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 The Waikato Times on Hipkins' "epic fail"

We blogged yesterday about Chris Hipkins' attack on Hekia Parata's IES policy. The Labour Education spokesman has painted it an "epic fail", whilst ignoring the PPTA's support of the initiative.

The Waikato Times has called Hipkins out. In an editorial headed Hipkins misses mark, the Waikato Times opines:

Labour's education spokesman, Chris Hipkins, has given Education Minister Hekia Parata a low mark for trying to introduce the expert teachers policy, "Investing in Educational Success".
Because of the lack of input from school leaders, he said, she "has failed spectacularly" and "clearly needs to go back to school to learn what consultation actually means". But perhaps Hipkins has failed to assess all the relevant material. Earlier this month, Parata released a report on the shaping of the $359 million policy to create a new career structure for teachers after consulting with the education sector.
The New Zealand Educational Institute, the primary teachers' union, claims to have a better plan for spending the funds than the Government's plan to identify "expert" and "lead" teachers and pay them extra to act as role models across several schools. The NZ Principals Federation sees flaws, too. This does not mean it was not consulted and Post Primary Teachers Association president Angela Roberts described the dialogue as "comprehensive, robust and genuine". It was neither performance pay nor a lolly scramble. It was an investment "that will have a positive impact on our schools and our students". 

The Waikato Times leader writer is dead right in our ever-humble opinion (sorry about that Rex) to climb into Hipkins. He has made the classic mistake of cherry-picking reaction, and only making public that which suits his narrative.

The editorial continues, with a comment about the PPTA:

The PPTA has no track record for being a Government apologist. But it has taken issue with critics' claims the policy is unacceptable and unworkable and would remove highly rated teachers and principals from their schools for two days a week, adversely impacting on children's learning. A PPTA blog post says there is plenty of evidence on the professional benefits of mentoring and the positive results to come from focusing on collaboration rather than competition. More telling, the blog post said any disquiet and concern about the policy can be found "only in a small part of the beltway in Wellington".  

The PPTA blog-post is the one we published in part yesterday. The comment about the beltway was in the portion we didn't publish, not wanting to steal all the PPTA's thunder! But the union is dead right; we strongly suspect that the PPTA is referring to the area around the Labour and Green parties' respective offices in Parliament, and around the NZEI's National Office in Willis Street, Wellington.  

The editorial closes with a final rebuke to Hipkins, amidst suggestions that any policy Labour comes up with will be redundant:

Elsewhere schools are thinking about what clusters they are already in and what they need to do to be ready to pick up the extra staffing and funding next year. Hipkins' report card on Parata's handling of the policy said a Labour Government would "almost certainly" dump it. Labour's own model (to be announced within the next two weeks) would draw on teacher expertise to improve educational outcomes. But, according to the PPTA, that's what Parata has done - and it welcomes the results.  

There's only one "epic fail" here, and it isn't Hekia Parata's policy. Chris Hipkins' attempt to make political capital on a policy which is not universally opposed earns him a big red "not achieved".


Footnote: Make sure you follow the NZEI link, and see if you can spot the Green Party candidate

0 Why don't they mention the PPTA?

There seems to be a split in the ranks of teacher unions. The Herald reports on an apparent "epic fail" of Hekia Parata's Investing in Educational Success policy:

The Government's $359 million expert teachers policy has proved to be the latest in a series of "epic failures" in the education sector due to a lack of consultation with teachers and Labour will soon announce a better model it says.
The Government policy which would see "expert" and "lead" teachers identified and paid extra to act as role models across several schools was slammed by primary teachers union the NZEI and the NZ Principals Federation after they met to discuss it this week.
NZEI National President Judith Nowotarski said leaders from national and regional principal and teacher groups had sent a clear message that the policy, as it currently stood, was "unacceptable and unworkable" and "identified the lack of direct benefit for children in this policy".
School leaders were concerned the policy would remove highly rated teachers and principals from their schools for two days a week, which would impact on children's learning.

Labour's education spokesman Chris Hipkins said the fact that teachers and principals were willing to turn down pay rises of up to $40,000 a year "reflects how bad they believe this policy is".

And Green Party candidate, former teacher and NZEI delegate Dave Kennedy offers a similar narrative at his blog:

Classroom teachers, the New Zealand Educational Institute, the New Zealand Principal's Federation and education academics have all strongly rejected the Government's proposed $359 million Investment into Education Success (IES). All believe that this substantial amount of money will not produce the results that the Education Minister claims and would be better spent elsewhere.

Now the fact that NZEI, the Labour Party's Education spokesman and a Green Party candidate with strong NZEI links are singing from the same songbook is nothing new. But what is interesting is that none of them mention the secondary teachers' union, the PPTA.

We blogged last week about our surprise at the PPTA's willingness to throw off its tradition reluctance to deal with a National Party Education Minister. PPTA has engaged with Hekia Parata, and even though it is early days in what has already been a tense relationship, there are some very promising signs.

And the PPTA has published an interesting blog-post on its website that busts o few of the myths surrounding IES. We have left the link on Dave Kennedy's blog, given that he is always so keen to provide us with links to further our education on causes dear to his heart, if not to ours. The post is headed Six Impossible things being said about IES, and begins thus:

Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said:
"one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen.
"When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day.
Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." 
1. There has been no consultation.
This might be true if these changes had been legislated in place but that’s not what happened. The $359 million was an employer offer made to unions for them to bargain and amend with the aim of eventually putting it into their collective agreements.   If using the democratic structures of unions to make changes for teachers isn’t consultation what is?
2. The money could be better spent on…
It possibly could but it was approved via the Budget process to be spent on a specific educational initiative.  Budget spending decisions are a government prerogative.  Anyone waiting for the day when a democratically-elected government sets its budget priorities by national plebiscite will be waiting a long time.  If it is more important to spend money on addressing issues of poverty than teachers does that mean teachers will never seek another pay increase?
3. IES creates a layer of management…

We won't steal any more of the PPTA's thunder (but urge you to read the piece), and in fact can't quite believe that we are endorsing a union's point of view. But we reckon that the PPTA is on the right side of this argument, despite Dave Kennedy's rather patronising comment that "I also believe they do not understand the full ramifications.". With due respect to Dave, patronising a brethren union is not the way to win friends and influence voters!

It would seem that Chris Hipkins has simply rushed out a presser after reading the NZEI's diatribe about Mrs Parata and the IES policy. Perhaps he has former NZEI people advising him. In any event, the opposition of NZEI and the Principals Federation seems to be more about election-year ideology than advancing opportunities for their members.

Once again, we commend PPTA for putting aside past differences with Mrs Parata in an effort to improve the lot of principals and teachers, because that will ultimately improve outcomes for the children they teach. We'll leave the last word to the PPTA:

Listen carefully – that is the sound of professionals collaborating.  

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.