Follow-up: The Decline of NZ’s Primary Education (And Why We Keep Going in Circles)
I really appreciated the comments on my last piece (“Demonisation of NZ’s Public Education is a Scam“), especially two that highlighted a major factor I’d missed: the shift from teachers’ colleges to universities for teacher training.
As Andrew wrote:
“The transfer of teacher training to universities from teacher training colleges which turned a practical profession into an academic one?”
Joy added:
“That too. I had the teachers’ college experience and often wondered if subsequent student teachers got the practical grounding we had.”
Before the 1990s teacher education in New Zealand was provided by dedicated teachers colleges spread across the country. These were staffed mostly by experienced classroom teachers who had moved from successful classroom situations, to teachers colleges. As such this was an alternative career step for teachers. While the college staff usually had added tertiary qualifications to their toolkit, they were still teachers at heart, not academics. Because of this they had in-depth understanding of pedagogy:
“…often described as the act of teaching.The pedagogy adopted by teachers shapes their actions, judgments, and teaching strategies by taking into consideration theories of learning, understandings of students and their needs, and the backgrounds and interests of individual students.” Wikipedia
In other words, it’s the heart of good teaching.
This meant that student teachers received a rich teacher education that combined the theoretical with the practical, thus preparing them for the day when they took over their first teaching job.
In my experience at Hamilton Teachers College we were immersed in teaching and pedagogy from the day we arrived. Not only we were taught practical things, like, for example, how to teach reading, mathematics and other subjects, we were also introduced to examples of enriched classroom practice that pushed the boundaries of what was possible, e.g the work of Elwyn Richardson, in his book “In the Early World.’
We were all provided with this book when we started, and I gather the same happened at Palmerston North Teachers College. I’ll write more about Elwyn’s work in a future article. The contrast between his work and stultifying government ideology is vast.
However in the crazy neoliberal decade from about 1988 to 1998 everything changed.
Teachers Colleges were taken over by universities and many very skilled and knowledge staff lost their jobs. Teacher education moved away from the focus on the practical to an academic focus. Pedagogy took a back seat to academic study, designed by academics, most of whom hadn’t taught a day in a primary classroom. Students ended up ticking off a bunch of university papers, not all of them even relevant to teaching, before moving on to a one-year postgrad course.
Clearly, a one-year programme cannot offer the comprehensive teacher education that teachers colleges once provided.
To clarify—I’m talking about primary teacher training here. I’m not in a position to judge the secondary system.
A key factor in the changes to teacher education in the 1990s was the neoliberal mantra of ‘professional capture.’ The thinking was (and still is) that professionals (like teachers, doctors, etc.) were too self-interested to run their own fields, so management should be handed over to, well…managers. The theory being: “A good manager can manage anything.”
Whether or not they knew anything about education didn’t matter. We’ve seen this play out again and again with Ministry of Education CEOs over the past 35 years. A real understanding of teaching and pedagogy? Not so much.
The same criticism, by the way, applies to most ministers of education since 1990 – a possible exception being Steve Maharey.
We can still see the effects of manageralism in many areas, such as health. Recently our glory seeking Prime Minister – the one who has to have his name and position embroidered on t-shirts so people know who he is, (although I suspect he’d be better off having it done in mirror writing so he can read it when studying himself in the mirror) has recently commented that the health system needs a non-medical manager.
A little story to conclude, one which shows that National has tried to use education for political purposes for decades:
Back in September 1999, the NZEI held its annual meeting. Ministers of Education are invited to speak at these annual meetings and in 1999 the Minister was the ‘not missed at all’ Dr Nick Smith. Word got out that he was planning to attack teachers in his speech, so the NZEI president warned everyone: don’t react, no matter what he said.
Smith walked into the room, trailed by a bunch of media.
Dead silence.
He was perfunctorily introduced, and then he launched straight into his attack. He claimed some random person at the Nelson markets told him teaching was terrible, and based on that, he concluded things needed to change.
He elaborated further, arguing that since New Zealand’s teachers fell short of expectations, the solution lay in implementing a national testing regime—a policy slated for rollout after the election.
Dead silence.
He then accused the NZEI President of committing ‘educational treason’ for criticising government education policies overseas. That did get a tiny reaction, however the rest of his speech met a stony silence. At the end of his speech he was tersely thanked by the president and then he left the room.
Dead silence.
It was very obvious that he’d brought a sizeable media contingent expecting that there would be an uproar which would be filmed to be used in the coming election campaign. Not to be.
This kind of attack on primary education has been National’s go-to playbook ever since. Just look at the “our children are failing” narrative they keep dusting off. In 2008, they rolled out National Standards, which flopped—exactly like many of us predicted. And now? The current Minister is eyeing up overseas tests to use here, echoing Smith’s ideas from 1999.
Round and round we go.
This is interesting from the post:
A key factor in the changes to teacher education in the 1990s was the neoliberal mantra of ‘professional capture.’ The thinking was (and still is) that professionals (like teachers, doctors, etc.) were too self-interested to run their own fields, so management should be handed over to, well…managers. The theory being: “A good manager can manage anything.”
This generic management mantra – it kills off the good and the wise, and society is lucky if it just doesn’t get a peacock lifting its tail haughtily, and thereby hangs a tale, or tail!
From what I can remember the various MPs used to have some practical skills decades ago whereas nowadays it is more common to have qualified idiots in government which probably explains why they have made such a mess of education and the other necessities of life although they have managed to increase their salary out of any fair proportion to what they have achieved, some of them should be paying the taxpayers as they have cost the country overall.
Reversing the educational training pattern that was established nearly 40 years ago. Really?
Who among teachers under the age of 60 would think this is a sensible idea.
Using “neo-liberal” as the attack vehicle on the terribleness of university led teaching qualifications, is hardly going to impress anyone under 60. It is not as if the universities are hotbeds of “neo-liberal” ideology, much more likely the reverse.
Referencing a speech given by Dr Smith 26 years ago is similarly equally irrelevant.
Focus on the current Minister. I suggest you would be hard pressed to seriously argue she is the cause of the current decline in standards, much of which occurred in the last 6 years and which was significantly affected by the impact of covid. The effect of covid probably had greater impact on school age children more than anyone else.
Wow I never knew I said all those things. You’re clever to infer all that, especially blaming the current minister.
I agree ,clearly a national party BOT ,failed by national standards .
So many people from a variety of professions bemoan the fact that their CEOs are not trained in the area of operation that their particular business undertakes. The idea that a good manager can manage anything does not bear too much scrutiny. Mr. Luxon’s previous job is a good example.
It may depend on the manager. Some would need to be led by the nose to make the right decisions. In which case, why is that manager needed when the lower-downs ‘manage’ most things perfectly well.
Some would ignore the advice provided by the lower-downs who know the industry and cause more problems than they are worth. That manager should be dismissed before they can further damage that business.
It’s managers who decide they need more managers. It’s good money for doing not much in many cases.
The professions are not managed best by career managers. People who have come up through the ranks have to make enough compromises to keep the ship afloat without being amateurs, with no expertise in the actual job.
This is why health, education and all public services go into decline when there is a National govt. which does not value the years of experience and knowledge professionals bring to their jobs.
It’s not simply that they don’t value that experience either, they actively ignore it and try to lock it out so that their amateur-hour managers can do what is required…starving everything while pretending it’s all very innovative and it’s all going to be wonderful.
Back to teaching. I believe it’s an art and I don’t think Stanford or Seymour are very arty, therefore they are terrible ministers (with a small ‘m’) of Education. Ministers of Mis-management of Education.
Joy It may depend on the manager. Some would need to be led by the nose to make the right decisions. In which case, why is that manager needed when the lower-downs ‘manage’ most things perfectly well.
That remind me of what I have heard about the Peter Principle.
The Peter Principle theorizes that employees in most organizational hierarchies automatically rise through promotion to higher positions. However, competent employees will be promoted, but will ultimately assume positions for which they are incompetent.6 Jun 2024
What Is the Peter Principle? – Investopedia https://www.investopedia.com › … › Business Jargon
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle
This might be business jargon, but first we are supposed to be following supposedly superior business principles to those we had before; and second business puts different principles forward to those that citizens would think important, at the end of the day!
Two self-reinforcing strands – generic management and the decline of pedagogy in a self-reinforcing death spiral. But how to turn the vicious circle virtuous?
Makes me think of DNA spiral, twisting, neck, strangulation. Uugh.
At any social gathering I will meet someone who asks;
“So what is your job?’
When I reply ‘ I am a teacher.’ They tell me how school failed them, or their children, and their experiences at school and what the education system should do.
These truths emerge:
Everyone has been to school and everyone’s experience is different. Everyone has an idea of what teachers should do. Everybody pays taxes (as do teachers) and differs in the amount they think should be spent on education.
Many people think teachers knock off work at 3.30pm and have twelve weeks holiday every year.
Many people think teachers are employed as their child care and they we are supposed to teach their children life skills, morality, ethics, sobriety, sexuality and all the other values that are the parents duty.
There are parents who shout at their children for any use of Te Reo and forbid them to use it.
There are parents who shout at their children if they do not use Te Reo.
There are parents who blame schools and teachers for their children’s behaviour.
There are parents who blame schools and teachers for everything.
Teachers can be negative and think of themselves as poorly paid drudges who are not properly appreciated OR they can see themselves as part of proud tradition that includes Socrates, Phythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, Confucius, Lao Tze, Jesus Christ, Buddha, Martin Luther, Bertrand Russell right back to the cave people who taught their young how to make fire and stone tools.
AND
Every politician will say teachers are failing students if they think there are votes gained ( bear in mind that knowing nothing about education does not stop politicians from saying shit).
Another truth is many people get offended if I say;
‘It is a party. I do not want to talk about work. Can we change the subject? If not can you fuck off and leave me alone?’
This is the same for the nurse training now .They used to be trained on the job and every hospital had acomodation for them on site .Now its 3 years at uni and then the shock hits when they get to actually do the job .Then a large % leave as the reality that they might have to wipe some ones bum sinks in and the thought of actually dealing with the sick and dying is way too hard .A family member who is a nurse is often offended by the attitude of the new intake when they refuse to perform the daily tasks required as they think because they have the piece of paper it is beneath them to attend to the real needs of the patient .
A power-crazed university cabal seeking a monopolistic stranglehold on tertiary education.
By all means keep universities, but kick the vocational stuff like medicine, teaching, law accountancy and nursings back to the polytechs where they belong.
Break up the cartel!
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/ldr/559793/seymour-s-truancy-appeal-contradicts-government-s-own-directive-whanganui-mayor-says
The people who vote for ACT and perhaps National feel that they are assuming kingly powers. Top of the dung heap they are, ordering people to up school attendance. This is what DS et al would like to see, but I think first they should do the exercises and be fit for something.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=80v95VydAF4&t=21s
2.54 You have to be fit to march.
I think that some schools feel that they are giving students a personalised type of experience by not having desks and bean bags etc. But there is an element of playway it seems. A bit like libraries becoming places where people meet and have chats; becoming ‘community centres’.
There need to be places where you can learn and concentrate on doing that whether by free discussion or more formal or individual study. In discussions, there needs to be a time limit, there needs to be a period of discussion and then be stopped and the question asked as to what has been ascertained, what question remains, and what effect this matter has on other things. So there needs to be parameters and the verbose restrained and taught to be concise, which is more likely to result in achieving wider knowledge with crisp understanding rather than floppy concepts, prejudices or hopes. After a set period, those who haven’t spoken need to be asked to say something about their silence – are they on a different track, or what do they consider is more important, and that can lead to the inter-connectedness of everything.
Also everyone’s comments need to be respected pointing out that with wide enquiry the matter is better understood, and knowing that every person has their own interpretation of the matter. And that the discussion and what is said is discussed, talked about only in discussion time, not brought up at other times or in other venues. So rules of ‘combat’ of mind are established. And everyone learns to think, and then later all get a chance to comment on how the discussion itself could be bettered, how it is run etc and why certain rules are necessary.
Meetings of any sort occupy a short space of time, as a rule, and getting people together to think about certain subjects is precious time and meetings I consider often do not achieve even near the optimum, so fall short of being presented with a good coverage of possibilities and even outcomes, realising that intentions are not always achieved.
Have these methods been discussed, I forget:
Philosophy: Socrates, Plato and Aristotle (video)
Khan Academy https://www.khanacademy.org · 27 Mar 2017
Also, with Socrates being the teacher of Plato and Plato being the teacher of Aristotle, Aristotle was indirectly influenced by Socrates.
8 key moments in this video 10:57
People also ask
What is the Socrates method of teaching?
The Socratic Method involves a shared dialogue between teacher and students. The teacher leads by posing thought-provoking questions. Students actively engage by asking questions of their own.
The Socratic Method: Fostering Critical Thinking
The Institute for Learning and Teaching
https://tilt.colostate.edu › the-socratic-method
and
What was Aristotle’s methodology?
In generalizing, he used either the inductive approach, reasoning from many observed single instances to a universal proposition, or the syllogism, a means of deductive reasoning which he invented, and defined as “certain things being stated, something else follows of necessity without need of further testimony,” i.e., …
Aristotle’s Method and Place in Intellectual History – CliffsNotes
https://www.cliffsnotes.com › ethics › critical-essays › ar
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle
Students should be able to understand the language of Aristotle and Socrates by early teen years. We have the ability today and need to lessen time in informative stuff to understanding methods of thinking of other scholars. There is too much wasted time at present. We have learned science, and know how to destroy things, how to play around with genes. But this gives immense opportunity to destroy our best selves and indeed life of all sentient beings. We need to work on our innate brain powers and the rich understandings of individual matters coming from the brains and perceptions, each slightly different, of all involved in considering the matter.
Something else I have come across in an enquiring, curious way.
I had never heard of – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Starkey
He is a bit of an iconoclast. Is a historian and done much work on Henry VIII and criticised that much attention has been given to his wives and he himself has been neglected. Starkey has had to put up with health problems etc and apparently got to the stage that he has earned the right of combat after life’s exigencies, to step on people’s toes somewhat, (though repents later at times also.)
So his style is invigorating and opinionated. Maybe what we need to stir what seems to have turned to sludge in our minds; just my opinion, I may be wrong. (But I’m not.)
The Tudors simply is this – it is a most glorious and wonderful soap opera. It makes the House of Windsor look like a dolls house tea party, it really does. And so these huge personalities, you know, the whole future of countries turn on what one man feels like when he gets out of bed in the morning – just a wonderful, wonderful personalisation of politics. – David Starkey
On Brit education system:
The core of history is narrative and biography. And the way history has been presented in the curriculum for the last 25 years is very different. The importance of knowledge has been downgraded. Instead the argument has been that it’s all about skills. Supposedly, what you are trying to do with children is inculcate them with the analytical skills of the historian. Now this seems to me to be the most goddamn awful way to approach any subject, and also the most dangerous, and one, of course, that panders to all sorts of easy assumptions – ‘oh we’ve got the internet, we don’t need knowledge anymore because it’s so easy to look things up’. Oh no it isn’t. In order to think, you actually need the information in your mind.
— David Starkey