Irony #2
December 7th, 2011 at 7:00 am by David FarrarThe teacher unions insisted national standards should be trialled before implementation, yet are furiously against charter schools being trialled.
Are they worried the trial might be a raging success?
Tags: charter schools, irony, national standards
December 7th, 2011 at 7:06 am
You bet they are.
The reality is that poor-performing teachers are terrified of being found out, and the union offers the perfect hiding place. About time this Labour-run outfit loosens the grip on its members.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 7:27 am
Yep …. Revert to Irony #1.
Vote:And, as John Key said: “That’s MMP for you”.
December 7th, 2011 at 7:33 am
*Sigh* You should look up the definition of Irony, DPF.
Perhaps you’ve been listening to too much Alanis Morissette?
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 7:36 am
Are they worried the trial might be a raging success?
Probably, although not in the sense you mean. The aim of this is to take steps towards privatisation of the school system and to undermine the teachers’ unions, so yes they most likely are worried by it, as anyone who values the current successful system should be worried.
I doubt they’re worried about it being an educational success, as overseas experience suggests it won’t be.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 7:38 am
The teacher unions insisted national standards should be trialled before implementation, yet are furiously against charter schools being trialled.
The difference being that most teachers don’t have anything against national standards in principle, but they do have something against privatisation of the school system and an attack on their union. It’s not rocket science.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 7:46 am
as anyone who values the current successful system should be worried.
The current system is only partially successful, I’m sure most people will be worried about the high failure rates. The only question is (or should be) how to try and deal with the problems.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 7:56 am
“…the current successful system…”
Whaaaaat?
It might be within your own definition of success Milt, but when 1 in 5 kids leave NZ schools lacking basic numeracy and literacy skills, I’d say that, rather than a “current successful system” we have a bloody disgrace on our hands and therefore status quo is not an option.
So lets try it as suggested – starting in selected locations. And if it proves to be successful (as expected), then roll it out nationally.
But no surprises that this charter is being opposed for reasons of ideology rather than what may actually be good for our kids.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 7:57 am
Well as we know in the real world, services provided by a state monopoly will inevitably be inferior to those provided by a competitive market. Does anyone truly believe there is something unique about the provision of teaching services (actual education occurs mostly outside of school) which requires a state monopoly? I mean other than unionists and other blinkered leftys?
This is of course just a test; real reform would involve disestablishment of a national curriculum, devolution of all schools and the sale of the assets but I doubt I’ll see it in my lifetime.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 7:57 am
…and of course I send my kids to private school so this doesn’t really mean much to me personally.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 8:11 am
Enjoyed the bleating this morning, that by adding in to the mix performance based pay, this would preclude collaboration amongst teachers. FFS, how? Works well in the private sector, people collaborating towards the same goals, why is it that teachers will be different? Why cant NatRad journalists ask a simple question, like, why?
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 8:12 am
I suspect that the trials will be highly successful, if they are let run and not shut down by Labour at first chance.
Vote:If I were a teacher that had a real burning desire to actually teach kids and I welcomed being graded on my performance then I would be applying to work in one of the trial schools and doing my damnedest to make the school a success.
December 7th, 2011 at 8:17 am
ephemera…
Vote:So…. Oxford says…” ..the expression of one’s meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite effect, typically humorous or emphatic….”
Seems to apply (with bells), does it not?
December 7th, 2011 at 8:24 am
@Flipper – from wikipedia
‘Ironic statements typically imply a meaning in opposition to their literal meaning.’
So no, it does not apply (with bells) and Farrar clearly has no idea what ‘irony’ is.
John Banks leader of ACT – now that’s ironic.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 8:27 am
@Psycho Milt
“…privatisation of the school system…”
Strawman much?
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 8:30 am
Yeswe etc.
Vote:Wikipedia is crap, same as NZEI
Moreover, Banks has not / does not purport(ed) to be “leader of ACT”
December 7th, 2011 at 8:31 am
“The aim of this is to take steps towards privatisation of the school system and to undermine the teachers’ unions,”
GOOD!!!!
Also bullshit, but whatever.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 8:31 am
I think Danyl hits the irony better than you do, David
http://dimpost.wordpress.com/2011/12/07/building-the-knowledge-economy/
But then again, facts are soooo overrated. Especially when it involves ACT policy
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 8:31 am
… now, all that’s required before Xmas is an announcement around performance pay and they should go into complete turmoil ..
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 8:34 am
@flipper – from Stuff ‘Don Brash says it is ”logical” John Banks will take over as ACT leader.’
Maybe you need to go to a charter school flipper.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 8:40 am
…when 1 in 5 kids leave NZ schools lacking basic numeracy and literacy skills, I’d say that, rather than a “current successful system” we have a bloody disgrace on our hands and therefore status quo is not an option.
It would be nice to do something to reduce that long tail of underachievement, sure. However, the govt doesn’t seem to have any plans to do that, so it’s not very relevant to the discussion.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 8:59 am
Milt
Given that most of the kids leaving school now were ‘educated’ under the Klark government do you not think that makes any criticism of charter schools by the left laughable?
Or (as we all suspect) is this not about kids and education at all, is this really about the teachers union protecting bad teachers?
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 9:02 am
The Unions are particularly worried about the bit which says teachers at Charter Schools can be paid on performance; needless to say they care not a jot for pupils or standards but that if you start paying teachers on performance (or lack of it) the idea may catch on.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 9:05 am
It would be nice to do something to reduce that long tail of underachievement
So why not look at whether Charter Schools could help address this? Maybe even test it through trials?
If Charter Schools have had mixed success overseas then we should look at what has been successful and avoid what hasn’t been successful.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 9:05 am
Jeez, Milt….. clutching at straws, much?
Bring on the charter – performance pay and all.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 9:08 am
Given that most of the kids leaving school now were ‘educated’ under the Klark government do you not think that makes any criticism of charter schools by the left laughable?
This is even more of a non sequitur than elaycee’s comment.
Or (as we all suspect) is this not about kids and education at all, is this really about the teachers union protecting bad teachers?
Yes to the first part, no to the second. It’s about advancing privatisation of the school system and undermining the teachers’ unions, so yes, not about kids and education at all. But nothing to do with what the actual unions themselves want, no.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 9:09 am
Personally, I don’t think breaking the teachers union would be a bad thing. They are the last of the vexatious, ideologically driven unions that used to piss everyone off in the 1970s and early 80s.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 9:11 am
Psycho Milt – It would be nice to do something to reduce that long tail of underachievement, sure. However, the govt doesn’t seem to have any plans to do that, so it’s not very relevant to the discussion..
Is not the tail of under-achievement really the what is wrong with New Zealand education?
The rest appears more or less OK –
NZ near top in OECD education figures
New Zealand’s education system has won major praise with it nearing the top in literacy, mathematics and science according to a highly recognised international assessment system.
But the data points to some alarming gaps in New Zealand – especially socio-economic.
The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has issued the figures compiled by the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA).
They were based on testing and assessment conducted in 2009.
– http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/6091397/NZ-near-top-in-OECD-education-figures
So if charter schools don’t address the tail of under-achievement, what do they do better than the current system?
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 9:12 am
So why not look at whether Charter Schools could help address this?
1. Because they’ve been tried overseas so we already know they don’t address this.
Vote:2. Because the long tail of underachievement isn’t a result of schools, teachers or the public nature of the education system, so messing with those isn’t likely to achieve much.
3. Because recovering the worst-performing kids involves highly skilled people and shitloads of cash, so neither Labour nor National govts are likely to make a lot of progress with it.
December 7th, 2011 at 9:12 am
ephemera and YesWeDid
I find it ironic that your interpretation of the word ‘ironic’ is so deliberately narrow. The meaning of the word irony has shifted with its misuse. That’s linguistic semantic drift for ya.
Fact is, the teachers’ unions are intrinsically too strong, so it makes sense from a practical point of view to undermine that strength for the greater good of society.
Bottom line; teacher performance has to be objectively assessed to give the kids they teach a fair go.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 9:13 am
“It would be nice to do something to reduce that long tail of underachievement”
lmao love the casual attitude. in other words – sure 1 in 5 kids cant read, will remain poor and vote left. whats the problem? as long as the govt doesn’t mess with teachers pay or their union.
the current system isn’t working. this new system might. we have to try. its a shame ideology gets in the way with you lefties. you’re meant to be the “caring people”.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 9:16 am
“2. Because the long tail of underachievement isn’t a result of schools, teachers or the public nature of the education system, so messing with those isn’t likely to achieve much.”
ah ok. I thought the role of schools was to educate. my bad. not their fault.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 9:18 am
Milt
I will try again…
Even you (like most on the left) see this as an issue of union bashing rather than education cannot seriously suggest that the current system is working for anybody but the teachers.
What part of “too many of our kids are failing” do you not get?
Labour had nine years to fix the problem and all you can come up with is the status quo.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 9:24 am
Overseas experience suggests runaway welfare entitlement spending isn’t a success either but that doesn’t stop lefties here promoting it as the cure all to social ills.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 9:24 am
“too many of our kids are failing”
Why is this a fault of the schools?
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 9:26 am
A couple of points :
1. In the 60′s & 70′s there used to be a form of performance pay for teachers. It was referred to as grading. It was a voluntary system ( I think) whereby the teachers could opt to get graded by the Inspectorate ( usually retired headmasters). The teachers usually went up one grade at a time but the very good teachers could go up 3-5 grades at once. There was an increase in pay with the increase in grade and an increase in promotional possibilities. ( This was in primary schols , at least)
2. The “International School” system around the world , in mainly non English speaking countries are run like businesses and seem to work extremely well.
3. I cannot remember any out cry from the NZEI etc about the huge number of English language schools, trade training businesses , short course IT courses etc that developed over the past 10-15 yrs. Many of these were worse than useless. So the uproar from them this time tells me one thing –self interest.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 9:26 am
I think reading between the lines we might conclude that the teachers unions are opposed to any change which they consider is underpinned by a neo-liberal ‘devil take the hindmost’ philosophy. So in effect this is an ideological position they are taking.
Some might argue their ideology is underpinned by self-interest, but many teachers would not, as they believe in an egalitarian ethos underpinning access to education for all. We may pooh pooh this and hold up ‘choice’ as the panacea for education’s problems, but, practically every commentator here would have to agree that somewhere, in their distant past, they have a teacher to thank for being able to read these words.
So they must have got at least some aspects of their approaches correct, historically speaking. I’m not sure ‘furiously’ is the correct adverb, here it appears to undermine the argument and suggest an mischievous and unqualified knee-jerk response to the issues. Perhaps ‘passionately’ might scan better, and more generously acknowledge an awareness of the dedication and commitment that many teachers bring to their vocations.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 9:27 am
1. Because they’ve been tried overseas so we already know they don’t address this.
Unless we find a way of addressing it here? We can learn from overseas, we don’t have to copy them. I don’t know if Charter Schools can be a part of the solution but we should at least explore the possibilities.
I’m aware much of the tail problem is due to parenting and family problems and is very difficult to address, and won’t change quickly even if a major effort was made to address it.
Regardless, we have to have a better way of dealing with the problems once they reach school age.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 9:38 am
I do wonder how many people have actually seen the announcement from ACT about these Charter Schools:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1112/S00034/national-agreement-nets-significant-policy-gains-for-act.htm
So they are going to “set up a trial…for disadvantaged communities…where educational underachievement is most entrenched”
No wonder Labour and their sycophants are so upset, it could actually work. To have any chance in 2014 the left must shut down anything good that the National led government is planning.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 9:40 am
I doubt they’re worried about it being an educational success, as overseas experience suggests it won’t be.
And yet the principal that was on the news last night whose school followed the model (their own curriculum etc) said their students had a 100% pass rate for the examinations required to attend university (I guess what we old timers would call UE).
That is really the measure by which to judge such systems, I would say. Better kids actually learn something useful to them for when they enter the workforce, rather than being indoctrinated with propaganda about climate change, Maori studies (all white man evil), homosexual equality etc etc….
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 9:41 am
I cannot see how this policy provides any improvement on the Integrated Schools that already enjoy a degree of state funding, have the ability to provide Cambridge or IB exams as some choose to do along with some state schools. it would appear that the only difference here is that the schools will be bulk funded, bring in performance pay and will not be required to either teach the NZ curriculum or use NZ registered teachers, There will be no requirements to meet National standards so strongly promoted by the National Government.
We dumped FFP because of the political deceit of successive labour and National governments. This is pretty much up there and is a signal for the next three years. Having voted national and being a centerist I anticipate we are going to witness a significant lurch to the right during this term.
Charter Schools were not mentioned in either ACT nor National policy nor were they part of any campaigning. The first NZ sees of it is in the C&S agreement between ACT and National. The reason it was never discussed or revealed as policy was it would not have survived critical scrutiny.
You have to give it to Banks however, he is one hell of a negotiator. He runs a party rejected by 99% of voters, gets privatisation of schools and privatisation of welfare plus a ministerial post, outstanding.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 9:49 am
“I anticipate we are going to witness a significant lurch to the right during this term.”
fuck I hope so!!!
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 9:49 am
YWD
“December 7th, 2011 at 9:24 am
“too many of our kids are failing”
Why is this a fault of the schools?”
You’re joking right?
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 9:52 am
We are running the risk of the Teachers’ Unions doing what they do best…framing the debate. For all their faults they are educated & have the ability to mask the real purpose of their cloth cap union with pious crap about the plight of the children when their motives are less honest than that of the Auckland wharfies.
Rather than treat them as the professionals they pretend to be we need to flush the crap & see them as the self servers they are.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 9:55 am
Even you (like most on the left) see this as an issue of union bashing rather than education cannot seriously suggest that the current system is working for anybody but the teachers.
Last time I looked, the teachers had no shortage of complaints about the current system. And according to OECD measurements our system is way better than the OECD average – it’s people like yourself who need to come up with some evidence of a problem with the current system, because according to objective measurements it’s a great success.
What part of “too many of our kids are failing” do you not get?
Again, you’re peddling a non sequitur, a logical fallacy. Your approach is: too many kids are failing; “something” must be done; charter schools are “something;” therefore charter schools must be done. You’ve missed out the not-insignificant step in which you demonstrate that charter schools would actually reduce the number of kids failing. Without that, you’re just wailing “Won’t someone think of the children?”
Unless we find a way of addressing it here?
Yeah, I don’t doubt there’s all kinds of failed overseas approaches to education that we could try here just to see if maybe we wouldn’t get the same result, but the govt that did that would be a particularly stupid govt. Oh, wait…
Regardless, we have to have a better way of dealing with the problems once they reach school age.
We have. It’s expensive and requires highly skilled people, which means the govt has no plans to implement it.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 9:55 am
Mixed results in the US…
Doesn’t it make sense to see how the 17% better was achieved and see if similar can be done here?
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 10:02 am
Mark at 9:41 am
Charter Schools were not mentioned in either ACT nor National policy nor were they part of any campaigning.
It’s not Act’s fault if media didn’t report this or people didn’t find it to read it. Was everyone too busy enjoying a cup of tea?
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 10:04 am
Its clear that the people who seem so vehemently opposed to the prospect of charter schools, are simply those with left leaning political ideologies rather than people with a genuine desire to sort the national disgrace whereby 1 in 5 kids leave school lacking basic literacy and numeracy skills.
In fact, its patently clear.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 10:08 am
Yes Elaycee, it’s also patently clear they’re attributing motives and agendas that don’t exist. The worst fear of the left is that this government does good. They’re like global warming alarmists, desperately hoping the world is going to heat up rather than consider the possibility they’re wrong.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 10:15 am
@RightNow – touché.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 10:15 am
Yes I love the “it’s not broken so don’t fix it” meme they are trying to push.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 10:18 am
Agree, KiwiGreg – 1 in 5 kids lack basic skills when they leave school and yet the system is “not broken” in their eyes?
Pffttt…
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 10:29 am
The greatest irony is that a few days before the election, Key said:
“for the vast bulk of New Zealand children that go to school, their parents can feel very confident that their children are getting a world-class education.”
A few days after the election, he is reverting to type. Presumably the above quote was just another throwaway comment which he didn’t really mean. Maybe he was trying to impress someone.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 10:31 am
“1 in 5 kids lack basic skills”
And you know this, how? Oh because John Key told you so. LMAO
If Key told you to jump off a cliff, would you?
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 10:33 am
1 in 5 kids – but in some areas it is probably closer to 4 in 5. In the Hutt Valley when we were looking at secondary schools for our son in 2008, the NCEA Lvl 1 pass rates in state schools were something like 30%, 40% and the stellar performer was 60% (give or take a few percentage points). We went private.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 10:34 am
“Doesn’t it make sense to see how the 17% better was achieved and see if similar can be done here?”
And doesn’t it make sense to see why there was no change for nearly half of schools and why just over a third were significantly worse off? Or is ideology more important than that?
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 10:35 am
The PISA stuff was being chucked around on yesterday’s “Charter School” thread and I see it’s the centrepiece of the latest DimPost thread. Of course there is the International Adult Literacy Survey as another measure – but that’s probably just useless, subjective statistics with lousy methodolgy. Who would believe that RWNJ stuff? Surely not Massey University College of Education Pro Vice-Chancellor, James Chapman:
This is the end result of our world class education system that isn’t broken by all objective measures, or is perhaps only broken in South Auckland?
Ah of course: the classic socialist solution. We pour more money and more highly skilled people and other resources into a public system that already failed. What was it you said earlier? Something about logical fallacies and missing … the not-insignificant step in which you demonstrate that
charterpublic schools would actually reduce the number of kids failing.Or are such standards only applied to something that is not the status quo?
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 10:36 am
“the NCEA Lvl 1 pass rates in state schools were something like 30%, 40% and the stellar performer was 60%”
So thats what you mean…quite different from what LAC said which was to the effect that 1 in 5 kids are losers. I’m pleased you provided some context.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 10:37 am
@big bruv – ‘your joking’ right
No I’m not joking, part of the problem is the home environment that some children live in, if they turn up to school hungry they don’t want to learn.
The John Key Party think the ‘answer’ is charter schools. Get rid of the rules, get private enterprise involved that will ‘fix’ things.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 10:37 am
@ross – thanks for confirming (again and again) my 10.04am comment.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 11:02 am
And doesn’t it make sense to see why there was no change for nearly half of schools and why just over a third were significantly worse off?
Yes, it does make sense to look at that to and learn from it. Replicating the successes and avoiding the failures is quite a good approach.
Ross, it is widely agreed we have an unacceptable failure rate with our education system. No one is suggesting we scrap the whole system because of those failures, but that’s the sort of approach you are implying with ignoring Charters because of some failures.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 11:04 am
6 December 2011
New Zealand’s education system has won major praise with it nearing the top in literacy, mathematics and science according to a highly recognised international assessment system.
But the data points to some alarming gaps in New Zealand – especially socio-economic.
The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has issued the figures compiled by the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA).
They were based on testing and assessment conducted in 2009.
New Zealand came in near the top of the latest available figures on international reading literacy tests among 15-year-olds.
It showed Korea (with a mean score of 539) and Finland (536) topped the survey of reading literacy among 15-year olds, which for the first time tested students’ ability to manage digital information.
The next strongest performances were from Hong Kong-China (533), Singapore (526), Canada (524) and New Zealand (521).
New Zealand was easily above the OECD mean of 493.
Japan came in at 520 and Australia 515.
The province of Shanghai, China, took part for the first time and scored higher in reading than any country at 556.
In the PISA science assessment the top places went to Shanghai (575), Finland (554), Singapore (542) and New Zealand (532) of 65 countries (which did not include China as such, but as Hong Kong and Shanghai). The OECD mean was 501.
In the PISA mathematics assessment, Korea topped with 546. Shanghai, Singapore and Hong Kong came in next.
New Zealand (519) was well above the OECD mean of 496 and came in behind Finland, Switzerland, Japan, Canada and the Netherlands. Australia scored 514.
The extensive tables revealed other results which were less flattering to New Zealand.
Across OECD countries, a student from a more socio-economically advantaged background would outperform a student from an average background by 38 score points – which is about a year’s worth of education – in reading.
“In New Zealand the gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students is more than 50 score points.”
…
In breaking news, some Right wing nutbars on Kiwiblog see absolutely no relationship betweeen socio-economic status and educational achievement. It is unclear at what age they left school.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 11:05 am
YWD
“No I’m not joking, part of the problem is the home environment that some children live in, if they turn up to school hungry they don’t want to learn.”
If kids are turning up at school hungry (and have been doing so for more than the last three years) then that is not a fault of the government it is the fault of useless parents.
There are no reasons, none, zip, zero, zilch for any kid to go to school hungry in NZ.
More money is not going to solve the problem, if we give more to dead beat parents the kids will still be hungry.
BTW….where was this concern of yours when Klark was the PM?
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 11:09 am
Does anyone know what sort of percentage of Labour or left politicians send their kids to private schools? … that really would be ironic\ fucking hypocritical .
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 11:09 am
Brian Smaller (3,297) Says:
December 7th, 2011 at 10:33 am
1 in 5 kids – but in some areas it is probably closer to 4 in 5. In the Hutt Valley when we were looking at secondary schools for our son in 2008, the NCEA Lvl 1 pass rates in state schools were something like 30%, 40% and the stellar performer was 60% (give or take a few percentage points). We went private.
Brian, my son goes to a secondary school in the Hutt Valley. NCEA L1 pass rate >80%. you need to look harder
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 11:10 am
@big bruv – who said anything about giving more money to ‘dead beat’ parents? How about school meals in low-decile schools?
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 11:12 am
sifty (8) Says:
December 7th, 2011 at 11:09 am
Does anyone know what sort of percentage of Labour or left politicians send their kids to private schools? … that really would be ironic\ fucking hypocritical .
Why because Labour politicians should be deprived as the same rights as you. Now that makes sense.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 11:12 am
In general, I am very much in favour of charter schools.
Vote:However, there is one area that I’m very concerned about. Religious groups will be able to set up schools. That would seem to include Muslims. Not good.
The UK has big problems at the moment with Islamic schools over there preaching their message of hatred and violence. We do *not* need that here.
The last thing this country needs is to have charter schools used as a “Trojan horse” for the spreading of a hateful ideology, and that is what Islam is.
The way around this may be to include a clause in the bill that forbids schools being set up by “groups with a philosophy of hatred”.
December 7th, 2011 at 11:12 am
Psycho Milt says:- “our system is way better than the OECD average”
That may be true, but as you state, “teachers had no shortage of complaints about the current system” which would indicate that the system is far from perfect, and basically amounts to the “evidence of a problem with the current system” you referred to, subjective and anecdotal though this may be.
>>”because according to objective measurements it’s a great success”
Measurement of relative performance may be objective, but your interpretation of it isn’t. It would be more accurate to state that the ‘NZ educational system is *relatively* successful, but a work in progress’.
Studies that have shown that the second most important factor in optimizing educational achievement, after the child himself, is the quality of the teacher. How do we determine that quality without measuring him?
The simple fact is, that until we can objectively measure teacher performance, we have no empirical data to produce the evidence you seem to imply is needed. Hence the trial.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 11:20 am
“How about school meals in low-decile schools?”
That was the same point made by Bryan Bruce in his recent doco which screened on TV3. It would be relatively cheap to do and could come out of existing welfare expenditure. But then it wouldn’t give the Right the same platform to push their ideological barrow re education.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 11:24 am
A good link here about the KIPP charter schools in the US –
Vote:http://www.kipp.org/
A quote from the above site –
“Every day, KIPP students across the nation are proving that demographics do not define destiny. Over 85 percent of our students are from low-income families and eligible for the federal free or reduced-price meals program, and 95 percent are African American or Latino. Nationally, more than 95 percent of KIPP middle school students have graduated high school, and more than 85 percent of KIPP alumni have gone on to college.”
( Their “college” being our “university”, of course. )
December 7th, 2011 at 11:27 am
Confronted with PISA results comparing OECD countries and the IALS and the fact that these have been introduced several times by different commentators in different threads and different blogs – ross chooses to cut and paste them again.
ross left school when he discovered that by repeatedly yelling five as the answer to what is 2 + 2? he could browbeat the teacher into passing him and getting him the hell out of the classroom so that others could learn.
======
On a more rational note: does anybody know of any analysis that tried to reconcile the PISA stats with the IALS results? I ask because they don’t seem to be reconcilable and the implication is that one of the two is “wrong”. How is it that decades of our overwhelmingly public education system can produce a population with such high rates of functional illiteracy, while the stats produced for official, international reporting seemingly show the opposite?
Joesph Carpenter yesterday discussed some of the potential problems with the PISA measurements and further comparison to the IALS here:
But obviously the really key question is whether James Chapman (Massey University College of Education Pro Vice-Chancellor) is a RWNJ?
UPDATE:
Hmmm
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 11:28 am
The KIPP schools screen the students and select the self-motivated ones. So the results reflect who they select!
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 11:39 am
Oh gee, imagine if these charter schools for disadvantaged communities…where educational underachievement is most entrenched, were to also offer food for hungry kids. What frothing at the mouth and gnashing of teeth could we expect from the left?
I bet Key and Banks are already figuring out how best to provide healthy breakfasts and lunches. Evil bastards.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 11:45 am
@RightNow – if feeding kids was part of the answer in reducing the number of under achievers why would you go to all the trouble and expense of setting up entirely new schools to do this? Why not just feed the kids in existing schools?
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 11:49 am
@YesWeDid, if feeding kids was part of the answer, then what was the rest of the answer?
I’m still not convinced you’ve read this:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1112/S00034/national-agreement-nets-significant-policy-gains-for-act.htm
Gee, how evil.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 11:50 am
For my erudition, can anyone tell me if Montessori schools are charter schools?
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 12:04 pm
I’m pretty sure they aren’t RightNow. The Montessori schools have being pretty vocal about not wanting National Standards.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 12:07 pm
YesWeDid
How about the parents of kids who go to low decile schools start to take a little bit of personal responsibility and feed their offspring?….why the hell should I take over the responsibility of feeding their kids?
There is a novel idea, it may be a new concept in left land but how about they don’t have more bloody kids than they can afford to feed.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 12:11 pm
Thanks BC, I’ve been trying to find out their actual status but my searching hasn’t been fruitful. The best explanation I’ve found so far is
Vote:“Montessori early childhood centres and schools are independent businesses, privately owned or run by community or parent groups.”
http://www.montessori.org.nz/school-search
December 7th, 2011 at 12:30 pm
Ah of course: the classic socialist solution. We pour more money and more highly skilled people and other resources into a public system that already failed.
Translated from the original right-wing gibberish: We get the people who actually know something about the subject to suggest ways of dealing with underachievement to the extent that it can be dealt with in schools (which isn’t a great extent), and implement the ones that look the most promising. If that’s the “classic socialist” solution, it is at least vastly superior to the classic right-wing solution of getting an accumulation of ignorami to fuck with the school system based on what will do the best job of de-unionising the workforce.
Of course there is the International Adult Literacy Survey as another measure…
And it does suggest that the dispute among the experts regarding our English teaching has good reasons for its existence. And it would be good to get that dispute settled with a victory for the experts who aren’t also hippies, but it’s not something to be settled either way by charter schools, or something peculiar to having a public education system.
Or are such standards only applied to something that is not the status quo?
Er, when the status quo is working well according to objective measures and somebody with no expertise in the field wants to fuck with it for some ideological bullshit reason with no benefit they can mount a credible argument for, the answer is a definite and pretty-bloody-obvious “Yes.”
…you state, “teachers had no shortage of complaints about the current system” which would indicate that the system is far from perfect, and basically amounts to the “evidence of a problem with the current system” you referred to, subjective and anecdotal though this may be.
I expect most readers can spot the difference between a system that performs very well but far from perfectly, and a system that is a failure.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 12:35 pm
How about school meals in low-decile schools?
Au, sweet az bru. I’m ov tu git sum more smokes and a doz ov woodies.
Seriously, it is not right to intercede on a pretty core parental responsibility. Teach them to do it for themselves, yes. Do it for them, hell no.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 12:35 pm
How about the parents of kids who go to low decile schools start to take a little bit of personal responsibility and feed their offspring?
You were the one blaming the school for their lack of achievement. YWD has pointed out one way in which it’s actually the kids’ home life that accounts for the underachievement, which is why you blaming the schools is so colossally stupid. Without skipping a beat, you’ve switched to blaming the parents without even noticing you’re contraditing your own cherished blaming of schools for the problem. It must be so cool to just live in an eternal now.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 12:37 pm
“…when the status quo is working well according to objective measures…”
Working well??? Only if you like the idea that 1 in 5 kids leave school lacking basic literacy and numeracy skills!
Of course, the left seem to think that, because it does not suit their own political ideologies, charter schools MUST be bad. But the proof, of course, will be in the implementation – coming soon to a charter school near you. Brilliant!
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 12:46 pm
“I bet Key and Banks are already figuring out how best to provide healthy breakfasts and lunches. Evil bastards.”
Haha thanks for the laugh. Priceless.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 12:51 pm
Working well??? Only if you like the idea that 1 in 5 kids leave school lacking basic literacy and numeracy skills!
I can repeat myself too:
“It would be nice to do something to reduce that long tail of underachievement, sure. However, the govt doesn’t seem to have any plans to do that, so it’s not very relevant to the discussion.”
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 12:51 pm
“Only if you like the idea that 1 in 5 kids leave school lacking basic literacy and numeracy skills!”
You’re proving your own point…did you leave school at 15?
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 12:54 pm
@ross – you’re living proof that our education system is failing. You must be the 1 in 5….
Just look again at what you wrote…. and what I wrote. You might still be able to put them together and work it out!
But maybe not…
Jesus wept…..
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 12:56 pm
Gold. This government is going to trial two charter model schools where educational underachievement is most entrenched.
Get over it, they’re doing it and they’re doing it to help lift that ‘long tail of underachievement’.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 1:26 pm
We get the people who actually know something about the subject to suggest ways of dealing with underachievement …
This may come as a great surprise to you (I imagine many things do) – but they’re the same people running the system that’s delivering the underachievement now.
But translating from the original lefty word cloud: a small team of experts operating a central command and control plan they’ve developed themselves is vastly superior to allowing both experts and (gasp!) non-experts to have a crack at the problem from different angles – in a trial, in one part of the country.
Yeah – that’s the classic socialist approach to running everything – maybe we could bring Muldoon back from the dead to show us how it’s done.
And it does suggest that the dispute among the experts regarding our English teaching…
Functional literacy was what the survey was measuring, which is about more than just the ability to read English sentences. Therefore it tells us there’s something more going on here than a debate about the merits of the “whole language approach”.
Er, when the status quo is working well according to objective measures and somebody with no expertise in the field
So now that you’ve dealt with the IALS by dismissing it as narrow (even though it’s not) you can circle back again to The-System-Is-Not-broken-And-It’s-Run-By-Experts.
It would have been less work for you to write la, la, la! I can’t hear you!
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 1:52 pm
The link between poverty and underachievement seems to be tied to the lack of value the poorer amongst us give to reading in general. A few years back I wrote a post about the importance of reading aloud to your children. The number of words that children who are read to at a young age have heard far exceeds the number of words a child who isn’t read to has heard. That gives those who are read to a huge advantage by the time they start school, ie before that school even teaches them anything.
There are habits of poverty that people pass on to their children. Lack of value given to reading would be one of them.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 1:54 pm
What is that the left and teachers have against choice. At the end of the day parents don’t have to send their kids to these schools and teachers don’t have to apply to teach at them as there is the state school alternative. Mark replied to my previous comment saying “why shouldn’t the left politicians be able to send their kids to private schools” as this deprives them of their rights. My point is why would they on one hand deprive the general public of the choice to send their child ( and the asssociated funding ) to an alternative to the state school model while on the other hand send their own to what they obviously perceive is a superior private alternative. I would have thought that the left would be all for giving those who cant afford a private education the chance to choose for themselves the school their child attends. Or is it just their votes they care about and keeping them in the inter-generational poorly educated overbred poverty trap that is the root cause of so much of society’s problems .
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 2:43 pm
This may come as a great surprise to you (I imagine many things do) – but they’re the same people running the system that’s delivering the underachievement now.
But translating from the original lefty word cloud: a small team of experts operating a central command and control plan they’ve developed themselves is vastly superior to allowing both experts and (gasp!) non-experts to have a crack at the problem from different angles – in a trial, in one part of the country.
So, your point seems to be it would make more sense to have the education system experimented with on a trial and error basis, using real students as the guinea pigs, by people who know nothing about education, because people who actually know something about it are vested interests in the status quo. I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that this isn’t a view widely shared among the nation’s parents.
Therefore it tells us there’s something more going on here than a debate about the merits of the “whole language approach”.
Well, it would if there was evidence of decreasing educational performance relative to other OECD countries. But there isn’t. Of course, maybe the socialists are making everyone else’s education system decline too, so we don’t notice…
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 3:54 pm
The implication being that students are not guinea pigs being experimented on now by the education system we have.
The fact is that the simple act of sending your kid to a school is doing something on a trial and error basis, especially given that even siblings can have very different, good/bad, experiences at the same school. Giving parents the actual monetary power to switch away from a public school to a private school (or another public school they’re not zoned for) is giving them more choice, which is usually not held to be a bad thing in a democracy.
One of the amazing things about any field of expertise, (even in the areas of science and technology), is how often people who “know nothing” have turned out to be the ones who produce the successful ideas. I’ve already link-whored The Khan Academy several times but it’s interesting to note that he’s a former hedge-fund analyst. Scary.
Funnily enough, that’s rather the attitude you yourself have taken towards “experts” in the field of nutrition in multiple posts over the years at Yes Minister. I’d have thought you’d have more empathy towards others who wish to kick against the status quo and rebel against experts telling them what to do.
That’s also partly the case: basic public choice theory. But the real drive is “we know best”, which outsiders like you reinforce – at least in this field.
Well ordinary Russians were greatly unnerved about their future prospects when Stalin died too, and I’d be fascinated to hear the dinner party reaction from parents when you start unloading about nutritionists.
That’s why it’s only being suggested as a trial, and in a place where it’s going to be very tough to succeed due to the cultural factors outlined here by Falafula here and here in the “Charter Schools” thread.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 4:57 pm
The fact is that the simple act of sending your kid to a school is doing something on a trial and error basis…
As so much in life is. However, as a model for running a public education system, it’s a crap one.
Giving parents the actual monetary power to switch away from a public school to a private school (or another public school they’re not zoned for) is giving them more choice, which is usually not held to be a bad thing in a democracy.
I did choose to send my kids to a public school we weren’t zoned for, and somehow nobody came to cart me off to the GuLag despite the repressive socialist dictatorship we apparently live under. No privatisation of the school system was required. Of course, the school in question also got to choose – and in a lot of cases, “giving the parents more choice” would actually involve giving schools the choice not to take their kids, which we may also hold to be not a bad thing in a democracy but isn’t likely to result in a dramatic improvement in that long tail of underachievement, rather a significant worsening of it.
Funnily enough, that’s rather the attitude you yourself have taken towards “experts” in the field of nutrition in multiple posts over the years at Yes Minister.
Actually, that’s me thinking one side has a better case in a dispute between experts, along much the same lines as I hope the English teaching dispute isn’t won by the experts who are also hippies. Charter schools isn’t a dispute between experts, it’s a couple of dumbasses in the govt deciding they can do better than the experts because their magic ideology cures all ills.
That’s why it’s only being suggested as a trial, and in a place where it’s going to be very tough to succeed due to the cultural factors outlined here by Falafula here and here in the “Charter Schools” thread.
What he’s really outlined is why it’s stupid to think messing with schools and teachers is going to fix the problem. That doesn’t seem to have deterred Banks, Key and a horde of Kiwiblog commenters from believing messing with schools and teachers will fix the problem.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 5:09 pm
So I think we are getting the talking points for why charter schools are worse than gas chambers:
The sytem’s not broken so why fix it
Charter schools dont work overseas (provide link to add authenticity to statement)
If they do work it’s only because they select for good kids
Charter schools are bad because they deprive the state sector of funding
Parents aren’t smart enough to make choices so giving them choice is bad.
Did I miss any?
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 5:42 pm
Due to the politics of Charter Schools there is going to be a problem ascertaining success or failure.
No matter what happens the left wingers and teacher unions will proclaim it a failed experiment (every pupil winning a Rhodes Scholarship would, by labour party/teacher union logic, be evidence of that failure) so the National people need to get out on front of this issue.
We need Mr Key pointing out the ideological nature of the unions and Labour party, get him to say “wait for their inevitable criticism” to the general public – to undermine the credibility of any criticism, so that in a couple of years time Mr Key can simply declare Charter Schools an outstanding success [and anyone disagreeing is just a labour hack or trade unionist being predicably obstructive]
To put it another way – “checkmate” in four easy moves ha ha
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 7:00 pm
Indeed. It’s been observed that public bureaucracies are not known for their tolerance of trial and error.
However, for a societal education system, such things (also known as innovation and experimentation) may prove to be just as good as they have been in many other areas of our world.
But not the one you were zoned for I assume? Interesting. And if you’d lived in an area where you felt that even the schools immediately outside your zone were crap (as seems to be the case with South Auckland), but distance and cost precluded any other choices further afield? What then?
Harsh. That’s very harsh! I’ve not delved into this area in depth but I’d be a little surprised if there was not at least a substantial minority of “experts” who dispute the opinion of the majority – rather like your nutrition debate. At least judging by the multiple links provided by Eric Campton and others.
And while I’ve never been a fan of Banks, Mr Key does not strike me as a “dumbass”.
Well I can see that we’re on the verge of repeating ourselves as we approach what is apparently the heart of this issue: providing more empowered choices and competition will screw up education – especially public education.
Given that I’ve never seen a left-winger who welcomed choice and competition (not to mention those accompanying horseman of the apocalypse, innovation and experimentation) being introduced into carefully planned, and controlled public environments designed by small teams of experts, I suppose such things can seem magical, dangerously so to the environments concerned.
Unfortunately choice and competition are the basis of most of the rest of our societies, and trending more that way every day. Otherwise you might have quite a powerful argument on your side. And it would appear that Falafulu, despite his misgivings, is considering making a go of a charter school in his PI community.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 7:47 pm
Your willingness to donate other people’s kids as experimental fodder for some vague trial-and-error privatisation maybe-this’ll-work bullshit is duly noted.
But not the one you were zoned for I assume? Interesting.
The non-zone one was more convenient for dropping them off on the way to work. The question of whether one was a “better” school and one was “crap” didn’t come up, seeing as it’s the individual teacher that makes the difference and either school could issue them with a good or not-so-good teacher. I realise it’s a difficult concept for right-wingers to grasp, but is no less true for that.
I’ve not delved into this area in depth but I’d be a little surprised if there was not at least a substantial minority of “experts” who dispute the opinion of the majority – rather like your nutrition debate. At least judging by the multiple links provided by Eric Campton and others.
Eric’s an economist and provides links to pieces by econometricians. The question is whether people who know something about education have looked at problems with the current NZ system and claimed that charter schools would be a good way of resolving them. They haven’t.
Harsh. That’s very harsh!
In what way? If I was elected to Parliament and made an agreement with the govt that we should try to resolve issues with the food industry by trialling nationalisation of selected companies, people wouldn’t hesitate to call me a dumbass and they would have made a very accurate assessment. “Harsh” wouldn’t be an appropriate term for that. What Key and Banks have come up with is in essence no different.
Given that I’ve never seen a left-winger who welcomed choice and competition…
And I never seen a right-winger who didn’t hate the poor and wanted them all dead. Or something.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 7:53 pm
> Mr Key does not strike me as a “dumbass”.
Well, occasionally he gets it right. He recently said that NZ had a world class education system.
Vote:December 7th, 2011 at 8:53 pm
And your role as General Melchett in the army of NZ public education is also duly noted:
And I would think the fact that this small-scale, localised effort can be reversed makes it in essence entirely different from trialling nationalisation of selected companies, so no I still think the “dumbass” label is harsh (but then I was channelling Gross Pointe Blank).
Perhaps this is merely another example of the Götterdämmerung approach from the left that this decision has occasioned.
Which would have been quite funny had you not started off with that first, semi-serious comment.
But enough of this playful banter. The conversation has moved on to fresh fields!
Vote: