EDUCANZ members announced.

The members of EDUCANZ have just been announced by the Minister of Education Hekia Parata this afternoon and the D-Day for EDUCANZ taking effect is 1st of July 2015 - yep, just a matter of four weeks away.  The Council members are:

• Barbara Ala’alatoa (Chairperson)
• Anthony Mackay (Deputy Chairperson)
• Claire Amos
• Simon Heath
• Ripeka Lessels
• Iva Ropati
• Lynda Stuart
• Helen Timperley
• Clare Wells

Hekia Parata's statement said,

The council will be chaired by highly-regarded Auckland principal Barbara Ala’alatoa, and comprise eight other leading educationalists, all but one of whom emerged from an exhaustive public nomination process.

”The nine members of the Council are leaders in the education sector who bring a wealth of experience and expertise to the new body,” Ms Parata says. “I’m delighted we’ve got a group of such outstanding calibre.”

Note that she said all but one of whom emerged from an exhaustive public nomination process.  Who was the one?  That would be Anthony Mackay.

“Of the council members, all but Mr Mackay, who is based in Melbourne, emerged through the public nomination process. Six are registered teachers which will ensure teachers are well-represented on their new professional body,” Ms Parata says.

Who is Anthony Mackay?  Anthony Mackay is CEO, Centre for Strategic Education (CSE) in Melbourne.  You can read more about what he is into here.

Tony is one of our Board of Directors. His work specialises in the areas of school and system leadership, improvement and innovation and he is currently working on a number of ‘Next Practice Projects' on school leadership and school improvement and reform around the world.

I have to wonder about why Anthony Mackay was selected by Hekia Parata and the costs to EDUCANZ of one of the members not being based in New Zealand.  Because ultimately the costs will fall on teachers.
Ms Parata says Ms Ala’alatoa, who was last year awarded the New Zealand Order of Merit for services to education, is an energetic leader, who brings a combination of vision and pragmatism to the position. She sees the big picture while understanding the issues teachers face on the ground.

“Deputy chair Anthony Mackay is an internationally recognised education expert whose name is synonymous with school and system leadership, improvement and innovation.

“The other members of the council are among New Zealand’s foremost practitioners and education experts.

So here are some short facts and some links to the people Hekia has chosen for us:

Barbara Ala'alatoa, from the Sylvia Park
School website.

Barbara Ala'alatoa is the principal of Sylvia Park School in Auckland.  Sylvia Part School is part of their local Community of Schools and in this article, Schools eager to share expertise, (Stuff, 1/5/15) demonstrates her keenness on the IES model.  "Sylvia Park principal Barbara Alaalatoa has one response for the people who've said the COS concept with its lead teachers and principals won't work."  Ala'alatoa was awarded the New Zealand Order of Merit in the 2014 Queen's Birthday honours for her services to education.  When Meteria Turei last year asked John Key in Parliament about hungry children in school needing lunches supplied, Ms Ala'alatoa was one of three principals whom Ms Parata rang to ask:

Metiria Turei: Which of the decile 1 and 2 schools that John Key visited—Māngere Central, Waimate Main, Flaxmere, Huntly, Huntly College, Manaia View, Pt England—told him that only one or two of their kids needed feeding every day, when each of those schools have a lunch programme provided by either KidsCan or some other charity in their community?  

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, by definition, I suppose, if they already have lunch provided, then actually they would not raise the fact that they need lunch, so that is rather self-defeating. Secondly, it may be lost on the member, but I have been the Prime Minister since the end of 2008. The question the member asked was for the 1 year from 2013. But in the interests of trying to get to the bottom of this debate, at 1.41 this afternoon I took the liberty of ringing the Minister of Education. I said: “Please ring for me three schools that are decile 1 or 2 and ask them how many kids have not come to school today with lunch.” That was done completely randomly and with no information. Here are the facts. Phillip Heeney of Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Te Waiu o Ngati Porou, Ruatōria, a decile 1 school—people are free to ring the school—

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As I said, at 1.41 p.m., with absolutely no knowledge, these are the facts. At Te Waiu o Ngati Porou school, Ruatoria, decile 1, how many children came to school today without lunch—answer, zero. Barbara Ala’Alatoa, Sylvia Park School, decile 2—one to two kids, maybe. Iain Taylor, Manurewa Intermediate—decile 1 school, roll of 711—maybe 12. Yes, there is an issue where some children come to school without lunch. That number of children is relatively low.

Claire Amos - from her website.

Claire Amos is a deputy principal at Hobsonville Secondary School and was last year elected as the secondary teacher's representative on the current Teachers Council.  I have had the pleasure of sharing a table with Claire at various ULearn workshops and breakouts and discussions via Twitter and blogs.  While we do not always agree, Claire is a very astute and passionate teaching professional.  No where is this more evident than on her blog post Why I am standing for EDUCANZ anyway, where Claire describes the conflict she has gone through to make her decision to stand and received a lot of flack from various members of the profession (including me).  Claire said in this blog post, "I am also disappointed that in choosing to stand for EDUCANZ anyway it means I am forced to step down from the PPTA. I am a person who has deeply and passionately supported the PPTA as a member and as a part of the PPTA ICT Advisory Group. But I respect PPTA has made a decision, so I will leave, for now at least....   I believe I could bring an articulate and positive secondary voice to EDUCANZ. I am passionate and well informed about educational issues and constantly seek ways to support and challenge NZ educators to be future-focused, open and reflective, as well as being recognised as the hardworking professionals they are."

Simon Heath is the principal of Renwick School in Marlborough since 2008.  He was a recipient of a Woolf Fisher Trust Fellowship in 2012.  This article Renwick principal Simon Heath appointed to Education Council (Stuff 3/2/15) stated:  "Heath has been involved in numerous education working groups.  He is a past - president of the Marlborough Principals Association, and has been a member of the Marlborough e-Learning Project, and involved in the Eco Schools project at Renwick School.  He is currently chairman of the Mistletoe Bay Trust, and is on the Education Ministry's Principals Reference Group."

Ripeka Lessels is the principal of Te Whata Tau o Putauaki (which I would link to the website, but there is no real information from Ms Lessels to give you a feel for her), part of the Principals Council for NZEI and is well known in the Kawerau district.

 

Iva Ropati is the a former rugby league player for the Kiwis, Paramatta Eels, the Warriors and various English league clubs.  Laterly he has been the principal of what is now One Tree Hill College (formerly Penrose High School) and now is the principal at Howick College.

Lynda Stuart is the principal of May Road School in Auckland and a member of the NZEI National poverty and other issues low decile schools face.  She is also on the NZEI Principal's Council and is the current NZEI representative on the Teachers Council.

Lynda Stuart.  Photo sourced from Voxy.

Executive.  Her school is a low decile school, so she is often a spokesperson for NZEI on matters regarding poverty and issues that affect low decile schools.

Professor Helen Timperley is based at the University of Auckland and is well known for her research on classroom practice, assessment, inquiry cycles, self review and professional learning.  Every school in New Zealand will have at least one copy of a publication which Prof Timperley has contributed to and she is held in high regard in the teaching profession.

Clare Wells is the one representative from the early childhood sector on EDUCANZ.  She is the CEO of New Zealand Kindergartens Inc.

Ms Parata's release also included the following:

“The selection process was thorough, rigorous and robust, and conducted according to State Services Commission guidelines.

“145 nominations were received and the 24 nominees shortlisted were  interviewed by a panel comprising Education Review Office chief executive, Iona Holsted, the former principal of Wellington High Prue Kelly, who was  recently appointed to oversee new teacher and principal positions in Communities of Schools, and Institute of Directors Board Service Advisor Kelly McGregor.

“The field of candidates was extremely impressive and I want to thank everyone who participated in the process,” Ms Parata says.

On July 1 the new council will take over responsibility for all matters to do with the registration and disciplining of the teaching profession from the Teachers Council. But it also has a wider mandate to lead the teaching profession and raise its status.

This is just a quick overview of who Ms Parata has appointed.  While some names are familiar, others are not, and I look forward to more information about each member becoming more available in the coming weeks to the teaching profession.  After all, we have to pay for this body which had 99% of submissions opposing its formation.

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?

GERM attacks again: Hekia Parata is canning the Teachers' Council.

The 30th of April is a crunch point for quality public education in New Zealand.  It is the day that a pitiful amount of pitiful consultation, Hekia styled, ceases on some very important and possibly catastrophic changes to education in New Zealand. 

During the first half of last year, consultation for changes to the Teachers' Council began, after a review had been conducted since 2010.  Some very knowledgeable people in education were tasked with going out and gathering and collating opinions and ideas about how the current Teachers' Council was going and how it could be reformed.  By July the consultation was over and a report was compiled.  For most teachers, busy with running a classroom, and life in general, this probably did not even cause a faint blip on their over stimulated radar.

In early November Hekia Parata announced that she would be disbanding the Teachers' Council.  It will be replaced by the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand and a transition group working towards having this established started in the new year.  Legislation has to be passed to allow this all to happen, which has begun its progress in Parliament and the latter stages will happen very soon.  Further down this post I have links so you can have your say.

Below is a list of people who have been appointed by Hekia Parata to the transition group of EDUCANZ:

• John Morris ONZM (Chair)
• Nancy Bell (Deputy Chair)
• Steve Maharey CNZM
• Paul Mathews
• Richard Newton
• Hoana Pearson
• Graham Hingangaroa Smith
• Margaret Southwick QSM
• Arihia Stirling
• Linda Tame
• Allan Vester

Now I only personally recognise a few names on this list (John Morris - former Auckland Grammar principal; Steve Maharey - former Labour MP who was the Minister of Education for a time and now the head honcho at Massey University; Linda Tame - principal at a Christchurch high school whose name fails me and mother of Jack Tame the TVNZ reporter based in New York), so you'll see that I've linked in the transition group's MoE page and I've google searched their names and added links to everyone from other sources so that you and I know who they are.  For some it was hard to find a profile on them, so I've linked to a news story or such other thing to give you a glimpse of the person. 

An interim Chief Executive, Julian Moore, has been appointed and took up his role on 31 March. 
Mr Moore has significant experience in senior management roles across the public and private sectors in New Zealand and the United Kingdom. He was recently the interim Chief Executive Officer at the Central Region’s Technical Advisory Services Limited (TAS) – a shared services company providing regional and national services to six District Health Boards.
He has also held senior management roles at the Wellington City Council and New Zealand Trade and Enterprise.
The role of the interim Chief Executive will focus on managing the transition arrangements with the New Zealand Teachers’ Council and working across the education sector to establish a professional body that reflects the needs of teachers and education leaders in the 21^st century.
Mr Moore has a strong background in leading organisations through complex periods of change. He also has considerable experience in governance, relationship management, branding, and establishing new boards and sub-committees.   (Early Childhood Council)

Reaction in November from the right wing commentators and politicians was very vocal.  Initial media reports hailed Hekia Parata's reforms as essential and to the benefit of the profession, children and how well educated children will be due to the reformation of the Teachers' Council.  Media (especially the NZ Herald and Fairfax) had been long campaigning that the Teachers' Council were enabling dodgy paedophiles to infiltrate schools and then protecting them (see this link as an example of their arguments).

Naturally the teacher unions, NZEI and PPTA, were unhappy about the prospect of their members being unable to elect representatives directly (Teacher unions to fight council reforms 2/11/13).  The two teachers' unions said the change contradicts the council's goal of leading and representing the teaching profession.  NZEI's Judith Nowataski has continued to push the need for EDUCANZ to be a meaningful body for teachers due to having teacher participation in press releases such as Teachers will fight loss of voice on Government's new Teachers Council.  And the PPTA has been running paid union meetings (PUMs) over the last term over the issue of the changes to the Teachers' Council.  This article, Teachers' union concerned over new council (The Waikato Independent, 11/4/14), demonstrates that 800 secondary teachers were concerned enough to pack out the Founders Theatre in Hamilton.

Slowly it has filtered through to the awareness of the average teacher, and it seems that in the last month or so, after a lot of articles in the newspapers and discussion in local teacher union meetings finally getting noticed in staff rooms, that teachers are getting heated up about the implications of EDUCANZ.  Teachers are not happy that they will have no opportunity to elect representation and that changes to the Teachers' Code of Conduct could stifle teachers' voices in the education debate.

Editorials such as this Stuff editorial, Improved Processes, published in the Southland Times and the Marlborough Express (16/4/14), will have annoyed quite a few teachers.  Little gems such as: "Little wonder teachers are protective of the Teachers Council. It's probably only polite since it has been so very protective of them.  Unhappily, this has been at the expense of accountability to parents and the public."  And then this one:  "They may have a point for decent representation, but frankly a stronger say by the Government is looking preferable to the outcomes of the teacher-controlled club that has been ready, willing and able to close ranks for far too long, and which is showing a professed interest in openness only when the do-next-to-nothing option has been utterly exhausted."  All very emotive of course.

And those of us who are vocal, active in social media and other circles have been having discussions and sharing thoughts.  Some have even published their thoughts.

A blog post, EDUCANZ, Professionalism and Politics, by bsprout (14 April 2014), hits the nail on the head as to why these changes are being pushed by Hekia Parata and her puppet masters.  What follows are some of bsprout's comments that stood out for me:

I find it appalling that we have a Government that is deliberately and dishonestly undermining the teaching profession by suggesting that there is a crisis in teacher quality and discipline and that political measures are needed to solve it....
There are more than 103,000 registered teachers in New Zealand and in the last financial year 59 were brought in front of the disciplinary tribunal and the majority were removed from the Teachers Register and barred from teaching. This means that probably less than .05 of teachers have behaved badly enough for the most serious consequences and not all of those would be sexual in nature....
It seems overly heavy handed to use misconduct as the driving reason to change the current Teachers Council. If that was the case then some adjustments to current practice and the existing body is all that would be necessary. Instead we have a whole new entity that will have all those on the Governing Council being appointed by the Minister of Education....
Under a National led Government, teachers will lose any professional independence and become classroom technicians that have to support politically prescribed programmes and data collection. Children will not have teachers who exist to meet their individual needs but be forced meet whatever targets the Minister feels necessary to set for them. Any teacher accused of misconduct is likely to be named and shamed before guilt is proven, which will possibly see many of the remaining males in the primary sector forced out of the job through the stress of false accusations.

Boonman has managed to address the facts and take a chance to put a bit of satire into the discussion.  His post EDUCANZ? Of course we canz!! really cut to the point of what is wrong with the proposed EDUCANZ: 

There has been some concern expressed by people working in the education community that EduCANZ will become a kind of proxy board appointed by the minister and tasked with getting rid of anybody who disagrees with government policy. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Let me elaborate.
The board of EduCANZ will be appointed by me. We have a huge pool of talent available to us which I will be completely ignoring and instead appointing only people I either know personally, am related to (including by marriage), or are members of the various business lobby groups who often wine and dine members of the National Party at the many official and unofficial functions held around New Zealand.

Boonman has also blogged his submission to Education Amendment Bill No.2 and it is well worth a read.

Dianne at Save Our Schools NZ has been a tireless blogger on all the issues in Education over the last two years since the class size debate stirred her activist heart back into action.  In her post Easy way to make a submission on the Education Amendment Bill 2 Dianne listed the following facts about EDUCANZ:

• All members are to be appointed by the Minister of Education.
• Teachers do not get to vote in a single representative to EDUCANZ.
• The Bill stipulates a maximum of teachers possible on the council – no minimum – meaning it is possible that there would be no teachers of the council at all.
• Even if some teachers were on the council, they would still be hand-picked by the Minister of Education.
• The new “limited authority to teach” (LAT) provisions mean that someone “with specialist skills but not a teaching qualification” can be authorised to act as a teacher for three years at a time without the employer having to prove that they have tried unsuccessfully to fill the position with a trained and qualified teacher.
• LATs have a lower good character and fitness to teach threshold than registered teachers, as LATs with criminal convictions are not barred whereas registered teachers are.
• The Bill (Section 382) replaces teachers’ current aspirational Code of Ethics with a more prescriptive Code of Conduct, which could be used to gag teachers from opposing or speaking out about government policies (such as National Standards, PaCT, performance pay plans, and so on).
• Teachers will still fund more than 90% of the operations of the Council through their registration fees.

Now the parts in bold and red I've done to really drive those first two points home because it's never a good sign when the government appoints people to an organisation they want to replace that belongs to other people.

In Dianne's earlier post The new Teachers Council: Just what is EDUCANZ' remit, exactly? (8/4/14)she quotes a letter from the PPTA to Hekia Parata regarding the EDICANZ chair, John Morris:

More concerning for me is the contempt that Mr Morris is showing for the 70,000 or so teachers who are going to be expected to fund the operation of his grandiose performance pay scheme. It is unacceptable that before teachers have had an opportunity to comment on the legislation and before the actual board has been formally established, the chairperson of the Transition Board has declared what the role and function of the body is to be. How can teachers have any trust in the process for establishing the new council when the chair of the interim board has revealed an agenda to use the body to introduce performance pay?

So what can you do?
It doesn't matter if you aren't a teacher or a parent or that you are just a plain old member of the public, because your voice counts.  You can contribute a submission to the Education Amendment Bill No.2 because you want to be heard.  But you have to do it by Wednesday 30 April. 

If you want to do a quickie submission you can click this link below:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/EDUCANZ

If you want your submission to really reflect your thoughts you can click this link below
http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/sc/make-submission/50SCES_SCF_00DBHOH_BILL13015_1/education-amendment-bill-no-2

And if you would like some further ideas about how to do a submission, I suggest that you look at Claire Amos' submission that she has posted on her blog (21/4/14) Teaching and E-Learning: The EDUCANZ Bill - I have made my submission, have you made yours??  It is well worth a read.  I particularly like her points about the make up of the Medical Council - after all, do you think doctors would put up with their council having no actual doctors elected to it or on it at all?

I'm still working on my submission, so my next post will be my published copy of my submission.

But I am worried.  Hekia Parata's history of consultation is pretty dismal at best.  Just think Phillipstown School and the Christchurch reorganisation and the stuff ups over Salisbury Residential School - the courts found fundamental errors in the consultation and the Ombudsman is looking into it all.

If the worst comes to the worst, and Hekia gets her way with representation and some of the more concerning things such as naming teachers accused of something before any hearings, then consultation will have been ignored Hekia style.  If this happens then Hekia will have failed the standard and then I think every teacher should send their practice certificates back in protest and refuse to pay for the next one if our professional body doesn't actually represent us as teachers. It would soon be a problem when there are no teachers at schools and because ten days is all you can teach without a current practicing certificate. Do you think doctors would put up with this shit with their Medical Council?