|
You are subscribed as |
Unsubscribe
|
View online version
|
Forward to a friend
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Dr Michael Johnston | Senior Fellow | michael.johnston@nzinitiative.org.nz | ||||||||||||
|
The current curriculum, implemented in 2007, provides teachers with little guidance on what to teach. Universities, which have largely overseen teacher education since the early 2000s have done a poor job of equipping new teachers for the classroom. Education Minister Erica Stanford has set a blistering pace in her efforts to rebuild these key elements of education infrastructure. Having set curriculum reform in motion, Stanford is now turning her attention to teacher education. She faces a difficult puzzle. The Teaching Council, a legislated professional body, currently oversees teacher education. The Council also currently sets and maintains the Standards for the Teaching Profession. Teachers must satisfy the Standards, which set out criteria for their competence and conduct. Teacher education programmes must therefore prepare their graduates to meet the Standards. Unfortunately, the Standards do not require teachers to demonstrate that they can teach effectively. That means universities are under no pressure to ensure teacher education is effective. In theory, the Standards should be owned by the profession, through the Council. The trouble is that the Council has shown no inclination to reflect evidence-based practice in the Standards. Teachers do not have to prove that they can cause students to learn. Stanford has proposed shifting oversight of teacher education from the Teaching Council to the Ministry of Education. The proposal has met with howls of outrage. Teachers’ unions and the Principals’ Federation have said the plan is “tantamount to political interference.” While teacher unions bear partial responsibility for the dire state of the teaching profession, they have a point. The Ministry answers to the Minister, not to the teaching profession. Stanford will not be Minister forever and her successor might take a very different view of teacher education than she does. As an interim measure, Stanford’s proposal is defensible. In the longer term, though, a more durable solution is desirable. Communities of schools could be enabled to develop registration criteria under a legislated quality assurance framework. Ideally, those communities would also run teacher education programmes. Performance measures could be used to hold them accountable and show which criteria were most successful. Supporting resources could be funded by savings from a downsized Ministry. That would leave responsibility for teacher education in the hands of the profession while creating incentives to improve quality. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Dr Oliver Hartwich | Executive Director | oliver.hartwich@nzinitiative.org.nz | ||||||||||||
|
Some see the state as the Prime Minister and elected government. Others think of ministerial staff and advisers. Many picture big government offices or workers like nurses, teachers and police. The truth is, the state is all of these - and more. This confusion is not just about how people see things. It shows how complex our state really is. We might blame the Prime Minister or Education Minister for what happens in schools. But neither of them actually teaches our children. In fact, they have little direct control over what goes on in classrooms. Big companies can be complex too. But in the state, it is harder to know who is responsible for what. This is not just an academic problem. It affects how policies are made, carried out and judged. Our new report aims to explain this complex system. It looks at how the state works (and sometimes does not work). It identifies who does what. And it examines the system they work in. We explore four main limits on how the state behaves: chain of command, lack of personal stake, information problems and weak accountability. Understanding these is key for anyone wanting to improve our public bodies. The report challenges both very positive and very negative views of the state. It argues that to make real improvements, we need to understand how our state actually works - not how we wish it did. By explaining the state clearly, we hope to help people talk about it more usefully. We also want to show ways to run things better. This report offers useful insights for policy makers, state workers, and interested citizens alike. So, what do you see when you look at the state? Whatever your view, our report invites you to look deeper. We want to help you understand the complex reality behind the image. Our state affects all our lives, every day. It spends billions of dollars of our money each year. Yet few of us truly understand how it works. This report is a step towards changing that. We encourage you to read it, discuss it, and think about how we can make our state work better for everyone. Dr Tony Burton's research report, Demystifying the State, was published on 10 September. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Max Salmon | Research Fellow | max.salmon@nzinitiative.org.nz | ||||||||||||
|
While the former president’s comments appear unfounded, concerns that the Mouser has become a victim to partisan politics are very real. The role’s current occupant, Larry, is a distinguished moggie with a tortoiseshell-on-white coat and a no-nonsense air. Having served in the position for thirteen years (and outlasting five Prime Ministers) your correspondent understands that the decision to bring in an alternative may have been spurred by concerns about his politics. Although officially a neutral public servant, Larry received his appointment under David Cameron’s conservative government and has served with only Tory cabinets since. This has led to concerns about Larry’s economic philosophy, including on the possible redistribution of pet food within number 10. Starmer would not comment on whether Larry still had his confidence. Although only a recent creation, the Chief Mouser’s responsibilities are numerous and deadly serious. Larry is the only cabinet member with the infamous ‘license to kill,’ granting him impunity to exterminate domestic targets with extreme prejudice. “It’s a serious role and the PM believes a younger, faster, cat can do it better,” one staffer was overheard saying. Larry’s behaviour within and without Downing Street has been floated as another potential reason. “The PM is very set on a professional and respectable catnet – I mean cabinet. Scrapping in the street, cavorting with female companions, and grooming his nethers – all in full view of the media might have flown with Johnson, but it won’t with Starmer.” On the other side of the aisle, the leader of the opposition has accused the PM of betraying his party’s values. “Larry is a working-class moggy, adopted as a stray, a cat who has pulled himself up by his bootstraps to the highest office available to felines in the nation. To throw him out in favour of a purebred purchased from a breeder shows Labour’s working-class rhetoric is all bark and no bite.” However, concerns have been raised about the new Starmer appointee’s nationality. Larry’s potential replacement is understood to be a Siberian purebred. “Siberia’s in Russia last time I checked.” One anonymous source was quoted as saying. “It’s hardly reassuring that the PM is giving the run of number 10 over to a foreign national. It could take us within a whisker of catastrophe.” |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| On The Record | ||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| All Things Considered | ||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
Unsubscribe me please |
|
Brought to you by outreachcrm |