Tag: education

  • Education Act 1989 – My Submission

    Below is my submission to the Education Act changes. I’ve taken the time to write down my thoughts and views as best I can. In no way am I suggesting I have all the answers, nor that my answers are the best. But at the very least I have made an effort to curve some of the changes that the Government is trying to make. As expressed in my previous article, if you take some of these changes to their logical conclusion, it leaves for a not so pretty picture of our education system.

    You can make your own submission here:

    https://consultation.education.govt.nz/education/update-of-the-education-act-1989/consult_view

     

    1. What should the goals for education be?

    The goals for education should be to allow children to be children, and to learn as the individuals that they are, and to have success in the areas that are important to them.
    This takes into account all areas of a child’s learning, their culture, ethnicity, gender, socio-economic background, and individuality.
    It values Māori students as Māori students, Pasifika as Pasifika, Boy as Boy, and Girl as Girl and is inclusive of every child as an individual. It embraces students to be themselves, and to succeed as themselves; not by what is put upon them by a teacher, a school, a community, or a government.
    It does not allow for putting students within a box. It does not suggest that all students learn a particular way, at a particular rate, or in a constant and consistent way.
    Everyone learns differently, and the only way to acknowledge that is to value every child as an individual; and because they are an individual, success for them may be very different to success for another student.

    2. What process should be used for setting a national priorities statement for early learning and schooling

    Any process for setting any priorities across the country need to have a degree of democracy about them. There needs to be reasonable discussion and discourse about them, and those who are ‘on the front line’ need to be consulted. Any expectations of schools does need to be made clear, though each school or kura needs to be able to have the flexibility to make those expectations work for their learning community and wider community. Schools should be worked alongside by the Ministry to ensure that any priority on a national scale is able to be implemented and what it looks like for each individual school or kura.

    3. What should the roles and responsibilities of a school or a kura be?

    Making a board’s role and their responsibilities clear is a must. As the staff representative of our school’s board, there are many things that the board is doing that may or may not be their responsibility, and the guidelines around this is nearly always vague.

    The role of each board should be:

    • Ensuring that each learner achieves the best that they can. This includes working in partnership with their Māori whānau and community.
    • Working with and consulting the wider community to ensure that each learner is supported at school and at home.
    • Working with other boards and education services within their community to share ideas, resources, and initiatives that work, bearing in mind that every school and community is different, and what works for one community, may not work for another.
    • Consulting with the community over how to shape their school; as a learning environment, as a community hub, the atmosphere, the direction, and the culture of the school or kura.

    The responsibilities of each board should be:

    • Setting policies to guide and direct school and kura management.
    • Ensuring the school’s curriculum aligns with both the New Zealand Curriculum, the requirements of the Act, and the needs of each learner.
    • To be good employers of staff. This includes being involved in the appointment process and performance of staff, but always in conjunction with other professionals in the school, such as the Principal, Deputy Principal, or others in the school management team.
    • Providing a safe environment to learn in. This includes physical and emotional well-being within the school.
    • Setting a strategic plan that reflects the goals and priorities of the community and its students.

    4. What changes could be made to simplify planning and reporting:

    Boards should focus on the strategic goals of the school. This is an important part of their job as members of the parent community of a school, and as previously stated, is important for each school to have its own direction based on the community wishes. This should be carried out with suitable consultation.
    Removing requirements for “high performing” schools is ambiguous, because of the subjectivity of the term “high” and “performing”.
    Having boards work together does not necessarily mean less administration, and I know that each school has it’s own learners at heart, and any idea to work with other boards will be somewhat superficial.
    Boards should focus on their own school, and do what is best for their learners, without having to worry about other schools or communities.

    Should the Ministry see it fit, a report template for Boards to work through would simplify the process; though this template would have to be fairly generic to allow for the diverse nature of schools around the country.

    5. How can we better provide for groups of schools and kura to work together more to plan and report?

    As mentioned, this may or may not be a good idea. School boards should focus on their own school. Any planning should seek to improve their own school, and any reporting should be for their school, as this is the school that they know.

    It is also very difficult to comment on this particular question without seeing the obvious link and prompting to mention Communities of Learning / Communities of Schools, which fits under the IES – which is identified as a matter not covered in this consultation.

    6. How should schools and kura report on their performance and young people’s achievements to parents, family, whanau and communities?

    Schools and kura should report on their performance and young people’s achievements to parents, family, whanau and communities in ways that are deemed suitable or wanted by their community. This should be found out within the consultation process.

    A set of indicators should only be set if they are deemed necessary by the Board or community and should not be set by any government on a national level.

    Any performance report that is made for public should be done in a way that maintains confidentiality of its students. It should be written with the intention of informing its community, and not the general public. This will eliminate any temptation for the Ministry or the media to enter into creating league tables, and should provide each school community with a picture of what the school is doing well with, and what the school is working towards.

    There is huge concern around giving schools that are doing well more freedom, as this is entirely subjective. As mentioned, a set of indicators should not be enforced across every school in New Zealand, as they would need to reflect the schools individual goals, aims, and any direction set by its community as per its consultation with parents and whānau.

    7. What should the indicators and measures be for school performance and student achievement and well-being?

    These should be decided by each individual school and only by the school, based on the learning needs of its students, and upon the direction set by its community. This should be in an endeavour to value and invoke a school culture that is unique to each learning community, school, kura, or wider community.

    8. What freedoms and extra decision-making rights could be given to schools, kura and Communities of Learning that are doing well?

    Schools should be given the right on when, how, and what it reports to its communities. As mentioned earlier within this submission, it is a slippery slope when additional rights and freedoms are given based on performance, given that this is such a subjective and generic term.

    9. What ways could boards work more closely together?

    School boards could work together by having a shared resource that is used or shared between schools. This could include something like a shared community school pool, or sports ground. It could also include learning resources that are shared between schools, or even include digital resources that are shared online. Proffessional Development of each board could be shared and attended by multiple boards.

    10. What do you think about schools and kura having the flexibility to introduce cohort or group entry?

    It seems to me, having been involved in a school for 6 years now, that the only reason why this is on the table for discussion is because schools want to make it easier to report for cohorts of students, rather than individually when each individual completes a year of school. If National Standards was not a factor, I see no reason why schools would want this flexibility, given that if you had a family waiting to enroll their child for a term, that the family would probably go to another school.

    Seeing as any submission is not able to call into question National Standards, it becomes difficult to comment any further.

    It is also concerning if a child is already behind in their learning, and doesn’t start school for 3 months while they wait for the next cohort entry, how much further will they be behind?

    11. What do you think about making attendance compulsory for children once they have started school or kura before they turn six years old?

    This is a good idea. I was unaware that this wasn’t already in law.

    12. What additional supports or responses could be used to address problems that arise in schools and kura?

    Before one begins to start investigating into addressing problems that arise, one needs to identify what makes a “great” school. There are many great schools – one of which is the one I teach at (which is why I still teach there). We have an amazing community, a great ethos and atmosphere, and a fantastic, dedicated young staff. We struggle to live up to any measure in regards to the National Standards and the 85% expectation, but we do more than our best for the students that walk through our gates. We had students fly in from around the country and from overseas to attend the school’s 50th Jubilee, while another well reputed school in the wider area had to cancel their 50th Jubilee due to lack of interest. We have sports teams which has represented our school in local sports tournaments, and have won competitions both in sporting achievement, as well as in fair play.

    Our school is a great school.

    However, to those who look at our school purely from a data and assessment point of view, we wouldn’t be considered a great school. I am more than certain that we are just one such school with a similar story all around the country.

    Support for schools that could be used to address problems need to work WITH the school, working alongside it so that both the school community, staff, and the students feel valued and feel part of the solution, rather than the suggested “top-down” model of serving improvement notices, or auditing the school, or replacing people on the board. Any review of this, including those from ERO, are almost false, as they come in for a day to meet with the senior leadership team, and then start looking at data and paperwork. These would be more beneficial to “problem schools” if they worked in the school, alongside the staff and students and got to know the school, how it works, what the challenges they face are, and work with the staff and board to put suggestions in place to solve the problems. The “top down” approach does not work. It imposes a set of ideals on top of a school without taking into account any of the challenges that the school is facing each and every day, and are not excuses, but actual reasons behind some of the problems. This targeted approach is how teachers should work with their students, yet for some reason, this is not replicated in other areas of the education system.

    13. How should area strategies be decided, and how should schools, kura and communities be consulted?

    Each school needs to be directly included in any discussions around any strategies that apply to them. This should be done in a timely fashion, and be conducted with enough time for each school to reach a suitable outcome.

    14. What should be taken in to account when making decisions about opening, merging or closing schools?

    There are so many factors that should be taken into account when opening, merging, or closing schools.

    It should be based on:
    What the school feels should happen
    What the school board thinks should happen
    What the school community thinks should happen
    Roll growth or decline in the area

    It should not be based on:
    Academic performance of the school

    15. What do you think about the proposed changes to improve how enrolment schemes are managed?

    This should be left to a consultation between what the school thinks is best for their enrolment, what any Community of Learning agrees upon, in conjunction with the Ministry.
    I think it is dangerous territory we head into with any piece of legislation which starts to use the words “this discretion is very limited” when giving the Ministry the right to override any decision made by the school.

  • Updating the Education Act 1989

    Earlier this month, the Minister released a public document surrounding the public having their say on the updates this government are wanting to make to the Education Act. In it, they outline what they need to do to change the landscape of the education sector in this country. It is worded in an incredibly positive way, and they have been more than inclusive by ensuring the use of the word “may” throughout the document (which is at least an improvement on how they made changes with National Standards, Class Sizes, Christchurch School Closures, and Novopay!) However, there are some issues within it. Quite concerning things, that if passed, will allow for a lot of changes that we may or may not be interested in, but our chance to have a say will have gone. I’ve gone through and highlighted some of these things to hopefully shed some light on what is really being said.

    Achievement and Accountability

    The Education Act changes all centre around supposed “child’s pathway” through school, and focuses on “raising their achievement”. While a growth mindset is healthy for every classroom, at some point, there is a ceiling on what can be achieved. By having a law written that says that raising achievement levels is paramount, it means that there could be issues if a child HAS achieved, or schools already raise the achievement levels beyond any reasonable expectation. As will be an issue that comes up all through this, there is the ongoing issue around how this is measured. No doubt the Government will rely on data gathered through National Standards reporting, yet we already know that this is clunky at the best of times. In the seventh paragraph, the changes suggest that it will outline in law ‘who is responsible for what’. This seeks to allow the government to lay blame on individuals should things not go to plan. This may be a board, a principal, or a teacher. Of course, they are also quite clear that any submissions that suggest changes that would increase government spending on education will not be considered. Quite clearly the government thinks that it is already doing enough in this regard.

    IMPROVING THE WAY BOARDS PLAN AND REPORT

    Improvements can be made to the way school and kura boards plan and report on how they make sure the right things are being taught, how they are informing parents, whānau and communities about what they are doing, and how well children and young people are achieving.

    Red tape around planning and reporting could be reduced so that boards are able to focus on what is important in promoting student achievement and wellbeing. There are some things that are a ‘must do’ for boards, such as developing a strategic plan, providing annual performance information, and meeting statutory reporting requirements. But there are other requirements that could be removed, and some complexity could be reduced. For example, high performing schools could move to a four-year planning cycle.

    It may also be useful to let groups of schools and kura work together when they are planning and reporting. This would help a community plan more cohesively, share expertise and reduce administration. It could particularly benefit Communities of Learning and small or isolated schools and kura.

    In Other Words…

    In this section, it mentions ‘red tape’ which is very vague in what it means. Essentially, I think, they want to get rid of some of the bureaucracy that gets in the way from making decision and making changes. But as always, they label this as a way for Boards to focus on other things, such as improving student achievement. In the example, they state that ‘high-performing schools could move to a four-year planning cycle’. By “high-performing”, we can assume that they mean “high-achieving”. In the following paragraph, it says that it ‘may also be useful to let groups of schools and kura work together…’ making reference to their Communities of Schools model. We can safely assume that the word ‘let’ could also be taken to mean “make”, especially when schools are ‘not achieving’.

    RESPONDING MORE EFFECTIVELY TO PERFORMANCE

    With better and more timely information, parents, whānau and communities can have an active role in helping to improve achievement for their children and young people. The Act could allow for a set of indicators to be established so schools and kura know what areas they need to report on.
    For example how well students are doing, and how the school or kura is managing its money.

    The Update could enable schools, kura and Communities of Learning that are doing well to get more freedom and extra decision-making rights. This would be balanced by monitoring schools, kura and Communities of Learning carefully and clearly saying what will happen if things go off track.

    Responding More Effectively to Performance

    Firstly, what does performance mean? No doubt, when the Ministry talks about performance, they mean achievement. Regardless of “better or more timely information”, parents, whanau, and the wider community can all have an active role in a child’s education. It does not have to be made into law through the Education act. It’s called parenting. It’s called raising children. It’s called childhood. A set of indicators that the change proposes are either National Standards, or a new set of KPI for schools. The suggested example of “how well students are doing” jumps up and screams “League Tables”, seeing as this is talking about reporting to parents and the community. This is public information that will be out there for everyone to see and compare, even though there is no doubt that these KPI will not show the value and worth of a school. This section goes on to include the Communities of Schools who do well will get more freedom – rewarding the “high achieving” schools once again, with more decision making rights. It then makes it clear that, in balance, poor performing schools would have such rights taken away and decisions would be made for you “if things go off track”. Which is exactly what we want as a school who’s students’ struggle, we definitely need an outsider coming in with a top down approach of “you will do better”; tongue firmly in cheek. Page 10

    Enabling Collaboration, Flexibility and Innovation

    This pare of the document just looks at the idea of Communities of Schools that the government has brought about through the IES. Under Alternative Governance Arrangements, they state that some schools who are working in a Community of Schools, “…may want to share their governance arrangements”. This is already happening with the property side of funding in some areas. Also, as is with earlier parts of this document, where it says “may want to”, it is also saying that some schools “may be forced to” share their governance. In terms of flexibility, it is interesting that the only reason why schools would be wanting to have different intakes at different parts of the year is largely to make National Standards reporting easier in Years 1 to 3. Their anniversary reports would all be at once, rather than spotted throughout the year, and it would tie in with the senior reports a lot more often. The question really is, is if your child misses out by a few weeks for the intake, they might essentially miss out on 3-6 months of schooling. What’s more, if a school down the road isn’t having intakes at set times, that family may decide to take their child elsewhere. Isn’t it already compulsory for children to attend school? What’s more, how is the Ministry going to enforce this, especially when funding for truancy officers has been cut, and the Government doesn’t want to spend any more on education? No doubt it will be one more thing that schools will have to chase up on in their own time.

    What is a “great” school?

    What makes a school great?
    How is this measured?
    There is no question, given the rest of this document, what the Minister sees as a “great school”. High achievement.

    But the word “Great” or “Greatness” surely encompasses so much more than this?
    Take for instance a local school in my area. A well recognised and renowned school, with parents and whanau driving from up to ten minutes away to send their child there. It is a decile 8 school and has about 330 students on its roll. 75% NZ/European and 17% Maori. Their ERO cycle is on a four to five year review. From the latest review it states that “Most students are achieving at or above the National Standards in reading, writing and mathematics.”
    One would say this is a great school.

    At the school I currently work at, the same can’t be said. We are about half the size, and fit in a decile 2 bracket. We have about 60% Maori students, 10% Pasifika and 20% NZ/European. We recently managed to scrape through and get a three year ERO review, which we celebrated like we just won the Rugby World Cup. Half of our students are below or well below the National Standard across all three areas.

    However, this year, both these two schools had their 50th Jubilee. Both of them started in 1965, the same time that Porirua officially became a city.
    At our school, we had close to 180 ex-students come and celebrate over the course of Labour Weekend, 2015. Old students came from all around the country, from Auckland to Timaru. We even had some fly in from overseas to come and visit their old primary school. We had a school gala which had cars parked along the street as far as the eye could see. The atmosphere was buzzing and our school was the centre of it all.

    In stark comparison, the other school had to cancel it’s celebrations due to lack of interest.

    I leave you with that question to ponder. Which is the greater school?

    Making every school and kura a great one

    Every school and every kura has to be a great one, and while most are doing well, a small number need more help to get there. Some more options could be put in the Act to help schools and kura get back on track. These could include an improvement notice, or an audit of one part of a school or kura. At the more serious end, a board could be asked to have different people on it.

    Naughty, Naughty!

    In this section, the Act turns its attention to the so-called ‘off track’ schools. The Ministry will help them get ‘back on track’, through the use of an “improvement notice” (similar to an infringement notice, I guess) or an audit (ERO visit). The serious end, the Ministry can remove a board if a school is REALLY ‘off track’, and no doubt choose (or appoint) the representatives on it.

    Creating a Set of Guiding Principles for Opening, Merging and Closing Schools.

    What an interesting thing to amend within the Education Act. I wonder why this could have occurred? Maybe the Minister had too much trouble closing schools in Christchurch. Maybe she also had some difficulty merging some schools. And maybe they want to be able to open up new charter schools whenever they like. It has also made the provision for students to be forced to go to certain schools, and force certain schools to take certain students. Page 12

    In Conclusion…

    It is interesting the timing around this change. Reports are due, schools are winding down, half of the secondary schools are gone with exams, principals are drowned in end of year rollover for Novapay, and end of year activities. So it is unlikely that those who are working in the sector will have time or energy to fight the changes being proposed.

    No doubt we need to though, if we are unhappy with the proposed changes.

    Below are the details for how YOU can make a submission in answering the questions within the document.
    You need to do this. Answer, respond, challenge, debate. Talk over your ideas. The more responses they get, the more they might listen.

    Related Readings

    An easy way to make your submission is online at consultation.education.govt.nz. Here you will find an introductory video from Education Minister Hon Hekia Parata. There are questions to get you started, or you can upload a submission from your computer. You can also email your submission to education.update@education.govt.nz or write to: Education Act Update Ministry of Education PO Box 1666 Wellington 6140 New Zealand Submissions close on Monday 14 December 2015.

    PERSONAL INFORMATION AND CONFIDENTIALITY

    Submissions and documents associated with the consultation process meet the definition of official information and are therefore subject to the Official Information Act 1982. Please clearly indicate in your submission if you do not want your name to be included in any summary of submissions that we may publish.

    FURTHER INFORMATION

    If you have any questions about making a submission, or would like more information about the update of the Education Act 1989, please email education.update@education.govt.nz

  • Education Changes – 2008-2015

    In the last five years there has been a dramatic shift in Education. Since this government (National) came into power in 2009, they have been non-stop in making wholesale changes across the sector.

    WELLINGTON, NEW ZEALAND - NOVEMBER 14: Education Minister Hekia Parata announces a Government partnership with New Zealand Rugby League at Westpac Stadium on November 14, 2014 in Wellington, New Zealand. The partnership has been set up to improve the education, health and wellbeing of thousands of young people and families associated with rugby league in New Zealand. (Photo by Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images)
    WELLINGTON, NEW ZEALAND – NOVEMBER 14: Education Minister Hekia Parata announces a Government partnership with New Zealand Rugby League at Westpac Stadium on November 14, 2014 in Wellington, New Zealand. The partnership has been set up to improve the education, health and wellbeing of thousands of young people and families associated with rugby league in New Zealand. (Photo by Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images)

    There is an old Māori whakataukī that says:
    Inā kei te mohio koe ko wai koe, I anga mai koe i hea, kei te mohio koe. Kei te anga atu ki hea.
    If you know who you are and where you are from, then you will know where you are going.

    What I want to do is take what changes have been made since the start of the National Government, and track these changes to their logical conclusion. By using what changes have been made, we can follow the progress of the GERM in our country.
    GERM is the Global Education Reform Movement.
    The Government is trying to create a crisis in education and impose a business model on our world class schools. This model, known as the GERM (Global Education Reform Movement) has infected other countries by introducing standardisation, competition and test-based accountability. – NZEI

    National’s Education Timeline

    2008

    • National releases their education policy.
    • National: Overhaul NCEA; introduce national literacy and numeracy standards; extend 20-hours early childhood education subsidy to playcentres and kohanga reos; teach more trades in schools and set up five “trade academies”; ensure all 16- and 17-year-olds are in school, work or approved training courses.
      ACT: Scrap Education Ministry and replace it with new Education Authority; allow state funding to public or private school of parents’ choice; deregulate schools but require them to be licensed by education authority; move curriculum “back to basics”.The key part of these policies is getting rid of the current education schemes, and replace them with more privatised versions of them. National Standards introduced to help regulate and narrow the curriculum, including going “back to basics” of reading, writing, and maths. Collect and monitor this data in primary school, and use NCEA “overhaul” to position schools against each other, including league tables. Deregulated schools, or Charter schools are to follow very soon after the election as part of ACT’s coalition.
    • National elected into government, using MMP to go into coalition with Māori Party and ACT.
    • Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill passed under urgency, allowing it to bypass the Education and Science Select Committee where the merits of National Standards could have been debated. Government sets precedence of limited to no consultation with parents or the sector.

    Visit NBR.co.nz for more information on government policies from 2008 election.

    2009

    • Anne Tolley becomes Minister of Education.
    • National makes large cuts to Teacher professional development services. This leads to a rise in private companies offering courses for teachers, and schools having to fund their own education development of its staff.
    • $35million additional funds budgeted over the next four years for independent (private) schools.
    • Education Amendment Bill 2009 introduces the idea of a ‘…body corporate or corporation sole may be appointed as a limited statutory manager or commissioner’
    • ‘Consultation’ with the public over National Standards. Data somewhat ignored (38% against, 14% for). Teachers vilified by the media for ‘not getting on board’ with the government policy.
    • Changes made to National Administration Guidelines to essentially make National Standards compulsory in all primary schools.
    • The Ministry begins promoting teaching and teacher supply initiatives and TeachNZ scholarships, informing overseas teachers of employment opportunities in key shortage areas in New Zealand, and awarding 1,023 scholarships to student teachers to study across the early childhood education, and schooling sectors.

    2010

    • Schools expected to begin using National Standards from the first day of school.
    • Schools that oppose National Standards forced to adopt them through threats of charter rejection, enforced ERO monitoring, or even closure.

    2011

    • Lesley Longstone appointed as Secretary of Education. Ms. Longstone had been a key figure in the introduction of charter schools in the UK.
    • National win general election by a landslide, and are re-elected into Government. Partnership with ACT and Māori Party continue.
    • Hekia Parata appointed as Minister of Education.

     

    2012

    • Minister of Education Hekia Parata announces policy to increase class sizes in order to be in-line with Treasury to save $43million each year. Continues with precedence of announcing policy with no consultation of the sector. Teachers appeal on force, and show multiple flaws in the numbers suggested by the Minister (such as making exceptions for technical teachers at intermediate schools).
    • Ms. Parata makes first mention of performance based pay for teachers as an option.
    • Minister of Education Hekia Parata backs down on class size policy, due to incorrect figures presented by Treasury, and from widespread disagreement from teachers, and more importantly, parents. “Ms Parata said the policy had caused “a disproportionate amount of anxiety” for parents and she was responding to that.”.
    • Novopay introduced for all teacher’s pay with limited to no trial or testing, despite advice given not to roll out the system which wasn’t ready. Not surprisingly, the system causes widespread issues, with some teachers not getting paid for months on end.
    • School Report launched by Fairfax Media to make National Standard data publically available. First comparisons between school’s data begins.
    • School closures and mergers in Christchurch announced following the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes. Limited to no consultation with those affected.
    • The Education Amendment Bill to allow charter schools introduced on October 15, 2012.
    • Lesley Longstone resigns after 13 months in the position, sighting a breakdown in relationship with Hekia Parata.

    2013

    2014

    • Government announces Investing in Education Success. $359million put into education through expert teachers and lead principals to oversee more than one school in an attempt to bring better practise across all schools. Initially accepted by secondary and principal unions. Primary school sector unhappy with the idea. Once again, limited to no consultation with the sector. NZEI negotiates changes with the Ministry.
    • First five charter schools open for the school year.
    • Government takes over ownership of Novopay. ‘All issues’ finally sorted out, two years after it’s release.

    2015

    • Removal of teacher elected Teacher’s Council. Rebranded as Education Council, with representatives selected by the Minister of Education.
    • Decile ratings changed for many areas around New Zealand.
    • Rules around teacher registration changed to align with the Vunerable Children Act 2014, introduced in light of child abuse and indecent assault of children, by teachers and those in authority. Examples: 1. 2. 3. 4.
    • PaCT tool being rolled out across the country for schools to ‘opt-in’ and use.
    • NZEI announces adjustments to IES proposal and seeks teacher vote.

     

    Where things are headed

    image-key-privatisationFirstly, your guess is as good as mine. All we can do is speculate and take what has happened and take it through to its logical conclusion. We can assume that this government what to turn schooling into a business, and privatise as many assets as it possibly can. The rich will get richer, and the poor even poorer. These are some of the natural conclusions of the moves that have been made in the reform of education in this country.

    • PaCT to become compulsory for schools to use to assess student achievement in Years 1-8, essentially becoming a Nationwide assessment.
    • PaCT data to be collected by the Ministry, and ‘failing’ students linked with their teacher so they can be monitored.
    • Teacher performance becomes linked to student achievement (or lack there of).
    • Performance pay introduced as a ‘reward’ for good teachers.
    • ‘Bad’ teachers ‘weaned’ out through lower performance pay, and increasingly difficult registration regulations and expectations. Some of these ‘bad’ teachers, however, will be ‘good’ teachers who have struggling students in their class and who aren’t getting ‘good’ results according to PaCT.
    • IES to make schools with ‘failing’ students adopt ‘successful’ school principal and lead teachers. Aligns with performance pay, and the removal of ‘bad’ teachers and principals from the school.
    • ‘Good’ principals to manage and run more than one school. Much like a CEO of a company.
    • School funding changes, along with IES, where groups of schools receive ‘bulk funding’ or ‘pooled resources time and money‘. (See 5.)
    • League tables introduced and made publically available through the media for parents to send their children to ‘successful’ schools, and avoid ‘failing’ schools; even though the quality of the teaching may be the same or even better. Schools funding also begins to be based on results of Fairfax Media’s “School Report“.
    • Failing schools to be merged into charter schools with private ‘managers’. More privatisation of the education sector.
    • Experienced teachers on highest pay packet to be replaced with young, inexperienced teachers on a lower salary, to save money in the budget.
    • Increase of class sizes to be rolled out.
    Notes

    In my opinion there are very few ‘bad’ teachers in education in New Zealand. When I make reference to ‘bad’ teachers in this post, I am making it from the perspective of the government, who would have us think that any teacher who has poor achievement results in relation to National Standards is a ‘bad’ teacher.
    In addition to this, I fail to see how teachers can be assessed in their ability to teach by the results of their students. I have had some students from struggling situations and home life who have made amazing progress in a year, but are still below where the Government reckon’s they should be according to the ‘aspirational’ National Standards. Furthermore, I have had some students who have made no progress, but I would challenge the best teacher in the country to do a better job and get that student to be At the National Standard, while still maintaining the teaching of the rest of the class as well. Therefore, this definition of ‘bad’ or ‘good’ teacher is completely flawed.

    Some may call this post ‘scare-mongering’; except it isn’t. The majority of it is laying out the facts, and then extrapolating them to their natural conclusion based on the precedence set by this government, and its desire to reform education in this country.

    Related Reading

  • IES and the Poisoned Apple

    Over the next few weeks, primary teachers are meeting to discuss the proposed changes to the IES (Investing in Educational Success) announced last year.

    The changes are, to some, significant and, before I get too cynical, NZEI have done a good enough job even getting the Ministry of Education to make any amendments to their proposed $359,000,000.

    However, when this was first broached with the sector, a resounding 93% of NZEI members voted to have nothing to do with it. They saw the pitfalls of such a system, such as quality teachers no longer in their classrooms, teacher workload, and the fact when it comes to education one size does not fit all, and what works in one school won’t necessarily work in another, and voted appropriately. Still, NZEI remained in the negotiating tent; however smelly; to try and make the most of a sucky situation.

    Joint Initiative

    Now they have a working alternative, which has many changes which I won’t go into. You can read more here.

    However, it doesn’t address the fact that quality teachers and principals will essentially become part time at multiple schools, rather than full time in the classes and schools that benefit from their time and effort. The whole initiative makes busy teachers busier, and the so-called benefits it will bring to student success is hardly mentioned in any of the agreement negotiations, and instead all possible roles are discussed at length. It all seems to just focus around teacher busy-ness, and misses the point completely. This could just be because the agreement is between teachers and the government, but regardless; it somewhat surprises me that student success isn’t more of a factor.
    Let us not forget that this is hailed as raising student achievement, where there is little or no supportive evidence that this will work at all.

    Essentially all that has happened is turd polishing.

    The Poisoned Apple

    Let’s look at it like this.

    The government has offered the teaching community a nice, juicy, red apple. It shimmers and shines in the light and looks delicious to a hungry princess. The soft light glints off it’s polished skin, the deep red matches the crimson lipstick of her luscious lips.

    However, this current government’s education office is run by a witch with a mirror on the wall, and she has poisoned the apple with a curse, as she has done for the other apples she has tempted us with.

    Teachers realised this very early on, and did not want a bar of it. They could see the money spent to buy the apple could be much better spent on other things; like an orange tree.

    But the witch isn’t offering the orange tree. She’s offering the apple.

    Now, NZEI advisor comes to the rescue, or so we think, and the advisor to the king talks with the witch. They discuss at length the properties of the apple, and how it could be made better, so that the princess might eat it. They decide that turning it into a toffee apple might be more appealing. They cover it with the caramel coloured glaze that drips down and turns the apple into a gooey, sticky, goodness.

    While the toffee apple is much more appealing, and is somewhat irresistible in comparison with the delicious apple that was offered before. But deep down the princess knows that the apple is still poisoned and will be the end of her. Still, upon receiving advice from the advisor, she takes a bite. We all know what happens next.

    The only problem is the solution requires a huntsman with a large axe. Which we don’t have.

    Instantly Sceptical

    Essentially, with this government’s attitude and treatment towards teachers, they haven’t done themselves any favours. Add to this the class size fiasco, and you have a workforce which simply does not trust or have faith in anything you try to accomplish. The way they steamrolled out the National Standards turns out to be indicative of how they have continued to operate; make it policy, and then consult with those involved. We saw this again in the Novopay disaster.

    It is no wonder then that teachers were instantly sceptical of IES and picked it apart. It’s also no wonder that the Ministry seem to be rolling on regardless of the situation. I also suspect that it won’t matter what new policy the government bring out in education; teachers are simply going to oppose it purely because of this government’s track record.

    Essentially the vote this week isn’t voting on whether we want the joint initiative agreement made by NZEI and the Ministry of Education or not; it’s voting on whether we want what the Ministry proposed in IES, or the joint initiative (which essentially is a no-brainer for any teacher). In the past it’s quite clearly been said, when given the choice of Ministry backed options, or NZEI backed options, go with NZEI because at least they are looking out for and supporting teachers. They have the teacher’s interests at heart.

    But democratically, a vote like this is completely flawed. We’re choosing between a poisoned apple, and a poisoned toffee apple. At the end of the day, it looks the same, it smells delicious, it’s big, red, and juicy, but you wouldn’t want to take a bite.

  • Reliability of National Standards Assessments Called into Question

    A recent report has cast doubts over the reliability of teachers’ National Standards assessments and rises in student achievement.

    It found that just 40 per cent of overall teacher judgments (OTJs) matched the ratings generated by the Progress and Consistency Tool (PaCT), a tool developed to improve the consistency of teacher judgments on National Standards assessments.

    The PaCT was launched in schools in last year with a mathematics pilot. The latest report of the National Standards: School Sample Monitoring & Evaluation Project 2010-2013 compared the judgments from the pilot with a selection of teacher judgments finding significant variance.

    In the past, I have expressed interest in PaCT as a way of standardising National Standards a bit more. But it would seem that even with the tool, getting a consistent standard among teachers, and students, is flawed.

    What I find interesting there is a move in education to individual education programmes, individual assessments, and student centred learning initiatives, yet as our main form of reporting and assessment we are putting them in boxes, and grouping them together, using a ‘one-size-fits-all’ grading system and tool.

    What are your thoughts on the PaCT tool? Have you been to any workshops? Have you seen it in action?

  • Bill Sole: NZ needs more apprentices | NZ Herald News

    Once again the universities are the big winners in the Budget. Unfortunately, despite international research increasingly pointing to the value of workplace training and apprenticeships, the 2015 Budget…

    Source: Bill Sole: NZ needs more apprentices – Education – NZ Herald News

    The idea of success in education is almost entirely based on academic results leading to university entrance, completion of a degree, and then onto a high paying job in an ivory tower south of Mordor.

    Okay, maybe that’s slightly Tolkien-ised.

    But success can be, and is, so much more than this.

    At the age of 26, my brother took over the business he was working for. Both of us were lucky enough to have parents who were able to send us through private schooling. So we had ‘the best’ of education. Both of us went onto further study – myself heading to art school and then Victoria University to become a teacher. But for my brother, the idea of sitting a) through lectures, and b) in an office, were less than appealing. Instead, he decided to get into something he was interested in. Cars was it.

    From there, he went through polytech, served an apprenticeship, and now is in his third year as a successful business owner. And he is under 30.

    Success.

    But no university qualification. No long hours of study or endless exams. And he’s not stupid, nor academically inept.

    The reason I bring this up is because the current education climate in this country is best summed up in this poem I wrote last term.

    Test, test, test.
    Assess, assess, assess.
    Achieve academically,
    and that is success.

    If this is what success is deemed by, then very few will be determined to be successful. Let us not forget that the likes of the late Steve Jobs, co-founder of Apple – the world’s most valuable company (May 2015) Screen Shot 2015-07-11 at 12.58.00 pm– was a college (NZ calls them ‘universities’) drop out – ie. he left before completing any tertiary qualification. Another rather successful college drop out is one Mark Zuckerberg, who is creator and CEO of a website called Facebook.com. You might have seen it? Zuckerberg has a reported personal wealth of some $38.6 billion (US) at the age of 31. He was a billionaire by the age of 23 – 5 years out of high school. He put himself on a $1 salary in 2013. Screen Shot 2015-07-11 at 1.03.50 pm

    Both of these cases are extremes. Once in a lifetime examples. But examples none the less. Both of these men are undoubtedly what we would deem as successful, in terms of their influence in the world, as well as their personal wealth and the wealth of the companies they ran/run. But according to our current educational climate, they would both be considered failures.

    For me, education is important. But doing what you love to do in life is more important. Getting to the point in education where you can go on and do what you want to do in life is what I would determine to be ‘academic success’. Apprenticeships should not only be supported, but encouraged as a viable means of continuing with educational success, rather than the stigma of what you do if you’re ‘no good at school’, so to speak.

     

  • The White and Blue National Standard Box

    This week the internet world was bombarded with seemingly pointless debate around the colour of a dress. To me, it was quite clearly white and gold, and impossible for me to see how it could be any other way. While I could see how people saw the blue, the suggestion that the darker strips could be black was preposterous. But then when my wife commented on the black and blue dress, I was flummoxed. Seriously? I’ve stood by my artistic eye for my entire life; and now it starts to play tricks on me?

    dress-615x342

    For those wishing to find out about the dress and why it is blue and black, please read this article and this from the NYTimes.

    However, when I was thinking about this, it immediately made me think of each and every classroom around the country. We have many, many students who would answer “white and gold” to this question in a test, and many, many students who would answer “blue and black”. Some are restricted by the colours they see from the photo, and others are able to translate that and see the actual colour that the dress would be, based on the white balance of the background. And yet, because of this, many, many students would end up failing this test, through no fault of their own mind you.

    Many teachers all around the country would argue for and against the correct answer, and many, even when faced with evidence, would find it hard to fathom that they too, got it wrong.

    And yet we would continue to use a faulty system. A test that labels students as wrong, as failures, through no fault of their own, purely and simply because their brains aren’t wired that way. It puts everyone in the same box, and only those who are wired a particular way are filtered through to the top of success.

    The National Standards Box

    National Standards is the same. While we’ve come to accept them and we’ve had to work with them since 2010, it doesn’t make them any less flawed. Yes, we have come to manage them and get used to them, but deep down, I am still morally opposed to them. I’ve seen too many fantastic students with so much potential get labeled as “Well Below” or “Below” purely because their brains aren’t wired to think in terms of Reading, Writing, and Maths. They are considered unsuccessful, and targeted programmes are put in place to monitor and try and make these students fit into the box of the National Standards. We’re trying to make them see the dress as blue and black, when all they can see is white and gold. Even if we reason around it, and show them evidence, their eyes will still see white and gold, because thats how their brain is wired.

    Case in point is an ex-student of mine, who at age 9 was reading at an age of a 5 year old (that’s when you could get him to read), and writing not much better. Maths was passible, but only through drawing diagrams rather than numbers, of which many he wrote backwards. However, put a blank page on his desk and a pencil in his hand, and he would draw the most wonderful creations I’ve seen from a child. He had depth of tone, shading, details, feeling and mood, emotion and passion compressed into the graphite lines of his art. At times, he would draw beyond anything I’ve come to expect, even from myself. His talent was incredibly well developed, and I would have loved to continue to work with his drawing and develop it, honing his skills, and encouraging his internal well of creativity that was bubbling away inside. Instead, I spent 80% of the year fighting to get this child on task with his writing, force feeding him books with pictures which he just wanted to draw, and trying to get him to fit into the National Standard box. The other 20% was made up of 15% of me trying to think creatively about how to use art as a means of developing his reading and writing, and the remaining 5% giving up on anything structured and letting him do what he wanted – draw! It was a year filled with frustration, torment, arguments, negotiations, and ultimately, very little progress.

    We label them as they head into the prime of their learning and into the big wide world. They may be genius artists, or fantastic sportsmen, and will be incredibly successful in these fields once they leave high-school. But while they are in primary school, they have to fit into a different box and be measured. And they fall short. The message they get is negative. The internal self talk begins and the possibility of them reaching that potential lessens. Of course some will make it, but many will self combust and be filled with self doubt and lack of confidence in their ability, whether ‘academic’ or not. They call themselves dumb, and they know it. Because that’s all they’ve known since 2010.

    And teacher’s have their hands tied. On the one hand we have a beautiful and wonderfully wide curriculum full of opportunity and wonder, and in the other, the narrow field of vision as we peer into the National Standards box. “Integrate these through the other learning areas” they say, but the desired effect isn’t as easy to come across. As with last year, I never found a way to integrate reading through art, and I’m unsure whether I had, whether it would have made a difference in raising this child’s reading ability. Regardless of this, the dress was still white and gold for him, because that is how his brain is wired.

    As a teacher, what I want to teach is the ability for all students to see the dress as white and gold and blue and black, and accept the differences, while knowing deep inside that no matter what they actually see, that they are right in their own way, and that others are also right. I want them to be able to see them as successful, even if that’s just in one subject or curriculum area. Obviously they still need the basics, but labelling them a failure just because they don’t see blue and black isn’t the way forward to a successful future.

     

  • Student Success

    Can you read? Can you write? Can you count?

    If you say yes to these then you are a success. You have succeeded at school. You’ve made suitable progress through your years at school. Heck… You’re verging on being a genius. You’re probably headed to university, or some high end CEO job, and once you’ve done that, and are trying to work out what to do with your money after all the property you now own, you might just run for prime minister.

    If the importance that is placed on National Standards in this country is anything to go by, then this will be reality. Yet we keep on getting pressured into widening the curriculum day after day, by all the different curriculum areas; science, the arts, p.e. and health. Fitting all of this in within the school year is challenge enough, yet alone finding time in the school day. Many teachers have had to learn and adapt, and thus begin integrating reading, writing, and maths in amongst the other subjects.

    children-99507_640But isn’t success more than this?
    I’ve had a myriad of students through my classroom doors, some who are very successful academically. But I will always remember one student, Polly. Polly of course is a made up name designed to remind me who it is, but disguise her identity for privacy reasons. Polly was a neat student. She was on time most days, was well presented, had lunch, came from a home with supportive parents who turned up to school events when they could.  Polly had great friends, and was always very kind, considerate, and respectful towards others. She didn’t have a bad word to say about anyone. Polly got on and did her work. She was enthusiastic about school and about learning. She wasn’t the best at maths, reading, or writing, but always gave 100% effort and put her heart and soul into her work. But 2010 rolled around, and with it the implementations of National Standards, I found myself having to try and explain to Polly and her concerned parents why she was Well Below in all three areas. It simply wasn’t fair. Polly became a target student, and her progress was routinely monitored. By the time she left school, she was still Below the National Standards in all three subjects, but was a long way from being an ‘unsuccessful’ student. In fact, she was a very long way from being a ‘below’ student as well.
    You see, Polly had a lot going for her. She had perseverance. She had respect. She had kindness and reliability. Polly had great running ability, and determination, confidence, and commitment to boot. She had a dramatic flair, although only used this when she was required, on stage, in assemblies, and class plays. She got along with everyone, even those who crossed her. You see, when I said goodbye to Polly from my class, I knew it wouldn’t be the last I saw her. I knew that out in society, in the real world, whatever Polly chose to do with her life, she would be a success. She had the qualities that will make success inevitable. While she was not the brightest student academically, she will do well for herself regardless. Whether she becomes a stay at home mum, or a fast-food chef, air hostess, veterinary assistant, early childhood educator, bus driver, receptionist, or the second wealthiest CEO in the country, it won’t matter, because what ever she chooses, she will be successful at it – I am sure of it.

    grads

    In my experience, I’ve been through a few different ‘Graduate Profile’ activities, where we as teachers get around and discuss what skills and qualities we would like our students to leave our school with. Each and every time we end up with a list that includes many, if not all of the following skills and qualities:

    Creativity, Resilience,Able to work with a variety of different people, Motivated, Persistence, Expresses themselves, Curiosity, Humour, Endurance, Reliability, Empathy, Leadership, Compassion, Courage, Resourcefulness, Humility, Communication Skills, Thinks of others, Shows respect,  Shows not tells, Trusts others, Social skills,  Role model, Mentor, Volunteers, Gives to others, Active participator, Takes suitable risks, Uses initiative, Confident, Trustworthy, Problem Solver,Self Awareness, Self Discipline, Self Motivated, Ambitious, Flexible, Positive attitude.

    When you look through this comprehensive list, there is no question that they are suitable desires for schools to have for their students to have leave with, and more often than not, when teachers are asked to come up with such lists, no where is academic ability mentioned. No where on our Graduate Profile as a school does it say that a ‘model A’ student that leaves our school will be At or Above the National Standard.

    It’s definitely worth thinking about.

    What does success mean to you in regards to education and learning? Feel free to comment your ideas below.

  • The PaCT Tool

    There has been many thoughts around the PaCT tool and it’s use or non-use by New Zealand schools. New Zealand Educational Institute (union for primary teachers, NZEI) has warned against it, but they are bound to do so given the current political climate and their educational policies.

    Using the Progress and Consistency Tool
    However, what I don’t understand is that we (teachers, schools) have been saying that National Standards are not standard and there is a vast difference from school to school as to what is Below, At, or Above since it’s inception. The PaCT tool has been designed to moderate this very problem, as NZEI point out in their article, which is surely what teachers want – to make National Standards more reliable, rather than just doing it because we have to and working with rubbish data about our students.

    You cannot deny that Ms. Parata, however controversial, makes some sense in this article, and essentially makes the same points as I do above.

    It would seem that they (National Standards) are not going anywhere, with the National Government in power for another three years. I don’t particularly agree with the saying “If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em”, but in this case, it would seem pointless fighting. Teachers, Parents, Principals,  Educators, Educationalists and Professors have been fighting them since their release in 2010. Despite this, the National Standards continued to be rolled out, and the government continues to roll out other policies in the face of adversity. Most of the initial hatred towards them was the way they were rolled out, without any duty of care shown around their trialing on our kids. But it is now almost 5 years on. Let’s also make clear, that while the opposition would scrap them, they also suggest that they would still continue to monitor student’s progress, but align them to the curriculum. This seems like a complete waste of time, money, and resources, as if you read anything on the development of the National Standards, you’ll find that they are already aligned with the curriculum.

    “In doing this New Zealand has taken a different approach to the rest of the world. We have used our national curriculum to determine the standard of achievement that needs to be reached at the end of each year.” – Education Gazette, 11 October, 2010.

    Despite what the scare mongers say, I think it’d be worth every school investigating signing up to use the PaCT Tool.
    That’s my personal opinion.
    Personally, I know some of the developers of the tool, and I have been assured on more than one occasion that from their side of things (the developers) the PaCT tool has not been designed with the capacity to link student data with teacher pay. This seems to be the main concern with the doubters beyond that of trying to make the ‘flawed’ National Standards more reliable (rather than scrapping them and developing a more robust assessment).

    I think that if the government wanted to align student achievement with teacher salaries (i.e. performance pay), that they would already be able to do so without using the PaCT tool anyway. Therefore, if that’s the case, then any school using the PaCT tool will not make a difference for the government; but it has the potential to be very worthwhile for us as teachers and as a school to better get to grips with assessments for the National Standards, and might even go some way into making them more robust – which is what we’re asking for anyway.

    There has been many a classroom I’ve seen, where a student has stepped out of line and done things on their own terms. For example, entering the classroom (their own terms) instead of lining up like the rest of the class (teachers terms). The teacher might scold them and then send them out to the principal, if the student hasn’t already become defiant and stormed out of the class for the scolding. When you boil down the behaviour and the problem, and take a step back; the actions taken by the ‘professional’ have in fact caused that child to no longer be in class, and no longer learning. If a quiet word was had, a little pride (on the teacher’s behalf) dropped, and the student allowed to still remain in class before everyone else, then that student might still be in class learning and hopefully engaged. The end product is what we really wanted, which is the troublesome child in the class.

    Instead of fighting for fighting sake, why don’t we take a step back, work out what it is we want, and drop our pride of having things done on our (teachers) terms. Rather than missing the point and ending up with nothing, we should be thinking about the end product.

    The end product is we want a robust system of measuring our children on a national level, without using a one off national test (that students could fail if they had an off day). We want to be able to use our professional judgement as teachers, and our knowledge of each child as individuals, and use that subjective information in order to fit students against our curriculum. We want it to be a robust and moderated system so that the data can be trusted from school to school, from city to city, right across the country.

    If we want National Standards to be more robust, then lets see if using PaCT will in fact make them more reliable, rather than scrapping National Standards and making all line up outside before bringing them into the classroom again.

  • Educated Statistics

    Those that know me, know I hate Maths, but love Statistics. Maybe it’s the graphs and the figures; but mostly it’s the story they tell without having to say anything. Interpreting the statistics isn’t rocket science, and generally they can speak a lot of sense into a confusing situation.

    It’s no wonder then that recently I have been looking into a range of different statistics surrounding Education in New Zealand at the moment. With the upcoming election, it’s important to have a grasp on what the current Government is trying to do, as well as what the implications are (if any) for them or the opposition hopefuls.

    Class Size vs & Quality Teaching

    Firstly, there is a perception out there that the two major parties are at odds about their policies. National are investing in IES / Quality Teaching and Labour are saying the money would be better spent being putting into lowering class sizes. This is not an either / or situation, but a fact that both are important, but each are differing as to the importance of them, and the priority they hold in the current educational climate.

    I must say that having worked in a classroom for the last five years, I would be able to better spend my time focussing on each individual child in my class if there were less of them. Not because of a time factor (although this would certainly come into it) but because of a behaviour management factor. I certainly notice a huge improvement in my students focus when there are 5 or 6 away. My class size for the lat 6 years has been:

    • 2009: 31 students
    • 2010: 28 students
    • 2011: 29 students
    • 2012: 27 students
    • 2013: 27 students
    • 2014: 27 students

    National claims to already have addressed the class size issue by employing more teachers. I’ve yet to see any impact of this at the school where I work, and certainly from the class sizes above we’re still talking a lot of students. I’m also not about to say that Labour’s proposed ratio of 1:26 is going to change much; except that if I’m operating on a ratio of 1:29 and I have 27 (2 less than the ratio size), then under Labour I should see a class of 24. Which already becomes more manageable from a teaching point of view.

    Class Sizes & Number of Teachers

    Yesterday I wrote about this in another blog post (see here):

    “I headed over to EducationCounts.govt.nz and downloaded their spreadsheet on student numbers since 1996.

    We can see that Screen Shot 2014-09-05 at 6.29.05 pmin 2008, the student numbers were 758,094 students.

    In 2013 there were 762,400 students. This is an increase of 4,306 students. That’s 0.56%. Half a percent.

    4,306 students would be spread across 149 classrooms, (based on the teacher/pupil ratio in NZ state schools of 1:29)

    That’s 149 teachers that are needed in the increase to maintain this ratio.

    In 2008, there were 52,958 teachers according to EducationCounts.govt.nz. In 2012 (which is as far as I can go from the same spreadsheet) there were 54,250 teachers.
    However, in this news release, it states that teacher numbers increased from 55,124 in 2008 to 58,707 this year. Discrepancies will exist, and some will include ECE Teachers and other teachers.
    For the first set of data from EducationCounts (which remember, is a government website), there is an increase of 1,292 teachers, or 2.4%.
    For the second set of data from the press release, there is an increase of 3,583 teachers, or 6.4%.

    Both somewhat removed from Hekia’s 15% (or ghost teachers as I call them).

    Even if we take the smaller percentage, and the increase of 1,288 teachers in 2012, it is still far, far away from the 149 new teachers that are required. That’s a surplus of 1,139 teachers.

    Obviously a lot of teachers are part time or reliever teachers. So lets take a look at FTTE teachers (Full Time Teaching Equivalent).

    With full time teachers, there has been an increase of 1,102 FTTE Teachers (2008-2012 data). Still not even close to the 149 teachers it would require to lower the class ratio to 1:29 based on the data.

    The difference between full time teachers, and the total number of teachers is just under 6,000 teachers in 2012. With 49,305 full time teachers spread across the 762,400 students (2013), this makes a teacher ratio of 1:15. This of course is an average, with a lower ratio in junior classes and senior classes, creating the 1:29 bulge in the middle.

    To change the ratio from 1:29 to 1:26 it requires a bit more mathemagic. The main reason for the difficulty is we have to work out the different ratios. For this, we go back to our first spreadsheet. I’ve put the resulting data into the table below.

    Current Teacher / Student Ratio No.of Students Required No. of Teachers Lowered Teacher / Student ratio Required No. of Teachers
    for New teacher/student ratio
    Year 1  1:15 64,208 4,280 1:12 5,350
    Year 2-3  1:23 118,549 5,154 1:20 5,927
    Year 4-8  1:29  295,858 10,202 1:26 11,379
    Year 9-10  1:23.5 117,265 4,990 1:20 5,863
    Year 11  1:23 60,805 2,643 1:20 3,040
    Year 12  1:18 55,277 3,071 1:15 3,685
    Year 13  1:17 48,905 2,876 1:14 3,493
    Total 33,216 Teachers  38,737 Teachers

    I don’t confess to being a mathmagician; and there may be a high possibility I’ve missed out some key information. At least I’m prepared to admit it if I get it wrong. If you find some issues with these numbers, can you please comment about where I’ve gone wrong so I can put it right.
    But to my knowledge, I’ve done the math correctly; and it raises some very interesting questions. Most importantly, if we lowered class size ratio by 3 students for each year bracket, we only increase the FTTE by 5,500, and we are still well within the current 49,305 current FTTE teachers.”

    The Cost

    One thing I didn’t go into in my last post is the cost associated with lowering the class size. Obviously cost is a big factor when government’s make policies, though some (including me) may ask does it matter when it comes to Education – we’re building the future generation… We do still need to be accountable.

    One thing I won’t go into arguments over is the associated costs such as building new classrooms to accommodate the extra classes needed due to the decrease of teacher:student ratio (needing a higher number of classrooms in the school”. The reason being is two fold: firstly, that the government hasn’t taking into consideration the associated costs, such as, hiring relievers, in their IES policy, and secondly, there are many, many schools with now empty classrooms, as there are also those with no extra classrooms. When we are discussing averages (such as we are here given the access to data I can find) we learn that we give and take a little either way.

    So lets have a look at the stats:

    The average teacher salary in 2012 was $71,526. The average secondary school teacher earned $73,995, while the average primary school teacher earned $69,660. Whether this figure has gone up or down since 2012 is difficult to guess as we would have to ask Novopay!

    Using these averages and multiplying them out by the increases I found yesterday, we get a table that looks like this:

    New T:Ss Ratio Number of New Teachers Req. Cost
    Year 1 1:12 1,070 $74,536,200
    Year 2-3 1:20 773 $53,847,180
    Year 4-8 1:26 1,177 $81,989,820
    Year 9-10 1:20 873 $64,597,635
    Year 11 1:20 397 $29,376,015
    Year 12 1:15 614 $45,432,930
    Year 13 1:14 617 $45,654,915
    Total 5,521 $395.5 million

    Don’t worry though. Take off 15% that the Government gets back through taxes, and the actual cost to the Government to lower class sizes to my proposed (and generous) class size model is $336.2 m. Certainly looks a lot like $359m to me. In fact, with the additional $22.8 million left over, they could put it into my personal account for having such a brilliant idea.

    What about Private & Charter Schools?

    Private Schools

    One of the most boring and overused quotes in the class size debate is: “You don’t remember your class size, but you remember when you had a good teacher.”

    I went to private schooling. I think my largest class was in Intermediate where I think we peaked at about 24 students. I certainly remember my good teachers. I also remember the bad ones. I also remember that none of my classes were with 30 other students.

    The quote is over-rated. You can say just about the same for anything. ‘You don’t remember all the meal’s you’ve had, but you remember you if you had a good chef’ or ‘You don’t remember all the kilometres you walked, but you remember your favourite pair of shoes’ or ‘You don’t remember all of the politicians names, but you remember when one used this quote’! It’s just silly nonsense they try and play with your intellect.

    The fact is, yes; I felt I was an individual in the classes. I wasn’t lost under 30 other students. I had my chance to shine.

    Incredibly interesting that John Key chooses to send his children to private schools. Hekia Parata’s own daughter attended Wellington Girls High School, the only Decile 10 state school for girls, which also consistently gets 4-5 year ERO reviews (since 2005), and boasts a 25 pupil class size.

    Charter Schools

    Based on the interview given on Q&A this morning (part 1, part 2) (Sunday 7 September 2014, 13 days out from the election), Hekia listed some hard hitting ‘facts’ about Charter Schools and their registered teacher status (Video at 5:57) . I put facts in inverted commas, because we all know how the Minister can get these wrong from time to time and has to back down from her statements. However, she was quite adamant that these were in fact true, that out of the 36 teachers at the charter schools, 32 were registered with a practising certificate.

    Unfortunately for Hekia, she also spelled out a few more interesting pieces of data along side this. She stated that there were:

    340 students in the 5 charter schools. Doing the maths, this makes the average Charter School size with a roll of 68 students. Obviously, some will be higher, some will be lower. I’m purely talking about the averages.
    In addition to this, if we take our 340 students and divide them evenly among the teachers at these charter schools (all 36 of them), it doesn’t take much to realise that there is less than 10 students per teacher. In fact it’s 9.6 students per teacher.

    Put in cold, hard, but realistic terms, it’s an average class size ratio of 1:9.6 . Which is quite low when considering my class of 27. That’s one third of the size, something I couldn’t even have a decent dream over these days.

    As a side note, I’m quite intrigued that the term ‘Partnership School’ (remember that!?) has been dropped in all political debates around this issue so far.

    In Conclusion

    Do we need lower class sizes? No.
    Do we need the Investing in Educational Success policy? No.
    Do we need to make wholesale changes to the Education system? No.

    We have world class teachers who get paid boatloads to go and work overseas.
    We have a world class curriculum which other countries only dream of and drool over.

    The reality is that as most educationalists (including Parata and Key) know that the biggest influences on a child’s upbringing happen outside of the school gates. National Standards have done nothing but show where people live. I’ve calculated in my previous posts the amount of time our children are actually in school in any given year back in 2011. The stats are hard to believe: its less than 15% of the year when broken down into hours!
    The problem for the government (and teachers) is that they cannot control those factors. And so rather than being seen to be doing nothing about ‘the tail’ of underachievement, the government is targeting teachers and schools and saying that we aren’t doing a good enough job and we have to try something different. That quote pops out from Hekia’s mouth ‘If we always do what we’ve always done, we’ll always get what we’ve always got’. Yet what if it’s not education that is the problem? We have a tail which underachieves, not because they are dumb or incompetent, but because their home-life is stressed, violent, and broken. There’s no food on the table and no money under it. Keeping warm is a luxury, let alone keeping healthy. All of these issues are BIG factors which I have written about before. My challenge for those that don’t believe these are factors is to go without food for a day or two and try studying for an exam. Seriously, after about 10 minutes of reading text, you will only be thinking about how hungry you are. And when that’s all you’re thinking about, it becomes very difficult to stay focussed and learn anything. Now make yourself a 10 year old child. You might begin to understand the ACTUAL reality behind our under achieving tail.

    Unfortunately for everyone, those issues are out of anyone’s control. There is a limit as to how much the government can control those ‘out-of-school’ influences. And so they make changes to those things they can control – the teachers. Change. Change. Change. Assess. Assess. Assess. And cross our fingers that things get better.

     

    Note: You may detect a degree of bias away from the National Party, and that is purely because they have made the job of teaching to be a lot more work for not much reward with National Standards (which aren’t even National, nor Standard – yes I have proof should you wish to see it), as well as a lack of confidence in Hekia Parata; backing down on increasing class sizes (which was the honourable thing to do), closing schools in Christchurch, and the ridiculous implementation of Charter Schools based on the wishes of ONE candidate who had a cup of tea with the Prime Minister once. Need I mention the balls up with Novopay, the resignation of Secretary of Education Lesley Longstone, the deformation of Teacher’s Council to be replaced by a board with no Teacher representative, and of course the new Investing in Educational Success initiative. I am in no way a Labour supporter or spokesperson, and have disagreed with many of their policies around the Mid 2000’s.
    None of the stats, facts, or figures I have had to hack into anyone’s emails or websites to obtain. These are all freely available to the public through websites that I have visited. I have no affiliation with WhaleOil.
    I must also point out and make this very clear; I write this as an individual, not as a representative of my classroom, nor my school, or Board of Trustees which I currently serve on. My views are my own, and I encourage you to talk with me should they raise any concerns for you.