Who’s Going to Chicken Out First?

The game of chicken that Tolley and the unions are playing over National Standards is starting to heat up. What I am interested in finding out is who is going to chicken out first. Or if they are going to crash. A question that I wouldn’t mind an answer to is this: Are National Standards the policy clash between government and teachers like bulk funding was?

A few comments have turned up in this story. First of all there’s the “parents don’t understand this policy”. Of course there are parents who don’t understand this policy, how is this different from any other government policy? For someone to understand this policy (or any other) they have to wade through, in no particular order:

• What the Minister says
• What the Prime Minister says
• What the teachers say
• What the opposition parties say
• What the teacher unions say
• What the media say
• What the legislation allegedly implementing this policy says
• What parents say
• What Boards of Trustees say

That is no means an exhaustive list, but my point is that using the “people don’t understand” in the National Standards debate is useless as it’s just a truism that doesn’t mean anything in itself. Each of these parties have their own agenda, and will spin the thing differently to reflect their own world views et cetera.

And then there’s talk about whether Anne Tolley is listening or not. Well, as Anne Tolley and the unions want mutually exclusive things, the only way that anyone in the unions will be convinced that she’s listened is if she ditches the policy. Tolley can’t win this battle by default. So basically she is trying to be as diplomatic as she can, but really, it’s terribly ineffective as it’s something the teachers clearly don’t want.

I have forgotten a possible scenario. Tolley doesn’t back down, but gets replaced as Education minister because she’s taken too long. The Prime minister would do this because he’s also been quite behind this policy, and of course it is one of the core election planks. So what could happen is that Tolley gets dumped so that another minister with more firepower is charged with getting the policy through. Or alternatively is the one charged with the retreat option if it really has been too long and the government embarrassingly had to give up. And if takes too long, the other main party will get back in again and have a field day with glowing PR about how they’ve repealed some evil policy of a previous government.

So it’s game on. I think the onus is on Tolley to make the next move.

It’s a Game of Chicken – Tolley Versus the Unions

The Hon Anne Tolley has issued a press release to the unions essentially saying “get over it” about National Standards.

Tolley’s greatest PR challenge is that the public only ever sees the more overt political arm of the teachers’ unions. And they tend to be the more vocal left wing activists compared to the rank and file union members who just try to get on with their job. I believe we do not see a true representation of the political views of the members when we see union spokespeople in the media. To be fair, I think the nature of the news media doesn’t help. The bread and butter activities of the union aren’t newsworthy for example, helping out new teachers to the profession, ensuring teachers get their entitlements, submissions and consultation on non-controversial issues.

Tolley also doesn’t have a triple B shield. What does that mean? It’s a new term I’ve coined, too political in origin for my liking, oh well. The BBB shield is the [it's hard to plant the label] Beneficiary Basher [on] Bennett shield. I say it’s difficult because it seems rather ridiculous to call a former DPB and single mother a beneficiary basher. Tolley is an easy target in this regard because she is not a former teacher, with the implication that she doesn’t understand the education sector. Tolley’s pointing to her own upbringing of children in the education system helps but is nowhere as effective as a BBB.

I think Tolley is saying bring it on. She knows she has an electoral mandate and that parents at worst do not have outright hostility to this policy. The escalation will come either in refusal to implement the policy either by boycotting, or by striking, or by cleverly subverting it.

My best evaluation of the situation is that both sides are playing chicken. Tolley could yield by dropping the policy, or delaying it. Presumably delaying is enough for the unions as it would stop the policy long enough for Labour to get back in again in the next election (assuming favourable conditions for those of that political persuasion). The unions could yield by implementing the policy as the government intends, or ending their opposition campaigns.

I don’t think either side will back down, at least not easily. Tolley especially as she has everything to lose from backing down. Firstly, a back down is embarrassing for any minister, in fact it’s a kick to the ego for anybody. Secondly, it’s a key election policy so there is an electoral mandate for this policy and would be sacked as minister if she failed to deliver.

The unions don’t have as much to lose. If all else fails, they will be happier when Labour (eventually?) gets back in. Even if the collision occurs, I think the dismissals will be symbolic rather than holus bolus sackings. Nonetheless a minister ordering sackings will never create great looking headlines no matter how justified the decision.

I think their biggest fear is that the policy will last long enough that it won’t just be an easy Labour decision to abolish them, especially if National get more than one term. The NZEI and PPTA, although they have friendly relations with Labour, are not officially affiliated with the party. Labour wouldn’t suffer terribly in the event that they didn’t repeal this policy once in office. It’s not as if the NZEI and PPTA would start championing for the National Party any time soon.

How…Insidious

I knew that there would be some sort of showdown between teachers and the government over National Standards. Now the stakes have been increased. There are some that are going to undermine the tests by stacking the results by “teaching to the test” on the easiest tests they can get away with.  It is a far more creative subversion that I did not anticipate.

Regardless of whether one thinks of this action there is one thing which is clear. If teachers choose to take this action it will be extremely cheap to complain that the policy failed when they openly announced they would undermine it. Especially as it was one of the current government’s election policies well signalled prior to the 2008 election.

There is only one way I can think of to get away from people fudging the numbers for league tables. Have as many key indicators as possible and apply random weightings to them. Increasing pass rates at all costs would have little effect if one year it only counted for 5% of a ranking and then 15% the next and 0% the following. Many pairs of statistics are negatively correlated as well, which makes fudging a dangerous business. You could have some adjustments ensuring that statistics that are easier to manipulate gradually reduce in weight over time.

Alternatively you could have a system where anybody can choose the key indicators that matter to them and give them the weighting that they think is best. And other people could create statistics based on what they know that others don’t think is important. Then publishing a single “official” league table would be pointless – because different people have different values. Some parents might value straight out exam results. Other parents might place value on sporting prowess. Or what they regard as “added” value once adjusted for school decile. Special character or religious ethos are important and can’t be measured by statistics – but wouldn’t it be nice if there were a system available that people could factor that in for themselves?

I think this is better than telling parents they’re too dumb to have information. Telling parents they are undermining policies that formed part of the current government’s election platform.

I disagree with sentiments that teachers have some sort of socialist agenda to indoctrinate children. And even if they did, as I have said in an earlier post, they simply don’t have the time to brainwash. Teachers are altruistic people, they care about education. There is only disagreement on the means by which it is delivered, that’s politics. During one lecture at teachers’ college, the lecturer mentioned something about making money. Some of my fellow students and I called out “we’re going to be teachers”, that is teachers don’t go into the profession to make lots of money.