No Right Turn on Labour’s OIA changes
July 1st, 2009 at 11:00 am by David FarrarIdiot/Savant blogs on the bill promoted by Labour to supress school assessment information:
There are a number of problems with this. In addition to being “class-based” (that is, targeting information based on its content or type rather than the interests its release might prejudice), it also categorically forbids release. And that has never been part of our OIA regime. While the OIA allows information to be withheld if there are good reasons for doing so, it doesn’t make it mandatory, and an organisation can always just release information if they feel like it. This amendment would forbid them from doing that. It effectively recreates the Official Secrets Act specifically for schools. The “justification” for this – that the public might “misunderstand” or “misuse” the information – is decidedly authoritarian.
This is a nasty regression from Labour, and one which undermines a fundamental part of our freedom of information regime.
I made a similiar point yesterday – this proposed law would make school assessment data more secret than security and intelligence data. The Government has the discretion to release security and intelligence data, but Labour want school assessment data to be prohibited from ever being released.
Such a wonderful commitment to open government and accountabilty for the $6 billion we spends on schools.
Related posts:
- NZEI still trying to supress data
- More on Education and OIA
- Does NZEI want to ban calorie labels?
- Labour’s national standard policy
July 1st, 2009 at 11:24 am
Sigh How many times do we have to remind those involved to ask Who is your Customer? Well in this case there are a number of customers. The students the parents of the students employers of the students taxpayers and citizens in general.
All have a fundemental and inalienable right to have information so they can make informed decisions.
To deny this is to deny the principles of democracy.
Of course the Socialists believe that only the high priests and priestesses have the right to the informatiob such is their arrogance contempt for the people.
Principles of disclosure and transperancey are but a nusiance and get in the way or ensuring their command and control over the peasants.
In this case the usual suspects are also scared witless that the drak truth will be uncovered and they will be exposed for the frauds they truly are.
And thats why they dont us to have the information
Come clean Trevor Your ruse has been exposed.
Vote:July 1st, 2009 at 11:34 am
Trevor covets information as badly as Gollum was wedded to the Ring. “My Precious”, and there the comparison ends.
Oh wait!……………………….
Vote:July 1st, 2009 at 11:38 am
Part of the reason I lost respect for teachers was the antics of their union. In proposing this Labour is simply acting as a limb of that union.
Vote:July 1st, 2009 at 11:56 am
>It effectively recreates the Official Secrets Act specifically for schools.
Does Labour want to arrest journalists who dare to write stories about school performance? Surely that must be the final outcome if it is illegal for anyone to release information regarding the performance of schools or unionised teachers.
Vote:July 1st, 2009 at 12:20 pm
I agree that it is wrong in principle to prevent this information if collected from being disseminated.
I think however that the information should not even be collected nor the testing regime conducted for a few reasons:
1. We already have standardised testing. There has been no analysis or persuasive reason advanced why it is insufficient.
Vote:2. There is no, repeat no money to deal with issues that the testing may come up with.
3. Such a reporting regime will undermine poorer schools and cause “white flight” from those schools.
4. Education standards will suffer as teachers teach to the test rather than teach to educate.
July 1st, 2009 at 12:27 pm
mickysavage:
I’m more worried about the quality of education when teachers (at least, their alleged representation) take a pick and mix attitude towards what regulations they choose to comply with. You and Trevor might want to put a plaster on the teeth marks in your arse when they start threatening to stop teaching the curriculum or cooperating with the ERO unless they’re further shrouded from public scrutiny and accountability.
And this is a serious question: How loudly do the teacher unions have to whinge before it becomes Labour policy that the ERO no longer has to make public its assessments? I know a few teachers who would be very pleased if that became the status quo.
Vote:July 1st, 2009 at 12:29 pm
I just loved Trevors M rationale for not disclosing bad news about a school in case it caused further problems.
Well Trev Applying your logic the NZX should rescind its Rules regarding continous disclosure on exactly the same grounds.
Oh I forgot. Different strokes for different folks Never like consistency get in the way of a dumb idea.
Vote:July 1st, 2009 at 12:32 pm
2. There is no, repeat no money to deal with issues that the testing may come up with.
At the very very least one would have the option for spending. Can’t compete with other priorities if you don’t even know about it, can it.
3. Such a reporting regime will undermine poorer schools and cause “white flight” from those schools.
Why only whitey? Why is race even important? There is also almost no school choice anyway so surely the options are limited for flight.
4. Education standards will suffer as teachers teach to the test rather than teach to educate.
Is it possible to design a good testing regime?
Vote:July 1st, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Labour egged on by PPTA and NZEI wants an education monopoly – they do not want to see measurable competition in any form. I remember the time when a teachers college rejected candidates from independent schools as the culture and teaching of these schools rendered them ‘unsuitable’ for teaching in state schools. In NSW left wingers also wanted independent schools to pay for their equivalent of ERO inspections, never mind that the schools and their parents would see minimal benefit from such inspections. So Trevor Mallard has become the ‘Minister’ for teachers as Grant Robertson is the ‘Minister’ for public servants.
Vote:July 1st, 2009 at 12:45 pm
The argument that teachers will favour teaching to the test over teaching to educate seems to me a bit ridiculous. How do we identify how well a child understands something? We test their knowledge. How do we teach to educate without teaching to the various tests the child will be put through during their school years?
Vote:There is a standard curriculum that all public schools follow. There are standard sets of information being taught to all students at these schools. There are standard tests to guage how well students understand what they have been taught.
If a school is failing in it’s mission to educate it’s pupils then the tests will show that.
To say ‘education standards will suffer as teachers teach to the test’ is defeating your own argument – if you have standards you must be able to measure against them. If teaching to the test causes a drop in standards then clearly we need better tests.
July 1st, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Does anyone else here remember the days when schools were proud of their academic achievements?
Vote:July 1st, 2009 at 1:04 pm
The PPTA and the NZEI have instructed their political wing (The Labour party) to make life easier for them. Possibly because NCEA has completely dumbed down the student assessment process to something meaningless it is appropriate to remove all assessment of schools and teachers.
I think now is the time for National to kick NCEA for touch, introduce a choice of Cambridge or IB for schools and insist on full disclosure of the pass/fail rate by school.
Vote:July 1st, 2009 at 1:23 pm
mickysavage: “1. We already have standardised testing. There has been no analysis or persuasive reason advanced why it is insufficient.”
Nor will there ever be if the information that would allow analysis is suppressed.
Vote:July 1st, 2009 at 1:25 pm
RightNow – you are correct in this assertion
“If teaching to the test causes a drop in standards then clearly we need better tests.”
However, teaching to the test does not merely refer to giving the students the knowledge required to pass the test (which is fine and obvious), but also to the practice of coaching test-taking skills specific to the assessment and with little utility outside of that assessment (which can take up a lot of class time), having the students filter all knowledge through the prism of whether or not it will be tested (and thus whether or not it is worth knowing), and encouraging memorization.
There is no perfect test, and I believe that a mix of different styles of tests are the only fair way to do it, but as soon as you have teachers being payed according to test scores, you can forget about the classroom being a place of learning. It will become a place of test-taking – and internal assessments will be rife with dodgy record-keeping.
There are better ways to improve teacher skill that altering pay scales.
Vote:July 1st, 2009 at 1:26 pm
So lets get to the bottom of all of this. Is Mallard wanting to hide school performance statistics so that we don’t find out why he wouldn’t send his own kids to his local (in zone) school?
[DPF: Enough references to where his kids attend school. I allowed them at first because it was pertinent to the issue, but the continual harping on about them is unnecessary]
Vote:July 1st, 2009 at 1:33 pm
transmogrifier
What is with you and this “all teachers are the same” BS? People like you having a say in education policy ensure that mediocrity rules. Sorry dude, mediocrity is not good for education. Good for unions and lazy principals who don’t like dealing with tough issues of teacher performance – but useless for better educational outcomes.
Are you a school principal who hasn’t got the balls to say to a poorly performing teacher that they are useless and should pack their desk up and leave? Or are you a lazy teacher waiting for retirement who suffers from policies of envy and would hate to see anyone paid more than yourself?
Teachers cannot be measured – Yeah right.
Vote:July 1st, 2009 at 1:33 pm
burt Isnt it great how 2 faced the Socialist swines are. Always banging on about how certain sectors are special and different and cant be compared and measured and so on.
Mind you given the number of failed teachers and academics in the Socialist party and its MPs its not surprising they would be arse protecting their mates.
Cowards dont want to fess up and tell the truth.
That significant numbers of ‘their peoples” children are being subjected to low standard education and they wont do anything to change this lest it upsets their precious frirends in the education Unions
Because thats the facts of the matter
Vote:July 1st, 2009 at 1:37 pm
DPF
I think there is still some relevance. If I had access to overall school statistics and I didn’t have my own kids in the local school people would ask what I knew and why I was special enough to have (and possibly use) the information I think others should not have.
Vote:July 1st, 2009 at 1:44 pm
The argument against releasing information, is that schools in lower socioeconomic areas have lower quality students therefore they will be lower on the scale. And, that is not fair to the teachers.
This is a disingenuous argument. Do they think people are stupid?
Everyone knows that a school in otara/manurewa/etc have a higher percentage of kids whose parents are more interested in the next dole payment or drug deal than the education of their ‘herd’. I certainly don’t blame the teachers.
Anyway, this should be looked at relatively. If a school is improving that is good. But, how will we ever know without the facts?
Vote:July 1st, 2009 at 1:47 pm
burt – I suggest you respond to what I actually wrote, rather than what you wish I had said.
I am talking about paying teachers according to performance as a way of IMPROVING OVERALL EDUCATION. I don’t believe it would work, and in fact would probably make it worse (and I gave logical reasons too, divorced of political ideology – I know, it must be a shock for someone like you). However, at no time did I state that there weren’t poor teachers, nor that something shouldn’t be done (check if you like; I’d be surprised if you even read what I wrote). In the thread yesterday, I gave some suggestions about what needs to be done. Feel free to find them and read them.
Or otherwise you can keep on spewing shallow bullshit as if it means anything. Your post shows no insight, intelligence or even a basic understanding of the principles under discussion. You are just another useless cheerleader, much like philu or billyborker and not really worth the time or effort beyond that expended in this post.
I’ll reconsider if you manage to give a couple of logical consequences of paying teachers according to perfromance criteria that will benefit education. That will be a start, but I don’t think you have it in you. Please prove me wrong. Otherwise, piss off.
Vote:July 1st, 2009 at 1:54 pm
For burt, because it’ll probably overtax his mind to go back and find the relevant thread and skim read through 50 posts to find my name – here is what I wrote yesterday:
“Paying teachers differently according to performance won’t work. There is no accurate way to establish what makes a good teacher – test scores won’t do it (for example, teachers will teach to the test and nothing else, or teachers will refuse to teach lower band classes, or teachers will dissuade lower ability students from ever attempting standards etc), student evaluations won’t do it (students don’t always rate teachers according to the criteria we would like them to), and having established great teachers going around sitting in on classes and judging the teachers won’t work (because they should be in the classroom themselves, or else the whole point of the exercise is lost). Also, during my training, at all the schools I witnessed the simple fact that an effective department depends totally on collegiality and co-operation among the teachers, and the simple fact is that as soon as teachers are judged personally ito decide what they get paid, the sharing of resources will halt (why give away your best material when it can be used to boost your pay over others?) and petty jealousy will be rife (yes, yes it will. Hang out in a staffroom sometime)
However, there are a lot of poor teachers out there, so we can’t just sit on our hands and do nothing. That’s why, if it were up to me, I would make official registration more rigorous and link that to the pay scale. At the moment, when a teacher graduates from their course, they are provisionally registered and have to complete 2 years of supervised/mentored teaching before they can be fully regisitered. What I would like to see is the move from provisional to full registration be accompanied by a significant salary increase BUT make that move more difficult and subject to clear evidence the teacher has the skills for the job. If a provisional teacher doesn’t meet these standards, they remain provisional (and remain on the original salary) until they are able to improve their performance. ”
“Personally, I would favour more rigourous teacher training with higher thresholds for acceptance, a more robust registration process with requisite salary increases, and looking at ways to reduce the avalanche of non-classroom related matters teachers have to contend with at work. Excellent teachers should be fast-tracked to HOD or mentoring positions with associated managment units (and resultant salary bumps).”
Vote:July 1st, 2009 at 1:57 pm
transmogrifier
Did I hit a raw nerve? I think your attitude that “you” don’t see how it could work and therefore it is impossible and might actually make things worse is what I’m responding to. I don’t have the answer to “how” we do it, but I’m not so full of myself that I therefore “know” it cannot be done.
If teachers were paid based on performance then poor quality teachers would be ‘encouraged’ out of the occupation. This can surely only be a good thing. If teachers were able to be paid based on merit then the best possible outcome would be more well paid teachers and enhanced competition to be teachers. The grades that students achieve is a small part of the “how good a teacher are you?”. One of my kids had an awesome teacher a few years ago – his ‘learning’ of the curriculum during that year was hopeless but his social development was enormous. There is more to this than just the grades the kids receive and to say that since the grades the kids receive is not the end all and be all therefore assessment of teachers is impossible is just dumb.
Perhaps you should disclose any conflicts of interest you have in this debate – my conflicts of interest is having two kids in school and being married to an x-teacher.
Vote:July 1st, 2009 at 2:06 pm
See, there are several ways poor teachers can be encouraged out of the profession, and that includes having stronger principals, more freedom to fire underperforming teachers and better monitoring at schools.
And having just come through training college, I would also suggest more selective training colleges! The standard for acceptance is a little low, I think (and no jokes!)
So I come at this from the point of view of someone who has seen a hell of a lot of teachers at work, some good, some bad, and seen how departments and schools work, and how students relate to teachers – and I truly believe that differentiating salaries will not work. Now you can disagree with that if you like, but you hit a nerve because you went off on some bullshit about how I was a principal or a retiree or something idiotic like that and refused to actually argue the problem. I don’t care if people disagree with me – it happens, fair enough – but I can’t stand people who have no interest in discussing the issue but instead mistake attacking the person as a strong argument. And stop trying to put words in my mouth – state your case, not mine.
Vote:July 1st, 2009 at 2:12 pm
transmogrifier
I think the standards at training college are way to low, but as long as the lowest common denominator (or the average) is used to set the pay level for all then what are the chances of attracting more quality people to become teachers.
Thanks for clearing up where and why you have the views you do – I apologise for the wind up. It was uncalled for.
Vote:July 1st, 2009 at 2:21 pm
That’s why I prefer a more a more distinct difference in salary between provisional and registered teachers, and with a greater burden of proof on the teacher to show that they deserve to be fully registered (as for the criteria, it’s not something I’ve considered yet). In that way, obviously poor teachers will reach that ceiling and have the option of working to improve or changing careers. I would support something like this unreservedly, and this coming from someone who would have to go through it if it were established.
To me, this is much preferable to simply ranking teachers according to some standard and paying everyone differently from year to year – both practically for the schools and in terms of ensuring a smoothly running school with little professional jealousy and hoarding of material etc)
Vote:July 1st, 2009 at 4:02 pm
I don’t get it, this would be funny if it wasn’t so serious. Whats wrong with National, this is insanity. Why do they not just tell Liarbore that they haven’t got a leg to stand on and tell Trev to firer up the shredder. Why do we entertain this horse shit.
Vote:July 1st, 2009 at 9:55 pm
transmogrifier
I understand the idea of the two tier salary system you discuss. I understand it will create a bar that will provide a level of screening. What I don’t get is why after an initial certification (internship if you like) the teachers should all be paid the same from then on. Teachers are vital people in out economy yet we don’t pay them enough to raise a family of 2-3 kids without requiring WFF. We don’t reward passionate teachers over lazy teachers and we don’t take other factors like their inputs into non classroom activities into account when setting individual salaries.
Vote:July 1st, 2009 at 11:19 pm
Well, it’s for the reasons I mentioned above, plus the fact that I think it is completely unworkable to individually judge teachers and pay them accordingly. A few people have pointed out that it seems unreasonable for teachers to pass the first hurdle and then be paid the same after that, but what is the alternative? If we judge a young teacher to be “excellent” (by whatever criteria) and pay them accordingly, how long does this judgement last for? A year? Two? Five? Is a school going to have to monitor and evaluate every single staff member every year and make adjustments to salaries?
In my mind, salary needs to be set to attract enough potentially talented teachers into the field, but the training system has to be rigourous enough to weed out those trainees who aren’t going to cut it, or in it for the wrong reasons. Then, the provisional registration stage can be used to ensure that the beginning teachers can actually handle the workload of a full-time job, and have skills and passion. After that, I think the practicality of using salary TO IMPROVE OVERALL EDUCATION STANDARDS loses more than it gains. Sure, there should be bonuses for management units, involvement in extracurricular activities and the like, but I think at this stage, it comes down to schools having more power to demote or fire poor teachers – and less beating around the bush and tolerating teachers who obviously don’t give a crap. But that’s just the way I see it. Maybe I’ll have a differing view once I have more experience. Who knows? I’ll get back to you on that.
Vote:July 2nd, 2009 at 5:19 am
Oh f off mickey. What a load of apologistic arse covering twaddle. Schools and teachers MUST be accountable, everyone else is. I, and I suggest, the rest of NZ is sick of hearing excuses from jobsworth, underskilled, education professionals who want to be exempt from achieving. Leftards.
>>mickysavage (437) Vote: 0 8 Says:
July 1st, 2009 at 12:20 pm
I agree that it is wrong in principle to prevent this information if collected from being disseminated.
I think however that the information should not even be collected nor the testing regime conducted for a few reasons:
1. We already have standardised testing. There has been no analysis or persuasive reason advanced why it is insufficient.
Vote:2. There is no, repeat no money to deal with issues that the testing may come up with.
3. Such a reporting regime will undermine poorer schools and cause “white flight” from those schools.
4. Education standards will suffer as teachers teach to the test rather than teach to educate.