Red Alert

Posts Tagged ‘education’

Minister of Education sending Mixed messages

Posted by Nanaia Mahuta on February 3rd, 2012

BIM reports released yesterday gave a snapshot of where Government officials were at with National’s policy programme of action.

Interestingly in the Education portfolio, the Treasury report was more informative about planned intentions then the Education BIM itself. A suggestion to increase class sizes ignores previous evidence and experience which shows that benefits to students learning will be marginal at best.

The Ministry of Education BIM states that:

“Central to improving student achievement is the quality of the learning environment and the interaction between a student and teacher that takes place within that environment. Highly effective teaching makes the biggest difference to student achievement within the education system. First and foremost good teachers acknowledge the language, culture, and identity of a student and utilise that to support student learning. They establish respectful relationships with parents, families and whānau, and create learning opportunities for the student that match well to the student’s current capability and interests. They have high expectations for every student, provide high quality feedback to students and clear pathways to enable learning to progress. They use assessment both to track progress and chart future learning.
Our recent synthesis of research evidence has also underlined the importance of professional leadership. The evidence from the schooling sector is that leaders make their greatest contribution through planning, co-ordinating, and evaluating teaching and the curriculum and through promoting and participating in teacher learning and development. At present, professional leaders undertake a range of educational and administrative tasks.
Leaders also play an important role in creating a school culture that supports positive and respectful relationships between students and teachers and amongst students. New Zealand students report relatively high levels of bullying behaviour which can impede both successful learning and some of the social outcomes sought from schooling. Successful leaders create environments and learning that counter these issues.”

All this suggests that good quality teachers and focussed leadership will propel success in learning. So why does the Minister delete the part of the BIM which suggests increased class sizes.

NZPPTA were clear to point out that larger classes will increase stress on teachers – the Minister would do well to visit kiwi classrooms and hear first hand the types of pressures our teachers are dealing with on a daily basis.

There is a fundamental difference between the National Governments approach to education and a Labour approach. We believe that investment in a good quality public education system is our opportunity to give everyone the tools to contribute to the future of our great country. A high performing economy requires a highly skilled population – for everyone. In the New Zealand context recognition of culture, language and identity will form strong pillars for educational success and opportunity.

If the Government is determined to create more attention on cost saving measures in the public education system and drive expectation around achievement, they may be softening the entry of Charter Schools as a more plausible alternative…just saying.


Watch Out Students

Posted by Sue Moroney on September 28th, 2011

Today National and Act passed a law to reduce the effectiveness of student unions.
Earlier this year they passed a law that took student reps off polytechnic councils.

Seems they dont want students to have a strong voice when it comes to tertiary education. I wonder what they have in store for them?


Key denies cost increases in ECE – Again

Posted by Sue Moroney on May 4th, 2011

Today in question time John Key showed how out of touch he is with the cost increases that he has imposed on NZ families with his early childhood education funding cuts.

Have a look and see what you think: Sue Moroney to the Prime Minister


Truancy and horses

Posted by Moana Mackey on April 18th, 2011

Todays Dominion Post has a story about East Coast MP and Education Minister Anne Tolley suggesting that students ride horses in lieu of a bus service. (more…)


Strike action compounds Chinese concerns

Posted by Raymond Huo on September 16th, 2010

Anyone who is engaging with the Chinese constituency nationwide will appreciate their disappointment at the performance of the NACT Government which culminated in yesterday’s PPTA strike.

280,000 students from more than 450 schools were affected by the strike action.

This is a double-blow to Chinese families. Firstly for those affected by the strike and secondly, for the fact that this proves the NACT Government has no plan to run the country or invest in our future.

Chinese families who value education so highly now realise that the NACT government are not interested in investing in their children’s future.

The PPTA asked the Government for a four percent pay rise to stem the flow of teachers moving overseas and for a cap of 30 students per class.

Negotiations between the PPTA and the Government stalled, sparking the strike action.

The Government said no contingency had been set aside for the increase of funding requested by the PPTA. But, interestingly, the Government had no trouble finding $1.775 Billion to bail South Canterbury Finance out of trouble.

Some members of the Chinese community told me they had voted for John Key because of his banking background. Now two years through the term, all they got was empty rhetoric, talk-fests and no real plan.

Some of them gave a vivid example to show that this government is so entrenched with their business mindset that instead of running the country, they choose to treat the voters as a “tradable commodity”.

For instance, they may give you $30 extra per-week through tax cuts but at the same time they take away much more through inflation, GST rise, water charges and cuts in ACC and health. Like the teacher’s case, the 1.5 per cent wage increase offered by the Government can easily be eroded.

Even worse, the billions to be spent on bailing out the Finance companies are taxpayer’s dollars. What does that mean to taxpayers proportionally?

For National, teachers and our future are not worthwhile in their dollar terms.


World Literacy Day

Posted by Grant Robertson on September 8th, 2010

Scrabble4

I had a great time at lunchtime participating in a giant scrabble game in Cuba Mall in Wellington.  Lots of members of the public joined in, though I am not sure that all the words ” in the scrabble dictionary” are words!

It was definitely a fun way to highlight World Literacy Day, and in particular the importance of funding literacy training and support in New Zealand.   According to Literacy Aotearoa 40% of New Zealanders have difficulty with the reading and writing  in their jobs.  We must address this and ensure that literacy issues are picked up as early as possible and addressed in our school system.

Once again at the event today people raised with me their concerns over the cuts to adult and community education.  I have come to the view that this will be one of the most expensive $13 million cuts the government will ever make.  Not only because of the impact it has on those who can not access courses, but also the anger that it has created.

There is also emerging concern over cuts to other literacy programmes. Despite the rhetoric from the government, literacy programmes have been cancelled all around New Zealand.  Particularly hard hit are workplace literacy programmes.

Steven Joyce has said that literacy and numeracy programmes are “a priority”, but also that there will no be additional funding for them.  Eventually this ‘all care, no responsibility’ approach has to stop, and real investment needs to happen.


Performance Pay for Teachers

Posted by Kelvin Davis on August 19th, 2010

Anne Tolley spoke to Roger Kerr and mates about education last night. I trotted along for a listen.

Roger Kerr raised the question of performance pay for teachers. Being the audience it was they all thought performance pay is a good thing. There was no discussion about why they thought it was a good thing, just general agreement that it should happen.

The question I have for those who support performance pay for teachers is – which part of a teacher’s performance will they get paid for?

Common sense says teachers should get paid more if they get students to achieve the National Standards.

So what happens in those schools and regions where students enter a classroom at the beginning of the year well below the national standard? Why would a teacher want to teach in a school like that where despite his/her best efforts the student makes heaps of progress but fails to get over the National Standard ‘line’.

It would simply be a business decision for a teacher to teach in a school in a ‘good’ area, where even mediocre teaching can get a student over the standard. This will result in a migration of teachers to ‘easy’ schools and disadvantaged schools would struggle exasperating underachievement.

Digging deeper, what happens if a teacher does get the struggling student over the line in reading and writing, but fails to in maths?

What happens if a teacher gets 24 out of thirty kids over the national standards line, but six students don’t make it? Is the teacher a good teacher or bad teacher? Eighty percent success isn’t too bad, or is it?

Trouble is that figure equates to 1 in 5 students failing.

Let’s dig deeper still, in the maths curriculum there are 5 strands – number, statistics, measurement, algebra and geometry. Is a teacher a good or bad teacher if the student meets an achievement benchmark in algebra, geometry, statistics and measurement – but not number?

Again that is an 80% success rate, achieving in 4 out of 5 strands in the one curriculum area. But we want kids to be able to achieve in numeracy and literacy, and failing in the ‘number’ strand means the student isn’t numerate.

Is a teacher good or bad if they focus on ‘number’ over statistics, algebra, measurement and geometry?

Are we saying these other strands aren’t important?

If my receipt of a performance pay bonus depended on me making sure kids were numerate over statist-erate, or measure-ate, or algeb-rate or geome-rate, I would focus on numeracy – statistics and everything else can go to hell.

And let’s look deeper again. A class of thirty, 5 strands in maths alone, 30 x 5 = 150 targets a teacher has to achieve to be deemed successful, just in maths. Maths is generally taught about 5 hours a week. Bugger that, if my performance pay bonus depends on the class achieving in maths, I’ll dedicate most of the week to that. A balanced curriculum can get stuffed.

That’s not even counting the 4 strands in science (or is science no longer important), 3 strands in technology (or is technology [R&D] no longer important), 5 different styles of writing, oral language, 4 health and PE strands, dance, drama, and other arts strands, languages etc.

How many strands does a teacher have to make sure each student achieves in before s/he deserves a performance bonus?

Multiply the number of students in a class by the number of strands across the curriculum and a single teacher has thousands of performance targets to meet a year.

Then there are all the other things that teachers do besides making kids learn.

Do they deserve performance pay for – 1) doing duty?, 2) coaching sports teams? 3) being associate teachers of student teachers? 4) being tutor teachers for beginning teachers? 5) liaising with parents, whanau and iwi? 6) taking after school music or art classes? 7) after school tutoring? 8) leading professional development and appraisal of peers? 9) organising school discos? 10) fundraising? 11) organising the school play? 12) organising the school fair? 13) organising sports trips? 14) organising the school library? 15) organising the swimming sports, athletics day, 40 hour famine, breakfast club, buses, cross country, art exhibition, assemblies, class camps, community problems solving, peer mediators, restorative justice programme, assessment moderation sessions, interschool quality learning circles, professional development programme, etc, etc, etc.

Is the teacher who just teaches, a better or worse teacher than the one who runs around and gets involved in the corporate life of the school?

Common sense would say that the teacher who just focuses on the classroom would get better results, so teachers should just teach. To hell with everything else.

Roger Kerr made the comment, “How hard can it be? Surely schools aren’t that complex?”

I’m interested in the performance pay model Roger has in mind.


Anne Tolley @ NZPF

Posted by Kelvin Davis on July 2nd, 2010

I was at the NZPF Conference in Queenstown today to hear Anne Tolley speak.

  • She said later the Principals applauded as she left. Wrong. They applauded because she left.
  • She said they have no right to criticise her as they are public servants. Wrong. They are employed by their BoTs of which they are also a member. So go for it.
  • She claimed on Campbell Live that 1500 principals didn’t attend the the conference because they supported her. Wrong. They didn’t turn up because they had better things to do.
  • She said she is happy to engage with Principals. Wrong. She bolted without fielding a single question.
  • She said she had to leave immediately to open something somewhere. Wrong. She was outside grandstanding for the media long enough for the coffee lady out in the foyer to make my mate and I a flat white each after dwawdling outside to have a yarn.
  • She said they listened politely. Wrong. They were pissed off.
  • She said they just needed to get on and implement National Standards. Wrong. It is Principals’ moral obligation to criticise, condemn, protest, moan, bitch and grumble about poorly conceived policy they believe will hinder achievement.
  • She said the sector is slow to embrace change. Wrong. She botched the change management from the start.
  • She said she wanted to work together with the sector. Wrong. She wants to give that impression.
  • She said this year is an embedding year. Wrong. She ordered the Standards to be implemented as from this year. She’s softening her language because she knows she’s cocked up.
  • She said the standards themselves won’t raise achievement. Correct. Excellent teachers given the conditions they require to weave their magic will raise achievement.

Anne Tolley change management 101

Posted by Kelvin Davis on June 27th, 2010

Anne Tolley only has herself to blame for the National Standards shambles and the Auckland Primary Principal’s Association (APPA) response.

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with National Standards the last way to implement any sort of change with forty thousand teachers is to have a Minister of Education, with no knowledge of either education or how to make kids learn say, “I know best, do what I say or I’ll sack your Board of Trustees.”

Change management is not Anne Tolley’s greatest strength. She’s bungled the implementation of National Standards from the start and is suffering the result of her own incompetence. The education sector has no confidence in her and while she continues to bluff and bully her way through this mess, she’ll continue to meet resistance.

I offer this advice to the Minister – stop, take a deep breath, swallow some pride, admit that her approach has been unnecessarily confrontational and that she’d like to sit down with members of the education sector to decide a path that Principals and teachers have confidence in.

I am pretty sure if Anne Tolley got off her high horse she’d find a degree of willingness to make the National Standards work. I doubt if there are any Principals or teachers who don’t believe in high standards or giving parents the information they want about their children – therefore there is common ground to build on, but from the very start of the National Standards debate Anne Tolley has bashed teachers and laid all the blame for under-achievement at their feet and done her best to turn parents and the public against the education fraternity without giving teachers the actual support they need to raise achievement.

If Anne Tolley really thought things through, the reaction from teachers and principals is a fairly natural and understandable response to being dumped on from a great height by someone with no credibility, without any opportunity to have input into something that has a significant impact on their work.

Teachers aren’t concerned about further transparency and accountability, rather, they want to correct the flaws in the National Standards so as to make them workable.

Every child, in every class in every school across New Zealand has the right to an excellent teacher. It is the responsibility of the government to provide the conditions where excellent teachers can weave their magic. If Anne Tolley believes that one of the conditions required by teachers to raise educational achievement is criticism and condemnation by someone like herself who knows next to nothing about teaching and making kids learn, then she will continue to find resistance to her bullying antics.

Which is a shame because the whole educational system, from the Minister to her Ministry of Education officials, through to Principals, teachers and parents need to be working together for the benefit of all New Zealand students.


Government Department Performance

Posted by Grant Robertson on June 8th, 2010

This morning’s Dom Post has an interesting piece previewing the Trans-Tasman ranking of government agencies.

I am somewhat sceptical of these kinds of rankings. An awful lot depends on who the panelists were who picked them. But it is interesting nonetheless.

Some of it certainly correlates with my experiences. I would lay a fair bet that Peter Hughes from MSD may well be awarded their best Chief Executive. He is a class act, who is responsive and innovative. Another agency that I think is in fact underrated is DOC. I think Al Morrison has had them running pretty well lately.

On the downside I think Education’s position reflects a Ministry really struggling with a Minister who confounds them at every turn. When I was in the PMs office we used to award a Ministry each week who put forward the most impenetrable language in a Cabinet paper. Education, ironically, often took out the award. But that was before Karen Sewell took over, and I think she has been good.

Health is definitely facing challenging times. The placement of the National Health Board inside the Ministry with Tony Ryall’s hand-p[icked guy Murray Horn running it is definitely causing confusion and unclear lines of accountability. Whoever takes over from Stephen McKernan has to accept an interfering Minister and a “fox in the hen-house.”

In any case good on TransTasman for being interested in how Ministries and Departments are being run. Its important for all of the public services we use every day.


BUDGET 2010: Pass the Berocca

Posted by David Cunliffe on May 21st, 2010

After the beehive-spin induced euphoia wears off and the hangover sets in, middle New Zealand will reach for the Berocca and try to work out what the Budget really means for them.

Not to add to the inevitable headache, but here are a few of the facts of life for the morning after.

  1. For at least 3/4, and maybe 90% of the country, by the time they eat a whopping 5.9% inflation next year (Treasury Budget forecasts, not NZLP numbers!) they will be worse off until at lesst 2012/13.   For a family with 2 kids on $72k for example, $55 a week worse off.
  2. That inflation will feed into mortgage costs and rent rises.  It will result, quite rightly, in pent up wage demands from workers who have gone without wage rises for the last two years. 
  3. While its ok that the middle income brackets got some income tax relief, and would have likely got more relief from us, the tax cuts are way too skewed to the top.  You just can’t get around the fact that someone earning a $million a year gets $1000 a week back.  That is going to make the haves/have nots gap wider.  And that gap will inevitably worsen over time, undermining the Kiwi dream and taking us further from the “fair go for all” kind of place we want to be.
  4. That is made worse by the underlying agenda of shrinking the state and the services it can provide.  We have already seen home help for the elderly branded “low quality” spend and cut.  Health’s new money in the Budget is, we reckon, about $270 m short of standing still given next year’s inflation forecast.  That means more cuts to the services and more pain for the vulnerable.
  5. My personal gripe is early childhood education.  What has the Govt got against quality preschool education?  Why is it swiping $100m pa from that?  Labour will lead in this area and every family with young kids will hear us. 
  6. Rebalancing the econmy is way undercooked.  Take away the smoke and mirrors of the tax switch, and we are still left with residual taxt incentives for property and LAQC avoidance mechanisms.   Proof:  LAQCs sheltered $2.3 billion of taxes in 2008.  The tinkering in the Budget trimmed only $70m p.a. of that.  
  7. There is STILL no credible plan for growth in this Budget.  The National Govt seems intent in relying on “passive” instruments. I have no problem with dropping the company rate – provided the fiscal balance can support decent public services (personal view – see “About” on the blog site) – but that cannot be enough to get the export sector going on its own.  What about the R and D tax credits?

The strucutral problem remains: we don’t export enough, we don’t save enough, and we don’t innovate enough.  As an economy we are short on capital, technology, skills and IP.  Budget 2010 does not fix that.  Time is short and the job is urgent.  When NZ wants positive action, Labour will be ready to lead.

As the bubbly wears off in the Beehive and the Berocca gets passed around the country; the poor, the forgotten middle class and the structural problems of the economy have not been moved forward by this Budget.

It remains a suger-coated tax swindle.

It remains a step back, not a step up, and certainly not a step change.


Key’s cliches not the answer to improving education

Posted by Kelvin Davis on February 3rd, 2010

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.


Learning to swim

Posted by Chris Hipkins on January 19th, 2010

In the past few weeks we’ve had a number of tragic stories in the news about drownings. It’s a terrbile thing to happen to any family and, like all Kiwis, I feel for them greatly. I’ve also been concerned that there seem to be a growing number of them, at least, there seemed to be  growing number until I looked further into it. In fact the average number of drownings in New Zealand each year has declined from 181 per year in the 1980s to 116 in the 2000s. There were 98 in 2009, the second lowest number since records began.

That said, every avoidable drowning is a tragedy and we should look at what we can do to prevent them. Swimming lessons are a good place to start. Like most other Kiwi kids, I learnt to swim at school. Our school had a pool and during the summer months (weeks) we swam most days. The pool was also open most lunchtimes. Parents could hire a key for the summer so that they could use it after school and at weekends/holidays. Quite a few took up the option and the odd impromptu BBQ by the pool was not uncommon when families all got together.

Like many schools, my old school has now demolished their pool. It was costly to maintain, it wasn’t heated, and vandals were getting to it on a regular basis. Now the kids that attend there get 8 lots of half hour swimming lessons twice a year (a total of 8 hours). For a coastal country like NZ where swimming is such a big part of our culture, I just don’t think that’s enough. But nor do I think the responsibility should fall exclusively onto schools, who have enough to deal with already. Parents need to ensure their kids learn to swim, as mine did, often at the local school swimming pool that no longer exists. I know why schools took them out, I’m just not sure it was the right thing to do.


Is cradle to the grave education under further threat?

Posted by Kelvin Davis on January 15th, 2010

Universities are going to boot under-performing students out of university to free up places for able students.  Universities  can’t afford to ‘carry’ the under-performing students.

I’m concerned about the effect this will have for Maori in particular. We struggle to get Maori into university as it is, but now for those who do get there it’s going to be easier to get booted out.

I remember my mate from the coast who spent (at least) nine years getting his law degree. Now I bump in to him at the airport occasionally as he flies around from one high powered meeting to the next.

I’m blowed if I know why he took so long, but he hung in there and now he’s doing really well.

If he’d been booted out because he failed courses then he’d probably be pumping gas in Nowhereville and Maori wouldn’t be benefiting from his services.

He subscribed to the theory if at first you don’t succeed then try and try again.

What are the solutions? I don’t want capable and deserving people to miss out on places at university, but I don’t want people like my mate getting the boot.

The other concern is the threat to automatic entry to people over twenty years of age. This really affects Maori. Many Maori have bad experiences at school and drop out of education. Many often come back later in life, enter university and get qualifications that take them in a new direction.

Is cradle to the grave education under threat?


F&S repeal – will it really help?

Posted by Kelvin Davis on January 12th, 2010

There’s been a bit of talk about rape and pillage recently.

Our Maori Party parliamentary colleague says it’s been our land, foreshore and seabed that have been raped and pillaged.

I see community leader and Black Power life member Dennis O’Reilly believes the real battle today is the fight against the drug P.

Others will say that something else is the issue for Maori. None will be wrong.

The fact is bad stuff has happened to Maori over the last couple of hundred years which has led to Maori being at the bottom of the heap. We are generally dumber, sicker, poorer, more pissed, drugged and pregnant than any other group of people in New Zealand. We know the problem, but what’s the solution?

Well let’s repeal the Foreshore and Seabed and put the F&S into Maori title. We can be dumber, sicker, poorer, more pissed, drugged and pregnant at the beach. That’ll make all the difference. At least we’ll be dumber, sicker, poorer, more pissed, drugged and pregnant on our own turf and surf.

Let’s get rid of P. That crap is a scourge and along with alcohol, cigarettes and marijuana is killing our people. But it’s still only a symptom of what the real issues are.

The real issue for Maori is ourselves.

We generally live with this big chip on our shoulders.

I’m Maori, so I have every right to be a victim. Personally, I can’t be bothered.

We can accuse all and sundry of raping and pillaging our land, foreshore ad seabed – but we as Maori have done a helluva a lot to ourselves too. We would do well to hold a mirror up to our own faces, but it’s a helluva lot easier to blame those bloody pakehas.

We have a really simple solution to all our woes. It goes like this – every Maori child born from the start of this new decade (and earlier) be loved, fed and educated so that he or she may go on to become a successful leader, and become extremely wealthy and/ or influential. Then when he or she see an injustice against our people, use that wealth and influence to correct the situation.

That’s what pakeha do. We could learn from them.

Didn’t Sir Apirana Ngata say something along these lines a few years back? If we’d listened then we wouldn’t be in this mess.

By 2040, the 200th year after the signing of The Treaty of Waitangi we could have thousands of wealthy and influential 30 year old Maoris. Imagine that – a generation of Maori capable of leading the world.

By all means keep up the fight to correct injustices – but can we honestly say we’ve put an equal effort into sorting our own crap out?

Feeding, loving and educating our kids is a good start.

Our apprenticeships into the world of wealth and influence need not be by way of drugs, violence, alcohol and court appearances.

Of course we could carry on like we are – and be even dumber, sicker, poorer, more pissed, drugged and pregnant,.

But at least we’ll have our Foreshore and Seabed.


Sneaky Riley (Tolley) the Rat

Posted by Sue Moroney on November 25th, 2009

A few weeks back, Anne Tolley announced she was delaying the requirement for 80% of early childhood educators to be qualified teachers – only she forgot to say her Government had also decided to scrap the planned increase to 100% qualified teaching workforce forever!…or at least until 2011 when Labour gets back in and gets serious about improving standards in ECE again.  Today, the Ministry of Education confirmed that the Nats have scrapped the policy to move to a fully-qualified ECE workforce but couldn’t explain why the Minister didn’t announce it nor why its ECE Advisory Committee had not been consulted on this major policy shift.  The policy shift was noted, it said, in its “frequently asked questions” section on the Ministry website. I smell a rat. I wonder if the Minister picked up this cunning strategy from her recent bedtime stories?


Tory poms educational background

Posted by Trevor Mallard on November 12th, 2009

Piece in recent guardian on the likely change in the make-up of the UK parliament  and especially their school type with the expected election results.

While policy is not always predictable by school (Cullen Christ’s v Key Aorangi) (and where is that decision btw) one can get a bit of an indication.

We will watch with interest.


More irrational cuts to education – What was Tolley thinking… or was she thinking?

Posted by Carmel Sepuloni on November 10th, 2009

The Manukau Family Literacy Programme (known to many as the COMET Programme) have been pursuing an answer regarding funding for quite some time and have recently found out – they won’t be getting the $350,000 that they need to operate next year.

The ridiculous thing is that this programme has been praised by all sides of parliament i.e. Tolley praised it at its September AGM and Rodney Hide said it ‘rocked his socks’ – in a speech he gave earlier this year.

The programme basically focuses on parents of usually new entrant children. It approaches literacy through the provision of a certificate in early childhood education (so the parents are engaged with the school their kids are at and improving literacy whilst learning techniques for teaching etc, and some go on to train as early childhood teachers).

The PricewaterhouseCoopers report shows that adults engaged in this programme are likely to increase their income by about about $200 a week. The majority of people who participate on this programme are Maori and Pacific. The benefits to society (as outlined by the PricewaterhouseCoopers report) far out weigh the amount of money spent on the programme.

I’ve heard that part of Tolley’s rationale was that they are investing in another literacy programme in South Auckland which Sharples launched (the Manurewa litearcy project) and although investing in childrens literacy programnmes is important – it ignores the fact that a big strategy for engaging the children in learning – is engaging their parents/ family.

This is one of the programmes that has fallen between the gaps with regards to changes in funding categories (it falls between Social Development and Tertiary Education). I’m looking in to how far Paula Bennetts advocacy for the programme extended – but from what I can tell, there was absolutely no advocacy from her whatsoever.

The other important point with regards to this programme and ACE cuts – is that Maori and PI are more likely to engage/ enrol in education/ courses as mature students and therefore – these decisions have a disproportionate affect on Maori and Pacific.

How incredibly frustrating. Having been a child of parents who had limited educations and low level literacy skills, I know the challenges that this creates for children (infact I wrote about about this in a Spasifik Magazine article recently). This is another example of Tolley not understanding her portfolio area – resulting in very very bad decisions that will have huge repercussions down the track.


The effects of cuts to talented and gifted programmes are still being felt

Posted by Carmel Sepuloni on November 4th, 2009

Recently I was approached by two dedicated and hardworking secondary school teachers.  They were on a quest to get funding restored for their gifted and talented programme.  They’d run the pilot (with phenomenal success); done the research and were on the brink of implementing a revised programme for Pasifika students (a programme which other schools were interested in also adopting).  The programme would have tackled ‘peer culture’ in a way that it hasn’t been approached before and this culturally affirmative model had the potential to raise achievement and drastically improve educational outcomes for Maori and Pasifika in mainstream secondary schools.  The National Ministers they spoke to – would not help – NO FUNDING FOR FOR WORTHWHILE PROGRAMMES IN EDUCATION BUT $35 MILLION DOLLARS FOR PRIVATE SCHOOLS – NOT A PROBLEM!

The difficult thing is that this school, just like many other schools/ organisations/ people – don’t want to come out publically and criticise the Government.  They fear that they will put themselves in a position where they may actually stand to lose much more.  TOLLEY and all of the National Ministers, have a lot to answer for.

I’ve copy and pasted one of the emails I received from one of the teachers – but I’ve kept her identity and school anonymous:

“Funding for gifted education has been cut.   After huge investments being made in the development of gifted education we are now left with zero funding.  This appears to be totally illogical.  Why, when we are on the cusp of real change do we see a cut in funding?.   The Talent Development Initiative contestable funding pool supported the implementation of government policy for gifted education.  This initiative allowed educational providers to pilot, implement and develop programmes for gifted students.  ERO evaluated programmes within schools and released a summary of findings. The Ministry of Education funded formal research projects to evaluate the outcomes of selected  programmes from the Talent Development Initiatives.  At the conclusion of these contracts/funding some models of good practice were either established or near completion.  Improved outcomes for gifted students on these programmes could be translated to improved outcomes for gifted students nationally.  Good practice in gifted education could be utilised in educational practice as a whole.   The recent work being undertaken on affirmative models and culturally affirmative models in the education of gifted students needs to be continued as preliminary outcomes suggest that these have the potential to provide alternatives models for raising the achievement rates of our Maori and Pasifika students.”

   

 

 


Dumb and dumber

Posted by Darien Fenton on October 23rd, 2009

Does John Key realise how much he has annoyed both teachers and school support staff with his comments to the CTU conference this week that teachers should trade off their own pay rises to fund pay increases for low paid school support staff?

I’ve been doing the rounds of North Shore schools today and staff – teachers and support staff – are not impressed. They say his comments are divisive and stupid. Teachers and support staff work together to make the school community function well and there’s no way they will buy into this kind of divide and rule tactic.

John Key’s comments were dumb politics. But what’s even dumber is the PM’s ignorance about how teachers and support staff are funded and how their employment agreements are bargained.

Teachers are centrally funded by the Ministry of Education, and their negotiations are separate to those of school support staff. School support staff are funded out of school’s operations budgets.

So even if the teachers were to forgo pay increases (and that couldn’t happen until next year when bargaining is due), there’s no guarantee that would translate into increased ops grants to pay school support staff more.