Greg’s Blog - principal (le?) learning

It seems the battle lines are being drawn over National Standards. Media reports this morning have teacher unions, principal unions and the minister all making strong statements about their positions.

Being quoted saying things like:

“The Government will not resile from national standards. Parents want them, they have a right to them and this government is going to deliver them.”

Is not going to placate the 75% or more of principals who are saying they are prepared to withold the data without assurances league tables etc will not result from them.

Good luck sacking 1000+ BoT’s!

Mrs Tolley said there was still time to work through any disagreement. She was confident the Government would not face the prospect of sacking boards that backed their principals.

good time to be a ‘facilitator’ or a commissioner?  Growth industry there it would seem.

Aorangi School in ChCh has been given just weeks to convince the MoE it should not close after a long standoff over rebuilding classrooms which were rotten and dangerous. The MoE has been hard-nosed about the funding level they were prepared to provide to rebuild the school and the school has been hanging out to be able to do the things they consider essential for a 21st century school. Some thoughts that occur to me if the school is allowed to close simply because the cost is too high would be:
* be afraid if schools around you have surplus space and you have large building projects in the pipeline
* economics are increasingly driving MoE decision making, rather than educational needs.
* schools with falling rolls are particularly at risk in this environment. Particularly those on larger, potentially salable sites.
* I seem to remember the MoE having to introduce new policies in the budget with no money to do it; “from existing funding” was the term I think. Now we know what that means.

Individual children and their needs are a long way from this sort of decision making. A fine line to ride between what is best in the biggest picture and what children with names in classrooms need to be the best they can be.  Between the politically populist and the educationally defensible.

full text of press release today:

NZPF: Quality Teaching and Learning Under Threat

The New Zealand Principals’ Federation is deeply concerned that quality teaching and learning in New Zealand classrooms will be under threat, and feels the potential positives of the draft national standards scheduled for implementation in 2010 may be train-wrecked by the reporting of data that would allow the formation of league tables.

Speaking at the NZPF Conference in Palmerston North, President Ernie Buutveld today revealed that more than 95% of the NZPF members are either opposed to or have serious concerns about national standards, despite their potential for good. 75% felt so strongly they have indicated that should reporting requirements make it possible for the media to produce league tables, then they would continue to report as they do now. The survey also reflected, where boards and communities had discussed the standards, a similar disquiet as that expressed by their principal.

“Reporting at the local level to parents and the community is not an issue,” says Buutveld. “Focussed discussion involving data to inform teaching and learning is vital. The damage occurs when it is used to create a ‘high stakes’ environment. This can only impact negatively on our children.”

“In the same survey, only 2% of our members said they had no problem with the proposed National Standards,” says Buutveld. “That leaves thousands of our members who are yet to be convinced that this is the best way forward.”

Buutveld goes on to say that despite many researchers proving that National Standards have not worked effectively overseas, the National Government is still trying to force through this populist policy. “Time is needed by both the sector and the Ministry of Education to work through the data issue, and design what could become the world’s first successful implementation of this policy, without the threat to quality teaching and learning. This remains the challenge before us.”

“Over the last few months, a wealth of published material on National Standards has been made available. This research has come both from within New Zealand and from a number of other countries. There is not a single piece of research that gives unqualified support to what Minister Tolley and her government are working so desperately to put in place, so how can they possibly justify this move? With the potential for league tables, national standards is a proven failure. After 15 years of National Testing in the UK, 94% of the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) voted to boycott their Standard Assessment Tasks next year.”

The NZPF says the goals of reducing underachievement and giving parents clear information are both valid and well intended, but insists that the ‘high stakes’ potential around National Standards is not the answer.

“Our minister met with international assessment specialists earlier this year, including Professor James Popham of UCLA,” says Buutveld. “Professor Popham expressed surprise that New Zealand is pursuing this policy and explained publicly how schools and teachers in his experience have been stigmatised as a result. The English tell of students who have suffered the same fate. Wales and Scotland have both rejected national testing, and across Australia some early damage has already been acknowledged. Here in New Zealand, the idea has been criticised by teachers, principals, Boards of Trustees and communities. What part of the consistent message is our minister not hearing?”

Buutveld says that National Standards could possibly benefit New Zealand education, but only if they are used in the context of progressions or milestones rather than standards.

“I suspect there would be huge support from the profession for this policy to be promulgated as milestones instead of standards. This would suggest quality teaching and learning is the prime motivation.”

The NZPF says that the angst among its members rests on two key points: the proposed rollout timeframe of 2010; and the possibility of data being accessed by the media to create league tables.

“The National Party was happy to criticise the Labour Government for its failure to implement NCEA effectively, and yet they are now rushing through the National Standards and expecting us to implement them in less than six months. In Opposition they said governments should listen to their stakeholders. Have they now forgotten that?”

“If following consultation, data remains the issue and could be used potentially to publicly exercise a culture of blame and shame for schools, we should be worried for our children.”

Buutveld says that this concern might be dissipated should an amendment to the Official Information Act be introduced, allowing data generated by the standards to be exempted. “We have asked the Minister if she would be willing to initiate this type of bill, and we also want more safeguards placed around the electronic collection of data from schools by the Ministry of Education.”

Buutveld says the National Government does not have a mandate to make such a significant and fundamental change to the New Zealand education system and get it wrong. “Students, parents, teachers, boards, school leaders and communities will all be affected if we get this wrong. We have worked hard to create a fantastic new curriculum, but this is now in jeopardy of being overshadowed. The National Curriculum is the biggest positive change to the New Zealand education system since Tomorrow’s Schools. Please give us the time to embrace this world leading 21st century curriculum. We do not wish it to be undermined for the sake of haste.”

“Maybe standards could be part of the answer, but the speed with which they are being constructed and forcibly implemented will allow fundamental flaws to remain. New Zealand is recognised internationally as being at the leading edge of education. Now is not the time to go jumping off the edge into the abyss.”

[946 words]

Please Note: The full text of Buutveld’s speech will be available from www.nzpf.ac.nz from 10am.

The OECD report is a bit of a tome and pretty heavy reading but this quote just struck me:

“Decisions regarding the subject areas and grades or year levels in which student assessments will be used … are particularly important as they delineate the aspects of a school upon which performance is measured. These decisions therefore define what is meant by a school when estimating schools value-added scores to promote school accountability, school choice, or school improvement. If students are only assessed in mathematics and the language of instruction then the definition of a school is those aspects of a school that contribute performance in those measures in the grade or year level in which the assessments take place and, depending on the structure of the school system, the grades and year levels leading up to the assessment.”

OECD pg 177
Do we want our choice of testing to define for us what a school actually IS? This goes further than I would have.  It confirms that what we are nervous about may very well come to pass with the aggregation of the National Standards data with the MoE.  Do we really want our the definition of the concept of ’school’ to be the narrow range of skills covered in the Standards.  Ken Robinson et al would have a FIT!

The report is also expressing a lot of caution about using RAW achievement data to target school development initiatives.  The say not correcting for those factors outside the influence of the school makes drawing any valid conclusions extremely difficult (p14, 28).  This was one of the prime motivators we were told for the implementation of all this in our ‘consultation’ meeting, to enable the MoE to identify those schools requiring support and target resources to them.

Clarity of purpose is key. (p178)  Purpose dictates the measures, how they are evaluated and the kind of data that is gathered and how it is analised.  Are we clear on the purpose of the National Standards? The report states that if the purpose is accountability then a single measure is perfectly sufficient.

I am absolutely certain there is a will with the MoE to make the National Standards the best they can be and for all the thinking around them to be worked through.  Trouble is the haste with which all this is happening means this can not be done well.  We will be implementing a system with holes in it that we will only find along the way.

In our change management processes at school we work hard to brake any model at the conceptual and theoretical level before we put things into practice in classrooms and with the kids.  I am not sure we are enabling this same process here ….

Cohort size also makes a difference and it is noted that small schools in particular produce unstable and more unreliable data:

“participating countries generally considered cohorts of less than 20-30 students produced …. estimates that led to problematic interpretation of results” (p181)

This is simply a function of having a smaller group to moderate etc rather than the abilities of the teachers.  So we are saying we need a school of approximately 150 to produce valid data …. mmmm.  Bit of a problem for a country where this is about a third of schools.

Also an issue with correcting for the “outside of school influence” factors when we have been assured individual children will not be identified. (p183)  All we end up testing without this is home background (p ??)

I guess the key message is that any system is only as good as the planning at the outset and the thinking that is put into it.  Also the data quality and integrity is crucial and needs to match the PURPOSE.  All things to be worked through for the National Standards.  Interestingly too there is an absolute assumption that any programme will involve a pilot programme (p193-5), not something I have heard mentioned at all.

Page 198 recommends no results be published until trends over three years can be established to ensure that schools are gathering and reporting valid and stable data.  Interesting!!  “Extensive” consultation to engage stakeholders and training “is required” (p199)  So to is training.

Things have a habit of coming along when you are thinking about something.

John Hatties latest book has caused a bit of a stir in education circles recently and I must admit I have struggled with some of the statements that have been attributed to him based on his research.  Then people like Arti are quoting him and appear (at least) to have a lot of time for his ideas.  Pam has her crap detector turned to max and is good at calling it as she sees it …. so maybe I am wrong?

Then this from Bruce Hammonds:

Somehow, just because Hattie has amalgamated every piece of ’school effectiveness’ research available ( mainly it seems from the USA) his findings, it seems, ought to be taken for read. The opposite ought to be the case - we need to be very wary of such so called ‘meta research.’. More worrying however is that the approaches he is peddling is pushing into the background the home grown innovative creative learning centred philosophy that was once an important element in many classrooms. Overseas experts aways seem to know best - or those that return with their carpet bag full of snake oil.

Smythe,after reading Hattie’s book ‘Visible Learning’, writes that Hattie’s ‘feedback’ is really attached to a direct instruction process .It is more concerned with testable transmission of teacher devised content to the students and as such is antithetical to individuality and creativity. The book, according to Smythe, is ’skewed to a certain style of teaching and learning ( learning set up for measurement) and towards appealing to conservative influences’. Enter, from the right, the School Review Office to collect the evidence, and the Minister’s National Standards to narrow teaching.

hmmmm …. had not thought of that! maybe that’s what makes me feel uncomfortable?  I have blogged before about my belief that we are not able to isolate causal factors and make stark claims about their effectiveness.  Class size, of itself, may make no particular difference (teacher quality being more important) but the things that a smaller class size enable certainly do make a difference and I would argue can allow good teaching to be even better and all the things like quality interactions in the teachable moments to happen.  And according to this we already have smaller than OECD average pupil-adult ratios.

Bruce and Kelvin have a good point about the inherent assumptions and learning and teaching model implicit in this book.  It does smack of a transmission model.  A technocratic approach to learning and the craft of teaching that Bill Gates agrees with.  Not sure I do!  everyone should take the time to read these two articles!

Then this from Graeme Wegner:

note where NZ is!  What is wrong with being 4th overall?  The Olympic Committee would all get Knighthoods if they could achieve this.  I’ll keep checking my inbox and the mail awaiting my letter of congratulations from our Education Minister (or is that a Tui advert I see?)

Then I stumbled upon this:

How can school performance be measured accurately to improve learning outcomes? “Measuring Improvements in Learning Outcomes” proposes a value-added model of measuring which provides a more fair, precise and quantitative tool for assessing students’ progress. Unlike some league tables which rely on raw test scores, value-added modelling measures what students have learnt while in school by monitoring their performance at two or more points in time. It also overcomes many of the problems plaguing other models which can be biased against schools with socio-economically disadvantaged students. The report sets out three broad objectives for using value-added modelling:

*school improvement initiatives, to better develop specific programmes.
*school accountability, to enable fairer and more accurate evaluations of performance to ensure resources are being used efficiently.
*school choice, by providing parents and families with information on the performance of different schools.

The cost of education in OECD countries rose by an average of 39 per cent between 1995 and 2004. If outcomes are to improve, accurate measures of performance are essential. This OECD report emphasises the benefits of using value-added modelling and, importantly for policymakers, discusses a number of implementation strategies available to governments.

Would love to be able to look at this publication in more detail!  But not at $50us.  [update - available HERE online] The model we have at school for our assessment tracking and reporting has a strong ‘value added’ focus.  Would be good to see what the thinking is.

So …. great to be eclectic with the places that inform my thinking and delve deeper than the surface features of the information we are given.

This from Derek Wenmoth who is in the UK at the moment:

The Guardian ran a story claiming primary school strategies were a waste of money citing a report from the Policy Exchange thinktank that claims in fact, standards rose faster before the government introduced its national strategies for numeracy and literacy. According to that report in the five years before the national standards were introduced, literacy standards rose by 22% and numeracy by 27%, which slowed to 10% and 6% respectively in the eight years after the strategies came into effect.

Some useful stuff here for my colleagues back in NZ to consider as we look at introducing national standards in an attempt to address the issue of stagnancy in the development of literacy. In responding to questions about the National government’s plan to introduce national standards legislation in parliament Minister of Education Anne Tolley referred to the latest Progress in International Reading Literacy Study survey which found that the average reading literacy score for New Zealand, in statistical terms, did not change from 2001-05. Quite a different situation from the UK it seems.

Why, with such wonderful things happening in our system overall do we run to catch up with where other countries were?

If this was a childs PE assessment we would say there was very poor Game Sense. We would tell then go to where the ball will be, not follow the game around
because:
* It tires everyone out unnecessarily
* requires a lot more work and leaves you vulnerable to sudden changes in circumstances
* you will NEVER catch up anyway unless someone drops the ball
* smart players will always outperform you (run rings around you)
* average players can do better than you because your focus is not on the future and what could be. NOT just on what has already gone wrong.

I could wax lyrical with lots of other analogies I’m sure ….

Lets take the ball and run with it to where we know play should and could be. If the powers that be get in the way FEND!!!

Discussions are happening in a few places online:

http://centre4.core-ed.net/modules/forum/thread.php?space_key=468&module_key=59781&thread_key=39995&subject_url=&post_key=39995#39995

http://www.educationalleaders.govt.nz/Online-forums/Leading-change/National-Standards-an-election-promise

http://nationalstandards.ning.com/profiles/blog/list

http://nationalstandards.ning.com/

and quite a few of the blogs by school leaders I subscribe to.  See my sidebar at the bottom of the page.

re the meetings:

The Ministry of Education say 2895 teachers and principals have attended education sector meetings on the national standards so far, with about 470 parents attending the parent ones. Many of the consultation meetings are asterisked as “full” on the MoE website. Seems like there is a lot of interest and concern judging by this.
Interestingly there has been a relatively low number of submissions online from the education sector (164) but about 450 parents have commented.

Take the time to have YOUR say!!

I read this in someones blog post recently and have made up a poster using AutoMotivator.

It is not our job to make school easy for kids.  It SHOULD be hard sometimes.  If they can do all we ask of them then the level of challenge is not high enough.  Failure is a natural part of learning.  You can learn a lot from things that don’t work too.  It is what you do when the going gets tough that differentiates good learners from those who struggle.

Our children at school are preparing for our local science fair at the moment and some of them are certainly finding that out.

Been thinking about the National Standards and why the teaching profession is so resistant to them. Seems to me that there are fundamental differences between the world views of the teaching profession and the MoE with respect to a number of very important things.

It is these differences that seem to be causing the conflicts in opinions over the Standards?

These are of course gross generalizations and not necessarily reflective of individuals in either sector, just generalizations I see and how each sector seems to view the other:

There are some highly skilled, cognitive and competent people in the MoE who have the best interests of schools and childrens learning at the very centre of what they do.  The complete inverse is also true.

What would you add to the list? Is this accurate or am I being way to cynical?

Can anyone point me to ANYTHING an education professional not employed by the central MoE has written or said that is positive about the National Standards and their implications for our system?

Not HERE:

The thing we might agree on is that New Zealand has a long tail of underachievers. Will national standards shorten this tail? I don’t think so. The factors that contribute to under achievement are complex and varied. If it was just good teaching that produced high achievement then good teachers and good schools wouldn’t have a range of achievement - everyone would be high achievers[my emphasis]. I know this is not true. Good teachers and good schools still have a range of achievement, even when other factors that influence achievement are weeded out (poverty, parents’ education level, etc).

good point though ay!

A comment on a recent post about the new Standards discussion pack got me thinking.  I have blogged before about the importance of having a common language for having professional discussions.  PLOT talks about the difference between dialogue and discussion and David Andersons EdTalk is stunning for sharing with teachers about the importance of professional language and how we talk about things.

The Maths Standards introduce a new set of understandings and descriptors into the teacher professional vocabulary.  This in itself will make the implementation process a more difficult one.  Each  curriculum document already has its own terminology and the glossaries at the back of them seem to be getting longer and longer each time we get a new one.  We can’t have discussions about things we don’t have common understandings for the terminology around.  Who had heard of phonological awareness 10 years ago?

Maybe it is time for a “plain language” curriculum as much as plain language reporting to parents?