occasionally they slip through. Clare
That would makes more sense Clare
We have recieved a letter from our local Principal. Words to the effect “There will be no change to our current reporting policy for National Standards as we already meet , and currently exceed, the minimun requirements.”
No drama , no fuss. The Labour Party really needs to visit better managed schools.
Jeremy. i teach on exception these days. relief when i do. This because of the very state of eduction in nz. my business (es). i have 2 both. both will be affected quite heavily by the emissions scam. i note national plan to ditch ets as an election promise.
jeremey. to add to that (which is not consistent with the comment thread thing), we have total 5 employees. revenues are coming in. costs getting beyond reason. if gst goes up, very difficult to source product effectiely off shore. if power, fuel go up by 10% locally due to ets we will have to let 1 go.
AndyC
Surely what you wrote justifies Labour’s stance? You are saying that many schools already meet the standards and had the systems to do what the national Standards propose? Ergo, national Standards as some kind of populist cure-all were never needed. Up-skilling those schools not meeting the existing standards of reporting etc was what was needed, not ditching of an entire curriculum and imposing a new system.
@Andy C.
Well that just proves that this whole thing is a waste of money and that money would have better spent as what Tracey said Up-skilling and helping children falling behind and ones that are ahead to extend them. Instead they have fired teachers assistants who help create the other
curriculums like science, social studies, PE, etc to spend money that they don’t need.
@Simon
What aspect of the new curriculum don’t you like.
AndyC says: “We have recieved a letter from our local Principal.”
Tracey says: “Surely what you wrote justifies Labour’s stance? You are saying that many schools already meet the standards and had the systems to do what the national Standards propose?”
Sorry to be picky, but how is Andy’s letter from a single school principal generalisable into a comment embracing many schools?
@Simon. We still don’t know what your beef is with the new curriculum.
@ Simon – Thank you for clearing that up.
Clare, Trevor and all
There is apparently a National Party view that National Standards would work more productively if we also had ..
.. Performance Pay for teachers!
Read all about it ..
http://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2010/02/alan-peachey-performance-pay-for.html
and to quote the opening ..
” There is an elephant in the room of National Standards. That is performance pay for teachers. People around education circles are beginning to whisper it, a few have the courage to talk about it openly. Nobody who knows anything about how children learn doubts that it is the quality of the teacher in the classroom more than any other single factor that determines whether children learn or not. National Standards of themselves will not make children learn. The way that quality teachers use them will. If we accept that premise, then we have to ask why we are not prepared to pay highly performing teachers more than ordinary or poorly performing teachers are paid. “
[...] Red Alert National standards are a clumsy overlay. link [...]
Simon, I agree with you about the state of eduction. Clearly caused by too many emissions. Hopefully the new National Standards Trading Scheme will sort that out, but only if we change the give way rule and insulate our heads with tin foil.
@Bea You know, if we had a prize for best comment, I reckon yours would win.
Lol Bea, Love it.
Lol Bea, Love it.
“i’m a teacher. the ‘new’ curriculum is terrible. poor. tragic.”
God forbid you get near my child or any school I deal with! To clarify what I mean by that statement, I have NEVER heard a competent, forward thinking and responsible teacher ever say that they find the new curriculum terrible – the only complaints that have reached me from teachers are from the ones who fear change, and who are unable to provide learning programmes that are designed to meet the needs of the diverse students in their class. These are the types of teachers who are the ‘talk and chalk’ variety or lack the skills to respond to a 21st century educational environment. This is not to say you are a teacher that falls into this category by any means, but your comment is either to raise the bile in people like me – or to stir mud for an agenda that smacks somewhat of trollish behaviour. If so, mission accomplished.
If you are unable to see the vision that is behind the new curriculum, the principles that underpin it, and the importance of teaching our kiwi students the 21st century skills they need for today and for tomorrow, than I am most concerned that you say you are in education. The new curriculum is innovative, research based and a great opportunity for our students to reach their potential in an engaged and appropriate way that will assist our country to move forward. National stds undermine this.
Thanks Clare for visiting schools and finding out what school communities think! Roger Douglas’ opinion piece makes for scary reading, as does Act’s working party reports on “choice” which re-runs stupid antiquated policies of vouchers, performance pay and business-model schools.
The article about Diane Ravitch, an education historian, who now renounces many of the market-oriented policies she promoted as a former federal education official in the US shows that even previously staunce pro-standards people have regrets about the wholesale changes they made – http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/25/AR2010022505543.html