Prurience and ping-pong
Students do everything teachers tell them (yeah right!)
I know secondary school students love their teachers and hang on every word they say, but still I was a little surprised when a pregnant 17-year-old was reported to have said she lost her virginity at 14 because a teacher had told her it was okay to have sex providing she consented. It must be true because it was in the New Zealand Herald. Can we also assume that the girl did her homework regularly because her teachers told her to?
Recent comment on sex education is an example of sensationalist, simplistic reporting
Media coverage of sex education is a classic example of the simplistic and sensationalist way education issues are dealt with. After a few days of salacious debate, the research showing that a comprehensive programme of sex education is associated with increased contraception use, reduced rates of pregnancy and STDs and delays in the first time people have sex surfaced, but only after the supply of sanctimonious, religiously-extreme and sometimes downright prurient comment had dried up. One father claimed he had withdrawn his son because the lessons were “grubby” – inadvertently giving the New Zealand public an insight into his own sex life that we might have been better off without.
Belief in myths and 'common sense' may feel right, but such beliefs are often wrong
The debate illustrates the capacity of human beings to hold views that are self-righteous and satisfying and just plain wrong. Intuitively, it seems that advocating abstinence should reduce sexual activity amongst teenagers but it doesn’t; American states with mandated abstinence programmes have higher rates of teenage pregnancy than those that don’t. It may seem, instinctively, that national standards ought to raise achievement but they don’t and can be positively harmful to education. Random drug testing is supposed to reduce student drug use but it doesn’t. On the other hand, programmes that advocate healthy eating at school do have positive effects but have been sacrificed on the altar of the powerful myth of “nanny state”.
Some politicians are also guilty of the simplistic approach, conveniently ignoring evidence
Depressingly, after more than a hundred years of compulsory education, the approach to the formation and operation of social policies remains closer to a medieval witchcraft trial than to the reasoned and logical discourse we like to imagine we are engaging in. Polarising myths and stereotypes sustain media and political life in western countries. For a politician to declare he or she is not an expert on a particular subject or that the latest legislative band-aid is not a long-term solution is tantamount to political suicide. Simplistic certainty is always preferable to messy complexity.
Education deserves a strategic political consensus, a possibility that is a reality in some other countries
This is where our “ping pong” paper which advocates that politicians form a long-term strategic consensus around education comes in. Although the idea has generally been well received, it has been intriguing to note that the few negative comments have come from groups and individuals who can’t get away from a stereotyped view of PPTA as “the enemy”. Consequently, rather than grappling with the question of why New Zealand politicians are incapable of emulating the Finnish who have been able to work together for more than 30 years on a shared strategic plan that has made their education system the best in the world, they take refuge in stereotyping and polarisation.
Parents recognise and support teachers' work, and both want the best possible education for our children
In the Listener Joanne Black fatuously declared any consensus in education would be stymied by the fact that PPTA would find itself at odds with parents. In doing so, she reveals a complacent assumption that her personal prejudices are widely held. In fact, our polling of parents indicates strong support for teachers and a deep understanding of the challenges of the job.
It may be more challenging to explore the evidence than to give up long and dearly held opinions
Let's put up the best education ideas, debate with open minds, and work together for New Zealand's future
We are not looking for comfortable complacency and we don’t expect that we would agree with everything in a nationally developed strategic plan for secondary education. We are reasonably confident, however, that if the debate were shorn of self-interested politicking and the best ideas were allowed to come through, we would not find a lot to disagree with. If there are compromises to be made so be it – after all what is a collective agreement but the best compromise the parties can forge on the day.
PPTA can compromise, can politicians?
So we can do compromise. Can the politicians and media hacks who manipulate public opinion in order to shore up their personal and pecuniary interests make a similar commitment to open-minded debate?
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/hide comment form
