Metiria on education
This is Metiria speaking to primary and early childhood teachers and school support staff at the New Zealand Educational Institute on her a Green vision for education in schools:
Bookmark to:
32 Responses to “Metiria on education”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
October 2nd, 2008 at 9:52 am
Why is public childcare provision “of higher quality” than private? Sounds like ideology to me.
Public funds should go where they get the most bang for their buck. If some operators can’t compete, then that’s their problem. THEY need to lift their game, or go do something else.
October 2nd, 2008 at 9:53 am
More uncosted socialist rubbish.
When are you chaps going to tell us how you intend to fund all this state interference?
Why should I pay for hearing and eyesight tests when the parents of these kids have not previously bothered?
October 2nd, 2008 at 10:14 am
BB
There are three choices.
Assuming the parents of a child cannot afford tests.
1, The child goes to school with undiagnosed and untreated disadvantages.
2. The state gives the parents the money, which they MIGHT spend on the tests for the child.
3. The state pays for the tests,
Now, in this scenario, we have just provided an advantage over the parents who might actually be able to afford the tests. Is THAT fair?
The only alternative that allows your view to succeed is the first one and that is patently not fair TO THE CHILD and also it leads to problems for the school.
So what would your plan be if I haven’t covered it??
respectfully
BJ
October 2nd, 2008 at 10:17 am
BP
Quality of a private institution is maintained by excluding people. This has been the outcome everywhere. Privatization was tried here and it did not work. It does not improve the quality of the overall educational outcome for the country.
respectfully
BJ
October 2nd, 2008 at 10:30 am
BJ
First of all the STATE does not pay for anything, the tax payer does.
The parents of these children will have access to free or highly subsidised health care, there is NO excuse for these conditions to go undiagnosed.
Indeed any child who makes it to school age with either of these conditions should be placed in the care of the relevant agencies as the parents are obviously not providing the care it needs.
As for the question of what is fair, is it fair that I am consistently being asked (forced) to pay for the upkeep and welfare of other people’s kids when their parents refuse to work or spend the dole on booze and drugs?
October 2nd, 2008 at 10:31 am
part of Green’s transport policy:
Everyone will be able to travel off peak on public transport for $1, anywhere within the urban limits of any city for a 2 hour period.
We do not believe this will end up costing more, as the services have to run anyway and some passengers may move from peak time where they can.
Sounds costed to me.
October 2nd, 2008 at 10:40 am
Then put some metrics in place so it does. Public/private is simply a matter of funding, not standards.
October 2nd, 2008 at 10:41 am
>>Sounds costed to me.
No it isn’t.
What if it costs $4 per head to run that service? Who makes up the difference?
October 2nd, 2008 at 10:43 am
Can anybody please tell me why the teachers union is so set against performance pay?
Might this be the reason the very best teachers seem to be leaving the profession?
October 2nd, 2008 at 10:48 am
BB
How are you going to find out that the child never got tested by the parents if you don’t test in the schools in the first place? Lets get the cart and the horse in the right order. You want to discuss penalties, its a separate issue. Personally I think you have a point about that. Depends on medical accessibility.
Don’t pick nits… It is not you the individual who pays for the child of Joe Bogs of East WhereInTheHellisThat … it is proximately “The State” and the decision to do it isn’t yours, it is the collective decision of the government, “The State”. We pay taxes and we vote and that’s how this system makes those decisions and pays for them. You know it, I know it, and you know I know it. I know where the money comes from.
Once again, the point here is that if you give the parents actual money it will be spent based on their decisions, not on what we intend it to be spent on.
The school is the point of entry into the society where the condition of the child can first be evaluated.
It is wrong to expect that this can be or should be evaluated on-the-fly by the teachers.
It is wrong to expect to give the parents money and have it spent as you intend.
It is vastly more expensive to set up an independent follow up plan for birthing mothers to try to catch these things before the child enters the school system.
… and it is wrong to penalize the child for the failures of the parents.
That constant whinge of yours, that the parents refuse to work and spend the dole on booze and drugs is getting answered by this policy and you are still whining ???
respectfully
BJ
October 2nd, 2008 at 10:57 am
BP
The problem is that an “off-peak” rail service isn’t subject to a simple “per-head” evaluation. The rail cars run even if empty. The equipment has to be in place to handle the next rush.
There IS a cost. The cost delta of the few riders who are currently paying a reduced fare (off-peak IS already less anyway and does not make money) vs the likely larger number of riders at the $1 fair combined with the unknown amount of time shifting that will be done by those who can do it, to avoid the full fare periods. That reduces crowding and the need for extra trainsets. All in all it is WAY more complex than a simple “per head” evaluation of costs and costing it isn’t really possible without knowing how affected New Zealanders will respond to it. Which nobody on the planet can tell you.
So why ask us for something you couldn’t have from anyone? You like giving us a hard time maybe
Glad to be of service.
respectfully
BJ
October 2nd, 2008 at 11:09 am
>>The rail cars run even if empty
They should be cut if empty. Problem solved.
You seem to be suggesting they cannibalize their own profits.
Anyway, why $1? May as well make it “free”. Of course, it won’t be free, or even $1. The cost will be bourne by the taxpayer.
>>All in all it is WAY more complex than a simple “per head” evaluation
Indeed. So why $1 , then? Sounds good for marketing purposes would be my guess.
It would be more honest of the Greens to say we’re going to raise your cost of living and raise your taxes.
Which then raises the thorny issue of a decreasing tax pool…..
October 2nd, 2008 at 11:25 am
I think it is more like the usual request for “a gold coin donation”…
You know as well as I that a completely free service will be abused… somehow. I can’t work out how but I know it will be, just as the tragedy of the commons works against the environment, a free rail arrangement will get some sort of rort worked against it just as free pollution of the atmosphere does.
As for cutting the service off, that gets pretty sucky as the alternatives tend to be more expensive AND worse for the environment. If the trains were completely empty I’d agree with you, but I was using “empty” as a relative concept… even the late trains usually carry more people than can be crammed on a bus. Relatively empty would be more correct.
“Raise your cost of living, raise your taxes, raise your kids education standards, raise your quality of life, lower your risk of sickness…”
The list is a lot longer than just the two you cite BP.
respectfully
BJ
October 2nd, 2008 at 12:13 pm
>>raise your kids education standards, raise your quality of life, lower your risk of sickness
If I believed that were true, I’d support it.
In reality, the state is totally incapable of achieving those ends.
October 2nd, 2008 at 12:15 pm
To riff on a previous post:
Why is private childcare provision necessarily “of higher quality” than public? Sounds like ideology to me.
October 2nd, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Surely the aim is to achieve: affordable, quality childcare. That is the KPI. It shouldn’t matter who supplies it, only that the goal is measured and achieved.
Throw it open to tenders and manage that process. Reward those who meet the targets, and penalise those who do not.
October 2nd, 2008 at 12:30 pm
BP
“The state is totally incapable of achieving those ends” is a statement that defines your ideology.
Doesn’t make it true, any more than the idea that the market is incapable of achieving those ends would be. My opinion is that the best results are achieved by a controlled mix of both and the Scandinavian countries provide the best examples of this. YMMV, but my experience tells me that good public schools are a lot better for a nation than excellent private schools are.
October 2nd, 2008 at 12:32 pm
It is true. Try the fall of Eastern Europe. Been there. Done that. Didn’t work.
October 2nd, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Funny thing about that… taking the worst example of a system doesn’t prove anything at all. Moreover, they’ve already had their “collapse” and lived through it quite handily. We are still waiting to see what happens as the Crony-Phony-Capitalists of the United Socialist States (just for business) of America… cope with their own.
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/23259
Your ideology is still showing.
Growth is NOT the best thing in the world for the world right now.
respectfully
BJ
October 2nd, 2008 at 1:25 pm
And I repeat:
“Surely the aim is to achieve: affordable, quality childcare. That is the KPI. It shouldn’t matter who supplies it, only that the goal is measured and achieved.
Throw it open to tender and manage that process. Reward those who meet the targets, and penalise those who do not. If a public provider can compete in such an environment, then fine. If they can’t, tough.”
October 2nd, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Ah.. so we want to argue about Child Care. Specifically… and I would imagine that your plan involves vouchers (so that the parent can’t spend it on liquor). The problem with it will be the same as it always is however. The best schools will have to choose who can go, the rest will be also-rans and the ability to raise any of them except the worst failures, up to an acceptable standard will be abandoned. Some children and their families will simply not be served at all, others will have a surplus and the opportunity for surreptitious financial transactions to secure places in the better schools will be rife.
I actually do not care who provides it. I am however, pointing out that the market hits limitations when it regards a public service like schools and/or hospitals.
respectfully
BJ
October 2nd, 2008 at 1:56 pm
The aim is for all to meet the baseline. Those who don’t achieve the baselines are fired. Basic management.
The best schools should charge more. They are, after all, better schools.
October 2nd, 2008 at 2:34 pm
I think the problem that Greens have with vouchers are more focused on the equal opportunity aspects that “barely meeting the baseline” vs “best school in the country” entail. This is a microcosm of the problem with large GINI spreads. Setting the baseline high enough and providing money enough to meet it, would not I think, be a solution that lasts very long.
There is a philosophical divide here that I don’t think we’re going to bridge easily.
respectfully
BJ
October 2nd, 2008 at 2:37 pm
I guess it’s because there is no such thing is equal opportunity. Their underlying assumptions are wrong, which is why their solutions don’t work.
So long as we get every kid in the ballpark, we’re good. We also need to push our elite to excel.
That is how we survive….
October 2nd, 2008 at 2:52 pm
The problem is that we Greens take equal opportunity as a policy goal. It isn’t an implementation, and it is recognized as being not entirely achievable, but we know that if you do not really WORK at making the field level it very quickly gets vertical.
Agree that we have to push our “elite”… they aren’t necessarily the children of the wealthy. I am not disagreeing that there is a point to rewarding the best teachers … but rewarding the best schools ?
respectfully
BJ
October 2nd, 2008 at 2:58 pm
I’d rather be a poor child at a baseline school with involved parents (which I was, actually) than a rich kid at a great school with parents who didn’t give a toss.
Level playing field is a nice idea, but there is no such thing. Forget equality and focus instead on deliverables. Direct all your efforts into the achievable. Hit the baselines.
October 2nd, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Like I said, there’s a bit of a division. I would not consider letting one school stay stuck “at baseline” and then putting effort into raising a better school even higher, to be the policy that gets my society the best outcome.
I do agree with paying better teachers more on an individual basis, but support of the schools themselves (outside of teacher compensation) is a bit more problematical for me.
respectfully
BJ
October 2nd, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Perhaps paying teachers on a percentage improvement basis. So, if a teacher goes into a baseline school, and raises performance by x percent above the norm, they get bonuses.
Might incentivise good teachers to go to the schools that would benefit the most from their skills, rather than the schools that already have high achievement.
I can see problems with that too, but the devil is in the details, i guess…
October 2nd, 2008 at 7:55 pm
BluePeter Says:
October 2nd, 2008 at 2:37 pm
> So long as we get every kid in the ballpark, we’re good. We also need to push our elite to excel.
Neither of which will happen if they have undiagnosed eyesight or hearing problems.
October 4th, 2008 at 5:19 am
Generally, BP, it is common courtesy when debating serious issues to actually provide evidence, theory, or at least anecdotes contradicting your opponent before declaring their argument dismissed.
You don’t get to declare something ideology before you prevent some sort of contradictory evidence to the debate.
Or did they not offer debating in your private school?
(I’m kidding of course, I know it’s far more likely that private schools DO offer debating, and that I don’t know that you went to one, but come on BP, be fair now)
The taxpayer is the most fundamental part of the state. Nothing can be done without the hard work that generates real wealth, both social and economic. The machinery of the state squirrels away a small amount of what it deems excess to pay for stuff like making sure our kids aren’t driving teachers insane with their inner ear problems.
By which I end up reading “their underlying assumptions run counter to the current situation on the ground, therefore I assume they are being idealistic and cannot achieve their goals”.
Really now, I don’t think we’re arguing for anything more than strong minimum standards that are met with actual assessment of those standards, rather than private-sector market forces that do not work for a good that thrives in the public sector like education.
October 5th, 2008 at 9:21 am
How appropriate; a former candidate for the Aotearoa Legalise Cannibis Party discussing Communism in schools as it would apply under Green Party rule.
Thank god you’ll never get more than single-digit percentage voting for you.
October 5th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
big bro asks
“why the teachers union is so set against performance pay?
Might this be the reason the very best teachers seem to be leaving the profession?”
I have been a teacher amongst many other jobs and I have never been a member of a Teachers’ Union.
The problem is who decides what is a good performance as a teacher. It is not as simple as many people think.
Take exam results as a simple measure.
*First: it the whole ethos of the school that affects performance in exams - see NB
So divisions based on envy and jealously result if individuals are singled out for more pay. I have worked in a factory where the worker on the highest bonus for production left it to others to clean up after him and did no maintenance on equipment. The same thing can happen in schools. It needs to be a team effort.
*Secondly: the socio-economic background of the children affects performance.
If children are absent with illness or other family reasons the teacher can have very little influence on this.
*Finally: By my criteria a really good teacher is one who is remembered for a being role model or a mentor and this can’t be assessed until at least 10 years after their pupils have left school.
NB. I have taught craft at a small private school where the children chose when to attend classes. Many of these children have excelled at their chosen professions and also are living stable fulfilled lives. Is this because of the school structure, the teachers, or the parents? Hard to say isn’t it? I think part of the answer is children learn much better when they are enthusiastic and in control of their learning; in most schools teachers have to contend with unwilling pupils, tired pupils, and those for whom the subject matter is boring at their present stage in life; or even at that time of day.
Taking life success as a measure there is a University of Canterbury longitudinal study which found that, at the age of 25, people from public schools fared best followed by co-ed private schools, with single sex private coming last. This is despite single sex private schools achieving the best exam results.
Perhaps “the very best teachers” have realised they are not achieving any lasting results and go to professions that are more satisfying. Many studies have shown that once a comfortable income level is reached other factors such as job satisfaction become more important than more money, for most people.