Sounds great not controversial to me
September 7th, 2009 at 8:13 am by David FarrarThe Dom Post reports:
Prospective teachers could skip specialist university training and be fast-tracked into the classroom under a plan to cope with an ageing workforce.
Under the scheme, anyone who already has a master’s degree could bypass teacher’s college and learn on the job.
The suggestion follows a high-level meeting between Education Minister Anne Tolley and controversial United States schools leader Michelle Rhee.
Controversial is often applied by the media as a label for someone with views that journalists disagree with. It is a way of saying “Do not listen to this person”.
So before we look at what Rhee said, who is she. Is she some sort of academic whose has controversial theories never actually trialled?
Michelle Rhee is a 39 year old Korean-American who is the Chancellor of the DC Public Schools system. She is also the founder of The New Teacher Project that has recruited 10,000 teachers in the last ten years.
As Chancellor she is responsible for 168 schools, with around 58,000 students. 84% of her students are black.
So this “controversial” woman is in charge of the public schools of one of the poorest areas in America, and in an overwhelmingly Democratic area.
So what does she recommend:
The Washington DC schools chancellor has caused debate with proposals to give star teachers huge pay rises, fire ineffective ones and introduce a voucher system that gives pupils from low-income families thousands of dollars to attend private schools.
That sounds pretty good to me I have to say. The article actually has it wrong thought. She did not introduce the voucher system A voucher system for 1,900 low income families has been operating since 2004 (before she was appointed). She just does not oppose it.
Does she see it as undermining public education?
The five-year pilot program is up for renewal next year, but Ms. Rhee doesn’t see school choice as a threat to her mission in the public schools. She shakes her head. “I would never, as long as I am in this role, do anything to limit another parent’s ability to make a choice for their child. Ever.” Instead, she sees the competition presented by school choice and charter schools as part of the process of raising standards in the public school system at large. “We have an excellent choice dynamic for parents here… I’m a huge proponent of choice…” People have tried to get her to commit to a ratio of public schools to charter schools. Ms. Rhee won’t play that game. “I don’t enter this with defensiveness, about protecting [D.C. public schools'] share of the market. I believe we should proliferate what’s working and close down what’s not. Period
She doesn’t say that vouchers are the remedy for repairing public schools, she just says that choice is good and the answer to failing public schools is to close down the bad ones, and pay great teachers heaps more money.
I’ll be delighted if Anne Tolley moves in this direction. I’ll also be very surprised.
Tags: Anne Tolley, Education, Michelle Rhee, vouchers
September 7th, 2009 at 8:22 am
On a similar note…
I imagine you’ll find a lot you like/that enrages you in this New Yorker article, DPF.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/08/31/090831fa_fact_brill?currentPage=all
[DPF: Good God, how amazing]
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 8:41 am
Some years ago I heard that most employers have ‘qualifications’ well down the list of attributes expected from job seekers, unless there are legal reasons for hiring a ‘qualified’ person eg sparkie, doctor, etc. The school teaching profession is very strong on ‘qualifications’ mainly because of union pressure. It enables salaries and progressions to be set without needing too much input as to how well a teacher actually performs. Prior to mandatory teacher registration in the mid 1990′s (thanks to Labour and Nat renegade Christine Fletcher) principals could hire unqualified teachers. For example a certain high school hired X who previously had a successful military career. It was envisaged that X would try out teaching for one year then do a year at teachers college. After one term X was given a tough boys 4th form class and successfully made a ‘go’ of it. He did not go to teachers college and taught for 22 years until retirement. His pupils considered they were lucky to have him and some are now professors and one a Montana book Award winner.
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 8:43 am
The teachers unions think the school system is about THEM and they know what is best. Failure is to be tolerated, success is to be distrusted. It is good to see that Ann Tolley is prepared to look beyond the Unions in setting policy in education. BUT has she got the political skills to force this through. The Labour Party is saying they lie in wait like some great shark ready to GET her. Well let us see. Providing Ann has her “ducks” lined up, and has the support of parents and the public, she should succeed.
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 8:49 am
MICHELLE RHEE CHARGED IN as chancellor of the Washington, D.C., public schools wielding BlackBerrys and data—and a giant axe. She has made a city with possibly the country’s worst public schools ground zero for education reform, and attracted a cadre of young zealots some critics call “Rhee-bots.” Now the changes that she insists schoolchildren need are colliding head-on with the political wants of adults
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 8:54 am
“…to give star teachers huge pay rises, fire ineffective ones…”
What outragous suggestions! There are no ineffective teachers becuase as everyone knows all student failure is the result of the National govt of the 1990′s!
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 8:55 am
Amy Brooke, in her recent article “Ratcheting The Education System Downwards” accurately sums up the events about to conspire here:
. . . . in other words, incoming Governments of the (so-called (my words)) Right in this country have been inadequate in undoing any of the damage done by the Marxist-inspired Left these last decades. The wilt before the virulent attacks by the teacher unions and the bureaucracy, feebly marking time before the next Labour coalition achieves office, ratcheting down another notch from where its fellow-traveling predecessors temporarily halted.
In due course, then, parents can look forward with dismay to the boorish and aggressive Trevor Mallard yet again assuming an arguably quite inappropriate role as Minister of Education – one more appropriate for deeply knowledgeable individuals of demonstrably civilized standards of behaviour . . . .
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 8:55 am
…..and so is the current recession, swine flu and rain on Saturday afteroons.
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 8:59 am
Sounds not too bad to me either.
Vote:The wife of a friend of mine was studying at teachers college but she couldn’t go through to the end with it. She was just so frustrated with all the socialist bullsh*t they had to learn, and the stuff in the curriculum. Eventually she dropped out.
September 7th, 2009 at 9:05 am
I don’t think paying for performance in teaching is as simple as it sounds. It can really only be done on subjective reviews of performance. Promotional opportunities are limited – there isn’t a promotional path from J1 to year 13. And productivity is difficult to measure, it’s not that a teacher managing a class of 30 is twice as productive as a teacher with a class of 15. Difficult basing it on pupil results too – is a teacher with a class of high achievers in Remuera more deserving than a teacher of a class of problem kids in Otara?
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 9:06 am
Sounds excellent. Education Minister Anne Tolley should follow it through.
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 9:09 am
Don’t just talk to her Anne, get off your chuff and go and learn from her.
Vote:FFS we have believed all the BS from the education dept (mainly made up from job protecting ex teachers) and from teachers themselves, about how “these kids are from low decile areas, they are born to fail”, what a load of BS.
If we spent less time making excuses for the poor performing teachers, and they know who they are, and tried to bring some change into the system we may start to see some positive results.
These kids are our investment in the future, and only a fool continues doing the same thing and expects a different result.
The Labour party is of course going to scream like a whore with a bounced cheque, but then have a look at how many of it’s mp’s are either failed / washed up teachers or union hacks it’s to be expected, ignore them.
Bring it on Anne.
September 7th, 2009 at 9:28 am
And there Ceruim, you have summed up the sum total of the leftist thought pattern.
Concider this;
The Chemist in Remuera has a far greater potential than the one living in Waiuku
The farmer on this side of the steam has far less rocks to deal with and more fertile land.
The manager in company A has a far more experienced team than the manager in company B.
I can go on forever. You are making it about the teacher. guess what. it is about the pupil.
Vote:I have swopped from film making to educating indigenous nations in the most remote parts of Australia.
You want to talk difficult? And I am paid (or rather employed on results only)
September 7th, 2009 at 9:37 am
I applaud a lot of Rhee’s ideas, especially giving star teachers huge pay rises, and firing ineffective ones. I also sneer at the self-serving antics of teacher unions.
However, I am wary bypassing teacher training. I have earned a post grad diploma in teaching and been a teacher. I know a bit about it.
Those who have never done it often imagine that if you know your stuff it is easy to step into a classroom and teach it. It is not. They often have the idea that good teaching is simply standing in front of a class and telling students stuff. It is not. Good teaching requires a whole new skillset that has nothing to do with the actual subject content (such as maths or geography).
Yes, there are a few people who are naturals and can do it well without training – but very few. And note too: Being able to establish control in a classroom is necessary, but NOT sufficient. There are teachers like this, they take control okay but students don’t actually learn much from them. Severus Snape is a good example.
If anything I would turn the idea on its head, and allow teachers who have teacher training but don’t have degrees rather than vice versa. I would actually prefer to see MORE training for teachers (without the PC bullshit of course).
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 9:38 am
It’s not just about the pupils. It’s about what society wants from it’s education dollars.
Is it better to have a class in Remuera improve by 5% or a class in Otara to improve by 50%? Half the Remuera class are likely to chase more dollars overseas regardless. And a significant proportion of the Otara class could be the future prison population and beneficiaries unless they get help climbing out of the rut they started in.
I am not against pay penalties (or removal) for poorly performing teachers.
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 9:53 am
No Cerium, it is better to have a class in remuera performing 50% better than they did the year before, and the class in Otara performing 50% better than the year before.
The 50% is just numbers based on examples you used but you get my drift
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 9:58 am
@ Cerium “I don’t think paying for performance in teaching is as simple as it sounds. It can really only be done on subjective reviews of performance. ”
And yet every other employer somehow manages. Research has shown that teacher performance is THE single most important factor in student performance, out-weighing such union (and often parent) loved ideas such as smaller classs sizes.
There is nothing “special” about teaching. Within a school it is a relatively straight forward matter to rank teachers by their performance. As long as the sector is dominated by the union and managed by a supine government however, this will not be possible.
Transfer schools to their communities, allow full private participation, give parents the financial wherewithal to choose the school they feel is best for their kids (vouchers) and the market will sort it out. Hell give 500 schools to the union and see how those go as well.
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 10:00 am
“Half the Remuera class are likely to chase more dollars overseas regardless.”
And again you make it about the adults or the country or the collective. It is about the student and providing the student with the best possible outcome. Not the country. It is about parents wanting the best for their children. If your kid in Remuera gets a great education that changes his career path from say a bank teller to a chartered accountant that earns millions overseas, fantastic ..education system worked. If my kid in Otara goes from potential brickies laborer to town planner or valuer fantastic.
I is about getting the best for the pupil or student.
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 10:01 am
“I am not against pay penalties (or removal) for poorly performing teachers.” But you are. You cant reward good teachers without getting rid of the poor. and the average get “average” (which in union speak is being penalised against the good ones. Your prejudice against Remuera pupils is showing (the ones with any money and many of the ones with not much are all in private schools anyway so shed your crocodile tears about the risk of them going overseas somewhere else).
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 10:13 am
What Cerium fails to understand in the constant references to Remuera and Otara is that Government run schools Remuera will on average be better because Remuera parents have choice. They are more likely to opt out of a State school if it’s underperforming. State schools in Remuera respond to parental wishes or they are in trouble.
Thus economically empowering parents won’t see a huge lift in performance from Remuera schools but it would do for parents whose children will otherwise go to low decile schools.
It’s good that Tolley is showing an interest in US developments. It’s a pity Labour is not also. In State Houses support among Democrats for greater school choice via direct economic empowerment of parents is gaining in support. The Federal Democrats are still behind the times on this probably because of their close connections with teacher unions.
For what its worth US taxpayers pay US$19,000 per DC high School student – the voucher is for US$6,000. President Obama has rightly sent his children to a very good private school in Washington.
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 10:20 am
Please Bok we do not NEED any MORE town planners but I do support your view on advancing the education and achievement of all individuals
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Chris, all parents have choices. Some demographics are more likely to exercise choice. I am all for choice in education, at one stage I moved my kids from a poor school to a better school outside the area, and later a house purchase decision was influenced by the reputation of the local school.
It’s easy to say all parents should have choice and all kids should have a better education. We have to find better ways. But it isn’t easy. If you think the bottom of the heap will all choose to lift their kids out of their rut then you had better look at increasing your justice, prison, benefit and health budgets with the savings you make from education.
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 10:40 am
Slightly OT gravedodger, just started The Scottish Enlightenment: The Scots’ Invention of the Modem World, fascinating.
“….the Scots invented the modern world of capitalist democracy. The springboard for this was the most powerful legacy of the Presbyterian revolution: a universal (or near-universal) education system.”
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 11:07 am
Cerium wrongly asserts economically empowering parental choice is about saving on the education spend. It’s not.
Cerium also asserts that all poor parents don’t care about the educational success of their children. Most do; a minority don’t. For those that do why not economically empower them to get the education most suited to their children.
What the DC voucher scheme shows is that even with only a portion of the resources applied by the taxpayer applied for individual parental choice, it can have a major impact on educational success.
Arguably educational failure (in part made deeper by the lack of choice by many parents) adds to all the other costs of social failure. Economically empowering parental choice will lessen these social costs.
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 11:15 am
While I agree in concept with appointing untrained teachers within a clear framework, the suggestion that it should only applies to those with Masters or above repeats the same misguided approach as present.
Those with Masters or above are good at learning. They may not be good at teaching and in my experience, the better qualified teachers (those with the most specialist knowledge) are almost always not the best teachers at secondary school because of the massive difference in subject matter and in roles.
The irony of course is that the schools in the hard to staff areas would likely benefit from a more liberal recruitment policy – rural areas, lower-socio economic areas etc.
For those who’ve been through the experience, T-Coll is the worst “educational” experience on earth. And you have to pay for the pleasure!
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 11:33 am
You may all be interested in this video piece from Reason magazine on the Washington DC voucher program..
As the piece notes, this program was effectively killed off in May 2009 by the Obama administration. Note that the people who overwhelmingly speak in support of it are black and not wealthy.
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Graeme Edgeler (1048)
September 7th, 2009 at 8:22 am
Whilst I know we should be discussing the education system, I can’t help but comment on the article linked to by Graeme.
I was totally impressed by the well written, well researched piece of investigative journalism. I had forgotten what it was like to read such a quality article.
That said, the situation it portrays can only make you shake your head and roll your eyes.
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
I think there should be a ‘rubber room’ for cops. Perhaps Clint Rickards would have left the police quicker if he had to sit in a room during working hours to collect his pay while suspended.
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
@kiwigreg I don’t think it’s easy at all, at least not in an objective impartial way. Oh it’s easy for one teacher to bag another but that’s a different issue entirely. I usually get a low ability class with behavioural issues because I’m good with them. A remarkable number get into senior school. But the average results from such a group will still not be as good as high achieving classes. At the moment I’ve only heard fluff about how great graded pay would be. I’d be interested to hear about actually processes by which it would be implemented. On the other hand, I’ve really only had the opportunity to work with great teachers, maybe if I had the opportunity to work with some bad ones I’d be more keen to see changes.
As for the direct entry to teaching. I think that’s a great idea. It would really encourage those people who would otherwise dismiss the idea of a year without pay.
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Bring it on, I’d even go back to school for a bit of this (I think I’d even let her cane me)
http://www.asiamediainc.com/atf/cf/%7B8654644D-2241-4F54-B13D-589F4D8E9C1F%7D/Michelle-Rhee.jpg
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
So I’m going to wade into this one and defend teachers. Well most of them. The majority that I know (as as a school Board chair and being married to a teacher I have met plenty) are good-to-excellent at their jobs. Most have a genuine desire to help our kids grow and learn. Most are hard working and despite the holiday envy exhibited by the rest of us commit a fair chunk of their holidays to marking, lesson prep etc
The biggest IMO problem is that excellent teachers can’t be rewarded, and drop-kicks can’t be sacked*. This situation is manifestly unfair on everyone – the excellent teachers, the students and on your and who pay for the losers who should have been invited to try another occupation.
The challenge with rewarding excellent teachers is agreeing the assessment methodology. This is really complex and as another commenter observed, the class make-up, special needs groupings vary from class to class, and can vary within a class over the course of a year. So simply looking for test-score box ticks isn’t going to cut it. I would be inclined to use some smart web-based facility to conduct 360-type reviews on an on-going basis, including input from parents, principal, peers and link the questioning more to workplace effort and attitudes rather than the very subjective assessment of quality of education delivered.
Oh and another thing, schools should be :-
an extension of the home delivering academic education to support parents in the raising of their kids,
.. not ..
an extension of the state to deliver social conditioning to children.
*They can be sacked. I’ve done it and it’s not easy, pretty, nor in my case was it without personal threats.
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
The Washington DC schools chancellor has caused debate with proposals to give star teachers huge pay rises, fire ineffective ones and introduce a voucher system that gives pupils from low-income families thousands of dollars to attend private schools.
HMMM. Well I wonder. Have you not been listening to Act for the however many years? Have you been to sleep. Do you not rmember Tomorrows Schools by Lange that started to do all of this but was stopped by the left of both parties. What awful short memories you have.
http://www.act.org.nz/education-policy
Goal
All New Zealanders receive a quality education, not one that breeds failure.
Background
The current education system is failing too many students. Whilst it can be quite good for the academically able, many children are not even learning the basics and are achieving poor qualifications. Despite rising expenditure, New Zealand’s education standards are falling and we have now been overtaken by other developed countries. The worst performing schools are in poorest areas and parents have limited choice as to the schools they send their kids to. Too much is spent on the bloated bureaucracy that could be spent on schools. Teacher morale is low and many secondary schools suffer poor discipline.
In the 1940s the major disciplinary problems were running in halls, chewing gum, littering, cutting in line and talking out of turn. In 2008 the major disciplinary problems in schools are drug use, littering, pregnancy, suicide, assault and robbery.
Principles
Equalty
Every child regardless of family income should have the right to a quality education. No child should be left behind just because of where he or she lives or their parents’ financial position.
Child – Central
Education is first, last and always about children, it is not about government or bureaucrats.
Parental Involvement
We need to increase the role of parents and decrease the role of Wellington. Parents have the right to send their children to the school of their choice. After all, it is their money, their children and their future.
Teachers
The role of teachers and the opportunities open to them should be increased while the role of the Ministry of Education bureaucrats in Wellington should be replaced by an Education Authority (education’s equivalent of the Reserve Bank).
Open marketplace
Schools like any business should be responsible for managing their own affairs within the laws of New Zealand that apply to them. Regulatory issues would be dealt with by the Education Authority.
Safety
Children have the right to a violence free, drug free environment. Children who are afraid will not learn.
A commonsense approach to implementing these principles would involve the following:
* Support those educational approaches that work and either fix or end those that have failed.
* An educational system that teaches children how to think and how to succeed.
* An educational system that teaches our children right from wrong, one that teaches them respect, and decency.
* Allowing more money to flow into the classroom and not the bloated bureaucracy in Wellington.
* Recognise that more government and more bureaucrats are not the answer for better education. The answer lies in teachers replacing bureaucrats at the centre of education and more parental involvement. We must search for every reform proposal that does this.
Policy Detail
* An opportunity scholarship equivalent to what the government currently spends on children’s education will be provided directly to parents or by way of direct payment by the government to the school of the parents’ choice. Scholarships will be inflation proofed.
* Parents able to spend the scholarship at any approved school they wish, public, independent, non-profit or for-profit.
* Any part of their yearly scholarship left will be held in a special account. The amount in the account can be spent by them at any time on the child including university education.
* Schools will be licensed by the Education Authority in the same way the Reserve Bank licenses banks. Evidence that parents wished to send their children to a particular school would be clear evidence that the school should be licensed except in extreme circumstances.
* Schools can be of any size e.g. a sole teacher school or a chain of secondary schools.
* Schools, like any business, will be responsible for managing their own affairs within the laws of New Zealand and any educational regulations, specified by the Education Authority.
* The Education Authority will establish guidelines of expected standards to be reached at various age levels (similar to inflation targets of Reserve Bank). All schools would be assessed against those guidelines based on results for schools in similar socio economic areas.
* A move back to basics will be a standard requirement of the curriculum.
If you believe that every New Zealand child deserves a quality education regardless of how financially well off their parents are, then give ACT your Party vote, for a smarter New Zealand.
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Viking2 – Yes, this is good stuff. The sooner education is reclaimed for the purpose of helping parents help their children become academically literate and competitive in a global market place the better.
We’ve had a better part of 30 years of left-leaning, social-agenda saturated indoctrination and it’s doing plenty of damage – notwithstanding the great efforts of some that the left will no doubt hold up as evidence of their warped, state-knows-best ideology working.
Vote:September 7th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
getstaffed is mostly right here. I’m glad someone is sticking up for teachers, seeing as it appears most commentators here look upon us as but a step up from pond slime. Sure, there are bad teachers, as there are bad any-job-you-care-to-imagine, and it should be easier to get rid of poor teachers, no doubt. But trust me when I say it is the over-whelming majority of teachers who are hardworking, resourceful, empathetic and totally committed to their kids. I’d say that the biggest hurdle to delivering the best possible classroom environment is often the paperwork involved in every little aspect of your duties, but I am full of admiration for the dedication most of my fellow professionals put in.
It should also be added that just as school shouldn’t act as an extension of the state in terms of the curriculum, it should also not act as surrogate parents either to the kids, who truly benefit most from a quality home life. Sure, teachers can make a difference in many lives, but I’ve also seen wonderful kids spring up due to wonderful parenting who would do well no matter what teacher was placed in front of them.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 1:40 am
@s.russel
I completely agree you can’t have teachers unable to manage a classroom teaching.
I also agree that some potential teachers will need that sort of training, and some will not.
Rather than mandating 100% of teachers have a certain set of qualifications, it’s better to let the school decide what’s appropriate on a case by case basis.
If schools have to compete with each other to keep children, then their incentives encourage them to make the right decisions about teacher training. Schools become empowered to make hiring decisions based more on their particular situation. I.E the hiring requirements of a decile 1 school would be very much different to the hiring requirements of a decile 10 school.
Yes, there is a trade-off that some schools will make bad decisions. Sometimes not delivering enough training, and sometimes requiring too much. Schools will make mistakes.
But a centrally mandated training system also makes mistakes. It just makes mistakes on a far greater scale.
Giving schools more power means potential mistakes are more localised and effect far fewer students than centrally dictated mistakes.
Second, an opportunity is gained for children to get access to many different types of teachers/personalities. Choice and options increase.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 6:22 am
Viking/Willie, sounds ok in theory, is this sort of educational model working successfully anywhere? Or is it experimental? It is a big risk making major changes and waiting ten or twenty years to see if it works or not. Usually the more free market an approach is the more chance of some successes and quite a few failures. It would be a gamble on kids futures.
Choice sounds fine for those that want it. There a real risk that you will end up with some schools that don’t perform, especially in areas where there is a higher percentage of parents that don’t care whether their kids go to school let alone achieve anything worthwhile.
Vote:September 8th, 2009 at 6:51 am
I can see some obvious flaws in the Act model.
* An educational system that teaches our children right from wrong, one that teaches them respect, and decency.
How does it do that when a lot of parents couldn’t give a fuck and/or think schools can get fucked?
Evidence that parents wished to send their children to a particular school would be clear evidence that the school should be licensed except in extreme circumstances.
So that could result in very diverse schools with very diverse curricula?
A move back to basics will be a standard requirement of the curriculum.
But they aren’t free to do what they (parents and schools) want to do?
Administration will move from “the bureaucracy” to the schools?
What happens when a school fails financially? Or a chain of schools? What happens if the receivers shut up shop just before end of year exams?
Is there any guarantee this approach will attract and retain sufficient teachers?
This fails to say how it would address the bottom end schools and the worst pupils apart from wishful thinking or “too bad”. If parents don’t care – and there are quite a few of them – how will this model change them into supporters of schools and supporters of kids getting a good education?
Will it result in “MacDonalds” schools?
Vote: