The hidden malice beneath right wing education policy

 As we head into the 2023 general election, it is worth paying some attention to the education policies of the political parties. I feel a great deal of concern over the general thrust of the policies of the right: ACT and National. Their free market view of education has a particularly odious flavour to it, one that warrants exposure.

The ACT policy in particular encapsulates the general right wing philosophy that the market knows best. Every child gets an allowance -a 'voucher - (well the parents actually) which they then take to their preferred school. This creates the funding for each school. The philosophy here is that communities will be attracted to the best schools, and those are the schools that will survive while those that do not attract parents and children will fail, and disappear. Social Darwinism applied to education, as 'bad' schools are weeded out, and good schools flourish.

I think that the philosophy is flawed on many levels. Is there really a market? Theoretical markets operate on the basis of a series of assumptions. Here are just three of them:

• Everyone has perfect knowledge (so all parents know exactly what goes on in schools, how they operate, etc)
• There are so many producers (schools, in this case) that adding one more or taking one away will have no noticeable effect on the market.
• All resources are perfectly mobile, so a failed school is closed, and can instantly be shifted to a different location. Similarly whānau and tamariki will shift to wherever they need to to be able to attend school.

Really? Not one of those assumptions holds true in education (or in almost any market in the real world, I suggest). Parents rarely know what goes in any school. They make judgements based on their biases, their preconceptions, about a school, about a neighbourhood, about people. They create' winner' and loser' schools based on those biases, they create a self fulfilling prophecy. I've written my arguments about the myth of equal opportunity here.

But that's not the most odious thing about this model. It assumes that there will be winner and loser schools, and so there must ipso facto be winner and loser akonga, rangatahi, tamariki, whānau. Statistically speaking, in Aotearoa we know that the winners will almost always be those from higher income families, and the losers will mostly be those from lower income families, or from Māori and Pasifika whānau. This means that a significant portion of our population is condemned to educational under achievement by virtue of the proposed nature of the structure of education. That view is morally bankrupt in my opinion. It also lacks all economic sense. At a time when we need every human being to be creative, to be a critical thinker, and a productive member of society, we cause inestimable damage to the economy, and to our material standard of living, by condemning a significant proportion of our young people to educational underachievement.

The policies of the right also miss a fundamental attribute of markets. Buyers and sellers in any market do not, contrary to the theory, have equal market power. Transactions are not a win/win scenario. I wonder if too many of these social transactions are a zero sum game: for every win there is a loss? That would mean that for every child admitted to one of these supposed 'high performing' schools, another child has to attend one of the supposed 'low performing' schools. Why would you thank that is a good thing to do?

These policies also miss what I believe from experience to be an important attribute of education. It is not a competitive activity but a collaborative one.  Teachers and schools produce better outcomes when they collaborate. Educational impact is in my opinion a gestalt concept: the whole is more than the sum of the parts. I have spent most of my 44 year career working in education, concluding my time as Tumuaki of a successful middle sized urban secondary school. It was a school that I know many in the community might have labelled as a bad school. Yet it wasn't. It was a good school, and during my seven year tenure we proved that. It was a fabulous school, with wonderful young people, and an amazing talented staff. You can read about our journey as a kura here. I'd like to think that I pulled my weight as leader, that I played my part in the success of the kura, its teachers, its rangatahi, its whānau. My point is, maybe I know a thing or two about what makes schools successful.. maybe, as do most Tumuaki and kaiako in fact. And maybe, just maybe, we collectively know a thing or two more than politicians about what makes schools successful.

None of that means that we can't do better. As Maya Angelou said: “Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.” Politicians need to stop meddling. They act as if they are Captain Kirk on the bridge of the USS Enterprise giving that classic command: "Make it so, Mr Sulu". 

(Source: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/william-shatner-how-star-trek-helped-save-pows-vietnam-1196492/ accessed 11.09.2023)

Some politicians seem to believe that they know more than educators (both practitioners and academics) about education, and that they know how to solve the problems.  

BUZZZZZ ....  that's the big red 'buzzer of doom right there.

They do not ... education is as complex a field as any. The arrogance implicit in these policy positions is gobsmacking. 

And while the National party policy does not explicitly mention vouchers, the likelihood of a coalition means we are likely to see at the very least the return of charter schools. And the National Party policy does espouse a return to what it calls rigorous standardised testing, a return that will mean that, as my former colleague Henry used to say, 'we spend too much time weighing the pig and not enough time feeding it'. No amount of testing will improve educational outcomes. What will is a reduction in poverty and inequality, the nurturing of school environments and climates that are built on strong positive relationships, and the resourcing of kura and kaiako so that they can continue to improve, and to do their jobs.

Education must not be treated as some sort of political football. The cost is too  great. A far better approach is to empower the profession to improve, and to resource it accordingly. LISTEN to what the profession is saying. And beware false prophets (you could be forgiven for spelling that 'profits' in this context). Education must not be abandoned yet again to the neo-liberbal mantra, a mantra that has overseen a dramatic increase in inequality in Aotearoia since the 1980s, and accordingly seen the biggest push ever towards educational inequality.

Yes we can do better in our teaching of reading, and mathematics. But that doesn't mean that the politicians know how best to do that. Resource us, we know how. Give teachers time in their day to upskill, to learn how best to teach reading, for example. In my experience tea hers rarely sit their saying 'why the *** would I change?'. They are normally sitting there saying 'what does that look like, what will. I be doing, and when will I have time to do it?" Stop undermining the teaching profession. Stop blaming teachers, and start resourcing them. These are people who care.. deeply .. about young people. These are people who thrive on the success of those young people. No teacher gets up in the morning saying "well, I think I'll ** over that kid in my year 10 class today". 

And HOW DARE YOU condemn young people to educational failure just because they were born on the wrong side of the tracks!!!

Of wedding speeches and education policy .. huh?

What do a wedding speech and education policy have in common? 

(Source: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/how-to-write-good-wedding-speech)

Not a lot, you'd have thought, and it isn't what I set out to think about. In fact, I was in the garden, breaking up large sods of heavy clay, thinking about something that happened a decade or so ago. I'd been asked to give a wedding address to the bride and groom. I've done that several times, and I love it. The thing that made this one different was that after the address over drinks at the wedding reception, quite a few members of our extended whānau came up to me individually to make comment on my address. That's nice. They were all complementary, but the thing that ended up putting me into something of an internal rage, was the repeated comment that expressed surprise at how good my address was (the bride and groom, I hasten add,  were simply gracious and thankful). I responded politely, but desperately wanted to rage "what the f*** did you expect? Why the surprise? I do this sort of thing every day of my  f**** professional life. Why would you think it would have been anything except 'good' .." You get the idea ....

This experience is typical of something I've experienced on numerous occasions before. Here I am, an educational professional of 41 years experience, a Principal of nearly five years, and I'd like to think in that time I've been successful and impactful (in a positive way) on learners and colleagues. Yet, I continue to find that friends and family continue to argue with me about the direction of education. They argue that they know best about the shape and form of education, having strong views about what they argue to be the cataclysmic decline and fall of our education system and educational standards. I am more than a little amused that they would often readily accept that the system didn't work for them, but then argue that what we used to do is the best option for many of them. "Bring back corporal punishment, bring back rote learning and memorisation, .. hell, it didn't do me any harm'. Except .. it did. 

Where are these opinions derived from? Well, we all went to school, didn't we? So, having experienced it, we must all be experts who are capable of expounding expert opinion. Surely? Then there are those biases from which we all suffer, confirmation bias, cognitive biases.. so the story goes. And of course on the basis of the biases, parents will most often claim that they know their own children, they know what is best for them. Sometimes that's true, but in my experience often it is not. The only frame of reference most have for any conversation on education is personal experience, and that can be exceptionally variable. That variability in itself is an interesting comment on the efficacy of things the way they used to be.

One of the biases that we often confront is opinion based on nothing more than... ideology. No data, just ideology. And here I think we see the root of flawed education policy.. individuals who come together on the basis of ideological commonality to shape and implement political ideology, who then inform their policy on the basis of their uninformed opinion. No data, no research, nothing... in fact, empty minds. Maybe that in itself is an indictment of eduction, for all of us it can be difficult to overcome the 'group think' that is so often at the heart of such political processes. National Standards would have to be the most outrageous example. Who in their right minds would think that conducting more measurement, and pigeon-holing children on the basis of that testing, was going to improve outcomes for those children? As a friend and former colleague used to say, you don't fatten the pig by weighing it more often'.

Back to the extended whānau. Maybe the problem lies in my inability to produce cogent argument to convince these people otherwise. Maybe this is a shortcoming of our profession as a whole, an underlying failure to communicate the value and worth of our profession, maybe that is why our professional advice is so often ignored. Maybe it's the example we set? There are certainly individuals within our profession who do not act professionally, and who do not engage with research data or processes. I quail at the thought of my doctor or my dentist behaving like this.  However in my most recent experience this is NOT the profession of this millennium. I work with colleagues who are inquiring into the practice (it's called 'Teaching as Inquiry') in which they gather data around small incremental changes that improve outcomes for learners. They behave professionally (whatever that means). They have heart for their learners, and are focussed on doing a better job for those learners. They are people with moral purpose and with heart, they are people with an underlying competence and good professional judgement. Most of them, anyway.

Here it is, right out of our National Curriculum:

Maybe the community has been captured by the paradigm that is represented by such 'institutions' as PISA, failing to recognise that PISA may well no longer be measuring what maters in this fast changing world. Or maybe in this current 'post truth' era such mischievousness as that peddle by the NZ Institute captured sufficient addled minds to gain the traction that it does. The neo-liberal right seems set on a path of regression to what we have always done in the past, in the belief that this gives us the best outcomes. After all, why would we want to change what works? Except that it doesn't. It has only ever worked for the privileged few, interestingly mostly for New Zealanders of European extraction. And even then our past practices don't seem to have the success rate that we'd like.

So we end up all too often with education policy that is ill informed, ill considered, or not considered at all. I do feel that in our current New Zealand climate we actually have.a Minister who listens to data-informed advice. As a profession I think we 'have a ways to go'. We need to get better at ensuring our professional credibility in the eyes of the public. Maybe, as we enter the 'post post truth' world we might have a better chance, but only if we are deliberate and intentional in what we say, how we say it, in how we engage with our stakeholders, and how we work to improve educational outcomes for our rangatahi in New Zealand.

In the meantime I need to get over the perceived 'insult' to my professional skills and credibility that was implicit in the 'surprise' expressed by whānau about my ability to speak in front of groups of people. But I am left with that question: what did they think I did with my time, day after day, in front of 50 to 60 staff, and 100 to 140 young people each week, each day? Maybe I don't want an answer to that one.

Neo-Liberalism, the free market and religion.. yeah right

There are those who state their opinions as fact. And then there are those who base their opinions on facts. I like to think that I am one of the latter. I have for quite some time been sitting on a series of views around neo-liberalism, free markets, and Christianity. Recent events on the political campaign trail have finally prompted me to go back to the notes I drafted some two months ago, and put fingers to keyboard.

This entire discussion of course has to be framed with the clear understanding that we all carry cognitive and emotional biases. Being aware of these may not reduce the degree to which we exercise them, and I am no different. Confirmation bias is perhaps the 'biggie' that we all need to confront, and all too often too few of us do.

That said, let's start with a look at the impact of neo-liberal freee market ideologies. The ideology bases itself largely on the work of Adam Smith that many derive from his book 'An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations' (1776) in which he stated:

…THE INVISIBLE HAND…

[The rich] consume little more than the poor, and in spite of their natural selfishness and rapacity…they divide with the poor the produce of all their improvements. They are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, (my 'bolding') which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest of the society (again, my 'bolding'), and afford means to the multiplication of the species.

The Wealth Of Nations, Book IV, Chapter V, Digression on the Corn Trade, p. 540, para. b 43.

This is has been. taken as an underlying truth by many, a justification for action that is fundamentally selfish in nature. I would restate it this way: 'if we act in our own best interests we generate the best outcomes for everyone else too'.

Underlying theories of economics have been developed within what is termed the neo-classical school of economics. The 'trickle down' theory is one in particular that is often cited by the political right. It goes like this: if wealth is generated amongst higher income earners, or those with more wealth (these two things are different) then as a result of their spending of that additional wealth or income, this income is spread across the economy. Or put another way, if we provide economic largesse for the ealthy, then they will spend it (there seems to be an implication, what's more, that they will know the best way to spend) in a way that it spreads out across everyone else in the economy. It 'trickles down' from higher income earners t lower income earners. It is the subject of a concept called the 'income multiplier', a statistical calculation by which we can even calculate the extent of the increase in GDP that will result form that initial stimulus. The logic is impeccable. Love it. It's a shame it doesn't work. There's a further comment below on this.

The OECD, in a report date back in 2011, agreed that 'trickle down' is flawed, it doesn't actually work. Here it was, as reported in The Washington Post in December 2011. So it seems reasonable to suggest that in fact when you increase the incomes of high income earners, or the wealth of those with greater material wealth what you actually do is... increase the incomes of high income earners, or the wealth of those with greater material wealth. Those less well off receive little of no benefit from that. Interpretation: tax breaks for the wealthy do not actually benefit those less well off.

Keynesian economics even contains an interesting piece of theory about this, called the 'marginal propensity to consume'. That concept goes like this. If each of us is given an additional dollar (the 'marginal' or last dollar) then we will spend a set proportion of it. Those on low incomes will spend a high proportion of that dollar because they are currently struggling to make ends meet, to put food on the table etc, whereas those on high incomes will be motivated to spend less of t because they are already meeting a large proportion of their material needs. The MPC for lo income earners is greater than that for high income earns. So statistically speaking if Government gives an extra dollar to some one below the average wage more of that dollar will be spent back into the economy, so the economy will receive more stimulus than if that same dollar were given to someone on a higher income. Remember that this is likely to be both 'chunky' and messy' in its nature, and operates at the macro economic level. So there may well be individuals in the economy who do not behave this way, but statistically speaking this is what we ought to see. Interestingly, the Keynesian view is that that income multiplier I mentioned above will be greater when a financial stimulus is given to those on lower incomes. The multiplier is the reciprocal of that mpc. 

Then there is the argument that inequality acts as a great incentive for people to strive, to work harder, to be innovative, and this benefits the economy through increased economic growth. Again, the logic seems flawless. Yup, but .. nope., the data says this is not true. Increased inequality appears to reduce economic growth. So with greater inequality we are all worse off, even the wealthy. Here is the OECD repot on that one. 

Finally, the evidence on the impact of the impact of the past 36 years of neo liberal or free market economics in new Zealand is that our distribution of wealth has grown ever greater. We currently have the greatest gap between rich and poor that we have ever had. Here is a study commissioned by NZ Treasury that only spanned the period 1981 to 1996 showing the changes that occurred. 

There are in fact more fundamental flaws in the free market model too, flaws that strict advocates seem oblivious of. The market model makes asries of assumptions in order to work. For example it assumes:

• Perfect knowledge
• Consumer sovereignty, and
• Perfect mobility of resources.

We do not all have perfect knowledge on which to base decisions. I think markets magnify the imbalance of knowledge and power, because producers tend to have more knowledge than consumers. This is not a level playing field. This is one of the issues that lies behind the concept of market failure, and hence the need for government intervention. in markets. Perhaps one of the simplest examples of this is the need for consumer laws (our Consumer Guarantees Act, and our Fair Trading Act, to name just two). These exist because there is a power imbalance.

Another example of market failure: with goods that we term Merit goods, and Public goods (capitalised because those are proper nouns, names for the goods in economic theory), if left to the market the market will under provide. That is, you'll get less of these goods than is in the economy's best interests. Education is just one such Merit Good'. his isa classic argument for NOT using market provision for schools, and for not using a voucher system, I have written elsewhere about the impact of market provision on education outcomes in a professional blog post titled 'Why school competition isn't optimal'. These approaches further embed institutional racism at its worst.

So all in all, the free market economy has not served New Zealanders as well as we might like to think. My own interpretations based on this data are:

• Economic growth has been less than it might have been, because of the growing disparity between rich and poor
• We have continued to assume that discredited theories of trickle down and incentive are true when they are demonstrably not so
• We have created a growing underclass of poor, with what I would interpret to be a less economically just society. My suspicion is that this underclass is overly represented with Māori and Pasifika peoples.

Now, here's the thing that intrigues me. I am at a loss to know how one can be both a right wing, neo-liberal, free market, supporter, and also a Christian. I apologise to those of other faiths, as the Christian lens is the only one through which i can view this. My suspicion here is however that other faiths might well see things similarly. While not an overtly practising Christian, I was raised in a Christian environment, and learnt much about the faith and its values while working for 15 years in an independent school with an Anglican ethos. 

My understanding is that Christian values would have us:

• Look after those less well off than ourselves
• Protect the weak
• Use our actions rather than our words to support those less well off than ourselves.
• Treat others with aroha/love, and respect .. basically, whakawhanaungataga, manaakitanga

In my confusion, and my desire to clarify my thinking on this, I asked a friend and former colleague who is an Anglican minister what I am missing here. I could not understand how one could support the right, and also be a Christian. I hd put that down to my own limited knowledge of Christianity. He commented that I wasn't getting this wrong at all. He agreed. He suggested that had Christ been alive today, he would probably have been a 'rampant socialist'.

So in my opinion the impacts of the free market are such that they run counter to the values that ought to be a central part of Christianity (and, I suspect) of all of the other great faiths.

I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone professing to be a Christian can also support the political right, and the free market. Either they don't understand the free market, or they are oblivious to the evidence, or they don't understand Christian values, or they are being disingenuous, or any combination of these factors. That's my opinion.

Where's yer evidence Part 2

Here's a nice counterpoint to my previous post, written by Claire Amos.

Where's the research? Why we need to stop looking in the rear vision mirror at longitudinal research and data.

Thanks Claire.

Educational mythology... where's ya data?

The world of education is awash with myths and has been for decades. In my early years practice was so disconnected from data and evidence that to claim teaching as a profession might have seemed to be stretching the truth to those ‘in the know’ (although oddly I suspect that it was viewed as more of a profession by the general public at that time than it is now).  I recall pondering (only very briefly) how I would have felt being attended by a doctor or dentist who paid similar regard to research evidence (thankfully I never have been). Things have changed, and teachers generally not only incorporate the use of achievement data into their practice, but also the growing body of good robust research evidence that has accumulated worldwide on what helps cause learning.

One of the seminal moments in this regard must be the publication of John Hattie’s book ‘Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement’ (2008). In the book Hattie and his international research team brought together a vast amount of research data, all carefully sifted to ensure that only quality data was incorporated. The book makes heavy going as a piece of reading as the density of quality material is so high. However it has made for a much better informed profession. Sadly despite work of this sort, some serious myths persist.

One of the classic myths is the ‘learning styles’ debate. In his later book ‘Visible learning for teachers (2012) Hattie says “.. it is not intended to delve into learning styles (visual, kinaesthetic etc), for the effectiveness of which there is zero supporting evidence, “. Professor Steve Wheeler of Plymouth University takes up the cudgel in this debate as well in a blog post titled ‘A Convenient Untruth’ (http://steve-wheeler.blogspot.co.nz/2011/11/convenient-untruth.html) in which he says:

“In an excellent expose on learning styles, Riener and Willingham (2010) argue this:

"...learning-styles theory has succeeded in becoming “common knowledge.” Its widespread acceptance serves as an unfortunately compelling reason to believe it. This is accompanied by a well-known cognitive phenomenon called the confirmation bias. When evaluating our own beliefs, we tend to seek out information that confirms our beliefs and ignore contrary information, even when we encounter it repeatedly. When we see someone who professes to be a visual learner excel at geography and an auditory learner excel at music, we do not seek out the information which would disprove our interpretation of these events (can the auditory learner learn geography through hearing it? Can the visual learner become better at music by seeing it?)" “

Another more recent controversy arises over the current concept of Modern Learning Environments or MLEs. This is the notion that we physically and intellectually deconstruct the classroom. We place two or three classes of learners into one space with several teachers, and allow student choice of what they learn and when. Apparently there is a massive intuitive appeal to the concept, one pushed by the Ministry of Education across the state school sector, I understand. While I have serious concerns over the concept, even more concerning is the fact that this major change to education is being pushed in what appears to me to be an absence of data. If there is robust replicable data out there, I can’t find it. I have looked. A lot. The debate resorts to a lot of rhetoric, with the suggestion that the value of MLEs is so common sense that you’d be a fool to challenge it. Apparently this is where the modern business world is going, and we’d ignore that trend at our peril.

I was intrigued to see a piece in the business publication ‘The Main Report’ titled ‘HR - Does a cool office really matter?’ (The Main Report, 11 May 2015) in which the opening statement is:

Recruiting experts Hays says the technology sector’s famously alternative work spaces are being replicated by many businesses, but it asks - do they have the desired impact on employee productivity, performance and retention? The answer is - it depends on the organisation's culture.”

As I see it, someone has decided that alternative open plan workspaces and collaboration are the way of the future. However in the school context it seems to me that this fails to recognise two factors:

1. Employees in the workplace are not adolescents who are right in the middle of that process of testing boundaries and learning about themselves and the world around them.
2. Even in these alternative work environments people need space to sit down at a desk in a quiet environment and think, create or problem solve. They need to be able to close the door to the rest of the world and get on with things.

Am I a fan of Modern Learning Environments? Possibly not as they are currently portrayed. However I AM a fan of what you might call Modern Learning Pedagogy. There are new ways to learn, and there is a growing body of research evidence that these new approaches work. We observe in our classes many of those things that the research evidence seems to support. However we monitor what the research says, and modify our practice in the light of research and experience. For example in the midst of the laptop programme we are considering the issue of reading. It is perhaps no surprise to many that reading electronically is different to reading on paper. It seems that there is often less comprehension, less depth to reading done online, or on electronic devices. The nice thing is that this thing called neuroplasticity of the brain seems to mean that we can retrain the brain to read carefully, closely, with an eye to detail. For four years now we have had a focus on critical literacy at College. This embraces a spectrum of issues from the basic skills of reading and writing to the more complex skills of critical thinking and analysis. As she scanned research literature and articles on the subject (part of a regular routine for most of us) a colleague found a fascinating article  in ‘The New Yorker’ titled ’Being a better online reader’.   It can be accessed here: http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/being-a-better-online-reader

A: Yeah, me too.

At College we maintain what we call a blended learning environment. That is, one in which we use the right tool for the job, and there will be times when laptops are not the right tool for the job. So while a lot of reading takes place online, we also have boys reading from and working on paper. We have boys interacting  in person as well as online. We have boys putting their laptops away and taking up a hammer or a paintbrush, throwing a ball or sprinting down the length of Upper.

As a consequence of this sort of data, and our own daily data gathering  in classes, teachers modify their practice. Reading is important, and reading a traditional paper book is  valuable exercise. Staff acknowledge this and encourage reading at every opportunity. I have mentioned in previous columns that we need to continue to encourage reading. This will at times mean reading online, but it should also mean reading on paper. Perhaps it’s only true for those of us of a certain age but there is something about the feel, the smell, the look of  a paper book that makes it appealing. It would seem that that is what the research confirms. I find it a little ironic that in an educational era in which we emphasise critical thinking so much, so many people continue to buy into educational myths revealing perhaps a lack of critical thinking.

Incidentally, if valid robust data comes to light to show the MLEs do indeed cause more significant learning than the existing alternatives, I will of course recant. Put another way I will of course ’think critically’ about the evidence and my position.

And as a footnote, last year I was transporting some junior boys to sport and their conversation went something like this:

A: You got a kindle?

B: Yeah

A: Got many books on it?

B: No, I prefer paper books.