It’s about time Manaiakalani grew up

There have been two Herald sponsored stories in quick succession about children in the Tamaki Manaiakalani programme. The first an inspirational one about Noah, titled ‘The tech changing kid’s lives’, is about the clever things Noah can do digitally. Computers should be in all schools, are in all schools, and should be readily accessible. They have been made so in Noah’s school as part of the Manaiakalani programme and Noah’s response is admirable, important, and significant.

The second sponsored story is ‘Boost to learning pays off in low decile schools’ and sub-headed ‘Unique digital learning programme helps produce great results in low decile schools’.

The two articles in combination are seriously unbalanced and are a boost, in my view, to a dangerous mythology about what makes for success at school. The second article is really about linking the digital to NCEA success. I fundamentally disagree that the digital is important to NCEA success, only to computer success. 

It is mainly the second sponsored story I focus on – the link to NCEA success. I don’t believe it is, and even if it was, is unknowable because NCEA is an utter mess.

Yes – computers should be at school, because they might not be at home and children should know about computers; they are, however, only marginally useful, at best,  in general learning. But could I take an educated guess that Noah’s home is a computer-laden one.

After the Spark sponsored Herald first article is taken through its preliminaries, the real message is delivered:

‘Tamaki College is the secondary school where most of the primary school pupils, like Noah end up. As part of Manaiakalani, the college went fully digital in 2012, meaning every student has a laptop or tablet – and the results have been at least part of the reason Tamaki College has improved results, and likely future, for their school leavers.’

The real message is the digital one.

I now move to the second sponsored article.

Yes – the writer of this very smooth sponsored article knew where the challenges to the message might come from and set up a series of qualifications to divert them.

I identify with the area. A good number of years ago I taught at a primary school that contributed to Tamaki College, not so many Maori and Pasifika, but how I loved that group of children.

Such sponsored articles, no matter how fair or honest, and this one is a mile from being so, are a pernicious part of education.

Their point, no matter the context provided, is to build up a product, provide a glow for a company, and walk on the sunny side of the education street.

The overwhelmingly evident message is the digital: the writer, as for so many in education, cannot grasp the idea that the digital, at this stage, is in schools to learn about, not learn with. That learning with will come, but if quality learning is the aspiration, only if very hard earned.

Most of the research I read has digital learning, along with its often associated inquiry learning and cathedral-like open spaces, as part of the perfect storm for a decline in school performance – I’m not talking here about official results here but real results.

If there has been a lift in results for Tamaki College students, it will be to do with non-digital variables – they are listed in the article, declared as being important, but in the reading don’t come across as being so.

In regard to results, oddly enough, with all the build-up, only writing is put forward by Stuart McNaughton as a noted improvement, but I do accept from the article that the children’s attitude to learning has been boosted.

Which brings me to the point: Manaiakalani has not travelled well, not really been successful in duplication – a key characteristic of education change with any claims to validity.

So we would have to examine if the real benefits, if there are any, came from extra resources, extra people, and the Hawthorne effect.

I am transcendentally unimpressed with any use of NCEA results to prove the worth of an education programme. I am saying this in general, not aiming it specifically at any teachers or schools – but NCEA is a huge rip-off. Why,  is explained in detail by going to the following link, and at the end of that going to other links which detail how national standards and NCEA are being hugely inflated.

Then there is the culminating rip-off in NCEA: the choice between putting forward roll-based results or participation-based results (nearly always participation-based). But such a consideration is just a final touch to a horse feathers farce.

I don’t like sponsored articles, they are very different in nature to even the shakiest education ones; and I don’t like the fantastically destructive obsession of the media with digital learning. I would be far more interested in the legendary new entrant teacher and her developmental programme or the Tamaki College geography teacher (usually the best in any secondary school) and the wonderfully inspiring things he or she is doing.

It is time Manaiakalani grew up.

This entry was posted in Schooling and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to It’s about time Manaiakalani grew up

  1. Kelvin says:

    Hi Kelvin
    I was sceptical about the NCEA results too but not surprised that shonky NCEA stats are being used in this way.
    I checked Pt England’s 2015 NS data on Education Counts and found that about less than 50% of children at the end of Year 8 are above or well above in Reading, writing or maths.
    These figures are sure to be the same or better than 3 or 4 years ago so how do the more than 50% of children who are 1 , 2 or more years behind at the end of Year 8, actually improve in Literacy and Numeracy to be 80% successful at NCEA Level 1 or 2?
    My experience of secondary school is that they really struggle to provide good learning support for children who have not achieved success at primary school . A good secondary programme can keep these children engaged, find areas of learning where they will be successful and allow them to develop their strengths and interests. If this translates into NCEA success, fantastic but they need to be more transparent about what type of NCEA success it is.

  2. Kelvin says:

    Good Morning Kelvin. Thank you for posting all three links together. I’m not sure where to post my response so I’ve emailed you directly.
    You made a clear prediction of the step towards online corporate schooling in your November 2015 posting.
    The video presented as part of the Herald’s advertorial is designed to be extremely misleading. Aside from quotes like “education fit for purpose” that imply that other programs are not fit for purpose (and beggars the question, “What is the purpose?”). We are introduced to the ambassadors, a highly (on the surface) functional family living in opulent circumstances. These people supposedly representative of a low decile community. It seems that not only have they tried to discredit our schools they are also masking the reality of life in a low decile community. By doing this they have removed a big part of the picture around the well-being of our young people and our communities. They give the illusion that schools operate within a vacuum wherein all that a teacher needs to do to be successful is sit students in front of a screen.
    This is all highly reinforcing of the neo-liberal agenda that portrays education as simplistic and teachers as over paid and self-interested.

    Regards Gordon

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.