I decided to add a range of the links here to put several of these debates in one place.
A Blog post on Hekia Parata's decision to end the Teachers Council and create a new body where Teachers are unable to elect any representatives.
http://howmelulaterseesit.blogspot.co.nz/search/label/Hekia%20Parata
Doing the rounds on ECE Facebook pages is the following Blog post arguing against John Hattie and Ken Blaiklock's recent comments in a Listener article that I will post when I can An interesting post but the vitriol gets in the way of some very good points.
And here are some responses to the Listener article
EARLY
CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
At last someone is asking the
questions that need to be asked about the spending of so much taxpayers’ money
on consultants to intrude on peoples’ right to choose to attend a
non-compulsory sector of the education system (“Early
warnings”, April
19). The millions spent on contractors might be better spent on improving child
health and eliminating the conditions of poverty, which is the daily experience
of many Pacific children targeted in this sweep of initiatives. Chronically
ill, deaf, undernourished or obese children being raised in badly insulated
homes cannot learn, however wonderful the early childhood education (ECE)
provision.
I fully support quality ECE and
have spent many years in teacher education committed to producing qualified and
registered teachers, which is the major component of quality ECE. However, the
wholesale pushing of children and their families into variable quality
provisions is the worst tragedy of all. In any forum where I speak, my message
to Pacific parents is clear: you do not send your child to an unqualified
doctor or your pet to an unqualified vet, so why would you send your child to
an unqualified teacher that your child spends hours of their life with?
The government money would be
better spent improving quality, rather than sending out patronising prophets to
Pacific communities, which already know about the value of ECE but are
prevented from accessing it because of cost or a lack of information or
confidence.
For Pacific communities, quality
also includes those centres that produce bilingual children fluent in Pacific
languages who are cognitively advantaged learners according to reputable
international research.
Diane Mara
Associate dean Pasifika,
Faculty of Education,
University of Auckland
Associate dean Pasifika,
Faculty of Education,
University of Auckland
Professor Helen May (Letters, April 26), one of the authors
of Te Whariki, the early childhood education (ECE) curriculum, appears annoyed
that serious concerns have been raised about its effectiveness. As an
experienced academic, however, May should welcome challenge and debate about Te
Whariki, instead of shooting the messengers when presented with
evidence-informed viewpoints that differ from her own.
May’s response to the concerns
raised by Professor John Hattie and me claims “the views presented come from
voices whose engagement in ECE, and whose scholarly or professional standing in
ECE, is non-existent, fleeting or lightweight”. Strong words indeed, but rather
than directing baseless personal attacks at her colleagues, it would be more
productive for May to acknowledge that Te Whariki, like all educational policy
documents, should be amenable to change in the light of valid research
evidence.
May suggests that Professor Anne
Smith has dealt with my concerns about Te Whariki, but this is not the case. I
have written in detail about Smith’s comments in a paper available online at
Unitec’s Research Bank (hdl.handle.net/10652/2344). The paper, which also presents
an analysis of the OECD’s examination of Te Whariki, concludes with the
following.
“There is very little empirical
evidence that the use of Te Whariki is effective at reducing educational
inequities and promoting the learning and well-being of all children. Indeed,
it is quite possible that the nature of the curriculum, by providing little
guidance for teachers and making no requirements to teach or assess key areas
of learning, is actually limiting opportunities for children to be provided
with a full range of learning experiences and is falling well short of what is
required to reduce educational disparities in our society. We now need to make
substantial changes to Te Whariki, or consider developing a new research-based
curriculum, if we are to ensure that all children in New Zealand will receive a
high quality early childhood education.”
Ken Blaiklock
Department of Education,
Unitec Institute of Technology
(Auckland)
Department of Education,
Unitec Institute of Technology
(Auckland)
The “Early
Warnings” report,
while better than most at avoiding the platitudes that surround early childhood
education in this country, still comments only briefly on the central issue:
the first five years of life are critical for language development. Children
with delayed language development on entry to school are at greatly increased
risk of school failure. Fortunately, one of the goals of our early childhood
curriculum, Te Whariki, is ensuring that children “develop verbal communication
skills for a range of purposes”. It also advises ECE teachers to ask themselves
“in what ways does the programme provide for one-to-one language interaction …
between adult and child?”
However, it is not sufficient
simply to argue that ECE must be of “high quality” if “quality” is nowhere
defined or measured. Given that language development and learning how to behave
are No 1 priorities in under-fives, here is a simple test of ECE quality.
Tally, on a piece of paper, each time you say something to your preschooler and
the child replies. Don’t record the interactions, which are just instructions
about what you want the child to do. Make another tally every time the child
talks to you and you reply. Do this for six hours over a two-day period when
you are both at home.
Now go to your child’s ECE centre
and count the number of adult-child and child-adult interactions (about matters
other than how to behave) involving your child for six hours. If you find that
your ECE centre is providing at least 80% as many one-on-one language-learning
interactions as are being provided at home, then the centre is probably of
sufficient educational quality for you to continue your child’s enrolment
without putting their future achievement at risk.
John Church
Adjunct senior fellow, Department of Psychology, University of Canterbury
Adjunct senior fellow, Department of Psychology, University of Canterbury
