Good Luck Anne Tolley

The NZ Herald reports that the PPTA has voted to strike. I suspected that this would be the case.

The teachers aren’t striking over not getting increases in pay and conditions, but to maintain (in inflation terms, et cetera) what they already have.

I think Tolley is gambling on parents saying “look I’m out of work, or my partner is out of work, our family is struggling, what are you teachers complaining about?” to keep the bad PR at bay. I do not think that it will pay off for her. The teacher unions are by far the strongest in the country with around 95 percent membership.

My prediction is that there will be three strikes before Tolley (or her successor?) is forced to come up with maintained conditions and around 2.5 percent pay increases per year. She’s talking tough, and seems very prepared to not be bullied into submission in regards to opposition campaigns, for example Adult Education. Does anyone still remember that one? I barely do! The opposition campaign got traction, but the headlines have gone now.

She can also say, look I’m not Labour so I’d have to multiple backwards somersaults for the unions to begin to warm to me anyway. But she is too vulnerable to accusations “not understanding” the sector, completely unlike Paula Bennett. The naysayers in Bennett’s case have to do something better than calling a former DPB collecting single mother a beneficiary basher.

Tolley is taking on one of the strongest unions in the country. In a non-Labour government, and not a former teacher, she is very much the underdog. You’re burning up more and more political capital, and election year is only next year. Good luck, you’re going to need it.

Update: The Prime Minister has been reported in backing Tolley in saying teachers’ expectations are unrealistic. This makes me more confident in my prediction that more than one strike will occur before the government budges.

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.

National Standards and the Anne Tolley Interview

The Ministry has released a summary of feedback received from consultation. Anne Tolley also appeared on Q+A and spoke about them last Sunday week.

On the response page, under the Design of Standards heading the following made me laugh at first

The mathematics standards are being reorganised to reflect the strands in the mathematics and statistics learning area of The New Zealand Curriculum.

because it sounds so simple and innocent at first – but will cause great nightmares for all the teachers.

The panel discussion following Tolley’s interview was interesting to watch. Kate Gainsford, president of the PPTA, could have easily launched militantly into Tolley but seemed to be far more diplomatic. It is difficult to rail against something which has just been described as very “reasonable”, and since the finer detail was not probed, she didn’t get a good chance to advocate against the National Standards on behalf of her primary union colleagues. Tolley did well politically by being “consistent” and “on message”. Gainsford was right though, we did need to hear more detail on “growing the pig” rather than just “weighing” it.

Holmes in my opinion was very good in facilitating panel discussion this time. Here he manages to elicit a side of Gainsford I don’t think many people in the public have seen before. Normally the public only ever see her tearing into the government savagely (you could argue the case that any non-Labour minister gets more) and getting media attention for things like teacher strikes. This excerpt is long, illustrates the political versus educational reality but shows the Gainsford the person behind the union line.

PAUL: There are one or two principals I think who’ve told us during the week well we don’t think she’s on top of her portfolio, but she sounded like when she said she’s been surrounded by teachers all her life, that resonated well. That had good credibility. She seems to like teachers. Here’s a clip on what she was saying about teachers:

SOUNDBITE: Well I’ve been a parent of three children and I’m a grandmother of two. So I’ve had three children go through the education system and I’ve also got a family of teachers so I’ve lived with education all my life.

PAUL: Now, that answer had credibility Kate?

KATE: There were some vital bits missing I believe – a passion for education and a deep knowledge of education. I believe the minister, politically…

PAUL: She’s a mother and a grandmother – she’s put three kids through school, what more does she need to know about education?

KATE: Well, it’s a highly technical area isn’t it Mr Creech – you’d be able to agree with that…

PAUL: Do only teachers know about education?

KATE: Not at all, not all and we’ve had that argument way back in the 80s and 90s that provide and capture thing. But I would just like to comment on what you were asking before about the political nature of what we were listening to. I believe this Minister is frequently consistent and on message, we have met those sound bites consistently since her appointment about the fiscal environment, about priorities….

PAUL: We’ve all heard the same things for 20 years from politicians…

KATE: But there is a layer underneath that isn’t there? There’s a layer underneath that is of critical importance and it’s that detailed, technical, educational knowledge that’s important to get right.

PAUL: I don’t necessarily want to be Anne Tolley’s champion but I like what she said about attracting the best people into teaching, retention of teachers.

KATE: If she had trained and qualified as a teacher then she’d be fitting in with our policy perfectly. She could be a member.

The emphasis in the above is my own. Because nobody has been able to get Tolley off message in regards to Adult Community Education cuts, like she said are here to say. I think the cuts will only be reversed if the government can be convinced that it will cost votes.

Anne Tolley was reciprocally diplomatic in my opinion. Consider the following interview excerpt:

PAUL Couple of quick ones – how do you rate New Zealand teachers?

ANNE I think we’ve got some fantastic teachers.

PAUL How do you get on with them?

ANNE Reasonably well.

PAUL How are you getting on with the principals?

ANNE Um, quite a lot of them are being very constructive. Look there’s always some who don’t like what you’re doing for a variety of reasons.

The exchange seemed a bit awkward, particularly the last comment. It would appear that she was trying to dodge the question. But there isn’t a lot she can really do. What would you say if you are a National Minister when 90%+ of teachers and principals belong to unions that are left leaning politically?

PAUL: There are one or two principals I think who’ve told us during the week well we don’t think she’s on top of her portfolio, but she sounded like when she said she’s been surrounded by teachers all her life, that resonated well. That had good credibility. She seems to like teachers. Here’s a clip on what she was saying about teachers:

SOUNDBITE: Well I’ve been a parent of three children and I’m a grandmother of two. So I’ve had three children go through the education system and I’ve also got a family of teachers so I’ve lived with education all my life.

PAUL: Now, that answer had credibility Kate?

KATE: There were some vital bits missing I believe – a passion for education and a deep knowledge of education. I believe the minister, politically…

PAUL: She’s a mother and a grandmother – she’s put three kids through school, what more does she need to know about education?

KATE: Well, it’s a highly technical area isn’t it Mr Creech – you’d be able to agree with that…

PAUL: Do only teachers know about education?

KATE: Not at all, not all and we’ve had that argument way back in the 80s and 90s that

provide and capture thing. But I would just like to comment on what you were asking before about the political nature of what we were listening to. I believe this Minister is frequently consistent and on message, we have met those sound bites consistently since her appointment about the fiscal environment, about priorities….

PAUL: We’ve all heard the same things for 20 years from politicians…

KATE: But there is a layer underneath that isn’t there? There’s a layer underneath that is of critical importance and it’s that detailed, technical, educational knowledge that’s important to get right.

PAUL: I don’t necessarily want to be Anne Tolley’s champion but I like what she said about attracting the best people into teaching, retention of teachers.

KATE: If she had trained and qualified as a teacher then she’d be fitting in with our policy perfectly. She could be a me

Opposition to Cuts in Adult Community Education

One of the few places where the opposition is getting any traction in the education portfolio is the cutbacks in Adult Community Education (ACE). Even if you count only the people who are enrolled in classes now, previous class takers, and people who had planned to enrol but miss out, that’s still a large number of possible votes. The only way to convince the government to change its policy on this is to convince it that it will cost them a lot of votes at an election that is still something very far away.

Trevor Mallard has blogged on Red Alert on the ACE issue. I have commented that because he views the cuts as unjustifiable, any justification that the government makes regardless of its merits will be ignored. So the government will only respond if they perceive that this move in the long run will cost them votes.

There have been complaints that government spokespeople have said very little. I don’t see how he can expect the government to hand him material that could be used against it later for official information act requests or during question time. By calling the cuts unjustifiable from the outset he has clearly signalled to the government that any attempts to explain will serve no helpful purpose.