A contrast of two schools
January 30th, 2012 at 5:30 pm by David FarrarDalefield School in Carterton has been one of the high profile schools agitating against National Standards. They have claimed:
Dalefield School principal Kevin Jephson said the standards would reward only those pupils “who arrive at school from extremely advantaged backgrounds such as inherited intelligence, emotional security, financial prospects and pro-active parenting”.
And in today’s Wairarapa News we read:
A Wairarapa school will come under special attention from the Ministry of Education after most of its students failed the National Standards benchmark last year.
But Dalefield School principal Kevin Jephson, who voluntarily went public about his school’s results, said the standards were invalid and inappropriate for his school.
Only 11 per cent of Dalefield’s students met the reading standard, 2 per cent the writing standard and 7 per cent the mathematics standard, he said.
One can understand why the principal has been so much against national standards.
Mr Jephson said the primary school sector had known all along the achievement components for National Standards were unrealistic for most primary schoolchildren.
Really? Well later on we read …
But Gail Marshall, principal of Solway Primary School in Masterton, said she had utmost faith in National Standards as a workable system.
The standards were trialled at Solway ahead of being rolled out nationwide.
The 2011 assessment at Solway found 91 per cent of Years 4 to 6 pupils met the reading standard, 87 per cent the writing standard and 82 per cent the mathematics standard.
“What I like about the standards is that it shows very clearly what the kids need, and we can target that. This year we’ll be concentrating on writing and maths and we can target toward that end.”
What an excellent attitude.
Now some of you might be wondering, like me, well Dalefield may be a decile 1 school and Solway a decile 10 school. So I checked.
Dalefield is decile 5 and Solway decile 6. Not a huge difference. Certainly not enough to explain why Solway is a magnitude higher in terms of the national standard.
Having said that, I would not rush to judge Dalefield. Maybe there is some genetic quirk that means all their pupils turned up to their school with inferior skills to those as Solway. Hence I would wait a year or two and see how each school does in lifting achievement over time.
If only 10% of first years at Dalefield can meet the national standard, yet by year six it is say 60%, then that is arguably a better result than a school where say 80% of first years are at the national standard, and they stay at 80% by year six.
The solution to concerns about bad comparisons or league tables, is to have good data easily accessible, such as in Australia. Let parents see how kids at a school do over time, let parents see how schools compare within the same decile etc.
But I think it is a good thing that parents of Dalefield students now know 90% of their kids are not at the national standard. It allows them to have a conversation with the school about how they plan to lift their improvement.
UPDATE: This is interesting. In comparing the two schools, Dalefield’s school roll is 16% Maori. Solway’s is 32% Maori. Solway is the one which has an 80% to 90% achievement rate, compared to under 10% for Dalefield. So that’s one excuse Dalefield can’t use.
Related posts:
- Private Schools now cheaper than some Public Schools
- Fight bad info with good info
- Schools using iPads
- National Standards Data
January 30th, 2012 at 6:07 pm
National standard are deplorable, but state-run “education” is worse without it.
The Wire season 4, people.
Vote:January 30th, 2012 at 6:22 pm
Dalefield School principal Kevin Jephson said the standards would reward only those pupils “who arrive at school from extremely advantaged backgrounds such as inherited intelligence, emotional security, financial prospects and pro-active parenting”.
I think this is the issue. How can a school succeed when its leader who sets the whole tone of the entire school thinks that normal, standard family live is “emotionally advantaging?” Why not just call it for what it is – normal, and call the rest sub-parr and do stuff to the sub-par. Instead, this guy’s attitude reading the attitude behind what you’d have to think if you made and meant that comment is, let’s drag everyone with a normal upbringing down so the sub-par people don’t feel bad.
This is what is wrong, of course, with the entire way of thinking of people like this particular headmaster.
Vote:January 30th, 2012 at 6:29 pm
reid – exactly the point i was going to make!
if those things are considered EXTREMELY ADVANTAGED then this country is fucked!!!
Vote:January 30th, 2012 at 6:29 pm
How does one ‘inherited intelligence’? Or is he saying that if your parents are dumb arses, you’ll be one too? Way to inspire the kids to aspire to greatness!
Vote:January 30th, 2012 at 6:31 pm
Honestly the guy is a grade A jerk.
What is a extremely advantaged background? What the fuck is inherited intelligence?
A statement like that reeks of of condecention to the nth degree. He is saying if your fathers not Bill Gates you’re rooted .
He’s being paid to do a job- either do it for get rid of him. This relates to the employment thread. For some people no cost is too great to get rid of them. Just put zero’s on the cheque until he pisses off.
Vote:January 30th, 2012 at 6:37 pm
The principal must be a card-carrying Labour Party member. What a moron and a loser.
Vote:January 30th, 2012 at 6:44 pm
WO’s got some background on the Dalefield principal
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2012/01/tolleys-revenge/
Surprise, surprise; he writes to the local paper about National Standards all the time…
Vote:January 30th, 2012 at 7:00 pm
Dalefield School principal Kevin Jephson said the standards would reward only those pupils “who arrive at school from extremely advantaged backgrounds such as inherited intelligence, emotional security, financial prospects and pro-active parenting”.
So considering it appears that National Standards has not rewarded the pupils at his school, just what is he saying about the parents of his students?
Vote:January 30th, 2012 at 7:06 pm
Well then they shouldn’t be studying at that level. They should be in a lower class until they can read, write, and add.
What is the point of pupils studying at a higher level without the basics? Just because of their age? It may be embarassing right now having to study with younger students – but what is the more embarrassing for them? Now? Or when they try and get a job?
Just goes to prove that the system is working.
Vote:January 30th, 2012 at 7:21 pm
Dalefield is a rural school with 58 pupils, 3 full time teachers & 1 part time teacher, whereas Solway has 191 pupils, 8 full time teachers & 7 part timers (as well as other support staff). Dalefield also covers years 1-8 whereas Solway only covers years 1-6.
So it is hard to see how the 2 schools can be meaningfully compared.
Also (from the ERO site) Dalefield has 16 Maori pupils (out of 58) making 28% not 16% (as DPF states).
[DPF: The Ed Ministry database has them with 9/55 Maori students. And the fact they are of different size is not regarded as a significant factor in achievement. It is quality of teachers generally, specifically their ability to connect to students]
Vote:January 30th, 2012 at 7:21 pm
Great coverage DPF.
In the Wairarapa education community, Jephson is regarded as a Grade A dick-head.
Clearly the NZEI and Principals have scored yet another own goal
Jephson has placed his own twisted views above the needs of the children in his “care”.
Dalefield’s School Trustee Board is carefully pre-selected and all appointees are indoctrinated by him.
Solway is a great example. But It is matched by Dick Brown’s Douglas Park.
Vote:January 30th, 2012 at 7:24 pm
Dalefield School sits towards the end of a road surrounded by farms & a few lifestyle blocks. It attracts, for some occult reason, some students from Carterton who would have to travel upwards of six kilometres to attend. Solway primary is sited on the south boundary of Masterton. Most of the pupils would be from the rural surrounds plus a working class urban catchment.
The point I am laboriously trying to make is that neither school has masses of pupils for whom English is a new language nor is poverty a factor in either area so comparisons with South Auckland or Porirua are not valid.
If I were a parent of a kid attending Dalefield School I would be having a deep discussion with Mr Jephson concerning his competence….right before I withdrew the child & sent him/her to another of the excellent schools within a ten kilometre radius.
Vote:January 30th, 2012 at 8:01 pm
In the lower North Island Solway has held for quite sometime a strong reputation as a school worth sending a child to.
Who, apart from those near Carterton, has even heard of Dalefield before this posting?
I could well imagine an element of expectation in attending Solway could be one beneficial factor before a student even starts study there.
Vote:January 30th, 2012 at 8:03 pm
Political correctness is a brain disease. Shame the kids have to suffer.
Vote:January 30th, 2012 at 8:09 pm
Sofia
Although Solway Primary school has an excellent local reputation I think you could be referring to Solway College which is a boarding school for Year 7 to 13 girls. I understand that it is well ranked in educational circles.
Vote:January 30th, 2012 at 9:00 pm
As usual, Mr Slater is attracting some publicity on the topic: http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2012/01/tolleys-revenge
Vote:January 30th, 2012 at 9:24 pm
Identifying problems is only the start. The true test of whether the standards work will be in what is done to help those pupils who need it and how effective it is.
Vote:January 30th, 2012 at 9:27 pm
Why would the different composition of the school justify the score differences?
Put another way, what justifies the poor education being given to the kids at Dalefield?
Wouldnt it be great if this difference in scores lead to more resources being directed towards Dalefield? Or maybe that the resources are otherwise spent to provide those poor kids with a better education?
Vote:January 30th, 2012 at 9:45 pm
I have had a look at the websites of the school and the education review office reports. It is not clear when Mr Jephson was appointed principal. I do note however that the Education Review Office report in 2004 reveals problems in numeracy and literacy which appear to be Mr Jephson’s specialty areas.
Analysis of achievement appears to have been identified as a problem in each of the 2004, 2007 and 2010 reports. This is a amply demonstrated by the opening sentence in the extract that I have pasted below. It is therefore of some concern that Mr Jephson now remonstrates against an obligation to measure and report.
There is a common theme running through the three reports. One might wonder why the Ministry of education has not considered the appointment of a commissioner.
I note that the 2010 report contains the following further recommendation: that the board “review its arrangements for the principal’s appraisal, after an extended period of using the same external appraiser, to consider whether it is now time for developmental feedback from a new source or variety of sources.”
The school is on notice that it will be reviewed again in 2012 (giving it two years following the 2010 review in order to make improvements).
The following are extracts from the 2004, 2007 and 2010 reports. The full reports can be seen on the Education Review Office website.
2004
Areas for improvement
While the framework for the development of the next phase of strategic planning is
sound, the process for identifying development goals in curriculum, appropriate strategies
to achieve them and devising measurable outcomes to determine the effectiveness of
programmes is limited. Features of the current plans are limiting because: the focus is often based on maintaining a standard rather than improving it; strategies do not indicate that the school is taking a different approach to teaching in order to address an area of low achievement. The school has not provided any professional development for teachers in literacy or numeracy for a considerable period of time;
• expected outcomes are very broad and often not measurable;
• goals and targets are very broad and have been developed using achievement information that does not specify skills or concepts that need further development for groups of students. For example, it is difficult to measure improvement in relation to an indicator of success such as “high quality publications of writing” when there is no base line information indicating the numbers of students who may be achieving below expectations and what their areas for improvement should be;
• self review is largely based on the principal’s reports to the board, which often contain achievement information that is not valid or reliable. In the case of the Report on the 2003 Numeracy Initiative, student achievement in problem solving was based on a school-based test that did not measure students’ ability to use the appropriate strategies to solve problems. In addition, the assessment items in the test are not at an appropriate standard to challenge the students at their particular levels of the curriculum;
• the school’s achievement expectations in literacy and numeracy are set at a very low level and do not equate with the expected achievement curriculum level for students nationally;
• The lack of valid and reliable information on student achievement restricts the board’s ability to set high expectations for teaching and learning to improve outcomes for students in numeracy and literacy.
2007
There is no comprehensive, school-wide picture of student achievement across all the essential learning areas of the New Zealand curriculum.
School Specific Priorities
Before the review, the board of Dalefield School was invited to consider its priorities for review using guidelines and resources provided by ERO. ERO also used documentation provided by the school to contribute to the scope of the review.
The detailed priorities for review were then determined following a discussion between the ERO review team and the board of trustees. This discussion focused on existing information held by the school (including student achievement and selfreview information) and the extent to which potential issues for review contributed to the achievement of the students at Dalefield School.
ERO and the board have agreed on the following focus areas for the review:
• the quality of teaching information and communication technologies (ICT), oral language and reading; and
• student engagement with learning
2010
The board is now ready to embark upon self review to systematically determine the
effectiveness of the school’s curriculum programmes and practices in promoting student
learning. Teachers’ classroom records for individual students are extensive. However,
collation, analysis and reporting of assessment information in priority areas of the curriculum – reading, writing and mathematics – is not yet at a level sufficient to provide an adequate picture of progress and achievement across the whole school, during and at the end of each year, or for trends and patterns over time.
ERO recommends that, to assist the next stages of school development:
Vote:3.1 the board engages external advice to assist its implementation of high level school self review as part of its governance role; and
3.2 the principal supports the board by providing it with extended reporting on student achievement to inform its self review and decision making.
January 30th, 2012 at 9:56 pm
To get a different and supportive perspective, read the comment of “BOT member” on Whale’s thread. He correctly identifies a number of positive features.
http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2012/01/tolleys-revenge/#disqus_thread
Vote:January 30th, 2012 at 10:10 pm
Nookin
I wouldn’t be surprised if half of the wives of farmers in NZ weren’t teachers before they had their families. Younger female teachers doing a tour of duty at a rural school often seem attractive to young farmers starved of female company. The area around Dalefield would have its fair share
The Board of Trustees may harbour enemies within.
Vote:January 30th, 2012 at 10:23 pm
It’s a worry that ERO found he was actually lying to the BOT.
Vote:January 30th, 2012 at 10:30 pm
Watch as the parents/teachers/board members close ranks. Comments on WO’s blog are starting to show it, “my kid is great at reading, but cant pass the standards”.
Well, maybe it isnt the National Standards that are wrongly set.
Vote:January 30th, 2012 at 10:42 pm
It would appear that Kevin Jephson’s primary dissatisfaction with the National Standards is that he can no longer peddle his line of B/S to his Board of Trustees! Independant scrutiny? Who would have heard of such a thing!
Nookins post at 9.37 summs it up nicely!
Vote:January 30th, 2012 at 10:47 pm
The next step is for the parents to be able to yank their children out of the loser school Daleford and enroll them in a charter school. And then fire all the teachers who are card carrying members of the Labour Party.
Vote:January 31st, 2012 at 8:32 am
Are national standards nationally moderated?
If not then that should probably be the first priority. Releasing school league table rankings without independent moderation of the standards will massively undermine them. The example given with 7% and 82% is a fairly extreme contrast . But how about where two comparable schools are around the same level – there will be a massive incentive for the teachers to ‘pass’ marginal kids to keep up the schools ‘score’.
I attended Rangitoto College (Allan Peachey’s old school). He was already well practiced at managing the rankings for school certificate pass rates. Kids who clearly were unlikely to pass were encouraged into specialist option subjects like ‘applied maths’ (known amongst the students as “Dummy Maths”) so as not to pull down the schools pass rate. They even created a special option subject called ‘transitions’ run by the guidance and careers department which was built around providing general life skills and career advice (with a trades focus) and keeping kids away from taking other externally ranked classes with their options. Of course none of that is reflected in the published rankings – it’s kind of like publishing an election result but not the voter turnout. This kind of makes me wonder how much of the school’s published pass rate can be attributed to student and teacher excellence and how much is just managing the school to improve the pass rates. Another smaller school with similar student body and standard of teaching would ‘underperform’ Rangitoto if they didn’t have the resources to put into this kind of management and parallel option subjects.
I’m not opposed to National Standards – more information is rarely a bad thing. But they will effectively become a ranking and incentive system for schools. I’ve spent a fair bit of time working with ranking and incentive systems, while they have their place they also cause a lot of problems. In my experience the best performers will almost always be in the top half of the rankings, they will rarely take out the top position though – that place is reserved for the individuals who get exceptionally good at gaming the system.
It’s good Key got rid of Tolley from education – she had the unenviable task of introducing a system that was always going to be unpopular. The challenge for Hekia Parata will be resetting relations and working closely with schools to make sure that the National Standards are as effective as possible. Hopefully she’ll also do something to improve schools. Measuring is great and it is an important prerequisite – but it is not the same as actually making improvements. What is the plan for schools that rank low on the standards? Saying we should fire the teachers or principals is all well and good but we have problems filling teaching positions as it is, vilifying the profession won’t help. Any employer will tell you having 8 applicants for every advertised 9 positions is not a recipe for excellence…
Vote:January 31st, 2012 at 8:45 am
Good comments Richard, but Kiwiblog commenters enjoy the great NZ tradition of teacher-bashing, so don’t expect that to end any time soon.
Vote:January 31st, 2012 at 8:50 am
Only when unionist teachers and repeaters of Labour Party tripe deserve it!
Vote:January 31st, 2012 at 9:07 am
Mainly the teacher-politicians, mikenmild.
Vote:January 31st, 2012 at 9:18 am
A skilled teacher knows when a student needs more help – they don’t need to be compared against everyone else to see that. Ask any person who studies development and they’ll tell you kids develop at very differnet rates, so it’s very unfair to assume that everyone at the same age can perform the same things.
Vote:January 31st, 2012 at 9:32 am
What makes the railing against National Standards being turned into League tables more laughable is that it already happens.
Just that at the moment the league table is generally the school decile ranking.
Can’t see how even imprecise grades measurement is going to be worse than that.
Vote:January 31st, 2012 at 9:36 am
marathonmilk – you kids develop at very differnet rates
Vote:Exactly – so as a parent I need to know whether my child is just the last in their immediate peer group to develop something (which probably isn’t an issue) or the last in the country (which is probably an issue). Hiding information from parents is just likely to exacerbate problems of comparison (at least amongst good parents that give a damn); not help.
January 31st, 2012 at 9:51 am
I think National Standards is great. After all, we have the National Standards Fairy who magically establishes where children are against the National Standards.
Vote:It’s rubbish. Teachers teach em and teachers mark ‘em so they are open to interpretation. If I was a teacher my children would have a “working above standards rate of 100%. Then when performance pay was introduced, I’d be sitting pretty.
If I was a Principal I’d be on the teachers to get their paperwork in, and stuff the learning plans. When they looked like they were taking the piss with their 100% pass rates, I’d compel them to point out the dummies. Lo and behold, we have streaming and labeling.
Anyone with a passing knowledge of game theory can see the obvious flaws.
January 31st, 2012 at 10:04 am
richard29 I think you are getting a bit carried away. Most schools have a range of maths courses to cater for the range of abilities. It is always a pity when kids give up maths altogether so an ‘applied’ course keeps them involved. SC recognised this with different alternatives. With NCEA of course schools can put together a wide range of components to give kids meaniingful and useful choices.
Vote:As for Transition, every high school had this course to assist low-achieving kids into the workforce and job training and many of them did very well as a result in getting a job.
So don’t unfairly blame Allan Peachey for what you see as some kind of devious manipulation. There was a bit of tinkering a school could do but mostly it wasn’t worth the effort which was much better spent encouraging kids to work hard and gain qualifications.
Also, often parents of low-achievers are not prepared to pay exam fees when they know the money will be wasted and that was particularly true under the old system where fees could quickly mount up.
January 31st, 2012 at 10:09 am
Monique
Vote:I am glad our principals and teachers have a higher standard of ethics and integrity than you. Whether we agree with principals like the Dalefield one or not, he believes what he is saying and has the courage of his convictions.
As I have already said, there’s room for a bit of tinkering but it’s mostly not worth the effort and few principals would get away with outright dishonesty as there are far too many potential whistleblowers – and, whatever some of you think of them, the vast majority of principals and teachers are good, decent people.
January 31st, 2012 at 10:11 am
milkmilo says: “Good comments Richard, but Kiwiblog commenters enjoy the great NZ tradition of teacher-bashing, so don’t expect that to end any time soon.”
Of course, milkmilo you would say that – given your allegiances and affiliations to the NZEI / PPTA / PSA.
But I don’t see you mentioning anywhere that you have a bias of your own….
Nah – of course not.
Vote:January 31st, 2012 at 10:43 am
The fact remains if we dont know what to bench mark our children against we might as well send them to the great socalists happy camp in North Korea where they are taught only what the Dear leader wants them to say.
National Standards have for once given us a National Bench mark by which each childs learning can be measured against both good and bad.
The trouble is the Politically correct view is not to ever show the poor learners where they should be and therefore never inspire focus or success because it would be “unfair” to show them where they should actually be and the parents dont want to face the facts.
It would be good to see Shane Jones new view of national standards now that he has taken up what is actually good for Aotearoa and therefore Aotearoa’s next most critical resource – young people.
Vote:January 31st, 2012 at 10:48 am
Then why educate them in groups determined by age?
Vote:January 31st, 2012 at 11:06 am
DPF:
Oh dear, here we go again, poor ol’ DPF can’t resist his favorite bullshit line, no doubt very carefully, very selectively, extracted from an in- depth and nuanced report by a respected researcher.
What research shows is that within a school, the quality of a teacher can be the single most important factor (so, of course, is still hugely important), but this excludes the externalities teachers have no control over – the socio-economic status of parents, the home life of the pupils, whether the pupil is spending his nights sleeping in a car with his father due to estrangement issues…the list is endless and will overwhelm the best efforts of teachers UNLESS the mythical teacher is blessed with an environment that enables the externalities to be overcome.
This is the environment our governments refuse to foster and fund, preferring instead to make teachers the fall guys/girls.
At the most simplest, the results of the two schools may simply show that there is a huge discrepancy in how the children are assessed, because the answer to Richard’s question on external moderation is that there is none.
But we could also being seeing the results of one school teaching to the test and the other looker at wider considerations. The basic fact of choldren’s learning that National Standards misses is that kids do not all learn at the same rate.
Or, Dalefield may need more resources, but no doubt the principal wouldn’t be holding his breath waiting for the cavalry to arrive. With the kind of misinformed comments here, he’s far more likely to encounter a lynch mob!
By the way folks, overall, at age 15, our schools are ranked the fifth (from memory) best in the world (PISA) in spite of lower than average spending on education.
And we are one of the poorer countries in the OECD, but again our education results are ranked in the top 8 or so in English and Maths.
So let’s keep our perspective, instead of letting long-held, fact free, biases ruin the discussion.
Vote:January 31st, 2012 at 11:08 am
polemic
National Standards do not give us a “National Benchmark”.
National standards are eschewed by the best performing countries.
Go figure.
Vote:January 31st, 2012 at 11:28 am
polemic (303) Says:
January 31st, 2012 at 10:43 am
The fact remains if we dont know what to bench mark our children against we might as well send them to the great socalists happy camp in North Korea where they are taught only what the Dear leader wants them to say.
Yes, the only alternative to National Standards is to live in North Korea.
Vote:January 31st, 2012 at 11:36 am
Sofia (233) Says:
January 30th, 2012 at 8:01 pm
Who, apart from those near Carterton, has even heard of Dalefield before this posting?
I have, but only because I used to live nearby. I played field hockey against the school when I was a kid. As I recall they were easily the best team that we played which always seemed strange given the size of their school compared to the other schools. Perhaps things have changed. Or perhaps they spend all their time playing sports rather than studying math and English.
Vote:January 31st, 2012 at 11:42 am
Year one – my son’s teacher was mediocre and his first year of schooling was pretty much wasted.
Year two – my son’s teacher was engaged and took an interest in him and his development was fantastic.
Year three – when we learnt who his teacher was going to be we moved him to another school. Just took him there this morning, his new teacher there seems interested and engaged.
Yes, we’re parents who are engaged with our children’s learning. The decision to move him because we didn’t like his prospective teacher was difficult but we felt it was critical to his development.
Vote:January 31st, 2012 at 12:02 pm
This article is rather interesting:
http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/196157/school-ghost-town-pupils-stay-away
It seems due to concerns about the principal (will research Carmel Casey later but I suspect she has Clare Curran’s mobile number pinned to her wall) the school roll has dropped from 66 to 34. Any right thinking person would see this is unsustainable – the funding for the school will drop considerably, staff will have to be laid off, and if the roll doesn’t recover then merging with another school would seem inevitable.
Vote:January 31st, 2012 at 12:40 pm
@BeaB Not meaning to be harsh to Allan Peachey in general – I only mentioned him by name because he was a prominent principal and National Party education spokesman and a strong advocate of many of the reforms now being discussed. My point was that:
A) If there are performance benchmarks then they will be gamed
B) Some schools will be in a better position and have more resources/focus to game the benchmarks, this does not mean their students are better off.
As usual I think the political left has largely lost this debate in the public eye, not necessarily because they don’t have valid points but because they are not communicating them well.
The election debate on education went along the lines of:
“National has delivered national standards that parents want over the opposition of self interested teachers unions”
vs
“Labour believe that teachers know what is best for our kids, we totally oppose National Standards”
They let National set the agenda by claiming that national standards improve education outcomes (they are not proven to do so) and frame the debate as an industrial dispute with Labour as the bad guys. The end result is that National look like the champion of parents rights and Labour look like union stooges.
A better rebuttal might have been:
“In three years national’s education policy has delivered is cuts to early childhood education and a bunch of national standards that are not nationally standardised and are therefore not worth the paper they are written on. Labour will actually improve education by [insert policy here]”
The fact that national standards are not nationally standardised makes a great soundbite and it also reframes the debate around whether they are effective rather than if some would like them. But the biggest failure was that they didn’t articulate specific policies or sell a vision of what Labour would do for education. How about TeachNZ scholarships and professional development (teacher quality), a school lunch program and more CYFS visits for low decile schools (inequality and the long tail of underperformance).
Unspecified promises to ‘increase funding’ do not count – if you are campaigning during an economic downturn saying you will throw money at the problem will probably lose you votes.
Education is supposed to be one of Labour’s strong suits and they allowed themselves to get beaten in the campaign by one of National’s most poor performing ministers. But then again their education spokesperson was union hack Sue Moroney who hardly anybody has heard of (I had to look that up), while well regarded school principal Kelvin Davis was ranked too low on the list to make it back.
Labour lost this debate and got caned in the election because they absolutely deserved it…
Vote:January 31st, 2012 at 12:50 pm
Gosh if we keep up this kind of reporting there might be a few
Vote:teachersunion members out of work… Where will it end when useless union members can’t be called teachers…..January 31st, 2012 at 1:07 pm
Richard29 – <A better rebuttal might have been: “In three years national’s education policy has delivered is cuts to early childhood education..
Except of course under National the amount of funding given to ECE has increased not decreased. This is the other reason at least a few people stopped listening to Labour; the fact they can’t stop lying all the time. (Although I’ll currently give you the benefit of the doubt that you were just misled).
Vote:January 31st, 2012 at 3:33 pm
@iiq374
Thanks for the benefit of the doubt. Yes, it was just an example. I don’t know the numbers but in my experience both sides can often be right (and wrong). National may well have increased the spending while still delivering an effective cut to service.
Vote:For example you could increase the budget by 2% per year, but if the number of children eligible for free ECE grew at 3% and the salary and materials inflation was 3% then the overall service would be reducing even if the money increased.
The opposite could also be true, if the number of children decreases over time with smaller average family sizes then the same ECE subsidy could be delivered at less overall cost to the taxpayer – the opposition could easily criticise the government and call this a funding cut – they might be technically right but it’s still misleading.
I’d say at least half the arguments come election time are normally around absolute vs relative numbers. My preference would be that everything is quoted in % terms wherever possible.
February 1st, 2012 at 7:18 am
I am a supporter of the concept of National standards but what Tolley introduced is not a national standard. It was a start but until it is properly moderated and standardised comparison between schools has little meaning. The fact however that schools are now all testing kids using one of the testing models is a good start and over time you have to expect improvements in the program. One of the next steps has to be proper moderation which sensibly will become part of the ERO reporting functions.
Vote:February 1st, 2012 at 7:34 am
Fine Mark, except schools were already testing all kids…
Vote: