The Minister of Education is lost in Lala land

Whatever chortled waffle that is slipping out of Hekia Parata's mouth is pure balderdash. New Zealand most certainly does not have enough teachers; go and ask any teacher who's already suffering from overcrowded classrooms. Why should students have the chance to review a teacher's performance? Many students who will be affected barely know just how incredibly hard teachers work to prepare lessons each week, let alone be in charge of deciding on what makes a good teach. Mrs. Parata's knowledge starts and finishes rather quickly.

To begin Mrs. Parata says that "We've made a trade-off around quality and quantity." Where exactly that trade off is, how it was determined and the reason for arriving at this conclusion is not explained. No such reason can be given. Kids from years 2-10 will all now have to put up with a "ratio of one teacher to 23 pupils up to one to 27.5." Whilst the teaching quality and content may remain constant, irrespective of class size, the one to one time spent with the teacher (where students are proven to learn more effectively) is further diminished. If Mrs. Parata affirms this being true, she's going against her own budget; should she continue to deny it, maybe decreased academic performance might sway her thoughts. http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/news/6935881/Parata-signals-bigger-school-classes


Savings of $43 million will occur as a result of reducing teacher numbers. An odd cost saving tactic you may think? Not even close. "An extra $60 million invested over four years for boosting teacher recruitment and training" will be where a majority of these savings will head, dispelling any plaudits from the education sector. http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/6930141/Class-size-controversy-erupts

Mrs. Parata verifies that this "is investing in better teaching," much to the criticism of the New Zealand Educational Institute's Ian Leckie. He states "What parent is going to be happy with the prospect of their 6-year-old going into a large class at the very time they need good-quality time with teachers?" Very few, if that will want to see their child's learning experience ruined by lack of interaction with the teacher, less resources made available, less time to be taught properly. Do not be surprised if private schools receive more application forms than ever. Long before Mrs. Parata was allowed to ruin public education, Pinehurst placed a billboard up which read "Small class size + Proven Curriculum = Guaranteed Results." Everyone learns something new everyday. Sometimes, even billboards are right.

Public support for the amendments has been scant. Professor Dugald Scott "said there was strong evidence that the quality of teaching was more important than class sizes." Professor Scott speaks from a University perspective more than a secondary school one. Tertiary lectures and papers sometimes swell up beyond 400 people per paper; many students not only pass, but pass very well (not in the least to avoid adding to their enormous student loans). Try as he may, Mr. Scott isn't fooling, even himself. Smaller class sizes enable a teacher to determine straight away which students need more help and one to one help and which ones assuredly work consistently hard and achieve high. Teaching should be an attractive career, not one dogged with 60 hour plus weeks dealing with noisier, bigger class sizes and overloading the plate with more marking.


Do not be fooled by what Mrs. Parata says about Education reforms. She's as unschooled on the matter as the students who will be affected by her policies. One day, her grand return back to Earth will be complete, with a simple question. Why didn't this idea work? To which the audience will reply "Because you forgot to proof read it silly."