The teacher organisations are ineffectual. This, however, is more a commentary on the swingeing nature of the problems facing them than the effectiveness of the teacher organisations themselves. Our current teacher organisations are about as good as they have ever been, but relative to the problems, transcendentally inadequate.
We await the teacher organisations getting it – getting it, it is not business as usual; it is business as most unusual. It is not about following the well-worn tracks, or indulging in hi-mom moments, or being loveable and trying to cuddle up (NZEI), or giving priority to heads-in-sand principals against aware ones (NZPF).
Tough thinking by the organisations is required: meaning education to the periphery – politics to the centre. And by that I don’t mean party political politics: I mean political cost for education harm – political benefit for education good.
It is difficult to exaggerate how strategically pathetic, relative to the problems, primary teacher organisations are.
I want to illustrate where we are in the esteem of the New Zealand’s prime minister, then make a brief excursion back to the teacher organisations under Labour and, finally, lead to the present.
The New Zealand prime minister despises us:
- The New Zealand prime minister was recently in a secondary school staffroom north of Auckland. He stood up and congratulated those present for their good work with the students ‘especially considering what a poor job the other lot are doing’.
- The New Zealand prime minister was in debate with Phil Goff on the 23rd of November, 2012, and, out of context, announces ‘teachers are letting New Zealand down’, by that he meant primary public school teachers were.
- On the same day of the debate, a shadowy group of people (from the prime minster’s office, I think, and Act) had been meeting to prepare plans for a post-election policy agreement on charter schools: an entirely unmandated policy. Two of the conversations:
- ‘What if Banksie doesn’t get in?’ ‘Don’t worry,’ was the reply, ‘National will bring it in, anyway.’
- ‘Some consideration is being given to having Bill as minister of education, what do you think?’ ‘Probably better to let Hekia do the job.’
Under Labour, it was the same inadequacy but exactly opposite. You see, with National, pussy cats – with Labour, lions.
When Labour did some good for education, and my god, how generous it was in many respects; the teacher organisations as lions would shake their manes and say good first step when they should have been realistic, political, and fulsome, and made sure of the political benefit. But oh no: they were soon roaring for more.
Now they have a political party that gives nothing but abuse.
Memo for Chris Hipkins: Don’t give too much away too easily, make the teacher organisations prioritise and work for it. Carefully watch their response and if not up to scratch, next time give the money to health, the environment, or job creation.
It’s called the real world.
And now as proof of the transcendental ineptitude of the teacher organisations.
What have they asked for, in material terms, from the present government? What have they been campaigning for?
More teachers for lower decile schools?
More teachers for some specialisation?
More ancillary aides?
More funding for special education?
The return of our science and arts advisers?
More for computers as an interim measure?
More for the education of Maori and Pasifika children in a range of ways?
Not even a meow.
Why not? For goodness sake why not.
Where the bloody hell are they?
Now we are going to have charter schools with loads of money: three times more per student in government grants.
And public schools standing there just looking silly: chanting there isn’t the money – these are difficult times. Yes – chanting the government mantra when they should be roaring.
I tear my hair: an error of galactic proportions.
Not on record asking for anything. Must be happy with their lot, interprets the public.
Well there’s money for charter schools and private schools ($1,500,000 more for Kings College over two years, the school the New Zealand prime minister’s son goes too).
There must be a massive change of policy and sharp: the teacher organisations should be planning to campaign and picket – fair’s fair – we want the same money.
They need to inflict political cost for education harm.
Get out of your offices, out of the ministry ones, and especially the minister’s one, and campaign.
The theme: our children’s education is not like roads which you can come back too, children only have one chance and it is now.
The New Zealand’s new prime minister was always set on national standards, though he managed to pass some of the responsibility to John Hattie.
And he wanted national standards for six reasons, in a sense, all of them political:
- He wanted a low-hanging-fruit political win – a low-status female profession ripe for that.
- He wanted to project the appearance of doing something for education at no financial cost.
- He wanted to parade national standards as the solution to unemployment.
- He wanted to union bash – good politics.
- He wanted to teacher bash – New Zealand’s new prime minister is a bully behind the bullshit.
- He wanted national standards as a platform from which to scapegoat public education to frighten the middle-class to send their children to private schools (which he was upping the funding for).
None of these reasons are about education: they are about politics, ideology, and saving money.
A bully only respects power; a political bully only respects political power: ipso facto generate and wield political power for the good of children.
The New Zealand prime minister knows there is good politics in bashing public school teachers, unions, and the poor. That was the lesson handed down from Margaret Thatcher, now we have the New Zealand version. With public primary schools he has two of them for one.
But he’s also hacked off by the national standards ‘victory’ being a mucky one.
It all leads to the following manifesto:
- Counter politics with politics
- Political cost for education harm
- Political benefit for education good
- A bully only respects power; a political bully only respects political power: ipso facto generate political power for the good of children
- When it is better politics for politicians to support public education than attack – the attacks will stop.
Are our teacher organisations up to it?
Are we up to it?
Will we continue to be babes in the political woods?
Is there an aware, tactical, and independent leader coming through the ranks?
Not impossible.
Kelvin Smythe: networkonnet 