More on Labour’s education policy
September 16th, 2011 at 9:00 am by David FarrarI blogged yesterday on how Labour’s policy appears to be keep National Standards, but rename them and don’t give the Government the data. I suspect their policy has not matched their rhetoric as they realise there are so many parents who really appreciate getting a plain language assessment of whether their child is achieving to the level needed to have adequate literacy and numeracy.
A reader has made a useful observation:
Mallard’s big attack has been on moderation. How do you know that school A is judging a child against say the Year 1 Nat Std in the same way as school B is judging a child against the Year 1 Nat Std.
If you accept that is a valid criticism (and Moroney has continued to run it) then Labour does nothing about it.
Labour has said they will “Determine the New Zealand Curriculum level a child is achieving.” But how do they know that two schools will make the same call without moderation. You’ll have to train and trust teachers – as National has suggested we do.
The Union’s support of Labour’s policy only shows that they don’t actually care about the issue of moderation – they just care who is fronting the policy.
So this confirms the moderation argument was always a red herring.
There is a National Standard in reading, writing and maths for each year – Years 1-8.
There are 8 curriculum levels covering children from ages 5 through to the end of high school.
That means there are approximately 4 curriculum levels covering children from Years 1-8.
It means the information is going to be meaningless. If you have a 5 year old child they will be judged against the curriculum level 1. They’ll continue to be judged against that when they’re ages 6 and 7 basically. That means for 2-3 years you’ll get bugger all meaningful information because you are being assessed against the same standard for 2-3 years.
So its national standards lite, with less meaningful standards. What a great triumph for parents and pupils.
Labour seem to almost be embarrassed by the policy. Only two Labour MPs have tweeted about it. Their website has just a single page on it, there is no post on Red Alert about it and no questions in the House on national standards.
Related posts:
- Labour’s national standard policy
- Dom Post on Education
- Dom Post on Education Standards
- More on Education and OIA
September 16th, 2011 at 9:04 am
Labour knows this is a policy you release when they know they will never have to implement it. They Know National Standards are popular with parents, and most importantly the middle classes who have all deserted Labour, and with policy such as this, never get those voters back.
Labour have given up on the 2011 election. Policy releases such as this sop to unions proves the point.
Doesn’t it Trevor?????
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 9:14 am
Just more confirmation that the fuss about national standards is a political debate; not an educational issue.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 9:16 am
“Labour will Require primary schools to use recognised assessment tools”
Note the plural. The key part of this policy is to no longer have one fixed national standard but instead allow schools to use a variety of assessment mechanisms so they can use which one suits their pupils best.
[DPF: Rob you do not understand national standards. Schools can use any assessment mechanism they want. They just need to moderate the results. National standards are not the same as national testing]
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 9:19 am
rob
Vote:Possibly it refers to the variety of assessment tools already being used.
September 16th, 2011 at 9:34 am
Reading Labour’s policy they are going to use current assessment tools and teachers judgement to set a level of achievement for each child and report their progress against this. As this is done on a per child basis, rather than National’s one size fits all national standards then moderation is less critical.
Given that the rate of progress for primary child varies widely, particular between girls and boys at a young age, then there is merit in what Labour are suggesting. I doubt they will have to bully schools into implementing it.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 9:43 am
mikeymould – fail.
Its about unions protecting vested interests and wanting to contiue to impose educational standards that protect those interest. Its also about parent’s rights.
This is what you are defending (apologies for not linking due to my Labour government education):
Justright yesterday at 12:52 pm regarding Fendalton Open Air School –
“My 3 kids were at a Decile 10 school in Christchurch. My observation (by looking at timetables, amounts of work in books etc) & feedback from the kids was that they spent very little time on the ‘basics’. Teachers all thought they were amazing & doing a fantastic job. We had 2 kids in tuition to cover the gaps we could see emerging. We know from the tutor that she had class loads of kids from the school in private tuition. The school was against national standards, but reluctantly did report on them. Normal school reports were an embarrassment. Their books were never used up – often only half used by the end of the year.
Staff (including support staff) were snooty & condescending. The same school has made no effort to make up for time lost due to earthquakes and other interruptions.
We had enough, so we moved all 3 kids to a private school this year, and the difference is stunning. 60-70% of time is spent on the basics. Reports are clear, we know where the kids stand. One of them has asked for more workbooks because they are full of work. It is obvious to us that they are progressing. We compare the work from the beginning of the year, to work now and the progress is obvious. They report on national standards as one measure of performance.”
And then backster at 1:52pm –
“A female teacher rang Leighton yesterday morning, I didn’t catch what level she taught at but she said she was no longer allowed to strike out a mis-spelt word when marking a pupils work. She was instructed to write ‘close approximation’ alongside the error”
As you will know, these are not isolated anecdotes. This blog has been full of them over the last few years.
Do you actually believe that this is acceptable? Seriously?
Because if you do, that very clearly defines your position on what consitutes appropriate “educational standards” in which case, that being your standard, you may well have a valid argument on how best to achieve it. Unfortunately, it isn’t a standard that many parents appear to regard as acceptable.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 9:45 am
@YesWD
Of course the schools will implement it – it is the NZEI’s answer to National Stds.
God forbid that a teacher’s abilities are reflected in National measurable standards as the parents want.
The NZEI just wants Labour to toe their line of platitudes to parents; rather than meaningful and therefore measurable stds which can reflect badly on inadequate teachers.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 9:54 am
milkmilo – do you plan to ‘out’ yourself due to your vested interest in this matter? (And I’m not referring to your role as a parent).
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 10:10 am
@thedavincimode – any argument for change in our education system needs to be based on a bit more than a few people complaining on a blog site.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 10:11 am
mikenmild – “Just more confirmation that the fuss about national standards is a political debate; not an educational issue.”
Maybe so. Perhaps you’d care to expand on what you consider to be the political issues at the heart of this debate.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 10:13 am
@ LAC
That’s unnecessary and slightly threatening in my view. Engage the argument not the person.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 10:13 am
A very weak policy with little to show except for Sue Moroney’s bent knee to the unions and limp grasp of education issues.
Nothing to ensure every child can read, write and add up after eight years at primary school.
Because high schools have clear evidence through their own testing of which primary schools (down to which teachers) have done their job properly, perhaps what we need is a national entrance exam for high school education, with results for each school (not each child) published. I bet the primaries would all scramble to make sure every child was achieving at a level equal at least to their chronological age and have rock solid data for those who don’t.
I would also give incentive payments to the school that brings these kids up to high school level, whether it’s the primary or the secondary teachers.
At present most teachers do a reasonable job but we have far too much failure and far too few incentives built in for them to do better with our most vulnerable kids.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 10:18 am
@BeaB – You would create a teach to the exam culture in primary schools. I had enough of teach to the exam ‘learning’ at university; it’s a bullshit way to run education.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 10:21 am
Labour does not have an education policy. It has a pro-Union policy.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 10:21 am
Has any one else listened to Leighton Smith yesterday and today? 12 year olds may not be able to read or write but they know all about oral and anal sex. I wonder if National will do anything to change this?
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 10:22 am
“I had enough of teach to the exam ‘learning’ at university”
Too difficult for you?
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 10:22 am
Assumption: Society wants its children to receive the best education possible.
Education can be defined as learning and practicing those things society deems necessary for the child to succeed and be happy.
Solution. Build the best education system possible and install it.
Politics getting in the way of these objectives is harmful according to society’s objectives, and is therefore immoral.
Simple.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 10:23 am
I suspect Labour is so concerned with losing votes to the Greens they need to shore up NZEI members’ support even if this is at the expense of attracting the marginal National leaning voter.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 10:24 am
I thought mikenmild had been very accurate in his assessment that ” the fuss about national standards is a political debate”
He isn’t saying the policy of National Standards is politically motivated, he is saying the fuss in response is politically motivated.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 10:26 am
@Lee01 – ‘Too difficult for you?’
No; I got a first class honours degree, can’t say I learnt a lot in some those classes though, other than how to pass the exam.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 10:27 am
“Has any one else listened to Leighton Smith yesterday and today? 12 year olds may not be able to read or write but they know all about oral and anal sex. ”
Chuck, cannot possibly be true! Our education system is not concerned with left wing indoctrination! It’s one of the best in the world you know! I have this comparison with another state propagand…..ooops, I meant “education” systems that proves it! All of our teachers are hard working, non-partisan, passionate professionals who are not at all interested in indoctrinating your children in political correctness. And by the way, having sex in toilets is a valid lifestyle choice you know! Little kids SHOULD know all about the details of that!
“I wonder if National will do anything to change this?”
Sadly, no.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 10:28 am
“can’t say I learnt a lot in some those classes though”
Surely that was up to you though. I make a point of reading widely, more so than is necessary just to pass the exams and get assignments out. There is an element of personal responsibility here.
Oh and sorry about the “too difficult” comment. That was a cheap shot and I apologise.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 10:31 am
Mallards a man of broken promises and a rug scuttler.
He was given a chance, and his guarantees failed to eventuate. Epic fail, Mallard.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 10:49 am
Yeswedid – “I had enough of teach to the exam ‘learning’ at university; it’s a bullshit way to run education.”
By the time you reach university, you should be an autonomous learner, with a reasonable grasp of fundamental concepts and facts. The learning from this point onwards has been chosen by you, and you are asked to digest this information and regurgitate it in an understandable form.
Whilst some of this information will bear relevance to your future vocation, most of it is esoteric and irrelevant, so you are only required to demonstrate that you have the ability to interpret and assimilate and apply the information. Teaching to the exam achieves this objective.
The real learning begins when you enter your vocation and are asked to apply this knowledge, or undertake the writing of a thesis.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 10:54 am
YesWeDid
Thankyou for your transparently obvious attempt to gloss over the fact that the “few complaints” to which you refer have been accompanied by explanations of the circumstances giving rise to the complaints.
It is of course possible that the people who have taken the trouble to provide details of those circumstances as a basis for credentialising their complaints and illustrating their perceptions of the deficiencies of Labour’s education system, are simply outright liars. The fact that the complaints reflect a consistent theme, one of which being an apparant lack of accountability for the shortcomings identified and a lack of any visible improvement across the sector having regard to the volume of these complaints with specific examples, might just as easily be explained on the basis of either a political conspiracy or an individual or individuals using multiple pseudonyms, or both.
Equally, the responses of you and your ilk might be explained on the basis of your belief that parents who want their children to have the same or better educational opportunities that they did really don’t what they are talking about and that the educational failures that the children are documented as having experienced are in fact a good thing and will stand the children in excellent stead as they embark on their increasingly difficult journeys through life. Alternatively, you may simply be defending a flawed system because of your political leaning and your strategic imperative that the starting point in developing the society to which you aspire is union control of the learning processes incorporated in our education system. Or it might simply be about protecting unions’ interests in the workplace.
You don’t appear to be interested in taking issue with the actual substance of the “few complaints” you may have noted. You also don’t appear unduly concerned that the children who are exposed to these failures, but are not so fortunate as to have parents, such as Justright, who have the capacity or motivation to take corrective action, will live the rest of their lives with the outcomes of these failures which, it appears, you appear to regard as nothing more than a minor glitch. But then, this apparent oversight could be explained away by the Erebus theory if that is in fact your starting point.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 11:05 am
davinci
Vote:That would all be almost relevant if the national standards had any capacity to contribute to improving educational achievement.
September 16th, 2011 at 11:06 am
@thedavincimode – i don’t agree that our education system is ‘fundamentally flawed’ as highlighted by the fact it racks highly in international comparisons.
There will always be parents who are unhappy with the way their children are being taught but using one off examples as a basis for making fundamental changes to our education system is extremely short sighted.
I’m married to a primary teacher so I am able to observe the passion and dedication that she and her colleagues bring to their profession.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 11:15 am
mikenmild – “if the national standards had any capacity to contribute to improving educational achievement.”
Firstly, I’m not having a go at you Mike. I’d just like to know why you think that national standards haven’t any capacity to contribute to improving educational achievement?
A reasonable question, surely? (as are all the other questions I’ve posed which you have declined to answer)
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 11:16 am
mm
You mean you don’t think that transparency of performance will achieve anything?
It isn’t the answer in itself but it is the fundamental starting point and in fact without it, there can be no informed public debate which is one of the core fallacies in YWD’s rather arrogant and condescending response. But then why would the unionists want informed public debate?
The education system is just that: a system. Systems need leverage in order to achieve their goals efficiently and accurately and one of the tools in that regard is consistency. Anyone who has been in business understands that. Perhaps YWD has applied his/her First Class Honours degree to loftier pursuits.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 11:17 am
YesWeDid
Why do you think that ‘teaching to the exam’ is poor pedagogy?
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 11:24 am
Scott
If you had been following the debate on national standards you would be aware of much informed criticism to the effect that they are unlikely to achieve the stated objective. Much of this material was linked to the last time (or the time before) this topic came up.
davinci
Transparency has much to recommend it. If there was reason to believe that the national standards as established and implemented were superior to the tools currently used to measure and monitor educational performance, then more people might be supportive.
It seems to me that there is an undercurrent of suspicions and misconceptions at play:
Vote:1. our education system is bad
2. teachers aren’t interested in educational achievement
3. the teaching unions aren’t interest in educatonal achievement
4. parents aren’t being told how their children are doing.
September 16th, 2011 at 11:24 am
Lee01: if oral and anal sex are “left wing,” it must totally suck to be a right-winger…
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 11:27 am
@insider – Thank you for your opinion. We all have them and thankfully we are allowed to express them in this country.
And IMO, you are a complete plonker.
Enjoy your day.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 11:32 am
Well said, Elaycee
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 11:33 am
“I’m married to a primary teacher so I am able to observe the passion and dedication that she and her colleagues bring to their profession.”
FFS, is that it? We cut the wrong leg off, the patient died …. but we tried REALLY REALLY hard!!
“There will always be parents who are unhappy with the way their children are being taught but using one off examples as a basis for making fundamental changes to our education system is extremely short sighted.”
What utter bilge.
1. Is it it beyond your grasp that there will be hundreds of children getting the same substandard fare dished up at Fendalton? That in itself is reason to change.
2. What you describe as “one off examples” represent systemic failure. The one off examples always come back to the same issues, including the one I’ve identified. That’s a system failure right there!! Same shit happening over and over – in the real world, we call that something more than a hint that things aren’t quite right.
3. WTF has internationally ranking have to do with this stuff? Does this mean that Rightnow didn’t have that experience and that the kids that remain there aren’t still getting the same crap that his/her kids got? Does it mean that parents aren’t able to observe and compare their own educational experiences with those of their kids?
4. I’ll tell you what “short-sighted” is. Ignoring this.
And in any event, its law. Just obey the fucking law. What’s more, you can bet your bottom dollar that there is more on the way. Get ready to suck it up.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 11:36 am
mikenmild – “much informed criticism to the effect that they are unlikely to achieve the stated objective.”
Thankyou for your reply. Surely then, someone would have pointed out that not every one can attain a standard, unless the standard is set so low, so as to be meaningless.
Are you suggesting that there should be no failure in a meritocratic system?
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 11:37 am
davinci
‘What utter bilge.
1. Is it it beyond your grasp that there will be hundreds of children getting the same substandard fare dished up at Fendalton? That in itself is reason to change.’
Is there any evidence of that problem in Fendalton other than anecdotal? If so, what specific action is the Ministry taking?
Is there any specific evidence that the adoption of national standards will improve achievement in Fendalton?
Scott
Vote:Um no, I didn’t suggest that, hint that or even think that.
September 16th, 2011 at 11:38 am
“if oral and anal sex are “left wing,” it must totally suck to be a right-winger…” no, it’s only “left wing” when it’s being taught to 12 year olds. Consenting right wing adults don’t totally suck, they take turns.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 11:46 am
mikenmild – “Um no, I didn’t suggest that, hint that or even think that.”
So then what is your objection to children not attaining the standard?
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 11:49 am
’1. Is it it beyond your grasp that there will be hundreds of children getting the same substandard fare dished up at Fendalton? That in itself is reason to change.’
Show me an ERO report that shows they are failing, otherwise don’t make shit up.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 11:49 am
YesweDid
Teaching to the test is such union jargon as if it is an evil in its self.
I have no problem with teaching to the exam if it means every child, after EIGHT years of schooling, can read, write and do their sums.The kids who achieve will carry on achieving – and reaching far higher levels, as they always have.
Our national concern is the long long tail of under- and very poor-achievement.
I am sure most parents would welcome some teaching to the test when the test (literacy and numeracy skills for the modern world) is so crucial to their kids’ future.
All the ‘passion and dedication’ in the world is of no use if kids are sent off to high school lacking the basic skills to even read a third form (Y9) textbook.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 11:52 am
YesWeDid – perhaps you’d do me the courtesy of replying to my question:
I repeat, why do you think that ‘teaching to the exam’ is poor pedagogy?
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 11:52 am
mm
“Transparency has much to recommend it. If there was reason to believe that the national standards as established and implemented were superior to the tools currently used to measure and monitor educational performance, then more people might be supportive.”
“More people”? You mean unionist teachers and their unions presumably? No need to “support” it. Just comply with the law thanks.
Its important so that Tolley can move on to performance-based remuneration and she can weed out the Fendalton’s of this world.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 11:54 am
Scott
Where did I say that I objected to children not attaining the standard?
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 11:56 am
I think MM’s notion of “informed” is whatever Labour and its Union lackeys say. “Uninformed” and “Populist” is whatever the Right says.
In other words, his notion of being “informed” is partisan propaganda.
Now I’m all in favour of partisan propaganda, but I wish lefties like MM would stop pretending that they are not, and try a little honesty for a change.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 11:59 am
@Scott Chris – I thought it was obvious but here goes.
Teaching to the test means the focus is not on learning or how to learn but a very narrow focus on implanting certain knowledge.
Surely we want students who have learnt to think for themselves not robots who have been spoon feed everything.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 11:59 am
davinci
Vote:It appears that the law is being complied with. I’m just waiting to see how educational achievement might improve as a result.
September 16th, 2011 at 12:01 pm
“Surely we want students who have learnt to think for themselves not robots who have been spoon feed everything”
National Standards will not do that. They are simply a way for parents and the government to know how school children are performing.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 12:02 pm
‘….so she can weed out the Fendalton’s of this world.’
You really have no idea what you are talking about…..it’s almost funny, except you are serious.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 12:03 pm
YWD
Ah, that’s it. You do subsribe to the Erebus theory. Or was it just that Justright’s kid was the only one affected by this minor glitch at Fendalton?
We can of course resolve this issue of Justright’s credibility quite easily by having a standard benchmark against which to compare the performance of Fendalton and the new school. We can slice those stats by year and individual teacher to start with. Wouldn’t that be a good idea.
And don’t worry. If Fendalton bums out on the academic comparison, they might still bring home the prize on passion, dedication and trying weally weally hard!!
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 12:04 pm
milkmilo says: “It seems to me that there is an undercurrent of suspicions and misconceptions at play: 1. our education system is bad / 2. teachers aren’t interested in educational achievement / 3. the teaching unions aren’t interest in educatonal achievement / 4. parents aren’t being told how their children are doing.”
1. Any system that thinks its OK for ~20% of kids to lack literacy and numeracy skills, can only be called a total failure. No misconception there.
2. I don’t think there is any doubt that the majority of teachers ARE interested – but the teachers who are under performing should be culled. No difference to the rest of us. No misconception there either.
3. The teacher unions are interested in one thing – the union. Their blind rejection of anything but Labour Party policy is further proof of that. Any system that doesn’t think its a good idea that the outstanding achievers are remunerated accordingly, is flawed. Still no misconception.
4. Parents have a right to know how their kids are performing / how the teacher is performing / how the school is performing compared to others. Because if one part of the equation isn’t working, then the parent can decide for themselves (before its too late) whether to take their kids away from the poor performing teacher / poor performing school and relocate them some place else, or take a chance / leave them where they are / engage a private tutor. No misconception here either.
But at the moment, there is no such transparency.
Face it milkmilo – if the teacher unions had nothing to fear and were in favour of improving the appalling literacy and numeracy figures, they would be willing to give National Standards a fair try. But the fact that they obfuscate / try to create smoke screens and place every imaginable barrier in place instead of accepting Government policy, then you can only assume that their motives are ideologically motivated.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 12:05 pm
@Lee01 – I was responding to BeaB’s post at 10:13am not making a general comment about national standards.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 12:05 pm
The fact is, schools are not teaching children how to think now. One only has to witness the level of PC indoctrination going on to see that. That is the real concern of Labour and the Unions. If they have to spend time teaching them to pass exams on educationally valuable things like English and Mathmatics, how will they find time to teach them about anal sex, global warming and the evils of “Pakeha” cultural imperialism?
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 12:06 pm
‘Any system that thinks its OK for ~20% of kids to lack literacy and numeracy skills, can only be called a total failure’
It a myth show me the figures.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 12:10 pm
Elaycee
I look forward to your evidence of ‘appalling literacy and numeracy figures’, other than the much quoted, mythical ’20%’.
Other than that:
1. There isn’t much actual evidence that the system is failing to that degree.
2. How do national standards address teacher performance, to the extent that it is an issue?
3. You might have this the other way around. It is possible that some political parties agree with the unions’ position rather than impose a stance on the union. Remember a union is simply an organisation of members.
4. Parent have information about how their child is performing. That information is not changing becasue of national standards.
Sure the opposition to national standards is ideological, if you accept that following sound educational practice is an ideology.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 12:12 pm
“if you accept that following sound educaitonal practice is an ideology.”
It is if “sound” is being defined by Labour and the Unions.
“Remember a union is simply an organisation of members.”
Not exactly. A Union is an ideologically based organisation committed to the imposition of economic and cultural Marxism.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 12:19 pm
YesWeDid – “Teaching to the test means the focus is not on learning or how to learn but a very narrow focus on implanting certain knowledge.”
So if students are taught analytical skills and how to apply them, this is wasted on them? For instance, a child is shown a certain method of solving a problem, and asked to apply that same method to a different problem. Surely that is a useful skill and an easy one to assess.
Secondly, a child at school is surrounded by the “schools special character”, as you referred to it yesterday. What they absorb from this environment is incidental, but essential. It is also more difficult to measure. Doesn’t mean the child isn’t learning from this environment, only that it is more sensible to measure the things you can.
“I thought it was obvious but here goes.”
Still think it’s obvious?
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 12:27 pm
mikenmild – “Where did I say that I objected to children not attaining the standard?”
“if the national standards had any capacity to contribute to improving educational achievement.”
“if you had been following the debate on national standards you would be aware of much informed criticism to the effect that they are unlikely to achieve the stated objective.”
You didn’t say it, you implied it. Being deliberately obtuse is not debating Mike, its ego preservation.
What rational objection do you have to national standards?
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 12:28 pm
“Being deliberately obtuse is not debating Mike, its ego preservation.”
Freaking brilliant burn!
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 12:28 pm
milkmilo – if the unions advocated transparency of all results across several schools in the district so I could measure my kids (and their teachers and their schools) against their peers / their neighbours, then you could be right. But the unions don’t want a bar of it. Why are they afraid of transparency? Why are they afraid of the principle that outstanding performers should be rewarded accordingly? It works fine in the rest of the world, why not in Education?
Unions are joined at the hip with the Labour Party (they provide funding to only one party – the Labour Party) so you are drawing a very long bow to even hint that they may be neutral in their assessment of Party policies. They are strong advocates of ‘Labour = good / National = bad’ and you only have to access the portal on the NZEI or PPTA websites to see confirmation of that.
Sound educational practice should not be dependent on ideology, milkmilo – it should be a RIGHT! Unfortunately, this ‘right’ has been hijacked in recent years (along with the curriculum) and it needs to be brought back on track.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 12:30 pm
National standards are not some much as to fix a system failure in our education system.
As to fix failures in our education system Some schools do well in lifting the performance of their pupils some fail
Some teachers are incapable of teaching a cow to moo
We all have a right to know which schools and teachers preform well after all we pay for it
The system needs to know who these schools and teachers are so they can emulate their success in the poorly preforming ones
Teachers are indoctrinated in left wing politics as they go though training Some of the thinking in this sector is strongly political motivated. this culture should be changed.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 12:34 pm
Absolutely agree. However, since basic numeracy and literacy are taught in the Junior years in primary school, dont you think it is vital that children have this knowledge implanted? If a child cannot read, write, or do their times tables to a reasonable standard then they are unlikely to be excited about learning and thus will continually display a reluctance to learn. Trying to teach a child to learn whom dosent want to learn can be a very frustrating experience. Would you not agree?
Absolutely. Hence why national standards is so important. Because as outlined above, a child that dosent have basic Numeracy and Literary skills will struggle with learning all their lives.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 12:46 pm
@cabbage – I’m not a teacher so I can’t really comment on what works best in terms of how to teach children. I know from my own experience that what does work for me does not necessarily work for others and that is why a one size fits all approach are not ideal.
There is no doubt that children leaving primary school should have achieved at least a certain basic level of skills but there is no evidence that the current system is failing in that regard.
Personally I trust the teaching professionals to do the best thing with my children and see myself in a partnership with my children’s teachers. I don’t subscribe to the Kiwiblog view that the education system is failing and is run by the unions.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 12:46 pm
mm
“Sure the opposition to national standards is ideological, if you accept that following sound educational practice is an ideology.”
Please explain. Why is the provision of consistent, benchmarked and transparent information to parents and other vested interests inconsistent with sound educational practice?
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 12:51 pm
Virtually all state run educational systems throughout the West are failing. They are a mix of half-assed job skills training and PC indoctrination. Even IF the stats show that most are graduating with the required levels of competency, so what? They are still failing at anything approaching real education.
Now, National Standards will not solve that. But it at least makes the current half-assed system a little more accountable.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 12:58 pm
This policy is a fudge in which labour is conflicted between the parents and keeping their union financiers happy. The public can see through all this and it has caused labour problems in the past. It is a position that makes national purr with delight as they watch labour twist and turn their way through the inconsistencies. Labour get nasty and aggressive in response which is their style.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
@YesWeDid says: “I don’t subscribe to the Kiwiblog view that the education system is failing..”
Best you read this report: http://www.ero.govt.nz/National-Reports/The-Collection-and-Use-of-Assessment-Information-in-Schools-March-2007/Executive-Summary
The Executive Summary includes this statement: “In many schools (60 percent) teachers did not use good quality formative assessment strategies. Students were not well informed about how well they were achieving or what they needed to do to improve their learning. Half the schools were reporting achievement information effectively to parents and the community. Where this is not done well, the ability of parents, families and communities to be active partners in their children’s learning is limited”.
Not good…
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
Unfortunately the system IS failing for some children. Do you think that is acceptable?
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 1:07 pm
Yeswedid – You appear to have changed your mind. First you say:
“Teaching to the test means the focus is not on learning or how to learn but a very narrow focus on implanting certain knowledge”
Then you say:
“I’m not a teacher so I can’t really comment on what works best in terms of how to teach children”
How do explain this anomaly?
edit: “I don’t subscribe to the Kiwiblog view”
There is no such thing as “the kiwiblog view”. It is a debate forum hosted by a man with a view.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 1:11 pm
Elaycee
That’s well and good. And how do the national standards respond specifically to those ERO recommendations.
davinci
Vote:‘Why is the provision of consistent, benchmarked and transparent information to parents and other vested interests inconsistent with sound educational practice?’
It is not inconsistent.
September 16th, 2011 at 1:13 pm
@Scott Chris – I was replying to a specific question by Cabbage. Your learning the DPF technique of highlighting a single sentence and then presenting it out of context.
Nice.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 1:13 pm
You are wasting your time folks.
You could trip on your back step and break your neck but unless milkymunter and YWD could see a peer-reviewed report from someone in the club, it didn’t happen. All the anecdotes that we’ve seen over the years from frustrated and at times angry parents, who have described experiences that are simply unacceptable, are just lies. And if they weren’t lies, they were just isolated incidents that would not have affected the hundreds of other children at the same school. The fact that there is a consistent theme to these anecdotes is just further evidence of the conspiracy to discredit our world class education system.
The bottom line on the opponents is that they are completely unable to point to any rational reason to not provide a transparent comparison of performance between schools and between teachers.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 1:15 pm
@Elaycee – you’ve found ERO, well done.
See the schools don’t just make up there own curriculum and do things there own way, they have ERO looking over there shoulder.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 1:17 pm
Very true. It’s one of the reasons i have chosen to not share my own story with sub-standard teaching at a decile 9 school and the private tuition that corrected said sub-standard teaching.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 1:17 pm
Yeswedid – “I don’t subscribe to the Kiwiblog view that the education system is failing”
If anyone were to suggest that the education system is failing, I would disagree. On the other hand I would also say there is room for improvement. Plenty of room.
What you appear to be suggesting, is that NZ’s education system ain’t broke, so don’t fix it. My response to that is that you don’t have to be broke to be poor.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 1:21 pm
“Your learning the DPF technique of highlighting a single sentence and then presenting it out of context.”
Good grief. How is that out of the context of what’s gone before here?
Predictably you haven’t addressed his perfectly valid point regarding testing analytical skills. Never mind, maybe you tried really really hard like mummy.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 1:23 pm
@Scott Chris – there is always room for improvement, I would never say there wasn’t. I’m not so anti-National that I automatically disagree with everything they do, Tony Ryall has made a good job in health, maybe he could take over from Anne Tolley.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 1:24 pm
Yeswedid – “Your learning the DPF technique of highlighting a single sentence and then presenting it out of context.” [sic]
The context was semantically the same. On one hand you are prognosticating on the deficiencies of pedagogical method, then on the other, you are excluding yourself from having a valid opinion on the matter.
But that is beside the point. I am interested more in your response to my rebuttal of your assertion that ‘exam teaching’ is poor practice, which you have either missed, or ignored.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 1:25 pm
In response to: The Executive Summary includes this statement: “In many schools (60 percent) teachers did not use good quality formative assessment strategies. Students were not well informed about how well they were achieving or what they needed to do to improve their learning. Half the schools were reporting achievement information effectively to parents and the community. Where this is not done well, the ability of parents, families and communities to be active partners in their children’s learning is limited”.
MM states: “That’s well and good. And how do the national standards respond specifically to those ERO recommendations.”
National Standards will help improve this: ” Students were not well informed about how well they were achieving or what they needed to do to improve their learning” by giving students clear information and assesement concerning how well they are doing.
And National Standards will improve this: “Where this is not done well, the ability of parents, families and communities to be active partners in their children’s learning is limited” by giving ALL parents accurate information about how well their children are doing.
Bloody obvious really.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 1:30 pm
Yes We Did – Did you actually read the Executive Summary – its appalling. And before you trot out the usual ‘Labour=good / National=bad’ meme, please note this was written when Mallard was Minister of Education.
Anyone who still thinks there is no problem with the assessment of our kids and reporting the findings back to their parents, must be ‘academically challenged’.
FFS – the people with the biggest stake in this are the parents! Not the teachers. Not the schools. Not the NZEI. Not the PPTA. But the parents – all of whom want the very best for their kids.
And right now it isn’t happening.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 1:34 pm
“The bottom line on the opponents is that they are completely unable to point to any rational reason to not provide a transparent comparison of performance between schools and between teachers.”
Exactly. MM’s approach is to claim he’s for it, but to then say “how will National Standards do that”, which is like asking how will standing outside in the sunlight warm my skin.
“It’s one of the reasons i have chosen to not share my own story with sub-standard teaching at a decile 9 school and the private tuition that corrected said sub-standard teaching”
Such stories are legion, but as you say, unless they come from a peer reviewed academic paper put out by a left wing/unionist academic they will not listen. Parents? What the hell do they know?
A while back a poster here told the story of his own daughter who had struggled terribly at a state NZ school, but when they moved to the USA and she went into a program that used a form of National Standards, and was able to get accurate information, she improved dramatically.
Not surprisingly the National Standards haters simply ignored him.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 1:38 pm
@Scott Chris – I agree with what you said but your comments seemed to have little to do with ‘teaching to the test’.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 2:38 pm
I spent most of my working life in teaching and I can tell you the unions have opposed just about every change over the past 40 years.
The same old crap is trotted out every time – it failed overseas (even when it bears no resemblance at all as with National Standards); we should run a pilot (and hope everyone forgets all about it or else we’ll have to rig the results); stop treating our kids as guinea pigs; this will damage a generation of children; the money could be spent on something else; the education system will be destroyed; we are already the best education system in the whole wide world so we don’t need to make any changes at all.
I am amazed they trot out the same old mantras every time, the media solemnly reports it and boards allow their principals to waste time fighting fruitless battles.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 2:45 pm
“I spent most of my working life in teaching and I can tell you the unions have opposed just about every change over the past 40 years. ”
Thankyou.
MM and YWD, are you reading this?
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
That’s interesting BeaB. Why did most of your colleagues disagree with you?
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 3:14 pm
This debate seems like much press I have seen on National Standards. Statements like “Parents want this”, “1 in 5 are failing” and if you disagree you are a unionist.
I am a parent that made education choices for my child that if National Standards are forced on our school will break the special character of the school. I am not alone as the majority of parents of the school have written supporting the existing assessment model and reporting structure.
So in this instance National Standards remove a parent’s right. Labours policy seems to support this diversity i.e. Schools retain the right to use the National standards goals, targets and reporting models.
I am concerned of the ping pong policy approach to education as according to the PISA data used to highlight the gap we have had world leading educational system. There are the issues that National Standards is supposed to address “Reporting’ and “Closing the gap”.
There is no perfect solution to these but at the least I would expect any proposed solution to be thoroughly and openly reviewed and concerns for the most part dealt with before the system were trialed and then implemented, to limit the number of negative impacts.
I believe this is what happened with the New Zealand curriculum and hence it is widely accepted by all as world leading but when John Key was asked about trialing National Standards and the answer was “We don’t think is necessary” there are alarm bells, This seems driven by a political need to deliver within the term of government rather than look at what is the best system and the children.
In my mind having assessment and reporting in line with the national curriculum makes sense. For some setting the bar above the norms, as National Standards does, will drive them excel, for others it will deepen the feeling of failure. Currently as it stands those parents that want assessment and reporting inline with the curriculum don’t have that right.
I don’t want to go on and on but one last thing is the argument about transparency of school and teachers performance. There are some rational concerns that no country implementing standards has been able to address:
- Schools will be encouraged to focus on those students just below the bar leaving those that are really failing and those that are excelling to flounder.
- The temptation will be for teachers to misreport their Overall Teacher Judgements to show they are performing.
- Concern was raised this week that schools worried about results may discourage Autistic children from enrolling.
- Focus will be on the three R’s and resources diverted from elsewhere.
I would suggest reading the PISA recommendations or the Cambridge Primary Review booklet. They both mention broad standards but much more that should be done if we are really interested in addressing these issues.
At the end of the day I support a parents’ right to choose. We were concerned that our right to choose is taken away under National Standards, so set up the protect.org.nz website. I am looking for a parent supporter of National Standards to balance my views (Hopefully someone balanced).
P.S I am a parent, not a unionist or involved in education in any way (except through my daughter’s education and the choices I want to retain.)
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 3:14 pm
On the subject of teaching to the exam, it is only a problem if the teacher know what the questions are. Otherwise the teacher will educate the child (great word “EDUCATE”) on techniqes that enable the child to think their way through a problem of a certain kind. In other words would support any system that teaches the child how to think rather than teaching them what to think.
Vote:More and more we are seeing reports of prescriptive teaching in areas of social thinking. Sexual preferences, children’s rights, global warming, NZ history, Maori sociology etc, all matters where there is room for debate and analysis and room for opinions and attitudes to develop and yet it is disturbing that the teaching profession claims that there are rights and wrongs, blacks and whites. But here we are talking about ability to multiply and divide, to read and comprehend a certain level of complexity, to write legibly and logically. Not rocket science but we aren’t even doing those simple things well enough.
When I got a job after graduating with my first degree, my boss told me “You know nothing, all your degree shows is that you have the ability to think, that will be the most valuable education you can ever receive” How right he was.
September 16th, 2011 at 3:15 pm
“Why did most of your colleagues disagree with you?”
They were footsoldiers for Labour.
Bloody obvious really.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
“More and more we are seeing reports of prescriptive teaching in areas of social thinking. Sexual preferences, children’s rights, global warming, NZ history, Maori sociology etc, all matters where there is room for debate and analysis and room for opinions and attitudes to develop and yet it is disturbing that the teaching profession claims that there are rights and wrongs, blacks and whites.”
Exactly. The purpose of the Labour/Union domination of education has NOTHING to do with “sound” educational practices and everything to do with the promotion of politically correct ideological propaganda. THAT is the real reason behind opposition to National Standards. The Labourite Unionists do not want time being taken away from teaching children sexual perversion and and ensuring they parrot the right line on political matters.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 3:23 pm
YesWeDid “your comments seemed to have little to do with ‘teaching to the test’.”
Fair enough. Personally, I think that teaching to a test is more than rote-learning, and is useful because it makes it easy to measure simple achievement. That is what I consider working within ones limits.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
mm – “Why did most of your colleagues disagree with you?”
Possibly for the very human reason that most people are comfortable with the status quo, and are intimidated by change.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 3:35 pm
david – “More and more we are seeing reports of prescriptive teaching in areas of social thinking”
Maybe so, but ways of thinking can also be taught prescriptively, such as apolitical critical thought and simple philosophy. Both these subjects allow children to evaluate information on the basis of its perceived veracity, and it is not as boring as it sounds.
It’s kind of like maths, but with a concrete purpose.
If children were taught scientific method, then they would come to realize that a skeptical position is a sensible one. Doesn’t mean AGW isn’t occurring, only that it isn’t a certainty.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 3:46 pm
It seems to me that the opposite sides in this debate are talking past one another.
If I could sum up what I see as the key arguments of proponents and opponents of national standards:
Proponents
The school system is failing to provide basic education to a large proportion of students
Standards provide clear and objective measures of key areas of learning
Reports against the standards provide clear information to parents about their children’s progress
Better information on achievement will improve feedback to teachers and schools
Publication of performance information will put pressure on schools to do better
Opponents
Vote:The school system is performing very well
The current curriculum and assessment provide adequate tools to assess children’s learning
Information about children’s achievement is provided to parents
Better information on achievement will improve feedback to teachers and schools
Publication of performance information will not improve teaching performance
September 16th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
westie56, at my childrens’ school we discovered the principal has in the recent past taken some dubious actions designed to encourage parents with ‘special needs’ children to enrol them somewhere else. In one instance she (the principal) manipulated one child’s parents into making a special donation ($1000) to cover potential additional costs for special teaching assistance for their child. In another case parents reported that she actually said “this may not be the best school for your child”
Vote:Further investigation revealed that she (the principal) had not applied for all the assistance that these pupils were eligible for from the MOE, thus making it more difficult for the children who would have benefited from extra assistance, but also meaning the school was underfunded through her inaction.
The introduction of National Standards is unlikely (in my opinion) to significantly change the existing behaviours of principals (and other staff) towards their acceptance or not of autistic students. If there is already a pre-disposition then it may be exacerbated, but this is a failing of the principal (and perhaps others) – not of National Standards.
September 16th, 2011 at 4:06 pm
Usually it’s not in teachers’ interests to change – a fact that seems to escape the politicians. Why take on a heap of new work? Especially if the next set of politicians come along and waste all your good work, as Moroney intends to.
That’s why I have always argued for generous incentives, decent salaries for proven performance, clear and demanding targets and enough time and resources to ensure low achieving kids (not necessarily dim – bright kids can be just as likely to under-perform) get the help they need.
You can teach anyone anything if you spend enough time doing it.
And our best reforms have always closely involved top teachers and principals in the development and implementation stages, not just union stooges sent along to sit on a committee and get a free lunch while they vote against everything.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 4:10 pm
mikenmild
“The school system is performing very well”
*Relatively* well. Must try harder.
“The current curriculum and assessment provide adequate tools to assess children’s learning”
Appears to be some dissatisfaction, especially with the curriculum content, and how it is assessed.
“Information about children’s achievement is provided to parents”
True, but is neither here nor there. Must try harder.
“Better information on achievement will improve feedback to teachers and schools”
How will this be achieved? A national standard and rigorous assessment perhaps?
“Publication of performance information will not improve teaching performance”
Publication of performance won’t damage it either, but enable school performance to be assessed, and parents to be better informed about the relative merits of each school.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 4:38 pm
BeaB
Vote:“You can teach anyone anything if you spend enough time doing it.” In my definition that is training as in you can train a dog to jump through a hoop.
My perseption of teaching goes way beyond that in turning out an educated person with critical thinking, communication and decision-making skills.
September 16th, 2011 at 4:39 pm
BeaB – “That’s why I have always argued for generous incentives, decent salaries for proven performance”
Couldn’t agree more, and as you imply, in order to provide incentive, teachers must agree to be assessed.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 4:43 pm
further to westie56, I’m inferring the ‘special character’ of your school means it is a Steiner school. Based on that it seems you’d already understand that the school isn’t following the national curriculum very closely. So if you get a report that includes National Standards assessments that say your 6 year old is below the NS for reading (as an example), you would have already known that was the case, and you wouldn’t be worried about it because that’s the way Steiner schools operate.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 6:56 pm
mikenmild
“It seems to me that the opposite sides in this debate are talking past one another.”
Oh dear. That’s another D- right there. Predictably, your summation of these exchanges is similarly marked.
Let me sum up.
On one side, we have those who believe that parents are entitled to have a transparent and consistent national standard by which the progress of their childrens’ education and the performance of those charged with the task of education can be compared and evaluated in a way that enables timely intervention to occur where appropriate.
On the other side, we have those that don’t and who have refused to put forward any credible or rational reason as to why this will actually impair the educational advancement of their children.
That’s it right about there I reckon. It really isn’t as complicated as you seem to think it is.
I’ve deliberately ignored the entitlement of taxpayers generally who fund the education system to have some tangible benchmark to evaluate the value they are receiving for their money so as not to complicate the issue for you. We can chat about that separately if you like.
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 7:18 pm
RightNow I agree that in any profession there are those that should be identified and removed, there should be ways to raise these issues and get them investigated and dealt with fairly.
The concern with autism is that National Standards provide additional incentive for such foul behavior.
You are correct the special character school I refer to is Steiner and the New Zealand curriculum does allow the flexibility to deliver education in an order that aligns with Steiner education. Integrated Steiner schools do have assessments laid out that align with the delivery of the curriculum from class 1 right through to NCEA and Steiner Certificate.
The smaller concerns I have for Steiner children being reported at below standard in the early years is:
- It fly’s in the face of the objective of clear reporting to parents (The reports will be meaningless).
- To ensure reports aren’t totally meaningless teachers will need to administer two reporting systems (One simply to tick a box)
- Only the National Standards data will be feed back to the MoE, so how are they proposing to target resources based on meaningless data.
- How does this data then give the MoE and the government an accurate picture of the education system in New Zealand.
- I have seen the way schools have been beaten in to submission to include National Standards, so what long term, protects the special character of the school from the whims of government. If it constantly reports children in the lower school as below standard with no apparent desire to lift the children to the National Standard.
Now these are the minor objections. The major objection is in the NAG2a section (a):
(a) report to students and their parents on the student’s progress and achievement in relation to National Standards. Reporting to parents in plain language in writing must be at least twice a year;
What this says is that not only should Steiner children be assessed and reported on to parents against standards that are not inline with expectation but that they must report to students progress and achievement against National Standards. So we must tell our children that they are below a nonsensical target (This is where the damage really is).
Vote:September 16th, 2011 at 9:31 pm
Unfortunately school teachers are known as the third sex. This was perpetuated by Mallard in the last Lobour Govt….
Vote:September 17th, 2011 at 7:32 am
I have commented on other threads about how National Standards honest reporting has made a huge difference to my daughter’s achievement; previously I was just told she was “doing fine” when I now know that was not the case.
Regarding the Steiner school – is it an independent school? If yes, it doesn’t have to use National Standards so if the school perceives National Standards to break the special character of the school they don’t have to use it. If parents support the special character as decribed in comments above, then parents will be happy not to have National Standards. So no issue.
Vote:September 17th, 2011 at 10:53 am
There is no reason why National Standards should apply to independent schools. They have a very different character to state schools, and usually a very close relationship to parents.
Vote:September 17th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
There are independent and integrated Steiner schools and those that are integrated do have to comply. I chose the integrated model as I personally felt more people have access to this i.e. more can afford it.
The integrated schools have been told they can go private but then many families lose the right to this choice based purely on economics and although I am in a postion to put my child in a private school I prefer her to have interactions with children from a broad socio-economic background.
On that note I am finding it very interesting that an increasing number of those that strongly support National Standards make the choice to go private and thus remove their children from any possible negative impacts of the standards. If anyone knows of a private school that wants to implements national Standards then I would be keen to know.
Hollyfield I have seen reports by parents in your situation i.e. where they were told their children were doing fine and National Standards has highlighted an issue. My question on this is that as the standards are above where the child would be expected to be according to the Curiculum, has a real issue been highlighted or would this simply be a case of a child that should be reported as “At standard” being reported as “Below standard”. I’m not being critical I just don’t know the answer.
In my belief some children and people do lift the game when they are told they are below par. I am concerned for those that don’t respond to this as well as insuring we don’t lose an incentive for those at the top to keep driving forward with a simple “Well Above” statement.
Lee you make an important point about independent schools in this statement “usually a very close relationship to parents”. This in my reading of the Cambridge Primary Review is one of the recommendations (I have to do a bit more reading on it) i.e. that schools, teachers and communities work closely together on the aims of a curriculum. Unfortunately National Standards are causing the reverse with blame, name calling and divisions etc.. This unfortunately is being lead from the top.
The latest news is that the MoE will put a school into Limited Statutory Management because although the Board included National Standards in their charter they also included a disclaimer saying they have referenced National Standards “under duress”.
If National Standards are working for your children, you and your community I fully support you but I request that there is room for flexibility (Steiner is obvious but also Main stream school communities).
Vote:September 17th, 2011 at 3:17 pm
Westie, regarding your question to me: is that as the standards are above where the child would be expected to be according to the Curiculum, has a real issue been highlighted or would this simply be a case of a child that should be reported as “At standard” being reported as “Below standard”.
In my own daughter’s situation, in Year 6 she was writing at a Year 2 level (curriculum level 1A) . I think we can consider that she was “below standard”. However, in Years 1 to 4 I was repeatedly told she was “doing fine”. Every year I raised concerns, every year I asked whether I should have her tested for “something”. I was told there was no need to have her tested, she was doing fine. In Year 2 I ignored her teacher’s advice and had her hearing and vision tested, she passed. I tried to have confidence in what her teachers told me, but I continued to have nagging doubts – doubts that were calmed each time a teacher told me she was “doing fine”. In Year 5 (before National Standards came in, by the way) I decided to give up on talking to her teachers about my concerns. I saved for months to pay for an educational psychologist report, which showed she has dyslexia. Referral to a specialist audiologist at hospital showed a hearing disorder, and further assessment showed a visual disorder as well. Is it any wonder she has been having trouble at school when she can’t see and hear properly! Imagine trying to sound out a word to spell it, when you can’t hear the sounds properly. Once I presented her school with this evidence they acknowledged she was having difficulty and have put in place support. I have also put in place support outside the school. She is now making great progress, and her school is fantastic in supporting her. However, if her reports had indicated her difficulties from Year 1 then I could have done investigations much earlier and we could have understood her needs better and she would not have slipped so far behind. If National Standards had been implemented several years earlier, I would have had reports that showed she was behind right from Year 1.
The sad thing is that it is not just one teacher, but four teachers is a row who told me she was “doing fine”. Even more sad is that I know people with children in other schools with similar stories.
Vote:September 17th, 2011 at 4:40 pm
Hi Hollyfield
I am fortunate in that I don’t face the struggle you have had to get a correct assessment of the issues facing your child.
I agree that there should be reporting and assessment used to highlight issues and parents need to know. This doesn’t excuse the fact that there should have been open review and trialing of the proposed solution to ensure that issues are limited. (As in my case highlighted with Steiner schools)
You had to go to great lengths to get a correct diagnosis. Even the hearing and vision tests you had to undertake, off your own bat, let you down.
In cases like this would it not be better to see how all children can be assessed to ensure there is no underlying issue that would hinder them i.e. provide the specialists to all children at the appropriate age (and have rigour around these).
Successive governments have failed to address the reporting issues so when it looks like someone is finally dealing with the issues parents get behind that.
Existing assessments and assessments inline with the curriculum should still highlight a problem that should then have the resources behind it to correctly identify the cause and provide support. National Standards isn’t required to address this, lifting the bar will just report more below.
If we take the suggestion that Steiner school parents accept that their child is assessed as “below“ the standard in the early years, parents in your exact situation are again let down by this policy. We didn’t say we don’t want assessment and reporting, rather we want assessment in line with the character of the school.
Vote: