ImperatorFish: Not Irony #2

Written By: - Date published: 2:48 pm, December 8th, 2011 - 38 comments
Categories: dpf, national/act government, schools - Tags: ,

Scott at Imperator Fish has kindly given us permission to syndicate posts from his blog – the original of this post is here

—————————————————————————–

Not Irony #2

Over at Kiwiblog David Farrar writes:

The teacher unions insisted national standards should be trialled before implementation, yet are furiously against charter schools being trialled.

Are they worried the trial might be a raging success?

What are the problems with this analysis?

  • The teachers unions don’t want National Standards at all. They don’t want a trial. But because they don’t much like the policy and think it will fail, they believe that a limited trial would have been a lesser evil than a full rollout.
  • It’s entirely possible that opposition to charter schools is based on a dearth of evidence that they will lift the achievement levels of those most in need.
  • Based on overseas evidence, which is mixed, it would take an incredible optimist to expect charter schools to be a “raging success”. It’s unlikely that such fears are behind teacher opposition.
  • The charter school plan is also opposed by principals and school trustee groups. Not just the teacher unions.

Keep them coming, David. I’m not stalking you, honest.

38 comments on “ImperatorFish: Not Irony #2 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Uturn 1
    8 December 2011 at 3:28 pm

    A short coversation with a psychopath (as related by David Farrar)

    John Key: “Why are you asking me to stop the abuse? You let it go on this far.”
    Key’s victim: “The last incident was just a beating, I thought I could bear it, now you want to cut off my arms.”
    John Key: “What a snivelling hypocrite you are, there’s no difference to me!”

    (To echo I.F…. keep it up Farrar, you are either a liar, a fool, or a secondary psychopath.)

  2. felix 2
    8 December 2011 at 4:13 pm

    Farrar was never going to find it easy being a pro-govt blogger, and the last three years have been a little embarrassing for him.

    He’s had to twist himself into some fairly awkward poses and I reckon he’s sick of it.

    From now on, just like Key, he’s not even going to try. The shark has been jumped.

  3. lprent 3
    8 December 2011 at 4:27 pm

    Scott missed out the most important part of the charter schools issue.

    What exactly are they going to do that is different to either the self-governance of Tomorrows Schools or the government funding of ‘Private Schools’ that is in existence today. Damned if I can figure out what the Act wing of National is wanting to do that can’t be done with one of those existing models.

    I’m sure that when we find out that it will wind up being something stupid – like bringing back bulk funding

  4. Lindsey 4
    8 December 2011 at 5:23 pm

    The Exclusive Brethren will be wanting to run their Westmount schools without having to adhere to the NZ curiculum (hard when you don’t let kids read fiction) or have qualified teachers (hard when you don’t allow tertiary education). And they want us to keep on paying for it.

  5. randal 5
    8 December 2011 at 5:30 pm

    fatboy farrar is a fool.
    whatever it is he has had too much of it.
    he and his crony’s are in the business of causing confusion in society so the proles will be kept busy arguing about things that dont count.
    charter schools are solely a device for ignorant assholes to push their desires for status and more particularly salaries when they haven’t earned it.
    right wing nutters love this stuff.

    • burt 5.1
      8 December 2011 at 9:19 pm

      personal attack on DPF – your all class randal.

      • seeker 5.1.1
        9 December 2011 at 12:27 am

        Personal attack burt? More like an accurate ‘school’ report for adult class.Only in Farrar’s case, not sure ‘adult’ quite describes his lack of class.

      • bbfloyd 5.1.2
        9 December 2011 at 11:38 am

        you’re just jealous that he makes more sense with his comments than any of personal abuse you are unable to rise above little berty…

  6. red blooded 6
    8 December 2011 at 6:55 pm

    Charter schools are basically just a way to add bulk funding and so-called ‘performance pay’ into the mix of what schools in NZ can already do.

    Believe it or not, private school already have the freedom to ignore the NZ curriculum.

    ‘Independent’ schools already have religious, special interest or defined cultural identities. They are part funded by the state (and their teachers are paid by the state).

    All schools, including state schools set their own goals, make their own subject choices and timetabling decisions, create their own policies. In fact, they are self-governing (run by Boards of Trustees).

    No school even has to use the NZ system of assessment and qualification – the NCEA. Some don’t, or use a mix of this and other (overseas based) qual.s.

    The only thing that charter schools add into this mix is an attack on the teaching profession. The idea that people working in these schools shouldn’t have to be trained and registered teachers is an obscenity. This is the real gamble. Why should we gamble with the education of a cohort of young NZers, just because the two Johns want schools to be free to shove anybody into a classroom? And ‘performance pay’ for teachers has been shown to fail all over the world, using all sorts of different models.

    The two Johns and their buddies see cheaper as better, think the market can solve all problems, believe all regulation stifles achievement and any service provided by the state would be better in the hands of private companies. So, goodbye compulsory teacher training. Ta-ta, Teachers Registration Boards (and wasn’t that a disaster the last time a National government dumped this?) and any chance of an equitable pay scale, based on qualifications, experience, competency and extra responsibilities is out the window.

    For all our sakes, but mostly for the sakes of our young NZers, I fervently hope that charter schools are not going to take over and become the new version of Tomorrow’s Schools.

    • burt 6.1
      8 December 2011 at 9:15 pm

      Charter schools are basically just a way to add bulk funding and so-called ‘performance pay’ into the mix of what schools in NZ can already do.

      Bloody brilliant in it’s simplicity isn’t it.

      • bbfloyd 6.1.1
        9 December 2011 at 11:45 am

        not simple enough for you it seems little berty…. your attention span obviously doesn’t stretch to reading the many articles and posts that have outlayed the myriad weaknesses that this approach contains…..

        on the plus side… we could end up with a whole country full of new berties as a result of these policies….. wouldn’t that make you feel better about your own intellectual inadequacies…….

    • Georgecom 6.2
      10 December 2011 at 10:55 pm

      How exactly does the ‘freedom’ to ignore the NZ curriculum (ie charters schools set their own curriculum) enhance the learning outcomes for NZ children? We have a new primary curriculum which was widely consulted and balanced over several years, one that is fairly widely supported. Now the Government wants to give charter schools the ability to ignore that curriculum. Why?

      If the curriculum is failing children, change it. If the curriculum is not enhancing learning outcomes for children, change it. If the curriculum is actually good, why allow schools to ignore it?

      I imagine that the government will claim that it is concerned about learning outcomes for children. What aspect of the ability to opt out of the NZ curriculum will enhance that?

  7. ghostwhowalksnz 7
    8 December 2011 at 6:58 pm

    I dont think the ‘rules’ they have put out about Charter schools allow them to be ‘selective’- but EB have got dispensation from other rules before.

    • Jilly Bee 7.1
      9 December 2011 at 2:35 pm

      They also strongly discourage their staff from joining the union for private schools – but I know that doesn’t always happen.

  8. mik e 8
    8 December 2011 at 7:31 pm

    now blocwood smith has gone their going to have to be a new EB liaison officer.
    My bet is The Double dipstick.

  9. Lanthanide 9
    8 December 2011 at 8:34 pm

    My boyfriend came up with a good solution: why doesn’t the PPTA just set up their own chartered schools?

    They can run it exactly like normal state schools (minus the National Standards).

    Seems like it would be rather difficult for the government turning down a bunch of teachers who wanted to start a school…

    • Dv 9.1
      8 December 2011 at 8:41 pm

      Nat stds are primary only So that would be The NZEI
      But that is a good idea.

    • Colonial Viper 9.2
      8 December 2011 at 8:58 pm

      Awesome. Teacher based worker co-ops. This is the way to go.

      Bet you they do much much much better than the private corporate run chartered schools.

    • burt 9.3
      8 December 2011 at 9:18 pm

      Lanthanide

      I wonder if the unions would have even considered that. Your boyfriend has good ideas.

      • Lanthanide 9.3.1
        8 December 2011 at 9:54 pm

        He is very smart. Just finishing up his phd in mechanical engineering, but could easily have done a history phd if he wanted.

  10. red blooded 10
    8 December 2011 at 11:39 pm

    PPTA would be selling out our principles if we gave any kind of credibility to this farcical proposal.

    Please note, too; it’s not just the teachers’ unions (speaking for teachers as professionals, concerned about education issues) that oppose this extremist experiment. Take a look at the following media release – it represents the views of PPTA (which represents 95% of secondary teachers), NZEI (which has similar membership rates amongst primary teachers), The Secondary Principals’ Association, The Principals’ Federation (which spans both sectors and has no union affiliation) and YouthLaw Tino Rangatiratanga Taitamariki.

    The School Trustees’ Association and The Teachers’ Council (the registration and national disciplinary board for teachers) have also made their opposition clear. One wonders just who (who knows anything about education) is actually FOR this awful proposal.

    Joint Media Release
    7 December 2012

    Government giving up on most vulnerable students

    Charter schools are an admission of the government’s failure to support tackling struggling schools and their students.

    The Government wants to trial charter schools in Christchurch and in South Auckland, two of our most vulnerable communities. Furthermore, charter schools will compete with existing schools for resources.

    The Government says these communities are being failed by poor schooling. There are many dedicated boards, principals and teachers in these communities doing an excellent job with limited resources. Where schools are struggling the Government needs to take control and fix the problem, rather than just giving up and reallocating those resources. The Government is effectively admitting it can’t fix schools needing support and is asking churches and iwi to do it for them. The State must take more responsibility for our children’s education, rather than leaving it up to everyone else.

    The charter schools model derives mainly from the US and the UK, countries which are ranked well below NZ in OECD education standards. Studies in both the US and UK question the value of charter schools there. Bringing charter schools to NZ would mean importing a questionable model from worse-off countries into a system which doesn’t need them.

    Finally, those who will be most disadvantaged will be the 1,600 students who are excluded or expelled each year. Charter schools will be subject to even less decision making accountability than currently exists in state schools. This will result in disadvantaging more vulnerable students and unfairly advantaging some schools over their neighbours. The NZ education sector, unlike the health, welfare, employment or justice sectors, is still without a dedicated appeals authority at which such decisions may be reviewed.

    Ben Mills, YouthLaw spokesperson says, “Our most vulnerable students need more protection from the State, not less. Charter schools leave it up to others to educate our children; they’re not widely accepted to be educationally useful; and they increase unaccountability in a system without a dedicated appeals authority for school decision making. Charter schools will not be good for students”.

    “Charter schools will place untrained, unqualified and unchecked teachers before our students. Any sensible government would be ashamed of such a departure from principle that puts student achievement at such an unprecedented risk,” said PPTA president Robin Duff.

    Ben Mills, Legal Education Coordinator, YouthLaw Tino Rangatiratanga Taitamariki

    Patrick Walsh, President, Secondary Principals Association of New Zealand

    Robin Duff, President, Post Primary Teachers Association

    Peter Simpson, President, New Zealand Principals Federation

    Ian Leckie, President, New Zealand Educational Institute

    • Colonial Viper 10.1
      9 December 2011 at 7:21 am

      I simply wish the PPTA and NZEI had backed Labour more strongly and more actively in November.

      • Outofbed 10.1.1
        9 December 2011 at 7:24 am

        why would they? They all vote Green

        • Colonial Viper 10.1.1.1
          9 December 2011 at 10:19 am

          So you’re telling me that the PPTA and NZEI membership actively helped campaign for the Greens then? I have no problem with that if it actually happened. But i didn’t see evidence of it.

      • Gas Guzzler 10.1.2
        9 December 2011 at 7:31 am

        So do I. Then National would have had a clear majority.

        • Lanthanide 10.1.2.1
          9 December 2011 at 9:39 am

          Because people voting for Labour somehow gives National more seats?

          Idiot troll doesn’t even make sense.

          • Gas Guzzler 10.1.2.1.1
            9 December 2011 at 10:18 am

            Actually, it does make sense, because the PPTA and NZEI are the electoral kiss of death. What you, Labour and the eduction unions seem to be in denial about is that the vast majority of parents support the government in the introduction of National Standards.

            The more the more the unions support Labour the more the voters are put off.

            • Colonial Viper 10.1.2.1.1.1
              9 December 2011 at 10:26 am

              backing ignoramuses like Tolley and Banks in looking after our children? FFS.

              This country needs stronger, more effective and more widespread worker organisations. So I’m definitely backing the unions – its the monied neoliberals who are going to get the electoral kiss of death mate.

              • dv …
                9 December 2011 at 11:52 am

                And Banks (and Brash) was a director of Hullich who trolled the sth auckland mall touting dodgy Kiwisaver investments.
                Hulilch is being prosecuted.

                I wonder Banks has ever been in a sth Auckland school?

                • felix …
                  9 December 2011 at 12:04 pm

                  I doubt he’s ever been in any school.

                  Even the arch-tory Paul Henry was shocked to hear that Banks was to be in charge of Education, describing him as “barely literate”.

                  (And yeah, I said “in charge of”. Anyone who thinks Banks is going to play second fiddle to Tolley might want to ask Brash what he reckons about that.)

  11. fmacskasy 11
    10 December 2011 at 9:36 am

    ACT is the last outfit that should be organising our education, if their own website is anything to go by; http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2011/12/10/act-woefully-behind-the-times/