Luc Hansen thank you for pointing out these very important resources, I will endeavour to read them for my own benefit.

Forgive me for portraying an individual viewpoint that was clearly unaligned to the real facts & research, what I initially posted was NZ Education as I saw it – the Grammar experience was indeed valuable but my own personal experience of primary and intermediate standards left me feeling that there was huge room for improvement.

Thank you indeed.

In 2006 twenty-five percent left school without a qualification, in 2007 it was eighteen percent and last year 16%. That’s a nine percent improvement over three years.

But what values do these qualifications have? We can give every student “thanks for coming” awards but it doesn’t mean they left school qualified.

But all you bloggers who seem to think that teachers don’t communicate to parents should study Tolley’s own words as reported by the Herald: ” Mrs Tolley said she had no problem with the amount of reporting on children as schools were largely doing it anyway.”

So this is much ado about nothing; a dog whistle for the ill-informed?

When you have the PPTA and the NZEI both voicing extreme disquiet, as education professionals, on the plan to narrow the focus of our schooling, no matter what your own personal prejudices tell you, it’s time to stop running to heel and start to do some serious listening.

And two recent reports totally back up our teachers views. The OECD in particular mentions our NCEA system approvingly. This is hardly surprising when NZ consistently ranks highly in achievement levels, even though our childrens education is underfunded compared to other countries.

Standardised tests have been proven overseas now as being counterproductive, and the blinkered ideological mindset of Britain’s politicians must be incredibly disappointing for British educations professionals, as it will be for ours.

And the fact that kids now stay longer at school makes it even more important to provide a wide and varied curriculum.

As an example of how there is always room for improvement, the OECD report is unequivocal on the issue of students repeating years: it is counterproductive for the kids and an unnecessary cost to the system.

The Cambridge Report specifically damns the use of league tables, as advocated by MikeNZ. I urge Mike to take the time and read the report and browse through the OECD report. Links to both are above.

Seriously, a good foundation in reading writing, arithmetic and natural sciences is going to get our kids ahead alot more than any cross cultural and ill executed ICT courses at primary school level.

And the only way of knowing if the foundation is being delivered is by some form of measurement.

Parents have the right to know whether their kids are reaching foundation levels.

Teachers need to get with the program and make it work however I’m afraid that there will be a concerted program of non compliance by unionised teachers to the detriment of children.

The main point is that Kelvin Davies wrote: “In 2006 twenty-five percent left school without a qualification, in 2007 it was eighteen percent and last year 16%. That’s a nine percent improvement over three years.”

I pointed out that in fact it is a 36% improvement over the three years, using 2006 as the base year. In anyone’s language, these are huge gains.

Even today, Anne Tolley is quoted as saying that 1 in 5 kids leave school without a qualification when the figure for last year was actually 1 in 6.25, and is obviously on track to be improved again this year. And as I have posted above, NZ is highly ranked in all the child education tables of the OECD in spite of our low incomes and low government spending.

I don’t have access to the figures, but I would love to know the long term trends of leaving without qualifications from when I was in college in the late 1960s, when most kids seemed to leave at their 15th birthday (I was destined to be one of those but the Headmaster had a chat to my Dad ), many more left after School Certificate year, and the class was reduced to a decided rump for what is now 7th form.

If anyone can help there, I would appreciate it. DPF, if he reads this, has my permission to release my email address to genuine parties (who probably don’t spend much time here due to the in-your-face-abusive-rabid-right so prevalent on this blog). Even I get sucked into that abusive mode sometimes, to my shame. But, hey, they are why I’m here. No point preaching to the converted

For example, ben favours parents as education experts. I don’t. I am well educated (university qualification) but no way do I consider myself an education expert. I look to the MoE, principals and teachers to guide me in what is best for my child.

transmogrifier asserts that “literacy and numeracy are vitally important.” Who could seriously disagree with that? But I would add, so is a rich and varied wider curriculum that promotes the intellectual and social development of a well-rounded individual. Versatility and creativity (read the no. 8 wire mentality) are, after all, the great strengths of the kiwi character. Why are we so sought after as employees overseas? Why do we consistently punch above our weight in so many international arenas? Because we are practical, can think on our feet, have high levels of literacy and numeracy, and can apply those key competencies to a wide range of areas and disciplines.

And transmogrifier has, as have we all, met international Asian students brilliant at maths. Trouble is, they are often nowhere to be seen in other disciplines. Why? Because their thinking skills have been so narrowly focused during their development.

fale also makes general statements unsupported by evidence, aside from his account of the Grammar experience. He asserts, for example, that our education standards are declining when, in fact, all the evidence points to the opposite conclusion, see below. If you don’t bother to read it, bottom line is that our kids (0-17) are among the best educated in the world (read top 4 in the OECD).

And we all take guesses at the causes of the high tertiary dropout rate, but no-one calls for actual research. Probably the most useful paper I completed at university was Management of Quality. In this paper I learned the truth about guesses, intuition, gut feelings, call it what you will. The truth is, it’s invariably wrong. Sorry guys.

Now I’m going to present some real evidence about the New Zealand’s environment and education system for children aged 0-17.

(Start of cut and paste)
NEW ZEALAND  
Country Highlights 
OECD (2009), Doing Better for Children 

Outcomes for New Zealand children are weak in several key areas, according to the OECD’s first 
ever report on children. Co‐author of the OECD report Mr Dominic Richardson concludes that “New 
Zealand needs to take a stronger policy focus on child poverty and child health, especially during the 
early  years  when  it  is  easier  to  make  a  long‐term  difference.  Despite  a  relatively  good  average 
educational performance, gaps in education between top and bottom performers are higher than they 
need be. 
 
New Zealand government spending on children is considerably less than the OECD average. The 
biggest shortfall is for spending on young children, where New Zealand spends less than half the OECD 
average.  

( Two graphs that don’t cut and paste, but the titles tell the story)

1. Early childhood spending in New Zealand is half of that spent in later stages.
2. New Zealand has the highest rates of youth suicide in the OECD

Material conditions for Kiwi kids are relatively poor. Average family incomes are low by OECD 
standards, and child poverty rates are high. The number of New Zealand children who lack a key set of 
educational possessions is above the OECD median. 
 
Despite their relatively poor material living conditions, Kiwi kids manage high rates of educational 
achievement – the fourth best in the OECD. However, unlike the other three high performing countries, 
differences between good and poor performers in the education system in New Zealand are average, 
not low. 
 
In terms of child health, New Zealand has the highest rates of suicide in the OECD for youth aged 
15‐19.  Overall child mortality is also higher than the OECD average. Immunisation rates are poor for 
measles (2nd worst in the OECD) and whooping cough (5th worst in the OECD). 
 
New Zealand spends less than the OECD average on young children and much less than it does on 
older  children.  Spending  more  on  young  children  is  more  likely  to  generate  positive  changes  and, 
indeed, is likely to be fairer for more disadvantaged children. Based on international evidence, the OECD 
concludes  that  New  Zealand  should  spend  considerably  more  on  younger,  disadvantaged  children. 
Equally, the  New Zealand government should ensure that current high rates of spending on older 
children are much more effective in meeting the needs of the disadvantaged amongst them.  
(End of cut and paste) 
 
So we perform poorly (no pun intended) in income and child poverty statistics, but perform very well in education outcomes.

And it’s all the fault of our education system and our teachers, right?

Yeah, right!

I agree with your assessment. In fact, I’ve talked to a number of Korean high school students living and studying here who are amazed at how low the level of maths being taught here, even at Years 9 and 10, is.

Our local school had a lovely bunch of Anglican biddies who made themselves available for reading recovery for the kids.
They were stuffed around by the Principal and some of the teachers so that in the end they gave up.
I think it was deliberate as i was privy to some behind the scenes info, bloody anti religion socialist with a “we’re the professionals” attitude.

The local community has lost an asset that cost nothing all because of one principal and a delegate of the NZEI.
Sod em I say let’s have standards, they should already being doing it as part of basic schooling esp as we pay their salaries.
All I’ve heard is “we are in partnership with parents” blah de blah.

That’s rubbish, My wife and I are the principals of our kids lives, access to them is through us, we decide.
The teachers and principal are the hired help, specialist knowledge (for their system) just like our accountant, Lawyer and doctors, dentists are.

Allow me to elaborate further on the issue of NZ Schooling, the current curriculum and the areas of reform that our country’s education system actually requires urgently.
At 19 years of age fresh from Auckland Boys Grammar school, class of 2007 I can confirm that Maths, English and Science are completely COMPULSORY for all students up until the year 11 (or fifth form) – often til the age of 16. After this year students are given the freedom to branch off into their own preferred areas of the cirriculum to complete the remaining two years of secondary education.

Maths, English & Science are rather strong at secondary level – my issue or concern would be how its being taught at the lower levels of Primary and Intermediate schooling prior to high school. During this period of schooling, students are given a very poor understanding of the three golden subjects and at most are taught the very basic introductions like vocabulary, comprehension, reading and writing – adding, subtracting, multiplications and divisions – the human body, energy, the environment and the solar system.

All very important components no doubt – but clearly by increasing the capacity of the school cirriculum at the lower levels, students will know more for when they reach the higher levels and could therefore focus on the more complex and multifarious components of the school cirriculum.
I believe this is the curriculum structure that most of Western Europe follows which clearly explains the decline in NZ Education standards as we moved away from that. Quite frankly New Zealand Students are learning far too less at the lower end of the schooling cirriculum and therefore miss out on greater opportunities at the higher level.

This is also a leading contributor regarding NZ’s high tertiary drop-out statistics which clearly indicate that a number of NZ Students are ill equipped with the required level of education and intellect to commit themselves accordingly to the more advanced educational curriculum of university standards.
More or less a reduction in the focus of sciences as a subject core is not the answer, the answer is increasing capacity load at the lower levels of the educational spectrum – allowing for greater opportunity at the more advanced stages. Clearly NZ is in short fall when it comes to the Science industries already, a continuation of this benefits no one.

Plus, tvb, I’m a teacher. It brightens my day to know I am despised sight unseen by some random fellow Kiwi. Enjoy your Labour Weekend.

The problem with this argument between Tolley and the unions is its premise: that there is a single answer to a question so big and complex. Some kids will excell under one model and not the other. Other kids vice versa.

How about not setting national curricula, not drawing any funding distinction between public and private, or religious and secular, or Maori and (non-racial? non-race specific?), and letting parents decide what works for their kids? That’s a system that works absolutely everywhere it is permitted.

# Luc Hansen (253) 0 7 Says:
October 24th, 2009 at 11:05 am

The NZEI and it’s members need to have the courage of their convictions and stand up to the government. I for one don’t want my daughter entering a backward school system in four years time.

Here is an extract from this article: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/richard-garner-a-study-that-should-sound-the-death-knell-for-league-tables-1803630.html discussing this report: http://www.primaryreview.org.uk/index.html

“Professor Robin Alexander’s team has come up with an impressive analysis of what is wrong with our present system. Too much testing, too much concentration on the three R’s to the neglect of a broad and balanced curriculum, and too many “Stalinist” directives from ministers as to how teachers should teach.”

This is scholarly research embodied in a comprehensive project employing 100 researchers. It is not gut instinct, seat of the pants, ideological whimsy as exhibited by Key and Tolley.

I showed here a week or so ago how Tolley misrepresented statistics. I’ll dig it up when I get time.

As the head of the NZEI pointed out, this initiative is from left field, a surprise sprung on a professional sector which has been carefully and methodically heading along a completely different path, utilising best practice from around the world. NZ can actually hold it’s head high in terms of country rankings in, for example, the OECD. More on that later.

Teachers need to get involved in the debate. They should be here, now, getting their points across.

End of earlier post

Isn’t it interesting that I have had 7 bad karmas already?

Since that post I have done a little research and now we can have a look at a some OECD indicators of education system quality, just in case facts come into consideration, for a change.

The latest OECD education figures, contained it its 2009 “Education Report: an OECD perspective,” surveying 15 year olds, puts NZ ninth out of 24 (9/24) in mathematics proficiency, seventh out of 24 (7/24) in science proficiency, and fifth out of 24 (5/24) in reading proficiency (2006 data)

On the other hand, our tertiary graduates are the lowest earners in the entire OECD (2006). And the premium for tertiary education over secondary school achievement only is the lowest in the OECD, a paltry 1.15, as opposed to the high of 2.19 in Hungary, believe it or not! And I won’t trot out the figure, it’s buried in the report somewhere, but we have a very high tertiary dropout rate. I’m not qualified to speculate why, but it has been suggested to me that we are sending to many to university.

Further, as regards the recent debate on the cuts in Community Education, from the same report, this is relevant:

Brain research confirms the wider benefits of learning, especially for
ageing populations: For older people, cognitive engagement, regular physical
exercise, and an active social life promote learning and can delay degeneration of
the ageing brain. The enormous and costly problems represented by ageing
dementia in ever-ageing populations can be addressed through the learning
interventions being identified through neuroscience. Combinations of improved
diagnostics, opportunities to exercise, appropriate and validated pharmacological
treatment, and good educational intervention can do much to maintain positive
well-being and to prevent deterioration.

Note the “good educational intervention.” One can debate the value of some classes run under our soon to be moribund CE system, but we have taken the opposite tack to that recommended in this report.

In fact, it’s a worthwhile project to examine just how many government policies are now taking us in the opposite direction of what the OECD considers as best practice. Anyone care to fund me to do the hard yards?

You can see the report for yourselves here: http://www.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/display.asp?sf1=identifiers&st1=962009021E1

I might just concentrate now on fact checking Tolley’s wild allegations and spurious statistics, but later – time to take a baby to a beach.

Several teachers I know are appaled by the standard of whats being produced by teachers colleges these days. Anything with a pulse.