Excellent
Stuff reports:
The Labour Party would scrap national primary and intermediate education standards if elected, says education spokesman Trevor Mallard.
Wonderful news.
Now we just need Labour to confirm how much it will increase income tax rates by to cover all its spending pledges.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: Labour, national standards, Trevor Mallard
December 4th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Stuff also reported today that some schools are allowing children to address their teachers by their first names…
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/3125628/Schools-allow-children-to-call-teachers-by-first-names/
“But Victoria University anthropologist James Urry argues that removing the age-based hierarchy is empowering kids before they are ready.
“The consequences of this usage in schools is a collapse of authority and a lack of respect which also extends beyond school. Children are empowered often without the social skills to handle their empowerment,” he said.”
December 4th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Well, with an aggressive, boorish lout like Mr Mallard as Minister of Education, that should come as no surprise.
December 4th, 2009 at 10:24 am
lmao well let the schools go down that path. they are the ones that have to pay the price an deal with the little bastards.
December 4th, 2009 at 10:25 am
ummm. . .
Let me get this straight – Labour is NOT interested in raising the level of education in this country by setting standards that are to be aspired to, and is equally not interested in helping those who cannot reach them.
Funny that – I understood that the way for a nation to progress was to RAISE the level of education, and by so-doing improve the lot of the people generally, rather than embark on a policy that seems determined to LOWER the educational level all round a policy which seemed to be their intent during the last nine years.
Perhaps, since he blogs here, Mr Mallard (whom I understand is University-educated and has therefore had the benefit of higher education) can explain to our readers why Labour has chosen to follow this path, especially as his forebears within Labour always valued education, and fought a war to ensure their children received what they never had.
Is it to ‘curry-favour’ with Maori or the Unions and so get more support?
Is it to give a better education to the un-enlightened masses?
Or is it to create a situation of control, since if you have a child by seven, you have them for life, and we are all aware that socialist doctrine advocates control at all levels.
Answers, Mr Mallard, please.
Thanks
December 4th, 2009 at 10:37 am
On yer bike Trev.
December 4th, 2009 at 10:52 am
Komata, quite right, why would Liarbore want higher education standards when your number one claim to fame is that of purveyors of spin and bullshit. My God look at the lies these people try to get away with. i.e AGW, why oh why would you want a population that has the ability to question the wisdom of the anointed. Dumber the better, makes more beholding to the state, particular a socialist outfit like these grippers.
December 4th, 2009 at 10:54 am
I can just see a Billboard in 2011
NATIONAL
December 4th, 2009 at 10:56 am
I can just see a Billboard in 2011
NATIONAL LABOUR
Education Standards Edukashun Standerds
December 4th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Hang on. National’s scheme isn’t even out of the blocks yet. It’s a little premature to be declaring it a successful scared cow.
If it was that easy, we’d have had the perfect education system a 100 years ago.
An ostensibly similar scheme in the UK has been roundly condemned as piss-poor and for turning schools into narrow exam-passing factories and turning kids off education.
December 4th, 2009 at 11:16 am
>>I can just see a Billboard in 2011
>>NATIONAL LABOUR
>>Education Standards Edukashun Standerds
Only if National had a real leader
It will be something like
With National you will get a slightly less worse education
December 4th, 2009 at 11:17 am
“a scared cow” that brought a smile
December 4th, 2009 at 11:31 am
why don’t you do some more/real research on this..dpf..?
rather than just ‘stuff’..and an opinion..?
britain is a good place to start..
to evaluate ‘national standards’ outcomes..
which have been dismal..
with schools/education being forced onto the grim treadmill/cul-de-sac..
of teaching students to pass exams…
and little else..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
December 4th, 2009 at 11:43 am
It’s offical, Labour declares itself unelectable. Good times !
December 4th, 2009 at 11:53 am
i love the smell of spin in the morning!
December 4th, 2009 at 11:57 am
@malcolm 11:10 am
Well, malcolm by the same token it is equally too early to declare it an unmitigated disaster that needs to be junked!
You will have to come up with some better rationalising for Trev’s unfocused search for a club to beat National around with.
If the headline writers don’t compete for awards on this one it will go down in history as one of the greatest lost opportunities since record keeping began.
December 4th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Fair call. I was responding more to the prior comments which seem to be assuming that the scheme is obviously a great idea and therefore anyone against it must be against better education. Which is far from proven and similar schemes overseas have not been a success.
December 4th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Regardless of the reality, calling for the abolition of national standards for educational achievement is not going to sound good.
December 4th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
If you cant measure it you cant manage it That is an irrefutable fact of life.
So how pray will a decision be made as to which children progress to the next level and then the next level.
And what happens when they leave school Who and how is it decided what advanced education programme
So applying this to say the airline sector Anyone can be a pilot if they believe they ahve the skills.
Anyone can practise brain surgery Come on You have said that standard setting is flawed so you must be definition agree with my conclusions
Dumbarses
December 4th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
As a parent I’m getting sick of all the bad press National Standards are getting. Everyones bleating about how bad they’ll be, but offering absolutely no solution. The status quo is no good either.
There is always a line drawn in the sand somewhere, in some form for what is to be expected of children at a certain age. It’s just the interpretation that seems to be confusing. At the moment the teachers understand it, but the parents have bugger all idea. It is my understanding that National Standards help to close the communication gap between the system and the parents.
It was this crazy article that scared the shit out of me of the influences on our education system
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/news/3106418/Expert-ask-baby-before-changing-nappy
So happy, confident, independent children are what we aim for? Isn’t that what we got from Gen Y? Do we need more of that?
December 4th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
I know that secondary schools are struggling with the literacy levels of a signficent no. of pupils coming through from primary and intermediate.Presumably these same students are the ones who can’t do sums either. If you can’t read or write after your first 8 years in school in NZ then you’re almost bound to fail at the next level. Futhermore the question must be asked of those previous 8 years ,what’s been taught and how? . At least Tolley is trying to do something positive about it,why knock it. Yesterday an open letter to the minister from 4 self proclaimed ‘senior academics with international reputations’ came home with the school newsletter talking about ‘labelling’ and ‘self esteem’ and ‘turning children off learning and achieving.’ These clever fellows are ascribing failure to an untried method when that failure already belongs to the present system. There is too much of the warm and fuzzy about modern education and not enough substance . The pity of it is that so many parents are failing their kids and standards are so low that its easy to fail and once they’ve failed its a life of welfare dependency and struggle. In the current system that seems to be OK as the tax payer has deep pockets (not) and can carry the failures for the rest of their dependant lives.
December 4th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Trevor promises lots of things.
In 2005 he promised that no new entrants class would have more than 15 pupils. This sounds perfect, good on you trev.
My son started new entrants in 2008. 30 kids in his class. What a wank trev.
December 4th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
The way DPF has phrased his post it seems as if Labour is against any standards at all to measure the success of the education sector.
In fact, NCEA does provide clear standards, and the information is readily available to compare schools on their NCEA success. Newspapers routinely publish this analysis each year.
Tolley has already admitted that, by and large, schools are already providing good reports to parents. That the odd school fails to do this is a failure of that particular school principal, not NCEA, so this (non)issue is a red herring.
I am disappointed by Goff and Mallard in their overall approach. A blanket rejection of standards is extremist and does not reflect the current situation. For example, the NZEI simply advocates for a limited trial before introducing the Tolley standards nationwide. This seems to me an eminently rational, sensible approach, and one Tolley should accept.
The facts are, though, that potentially, the national standards programme proposed by Tolley do two things that are counter, surely, to what most parents want.
The first is that standards “dumb down” the teaching process in that mediocre teachers get a simplified job description – teach to the test. So they know which kids will certainly pass, which kids will certainly fail, and can concentrate on the group who may pass with extra help.
The second is that the results of most kids, overall the 4th best in the OECD even though we are only ranked 21st in education funding, will suffer.
Concerned parents should access both the OECD education reports and the report of the Cambridge Primary Review before supporting a flawed approach – that of a massive change in the way our kids are taught that will, for most, be regressive.
December 5th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Funny thing is that Ive always wondered why – if one was trying to bread a better cow to produce better milk, or develop a bigger iris flower etc, that one thing you would definitely do is measure the progress. One would test the milk for protein level or measure the length of the iris petals to check if any progress was being made.
What i cant understand is why – when trying to educate someone – that it is wrong to measure how well they are doing. One wouldn’t take this approach in any other endeavor in life so why do it in the most important development project – education.
Sure – there maybe arguements about the best way to measure (and here the NZEI is grossly negligent in simply refusing to see sense in the idea) – but one must surely measure progress some how.
December 5th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Ive just read some more comments that came after I posted above.
1.Secondary schools are getting year 9′s in that are 3 years behind where they should be. Not just a few – but a growing number. 35% in some schools. ie” 35% are only at year 6 ability to read. (forget writing and maths – they are already too far behind to catch up in those two)
2. Re “Dumbing down” If dumbing down means they can read and write and do basic maths – then maybe the name is wrong!. Maybe it should be called “dumbing up”.
December 5th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Sure. But it’s also true that measuring something invariably affects the very system you’re making measurements on. The Observer Effect.
So the question is, do the benefits of the testing out-weighs the disadvantages? There is a lot of evidence from a similar programme in the UK that excessive testing causes the schools to focus disproportionately on teaching to the tests, at the expense of a broader education. And more importantly in young kids, the excessive testing and pressure turns them off learning.
For example, it’s known that your can improve you IQ score by studying the type of problems used in IQ tests. So would it be a good idea for schools to spend a lot of time studying those problems and thus improving the IQ of kids? Probably not.
It’s also wrong to characterise opponents of this idea as being against testing/progress indicator. There is already testing, and frankly for primary school kids, if a parent doesn’t know whether their kid is good at reading, math etc, I’ll go out on a limb and say that they are negligent parents. Go along to the parent teacher evening and ask their teacher.