Guestie: Being Brilliant in the Classroom

Many thanks to an anonymous teacher who emailed this in.

Teachers often bemoan a lack of funding for education.

Yet I suspect I'm not the only teacher feeling deeply uneasy about the $359 million the government is planning to spend in education over the next four years. 

For teachers to complain of such an huge investment seems at best ungrateful and at worst, a confirmation of every stereotype of the unionised teacher out there: unwilling to compromise, stubborn and arrogant.

After all, why are we paying our worst teachers the same as our very best?

And there in lies the deep ideological divide between many in the teaching profession and the government. 

Because underpinning the initiative of lead teachers, change principals is a philosophy that talent is something innate which needs to be recognised and rewarded rather than something that is constantly being developed and nurtured.

It strikes me as odd that when it comes to our kids the government has embraced the vision that all children can learn. That it's s  a matter of good teaching that will, to borrow a talking point, ensure five out of five kids are achieving.

Yet when it comes to managing those entrusted with educating our kids, talent is in short supply. 

Good teachers need titles to make change and in the words of the Prime Minster "we are going to pay them more to get it."

To me this isn't good enough.

We should want expert teachers in front of all our kids and that's what we should paying to get.

Fortunately most teachers will quite happily admit that they themselves are still learning. More importantly, teachers will learn from anyone be it a 1st year teacher, an  internationally renowned expert and most importantly their students. Teachers know that what works for one group of kids will not automatically transfer to another.

Just as each kid has their own personality so too each class and school. The danger in paying to get results from super teachers is that it assumes the process of teaching and learning can be standardised - follow what the expert teacher to get results - when it needs to be personalised.

I know I'm not the only teacher who has taken an idea from an expert at a conference or a classroom observation and tried to implement it in class only to have it fail miserably. But then I adjust a few things and make the idea work for my learners or I try a new approach. Yes expertise is important but  just as important is that teachers know how to tweak best practice to fit the needs of the kids in my class.

It's what the New Zealand curriculum calls teaching as inquiry and what high achieving systems  strive for - all teachers need to be experts in how their students learn. 

On a more structural level teachers as a professional acutely feel the effects of income inequality in New Zealand. Even at the high decile school I worked at there were teachers dipping into their own funds for food, trips and schools. 

Throwing millions into establishing an executive level of educators won't help the 11 year old in tears because there are holes in their shoes and no money in the house until payday.

Yes teaching quality is the biggest in-school factor in, to borrow another sound byte, lifting student achievement. However it is those out of school factors, having enough food to eat, secure housing to avoid transience as well as sickness and above all a feeling of love and belonging which  have a far greater impact on our kids' learning. 

I'm sure my rant might easily be construed as jealousy - if I'm not going to get recognised and rewarded then no one else should.

However I don't actually have any skin in the game as I no longer teach in New Zealand. 

Would this announcement be enough to lure me home in the next few years?

No.

While my prime motive for moving overseas is for travel, the support and resources I now enjoy are well beyond what the education system in New Zealand is resourced to provide. There is more admin support, specialist help, a smaller class and more release time. I am still as busy as I ever was back home however I am now far more focused on teaching and learning.

Because while money is important, the most important resource for teachers is their time.

Rather than injecting a few thousand super teachers into our education system how about focusing on ensuring that every teacher and more importantly every child is supported to be brilliant in the classroom?

Disability and Queer Issues Part 1

The following is an edited version of a short talk I gave on disability and queer issues to a queer, mostly studenty, audience. It is limited by the short time I had to speak, as well as my own perspective. At the end I touched on some aspects of movement building and common experiences, however I have ended this post quite abruptly before that as I'd like to explore these in more depth in a later post.

As a queer disabled person, the disadvantages and exclusion you face end up being multiplied. It’s hard to find queer friendly housing, and it’s hard to find accessible - which may mean quiet or dry or wheelchair accessible - housing. If you need both, you get slammed. Queer friendly healthcare isn’t that easily come by - but try finding queer friendly healthcare that is accessible and includes the specialist knowledge you might need. Queer people generally get useless, inappropriate and often outright damaging sex education. Disabled people can get the same, or often don’t get it at all, perhaps because we are assumed to be non-sexual, because we are removed from those classes for extra tuition, because it is not offered in a way we can understand or interpret or because it is not appropriate to our bodies. Again, the effect is multiplied.

Queer spaces are too often inaccessible - even on the most basic level of being wheelchair accessible. It's not acceptable, and constitutes a 'not welcome' sign on the door for many disabled people. And whilst this isn't okay anywhere, I think most of us here know how essential queer spaces can be, and that they're often the place you go after being excluded from anywhere else. Accessibility needs can be quite varied, though - to give one personal example, I struggle with the reliance on bars and clubs as queer spaces because I have problems in noisy environments. I'm happy that more and more alternatives are being offered, but there's a long way to go. Accessibility is often overlooked in event planning, but it needs to become as routine as booking a room or putting up posters.

 
The next thing I want to talk about is family and relationships. The picture above is from the movie Milk in which this young person calls up Harvey Milk for help as his parents are about to send him off to be degayed. He’s advised to run away, and get to a big city. The image then zooms out, revealing he’s a wheelchair user. That story had a happy ending, but many don’t.

It’s hard enough escaping from abusive or bigoted family - but if you have limited mobility, if sleeping on a couch isn’t possible for you, if you need personal care provided by your parents, if they’re the ones who take you to medical appointments, if public transport is inaccessible and your escape can be attributed to your disability then it’s a whole other story. You’ve probably heard about parents of disabled adults fighting to be paid for carework in the news recently. Mostly it’s been fought from the angle of these parents’ rights - which is important. But it’s also important that disabled people are not forced to live with family members longer than they would otherwise choose for financial reasons.

Similarly, there can be pressure for disabled people to stay in relationships longer than they otherwise would if they are meeting support needs - this includes abusive relationships, but also those which have simply run their course. I think this issue is particularly important to the queer community, not just because abuse in queer relationships is under recognised, but because we place a lot of value on the fight to be accepted as in relationships, and we need to understand that for some leaving can be just as much as a struggle.

The sexuality and gender identity of disabled people can be linked to their disabled status in a way which pathologises or dismisses that identity. For example, asexual disabled people are assumed to be examples of the belief that ‘disabled people don’t have sex’ rather than having their identity acknowledged in its own right. Disabled lesbians are assumed to be lesbian because they can’t get a man. Genderqueer disabled people can be assumed to be confused or lack understanding of social appropriateness.

That said, I think queer people can often be unaware of the complex ways sexuality and gender identiy can be linked to disability for some people. To give just one specific example, a lot of autistic people see themselves as outside the gender binary. And a number of them would never identify as genderqueer or join groups catering for queer and gender diverse people (though of course some do!). They might see their gender identity as an extension of their autistic identity, but not talk in the terms or feel welcome in the spaces that other non-binary people do.

Disabled queer people of course experience similar issues to many who experience more than one form of oppression. The more acceptable norms a person fits, the more easily they can get away with breaking others. Sometimes this starts externally, and becomes internal, with people trying to hide one part of themselves because it is all ‘too much’.

Okay, shoe time:

Say (to make it simple) if you were at a queer women’s group, and a woman walked in wearing one of these pairs of shoes. You’d probably assume it related to her identity in some way. If I gave you two stereotype hairstyles, I’m sure you could match them with the shoes - and you might make some assumptions about the type of person she is and what she does with her time.

 I look at those shoes and see one pair I could never ever conceive of wearing anything like them, because I’d fall over, and another that I might manage but would be a struggle. I don’t see identity; I see functionality. But so much of identity in the queer community is assumed to be tied up with what we wear or how we look which excludes those of us who have limited choices in this matter.

Related to this is the label of ‘assimilationist’. To me, an assimilationist position is one in which someone seeks to advance the position of their own group whilst leaving the system intact, someone who (for example) focuses on fighting for rich white gay men to have the same rights as rich white straight men, and thinks that’s as far as it needs to go. But I’ve seen it directed at individuals for focussing on meeting personal needs or living a conventional lifestyle.

The truth is, we all do what we need to survive in this society - but the needs of some disabled people may not be recognised as needs. Having - say - a quiet living space or a car because you need it (or even if you don’t need it) isn’t a problem - assuming that because you have the world isn’t broken is. Disabled queer people can also find themselves in a complicated position when it comes to breaking or conforming to stereotypes. The same action can be viewed as challenging stereotypes in one community, but upholding them in others. And therefore we really need to stop making this about our lifestyles, about how we live and what we own, because those don’t change anything. But what we fight for - and how we fight it, collectively - does.

Language and concepts associated with disability - intellectual disability and mental illness in particular - are often used to oppress queer people. Two particular examples come to mind; some of you may remember Constance McMillen, a young person in Mississippi who was not allowed to take her same sex partner to her school prom. After public pressure, the school seemingly relented, only trick to her into what was dubbed a ‘fake’ prom with her intellectually disabled classmates, whilst the so called ‘real’ prom went on elsewhere. Meanwhile in New Zealand a woman recently received an apology for years of medical abuse - including electro-convulsive therapy - resulting from her sexual orientation.

And I think it’s so important we’re careful how we respond to these. Our response shouldn’t be “this abuse was so bad because she wasn’t really mentally ill” or “it was wrong to segregate her from the rest of her school because she’s not intellectually disabled” but to acknowledge that people are on the receiving end of similar forms of oppression for ostensibly different reasons and we need to fight it together.

Time to Queer the Night again!

Last year I was involved in organising Queer the Night, a march in response to transphobic and homophobic violence on our streets. It was an amazing night, with lots of energy and a great sense of community, from which evolved The Queer Avengers.

It would be nice to never need to do it again, but we do. This year we're marching in Wellington on May 11th, and focussing on transphobic and homophobic bullying in schools. Full details here.

I'll be marching, in solidarity with QUILTBAG youth, and in memory of those who  have lost their lives this year and in the years before. And there are two particular things I'll be marching for:

The first is the need to specifically address bullying aimed at children and young people because of their actual or percieved sexual orientation or gender identity. Whilst in previous years Pink Shirt Day has specifically related to homophobic bullying, in New Zealand at least is has now evolved into a more general anti-bullying campaign.

Stopping bullying is of course a cause to get behind, but at the same time transphobic and homophobic bullying does need a specific response. Overseas research puts suicidal thoughts and attempts for LGB High School Students at between 3.5 and 7.1 times higher than heterosexual students and found that 30 percent of LGB youth versus 13 percent of heterosexual youth (mean age of about 18) had attempted suicide at some point. New Zealand statistics appear to follow a similar pattern. Accurate statistics for gender varient youth are harder to come by, but there is every indication that they are significantly higher.

These aren't just numbers. These are kids we know.

QUILTBAG youth are unusual as a minority group, in that usually no other member of their immediate family is a member of that same minority group. Whilst some parents and family members are supportive, even they are often not helped to support their children. Others can be dismissive or outright hostile, meaning that neither home nor school is a safe place. With queer content frequently ignored in lessons, children feel that there is simply no place for them in the world.

Because it is often technically possible for these young people to remain secret about their identity, many are pressured to do so, irrespective of the - sometimes devastating - impact on them, and blamed for being out when they are targeted. Innappropriate toilet facilities and uniform codes make many schools completely inaccessible for gender variant youth.

All bullying needs tackling, but there are specific issues that affect QUILTBAG young people. We can't just shove them under the carpet.

The second is summed up in our slogan 'It Doesn't Get Better Until We Make it Better'. The It Gets Project was an international series of videos in reponse to what was painted in the media as a cluster of suicides amongst queer teens (but was actually the statistical norm) and featured mostly queer adults talking about how much better their lives had become, and encouraging teens to hang on, because it would get better for them too.

The videos were beautiful and heartbreaking. But now it's time for something more.

I'd like every young person considering suicide to reconsider. I believe - hell, I know from personal experience - that things can get much better. But I'd like it even more if we combatted the structural prejudice that allowed them to get to that point. Bullying shouldn't be a part of life, nor should prejudice, nor should suicidality.

The pressure shouldn't be on one individual to put up with what feels unbearable. It should be for all of us to fight alongside them.

Nor should we ignore the fact that for some people it never will get better. That it's already too late. Or others, for whom things have got better, but they still suffer the lasting effects, both emotional/psychological and educational.

'It doesn't get better until we make it better' is more than a message of hope. It's a call to arms.

The devastation transphobic and homophobic bullying brings is too critical to ignore; the lives that can be changed by combatting it are too precious not to fight for. Bring your pink shirts and your glo-sticks and come Queer the Night.

out of uniform

a school that forces kids to wear roman sandals is a school that hates children. seriously? these are the ugliest and most uncomfortable footwear ever designed. what torturer designed them i don't know or care, but i don't see why our kids should be lumped with. for goodness sake, i had to wear these monstrosities when i went to school. have there been no acceptable innovations in footwear design in 30 years that would be acceptable to persons in charge of deciding on school uniform?

i've never been a supporter of uniforms. hated them when i had to wear them, hate that my own kids have to wear them. i hate the loss of individuality, the conformity of it all. to me, it teaches kids that they have to lose anything which makes them different, individual and their own person. they lose their personal identity to the identity of the institution forcing the uniform on them.

i understand the arguments for them, especially for school age children, around the peer pressure to dress in fashionable and expensive clothes. uniforms are apparently the cheaper option. but given that kids need clothes for after school and socialising anyway, i don't know that there is that much saving. maybe uniforms are the better option for some people, but no, i still hate them.

our uniforms were so uncomfortable. disgusting drab brown tunics. and for PE, we had to wear rompers. rompers are truly worse than roman sandals, if that's at all possible. thank goodness sports uniforms have evolved to something more decent. i think the only way to ensure our kids have decent uniforms (if they must have uniforms at all) is to force all the adults in the institution to wear it as well. let's watch the principals and teachers being forced to push their feet into roman sandals, and i bet that rule would be gone in a day.

to add insult to injury, our teachers are being forced to spend their time policing these uniforms, when they really should be spending that energy on teaching our kids. ok, with the basic uniform, i can accept that they have to enforce it otherwise there would be no point. but to police the roman sandals, and to punish kids if they aren't wearing them? that is just a total waste of time. it's certainly not how i want my tax dollars being spent.

PhD student seeks feminists for interviews, research & possibly coffee

Heaps of people have sent this to me, thanks so much, I hope that we can help:

Hello,
I am a PhD student at the Department of Sociology, University of Auckland. My research project is titled “Where have all the feminists gone? Searching for New Zealand’s women’s movement in the early 21st century” and it aims to investigate the current state, diversity and struggles of feminist activism and women’s agency work in Aotearoa/New Zealand.

I am currently looking for interview participants. Women (i.e. everyone who self-identifies as woman/female) of all ages and ethnicities in Aotearoa/New Zealand, who meet at least one of the following criteria, are welcome to participate:
a) You call yourself a ‘feminist’.
and/or
b) You engage in political activities focused on or related to women’s issues of any kind (or you have done so within the last 10 years).
and/or
c) You work for an organisation/group/institution that is involved in work concerned with women’s interests (e.g. an NGO, non-profit agency, activist group, governmental institution).

Such participation will involve two parts:
- filling in a sheet with personal demographic information (e.g. age, educational background)
and
- one interview (approximately 1-2 hours long) about your personal experiences of engaging with feminism and work around women’s political interests.

...If you are interested or have any questions, please email me at jsch136@aucklanduni.ac.nz and I will get in touch with you.


Feel free to forward this to anyone who might have an interest in participating.

Thank you kindly for your support!

Julia Schuster


Julia Schuster
PhD student
Department of Sociology
University of Auckland
jsch136@aucklanduni.ac.nz

(I cut out reference to an attachment which obviously isn't attached to this blog post)

Who needs the toilet training?

Hopes were high when Aotearoa New Zealand became the first nation to hold an inquiry into discrimination experienced by trans people in 2006. 200 people rocked up to talk to the Human Rights Commission. The subsequent report found 80% had experienced discrimination, from avoidance and insults to violent physical and sexual assaults. Difficulties accessing affordable healthcare including around gender reassignment services were widespread – but so were problems with finding somewhere to live, work and play – the kinds of things that we should all be able to take for granted.

According to questions in parliament a couple of months ago, progress on the report’s recommendations has been slow and patchy. The decision not to explicitly include gender identity within the Human Rights Act because this government feels it’s covered already by “sex” – without going to select committee – may need to be tested by an individual trans person, according to Rainbow Wellington.

I’m interested particularly in how the government answered questions about whether they had implemented a human rights education programme to improve understandings about human rights and discrimination issues for trans people. They said:

The Human Rights Commission has worked to improve the public’s understanding, and that of the transgender community, of gender identity issues by: running workshops in five cities alongside the Assume Nothing exhibition (from April 2008 – February 2010); hosting two national human rights training hui for trans people including opportunities for them to meet with government officials; collating FAQs, resource lists links and workshop notes from that human rights education work which should soon be on the HRC’s website; and created on line FAQs and resources, some specifically targeted to enable schools to support trans students. The HRC has also: included a chapter on the rights of sexual and gender minorities in Human Rights in New Zealand 2010; supported the Outgames Human Rights Conference and the pre-conference regional hui for trans and intersex people.

These are good things, but not exactly wide-reaching in terms of numbers. And I’m not sure that to reduce discrimination we need to be working with trans people – unless the aim is increased reporting – seems like it’s cis types who probably need the learning. So here’s something kinda cool (with some potentially triggering scenes, so please be careful) from trans activists in the USA, focusing on access to public toilets:

It might seem like a small thing. But getting beaten up for using a toilet other people don’t want you using, or developing health problems because you can’t go when you want to, not small things.

So bring on the toilet training. Because as Helen Keller said, the highest result of education is tolerance.

Cleaning as a Skill

[This post isn't in response to the recent discussion about the 'I would have got away with it...' cartoon - I've actually been thinking about it for some time, but you may find the links relevant.]

A lot of the defenses of the value of housework come from the perspective of those who do a lot of it. But I think it is just as important for such perspectives to come from those of us who don't do very much at all, and particularly those of us who find it difficult.

A couple of years ago I was living in a house with an old switchboard, the sort where you have to wrap fuse wire round two points. The fuses also happened to be unlabeled. At one point a fuse blew, and so I worked out which fuse was which by testing which lights/appliances when off when I removed various fuses, bought some fuse wire (which is surprisingly hard to find) and replaced the offending fuse.

When I mentioned this to friends, they were shocked that I hadn't called the landlord to send an electrician. Honestly, as someone who had spent half her childhood fiddling round with electric circuits (and though I've forgotten a lot of what I knew then, as may be evident from my vague description, it still makes an instinctive sense) the idea would never have occurred to me.

Yet I imagine a lot of people who couldn't understand why I didn't call an electrician would have been confused or quietly critical (or even loudly critical) if I paid someone to come in and do my vacuuming, and this independent of how much I would pay them. I find vacuuming really, incredible difficult. I literally haven't done it in years (my partner and I have a deal: she vacuums, I empty the vacuum). Yes, in my case I do have a diagnosed neurological condition that this is at least partially the result of, and that would make hiring a vacuumer more acceptable in many people's eyes, but I don't think my argument depends on that fact. Some people are just not good at housework.

I've struggled a bit with a workmate, who I think really does not understand how my struggling when it is my turn to deal with the office kitchen is in any way like her struggling with understanding html (which I find relatively easy). That's because some things, like cleaning, are assumed to be natural, instinctive, anyone can do them, and in particular women are expected to know how to clean without an instruction or effort.

Valuing these things as skills, which take ability and learning, does help lead to greater respect for those who do them, and whilst I do not think this is the cause of the financial disparity between, say, cleaning and other equivalent male occupations, dismissing it as unskilled is used as a justification for that financial disparity, which we need to counter. But it is also a step for those of us who struggle with these skills as seeing this not as a failing as a human being or laziness, but one skill set amongst others which we may lack or have to a lesser degree, and one ability amongst others that may not come naturally to us.

I am absolutely not saying that some people are born to do housework and others aren't. I am particularly wary of how that may be used to justify the greater portion of housework falling on women because they are 'naturally better at it' or some other such bullshit. To the extent that housework is necessary - and I am aware many people take it beyond this, which is their prerogative but not a universal standard - members of a unit need to come to a fair arrangement (which may include contracting of people from outside that unit) that takes account of everyone's skills and abilities, and people are going to need to put some effort into things they find hard, or learn new skills they lack. But I think recognising housework as a skill leads to more respect, and recognition of abilities, all round.

I would have got away with it if it wasn't for those pesky teachers

Another <3 in the direction of Judy Horacek.

ETA:  There's quite a bit of friendly debate about this cartoon in comments - feel free to join in!  

School balls

When I was at high school there was one girl who was out, she was the year below me. When the school ball came a lot of girls went together (double tickets worked out cheaper than singles). But this one girl brought her girlfriend - turned out the girlfriend had been my babysitter. I found this terribly embarrassing; in that vague way I found anyone talking to me embarrassing when I was a teenager. I don't know now - because I didn't think at the time - how hard that had been from her - what reactions she had faced.

St Pats has forbidden a student from taking another boy to the school ball. I just think it's awesome that students are fighting these rules - but shit that they have to do it at such risk and cost.

There was a facebook event for people to support them, but it seems to have disappeared - I am worried that the personal cost on them for taking this stand has been high.

Which seems like a good time to remind people of the follow-up meeting for Queer the Night - we are stronger together than we are alone.

When: Thursday 16 June 7pm
Where: Trades Hall
What: Homophobia and Transphobia - how we respond.

Note: The people involved have received a lot of media attention. I've left their names out of this post deliberately any comments that name them will be deleted.

Stories of Debating Societies and Tennessee

When I was fifteen my English teacher set up a debating society and encouraged me to join. I was a bit of an opinionated little shit, but at the same time deeply socially awkward, with a history of speech difficulties which whilst mostly cured by that point left behind a lot of anxiety.

We met every Wednesday lunchtime, and I loved every minute of it. I made solid friendships. My confidence increased by an order of magnitude. I was encouraged to take an informal leadership role. I took pride in learning technique and debating from a side I disagreed with (I once gave a speech against abortion rights which I was told later was filled with 'obvious passion' (um, yeah) something I'm pretty sure I couldn't do now). Having previously been terrified of opposition, I took sides in good-natured ongoing rivalries.

I'm aware this is an utter cliche, but it's also completely true.

Two other things were happening to me at this time. One were some quite desperate attempts to repress the fact - which had been obvious since I was very small - that I was very clearly not straight. Explaining the context for this is beyond the scope of this blog post, but to summarise: The country (comments which speculate on the location will be deleted) we lived in was part-way through a two decade long removal of homophobic legislation, from a starting point of absolute illegality, through various age of consent decreases and introduction of anti-discrimination legislation. This had all kinds of interplays with other sentiments I'm only just beginning to understand, but what I did understand was that it was very, very nasty - and before I learned to hide myself properly I suffered a lot. So by this point I was (a) terrified and (b) had about 80% convinced myself I was straight.

The second was a developing interest in activism. This wasn't surprising; though my parents weren't activists I grew up in a left wing environment, and though not much was happening locally, I started to make connections online. I was so totally sure, in that typical teenage way, that I could change the world.

When the society had been running for a while, the teacher concerned asked if I could come up with some new topics - we were struggling to think of them. On a school trip overseas another member and I wrote a long list on the ferry. Somewhere on the list, he scribbled 'gay rights'. I felt sick, but told myself that was ridiculous. It was just another of those stock standard topics - abortion, euthanasia, animal rights, death penalty...

We got to that one a few weeks later. In retrospect I realise the teacher was uneasy about it. I wasn't on either of the teams and I only heard we'd been shut down by a classmate. A parent had complained, and the teacher and parent threatened with the full force of a law that I'd never heard of before, but apparently made discussion of homosexuality illegal. I was utterly on fire with rage, but also convinced I could do something about it, and pulled together a meeting of members. I'd love to tell you that we organised a protest, bowed by youthful idealism, and forced a backdown. What happened was that I yelled impassioned statements to a roomful of kids who looked mostly bewildered. I suspect this is not an alien experience to anyone with any experience of activism - the difference was that there was literally nowhere else to go for support.

When that failed, I penned a letter to the local paper, and collected signatures. That somehow got into the hands of the deputy head, who I had some rather loud disagreements with in the corridor until he called my parents. Blessings I count: lack of homophobia on the part of my parents. What they did tell me about were the huge prison sentences that teachers risked for allowing this to go ahead.

I freaked, I backed down, I apologised to the teacher concerned for putting her at risk - to her credit she told me it was okay. This had suddenly go way too big for me to handle. The emotional effects on myself were huge - I think being in an environment where discussion is dangerous carries its own particular brand of fear. I had already learned not to do anything that might out myself, of course (which possibly makes my actions a little stupid, but), but for the concept to be so terrible we couldn't discuss it had an impact I still can't discuss a decade later.

We never really got debating society going again properly after that.

My parents told me - after I finished school, literally had my bags packed to get as far away as possible - that another of my teachers had told them they should be proud of me. They hadn't said anything earlier because they didn't want to risk problems for him. It was too late by then.

* * * * *
In Tennessee now there's a bill in progress, dubbed the 'don't say gay' bill, which will prevent teachers in elementary and middle schools discussing any types of sexual behaviour other than heterosexuality. Whilst it is not as far reaching as the legislation I'm describing here, it is along the same lines, and there is a fear a lot of the effects - particularly making it harder for schools to deal with homophobic bullying - will be similar.

* * * * *
I should've hated high school. As a queer, fat, anxious kid with an undiagnosed learning disability, it's practically de rigeur. Truth is, for all its faults and problems, I didn't (intermediate* is another matter). I look back on this incident and realise that so many people, staff and students alike, were trying really hard to do the right thing in terrifying circumstances.

This is far from the worst result to have emerged from such legislation. There were people of my acquaintance who literally did not survive, as what I believe to be an indirect result of this law, but I do not know their stories well enough, and they are not mine to tell.

This is the story I can tell. The lessons I learned ten years ago are that my very existence was wrong, that I was alone, that I was out of my depth, and that asserting my right to exist can be a major risk for not just myself but others as well. That legislation was removed recently, and looking back I have some new lessons. That things can change. That legislation like this must be stopped. And that whilst those directly affected are the best people to be at the forefront of the fight against it, for kids in particular that's a scary, dangerous and isolated thing. Which is why we need to be supporting them every step.

*I'm substituting NZ equivalencies for ease of understanding.

recognition of international students

when immigrants and foreginers are so consistently treated as a drain on the countries resources, especially if they're the "wrong kind" of foreigner. so it's nice to see something like this, which celebrates the contributions of our international students:

Almost 100,000 students come from overseas to study in New Zealand every year, but a few seem to embrace the experience both inside and outside of the classroom with exceptional enthusiasm.

This year, Education New Zealand ran a competition for the first time to find New Zealand’s top international students from all educational sectors. These students have highlighted the contribution that international students make to the cities and towns in New Zealand where they study, and to their fellow students both Kiwi and international.

Nominees were judged on their academic achievements, their participation in institutional and community activities, and how they have thrown themselves into Kiwi culture and experiences. Institutions were encouraged to nominate the best of the best, and a judging panel has selected these winners to represent each sector.

so i'm going to inlcude below the details of the person i know. however, i would strongly recommend that you read about all the award winners, each of whom is exceptional. i met kai when doing the taku manawa human rights facilitation programme earlier in the year. i can confirm that she is indeed an exceptional person, and fully deserving of the recognition awarded to her. nz has been lucky to have her here over the last couple of years, and many of us will be sad to lose her when she finishes her studies and returns to her home country. here are the reasons she was selected for the award:

Kai Quan – Wintec, Hamilton

Kai is from China, and is a year three Bachelor of Applied Social Sciences, Social Work student.

Kai volunteers for and becomes involved with events on campus and outside. For International Social Work Day 2009, Kai volunteered to help in creating the stand at the library. Kai is active in the Ethnic Social Workers Support Group and takes on responsible roles within the group.

She has been involved in community events such as the Indigo Festival, playing an active part. In 2010 Kai approached Rawiri Waretini – Karena, tutor Te Whiuwhiu o Te Hau to learn the Maori model Paiheretia. The tutor comments that Kai was so engrossed in the process and quick to pick up the concept that as a result of the learnings she did an amazing presentation to her peers which was very well received.

This year Kai voluntarily coordinated and then participated in a Human Rights Facilitator Training workshop that was run by the Human Rights Commission for a week in February 2011. This impressive young woman works with others in a manner that is integral, approachable and has the best interests of others at heart.

Open thread: Children's Commissioner's report on education & care of infants & toddlers

Thought people might be interested in discussing this further.

Here are links to both the Summary and the whole of the report Through Their Lens:  an inquiry into non-parental education and care of infants and toddlers.
For those not into reading long stuff *cough* me *cough*, here's an excerpt that jumped out at me:

These findings are made in a context in which many parents feel they do not have a choice about returning early to work, or that their choice is very constrained and determined by factors other than their preference. These findings should not be construed as a criticism of working mothers. Society has changed. Working mothers and consequently non-maternal childcare are part of this change. The inquiry on which this report is based has concluded that formal ECS should be seen as a contribution, in partnership with parents and often extended family members, to a child’s learning and development.

And here's some of the media coverage for quick overviews:

Under-2s best at home, says report - Herald
'Time to take under two's seriously': report - Stuff

Please consider this an open thread to discuss this and related matters.*

One of the things I have really liked about a lot of the media I've seen so far (mainly radio) has been the prevalent use of the word "parent".  Such a relief to not have everybody assuming it's just about mums!



*  I have previously felt quite constrained about discussing early childhood education stuff because of my day job.  However I'm on maternity leave now, and when I return to work soon I'll likely be working in a different sector, so now I feel a bit free-er to talk about the education and care of under 5s.  No one should misconstrue anything I say as being the opinion of my regular employer, NZEI Te Riu Roa.

problem free? maybe not

as many of you will know, high school exams have been on for the last couple of weeks, with our teens going through the ritual torture that measures their learning over the year.

talking to a teacher in the last couple of days, i found out that (at least) one exam paper had some serious flaws. this was not something that was noticed by only one teacher, but by many. but it appears that NZQA has shut down the formal complaints process for teachers to raise issues about NCEA exams. there is now no mechanism to address major errors in exam papers.

i don't think exams are a particularly good way to assess learning, but an exam paper that has significant errors is not any kind of way to assess learning. surely there should be some way to deal with such a situation, instead of just letting students suffer because of poor work by someone else.

i'd be interested in hearing from other teachers if this is the case. a quick check of the website gives this diagram about the exam setting process, which stops at the "publish & distribute" stage.

this report on radio nz (morning report 1/12/10, 8.48am) states that NCEA exams have been problem-free this year. well that's hardly surprising, if there is no way to lodge a formal complaint!

I wonder if it's possible to talk about gender differences without being mansplained in comments?

Cross posted

Which may account for what Prof. Barres calls the main difference he has noticed since changing sex. "People who do not know I am transgendered treat me with much more respect," he says. "I can even complete a whole sentence without being interrupted by a man."

Read the whole thing: He, Once a She, Offers Own View On Science Spat


H/T: Ophelia Benson, at Butterflies and Wheels

changing education paradigms

i just watched this (thanx for posting, facebook friend!), and i thought it was very nicely explained. also very topical.

thesis in three

i thought i'd share the words of azilawati banchit, a muslim woman from hamilton who won the "thesis in three" competition organised by the university of waikato. i share this because, well just because i'm proud of her! this is an excerpt from a piece published in a newsletter.


My initial purpose in entering the competition was to abide my Supervisor’s advice – as all Phd
students know it is crucial to never defy their supervisors. Called Thesis in Three, the competition is for higher degree candidates to explain their theses. They must do so in no more than three minutes using only one slide, to a non-academic but intelligent audience. Sounds simple but for most of the sixty-one participants who entered this year, it was not an easy task at all. This is especially true for us whose first language is not English and having only a single slide to camouflage our weaknesses is no help either.

Within six weeks to prepare before the first heat session, I had drafted tens of scripts and delivered countless practice sessions in front of the mirror, friends, my children and colleagues seeking constructive feedback.

Subdued, shy and quiet, would be the expected performance from a Muslim woman by some of
the non-Muslim audience (or maybe some Muslims themselves) when I stepped onto that grand final stage at Hamilton Clarence Street Theatre on the night of 27 October 2010.

That same audience changed their entire perceptions with regard to Muslim women after that day. All because a simple Malaysian, hijab-covered woman was the first winner of University of Waikato prestigious Thesis in Three competition, beating nine other finalists. I was “passionate, expressive and witty”, they claimed. Could these attributes be true? Are Muslim women allowed to be that way in public? Shouldn’t Muslim women be powerless, restricted to non-public roles, and oppressed as painted by the media?

Little did I know after that historic night, that I would be able to question people’s thinking about the demeanour of a Muslim woman. Here, I have to note special gratitude to all the judges in the heat and the finals who did not let any preconceived perceptions (if they had any) cloud their evaluation.

ETA: her thesis is on corporate bullying in east asia. i've added a link at the top to the official press release.

supporting the teachers

i received this today from a friend of mine who is a high school teacher & thought it would be useful to share:

You may hear on the news that the H.S. teachers of N.Z. are on strike today. I am one of them. While the media protray it as teachers being greedy and trying to use students as pawns...It is not about that at all. To the contrary we are trying to improve student conditions as well as maintain a decent standard of living for students.

1) We need reduced class sizes. As an example This year I taught 33 Year 9 students in one class and 30 in another....while I'm supposed to a) manage all their behaviour b) teach effective and dynamic lessons c) differentiate and make individual programs for the students d) provide extension opportunities for those who are advanced.

We are asking for reasonable class sizes and enough qualified teachers to teach the classes.

2) I spend my non-contacts following up on behavioural and emotional issues of students of students with major problems. (i.e. working with guidance counselors, deans, conferences with parents because of students actions, meetings with principals). As the society issues increase, so do the behavioural issues in schools. Based on what I've seen It did not surprise me that there have been students carrying and using knives in our schools.

On other non-contacts I have helped my younger colleagues formulate their lesson plans, give them ideas on techniques to deal with behavioural issues, etc.

The government wants to take aways the non-contact periods--when in fact we need more.

3) Did you know that the average age of teachers in N.Z. is now 50? It used to be 30 just over 20 years ago. The young energetic teachers do not remain because of the demands that are placed on them from the start and the lack of income parity with other professions results in them leaving within a year or two. Contrary to the news... teachers are not rolling in the dough, but rather are losing standing on income and quality of life.

Let's get some income parity to reduce the burden of the older staff and so that we can retain the younger staff instead of continually retraining new teachers each year

4) I think we personally think deserve more than the 4% increase that the PPTA is requesting. You and I only have to go to the store to know that main food items have increased well over --example cooking oil is almost double the price from when I came here 5 years ago, goodness knows if I want to eat fresh fish I'll have to almost cut off my finger to pay for a kilogram.

There are many more reasons why today I'll be wearing black (and not because it makes me look thinner) and will be striking with my colleagues. I hope you support me with this.

war & peace

is it just me, or are there a whole lot more war dramas and programmes on tv than their used to be? i've avoided pretty much all of them, i think.

it's not that i don't like war stuff per se - i watched stuff like the manchurian candidate (denzel washington version), enemy at the gates and other stuff i'm sure, that i thought were good. but what concerns me is that there are so many more stories being told about war than there are stories about peace.

i'm also concerned that many of the war stories are told in a way that don't glamorise war as such, but glamorise aspects of it. i'm finding it difficult to word this the right way. it's not a bad thing thing to show stories of courage under fire, and of people committing noble acts in absolutely awful situations. but unless those stories also show the horror and suffering of war, the impact on civilians not just from loss of life but also loss of infrastructure, and the severe trauma on combat personnel, i'm afraid that those stories tend to make war sound a little bit like a good thing, a noble thing even.

tie this in with the increasingly jingoistic nature of anzac day, and it becomes a development that i'm a little uncomfortable with. i've often said that if we spent as much on peace as we do on war, then the world would be an infinitely better place. but it would also be helpful if we could have more stories about peace, and if we could celebrate those stories a lot more. i'm thinking about stories that show tense situations solved by negotiation and compromise. i'm pretty sure those can be pretty intense and interesting viewing - i'm thinking for example of those hostage-type dramas where a kick-ass negotiating team saves the day.

the thing is that unless we have a greater focus on peace and celebrate peace, we're less likely to achieve it. in order for that to happen, peace making needs to become a part of our popular culture. it needs to be a greater part of our public discourse. it should be part of a public holiday where we spend time sharing stories about and commemorating peace and peace-keeping initiatives.

fortunately, there are other people in the country who think like i do, and who have been actively doing something about it. the aotearoa nz peace & conflict studies centre trust (yes, quite a mouthful) have successful in setting up the national peace & conflict centre at otago university. their july 2010 newsletter isn't online yet, but you can read previous newsletters here. they're currently looking for "an experienced fundraiser to help us generate
more support from individuals, businesses, and charitable trusts". another initiative is:

... a workshop on Peace Education in New Zealand early childhood, primary and secondary schools on the 29th and 30th October in Dunedin. The aim is to bring together teachers, providers, and the Ministry of Education to discuss what has happened in the field of Peace Education in NZ, what is happening now, and what needs to happen.

all good stuff. i'd also love to see nz on air and the film commission providing specified funding for film and programme makers to develop peace-related material - documentary or fiction. and wouldn't it be nice if we actually had a ministry of peace with funding equal to that of the ministry of defence. ah well, dreams are free.

The market as judge: good for baked beans, not so good for childcare

Cross posted

As has been widely discussed, New Zealand's National government decided that one of the best places to save a bit of money was in Early Childhood Education. Childcare centres would no longer be required to 100% qualified staff (with grandparenting provisions for existing staff who were working towards their degrees); instead, only 80% qualified staff would be required, and centres would be funded at that level.

It's a downgrade. And it's a downgrade that means that parents will have less assurance about the quality of care and education that their children are receiving. We all know that good quality early childhood education is critical for children, and all the more so for children who don't come from privileged middle class homes. There are plenty of children who turn up for their first day of primary school, having never held a book in their hands, having never had a book read to them, not even knowing that in European writing systems, we read the left hand page, and then the right, and then turn the right page over. One way to give these kids at least half a chance, to ensure that in our supposedly egalitarian society there is a minimal semblance of equality of opportunity, is to ensure that they get good quality early childhood care. We need to make sure everyone has a chance, that everyone can get a good education, if we want the children who are in childcare right now, to grow up to become citizens, people who are part of our society, people who have a stake in it, people who want to make a contribution, instead of forever feeling that the bosses and the big important people just don't give a damn.



As a society, we should be deeply concerned about the quality and availability of early childhood education. We rely on having expert and well-qualified teachers and carers in our childcare centres and preschools, because we are concerned about the future of our society. On top of that, most parents want to be sure that their children are in good care. So they rely on having expert and well-qualified teachers in childcare centres and preschools.

But the National government has decided that early childhood education just doesn't matter all that much, so that's where "savings" can be made. As for quality assurance, well, Granny Herald has got a solution.

The market will provide!

It is easy to insist little children deserve nothing but the best. And working parents who place their infants in childcare want to be assured on that score. But "the best" at this level might not require professional training. The best could include people with an aptitude for caring but not for academic study and tests. Checks on their performance can be reliably left to a competitive industry that must constantly satisfy observant parents.

Editorial: Preschool Budget cuts right move

Oh good grief! Early childhood education, indeed, any education, is not like a can of baked beans. For starters, it's not as though there is a whole shelf full of childcare centres, from which you can pick one. The supply is limited, especially if you are constrained by other factors, such as needing childcare near your home, or your work, so that you don't spend hours every days commuting between one place and another, with tired children in the back seat. But more importantly, it can take time to work out that a child is not thriving, time to work out that for all its glossy brochures a childcare centre doesn't really have the resources to care for your child, time to work out that some of the staff who looked so lovely don't in fact know how to manage children, and have only taken the job because there is nothing else they can do. One of the great guarantees that comes along with demanding degree qualified staff is that you know they are genuinely committed to early childhood education, committed enough to slog their way through a degree, because this is where they want to be.

But the time you have been able to work this out, your child is six months older. Six months is not such a long time for an adult to endure a poor job, but it could 10% or 20% of your child's life. Time enough for a child to lose out, to slip behind developmental guidelines, to miss out on critical early learning experiences. You buy one can of baked beans and it turns out to be not so good? Well, you can always go buy another brand the very next day. But "buy" the wrong type of childcare, and the consequences could be much more severe than a meal that isn't quite as good as you would like it to be.

I know some fabulous women and men who have worked in childcare - my mother, a cousin who is doing her degree, a former male student who was a qualified nanny, the wonderful, gorgeous, Jackie Clark. What distinguishes these people is their commitment to children, exemplified by the qualifications they have worked hard to get. Those are the kind of people I want to see in early childhood education.

I would like to see the National government think a little harder about what it wants to achieve in education, and why, and how, instead of simply thinking that it can be trimmed and cut without anyone much noticing the difference.

As for where the money is going to come from? I hear there's a cycleway that isn't being built. Perhaps that might be a good thing to trim.

supporting public libraries

it seems that nothing is seen as a public good anymore. public libraries are supposed to be the means for all people to get information, learn, research or simply to enjoy a good read, regardless of economic status. it's such a pity that these institutions are increasingly adopting a user-pays system in order to survive.

i received the notice below about a public talk in wellington on the subject:

As you may be aware Public Libraries within New Zealand are facing increasing pressure to introduce or increase charges – including charging for borrowing books. The Association of Public Library Managers Inc, whose membership is made up of public library managers though-out New Zealand, believes that charging for book loans will impact those on low incomes, including elderly people and beneficiaries and result in a decrease in the use of library facilities. The Association’s stand is against charging for books because this will contribute to a decline in literacy.

The Association of Public Library Managers and LIANZA (The Library and Information Association of New Zealand Aotearoa) invite you to a public presentation on “Why Public Libraries Must Be Free" with international guest speaker, Bob McKee, the Chief Executive of CILIP (Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals) from the UK.

Internationally, Bob is a member of the Governing Board and Executive Committee of IFLA (the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions), and is an advocate for Freedom of Access to Information and Freedom of Expression. Please join us for an interesting evening and the opportunity to hear an international speaker on this important topic.

When: Tues 25th of May, 5.30pm for a 6pm start, 7pm finish.

Where: Lecture Theatre 1, Ground Floor, Old Government Buildings, Victoria University Law School, entrance off Stout Street.

Cost: Free

via aotearoa ethnic network