Well! What a week! There has been lots happening on the Novopay front and while it's not necessarily good news I have found some of the information to come out this week somewhat amusing.
This week I have read about the ministers who signed off on Novopay; Hekia Parata, Bill English and Craig Foss. They gave the green light on this despite being aware that the system had 147 known issues, and the small amount of testing which had been done had shown indications that there could be issues. The project was already delayed, over budget and under delivering, so makes sense to sign off on it, right? Prime Minister John Key defended his ministers by stating that they had received "expert" advice telling them to go live with the system, although he conceded that looking back now that perhaps wasn't the best advice. Indeed Mr Key seems keen to protect the three ministers at fault; Ms Parata and Mr English have not received any public reprimand from Mr Key and both have retained their portfolios through a recent cabinet reshuffle. Ms Parata has even been described by Mr Key as a smooth communicator. I know. I nearly spat juice all over my computer screen when I read that too. Mr Foss was originally handed the responsibility for sorting out Novopay (to free up Ms Parata) but has had that task revoked and Steven Joyce will be handling the matter henceforth. Mr Foss is arguably the most junior and least visible of the three ministers to sign off on Novopay and is the only minister who seems to have suffered, having also been stripped of his Associate Education Minister title.
The details of how much is currently owed to teachers has also been made public. A staggering $11.8 million is still owing to 14,470 teachers, and Mr Joyce has been kind enough to remind us that these issues will not be sorted any time soon. I am one of those 14,470 teachers and personally I'm getting a little bit sick of hearing that the issues are expected to be on-going. I'm not the worst case either, the amount owing to me is not extreme; but this just highlights to me how horrible the entire experience must be if you are owed a large amount of money. On a daily basis I feel irritated and frustrated that my money has not been paid, and I have nothing but sympathy for others in the same situation.
In other news the Ministry of Education employees found themselves out of pocket a few days ago, when their pay failed to go through. Remember that Ministry staff are not paid by the Novopay system, so this is a separate issue entirely. According to the Ministry the issue was caused when the incorrect date was entered for the pay run, but not to worry, because they had begun processing manual payments to bank accounts that morning. Well if that isn't a kick in the gut I don't know what is. The Ministry staff don't get paid, but the issue is sorted the same day it arises, I don't get paid and the issue isn't sorted for months. Fantastic. I certainly wouldn't wish the Novopay pay issues on anyone, it's been horribly stressful in a way no one should have to experience; and I know that the individual people who work at the Ministry aren't at fault for the debacle but I did find the whole situation a little bit ironic. Indeed Ms Parata seemed to see the funny side of the situation; when questioned about the payment failure she reported said "Yeah, karma, eh?" which was immediately slammed as an insensitive thing to say (which it was). Just keep digging Ms Parata!
As always any questions can be left in the comments section below, see you next time!
Saturday 2 February 2013
Tuesday 29 January 2013
Oh Novopay, how I despise thee.
Hello lovely readers!
Things have been a bit quiet on the blog front for the past couple of months, what with the holidays and things. I've been catching up and preparing for the year ahead, it's been quite busy actually! On that note anyone who says that teachers get a lot of holidays is flat out of their mind if they think we spend that time fanning ourselves on a beach!
So, 2013 has arrived, but what state is the education system in? Well, not that great to be perfectly frank. There's many issues facing education right now, but one of the most pressing would have to be the Novopay saga. That's right, it's officially been branded (by me) as a saga. I may not have told you this before, my dear reader, but I am a relief teacher. If you are familiar with the Novopay debacle you'll know what that means, and you would be correct. Currently I am underpaid. I'm not exactly sure by how much, because as time goes on the issues become more and more compounded. They fixed some, but not all, of my issues from two payslips ago, but then messed up further on the most recent pay run. I know of people who have gone without pay for long periods of time, some who have been paid massive lump sums for no apparent reason and people who have had taxes taken away at incorrect rates. I am by no means the worst case, but if I didn't have a partner who can support us I would have had to borrow money to stay afloat. My landlords would probably be understanding, but they have a mortgage to pay too. I mean let's be honest; my bills don't care if my payslip was wrong, they still need to be paid.
In any other industry people would not have stood for their pay to be mucked up for this long. But teachers turn up to work each day because they know that the schools they work for are not at fault. One of the things that I find really frustrating is that if I worked in an office and my boss told me he wasn't going to pay me for the week I would tell him I wasn't going to work for the week. If I told one of my principals or relief co-ordinators that I wasn't going to work if I didn't get paid correctly it would do nothing but hurt my reputation as a reliever.
Currently we are being advised that the issues will be on-going, but don't worry, Steven Joyce (a.k.a. Mr Fix-It) is on the case. Hmmm. John Key has also announced that Hekia Parata will be keeping her job in the reshuffle he released last week. I couldn't be happier about this, and no, I'm not being sarcastic! Teachers will remember Ms Parata's predecessor, Anne Tolley. We jumped for joy when we heard Ms Tolley would be replaced; naively we thought that there couldn't possibly be someone worse than her, right? Right?? Wrong. I would fully expect that if Ms Parata were replaced her replacement would be no walk in the park either. They would implement the same policies and cause the same controversy, but with the added bonus of having a better reputation with the average New Zealander. At the moment most people, whether involved in education or not, view Ms Parata as a fairly incompetent minister. It would take time for a new person to amass the same resume of inefficiency and incompetence. So by retaining Ms Parata we are able to let National dig their own grave in the eyes of the New Zealand public.
Now, there's also been a lot of coverage in the media about the strike and I've spent a lot of time reading the comments on the articles on Stuff.co.nz. Some of the comments have been really supportive, which is fantastic, but there has also been a fair few negative comments, some of which I would like to address.
* Why don't the teachers strike during the holiday, they get so many of them!
If you work at an office would you strike after 5pm? No? Why not? Oh, that's right; because no one would care. Next question.
* They wouldn't be going on strike if they cared about the children!
Actually, it's because we care about the children that we are striking. It's because we want the absolute best for your children, we want a world class education system and we want to offer them the best learning experiences and environment we can.
* They just don't want to lose their cushy jobs!
Wow. Just wow. This type of thought comes from the same life forms who think we leave school at 3:30 and never go in during the holidays or weekends. These are the type of people who think we don't worry about our class and how we can improve ourselves to give them the best learning experiences possible. Also, when did it become unreasonable not to want to lose your job? I feel that's a pretty fair thing to be concerned about, and that's not even the reason for the strike, at least not directly. Further, if you have never tried to safely corral 28 excited 7 years olds through a busy city to reach your next excursion/swimming lesson/guest speaker then you don't get to describe my job as cushy.
*They just don't want any change at all! Obviously some school will have to merge or close!
We have stated many times that the issue is not that we don't want any schools to close, we agree that some will need to change, but we don't feel that the process has been valid. The Ministry has failed to provide the information required for schools to properly prepare their submissions. Even Ombudsman David McGee has criticised the Ministry for their handling of information, so this is not an imagined problem.
O.k, I'll stop ranting now, but hopefully you get the idea! If you have any questions feel free to leave them in the comments!
Things have been a bit quiet on the blog front for the past couple of months, what with the holidays and things. I've been catching up and preparing for the year ahead, it's been quite busy actually! On that note anyone who says that teachers get a lot of holidays is flat out of their mind if they think we spend that time fanning ourselves on a beach!
So, 2013 has arrived, but what state is the education system in? Well, not that great to be perfectly frank. There's many issues facing education right now, but one of the most pressing would have to be the Novopay saga. That's right, it's officially been branded (by me) as a saga. I may not have told you this before, my dear reader, but I am a relief teacher. If you are familiar with the Novopay debacle you'll know what that means, and you would be correct. Currently I am underpaid. I'm not exactly sure by how much, because as time goes on the issues become more and more compounded. They fixed some, but not all, of my issues from two payslips ago, but then messed up further on the most recent pay run. I know of people who have gone without pay for long periods of time, some who have been paid massive lump sums for no apparent reason and people who have had taxes taken away at incorrect rates. I am by no means the worst case, but if I didn't have a partner who can support us I would have had to borrow money to stay afloat. My landlords would probably be understanding, but they have a mortgage to pay too. I mean let's be honest; my bills don't care if my payslip was wrong, they still need to be paid.
In any other industry people would not have stood for their pay to be mucked up for this long. But teachers turn up to work each day because they know that the schools they work for are not at fault. One of the things that I find really frustrating is that if I worked in an office and my boss told me he wasn't going to pay me for the week I would tell him I wasn't going to work for the week. If I told one of my principals or relief co-ordinators that I wasn't going to work if I didn't get paid correctly it would do nothing but hurt my reputation as a reliever.
Currently we are being advised that the issues will be on-going, but don't worry, Steven Joyce (a.k.a. Mr Fix-It) is on the case. Hmmm. John Key has also announced that Hekia Parata will be keeping her job in the reshuffle he released last week. I couldn't be happier about this, and no, I'm not being sarcastic! Teachers will remember Ms Parata's predecessor, Anne Tolley. We jumped for joy when we heard Ms Tolley would be replaced; naively we thought that there couldn't possibly be someone worse than her, right? Right?? Wrong. I would fully expect that if Ms Parata were replaced her replacement would be no walk in the park either. They would implement the same policies and cause the same controversy, but with the added bonus of having a better reputation with the average New Zealander. At the moment most people, whether involved in education or not, view Ms Parata as a fairly incompetent minister. It would take time for a new person to amass the same resume of inefficiency and incompetence. So by retaining Ms Parata we are able to let National dig their own grave in the eyes of the New Zealand public.
Now, there's also been a lot of coverage in the media about the strike and I've spent a lot of time reading the comments on the articles on Stuff.co.nz. Some of the comments have been really supportive, which is fantastic, but there has also been a fair few negative comments, some of which I would like to address.
* Why don't the teachers strike during the holiday, they get so many of them!
If you work at an office would you strike after 5pm? No? Why not? Oh, that's right; because no one would care. Next question.
* They wouldn't be going on strike if they cared about the children!
Actually, it's because we care about the children that we are striking. It's because we want the absolute best for your children, we want a world class education system and we want to offer them the best learning experiences and environment we can.
* They just don't want to lose their cushy jobs!
Wow. Just wow. This type of thought comes from the same life forms who think we leave school at 3:30 and never go in during the holidays or weekends. These are the type of people who think we don't worry about our class and how we can improve ourselves to give them the best learning experiences possible. Also, when did it become unreasonable not to want to lose your job? I feel that's a pretty fair thing to be concerned about, and that's not even the reason for the strike, at least not directly. Further, if you have never tried to safely corral 28 excited 7 years olds through a busy city to reach your next excursion/swimming lesson/guest speaker then you don't get to describe my job as cushy.
*They just don't want any change at all! Obviously some school will have to merge or close!
We have stated many times that the issue is not that we don't want any schools to close, we agree that some will need to change, but we don't feel that the process has been valid. The Ministry has failed to provide the information required for schools to properly prepare their submissions. Even Ombudsman David McGee has criticised the Ministry for their handling of information, so this is not an imagined problem.
O.k, I'll stop ranting now, but hopefully you get the idea! If you have any questions feel free to leave them in the comments!
Thursday 6 December 2012
Christchurch's education shake-up (no pun intended...)
Recently the Ministry of Education announced that there would be a shake up (because the Ministry always chooses incredibly appropriate terms for their ideas) in the education sector in Christchurch. The changes were proposed in response to the population shifts which have occurred as a result of the earthquakes. The proposals are sweeping, they are drastic and frankly they're also pretty scary.
Under the proposals we will see 13 schools close, and 18 go through some sort of merger. Some of these mergers involve just two joining up, while others will see up to five schools amalgamated into "cluster" schools. Two of the schools that are closing have elected to do so voluntarily, but the others have reported feeling somewhat blind sided by the proposals. Some schools could even be closed as early as Term 1 next year.
Now if you're reading this as someone from outside the education sector it's important that you realise that the majority of teachers (myself included) don't oppose the changes altogether. We understand that change needs to happen and we are happy to embrace that, in fact a lot of us just want to get on with things. The issue that we take with these "proposals" is that we have been kept so much in the dark about them. We have been given very little information related to how they came to decide which schools would close/merge and calls for more information seem to fall on deaf ears. Surely there must have been some sort of standard that a school has to meet for it to be considered damaged enough to close, right? Like, maybe the roll has decreased by this amount or you have damage to buildings over this amount? There could well be such a list but we are not given access to it. The small amount of information which has been released has also had some pretty scary mistakes too. Many schools have had the numbers of buildings/classrooms incorrectly listed ("You have pretty bad damage to seven classrooms, you know", "That's interesting, as we only have five classrooms...") Many have had incorrect roll numbers cited. One school even reported that their data showed a large pool of liquefaction in their field which needs fixing. This pool is, in fact, their long jump pit. And they don't want it fixed.
Yes, I know, I had to repeat that in my head a couple times before I could grasp the fact that the Ministry really is THAT far off the mark. This is the same Ministry that handles our pay (if you haven't heard about Novopay you should Google it). So please, do me a favour? Go hug a school teacher. They need it.
Some of the changes also seem to be quite random. Why do all the changes only effect primary schools? Initially it was announced that Shirley Boys' High and Boys' High would merge onto the Boys' High site and that Avonside Girls'and Christchurch Girls' High would also merge onto the Christchurch Girls' site. These have since been reversed by the Ministry. Why? I don't begrudge them the security of knowing the fate of their schools or the great outcome they have from getting the Ministry to back down, but why did they back down on those two and not on all the primary schools? It's not like the primary schools aren't also making noise about this.
Also, if there is such a clear case about why schools need to close, and the Ministry is really committed to "authentic" consultation, then why can't we have the information about how the decisions are made? What is there to hide? I'm a teacher and I am required to be transparent in how I work; why isn't the Ministry held to the same standard? Furthermore, if the Ministry really wants to take part in "authentic" consultation then surely an important part of this would be to provide information, at least to the individual schools which are set to close, about why they have been singled out. The whole situation just seems a little bit crazy to me, like a really bad British comedy where the Minister just can't seem to get it right.
I started writing this blog because I feel that there's a suspicion of the teaching profession in New Zealand. Many people seem to hold an assumption that teachers are constantly trying to get out of being held accountable, that we want an easy job, that we don't really care about quality education because we are just lazy. Personally, I can't remember that last time I went home at three or spent my teaching day doing anything other than working as hard as I can to do the right thing by my students.
On another note, the teachers union held a meeting today to facilitate a vote on what our next step will be. There were three options put forward; to strike next week (before Term 4 ends and we break for the Christmas holidays), to strike in February or not to strike at all. The overwhelming majority voted for a strike in February, so that is what we will be doing. We need your support more than ever and it's so important that we stand united on this issue. As they said that the meeting today; change needs to come from the grassroots up, not from the Beehive down. And as always, nothing about us without us!
Questions/comments welcomed, as always.
Under the proposals we will see 13 schools close, and 18 go through some sort of merger. Some of these mergers involve just two joining up, while others will see up to five schools amalgamated into "cluster" schools. Two of the schools that are closing have elected to do so voluntarily, but the others have reported feeling somewhat blind sided by the proposals. Some schools could even be closed as early as Term 1 next year.
Now if you're reading this as someone from outside the education sector it's important that you realise that the majority of teachers (myself included) don't oppose the changes altogether. We understand that change needs to happen and we are happy to embrace that, in fact a lot of us just want to get on with things. The issue that we take with these "proposals" is that we have been kept so much in the dark about them. We have been given very little information related to how they came to decide which schools would close/merge and calls for more information seem to fall on deaf ears. Surely there must have been some sort of standard that a school has to meet for it to be considered damaged enough to close, right? Like, maybe the roll has decreased by this amount or you have damage to buildings over this amount? There could well be such a list but we are not given access to it. The small amount of information which has been released has also had some pretty scary mistakes too. Many schools have had the numbers of buildings/classrooms incorrectly listed ("You have pretty bad damage to seven classrooms, you know", "That's interesting, as we only have five classrooms...") Many have had incorrect roll numbers cited. One school even reported that their data showed a large pool of liquefaction in their field which needs fixing. This pool is, in fact, their long jump pit. And they don't want it fixed.
Yes, I know, I had to repeat that in my head a couple times before I could grasp the fact that the Ministry really is THAT far off the mark. This is the same Ministry that handles our pay (if you haven't heard about Novopay you should Google it). So please, do me a favour? Go hug a school teacher. They need it.
Some of the changes also seem to be quite random. Why do all the changes only effect primary schools? Initially it was announced that Shirley Boys' High and Boys' High would merge onto the Boys' High site and that Avonside Girls'and Christchurch Girls' High would also merge onto the Christchurch Girls' site. These have since been reversed by the Ministry. Why? I don't begrudge them the security of knowing the fate of their schools or the great outcome they have from getting the Ministry to back down, but why did they back down on those two and not on all the primary schools? It's not like the primary schools aren't also making noise about this.
Also, if there is such a clear case about why schools need to close, and the Ministry is really committed to "authentic" consultation, then why can't we have the information about how the decisions are made? What is there to hide? I'm a teacher and I am required to be transparent in how I work; why isn't the Ministry held to the same standard? Furthermore, if the Ministry really wants to take part in "authentic" consultation then surely an important part of this would be to provide information, at least to the individual schools which are set to close, about why they have been singled out. The whole situation just seems a little bit crazy to me, like a really bad British comedy where the Minister just can't seem to get it right.
I started writing this blog because I feel that there's a suspicion of the teaching profession in New Zealand. Many people seem to hold an assumption that teachers are constantly trying to get out of being held accountable, that we want an easy job, that we don't really care about quality education because we are just lazy. Personally, I can't remember that last time I went home at three or spent my teaching day doing anything other than working as hard as I can to do the right thing by my students.
On another note, the teachers union held a meeting today to facilitate a vote on what our next step will be. There were three options put forward; to strike next week (before Term 4 ends and we break for the Christmas holidays), to strike in February or not to strike at all. The overwhelming majority voted for a strike in February, so that is what we will be doing. We need your support more than ever and it's so important that we stand united on this issue. As they said that the meeting today; change needs to come from the grassroots up, not from the Beehive down. And as always, nothing about us without us!
Questions/comments welcomed, as always.
Saturday 20 October 2012
What the Hekia?
This year sure is flying by! Term 4 already? I feel like I blinked during Term 2 and ended up here - scary!
Teaching has been keeping me busy but I thought the time was right for a spotlight on our esteemed leader; Hekia Parata. For anyone who doesn't know, Ms Parata is our current Minister of Education. She took over from Anne Tolley, who took the role in 2008 when National gained power. In 2011 Ms Tolley was suffering from a severe case of unpopularity with the public (she was often compared to Dolores Umbridge of Harry Potter fame). Despite this National successfully defended their position in that year's election and it was announced by John Key (National's leader and our current Prime Minister) that he had selected Ms Parata to take over the Education portfolio while Ms Tolley was appointed the Minister for Corrections and Police.
Ms Parata has worn many hats during her professional life but primarily she has served as a public servant. She has not had any experience in teaching; she hasn't worked as a teacher or in any other capacity in a school. She has attended Waikato University and holds a Master of Arts.
I teach children about leadership a lot. I teach them that leadership doesn't mean you're better than the people you lead, but that you are in charge of finding out how people feel and looking after them. You provide a clear direction for people to follow and you act with the best of intentions at all times. You understand the cost to people of doing things without caring what others want. When you make a decision that's unpopular you stand by your choices if you truly believe it's the right thing to do and you apologise graciously if you get it wrong. So how would we grade Ms Parata's card on the leadership front?
My first complaint is that Ms Parata won't front to many of our meetings. In fact, most National Party politicians won't. At a recent protest at the Bridge of Remembrance National was not represented at all. Nor were they in attendance at a public meeting regarding Charter Schools when the policy was first announced. However Labour and the Greens had representatives at both of these occasions. Now, I understand that it can be difficult to stand in front of a room full of people who don't like the decisions you're making and feel passionately about the subject, but simply not showing doesn't really fix that. Just today I read that Ms Parata is pulling out of a talk she was scheduled to give at the Teacher Education Forum of Aotearoa New Zealand conference next week. This, in addition to her penchant for implementing policies without consultation makes her unpopular from the get go.
When we are lucky enough to be graced by the intimidating presence of Ms Parata she manages to get people even further off-side by speaking in such a condescending manner that even the most patient of teachers will begin to fume. At the recent Post Primary Teacher's Association (PPTA) conference Ms Parata shared her thoughts on one of the reasons why Pasifika and Māori children aren't achieving as well as we want them to; she feels that teachers aren't pronouncing their names correctly. Now, I will put my hand up and admit that I don't always get it right when pronouncing unfamiliar names (not just Māori and Pasifika names either, Welsh and Celtic names can be tricky for me), but I do put in the effort to learn them, and I don't stop until I know I have it right. I have never met a teacher who didn't try their best to get names right. And frankly, for the minister to marginalise the entire issue down to this one point is ridiculous. Many children in New Zealand live in poverty, many come to school hungry and with inadequate clothing, and in Christchurch many don't know if their school will be open for them next year.
Ms Parata seems to also be quite adept at putting her foot in it through her thoughtless actions. For example, at a meeting she had with principals recently Ms Parata felt it would be necessary to label the principals "unprofessional" when she found out they had not read a document online about National Standards. Bear in mind that the meeting was held on a Tuesday, the document went live the previous Friday, which was also the day that letters were due to be delivered to Christchurch principals advising them of the fate of their school. Later, possibly having realised her faux pas, Ms Parata decided the best course of action would be to deny ever having said that. However, Mr Mike Allen (principal of Aranui Primary, which is set to close and join the Aranui cluster) and Mr Paul Wilkinson (principal of Freeville School, which has been marked for a merger with North New Brighton School) were each quoted in the papers discussing Ms Parata's comments, which resulted in Ms Parata stating that Mr Allen's and Mr Wilkinson's quotes were "absolutely untrue". For those of you playing at home calling someone's statement "absolutely untrue" is a politician's way of calling someone a liar. Mr Allen and Mr Wilkinson are highly respected members of the education sector and probably wouldn't have appreciated that. I know I wouldn't have anyway.
The policies Ms Parata implements are often unpopular; but a few really stand out. National Standards and the Christchurch education "shake-up" (no pun intended) following the earthquakes have been particularly polarising. Ms Parata is sticking to her guns on these issues, despite there being a significant back lash on both issues. She did, however, back down on the issue of larger class sizes and requiring teachers to hold post graduate qualifications. This was seen as quite an about face, as this minister has a reputation for her stony resilience in promoting her policies. As it turns out I suppose the class sizes issue (she wanted to increase class sizes ratios to save money) was unpopular with parents/communities and teachers alike. As for the post grad requirement, I think this would have been too expensive and would have taken too long for the results to show through for it to be worth their while. Interestingly enough Mr John Key, leader of the National party was quoted by The Listener (a respected news outlet in NZ) as saying that his children go to private school because they have smaller class sizes and are generally better resourced than state schools. How embarrassing. Not good enough for your kids Mr Key, but good enough for ours, eh? Now, don't get me wrong, it's not like I want the Minister to stand by policies which are short sighted, not based in good research and are frankly stupid, but I think that as the person in charge of Education it is her job to ensure that anything she puts forth as a policy has been gone over with a fine tooth comb, makes sense in all the ways that matter (money sense, people sense...common sense) and is coming from a sound pedagogical standpoint.
I could go on about Ms Parata and her pseudo-politics for hours but I think I've outlined the key points here, any questions are welcome in the comments. My next post is going to be focussing on the changes for Christchurch; so keep an eye out for that. Until then my lovely readers, stay warm, be kind to others and stand up for yourself if you are confronted with stupidity.
Nothing about us without us!
Thursday 20 September 2012
Charter Schools - What's up with that?
Ok, so I'm going to put a little disclaimer here before we get started - this post (and indeed this entire blog) is written from my perspective and while I try to be as accurate as possible at all times, sometimes I make mistakes. The opinions I express here are my own, and are designed to give you, my lovely readers, an idea of what your average teacher thinks of the issue surrounding education. If I get something wrong I apologise in advance. So, here we go.
First off, let's get a couple things cleared up, and brace yourself because this will be a long post!
What is a charter school?
This is a bit tricky as they can vary depending on which country you're discussing. In New Zealand the first charter school has yet to open (2014 is the likely opening date for the first one), so what a charter school will be within the New Zealand context has yet to be seen, however we do know that the charter school model implemented in New Zealand will be called Partnership Schools or Kura Hourua.
From what we have seen overseas the most common definition of a charter school is that it is a school which can be set up by an "organisation" (e.g. company, religious group, celebrity) which receives funding from the government, but isn't as accountable to explain their spending as a normal school would be. Charter schools can also raise money from sponsors, but they cannot charge tuition fees. They can set their own curriculum and employ untrained teachers and set their own pay rates, hours and term dates.
Hmmm...all things considered, this doesn't sound amazing to me. Let's unpack this a little further.
So they receive public funding?
They sure do. Charter schools will receive a operations grant which is calculated per student. Charter Schools have a sponsor (typically a person or group of persons similar to a traditional Board of Trustees who has decision making powers in the school) who will be able to decide how this money is spent. Remember that charter schools can't charge tuition fees, but they are allowed to make profits (exactly how isn't very clear but I'm not very business minded) and they are allowed to raise money from sponsors.
And they aren't accountable for reporting expenditure?
Yes and no. Charter schools are not as accountable as a state or integrated school might be, however if they fail to meet agreed targets then they will be asked to explain where the money is going and why the expected results aren't coming through.
So there are targets that charter schools have to meet?
Yes, they have to report on how their students do against National Standards or NCEA (there will be a post on National Standards coming up soon so keep your eyes peeled!) and they set targets for achievement. They must be able to show achievement and evidence of student engagement. The ministry has been a little fuzzy on some of the details; like how they will measure engagement, or what will be used to measure students who have finished National Standards, which finish at the end of Year 8, but not yet started NCEA, which starts in Year 11. Personally, I'm also wondering how they will report against these standards which are supposed to be used in combination with the New Zealand Curriculum, when they aren't required to teach the New Zealand Curriculum.
Ok, so a charter school can set their own curriculum? So what?
Great question! New Zealand has a fantastic, flexible curriculum which is pretty widely regarded as being one of the best curricula in the world. At the moment we have a great range of assessment tools, unit plan exemplars and support for use by teachers who are teaching from the New Zealand Curriculum. These would potentially be useless for use by charter schools, which leaves it entirely up to the teachers or charter schools themselves to figure out their ENTIRE learning plan - lessons, assessment, moderation, professional development - everything. Also, what happens to a child who has spent the first few years of their schooling career in a charter school and then transitions to a state school? Or vice versa? This could potentially be a very tricky transition.
And they can employ untrained teachers?!
Yes. At the moment there is a provision for untrained teachers in schools, which is called Limited Authority to Teach (LAT for short). People who are being employed for a specific teaching position can apply for LAT through the New Zealand Teachers Council; the organisation which also handles the issuing of registration to trained teachers. LAT isn't a form of registration though, and is only issued for the duration of the job/contract the applicant is going to hold. Also, LAT may only be issued when a registered teacher has not been able to be secured for the role. In my personal experience there isn't a huge number of teachers who have LAT that your average child would encounter each day. They typically are hired due to holding a special skill or ability which a registered teacher has not been able to provide to the school; such as a particular musical ability or fluency in Te Reo or another language.
Now, according to the Ministry the untrained teachers would undergo registration once they are trained, however there has been little indication of how the training process would work - would they be given a new type of on-the-job training which currently doesn't exist for the teaching profession? Or would they have to study while also working at the charter school? And if so how would they complete their professional placements (where a trainee is placed in a school with an Associate Teacher to oversee them usually for a period of several weeks)? All in all there's a lack of information out there which is one of the things worrying teachers and parents quite a bit. For charter schools one of the upsides of employing untrained teachers is that they can set their own pay rates for staff. For staff this means they may not be able to be covered by the teachers union in the same way a teacher in a state school is.
Are you sure teachers aren't just getting upset about this because they are worried about being out of job due to charter schools being able to employ someone to do their job for less money?
I can sort of understand this view; as a teacher I do want security for my position and wage. But, to be fair, I trained for years to get to the point I am at now, and I do consider myself to be a professional. The main issue which I think most teachers have with charter schools has to do with the integrity of our profession. We train and we put in the hard work because we want to do the best job we can for the children we teach. When I started training I was very keen and excited to teach - I wanted to do a great job but I also wasn't ready to have my own class. It took a full three years before I felt confident that I had the skills and pedagogical knowledge to be able to teach effectively. And that's a key point here too - teaching isn't just about getting through the day and spouting x amount of information per week; it's about being effective, and having the skills and knowledge to be able to select the right tools for each class and each child.
I really could go on about this for a long time but I'm fairly certain you, my wonderful reader, are sick of my ramblings by now. If you have any questions about charter school/partnership schools/kura hourua please post them in the comments and I'll do my best to answer. Thanks for reading!
The views expressed in this blog are entirely my own and do not reflect on anyone else mentioned in any way, shape or form.
First off, let's get a couple things cleared up, and brace yourself because this will be a long post!
What is a charter school?
This is a bit tricky as they can vary depending on which country you're discussing. In New Zealand the first charter school has yet to open (2014 is the likely opening date for the first one), so what a charter school will be within the New Zealand context has yet to be seen, however we do know that the charter school model implemented in New Zealand will be called Partnership Schools or Kura Hourua.
From what we have seen overseas the most common definition of a charter school is that it is a school which can be set up by an "organisation" (e.g. company, religious group, celebrity) which receives funding from the government, but isn't as accountable to explain their spending as a normal school would be. Charter schools can also raise money from sponsors, but they cannot charge tuition fees. They can set their own curriculum and employ untrained teachers and set their own pay rates, hours and term dates.
Hmmm...all things considered, this doesn't sound amazing to me. Let's unpack this a little further.
So they receive public funding?
They sure do. Charter schools will receive a operations grant which is calculated per student. Charter Schools have a sponsor (typically a person or group of persons similar to a traditional Board of Trustees who has decision making powers in the school) who will be able to decide how this money is spent. Remember that charter schools can't charge tuition fees, but they are allowed to make profits (exactly how isn't very clear but I'm not very business minded) and they are allowed to raise money from sponsors.
And they aren't accountable for reporting expenditure?
Yes and no. Charter schools are not as accountable as a state or integrated school might be, however if they fail to meet agreed targets then they will be asked to explain where the money is going and why the expected results aren't coming through.
So there are targets that charter schools have to meet?
Yes, they have to report on how their students do against National Standards or NCEA (there will be a post on National Standards coming up soon so keep your eyes peeled!) and they set targets for achievement. They must be able to show achievement and evidence of student engagement. The ministry has been a little fuzzy on some of the details; like how they will measure engagement, or what will be used to measure students who have finished National Standards, which finish at the end of Year 8, but not yet started NCEA, which starts in Year 11. Personally, I'm also wondering how they will report against these standards which are supposed to be used in combination with the New Zealand Curriculum, when they aren't required to teach the New Zealand Curriculum.
Ok, so a charter school can set their own curriculum? So what?
Great question! New Zealand has a fantastic, flexible curriculum which is pretty widely regarded as being one of the best curricula in the world. At the moment we have a great range of assessment tools, unit plan exemplars and support for use by teachers who are teaching from the New Zealand Curriculum. These would potentially be useless for use by charter schools, which leaves it entirely up to the teachers or charter schools themselves to figure out their ENTIRE learning plan - lessons, assessment, moderation, professional development - everything. Also, what happens to a child who has spent the first few years of their schooling career in a charter school and then transitions to a state school? Or vice versa? This could potentially be a very tricky transition.
And they can employ untrained teachers?!
Yes. At the moment there is a provision for untrained teachers in schools, which is called Limited Authority to Teach (LAT for short). People who are being employed for a specific teaching position can apply for LAT through the New Zealand Teachers Council; the organisation which also handles the issuing of registration to trained teachers. LAT isn't a form of registration though, and is only issued for the duration of the job/contract the applicant is going to hold. Also, LAT may only be issued when a registered teacher has not been able to be secured for the role. In my personal experience there isn't a huge number of teachers who have LAT that your average child would encounter each day. They typically are hired due to holding a special skill or ability which a registered teacher has not been able to provide to the school; such as a particular musical ability or fluency in Te Reo or another language.
Now, according to the Ministry the untrained teachers would undergo registration once they are trained, however there has been little indication of how the training process would work - would they be given a new type of on-the-job training which currently doesn't exist for the teaching profession? Or would they have to study while also working at the charter school? And if so how would they complete their professional placements (where a trainee is placed in a school with an Associate Teacher to oversee them usually for a period of several weeks)? All in all there's a lack of information out there which is one of the things worrying teachers and parents quite a bit. For charter schools one of the upsides of employing untrained teachers is that they can set their own pay rates for staff. For staff this means they may not be able to be covered by the teachers union in the same way a teacher in a state school is.
Are you sure teachers aren't just getting upset about this because they are worried about being out of job due to charter schools being able to employ someone to do their job for less money?
I can sort of understand this view; as a teacher I do want security for my position and wage. But, to be fair, I trained for years to get to the point I am at now, and I do consider myself to be a professional. The main issue which I think most teachers have with charter schools has to do with the integrity of our profession. We train and we put in the hard work because we want to do the best job we can for the children we teach. When I started training I was very keen and excited to teach - I wanted to do a great job but I also wasn't ready to have my own class. It took a full three years before I felt confident that I had the skills and pedagogical knowledge to be able to teach effectively. And that's a key point here too - teaching isn't just about getting through the day and spouting x amount of information per week; it's about being effective, and having the skills and knowledge to be able to select the right tools for each class and each child.
I really could go on about this for a long time but I'm fairly certain you, my wonderful reader, are sick of my ramblings by now. If you have any questions about charter school/partnership schools/kura hourua please post them in the comments and I'll do my best to answer. Thanks for reading!
The views expressed in this blog are entirely my own and do not reflect on anyone else mentioned in any way, shape or form.
Monday 17 September 2012
In the Beginning...
In the beginning there was me (and lots of others, but we're focussing on me right now). There I was, happily minding my own business on September 4, 2010 when a large earthquake struck my lovely home town of Christchurch, New Zealand. It was 4:35 in the morning and I was snoozing peacefully in the house I shared with my cat near the city centre. Mr. MeowMeow (name changed to protect identity) had sprung into action and alerted me to the impending disaster a few seconds before it struck so I was actually awoken to the sound of a cat, quickly followed by violent shaking.
In the minutes, days and months which followed things were a bit of a blur. The city was quite badly damaged, but my own home and the homes of my family were all in good condition so I was counting myself quite lucky as a large number of buildings and houses were destroyed. There were some people who were injured but we all counted our lucky stars that at least no one died. Slowly things began to return to normal; university classes started again, work got back up and running, and though the aftershocks continued my fellow citizens and I felt a sense of security. The earthquake has been; lightening doesn't strike the same place twice, right? Wrong.
Fast forward to February 22, 2011, 12:51 in the afternoon and another earthquake strikes. This time my beautiful city is not so lucky; more buildings are devastated and 185 people are killed. The city is brought to it's knees and many of us aren't sure how to bounce back this time.
Things are much more slow to recover, but tentatively, with the support of the rest of the country we begin to pick ourselves up again. It was through seeing the immense acts of kindness of others that I was able to start looking forward again. In a disaster such as this people are given the opportunity to demonstrate the goodness that's inside all of us and it was heartening to see people helping others for no other reason than that they needed help.
We have just recently passed the two year anniversary of the September quake; the one which started it all, and the process of starting the city again, and getting used to the new normal that governs our lives has been an experience for us all. This blog will serve as an outlet for my experiences as a teacher in this environment and hopefully give some first hand insight for others, whether you are curious about what happens after a natural disaster, when the headlines have moved on, or whether you are going through a disaster of your own.
The views expressed in this blog are entirely my own and do not reflect on anyone else mentioned in any way, shape or form.
In the minutes, days and months which followed things were a bit of a blur. The city was quite badly damaged, but my own home and the homes of my family were all in good condition so I was counting myself quite lucky as a large number of buildings and houses were destroyed. There were some people who were injured but we all counted our lucky stars that at least no one died. Slowly things began to return to normal; university classes started again, work got back up and running, and though the aftershocks continued my fellow citizens and I felt a sense of security. The earthquake has been; lightening doesn't strike the same place twice, right? Wrong.
Fast forward to February 22, 2011, 12:51 in the afternoon and another earthquake strikes. This time my beautiful city is not so lucky; more buildings are devastated and 185 people are killed. The city is brought to it's knees and many of us aren't sure how to bounce back this time.
Things are much more slow to recover, but tentatively, with the support of the rest of the country we begin to pick ourselves up again. It was through seeing the immense acts of kindness of others that I was able to start looking forward again. In a disaster such as this people are given the opportunity to demonstrate the goodness that's inside all of us and it was heartening to see people helping others for no other reason than that they needed help.
We have just recently passed the two year anniversary of the September quake; the one which started it all, and the process of starting the city again, and getting used to the new normal that governs our lives has been an experience for us all. This blog will serve as an outlet for my experiences as a teacher in this environment and hopefully give some first hand insight for others, whether you are curious about what happens after a natural disaster, when the headlines have moved on, or whether you are going through a disaster of your own.
The views expressed in this blog are entirely my own and do not reflect on anyone else mentioned in any way, shape or form.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)