On Monday 29th September, Taranaki educator Bali Hague had an open letter to the Minister of Education published on the Post website. This has since been published on the Aotearoa Educators Collective substack site.
I’ve reposted it here, with my added comments.
An Open Letter to the Minister of Education
“Bali Haque is a former deputy chief executive of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, president of the Secondary Principals Association of New Zealand (SPANZ), Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA) executive member, chair of the independent taskforce to review Tomorrow’s Schools, and principal of four different secondary schools.”
So we can assume he knows what he is talking about. You will note that he chaired the taskforce to review Tomorrow’s Schools that was set up by Chris Hipkins during his time as Minster of Education. The taskforce made many recommendations, most of which appealed to me.
Unfortunately due to covid on one hand, and the resistance of organisations such as the New Zealand School Trustees Association, and the influential Auckland secondary schools, no change of any consequence resulted. This wasted a huge opportunity to reset the way New Zealand schooling system operates, taking the best bits of Tomorrow’s Schools and fixing the problem areas.
To me this is another example of the inability of the last Labour government to grasp the nettle and make substantive changes.
Back to Bali’s article:
“Kia ora, Minister. Your proposals to abandon our national qualification and replace it with what you claim is a better one, together with your expressed intention to rewrite the senior school curriculum have left me rather puzzled. Please can you help me out?”
Bali then asks eleven questions.
“1. You have suggested that NCEA is failing our students. But here’s the thing: NCEA is internationally recognised and many students with NCEA are welcomed by universities around the world, including the most prestigious ones. Our NCEA graduates overwhelmingly also do well in our own tertiary institutions and workplaces. So, if NCEA is failing our students, how is this manifesting itself in terms of outcomes? How bad is it? How about the very real positives ? Do you actually have any hard empirical national data to justify an outright axing?”
Excellent questions – where exactly is the proof that NCEA is failing? Answer, it doesn’t exist, but admitting that would spoil the underlying ideological agenda.
“2. I know you are worried about students who leave school without sufficient literacy and numeracy skills ? So am I. We all know that literacy and numeracy need to be addressed in the early years of schooling. Would it not make more sense to focus on dismantling the social, economic, cultural and learning barriers that disadvantage these underserved students when they first enter primary schools?”
Yes of course it would make sense but admitting that also interferes with the agenda, and also would challenge the government to do something about this. This would require them to admit that current economic policies are exacerbating the problem.
“3. I know you want to make changes at pace, but is it possible you are being reckless? I am not convinced you really comprehend the tsunami of work you are about to unleash on the sector, or the complexity of implementation. Rest assured, implementation on your timelines will be a nightmare. Might it have been prudent and more effective to make changes to NCEA to address its current deficiencies?”
When there is an agenda to meet (refer to many of my previous articles), is there anyway Stanford is going to ease back?
“4. It is a truism that assessment should be developed alongside the curriculum. I see you are keen on introducing a “knowledge rich” curriculum. A list of subjects, some with quite fancy names, many of which already exist in schools is not really a new national curriculum. Despite this, you seem to be in the process of determining how this, as yet largely absent curriculum will be assessed. Would you not agree that curriculum and assessment development should be integrated very carefully?”
That is impossible under the timetable that has been set up and given the pressures from Dr Michael Johnston and especially Professor Elizabeth Rata.
“5. Minister, you have intentionally narrowed the curriculum by insisting that students must study five subjects, each taking a whole year to “master”. Why is a year-long course somehow the gold standard? Successful semester and short courses are currently common in universities, other tertiary providers and many schools. Are you suggesting that deep, knowledge-rich learning must take an entire year, no matter what?”
Very pertinent and cleverly asked questions here. If the answer to the last one is ‘yes’ then what are the educational reasons behind that?
“6. You have proposed that students must “pass” four out of their five subjects to gain a certificate. We can also expect more examinations. I’m wondering what will happen to a student who passes three subjects and just misses out on the fourth because they have failed an external examination. Will they have to wait a year to repeat the exam before they can be awarded the certificate?”
As it appears this proposed new system will separate winners from the rest, I don’t think the implications of this have been thought through.
“7. You have argued that one problem with NCEA is that it allows students to mix vocational (you have called them “easy” credits) and “academic” subjects. However, in your proposal, both vocational subjects and school-based curriculum subjects will still count towards gaining a certificate. Having abandoned the NCEA, have you actually addressed the “problem” you identified?”
What do you think?
“8. You have produced a list of vocational subjects, each of which must be delivered for a full year, probably through an industry provider. Have you considered how small rural schools and poorer schools will be able to offer these resource-heavy vocational subjects?”
Let me guess….. I know… contract out to private suppliers…..
“9. This is not an easy one to crack, but on a purely practical note: have you worked out how schools will manage their timetables to allow students to do both year-long school-based subjects on campus, and year-long industry-based vocational subjects, often off campus?”
Given that Stanford and her fellows don’t seem to really have a grasp on the day to day running of schools, that question will take some answering.
“10. You have suggested that all internally assessed curriculum-based work will be marked by NZQA. Maybe this is because you don’t trust teachers to act professionally and you are unwilling to resource them to do their jobs? You have suggested AI might be used. Are you sure about that? Even if we assume the improbable, the use of AI will certainly not provide credible results unless the tasks or assessments that all students have to do are the same or very similar. This enforced standardisation of task will inevitably lead to a serious further narrowing of the senior school curriculum. As we try to develop a modern 21st century education system, is this wise minister?”
The only way AI can be used to mark assessments is to limit the scope and type of questions to multiple choice and fact regurgitation. There is no way AI can appraise subjective tasks that require teacher judgement. As Bali asks, is this the way to a modern 21st century curriculum? Mind you it would probably appeal to Elizabeth Rata’s 19th century view of education.
“11. Your own cabinet paper predicts an “initial” decline in achievement rates, particularly for our most at risk and vulnerable learners if your proposals are implemented. What do you suggest teachers and principals tell these students and their parents? Are they just collateral damage? There is a much bigger issue here: can you tell me why you think this will only be a short-term decline? What evidence do you have to support such an assertion, or are you just hoping?”
Evidence? In Erica’s world, who needs evidence?
Bali concludes:
“I am sure you get my drift here. Experience tells me that you and your advisers have manufactured a major crisis where one does not really exist. Of course there are issues to address, as with any national qualifications system, but they would have been far better addressed through implementing an incremental, careful improvement plan.
As it is, your proposed solution throws out baby, bathwater and all the plumbing.
I would like to compliment you on your heroic ability to create a crisis and “solve” it for us – well done.”
Nothing more needs to be said.
Project 2025 talks about revamping the education system but this applies to the US maybe Erica regime is taking a leaf out of this US Heritage Foundation policy scam?
What a great read. I wish Bali Haque was Minister of Education. We need someone who knows about the day to day running of schools and day to day educating of children. What we don’t need is this constant parade of amateurs who throw their weight around blindly, creating more problems than they solve.
The CEOs who think she’s a best minister really need their heads read too. This will not go well and as the writer asks, what problems is Stanford really solving?
Has she acknowledged the background/home lives of the children who fail?
Has her govt. set about solving the problems their parents and families face?
Has the minister made arrangements to deal with children with learning problems, above and beyond what they can get in the busy classroom?
If we answer NO to any of these questions, then we already know her curriculum changes will achieve nothing. Stanford will be just as much a failure as every other minister in this govt.
Failing to recognise the underlying problems, lets them down every time.
Teachers do what is known as pre-assessment with their classes to see where they need to go next and how. Stanford has failed to do the most basic pre-assessment, it appears.
Just another minister creating more poverty for our kids .This time it is education poverty
Next year secondary school teachers are expected to teach the 2 very different curriculums side by side depending on the year group wonder how many teachers will be left after term 1 of this nonsense. How’s that for planning Erica Stanford and all the sycophants that love you
A comment on Point 2
While socioeconomic disadvantage is a factor ‘failing’ at literacy and numeracy, ie the basic skills, at a young age is more than this. I’m more aware of issues around literacy. I’ve heard that some 10% of kids are on the dyslexic spectrum. Most likely more if auditory processing is considered. Then theres plain old disengagement. Some of that is cognitive but some is sure to be because some kids don’t see themselves in the literacy curriculum. Its not relevant to their cultural identities. Its hard to fully engage when the stories are about people other than yourself. Then there the age old debate on whole language vs phonics. Perhaps there’s something in the claim that ‘slow’ readers need a more explicit approach. Then there’s the visibility of literacy at home. Bed time stories are more than an old wives tale. Reading and TALKING ABOUT stories prepare kids for schooling. They are ahead of the game. And schooling is a game.
Lage scale research in Australia using scores from standardized tests does give support to the socioeconomic argument. The group of pupils who scored lowest in standardized tests came from families where parents had little or no formal education. Left school early without qualifications, some refugee groups, and Torres Straight islanders. One presumes many of these parents were in low wage employment or on benefits.
What would it look like in NZ? That’s the first question. How to close the gap has been a goal for some time, evidently without much success. The tail is as long as ever.
Creating crises and then solving them is what conservatives do. It’s grievance politics. Supported simply by articles of faith, like NCEA is failing, and there are too many bureaucrats. No one can really provide a shred of proof for either of those
GS you have come and put things in a nutshell. Each one of us is a nut and we are being squeezed by the system to get behind our shells; then they want to eat us up!
Creating crises and then solving them is what conservatives do. It’s grievance politics.
Actually its more – its a business creating new business as things constantly fail and have to be replanned or repaired or thrown out. We keep going while a new idea is planned and trialled and will only partly work well, or will be replaced by one in a different colour that is faster and more expensive in a few years. That’s our future under the present regime in case you haven’t seen it for yourselves.
Apparently unlike the blog writer, I have spoken to young NZers. There is clearly a crisis that needs solving. I would argue it’s close to existential at this point – kids are really, really uneducated compared with yesteryear. The standard of education has very clearly fallen precipitously and the only reason it looks more or less “okay” is because it’s a global phenomena so that OECD comparisons look like nothing is wrong.
Conservative govts may well be in the business of setting up strawmen but the so called literacy crisis has been around for a long time (now with STEM to the forefront framed as a basic skills crisis). Under the watch of both the Nats and LINO).
The long tail of underachievement seems a permanent feature of early education, just as a good many school leavers end up as NEETs. Perhaps it can be explained as the good old fashioned bell curve, but with a better understaning of individual capabilities not to mention a more holistic understanding of different intelligences, the bell curve is no longer kosher. Imu, NCEA was meant to help bridge the gap so to speak, allowing those who would have otherwise been on the wrong side of the bell curve to ‘achieve’ st a level co.mensuate with their capability. Surely that was a positive shift. But clearly it has fallen out of favour with this govt who, in a rapidly changing world where ‘unskilled work’ is no longer the option it was – and with fewer opportunities to learn on the job – are quick to point out the basic skills crisis. And the renewed focus on ‘basic skills’ goes hand in hand with new regimes of measurement. Indeed, also the development of a knowledge rich curriculum. It’s all OECD driven. The OECD being a neoliberal thinktank.
The answer to what we need from education today that sets us up for our future (which should be the basic aim of eddification) is to start off with capacity building in 5 year olds, how to listen, enjoy and learn something – do something to take home to show Mum and Dad,, and also playing and doing separately and together, learning a simple instrument and singing and playing, songs.
And work towards everyone deciding, from an available range, of a thing they would like to study. The object for the future would be that the young adult would have found their particular capability or gift that interested them, and wrap the basic education around the special study and practice they required to advance their chosen skill. Each person sets their own level of reasonable capability, few exams, and has a wide knowledge of the world’s activities. And there is time allocated to try different subjects in a year.
20th century education has turned out some biased, addicted, cohorts divided into artificial clumps of succeeders and failures. Then the succeeders cleverly devised ways of making us all failures with the net and AIs. Now we need to regard sceptically the future goals they whoever, set us. More reading for enjoyment over a range of books and then questioned on what are the differences in their aims and future and those of the present would be good. Encouraged to explain to the class why a book they have read is good. Perhaps some of the group don’t know how to read for learning. Thinking and questioning, without talking down to teachers would be good. Not arguing as the kids apparently have been encouraged to do in the USA.
Comments are closed.