Sounds worthwhile
August 3rd, 2010 at 1:00 pm by David FarrarStuff reports:
More than 50 schools around the country will have Government experts sent in to try and lift grades.
Education Minister Anne Tolley has this afternoon announced what she calls “a major new approach to lifting achievement” in schools.
At least 50 “practitioners” from within the Ministry or elsewhere in the education sector will be appointed to schools or clusters of schools.
Some schools would need very little support, but others would need intensive help, Tolley said.
The “practitioners” would build a better relationship between the Ministry and schools.
“These experts will have proven ability in lifting student achievement, and will give specially-designed support to schools to meet the specific needs of their students and teachers,” Tolley said.
“They will use student data to assess where support will be most effective, and make sure schools get help much earlier.”
Sounds pretty good to me.
The only problem of course is the education unions don’t want the Government to have meaningful student data.
Related posts:
- NZEI still trying to supress data
- Sounds great not controversial to me
- Labour will keep national standards
- The battle for standards
August 3rd, 2010 at 1:08 pm
They sound like political Kommissars to me
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 1:09 pm
This is a good initiative, and is along the lines of what the teachers have been asking for.
“The only problem of course is the education unions don’t want the Government to have meaningful student data.”
Vote:What Bullsh*t. The teachers have said all along that they know who the poor achievers are, but that National Standards won’t help them lift achievement.
August 3rd, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Sounds great!
Where is she going to find these people?
Andrei – Stakhanovite workers I believe.
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 1:16 pm
Of course the alternative is that a) students are free to move between schools, wherever they are, b) failing schools that can’t attract enough students for whatever reason are allowed to downsize and close.
But no. Under a gutless National and the ever self-interested unions we will keep the absolute disaster that is school zoning, and instead we will pump in more resources in proportion to the extent they are failing. More failure = more resource under this plan. Which absolutely guarantees continuing poor performance. This is simply paying for more failure, one reason why welfare is so good at creating poverty.
At least under Tolley’s plan the extent of the tragedy will be measurable.
Someone in National should be reading Hayek’s Fatal Conceit.
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 1:17 pm
Another ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. OItherwise known as “we must be seen to do something”
A deputy Principal in Mangere, with 40 years teaching experience, and a supporter of Naztional Standards, says:
told me recently:
“The real problem with Maori children is not the national standards or any other standard. The real problem is parenting. If they made sure their kiods actually went to school their kids would be achievers. It is non attendance – truancy- that is the fundamental problem. Deal with that and we will be 80% there. Teachers and kids will provide the other 20%.”
OK, so, 2 points:
Vote:1.
August 3rd, 2010 at 1:18 pm
Where is she going to find these people?
Sounds like it’s existing ‘practitioners’ already working in the MOE “or elsewhere”.
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 1:18 pm
ben nails it. Gutless National will just put lipstick on the pig. Oh gosh, isn’t it an attractive animal now….
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 1:21 pm
WTF is happening with education policy? First we get a new special unit within the education Dept to measure what? Now we are going a roving team who will go out tell schools how to teach?
Wouldn’t it be easier to try and improve the quality of our teachers- training, recruitment- you know the simple stuff…
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 1:32 pm
bchapman,
Re your first point,
Shhh, it’s only the evil lefty green and labour parties that want to expand government, create jobs for civil servants, add regulation and compliance costs, apparently. All these things suddenly “sound worthwhile” when a blue-eyed Nat govt suggests them.
Re your second point,
Vote:don’t be silly… we claim to believe in the power of the free market when it suits us, but when it concerns state employees (e.g. teachers or nurses) the answer’s invariably ANYTHING BUT offer more attractive remuneration.
August 3rd, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Hey, why don’t we simply replace the teachers with these educational paragons that would appear to be ten-a-penny at the Ministry? And while I’m asking questions, whatever happened to the idea of less government interference?
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 1:39 pm
Does anyone know what the prevailing learning theory is at teacher training college?
Why is it that teachers know who is failing, but are powerless to help? Didn’t they pass their own studies? Or are they playing politics with children so that they don’t have to use methods they personally think shouldn’t exist?
b) failing schools that can’t attract enough students for whatever reason are allowed to downsize and close.
Rather than “failing schools” I’d prefer however many schools that are necessary in whatever size to cater for the best results. Funded privately or publicly doesn’t much matter. Downsizing/closing or to paraphrase Tolley – failing to win the encouragements the government offers for supplying data – because they don’t fit the narrow terms of National Standards would result in a one size fits all situation. It would automatically lock out choice and extending opportunities to children otherwise left behind.
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 1:49 pm
This doesn’t go far enough.
We also need a ministry and officials to monitor and intervene in case the experts fail. We could have an Ombudsman office taking complaints and regulating. Then if this fails, we could have another ministry regulating and monitoring this ministry with a further Ombudsman office hanging off that. There is no need to stop there. The more bureaucrats poking their noses in to the business of school boards the better. We have failure in these schools already because there are not enough bureaucrats and experts assisting. Geez this is easy. Make me prime minister and I could do all of this and more and solve the edukashin sisstim.
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 1:54 pm
Why is it that teachers know who is failing, but are powerless to help? Didn’t they pass their own studies? Or are they playing politics with children so that they don’t have to use methods they personally think shouldn’t exist?
Great point. Teachers should use their spare time and extra resources to help their students instead of swimming around in gigantic piles of money all day.
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 1:55 pm
WTF is happening with education policy? First we get a new special unit within the education Dept to measure what? Now we are going a roving team who will go out tell schools how to teach?
The reason you can’t understand what’s happening is that it’s completely incoherent.
This an empty PR gesture from Tolley’s office, and in that sense I don’t think there’s actually much to understand.
It’s interesting that the spin is now that standards are there to provide data to identify need within the system. If you were doing that, you’d fight tooth and nail to prevent your data being influenced by media league tables, which provide an overwhelming incentive for schools to massage their numbers, rather than simply report them.
This, indeed, was precisely the advice of the British specialist drafted in to advise on the implementation of national standards. But he’s gone now. I can’t say I blame him.
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 1:59 pm
Flipper is right about the need for parental involvement. Across a range of decile schools, one of the most significant indicators of an environment where learning happens is the level of engagement of parents in the process.
The other is the quality of teachers. We have too many who are below par, and plenty who are way above par… yet the teachers union and successive government allows this situation to persist. We absolutely must find a way of inviting the useless and/or lazy to try another occupation. And the top performers should be paid meagbucks and treated lick rock stars.
Mrs krazykiwi already works with principals and lead teachers around the lower north island. There’s every chance she’ll be called on for this initiative. We’ll see.
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 2:03 pm
b) failing schools that can’t attract enough students for whatever reason are allowed to downsize and close.
And that let’s an asset go to waste while the kids who would attend their local school have to bus elsewhere. Bricks and mortar don’t fail students.
The only problem of course is the education unions don’t want the Government to have meaningful student data.\
National Standards don’t provide meaningful data.
Kids are assessed midway through the year for a standard they are not expected to attain till the end of the year. So normal kids ought to be below standard at the midway point (or else the standard has been set too low) but then how does that discriminate between 1) normal kids and 2) kids who aren’t achieving? How to normal kids feel about being labelled “below standard” when they are actually on track to reach the standard at the correct time?
The whole “do what ever test you want”, “do it whenever you want”, and “we are not going to check if your results are even true or valid” just means the whole thing is a complete and utter joke.
And what has the incentive become? The incentive is actually to get your kids to underperform since the school will get more resources.
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 2:09 pm
This all misses one of the biggest problems – failing parents, many of whom don’t worry if their kids are truant. None of what they are trying will do anything to fix it, neither will free choice of what school you can send your kid to – that only works with parents that can be bothered whether their kids go to school or not.
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 2:11 pm
Ooh, those evil teachers and education unions.
Why don’t we go one step further and commission a Teachers Inquisition to punish all unworthy teachers? That’ll learn ‘em.
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 2:19 pm
What rubbish. The education unions (or the NZEI, to be specific) do want the Government to have meaningful data. However, they don’t believe Tolley’s Standards will provide it. Nor do I.
The issues that ostensibly drove National Standards were the existence of a significant group of under achievers and a lack of consistency across schools in reporting achievement.
There were and are already a number of assessment tools in place – including PATs, STAR and – asTTle. What was needed was a moderation process to align assessment methods and teacher judgements on what achievement should look like at different age levels and to more accurately interpret the evidence on children’s progress.
What Tolley did was force the Ministry to design a totally new system that does not fit with the curriculum or with the existing norm-referenced assessments – and to implement it without trialing it.
The concept of National Standards is reasonable and not opposed by the NZEI – but what Tolley has introduced is a shambles that is not supported by any substantial research or trials.
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 2:29 pm
You know this how toad? I’ve seen plenty of research material, plenty of examples of standards scheme being implemented. No two national implementations are the same, and if Tolley initiated a rollout of an exact replica of an existing foreign scheme, you and others would be yelling blue murder about that too. There’s just no pleasing those Marxists who see their 30 year assault on our youngest minds being slowed.
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 2:37 pm
“……experts sent in to try and lift grades……..”
duh,once upon a time that’s what “teachers” were meant to do…….! UNBELIEVABLE.
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 2:41 pm
There’s no such thing as a “failing school”.
There’s failing school administrations, failing school communities (parents), and failing teachers (but within a school there’ll also be absolutely brilliant teachers and, by definition, a lot of average ones).
Like others above I’m dubious about where these travelling scholars will come from. Have they been kept on mountain tops someplace, accessible only to those few hardy teachers dedicated enough to make the climb seeking wisdom?
But even if there are all these brilliant teachers of teachers waiting to be dispatched far and wide, what will they do if they find the school’s problems are administrative. Or if, as flipper notes above, the problem is primarily that local parents don’t ensure the attendance of their children?
Collect and rank data about student achievement, by all means. But also collect attendance data. And data pointing to administrative competence (financial management, teacher and pupil “churn” etc) and take a holistic approach, and be prepared to attack the problem at its source whatever the source, or don’t bother.
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 2:44 pm
@krazykiwi 2:29 pm
Well, there definitely have been no trials. That is one of the main gripes of teachers. Of course just adopting some foreign standards regime would be a disaster too – I’m certainly not advocating that.
As for the research, the whole thing has been cobbled together with such haste – the legislation was even passed under urgency with no Select Committee submissions or hearings- and we see educationalist like Professor John Hattie, whom Tolley initially wheeled out as supposedly being her mentor, now openly critical of her implementation of the standards.
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 2:47 pm
Rex – many of those ‘travelling scholars’ may be teaching a class as we speak. The idea is (or should be) to identify the star practitioners and then leverage their skill by giving them the mandate and resources to help teachers from schools other than the one they’re buried in. I would not support MoE-employed ‘experts’ being dispatched for these roles. They’re far too full of theory and not nearly enough hand-on experience in my view.
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 2:52 pm
@toad – I think you’ll find Hattie is critical of aspects of the implementation, rather than the whole thing. That there are faults doesn’t surprise me. Something this large is bound to have a few less-than-perfect edges. Of course there was the option of endlessly theorising, researching, planning, studying, analysing .. and achieving nothing. That would have kept the unions happy and our kids failing and it’s how things have been done for the last decade. So time for a change in approach.
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 3:02 pm
Teachers should use their spare time and extra resources to help their students instead of swimming around in gigantic piles of money all day.
You’ve skipped the context of my comment and misinterpreted. Presumably, teachers learn technique at TTC. If they don’t personally believe in the philosophy of the technique, they won’t use it, but that is their failing, not the child’s. Has nothing to do with extra time and money. Use best technique for the child in the time you have.
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 3:02 pm
Why are we letting the education system be shaped by the minority of parents and students who don’t give a sh#t?
A modest proposal: when compiling statistics on academic achievement, simply discard the bottom 20 percentile. That way we won’t feel so bad about the results of kids who don’t give a stuff and whose parents don’t give a stuff, and we won’t feel obliged to devote increasing resources to those who patently don’t want them.
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 3:23 pm
krazykiwi suggests:
I would hope so… I agree with your comment completely and was in fact trying to imply, tongue-in-cheek, that these people were already in the system, but their influence seemed to be non-existent. From my experience on school boards the presence of a brilliant teacher in the staffroom (or even in the school’s administration) tends not to lift the performance of the whole teaching staff.
My impression (and I admit it could be a mistaken one) is that many teachers don’t take kindly to comparison with / instruction from their peers; while others are just too “stuck in a rut” after decades in the same job. And a handful simply don’t have what it takes no matter what help they’re given. Mind you that’s at secondary level… things may be different at primary.
But I can just imagine a good teacher sent into a staffroom and told “right, sort that lot out”. I can’t see it working, though I sincerely hope it does… if Mrs krazykiwi does get involved I’ll await the updates with interest (provided she’s not made to sign punitive non-disclosure documents, which I’m predicting she might if the NZEI / PPTA get their way).
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 3:34 pm
DPF The only problem of course is the education unions don’t want the Government to have meaningful student data.
The only problem of course is the education minister thinks that weighing the pig more often will produce more bacon.
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 3:44 pm
What are Key & Tolley doing getting their hands dirty in this issue, we all know education works best when the unions set the rules. The unions know all about hiding spectacular failure and discouraging spectacular success, their one size fits all mentality demands that mediocrity is the goal and they have done a pretty good job of achieving that to date. All teachers are equal, all schools are about the same and the pesky parents wanting some meaningful measurement of their kids progress are putting status quo unaccountability at risk.
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 3:44 pm
I think we wasted those tories fucks here today. Well done team.
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 3:45 pm
@Robert Mapplethorpe – Nope. The scales are broken and rather than continue using them the minister is sorting a replacement. Good on her.
@Rex – I believe most teachers want to do a better job. Currently the system doesn’t reward them for lifting their game, just as it doesn’t allow them to be sent packing if they are lazy and/or incapable. We have to fix that. You’re right about some teachers not taking too kindly to any suggestion they they’re below par. Those type of objections are the first inputs to an exit process in my opinion, as the whole education system is about taking kids on the next step of their learning journey. If teachers themselves demonstrate reluctance to take their own next learning steps then it’s time for them to go. I’ll keep you posted on Mrs kk’s role if/when it changes.
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 3:45 pm
k.jones
You are a shining example of all that is wrong with subjective measurement.
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 3:46 pm
Jibbering Gibbon, MPledger
You both have it exactly backwards. Allowing failing schools to close – and by failing I mean not enough people want their kids to go to them, for whatever reason, be it quality or location or religion or colour of the paint – then you encourage schools to think about the needs of children and what their parents want. That encourages diversity, performance, and meeting the needs of the kids. You let selection pressure in so that schools that do what parents want are allowed to grow, and schools that do not are allowed to downsize and, ultimately, disappear if a turnaround doesn’t happen.
By failure I do not mean them not conforming with what the minister wants or one-size-fits-all. That is emphatically not what I mean. That is what you get when you force kids into schools that aren’t performing i.e. what we have now.
If kids end up busing further – that is simply a measure of how much better the more distant school is. if you can’t bring good schooling to the neighbourhood – then bring the kids to good schooling. Are you seriously suggesting a longer commute should be a reason to fuck with school quality?
And that let’s an asset go to waste…
An asset that, if given the choice, nobody wants to send their kids to i.e. a failing school. In that case it is not an asset. Its simply a burden on taxpayers and anybody unfortunate enough to be sent there against their will. And no, the resources that school uses need not go to waste. It can be put to other uses. Maybe as a school, maybe not. It can be re-opened under a new board and management. Not difficult, Mpledger.
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 3:49 pm
when I hear the words ” lifting student achievement” I cringe. Because I know that it is referring to a small proportion of the kids who do not meet National standards.The rest of them – including those who meet the standard, wont get any similar assistance to exceed the standard. Its called reducing inequality because the brightest aren’t going to be so bright anymore. The focus is on the failures, instead of overall student achievement
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 3:57 pm
But ben, what about the teachers who couldn’t give a shit about the outcomes from the place where they work, your suggestion indicates that their jobs are not the most important thing to consider in education. You will really upset the unions if you carry on suggesting the teachers/schools should be working in the best interests of the kids and their parents rather than the best interests of union membership numbers. Schools exist to employ unionised teachers, no more no less so STFU about this quality of outcome BS.
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 4:12 pm
Government experts sent in to try and lift grades.
What?
Are these the same oracles who have been advising how our education system should run and the improvements is something unnoticeable. We see the same curriculum that have been taught to schools in the 1960s/1970s are still being taught today to the same level? What are they going to advise on? I call them oracles rather than experts. An example that I can come up with is Calculus/Physics. These are still taught at final year high school level (something like year 13) and the best that I can recall that these 2 subjects have been taught at that level for the last 30 years or so. All those years, the curriculum for those 2 subjects barely changed. Despite the advanced computer technology of today (which makes learning easier/faster), experts haven’t even suggested that these subjects be started at earlier level (such as year 12 or even year 11).
The government (especially during labour) in the last 7 or 8 years had poured millions into improving numeracy (& literacy) but the improvement is minuscule or unnoticeable IMO. There is state-of-the-art commercial software there to be licensed for our schools to use such as popular computer algebra system as Maple, Mathematica, MathCad in which most teachers know about them, but they’re not being used at all. The last Labour government preferred to pour millions into bullsh*t animated math learning objects in the The Learning Federation project. IMO, this has been a waste of taxpayers millions in this project that gave mediocre results.
I urge Math/Physics teachers around the country to lobby Anne Tolley to evaluate the possibilities of buying licenses for any of those CAS’s listed above for nationwide adoption by our schools? Do we want to see subjects as Calculus/Statistics/Physics, being taught at year 10 or year 11? Yep, these tools will help in achieving those goals. But why aren’t education experts advise the government to adopt those tools? Because they (experts) are bullsh*t artists. Education experts that I referred to here are those that are not teachers by training but those that have qualifications in Educations.
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 4:13 pm
ben – touche! However, having now conducted a empirical count of unchallenged posts, presentation of evidence and good spelling, you lot have defintely been “humped”.
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 4:31 pm
And that lets an asset go to waste…
An asset that, if given the choice, nobody wants to send their kids to i.e. a failing school. In that case it is not an asset. Its simply a burden on taxpayers and anybody unfortunate enough to be sent there against their will. And no, the resources that school uses need not go to waste. It can be put to other uses. Maybe as a school, maybe not. It can be re-opened under a new board and management. Not difficult, Mpledger.
Closed school soak up hideous amount of unproductive resources. It’s better to have people in them. Closing a community school has huge social cost for the community and huge maintenance costs for the government – they still have to be maintained, guarded against increased vandalism and increased arson risk.
It’s actually a bigger burden to let if fail.
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 4:32 pm
new approach to lifting achievement” in schools.
Bring in people who value education… Kiwi’s generally are to lazy… only those that won’t to achieve… will work hard enough to obtain it… the rest of us are beached us.
Money time and effort spent on those who don’t value it.. is money down the drain.
Just take away the dole and offer free one way tickets to Australia the lucky country.
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 4:41 pm
I’m no expert.. but.. New Zealand the land of milk and honey… take away the milk and honey ( the social welfare system of NZ ) and people will start to value education.
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 4:41 pm
We see the same curriculum that have been taught to schools in the 1960s/1970s are still being taught today to the same level? What are they going to advise on? I call them oracles rather than experts. An example that I can come up with is Calculus/Physics.
Using calculus and physics as an example are silly – the laws of numbers and nature don’t change. Sociology, history are all influenced by fashion so perhaps go with those.
I love maple but it would soak up too much time to teach it in school. The course would become “how to use maple” rather than “how to do mathematics”.
The trouble with maths is that you have to get to PhD level before you’re pushing the boundaries. You do have to know all that 60/70′s stuff before you get to the boundary.
On the other hand statistics has had incredible advances in the last twenty years and some of that is getting into the school curruculum e.g. hypothesis testing using repeated sampling.
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 5:00 pm
come on guys, do something thinking about this, the Government wants to raise the levels of literacy and numeracy, to do so they are prepared to put in considerable additional resource, rather than throw 50 million or whatever into the bottomless pit as the unions would want with no measurable outcomes, the government wants to target it, how to target it, use the results of the national standards testing to identify the areas of greatest need and put the literacy and numeracy specialists in, these should not be current ministry hacks but teachers who are right up to date with best practice, NZ isn’t the only country wanting to drive up skills in literacy and numeracy, its a worldwide trend, Obama made a speech along these lines a few days ago, raising the hackles of the US teachers’ unions in the process
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 5:44 pm
mpledger said…
Using calculus and physics as an example are silly – the laws of numbers and nature don’t change. Sociology,
If kids know or become knowledgeable in crunch stuff as calculus/physics/statistics, then sociology is a a piece of cake if they want to learn about it as a hobby. Physics/Math are needed for engineering related courses and a society with high numbers being trained in these fields, is better for the economy. Society needs more primary producers & inventors (engineers & scientists) and less sociologists.
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 6:04 pm
# macdee (11) Says:
come on guys, do something thinking about this, the Government wants to raise the levels of literacy and numeracy, to do so they are prepared to put in considerable additional resource, rather than throw 50 million or whatever into the bottomless pit as the unions would want with no measurable outcomes, the government wants to target it, how to target it, use the results of the national standards testing to identify the areas of greatest need and put the literacy and numeracy specialists in, these should not be current ministry hacks but teachers who are right up to date with best practice, NZ isn’t the only country wanting to drive up skills in literacy and numeracy, its a worldwide trend, Obama made a speech along these lines a few days ago, raising the hackles of the US teachers’ unions in the process
The only reason we have testing on national standards is because it’s fashionable not because their is any proof they do anything to raise standards. Obama had to give a pep talk about this, in America test scores haven’t risen indicating all the angst and stress has been for nothing.
The government are puttng help into 50 primary schools. There’s something like 1600 y1-y8 schools in NZ. I guess your out of luck if you’re a poor student in a good school.
What’s the bet the schools can be completely identified by their declie rating.
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 6:22 pm
Wrong. Mrs kk has a range of schools on her ‘list’, from decile 1 thu to decile 8. There is evidence of both excellent and sloppy teaching across the range. One of the biggest factors impacting student achievement is the degree of engagement from parents. One decile 1 school she visits draws kids from a poor rural area, yet the principal has been very successful at involving parents in the education process (many are unemployed…) and as a result their kids are rocketing away. It also helps that low decile school receive large amounts of additional funding and the school in question has facilities many decile 10 schools in the city lack. Most of this is due to a top shelf principal/BOT-chair team.
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 6:34 pm
mpledger, I assume that you’re a math teacher based on your comment above? I coach 9 and 10 year old kids in the evening (in 2 sessions a week for duration of 1 to 1 & 1/2 hour per session). They can solve calculus problem by hand (1st, 2nd derivatives of polynomial equations and also polynomial integrations – definite & indefinite) with no hassle. Last week I introduced double integral (multivariable calculus) to them and one boy was able to solve 3 simple problems taken from the book : “Calculus” Vol 2 (2nd ed) by “Tom Apostol”, which I understand is a text-book for calculus at final year University level.
Last night, I introduced partial derivatives, i.e., “gradient operator” of a function : grad [f(x,y)] and this same boy (who succeeded in double integral problem from last week) successfully solved 2 of them but got the other 2 wrong (I gave him 4 problems). At least he is grasping the concept. I had showed them of how to use matlab command since we started at the beginning of the year to help them understand solving linear equations, but matlab doesn’t show the middle steps as Maple & Mathematica do, and not only that, Matlab doesn’t show latex notations (math-typesetting). So, next week I am gonna introduce them to Maple, because the middle steps are shown in Maple. So, I will still teach them maths concept, but I anticipate that their learning will accelerate. This is the beauty of theory plus software tools.
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 6:42 pm
Gradually the circle is squared. In 1987 Lange abolished the department of Education and its inspectorate function. He establishes the Ministry to “advise”, and the Education review Office to check the functions. Initially they will check only against compliance with legislation. Then they will comment on programmes. Now they will enter the schools to “assist” evaluation.
The next step: Teachers of merit will be evaluated and placed in a ranking to assist in promotions – and they will call it Grading as it was prior to 1987.
Well well well
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 6:48 pm
mpledger – “The only reason we have testing on national standards is because it’s fashionable not because their is any proof they do anything to raise standards. Obama had to give a pep talk about this, in America test scores haven’t risen indicating all the angst and stress has been for nothing.”
Obama’s ‘pep’ talk in the last few days was on the introduction of national standards –
Vote:“California schools will follow new “common core” academic standards touted by President Barack Obama as a key to establishing a consistent approach on public education across the country.
The state board of education on Monday unanimously approved the new literacy and math standards proposed by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers.”
August 3rd, 2010 at 7:32 pm
From my experiences in the past the quality of principal usually had a lot to do with the quality of the school.
Vote:August 3rd, 2010 at 11:32 pm
Its interesting that everyone agrees better trained and motivated principals and teachers is the core objective. Now if only everyone could agree how you do that. The right seem to favour the stick and the left the carrot- not sure how you reconcile that one.
Vote:August 4th, 2010 at 7:52 am
@bchapman – I’m as right as anyone (economically at least) and the stick as you put it is the last thing I recommend. Principals and teachers need to be exposed to consequences, both good and bad, of their professional endevours. As the moment there’s a big melting pot where the stars are tarnished with the lowest-common-denominator brush, while the dogs are allowed the protection of that same lowest-common-denominator. I have a few solution ideas, none of which will appeal to the unions.
Vote: