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.

Business decisions

Its kind of odd that this latest government decision to close the Te Hurihanga youth justice facility in Hamilton shines out to me as a prudent business decision and not a popular one at that, but I think its a good one and a necessary one.

Regardless of the protests of Mr Phil Goff (who no one really takes seriously anyways from what I have seen) and some others, its pointless to argue if the government understands that the purpose of the place was or the ideals behind the programme. Since its opening in 2007, 8 people have graduated (or completed the programme). Average out the cost estimated at $630,000 per person. Thats over $5,000,000 over 3 years for 8 people.

Even taking into account the other 10 people they were talking about currently going through the 'phases' of the programme, it still works out at over $100,000 per student.

If this was a PTE, or a Wananga or another tertiary education facility it would have its funding cut or dropped, especially with achievement rates like that. Now comparing apples with apples as one should, its not any of those and I do agree it has special character, to their credit, none of those successful students have re-offended. 8 of 23 original starters is 34.78%. Obviously some did not finish.

But as a manager and a business leader, I have to be asking myself this question. "Even with these 8 successes...what the hell have I been doing with all this tax payer cash? Where has it gone? What are my workers doing? Where has the audits and accountabilities been? Who is responsible?

I personally would like to know what the funds have been used on. $5,040,000 over 3 years is $1,680,000 a year. Some of this obviously came under the previous administration so I'm looking to ask some hard questions. Where were the checks and balances? Any QA processes?

I can see the social impact side of it. Don't get me wrong. But are the social benefits of such a large investment worth the output being shown? What other kid gets over 100,000 spent on them in a year without them having to pay a cent? Not even in the public schools. The kids/parents there have to spend thousands of dollars on books, uniforms, trips, sports, and then there are the 'donations' one has to pay.

I think this was a good idea to close it. My only be weary thing is that the replacement being more cost effective, is just as good if not better.