Do you agree with the teachers' unions that it's an outrage that Erica Stanford is taking the Treaty obligation out of the Education Act, or do you agree with Erica Stanford that it needs to come out?
Now, I'm asking you this question because I honestly cannot understand why the teachers' unions are causing uproar over this, because it seems to me to be a clear case that this should come out.
It hasn't helped lift Māori achievement in the five years it's been in the legislation. In fact, going by just one metric, which is the proportion of Māori students leaving school with no NCEA qualification at all, it's getting worse.
It was 24 percent in 2021, it's now nearly 28 percent at last count.
So if this thing isn't helping, then it shouldn't be there - because all it is then is just virtue signalling and distracting schools when they should be, as the minister said, laser-focused on educating kids.
So this is where I ask my question - because this is where I get confused. If it doesn't have to be in there, then why are the unions picking this fight? Why are they fighting for yet another pet ideological project?
Did they not learn from the allergic reaction that parents had to the news that the number one thing on the PPTA's agenda for the meeting with the minister was Palestine? That went down like a cup of cold sick.
Is it not obvious to the unions that they are losing the patience of parents who've already had a guts-full of an education system that isn't educating their kids - and the teacher unions making excuses for it, and the teacher unions not wanting to have to do more work?
So it's one of two things that's going on here for me, right?
Either teacher unions really just cannot help themselves when it comes to yet another political distraction and a chance to give a National Party a bloody nose, or they know something that I don't - which is that there is enormous support out there for them fighting the good fight on the Treaty obligation for the boards of trustees. Is that happening?
Am I missing something here? Is there massive support out there for teachers who are fighting this? Or are they burning parents' goodwill because they can't help themselves yet again fighting with a National-led Government?
Heather du Plessis-Allan is a journalist and commentator who hosts Newstalk ZB's Drive show HERE - where this article was sourced.
16 comments:
The blindingly obvious answer to your question Heather is that the whole Treaty issue and “Govt obligations” shouldn’t be in any legislation. The reinvention of the Treaty over the last 40 years to mean something that was never intended originally is a complete nonsense! We’re all Kiwis and should be treated equally, not split by faux racial differences.
No, they are not justified in being upset about adding distractions to learning complex subjects with clear objectives, such as maths and science. Building up competencies in those fundamental tools for success in life should be the primary objective.
If those incompetent lefty so-called teachers are upset, Stanford must be doing something right. Maybe they'd get more sympathy if they'd not been happily overseeing such a failure of education over the past few years.
Remember that teachers spend their days in rooms that are full of children, with children’s minds and childish ideas and behaviour. Mired in that environment, it’s hardly surprising that teachers would throw their toys out of the cot too when they don’t think they are getting their way.
There should be no Treaty obligations in any legislation.
The Treaty is a political issue. Teachers' unions are professional bodies, not political ones. The unions can legitimately put forward views about how they can meet their legal obligations but it is Parliament and the Executive who determine what those are.
It is blatantly obvious that the unions are politically motivated. They are clearly focused on protecting their own future at the expense of the interest of the professionals they represent. Parties on the left support the unions, the unions support the parties on the left.
Erica Stanford is undoubtedly the best thing that has happened to Education for decades - one would think any teachers worth their salt would be grateful.
The Unions, as so much else, have been artfully infiltrated by the pro maori movement. Any not directly aligned quit for fear of cancellation. The same has permeated many school boards. Toning down of the pro maori policy will make teaching attractive again to those objective types most likely to be good at science and "maths", topics where proficient teaching is so lacking today. Few things are more frustrating to the industrious than maori twaddle in time frittering maori time. Whilst there is forever reference to the Treaty the sense of entitlement of maori students is heightened. With such presumed privilege they convince themselves that it is beneath their dignity (mana) to work to achieve.
Equity and equitable refers to fairness, not necessarily equality of output. It is entirely equitable (ie fair) if a non attending lazy, student does not achieve with the industrious. (And it is inequitable to the able to lower the whole teaching standard in an effort to disguise the deficiencies of some others.)
It is incredible how all the references to the Treaty entered legislation. Very few counter voices seem to have been raised. It is incredible that so many have been so naive. The msm so effectively blocked criticism that very few of the public awoke or are awake to the damage being wrought.
Erica Stanford leader, Simeon Brown deputy imho.
I have always thought the former an obvious choice. They have both handled the toughest portfolios really well, swimming against the msm current constantly.
Stanford has a good nose for bullshit ( climate stuff excepted) and has had real world commercial experience.
Pity she is in the wrong party.
I'm with Reggie on this! It is so blindingly obvious to anyone with half a brain cell, so what is the excuse of our political class for perpetuating this? I watched the debate and the left were throwing up the most inane and obscure attempts to keep the Treaty BS in Sect 127 such that I wanted to chuck something at the TV. I am also sick and tired of them calling for a party vote on each point to waste time when it is clear which way the verbal vote has gone. We are paying them for their obstructive behaviour. Rip the Treaty BS out of it all - all in favour say "Aye".
I have never understood why we care what unions think about operational matters, with possible exception of health and safety issues.
They are advocates for their members on employment matters not the content of the curriculum or board policy statements.
How does the removal of this effect their members employment, same terms and conditions as yesterday I would have thought.
Well, as someone who made a submission pushing for this very change, I'm delighted the Minister has had a rethink. But, as they say the devil is in the detail and I shall await being too excited until I've seen the actual wording of the revision.
As for anon@8.14, the failure in our education system has been going on a lot longer than "the last few years" and, as for Chipkins' comments, we all know how utterly useless he was in the Education portfolio role and he would do himself (and all of us) a favour by pulling his head in - just as the Teachers' Union should similarly do for much the same reason.
But, alas, I see the Minister is still harping on about 'equitable outcomes' for Maori students. Without defining such and who is to be the judge, this is as nebulous and ill-advised as mentioning 'giving effect' to the Treaty and its unstated 'principles'. Any such 'equity' should be the same for all students - period. And if you don't turn up, or apply yourself, isn't the expected poor outcome 'equity' in practice?
Excellent article, Heather.
Like most of the comments above I agree that the "Treaty" should not be part of the school curriculum. One of the reasons (and there are many) is that it is promoted in schools in a very false, pro Maori, anti colonial manner.
I think it is an outrage the treaty ideology is the teachers' unions is their top concern at all, regardless of whether one believes it should be included or not.
Anecdotally, I gather parents are widely against this. Also anecdotally, I get the impression many, if not most, school trustee boards are predominately comprised of those who want ideology-based classrooms.
If only that was true.
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.