Tags >> students
Posted by: Cynic
on Jul 23, 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: Rob
on Jul 22, 2010
We wonder how many Treasury officials send their kids to state schools or use our public health services? We wonder how many have lived on benefits or had jobs that got their hands dirty, or in which they have had to face the consequences of the stupid policy proposals they seek to inflict on the population?
Treasury advice to the National government on funding for education includes the proposal to remove the automatic adjustments to base funding which occur through demographic and other projected changes and fund these changes within the allocation of new money each year or make a case for additional funding on a year by year basis.
School rolls are projected to rise to about 2024. These are demographic changes which increase operations funding and staffing levels in a predictable manner. Currently the funding for school staffing and operations is automatically adjusted to fund the increased cost this creates.
Posted by: Cynic
on Jun 9, 2010
"As a parent I would not be happy if my school was using money that should be going to the education of my children for sprinklers. I send my kids to school to get educated, not to have a shower." (Anne Tolley)
But sending kids to a burned-down school, or even worse losing a student or teacher's life, is OK?
First the Ministry suggests that schools remove rubbish bins from their premises in order to prevent fires then they suggest "schools that cannot afford sprinklers should install security systems " (and how would security be cheaper in money and lives than sprinkler systems?). And what about prevention being better than the cure - school arson attacks cost more than $30 million in the last 10 years - (and that's just dollars, not lost school/teacher/student work, not the loss of a community facility, not the people costs) did those schools have sprinkler systems?
Anne Tolley is a parent and she is the Minister of Education, the buck stops with her, not her ministry (despite media pitches to drive up sales for the $327 report from TransTasman).
Don't drop and roll for cover with glib comments Anne - you should ensure every school is funded to install sprinkler systems and not treat students, teachers and communities in such an off-hand cavalier way.
Posted by: Albatross
on Mar 3, 2010
It is interesting that MoE officials have turned to slogans in an effort to sell National Standards.
This is no doubt a response to the dearth of data supporting such a programme.
The current slogan is “The kids can’t wait” As with all good advertising, the sentence is never completed.
Posted by: Observer
on Feb 17, 2010
What’s the real story on this crazy report from the from the rogues gallery that calls itself the inter-party working group.
From the look of the report (available here http://www.act.org.nz) not a lot of working went on and almost zero thinking.
That wouldn’t normally matter because usually MPs on working parties can mitigate their ignorance by drawing on the full resources of the State to provide information.
In this case though, the Ministry of Education wasn’t asked to provide any information to the group – probably because it would have raised some awkward questions about the huge cost of setting up a school anywhere that a parent wants, the expense involved in creating an unqualified bureaucracy to mediate between schools and parents, the difficulties of simply closing a school when there is a whole cohort of students still in it, the cost and traffic problems created by transporting kids all across town and the cost and difficulty of developing a “weighted funding formula based on student need”.
Cost neutral? Hardly.
The report avoids words we all know and understand replacing them with politically correct econospeak. Schools become “providers” or occasionally “institutions”; students are “learners” or “clients”; assessment is “context value added measure” and teachers are “learning brokers”. That’s what we need in the New Zealand education system – more jargon.
Posted by: Cynic
on Jan 21, 2010
Surface readings
Today my head hurts from trying to follow up on a NZ Herald story that quotes from the Unesco report Reaching the marginalised (Education For All global monitoring report 2010):
year 11 Maori students enrolled in kura kaupapa immersion schools did significantly better than Maori in English-language schools (p.206)
so I tried to follow up. I looked at Nga Haeata Matauranga (the Annual Reports on Maori Education)
|
