Monday, 17 April 2017

It's not just the wellbeing and safety of students we need to consider, but the teachers too

As a profession - teachers, principals and support staff - we are extremely focused on the wellbeing and safety of our students.  We have extensive expectations, systems and processes in place to ensure the students in our schools are safe and if an incident were to happen, no matter how minor, it is documented, systems are improved or changed and dangers are rectifed.


But do we do the same for our staff?



In recent weeks there have been two big issues that impact the wellbeing and safety of school staff as well as students, and I have to question whether or not we are doing enough to keep teachers safe.


Firstly, it was reported last month that a number of Year 9 boys (that’s 13 year olds) at St Patrick’s College in Silverstream (Upper Hutt) had sexually harassed several female teachers.  The boys had apparently filmed the teachers in an inappropriate way without their knowledge and shared the footage.  This week it was revealed that the school had decided to keep the students within the school (after a short suspension) to ‘educate’ them, and that the female teachers had resigned.  See this article: Teachers resign from an Upper Hutt school after being sexually harassed by students (Stuff, 13 April 2017).


The other big story originated from Northland, where principal Pat Newman explained that P babies and children with other high behavioural needs were a danger to his staff as well as fellow students.  Principal Federation Chair Whetu Cormick echoed that this was indeed a problem around the country, more so in certain provinces than others, but still a nation wide issue.  See this article: Teachers kicked, punched, stabbed by disturbed ‘P kids’ (NZ Herald, 13 April 2017).


The implications of the sexual harassment of the teachers.  


I have seen the article above commented on in four forums on Facebook and on Twitter.  There have been a variety of comments.


I’ve mostly seen many supportive comments of the teachers and dismay at the actions of the boys and of the school.  The general consensus is that the school has made an unsafe workplace for the teachers by allowing the boys to stay within the school environment and a condonement of the actions of the boys has been implied.  It is intimated in the above linked article that the teachers have resigned and that legal action (a personal grievance perhaps) is being taken.  I am wondering where Worksafe fit into all this, because surely it does.


I did see the odd random comment asking about how the teachers were dressed to encourage the boys to behave in a disreputable manner.  Needless to say that commenter was well and truly informed about the professionalism of teachers and schools like St Patrick’s having a dress code along with condemnation for victim blaming.


I did see some comments commending the school on wanting to work with these young men to improve their understanding of what is acceptable or not.  But to prioritise the students over someone’s ability to earn an income and feel safe in their workplace?  I think the safety and wellbeing of the victim should have been the priority here, not the students.  They have parents to think about their safety and wellbeing as well as the school.  However, in this case, the principal and board should have prioritised the teachers.


And I say this because, as many commenters pointed out, if it had have been the teachers sexually harassing the students, the teachers would have been kicked to the curb, outted publicly and lost their jobs, with the support rightly being on the victims - the students.


You may remember the Losi Filipo controversy last year, the Wellington contracted rugby player who initially was given a slap on the wrist with a wet bus ticket after a vicious assault on four other young people…. Well, Filipo went to St Patrick's and one commenter said that St Patrick's had put their support in behind Filipo.


The classic Van Halen song,
'Hot for Teacher' does not apply
in this case.
Then there were the odd comments on “boys will be boys” and references to the Van Halen classic ‘Hot for Teacher’ were made.  Yes, “boys will be boys”, but that doesn’t mean we don’t call them out and make them take responsibility for their actions.  They need to learn that there are consequences for every action, good or not so good or just bad.  If we don’t, as a society we will continue to condone rape culture and sexist behaviour.  And yes, some boys will get crushes on some teachers, but this behaviour certainly is not indicative of a crush.


I did see another few commenters supporting the school’s stance, saying it is a very good school with a great culture, that you can not lay the responsibility of the actions of a few Year 9 boys only in their fourth week at the school on St Patrick’s culture.  But let’s just remember that this is the culture that Filipo was immersed in for five years.


And then there were some other commenters who sat on the fence, who felt there was more to the story and therefore they could not yet make an informed judgement.  Fair enough.  But don’t defend the school while you are sitting on that fence, because they do have the power to give out more information than they are… but they have a process to go through first.  We can only hope that when the process is completed the public are more informed.


Regardless of which commenter anyone is, the fact remains that the perpetrators of the unacceptable acts have been allowed to remain and it is the victims that feel they have to resign and leave.  That is unacceptable and it continues to allow the rape culture mentality that invades our society to keep bubbling away because the school has implied that the perpetrators’ rights are greater than the rights of the victims.


This comes form Employment NZ:  "Health and safety law requires that employees and others are given the highest level of protection from workplace health and safety risks, as is reasonably practicable. This includes risks to both physical and mental health."  Consequently St Patrick's in in violation of health and safety law they are required to uphold.

The leaders of St Patrick's have failed the standard as good employers and have now shown other schools how not to have the backs of your staff.


Children who can not control their behaviour and pose a danger to staff and students.


Pretty much every teacher will have had a student like this.  At some schools you may have classes with a lot more than one student like this.


I have personally had students that swore at and abused me, stormed out of class to go hiding somewhere or to leave the school, who have thrown chairs and desks, or have used sticks from the playground or metal bars they’ve acquired from out of bounds areas to threaten and attack other children.  I’ve seen children randomly physically attack other children.



What set them off?  It may be a disagreement over a playground game or an item in the classroom.  Someone might of said something nasty or looked at them the wrong way - or just looked at them.  They may be tired or stressed or under an influence of a substance from outside of school.  You may see it bubbling and try to avert it and, while sometimes you succeed, you fail and the kid blows.  Sometimes the eruption comes without warning.


I’ve had kids with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, ADHD, kids on the autism spectrum, kids with sensory issues, P babies, kids from homes with violence, kids who have suffered abuse, kids who are not handling a parental separation or have lost a parent or sibling to death, kids with conduct disorders, kids with low self-esteem, kids who are on ORS or should have ORS but don’t, kids who are frustrated due to learning difficulties, kids who just can’t make friends or form healthy social attachments, kids with anxiety…. All sorts of kids have "gone off" over my teaching career.


Sometimes my experiences have been very scary.  I had one child swinging a metal bar around like a taiaha and I had to lock my class in a room and go seek help.  Another time I had to, along with the principal, physically intervene to stop a student from hurting themselves and several others at great risk to our own safety.  Both these situations were incredibly scary.  I’ve had to sit on the floor and hug a child to me to keep him safe and calm in an assembly because the noise was too much to bare for him.  The unknown is when a child decides to leave the school grounds.  In a small school the conundrum is who will go after them, because who will supervise the other students?


And this then brings into question a teacher’s professional safety.  When is a teacher allowed to step into a situation and restrain or handle students to prevent them hurting themselves or others?  When should a teacher step back?  Who decides if a teacher went too far?  What if the teacher is condemned for not having done enough?


Last October the Ministry of Education released a document called Guidance for New Zealand Schools on Behaviour Management to Minimise Physical Restraint.  Within this document it says:


Physical restraint is a serious intervention. The emotional and physical impact on the student being restrained, and the person doing the restraining, can be significant. There are legal and reputational risks if a student is harmed.


Staff need to use their professional judgement when they decide whether to use physical restraint. They should consider their duty of care to students, their right to protect themselves and others from harm, and their obligation to act lawfully.


Physical restraint should only be used in emergency situations when the student’s behaviour poses an imminent danger of physical injury to themselves or others.


This is the basis I personally have always applied to these situations.  It is a common sense approach.  But teachers and principals feel the ground has shifted under their feet and do not trust their safety as professional if they have to restrain a student in the midst of a violent outburst.  See: 'It could jeopardise teacher safety' - concerns over new laws guiding when teachers can intervene in school fights (1news, 28 March 2017).


The Minister in a recent answer in Parliament Question Time advised schools to call the police to deal with violent students.  I question if the police would come or not.  They have their hands full dealing with mental health call outs because our mental health system can not cope with the demand on their overstretched services.  

This is from a transcript of Question Time on Thursday 6 April 2017, when New Zealand First MP Tracey Martin asked a question to Education Minister Hekia Parata:

1. TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First) to the Minister of Education: Does she agree with the Ministry of Education's National Director for Learning Support that schools in Northland should contact the police when primary school children threaten teachers and other students with violence?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Yes, I agree with the full quote that the ministry's National Director for Learning Support made and the context in which it was given. For the benefit of the House, he stated: "I would certainly see suspension as being a last resort. If we're talking about very violent behaviour, then that's a matter that schools need to be discussing with police." As per the Guidance for New Zealand Schools on Behaviour Management to Minimise Physical Restraint, released by the ministry in October last year, schools across the country should call the police in situations when a student cannot be managed safely and the imminent danger to students, staff, or themselves remains after all alternatives have been explored. As we expect in all situations, the police are the most appropriate people to deal with violence.

The Minister is correct in saying hat the Guidance for New Zealand Schools on Behaviour Management to Minimise Physical Restraint says the police should be called in situations when a student can not be managed safely and is a danger.  This is all it says:


In the event that incidents cannot be resolved quickly and where there is a sustained level of significant physical risk the police should be contacted.


In this press release from the Te Tai Tokerau Principals Association, A Cry from the Heart: lack of assistance for children’s needs, a principal states: “Last time I called the police to help in Kaitaia they told me very politely not to do it again. They took 2 hours to get here and the kid could have really hurt himself.”  So clearly the police are really not in a position to help schools deals with students who are a risk to themselves or others.


In the NZ Herald article, 'P babies' are now at primary school (13 April 2017), Principal Pat Newman says he is disappointed in the response from the Ministry over his claims that children in primary school are presenting with more violent behavioural problems now and that P is at epidemic levels.  Ministry of Education spokeswoman, Katrina Casey said on Radio New Zealand there was no hard evidence that schools were dealing with more children with behavioural problems.  Newman countered that with, "What evidence is needed? What is hard data? Do we have to wait until a child or teacher is seriously hurt? There is not one principal in New Zealand, and certainly not in Te Tai Tokerau, who is not telling the ministry that this is the reality.  In fact a few years ago we in Te Tai Tokerau, in partnership with the ministry, researched the levels of violence we were putting up with in the north, and the ministry has that information."


The article continues as follows:


Casey said the ministry spent about $95 million on behaviour assistance for about 10,000 children last year, and that number of children had not changed much in the last couple of years.


"If this is the case, why are we only receiving help to cover two hours a day on average for high-end behavioural needs? The answer is always that there is no more money available," Newman said.


"Why is there little help for psychological counselling for these children?
"Why does it take a year to get a foetal alcohol assessment done, and little funding to actually help the child once diagnosed?"


Casey had claimed that stand-downs and suspensions for assaults had remained static for the past six years, and a recent survey of secondary school teachers by the Council for Educational Research found student behaviour had become less of a problem.
Newman rejected that, too.


"We have severely abused children in our schools," he said.


"The ministry has the figure in Whangarei of the high behavioural needs children currently in early childhood education in this town who are due to come through the primary service, and it is huge."


What planet is the Ministry of Education on?


Clearly there is a disconnect between the Ministry of Education and the reality of what is happening in schools.


And Pat Newman is not a happy principal and I bet that he is not the only unhappy principal.


Personally, as a teacher, I am scathing.


I can tell you that there is not enough support for schools to help these children.  I can't remember when I last saw a any form of psychological counselling in a primary school.  The last time I saw a Ministry behavioural specialist was in 2006.  We can't even get a speech language therapist for the most needy children who can not speak properly.  And as for the Wrap Around Services Ms Parata crows about, well good luck ever seeing them!  I wrote about a young teenager who has fallen out of the system because it doesn't work in Where are those wrap around services, Hekia? last year.  Nothing has changed.


Everything that Ms Parata and her minion Ms Casey says is complete and utter BULLSHIT because at school level we never ever see them and children are falling through the cracks educationally because the Ministry of Education does not have the specialists we need to help these children.




This government is failing our most vulnerable students and their Predictive Risk Index to fund schools will do diddly bloody squat to change anything for these vulnerable children while there are no specialists in the Ministry of Education to support these children and no funding for schools to put programmes and support staff in place to ensure these children reach their potential.


This government, this Ministry of Education and the Minister of Education, Hekia Parata, have failed the standard when it comes to our most vulnerable children.  And they are failing the classmates of these children and their teachers, support staff and principals as they are put in danger by these children for whom help is a mythological fantasy because the Ministry simply does not have the resources.



While Boards of Trustees are responsible for the health and safety of staff and students, they are being hamstrug by the Ministry of Education due to their lack of funding and support.

If only they had listened to those of us at the chalkface.  If only $359 million had been spent on the children where it would make the most difference instead of on that IES folly, Communities of Learning.






Acknowledgement:
The top picture regarding teacher wellbeing comes from this article:  https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/teacher-stress-needs-wellbeing-policies-daniela-falecki



Sunday, 16 April 2017

School Funding: dumping the derided decile funding system for the questionable 'Predictive Risk Index' funding method


Decile ratings as the funding mechanism for schools is on the way out.

That was the exclusive headline on Tuesday the 11th April from Newshub’s Patrick Gower.  I just happened to be leaving work when the alert popped up on my phone.  I had an immediate sense of dread, especially when I saw a new phrase: ‘Predictive Risk Index’.

This new phrase, ‘Predictive Risk Index’, is of course part of the National led government’s theory of social investment - identify who is most at risk, and then target the minimum amount of money at them.  Sounds great in theory, but, like everything this government has done (or attempted), it is a theory that can be likened to a can of worms.

What is social investment?

This is from the Treasury website:

Social Investment is about improving the lives of New Zealaners by applying rigorous an evidence-base investment practices to social services.

It means using information and technology to better unerstand the people who need public services and what works, and then adjusting services accordingly.  What is learnt through this process informs the next set of investment ecisions.


Much of the focus is on early investment to achieve better long-term results for people an helping them to beme more independent.  This reduces the number of New Zealanders relying on social services and the overall costs for taxpayers.


Social Investment puts the needs of people who rely on public services at the centre of decisions on planning, programmes and resourcing, by:
  • Setting clear, measurable goals for helping those people;
  • Using information and technology to better understand the needs of people who rely on social services and what services they are currently receiving;
  • Systematically measuring the effectiveness of services, so we know what works well and what doesn’t;
  • Purchasing results rather than specific inputs, and moving funding to the most effective services irrespective of whether they are provided by government or non-government agencies.
The way in which these principles are implemented will vary, and may include:
  • a particular focus on vulnerable or high-risk groups;
  • investing up-front to support people most at risk of poor outcomes later on in life;
  • greater input from outside the public sector in analysis, innovation and service provision;
  • working with local organisations to commission services within communities;
  • new citizen-centre services that cut across existing departmental service channels; and
  • interacting with each household through a single trusted relationship.


So how did we get here?

This is an except from a previous blog post of mine called How does child poverty affect access to education and success in achievement for New Zealand children? which I wrote for a Master’s paper last year.

The decile funding system was put in place in 1995 in an effort to fund schools equitably.  The range decided was 1-10, with one being the lowest, due to the highest degree of socio-economic disadvantage, and receiving significantly more funding per child than a decile ten school.  The decile ranking of a school factors in household income, parental educational qualifications and occupations, household crowding, income support payments and ethnicity of a small geographic area, or ‘mesh-block’, in the school community (Harrison, 2004).  There was a variety of reasons behind this initiative, such as a decile ten family having more opportunity to access educational learning in alternative ways compared to the opportunities afforded by a decile one family.  It was also considered that the decile ten schools had more ability to maximise effective fundraising measures from their community in comparison to a decile one school.

The impacts of this system included what is commonly called white flight – parents moving their children from low socio-economic schools as they believe the decile level could be a stigma and may mean the education provided at a low decile school wasn’t adequate (Gordon, 1997).  This changed the nature of communities as parents who could afford to would purchase or rent homes in communities with schools with higher decile ratings, ghettoising many areas as low socio-economic communities.
Education reforms in the 1990s entrenched many families with limited resources into the cycle of poverty generation after generation.
So essentially the National government of the 1990s initiated decile funding, which stigmatised schools in low socio-economic areas, and in combination with their other policy of getting rid of school zones, caused white flight from these schools meaning many communities were no longer a broad cross section of society.



In September last year I published another blog specifically about the actions taken by NZEI and PPTA in response to the School Funding Review and the threat of Global Funding.  In this blog Global Funding - Bulk Funding in fancy dress - why it’s a bloody bad idea I explain how the School Funding Review Advisory Panel were never given an opportunity to come up with solutions to improve how schools are funded fairly and equitably.

The eighteen members of the Education Funding Review Panel went into the first meeting expecting a blank slate and the ability to brainstorm proposals.


What they got was a wad of paper on the table by the Ministry of Education representative who said "This is what we will be looking at. That is the proposal."

The Education Review published the following in September last year:

Six out of seven of the School Funding Review proposals will go forward for further work following the Funding Advisory Group's report on the proposals. The unpopular global budget proposal was rejected by the group, following intense opposition from teachers who feared a return to the days of bulk funding.

The six proposals the majority of the Group agree should proceed for further work are:
  • Taking a per-child approach to funding
  • Additional funding for those most at risk of underachievement
  • Supplementary funding for small and isolated schools
  • Proposals over the way property funding is delivered
  • Better accountability for student achievement
  • Supporting a diversity of education options

Education Minister Hekia Parata says she was ‘not surprised’ by the Group’s recommendation that the proposed global budget not proceed to the next stage of policy development.

“The Group’s report, and together with feedback from around 90 regional meetings with teachers and principals, will help inform my report to Cabinet on the options to take forward. The insight from staff right on the frontline of education is invaluable”, says Ms Parata.

“I want to make sure that we take the time to get these vitally important decisions right. That is why our timeline for implementation at the earliest would be 2019.”

Where are we now?

So it appears, under the Social Investment model that the second option, additional funding for those most at risk of underachievement, has been chosen.  This is the model that was also applied to the School Operations Grant in the 2016 Budget.  Instead of schools getting a 1% increase to their Operations Grant as had been applied in the last few years (not even covering the cost of inflation), schools would receive extra money according to the children who had been identified as being at risk, and the schools would not be told who the at risk children were.

This, below, comes from the official government website, Education Counts, and is the government’s explanation of the funding for children at risk in the education part of Budget ‘16 (please read with a critical eye):

Budget 2016 uses a Social Investment approach to direct an extra $43.2 million, over four years, to about 150,000 children and young people identified as being at most risk of educational underachievement. These students are those, aged 5 to 18, whose parents have been on benefits for 75 percent of the first five years, or 75 percent of the most recent five years of the students’ lives.

These students have been shown by our research as one of the most at-risk groups in our education system. For example young people who, for an extended period have lived in a benefit-dependent family, have only a 48 percent chance of achieving NCEA Level 2 by age 21. By contrast, 73 percent of the general population with have this qualification by the same age. This research also shows that young people without NCEA Level 2 have more chance of ending up on a benefit, or in the justice system, than those with the qualification.

This additional funding is an investment into schooling where it is most needed. The funding will go to schools, regardless of their decile rating, based on the estimated number of students they have from long-term welfare dependent families. Schools have the flexibility to use this extra funding to support all of their students most at risk of educational underachievement.

This increased funding to schools with children from long-term welfare-dependent families is instead of a universal increase in school operations grant funding. Overall, this new funding approach provides more funding to low decile schools compared to a universal increase of the same amount.

The $43.2 million in increased funding for schools with these children is in addition to the $1.38 billion in operations grant funding that all schools will continue to receive in 2016/17. Operations grant increases have run well ahead of inflation in recent years. Cost adjustments have seen schools’ operations grant funding rose by over 15 percent from the 2010 school year start to the 2015 school year end. By contrast, CPI inflation rose 9.6 percent over the same period.

And that is how we have gotten to the ‘Predictive Risk Index’.

As if deciles weren't already stigmatising enough, what will a 'Predictive Risk Index' be for schools and students?

I'm just so disgusted in this move by the government.

Below is the text from the Newshub 11th of April 6 o’clock news piece (hopefully the video is within the link):

The decile system, which is currently used to decide school funding, is to be scrapped, with an alternative called the 'Predictive Risk Index' lined up to replace it.

It will track individual at-risk students and then use that information to target funding directly to schools.

Under the decile system, schools are ranked from one to 10 based on the socio-economic status of their communities, which determines funding.

But under the Predictive Risk Index, individual students are deemed "at risk" after being assessed by Government data and a school's funding is based on the number of students it has with risk factors.

"This is very much going to be a much more specific approach than the decile funding allows," Education Minister Hekia Parata told Newshub.

The Government will use its pool of data to identify students from families on a benefit, with brothers or sisters who have been victims of abuse, or parents that have been in prison.
But privacy has sprung out as an obvious concern.

"The technology is there, and there is no intention to identify - in fact we will ensure that children aren't identified, that their privacy is protected," Ms Parata said.

The Primary School Teachers Union is worried it could shift the stigma from schools onto students.

"In the past we've had stigmatising of low decile schools, will that mean that individual children will be stigmatised?" NZ Educational Institute President Lynda Stuart told Newshub.

Another concern is that while some schools could gain funding, others will lose it.

"I certainly think that some schools could be at risk of losing funding," Ms Stuart said.

Ms Parata said whether schools could lose funding is something "for the future" - but her political future is limited as she retires as Minister in three weeks.

Her goal is to get this signed off as her last project.

Hekia Parata steps down from her role as the Minister of Education on Monday 1st of May, with Nikki Kaye expected to take up the reigns.  Ms Parata wants to have this new funding system signed off before she leaves.  That is alarming in itself.



Patrick Gower did point out that ‘Predictive Risk Index’ is a title the government itself does not see as voter friendly.  He said to expect this to be renamed.  But to rename it will be like putting a dress on a pig and slapping some lipstick on it - it is still a dubious way to fund schools.

What do the people think?

I posted the Newshub piece in three different teacher/education forums on Tuesday and the responses from teachers and parents are still coming in.  They are horrified.  Any comment that may be deemed remotely supportive is an outlier.

The general concerns people have are:
  • that individual children could be stigmatised even though schools technically won’t be told who the target students are;
  • if the funding is targeted to at risk students and the schools are not told who those students are, how are they supposed to help those targeted students;
  • If the funding is targeted to at risk students, who are also usually the most transient students, what happens if the funding ‘follows’ the student;

I have included the comments teachers and parents have made, warts and all, so you can see what the people who work in the system think of this proposal:

On the surface, it sounds pretty ineffective. I bet they have worked out that the govt will save $X. I can't see how this can direct funding for extra assistance in a meaning flu way. Like getting $19.00 a student a year ????

And what if it's meant to follow students? So many of these kids are the transient kids. What a nightmare!

Yeah - if a school is funded for a kid, puts s programme in place with that funding [with others] and then that kid moves away and the school loses that funding.... so now the school has to reduce or downsize the programme - yes a flipping nightmare. And one of the side effects will again be the insecurity for Teacher Aides.

I don;t understand how they can use this 'tool' in this way. PRM is meant to be used to try and target children that may be abused - not for funding of schooling. How will this work when kids move around from school to school so much

As a teacher at a decile 1B school, l have never been a fan of the decile system. It places a stigma on schools and students, who are low decile. Schools already receive funding per student. Targeted student funding is probably not a bad idea. School funding is allocated quarterly anyway. Implementation is probably the main concern and the lack of consultation with educators(nothing new). Maybe they need to broaden the criteria to include students with learning disabilities and special needs? Orrs funding is really hard to qualify for and l have seen so many students over the years failed by the education system. There needs to be an intermediary agency that links the information between schools, ministries and other agencies to target students at risk from becoming a negative statistic.

Patrick Gower's piece on the news as now been added. He says that the name "Predictive Risk Index" is an issue for the government and needs a make over. Just like IES, they think putting the pig in a new dress and slapping some lippy on is going to make it more palatable to the masses.  (Yep, this is my comment).

The government's sole purpose is to spend less money. This is just another way to do it. Their 'at risk' children criteria is slim and does not cover the many many children out there who also need a great deal of support.

I wonder if school will then be expected to transfer any remaining funds from the massive payout to the next school

Especially as it states that they will anonymise the children involved - how will schools know who to pass funding on for anyway !! I can see it getting very messy !

Exactly. Imagine the nightmare of trying to keep a budget, programmes and support staffing on track.

We all know that so-called digital privacy is a joke!! What about schools that have wonderful parents / whanau who are in low-paid jobs, but because they parent successfully, their children are not deemed 'at risk' . No funding there, then! What is happening to the education system in our country???????? We are stressing our teachers, planning to exorbitantly increase registration fees, forcing MLE / ILE / FLS onto many, regardless of mutterings of discontent from around the world on this system

Typically National. A badly thought out initiative that will be rolled out so Hekia has the limelight, but before the kinks are ironed out. We will be paying (literally and figuratively) for this for years to come. It's the Novopay of school funding and the National Standards of curriculum reporting.

But since the funding is to be for specific children, one assumes that when these children change schools (as children who meet this criteria are likely to do - beneficiaries/ parents in prison these families are transient by nature) that the funding will go with them. What a nightmare to police! And probably will impact the benefit to the child of the said funding, due to admin costs associated with changing schools and setting up whatever support is required.

Interesting they are putting money into 'supporting' children who are disadvantaged socially, but where is the funding to help children with suspected learning difficulties who require outside assessment for confirmation of specific difficulty (eg dyslexia, auditory processing)? Which, with a diagnosis starts the ball rolling to get the supports in place so these children can achieve at their optimum.

"in fact we will ensure that children aren't identified, that their privacy is protected," Ms Parata said.

Sounds like the start of a bad Tui ad...

MSD data breach anyone??

What happens to those students who aren't identified through the new system as being at risk? Not all family violence is recorded, not all family members have the same surname so how will the system pick up a parent in prison unless it is "advertised" by the family etc. There will be a lot less "decile 1" schools in NZ with this system, so lots of money will be saved.

Doesn't this feel like an equilibrium system with a really low bar?

"You have at risk youths. Here's some funding".
"Oh you have less at risk youths. Take less funding".
"You've had to cut some programmes because of less funding? And you have at risk youths? Have some funding".

To summarise...

I really think Hekia Parata has failed the standard again.  I believe she missed a golden opportunity last year when she set up the School Funding Advisory Panel.  She had eighteen of the best people in one room to come up with some worthy systems for funding our compulsory education system and she dumped preconceived ideas upon them and stymied their creativity - just like National did when they dumped National Standards over the top of our awesome New Zealand Curriculum Document.

References:

Gordon, L. (1997). ‘Tomorrow’s Schools’ Today: School Choice and the Education Quassi-Market. In Olssen, M., & Matthews, K. M. (Eds.). Education policy in New Zealand: The 1990s and beyond. (pp. 65-82.  Palmerston North, N.Z.: Dunmore Press.

Harrison, M. (2004). Education matters: Government, markets and New Zealand schools. Wellington: Education Forum.