A few weeks ago, writing about the 'great class size debate', I also touched on the question of quality teaching. There's no question - at least, there shouldn't be - that children deserve the best possible learning experiences, and one of the requirements for that is quality teaching by excellent, expert teachers. It's quite tricky to pin down just what defines that excellence, but at least our current system of state sector teacher training and subsequent registration goes some way to ensuring that the people teaching our youngsters have been trained in how to go about the multitude of tasks that teachers encounter every day: planning, classroom management, assessment, pastoral care & general admin, and have gained experience in said tasks.... (and that's before we even get to the actual teaching!).
But a couple of days ago, Minister of Education Hekia Parata & Act MP John Banks announced that charter schools - oops, sorry, 'partnership schools' - would be able to employ at least some non-registered teachers, along with setting their own curricula & deciding on things like the length of the school day, term dates, & teacher pay rates. This is strange - to say the least! - following as it does on a recent meeting of the Ministerial Cross-Sector Forum on Raising achievement, which "discussed... improving teaching practice with a focus on priority learners." As well that discussion, the meeting heard from the Chief Education Review Officer, who
presented the latest Education Review Office findings on how to raise the quality of practice in New Zealand Schools.
His remarks focused on three dimensions: assessment for learning; student centred learning; and responsive school level curriculum.
Minister Parata, who chairs the Forum, commented that
The Forum will continue to discuss ideas around how we can achieve quality teaching practice.
It's not exactly clear how allowing charter schools to use some unspecified proportion of non-registered teachers will achieve this. Concepts and practices related to assessment for learning and student-centred learning are best acquired before arrival in the classroom, not on a learn-as-you-go-when-you get-there basis. (Yes, state schools can already employ non-registered staff, under a 'limited authority to teach' provision, but that's temporary and for a limited period.)
Some real contradictions here...
The freedom of charter schools to set their own curriculum also concerns me somewhat. We already have 'special character' schools which teach creationism in their classrooms, for example (see here, here, and here, for starters). It is rather irking to gain the impression that state funding could support the same in charter schools - and to date I've heard nothing to say this will not be possible.