by frog
David Clendon was his usual diplomatic self in his blog last Friday on Steven Joyce replacing Anne Tolley as Tertiary Education Minister:
We heard earlier this week that Steven Joyce is to replace Anne Tolley as Tertiary Education Minister. Leaving any unkind comment on the reasons for Mrs Tolley’s replacement aside for now…
Fran O’Sullivan was far less tactful in the NZ Herald the next day though:
Tolley is clearly out of her depth…
Tolley is such a weak link that it would make sense to dump her from the front row.
Ouch!
There is another interesting aspect to O’Sullivan’s column. She suggests David Farrar’s Curia Market Research polling on behalf of the National Party had some of the characteristics of push-polling:
This week’s poll asked respondents to say which party they associated with particular attributes such as “better at ensuring jobs”, “strong on crime”, “does best for New Zealand in international forums” – and so forth.
What was notable about the highly selective list of attributes is that they appeared designed to push public opinion towards National – not elicit responses which would steer punters towards Labour.
For instance, there was no question seeking respondents to match a political party to the message as when Phil Goff this week set out to associate with Labour: “Looks after the interests of the many – not the few”.
O’Sullivan is in a much better position than me to evaluate the objective of the Curia poll, because she was polled herself so knows the precise questions asked. But she got no response when she asked Farrar about the objective of the poll:
Yesterday I invited David Farrar – who runs Curia – to comment on this week’s poll and what was behind the National motivations. Farrar declined.
Farrar, a prolific blogger on his own Kiwiblog, has been strangely silent on this issue there too, despite O’Sullivan’s challenge.
Push-polling, designed to manipulate public opinion under the guise of being opinion polling, has been condemned by the American Association of Political Consultants. The State of New Hampshire has even made it illegal. Sometime National Party campaign advisor Mark Textor was caught doing it in a 1995 Canberra by-election campaign and successfully sued.
I really hope push-polling doesn’t become part of New Zealand’s political culture.
Published in THE GAME by frog on Tue, February 2nd, 2010
Tags: anne tolley, David Clendon, david farrar, Fran O'Sullivan, Mark Textor, push-polling, steven joyce
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Having worked a summer at Curia, and thus having had a good look at both the questions and the operations, I can report (I think without breaching NDA) that the Curia poll is simply not a push-poll.
Push-polls are advertising-by-phony-survey: questions are typically highly leading (or even misleading)—for instance, “did you know that one of Candidate X’s friends is a convicted paedophile?”—; often, no survey responses are taken down at all—that’s not the point of the operation—; and typically, tens of thousands of people are surveyed.
Curia’s poll has none of these characteristics.
I’d be astonished if push-polling became a part of New Zealand’s political culture: it’s simply too expensive. Really, it’s a ridiculous form of advertising. You need to call lots and lots of people, which means hiring lots and lots of staff (or robopolling, which Curia doesn’t do), and thus spending lots and lots of money.
Calling Curia’s poll a push-poll is very weak indeed.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2 (0)
To be fair to Fran O’Sullivan, BK, she didn’t actually call the Curia poll a push-poll but highlighted certain characteristics of it that are similar to push-polls.
I agree that push-polling is very expensive, and I cannot imagine why anyone would be wanting to run one at this time of an election cycle and/or on a nationwide basis. In a by-election or in a marginal electorate possibly, although I hope never.
I do find it strange that David Farrar refused to comment or refer O’Sullivan to whoever commissioned the Curia poll though.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
I wouldn’t call it push polling so much as market research – finding out which emotional buttons to push when they want to. I read an interesting piece on the BBC this morning about how and why people vote against their own interests, and what was understated was how much this has been manipulated, in particular by firms such as C & T.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8474611.stm
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Agreed on all counts bar one: I’m not at all surprised that DPF didn’t comment, as he is almost certainly under an NDA.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
It has been done here, I know because I encountered an ACT push poll just before the last election. The caller described our conversation as a “survey” and didn’t volunteer the name of any political party, but the questions were the ACT policy points from their leaflets repackaged as leading questions.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
And are none of our regular commentors from the right prepared to come here and defend Tolley against these “scurrilous attacks” on her competence?
Like or Dislike:
5 
1 (+4)
lol, Toad -
I doubt that even our regular roll-call of trolls could find something positive to say about Tolley; who’d want that opinion seachable for years to come?
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Like or Dislike:
5 
1 (+4)
Well, I’ll have to check in later & see what develops – sun has returned, I’m ambulant again
off to the park & the library I go.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Push polling?
Risible activity. I have no idea if DPF is doing it or not.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Actually, BP, I meant Tolley, not the poll.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Tolley – I don’t know much about her, but my perception is she’s not the kind of person needed for a National government to successfully go up against the Teachers Union.
However, Keys style is to use his high ratings to back-up his Ministers when required.
Like or Dislike:
1 
7 (-6)
Like or Dislike:
6 
1 (+5)
Ah, yes, the “Tolley state” ‘fly.
Makes things like energy efficiency standards look somewhat insignificant on the scale of authoritarianism, doesn’t it.
But lots of school principals and Boards are giving her the big finger, so it (and she) could go down in a pile of the brown smelly stuff.
The Nats are trying to claim an “electoral mandate” for national standards. A “mandate” with 45% of the vote! The Maori Party don’t support it (even though they voted for it, but that’s another story).
Even if the Nats add on ACT’s 3.7%, and ACT campaigned on “schools would be assessed against those guidelines based on results for schools in similar socio economic areas“, rather than national standards, that still doesn’t add up to 50%.
So much for the “electoral mandate”!
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
So you have no mandate whatsoever on 7%, then?
The government have been elected. They call the shots, not the teachers.
If teachers don’t implement policy – i.e. don’t do the job they take money for – they should be fired.
Like or Dislike:
1 
10 (-9)
Slightly off-topic: further to pingpong’s BBC link above, which I recommend, Bush II was known as shrub here. I don’t know about the USA. How would “economic shrub fire” do as a label for the global financial crisis?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
In education, teachers are an obvious stakeholder. Tolley gave them the big F.U. That will come back to bite her, because, just as any employer needs to get staff buy-in to make new policies a success, a Minister of Education needs to get teacher buy-in to policy.
But Tolley either ignores and avoids them, or turns up and reads the children’s stories about a rat who is happy with his lot.
She is an arrogant and patronising born-to-rule Tory, and needs to go.
As I said above, I suspect Key really wants to sack her completely, rather than just relieve her of some of her responsibilities, but that would not be a good look because it would reflect on his judgment in appointing her in the first place.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1 (+5)
BluePeter – your adoration for AUTHORITY is showing – it’s a sad look btw.
You have framed (or rather adopted the position DPF and his drones want you to take) the debate as a National Party .v. Teachers struggle, because it suits your (and their) antipathy toward the teaching profession. National Standards are supposedly proposed as a benefit to students, yet they barely get a mention. You have swallowed the Right-wing spin, hook, line and sinker and seem to have no real understanding of the issue at all.
Nice and accurate summation Toad.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
National Standards are a sensible logical step.
Currently we have the ludicrous situation where if you are told your seven year old is above average at reading, it means absolutely nothing – nothing at all.
It is “above average” on one of a myriad of (different) standards, which of course makes a mockery of the word “standard”. You could have a very weak school, and your above average child is actually falling behind the rest of the countries seven year olds.
But you get told the opposite.
What a mess of a system we currently have. Some parents aren’t told much at all. Other are told how their child is doing, but different standards are used throughout the whole country. So one childs below average rating is another childs above average. What a mess.
It’s no wonder that a massive 20% of children are failing.
The only surprise is that people are fighting tooth and nail for a system that fails our children so badly (and obviously so).
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Any suggestion that I or Curia push poll is ridicolous and incidentally defamatory. I am a member of MRSNZ which bans such activities.
All market research is the property of the client. A market researcher can not talk on behalf of a client without their permission – in fact one can not even reveal who your clients are without their permission.
Incidentially Mark Textor has not been found to have push polled. You need to look up what these terms means before you use them. The Liberal Party included a statement in a poll (conducted by Roy Morgan) that was false. The Party apologised for it and paid any damages. Textor was not at fault. He did apologise also as he was their polling advisor, but the incorrect information was not his error.
Like or Dislike:
4 
5 (-1)
photonz1 – you are completely wrong in your view and like BluePeter, appear to have clipped your shallow talking points from the National Party/ David Farrar cut and paste book of political spin.
I have taught New Entrants (that’s ‘Infants’ to you two) that have similar argument techniques to those you are using and therefore won’t bother to engage in your crayon-chewing, finger-paint smearing attempts at dialogue.
Perhaps there is someone here who can be bothered.
Who knows.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
So you back a system that tells parents of one child they are doing well, and another child in a different school who is at EXACTLY the same level can be told that they are no doing so well.
And then we wonder why so many children are failing to learn basic reading and writing skills.
By the way, I haven’t even looked at Nationals spin – it’s just basic common sense. Which is better than your arguement – oh – you haven’t put forward any arguement – perhaps you don’t have one – many posts but no arguements – just personal abuse instead.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
Take your finger out of your nose, photonz1 and go sit with the other boys and girls on the mat.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Oh Farrar, you slay me!
Like or Dislike:
6 
1 (+5)
greenfly – all you seem to contribute is personal abuse.
It’s an important matter. Do you have anything intelligent to say ?
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
Photonz1 – sillyputty does not work as a contact lens.
You put that goldfish back in it’s bowl THIS INSTANT! And its fins, yes, both of them!
( mutters under breath – stupid Tory spawn! )
Like or Dislike:
5 
2 (+3)
Oh dear, I step out for a few hours for fresh air and discover a seething mass of nat-baitin upon my return.
‘fly,
instant demerit points for abusing the wisdom of age to belittle those who still need their ears dried.
photonz -
when you have children in the education system, you will discover that a seven-year-old is not likely to test well on a national rating system, simply because at that age, there is a huge variation in learning competancy, as a carry-over from pre-school experiences. Children who have been in a good (learning-focussed) childcare centre, or managed a couple of years of kindergarten, will be better acclimatised for infant class than those who didn’t get those opportunities.
Most schools have internal programs to pick up the slow learners before they move on to middle school, and there is a branch of the Min Ed which handles Special Education Services for the kids who fall behind – some of whom have conditions like aspergers/autism, ADD, ADHD, or physical disabilities that interfere with learning ability.
Actually, our education system picks up more of the slow learners than it used to, and the reading recovery programme developed in the 80′s is such a success that it has been exported to many other countries and languages.
School Cert used to routinely fail 50% of those who sat, on a pure bell-curve scaling, so what we have now is a huge advance on that. (Well, anything else would be, wouldn’t it?)
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Katie – I do have a seven year old in the system.
If the current system is so great, please explain why such a massive number of children leave without a basic ability in reading, writing and maths?
A large number of schools currently have standards – but they are all different. Other schools don’t have any. What a mess.
It is appalling that there are people in the education system who want to deny parents the right to know how their children are progressing against a common standard.
Perhaps if this information was not hidden from parents, they might be able to do more for their kids.
Greenfly – I asked if you had anything intgelligent to say? I got a clear answer, with your reply, thanks.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
What is wrong with measuring performance on a national level, ffs? Anyone would think someone had suggested teachers be made to read Atlas Shrugged to new entrants!
If we have one in five kids unable to read or write after ten plus years of schooling, then some teachers methods of measurement are clearly garbage. As are their teaching abilities. They have been little more than babysitters.
I am contemptuous of the teachers Union. There are good teachers, who deserve respect, and some god awful teachers, who deserve to be fired. The Union protects such “teachers”.
That is unacceptable.
Like or Dislike:
2 
4 (-2)
BluePeter – I think you hit the nail on the head. The opposition to national standards has nothing to do with what’s best for children, and everything to do with hiding poor performance.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
Golly gosh, gee whizz boys, I think you’ve got it !!!
Now, back to the sandpit with the pair of you!
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
I’m with photonz. I have 3 kids. My first never did well at skoll. She actually has ADD (not ADHD, she was one of the quiet ones), as a first parent am I to know how much a 7 year old is supposed to know? No I don’t, I have nothing to compare with. The school reports were meaningless tick boxes and platitudes. We had concerns, but were constantly told in parent-teacher interviews that ‘all is OK’. Bollocks! When we finally did nail it down, far too many years had passed. Proper reporting would have revealed her issues way earlier.
My other two are at the other end of the scale, waaay up at the top of the learning tree.
it’s interesting to note that the same teacher that allowed my slower child to coast along at the bottom, has also allowed my star second child to coast along at the top, i.e her stellar performance in junior class was, frankly, crap by the time she (has just last year) finished senior class. others in her year did the same.
My boy starts senior class today, there’s a fair chance he’s even brighter than his sister. Unfortunately the same teacher is STILL there. I’m on the BOT but what can we do? Nothing because there is no way to quantify a good teacher from a poor one.
Achievement of national standards does not interest me as much as the RATE of achievement. I’d like to see a kids grades graphed and to maintain, or steepen, the slope.
If the rest of the class are rising, but Johnny isn’t, then he needs some individual resourcing.
If he AND his mates drop off, then the teacher is the problem.
I look forward to NRS.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Some kids in Cambodia have only one foot, rather than two. Is this because Cambodian methods of counting feet are garbage? of course not! (actually, it’s because of landmines).
It’s far more likely that teachers in New Zealand know which kids can’t read and write properly, but don’t have the skills or time to help a kid with certain kinds of learning problem. If so, the solution is more reading recovery tuition, not more tests.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
Count!
Samiam – you’re an intelligent bloke. There’s a thread and an interesting set of comments over at Red Alert on this issue that I hope you might find the time to look through. If you can, would you share your reaction here?
http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2010/02/02/national-standards-stop-with-the-myths/
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
samiam – I’ve got a nephew who had a similar problem, except his was a hearing issue that didn’t get picked up for ages and he spent years behind where he should have been.
I’ve known the same thing to happen with sight as well.
Another child I know changed school last year and went from being near the top of the class to really struggling to keep up with her new class mates – same age and decile group. Her confidence plummeted. It turns out her previous class was way behind where it should have been but parents were being told the opposite.
The current system allows teachers (and whole schools) to perform terribly, with little way of knowing how much worse they are than average.
The campaign against national standards seems to be a campaign to hide poorly performing teachers – to the detriment of our children.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
ASSTTLE.
Or assttle for those who only understand parseltongue.
Asssssssssttle Mr Key!
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Eddie from The Standard says this:
“While I’m on the topic. That made-up ‘30% of teachers need to lift their game’ that Key pulled out yesterday really reveals the true agenda behind national standards. Like ‘No Child Left Behind‘ in the US, it’s a trojan horse for performance pay for teachers. And why is performance pay for teachers such a bad idea? Because when you pay teachers on the basis of their pupils’ marks you encourage teachers to ‘teach to the test’ rather than give a broader education, you cause grade inflation, and you make it more lurcative to work at high decile schools so the poor kids end up with the worst teachers.”
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Bomber on Tumeke! says this:
“The Government has attacked teacher unions, with Prime Minister John Key writing directly to parents to counter alleged misinformation on the new national standards. Mr Key signalled yesterday that two-thirds of primary school leaders and 30 per cent of teachers would have to pull their socks up.
So he’s attacking and trashing 30% of teachers to ram through these ill thought out ‘national standards’ that won’t do a damned thing to help the educational standards of NZ children and are blowing $26 million on propaganda to try and con the public into accepting them.
These national standards have NOTHING to do with the educational betterment of NZ’s children and has EVERYTHING to do with National implementing free market ideology into education.”
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Fly
As usual Bomber is wrong.
National Standards has EVERYTHING to do with the education of our kids.
The teacher unions, Bomber and the left in general are using the future of our kids as a weapon to take on the government, please do not suggest that the teachers union or Bomber have the kids best interests at heart.
The 30% of teachers who Key is going after deserve nothing less, no other profession would allow or hide that many under performing people, yet for some reason you people seem to think that a poor teacher deserves to stay in their job.
I despise you people, there are many other fields of battle in which we can fight the political war of left v right, the fact that you guys are prepared to sacrifice another generation of our kids in your battle (which has NOTHING to do with education) just proves how low you are.
National Standards are here Fly, they are happening and they WILL be implemented, get used to the idea.
Like or Dislike:
1 
10 (-9)
Key is lying. He pulled that number out of his moist and smelly place.
“I despise you people”
Indeed Bro. You despise teachers. School no fun for you, was it?
When exactly did you go to school Bro?
Hmmm…?
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
How ironic that bomber uses “$26 million” and “propaganda” side by side to describe the $0.2m information campaign.
Like or Dislike:
1 
5 (-4)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
1 
11 (-10)
The December 2009 ERO Report “Reading and Writing in Years 1 and 2” concluded:
Key misinterprets this as “30 per cent of teachers were not doing a good job of teaching reading and writing”.
The 30% figure relates specifically to the teaching of reading and writing to Year 1 and Year 2 classes. Key, with no justification, extends that to all teachers teaching reading and writing.
That the teachers teaching Year 1 and Year 2 reading and writing ineffectively had minimal understanding of effective reading and writing teaching indicates an inadequacy in teacher training, rather than that the teachers are lazy or incompetent.
National Standards won’t do anything about that. Improving teacher training will. Key and Tolley have got it all arse about face.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
toad – of course National Standards will help identify poorly performing teachers (it’s the reason there’s such a backlash).
Instead of having to put ero inspectors into every classroom in the country, National Standards mean poorly performing classes can be immediately identified countrywide, and checked to see if what the problem is.
Resources can then be focused to improve the learning environment for those classes who are falling behind.
Or you could go with the status quo and let 20% fail.
Like or Dislike:
0 
4 (-4)
The ERO reviews every school on average every three years. Those that perform poorly are reviewed annually.
National Standards are just a duplication of that process insofar as identifying poorly performing classes and schools.
There is enough info available already from the ERO to identify where additional resources need to be deployed. It would be better if the resources going into National Standards were actually deployed to improving the quality of education in the poorly performing schools/classes.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
Bro, I am a parent and have one of my children still in the school system. I don’t accept, as you so gullibly do, that 30% of teachers are ‘crap’. Toad’s explanation of Key’s ‘mis-representation’ of the facts (how kind you are Toad, I say Key is lying)is correct.
I have also been a teacher, working in a number of schools at numerous levels. I know from experience that your claims about teachers are wrong and I presume it is because it is something you know very little about. This doesn’t stop you, and foto and Bloopeeta from spouting, of course, but your arguments look terribly weak from my experienced point of view.
Terribly weak.
Like dishwater.
Like Tolley, in fact.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
“I have also been a teacher, working in a number of schools at numerous levels.”
Ahh…one of the 30% aye?
No wonder you are so abusive, no wonder you are so sensitive, no wonder you are so scared of National Standards.
Our arguments are strong Fly, we are parents with kids in the system or have had them in the system, it is because of people like you (the 30%) that so many of them fail.
Like or Dislike:
0 
4 (-4)
So, Big Bro. You claim that I am a crap teacher. Can you offer one shred of evidence to support your claim?
One ?
Go on.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
toad – so from one visit, every third year, for few hours in a class, you think ERO can judge how well the teacher has improved the accademic level of the children (either that year, the year before, or the year before that).
None will even be teaching the same class they were three years before.
They only get reviewed annually if the WHOLE school is performing badly?
And how do ERO judge the teachers? – to THEY use all sorts of different levels and standards? Can the same teacher get a rave review using one standard and a poor review under another (like the standards used for children).
One of the main complaints from teachers is that children are arleady assessed against regional or local or individual school standards.
If this is already happening then it makes sense to use the SAME standard, and no sense whatsoever to have different levels and standards for the same age children (when they are different they are not standards, so are rather pointless).
If my child is above average in their class, but way behind compared to their peers nationally, then I have a RIGHT to know that information.
It could mean a very great difference to my child’s future prospects.
How dare people try to hide that information from parents for their own personal political agendas, or to hide their own failings.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
greenfly – no one knows how good a teacher you are – not even you.
It’s impossible to tell if you’ve done a better or worse job than average if your pupils have never ever been tested against a national standard.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
How odd!
Government accused of double standard
The Principals’ Federation says the Government is guilty of a double standard in its introduction of national standards in schools.
Federation president Ernie Buutveld says Maori schools are not being compelled to accept the new system.
He says kura kaupapa, which are state schools, are concerned about the effects of national standards.
However, he says unlike schools that teach in English, kura kaupapa are being consulted at length about the system and allowed to trial it first.
Mr Buutveld says that is what mainstream schools have been asking for and it is unfair to deny them the consideration being given to kura kaupapa.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
My students know. The parents of my students know. I know. ERO knows. The Inspectorate that visited in earlier days knows. My principals know. The other teachers in the schools I’ve taught at know. The Dental Technician knows. The Groundsman knows.
I have assessed the students that I have taught over the years,hundreds of times, using a wide range of tests, including ASSTTLE (have you done some research on that yet?)
Your claim that no one knows how good a teacher I am, is utter rubbish and part of the reason I’m unwilling to try to explain the situation to you.
You belief that a line can be drawn and teachers measured against it is at the core of your inability to see this issue in terms broad enough for your opinion to be of any value, but I have no doubt that you won’t be moved from that point.
“No one knows how good a teacher you are, not even you”
Oh dear.
Oh dear.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
@big bro 11:36 AM
Never mind Fly, as I said, National standards are here, get over it.
Not if teachers and Boards of Trustees refuse to implement them bro.
Political history is littered with failed Ministers of Education – all (Merv Wellington excepted) more clever than Chopper Tolley – who thought they could impose their will on teachers and parents, and lost.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
National must smash those hopeless teachers, eh!
That’s the game, photon!
Is it?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Toad – Big Bro also declared that Sue Bradford’s bill would be turfed out the moment National took power.
Poor Bro.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Let’s not spend TOO MUCH MONEY AND TIME finding out what the teachers already know about their students (and the communities that they come from)!
That money and effort would be better spent:
*continuing to improve teacher training, including providing wider opportunities (and incentives)for In-Service courses;
*keeping on reducing teacher/student ratios …
*making expert help more readily available in/for ALL schools, ALL teachers, at ALL levels… (while facing the fact that lower decile schools require MORE funding, not less).
MY background?
A third generation teacher (including a few high flyers), I chose Primary training, as a “good base”.
Having taught at all levels and in several countries, I quickly found out that the teacher training I had received in AotearoaNZ was excellent.)
I have spent most of my teaching career at the tertiary level (University and Polytechnic) in Aotearoa New Zealand. (This has included setting up and organizing “Study Skills” courses, Remedial Reading, Remedial Maths etc for adults within tertiary institutions.
(During all that time I also fitted in a lot of ski racing, followed by professional skiing (instructing and race coaching)in several countries. Nowdays I ski race among retired “late starters” … who are another great example of “lifetime learners” at their best.
(The concept of “lifetime learning”, made available to all, is an increasingly important one in our rapidly changing world.)
We must recognize that not all students have the same abilities; not all students mature at the same rate; not all students receive the same amount if support at home …
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
0 
13 (-13)
Bad, bad teachers, eh Bro – gotta get ‘em!
In my community, the children are allowed to talk at home and they do. They are free to speak about their day at school, what they learned, what their teacher has taught them. Their brothers and sisters are just as free to talk about their teachers. Many of the parents in my community spend time at the schools, at special events organised by the school, during ordinary days when they visit the classrooms, help out with this or that, have lunch with their children, talk to the teachers.
Some of the parents in my community are the teachers who teach at the schools! Imagine that! Some are on the Boards of Trustees, astonishingly. Grandparents visit, cousins, uncles, aunts, friends.
Reporting is a feature of the schools in my community. Parent interviews are held (oh the openness, the openness!) parents speak to teachers, meet the principal, visit the classrooms – it’s astonishing!
Sports days, pet days, performances by the children, all chances that our parents take to meet the teachers, watch how they interact with and teach their children – talk about your open door!
Crikey dickens! Our Principals live in the community too! This must seem outrageous to you Bro – the terrible exposure they must be subject to! The questions!
You make me laugh, bro, with your drum beating and closed mind. How foolish you are to champion a cause in a field you know nothing about, save what you read on Kiwiblog. Oh, and based on the damaged views you’ve compiled yourself as a result of your fear of school.
Still, you do give me a chance to see what is at stake and how the National Party are pitching their misinformation programme.
The Maori schools seem to be getting some special priviledge there Bro!
No concerns?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
“I quickly found out that the teacher training I had received in AotearoaNZ was excellent.)”
What utter rubbish, if the teacher training was ‘excellent’ then our kids would not be failing in record numbers.
A teachers job should be to educate our kids in the basics, English, Math, Geography and Science, it is not their job to brain wash them with ‘social studies’ or other politically correct crap.
It is simply not acceptable to have kids go through our ‘education’ system and come out the other end unable to read or write.
Like or Dislike:
0 
6 (-6)
Eredwyn’s claim about teacher training in New Zealand is correct. The quality of teachers entering into the field and the classroom is increasing as time goes by, from my wide experience of schools and their new teachers.
Bro’s comments reveal his lack of any real experience with the issue.
He says, ‘A teachers job should be”. At that point, an intelligent reader will look elsewhere. Even a comic book would be more edifying.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Paul comments on Kiwiblog:
# Paul Williams (493) Says:
February 3rd, 2010 at 3:13 pm
There’s a genuinely disturbing hatred of teachers explicit in many comments here. It’s no wonder teachers and others think the intent of the National Standard is less about improving performance and more servicing latent malevolence towards the profession.
It stands to reason, not all teachers are great, not all lawyers, doctors, stockbrokers or plumbers are either. However, the National Standards appear unlikely to contribute to improvements in teaching, not least of all because as has been said repetitively, they’ll simply report existing data differently. Worse still, teachers, now fearful that they’ll be exclusively blamed for any and every kids’ performance failure will refocus their efforts to teach solely to the assessment. As a parent, I’d be despairing.
Key’s made a mess of this, he’s appointed a Minister incapable of finding a meaningful way to satisfy an election commitment without undermining confidence in her key asset; teachers. Her position is unrecoverable. The question is when, not if, she’ll be moved on to other portfolios.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
0 
13 (-13)
greenfly – all those people who know how well you teach, all that communication between school and community – yet NOT A SINGLE PERSON who is able to say whether your pupils have a better or worse chance of learning than the national average.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
I’m saying that this proposal of National’s is not the approach that will bring about the changes you or I would like to see.
Tolley has handled it very badly. Key is having to intervene to try to force the change on the country, contrary to the best professional advice. A fan of Authoritarianism are you Bro? Want to see Key slam the Unions, do you?
Oh yes, you do.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Ever wondered why it failed so badly in the UK?
Hammer away at your philosophical point as long as you like but until you broaden your view, you’ll not see it.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Like or Dislike:
0 
11 (-11)
Sigh!
On that note, I’ll take my leave from this fascinating debate with you Bro.
It’s been fun, if a little sad.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
eredwen – why would national standards cost more in the long run?
Instead of 1000 different assessment methods and “standards” having to be made and assessed, there is one for the whole country.
Every teacher that shifts schools will already know the system.
Long term it will need far less time on training, massively less time and money on setting up each standard, and the BEST people in the country will be able to set up the standard, instead of lots of different people with lots of different abilities setting up losts of different stanndards.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
greenfly – There is an elementary first step that you take when you want to improve the performance of something – of anything – whether it’s the power from your motor, a business, sports team, education, runners, health system, whatever.
Measuring current performance is the very first step for all performance improvements.
Right now with 1000 different standards used in schools, or no standards at all – no one knows how well schools are doing compared to each other, compared to historical performance, compared to other regions, compared to other deciles.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Photonz1 – your claim that some schools are ‘using no standards’ is again an indication that you haven’t a clue.
Schools are highly assessed and use assessment techniques extensively.
They already exist, these much-sought-after assessments. The pretence that ‘something needs to be put in place’, is a nonsense that you are buying into.
Have you an answer to the failure of the UK system? That should alert you to aspects of Nationals idiotic plan that you’ve not addressed. I await your opinion on that matter with keen interest.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
@big bro 4:21 PM
Tolley is handling it well, this is obvious by the way the left has gone after her in the best Saul Alinsky style.
That’s not what Fran O’Sullivan or Colin Espiner, both of whom tend to be sympathetic to National, say:
O’Sullivan (frog’s quote above): Tolley is such a weak link that it would make sense to dump her from the front row.
Espiner:
In backing an incompetent Minister who attempts to dictate rather than negotiate, Key is in danger of dragging himself down with Tolley.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
greenfly – the claim some but not all schoools already used standardss did not come from me – it came from those opposing the standards.
Like the claims that it will take lots more work, contradicting claims that most schools assess against standards now (you just made that one yourself).
If as you say they are already doing this, then it rediculous that they all use different assessments instead of the same one.
Your arguements are nonsense. You claim that nationals assessment plan is idiotic while saying schools are already being highly assessed.
The fact that you’ve made a large number of posts about this, many full of purile childish personal abuse, but not a single intelligent argument why national standards are bad for children – not one.
If you are trying to convince people that national standards are bad, ythen ou might consider actually coming up with a reason why children would be worse off.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
foto – if my arguments about ‘schoools’ are ‘rediculous’ and nonsense, then I must retire to re-educate myself.
Okay foto – one argument why ‘national standards are bad for children’
the failure of the process in the UK.
How’s that?
You aren’t addressing that claim, despite my asking you several times. Perhaps you’ll do that now.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Wooden piles. Yep.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yay National!
http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2010/02/kicking-deaf.html
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
greenfly – is that the best you’ve got? That a quite different system to what is proposed here had mixed results in the UK (reviews said it did improve teaching standards for literacy).
That’s as weak as saying the UK free health system is in a mess so we shouldn’t have a “free health system” here.
I’ll ask again, why would children be so much worse off with a national standard instead of the current (mixed) standards?
(considering independent education organisations have said many schools would barely notice any difference from their current assessment system)
Like or Dislike:
0 
3 (-3)
We compare favourably (internationally) at Standard 3 level in the primary school where there are no national standards in place – this despite us starting behind many others in numbers in pre-school education. So what exactly is the problem, current performance is very good.
Research has not shown national standards to improve the education outcomes (which is why we do poorly at secondary school – students constantly ranked below others lose motivation and essentially give up).
So why this option, where there is no problem and even if there were this would be not the answer shown by research into educational performance?
All national standards do is
1. Create more bureaucratic workload for teachers – reducing time preparing lessons.
2. Rank pupils to others, rank achievement between schools.
They have nothing to do with pupils and their education and everything to with the elephant in the room. This change is required to bring in pay for teachers based on performance (and related bulk funding – creating teacher competition for available money and reducing mutual teacher support and co-operation) – which is why the advocacy for standards is the idea that where children perform below others of their age, this is some sign of poor teacher performance.
In actuality, performance has been and will remain a function of deciles. And if anything such national standards will reduce teacher motivation to go into certain schools and try and make a difference. It will therefore result in some schools losing pupils and closing and consequently creating a need to bus children out of their neighbourhoods to get them to school.
IMO, the most important change required (in primary schools) is teachers trained to teach children with dyslexia and there to be classes for these children, so they learn to read and write despite their problem as soon as possible and then return to the mainstream. The money promoting “National” party political propaganda could be better spent.
“National” standards have a place, to assess the performance of a school across years of their student’s enrolment – intake and final output. The same sort of outcomes tested by NCEA for individuals used for primary and intermediate schools. Anything more is more a control device placed on union workers by there would be political bosses and for ideological reasons not educational ones.
PS Failure of the students ranked as low achieving can only be reversed by getting them out of their “failure habit” environment and into a new one – (reading recovery at the lower school) and earlier academy “diversion” at secondary level (possibly for all those who reach this level too far behind others to be mainstreamed). Many would do better in more group orientated learning, with mentors and the like.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
SPC – It sounds like National Standards address many of your issues.
1/ Over two thirds of schools currently assess against various standards which are not standard. They would all use the same one. This would reduce work rather than increase workload for these schools.
2/ There may be many reasons why classes/schools/individual pupils perform poorly compared to the national average. National Standards will quickly identify these classes so the problem can be rectified. It may be disruptive pupils, poor teacher performance, school environment and facilities, health issues etc.
As such, with National Standards there will be an additional $36m to help struggling students, and an extra $26m for teacher training, and $75m extra for specialist teachers.
3/ In exactly the same way that decile ratings identify schools that need more help, so will National Standards.
4/ We already have parents taking their kids away from poorly performing schools. Our nearest school is 75% empty – six empty classes out of eight. If National Standards can direct more help to poorly performing schools, this will improve this situation – not make it worse.
All National Standards are is a measuring tool. To improve performance, first you have to measure so you can see what needs improving, and what changes/resources work and which ones don’t.
That way you can acurately aim money and resources, in correctly measured amounts, relative to need.
Currently it’s all rather random. Some schools are getting much more help than others who need it more desperately.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“In exactly the same way that decile ratings identify schools that need more help, so will National Standards.”.
Brilliant!
Let’s use the decile ratings then and save a great deal of unnecessary waste of time and effort.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
SPC – you are correct – performance based pay and bulk funding – Bill English’s pet project for yonks!
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
‘fly -
sorry, went out, missed being on your wing.
Photonz, BB, etc:
Here is the Ministry of Ed site for the ERO, to give you an idea what they actually do already.
http://www.ero.govt.nz/ero/publishing.nsf/Content/Home+Page
Read several of the pages. Please.
Toad -
this may amuse you:
http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2010/02/03/union-bashing-and-the-dispute-over-national-standards/
Generally, to all comers:
The National Standards are being discussed here as though the automatic assumption is that they will increase the average outcome. Not necessarily so; after all, School Cert was a national ranking standard, and it’s defined purpose was merely to rank all available 5th formers, then fail half of them. It is hardly likely to improve access to extension programmes for gifted children, who will still be coasting along while the rest of the class are keeping up with the standard curriculum. It’s up to motivated parents to find extension programmes outside school, if they want to foster gifted children.
Your much-valued National Standard may only show that most children already achieve this, that certain categories of children can’t achieve it, and that throwing a lot of extra assistance at some children may achieve an incremental improvement in their specific learning disability.
The only reason that we know that state school education fails some children is because we are now mainstreaming, and evaluating, children who once would have been in a special care facility for learning disabled children.
Samiam:
Having an ADD child is a very difficult parenting experience, and without trying to destroy any hope you have for that child, you may need to come to terms with the fact that this disability has long-range effects on a child’s learning capacity, and that outcomes for this child should not be compared to the potential that your two younger children have.
She must be a lovely child, to have a temperament that failed to alert her teachers to her learning difficulty; ADD shows up more frequently in boys, and has behavioural aspects in boys that alert most adults in contact with them to the likliehood of learning difficulties.
Try to focus on her positive attributes, and look for areas of strength that she can develop – kinaesthetic learning styles often work better than visual (text-based) for these learners – Special Education Services in Welington can supply more information about that than I can offer here. (and I’m a bit rusty, but I know they still have a unit dedicated to specific learning disabilities which deals with ADD learners.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly – anybody who thinks about it for more than a second will realise than not all schools at the same decile need the same help. Some will be doing much better than others, or have different requirements for help.
So your solution is to throw the same amount of money at them whether they need it or not – brilliant.
Is this the sort of logic you teach your pupils?
I’m begining to realise why there is a problem.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The Herald has a plethora of comments on the issue, photonz1, some from parents and teachers who have been through the UK experience.
Here’s one to sample, but I encourage you to visit the site and browse.
There is much for you to learn there, should you choose.
Jez (New Zealand)
11:20AM Tuesday, 27 Oct 2009
As a recently expatriated Pom, and former chair of governors of a primary school in the UK, I find it deeply worrying that my kids are to be subjected to the same “you must pass this test” training we had to endure in the UK. Sure, it’s important to know how kids are doing, and teacher assessment needs some sort of moderation to confirm the teacher’s judgements, but publishing league tables is absolutely not the way to go about it.
All that will happen (and has happened in the UK) is that the school will be pressured to teach to the test. All that happens in year 6 in the UK from January through to May when the SAT tests are taken is *training* for the tests.
No educational value what so ever.
League tables that deal in absolutes have no merit at all and never will reflect the value added by the school. You might have a school that’s bottom of the table, but has brought its pupils on much more than the school at the top – it all depends what level they start at and that can be heavily influenced by the child’s home environment.
League tables that deal in absolutes have no merit at all and never will reflect the value added by the school. You might have a school that’s bottom of the table, but has brought its pupils on much more than the school at the top – it all depends what level they start at and that can be heavily influenced by the child’s home environment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photonz1 – criticism from you and others supporters of National’s proposal do not concern me personally. I expect that teachers will be vilified over the coming weeks. John Key has already begun with his ’30%’ nonsense.
If you were to pause for a moment to consider this aspect of the issue, you might wonder why this is the case. A Government attacking its teaching professionals. You can see it in your own behaviour. Very constructive, positive governing, that, Ms Tolley, Mr Key.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Comparing the UK system which is a completely different prescriptive system to what is proposed here, is nothing less than an attempt to mislead.
As independent authorities have said – for a large number of schools the assessment wil be virtually identical to what they do now.
If teachers stop teaching properly and only teach to pass the test, then they can’t be very good at their job. I have confidence that teachers will perform at a much, much higher level than what you are expecting.
Do you believe that parents have a right to know if they are sending their child to a school that is totally useless, or really good?
Do you beleive schools that have problems should be identified quickly, and help give though extra funding, extra specialised teachers, or extra training?
Do you beleive schools should be given help based on their measured needs, rather than some schools getting much more help than others despite not needing as much, as happens now?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
photonz
Schools are overseen by the ERO. As I said I would only add end of school tests on the intake when they leave primary or intermediate school each year – to evaluate “school” performance by national standards in support of what the ERO does. If school performance was poor then assessing why. This provides sufficient information.
And for intermediates this is after only a two year turnaround from their intake measurement – those leaving primary school.
If more was desirable one could move onto include primary school start and end of year 3 and end of primary school.
The problem with going too far – national standards each year is that the advantages from regular testing of individual students to improve teacher performance apparently do not outweigh the disadvantages of teaching to the national standard assessment.
Which is why National, in ignoring the research, is not helping our childrens education – but is in fact using a Trojan horse to their cause of bulk funding and competition amongst teachers for performance pay (undermining collective bargaining).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
spc says “As I said I would only add end of school tests on the intake when they leave primary or intermediate school each year – to evaluate “school” performance by national standards in support of what the ERO does. If school performance was poor then assessing why. This provides sufficient information.”
Unless of course your child spends years in a poorly performing school, and this is only found out when they leave. Not good enough.
I find it appalling that there is a campaign to keep information about poorly performing schools from parents.
As some independent experts have said – the assessments could be almost identical to those used by a large number of schools now.
Teaching to the test is a red herring. For a start, competent teachers will not need to or want to do that. It’s pretty insulting to teachers to say they will all teach to the test.
Secondly, if the test is a general assessment of overall ability in literacy and numeracy, and teachers teach that, then it will obviously be successful.
Reporting childrens progress more acuarately and more often to parents has been proven to improve the childs learning performance.
Logical really – the vast majority of parents want to help their children and if there are areas where they are struggling, parents will help more at home.
Effectively better reporting leading to greater parental involvement, is going to make teacher performance look better as well.
But this important thing is improves the children learning, particularly in areas they are lagging behind in.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad -
this may amuse you:
http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2010/02/03/union-bashing-and-the-dis pute-over-national-standards/
Includes:
Remember, Gordon used the “r” word, not me.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Tolley gets Tomahawked.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)