National Standards an election promise.
There is no denying that the national standards were a simplified election promise, that now have to be justified by the MOE because what the minister says goes. I have three observations:
If they are so important then why not wait, take your time, get the whole educational community on side and introduce these with the support and understanding of schools? The NZC is slowly being integrated, it will be a successful integration, the standards.. the jury is still out, they will be here on Jan 1 2010 but the rush is the ministers call.
What will the MOE really do with the "information" they gather on schools ?
"People think setting standards means having higher standards, but all it really means is having the same standards. Something is really wrong when the standards we set underestimate our students." Littky - The Big Picture 2003.
Your thoughts ?
Comments
Showing most recent comments first. Reverse order of comments.
Post a comment
Not registered? Register now to comment.
Boiled Cabbage
by H. Hayward
Posted on 03/11/2009 6:17pm
Listener Editiorial - What Counts November 7-13, 2009.
What a load of drivel they have published under the guise of an editorial in the latest Listener! One questions what form of ‘hopelessly flawed’ and draconian education this weeks writer was subjected to in order to wish the same upon our youth. Boiled cabbage is supposedly good for us? However most of us have learnt more exciting and modern forms of cooking it, which do not reduce the nutritional value at all, but make it an awful lot easier to stomach!
The editor demonstrates an embarrassing lack of understanding about what is needed in order to engage a learner who is struggling. The education framework we currently teach in is geared toward white middle class auditory learners. The very children that the National Standards regime hopes to “fix” are the same children for whom this framework currently fails. More of the same, or worse in the case of National Standards, will not improve the achievement their achievement, it will simply alienate them further. It is for the sake of these children that teachers are defensive. We know that to engage such students we must find “fun” and enjoyable avenues into learning. In my experience force feeding one ‘boiled cabbage’, regardless of assurances it is good for one, will ensure that one never eats cabbage, in any form, again!
NPPA views on National Standards
by K. Brisco
Posted on 03/11/2009 4:54pm
Teachers, Boards of Trustees and principals are constantly striving to improve outcomes for all students. No one could argue with the fact that standards and expectations for our students should be high. Schools already put huge resources and efforts into raising student achievement in literacy and numeracy. We also recognise the importance of a balanced curriculum. The haste with which national standards and changes to National Administration Guidelines are being introduced and the lack of meaningful consultation are a concern to the profession.
The implementation of national standards has the effect of narrowing the curriculum, as shown in other countries following similar initiatives. It saddens the profession that these national standards are at odds with the clear statements about effective assessment in the revised curriculum document. There is certainly a fear that schools will go down the path of countries who have introduced testing regimes and become assessment driven. It seems incomprehensible that we should be following these failing systems. The University of Cambridge has just released its review of primary education in England and recommends ‘scrapping Sats and league tables and replacing them with teacher assessments in a wider range of subjects than just the 3Rs, to encourage primaries to focus on the broader curriculum.’
Schools are currently implementing an exciting new curriculum that was developed by our Ministry of Education in conjunction with parents and the profession after years of research; a curriculum which recognises and responds to the increasing complexities of the modern workplace and challenges of our times. The effect of national standards on the new curriculum is a real concern, and to the detriment of a well rounded education. Secretary for Education, Karen Sewell, states that the NZ Curriculum is “a clear statement of what is deemed important in education. It takes as its starting point a vision of our young people as lifelong learners who are confident and creative, connected, and actively involved. It includes a clear set of principles on which to base curriculum decision making. It sets out values that are to be encouraged, modelled, and explored. It defines five key competencies that are critical to sustained learning and effective participation in society and that underline the emphasis on lifelong learning.”
We agree with our Secretary of Education and are passionate about offering our students the most effective and engaging teaching possible to support them to achieve the highest standards in all areas of the curriculum. What makes a difference to achievement is having excellent teachers that inspire students to do their very best, who recognise each student’s strengths and areas for improvement, who create supportive and challenging learning environments. Resources to support the training and development of teachers is where our educational spending can make the greatest difference.
Many parents have expressed their concern about the standards to the Ministry of Education and are raising legitimate questions. We support the government’s intent to lift the 20% ‘tail’ of underachievement but the biggest problem is the link between educational underachievement and poverty. This will not be solved by national standards. There are wider issues at play here.
Our schools currently measure student achievement and identify children at risk, putting whatever resources we have at our disposal towards improved outcomes. We endorse the notion that parents need to know where their child is at in literacy and numeracy, however our parents, quite rightly, want more than that. They want to know about how their child relates to others, their self management skills, their participation and their progress in the other areas of the curriculum. Schools are focused on lifting the achievement of all students and giving them the best chance to succeed. We are committed to do our utmost to do just that.
Election Promise meets Elasto Plast Surgery?
by W. van Aswegen
Posted on 26/10/2009 12:54pm
One has to question the haste with which this initiative is being forced down our collective throats. Surely if it is as important as the governments claims it to be they should take their time to properly research the problem/phenomenon and establish the most effective way of addressing it?
It seems the politicians are more intent on meeting election promises (or being seen to do so!) than actually addressing issues... which explains why they are politicians!
I do believe it is important for us to get it right when you look at the % of students who leave school without the required levels of literacy and numeracy, but can we please consider all angles, seek specialist input and plan properly before we rush to implement anything?
A question for the Ministry
by P. Rush
Posted on 25/10/2009 10:37am
School leaders understand the vexed position of the Ministry with regards to National Standards policy. Despite this the Ministry is complicit in authoring the ideologically disaster that now confronts primary teaching.
The intention of the revised curriculum was to empty out the crowded previous curriculum strengthening teacher judgement and encouraging localisation. The revised curriculum is scattered with terms like 'coherence' and 'diversity'. Yet we now find that schools have been squeezed into a national straightjacket. Oil and water do not mix. It engenders great sadness that school leaders and teachers have been forced to be the only advocates for the promise of the revised curriculum. There is a tangible sense of being left at sea by the Ministry. A review of the Ministry's briefing about education to the incoming government last year made no mention of the need to develop policy congruent with the revised curriculum but made much of the tail of underachievement. This review played beautifully into the hands of populist educational policy.
Where to from here? School leaders have huge integrity. I honestly can't say how this will be worked through. You simply cannot have a brave revised curriculum living in the same house as national standards. Worryingly for the Ministry, the curriculum challenges the standards. The best example of this is the principles of effective assessment, most of which build an expectation that children are at the centre of the assessment process and seriously challenge the damage to children that will be caused by the standards. The standards assessment and reporting expectations published by the Ministry load work onto teachers. After emptying out the curriculum (the message last year), we are now busy filling it up again (the message this year). The unpalatable truth is that something will need to go; teachers will need to give up doing something. In my school it won't be a broad and balanced curriculum, nor will it be reporting through portfolios because that is about implementing the revised curriculum. I am committed to the best school curriculum in the world. With or without the assistance from the Ministry we will make sure the revised curriculum flies. I have spent some time over the weekend developing innovative reporting suggestions. If you’re interested give me a call and flick me an email. I'll keep you posted!
A bit of balance
by P. Rush
Posted on 25/10/2009 10:02am
What a super editorial in the NZ Herald today. Finally it is nice to read a bit of balnaced reporting.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10605223
What Makes Sense
by F. Hill
Posted on 23/10/2009 10:53am
Last night I attended a STA sponsored session led by Lester Flockton in regard to the national standards. Lester puts it all into context nicely with some great evidence to support what he is saying. Standards will not 'lift the tail'. He raises some really relevant questions, who is writing these standards? What background do they have that tells us that they know what is needed at each year level. One of the reasons there is such a positive feeling about the revised curriculum is that we have all been involved in its development, how can it not be a great document with so many people contributing to it, including current classroom teachers-we feel like we own it! I say get on with delivery our national curriculum, do what you know will make a difference to students learning, remember these are children we are talking about and childhood is a small part of our lives. Providing rich and creative learning that is connected to our students lives is what it is all about. Sure collect good evidence, ensure teachers are analysing the effectiveness of their practice but keep it real, not all children will move out of the 'tail' but we should be moving them forward and they should come out of the experience feeling like they have a future (maybe not tertiary education) and they have plenty of positive attributes that can make them a valuable meber of life in NZ. Read these 2 sites:
http://www.primaryreview.org.uk/
http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/the-riches-of-learning-20090320-93zi.html?page=-1
The second article raises some legitimate points in regard to standards and the path that has been followed elsewhere (it is a summarises some of the first site)
I say do what makes sense for children and their learning. It is reassuring to see a room full of trustees that 'get it' too. Take some time with your BOT's and hopefully they will all understand what is important too.
Return to sender moderation
by C. Lockie
Posted on 15/10/2009 8:40pm
I have read Luke's post and I am unsure how it does not fit with the forum guidelines for Educational Leaders. It is respectful, professional and inclusive. He asks us to discuss whether we should return NS unopened back to MOE (he is not advocating that we do) or are we over reacting to the whole thing. This is a very relevant issue for us as professionals and he wants others opinions about the subject. An open and honest discussion about the NS and how these NS will improve learning outcomes for our students is what we want and need and not to be shut down by the MOE.
return to sender
by Luke Sumich
Posted on 15/10/2009 9:29am
This post has been removed as it did not fit with the forum guidelines for Educational Leaders.
And when the league tables come out...
by P. Nicholson
Posted on 04/9/2009 5:09pm
And before the league tables come out place bets on what will be highlighted in them. For betting clues go to NEMP Summary "Focus 2009."
See under Reading concerns; "For both year 4 and year 8 students, there are still large disparities in performance between students attending low, medium and high decile schools."
See under Speaking concerns; "At both levels, students in high decile schools performed substantially better on most speaking tasks than students in low decile schools."
See under Technology concerns; The decile ranking of the school remains a strong factor in terms of relationship to performance."
Be warned that the payout on bets for league tables reaching similar conclusions will be slender!
Get Real
by P. Heffernan
Posted on 03/9/2009 4:39pm
Apparently my very "devil's advocate" "tongue in cheek" piece written on the 17 June is causing a storm because the papers seeking sensational copy have focused on my comment that some principal's may fudge the results they send into the ministry.
We need to get honest here - this indeed did happen when NCEA was introduced. The top performing school Cambridge High was found to fudge their results big time. Was this the only school ...I think not. Even today some secondary schools encourage pupils not to sit external exams as it will adversely impact on their ranking published in the papers.
Now i don't have a problem with Standards that i can measure my kids against and all good schools do this already using Asttle etc and provide this data to the parents But i worry about data that will be sent to the Ministry with no guarentee that it will not be turned into league tables.
So, we get a school down the road with kids attending who have had no breakfast, speak very little English and have disciplne problems etc etc - the staff try their very best, going beyond the call of duty..where do we honestly think they are going to end up on a league table?
How much pressure is that going to put on them to teach and reteach to the test. How much pressure on the principal, the teachers, the BOT and the kids.
ERO already visit every school and they know the under achieving schools - why not spend money on special advisory teams to move into those schools and help them
fear of being told you are no good?
by L. Sumich
Posted on 03/9/2009 2:05pm
A league table cant measure people. as an example I have 400 students who have another language spoken in their house every night. Where is that calculated in a league table. A good school is about shifting kids, not averaging them. Isnt a better way of judging schools, identifying them, and catching those that as someone said "never tests kids", to make sure ERO do a good job.
You have to watch "Trouble is my Business" a documentary movie set in a south auckland school, and tell me that a league table is the answer. Judge the improvement that school makes and has made and give them an A plus, not a league table.
We shouldn't bother arguing league tables(cancel what i said above). It is a political decision to win votes, they won the votes and now have to prove their policy.
The sad thing is great principals and great schools are dragged into this argument. No body comes out of this scenario a winner, definitely not kids. If they wanted to help the so called 20% who cant read or write maybe they should have put the money directly there. national know the cost of everything and the value of nothing, and they are living up to that reputation.
Not Fear Just Principled Opposition
by P. Rush
Posted on 03/9/2009 1:42pm
Peter, I don’t think it is fear but absolute clarity that ‘standards’ are detrimental for children’s learning. For Principals to stand up to a critical and conservative media and swim against the Ministry on this issue is a testament to vital leadership…something worthy of respect.
I haven’t spoken to a Principal yet who thinks that greater clarify of information about achievement for parents isn’t warranted but many who have taken issue with league tables. The main reason for this is that the data isn’t truthful….there are so many factors that influence it that it can be easily misconstrued when represented by bald figures. International evidence points to the changes that happen in schools in response to the drive to keep the data looking good. This often has nothing to do with quality learning but window dressing children’s learning or significantly altering the broad and creative curriculum that has been a hallmark of our approach in NZ.
Like you we don’t fudge our summative data…it is contained in a data sheet that goes home in the children’s portfolios each term so that parents can track improvement over time. I think our schools should be accountable and actually are - to the local communities they serve. I see nothing wrong with strengthening the quality and context of the information received in this way. Why are national comparisons needed if the local reporting includes norm referenced or standardised data and schools are being assessed by ERO?
When was it that plain english information about learning equalled the complex, divergent, multifaceted learners we work with? Can we capture children's learning with a number or a shaded box on a report? Is this how we encouraged parents to understand achievement?
I do not believe that NZPF and NZEI are self-interested to the detriment of children’s learning. While their primary concern is those they represent they base their advocacy on their member’s views. NZPF recently reported that in the ‘standards’ survey of Principals undertaken that only 2% of Principals stated they had ‘no problem’ with National Standards. Principals make judgments based on their considerable experience of crafting education that has a significant impact on children’s learning. Principal’s views have integrity and are not expressed lightly. I take the significant opposition to National Standards as being indicative of something that offends their conception of what is best for children rather than self interest as you suggest.
Hope the 'Bay' is as beautiful as I remember it.
fear of national standards
by P. Fitzgerald
Posted on 31/8/2009 7:11am
I have been amazed at the level of fear that some principals and teachers have towards the introduction of National Standards.
As a principal of some years I know that there are schools that are not doing a good job. I know of schools that do not test their children at all. I know of schools that think they are doing a good job but have now way of really knowing if they really are.
To read comments from principals saying that they are going to fudge results is disappointing. To try to escape real accountability with fear mongering about league tables does not endear our profession to the people we are they to serve.
At Awakeri we have been using national testing for years. Parents are told of their children’s results in PAT, Star. asTTle and so on. Reports clearly state our expectations at each year level and their children’s achievements against our standards. Parents appreciate the honest and clear reporting that we provide. We work to the value added model. This was where they were in February, what progress has been made?
To read inane comments in reports from other schools that say, ‘working well at their level’ show how wide the disparity between schools really is, and why there needs to be a shakeup of assessment and reporting in schools.
We are accountable. We are here to do the best for our children. They are going forth into a world where they need the best, communication, social, and thinking skills. It is our job to provide these skills.
I would like to end with a quote from a NZ Listener editorial.
“Ah, pupils. Now, there is a group whose interests seem too rarely to be top priority in the vexatious world of education politics. Teacher unions and the Principals’ Federation do not represent pupils.
First and foremost, they represent teachers and principals, respectively. There is nothing wrong with that; that is their mandate from their members. But it should be remembered that when the primary-based Principals’ Federation indulges in politics, it is doing so on behalf of its members, not of their pupils.
There is not yet any guarantee National Standards results will end up in a league table, but if they did, so what? What is it that principals fear? Presumably, it is the possibility that a table may reveal what everyone already knows: some schools do a better job for their pupils than others.
If it turns out a league table becomes a way to identify schools that might be having problems, and therefore those schools get extra assistance, surely that would be a useful outcome. And if schools anxiously look to see how their results compare with neighbouring schools of a similar decile, then that could be an incentive for them to lift their standards.
Parents have consistently said they want clear information about their children’s progress. Parents also want to know how their children’s schools are performing, and it seems highly likely they would even support the idea of good teachers being paid more than poor teachers. That is how almost every workplace operates – except schools.”
Peter Fitzgerald.
some good informative comment
by L. Sumich
Posted on 06/7/2009 2:36am
whats wrong with sending in your data, send every test, with all the kids names, they can collate, no electrical reporting, paper, paper, paper, they say that individual childrens information wont be collected. Its not a bad theory for those of you who want to protest.
You will meet the MOE requirements, and you will report collated data to BOT and community - just not MOE. will kill league tables and meet all requirements.
The Minister
by P. Harding
Posted on 05/7/2009 9:01am
The Minister iseems determined and intent.
I have no sense that she is listening actively. It deeply concerns me that she can happily ignore the universal voice of the educational community. When you see names like Alfie Kohn and James Popham warning us against the perils of league tables, it depresses me that this government feels it knows better.
It is now time for principals, teachers, and Boards, to come together and clarify their positions. Principals cannot easily act without the support of their Board and community. This requires immediate action by school leaders to create unity.
Local groups need to start lobbying their local MPs, especially senior ministers in their electorates.
We need to get our concerns clearly expressed, and into the hearts and minds of both parents and politicians.
If we could all speak with one majority voice, perhaps then Mrs Tolley might accept that parents do not want league tables - just ready access to their child's data.
After all, who ever identified a problem? This was always merely a political rallying cry; populist yet empty.
This flawed ideology has the potential to change the face of education in New Zealand for many years to come.
Summing Up?
by G. MacLeod
Posted on 02/7/2009 11:26am
Anne Tolley states:
1. We are in the middle of a consultation, she awaits the response of the sector.
2. It is not national testing based on one test across the country, rather standardised information based on current assessment practise.
3. Parents are welcoming National Standards - Parents are no more expert about their draconian views of homework.
Firstly, it sounds like she has her mind made up! Secondly, in order to have standardised results, one must administer a standardised test. Finally, it sounds good to parents, like a tablespoon of cod-liver oil, we buy it because someone in authority says it's good for us.
She also states that the National Standards are about focusing on student achievement and identifying those who are struggling and getting the appropriate support behind them. I say they are about alarmist, ill-informed reactions against low achievement rates across the country which are more to do with socio-economic conditions.
She also states that inconsistent assessment practise across schools was observed by the Review Office and National Standards (Literacy and Numeracy) will provide a benchmark for all ages of students to achieve certain standards by the end of the year and that educators must report to parents based on those standards as to how their child is doing. As educators we already do this and most schools do it well. Let's put the money into raising the schools that are failing to do this properly. Good assessment assesses where a child is at and aims to move them ahead - gently. My concern is that if a student in Year 7 is identified at a year 4 level then the teacher will be made to push that student up - quickly. Quick action will reflect well on the school - especially if the tables are to be reported, never mind the child's circumstances and learning needs.
A review of the curriculum was undertaken during 2000-2002 and was presented in draft form during 2006, ready for full implementation in 2010. National Testing legislation was passed in December, under the guise of National Standards - and includes just a five week public consultation period. She states that the consultation is to decide who gets what information and in what form it will take. Anne Tolley clearly identifies that she cannot guarantee that information will not be used to create league tables. As an educator in a lower socio economic environment, this is worrying.
The inherent problem with National Standards is that in order to have "Standards" we need to create National Tests in which to derive norms from.
Given that National Testing has no proven merit for improving the learning of students, it seems prudent to question the reasons behind forcing it upon us under such urgency.
An Email From Alfie Kohn
by G. MacLeod
Posted on 02/7/2009 11:19am
I’ve received a surprising number of messages from Kiwis over the last few years, most dealing with education policy, classroom strategies, and parenting. In particular, folks are concerned about the move to adopt one-size-fits-all educational standards along with standardized tests. (If you’re going to standardize what’s being taught across the country – wiping out innovative teaching and local autonomy – I guess you might as well seal the deal with standardized assessment to enforce compliance.)
I thought it might be interesting for you to know who else in NZ shares your concerns, so I’m taking the liberty of listing some of the educators other than you who have written to me. (I’m leaving out a few parents as well as a union official who wrote to me about the scourge of workplace incentives.) I’m doing so, first, in the hope of raising your spirits: If all these folks feel strongly enough to write to me all the way over in America, imagine how many more allies you probably have who just haven’t been identified and mobilized yet. Second, I wanted to send a couple of resources to all of you at once. And finally, I wanted to encourage you to write to one another as a way of beginning (or continuing) to organize against this juggernaut.
If any of my articles or books about standards and testing (at http://www.alfiekohn.org/standards/testarticles.htm) might be useful to you, feel free to steal from them, adapt them, distribute them, or whatever. Also see Deborah Meier’s important essay called “Educating a Democracy”: http://bostonreview.net/BR24.6/meier.html. Of course, you’ll have to extrapolate a bit, or read selectively, since both of us are talking about the U.S.
Beyond the substantive arguments is the matter of organizing to challenge the top-down push for national standards. Here it’s a matter of figuring out how best to use the media: organize letter-writing campaigns, hold marches and invite reporters to cover them, get experts in front of cameras and microphones, circulate petitions; and also set up websites, use Facebook and Twitter, delegate responsibilities to parents and teachers in different areas of the country who can set up local affiliates of a national effort. The issue has to be framed as a government-imposed mandate that’s bad for children, not just for teachers. Ordinary people have to be educated about the implications, and those who are skeptical have to be organized so their voices are heard.
Have a look at my own (again, U.S.-based) efforts to organize – at www.alfiekohn.org/stdtest.htm. You may also get some ideas from FairTest’s listserv, the Assessment Reform Network (www.fairtest.org/get_involved/k-12).
Hope this is helpful. Good luck!
-- Alfie Kohn
www.alfiekohn.org
Thinking Conference
by D. Birch
Posted on 01/7/2009 1:24pm
Hi all, just got back from KL where I attended the 14th International Thinking Conference. It was greta to hear people like Gardner, Edwards, Buzan, Claxton et al all talk about the foley of focusing on Literacy and Numeracy, and the need for the well rounded child, not only being analytical but also emotionally smart as well. They talked about the NZC and thought it looked like a great document. Little did they know what our minister had planned for it.
Luke, now that the secondary sector have been brought into the frame with changes to NCEA on the horizon taking our whole education system back 30 years we may be able to get some backing in calling this government to task.
Legislation
by P. Rush
Posted on 01/7/2009 10:51am
The part of the national standards legislation that deals with the potential to create league tables is the amendment to charter reporting. The amendment states:
A school charter must include the Board's aims, objectives, directions, priorities, and targets in the following categories:
(a) student achievement , including the assessment of students against any national standard published under section 60A(1)(ba):
It is interesting that it says 'students' plural as opposed to 'all' students meaning every student in the school.
To my reading I think we have a simple way forward assuming that we can take the Minister at her word regarding the purpose of standards being about student achievement.
Schools should:
1. Set annual student achievement goals (as we already do)
2. Report on outcomes annually with reference to National Standards through the charter (as we do...with stds being an addition)...remember that this only happens for those children (plural) that annual goals identify not all children.
ERO is the appropriate body to review the big picture....the quality of school data. This currently happens and should continue to happen.
Nothing in this offends the legislation to my reading.
This should be the advice to the Minister and appears entirely possible under the government's own legislation. The onerous is therefore entirely on the Minister to craft a solution to the growing impasse. I hope it is a solution that reflects the genuine concern of the sector and the international evidence of the danger of making standards data on 'all' children available to the Ministry.
Ban on School Statistics Banned
by J. Win
Posted on 01/7/2009 8:20am
Read this from the Australian
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25704861-2702,00.html
Emotinal Standard
by C. Duckworth
Posted on 24/6/2009 11:52am
Some points -
The plunket type graphs for parent reporting. Lets label a child a failure from Y1. You can't make a silk purse from a sows ear but pretty sure I can make a good wallet. Lets internalise in child's cv that they are a failure. I hope not to teach them in Y8 when this has been reiterated so often that they have given up trying. Our behaviours as they get older will get worse.
Consultaion for parents - when is consultation selecting from two types of graph. That is multi choice not consultaion and discussion.
Standards exemplars - Look at some of the exemplars taken from NEMP and then look at NEMP actual activity. Don't quite match.
How are we going to ensure consistency of judgement from Kaitaia to Invercargill? Assessment in most cases is reasonably subjective.
Standard in years that are not at a natural end of curriculum level ie Y1/3/5/7. How will half way through the level be decided? What is half way through?
WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO TEACHING THE CHILD FROM WHERE THEY ARE? The standards will become the curriculum for each year level regardless of ability.
Games people play
by P. Nicholson
Posted on 23/6/2009 3:43pm
It is farcical to construct a curriculum and then try to add such a significant dimension as the National Standards. The whole exercise (again) relegates education and learning to a mere political game.
The spin doctors have been given the task of working backwards from the bad idea and coming up with the right words to put as reasonable a light as possible on what is going to happen. Not just making it palatable but making it seem desirable
Schools as usual will try to make the best of another bad situation.
Part of our effort will be directed at dealing with the illusions created by the propaganda to parents. The information pamphlet with the Minister’s introduction lists seven points to answer “Why develop National Standards?” The first is that the standards will ensure that “students attain strong reading, writing and mathematics skills in primary and intermediate schools.” The standards will also ensure that “students who need extra support are identified and their learning needs addressed.” Obviously nothing in the past saw those things happening.
Mind you, the Minister’s introduction, possibly with guidance from the Briscoes copywriters, assures everyone that “up to one in five students leave school without gaining the basic skills they need to succeed in education, work and their daily lives.”
Is that one student or 50,000? In what circumstances? And with National Standards not one student will fit that bill?
“The draft standards were arrived out via working out what a child needed to pass NCEA level 2 and then working back.”
That a whole education system could be founded on the thinking behind this exercise is tragic.
Stress on students
by J. Win
Posted on 23/6/2009 9:50am
Good points about stresses on children. We all know that learning is not a linear process and that stress and worry does not lead to authentic learning.
How many of you received a survey form MOE yesterday about the use of standardised testing in your school and whether you reported on these results to uyour parents.
The ODT makes a good point about professional development and the need not to overburdon ourselves with new initiatives. Perhaps the MOE will listen to ERO on this
keeping your head below the parapet
by N. Frater
Posted on 22/6/2009 7:34pm
I would imagine that the Consultation crew will be relieved to get the farcical process over with and get back to Wellington to get their collective heads below the parapet. I have a feeling that far too many of our school leaders are doing just that. On an issue like this, it is a easy to just keep your head down and hope it all goes away- good to see they still believe in standing up and being counted in the deep South! http://moourl.com/2e6kq
League tables, whether via National Standards or National testing (is there really much difference- apart from forgoing the expensive testing and marking process?) will lead to the same results- from the 11 years of UK experience; "Like many tests of this nature, the assessments have been subject to a variety of criticism. In the UK two of the main points of concern are that they place children under constant stress for their whole academic lives, and that the principal purpose of national curriculum testing is for school league tables." It seems we are concerned about the latter, but have failed to focus on the former. In the "test rich" environment in the UK concerns include that the "professional abilities of teachers" were under-used and that the high-stakes nature of the tests led to "phenomena such as teaching to the test, narrowing the curriculum and focusing disproportionate resources on borderline pupils." All issues we should be deeply concerned about. We must learn from the hard-learned lessons from overseas and recognise that "Tolley's Folly" will have a huge impact on the educational landscape in New Zealand if our Educational leaders turn the other cheek.
It is all the more intriguing that the "Blue" opposition in the Uk are now planning to scrap SATs when (not if!) they get in power: http://tinyurl.com/kov3s8
one of lifes delicious ironies!
Goodbye Enviro-schools
by P. Rush
Posted on 22/6/2009 12:33pm
Longer, harder, deeper, wider....more literacy and numeracy is what the doctor has ordered. It has begun....the elimination of curricula other than literacy and numeracy because the 'crusade demands it'. And this is despite the fact that these two foci already take up approximately 66+% of the school day.
Consider the Minister's decision to remove funding for enviro-schools.
A spokesman for Minister of Education Anne Tolley said that the Government's priorities for education were raising literacy and numeracy, and increasing the numbers of students leaving school with qualifications.
"The Government believes that this programme (enviro-schools) does not contribute directly to these priorities." The Minister had no plans to reconsider, the spokesman said.
Lets be honest
by P. Rush
Posted on 22/6/2009 9:47am
Despite protestations to the contrary, the purpose of national standards is to create an arbitrary standard against which schools can be judged. It is competition that is the driving ideology here not learning. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that market forces don't work with children's learning. Even the simplest analysis will identify factors that influence achievement well outside the control of schools. It is a shame that those driving current policy are flat earth thinkers and that this is a significant shift from the brave, new approaches that were starting to make a real difference for our children. The Ministry must understand that national standards have significantly shifted the philosophical flavour of education. This disjuncture is a major problem for schooling. Someone in the Ministry needs to show strong leadership by building confidence that our world beating curriculum is still on the money and explain how national standards fits with the central tenants of that curriculum...things like...diversity, innovation, future focus, inclusion.... how does national standards support diversity, how is it inclusive, and how it is different from the sort of educational thinking that dominated the failed policies of the past? We have evolved way past standards thinking and it is the greatest sadness that the talent within school leadership is not being used to generate the innovative solutions to dealing with the ‘tail’ that would come if given half a chance. I reckon we could nail this if we had a cross sector meeting at a flash hotel in Auckland, with many captains of industry present and simple cut lunches to eat. I reckon we might even eclipse the national cycleway idea!
thanks colleagues
by L. Sumich
Posted on 19/6/2009 7:51pm
i have read through with interest your feedback and comments. There are some very very good points that the MOE have not considered. The shame is that they don't have the guts to enter any discussion on this forum or any forum. In fact they are hiding behind pathetic attempts to "consult" by having farcical meetings which were not consultation. They are now going to hide behind the "written feedback" which isn't worth the paper its written on.
I know they are reading this blog, and I know that they are bitterly disappointed about what is being said on blogs throughout NZ. I have quietly been told that this opinion thread has annoyed many in high places. I was asking for feedback and thats what has been given, all we can do is be honest with our feelings and thoughts. Please continue to be honest but fair, and don't enter into personal attacks and this forum will maintain the professionalism and respect that we have treated it with. Tongue and cheek is OK.
Please encourage others to comment, this thread is a pimple that is growing!
On the media not being all over this issue, I ask the question how pathetic are our membership networks ie: Principals Associations - NZEI - their silence is deafening and their resistance poor, at least NZPF has done a survey ! ooohh a survey i bet the MOE are shivering.
I have been informed... sorry consulted.
by B. Witheford
Posted on 18/6/2009 11:22am
Yesterday was our turn here in the deep south to be consulted on these national standards. What a rushed, surface level experience that turned out to be.
It was the first time I found out or was told that the draft standards were arrived out via working out what a child needed to pass NCEA level 2 and then working back. This was based on the OECD telling us that NCEA level 2 was the minimum needed knowledge level in a modern economy and workforce. Why are we now taking our education policy direction from the OECD? Is education all about preparation for the workforce?
Anyhow, I thought I would assess the meeting based on the MoE purpose as listed on their website.
1 - Professional Development for Teachers and Schools
I found out the MoE have no idea as to what the PD will look like for schools, but feel free to make suggestions in your feedback.
2 - draft changes to the NEGs
Not even mentioned
3 - targeted funding, resourcing and interventions for schools.
there is an extra 36m available for this. However no idea on how it will be spent and what criteria will be used.
4 - overall assessment strategy.
no mention of an overall assessment strategy. It was clear there does not appear to be one.
Therefore based on the draft five point standard, could be below or well below. Hard to say as the criteria is quite subjective.
Professional Response
by P. Rush
Posted on 17/6/2009 10:04pm
There is no doubt that on the basis of the Ministries performance in the consultation there are far too many unanswered and unsatisfactory questions to be confident that the standards can be used safely with children. It is untenable to think that the sector would not be gravely concerned by the poor rationale presented by the Ministry and woolly half cooked proposals. It is important that the concerns of school leaders are reaching local and national principal associations. The consultation did not give the sector an effective chance to be heard. Failing that our associations should now pick up the mantle of advocating for sensible design and appropriate safety around access to standards data. I for one am a firm advocate of school leaders taking a collective principled position to ensure the best possible outcome for our children. If you haven't done so already get hold of your local association and start talking.
So we have to make it work?
by g. carroll
Posted on 17/6/2009 9:25pm
So why is the profession making a political imperative work? why do we have to buy in?
We are good at subverting and hijacking the things we know have little real educational value. Things that are not thought through.
One of the things that concerns me is the fact that the message seems to be changing around the country. No more listening or understanding but as the different meetings happen there seems to be a different message being delivered. That's a worry.
In Dunedin they couldn't even answer if the Standards were aspirational or where half of children should be or an expected level that most will achieve. Then we had to say if the level of the drafts was appropriate. Say what? Hopefully this is not indicative of the level of understanding of assessment realities of the people doing the writing.
Also the Literacy Progression team certainly never intended for them to be a Standards document in the sense they are being morphed into. Is it appropriate to misappropriate a tool like this without revisiting them with the lens of the new intent?
Lots of questions and few answers to date.....sigh!
Where are the press on all this?
by P. Sibson
Posted on 17/6/2009 4:49pm
What really concerns me is that the government are introducing this new initiative on the quiet. Sure they are "consulting" the education profession and the parents but not on the real issues. When asking parents if they would like to know how their child is doing compared to other children in the country or to have plain language reporting, they are only going to get one answer! They are not asking the parents if they want a narrower curriculum, if they want their children to just focus on maths and english. The public is not being made aware of what is at stake here, they are not being given all the facts. We need to get this issue on to the tv, radio and newspapers, there needs to be a real debate about this.
Parents need to know what is happening and what the implications are for their children. Our community have said that they value fun, community, sparkle, lifelong learning and creativity. How will that be delivered when all the pressure will be on maths and english. Sorry kids, no time for PE or drama we have standards to meet.
I thought that I had left all this nonsense behind when I moved from the UK, but it seems to have followed me all the way to New Zealand!
The speed of the implementation is simply crazy and is clearly a desperate attempt to start measuring so that the government have numbers to compare with in three years time. Nothing wins an election like being able to show what a difference you have made in cold hard numbers! Even if those numbers just show how good we have got at teaching tests.
Yahoo, I'm going to be the top school.
by P. Heffernan
Posted on 17/6/2009 12:38pm
Awesome, awesome, awesome - by crickey we are going to teach to the easiest test we can find.
We are going to reteach and reteach baby. We will even fudge the results big time. My school is going to be top school on the league table so that my community will know I run a brilliant school- an outstanding principal - parents will flock to my door. To hell with any thing creative. Hmmm I will have to toss out Inquiry learning as well as i will not have any time - it's all literacy and numeracy test preparation time now. Hmmm, perhaps i need a further run through /practice of the test.
And don't say that this will not happen - it sure did with NZCEA.
League Tables will be here to stay. At the consultation meeting in Auckland it was commented by the presenters that yes indeed the media would have access to the results - can't stop them.
Hell. test results have to be in soon - better have another run through.
But wait maybe, maybe if my results are a tad below expected they will give me some more funding.
Way below, more funds yippy do,and that new zappy do computer link up with Uranus will be a goer!!!!
Would other strategies be more effective?
by M. Young
Posted on 16/6/2009 2:24pm
I came away from the consultation meeting feeling that what is being proposed is very rushed. I was also a bit concerned that it felt like policy being developed ‘on the hoof’ rather than as part of a clear, well planned and interconnected strategy to enhance teacher practice and student outcomes.
If the aim is to improve learning as we were repeatedly told at the meeting (and so it should be – I totally agree), then the MOE needs to invest heavily in teacher professional development focused around effective pedagogy. We are starting to get good data on the success of Afol, LPDP and Numeracy professional development initiatives, but not all schools can gain access to these contracts and the short timeframes (2 years) impact on their sustainability.
The Effective pedagogy section of the curriculum is also fantastic and I would be over the moon if the MOE put its energies into supporting professional development to assist teachers making a greater connection with this. A nationwide strategy for sustained, and powerful, professional development (focused on what we now know works), lead by the MOE, for all schools, would surely lead to improved student outcomes. I feel this is what we really need.
As an aside the EHSAS cluster my school is involved in is focused on developing more effective teaching to support effective learning and enhanced student outcomes. We have been informed that funding is to be stopped at the end of 2009 (only half way through the initiative). This initiative I believe would have had greater impact on improving student outcomes than what I heard yesterday. Makes me feel that the implementation of national standards is more about politics than enhanced outcomes for our children.
Been there..Done that..
by A. Easter
Posted on 15/6/2009 3:12pm
Having come from the UK where a regime of national assessment and performance based teaching has been rife, I can only dread the implementation of National Standards. The UK Ministry is now backpedalling fiercely as the teaching profession teach absolutely to the tests...and why wouldn't they? Their jobs and incomes balance on that fine thread. I have seen the media-induced anxiety of parents who can't get their children into the 'good' schools and the lengths that they go to, including moving house, sending students to live with distant family members and being very economical with the truth to get what they consider their child needs. I have also seen the damage bad publicity can do to a school in this country and even if that bad publicity is completely unwarranted it is very difficult to eradicate.
I was recently sent an article by Alfie Kohn called 'Standardised Testing' which gives the American perspective and, as he rightly says, if by some miracle we all managed to get every single student to achieve the National Standards, we know what would happen. Would the Minister say "Wow, those teachers have done an outstanding job!"? Never in a million years. All that would happen is that the Standards would be raised to even greater heights - because the standards reflect a deeply carried philosophy of apparent success -v- failure which should not have a place in education.
Standards Set By Coin Toss
by P. Rush
Posted on 14/6/2009 10:14pm
I think F.Hill raises a critical concern. A colleague noted that the suggested exemplar for the writing standard at end of year 1 had hitherto been the Year 2 exemplar in the literacy progressions. When the Ministry was asked why the move had taken place they could not justify it based on evidence based practice or any robust process of moderation. This is quite incredible and is an insight into what on the surface appears to be a standard set by experts sitting around a table saying...."this looks about right". Surely this can't be the case. If we must have standards then it is important that they are rigorous and can be justified. What evidence does the Ministry have to support the judgements they intend to make? Please tell me that it is not a simple case of working backwards from NCEA Level 2. When was it this benchmark become the high water mark for all schooling.
Daniel....I look forward to your entry after the consultation in Christchurch. I suspect that it will be very similar to the disappointing efforts countrywide.I understand that the Ministry has a job to do but i know when difficult conversatations are to be had, it is better to be brave and face the music. People feel satisfied when they know they have been heard. The sector deserves respect. By dampening dissent the consultation has done more harm than good.
Lowering our Standards
by F. Hill
Posted on 14/6/2009 12:48pm
I can't help but agree with what I read here. What I will add is that the standards do provide some useful information about benchmarks of expected achievement. The query I do have here is how have these judgements been made? How realistic are the expected standards?
While I will be vocal in my support for slowing this process down and demanding some justification for this approach I feel as an educational leader that it will be my job to ensure that the quality of teaching in my school is judged not by whether students are meeting national standards but by the movement in their individual level of achievement and continually asking teachers, how effective is your approach to teaching this child? What could be done differently?
We need to be staunch in our defense of this type of approach and ensure that schools are audited on the quality of their evidence based practices not on how many children are achieving national standards.
A couple of questions;
How will the national maths standards be assessed? There is no standardised, norm referenced assessment that will tell us the sort of thinking students are using to arrive at solutions. asTTle/PAT do not stack up here and NumPA does not meet the required assessment expectations.
We are doing a lot of work on reporting to parents in a way that encourages parental input into their child's learning as a lot of schools are. Is this being considered with the guidelines we are yet to see?
Agreement
by D. Birch
Posted on 13/6/2009 11:44am
Craig, I agree about the outcome on teaching and learning. It will move away from looking at the whole child to rewarding those teachers who hammer home literacy and numeracy.
What rewards are there for the innovative teacher who finds different ways for children to succeed? Will we loose these teachers from the profession when they are told they are not doing enough for literacy and numeracy?
The comments you have made Luke, on the way the Minister approached how the ministry would use the data is also of concern. I hope that on Monday more than just a few of us stand up and make ourselves heard!
Parent forum
by C. Price
Posted on 12/6/2009 8:23pm
Interesting parent forum in our area. Started by explaining that many pakeha nz children don't achieve level 2 NZCEA. The standards development had taken an approach of thinking through what would be needed to achieve NZCEA level 2 (year 12) and then worked back from there. No thought as yet has gone in to whether NZCEA level 2 is appropriate as such an important line in the sand for all education in New Zealand. No knowledge also of where children are entering schools -only a reply that this is something that has not yet been considered 'but maybe ECE needs to be considered as well'.
The whole feel is consultation after the decision has been made, and not that well disguised by the people coming to consult.
I agree that the philosophical intent of the revised curriculum appears in complete contrast to the philosophical intent of the national standards.
Will national standards lead to improved learning and teaching... I think they have the potential to achieve much the opposite.
What Next?
by D. Birch
Posted on 12/6/2009 11:20am
It seems clear that the minister has made up her mind and these standards will go ahead, despite the evidence negating it and the spurious consultation, I will attend on Monday.
A real concern lies with the agenda for the CANSTA, who have Anne Tolley as guest speaker. Agenda item 6 states, WIll the standards identify poor teachers and poor teaching? While 7 states, Will it reward good teaching and good teachers?
Are we heading towards performance pay? Is learning just about literacy and numeracy?
The curriculum states on page 34 that the evidence tells us that students learn best when teachers........ none of these statements mention standardised tests.
How can the curriculum be adopted then ignored by the minister?
Short sighted and based on no real evidence poses a scary future for educators and leaders.
Evidence...what evidence?
by P. Rush
Posted on 12/6/2009 10:44am
To simply say that the standards have been mandated so 'end of discussion' does not wash. The Ministry have been telling the sector the get 'smarter with data' and use 'evidence based practice' for the past decade. Surely the Ministry can see the inappropriateness of expecting the sector to accept a significant intervention with no discussion or identification of the supporting evidence. There are several good reasons for this disjuncture. There is scant evidence around that supports national standards what evidence there is shaky. Mary C quoted Hattie at me at the Wgtn consultation. We could spend hours debating Hattie's work but there are holes as big as Africa in his Visible Learning findings. There are two great reads that challenge Hattie's work. Try Kelvin Smythe's blog @
http://www.networkonnet.co.nz/index.php?section=education&id=123
and Ivan Snook's et al work at
http://www.qpec.org.nz/Hattie_-_book_review_-_14_May_2009.doc-html/
The literacy in school leadership has grown. Thanks to the Ministry and the appropriate focus on evidence. So ok.......where is the evidence? Standards might be mandated but we would be professionally remiss to move on the standards without evidence to support them.
Good discussion
by L. Sumich
Posted on 12/6/2009 10:08am
This thread has a very similar theme.
Perry this is a great question, I will see if Mary C can respond to this:
"Exactly what is the specific change in teaching that the standards will bring about"
The NZC pg 34 talks about effective pedagogy, this is the one based on all the research. Where in the national standards do they mention:
Encouraging reflective thought and action
Facilitating shared learning
Creating a supportive learning environment
Enhancing the relevance of new learning
Making connections to prior learning and experience
Teaching as inquiry
eLearning and Pedagogy
The evidence says one thing and the GOVT says the other.
At the meetings they are now producing slides on effect size, and congruence with NZC. But simple reading and analysis of the NZC and Nat Standards shows they are polar opposites.
Keep the feedback coming it's interesting reading
Poles apart
by K. Mackay
Posted on 12/6/2009 9:02am
The NZC is already being lauded by other countries. In fact I heard an educator in the USA speak with disbelief that a Government would trust teachers with such a document. Now we have something that is completely at the other end of the spectrum. After years of designing programmes to best fit the needs of the individual we are presented with a "one size fits all" plan. The two will not work together. To save political face the National Standards will continue regardless. That was made quite clear by the Minister at the consultation (we are telling you what is going to happen) meeting in Wellington. The struggle for us as educators will be to keep what we can of the NZC.
Rammed through
by N. Frater
Posted on 11/6/2009 4:53pm
I also was at the Wellington meeting and came away feeling deeply unsatisfied with the consultation process as compared with the deliberate involvement and open minded approach taken with the Revised Curriculum. It was interesting to note that in the 6 week consultation period we were a third of the way through and 60 submissions had been received. This is pathetic for a National Strategy. I get a better response than that from my parents when I put out a community survey! It is a reflection on the poor, rushed consultation period. I went back to school and got onto the MOE and ordered parent response packs for my community and asked syndicates to go through the draft standards and respond to them. Printed copies of the parents, family and whānau National Standards consultation pack can be ordered online on the MOE website or phone 0800 660 662 and ask for the Parent Pack.
Consultation - to ask???
by B. Witheford
Posted on 09/6/2009 8:51am
We have yet to have our consultation meeting here in the deep south, however from what I have heard it would be more accurate to call them information meetings and only half of the information at that.
From the Wellington high court via a Lester Flockton workshop consultation must be the following,
"a reality not a charade" and "there must be sufficiently precise information to allow a reasonable opportunity to respond" and last but not least " ...involves the statement of a proposal not yet finally decided upon, listening to what others have to say, considering their responses and then deciding what will be done."
I don't think the MoE are in a position to consult as they don't have "sufficiently precise information" yet.
I am concerned we have only received half of the information, where are the draft changes to the NAGS, the MoE expectations for reporting, details of what the extra support will look like for those 'failing' the standards?
However that is not one of my biggest concerns. It is that a national standards approach to education has not worked in any country around the world and is so contrary to excellent teaching and the NZC.
National Standards: The Soft Sell
by P. Rush
Posted on 08/6/2009 3:07pm
I don't buy the, 'The aim is to improve learning' mantra coming out of the Ministry. They are not naive and must understand that a significant reason for the standards is to hold school publicly accountable. Anne Tolley is on record as saying that the standards are disinfectant for poor school performance. Inspirational stuff!
The reason why the standards are being rushed through is that the raison d'etre is control over schools by using painfully simple ideas like 'plain english'. Please lets have some opposition to this nonsense....how on earth is plain anything going to adequately represent children's learning and what do we think the public hunger for plain reporting will do to the intelligent and complex teaching and learning we are trying to grow with the new curriculum. Folks it is time to wake up and get vocal. The Ministry's soft sell is deceptive. There are plenty of significant dangers in the policy for the health of our schools and the quality of children's learning. One question I would like the Ministry to answer is, "Exactly what is the specific change in teaching that the standards will be about". I haven't yet heard a Ministry official answer that. I totally disagree with Mary Chamberlain....the standards are not congruent to the new curriculum rather are philosophically at different poles to the sort of ideas that schools have been growing within the new curriculum.
The consultation meeting(here in Wellington) was poor. Only a handful of questions invited and a handful answered with many folk coming away very dissatisfied. Time for principal's and school leaders around the country to show their mettle and let the Ministry know what they think.