Archive for May, 2010

The rational for the introduction of National Standards was the then National Party’s education policy to raise standards and introduce plain language reporting to parents (the latter stolen from Australian Prime Minister Rudd).  It’s well documented that New Zealand has a long tail of underachievement – approximately 20%.  The National government’s solution was to introduce the concept of National Standards to follow Labour’s analysis of variance reporting and in the 90’s, achievement statements.  Because National Standards is so fundamentally flawed and so poorly introduced, given a couple of years it will fade into oblivion.  Most university academics, the teacher unions and the principals groups together with many leading educational commentators are opposed to the introduction of National Standards.  The government and the media clearly support their introduction.

What was the lie on which National Standards were based?  In 2007 the Education Review Office produced a report on assessment in schools.  Various excerpts were selectively used to imply that schools were not doing enough to raise the achievement of children and were making poor use of assessment data to inform their teaching.  The report quotes;

In about half the schools (52%) the teachers used assessment information to inform their teaching and learning programme.  Less than half (44%) used worthwhile information.

This extract is the basis of the National government’s national standards and is widely quoted as their rational.

Unfortunately (as quoted by Kelvin Smythe) neither the government nor Ministry used the very next sentence in the ERO report;

“Figure 5 shows that 90% of primary schools were able to demonstrate their student’s achievements in the curriculum areas of English and Maths…….”

“Figure 6 shows 88% of primary schools were effective at demonstrating progress in English and 82% in maths”

“almost all primary schools had made literacy and numeracy key learning priorities….in most schools the teachers had built a shared understanding of how, when and why to measure student achievement in these areas”

Why then was the original selective quote so out of kilter with the original 52% figure – because it was based on the average figures for all curriculum activity like health, social studies, P.E., music etc which schools do not assess so vigorously and for which teachers produce qualitative rather than quantitative information (Kelvin Smythe).

This is the deliberate lie or distortion on which National Standards has been predicated and the facts deliberately ignored by the Ministry and their apologists.  The reality is, according to ERO, that schools were assessing well and using the information to inform their teaching and to raise the achievement of the 20% tail.

A number of principals and schools were adamantly opposed to National Standards, some were in favour, but the vast majority resigned to trying to implement them but, very sensibly, asking for a year’s delay in order to implement the new initiative in an ordered, informed way.  ‘No’ was the emphatic answer of the Minister and the Prime Minister.

What is the result?  – A complete botch up with confusing and changing information, a lack of resources, muddled and under-resourced inservice leading to ‘non aligned’ principals walking away in despair.  If National Standards is implemented at all it will be because of the good will and effort of principals and staff.  The promised in-service is poorly delivered with anecdotal comments from facilitators saying “they were making up in the morning what they would say in the afternoon”.  There is no money for relievers so schools have to pay $250 per day per teacher for staff who attend the courses.  For some schools this may potentially cost $5000-$10,000.  No teacher-only-days are authorized unlike for the introduction of NCEA and the NZ Curriculum.

Interestingly, not one person at the Ministry of Education is willing to put their hand up as authors or project directors of this ill conceived, hurried, muddled piece of party politics being transformed into political policy.  It is a complete and utter farce and based on a lie, a deliberate piece of distortion.