Why does National not trust teachers to teach?

Written By: - Date published: 11:54 am, September 10th, 2023 - 34 comments
Categories: Christopher Luxon, education, national, Social issues - Tags:

National has a fairly predictable way of campaigning.

One of its major techniques is to pick a fight with a sector by posing a policy that can fit in a headline and at the same time pick a fight with that sector.  The tough guy we know best approach is guaranteed to attract opposition from sectors that do know what they are talking about and the resultant fight hogs media resources and attention.  The tactic is known as flooding the zone with shit and Donald Trump is an accomplished genius at the tactic.

And their base love it.  Ill informed old people who yearn for a past that never really existed think it is great.  And the policy has the added benefit of diverting blame away from National for its education failures that occurred while it was last in power.

Its latest announcement about education fits squarely in this description.  National is proposing to direct teachers to use a technique known as structured literacy for the teaching of reading and writing.

From Radio New Zealand:

The National Party is promising to require primary schools to use the “structured literacy” approach to teaching reading and writing.

It would also require primary school teachers to learn the approach as part of certification, introduce phonics checks to test Year 2s’ reading, and bring in structured literacy interventions for those who need extra support.

The Structured Literacy approach teaches reading by starting with phonemes – the smallest units of sound – and building up from there. National’s plan would include putting a “literacy lead” who had received specialist training from an accredited provider to support teachers and teacher aides.

The strategy would be phased in starting with Years 1-3 from 2025, covering all pupils up to Year 6 by 2027. The party expects the policy to cost $60.5 million over four years.

To fund the policy National will “reprioritise” funding for reading recovery although at the end of the document it states that “National will fund the Literacy Guarantee from new operational spending as part of our commitment to increase funding for Education each year in Government.”

But you have to ask why National thinks that it knows better than the experts in the area who have designed a system that has a variety of approaches that work for a variety of learning types, as pointed out by Education Minister Jan Tinetti.  From Megan Wilson at the Bay of Plenty Times:

Jan Tinetti – the current Education Minister and Labour’s candidate for Tauranga – said it appeared National was going to cut the reading recovery and early literacy support programme to pay for the new policy.

Tinetti said the reading recovery programme had been changed in the last two years to include structured literacy. The programme was for students who were “not making the same progress that the other kids are making”.

“It really concerns me that the way they’re looking to pay for this is by cutting something that’s absolutely essential to the fabric of our education network.

“Every single school that I go into – and it’s most schools that have a structured literacy approach – also tell me that they need the remedial approach.

“So I’m actually shocked that they’re cutting [reading recovery] because it’s kids who are going to be in danger here.”

She said for about a year, the sector had been working on the best practices for the teaching of reading.

“And I feel like National have just undermined their work by asserting that they know best with this policy.”

She believed academics and sector experts “know best” and it was important politicians “stay out of it”.

“Sometimes people seem to think [structured literacy] is a magic bullet and it’s not – we’re still going to [need] the catch-up programmes as well.”

National’s policy paper contains this rather interesting graph.

The graph is interesting because it shows an increase to 2006 under Labour, a decrease to 2011 under National, a significant drop to 2016 again under National and an easing out to 2021 under National then Labour.

I wrote this in 2012 about National’s change to Education after it was elected in 2008.  I referred to the Briefing to the incoming Education Minister and noted the report made two points:

1.  The average performance of New Zealand 15-year-olds in mathematics, science and reading literacy placed New Zealand among the top countries of the OECD.

2.  The Government was urged to continue with professional development programs.  The Numeracy Development Project, established in 2000, had resulted in significant improvements. Between 2002 and 2007 the percentage of Year 6 students achieving at or above the expected level in mathematics increased from 40 percent to 61 percent while the percentage classified as at risk decreased from 30 percent to 13 percent.  The Literacy Strategy, also established in 2000, also saw significant improvements.  A 2008 evaluation showed that after taking into account expected growth and maturation, students’ gains in reading and writing were twice those that could be expected without the intervention and that schools accelerated the rate of progress for the majority of the at-risk students by four times the expected rate. 

So what happened to the recommendations?  In Budget 2009 then Minister Ann Tolley gave private schools $35 million extra funding, announced the roll out of National Standards while at the same time cut funding for the literacy and numeracy projects despite their effectiveness. If she wanted to do something for literacy and numeracy she would have not done this.  She was looking to appease National Supporters and introduce testing for PR purposes at the cost of two quality programs.

Clearly the same will happen if there is a change in Government again.  And National will clearly direct Teachers how to teach if it gets the chance.

These issues ought to be the subject to intense analysis and advice, not a policy document drawn up to scratch political itches.

The intent does seem to be to pick a fight, flood the zone with shit, and dominate media cycles for as long as possible.

It is a shame that politics has degenerated to this.

34 comments on “Why does National not trust teachers to teach? ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Peter 1
    10 September 2023 at 1:06 pm

    The logical development to see there is a structure which ensures all kids get what it is said they should? Produce lessons for every aspect of every subject for every age group.

    Have step by step verbatim 'recipes' for teachers to follow/implement.

    That means that parents on any given Tuesday will know their Year 3 kids in Mosgiel, Kamo or Tamehere will be getting exactly the same as others, what they need. Not missing out. Getting robots in to implement the programmes would be the way to go.

    The weirdest thing since it's all about education and learning in its widest senses? We've got dumb bastards telling dumb bastards what should happen and how. The next chapter? Encouraging our best and brightest young minds to take up teaching, to lackey under cretins waving cretinous blueprints.

  2. Mike the Lefty 2
    10 September 2023 at 1:11 pm

    National have never liked or trusted teachers.

    This comes down to basic right wing ideology – distrust of anyone who teaches or promotes progressive thinking. To National progressive thinking smacks of lefty radicalism. It is also all about that during the 90s when National began its campaign to break the union movement, the teachers' unions was the one union it totally failed to break – and National have ever since borne a grudge.

    You could of course argue quite convincingly that the teachers unions – NZEI, PPTA etc. are not very lefty now, teetering on the verge of right-wing philosophy but that does not alter the fact that they have historically been very opposed to National meddling in the classroom.

    Luxon's promise to further meddle by taking over the role of teachers and school boards' policy on cellphones won't exactly endear them to teachers either.

    • Molly 2.1
      11 September 2023 at 8:20 am

      "This comes down to basic right wing ideology – distrust of anyone who teaches or promotes progressive thinking. "

      Education must endeavour to be non-political or partisan.

      Why?

      Imagine your quote in reverse:

      'This comes down to basic left wing ideology – distrust of anyone who teaches or promotes conservative thinking.'

      Would you consider this a critical analysis or a lazy dismissal of concerns?

      • Mike the Lefty 2.1.1
        11 September 2023 at 11:19 am

        You have to ask the question: When have National ever promoted progressive thinking, or progressive anything? – except progression of bank balances of course.

  3. tc 3
    10 September 2023 at 1:48 pm

    They do love a good teacher bash don't they so throw in a phoney culture war and it's 2 for the price of one.

    People need reminding of the Tolley/ Parata shower key presided over.

  4. Roy Cartland 4
    10 September 2023 at 2:29 pm

    I agree with the above comments. The whole point is to "teach to the test", where good grades can be touted; while at the same time, the populace gets dumber thus easier to control and coerce.

    Look at the USA. It's no coincidence that country has a high rate of angry jingoism and loud ignorance is almost a badge of honour.

  5. Patricia Bremner 5
    10 September 2023 at 3:33 pm

    This is Micro management. Directives to "fix this." Ad hoc Policy.

    National ignored the science about parts of covid, and now they are doing the same with reading.

    Where do they get the hubis to ignore experts in the field?

    This is done to look like they have "consulted concerned parents"

  6. bwaghorn 6
    10 September 2023 at 5:24 pm

    I'd settle for a political party that got parents to actually bother to send their kids to school,it's a semi constant battle with mine due to half her class only attending occasionally, , not sure what the fix is but this country really is looking down the barrel of having alot of uneducated kids out there

    • Patricia Bremner 6.1
      10 September 2023 at 5:48 pm

      The children have had 3 years of interruptions and illness. They are the Tik Tok generation. China found it was affecting their young so they have mandated the amount of face time. Here? Freedom Baby!! So we are getting issues. Perhaps Luxon's lock box for the phone could be why he went that way.?

      • bwaghorn 6.1.1
        10 September 2023 at 6:30 pm

        Na it's piss poor parenting, just more sign of the decay of family and structure and general giving a fuck, I'm not recommending authoritarian fixs because we know they only get applied to the poor and marginalized,

  7. Belladonna 7
    10 September 2023 at 8:21 pm

    I can see that we're not going to agree on this one.

    There is significant evidence that 'structured literacy' (AKA phonics based or decodable text reading) – is a better learning to read strategy overall.

    https://www.themeasuredmom.com/what-is-the-difference-between-balanced-and-structured-literacy/

    The MoE have failed badly in retaining their 'balanced literacy approach' (trying to combine phonics and whole language and predictable texts) for as long as possible.

    Some kids learn through the balanced literacy approach (predictable texts – with lots of visual clues). Those kids also learn through the phonics based approach. And, quite frankly, some of them learn without any teacher intervention at all.

    More importantly, there is a very substantial minority of kids who do *not* learn through predictable texts – they just guess. And, therefore they fail to learn to actually read.

    Research shows that including even a bit of the predictable approach (the MoE balanced approach) is detrimental – because it teaches kids that they *can* guess as a strategy. And guessing is easier than decoding.

    https://www.liftingliteracyaotearoa.org.nz/support/balanced-vs-structured-literacy

    The reading recovery programme taught in NZ was designed by a Kiwi- Marie Clay. Which may explain why the MoE is so reluctant to abandon it – despite the fact that it just doesn't work for most children.

    https://www.apmreports.org/story/2022/04/23/reading-recovery-negative-impact-on-children

    None of this is new. The research is decades old. And NZ is seriously out of step with international best practice. Our reading rates are certainly not going up – plateauing and trending downwards. And every year we graduate a new batch of kids into Year 4 who are functionally illiterate. By then it's pretty much too late in the NZ schooling system (although parents have learned to go outside to get the help they need…. if they can afford it)

    This has *nothing* to do with the government in charge (it's happened over multiple governments), and everything to do with the culture at the MoE.

    Given that every teacher under 50 will have been taught to use balanced literacy in training college, and at every referesher reading seminar thereafter – there is a very strong argument that you can't 'trust' them to just switch to a completely new teaching method. It has to be mandatory. And there has to be a high level of re-training.

    It can be done. Some schools have already switched. Using fundraising and parent contributions to re-train their teachers.

    Given that Reading recovery fails so many students – why shouldn't money be re-directed into an approach that works.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/431048/schools-footing-bill-to-teach-teachers-how-to-teach-reading

    • Incognito 7.1
      10 September 2023 at 8:33 pm

      I can see that we’re not going to agree on this one.

      When you start like this, with a projection, it kills constructive discussion from the outset and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    • Molly 7.2
      11 September 2023 at 7:24 am

      My children have all benefitted from different reading approaches.

      The most dyslexic from a decoding programme, which sounds is similar to what is proposed. Very easy to use, and structured. Cost around $60 several years ago.

      Comments like this:

      "Ill informed old people who yearn for a past that never really existed think it is great. "

      – are not really providing anything other than censure for those who do recognise there is a long standing failure, and think improvement is necessary.

      • Incognito 7.2.1
        11 September 2023 at 6:41 pm

        I sounded out “censure” and it has a nice ring to it, but what does it mean in your comment?

        It is rather pointless because you seem to have completely missed or ignored the gist of the intro of the OP.

    • Peter 7.3
      11 September 2023 at 10:03 am

      What is that 'culture at the MoE?' And who are those people?

      • Terry 7.3.1
        11 September 2023 at 2:14 pm

        I think NZ education department, was the only civilised country that did not recognise the existence of dyslexia and other similar learning issues. My experience with state schools was being told that I was mentally retarded and would never read or write. My parents then sent me to a private school & within 6 months was reading years ahead of my age.

    • newsense 7.4
      11 September 2023 at 9:51 pm

      So many disqualifying…

      guessing and predicting is a huge part of learning to read. It shows cognition to imagine what fits with the text, use the clues etc etc

      I mean no strategy should exist by itself and of course we should teach some phonics.

      I guess you’re not proposing to stand at the front of the class shout euh euh America and have them chant all day? While pointing at all the letters that could be schwa…

      Incognito said:

      I can see that we’re not going to agree on this one.

      When you start like this, with a projection, it kills constructive discussion from the outset and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

      My reply- I still can’t tell if the deadly nightshade/ beautiful lady is a highly engaged concern troll or just details obsessive. It feels like she’s often there to muddy the water, though she is a rigorous debater.

      • Belladonna 7.4.1
        12 September 2023 at 7:46 am

        So, really clear that you haven't bothered to read any of the links, or actually engage with the topic. And have zero idea what is actually involved in structured literacy.

        Go on embracing your ignorance.

        If all you've got is ad hominem attacks on my handle, I know just how valuable your input is.

  8. Tricledrown 8
    11 September 2023 at 8:18 am

    National policy means More teachers moving out of teaching going to Australia. National never give pay rises to teachers National cut education funding by their old trick of increasing the number of dollars but it is always below population increase and inflation.As with all of there spending promises! Then ACT will cut and divide . ACT and National want to break the teacher Union.No1 priority .more wasteful spending on expensive govt funded underpreforming new private schools.

  9. Patricia Bremner 9
    11 September 2023 at 9:45 am

    With structured teaching methods being "the only method" bright children may become bored, as the teach/test model becomes entrenched rinsed and repeated.

    Word decoding strategies are vital, but that is a tool, it is not reading.

    Learning to read requires a huge bank of vocabulary experiences oral interactions and visual cues on which to draw. Good sight and hearing helps.

    I have taught children who decipher every word but failed to gain the main idea of what they had decoded. They had no concept of storyteller and audience, reading or listening with purpose.

    If you teach skills in isolation and neglect actual reading using those skills to get meaning, it is possible to get "barkers" who don't apply those skills for a reading purpose.

    Teachers apply every method they know to help readers who struggle.

    Better trained advisors in the field, support staff and materials, beginning class numbers all have an impact.

    When Parties get into Government and cut corners according to the purse, demand change by switching methods, and denigrate a sector it is not inviting to become a teacher.

    • Belladonna 9.1
      11 September 2023 at 10:42 am

      With structured teaching methods being "the only method" bright children may become bored, as the teach/test model becomes entrenched rinsed and repeated.

      To make an assumption that "bright" children never stuggle to learn to read, is quite literally appalling.

      There are so many kids in our schools who are being taught that they are dumb and stupid, because the current teaching method just doesn't work for them.

      Nothing about structured literacy prevents the kids who just 'get' reading progressing quickly to chapter books, and reading more widely.

      Reading for meaning works fine, for kids who've mastered reading. It simply doesn't work the other way around.

      The international research is showing that whole language, and 'balanced' literacy programmes are just not working for a very large subset of kids learning to read.

      Learning to read does *not* require a "huge bank of vocabulary experiences oral interactions and visual cues on which to draw". Everything about that sentence is an example of what is wrong with the balanced literacy approach. Structured literacy builds on the most basic vocabulary (common to all children), oral language is irrelevant – decoding is what matters, and visual cues simply teach children to guess.

      We already have just about the lowest numbers ever in our beginning classes (under 15 in Year 1, and under 23 in years 2-3). Teachers are thoroughly trained in the current methodology, and there is tons of support for Reading recovery, etc. None of which is working for a huge number of kids. Time to admit that the teaching model is wrong.

      As I've said, this is an MoE issue which transcends governments.

      • Patricia Bremner 9.1.1
        11 September 2023 at 11:58 am

        Belladonna, my comments about literacy foundations of good oral interactions is fundamental.

        The teaching of basic vocabulary common to all in early learning is vital, and parents talking reading doing rhyming games with preschoolers is also vital. Exposure to good language patterns and interactions creates that foundation.

        Please do not twist what I have said. It is well established that story telling talking with and encouraging questions assists learners to lay a foundation for language.

        Those who arrive without that have a deficit.

        I agree that structured teaching is vital for beginning readers, but every method has problems and I hope support and training is offered for the change of direction.

        • Belladonna 9.1.1.1
          11 September 2023 at 1:35 pm

          There is a huge difference between oral language and reading (learning activities which go in in completely different areas of the brain). And, no, high levels of oral literacy are not fundamental to learning to read using structured literacy (although, they may be more important for the whole language approach). Indeed, this is one of the ways that children coming from disadvantaged backgrounds can begin to catch up their more advantaged peers. The current model widens that gap.

          The point is that learning to read needs to start with structured literacy – for all children – and exposing students to the balanced literacy approach is actively detrimental.
          Teachers can't just add a bit of phonics to their current approach. It needs to change radically.

          And, yes, there needs to be investment in training teachers in the new reading model. Money which has to come from somewhere. I don't have an issue with taking that money from Reading recovery, which is a failed approach (despite the Kiwi connection).

    • Terry 9.2
      11 September 2023 at 4:31 pm

      My experience of the NZ state school system was me (actually my working class parents) being told that I was mentally retarded and that I could never learn to read and write.

      Fortunately for me my family decided to send me to a private school, rather than being mentally retarded, I just had dyslexia and ADHD. With in about six months they had me reading several years ahead of my age.

      At the time the NZ education ministry did not recognise dyslexia, while the rest of the world did.

      The school I went to employed different ways of teaching different children depending on their needs. I believe all it took was having competent teachers who knew how to teach. Unfortunately NZ teachers are not taught how to do this.

      This is a good move from National, I for the life of me can’t understand why the left do not want to educate the working classes.

      • Patricia Bremner 9.2.1
        11 September 2023 at 5:04 pm

        Yes My own son went through a similar battle. If a condition is not recognised, training is not provided.

        We have as Belladonna points out, learned a great deal about brains and learning since I was in the classroom 23 years ago!!

        I don' believe the Left doesn't want to educate the "working classes".

        What tends to happen is the well off who enter teaching work in wealthy areas.

        Poorer areas do get some dedicated teachers, but those children present with health behaviour and family stresses which makes teaching more difficult.

        I am pleased your family found away for you to learn Terry.

  10. Thinker 10
    11 September 2023 at 11:04 am

    National don't even trust teachers to manage student cellphone use so of course they don't trust them to teach.

    I guess the proof of the pudding would be to see where kiwi kids do in the international Cambridge exams – that's the same exam worldwide and a useful benchmark. Does anyone know?

    On a different note, I wonder if "Jolly Roger Douglas" will call out the Natz for doing their pirate-themed election campaign on the weekend. Clearly, if Luxon becomes prime minister, DOC, NIWA and the likes of Te Pukenga had better "…be ready to repel boarders, aargh".

    • Belladonna 10.1
      11 September 2023 at 1:47 pm

      I doubt that performance in the Cambridge exams is a useful benchmark. Only a few schools offer this (mostly private ones, although I believe there are a few State schools who do). And usually, only the top kids sit these exams (academic kids with a high chance of passing them). Certainly kids who are functionally illiterate at the age of 16 when they leave school won't be enrolling to sit the A level exams.

      If you look at the PISA scores (international comparisons) – NZ shows a sustained downward trend for reading levels (also for maths and science, which is another discussion)- operating across decades, now.

      https://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/PISA2018_CN_NZL.pdf

      Which is why I think this is a MoE issue, not a government one.

  11. Annette van Brakel 11
    11 September 2023 at 1:31 pm

    I'm a teacher, union member, social justice advocate for neurodiverse learners, and have dyslexia in my family. The current MoE are so S-L-O-W at making change, despite promises, its no surprise they have been upstaged on this issue. So sad it has become a political football when it really is simply about good teaching. https://www.liftingliteracyaotearoa.org.nz/blog/a-unique-chance-for-all-parties-to-do-whats-right-for-learners

  12. nukefacts 12
    11 September 2023 at 5:50 pm

    What's being lost here, apart from Belladonna, is that the current approach to teaching literacy (and mathematics and science) is:

    1. delivering ever declining standards (this is an objective fact)

    2 the MoE appears incapable of recognising there is an issue despite awareness of declining standards and intensive lobbying from parents and some teachers, and

    3. most teachers also seem incapable of recognising there is an issue

    My kids emerged from Primary school recently being unable to read correctly – they now 'guess ahead' all the time, which with more sophisticated texts and no pictures just doesn't work, and we are slowly training them away from this.

    Maths education is so dire that 90% of my daughters year 6 class were told just to go to private tutors for maths – and this is a decile 10 school.

    When we raised these issues at the school they fobbed us off, denied there was a problem, and asserted strongly their teaching was working, but contrary to their rhetoric, there was no individualised learning and no responsiveness to the learning needs of our kids (including dyslexia). It was appalling.

    That shows how fundamentally broken the system is, and how despite their good intentions, the teachers were so wedded to their ways of working, they just wouldn't change.

    And don't get me started on how they are poisoning science education with Matauranga Maori!.

    Even though I despise National and Act, I can see their point here. Something needs to change.

    • Belladonna 12.1
      11 September 2023 at 7:47 pm

      There is hope. Some schools (and not just the well-off decile 10 ones) have switched the teaching model to structured literacy. They've fund-raised for the resources and for the teacher re-education – and it's paying massive dividends in the rising reading rates.

      They are (quite naturally) not at all pleased with the MoE which only funds Reading Recovery (even when schools don't want to use this failing model).

      This is from 2020

      https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/education/schools-footing-the-bill-to-teach-teachers-new-literacy-approach/3SMWSF3BSOCO5LJ76733SMBIOQ/

      And here's a recent report from a (local to me) school.

      https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/making-the-grade-struggling-students-get-a-boost-thanks-to-changes-in-teaching-and-monitoring/LB5K4PS4KVG2FAFOWCWTF6EE2U/

    • Belladonna 12.2
      11 September 2023 at 7:56 pm

      denied there was a problem, and asserted strongly their teaching was working,

      This is so true. I still remember the Year 6 parent-teacher interview where the teacher said my kid was "trucking along in his maths group".
      At this point, he was 18 months behind the class average, and apparently hadn't learned anything in maths in the first 6 months of the year (the maths achievement hadn't shifted). This did not worry the teacher in any way…..

      • nukefacts 12.2.1
        11 September 2023 at 9:11 pm

        Wow Belladonna, that exactly mirrors our experiences with both kids. I have seen this problem widespread across the primary/secondary education sector in multiple schools. I think part of it comes from the teachers training courses, and part from the MoE.

        There seems to be slavish devotion to "child centred learning", but this consists of e.g. throwing 9 strategies for multiplication at kids, then give them some homework, not mark it, and not check they have understood before moving on to the next thing.

        • Belladonna 12.2.1.1
          11 September 2023 at 9:18 pm

          I can offer you a positive outcome.
          Following the disastrous Year 6 he went to a Yr 7-13 secondary, where excellent Maths teachers who knew their subject, combined with supplementary paid-for tutoring – meant he picked up the concepts quickly, and was achieving at the class average by the end of Year 7.

          Showing that it was poor teaching, not innate inability – in his primary years. He still can't do times tables and mental arithmetic (and I expect he never will) – but they all use calculators, so it doesn't seem to be too much of a disadvantage.

  13. newsense 13
    11 September 2023 at 11:32 pm

    Uggh.

    This is like the debate over learner styles, which in the end of the day you need to be able to operate in visual, aural, kinetic etc etc spheres in order to be successful overall.

    Likewise to be able to operate a language you have to be able to understand its phonetic components and use it in a narrative context or whatever text you are reading.

    The cultural side of reading has changed immensely. Changes in literacy can reflect what is not being received passively in the culture. Newspapers and magazines are museum pieces. Novels are unusual. Reading role models are less prominent, because of the numerous other choices available for recreation. If you haven’t created a positive attitude to reading in the first five years, getting to school and doing phonics and bottom up reading isn’t by itself any kind of solution. Motivation is a key to most learning, and the lack of it is hard to overcome.

    That’s assuming those flooding the debate are sincere, which we must. However, being personal and being sincere are not the same thing. It is entirely possible to shutdown debate for partisan reasons and still use personal examples.