Posts by Hilary Stace
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
There's been a bit of discussion around the networks about the current special education review under Heather Roy as Assoc Min of Ed, and that much of it seems quite sensible and uncontroversial. Perhaps it's because she has been advised by an expert panel that has some expertise.
But the question has been; what is her real agenda? Well here it is in this document. Choice for a few, no choice for most. Vouchers, with no assurance they are purchasing quality education in appropriate environments, and transportation and logistical nightmares. Excuses for schools to get rid of the most time consuming and difficult students. It will be the special educational needs kids and those already disengaged from schools who will miss out by being further marginalised - bussed out of sight.
The document praises US charter schools. These have been allowed to pick the kids they want, run the school day as it pleases them, teach whatever curriculum they want (as long as the kids pass the standardised tests), and employ who they want. They are known for employing non-unionised and often untrained staff. So they become specialist environments with little diversity. For this they get tax payer money.
Not a good model for egalitarian NZ with our world class educational system, and the right in the 1989 Education Act for every child to attend their local school from 5 - 19 years..
-
Totally agree Russell.
There is a Special Education Review underway led by Roy. This voucher/even more transport required plan does not appear to be part of that consultation. And how would it fit in with Tolley's standards implementation process? Do all those children who don't meet the standards get pushed out? What if they never meet the standard, so the private company (think shoddy English language type school model) doesn't get paid?
Why don't we just bring back residential institutions and forget about the right to education or humanity for 20% of the population?
-
To determine whether a medicine works, scientists establish a hypothesis, formulate burdens of proof, and subject those burdens to statistical analysis. Over time, a truth emerges. Something is either true or it isn't. And although our instinct is to be open to a wide range of attitudes and beliefs, there comes a time when it becomes clear that certain beliefs just don't hold up. MMR and thimerosal don't cause autism, and secretin, chelation therapy, and Lupron don't cure it.
Offit, Paul A (2008), Autism's false prophets: bad science, risky medicine and the search for a cure, New York, Columbia University Press, p.207
-
Chris - Thanks again for that insight into the Minister's mind. It seems they are using the misleading ERO report as their trump card.
There are some good letters in the latest Listener from educational experts, including one from Ivan Snook deconstructing this report (and another from Gordon D)
I was on school boards for many years during several ERO reviews. In my experience they varied enormously in approach and attitudes over the years. Also depends on the reviewers you get. Very much a big stick approach in the early 90s when schools had to produce large amounts of compliance paperwork. Later, particularly under Karen Sewell, they were more collegial and helpful, making more effort to build a relationship with boards and staff.
But their resources are stretched. Some high decile schools have hired 'critical friends' who acted as PR, carefully managing who and what ERO consulted. One year, as part of many years work on making our school more inclusive, we bravely asked for review in that area (as one of the three? areas schools could choose to have reviewed), and not surprisingly (as inclusion is very hard to do) got a more critical review than another school that had all its kids with special needs in a fenced unit, but hadn't asked for that area to be reviewed.
But ERO are just a bunch of overworked former teachers who undertake the relentless job of reviewing a whole school in 3 or 4 days. What I suspect in this latest ERO report is that the writing was contracted out to someone not familiar with teaching and learning, as the conclusions don't match up with the data.
-
ChrisW, that is a very interesting question. (Sorry, been away for a few hours having a large gauge out of my arm to check a tiny dot melanoma from making any progress, but public health system has worked well for me).
I hope your meeting went well in the terms of providing some answers. The question you asked above is probably a very difficult question to find an answer to, as every self-governed school is bulk funded through its ops grant and Special Education Grant and would arrange extra support for children needing help differently. Remedial reading programmes vary from school to school as do policies for employing teacher aides. Resource Teachers of Learning and Behaviour have replaced the former itinerant teachers and they are organised through school clusters, and rank children requiring support in these clusters by need. Occasionally teachers call in specialist support, such as from GSE or the MoE, or private contractors.
Payment for these would vary from the basic hourly rate of about $14 for a teacher aide to $100s for a specialist.
There is also a standard per student figure for all students that goes to schools, but that varies according on the decile, year level and whether they are in or out of zone (out of zone students bring less money as they are theoretically physically provided for in the in-zone school they should have gone to).
-
ChrisW
Here are some questions I would like to know the answers to from the Minister (sorry about strangled grammar).1. What extra resourcing (money and time) is going into teaching and learning for those children who don't achieve the standard? Is it more than the already announced amount which has been estimated at providing only half a day's specialist teaching in total for each child?
2. The standards rely on children having good written and oral communication skills to show they can achieve the standard. What about those who find writing or speaking difficult (eg ESOL or are nonverbal eg autistic)?
3.Although the Ministry insists these are not formal tests, the National Party (taxpayer funded) leaflets strongly imply they are tests. Tests are the least effective way of assessing what young children know and the testing process itself can make some children extremely anxious and more likely to fail. Are they formal tests or not?
4. Standards are published on the Ministry website. Will it be OK for children to learn what will be tested on by rote?
5. Children often have uneven achievement over curriculum areas. Will children whose strengths are not in the standards tested be penalised such as by having to do extra schoolwork instead of having playtime or sport? What will happen if schools narrow their curriculum focus to standards assessment only?
6. Visual graphs showing failure can be very demotivating. Why are you risking labelling children as failures so early in their school life? Do you honestly think that will inspire them to work harder, or are they more likely to disengage? Are standards therefore risking making the tail bigger and longer?
-
ChrisW, please go, and report back. 'Your child' can be read in the sense that it takes a village to raise one and we are all part of that community.
-
This is why my teacher friend is doing a counselling course this year as she anticipates parental reaction to the standards graph. She's a mother too. Anyone who has been subjected to the Plunket graph judgement knows it is an emotional minefield.
-
Did Bernard Hickey just say on NatRad that Key is 'governing for the old and the rich, not the young and the poor'? Is this the same Bernard Hickey who is right wing economic commentator/Key admirer?
-
Gordon: Up thread somewhere you mentioned the Beeby's contribution to the beginning of the playcentre movement in New Zealand. I talked to Dr Beeby about this in the early 1990s when I was doing a little playcentre history, and he joked that his part was to take in the afternoon tea for his wife Beatrice and her friends who were planning this new idea, in their house in Wadestown.
It was soon after Pearl Harbour and there was a growing realisation that the war could be long and hard and there were many mothers bringing up children unsupported. It was an exciting time for educational theories generally, and they were looking for something that would take the best of child-centred learning through play theories, with good quality toys (such as those very large wooden blocks) as well as providing support and education for parents. From what I know of Montessori here in NZ, parental involvement in the learning environment isn't generally welcomed, and that was a major difference to what evolved with the playcentre movement.