Kia ora e te whānau

NZC Road Trip
Having just completed the first four meetings on the NZPF/MINEDU curriculum road trip, I can report stimulating, challenging, and rewarding discussion. The meetings in Kaitaia, Kerikeri, Whangarei and Whakatane were simply outstanding. What a pleasure it was to talk about curriculum and student progress! I am looking forward to meeting with Waikato principals in Hamilton on Tuesday and Auckland Central Principals on Wednesday. Make sure you prioritise attending.

Primary Principals’ Bargaining Collective (PPBC)
It is pleasing to see the survey progressing. As a membership driven organisation, we would like a high return rate to help us understand how you want to proceed. Please take the time to read the survey and respond to the two questions.

A positive response would indicate your support for a bespoke principals’ voice at the bargaining table with NZEI and the Ministry of Education.  

Alternatively, you may prefer the status quo.

We will be guided by you.

Initial Teacher Education Concerns
There is growing concern about the quality of ITE provision particularly from our universities.

Principals working with university teaching graduates have raised concerns about their lack of practice-based teaching skills. 

Mark Barrow, Chair of the Council of Deans of Education, does not agree that the quality of teacher education has dropped. He believes that concerns raised by principals and peak bodies are a ‘misapprehension’.

Mark Barrow’s response is a wholesale dismissal of concerns raised by principals and peak bodies.

Let’s be clear. Universities are big business. They have a vested interest in pushing as many trainee teachers as possible through their programmes as quickly as possible. 

The Council of Deans of Education is made up of the leaders of ITE university programmes. There is no direct accountability from the ITE providers to the end users – the graduate teachers and those they teach. The Teaching Council accredits the providers. This is a desk-top exercise and struggles to capture the absence of practical training. 

Mark Barrow’s comments are dismissive and high-handed. In what other enterprise, focusing on delivering results to an end user, would you observe outright dismissal of concerns raised by those the enterprise serves? 

I am calling on the Council of Deans to take the concerns of the sector seriously because they are real. They are not a ‘misapprehension’.

Having just completed the first leg of the NZPF curriculum road trip, I can now tell you that at every meeting there has been a call to improve ITE.

In assessing the quality of their provision, I would ask the Council of Deans of Education to run this ruler over their university-based courses:

• How much time does a trainee teacher spend as a dancer in a practical dance lesson? How many dance lessons occur within a longitudinal process of development to help build dance confidence and an understanding of the pedagogy of this discipline? 
• What specific art media do trainee teachers experience in practical visual art lessons - clay, painting, sculpture?
• What physical education skills are taught through outside games and drills to build an understanding of the progression of skill based physical development? 
• How much time is given to observing and practising actions to remediate dyslexia and dyscalculia? What are the approaches taught and learned in practical training and how much time us given to practising these pedagogies?
• What specific apparatus do trainee teachers learn to manipulate to support conceptual development in mathematics? 
• What assessment tools do trainee teachers practise using? How much practise time is given to each tool?
• What apparatus is used to help trainee teachers understand how to teach science? What experiments and science investigations do trainee teachers experience in their training as active scientists themselves? 
• When and how is improvisation or role play taught in drama in ITE programmes? 
• What specific musical instruments are trainee teachers taught to play? 

What time is given to each of these practices within a 1-year graduate diploma compared with a 3-year undergraduate degree? How do the Council of Deans of Education account for the difference when the degree held by those completing a graduate diploma may not be relevant to primary teaching – in essence how can a 1-year teacher training programme be defended against a longer programme?

If the ideal ITE programme is a 2-year postgraduate programme as Mark Barrow highlights, what is the Council of Deans of Education doing to enable this? 

It is not only the length of training that is causing concern. The problem is the absence of being taught ‘how to teach’ in the practical disciplines within ITE programmes. 

Universities train the mind; they do not adequately train for skill development. Such an approach requires expert former teachers working in ITE programmes in our universities to show trainee teachers how to teach and allow them to experience the teaching as a learner. 

NZPF is discussing how to progress our concerns about ITE. One approach is for NZPF to accredit ITE providers. If ITEs are unwilling to acknowledge and respond to principals’ concerns, then a more strident assessment of the quality of their programmes may be necessary. 

Principals would clearly identify the programmes that are being responsive and schools would have access to quality graduates who will add value to our profession and serve our young people as they deserve.

I invite engagement from the Council of Deans of Education. 

Ngā manaakitanga

Perry Rush
perry@nzpf.ac.nz