UNLEASH

ED

Tag: schools

  • BYOD: It’s not as compulsory as you think

    As a bit of a tech guru, it saddens me to see parents trapped in the psyche that they need to not only “Keep up with the Joneses”, but need to provide their child with a $300+ device to use at school. Let alone stationery, let alone uniforms.

    The reality is that schools should be providing the devices for the students, but this runs into many issues. One is the ongoing costs to the school which many simply don’t want to budget for or have other priorities and are not funded adequately enough to provide for one-to-one devices in their school. Then there’s the requirement to maintain these devices and issues surrounding damages and repairs and whose responsibility that is, along with many others. So instead of dealing with this, schools have been farming this cost off onto their community and expectations land on the parents to provide these.

    Here’s the other reality though. If you can’t provide one, because of whatever reason (including any moralistic ones), then you do not have to. Schools cannot enforce it, and it says so in the following article. It’s against the law. Schools can’t even demand a particular kind of device – they can’t demand any device. These are only recommendations so that they have devices that are all similar and therefore easier to manage within the classroom so that unskilled teachers don’t have to learn how to use a range of device types in order to assist and help with any technological problems.
    But, as we’ve come to know, most devices are usable by the general population and are rarely so dissimilar that they become problematic. Add to this the fact most schools are running Google Apps, which operate on the big cloud in the sky and runs off the internet – therefore look, run, and work all the same regardless of the device being used (allowing for differences between tablet apps and browser based versions).
    Simply put, any device will do. Shop around, and select one that matches your budget, and then your needs, not the other way around.

    Parents who aren’t in the position to splash out for a device that will likely only last 3 years and then you’re up for another one,  should swallow their pride and go and talk to the school. If the school is worth their weight, they’ll explain, discuss, and come to some arrangement for you. It is more than likely some compensation can be made, and in most cases, schools will have a (albeit limited) supply of devices available for student use.

    If not, then it’s more a reflection on the school than you as a parent.

    Don’t just accept it and remortgage your house or go without food for a week to pay for it. It sickens me that this happens because parents don’t want to go to the school.
    Go and talk to the school. Yes they are closed at the moment, but they’ll be open soon enough. Go and have a chat and explain your position. Yes, there may be shame, but it’s not worth just going along with the list of demands, complaining about it later, and missing out on other more important things. Like school lunches.

    I’ve always said schools need to sort out BYOL before they sort out BYOD. If every student is a “Bring Your Own Lunch” student, THEN, and only then, should you start thinking about becoming a “Bring Your Own Device” school.

    Original Article: https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/88562690/schools-byod-or-bring-your-own-device-demands-are-a-rising-cost-to-parents?rm=m

    For many parents, preparing their children for the school year means finding ways to cope with the costs of BYOD.

    BYOD stands for “bring your own device”, and refers to pupils owning devices like laptops, iPads and Chromebooks for use in the classroom, and for homework.

    Prices quoted by electronics retailer PB Tech, which has built a “shop by school” search tool, show the costs of devices expected at schools vary from Chromebooks starting at just over $300 up laptops costing $2000 or more.

    In both cases there can be extra costs for shock-proof, waterproof cases, and accidental damage insurance.

    Schools have worked hard to negotiate deals, and affordable payment plans for families, knowing the extra pressure BYOD policies can put on hard-pressed families.

    But parents without ready cash can find themselves being steered by schools towards finance companies, or even Work and Income.

    It’s not clear exactly how many people do get government help to cope with BYOD costs, but the first three months of last year, covering the back-to-school period, saw 24,278 instances of “hardship assistance” made by Work and Income, adding up to just under $5.3 million in payments.

    DEBATE OVER

    The debate over whether devices have a place is the classroom is largely settled at intermediate and high school level.

    But some primary schools have introduced BYOD for their older pupils, and retailers like PB Tech sometimes pictures of primary-age children on their website.

    The Ministry of Education says ultrafast broadband is transforming education, and has invested heavily in helping schools and teachers to “equip students with the necessary digital skills to take part, create and thrive in a fast-evolving world”.

    Schools cannot legally force families to buy their children devices, but it’s now common practice for them to use words like “require” and “expect” in their BYOD policies and menus of devices.

    Intermediate and high school parents may feel they have no choice but to fund BYOD, and there’s even signs of pressure on some parents of primary school children.

    Primary schools often own a number of devices, but as Buckland Beach Primary School tells parents: “Parents are now offered the chance to improve the access their child has to ipads. This is offered through BYOD where students bring an ipad from home.”

    Other Articles: https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/88562690/schools-byod-or-bring-your-own-device-demands-are-a-rising-cost-to-parents?rm=m

  • Parents want teachers parenting

    Care provider. Call centre operator. Kitchen hand. Negotiator. Detective. Judge. Medic. Counsellor. Social worker. Psychologist. Personal trainer. Caretaker. Cleaner. Don’t get me started on the numerous things that teachers have to do each and every day. That’s even before they have to teach a class full of students some Maths, English, Science, Technology, Music, Art, Dance, Drama, Social Science, and Languages.

    Original article: New Zealand schools need to teach more life skills.

    Kiwi parents want more life skills taught in school, a new survey shows.

    From cyber safety to sex education and manners, two-thirds of parents believed it was the responsibility of teachers to impart lessons traditionally handled at home, according to a survey of 500 New Zealand families.

    Ethnicity played a role in what parents regarded as important in a public education, with Asian parents more likely to want schools to handle the teaching of life skills.

    Parents perceived schools’ responsibilities increased in secondary school.

    But Post Primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA) junior vice president Melanie Webber said that while teachers were role models, it would be difficult to fit more life skills into the curriculum.

    The study by the Australian Scholarships Group (ASG) and Melbourne’s Monash University found a “social shift” away from valuing scholastic success towards a more holistic education, ASG chief executive John Velegrinis said.

    “There are increasingly blurred lines as to where (teacher responsibility begins and ends as parents’ perceptions of their traditional roles and responsibilities change.”

    Asian amilies viewed education more traditionally and set higher standards for their children’s academic success than Pākehā parents.

    About 92 per cent believed a degree would help their child achieve their ambitions and 38 per cent did not think their child could be distracted from learning.

    Just 18 per cent of Pākehā families felt that way about distractions and only 66 per cent said they set “high standards” for their child’s education or agreed a degree was important to their success.

    Asian families overwhelmingly supported schools teaching more about social skills and public behaviour (91 and 88 per cent respectively), with about 42 per cent of Pākehā parents on board.

    Christchurch mother Michele Fantham said she wanted daughters Bella, 10, and Neve, 6, to be taught social skills and financial literacy at their school, Fernside.

    “I think the curriculum is pretty cram-packed full of lots of things the school or Ministry (of Education) think are really important that are just not going to benefit them in the real world.”

    She was concerned technology impacted children’s ability to “use manners and communicate properly”. She was among a third of Kiwi parents who believed teaching cyber safety was a school’s responsibility.

    Read more.

    Source: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/97798269/new-zealand-schools-need-to-teach-more-life-skills-parents-say

     

  • Reform ‘high stakes’ primary tests, MPs urge

    As we look to the future of education in this country, why is it that we are following the trend and examples from the UK? Yet our Education Minister(s) head over there to see their awesome examples of how to destroy public education…

    Children’s education in England is being skewed by the use of high-stakes tests taken by 11-year-olds as a school league table measure, say MPs.

    Annual test results should be replaced in the tables by a three-year rolling average to “lower the stakes”, says the Commons Education Select Committee.

    The current system has led to a narrow curriculum and “unnecessary stress” on pupils and teachers, argues the report.

    Last year, new tougher tests for 11-year-olds saw passes drop sharply.

    Ministers maintain that parents have a right to expect testing in schools to show whether their children are gaining the right skills in maths and literacy.

    But the committee says the close link between the tests at 11 and school accountability can “lead to a narrowing of the curriculum and ‘teaching to the test’, as well as affecting teacher and pupil well-being”.

    It wants the current system scrapped, with three-year rolling averages for schools published instead of the results of individual year groups.

    ‘Held to account’

    The report also calls for greater emphasis in Ofsted inspections on a broad and balanced curriculum.

    Committee chairman Neil Carmichael said too much emphasis on test results had led to too much “focus on English and maths at the expense of other subjects like science, humanities and the arts”.

    “It is right that schools are held to account for their performance but the government should act to lower the stakes and help teachers to deliver a broad, balanced and fulfilling curriculum for primary school children.”

    The report says poor implementation of the new system last year, with “guidance delayed and test papers leaked online”, caused significant disruption in schools.

    The MPs want ministers to reconsider the new writing assessment which emphasises “technical aspects like grammar and spelling, over creativity and composition”.

    “The balance of evidence we received did not support the proposition that focusing on specific grammatical techniques improved the overall quality of writing.”

    They also want spelling, punctuation and grammar tests for 11-year-olds to become non-statutory.

    Ministers recently announced proposals to scrap tests for seven-year-olds, following years of pressure from teachers, parents and educationalists.

    The Department for Education is consulting on a new assessment for pupils when they first start school – but the report urges caution when introducing a “baseline” measure.

    “It should be designed as a diagnostic tool to help teachers identify pupils’ needs and must avoid shifting negative consequences of high-stakes accountability to early years,” they warn.

    Read more here.

    Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/education-39745884

  • Coding in the Curriculum

    In 2018, the New Zealand Curriculum is destined to have a new addition to its subjects.

    From the age of five, children will now be taught about coding, logic, problem solving, if-else statements, app making, social media analytics, and probably hacking as well.

    But there is a lot, a LOT, of apprehension about this, even as a techie myself (for instance – I design websites, and have coded for much of my adult life). Put it this way; I’m not jumping up and down about this announcement.

    Who?

    I don’t know about you, but the first thing I asked was who is going to do this? I have met many a good soul who dedicate their lives to teaching students, but who’s computer literacy is extremely limited.

    And while the content knowledge required to for Level 1 of the curriculum will be very basic, it still requires a great deal more teaching knowledge to be able to teach it effectively. What are students getting stuck on? What are the next steps? How do I solve the next problem?

    Take for example Level 1 of the Reading curriculum. It’s fairly straight forward. Most, if not all (fairly presumptive, I know) adults could achieve this. Now think of the teaching knowledge you would need in order to teach it effectively. The sounds, the blends, the phonics, digraphs, vowel sounds and rules around their usage, the common pitfalls and sticking points as well as the various strategies required to assist and help students to progress to level two. And that’s just scraping the surface of teaching students to read.

    Imagine the level of teaching knowledge that is going to be required to effectively teach digital literacy.

    And now take that to level two, and level three of the curriculum.

    My current estimate, based on my current place of employment and the various other schools I have worked in, would be that about 10% of teachers would have the skill set required to teach digital literacy if it was introduced tomorrow. And that 10% is probably generous. Most of what makes a good programmer, coder, or even just a ‘tech guru’ is the ability to solve problems. When something goes wrong, you need to know what to do to fix it, systematically, step by step, eliminating variables as you go. From experience, many teachers struggle to problem solve why their projector isn’t connecting, or why the sound isn’t working on their laptop. How do we then get to a place where teachers are teaching students even more complex problem solving when you introduce if-else statements that don’t work!

    Many non-tech-savvy people turn to one demographic for help. Young people. Why? Because they’re already up with the play on technology. Their desire to explore, to learn, to develop skills with technology seems to happen automagically, and I can only see teachers and schools getting in the way of that. As well as this, I read an interesting post about ‘future-proof’ learning, predicting what the future holds for our students, and how we can’t and shouldn’t be including things in the curriculum that are a phase, or a fad.

    (Note: I realise that schooling exists past primary school; but we already have specialist subject teachers at Intermediate and High School level, and so schools would merely employ a specialist ‘digital literacy’ teacher.)

    How?

    Another aspect that may or may not have been considered is how schools are going to teach it. You know, the practical side of it. You see; I’ve only once had to write down a piece of code on paper (during a Comp101 exam I took in Uni). It was nigh on impossible not being able to check and edit the code to improve it or to see if it worked. A lot of coding is trial and error.

    Essentially, if digital literacy is to be taught, then students will need devices. Doing it with pencil and paper will only last so long.

    Now I’m not sure about your school; but our decile 2 school has only just got to the point of having 1 device between 2 in the senior school, and 1 to 4 in the junior school. Yes; we can combine sets of these devices to allow every student to have access to one, but my point is, there are lots of schools out there who wouldn’t have this level of technology in their school yet.

    With more devices comes more problems. More students who run into connection issues, which in turn requires the teacher to know how to solve that problem (many of which once again, don’t know how to go about doing this on their own laptops as it is).

    When?

    Ultimately though, when are teachers going to fit this in? Or is it going to be integrated throughout the day? I guess that comes down to the individual teacher. But I know for one, I would love to spend more time teaching students how to use the Chromebooks, how to code a website, and more; but the reality is that I have a hard enough job covering the rest of the curriculum sufficiently, as well as the ever increasing demand on Maths, Reading, and Writing, without adding more to that workload.

    Gripe

    Don’t get me wrong. I’m not having a go at my colleagues or other teachers. They all have strengths and are all marvellous teachers. I merely see a massive gap between adding a subject to the curriculum and the current knowledge of those that have to deliver content about that subject. Massive gap.

    I can see my job as a tech-savvy teacher becoming more than it already is, as I can see me having to assist with other classes tech problems more than I already do, provide support for when tech devices go wrong, and provide ongoing P.D. as teachers encounter problems or inspiration that they want to explore.

    Once again – not sure when I’m going to actually get to teach my own class.

  • Taillight

    Over the last several months, we’ve seen an increase of ‘Principal-related’ jobs that have stacked on-top of the role that Principals already have to play. For one, I know that for many Principals, Novopay was one stress that has turned them greyer than ever, and continues to cause week in and week out stress as they become glorified pay clerks for their staff. Many Principals have off-loaded this role to their admin team; but many wish to take the responsibility of paying their staff on themselves, and won’t sleep soundly until they know each member has the right pay.

    Add to this the new legislation coming in such as the Health and Safety Act, and the Vunerable Children Act, which boards and Principals now inundated with new policies, new procedures, and paper work to sink HMS Bismark all over again.

    Some Principals are now facing the ongoing struggle to wrangle other local schools and boards together into a community of learning, even though they may or may not want to.

    Of course then there’s the ongoing pressures of financial audits, property regulations and funding, the charter and strategic plans, and that’s all to be done with the knowledge that ERO may or may not be far away depending on your school.

    Then, after leaving schools alone for the best part of a term, along come the senior advisors from the Ministry, who are meant to be a sounding board, a guide, someone who works alongside principals and schools. Do they ask how things are going? Do they ask what is on top? What is impacting the school? No. Do they actually visit the school and see how its going? Talk to principals, staff, children, to find out how the school is operating? No.

    No they are asking two questions.

    What is your data like? What are your target students results?

    Well, quite frankly; that’s like checking the taillights at a serious car accident.

     

    Don’t forget to comment below if you’ve heard similar stories! Share with your friends and colleagues.

  • Male teachers outnumber females at Hamilton school | Stuff.co.nz


    Male teachers outnumber females at Hamilton’s Rhode Street School, bucking the national trend.

    Source: Male teachers outnumber females at Hamilton’s Rhode Street School | Stuff.co.nz

    Those that have been with Unleash Education from the start know that this is an incredibly important topic for us. One of our earliest posts focussed around the number of male teachers in primary education, and quickly followed up by an in-depth investigation into the subject of males teaching males.

    It’s great to see other schools thriving in important male teachers.

  • John Hattie: It is time to be rid of deciles – Education – NZ Herald News

    The decile system was introduced to guide equity funding to schools and in general it has worked very well. But there are two distinct aspects of deciles that need to be looked at separately.Firstly…

    Source: John Hattie: It is time to be rid of deciles – Education – NZ Herald News

     

    Deciles have long been under attack. Schools complain going up and down, parents are misguided as to what they mean, and the whole system is destined for an overhaul.

    However, I tend to agree (surprisingly) with Hattie’s comments regarding it. Let’s not completely throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    “It is time to be rid of deciles, but please find a way to have equity funding without the stigma that students in poorer areas receive a poor education. It needs to be based on a “basket of measures” and not be a single measure.”

    The reality is, that the key focus is around deciles being mis-interpreted as the quality of education at that particular school.

    Surely a little bit of public education would go a long way as to expelling this myth? Maybe then the government might come to realise just how difficult teaching actually is!

  • Big drop in teacher graduates getting a job prompting a return to bonding | Stuff.co.nz

    Just 15% of first-time teachers are landing permanent posts after graduating.

    Source: Big drop in teacher graduates getting a job prompting a return to bonding | Stuff.co.nz

  • Teacher graduates to be bonded to schools | Stuff.co.nz

    Labour says “on the job” placements should be a bigger focus across all teacher training courses.

    Source: Labour is keen for all teacher graduates to be bonded to schools | Stuff.co.nz

    There is a certain degree of irony as we walked the uni halls going from drab lecture to drab lecture as the guiding lecturers encouraged us in the art of teaching and using different teaching styles, making it interesting, engaging our students, using cooperative groups, and yet maintained a ‘sit down, shut up, and listen’ teaching approach themselves.

    Therefore, when we were unleashed into the real world of classrooms, with 30 sets of eyes all looking at us like we’d fallen in from a different planet, we were all too eager to get stuck in and learn as much as we could.

    I still maintain, that the majority of learning that I did in my four year degree was largely, and even solely, from the practicums that were spread out over my time at teacher’s college. Nothing was more eye-opening, or realistic, than dealing with students, encouraging thinking, facilitating learning, and learning the ins and outs of actual schools, their rules, their expectations, and all that comes with them.

    Bonded to Schools

    I’m not really sure what Labour is hoping to achieve with this. Firstly, most schools are fully staffed. Taking on a student teacher, not only to be training them, but then supplying a job for them later on, is a little too much for schools to commit to, especially for first time teachers.

    Obviously there would need to be a generous amount of sorting this out, and will directly require universities to work a lot closer with the Ministry, and with the placement schools.

    What do you think? Are the current systems good enough? Will ‘bonding’ student teachers to schools lead to an equal opportunity for all applicants to positions?

  • The Property Game – Wellington Schools

    It’s been a bit of a rough start to the year for education.

    If it’s not people complaining about the amount of holiday the teachers get, then it’s the cost of education and how supposedly it is meant to be free.

    Last week there was an article in the Dominion post, announcing the property funding of $6m building upgrade for Khandallah School.

    In it, it mentions six Wellington schools that have received close to $90m dollars in property upgrades.

    Now don’t get me wrong; some of these schools have said they have been asking for these upgrades for a good long time, and there should definitely be some relief that their requests have finally been listened to.

    However, it is incredibly interesting when you start to unpack the schools, especially being aware of the types of schools these are, and the communities they belong to.

    Khandallah School has a decile rating of 10, and it’s not surprising given it is one of the richest suburbs in the Capital. They get the princely sum of $6m to upgrade 9 classrooms from leaks.

    The other schools mentioned follow a similar pattern.

    Kelburn Normal School; decile 10, Ngaio School; decile 10, and Newtown School; decile 3 get to share $20m. It will be interesting to see how much of that $20m will be distributed to the lower decile school. But benefit of the doubt gives each school $6.6m.

    Wellington East Girls College; decile 8, and right in the heart of Wellington (Mt. Victoria), gets a massive $39m upgrade to replace a demolished main building due to ‘seismic concerns’.

    And the last of the big spenders, Aotea College; decile 5, got given a massive $24m upgrade approval at the end of 2015.

    Information on school deciles were mostly gathered from here.

    In stark contrast, my own school has also been asking for an upgrade to four of our classrooms. They are old, somewhat run down, and very much still the same as they were in 1960 when it was built, aside from the furniture and possibly the carpet. In 2012 we were all but confirmed for a remodel and were even given a time estimation of end of Term 3. But, as pencil pushers began to get involved, and earthquake testing and engineers reports got involved, suddenly our budget got revised and we were unable to do anything. For three more years we were unable to do anything with our 5YA, and when repairs to some prefab roofs and upgrade leaky walls and windows in those prefab had to be carried out, the upgrade to the sturdy brick 1960’s buildings became all but a dream. The four teachers and their 30 odd students would just have to make the most of the tatty walls and rotting wooden windows with mismatched glass and colour schemes, as well as the sun bleached PVC skylights that acted like timpani drums when it rained,not to mention all the patch up repairs, non-functioning pipes for the old boiler, and bending shelves and storage from the last 50 years.

    We are a decile 2 school, although for the majority of the aforementioned time, we’ve been listed as a decile 3.

    In 2015 we finally got approval for one part of the needed upgrade. The roof. And yet we are made to feel guilty when we feel hard done by here, for not feeling incredibly grateful for what we WERE given. There is a marked difference in teaching now in that when it rains, we no longer have to compete with the “ratter tatters” on the roof, and instead just look outside and try to make out the “pitter patter” of rain drop. But in comparison to what was all but confirmed, only ¼ of the necessary work has been carried out.

    But because most of the “upgrades” we’re asking for are merely cosmetic, and not driven by health needs or leaky buildings, (and possibly because our decile suggests we’re not important!) our priority on “the list” keeps dropping down the bottom. Don’t worry though, because we will keep teaching a 21st Century curriculum, with modern technology and contemporary teaching practises within 4 mid 20th century walls and classrooms.

    I’m not even going to go into any of the troubles Christchurch schools have been facing, because I’m not there and not up to play with where things are at; but I can only suspect that there will be some very frustrated principals, staff, BOT’s, and communities.

    It does seem intriguing that a massive amount of money is being poured into the high decile schools in Wellington; communities that are more than likely in high support of this Government, and who will continue to support them as long as their schools are made a priority.

    Oh but what about Newtown and Aotea, I hear you say. Well, as mentioned, there is no figure given for Newtown; just that they get a share of $20m with two decile 10 schools.

    Aotea College is a decile 5 school, based in Porirua; an area with a low socio-economic reputation. But whose constituency does Aotea College fall under? Kris Faafoi – Labour. Who is his National counterpart?

    One Ms. Hekia Parata.

    Read into this what you will. Some, even most, might say it has nothing to do with decile, and all to do with leaky buildings or seismic strengthening.

    But the numbers speak for themselves, and any school that fits into the leaky building syndrome, was built sometime within 1994 to 2004, so has already had significant funding. My example of a low decile school still waiting for a “confirmed” upgrade from 2012, hasn’t had any classroom upgrade since the 1960’s for four of its senior classes.

    Just saying.

    If you have any stories from other examples of this, or any comments, please leave a comment in the form below. It would be really interesting to hear your views.