Three Key Articles to Consider re Education in NZ
This article – raises many interesting points – e.g.
'Thus, 'modern education' has abandoned the school functions of formal instruction in favor of molding the total personality both to enforce equality of learning at the level of the least educable, and to usurp the general educational role of home and other influences as much as possible.'
2. In a small nation like NZ we are far more prone to pendulum swings in 'best practice'.
In our current situation I believe that it will be shown up in the directives that every school must deliver 'structured literacy' to every child. As I have pointed out to some proponents – just my three children alone would have been lost to the system as they were proficient readers of chapter books at 5yo and had heard books such as The Lord of the Rings read to them from 3yo. Someone asking them to say: rat, cat, fat, twat … would have seen them disappearing into the distance. Plus – the very best programme can only have, at best, marginal gains – if the children that need learning the most are not regularly at school. The government needs to point the hose at the heart of the fire.
This article raises good points: e.g.
'If schools want across-the-board gains in reading achievement, using one reading curriculum to teach every child isn't the best way. Teachers need the flexibility and autonomy to use various, developmentally appropriate literacy strategies as needed.'
3. I was a huge advocate in the last National government for the potential and effect of Charter Schools.As I have stated – currently – Ass Minister Seymour has over-promised, underdelivered and attempted to defend the indefensible re Charter Schools.
He has accused me of sour grapes. That is simply impossible given that I have offered to create schools that cost me a lot more than I can otherwise do. Same for a range of other applicants.
Here his Seymour interviewed by Jack Tame on this:
My follow up to Jack Tame has been:
Well done on your interview with David Seymour re Charter Schools.
David thinks a few of us are picking on him. We are not. I am a huge supporter of the potential of the policy. What we are asking is: Why – according to his own statements – is the reality so different from what he promised? Many applicants were bemused by the first round process. David kept telling media (including yourself) that there was enough funding for 15 schools to be established at the beginning of 2025. Many good people and significant organisations (plus people with suitable properties – worth millions – holding off leasing them) took David and the CSA at their word. The applicants were equally bemused when the first 6 tiny schools (and by definition most of them will stay tiny) were announced. Followed by Tipene in December. It took an OIA to explain what was really going on. Seymour only has $10m to allocate until June 30 2025 for establishing and running the schools (and $2.5million was used for CSA salaries) – so only small schools could be approved. We have an OIA in to discover when Seymour knew about that funding level – because it is not in keeping with many of his 2024 statements. Around that there was much secrecy, applicant blaming and incredibly poor and time delayed processes. In the interview Seymour stated that they were further ahead than last time. Not true by two measures:– 2014 saw 5 start and 2015 saw 4 more start.
– There were more students. For example – South Auckland Middle School started with 120, quickly went to 180 – and had 100+ on a waiting list. That could actually be regarded as good demand. Middle School West Auckland (started 2015) also got to near 200 quickly. Vanguard was over 100 and Raewyn Tipene's two schools in Whangarei were also well populated. NB: the schools had an average of 85% Maori and Pasifika.
We also know now that the fund through to the end of 2026 is only $123million but, bizarrely, $30million of that is allocated to the CSA, Authorisation Board and ERO. The salaries for advertised roles have been stunning – an assessment of the schools role was advertised for $263k for what I would generously estimate to be a month's work.
A few things with the State School conversion situation:
1. It is State, State Integrated and Designated Character Schools that can convert. Some considering it might be former Charter Schools but most of those did the numbers and it did not work.
2. What research was done to support the notion that 35 would want to convert anyway?
3. The CSA, Seymour and AB give different answers when asked if the 15/35 ratio is fixed.
4. I think that your question about Seymour and his lack of appeal to Maori is accurate. For David to say that Maori people put off by him are politicising it and are 'maybe not the right people' is poor. He is also barely shifting the dial on our attendance crises – and is probably the wrong person in both roles.
A possible theory on why none of the CS this time around in any way challenge the established network is that Seymour did not want to rile the unions (who have been very quiet) in an attempt to try and minimise the opposition to State school conversions.
For David to say that there is a 'whole lot of children benefiting' was laughable. 215 out of 850,999 is … umm … a tiny amount.
Tipene should always have been approved as an Integrated School – either by Labour or by the new government. The CS approval for them was cost-saving as there is little/no property funding and no boarding funding the CS model. They have 45 students. The cost of boarding there is $20,000pa – although the Tipene Board is assisting with some of that – which is an expensive option for families.
In summary. We have a genuine education crises in NZ but we are tinkering like only National/ACT can do.
Alwyn Poole
[email protected]
alwynpoole.substack.com
www.linkedin.com/in/alwyn-poole-16b02151/
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
33 minutes ago
- Otago Daily Times
Opinion: New Zealand needs more doctors, but is a new medical school the solution?
New Zealand desperately needs more doctors, especially general practitioners. However, the government's own analysis shows that its flagship solution — building a brand-new medical school in Waikato — is deeply flawed. The government said a Waikato Medical School would be a cheaper, faster route to training more doctors. However, the detailed business case — which is meant to ensure government projects deliver value for money and was released nearly a week later — shows this decision was based on misleading assumptions and omissions. Firstly, the government's pitch hinges on the Waikato school being a four-year graduate-entry programme, supposedly cheaper than the current six-year degrees at Otago and Auckland universities. What they conveniently omit is that students must first complete a minimum three-year bachelors degree before even starting. The government claimed running costs will be cheaper because of a shorter degree but had never considered trialling the four-year graduate model at Otago or Auckland, where infrastructure and proven teaching expertise already exist. Why build an entirely new institution rather than simply expanding existing, successful schools? Furthermore, the government modelled its plan on an Australian programme, assuming it would increase the number of GPs working rurally here. That's a risky assumption. The business case estimated that 38% of Waikato graduates would become general practitioners, compared to 23% if intake was increased at Auckland and Otago, and 33% through a joint rural training programme. This is speculation and contradicted by Prof Warwick Bagg, Dean of the University of Auckland's medical school, who said current programmes already had around 35% of graduates working as a GP eight years after graduation. There are also questions around what impact Waikato will have on Otago's existing rural programme and what effect it will have on placements already aligned with the university. The Waikato medical school was pitched to National as a political "gift" and the government has cherry-picked facts and overlooked other options. For example, Otago and Auckland universities could expand their intakes now, producing more doctors faster in proven, established environments that require only increased funding — not costly new infrastructure. Christopher Luxon's government is out of touch, prioritising pet projects, instead of focusing on the delivering what New Zealand needs. Rather than chasing a political headline, the government could look to support and expand the medical schools we already have. Our health system and patients deserve no less.
Scoop
21 hours ago
- Scoop
Cancelling The Ethnic Cleansers: Australia Revokes Simcha Rothman's Visa
It is a curious feeling to see a government, let alone any politician, suddenly find their banished backbones and retired principles. The spine, on being discovered, adds a certain structural integrity to arguments otherwise lacking force and credibility. The recent spat between Israel and Australia suggests that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's often insecure, and often overly cautious administration, is starting to show some muscle and certitude. The cancellation of Simcha Rothman's visa by the Albanese government was something of a minor revelation. Rothman is a member of Mafdal-Religious Zionism, a party led by Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich that has made its position on Palestinians unmistakably clear. (Smotrich became the subject of sanctions by Australia along with Canada, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom in June for 'inciting violence against Palestinians in the West Bank.') As a certain garden variety shrub of hate he decries countries for not taking in Palestinians as part of an approved ethnic cleansing program, accusing them of 'aiding and abetting a terrorist organisation using them as human shields'. In an interview with Australia's national broadcaster, Rothman made his primary colour position clear: 'I think the government of Australia needs to decide, do they want to be on the side of Hamas, or do they want to be on the side of Israel?' Advertisement - scroll to continue reading The letter of revocation stated that he would be engaged in events that would 'promote his controversial views and ideologies, which may lead to fostering division in the community'. Being in Australia 'would or might be a risk to the good order of the Australian community or a segment of the Australian community, namely, the Islamic population'. Adduced examples of demerit included arguments that Palestinian children were not perishing to hunger in the Gaza Strip, that those children, in any case, were enemies of the Israeli state, along with the notion that the two-state solution had 'poisoned the minds of the entire world'. The nature of such 'inflammatory statements' might, were Rothman to enter Australia licensed by the government, 'encourage others to feel emboldened to voice any anti-Islamic sentiments, if not to take action to give effect to that prejudice'. Far from engaging these reasons, Rothman's enchantingly shrunken worldview was clear in its chiselled simplicity: Australia was behaving undemocratically, its government falsely claiming to argue against 'hate and division' despite permitting protestors 'to shout on the streets calls for genocide of the Jewish people.' Israel's Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar was quick in response, revoking the residency visas of Australia's diplomatic representatives responsible for affairs concerning the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah. 'I also instructed the Israeli Embassy in Canberra to carefully examine any official Australian visa application for entry to Israel,' Sa'ar fumed on X. In this apoplectic reaction, no one seemed to recall that Australia had already revoked the visa of a former Israeli justice minister, Ayelet Shaked, at the end of October last year over what Australia's Home Minister Tony Burke described as 'concerns she would threaten social cohesion'. Shaked had been slated to attend events organised by the Australia Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC). Admittedly, she was a former politician rather than a sitting member of the Israeli parliament. In an interview with the Erin Molan Show, an otherwise underwhelming program, Sa'ar recapitulated his cranky position. 'This is the opposite of what should be done,' he objected. 'Instead of battling antisemitism in Australia, the Australian government is doing the opposite – they are fuelling it.' The Palestinian Authority surprised nobody in calling the measure to cancel visas 'illegal and in violation of the Geneva Conventions, international law, the United Nations resolutions, which do not grant the occupying power such authority.' The statement went on to stress 'that such actions reflect Israeli arrogance and a state of political imbalance, and will only strengthen Australia's and other countries' determination to uphold international law, the two-state solution, and recognition of the State of Palestine as the path to peace.' Australia's foreign minister, Penny Wong, also thought this all a bit much. Calling the decision to cancel the visas of Australia's diplomats in the West Bank an 'unjustified reaction' to Canberra's decision to recognise Palestine, Wong felt confident enough to retort that the Israeli decision had been foolish. 'At a time when dialogue and diplomacy are needed more than ever, the Netanyahu Government is isolating Israel and undermining international efforts towards peace and a two-state solution.' This messiness was appropriately crowned by that grand figure of demagoguery himself, the Israeli Prime Minister. 'History will remember Albanese for what he is: A weak politician who betrayed Israel and abandoned Australia's Jews,' came the scornful blast from the office of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Israeli PM is certainly not wrong about Albanese being weak but mistaken about what he has been weak about. Most intriguingly, Albanese has found some courage on this front, albeit the sort of courage fortified by allies. But that's something.
The Spinoff
a day ago
- The Spinoff
Secondary teachers walk off the job as government digs in
Teachers say an offer of 1% a year is an insult. Ministers say they should be at the negotiating table, not on the picket line, writes Catherine McGregor in today's extract from The Bulletin. A full-day walkout Secondary teachers are off the job today, with classes around the country cancelled as members of the Post Primary Teachers' Association stage a one-day strike. As Lyric Waiwiri-Smith explains in The Spinoff this morning, the action follows teachers' rejection of the government's offer of a 1% annual pay rise over three years – an increase the union described as 'the lowest in a generation'. Teachers had sought a 4% yearly rise to cover inflation and stem the loss of staff overseas. Today's walkout is just the beginning: rolling strikes are scheduled for mid-September, when teachers will refuse to teach particular year levels on successive days. Meanwhile, primary teachers are holding paid union meetings this week to consider their next steps, after also voting to reject the 1% offer. Teachers say they're worth more For many teachers, the issue is about more than headline figures. In a widely shared essay for The Spinoff, Auckland teacher Connor Murphy describes the government's offer as 'an insult disguised as an offer', pointing out that 'teachers entered into these negotiations with a set of very reasonable demands. Instead of making a reasonable counteroffer, the government ignored our requests and crafted an offer seemingly purpose-built to make things worse.' Teachers argue their pay has fallen far behind comparable professions, with Australian starting salaries now up to $31,000 higher than New Zealand's. Murphy says that while prime minister Christopher Luxon has talked about keeping New Zealanders at home with good, well-paying jobs, the government hasn't followed the rhetoric with action, and teachers are instead eyeing better pay across the Tasman. Ministers dig in Education minister Erica Stanford has urged the union to return to negotiations, calling today's strike 'premeditated' and 'deeply unfair' for parents and students. Public service minister Judith Collins went further, labelling the walkout a 'political stunt' and accusing unions of having 'little tantrums' and using children 'like their shuttle boards' [sic]. The government has tried to highlight what it says is a strong deal: public service commissioner Sir Brian Roche said the latest offer came 'on top of a further 3.9% to 7.7% in pay increases already built-in for each of the next three years' and that the package would deliver pay rises of between $2,500 and $7,000 a year, when annual progression is included. But Collins herself was forced into a rare backtrack yesterday after she wrongly claimed that teachers with 10 years' experience earned $147,000 a year. As Stuff's Bridie Witton and Glenn McConnell report, she later admitted she had 'mixed up [her] messages', clarifying that only a small number of senior deputy principals in large schools would reach that figure. The gaffe further inflamed teachers already sceptical about the government's grasp of their pay and conditions. What teachers actually earn So what do teachers really take home? As Nik Dirga writes in a comprehensive explainer for RNZ, the base salary for a newly qualified teacher begins at just over $61,000, rising step by step each year to $103,000 at the top of the scale. The Ministry of Education puts the average secondary teacher salary at around $101,000. Extra responsibilities – such as running a subject department or serving as deputy principal – attract management units and allowances, which can boost pay into the $110,000–$140,000 range. But only a handful of teachers reach the $147,000 Collins cited, and most are in senior leadership rather than classroom roles. For new teachers, the current offer of 1% a year translates to an increase of less than $12 a week. That, say striking teachers, is why they're on the picket lines today, and why more disruption is on the way unless the government comes back with an offer they can live with.
