UNLEASH

ED

Tag: IES

  • NZEI: Not Zealous Enough. Ick.

    Three years ago the government announced their latest plan for collectives of schools to get together and share in the pot of $359 Million to share teachers, resources, and knowledge. Naturally, and rightly, NZEI took the initiative to their members. The following was the result:

    Primary Teachers and Principals vote to put kids first… 21 August 2014

    “Teachers and principals have voted overwhelmingly against the Government’s controversial “Investing in Educational Success” policy, including proposed highly-paid principal and teacher roles.

    A resounding 93 percent of teachers and principals voted “no confidence” in the government’s plan.

    When asked whether they wanted to try to reshape the policy or start again, 73 percent voted to reject the proposed new roles outright rather than try to change the policy through negotiation.”

     

    Since then, despite 93% of its members saying no thanks, NZEI have gone into negotiations with the Government, and come up with a revised outline for the IES, and a new label called “Communities of Learning”. But essentially they’ve ended up with the same turd, it’s just slightly more polished – as I wrote about here.

    Now, with the arrival of an election in September, the latest campaign from NZEI is to get more people in to vote, assuming that the more people they get in to vote, the more likely they are to get votes in ‘Teachers’ favour. The initiative is not targeting parents, it is in fact, targeting the students to get them to bring their parents along to vote.

    Quite frankly, I’m disgusted by this approach to working for Teachers.

    It is less than amicable, and has a range of issues that all lead to NZEI losing face. Big time.

    For a much more succinct account of these issues, head over to Whale Oil’s take on things. The fact that this has been picked up by Whale Oil, should be reason enough to look at this skeptically.

    As a teacher, I don’t pay NZEI to meddle in politics. I pay them to support me. To listen when we have a vote and do what we ask them to do (since they asked us what we wanted them to do). I pay them to negotiate on my behalf with the government, not go into political propaganda against them and try and influence votes through children. I find that intolerable.

    Some will say that if I don’t like it, then I should cease membership with them.

    While that’s fine in theory, I’m caught in a rock and a hard place. Don’t forget – I am a male primary school teacher. Few and far between – for a reason. It’s an incredibly risky workplace, and while I can safely say nothing is ever going to happen, I prefer to have the backing of NZEI’s lawyers than having to wrangle myself out of any false accusations. So unlike many who can, and have, and will, I can not just simply cease paying my membership, as it is security for me in my position as a male teacher.

    In conclusion; NZEI have lost any mana they might have had. I have no confidence in them, and will not be supporting them in any future plans.

  • Wharf Jump

  • Deathstar

    After another Ministry of Education hui for principals, a comment was made that the whole fiasco of the Community of Schools / Community of Learning negotiations with NZEI, have left teachers “…with the Deathstar, but we get to choose what colour lasers they use!”. I found it quite comical, and certainly falls inline with my views on the IES which can be found here.

  • Community of Learning Mincer

    In relation to Ministry comments at a recent Community of Learning hui for Board of Trustees.

    “The Community of Learning… is a pathway… to move a student through the pipeline…”

  • Do as I say, not do as I do – Consulting the Community

    A rising trend is occurring right before our eyes, and it’s  more than concerning. It’s definitely poor role-modelling, and is more than just a little unfair.

    For years the Education Review Office has been wandering around the country critiquing schools on their community engagement and consultation in an effort to get schools to get parents interested in their child’s education; supposedly to address the supposed “long tail” of underachievement that has hindered our nation for the last countless decades. Schools have then gone above and beyond to engage whanau, caregivers, kindergartens, churches, and more, in an effort to get the ERO off their backs… Oh, and try and address any under-achievement.

    The reality is, that schools have worked incredibly hard on this and have invested their time heavily, and the same problem remains; the difficult parents are still hard to get a hold of, and the ones who already support their child and value education are only too happy to support the school.

    So while the ERO and the Ministry would have teachers invest heavily in consulting the community, the same does not happen from the Minister at all.

    Consultation

    This has been highlighted on numerous occasions at the lack of consultation within the education sector during the reign of Ms. Parata (and her predecessor, Ms. Tolley). One shouldn’t have to remind people of the introduction of National Standards. In recent times; there has been the Novopay botch up, the reneg on class sizes, the closure of some Christchurch schools (1,2,3), and the announcement of IES, all of which had little or no consultation with schools.

    Even when the Minister does decide to consult the sector, it is done in less than ideal ways. Take the latest consultation around the Education Act. The changes were announced six weeks before the deadline; and while this is seemingly enough time, one cannot ignore the irony that the consultation has been conducted at the busiest time of year for teachers, principals, and schools alike, and this is even before we find out if submissions that do make it through are heard and listened to. Add to this, that the closing of Parliament in upcoming weeks for the Christmas break, for this Education Act to be passed through in the new year. Why would you not allow submissions to be made over Christmas and January, when teachers would be able to voice their concerns or ideas? Well – simply because they don’t want to hear from their community.

    Community

    As of this year, the Minister now hand picks who is on the Education Council; the overseeing body of teacher conduct and registration. There is no longer any member on the council that is elected by teachers. This is hardly democratic, and is indicative of things to come, such as Ministry appointed school boards. In a sense, there is no one who represents the community on the community board.


    In the announced changes to the Education Act, it is quite clear that the Minister wants to centralise a lot of different parts of the school community. Boards of Trustees will eventually be phased out in favour of a Board that runs several schools. This will be in conjunction with the introduction of “Communities of Learning” and the selection (somehow) of lead principals. I’m not sure how a selection of principals when put in a room would decide who will be the lead principal and get a nice sum as a bonus. No doubt, eventually, the Ministry will have to select or appoint a principal to be the lead principal.
    As each school becomes part of a bigger community, the community will grow. But that’s not always a good thing. As a community gets bigger, it becomes more difficult to organise that community, or even get a sense of community. Imagine, if you will, a board in charge of your school with parents you never see, and don’t recognise because they don’t have children at your school and don’t even live in the same area. The same thing will happen with lead principals, as they get tied up with more leadership in other schools, there is the high possibility they’ll never be seen in their own schools. Students already have a hard enough job seeing their principal as it is, let alone if they’re going to be running other schools as well.

    In conclusion

    So while the ERO and the Ministry would have schools consult their community to address issues within schools, the Minster is busy removing the sense of community within the education sector, and also to make it impossible to have a community to engage with once they’re finished. If a community is too large, it no longer keeps its sense of community, and becomes untenable to organise and maintain. Eventually, the “top-down” model imposes its ideas on everyone else and they are told to put up or shut up. As for consultation, it would be safe to assume that the Minister has only recently found the definition of it in her dictionary. Up until now, it hasn’t even been a consideration. We are still waiting to see what is done with whatever number of submissions the Minister receives, but if past experience is anything to go by, there is a rather large rug being lifted up to sweep them under.

  • Steam-rolled!

    In relation to:

    Protests against education reform – Stuff.co.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.