I want to have another go at writing about the impact of National Standards on education in New Zealand. I am doing this in the hope that our political leaders will make informed decisions when determining education policy. My hope is that we will get policies that are based on evidence, rather than ideology. We all want to achieve the best education outcome for every student in New Zealand. That’s a given. It’s good for the individual but also good for society, and the economy as a whole. How to achieve that outcome is what seems to be up for negotiation. And that’s where the problem lies. Ideology trumps evidence. Good policy is always the loser in this scenario.
It is also worth noting that, as I have become better informed, my position on National Standards has changed markedly since they were introduced. Like the majority of my colleagues, in the beginning, I was also against them. As far as I can see, the problem with National Standards is actually in the failure of their implementation. Ideology and political expediency got in the way of good policy. In some respects, I would argue that teachers have been the recipients of a ‘hospital pass’. For the introduction of National Standards to be successful, it needed to coincide with the introduction of training programmes that would teach teachers how to be more effective. We are witnessing the result of having standards imposed over the top of a pedagogy that is well past its ‘use by date’. It was destined to fail. National Standards have become a political football at the expense of achieving better education outcomes.
I want to describe in more detail the negative consequences of implementing standards along side an outdated pedagogy. But first of all, it would be useful to look at the specific criticisms of National Standards.
The five arguments given, are as follows. They have:-
1. Forced schools to focus much more on literacy and numeracy – which of course was the intent; to help improve literacy and numeracy. But critics say that it has resulted in the curriculum being narrowed.
2. Led schools to target much more attention on children who are just below the standard – good for those children, but this has resulted in neglecting the ‘above’ standard children and those children with special needs.
3. Forced schools and teachers to spend more time on assessing and testing – and as a result, less time is available for teaching and learning.
4. Enabled students to be identified if they are ‘above’, ‘at’, ‘below’, and ‘well below’ the standard. This is seen as a good thing. This level of transparency means that schools are able to identify the students who make up the body of the tail of underachievement and provide targeted support. It also means that parents are able to act on this knowledge and employ extra tuition for their children. Which is all good if you are rich and can afford it. But the argument is that that is not an option for those children who who are not able to receive this level of home support.
5. Allowed parents and the government to have comparable data to judge how particular schools are achieving. Once again, this is good because it informs the Ministry of Education when it should intervene in a school and also, for parents who can afford to move their child to a ‘good’ school. But this is cold comfort for parents who can’t enact that choice, or for children whose learning is being hampered due to external factors such as poverty.
In all aspects of life, standards are
good essential. Think water quality or air quality. Education should be no different. National Standards need to be thought of as targets. Targets to aim for. But it’s essential to note that a target is not a directive or prescription of how to reach that target. It is simply, a target. It has no direct influence on pedagogy – of how to achieve that target. It seems to me that teachers have interpreted the standards as being a prescription for how to teach. I’m arguing that children who are failing to meet the standards is, as a result of an outdated pedagogy, not the existence of standards.
There is also a real risk that standards have the potential to act as a ceiling on learning. Achieving standards has become the primary focus. And as a consequence of setting standards, we create an education model that wants to, in the words of Yong Zhao, “count everything and hold everyone to account”. This is one of the arguments used by those critical of National Standards. That, as a result of the introduction of the standards, education has become too narrow, “too impersonal, too linear, too focussed on the short term”. That, it’s become a model that stifles creativity and discriminates against many students. But hang on a minute. This is describing the learning outcomes that the education system has been serving up since the beginning of time, and well before the standards were ever introduced. Nothing has changed. Deficit thinking is the foundation of the current education system. Once again, this is an issue of relying on an outdated pedagogy, not the existence of standards.
There is a pedagogy available right now, that could be utilised by all teachers, that would allow all students to achieve their necessary standards. A constructive model, rather than a deficit model. My experience reveals that by implementing this pedagogy (best practice, evidence based teaching), all the criticisms of National Standards as outlined above, would be addressed. I have seen the staggeringly good results in my classroom of implementing best teaching practice. I see great results but I also see an abundance of curiosity and agency amongst the students, and myself. And that’s why I will continue to remain ambivalent to the criticisms of National Standards. In my classroom, I’m confident that all children will be able to attain the appropriate standard. That’s because I implement an evidence based pedagogy that provides a creative and vibrant learning environment. It is self fulfilling and self sustaining. No sweat. No drama.
Ease Education: Teaching at a human scale.
I have written other posts on this issue of National Standards and how it relates to pedagogy. I have included links to them, below….