Kelvin Davis on improving education

When the government says that national standards, charter schools, league tables, performance pay, quality vs quantity of teachers will all raise achievement, they might be right.

That's because there are very few strategies that teachers (or governments) can implement that actually make students dumber. Teachers can rightly put their hands on their hearts and swear that what they do in class lifts achievement. Just about everything has some positive effect, but some have a large positive effect while others barely register. It would make sense to develop policy based on those strategies that have the greatest positive effect.

The much quoted Professor John Hattie's research lists, from most effective to least ffective, 138 different 'things' that may be implemented in education, and all but five have a positive effect on learning. The five strategies with a negative effect are: Summer vacation (-0.09), Welfare Policies (-0.12) Retention (Holding kids back a year, -0.16), Television (-0.18) and Mobility (-0.34). So unless we prescribe longer Christmas holidays, keep kids back a year or two, or force students to watch an extra 8 hours of TV a day, almost everything else will have SOME positive effect on learning.

The same goes for government policy - practically any educational policy will have some positive effect for some students.

In order to get the best achievement outcomes from any policy, the policy itself needs to be supported by research.

What does Hattie's research say?

Any 'strategy' with an effect size of 0.40 or less is practically pointless. Which makes sense.

In Hattie's list the strategy with an effect size of 0.40 (Reducing Anxiety) is exactly halfway through the list of possible strategies. Hattie is saying if any particular strategy is to be used it should at least be in the top 50% of strategies.

What does the research say about Charter Schools?

Charter Schools have an effect size of 0.20, or the 107th out of the 133 strategies that have some positive effect. Charter Schools are therefore an extremely pointless and expensive strategy.

There are still 40 strategies that are deemed pointless, but, are still more effective than Charter Schools.

What does the research say about League Tables and Performance Pay?

Nothing. They don't rate or feature in any way in Hattie's research.

What then is the basis for League Tables and Performance Pay if there is no research evidence to show these two 'things' will make a difference? How does the government know these two 'strategies' won't have to be included alongside the five already proven to make students dumber?

There are 106 'things' more effective than Charter Schools at improving learning, of which 66 are deemed to be very effective. 

It would make sense for the government to stick to what is proven by their guru's research to make a difference and really create the conditions where quality teachers can weave their magic.Only when the proven strategies are all implemented, should they pull out their ideological ideas. However, I suspect by then there would be no need.

By Kelvin Davis

Fail: Why the Maori Party's wrong on education

As former education professionals, you would expect Te Ururoa Flavell and Pem Bird to know a thing or two about education. However, on charter schools, performance pay and league tables Flavell and Bird have got it wrong.

From Waatea:

Maori Party MP Te Ururoa Flavell is backing Education Minister Hekia Parata's reforms.

"I think we've got to look at new ideas so for example I haven't got a problem with looking at charter schools. If it doesn't work, so it doesn't work. We've got to look at things like pay performance because that might encourage our teachers to lift performance even better, particularly around dealing with Maori students. Let's look at it. We shouldn't be precious about staying with what we've got because clearly it isn't delivering what we want," Mr Flavell says.

While Pem Bird informs RNZ that:

The Iwi Education Authority says league tables would make schools more accountable for performance and more responsible for achieving results.

Authority chairman Pem Bird says any ranking system would make schools work harder, because results would be explicit and transparent.

He says if his annual results weren't good, he wouldn't despair - it would be a challenge for him improve the following year's performance.

These are incredibly simplistic views. “If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work” is a terrible approach to policy making. Charter schools, performance pay and league tables are not abstract concepts that will have no tangible effect on learning. They are concrete policy initiatives that will affect the lives of all Maori children. With that in mind, it is reckless to endorse policy just because it quote “might” work.

Flavell, having based his views of performance pay on the idea that it provides an incentive, is misguided. Performance pay provides an incentive, but an incentive to narrow outcomes. All of a sudden schooling becomes about test scores rather than broader goals, for example equipping students with reasoning skills, ideas of social responsibility and so on. 

In other words, performance pay encourages teachers to teach to the test. Such an approach fell out of fashion long ago. What we need from out students isn’t the ability to rote learn, which is what performance pay and its bastard teaching to the test encourages, but the ability to reason, innovate and so on. 

As for charter schools, well, I can see the attraction. The idea conforms with ideas of tino rangatiratanga. Charter schools put Maori in charge of Maori. Iwi, for example, could deliver the curriculum and revive our culture. Rongoa Maori could be offered as a subject.

The pitfall, however, is that iwi have no experience in delivering education. Add to this the shortage of Maori teachers, especially te reo Maori teachers, and the fact that there are precious few models to draw on.

On league tables, Bird’s conception is shallow. League tables “might” encourage schools to work harder, or alternatively encourage schools to skew results, purge and refuse to accept weaker students, teach to the test and so on. I tend to think the latter is more likely.

Furthermore, National Standards aren’t standardised thus rendering the comparisons (i.e. league tables) almost meaningless. A different set of standards also apply to Kura, therefore any comparison between Kura and mainstream schools is utterly pointless. So for Maori parents wanting to compare whether Kura or mainstream schools are better for Maori children, league tables will offer no guidance. With that in mind, what the fuck’s the point?

I’m constantly amazed at how disappointing the Maori Party can be. Is anybody doing their homework in the party? Or are they just going off intuition? I don’t know what’s going on, but they’re doing Maori a disservice when they endorse the government’s plans for education.

Charter Schools and Maori

Charter schools: at best the evidence is mixed, at worst the evidence is an indictment against the idea. There is no compelling evidence in clear support of the idea – or at least I’m not aware of anyone who has produced or pointed to any compelling evidence.

Over the past 48 hours a lot of has been written on charter schools, most of it rightly rubbishes the idea, but we haven’t seen anything from a Maori perspective. With that in mind, I’ll give an outline of the idea from a Maori perspective.

On first principle, the charter schools idea is attractive. Allowing iwi to take control of education in their rohe (area) satisfies the very foundation of tino rangatiratanga – the right of Maori to control things Maori. Any idea that will advance tino rangatiratanga is certainly welcome. The idea also fits nicely with the partnership principle i.e. the government funds education while Maori deliver it.

On a cynical level, the charter schools could, hypothetically speaking, mean profit. If the corporate arm of iwi, as opposed to say the social services arm, took responsibility for iwi charter schools then the motive would be profit. Controlling education would be another step in iwi’s desire for more control over New Zealand, especially in strategic areas. The iwi leaders are currently transfixed with delving into strategic resources and companies like geothermal power and Air New Zealand, but control over education is probably a far more potent area. Iwi could, hypothetically and cynically speaking of course, shape how their students see the world.

On a brighter note, iwi would be attracted to the idea as a means of reviving Maori culture. If our charter model is anything like the overseas models iwi would have the power to set the curriculum. Iwi could include subjects like rongoa (broadly speaking Maori medicine) or set up traditional wananga. This probably ties in to the principle of active protection i.e. the government, in allowing iwi to set such a curriculum, is taking active steps to protect Maori culture.

It’s a gamble though, allowing iwi anywhere near education. Iwi certainly have no experience in delivering education and I doubt there are many overseas models to draw on. Having said that, the kura kaupapa model is a good place to start. However, in my opinion kura kaupapa, although successful overall, are still suffering from teething problems. I don’t think it would be sensible for Iwi to deliver Maori language medium schools only too. Young Maori need to be prepared to enter the Pakeha world. This necessitates an element of mainstream education in whatever model iwi adopt.

I tentatively support the idea of iwi having some power over Maori education. This doesn’t mean I support the charter school model. In fact, I strongly oppose charter schools. I think it’s unfair that the overwhelmingly Maori populations in South Auckland and Christchurch East, along with the non-Maori population too, be subject to a trial of what is, at worst, a failed model. Surely John Banks should use his people in Epsom as guinea pigs for his pet idea. When the trial fails, or is repealed as soon as Labour gets in, New Zealand is going to have a subset of failed young people. I don’t think Act and National can see that there is a connection between poor policy and results in real world. Anyway, as above the idea of iwi control over Maori education is decent and if the charter idea goes ahead I’d support iwi involvement.