Editorial: 'Three Rs' the primary need for NZ's pupils

Opinion

Not much that happens in schools comes from a democratic decision. The teaching profession regards the content and assessment of education to be matters entirely for its expertise and has initiated most of the curriculum and examination changes over the years. The profession welcomes popular endorsement but not political initiative.

It has co-operated cautiously so far with the Government's promise to set national standards of reading, writing and counting in primary schools and improve their reporting to parents. Teachers are aware the policy was put to the voters at the last election but they do not agree with it, as demonstrated by representatives of the New Zealand Educational Institute and the Principals Federation when they refused to attend the launch of the standards last Friday.

If they cannot stop a political initiative, they might stall it. On the launch day, NZEI president Frances Nelson complained that the introduction of the standards and reporting requirements for next year gave teachers little time to study them and "see how they're going to fit alongside everything else we do".

In fact, the Ministry of Education has held meetings with schools and parents since May. Schools should be well prepared. If they have been meeting the standards now specified and doing the assessments described, they need only give parents clear, concrete reports of a child's progress in plain language instead of the meaningless bromides they usually provide.

It is reasonable to expect them to learn the testing and reporting requirements in time for mid-year reports next year. The profession fears the work will displace preparations its members are already making for the implementation of a curriculum revision, a project typically initiated within educational circles and proceeding at a snail's pace. If something in the curriculum has to make way for more rigorous learning of reading, writing and mathematics, so be it.

One of the main concerns of teachers has been that the standards will dishearten slower children, particularly those who lack pre-school education, who can take years to catch up with their peers. If the standards set for the first four years are beyond them, at least the fact will be known to all concerned and greater efforts can be made.

Another of the profession's concerns has been the return of "norm referencing", ranking pupils against their peers. While the pupil assessments are to be made against objective standards rather than by comparisons with peers, teachers will be able to use comparative measurements with other methods. NCEA has proved that comparative assessments cannot be avoided entirely. Objective standards have to reflect what can be expected of pupils of the same age.

And of course the profession's loudest concern has been that national standards will allow schools to be publicly ranked by results. School boards will have to annually report the number and proportions of their pupils at, above, below or well below the national standards, the four-level scale to be used. That will permit "league tables" to be compiled, and quite rightly. Parents want to know where the school stands, and the school can be better for the pressure.

But if the pupil reports are as clear and individualised as promised, parents will have better information than a league table can give them. The reports are to set out the pupil's goals in reading, writing and maths, the results of assessment activities, the steps the school is taking to improve them and ways in which the parents can help. The policy looks sound, it has public support and primary teachers ought to get behind it. Their expertise remains crucial.