Why didn't teachers strike when National was in? I'll tell you what we did!!

Why were teachers so quiet when National was the government?  They didn't kick up a fuss then.

Why didn't teachers go on strike when National was the government?

They've been offered heaps more that National offered.  So why are teachers being so unreasonable?

Teachers get so many holidays and only work from 9 until 3, so why are they complaining about workload?

If teachers don't pull their head in, Labour will be a one term government.  Then where will that leave them?

You know, I've seen these statements and questions a lot.  I've heard them from Labour party members.  I've seen them on the NZ Teachers Facebook page.  I've seen them on various Facebook pages.  I've seen them in the Stuff/Herald comments.  I've even seen and heard it from teachers themselves.

This blog post aims to put that to bed.  Because teachers did not sit quietly during National's tenure.  They, with the NZEI and PPTA, stood strong against #GERM neoliberal policies set up to destroy our free quality public education system.  Because of teachers, Minister of Education Chris Hipkins and the coalition government have the bones and a bit of flesh still left.

Teachers opposed National Standards - this could have evolved into a national testing system like in the UK or Australia or the US, all countries sliding down educational world rankings.  NAPLAN in Australia, Key Stage Testing in the UK and the plethora of testing across the US has dragged those countries down.  National had a national testing regime on their radar back in the 1990s and it was only a Labour led government being formed in 1999 and continued union opposition alongside quality academic information that prevented it from coming to fruition then.

We stood firm against allowing PaCT to take traction within our education system.  This tool would have been used to monitor teachers and as a gateway to introduce performance pay.

Our teachers, with the unions, stood firm against performance pay - this system does not work.  It does not promote a core value of teaching: collaboration.  It is ripe for fraud by teachers and being used by senior leaders unethically, clearly demonstrated in the US and UK.

Teachers opposed privatisation of our state schools - how many more charter schools and public private partnerships would have been established without the teachers standing firm against these measures that have devastated the English education system and the education systems of US cities like New Orleans, Chicago and Detroit?  NZEI and PPTA led the opposition to charter schools.  But really, the evidence from overseas speaks for itself.

Remember that time in 2012 when Hekia Parata had the brilliant idea of increasing class sizes?  Remember the impact that was going to have, particularly on intermediate schools and their specialist teachers?  That was a campaign led by NZEI, PPTA and AIMS (Association of Intermediate and Middle Schools) to raise public awareness and get the parents onside.  And it worked.  Poll numbers showed National losing core support from middle New Zealand, from the "Mums and Dads" John Key always blah blahhed on about.  So he made the call to Hekia from Europe, and nek minute, the back downs of all back downs saw Ms Parata back down.

Teachers, through NZEI and PPTA, vehemently opposed many of the changes to the Teachers' Council.  Hekia Parata, despite 90+% of submissions opposing, changed it to the Education Council and removed the right of teachers to vote on their own representatives to their professional bodies.  Other changes made by the new Education Council have also directly led to the issues we face with a shortage of teachers and relief teachers.  We are incredibly thrilled to see the changes go back through Parliament during September to return the democratic right of teachers to elect their own representatives to our governing body.

Us teachers not only thwarted efforts by previous Education Minister Hekia Parata to increase class sizes, but also her attempt to reintroduce the failed policy of the 1990s, bulk funding (disguised as global funding).  That took a concerted effort.  In fact we can thank Hekia for doing something no Education Minister had previously achieved: uniting NZEI and the PPTA in a common cause.  Add in E Tu, who represent cleaners and caretakers in our schools, and we ran a formidable campaign that forced Ms Parata to back down from global funding including the #betterfunding for #betterlearning bus and campervan tours.  NZEI and PPTA remain close and united while advancing their own kaupapa.

We were not quiet during the National years; we were considerate. 

Considerate that the country was suffering from the Global Financial Collapse.

Considerate of the country needing to put Christchurch first after the September 2010 earthquake and the February 2011 earthquake and all the aftershocks. 

We saw the Rockstar Economy proclaimed and received none of the benefits promised to us. 

We saw the silverware sold off and John Key's promises that the asset sales would benefit health and education.... but nothing.

The decision was made last year, well before the election and endorsed by members at our Annual Conference in early October before the new coalition government was established, that no matter the hue of the government, we would no longer be patient.  We would fight for our profession and our students because we are at crisis point. 

We've warned for several years we were in a state of a shortage of teachers. 

We've warned for many years that teachers were burning out under the workload. 

We've warned for many years that too many students are falling through the systematic cracks and teachers are powerless to prevent it.

We made the decision that now #ItsTimeNZEI #KuaTaeTeWa.  Thats why we decided to strike on Wednesday 15 August for a full day.  It's why we are now planning action geographical rolling strikes for the week beginning Monday 12 November.

Many of us worked to put this government in.  They promised to fix things. 

There's more wrong than they knew (but we knew that and have been saying it for years) and it is harder than they expected - but everyone knows Labour coming into government always has to fix a complete disastrous mess created by National. 

But when you have the country's leading economists saying, " Bugger the Budget Responsibility Rules - borrowing is currently cheap and education and health need fixing"... then don't you think that might be a good idea?

Otherwise we condemn yet another election cycle of children to not receiving the Education they are entitled to and we increase the crisis in our teacher workforce.

School Funding: dumping the derided decile funding system for the questionable 'Predictive Risk Index' funding method

Decile ratings as the funding mechanism for schools is on the way out.

That was the exclusive headline on Tuesday the 11th April from Newshub’s Patrick Gower.  I just happened to be leaving work when the alert popped up on my phone.  I had an immediate sense of dread, especially when I saw a new phrase: ‘Predictive Risk Index’.

This new phrase, ‘Predictive Risk Index’, is of course part of the National led government’s theory of social investment - identify who is most at risk, and then target the minimum amount of money at them.  Sounds great in theory, but, like everything this government has done (or attempted), it is a theory that can be likened to a can of worms.

What is social investment?

This is from the Treasury website:

Social Investment is about improving the lives of New Zealaners by applying rigorous an evidence-base investment practices to social services.

It means using information and technology to better unerstand the people who need public services and what works, and then adjusting services accordingly.  What is learnt through this process informs the next set of investment ecisions.


Much of the focus is on early investment to achieve better long-term results for people an helping them to beme more independent.  This reduces the number of New Zealanders relying on social services and the overall costs for taxpayers.


Social Investment puts the needs of people who rely on public services at the centre of decisions on planning, programmes and resourcing, by:

• Setting clear, measurable goals for helping those people;
• Using information and technology to better understand the needs of people who rely on social services and what services they are currently receiving;
• Systematically measuring the effectiveness of services, so we know what works well and what doesn’t;
• Purchasing results rather than specific inputs, and moving funding to the most effective services irrespective of whether they are provided by government or non-government agencies.

The way in which these principles are implemented will vary, and may include:

• a particular focus on vulnerable or high-risk groups;
• investing up-front to support people most at risk of poor outcomes later on in life;
• greater input from outside the public sector in analysis, innovation and service provision;
• working with local organisations to commission services within communities;
• new citizen-centre services that cut across existing departmental service channels; and
• interacting with each household through a single trusted relationship.

So how did we get here?

This is an except from a previous blog post of mine called How does child poverty affect access to education and success in achievement for New Zealand children? which I wrote for a Master’s paper last year.

The decile funding system was put in place in 1995 in an effort to fund schools equitably.  The range decided was 1-10, with one being the lowest, due to the highest degree of socio-economic disadvantage, and receiving significantly more funding per child than a decile ten school.  The decile ranking of a school factors in household income, parental educational qualifications and occupations, household crowding, income support payments and ethnicity of a small geographic area, or ‘mesh-block’, in the school community (Harrison, 2004).  There was a variety of reasons behind this initiative, such as a decile ten family having more opportunity to access educational learning in alternative ways compared to the opportunities afforded by a decile one family.  It was also considered that the decile ten schools had more ability to maximise effective fundraising measures from their community in comparison to a decile one school.

The impacts of this system included what is commonly called white flight – parents moving their children from low socio-economic schools as they believe the decile level could be a stigma and may mean the education provided at a low decile school wasn’t adequate (Gordon, 1997).  This changed the nature of communities as parents who could afford to would purchase or rent homes in communities with schools with higher decile ratings, ghettoising many areas as low socio-economic communities.

Education reforms in the 1990s entrenched many families with limited resources into the cycle of poverty generation after generation.

So essentially the National government of the 1990s initiated decile funding, which stigmatised schools in low socio-economic areas, and in combination with their other policy of getting rid of school zones, caused white flight from these schools meaning many communities were no longer a broad cross section of society.

In September last year I published another blog specifically about the actions taken by NZEI and PPTA in response to the School Funding Review and the threat of Global Funding.  In this blog Global Funding - Bulk Funding in fancy dress - why it’s a bloody bad idea I explain how the School Funding Review Advisory Panel were never given an opportunity to come up with solutions to improve how schools are funded fairly and equitably.

The eighteen members of the Education Funding Review Panel went into the first meeting expecting a blank slate and the ability to brainstorm proposals.

What they got was a wad of paper on the table by the Ministry of Education representative who said "This is what we will be looking at. That is the proposal."

The Education Review published the following in September last year:

Six out of seven of the School Funding Review proposals will go forward for further work following the Funding Advisory Group's report on the proposals. The unpopular global budget proposal was rejected by the group, following intense opposition from teachers who feared a return to the days of bulk funding.

The six proposals the majority of the Group agree should proceed for further work are:

• Taking a per-child approach to funding
• Additional funding for those most at risk of underachievement
• Supplementary funding for small and isolated schools
• Proposals over the way property funding is delivered
• Better accountability for student achievement
• Supporting a diversity of education options

Education Minister Hekia Parata says she was ‘not surprised’ by the Group’s recommendation that the proposed global budget not proceed to the next stage of policy development.

“The Group’s report, and together with feedback from around 90 regional meetings with teachers and principals, will help inform my report to Cabinet on the options to take forward. The insight from staff right on the frontline of education is invaluable”, says Ms Parata.

“I want to make sure that we take the time to get these vitally important decisions right. That is why our timeline for implementation at the earliest would be 2019.”

Where are we now?

So it appears, under the Social Investment model that the second option, additional funding for those most at risk of underachievement, has been chosen.  This is the model that was also applied to the School Operations Grant in the 2016 Budget.  Instead of schools getting a 1% increase to their Operations Grant as had been applied in the last few years (not even covering the cost of inflation), schools would receive extra money according to the children who had been identified as being at risk, and the schools would not be told who the at risk children were.

This, below, comes from the official government website, Education Counts, and is the government’s explanation of the funding for children at risk in the education part of Budget ‘16 (please read with a critical eye):

Budget 2016 uses a Social Investment approach to direct an extra $43.2 million, over four years, to about 150,000 children and young people identified as being at most risk of educational underachievement. These students are those, aged 5 to 18, whose parents have been on benefits for 75 percent of the first five years, or 75 percent of the most recent five years of the students’ lives.

These students have been shown by our research as one of the most at-risk groups in our education system. For example young people who, for an extended period have lived in a benefit-dependent family, have only a 48 percent chance of achieving NCEA Level 2 by age 21. By contrast, 73 percent of the general population with have this qualification by the same age. This research also shows that young people without NCEA Level 2 have more chance of ending up on a benefit, or in the justice system, than those with the qualification.

This additional funding is an investment into schooling where it is most needed. The funding will go to schools, regardless of their decile rating, based on the estimated number of students they have from long-term welfare dependent families. Schools have the flexibility to use this extra funding to support all of their students most at risk of educational underachievement.

This increased funding to schools with children from long-term welfare-dependent families is instead of a universal increase in school operations grant funding. Overall, this new funding approach provides more funding to low decile schools compared to a universal increase of the same amount.

The $43.2 million in increased funding for schools with these children is in addition to the $1.38 billion in operations grant funding that all schools will continue to receive in 2016/17. Operations grant increases have run well ahead of inflation in recent years. Cost adjustments have seen schools’ operations grant funding rose by over 15 percent from the 2010 school year start to the 2015 school year end. By contrast, CPI inflation rose 9.6 percent over the same period.

And that is how we have gotten to the ‘Predictive Risk Index’.

As if deciles weren't already stigmatising enough, what will a 'Predictive Risk Index' be for schools and students?

I'm just so disgusted in this move by the government.

Below is the text from the Newshub 11th of April 6 o’clock news piece (hopefully the video is within the link):

The decile system, which is currently used to decide school funding, is to be scrapped, with an alternative called the 'Predictive Risk Index' lined up to replace it.

It will track individual at-risk students and then use that information to target funding directly to schools.

Under the decile system, schools are ranked from one to 10 based on the socio-economic status of their communities, which determines funding.

But under the Predictive Risk Index, individual students are deemed "at risk" after being assessed by Government data and a school's funding is based on the number of students it has with risk factors.

"This is very much going to be a much more specific approach than the decile funding allows," Education Minister Hekia Parata told Newshub.

The Government will use its pool of data to identify students from families on a benefit, with brothers or sisters who have been victims of abuse, or parents that have been in prison.

But privacy has sprung out as an obvious concern.

"The technology is there, and there is no intention to identify - in fact we will ensure that children aren't identified, that their privacy is protected," Ms Parata said.

The Primary School Teachers Union is worried it could shift the stigma from schools onto students.

"In the past we've had stigmatising of low decile schools, will that mean that individual children will be stigmatised?" NZ Educational Institute President Lynda Stuart told Newshub.

Another concern is that while some schools could gain funding, others will lose it.

"I certainly think that some schools could be at risk of losing funding," Ms Stuart said.

Ms Parata said whether schools could lose funding is something "for the future" - but her political future is limited as she retires as Minister in three weeks.

Her goal is to get this signed off as her last project.

Hekia Parata steps down from her role as the Minister of Education on Monday 1st of May, with Nikki Kaye expected to take up the reigns.  Ms Parata wants to have this new funding system signed off before she leaves.  That is alarming in itself.

Patrick Gower did point out that ‘Predictive Risk Index’ is a title the government itself does not see as voter friendly.  He said to expect this to be renamed.  But to rename it will be like putting a dress on a pig and slapping some lipstick on it - it is still a dubious way to fund schools.

What do the people think?

I posted the Newshub piece in three different teacher/education forums on Tuesday and the responses from teachers and parents are still coming in.  They are horrified.  Any comment that may be deemed remotely supportive is an outlier.

The general concerns people have are:

• that individual children could be stigmatised even though schools technically won’t be told who the target students are;
• if the funding is targeted to at risk students and the schools are not told who those students are, how are they supposed to help those targeted students;
• If the funding is targeted to at risk students, who are also usually the most transient students, what happens if the funding ‘follows’ the student;

I have included the comments teachers and parents have made, warts and all, so you can see what the people who work in the system think of this proposal:

On the surface, it sounds pretty ineffective. I bet they have worked out that the govt will save $X. I can't see how this can direct funding for extra assistance in a meaning flu way. Like getting $19.00 a student a year ????

And what if it's meant to follow students? So many of these kids are the transient kids. What a nightmare!

Yeah - if a school is funded for a kid, puts s programme in place with that funding [with others] and then that kid moves away and the school loses that funding.... so now the school has to reduce or downsize the programme - yes a flipping nightmare. And one of the side effects will again be the insecurity for Teacher Aides.

I don;t understand how they can use this 'tool' in this way. PRM is meant to be used to try and target children that may be abused - not for funding of schooling. How will this work when kids move around from school to school so much

As a teacher at a decile 1B school, l have never been a fan of the decile system. It places a stigma on schools and students, who are low decile. Schools already receive funding per student. Targeted student funding is probably not a bad idea. School funding is allocated quarterly anyway. Implementation is probably the main concern and the lack of consultation with educators(nothing new). Maybe they need to broaden the criteria to include students with learning disabilities and special needs? Orrs funding is really hard to qualify for and l have seen so many students over the years failed by the education system. There needs to be an intermediary agency that links the information between schools, ministries and other agencies to target students at risk from becoming a negative statistic.

Patrick Gower's piece on the news as now been added. He says that the name "Predictive Risk Index" is an issue for the government and needs a make over. Just like IES, they think putting the pig in a new dress and slapping some lippy on is going to make it more palatable to the masses.  (Yep, this is my comment).

The government's sole purpose is to spend less money. This is just another way to do it. Their 'at risk' children criteria is slim and does not cover the many many children out there who also need a great deal of support.

I wonder if school will then be expected to transfer any remaining funds from the massive payout to the next school

Especially as it states that they will anonymise the children involved - how will schools know who to pass funding on for anyway !! I can see it getting very messy !

Exactly. Imagine the nightmare of trying to keep a budget, programmes and support staffing on track.

We all know that so-called digital privacy is a joke!! What about schools that have wonderful parents / whanau who are in low-paid jobs, but because they parent successfully, their children are not deemed 'at risk' . No funding there, then! What is happening to the education system in our country???????? We are stressing our teachers, planning to exorbitantly increase registration fees, forcing MLE / ILE / FLS onto many, regardless of mutterings of discontent from around the world on this system

Typically National. A badly thought out initiative that will be rolled out so Hekia has the limelight, but before the kinks are ironed out. We will be paying (literally and figuratively) for this for years to come. It's the Novopay of school funding and the National Standards of curriculum reporting.

But since the funding is to be for specific children, one assumes that when these children change schools (as children who meet this criteria are likely to do - beneficiaries/ parents in prison these families are transient by nature) that the funding will go with them. What a nightmare to police! And probably will impact the benefit to the child of the said funding, due to admin costs associated with changing schools and setting up whatever support is required.

Interesting they are putting money into 'supporting' children who are disadvantaged socially, but where is the funding to help children with suspected learning difficulties who require outside assessment for confirmation of specific difficulty (eg dyslexia, auditory processing)? Which, with a diagnosis starts the ball rolling to get the supports in place so these children can achieve at their optimum.

"in fact we will ensure that children aren't identified, that their privacy is protected," Ms Parata said.

Sounds like the start of a bad Tui ad...

MSD data breach anyone??

What happens to those students who aren't identified through the new system as being at risk? Not all family violence is recorded, not all family members have the same surname so how will the system pick up a parent in prison unless it is "advertised" by the family etc. There will be a lot less "decile 1" schools in NZ with this system, so lots of money will be saved.

Doesn't this feel like an equilibrium system with a really low bar?

"You have at risk youths. Here's some funding".

"Oh you have less at risk youths. Take less funding".

"You've had to cut some programmes because of less funding? And you have at risk youths? Have some funding".

To summarise...

I really think Hekia Parata has failed the standard again.  I believe she missed a golden opportunity last year when she set up the School Funding Advisory Panel.  She had eighteen of the best people in one room to come up with some worthy systems for funding our compulsory education system and she dumped preconceived ideas upon them and stymied their creativity - just like National did when they dumped National Standards over the top of our awesome New Zealand Curriculum Document.

References:

Gordon, L. (1997). ‘Tomorrow’s Schools’ Today: School Choice and the Education Quassi-Market. In Olssen, M., & Matthews, K. M. (Eds.). Education policy in New Zealand: The 1990s and beyond. (pp. 65-82.  Palmerston North, N.Z.: Dunmore Press.

Harrison, M. (2004). Education matters: Government, markets and New Zealand schools. Wellington: Education Forum.

The Waikato #betterfunding Bus Tour and World Educators' Day

Last week the #betterfunding bus came to the Waikato for three days.  This was part of a joint campaign run by NZEI, PPTA and E Tu to encourage Education Minister Hekia Parata to truly engage with the education sector over funding to the early childhood, primary and secondary sectors.  After all, the joint Paid Union Meetings attended by secondary, primary and early childhood teachers and principals, as well as support staff and cleaning and caretaking staff from all sectors resoundedly rejected the Global Funding (aka Bulk Funding) model put forward earlier this year.  And for good reasons, which you can read about in Global Funding - Bulk Funding in fancy dress - why it's a bloody bad idea.

I was asked by a parent on Friday in Cambridge what was NZEI and PPTA suggesting as an alternative model.  I replied with this wee spiel:

Earlier this year Hekia Parata set up the Funding Review Panel with about 19 representatives from all over the education sector, including NZEI and PPTA.  The participants were excited, expecting they would be starting from the ground up, brainstorming and throwing about suggestions for how education should be funded in each area.
 
However, their hopes on the first day were dashed.  They met together in a room and then the MOE representative came in, put a pile of papers on the table and said, "These are the funding models we will discuss."
 
There was no innovation to be had.
 
This was typical Hekia Parata style of consultation - or as Rebecca from NZEI Head Office and I coined it: nonsultation.
 
What we really want is proper consultation and collaboration to come up with an equitable model that will adequately fund all ECE centres, kindergartens, primary, intermediate, secondary and area schools.  We need to go back to the beginning.  Let's do this right and not rush it.

Of course, with the announcement by Hekia Parata of her intention not to stand for Parliament at the 2017 election on 19 October (Education minister Hekia Parata will not contest next general election, NZ Herald), you can see why Ms Parata is in such a hurry to push through the changes she wants to implement.

NZEI and PPTA know that waiting until Minister Parata reports back to Cabinet with her recommendations and for Cabinet to make a decision is too late for making the sector's opinions, and the opinions of parents (aka voters), known.  That would be reactive. 

Therefore they made the proactive decision to launch the #betterfunding campaign.  This has involved three buses in #betterfunding livery (based in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch), a postcard campaign addressed to the Minister, and two petitions for special education funding and for support staff funding.

The buses have been in action for three weeks.  Last week the bus was in Hamilton for Tuesday, Friday and Saturday's march down Victoria Street to the rally in Garden Place.  I was on the bus for Tuesday and Friday to support the field staff from NZEI and PPTA as we visited a variety of schools and centres.

Our first stop was Hamilton West School, where the message was warmly received by parents and caregivers.  A number of staff from Hamilton West came out to help with the postcard campaign.

We dropped resources into the kindergarten on Massey Street and into Frankton and St Columbas Schools, before heading over to Fairfield Intermediate to catch them and Fairfield Primary (across the road) during their morning tea breaks.



Fairfield Primary staff brave the rain during their morning tea.



Some Fairfield Intermediate staff brave the rain during their morning tea.

We then dropped in resources to Hukanui School and left the bus on Hukanui Road to advertise the #betterfunding message during our lunch, before heading around to Woodstock Primary School to catch the staff before their lunch break ended.



Some of the Woodstock Primary School staff during their lunch break.

The bus then went to Fairfield College for their lunch break.



Fairfield College staff and students.

Fairfield College staff.

After that we went down the road to Bankwood School to drop in resources, just missing the end of their lunch break.  But we did make it to Insoll Ave School just in time for the end of school at 2:30pm to encourage parents to participate in the postcard campaign.  We then made it to Hamilton East School for their end of day at 3:00pm, where Prof Martin Thrupp from the University of Waikato also joined our postcard signature collecting team along with a number of Hamilton East staff members.



Hamilton East staff supporting #betterfunding

Sue Moroney, Labour List MP came to see us at the end to give her support to #betterfunding too.



Myself, Sue Moroney, Patrick from NZEI, Prof Martin Thrup and Shane from NZEI.

On Wednesday and Thursday the bus went to Tauranga, Te Puke, Whakatane and Rotorua, before starting Friday morning at Cambridge Primary School, in Cambridge.  After collecting lots of parent support for the #betterfunding postcard campaign, we dropped resources into Cambridge East Primary and Cambridge High School before heading out to see the admin staff at Goodwood School.



We had been challenged by Auckland NZEI staff to get a jump shot.  Denise and her fellow Goodwood administrator along with NZEI field staff Shane, Jackie and Maxine as well as I complied with the challenge.

Tamahere Model Country School, just outside of Hamilton, was our next stop.  The whole school was assembled on their courts to celebrate their Book Character Dress Up Day, so all the teachers and student teachers were dressed up as well as the children.  So the Tamahere School photo looks awesome - spot the principal wearing a pot on her head!



Tamahere Country Model School staff in full Book Character Dress Up Day mode supporting #betterfunding.

Knighton Normal School was next on the agenda.  We got there in time for morning tea before we headed around to Tóku Mápihi Maurea Kura Kaupapa Máori to meet some teachers and children from the Kohanga.



Knighton Normal staff show their support for #betterfunding during their morning tea.

After we had lunch we headed to Hamilton Girls' High School to coincide with their lunch.  Sadly the staff were very distracted dealing with the Year 13 boys from Hamilton Boys' High School doing a body paint in undies run around the Girls' High field, but some staff and students came over.



Two Girls' High staff with Bill from PPTA and Maxine from NZEI.

Two of the students who were curious enough to come and ask about the #betterfunding bus.  They agreed schools needed better funding too.

We ended the day parked outside of Peachgrove Intermediate in Hamilton, across the road from Hamilton Boys' High School.



Some of the Peachgrove Intermediate staff who came out to help us with the #betterfunding postcard campaign.

On Saturday, it was our day to celebrate World Educators' Day (which was officially during our October term break).  It was changed to Edcucators' Day to encompass the other school staff that are not teachers like support staff, admin staff, sports co-ordinators, lab techs, caretaking staff, etc.

In Hamilton we held a march from the Ferrybank Band Rotunda on Grantham Street, up Victoria Street to Garden Place.  For safety a police car led the parade and the #betterfunding bus backed up the rear.  To create some drama we had a drum band at the lead of the parade and lots of banners and #betterfunding discs flapping about.



Coming up Victoria Street.

A 360o view of the rally in Garden Place.

Professor Martin Thrupp spoke first at our rally talking about how teachers get the blame, upcoming PISA results and Poverty Action Waikato.  Martin also called us to be the coalition of the unwilling.  You can read Martin's speech in full at Save Our Schools NZ blog in this post: A coalition of the unwilling.



Waikato NZEI AC Chair Karen Morrison introducing Prof Martin Thrupp as the first speaker.



Sam Speedy from Hamilton Girls' High School explaining the PPTA view on CoOLs.

Sue Moroney spoke to the rally about the need to #ChangetheGovt in order to change the current direction of education policy, otherwise we will continue to get more of the same.  Sue Moroney also talked about the need to put the New Zealand Curriculum back in front and centre.



Sue Moroney, Labour List MP, talking about Labour's commitment to a free quality public education system.

Jan Tinetti, NZEI National Executive and principal of Merivale School in Tauranga, speaks about Hekia Parata's legacy: bringing NZEI and PPTA together in unison to fight for #betterfunding for our quality public education system.



Jan Tinetti from NZEI National Executive.

Primary Teachers Network Leader for Waikato, Michelle Ryan, explains her passion for our quality public education system.



Michelle, the Waikato Primary Teachers Network Leader.

Karen, from Anglican Action, explains the impacts of the current government's social policies on families.  She talked about how her organisation supplies food to schools for children without lunches and is now being asked for food to send home with children at the weekend so their families can eat.



Karen from Anglican Action Waikato.

Anglican Action Waikato manning the BBQ for the free sausage sizzle.

MPs from all the parties were invited as well as representatives from parties without Waikato based MPs.  David Bennett, National's MP for Hamilton East was out of the country.  Tim MacIndoe, National's Hamilton West MP, declined the invitation, but he did send a message to be read out.  This fell to Carol Webb, the Waikato Support Staff Network Leader, who said, as support staff, she was used to doing the dirty work.  Sadly, Mr MacIndoe's message showed a distinct lack of understanding of the current issues in the education sector and basically stuck to National's mantra.



Carol Webb reading out a message from Hamilton West MP Tim MacIndoe.

Green's List MP and Education spokesperson, Catherine Delahunty, said it was World Educators' Day, not Global Funding Bullshit Day.  Her message of no Charter Schools, National Standards gone by lunch time and schools as community hubs when we #ChangetheGovt was well received.



Catherine Delahunty speaking about how she was tired of listening to the rubbish National say in Parliament.

We wrapped up with a waiata, Te Aroha, and poroporoaki thanks to Bill Anderson from PPTA's Hamilton office.



Bill Anderson does the poroporoaki.

You can read the tweets I sent out on the day here:

It was a great day to celebrate teachers, principals, support staff and the like in our schools and ECE centres.  I got a cheeky selfie with Catherine before I went with some of my NZEI friends to have another jump shot with the #betterfunding bus to end the day.

 

It wouldn't surprise you that tweeting events like this encourages discussion on Twitter.  I can't find the original tweet that @Chrisholden24 sent me to initiate this this conversation.  Maybe he has deleted it.  But this is where I school him on the realities of Global Funding/Bulk Funding.  Enjoy.