About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

May 17, 2012 4:00pm by David Farrar

Educational outcomes

This comes from this OECD study. That huge increase in number of teachers didn’t seem to have much impact did it.

Share this:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Reddit
WhatsApp
More

Pinterest
Print
Tumblr

Like this:

Like Loading...

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment70

NZ Politics
class size
Education

Comments (70)

Login to comment or vote

YesWeDid

When your ranked near the top there is not much room to go up, of course there is a lot of room to go down.

DPF, it’s good to see that your understanding of the issues around education is about the same level as the ministers, a couple of simple graphs and a few cheap slogans.

What staggers me about National is they listen to the education ‘experts’ in treasury but totally ignore those who actually teach. If I was a teacher I’d be pretty disheartened right now with the direction this government is taking us.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 4:14pm
Bob R

Interesting. I’d be interested to see whether that is controlled by things like SES & ethnicity. Have the demographics changed much over the past 10 years? Are a greater proportion of the students from lower income homes? Is there a greater proportion of Maori & Pasifika students, who tend to underachieve academically?

For example, Tino Sanandaji shows here how when you break down by ethnicity the US schooling system actually does pretty well.

“We all know that Asian students beat Americans students, which “proves” that they must have a better education system. This inference is considered common sense among public intellectuals. Well, expect for the fact that Asian kids in the American school system actually score slightly better than Asian kids in North-East-Asia!”

http://super-economy.blogspot.co.nz/2010/12/amazing-truth-about-pisa-scores-usa.html
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 4:50pm
slijmbal

@Yes

“DPF, it’s good to see that your understanding of the issues around education is about the same level as the ministers, a couple of simple graphs and a few cheap slogans.”

Damn – it’s simple – must be wrong!!! If teacher student ratio was the be all and end all of educational outcomes it is often presented to be then that graph is actually very enlightening. It would need some major negative drivers to overcome the positive driver of increased teacher numbers. And while we always need to be careful to understand the difference between correlation and causation this does support the argument that teacher student ratios aren’t the be all and end all of student performance.

It’s obvious that there is some dependency on the ratio of students to teachers but it’s likely to be a much more complex one than lots of teachers good – less teachers bad or we can cope with one teacher for all of NZ. It’s more likely to be along the lines that having 25 students per teacher vs 30 does not matter a lot with typical classes but having a better teacher in the 30 student classroom is a lot better than a crap one in the 10 student classroom.

……… and that’s where the argument really lies
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 5:11pm
Luc Hansen

I must thank DPF for bringing this study to our attention. However, I think the saying “hoist with your own petard” is apt, as the report includes a wealth of information that disproves DPF’s most cherished misapprehensions.

I suggest those who are interested download the 2009 powerpoint presentation and browse through the slides, which persistently show one thing – our teachers perform at a very high level already, which is not to say we should rest on our laurels, but lays to rest the accusations of incompetence most promoted by our host and his government and especially, their remedies for this imagined incompetence (sort of like introducing new laws to cater for non-existent ships of asylum seekers).

For example, Slide 96: “Accountability and intervention is in inverse proportion to success” Oh dear, poor DPF.

But wait, there’s more: “Devolved responsibility, the school as the centre of action.” Whaaat! I think they mean teachers do know best.

But I get ahead of myself. Let’s go right back to Slide 7, where we find that “Measuring student learning outcomes in key subjects” (ie National standards) is awarded the dunce prize as the least effective policy measure in improving educational performance.

I know, I know, we knew that already but National, JK, Hekia, Banksie and, of course, our own DPF, just know it ain’t so Joe.

And in the context of DPF’s graphic, the apparent decline in performance needs to be seen in the context of an overall decline amongst the high performing countries, of which New Zealand’s decline is the least.

Wouldn’t it be so mature of us to seek out or conduct a serious study of the causes of this phenomenon, rather than make instant experts out of people like Hekia Parata, Catherine Isaacs and John Banks?

slijmbal (a handle for dyslexics?) said:

If teacher student ratio was the be all and end all of educational outcomes…

No-one’s actually saying that, slijmbal. For example, while Hattie downgrades the effect of class sizes on learning outcomes compared to other influences, his conclusion is still that increasing class sizes is bad policy.

Go argue with him. Even better, read his book, Visible Learning.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 6:05pm
krazykiwi

I must thank DPF…. I suggest those who are interested …. But wait, there’s more … But I get ahead of myself … Wouldn’t it be so mature of us…

If condescension were a smell, picture a stadium full of people streaming outside to vomit.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 6:12pm
wat dabney

“…the apparent decline in performance needs to be seen in the context of an overall decline amongst the high performing countries, of which New Zealand’s decline is the least.”

So that’s okay then.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 6:19pm
Steve (North Shore)

I just see it as an increase of about 8% of Teachers who can’t teach riding the gravy train.

No doubt I will be corrected by a teacher (one who can’t spell)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 6:22pm
kowtow

bob r

Very interesting. That’s something I’ve thought for years.

As long as education is seen as a “human right” and not a privelige funded by the working taxpayer there are going to be big problems. Teachers are no longer educators, they are deliverers of a human right.

And we all know you can’t touch “rights”.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 6:24pm
UpandComer

Well Luc, given that very enlightening graph, lets put it in a slightly more moderated way. If teacher class sizes were a significant variable in improving education outcomes, you would expect to see some/any/even-a-little correlation between the dependent variable and independent variable. The flatlined education outcomes line is very revealing. Clearly the implication is that we don’t need all those new teachers sucking up funding in salaries, professional development, facilities, and administration. You can say what you like, but the data can’t just be ignored like it means nothing when it is so compelling.

It’s fascinating how the left will justify spending money when it is proven there is or has been no correlation in increased benefits/services as a result. I am completely puzzled by this willingness. All that money into extra teachers could have spent on sth else. Even on sth like teacher aides to provide intense support for disabled children within a class room. I would say that this, rather then reducing average class sizes, would be the best way to reduce pressure on teachers with really difficult kids in their class rooms.
Further your point about a general decline in educational outcomes given teachers in the OECD just reinforces DPF’s point.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 6:28pm
slijmbal

@Luc

“slijmbal (a handle for dyslexics?) said:”

you cannot help yourself – you have to resort to the personal – it’s dutch – and the name of our favourite cat and it’s not as pejorative in dutch as the american derivative slimeball.

I see that you ducked the main point of the incredibly simple graph in that we increased teacher numbers substantially more than students and saw no corresponding substantial movement in performance of the students as one would expect if student teacher ratios were that important to student performance.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 6:33pm
Mellie

Once again I read selective reporting of data which does not tell the whole picture and ignores the ‘elephant in the room’. That elephant is poverty and its effect on every aspect of a child’s life.

Putting the ‘boot’ into teachers and unions is a right wing sport motivated by the need to divert attention away from the real issues of a non-performing economy and a society that is increasingly unequal in its distribution of wealth.

Sadly, said ‘boot’ will not improve outcomes, it will only drive our best and most qualified teachers away in droves as they despair at the narrowed curriculum and McEducation reforms.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 6:39pm
wat dabney

Mellie,

I rather think you are the one trying to divert attention.

What is wrong with trying to obtain the best educational outcome for a given amount of money?

As for poverty, we know the solution: free markets, low taxes and light regulation.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 6:49pm
slijmbal

@Mielle

the graph is to talk about one point and one point only – teacher student ratios do not appear to have the huge effects attributed to them by teacher representatives and many others. These effects would be independent of personal circumstance if applied reasonably generally.

I think you are attempting to move the discussion on to another point. How about talking to the point DPF makes?

@wat – you beat me to it
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 6:51pm
Mellie

@wat

What? Increasing class sizes is a formula for worse educational outcomes not better. Furthermore performance pay does not improve outcomes either.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-18074402

Researchers have already established that top-performing school systems are likely to have teachers who are well-paid or with high social status.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 6:53pm
wat dabney

Mellie,

The solution, I suggest, is for schools to operate in a free market.

Then we’ll really discover what works and what doesn’t, and be much more likely to get the best value for our money.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 6:57pm
Mellie

@slijmbal
As Luc says
And in the context of DPF’s graphic, the apparent decline in performance needs to be seen in the context of an overall decline amongst the high performing countries, of which New Zealand’s decline is the least.

Wouldn’t it be so mature of us to seek out or conduct a serious study of the causes of this phenomenon, rather than make instant experts out of people like Hekia Parata, Catherine Isaacs and John Banks?

Hattie downgrades the effect of class sizes on learning outcomes compared to other influences, his conclusion is still that increasing class sizes is bad policy.

Go argue with him. Even better, read his book, Visible Learning.

Says it all really.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 6:58pm
slijmbal

@Miele

except we decreased class sizes based on the stats above and saw no improvement. We spent more money and saw no improvement. Any other ways you would like to waste our dollar?

I prefer evidence.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 6:58pm
Viking2

I would be interested to know how many of these extra teachers have gone into the Sports area and the propping up of the hopless that drag down the acheievers that pay for these extras?
There seems to be a large number devoted to all kinds of sports and long with the poaching and subsidising of this area. Quite why sport should be an educational responsibility is beyond me. That’s a personal responsibility and kids and their parents should do that at their own expense and in their own time. No need whatso ever for the state to pile money into schools for that.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 6:59pm
UpandComer

@ mielle. Note the time span on the axes of this graph. The decline covers essentially the 8 years of a Labour government. During that time you had punitive high taxes, all sorts of redistributive welfare, low unemployment (This had very little to do with Labour), and massive increases in spending and the size of the pubic service. Surely all of these things are exactly what your formula would be to reduce ‘poverty’. What happened to ‘poverty’ then? If it was lower during this time of utopia as any Labour supporter will claim, it sure as hell didn’t lead to an increase in educational outcomes. So that argument is bunk. I think you will find that a lot of teachers will quietly support the govts moves, at least the ones that have ever been outside the fetid socialist air of teachers college and the union. A lot of teachers I know of that came to it late, i.e. the ones who had done law, or completed degrees in science or history or English etc completely support national’s moves, and hate the prevailing atmosphere of more more more money, professional development, facilities, teachers regardless of whether this benefits children.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 6:59pm
expat

“That huge increase in number of teachers didn’t seem to have much impact did it.”

Well it did sharply increase the employment prospects for hardline Labour voters didn’t it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 7:04pm
Mellie

@UpandComer

Read the PISA reports and discover that our education system is currently in the top four of the OECD, despite our inequality.
Quoting the time frame is a misnomer – neo-liberal policies are neo-liberal policies – it doesn’t matter which party passed them.

I am just watching – “Kids Can” on Campbell Live – the charity is giving poor children in our schools food and clothes.

Its hard to learn without a full stomach.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 7:07pm
Luc Hansen

More information on performance pay for teachers:

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/33/16/50328990.pdf

Conclusion:

The bottom line: Performance-based pay is worth considering in some contexts; but making it work well and sustainably is a formidable challenge. Pay levels can only be part of the work environment: countries that have succeeded in making teaching an attractive profession have often done so not just through pay, but by raising the status of teaching, offering real career prospects, and giving teachers responsibility as professionals and leaders of reform. This requires teacher education that helps teachers to become innovators and researchers in education, not just civil servants who deliver curricula.

Any volunteers for trusting the government to overcome the formidable challenge?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 7:13pm
slijmbal

@Luc

still dodging the main point I see …

Keep it up – good work
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 7:16pm
UpandComer

@ Mielle.

Your first point re the PISA report contradicts your earlier point re equality. If we are doing well ‘despite’ our inequality, then inequality presumably is not a significant factor in education outcomes.

Regardless of how well we are doing internationally, what about how we are doing intranationally? we have a quality head, but what about our terrible tail? Labour seems to think that it is just fine that 20% or more of children go to school and don’t get NCEA levels one or two, and similarly that it is fine for Maori to continue to fail so badly. Yet, when an effort is made to deal with a status quo that is failing so many children, i.e. national standards for the 20% tail generally, and Whanau ora for Maori specifically, there is nothing but grandstanding, bloviation, vague menacing claims of a conspiracy and actual law breaking. It’s the willingness to accept that status quo that is so galling.

Excuse me, do you know what neo liberal policies are? Aside from a random moniker people use as a vague catch-all for policies that don’t involve redistribution, high taxation and spending, and big government? what happened in that period was very much not neo liberal policies, even if that era benefited hugely from the neo liberal policies of the previous decade.

I agree it’s hard to learn without a full stomach, but that is a non-sequitur that has nothing to do with anything in particular. Kids that go to school without lunch have shit parents. My auntie was one of 13 kids living off of a janitors income, that’s it. Every day the kids had half a sandwich, a biscuit, and a slice of fruit at school, all of them. So any parent that claims that can’t feed their kids is a piece of shit who is spending money on drugs, or gambling or something else.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 7:20pm
slijmbal

@Luc

I do agree with the basic premise of making teaching an important profession with corresponding rewards and status. I personally believe that part of the problem is that we made teaching a profession for the mediocre (as well as the dedicated) and that any solution requires the removal of the mediocre as well as recruitment of the best for education.

But the point that DPF rubs in here is that chucking money at more teachers has not resulted in corresponding improvements.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 7:22pm
mikenmild

I am wondering why the government is so keen on its current approach. I heard the Minister on the radio the morning – does anyone really think she believes the rubbish she spouts? It was like listening to Anne Tolley again.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 7:25pm
pq

We must pay good teachers more.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 7:27pm
mikenmild

slijmball
Would you like to tell us how much educational expenditure has grown over recent years in comparison with the other OECD nations? Is our education cheap, modestly priced or expensive? Are our results at the bottom, in the middle, or at the top?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 7:28pm
ross69

The same logic could be applied to tax cuts…what good have they done? Anyone?

Not to worry, National intend to cut up to 500 teachers’ jobs and apparently it will have absolutely no effect on kids’ learning! I say, why stop at 500? Maybe we could get rid of twice as many teachers if kids’ learning is going to be unaffected.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 7:35pm
slijmbal

@MM

“Would you like to tell us how much educational expenditure has grown over recent years in comparison with the other OECD nations? Is our education cheap, modestly priced or expensive? Are our results at the bottom, in the middle, or at the top?”

I know this trap – our spend on education has increased reasonably consistently over a long period – including under National. Spend needs to measured in terms of GDP and we spend above the OECD average as per that measure – This makes sense as my salary is a lot less than when I worked in Europe.

But back to the main point – increasing teacher numbers has not made a difference it appears – any answer for that?

@Luc – you insulted me personally and ignored my response – I also see you ignored my comment that increasing teacher numbers has not made a difference about student outcomes
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 7:38pm
mikenmild

If increasing teacher numbers has a weak association with educational outcomes, as the government is fond of pointing out, why would you have expected those outcomes to change?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 7:40pm
ross69

“we increased teacher numbers substantially more than students and saw no corresponding substantial movement in performance of the students as one would expect if student teacher ratios were that important to student performance”

It’s called diminshing marginal returns. Why you would expect a nice neat equal-proportional increase in teacher numbers and student achievement is anyone’s guess. By your and DPF’s logic, if we had twice as many MPs, we should expect the perfomance of MPs to improve by 100%. Surely you’re not that dumb…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 7:42pm
slijmbal

@MM

You agree with the point behind this thread then – congratulations

@ross

but why should we be dumb enough increase teacher numbers then when teacher ability is the next thing to be targetted

well done ross you agree with the point of this thread
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 7:42pm
Mellie

@UpandComer

My point is not contradictory – it indicates that despite the inequality in our society the quality of teaching in NZ is overall extremely high and mediates some of that. Further to this, your 20% tail figure is incorrect and not reflected in any international reports and research – rather it is a figure that has been used for political purposes.

I am glad you agreed with me about the difficulty of learning without adequate nutrition. There is no logic in your next sentence that this has nothing to do with anything, given your earlier agreement with the statement.

One other thing I hope we can agree on is that we ALL want the best educational outcomes for our children.

Intelligent dialogue based on evidence not propoganda would be a way forward.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 7:43pm
UpandComer

@ Ross 69.

If all the tax cuts did was take money away from getting more teachers that won’t make a jot of difference, then they were completely worth it. When tax cuts take money away from big useless government that is a complete blessing.

And what is your point? If we cut a thousand teachers and educational achievement remained the same, that would be worthwhile, because those teachers are providing 0 marginal benefit to anyone or anything aside the teacher’s union. Your comment illustrates the precise attitude that needs to be stamped out to improve things in education and in NZ generally.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 7:44pm
Steve (North Shore)

I say we pay Teachers what they are being paid now, except for the ones who can’t Teach – pay them nothing, on your bike
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 7:47pm
Luc Hansen

slijmbal, I made a joke about your handle, after I had to try about three times to get it right, so as not to offend you, of course. Get over yourself.

Why don’t you find the answer to your spend question yourself. Follow the link, scroll down to the powerpoint presentation, and follow your nose. However, my understanding is that our spend is average for the OECD as a percentage of GDP, but we have a relatively low per capita GDP amongst the OECD nations.

I have questions about the graphic, which appears simplistic in the extreme (quite typical of the misleading way in which DPF prefers to present information)

For example, teacher numbers cannot have just increased overnight by 12.5% as shown by DPF. It must have been a gradual increase.

And he doesn’t actually specify which result he is showing on the graphic.

Also, I have already provided some context left out by DPF. I’m sure you can go digging yourself for more.

Do you still support National Standards in spite of the PISA findings?

And performance pay in spite of “formidable obstacles”?

Wouldn’t we do better asking the experts (the teachers) what they think we should do?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 7:50pm
UpandComer

I’m talking about national figures, and it is not made up and being used for political purposes, it is the actual number of students who don’t or weren’t getting level 1 when National standards were instigated. It’s not a made up number, and you can ask any kid from most schools and they will tell you that it is the correct number roughly, especially in relation to level 2.

Sure I’m not saying that NZ teachers are all bad, I know that many are good, so why can’t we pay them more and have them make up for structural poverty?

I agreed with the statement but it was just a random truism that was not really attached to anything in our convo

Sure I agree with your last statement.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 7:51pm
Red Sam

“We must pay good teachers more.”

This is just such a ridiculous slogan that gets dragged out time and time again when teaching bashing errupts in the media. It’s like Parata’s “it’s the quality of the teacher that matters, not class size” slogan. These are just meaningless slogans.

While they might sound like reasonable statements, what do they actually mean in practice? Interestingly, they’re usually made by people who have never actually taught in a primary or secondary school, and experienced the complexities of a class of 27 students and one teacher – five days a week, forty weeks of the year.

Performance pay will not increase the tale of underachievement, and nor will bunging more students in a class. Parata needs to go back to the drawing board if she and her Government seriously wishes to tackle under achievement and student disengagement from learning. She might even realise that some of problem lies beyond the four walls of the classroom. Merv Wellington, Lockwood Smith, Anne Tolley, and now Hekia Parata. Tarred with the same brush. At least Wyatt Creech and Nick Smith, as tory Education Ministers, were not totally ideologically driven.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 7:54pm
mikenmild

Exactly Steve, which is why incompetent teachers are removed. Whjat the government is proposing though is to pay some teachers more on the basis of ‘performance’ – however that is defined. So, when you enrol your kids, will you want them in the class taught by the ‘good’ teacher, the ‘middle’ teacher or the ‘poor’ teacher?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 7:54pm
Red Sam

That should read, “performance pay will not decrease the tale of underachievement.”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 7:57pm
Luc Hansen

Also on Slide 7:

“Proliferation of assessment areas” and “Electronic delivery of assessments” = “money pits”.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 8:00pm
slijmbal

@Luc

wow – you can duck and weave with the best – never answer a question truly – bring up irrelevant points – I congratulate you on your deviousness

you’re a wanker who resorted to personal comments rather than responding to the actual point

just making a joke – get over it

DPF makes it clear it is over a 10 year period by the tag on the graph and not overnight

I am not that familiar with PISA – scores frequently stated by those who support our current setup – I presume that he is referring to a general PISA score and not some subset. The main point though is this is a measure cherished by the incumbents.

But you still duck the main point – if teacher numbers have increased and the measures that are those in favour of our current teaching fraternity have not shown any corresponding increase what the f**k are these teachers doing wrong?

Answering a question occasionally surely cannot be that difficult for such an erudite person as yourself?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 8:01pm
Luc Hansen

Ahh, slimeball, I love personal abuse. Thank you so much. Anyway, playtime over, back to business…

If you are not familiar with PISA (the cross-country assessment survey developed and administered by the OECD), then I question the depth of your knowledge on the subject.

Surely, if DPF quotes PISA results, we are entitled to examine the full story, according to PISA?

The problem with your question is that, in my opinion, you start from an incorrect premise. PISA compares countries, and in relative terms NZ has improved its rankings over that period, just.

Your question also ignores the employment conditions aspect of the teachers long fight for a lower teacher/student ratio- the more pupils there are to teach, the more work that entails and the more unpleasant the working conditions in general.

And even if your interpretation of the results is correct, my simple answer would be, I don’t know, and I would ask, shouldn’t we try to work out the reasons without harming the great results we are already achieving for most of our students?

i.e. without going off half-cocked a la Tolley, Parata, et al. and instituting change for the sake of change, even in the face of expert advice that it’s the wrong change?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 8:17pm
UpandComer

@ Luc Hansen: Why should the government listen to union members who have not demonstrated that their ‘findings’ can be separated from their self-interest? It seems like a conflict of interest when they always argue against anything that would arguably benefit children but potentially damage them. Further, why should the govt give them everything they want if the numbers don’t add up? If the data shows there is little marginal benefits from doing so, it just extends a status quo in which the problems being addressed exist, and many of these people are partisan obstructionists willing to break the law out of ideological opposition to a national government?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 8:18pm
mikenmild

Well, who is the government listening to, then? It doesn’t appear to be anyone with educational expertise.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 8:23pm
UpandComer

They have to listen to the experts but take what some of them say with a teaspoon of salt, and they have to review the evidence and make decisions on that basis, and they need to have an open mind, not a closed one that sees anything other then the status quo as heresy and evil.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 8:27pm
Luc Hansen

Slide 21 is interesting.

It ranks countries according to the number of student who failed to achieve Level 2 reading proficiency. We had the 7th lowest failure rate (about 14%, or1 in 7) and stayed steady with our 2000 result, as did most other top performers.

But just behind us are a gaggle of rapidly improving countries yapping at our heels.

This is the thing, all other countries are pouring in resources to improve their performance. Our system is doing well to remain in the position it now occupies, and the very first rule we should be applying is the “First, do no harm” principle.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 8:29pm
mikenmild

So, should keep doing the things that have kept us at the top of the international league tables, or should we have national standards, charter schools, performance pay and bigger class sizes for the fun of it?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 8:29pm
Luc Hansen

Or we should look at what that gaggle of rapidly improving countries are doing that we are not?

Isn’t that the gummints job?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 8:51pm
Yvette

It will be interesting to see the private consultants to organise a system that meets all the criteria adequately to avoid litigious situations in implementing performance pay, cost more than the savings achieved, as in the MFAT debacle.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 9:05pm
Luc Hansen

Boxing on: Slide 62 tell us that a one point improvement in PISA’s socio-economic index (i.e. decreasing social inequality) would catapult NZ up the reading performance rankings by a whopping 60 points.

ie 521+60=581.

I think even John Hattie would be hard pressed to come up with any single factor that would make this much difference.

I can only conclude that either the government doesn’t read these reports, or, like DPF, it considers inconvenient facts are to be ignored, while others are to be presented misleadingly to support preconceived prejudices (redundancy included for emphasis).

Over and out for the night. I’m presuming the GD ferals are still frothing at the mouth over the fact that PhilU dares to have an opinion, so I’ll stay out of that sewer at this time of night. 😉
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 9:19pm
mikenmild

I think you have just about wrapped up this thread.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 9:20pm
Bill Courtney

Several points to add:
1) Of the top 10 countries in PISA 2000 Reading, Korea was the only one to improve its score by PISA 2009. New Zealand’s change (529 to 521) was not considered statistically significant by the OECD.
2) How many of the additional teachers at secondary level came about because of the change to NCEA and internal assessment? Allan Peachey commented in his book on how he had to change the student:teacher ratio to allow for the greater workload. Maybe BeaB or some of the secondary people can expand on how many of the additional teachers this accounts for?
3) Graphs of this nature are, however, a Right-wing favourite. Here’s one of Roger Kerr’s favourites from his blog site:
http://rogerkerr.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/friday-graph-public-education-spending-vs-results/

4) But the best example, by far, of this sort of “provider capture” as it is often called, is Daniel Carter. Yes, a huge increase in salary and bonuses over the past decade and what have we got for it? Nothing. That’s right, just look at his kicking percentage success rate over that time and it’s hardly budged. As DPF says, we haven’t got much for all that extra money – have we??!!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 9:30pm
Steve (North Shore)

Phool, Phool, Phool someone is sucking up to you.
Gather all info and do a copy and paste

Cogsucker
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 9:30pm
Mellie

@Steve
Must be past your bedtime – you don’t seem to make any sense.

@Bill, @Luc, @Mikenmild
Clear, cogent and compelling. 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 9:48pm
UpandComer

Luc I think that everyone agrees with that point, I just think that we have different ideas about how socio-economic equality can be achieved, and also what that means!

As for the Dan Carter analogy, it doesn’t hold, because his increased pay and bonuses was a reflection of what the market for rugby players deemed he was worth at any given time as a minimum. Presumably, if that salary had not been payed, he would have gone overseas to France or Japan and be paid roughly 2 million per year due to market demand for his perceived value.

It didn’t matter what his kicking percentage was, it was what people thought it was worth. There is not a similar market for teachers, because there is nothing by which to gauge their worth if they go straight into teaching. There is no mechanism for a Dan Carter to separate themselves from a Robbie Robinson in teaching. Thus, that analogy does not hold. Further, a Dan Carter is judged not just on kicking ability, but all kinds of tangibles and intangibles like try scoring, his experience, his combinations with other players, his ability to create space… I could go on and on.

A teacher should be judged on the improvements to the kids they teach. Anything else doesn’t matter. Whereas arguably if you have a first five who is not great on kicking percentages, but is a creative attacking player, a decent defender, and someone who is able to create space, this person is still considered worth a lot by the market. Aka Carlos Spencer back in the day.

If we increase spending on Dan Carter, we do so because the market requires it for us to retain his services.

If we increase government spending on education, we have a right to expect that it will improve educational outcomes, otherwise, what is the whole point of the spending other then to make a government feel good about itself, and for unions to feel like all is right with the world?

This thread is hardly sewn up.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 17, 2012 10:38pm
slijmbal

Interesting of the many comments here by those anti the implication that increasing teacher numbers doesn’t seem to make a difference within reasonable limits only 1 bothered to refer to that point directly with a possible reason why that may be so. Every other post was about side issues. That’s normally a sign of a point well made and lots of squirming by those who are just unable to accept the point. Nice one DPF.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 18, 2012 1:13am
Mellie

@slijmbal

lolololol

Actually, all the points made were pertinent to the selective graphic put up by DPF which did not accurately reflect the OECD report findings.

You obviously didn’t read the cogent analysis of such selective reporting which, far from squirming, totally destroyed the notion you are so desperate to believe.

DPF – please be aware that such public attacks on teachers drive our best teachers away from teaching. Such attacks are monotonously regular in right wing politics. They do nothing for our nation’s children, nor for our education system.

To other commentators – If as you all postulate, you want the best teachers teaching our children, you need to support them not denigrate them so vociferously and frequently.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 18, 2012 6:41am
Cunningham

The main problem is that the Unions are just so bloody difficult to deal with. They fight anything which requires a change so how the hell are the government supposed to work with them? Maybe if they were a little more open minded there could be some real progress. Sadly the parents and children are caught in the middle of it all as the Unions seek to shut down and fight tooth and nail against anything new that is proposed regardless of its merits. They are a disgrace to their profession.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 18, 2012 9:02am
YesWeDid

@Cunningham – it’s not just the unions that oppose what the government is doing, teachers & principals professional bodies have also expressed concerns. This is not just a simple case of the government against the teachers unions like certain right wing bloggers would have you believe.

What is sad, is it is clear that there is a total disconnect between the current (and previous) education minister and the teaching profession.

If the minister wants to rail road through change don’t act surprised when the people it affects the most aren’t happy.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 18, 2012 9:38am
Cunningham

That’s the whole point YWD they are never fucking happy with any change! They stick their head up their arse and refuse to change or even look at change. As far as they are concerned, 80% of children getting a good education is enough for them and to hell with all the other students who fall on the scrap heap. There are so many good teachers out there but they are the silent ones who don’t want to get involved with the petty and aggressive wankers who yell the loudest so we get this skewed view that all teachers are against everything proposed to them. Don’t you think it is worth trying things like Charter schools to see if it can improve outsocmes for those 20% of students that fail? It’s quite sad really and makes me extremely angry. Parata is a good minister and she has an extremely impressive manner and history. Don’t you think she knows a thing or 2 about education considering where she has come from?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 18, 2012 10:26am
YesWeDid

‘Don’t you think it is worth trying things like Charter schools to see if it can improve outsocmes for those 20% of students that fail?’

I’d say providing meals for kids in the lowest decile schools would do a lot more to lift education achievement than millions spent on charter schools.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 18, 2012 11:01am
Bill Courtney

Upandcomer,
I think you missed the point. Most of the responses in this thread were to point out the futility in DPF’s simplistic attempt to just stick two measures side by side and state that “the huge increase in teacher numbers didn’t seem to have much impact”. First, factors such as the move to internally assessed NCEA drove up teacher numbers, as workload increased. But, more importantly, our strong relative performance in PISA is actually a good indication that we are doing OK and still holding our own. As I pointed out, Korea was the only top 10 country to raise its PISA score and many others fell by more than NZ did. So, ironically, DPF scored an own goal by introducing PISA results but trying to make them sound bad.

As for the Dan Carter illustration, you simply missed the point. Of course his salary went up to reflect market forces, but the point I was flippantly trying to make is that it is silly to simply plot two things side by side and then attempt to draw meaningful conclusions from what the graph appears to show. Of course you must understand what other factors are at play. In the case of education, it is understanding how much of the challenge is OUTSIDE the school and not just attacking the visible elements inside the system that can be easily stuck on a graph.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 18, 2012 11:05am
Cunningham

YWD that is a parents job not the schools. Yes it’s tough out there but why should a school be the one to provide meals? All it says to deadbeat parents is don’t worry about spending money on breakfast as we will do it. Next the schools will be told they need to buy clothes for children and then after that maybe they need to cook dinner every day for the children to take home. Where does it end? I have a sister on the DPB (broken marraige, with an a’hole husband intent on making her life a misery) with 3 children and she manages. Her children are her number 1 priority and she budgets down to the last cent to ensure they get 3 meals a day. It’s very tough for her but she doesn’t mind sacrificing to ensure her children do well and they are thriving. If she can do it why can’t other people?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 18, 2012 11:14am
YesWeDid

@Cunningham – hungry children don’t learn, it’s pretty simple. It doesn’t matter how good the teacher is or the class size. In an ideal world all children would be fed, clothed and loved but we all know that is not the case. At the end of the day it’s not the child’s fault and if we are serious about lifting the bottom 20%, the child is where the money and effort should go.

Cut the money from the parents benefit if need be and spend that money on food for schools.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 18, 2012 11:25am
Mark

we have by any competitive measure a fairly well performing education system. By OECD stats we are near the top echelon but that does not mean there are not areas of poor performance or things that need to be addressed and made better. In my business as we strive to improve performance we spend a gods deal of time talking to those people delivering at the front end as to how they think we can improve or service offering and delivery, we talk to our customers as to better effective on delivering them what they need and then we work out how we can manage these improvements in a cost effective way that improves our bottom line. Fairly simple but in our education model the government appear to have adopted a them v us attitude with the teachers who are delivering in the classroom. The very ripple who should be at the forefront of how educational outcomes can be improved appear to have been largely sidelined by Tolley and now Parata.

It seems as thoUgh the relationship between teachers and the government is somewhat dysfunctional and it would be interesting to understand why. Is it because teachers ate strongly unionised that the government thinks they have nothing valid to contribute to the conversation or is it simply that treasury officials have a better understanding of the drivers of good education outcomes that teaching professionals do.

What seems fairly obvious is that increasing class sizes by 20% is counter intuitive to better outcomes for our kids.

Why do to private schools boast lower class sizes and better individual support for kids as major selling point if it has no material effect on educational outcomes?

Why do well of parents choose private schools over state schools? could it be lower class sizes and a desire get individual attention for their children?

when Key realised Tolley was not up to the task and appointed Parata it appeared there may be some sensible dialogue between teachers and govt. but is clear that will not happen
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 18, 2012 11:43am
Cunningham

TWD I do agree. If a child has to be fed at school (as much as I hate the thought of schools having to do this as they already have alot on their plate) then the parents should be investigated (with possible penalties if appropriate) as it’s not good enough. Is anyone actually looking at these parents who send their children to school without food and shoes and asking why? I am sick of hearing excuses when I see people like my sister managing. Granted some will be genuine but alot are just taking advantage of schools by expecting them to feed their children so they don’t have to. It makes my blood boil. Someone needs to hold these parents to account.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 18, 2012 11:45am
Paulus

I understand that over 2000 teachers have left the “profession” in the last 12 months.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 18, 2012 1:02pm
UpandComer

Bill Courtney

I understand perfectly well that correlation does not always equal causation. But you cannot simply dismiss these findings on the basis of ‘oh well its all just socioeconomics’. I don’t care how we are doing relative to North Korea. What I care about is value for money spending, here, in New Zealand, and addressing the lagging tail in NZ generally and Maori in particular.

Note once again the period of the decline in educational performance. Those were Labour years. So the implication is that poverty went up under Labour policies as did workload, and these variables explain the lack of marginal benefit provided by increased teacher numbers?

Someone above mentioned diminishing marginal returns. Well hey that supports the argument that we don’t need more teachers.

The reason why this correlation is salient is because of the rhetoric that comes from the teachers union and anyone against not increasing spending all the time just for the hell of it. We are constantly told that education is under-resourced, that teachers are under-resourced, that we are suffering teacher shortages, and we need more teachers and more spending.

Well even if we did a factor analysis that equalised other variables such as poverty, a discrepancy as large as provided in that data will show that increased spending on teachers had no effect whatsoever on increased outcomes, or an insignificant effect.

Once again, who cares how we compare relatively if we are still letting so many kids down. Actually, the status quo is not acceptable and needs to change. Maybe we should stop spending money on increasing the number of teachers union members and start spending money on things with a high marginal benefit for kids, such as teacher’s aides, promoting the excellent teachers that we already have, and maybe even a socialistic charity program like milk and fruit for needy kids in schools.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
May 18, 2012 5:35pm

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« Mallard and Little defamation suit filed in court

Ridiculous criticism »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Highlights

The Kiwis are fleeing
Inflation by term
Houston we have a problem
Our immunisation disaster

Top Stories

General Debate 23 April 2024
A good win for Newsroom
Call for Support: Has the Time Come for a Wellington Ratepayer Activist Group?
A weak Three Strikes law
The Otago University backlash
Dunne on Labour
General Debate 22 April 2024
The Waitangi Tribunal is not a judicial body
Guest Post: Moral Equivalence Hamas and Israel
The hate crime fiasco in Scotland

Recent Posts

Call for Support: Has the Time Come for a Wellington Ratepayer Activist Group? 23 April 2024
A good win for Newsroom 23 April 2024
General Debate 23 April 2024 23 April 2024
A weak Three Strikes law 23 April 2024
The Otago University backlash 22 April 2024
Dunne on Labour 22 April 2024
General Debate 22 April 2024 22 April 2024
Guest Post: Moral Equivalence Hamas and Israel 22 April 2024
The hate crime fiasco in Scotland 21 April 2024
General Debate 21 April 2024 21 April 2024
A good solution, but too late 21 April 2024
The Waitangi Tribunal is not a judicial body 20 April 2024

Never miss a post

Email Address

Recent Comments

Call for Support: Has the Time Come for a Wellington Ratepayer Activist Group?
Nigel Kearney
General Debate 23 April 2024
RdM
General Debate 23 April 2024
sungsamning
General Debate 23 April 2024
Ghost
General Debate 23 April 2024
MikeMan
General Debate 23 April 2024
Ra Henare
General Debate 23 April 2024
MikeMan
A good win for Newsroom
NoFax
General Debate 23 April 2024
Jack5
General Debate 23 April 2024
Jack5
Call for Support: Has the Time Come for a Wellington Ratepayer Activist Group?
rouppe
General Debate 23 April 2024
Terry Dalee
Call for Support: Has the Time Come for a Wellington Ratepayer Activist Group?
JJ56
General Debate 23 April 2024
NeverMindTheBollocks
General Debate 23 April 2024
NeverMindTheBollocks

Links

Breaking Views Update: Week of 21.4.24
Breaking Views
More criminal miners
No Right Turn
A Look at the Wacky Transit Industry
Utopia
#CountdownToAnzacDay: On “the last afterglow of the most radiant cultural atmosphere in human history”
Not PC
Daily review 23/04/2024
The Standard
RMA reforms aim to ease stock-grazing rules and reduce farmers’ costs – but Taxpayers’ Union wants even more changes
Point of Order
Word of the day
Hompaddock
United Rugby Championship Predictions for Week 15
Stats Chat
7.30pm live tonight – The Working Group with David Seymour, Chris Penk and Damien Grant
The Daily Blog
Puberty blocker story backfires
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
Supposedly A Great Cook?
No Minister
CAN WE BE SHOCKED ANYMORE BY THE NEWS?
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
Again, hate crimes are not necessarily terrorism.
Kiwipolitico
Despair - construction consenting edition
Offsetting Behaviour
Coalition Promises
NZCPR
Tougher than that
Croaking Cassandra
ABs stripped of 2011 title after try disallowed
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

© 2003-2024 David Farrar

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d

%d