My little rant about what is wrong with the current direction of education policy and what needs to be done.

I've been privileged in the last few months to be a Twitter commentator for Waatea 5th Estate, a current events talk show on Face TV (Sky Channel 83) also live broadcast over the web via The Daily Blog.  The show is hosted by either Martin Bradbury, Willie Jackson or Claudia Hauiti and covers the big issues of the day with a variety of guests from the various political parties, unions or relevant interest groups (e.g. Auckland City Council, Te Puea Marae, Salvation Army, etc.)

Friday night was the last show for 2016, but the discussion continued long after in response to some of the comments and then tweets by Marama Fox, co-leader of the Máori Party.  This was my response to Marama which sparked another conversation and then this post:

It was then that @mokai77 asked me to tell them more about what I am studying... and this wee rant happened...

I have to tell you that once I get started it's hard to stop me.

Essentially I am doing my Masters of Education this year.  It isn't easy.  Study is hard.  Most other people with my level of teaching experience tend to go the Leadership route of Masters, but I decided to study Global Education Policy as I am very dissatisfied with where New Zealand education policy has been heading since 2008's election night.  I greatly fear for the viability of our quality public education system and I honestly believe that there will be very little left of the quality and public part of our education system by the 2017 election and even less if National gets a fourth term in government. 

Anyhow, I figure if I dislike the direction so much I need to attempt to make myself more desirable as a person to help fix the education system once we enact our 2017 election plan to #ChangeTheGovt.

I was at high school as a student when Tomorrow's Schools came into being (showing my age here), and fees to go to University were put in place in either the second to last or last year of me being at high school, so I ended up with a lovely big student loan, or though possibly not as big as others due to not needing it in my first year or to finish my last two papers (I took two years to finish my fourth year of my Bachelor of Education because I was working in schools teaching).

My first year of teaching as a newly qualified teacher was in 1996, so I lived the 'excitement' of bulk funding and a new Curriculum document every year.  I lived Labour coming into power in 1999 and sweeping away bulk funding and a few other undesirable aspects of education policy under National.

The 2000s to me were wonderful years to be a teacher.  Lots of professional development and the use of ICT in education was really taking off.  I had the freedom to teach pretty much what I wanted as long as I could fit it in with the achievement objectives of the curriculum and I met the needs of my learners.  I knew my learners well.  I assessed them, I talked to them, we worked side by side, and many of my classes were well oiled machines in the sense that they loved learning and took every opportunity offered.  We had bright colourful rooms full of art and projects and charts they had made.

I cried for New Zealand, education and my career on election night 2008.  I had spent two years getting a Graduate Diploma in Information Technology in Education (GDITE) with the goal of becoming an ICT Cluster facilitator.  I knew that dream was dead in the water as soon as National got in; it didn't take them long to say that 2009 was the last year for all the programmes Labour had put into action to develop teacher confidence in ICT as well as literacy and numeracy to run, because they wanted to put all that professional development money into National Standards.

In the nearly eight years since that night every prediction Paul Gaulter, National Secretary for NZEI, made has come to pass for education in some form or another, leading me to do what I am doing this year.

One of my papers focuses on the New Zealand education reform experience since 1984 under the neo-liberal theory of policy.  Every lecture and reading has been reading my history of life.  Most of it I remembered with reasonable clarity; some bits were clarifying; and a few bits were shedding light on something I hadn't realised.

For example, I didn't know that the international tests that rank countries on education performance started in the mid 1990s; that National had been planning a form of national testing for primary students in the 1990s (thank goodness Labour won in 1999); and how even the Clark government was unintentionally edging us even closer to National Standards than what we thought during the 2000s.

So let me be blunt about what I do not like about our education policy and where it is going:

• I oppose Charter Schools - overseas they have been shown to often have financial mismanagement, had money sucked out in profits, often hire unqualified 'teachers', use Teach First, their 'teachers' tend to teach to a script, high level of students expelled, unrealistic discipline, some have shut unexpectedly leaving students without a school to go to, achievement is no better than local public schools, some schools have 'fiddled the books' on their achievement statistics... just not good at all.
• National Standards have to go!!  They do not lift achievement.  They label children.  Every
  
  country which has introduced a form of national testing has gone down the international rankings.  The US and UK have had their system for years before we did and were so far below us you really had to wonder why our politicians insisted on chasing them downwards.  In the ten years or so Australia has had Naplan, their rankings have plummeted and their students are becoming more and more disengaged in education.
• League tables sprang up in our newspapers as a result of National Standards.  Make them illegal.
• Global funding is just bulk funding in drag.  It will, just like it did in the 1990s, result in Boards of Trustees being pitted against principals and principals pitted against staff.  Experienced teachers, like myself, will be deemed to expensive to hire, and to save money less experienced teachers will be hired instead of teachers like me.  Under this scheme there will be no minimum staffing ratio, so class sizes will rise, and that is not good for students or teachers and will make parents most unhappy.
• Communities of Learning aka Communities of Schools is just the IES pig with lip stick and blusher.  Any changes to it this year merely add eye shadow and mascara to the pig.  I don't agree with how they have been set up because the whole manner of the set up makes it ripe to fail.  The government has cherry picked the ideas of Michael Fullan and then come up with an idea ignoring two key ingredients: relationships and trust.  To get these going requires time which this format does not have.  The idea of executive principals and expert teachers leaves me cold.  Personally, I believe, any person who takes on these roles is doubling their workload for not much money at all.
• Initial teacher training programmes like the 8 week intensive Teach First NZ (University of Auckland) before being given your very own class and the one year Masters of Teaching and Learning (University of Waikato) displease me as much as allowing an untrained unregistered 'teacher' to teach.  This devalues the profession, my BEd and the Masters I am currently doing.  It is the complete opposite of Finland which sees teacher trainees in at least five years of study before they become teachers - that is how much the teaching profession is valued in Finland.
• The fact that so many 'teachers' in ECE are not actually teachers because they are not trained with a teaching qualification or are registered.  This is just a way of making sure that they cut costs on ECE by putting untrained staff in looking after children while charging the parents heaps as well.  We have the most amazing early childhood curriculum that untrained people are at a disadvantage because they have not had the training in that curriculum.
• Our tertiary institutions are starved of funding.  They are cutting courses left, right and centre, and staff are running around trying to keep their own jobs intact.  The voice of the academic is cut down and discredited by members of our government whenever they do their job and speak out about bad policy or dirty water or how earthquakes work.  Research commissioned by various Ministries is shelved and embargoed if it doesn't meet the brief the Minister has laid down.  This isn't the hallmark of an open democracy.
• There are concepts in the Education Act that have a lot of implications such as when children will start their primary schooling; allowing a principal to be a principal of more than one school; one BOT covering several schools; how PaCT will be used; performance pay taking a step closer...
• There is a lack of quality professional development in everything for all schools, especially in the arts, science, technology, social sciences...  And now with the advent of COLs, if you are not in a COL then your opportunity for PLD is even more limited.  ECE teachers are even more disadvantaged when it comes to PLD.
  
• Workload has made the job as a teacher too big.  Teachers are now feeling like they are data collectors.  Teachers are trying to cling onto the joy of working with students, developing the relationships and fostering a love of learning.  But the grind of too much assessment, paperwork that doesn't directly relate to learning and onerous planning to justify their classroom programmes on top of far too many meetings takes its toll on a teacher's mental and physical health as well as their relationships with their family and friends.  The rate of mental distress in the teaching sector is rising every year as a result and many are looking for a way out.  Currently, being on study, I am the healthiest I have been in years, only just getting my first cold for the year towards the end of August, when I would have normally been on my fourth or fifth cold and probably on a second lot of antibiotics by now if I was full time teaching.
  
• Support staff are the backbone of every school, and they are the forgotten education workers when it comes to the government.  They are not paid in the holidays as they are only paid for the hours they do each week.  For most, their maximum hours will be 25-30 hours, so it isn't really a full time job.  Many only work three hours a day... so 15 hours a week.... not much when the hourly rate is so poor and the majority are on a rate below the living wage.  There is often no PLD for support staff, no career track, and little job security because when the school budget gets tight often it is support staff losing hours or their position all together to make up the difference.
• Special Education funding needs to be upped.  Too many kids are missing out and a report released today shows (again) that students are being denied the right to their education due to a lack of funding, support staff, teacher education and opportunity to attend their school of choice.

So what needs to be done?

• First and foremost a change of government with a new policy direction is needed urgently.
• Get rid of National Standards and stop the obsessive testing regimes - let teachers teach.  They will still assess, but it will be to inform them, not to keep some bean counter at the MOE ticking a box.
• Get rid of Charter Schools and redirect the money to our schools.  Instead, start up some kura kaupapa and resource them properly and give the founding staff the ability to be innovative, just like the new state schools like Rototuna Junior High School and Hobsonville Secondary School have been allowed to do.
• Let's work towards that goal of having 100% of ECE teachers trained and registered.
• Let's not make PLD for teachers a contestable service - let's have knowledgeable and experienced advisors of curriculum available to be in schools and run courses that teachers need to be the best they can be.
• Let's up the wages of Support Staff to the living wage as the starting rate, provide job security and a career pathway for them.  These people are often working with our most vulnerable students who need the security Support Staff provide.  Our office staff are the welcoming committee of our school, so they should be valued as such.
• Improve the Special Education funding pool and make accessing it easier and more transparent for the children who need it.
• Give education back to teachers.  You want innovation, flexibility and inclusion... well politicians won't deliver that.  The other week I went to the #edchatNZ Conference at Rototuna Junior High School in Hamilton and I came away convinced that if you put education in the hands of those people who attended it would be a revolution.  Finland doesn't have politicians messing with their education system.  They trust their principals and teachers to get on with the job, and they are top of the pops when it comes to education rankings.
• For a more in depth look at how I think we can make the education system better, go to this post I did in 2013 that still stacks up today.

While we continue down the current track we are failing our students.  Our politicians are failing us as educators and parents by following this current policy.  Our education policy really just fails to meet the standard it really should be.

When should a child begin formal schooling in New Zealand?

Currently New Zealand's education system is going through its biggest shake up in nearly thirty years.  It currently feels like every day we are having new revelations come out of Minister Hekia Parata's office to see how much higher she can push an education professional's blood pressure and heart rate!

Earlier this year Ms Parata raised the possibility of more "flexibility" with the age of starting school to give parent more "choice" and allow schools to set "expectations" for their community.  This may mean the following could happen:

• a school could still receive children from the day they turn 5 years old, as happens now.
• a school may decide that children will start schools at set times.  This may mean one intake a year at the beginning of the school year, or twice a year (terms 1 and 3), or at the beginning of each term.
• children may need to already be five and start at the next intake of new entrants.
• children may start earlier than five years old to met the date of an intake of new entrants.

At the website for the Education (Update) Amendment Bill I found the following:

Currently, most children start school on their fifth birthday or soon after. Some schools are encouraging parents to start their children at school as part of a cohort on set dates during the year.
Under the current Act, however, schools must allow any child who has turned five to start school on the day requested by their parents.
The Education (Update) Amendment Bill (the Bill) proposes to enable schools to implement a cohort entry policy whereby new entrants could only start school at the beginning of each term. The earliest that children would be able to start school is at the beginning of the term closest to their fifth birthday.
Before introducing a cohort entry policy, school boards of trustees would be required to consult with school staff, parents of current and prospective students of the school, and local early childhood education services.

The website then goes onto explaining the details more:

When will these changes take effect?

The Bill is expected to come into force in 2017.

Who will these changes affect?

These changes will affect schools with Year 1 students, children starting school and their parents and whānau, and early childhood education services.

What are the benefits of cohort entry?

Some education professionals consider that cohort entry enables them to support better transitions to school, simplify school and classroom planning, and minimise disruption for existing new entrant children.

When will children be able to enrol in a school with cohort entry?

Children will be able to start at a school with cohort entry at the beginning of the term closest to their fifth birthday, or the beginning of a later term. This means that some children will be able to start school up to eight weeks before they turn five, while other children will have to wait up to eight weeks after their fifth birthday before they can start school.
The precise cut-off dates for each term will be published in the Gazette and on the Ministry of Education’s website. Children turning five before the cut-off date for a term will be able to enrol in a school with cohort entry at the beginning of that term.

Examples Hana turns five in week eight of term one. As her birthday is closest to the beginning of term two, if she was enrolling in a school with cohort entry she would need to wait until the beginning of term two to start school. Tom turns five in week six of term four. As his birthday is closest to the beginning of term four, if he was enrolling in a school with cohort entry he could start school at the beginning of term four, or the beginning of a later term.

How will parents know which schools have cohort entry policies?

Schools will be required to publicise their cohort entry policy at least a term before implementing it. This could be done through their website, for example. Parents will also be able to find out whether a school has a cohort entry policy or not using the “Find a School” function on www.educationcounts.govt.nz

Will this change affect the compulsory age for schooling?

No. Parents will continue to have the option of not starting their child in school until their sixth birthday, irrespective of whether or not the school they enrol in has a cohort entry policy.

If a child is unable to enrol in school until after their fifth birthday, will they still be eligible for ECE subsidies?

Yes. Any Ministry of Education ECE subsidies, including 20 Hours Free, are currently available up until a child turns six or enrols in school. The Ministry of Social Development will be making changes to the childcare assistance regulations to ensure that children who are not able to start school until after their fifth birthday will continue to be eligible for the childcare subsidy.

If a child enrols in school before their fifth birthday, will they be eligible for the OSCAR subsidy?

Yes. The Ministry of Social Development will be making changes to the childcare assistance regulations to ensure that children starting school before their fifth birthday will be eligible to receive the OSCAR subsidy.

Naturally this topic encourages a great debate.  There are a number of concerned parties:  children, parents, new entrant teachers, principals and early childhood educators.  Let's look at how this impacts on all of these groups and various views they may have.

Children
Every child knows that they can start school on their 5th birthday.  It has been a long established custom in New Zealand to do so, and children will look at other children whose birthdays fall in the school holidays with pity. 

Last year my nephew turned five and began school the day after his birthday (he wanted to have his cake with his day care mates on his birthday), and he was very excited.  In the tradition of my family, my mother went to see him off to school as his Nana.  This is a tradition as my great grandmother saw my mother and myself off to school when we turned five.

So changes to when a child starts school may dampen the excitement of the ritual and anticipation of beginning school for children if this is changed.

The change in the culture of when children begin school will have to happen for children and their parents if changes are made.

Parents
Many parents welcome their child turning five and beginning school. 

First there is the knowledge that they and their child have achieved the milestone of starting school. 

There is the ritual of the fifth birthday and the giving of a new school bag, lunch box, drink bottle and pencil case loaded with goodies to help them learn (or lose on the first day of school). 

The anxiety of taking them to school and leaving them there... the amount of parents who cry themselves back to their car and home/to work usually outnumber the tears of the child!

And then there is the joy in no longer forking out for day care fees (my brother's biggest joy when his son started school) for working parents.

Any change to the starting age/time of a child being a new entrant to school will affect parents.  It either means they may end up with their child at home or in day care for longer, or it may mean they are required to start their child at school earlier than the established New Zealand custom.  Many will feel the need to "keep up with the Jones'" so they can "give their child a head start" by starting their child as a new entrant before they turn five, so this needs to be carefully considered and will require parents to be educated about the options that will be open to them if changes arise.

New Entrant Teachers
The debate about when it is best for children to start their school journey is long established in the world of a new entrant teacher.  Some enjoy and celebrate new ones joining them as and when they have their fifth birthdays, other lament the disruption of settling in a new child every few weeks and having to start all over again.

Some teachers support having set intakes, either annually, at the beginning of the school year and mid year, or at the beginning of each new term.  Some welcome the idea of an intake at the beginning of each month.

New entrant teachers will roll with what happens, but their main concern is that the child has had a practical amount of pre-school visits before they officially enrol at school so they can become familiar with the teacher, class and other children as well as some of the routines.

Principals
Principals currently have a big headache.  While they will endeavour to collect the appropriate information about who is a pre-schooler who is likely to attend their school well in advance, there is often a surprise enrolee who may pop up out of the blue to start on their fifth birthday without warning.  This can play havoc with class numbers, teacher:child ratios and space considerations for classrooms.

Early Childhood Educators
Children legally currently do not have to enrol in a primary school until their sixth birthday.  But if we start having children enrolling in primary school before their fifth birthday, this will have implications for early childhood providers. 

On one hand there will be less children, and this could affect their funding.  Then again, it frees up a place for a younger child to come into the early childhood facility. 

My opinion
I think that a change in this custom of when children start school is a good idea.  However this legislation will make it messy.  Under this legislation no one will know what the preferred enrolment of any of their local schools are unless they do a bit of research.  How many parents are going to do that?  How many irate parents and distressed five year old will school office staff and principals be confronted by?

I think, for the sake of children, parents, teachers, principals and all other interested parties that there has to be uniformity in this custom of when children start school up and down New Zealand.

I believe the best way forward is intakes of cohorts.  Each cohort should start school at the beginning of each new term.  Every child should already be five, or turning five within two weeks of the first day of the term - no four year olds who turn school after two weeks of the new term - but if you want your child to be closer to six years old before they start, that is still your choice as a parent.  This gives every child a group of students they will move through school with.  It will allow principals to appropriately plan staffing and use of classrooms within their school to accommodate the group of children starting each term.  It will allow the new entrant teacher to start the term with all their students and plan accordingly for them.

This has great possibilities for improving the transition for school for many children and giving them the best start to their school journey.  But the Minister has failed the standard by making the proposal too complicated in allowing different schools to have different intake policies after consulting with their communities.  The Minister will be failing children and parents as well as teachers and principals if this continues in this form.

EDUCANZ and the dismantling of democracy.

A storm is brewing in education and I am pondering: which is the best route to travel?

Several weeks ago, on the opening day of parliament, the third reading of the Education Act amendments were passed in parliament. 

The breakdown was all the National MPs currently in parliament (remembering that Mike Sabin’s resignation had already taken affect at the end of the previous week), ACT’s David Seymour and United Future’s Peter Dunne all voted in favour of the amendments.  Unfortunately this out voted Labour, the Greens, New Zealand First and the Maori Party who all were opposed to the amendments.

What did these amendments cover?

The Teachers Council v EDUCANZ: 

Firstly, it amounts to dissolving the Teachers Council and establishing a body called EDUCANZ.  This affects every teacher in the Early Childhood, Primary/Intermediate and Secondary school sectors.  It affects all teachers at state, integrated and private schools and the true bona fide registered teachers that a charter school may have employed over an untrained and unregistered teacher.

The current Teachers Council consists of some appointed members by the Minister of Education, as well as elected members for the ECE, primary and secondary sectors.  NZEI and PPTA also directly appoint a member.

EDUCANZ will have ALL members appointed by the Minister of Education.  There will be no elections for teachers to vote in representatives for their sectors.  All members will be nominated and the Minister makes the final decision of who takes the roles.  And that may mean that there would be no one directly representing teachers themselves, and that some sectors may not be represented at all.

Hekia Parata has stated that this model will be more autonomous from the government than the current Teachers Council. 

But I fail to see how with all the members appointed BY the minister, that would make it a more autonomous body from the government.  To me the only people EDUCANZ would be autonomous from are teachers themselves.  To me, it opens EDUCANZ up to being dominated by mates of the government of the day.
 

University and wananga councils:

Secondly, it made some drastic changes to the councils that govern universities and wananga.  It reduces the number of members of the governing councils and removes the compulsion/need for student and staff representatives.  The councils will be more business-like in their governance role.

At first glance this may make sense, as these institutions have multi-million dollar budgets.  But is the core business of a university or wananga to make money and a profit?  Or is its core business to educate?

When you remove the people at the centre of the core purpose of these institutions, the staff and students, you remove the purpose itself.

What came before the amendments were passed:

Now you may be thinking why didn’t the teachers and people associated with universities and wananga stand up and make a fuss?

Well we did.  We held meetings, sent in submissions, some made personal appearances at the Science and Education Select Committee hearings on the amendments, there were press releases, newspaper articles, blogs, appearances on tv and radio…. And despite 99% of submissions opposing these amendments, despite opposition from the members of the select committee not in the National Party, the amendments went through to the parliamentary vote with mere cosmetic changes.

In fact, if it were not for the opposition MPs on the Science and Education Select Committee, those in person submissions would have fallen on deaf ears and the process would have been even more farcical than it has been.  While opposition MPs like Chris Hipkins (Labour), Catherine Delahunty (Greens) and Tracey Martin (New Zealand First) asked questions and clarified details, the National Party MPs ate their yoghurt and basically warmed their chairs.

 

The day the amendments passed:

A tweet or Facebook post alerted me to the fact that the third reading was taking place.  I watched carefully.  Chris Hipkins, Catherine Delahunty, Tracey Martin, Kelvin Davis, Gareth Hughes and several others on the opposition benches spoke with authority and a good understanding of the issues and the impacts.

David Seymour (ACT) spoke with no real understanding of the implications and totally from an ideological point of view.  Paul Foster-Bell clearly had no idea what he was talking about, almost as though he had not read through the notes/speech Hekia's office had given to him after his dinner break.  And as for Melissa Lee, good grief!  She warbled on about Lydia Ko and how these amendments would make it easier for our future Lydia Ko's - oblivious to the fact that the current system caters for those families like Lydia's.

The government MPs failed to put up any concrete arguments to that mostly empty debating chamber to counter the opposition MP's fact based speeches in opposition to the amendments.

What does a former member of the Teachers Council think about it all:

Through the Stand Up for Kids - Protect Our Schools Facebook page I have been communicating with Ken Wilson, a former member of the Teachers Council.  And this is what he has to say about the disbanding of the Teachers Council to establish EDUCANZ:

As a past elected member of the New Zealand Teachers Council I find myself profoundly offended by the Ministry of Education's advertisement for EDUCANZ in today's DomPost headed up "We're making changes to education so all Kiwi kids can fly. Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand."

Why is it in today’s political climate, that any new initiative has to be accompanied by denigration of the previous, as if the previous policy was so flawed and so led by misguided and insincere people that it had no value at all?

The Teachers Council was a replacement body for the Teacher Registration Board which had been an effective organisation but one with limited powers. The Board, Director and staff of the Teacher Registration Board were wholly in favour of the new Teachers Council with its broader powers and focus on promoting the professional status of teachers.

Yes, the NZ Teachers Council had a rocky start. The first Chair was driven from her post by unfounded and politically biased accusations – she was later cleared but it was too late by then. This led to the appointment of a director who, while a good person in many ways, was not really up to the task.

This all changed with the appointment of a number of truly effective chairs and of Peter Lind as Director. Over time this hard work gained acceptance of the Council across the profession – even (remarkably) in the university teacher education faculties. What a fantastic effort to make something as bureaucratic as registration accepted by teachers! Now for pathetic political reasons, all that hard, dedicated work by Peter, all of his staff and a whole swag of Council members and chairs has been discarded, marginalised and treated as worthless.

The Ministry of Education has a website page listing the differences between the Council and EDUCANZ. Their view is that key to this is that the status of EDUCANZ as an independent statutory body rather than an Autonomous Crown Entity. Apparently this means that the Minister can select members to create a skills-balanced organisation rather than relying on the vagaries of the electoral process – so much for democracy. (The Ministry makes some interesting points about the low levels of participation in the elections in the last instance.) And of course the Minister appoints all members of the Council – that makes for real independence.

The goals of the new organisation are listed. It's worth looking back at the goals of the Teachers Council and trying to spot the difference. This is a sham, a total sham. I am really pissed off!!

So let's do as Ken suggests and look at the goals of the two organisations:

http://www.teacherscouncil.govt.nz/about-teachers-council

http://www.educanztransition.org.nz/about-educanz/what-are-the-purpose-and-functions-of-educanz/

For further information on the differences between the Teachers Council and EDUCANZ click here.  And for the FAQ according to EDUCANZ, click here.


What does a current member of the Teachers Council think:

Claire Amos is a secondary school teacher and Deputy Principal at Hobsonville Point Secondary School in Auckland, and was last year elected to the Teachers Council by the secondary teachers who voted.

In a blog post dated 2 March called Educanz - between a rock and a hard place, Claire opens with this:

I feel the need to begin this post with a few disclaimers:

• I am a passionate and committed PPTA member. 
• I am current a member of a NZ Teachers Council. 
• I am feeling genuinely stuck...between a rock and hard place. 

Claire then writes:

There is the issue that the process for forming the council is clearly undemocratic, with nominations being open to all, but final selection being made by the Minister of Education. This is of course even harder to accept when you consider that the council is actually funded by the teachers themselves.  

There is also the issue of changing the code of ethics (which are viewed as aspirational) to a code of conduct (which suggest a baseline for behaviour) which to be fair IS insulting, particularly in light of the claim that one of the aims of the new council forming is to elevate the status of teachers??

Add to this the concerns around the stated aim to "to ensure that appraisals made by professional leaders for the issue and renewal of practising certificates achieve a reasonable and consistent standard, by auditing and moderating the appraisals made for at least 10% of the practising certificates issued or renewed in each year " Source: Section 382 Education Amendment Act 2015 which I actually wouldn't have a huge issue with if it weren't for the implications this will have for council employee workloads and the potential practicing certificate fee increase this will undoubtedly lead to. 

 And then...

And then there is the million dollar question - will snubbing the nomination process and the council even make a difference? Will a vote of no confidence be enough to result in a change of legislation? Could we instead be presented with a situation where no left-leaning, future thinking folks stand and give Minister Parata absolutely no choice but to appoint conservative, status-quo protecting council members. Of course, she may well do this anyway, but there a part of me saying if I don't put my hat (or the hat of like-minded folk) in the ring there really is NO chance of having a voice for a good chunk of our sector. 

Yes, we could all disengage and stand shoulder to shoulder, resolute that nominating someone or nominating yourself is by it's very virtue acceptance of fundamentally flawed legislation - but I genuinely don't think it is as straight forward as that. 

And it is good to know I am not the only one conflicted with the quandary of which strategy is the best way forward.

Nominations open...

On Thursday 26 February, Hekia Parata announced that nomination for EDUCANZ were now open.  Hekia's press statement said,
“Nominations are encouraged from anyone with a strong interest in the development and strengthening of the education profession. All appointments will be on the basis of skills, experience and knowledge.
“Members will act in the interests of the education profession as a whole, rather than any one sector group.
“It’s an exciting time to be involved in education. Student achievement continues to rise and the Investing in Educational Success initiative signals a new era of collaboration in raising the quality of teaching and leadership from early childhood to senior secondary.
“I am confident the nominations process for EDUCANZ will attract huge interest and a high calibre of nominees.” 

This is part of the advertisement (click here to see full advert and access extra information) in the Gazette.

Above is part of the advertisement in the Government Gazette, but I would love to see a copy of the advertisement Ken Wilson refers to from the Dominion Post. Reaction was fairly swift from the unions and teachers themselves on social media.

 

What will happen next?

Now NZEI, PPTA, NZPF and any other groups have had to signal their responses and next steps.

NZEI have decided to run their own process of collecting nominations through their membership to put forward to Hekia Parata (Minister of Education) to choose from.

PPTA and NZPF have decided to boycott the process completely, with the PPTA stating they will be balloting their members to check this is still their wish going forward.  The NZPF President, Denise Torrey, has written the following wise words in relation to how their organisation views EDUCANZ:
"Through the Minister appointing all members of the EDUCANZ Board it will be possible for the government to exert considerable political control over the council and set the agenda for it. In our view such control runs counter to the notion of self-regulation which the council is supposed to provide. 

 

Of further concern is what other roles the EDUCANZ might take on. NZPF maintains that EDUCANZ should be primarily about teacher registration, ensuring the quality of initial teacher education, issuing practising certificates, discipline and ethics. Already we know that the auditing of principal appraisals and other roles are likely to fall under the jurisdiction of EDUCANZ and to conduct these roles will require teachers to pay more fees to the council. With no democratically elected representatives on the council, the profession will have no say in any of these changes."

SPANZ and NZSTA has yet to formally declare where they stand, and searching their websites I found nothing mentioning EDUCANZ; but considering they were totally behind IES, I imagine they have fallen into line with Hekia over EDUCANZ.

So what are the pitfalls of these choices?

At first glance to me, NZEI’s stance seemed weak and had a whiff of capitulation about it.  I was concerned that as an organisation I am a member of, that we would lose the opportunity to make a stand about the lack of direct representation.  However Louise Green, NZEI President, said it would be a bad look not to nominate appropriate people for the roles.

Then I thought about it a little more.

If NZEI runs a process that puts several strong, quality nominations up one of two things may happen:

• Hekia chooses one (or two preferably) nominations to represent teachers and appreciates the fact that we as a group of ECE and primary/intermediate teachers have quality people who can lead the profession.
• Hekia completely ignores the capable people we nominate and instead appoints a patsy who is not representative of the ECE and primary/intermediate professions, exposing her bias.

With the stance taken by PPTA and NZPF of a boycott of the nomination process, I thought, at first glance, that it was bold and sends a message about how important representation for each sector is to these stakeholders.

And then I thought about it some more.

Maybe such a stance could be taken as follows:

• The PPTA and NZPF are cutting of their noses despite themselves.
• Hekia may consider that those sectors need no representation and will appoint someone abhorrent to their groups.  The last thing we need on EDUCANZ are people who do not understand the profession and how each sector is unique in all areas.

Where do I stand on EDUCANZ:
So like Claire Amos, I too am caught between a rock and a hard place.

Firstly I fundamentally disagree with the disbanding of the Teachers Council and establishment of EDUCANZ on the grounds of financial management and loss of intellect.  It will cost a fairly decent fortune to do this on so many levels (stationery and new signs and website for starters) and even though the staff will transfer to EDUCANZ from the Teachers Council, there will be severe lost of intellect if any staff decide it's not the move for them, and it will be a severe loss of intellect that our elected leaders to the Teachers Council have collected over the years that will be lost, as it is likely those people may not be selected for EDUCANZ.

I personally believe that Hekia has thrown the baby out with the bathwater on this one.  Yes, the Teachers Council had some areas that were not effective.  So adjust the legislation and require it to tighten up some areas and change some things (particularly in regards to serious discipline matters) that are not up to scratch.  It would have been so much cheaper and faster and less disruptive.  However, we really know that this is all about trying to control and muzzle teachers.

I fundamentally disagree with the legislation that has formed EDUCANZ in regards to the lack of democracy for teachers meaning that they do not elect members of EDUCANZ, and the fact that this could open up the Minister of Education to appoint cronies and people with a conflict of interest. 

I fundamentally disagree with disbanding the Code of Ethics (which I clearly remember being consulted on and discussing the options) with a Code of Conduct.  The Code of Ethics may be aspirational, but its flexibility reflects the evolving nature of teaching and the different contexts of schools and centres in which teachers are teaching.  A Code of Conduct represents a more condemning context.

While I see the positives of participating in nominations to EDUCANZ, I can't help but think we need to send an extremely strong message - again - to the Minister and the rest of the government. 

To not pay any fees to EDUCANZ would be a start - but my protest would be impotent considering my current practising certificate is valid through to 2017 and therefore my small protest would make no difference.  If all teachers did it, then it would be huge, but now many teachers' practising certificates need renewing each year?  Are our teachers bold and brave enough to make such a grand statement?  And would that make the necessary impact?

Once upon a time there may have been strikes over this (particularly from secondary teachers) but with all the changes to employment law over the last 25 years we are unable to take strike action over an issue like this.  It is not linked directly to our collective agreements.

However there must be other ways we can limit our interactions and co-operation with EDUCANZ to send a message, such as not participating in the audits of appraisals and development of their procedures and Code of Conduct.  Please feel free to add more in the comments.
This week I had the pleasure of hearing Andrew Little speak twice, once to Labour party members in Hamilton and once to the Affco Horotiu workers at the Meat Workers Union meeting in Ngaruawahia.  Andrew believes in constructive negotiation.  He likes to see win:win situations.

But one piece of advice that he gave the Affco workers was this:  Half the battle is in your head.  If you think that you have lost before you even begin, then you have.  You have to keep the faith and keep the goal foremost in your mind and keep working towards it.  You have to keep your collective group working towards the same goal  together.

So let's not think that the fight for a democratic EDUCANZ is over.  Let's not think that a Code of Conduct is already done and dusted.  We have the power together to speed things up, slow things down and complicate it for the EDUCANZ body.  We just need to share a joint vision, work together, keep the goal in mind and be positive.

It's up to NZEI, PPTA and NZPF to get together and sort that joint vision and goal out so we can get in behind it and work to achieve it.

To not do this is to fail the standard.  And lets's face it, this legislation has already failed a big standard.

David Seymour - wet behind the ears, but a worthy opponent

Yesterday I listened to the Prime Minister's Statement for the opening day of Parliament.  I also listened to most of the responses.  Here is a quick overview:

 

Can you tell if he dyes his hair or not?

John Key:  shouty John demonstrated everything that is wrong about the debating chamber with his kindergarten like behaviour and loose version of the facts.  His name calling of Andrew Little was pathetic at best, but to claim that National is the best manager of the economy was a joke considering Bill English has not posted one surplus and our overseas debt has ballooned since National occupied the Treasury Benches in November 2008.  He did go on to outline his intended work for 2015, specifically mentioning the RMA, ISIS, housing, social welfare and education.

 



This guy is not going to let John Key off anything
this year!  It will be death by a thousand cuts by
the time the 2017 election wheels around for Mr
Key - do you think he will last?

Andrew Little: some critics like to call him "Angry Andy", but I saw passion yesterday afternoon.  His use of repetition to drive home points was was evident, especially continually referring to Mr Key and Steven Joyce as the "Masters of the Universe" due to their negotiations of the Sky City Convention Centre.  His attack over the Sabin issue was marred by the interruptions of David Carter, the most inept Speaker ever, who kept warning parliament of his ruling despite Andrew sticking to the ruling.  When this issue came up with other MPs speaking, the stand in Speakers were not so jumpy.  Andrew spoke of the difficulties first home buyers face, that small business needs to be focused on and the fact that many of middle NZ do not find themselves better off under this government.

 

Russel Norman: he spoke in even tones.  His speech was sensible and stacked with statistics, focused firstly on climate change and then inequity and child poverty.  I'm disappointed he has decided to leave parliament during this term. He has added to the texture of the place that made it a better place.

 



He may be 70, but you can't count Winston out yet.

Winston Peters: the newspapers focused on Winston accusing Mr Key of losing and dying his hair, but failed to mention all the other points of his speech in regards to ISIS, the RMA, or the really funny taunting of Gerry Brownlee.  Can anyone explain what's going on between Winston and Gerry currently?

 

Marama Fox: as Te Ururoa Flavell was paying his respects to Ngati Porou elder and scholar Apirana Mahuika, the job fell to Marama, the new co-leader.  While the Maori Party is a part of the Key led government, Marama was not above pointing out where the government was failing in regards to social policy, housing, child poverty and health for low socioeconomic families, Maori and Pacific Islanders in particular.

 

Peter Dunne: this was interesting because there were three key issues that this member of the Key led government also differed greatly with his Prime Minister.  The RMA, approach towards dealing with ISIS and the review of our security departments (GCSB/SIS) all were shown to be issues where they will differ.  Then later in the night he went onto vote in favour of the disastrous Education Act amendments (which blotted his copy book in my opinion).

 



So young.  What will parliament do to him?

Despite David Seymour speaking before Dunne, I've saved him for last because he is the subject of my ire today.

 

Firstly he made a few digs about Winston Peters' age and attempted to rebutt Winston-Salem question "Is the country heading in the right direction? "  Then David explained why ACT would be supporting the government's plans to change the RMA.  He warbled on about how it should all be based on science - physics, biology and chemistry to be precise.  I think he was inferring that taniwha, history and spiritual connections to the land should be ignored.

 

Now let's get some perspective about David and the RMA.  David was born in 1983, the RMA came into service in 1991, so David was 8 years old.  Just to put it in perspective as far as I fit in, I was in 7th form.  I know David is an educated man because he has a Bachelor of Engineering (Electrical and Electronic) and a Bachelor of Arts (Philosophy) which are not easy degrees to get, so he is rather a smart cookie, and David has worked in policy analysis before becoming John Bank's right hand man to get charter schools (aka partnership schools) installed in New Zealand. 

 

But my point here is, all the theory in the world means diddly squat when you put that up against people's real lives and the impact of these RMA changes.  David doesn't get the history, the ethos behind Simon Upton's original philosophy behind the RMA and what it was like trying to build or develop prior to 1991.  He doesn't get how this legislation has protected many aspects of our society and environment in the last 23 years.

 

While I was still at school myself at the time, my dad has stories about how easy it was to do things in one county council, but impossible to do in the next, a mere few kilometres away.  One thing the RMA did was level things out no matter where you were.

 

David thinks that by focusing on science the RMA will open up land for development to build houses.  What he fails to realize is one of the biggest issues blocking houses being built is land banking and I believe any changes to the RMA will increase that issue.

 

But let's move on to what really got my goat - David's comments on education.

 

First he started talking about the establishment of charter - sorry - partnership schools.  He claimed that they were performing off the charts (what about that one outside of Whangarei David?) and that student numbers were up (I'm picking that's only because more schools opened this year).  He then went onto bash the PPTA for their opposition along with Tracey Martin from New Zealand First.  He claimed that there was a momentum building for these schools, that it is diverse.  And then David said that the ACT party was doing what Labour wasn't, carrying on Peter Fraser's vision from 1949 - but I'm pretty sure his vision was about quality public education, not a separatist system!

 

Now yesterday I accused David of dissing teachers, of saying that we were not innovative or risk takers in order to get the best from our students.  He refuted me naturally.  So I've gone back to listen again.  I'm going to try and transcribe the part that offended me most:

 

David: "...if the member really cares about delivering the promise that every the child will be developed to the full extent of their powers of our education system then we must be able to let in new methods.  And I actually agree with one of the things that Eleanor Catton said.  She said that when you have success too many people are there to beat up on you unless they can collectivise it for themselves.  Imagine a world in which the approach of the teacher unions, in which the approach of the opposition, in which the approach of even Tracey Martin, was such that we admired people who have taken risks, gone out on a limb, been creative, enrolled their kids in order to find ways to adrdress one of New Zealand's most urgent problems.  Wouldn't it be nice, wouldn't it be nice to live in a country where Eleanor Catton's concern of tall poppy syndrome was addressed and we could actually try new things to make kids lives better without such negative wailing from all over the chamber."

 

I did find this on the ACT website, and I'm assuming these are the notes which David was speaking from and which have been released on their site:

 

Imagine a world where the education establishment and political opposition are focused on what is best for our kids and actually welcome this policy as an opportunity for New Zealand’s children.  They have every right to question the details of the policy in a constructive way.  But imagine them celebrating the schools’ successes, admiring the men and woman going out on a limb to operate the schools, and respecting the choices of the families and children who enrol at them. Sad that we have to imagine it.

 

So this was the interaction between David and myself yesterday:

 

 

I concede that he didn't actually say that teachers are not innovative, that we don't take risks, that we don't care. 

 

But I stand by the insinuations I could hear made as he attacked the motives of the teacher unions, NZEI and PPTA, because these organisation's are member driven, so when you out attack them, you attack teachers and principals of all the sectors and support staff too.  This was something Dr Nick Smith found to his detriment at the 1999 NZEI Annual Meeting when he insulted the then NZEI President, Daryl Ward, in front of the whole meeting.  Anne Tolley and Hekia Parata a have also found the same (Hekia hasn't attended the last two years).

And nothing screams more that he as an ACT MP, as well as all those National party MPs, voted later that night (along with Peter Dunne) to pass the third reading of the Education Act amendments - the same amendments where more than 90% of submissions opposed the abolition of the Teachers Council to found EDUCANZ and the changes to the make up of governing bodies of universities.

 

So if you read the above tweets, you will see I put out a challenge to David Seymour.  I challenged him to repeat his statements in any school staff room in the country.  I told him I'd like to be there when he does it.  I would hope he would do it in a staff room for each education sector: ECE, primary, secondary and tertiary to see the response.  I also invited him to participate in and #edchatNZ session on Twitter.

I wonder what will happen.  I do quite enjoy the engagement of debate with him, but I know I should be wary because he is a smart cookie after all!

But I leave you with this in response David:

 

My Submission for the Education Amendment Bill No.2

Below is my submission to the Education and Science Select Committee on Education Amendment Bill No.2. 

I can't say I'm specifically hopeful on our submissions carrying much sway, after all, Hekia Parata's style of consultation is on public record and leaves a lot to be desired.  But being the crazy Sagittarian optimist that I am, I believe our voices have to be heard.

After all, if we do not stand up and let our voices be heard, tell the world our opposition to these ideas and our reasoning behind our opposition, then can we really call ourselves informed educators, people who understand how learning works and what our students need to fuel them as they embark and travel down the road of learning?

As teachers, we should be setting the standard.  By trying to gag teachers, devalue teaching qualifications and not giving teachers their democratic rights to determine the direction and standards of their own profession, Hekia Parata and her Tory mates have failed the standard.

To: Parliament's Education and Science Select Committee

I am submitting to oppose the changes in the Education Amendment Bill No. 2 establishing EDUCANZ to replace the Teachers Council.

Specifically, I submit that:

1. The Bill undermines quality teaching by giving teachers substantially less control over our own profession (Section 380 and Schedule 22)

I do not believe that it is in the best interests of students or teachers or the wider education profession for the proposed EDUCANZ to be a group that is totally appointed by the Minister of Education.  Each sector group in the teaching profession should be given the opportunity to elect true representatives.  This would ensure that EDUCANZ has a true understanding of how the different education sectors work, an understanding of the roles in each sector, and will ensure that teachers will "own" and respect EDUCANZ.  After all, if teachers will be funding 90% of its operation costs, the body should also be accountable to teachers for how they use that money, and the best way to do this is to make the body accountable through a democratic voting process.

2. The Bill undermines quality teaching by making it easier for non-qualified and registered people to work as teachers (New Part 31)

I am greatly concerned at the prospect of people who do not hold teaching qualifications and who have been employed as 'teachers' at charter schools being allowed to become "registered teachers" under the EDUCANZ body.  I am also concerned that people will be able to get a LAT (Limited Authority to Teach) easier and that these people may even be accepted despite previous criminal convictions.  Research demonstrates that children in all sectors will have greater success in their learning if they are taught by teachers with sound teaching qualifications.  Our New Zealand parents expect to have a qualified and registered teacher as a minimum benchmark to ensure quality teaching and learning for their children.

3. The Bill could gag the freedom of teachers and principals to be voices for children and their learning

The Bill (Section 382) replaces teachers' current aspirational Code of Ethics with a more prescriptive Code of Conduct. The Bill could gag the freedom of teachers and principals to be advocates for what is best for children by not allowing them to criticise Government policy: the new code must “take account” of the State Services Code which prevents public servants in core state services from publicly criticising Government policy. This provision might have been used, for example, to prevent principals and teachers voicing their concerns about the National Standards policy.  This "gagging" mechanism is a violation of our democratic rights as voters and citizens of New Zealand.  How can teachers develop our students' skills in critical thinking and understanding and participating in our country when one of the most vital aspects of this, freedom to express their opinion, is suppressed?