All three potential coalition partners agree that our school system is in a parlous state. While they differ in emphasis, many of their positions are complimentary rather than in conflict.
National’s policy is focussed mainly on what happens in our classrooms. Reform of the two great pillars of education – curriculum and teaching – is the mainstay of their platform.
They have promised to rewrite the curriculum to make it more detailed and include annual progress expectations. There is a strong focus on improving literacy and numeracy.
New teachers will have to demonstrate expertise in literacy, mathematics and science instruction. Existing teachers will be provided with professional development to get them up to speed with the most effective methods of teaching children to read, write and become numerate.
ACT’s policy is more concerned with systems level reform. They want to give parents more choice in how their children are educated. All public schools could opt to become partnership schools, with much more budgetary flexibility and accountability for children’s learning.
Ultimately, ACT aims to revolutionise the way education is funded. The plan is to provide a Student Education Account to parents for each of their children. Parents could spend that money on the early childhood and school education of their choice. When they leave school, students could spend the balance on tertiary study.
ACT also has its sights set on the Ministry of Education. They would like to “strip it back to basics” and devolve many of its current functions to the local level.
New Zealand First’s education policies are more piecemeal. Their most substantial positions are to make Learning Support Coordinators available to all schools and provide extra resources to identify and assist children with learning challenges. It’s probably fair to say that their main policy priorities lie elsewhere.
The parties’ education policies are broadly compatible. ACT’s emphasises systems level change, while National’s is aimed at the mechanics of teaching and learning. New Zealand First’s items can be incorporated straightforwardly.
In education, at least, the three parties could all deliver almost everything they’ve promised.
Dr Michael Johnston has held academic positions at Victoria University of Wellington for the past ten years. He holds a PhD in Cognitive Psychology from the University of Melbourne. This article was published HERE
They have promised to rewrite the curriculum to make it more detailed and include annual progress expectations. There is a strong focus on improving literacy and numeracy.
New teachers will have to demonstrate expertise in literacy, mathematics and science instruction. Existing teachers will be provided with professional development to get them up to speed with the most effective methods of teaching children to read, write and become numerate.
ACT’s policy is more concerned with systems level reform. They want to give parents more choice in how their children are educated. All public schools could opt to become partnership schools, with much more budgetary flexibility and accountability for children’s learning.
Ultimately, ACT aims to revolutionise the way education is funded. The plan is to provide a Student Education Account to parents for each of their children. Parents could spend that money on the early childhood and school education of their choice. When they leave school, students could spend the balance on tertiary study.
ACT also has its sights set on the Ministry of Education. They would like to “strip it back to basics” and devolve many of its current functions to the local level.
New Zealand First’s education policies are more piecemeal. Their most substantial positions are to make Learning Support Coordinators available to all schools and provide extra resources to identify and assist children with learning challenges. It’s probably fair to say that their main policy priorities lie elsewhere.
The parties’ education policies are broadly compatible. ACT’s emphasises systems level change, while National’s is aimed at the mechanics of teaching and learning. New Zealand First’s items can be incorporated straightforwardly.
In education, at least, the three parties could all deliver almost everything they’ve promised.
Dr Michael Johnston has held academic positions at Victoria University of Wellington for the past ten years. He holds a PhD in Cognitive Psychology from the University of Melbourne. This article was published HERE
3 comments:
Good! We expect that education will improve under this new Government. That's why I and many others voted for them!
Improve teacher training, focus on literacy and numeracy and undo the Curriculum Refresh. That should prove a good start.
Sadly - I have other concerns about the two public organizations concerned - one in assessment and the other in policy and curriculum. What am I getting at? See:
https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2022/01/david-lillis-workplace-bullying-in-new.html
https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2022/07/dr-david-lillis-sorry-but-nga-mihi-isnt.html
Bullying cultures help nothing and professional managers who have no subject-matter-expertise, and who view the public service as a place from which to extract a great salary, are a genuine menace.
Lying about staff; physical intimidation; placing staff in Coventry; plagiarizing the work of expert staff; totally unqualified people earning lovely salaries engaging in constructive dismissal of very-highly-qualified staff; covering up of bullying etc etc. I saw the lot and I have lost all confident in both agencies. Trust me on that!
David Lillis
I must support you, David,in your condemnation of the MoE's culture and nature. I see them as one of the most malevolent forces of evil in our society. What worse can you do than destroy a country through destroying children's education ?
I am not alone in believing everything they are doing now is horrific.
However the progressive education ideology, the basis for the MoE's beliefs, saturates academia as well and needs addressing.
In the 1980s, my family was involved in introducing home schooling into NZ, and a core belief of progressive education education that was the issue dictated by the Department, in a court case. Since then I have gradually studied progressive education ideology and practice. To grasp some of this topic, Briar Lipson's free PDF "NZ's Education Delusion' is invaluable for an educationalist or
layperson. Other people who helped me were early phonics campaigners Tom Nicholson and an academic clergyman who lectured in ethics. My grandfather was a innovative principal and educationalist who studied philosophy and was intimately involved in the 1930s to 1950s, schooling when NZ was changing from Traditional Liberal to Progressive Education. He and his colleagues predicted exactly the mess we are in now. One aspect was, for example, that parents would send their children to school to play and need to education them at home.
Hi Gaynor.
We are agreed. My own view is that both organizations need a thorough shake-up and expulsion of the worst bullies. If you are interested in the kind of work I did in education, see:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/617f8fb6541e552969da02d0/t/633c9a748958a62b1872d67c/1664916115045/Understanding_PePs.pdf
Best wishes,
David
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.