Darel is a new guest blogger (see profile).

This contribution was originally quite sarcastic.  I went through all what I thought to be the supposed problems with education that national standards for primary schools were, according to the Minister,  meant to solve and essentially pointed out that these were all known, and asked why the supposed problems weren’t being dealt with head on rather than obliquely through the standards.

It came out wrong, because I support national standards.  In secondary school and for post-school adults, particularly at levels 1 – 4 they have proven useful.  I’ve never been a zealot about it; I see them as a limited success.  But I was never convinced that they could promise more than being a useful method of assessment.

The problems highlighted in the Minster’s most recent statements are: some teachers are bad, most primary principals are bad, some report cards don’t say much, and too many kids aren’t getting educated enough.

Apparently an ERO report says 30% of primary teachers are doing a bad job.  So if that is known, what are we waiting for – do something about the teachers.  Maybe better selection for training (it is apparently difficult to not get accepted), better incentives for teachers (pay, conditions, professional development), change the system so that terrible teachers get exited more easily, support poorer teachers who want to do a reasonable job (surely the vast majority of the 30%) through training, mentoring, etc.  It’s only hard because it’s not cheap.

Apparently ¾ of principals don’t set expectations of high achievement.  Maybe only a ¼ of kids are capable of high achievement, but if indeed there is a travesty with the vast majority of primary principals, can we do something about that now?   Again, I find it extraordinary to believe that more than a handful of primary principals are unwilling or unable to educate pupils to the best of their abilities with the resources they have.

Some report cards from some schools are bad according to the Minister.  Is there a template?  Is there training?  Are teachers afraid of telling parents their kids just aren’t very academically gifted?  Why should I believe that any of the current problems communicating with parents will be solved with the report against a standard?  By the way, I also believe the report is a useful device, it’s just that the context is also going to be important and if that isn’t being communicated now then it also won’t with the new system.

Lastly, there is a 20% tail of kids doing really poorly.  We know that.  We’ve known that for a long time.  Again the problem is only hard because it is expensive.  It’s why the last government tried, for example, some useful but flawed polices in early childhood education.

So, we have at least four big problems that standards are supposed to significantly address. Once we’ve spent $26m on getting teachers up to speed on the standards then there is $36m to spend on the kids.  Over three years.  For the 150,000 kids the Minister has identified that have a problem (the 20% tail).   Do the math.  It’s not a lot.  Follow the money.  It tells you exactly how important the policy is and how much it will do.  Spending doesn’t necessarily equal results, but it usually does.  If the most important policy shift in decades in a multi-billion budget area is capturing tens of millions you know it isn’t. 

This policy starts with the premise of so many education policies – that schools can make up for poor parenting.  Maybe that’s where a little of the extensive political capital of this government could be wisely spent.  How about some long-term social engineering that changes societal expectations of schools and the wider education system?

National standards are good at providing a bench mark for assessing.  They don’t teach, deal with home life problems, don’t train teachers, don’t make parents give a stuff about their children, don’t make parents read to their children or provide the money needed for the kids that can benefit from extra teaching.  They don’t even ensure a good assessment and moderation system.

So after a few more discussions the reason why I was so annoyed slapped me in the face like a spring-loaded mackerel.  What is really annoying me is the attempt to encase a moderately useful idea in metaphoric silver and treat it like a high powered projectile. 

The sizzle of the sell won’t match the taste of the policy substance.  Parents and the wider public will become more frustrated and cynical about politicians, education officials and education policy.  Trust in institutions and those leading them will erode another little bit more.  And it is needless. 

The policy is likely to produce small but statistically significant results and that is what should have been sold.

Instead there is an unnecessary battle the government has started with unions which it didn’t need to buy into.  It doesn’t even matter if the unions are utterly defeated in the battle.  The government has created a war it can only lose – expectations created by government that all these matters will be solved will not happen, and parents will know it – and no spin, no blame-shifting will solve this political problem. 

This silver bullet hides a heart of kryptonite.