The very worst of policy making

The very worst of policy making

“The Step Change proposal released yesterday proposes to allow non-qualified educators in community settings to educate the hardest-to-teach students in New Zealand, receiving only two-thirds of the funds that schools get (with the final third paid once success is achieved), with no capital development money and no system of educational review”, said Liz Gordon today.

Dr Gordon said there are five major flaws in the report:

1. There is absolutely no analysis of who the 20% of ‘failing’ students are, or why they are ‘failing’. They are, in fact, made up of two distinct groups: those with significant sickness, disability, social or learning problems that affect their ability to learn, and children ‘at the bottom of the heap’ economically – the 15-20% of children living in poverty in New Zealand. The population is heavily Māori or Pasifika and lives in the most deprived areas of New Zealand.

2. In fact, the report specifically denies that educational failure is linked to poverty, stating: “Critical to note is that this failing 33 percent are found within and across all state and state-integrated schools, indicating a systemic problem”. This is simply ACT Party propaganda – that failure is all due to schools, and allows for the possibility

3. The comparisons with models from other countries is superficial, it overestimates the success of these other models and ignores the problems. Sweden has a much more equal society than New Zealand, with higher taxes and more income transfers to the poorest group, so that country does not have to deal with the significant effects of poverty that need to be addressed here.

4. The report itself is a complete mish-mash of various ideas. In particular, the terms of reference bear absolutely no relationship to the proposed outcomes. The report is one of political expediency – giving the ACT Party a feather in its cap for supporting the Government.

5. The model is based on personalised learning as the ‘solution’ to learning problems. It may be so, but personalised learning is extremely time-intensive and expensive, which is why schools promote learning in groups. How on earth can non-institutional ‘brokers’ afford to apply personal learning systems for our most needy children for two-thirds of the current cost of having them in a classroom.

Liz Gordon says that she does not believe the policy will be able to be implemented. “This policy is unworkable as written” she said. “It could not be operated without significant voluntary or very low-wage input, which precludes the involvement of trained and qualified teachers. Does anyone really believe that volunteers working out of corner-dairy type premises will provide a better education for failing children that what is provided in schools?”

QPEC will be watching developments with interest!

ENDS

© Scoop Media