1. Our first point of difference is that we are an innovative and progressive school. Our school van slogan puts it succinctly – ‘school on the move’. We are committed to continuous improvement and regular reviews/audits of all aspects of the school. We were an early adopter of inquiry based learning, prime time learning concept, genuine child centred school, media production, a strong arts strand and purpose built specialist facilities, eg Arts Suite, Media Suite, playground canopy.
2. We have an emphasis on a number of philosophical ‘pou’ which are firmly driven foundations of the school; inclusive practice, reflective practice, structure formality and routine, expectations, consequences, proactive identification and intervention, fostering traditions and offering broad value added options.
3. In addition to our culture of innovation, we promote a culture of excellence in all that we do. We try and cultivate excellence at all levels and in all areas of the school – achievement, behaviour, campus, sport, arts etc.
4. Our school is research driven and we have a strong emphasis on whole school, longitudinal professional development (again, adopted long before it became fashionable). We grow staff and expect all to be self responsible for on-going learning and to become life time learners.
5. A major point of difference for us is in the strong Arts Strand. One day a week each syndicate is involved in Arts, P.E., and I.T. We are really seeing tremendous growth in dance across the school and in performance music. The 2009 production of “Bugsy Malone” was an amazing success. A number of our teachers are involved in performing arts themselves. In 2010 we are trying to raise the quality and profile of drama.
6. The work of Sir Ken Robinson has inspired us to try to be a more creative school and to help grow more balanced children. We have made a major investment in I.T. and its use in contributing to 21st century learners is well embedded across the school. It is integral (rather than ancillary) to all classroom learning.
7. Additionally, we have a strong Media Strand with all classes actively involved in film making and television production. Each class take weekly blocks to produce an mTV broadcast (Matipo TV) presented across the school computer network and uploaded to YouTube for wider dissemination.
8. As a school we celebrate the cultures of our children with a week long Samoan Language Week and also celebrate Matariki Week as a cultural immersion. We are a 10 year Gold Partner with the Auckland Philharmonia, Trees for Survival Project since 1992 and a member of the University of Auckland Post Graduate Diploma in Teaching Consortium.

The amalgam of all these points of difference contributes to a very special school culture. At most times of the day there is not a lot of noise to be heard – kid are quietly engaged in purposely learning environments. They are happy, secure and confident. Student voice is encouraged. We have lots of value added options and opportunities for specialist groups, especially in media and the arts.

Our point of difference is actually what makes a difference.

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.

We will be implementing the National Standards.  I am really confident of the achievement of children at this school and know that if we are compared with other schools, we would really hold our own.  If an area of weakness is found however, then it is up to us to do something about it.

Our reading results are well above the national average, our numeracy in the average band, but our spelling is down.  This year, we are putting a special emphasis on spelling in order to improve it.

Schools also need to report to parents in plain language as to whether your child is achieving well above, above, at, or below the national standards.

What principals, schools, the Teachers’ Union and many leading academics from universities are saying is that the government’s examples are hasty and poor.  They were written by Ministry bureaucrats, with no input from schools or actual people at the chalk face.  What the schools and unions are asking for is that the introduction of national standards be delayed a year to do more work on them so that there is a better outcome and also that they be trialled to see how they work.

In summary, we’re not afraid of National Standards and will be introducing them along with the new reporting system.  However, I totally agree that they should be delayed a year, re-written and trialled and believe the government has stuffed up but is too “pig headed” to admit it.

Today’s question is: The provision of the breakfast programme on Tuesday mornings – should we do it, should we extend it, any other feedback?

In 2008, 92% of children right across the school were reading at or above their chronological age. (The national average is 74-80%). We were delighted with this achievement. I am really proud of our children. They are collectively really nice kids. They get on well together and they work well. There are strong, positive relationships with teachers. On trips internationally, locally and to sports exchanges, they have never let me down. The children are confident and by and large, socially mature. As parents, you too should be proud of them.

Our school puts an emphasis on formality and routine, structure and expectation and plenty of proactive intervention. We are a strongly child centered school. We have approximately 15 intervention programmes for children who have learning issues plus a behavior intervention programme, a support worker and a Resource Teacher of Learning & Behaviour.

Children can learn violin, guitar, drums, keyboard and brass instruments. We have coached sports at lunchtimes plus about seven lunchtime clubs. Additionally, senior and middle classes get taught Spanish language and we offer a school wide Samoan language class.

In 2009 we are trying very hard to minimize financial demands on parents so are offering no costly trips and are trying hard to attract free performances at school. We have also created a trip subsidy fund to subsidize the cost of out-of-school trips.

I believe we offer really great opportunities to all our children and have created a very positive learning environment.
We are proud to exceed your expectations of a primary school and look forward to continuing to meet and grow the educational, sporting and cultural aspirations of your children.

Kia toa
Kia manawanui
Kia kaha
Kind regards

Wayne Bainbridge

Mentally, stress causes decreased memory and concentration, indecisiveness, mental ‘blanks,’ confusion and loss of humour. Emotionally, stress causes anxiety, depression, frustration, anger, worry, irritability and short temperedness. Behavioural symptoms include fidgeting, eating disorders, drinking or smoking, crying, yelling, swearing, and other forms of acting out.

Untreated stress can cause you major physical, mental and emotional health risks, can destroy careers and relationships and in extreme cases, can cost you your life. To treat stress you firstly need to be aware of it. The simple steps are to identify the causes of your stress, prioritise them as to what is major or not, assign ownership to the stress ie: is it your problem or someone else’s? And then action some remedial steps to deal with the stress. The worse thing you can do is internalise or “bottle up” the problem. You need to identify the causes and do something about it. Being honest with yourself, and communicating in an open way to others are two pre-requisite requirements to successfully dealing with stress.

Sources of Stress

Stress can be externally driven from a variety of sources including work, significant events, (eg: deaths etc.) deadlines, physical environment or internally driven.
“Most of the stress that most of us have is self-generated. We create the majority of our upsets, indicating that because we cause most of our own stress, we can do something about it.” (1) This gives us a measure of control and choice.

Internal stresses may include lifestyle (not enough sleep, overloaded schedules), negative outlook (self-criticism, over analysing, pessimism), personality (workaholic, perfectionist, victim), and mindset (unrealistic expectations, all or nothing, taking things personally).

External stress is often the most blamed yet it is our reaction to the external stress, the way we handle it, which actually causes most of the problems.
Recognising that we create most of our own upsets or stress is the first step to helping ourselves.

Reducing Stress

The bottom line in reducing stress is simple: In order to manage stress, you must change. We can’t usually change other people; we can only change ourselves. We need to identify what we are doing to contribute to the problem and change.
- Change your behaviour.
- Change your thinking.
- Change your lifestyle choice.
- Change the situation you are in.
However, in order to change, you must identify the root cause or the real cause of your stress. Often you misdirect the cause of your stress or the target of your stress.
Identify it, deal with it, and don’t take it out on others.

Dealing with Stress

There are some simple and practical ideas to help manage stress:

- Decrease caffeine (it is a stimulant that actually generates a stress reaction in the body).
- A well balanced diet – decrease junk food.
- Regular exercise to drain off stress energy.
- Relaxation/meditation – time out, rest periods, listen to music, hot relaxing bath etc.
- Sleep – the most important way of reducing stress. Sleep is the cheapest and best medicine (chronically stressed patients almost always suffer from fatigue).
- Having realistic expectations of others.
- Reframing – this means to try and find the positive side of an otherwise negative situation – to find the “silver lining,” eg: my husband has left me – now I can be who I want to be, play my sort of music, re-decorate the house etc.
- Humour – laughter relieves tension. When you can laugh at yourself or the situation then you can deal with it more realistically and certainly less stressfully.
- Ventilating your stress – articulate it – create a support system, a problem shared is a problem solved. By talking about your problem to an empathetic listener who can provide concern, care, advice and encouragement, the stressed person can “get it out of their system.”

By talking about it, the person is identifying the problem, acknowledging it and is well on the way to resolving their stress. By bottling it up, internalising it or avoiding it, the person creates more stress, which will manifest itself in either physical, mental or emotional ways. You must express yourself. A good first step is to actually write down your thoughts.

- What is the problem?
- Who is causing it?
- How do you feel?
- How are you handling it?
- What is a possible solution?

Think about this for a day or so and then refine your list. Then prepare yourself to confront the problem or the person.

Conclusion

The most important thing with stress is to acknowledge it is there, identify the causes, prioritise, assign ownership and actually do something about it. Do not go into avoidance mode – the problem is not going to go away unless you deal with it. Do not internalise it. This makes it worse. Ventilate or express your thoughts on the problem. Write about it. Talk about it. Do something about it. Finally, if you have
been guilty of misdirecting ie: blaming someone else or taking it out on someone else, a simple brief acknowledgment and apology will go a long way.

(1) David Poulsen
Canadian Journal of Continuing Medical Education
April 1995

There is a strong metaphysical school that links positive thinking with the ability to self heal – Louise Hay writes strongly about this link. Alternative cancer treatments suggest visualisation and various positive karmas to cure cancer.

Many influential thinkers and leaders of the 20th century are living testimony to the power of positive thinking to overcome adversary eg: Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King.

Positive thinking is a lifestyle choice, it is a personal philosophy choice, it is both a physically and mentally healthy choice, it becomes habitual and it promotes a far more fulfilling, rewarding and enjoyable life and career as well as guaranteeing more meaningful and happy relationships.

Sports psychology, business mentors and various forms of counselling all promote the value of positive thinking – identifying, accentuation, duplication and enhancing the positive things in people’s lives. It is focusing and dwelling on the good points of self-image and self-esteem, the good things happening in your life and looking for the good in others.

It is about looking for and maximising the positive qualities and features in the people we mix or work with. It is about looking at the positive qualities and values of our partner rather then dwelling on the negative. It is about what we can do rather then what we can’t. It is about our friend’s good points rather then their failings and as teachers, what is good and positive about our children and our school rather than the opposite. It is sometimes easier to see the failings and faults in people and systems by focusing on the narrow and the specific rather then looking at a wider picture.

Developing a habit of positive thinking involves the concept of ‘will’. ‘Will’ is the capacity to choose among alternative choices particularly when; definite ideas and principals of conduct govern the action. Willed behaviour is deliberately aimed rather then stemming from instinct, impulse, or reflex. ‘Will’ dominates every other aspect of an individual’s personality, knowledge, feelings and direction in life.

Philosophers see ‘will’ in different lights but the great pragmatic philosopher John Dewy sees ‘will’ not as an innate faculty but as a product of experience evolving gradually as the mind and personality of an individual develop in social interaction.

People with weak wills, will have difficulty embracing the concept of positive thinking and its consequential effects on the pursuit of happiness. Serial killers are notable for being loners with low self-esteem, poor social interaction skills and an incapacity to resist impulses or break habits.

Modern psychologists see the act of ‘willing’ as being manifested by:
a) Focusing on relatively distance goals and relatively abstract standards and principles of conduct – a global, generalist view.
b) Weighing up options and making careful calculations rather then quick, judgemental decisions.
c) Perseverance against obstacles and frustration’s in pursuit of goals and values.

Common deficiencies that prevent the development of strong will are absence of goals and standards (aimlessness), vacillating attention, incapacity to resist impulses, inability to forward plan, stick to a decision or decide among alternatives.

My premise is that positive thinking is a deliberate learned behaviour – it may be harder for some people then for others depending on the development of their personalities which is governed by their experiences. People who have suffered hardship, trauma, loss or accident are more likely to recognise and practice the concept of positive thinking.

The converse is a focus on the negative – what’s wrong with your life, your children, your partner, your friends, your job, your work place. Louise Hay argues that with extreme pre-occupation, comes a compulsion to blame – always someone else.

Negativity leads to the development of a pessimistic outlook on life, work and people. Negativity often manifests itself in complaining ceaselessly, sulking, moping, being bored, easily distracted, being re-active rather then pro-active and responding emotively rather then rationally. Whining becomes an art form.

There is an interesting contrast between the Warriors Rugby League team, (how do your know the Warriors have arrived in Sydney? The whine continues after the jet engines have been turned off), and the ‘Black Caps’ Cricket team. For the Warriors it is always the fault of the referee, the linesman, the video referee, the judiciary, the travelling, the coach, the contracts etc. For the World Cup Cricket team, there has been a quiet acceptance of their weaknesses and a positive belief in their strengths and abilities. When they lost, they didn’t blame the weather, the umpires or their mothers! They accepted they hadn’t played well and determined a will to do better and articulated a positive belief in their abilities and the outcome.

My conclusion is to strongly suggest that a focus on the positive rather then the negative makes you a happier, healthier person. It enhances your outlook and your relationships. It can become a learned behaviour but requires a focused will to change. A simple question to pose is whether you prefer to be in the company of positive, outward going people or negative, inhibited people. Try and look at the positive in children, colleagues, friends, and systems and focus and accentuate on the positive while trying to minimise or overlook the negative. At the very least, look at the negatives in the wider context of the whole scenario, the wider picture and the full story. Enjoy life to the full for it is a very finite condition and look at any school problems in the wider context of life. You will find they pail into insignificance.

Some Related Points

1. Positive thinking is a deliberate lifestyle choice.

2. Take a deep breath, count to ten and respond in a rational not an emotive way.

3. Don’t let trivial, minor things cause concern – look at the wider picture, the full context.

4. Assign ownership to stress and sources of stress.

5. Accept yourself. Look for the positive in yourself – list your positive points. Enhance these; work on your weaker points.

6. Accept others. Look for things to like about them rather than dislike.

7. Be honest with yourself, your maker, and with others.

A little known, but quite visionary requirement of “Tomorrows Schools” was a mandatory requirement for all schools to develop a Role Model Policy. The rational for this was to ensure that all schools recognised the importance of providing their pupils with exposure to positive role models from a variety of different aspects of life or to provide compensatory role models.

The last New Zealand Census showed 55,000 children were growing up in homes without a male role model in the home. Overseas research suggests that where children are without positive role models, they will seek them from the world of fantasy and the media. There is plenty of evidence that supports the positive benefits of children having high expectations, setting goals and generally “aiming high.” The world of business, sport and employment has a multiplicity of examples of people who had a dream or a vision and attained it by working hard towards their goals.

At Matipo Primary School we have developed the concept of the “Reach For the Stars” Role Model Programme. It is a basically simple idea – bringing various speakers from all walks of life but who have one thing in common – they are all successful adults. We have had the mayor, national politicians, sports people, entertainers, and people from various employment occupations.

The children get exposure to a “famous” person they have seen on television. The role model talks about their life and career and how they got to their goals. Through questioning, we are able to draw out the values that were important to that person’s success – aiming high, setting goals, working hard, obeying your parents, doing your homework etc.

We are trying to get a wide variety of role model visitors, not just famous sports stars. People with interesting occupations – the 767 pilot, the women airforce helicopter pilot, the solo mother who completed a degree part-time are just as important and as inspirational as the All Black star.

Our positive role model programme is complemented by our Values Education Programme which also takes place at out special assembly time. Here the principal talks each week about a theme with a moral or values basis. Sometimes it will be developed from an example of something that has happened at school or it will come from reading a booklet series about various values. The common theme that prevails is to treat others, as you would have others treat you.

Schools can not isolate themselves from their socialisation obligations or from the necessity to full the moral values vacuum created by the breakdown of the traditional providing institutions – the church, boy scouts, guides, even the home. Through our Role Model Programme and our Values Education assemblies, Matipo Primary School tries to encourage our pupils to “Reach For the Stars”

Realistic observers can not help but observe that our youth culture has major problems. Many causes are blamed – television violence, the breakdown of the family, societal changes etc, and many reports, indeed gabfests, commissioned. Many an academic and professional career will be launched on the tragedy of Columbine.

An encouraging international trend is a recognition of the importance of early identification programmes for child mental health. The evidence in favour of early intervention is almost universal – the question is what form.

A Christchurch longitudinal study at the Christchurch School of Medicine (David Fergusson) has gathered data on 1275 children born in a four month period in 1977 and tracked the group since then. The study is acclaimed worldwide and is used to strongly advocate for early intervention. Says Fergusson “by age 7 or 8 you have enough information to make a prognosis.” Factors impacting on child mental health included social and economic disadvantage, impaired parenting, especially poor monitoring of children (the parents of the Columbine killers had absolutely no idea of their children’s demeanour or behaviour), inconsistent discipline, abuse, high levels of family conflict, high levels of mental disorder in parents, poor peer relationships and other individual factors. However, the study cautions against basing early intervention programmes based on any one factor. “Where the truth lies is not in the isolation of any one risk factor, but in the accumulation and patterning of risk factors.” The Christchurch study concluded that up to 15% of adolescents have mental health problems.

Patrick McGorry – Professor of Psychiatry at Melbourne University talks of a rising tide of mental disorders showing up in increased violence and youth suicide (New Zealand – highest in the world, Australia 4th). He sees the causes as being sociological and sociopolitical.

The adult world now is more competitive and less forgiving.
Jobs are more fluid and less accessible.
Families are less stable.
Communities are more urbanised and less subsistant.
There is higher material needs and pressures
Puberty is earlier

Mental disorders and disruptive anti-social behaviour have high instances of overlap. Some studies show depressive illness occurs in up to 7% of youths by age 15 and 15% by age 18 and depression can now be identified as the major predictor of youth suicide.

Some significant (but worrying) implications come from early intervention research. Professor Mark Fraser (University of North Carolina) observes a child who is aggressive at age 5 years, was equally or more likely to be aggressive at age 10 years and that poor school achievement at age 10 is a predictor of delinquency at later ages. He believes the combination of aggression and rejection by popular peers as the most “potent combination” (studies of serial killers would confirm this opinion).

Anne Williams – Adelaide Women & Children’s Hospital, also believes many warning signs appear in early childhood – “What you can measure at age one you can measure at age five.” Babies with insecure bonding often have relationship difficulties and peer problems later in life. (An interesting sideline to her research is that while maternal postnatal depression can cause behaviour and learning problems for boys, girls are immune. She speculates that girls many internalise feelings which later emerge as adolescent eating disorders and depression which effects more girls then boys).

A University of Queensland researcher, Margaret McFarland, studied detection of mental health problems in primary schools and found that because of the close and holistic nature of primary teaching, teachers were aware of potential at-risk children but for various reasons decide not to intervene (the process, the stress, the risk, the lack of resources).

David Fergusson agrees, “many children with problems are well recognised by their teachers, parents and peers by age 8. The problem is not so much in terms of recognition, but in a lack of response to the recognition.”

At Matipo School we articulate that we are a child centred school dedicated to children. We articulate that we advocate for children and that we cater to the whole child.

I concede that we haven’t catered to some of our children as well as we could have. We advocate strongly for our children in terms of resources, special needs, and some aspects of child protection and care. We try hard in the provision of a good quality balanced education. However, for other children we have been guilty of taking the easy option of doing nothing, of putting it in that too hard basket, for the reasons stated above – it’s too time consuming, too frustrating, there is a lack of responsive agencies, we buy a fight with parents and there is too much risk.

I would like to think that we could do better and make a more sincere commitment to our mission statement and to our children. We need to provide some compensatory intervention to children at risk of poor care, mental health disorders and varieties of emotive behaviour. We need to be aware of the warning signs:

Aggressive behaviour
Depression
Withdrawal
Poor peer relationships
Anti-social or deviant behaviour
Abuse
Family conflict/trauma
Socio-economic factors impacting on adequate care and hygiene
Effective parenting difficulties
Known parent factors – alcoholism, mental disorders

Where there is a combination of these factors or serious concern of one factor, the situation should be referred to the principal to investigate possible causes of action. Referral to Public Health Nurse and C.Y.P.S. are obvious options.

We are taking part in a pilot programme involving a social worker/counsellor internship with Unitech. The principal has access to funding and other sources for food, clothing and medical attention. I am going to establish a part time “field worker” position to work with a small group of “at risk” children (with care deprivation problems) and hopefully with their parents. The task will be to establish a rapport and trusting relationship with the children, to complete a needs analysis, to give the children reinforcement and security of their worth and to address basic caring issues. Hopefully, successful contact can be made with the parents to offer support and if necessary to put them in touch with supportive agencies.

At the same time our intern counsellor will work with cases referred on from our field worker or directly from the principal and if necessary cases will be referred on to outside agencies (see flow diagram).

The bottom line is that I intend to be more pro-active in trying to provide an early identification of children at risk and trying to do something about it. I have avoided the school being involved in child protection and social work provision but the harsh conclusion is that if we don’t do it, no one will, and we will have failed our children. Neither this school, nor society, can continue to look the other way.

Teacher Concern Parent Concern

Principal

Field Worker

Counsellor

Other Agencies*

* Other Agencies May Include: Public Health Nurse, Special Education Service, C.Y.P.F.S., Glenburn, Lawyer, Presbyterian Support.