The battle for standards
December 14th, 2009 at 5:45 am by David FarrarThe Herald reports:
Education Minister Anne Tolley says she will sack the boards of primary schools which allow teachers to boycott national standards, saying they would be refusing to obey the law.
Tensions over the new standards in literacy and numeracy are increasing.
Teachers’ and principals’ unions are lobbying school boards to support them in their call for a trial period before the standards are introduced nationwide.
The unions have also threatened boycotts and industrial action, and last week wrote to principals urging them to ask school boards to voice the same concerns.
Mrs Tolley has ruled out a trial, and said that in “extreme” cases of a boycott she would dissolve the board involved – because the trustees would be refusing to obey the law – and replace it with a commissioner.
“If despite having that pointed out to them, they absolutely refused, I do have the power to dissolve the board and put in a commissioner,” she said.
“In the end, I would have to do that. I don’t think it would come to that, but if it went to the nth degree I would do it.
You just cannot have schools disobeying the law.”
Absolutely. If people do not like the national standards, they should vote for a Labour Government that will scrap them. But National won the 2008 election with a explicit commitment to introduce the standards, and voters not unions should get to decide the law.
Mrs Tolley said the Ministry of Education would give as much support as possible to boards stuck in a standoff with teachers.
But she would not be backing down on her decision to introduce standards nationwide from next year.
The minister said she had already made many changes in response to concerns from the unions but each time, they had returned with more and she believed their arguments were now purely philosophical.
“That’s why I’m putting my foot down … If there are changes needed, we will make them.
“I’m not saying this is it from day one. But we have to get started because this is about kids failing in the system. I’ll do whatever it takes to make this work.”
As Anne has said, there has been masses of consultation and even compromise. But some no doubt seek delay just for the sake of delay.
Related posts:
- A battle too important to concede
- Editorials on National Standards
- Dom Post on national standards
- Audrey on National Standards
December 14th, 2009 at 6:14 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Unpopular. Like or Dislike:December 14th, 2009 at 6:37 am
Mrs Tolley has carefully manoeuvred the unions so that they were not ready to strike over exam & exam marking time. A strike in the early part of next year will enable a mass flushing of the system; such fun to look forward to!
December 14th, 2009 at 6:44 am
The only way change for the better will ever be achieved in this country is for the Government to outlaw the membership by Principals of the Teacher Unions, whether directly in the NZEI and PPTA or through surrogates such as the NZPF and the Unionised Principal’s Groups. This is the cloth cap compulsory unionism which brought this country to its knees in the 1970′s and early 80′s.
December 14th, 2009 at 6:50 am
She spent one meeting reading a childrens book to the union delegates.
Some people are never happy – you give them massive amounts of consultation and they quibble about the form that it took.
…outlaw the membership by Principals of the Teacher Unions…
Yes, that would certainly demonstrate the govt’s commitment to freedom and liberty for all.
Vote:December 14th, 2009 at 7:03 am
The Nats.never learn. The labour mates at Courtney Place just told DPF you need to win. The Nats have never learnt that and you all thought it was the Labour Party that took winning out of life’s equation.
The only way for the Govt. to win is change the rules.
Bulk funding, individual contracts and stop negotiating with unions. Its what they do and are a lot better at it than any National Minister.
Same old same old from the old Party.
December 14th, 2009 at 7:11 am
How is that going to change the illiterati class problem for the better?
Vote:December 14th, 2009 at 7:38 am
Teachers say they already know the children who are failing. I think many do – in which case why don’t the parents know too and why are so many children still finishing school without sufficient numeracy and literacy skills?
The tests and reporting will formalise what most teachers may already know and ensure parents are informed too. But the success of the policy will rely on what happens next to ensure the children who are recognised as not being up to speed early get the help they need to succeed.
December 14th, 2009 at 7:50 am
DPF: “Absolutely. If people do not like the national standards, they should vote for a Labour Government that will scrap them.”
Hmmm, that’s what I sorta did by not liking the anti-smacking bill and voting in National.
[DPF: National voted for it and never promised to change it.]
Vote:December 14th, 2009 at 7:55 am
Teachers say they already know the children who are failing. I think many do – in which case why don’t the parents know too and why are so many children still finishing school without sufficient numeracy and literacy skills?
National standard parental aptitude testing would certainly be more useful for educational outcomes than what Tolley’s proposing, but you gots to stick with what’s politically feasible I guess. In this case, we’ll spend huge amounts of money, waste huge amounts of teachers’ time and add another lay of back-office bureaucracy (nice one, John Key – way to stick to those principles, mate) to establish that, strangely enough, kids in decile 1 schools don’t do as well as the ones in decile 10 schools. The big question is, having blown our dosh on finding out confirming the obvious, what might Tolley and her colleagues do about it? My money’s on “not a whole lot, really.”
Vote:December 14th, 2009 at 8:01 am
The national standards programme is going to expose bad teachers. Thats its main effect. If teachers already know whose failing then its their fault for not passing that onto parents (instead of stupid comments like “A pleasure to have in class) and of theyd done that (Instead of the PC crap and all that goes with the ‘feel good’ ideas) then there would be no need for national standards.
But what is actually going to happen is the exposure of the useless teachers. They are mostly in the low decile schools (because they cant get jobs in better equipt schools), and thus the programmes for low decile schools will change from “throw lots of money at them” (and believe me its lots) to “how can we get better teachers to go to them”
Vote:That will be progress.
December 14th, 2009 at 8:22 am
Ready. Fire. Aim. A useful rule of thumb in business, and in life – it is easier to redirect something in motion than something static. The principals and teachers, in requesting a trial, prefer Ready. Aim. Aim. Aim. Analysis paralysis. And hope folk get tired of waiting. I wonder why …
Vote:December 14th, 2009 at 8:24 am
National Standards: a benchmark we will never achieve providing a metric which will show how deficient we are without providing any real answers as to why nor a real solution to functional illiteracy and innumeracy in the underclasses.
However it will provide new Government programs and jobs for the
Vote:boysgirls and interminable news releases on how badly we a failing our childrenDecember 14th, 2009 at 9:04 am
The parents do know. But they either don’t care or they’ve created kids who they have no control over. There are still reports and parent-teacher evenings.
Show me a parent who doesn’t know their kid can’t read and I’ll show you a bad parent. Plain and simple.
Vote:December 14th, 2009 at 9:07 am
The national standards programme is going to expose bad teachers.
No, it’s going to expose children who aren’t learning. This may be a result of bad teaching, or may be the result of other factors – eg, bad parents, glue ear, foetal alcohol syndrome, you name it. Given that “bad teachers” and “other factors” are both present to some unknown degree in decile 1 schools, the testing will tell us nothing reliable at all about the teachers.
Vote:December 14th, 2009 at 9:24 am
There is some validity in what you say Milt, but look at it from another angle – if a particular D1 school shows up with above-average results, might that not mean the the school is staffed by teachers who have the skills and passion to impart good learning IN SPITE OF all the impediments you refer to? Much as I dislike the teacher unions per se, there are some damn fine teachers out there.
Vote:December 14th, 2009 at 9:33 am
Whilst I am for the national standards I believe they will identify more bad parents than teachers. Good teachers can’t teach kids if they are’t at school.
If this suceeds in getting parents on baord then it will reduce the current problem
Best of luck Mrs Tolley
Vote:December 14th, 2009 at 9:42 am
Inventory you cannot make a silk purse out of a sows ear
The best teacher in the world is not going to have much success in explaining logarithms to a class of 15 year old girls from South Auckland – it is totally unrealistic to expect otherwise.
What we need to do is identify kids with potential and make sure that they receive the education they deserve and that everybody receives the education that most benefits them.
A one size fits all approach is doomed to fail everyone
Vote:December 14th, 2009 at 10:07 am
Andrei is right, girls cant do maths.
Vote:December 14th, 2009 at 10:31 am
I see that this subject continues.
I was away from my computer until an hour ago (yes, some of us can tear ourselves away, painful as it is), so I have only just picked up Luc Hansen’s challenge to me on Saturday night to prove my point that 20 percent of school-leavers are functionally illiterate.
Luc, you might need to go back and have another look at the thread and the posts that defined the term ‘functional illiteracy’ and where it came from. Another poster, if I remember correctly, said the problem was worse than you appeared to believe.
Failing that, go and find out for yourself. The statistic has been in the newspapers.
I hope Tolley wins on this.
Vote:December 14th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
The biggest problem that Tolley faces is that BOT’s are voted in as well. If she loses their support national standards are doomed. If she starts firing BOT’s, she WILL lose their collective support.
They are parents, doing a thankless job, many of whom are likely to support teachers, who do another thankless job. Add in the fact that a world reknowned expert on assessment is calling for trials AND the recent OECD reports and Tolley is walking a very fine line, one which she would be wise to reconsider.
Vote:December 14th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Trypewriter (such an appropriate nickname) says: The statistic has been in the newspapers.
I guess that’s a slam dunk, then. The newspapers are never wrong.
Another poster provided a link to a Tertiary Education Committee briefing paper, which says, in part, this:
“The 2006 results from the International Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey show that 40-50 percent
of working age New Zealanders have literacy, language, and numeracy skills below those thought
necessary for full participation in society and the economy. Raising workforce literacy, language
and numeracy is a key area of action under the Skills Strategy.”
it may be news to some here, but the above extract is not calling 20% of school leavers functionally illiterate.
The same report also says:
“Currently, almost 25 percent of young people leave school before their seventeenth birthday,
and around 35 percent of secondary students leave with less than a Level 2 NCEA qualifi cation. A
disproportionate number of these are Mäori and Pacifi c Peoples. Overall, New Zealand has a low
participation rate in education for 15 to 19 year olds compared to other OECD countries. This is
refl ected by the high number (around 10,000) of young people aged 15 to 17 in Census 2006 data
who were estimated to not be engaged in work, training, or education. This lack of engagement has
a strong negative impact on the lives of these young people and their communities.”
What more does Tolley want in terms of where to direct her energies? How will her broad brush approach solve two very specific problems clearly enunciated for her?
I think the application of the term “functionally illiterate” to the 20% is a gross misrepresentation, and, with a hat tip to Michael Cullen, the equivalent of an “ideological burp.”
I actually work with school leavers who left school without any NCEA Level 1 or even core literacy (do you know the difference?), yet complete their paperwork competently. So my anecdotal evidence says the claim is crap. But I certainly wouldn’t ask them to write a productivity improvement assessment for presentation to the board!
And those people who keep saying that the standards would show up the bad teachers are simply wrong; the opposite is the case. The standards may not be test based, but they are narrowly prescribed and the teachers, especially the less talented ones, will dumb down their teaching to maximise assessment success. The best and the brightest will be the ones that suffer.
So, briefly, your claims are the ones based on belief; I prefer evidence.
Vote:December 15th, 2009 at 12:14 am
Luc Hansen
The Listener 2006: School wars By Amie Richardson provides some really good background to this debate.
Vote: