On the radio this morning was a report out about how ‘unqualified’ many of our school principals are.

Since 2005 the ‘First time Principal’s course’ has been running. Not being one I only have staffroom discussion to go by, but many of the areas under consideration there are designed to enable many Principal’s to make the transition between ‘classroom teacher’ to ‘School Manager’. Though there are no formal qualifications required for a Principal the ‘career route many take through ‘syndicate leader, senior management, DP/AP surely offers many the opportunity to develop their people management skills and ‘school-wide’ perspective. I know the UK offers qualifications for those aspiring principals by way of the NPQH. Perhaps that is the line we in New Zealand need to go down. But to here of the closure of the Principal’s Development Programme Centre at such a time as this does not reflect well on the emphasis and direction the government places on School Management.

Will we really want to undergo a course qualifying us for school leadership without the guarantee of securing a Principalship prior to spending what will be a large amount of our savings?

I have heard of, and quite like, the model where a Principal – with a teaching background- is responsible for the school, as they are currently but then instead of employing that DP or second AP they employ a Vice Principal (Finance) or some other fancy title that means they take responsibility for the ‘business side’ of the school management. I know some secondary school do this already.

Could Primaries do something similar?

I understand that there is a general uneasiness aobuth the National Parties policy as to national exams. But their there was a catagorical statement that there were to be no national exams for primary students .

However the following does state the objective in broad strokes:

Clear National Standards: Set national standards in reading, writing and numeracy. The standards will describe all the things children should be able to do by a particular age or year at school. They will be defined by benchmarks in a range of tests.

Effective Assessment: Require primary schools to use assessment programmes that compare the progress of their students with other students across the country. Schools will choose from a range of tests, but there won’t be national exams.

Upfront Reporting: Give parents the right to see all assessment information, and to get regular reports about their child’s progress towards national standards. Schools will also have to report each year on the whole school’s performance against national standards.

We shall have to see where the priorites lie when the policies start rolling. I for one am in favour of a more vigorous assessment policy. There has to be an equilibrium between the UK league table idea and the rigid flexibility focused on "methodology".

So my question is:

Is the National policy on education percieved by the teaching profession as a positive or negative?

The priority has to be ‘raising the standards’ – of course we have to raise the standard in Education- Why would we lower them. But I’m wondering how best to do that without developing the League tables for schools idea that has had such a detrimental effect on the teaching profession. How do we raise student achievement without beating the life (and passion) out of teaching?

Shane Taurima questions Helen over Labours failure toward Maori boys. Youth appreticeships form 13?? Surely there is a need for a more though grounding in education than that. I feel that this is spelling of the 19th century model Ken Robinson spoke of with broadening out the ‘working class’ education for the majority of the ’skilled’ labour. Perhaps if education isn’t suiting my kid I could just send off down the pit to work those blast door for ther pit pony’s and leave the educating for those smarter kids!

All I want for my kid in primary school is that he is learning to read and write. Perhaps the two of them are talking about opposite ends of the education system. Of course I want my primary kid to learn to read and write. But equally, I’ll want my 16-17 year old being prepared for the work in the 21st century, I’m not sure appreticeships will address that issue.

Now we’re onto parents paying for Free education. Of course if I want my kid to go on the school trip skiing or to Japan or on some geographical fieldtrip to investigate lava flow I’m willing to pay for that… It looks, feels and probably is above and beyond the classroom experience. But would I expect to be charged for the regular ‘in class’ education of my child, certainly not if it is touted as ‘Free’.

My current situation is partly board funded due to the Ministry of Education stating that the class size is too small to warrent an extra teacher. So what does ‘board funded” mean? It means the school is having to raise addition funds to pay for me to drive up the road and deliver that ‘free’ education labour talks about.

Now I’m off on a rant so feel free to stop reading… but….

It’s a little like the ‘free 20 hours’ for 3-4 year olds. That scheme was under funded and had to be subsided by the parents. The hourly rate underthat scheme was too little to support the wage requirements of the teaching staff. If the government came out saying it was a subsidised scheme there would have been no issue but them saying it was free caused a right row in the ECE sector.

Helen Clark highlights the fact that we do not have to pay these school contributions. Wow what a statement. I’d love to see what would happen if, as a result of that statement ALL PARENTS, EVERYWHERE, right across the country went into their schools and asked for a refund. What would happen to those school budgets this late in the school year.

Go to Dangerously Irrelevent post here , and leave your comment.

“Through my taxes ALL students are catered for, their learning needs met and they are upskilled to become economically productive citizens.”

Then I happened to awake from my utopian dream and discover that in the real world our students are not really leaving education skilled for the workforce.

Not only that but “free” obviously has a broader definition in government than I realized.

Once a student begins their educational journey in the state system a few “voluntary contributions’ are due:

‘Stationery’ $72

‘Shows and trip’ $40

‘Logoed uniform’ $150

Trip by trip donation $2 each

Music tuition $70 per term

Drama club $10

Rugby/Netball ‘subs’ $5 per away game

Technology for the year $20

And this is from a decile 1 school with maximum funding allowance.

“Fund raising in the higher deciles is expected. Our kids are expected to wonder the streets selling chocolates or doing car washes.

Don’t call it ‘Free’ education. It gives the impression that…well… you know…its free.

Just listening to Steven, through Wes Fryer.

I have to begin by saying that listening to Roger Schank inspired me too, I even posted about it at the time. It was one of the first podcasts of Wesley’s I heard and he really challenged my thinking, in fact I wonder if I can track back to hearing that podcast and that being the catalyst for the challenges I have faced in the last 18 months as I began to push back?

School improvement, are we really doing what our society requires?

Our schools are so NOT “fine they need tweaking”, there needs to be a fundamental shift in what the curriculum is addressing and what schools are supporting. We in New Zealand are quite blessed with the new curriculum, it is very new and shiny and very 21^st Century perspective, however I wonder how these are being implemented in schools. It makes me wonder what the key pressures are on schools that truly define how the curriculum looks, it is not simply the National Curriculum.

Steven Wyckoff spends quite a bit of time talking about the analogue of learning to drive and someone made the comment that while you’re growing up you spend a long time watching people drive. I heard it said once that while you are learning to drive, driving instructors spend quite a while telling people where they need to look. “Focus on what is immediately in front, look out around parked cars”, etc. People’s closest sensory experience to driving? It’s sitting in the passenger seat. So a new driver has unlearn the passive ‘watching’, for example looking at someone walking over a footbridge for the whole time it takes for the car to pass under it. Drivers then need to learn to be active observers of the environment around them. There are so many things that students are learning that are wasting time… We DO need to spend more time on learning the skills that they are going to need in life.

So what DOES a curriculum look like?

What are the other pressures and issues we need address in school?

What are the school teacher:student ratio look like in New Zealand. Are there the same issues as in Kansas where the system needs to be adjusted to lower the ratio or is there a genuine issue around ratios?

“In order to do what?” Brings the curriculum into sharp focus. Steven links the need to focus education on ‘economic productivity’ for the future. But I want to consider, is there any value in learning for learnings- sake? Does it not do something for the brain development, regardless of purpose?

My next question: Are there quality apprenticeships or study-to-work programmes available in New Zealand that realistically address the issue applying students for the workforce?

As I was listening I was thinking this idea about applied learning and the links made to Ted McCain and the discussion/ presentations made by Ian Jukes in Napier last year.

I was discussing with a high-school principal the other day around the issues of NCEA level1 not meeting the expectations required for courses in NCEA level 2, let alone NCEA level1 OR 2 meeting expectations for the workforce.

So how are we going to measure success for the 21^st Century, what are the skills required and EQUALLY, what is the core knowledge required for the future?

]]> http://educatingthedragon.edublogs.org/2008/06/23/natural-learning-what-schools-don%e2%80%99t-do-by-steve-wycoff/feed/ 1