Researchers back National Standards boycott

File photo / CityLife Porirua

Does your child attend one of the schools boycotting the National Standards? Email the Herald.

Two Massey University education researchers are supporting the actions of more than 225 school boards who are refusing to introduce national standards at their primary schools.

The pair, professor of teacher education John O'Neill and associate professor John Clark from the university's College of Education, said concerns expressed by school trustees over national standards in primary schools were warranted because of the risk of harm to students inappropriately labelled as "below standard".

Dr O'Neill said the schools' stance represents a reasonable balance between boards of trustees' duty of care for pupils and families, and their obligation to implement Government policy.

"The vast majority of schools can continue to report on national curriculum requirements, meeting their obligations to report student progress in these areas," Dr O'Neill said.

"It is a great pity however, that the Government is insisting that an untested policy be implemented in spite of independent research evidence of its potential harm to pupils.

"A survey of parents last year by the New Zealand Council for Educational Research showed that only 14 per cent of those surveyed were supportive of national standards, while 38 per cent were concerned.

Dr O'Neill suspected most boards and parents were becoming increasing concerned about the flaws and potential harm to students the standards could cause.

"If there had been a proper trial of the standards, none of these concerns need have arisen," he said. "Parents wouldn't allow their children to take an unproven drug or medical therapy. Why should they allow their children to be experimented on with education policy?"

Dr Clark said the standards were limited in their scope, not adequately measurable, and had not been sufficiently tested - meaning a high risk of failure.

"The Minister of Education, Anne Tolley, has said that 150,000 children fail to achieve, and that national standards are the means by which their achievement can be raised but how this will happen, remains unclear," Dr Clark said. "Merely documenting national standards will not lift pupil achievement. Specific causal mechanisms for increasing learning must be identified and to date, these are singularly lacking."

He said under-achievers risked being labelled as failures and being treated accordingly by parents, teachers and peers, placing them at a profound disadvantage.

"The minister has said national standards could go either way. The problem with that analysis is that, should the standards fail, there will be serious consequences for the children who do not succeed in achieving them."