Just over a week ago the New Zealand Herald published an opinion piece by Cecilia Robinson, ‘founder and co-chief executive of digi-physical primary care provider Tend Health.’ Apparently this position qualifies her to make education pronouncements, in this case about NCEA:
Why NCEA reform matters for every child – Cecilia Robinson
Unfortunately this is behind the paywall, so I can’t quote directly from the article. However the Aotearoa Educators Collective has published a rebuttal to this article and I will highlight sections from that.
National Testing and Valuing Teachers
“Cecilia Robinson is an impressive entrepreneur, but her recent claims in the NZ Herald that national testing and standardized learning lead to better student results are incorrect. They simply serve to gaslight the great job teachers in this country do.”
As do so many others who pontificate about education, showing above all that they don’t know what they are talking about.
The real reason for any disparity in student achievement is one that these gaslighters and especially governments, both past and present, don’t want to acknowledge.
“Where she is right is that we have one of the highest equity gaps and child poverty rates in the OECD, but this is a product of our economic policies that have led to inter-generational poverty, not of schools. Every day, teachers aim to lift the aspirations of learners and to provide the scaffolds, in spite of chronic under-resourcing for learning support, that children need to succeed in their learning.”
But it’s much easier to blame schools and teachers, rather than admit to the problem. No wonder teachers have had enough.
“If we want our schooling system to be fairer, we need a fairer society. It’s that simple.
But when the government and columnists dog-whistle that teachers are somehow to blame and characterize them as selfish, incompetent, and whiny, it’s no wonder that teachers are furious.”
What can be done? Well, here’s an example.
“Funding healthy and nutritious school lunches for all children, a teacher aide in every classroom, more specialists to support children with challenges, and investing in keeping and attracting great teachers would go a long way.”
Healthy and nutritious school lunches? What a great idea. Oh wait, until David Seymour came along, that what we had. But clearly it is the schools and teachers fault that hungry children fed ‘Seymour’s Slop’ aren’t achieving.
And then Robinson reaches for the overseas comparisons to prove how poorly our students are doing, except that as is generally the case she either hasn’t done her research, or has been fed faulty data, or she misinterpreted it.
“Robinson compares New Zealand students’ achievement unfavorably with Sweden, where she implies that students do better, and argues that regular national testing of children from Year 3 explains why Swedish families trust public education and don’t use private tutoring.
Unfortunately for Robinson, this is demonstrably wrong. New Zealand has consistently scored above Sweden in international rankings of student success. Most recently in the PISA rankings published in 2023, New Zealand students scored in the top ten countries internationally for reading. We scored 11th in science and were above the OECD average and on a par with Sweden for maths, at 23rd. All of this has happened without national testing and without private tutoring.”
Oops. We kept getting fed this line that because our children are failing we need national testing/league tables/knowledge rich curriculum,/The Science of Learning, and so on. But while the achievement levels can always be improved upon, there is NO evidence that our schools are failing. But admitting that would destroy the whole reform education agenda.
Then she digs her hole even deeper:
“Robinson also argues that in the age of AI, creativity and problem-solving are even more important in schools. But this is where New Zealand is among the highest-performing education systems in the world, ranking fifth out of 81 OECD countries. New Zealand teachers are sought globally because they take a hands-on, practical approach to learning that encourages students to express their ideas and to think critically and collaboratively. Creative thinking and problem-solving are the foundation for our economic success in a wide range of tertiary and career fields, from arts, engineering, technology, and biomedicine to infrastructure and mathematics.”
Another big oops. Steve Maharery highlighted this in his recent article, so the evidence is not hard to find.
While we are discussing New Zealand students’ supposedly poor performance against International comparisons, maybe we should look a bit deeper.
“Where we could usefully improve ourselves compared with Sweden is in terms of public funding (noting Sweden also has higher rates of taxation) for education. Sweden has the 7th highest per-student spend for primary schooling and is 26.3% above the OECD average. NZ is 29th and is 24.7% below the OECD average. (OECD Education at a Glance 2024)”
Hmm, who is to blame for any disparity in achievement?
But Robinson has not finished with bending the facts to suit her argument.
“Robinson also uses sloppy data drawn from a poll of her friends to argue that private tutoring is increasing and “widespread,” and that the solution to inequity and accessing more support is more national testing.
This is completely fallacious. Good assessments, such as our robust PAT tests, are already being used in primary schools, both to inform teachers of where children are at and where they need to go next. Teachers use these assessments to inform their teaching so that it better meets the needs of the individual child, not to rank them.
The government’s plans to introduce national testing twice a year for literacy and numeracy for children from the age of seven (Year 3) is far more likely to lead to anxiety than sudden spikes in achievement.”
One has to wonder why this article was published. It appears to be an opinion piece based on her beliefs and prejudices rather than on accurate information.
But why let facts get in the way of a good story?
The AEC article concludes with this paragraph.
“Instead of undervaluing and blaming teachers and schools, let’s celebrate the complex and skilled job they do. And as we head towards Suffrage Day, let’s pay them fairly and commit to bringing back pay equity so the value of their work is properly examined and assessed. Finally, let’s build more of what Robinson praises in Sweden: a commitment to excellence and fairness for all children, and a society where families see education as a collective responsibility between themselves and teachers.”
Sounds good to me.
Another excellent take, thank you.
I have heard that private tutoring is increasing as parents are seeking more depth for their children. Comprehension and critical thinking, and dare I say it, actual reading, are starting to lack in schools due to these reforms, so that is what is being sought for those who can afford the extra.
More national testing? Simply reinforces the belief that what can be counted is what counts.
More propaganda
Propaganda is the only thing your lot deal in – everything is either propaganda or gaslighting subterfuge
What exactly is the propaganda? Are you referring to the EVIDENCE based critique of the short-sighted garbage your lot are pushing through government “under urgency” – this is propaganda (or ideologically based rubbish – neoliberal if you will) if ever there were any
Propaganda being anything that doesn’t fit your one-eyed world view?
Why is it you right wing twats don’t understand what evidence means? Quite to the contrary, I will review my perspective if the evidence justifies it – nothing you or those of your ilk suggest, are likely to meet this criteria. If I hold my breath I might as well just give up – meh
Right wing??? Surely you jest.
The Aotearoa Educators Collective is correct:
“Where she is right is that we have one of the highest equity gaps and child poverty rates in the OECD, but this is a product of our economic policies that have led to inter-generational poverty, not of schools. Every day, teachers aim to lift the aspirations of learners and to provide the scaffolds, in spite of chronic under-resourcing for learning support, that children need to succeed in their learning.”
This reminds me of what is takes for educational success, and what hinders success. Teachers do matter. They see the individual. They bring the curriculum to life. They make formal learning possible for all. Yes, the curriculum does matter. … in more ways than one. There’s been a good much said about this recently. And let’s face it students themselves bring varying amounts of capability to formal learning … some are pretty bright, some less so, a few really struggle, for different reasons. The level of success can never be the same for everyone. And that’s where NCEA plays a key role. Students achieve (not fail) at their own level. The schools themselves have a key role in supporting learning and ensuring success … again in more ways than one. And in the compulsory sector, by extension, ministry policy is crucial. Resourcing for a start.
But there is one more factor in understanding success: what happens outside schools. The socio-economic dimension. Teachers, schools and the curriculum have little influence on poverty, hunger, domestic violence – whatever the socio-economic dimension throws up. That’s big picture stuff that requires governments to join the dots. Not siloed thinking but ministries talking to each other. And dare I say it, out with ideology and in with bipartisan cooperation. School meals are a start. Common sense tells us that hungry kids don’t learn. But there’s so much more to it.
While the government must do more to address the poverty cycle, it’s a mistake to ignore the significant impact schools can have to reduce disparity. One example is the AEC overlooks how variability in curriculum implementation by different teachers and schools directly leads to inconsistent student outcomes often increasing the attainment tail. Furthermore, PISA suggests prioritising the consistent teaching of core foundational knowledge is a proven way to shrink these attainment gaps.
The AEC dismisses a clear, long-term decline in student achievement. New Zealand’s 2022 PISA results were the worst on record, continuing a downward trend since 2009. Critically, these scores are likely inflated by 10 points as we had an overrepresentation of high attaining and high socio economic students. This also means our real creative thinking score is probably below the OECD average.
Granted, just as students fall on a continuum of academic capability (has the bell curve been discredited?)n so too do teachers vary in their strengths and capabilities. But to claim this variability, notably in bringing the curriculum to life, directly leads to the long tail of underachievement is drawing a long bow. Where is the evidence for this? Comparative studies? Context matters so hopefully not comparing apples with oranges. Perhaps a grand meta-analysis . I’m out of touch but the last meta-analysis I am aware of was Hatte’s nearly two decades ago. More since? I’ve got no inclination to look over it again but I’m pretty sure he found no evidence that directly implicated so called poor teaching, or failure to implement the curriculum.
So, the OECD/ PISA suggests that prioritising the consistent teaching of core foundational knowledge is a proven way to shrink these attainment gaps. Proven? Again is there evidence or simply wishful thinking?
But granted, a sound curriculum taught well surely must help with student outcomes. Teachers and teaching does matter but its not that simple. What’s the role of current teacher education and the lack of opportunities for ongoing professional development? What’s the role of context, where in some public school classrooms a good many kids are distracted, disengaged or simply ill-behaved – at least at secondary level. Not the “achieving” ones but the long tail. And the irony is that some in the long tail simply don’t do well at formal education but in another context learn stuff perfectly well, even catch up on the basics. Sorry, no evidence for the claim .. but some anecdotal in the lived experiences of those around us.
And anyway, do we really want the curriculum (and teaching) to be unpinned by OECD objectives? Not everything in life can or should be reduced to economic imperatives dressed up as core skills. Forgive me if I’m wrong. But that’s another argument for another day.
Hattie’s work is by no means definitive nor is it unique. It is an interesting study but it has so many issues and criticisms that it’s not worth going into here. My point about variability is not based on his work but on more recent, New Zealand-specific research. Dr. Nina Hood’s 2023 report, “Variable by Design,” directly researched this issue and found significant inconsistencies in curriculum implementation across New Zealand schools, which leads to fragmented and uneven student outcomes.
This is supported by PISA reports. These are correlations, not definitive proof, but it’s a powerful one. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the highest-achieving countries on PISA have a cohesive, knowledge-rich curriculum with a strong focus on core foundational knowledge. These countries also have more equitable outcomes. A recent open access book looks at the research supporting knowledge rich curriculums ‘Developing Curriculum for Deep Thinking’. Hattie is actually one of the co-authors.
My initial comment gave examples of how schools can reduce disparity, not an exhaustive list. I fully agree that other factors like teacher education and student context are crucial. However, I am a strong believer that the goal should be for our public education system to provide a consistent, high-quality foundation that allows all children to “do well in formal education” as a key driver of equity and opportunity. As educators we need to focus on what we can control.
Achievement started to go down in 2009? Just about the time the Key government introduced National Standards… although to be fair the effects of that hit about 2015.
I am convinced that a set of national standards are imperative. I have yet to be convinced that supposed issues with it are anything more than issues with implementation than a fault with the standards themselves.
There was another huge change to the New Zealand education system just before the introduction of national standards. The 2007 curriculum…
As more kiwis find there way to the bottom of society school performance will follow .If life is bad out side of school performance in school will not improve .Yes there will be the odd special kid that will defy the odds but that kid will do that even if from a sorted family.
Government needs to stop messing with the education system and focus on bringing all kiwi families onto a level playing field where all can achieve a decent family environment .currently this government is doing a great job of lowering more families into the bottom dwellers level of life .
Poverty is the biggest thing that ailes NZ as a whole .Poverty is the biggest growth achievement of the Luxon government .
Has anyone noticed how many businesses are failing these last couple of years ?yet these are the same people that think they can run a country and an education system .
I often wonder how long these people who make pronouncements on education would last in front of a year 10 class in a decile one school. I suspect not long. The kids might be poor but they know hypocrisy when they see it.
That, indeed, is the question. Until you’ve actually done some teaching on a daily basis, you have no idea of what it’s like. Even a class of New Entrants are a challenge and it becomes clear that there are huge differences in families.
At least nurses get to work with people who are sick and perhaps a bit subdued for a while.
Thirty-odd active children from 30 different backgrounds test your mettle.
Allan Alach has done this, as have a few people here, who comment.
The minister, her minions and her supporters know nothing about it. They like to be filmed sitting with half a dozen extremely well-behaved and nice-looking little children, to make their pronouncements.
They make themselves look ridiculous.
And Btf says this is all ‘propaganda’. Or did he mean Ms. Robinson was writing propaganda? If so, he’s correct. (I wish Btf’s parents had sought private tutoring for him because, as usual, he fails to make a clear comment.)
That, indeed, is the question. Until you’ve actually done some teaching on a daily basis, you have no idea of what it’s like. Even a class of New Entrants are a challenge and it becomes clear that there are huge differences in families.
At least nurses get to work with people who are sick and perhaps a bit subdued for a while.
Thirty-odd active children from 30 different backgrounds test your mettle.
Allan Alach has done this, as have a few people here, who comment.
The minister, her minions and her supporters know nothing about it. They like to be filmed sitting with half a dozen extremely well-behaved and nice-looking little children, to make their pronouncements.
They make themselves look ridiculous.
And Btf says this is all ‘propaganda’. Or did he mean Ms. Robinson was writing propaganda? If so, he’s correct. (I wish Btf’s parents had sought private tutoring for him because, as usual, he fails to make a clear comment.)
That, indeed, is the question. Until you’ve actually done some teaching on a daily basis, you have no idea of what it’s like. Even a class of New Entrants are a challenge and it becomes clear that there are huge differences in families.
At least nurses get to work with people who are sick and perhaps a bit subdued for a while.
Thirty-odd active children from 30 different backgrounds test your mettle.
Allan Alach has done this, as have a few people here, who comment.
The minister, her minions and her supporters know nothing about it. They like to be filmed sitting with half a dozen extremely well-behaved and nice-looking little children, to make their pronouncements.
They make themselves look ridiculous.
And Btf says this is all ‘propaganda’. Or did he mean Ms. Robinson was writing propaganda? If so, he’s correct. (I wish Btf’s parents had sought private tutoring for him because, as usual, he fails to make a clear comment.)
Im a man of letters I will have you know Joy, thus your attempt to ridicule has fallen flat.
Nicola Willis is a woman of letters and her effort at being finance minister has fallen flat, Btf. She has the wrong letters and is vastly unqualified for her job. All the present ministers share her dearth of expertise and talent.
What are your letters, by the way? We’re all interested. Are you claiming that in a ‘Rumpish way? A stable genius and all that? The most bigly genius the world has ever known?
Dear me Joy you seem disturbed.
My tertiary qualifications cover both commerce and science.
Your last paragraph is a puzzle I’m unable to solve, I do thank you though for your attention.
No problem Btf, it’s a wet day.
Will you get the last word?