#1 Teachers are a means to an end. The primary goal is to produce prepared children with quality qualifications, on graduation or completion. If the ERO was the magic bullet, as is being claimed, then we could expect to see more children making it out of the system, better prepared, but that is not what is happening at all. We already know that. That finding alone tends to suggest that more information is needed about the unknown. That is to say, the brand of a schools qualification and the environments in which children are learning so that parents can make better decisions about which classes and schools are a better fit. That holds for teachers too. #2 Each year, schools can survey on enrolment. A questionnaire, prior to administering enrolment could be used to ask questions about where an individual student is starting from going into a class (age,family income by $10k bands, number of siblings, location). Data can then be collated on existing spreadsheets using already available programs. There could be other questions and that's fine too. The point is that what is being talked about is neither costly, nor time consuming. Those findings could suggest nothing more than resistance by some teachers. That probably isnot sufficient reason to reject national standards alongside measuring for academic performance. The problem then becomes who is measuring for whom? However, that is why the question of return on investment for an individual student is so important because it can get more parent/teacher information into the decisionmaking processes. I'm tending to support a view that if teachers care about students then they should be focusing on getting their own measures into those national standards and also ensuring that there are sufficient (information, financial and other) report back measures included at a higher education ministry level?

In a number of countries, particularly the USA and UK, there have been catastrophic (not too strong a word I assure you) failures with measurement and accountability of the major institutions of health and education. Both have suffered as a result: declining educational standards and poor patient care. What has not suffered is the number of bureaucrats running these institutions. The proliferation of these 'managers' is such that they outnumber the professionals such as doctors and teachers. Consequently, despite vast sums of money being invested in health and education, very little of it reaches the people who actually deal with patients or students. In addition very few, if any, of these managers have any qualifications other than 'business administration'. This has resulted in a clear and divisive line between what is important to the managers and what is important to the professionals. Without exception, the managers become 'bean counters' interested in ticking boxes, collecting and processing data - making the measurable important - whilst the professionals deal with human beings; which requires many skills which are not readily measurable. There is an 'us and them' situation which is wasteful, stressful and frustrating for all. There must be a better way. This is a critical stage for NZ and it is to be hoped that a cold, hard look is made at other peoples mistakes before decisions are made. Your children will not forgive you if you get it wrong again.

Kararaina #6, It all depends on how much value one places on the brand value of a teacher or a school, how much one invests in a system which delivers greater status to some teachers and some schools.

Is there really any gain across the education system from taxpayers who fund it, if it only results in greater brand status for some schools and some teachers within it? For the corollary is, of course, diminished relative status for all the others. This may explain why the national standard system does not deliver better educational results.

The ERO system is sufficient for improving teaching method to ensure better results across the system, and presumably that is the desired goal.

The presence of ideology comes into the equation in the presumption that competition will lift standards, that incentives produce results and with national standards better pay can be made to better teachers (reduced pay to others or more money available for pay?). This is the real reason for the proposal - that and the fact that those who favour the competition model (divide and conquer the socialised system) can sell national standards pressure on teachers to the parents. But this has more to do with a management style being applied across an economy than educational standards. Which is why the idea of testing the ideological model in practice in trials is such a horror to the proponents of the change - evidence based procedure is anathema to ideology.

#4 and #5 Interesting comments. What we appear to be talking about now is values, personal choice and maybe even resistance? how can you be so sure that ERO measuring alone is “good” enough? When, it is impossible for me to claim to know personally about the quality of an education experience or preparedness of a school for another individual student at some other school that I never even went too based on ERO data? I cannot. Nothing has been proven yet. There is certainly insufficient evidence to suggest that gathering data by individual student is detremental? And, And yet, you are so passionately defending the validity of your own belief? If that is your belief then it is simply that – your own belief and maybe even resistance. However, that is not sufficient reason to constrain education to a debate over whose values matter most?

A little time well-spent on engaging in testing and measuring individual environs so that like can be compared with like across classes and schools be classified could be, as you say, time-wasting? Although, interestingly, in that Ethics committee scenario, the Chair, in sidelining research, also alleged that full-committee review of some qualitative research applications was a time-waster - however, that view was rapidly rescinded and applications returned to full committee after a ministerial directive stated that if a Committee could not cope with the number of applications, then, those applications were to be sent to another paid Committee. Suddenly, that Chair found time on the full committee agenda to do the job. Overtime, that made that Committee more efficient. Similarly, “good” surgeons can be made to look bad due to poorly performing systems. In hospitals, where changes were made to the way information followed individual patients – there were enormous improvements in emergency services and operating theatres. While there may have been some perceived return to moral ethics; moreover, a reason why comparisons (of competitors) are so important is that comparisons, can encourage cooperation and continually inform and improve “good” quality products and services.

What some are talking about when stating that a school is “good” is not just about student achievement. Are individual students truly growing or simply turning into mindless drones? That data isnot being collected. This is about is a school’s brand in the same vein as a company. Sony makes good products. Stanford turns out some exceptional policy thinkers, and more. Stanford is a good brand. While not entirely a statement about academic performance, this is an important statement nevertheless. Companies and schools invest in their brands because it builds familiarity, recognition and trust. It’s the brand that makes people comfortable enough to use the products, attend the schools or hire graduates. The brand can mitigate fear and risk of the unknown. A “good” brand has nothing to do with selling papers? And, schools that continually invest in their brand are increasing the value (return) on a student’s own qualification, even after graduation. A return for a student is a return for taxpayers. That probably holds for low income and high earning families as well as low/high decile schools. More in

The Dominion Post only push for league tables to sell their papers. It has been well documented that the publication of these tables do not improve schools or student results. The editors are more than aware that League Tables have proved to be detrmental to education but because they can sensationalise them they publish them regardless. Their need to sell papers is more important to them than the education of the children of the communities they serve.

Of course you could have cited DHB's (which exist to be accountable to the public), rather than PHO's, for the record of comparison between them that exists. Which is one reason to retain the DHB system (despite those who favour amalgamation of such bodies, and other local organisations, in the current fixation with size over accountability).

In context though there are differences, for much of the work with national standards is to be done by front line staff - in neglect of actual preparation for a focus on their work of teaching.

Then there is the issue of the national standard results being influenced by the time spent on what is measured by them, rather then other parts of the curriculum. If doctors/nurses front-line work was compromised by other work, or they practiced medicine only in the areas being measured to the distraction of other treatment for the well-being of patients in their care, it would be a breach of their ethical code.

There already exists measurement of school performance by the ERO - it identifies the effectiveness of teaching as part of their work. It does not focus on individual students or teachers that's all. Why, because nowhere in the world do national standards of that type result in better teaching.

Can agree that it is useful to be able to make comparisons across PHOs. However, the same things that make markets fail can and do make government markets fail. Although, a couple of years ago, I wrote a short note to a Labour-led health ministry expressing concern that a vaccine was about to be released for use on young girls which had yet to be fully tested. People were dying and becoming ill. A Minister wrote back stating that Ministry advisors knew best [?] About that time, I accepted appointment onto a Health & Disability Central Regional Ethics Committee. The role is to consider/approve health research o rnew medicines. I only took up that appointment after reading the written national standards and undertaking training. Early into my term, I expressed concern that a specific Committee was being asked to sign-off on reports of serious adverse events in health research without sufficient information to inform those decisions whereas every other Committee was receiving file notes, summaries and recommendations. I expressed my specific concern in accordance with written standards. After telling a full Committee that nothing was being done with those serious adverse event reports, the Chair, gave those reports to a Deputy Chair, outside of any agreed Committee process, who, in turn, initially failed to provide any sufficient information back to a full Committee, to inform decisions. These actions were also inconsistent with national practice. I was also told that the same practitioner had been involved in approving that earlier new vaccine for use so was uneasy with unusual process, with insufficient information, noting that the Chair was about to sideline a qualitative study wanting to explore the matter of informed consent and access to young girls through school rolls. Those concerns forced me to abstain from approving those serious reports, which I did, in accordance with written national guidance and statute. That action ought to have been written into the public record and that would have been an end to the matter. I took that action out of concern for the integrity of the Committee. When I took that action, it displeased some people and I was attacked personally and forced to resign. Decisions about which health research goes ahead continue to be made behind the veil while Researchers are being misled into thinking that a rigorous Committee is informing health research in NZ when that is not what is happening. Meanwhile, a lot of effort by health Ministry staffers has been put into expunging records by way of a Chairpersons annual report – instead of engaging in more rigorous processes and cooperative dialogue. I'm proud of my action against such intense pressure to cow to dictatorship although I have lost all faith in the health ministry under its current DDG management. The point is that National standards are only as useful as those managing them follow through on implementation processes. Hence,I think for a proven need for more rigorous process - like measuring for return on investment in tertiary education (earnings on entry and graduation to get more integrity into the process.

You're sounding alot like just the sort of person who should be co-ordinating these activities so that parties can get some agreement around what data and information to collect, going forward... Even I can agree, at least in principle that alongside academic achievement it could be useful to ask about locations, and measure gross family/parent earnings (say in $10,000 wide income-bands), student age on entry into a class/course. It would also be interesting to see what other suggestions come out of engaging in that dialogue in a way that is mutually agreeable. That data can then be used to inform understanding about what is driving differences between individuals, classes and schools across the country. Similarly, paying students are treating tertiary study as an investment, expecting an actual increase in earnings, less costs (course costs, travel, loss opportunity foregone), on graduation. Given that it is a student who is paying and not the provider institutions, it would be useful to ask what a tertiary student is earning, going into a course and whether or not student investors are making it out the other end, with an increase in earnings, as expected. There may be other ideas for data. In turn, that information can be used to inform understanding in education.

A (national) standardised questionnaire across all classes/courses collated on spreadsheet and published aggregate data, annually could enable like data to be compared with like. However, there could be another problem?

Just this week, I suggested to a Minister that more work could be done around measuring [for return on investment in tertiary education]. In this instance, that particular Minister, not an incoming Minister simply put out a press release stating that some 420,617 student [investors] in 2008, that the number of courses had escalated to 6,000 and that there were far too many beautician courses on offer therefore handing over greater control of public funds and decision making rights to tertiary providers made her happy – or words to that effect. Now that’s hardly engaging members, is it? All that Minister did was count inputs, rather than measuring performance. So, wild assertions about how many beautician courses is enough, is irrelevant. What matters, is whether or not individual paying tertiary student investors are getting increases in earnings, on graduation, as expected. Indeed, rather than arguing one group of values over another, resources could be better spent on getting some dialogue around what useful data can be gathered and a range of measures to put into that new testing regime.

Hahaha that is very amusing (your article was bang on the money) about unions actually trying to make something of the standards. Oh my god are those pigs flying past my widow??