New national school standards?

[Mully]

Has anybody looked at this in any depth and can give me a briefing of it?

As far as I can telll, it appears to be a good thing (what we've got doesn't seem to be working, so anything's worth a try).

But the Principal's Association and the Teachers Union seem to be having a Waaaaa (tm) about it - how come?

[Squiggles]

At a guess... More out of classroom work, less well rounded teaching, and the same old crap pay.

[Virago]

From what I can gather, the problem is that children are to be assessed and graded against national averages?

This will of course grade many as below average, which flies in the face of our education system, which grades all children as "above average". The entire NCEA system is based on that premise.

[Dave Lobster]

From what I've read on the internet, the implication is that below average teachers will have to pull their socks up.

They're aren't too amused at this. Understandably.. Below average people never like the idea of having to work harder or get the fuck out.

[kave]

A number of reasons for having a wah.

1. It has been tried in many countries and has been a failure (heard of "no child left behind"?).
2. Schools will be ranked in league tables (for why this is a bad thing see http://www.wellingtoncollege.org.uk/page.aspx?id=5114 ). It will encourage teaching to the exam. Schools will be fighting for higher rankings in league tables and exam preperation will come before actually teaching kids useful stuff. We already have excessive testing at primary schools.
3. If you have to do this why add useless extra bureaucracy. All you really need to do is make P.A.T testing compulsory and release the raw data to the public.

[geoffc]

Teachers have had the assessment tools to know who is 'below average' or underachieving for ages. Having the time and resources to fix these issues, well that is the challenge. Weighing the pig doesn't increase its size. Dumb but obvious statement. Same for National Standards for Primary students. It is my belief that some low decile schools will be concerned that they will be criticized for having too many below average students. Poor teaching will be the suggested cause and teachers put in the spotlight. The Government are already doing that, playing the blame game.
Identifying reading progress happens every day in Infant & Primary rooms. Running records to plot progress, note strategies used and which areas requiring focus plus the level of comprehension the student is working at. They do that now.
These new National Standards are untested and are unlikely to help those who require and need it. More paper war and less actual quality teaching time.

[Mully]

Teachers have had the assessment tools to know who is 'below average' or underachieving for ages. Having the time and resources to fix these issues, well that is the challenge.
Identifying reading progress happens every day in Infant & Primary rooms. Running records to plot progress, note strategies used and which areas requiring focus plus the level of comprehension the student is working at. They do that now.
These new National Standards are untested and are unlikely to help those who require and need it. More paper war and less actual quality teaching time.

Thanks Geoff. Had to snip some of your post cos quoting a whole post annoys me.

Devil's advocate for a second - the current system simply isn't working (going off the number of illiterate kids leaving school), so If National Standards aren't the solution, what is?

EDIT: And anyway, doesn't life grade you anyway??

Personally, I think the parents should take responsibility - but realistically that's not going to happen.

[Toaster]

From what I've read on the internet, the implication is that below average teachers will have to pull their socks up.

They're aren't too amused at this. Understandably.. Below average people never like the idea of having to work harder or get the fuck out.

Well said!! Anything that raises standards is a good thing. Teachers working to ensure education levels are higher and more relevant must be good. Every job has some form of evaluation and performance outputs nowdays.... well pretty much most..... like "quotas"..... anyone for a doughtnut?

[Pedrostt500]

Reedin Mafs nah bro I went ta skool t eat other kids lunches,

[Swoop]

NCEA is an absolute load of crap. Even in its modified version that we currently have!
This is why some schools have abandoned it and persued the Cambridge Examination structure.

That is what nine years of liarbour provides to a country.

[Squiggles]

Well said!! Anything that raises standards is a good thing. Teachers working to ensure education levels are higher and more relevant must be good. Every job has some form of evaluation and performance outputs nowdays.... well pretty much most..... like "quotas"..... anyone for a doughtnut?

Sweet, i like performance bonuses :D

[geoffc]

.. the current system simply isn't working (going off the number of illiterate kids leaving school), so If National Standards aren't the solution, what is?

personally, I think the parents should take responsibility - but realistically that's not going to happen.

NZ educational standards stack up very well internationally in the Primary area of Science, Maths & Literacy. There is good evidence to prove this.
However we do have a group, too many, that are falling behind. They are often in schools that the best teachers avoid. These schools will often struggle to get good parent support. Lower decile schools generally do not have the resources and clearly under achieving kids need heaps of support to make a positive difference. John Key has conceded this and is going to put some money into this.
I would like to see teachers identified that are highly skilled in classroom practice being brought into schools that are low decile to act as tutors to support, guide and enable their fellow teachers who are struggling to make headway in the toughest learning environments. That would make a difference. You are right. Parents should take responsibility but they too need examples of good practice. To be shown what they can do to help. They aren't the professionals but have the biggest stake in the learning process with their children.

[rainman]

The entire NCEA system is based on that premise.

NCEA => college age kids, Y11-13.
National standards => primary age kids, Y1-8.


Weighing the pig doesn't increase its size.

Nicely put.


Devil's advocate for a second - the current system simply isn't working (going off the number of illiterate kids leaving school), so If National Standards aren't the solution, what is?

There's the million dollar question. I personally see no point in national standards as I'm already getting heaps of info from the schools re my kids already through PAT and ASTTLe. But I understand that not all schools do these as rigorously as the schools my kids go to. Anecdotally, it seems the lower decile schools generally do worse, both at testing and at the overall results. So the solution might be (even) more resources to lower decile schools, however uncomfortable that might be with those of a less egalitarian, non-distributive bent.

Idealistically, if we didn't have such crap wages relative to the cost of living around here, parents wouldn't be so tired and focussed on work, so could help and support their kids better. Fixing that would doubtless have a better result, but would take a generation. And we'll never stick at anything for that long, particularly as the causes of low wages are more global in scope, I suspect.

The other reason teachers aren't too keen on this is that it's been introduced without a trial or any consultation, and in fact was legislated under urgency. And Tolley, who is a major liability who Key should have seen off completely with his recent reshuffle


NCEA is an absolute load of crap. Even in its modified version that we currently have!
This is why some schools have abandoned it and persued the Cambridge Examination structure.

That is what nine years of liarbour provides to a country.

See my response to Virago above. You're just being taken in by a line of spin. "Not a sheeple person" - Pffft. Try think for yourself and don't just be an "I don't like change" conservative.
My experience of NCEA is that it's pretty good, actually.

[KiWiP]

NCEA is a system used to test a student. Test what depends on the course studied. It may be skills, knowledge or even attitude and hopefully higher thinking skills and reasoning.

In this it is no different to any other testing system, Cambridge et al. Why do school kids need it? To get them into University, Technical college and in a few rare instances a job. Why employers rely on paper qualifications for literacy or numeracy is beyond me. They only show that a minimum standard was shown to have been achieved. It doesn't offer any proof that the employee will effectively read and comprehend Health and Safety regulations or Load/Height/Tilt angle graphs as required for fork lift driver training for example.

If these things are important it would be far better for the employer to set a task based test. I have done this for engineers in the past. Throw a circuit diagram in front of them and get them to tell me about it. In a very short time you are able to tell if they are a valid and confident engineer.

Within the discussion it is worth considering Swedens approach. University entrance is awarded based upon teacher recommendation and if required a non-mandatory standardised SAT paper designed to test general ability to successfully pass tertiary education. Swedish Unis have a very good reputation for churning out quality citizens.

So Mr Key thinks that by monitoring literacy and numeracy in primary/intermediate schools is going to improve things. No it will only tell us what we already know. Some kids are being failed. It does not tell us by who. Do not automatically leap to the neck of the nearest teacher teaching the kids. If it was solely their fault then it would suggest that crap teachers teach in decile 1 schools and excellent teachers teach in decile 10 schools. Because that's what Key's flawed statistics tell us.

Literacy and Numeracy are hugely important but they are not derived solely through classroom learning. Parents, communities, nutrition, pre-school stimulation, childhood nurturing, family stability, abuse, and many, many more factors contribute to the child's ultimate outcome.

As has been said before "You don't get a pig fat by weighing it" Assessment is not the answer it only tells us what we already know. What is IMHO investment in whole community learning. Working with families as a unit, investing in school infrastructure, investing in community education (which has just had it's budgets viciously slashed).

Teachers work tirelessly for less money than they could earn in the 'real world' adding dumb assessments to their already overladen workload will only lead to teachers leaving an already underpopulated teaching profession.

[Dave Lobster]

However we do have a group, too many, that are falling behind. They are often in schools that the best teachers avoid. These schools will often struggle to get good parent support. Lower decile schools generally do not have the resources and clearly under achieving kids need heaps of support to make a positive difference.


Why would they avoid them? Because the children are ferel, and it isn't a pleasant environment to work in, maybe? Can you blame anyone for that? I can't..

Maybe a better approach wouldn't be to merely pour more money in, but an approach where the parents are held accountable for poorly behaved offspring.

Either that, or the children are just thick and don't want to learn. Our money wont solve that.

[slofox]

That is what nine years of liarbour provides to a country.

Actually, Swoop, in the interests of accuracy, I think you'll find that NCEA was originally proposed by the National Government that preceded that particular labour government...

[Quasievil]

I think its good, the point of children not being graded is stupid, if you suck at maths reading etc then it should be transparent for the child to see and the parent to see, currently when we get our boys school reports they dont mean shit as they are so PC " Jonny is a good boy with great abilities and is improving through the year" what the fuck does that mean?? Gauging against the national average is better.
When I was a kid it was 50% over you passed, under you failed.........simple easy and transparent.

[CookMySock]

Devil's advocate for a second - the current system simply isn't working (going off the number of illiterate kids leaving school), so If National Standards aren't the solution, what is?The only solution to any problem, is action taken to resolve it.

The bottom line is, you or I can't do shit about it, except what is our back yards. The govt or the schools' actions are irrelevant. Go and organise you own destiny and take ownership of it.

Steve

[Jantar]

I was shocked to hear a teacher say on TV "We don't want to introduce comptition".

Well I'm sorry, but the whole world is competitive. The best performers generally get the best rewards, so anything we can do to make our children perform better must be good. In odrer to improve their performance the teacher and the parents must know where the pupils are at any point in time so that efforts can be focussed where needed. Testing pupils against a standard will show where the national average is and hence identify how a pupil is performing against that average.

As for attracting teachers to low decile schools, they already receive more funding per pupil than higher decile schools so that they can pay better teachers more. Lets bring in those league tables so the schools themselves can set challenges and aim to improve.

[steve_t]

Are the requirements that tough? After the first year of school a child should know how many apples they have if they start with 5 and someone gives them 4 more. That doesn't sound unreasonable to me...

[FROSTY]

Wth 5 kids you can imagine this is something fairly close to y heart.
Putting it bluntly. The old system sucked. I'm not much for fancy words n stuff but a child needs to leave primary school able to read,wright and do arithmatic. Being even more blunt FUCK the scaled against other kids bullshit.
Its really simple --at this age Johnny needs to be able to achieve -THIS. At this Age he needs to achieveThat.
No fucking around.
My oldest is year 10 this year and he's getting marks for a good attitude in class FFS. I couldn't give a shit about his attitude (for the sake of this discussion) I care if he can do maths and if not where he needs work.

[FROSTY]

the requirement for year 1 WAS that lil johnny can count to 20 not actually addn subtract.

[geoffc]

I think its good, the point of children not being graded is stupid, ..... " Jonny is a good boy with great abilities and is improving through the year" what the fuck does that mean?? ....
This must have been the general comment at the end of your kids report. What don't you understand about that statement?
1 Jonny is focussed and a well behaved student.(good boy)
2 He has demonstrated clearly that he understands what he is learning and can put it to practice. (great abilities)
3 And what don't you understand about' improving through the year'?!
If you want it spelt out to you, book a time to sit down with the class teacher and have them go into the nuts & bolts about Jonny learning at school.
What would you learn about just reading a report on leather jackets made at a certain factory? Wouldn't you want to go there and check it out first hand. See work in progress and check the materials being used. Get a feel for the work place by talking to the workers.
How is school any different? Get in there and make your own informed judgements.

[mashman]

The bottom line is, you or I can't do shit about it

Why not?


Go and organise you own destiny and take ownership of it.

Spoken like a true humanitarian, a forward thinking human being... I see a great future in politics for you young man!!!

IMHO any changes to the school curriculum and teaching practices that haven't involved some form of consultation with those on the front line i.e. head master consults his staff, compiles a simple report and sends it through to MED for collation and implementation, is doomed to failure. If only for the reason that the teachers, i.e. those that do the actual job, haven't been allowed to voice their opinion as to the best way to test THEIR students... after all they have up to date relevant knowledge and experience of how the kids are actually learning, what's working, what isn't etc...

[Jantar]

This must have been the general comment at the end of your kids report. What don't you understand about that statement?
1 Jonny is focussed and a well behaved student.(good boy)
2 He has demonstrated clearly that he understands what he is learning and can put it to practice. (great abilities)
3 And what don't you understand about' improving through the year'?!
If you want it spelt out to you, book a time to sit down with the class teacher and have them go into the nuts & bolts about Jonny learning at school.
What would you learn about just reading a report on leather jackets made at a certain factory? Wouldn't you want to go there and check it out first hand. See work in progress and check the materials being used. Get a feel for the work place by talking to the workers.
How is school any different? Get in there and make your own informed judgements.
I'm with Quasi on this one.
Great abilities? But is he using those abilities or is he just doing what is needed?
Improving? So hes able to do one problem more at the end of the year than at the beginning.

When my kids were at school I hated this subjective reporting. Give me a number, a measurement. Jonny scored 88% on this subject and is placed 2nd in class; Jonny scored 63% on this subject and is 12th in class; Jonny scored 34% in this subject and is 28th in class. Simple and easily understood.

[Quasievil]

This must have been the general comment at the end of your kids report. What don't you understand about that statement?
1 Jonny is focussed and a well behaved student.(good boy)
2 He has demonstrated clearly that he understands what he is learning and can put it to practice. (great abilities)
3 And what don't you understand about' improving through the year'?!
If you want it spelt out to you, book a time to sit down with the class teacher and have them go into the nuts & bolts about Jonny learning at school.
What would you learn about just reading a report on leather jackets made at a certain factory? Wouldn't you want to go there and check it out first hand. See work in progress and check the materials being used. Get a feel for the work place by talking to the workers.
How is school any different? Get in there and make your own informed judgements.

I think personally I have sat down with my kids teachers 4 times in the last year, however this isnt a personal discussion is it?
The above wasnt an excerpt from the actual report but a general idea as to how it usually goes, reasonably accurate, so I read it and yes on the face of it sounds okay doesnt it, but then you ask your 15 year old to read something and they struggle, or ask him to work out a simple math equation and when they cant do it you are surprised because of the B.S in the reports.
Current reports are bollocks, I want to know if he can or if he cant, period, Im not interested in the flowery crap that riddles the current reports given out........thats my point.
I want a grade, pass or fail, simple...........P.C crap is not helpful in anyway shape or form, nor is the mentality of alot of the teaching profession, for example a princepal recently said at a teachers parent meeting I quote "Some kids are not good academically which is fine" WTF, no its not fine at all and basically said to all the kids present its ok not to be able to understand maths or english etc, utter B.S

The dumming down of our school system has had its Day !! the acceptance of mediocre performance is stupid and makes for a stupid society................welcome to NZ

[FROSTY]

Quasi Mate I get your point and also have the same frustrations.
My view is that its not about competition at school its about meeting a standard.
So for example by halfway through year 3 johhny needs to be able to read to this level do math to this level and wright this much.
if Johhny hasn't acheived this then Johnny needs remedial work at school so rather than poi poi dancing or music class he does remedial reading/math etc.

The joke of high school where if not enough kids passthe math test so we adjust it down reads to me as -Ohh we fucked up this year so we'll fudge the results so half pass

[spajohn]

Having skimmed one of last years ERO report it is alarming to see comments like "However, in some classes, poor quality teaching disadvantaged children who therefore did not develop or acquire essential early reading knowledge and skills." Oddly this wasn't mentioned in the Conclusions of the same report...maybe they didn't consider 10% of New Zealands teachers being inadequate in this area worth mentioning further?!

As for testing standards I agree that would be preferable but struggle to see how two such opposed groups would agree on what they should be. However do any of these proposed standards take into account issues such as poor nutrition in low decile schools? If they did would the government fund a canteen in these area's to ensure socioeconomically disadvantaged kids have the best opportunity to learn - and should they?

It's a tough debate...I'm not in favour of unions protecting under performing teachers, and believe there should be standards, but also believe there needs to be some allowance for other factors at play other than individual teacher's performance.

[spajohn]

I want a grade, pass or fail, simple....

On that my niece had her first year at university last year, and was shocked to be assessed on her own ability, rather than being graded relative to her classmates. In other words she got a 'B' but was used to being better than her classmates so therefore didn't need to achieve higher. I told her "Welcome to the real world".

Isn't this what national standards are about? Actually making kids strive to be better and parents knowing where their kids are at.

[Swoop]

Actually, Swoop, in the interests of accuracy, I think you'll find that NCEA was originally proposed by the National Government that preceded that particular labour government...
It is the fact that it is not working. Post #28 has some relevant comments...
9 years refers to the union influence in the liarbour party and how things have been running over that (long) time. A look at the school leavers does not inspire confidence that their taxes will be paying for our retirements...


Try think for yourself and don't just be an "I don't like change" conservative.
My experience of NCEA is that it's pretty good, actually.
Huh? I am all in favour of changing the current system. I also like the way Tolley is going about it as well... "Here are your standards to work to". IF that was put to a think-tank, then a committee, then another committee, then a working party, it would be watered down to something that was crap and didn't work... just like what we have now.
NCEA isn't as fabulous as they would have you believe and the whole education pipeline needs a revamp.

[slofox]

Sorry, team, this is long...

I taught Primary School for over a decade some twenty five years ago. Even then, we always knew if a kid was up to par or not. That is easy. I don't think that is the problem. There have always been kids who are good at something and kids who are bad at that thing. This will always be the case because every human ability is distrubuted in much the same way - over a "normal curve" for those who know statistics. So some will always be better at some things than others. Not everyone is capable of running a four minute mile and not everyone is a mathematical genius. Identifying this is nothing new.

National standards will just identify this yet again. They will do nothing to fix the problem which is what we all want. Labelling a problem doesn't fix it.

In my time in education there were also good and bad teachers. There was always a group of teachers who were there because they couldn't think of anything else to do when they left school. They were generally uncaring and often damn lazy to boot. I taught with quite a few of them. Thankfully, not many of them stayed in teaching for long.

There were also the plain incompetent ones. I had to deal with a few of them too, especially when I was a senior teacher and was responsible for such teachers. In one particular case, my principal made me work with a useless bugger to prevent him being kicked out. My job was, basically, to save his arse. I told the principal that I would be doing education a favour if he failed. I still believe he should have failed. But the pressure was on and I did save his arse. Probably to the eternal detriment of the kids he taught after that...He did all the paperwork right but just did not "get" kids. He was fuckin' useless.

I suspect this has not changed much.

Eventually I left teaching. For several reasons. I was, I believe, a good teacher. My kids had a helluva lot of fun at school and so did I. They progressed in most subjects. I was damn good at teaching maths and did manage to produce one young man who went on to very great heights in computer maths, thanks to the fact that we identified him as having extra ability and fed him stuff to realise his potential. He was seven when I taught him.

But even I couldn't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. We had kids starting school who could barely communicate verbally, let alone know one end of a book from the other. Why? Because they had been neglected from birth. They had barely been spoken to let alone conversed with or had books read to them or even been paid any attention. A teacher can only work with the material he/she is presented with. You can't make concrete without cement. When it comes to language skills, the whole basis of language is listening and speaking. You cannot go to reading and writing until the "natural" side of language is in place (Listening and Speaking is what I mean here). That HAS to be in place. And if the kid has not developed that by five years of age they will almost always lag behind. So mum and dad need to do their share as well. Education starts at home and the very basis of learning is set there.

I got fed up with that. Being given stick because i couldn't fix parental neglect pissed me off.

I also got sick of educational administrators - chair warmers who had never been at the coal face. They spent all their time dreaming up ways of making themselves look like they were essential. They reinvented some wheel or other every year. "Oh this year we are going to change the XYZ syllabus!" Great. Same old stuff with new labels mostly. "School Maths" was a big project back then. But essentially, all you need is addition and subtraction (multiplication and division is just repeated addition and subtraction BTW) and some measurement. Again, changing the labels did not change the content. What the kids needed to know was still the same. But those admin people wanted to disrupt it every year...

Lack of resources was another issue. One year I had a profoundly deaf girl in my class. If I could have worked with her one on one, we could have made great progress. She was bright enough to do anything. But I had thirty-one others to teach as well. She got ONE HOUR PER WEEK of specialist one on one time. Fucking useless. This is but one example of an ever recurring problem. I got sick of that too.

And, because I was a successful classroom teacher, I was always under pressure to climb the promotional ladder. I didn't want that. I loved classroom practice. I didn't want to drive an office. But the pressure was always there and I got sick of that too.

Finally there was the issue of pay. Rates back then were low. Because of my quals, I was paid at the top of the A Scale. But it was hard going with two kids and a non earning wife. I got sick of that too.

So there you have it.

My conclusions:

1. Some kids will always be better than others and some will always be worse than others in ANY human ability. We will never get them all the same and nor should we even try. The best we can do is fully realise each kid's potential whatever that may be.
2. Get rid of any incompetent teachers.
3. Pay the good teachers well enough to retain them.
4. Put enough resources into the schools to allow special input where it is needed.
5. Measuring a problem doesn't fix it.

[FROSTY]

slofox can I then ask you this question then. Do YOU feel a child must have good ENGLISH communication skills before they get to school ?

[rainman]

Huh? I am all in favour of changing the current system. I also like the way Tolley is going about it as well... "Here are your standards to work to". IF that was put to a think-tank, then a committee, then another committee, then a working party, it would be watered down to something that was crap and didn't work... just like what we have now.
NCEA isn't as fabulous as they would have you believe and the whole education pipeline needs a revamp.

Fair cop, I was being a bit grumpy yesterday. My apologies for being rude... However, one of the reasons people aren't keen on this is the way Tolley is going about it, from being a bit misleading about the surveyed support, f'rinstance, ignoring expert opinion, or not even doing a pilot. It's not like we don't already have assessment systems, so she's not going to fix the problem this way. And consulting on big changes tends to produce better systems - it's hardly going to make a crap system better if it's rammed through as this has been.

My comment about NCEA is based on my direct personal experience, not what "they" would have me believe. I genuinely think performance-based assessment is better than norm-based. My son's report last year was easy to understand, and showed where he did well, and where he needs to work harder this year. What they're teaching is good and to a good standard, the teachers are very good - and almost all work way harder for more shit and less money than almost everyone else I know. NZ Education as I experience it is a marvellous thing. But I accept that is not the case everywhere. Might pay to wonder on why that is?



My conclusions:

1. Some kids will always be better than others and some will always be worse than others in ANY human ability. We will never get them all the same and nor should we even try. The best we can do is fully realise each kid's potential whatever that may be.
2. Get rid of any incompetent teachers.
3. Pay the good teachers well enough to retain them.
4. Put enough resources into the schools to allow special input where it is needed.
5. Measuring a problem doesn't fix it.

Some good conslusions there. Chief problem with #2 (and #3, to an extent) is the overwhelming prevalence of hopelessly incompetent management, and intrinsic difficulty in measuring teacher perfomance. What happens to the good teacher who is given a horror class of undisciplined low performers? Or the opposite case? Teaching is difficult, it's not like truck driving or sales or office management or IT.


slofox can I then ask you this question then. Do YOU feel a child must have good ENGLISH communication skills before they get to school ?

I know you're asking slofox, but I was here so I thought I'd jump in... Yes, that would be nice, but what to do if it is not the case? Keep them at home? Same question can be applied at college age: should kids starting at college have basic numeracy and literacy? Yes, sure, but, what do you do with the ones who don't?

[slofox]

slofox can I then ask you this question then. Do YOU feel a child must have good ENGLISH communication skills before they get to school ?

In a word, Yes.

First and foremost though, they must be able to communicate in whatever langauge they speak. The essential bit is that "natural language" I mentioned - the ability to listen to and speak to others in whatever language. If they have that, they can learn English. Hell, we had immigrant kids turn up without English skills but with communication skills, they picked up the English bit soon enough with a little extra help. Having said that, given that English is the lingua franca round here, it sure as hell helps. Unless they are in some immersion school in another language.

If they turn up at school aged five, without much of that communication ability, then they are five years behind everyone else and in deep shit. So is the new entrant teacher, although I did see the odd miracle worked by such teachers. But more often, the kid was always behind forever after.

Hope this answers your question Frosty.

[slofox]

Some good conslusions there. Chief problem with #2 (and #3, to an extent) is the overwhelming prevalence of hopelessly incompetent management, and intrinsic difficulty in measuring teacher perfomance. What happens to the good teacher who is given a horror class of undisciplined low performers? Or the opposite case? Teaching is difficult, it's not like truck driving or sales or office management or IT.





Agreed. It ain't easy.

[ckai]

A number of reasons for having a wah.

2. Schools will be ranked in league tables (for why this is a bad thing see http://www.wellingtoncollege.org.uk/page.aspx?id=5114 ). It will encourage teaching to the exam. Schools will be fighting for higher rankings in league tables and exam preperation will come before actually teaching kids useful stuff. We already have excessive testing at primary schools.


This I don't get. Any ranking system isn't taking the ability of the student into consideration and isn't finding out what the student can or can't do. Ranking a school, teacher or student against each other is only showing how much crap some are.

Dunno if it's changed but back in '97 when I was in 6th form is was a bloody joke. Average 60% throughout the year and end up with a '5' because that's all that was allocated to the subject. What does that prove to anyone? It doesn't show my ability. It only shows that morons the year before were shit and didn't get good grades.

As for testing based on exams only....shit hold me back. This is a no-go zone for me. I always found it was like cheating when we went over past exams so we knew all the questions that could be asked.

Know the material, adapt to the question. Teachers shouldn't know exam material. That'll sort out the lazy ones.


I think its good, the point of children not being graded is stupid, if you suck at maths reading etc then it should be transparent for the child to see and the parent to see, currently when we get our boys school reports they dont mean shit as they are so PC " Jonny is a good boy with great abilities and is improving through the year" what the fuck does that mean?? Gauging against the national average is better.
When I was a kid it was 50% over you passed, under you failed.........simple easy and transparent.

Give me both, mark and comments. But don't sugar coat it. At the moment I don't like the idea of being told someone has "achieved" something. I wanna know if they know it well or not.



The joke of high school where if not enough kids passthe math test so we adjust it down reads to me as -Ohh we fucked up this year so we'll fudge the results so half pass

Well from someone on the receiving end of this in when I was in 7th form, I can say it saved my ass big time. :) I went from failing 3 subjects to passing all and getting a b-bursary (and $100/year for 3 years).

But totally agree with you, absolutely shit. On a whole I went up 20 marks. That was a shitload and a mate who was an A student lost 20 marks. That's crap really. Marks should be marks. Who benefits from adjustment? :shutup:

[ckai]

...
My conclusions:

1. Some kids will always be better than others and some will always be worse than others in ANY human ability. We will never get them all the same and nor should we even try. The best we can do is fully realise each kid's potential whatever that may be.
2. Get rid of any incompetent teachers.
3. Pay the good teachers well enough to retain them.
4. Put enough resources into the schools to allow special input where it is needed.
5. Measuring a problem doesn't fix it.

#1 is one of the reasons I believe in streaming classes. Abilities are divided and you can tailor tuition to suit. This may be because I always went to schools that did this. Primary school was interesting. We were taken aside if we showed we excelled in something and pushed harder.

Would I think this way if I didn't excel and was in fact below average? Went through this as well. Got put in a muppet class full of muppets and was told by the muppet teacher only 2 would pass. I wasn't one of them.

Which emphasises #2, 3 and 4. If we had a better teacher, more would have passed.

This is why parents who have a choice send their kids to the best schools and the school keeps getting better.

A question: Would people be prepared to increase their tax by 1% if it meant we improved our schools (read: ability of teachers) by, say, 50%?

[rainman]

At the moment I don't like the idea of being told someone has "achieved" something. I wanna know if they know it well or not.

That's called "Merit", or maybe "Excellence"...

[KiWiP]

That's called "Merit", or maybe "Excellence"...

True, but it is very cut and dry between grades and as has been mentioned the exact criteria for these grades can be adjusted to ensure only the top 5% or so attain excellence. What is wrong with having an assessment that has a potential to score 100points the score can then easily be converted into a percentage :rolleyes: For that years test the mean and median score can be published and therefore a true picture of the candidates prowess/ability is indicated compared to the rest of the nation.

Failing that a test involving a simple algebraic equation reveals a number that is the page to turn to in a book.

Reading that book leads to a set of instructions in the third paragraph.

They read "when the men with machine guns come through the door and say 'everybody stand up' you must lay on the floor and put your fingers in your ears"

The men with machine guns will then open fire on everyone standing. This will remove everyone who does not a) meet the national standard for numeracy, b) meet the NS for literacy, c) follow government issued instructions (to avoid confusion the men with guns should wear t-shirts stating 'I am not from the government')

[rainman]

True, but it is very cut and dry between grades and as has been mentioned the exact criteria for these grades can be adjusted to ensure only the top 5% or so attain excellence. What is wrong with having an assessment that has a potential to score 100points the score can then easily be converted into a percentage :rolleyes: For that years test the mean and median score can be published and therefore a true picture of the candidates prowess/ability is indicated compared to the rest of the nation.


You do know that the old system wasn't an absolute result, right, and was routinely adjusted to match the historical achievement profile? Leaving aside the fact that tests vary from event to event, so you're not getting an absolute assessment no matter what. NCEA actually does less of this result-fudging, being standard-based. Maybe there should be an NCEA achievement standard in understanding testing systems!

The original thread is about the new nat stds for Y1-8 though. The fundamental problem with "absolute" testing there is that kids develop at such different rates. Example: my neighbour's kid was barely talking when he started Y1, but has now caught up (verbally and with regard to literacy generally) some years later. Would he have scored well according to nat stds at, say, Y2? Not a hope in hell. Did his teachers do an excellent job in bringing him up to speed by Y6? Absolutely. What conclusions could you have sensibly drawn about teaching quality from national standards? None.

It's just the Nats having an ideological beatup of a highly unionised workforce. (For most of us, they're not actually on our side. They just talk a good game).



Failing that a test involving a simple algebraic equation reveals a number that is the page to turn to in a book.
...

Lay off the drugs, dude, they're not good for you.

[MisterD]

Sorry..playing catch up.


From what I can gather, the problem is that children are to be assessed and graded against national averages?

This will of course grade many as below average, which flies in the face of our education system, which grades all children as "above average". The entire NCEA system is based on that premise.

This is a common misconception - these national standards are minimum expectations...a check to see if kid x is going to come out with the basic skills required to have a shit show at life.


This I don't get. Any ranking system isn't taking the ability of the student into consideration and isn't finding out what the student can or can't do. Ranking a school, teacher or student against each other is only showing how much crap some are.

Yeah, but the trouble is it's not a level playing field looking at the results they put out. What we need is a way of actually assessing the value any given school adds.

Interestingly the lefties' favourite Kenyan American is tying increased school funding to performance evaluation of teachers...not that the provisional wing of the teachers unions* would let that stand for a moment after they got re-elected.

*commonly known as the Labour Party

[ckai]

That's called "Merit", or maybe "Excellence"...

Yeah realised this. I'm just old fashioned and like marks that are untouched and raw. I had a teacher give me a "merit" certificate because I missed out by 1 mark. He was a good sort. We had a chuckle about it.


You do know that the old system wasn't an absolute result, right, and was routinely adjusted to match the historical achievement profile? Leaving aside the fact that tests vary from event to event, so you're not getting an absolute assessment no matter what. NCEA actually does less of this result-fudging, being standard-based. Maybe there should be an NCEA achievement standard in understanding testing systems!

The original thread is about the new nat stds for Y1-8 though. The fundamental problem with "absolute" testing there is that kids develop at such different rates. Example: my neighbour's kid was barely talking when he started Y1, but has now caught up (verbally and with regard to literacy generally) some years later. Would he have scored well according to nat stds at, say, Y2? Not a hope in hell. Did his teachers do an excellent job in bringing him up to speed by Y6? Absolutely. What conclusions could you have sensibly drawn about teaching quality from national standards? None.


Totally get why you don't "test" at primary school like you do in high school due to different learning rates. I've always thought the younger you are the more noticeable the different rates between kids are.

So for clarity, are they saying the new system now tests these kids using a more "absolute" means? I saw some questions on the news and it was interesting how they worked out some of the answers. Seemed confusing and illogical (I never could get long division though)

[KiWiP]

You do know that the old system wasn't an absolute result, right,

True, Oh yes, and no assessment can ever be absolutely right. Assessment can be used for one of two purposes. Either to sort those who are being assessed into those who can and those who cannot, or measure the performance of those delivering the content.
In the first case the teacher can usually predict how a pupil is going to perform in an exam. My analysis of my pupils predicted performance and actual in this round of NCEAs yielded very few surprises. The surprises came from a few pupils who did sod all all year then got a tutor at the 11th hour and crammed like a crazy thing. What does that prove? If you work hard you can pass! Go figure. This is why Sweden uses teacher reporting for university entrance cuts out a lot of needless crap. It's not a good idea for teachers to false report as they will lose professional credibility.
In the second, it would possible to correlate between pupil performance and curriculum delivery if curriculum delivery were the only factor in pupil performance. But it isn't. School managers know (or at least should do if they are doing their jobs right) who the under and over performing teachers are and act accordingly.

The original thread is about the new nat stds for Y1-8 though.
True and this is why the principal that government should leave education to the educators holds at all levels. Government 'tinkers' to get votes. They do not really care. If they did they would ensure appropriate conditions for qualification and work input, they would include tertiary education in their education strategy (not just how much money they get) and develop a system of whole community education.


Lay off the drugs, dude, they're not good for you.
I am funny as f**k, :bleh:

[rainman]

So for clarity, are they saying the new system now tests these kids using a more "absolute" means? I saw some questions on the news and it was interesting how they worked out some of the answers. Seemed confusing and illogical (I never could get long division though)

That's a good question - it's kinda what the pitch to the public says, but it isn't clear at all from the info on the minedu or tki sites. Minedu says it's a teacher subjective judgement (moderated and aligned with the curriculum - sounds expensive, good thing it'll fix the literacy and numeracy problem. Oh wait...), but tki talks more about norm-based assessment. Some of their examples show PAT assessment scores, although there is no real talk about making PAT testing mandatory. Personally I think they're making this shit up as they go along. The minedu age is particularly woolly - read the bits about plain language reporting for a laugh. Also have a look at the sample report templates here (http://assessment.tki.org.nz/content/download/328/1903/version/6/file/Report+Template+IP+1.pdf) and here (http://assessment.tki.org.nz/content/download/329/1909/version/9/file/Report+Template+NS+1.pdf) - these are not going to provde people the hard numeric scores they think they're going to get. (AKA once again, you're being conned).

I mean, it's Tolley at work, you can hardly expect anything competent.

[Dave Lobster]

True and this is why the principal that government should leave education to the educators holds at all levels. Government 'tinkers' to get votes. They do not really care.


Isn't this a dangerous thing though?
I can't really speak about specifics of this country, having not been educated here. But I've met a few young people in their 20s here whose heads have been filled with outrageous lies by teachers in this country. However.. leaving teaching to the teachers leaves them with a huge responsibility to teach the truth as they see it.
I see that as a bad thing, considering how many teachers have left wing views.

[ckai]

Also have a look at the sample report templates here (http://assessment.tki.org.nz/content/download/328/1903/version/6/file/Report+Template+IP+1.pdf) and here (http://assessment.tki.org.nz/content/download/329/1909/version/9/file/Report+Template+NS+1.pdf) - these are not going to provde people the hard numeric scores they think they're going to get. (AKA once again, you're being conned).

I mean, it's Tolley at work, you can hardly expect anything competent.

Certainly not. In saying that, if the teacher completes them correctly and doesn't put all the bullshit in, they look like they'll provide the feedback a parent needs (I specifically didn't say 'wants'). No doubt, by the time my kid is going to school, they will change again.

I suppose, if I'm honest, it comes down to this; if my kid is getting the well-rounded education they need, without disruptions from other students (god help him if he's the disruptor :)), I don't care what the system is, as long as it does the job. The problem is education is a personal thing (different learning rates etc) and we just don't have the funding to provide the best system.

[Quasievil]

Give me both, mark and comments. But don't sugar coat it. At the moment I don't like the idea of being told someone has "achieved" something. I wanna know if they know it well or not.



errr yeah aint that what Im saying ?

[Swoop]

The "Achieved" grade is the scariest.
It means that the kid is bright enough to pass the assessment, BUT there is a large grey area above that before you get anywhere near the "Merit" grade.
A percentage score would identify this very quickly and enable educators, parents and employers to see who was only just passing, who was putting a bit more effort in and who were really striving ahead.

Sadly, we abandoned that way of thinking when "unit standards" came along.

[ckai]

errr yeah aint that what Im saying ?

Yip, agreeing with ya and adding my 2c (about unit standards)

[KiWiP]

But I've met a few young people in their 20s here whose heads have been filled with outrageous lies by teachers in this country.

If that was in the classroom then it was very unprofessional of the teachers involved. In the classroom there must exist balance and room for their own opinion to be formed. I have many strong views; war, 'isms, nuclear power and on and on but whenever I profess a view I make damn sure the pupils know it is my personal take and not necessarily the truth.


I see that as a bad thing, considering how many teachers have left wing views.
Sorry but that is such a sack of shit if for no other reason than you are accusing teachers of gross misconduct (coercing a pupils political viewpoint). It is a widely held view that because we promote unionism very strongly we are all carrot munching, hippy, marxists. Teachers are representative of all walks of life (we teach all walks of life) if anything there are more central political views as that is the world we live in (my opinion, no stats, no photos). We promote unionism as employee protection. A non union member accused (rightly or wrongly) of infractions very rapidly finds themselves unemployed. Union members have the backing of the majority of NZ teachers and get professional and legal representation when they need it. As a collective agreement is in place they also get a say in the terms and conditions of their employment. Which you would not get in any other non unionised state sector employment.

[Dave Lobster]

If that was in the classroom then it was very unprofessional of the teachers involved. In the classroom there must exist balance and room for their own opinion to be formed. I have many strong views; war, 'isms, nuclear power and on and on but whenever I profess a view I make damn sure the pupils know it is my personal take and not necessarily the truth.


My example.. girl in her early twenties, educated (!) at some catholic school in Ponsonby. Convinced, as she'd been taught it at school that WW2 was started by the Germans because they wanted to take all the jews money. Convinced it was fact, as she'd been taught it at school. If such a blatent lie is being taught with such conviction, what else is there?



Sorry but that is such a sack of shit if for no other reason than you are accusing teachers of gross misconduct (coercing a pupils political viewpoint). It is a widely held view that because we promote unionism very strongly we are all carrot munching, hippy, marxists. Teachers are representative of all walks of life (we teach all walks of life) if anything there are more central political views as that is the world we live in (my opinion, no stats, no photos). We promote unionism as employee protection. A non union member accused (rightly or wrongly) of infractions very rapidly finds themselves unemployed. Union members have the backing of the majority of NZ teachers and get professional and legal representation when they need it. As a collective agreement is in place they also get a say in the terms and conditions of their employment. Which you would not get in any other non unionised state sector employment.

Unions are there solely for the benefit of the people that SHOULD be booted out.
AND, teachers shouldn't be pushing any political direction, even if they do see it as a good thing - unions. Promoting unionism IS a marxist agenda.

[rainman]

But I've met a few young people in their 20s here whose heads have been filled with outrageous lies by teachers in this country. However.. leaving teaching to the teachers leaves them with a huge responsibility to teach the truth as they see it.
I see that as a bad thing, considering how many teachers have left wing views.

Funny, the only case I've come across in my experience (through my kids) of explicit political views being expressed in the classroom has been from a devoted Act supporter.

Anyway, spiner has some interesting things to say (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/blogs/on-the-house/3286456/Nationals-standards-a-fight-it-won-t-win) about JK's approach to the NS debate...

[MisterD]

Sorry but that is such a sack of shit if for no other reason than you are accusing teachers of gross misconduct

As far as I'm concerned the current campaign of state employees to defeat the expressed will of their employers is gross misconduct and should result in sackings. The long and the short of it is that there is absolutely no good reason why there should not be a nationally set minimum standard of achievement for basic skills. There is also no good reason for parents not being told where their child(ren) stack up against those standards.

The fact is that the teaching unions are dead-set against anything that might highlight the deficiencies of their members...the profession has been a refuge for the incompetent for far too long. The expression "Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach." is not a truism for nothing....oh, and my Mum (a maths teacher for 25years) used to add: "Those that can't teach, teach teachers..."

[Dave Lobster]

"Those that can't teach, teach teachers..."

And those that can't do that become union reps.

[Winston001]

Good discussion.

I'm in the happy position of having my children finished with primary school but when they were there they had excellent education.

Our school did use individual child assessments so my wife and I always knew where each child fell on the national average. It was a vague dot on a tiny graph but as long as it was in the middle or to the right, the news was good. It seems to me this is what the govt want to introduce to all schools. Appears pretty harmless. Funnily enough though, this primary school's teachers are against the new standards which seems to be an ideological position.

As for ranking, I can think of another high decile primary school which is distinctly average in performance. However apart from the odd critical ERO reports (which most parents don't read) you have no way of knowing this school does not do a good job. I don't believe ranking is anything to fear because the clumsy decile system does it by default.

As for poor schools and lack of resources - the primary resource in your child's education is the teacher. There is plenty of research to support this. What is often missing however is family support for the child and the teacher is waging an uphill battle. All the interactive whiteboards, school halls, computers etc in the world make no difference if a child isn't nurtured from home.

[scracha]

Devil's advocate for a second - the current system simply isn't working (going off the number of illiterate kids leaving school), so If National Standards aren't the solution, what is?

Pump some real money into education. Have systems in place to retain the best teachers and reward them. Have systems in place to get rid off the worst teachers, and umm...don't reward them. There's no way you're gonna get many good teachers with the shit wages they're paid.

[Swoop]

"Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach."
"And those who can't teach, inspect"...

my Mum (a maths teacher for 25years) used to add: "Those that can't teach, teach teachers..."
A wise woman!

[KiWiP]

The expression "Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach." is not a truism for nothing

MisterD - Selling test equipment to telcos. A 'can do' job (not a profession :bleh:) You've always got a job in teaching then


oh, and my Mum (a maths teacher for 25years) used to add: "Those that can't teach, teach teachers..."

Can't argue with that though :2thumbsup

[MisterD]

You've always got a job in teaching then

I nearly did go that way and it's still under consideration as a career change once both boys are at school...the biggest downsides to becoming a teacher are 1) very limited ability to negotiate on my own behalf and 2) complete inability to earn more by being f-ing good at the job...

[Dave Lobster]

I nearly did go that way and it's still under consideration as a career change once both boys are at school...the biggest downsides to becoming a teacher are 1) very limited ability to negotiate on my own behalf and 2) complete inability to earn more by being f-ing good at the job...

There was someone praising union thinking earlier on in the thread.