…about the NZ education system being world class…..and about Finland. Both take a hammering in the latest rankings.Â
Time for change and for the unions to stop opposing everything and put kids first.
Time for Labour to take responsibility for their ridiculous numeracy project that has impacted on the 15 year olds being tested.
Time for National to get bolder.
The common factor in NZ’s decline over the last 14 years. The unions opposing everything.Â Read more »
A reader emails:
Remember the Hullaballoo last year involving Gerry Brownlee when he took on the Finns last year? This saw some distinct Opposition chest beating, as it picked on one of their favourite countries (despite Finland’s love of Nuclear power and embrace GM technology).
I bet Gerry will be enjoying a wry smile over news that Nokia has been picked up by Microsoft for way less than Len Brown’s new train set in Auckland will cost. As both will lose money, which one would WO readers most prefer? Â Google, several year’s ago, picked up
Ericsson MobileMotorola Mobility (who had invented the mobile phone), proving you can go from hero to zero very quickly in tech.
Yet this got me thinking about all those ‘experts’ who castigate farming by saying we need to ‘develop a Nokia of our own.’ While the meat industry has its issues, at least its in demand, more so than Nokia’s loss making business, or should i now say, Microsoft Mobile.
Remember what the Finnish ‘comedian’, TuomasÂ Enbuske, said after big Gerry corrected Shearers Finnish myth last year?
“We have Kimi Raikkonen … you have sheep. Â We have Linus Torvalds [creator of Linux computer software] … you have sheep. Â We have the Angry Birds game … you have sheep.Â We have Alvar Aalto [architect] … you have sheep.Â We have Nokia … you have sheep. Â We have Martti Ahtisaari [Nobel winner] … you have sheep. Â Thank you. Greetings from Finland.” Â Read more »
David Shearer is a big fan of Finland…perhaps he will soon start suggesting this solution, taxing unpaid work:
FINLAND’S tax authority is trying to find new ways to increase revenue and is considering going so far as to tax unpaid labour, an official has told public broadcaster YLE.
The tax office was looking at service exchanges in particular, such as time banking, where reciprocal services are exchanged using units of time as currency, or more informal arrangements such as that between two neighbours.Â Read more »
by Alwyn Poole
The NZEI/PPTA are continuing with their pseudo moral outrage around Charter/Partnership Schools in an effort to influence the submission process to government around the relevant Bill. As do some of the political opponents. The level of monologue from them is well below what you would expect in public discourse from people that you would have thought had to have some intellect to get in to the positions they are in. The hype reached a new, and tedious, low in the last few days with the PPTA criticizing John Banks for asking for public submissions on the bill while at the same time setting up a form document so their members donâ€™t have to think to submit:
Then Tracey Martin of NZ First regurgitates some of the rants:
â€śNew Zealand First says the Government is attempting to sneak through unpopular changes which will destroy our public education system.â€ť
â€śThe Education Amendment Bill requires comment on Charter Schools which will become cash cows for foreign investors.â€ť
The other recourse of the unions is to take a mono-cultural country (Finland) where every teacher is required to have a post graduate qualification and say we need to be like them in all of our provisions. Or to state, despite recent trends that we are â€śworld classâ€ť. This ignores the fact that for children from lower socio-economic homes and Maori and Pacific Island communities the differentials are huge (e.g. a 20% differential for Maori to non-Maori and Level 2 NCEA in 2011) and that recent TIMMS reports had NZ sliding. The â€śmore moneyâ€ť argument doesnâ€™t work either â€“ New Zealand is the highest spender per capita in the OECD in this area.
Almost every family will tell you that there is a â€ścould do betterâ€ť aspect to their childâ€™s education. New Zealand is a small incredibly well resourced country and every community should be utterly dissatisfied until our education system is world leading and no child falls through the cracks. The children of this nation are that important. It seems completely against the mentality of the unions and others with a vested interest in education to be positive and put the children first.
What is the Charter School Opportunity?
The model is simple and aspects of it have been applied overseas with mixed results but enough indicators that if it is done well can help many children without hindering others. With an outstanding positive approach in New Zealand this can be completely NZ designed for NZ children and their families and – and where it is relevant â€“ the best of the overseas aspects can be applied also.
The key to success is an outstanding application and permission process and strict ongoing accountability.
Private organisations (with permission) will be able to set up Partnership Schools and offer places to children. Those children will take something like their state funding to the new school (i.e. this is near fiscally neutral). No child will be compelled to attend and the focus (quite clearly under the proposed legislation) is to be on children who are otherwise not achieving. Where schools are oversubscribed a ballot will be applied. If what is offered is not good enough then people will not choose to send their children to those schools.
For Maori and Pacific Island communities this is a genuine opportunity to intervene in the quality of educational outcomes for their children and to take greater ownership of the well being of their youth.
For families where they feel that the â€śone size fits allâ€ť model is not working for their children this is an opportunity to co-operate and work on micro-schools with particular niches that allow their children to get through the qualification hoops and have greater choices going into adulthood.
What is it about the opponents of the policy that they consider that parents lack the ability to make sound educational choices for their own children? Their fear is that parents will line up for these schools in droves (and they will if it is done properly).
It is not that some of these educational innovations that will occur are not occurring in state schools or over time but the inertia is massive and the level of opposition from the unions to any kind of change is a significant barrier.
One aspect used to fuel the opposition fervour is that of saying people shouldnâ€™t â€śprofit from educationâ€ť (e.g the â€ścash cowâ€ť nonsense from Tracey Martin). As I stated in an earlier post Â â€“ this is a complete red herring. Many people already make money through education in NZ â€“ including Tracey Martin Â â€“ most via the taxpayer. Teachers make money (i.e. profit) from educating children, university lecturers in Education make profit from doing so, the education spokespeople of political parties profit from their positions, providers of services to schools make profits (e.g. electricity, IT, plumbers, builders, architects, etc), executives of education unions (e.g. PPTA, NZEI) most certainly financially profit from being involved in education. It is hard to see why many of these people seem to be saying that someone willing to take personal financial risks arenâ€™t worthy of receiving income from it and yet they are.
The second point, also previously made, is that it is highly unlikely that significant profits will be made â€“ the foreseeable opportunities are too small and many of the groups who will be interested will do so on a non-profit basis. However â€“ if an entrepreneur can set up a great school, inspire staff, improve the educational outcomes of a group of children and the flow-ons to their families â€“ is there any real issue with them receiving a return on that? The current opponents would be very hypocritical to maintain that there is.
I have also previously commented on the unqualified teachers aspect but to summarise: Children deserve very good teachers in front of them and what they currently have is a mix and Principals have very little discretion to provide incentives through rewarding good teachers/teaching. Having a degree and going to teachers college is no guarantee of quality and teachers (especially secondary) have long debated the worth of the year at their College of Education as opposed to on the job training and a qualification process through that.
It is also ridiculous to say that time at a teachers college is the only pathway to being equipped to contribute to the education of young people (or is the equivalent of 10 years of medical training as some have tried to imply). In ten years of running a small middle school some examples of â€śuntrainedâ€ť people who have come in and expertly contributed to teaching modules are â€“ marine biologists, lawyers, surgeons, builders, architects, dancers, actors, directors, historians, archaeologists, politicians, pilots, military personal, rocket engineers, athletes, etc. Many, but not all have been volunteers. Is there really an issue with these people being paid for their time?
It has clearly been stated that the proportion and role of non-registered teaching staff will be a matter of school by school negotiation and, obviously, if parents are not satisfied with the quality of teaching their children are receiving they have the â€śqualifiedâ€ť state alternative to revert to.
Some current opponents have also expressed concern that the leader of a Partnership School will not necessarily have been a teacher. People other than teachers can care for children, understand learning, manage staff and may bring a managerial skill set that someone who has spent their career in the classroom has not had the opportunity to develop. A teacher moving into school management has to learn a plethora of â€śbusinessâ€ť skills (e.g. budgeting, property management, personal management) it is precious and again, patch protection, to consider that someone from a business background canâ€™t learn education sector skills.
The children of NZ, current and future, need educators to have ideals and vision. When I was studying at university in the 1980â€™s and 90â€™s one of the main areas of discussion was the major â€śtailâ€ť in New Zealandâ€™s education outcomes, social causes and the flow on effects. There have been improvements but despite the outstanding efforts of many people we are still a long way from solving these problems. Without significant change we will be having the same discussion 20 years hence.
This is a new opportunity and people with the well being of New Zealand children in mind should be in behind it. The aims would be to guarantee that this works for the children that are currently failing while protecting the integrity and enhancing the positive effects of the state, private (fee paying), and integrated systems. We are now in the 21stÂ Century after all and the current prevalent model was designed for the children of the Industrial Revolution not the children of the Information Revolution. The opportunities for young people are outstanding but there is a massive dichotomy in terms of the choices available to those with qualifications and those without. Every effort must be made to find pathways for every child â€“ even if that feels threatening to adults in positions of power within education in New Zealand.
One aspect of submission that is important (and here I agree with the unions) is that these schools must be highly accountable for their use of taxpayer funds. If that is not to be through the OIA (as private organisations) then there must be another very transparent means of accounting for their use of taxpayer funds.
We live in a free thinking democracyÂ with respect for intelligence so I wonâ€™t tell you what to think and/or write.
Declaration of Background and Interest
I had a mother able to break out of an 11 child state home family. I was educated in state schools in Thames and Wanganui. Economics degree, teaching diploma, Masters degree in Education, Post Grad. diploma in Sports Management. Six years teaching at Tauranga Boys, one at Hamilton Boys, four at St Cuthbertâ€™s. For the last ten years I have designed and run Mt Hobson Middle School as a school for 50 children in Newmarket (as a charitable trust) and believe that the model can be broadly applied in NZ communities to improve outcomes for children that attend. Always happy to have people come in to discuss education and see the work we do with children. Three children myself â€“ now at University.
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. Thatâ€™s why the School Teachersâ€™ Pay Review Body, in its report published yesterday, recommends that teachersâ€™ 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 pupilsâ€™ 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 reviewÂ recommends:
-) Performance-based progression for all teachers, based on a schoolâ€™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 thatÂ FinlandÂ 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 â€“ the two top performers in a new EIU index â€“ 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.
1. Finland is regarded as being “raciallyÂ 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.
AÂ homogeneousÂ 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.
Finland’s finance minister makes great deal of sense…perhaps we could swap her for Bill?
The Finnish finance minister,Â Jutta Urpilainen, said in a newspaper interview this morning that she’d consider crashing her AAA-rated country out of the eurozone rather than face paying the debts of another country:
Finland is committed to being a member of the eurozone, and we think that the euro is useful for Finland. Finland will not hang itself to the euro at any cost and we are prepared for all scenarios.
Collective responsibility for other countries’ debt, economics and risks; this is not what we should be prepared for. We are constructive and want to solve the crisis, but not on any terms.
David Shearer is a big fan of Finland and of their hi-tech industry (well Nokia really)…he constantly says we should be following what they are doing.
Hmmm…I’m not sure we should. David Shearer put the politician’s hex on Finland the moment he expressed pride and joy inÂ theirÂ country in just the same way a batsman goes out just when a commentator says they are set for their ton.
Nokia has announced it will close its factories in Finland, Germany and Canada and lay off up to 10,000 workers before the end of 2013.
In this â€śsharpening of strategyâ€ť Nokia will focus on â€śproducts and experiences that make Lumia smartphones stand out and available to more consumers,â€ť invest in location-based services (Nokia Maps) and improve the competitiveness and profitability of its feature phone business.
On the cutting side, besides closing the R&D facilities in Ulm, Germany, Burnaby, Canada and the manufacturing facility in Salo, Finland (the R&D efforts in Salo will continue), Nokia plans to prioritize its key markets, streamline IT, corporate and support functions and reduce costs in its non-core assets.
â€śWe intend to pursue an even more focused effort on Lumia, continued innovation around our feature phones, while placing increased emphasis on our location-based services. However, we must re-shape our operating model and ensure that we create a structure that can support our competitive ambitions,â€ť said Stephen Elop, Nokia president and CEO.
The announcement comes only four months after NokiaÂ announcedÂ it will cut 4,000 jobs globally as it shifts device assembly to Asia.