Would you trust your kids with this principal?

Here’s the latest odious little creep – from the ever-decreasing band of shabby principals – to hoodwink his local paper by opposing National Standards because they are “elitist”.

Kevin Jephson is a well-known anti-government protestor. His bile-filled letters are regularly in the Dom Post.

This poses a few questions. The idiot who wrote this story hasn’t bothered to question anything this little shit says. Why not?

What reasons could Jephson have for not wanting the government and parents to get any information on how kids are doing in his shabby little school?

I can tell you why. His latest ERO report shows the school is a basket-case.

Forget all the touchy-feely stuff in there. This is the important part:

The board is now ready to embark upon self-review processes. Extended reporting to trustees of schoolwide student achievement information, particularly in reading, writing and mathematics should better support their planning and resourcing decisions, annual target setting, and subsequent evaluation of how effective the school’s curriculum is in promoting student learning. There has been limited development in the areas identified for improvement since the previous ERO review in 2007.


ERO recommends that, to assist the next stages of school development:

3.1 the board engages external advice to assist its implementation of high level school self review as part of its governance role; and

3.2 the principal supports the board by providing it with extended reporting on student achievement to inform its self review and decision making.

In other words, the board needs help and the principal hasn’t even been giving his employers, the board, any info on how the kids are actually doing in reading, writing and maths.

ERO says it will review the school in 2 years. This is bad. Good schools get 4 and 5 year reviews. A 2 year review means the school has serious problems that need to be addressed.

So no wonder the principal doesn’t want anyone getting National Standards information.

But here’s the most important question. If you are a parent, how would you feel about this guy being near your kids every day?


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • sbw125

    Hear, hear.

    Sack ’em.

  • johnopkb

    You reckon images on labour billboards are creepy?  Put this guy’s photo next to the word in the dictionary. 

  • Lcmortensen

    A two-year is not “bad” – it just means there are a few flaws that need attention, but not a serious as if you get a one-year review.

    Standard ERO reviews are three years.

    (Source: one year as a student rep on a secondary school BoT, which included an Ero review.)

    • Jester

      Those “few flaws” just being risks to the education and safety of the students.

      Most early childhood services, ngā kōhanga reo, schools and kura kaupapa Māori
      are reviewed on average once every three years. Reviews are undertaken more
      frequently (in one to two years) where the performance of a school or kura
      kaupapa Māori is poor and there are risks to the education and safety of the
      students. ERO may schedule a review in four-to-five years in schools or kura
      kaupapa Māori that have a stable ERO reporting history and demonstrate
      competence in using self review to improve the teaching and learning of

      Sourced from the horses mouth and not its ass: http://www.ero.govt.nz

  • Lofty

    I wouldn’t take this little weasel out in my boat for a fish, I have met this type many times before.. insecure little mans syndrome.  Easy to pick.

  • Kosh103

    LMAO – epic fail on WO’s part. His “interpretation” of what ERO said is most intresting, but rather wrong. And shock horrow, old WO never bothered to do any real investigating to find out what it means. Just went after someone who has a different view than he does like a rabid dog.   

  • Jester

    “There has been limited development in the areas identified for improvement since the previous ERO review in 2007.”

    “ERO says it will review the school in 2 years.”

    Reasonably straight forward kosh. Even an idiot couldn’t interperet any other way than: you have done sod all to improve since the last review so we are back in 2 years to ensure students and their education come first”

    • Kosh103

      LMAO – not quite. If a school is in as bad a shape as ole WO is suggesting, ERO returns within 12 months, and during that 12 months they hound your every step.

      No, this is a Wo beat up.

      • Jester

        With respect Kosh, are you a complete fucking retard? I won’t bother to requote the official ERO statement as it appears it would be casting pearls before swine.

        Regardless here is a quick brief.

        1 – 2 years = poor performance
        3 years = average
        4 – 5 years = stable

        Jephsons school = to be reviewed in 2 years.(ERO)

        Jephsons school = poor performer.

  • Callump

    p { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; }

    This may be a stupid question but
    doesn’t this show that National Standards aren’t required (as ERO are
    doing the job using the existing tools?).

    You may want them for your children but
    I don’t for mine.

    I have researched the issues seen
    elsewhere with National Standards policies that haven’t been properly
    trialled – including the one you keep raising, using them as a tool
    to beat up on teachers/schools rather than as a tool to highlight
    gaps and target resources.

    Do you really need a government to tell
    you how well your 5-10 year old is doing against supposed
    “Aspirational” targets? Especially when these “Standards”
    aren’t aligned with the curriculum. I can she how my daughter is
    doing and I talk to her teacher and school about any questions.

    The government seems to now realise
    that there are issues with the “National Standard” based
    judgements as they now have a project under way to develop a rubric
    to assist with OTJ’s. Shouldn’t this have been done before rolling it
    out nationally? Shouldn’t it have been trialled to prove it actually
    does what it aims to do and resolve any issues before unleashing it.

    You could probably take the money being
    spent on NS and tighten up ERO further and provide those external
    resources to help small schools get in shape and still come out
    financially on top.

    I can’t support a policy that is
    taking what is a top ranked education system. Applying narrowly
    focused standards (that have caused more issues than they have solved
    everywhere they are introduced) and the worst one unfortunately for
    my child is trying to iron out the issues while she is going through
    it, because the government doesn’t believe in due process and
    trialling and proving the standards.

    I agree that something had to be done
    to solve the gap and reporting issues. I would just expect that that
    a Standards policy would be based on proven systems or carefully
    trialled to prove they work before rolling them out Nationally.

    Why can’t there be schools that use the
    standards (so you can send your children there) and those that use
    current proven assessment models (So people like me can send there
    children there).

    If you can actually provide a real
    longitudinal study that shows that National Standards in its current
    format actually works please let me know.

    You must pity those poor parents that
    have chosen a private school for there children, How do they get on
    without National Standards. Has a private school put there hand up
    and said how wonderful they are? Again let me know if you know one.

  • notavictim

    that have caused more issues than they have solvedeverywhere they are introduced)
    not in our school mate, hardly any change at all except that now teachers MUST report in plain language and INFORM parents where there child is at, and they are accountable. We were told in Dec our child was fine and doing well, when he moved to a different teacher we were told he was 2 years behind and had major gaps in his knowledge. This after 18mnths of the previous teacher saying he was fine, to busy teaching art instead of the core curriculum.

  • Callump

    Noavictim I believe
    that parents want clear reporting.

    You say that National
    Standards are providing the clear reporting you want. Unfortunately
    for my self National Standards will provide nonsense reporting as my
    daughter attends a Steiner school which delivers the New Zealand
    curriculum in a different order to mainstream schools.

    NOTE: I chose Steiner
    education for my child. Don’t get me wrong I want my daughter
    academically able to choose which is why I seriously reviewed the
    results of children graduating from Steiner schools before making my

    You may (and probably
    do) disagree with my choice but freedom of choice and not nannying is
    what National is supposed to be about isn’t it?

    Unfortunately this
    policy currently dictates that my child must be assessed against the
    standards which aren’t aligned with the order the curriculum is
    delivered (Actually as aspirational targets they don’t align with
    mainstream education either from what I can see) and even worse the
    NAG then dictates that the “student” must be reported to
    against National Standards targets and goals.

    So in my case we have a
    waste of teacher time assessing children we wouldn’t expect to be at
    the “National Standards” but worst of all breaking the
    Steiner model by reporting to children where they are against these

    Even if I chose a
    mainstream education for my child I would feel that the National
    Standards provide misleading information. There are a few questions I
    would have at this time when given the information you have about
    your child:

    1 – What target is my
    child behind i.e. The aspirational standards or the actual norms in
    relation to the NZ curriculum, which I would see as a more valid

    2 – Would the original
    teacher (using Overall teacher assessment) report my child at the
    same level/issues?

    3- Was this result
    based on single tests aStle etc. and could be a bad day for the

    I personally feel that
    there is a real danger that parents will act to early on the
    information they are given against stretch targets which have the
    real possibility of attacking one key piece missing from standards
    which (as highlighted by the recently released MoE longitudinal study
    available at
    is the attitude of children/students to learning an their

    At the end of the day I
    support the right for you to choose how you want your child assessed
    and reported on and to, all I request is that I have the same choice
    to use a proven model.