Absolutely brilliant!

January 23rd, 2014 at 11:52 am by David Farrar

I absolutely love the announcements made today by the Prime Minister around . There are a lot of things that I have to fund as a taxpayer that I resent. But paying top teachers and top principals more is not one of them. The international research is crystal clear that the biggest single factor in a child’s educational sucess is the quality of their teacher. Rewarding top principals and teachers with new roles that can pay between $10,000 and $50,000 more in an excellent investment.

The details announced by the PM are:

So today I am announcing four new roles for principals and teachers in New Zealand schools, and investing an extra $359 million into teaching and school leadership over the next four years.

These are changes that will benefit kids across New Zealand, because high-quality teaching leads to better achievement at school.

The first new role is an Executive Principal.

Executive Principals will be the top principals from across the country.

They will provide leadership across communities of schools, supporting other principals to raise student achievement.

We envisage there will be around 250 Executive Principals, or about one for every 10 schools, on average.

An Executive Principal will remain in charge of their own school but be released for two days a week to work across a grouping of schools, which will include primary and secondary schools.

Executive Principals will have a proven track record in raising achievement and they will pass on their knowledge and expertise to other principals.

They will be appointed by an external panel, for up to four years. Executive Principals will be paid an annual allowance of $40,000 on top of their existing salary, and they will be judged on their results.

So that’s the first new role.

The second is a similar sort of position, again working across a group of schools, but at the teacher level.

These teachers we are calling Expert Teachers, and we intend to establish around 1,000 of these new positions.

Expert Teachers will have a proven track record in raising the performance of their students, particularly in maths, science, technology and literacy.

Expert Teachers will be based in their usual school, but will be released for two days a week to work across their school grouping, under the guidance of their Executive Principal.

They will get alongside other teachers, working with them to develop and improve classroom practice and raise student achievement.

Executive Principals will oversee the appointment of Expert Teachers and the appointment will be for up to four years. They will be paid an annual allowance of $20,000 on top of their usual salary.

Executive Principals and Expert Teachers will drive a whole new level of collaboration between schools and between teachers, with best practice becoming widespread across school communities.

The third new role we are going to introduce is for the top teachers in schools.

We want the best teachers to be recognised for improving student achievement and to act, in a formal sense, as role models for other teachers.

So we are going to introduce a new role – a Lead Teacher. There will be around 5,000 Lead Teacher positions across the country.

Lead Teachers will be high-performing teachers who can demonstrate the best classroom practice.

Their classrooms will be open to other teachers almost all the time, so teachers can observe and discuss classroom practice with a model professional.

Lead Teachers will be paid an annual allowance of $10,000 on top of their existing salary. That allowance is in recognition of their status and their new responsibility in helping other teachers to raise achievement.

These new roles of Expert Teachers and Lead Teachers means more good teachers will stay in a teaching role, because they can see a career path that keeps them in the classroom where they are so effective. And that has huge benefits for the children they teach.

We are going to give extra funding to schools so teachers can take time out of their normal classroom to work with Expert Teachers and Lead Teachers.

And we are also going to establish a $10 million fund for schools and teachers to develop and research effective teaching practice in areas such as writing, maths, science and digital literacy.

The final change I want to announce today is that we are also going to better match up schools that are really struggling, with really excellent principals.

To do this we are going to establish a new role of Change Principal.

Change Principals will be top principals who are paid an additional allowance of $50,000 a year to go to a struggling school and turn it around.

Around 20 Change Principals will be appointed each year, for up to five years.

At the moment, the incentive is for principals to go to larger schools, where the salary is higher, rather than to schools that are the most challenging.

We are going to change that.

So those are the four new roles we are creating – Executive Principals, Change Principals, Expert Teachers and Lead Teachers.

So that is $10,000 more for 5,000 Lead Teachers, $20,000 more for 1,000 Expert Teachers, $40,000 more for 250 Executive Principals and $50,000 more for 20 Change Principals – and most of them having a focus on not just helping their school, but helping their neighbouring schools also.

What is great is good teachers can earn more just by being good at their job, without having to move from the classroom into administration.

I’ve been waiting almost decades for a Government to do something like this, and reward top teachers with more pay. It should both lead to better recruitment and retention, but also should lead to teaching being seen as just as professional and important a vocation to go into, as medicine and law. The NZ Initiative reports on education nightlight how important it is to have teaching seen as an esteemed profession.

Some of the international research around the importance of teacher quality is:

The 2009 report by the international McKinsey agency, shows that over three years, learning with a high performing teacher rather than a low performing teacher can make a 53-percentage point difference for two students who start at the same achievement level.

There is also a quote from Andreas Schleicher, Deputy Director for Education and Skills for the OECD, January 2014 about the proposed changes.

 “Top school systems pay attention to how they select and train their staff, they watch how they improve the performance of teachers who are struggling and how to structure teachers’ pay and career. They provide intelligent pathways for teachers to grow in their careers with an environment in which teachers work together to frame good practice.

“The reforms now being introduced (in New Zealand), with real career paths, support and evaluation, and recognition including monetary rewards, hold the promise for New Zealand to join that group of countries.”

 I hope all stakeholders in the education sector will welcome this investment. They’d be mad not to.

Tags: , ,

121 Responses to “Absolutely brilliant!”

  1. peterwn (3,273 comments) says:

    See:
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9640616/Nationals-financial-lures-for-struggling-schools

    And typical blame John Key for education woes – the foundations of which were laid by the previous Government. Leftie journos like Tracey Watkins just cannot opionating in what is supposed to be a news article.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Nookin (3,347 comments) says:

    Bold. It also overcomes one of my reservations about rewarding high performing principals and teachers namely that such decisions should not necessarily vest in school boards which are incapable of an appropriate assessment. This is an imaginative, proactive and, I would hope, effective policy. Now let us wait and see what PPTA have to say about at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. tas (625 comments) says:

    PPTA, NZEI, Labour, etc. will be busy thinking “How can we attack this proposal?” They don’t care what it contains, if it comes from National, it must be attacked.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Yogibear (366 comments) says:

    Great announcements but the teachers will hate it.

    My mother is a teacher. One of the biggest rows we’ve ever had was a comment I made that being a great teacher didn’t necessarily translate into being a great principal and that maybe the gene pool needed a bit of stirring up.

    We don’t talk about the ability of the teaching profession to effectively run schools anymore.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Chris2 (766 comments) says:

    Good idea, but when these Principals and teachers are away for their home school for 40% of their working week, who is going to be doing their work in their absence?

    It looks great in theory, but will it work in practice?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. mikemikemikemike (325 comments) says:

    I criticise a lot of National policies and dislike the hypocrisy I often see as being no different to labour. However this one one policy has secured mine and my wife’s votes for our kids who will start school in a couple of years.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Rightandleft (663 comments) says:

    I would have to say tentatively that this all sounds good. My only concern is over how the top teachers and principals will be chosen. I’d also like to know how the top teachers posts differ from Specialist Classroom Teachers, which we already have. The position sounds very similar. The expert and change principals and teachers sounds very good though as I’ve always said a key problem in our system is the failure to share best practice between schools. Another good thing is that this funding comes outside a collective agreement negotiations round, so other teachers aren’t having to sacrifice a pay increase to fund this. Smart move in an election year.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Samuel Smith (276 comments) says:

    Excellent work by Key so far.

    Hopefully the policy detail is as good as the speech.

    There needs to more pathways for expert teachers to remain in the classroom.

    Agree with Rightandleft about being cautious around how the principals and teachers are chosen.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Keeping Stock (10,342 comments) says:

    @ Rightandleft and Samuel; from the PM’s speech (with regard to Executive Principals)

    They will be appointed by an external panel, for up to four years.

    This certainly is a bold and innovative policy. It’s going to be fascinating to watch the reaction, and I commend Samuel above for not dismissing it out-of-hand because of who it came from.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. lazza (381 comments) says:

    Ed Reforms and performance pay! Just outstanding.

    Quite a contrast from the usual PPTA propaganda that does lots to promote teacher benefits with little heed paid to the needs of their students.

    JK, Hekia and the Min of Ed …take a bow … and what is more, Novapay is now back on the rails.

    Cunner’s list of election-year challenges … just got a lot bigger.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    If you want some cynicism.

    Executive principals, leading groups of up to 10 schools.

    1. nice size for awarding out property and cleaning contracts etc.
    2. and of course diminishing the importance of the connection between school principals and their teaching teams within each school.
    3. a conduit for the Government and ministry in a top down regime.
    4. leading to easier school mergers, first step being united boards where schools remain on two sites initially etc, then second step sales of surplus school land.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,903 comments) says:

    Surely there could have been a better term than ‘Expert Teacher’?

    Of all the hackneyed over-used, discredited words in our language I can think of none other than ‘expert.’

    The job they will be doing is much like that of a specialist sports coach. A bowling coach or a batting coach. In this case they will be teaching coaches. A much better descriptor.

    Oh boy, hasn’t he just gutted and filleted the teachers unions?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Chris2 (766 comments) says:

    @ Adolf Fiinkensein

    You are right about the term “expert”. I never knew I was an expert until I was interviewed on the TV news and described for the first time in my life as an expert!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. CryHavoc (46 comments) says:

    Sorry for the “I know someone” post, but my partner’s best friend is a primary school teacher. She’s got a Master’s degree and is totally non-ideological and has only the best interests of the students at heart, which is why she does her job.

    She has basically reached the limit of her salary progression within 5 or 6 years of starting out (and no it’s not a lot of money at all, for a postgraduate-qualified person). Why should she stay on for much longer when there is more money to be made at, I don’t know, a policy analyst job at the Ministry of Education… or just more rewarding to stay home with her own kids and do (expensive) relieving work two days a week. Or go and work for a private school. Or whatever.

    These changes seem to offer an incentive for smart people like her to stay in the public system. Nice work. I just hope the appointments are genuinely merit-based and not hijacked by, ahem, special interests.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. tvb (4,425 comments) says:

    The lines of accountability seem a bit fuzzy to me so that needs to be sorted out. But Lead Teachers should be able to inspire lots of pupils to Learn and there are gifted teachers who can do that. The kids know who those teachers are and they love them.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    Excellent – our local primary school could certainly use a Change Principal. My ONLY reservstion is, I hope there are some checks and balances on the appointment of the Expert Teachers, so that you can’t become one (and gain a nice pay rise) simply by giving the Executive Principal a root…?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Longknives (4,753 comments) says:

    “She has basically reached the limit of her salary progression within 5 or 6 years of starting out (and no it’s not a lot of money at all, for a postgraduate-qualified person”

    Then take her Master’s Degree somewhere else….
    Everyone in our office thinks we are badly underpaid (I have Post Grad qualifications as well)- But we don’t wank on about it quite as much as Teachers do (Does anybody?)
    Are these Martyrs even back at work yet after their lengthy Summer Holiday??

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. burt (8,275 comments) says:

    In a single budget National will enable more change in teachers pay than the PPTA has in …. 40 years ?

    This initiative is showing how redundant the concept of fighting the man is in education. Add in a “leave the union” bonus of say $5,000/year and watch the parasites squirm.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. CryHavoc (46 comments) says:

    Longknives that’s the whole point mate. You don’t want good teachers to leave the public system b/c then you’re left with the dross that can’t do anything else.

    By the way she has never complained about it – I, as a non-teacher, am worried about it, because I want good, non-ideological teachers in my kids’ schools. I don’t want the good ones to leave after 5 years.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. burt (8,275 comments) says:

    One condition for being an expert teacher should be that you are not in the union – you can’t believe in one-size-fits-all and stand up to be seen as an expert above your peers at the same time.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    Nooooooooo!

    The solution is to pay ALL teachers more!

    /sarc

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    One condition for being an expert teacher should be that you are not in the union – you can’t believe in one-size-fits-all and stand up to be seen as an expert above your peers at the same time.

    I strongly disagree.

    A person could be in the Union (an organisation primarily looking out for the interests of teachers) AND be an expert teacher (a role that looks to assist other teachers). It is not inconsistent at an individual level.

    The question will be, will the Union (and its more idiotic/militant/socialist members) tolerate such a class traitor in their midst?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Alan (1,087 comments) says:

    I’m not really sure what the problem is that needs fixing, all the schools I see are excellent.

    It seems to be a mentor role, worth a go I guess if it helps spread around best practise. Doesn’t appear to cost much money.

    One thing you can be sure of is, principals will hate and seek to frustrate the execs.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Ross Miller (1,704 comments) says:

    But, according to the teacher unions ALL teachers are EXPERT and hence their opposition to performance pay incentives.

    So, we may expect opposition from that quarter. Fancy some teachers deemed to be better than others and paid more to showcase their skills.

    Naaaaah, the political and ideological progressive left will decry this as a attempt to drive a wedge between teachers and their Union heavies and the introduction of performance pay under another guise.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. burt (8,275 comments) says:

    Ross

    All teachers are equal right …. They train for years to understand the variance in aptitude and attitude in a single class – then join the union and are all the same…. Obviously there is a cognitive dissidence required to join and believe in the union – so it seems that supporters of the union concept will be strongly against recognizing success – even when that is pretty much what education is all about.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Paulus (2,628 comments) says:

    Something that has NO Union involvement as outside the normal teacher collective pay agreements.

    Great that at last something constructive is to put into place for the good of education and children which is not union based.

    it cover about 6,500 Teachers of the 50,000 that being over 13% of all Teachers. Great.

    But it will not happen if Labour/Greens get in – it will be scrapped by the Unions immediately.

    The Unions already hate it – it was not done with their necessary approval.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Bill Courtney (161 comments) says:

    DPF: “The international research is crystal clear that the biggest single factor in a child’s educational success is the quality of their teacher.”
    Just to correct the common mistake that David Farrar repeatedly makes, the true position of the OECD is as follows:
    “The first and most solidly based finding is that the largest source of variation in student learning is attributable to differences in what students bring to school – their abilities and attitudes, and family and community background.” Source: OECD 2005 Report titled “Teachers matter: Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers”.

    I agree with Rightandleft that there are going to be a lot of practical issues to wade through before these measures can be analysed properly. Another problem that comes to mind is location. Many of the schools that need a lot of help are not close to other schools where some of these “experts” will be based. So, let’s hear more about the detail before getting too carried away.

    Finally, as a general observation, anything that encourages more collaboration within and across schools is to be commended. The quasi-competitive model that Tomorrow’s Schools ushered in has done enormous damage, so this is step back in the right direction.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. PaulL (5,986 comments) says:

    @Paulus, you’re wrong, I find it very unlikely that Labour would scrap it. The most likely amendment they’d make to this excellent scheme is to provide some peer representation on the panel that appoints these higher paid teachers. That is to say, they’d give the unions a say in appointing them.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Kea (12,841 comments) says:

    This could work if used as intended.

    But it Labour get in “Lead Teachers” will be evaluated on things like:

    1. Te Tiriti

    2. Climate change.

    3. General communism

    4. Hatred of men.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. nasska (11,534 comments) says:

    From JK’s speech to the West Auckland Business Club:

    ….”They will be appointed by an external panel, for up to four years.”….

    Who will serve on this “external panel”? If it is to consist of the usual bunch of failed pedagogues who make themselves available for such appointments then we may give the PPTA & their mangy socialist ilk the money to divvy up as they see fit.

    Whether it is $359 million of taxpayers’ money invested wisely or a lolly scramble for long serving teachers totally depends on keeping the unions out of the processes.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Keeping Stock (10,342 comments) says:

    When someone as ideologically opposed to the current Government’s education policies as Bill Courtney gives today’s announcement a qualified approval, then John Key would seem to have hit the nail on the head.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    @Paulus 1:18 pm

    But it will not happen if Labour/Greens get in – it will be scrapped by the Unions immediately.

    The Unions already hate it – it was not done with their necessary approval.

    You’re going to find this hard to understand, Paulus, but the PPTA have welcomed it:

    Government plans to put resources into teaching and learning rather than finance and administration are being greeted with optimism by PPTA.

    President Angela Roberts said Prime Minister John Key’s announcement that $359 million would be invested in teaching and school leadership over the next four years was a positive one.

    She praised his commitment to ““support a culture of collaboration within and across schools” and said the creation of principal and teacher positions to provide leadership and support across communities of schools marked the beginning of a collaborative approach long sought by PPTA.

    “Enabling schools to support each-other rather than compete against each-other is a good response to a problem that has bedeviled our education system since the introduction of Tomorrow’s Schools,” Roberts said.

    Cue in a flood of comments commending the PPTA :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. PaulL (5,986 comments) says:

    I’m not clear where this competition between schools is. I certainly haven’t seen it, and wasn’t Tomorrow’s Schools in the early 90s? Seriously, we’re still complaining about things that have survived through two complete cycles of govt?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Rightandleft (663 comments) says:

    I’m actually not that surprised the PPTA is being supportive. They’ve long been calling for a better career path for experienced teachers to allow them better pay prospects without having to leave the classroom. The performance pay they’ve been fighting is the idea of just paying teachers more simply for having better test results or being picked by the principal as ‘good.’ Having mentor teachers be paid more for taking on new responsibilities has always been supported. Specialist Classroom Teachers have done just that for years. They’ve also been calling for more collaboration between schools for some time.

    Key has also been very smart in not simply foisting this on the sector. He’s promised to work with the unions to implement it by 2017. He seems to recognise that the devil is in the details and he will need to support of the sector to get it right. One concern I have is the amount of time these expert teachers will be out of their own classroom and the effect that could have on their students. These are things we need to get right for the sake of the students.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. burt (8,275 comments) says:

    toad

    The PPTA might have finally worked out that socialism always fails and that a one-size-fits-all collective is basically no more no less than an ease of administration thing…. I doubt it … but it looks like they have on this odd occasion decided to play the ball rather than the man.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    @Rightandleft 1:56 pm

    Key has also been very smart in not simply foisting this on the sector. He’s promised to work with the unions to implement it by 2017. He seems to recognise that the devil is in the details and he will need to support of the sector to get it right.

    Somewhat to my surprise, Key seems to have learned something from the National Standards debacle.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Rightandleft (663 comments) says:

    PaulL,

    I can assure you there is plenty of competition between schools, at least in urban areas. I sit on the BOT of my school and we always discuss our efforts to win as many kids from the local intermediates as possible. We send teachers in to advertise and to find out exactly where all the students there are going and how we keep them at our school. Every good exam outcome, every sporting win is considered vital to keeping our roll up. The same can be said of the competition to woo the international students who pay for a lot of our resources. We need to win them to our school over all the others across NZ.

    Now I am not saying that’s a bad thing. I think the competition keeps us on our game and drives us to perform better. Monopoly breeds complacency. But at the same time it does cause the problem that some schools excel while others fail and we don’t want kids left in failing schools. This effort seems to be a good step at tempering the excesses of Tomorrow’s Schools. (and yes the term comes from reforms put in place in 1989 but that is still the model of schooling we follow. Also there have been changes to the competitive model. In 1990 National eliminated school zoning, but in 1998 the same govt reinstated them because removing them was a total failure).

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. rouppe (971 comments) says:

    Questions :

    1) When these expert teachers are away from their classrooms for two days a week, who is going to be teaching their class?

    2) Do we not think that for those pupils of the expert teacher, the changing teacher, style and quality of instruction might have a detrimental effect on their learning?

    3) We all know that consumption tends to fill income. For those teachers and principals that receive the extra allowance, which is temporary, do we think that they’re going to take kindly to having their income suddenly cut by $40,000 and $50,000 at the end of their tenure?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    @rightandleft: “In 1990 National eliminated school zoning, but in 1998 the same govt reinstated them because removing them was a total failure.”

    It doesn’t take much research to discover that is a total misrepresentation:

    http://nzinitiative.org.nz/site/nzbr/files/speeches/speeches-2005/wr100205.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    1) When these expert teachers are away from their classrooms for two days a week, who is going to be teaching their class?

    Nobody. They will be free to roam the streets and sniff glue.

    2) Do we not think that for those pupils of the expert teacher, the changing teacher, style and quality of instruction might have a detrimental effect on their learning?

    All that glue they’re sniffing is bound to be more detrimental.

    3) We all know that consumption tends to fill income. For those teachers and principals that receive the extra allowance, which is temporary, do we think that they’re going to take kindly to having their income suddenly cut by $40,000 and $50,000 at the end of their tenure?

    Why would they be surprised? They would know it at the start of the gig.

    Are you suggesting that all the secondary glue fumes will affect their long-term memory?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Rightandleft (663 comments) says:

    Alan,

    Given the author of the source you gave is specifically in favour of a much more radical privatisation of NZ’s public system I can’t exactly accept it as an unbiased source. I will accept that it was more Labour/Alliance in 2000 than National in 1998 which re-instituted the zones.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. burt (8,275 comments) says:

    Kimble

    Are you suggesting that all the secondary glue fumes will affect their long-term memory?

    By joining the union and buying into the idea that all teachers are equal they are forgetting their basic training that all students are different and that ‘full potential’ is a unique thing to an individual – so I wouldn’t be surprised at what they forget in the process of being indoctrinated into a failed ideology.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    This will make very little difference other than a few people might go into teaching who otherwise would not have (which might not be a bad thing). There are various reasons why this is the case:

    (1) Education is being made Mr Fix-It for a wide range of social problems, which it can’t fix.

    (2) The system by which such teachers are selected will end up reflecting workplace politics, or if it is results driven will result in teachers teaching to the test and gaming the system.

    (3) “Digital Literacy” is a waste of time.

    But good on National for throwing public money away to try to buy votes from a minority of teachers.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. MH (759 comments) says:

    stop talking as though these teachers are a cross section of society. They are not.They are women,you can pronounce that singular or plural,it doesn’t matter. Will this policy get men into the profession? Some schools in NZ have no men what so bloody ever in them,does that not ring a bell?And now plough-Shearer wants our boys to grow pansies on the playing fields when they should be playing rugby and cowboys and Afghans.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    stop talking as though these teachers are a cross section of society. They are not.They are women,you can pronounce that singular or plural,it doesn’t matter. Will this policy get men into the profession? Some schools in NZ have no men what so bloody ever in them,does that not ring a bell?And now plough-Shearer wants our boys to grow pansies on the playing fields when they should be playing rugby and cowboys and Afghans.

    Don’t know about that. I know that – not being a poof – I had no sexual interest in my male teachers, but there were a few of my female teachers who were definitely MILFs. To be honest, groping sweaty men on a rugby field and dressing up as Indians sounds a lot more gay than shagging Miss X the attractive PE teacher like they do in American schools.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Nookin (3,347 comments) says:

    We now know labour’s election strategy. For every policy rolled out by National, Cunliffe will say “we will double that”. He must be cringing in the face of the support for the policy from the likes of Angela Roberts and Tom Parsons.
    The Greens’ reaction is to be expected. The policy is decried because it does nothing for child poverty. I am surprised that she does not complain that it fails to address the plight of the Hector Dolphin, the 5 legged gecko and prostate cancer. Maybe somebody should point out to her that it is not bloody supposed to deal with child poverty. It is there to improve the quality of education and she might like to take note of the fact that at least 2 people, seemingly experts in education and student achievement (I know Tom to be), both of whom are usually stridently critical of the government, welcome the move as positive.

    Once again, we see the Greens as the negative party.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9640616/Education-overhaul-targets-top-teachers

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Rightandleft (663 comments) says:

    MH,

    Most primary teachers are women, but in secondary 42% of teachers are men, and if we look at full-time secondary teachers then the split is about 50/50. Not all schools have gone PC-mad either. The DP at my school encourages the boys to play bull rush as it teaches good tackling skills and uses up pent up energy.

    Tom Jackson,

    I agree with you on number one, but that’s no reason not to give this a try. Spreading best practice around struggling schools may not help, but it isn’t going to hurt. On number two I’m hopeful the independent boards they are creating will solve that problem. But in any case we’ve already found Specialist Classroom Teachers to be helpful and they’re chosen by the principal, same as the deans etc.

    So far the only people I’ve seen actually come out against this idea is the Greens. Even the Principals Federation, the die-hard anti-National Standards group, has praised the government on this.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Mad_ike (7 comments) says:

    I note with interest the strongly differing reactions from Labour and the Greens. Labour continue their new theme of “We are just the same as National only different” by saying “Yeah, well we would have done it too only bigger” while the lunatic Green fringe rail against inequality and how schools should feed the hungry and tend the sick. Twice in two days the potential coalition of the left are at loggerheads – it doesn’t augur well

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Keeping Stock (10,342 comments) says:

    @ Toad – it’s a shame that your female co-leader can’t find the grace to be as open-minded as the PPTA and the NZPF. Phil Harding from the Principals’ Federation has made a particularly telling comment:

    Principals’ Federation President Phil Harding said the announcements were significant for both principals and teachers.
    “It’s hard for me to say it but I’m pretty damned impressed. It is a huge amount of new money and I have never seen such a transformation of ideas and discussion into policy and money in my life. It has gone from a theoretical discussion about how the system needed to evolve and change just last year to the appropriation of significant resource.”
    He was hopeful it would work as intended and believed the $50,000 financial incentives for good principals to take on challenging schools were sufficient.

    I know that it would be hard for Metiria to say that she was “pretty damned impressed” by something that the Government had done, but it might of earned her some goodwill. Instead, she has had a little rant and dummy-spit. Perhaps you should have a word to her :D

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Keeping Stock (10,342 comments) says:

    @ Tom Jackson (2.58pm) – bitter and twisted much buddy?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Mad_ike (7 comments) says:

    @ Tom Jackson (2.58)

    I suspect it will garner support from more than “a minority of teachers”. If my kids were younger I would be delighted at anything that improves our struggling education system.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. MH (759 comments) says:

    I am aware of the stats vis a vis Secondary and Primary but it is at primary level that blokes are needed the most and hopefully more and more people will realise the balance needed to produce healthy kids. The question I asked will this policy,which I don’t mean to demean, introduce more men back into schools,perhaps stem the decline,I certainly hope so.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    @rightandleft, the link gives a chronology of changes irrespective of ideology. If you challenge that chronology you need to demonstrate the factual error(s) otherwise your position has no credibility.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    I agree with you on number one, but that’s no reason not to give this a try. Spreading best practice around struggling schools may not help, but it isn’t going to hurt.

    It’s the “best practice” that is bad. In the last 30 years New Zealand schools have slowly been redirected from serving the interests of greater society to serving the interests of parents. I went through school during many of the reforms and it still strikes me as quite mad.

    From a system designed to sort the academically capable from the academically incapable, it has morphed into a system designed to allow dumb but ambitious kids to pass by means of sheer effort (or their parents’ effort). They did this by replacing high stakes exams with internal assessment and by dumbing down the curriculum. It does result in more people with qualifications, but has the unintended effect of making qualifications an unreliable test of competence.

    There are kids graduating from university right now who are unable to read books, cannot write or reason, and cannot express themselves in standard English. The university administrators won’t let them be failed for fear of losing funding. That’s not including the foreign students who are getting NZ university credits over the internet who cannot even speak or write in English.

    This is what happens when you insist that anyone who works hard can succeed. You have to organise society around the incompetent.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    I suspect it will garner support from more than “a minority of teachers”. If my kids were younger I would be delighted at anything that improves our struggling education system.

    It’s not struggling by world standards. We do pretty well for such a small country.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Alan Wilkinson (1,878 comments) says:

    “In the last 30 years New Zealand schools have slowly been redirected from serving the interests of greater society to serving the interests of parents. ”

    A grossly inaccurate claim. Most of the changes have been driven by socialist social engineering agendas – community and bureaucratic control of schools, removal of parental authority and rights to physical punishment, rigid zoning, protection and acceptance of mediocrity, ideological PC brainwashing on social issues, pursuit of conformity rather than challenge.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    A grossly inaccurate claim. Most of the changes have been driven by socialist social engineering agendas – community and bureaucratic control of schools, removal of parental authority and rights to physical punishment, rigid zoning, protection and acceptance of mediocrity, ideological PC brainwashing on social issues, pursuit of conformity rather than challenge.

    Wrong as usual.

    Both the countercultural left and the libertarian right objected to the centralised, bureaucratic education system (plenty of non-hippies bought Pink Floyd’s The Wall), so a move to more responsiveness to parental concerns was a political no-brainer as was the increasing sense of education as a private consumption good.

    There are also wider social changes such as the increasingly precarious situation of the middle classes that have made education loom larger in bourgeois minds as “the solution”.

    Parents used to treat teachers as respected professionals rather than serfs, although to be fair teachers back then were of better quality (and could actually spell!). Things have gone down a bit since then. My dad, who never finished high school and was illiterate until he was 9, was amazed at how daft the teachers at high school were when he was hired to teach some specialist classes.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. deadrightkev (469 comments) says:

    I am surprised at how quickly people have jumped to congratulate National for simply spending more money on education personnel and introducing more management oversight within an already state controlled system. The problem to me has always been the state managing the relationships between parent and the educator. Parents should decide where there kids go to school in my view and have a choice.

    When John Key announces that any educator can start up a private education business (within guidelines like they do with a charter school) in direct competition to the state I will be impressed. So far all I see is more taxpayers money being diverted into a state controlled bureaucracy.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    Oh dear…..I see a journo at the speech left his mike on and again we have an embarrassing recording of information not meant for the general public….

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/oddstuff/9642523/Microphone-catches-bathroom-moment

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Keeping Stock (10,342 comments) says:

    @ slightlyrighty – dead right; Paddy Gower from 3News is the victim of a leak, but this time he is both the leaker and the leakee :D

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Interesting that Hekia Parata didn’t make the announcement. It’s her portfolio after all. I guess the PM didn’t trust her not to fuck it up.

    It’s also interesting that the PM thinks that paying teachers more money will produce better results. I take it that the PM thinks the living wage is a great idea for the same reason.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    I am surprised that she does not complain that it fails to address the plight of the Hector Dolphin, the 5 legged gecko and prostate cancer.

    Three more things that this government can’t get right. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    “It’s also interesting that the PM thinks that paying teachers more money will produce better results. I take it that the PM thinks the living wage is a great idea for the same reason.”

    nah, the loser cleaning my toilet everyday after i take 4 steaming shits is doing a fine job.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    @ross69: “Interesting that Hekia Parata didn’t make the announcement. It’s her portfolio after all. I guess the PM didn’t trust her not to fuck it up.”

    What a silly comment. You must also think that because David Cunliffe made announcements on GST and tax, that he doesn’t trust Clark and Parker not to fuck up.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    An Executive Principal will remain in charge of their own school but be released for two days a week to work across a grouping of schools

    So, they’ll work fewer hours at their own school but their pay will not decline but instead increase? I await the howls of outrage from the Right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Hekia says the policy is about “raising the status of the [teaching] profession.”

    If the status of the profession has declined, it’s largely because Hekia has not supported teachers. Indeed, she has been happy to publicly criticise them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. queenstfarmer (782 comments) says:

    So, they’ll work fewer hours at their own school but their pay will not decline but instead increase?

    Yes that’s right ross69, when they are “released for two days a week to work across a grouping of schools”, they’ll actually just go to the beach instead and thus work fewer hours. No-one will ever know.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    they’ll actually just go to the beach instead and thus work fewer hours

    Oh, so you’re saying they’ll work the same hours at their own school and work elsewhere at the same time? Goodness, the poor buggers will be exhausted.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. PaulL (5,986 comments) says:

    You’re an idiot Ross, although I guess that’s not news.

    They’ll do the same hours in total, for the kind of people we’re talking about they’ll probably do more hours. They’ll have to delegate some of the work in their normal school, which means they’ll hang on to the hard stuff and delegate some of the easier stuff. They’ll do some new work in other schools, that work is probably harder than what they were doing before.

    When I promote someone in my division and give them a bigger team to manager (usually meaning they keep running their old team as well), I don’t give them a pay cut. If you live in a world where you’d give people a pay cut in that situation, then I can see why you vote left wing.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. All_on_Red (1,583 comments) says:

    “It’s not struggling by world standards. We do pretty well for such a small country.”

    Of course Tom doesn’t think poor or brown people count. What a hater

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. RRM (9,924 comments) says:

    Any education system capable of producing Ross69 is well overdue for a rark up. Great news!

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. adze (2,126 comments) says:

    I see Blanket Man of Kiwiblog is back, making weak unfunny jokes and running interference as usual. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Tom doesn’t think poor or brown people count

    Yeah National loves poor and brown people. That’s why National supports the living wage. Oh wait a minute…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    They’ll do the same hours in total, for the kind of people we’re talking about they’ll probably do more hours. They’ll have to delegate some of the work in their normal school, which means they’ll hang on to the hard stuff and delegate some of the easier stuff. They’ll do some new work in other schools, that work is probably harder than what they were doing before.

    That’s a long-winded way of saying they’ll work fewer hours at their own school for the same pay. Normally the Right would be outraged by this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. PaulL (5,986 comments) says:

    Again Ross, you’re an idiot. They’ll work the same or more hours for the government. Their work will be harder. They’ve been selected based on merit. Based on all that they get a pay rise. Which bit of that do you think the right would be up in arms about? Is it hard debating with a straw man?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. PaulL (5,986 comments) says:

    @Ross69:

    Yeah National loves poor and brown people. That’s why National supports the living wage. Oh wait a minute…

    1. National does support poor and brown people. They just have different beliefs than the left on the best way to help them. Demonising your opponents is a sure way to losing, because you’ll continually be surprised when they turn out to be real people with a sensible viewpoint. Kind of like how the left are often surprised at John Key’s popularity, when the caricature of him they’ve constructed in their minds isn’t very likeable at all.

    2. The living wage wouldn’t help poor and brown people, other than perhaps helping them into unemployment. It’s a rather dumb idea, as many have pointed out. You can’t just raise wages by decree, you can only raise them by raising productivity. But I think you know that.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Interestingly, when John Key spoke today to a handful of punters, they had to pay more than $100 each to hear him waffle. When David Cunliffe, the next Prime Minister, speaks on Monday, there will be no charge.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    You can’t just raise wages by decree, you can only raise them by raising productivity.

    What a fail! National has just announced that some principals will be paid $40,000 more (isn’t that a decree?) for working exactly the same hours they’re working now. Your logic needs some serious attention.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Than (473 comments) says:

    And yet people find more value listening to John Key.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. nasska (11,534 comments) says:

    ….”When David Cunliffe, the next Prime Minister, speaks on Monday, there will be no charge”….

    He’ll probably end up having to pay the punters to listen to him! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. PaulL (5,986 comments) says:

    @Ross:

    So David Cunliffe has never held a fund raising dinner. And John Key has never spoken to an audience for free. OK.

    And you’re measuring contribution by hours. So you’re saying that if I work 65 hours a week and get paid $200K, and a cleaner works 65 hours per week and gets paid $60K, then I’m overpaid. Because our productivity is the same. I suspect that is what you actually believe based on your comments in the past, but let me point out to you that these principals will have to do some new things – remember, the bit where they coach other principals. Is it just slightly possible that would be something that would result in higher productivity?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. OneTrack (3,109 comments) says:

    “He’ll probably end up having to pay the punters to listen to him! ”

    He’ll just bus in some union flunkies to get the numbers up and clap at the right time. Probably teachers – they aren’t doing anything at the moment.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. srylands (410 comments) says:

    “What a fail! National has just announced that some principals will be paid $40,000 more (isn’t that a decree?) for working exactly the same hours they’re working now. Your logic needs some serious attention.”

    Ross, have you ever been employed? Do you think their performance will be measured by the number of hours they work?

    Stop acting like the village idiot.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. OneTrack (3,109 comments) says:

    ross69 – “If the status of the profession has declined, it’s largely because Hekia has not supported teachers.”

    If the status of the profession has declined, it’s largely because the teachers union has shown they are more interested in looking after their own idealogical interests and fighting some sort of political battle for the Labour Party, than they are in the educational performance of their students.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    The living wage wouldn’t help poor and brown people

    Higher incomes are associated with higher educational achievement. A living wage would undoubtedly see an improvement in educational achievement for poor and brown people, the very people who National apparently cares so much about.

    http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/dps/pdfs/dp130505.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Do you think their performance will be measured by the number of hours they work?Do you think their performance will be measured by the number of hours they work?

    Irrespective of how their performance is measured or whether they succeed or fail, they will be paid an additional $40,000 per year.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. OneTrack (3,109 comments) says:

    ross69 – “A living wage would undoubtedly see an improvement in educational achievement for poor and brown people,”

    Any evidence for that assertion? In the real world, you make the educational avhievement and that leads to the financial (and other) rewards.

    Unless its something along the lines of, you get awarded the reverends wage (even if you are a 16 year old school leaver), the employer can’t afford to keep you, so you get the sack, and the only way you can get another job is to get some qualifications. I see it now – the lliving wage is a masterful plan to increase the number of kiwis with qualifications. Why did I doubt them?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. All_on_Red (1,583 comments) says:

    “Higher incomes are associated with higher educational achievement.”

    Used to be. Not so true now. Don’t believe me? Check out the numbers of all the graduates in the US who can’t get jobs or if they do get pay fuck all. And they are still stuck with the debt.
    The higher education bubble is a major problem.
    Poking borax at Tom aside he does make some good points about the inadequacy of our own graduates which isn’t confined just to NZ

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. PaulL (5,986 comments) says:

    Ah. That explains it. Ross69 is paid to disrupt Kiwiblog, and he’s paid by the comment. No measure of quality of the comments, therefore he’s responding to the incentive given. It all makes sense now.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. nasska (11,534 comments) says:

    Alas in this case it’s true PaulL…..pay peanuts & you get monkeys. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Keeping Stock (10,342 comments) says:

    @ ross69 – have you actually read what these new roles are all about? Here; I’ve even highlighted some bits to correct your misunderstandings:

    The new roles are:

    Executive Principal – These will be highly-capable principals from across the country, with a proven track record, who will provide leadership across a community of schools while remaining in their own school. Each will work with around 10 schools, on average, from primary through to secondary, and support and mentor the other principals in these schools. This role will be offered on a two-year fixed-term basis and be linked to specific objectives for student achievement across the community of schools. Executive Principals will be freed up for two days a week to work with the other schools in their community. They will be paid an additional allowance of $40,000 a year in recognition of their new responsibilities. Their own school will also receive funding to backfill their role for the two days a week they are working with the other schools in their community. It is anticipated there will be around 250 of these roles when the rollout is completed.

    Expert Teacher – These will work with Executive Principals, and will include experts in areas like maths and science, digital technology and literacy. They will work inside classrooms, including in other schools within their community of schools, with teachers to help lift teaching practice and improve student achievement. This role will be offered on a two-year fixed-term basis and be linked to specific objectives for student achievement. They will receive an additional allowance of $20,000 a year in recognition of their new responsibilities. Their own school will also receive funding to backfill their role for the two days a week they are working with the other schools in their community. There are likely to be around 1,000 Expert Teachers when the initiative is fully in place.

    Lead Teacher – These will be highly capable school teachers, with a proven track record, who will act as a role model for teachers within their own schools and the other schools in their community of schools. Their classroom will be open for other teachers, including beginning teacher, to observe and learn from their practice. They will be paid an additional allowance of $10,000 a year in recognition of their status and new responsibilities. It is anticipated there will be around 5,000 Lead Teachers when this initiative is fully implemented.

    Change Principal – These will be employed to lift achievement in schools that are really struggling. Many schools that are performing poorly want to recruit an outstanding principal to turn their results around. Principals appointed to these roles will be paid an additional allowance of $50,000 a year on top of the salary the recipient school offers. This will encourage great principals to select schools based on the size of the challenge rather than the size of the school. The roles will be fixed term (3-5 years) and will be particularly focused on lifting student achievement. It is anticipated about 20 of these roles will be needed each year.

    “The profession has been telling me career pathways for school teachers and principals, and opportunities to learn from each other, are important. This has been echoed by OECD evidence and is further supported by what our own education leaders saw during a recent visit to Asia.

    http://beehive.govt.nz/release/359m-teaching-amp-leadership-career-pathways

    You see Ross, there’ll be a thing here called ACCOUNTABILITY. I realise that it’s probably an alien concept to you, but those of us who work in senior jobs or own our own businesses can tell you that it’s really good. If Executive Principals and Expert Teachers don’t do the work that they sign up to do, they won’t get paid. I’m sure you’d agree that’s a pretty fair deal :D

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    @KS,

    Accountability to those on the Left is proficiency at arithmetic.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. cha (4,027 comments) says:

    there’ll be a thing here called ACCOUNTABILITY.

    So these extra special chalkies will be paid after they meet their objectives?.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    All_on_Red, those with degrees are better off.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-20958928

    But a wider perspective puts that into context.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20154358

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    I think the term executive principal is a mistake, it is misleading as to the nature of the role.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    maybe mentoring or supervising principal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Dave Mann (1,222 comments) says:

    This is fucking bullshit. Educational standards WON”T IMPROVE ONE IOTA. The ‘system’ will simply adjust to fake the figures….. (NCEA what a sick joke)… certain people with knowledge of how to manipulate the system will rake in bucketloads of taxpayer money and shitloads of kids will continue to leave school functionally illiterate.

    This whole ‘announcement’ is full of crap. This prick John Key and his party are simply trying (again) to buy votes from the gullible electorate. Will we fall for it? Yes, probably. Assholes

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. SPC (5,619 comments) says:

    Globally its more clear that an education has good advantages, but it depends on supply and market demand – some markets such as Korea has so many there is a surplus and thus not all get a return. And in others demand falls off in recession and some graduates do not get placed and so have to compete with a new generation coming through by the time demand improves.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25854214

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. noskire (842 comments) says:

    At first glance it would appear to be brilliant for three reasons:

    1; A quite sensible initiative that all interested parties seem to buy in to.

    2; National may have effectively euthanised a sizeable Labour union bloc.

    3; Will appeal to a big chunk of swinging voters, i.e. middle-class women with children.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Colville (2,269 comments) says:

    noskire.
    I agree.
    You will never lose votes throwing money at teachers police or nurses.

    That said, I love this concept.
    Dave Mann @ 8.26 lets see shall we, in a few years time.

    To me, the idea of a effective teacher who is paid more to show other teachers how to be effective is a great idea.

    As a Tradesman/Owner, this is what I did for 20 years, teach others how to do it better and at times take it on the chin and listen when someone had a good new idea. Always loved Tradies coming in from other countries, new better ways to skin the same cat.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. noskire (842 comments) says:

    What concerns me Colville is that each yearly intake of wannabe-teachers are being indoctrinated with PC/Treaty bullshit.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Colville (2,269 comments) says:

    noskire.
    One issue at a time.
    Kneecap a Union today, fight the Treaty fight tomorro.

    and the treaty fight isnt one for an election year. MSM will rant and rave and lie for all they are worth.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    SPC,

    The Greens stand alone against these proposals. They have successfully marginalised themselves.

    And your previous comment is tantamount to claiming that education should be rationed. That a nation can have too many of its people educated.

    Good luck with that messaging – it will see you and the Greens simply divorce yourselves completely from the reality and relevancy of the voting public.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    “……There are kids graduating from university right now who are unable to read books, cannot write or reason, and cannot express themselves in standard English. The university administrators won’t let them be failed for fear of losing funding. That’s not including the foreign students who are getting NZ university credits over the internet who cannot even speak or write in English………….”

    The Aust uni’s are doing the same, they’re cutting maths departments from most universities and then getting finance, statistics and science lecturers instead of maths lecturers to explain the ‘equations’ of the maths needed for particular degrees – instead of the theory that underpins the equations!

    They do this because it is cheaper than funding an entire maths department, and also because the students have less chance of failing courses if they only need to know the equations and not the underlying theory. The university then maintains it’s funding because of ‘high success rates'; Most people who currently take ‘social studies’ based degrees which have statistics as a componant would fail if they needed to know the underlying mathmatical theory is one excuse that the universities are giving.

    However most students who finish their finance degrees ect only end up knowing the calculations and then become limited in the workforce. The finance industry and science based industries along with the maths depts have demanded a change that will see maths lecturers return to teaching the theory of maths in the likes of science and finance degrees.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    loving the resident lefty trolls on here. ive never seen such smackdowns for these morons

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Keeping Stock (10,342 comments) says:

    Do you want a REAL chuckle Dime? Someone reading my post on Labour’s tax u-turn saw your tweet to Cunliffe (which I had posted) about punishing productive people, and thought you were a leftie:

    Anonymous said…

    The reply by “Dime” shows that the average lefty is dumber than a sack of hammers, and driven by the politics of envy.

    “Punished”…….for what? Working hard?

    I put them right for you :P

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    Interestingly, when John Key spoke today to a handful of punters, they had to pay more than $100 each to hear him waffle. When David Cunliffe, the next Prime Minister, speaks on Monday, there will be no charge.

    That’s supply and demand for you, in fact I think Cunners has to pay people to listen to him.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    KS – struth!

    i need to take deep breathes before tweeting.. sometimes the hate just flows through me lol

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. deadrightkev (469 comments) says:

    I do not think this scheme will help one bit because it is not changing the system. It is the education system that is at fault in NZ.

    It is a very expensive socialist education regime, just more of what we have come to expect from Labour and National. It sounds great if you are skin deep and think more dollars is the answer, but for hundreds of millions of dollars lost very little will be gained.

    It would have been far better to announce open slather private versus public education then let the results speak for themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Colville (2,269 comments) says:

    And your previous comment is tantamount to claiming that education should be rationed. That a nation can have too many of its people educated.

    Education should be rationed, its stupid to spend tax money educating people in degrees that will never be used.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Rightandleft (663 comments) says:

    Even in the US with their very expensive private unis it has been worked out that if you earn $1.25 an hour more than you would have without your degree over the course of your working life, it was worth it. Now one issue in NZ is that we have one of the smallest gaps between wages for those with and without degrees.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    deadrightkev,

    Performance pay with accountability and with both eligibility and assessment via an independent group is not solialism – it is applying some real world, private sector management and incentives to an area of importance to the country’s future.

    This is no less an investment than the govt’s welfare measures such as providing mentoring and training/education opportunities to young beneficiaries – definitely a ‘hand up’ to better outcomes rather than a ‘hand out’ to no purpose and result

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    You know what I am looking forward too?

    The Executive Principals mentoring other principals about how to identify, marginalise, and eventually get rid of really crap teachers.

    How hard is it for lefties to grasp this concept? Pay the good ones more to help improve the bad ones.

    Is it the concept of a temporary promotion that is beyond them? Or that the temporary promotion would be based on competence? Or something more fundamental like the idea that some people may be better at their jobs than others?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. deadrightkev (469 comments) says:

    bhudson

    It is still state control of education and the degree of improvement by simply throwing more money at the problem is very moot indeed.

    I am sure the NZEI and PPTA will be overjoyed. Talk about an own goal. I would love to hear what act and the CP think of this as the solution to education advancement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Kimble (4,440 comments) says:

    deadrightkev, stop living in a fantasy world.

    Your ideal will NEVER be realised EVER. It is childish to whine about it. Stop deluding yourself, and celebrate any step towards the middle. Because that is all you will ever get. EVER.

    Any world where your ideal IS implemented will be horrible, not because of your ideals but because to get them implemented would mean getting everyone “in line”.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. timmydevo (53 comments) says:

    The only reason I am part of the union is for insurance should I be falsely accursed of something (which, as a male, ou guess what that could be). Otherwise my $500/year membership for whinging and little else would look better in my pocket. Good intiative by National.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    ross69 – have you actually read what these new roles are all about?

    Yes I have. Executive Principals will be paid an additional $40K per year…whether they succeed or fail. So much for the Right demanding accountability and performance! Educational achievement could decline but these principals will still pocket an extra 40K.

    Second, Executive Principals will be working fewer hours at their current school yet will be paid the same. That would normally provoke outrage from the Right and would do so if uttered by Labour. But since it’s come from John Key, all is forgiven. Weird.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Then of course there is the issue of household income which is vitally important when looking at educational achievement. A living wage would undoubtedly lead to greater educational achievement. I await to here John Key talk about introducing a living wage. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. OneTrack (3,109 comments) says:

    “Otherwise my $500/year membership for”

    Fark. What they doing with those “super profits? That isn’t fair and we need ComCom to investigate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Pete George (23,577 comments) says:

    Executive Principals will be paid an additional $40K per year…whether they succeed or fail.

    I haven’t seen that announced. I thought they would be paid more because they would do more, they had been very successful at one school so that success was worth promoting to other schools.

    Executive Principals will be working fewer hours at their current school yet will be paid the same.

    You’re contradicting your first point. They will be paid more for continuing what they do in less hours in their current school and in addition working elsewhere as well. Increased workload and increased responsibilities. That sounds like it’s worth more pay.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. deadrightkev (469 comments) says:

    Kimble

    You may be right but I see no reason to vote National. I have never voted National, nor have I voted Labour for many a year. I will keep deluding myself and one day we will crawl out of mediocrity through real vision and leadership.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote