Kiwi kids know their arses from their elbows

I was pleased to see New Zealand’s high standing in the recently released OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) report. The PISA programme looks at, “the domains of reading, mathematical and scientific literacy are covered not merely in terms of mastery of the school curriculum, but in terms of important knowledge and skills needed in adult life”.

I suggest you download and read the report’s Executive Summary, it’s fascinating reading. The following is just a very quick and dirty overview of the results that I put together to open a larger, on-going conversation. But there’s a lot more detail in the report.

I’ve been playing with the figures (as you can probably tell). And I may have some more interesting insights in the near future. I am particularly interested, for example, in the level of funding going into education by country and the PISA results. I wonder whether New Zealand will be shown to be highly efficient (i.e. strong results on the smell of an oily rag). I suspect so - but I will let you know.
In the results, New Zealand sat near the top in science, reading and mathematical abilities - significantly higher than almost all other nations. New Zealand sits among a small group of nations that score consistently well across science, reading and mathematical competencies. Oh, and while Kiwiblog continues to obsess about how bloody great Australia’s tax policy is compared with New Zealands, it was gratifying to note New Zealand consistently outperforms Australia (albeit only slightly) in these findings.

What I like about these PISA data is that they allow you to objectively compare nations - apples for apples, so to speak. This really is an acid test for the Labour-led government’s stewardship of education policy over the past eight years. These 15 year olds tested last year have received almost all of their education under a Labour-led government education policy. Recent palavas such as the NCEA issues have possibly obscured the New Zealand public’s view on our education system. These results show that whatever we are doing we are doing it well.

The quick sketch results for NZ

New Zealand school kids achieved some of the highest results of science understanding (Level 6) significantly outperforming the rest of the countries assessed (the total average of those assessed is shown in red) and, at the highest levels (Levels 5 and 6) besting our neighbours to the West. But New Zealand should not be complacent. If you look at the graph you will see New Zealand has a significant chunk of underperformers too (below Level One). New Zealand needs to be doing more about these underachievers.

On average across OECD countries, 1.3% of 15-year-olds reached Level 6 of the PISA 2006 science scale, the highest proficiency level. These students could consistently identify, explain and apply scientific knowledge, and knowledge about science, in a variety of complex life situations. In New Zealand and Finland (the top country) this figure was at least 3.9%, three times the OECD average.

Kiwi kids are also among the top in the World for reading and mathematics.

If I were asked to sum up the report in a sentence I would say, “New Zealand is one of the best places in the World to get a quality education”.

Science

This PISA report placed a deliberate emphasis on science understanding. Gratifyingly, New Zealand again was an extremely strong performer with our kids showing worldclass science proficiency. Again New Zealand kids are significantly ahead of the average result and ahead of Australia.

Maths

New Zealand kids made a great showing in maths. Significantly outperforming the average result and besting Australia’s results.

Reading

New Zealand 15 year olds have a strong showing in reading levels compared with the rest of the World and our neighbours across the Tasman.

Five myths about Education

David’s commented on John Langley’s article in which he identifies five apparent “myths” that underpin a lot of education policy. I think Langley’s overstating his case not least of all because a great deal of education policy is developed and refined based on research and also on solid evaluation.

That aside, what about the myths that underpin National’s education policy? We’ll, as the architects of NCEA, you’d have to wonder if Davey’s not inadvertently directed the blow-torch on his own party but he’s probably hoping we’ll forget this. And anyway, neither Langley not Farrar actually identifies instances of policy failure (but Langley does note that a policy thought to be successful has, having been evaluated, been found to be wanting - possibly this example contradicts his substantive point) so its really over to the reader to identify his or her pet hate and claim support from the esteemed Dr Langley. Academics seldom think about the way in which their public comment will be interpreted.

I can think of at least three myths underpinning National’s education policy which have been fortunately identified and remedied.

1. Higher education is better than further education. Max Bradford famously told polytechnic CEOs that they should all aspire to be Vice Chancellors ’cause Universities were better. Skills shortage anyone?
2. Bulk funding is better than direct resourcing. For years National pushed bulk funding, even to the extent that it made optting-in revenue positive, but I’ve yet to see evidence that bulk-funding improved learning?
3. Markets lead to allocative efficiency. Often but not always. Anyone remember UTTA - it was going to make providers more responsive to learners and improve labour market outcomes… so what was with all those private providers flooding the Auckland market to offer fashion design courses? With no planning whats-so-ever and even less meaningful information, participation sure went up but did it translate into positive labour market outcomes?

Any others…

I’ll give some credit however. Lockwood Smith was clearly one of the best Ministers of Education in the last 50 years - much much better than any of his National Party successors. It’s only a pity he didn’t surround himself with smarter and less offensive advisers, he’d have had more chance of keeping the sector onside had it not been for Hooten.

Katherine Rich Pwned on RNZ

Slightly off-topic, but Katherine Rich, you remember her, she’s the MP whose party dumped her out of the welfare portfolio and is now (for the time being) Opposition spokesperson on education.  Of course, her party leader hashed National’s education policy announcement.  He was supposed to keep all the privatisation stuff low key. But as DPF bravely concedes - National did itself no favours. Well, Ms Rich was on RNZ trying desperately to defend National’s half delivered education policy (such as it is).  Fat Sean was not cutting her much slack.  As the kids say: “pwned”.  You can listen on RNZ.

Key struggles on education privatisation issue

Keep peddling…

DPF’s playful complaint about getting lost in Auckland during an “eventual” evening - attending a “funeral” at Judith Collins’ place is engaging, I suppose. But despite DPF’s personal novella - the more interesting story is the eventual funeral shaping up for National’s education policy which is increasingly being seen as stealthy privatisation.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, David’s still peddling the party line, of course, dismissing concerns about the idea of private ownership of school facilities. He thinks National’s problem is the way it released its policy. Apparently, had National spent more time setting out its arguments in policy documents people would not be too worked up about the prospect of school facilities being managed for profit.

But the ever reliable Dean Knight whacked the nail squarely on the head with his usual clarity when he opined:

Or, we can say - as a matter of philosophy - we believe in the state undertaking core public functions.

Regardless of whether there might or might not be minor fiscal benefits, some of us might believe that the stability achieved by the government owning and administering public assets is more important.

That said, I’m happy for these issues to be agenda for the hustings. A honest election, based on the philosophical role of the state, would be worthwhile. Sell or retain SOEs? Maintain or privatise prisons? Public or private (toll) roads?

Dean’s absolutely right to sheet this back to fundamental philosophical positions. While it’s such a common refrain to hear politicians (and their apologists) cry “the media/public doesn’t understand” more often than not what’s actually being ignored are genuine concerns people have about these kinds of touchstone political issues.

Do you want a private company owning your school assets? Or as DPF naievely enquires: Are schools different to other government agencies who, already, inhabit privately owned buildings (in busy CBDs, ahem)?

The answers to these questions are really influenced by your core ideology. Dean’s right to draw parallels with the privatisation of prisons and roads. These, like schools, are issues where the public start engraving deep lines in the sand. Are these things different? Despite what David may believe, a lot of New Zealanders think so.

If DPF is emblematic of the thinking going on in the National party on this issue, it’s doing itself a grave misfortune by not appreciating there are some fundamental philosophical objections to the privatisation agenda. Blaming the selling of the policy blinds National to gaining an appreciation of the New Zealand electorate.

Privatising schools - more policy out of National

You gotta hand it to DPF, he’s adept at running interference on an issue. National finally released some policy on education and, once again, it lifted its hemline enough for the rest of us to see it’s going commando on privatisation.

DPF meanwhile is vainly trying to keep the Kiwiblogger’s focussing on the bulk-funding debate within National. The rest of us, meanwhile, are intrigued by Key’s references to greater private involvement in the provision of education and lifting the amount of funding given to private schooling.

There’s no other way to read into this position - but further privitisation in education.

The Press quotes Key as saying:

“Do I believe that the private sector could build a school and operate it on behalf of the state? Yes, I do,”

Although he also reported to have added:

“I don’t think a wholesale programme of privatisation would be acceptable and nor would we embark on it”

DPF needn’t worry about National’s bulk-funding policy though. If National aggressively pursues greater privatisation in schooling, bulk funding would have to be necessary element. Worryingly for parents, under National, bulk-funded schools would be unlikely to meet the student-teacher ratio of 1:15 the current government aims to have in place by 2008.