Rebel schools

Written By: - Date published: 8:15 am, July 2nd, 2011 - 63 comments
Categories: education, national - Tags: , ,

Yesterday was crunch day for schools who oppose the governments ill-conceived national standards, and a surprising number have made a very bold stand:

Schools protest national standards

More than 100 defiant schools today submitted school charters without the required references to the new national standards.

The primary teachers union NZEI said about 350 schools around the country were involved in the protest against the ”hastily-developed, untested and potentially harmful” standards.

This move got a fair bit of attention round the regions, such as for example Wellington:

Wellington schools challenge national standards

About 45 primary schools from around the Wellington region have today thumbed their noses at the education ministry, by refusing to submit information about controversial national standards.

Schools are required to hand in an annual charter which legally must have information about their national standards targets. However today 45 schools from the Lower North Island are among 200 schools nationwide that have submitted their charters without the required standards information.

Or Southland:

Schools shun Govt’s standards

Southland schools boycotting national standards will hand-deliver their school charters to regional Education Ministry offices this morning – minus the required national standards targets.

Waverley Park School principal Kerry Hawkins, Southland spokesman for the Boards Taking Action Coalition, said his school had set its targets against reliable, well-referenced tests and not national standards. There were about 16 schools in the coalition in Southland, he said, and more than 300 nationwide which did not support the standards. The New Zealand curriculum was one of the best in the world, he said, and this country was ranked fourth in the world for education.

Or Waikato:

Rebels to call Govt’s bluff

Nearly 40 Waikato primary schools are rebelling against the Government’s controversial National Standards, despite the threat of school boards being sacked.

By the end of this week, all primary schools are supposed to have provided their charters containing achievement targets based on National Standards to the Education Ministry. .. But some 350 schools nationwide, including Waikato schools involved in the Boards Taking Action Coalition, have refused to do so. …

The Government previously dismissed the group as a small minority, but Mr Grey warned it was “just the tip of the iceberg”. “People are saying it’s a relatively small group, but every regional principals’ association is opposed to [National Standards].

The depth of opposition to these standards would give a rational person cause to stop and think. Not so Anne Tolley, who says she will withhold resources from the rebel schools. Why? Because, according to Tolley “Look, it’s election year, so anything goes”. No wonder that even The Herald is calling for her to be sacked.

63 comments on “Rebel schools”

  1. This article was last year, but the majority of schools locally have paid lip service to National Standards in their charters
    http://www.rotoruadailypost.co.nz/local/news/four-rotorua-schools-back-boycott-on-standards/3928733/
     
    Lest we forget that one of the first actions of NACT was to make redundant all the school support services staff not involved with reading, writing or arithmetic (maths) – so all the advisors who provided curriculum advice on important areas such as science, physical education, nutrition, the arts and IT, are now gone. It was called ‘focusing on what was important’.
     
    Funny that; after the three R’s are allegedly ‘tackled’ via National Standards, the next curriculum area was to be science and technology – shame the advisors for those curriculum areas are long gone!

  2. burt 2

    rOb

    Putting aside your own opinion of this particular govt policy, do you think it is appropriate for individual schools to decide which govt policies they comply with and which they don’t?

    • fabregas4 2.1

      I do. Schools have a responsibility to do what is best for their children.

      • U 4 United 2.1.1

        But: They’re breaking the law! Great example to set youngsters isn’t it?

        • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1.1

          Yes, it is. When the law is wrong then we need to protest it.

        • fabregas4 2.1.1.2

          Ho hum! It is a great example to children.An example for doing what is morally correct. For thinking deeply and analytically about something and not simply following along for an easy life, for putting yourself ahead of others, for not being afraid to challenge and fight, for using evidence, for working together to oppose, for ….

          You know it never ever enters my head to teach my kids that they must slavishly adhere to the law but I am always trying to teach them to do what, simply, is right. Did Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Te Whiti, or Mandela always follow the law?

          Choose which school you want for your kids United – but choose carefully and for the right reasons.

        • burt 2.1.1.3

          U 4 United

          Yes but we know Labour supporters think it’s OK to break the law when it’s in the best interests of the Labour party…

          • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1.3.1

            And National supporters think it’s Ok to break the law if they can get away with it.

            Any other stupid generalisations you want to make moron?

    • bbfloyd 2.2

      it’s entirely appropriate for teachers to protect their pupils from a badly thought out, and shoddily implemented system that has been proved to be an impediment wherever it’s been introduced..

      especially as the system already operating is working well. at worst, minor alterations to it’s overall structure were the most action required. not a complete rehash.

      it’s yet another favourite national party ploy, change for political expedience rather than responding to real deficiencies in the existing set up.

      and don’t think we aren’t aware of the propaganda campaign waged over primary school results under the existing system. a rational perusal of the reality as those results put us near the top of the ladder in educational performance.

      good on them for standing up for our children against craven political interference.that would have us dropping down the achievement list within five years or less.

    • ianupnorth 2.3

      I am in full support of Fabregas – if experts say that National Standards are flawed, likewise if international evidence suggests the same, I would expect professionals such as teachers to listen to the evidence and act in the best interest of the kids and not Anne Tolley

  3. ianmac 3

    burt. Auckland Grammar: Choose best way of assessing students. Choose Cambridge instead of NCEA. Good. Minister Tolley approves. But Against Govt Policy.

    City Primary School: Choose best way of assessing students. Choose well researched assessment tools instead of NS. Bad! Minister Tolley disapproves. Against Govt Policy! Principals, BOT and children will be punished!

    • burt 3.1

      ianmac

      Last time I checked there wasn’t a policy that said “must only use NCEA” – which is different to National standards. Did I miss something or are you just running distraction for schools that think their opinions on education are bigger than govt policy ?

      • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1

        I think the schools are better informed by facts on education than this government. This government works on opinion which is almost invariably wrong.

        • burt 3.1.1.1

          I think …

          I doubt it – you are saying it’s OK to break the law when you don’t agree with the law. Good luck living in society Draco….

          • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1.1.1

            No, I’m saying it’s ok to oppose the law when the law is wrong which National Standards is as has been shown around the world.

    • burt 3.2

      Actually on the subject of Cambridge vs NCEA, do you think it’s a good thing that little o’l NZ needs to develop it’s own assessment systems rather than adopt internationally proven systems?

      The key problem I see with developing our own assessment systems is not the quality of them rather the fact they become political footballs. Every time we get a change of govt we get a new bunch of drivers injected into our assessment systems – like we did for National standards.

      It seems to me that the best interests of learners are not served by politicising assessment systems, sure it serves the best interest of political parties giving them significant points of difference come election time. However last time I checked we ran schools to educate students not as popularity levers for elections.

      • ianmac 3.2.1

        burt: Your 10:17 came in while I was writing mine. I am impressed with your It seems to me that the best interests of learners are not served by politicising assessment systems, sure it serves the best interest of political parties giving them significant points of difference come election time. However last time I checked we ran schools to educate students not as popularity levers for elections. You have nailed it!
        By the way Oxford University names NCEA requirements for NZ wishing to enter their university. It is recognised by the best internationally.

      • Draco T Bastard 3.2.2

        Actually on the subject of Cambridge vs NCEA, do you think it’s a good thing that little o’l NZ needs to develop it’s own assessment systems rather than adopt internationally proven systems?

        Yes, actually, I do. It’s one of the places where I think competition is a good idea as it can spur better results. That said, I really don’t think going back to a 19th century testing regime is really a good idea. We’ve learned a bit since then and now know more about teaching and measuring the results.

    • KJT 3.3

      So called elite schools love Cambridge because it is a regurgitate rote learning exam.

      It is possible to get anyone to pass with intensive teaching regardless of any understanding.

      NCEA (although like all systems of assessment it has its flaws) requires understanding so it is harder to get the inbred scions of the wealthy to pass.

      Oxbridge themselves recognize the excellence of our system. Including NCEA.

      The code of conduct for Teachers requires they put the best interests of their students first.
      Not the best interests of Government, employers or even parents!

      • WTF? 3.3.1

        @KTJ,

        You are a fucking retard… if it’s so easy to pass the teach and pass the Cambridge exam style system why did we abandon the exam based system of teaching? Surely our high pass rates would have mandated our keeping the examinations based system.

        “The code of conduct for Teachers requires they put the best interests of their students first.
        Not the best interests of Government, employers or even parents!”

        Yeah, because only the teachers know whats best… utter bullshit, you wouldn’t happen to be a teacher would you? What a load of sanctimonious crap

        • McFlock 3.3.1.1

          Seriously, WTF?? God forbid that the education system should be about preparing students with the knowledge they’ll need in society, rather than just passing exams.
          You wouldn’t happen to be a case in point that rote learning for exams fails to develop thought skills, would you?

        • Draco T Bastard 3.3.1.2

          if it’s so easy to pass the teach and pass the Cambridge exam style system why did we abandon the exam based system of teaching?

          Because it’s fuckup that doesn’t teach anybody how to think but only how to remember what they’re told.

          Yeah, because only the teachers know whats best

          Yep, they would, that’s what professionals are for. Although, from the tone of of your comment I’m not surprised that you would use an Ad hominem attack on the person and the profession rather than provide an argument.

    • Susan 3.4

      I think you’ll find Auckland Grammar runs a duel system in years 12 and 13 – and Cambridge only for year 11 – Boys’ schools tend to dislike NCEA because the internally assessed component means academic work interferes with sporting fixtures.

      Contrary to popular belief we haven’t abandoned exams, just augmented them with internal assessments that provide opportunities for deep learning, and alternative ways for students to to demonstrate what they know and can do.

      NZ’s education system is standing up well beside the world’s best – in the global education community our curriculum is thought to be at the forefront of educational thinking. Our students’ results compare favourably with the best in the world.

      Incidentally, National Standards are for primary schools and have nothing in common with NCEA which is a qualification for years 11, 12 and 13 (senior high school). In this discussion people seem to have been conflating the two.

  4. ianmac 4

    There has been no precedent for NZ politicians to choose the day to day operation of police, doctors or teachers. In this case, NS is at the whim of politicians for political gain.
    Imagine:
    MPs says police will be ordered to shoot any citizen who does not instantly obey a police command.

    Doctors in Public Hospitals will not wash hands for longer than 30 seconds before operating in order to save money.

    Secondary teachers will use NCEA for student assessment. Principals will be fired if they do not comply.

    Case managers working for CYPS will cancel funding for clients who do not have clean fingernails.

    Teachers will use untested, unscientific fanciful methods of assessment called National Testing or be punished by withdrawing funds from children. Oops. That one is being actioned!

    • burt 4.1

      Teachers will use untested, unscientific fanciful methods of assessment called National Testing or be punished by withdrawing funds from children. Oops. That one is being actioned!

      How short is your memory ? Do you recall the introduction of NCEA. Untested – Yes. Protested against – Yes. Understood by parents and teachers – No.

      But it was different right – because it was the red team changing the game big time and when the red team do that it’s going to work out OK if we just give it time…..

      • ianmac 4.1.1

        burt. It was Bill English’s NCEA baby in the 90s not the reds. And a great deal of research, years of it went in long before it became accepted. Ironically it was Bill who put up endless obstructions through the 00s.
        But politicians NCEA did not decide which questions to use or which topics to use or the way it would be implemented. That was the role of researchers. NS? Out of the blue. (Ha!)

        • burt 4.1.1.1

          I got that wrong. OK, so all that protest about NCEA. I guess if we had let the schools decide back then we wouldn’t have it now… Which given it was a disruptive National party policy would be a good thing … Oh.. Bugger…

          This is why we shouldn’t politicise it. Is it too much to ask for a multi party approach to education policy?

          • iIanmac 4.1.1.1.1

            burt. Totally agreed with your last paragraph.
            And the great strength of NZ Education has been the way in which innovation has grown from the grassroots upwards until it is recognised and evaluated at the top levels. And always open to modification. But the moment it becomes political there is too much face to loose so positions are struck for the wrong reasons. Huh! Politics! 🙂

          • ianmac 4.1.1.1.2

            Oops my last post disappeared. Anyway agree with your 2nd to last statement Burt.
            The great strength of NZ school innovation has been the way in which ideas have grown from grassroots, been tested and evaluated at higher and higher levels, rather than the top down.
            Until National Standards! (Not that politicians are at the top!) 🙂

          • Susan 4.1.1.1.3

            If we had let schools decide back then the implementation may have been less rushed and the professional development around it better resourced – in fact the whole thing better resourced, but we would still have introduced some form of standards based assessment because educationally it makes sense, and ultimately it is better for both students and teachers.

            It is really the political machinations around it that have led to the weird anomolies that arise – every time North and South do one of their articles the government of the day run scared and fiddle with the rules around NCEA assessments – most of the N&S reporting comes from highly charged rhetoric from private schools in Auckland competing furiously for students, and desperately trying to convince beleaguered parents that they need to pay $20-30k to educate their children. They do this by running down NCEA – often using nothing much more solid than hearsay – and disparaging the state system (which in almost all cases is doing a pretty good job).

  5. Georgy 5

    If the government policy is seen to be clearly at odds with sound pedagogy then Principals, teachers, and Boards are morally bound to oppose it. The opposition is not limited to a few schools, there are many more teachers and schools opposed than the BTAC group but are not comfortable taking that sort of action. Compliance with the ‘law’ does not mean agreement. The National Standards promulgated by this government are deeply flawed and the pedagogical practice that will develop around them will be extremely harmful to our current world class curriculum and to children’s learning outcomes.

    • seeker 5.1

      “The National Standards promulgated by this government are deeply flawed and the pedagogical practice that will develop around them will be extremely harmful to our current world class curriculum and to children’s learning outcomes.”

      The huge problem in a nutshell Georgy, very well put. And because the government is woefully/wilfully ignorant of this fact and continues to pursue this flawed policy “then Principals, teachers, and Boards are morally bound to oppose it.” as their job is to protect and care for our children and their best interests in education, and they are trained and qualified to do so.

      Not so Anne Tolley who has never taught and has, apparently, little idea how children learn, develop and flourish in school.
      “Average, Below average, Well Below Average”,is still seared on my memory from the quick glimpse we were given of the Nat Standards on the news one night, and that was quite enough. Almost child abuse methinks!?! Our bright, happy,curous,hopeful,developing children do not deserve such ignorant, unconstructive, damaging condemnation at such a young age, or ever.
      There is a definite moral obligation to do something about it and well done the schools that have.

      The assessments and reporting procedures that are in place are far superior to the undermining, unnecessary, inadequate and potentially damaging Nat Standards.
      (I taught our precious children (5-18years) for forty years and know what I am talking about.)
      Reply

  6. ianupnorth 6

    Burt have a look at the Finnish system; very laissez faire curriculum, no testing until 18; they produce reports (equivalent of ERO) on every school every year, but these are for the teaching staff, not the parents. They seem to produce excellent graduates.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/05/finland-schools-curriculum-teaching?INTCMP=SRCH
    and what the academics added to the debate
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/dec/10/finnish-lessons-for-englands-education?INTCMP=SRCH

    • ianmac 6.1

      Thanks ianupnorth. Finland seems to have what many teachers here would aspire to, if it wasn’t for the drag of political interference. Notice that the private schools that many MPs send their kids to are exempt from NS? You would think that the private schools would rush to use NS if they were so good.

      And Finland seems to also have sorted out their Crime and Punishment too. One of the lowest prison populations. Wonder if the better educated population has anything to do with that?

      • Ianupnorth 6.1.1

        All the international evidence goes a bit like this
        The healthier children are when they enter school the more likely they are to achieve.
        The more children achieve the more likely they are to have healthy lifestyle and go on to have productive lives – including ensuring the health and well being of their children are protected – it is cyclical, and most importantly, very simple.
         
        What National don’t get is this
         
        The harder it is for parents to buy healthy food, have a warm home, etc the more likely that the child enters school already disadvantaged;a prime example would be kids with untreated glue ear – a big problem in many communities. These kids are hearing impaired and may also have language difficulties. They are already playing catch up.
         
        They then fall into Tolley’s tail – labelled non-achievers, less services to catch them up, so attain less. As they are not part of the ‘achieving’ group, they are likely to be less connected to positive role models, so are more prone to negative behaviours – hence they end up going off the rails and become familiar with the justice system.

    • jingyang 6.2

      But, but, bringing the Finnish system into New Zealand would mean that all those pinko commie left wing teachers would have to be trusted to know what they are doing…and worse, they might actually encourage the children to think… no NZ government would be able to tolerate that… :-p).

      Actually i think the key phrase in that article was this: ” Finland’s success is due, in part, to the high status of teaching”.

      And before anybody raises the usual strawman…I will point out that in regard to ‘high status’ pay is only part of the picture.

      • Draco T Bastard 6.2.1

        Actually i think the key phrase in that article was this: ” Finland’s success is due, in part, to the high status of teaching”.

        Yep. See WTF? comment and you can get a good idea of the disrespect teachers have in our community. It’s a pity because it means that our children suffer because of the stupidity of some of the adults.

  7. Tony Parker 7

    Right from the start National Standards has been a very simplistic answer to the complex problems of children’s learning. Only an ill informed fool would expect all children’s learning to suddenly reach a certain level simply by setting the standard and saying this is where they should be. The standards themselves are somewhat confusing and all the professional development I’ve had around NS has been lacking and in fact the facilitators seem to be only one step ahead of us. Overall the whole thing has been rushed through with little thought and very little input from those of us who have to implement it. The lack of consultation and trialling of the process is one of the biggest problems we teachers see in NS and one of the reasons for the distrust and unwillingness to take it on board. There could be some benefits from NS but at present it’s a bit hard for us to see what they are. Our school is complying but I’m not sure if we’re doing it to the letter of the law and as for that mythical parent group that Tolley seems to go on about that wanted NS I’d like to know where they are. Case in point, heard outside one of our classrooms this week after parent interview times were given out-“Why should I come to this? I don’t need to talk to the teacher. This is a waste of time.”

  8. fabregas4 8

    My school is a member of BTAC. We are not rebels. We are simply, correctly, in a principled way, doing what we believe is best for our children. Lets be clear. We have a so called ‘tail’ of 14% of all children. This is one of the lowest levels in the OECD. We rank by most assessments in the top 4/5 of OECD countries in Maths/Reading/Science. We are second only to Canada in educating those children who live in poverty. All this when our education spend per child is in the bottom 10% of OECD countries.

    In my experience Kiwi teachers care deeply about their kids and their schools. They go the extra mile every day in a society that in many ways is decaying around them. If they tell you that National Standards won’t be good for kids – believe them there is nothing in it for them to be part of this battle – quite the opposite, it is tiring and distracting. We all want our schools focussed upon and working towards increased achievement not some half baked policy that has failed and is being abandoned across the rest of the world.

  9. Irascible 9

    What Tolley hasn’t learnt from the USA experience, where the National standards testing, testing, testing regime came from, is that the end result is a slide backward on the international measures of Educational achievement.
    The USA has not been a shining example for effective education policy and success for many years. For Tolley to take the concept of “National standards” and place over the NZ system which has a far better international record of success is one of the biggest mistakes to be made since Merv Wellington, my policy is a flag-pole in every school, was Minister of Education.

    • KJT 9.1

      I have noticed over many years. If there is a big fuck up overseas, the NZ government are going to repeat it just when it has been proven to be an SU in the country which has tried it.

  10. ianmac 10

    Sunday Morning National Radio : 8:12 Insight: Fighting National Standards

    Insight investigates the ongoing opposition to national standards for primary schools as they face the deadline for setting targets in reading, writing and maths.
    Written and presented by John Gerritsen
    Produced by Philippa Tolley.

    • fabregas4 10.1

      Listened to this. Summed up well by the Principal from a school in Masterton who supported the introduction of the Standards when she showed a complete lack of understanding about them by remarking that her school has a “Solway Park take on the Standards” that enables them to place children at the standard even if they aren’t.

      • ianmac 10.1.1

        Yes FG. If you want it to fit it does. Who can prove that they don’t fit given the ambiguous nature of the texts? And especially make it fit if your school is going to be judged on the League tables.
        I seem to remember what happens to positive attitudes when the bar is set higher than you can reach.
        Insight handled it quite well.
        But a bit below average. Must improve! 4/10. 🙂

  11. Gareth 11

    Teaching as a profession is under paid, We need our best and brightest teaching the future generations. As it stands currently the only thing keeping the best teachers in the profession is the love of the job. Great teachers need to be recognised and pay rates need to be high enough too attract the best. High quality education is key to the development of our country.

    I can clearly remember the lessons taught by teachers who were knowledgable, engaging and had a genuine passion for the job. Unfortunatly there were others who were well below this high standard… How we address this within collective agreements i’m not sure.

    I don’t really agree that the assessment method makes a whole lot of difference, If the subject is taught well by an engaging teacher the results will be the same regardless.

    Where I think there is room for massive improvement is in placing kids with a teacher who’s teaching methods suit them best. Currently we seem to work in a more one size fits all way that places kids fairly randomly outside accelerant bands and I know from my time at school that a teacher that didn’t really work for me was good for other pupils and vice versa. We need to identfy teaching methods and indvidual learning styles and fit pupil to teacher in a delberate way.

    I understand that there are apptitude? type tests which may help in this?

    • Draco T Bastard 11.1

      I don’t really agree that the assessment method makes a whole lot of difference, If the subject is taught well by an engaging teacher the results will be the same regardless.

      NS equivalents around the world have resulted in students being taught to pass the test and not taught how to critically think, analyse and understand the subject. Or, in other words, the children are worse off.

      Where I think there is room for massive improvement is in placing kids with a teacher who’s teaching methods suit them best.

      The more efficient way is to teach the teachers how to recognise how to best teach a specific student. Which I believe is what happens nowadays in schools and they’d probably get better at it if we let them get on with the job rather than trying to tell them how to do it.

    • KJT 11.2

      The aptitude tests for this sort of thing have proven to be rather problematic.

      However more trust in Teachers so they can be more flexible about how they teach allows for adjusting teaching methods and schooling for different children.
      At the moment there are so many bureaucratic, politically inspired, restrictions on what you can do that the ability to tailor learning for individual kids is limited.

      What really annoys me is the difference we could have made if all the money spent on NACT standards had been used to teach.

      Why spend money to tell teachers what they already know.

      We already know which kids need extra help.
      Enough funding to allow the extension of our, already successful, remedial programs to all the kids that need them, for as long as they need them, would make a huge difference.

      It is too late by high school.
      It is very frustrating to try and give extra help to those who need it when you effectively have 6 minutes per week for each student.
      Those who are struggling need the help right at the start, At primary school.
      For some it can be something as simple as making sure they have a quiet and peaceful place to study, or a good breakfast.

  12. chris73 12

    How about the principles and teachers just stfu and do their jobs that they’re being paid for

    This is just another storm in a teacup but if the NZEI were bribed with a bit more money I bet they’d change their tunes pretty damn quickly

    • KJT 12.1

      They would love to do their jobs, but ideological and incompetent, self interested political nut jobs keep thinking they know better.

      Pity politicians are not as accountable as Teachers.

      All the MP’s form the last 35 years would be in goal.

    • Ianupnorth 12.2

      Ok, I’ll add another strand; maybe we wouldn’t be in such financial strife if the bankers had done their jobs right….
       
      To tell teachers and principals (someone should have paid more attention at school) to STFU is a typical right wing slander.
       
      As has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions within this thread by pointing out the issues within a flawed set of assessments they are doing what they are employed to do; critical analysis is a skill that is desired within any graduate of a university course, like most teachers – maybe you should try it!

      • chris73 12.2.1

        Bollix

        They’re paid to teach not to decide what govt policies should or shouldn’t be implemented (unless of course its from Labour in which case its ok)

        • KJT 12.2.1.1

          So. To look at something equivalent. If the Government said. “Every surgeon shall halve the amount of anesthetic used because, in the politicians opinion, it makes for faster healing”, do you think surgeons should comply.

          • chris73 12.2.1.1.1

            Thats a stupid arguement

            • ianupnorth 12.2.1.1.1.1

              It isn’t; both have to be responsive to relevant research; politicians have no right to change practice

            • Draco T Bastard 12.2.1.1.1.2

              No, as KJT said, it’s an equivalent. Politicians know no more about teaching than they do about surgery and so the politicians (and fuckwit parents) telling the teachers how to teach is exactly the same type of stupidity of them telling the surgeons how to do surgery.

  13. Tony Parker 13

    Just thought I’d throw this in here. A good blog post from an educationalist about the differences between “marking” and providing good feedback. It has relavence to the whole NS discussion.

    • ianmac 13.1

      Exactly Tony. And I know a teacher who showed Primary Schoolstudents how to peer review each others work especially written work. It was framed around responses to help the writer clarify and improve what the writerw actually intended. Enriching for both writer and responder. Absolutely no marking involved. It would have destroyed the cooperation.
      And a friend who sets and responds to university post-graduate online assignments. He goes to enormous trouble to identify the way in which his students respond and develop. (His Senior was concerned that every one of his 50+ students passed. How can such a high standard be reached he wondered?)

  14. Tiger Mountain 14

    Tolley and National have lost this one, anyone seriously think 350 plus commissioners can be found?

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Swiss tax agreement tightens net
    Opportunities to dodge tax are shrinking with the completion of a new tax agreement with Switzerland, Revenue Minister Stuart Nash announced today. Mr Nash and the Swiss Ambassador David Vogelsanger have today signed documents to update the double tax agreement (DTA). The previous DTA was signed in 1980. “Double tax ...
    2 weeks ago