Hard News: Standards Matter
414 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 13 14 15 16 17 Newer→ Last
-
3410,
Where do they get these ideas?
-
The provider would only be funded two-thirds of the cost of the child's course, with the final third paid as a performance bonus when the child succeeded.
Well that is an incentive to get every kid achieving isn't it. Who wouldn't tick the box to get the bonus now?? " Little Billy was just below the pass line.....just a wee bit..." - Yeah Right.
I wish these f*&kwits could understand that "bonus' " and "Incentives" schemes really screw systems up.
-
Hi all.
Knocked out a quick summary of some of the more obvious flaws in the looney-tunes Roy paper. Feel free to carry it on here.
-
Hang on, who said the top 5% are necessarily privileged?
I thought someone might ask. By being identified as "gifted"
-
I know the discussion has moved on from the ERO report on reading and writing in Years 1 and 2, but I had an interesting discussion about this with my mum who has taught the junior years for longer than she probably cares to remember.
She feels there is a real problem with principals appointing first year teachers (and early career teachers) to New Entrants and year 1 and 2 classes. She thinks that in general they don't have the specific knowledge or experience to cope with students who are starting right at the beginning, with either very few or non-existent reading and writing skills, but they are being appointed either out of desperation or because they are seen as being enthusiastic (and possibly cheaper).
Whilst this is obviously totally anecdotal, to me it indicates the shallowness of reducing a review of our education system to the sum of one statistic.
-
WTF does "succeed" mean in this context?
Looking the same as an Act voter (clue: wealthy, mainly white, overwhelmingly smug and doltish). OK, I'll go to t'other thread.
-
the ERO report on reading and writing in Years 1 and 2 ...
Whilst this is obviously totally anecdotal, to me it indicates the shallowness of reducing a review of our education system to the sum of one statistic.The ERO report indeed deserves more attention, good to come back to it.
My summary of your post is not a bad description of the ERO report, and its style is closely modelled on the report's Overview summary in relation to the body of the report - selective, distortionary, overstates the anecdotal so 'The ERO report Overview is substantially anecdotal' gets misrepresented as "totally anecdotal". But leaves out that the original has numerous errors, and displays sub-standard achievement in numeracy and literacy.
-
But leaves out that the original has numerous errors, and displays sub-standard achievement in numeracy and literacy.
That's unpossible.
-
In regard to literacy standards at least, doubtless they would blame it on their own teachers having
minimal understanding of effective reading and writing teaching
-
Thanks again for that insight into the Minister's mind. It seems they are using the misleading ERO report as their trump card.
There are some good letters in the latest Listener from educational experts, including one from Ivan Snook deconstructing this report
Indeed, and thanks Hilary. But I wouldn't say Snook deconstructed the report - really he only quoted from its Figure 1, but made an important error in the process. ERO found 'adequate' or better teaching of reading at 90% of schools (not 90+% of teachers) - the same schools/teacher error made by the school principal I heard at Tolley's meeting, by the NZEI in its response to the report, and in half the cases by the ERO report's Overview writer, and their 'graphics' person.
But really I thought the Listener editor’s response to Snook was interesting – perhaps there’s a hint of doubt of ERO on their part in their inability to find the source of the “30% of teachers” claim in the body of the report. There’s a mineable vein of irony in that the Editorial stimulating Snooks’ letter also commented on the apparently unrelated matter of “Revelations of embarrassing mistakes and unproven claims" in the IPCC’s report and the consequent doubts on climate change policy, and called for “transparency”.
We can hope, I guess, that the ERO report might yet get a tiny proportion of the scrutiny and transparency of the IPCC report, process and data ...
This detailed analysis of the Himalayan glaciers disappearing by 2035 debacle rings true to me. It refers to an apparent "curse" whereby every player including layers of technical media commentators, well-meaning and not, made or missed basic errors in the data or review process leading to the report errors, then in the subsequent presentation and explanation of the story. Something like it lurks in this ERO report business.
-
Slightly related.
We think we have problems with the MOE wanting information about our kids but it ain't as bad as This
"school used webcam to spy on our kid at home" -
-
The UK Conservative Party spokesman wants to rewrite their curriculum, and have the children rote learning lists of Kings and Queens of England while sitting in rows.
-
Nostalgia can be dangerous in the wrong hands
Post your response…
This topic is closed.