Category: Unions

Source: Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA)

“We have been waiting for the release of the report and recommendations for some time, so it’s great that schools have some certainty at last. It’s good to see the concerns of many schools reflected in the report.

“We are pleased that a Functioning Chief Executive (FCE) unit is being set up to prioritise school property – there is a tremendous amount of catching up to do and hopefully the FCE will mean this will happen at pace.”

However, principals were concerned about the Government’s intention to consider options for a new model that separated school property policy from operational delivery.

“Property functions must have a clear and close connection and integration with other planning and resourcing decisions affecting schools. This is crucial – the further away from the public service an entity becomes, and the more that it focuses on commercial efficiencies, the higher the risk that it misses the required integration with other planning and resourcing affecting schools. A good example of this is roll growth as a result of immigration.”

Kate Gainsford urged the Minister of Education to take into account principals’ and school boards’ knowledge and understanding of the complexity of schools’ needs, in designing a new model for school property.

“This will ensure that the new entity is truly responsive to schools’ needs, and can provide property solutions that will meet those needs. Property functions need to reflect the changing demands of what education looks like.

“For instance, while principals are happy with simplified and streamlined processes and buildings, school facilities cover a more complex set of needs than simple, modular relocatable units can generally meet on their own. These include: specialist teaching spaces, especially for technology; safe management of the movement of large numbers of people; air quality; professional workspaces; extra-curricular activities; and community expectations around schools as a hub for their communities.”

Kate Gainsford said the Secondary Principals’ Council looked forward to working with the Government on the implementation of the review recommendations. “I think we all agree that school property is a valuable public asset and should be well managed, planned for and maintained by the public service for the public good.”

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).