The pigeonhole has moved

Apologies to those of you who have not heard from us in a while.
This is a note to let subscribers know that the Pigeonhole has now flown the coup to the PPTA website
All previous posts have been transferred to the new blog and new blogs have been added.
So to continue to have your say on educational issues head to www.ppta.org.nz and click on PPTA Blog in the top right corner.
Anyone can comment on blogs already there and those of you who would like to contribute blogs of your own can email akirtlan@ppta.org.nz

Why should tax-payers pay twice?

By the winged avenger

Government handouts to iconic industries like Fisher & Paykel are one thing – they employ 1600+ kiwis after all.

Expecting taxpayers to bail out “prestigious” private schools is quite another. Taxpayers already pay for perfectly good state schools, which welcome a diverse range of NZ students.

Why should taxpayers pay twice, because Wanganui (sic) Collegiate can’t balance its books? If the market is talking, perhaps they should listen – and adjust accordingly. Perhaps they could recruit more foreign fee-payers? Each one generates $37,500 for the school. Local day students pay a mere $14,108.50 per annum. Wanganui Collegiate boarders pay even more.

By contrast, local state school, Wanganui City College asks families for a school donation of $100-$170 per year. Like Collegiate, they offer hostel accommodation for boarders and equestrian for the horsey set. They too have foreign fee payers: at WCC tuition and accommodation costs for international students add up to about $20,000 per year.

Choices are there for parents who want something other than a good local school. If the market shows that state schools have what it takes – and we know they do – then collegiate must pay the market penalty. The Collegiate board should be called to account for its poor financial management and questions asked by the school’s stakeholders about its failure to perform. But the answer is not taxpayer subsidies.

Taxpayers already fund state education. Why should we pay twice, while “independent” schools double dip? If more money is needed for education – and we can always use more – keep it in the state system.

Pop-up advertisements

By Winged Rodent

Some of you may have noticed the pop-up ads that are periodically appearing in our blog. They masquerade as hyper-links but will take you to advertisements for everything from the Australian stock market to dating services.
We would like to assure you that these have nothing to do with, and are not endorsed by, PPTA. They are associated with the blogsite we are operating from. We are sorry for any offence or confusion these may have caused and are working on recreating the Pigeonhole using blog software on our website.
In the meantime – a tip: The darker links that underlined twice are advertisements, the lighter ones are associated with the blog.

Performance pay – all US$18 billion of it

By Toilandtrouble

US President, Barack Obama is reported to be rightly furious at Wall Street executives’ greed (and temerity) in helping themselves to US$18 billion in bonuses out of the US $770 billion package American taxpayers stumped up to rescue them.

They seem to have forgotten that the money wasn’t actually a reward for their performance. In fact most people feel pretty gutted and disgusted by the decades of excess that have led to the near-collapse of the global financial system. As everyone else faces mortgagee sales and job losses all they can think about is lining their pockets.

And it’s not just Wall street, consider the total rort that Enron executives foisted on America driven by the search for an ever higher share price to justify their rising bonuses.

Throughout the world, people are asking questions about how CEOs who have wrecked the shareholder value in their companies and damaged clients, can still engineer themselves performance bonuses. Poly Toynbee in the Guardian has a much-deserved swing at corrupt and greedy CEOs who can’t seem to understand that the party is over.

And as she says: ” In the real world 2,500 people a day are losing their jobs. A home is repossessed every 10 minutes.

In the light of all this you have to wonder why there are still people in New Zealand who think that performance pay is some wonderful breakthrough.

“Performance pay for teachers would help get better educated students”.

Commenting on National’s education statement today, Business NZ Chief Executive Phil O’Reilly said it was time teachers caught up with other professions in achieving performance pay.

“It’s the consumer who benefits when professionals are paid according to performance,” Mr O’Reilly said. “New Zealand businesses wanting skilled employees are key customers of the education system, and they would welcome better financial incentives for teachers.”

Now how exactly would that work? Even if we set aside the practical difficulties in sorting out those teachers who can walk on water from those who can only pass water how exactly would paying a few more teachers (and it would be a few given how tight money is at the moment) lead to the educational nirvana O’Reilly promises? Whatever skills O’Reilly has they don’t include reading the writing on the wall. If you set up systems that reward greed and selfishness, human nature will corrupt accordingly. If you set up performance pay for teachers, they will obligingly (though with great irritation) jump through the hoops. This is exactly what happened in the the UK scheme where over 95% of teachers passed the test. There was no evidence that the payments had any effect whatsoever on student achievement though the goal-setting and appraisal which went with it might have.

As we already have appraisal systems in New Zealand it’s unlikely that such an exercise undertaken here would have any positive educational effect at all. In fact students might be worse off given the time wasted in undertaking these farcical activities and the damage done to collegial relationships when people are treated like lab rats.

Better to follow the advice of American writer and researcher Alfie Kohn who says:

“…My formula for how to pay people distills the best theory, research, and practice with which I am familiar into three short sentences: Pay people well. Pay people fairly. Then do everything possible to take money off people’s minds. Notice that incentives, bonuses, pay-for-performance plans, and other reward systems violate the last principle by their very nature…”

Theory, research, and practice all suggest that carrots (merit pay for teachers, cash rewards for students) and sticks (public shaming, threatening to close down schools that need help) are as ineffective as they are insulting.

We need to shift the terms of the debate so that we have a clearly articulated and understood agenda for teacher professional learning and career progression. Similarly, we need to consider how best we pursue (or support) research that reflects the complex factors that impact on students’ opportunities to participate in learning – and on learning outcomes. Quasi-market models for schools, blame and shame targeting ‘failing’ schools, divisive pay rates or differentials, league tables and other crude measures of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in education, as ever, do not help.

Teachers not superhuman

By Winged Rodent

So according to professor John Hattie’s holy grail of teaching research, teachers are solely responsible for student achievement. It’s got nothing to do with class sizes. Poverty and student health certainly have no impact – it seems it is all up to the person in front of the class.

While many teachers would appreciate Hattie’s faith in their superhuman powers, I feel it is my sad duty to burst his bubble. Most New Zealand teachers are talented, passionate people who put their all into their jobs, but they simply can’t be everywhere at once.

They cannot provide support and feedback to 30 students simultaneously; they cannot follow each child home and make sure they have a good night’s sleep and a decent breakfast. They cannot stop the cycle of poverty while leaping tall buildings in a single bound. They may certainly want to but, I am afraid, they are only human.

Every teacher wants the best for their students and none would argue with the importance of quality interaction and feedback, but Hattie needs to take a reality check if he can’t recognise the obstacles teachers face to achieve this.

When teachers are seeing classes of up to 30 students at a time that can mount up to 100 plus students a day going through their classrooms. Even the most motivated and talented teacher in the world would be unable to provide each student with the time and attention they deserve.

Hattie’s assertions also ignore the wider social context of students’ lives. By refusing to properly consider issues such as poverty as a major cause for student underachievement, he is asking teachers to take the responsibility – and therefore the blame – for its impact. Over-emphasising the power of quality teaching essentially turns teachers into scapegoats for wider problems.

And there certainly are wider problems. According to research released by the Child Poverty Action Group last April, New Zealand’s child poverty rate is among the worst in the OECD and our children have higher rates of preventable illness and deaths from injuries than children in almost any other OECD country. This is what our teachers have to contend with before they even set foot in the classroom.

All of which makes Hattie’s support for performance pay laughable. How do you measure it? If you look at it through student performance then does this mean the teacher of an affluent school whose students are likely to do well anyway will be paid less than a teacher in a poorer area who has to put serious effort into helping their students learn? One may be working much harder than the other, but that is not what the results will show.

Inequality in wages will also breed a culture that can only have a negative impact on staff and students. I would be very interested to see what Hattie has to say to the parents of students being taught by teachers who are being paid less and feel resentful about it.

Tolley’s zoning proposal ‘perverse’

I would like to thank those of you who gave very rapid rebuttal to Anne Tolley’s proposal to automatically accept siblings into overcrowded schools.

I am expressing my personal view, and largely based on previous personal experience of zoning administration with a primary school board.

I have experienced in Auckland the exponential growth that schools can suddenly go through when demographics change or when perceptions of schools change, and the funding and logistical difficulties that can follow. Popular schools on small sites are already under huge pressures to manage capacity. I think it is in all of our best interests if we encourage the public to look at the big picture.

This is my initial appraisal of the perverse effects that Anne Tolley’s change might produce. If a family puts (say) three family members into ballots for various school years – by winning any one of the three ballots, they could presumably enrol the two unsuccessful students as well (plus three in the future, still at primary school!)

Also, what happens if a Board, in trying to build Year 7 and 8 into viable classes, accepts one family member because there is space. Would they then be forced to overcrowd the more junior classes with the siblings? Conversely, if a young sibling is enrolled for new entrants, would that automatically entitle the older siblings to be accepted into overcrowded senior classes?

I am also wondering if the open door for siblings will encourage more out-of-zone enrolments in the first place. When families apply for an out-of-zone enrolment, they presumably factor in the risk that one child may be accepted and others may not. Now more families will be encouraged to get their “foot in the the door”.

Conversely, will schools still offer as many places, knowing that there could be “hidden” unknowns among siblings of those accepted? How will this increase access for students with specific curriculum needs.Actually, won’t this tilt the odds against single child families – I would bet Anne Tolley never thought of that!

I have just thought of more issues. What about siblings in BLENDED families??!!! What about half-brothers and half-sisters? What about phony de facto relationships that might spring into life to get more kids in the door? Should schools have to get into biological family trees, or go through procedures similar to those associated with matrimonial property? How much resource will schools need to devote to identify deserving and non-deserving cases, and will they come up with definitive answers? Will some schools simply come up with answers that suit them; i.e. that will depend on the “desirability” of the applying student?

The above may sound far-fetched to someone out of touch with this system, but at our zoned primary school, we saw some EXTREME behaviours by “desperate” families.
Elsewhere I could tell you stories about “instant conversions” of families to Roman Catholicism to try to get on Catholic quotas – and some mirth when they failed. I could tell you about a girl who was declined access to a Roman Catholic school as a protestant- but was finally accepted through application of her biological father – through the faith of her biological father’s de facto partner perhaps (although we heard rumours of a personal donation as well!)

I can see that Anne Tolley would regard her idea as common sense. Unfortunately for politicians, and as Lockwood Smith found out as a previous National minister, you do need more than common sense to come up with viable zoning policy. The unintended consequences can be massive.

I am afraid this announcement severely dents my confidence in the readiness of National to take charge of the Education portfolio, which means for me that I do not see a National Government in-waiting at present.

I am copying this to the Minister of Education in the hope that the Government will get immediately on the front foot on this issue. Now is the PERFECT time to debate Education issues, not when the big Tax Cut Auction commences in earnest.
Regards
George Burrell

Lets compare apples with apples

Have you noticed how willing politicians are to compare NZ schools to overseas schools – for example Maurice Williamson in the latest IT brief “agreed the country needs a better focus in the education system and marvelled at the ICT skills he witnessed Singapore school children attain. “Once Singapore students came here to learn under the Colombo Plan,” he mused. “But I think Singapore can now do a Colombo Plan in reverse.” I attended that gathering and I certainly DIDN’T hear him also say “and I believe NZ should invest the millions of dollars in education as Singapore has done”. I’ve read Allan Luke and he has quite clearly indicated “don’t try this at home unless you have the Singapore government to back you” Another politician who appears to like taking ideas out of context is Rodney Hide who says we should have education vouchers like Sweden but he doesn’t also say lets have Sweden’s tax rate!

On the road to nowhere

Talking heads

(In response to “More pay to teach ‘gangsta’ students” – Dominion Post September 3, 2008)

Today I blog – 2 minutes – because amongst the talking heads last week was so little substance and so little intellectual depth.
It might be a soundbite world, but to what added value when leaders, including principals (Peter Gall), journalists (Lane Nichols),  Business New Zealand (Nicholas Green) comment on hearsay? Or in the case of Lane appear to (for the sake of a salacious story) deliberately mislead.
I was of course hoping that these people would all take the time to read the material they were commenting on? Yeah Right!
If a group of teachers seek to formulate policy for the organisation they belong to, and that organisation is democratic and in a transparent process publishes that
material to all members of the organisation for rigorous debate, you would hope commentators would read that material and seek clarification of anything they didn’t understand?
Phil O’Reilly reports a Business NZ survey that 71% of respondents say the education system was not meeting their needs.  I guess the role-modeling of leaders reported in the media who show complete disregard for reading and comprehension might be part of the problem.
 
Yours “Road to nowhere”

EMA cares about the workers – Yeah Right!

By Winged Rodent

When an organisation with a long record of supporting anti-worker legislation starts standing up for the little guy, one can be forgiven for thinking we have slipped into a parallel universe.
In light of this the Employers and Manufacturers Association (EMA)’s “battle for fairness” on behalf of workers who choose not to join KiwiSaver, seems positively Twilight Zone.
That is until you ask one question “what’s in it for the employers?”.
The EMA (Northern) is claiming to be supporting the rights of people who cannot afford to join KiwiSaver, by campaigning against an amendment to the law that will ensure workers who do sign up to the scheme get their fair entitlement.
KiwiSaver employment contributions are a new entitlement for workers which is offset each year by a $20 a week employer tax credit. A loophole in this means some employers have been pocketing money meant for workers’ savings.
By opposing the closure of this loophole, EMA claims to be standing up for the rights of employees who would like to see the employers’ contributions remain more flexible (ie paying the KiwiSaver contribution as an increase in their cash salary up front instead of into a savings fund).
What it is actually doing is giving employers the opportunity to do what they will with government money meant for employees’ savings.
EMA also seems to miss the purpose of KiwiSaver entirely. It is designed to help New Zealanders save for their future. It was set up because of the alarming amount of Kiwis who are hitting retirement age without a penny to their name. You can’t tell me an employers’ association cares what happens to employees when they turn 65. The money for the employers’ contribution is designed to help Kiwis prepare for the future. You can’t take a tax credit that is designed for one thing and use it for another.
This is why we feel the EMA’s melodramatic newspaper campaign to stop the “attack on workers” seems somewhat disingenuous and a rather cynical ploy to get what employers’ want by pretending to stick up for employees.
I’m sorry guys but it will take more than half page adds with sinister silhouettes sporting demon red eyes and words like ‘Unfair’ ‘Discriminatory’ and ‘Wrong’ to get us to buy that! (Even if it is Trevor Mallard – who is no friend of ours!)
And of course there is nothing stopping these champions of workers’ rights from paying the equivalent of the employers’ contribution to those who choose not to join KiwiSaver-  they just won’t be able to get the tax credit for it.
In fact we would applaud such a selfless gesture and would go as far as suggesting that if they are really concerned about those who cannot afford to take part in KiwiSaver, they could solve the problem completely by simply increasing wages.

Show us your education policies!

By Winged Rodent

In less than five months we will be staring down the barrel of an election and we are still pretty much in the dark when it comes to details of the major parties’ education policies.

Yesterday QPEC (Quality Public Education Coalition) unveiled a website devoted to analysing the education policies of the main political parties: http://www.qpec.org.nz/Election-2008.html

The Green Party, The Maori Party and United Future have all given detailed answers to questions put to them, but Labour and National have remained suspiciously silent.

National at least took a stab at answering some of the questions, but in an astoundingly vague manner.

In answer to the question: “Does National believe that smaller class sizes throughout our schools would produce better educational outcomes?  If so, does it have a strategy to reduce class sizes, and if so, what number would it consider an optimal maximum?”

The response was: “National will release policy in regard to this issue before the election.”

The party’s answer to: “Will National overhaul the NCEA. If not what changes will National implement for the NCEA?” was “National will release policy in regard to this issue before the election.”

To “Does National intend to expand and/or increase funding to the network of integrated schools (as distinct from private schools)?” the answer was, you guessed it…
“National will release policy in regard to this issue before the election.”

In fact, a quick tally shows that out of 20 questions put to the party by QPEC, 13 of them were answered with some form of “National will release policy in regard to this issue before the election.”

Labour on the other hand, after lauding its Schools’ Plus plan as the answer to many of the problems faced in the education sector today, has provided nothing – despite being presented with the questions more than two months ago.

QPEC believes this is unacceptable from both parties, saying:
“Education is a critical issue and one where we expect major differences to emerge between the parties. The public deserves this information to digest, debate and discuss these differences NOW instead of having policy dumped into a crowded public domain in the run-up to the election”.

We at the PPTA agree. It’s time both parties fronted up with specifics on their key education policies. 

“We will release policy in regard to this issue before the election”, just does not cut it.