Category: Post Primary Teachers Association

Source: Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA)

The presidents of the Canadian Labour Congress and the USA National Education Association (NEA) have written to Minister of Education, Erica Stanford, and her Associate Minister, David Seymour, saying the anti-worker, anti-union and anti-labour law contradicts international obligations to respect and protect the fundamental rights at work as contained in the International Labor Organisation (ILO) conventions.

Bea Bruske, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, told the Ministers that ‘your lack of support for the workers of the PPTA who provide so much to their students shows a lack of leadership on your part. An attack of this kind against your own workers is a well known step toward the full erosion of public services and greater suppression of peoples’ rights.’

The NEA president, Rebecca Pringle, wrote that ‘excluding charter schools from MECAs (Multi Employer Collective Agreements) undermines collective bargaining effectiveness, potentially resulting in lower wages and benefits for charter school employees. This fragmentation could also harm employee morale and retention, ultimately impacting student education quality.

‘Also, this exclusion violates ILO Convention 98, which mandates that workers shall enjoy adequate protection against acts of anti-union discrimination in respect of their employment.’ She said the law makes charter school employees the only workers in New Zealand unable to negotiate MECAs, ‘violating the Convention’s principles of fair and equal labor rights.’

Speaking ahead of World Teachers’ Day (October 5), Chris Abercrombie, PPTA Te Wehengarua president, says the charter schools legislation cannot be seen any other way than as a severe attack on teachers.

“The Government can say all it likes about valuing teachers and the importance of our role growing the future of Aotearoa New Zealand – but actions speak so much louder than words.

“Breaching international labour conventions in this way is being noticed around the world, adding to international concerns about the integrity and credibility of this Government.”

Source: Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA)

When charter schools were introduced to Aotearoa New Zealand in 2013, all charter schools were brand new schools and PPTA Te Wehengarua policy was not to cover teachers in them. PPTA’s constitution provides only for coverage of teachers in state and state-integrated schools.

This time, the legislation for charter schools enables the conversion of state schools to charter schools and enables the Minister to force state schools to convert to charter schools. This would mean that, unless the constitution was changed, teachers in converted charter schools would lose membership and their terms and conditions of employment would be put at risk.

Chris Abercrombie, PPTA Te Wehengarua president, says the critical difference between 2013 and 2024 is that if a state or integrated school converts to a charter school there would be teachers who would be  taken unwillingly out of PPTA coverage.

“When charter schools are established, employers will be able to ‘negotiate’ alternative terms and conditions with members once charter schools are established. However, negotiation is likely to be very one-sided if the teachers do not have union support.

“While our primary objective continues to be to stop the development of charter schools in Aotearoa New Zealand, and return any that are established back into state schools, we believe the Association should be able to continue to cover members if a state or integrated school is converted.

“This will allow our field officers to continue to represent those members in the workplace and for the potential to negotiate site agreements on their behalf until the schools can be returned to the state system and the members can return to coverage by the national collective agreement.

“Today’s decision by Annual Conference means that PPTA Te Wehengarua decides who can be members, not the Associate Education Minster and his hand-picked authorisation board.”

Source: Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA)

The survey, carried out last month, was completed by teachers, across more than 200 schools.

Eighty-three percent of respondents said resources were arriving too late, and 80% were concerned about the availability and usefulness of resources.

Eighty-one percent of respondents said they were dissatisfied with the exemplars – models of assessments – and 75% were dissatisfied with the support from the Ministry of Education and New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA).  

Respondents commented they were frustrated with the lack of clear guidance on assessments, resulting in work having to be repeated and confusion about what meets the standards. Many teachers commented they were feeling overwhelmed, especially in smaller schools where resources are stretched thin.

Almost  80% of respondents said they were happy with the support for the changes that  they received from their own subject department in their school, and 70% were happy with the support they received from their own subject assocation.

Another new aspect of the NCEA is the literacy and numeracy co-requisites; students need to achieve these in order to attain the NCEA. The survey found that almost 80 percent of respondents were concerned about what would happen to students who could not attain these credits.

Chris Abercrombie said the survey results confirm concerns that had been voiced consistently by subject associations about the implementation of the new Level 1. “Students deserve a great introduction to NCEA and secondary teachers had very high hopes for the changes. We fully support NCEA being more accessible, providing equal status for mātauranga Māori, having fewer and larger standards, and a simpler structure.

“However the rollout has been a shambles. The lack of adequate support and resourcing at the national level is taking a huge toll. It’s making the NCEA system confusing for students and making the workloads of many teachers completely unsustainable. Subject associations are trying desperately to fill the gaps, however they are volunteers, and the resources provided by the Ministry have been inadequate.

“If the Ministry and NZQA only do one thing adequately for secondary schools, surely it should be to ensure that a comprehensive change programme for our national qualification is fully developed, resourced and implemented.”

A paper to PPTA Te Wehengarua annual conference this week  calls for an urgent development of an improvement plan for the implementation of NCEA Level 1 and a thorough evaluation of the implementation to ensure that Levels 2 and 3 are rolled out effectively.

NCEA Level 1 pulse check – September 2024

Respondents

• All members of PPTA Te Wehengarua
• 87% fully implementing Level 1
• 10% partially implementing Level 1
• 3% no offering Level 1
• (a further?)1.5% not offering Level 1 in 2025

Summary of results

• More respondents generally do not feel they can confidently implement theNCEA changes for Level 1.
• More respondents are generally dissatisfied with support received
  • Exemplars 81% dissatisfied
  • Communication from MoE               77% generally dissatisfied
  • Communication from NZQA               73% generally dissatisfied
  • Clear assessment guidelines               74% dissatisfied
  • Assessment activities                            67% dissatisfied
  • Marking schedules                                66% dissatisfied
  • Moderation support and feedback     63% dissatisfied
  • Authentic assessment with GenAI      56% dissatisfied
  • Teaching and learning notes              53% dissatisfied
• More respondents are concerned about the following in relation to their Level 1 NCEA programmes (than are comfortable)
  • Increasing workload                                                                      86% concerned
  • Resources arriving too late                                                           83% concerned
  • Availability of useful resources                                                    80% concerned
  • What will happen for students who don’t get lit-num?           78% concerned
  • Meeting the needs of diverse learners                                     71% concerned
  • What is happening in assessment in my subject                     64% concerned
  • Robustness of moderation                                                          58% concerned
  • Having literacy and numeracy co-requisites                            41% concerned

• General Agreement with the following statements
• The lack of resources and late resources increase workload                                                                          93%
• Making changes to my programmes is increasing workload                                                                           88%
• The current lack of clarity about the changes is unsettling for students                                                       87%
• The literacy and numeracy co-requisites increase workload                                                                           72%
• Common Assessment Activities (other than literacy and numeracy) will increase workload                    64%

• General Disagreement with the following statements
• The changes will better meet the needs of diverse learners                                                                           62%
• Fewer achievement standards will decrease workload                                                                                     58%

 

• Support received – generally helpful
  • My department                                                                                                                                                 78%
  • My subject association                                                                                                                                    70%
  • My own professional networks                                                                                                                     66%
  • My school                                                                                                                                                          64%
• Support received – generally unhelpful
  • Ministry of Education                                                                                                                                     81%
  • NCEA Implementation Facilitators                                                                                                              47%
  • NZQA                                                                                                                                                                73%

 

Summary of comments

The implementation of the new NCEA Level 1 standards has generated significant frustration among teachers. Many feel that the standards are poorly designed, leading to a perception that students have learned less this year. The changes have increased workloads, with insufficient support from NZQA/NCEA, and the provided exemplars often do not align with assessment specifications.

Teachers are particularly concerned about the transition to digital common assessment activities, citing issues like assessment posting failures, difficulties in ensuring authenticity, and excessive time spent on plagiarism checks. There’s also frustration over the lack of clear guidance on assessments, resulting in rework and confusion about what meets the standards.

Additionally, many teachers are feeling overwhelmed, especially in small and/or schools where resources are stretched thin, and the presence of untrained staff compounds stress.

Overall, the rollout has led to a general sense of uncertainty and distrust in the system, with concerns about the adequacy of preparations for Level 2 and the impact on diverse learners. Educators are calling for clearer communication, better resources, and support to help navigate these changes effectively.

 

Selection of comments

• The stress over the last 18 months has pushed me (an experienced classroom practitioner of 38 years) nearly to the edge.
• lack of communication or communication received too late
• The implementation has been dreadful – poorly resourced, vague, assessment tasks that don’t reach the criteria i.e. The assessment was at Level 5 of the curriculum but it clearly states MUST be at Level 6.
• The exemplars do not reflect the diverse range of students – none that can technically be shown to students match anywhere near how my school students write/approach work.
• The workload has been unrealistic, not sustainable, and unsupported.
• Too much information comes out too late at a big school like ours.
• Massive increase in workload. Requires so much additional workload for all department personnel who teach Year 11.  Timing of resource release has been a shocker.
• It has been a bloody mess
• Overall, this roll-out needed strong exemplars for ALL standards across the board, as it is frustrating for ākonga and kaiako to try to teach and learn and provide evidence when you have nothing as a basis for what is ‘correct’. The guidance provided is “give some things a try but we’ll tell you when it’s wrong” which is not the sentiment we should be expecting or desiring from the MOE and NZQA.
• I am answering this survey having just run the Sci 1.4 internal-external assessment. There were no resources to support me that were directly relevant to the standard. I had the (expired) pilot assessment, and some articles my HoD had found to help me out. I have no idea how the paper will be marked, I don’t even know what is meant by “science conventions”! I literally had to introduce the standard by telling students that I am as in the dark about this as they are because there is no way I could feign confidence. I am also extremely frustrated about the lack of a common assessment portal for students to write reports in to.
• My mental health has never been worse. Too stressed about ensuring we are doing the right thing, but no one seems to know what that is… kids stressed too.
• Our school is taking the opportunity provided to back away from offering NCEA L1 as a qualification. Rather we are offering limited standards to give students a taste for formal assessments but not enough to give them a qualification.  This colours my feelings about the changes, which would be more negative if we had to fully implement them.
• I mark numeracy and have been on the pilot programme for L1 maths and Numeracy for three years prior to implementation. This whole experience has been a nightmare. Our most vulnerable learners are left out on a limb and our anxious learners are suffering.
• I am a Principal’s Nominee. I am concerned about pathways for students who don’t get Lit/Num co-req. I know they are extending the transition period another 2 years but it is a bandage not direction for this issue. The workload of CAA’s and Internal/Externals is not sustainable. The MOE and NZQA are expecting PN’s/ schools to absorb the provision of these.
• Curriculum first. Then Assessment. Level 1 should be removed all together and rename L2 and L3 as leaving qualifications
• The NIFs are FANTASTIC!!!!!! [note NIF = NCEA Implementation Facilitators]
• Managing AI has seriously added to our workloads and made teaching a subject like English very unattractive (as we struggle to ensure authenticity of student work).

Source: Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA)

Source: Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA)

Source: Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA)

National education leaders say they are committed to continuing to improve the education system to realise the promises of Te Tiriti.

In a joint statement, Te Akatea, NZEI Te Riu Roa, New Zealand Principals’ Federation, PPTA Te Wehengarua, Secondary Principals’ Council, Te Rito Maioha Early Childhood New Zealand, Montessori Aotearoa New Zealand and NZAIMS say they reject the Treaty Principles Bill, which is based on a fundamental misinterpretation of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and is deliberately misleading.

The groups say they will oppose the Goverernment’s proposals, announced last week, to downgrade Te Tiriti o Waitangi in the Education and Training Act.

Teachers, school leaders and school boards have worked hard over many years to understand and enact practices that give life to Te Tiriti, say the groups. They have put an enormous effort into learning and change processes to meet this obligation  and to therefore ensure that schools better meet the needs of akonga Māori.

“As a group of national organisations, we are united in our opposition to the Treaty Principles Bill and to downgrading the place of Te Tiriti in the primary objectives of school boards.

“As education sector leaders, we will work together to oppose the downgrading of Te Tiriti in the Education and Training Act and will support our members to engage and take action to uphold Te Tiriti in our schools,” Te Akatea President Tracy Fraser says.

The Government is proposing to demote the place of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in the Education and Training Act by removing it as one of the four current primary objectives for boards in their governing of schools and subsuming it under one primary objective.

It also wants to scrap requirements for statements of National Education and Learning Priorities for early childhood and schooling which includes ‘instilling in each child and young person an appreciationof the importance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and te reo Māori’.

The groups say they are concerned that the learning of children and young people, and particularly ākonga Māori, will be negatively impacted if these changes are to progress.

“The current objectives in Section 127 (d) of the Education and Training Act are part of a broader, well-evidenced response by the education system to reverse the equity gap in New Zealand education and address the historic and current institutional racism within schooling that has led to Māori being under-served by our education system.

“We urge the Government to ditch the Treaty Principles Bill now, to re-consider proposals to amend Section 127, and to instead focus on how investment in the education system can better meet the needs of ākonga Māori.

“We encourage the wider community to raise this issue with National MPs and their own political representatives and to stop any change to Section 127 that would weaken schools’ obligations to give effect to Te Tiriti.”

Editor notes

The Government is proposing to remove ‘give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi’ as one of the primary objectives for boards in their governing of schools, by amending Section 127 of the Education and Training Act. The Government proposes to replace the current four objectives with one primary objective, ‘educational achievement’. with the other current objectives placed underneath as necessary for the achievement of the one objective.

Along with ensuring every student is able to attain their highest possible educational achievemment, and that schools are inclusive, non-discriminatory and are physically and emotionally safe, Section 127 requires boards to give equal attention to giving effect to Te Tiriti.

Section 127 (d) specifies this by ensuring their ‘plans, policies and local curriculum reflect local tikanga Māori, mātauranga Māori, and te reo Māori … achieve equitable outcomes for Māori students.’ The Minister of Education’s proposals would replace the current primary obligation and specific steps with as yet unspecified language about ensuring equitable outcomes for Māori students.

They would also remove schools’ focus on developing local curriculum – that encourages them to adapt national curriculum to the different contexts of local communities, iwi and hāpu with generic ‘teaching and learning programmes’.

This could result in a much-diminished responsiblity on school boards that could weaken students’ access to te reo and tikanga Māori, and would stop current work developing plans, policies and local curriculum to reflect local tikanga Māori, mātauranga Māori and te ao Māori.

Source: Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA)

Victoria University |Te Herenga Waka has hosted several meetings of a steering group in 2024 to begin to address teacher shortage. Representatives from Council of Deans of Education, NZEI, Te Akatea and PPTA Te Wehengarua were the main attendees, with input from ERO and NZTC. 

The steering group considered how to define the problem of teacher shortage and explore ideas for addressing the problem. 

There has been a strong commitment to working together in a solutions-focused manner, and the agreement to hold a summit on Teacher Supply is the first tangible action from this.  

Teacher Supply Summit September 2-3, 2024 

About 50 people met for a two-day summit in Wellington. They represented 19 organisations including Te Akatea, Teacher Education Forum Aotearoa New Zealand (TEFANZ), NZ Council for Deans of Education, Tertiary ITE providers (Universities: Victoria, Massey, Waikato, Otago, Auckland, Auckland University of Technology ; Other: Manukau Institute of Technology, Bethlehem Tertiary Institute), Unions (NZEI, SPANZ, NZPF, NZPPTA), Teaching Council, Ministry of Education, Te Whakarōputanga Kaitiaki Kura o Aotearoa (formerly known as NZSTA), Normal and Model School Association (NAMSA) and several early childhood organisations. 

PPTA Te Wehengarua was represented by Allan Liddle of SPC, a PCT2, a student-teacher member, the President and two advisory staff.  

NZEI provided the venue. PPTA, Te Akatea, TEFANZ, Council of Deans and NZEI shared the catering and koha. 

Purpose of the Summit 

The steering group’s purpose was “To collaboratively formulate solutions for the challenges associated with teacher supply in Aotearoa New Zealand. This group will develop an iterative long-term plan that includes some foundational values and is responsive to contextual evidence.” 

Source: Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA)

The Minister has announced new measures to provide ‘limited authorities to teach’ to encourage unqualified teachers and teachers who no longer hold registration to work as relief teachers in schools.

“She is essentially looking to flood classrooms with unregistered relievers as the teaching shortage bites.

“Very few of these relievers will be across the new requirements for the implementation of level 1 NCEA, or the new English and Maths curriculum or structured literacy delivery. Some teachers without practising certificates won’t have taught for well over three years.

“Principals are already reporting that the constant use of relievers impacts on students’ enjoyment of school, which then impacts on attendance. Having more unqualified and uncertificated people in front of them is not going to help with this. Secondary students need specialist teachers who are grounded in their subject and can challenge and stretch students’ learning and knowledge.”

Chris Abercrombie says the Minister’s response is evidence of a systemic failure to recognise and value teaching and ensure that teachers are retained and new teachers are attracted to the profession.

“Rather than responding to this crisis with a set of ad hoc measures, the Government needs to urgently create a workforce strategy for the teaching workforce.”

Chris Abercrombie says the Government needs to support the teaching profession with adequate resourcing of new NCEA requirements, better wrap around services for students who need them, and improved pay and working conditions for teachers.

“The cold, hard fact of the matter is that there are thousands of highly skilled and experienced former teachers in Aotearoa New Zealand today who would come back to school next week if the salary and conditions were attractive.

“Every young person has a right to a trained and registered specialist teacher in every subject. Denying them that right, because of a failure to ensure a consistent supply of New Zealand trained and qualified secondary teachers, undermines the life choices of our young people and the future of Aotearoa New Zealand.”

He said the Minister also needed to seriously consider the double standard of pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into charter schools – which Treasury advised against – while severely under-funding the public education system, where the vast majority of students and teachers are learning and working.

Source: Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA)

Our strong belief is that the oversight of initial teacher education should be “by the profession, for the profession”.  We do not support the proposal from the Minister of Education to move oversight of Initial Teacher Education from the Teaching Council to the Ministry of Education. 

 The Minister already has the ability to communicate her expectations to the Council and appoints members to its governing board.  Direct political control of professional programmes and standards by Ministers through the Ministry would be an over-reach and is tantamount to political interference.   Such Ministerial direction does not occur with the training of lawyers, doctors, nurses or other professions and would be inappropriate for the teaching profession. 

 Moving oversight and approval of initial teacher education programmes to the Ministry of Education would remove it from oversight by an independent statutory body governed by a council jointly elected by teachers and appointed by the Minister — and would therefore reduce partially or wholly both the professional independence and voice of teachers in terms of who determines teacher education standards. 

No evidence has been provided by the Ministry about how it could improve initial teacher education and it has neither the capability, capacity or confidence from the profession to take on this role. 

Removing ITE oversight from the Teaching Council is a significant change, with implications for key stakeholders – particularly the more than 100,000 teachers who pay Council fees, who vote for Council representatives and who have fought for an independent professional body.  

 There are also implications for the Crown’s Te Tiriti obligations to kaiako Māori if this decision is taken without adequate consultation with kaiako Māori and the outcome is a new agency and framework for ITE established without their input.

A short, “targeted” consultation period is therefore rushed and inadequate.

Source: Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA)

Recently the Ministry of Education opened consultation on a proposal to extend the required notice period for strikes in schools, you can find information about the process here. PPTA has made a submission recommending that any change be consistent with requirements for other essential services under the Employment Relations Act to be “no less than 3 days”.

In our submission, we have emphasised that:

• Our priority is always to avoid industrial action.
• The Ministry of Education plays a significant role in the breakdown of negotiations and improvements in the approach to negotiations would limit the need to take industrial action.
• Current practice is already to give more than the three days formal notice required.

You can read our full submission here and if you are a parent or whānau member of a school-aged child/young person we encourage you to submit personally in your capacity as a parent who supports teachers’ rights. Please feel free to pass this info onto family members and friends.

Submissions close on 6th September