An excellent article that sets out the issues in a succinct and readable way. A good reminder of the success we experience already in our education system. It also raises the issue of the flawed logic in applying strategies that have not produced evidence of gain.

An excellent start to the work of Cognition Institute!!!

I believe that it is important that there are national standards for literacy and numeracy, and that parents receive good information on their children and where they sit alongside these standards. I do not believe that the new standards should be set in stone, but be under constant review by teacher curriculum leaders to ensure we have the correct standards. I would like the standards to be reasonably challenging to ensure the NZ students are being lifted in their basic skills and not "dumbed down" simply because we are presently not achieving the standards. At all cost the reporting must remain in school and be for the parents and the school's own strategic planning and setting professional development goals.

It beggars belief... with all the evidence (and we are told to use evidence to inform next steps) and experience of failed national standards policies from around the world, why does John stop short of just stating the obvious? "The policy is flawed from the ground up. NAG 2A has got to go!"

It's worth reading this too...

http://www.networkonnet.co.nz/index.php?section=education&id=148

It reads like John has woken up in the morning next to Ann Tolley and realised he might have made a big mistakes getting into bed with her in the first place. So now he's trying to make sure he doesn't get hit with a paternity suit in nine months time.

Hattie's in-depth evaluation of National Standards makes for compelling reading. He clearly identifies internationally the pitfalls that National Standards can bring upon schools and teachers. His warnings are interspersed with sage advise about how schools and their communities can genuinely implement standards without crossing the minefields. There are clear messages here for our government and Education Minister.

What annoys me is that the NS will only clear to highlight the siuation of many of our Maori students and the schools that they attend, without any regard to emotional intelligence, and the talents that they may have.

NS are basically a middle class concept which seeks to develop sameness about our student development, making them below or above standard according to a narrow band of expectations.

Children, for example who come to school from a typical Howick environment will already be above NS when they begin school. At our school, students generally arrive at school, typically with a 3 yrd old literacy standard, but with a 10 year old emotional intelligence. After much intense teaching, such children may approach a Literacy standard by Year 6, or later.

However, on the global testing scene, I doubt if a student on decile 1 in reading at Year 3, is ever likely to raise above stanine 4-during their primary schooling. Such growth would be rare-despite years of focused teaching.

Encouraging teachers to develop and work on the individual strengths and talents of students is far more worthwhile educationally, than seeking to make them conform to some politically inspired NS.

I want my grand-children(18 of them), to receive a well rounded creative education free of the narrow restraints of beuracracy and such organisations as ERO. What we ought to have is a Department of Creative Learning, who comes to schools to recognise student's creativity and encourage schools to greater heights, rather than forcing them to conform to narrow childess standards dreamt up by adults who appear to have very little knowledge and understanding of children.

"The aim is to make those responsible for providing education (i.e., schools, teachers) more accountable for their results, and to improve the educational health of the nation. "

Please explain what I am missing here?

Why would anyone not want this?

As a parent and employer, it is my strong view that the old curriculum is not consistantly delivering employees with sufficiently high standards of learning to enter the workforce at many of the levels required. I welcome the standards and the new direction of the curriculum that supports enterprising learning.