Hosking speaks through Joyce’s hole

Today this came out of Mike Hosking’s mouth:

Does a kindergarten teacher deserve similar pay to a primary school teacher or secondary teacher given they don’t do the same level of complex work?

Could it be argued that teaching Level 3 Calculus is way harder, more detailed and requiring far greater skills than painting pictures with a 3-year-old?

Is a room full of 16-year-olds doing biology tougher than a room full of 4-year-olds playing with plasticine?

MyThinks have assessed this statement. Our experts have roundly criticised this as nonsense and have come up with their own assessment of Hosking’s view of the many wonderful people teaching our young children.

Does a talk radio host talking on a well-known Auckland news channel deserve similar pay to the chap hosting the night show on Catalans FM in Southland given that they pretty much do the same thing – talking into a microphone?

Could it be argued that talking into a microphone in the Catalans where it is almost impossible to build an audience is way harder, more detailed and requiring far greater skills than talking to a massive audience who’ve been trapped in their cars for two hours?

Our experts all agree – Hosking is, to use a highly technical phrase, a numpty. He does the same job as any other talk radio host yet he earns millions a year. How is that equitable?

As an addendum, most of the MyThinks team have far better memories of playing with plasticine and painting pictures with our kindy teachers than the time spent trying to ingest sixth form calculus.

So, in summary, shut up.

The end.

PS: is he saying this because he knows the majority of early childhood and primary teachers are women and deep down he might subconsciously think they don’t deserve better pay? One wonders…

Advertisements

National against dumping of National’s Standards 

The Government is irresponsibly and recklessly scrapping National Standards without having a detailed nationwide system of progression to replace it with, leaving parents in the dark about their children’s achievement, National Party Education Spokesperson Nikki Kaye desperately says.

“Education Minister Chris Hipkins’ decision to no longer compel schools to report annually on a randomly arbitrary figure set by the National Party and given to the Ministry of Education to enforce is bad news for parents and could have negative and far-reaching consequences across the education sector,” Ms Kaye says.

“While Mr Hipkins is saying parents will still get reports, there is no clarity about what exactly will be required of teachers to report on. He’s even said that parents will be able to celebrate the progress of their children. This is an outrage.

“If teachers don’t report against National’s Standards, what are they going to report on? How their students get on with other children? How they manage themselves? How well they collaborate with others? How awesome they are at Art or P.E. or Science or Technology?

“Without this information there will also be huge difficulty targeting funding to schools that the minister likes.

“Mr Hipkins did not need to do this – he should have waited until he had figured out a replacement system. Instead, just as schools are breaking up for the year he has given them every reason to celebrate.

“National has previously supported a shift to progression but only when coupled with the use of data to play school off against school and teacher off against teacher. It’s important for our friends in the media to get every possible chance they can to rank schools using National’s Standards because that’s obviously the best way to improve learning outcomes for children. 

“This Minister is consistently displaying a rash and ideological approach to our education system, which is something we never ever did never ever ever.”

Long Read: Education Policy in 2017

You’ve probably heard of The Law of Unintended Consequences. An unintended consequence is an outcome or event which happens as a result of another, often unrelated, happening. In the movie based on their book Freakonomics, journalist Stephen Dubner and economist Steven Levitt, there is a section on the unintended consequences on crime of the Roe vs Wade abortion ruling by the US Supreme Court in 1971. You can watch the clip from the movie below, but very briefly, there was a massive drop in crime in the US in the 1990s. Dubner and Levitt discovered this was not the result of law and order policies similar to the Broken Windows one used in New York City. Instead they were the result of a reduction in the births of “potentially unwanted children” into possibly harmful home situations who would then go on to commit crimes.

This morning Q and A held their education debate ahead of the election (part one here, part 2 here). On the side of National was new(ish) Education Minister Nikki Kaye and attending for the opposition Labour spokesperson Chris Hipkins.

Minister Kaye continued the National Party’s obsession with national standards, which, it turns out, they are planning to supersize. With what? A sweet little app which parents can follow their child’s progress on their phone or tablet. Now apart from the potential data security issues of looking at assessment data on a mobile device might entail, some parents might think this is a good idea. After all, we are in a digital age now and when my phone beeps / chirps / buzzes, I must check it.

Before I begin to dismantle the National Party education policy, let me just say this: We should definitely be measuring a child’s progress, not where they stand against some arbitrary standard set by some boffin in Wellington. All children are different. No child is going to progress against any standard in the same way as any of their classmates, schoolmates or peer group across the country. Sometimes progress is very fast; sometimes it can be painfully slow. Just ask any teacher.

National standards have an in-built language of failure. There are four measurements: above, at, below and well below. Three of those ooze with the putrid juice of defeat. Parents get their reports every six months, and if their child is below or well below, then that’s failure isn’t it? “My child isn’t doing as well as all the other children.” I would also argue children who are assessed as “at” the standard may also be considered average by their parents. They are neither above or below the standard, they are just “at,” which could be construed as very, very average. As well as this, National are never in their wildest educational successes, going to get 100% of students at or above the standard. It would never happen. At some point New Zealand students are going to come to some kind of standstill. You could spend billions of dollars and you would still not shift achievement levels.

When I was given my report back in the 1970s, I rushed home to give it to my parents, not because I wanted them to read it, but because I wanted to read it and I couldn’t do that until they had. Every child I know wants to read their report to find out exactly what their teacher is thinking about them and their learning (or, in my case, behaviour!). With national standards the child will also now have a measurement that could include “well below.” I know schools try to douse the flames of failure with phrases such as “progressing towards” and so on, however if every six months a child seeing their report say they are a failure, what is the unintended consequence of that going to be?

Despite my many, many “could try harder” report comments, I did make it to university in 1989. Eventually I discovered psychology and media studies which turned out to be an interesting mix. Learned helplessness is one of the things we were taught during second year. Often this happens in situations of extreme abuse where a child or animal has learned that no many how much they struggle or try to escape, there is no escape from the abuse. In the end they give up trying to escape because there is no use. I have seen this in students, but rather in relation to severe abuse, they have learned helplessness in relation to their learning. They have discovered that it does not matter how much they struggle to try to achieve in the school setting, nothing seems to work so they have given up even trying.

Question: how does labelling a child “well below” or a failure for their entire school life lead to the unintended consequence of learned helplessness? How much has the National Party and their bureaucrats researched this phenomenon? Based on my experiences in the classroom I suspect learned helplessness has increased over the last decade – particularly since national standards were introduced. Report comments filled with well below or below will undoubtedly have an impact on a child’s self-worth. “I am always well below so what’s the point?” That’s just at primary school. How does that attitude to self play out later in life as the student heads through secondary and, perhaps, tertiary education?

I was having a conversation at work the other day about early childhood education. My wife is currently retraining as an ECE teacher and we are, much to the annoyance of my son, having plenty of in-depth dinner table conversations about learning styles and pedagogical theories. I was saying to my colleague how it is very rare for you to see a child in any early childhood setting sitting there in his or her kindy or preschool, not doing anything. Unable or unwilling to take a risk to try something that is new or dangerous or out of their comfort zone. Yet, by the time they get to my level (mid-primary), students may often sit there and do nothing. Afraid to even put pen to paper in case they do the wrong thing. What has changed in the time they were in early childhood education to the time they get to me?

It is because these days the pressure is on from day one. New Zealand children mostly start their primary school on their fifth birthday. From the first day at school it is about sitting up straight on the mat, learning numbers and letters, maths, reading and writing. This pressure can come from whānau, but mostly it comes from the system. When we should be celebrating and welcoming a child to a learning environment and allowing them time to bed themselves in to this new and daunting system, teachers are ever mindful of what is coming down the track. At some point soon this child will need to be measured against national standards. If we don’t get things moving as soon as possible then the progress line of that child is always going to be behind the national standards line.

This is a massive problem for all those students who aren’t ready to read or write (or even sit for long periods with their arms and legs folded – why is that important to a modern society when you can whip around Google HQ on a scooter?). There is something to be said for the holistic nature of Steiner schools which recognises every child moves through developmental stages. These stages are linked to the child, not some booklet sitting on the shelf in my classroom. Every child is different and they will move through those stages when their development allows.

Learning becomes much more than the acquisition of vast amounts of information; rather, learning becomes an engaging voyage of discovery, both of the world and of oneself.

One of my friends went to a Steiner school growing up in Northern Ireland and he wasn’t reading until he was 7. He turned out fine.

National standards and the one-size-fits-all education system that has developed over the past century really doesn’t cater for this developmental progress. Pressures from the top down mean we teachers feel we have to fit our students into this system, despite them not being ready for it. If we extended the use of the early childhood curriculum Te Whāriki into the early years of primary, I firmly believe we would reduce the problem of learned helplessness as children move up the primary school. Even though this is something I’ve been thinking about following my wifely discussions this year, it turns out it is also Labour Party policy.

I have previously blogged about The Economist’s survey into what skills modern employers are looking for from their employers. During the debate Nikki Kaye herself said we needed to prepare our students for a future where vast swathes of jobs that currently exist have disappeared. From a report titled, Driving the skills agenda: Preparing students for the future, part one asks what skills we will need in the future. Their lead graph is the one on the right. Clearly employers see literacy and numeracy are important but not as important as problem solving, team working, communication, critical thinking, creativity and leadership. None of those top six are in the standards. Neither can they be measured. All of them, though, are depended on a good level of self-confidence. You are not going to be taking risks with your thinking or learning if you have some level of learned helplessness. You are not going to offer up a solution to a group if you aren’t confident your solutions, or anything you do, is worthy to the group, to school, or to life. Why would you put yourself out there?

I feel I might be preaching to my echo chamber with this post. Every teacher worth their salt knows in their hearts that national standards does absolutely shit-all for lifting student achievement. They create a huge amount of work and extra pressure on teachers and school communities as they try to improve their national standards performance. Of course, the media don’t help. During the debate Corin Dann suggested that parents love national standards. This couldn’t be further from the truth. There are vast numbers of parents, including I, who care little about where their child measures up against a standard set by the National Party. Stuff.co.nz love to rank schools and regions every year when national standards data is released. How does that help to lift student achievement?

Pressure can also lead to unintended consequences. The education system in the United States has been going down the path of the common core for many years. George W Bush had the No Child Left Behind policy which, ironically, lead to more children being left behind than ever before. In the US, school funding is linked to student performance against the standards. As you can imagine this leads to pressure. Pressure on teachers and schools to have high test scores. Where does that lead? I’ll let the Freakonomics guys tell you.

New Zealand doesn’t have to go down this path. Despite National’s best efforts over the past decade, the New Zealand education system is amazing. It is filled to overflowing with brilliant teachers all working their hardest for the 25 or so students in their care. Anyone who says teachers are lazy or only interested in lining their own pockets is a liar or a trouble maker or both. I do wish to insert other words here, but for the sake of decorum, I will not. I only have 12 or so years experience as a teacher. I don’t claim to have all the answers to the greatest educational questions of our time, but I do know those answers aren’t “national standards” and “David Seymour having a say in education policy.”

School needs to be a place where self-motivated students want to come and achieve at the very highest level. Schools need to celebrate success, give students every chance to practise all those skills employers are demanding – not just numeracy and literacy.

If our goal is to create life-long learners, we’re not going to do that by turning some of them into learners who have an aversion to learning.

The brand spanking new National Party education policy for our times

MyThinks are digging deep this election to get the word on the policies of the various parties. We were hoping to get latherings of Peter Dunne’s common sensical policies this weekend. Unfortunately for common sense we were unable to bring you this after he retired from the world. Fortunately, however, the National Party announced their education policy at a glitzy launch in Auckland in front of an adoring crowd of house-owning baby boomers. We asked right-wing education commentator Dr Edward Pharctähd to comment and here is his commentary. 

Good evening.

I was very happy that the National Party announced a multi-million dollar investment in our education system this weekend. Bill English and his team have created one of the most innovative and spectacular education policies ever to be announced in New Zealand. For too long New Zealand has been stuck in the mire of mediocrity. Our children are failing. Our teachers are failing.

In one foul swoop Bill English has told kiwi children they can be whatever they want to be by learning many other languages. What a fantastic idea. This week I’m certain we’ll see Mike Hosking tell everyone how important it is for kiwi students to learn other languages. He’s a bit lover of other cultures and languages.

As an educationalist and a National Party voter, I have been outraged that the Labour Party want to scrap national standards. This is just exactly the kind of outrageous and dangerous nonsense we’ve been come to expect from them. National standards are an important way to measure how useless teachers are. I know for a fact that if teachers just worked harder, our kids will be better off.

Parents are going to be stoked being able to follow their children’s progress using a phone app. I understand the app will be like Candy Crush – once your kid gets three standards in a measurement period, the app makes a twinkly sound. I tell you, I wish this kind of thing was around when I was at school back in the 1950s.

I guarantee you over the coming weeks we will hear complaint after complaint from teachers. “Where is the money coming from?” “When will this come in?” “How long will it take me to learn another language so I’m competent enough to teach it?”

Just accept what Bill has said. Kiwi children will be multi-lingual math geniuses. He’s said it. It’s going to happen.

Good night.

Charter school performance “off the hook”

The government had confirmed it is very happy with the NCEA results from its beloved charter schools. This follows concerns being raised about the different methodology being used to calculate pass rates in the privately run but publicly funded cash cows.

Undersecretary of Hekia Parata (pictured) has taken time out from his own exams to say how delighted he was with the results.

Student waits for exam results

“100% of charter school students passed their NCEA exams,” said a delighted David Seymour outside a Wendy’s he’d just been taken to by his mum, “and I’m not afraid to tell all those naysayers and woolly wowsers that they’re all egg-burgers for thinking charter schools would be a failure.”

Mr. Seymour said the seven charter school students who ended up sitting NCEA exams did very, very well with 100% of the students who passed the exams being counted towards the 100% pass rate.

Her Grand Highness Hekia Parata said she had no problem with charter schools not counting students who left or failed in their data because they were “losers” who would actually end up being counted in local public school data because, “that also makes the charter schools look good.”

John Key was reported as saying, “meh… I’m off the clock.”