Teachers prefer smaller classes to greater pay

May 17, 2012

Regular readers of my articles will know that on most issues I tend to hedge my bets. Even my catchphrase, ‘I may be wrong but …’, indicates an instinctive desire to balance the arguments. But on this week’s news that our government on average will increase school class sizes to save money in order to pay fewer teachers more remuneration, I am unequivocal.

This is a bad policy that is short-sighted and textbook-based (as against real-world based), and will produce more problems than it tries to solve.

The theory (and that is a part of my problem – it’s formulated largely by people who sit in offices, write academic papers after studying statistics, and have little if any real classroom experience) is that class sizes have less effect on educational outcomes than quality of teachers.

That may be supported by some ways of analysing broad-brush data, but it doesn’t mean that there is a shred of validity in concluding that class sizes can get bigger if we just pay some teachers more. I’m 95% certain (sorry, hedging again!) that this equation does not work in policy setting or in practice, because it fails to take into account the human spirit as it reacts to classroom challenges and career options.

For the first five years of my working life, I was a secondary school teacher. I had a three-year degree and a one-year Diploma of Education. I chose that vocation during my senior high school days principally because I wanted to teach, wanted to play a part in making life good for the following generation. Sure, the money was good enough, but that was a secondary consideration, and looking back I would have done it even if paid a bit less.

I lasted five years (well, three fulfilling ones to be exact – I struggled in the final two). Gradually the job turned into being a classroom manager-cum-policeman. This affected my health and dulled my enthusiasm for the job.

I think I was quite a good teacher. The kids on average seemed to like me and I got pretty reasonable results from my senior classes. I took part in lots of extra-curricular activities, and at least until weariness began to take over, I put a lot of effort into preparing what I hoped would be interesting classes.

After a few years of huge and dedicated effort, I gave up because it was just too hard, with the large classes, to do good teaching while managing the kids who didn’t want to be there. And here’s the thing: if I had been paid another 20% in salary to stay on, I would have let it pass. It just wasn’t worth the stress and the effect it was having on the rest of my life. I had skills learned in my degree and had no trouble finding a new career that paid a similar amount but was far less wearying.

Another observation. The teachers at that first school were a mixed bunch. Some were career teachers who may have found difficulty doing some other jobs so they just stayed on doing their best but holding back enough for them to not be affected by the stress and workload. They had a way of teaching that got by, had pretty fixed classroom plans, and remained somewhat emotionally aloof. For them, the remuneration they got was probably as good as they would get anywhere because they were not top-notch in the creativity and passion stakes, so wouldn’t need to be diverted from looking for other jobs.

And there were other teachers who (as I had intended to do) immersed themselves into doing the best possible job for their students. The dedicated ones, who possibly unlike me had the energy and inner creativity to be excellent, interesting teachers who could stay the course. Had they been paid more due to their excellence, I’m sure they would have taken it gladly. But I doubt that any of them would have tried any harder as a result, because they were already doing great work. For them, pay was an important but secondary driver.

Now, according the our Education Minister and her department policy analysts, making a better education system is simply a matter of luring better teachers by offering more pay, but forgetting to explain the full offer: “We’ll offer you 15% more pay, but you’ll have to teach larger classes and spend even more time being the classroom policeman and doing paperwork.”

Some existing or prospective teachers may not mind larger classes, but most I suspect (based on my experiences) would not find that a particularly attractive proposition.

The sort of creative, passionate and energetic teachers we want are motivated generally by their love of what they are doing, not by being paid more (though a fair wage is important). And their main de-motivator is likely to be having to do more classroom policing as their class sizes increase. These people are the ones most likely to leave rather that sign up, because they have key personal skills that are suitable for other less stressful and more creative careers.

Conversely, the type of teacher who will do a better job just because they’re paid more may not be the type of teacher you actually need. Their passion may be more money-oriented than child-oriented. They may find it hard to get jobs elsewhere, so will do what they can to hang on as teachers. Hardly inspiring!

My firm conclusion is that if you want to attract quality teachers, don’t try paying them heaps more; just give them smaller classes to work with so they can spend more time educating and less time disciplining.

 

1 Comment | Education, Politics | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by David Armstrong

Austerity or growth – an old question with a new urgency

May 11, 2012

One of the biggest questions facing western countries today is: what is the best way to ride out debt – austerity or growth. Of course, it’s linked with most of the other major question of the age, including wealth disparity and climate change.

In Greece, Spain, the UK and now France the question is being asked in deadly earnest. Although the debt crisis may not be as great in New Zealand, we still have large and potentially crippling deficits to deal with and the question is being asked here too.

Should a nation and its citizenry tighten their belts to the point of real pain? Or should money be thrown at the debt problem in the hope that everyone spending more will produce more jobs and create an upward spiral in confidence that makes the money keep going around and eventually even out?

For most people it’s something of a left-vs-right issue, almost a good old class battle.

The people advocating austerity tend to be those with plenty enough already and who hold the levers of power with inside knowledge of money and debt markets and the like. They can still live comfortably with reduced services and less disposable income, and understand how to manoeuvre their assets to remain safe and even work the system and even the crisis to their advantage.

Meanwhile the people arguing for stimulus and growth tend to be those who don’t really understand how macro economies work, live to short-term goals and are envious of those with plenty.

I know that these are pretty simplistic stereotypes, but I think they’re close enough for a large number of people. But I also know there are a good number who do understand how economies work, who don’t live in relative wealth or poverty, and who have opposite opinions largely depending on their personal view of life (such as poorer people who religiously avoid debt).

I think there are essentially three approaches – two on the extremes (hard right and hard left) and one in the middle. As usual, as is apparently my character, I have a strong position near the middle. I believe that both austerity and stimulus can be achieved, and would work, if a particular combination of them is chosen. And in particular if our leaders (and we as their electors) are capable of looking to a distant enough horizon.

1. The hard right view is a country-wide version of the option applicable to a severely indebted individual – just stop spending and work harder. Pay back your debt (or reduce it to a manageable level) as quickly as is possible and stop paying all that wasted, dead-money interest.

I’m pretty certain that, while this is good advice in for most individuals and particularly for strict Presbyterians, this cannot work for countries, for several reasons.

First, any attempt to take a nation into emergency footing must include taking the citizens with you. This is no easier an ask than it ever was throughout history. Done badly, the result is almost inevitably and eventually expensive and destructive civil unrest and possibly revolution. Civil unrest is already a big problem in Greece and, apparently, in Spain, with France and UK now familiar with scary events of disorder and confrontation over lifestyle and immigration issues. Add to that the uprisings in Middle Eastern and Northern African countries and you can see what can happen if you anger your citizens without convincing them, intellectually and emotionally, of the benefits of your policies. Britain managed austerity measures during World War 2 because the citizens understood the reasons: I doubt very much this is the case now.

The second main reason why austerity can be counter-productive is that it can easily produce a downward spiral, for individuals and the country as a whole. The less money people have (having lost their jobs or seen cuts in their benefit entitlements) the less they spend and so the less local businesses make. This leads not only to more people unemployed and therefore with less money to spend, but also a fall in government income in taxes, meaning fewer services and lower benefits it can offer.

As the New Zealand government is now showing, the way out of this is to sell more assets to foreign “investors”, providing some immediate relief with new money in, but in the long run further reducing income streams from dividends, more of which go offshore. Put simply, this is not a sustainable situation but a slow, downward spiral that we will regret in decades to come.

2. The hard left view is to borrow money and distribute it as cash, tax cuts, and benefit payments. You give everyone more money in the hope that (a) they won’t put it all into the bank, and (b) they buy products made and sold locally, putting more money into local businesses who can then spend more themselves within the economy.

This works if two conditions are satisfied. First, if the resultant increased tax take (GST on sales, business income) by the government pays for at least the interest on the money borrowed to make it happen and preferably pay off some of the principal. Secondly, if the bulk of the money is in fact spent or invested locally.

But if the spending on imported stuff (or overseas trips) is more than the income our exporters can bring back into the country, then we’re going backwards into an ever worse position, with the only response being either a switch to austerity or even more (borrowed) cash stimulus to put off the day of reckoning.

Sadly, Kiwis being as they are, the debate is largely along these black-and-white lines – austerity or borrowing. Everyone is looking after number one and demanding of their political leaders whatever solution suits them best. If those struggling to keep up come into extra money, many tend to spend it on imported flash goods and trips to Oz, trying to retain their accustomed lifestyle. And if they are already well protected they resent money going to the undeserving, lazy strugglers and demand their government get tough.

3. My view is in between. As a country we should be careful with our money (a touch of austerity or at least a measure of caution), but make sure that as much as possible of the money the government borrows to keep us going is spent within the economy on projects that produce tangible and sustainable assets.

I’m okay with certain levels of debt. I know how important debt was for me to end up owning a house. And when things get hard, I’m okay with borrowing a bit more, but under certain conditions.

Certainly not as a stimulus for spending! The “free market” ideology of giving consumers the cash and letting them choose how to spend it is folly. By nature, too many of us see it as a windfall and spend it on treats or stuff we don’t need, often imported and not necessarily good for us. It’s unwise for New Zealand’s recovery to be dependent on retail activity – that’s the model of the rat keeping the treadmill going but getting nowhere.

Extra “stimulus” money (borrowed from overseas) should be spent on things which have long-term benefits for the country. To name a few, I can suggest: power projects (preferably using renewables), communications technology, encouragement for tech-based niche export industries, transport infrastructure, cleaner and better primary produce, ways of making the country more attractive to tourists, better education and health of younger people, and reducing the causes of costly expenditure associated with low socio-economic status.

If we borrowed more money but invested it in some or all of these areas, we would (a) keep the money in an economy that is actually making advances rather than just spinning the wheel, (b) employ people who would then spend it, (c) dampen down feelings of disenchantment or even revolt among ordinary Kiwis.

 

Leave a Comment » | Business, Community living, Economics, Politics | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by David Armstrong

Spinning foreign investment

April 21, 2012

I may be wrong but … I think the controversy over the sale of New Zealand farms and assets to residents of “foreign” countries is being manipulated by spin through the continued use of the word “investment” in all arguments aiming to justify the policy.

The National government and other advocates of sales of the Crafar farms (yesterday) and other chunks of prime land to overseas interests continually frame the debate as being about the pros and cons of “foreign investment”.

It’s as if we should be saying, “Wow, these overseas people love us so much and think so highly of our future that they want to give us something, invest in us”. Like a parent paying for a child’s university education, ultruistically investing in his or her future.

A foreign company buying a New Zealand farm or asset is not investing in NZ – it is buying a piece of it for their own benefit. We Kiwis may see it as benefitting us by giving us cash and perhaps easing access to a foreign market. But the buyer is doing it purely for their own benefit, be it long-term strategic and/or medium-term financial benefit.

If I buy your house, I’m not investing in you. I’m paying you some money and although the property stays where it is, you no longer have any control over it. I’m doing it because I expect to gain something of value to me, not because I want to help you or recognise your personal value and worth.

I’m sure the European settlers in the 19th Century didn’t buy (and in some cases steal) land from Maori because they wanted to invest in Maori and show how much they valued Maori assets. They did it because they as future owners would benefit financially at the expense of the sellers.

So, whenever you see or hear the term “foreign investment” used in the media by advocates of off-shore sales, simply replace it with “asset sales to foreigners” and see if the argument sounds so convincing.

 

2 Comments | Business, Economics, Media reporting, Politics | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by David Armstrong

Targets are fine – but where are the plans and resources?

March 16, 2012

I should be elated. I should be punching the air like a golfer who’s made a hole-in-one. The government has set 10 targets for the public sector over the next three to five years, and they all look pretty damn good to me!

Goals like reducing the number of assaults on children, reducing criminal reoffending and increasing participation in early childhood education are what we all want, surely. And the government is stating publicly that it will be judged on these goals (although the five-year horizon takes it three years beyond the next election so there is a hunk of wriggle room).

So why does hearing and reading this news make me feel dejected and patronised? Because of the rider John Key added at the end of the announcement of the targets – that ministers and chief executives of the public service departments would be held accountable for achieving the targets.

All this in a series of moves that see funding cuts to government departments and laying off of public servants – the people you need to actually achieve the ambitious targets.

I doubt very much that if a target isn’t met, a minister will cop the blame. It will be passed down to the senior civil servants who will be blamed for not controlling or motivating their staff. CEOs will be sacked and further restructuring will take place, neither of which will actually achieve anything except make the prime minister and his government look like they’re doing something.

Achieving most if not all of the targets will need concrete plans and extra, well-aimed funding. How do you reduce the amount of crime, or the number of assaults on children? By putting in resources such as one-on-one social worker intervention within at-risk families. And resources like these need money.

Of course, what John Key and Steven Joyce and their friends are actually doing is framing the discussion on the size of the public service as an issue of how well they could be doing if they worked more efficiently, when in fact the real goal is a financial one – to cut funding and jobs in the public sector and thereby save money. That reality is negative and provocative, so they frame it in words that are more appealing – “we’re not trying to cut jobs and save money, we’re trying to see the public service operate more efficiently to achieve these targets”.

The Government can proclaim targets until the cows come home; without specific plans and the funded resources required to achieve them, they are merely a sideshow intended as a smokescreen to mislead an uncritical voting population.

Recently I made a submission to the Green Paper on Vulnerable Children. It was nice for the Government to ask us for our ideas and opinions on ways to reduce damage to children, but their invitation to submit came with an explicit, depressing condition – there will be no extra social welfare funds, so anything you suggest means funds coming from elsewhere. Again, great intentions, but no extra resources.

Or take the “reduce offending” target. How on earth can you do that without setting up rehabilitation and halfway-house programmes, which generally require lots of specialist staff and expensive resources?

So here’s the scenario we should expect. Take the target of “increasing the proportion of 18-year-olds with NCEA level 2 or its equivalent from 68% to 85%”.

1. Specific goals will be laid out by the education mullahs in Wellington to get better teachers, increase ‘efficiency’ by reducing the number of courses taught, or other Great Ideas.

2. Education practitioners and schools will point out that this can only be done without making huge class sizes if there is more funding and more and better trained teachers. The populace, encouraged by right-wing commentators, will say this is just the teachers’ unions exerting their power. The Ministry, which due to job cuts now has fewer people working on developing more professional development for teachers, says there is no money for teachers so just Do It.

3. In three or five years, statistics will suggest that the target has not been met. The politicians will work on massaging the stats hoping to make them look better, saying they don’t give the full picture or were based on faulty data or using changed baselines, and argue that it was the previous government’s fault anyway.

4. When this doesn’t quite work, they’ll say that the Department needs restructuring (“get rid of more back-office staff”) to achieve the results and plea for another term in office to prove they were on the right track. And sack a few CEOs – that always looks like strong government in the media.

 

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

Is Hone Harawira coming of age?

February 28, 2012

I am becoming increasingly impressed with the Mana Party leader Hone Harawira – and given the bad press he drew over the past couple of years due to his use of shall we say colourful language in public, that is a rather brave statement for a man of my vintage and sensibilities to make.

I may be wrong, but I believe Hone is learning that he can express strong sentiments and forceful arguments publicly without the use of four-letter words. The result, as I observe it, is that we can now see that the man does indeed have depth and clarity in his thinking and simple eloquence in its expression.

I venture to say that if he can keep this up through the current parliamentary term, he will indeed be able to claim mana among those he represents as well as the respect of the broad population, in the same way that Pita Sharples has in recent years.

The Labour Party should now be reversing its silly policy of the last election campaign, when it said it would never work with Hone (while still being happy to work with a man of far less integrity in Winston Peters).

This morning I heard Hone speak on the radio about the social welfare changes, and I was impressed with his clarity of message. No fudging around, just calling a spade a spade. And no sounding like an angry victim. To me he represented and laid out in simple terms the counter-argument in the debate – that the “reforms” in reality are not about getting more people into jobs, but dog-whistling to the National party’s electorate that beneficiaries will be dealt to. And that if there is no actual training programmes for people looking for jobs, and no actual jobs being created, then there is no point.

In contrast, National’s minister for Social Welfare, Paula Bennett, sounded full of platitudes about unspecified training and hoped-for new jobs but offered no actual plans, just estimates by officials with no reasons for the numbers quoted.

I was similarly most impressed by Harawira’s response a few weeks ago to Paul Holmes’s sad, nasty Waitangi Day column in the Herald. There was Hone – usually despised by the mainly pakeha majority for his poor choice of words – this time being the voice of reason, not taking Holmes’s poisonous bait but rather just setting out the real facts, firmly but without vitriol, no punches pulled but all above the belt.

I was also surprised and Impressed to see how well Hone stood up and put forward a respectful, well reasoned position during the televised minor-leaders debate during the last election. His contributions were worthy of a major opposition party, not just the ramblings of a marginal party.

At the risk of sounding sycophantic, I could also express pleasure at seeing the grace, style and humour that Hone showed at the events at Waitangi. Given the prominent – and roundly criticised – role that his family has taken at the Waitangi Day celebrations/protests over the past decade or so, it was a pleasure to see a more measured and laid-back approach from their highest profile representative. I’m sure that he still feels strongly about the treaty issues that he has fought over, but he is learning to couch his convictions in a good humoured way that is mindful of other opinions.

I think that Hone Harawira is coming of age and, with the Maori Party leadership aging and struggling to keep their identity while being a government coalition partner, he (and his party) is well poised to become the main voice for Maori political aspirations through this decade.

I’ve blogged before about some politicians who have impressed me with their direct, honest approach to New Zealanders. Pita Sharples had, and maybe still has, mana but his position within government is making it ever harder to provide an independent Maori perspective. Steven Joyce I once saw as a refreshingly direct interviewee but now I can see that under pressure he is simply driven by the need to spin facts in order to avoid inconvenient counter-arguments. And John Key – again I was mildly impressed in his early prime ministerial days with his directness, but that has long worn off and now I see little to admire in his bland dismissal of anything that doesn’t interest or please him.

No, I may be wrong but …. Hone Harawira is now the person I could soon find myself respecting most among our political leaders.

1 Comment | Maori issues, Politics, Social issues | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by David Armstrong

« Previous Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 25 other followers