Letter: Where does the real blame lie?

Last updated 12:03 18/06/2012

Relevant offers

Letters to the Editor

Remember to keep your distance Think hard before you judge people Context needed over Sydney siege Police shouldn't have apologised Airport costs hammer ratepayers Argument to merge doesn't stack up Praise and support for former MP's actions Social housing a poor result Speed signs add to confusion Top-down model doomed to fail

OPINION: The Government argued that by increasing the number of pupils in a class, fewer teachers would be required and the money thus saved could be used to raise the quality of those who remained. This was to be done by introducing performance pay, presumably by ranking each teacher's skill, paying bonuses to the best and dispensing with the worst, allied with an improved training regime for student teachers.

The mechanisms for doing this, presumably, exist. Three questions weren't answered. First, what pay scale is necessary to attract students of the correct quality into teaching and what would it cost? Do sufficient such students exist? Finally, how would the better teachers be targeted at the tail of scholastic under-achievers, given that this is more likely to arise from sociological issues?

It was obvious that with the range of schools, both in size and decile rating, class sizes, and pupil skills spread across the country, the general policy promoted by the education minister had no chance of being accepted.

Does the blame for the furore lie with Cabinet, the minister, or the Education Ministry? Educators and the public deserve an explanation.

MIKE WILLIAMS

Tawa

Ad Feedback

- The Dominion Post

Special offers

Featured Promotions

Sponsored Content