Educators

All of the teacher unions, and the Teachers’ Council oppose charter schools, now known as partnership schools, mainly on the basis that there isn’t a requirement for teacher’s to be registered. Apparently the kids would be at risk.

Registration hasn’t stopped a parade of kiddy fiddler teachers through our courts, nor a staff member hitring a hitman to whack her principal, or this woman from rooting her staff members:

A school principal who was in a sexual relationship with a staff member is to face a Teachers Tribunal disciplinary hearing for failing to declare a conflict of interest when the teacher was being investigated for assaulting a student.

The principal, whose name was suppressed, has been accused of serious misconduct by the Complaints Assessment Committee.

The committee said the woman failed to declare her “very close friendship and sexual relationship” with the resident director of the school, who was also not named, “sometime before September 2007 and December 2007″.  Read more »

The teacher unions oppose Charter Schools because the legislation does not require compulsory registration of teachers. They argue that the kids are safer with registered teachers…

A primary school teacher has been arrested and charged with indecently assaulting pupils at the Auckland school where he worked.

…

It is understood that police from the child protection unit conducted video interviews with pupils aged between 5 and 10.

In at least three interviews, the children’s statements about the circumstances around the alleged offending were almost identical.

When is the Teachers’ Council going to stop acting like a union protecting its own at any costs and start looking after our children?

The Herald usefully summarises:

• In August, Kaitaia man James Parker, 37, pleaded guilty to 49 charges of sexually abusing boys at Pamapuria School
• In July, Papatoetoe High School teacher Damian Christopher Gillard, 43, was suspended after police charged him with a raft of sex and drug-related offending in connection with seven young women.
• In September, teacher aide Kevin Dean McMillian, 19, was to serve an 18-month intensive supervision order and 200 hours of community work for offending that included exchanging more than 400 text messages, many of a sexual nature, with a 13-year-old girl.

The teacher union oppose Charter Schools because the legislation does not require compulsory registration of teachers. They argue that the kids are safer with registered teachers…like this one who tried to hire a gang member to bash her principal.

A teacher tried to hire a gang member to assault her principal because she was being hassled about lies she told to the school, a disciplinary hearing has found.

The high school teacher, whose name is suppressed, told a student she would “sort something out” for her if she arranged for her grandfather, who had gang connections, to confront the principal.

The teacher told a colleague she had arranged for the principal to be “capped”, which the colleague took to mean an injury to the knees.

As usual the Teachers’ Council has taken a ‘nothing to see here, move along’ approach:

Despite her “unprofessional” actions and “serious misconduct”, the Teachers’ Council has given the teacher permission to return to the classroom after a disciplinary hearing last month.

The disciplinary tribunal heard the teacher also fabricated grades for work not done by students, forged the head of department’s signature, and lied about what classes she had taught.

The teacher feared she was going to be fired and so hatched a plan for one of her students’ grandfathers to threaten the principal.

People do screw up and need new starts but PPTA/NZEI cannot protest Charter Schools on the basis of the integrity of the Teachers’ Council and the registration system.

The teacher unions oppose any and all measures to improve ou education system. It wouldn’t matter what was proposed they will find a similar case elsewhere int he world where their fellow union mates vigorously opposed the introduction of the policy.

They seem to think they have a monopoly on ideas in education. They are wrong.

One area that they seem particularly disposed to opposing is the area of performance evaluations for teachers, and the unions world-wide oppose it:

The good news is that we do have the ability to increase teacher effectiveness. Study after study has pointed to the need for regular, comprehensive evaluations of teachers. These should include repeated class observations by administrators and other teachers, objective measures such as student test scores and regular written evaluations from fellow teachers, students and parents. But that’s only one step. It is also clear that continued employment as a teacher should be linked to effectiveness. Administrators should be given the ability to hire, fire and reward teachers based on their performance in the classroom.

Why has California not implemented these measures? The primary reason is that teachers unions have strongly opposed changes to LIFO and tenure. Not only do they value teachers’ rights over students’ rights; they also value some teachers over others. In protecting those with the most seniority, the unions are turning their backs on newer teachers. And they are also completely out of touch with what most rank-and-file teachers actually do want: a system that rewards effectiveness, encourages improvement and weeds out blatant incompetence.

Hekia Parata should be implementing this rather than wondering which schools to close in Christchurch.

The simple fact is this, the teacher unions will go to war with National over almost anything…so why not go to war over something that matters…like performance pay for teachers.

In the UK that is precisely what is coming down the line:

Salary rises should be based on performance in the classroom, rather than just time served

Good teaching matters. Talented teachers change lives, but are not sufficiently recognised or rewarded. And too often good teaching is not available where it is most needed, particularly in deprived areas. That’s why the School Teachers’ Pay Review Body, in its report published yesterday, recommends that teachers’ pay should be based on the impact made in the classroom rather than time served.

There are many factors that make a good school, but the best teachers are not always paid as they should be, nor is the sector seen by graduates in the profession as offering the status and rewards available elsewhere. Successive governments have begun to tackle this, with the Teach First initiative and the introduction of appraisals to inform pay decisions for senior teachers.

The independent review body recommends in its report that the Government should simplify the national pay framework and extend pay awards based on appraisal to all teachers. This is what happens in most sectors. Pay for all teachers should be based on their contribution to pupils’ progress. Individual schools are best placed to understand pupil needs and local circumstances and should be free to spend their money as they see fit, within the national framework.

Every other industry in the country pays for performance…it is high time that the same applied to teachers. The UK review recommends:

-) Performance-based progression for all teachers, based on a school’s own priorities and the single teaching standard already in place, with freedom for the most successful teachers to move faster up the pay scale.

-) More freedom for schools to create highly paid posts for the very best teachers, to spread good teaching skills and provide a classroom career alternative to leadership.

-) Simplifying hundreds of pages of detailed central guidance which it is clear that few fully understood.

The teacher unions constantly tell us we already have a world class education system, but one which is beaten by Finland and South Korea…we are top at rugby in the world, we dn;t settle for third or fifth or anything but first when it comes to that…so why settle in education.

The time markers and the indolent need to be encouraged to leave.

The teacher unions will have you believe that New Zealand’s education system is perfect and it is all because of them. We do have a good system but it needs to be better.

The Economist has an article about education systems and they conclude that Finland and South Korea have the most effective education systems.

Finland and South Korea boast the most effective education systems, an assessment of 50 countries has found.

When it comes to improving the performance of education systems, cultural attitudes may matter more than levels of spending. The education environments of Finland and South Korea – the two top performers in a new EIU index – have very different characteristics but share a moral imperative within the national culture that greatly values education.

The two also develop high-quality teachers and place enormous value on the accountability of schools, administrators and teachers.

The teacher unions would hate Finland’s model…because every teacher is required to have a masters level degree…the striving for excellence is anathema to the psyche of New Zealand teachers union bosses.

Parents in New Zealand are being told by scum teachers’ union the NZEI that children will have to be sent home early for the day because of “paid union meetings”.

Regardless of the fact these clowns should be doing this on their own time, parents should be asking schools some hard questions.

Top marks to the parent in the UK who didn’t fall for the teacher BS

Furious parents have called for an investigation after a school was closed for teachers to undergo vital training, only for them to be found celebrating at a colleague’s wedding instead.

The teachers, who had sent children home from school an hour and a half early to allow them to train, were spotted enjoying a wedding party after a suspicious father tracked them down.

Kamal Hussain, a father-of-two, is now calling for a formal investigation into St Hilda¹s School, Oldham, after the headteacher claimed it was “all above board”.

Children at the primary school had been sent home at 2pm rather than their usual 3.30pm on Tuesday, October 30, due to vital staff development training.

Parents had received letters informing them of the change, which was said to allow teachers to research future lessons.

Instead, Mr Hussain claims, they travelled straight to a colleague’s wedding reception instead.

That wouldn’t happen here, would it?

1. Finland is regarded as being “racially homogeneous”

New Zealand is diverse. The unions are incredibly keen on a one size fits all model in NZ and are prepared to sell Maori, PI, and lower socio-economic children down the drain to maintain their power base. Maori educational statistics show that it is not working for them.

A homogeneous education system – as advocated by the unions (for “fairness”) cannot work in a diverse society.

2. In Finland all teachers must have a Masters Degree.

So we put all improvements and innovation on hold in NZ until that is true? Are all teachers without Masters Degrees prepared to stand down? Are prospective teachers prepared to spend 1 – 2 more years studying (and accumulating debt) to do this? It will end up a small teacher sector and huge classes. Are PPTA prepared for that?

3. Formal education doesn’t start until 7 years of age in Finland.

So the NZEI are prepared to tell all Year 1 & 2 teachers they no longer have a job? And as a society are we prepared to make all of the social and economic changes to keep children largely at home until 7 or massively expand preschool education? In NZ for children in under-resourced homes that will simply condemn them to further failure and recycle their place in society.

Educationally comparing NZ to Finland is about as relevant as comparing a market garden with a grass paddock.

A Guest Post from Alwyn Poole

A few comments with regards to the thinking behind the potential use of “non-qualified” – and on that basis – “unregistered” – teachers in Partnership Schools. The qualified aspect implies attendance at a College of Education for a period of time – approx. 4 years for Primary School teachers and generally a year – after a degree – secondary school teachers.

Making sense of this goes back to the genuine (as opposed to conspiracy theorist) intent behind Partnership Schools. They are to work with the 15- 20% tail in New Zealand schools. That is – the group that the current state model and the bulk of teachers have not traditionally been able to have an effect upon – often due to the simple logistics of finding enough time to get one on one with children and their parents.

The first plus is straight forward – this has the potential to put more people in the classroom and effectively lower student:teacher ratios. Something that has been hard fought for in New Zealand.

Secondly it widens the range of people available and able to work with these children. Some may not have degrees, some may not be able to afford to take a year without income to go to a teachers college (i.e. they may be from a lower socio-economic group themselves or have a growing family), some may simply have phenomenal careers in their own field and have great skills and knowledge that they want to share with the young and the last thing they want is their passion theorized out of them through a year of teachers training.

Thirdly – if we are a little smarter – we can see it is a means of getting more teachers trained and registered. Many secondary teachers regard their year at teachers college as having been a waste of time and potential income (some people avoid teaching due to that year). What most did value is the teaching sections/practices in the classroom during that year. Teacher training as an employed, overseen “on the job training” (i.e. an apprenticeship) makes a lot of sense in many situations. If there are modules that the MOE and/or NZQA really require to be covered then they can be done as holiday courses. If it means taking two years to fully “qualify” – and then further time for “full registration” – so be it. Schools will be able to work out an incentive basis for this too if need be.

At Mt Hobson Middle School we staff primarily with fully qualified teachers. If we are involved in Partnership Schools we would choose to do the same. They take responsibility for overall course planning and work alongside other contributors we bring in. We have also made phenomenal use of “unqualified” teachers – as guest speakers, tutors for full modules, mentors for students, inspirations, etc. They have changed the lives of our students and it would be absolutely arrogant and short sighted of our teaching staff if we thought we could bring the same level of knowledge and experience in specialist areas that these people can bring. Our children stop asking; “when would I use this in the real world?” These people love coming in and contributing – some volunteer and for others it is a part of their income. As some examples:

• a Marine biologist and round-the-world yachtsman.
• a rocket scientist – spends time annually.
• a barrister and solicitor regularly contributes.
• surgeons and GPs.
• aid workers from World Vision and other organisations.
• two architects and interior designers regularly contribute.
• motivation mentors and speakers for youth – including in Health/Relationships.
• artists, a graphic designer and a potter for art modules.
• an international entrepreneur – software design, flying.
• a couple who speak of their experiences as Holocaust survivors.
• a World War 2 veteran who can in and contributed to the school during one module over an 8 year period.
• election officers.
• police officers and a fraud detective (cured the children re: plagiarism).
• international sportspeople – football, Olympic medallists and competitors.
• coaches in swimming, tennis, baseball, basketball, football.
• accountants.
• the Prime Minister and several MPs – from a range of parties have spoken.
• story tellers and writers.
• a builder who has come in for modules for the last 4 years.
• an archaeologist.
• an inspirational weightlifter with an inspirational life story.
• a publisher who has contributed for 6 years.
• a flight tutor and a commercial pilot.
• a Children’s Commisioner.
• business advisors for a business planning module.
• actors, a director and a producer for a film module.
• an MIT tutor for a section on engines and motors.

It has already been made clear – if people are employed for a period of time then these people will be police vetted and controls put in place for child protection reasons – something that the $220 three yearly registration fee teachers are currently paying does not seem to be able to guarantee.

Some of these arguments against these proposals get ridiculous. Next thing you will see/hear Union execs on $100,000+ arguing that it is immoral to make money out of education. For some of the children of this country we need to be innovative and make use of different people and resources. Groups need to put the patch protection behind them and remember education is for the children.