|
Massey University charter schools analysis now online
This is available through the charter schools menu at left
QPEC submission on 21st century schools
Our submission to the select committee inquiry can be found here.
Notes from QPEC conference now online
The QPEC forum on Saturday 28 April was highly successful. Speakers included John ONeill presenting the Massey University analysis of charter schools research. Martin Thrupp outlined the preliminary findings of the ongoing National Standards research. Presentations ons trategy were made by Paul Goulter adn Sandra Grey. Notes and powerpoint presentations can be found on the resources page.
Students from low-income families pay the price
Media Release - 4 May 2012
The budget changes to student loans and allowances foreshadowed by Tertiary Education Minister Stephen Joyce reinforce the difficulties faced by students from low-income families in accessing quality tertiary education.
The four-year freeze on the parental-income threshold for access to the student allowance will mean the struggle for these students gets that much tougher as inflation cuts their access to what is already a minimal payment.
Similarly the refusal to extend the student allowance beyond four years makes it harder for students from low-income families to enter the longer, more expensive courses such as medicine or optometry. They will be left high and dry after four years.
These students, often Maori and Pacifica students, are already on the margin in terms of representation in higher level tertiary study and the hard work done by families and schools in low-income communities to get them into high-quality tertiary education study will be further undermined with these changes.
At the other end the post-graduate road is tougher as well with repayment requirements up 20% to 12% of earnings over $19,084. This will shorten repayment times but make a post-graduate experience that much more difficult.
The government’s arguments for the changes don’t stack up. Yes, we are in an economic recession but the government’s priority was $2 billion in tax cuts for the top 10% of income earners two years ago with the shortfall to be picked up in this case by tertiary students from low-income families.
We should be removing barriers to tertiary education for these young New Zealanders rather than adding barbed wire and broken glass to the top.
John Minto
National Chairperson
QPEC
AGENDA FOR QPEC FORUM AND AGM
SATURDAY 28 APRIL
ST COLUMBA CENTRE, VERMONT AVE, PONSONBY
AT 10AM
The day will be organised as follows:
10am to 1pm. A series of speakers will address core issues in education,
John O'Neill from Massey University will speak on the Massey Policy Group's report on charter schools research and the implications for New Zealand's 'trial'.
Martin Thrupp will report the findings of his recently-completed research into National Standards in NZ schools.
Paul Goulter will examine strategic issues facing teachers in the current environment
Sandra Grey will examine strategic issues in the tertiary sector.
John O'Neill will also report briefly on his class size research, and one or two other QPEC members will update teh forum on issues they are working on.
LUNCH WILL BE AT 1PM FOR 30 MINUTES
The AGM will follow lunch. Many members wish to get away in time for the Aotearoa is not for sale march which starts at 3, and we will try to be finished in time.
Press Release
Charter schools group would not dirty their nice shoes in New Zealand’s poorest areas
Minister of Education Hon. Lady Hekia Parata correctly stated this week that every New Zealand school is a charter school. Yet today she has announced a group who will lead the introduction of American-style charter schools in New Zealand.
“Supposedly there to benefit the poor and undeserved, the committee is packed full of people who would never dirty their shoes in the poorest areas of South Auckland and Eastern Christchurch”, says John Minto, QPEC spokesperson on charter schools.
“There is Vicki Buck, who helped set up two discovery learning schools in Christchurch, which are innovative but serve a middle-class clientele. Vicki’s work, ironically, demonstrates that there is already an option for parents to set up schools under section 156 of the Education Act.
“There are two senior Māori persons, both of whom support kura kaupapa Māori schools that are already able to be started and run under section 155 of the Education Act.
“There is a Pacific representative from a polytechnic.
“Then the obligatory private school, private business ACT types”.
An initiative which is supposed to be about providing high quality education for the poor does not have a single person on the committee with the slightest knowledge or experience in working with underserved children, says John Minto.
Critics of the ACT – National charter school agreement argue that it is not about raising achievement but about re-inventing the failed bulk-funding arguments of the 1990s, de-unionising the teaching workforce and bringing business into the education sector.
“It’s like a replay of the Lockwood Smith years all over again”, says John Minto. “The aim is clearly to make progress on the right-wing agenda for the New Zealand schooling system, not to improve academic achievement”.
John Minto says the sad thing is that this experiment is most likely to affect the overall achievement of New Zealand’s most underserved children. “Opening a new school in a poor area means that surrounding schools will lose students, staff and funding. Programmes already in place will be weakened. It is not a zero-sum game”.
After twenty years of charter schools in the United States, that country ranks far below New Zealand in key indicators of school success. Charter schools in any form are not going to solve schooling problems.
John Minto 021 447 067 or 09 846 3173 (home)
National Standards
Press Release: Quality Public Education Coalition - QPEC
Thursday, 5 May 2011, 12:02 pm
The propaganda machine
The Quality Public Education Coalition (“QPEC”) is disappointed that the propaganda from the Government and its agencies on the debacle of National Standards continues unabated.
The Education Review Office (“ERO”) reported again that 90% of schools were either “well prepared” or “had preparations underway” to work with the National Standards at the end of 2010. “Be Prepared” may be the Scout movement’s motto but it is a poor indicator of how many schools actually assessed their students against the Standards and reported this information to parents in their end of year school reports.
But according to the Minister of Education, full implementation had been expected during 2010:
“National Standards will be introduced into primary and intermediate schools next year, and schools will report progress against them to parents in plain English at least twice a year.”
Anne Tolley, Hansard, 9 December 2009
ERO’s lack of understanding of what is really happening is nothing compared to that shown by Professor Gary Hawke, chairperson of the National Standards Sector Advisory Group (“NSSAG”). His release talked of a gap between reality and rhetoric. QPEC agrees but wonders what the reality truly is?
The excellent survey of 350 schools, carried out last year by the NZ Council for Educational Research (“NZCER”), revealed the following:
• “85% of the principals and 86% of the teachers agreed or strongly agreed that National Standards will not change the pattern of student achievement much because they already identified individual student needs and worked hard to increase rates of learning progress.
• Only 11% of the teachers agreed that using National Standards would give them more insight into the learning needs of their students compared to what they had from the assessments and evaluations they were using last year.
• And, only 12% of trustees agreed that the use of National Standards would definitely improve student achievement levels in their school.”
So, what’s the reality and what’s the rhetoric?
QPEC supports the stance taken by the more than 300 schools that are members of the Boards Taking Action Coalition: “The National Standards are fundamentally flawed, confusing and unworkable and that our schools have no confidence in them.”
QPEC calls on the Prime Minister, who has himself acknowledged these flaws, to call a halt to this fiasco. It is time to work with the education sector to bring about a workable solution to the challenge of lifting student achievement and giving all students access to a quality education.
ENDS
QPEC Newsletter - January 2011 - view here
THE AUCKLAND GRAMMAR / CAMBRIDGE EXAMS MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL LOVE-IN
Media Release: 17 January 2011
QPEC is disgusted that Auckland Grammar, the state school attended by the children of many of this country’s richest and most prolific families, has turned its back on New Zealand’s national examinations in favour of a British franchise that trades on its connections to Cambridge University.
Cambridge International Examinations (CIE) is the modern version of the system that saw the British Empire bring education to the colonies during the 20th century. Cambridge still provides examination services to Botswana, Namibia and Swaziland.
It gets its prestige from the Cambridge name, and as its core colonial clientele fell away in the second half of the 20th century, has looked for new markets for its products.
Not surprisingly, as New Zealand has a better schooling system than the UK and almost every other country Cambridge is in, New Zealand students do well in Cambridge examinations. Cambridge has rewarded Auckland Grammar and other Cambridge schools in New Zealand with lots of gold cups and plaques, which bring the schools prestige. In return the Association of Cambridge Schools in New Zealand is its number one partner, bringing the Cambridge system mutual prestige in return.
The national examination system of Botswana has new status because a group of New Zealand schools, led by Auckland Grammar, have sought to differentiate themselves from New Zealand’s excellent system.
To use the posher language that Auckland Grammar might prefer, they are acting like utter cads. More straightforwardly, the school is traitorous in stating it will not make NCEA available to all students. And again, the school’s decision is illegal. Disgusting behaviour for a role-model school, don’t you think?
The Cambridge examination system is not better than the NCEA. It is old-fashioned and rusty, and is only relevant to New Zealand when New Zealand Schools have designed new Cambridge examinations for their students to sit!!
QPEC Chair Liz Gordon has fought against the introduction of Cambridge examinations into state schools for a decade. She objects to state funding being used to support the Cambridge franchise, and that certain schools are using the Cambridge name to leverage increased market value for their schools, and attempting to discredit our superior national system. Trevor Mallard as Minister refused to ban the entry of Cambridge exams, and Liz, through QPEC, is now calling on the Minister Anne Tolley to review the use of these examinations in state schools with a view to severely limiting their use.
Liz Gordon, National Chair
Venal policy driven by the one percent rump
MEDIA RELEASE - 27 September 2010
National’s decision to support ACTs voluntary student membership bill is an
outrageous example of the venal policy tail wagging the dog, according to Liz
Gordon, National Chairperson of QPEC.
“This policy goes back to the 1990s when students’ associations all over the
country mobilised in protest over steeply rising tertiary fees”, said Dr Gordon.
“There was a small rump of students who did not want to be associated with
such protests, and began to push for voluntary student membership to hobble
the voice of students”, she said.
While a ‘compulsory voluntary’ law was passed, the Labour Alliance Government
later repealed that in favour of what became known as the ‘voluntary
compulsory’ rule, which meant that students at particular institutions could
decide for themselves via a referendum whether to maintain compulsory
membership.
“That law has worked effectively for nearly a decade. As fees have been capped
there has been little protest, and most students’ associations have gone about
their business providing services for their students and giving them a voice.
“But what remained in ACT was a small and venal group from the 1990s who
were determined to force voluntary membership using a ‘scorched earth’ policy,
which would extinguish the voice of students as well as a wide range of services
offered on campuses”.
At the select committee hearing on the bill, Dr Gordon told National Party MPs
that they had no policy and no mandate to support the bill, and that the current
legislation was working well. “The one question I got was about individual X
who might not want to join, and also objected to the alternative – paying the
fees to charity. For the sake of poor individual X, National seems willing to pull
down the whole structure of student voice and support within NZ tertiary
institutions. It is ludicrous and very disappointing."
Liz Gordon
National Chairperson
Government appoints weasel to guard kiwi eggs
Media Release - 10 September 2010
The Quality Public Education Coalition is dismayed but not surprised to see ACT leader Rodney Hide placed in charge of public/private partnerships for the building and maintaining of schools.
Hide has taken over as Associate Education Minister from former Act Deputy Leader Heather Roy and he will be responsible for presenting the business case for a private company to build and own new schools which are then leased back to the government on a likely 30-year contract.
There are many cases overseas where public/private partnerships have been disastrous for taxpayers because private companies borrow the money at higher rates than it would cost the government and because the contracts typically contain built-in bailouts to protect the private company from fiscal risk which stays with the taxpayer.
Overseas experience is littered with disastrous tales of private companies using these contracts to loot the public purse. Mr Hide believes in privatisation at all costs and the cost may be high, but he will never be held accountable. The government has appointed a weasel to guard the kiwi eggs.
Anne Tolley made the announcement of Hide's appointment at the height of public distraction with the Canterbury earthquake. She also announced Hide will take responsibility for special education and yet a less qualified person would be hard to find, given his bullying approach and ‘survival of the fittest’mentality.
It seems clear the government will use Hide to do the heavy lifting on public/private partnerships and partially insulate National from the downstream disaster. But no-one will insulate the public, who will end up picking up the cost.
Liz Gordon
National Chairperson
Government voucher proposal has five major flaws
Media release: 17 February 2010
The very worst of policy making
“The Step Change proposal released yesterday proposes to allow non-qualified educators in community settings to educate the hardest-to-teach students in New Zealand, receiving only two-thirds of the funds that schools get (with the final third paid once success is achieved), with no capital development money and no system of educational review”, said Liz Gordon today.
Dr Gordon said there are five major flaws in the report: Click here to read the release.
Read also this excellent blog from Russell Brown which gives the lie to Heather Roy's proposals.
QPEC National Chair Liz Gordon released this statement on Wednesday February 3rd in response to the government spending $200,000 to promote national standards:
Taxpayer’s money will spread disinformation to... taxpayers
The National Chairperson of QPEC, Dr Liz Gordon, said that John Key has been misled by his Minister and officials into spending taxpayers’ money to spread incorrect information about the findings of an Education Review Office (ERO) report.
“I am not excited about having a Prime Minister that repeats the untrue statements of others. A few moments checking the report would reveal the truth, and he should have checked”.
Liz Gordon says that John Key is trying to convince parents that National Standards are worth the time and effort being put into them. But, she says “he has had to resort to disinformation to make the case”.
QPEC Vice President, Emeritus Professor Ivan Snook, undertook a detailed analysis of the ERO report on ‘reading and writing in Years 1 and 2’ at the end of 2009. Snook’s work covered all the claims made at the time by the Minister, and now repeated by the Prime Minister.
Key stated that “two thirds of principals and senior managers were not properly managing assessment”. If true, this would be a damning claim. But the ERO report is about the first two years only, and schools have always seen these as essentially classroom focused years, where the teacher, often with smaller classes, has the opportunity to get to know and manage children’s learning intimately, giving immediate feedback and invoking remedial techniques at will. In short, top down management of assessment in beginning classrooms is often not judged appropriate in schools. Snook quotes the ERO report which stated principals “trusted their junior school teachers or leaders who knew the students well.” Hardly an indictment on schools!
Key goes on to state that “30 percent of teachers were not doing a good job of teaching reading and writing”. ERO rated teachers (subjectively – no explicit tests were used) as High (26%), Good (43%), Adequate (21%) or Limited (10%) on the quality of their teaching of reading. The 30% covers both ‘adequate’ and ‘limited’ categories. In his analysis, Ivan Snook notes:
But surely, if the teaching is “adequate” it is “adequate” (not excellent or outstanding but adequate) and a more honest reporting would place the unsatisfactory teachers at 10% rather than 31%.
The third claim that Key makes is that “many principals aren’t adequately sharing their school’s achievement information with their communities”. Snook comments:
What the ERO review found was “In some schools that were working with a cluster of other schools, a professional development facilitator had collected, or assisted with data analysis. However, some teachers and leaders ignored this information or did not share it with their school community.” (p 38).
Liz Gordon said that “Key was reported as saying that national standards would identify poor performers and demand more from them. The Minister of Education has consistently refused to explain how this will happen. In a press release just yesterday, she said ‘Children who are slipping behind will be identified so teachers and parents can help them improve before it’s too late.’ What’s new in that?
“QPEC thinks the $200,000 disinformation money should be spent on a high quality, detailed study of what needs to be done to improve the literacy of the bottom 20 percent of learners. All educators would support such a study.
Assessment expert and Co-director of the Educational Assessment Research Unit at the University of Otago, Lester Flockton, has examined the government's claims and measured them against the reality of national standards.
Read the government spin here.
Lester has produced this letter to parents:
Dear Parents, Students and Teachers
National Standards: there’s more to this than meets the eye!
I fully support the positions of respected educational organisations, experts and leaders throughout our country who endorse quality teaching, high expectations, and standards of achievement appropriate to the individual student. I also share with those organisations and experts my deep concern and strong opposition to the National Standards regime that the Minister of Education wants to impose year by year on every primary and intermediate child - from five year-olds onwards.
Claims that National Standards will benefit all children, parents and teachers sound good, but are far from true and quite misleading. There is huge and compelling evidence from around the world that warns of the harm that National Standards can do to the quality of children’s schooling. Considerable international experience (e.g. USA, England) provestheir outright failure to “fix” underachievement or improve learning.
Parents want to be confident that their school is doing its best for their children, and that it is a good school. Most parents want to know how well their children are doing at school – where they are succeeding, where they need to improve, and what they can do to help their children’s learning. I agree with and work to these expectations. However, National Standards and reporting as designed by the Ministry of Education, can only give very narrow and even misleading answers.
Because of the potential flaws and harm that can be done by the systems the Minister of Education is pushing onto our schools and children, consideration is being given to conditions that will have to be met before agreeing to try National Standards. It is fair to expect a fully independent, Government funded evaluation into whether National Standards do what is claimed. We need to be convinced that National Standards do not undermine a well-rounded and modern education for our children. We also need to be convinced that the reporting of National Standards will not label or harm our children, our schools and our communities. Any full implementation of national standards would depend on positive evidence from a thorough investigation.
The public has a right to know the truth of the matter. Education leaders are disturbed that the Minister of Education fails to take notice of sound and expert advice about flaws in this Government policy despite numerous attempts to get her to understand the implications of her policy. Many are also specially worried about the lasting damage National Standards could do to a well-rounded education for our young people, and the quality of teaching and schooling in New Zealand. These are held in very high regard around the world.
Thank you for taking the time to think about what National Standards could do to our children and schools. Any change needs to be proven to be good change – for our children. There is absolutely no proof that National Standards will work. There is a lot of well-justified doubt, and continuing misleading statements from the Minister of Education who takes comfort from the general public’s lack of sufficient insights into what National Standards mean and could do. It is costing the tax payer millions of dollars at the expense of other important provisions. The fact sheet with this letter summarises the truth of the matter. Your support is appreciated.
The teachers union NZEI is conducting a national bus tour to raise awareness with parents. See what is happening at this link:
http://www.handsupforlearning.org.nz/
QPEC National Vice Chair John Minto has blogged about it:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/blogs/frontline/3284466/Preparing-for-baked-bean-education
Associate Education Minister and Maori Party Co-leader Pita Sharples has grave concerns:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/politics/3282549/Sharples-Grave-fears-about-national-standards
QPEC 2010 AGM - Advance Warning
QPEC's 2010 AGM will be held in Auckland on Saturday April 10th at the St Columba Centre, Vermont Street, Ponsonby. More details will follow. Put the date in your diary now. All welcome.
QPEC's Liz Gordon challenges Destiny Church
Campbell Live, Friday 30th October 2009
http://www.3news.co.nz/Schools-of-the-Destiny-Church/tabid/367/articleID/127594/cat/221/Default.aspx
Literate but ignorant? Our children’s future, part II.
Press release 23 October 2009 – UPDATED FROM YESTERDAY’S RELEASE
Yesterday, QPEC chair Liz Gordon put out a release on behalf of QPEC discussing the government’s decision to focus on literacy and numeracy standards, at the same time withdrawing teacher support for science, languages, the arts, health and technology.
|
