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: Cynic
on 11, Jun, 2010
Dr Muriel Newman founding member of the ACT party and one time deputy leader is concerned about the brainwashing of kids in New Zealand schools.
She presented a petition to the Education and Science Select Committee seeking "that New Zealand school children be protected from political indoctrination".
However to Muriel's distress the petition didn't go any further than the select committee recommending "that the House take note of its report".
Posted by: Cynic
on 09, Jun, 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: Cynic
on 19, May, 2010
Interesting that NZEI want to sue the Ministry of Education over their skills based pay plan.
PPTA’s longstanding aspiration for the professional role of secondary teachers is for trained and qualified teachers who have equitable access to high quality ongoing learning. This means highly qualified on entry to the profession and teachers continuing their professional learning throughout their careers.
That NZEI is seeking skills based pay - not qualifications based pay - would seem to undermine all the work that technology teachers have put into upgrading their qualifications to degree level. It also gives an impression of undervaluing a teacher's professional responsibility to continue to upgrade, expand and refresh specialist knowledge.
Posted by: Cynic
on 28, Apr, 2010
The April edition of the PPTA News includes a message from the president, Kate Gainsford, about a new and REDUCED funding formula that the Ministry of Education is developing for small area schools (below 200). Well that’s what it seems to be planning judging from this document entitled Change of Class Applications (pdf) and obtained under the Official Information Act. Various ministers of education have been establishing new schools (even when there are surplus places at surrounding schools) as if there was no tomorrow.
The most recent minister, Anne Tolley has belatedly realised that the cost of facilitating parental choice by providing a secondary school on every corner - where the dairy used to be - is unaffordable. So what has she done? According to the document seven new kura kaupapa Maori have been approved by the minister to become wharekura (ie. area schools that provide education from year 1 to 15) BUT at a much lower funding rate than other are schools get. The document says this is an interim measure but that the ministry is working (in secret it appears) on a permanent formula. This raises a number of questions:
- Should wharekura get less funding than other area schools?
- Are all schools with roll numbers below 200 going to face reductions?
- How are the interests of schools that are small because they are remote going to be safeguarded?
- Are parents going to be expected to make up the shortfall?
- Is it right to provide “choice” thorough a mechanism that reduces funding and potentially diminishes education quality?
