ACT on Education
August 22nd, 2011 at 3:00 pm by David FarrarDon Brash said in a speech yesterday:
For the most part, my teachers were outstanding, giving me a strong love of learning and a strong grounding in the basics. This was the era – in the late forties and fifties – when English teachers still taught grammar, and that means that to this day I still know when to use “I” and “me,” “who” and “whom” and where to put commas and apostrophes – knowledge which seems totally beyond more recent school graduates! (And yes, I’m fluent in text-ese as well! I can butcher words with the worst of them!)
In fact when Reserve Bank Governor, Don e-mailed all the staff a grammar guide, as so many staff were making basic mistakes!
We have some outstanding schools – primary, secondary, and tertiary – and some extremely well-educated people. But far too many people are coming out of 11 or even 13 years of schooling without even the rudiments of literacy or numeracy, while even those who come out with good qualifications are too often unable to write grammatical English: an inability reinforced, I would suggest, by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority’s position that in NCEA assessments, “any spelling, punctuation and/or grammar errors that do not appreciably affect the intended message” don’t matter.
Sigh. So sad
And this leads on naturally to my main concern about the educational system in its entirety – the fact that education in New Zealand is effectively a one-size-fits-all state monopoly.
The overwhelming majority of New Zealand children attend state-owned or state-controlled (integrated) schools – fewer than 4 percent attend independent schools. Not only that, but many children also have no choice over the particular state school they attend, thanks to rigid zoning laws. The remuneration of teachers is highly centralised, and is determined as a result of negotiations between a bureaucratic Ministry of Education and two powerful teacher unions, one covering primary schools and the other covering secondary schools. There is little scope to reward good teaching performance, and almost no scope to dismiss teachers for poor performance.
Absolutely correct. And ACT’s policy proposals:
Have state funding for primary and secondary schools “follow the child” – to any school, state or private, meeting basic standards, including standards of literacy and numeracy. In other words, you’d get to decide which school you’d send your child to with the money the state now spends on his or her education – currently some $80,000 over the 12 or 13 years of primary and secondary schooling.
There’d be no quicker way of incentivising existing schools to lift their game. Schools that once had guaranteed state funding would now have to answer to the parents instead. And if they didn’t respond to their children’s needs, these parents could take their money to a school that would. Free schools, such as Tū Toa, would be opened to respond to children’s needs. Bad schools would close because their once captive audience would have been freed.
You may even have good schools take over bad schools, and turn them around.
*ACT would allow and require popular schools to expand to meet demand, including by taking over the land and buildings of failing schools. Massey University has campuses in Albany and Wellington as well as Palmerston North; why couldn’t secondary schools do the same? Could you imagine the demand for places if, for example, Auckland Grammar established a Porirua campus?
Exactly. They would be flooded with applications.
We would ensure the best teachers, and principals, are the highest-paid. Boards of Trustees would be allowed to negotiate directly with staff and be able to offer performance pay and incentives. The national award system between the government and the Council of Trade Unions was dismantled in the late 1980s because it was outdated and inefficient. It is long past time we abolished it in education.
This is so important. Good teachers should be earning over $100,000 a year, but bad teachers should not even be earning $50,000 a year.
ACT should campaign to parents up and down New Zealand on this policy. Many parents would welcome choice.
And if ACT get a decent enough proportion of the vote, this should be their primary policy demand of National. They should say we don’t want want any portfolios, we don’t want any baubles of office, we just want you to implement our education policy because it is so important to the future of New Zealand.
August 22nd, 2011 at 3:14 pm
Interesting idea about well-performing schools taking over poorly-performing schools.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 3:16 pm
‘fewer than 4 percent attend independent schools’
That’s because only about 4% of the population can afford the $20K per year fees.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 3:18 pm
Awaiting the howls of outrage from mm, bc et all
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 3:23 pm
YWD – The cost of schooling students in the public system is higher than in the private system. I ran some calcs a few year back using MoE budget, number of students etc.
This is good policy for Act. The voucher system has been very successful in Sweden, the country which still makes leftists go dewy-eyed and weak kneed.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 3:24 pm
He’s a horrible old man who trots out tired old ideas that are almost impossible to put into practice, if you give them just a minute’s thought.
Vote:We know how much he cares about the nation’s children by the way he treated his own – and their mothers.
Sod him.
August 22nd, 2011 at 3:25 pm
Don Brash for Education Minister! Yes!
I wish that Act would do as you suggest, DPF, and make this their one policy that they must get. I’d even be tempted to vote Act if that were so. But I doubt that they will.
[DPF: I'd be tempted to also]
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 3:25 pm
It’s an absolute no-brainer policy…probably ACT’s best ..at least its best non law and order policy.
There are simply no rational arguments against it….good schools and good teachers have nothing to fear and everything to gain.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 3:27 pm
Beab starts with an ad hominem, finishes with an ad hominem and says nothing in between. Classy. The (voluntary) voucher system is working well in Sweden. Hardly tired and old.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 3:27 pm
BeaB
How did Klark treat her kids?..or Bradford for that matter?
And what about Maryan Street…how are her kids getting on?
You sure as hell do not care about the nations kids so why the hell have a crack at Brash when he says he wants to do something about improving their lot in life?
Or…perhaps you are a teacher and afraid of having to do your job with some accountability.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 3:31 pm
PPTA and NZEI union apparatchiks have everything to fear David. Cue howls of outrage from them even higher pitched than what they are currently howling at Anne Tolley.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 3:32 pm
So refreshing to see some good quality policy that has a vision and some clear outcomes which will actually benefit our children.
ACT should campaign hard on their education policy.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 3:33 pm
According to Brash, it’s a bit over $6,000/year:
What was your calculation?
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 3:36 pm
I don’t always agree with ACT, I think some of their economic/free trade policies are too extreme. But their education policy is very good and I hope they can persuade National to adopt at least some of it.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 3:39 pm
He’s still a horrible old sleaze whose zip should be super-glued. Leaders need to show a bit of moral fibre. But then he has a big fan club and you’ll excuse him anything in your usual courteous fashion.
And bad teachers shouldn’t be earning anything – they should be out. Fortunately there are very very few of them in our generally very good state schools.
I would like to see more incentives in the system. Implement National Standards = $x. Raise reading age of Maori boys to chronological age by Year 8 = $x. Let good schools expand (except most of them won’t want to). The legislation since Tomorrow’s Schools has allowed any group (I think 25 or more) to start up a school and qualify for government funding but very few have.
It makes far better sense to work relentlessly on improving the schools we already have and the teachers who are falling below wherever we decide to set the bar. Boasting about ‘who’ and ‘whom’ really doesn’t cut it.
The answers are far more simple than Brash realises but nobody ever has the grit to stick it out once the teacher unions weigh in.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 3:39 pm
“The national award system between the government and the Council of Trade Unions was dismantled in the late 1980s because it was outdated and inefficient. It is long past time we abolished it in education.”
If this is a taste of the policy that is to be promulgated by ACT in the next few months, they will poll very well this election. It is high time that the NZEI and PPTA recognised that they are there to serve and administer rather then dictate policy to the Government of the day. This policy is definitely a step in the right direction.
Well done Don Brash.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 3:41 pm
Education would be a good area where Nats and ACT could work well and really implement some revolutionary changes, one of them being to crush the teacher unions. Wouldn’t that be fun to watch!
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 3:42 pm
“There’d be no quicker way of incentivising existing schools to lift their game”
Dr Brash has to be really careful if he’s going to put himself on a grammar pedestal…With my limited education there is no such word as “incentivising” It is an American habit of turning adjectives into verbs.
Don – It’s not English, look in the dictionary.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 3:42 pm
Good stuff, looking forward to seeing more constructive ideas like this from Act.
If Don Brash is able to bring in a new era of visibility and relevance for Act, it will go to show how truly f*cked up their communication has been in the past….
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 3:44 pm
I fucking hate ‘Txt speak’ and the bastardisation of the English language-It absolutely horrifies me that secondary school teachers allow this drivel as exam ‘answers’…
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 3:45 pm
A voucher system would be total bedlam, in CHCH a school like Burnside High would have 10,000 students applying for spots, so how would the school decide who they can take and who misses out?
Parents would have zero certainty about which school their children would be able to get into, the whole thing would be a total lottery.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 3:48 pm
Stephen – I did this in 2006 for primary schooling, using MoE funding and IIRC even assumed that 10% of MoE’s costs were dedicated to supporting private schools with policy etc. I try to dig out the formula (it was three laptops ago!).
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 3:49 pm
Speaking of ACT…did anybody else see Dr Brash hammer Cunliffe yesterday on Q&A?
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 3:51 pm
“A voucher system would be total bedlam, in CHCH a school like Burnside High would have 10,000 students applying for spots, so how would the school decide who they can take and who misses out?”
Except that would mean there is a market for those students who could not. If the government makes it much easier for new schools to start up, epsecially independent schools, they would fill the void.
Sweden, that bastion of social democracy, operates a very effective voucher system, without the problems your describing, as do several other countries.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/23/swedens-school-voucher-system-is-a-model-for-america/
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 4:00 pm
@Lee01 – your voucher would be worth at most $8k/yr and it costs $20k/yr to go to an independent school, who pays the difference?
If the voucher was worth enough to send my children to an independent school without me having to pay a substantial difference then there may be some merit in the scheme but that would involve a substantial increase in state funding of education.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 4:02 pm
So ACT wants to micromanage education?
Surely the ACT party should privatise education and let the education experts and parents (via the market) decide what gets taught. I don’t really know if it’s appropriate that a policitian from the 1940s to be sermonising about the decline of formal grammar. (As you can tell, it stopped me reading the rest of his statement.)
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 4:02 pm
First Time Caller, “incentivise” is already a verb and can be legitimately turned into a present participal (or gerund) like any other verb can.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 4:10 pm
It’s just refreshing to see there is actually a political party in NZ with serious aspirations to lift our performance and work towards having a first class education system.
Sure, what ACT is prescribing may not be perfect, and yes, it needs further debate and tinkering with, but its a huge step in the right direction.
One thing is for sure – something has to change in our education system. Don’s speech has pointedly reminded us all that the current system is terribly sick and in urgent need of some tough medicine.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 4:12 pm
I think it would be great sport if Key made Brash Minister of Education and we could watch him take on the teacher unions …
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 4:14 pm
@Gwilly – our education system consistently rates in the top few in the world, it’s far from ‘terribly sick and in urgent need of some tough medicine’.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 4:14 pm
“Lee01 – your voucher would be worth at most $8k/yr and it costs $20k/yr to go to an independent school, who pays the difference?”
Thats an assumption, but nevertheless I’ll take it as given to answer your question.
The government should set an income level, above which people should pay fully for their education, or receive funding from private trusts.
Below that level vouchers could be fully funded, up to the $20k your citing.
“that would involve a substantial increase in state funding of education.”
I do not have a problem with that necessarily, I do not share the view of many on the right who post here that government should be radically reduced in size and cost. SOME reduction yes. But in other areas, such as law and order and national defense the government should be spending more.
However, the problem you cite could be solved by partially and fully privatising most schools. That way the government would only fund the vouchers themselves.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 4:18 pm
Stroker08
Vote:I see it is in Wiki as a verb. I’m just old fashioned in this regard. Incentivise is not a word in my Collins Dictionary, and in fact when I type it I get the underlining to suggest it’s not correct.
It’s not that Don’s message was off, I just suggest he may to be mindful not to do a “Rodney”
August 22nd, 2011 at 4:21 pm
“our education system consistently rates in the top few in the world”
Not really true.
This claim is made only by comparing other state run/union dominated systems. Its like comparing one rotting corpse with another and claiming ours smells less. it might, but it is still a rotting corpse.
The claim also rests on comparing a narrow range of educational “outcomes” which are set by education bureaucrats. These outcomes say nothing at all about what KIND of people we are producing or whether or not the outcomes being cited are adequate in assesing the real value of the education being offered.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 4:23 pm
That’s a good one Lee. How do you measure the performance of an education system?
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 4:25 pm
How would you?
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 4:28 pm
Long live the DON.
If they have one policy that they get through with national then this needs to be it. About time someone had the balls to tell the nzei and ppta where they get off and show them who is boss. Have it out with them once and for all. The counties future is too important to be under the control of these lefties.
After the election and National has it’s second term you will see all sorts of decisions being made that are currently on the back burner.
Vote:You will hear the squealing from across the tasman, from all the lefties here, saying this wasn’t what you promised in the election.
Well tough. get used to it, besides key can turn around and say you didn’t vote for me so live with it.
August 22nd, 2011 at 4:29 pm
Try the OECD comparisons.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 4:30 pm
As I said, the OECD comparisons are worthless. All they do is compare rotting corpses.
The only way to judge is to evaluate the curriculum content and the pass rates based on that curriculum.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 4:30 pm
YesWeDid Says:
“@Lee01 – your voucher would be worth at most $8k/yr and it costs $20k/yr to go to an independent school, who pays the difference?”
That is an expensive private school.
Vote:Some very good private schools charge between 13 and 15K depending on the year level (College being more expensive than Primary school).
August 22nd, 2011 at 4:42 pm
A good start would be for schools to return to the classical Trivium method of learning and education.
http://www.classical-homeschooling.org/trivium.html
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 4:44 pm
Wages of employees are set by negotiations between those employees and their employer? Madness!
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 4:45 pm
So Lee, you have no way of determining how good (or bad) the NZ system might be?
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 4:46 pm
@YesWeDid – the statistics do not back up your claim of NZ having a top class education system. Perhaps you should read Don Brash’s speech again? The numbers do not lie.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 4:51 pm
I think the hard part of all this – or at least, one hard part – is working out how good schools will be persuaded or forced to take over bad schools. If I was the principal or a board member of a good school, I would need some very clear incentives to take on a failing school somewhere else – otherwise, why bother? It’s not like a business takeover, after all, and the work required would be substantial. Parents of kids at the good school might also have concerns about how their kids would be affected by the cost and distraction of the school expanding.
Maybe they have thought all this through already. If so, I don’t think it has been reported, which is a pity.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 4:56 pm
Many ACT policies make me worry about them and I have difficulty finding that the benefits and greater then the risk. This one makes sense to me. Let’s have it.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 5:00 pm
While in principle this is reasonable, I wonder how you deal with the large proportion of parents who just don’t give a shit about their or their children’s education, and will send their kids along to the nearest crappy school regardless? Said schools will remain crappy, not solving anything.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 5:04 pm
@Gwilly – I’ve read Brash’s speech and he uses anecdotal evidence to back up his ‘arguments’, that and sporting metaphors, maybe you should ask Brash for some statistics.
Funny that a man who used to head the reserve bank would find fault with our education system being a ‘highly centralised system’, when he accuses teachers of wanting to ‘indoctrinate’ rather than teach he sounds like he has been drinking too much Kiwiblog kool aid, then he quotes that noted educationalist Sir Douglas Myers, really past that point it all starts reading like blah, blah, blah…
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 5:08 pm
I agree good schools such as Auckland Grammar should be able to “franchise” their management. Let’s take the worst performing school in Auckland and let them obtain the Auckland Grammar franchise. Have one Board and one CEO and integrate the teaching staff. Let’s try it.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 5:09 pm
YWD
Vote:It was a bit silly of Gwilly to suggest reading the speech – it’s a farrago of nonsense.
August 22nd, 2011 at 5:09 pm
Yeah right. The OECD comparisons are all about money spent and number / proportion of bums on seats, there’s nothing in there at all about results and standards acheived by students which is the actual, you know, point of education.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 5:11 pm
leftyliberal: common left wing belief, that the poor are too stupid or lazy to want something better for their kids. I’m pretty sure the poor are the ones who benefit most from policies like this – the rich are already sending their kids to private schools, or buying houses in the right suburbs to get into good schools. The poor are disproportionately forced into poor schools due to zoning and lack of other choice – not because they don’t care, but because the system is biased against them.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 5:17 pm
@ Otherandy
$20k seems to be about the going rate for Auckland private schools. A bit cheaper in Wellington and Chch. Depends on the add ons. Then there are the integrated schools that are in the $4 to $8k area, ore even lower.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 5:17 pm
just one question.
What are the criteria for determining the “best teachers”?
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 5:19 pm
1vote from me and another from my wife if Act have the balls and make this their siingle issue. My 5 and 8 year old might have a future beyond moving to Aussie. Go Don, and nite to Jihn, you could do worse than, saying to Act, you campaigned on it, here’s the whole of education, make it work or get voted out in 3 years, much like giving Maori party Maori affairs with some agreed outcomes and letting them deliver.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 5:19 pm
MNIJ: really, you don’t know that? Well, in that case, we should just pay them based on how long ago they were trained – the more they’ve forgotten, the more we should pay them. Anything else is clearly too hard.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 5:20 pm
@YesWeDid – I will help you out here with a quote from his speech.
“It is therefore no surprise that 20 percent of children are leaving school functionally illiterate”.
Perhaps you find this figure acceptable, but I don’t think the majority of NZers do.
It would be interesting to hear your specific objections to the policies outlined by ACT. Again, perhaps you are quite happy with the status quo.
The fact that there is choice in virtually everything else in our lives except where we can send our children to school, speaks volumes to me. Introducing choice, competition and rewarding teachers based on performance is just normal in any other sector, so why not in education? It just seems to be basic commonsense really, and the benefits would be immediate.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 5:21 pm
Mnij, that’s easy, ask me how my kids are doing, it’s called 360 degree feedback in business.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 5:23 pm
“Good” schools are “good” schools because they have kids from high decile homes who have plenty of warmth, food and educational resouces (books, computers etc). It would be interesting to see if a “good” school can do things better in a “bad” school when the “good” school can’t count on the money and parental support they would normally get.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 5:23 pm
Also, I am happy to top up my $4k ED vouchers for a $20k private education if I determine it’s better than my other options (currently my kids are both in a very good state school).
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 5:28 pm
@PaulL: Interesting, but I didn’t mention the poor in my post at all. There are those that aren’t poor that fall into the same group I described, though unfortunately the poor do tend to be overrepresented (as those that don’t care about their kids education typically also don’t particularly care to better themselves either.)
My point was, that _regardless_of_income_ there are lots of parents out there that just don’t care, and this policy does nothing to address it.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 5:30 pm
The advantage I see of vouchers is the ability to create specialist schools that match pupils interests and abilities, be they music, arts, sports or academic, or even cultural like kura kaupapa.
This would be great for teachers too who want the chance to push ahead in a subject area of expertise, as well as communities who could be motivated to become more engaged. So we could see an increasingly diverse and vibrant state schooling system rather than basic grey. I can’t understand how that could be seen as a threat.
State schools, by the nature of their funding and zoning, have to be everything to everyone. That suits some if not many, but not all. I have no option to send my children to single sex state schools in my area unless I move or pay private. All are co-ed and no single sex state school has been opened for perhaps 70 years in the area, despite mergers and movements of secondary schools, and facilities left vacant and deteriorating.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 5:52 pm
leftyliberal: there are also far too many possums in NZ, and this policy does nothing to address that either. The question isn’t whether this policy will solve world hunger, the question is whether it is an improvement on the status quo. The current policy settings also don’t deal with the issues of parents who don’t care.
I’d argue that by disempowering parents, the current policies contribute somewhat to parents not caring, but I have no evidence of that.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 6:24 pm
insider (702) Says:
August 22nd, 2011 at 5:30 pm
The advantage I see of vouchers is the ability to create specialist schools that match pupils interests and abilities, be they music, arts, sports or academic, or even cultural like kura kaupapa.
When can we start. all the young men and women who have been deprived of learning to be trades people might just have a chance to bet educated instead of ignored.
Great step towards reducing youth unemployment.
Just add youth rates as well and NZ will be in recovery mode.
Yehaaa.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 6:25 pm
Like any of you people know anything about schools and how they work. Like many having attended school you believe you have all the answers, think that you can judge the quality of schools and teachers based on your narrow view and understanding of what happens at school. It is a complex job, full of all sorts of complex issues. Oh were it as simple as you all make out, oh that the market would fix it (like it has for everything else!). The bottom line is that what makes a good school is not very easy to determine and very variable. For some schools moving kids forward from a low base is a far greater achievement than that in others where children come to school ready and willing to learn and are supported at home and move rapidly through their learning.
Real data will tell you that the biggest influence on educational achievement is what happens at home, school comes next. If you want to lift achievement in NZ schools (which is highest per spend in the world and second best in the world when it comes to affecting change for children in poverty) then the policy that will do this best has little to do with education – rather fix poverty, the income gap between rich and poor, health care, housing etc, create employment. Sadly all policies that this current government and silly old Don Brash are not willing to contemplate.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 6:29 pm
Ann T has said that she only wants one fight at a time and she is determined to win the one she has got. Of course another tactic is to bamboozle the teachers Unions with reform all over the place they will not know which way to turn. Roger Douglas and Brash will favor this approach. If Act want to implement this policy then they should ask for the Ministry of Education and make it their top priority. They could pick up some good support. But before John Key gets Act involved he should ask what is their political strategy to make it happen. I suspect Don Brash will not have one or it will be back handed. Government is more than coming up with policy ideas.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 6:30 pm
You know what bothers me most about this.
It has been ACT policy forever and so many of you have apparently voted without bothering to do basic education about what you have been voting for.
Its been on the ACT website forever as policy.
The pleasing thing is that now you know, perhaps you might go and look further at some more good sound policy.
Youth rates included.
Maorification included.
Reduction in Govt. spending included.
And just to help with the education at no cost but your time, go here.
http://www.act.org.nz/policies and here, http://www.act.org.nz/plan
And please note that its all been there for a long while.
P.S. I do not belong to Act even if you think so.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 6:31 pm
So a truly excellent primary school teacher can negotiate directly with the Ministry? Nope, doesnt happen. The wages of that teacher are set through negotiations between an organisation the teacher has zero control over, and a Ministry with absolutely no knowledge of their abilities.
X is negotiating with Y about the wages for Z. Neither X nor Y know the first damned thing about Z, let alone how valuable Z is to A, B, and C, or their parents. In fact, because Z is being paid based on the average value of every person in their profession, Z is subsidising the wages of K,L, and M, who are shit at their jobs.
In the same breath fucktards like Simonway will insist that teachers should be paid well for the extremely valuable service they provide to society AND that specific teachers providing the most value shouldnt be paid more than those who providing the least or none.
P.S. Hey DPF, how about throwing a few demerits BeaB’s way?
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 6:34 pm
kiwigunner (55) Says:
August 22nd, 2011 at 6:25 pm
Real data will tell you that the biggest influence on educational achievement is what happens at home, school comes next. If you want to lift achievement in NZ schools (which is highest per spend in the world and second best in the world when it comes to affecting change for children in poverty) then the policy that will do this best has little to do with education – rather fix poverty, the income gap between rich and poor, health care, housing etc, create employment. Sadly all policies that this current government and silly old Don Brash are not willing to contemplate.
Well research a few months ago makes a lie of that statement.
The research which I recall as being wide ranging and very thorough showed that it was the teacher who made the difference.
Poverty is a disease of the mind caused by low educational standards.
Vote:It was discussed here on KB so someone might like to dig it up.
August 22nd, 2011 at 6:36 pm
BeaB speaks from the heart Kimble. True her/his/it’s, heart is made of cast iron but it is still spoken from the heart.
Don’t be so churlish!
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 6:41 pm
Oh cry me a fucking river. You are complaining that the voucher proponents dont know how complex schooling is, but it is them who are trying to provide a complex solution and you who are supporting the most blunt.
Someone is probably going to slap you in the balls with the real data. But seeing as you supplied absolutely none of your own, I reckon they should not waste their time.
Fix poverty? Fuck off. You complain that schooling is complex, but you think poverty has the easier solution? You probably DO think it has an easy solution: take the money from those that have it and give it to those that dont = poverty fixed.
As for the gap between rich and poor having any fucking thing at all to do with anything at all … Poverty I can understand, but relative inequality? You sound like just another idiot who has read The Spirit Level.
Hahahahabahhahah! Don Brash doesnt want to create jobs? How fucking stupid are you? I think it is very likely that you are completely incapable of understanding how Don Brash would go about “creating” jobs.
Go read ACTs policies. Its right there.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 6:42 pm
Education and economics are actually separate issues, a good teacher is just someone a student can learn from. A bad teacher should simply be sacked like any other poor worker.
When I got my education business required cheap uneducated labour and it got it from the 50% of failed school C students. Remember that you dum cunts?
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 6:47 pm
“So Lee, you have no way of determining how good (or bad) the NZ system might be?”
As I said, the curriculum content is one way. National standards would be another. But also a real comparison with individual schools, especially private and independent schools, rather than the more limited OECD version would be a good start. As james wrote “Yeah right. The OECD comparisons are all about money spent and number / proportion of bums on seats, there’s nothing in there at all about results and standards acheived by students which is the actual, you know, point of education.”
Clearly the OECD comparisons do not show anything much of value.
So the answer is, yes, I do. Curriculum content. Results and standards comparisons with individual schools. Levels of school enforced political correctness. There are many approaches that could be used, and should be.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 6:49 pm
“It is therefore no surprise that 20 percent of children are leaving school functionally illiterate”.
Can the people, such as YWD and Mikenmild, who are defending the status quo, please tell me how they justify this?
In Britain, which has a similar system as NZ, the state system has a comparable failure rate.
Is this acceptable to you mikenmild? YWD?
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 6:49 pm
Very few things and economics are separate issues. All you did with that first sentence was tell everyone that you dont really know what “economics” is. Well done.
Business didnt require uneducated labour, they just got it. What sort of stupid employer would say, hey now, dont give me one of them book-learnin’ fancy boys, send me the one who cant do sums nor read good and such?!
Disregard my last question.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 6:53 pm
@kiwigunner
Are you a teacher?
Vote:If so, you would be a great example of what’s wrong with education.
August 22nd, 2011 at 7:01 pm
@PaulL: Improving the status quo is to be commended, but if the policy doesn’t fix the underlying problem then the results will be small at best, and nil at worse. The problem is not entirely the fault of the school, and I’d wager that the school is in fact less than half the problem. The bigger problem is that many kids are not supported by their parents.
Get the data on the amount of time the parents of the kids that are failing spend with their kids. I wager there will be a high association.
Very few kids succeed, regardless of the school, without the backing of their parents. Fixing that problem is difficult, but let’s not ignore it – after all this policy claims to be addressing the problem of low numeracy and literacy rates while ignoring a large reason for it.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 7:01 pm
Other_Andy.
What a silly question kiwigunner is obviously a teacher and a very poor one at that and is also obviously an NZEI or PPTA apparatchik and most likely a very poor one at that lowly task as well!
Still kiwigunner enjoys far more holidays than three of the rest of us put together!
Who are the mugs here?
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 7:04 pm
Government is the art of the possible and Don Brash has not got one damn clue what that is. Unless he wants to implement his policy through the barrel of a gun or widespread civil unrest.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 7:06 pm
leftyliberal, your argument boils down to “I dont think teachers matter in education as much as parents, to the extent that, in any practical sense, they dont matter at all”.
To back this up you have … your opinion (supported by your opinion that your opinion isnt wrong).
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 7:09 pm
Lee
You have singled out the sole (alleged) fact in the speech! Although international comparisons (yes, yes I know you despise them getting in the way of your argument) tell us Nz has a literacy rate of 99%.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 7:14 pm
1. The art of the possible? The only things possible are those that exist. If there is no party with this policy then it becomes impossible. Don Brash makes this policy possible.
Vote:2. Every government policy is implemented through the barrel of a gun. Disagree? Dont pay your taxes.
August 22nd, 2011 at 7:17 pm
MnM, you need to start looking beyond the headlines, selecting any old thing that fits the point you try to make.
I have a stat that says you are wrong about everything you disagree with me about. I got that stat from overseas so it is incontrovertible.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 7:20 pm
@Kimble: You hit on the basic theme, yes, though typically took it to an extreme that is clearly stupid.
Teachers do matter. Good teachers should be encouraged and poor teachers should be sacked.
However, without the backing of the parents even the best teacher may not have the same success as an average teacher may have when the kids have full parental backing.
And yes, I have no data other than anecdote, so may well be wrong. Do you have any data other than your opinion?
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 7:22 pm
ACT gets my vote on this policy. Trouble is, I can’t imagine the Nats wanting to do anything like this as smile and wave would be outside his comfort zone.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 7:51 pm
leftliberal,
You are saying that the inability of an effort to affect change on the teacher variable to also affect change on the parent variable means that those efforts are not worth the cost.
This would be true only if the teacher variable had only a minor affect on outcomes. But you have just granted that that is not so. Kids with bad parents wont be as positively affected as kids with good parents. But they will still be positively affected. The net benefit will actually be much larger.
Teacher quality is variable.
Parent quality is variable.
Both variables are independent, inasmuch as having a poor parent doesnt mean your teacher is also poor.
See if you can follow this. Assuming the chance of having good or bad teachers or parents is 50/50 and the two are independent.
The possibilities are:
GT-GP GT-BP
BT-GP BT-BP
The pay-off is:
1.0 0.5
0.5 0.0
Sums to 2.0
Make the changes to remove the bad teachers all together and…
GT-GP GT-BP
GT-GP GT-BP
With the pay off of:
1.0 0.5
1.0 0.5
Sums to 3.0, a 50% improvement.
Even if the value of a good teacher is 0 when a bad parent is present (a brave assumption), the net value increases from 1.5 to 2.0. If we weight the teacher more than the parent (75/25) then the pay off improves from 2.0 to 3.5.
I see this problem in lefties so much now I know to look for it. They have the idea that government is there to help the very worst off engrained so deep in their psyche, that a failure of a policy to improve the very worst off makes it completely unpalatable. This remains true even if it means dismissing a policy that would make almost everyone else better off. In this case, they dont see the value for the bottom 1% (and imagine some fantastic value for the top 1%), so they ignore the benefits to the other 98%.
I often encounter this thinking in discussions about price gouging after a natural disaster. Lefties generally prefer price controls and queueing as a solution to scarcity, and for there to be no price changes beyond what they deign acceptable. They dont like that under the price gouging scenario, the higher price might be out of reach of the very poorest, while it would only be a trivial amount to a rich person. They hold this position even when it can be shown that price gouging would lead to better rationing, a greater overall supply (when possible), and thereby ends up sowing the seeds of its own destruction (a reduction in price as supply increases).
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 7:58 pm
Viking 2 – I think that you have continued the often misunderstood statement about teachers being the biggest influence of school achievement. Teachers are the biggest ‘in school’ influence (rather than resources etc). The home is the biggest influence of all. Take a look at your research again and teachers can read it more carefully. Does anyone really believe that schools can turn around all of the kids who live in drug addled circumstances, violent or abusive homes? What about when parents don’t send their kids to school? What about when the kids stay up late every night watching adult TV?
Vote:Get real.
August 22nd, 2011 at 8:40 pm
@Kimble: Even under your assumptions (which are flawed, as assuming independence of the chance of having a good/bad teacher vs having good/bad parents is not the same as independence of the efficacy of a good vs bad teacher given good vs bad parents – indeed, my argument is based on the idea that they’re not independent!) the situation improves for the kids that Don is targeting in his speech (those that are leaving school with failures in numeracy and literacy) only if we replace the bad teachers of those students with better teachers.
However, Don proposes that this may be accomplished by allowing the parents to choose which school their kids go to. Under my hypothesis (that failing students typically have parents that offer no support) this policy will not make a difference to those kids as their parents are unlikely to put their kids in better schools and thus they’ll stay with bad teachers (and indeed may end up with worse teachers, assuming that if they had a good teacher that the good teacher may be better rewarded at a better school). Thus, the policy will have little effect on numeracy and literacy rates.
That’s not to say it offers nothing and should be rejected outright – simply that it may not solve the problem he’s claiming it will solve.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 8:51 pm
@Lee01
I found this interesting whilst reading about the Swiss education system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PISA#2009
Curiously whilst we are quite high in the science ranking according to this rating system (2009 data), NZ doesn’t really have the job openings directly in science compared to say a Switzerland which has many large drug, biotech, engineering, space technology companies etc etc
I think fostering an entrepreneurial spirit is where we are lacking, more specifically the ability to turn a small business into a larger globally competitive one. For this reason I wonder why we punish business so much in terms of taxation+petty regulation when we really need to get as many small ones off the ground as possible in the pursuit that some can grow larger.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 9:09 pm
Who do you think you are, Kiwigunner? Don’t come here expecting rationality and logic and facts to divert these morons from their ideology addiction!
It’s quite interesting that DPF can mouth off about grammar standards when his is the most poorly composed and punctuated of the op-ed contributors! His column Friday week ago was a real doozy! Just look at the opening paragraph, so many questions, so few question marks! And don’t get me going on the redundant or misplaced commas. It was a deluge of grammatical ignorance!
I wonder if it is the self awareness of his own substandard English skills that leads him to continually post misinformed or, less kindly, deliberately misleading, attacks on the teaching profession – attacks he would never accept if the equivalent was directed at his good self.
I have often pointed out to him credible research that simply proves him wrong but still he persists, although I did notice he would cherry pick data from the links I quoted to support yet another baseless allegation against our educators.
Oh well, never mind.
Lee01, there are 34 member countries of the OECD but its 2009 PISA survey covered 65 countries with almost 65 different methods of providing education. But we get rated highly, so it doesn’t count, right?
And PIRLS (use google) is US based, also covering a huge array of education and governing systems. But its latest survey placed us 5th, so I don’t suppose you will accept those results either.
The lesson is, Lee won’t let facts get in the way of a good ideology!
People who visit but don’t post, please be aware that rabid right wingers (RRW), mainly Conservative White Men (CWM) wish to cover up the social impacts of their winner takes all, wet dream economic system, so it suits them to blame teachers for the devastation wrought by their own greed.
This is the crux of this issue:
Problem: increasing inequality.
Solution: create even more inequality.
It’s got to be good for you!
Finally, we do have choice in this country, but we now have a situation where private schools are begging to be integrated into the state system because the monopoly money of the RRW CWM has largely dried up due to the GFC.
If nothing else, I guess it all proves there is an acronym for everything!
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 9:52 pm
“It is therefore no surprise that 20 percent of children are leaving school functionally illiterate”.
‘Can the people, such as YWD and Mikenmild, who are defending the status quo, please tell me how they justify this?’
I don’t need to justify anything, it’s Brash’s speech and ACT policy that is under the spot light here not me.
I’d like someone to explain how implementing a voucher system that will basically subsidize the children of the upper middle class into private schools is going to help the so called 20% of children leaving school functionally illiterate?
If you want to help that group you need to get into the decile 1 schools, you need to make sure the children are fed and have shoes on their feet and you need to help their parents who are struggling to make ends meet.
ACT are only interested in making a small group of already well off New Zealanders even more well off, giving them greater choice and sod the rest who (according to ACT) are too dumb or too lazy to sort themselves out.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 9:59 pm
And therein lies the best example ever of why the left don’t have a clue.
To YesWeDid it’s all about keeping poor kids in decile 1 schools, as long as they’re fed and clothed.
No aspiration. No hope. No dignity. No future.
Keep them in poverty, provide them with benefits and ignore them.
Well thankfully Brash & Act have bigger dreams for those kids than that. And thank goodness for that.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 10:18 pm
A teacher from a private school told what they spend per child is about the same as at a state school – it is certainly not $8k for state and $20k for private as ignoramous above says!
I say put all teachers on three year contracts and let school decide whether to renew it or not. No one else has much job security nowadays – why should the one profession that can probably make more difference (good or bad) in their job than most others get the kid glove treatment?
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 10:31 pm
Don who?
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 10:41 pm
@Anthony – St Andrews College in CHCH has the following annual tuition fees (from their website)
Years 9 to 13 $16,200
Plus another $900 annual building levy and extra costs, such as outdoor education experiences and external examination fees.
St Margarets College in CHCH also has similar fees with a $690 building levy and $1380 examination fees.
Both these schools have smaller class sizes than a state funded school so it is ridiculous to suggest the same amount is spent per child.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 10:57 pm
Anthony @10.18pm “I say put all teachers on three year contracts and let school decide whether to renew it or not.”
Who would have thought that an uniformed rant from Anthony is exactly what happens!
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 11:04 pm
I’m interested in this 20% figure from Don Brash that people are quoting as a fact (presumabaly because it comes from The Don).
Nice round number isn’t it – 1 in 5. Very handy that it is 20% and not 17.89% or 21.7% – actually scrub that last one, if it is was 21.7% the Don would round it up to 25% because 1 in 4 sounds much more dramatic.
Could it be that the Don has pulled that figure – the one that the Don-lovers quote as a fact – out of his backside?
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 11:14 pm
Luc, you are a more patient man than I am with Lee01! (Maybe I’m getting older and grumpier, but I tend not to suffer fools gladly so much these days).
Vote:When he was going on with his rants I was thinking that PISA is excatly what he is asking for. But the results don’t confirm his prejudices. Too bad.
August 22nd, 2011 at 11:14 pm
What on earth are you talking about bc. At state schools it’s virtually a job for life – very difficult to dismiss a teacher!
YWD – try looking at cheaper private schools like Queen Margarets in Wellington. State schools charge activity fees too so you’d want to take that into account I got told the expenditure thing by a teacher at Scots College in Wellington several years ago now. And to be fair you probably need to normalise for class size. Studies have shown class size makes very little difference and good teachers can in fact cope with class sizes up to 60 – not that I would suggest that.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 11:18 pm
I didnt say they were independent and that that means they are equal. I said they are independent and to assume they are equal.
Right now the price of teachers is set independent of their value. That price is too low to attract a large abundance of skilled people.
Uh huh. Just like pressure for better service (better employees) in every other organisation comes from customer dissatisfaction. Why are schools different?
You keep assuming that bad teachers will stay employed. But what happens when we get those skilled people into the profession by offering more money for their skills? We get more, better teachers.
What about all the kids with good parents but bad teachers?
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 11:24 pm
Kimble @6.31pm
Actually a teacher does enter into an employment contract between themselves and their employer. It’s just that the vast majority of teachers enter into a collective agreement. But Kimble, it’s not compulsory! Any teacher can go on an individual contract.
Oh and by the way the BOT of the school is the teachers employer, not the Ministry.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 11:30 pm
Sorry Anthony you are talking rubbish. Teachers MUST re-register every 3 years. At the end of 3 years the teachers registration EXPIRES. It is illegal for a school to hire an unregistered teacher
A teacher cannot re-register until a checklist of things is completed such as a police vet and that the principal of the school can confirm that the teacher has met the professional standards.
Do you actually know anything about this Anthony or is it just an uninformed rant?
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 11:34 pm
Oh pulease. There is a massive amount of social pressure to join the union, or rather to not leave because there is little chance a brand new teacher wont go down the union path.
Still what would happen if a BOT tried to only hire individually contracted teachers?
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 11:35 pm
The teacher’s unions and other unionists are hugely anti schools being able to spend any money themselves – just look at the big stink last time National tried to introduce bulk funding! I attended a heated meeting at our local school.
Actually our local school does employ year 0 teachers on a short term contract to come in part way through the year as more kids start school – but they do this with their own money and all other teacher’s salaries are funded directly and they are on a collective contract – not a fixed term contrac!!!
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 11:37 pm
The teacher registration is nothing to do with the employment contract and very difficult for a teacher to get deregistered as you should well know.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 11:38 pm
i love how teachers never come across as patronising lol
must suck to be so smart and on such low wages.
whenever i havethese discussions with a teacher, they are always closed minded. its like the current system is running perfectly.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 11:41 pm
“Any teacher can go on an individual contract.”
Dimes dated a few teachers (12 and i dont know how it got that high). I always give them shit about being in unions. They tell me the same thing – go against the grain and kiss your career goodbye. youll have a job, but no advancement. youll be out of the clique.
its amazing how many teachers are mean little fuckers.
the amount of bullying that goes on between teachers also astounds me. i guess its because they can get away with it!? govt workers an all that.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 11:42 pm
“what would happen if a BOT tried to only hire individually contracted teachers?”
I’m not an expert on employment law but isn’t anybody in this country entitled to seek union representation if they wish? Such a BOT would certainly not be acting in good faith, maybe illegally.
Your first sentence is just your prejudiced opinion.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 11:44 pm
I’ve noticed that too dime – although my son had to tell his primary school teacher why we have a leap year every four years.
Actually starting salary for a teacher is not too bad – around 50K.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 11:46 pm
Anthony, there is a difference between deregistration and reregistration. You are (intentionally?) confusing the two.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 11:50 pm
My god, Anthony you really just make stuff up as you go along don’t you. Starting salary around 50K! Really?
It wouldn’t surprise me if you lovely little anecdote is a figment of your imagination also.
Vote:August 22nd, 2011 at 11:57 pm
Anyway Anthony, it’s bedtime for me. You and dime and indulge in as much teacher bashing as you like. Feel free to make up as much rubbish as you want – you can even throw in some made up statistics to make your rubbish sound more convincing. Hey if it’s good enough for the Don to present anecdotes as fact and make up statistics then it’s good enough for you two.
Vote:Be careful with dime though: Anyone that refers to himself in the third person is a little bit too creepy for my liking.
August 23rd, 2011 at 12:10 am
Sorry, I thought I was talking to an adult. You see, I never said that people COULDNT join a union, and only a child could have imagined I did.
So to be “acting in good faith” a BOT must hire union teachers? Why shouldnt BOTs be able to only hire individually contracted teachers? Why is it against the law? Why would it even be immoral?
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 12:13 am
Or you could research it bc:
http://www.minedu.govt.nz/NZEducation/EducationPolicies/Schools/SchoolOperations/EmploymentConditionsAndEvaluation/TeacherPayAndConditions/BaseSalaryandAllowances.aspx
Salary Group 3+ teachers have a qualification such as a Diploma of Teaching and a Bachelor of Arts. They start at $45,653 and makeup almost sixty per cent of all trained teachers.
This is excluding allowances
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 12:18 am
“With a three-year Bachelor of Education (Teaching) or equivalent, or an Advanced Diploma of Teaching, you start on $45,568.”
“Secondary school teachers with four years’ tertiary study start on $47,023 a year, but can earn more depending on additional qualifications and experience. ”
Thats around $50k, isnt it? Pro rate the extra holidays and youre laughing.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 12:22 am
What do you expect – if people on here have to start attacking the messenger and making things up then shows they are getting desperate. bc your credibility is completely shot!
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 6:50 am
Salary Group 3+ teachers have a qualification such as a Diploma of Teaching and a Bachelor of Arts. They start at $45,653 and makeup almost sixty per cent of all trained teachers.
So that’s straight out of uni or whatever passes for teacher training these days.
Not too many other job seekers start there and plenty of skilled people and business people don’t earn that kind of money at age say 23
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 8:25 am
Mike,
“You have singled out the sole (alleged) fact in the speech!”
And you have provided no evidence to refute it.
“Although international comparisons (yes, yes I know you despise them getting in the way of your argument)”
They do not get in the way of my argument. The OECD comparisons simply do not tell us anything about the quality of the education system, as has been pointed out, and which you have also failed to answer.
“tell us Nz has a literacy rate of 99%.”
Which tells us nothing about how many leaving the state system can read or do maths or many other things.
Sorry Mike, but so far all you have done is is say “your all wrong” but provided no evidence to prove it. Your not even making an argument, your just repeating a mantra.
Epic fail. Try again.
Luc,
“Don’t come here expecting rationality and logic and facts to divert these morons from their ideology addiction!”
Got any evidence about your ideologically driven claim that Israel is commting “genocide”? No? Thought not. Ideology addiction at its best.
“Lee01, there are 34 member countries of the OECD but its 2009 PISA survey covered 65 countries with almost 65 different methods of providing education. But we get rated highly, so it doesn’t count, right?”
Rated by comparisons with other nations, not with individual schools. We may rate high by overall comparison to other nations, but as I pointed out that means we are being compared, even if in part, to other countries with state dominated systems, which makes them useless for determining whether our specific system is actually any good. To give one example of why these comparisons should be taken with a large grain of salt, only students at school are tested, not home-schoolers!
So your claim of a wide range of teaching systems being compared is flase.
What we need is direct school to school comparisons, and comparisons with other teaching means.
“People who visit but don’t post, please be aware that rabid right wingers (RRW), mainly Conservative White Men (CWM) wish to cover up the social impacts of their winner takes all, wet dream economic system”
I do not support such a system, (and neither does the current government). I support a traditional agrarian economy and mixture of free market and state intervention. Your bigotry is showing (again). Epic fail.
By the way, are you not white yourself? Can you explain why many black Americans support charter schools, or why many Maori want more local control and content and less one size fits all statism?
And you ad hominem against DPF says more about your own desperation with your failing argument than his education.
Yes We Did,
“I don’t need to justify anything”
So you have no answer? Wonderful avoidance.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 8:35 am
So as Kimble suggests, the problem (which I agree with entirely) is that teachers are not paid enough to get really good teachers involved thus we can’t eliminate the bad teachers? I didn’t see any suggestion that more money would be available from the government for this – perhaps we’re relying on the efficiency of the market?
Let’s do a quick role call of the hit points for this policy:
1. Claim schools are failing 20% of students.
2. In addition, lament the state of grammar in today’s world, throwing around a few “back in my day”.
3. Assume that this is predominantly the schools fault (ignoring all other factors that effect behaviour and education, such as the wider family contribution).
4. Propose to solve this with the market by making the school accountable to parents (again ignoring that some parents simply don’t care).
5. Add in a sprinkling of anti-union-ism (teachers join the union of their own volition, but let’s pretend they have no choice).
6. Suggest that the good schools will take over the bad schools (just like well performing companies take over under performing companies?? Wait…)
The problem is that the kids who this may improve things for are not the kids that we’re currently failing – i.e. 3-6 do not address 1 unless you make some assumptions. This isn’t to say it’s a bad policy overall, simply that it’s really not targeting those that are failing, and pretending it does is sophistry.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 8:36 am
Lee
As it is you trying to prove that the NZ education system is useless, some might consider that you would want to present evidence of that. Instead, you make claims and then try to rubbish any data that contradicts those claims. Direct testing shows that NZ students rank well internationally.
What we have here is a case of people who don’t like a system for ideological reasons trying to talk it down without any facts. What they really don’t like about education in NZ is that it is actually pretty good, despite being mainly run as a public enterprise.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 8:57 am
“As it is you trying to prove that the NZ education system is useless”
I’m not. I’m arguing that it needs reform and that parents need more choice.
“Direct testing shows that NZ students rank well internationally.”
Which as I have pointed out, with evidence, does not prove anything.
“What we have here is a case of people who don’t like a system for ideological reasons”
And you and Luc like it FOR ideological reasons.
“What they really don’t like about education in NZ is that it is actually pretty good”
And you have failed to prove that. As I said, the comparisons are meaningless because they only compare countries, not individual systems, and all of those countries are dominated by state run systems.
Try again.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 9:05 am
It is patently clear from this debate that there are two polarising positions:
On the one hand, the teachers / unionists / leftys all want to maintain the principle of pay parity and everything kept secret squirrel about performance (both by the pupils and by the teachers).
On the other hand, outstanding performers actually enjoy being compared to others – and if they are better at their jobs then they deserve to be remunerated accordingly.
In fact, it is long overdue that poor performers in education experience the same consequences as poor performers in the rest of the commercial world – they shape up or ship out!
But if nothing is changed, then we cannot expect any improvement in the (apparent) 20% of kids who pass through the education system without adequate numeracy and literacy skills.
Status quo is simply not an option!
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 9:23 am
It’s quite simply really. If people like Brash, or our friend Lee here, think that the NZ education system is in a mess and need radical reform, then it is incumbent upon them to provide the evidence of failure, propose a solution and set out the criteria by which the success of that solution would be measured.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 9:49 am
Anyone who doesn’t think that the education system is not in need of a major shake up, hasn’t removed their ideological blinkers.
We should not accept that any kid can leave school lacking basic numeracy and literacy skills. We should not accept that this current trend is hidden behind a smokescreen held in place by the PPTA, NZEI et al. We should not accept that poor teachers are not being identified and either retrained or replaced as required. We should not accept that all teachers are remunerated according to the lowest common denominator.
In this policy area, I believe that ACT is on the money – this is well worth exploring and implementing. Whilst those with a clear vested interest will continue to bleat and scream, the fact remains that status quo is not an option.
Roll on the election.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 9:50 am
@Elaycee – incremental improvement is the best way to affect change and with the buy-in of the people the changes affect the most i.e. the education professionals we trust to teach our kids.
Fundamental changes to a system that is not broken purely for ideological reasons serves no-one.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 9:56 am
Elaycee, I don’t see in that how the problems that enter school at five and largely waste ten or more years there will be addressed.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 9:57 am
@Elaycee: I think both positions agree that the status quo is not an option if we’re failing such a large chunk of students. I’m not sure it’s high as Dr Brash claims, though it wouldn’t really surprise me if it were.
The positions differ as there’s a lack of evidence as to why those students are failing. Dr Brash is making one set of assumptions (the schools are to blame – reason is that schools are not accountable to the parents) and I’d argue another (don’t discount the role of the parents).
Under my assumption those kids whose parents are not involved may be further disadvantaged under Dr Brash’s scheme, as their kids will be stuck in the under-performing schools due to the apathy of their parents.
This is not to discount that other kids who are doing OK might not do better under Dr Brash’s scheme, though I see little evidence as to why this would be (the better schools can take on only so many students, and as they expand in size due to increased demand, would they be able to maintain quality? Perhaps some of that quality is determined by the pool of students they begin with, which may decrease as the size increases?)
I certainly think we all agree there are some under-performing teachers (after all, this is almost always the case in any profession). Why is it that we can’t get rid of them? Is it due to the difficulty of proving that a teacher is under-performing? Is it something in the contract negotiated by the individual or the collective? Should schools and the ministry be revising any performance criteria in contracts? Is the power the union yields too high to make this happen, or are any offsetting incentives the ministry can offer not enough to allow this to happen?
In short: More evidence is needed before significant change is made. Otherwise we’re wasting time and money making changes that may have little effect.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 9:58 am
YWD – you seem to forget that the current system IS maintained and ‘managed’ on ideological grounds. The NZEI / PPTA don’t want to change anything (based on ideological grounds). Example – witness the push back on current Government policy. That has zero to do with the education our kids receive and everything to do with political inclinations.
The voters will have their say in November. But this policy is certainly a step in the right direction.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 10:06 am
leftyliberal
“Under my assumption those kids whose parents are not involved may be further disadvantaged under Dr Brash’s scheme, as their kids will be stuck in the under-performing schools due to the apathy of their parents.”
Will allow easy targeting of these kids. as long as the intention is there hopefully the funding is as well. At this level there could be improvements especially if the funding goes to processes that do actually work.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 10:06 am
@Pete George – some kids enter the education system from behind square one – this has always been the case. Poor parenting is not a new phenomena – it has always been evident too.
But these same kids can be inspired by quality teachers and a solid curriculum that has a focus on numeracy and literacy rather than kapa haka and a rewritten version of NZ history.
We need to go back to basics and I believe this is a step in the right direction.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 10:16 am
I’m a school principal. Love my job. Parents/teachers/children all happy with school. Make $110k a year, earn every penny. If this sounds like money for jam to you, if you think that there is no accountability, that teachers can be lazy and have a lot of holidays – go get a teaching qualification and give it a go – I wish you the best of luck.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 10:18 am
“If people like Brash, or our friend Lee here, think that the NZ education system is in a mess and need radical reform, then it is incumbent upon them to provide the evidence of failure, propose a solution and set out the criteria by which the success of that solution would be measured.”
And we have.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 10:19 am
Brash talks about wanting to compare the performances of different schools, in the way we compare the performances of athletes. It would in theory be possible to do this, if all schools used similar curricula, and the same or similar examination systems. But Brash also wants to abolish the rquirement that schools which receive state funding have similar curricula and certain types of exams. He says that parents and teachers ought to be able to set up any type of school offering any type of curriculum and exam system – Muslim, Marxist, Buddhist, whatever – they like, without being regulated by the state that funds them. How can the demand for strict comparisons between schools be reconciled with the demand for the abandonment of any sort of state-sanctioned standards?
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 10:22 am
“Each year up to 10,000 young people in New Zealand leave school with little or no formal qualifications.”
http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/education_and_training/secondary_education/school-leavers-with-no-qualifications.aspx
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 10:27 am
@Lee01 – well spotted.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 10:31 am
Another interesting aspect of Brash’s speech is his claim that education, at least at primary and secondary level, should not be about presenting interpretations of the world, but only about literary, numeracy, and facts. On the surface, this seems like a sensible point of view. A lot of parents would agree with the idea that their kids should be given a store of facts about the world at primary and secondary school, as a sort of basis for any opinions they might form later on, when they are old enough to vote, to go to university, and so on.
But is it possible make a strict distinction between facts and interpretations? Many people argue that it is impossible for any teacher to avoid communicating interpretations of the world, even in primary and secondary schools, where relatively simple information is being given to kids. Let’s suppose we decide to try to take all the interpretation out of history, and reduce the subject to a succession of the dates of important events. The problem of how to choose the dates remains. Our ideologies will be evident in the different events we think are important in the history of the world, and of New Zealand. A debate about this subject flared up last year in Britain, as historians and politicians argued how the past should be taught in that country’s schools: http://readingthemaps.blogspot.com/2010/07/britains-history-war.html
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 10:43 am
Pity the statistics are so old
The easy target is always Maori.
We spend on Maorification does it give the outcomes society needs?
We need to revisit the system to make sure we are targeting these children in the most beneficial way.
Any one that says that it is not just a Maori problem is incapable of adding to any debate. They usually make up 50% of any falling statistic you care to name. As such make up the most productive group to target out there.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 10:48 am
Scott Hamilton
Maori party policy is pretty blatant about this
Primary and secondary schools will be required to teach heritage studies, which will include a history of the Pacific, in line with the aspirations of Pacific people.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 10:49 am
“Another interesting aspect of Brash’s speech is his claim that education, at least at primary and secondary level, should not be about presenting interpretations of the world, but only about literary, numeracy, and facts.”
Scott, good post. I think Brash is wrong about this, but he is getting at an important point. Real education IS about much more than just literacy, numeracy and facts, it is also about values and worldviews. But a single state run system effectively allows for only a state sanctioned worldview. For many parents who may disagree with that view there are other options, such as private and independent schools (for now, Labour I suspect would like to force independent schools to tow the PC line, and will use the excuse of “human rights” to do it) but those parents who take that option should not be forced to also pay for the state system. Also poor/working class parents should have more freedom and options to send their children to independent schools, and a voucher system is the only way I can see to allow for that.
One of my major problems with state/union dominated system is that it presents a worldview I profoundly disagree with, and I think if people like Mike, YWD and Luc were being honest they would admit that one reason they support the state/union system is because it enforces their personal worldview.
This is why homeschooling is under attack in many parts of the world, and has been banned in places like California. The liberal-left wants to enforce a secular, liberal/humanist worldview and fears what real education freedom and choice might mean for that.
That is the real subtext behind Luc, YWD and Mikenmild’s attacks on people here.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 10:57 am
Lee
I’m a fan of home schooling – nothing wrong with it. It provides one option for people who don’t want to accept the state-run system, whether that be for practical or ideological reasons.
The world view presented by the education system is actually one that is quite reflective of NZ society. That may be one reason we haven’t suffered from ‘textbook wars’ or nonsensical deabtes over teaching ‘intelligent’ design.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 10:59 am
@Lee01 10:21am – Your numbers are from over 10 years ago but assuming they apply to today it is a stretch to go from 20% leaving with no formal qualifications to, as Brash put it, ’20 % of children are leaving school functionally illiterate’.
I don’t doubt that there is a reasonable percentage of people leaving school without at least functional numeracy and literacy skills but I’ve seen nothing to support the argument this is as high as 20%.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 10:59 am
“The world view presented by the education system is actually one that is quite reflective of NZ society.”
Perhaps you need to get out more.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 11:02 am
‘This is why homeschooling is under attack in many parts of the world, and has been banned in places like California. The liberal-left wants to enforce a secular, liberal/humanist worldview and fears what real education freedom and choice might mean for that.
That is the real subtext behind Luc, YWD and Mikenmild’s attacks on people here.’
Bullshit, I want my children to have as well rounded education as possible and to learn to question and find out why.
Please don’t make assumptions about me when you have no idea what you are talking about.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 11:02 am
“@Lee01 10:21am – Your numbers are from over 10 years ago but assuming they apply to today it is a stretch to go from 20% leaving with no formal qualifications to, as Brash put it, ’20 % of children are leaving school functionally illiterate’.”
They are government stats.
Whether its a stretch or not, it shows that at least he has a point.
Have you ever tried employing people straight out of High School?
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 11:04 am
“Bullshit, I want my children to have as well rounded education as possible and to learn to question and find out why.”
Not the point and does not address the issue I was talking about.
“Please don’t make assumptions about me when you have no idea what you are talking about.”
I’m making reasonable assumptions based on your ideology and your opposition to reform.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 11:30 am
Folks, never underestimate the power of delusion!
A couple more points: a more intense focus on literacy and numeracy in a country already ranked around 5th in the world on both, and with a literacy rate of 99% will gain us…everything we ever desired?
But are you willing to pay the price?
Every country with better international scores than NZ spends much, much more per child – that’s dollars, folks, hard cash.
Please accept my apologies for shattering delusions with facts.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 11:41 am
Luc’s latest pearl: “Please accept my apologies for shattering delusions with facts.”
You haven’t used facts to date – only your opinion based on your own personal and political agendas.
And Luc – stop trying to infer I wrote the crap you posted in bold text – because I didn’t. Indeed, you have simply confirmed again that you write crap.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 11:57 am
Luc
Well, the facts are just that – facts. On nearly any measure you can find, NZ score very well educationally and at quite a low cost. Just don’t expect too many of the commenters here to stray far from their idea that a liberal conspiracy run by the evil teacher unions is deliberately dumbing down our kids.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 12:09 pm
Anyone who seriously believes that the current system is working, is either ideologically blind or has a clear vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
My own vested interest is to have a system that teaches our kids numeracy and literacy skills as a priority. Currently, it isn’t happening and this ACT policy is a refreshing push in the right direction.
Thankfully, the voters will get to decide in November.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 12:59 pm
You mean the democratically controlled union that teachers can voluntarily join or leave as they please? I recall several teachers who taught me in high school not being union members. One of them was even head of the school’s chemistry department. If teachers didn’t want to collectively negotiate, then they wouldn’t. Nobody’s forcing them to (cue comments about “union thugs”).
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 1:17 pm
“Anyone who seriously believes that the current system is working, is either ideologically blind or has a clear vested interest in maintaining the status quo”.
This is interesting. John Key in his interview with Guyon Espiner on Q&A two Sundays ago said part of the reason that Kiwis are heading to Aussie is that the Aussies know “that NZ has a world class education system” he later went on to talk about PISA results before being rudely cut off my Espiner who stated that “with all respect Prime Minister we all know this”.
Key may fit the descriptor above I guess or he may simply be stating what he knows to be true.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 1:22 pm
I’d be interested to hear how commenters here think a subject like history should be taught in our schools. Do they want to stick to a list of dates and, if they do, who gets to choose the dates?
Given that it is impossible to avoid interpretation in teaching, I’d argue that the best way to teach history is to present a variety of viewpoints on important events – to teach controversy, in other words. The rote learning approach, which was much more prevalent in the postwar period which Don Brash eulogises as some sort of golden age in education, actually makes the teaching of controversies much more difficult, because it is based upon a pretence of objectivity. If we accept that objectivity is impossible, and that there are inevitably a variety of viewpoints, then we begin to get somewhere. The education I got in history at a public school in the ’90s wasn’t perfect – there was far too little discussion of New Zealand’s past – but it certainly didn’t resemble ideological indoctrination. Students were introduced to historiography and warned that history had no single interpretation, classes were broken into groups and invited to argue for an against one or another view, contentious questions ‘What caused World War One?’ were assigned to essayists.
At university level history is an even more disputatious enterprise, despite or because of the fact that the people teach it inevitably have idiosyncratic and strong viewpoints. I wrote about this at:
Vote:http://books.scoop.co.nz/2010/02/24/in-defence-of-brainwashing/
August 23rd, 2011 at 1:32 pm
“Please accept my apologies for shattering delusions with facts.”
What facts? All you have done is repeat the ideological mantra of the Left.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 1:37 pm
“On nearly any measure you can find, NZ score very well educationally”
And your back to comparing rotting corpses.
The measurements you use have been shown to be useless. Again, all your doing is comparing countries that all have state run systems.
Show me a serious comparison between NZ’s state system with the results achieved by independent and home schooled children and between modern education theories and those that use Classical education.
Until then all you and Luc have done is dribble verbal diarrhea.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 1:39 pm
Luc opines:
“Folks, never underestimate the power of delusion!”
We dont. You keep giving us such a wonderful example of it. Hows that Israeli genocide going Luc, hmmm???
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 1:46 pm
Oh here we go again, ideology pretending to be policy. NZ schools do very well by any and all international measure. Yes there’s more that could/should be done, particularly with regards the long tail of underperformance but show me evidence of vouchers improving educational attainment? The one study frequently cited in from Scandanavia (I forget which country) where the system was utterly unlike NZs.
NZ school education is not overly centralised, salaries might be but the system is not. Each school is independent, each principal has broad discretion over the mix of their teaching staff, each Board has comparatively broad discretion over school governance. Compare these features to those in most states in Australia for instance. Moreover, the ERO provides public audits of each school’s peformance.
ACT’s policy is designed to cost shift funding for education to individuals/families and increase public funding to private schools. All this BS about attainment is entirely unexplained and largely overstated.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 1:50 pm
Ideological opinion: “NZ schools do very well by any and all international measure”
Fact: “Each year up to 10,000 young people in New Zealand leave school with little or no formal qualifications.”
http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/education_and_training/secondary_education/school-leavers-with-no-qualifications.aspx
Now, back to school folks! One of these two is not like the other….
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 1:52 pm
No. We CAN get rid of bad teachers. We just dont do it.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 1:54 pm
Scott
Despite the odd comment in the blogosphere that kids are being taught ‘revisionist’ (whatever that means) versions of NZ history, history teaching seems to be alive and well in NZ schools. Kids seem to get exposed to a range of sources and arguments and encouraged to do some research of their own. We don’t seem to have had the same troubles of a narrowing curriculum as in the UK, where increasingly History = Hitler.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 1:55 pm
The control of salaries affects the supply of labour and the quality of that labour. Nobody has decided that NZ teachers should be a certain quality. Instead the quality of NZ teachers is determined by the decisions to have centrally controlled salaries. No one can just decide the quality of teachers in NZ will improve and have it happen.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 2:06 pm
Lee
‘Each year up to 10,000 young people in New Zealand leave school with little or no formal qualifications.’
That may be a fact. What you need to do now is try to present that in a context that helps to explain your argument. That context might require some of the following information:
Vote:What year was ‘each year’?
What has happened before or since that time?
How many students leave school each year?
What does ‘little or no formal qualifications’ mean?
What factors have affected qualification achievement over time?
August 23rd, 2011 at 2:08 pm
I repeat: our own Prime Minister doesn’t see a problem rather he sees it as “a world class education system”. Do all of you whingers disagree with him?, if so what does this tell you about him?
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 2:14 pm
Mike,
“That may be a fact. What you need to do now”
Ah yes, lets swamp the fact in more verbal diarrhea so hopefully it dissapears.
kiwigunner,
“our own Prime Minister doesn’t see a problem”
Then why is his government implementing National Standards? He did not say there were NO problems.
“rather he sees it as “a world class education system” if so what does this tell you about him?”
That he’s a decent guy who often right, but not always right on every issue. Big deal.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 2:19 pm
Lee – you present a number but have no idea whether it is too high, too low or about right. Apart from that your argument is great.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 2:23 pm
“Lee – you present a number but have no idea whether it is too high, too low or about right”
About right? 10,000 failing is possibly about right?
Any moron knows that the number is a shameful failure on the part of your glorious education system. Of course I have an idea, as would anyone not blinded by leftist ideology. It’s shameful.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 2:31 pm
Mike, I suspect a lot of the people who complain about the teaching of history are disoriented by the way that the rote learning of dates and events has been replaced in recent decades by a more disputatious, issue-centred approach, where kids are asked to look at a controversy, consult some of the secondary literature, and decide which side of the controversy they sympathise with. Instead of learning that World War One began in 1914 and ended in 1918 students are asked to consider whether the war was necessary or contingent, or whether or not it was caused by German aggression…
What’s important to stress is that there hasn’t been some sort of abrupt transition from an ‘objective’ teaching of the facts to the teaching of an interpretation – interpretations always came along with the facts that were taught by rote in the past, even if they weren’t acknowledged. What exists now is a greater awareness of the inevitability of interpretation, and of the range of available interpretations.
There isn’t necessarily a great deal of knowledge about the shape of New Zealand historiography amongst those who fulminate about ‘revisionism’ and ‘propaganda’ in the work of contemporary historians. I’m always amazed when people at places like KB refer to Michael King and James Belich as Marxists. Anyone who has read King’s Penguin History of New Zealand can see how keen he is to dispute the claims by Marxist historians like Len Richardson that New Zealand has been a land of fierce class struggle. King’s account of the Great Strike of 1913 determinedly denies its revolutionary character, and King blames the radical policies of the Red Feds, who led that strike, on foreign interlopers who arrived from the US and the IWW. I’ve been reading Belich’s new book about Anglo-Saxon expansionism in the 19th century, and I can see why it has been criticised by left-wing historians: the text is completely without reference to concepts like imperialism and primitive accumulation, which Marxists have traditionally used when explaining colonialism. It’s a strange sort of Marxist who tries to expunge Marxist concepts from discussions of colonialism!
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 2:34 pm
What does this mean mike
Teaching history from a aspiration of Maori stand point?
“People who have more knowledge of their history are much more likely to benefit from our increasingly diverse nation.
Vote:Primary and secondary schools will be required to teach heritage studies, which will include a history of the Pacific, in line with the aspirations of Pacific people”
August 23rd, 2011 at 2:36 pm
“People who have more knowledge of their history are much more likely to benefit from our increasingly diverse nation”
How many Kiwi’s were asked if they wanted to live in a “diverse” nation?
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 2:41 pm
Any thinking person would recognise that 10,000 ‘failures’ is a disgrace and something needs to be done about it.
But no – the usual people with vested interests in maintaining the status quo (with their salaries paid by the taxpayer) don’t want change and will do anything to resist. You only have to look at the delaying tactics adopted by the same NZEI / PPTA / Labour politocos to see evidence of that.
Its time for these ideologists to be swept aside – if they were genuinely interested in improving the education / curriculum being delivered to our kids, they would actually welcome debate. But because its against their own political doctrine, oh no – we can’t have that!
So roll on November. Let the electorate decide. And if you they don’t like what the Government policy of the day prescribes in terms of education, then they can pack up their bongos and move over for someone else…
And not before time…
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 2:42 pm
Scott
Like calling the Labour Party ‘socialists’! Speaking of Marxists, I’m currently reading Stevan Eldred-Grigg’s ‘Great Wrong War’. It is in many ways a lovely book, well written, lavishly illustrated and clearly based on a huge amount of research. Its thesis, that NZ need not have fought in the war, which was entirely unneccessary and disastrous is, IMO, completely and fundamentally wrong.
Lee
Vote:It’s just a number. Without knowing whether it was last year’s figure or from 10 or 20 years ago I have no way of judging its relevance. What is it as a percentage of school leavers and how is that percentage changing? Given that our firstformal qualification is at Year 11, is it such a bad thing that a certain number of people don’t even get that far? Should everyone get at least Level 1?
August 23rd, 2011 at 2:46 pm
“It’s just a number.”
No, its a failure rate.
“Without knowing whether it was last year’s figure or from 10″
Each year means every year.
You have been reduced to arguing that failure is not really failure at all. Wonderful Orwellian New-Speak. Are you a teacher?
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 2:51 pm
If it is only 10000 failing and half are Maori we don’t have a problem with failing Maori
Racist=
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 2:54 pm
Statistics – they’re hard to find in easy format but if you’re prepared to put in a little effort…
2005: Total school leavers 57454
UE std achieved: 33% (18874)
Little or no formal attainment: 13% (7409)
2009: Total school leavers 52181
UE std achieved: 46% (23914)
Little or no formal attainment: 5% (2396)
Source – spreadsheet downloaded from
http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/statistics/schooling/school_leavers2/highest-attainment-numbers-trend-data-2005-to-2009 – chose stats by gender and added the gender figures together.
Looks like the problem has a) been vastly overstated, and b) got a lot better already
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 2:57 pm
Lee
It isn’t a ‘failure’ rate though is it? It’s the number of people who left school in an unspecified year without a formal qualification. If a person leaves school in Year 10 or 11 without NCEA Level 1 and goes into a job, is that still a failure? Context is everything. What would a good number be: 5,000, 1,000, 100 or 0? What policy changes would fix this failure and how would we know if they were successful?
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 3:01 pm
RightNow
Vote:Excellent, data that may actually mean something!
August 23rd, 2011 at 3:05 pm
mikenmild – it worries me actually, I’d assume that people like Brash (and Tolley) would have these stats already, but perhaps not?
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 3:07 pm
Information can be quite limiting if one wishes to pursue an argument, so many politicans prefer to dispense with it.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 3:20 pm
Read on ethnic grouping Ignore the top line. people who attain level three or higher the should have enough skills to not “eat themselves”
Vote:This tells you who is failing disproportionally
August 23rd, 2011 at 3:31 pm
Griff – in terms of the ethnicity stats I think this is where it really does come down to the parents. My main reason for thinking that is that Pasifika have much better outcomes than Maori, and for me the main difference is that to get their kids into a NZ school they have to have emigrated here (in recent generations at least) which implies that they had the nous and motivation to do so, whereas for Maori they have to send their kids to school even if they don’t want to.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 3:41 pm
How can anyone maintain we don’t have a problem within our current education system????
From WhaleOil: “The principal of this school (a rep for NZPF) has been all over local media slagging off government policy and bragging about breaking the law.” Whale continues: “So according to this principal, it’s not fair that the Government is telling schools to teach kids to a level where they can succeed — in English — in New Zealand.”
Jesus wept. And these morons would have us believe that the current system is OK?
http://www.odt.co.nz/regions/north-otago/174641/ministry-punishes-school
Hat Tip: Whale Oil
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 3:45 pm
Interesting statistics indeed RightNow. So in 2009, 5% of school leavers have little or no attainment of a qualification. So where does Don get his magical (and by the sounds of it, highly inflated) 20% from??
Of course the unthinking Don-lovers in here will just accept the 20% regardless – facts being highly overrated to them I’ve noticed.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 3:52 pm
So what are the actual problems with the education system?
The fuss over national standards is a bit worrying. Okay, so we all know it’s a load of nonsense, but schools might have been better advised to pay lip-service to the policy until it dies a natural death. The spectacle of schools defying government policy is a bit unedifying, although I guess one could argue that boards are simply doing what they feel to be in the best interests of their school, and if parents don’t like that they can vote for new trustees.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 3:56 pm
@bc: That doesn’t preclude the shitload of kids flunking out though. It also presumes that standards have been kept constant which may or may not be the case (they may have improved, stayed constant or lowered).
Either way, more work is to be done. Again I ask the question: If poor teachers are to blame, why can we not get rid of them under the current policies? There must be a reason that Dr Brash suggests such a large overhaul of things other than ideology, surely?
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 4:01 pm
lefty
If poor teaching is to blame, or there are significant numbers of inadequate teachers (both deabtable points), what would be the answer. Some have said good teacher should be paid more -’performance pay’. Well, I don’t want my kid taught by someone who is paid significantly worse than the next class’s teacher. Maybe there is a fairly objective standard that all teachers should meet and is appropriately remunerated to attract good quality people.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 4:15 pm
Because the Unions would strike, calling it an attack on our nations future. They will object to Brash’s proposal exactly the same way, because it will have the same effect. The difference is, the reason we have the teachers we do is because of the system we have. If we get rid of those teachers, we will just get them back in a few years. It is important to have a better system that will keep them out of the industry (or rather, that will get the better people IN).
But you are fine with your kid being taught by that exact same person as long as they are paid the same as the (much better) teacher in the next class? Thats ridiculous.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 4:16 pm
The 20% illiterate “statistic” quoted by Don Brash was immediately obvious as a load of rubbish. If there really was 1 out of every 5 people in this country unable to read and write, the country would be in serious trouble!
Vote:What truly amazed me was the number of Don-lovers that just accepted it as fact (and continued to quote it as fact), just because Don said it. Scary stuff!!
August 23rd, 2011 at 4:28 pm
kimble
You miss the point. I expect all teachers to be competent. It’s not a field where I want superstars to be paid 10 times as much as the others – the overall standard is the most important thing.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 4:32 pm
bc, at one stage that statistic was true, and in my researching it kept coming up in the search results, but it was from 2000. It wasn’t immediately obvious as a load of rubbish, it was immediately obvious as an old statistic.
I must note that you also claimed this last night:
“My god, Anthony you really just make stuff up as you go along don’t you. Starting salary around 50K! Really?”
Some fact checking on your own instead of making assumptions would be advisable.
I do hope you’re not a teacher.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 4:33 pm
I love the irony that your criticism essentially relies on interpreting what he actaully said – It is therefore no surprise that 20 percent of children are leaving school functionally illiterate – to mean that 20% of people cannot read or write at all!
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 4:45 pm
Even if those superstars are worth 2 times what they are paid?
Hang on, would you be fine if the guy in the other room is paid more than the guy teaching your kids if both were at least competent?
If the important thing is competence then it shouldnt matter that the other guy in the room is paid more. Unless you think that the guy being paid more in the other room would make the guy teaching your kids become incompetent, of course. But I dont think you can make that argument.
So how does the amount that the person in the other room is being paid affect the guy teaching your kids?
Our side argues that allowing the guy in the other room be paid more will actually improve the chances the guy teaching your kid is competent. And we have explained why.
When the wage for a job is set (the price is fixed) based on the average value of employees, that wage will be more than all incompetent people would be willing to accept but less than many competent people are.
There are teachers worth $100k+. I know some of them personally. I also know people who arent teachers simply because they can make more elsewhere, as well as people who are teachers because they cannot make more elsewhere.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 4:49 pm
functionally illiterate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_illiteracy
While pure illiteracy has approximately the same characteristics worldwide, the characteristics of functional illiteracy vary from one culture to another, as some cultures require better reading and writing skills than others. A reading level that might be sufficient to make a farmer functionally literate in a rural area of a developing country might qualify as functional illiteracy in an urban area of a technologically advanced country
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 4:52 pm
Kimble
Vote:You are still implying that it is okay to have one teacher twice as good as another in charge of the adjacent class room. In the same way, one would hope the doctors and nurses at a hospital are competent and you are not randomly assigned in A&E to someone who is markedly worse than average. It won’t comfort you to know they are not being paid as much for (mis)treating you. The performance pay mantra falls down when confronted with scenarios like teaching, medicine, policing and the military, where the base competency is much more important than having a few top performers.
August 23rd, 2011 at 5:07 pm
A ton of hard, fact based analysis here:
http://www.educationforum.org.nz/
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 5:09 pm
“You are still implying that it is okay to have one teacher twice as good as another in charge of the adjacent class room.”
Guilty. In fact, I would prefer the situation where both teachers are at least competent, and one teacher is twice as good as the other. I suppose I am weird like that.
How does the amount being paid to the guy in the other room affect the competence of the person in this room?
We are saying that allowing the high performers to get paid more will attract more high performers to the industry. Putting a price on skill will improve the overall skill level in the industry. Just as it has in other industries.
To argue against it in this context, you need to explain why performance based pay would REDUCE the minimum competence level.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 5:17 pm
Ok, RightNow. Let’s go with this…
Let’s assume the 20% statistic quoted by Don Brash was true at some stage (according to you).
Why then is Don using outdated statistics, when recent statistics are available? Kind of depective don’t you think.
And yes, Anthony was making stuff up as he went along. But let’s assume Anthony did know the starting salary of teacher, then he deliberately inflated it by $5000 That is a significant amount of money! So like Don, either making stuff up or being deliberately deceptive.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 5:25 pm
Recent stats are available? Lets see them then.
Huh? $46k isnt around $50k? Now you are just desperately quibling.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 6:37 pm
bc, please reassure me you aren’t teaching our kids, please.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 6:49 pm
Let’s put your allegation to the test bc. Anthony said ‘around $50k’ and the figures I looked at said:
“$45,653 and makeup almost sixty per cent of all trained teachers.”
You accuse him of inflating it by $5000.
Who is more accurate? Anthony is out by 8.694% ($4347). Your figure of $5,000 is out by 13.06% ($653).
And Anthony was the one who said ‘around’ $50k.
I’ll also point out that the figure I quoted was excluding allowances, so Anthony was likely even closer to the mark, while you were probably even further out.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 7:00 pm
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/Why-Are-Finlands-Schools-Successful.html
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 7:11 pm
Ok, let’s see RightNow: Anthony was out by $4347 and I was out by $653 and that makes Anthony more accurate in your eyes. Hmmmm.
And Kimble if insisting that people have actual statistics when they claim to have facts rather than just making stuff up is (according to you) “desperately quibling” then guilty as charged!
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 7:15 pm
And our esteemed Minister of Education said- “The summit of education ministers will provide us with a great opportunity to promote the reputation of New Zealand’s world-leading, innovative and high-quality education system,” Tolley. (13 July 2011).
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 7:27 pm
bc,
You said that more recent stats were available. I assume that means that you have them?
Again, recent stats are available? Lets see them then. Or are you just guessing about a subject in which you dont have any knowledge? Again.
1. 13.06% is more than 8.694%. So you were further out.
2. He also said “around” $50k, whuich lets everyone know it was a rounded figure. While you said “then he deliberately inflated it by $5000″. Nothing you said let people know it was a rounded figure.
3. You are still ignoring the allowances.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 7:45 pm
Here is his exact quote,
He didnt say $50,000, he said $50k making it very obvious that he was rounding. Because he was rounding to the nearest $1k you must assume he was making the precise prediction of $49,500 as you dont have any other information to be able to say he is making a specific statement of any other figure.
Secondary teachers start at $47,023, so the best you could hope to say is that he was out by $2,477. This is less than half the figure you touted of $5,000. This means, in fact, his “error” of $2,477 is LESS than your error of $2,523.
pwned
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 10:43 pm
(Rolls eyes) My god, why do I waste my time.
Anyway here we go…
The G3+ entry salary for a primary school teacher is $46908
The G3+ entry salary for a secondary school teacher is $47023
Regardless of which amount you use BOTH are closer to $45000 then $50000.
Instead of teacher bashing, maybe you should take a math class and listen to the teacher.
I’m sorry I don’t know what pawned is – either some atrocious spelling to go with your atrocious mathematics or some kind of a lame attempt to be cool with the kids? Either way, pretty sad.
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 11:06 pm
You said he deliberately inflated the figures by $5,000, but the most you can really say for certain is that he inflated by $2,477.
Your error is $2,523, and that is for certain.
He was out by $2,477, you were out by $2,523. Your error is larger on both an absolute and a relative basis. You overestimated his error by more than 100%!
Your error is so bad, to put it in context, if Anthony committed the same degree of error he would have said the starting salary for a teacher was $100k!
He said $50k, a rounded amount, so you have to use $49,500 as the precise amount to calculate the deviation from. Whereas you said he was out by $5,000. You quoted it down to the dollar! You dont even understand the mathematics of my critique!
I dont say pwned in an attempt to be “cool with the kids”. I say it because I am a kid and you got pwned like a bitch!
Vote:August 23rd, 2011 at 11:30 pm
Ah, abuse – desperation kicks in. And that is the point when everyone knows you have lost the argument.
Vote:Have a good night.
.
.
.
(feel free to throw in a bit more abuse now)
August 23rd, 2011 at 11:47 pm
So which part do you think is wrong? I would guess none, thats why you havent addressed a single point, and still refuse to acknowledge the impact of allowances.
Here I will make it easy for you and provide my argument point by point.
1. The $50k is rounded.
2. It is impossible to say that the value is not $49,500. So this must be your point of reference.
3. For the same reason, without any other information, you have to use the value for Secondary school teachers.
4. The precise error you can say Anthony made is $2,477.
5. You said that he inflated the value by precisely $5,000.
6. You were $2,523 off the actual value.
7. $2,523 > $2,477 . Your error is greater than his.
Argue any single point to bring down the argument. Any one.
I love it when people like you think you are capable of winning arguments like this. You invariably get pwned hard and then desperately look for any flimsy justification to pretend that the conversation is below you.
Nobody buys it.
Vote:August 24th, 2011 at 12:26 am
Kimble, I don’t think bc understands the concepts of rounding, or significant figures. Just give him/her an F for effort and forget about it.
Vote:August 24th, 2011 at 12:36 am
I’ve been checking the figures on illiteracy, these are from the Min of Ed for the international PISA results for 2009. The NZ results are very good on AVERAGE, ranked 5th in world for reading, 12th for numeracy and 7th for science. Generally it appears our average is high because we have a very good top end performance. The bottom end not so good:
Reading Ability = 14% at Level-1a or lower (note: literacy and communication is not tested, this is reading comprehension only, Level-1a is extremely basic).
Numeracy = 17% at Level-1 or lower.
Scientitific literacy = 13% at Level-1 or lower.
(Note level ratings are 1b-lowest/very minimal to 6-most advanced).
Also note PISA only includes those 15 year olds in school and willing to take the tests.
Given that in 2008 6% of 15 year olds weren’t even in school or home schooling I would think we could be hitting 20% only achieving level-1a or lower easily (i.e. unable to extract the key idea from a very simple short written passage or a list).
The other problem is “functional literacy” (= the literacy skills necessary to function within today’s economic market for that country). I would make this equivalent to Level-2+ at least for reading in PISA. Here it’s bad news: PISA 2009 reading at Level-2 or lower results for NZ = 33%. Also from the Min of Ed 2005 for the IALS (International Adult Literacy Survey), results for NZ (of all adults 16-65):
Prose literacy = 45% at Levels 1 & 2 or lower.
Document literacy = 50% L1 & 2.
Quantative literacy = 49% L1 & L2.
The IALS also rank Level-1 (lowest) to Level-6 (highest) and is more comprehensive. For the current NZ situation Level-3 is considered the minimum to be functionally literate. I would say we have a huge problem here, this backed anecdotely by tertiary educators and employers.
And thats for reading (our best subject), in numeracy and science we’re absolutely boned at the bottom end according to PISA 2009, literally 40-50% are little better than an uneducated 13th century worker/peasant believing that “electrickery” is some arcane magical devilry and that long division is only humanly possible with the aid of a computator (another magical box which they have absolutely no clue as to how it functions).
Vote:August 24th, 2011 at 12:56 am
It is not the schools that are underperformed its those at the bottom of the socioeconomic heap Pacific island and Maori. Pacific island kids are doing better at pulling them self’s up the economic ladder. Maori are falling down. This is even worse than the statistics show due to a unhealthy obsession in te reo Maori and a willingness of educators to fudge the numbers so as not to look incompetent.
Maori language peaked in 2003 and has been falling since due to intelligent Maori not being willing to expose their children to the propaganda in the Maori school system
Vote:August 24th, 2011 at 1:02 pm
Joseph, it’s useful you’ve referred to PISA, that was one of the studies I should have specifically referred too and thanks also to RightNow for the points s/he’s made.
Now that we’re clear about the performance of NZ schools, it’d be great if someone from ACT could explain how vouchers will improve learning outcomes precisely (with relevant sources)? Deb Coddington has tried in the past, and in my opinion, not been at all convincing.
Vote:August 24th, 2011 at 6:05 pm
Griff @ 12.56am is on to it.
Drilling down into PISA NZ 2009 results for reading (remember these are 15 year old students in full time schooling):
Level-1b or lower (basically illiterate), percents of samples:
Caucasian = 2%
Asian = 3%
Maori = 6%
Pacific Islander = 13%
Level-1a or lower (sub literate):
Caucasian = 8%
Asian = 15%
Maori = 24%
Pacific Islander = 35%
Level-5 or higher (high literacy):
Caucasian = 21% (incl 5% at Level-6 exceptional ability)
Asian = 17%
Maori = 6%
Pacific Islander = 4%
It’s very very obvious where the problem is and vouchers will do BUGGER ALL about addressing it. But then again I am rational or racist depending on your worldview. Shame on ACT and absolute ignominy on the teachers – for all their liberal cant about multi-culturism, inclusiveness, world class, etc they have utterly failed a particular group of students.
Vote:August 24th, 2011 at 8:00 pm
It’s very very obvious where the problem is and vouchers will do BUGGER ALL about addressing it.
What’s obvious is not all there is.
People seem to be under the impression that for vouchers to have any impact you would have to have a majority of pupils moved from bad schools to good ones. They dont seem to realise that changes at the margins of consumption has significant impact on the quality of supply to the whole market.
At the moment each school is its own little monopoly, immune from all the benefits competition brings.
Vote:August 24th, 2011 at 8:28 pm
Yes the improvement change at the margins due to vouchers will be that in 2021 25% (+5%) of Caucasians will now achieve Level-5 or better “high literacy” and 34%(-1%) of Maori/Pacific Islanders will achieve Level-1a or lower “can read majority of KFC menu (as long as there are accompanying pictures)”. Well done.
Vote:August 24th, 2011 at 10:05 pm
Some more statistics of interest
Vote:http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/studying-in-new-zealand/secondary-school-and-ncea/secondary-school-statistics/
August 25th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
Is that really the best argument; a theoretical statement on the apparent laws of competition? Kimble, you might want to consider that the “problem” isn’t simply a supply side matter. It’s far more complex than that, there are many exogenous factors affecting an individuals’ learning, family support, home environment, role models to name a few. Vouchers don’t operate on any of that, they assume that suboptimal teaching is entirely responsible for performance and that is patently absurd.
Vote: