1. An interesting article re moving away from State Schools altogether.
I believe that there are a number of reasons why the Australian system now appears to be moving well ahead of NZ. You can stipulate the others but the fact that nearly 36% of students are in private schools in Australia and less than 4% in New Zealand.
This article – raises many interesting points – e.g.
I believe that there are a number of reasons why the Australian system now appears to be moving well ahead of NZ. You can stipulate the others but the fact that nearly 36% of students are in private schools in Australia and less than 4% in New Zealand.
This article – raises many interesting points – e.g.
“Thus, ‘modern education’ has abandoned the school functions of formal instruction in favor of molding the total personality both to enforce equality of learning at the level of the least educable, and to usurp the general educational role of home and other influences as much as possible.”
2. In a small nation like NZ we are far more prone to pendulum swings in “best practice”.
In our current situation I believe that it will be shown up in the directives that every school must deliver “structured literacy” to every child. As I have pointed out to some proponents – just my three children alone would have been lost to the system as they were proficient readers of chapter books at 5yo and had heard books such as The Lord of the Rings read to them from 3yo. Someone asking them to say: rat, cat, fat, twat … would have seen them disappearing into the distance. Plus – the very best programme can only have, at best, marginal gains – if the children that need learning the most are not regularly at school. The government needs to point the hose at the heart of the fire.
This article raises good points: e.g.
“If schools want across-the-board gains in reading achievement, using one reading curriculum to teach every child isn’t the best way. Teachers need the flexibility and autonomy to use various, developmentally appropriate literacy strategies as needed.”
3. I was a huge advocate in the last National government for the potential and effect of Charter Schools.
As I have stated – currently – As Minister Seymour has over-promised, underdelivered and attempted to defend the indefensible re Charter Schools.
He has accused me of sour grapes. That is simply impossible given that I have offered to create schools that cost me a lot more than I can otherwise do. Same for a range of other applicants.
Here his Seymour interviewed by Jack Tame on this:
My follow up to Jack Tame has been:
Well done on your interview with David Seymour re Charter Schools.
David thinks a few of us are picking on him. We are not. I am a huge supporter of the potential of the policy. What we are asking is:
2. In a small nation like NZ we are far more prone to pendulum swings in “best practice”.
In our current situation I believe that it will be shown up in the directives that every school must deliver “structured literacy” to every child. As I have pointed out to some proponents – just my three children alone would have been lost to the system as they were proficient readers of chapter books at 5yo and had heard books such as The Lord of the Rings read to them from 3yo. Someone asking them to say: rat, cat, fat, twat … would have seen them disappearing into the distance. Plus – the very best programme can only have, at best, marginal gains – if the children that need learning the most are not regularly at school. The government needs to point the hose at the heart of the fire.
This article raises good points: e.g.
“If schools want across-the-board gains in reading achievement, using one reading curriculum to teach every child isn’t the best way. Teachers need the flexibility and autonomy to use various, developmentally appropriate literacy strategies as needed.”
3. I was a huge advocate in the last National government for the potential and effect of Charter Schools.
As I have stated – currently – As Minister Seymour has over-promised, underdelivered and attempted to defend the indefensible re Charter Schools.
He has accused me of sour grapes. That is simply impossible given that I have offered to create schools that cost me a lot more than I can otherwise do. Same for a range of other applicants.
Here his Seymour interviewed by Jack Tame on this:
My follow up to Jack Tame has been:
Well done on your interview with David Seymour re Charter Schools.
David thinks a few of us are picking on him. We are not. I am a huge supporter of the potential of the policy. What we are asking is:
- Why – according to his own statements – is the reality so different from what he promised?
- Many applicants were bemused by the first round process. David kept telling media (including yourself) that there was enough funding for 15 schools to be established at the beginning of 2025. Many good people and significant organisations (plus people with suitable properties – worth millions – holding off leasing them) took David and the CSA at their word. The applicants were equally bemused when the first 6 tiny schools (and by definition most of them will stay tiny) were announced. Followed by Tipene in December.
- It took an OIA to explain what was really going on. Seymour only has $10m to allocate until June 30 2025 for establishing and running the schools (and $2.5million was used for CSA salaries) – so only small schools could be approved. We have an OIA in to discover when Seymour knew about that funding level – because it is not in keeping with many of his 2024 statements.
- Around that there was much secrecy, applicant blaming and incredibly poor and time delayed processes.
- In the interview Seymour stated that they were further ahead than last time. Not true by two measures:
– 2014 saw 5 start and 2015 saw 4 more start.
– There were more students. For example – South Auckland Middle School started with 120, quickly went to 180 – and had 100+ on a waiting list. That could actually be regarded as good demand. Middle School West Auckland (started 2015) also got to near 200 quickly. Vanguard was over 100 and Raewyn Tipene’s two schools in Whangarei were also well populated. NB: the schools had an average of 85% Maori and Pasifika.
We also know now that the fund through to the end of 2026 is only $123million but, bizarrely, $30million of that is allocated to the CSA, Authorisation Board and ERO. The salaries for advertised roles have been stunning – an assessment of the schools role was advertised for $263k for what I would generously estimate to be a month’s work.
A few things with the State School conversion situation:
1. It is State, State Integrated and Designated Character Schools that can convert. Some considering it might be former Charter Schools but most of those did the numbers and it did not work.
2. What research was done to support the notion that 35 would want to convert anyway?
3. The CSA, Seymour and AB give different answers when asked if the 15/35 ratio is fixed.
4. I think that your question about Seymour and his lack of appeal to Maori is accurate. For David to say that Maori people put off by him are politicising it and are “maybe not the right people” is poor. He is also barely shifting the dial on our attendance crises – and is probably the wrong person in both roles.
A possible theory on why none of the CS this time around in any way challenge the established network is that Seymour did not want to rile the unions (who have been very quiet) in an attempt to try and minimise the opposition to State school conversions.
For David to say that there is a “whole lot of children benefiting” was laughable. 215 out of 850,999 is … umm … a tiny amount.
Tipene should always have been approved as an Integrated School – either by Labour or by the new government. The CS approval for them was cost-saving as there is little/no property funding and no boarding funding the CS model. They have 45 students. The cost of boarding there is $20,000pa – although the Tipene Board is assisting with some of that – which is an expensive option for families.
In summary. We have a genuine education crises in NZ but we are tinkering like only National/ACT can do.
Alwyn Poole, a well-known figure in the New Zealand education system, he founded and was the head of Mt Hobson Middle School in Auckland for 18 years. This article was published HERE
2 comments:
For what its worth Alwyn, the Australian system is completely broken as well. The proliferation of private schools in Australia is very simply the means by which those who can afford it, get their kids out of the public system.
It's incredible how many families suddenly become Catholic around the time their eldest is due to start highschool - it's no coincidence that the majority of the more affordable private schools are Catholic schools.
These people are obviously happy to sacrifice their secular beliefs in order to secure a superior education for their child. The other side of the private/public system in Australia, even for those who can't afford it, is that if your child might wish to secure a spot in an Australian University then they have to go to one of the private schools for the UE exam years. Therefore it is also common for kids to attend public schools right up until the last couple of years of high school - after which they finish their schooling at a private school. Also interestingly, many Australian schools cater to this fact and finish schooling at year 9....the kids going to uni then switch schools to a private school, and the kids not going to uni simply finish their education or become an apprentice.
You can get glimpse into the nicest parts of the Australian public system from watching TV shows like home and away....it's a bit like watching Eastenders, only the cast is more attractive.
Having said that, the primary school system isn't that awful. When moving here my kids went backwards in their reading and writing - and took about 1 year to catch back up to where they were when they left the Australian public primary system.
It's scary to think how far behind NZ's kids are now. We used to have one of the best public systems in the world, but all Labour have managed to do is send it back to the dark ages.
Your method of statistical gathering is totally biased with respect to your condemnation of structured literacy.
This focus on your own family's reading achievement is however very typical of journalists , lawyers and others who have never , obviously encountered a child who has been failed by the system .
My mother Doris Ferry, in 1990s ,became a household name because she had thousands of students from local decile nine schools who required remedial reading help because they had failed to learn to read with Whole Language school methods and yet readily became literate given direct, systematic , cumulative phonics.
Many of her students had come from high income professional homes with a strong commitment to education . They often had had many hundreds of quality books read to them as preschoolers as well as other educational material bought for them. Yet they failed to learn to read in the schools with WL ( whole language ) methods.
I also had a child who had outstanding literacy skills and read ' Lord of the Rings ' for himself when he was 9 years old. However his sibling , with dyslexic and dysgraphia symptoms struggled in learning to read but also became an excellent reader but only after being exposed to an intensive phonic course. They both excelled at comprehension.
I would have to describe your conclusions about structured literacy as very ill informed . Certainly research has found about 30 % of children read apparently effortlessly what ever reading method is used. About another 60 % require some direct phonic instruction to become fluent readers and about 10% who are not necessarily dyslexic need a very intensive course to achieve at the correct reading level for their age.
All children benefit from explicit phonic instruction in learning to spell . More research is done on reading than any other educational topic and there is very sparce research showing whole language or any other method is ever superior to structured literacy.
A brief course in phonics would not damage your child . In the past traditionally in NZ , five year olds who arrived at school literate skipped the first year of school and were promoted to year 2.
I am very distressed Alwyn at your antagonism to structured learning since that , in my view is the answer to many of NZs educational woes . I support Charter Schools but don't believe they will succeed well unless teaching methods , content and values align to more traditional ways ( now also proven by science) which we in NZ had in the past and with which we had outstanding academic results.
Post a Comment