Education online.

**Ocean1** · 23rd August 2016, 22:32

Originally Posted by Moi

I believe in NZ the two have never been unrelated, especially in our public education which began with the first Education Act of 1877. And probably prior to that, too, because education was privately provided.

Why should education be the business of anyone other than parents? Because public education is tax funded then anyone paying taxes should be interested in what is happening and what is its value. Are we getting value for our educational dollar?

If having online learning is educationally sound then providing it for those for whom it will benefit is worthwhile. If it is another fad or fashion then... I believe it has a place within our education system, along with other programmes and concepts.

We could kick around value for price comparisons all night, but I'll just perhaps point out that public spending is rarely related to any value the client receives in return. That's, arguably why anything is publicly funded in the first place; the "market" is completely artificial, as it certainly is in education.

And given that on line education is unlikely to cost anywhere near what current options do, publicly funded or otherwise then I'd suggest those taxpayers in this instance should probably defer to the actual consumer: the parents. This, admittedly based on my own feelings on who should decide what's best for my kids, regardless of who's paying what.

I see the need for proper schools, not least for the social thing. But I'm also aware of specialist tutorial systems for ADHD kids, for example, and I know that class of specialisation isn't usually available in a traditional classroom. Can't be, with traditional teacher/pupil rations. So again, why not both, as required, based on parents observations of the respective outcomes of either?

**Moi** · 24th August 2016, 16:24

Have spent some time today thinking about how to reply to your comments. I will apologise now for its length, but I think that a short comment would be both rude to you and do a disservice to the discussion. I would hope that if others are following this thread then between the two of us we are giving them something to think about.

Here goes: [your comments in italics]

We could kick around value for price comparisons all night, but I'll just perhaps point out that public spending is rarely related to any value the client receives in return. That's, arguably why anything is publicly funded in the first place; the "market" is completely artificial, as it certainly is in education.

I would suggest that “value” in return for the costs involved with educating a populace is not something which you will necessarily see in the immediate future. It may well be that it is seen in a generation or twos time.

However, the present government and minister do see “value” in education by collecting results from National Standards across the primary sector, comparing NZCE results at Years 11 to 13 and pass rates and grades for tertiary. They appear to place a great deal of emphasis on these data and remind education sectors regularly of this. These are very short term “markers” for value in education.

On the other hand, to look at what is happening and what is producing results over a number of years is another way to assess “value” in education. The NZ Council for Educational Research and the Education Assessment Research Unit at Otago have undertaken research to see the value of education and the changes apparent over the years. Many academics and classroom practitioners have also gathered data over the years as a comparison and baseline for changes in educational achievement over the years.

Which brings me to the point of these paragraphs: “value” is something that may take many years to show and just because we have most achieving above the National Standard today doesn’t necessarily mean that there is value in what they have learnt, in all meanings of the word, 20 years down the track. Putting the effort into five-year olds now may well pay dividends when their children start school 20 years in the future. But without long term research we will never really know this.

And given that on line education is unlikely to cost anywhere near what current options do, publicly funded or otherwise then I'd suggest those taxpayers in this instance should probably defer to the actual consumer: the parents. This, admittedly based on my own feelings on who should decide what's best for my kids, regardless of who's paying what.

I have no worries about parents making choices for their children’s education. I just hope that they are informed choices and from what they are choosing are worthwhile and appropriate choices. On-line education has many advantages, as does classroom-based education. Both have many disadvantages as well. The biggest disadvantage for classroom based education is cost - property costs, maintenance costs, running costs, salary costs and so on - spread over many sites. On-line would certainly save on those no doubt. However, just because it is less costly to implement does it mean that it is superior to the traditional classroom based model. I would suggest that looking at its “superiority” based on cost alone is fundamentally flawed. However, if on-line education can provide a superior education over classroom based education, for whatever reason, then it should be included in the mix. It is about being complementary. If it is taken as part of the education model and allowed to be used to support a child’s education then there is value in its use.

I see the need for proper schools, not least for the social thing. But I'm also aware of specialist tutorial systems for ADHD kids, for example, and I know that class of specialisation isn't usually available in a traditional classroom. Can't be, with traditional teacher/pupil rations. So again, why not both, as required, based on parents observations of the respective outcomes of either?

Agree. But I would suggest that parents, their child and the child’s teachers collaborate on this so you achieve the best possible result for the child. Just because it is new doesn’t mean that it is best practice in all situations.

**george formby** · 24th August 2016, 21:11

I've recently started a new career as a tertiary teacher, 9 weeks in.
Truth be told, my mind is blown on many levels. Stepping from a kitchen into a dedicated, modern, forward thinking teaching environment is amazing. I wish you could all see what the mere printer can do. Astonishing! Even more astonishing is the dedication of the course managers and teachers. They create a disciplined, positive and motivational environment with flexible attitudes.

And the students. Take a sliver of Northland and stick it in a class room. What they all have in common is being connected 24/7. We have huge on line resources which the students use, blogs and posts keep students up to date with assignment information, events etc.
Something I've noticed so far is that the average and lower achieving students are distracted with their phones and lap tops. The high achievers have figured out they are tools. Which they use with great skill.

I reckon half the students could do the same work on a computer in half the time a teacher does. Go figure. I think it's vital kids learn to use the internet and computers as tools, as early as possible. Social learning is equally as vital but I see no reason why it should be 5 days a week. That's training for a 9 to 5 job not education.
Also, the less time a teacher sits at an office computer, the more time they teach. I hope this is a move towards combined learning.

I think it's a discussion about the inevitable. It could be amazing or it could be bullshit. Depends on the motivation and purpose.

I'm going to ask my class about this thread. Some of them are parents, some fresh from school, and they all have a story to tell. I believe their opinion will be smarter and have more relevance than mine.

To be resumed.

**mashman** · 25th August 2016, 11:29

I Love This Cutting-Edge School Design... Bill Gates.

**buggerit** · 25th August 2016, 12:01

The princapable at our primary school said that if he could have the kids to year 8, the College they go to would not be so
critical, as he would have taught them to teach themselves.
Currently our kids suffer from lack of exercise and to much screen time, gaming addictions etc.
What about Bullrush

**EJK** · 25th August 2016, 12:09

Originally Posted by buggerit

The princapable at our primary school said that if he could have the kids to year 8, the College they go to would not be so
critical, as he would have taught them to teach themselves.
Currently our kids suffer from lack of exercise and to much screen time, gaming addictions etc.
What about Bullrush

Bullrush!! Best lunch time ever!!!

**Moi** · 25th August 2016, 12:23

Originally Posted by mashman

I Love This Cutting-Edge School Design... Bill Gates.

A little closer to home... Hobsonville Point Secondary.

**Moi** · 25th August 2016, 12:26

Originally Posted by EJK

Bullrush!! Best lunch time ever!!!

Ball tiggy - with a wet tennis ball

**Banditbandit** · 25th August 2016, 13:02

Originally Posted by buggerit

What about Bullrush

I'm sure there will be an app shortly that will let you play that ..

**mashman** · 25th August 2016, 15:22

Originally Posted by Moi

A little closer to home... Hobsonville Point Secondary.

I've no doubt they all strive to be able to engage in such a way.

Originally Posted by Moi

Ball tiggy - with a wet tennis ball

Ouchy fuck.

Originally Posted by Banditbandit

I'm sure there will be an app shortly that will let you play that ..

Ah, but the app will soon learn

**Ocean1** · 25th August 2016, 17:11

Originally Posted by Moi

Have spent some time today thinking about how to reply to your comments. I will apologise now for its length, but I think that a short comment would be both rude to you and do a disservice to the discussion. I would hope that if others are following this thread then between the two of us we are giving them something to think about.

Here goes: [your comments in italics]

We could kick around value for price comparisons all night, but I'll just perhaps point out that public spending is rarely related to any value the client receives in return. That's, arguably why anything is publicly funded in the first place; the "market" is completely artificial, as it certainly is in education.

I would suggest that “value” in return for the costs involved with educating a populace is not something which you will necessarily see in the immediate future. It may well be that it is seen in a generation or twos time.

However, the present government and minister do see “value” in education by collecting results from National Standards across the primary sector, comparing NZCE results at Years 11 to 13 and pass rates and grades for tertiary. They appear to place a great deal of emphasis on these data and remind education sectors regularly of this. These are very short term “markers” for value in education.

On the other hand, to look at what is happening and what is producing results over a number of years is another way to assess “value” in education. The NZ Council for Educational Research and the Education Assessment Research Unit at Otago have undertaken research to see the value of education and the changes apparent over the years. Many academics and classroom practitioners have also gathered data over the years as a comparison and baseline for changes in educational achievement over the years.

Which brings me to the point of these paragraphs: “value” is something that may take many years to show and just because we have most achieving above the National Standard today doesn’t necessarily mean that there is value in what they have learnt, in all meanings of the word, 20 years down the track. Putting the effort into five-year olds now may well pay dividends when their children start school 20 years in the future. But without long term research we will never really know this.

And given that on line education is unlikely to cost anywhere near what current options do, publicly funded or otherwise then I'd suggest those taxpayers in this instance should probably defer to the actual consumer: the parents. This, admittedly based on my own feelings on who should decide what's best for my kids, regardless of who's paying what.

I have no worries about parents making choices for their children’s education. I just hope that they are informed choices and from what they are choosing are worthwhile and appropriate choices. On-line education has many advantages, as does classroom-based education. Both have many disadvantages as well. The biggest disadvantage for classroom based education is cost - property costs, maintenance costs, running costs, salary costs and so on - spread over many sites. On-line would certainly save on those no doubt. However, just because it is less costly to implement does it mean that it is superior to the traditional classroom based model. I would suggest that looking at its “superiority” based on cost alone is fundamentally flawed. However, if on-line education can provide a superior education over classroom based education, for whatever reason, then it should be included in the mix. It is about being complementary. If it is taken as part of the education model and allowed to be used to support a child’s education then there is value in its use.

I see the need for proper schools, not least for the social thing. But I'm also aware of specialist tutorial systems for ADHD kids, for example, and I know that class of specialisation isn't usually available in a traditional classroom. Can't be, with traditional teacher/pupil rations. So again, why not both, as required, based on parents observations of the respective outcomes of either?

Agree. But I would suggest that parents, their child and the child’s teachers collaborate on this so you achieve the best possible result for the child. Just because it is new doesn’t mean that it is best practice in all situations.

I don't have a problem with quantifying value in terms of how closely an institution manages to achieve annual targets for actual knowledge gained. I don't have a problem with any other rational measurement unit either. But I reckon you'd find a high degree of correlation across most methods, including valid long range forecasts. The fact is you can't assess anything without measuring it.

It's not relevant how informed the parents decision is, it remains theirs to make. In my experience no teacher has ever attempted to discuss with me the relative merits of a given model of education, and, again based on personal experience none seemed able to discuss the related costs. Maybe that should change.

Indeed. But in fact most new things have distinct advantages, somewhere. The trick is on one hand deciding where that is while with the other hand fending off the hoards of outraged Luddites that don't want it at any price.

**Moi** · 26th August 2016, 12:08

Originally Posted by Ocean1

I don't have a problem with quantifying value in terms of how closely an institution manages to achieve annual targets for actual knowledge gained. I don't have a problem with any other rational measurement unit either. But I reckon you'd find a high degree of correlation across most methods, including valid long range forecasts. The fact is you can't assess anything without measuring it.

However, institutions need to make sure they are assessing the particular knowledge with an appropriate assessment tool before they can quantify value against preset targets. In order to do this they need to decide what they mean by “knowledge”? Is it procedural [as in factual/process] or conceptual? How do you assess procedural knowledge vs conceptual knowledge? Procedural is relatively straight forward however conceptual is influenced by people’s world view and consequently more difficult. Another issue is who sets the annual targets? Outside set targets could be biased towards particular socio-economic groups. If set within school, are they realistic and how well are they bench-marked against other schools of similar size, character, urban/rural and so forth. And annual targets achieved or not can easily lead to league tables - already in NZ a school’s decile ranking is often seen in this manner - which then place further values on the achieved annual targets.

Originally Posted by Ocean1

I don't have a problem with any other rational measurement unit either. But I reckon you'd find a high degree of correlation across most methods, including valid long range forecasts. The fact is you can't assess anything without measuring it.

As you say, assessment and consequently reporting are predicated on gathering data which is going to provide information that is appropriate for the assessment requirements. However, whether there is any correlation between short term and immediate assessment of education value, such as comparing National Standards achievement results within and across schools, and the long term assessment of education value, such as that gathered by the National Monitoring Study of Student Achievement [NMSSA] undertaken by the Education Assessment Research Unit at Otago, I am unable to state one way or the other with any conviction. The problem, I see, is that the two types of assessment are different types of assessment - one is of a summative nature and the other is certainly ipsative. The NCEA results are summative in that they report what has happened at that time whereas the NMSSA is ipsative as one of its purposes is to measure change over time.

Originally Posted by Ocean1

It's not relevant how informed the parents decision is, it remains theirs to make. In my experience no teacher has ever attempted to discuss with me the relative merits of a given model of education, and, again based on personal experience none seemed able to discuss the related costs. Maybe that should change.

I agree, it is the parents’ decision. However, I would hope that it is an informed decision and not a decision based on whim, fad or fancy. You mention “model of education” - from that I take you mean the model of delivery. If that is the case then in NZ we, in my opinion, have only two models of education - school based or home based. From there I would suggest that you move into the method used for the delivery based on the varying theories of education and learning and curriculum development and so forth. The concept of on-line delivery, in my opinion, like that of the correspondence has its place in both models. Most teachers would not dare suggest that perhaps “your child” might be better if they were home-schooled - despite whatever we may think! Should parents ask about alternatives then most teachers would discuss what is available and assist parents to locate information they require. As for related costs, I wonder how many people really want to know. But if you do want to know it is public information.

Originally Posted by Ocean1

Indeed. But in fact most new things have distinct advantages, somewhere. The trick is on one hand deciding where that is while with the other hand fending off the hoards of outraged Luddites that don't want it at any price.

 I agree. I see the potential for on-line learning in many areas of education from early childhood through to postdoctoral, both in the traditional school based setting and in the off-school setting, such as home schooling. I understand that on-line learning is already used by the Correspondence School across all education sectors: early childhood through to secondary. I see this initiative as an extension of that use rather than as a replacement for either of the two existing models. There is often initial hesitation to take up new ideas and this needs to be seen not as Luddite behaviour but rather caution. Unlike buying the wrong bike and selling it in six months and taking the financial hit, if you get education wrong then the affects from that decision can easily last for several generations. 