Public Address | System (Home)

Posted at 10:21AM on 8 Feb 10. Permalink.

Oh, and for an alternative view of the same story -- the Kiwiblog thread.

Posted at 10:36AM on 8 Feb 10. Permalink.

It's seems to me that the NZEI would be remiss if it was not, on behalf its teacher members, raising this new commitment as an issue.

I can't really argue with that, but for future reference could the NZEI please stop using children as campaign props in their media 'roadshow"? (Now, I'm sure someone is going to pop up and say "well, you would say that, wouldn't you?" Yes I would, and I'd be saying the same thing if Tolley and Key did a stage-managed press conference in the Beehive theatrette surrounded by kids.)

Posted at 10:45AM on 8 Feb 10. Permalink.

It's simple really. T'Erald has been sitting on this headline and wants to use it "Tolly's Folly" It just has such a good ring to it, like a cash register.

Posted at 10:48AM on 8 Feb 10. Permalink.

I've been looking back through newspaper archives from the late 90s, early 00s; the difference in quality between the Herald today and the Herald of old is pretty stark. It really was a very good newspaper only a few short years ago.

The editorials were the real shock: still conservative, but also informed and thought provoking. 'How interesting,' I thought, reading their critique of the new Labour governments charter for TVNZ in early 2000. 'How articulate and (in hidsight) how wise.'
My standard response to their editorials nowadays (I only read them when you or DPF link to them) is to wonder at where they found a clueless-enough half-wit to churn out such a high volume of drivel.

Garth George was back there then, grumbling about doctors who want to stop him smoking in enclosed public spaces (just like the nazis) and the unfitness of woman for political leadership, bless his little heart.

Posted at 10:50AM on 8 Feb 10. Permalink.

Ah, good. Audrey Young seems to get it. Or, at least, can be bothered to do more than just interview herself:

4. Here to help

Professor John Hattie told Andrew Laxon in the Weekend Herald he wants to help design league tables around national testing that will satisfy everyone. I trust he includes the the Newspaper Publishers Associaiton in that as well. I've been looking at the Aussie league tables that have got the teachers over there in a lather. And their tables are based on national testing, not just national standards.

Have a look here. Scroll down a little and you can see the colour coding for this example in Sydney. (I have a couple of little relatives there). The comparisons are with similar schools (SIM), essentially schools in the same decile, rather than all other schools. The Sydney Morning Herald has compiled their own league tbales from the public data available - which is against the law. Key said two weeks ago he would not stop New Zealand media compiling league tables. Last week he was not resolute and just said it wasn't a problem he needed to face yet.

It will happen here.

Posted at 10:59AM on 8 Feb 10. Permalink.

It really was a very good newspaper only a few short years ago.

I actually used to proudly show it overseas to contrast with the festering pile of poo that was the British situation.

But not any more.

Posted at 11:02AM on 8 Feb 10. Permalink.

And, re: standards.

Putting my personal, selfish hat on... I don't care. Having had an early association with the education "process", I know what to do that will generate the biggest advantage for my child - I will pay attention and stay personally involved.

But that doesn't help everyone else. Surely these people can look at the US, British and French systems and see what happens (not to the rich, but to everyone else...)?

Posted at 11:04AM on 8 Feb 10. Permalink.

Wild applause from the cheap seats. Thank you Russell.

Posted at 11:05AM on 8 Feb 10. Permalink.

Just want to say what a fantastic entry today, Russell. Really good, interesting read.

Posted at 11:11AM on 8 Feb 10. Permalink.

A majority of readers - 56.3 per cent - believed the system would create "league tables"...

We can fairly say that at least 56.3% of Herald readers surveyed do not have a clue what they're on about. Nowhere in the government information about standards does it say that the system will "create league tables". Indeed, the people tasked with making it work are desperate that it not do so.

It will happen here.

With respect, these statements seem at odds. Could you clarify?

Posted at 11:11AM on 8 Feb 10. Permalink.

Agree, great article, thanks Mr Brown.

Oh, and for an alternative view of the same story -- the Kiwiblog thread.

Nice to see you raising the tone of the KB comments thread too!

Posted at 11:17AM on 8 Feb 10. Permalink.

So far it is difficult to work out whether this is supposed to highlight the failings in the system, or address them. Well, actually not so difficult at all. Withdraw individualised teaching support for known areas of critical need, and increase the bureaucracy. Great idea, why didn't someone think of this before?

Thought Finlay MacDonald in the Sunday Star last November was good on this point.

Obviously our school system could do better. But Tolley's updated version of the Victorian schoolroom, where children have it drummed into them as early as possible that they're either successes or failures, is recklessly retrograde.

Posted at 11:19AM on 8 Feb 10. Permalink.

I have some questions I really would like someone to answer on this.

Why, if we are to have National Standards, can't we use the existing "national" standards of PAT tests, running records, 6-year-net, that all schools are already required to perform on all children?

Why are the rankings Above, At, Below and Well Below? Why isn't there a Well Above, when there's also a current requirement for schools to identify their gifted and talented children and put in place plans to cater for their needs in the same way as they would cater for someone's needs who was Well Below?

Why do we need National Standards when apparently Ms Tolley already knows exactly how many children are being failed by the education system?

And, as Russell already alluded to, when we have identified all these children who are Below or Well Below, what happens then? All teh talk so far has been about identification, there has been no mention of assistance to schools to raise their scores, no mention of increased funding to bring all children up to the required level, no mention of any extra money in the education system at all apart from the funding already announced to "support and publicise".

And can someone please PLEASE tell everyone involved to stop talking about "kids"? They're children for goodness' sake..... (sorry, pet peeve, ranking alongside all references to New Zealanders as Kiwis, I'll shut up now....)

Posted at 11:22AM on 8 Feb 10. Permalink.

A link to the Australian website just launched that Audrey Young was referring to:

My School

Posted at 11:23AM on 8 Feb 10. Permalink.

A really good post, Russell. It seems peculiar that people want objective measuring, yet when it can be shown objectively that such measuring does not work, those people will stick to their dogma. Much the same has happened in the MMR 'debate' and other challenges to science: feelings trump facts.

Posted at 11:31AM on 8 Feb 10. Permalink.

Thank you Russell. (I work for NZEI so will resist the urge to comment further!)

Posted at 11:35AM on 8 Feb 10. Permalink.

Ms Tolley's hope reminds me of Garrison Keillor's Lake Wobegon, where "all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average."

And if teachers are going to be sacked for not getting all children to be above average, then how will principals get anyone to teach Year 6Z? The kids with no support from home will take the teacher down with them...

Posted at 11:47AM on 8 Feb 10. Permalink.

When Feelings Trump Facts: A new reality TV show from Fox...

Posted at 11:53AM on 8 Feb 10. Permalink.

1) The education system in New Zealand needs to improve.

Not because it isn't already a very good system that produces a well educated population, but because it will always be able to do better. That is the nature of education, we are constantly learning new ways to teach and train our children and those methods will improve the system. And we need to teach new skills and behaviours as society changes.

2) In order to know you have improved the system you need to be able to measure the performance of the education system.

Simply put if you make a change then you need to have some way to measure if the change improved the system.

The whole thing falls apart at this point because defining what is "good performance" is a moving target based on changes in culture and society. Even worse the actual methods to measure performance are pretty much constantly in flux. Not because educators are whimsical fools who can't settle on a measurement system - but instead because they are actually knowledgeable and skilled in their profession and realise that no measurement tool is perfect and hence are constantly trying to improve the measurement tools.

So yes you need some kind of standard to measure performance and no it won't work properly and yes you have to keep trying.

And most importantly if all you want to read is the executive summary then you aren't competent to make any decisions.

What most folks haven't really adapted to yet is the idea that education is a real science in the same way physics and medicine are sciences. Because we all play a part in education of ourselves and our children we assume we are as knowledgeable as the experts. An assumption that is patently false.

It is entirely possible for a parent to become sufficiently skilled to do a better job of educating their child than your average teacher, especially if that child is not average themselves. But that doesn't mean the parent is skilled at building an education system that can improve the skills knowledge and enjoyment of life of the population of children. That requires a whole other level of skill that takes years of training and experience.

That also means that your average person is about as competent to judge the "education system" as they are to judge the methods used to improve soil sustainability in Iowa.

It would be nice if some enterprising journalist took the time and effort to try and bridge that knowledge gap. It is after all something of quite significant interest to most folks.

Posted at 11:58AM on 8 Feb 10. Permalink.

There's a very succinct solution to league tables. Require all schools, public and private, to reflect the demographic makeup of the nation.

Small problem - I can easily visualise the headmasters of Grammar or Kings obstructing the entrance to kids of Mangere & Otara who they haven't cherry-picked.

Posted at 12:00PM on 8 Feb 10. Permalink.

There's a very succinct solution to league tables. Require all schools, public and private, to reflect the demographic makeup of the nation.

100% agree, along with banning private schools.

Posted at 12:04PM on 8 Feb 10. Permalink.

I can't really argue with that, but for future reference could the NZEI please stop using children as campaign props in their media 'roadshow"?

Okay, but only as long as any time Tolley or Key says "Parents want" (parents tell us, parents think, etc) a pixie comes and kicks them in the bottom.

All teh talk so far has been about identification, there has been no mention of assistance to schools to raise their scores, no mention of increased funding to bring all children up to the required level, no mention of any extra money in the education system at all apart from the funding already announced to "support and publicise".

This. This this this. I could bore you all with a long, hateful rant about the way my daughter - clearly already identified as being 'in need' - started high school last week with no assistance from the MoE at all, despite being promised both a facilitator and an itinerant, but you don't want to hear it, and I don't want the headache from crying again.

Posted at 12:10PM on 8 Feb 10. Permalink.

What most folks haven't really adapted to yet is the idea that education is a real science in the same way physics and medicine are sciences.

Of course it could be that they haven't adapted to it because it's not true.

Posted at 12:12PM on 8 Feb 10. Permalink.

I could bore you all with a long, hateful rant about the way my daughter - clearly already identified as being 'in need' - started high school last week with no assistance from the MoE at all, despite being promised both a facilitator and an itinerant, but you don't want to hear it, and I don't want the headache from crying again.

That would be because having a need is not the same thing as having a right. We must move from a needs based system to a rights based system as soon as humanly possible.

Posted at 12:14PM on 8 Feb 10. Permalink.

The whole thing falls apart at this point because defining what is "good performance" is a moving target based on changes in culture and society.

And because any system based on getting children to achieve at or above an average means, by definition, that half should be achieving below it - or it's not an average. How that is dealt with is the important question, but it's always such a "you keep using that word...." moment.

(Word to the rest of your post, too.)

Posted at 12:15PM on 8 Feb 10. Permalink.

Arts and Letters had a link to an The Atlantic article on "Teachers". Here

It seems it has been picked up Here and Here

I thought I had read another article that referenced the Atlantic article as well over the weekend in the Dom or Sunday Times but I can't find it .

The Sunday Times has a column asking suitably "in the news" people about their life and who was the teacher that influenced their education, what would they change etc. It is fascinating that rarely does one see more than one or two teachers mentioned.

Maybe it does appear these teachers are hard to come by.

We have all been through the Ed ringer and some have seen their kids...er..children come through. In both cases we no doubt have seen the best and worst of the teachers let loose on our children. I suspect those whose parents took an interest seemed to come out better though.

But one suspects we might be doing the education thing all wrong. The only place in history where civilisations gathered their young in such multitudes in one place was usually on the battlefield. Entrenched with their masters belief in what is right, hiding behind and dying to protect their flag and indoctrinated with comformality.

That sounds so familiar.......

Make teaching worthwhile.
Make it worthwhile to teach.
Make it a respectable profession again.
Shrink the school/class size. Please!

Posted at 12:19PM on 8 Feb 10. Permalink.

There's another rather good post on the standards issue today at the new Education Directions blog:
http://www.ed.co.nz/2010/02/08/national-standards-not-a-bad-idea/

Posted at 12:20PM on 8 Feb 10. Permalink.

Okay, but only as long as any time Tolley or Key says "Parents want" (parents tell us, parents think, etc) a pixie comes and kicks them in the bottom.

I like this system.

Posted at 12:21PM on 8 Feb 10. Permalink.

As an "involved" parent - i.e. I go to the parent-teacher evenings, go on school trips, check the homework, monitor the results, help set goals for the children, etc. - I honestly couldn't want for much more information than the schools give us here in Warkworth. There are reports home, parent-teacher interviews, website information, meetings to set out what NCEA means and how children can get the most out of it, and on and on. I can e-mail any of the teachers any time and they get back to me. They are even pro-active about identifying how our children are going at school. All the information is there if you want it from well-trained professionals. There will always be teachers who are better than other teachers but that is reality. The days of the truly awful teachers who I can remember from my secondary school days, I think, are over. They don't survive the new system.
The Herald headline should have been "88% of parents don't even understand this new system!" That colours every other question they ask.

Posted at 12:23PM on 8 Feb 10. Permalink.

... because it's not true.

Huh? Care to explain Gio? There is a lot of scientific research on education and some quite lengthy degree courses in education. So I'm guessing you have a problem with defining education as a science?