Teachers can and should design assessments that suit the student/culture etc.

So we can code in ‘she’ll be right’ configurations in the national standards. How Kiwi is that!

You raise a valid issue, we can’t stop schools teaching to the tests. But that as a justification for no measurement of schools is hard to grasp. There is already a measurement system of students in place, it is used by teachers. Are the teachers already teaching to that but we don’t know what ‘that’ is? Do the teachers already just rig the appropriate distribution of merit, distinction, achieved, participated grades now?

The problem is not really a lack of measurement tools, or that they are not used. The issue is a fear of accountability.

Are standardised tests going to help me get the teachers stop wrote learn teaching them and stop them teaching to the test? I doubt it.

bchapman – They shouldn’t be wrote learning teaching them now! Teachers should be using stage-driven enquiry learning, followed up with formative assessment. That might be a bit sweeping, mrs getstaffed will probably tell me off. Anyhow, research those terms a bit and then challenge the teacher about his/her approach. If no change, go to the principal. If no change go to the Chair of the BOT.

Perhaps National Standards need to include some training for parents… so we know what to ask of, and expect from those we charge with educating our kids.

Also, National Standards don’t involve standardised tests or exams. Teachers can and should design assessments that suit the student/culture etc.

Mr Key is no Mrs Thatcher.

It looks like the vast majority of principals and not the teachers will be the ones not to implement this poorly thought out, unclear and frankly silly policy in February. They’ll have the unequivocal support of the teachers. The teachers and principals in turn have near total support from educational academics, including this morning on Kathryn Ryan’s show that of John Key’s annointed educational expert John Hattie. The huge majority of Boards of trustees will follow the advice of their educational experts, their teachers and principals.

Anne Tolley doesn’t appear to grasp that to govern requires the consent of the governed. She seems blithly uncopncerned that the entire education sector is about to raise the banner of revolt against her. What does foolish women expect the outcome to be? She says she can act under the education act. Really? Does she really think she she can shut practically every school in the country for who knows how long?

It is a well known phenomena that usually interaction with a profession or institution raises peoples respect for it. People who have been in hospital cannot speak highly enough of the doctors and nurses, people who have been helped by the police think they do a magnificient job, everyone loves firefighters, etc etc. Good parents are engaged with their schools and by and large respect and like the teachers and administrators of their children. They are engaged with the education system. Does Tolley really believe they back her and not the teachers?

I thought the NZEI was quietly manoeuvering Tolley into a corner where it is Anne Tolley & the Kiwiblog commentariat vs. the entire education secotrs and parents. Now it seems there is no need to try and out-manouvre this stupid woman, she is blundering along the road to confrontration despite all the signs that say “GO BACK!” “HERE BE DRAGONS!” “STOP!” and “DON’T SAY WE DIDN’T WARN YOU!”

Quality education is one of the few areas on which the two of us see eye-to-eye. Let’s give this initiative a chance. My sense is that it would be a pity to let this become partisan football.

Tolley hasn’t put up a model, just an ideology. We do have a good model in place, one that was instituted only eight years ago and one that has, regardless of the ignorant criticism, delivered top class results according the OECD tables. We rank from memory about 22nd in spend/GDP but sit 4th overall in achievements. You should go to the OECD research and check the facts.

Kimble,

I think you will find that principal is a representative sample of the principals the reporter talked to. In fact, I would say it is representative of most principals, worldwide.

Just an aside, but it is Interesting that you then take the totalitarian standpoint of suppressing dissent. One armed or one eyed?

And just so you know, standards do currently exist. Our newspapers tease out the comparison tables every year. We already know which schools perform well and vice versa. Go check ERO reports.

The people who know best who are the best teachers generally are, as they should be, the principals. Reward for performance, although not raised by your good self, is an issue that deserves to be addressed with careful research.

Just like standards.

ACT policy is clear on education. There also isn’t a lot of wiggle room in some previous answers Rodney provided to taxation policies that should be introduced.

So what’s the hold up ? Bring the kids home !

That’s my point. Why aren’t the unions holding up a better system with better data as an alternative to Tolley’s (which I don’t think is very good, but is betetr than nothing) rather than standing opposed to anything which shines a light on how well their members are performing?

If they were saying “Tolley’s proposal is flawed, let’s follow the Victorian model” I’d be supporting them. But they’re scurrying like cockroaches when the kitchen door is opened, trying to remain in the shadows. That makes me suspect their motives.

And are you really saying that when we set educational standards, that bad teachers become better? You arent doing you case any good if you are.

If you arent saying that (and I dont really think you realised you were) then would you accept the corrolary? That if we remove standards, bad teachers would become better? I dont see how that can be justified, but if you think you can make a rational argument for it go ahead.

How about good teachers? What would happen with them if standards are introduced? Will they suffer because they cant meet the standards? What makes them good teachers if they fail to teach well?

I dont think you have any cogent argument at all, just a bunch of twaddle and guff.

The article your first link sent me through had this telling quote:

>blockquote>Principal Rhonda Knight, at Coburn Primary School in Melbourne’s western suburbs, said her school was used to working with data and she did not expect the report would tell her anything she did not know about the school’s performance.

And that’s a major consideration with this data gathering obsession that just panders to the rednecks and the ignorant (I include the Minister and the Prime Minister in those aforementioned categories: has John Key actually ever formally rescinded his previous claim that global warming was a hoax?).

The second article is really about a system that is a different kettle of fish to that being imposed over here.

I hear what getstaffed, above, is saying about it being different to systems that have been either criticized (Britain) or abandoned (Japan), but if that is truly the case then professional educators (non-teachers) surely would have been more willing to adopt it. Instead, the rejection is unanimous.

Can getstaffed point to any online info (eg reports, studies from education professionals) so we can judge this system for ourselves? Or are we parents too stupid to be provided with this?

And just a quick reply to the usual anti-teacher venom posts like this supply oxygen to, the fact is that national standards are welcomed by mediocre teachers. “Teach to the test” relieves them of a lot of responsibility.

I know how dedicated most teachers are – and yes, there are always the bad apples – but national standards will likely provide succour to the very teachers we want to weed out.

I do have kids at school. I have had kids at state (mediocrity rules) schools and I have had kids at private schools. In the state schools they received “achieved the expected level” on all their reports. They complained they were bored at school and attempts to get them extended failed because the school decided that extension was not a good thing. Same kids shifted to a private school (in absolute frustration with one size fits all socialist clap-trap) have achieved remarkably well.

Reports now come how with “Excellent, Merit, Above expected level” etc.

But the real test is their results in the NSW assessments that are optional in mediocrity rules environments. Being kids that were a problem to the teachers who wanted an easy life in the state schools they did these exams and got reasonable results. Same kids in the private schools are getting excellent results.

Sure I could have said that “achieved the expected level” was a good result, but really, better, without some formal comparison ‘achieved the expected level’ means absolutely nothing. Who’s expected level ? Compared to what ?

I know all schools are different and I know that some kids will excel with [x] teacher while other kids fail with that same teacher. But if your grounds for assessing that the state school has served your child well is a ‘reasonable’ result on a state school assessment then I think you fall into the category of the perfect parent for the one size fits all system. The administrators love people like you.

Oh, just to round that off – my partner is an x-teacher who left from frustration at being told to teach to the middle of the class because there was not enough time to extent the high achievers or try and catch up the stragglers. Class sizes are a big problem and when a school has funding based solely on head count rather than any other metric don’t expect anything to change in the interests of the children rather than the administrators.

It’s been introduced in Victoria and is available to anyone online.

The reports use an assessment method developed by Melbourne University education professor Stephen Lamb, which adjusts results for variables in student and school characteristics, placing all schools on a level playing field and enabling the improvement in students to be measured.

There are quite legitimate concerns about “league tables” that simply measure pass/fails. But there are also working systems that produce results while taking other factors into account.

But the article the unions really ought to take a long hard look at is this one: “Poorer Schools Outshine the Rest”:

Despite the fears peddled by principal and teacher groups that reporting school performance will demonise schools in disadvantaged areas, the school performance reports for all government schools in Victoria reveal more disadvantaged schools are improving their students’ results, and by a greater extent, than schools in high-income areas.

Get the tests right and the good schools – and good teachers – will be obvious. And so will the handful of bad ones. Yet the unions want to protect the minority of useless teachers while holding back the majority of competent ones and denying them the recognition they deserve.

The price of solidarity is mediocrity.

I would agree not all teachers are great, but they usually seem more than adequate, some of them have gone off on Fulbright scholarships after teaching for a couple of years, and I will trust my judgement on that and remain involved with the education of my kids.

I want the teachers teaching my kids, not proving to Anne Tolley that they are.