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.
Education and politics | Comment (0)
Bullying and ‘buts’
By Winged Rodent
A tutor once told me “everything before the word ‘but’ is a lie.”
For example:
I’d love be at the meeting, but…
It’s an interesting essay, but…
I wish I could go to your bagpipe recital, but…
And the list goes on and on.
I believed that for a while and then learned the hard way, sometimes what is said beforehand is not a lie, and sometimes that “but” is incredibly justified.
The PPTA is an organisation that has been known for taking this approach. The notorious “PPTA But”.
The PPTA But was a real learning curve for me because I discovered a world where, sadly, the ‘but’ is often necessary. Teachers often find themselves in a position where they are presented with well-intentioned initiatives BUT they need the time, support and resources to help carry them out. This is not damning with faint praise, often (though not always) these initiatives have schools’ best interests at heart- they just need to be seen through a more practical lens to be of any use to teachers.
This is how I see the Government’s latest anti-bullying initiative. It’s a great idea ‘but’ teachers will need more resources and support for it to actually work.
And the words before the ‘but’ are definitely not a lie. I really do think it’s a great idea.
The sad fact of the matter is that bullying is a serious problem in New Zealand schools. It’s an insidious thing, we live in a culture where, in some circles, persecuting someone because of their race, sexuality, weight, height, social status, whatever… is an accepted norm, and it’s great to see something being done to negate that. Focusing on de-normalising these behaviours is a great thing, but it’s a responsibility that needs to be shared, and supported.
Back in 2000 a government staffing review group found that students needed greater levels of care and guidance and recommended extra staffing hours and teacher support be provided to help achieve this. This hasn’t happened.
So while resources to combat bullying are great, resourcing is also needed to help teachers work with them.
This is where the ‘but’ comes in. Something needs to change, but if we really want to change it, we can’t do things by halves.
Bullying is nothing new. As long as there have been schools there have been bullies, what has changed now is that it’s more pervasive. What started as scraps in the playground, notes passed in class and hurtful messages on toilet walls, has moved outside of the school. Text messaging means abusive messages can reach kids wherever they are at any time. Even in the middle of the night, on the celphone they keep under their pillow. Chatrooms and instant messaging mean instead of being ignored in the lunchroom or mocked in front of classmates, young people can be ostracised on a larger and more permanent scale. The World Wide Web means if it’s on the internet it’s there for the world to see.
How can teachers be expected to combat this? It is happening outside of school but its effects are felt as soon as those young people enter the school walls. It’s hard enough dealing with the problems that arise in school hours. Teachers can’t be police, parents and counsellors – at least not without a lot more support and resources.
This is something that needs to be done through teamwork. Families need to play a part, and teachers need more support to be able to play theirs.
It’s not a lie, this is a great idea – ‘but’ we still have a way to go yet.
Education and politics | Comment (0)
Time for answers National!
By Hawke-eye
Gordon Campbell’s “What a National Government may entail” (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0806/S00323.htm , http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0806/S00356.htm) is right on the button! Where are the answers to so many questions? I look especially at policy promises around secondary education because that is what I know. I see he asks ” What is the Nats policy on Ops funding?” “Will National allow the private sector to mange and operate NZ state schools?” ” National already supports vouchers for 16 and 17 year olds seeking trades training – will they introduce vounchers beyond that?” “Will the Nats allow school boards a role in setting teachers salaries” All vital questions, given National’s past policies.
Another question needs to be asked of all parties: What additional staffing will their be for secondary schools to enable smaller class sizes and more personlaised learning in programmes for teenage students as they make key choices which will largely determine their success at the next stage of either tertiary learning or work?
I also see over one in five secondary schools has a vacancy they cannot fill – not surprising is it? Rhetoric, repetition of Labour’s Education spending – latest being a “whopping $5 billion since 1999″ obviously hasn’t worked for the secondary sector. Well it wouldn’t would it unless there is major specific targeting of the needs of secondary schools – secondary teachers salaries and staffing! The battles of horrendous paperwork and large classes don’t make for a very satisfying career – I tell you! 2/3rd of Carter’s much touted $1.8 mill spending on teachers salaries in the last year went into the primary sector – and DID NOT NEED TO. Does one in five of the primary schools have vacancy they cannot fill? I don’t think so!
Education and politics | Comments (2)
A majority vote – not a conspiracy
By Robin Duff
The blog from Charles has a familiar ring, it was the sort of comment that was repeated in most paid meetings by some members. Despite the fact that the thoughts were aired, members voted by 4 to 1 to accept the settlement on offer.
In the same proportions they had voted to accept the original claim (developed under the Ministerial Taskforce pathway), which they had also endorsed.
Some members never did like the alternative approach to negotiations, they didn’t like the original claim and they didn’t like the settlement. That is fair enough, it is a legitimate opinion to hold. But it is silly to start attributing an outcome which such a large majority of people voted for to some sort of conspiracy and it is sad to see that the facts of what happened take second place to individual revisionism.
Plan A and Plan B were prepared months before the claim was lodged and the negotiations began. Members took part in designing claim A and claim B. The plan for progressing them was put to members in the first PUM and accepted. There was no rush and the Executive anticipated the possibility that the government would fail to meet its commitment to the Ministerial taskforce processes. We were prepared.
What did happen in this round of course was that the government reneged on the industrial arrangements which the Ministerial Taskforce in 2003 established. They did so because the costs of the objective salary mechanism and conditions improvements were higher than they were prepared to continue with. We explained to members at the second PUM that we would table claim B and that one likely outcome of this was that it might push the government into meeting claim A. That’s what happened.
At the next PUM we put the new offer to members. There was a plan B sitting there as well – it was for members to reject the offer on the table and go back to the claim for a one year settlement at 7.5%. Most members voted against this. They voted against it even after hearing arguments like those raised by Charles from the floor of the meeting. They will have done so for reasons which were valid to them and we have to respect the will and the reasons of the 80% of the members who did so.
It is not a real position to adopt to suggest that anything less than significant industrial action would have raised the offer. Whatever government is in power the Association uses its connections, its contacts with the minsters, its discussions with officials, a range of information sources and its knowledge of the government’s position and people in power to determine whether negotiations have reached the point where new money will require more pressure or actual industrial action.
The government just didn’t want to pay more than 3, 3, 3. After months of negotiation the threat of extended industrial action, not just a one-day strike, raised offer eventually to 12.5% over three years, plus significant improvements to a range of conditions. After that, and to win improvements in staffing, we were looking at serious industrial pressure.
Maybe more money would have been generated by just one day. The evidence we had at hand was that it would need more than that and we had to advise the members that that was our honest assessment of the situation. Members could have chosen to take that pathway – but in the large majority they didn’t. They had the right to make that decision, even if it was a frustration to those who would have liked to test the government out. (Note though that they’ve shown no willingness to give junior doctors more money even after 3 days of very public strikes).
There is still a lot of resentment in the government that it was pushed into the settlement that was reached. It cites the 1.4 billion dollars it cost (remember that the flow-on to primary of our settlements is automatic because of the agreement between NZEI and government that they get the same pay rates we do). There is no sense in Wellington that the Government got off lightly. That may be a perception from people who think that because the settlement wasn’t to their liking it must have been to the liking of the government. The reality is much less simplistic than that.
So, in the next round (in 18 months time we start consultation again with members over the new claim) there is no objective mechanism to work with. Members will establish the level of the salary claim as they did prior to 2003 and we’ll go out and fight for it. I look forward to hearing the debate about what rates are going to be appropriate, what we need to adequately reward teachers and meet our recruitment and retention goals. I also want to hear the debate about what action we are prepared to take to achieve them – because the reality is that whatever government is in power they aren’t going to want to pay it and they will have to be made to put in a lot more money than they will want to even come close.
I am wild with delight at the thought that some of those who gave fiery speeches at PUMs and elsewhere then or since will stand for positions on the national executive so that they can be part of the process of developing membership consensus around the next claim and be part of the central decision making processes in that round and see for themselves how it really works, rather than bask in the comfort of their own ill-informed delusions.
And I am sure that whatever we settle at then will still be criticised by some of those who vote against what the majority accept then too. I just hope it is fair criticism.
Education and politics | Comments (2)Time for a re-think?
By Charles
How did they do it to us? Were they smarter? More devious? Game-playing geniuses? Or were we, as a union, too weak, too embedded in this government, to see the wood for the trees?
We accepted a pay offer that looked bad at the time. That looked, with inflation hovering about 3.5%, as if it would just keep our heads above water. Now, we just look stupid- inflation is predicted to reach 4.4% in the September quarter and re-fixing our home loans at a higher interest rate is starting to bite. But never mind; as a collective we decided, overwhelmingly (apparently), to accept last years’ 4% 4% 4% pay offer from the government. So, once again, an effective pay cut for our nation’s teachers.
Why did we accept this offer? My recollection of the pre-offer meetings where we outlined our demands was that the 4% a year of option A was only to be accepted if a raft of other improvements to conditions were accepted. And what do we get? “Endeavouring to reduce class sizes”. We are told it has legal ramifications, but with no more staffing going with it, how can we expect our schools to do anything about it? The timetable meetings have not produced any secrets (of course not- anyone with any experience of timetabling knows how tight things already are- they only way to free up time in most schools is to cut classes, which cuts options for our kids)
When we went to our PUMs to vote, there was no plan B, there was no thought that we could ask for more. This was it, a fait accompli, take it or leave it. Oh, and if we leave it, a week-long strike would be needed to move things along again. Really? Who decided that? We had only threatened a one-day strike earlier and an extra $50million appeared as if from nowhere.
In no way will our 3 year pay-cut make more experienced teachers want to stay teaching longer, in no way will our 3 year pay cut make our young teachers stay in the country and in no way will our 3 year pay-cut make more quality people want to become teachers.
The answer- a complete rethink of what we want from our union. We fought hard for better conditions through 2001-2007, we got non-contact time, but is anyone working less hard? Of course not- teaching always expands to fill the time available for it. So it is pay we need to tackle- and we need to start thinking about how to do it now and put an effective plan in place. Should we try for a big blanket increase? What about performance related pay? Is it the MUs we need to drastically increase?
What we don’t need is the same again next time; a rushed, badly executed limp from one badly though out claim to another. We were outplayed and outthought by the MoE- they must have been ecstatic at getting away so lightly. Let’s not let them off so easily again.
Education and politics | Comment (1)New Zealand Teachers’ Council – by the teachers for the teachers?
By Max Christophersen
Introduction
The current governance structure of the New Zealand Teachers’ Council does not enable the teaching profession of New Zealand to become a true self governing profession. The only way forward is the removal of the crown owned entity status to that of a body corporate.
A reduction in the number of ministerial appointees on the council and the inclusion of a teacher training representative and Maori immersion representative is argued for.
The body corporate would allow true elective representation; reduce compliance costs and remove the explicit threat of adverse ministerial intervention of future governments.
Current Governance Structure
The NZTC is a crown owned entity that is wholly paid for by the 80,000 teachers of this country and as a crown owned entity can be directed by the Minister of Education to do anything he/she wants.
Ministerial appointments, including the chair, make up five of the 11 member council with one each from the NZEI and PPTA respectively, and four “elected” members from each of four sectors principals, secondary, primary and early childhood. Ministerial appointees would have a permanent voting majority if the two teacher union representatives’ were not present.
The “elected” teacher representatives on NZTC are in fact appointed by the Minister to the teachers’ council, a crown owned entity, after an election held by the NZEI, PPTA, early childhood and principals association to select the nominee. These “appointees” to crown owned entity, The Teacher’s Council, are prevented by law from speaking out publicly should they disagree with the Teacher’s Council policy or decisions.
Outrageous as it is that the elections for these four representatives are held, costing in excess of $250,000, and yet a Minister is able to ignore the result and simply appoint anyone whom he/she feels would do. Waste of money aside unless all teacher representatives can be truly elected like those in a body corporate and have the ability to act as true representatives, teachers are exposed to future dangerous manipulation at a whim.
The crown owned entity status of the Teachers Council also means practicing teachers who serve on the NZTC cannot received any financial benefit for their long hours of work on our behalf. State employees working in a crown entity cannot receive payments, as the other Teacher Council representatives do, because that would mean they are “double dipping”. This does not apply to the five ministerial appointments. Hardly a level playing field when a teacher must do their professional best by setting lessons and get paid nothing for long hours of reading of Teachers’ Council documents and spending days in meetings in Wellington and be paid nothing extra.
In addition, to stand for election a teachers’ representative has to go cap in hand for their BOT’s permission.
Benefits of payment to Teacher’s Council representatives in the last quarterly report showed all the ministerial appointees generally earned greater sums than teachers. It is easier for non-teachers to get to council meetings and they are able to keep the money paid to them as well as other remuneration because they are not double dipping as government employees.
Who Benefits from the Crown Owned entity Status of Teachers Council?
For any government the NZTC represents a cheap alternative to state intervention for policing teachers and controlling both their individual quality and their professional behaviour – policing is self funding through teacher registration fees. Employees police themselves for free. Page six of the NZTC Annual report makes it clear who the Teachers council works for as a crown owned entity when it states:
“The Government’s overarching educational goals are…
Given the importance of the early childhood and schooling sectors to the theme of Families – young and old, the council has paid particular attention to this theme.”
Teachers’ registration fees can be used to fund educational research in the name of “professional leadership” which the Government does not have to pay for. According to the NZTC annual report to June 2007, 7.5 million dollars of teachers’ funds have been placed on term deposit. It would be interesting to know how many millions have been allocated by the council for “professional leadership projects”. Again quoting the 2007 annual report of the Teachers Council page four:
“The Council has embarked on a number of projects aimed to promote and strengthen the profession. These projects contribute significantly to the Government’s priorities of providing effective teaching for all learners and developing quality providers.”
The employer gets the employee to work out how they can be more productive for free – a neat trick which also provides work for ivory tower educationalists to implement their latest brainwaves at the expense of teachers’ personal wellbeing.
Money is also spent by the New Zealand Teachers Council in ensuring that the Colleges of Education and other providers are vetted as in an ERO like process.
Why on earth is teachers’ money being utilised in such a way surely this is a government responsibility?
Why not scrap the New Zealand Teachers Council?
The direct benefits accrued by holding teacher registration over and above the fact that you need a current registration to legally teach are:
• Teachers who are not of good character and fit to teach can be permanently removed from the system never to sully the reputation or cause more trouble for their colleagues again.
• The Complaints Assessment Committees of the NZTC is a cheaper alternative than court action for teachers in trouble.
• Your actions may be vindicated by people who are members of your profession and who understand the circumstances that brought you to them.
• As a registered teacher you get a dollar off books bought through Whitcoulls (a benefit not widely advertised).
However, given the tiny percentages of teachers who do engage in criminal and dubious behaviours and/or get into trouble with their communities, the direct benefits to teachers are vastly outweighed by those that fall to the employer – the Government.
Conclusion
In essence the issue with New Zealand TC in its current form boils down to the issue of no taxation without representation. Professionalism means having unfettered charge of the affairs of one’s profession and teachers being acknowledged as being the fit and proper persons to regulate their own. This is not currently the case.
While it is true that the Government is a major stakeholder in education and should have a say it should not by means of a crown owned entity structure have almost total control over something it does not pay for.
Secondary Teachers as a whole must push through PPTA for change as soon as possible because given the rate of spending it will not be very long before registration fees will rise dramatically.
Education and politics | Comments (3)Polly wanna cracker
By winged rodent
Schools are raising more than 50% of their operating funds through the community at a time when families are struggling to afford basic groceries – yet Education Minister Chris Carter seems to believe their operations grants are adequate.
Carter failed to impress on Radio New Zealand’s Nine to Noon on Tuesday when he launched into a parrot impersonation, repeating figures and evading questions – much to the consternation of interviewer Kathryn Ryan.
Carter was called on to respond to concerns voiced by Northcote College principal Vickie Barrie and Papatoetoe High School principal and Secondary School Principals’ Association president Peter Gall. Both feel that schools, whatever their decile, simply cannot make ends meet with the current funds provided to them by the Government.
Barrie took the initiative of surveying a number of schools in her area and discovered that, at the extreme end, some were raising as much as 59% of their operating costs through sources outside of government funding. The average rate amongst those schools was 51%.
She cited the growing costs and expectations involved in keeping up with new technology, particularly ICT, and the hiring of extra support staff as major issues. The money schools were raising from the community was not going towards new buildings or teachers’ salaries, but on the costs of running everyday classes and programmes, and if this “unhealthy reliance on community funds” carried on she believed schools would be at risk of financial collapse.
The money that has been keeping the schools afloat has also been slowly ebbing away. Donations are voluntary and, with the rising costs of basic essentials hitting families, she has noticed these have been dropping off.
As schools scratch around to find the funds to provide the world class education expected of them, she has begun to wonder whether they are really state funded at all.
This problem is by no means decile specific. Barrie’s school, and those she interviewed, are high decile schools. They receive less funding from the Government but raise a large amount through overseas students – yet they are still struggling. She realises low decile schools need more support but believes the problem is affecting all schools, regardless of decile.
Papatoetoe High principal Peter Gall agrees. His school is a decile three, but he believes schools across the board are feeling the pinch. Schools have very high goals and expectations put on them when it comes to providing a quality education, but they need the funding to back them up. He too felt keeping up with technology and the need for extra support staff put the squeeze on schools. Papatoetoe School has 550 computers that are used by 1900 people and are serviced by one fulltime computer technician – it doesn’t take a genius to do the math on that one.
And our education minister’s response? – to crow, or perhaps squawk would be a better term, about the Government’s spending on education going up 80% with five billion extra dollars provided. A close ‘parrot watch’ of the interview showed the 80% line repeated six times and the five billion trotted out seven. This despite the fact that Ryan repeatedly reminded him that the 80% was for the education sector overall, that secondary schools’ share of the five billion was much less, and that schools’ operations grants had barely risen above inflation.
The “Polly wanna be re-elected” routine wore very thin very fast and caused Ryan to put Carter under enough pressure to get him to admit he believed operations funding levels were “adequate” for a school to provide a good basic education.
He did agree schools could “do more with more money” but felt money raised outside of the operations grant, through community funding and paying international students, was for ‘extras’ – which was the way it should be. Try telling that to the schools that are struggling to meet all the demands being made of them!
The best he could offer was a pacifier in the form of a vague and figureless muttering about extra funding for ICT in the budget.
We will continue to watch this space – but we do feel a Tui billboard coming on…
Education and politics | Comment (0)
