Posted by: Cynic
on 23, Jul, 2010
In 2005 ERO came up with the 20% gap - no data, no proof, no evidence. In nearly every government and education press release since then you will find this expanded myth - that teachers and schools are "failing 1 in 5" students.
Now ERO are re-using the 20% in their latest report - this is not a fact but a convenient reusable guesstimate:
"As a result, little statistical data is provided in this report. Schools are evaluated against highly variable contexts in terms of the different proportions of students with high needs they have and the range of needs these students may exhibit."(p.12)
How can ERO bring about change and improvement in the sector when their strategy appears so negatively focused on blame and bringing schools and teaching into disrepute. A strategy that values teachers, values schools, and aims to work together to improve one of the better functioning education systems in the world, would surely be better placed to promote successful learning. Together we can make it the best education system for all students.
A strategy that says there are schools that are fabulous role models, we will work out why, perhaps parts of their model will work elsewhere. There are schools not coping, we will resource them to investigate why and work together to improve learning opportunities for students, teachers and school communities.
NAH way too hard - let's drive up the crises, let's diss the teachers, diss the schools, and put the jackals out to feed on the bones of an education system that was doing reasonably well but nobody wanted to defend.
Posted by: Winged Avenger
on 11, Feb, 2010
"big sports fields and small class sizes"
This month a new private school opened in Whangarei. Quite a few kids are already enrolled, which begs the question: other than old-style uniforms and dodgy international exams, what does a private school have that a state school does not? The student quoted in the local paper knows: "big sports fields and small class sizes. That's an improvement coming from a class of 33. It means teachers can focus on smaller groups."
Well then. Smaller class size. A 12-year-old knows that it makes a positive difference to her learning. What makes it so hard for the government and other class-size deniers to understand her simple point? Fewer kids, more teacher time, more space to learn, more flexibility, less stretch on shared resources… win, win, win…
Oh, and hats off to Mesdames Roy and Tolley, for the funding boost to private schools that gives them what the state schools are not funded to have: Small classes. And, by the way, private schools have raised their fees (again) this year, on average by 3.5%. More public money plus higher fees, what’s not to like?
