0 Another Labour policy fail

Labour has gone all-out on Education policy this week. David Cunliffe and Chris Hipkins have rolled out a number of policy initiatives, which doubtless have been developed in partnership with teacher unions. 

After accusing National of "pork-barrel politics" last weekend over the roading announcements, Labour has gone all porcine itself this week. It's tossed out $50 million for school donations, $70 million for laptops and iPads for students, and a plan to spend "hundreds of millions of dollars a year" replacing aging school buildings. We would have thought that happened anyway, but there you go!

Stuff has surveyed its readers on the laptops and iPads plan, and Labour won't like the result:

More than three quarters of respondents describe this as a "hollow election promise", and it's hard to disagree. Who is going to ensure the taxpayer-funded technology is used for its intended purpose? Who is going to meet the cost of replacing lost, damaged or stolen items? And who's going to monitor TradeMe to ensure that losses are genuine?

Labour's policy is well-intentioned, but as with other policies the party has announced, poorly thought out. In fact it seems Trevor Mallard has put more research into his unofficial policy of de-extinction for the moa than has gone into this policy.

Still; the polls could have been worse; they could have been as one-sided as this one:

0 Hypocrisy of the day.

A post from James Stephenson:

According to Stuff, the President of the NZEI, Julie Nowotarski has labelled ACT's education policy "crackpot nonsense" and her equivalent at the PPTA, Angela Roberts, has said that children could become "political pawns" of the ACT party, under their plan to allow Schools to opt out of Ministry control.

Children as political pawns? Sounds dreadful, I wonder what that would look like? Maybe something like this:

The message to parents, that schools and children are the property of the Unions to control, is very clear. My old Secondary School in the UK went "Grant Maintained" way back in 1993, has gone from strength to strength and is now an Academy (the UK's term for Charter School) with a recently-added Sixth Form.

Far from being "crackpot nonsense" this policy from ACT is tried, tested, successful and popular. More like this please Jamie.

0 Some advice for Tamati

The Dom-Post has a profile of Labour's Rotorua candidate Tamati Coffey this morning. Now Mr Coffey doesn't really need profiling, given his graduation from the TVNZ School for Aspiring Labour Candidates. 

But this bit stood out:

He said he was still taking time to come to grips with being a candidate.
"I've been taken under the wing of people like Sue (Moroney) and Nanaia (Mahuta), they were there this morning and are helping me understand all of the problems going on regarding young people," said Coffey.
He said education was the policy area that would likely tip the scales at the September election.
"It's that thing we need to get right for the sake of all of these kids," he said.
The official campaign period begins on June 20 and while Coffey has been on the hustings since he won the confidence of the party in March, he said policy was still weeks from being released.
"Nobody likes the Government's current proposals to spend $350 million on education that's not going to directly benefit the outcomes of children." 

In being mentored by Sue Moroney, it's likely that Tamati Coffey has been spoon-fed NZEI anti-National propoganda. But we'd like to give him the benefit of some advice, and suggests he reads a little more widely.

To say that "Nobody likes the Government's current proposals to spend $350 million on education that's not going to directly benefit the outcomes of children." is an outright porkie, but that's what happens when you start using absolutes like "nobody" and "everybody". It may provide a sound-bite, but it's not the truth.

The PPTA claims to represent 95% of secondary teachers; around 17,000 in all. That's a pretty big bloc of nobodies, and a group with far more experience in the education sector than Tamati Coffey or Sue Moroney. And over the last couple of weeks the PPTA has put aside its traditional suspicion of education initiatives proposed by National. 

We have blogged extensively on this, and even though we are no fans of trade unions we have praised PPTA and its leadership for being open to Hekia Parata's Investing in Educational Success policy. But for Mr Coffey's benefit, here's what PPTA had to say two weeks ago:

The government’s $359 million Investing in Educational Success (IES) program has been a positive example of sector collaboration, says PPTA president Angela Roberts. Roberts welcomes today’s release of the working group report on the initiative which will see schools across the country collaborating rather than competing. From PPTA’s point of view the consultation over IES was comprehensive, robust and genuine, Roberts said. “We stepped up to the challenge and engaged as fully as it is possible to do.” The sector had worked hard together to find pragmatic answers and there had been significant movement from the originally unacceptable cabinet paper, Roberts said. “You know it’s collaboration when it’s hard work – and this was really hard work.” “We feel cabinet has heard us,” she said. That did not mean there would not be further work to be done or challenges in the future. Details of the new provisions would be a matter of collective bargaining, Roberts said.
“This is just the next step. We still have a long way to go to make sure that this lands well in schools and look forward to continuing to be part of the process,” she said.
Roberts was pleased cabinet had affirmed the working group’s final report.
“This is not performance pay and it is not a lolly scramble – it’s an investment that will have a positive impact on our schools and our students.”
In her engagement with teachers and principals they agree that competition is destructive and that something should change.
“This is something PPTA has been working towards for more than a decade, we are pleased a government has finally decided to resource it,” she said.

So here's the choice, Dear Readers. You can take the word of a political novice with no education sector experience that "Nobody likes the Government's current proposals to spend $350 million on education that's not going to directly benefit the outcomes of children.", or you can take the word of one of the major education sector unions that the IES is "an investment that will have a positive impact on our schools and our students.”.

Can you guess which option we're backing?  Here's a hint; it's not the bloke being mentored by Sue Moroney. We reckon he could do worse than find someone who might give him some more balanced and accurate talking points.

0 Comment of the Day - 13 June 2014

We blogged on Monday with Hekia Parata's response to NZEI negativity over National's Investing in Educational Success policy. A robust debate ensued, even if it was rather one-sided, with Dave Kennedy trying to defend NZEI's position against all comers. We admire his dedication, but with disagree with his argument.

Early yesterday morning there was a new comment left on the post. We contacted Tom, the author, and asked for permission to use the comment as the basis for a new post. He gave permission late yesterday, so here's what Tom had to say:

Tom said...

Sorry for this late comment -

I would like to focus BSprout’s particular statement regarding teacher aides for children with disabilities. Despite apparently being a teacher, he clearly knows nothing or anything about this particular topic.

I am deaf and I was mainstreamed into a primary school. And I can say definitively that a useless, hopeless teacher was and still is much more damaging to a disabled child’s educational progress than any lack of hours with a teacher aide.
A teacher aide, even though they can be a godsend, is not a substitute for a good teacher. Their role is meant to be supporting the child in particular ways that teachers do not do. For example, my one checked that my aids and implant processor were working, that batteries were in ample supply, that the FM system was hooked up and took loads and loads of notes/transcriptions for me to read.
 
Far more often than not though, teachers took this to be an excuse to slack off with me – they frequently did not bother to approach me or check my work even at my aide’s insistence, they refused to add more visual aids to their teaching (e.g. key words written on board as teacher talks) and put me in the too hard basket. They often expected my aide to do the whole job of teaching me when their job is really to facilitate the education.
 
Virtually all of the teachers in my first primary school were of this type. They were all useless, slackers and encouraged each others’ behaviour, refused to be accountable to my parents and the BOT, and had a useless leadership team. There was nothing my teacher aide or my parents could do, except switch my entire family to another school on the other side of town (instead of having to walk one block as we did before.)
 
At this new school, teachers had already worked with quite a few children with disabilities, they had gone out and gotten extra training and the principal, well, she brooked no crap or slackness from anyone who entered the school. The teacher aides (including mine) became part of a team with the teaching staff, and the teaching staff were inclusive and flexible to make their teaching style workable for all children – those with disabilities and those without.

So I can definitely say with confidence having experienced the system first hand that the biggest problem facing children with disabilities is not lack of teacher aiding hours. The biggest problem by miles are the absolutely useless p.o.s teachers who should have been ages ago or made to up their game but haven’t because the unions shield those people from ever having accountability.

I would also like to say that I deeply resent BSprout’s teachers-knows-best attitude and that the entire education system should just be left to teachers and never be accountable to children and their parents, the ones that are actually receiving and paying via taxes and donations for the service. If I had been left to mercy of useless w**kery lazy-arse teachers, I do not want to know where I would be today.

Apologies at having written an entire novel,
Tom.

June 12, 2014 at 1:46 AM

This certainly provides an interesting alternative perspective, and we thank Tom for allowing us to highlight it. We don't propose to add anything; this is Tom's perspective of the school system, and his words can do the talking.

0 Parata on the IES programme

Cabinet Ministers writing opinion-pieces in the metropolitan dailies is not a particularly regular event. Perhaps communication between the Executive and the general public would be better if it happened more often.

But on this occasion Hekia Parata has written a thoughtful piece in this morning's Dom-Post about her Government's Investing in Educational Success initiative, and it's well worth a read; she begins thus:

Teacher unions and others in the profession are helping design the details of a major new government education initiative.
Investing in Educational Success is not about paying large allowances to selected people, or creating a bigger corporate management structure. 
Recently NZEI past-president Ian Leckie incorrectly stated that the education profession has not been consulted on the Government's major new $359 million initiative, Investing in Educational Success Why teachers are wary about a multimillion-dollar pay rise, June 5).
In fact, teacher unions and others in the profession have been working closely with the Government on the detail of the new initiative since very soon after it was announced in January.
A working group was formed of representatives from the NZEI, the PPTA, the New Zealand School Trustees Association, Te Tari Puna Ora o Aotearoa, the New Zealand Principals' Federation, the Secondary Principals' Association of New Zealand, the New Zealand Area Schools Association, the New Zealand Association of Intermediate and Middle Schooling, Nga Kura a Iwi o Aotearoa, Te Rūnanganui o Nga Kura Kaupapa Maori, and the Pasifika Principals' Association. It is chaired by Secretary for Education Peter Hughes.
This significant investment is designed to raise student achievement by building the quality and consistency of teaching and leadership across our education system.
We want to keep the best teachers in classrooms, share excellent practice so it becomes universal practice, and ensure that every student gets a better education. We want to get the best principals to the schools that need them most. We want better career pathways to attract the best and keep them in the profession. We want to reward their excellence with salaries that reflect their skills. 

On the face of it, few would argue that what Mrs Parata is proposing is both ground-breaking and innovative. It has certainly been greeted with cautious optimism by much of the education sector.

There is however one notable exception to the cautious optimists; Mrs Parata continues:

Leckie's comments are unfortunate and a disappointing contrast to others in the education profession.
On the other hand, PPTA president Angela Roberts last week described the Government's collaboration with the education profession as "a positive example of sector collaboration".
She described the consultation process as "comprehensive, robust and genuine". She said the sector had "worked hard together to find pragmatic answers" and that "We feel Cabinet has heard us".
Secondary Principals Association chairman Tom Parsons has described the package as potentially a game-changer for education. 

That NZEI is so out-of-step with other major teacher unions or organisations is no great surprise. NZEI has long been the most militant of the teacher unions. But on this occasion, it could take a lead from its big brother union, the PPTA. We blogged last week our compliments to Angela Roberts and her team for engaging with the Government, even though the two are long-standing foes.

Over the weekend we chatted to a family member who is a primary school principal with significant experience. They described their disappointment with the NZEI's adversarial approach to IES, suggesting that in their opinion, it had more to do with the looming General Election than with genuine concerns about the policy initiative.

And whilst Mrs Parata has often been criticised (and in some cases rightly so) for being less than transparent in her role, she notes that the Government has offered the education sector an open book with regard to the IES programme:

I have released the report of the working group so that those who wish to comment can actually see for themselves what the working group had to say
And for further transparency, I have also released the Cabinet paper in response. There is much more work ahead, and we are keen to continue to work together with the profession to get this right.
Investing in Educational Success is not about paying large allowances to selected people, or creating a "bigger corporate management structure" as Leckie asserts.
It is about setting achievement challenges specific to a community of schools and then using these additional resources of very skilled teachers and principals to work within and across that community to meet the challenges.
These challenges might be about mathematics, or science, or digital literacy. They will be a shared learning concern of the schools involved and they will be based on information about the specific needs of students in those schools. The professional collaboration that this initiative is based upon will target those needs together.
This initiative is exciting, it picks some of the best elements out of some of the most successful systems around the world, and is anchored in our knowledge of what works in New Zealand, and what our challenges are.
We are investing in educational success for every New Zealand child, and we are doing so with the profession. 

When John Key launched the Investing in Educational Success initiative in January we noted this:

It is pleasing to see that the Government is keen to engage with unions and other sector groups to implement this plan. Whilst we're not a fan of unions, we believe that members of the teacher unions do have a genuine desire to improve the lives of the children entrusted into their care, and we hope that the unions are prepared to enter into collaboration with the Government and  Minister Hekia Parata to achieve this.

Our view on that has not changed. We hope that NZEI will come to the table in the spirit in which the Government via Hekia Parata has put forward a proposal to upskill a large number of teachers, who will ultimately have an even more positive benefit on the children in their care.
 

0 Two unions; polar opposite reactions

Regular readers will be aware that we aren't great fans of trade unions. It's not that long ago that we were card-carrying members of the EPMU, but that's another story for another day.

But we saw two union stories in the news yesterday, and they couldn't be more polar opposites. Here's the first story:

IES: consultation, collaboration, good for schools

3 June 2014

The government’s $359 million Investing in Educational Success (IES) program has been a positive example of sector collaboration, says PPTA president Angela Roberts.
Roberts welcomes today’s release of the working group report on the initiative which will see schools across the country collaborating rather than competing.
From PPTA’s point of view the consultation over IES was comprehensive, robust and genuine, Roberts said.
“We stepped up to the challenge and engaged as fully as it is possible to do.”
The sector had worked hard together to find pragmatic answers and there had been significant movement from the originally unacceptable cabinet paper, Roberts said.
“You know it’s collaboration when it’s hard work – and this was really hard work.”
“We feel cabinet has heard us,” she said.
That did not mean there would not be further work to be done or challenges in the future. Details of the new provisions would be a matter of collective bargaining, Roberts said.

“This is just the next step. We still have a long way to go to make sure that this lands well in schools and look forward to continuing to be part of the process,” she said.

Roberts was pleased cabinet had affirmed the working group’s final report.

“This is not performance pay and it is not a lolly scramble – it’s an investment that will have a positive impact on our schools and our students.”

In her engagement with teachers and principals they agree that competition is destructive and that something should change.

“This is something PPTA has been working towards for more than a decade, we are pleased a government has finally decided to resource it,” she said.

It's not every day you will see a PPTA presser on this site, so chalk it up! But we commend the PPTA for the attitude it has taken into good-faith negotiations with the Government.

As Angela Roberts has noted, there is still a long way to go before the IES is ready to be implemented, but by engaging with the Government, the PPTA is making progress on behalf of its membership. And at the end of the day, that's what unions are about; the members, not the elected or appointed officials.

Unfortunately, we cannot be as charitable towards our former union. Check this out, via Scoop:

4 June 2014

Sitel jobs coming to New Zealand isn’t all good news

There’s not much cause to celebrate in the news that 139 jobs at Sitel in Australia will be moving to New Zealand, says the union for telecommunications workers, the EPMU.
The US company announced last week that it is moving jobs to New Zealand because labour is cheaper here.
“That’s not good news for workers or the New Zealand economy,” says Anita Rosentreter, EPMU organiser. “These jobs aren’t secure and they don’t give workers a chance to build a real career or plan for their future.
“Last year we lost 100 jobs from Sitel in Auckland. They went to Australia and the Philippines.
“This is the price of the government’s low-wage economy. Even if jobs do come here in the short term, they can go just as quickly – moved to countries where workers are paid even less, or places like Australia which invest in skills and infrastructure.
“New Zealanders deserve secure, skilled jobs with a future, not short-term contracts which could be gone tomorrow.”

This is pretty low-rent stuff from New Zealand's biggest union. Jobs are jobs, and we are sure that there will be plenty of competition for the 139 positions with Sitel. 

It's really unfortunate that the EPMU is coming across all elitist. For a start, they clearly don't want the union fees of 139 new potential members.

But for the EPMU to claim that 139 people going into work is "not good news for the workers, or the New Zealand economy" is just plain bizarre. The economy benefits when people transition from welfare to work. The individuals benefit too, learning new skills, earning a wage, even if it is at the lower end of the scale, and developing the discipline of working.

The EPMU needs to forget the political rhetoric, and actually take a glass-half-full approach to these jobs instead of the Eeyore-like prophesies of doom and gloom.  

So kudos to the PPTA, but not to the EPMU. We know which union we reckon is doing more for the interests of its members, or prospective members.