Letters: Stressed teachers and primary school testing; blunting bullying in schools; name suppression and justice

The Government has announced the introduction of standardised testing in primary schools nationwide from next year. Photo / 123rf

Stressed teachers and politicising education

As a retired teacher, albeit one still teaching in a private capacity, I was disheartened to read the headline “Move to evidence-based education” (NZ Herald, July 4).

The extrapolation from the headline is that currently education is not evidence-based. This is insulting to the profession, who in general are highly skilled at evidence-based practice and have been for generations.

Perhaps the problem lies in the ever-increasing demand for summative data promoted in particular by successive National-led Governments in the vain quest to rank teacher practice and school effectiveness.

We currently have a highly-stressed teacher workforce and the most over-assessed student cohort ever in order to provide numerical data which does little to improve learner outcomes. Teachers are skilled in formative assessment which identifies student strengths and weaknesses on an individual basis.

The real struggle for teachers in today’s environment is dealing with rapidly increasing behavioural issues, and increasing disengagement in learning from learners who come from families experiencing poverty, addictions, and, something not researched, children with device and gaming addictions. This at the same time as schools struggle to get appropriate resources, both human and financial, to assist.

It’s beyond time we stopped politicising education and begin to engage those at the coalface who know what is needed to improve outcomes for all, and which actually lies outside the classroom.

Clint Green, Tūrangi.

Inspiring policy

It seems somewhat ironic that the former Government, that basically abolished all measures and accountability in regard to recording health, education, police etc data, is the main one now criticising the coalition Government for setting targets that they believe cannot be achieved or attained.

The previous Government only abolished targets and measures so that it could not be embarrassed by revealing what a dismal failure it had been at spending taxpayer money as neither failure nor success could be measured.

I believe that the coalition Government’s decision on setting targets, which some believe cannot be achieved, is in fact quite inspirational. It also gives me confidence and shows a Government that not only wants to achieve but is not afraid to reveal the actual results one way or the other.

I want a Government that is wisely spending our money and if it takes targets to achieve this go for it.

Mike Baker, Tauranga.

Blunting bullying

If a child is bullied at school, they are protected by the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, which states: “Schools have to do everything they can to make sure no physical or mental harm happens to you during school hours, on school grounds, or at school-related activities. These health and safety requirements also apply to school boards and governing committees of school boarding hostels.”

Schools owe students a duty of care under the civil law of negligence (failure to take care). If a student is bullied or assaulted, then the school could be liable for a breach of this duty of care (NZ Herald, July 4).

If teachers ignore or do not take the complaint seriously, they need to be reminded of their ethical obligation as a registered teacher to “promote the physical, emotional, social, intellectual, and spiritual wellbeing of learners”.

Every time an article about bullying in schools appears, it looks as though the school is part of the problem. School leaders and boards seem to be placing more importance on protecting the name and reputation of the school over the wellbeing of the child.

Mark Young, Ōrewa.

Suppressing justice

In discussing the merits of name suppression, your correspondent defence lawyer Emma Priest (NZ Herald, July 2) raises many valid points. However, in analysing New Zealand’s social fabric, she fails to address the elephant in the room.

I suspect a primary motivator of the vitriol and the backlash by the public is the failure, whether real or perceived, of the justice system. Where members of the public feel that inadequate sentencing occurs for the taking of a life (especially our vulnerable children) or other horrendous crimes in our country then I postulate that society feels a need to address the injustices that are befalling our victims.

Your correspondent waxes lyrical about the rights and protections for the perpetrators of crime, but ignores that in New Zealand the rights of the victims are trampled by our tilted justice system. I would argue that the suppression of details lends to the inference and innuendo by members of the public that can create mob mentality and mob justice by the public.

Instead, there should be more openness and transparency like other overseas jurisdictions including supplying full backgrounds and criminal history to both jury and public such that there are no doubts as to the full nature of the crime and offender, and that the judiciary is open about how it reaches its sentence with regards to the victim.

It could be said that if you are innocent of a crime that it is better to be tried in a Nordic country, but if you are guilty of a crime you are better to be tried in New Zealand.

Michael Locke, Mt Eden.