Drawing the line – class sizes and land sales

February 3, 2012

Many policy decisions these days are not black and white but rather a matter of where you draw the line along a spectrum stretching between two ridiculous extremes. Two news items over the past week provide good examples.

Treasury has advised the NZ government that the public education system needs to save money and to achieve this it should increase class sizes, using some of the money saved to pay the best teachers more. It justifies this policy via some convenient research that, we’re told, shows class sizes are not a factor in determining educational outcomes, whereas outstanding teachers are.

Decisions on how big classes are and how much you pay teachers lie along a wide spectrum. At the extremes are (1) having one teacher for every student, and (2) having classes of perhaps 500 under the tutelage of one fantastically qualified, motivated and remunerated teacher. Both are ridiculous.

All teachers and, I suspect, most parents believe that a key aim of educational policy should be to reduce rather than increase class sizes. Most of us can relate to experiences of some teachers and children hopelessly trying to work effectively within classes of 30 or 40.

I suspect the research being quoted is actually saying: If you have some extra money to spend in education, you should look at paying teachers more (in order to motivate them to do a better job or retain the best ones) rather than reducing class sizes. That may well be true, and at least it’s arguable. But it’s not the same as saying that if you want to save money you should therefore increase class sizes first.

The real question now is: in order to save money, should we edge the numbers up to larger classes, in the hope that the fewer teachers required will do a better job just because they’re paid an extra $10,000 pa (or whatever)?

I doubt there are many teachers who would take on the extra stress and workload of larger classes just for the sake of some extra pay. Apart, that is, for those teachers who are only in it for the money. (Free-market people always assume that everyone is in everything just for the money.) The teachers I know, while being happy to be better remunerated, would rather have less classroom stress and administrative workload than more money. This new policy will not encourage them to stay on if it is the workload that is currently causing them to leave the profession.

In any case, I hope the government can resist the temptation to tinker with the public education system for money-saving purposes. Good education will always be one of the most critical elements of a sustainable, intelligent society.

So if class size increase is truly on the agenda, under the highly doubtful argument that class sizes don’t matter, then just think how big you could make classes before things fall apart. Forty? Fifty? One hundred? According to Treasury’s argument, there is no upper limit at which the theory no longer applies, which is of course ridiculous. So every effort should be made to nudge sizes lower whenever possible and certainly not allow a creep upward.

Drawing the line likewise is presenting problems on the issue of the sale of New Zealand land to non-Kiwis. While once upon a time this could have been a black-and-white issue – ie, before the first parcels of land were sold to offshore owners – it is now a grey matter of how much is too much.

We are told that only 1% of New Zealand’s land mass is now in foreign hands, but also that the proportion of productive land held by non-Kiwis is 7%. That latter figure does raise alarm bells.

I’ve put my opinion on farm and land sales as clearly as I can in this posting: “How New Zealand could be bought out … again”, and in this earlier one: “Dairy farm buy-up will lead to NZ’s second great colonisation”. I can also see and follow the arguments for welcoming overseas investment, although my sentiment remains on the side of ‘no more sales’.

So it’s a question of where do you draw the line. The two extremes are (1) sell absolutely no land to foreigners (sorry, too late), and (2) open up all sales to the top bidders, wherever in the world they live (still possible, if we allow it).

This line is constantly moving, but in one direction only – upward. As long as NZ remains a desirable place to live and retire to (a flattering thought), make money from or secure your future food supply from, buyers from wealthier countries will continue to take part in (and usually win) land purchases.

And every parcel of land that goes to an overseas owner raises that percentage of our country that we no longer own, up from 7%. At what point does this reach alarm point, when our attitude will have to change or we must accept we are in the same position that Maori have found themselves – tenants and labourers in a country we no longer own? Ten percent? Twenty? Fifty?

This argument needs more long-term vision rather than mainly a way to maintain sovereign and private cashflow.

 

Leave a Comment » | Politics, Education, Economics | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by David Armstrong

Evolution and the creation of the world

January 24, 2011

Over the holidays I read a very interesting book that had been on my list for much of last year: “The Greatest Show on Earth” by Richard Dawkins.

For me, a slow reader, this was quite a feat, but made easier by the quality of the writing and fascination of the subject matter. At 437 pages of fairly technical but slowly developed material, it contrasted starkly with the 500-page silliness of a Dan Brown thriller (my prior diversion), but I know which one I’ll remember within 3 months!

I’ve always been happy with the assertion that all living and long-dead inhabitants of planet earth are/were the product of evolution. The alternative – that the world was made by a designer/creator, possibly over a six-day period back 10,000 years ago – simply made no common sense to me. I’ve been aware of quite a number of clear evidential facts that show evolution to be the only sensible explanation for what I see and experience around me. I’ve even come up with a few observations of my own that have convinced me.

But what I’ve never really seen before is the sheer volume of factual evidence and rational argument for evolution as a fact presented in this book. Together they show that all alternatives to evolution must be simply seen as nonsense to anyone other than the person who simply must believe in creationism in order for their belief system – and their whole world and reason for being – to remain intact; the people for whom if the bible was not literally true in all respects, there would be no point on living.

First up, I just love the book’s title, and the way the writing supports it. There can be no doubt that Dawkins is a passionate man – it shines through the prose. And his passion is not that of a religious nut, but of a person who is forever in awe of the world around him, and of the sheer common sense and beautiful integrity and continuity of life in all its forms. Viewed as a participant, the process of life on earth does indeed offer the greatest show on earth.

Next, one can only be impressed by Dawkins’ depth and breadth of knowledge and understanding of science, and natural science in particular. He’s more than just ‘done his homework’; he has gained command of a wide range of specialised fields within natural science. And either he is also learned in other fields such as radioactivity and plate tectonics or he has taken the trouble to consult and learn from experts in those fields.

Dawkins apparently has a reputation for being arrogant, and occasionally he admits to losing patience with what he aptly calls history deniers, but the overriding sense I got was of a person who is truly in awe of the beauty and mystery of life, who always wants to find out more rather than to justify the point of a held opinion. He often admits to things that as yet do not quite add up, or where the evidence is as yet insufficient to prove a point which otherwise looks promising.

The book could have been half its length and still been convincing. Dawkins often repeats the main arguments after adding yet another item that builds the argument, just to ensure that we’re keeping our eyes on the overall theme and not just the biological facts and figures. I found that towards the end I had already seen way more evidence than I needed in order to be convinced that evolution is the only sensible explanation, and yet more similar evidence was becoming unnecessary. (That’s probably me, the slow reader, tiring.)

I have scientific training (mainly in the physical sciences) so I found the scientific facts and explanations very strong and cogent. Some readers may be less inclined to try to follow some of the detailed technical bits, but they should nevertheless be able to understand the overall philosophy.

I come away even more assured that evolution is a fact, not just a 50/50 theory to rank in believability beside creationism. Now I have (if only I can remember them all) a truckload of scientific evidence to support it, and an even larger truckload of everyday observations that show creationism as a belief system is absurdly improbable.

If you want to explore the creationism versus evolution debate, this book is a must in order to see all the evidence, not just the bits that fit the belief systems of each side. And it’s important, especially when you consider that – as Dawkins fears – a huge and powerful number of Americans become more fundamentalist and even radical in their views and seek to impose them in US schools.

Leave a Comment » | Education, Religion, Science | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by David Armstrong

Key’s petulant comment on teachers a disgrace

March 13, 2010

John Key slipped at least a couple of pegs in my rating of him this week with reported comments about teachers’ attitudes to national standards. John’s been scoring reasonably well with me over the past year, with a few exceptions, but this issue is leaving me somewhat disgusted with his arrogance and cynical use of guilt tripping.

I’m basing this purely from an article in the Christchurch Press, March 12th, page A3, headlined “Key prefers to ‘work with’ rebel schools”. After noting that Key was refering to a growing number of schools throughout NZ refusing to implement the standards until they were trialled and teachers had received training, here’s what the reporter wrote:

Asked if rebellious boards of trustees would be sacked, Key said he preferred to work with the schools in the first instance.

“In the end, if they don’t, then those schools need to answer to the parents of New Zealand why they are prepared to allow one in five young New Zealanders to leave school without adequate literacy and numeracy skills.”

How pathetic! If you haven’t got a decent argument to support your policy, then you may as well go for the old ‘guilt trip’ tactic.

His response disgusts me on two fronts:

1. It shows extreme arrogance by assuming that I’m too stupid to understand any real logic. This is just a nonsense statement using an assumed statistic to overbear on any rational view of nuances and real-world teaching practice.

2. Worse, it’s using the guilt trip method by saying that anything that differs from his point of view will produce disastrous results for which the dissenters will bear ultimate blame and shame.

It’s like “if you don’t spray the weeds in your garden with the chemicals we the town council deem necessary, then you will have to explain to the everyone why the town turns into a dump and unmanageable jungle, and we’ll all blame you”.

Most teachers are resisting this forced adoption of Key/English/Tolley policy because they have the best interest of children at heart. It is the government, far more so than the teachers’ unions, that have a largely political agenda here.

Using irrational arguments to encourage parents to blame and pressure teachers is about as low as you can go. This policy is unwinding, and given this latest cynical tweak by John Key, it deserves to.

And if this is what Key means by “working with teachers”, then I would say it’s more like “a working over of teachers”. The word “with” is pure spin.

4 Comments | Education, Politics | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by David Armstrong

Tolley and her friends show their true colours

February 5, 2010

First, thanks for all the encouraging comments by readers of this blog, especially in relation to the National Standards debate. This will probably be my final post on this issue (unless the debate moves to newer ground or a higher level – not expected any time soon). I’m not a teacher and have no great axe to grind, apart from a strengthening opinion. But I am seeing some interesting facets regarding human nature, people and politics which the debate is bringing to the surface.

Increasingly in recent years I’ve found myself mulling over the characteristics that make people tick. What makes people react in such different ways to events and opinions? In the case of National’s current contentious education policy, why are the two sides so adamant they are right? What’s driving the thought processes?

I think it’s best viewed in terms of some good old dichotomies. The traditional ones are left-wing and right-wing, economically wet or dry, socialist versus capitalist.

I interpret so much of human behaviour and reaction to events in terms of the type of spirit imbuing the people concerned. Often I see them as being fundamentally either generous-spirited or mean-spirited. In the same way, I assess people I interact with as negative or positive people, punitive or forgiving.

In relation to national standards, I think a similar polarity is in action. There are those who believe the best way to get improved performance, behaviour or whatever desired achievement out of anyone (employees, families, pupils) is to encourage, foster and work co-operatively with them. And on the other hand there are those who believe the best method to get results out of people is to point fingers, make them feel bad or inadequate, and trust that this will make them ‘pull up their socks’.

Those who naturally find themselves in the former group are characterised and labelled as “wishy washy liberals, touchy-feely, hand-wringing, angst-ridden (and, yes, tree-hugging often) soft touches” by those who subscribe to the latter view.

Anne Tolley and her (often) middle and upper class following are clearly in the “pull your socks up” brigade. Normally I would have thought that John Key was not, but sadly he has aligned himself with her on this issue, so in my opinion he has slipped a couple of respect pegs.

In this national standards debate, there is clearly a drive by the government and its followers to use name-and-shame as a threat to teachers, principals and schools to work harder (with the same resources) and toe the line. The threat indirectly carries through to the pupils as well. “We know lots of you are not achieving well enough; soon we’ll know exactly who you are so we can apply pressure for improvements through your teachers and schools.”

We can tell this by the fact that, as I’ve argued in my previous post, the government has no logical course of action planned for post-standards times. There’s very little extra money to actually do anything to help teachers lift their abilities, and no significant programmes in place to help kids identified as “failures” (or “non-achievers”).

It’s like the US’s preparation to invade Iraq – the plan and equipment was there to go in and throw their weight around, but then no idea how to manage the invaded country apart from defending themselves from the people they had violated.

Tolley and her supporters believe pointing the finger and exposing poor performance will do the trick and cause standards to lift as a result of compliant pupils wanting to avoid the shame. The other half of us are wired to believe that you best achieve the desired results by working co-operatively and with generosity of spirit and, above all, encouragement rather than shaming, to help our young people learn.

4 Comments | Education, Politics | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by David Armstrong

What’s really going on in the national education standards “debate”

January 29, 2010

Following my article a couple of days ago, I’m still struggling to figure out what’s going on in Education Minister Anne Tolley’s (or the government’s) mind. But I think I’m starting to see how this confrontation between the education sector and Tolley/Key took root and where it’s going.

As I wrote on Wednesday, I simply cannot reconcile the certainty with which Tolley speaks about the “one in five children that we know are failing” in numeracy and literacy, with her passionate insistence that we set up this potentially damaging and unproven system of standards in order to provide evidence that these children are failing.

On this morning’s radio I heard all this repeated by the School Trustees Association representative – that we know there are kids failing and how many, we know roughly who they are and what areas they come from, and we know a lot about their ethnicity.

What we don’t know, or have yet to articulate, is what we’ll do about the results when they come in. If we know about these failures – who they are and where they’re taught – then why are we not doing something about it now, such as strengthening teacher resources and training teachers to do a better job? Why are we throwing millions of precious dollars at a testing regime to tell us what we (or at least Tolley) already know? How will knowing that make for any improvements that we cannot implement already?

Yes, the logic has been escaping me. So I’ve been thinking back to how this came about, and how the policy drivers have morphed.

There are two possibilities, I believe. The first is that the government, and Tolley in particular, are stupid and pig-headed, determined to show who’s boss at all costs. Pig-headed? Certainly, no question – but what government isn’t on key policies. Stupid? I’m not prepared to call these seemingly intelligent leaders stupid just yet.

The more likely possibility arises from this scenario:

When electioneering back in 2008, the National party picked on pupil literacy and numeracy problems as a great issue to appeal to middle and upper class Kiwi voters. Like that other perennial easy hit, Law and Order, it was simple to express and it resonated with many parents. And (again like law and order and the implications on prison costs) it didn’t lend itself during election time to much in-depth analysis thinking about the implications of setting national standards, especially among people who don’t understand much about education issues and the problems real teachers face day to day.

National won the election. So the new Education Minister, who had extolled her policy initiative pre-election, had to follow through. And it was then that the people who actually understand the educational process began to suggest that things were not quite so straightforward.

So Tolley faced expert, in-depth analysis and criticism that simply testing children does not necessarily make them any better off, and that – worse – it may well do harm to the education of individual children and the country as a whole. Issues such as teaching to the test, labelling slower kids as perennial failures, and publishable school league tables were brought into the open. The paucity of sound argument by Tolley and her supporters also came to light as we learn that she has no plan whatsoever as to how to use the results to improve education.

Except for one thing. And I’ve realised that this is the underlying motivation that keeps supporters of standards testing rolling.

Tolley is hoping that the publication of results will enable the naming and shaming of teachers and schools, so that they will feel compelled to “improve” their work efforts so their pupils will “pass the tests”.

There isn’t enough money, it seems, to invest more in teacher training and upskilling and in better classroom resources and smaller classes. These are the logical, proven ways of lifting standards throughout the country. So if we’re not prepared to take that path, then the next best way is to use sticks rather than carrots – make the “failing” teachers and schools known to us all, in order to make them feel bad and try harder.

This negative approach may work with a small minority of lazier teacher – just as it would with small minorities of lazier workers everywhere, even politicians – but it does nothing to positively motivate teachers and lift morale, which surely is the best long-term way of lifting educational standard overall.

This policy battle between certain politicians and educational experts and fieldworkers is really, then, a combination of a minister’s determination not to lose face plus a mean-spirited, negative attitude to ordinary educational workers who are trying to do their best with the resources available to them.

10 Comments | Education, Politics | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by David Armstrong

« Previous Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.