Godzone falling in the international education ratings

[BoristheBiter]

We are constantly measuring our performance, but it is not a one size fits all tool that everyone seems to think will work, there are too many variables in each individual student let alone the entire student body. The question I often consider is what makes effective teaching, passing grades or turning out people who can function well in today's society. I recall talking to a management graduate a few years ago and watching the confusion on his face when I explained the management systems of a normal school.
Another concern I have is that everyone is judging modern education on their experiences from their own schooling often years ago. This problem is not one than can be addressed by just testing students more frequently all that does is makes teachers teach to the test criteria and turn away from the opportunity to broaden the horizons of teenagers who have very little experience.
I know most people think that this problem can be solved by just focussing on the education sector but the reality is that it is much bigger than just us. For education to work well it must be valued by society and it pains me to say this (and i know a lot of you will disagree) but in my opinion the ability to kick a ball or sing well seems much more valued than the ability to learn. How many people in your circle of friends could name New Zealand's last Nobel Prize winner compared to the number that could name the first five for the All Blacks when they won the rugby world cup in 1987.
While I was typing this another interesting fact came to mind, during my time as a school student int the late 70s and early 80s only 1 in 20 of us headed of to further education, this figure has risen to about 1 in 5 so we must be achieving some form of success.

Maybe the teachers are not teaching the correct things?
Maybe it is the fact back then we had to pay for it and now you just get a student loan, or the fact that there are more people going for the same job so the more quals the better.
Maybe it was because most went and got blue collar jobs were most now want to sit in an office.

All I know is kids out of school are not being taught to the same level we were and teachers are the front line so you get the blame.

[Banditbandit]

As a child I didn't, just knew the teachers I liked and the ones I didn't.
As an adult, in the broadest use of the word, I can see what their failing were.

You say teachers are not there to be liked but to teach, well I say it is the same thing. We are talking high school not tertiary, where you, the student, are there because you have chosen to be.

Quote from my 5th form maths teacher to my parents at teacher/parent day " I can't teach him as he knows it better than I do". it wasn't hard as she only taught out of the text book. (she was head of department)

Yes - I get we are talking about high schools (and primary schools) - students have not chosen to be there and that makes it harder ...

I don't see that makes a difference - teachers are still there to teach, not to be liked .. yes, having stduents like you does make it weasier to teach them - but we can all make stsuetns liek us - it is harder to make them learn ..

My experience at high school was bad - and I refused to participate .. point blank refused ...

Should a teacher be judged on my failures??

Maybe the teachers are not teaching the correct things?
Maybe it is the fact back then we had to pay for it and now you just get a student loan, or the fact that there are more people going for the same job so the more quals the better.
Maybe it was because most went and got blue collar jobs were most now want to sit in an office.

All I know is kids out of school are not being taught to the same level we were and teachers are the front line so you get the blame.

Now who's mixing high school and tertiary ...

And did we have to pay for it? When I started in tertiary (mid 1970s) my fees were a week's net wages ... the rest was paid for by the Government ... It's still true that the Governmetn pays around 75% of the cost of tertiary education ...

And how do you know your last statement is true? What comparisons have you made with you and your colleagues' level of cognative and practical abilities at various stages of your life with those of the younger generation?

[Ocean1]

What a bizarre comment. Of course we are assessed, audited and checked against national standards. Clearly you have no idea other that your own "hysterical reaction".

Bizarre? It’s a statement of fact, accepted by management specialists and every industry on the planet, except yours.

And your reaction to the observation is exactly as I suggested was typical of many in your profession. It’s extraordinarily counterproductive behaviour, no matter what you perceive to be the merits of any given measurement system.

[Ocean1]

Yes - the issue is not that teachers do not want perfromance to be measured - as we keep repeating, it's the suggested measurements that we don't like.

Fine, I have no issue with better tools, as long as they do the job.

So - swhould teachers be measured on pass rates ??? Not by themselves - too many other factors to take into account.

WHo said anything about measuring teachers? Measure the kids, that's the critical factor in question. And until you get rational comparitive data on what the kid's learned you've got no chance of identifying where improvements can be made.

[Ocean1]

We are constantly measuring our performance, but it is not a one size fits all tool that everyone seems to think will work, there are too many variables in each individual student let alone the entire student body. The question I often consider is what makes effective teaching, passing grades or turning out people who can function well in today's society. I recall talking to a management graduate a few years ago and watching the confusion on his face when I explained the management systems of a normal school.
Another concern I have is that everyone is judging modern education on their experiences from their own schooling often years ago. This problem is not one than can be addressed by just testing students more frequently all that does is makes teachers teach to the test criteria and turn away from the opportunity to broaden the horizons of teenagers who have very little experience.
I know most people think that this problem can be solved by just focussing on the education sector but the reality is that it is much bigger than just us. For education to work well it must be valued by society and it pains me to say this (and i know a lot of you will disagree) but in my opinion the ability to kick a ball or sing well seems much more valued than the ability to learn. How many people in your circle of friends could name New Zealand's last Nobel Prize winner compared to the number that could name the first five for the All Blacks when they won the rugby world cup in 1987.
While I was typing this another interesting fact came to mind, during my time as a school student int the late 70s and early 80s only 1 in 20 of us headed of to further education, this figure has risen to about 1 in 5 so we must be achieving some form of success.

There's nothing there that represents a reason not to measure students knowledge. Yes they're complicate units, but it's not impossible to form a quantifiable statement of achievement that provides a common benchmark across any given age/area/whatever.

You’re right about NZ's culture under-recognising the importance of education, and I can sympathise with the lack of motivation that must cause amongst your kids. But put the blame for that where it belongs: Professional excellence doesn't pay much better than any one of a number of much easier life choices. When failing at school is seen in the same light as some immigrant cultures in NZ we might see the same results, eh?

Ah, the Uni thing. Without resorting to reference to the UK TV series putting modern kids into their grandparent's teaching institutions and methodology, their markedly lower achievement rates and their subsequent improvement in performance I can observe that much that's taught in university today was taught years before that in ages past. And much of the recently available syllabus isn’t what’s likely to provide skills of much value to society, although if the graduates can live on the revenue opportunities such studies provide I’m sure there’s more scope to pursue… pastimes (?) of a more personally fulfilling nature.

[BoristheBiter]

Yes - I get we are talking about high schools (and primary schools) - students have not chosen to be there and that makes it harder ...

I don't see that makes a difference - teachers are still there to teach, not to be liked .. yes, having stduents like you does make it weasier to teach them - but we can all make stsuetns liek us - it is harder to make them learn ..

My experience at high school was bad - and I refused to participate .. point blank refused ...

Should a teacher be judged on my failures??

If you had liked going there might things have been different?

Now who's mixing high school and tertiary ...

And did we have to pay for it? When I started in tertiary (mid 1970s) my fees were a week's net wages ... the rest was paid for by the Government ... It's still true that the Governmetn pays around 75% of the cost of tertiary education ...

And how do you know your last statement is true? What comparisons have you made with you and your colleagues' level of cognative and practical abilities at various stages of your life with those of the younger generation?

was an answer to mansell's question.

I look at the people i come into contact with, whether that be friends, family or work, and have noticed that basics are just not being taught and if a child is failing you have to pay for help instead of going to remedial classes.
Also they use the quote "the at at the learning stage and will pick it up later" that has been posted earlier.

Like you I hated every minute of high school and couldn't wait to leave and the crap teachers just reinforced it, but the good teachers, the ones that could teach without a book, made me keep going.

[Banditbandit]

WHo said anything about measuring teachers? Measure the kids, that's the critical factor in question. And until you get rational comparitive data on what the kid's learned you've got no chance of identifying where improvements can be made.

I get what you are saying - and of course you measure the students. However, to us, this sounds like a 'one size fits all " response.

Children develop at different rates and develop their learning in different areas at different times of their lives ... Can you see that the "comparative data" also needs to take into account trhe developmental stage each child has reached and the speed they are developing??

AS well, there are the family and scial circumstances to take into account. A child who's parents make sure they do their homework and who often help the child with homework will learn faster than parents who see no value in education and do not make the child do homework ...

Add to that factors like did the child eat before coming to school? Do they have warm clothing or are they shivering cold and not able to concentrate add to the number of factors that need to be taken into account (not even mentioning cultural factors - apart from valuing education or not) ...

Many of those factors are outside the teacher's control ... and how much responsiblity for a student's learning should teachers take?? Teachers are responsible for teaching .. by the time they are old enough students are responsible for learnign - there's a grey area with childfren when they are not that responsible for their learning ..

But from all of that - it is very hard to do comparative assessment of students .. and then using those results to make judgements on teachers ... in primary and seconday it's problematic ...

In tertiary we get evaluated al the time - and if our pass rates fall below 45% our funding gets cut ... but then we have the advantage of selecting our students ... and kickign them out if they don't perform ...

Schools don't have that luxury ...

[BoristheBiter]

So - swhould teachers be measured on pass rates ??? Not by themselves - too many other factors to take into account.

Everyone goes on about the police running the IPCA so does that mean non teachers shouldn't measure themselves?

[Banditbandit]

If you had liked going there might things have been different?

No - it was a largely political decision - surprise surpise .. I thought the system sucked .. so I refused to participate ...

was an answer to mansell's question.

I look at the people i come into contact with, whether that be friends, family or work, and have noticed that basics are just not being taught and if a child is failing you have to pay for help instead of going to remedial classes.
Also they use the quote "the at at the learning stage and will pick it up later" that has been posted earlier.

Yes - I think remedial classes are necessary - it was a political decision to cut them .. not an education decision ...

Like you I hated every minute of high school and couldn't wait to leave and the crap teachers just reinforced it, but the good teachers, the ones that could teach without a book, made me keep going.

Sex and drugs and rock and roll kept me going ... yes, we did that at school ...

[Banditbandit]

Everyone goes on about the police running the IPCA so does that mean non teachers shouldn't measure themselves?

Hmmm .. not sure I want to give a hard and fast answer to that - but I am inclined to say that is a different situation ...

For instance, the figures say that at any given time on our roads 10% of drivers are speeding - so ... we know how many cars/trucks/bikes there are in New Zealand - we can say that if 10% of drivers are speeding then arond 10% of the total number of cars/trucks/bikes out there should be the number of speeding tickets issued each year ... allocate that number on a per traffic duty basis ...

That's a hard and fast measure (and when we do that people scream "quota system" ) ... as are some of the others ..

Education is not that clear cut .. especially as you are dealing with a range of human beings and range of developmental issues and a range of cogntive and practical abilities.

But I have no problem with an external agency looking at quality teaching issues - for schools this is called ERO - and you will see their findingas in the news on a regular basis

For Tertiary this is NZQA and TEC ...

[Bald Eagle]

Two gems from the NCEA mantra come to mind. 1 Fail has been converted to "Not yet achieved. 2.Percentages have been "replaced" with a mark out of 100.
No surprises in the decline then.

Sent from my LG-P768 using Tapatalk

[Ocean1]

I get what you are saying - and of course you measure the students. However, yo us, this sounds like a 'one size fits all " response.

Children develop at different rates and develop their learning in different areas at different times of their lives ... Can you see that the "comparative data" also needs to take into account trhe developmental stage each child has reached and the speed they are developing?? But from all of that - it is very hard to do comparative assessment of students .. and then using those results to make judgements on teachers ... in primary and seconday it's problematic ...

No. You're putting the cart before the horse. First observe, then evaluate.

Before anything of value whatsoever can be gained from any analisys tool you need clean data. Test the kids. Make the results quantifiable, that means numbers, not opinions.

THEN you can attempt to attribute cause, and from that make changes that might reasonably be expected improve performance.

It's that immediate "Oh noes, we're being blamed as inept" response that sorta automatically causes the profession to be seen as intractable and self-centred. All of the potentially contributing factors you mention need to be introduced during analysis of the un-”corrected” results, not via fudge- factors applied beforehand.

But from all of that - it is very hard to do comparative assessment of students .. and then using those results to make judgements on teachers ... in primary and seconday it's problematic ...

In tertiary we get evaluated al the time - and if our pass rates fall below 45% our funding gets cut ... but then we have the advantage of selecting our students ... and kickign them out if they don't perform ...

Schools don't have that luxury ...

Bullshit. Comparing student achievement effectively via directly comparable examination has been the norm forever, until the last generation or so. If they’re all sitting the same exam it’s a piece of piss.

And there you go again: “using those results to make judgements on teachers”. Any parent is aware that the teacher is just one of a great many factors, why so defensive? The world outside of academia manages process improvement protocols without tantrums.

As for unwilling students, yep, and most parents would agree, it’d be nice to have a range of teaching methodologies/styles to choose from. But they see your problem from the other side: they’re a captive market for schools, their choices are limited. I, for example would rather that my kids were effectively disciplined by their school for poor behaviour… but that’s another kettle of red hearings.

[Ocean1]

Two gems from the NCEA mantra come to mind. 1 Fail has been converted to "Not yet achieved. 2.Percentages have been "replaced" with a mark out of 100.
No surprises in the decline then.

Sent from my LG-P768 using Tapatalk

Aye. I laughed at the first wave of politically correct policy that came wafting over from middle Britain. It was a joke. Shirly.

But fuck me, the damage it's eventually done is horrendous.

I recall one recent South African import teacher at one of my daughter's parent/teacher meetings: "Your daughter lacks intestinal fortitude, she needs to try a great deal harder, without the histrionics". I laughed, and shook his hand...

[SVboy]

I get what you are saying - and of course you measure the students. However, yo us, this sounds like a 'one size fits all " response.

Children develop at different rates and develop their learning in different areas at different times of their lives ... Can you see that the "comparative data" also needs to take into account trhe developmental stage each child has reached and the speed they are developing??

AS well, there are the family and scial circumstances to take into account. A child who's parents make sure they do their homework and who often help the child with homework will learn faster than parents who see no value in education and do not make the child do homework ...

Add to that factors like did the child eat before coming to school? Do they have warm clothing or are they shivering cold and not able to concentrate add to the number of factors that need to be taken into account (not even mentioning cultural factors - apart from valuing education or not) ...

Many of those factors are outside the teacher's control ... and how much responsiblity for a student's learning should teachers take?? Teachers are responsible for teaching .. by the time they are old enough students are responsible for learnign - there's a grey area with childfren when they are not that responsible for their learning ..

But from all of that - it is very hard to do comparative assessment of students .. and then using those results to make judgements on teachers ... in primary and seconday it's problematic ...

In tertiary we get evaluated al the time - and if our pass rates fall below 45% our funding gets cut ... but then we have the advantage of selecting our students ... and kickign them out if they don't perform ...

Schools don't have that luxury ...

This sums up the challenges and differentiation schools face nicely. Ocean1-what do you think these "national standard" exams are trying to but completely failing to achieve. This approach has been tried and hugely discredited overseas-yet this government with its 'attack the teachers' agenda perserveres.

[BoristheBiter]

This sums up the challenges and differentiation schools face nicely. Ocean1-what do you think these "national standard" exams are trying to but completely failing to achieve. This approach has been tried and hugely discredited overseas-yet this government with its 'attack the teachers' agenda perserveres.

But he is right. why can't everyone sit the same exam? worked when I was at school, easy to see who is passing and who isn't, easy for parents to see if little johnny is passing of failing, easy to see what areas need to be worked on.

You are the coal face of teaching, you will be blamed for kids failing, suck it up or find a new profession, works in all walks of life so you are no different.