I am really hoping that our talented daughter will be able to gain one of these scholarships to attend a private school as a Year 9 student next year, 2011. Yes, there are many families like ours whose net worth is under 150,000 and who earn well under 65,000 each year. We have always been very frugal, however, and our children do not feel poor. It helps that we don't drink alcohol, smoke or gamble of course. I hope ours and many other ordinary Kiwi families will be able to help our children to get a leg up into a wonderful education through these generous scholarships. Roll on the application date for this year!
The last comments by "balanced view" don't make sense. First you state that "who would pay $100+ out of their own pockets" for these services... and then you say students like "free" stuff.
It isn't free. You are freeloading off other students money, most likely obtained by a student loan - just so you can have cheaper services. It's selfish.
What do pro CSM supporters have to fear by allowing students to tick a box when they enrol? If services are that great surely people will be flocking to join?
It is misleading to link it to student association membership.
It appears that if you utilise the services e.g. high speed internet & IT support, student health consultation, student recreation centre (i.e. gym membership), you could get good value for money.
The services appear to be linked to the social health of the university, similar to social investment off campus e.g. libraries, community centres.
Hi, the levy at Victoria this year is $510. I am a part-time student who works. I am doing a short programme and only require 1 more paper to complete it, however I have to pay the full levy which almost doubles the cost of my paper for services I don't even use because I work. All other universities at least offer a rebate to their part-time students. Universities appear to be using the loophole in the Fees course costs maxima (which does not cover student's levies)as a way of increasing fees beyond the limit.
Unfortunately we were unsuccessful in our application for this fantastic scholarship and we were even the first to submit! I ended up taking a loan out to pay for the fees, I am a solo mother of 2 children and know my childrens education is important, I will apply for next year in the hope that we will be successful.
'Review enrolment scheme policy and other regulations which may limit parental choice and the ability of schools to respond to parental demand.'
Fantastic, bit cautious about parent demand though. A lot of differences in parenting between parent(s)/guardian of 'Sharleese' and that of 'Charlotte-Elizabeth'. Some societal demand needed to limit 'helicopter' damage of latter and address disadvantages of birth for former. Teachers know which parents are involved at school too much and too little.
'its high-achieving 5 percent' -may not be G&T, just good acadaemics.
'determining the eligibility and identification of students to be included in the programme, taking into account National Standards and other age-based assessments'
-very problematic as most Gifted will hit the ceiling for tests esp age-based, and some Gifted do not test well due to unmet learning needs/difficulties. Many 2e students will test as 'average' yet with appropriate interventions could be exceptional achievers.
I've had a look at the report 'Free to Learn'. 'Step Change' one doesn't appear there anymore. I did skim over that one yesterday. The aspect drawing a lot of criticism with G&T circles is the 'bottom 20% and top 5%' descriptor. I haven't seen where these are defined. I would think that 'by capacity (&/or learning difficulties) shown on independent Educational Psychologists assessment' would be great, but 'by results in National Standards testing' is the general perception of most commentors.
There seem to be a lot of really big ideas that would have to be very well trialled before implementation (no chance of being cost-neutral) and don't appear to account for the geographically challenged (large % of NZ).
Tracy you have highlighted a number of important points. As a psychologist assessing and working with gifted children daily (and as president of NZAGC) I speak to a growing number of families concerned with these very issues. Where do children who are achieving at a level three to five years ahead on internationally accepted assessment tools fit? Progress and a student's ongoing learning needs to be monitored. Thank you for highlighting some important considerations for National Standards.
New Zealand has been knocked out of the competition after losing to Canada in the quarter-finals.
Maria English (Samuel Marsden Collegiate School), Jasmin Moran (Chilton St James School), Josh Baxter (Auckland Grammar School), Nick Cross (Scots College) and Aria Newfield (St Cuthbert's College) argued passionately against the motion 'That we should pay compensation for injustices committed by previous generations'.
The debate was incredibly close and the team is to be congratulated for making it so far through this prestigious competition.
Linda, Please have a look at the two reports released yesterday on the right-hand side bar of the home page of this website. Your comment above is entirely in line with these.
In reading these comments and replies I've had a flash of inspiration. A government-funded Ed Psych assessment for all children by age 7! Identify the gifted, identify the at-risk and twice-exceptional, identify the strengths/weaknesses of the average and arm the school with truely individual information with which to best educate the child. Expensive -relatively but the economic gain for NZ could be huge.
Also, if a child is above the National Standard for a Yr 1 student (across the curriculum) at aged 4 why are they not able to be educated at their level. Pre-schools have no GATE funding or advisors and schools can't enrol before 5 yo (insurance??). If the child is well-below average they can stay at pre-school until 6 yo or have special provisions within school from 5 yo. Tall poppy syndrome alive and well within the legislated education provisions.
Introducing an assessment tool that focuses solely on the tail is effectively telling schools they have to rescue the underachievers at the expense of the over achievers. Stop being an either or system! It's about time ALL kids got their needs met in our country!
My 11 yr old son is gifted at science and maths and technololgy. He gets little or no stimulation in these areas at all, except they do cover maths. But unfortunately, he suffers being made to do the same maths lessons as everyone else and when he asks for something more challenging, he is told that he should just do what is in front of him, it "builds character."
...Builds character? Oh, I get it! Our gifted children need to build strong characters, in order to be able to endure with grace and dignity a lifetime of being under-diagnosed, under-stimulated, and under-developed in a system that is more concerned about the 'tail' kids; martyrs in an educational system that fails them even MORE than it fails the underachievers!
The point that the powers that be don't seem to get, is that if you leave gifted kids unsupported, their gifts WILL NOT AUTOMATICALLY DEVELOP. You have to nurture gifted kids, or they may collapse into soul-detroying failure. They often exhibit odd behaviours which can result in negative responses from ignorant teachers until a negative self-fulfilling cycle takes over and crushes the self esteem and giftedness right out of them. They become a sorry educational statistic.
If you do not encourage, stimulate, grow and support gifted kids, their potential may be lost to society for good. Gifted kids are VULNERABLE, does the govt not get this??????
You can't sit on the fence. If you dont' actively support gifted kids, they won't necessarily blossom by themselves. I believe most teachers in this country are not skilled in recognising, handling the behaviour of, and advancing the strengths of gifted kids. We need to upskill the teachers to be able to serve ALL kids, not just the tail kids. There are too few teachers in our schools today equipped to recognise and deal with gifted kids.
I thank God one teacher who had skill in this area recognised my son was gifted and agitated for a year, until he was finally approved for inclusion in a wonderful gifted kids programme (GKP) which performs miracles with gifted kids (check their website), and gets little or no funding from the governemnt by the way (why am I not surprised).
I think people generally completely misunerstand what 'gifted' means. I'm sure they expect it's a nice, sweet, docile, polite, very clever little darling.
The reality can be far from it. The child can be precocious, unfocussed, a dreamer, unresponsive, slow to process commands, and socially immature. All of this is a recipe for disaster in a classroom if the teacher doesn not understand why the child is like this. They will make negative attributions about aspects of the child that the child cannot help, and they often lack the skills to help the child forward.
If you don't upskill the nation's teachers to understand and develop strategies to deal with the 'behavioural odditites' a lot of gifted kids manifest, you will end up with generation after generation of teachers mis-diagnosing 'above average' kids as 'naughty, distruptive' kids and no progress will be made. My son has worn this label and it nearly destroyed him, except for the saving grace of GKP - Gifted Kids Programme - which singlehandedly put the pieces of my son back together due solely to their immense skill in dealing with gifted kids.
DON'T ASSUME ALL TEACHERS HAVE THESE SKILLS. THEY DON'T! BRING BACK THE FUNDING AND INCREASE IT SO ALL TEACHERS CAN ATTEND COMPULSORY TRAINING ON HOW TO HELP GIFTED KIDS.
Currently, the under achievers are better off. Because at least they get to be supported to become 'averagely' good, a step up for them. But the kids at the top end often just LOSE. They lose their potential for what they could have been; it doesn't actualise at the rate it could have, if at all. They risk losing everything they could have been and my contention is that the nation can't afford to lose the benefits we would have gained as a nation from these genius kids. They're the ones who could invent how to live on the moon. They're the kids who will invent new technologies that will save lives, save health costs, improve the lot for all of us in ways we can't even imagine yet.
Do we just say "Who cares?" and let them rot in a sea of indifference? If we do, it will be to the nation's detriment.
No, the only way to serve their needs is to (1) have an assessment tool that can specifically measure gifted kids, and (2) put funding in place to achieve change for gifted kids! Can the national standards truly, accurately identify where gifted kids are at? Where is the guarantee? Please replace endless self-congratulatory government rhetoric with rolled up sleeves!
"Lowering the ceiling" for gifted learners is unfortunately going to be one of the inevitable results of the implementation of National Standards.
Why? Because the schools have been given the loud and clear message from the Ministry that the most important thing that they should be focussing their energies and teacher professional development upon is raising the achievement of students who are under-performing. Schools have already reported to me that "frankly, the Government, by cutting professional development money for gifted and talented, have given a clear signal that this is not important". The message they feel they are receiving is that gifted students will achieve anyway (we all know *that* chestnut is a fallacy) - so just leave them to get on with it and focus on those who are failing. Schools do not necessarily like this message, but feel they do not have the resources or energy to do otherwise.
Whilst meeting the learning needs of students who are falling behind is of course a worthy priority, and needs pursuing, this current focus endorses a 'default' false premise that "to do nothing (for gifted) is to do no harm". I have first hand reporting of Gifted Education Coordination roles in secondary schools being dropped or becoming an 'add-on' with no time allowance (time allocation and funding being needed elsewhere). These teachers are often the major catalyst for change for these students, especially in low decile schools and areas where there are high proportions of Maori and Pasifika students. These students aren't necessarily failing... but they are in serious danger of slipping through the system with their potential unrecognised and untapped. Meeting the learning needs of every student is a cornerstone of the New Zealand Curriculum, yet without appropriate support in the classroom the gifted learner is likely at best to be treading water, and at worst, switching off and underachieving at 'average'.
Perhaps one positive move that could be taken to establish whether or not this is happening could be an expectation that base-line data for students who are achieving highly continues to rise at a relative level, and that this data will be analysed as enthusiastically as the data for students who are falling behind. Teachers would need direct assistance in setting learning outcomes and success criteria for students working above the level that they are teaching to so that gifted learners were presented with meaningful standards against which they can strive to achieve.(Goodness, that sounds like differentiation to me!)
However, while this solution may solve part of the problem, it will not address the problem of gifted students at risk of non-identification who are likely to be achieving at standard level and whose potential has not been identified: students who are twice exceptional, gifted students from specific minority ethnic groups such as Maori and Pasifika, and gifted students who have a physical disability. Because the focus is upon lifting those who are failing to a specific base-line, these students are most at risk of underachieving - yet paradoxically, they are already achieving.
Which brings me back to my original assertion that the current focus of the implementation National Standards will inevitably lower the ceiling of learning for gifted students. Is this situation able to be remedied without throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Of course. But not without a re-focus and re-alignment of the big picture, expectations, and resource targetting.
Tracey echoes the concerns of many teachers and parents of gifted students...
Assessment is an essential tool in the teaching toolbox.
The point behind 'diagnosis' is to provide guidance for future action. If a student performs at a high level when being 'diagnosed' then the temptation is for no action to be put in place other than more of the same. We know that learning will occur if what is offered is authentic to the needs of the learner. The issue is not whether or not we should assess students and provide clear reporting (to the student/ the parents and as diagnostic feedback to the teacher). Teachers agree that it is necessary to find out what the student can do already. What has not been taken into account is the very real possibility that gifted students will be 'misdiagnosed' because of age rather than ability.
If the answer is national standards, then we need to ask the questions ...
How will the national standards make a difference to the learning opportunities that are offered to gifted students?
What evidence is there for parents that this is happening/ going to happen ?
As the parent of two children in existing Gifted and Talented programmes, I can say I wouldn't even bother going to the assessment sessions around National Standards if all the teacher can tell me is my child is roughly 'above average' - that won't be reporting anything useful to me! The teacher will then need to use other standards to give me a better indication of their progress. Which means this scheme shouldn't really be called a 'national' standard, unless it is in fact just named after the 'National' party??
I also strongly agree with Rod Fee, one of my children regularly never completes tests for that very reason - because of complex thought processes. Ironically their final mark is well above average anyway, even though the tests were incomplete! Again, the testing process won't give me a true indication of the level attained.
When is gifted education going to be valued across the board in New Zealand?
I must say that Professor Riley has put this very well.
I do not wish to simply repeat what she has said though I strongly support it. I can perhasp add acouple ofa dditional points.
The first is in relation to those high ability students who are somewhat slow in testing or confused in testing through apparently slow processing skills. Sometimes students think through so many angles of a prolem and know so many answers that they do not pick the 'correct'' answer.
Ask an apparently straight forward questin such as this: "Apart from the moon, what can be seen in the sky at night and shines?" The answer might seem to be "star". Ask that of a highly gifted student who knows about nebulae, dust clouds, man-made satellites and you have the potential for beign slow to decide the answer beign sought, 'wrong' answers and consequently frustratingly low scores.
A trite example perhaps but the phenomenon is very real in testing gifted students. So it is not just languidity as Professor Riley correctly suggests, but also continual battering of self-esteem of those who society should be especially keen to encourage.
The second point I wish to raise is this: If the testing is to be of benefit to the indivdual students - surely that is the primary concern of any test that takes up so much resource - then it has to be meaningful for that student's improvement through education. Set the bar low enough so that you are making sure most people 'pass' and it is pointless for the majority. Are you themn only trying to filter out and subsequently provide redress (assuming this is progress those who do not meet the standard? Set the bar in the middle or higher and it is a replacement for every other sort of pass/fail testing.
Surely the correct procedure is one that favours the individual student and the advancement of that student's education. That is, ask these questions:
- What is it that THIS student understands and knows?
- What issues if any (time/confusion/lack of skill/poor teaching/home
environemnt/specific learning disability etc) are stopping THIS student from showing a better understanding?
- What does THIS student therefore now need to know and understand?
- How will we give THIS studnet what is needed?
This gives all of the answers that the government and schools and parents in fact seek as well as what each student meeds. Anything else seems frankly pointless, possibly harmful to some sectors of the stduent body and possibly a distraction to what teaching is about - the educational advancement of individual students.
Tracy, thanks for this erudite and clear summary of the concerns many parents of gifted children, including myself, have. It is only very recently that teachers have begun to go past thinking about it and instead actively providing appropriate levels of work for my own children (well, two of them - the third is problematic), and I know that this only came about because of extensive professional development provided within their schools. For this reason, I think it is a real shame that funding has been axed for professional development advisors and for private providers who provided excellent PD to teachers. When lack of ongoing PD is coupled with the undoubted stress that untested national standards will place teachers under, I really worry about the impact on our gifted children. We will revert to the old attitude of gifted students being able to take care of themselves.
It is all very well for Anne Tolley to say that what has happened overseas in the USA and UK will not happen here - ie gifted children's needs fell off the radar for all intents and purposes - but without any form of trialling of the standards, she cannot possibly know this. Anecdotal evidence from parents and teachers at the 2008 SENG Conference in the USA, which I attended, certainly supports my fears that national standards will ultimately have a detrimental effect on the education of our gifted children. While I agree that we must raise the level of 'the tail' who are underachieving, I also think we must make sure that 'the head' does not sink under the weight of disinterest this government continues to show in its actions regarding gifted children. So far, I have heard lots of rhetoric, but nothing the government has done so far gives me any hope that they are more than empty words aimed at placating parents of gifted children.
As a parent of a gifted son who is becoming more and more demotivated at school everyday, I want to scream 'do something' at Anne Tolley! It will be a challenge to keep him at school and if he succeeds it will be despite the system, not because of it!
It's great that Heather is so enthusiastic and gets out on the ground. However, the Reserves are in a very poor state and here's a quick 10, off the top of my head, lessons learned from my time as a company commander:
1.The online recruiting process for the Reserve forces is a complete shambles.
2.Recruiting by targeting Regular Soldiers on release from the Army is largely a waste of time as most lose interest within a couple of months.
3.The Battalion Group structure is obsolete, indifferently lead, generally poorly administered and needs to be replaced by a more modern and relevant training structure. Needless to say, this needs to be properly resourced.
4.The training standards across the Battalion Groups varies considerably and there are far too many untrained,unfit an inefficient soldiers in the system.
5.Too much training is poorly planned and executed, which has a direct adverse effect on retention.
6.20 days training per annum is simply too little to maintain an effective reserve.
7.Leadership training needs to be made relevant to the type of operations that the NZDF and Reserves are likely to be deployed into. i.e low level peace keeping at no more than company level.
8.Many of the specialist arms only receive the most rudimentary training and provide very little capability to the NZDF.
9.There is a real requirement for employment protection legislation if the NZDF expects to maintain the current cycle of voluntary mobilisation.The NZDF often ignores the fact that the best leaders often have good civilian careers, which are at a premium in the present economic climate. Beware of the 'Dole Patrol'!
Today I spoke on behalf of the ACT Party as Parliament marked the passing of Squadron Leader Nick Cree.
I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to mark the passing of Royal New Zealand Air Force Pilot Squadron Leader Nicholas Cree, tragically killed on January 14 2010 at Ohakea Air Force Base while practicing aerial display manoeuvres.
Nick Cree was a member of the Royal New Zealand Air Force aerobatic team ‘the Red Checkers’, and was Checker’s 5. Only our very best pilots are chosen to fly with the ‘Red Checkers’.
One of the hardest things for Ministers of Defence is to, alongside New Zealand Defence Force personnel and families, farewell fit young military people who have tragically had their lives cut short in the course of service to New Zealand.
On January 19 Ministers Wayne Mapp, Simon Power and I attended the funeral service for Squadron Leader Cree at Ohakea. We heard of a young man in his prime; a son, brother, husband and father who was passionate about everything he did – not just about his love of flying and his career with the air force, but about family and his great pride at twice completing the physically punishing Ironman competition.
Squadron Leader Cree served his country for 14 years. During that time, he served with dedication and professionalism both at home and abroad – flying on deployment with the RNZAF in the Solomon Islands and Timor-Leste, where he commanded a detachment of helicopters, and serving on exchange with the Singapore Air Force.
Possessed of an excellent flying record and a real love of flying, Squadron Leader Cree was one of the RNZAF’s most talented and experienced flying instructors. He served as a flight commander at the Central Flying School Ohakea and was an A category instructor – instructing students on both rotary and fixed-wing aircraft.
There is always an element of danger with flying, and Squadron Leader Cree’s passing is a reminder of the dangers faced by our New Zealand Defence Force personnel every day. He will be sorely missed by his friends and colleagues at Ohakea, and across the wider RNZAF.
My sympathies, and those of my ACT Party colleagues, are with Squadron Leader Cree’s wife and son, family and loved ones. Their’s is the greatest loss and we understand that our sentiments – as heartfelt as they are – cannot ease their hurt.
This is a reminder that our servicemen and women put their lives on the line both on deployment and when serving their country at home.
It also reminds us that families serve – bearing the brunt of the commitment and dedication of their loved ones serving in our Defence Forces.
Our thoughts are with Squadron Leader Cree’s family and loved ones in this time of loss.
An excerpt from the article:
"Dr Solomon cannot say what is driving the change she and her colleagues have studied, nor how long it will last. It may be one of many aspects of the climate that flop around, seemingly at random, over periods of years to decades. Or it might be something driven by a long-term change, such as the build-up of greenhouse gases (or, conceivably, layers of sooty smog). Dr Solomon suspects the former, because of the way the relationship between the stratosphere and the sea-surface temperature has changed. Patterns of sea-surface temperature which come and go, rather than absolute levels that continue to rise, may be the important thing. Dr Solomon cannot say what is driving the change she and her colleagues have studied, nor how long it will last. It may be one of many aspects of the climate that flop around, seemingly at random, over periods of years to decades. Or it might be something driven by a long-term change, such as the build-up of greenhouse gases (or, conceivably, layers of sooty smog). Dr Solomon suspects the former, because of the way the relationship between the stratosphere and the sea-surface temperature has changed. Patterns of sea-surface temperature which come and go, rather than absolute levels that continue to rise, may be the important thing."
Fight them on the Beaches
Now they (health officials I suppose cooked this one up) are saying that smoking will be banned on beaches. Where does it all stop? If damage done by passive smoking is the argument how can this possibly be the answer? When will they get it? Smokers already pay for themselves (in terms of health costs) and more in the taxation attached to tobacco products. So they damage their own health - has anyone ever heardof personal responsibility?
I'm not a smoker but I'm sick of these vitriolic attacks on other human beings.
That was the saddest day in Aussie cricket. I remember exactly where I was and what I was doing when that happened. (in an Aussie bar working but watching the cricket with 150 patrons.) If Greg Chappel had walked into the bar he would have had unimaginable things done to him! He became quite a villain and I am sure he regrets ever doing it. That was how I felt at the time. Pretty much embarrassed. We even had kiwis in the bar as well which made it even worse! And of course when I came to New Zealand to live ..... Well you can imagine.
In the news yesterday, a teacher speaking against the National Standards, argued that one of the problems is that when children arrive at school as new entrants, there is a wide variation in what they already know. Some have no educational skills whatsoever and others can hold a pencil, know the alphabet, write their names and know their numbers up to or beyond 10. It seems to me that since most children go to some kind of pre-school, there should be standards expected of them too. If children arrive at school with the above-mentioned skills, they will have a really good start to learning. I taught New Entrant classes for many years and used to supply parents with material to help with those things. The ones who arrived with those skills made incredible progress. They were focused, and eager to fly. How hard would it be to get pre-schools to aim at having their pupils achieve those standards before the children go on to primary school. My grandchild attended a pre-school in Singapore where they did that. She has done very well. There is no doubt that pupils come out at the end of the Singaporean system much further ahead of their New Zealand counterparts.
I am posting below a media release I put out today in support of National Standards. ACT is very much in favour of parents knowing how their children are achieving. Accurate information on their childrens' performance and accurate information on how schools achieve is necessary for real choice to exist.
Associate Minister of Education Heather Roy today expressed her support for the Government’s new National Standards, an important policy that will provide parents with much-needed information about their children’s educational progress.
"The Government has responded to a request from parents asking for access to clear and plain-language reporting on their child’s progress. They access information formally when it is available and informally through networks," Mrs Roy said.
"Parents have a right to the same information that is available to schools. If parents are to be active participants in their child’s education, they need to have a clear idea of how their child is progressing and the quality of education their school is providing.
"Many schools already assess children well and pass this information on to parents. However, consistency of assessment throughout the country is crucial in determining where and when students are not performing well, then to do something about it. National Standards are needed to provide this benchmark information.
"Parents want information on their child’s progress and the National Standards provide the infrastructure to ensure this is available. The policy has drawn criticism and generated much controversy, but why should we be content with one in five young people in New Zealand currently leaving school without the literacy and numeracy skills they need to do well in life?
"Providing progress reports in plain language to parents allows them to make better-informed decisions about their child’s education; it makes schools accountable for their results and creates incentives to provide quality education.
"ACT aspires to excellence in education and the introduction of National Standards is an important step toward improving levels of achievement and success in all schools. All Parties should be striving to assist our children and young people to reach their full potential," Mrs Roy said.
Agreed Rafer. Perhaps some market signals from shipping insurers such as Lloyds would help to encourage shippers into convoys i.e. notifying when and where escorted convoys would form up and that, if you weren't in them, your premium and payout would reflect the consequent risk. Rules of engagement are an issue but international laws enable warships to use all measures to protect merchant ships sailing under their own nation's flag. The reasons why merchantmen sail under flags of convenience are well understood but, for the purpose of a convoy, all ships could be re-flagged at the assembly port giving the escorts the right to act in their defence. At the dispersal port, they could resume their original flagging arrangements. I'm not sure how this would work with an EU or similar Combined Task Force. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable in these matters could contribute to the discussion?
I am really hoping that our talented daughter will be able to gain one of these scholarships to attend a private school as a Year 9 student next year, 2011. Yes, there are many families like ours whose net worth is under 150,000 and who earn well under 65,000 each year. We have always been very frugal, however, and our children do not feel poor. It helps that we don't drink alcohol, smoke or gamble of course. I hope ours and many other ordinary Kiwi families will be able to help our children to get a leg up into a wonderful education through these generous scholarships. Roll on the application date for this year!
The last comments by "balanced view" don't make sense. First you state that "who would pay $100+ out of their own pockets" for these services... and then you say students like "free" stuff.
It isn't free. You are freeloading off other students money, most likely obtained by a student loan - just so you can have cheaper services. It's selfish.
What do pro CSM supporters have to fear by allowing students to tick a box when they enrol? If services are that great surely people will be flocking to join?
A quick search reveals that this levy has very little to do with Student Associations.
Check out http://www.victoria.ac.nz/home/admisenrol/payments/services-levy-faq.aspx
It is misleading to link it to student association membership.
It appears that if you utilise the services e.g. high speed internet & IT support, student health consultation, student recreation centre (i.e. gym membership), you could get good value for money.
The services appear to be linked to the social health of the university, similar to social investment off campus e.g. libraries, community centres.
Hi, the levy at Victoria this year is $510. I am a part-time student who works. I am doing a short programme and only require 1 more paper to complete it, however I have to pay the full levy which almost doubles the cost of my paper for services I don't even use because I work. All other universities at least offer a rebate to their part-time students. Universities appear to be using the loophole in the Fees course costs maxima (which does not cover student's levies)as a way of increasing fees beyond the limit.
Unfortunately we were unsuccessful in our application for this fantastic scholarship and we were even the first to submit! I ended up taking a loan out to pay for the fees, I am a solo mother of 2 children and know my childrens education is important, I will apply for next year in the hope that we will be successful.
From 'Step Change'
'Review enrolment scheme policy and other regulations which may limit parental choice and the ability of schools to respond to parental demand.'
Fantastic, bit cautious about parent demand though. A lot of differences in parenting between parent(s)/guardian of 'Sharleese' and that of 'Charlotte-Elizabeth'. Some societal demand needed to limit 'helicopter' damage of latter and address disadvantages of birth for former. Teachers know which parents are involved at school too much and too little.
'its high-achieving 5 percent' -may not be G&T, just good acadaemics.
'determining the eligibility and identification of students to be included in the programme, taking into account National Standards and other age-based assessments'
-very problematic as most Gifted will hit the ceiling for tests esp age-based, and some Gifted do not test well due to unmet learning needs/difficulties. Many 2e students will test as 'average' yet with appropriate interventions could be exceptional achievers.
I've had a look at the report 'Free to Learn'. 'Step Change' one doesn't appear there anymore. I did skim over that one yesterday. The aspect drawing a lot of criticism with G&T circles is the 'bottom 20% and top 5%' descriptor. I haven't seen where these are defined. I would think that 'by capacity (&/or learning difficulties) shown on independent Educational Psychologists assessment' would be great, but 'by results in National Standards testing' is the general perception of most commentors.
There seem to be a lot of really big ideas that would have to be very well trialled before implementation (no chance of being cost-neutral) and don't appear to account for the geographically challenged (large % of NZ).
Tracy you have highlighted a number of important points. As a psychologist assessing and working with gifted children daily (and as president of NZAGC) I speak to a growing number of families concerned with these very issues. Where do children who are achieving at a level three to five years ahead on internationally accepted assessment tools fit? Progress and a student's ongoing learning needs to be monitored. Thank you for highlighting some important considerations for National Standards.
New Zealand has been knocked out of the competition after losing to Canada in the quarter-finals.
Maria English (Samuel Marsden Collegiate School), Jasmin Moran (Chilton St James School), Josh Baxter (Auckland Grammar School), Nick Cross (Scots College) and Aria Newfield (St Cuthbert's College) argued passionately against the motion 'That we should pay compensation for injustices committed by previous generations'.
The debate was incredibly close and the team is to be congratulated for making it so far through this prestigious competition.
Linda, Please have a look at the two reports released yesterday on the right-hand side bar of the home page of this website. Your comment above is entirely in line with these.
In reading these comments and replies I've had a flash of inspiration. A government-funded Ed Psych assessment for all children by age 7! Identify the gifted, identify the at-risk and twice-exceptional, identify the strengths/weaknesses of the average and arm the school with truely individual information with which to best educate the child. Expensive -relatively but the economic gain for NZ could be huge.
Also, if a child is above the National Standard for a Yr 1 student (across the curriculum) at aged 4 why are they not able to be educated at their level. Pre-schools have no GATE funding or advisors and schools can't enrol before 5 yo (insurance??). If the child is well-below average they can stay at pre-school until 6 yo or have special provisions within school from 5 yo. Tall poppy syndrome alive and well within the legislated education provisions.
I agree with Professor Riley entirely.
Introducing an assessment tool that focuses solely on the tail is effectively telling schools they have to rescue the underachievers at the expense of the over achievers. Stop being an either or system! It's about time ALL kids got their needs met in our country!
My 11 yr old son is gifted at science and maths and technololgy. He gets little or no stimulation in these areas at all, except they do cover maths. But unfortunately, he suffers being made to do the same maths lessons as everyone else and when he asks for something more challenging, he is told that he should just do what is in front of him, it "builds character."
...Builds character? Oh, I get it! Our gifted children need to build strong characters, in order to be able to endure with grace and dignity a lifetime of being under-diagnosed, under-stimulated, and under-developed in a system that is more concerned about the 'tail' kids; martyrs in an educational system that fails them even MORE than it fails the underachievers!
The point that the powers that be don't seem to get, is that if you leave gifted kids unsupported, their gifts WILL NOT AUTOMATICALLY DEVELOP. You have to nurture gifted kids, or they may collapse into soul-detroying failure. They often exhibit odd behaviours which can result in negative responses from ignorant teachers until a negative self-fulfilling cycle takes over and crushes the self esteem and giftedness right out of them. They become a sorry educational statistic.
If you do not encourage, stimulate, grow and support gifted kids, their potential may be lost to society for good. Gifted kids are VULNERABLE, does the govt not get this??????
You can't sit on the fence. If you dont' actively support gifted kids, they won't necessarily blossom by themselves. I believe most teachers in this country are not skilled in recognising, handling the behaviour of, and advancing the strengths of gifted kids. We need to upskill the teachers to be able to serve ALL kids, not just the tail kids. There are too few teachers in our schools today equipped to recognise and deal with gifted kids.
I thank God one teacher who had skill in this area recognised my son was gifted and agitated for a year, until he was finally approved for inclusion in a wonderful gifted kids programme (GKP) which performs miracles with gifted kids (check their website), and gets little or no funding from the governemnt by the way (why am I not surprised).
I think people generally completely misunerstand what 'gifted' means. I'm sure they expect it's a nice, sweet, docile, polite, very clever little darling.
The reality can be far from it. The child can be precocious, unfocussed, a dreamer, unresponsive, slow to process commands, and socially immature. All of this is a recipe for disaster in a classroom if the teacher doesn not understand why the child is like this. They will make negative attributions about aspects of the child that the child cannot help, and they often lack the skills to help the child forward.
If you don't upskill the nation's teachers to understand and develop strategies to deal with the 'behavioural odditites' a lot of gifted kids manifest, you will end up with generation after generation of teachers mis-diagnosing 'above average' kids as 'naughty, distruptive' kids and no progress will be made. My son has worn this label and it nearly destroyed him, except for the saving grace of GKP - Gifted Kids Programme - which singlehandedly put the pieces of my son back together due solely to their immense skill in dealing with gifted kids.
DON'T ASSUME ALL TEACHERS HAVE THESE SKILLS. THEY DON'T! BRING BACK THE FUNDING AND INCREASE IT SO ALL TEACHERS CAN ATTEND COMPULSORY TRAINING ON HOW TO HELP GIFTED KIDS.
Currently, the under achievers are better off. Because at least they get to be supported to become 'averagely' good, a step up for them. But the kids at the top end often just LOSE. They lose their potential for what they could have been; it doesn't actualise at the rate it could have, if at all. They risk losing everything they could have been and my contention is that the nation can't afford to lose the benefits we would have gained as a nation from these genius kids. They're the ones who could invent how to live on the moon. They're the kids who will invent new technologies that will save lives, save health costs, improve the lot for all of us in ways we can't even imagine yet.
Do we just say "Who cares?" and let them rot in a sea of indifference? If we do, it will be to the nation's detriment.
No, the only way to serve their needs is to (1) have an assessment tool that can specifically measure gifted kids, and (2) put funding in place to achieve change for gifted kids! Can the national standards truly, accurately identify where gifted kids are at? Where is the guarantee? Please replace endless self-congratulatory government rhetoric with rolled up sleeves!
"Lowering the ceiling" for gifted learners is unfortunately going to be one of the inevitable results of the implementation of National Standards.
Why? Because the schools have been given the loud and clear message from the Ministry that the most important thing that they should be focussing their energies and teacher professional development upon is raising the achievement of students who are under-performing. Schools have already reported to me that "frankly, the Government, by cutting professional development money for gifted and talented, have given a clear signal that this is not important". The message they feel they are receiving is that gifted students will achieve anyway (we all know *that* chestnut is a fallacy) - so just leave them to get on with it and focus on those who are failing. Schools do not necessarily like this message, but feel they do not have the resources or energy to do otherwise.
Whilst meeting the learning needs of students who are falling behind is of course a worthy priority, and needs pursuing, this current focus endorses a 'default' false premise that "to do nothing (for gifted) is to do no harm". I have first hand reporting of Gifted Education Coordination roles in secondary schools being dropped or becoming an 'add-on' with no time allowance (time allocation and funding being needed elsewhere). These teachers are often the major catalyst for change for these students, especially in low decile schools and areas where there are high proportions of Maori and Pasifika students. These students aren't necessarily failing... but they are in serious danger of slipping through the system with their potential unrecognised and untapped. Meeting the learning needs of every student is a cornerstone of the New Zealand Curriculum, yet without appropriate support in the classroom the gifted learner is likely at best to be treading water, and at worst, switching off and underachieving at 'average'.
Perhaps one positive move that could be taken to establish whether or not this is happening could be an expectation that base-line data for students who are achieving highly continues to rise at a relative level, and that this data will be analysed as enthusiastically as the data for students who are falling behind. Teachers would need direct assistance in setting learning outcomes and success criteria for students working above the level that they are teaching to so that gifted learners were presented with meaningful standards against which they can strive to achieve.(Goodness, that sounds like differentiation to me!)
However, while this solution may solve part of the problem, it will not address the problem of gifted students at risk of non-identification who are likely to be achieving at standard level and whose potential has not been identified: students who are twice exceptional, gifted students from specific minority ethnic groups such as Maori and Pasifika, and gifted students who have a physical disability. Because the focus is upon lifting those who are failing to a specific base-line, these students are most at risk of underachieving - yet paradoxically, they are already achieving.
Which brings me back to my original assertion that the current focus of the implementation National Standards will inevitably lower the ceiling of learning for gifted students. Is this situation able to be remedied without throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Of course. But not without a re-focus and re-alignment of the big picture, expectations, and resource targetting.
Tracey echoes the concerns of many teachers and parents of gifted students...
Assessment is an essential tool in the teaching toolbox.
The point behind 'diagnosis' is to provide guidance for future action. If a student performs at a high level when being 'diagnosed' then the temptation is for no action to be put in place other than more of the same. We know that learning will occur if what is offered is authentic to the needs of the learner. The issue is not whether or not we should assess students and provide clear reporting (to the student/ the parents and as diagnostic feedback to the teacher). Teachers agree that it is necessary to find out what the student can do already. What has not been taken into account is the very real possibility that gifted students will be 'misdiagnosed' because of age rather than ability.
If the answer is national standards, then we need to ask the questions ...
How will the national standards make a difference to the learning opportunities that are offered to gifted students?
What evidence is there for parents that this is happening/ going to happen ?
As the parent of two children in existing Gifted and Talented programmes, I can say I wouldn't even bother going to the assessment sessions around National Standards if all the teacher can tell me is my child is roughly 'above average' - that won't be reporting anything useful to me! The teacher will then need to use other standards to give me a better indication of their progress. Which means this scheme shouldn't really be called a 'national' standard, unless it is in fact just named after the 'National' party??
I also strongly agree with Rod Fee, one of my children regularly never completes tests for that very reason - because of complex thought processes. Ironically their final mark is well above average anyway, even though the tests were incomplete! Again, the testing process won't give me a true indication of the level attained.
When is gifted education going to be valued across the board in New Zealand?
I must say that Professor Riley has put this very well.
I do not wish to simply repeat what she has said though I strongly support it. I can perhasp add acouple ofa dditional points.
The first is in relation to those high ability students who are somewhat slow in testing or confused in testing through apparently slow processing skills. Sometimes students think through so many angles of a prolem and know so many answers that they do not pick the 'correct'' answer.
Ask an apparently straight forward questin such as this: "Apart from the moon, what can be seen in the sky at night and shines?" The answer might seem to be "star". Ask that of a highly gifted student who knows about nebulae, dust clouds, man-made satellites and you have the potential for beign slow to decide the answer beign sought, 'wrong' answers and consequently frustratingly low scores.
A trite example perhaps but the phenomenon is very real in testing gifted students. So it is not just languidity as Professor Riley correctly suggests, but also continual battering of self-esteem of those who society should be especially keen to encourage.
The second point I wish to raise is this: If the testing is to be of benefit to the indivdual students - surely that is the primary concern of any test that takes up so much resource - then it has to be meaningful for that student's improvement through education. Set the bar low enough so that you are making sure most people 'pass' and it is pointless for the majority. Are you themn only trying to filter out and subsequently provide redress (assuming this is progress those who do not meet the standard? Set the bar in the middle or higher and it is a replacement for every other sort of pass/fail testing.
Surely the correct procedure is one that favours the individual student and the advancement of that student's education. That is, ask these questions:
- What is it that THIS student understands and knows?
- What issues if any (time/confusion/lack of skill/poor teaching/home
environemnt/specific learning disability etc) are stopping THIS student from showing a better understanding?
- What does THIS student therefore now need to know and understand?
- How will we give THIS studnet what is needed?
This gives all of the answers that the government and schools and parents in fact seek as well as what each student meeds. Anything else seems frankly pointless, possibly harmful to some sectors of the stduent body and possibly a distraction to what teaching is about - the educational advancement of individual students.
Tracy, thanks for this erudite and clear summary of the concerns many parents of gifted children, including myself, have. It is only very recently that teachers have begun to go past thinking about it and instead actively providing appropriate levels of work for my own children (well, two of them - the third is problematic), and I know that this only came about because of extensive professional development provided within their schools. For this reason, I think it is a real shame that funding has been axed for professional development advisors and for private providers who provided excellent PD to teachers. When lack of ongoing PD is coupled with the undoubted stress that untested national standards will place teachers under, I really worry about the impact on our gifted children. We will revert to the old attitude of gifted students being able to take care of themselves.
It is all very well for Anne Tolley to say that what has happened overseas in the USA and UK will not happen here - ie gifted children's needs fell off the radar for all intents and purposes - but without any form of trialling of the standards, she cannot possibly know this. Anecdotal evidence from parents and teachers at the 2008 SENG Conference in the USA, which I attended, certainly supports my fears that national standards will ultimately have a detrimental effect on the education of our gifted children. While I agree that we must raise the level of 'the tail' who are underachieving, I also think we must make sure that 'the head' does not sink under the weight of disinterest this government continues to show in its actions regarding gifted children. So far, I have heard lots of rhetoric, but nothing the government has done so far gives me any hope that they are more than empty words aimed at placating parents of gifted children.
As a parent of a gifted son who is becoming more and more demotivated at school everyday, I want to scream 'do something' at Anne Tolley! It will be a challenge to keep him at school and if he succeeds it will be despite the system, not because of it!
It's great that Heather is so enthusiastic and gets out on the ground. However, the Reserves are in a very poor state and here's a quick 10, off the top of my head, lessons learned from my time as a company commander:
1.The online recruiting process for the Reserve forces is a complete shambles.
2.Recruiting by targeting Regular Soldiers on release from the Army is largely a waste of time as most lose interest within a couple of months.
3.The Battalion Group structure is obsolete, indifferently lead, generally poorly administered and needs to be replaced by a more modern and relevant training structure. Needless to say, this needs to be properly resourced.
4.The training standards across the Battalion Groups varies considerably and there are far too many untrained,unfit an inefficient soldiers in the system.
5.Too much training is poorly planned and executed, which has a direct adverse effect on retention.
6.20 days training per annum is simply too little to maintain an effective reserve.
7.Leadership training needs to be made relevant to the type of operations that the NZDF and Reserves are likely to be deployed into. i.e low level peace keeping at no more than company level.
8.Many of the specialist arms only receive the most rudimentary training and provide very little capability to the NZDF.
9.There is a real requirement for employment protection legislation if the NZDF expects to maintain the current cycle of voluntary mobilisation.The NZDF often ignores the fact that the best leaders often have good civilian careers, which are at a premium in the present economic climate. Beware of the 'Dole Patrol'!
10.Do things properly or not at all.
Rafer
Today I spoke on behalf of the ACT Party as Parliament marked the passing of Squadron Leader Nick Cree.
I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to mark the passing of Royal New Zealand Air Force Pilot Squadron Leader Nicholas Cree, tragically killed on January 14 2010 at Ohakea Air Force Base while practicing aerial display manoeuvres.
Nick Cree was a member of the Royal New Zealand Air Force aerobatic team ‘the Red Checkers’, and was Checker’s 5. Only our very best pilots are chosen to fly with the ‘Red Checkers’.
One of the hardest things for Ministers of Defence is to, alongside New Zealand Defence Force personnel and families, farewell fit young military people who have tragically had their lives cut short in the course of service to New Zealand.
On January 19 Ministers Wayne Mapp, Simon Power and I attended the funeral service for Squadron Leader Cree at Ohakea. We heard of a young man in his prime; a son, brother, husband and father who was passionate about everything he did – not just about his love of flying and his career with the air force, but about family and his great pride at twice completing the physically punishing Ironman competition.
Squadron Leader Cree served his country for 14 years. During that time, he served with dedication and professionalism both at home and abroad – flying on deployment with the RNZAF in the Solomon Islands and Timor-Leste, where he commanded a detachment of helicopters, and serving on exchange with the Singapore Air Force.
Possessed of an excellent flying record and a real love of flying, Squadron Leader Cree was one of the RNZAF’s most talented and experienced flying instructors. He served as a flight commander at the Central Flying School Ohakea and was an A category instructor – instructing students on both rotary and fixed-wing aircraft.
There is always an element of danger with flying, and Squadron Leader Cree’s passing is a reminder of the dangers faced by our New Zealand Defence Force personnel every day. He will be sorely missed by his friends and colleagues at Ohakea, and across the wider RNZAF.
My sympathies, and those of my ACT Party colleagues, are with Squadron Leader Cree’s wife and son, family and loved ones. Their’s is the greatest loss and we understand that our sentiments – as heartfelt as they are – cannot ease their hurt.
This is a reminder that our servicemen and women put their lives on the line both on deployment and when serving their country at home.
It also reminds us that families serve – bearing the brunt of the commitment and dedication of their loved ones serving in our Defence Forces.
Our thoughts are with Squadron Leader Cree’s family and loved ones in this time of loss.
Here is an interesting article that has been recommended to me. Seems that uncertainty as to the cause of climate change is prevelant!
http://www.economist.com/world/international/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15443791
An excerpt from the article:
"Dr Solomon cannot say what is driving the change she and her colleagues have studied, nor how long it will last. It may be one of many aspects of the climate that flop around, seemingly at random, over periods of years to decades. Or it might be something driven by a long-term change, such as the build-up of greenhouse gases (or, conceivably, layers of sooty smog). Dr Solomon suspects the former, because of the way the relationship between the stratosphere and the sea-surface temperature has changed. Patterns of sea-surface temperature which come and go, rather than absolute levels that continue to rise, may be the important thing. Dr Solomon cannot say what is driving the change she and her colleagues have studied, nor how long it will last. It may be one of many aspects of the climate that flop around, seemingly at random, over periods of years to decades. Or it might be something driven by a long-term change, such as the build-up of greenhouse gases (or, conceivably, layers of sooty smog). Dr Solomon suspects the former, because of the way the relationship between the stratosphere and the sea-surface temperature has changed. Patterns of sea-surface temperature which come and go, rather than absolute levels that continue to rise, may be the important thing."
Fight them on the Beaches
Now they (health officials I suppose cooked this one up) are saying that smoking will be banned on beaches. Where does it all stop? If damage done by passive smoking is the argument how can this possibly be the answer? When will they get it? Smokers already pay for themselves (in terms of health costs) and more in the taxation attached to tobacco products. So they damage their own health - has anyone ever heardof personal responsibility?
I'm not a smoker but I'm sick of these vitriolic attacks on other human beings.
That was the saddest day in Aussie cricket. I remember exactly where I was and what I was doing when that happened. (in an Aussie bar working but watching the cricket with 150 patrons.) If Greg Chappel had walked into the bar he would have had unimaginable things done to him! He became quite a villain and I am sure he regrets ever doing it. That was how I felt at the time. Pretty much embarrassed. We even had kiwis in the bar as well which made it even worse! And of course when I came to New Zealand to live ..... Well you can imagine.
In the news yesterday, a teacher speaking against the National Standards, argued that one of the problems is that when children arrive at school as new entrants, there is a wide variation in what they already know. Some have no educational skills whatsoever and others can hold a pencil, know the alphabet, write their names and know their numbers up to or beyond 10. It seems to me that since most children go to some kind of pre-school, there should be standards expected of them too. If children arrive at school with the above-mentioned skills, they will have a really good start to learning. I taught New Entrant classes for many years and used to supply parents with material to help with those things. The ones who arrived with those skills made incredible progress. They were focused, and eager to fly. How hard would it be to get pre-schools to aim at having their pupils achieve those standards before the children go on to primary school. My grandchild attended a pre-school in Singapore where they did that. She has done very well. There is no doubt that pupils come out at the end of the Singaporean system much further ahead of their New Zealand counterparts.
I am posting below a media release I put out today in support of National Standards. ACT is very much in favour of parents knowing how their children are achieving. Accurate information on their childrens' performance and accurate information on how schools achieve is necessary for real choice to exist.
Associate Minister of Education Heather Roy today expressed her support for the Government’s new National Standards, an important policy that will provide parents with much-needed information about their children’s educational progress.
"The Government has responded to a request from parents asking for access to clear and plain-language reporting on their child’s progress. They access information formally when it is available and informally through networks," Mrs Roy said.
"Parents have a right to the same information that is available to schools. If parents are to be active participants in their child’s education, they need to have a clear idea of how their child is progressing and the quality of education their school is providing.
"Many schools already assess children well and pass this information on to parents. However, consistency of assessment throughout the country is crucial in determining where and when students are not performing well, then to do something about it. National Standards are needed to provide this benchmark information.
"Parents want information on their child’s progress and the National Standards provide the infrastructure to ensure this is available. The policy has drawn criticism and generated much controversy, but why should we be content with one in five young people in New Zealand currently leaving school without the literacy and numeracy skills they need to do well in life?
"Providing progress reports in plain language to parents allows them to make better-informed decisions about their child’s education; it makes schools accountable for their results and creates incentives to provide quality education.
"ACT aspires to excellence in education and the introduction of National Standards is an important step toward improving levels of achievement and success in all schools. All Parties should be striving to assist our children and young people to reach their full potential," Mrs Roy said.
Agreed Rafer. Perhaps some market signals from shipping insurers such as Lloyds would help to encourage shippers into convoys i.e. notifying when and where escorted convoys would form up and that, if you weren't in them, your premium and payout would reflect the consequent risk. Rules of engagement are an issue but international laws enable warships to use all measures to protect merchant ships sailing under their own nation's flag. The reasons why merchantmen sail under flags of convenience are well understood but, for the purpose of a convoy, all ships could be re-flagged at the assembly port giving the escorts the right to act in their defence. At the dispersal port, they could resume their original flagging arrangements. I'm not sure how this would work with an EU or similar Combined Task Force. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable in these matters could contribute to the discussion?