School league tables - Whats wrong with that?
Some of this new education policy I'm not overly convinced about but I have to admit to liking some of it...particularly the publicity that schools are going to be getting in terms of outcomes, expectations and reporting.
Granted, in a school system that is littered with inconsistencies and difficulties our educators have enough red tape to deal with than this policy bringing more of it into play and to distract them from their true job, teaching, but I feel it is time for more accountability to come into it.
If you look solely at the tertiary level, it wasn't until the middle of the last decade that the bums on seats funding policy was shown to be a money making scheme rather than a display of true educational quality. You could have 75,000 students drawing EFTS funding of up or more than $3000 a piece, but 60% or more of them are not attending at a campus, and in the past, some of these students were receiving units and awards for work they had never done by tutors they had never seen. Again, things like that are were issues in the past, one can only hope things are turning around.
But I have to ask you this question. Is a league table of schools that much of a bad idea? From my perspective I do see some disadvantages in terms of some schools losing numbers, thus funding but on that side I also see areas where massive increases can be made.
For example - Schools more in metro areas like Auckland, Hamilton, Wellington etc would be drawn into a competitive atmosphere where ratings like quality results, outcomes, safety, pathways, personality draw people to want to attend the school. You achieve the results, then you get the funding and the numbers to make it work.
Personally, I would want my kids to go to a school that achieves more despite its decile rating. You could have a low decile rating but achieve a lot because the teachers give a damn. And I think something like that should be shown off. The decile ratings have a stigma attached to them which is long over due a shrug off. People feel they go to a decile 10 school they are hard up or broke...and therefore dumber than the rest.
But in terms of the national standards I'm not convinced by them. My concern is that they are rushed and pushed through with very little consultation or consideration of front-line staff. There are concerns that it will show up gaps and rightfully so. I to some degree agree that it will expose shortcomings and improvements that need to be made in short order.
Much like the NCEA introduction there is debate over its merits and effectiveness. But I am concerned what I hear on national TV and radio, unionists and in some cases teachers saying that there is little or no need for minimum standards. HELLO!!! How come we're having a massive increase in attention on literacy and numeracy programmes? How come TEC is sinking MILLIONS of dollars into reading and writing programmes and maths programmes? Its because we've dumbed down the population. Kids are leaving high schools with less English reading ability than a non-English speaking migrant. (No offence). Literally, we are at the 'O' for Awesome level.
I think that the Prime Minister also was being generous when he said 30% of the teachers need to "lift their game". I think its more than that honestly. I think too many teachers have this God-like syndrome...I have the knowledge, you listen to me. Not all of them, but certainly my own high school experience, they were present and very much in the minority.
The good thing about all this? Those who are in the teaching rut, been there 30-40 years, recycling the same old lesson plans they used back in the 70's may find finally that the teaching world is changing and you now have to work for your salary, your school holidays and so on. I think this can work. Given enough time and enforcing a minimum standard of learning only makes our future brighter.
Granted, in a school system that is littered with inconsistencies and difficulties our educators have enough red tape to deal with than this policy bringing more of it into play and to distract them from their true job, teaching, but I feel it is time for more accountability to come into it.
If you look solely at the tertiary level, it wasn't until the middle of the last decade that the bums on seats funding policy was shown to be a money making scheme rather than a display of true educational quality. You could have 75,000 students drawing EFTS funding of up or more than $3000 a piece, but 60% or more of them are not attending at a campus, and in the past, some of these students were receiving units and awards for work they had never done by tutors they had never seen. Again, things like that are were issues in the past, one can only hope things are turning around.
But I have to ask you this question. Is a league table of schools that much of a bad idea? From my perspective I do see some disadvantages in terms of some schools losing numbers, thus funding but on that side I also see areas where massive increases can be made.
For example - Schools more in metro areas like Auckland, Hamilton, Wellington etc would be drawn into a competitive atmosphere where ratings like quality results, outcomes, safety, pathways, personality draw people to want to attend the school. You achieve the results, then you get the funding and the numbers to make it work.
Personally, I would want my kids to go to a school that achieves more despite its decile rating. You could have a low decile rating but achieve a lot because the teachers give a damn. And I think something like that should be shown off. The decile ratings have a stigma attached to them which is long over due a shrug off. People feel they go to a decile 10 school they are hard up or broke...and therefore dumber than the rest.
But in terms of the national standards I'm not convinced by them. My concern is that they are rushed and pushed through with very little consultation or consideration of front-line staff. There are concerns that it will show up gaps and rightfully so. I to some degree agree that it will expose shortcomings and improvements that need to be made in short order.
Much like the NCEA introduction there is debate over its merits and effectiveness. But I am concerned what I hear on national TV and radio, unionists and in some cases teachers saying that there is little or no need for minimum standards. HELLO!!! How come we're having a massive increase in attention on literacy and numeracy programmes? How come TEC is sinking MILLIONS of dollars into reading and writing programmes and maths programmes? Its because we've dumbed down the population. Kids are leaving high schools with less English reading ability than a non-English speaking migrant. (No offence). Literally, we are at the 'O' for Awesome level.
I think that the Prime Minister also was being generous when he said 30% of the teachers need to "lift their game". I think its more than that honestly. I think too many teachers have this God-like syndrome...I have the knowledge, you listen to me. Not all of them, but certainly my own high school experience, they were present and very much in the minority.
The good thing about all this? Those who are in the teaching rut, been there 30-40 years, recycling the same old lesson plans they used back in the 70's may find finally that the teaching world is changing and you now have to work for your salary, your school holidays and so on. I think this can work. Given enough time and enforcing a minimum standard of learning only makes our future brighter.
Labels: Education, National Party, National Standards, Teachers
posted by Wiremu Bayliss at
9:12 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home