Children - and teachers - must be allowed to fail

FAIRFAX

NATIONAL STANDARDS: The alternative, to allow pupils and their parents to believe they are succeeding when they are not, is unconscionable and smacks of an easy way out for teachers and schools.

Relevant offers

OPINION: There is nothing quite like the world of political correctness to provide farcical entertainment.

Each variant adds to life's rich tapestry. My favourite last week was the job centre in Britain, which initially declined an advertisement for a ''reliable'' worker on the grounds that unreliable workers could sue for discrimination.

That even left the BBC in the shade, with their continual squirming to avoid the use of ''terrorist''. Since the time of the Irish ''troubles'' the BBC, with its global reach, has taken the view that one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

Rather than upset all the Irish in America, they came up with various euphemisms to avoid describing IRA bombers as terrorists. Then terrorists in Iraq were described as ''insurgents''. Even during the train and bus bombings in London, the perpetrators (of Middle Eastern rather than Celtic origin) were, in BBC language, ''misguided criminals''.

That reminded me of the wonderful educational euphemism for failure - ''deferred success'' - which Britain's Professional Association of Teachers tried to introduce a few years ago.

Unfortunately, this took the thought processes to New Zealand teachers and their bloody-minded opposition to national standards in primary and intermediate schools. And that produced a headache.

I can't help but feel sorry for Education Minister Anne Tolley as she valiantly battles away on this one. It  would, after all, be easier to abandon the field to the teachers' union, as previous governments have done, continuing to leave pupils and their parents in the dark over performance and standards.

I don't know if the NZEI has taken over from the Labour Party in singing The Red Flag at conferences but, judging by their campaign, it would seem to be warranted.

Mrs Tolley, it seems to me, should have more support from her colleagues. After all, this is Government policy, not her private predilection. It was widely flagged as National Party policy pre-election. Why should teachers be able to subvert the declared policy of a democratically elected government?

Why should the wishes of so many parents be ignored?

Central to this clash is the fundamental need for parents and pupils to be aware of performance, and failings, so correction can be taken.

There is a complete lack of clarity at present.

Faced with the facts, some parents may even wish to use the additional support of outside tuition in extreme cases. We cannot go on for ever with the ''deferred success'' approach, pretending there is no such thing as failure.

This is delivering to employers a batch of school-leavers unable to read or write adequately, or to undertake basic maths. Some employers have had to institute basic in-house education systems.

Prime Minister John Key is on record as suggesting one in five pupils are being left behind. Teachers present heart-tugging examples of pupils considering themselves failures when faced with the sometimes unpalatable results from national standards systems.

But that can be addressed in work programme discussions with parents and pupils to try to regain lost ground. It should be seen as a warning alert, rather than a lasting stigma.

The alternative, to allow pupils and their parents to believe they are succeeding when they are not, is unconscionable and smacks of an easy way out for teachers and schools.

Inevitably, national standards will lead to an unofficial grading of schools based on their results and standards. This is anathema to many teachers, who see it as ''naming and shaming''. Offsetting that is a parental right to know. And poor ratings should spur these schools and teachers to do better.

Secondary schools are ranked and the system has not collapsed. While teachers seem reluctant to acknowledge pupil failure, they also regard teacher performance to be uniform. All teachers are equal, so therefore there is no need for performance pay.

What Mrs Tolley should do is to drop the performance pay grenade into the current mix. This would divert teachers' attention from national standards to their own pay.

They will argue strenuously that they are all equal but, as the electorate is only too aware, some are more equal than others.

- © Fairfax NZ News

Newest First

Oldest First

Russell   #4   10:35 am Feb 05 2010

Oh, the irony! Richard Long demonstrates in 1200 words how he doesn't understand the complexity of the problem.

"Central to this clash is the fundamental need for parents and pupils to be aware of performance, and failings, so correction can be taken." Very true! I wholeheartedly support this idea. Now, kindly link it causally to the idea of national standards. I've worked in education systems in several countries. National standards systems in all of them do nothing except force the schools to spend time teaching the students how to take the exams, as opposed to spending time helping the students learn.

The OECD thinks that the NZ system isn't too bad. Guess they're wrong and why won't anyone think of the parents?! Are the students learning? What are they learning? Is it relevant to what they need to learn? Should they all be learning at the same rate? Performing at the same rate and level? How, exactly, do national standards tests demonstrate any of those things? Or is it just nice to avoid the hard questions, hang them on the hook of "national standards" and "accountability"?

Personally, I see national standards testing in the current form (most forms, actually) as an admission of failure - an admission that NZ doesn't really want its children to learn. It just wants them to feel like they are, even it's just compared to the Smith's down the street. After all, what NZ really needs in order to compete in this world is a wider spread ability to take standardised tests.

Fraser   #3   06:42 pm Feb 03 2010

The teachers favour the option that means less work and less accountability for them. However, they have (accidentally) made a couple of good points. If teachers start teaching to the test, that's bad; also, if data are released and comparisons are possible, the schools will be judged on their results, when upbringing is so much more important than teaching quality.

Fox   #2   08:44 am Feb 03 2010

I have always found the idea of performance based pay a wise idea in teaching.

Speaking as a teacher myself I have no fear of being held accountable for what I do on a daily basis and have found that those who complain the loudest are often the same ones who arrive at 8.30am and leave at 3.30pm, complain that they work all through their holidays (find me one teacher who does 8hrs a day minimum when on holiday!) and think that we aren't paid enough for a job we only work 9months a year in!

It has been in my experience after 10 years teaching that the best paid are not always the best value for money.

In saying all this though I have also met many fantastic teachers whose hard work, time and dedication have improved the lives of the children they teach. You know who they are. They are the ones who you remember, who made learning exciting and who you know cared about you as person and student.

I just hope I'm remembered by some of the children I teach as much as I remember the ones who inspired me to become a teacher.

John Delany   #1   09:31 pm Feb 02 2010

Thankfully political journalists should be allowed to fail as well! Mr Long's opinion piece rates "well below" in terms of demonstrating any understanding of the real issues surrounding classroom assessment of children's learning. Perhaps now that this has been pointed out to him his ability to critically evaluate the motives of concerned teachers, parents and academic experts will magically improve.

Ad Feedback