Posted by: PPTAweb
on 23, Nov, 2011
Tagged in:
Tomorrow's Schools ,
teaching ,
teachers ,
students ,
student achievement ,
secondary schools ,
public education ,
professional learning and development ,
National Party Education Policy ,
Mrs Tolley ,
league tables ,
elections ,
education politics ,
Christchurch schools ,
Anne Tolley
Dear Anne
I have just read your party education policy. This letter is written in disappointment that National Party education policy can so blithely ignore the best evidence in education research and policy, and dismay that you appear not to have heard the education hopes, dreams and aspirations that teachers have for their students.
National takes credit for all improvements in the education sector over the past three years; some achievements - such as retention rates in school, are unlikely to have been influenced by National education policy, others are simply manipulations such as 'employed 1600 more teachers"; shuffling funding from one education area to another doesn't double it; league tables encourage some particularly unpleasant uncooperative competitive behaviours so how on earth can your policy blithely state "ensure schools make the most of their facilities and resources and they collaborate rather than compete with each other" or does this only apply to Canterbury?
We'd like you to know that all actual improvements in the secondary education sector can be attributed to school communities, the hard work of parents, boards, students, teachers and, most importantly, quality teaching.
Posted by: Observer
on 23, Nov, 2011
The National Party policy is a complete disappointment. After three years to learn the ropes, we might have hoped that Mrs Tolley would have got together a coherent education policy based on the best evidence from here and overseas. Instead what we’ve been offered is chunks of mismatched 90s (1990s? 1890s?) ideology drawn from countries that all do much worse than us.
So we get:
1. Inconsistent teacher education policy
A requirement that teacher training should be post-graduate (level 8) even though there’s no evidence that higher qualifications make for better teaching – yes Finland requires that prospective teachers do a masters degree but that is one of many factors in Finland’s success. Taking just one of them is like saying a steering wheel is a car. This is a win for the universities who get more money out of level 8 courses and loss for trainees teachers because their fees will be higher.
Then there’s the fact that some specially chosen applicants are going to be shoved through a pressure cooker course and others (technology teachers) are to have only “basic teacher training”. So much for consistency. And lesser qualifications for the trades – is that how you raise the status of technology, Mrs Tolley?
