Top UK Principal on National Standards
The SST reports:
A VISITING British principal, famous for transforming a failing London school into an educational success, has come out in support of national standards in schools.
Sir Paul Grant, who will address educationists and government officials in New Zealand this week, says national standards make teachers and schools accountable.
National standards were needed to measure pupils’ progress and as benchmarks of schools’ performance, Grant told the Sunday Star-Times from London.
Which explains why Labour and the teacher unions are so oppossed. Accountability is a bad word!
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: national standards
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:07 am
he gets it!
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:09 am
That’s appropriate for English schools because they are not accountable…
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:17 am
Anything of relevance to say Tassman? How about the fact that this guy has a history of success compared to labours educational history of failure and he atributes accuntability as a factor?
No? Just party talking points and wild smeers of those that disagree then. A myopic leftie, how refreshing.
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:24 am
DPF: “Which explains why [the teacher unions] are so oppossed. Accountability is a bad word!”
Agreed.
DPF: “Which explains why [Labour] are so oppossed. Accountability is a bad word!”
Explain please. I understand some within Labour are against, but the thing about (accountability = bad) is your words, not theirs.
I would love to see the future of NZ politics be about a grown-up discussion of ideas, not this endless slagging off of people you don’t like with loose sound bytes…
[DPF: Labour are fully supporting the campaign against national standards. The reasons is because of their need to keep the teacher unions happy, so they by default share their desire of non accountability]
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:41 am
RRM – ” … I understand some within Labour are against, … ”
Can you please give some evidence for the use of the word “some” as opposed to leaving out the words “some within”. I haven’t seen anyone within Labour making a positive comment or supporting Tolley on this so would be curious to know who the realists/honest MPs within Labour are.
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:46 am
The fact remains that there is no evidence that national testing will improve educational outcomes.
But why let the facts stand in the way of a doctrinaire stance on any issue?
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:46 am
I’d love to see one labour party MP speak in favor of it RRM. Share the link.
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:48 am
Yep, when there is no accountability, you can get away with lots of things, such as dodgy expense claims (waiting for details of labours).
My son just went to year 3, the new teacher is poor compared to last years.
Fortunately, we can fill in the gap by extra work at home.
And, what is it with special needs kids? There are 3 in his class and they soak up significant classroom resource, in addition to distracting the other kids.Maybe that is part of the reason, don’t know.
March 22nd, 2010 at 10:53 am
Lutzie – show please where anyone has made the claim that, by themselves, the introduction of National Standards will change educational outcomes.
What they will do is highligt where there are weaknesses in the teaching, schools, parental aspiration, curriculum etc that need attention. But then if you prefer to fly blind and believe that everything in the garden is rosy (well it would seem that you have the tinted specs on so perhaps for you it is) then go for it. You are in a minority tho’.
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:29 am
Murray 10:17 am,
The only thing Labour had ‘success’ in during their ‘nine year reign of terror’ was in bringing New Zealand to its knees economically, socially, and morally.
The current education system we have now is a direct result of Labour policy, and the fact that Labour filled the education system with its left wing Marxist cronies.
And as DPF rightly stated:
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:44 am
By themselves they won’t change educational outcomes. However, they may identify or give better information as to problems which can then be addressed, or better addressed than they have been.
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:47 am
Which supports my contention that what Tolley is proposing should be trialed.
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:56 am
Toad bet me to it.
I wonder if Grant understands:
1. Existing testing regimes will be used
2. The Minister acknowledges that her form of national standards will not improve literacy levels.
2. There have been cuts to professional training for teachers so that national standards can be funded.
3. The Minister was told the following when she was first appointed:
The minister should continue with Labour’s policy. After all it is working.
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:00 pm
I asked a friend of mine who has kids in American schools about her views of the “No child left behind” policy (of which the NZ national standards + reporting to MoE is a ripp-off)
- There is a feeling that too much time is spent on measuring attainment rather than actually teaching.
- It’s an impediment to the best and creative teachers.
- Improves the worst teachers but only because the rules are so inflexible. Stymies good teachers.
- The testing is really stressfull for some kids – even though there is no direct consequence for any kid about how they perform***, teachers and schools place a huge importance on it because it effects reputation and funding.
- Makes teaching a less attractive career for really good people
- Some states that showed marked improvements in attaintment had teachers who were cheating (telling the kids the answers during the tests)
[***my view - The interesting thing is that if the kids hate the teacher then they can all purposefully score low with no consequence to themselves but with consequences to their teacher's career.]
In America, poorly performing schools get punished with reduced funding but that raises issues of fairness when schools tend to have vast difference in socio-economic status – kids from poor areas with huge disadvantage get walloped while kids with every advantage get more.
National say they are going to do the opposite – put funding in where schools have poorly performing students but then doesn’t that inherently reward bad schools over good?
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:16 pm
Those against national standards must also be against any form of measuring and managing perfoemance in any area.
So they must agree that having air line pilots meet perfromance standards is a waste of time and has no bearing on the ability of an individual pilot.
Similarly they must agree that the wide spread practise of performance review found in most sectors and most jobs is a waste of time and has nothing to do with the actual outcomes.
the reality is these supporters want to continue the practise of protecting poor teachers whilst not rewarding good teachers.
the Teachers Unions are one of the last bastions of Communision where all must be paid the same regardless of their performance
they scared witless that teachers will be judged and the bad weeded out and the good rewarded and held up as models.
In the Communist model EVERYONE is equal no matter how incompetent they are
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:26 pm
Murray et al…
When the National Standard was introduced by Hitler, the first victim was Einstein. He left not only school but also the country. Now the Nationalist Class standard is aiming at teachers and the exodus has reached Australia.
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:40 pm
I don’t mind my child being tested and the results used within the school to improve her performance. That already happens and my daughter’s teacher reports these outcome to me.
I *DO* mind that these results are going to be used as reporting tools because I don’t believe this will improve teaching for my child.
School can choose what test to use (from several different sources) so that reported results are being treated as being comparable between schools when they’re patently not.
It induces a “teaching to the test” mindset and memorization because that’s what gets tested on multichoise tests rather than teaching for understanding.
Evidence in other countries show that vast amounts of time is taken from actually teaching in order to test and practise the tests.
It puts continual stress and pressure on kids to perform and is demoralising for kids who are below the standard even if they are trying hard. Kids like this tend to start playing up and becoming classroom distractions once they realise they are in a no win situation.
It takes vasts amounts of IT resourses to collate and compare the data. Money that could be better spent on teaching.
March 22nd, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Tassman,
Einstein received his Nobel prize in 1921, long before the NAZIs came to power in the 1930s. Einstein’s defection to the USA may have been more to do with Hitler’s Jewish policy than something as trivial as National Standards. However I do take your humour.
March 22nd, 2010 at 1:43 pm
lastmanstanding
Those against national standards must also be against any form of measuring and managing perfoemance in any area.
Not at all.
What about those who oppose spending $62M on the standardisation of test results for writing between schools. As Tolley has said, there will be no more testing.
How about using that money to upskill teachers to teach better. The results that the last Government achieved (see above) would suggest that this is a much wiser use of money.
Why do I get the impression Tolley is not looking for better literacy standards but a $62m political slogan?
March 22nd, 2010 at 2:00 pm
“How about using that money to upskill teachers to teach better.”
How about subjecting teachers to the same accountability as the rest of us?
How about sacking the crap ones and letting schools pay more for the good teachers.
March 22nd, 2010 at 3:41 pm
BB No No No the teachers are a protected species Not for them the tedious performance review to see if they are up to the mark.
OH No remember they are the teachers How dare you or anyone else question their ability.
Their Union says they are all perfect therefore it must be so.
micky savage If not at all then why do you or anyone else object to teachers being subjected to an annual perfromance review.
Yes not on national standards but still the burning question noone wants to address Because they know the answer
20% would be rated good plus
60% would be rated average just
20% would be rated FAILURES
and we cant have any of those now not in the new age world of education.
March 22nd, 2010 at 6:08 pm
I wonder how many of you have read the articles on Mr grant on listened to his interviews. Not many, I suspect. If you did, you will find that while he supports the concept of standards generally, he is opposed if it leads to a ‘teaching to the test” (which the principal of Hamilton East, the first to report under national standards, has already expressed concerns about), and he was insistent that the holistic, creative aspects of education were still encouraged. He also disapproves of league tables that don’t protect low decile schools. He also said, no matter what we do, there will always be a tail, a bottom 20%.
But once again DPF misrepresents teacher unions, who, rather than blind opposition to national standards, are actually opposed to league tables, on the basis that they will be unnecessarily detrimental to individual schools and their pupils, and asked for a trial period to iron out the kinks.
Personally, if these two entirely reasonable concerns were addressed, I would then be a supporter of National’s national standards.
It’s certainly a huge improvement on when I was at school, when 50% of us were automatically failed.
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:18 pm
Accountability? I’m all for it.
One way of improving the level of achievement in our secondary schools is to make the students accountable for their behaviour. Never mind the teachers.
Oh and just when (and why) did a pupil become a student?
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:28 pm
Well I have read the blogs and therefore pose the question… of those commenting how many are actually parents nad really truely care about the development of their children and ensuring their futures a bright and relevant in todays modern world. I suggest you go and read the link here http://www.bitc.org.uk/community/education/sir_paul_grant_.html and find out mor of why Sir Paul Grant was and continues to be successful in ensuring the students that attend his school are consistently acheiving above national standards. In business we consistently monitor and grow the teams so as we can grow the business to meet the demands of the business world. If children continued to leave school with no understanding of the need to achieve in life then how do we expect the ountry to grow and develop. Today’s children are tomorows entrepeneurs, business developers, employers and employees, children being like sponges will then at an early age understand the principles that make the world go round. As a father of five with two having gone through the system and 3 just starting out I hope that nationals national standards will help the 3 have a btter quality education than the two.
March 22nd, 2010 at 8:51 pm
Hey Griz,
are you sure it wasn’t Darwin? Or was it Hitler himself… I think you might be able to connect the dots then…
March 22nd, 2010 at 11:33 pm
future proof, like you I hope that national standards will help children have a better quality education. Sadly, I don’t think it will happen. It’s the teaching and learning that will improve outcomes and linking the two is the key. This seems to be completely missed by Tolley. Remember she was quite happy to ‘downsize’ the number of teachers to make savings – 770 teachers! She backed out when there was justifiable public outrage, but you can bet it’s still there in her mind.
Despite promoting National Standards Tolley, who still doesn’t seem to have any idea how national standards are being assessed – she says that the assessment tools the teachers are using now are fine – in which case why have the standards at all? She has no idea what the term “inter-school moderation” means so clearly she hasn’t thought about how there is going to be consistency in what meets a certain standard between schools. We can only conclude that she hasn’t thought about moderation between teachers either – so all these comments on here about national standards weeding out the “bad” teachers? Sorry folks – ain’t gonna happen! I think the opposite will happen, National standards will burn-out the best teachers. Those working hard to do the best for their students, but slowly getting frustrated and burnt out by an increasing load of administration and “box-ticking”.
March 23rd, 2010 at 11:45 pm
bc, i wonder do you have children of your own.
my elder children have already been through and passed from the system, whilst my younger ones are just heading into it now. I believe that with out some clear measure children don’t know how they are achieving and therefore how do they know whether what they are achieving will be of any value to them and to what standard.
Having come from the UK to NZ over 16 years ago, having researched the educational system here, and believed it at that time to be sound, I have found the quality of teaching and learning over those years to have declined. Yes of course there are potential risks with the new national standards, risks that I know are being evaluated and reviewed as we speak, so as to ensure the model achieves in it’s self. But if something wasn’t done and we continued on the road of mediocrity and lets have everyone pass then the outcome would have been far more disastrous. Having taught in Polytechnics were every one MUST pass since the system is set that way, how can we expect to grow if we are happy to settle for second best. Lets gets the polytechs down the same route so as an employer I know when some one comes to me with a qualification there is an actual value attached to it and not a situation of allowing students to continue to complete the parts they fail until they pass. Life is not like that and nor should the education of our children be mediocre… they deserve the best so lets all strive to give them what they deserve.