Posted by: Observer
on 07, Dec, 2011
...Tamihere, who has said the Waipareira Trust will take the money and set up a charter school. Ye gods! This is a man who was dismissed from cabinet for saying he was tired of hearing complaints from Jews about the Holocaust and for referring to women as "front-bums". He was investigated by the SFO about a missing $100,000 (though no charges were laid) and then there was the matter of the $195,000 golden handshake from Waipareira on which no tax was paid. At the time, the ACT Party was the loudest voice in demanding his sacking but now we are all mates together it seems. Kiwiblog too was baying for his blood back then but you can be sure all is forgiven now. As they say, there is honour amongst thieves.
In the world inhabited by John Banks and John Key, Tamihere probably passes for a paragon of virtue but surely the New Zealand public will not think he is a fitting person to be in charge of either young people or public money?
Posted by: Observer
on 06, Dec, 2011
Tagged in:
teaching ,
teachers ,
students with high needs ,
students ,
school choice ,
public education ,
National Party Education Policy ,
John Banks ,
education politics ,
Christchurch schools ,
charters ,
charter schools ,
ACT
What are we to make of the two multi-millionaire politicians - the two Johns - signing an agreement whereby the state abandons any responsibility for education in poor communities and instead hands it over to various churches, charities, American multinational franchises and any fly-by-night concern that sniffs a buck to be made. Apparently, the two Johns think poor communities are disadvantaged by having to learn what everyone else learns, do the same qualifications and have trained and qualified teachers so they are giving poor kids that chance to miss out on all the the things that wee Keys and the little Bankses take as their birthright.
Amazingly, lowering standards like this is apparently going to lift achievement even though that's not what has happened in the US which invented charter schools. The studies don't show any educational benefits for the model, once you control for the tendency to manipulate the school's roll to keep out the more challenging kids.
Posted by: Flying Pig
on 05, Dec, 2011
Some teachers seem to have got their knickers in a twist about the circular from NZQA about the changes to external moderation for next year. They seem to think that it's going to add to their workload.
How wrong could they be? How could a few teachers in a school having to collect a sample of every piece of assessment work for one or two students chosen by NZQA possibly be more work than every subject having to randomly choose eight students and collect their work for maybe two or three standards at each level and send it off? 500 students across about 400 secondary schools will mean that some schools don't even get sampled!
PPTA fought for a reduction in the 10% random sample for an agreement rate because it made no sense. Political polls don't sample 10% of the population to find out what people think! NZQA has delivered on this, so let's celebrate that.
Posted by: PPTAweb
on 29, Nov, 2011
Tagged in:
teaching ,
teachers ,
students ,
student achievement ,
social disadvantage ,
schools ,
research ,
power ,
NZARE ,
National Standards ,
equity ,
education politics ,
CLASS ,
change
Growing inequities - so what?
Today was spent in Tauranga, participating in the NZARE (NZ Association for Research in Education) conference (well listening anyway).
Professor Robert Tierney was the opening keynote speaker "Growing inequities: how do we contribute" was the title of his address.
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.
