I’ve been thinking quite a bit about the opposition’s Education Policy announcement ‘Teaching the Basics Brilliantly’.
In a nutshell, after some rhetoric about how our system is failing students, they’ve outlined the following.
What is ‘Teaching the Basics Brilliantly’
1. An hour each on Reading, Writing and Maths each day – share best practice guidance on timetabling to support schools to achieve this.
2. Minimum requirements for what schools must teach every year in Reading, Writing, Math and Science.
3. Regular standardised assessment (at least twice a year for students in years 3-8) and clear reporting to parents. Schools will use e-AsTTLe, and be provided with a common reporting template so they can report to parents twice a year. Introduce an age-appropriate skills checklist for students towards the end of year 2 which will assess basic skills in phonics, counting and letter formation. Expand the NMSSA study to sample more students so they can monitor the target of getting 80% of year 8 students at the expected curriculum level.
4. Better training and more tools to support teachers. This includes an exit exam for graduating teachers to assess their expertise in the four areas above and pld for existing teachers in teaching the ‘basics’ and this will be a requirement for certification. Teachers will need to show evidence of pld in Math, Science, Reading and Writing to be registered. Scrap teacher registration fees.
5. Develop a free online resource bank aligned to the new curriculum to ‘reduce workload’.
My thoughts and wonderings in relation to the 5 key points outlined above.
1. Such a mandate may not meet the requirements of section 127 of the Education Act, which states that the education provided to students should be “appropriate to their age, ability, and aptitude.” Mandating a fixed amount of time for each subject every day assumes that all students learn at the same pace and have the same learning needs. However, this is not the case, especially for diverse students. By mandating specific subjects and time limits, students may become disengaged and may not be interested in learning, which can lead to limited learning outcomes. This will make our attendance issue worse. I wonder if they’ve considered those students who have high levels of anxiety, transience, behavioural dis-regulation and those with a wide range of learning needs. Let’s not forget our students with significant issues resulting from trauma. The list goes on. Sadly, it’s just not as simple as suggested. Teaching is a complex craft, with more variables than simply ‘teaching the basics’. I guess they think they can solve this with the ‘guidance’ on best practice timetabling. Goodie. Can’t wait to see that priceless gem!
Does that mean no pesky learning experiences outside of the school or things like Pacifica day…etc. On the plus side, this should free up some time! By my reckoning that will leave teachers with 2 hours to fit in Science, Social Sciences and Aotearoa New Zealand Histories, Art, Music, Technology, Digital Technology, Dance, Drama, Physical Education and Health, and perhaps eat lunch. Who needs those Key Competencies, or Values, or Te Ao Måori? Sigh.
2. I’m a little offended by this. It smacks of ignorance. What do they think those of us involved in the current Curriculum refresh have been doing for the last few years? Twiddling our thumbs? Have they read the Kaupapa (principles and ideas that set the foundation) of the refresh? There are four of them. One of them is about being clear about the learning that matters. Across the whole NZC – not just English, Math and Science.
In addition, there is the Common Practice Model and the Literacy, Communication and Math Strategy. Do some reading and become informed. At least the refresh and Practice Model/Strategy is research-informed, being developed by the sector (you know, the ‘experts’) designed to be inclusive and most importantly, honours Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Nothing I’ve seen in this policy can say the same. We’re not the UK or Australia. Our Curriculum and our pedagogies must reflect the context of our Nation – not another’s. If it isn’t, it won’t attend to the ‘failings’ in our current system. A system, that is incidentally, a reflection of the political football that Education in Aotearoa is. Every election cycle we go through a roller coaster of change that whoever gets in charge assumes will be the panacea to ‘fix’ it. Instead, it makes things worse. If they really wanted to be inspirational they’d get bipartisan agreement on what’s important and stop using our children as Guinea pigs!
3. Sigh. There’s a huge assumption that schools don’t do this already. I’m not even sure where to start here. I understand the rhetoric but the logistics are another thing.
Assessment for learning is a process of gathering information about students’ learning progress and using that information to provide ongoing feedback and adjust instruction. In addition, it encourages student ownership and engagement, reduces anxiety and aligns with best practices. Standardised testing uses the results to compare students. Useful for a Government wanting to make judgements on our sector but not helpful for students learning.. Overall, assessment for learning is considered to be a more effective approach to measuring student progress than relying solely on standardized testing. By providing ongoing feedback, supporting personalized learning, encouraging student ownership, reducing anxiety, and aligning with best practices, assessment for learning can help to support student success and improve learning. I await further detail with much anticipation.
4. The exit exam for trainee teachers – When they complete training they’ll just be testing theory – until you have your own class that’s all it can be. The theory is nothing if the delivery is rubbish. However, I’m all for a proper review of our training providers – this isn’t the way. As for the Training and professional development of teachers. No issue there but how will it be funded, when will teachers undertake this and the WHAT will be what I’ll have some issues with – but until we see detail then it’s just an eye roll for now. I have a wondering about scrapping fees to the Teachers Council registration – I’m sure that will be popular but who will fund the work of the Council? Fresh air maybe?
5. Again, have they consulted with the NZC Refresh team? They’re working on this as I type. Another reinvention of the educational wheel – only this one’s square.
In conclusion..
Mandating a fixed amount of time for each subject every day assumes that all students learn at the same pace and have the same learning needs.
There’s a huge irony here that this policy very much looks like a different version of National Standards, what’s that old adage? If it walks like a duck, squeaks like a duck? Then it’s a duck. Or National Standards with a new cover page. This policy has all the hallmarks of the failed National Standards policy. A policy that had negative impacts on student learning. Impacts we’re dealing with still today.
I’m disappointed that there’s no acknowledgement of the impacts that have arisen from the disruptions to learning caused by the COVID-19 pandemic impacts that have further highlighted the need for flexible, adaptable educational approaches that meet the diverse needs of students.
There is a missed opportunity here which is disappointing. Instead of mandating specific subjects and time limits, the opposition could have developed something with the sector where educators could encourage students to develop their skills and interests by offering a variety of learning opportunities and allowing them to explore different subjects at their own pace. Instead, this feels like ‘interest group lobbying’ – not research and evidence-based policy.
A more individualized approach would better support students’ diverse learning needs and interests and could help to address underachievement.
Furthermore, teachers could work collaboratively with parents and whānau to identify the individual learning needs of students and tailor their teaching strategies to better support these needs.
They could have also provided additional support for students who are struggling, such as extra support and teacher staffing for individualised or small group teaching.
I’m disappointed there’s no innovative thinking or no mention of our collective obligation to Te Tiriti – at best it’s a sad attempt to appeal to a particular demographic by scaremongering and using neoliberal politicking to garner votes. What a pity. All this will achieve is to widen the gap, disengage students and teachers alike, and turn Tumuaki (principals) and senior leaders into curriculum police.
I don’t want to be negative, just for the sake of negativity. But I’m struggling to find the positive. It’s because we’ve been here before and the children of our Nation deserve a rich, deep learning experience that ensures they are ready for today and tomorrow. All we need is our politicians to fund and resource us to make it happen. A little bipartisan agreement would be awesome too! This policy won’t do what it claims – it’s too narrow and too simplistic.
To be clear, there’s plenty that concerns me in the current context (a post for another day) – but at least there’s a pathway for me to express those concerns and attempt to do something about it. Should this come to pass I know there will not be the ability to work to improve it – it will just be dropped on me to enforce it, or to find ways to make it work for our most at-risk students.
We can, and we must do better. This is not the way.