Guest editorial: Drop hysteria over National Standards

There is a degree of hysteria over the matter of National Standards. This is fuelled by sensationalist reports in the media, unions with a political agenda, and Anne Tolley's appalling lack of PR skills.
In any discussion about the standards the following points should be taken into account:
Many learners in our schools develop excellent literacy skills, and most develop adequate skills. However, one in five young people leave school functionally illiterate, and this is unacceptable.
The National Standards are not a test, but a series of descriptors of what could be expected of learners at each year level, in terms of literacy acquisition. For example, after one year at school, one could expect learners to distinguish individual phonemes within words as in m/a/n. Teachers make judgments about the learner's progress based on classroom observation and existing assessments, such as running records. Who is objecting? Why? What can be done?
Teachers at schools where most learners are achieving at or above the expectations set out in the National Standards feel that the standards are not challenging enough. They resent having to use the new, and rather cumbersome reporting system, which is largely irrelevant in their situation. Suggestion: Count your blessings!
Teachers who feel uncomfortable about telling parents that their child is not meeting the expectations set out in the National Standards prefer more euphemistic reporting, such as: John participates fully in classroom activities and is making good progress. They feel that it is unfair to have the same expectations of all children.
Previously, the comment: John is doing well, could mean very different levels of achievement, depending on whether the learner was in Otara or Remuera. National Standards do not allow for that disparity, although provision is made for learners with special needs, and for English language learners during the first two years of their education in New Zealand.
Suggestion: Honesty about the situation is more useful than denial, or ego massage. Many parents are happy to follow suggestions set out in the "What you can do at home" sheets.
Teachers, particularly those with large classes, are overwhelmed by the demands of the new reporting system - despite anything John Hattie might say about class size being irrelevant. Suggestion: Smaller classes; more release time for administration.
There are teachers who are unfamiliar with some of the terminology and concepts set out in the National Standards. The specifics of teaching reading might not have been part of their teaching course when the whole language method was in vogue, and many teachers are ideologically opposed to the phonological approach. These teachers are uncomfortable about reporting on skills that they are not prepared to teach. Suggestion: Urgent professional development!
Some principals, who do not want their schools to be compared unfavourably with others, feel that the system is unfair. It is not a level playing field. Some schools have to cope with a higher proportion of children who find learning difficult: children with severe behavioural problems; the hungry, neglected and abused; children with poor oral language skills, or little support at home. Literacy statistics for these schools will not look good.
Suggestions: The media should refrain from publishing and sensationalising league tables. Principals should remember that honesty is more useful than denial or ego massage. Evidence of deficit should attract more resources for targeted intervention. The reasons for these objections provide clues as to the causes of the problem.
By addressing these issues we could ensure that every child has a better chance of acquiring adequate literacy skills - then the National Standards will have served their purpose.
Merle Braithwaite is a Tauranga-based education consultant. www.speechandlearning.co.nz