| NEWS - up to April 2009 |  |
|
Papers from QPEC AGM—4 April 2009 in Palmerston North The following papers were presented at the 2009 AGM. (The civics paper was presented at the 2008 AGM and updated orally for the 2009 meeting) · “Rust never sleeps”—the creeping privatisation of public education – John O'Neill, Massey University. AGM_-_2009_-_Rust_never_sleeps_-_4_April_2009.doc (31,232 bytes) [HTML Version] · “Invisible Learnings?”- a review of John Hattie's Visible Learning. – Ivan Snook, Massey University emeritus professor of education. (John Hattie's book has been acclaimed by local policy makers and greeted on the international scene as ”the Holy Grail in education.“ But IS it a genuine guide for policy making and practice? Ivan will mount a ”sympathetic critique.“) · “We must educate our masters!”—civics education in schools – Mary-Ellen O'Connor, QPEC national council. AGM_-_2009_-_Civics_-_4_April_2009.doc (38,912 bytes) [HTML Version] · “Blurred lines and muddled thinking” – School integration in 2009 – John Minto, QPEC chair. AGM_-_2009_-_Integ_schools_-_4_April_2009.doc (29,184 bytes) [HTML Version] Three reasons why league tables do not improve schoolingMedia Release—7 April 2009 QPEC is dismayed at reports that the Government intends to introduce league tables in schools. “There are three main reasons why league tables are bad policy”, says Chairperson Dr Liz Gordon. “First, only some things can be measured, and these are not always what is valuable about education. You can only measure achievement, not interest, engagement, passion, social skills and all the other things that go on in schools. “Second, league table tests only tell us what we already know, that kids in wealthy areas do much better in school than kids in poor areas. A league table based on pure socio economic factors will be virtually identical to one based on educational achievement. “Finally, in countries which have league tables, there is strong evidence that teachers are forced to `teach to the test'. This may increase performance on individual indicators, but there is no evidence that populations are better educated as a result. There is evidence that schooling becomes a lot narrower and less engaging for hard-to-teach children”. Dr Gordon says that we already know that there is a hierarchy of school performance based on student background. “The PIRLS studies over the past 20 years have seen NZ drop from first, to 6th, to 13th and now to 24th in the world rankings for literacy. The sole reason is that economic and social inequalities have impacted heavily on the bottom quarter of the population, putting up huge barriers to learning and causing falling levels of literacy. The solutions do not lie in naming and shaming poor schools, nor in celebrating high achievement in Remuera or Fendalton. Policy should not be based on such crude indicators. We need to address causes, not symptoms. “QPEC wants to see effective policies to close the gap, not ones that further alienate those many teachers working in our poorest schools, often against enormous odds”. The release can be read here League_tables_-_mr_-_7_April_2009.doc (46,592 bytes) [HTML Version] Notice of QPEC AGM 2009Saturday 4th April 2009 in Palmerston North at the Palmerston North Public Library Archives Room – entrance off GeorgeStreet (Off street parking in Harvey Norman almost opposite) Agenda The formal AGM will be preceded by a public forum entitled “Current issues for Tomorrow's Schools”. The program for the day is as follows: 9.30am Tea/Coffee available from the library cafe. 10.00am Public Forum with panel – “Current issues for Tomorrow's Schools” (Chair Linda Williams) · “Rust never sleeps”—the creeping privatisation of public education – John O'Neill, Massey University · “Invisible Learnings?”- a review of John Hattie's Visible Learning. – Ivan Snook, Massey University emeritus professor of education. (John Hattie's book has been acclaimed by local policy makers and greeted on the international scene as ”the Holy Grail in education.“ But IS it a genuine guide for policy making and practice? Ivan will mount a ”sympathetic critique.“) · “We must educate our masters!”—civics education in schools – Mary-Ellen O'Connor, QPEC national council · “Blurred lines and muddled thinking” – School integration in 2009 – John Minto, QPEC chair · “A new broom needed”—Tomorrow's Schools in 2009 — Liz Gordon, QPEC Vice chair 12.30pm Lunch provided at the library cafe. 1.00pm QPEC AGM Welcome and Apologies (5 mins) Minutes of 2007 AGM (10 mins) National Chair report (10 mins) Treasurer's report (10 mins) Election of Officers (10 mins)
The proposal to permanently station police in ten South Auckland schools is fraught with problems and should be abandoned. Police already have relationships with schools and visit for a variety of reasons and there is no need to move outside this model to station police permanently in schools. Schools are educational institutions and are not there to provide captive audiences to encourage children to inform on their friends and families. The police say they want to win the trust of young people and hear about gangs and planned criminal activity. However the best way to protect and enhance the community would be through the introductions of civics education throughout our schools. The full release can be read here Police_in_schools_-_18_February_2008.doc (39,424 bytes) [HTML Version] “Graduation” at Westlake Boys' High School unacceptableMedia Release—21 January 2008 The proposed “graduation” policy for junior students at Westlake Boys High School is unacceptable and we expect the government to intervene to prevent the school putting it in place this year. The school proposes refusing to allow students in Form 3 and Form 4 from proceeding to the next year level if they do not reach acceptable standards of homework, punctuality, bringing correct equipment to class and “attitude”. Setting high educational standards and having high expectations of students are very important for every school but the effect of this policy at Westlake Boys' will be more in the line “social cleansing” than improving education. The full release can be read here WBHS_-_mr_-_21_January_2008.doc (39,424 bytes) [HTML Version] Tim Shadbolt is wrongMedia Release 7 January 2008 Invercargill Mayor Tim Shadbolt is wrong to complain at Southland Institute of Technology's loss of some government funding for courses it runs outside Southland. The courses which SIT now runs in Christchurch for example are already available through the local Christchurch polytech and a pointless and hugely wasteful turf war has been fought between the two institutions in recent years. This adds nothing to education but the false notion of choice based on glossy brochures. The focus for SIT should be to provide the highest quality education to all students in its local area rather than to pick the low-hanging fruit elsewhere. We applaud the government's policy to change from “bums on seats” funding to funding based on three year approved plans for tertiary education with the focus shifting to quality education rather than pointless and wasteful competition. Our major criticism is that it has taken Labour almost nine years of lost time to implement the policy. In some ways we can sympathise with a mayor defending his local patch, particularly when operating outside the local area SIT has generated enough income, with the support of local Southland businesses, to develop a “fees-free” policy. But Tim Shadbolt needs to open his eyes and look at the broader picture for all our students. Narrow parochialism has a limited place in education and it would be a tragedy for all young New Zealanders – including those from Southland – if Mayor Shadbolt's campaign to undermine the new funding mechanism is successful. The release can be read here SIT_funding_-_mr_-_7_January_2008.doc (39,424 bytes) [HTML Version] Over 5000 “lost” children are victims of the educational marketplaceMedia release—12 December 2007 The revelation that more than 5000 students are “lost” from our intermediate and secondary schools is an eye-popping statistic and another example of the fallout from the failure of Tomorrow's Schools to deliver quality education to kiwi kids. The 5000 figure was given in Ministry briefing notes to the incoming Minister of Education Chris Carter. When primary numbers are added the figure will be much higher. Once more the government is promising to get to the bottom of these figures and crack down on truancy but the problem is much wider and deeper. It represents systemic failure from the dismantling of the Department of Education from 1989. For the past 18 years increasing numbers of students have fallen through the cracks created by the shift of responsibility for education from government to individual school boards from 1989. The full release can be read here 5000_lost_students_-_12_December_2007.doc (39,424 bytes) [HTML Version] University investigation a sopMedia Release—12 December 2007 The Auckland University Council decision to set up an investigation into the impact of its decision to restrict entry to degree courses is a sop. It has come as an afterthought and shows how distanced this institution is from the public it is supposed to serve. An investigation such as this should have been conducted well before the decision and community input sought. Instead the council voted on Monday to restrict access to degree courses for New Zealand students. This is a reprehensible decision to put its own “status” ahead of the educational needs of New Zealand students. The university has been blinded by self-importance and the mythology that it must compete with overseas universities. It is obvious that the university decision will impact most negatively on students from low-income families – particularly Maori and Pacifica students – who have reached the standard for entrance to university but who will now be locked out of every course. Kiwi kids with the greatest capacity to benefit from university education are to be sacrificed. Minister of Tertiary Education Pete Hodgson has the responsibility for dismantling Auckland university's decision on Friday when he announces further tertiary funding policy. The full release can be read here Access_to_Ak_Uni_-_mr_-_12_December_2007.doc (39,424 bytes) [HTML Version] Government action needed to restrict foreign students – not New Zealand studentsMedia Release—10 December 2007 QPEC is calling on the government for policy change which would enable all New Zealand students who reach the standard for entry to university to be able to enrol. Today Auckland University's Council will discuss a proposal to restrict entry to courses to New Zealand students. QPEC wants a policy change whereby foreign student numbers are restricted to allow New Zealand students to have automatic access to enrol if they meet the standard criteria for entry. This would mean the government providing additional funding to match the difference in university income between foreign students and local students (Local students are subsidised by the government while foreign students pay full fees). In the meantime we are urging the Auckland University Council to delay voting on a proposal to restrict entry from 2009. This is a whole community issue and needs wide community discussion rather than an arrogant university-only decision. The full release can be read here Access_to_Ak_Uni_-_mr_-_10_December_2007.doc (39,936 bytes) [HTML Version] Unacceptable threat to entry to Auckland UniversityMedia Release—12 December 2007 QPEC is appalled at the attempt by Auckland University to restrict entry to courses which currently have open entry. It is a short-sighted and selfish policy proposal which will favour students from high-income families (even more than at present) over students from low-income communities who will be more highly represented in the group which would be excluded under restricted entry. Auckland University is discussing this with a view to making a final decision on December 10th. However this is a fundamental change which needs wide community debate. The university has a high degree of autonomy but it is there to serve the community – it is not there to perpetuate privilege. Already the representatives of privilege are applauding the university's proposal as a return to “elitism” which should be celebrated. QPEC stands unreservedly for high quality in education and high educational standards. This means we want to see more students from unrepresented groups having the opportunity to attend university. Anecdotally it is relatively common for students from low-income communities to scrape through to gain university entrance but them blossom and achieve much better than their entry marks would suggest. The full release can be read here Access_to_Ak_Uni_-_mr_-_3_December_2007.doc (39,936 bytes) [HTML Version] New school curriculum blighted with inclusion of “entrepreneurial” in its visionMedia release—7 November 2007 We are deeply concerned the term “entrepreneurial” has been included in the new school curriculum despite large numbers of submissions on the draft curriculum called for its exclusion. (The present curriculum refers to the generic term “enterprising” while the new curriculum talks about “enterprising and entrepreneurial”) This is a first in New Zealand and is a serious retrograde step. It represents the power of the business lobby which has mounted a well-resourced attempt to skew the curriculum to reflect narrow capitalist values. Business New Zealand welcomes the curriculum and it's easy to see why. Entrepreneurial has a specific meaning which is running a business to make a profit. This is included in the curriculum but such things as the running of co-operatives, credit unions, trustee banks, profit sharing or trade unions are excluded. New Zealand children should develop “economic literacy” but it must be broadly based and encourage children to be challenging and critically question any economic system including our own which has led to so much hardship and suffering. Almost a third of our children grow up in poverty and a large proportion will take up low-paid, part-time jobs for much of their working lives. They need to question and think critically about the economic alternatives to the failure of New Zealand's economy to work well for people aside from small numbers of wealthy entrepreneurs. The place of business values has been toned down in the new curriculum compared to the draft released last year and this is welcomed by QPEC. However the reservations we expressed then remain. Elsewhere we are pleased the Treaty of Waitangi has been returned to its rightful place in the curriculum. It was a shameful response to bigotry which saw it omitted. The release can be read here Curriculum_-_mr_-_7_November_2007.doc (43,520 bytes) [HTML Version] National schools policy just welfare for the wealthyColumn by QPEC Chair John Minto from Christchurch Press—8 October 2007 The last two weeks have seen a flurry of long- awaited policy releases from the National Party. If there's a common denominator then it's increased privatisation of public services and infrastructure in one form or another. In education National has shied away from its more controversial policies like compulsory bulk funding of teachers' salaries and the formation of so-called “trust schools”, but there is plenty to be concerned about. National's first initiative is a proposed increase in funding for private schools. This should not be a surprise because during the 1990s National increased funding for private schools while public schools were kept on starvation subsidies. Government funding for Rangi Ruru Girls' School, for example, increased by 219 per cent ($455,374 to $1,453,645) from 1994 to 1999 while operational funding for public schools was kept below the rate of inflation through most of this time. Just why the best resourced schools supposedly have greater needs than everyone else is never explained. National's second proposal is a privatising policy whereby the corporate sector would build and own new schools with the Government leasing them back and running them as public schools. Most New Zealanders are now inherently suspicious of privatisation. Thank heaven we've learnt something from the economic disasters of Rogernomics. The problem is that National's wealthy backers see these public disasters as successful. Many of them became enormously wealthy through privatisations and they are demanding more of the same. National is presenting the policy to us based on the notion that it is cheaper for the private sector to build, own and maintain schools over the first 25 years of the school's life. The Government doesn't need to front up with the cash. Instead, it just pays a lease for the buildings and land over perhaps 20 to 25 years and then buys the school back. But how could this arrangement possibly be cheaper in the long run? The Government itself can borrow money more cheaply than the private sector, and with private companies out to make healthy profits from such arrangements it's clear the proposal is a rort. There is no educational benefit. It is a policy to deliver unearned income to the corporate sector. Overseas experience confirms this unequivocally. In Canada, for example, these public-private partnerships are more costly and despite claims to the contrary the financial risks for the most part remain with the Government. In Nova Scotia, the provincial government encouraged these lease-back arrangements and there was a flurry of 56 new schools built by the corporate sector. On the face of it the costs were lower and the government claimed it had less debt, but as the local auditor-general, Roy Salmon, said, “there is still a commitment to make lease payments for 20 years, and that is the next thing to a debt”. He went on to criticise the government's rush into these lease arrangements saying “accounting treatment should not drive decision-making”. And this is at the heart of the problems. These deals are based on creative accounting where the calculated benefits all too often evaporate before the ink is dry on the contract. There are plenty of horror stories. Evergreen Park lease-back school in New Brunswick was set up under this arrangement with the local authorities estimating it would cost $184,000 less than if the government funded and built it. In fact, it cost $900,000 more; $400,000 of this came from the extra cost of private finance (paid by the provincial government through the lease), while the government is also paying another $421,000 over the 25-year lease to lease back land they sold to the private sector corporation for just $274,000 in the first place. Independent calculations were done to compare public and private costs of building Horton High School in Greenwich, King's County. The private-sector deal cost $4.3 million more than it would have cost as a public venture. Similar calculations are common for these deals. None of these arrangements are anywhere near the end of their leases yet but there is very real concern that corporations will let buildings deteriorate as the leases approach renewal, leaving enormous bills for the taxpayer. New Zealand had real experience of this after our rail network was privatised. The original private buyer, Tranz Rail, sold out and left deferred track maintenance of around $270m which has to be paid by taxpayers. Meanwhile, the private operators leave with the loot. In some cases, Canadian communities are facing stiff increases in after-hours rental of school facilities for sports practices and so on because the corporate owners want an extra pound of flesh. Serious concerns have been expressed about low- income communities now struggling to find the fees to keep their children in sport and out of trouble. Decent education policy can only be driven by proposals to improve children's learning. There is none of this in John Key's announcements. It's just more welfare for the wealthy. National Party plans for private sector in education are shamefulMedia Release—1 October 2007 Two centrepieces of the National Party's education policy have been announced with more funding for private schools and an invitation for the private sector to be brought in to build and run state schools. The policy seems a repeat of the National government's funding for private schools in the 1990s which ballooned. For example, from 1994 to 1999 government funding for Kings College – one of the country's wealthiest private schools – increased by a staggering 220% (from $632,000 to $2,030,000) while state schools struggled. (Instead of cutting this funding Labour capped it at a total of $40 million for all private schools when it came to government in 1999) National's argument that increasing funding for private schools will make them more affordable for middle-income families is nonsense. During the surge of government funding in the 1990s we are not aware of a single private school which reduced its fees. Instead these schools used government funding to enhance their exclusivity. We find it outrageous that National would prioritise funding for private schools when the needs of public schools are enormous. The full release can be read here School_Funding_-_Nat_policy_-_mr_-_1_October_2007.doc (46,592 bytes) [HTML Version] Early Childhood Education policy a pale reflection of what is neededMedia Release 1 July 2007 20 hours of free Early Childhood Education per week for three and four year olds kicks in today but it is a pale reflection of what is needed. The problems are – (1) The hours are not free: For most centres the government is providing only a subsidy of the real cost. This mirrors the situation with school funding where education is nominally free but parents are asked to pay a wide range of fees and “voluntary donations”. The outcome is that the charges for under three-year-olds will be increased to make up the shortfall for the three and four-year-olds. The government suggested as much last year when the Ministry of Education said that one option was for centres to— “...change the fees for all groups to cover the cost for free ECE” This advice from the Ministry directly contradicts what parents were told at the time the policy was announced. The government then gave assurances that fees for under-3s would not be affected but it is now clear the “free” hours will be part-paid by parents of other children who do not qualify for the “free” hours. (2) Kohanga Reo and Playcentres miss out: Children attending high quality, genuine community building Kohanga Reo and Playcentres will miss the government subsidy for the free hours because these centres typically do not have qualified teachers. On the one-hand this aspect of the policy could be seen to encourage better quality teaching but it necessarily discourages the involvement of parents. Early childhood education is an area of intense interest for most parents and parent involvement which has been championed by playcentres and kohanga reo involves a genuine community-building experience. Parents who meet and work in these centres form binding community networks which are of enormous benefit to the whole community. Parents who make this choice should not have it undermined. (3) Corporate profit comes before quality: The government has extended the policy to private “for-profit” ECE centres. These corporates such as Kidicorp have welcomed the government money and will reap a tidy profit from the more than $50 million they will receive each year. The new funding policy looks at education through the narrow lens of the teacher and the corporate sector rather than the wider context of child, family and community. The release can be seen in full here ECE_-_MR_-_1_July_2007.doc (42,496 bytes) [HTML Version] Schools are no place for brain dead food and drinksMedia Release—11 June 2007 Action to discourage schools from selling food high in fat, salt and sugar are a welcome step in the right direction. The government today will announce changes to the NAGS (National Administration Guidelines) for schools requiring them to take steps to limit the sale of unhealthy food to children. Schools are no place for brain-dead food and drinks. This should mean the end of coke vending machines, fat-filled sausage rolls and potato chips. The full release can be read here Food_sold_in_schools_-_mr_-_11_June_2007.doc (41,984 bytes) [HTML Version] QPEC Seminar on Special Education – Tuesday 3rd April 2007Overviews, issues and recommendations from the seminar are now on the special education page—just click on the special education button above. We are looking forward to feedback from parents, parent groups and schools. $9 billion milestone in size of student debt millstoneMedia Release—28 March 2007 The $9 billion milestone in student debt level has been reached today. It marks the latest stage in the increasing size of the millstone around the necks of students in tertiary education. It marks the failure of government policy to make tertiary education affordable and accessible to young New Zealanders – particularly those from low-income communities. Student fees are now around $4,000 for a year's study and these fees have been rising consistently faster than inflation in recent years under the government's so-called “fees maxima” scheme. Adding insult to injury only about one-third of students qualify for a student allowance. These figures are an indictment of educational policy failure. The full release can be read here Student_Debt_-_MR_re_$9b_debt_-_28_March_2007.doc (36,864 bytes) [HTML Version] Business Roundtable undermines NCEA and public educationMedia Release—27 March 2007 QPEC has been astonished at the media prominence given to attacks on NCEA (National Certificate of Educational Achievement) by a small number of school principals closely connected to the Business Roundtable. There are legitimate concerns with NCEA which groups such as QPEC have highlighted for several years but these principals, John Morris from Auckland Grammar, Byron Bentley from Macleans College and Roger Moses from Wellington College have been given celebrity media coverage for their preference for “gatekeeper” exams which are more beneficial to students from high income families such as those whose children attend their schools. But besides being principals of decile 10 secondary schools each of they are also members of the Business Roundtable's education sub committee, the Education Forum. Bentley chairs the Forum with Moses as Deputy Chair. They sit with Business Roundtable executive director Roger Kerr and representatives of the private education lobbies to promote the policies of the Forum's big business backers. The full release can be read here NCEA_-_BRT_attacks_-_mr_-_27_March_2007.doc (40,448 bytes) [HTML Version] QPEC Chair writes on NCEA—26 March 2007QPEC Chair John Minto's column on NCEA from the Christchurch Press on 26 March 2007 can be read here NCEA_-_23_March_2007.doc (32,768 bytes) [HTML Version] |
|