ERO on reading/writing in Years 1 and 2
Maybe it is clearer why the unions are so against implementing the national standards in literacy and numeracy. I recommend people read the ERO report out today. Some extracts:
In contrast, the remaining 30 percent of teachers had little or no sense of how critical it was for children to develop confidence and independence in early reading and writing. These teachers had minimal understanding of effective reading and writing teaching, set inappropriately low expectations and did not seek opportunities to extend their own confidence in using a wider range of teaching practices. In these classrooms learning opportunities to motivate, engage or extend children were limited.
30% is a minority, but it is a significant minority of teachers.
Although many classroom teachers used assessment information well, school leaders were less clear about how they should use data to set and monitor appropriate reading and writing achievement expectations for children in Years 1 and 2. It is of concern that only about a quarter of school leaders set expectations that strongly promoted high levels of reading and writing achievement for children in their first two years. Furthermore, in nearly two-thirds of schools, leaders used limited or poor processes to monitor the progress and achievement of these young children.
And now this is a majority, not a minority.
The NZ education system performs well on average. But the 20% it does not serve well, are amongst the worst in the OECD.
December 16th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
30% of YEAR 1 and 2 teachers.
I see the national PR spin machine is moving up to full steam after the Principles association agreed to defer full implementation of standards testing.
I respect your arguments for the introduction, but your statement could, and will be, easily read wrong.
December 16th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
This is what I suspected. The unions only defense of national standards is that teachers will teach to the tests. Well folks that’s sounding better and better given it appears many are teaching to their own standard with no monitoring.
I do wonder about the ERO though. The current circumstance in the state schools is not new this year. Where was this reporting when Auntie Helen was in charge eh ?
December 16th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
ERO is heavily staffed by people who could not handle teaching, and is known to miss blearing obvious corruption.
It took about 8 years for them to click onto the most corrupt principle I have heard of, 8 fricken years (at least), and that was with a few anom tips being made over the years as well.
December 16th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
And millions of dollars have been spent developing the world leading Asstle system, and NEMP – both of which identify much more directly the issues ERO highlighted – pinpoint teachers with parts of their teaching which is below average and identifies those who are leaders. Now that they are trialled and ready Tolley has gone off in a direction which has lists of mistakes in it, is untrialled and has no proper moderation system.
And she has stripped the money out of the professional development budget which was aimed at bringing teachers up to speed.
December 16th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
John Hattie a unionist – thats worth a Tui billboard. A couple of months ago he was the PMs education mentor. He just happens to be a highly competent, very practical, world leader on assessment. When he says a system is dangerous any responsible Minister would listen. Tolley (and Key) won’t.
December 16th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
1. Principal, not principle.
2. The argument against standards was that teachers had the information and were using it appropriately. Therefore parents don’t need it. This report suggests that in some cases teachers don’t have the information, and in many cases it isn’t used appropriately
As my argument has been all along, this isn’t a measure aimed at the 80% of teachers. It is creating a compliance cost on the 80% so that we can work out who the 20% are. And then take some action – whether that is remedial training or something more forceful doesn’t matter. This report completely supports that position.
December 16th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Trev
“which was aimed at bringing teachers up to speed.”
That little quote best demonstrates the difference between the left and the right, you people (the left) are more concerned about bringing crap teachers ‘up to speed’ than you are about educating our kids, in most cases the crap teachers have been in their ‘profession’ for years and years, the left will hold on to them come hell or high water.
We on the right take the approach of “shape up or piss off”, the bad teachers must be rooted out of the system.
Education is about three things Trev;
1 The kids
2 The kids
3 The kids
Everything else comes a distant fourth.
December 16th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
D P F..The NZ education system performs well on average.
Difficult to see how it can be performing well on those statistics unless you include Kapihaka, and Te Reo in the mix to bring the average up..There must be a good chance of pupils striking a dead loss teacher in both years one and two and a near certainty of no rectification thereafter.
December 16th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Good on you Trev for having a go on this but Labour had 9 years to do something and chose not to.
This current argument has succeeded in showing us all why – the close links between Labour and the teacher’s unions.
December 16th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
“When he says a system is dangerous any responsible Minister would listen. Tolley (and Key) won’t.”
The MP for Hutt South keeps stirring the pot.
Don’t despair, Mr. Mallard, after all the differences between your voted-out former government and Key’s are almost negligible. Different mask, same disgusting socialist face.
December 16th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Trevor.
There were 3 terms of labour Government in which this problem should have been addressed, and urgently. How many children have left mainstream education with a literacy level below what is required to function in today’s world in that time?
Now we have a government that was elected on a platform that included the introduction of these standards, and not even mid-way through their first term, they are going to happen.
We now have a government of doers, not talkers.
And why should we have a budget to bring teachers up to speed? Why are they not up to speed when they start teaching? Do we need to address the initial training of our teachers as well?
December 16th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
But bruv, if you tell the 30% of teachers you might consider not up to speed to piss off what happens to the kids, the kids, the kids until you can replace the teachers with ones that are up to speed? Any teacher has to be brought up to speed before they can start educating kids effectively.
Without the teachers the kids can’t do much.
December 16th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
My 4 1/2 son reads, writes and is numerate.
When he starts school next year we will be watching the school he attends like hawks to ensure;
a) he isn’t held back to let others catch up,
b) he doesn’t loose what he has and pushes on.
While I don’t think that the school my son/s will attend has any of the teachers in the 30% mentioned by the ERO report one cannot be sure.
As far as I am concerned the ERO report shows we need national standards.
So, I am pleased to see that national standards are being brought in to ensure people know what their children are achieving, as are some of the more motivated school prinicpals I know.
Also my mate Bil who is a teacher and my mother who is a retired teacher think the introduction of standards is long overdue.
December 16th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
“We now have a government of doers, not talkers.”
Doers of …..nothing. You surely are taking the piss, aren’t you?
December 16th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Trevor
You neglected to mention that having spent millions developing the world leading Asstle system – Labour left it optional for schools to decide if they would use it or not.
Tell the whole story Trevor, you had 3 terms to fix it.
December 16th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Trevor
Who said; I don’t mind paying a few cents more tax to fix Health and Education ?
December 16th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Geez big bruv your a tower of intellect.
Who teaches these kids? That’s right it’s the teachers.
Our education system can’t do much about the kids it gets but it can provide professional development to get better teachers.
The ‘left’ sees the bigger picture the ‘right’ plays it’s petty, narrow minded, games.
December 16th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
YesWeDid
If the left see the bigger picture, bigger than winning elections that is, then they don’t have the balls to implement it. Trevor correctly identifies the Asstle system as being comprehensive and well designed. By failing to mention that it is not mandatory for schools he confuses the debate. Typical lefty, wants us to think the big picture is covered but really only has good intentions.
The problem is some Teachers are producing god awful results and the Asstle system used as designed could quickly identify that. I was surprised that when National talked of national standards that they didn’t start by making the Asstle system compulsory. By doing that only the schools that have to date resisted being measured would be effected.
December 16th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
big bruv
I think the big picture of the left allows for Teachers entering the system with no idea what they are doing. Sheesh, it’s not like they are put through specialist training so we can set kids learning as the key objective of primary schools.
December 16th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Where does he say that Trev? I listened to Hattie on National Radio the other morning and he was positive about the National Standard programme, but had some warnings about the implementation process. FWIW I agree, as does Mrs getstaffed who is at the ‘front line’ helping teachers get to grips with what this all means.
Your point about Asttle adoption can’t be let go either. There is a cost to training staff in this assessment method and schools have to apply to be given access (ergo training and support) to the programme. So some schools missed out due to stretched budgets, and others missed out because they weren’t accepted into the programme.
Notwithstanding this, Asttle is, as you say, an excellent programme, and there is absolutely no reason its normative and/or formative assessment techniques can’t be used as part of assessment of National Standards.
December 16th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
I want to defend teachers here a bit. Yes there are some lazy ones who should be culled. But anyone who is relying on a 20+ year old recollection of what teaching entails needs to spend a couple of days in a year 1-2 class. I have. It looks exhausting! Lesson plans are (or should be) created to each learning stage in each subject – no standalone ‘teach to the middle’ strategy as was the case in my day. Teachers often have multiple groups operating at once, their the level of compliance/paperwork only increases with each passing year. In short the effort required to teach well today is an order of magnitude greater than 20+ years ago.
All this certainly hasn’t been helped by successive governments morphing schools into social conditioning agencies – a role that they should never have been given. A quick peek at the communist manifesto will reveal why this has happened.
December 16th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
getstaffed
Toddy ?
December 16th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
burt – huh?
December 16th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
getstaffed
That answers my question. I asked that question because I know an IT recruitment heavyweight who was also a teacher 20 years ago who’s nickname was Toddy. (I was also assuming that “getstaffed” (the company) might have more people operating within it than the two people pictured on the website. )
December 16th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Trevor Mallard:
It’s true, isn’t it, that by protecting incompetent teachers from dismissal, your party and the unions who support it put the interests of those teachers ahead of the needs of the children of this country?
If I’ve got that wrong, please explain where I’ve got it wrong.
December 16th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
“Principles association” – Jeff83. I hope that is a typo and not a description. Your could get done under the Trade Descritpions Act if it is not a typo!
And Trevor Mallard – Professor Hattie is anybody’s it just depends where and when you speak to him. It this is the best you and your Trade Unions Mates can come up with, Labour is in deep trouble.
Parents need to know – with accuracy where their child is performing. It seems as if the days of Trust the Government, Trust the school are over.
Thank God!
December 16th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
OT – burt, I’m a contractor registered on the getstaffed.com website. One of the owners (whom I know reasonably well) has just asked me to consider changing my alias… lest my views be thought of as his company’s! I’m trying to dream up a new alias now. FWIW I’m a rather specialist IT contractor and don’t have any client engagements at present. Hence my rather ‘busy’ commenting here! I have a few irons in the fire, which Luc will be pleased to hear
December 16th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
I think YesWeDid is on the money with the ‘left sees the bigger picture’ comment.
The big picture for the left is getting votes, and they figured out that kids can’t vote so they need to pander to the teachers and their unions.
December 16th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
A lot of senior Labour people are very happy Tolley is introducing standards. They knew early performance was poor and that this needed to be done but the party was hamstrung by the Unions. There won’t be any more than token opposition from Labour.
December 16th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Man, what were you thinking? I have a few common acquaintances with Andrew and I assumed you were him.
December 16th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Mr Mallard: when you’ve answered my question of 6.54pm about Labour and the unions putting teachers before children, I’d appreciate it if you could address this quote from today’s ERO report…
“…in nearly two-thirds of schools, leaders used limited or poor processes to monitor the progress and achievement of these young children.”
Which party, for nine of the past ten years, presided over this 66% failure rate by our school principals to monitor the progress and achievement of these young children?
And why should we trust anything that party says about education ever again?
December 16th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Here’s a starter for ten points:
Why would the Principals’ Association be trying to stop publication of data that might identify failing schools?
For the next ten:
Why would the teachers’ unions be trying to stop publication of data that might identify failing teachers?
And for the clincher:
Why would the Labour Party be trying to stop publication of data that might upset teachers’ unions and help turn out more successful, self-reliant and ambitious children?
December 16th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
There are a lot of things that impact on learning four off the top my head
The teacher(s)
The student
Other students in the class
The parents (and/or family)
My father was a teacher for 40 years. He thought teaching today was tougher than when he started. This is not new he finished teaching in 85 and the last 4 or 5 years were overly bureaucratic.
Before that he taught in a school (1960s long before learning disorders were discovered) in a mainstream school where there were a lot of children who had difficulty learning. Even though the children would have failed Tolley’s standards it was a fact that these children were never going to be above average. The fact that many of these children grew up and became successful adults may indicate that family support and not worrying about how a school ‘compares’ to others may not be the best way to access a school. In reality the proof of an education come after school years.
There is an expectation now that teachers have to do everything. Parents blame the teachers when they need to engage with the child.
Another thing that people seem to forget is that around 50% of all school children will be below average.
December 16th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Inky_the_Red makes a stupid comment: “Another thing that people seem to forget is that around 50% of all school children will be below average.”
On the one hand, this is a banal observation in any given area. But like most socialists Inky_the_Red fails to appreciate the diversity of human beings. Yes, 50% of students will be below average in chemistry, but among those 50% will be kids who thrive in maths, or English literature. Very few kids, if any, will be below average in everything.
The important thing (for secondary kids anyway) is to help them discover what they are good at and how they can thrive in that area. You need testing to do this.
December 17th, 2009 at 12:57 am
Of course the ideologues around here immediately latch on to this report as proof of the need for their current favourite pet project- making teachers responsible for all of our social ills. So simple, really, isn’t it? And the method for achieving this goal is also simple – a national system of ‘one-size-fits-all’ standards Stalin and Kim Jong il would be proud of.
Well no, maybe not quite so simple, except to simple people.
Here are the ERO recommendations in regards to the Ministry of Education:
1. Develop writing assessment tools for Years 1 and 2; and
2. Support beginning teachers so they can confidently use and analyse data from a range of reading and writing assessment tools, and are introduced to a repertoire of teaching approaches that cater for all Years 1 and 2 students’ literacy needs.
Does anyone see any mention of National Standards for the whole primary system? Not only is there no mention, but ERO specifically criticises a ‘one-size-fits-all’ mentality in the teaching process. It would take a giant leap of logic to suppose that this would infer support for the National Standards approach.
Furthermore, the fact is that the 2009 OECD report “Education at a Glance” for New Zealand asserted our kids education is “fourth best overall” in the OECD, while identifying specific areas for the government to focus on for further improvement.
But no, all I have read and heard of Tolley’s reaction is that National Standards is the answer.
So what we see is acceptance of the report’s findings, coupled with not only rejection of the report’s recommendations but inserting her pet solutions against the advice of her own specialist advisers who wrote the report.
And why? Well, in a nutshell, why spend money on training teachers when tests are the answer?
December 17th, 2009 at 7:11 am
I doubt this is right. Some kids seem to excel at everything they try. Some have strengths and weaknesses. And some struggle with everything. Apart from the obvious group with intellectual disabilities there are a some don’t fit the standard education model, and there are some who don’t want to learn.
I remember from school (albeit a few decades ago) there were quite a few kids who were below average at everything (excluding sport for some only). They usually left school as soon as they turned fifteen.
December 17th, 2009 at 7:28 am
So much for teaching being a profession when they will all teach to the tests!
If that is the best the Union can say then maybe we shouldn’t treat them as professionals but employees?
Does an employee tell you what to do?
How many years were you Minister of Education Trevor?
Why did you let the majority of Schools, Principals and Teachers not assess properly.
In any business quality control is the key to longevity.
Why not something really serious like our next generation’s education?
Maybe you are not fit for purpose as a minister perhaps?
December 17th, 2009 at 9:46 am
This is why we need to pay schoolmasters and mistresses on results.
When these chaps receive their pay regardless of doing anything to actually earn it they simply babysit for a few hours per day; if we were to pay them $30,000 per year and a bonus per pupil (paid at the end of the year) we would see standards skyrocket overnight.
Instead of schoolmasters and mistresses puffing and sweating and complaining about what long hours they work (although god knows what they are doing during that time as all their pupils fail and are moronic) and carrying bags and boxes of papers as a kind of uniform to prove to anyone seeing them how busy they are and getting all angry when someone sneers at their 12 weeks holiday per year, perhaps they could actually teach; actually get results; actually do what they are paid to do rather than trying to win some sort of martyrdom contest.
http://www.nightcitytrader.blogspot.com
December 17th, 2009 at 10:22 am
I can’t think of a more exalted role in society than that of the great teacher who goes the extra mile for our children.
But I have a huge problem with those who go only half a mile and can’t teach. We’ve all had them, and so have our kids.
Ironically these people have no trouble failing our kids in tests, yet they’re granted immunity by the state from the consequences of their own failure.
These teachers need to be treated the same way as failures in any other field. They need to be told to leave the field.
But Trevor and his unionist friends would sooner bring down the education system than pay good teachers more than bad ones.
They would sooner a child left school functionally illiterate than remove even one incompetent teacher from that child’s path.
Again Trevor (and I know you’ve probably had a hard night and may not have caught up with my questions of 6.54pm and 9.11pm yet): if I’ve got that wrong, please tell me where I’ve got it wrong.
December 17th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Listen to the bleeding heart socialists. It’s not fair to blame the teachers for all the failings of the children
Well – yes it is when the progress of the childrens learning is not reported accurately to the parents.
December 17th, 2009 at 11:02 am
I agree with Luc.
Quite honestly, most people commenting here know very little about how young children learn, or what is appropriate at a young age.
The ERO statement that “…the remaining 30 percent of teachers had little or no sense of how critical it was for children to develop confidence and independence in early reading and writing.” is one of those statements that require some sort of context.
Such as, NZ is one of the few countries in the world where children start school at age 5.
Age 6 to 7 is more common.
So, what does this mean? Are those countries where children start school at age 7 failing their children? Or is there more involved in education than getting children writing by age 6, which is what our standards want to test for.
The answer is yes, there is more involved. For instance:
That 32 million word head-start means an advantage could be thought of as created by early learning, but could instead create the early learning. In other words, the ERO statement could be putting the cart before the horse, making everyone here jump up and down yelling how important this is – without understanding what the purpose of the cart or the horse is.
I’ll say this again – the standards for young children are going to cause more problems than they solve. It would be better to spend the money, time and effort on educating parents on how important it is to read aloud to their children, than testing those children.
December 17th, 2009 at 11:16 am
Lucia Maria
And this is why one size won’t fit all no matter how much easier it makes life for the administrators.
December 17th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Burt,
Yep.
I think the biggest problem with education that we have in NZ, is government involvement. Government gets involved, and it can wreck the education of an entire generation if they get it wrong.
December 17th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Someone wrote:
My 4 1/2 son reads, writes and is numerate.
When he starts school next year we will be watching the school he attends like hawks to ensure;
a) he isn’t held back to let others catch up,
b) he doesn’t loose what he has and pushes on.
Then your son is going to be disadvantaged by the new standards. The teacher will have to teach him the standards, most of which he already knows, so he’ll be bored. The kids who are behind and well behind will take up all the teachers time since if they don’t meet the standards then that’s going to effect his/her job.
Pushing you kid anywhere above the standards is going to get very low priority.
December 17th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Allow me to contribute a different perspective on this issue, because a lot of comments in this thread point the finger at the education system alone.
Who is really to blame here? Where does the problem truly originate from?
The schools or the parents? Perhaps a combination of both?
Not so long ago education was a partnership or a relationship between parents as the first and most influential teachers for their children and the school/education system: responsible for delivering the school cirriculum.
This was a relationship that centralized on the importance of home work and out of classroom study and constant revision – sadly I am one to believe that this relationship/partnership is now almost non-existent or at risk of becoming forever extinct.
Our teachers are now expected to teach morals, principles and values – once the role of our parents in the home. Our parents however do not hesitate to blame the school or the system for their child’s failures across the spectrum…
This is a breakdown that has slowly occurred since the technology boom, resulting in play station consoles, internet connections, 24 hour/7 day sky television coverage, etc:
Are NZ Parents asserting time period restraints on these new found mechanisms? Have they accepted the danger that these pose on the education and learning of their children?
International studies clearly indicate the danger also in health care – particularly in eye site and hearing, no doubt a significant impact on future employment/educational up-skilling.
What happened to homework and the importance of reading in our homes, especially for our children?
Reading is one of the fundamental principles for all-round learning and education – inspiring the ability to read, write, spell and speak in coherent fashion. Sadly an assumption exists that reading of any substantial level should remain within the class room environment and this couldn’t be any further from the truth.
As a young youth leader in my local community I have had the unfortunate pleasure of seeing first-hand children who spent much of their time at home after school and during the weekends either on the game console or watching television – there was no expectation by the parents (often exhausted by workload or other living circumstances) to facilitate reading, home work, learning a musical instrument, extra tutorials, etc, etc.
I might be a traditionalist in this sense but without this partnership between schools and parents and without this accountability for learning to continue within the home, I expect to see a continued decline in literacy and numeracy in this country. You might point the finger solely at the system but others see a more multifarious problem that also involves parents and families and the role that they should be playing in the pursuit of their child’s educational needs.
December 17th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Fale Andrew Lesa: that may be, but until the problems are identifiable and measurable they won’t get fixed. And if some schools are doing better than others the reasons can be found and learnt from.
December 17th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Fale Andrew Lesa – you are right.
Parents who are involved with the education of their children should identify any problems and to seek to rectify them. It’s not always simple, and standards testing alone won’t always work. My son managed to do ok at school but started having problems with blackboard (whiteboard) work when he was seven – we (parents) found out he had eye problems (he thought seeing double was normal and didn’t think to say anything about it). Resolved with glasses. Hearing is another common problem.
December 17th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Pete George
Problems with poor vision or hearing are picked up quickly by national screening programs. I don’t see this as any different than national standards – problems are identified and solutions put in place. Why the unions and the Labour party get so upset about national standards speaks volumes about who’s best interest they are serving – it isn’t the kids and it isn’t the community.
December 17th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Kids study when there’s no way out. That means teachers and parents have to work together.
Teachers should call the parents in at the start of the year and say, “This is what I need from you if we’re to get a result with your child. Here’s what we’ll be doing in class, here’s the homework I need you to supervise, and here’s the notebook in which we can compare notes on the progress we’re making.”
Most parents would be OK with that. Those who aren’t should not complain.
There’s much we Kiwis could learn from Asian parents, who tend to set the bar much higher than we do. We should get the Chinese and Indian mums to run seminars and explain how they get their kids to perform.
In short, they regard educational support as part of their parental job description. We tend not to.
December 17th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Can anybody tell me the salary range for teachers?