John Key announces teaching reforms

[Ab]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/n...ectid=11190838

The Government will spend an extra $359 million over the next four years to support teachers and principals, which will create four new management roles in schools - executive principals, expert teachers, lead teachers and change principals.

"These new roles will recognise and use talent where it's needed most and will be implemented from next year," Mr Key said.

That's pretty awesome. Even the unions seem to love it.

[StN]

Well, that's the teachers sorted, now if he gets the freezing workers and wharfies onside, there will be no stopping him!

[[Malks] Pixie]

...lead teachers...

Odd that they're creating this new "management tier" which already exists.

...expert teachers...

I did laugh at this though.

Pixie

[GM]

The Executive Principle role seems to make a lot of sense to me, if their portfolio has adequate variance in decile ratings I would hope they stand to benefit quite a bit through better governance.

Edit: I wonder if they're the equivalent of the Superintendent role found in America?

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Ab

That's pretty awesome. Even the unions seem to love it.

Yeah, cause it's a no-fucking-brainer that we need to invest in education. It's "awesome" because National are doing it. It would be "business as usual" if this was a Labour government.

[Ab]

No, the exact opposite. Labour has always been steadfastly opposed to the notion of paying high-performing teachers more than shitty teachers, because unions. (Paying good teachers more than shitty teachers is a step on a slippery slope to firing shitty teachers, and we can't have that, comrade!)

But this is a loltastic move by Key - no doubt Cunliffe's gearing up for a "neoliberal agenda, thousand years of darkness, dogs and cats living together" rant about National on Monday, and 3 days in advance Key announces a huge spendup on improving childhood education. Key's taken a nice big symbolic step to the left, and Labour can either agree with him and congratulate him (sif) or step further left to try and get some distance. Which will have Labour and the Greens clashing on super-left policies while National camps the middle.

[Lightspeed]

That's a specific method of investment. You're feeling awesome because National is investing in a way you can feel good about - it gives those who have plenty more.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

National is investing in a way you can feel good about - it gives those who have plenty more.

The fuck? Who?

[[Malks] Pixie]

Originally Posted by Ab

No, the exact opposite. Labour has always been steadfastly opposed to the notion of paying high-performing teachers more than shitty teachers, because unions. (Paying good teachers more than shitty teachers is a step on a slippery slope to firing shitty teachers, and we can't have that, comrade!)

Nice edit regarding your comment about socioeconomic factors there - don't know why you removed it as it was pretty much on the mark.

Interesting listening on the topic http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/pr...rch-and-policy

From that interview - outside of school issues count for about 60% of variation in school/student performance and in school issues (such as teachers and principles) only account for about 20%.

Pixie

[Ab]

Originally Posted by [Malks] Pixie

Nice edit regarding your comment about socioeconomic factors there - don't know why you removed it as it was pretty much on the mark.

Interesting listening on the topic http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/pr...rch-and-policy

From that interview - outside of school issues count for about 60% of variation in school/student performance and in school issues (such as teachers and principles) only account for about 20%.

Pixie

yeah, didn't want to get offtopic into an inequality debate.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Ab

The fuck? Who?

I thought we were being facetious, given your reference to communism.

Fact is with National governments funding to education, health and particularly mental health contract, during Labour governments this funding expands. This is what I care about.

If National wants to fund these things (and given the volume of science pointing to the considerable returns when we do, they have to), they're forced to paint any funding increase as some grand scheme that makes it looks like the money is going to the "deserving" and that no skiving buggers are going to get that money.

Cause things like feeding hungry kids looks like we're letting parents off the hook, and it's more important not to let people off the hook than to feed hungry kids. The volume of hungry kids in NZ is evidence of this, especially comparative to our wealth.

[[Malks] Pixie]

Originally Posted by Ab

yeah, didn't want to get offtopic into an inequality debate.

Fair enough though I'd argue that the inequality debate (or at least aspects of it) is really part of the topic, or at least it should be.

Pixie

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

The volume of hungry kids in NZ is evidence of this, especially comparative to our wealth.

And feeding children is so cheap.

[Lightspeed]

It really is. Have you heard of the Green Revolution?

[Ab]

I fail at the communications, I wasn't being sarcastic - I know how cheap it is to feed a kid. It really is cheap.

[StN]

You can skip the oats and go straight to the ivy...

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Ab

I fail at the communications, I wasn't being sarcastic - I know how cheap it is to feed a kid. It really is cheap.

Exactly. And yet making sure our kids aren't hungry isn't a priority. Because people are addicted to the word "should".

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by '[Malks

From that interview - outside of school issues count for about 60% of variation in school/student performance and in school issues (such as teachers and principles) only account for about 20%.

Pixie

There seems to be little detail so far but I'm not against investing in and providing incentives for excellent teachers. But yes, this needs to be along side policy that deals with the main underlying societal and economical factors which contribute to poor educational outcomes.

Hopefully Labour comes up with something a more extensive.

[[Malks] Pixie]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

There seems to be little detail so far but I'm not against investing in and providing incentives for excellent teachers. But yes, this needs to be along side policy that deals with the main underlying societal and economical factors which contribute to poor educational outcomes.

I'm not against it, on principle (pun intended), either. I do, however, have a bit of a (pedantic) issue with the use of the term "expert teachers" instead of "excellent teachers" as you have done (which I won't go into right now unless people really want to be bored to tears).

Pixie

[Golden Teapot]

Well "expert" is essential. Second is "excellent". Ideally both but if you have to choose only one then the former will do.

[Lightspeed]

I think the latter can exist without the former, but the if the latter is not true then the former cannot be.

[aR Que]

'Excellent' teachers and 'expert' teachers come from industry, they've been through the mill, they know whats up. It's hard to get them to switch, when pay is less, risk is high and the KPIs are unknown.
No teacher that has gone from school, to uni, to school is ever going to be excellent.... imo.

[Golden Teapot]

labour could still win this - instead of promising to open up an insurance company they need to promise a nationwide organic supermarket chain.

[[Malks] Pixie]

Well my argument (which I'm not going to go in depth into tonight because I'm damn exhausted) would be that a field such as teaching may have specialists, may even have excellent practitioners but does not contain experts. Not all fields have experts.

Pixie

[Ab]

Originally Posted by aR Que

'Excellent' teachers and 'expert' teachers come from industry, they've been through the mill, they know whats up. It's hard to get them to switch, when pay is less, risk is high and the KPIs are unknown.
No teacher that has gone from school, to uni, to school is ever going to be excellent.... imo.

My take is that if you're intelligent with good people skills and you're great at communicating in the right way for your audience - the sort of skillset that would make you a good teacher - then if you're teaching pretty soon you're going to realise that those skills can make you much better money if you go and do just about anything else in the world. If you have what it takes to be a good teacher then the teaching profession has almost nothing to offer you to make you stay.

So now JK is dangling a big carrot.

[Lightspeed]

There's no doubt we undervalue our teachers. Wouldn't need no damned unions if we did value our teachers and always did.

[Golden Teapot]

Originally Posted by [Malks] Pixie

Well my argument (which I'm not going to go in depth into tonight because I'm damn exhausted) would be that a field such as teaching may have specialists, may even have excellent practitioners but does not contain experts. Not all fields have experts.

I think the term is expert teacher and this means a teacher who has extensive knowledge or skill of teaching; at least that is what the term means if a dictionary-based definition of expert is used.

In all real-world scenarios I expect you'll find that a measure of knowledge or skill can always be defined and because scores can always be ranked it follows that there are always experts.

[aR Que]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

There's no doubt we undervalue our teachers.

Do we?
How much does an Avg . teacher with say, 5 years experiance get paid? 50,000?
What are their qualifications? Do they need a formal Degree? In? Are there different pay brackets for primary / high school? years of training involved?
What are the difficulties of the job? Stress? Work load? Environment?

Genuine question(s). It's always seemed an 'easy' job to me? Any teachers around that can answer objectively?

[Savage]

Originally Posted by aR Que

Do we?
How much does an Avg . teacher with say, 5 years experiance get paid? 50,000?
What are their qualifications? Do they need a formal Degree? In? Are there different pay brackets for primary / high school? years of training involved?
What are the difficulties of the job? Stress? Work load? Environment?

Genuine question(s). It's always seemed an 'easy' job to me? Any teachers around that can answer objectively?

My 7th form geography teacher was paid less than she would have been getting if she was home on the dole. Granted, this was about 15 years ago, and the situation may have changed since then, but I doubt it has changed very much. The low pay for teachers is shocking, considering the enormous value that was placed on teachers back in the day. These are the people who are meant to impart knowledge to the generations of the future, and they're paid like rubbish collectors.

PS: I am biased on this topic, since Dad has been teaching for fifty-something years. He has been a Principle (at several schools in South Africa), HoD, counsellor, sports coach, debate team coach, after hours school care facilitator .. you name it, he's done it. I started earning more than Dad when I was about 26 after 6 years in IT.

$72,645 is the top of the scale for secondary school teachers.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by aR Que

What are the difficulties of the job? Stress? Work load? Environment?

Genuine question(s). It's always seemed an 'easy' job to me? Any teachers around that can answer objectively?

It can be an easy job if you phone it in and tune out the students. Don't you recall being in school?

Actually, when I went to Tiki High things were (surprisingly on reflection) pretty sweet there, it was when I moved to Aorere College in South Auckland that I saw how shit it could be.

[BoyWonder]

Originally Posted by Savage

$72,645 is the top of the scale for secondary school teachers.

The extra units are not particularly difficult though. I know a primary school teacher who has 3 extra units on top of their salary and that is for things like coaching a netball team or running a reading group after school. When your work day typically finishes at 3pm you can still earn a lot more money before 4!

[aR Que]

Primary teachers with a Bachelor's teaching degree can progress up to $68,074 after seven years’ service ($68,755 from June 2014). Primary teachers with a Bachelor’s degree (not a teaching degree) and a recognised teaching qualification can progress up to $71,900 after seven years’ service ($72,645 from June 2014).

That's not exactly chump change?

[Savage]

Originally Posted by BoyWonder

The extra units are not particularly difficult though. I know a primary school teacher who has 3 extra units on top of their salary and that is for things like coaching a netball team or running a reading group after school. When your work day typically finishes at 3pm you can still earn a lot more money before 4!

I don't know many teachers whose work day finishes at 3pm - not secondary school teachers anyway. My personal experience has been that they (the good ones) have a break at the end of the school day, then start marking students' work from the day (~7 or 8 periods per day, multiplied by 15 to 30 students at a time depending on class size). Then they have to prepare for the next day. School holidays are spent marking essays and exams in some cases.

Maybe this is the difference between Jo Blogs teacher, and the excellent/expert teachers discussed earlier in the thread.

Yes, the "management units" don't sound that hard to achieve, I believe they're worth $900 and $3000 per annum each, with the bigger ones being for senior teachers with a management component in their role. From what I recall, there is a limit to how many a teacher can gain (additional units above the limit do not receive extra payment).

Would love it if an actual NZG member was a teacher and could clarify a lot of this for us.

[Savage]

*edit

"worth between $900 and $3000 per annum each"

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by aR Que

That's not exactly chump change?

Not at all. I suppose we need to consider what one might earn elsewhere with a similar skill set, also how many teachers actually achieve these giddy heights.

I'm not sure of either, it would be interesting to know.

Certainly we can't pretend as it is that NZ's public education system isn't one of the best in the world.

[Delphinus]

I dated a teacher for a bit and also provide IT support at a couple of primary schools. I can assure you most of the cars are in the carpark before 8 and still there around 4pm. Also lots of work goes in at home after hours marking work or preparing for the next days/weeks lessons.
Its not just a 9-3pm job.

[Ab]

sweet holidays bro

[fixed_truth]

My brother is a secondary school teacher and OTOMH teachers starting rates are comparable to other public sector professions that require a specialist degree.

But yeah it would be awesome to be a teacher during the holidays and not have to use most of your annual leave to look after the kids and/or have to pay for care arrangements.

[Golden Teapot]

Teachers are effectively on a $100k industry equivalent salary. They notionally salary sacrifice to get down to 71k in return for an extra eight weeks of leave. Or if you like $100k x 40 / 48 less something to allow for staff are paid less than they are worth (so that there's a point left to employing them) i.e. the value of the extra eight weeks they don't work is more than they are paid and so something extra has to be deducted beyond the simple ratio adjustment.

Most people who earn $100k equivalent salaries work more than a 9 to 5 job.

Teachers have nothing to complain about - they are well paid compared to most people.

[aR Que]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

Most people who earn $50k equivalent salaries work more than a 9 to 5 job.

amirite.