] VIDEO Journal #3 - On education policy - Rt Hon John Key
Video

24 Comments
04 April 2007
VIDEO Journal #3 - On education policy


04 April. I want to use this videocast - the third in my new series of video journals - to explain National's new education policy plank, dealing with testing in primary schools. For more on this, including copies of the policy, a Q & A document and pertinent media releases, go to www.national.org.nz/education. You can also comment on almost all the documentation, including the speech during which I introduced the policy, on this website. Speaking of which, thanks for all the comments so far! Your opinions and thoughts mean a lot to us.
Speaking of which, thanks for all the comments so far! Your opinions and thoughts mean a lot to us.

Trackbacks

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

#1 - Steve Blackmore 2007-04-04 21:15 - (Reply)

Fully support this initiative. It's critical to ensure that kids are actually learning sufficient life-related academic skills at school. All the best!! Steve Blackmore

#2 - KJ Moodie said:
2007-04-04 23:37 - (Reply)

Great Policies you are coming up with! This is a great way to boost our economy too. In the future of course, planning ahead for a brighter future for New Zealand! Well done to John Key and the National Party. Keep up the good work. I really do hope you get in next election!

#2.1 - helene 2007-04-11 17:43 - (Reply)

The interesting thing is some of the best literacy stats come from countries that don't start their children in school before they are 6 or 7 years of age. SPARC and other modalities base much of their programmes on Brain Gym principles- which won the RETA award 2 yrs ago in America because it can take a below average reading/maths level and in a very short time bring the person ( be it child or Adult) up to and beyound expected level. Yet Gov has not been interested in investigating how it could be an intregal part of the education system despite many RLTB's who already use it to great effect.

#2.1.1 - Andrew Atkin 2007-04-13 09:11 - (Reply)

Helene, you make an important acknowledgement. To make my leading point I will first give this example: 12 years ago I remember my sister and brother-in-law trying to get my 2 year-old niece to write the letter 'A' so as to give her a "head start" before school. She couldn't do it at all, was clearly stressed when trying, and it was quite sad to watch. The reality is she was at the scribbling-phase of her development, and scribbling is really all she should have been doing. The thing is, by scribbling she was in fact learning to write - she was naturally developing the foundation skills (through scribbling) that would faciliate her writing in the future. Trying to get her to write letters before her time was backwards, not forwards, because it was removing her from her foundational development. So how do we know that kids are supposed to be learning to read and write from age 5? We don't know, and your insight suggests that maybe we shouldn't. Rather than making kids brighter we may only be making them dumber. If a child is not ready to start the 3 R's so young, and we start drilling them with learning-programmes too early, the room for damage to their development will be huge. It can lead to a vicious cycle - the more they can't perform, the more "help" (intrusion to their development) they get. Heaven knows schools may already do exactly this, and I know that there is a lot of evidence (like what you have presented) that points in this direction. I think the National party needs to make sure its educational research units are asking the right questions. I think it's extremely easy to make the wrong assumptions in this tricky territory - those fundamental questions need to be asked.

#3 - Andrew Atkin 2007-04-05 08:29 - (Reply)

I look forward to hearing what National's policy is on learning-compulsion. For example; will parents have the bottom-line say on what learning systems their kids will conform to (if any 'system' at all), or will that decision ultimately be for the individual schools or the Ministry of Education? I really want to see a comprehensive picture of where parental choice begins and ends.

#4 - Sarah 2007-04-05 19:58 - (Reply)

I am an AP in a d 4 school. As long as it is just formalising the testing that we all ready do on a regularly basis I will support you. But I just want to point out that the asTTle writing test takes about 15 min per child to assess. Will the the National government fund the extra release time required? Considering that there is still not pay parity between secondary and primary when it comes to release time. Secondary teachers get 6 hours a week compared to primary teacher who only get 1 hour. And while I am on a role. When will the government recognise that AP and DP need release time not just measly pay?

#5 - pellikan.w.w 2007-04-06 07:30 - (Reply)

General comment I am a selemploed person who has voted LABOUR FOR THE POAST 50 YEARS. My income always dropped when National was in Power. National made too many disasterous decisions. I am looking forward for a good reason to voteNational. Best wishes Walter.

#5.1 - Andrew 2007-04-06 14:34 - (Reply)

Take a close look at those 'disasterous' decisions. When politicians make changes it can take years (even decades) for the effects to show through - leaving us with confusion as to who is really to blame for bad decisions. I'm betting that when National wins in 2008 (hopefully!) they will be running an economy with big problems that people will have to feel - because our so-called economic growth has really just been "running on credit" as opposed to growing on productivity. Our debts have to be paid back, and I reckon it's going to hurt. If I'm right, then don't blame National - our spineless Labour party failed to take action when it should have, and allowed the grossly over-inflated property market to make a mess out of our economy (and young peoples lives, for that matter).

#6 - Brian Cuff 2007-04-06 14:16 - (Reply)

Absolutely agree with the thrust of your education policy. We need to move away from "everyone gets a prize" to reality. Better to experience both "success" and "failure" at school than to wait for your future employer to tell you you have failed, with far greater consequences. Unfortunately the teachers also need to be assessed and until they do, in a meaningful way, any results that may indicate poor teaching performance will be criticised by those who in many cases are at the heart of the problem.

#7 - Ronald A Palmer said:
2007-04-06 15:31 - (Reply)

Returning to a pass fail examination system before pupils move up a class is well overdue. Not sure that the National Party Policy is going this far. The education Revue Office statistic of 1 in 5 pupils being illiterate or partially illiterate when joining the workforce is underestimated. Further, the overall education system in NZ has been dumb down from top to bottom to accommodate the downfall in the education system.

#8 - Anne 2007-04-06 22:42 - (Reply)

I would be pleased to see a return to end of year tests. In the Primary school we used to have to actually pass these tests before advancing to the next class level. This however was very hard on the slow learners, and created too much stress on the young child. Also I have been supervising school leaving exams for many years now and I'm quite disgusted at the attitude of the students under the NCEA system; the only good thing about it is all the choices of subjects.

#9 - Martin 2007-04-08 15:00 - (Reply)

The NCEA was supposed to enable all to work at their own pace. One issue with this and that children seldomly understand productivity and performance to succeed. Adults do but they cannot measure what their children do under this complicated system. I think an independent study of how many children really take up the challenge as opposed to how many put in minimum effort would be a frightening figure.

#10 - Carl Forster 2007-04-08 18:51 - (Reply)

I agree with this National policy and it is NOT before time that this *FAILING* Labour policy was addressed. I am looking forward to the 2008 election to vote National in.

#11 - Colin Campbell 2007-04-08 22:12 - (Reply)

Go for it John.... But you should scrap that NCEA and bring back some real standards in high schools and universities now. Graduates seem to think that employers should teach them how to read and write simple everyday english.

#12 - Andrew Atkin 2007-04-09 09:08 - (Reply)

John, In your speech your say that you want to bring parents back into the loop. Sorry for being such a go-hard on your blog, but this is how I think that could/should work within our existing establishment. The government should prescribe the destination, which should be that kids can read, write and do maths to a reasonable standard by the time they are about 10-12 years of age. But the government should not prescribe the methods that kids use to reach that destination. The methods should be between the parents and the schools. The schools should function primarily as a consultant for the parents, and the parents should have the final say on how and when their children will respond to any given learning-system (at least until 10-12 years) and they most certainly should have the final say on what learning-systems, if any, are used (spare us the Pavlovian conditioning!). The parents should also be able to dictate the ratio between their children's formal and informal (non-prescribed) learning time. Nationally-standardised periodic testing for the child should still be employed, at all ages, but only as an indicitive measure for the sake of transparency for the parents (as National intends). This would allow us to achieve a Sudbury Valley School model for example (which is very successful) in existing schools for parents that want that. I think the parents should be the ultimate boss, not the Ministry of Education. The Ministry of Education should assess the success of individual schools on the bases of their ability to conform to parental demand - not MOE ideology.

#13 - james 2007-04-10 03:32 - (Reply)

Very lucid. I wonder, though, if the unions won't fight this down out of fear teachers might be ranked by competence. Dreadful result for the unions, were it to happen. Wonderful result for children. My children, in particular.

#14 - Moira 2007-04-11 10:23 - (Reply)

Great to see a real focus on education. I am on the Board of our local primary school and I know that parents would really value some hard information on how their kids are going. They don't want to compare schools - many of us have no real choice for primary school, we want to know if our kids are achieving their potential and whether there is something we can do at home to help further their education in the basics. Parents particularly want to hear the not so good news and not the "real estate" jargon which hides what the teacher really wants to say. Parents know in their heart of hearts when their kids aren't doing so well and what they really need is the truth and then some suggestions from the professionals - the teachers - on how school and home can work together to raise the levels of achievement.

#15 - Mike 2007-04-11 15:33 - (Reply)

I'd suggest going *beyond the conventional 3 R's*. I recommend adding real worthwhile computer skills to the list. Not the obvious stuff like using desktop applications but using computer languages. (My observation is that many decision makers aren't even aware of the huge potential impact of basic programming skills. The future should not be held back by the outlook of the present.) So I suggest adding *programming* to that list of basics.

#15.1 - Nathan McCluskey 2007-04-12 09:20 - (Reply)

If we're going beyond the 3 R's, I recommend a substantial political component. No student should leave primary school without a fundamental understanding of this country's real history, its' political system and the functions of government. My son finished primary school last year and the 3 R's were all covered very well for him and all of his friends passed the academic entrance exam for his high school. However, he attended a private boys primary school and so maybe if this level of success and achievement is desired, we should look at how this school is doing things.

#16 - Keith 2007-04-16 20:10 - (Reply)

I had been thinking before your policy announcement that it is about time students were ASSESSED (as opposed to tested) as to their reading and maths levels. These thoughts came about because of the appalling Maori school-leaver NCEA statistics that came out recently. I suggest that what should happen is that from about 8 years of age children should be assessed as to their reading and maths. We already rate children on their "reading age". If a child is, say, 2 years behind in their reading age they should then go into remedial reading, no ifs or buts. As it is an assessment and not a test there should be less pressure. This way those who cannot read would be in a another classroom working on a basic skill rather than in their age class not learning and disrupting an English lesson. For other classes e.g. technology, they would participate as usual. Maybe this way we would not "graduate" so many kids who cannot read, write, or add, and therefore cannot be fully contributing and participating members of society. Assessment would also better reflect that the childs reading and maths skills are a result of a number of contributing factors not just the quality of teacher(s). Perhaps modifying your policy along the assessment lines would get greater acceptance, and hopefully banish this problem from our country.

#17 - Dellis Hunt 2008-03-22 12:04 - (Reply)

My husband tells me that due to us being a high income family, we will benefit from your party becoming government. I personally don't care about the money, I care about our children, all of them. I'm nervous to think that your party will become government and take us back, educationally, to a place that suited our country decades ago. Look at the countries (like the states and Australia) who have stayed with this benchmarking, testing mentality. They have taken the wrong path. It is obvious with the state of their education system and the failings of it. Where do they rank and where do we rank in regards to education in the developed world? We are near the top for english, maths and science! We got there due to visionary people (NZ people) who created documents such as Te Whaariki (the early childhood curriculum), and now the new primary curriculum which is close to being released. These curriculums let the educators breathe. They allow teaching to individual children and their needs. They free teachers up from the masses of mandated skills that was our past way of learning. They take into account our new world and how we are living now. Our world understanding is growing exponentially and we cannot learn it all anymore. Education in NZ is at the forefront of the world with the way we are addressing our present understanding of the information and technological world we are now presented with. We understand that our children are individuals and their needs are different and varied. As soon as our educators are freed up from an horrific list of mandatory skills, testing and reporting, will they finally be able to offer a true, individual learning experience for each child. This will address our children who are slipping through the cracks. We need to allow our teachers time to work with each child, share experiences, the ability to contribute to taking the child to the next level without predetermined skills in mind. I don't need to benchmark how my child is doing in maths compared to the national average. What I need to know as a parent is: +Can he plan so that he knows how and where he is going to find the information he needs +Can he use his time well and manage daily stress, highs and lows. +Can he differentiate between good information and poor information +Can he apply this information in his everyday world +Can he reflect on this information, how it went, what can he do to make it better next time. +Does he see himself as a confident lifelong learner. To share one small experience. I have a child who has always been reported as academically above the national average for all subjects. I have a daughter who has been reported as been below the national average for pretty much all academic subjects. My daughter is an amazingly creative person, she draws, paints, sings, dances and writes stories. Always has. She can plan her day, manage it to include some down time as well as utilising the best 'thinking time'. She has basic reflecting skills and can apply her learning to day to day living. She is 8 yrs old. My son on the other hand cannot seem to plan and manage time even in the most basic way. He thinks that because it is on the internet it must be true. He is very bright but at 11yrs his sister has more skills than he does that are transferable to the world we live in today. Our future is now uncertain. Gone are the days when you could pick a career, gain the degree and work comfortably for the rest of your life doing the same thing. Our world is changing so dramatically, so quickly that we need to change the way we teach our children. We can't know if this will be enough or exactly right but what I do know is that the old way doesn't cut it anymore. Please don't take us back. Be bold and take us down the path that suits our world, NZ, each community, each family, each individual. Otherwise we will be training a generation of children to understand widgets when widgets don't exist at the completion of their training.

#17.1 - Andrew Atkin 2008-03-22 16:38 - (Reply)

The great "con" behind what we call education is the false (ridiculas, actually) belief that we can measure a child's development. The only way you can measure a child's development is to reduce a child's development to that which can be measured. And that, at an extreme, means creating a society brainless robots (we can, in fact, only clinically measure crude robot-style thinking/knowledge). I wish more politicians would wake up to this point; it's not hippy philosophy, it's plain as day fact. We need to be very careful with this unfounded obsession with so-called "results", and allowing [measurable] achievement-focused education to dictate a child's development.

#17.1.1 - Alex 2008-09-21 16:08 - (Reply)

you should run for prime minister then ;)

#18 - Jeff Saunders 2008-12-14 22:05 - (Reply)

As an educator whose family includes educators in all areas of our education system, I say to the National Party that this piece of flawed thinking is quite the most stupid thing that grown men and women have come up with in relation to education for a very long time. I know that a huge majority of primary school teachers, who pre-test and post test every unit of work that do and who know pretty much what each of their charges is capable of, need a national standard testing system, to complicate their already stressed working life, like the rest of us need kids to be branded as failures or even successes at an age when they have barely begun to function in the world of learning. It is daft. Why has the government decided not to consult with stakeholders? Is it because they know very well that those in the field have some extraordinarily pertinent points to make in opposing this lunacy?


Add Comment

E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

 
Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.