Joyce Reveals Plan For New School Payroll System

As more and more teachers report problems with their pay, the minister in charge of fixing the Novopay mess has today announced details of a new temporary payroll system.

Steven Joyce today called a press conference to explain the steps being taken by the government to address the crisis.

Teacher Development and Smaller Class Sizes: We Can Have Both

It’s not often that I get grumpy enough to take a Herald on Sunday columnist to task over their opinion piece.  I would certainly never be spoiled for choice. I don’t mind that a newspaper presents a range of opinions, from left to right, so long as they’re not of the barking-mad variety (e.g. Paul Holmes on an off day, Michael Laws every Sunday), and so long as there’s some attempt at balance overall.

Of late, however, the Herald group of newspapers seems to have taken a frenzied approach towards the hiring of curmudgeons, Actoids and libertarians to write opinion pieces. Have they spotted a hole in the right-wing opinion market that others (Roughan, O’Sullivan, Hopkins, Holmes. Woodham etc) aren’t filling?

The column by one such opinionator, Damien Grant, in the HOS got my blood boiling. I don’t know much about Grant, except that he’s a liquidator and a libertarian. I’m not sure if he’s a full-blooded objectivist, but he does appear to contribute regularly on Lindsay Perigo’s odd Solo Passion site, including on discussions regarding their prophet, the somewhat batty Ayn Rand. And when I say "odd" I'm actually being charitable.

So it stood to reason that Grant would hold views somewhat outside the political mainstream, I was not disappointed.

Bill English mocked the demonstrating post-graduates and suggested they take lessons in rioting from the Greeks. They do not need to look that far; New Zealand's teacher unions have provided a fine lesson in how vested self-interest groups can defend their entitlements.

That these teachers dared to defend themselves when the government tried to sack a bunch of them! The shame! The shame! Presumably they should have just rolled over and agreed to the loss of their livelihoods so that people like Damien Grant would feel better about the tax cut he got.

What has been lost in the debacle is that the Treasury Secretary pointed to hard evidence that showed class sizes made little difference. What mattered was teacher quality. John Key made the point that in the past 10 years the teacher roll had increased 12.5 per cent to 50,000 and student numbers had risen by 2.5 per cent. Rebalancing was in order.

“Rebalancing” is one of those terrible euphemisms, like "collateral damage", that means something much more unpleasant that it sounds. In this case it means firing teachers and sending them to the scrapheap.

The “hard evidence” Grant refers to doesn't say what he thinks it does. There is evidence that marginal changes in class sizes are not as critical a factor to a child's education as the quality of the teacher, but the argument does not follow that we can therefore just increase the average class size without any impact. There will be some impact, however minor.

Otherwise, why wouldn't we just create classes of 100 kids per student? If you think that’s an absurd argument to use, bear in mind that it’s pretty much the same argument John Key used in the 2011 election campaign to attack Labour’s minimum wage increase policy: if a marginal change has no effect on employers, why not make the minimum wage $20 or $30 an hour? Allow me then to beat Mr Key with the same stick, since he's no longer using it.

There is a larger problem with Grant's overall argument. It relies on with the assumption that we have a general problem with teacher performance. I would argue the opposite. Sure there are some rubbish teachers (I have also met some terrible, terrible liquidators in my time), but New Zealand’s education system is admired around the world. I would guess this is in no small part down to the motivation, enthusiasm and dedication of teachers. For many teachers it isn't the money that motivates them, because if it was all about the cash most of them would have found another career by now. Sure they want to be remunerated fairly, but if you paid them a bit more it wouldn't necessarily result in better quality teachers.

In a tight economic environment, a policy was devised to cut the teacher roll marginally and introduce performance pay to attract and retain quality teachers. How hard a political sell is that?

The problem with such a sell is that voters can usually sniff out bullshit when it’s served up to them. As for “marginally”, when the policy was first announced some schools said they were going to lose up to 10 or 11 teachers. Intermediate schools were going to have to drop or severely curtail metalwork, woodwork and other technical subjects.

Would you rather have little Johnny in a room of 30 kids being taught by a competent, energetic pedagogue or in a class of 28 being taught by an unmotivated dullard?

Where are these dullards? Which schools are they currently teaching in? How would the proposed policy have got rid of them?

This, however, was not the question that was asked in the mindless vox pop quiz to the "man in the street".  

The question was "do you want larger class sizes" and not "do you want your kids taught by unmotivated dullards?"

Perhaps because that would have been a really stupid, dishonest thing to ask people. Most teachers are not unmotivated dullards, so how would not increasing class sizes make them so?

Teacher unions were always going to react to a cull. Overstaffing benefits them significantly but the burden of this is spread over all taxpayers.

Clearly this is untrue, considering that some taxpayers got rather handsome tax cuts, and that a large number of our super-wealthy continue to use every trick under the sun to minimise their taxpaying obligations. To Rand-worshipping objectivists those avoiders are probably heroes, but to the rest of society they are the real bludgers.

The “burden” as Grant describes it, is a world-class education system that other countries admire. It should also be remembered that in most private schools the average number of students per class is even smaller. Clearly those who choose to pay for private education (including our Prime Minister and a significant proportion of his cabinet) understand the importance of small class sizes, even if some of them refuse to countenance the same ratios in public schools.  New Zealand schools are not overstaffed.

We remain passive while the unions successfully exert enough pressure to keep their snouts in the Government's trough.

No we don’t remain passive at all, as the debacle over classroom sizes shows. Grant is one of a small minority who don’t get the genuine anger most parents of school-age children felt over this issue. It wasn't something the unions just whipped up. If it was it would gone nowhere, just as union protests over National Standards have.

Presumably Grant thinks those unions with their “snouts in the Government’s trough” should just disestablish themselves on the basis that our wise and benevolent government will do the right thing by our kids. However, this fiasco shows that teachers and parents know more abut what's good for kids than Treasury officials.

We can only assume that Grant has never himself sipped from the Government's trough. Presumably he has a firm policy of never acting for Government agencies, and has never claimed any sort of benefit or entitlement from the Government.

Key talks about economic growth like farmers talk about summer. It will arrive; we just have to wait long enough. If only that were true.

Well we agree on something at least.

Improving the standard of education was something real he could have achieved and it would have had a positive impact on economic growth. It is an opportunity missed.

Grant appears to think that if he repeats this line about improving the quality of our education it might become true. I fear his hopes will be disappointed.

If Grant wants more money spent on teacher development (and that's a big "if"; I suspect his frustration over National's backdown comes from watching an opportunity to slash teacher numbers go by, rather than a desire to increase the quality of our education system), then he should argue for the government to still spend that money. There's plenty of money to pay for it, and we wouldn't have to increase class sizes, if we reversed some of National's tax cuts or re-prioritised some of National's other spending.

Following the unions' example, the demonstrating postgraduates must feel confident about overturning the Budget change that prevents them being able to claim student allowances. They can, however, borrow money from the taxpayer at the very attractive interest rate of zero. They can still apply to tutor undergraduates, seek sponsorship, do private teaching work or, heaven forbid, get their hands dirty working at McDonald's, assuming McDonald's will take them.

Many students already work part-time to supplement their measly student allowances. I would confidently predict that students work much harder in general than they did when Mr Grant was at University (I am making an assumption that Grant was university educated). Such is the cost of accommodation and transport that many students still struggle to survive.

Let's keep in mind that student fees do not cover the total cost of a university education. The budget provides $1.1 billion for universities (presumably including renamed technical institutions like AUT) to cater for 118,000 students. This comes out at more than $9000 a year per student, or $29,000 per degree. Plus student allowances. 

The Government still subsidises the cost of postgraduate education. Expecting students to do some work is not a cause for rioting.

This boils down to Grant saying that by investing more in the development of teachers we will keep them motivated and performing, and by investing less in university students we will achieve the same result. Can anyone else see a problem with that argument?

The government tried to sell this policy as a trade-off between smaller class sizes and better teachers, as if we cannot have both of these things. If teacher development is so important to the government they should find the money for it. There's plenty of money for motorways. Let's put some of it into education.

The Spin Won't Work This Time

The National government is no fan of teachers. It never has been, and National have long worked to paint a picture of teachers as being barely competent, and resistant to change.

The truth is somewhat different to this picture. New Zealand has an education system that most other developed countries envy, and there is a strong emphasis on teacher development. Of course there are lousy teachers, but every industry has its share of people who are incompetent or resistant to new ways of doing things.

There is no sound educational reason to justify National's plan to increase the size of most classes. While it's not clear exactly what effect increasing class sizes will have, it doesn't take a genius to work out that nothing good can come from teachers having less time to spend on individual students.

Politically the move is a disaster, and it appears for the first time in years to have united almost every educational sector group in opposition to the Government.

National have become accustomed to pushing ahead with things that the public don't like, because for the most part public distaste over policies like asset sales hasn't affected polling.

But this feels different. Very few people have anything good to say about National's plans, and when increases in class sizes become a reality for parents of school-age children, they will probably start to turn away from National.

National have already begun back-pedalling, having so spectacularly misjudged the mood of the nation on this issue, and the new Education Minister is looking as incompetent and out of her depth as the last one was.

People hate asset sales, and yet the government's spin has convinced many that asset sales are a necessary evil. But no amount of spinning by National will convince people that increasing class sizes won't affect educational outcomes.

Call Me, John

John Banks says Catherine Isaac is qualified to oversee the trial of Charter Schools because the ACT list candidate "loves education", and spent six years on a school board of trustees.

I love cricket, and I spent several years playing the game in my youth. Should I take over John Wright's job when he retires?

I am also a fan of the All Blacks, and have played a bit of club rugby in New Zealand and England. Clearly I can do just as good a job as Steve Hansen.

I've also watched quite a few films over the years, and I did a film appreciation paper at University, so Sir Peter might as well hand over The Hobbit directing duties right now.

And I'm a big fan of education. I spent several years in various schools and universities, so I would also like a role in setting up these Charter Schools. Give me a call, John.

Not Irony #2

Over at Kiwiblog David Farrar writes:

The teacher unions insisted national standards should be trialled before implementation, yet are furiously against charter schools being trialled.

Are they worried the trial might be a raging success? 

What are the problems with this analysis?

• The teachers unions don't want National Standards at all. They don't want a trial. But because they don't much like the policy and think it will fail, they believe that a limited trial would have been a lesser evil than a full rollout.
• It's entirely possible that opposition to charter schools is based on a dearth of evidence that they will lift the achievement levels of those most in need.
• Based on overseas evidence, which is mixed, it would take an incredible optimist to expect charter schools to be a "raging success". It's unlikely that such fears are behind teacher opposition.
• The charter school plan is also opposed by principals and school trustee groups. Not just the teacher unions.

Keep them coming, David. I'm not stalking you, honest.

The Two Most Powerful Arguments They Can Muster

Let’s sum up the arguments by the main players for and against Charter Schools.

Educational experts:

• There’s little evidence that Charter Schools will make a difference to those who most need help. The evidence from overseas is mixed, and while some studies have shown that kids from Charter Schools can do well, there is also evidence to show that this is very often at the expense of disadvantaged kids, who are often discouraged from attending such schools because they drag the averages down. The evidence is inconclusive at best.
• Schools already have a degree of autonomy under existing legislation, although they must still adhere to certain minimum standards if they want state funding. So what will Charter Schools give us that the current system does not already provide?
• If Charter Schools are to be trialled to see if they work, why weren't National Standards also trialled first?
• OECD rankings regularly rate New Zealand near the top for quality of primary and secondary education. This shows that the generally the problem with learning is not poor schools or teachers.
• Children who come to school hungry and have major issues at home are harder to teach. That’s why low decile schools on average do worse than high decile ones. The key to lifting performance is to address poverty-related issues.
• If schools were better funded they would be able to devote more resources to those children who struggle with learning. If the aim of the policy is to focus on struggling children, why not just give more money to existing schools?

Government/ACT:

• If the teachers unions are against it then, by God, it must be a good idea!
• Oh well, bad luck, that’s MMP for you.

Not Irony #1

David Farrar applies some wonky logic in order to blame everything bad the Nats do on the left.

If all the lefties had not tactically voted NZ First to get them over 5%, then National would have 63 seats and not need ACT and United Future to govern, and hence it is far less likely that ACT would have got agreement to have a trial of charter schools. When the main party *needs* you, you will get far more wins than when they simply *want* you.

What's wrong with this analysis?

1. "All the lefties". NZ First got 6.8% of the vote. How many of those people were "lefties?" I'd be guessing, but maybe half at most. So that's maybe 5-10% of those "lefties" who voted. Most "lefties" have little time for Peters.
2. "hence it is far less likely that ACT would have got agreement to have a trial of charter schools." That assumes National reluctantly conceded to ACT's demands and was not in fact a willing participant.
3. If John Key and his proxies had not spent the fortnight before the election shrilly denouncing Winston Peters and all his evils, we might have had a majority National government. Even if we assume National is being forced to concede anything it doesn't really want, it's an own-goal. Farrar can't really blame the left for the horrendous tactical blunder he and others made in giving Peters publicity.
4. If charter schools really were unpalatable to National they could have said "no deal" and just given John Banks a win with something else. It's not as if ACT campaigned on charter schools, so I'm guessing it was never going to be a deal-breaker.

If any group of voters is to blame for the National/ACT deal, it's those voters who gave National their party vote and/or John Banks their electorate vote.

Did You Vote For Charter Schools?

I wonder if it has ever occurred to John Key or John Banks that the fact so many people leave school without an adequate education might not always be the school's fault.

Now they are embarked on an ideological crusade to introduce Charter Schools in an effort to improve the lot of children. Unfortunately for Key and Banks, the answer is not to set up schools with public money but no public accountability (I thought National were meant to be the fiscally responsible ones...), but instead to help lift families out of poverty.

In general there's not a lot wrong with our school system. It's not perfect, but it is miles ahead of the education systems in many other countries. Education is one of the things we do well, even if the results aren't always obvious.

But when the kids you're trying to educate come from broken homes, have behavioural issues and are coming to school hungry, it doesn't really matter what you try to teach them, because it probably won't make a difference.

I have a theory that John Key is more than happy to be seen to cave in to John Banks' demands, because they're things he'd quite like to do but doesn't have the political courage to announce as National policy. Now he gets to have his way while the other John looks like the villain.

Did you vote for this?

National’s Contempt For The Young

It is telling that John Key’s announcement to stop a handful of young folk from enjoying the delights of cigarettes and alcohol drew the most sustained applause at National’s recent conference.

It shows that at the heart of the National Party is a barely-disguised disdain towards the young.

You need only look at National’s big plan announced at the conference. John Key’s big visionary idea is to micromanage a small group of young beneficiaries, thus reminding them on an almost daily basis that they are undeserving bludgers.

We are told that these are recessionary times, and that we need to slash welfare spending. But there are plenty of welfare cheques being written to many of our top companies and in many cases rightfully so. So why is it that we are prepared to help our fledgling companies but not our young people?

Young people may be the future of this country, but they may well decide they have no future here.

A deep-ingrained contempt for youth would explain a lot of National’s policy.

It would certainly explain National’s cuts to job training, its ongoing attacks on early childhood education, and its assault on the education sector generally. National Standards, being implemented against the wishes of the education sector, and against all sound expert opinion, illustrates that contempt.

It would also explain why National was so quick to axe the government’s contributions to NZ Super. The younger generations will have to bear a greater burden in the future to support the elderly, because the prudent savings scheme Michael Cullen put in place to address our ageing population has been kneecapped by John Key and Bill English. English said we could not afford to continue the contributions. But he also gave away billions of dollars of revenue in tax cuts, cuts that we the taxpayer are borrowing to fund.

Dr Cullen also created Kiwisaver to help young people save for the future, but National has been slowly and steadily dismantling that scheme too, to the point now that its popularity has declined.

A callous disregard for our young would also explain why National is so ready to sell the family silver. State assets are our children’s’ inheritance, paid for by generations of taxes. National has no mandate to sell those assets, and polls show that the public are firmly against such a move.

It would also explain why the government is so ready to raise taxes for the young. If you’re new to the workforce and starting out on the minimum wage you’re being hit hard by price rises, including food, power and the cost of petrol. The tax cuts John Key gave you won’t have come close to covering those rising costs. Inflation is running at over 5%, while wage growth is much less. Remember John Key’s “no GST increase” promise? It was a lie. Raising GST allowed Key to give those at the top end a bigger tax cut.

It also explains why National’s welfare policies are all about pushing young people off benefits, rather than creating jobs. There is next to nothing being done to create work for young people.

That these policies are silly, short-sighted and ultimately destructive should be obvious. If we marginalise the young to the point where they feel like they have no stake in our society and nothing to gain by being active participants in civil society, what do you think will eventually happen?

Many young people will leave the country. But what of those who stay? We saw their potential future on the streets of London and other UK cities last week.

But it doesn’t have to be that way. We have choices as a nation. We have choices as voters.

These People Might Vote For Us

Anne Tolley and the Government continue to say they cannot accept the teachers' pay claims. They say there's simply no money to pay teachers more, without borrowing further and burdening future generations.

But executive pay in the tertiary education state sector continues to climb.

It seems that Key and Tolley are happy for top executives to be a burden on future generations. Well, I suppose they're more likely to vote National than those rabble-rousing teachers.

Money To Pay Teachers Spent On Prisons

John Key and his inept Education Minister are doing everything they can to aggravate the pay dispute with the secondary teachers union.

The teachers' claims are modest, but the Government's response has been provocative.

The Herald reports:

Mr Key said the Government was already borrowing $256 million a week.

"Do the teachers really want us to borrow more than that and place a noose around the neck of young New Zealanders?"

Talk of nooses is insulting and provocative. Nobody is going to be hanged as a result of the teachers' strike. If anything is going to burden young New Zealanders in the future (see how I avoided reference to nooses?) it is the fact that the Government borrowed money to fund tax its cuts. Cuts that were meant to stimulate the economy.  How's that working?

And the cuts to early childhood education are another thing that will hold back the progress of many young New Zealanders. Making it less affordable is likely to prevent some kids from attending early education centres. This will likely have negative outcomes for some children. We'll end up paying when some of those kids become unemployable adults, or end up in jail.

But I'm sure the Government will find money for new prisons when that happens.

Choice? What Choice?

If you have ever wondered what those Government working groups get up to during their meetings, I think I now know.

A working group of MPs from National, ACT and the Maori Party has asked that parents of the 20 per cent worst performing and five per cent best performing students be given greater choice about how and where the child is educated and taking their Government funding with them.

They get their crack-pipes out and light up.

The report lays out various options that could be considered where a student identified as low or high achieving could use a "learning broker mentor" to help form a learning plan.

A broker? A broker is what you use to arrange your insurance. Or to buy and sell your uranium shares. Why would the working group use the word “broker” to describe this role, unless it was a deliberate attempt to commoditise the education system?

Unless of course they were all stoned to the bone.

But if they weren’t all off their heads, that leaves only one other interpretation. They are attempting to screw over those at the bottom of the heap. That’s to be expected of ACT, and National is always inclined to favour those with the dosh. But it is an indictment on the Maori Party, many of whose supporters are at the bottom.

Choice sounds like a wonderful thing, doesn’t it? However, read the fine print, because there’s a catch. If you’re at the bottom 20%, how much choice do you really have? Under this crackpot scheme schools that compete for these students have to show results are being achieved before they get fully funded.

So would someone in the working group please put their crack-pipe down and tell me this – why would a school take on a difficult student and risk not being fully funded? Isn’t it better to take on the smart, motivated kids whose parents will push them to succeed?

And is it any co-incidence that the smart, motivated kids are more likely to come from homes that are more stable, wealthier and less prone to the pressures of poverty?

So it’s not about helping the bottom 20%. It’s about looking after the top 5%.

The Herald Poll On National Standards

The Herald's lead story today examines the results of a survey on National Standards:

The survey - conducted by Nielsen - asked 545 Herald readers with school-age children a range of questions about the standards system, which came into force this week.

The main results:

• 73,.2% support the introduction of National Standards.
• 13.8% oppose them.
• Only 11.9% fully understand them.
• 53.9% think they will have a good effect on their children.

What does this tell us? 

• A number of Herald readers (all of whom live in Auckland) agree with the position taken by most of the Herald's columnists on the issue. Surprise surprise.
• Despite most people having an opinion on National Standards, few actually understand them.
• 545 people is not a huge sample of the population.

Nevertheless, it would be dangerous to just dismiss the results altogether. The survey shows that there is widespread ignorance about what the standards actually mean. The NZEI needs to do a better job of explaining them to people, if they want to affect public opinion on this issue. It's not enough to tell us they're a bad idea - we need to be told why.

Meanwhile Key and his media sympathisers continue to portray the NZEI as just another militant union, whose only concern is to protect "bad" teachers. This strategy has the potential to backfire badly on the Government, because I suspect most people think teachers do a good job.

The biggest lie being pedalled by those who support National Standards is that they will expose bad teachers. But most schools already know who isn't performing. So what difference will the new standards make to the assessment of teachers? Bugger-all.

Key - No More Nice Guy

Are we about to see an end to John Key's nice guy image?

His aggressive language towards teachers on the issue of National Standards suggests he's taken the gloves off and is ready to brawl.

Key may be hoping the shitfight to come can be spun as an assault on good parents by angry Labour-backed unionists. It's a gamble, though. If he is forced to back down he will appear weak. And even if he wins he may alienate many in the education sector. Despite what Key and his supporters may think, they don't all vote Labour - yet.

This may be a turning point in Key's leadership. And in Phil Goff's. If Labour can exploit this issue we may see a rise in Goff's popularity.

And isn't it a change to see some actual criticism of Government policy by those in the media? Key must have wondered when their eyes would finally open.

Anne Tolley: FAIL

Education Minister Anne Tolley was on the radio this morning to announce that the implementation of national standards is more important than the teaching of science, art and physical education.

Educationalists and teachers (i.e. the people who actually know how to educate children) are almost all opposed to national standards. The standards appear to serve no educational purpose. Indeed, it appears their sole purpose is to provide panicking middle-class parents with sufficient information to avoid the "wrong" schools. Schools that thrive on an image of being the best will now be required to "teach to the test" to ensure they maintain their ranking.

The PM talks a lot about lifting New Zealand's productivity, and closing the gap with Australia. To do so we'll need more bright scientists and innovators - people who can create new things and think about the world in different ways.

National standards emphasise the importance of the three Rs. And I can only guess why the Nats want to raise the importance of arithmetic in schools. It is because they want our kids to be accountants rather than scientists and artists?

I am no ideologue, and I try to give credit to this Government where it is due. But it is hard to see any merit in National's education policy. The adult education policy (i.e. slash and burn) is a disgrace, and now this. Far from closing the gap with Australia, they appear to be doing everything they can to widen it.