spinofflive
Credit: Ocean Design
Credit: Ocean Design

ParentsAugust 9, 2018

Why ACC spending millions on ‘Mates and Dates’ undermines teachers

Credit: Ocean Design
Credit: Ocean Design

A new consent education programme for secondary schools is well-intentioned, but it’s $18 million that would be better spent on teachers, argues health education specialist Katie Fitzpatrick 

ACC have just announced they will spend a further 18.4 million dollars on a programme called Mates and Dates for secondary schools. Mates and Dates was launched in 2016 and is a series of five lessons covering issues such as consent and healthy relationships.

At first glance, it seems like this might be a good move. Young people need to learn about healthy relationships and respect, right? And teaching lessons in schools is a good idea to address issues of violence, is it not? Yes, young people do want to learn about sexuality, relationships, communication and consent. Research suggests that young people are already asking for more learning of this kind in schools. This learning also has a place in the curriculum within health education, and teachers are employed to teach health education in schools to all young people. The Education Review Office and the Ministry of Education recommend that young people have at least 12-15 hours of sexuality education in schools (as a part of health education classes), but teachers aren’t given the adequate support and professional learning required to keep these lessons up to date.

So, hang on a minute, why are ACC funding this programme if it is already included in the curriculum for teachers to teach in schools? ACC’s Mates and Dates programme is delivered by “outsiders”, who come into each school (at great expense) to teach the five lessons. This means that more than $18 million of public money is going to fund outsiders – not teachers – to teach this content. Wouldn’t it be better for ACC to fund professional development for teachers, and to support schools with providing those recommended 12-15 hours of sexuality education? Why does the Ministry of Education – and the minister Chris Hipkins for that matter – not have anything to say about this?

A stock image of a classroom

Here are some reasons why spending $18.4 million dollars on this programme is outrageous:

  1. Mates and Dates providers may have no connection to the school or community and have no responsibility for following up student complaints, questions or for providing support or pastoral care. They will come into the school and teach five lessons out of context and without any specified follow up (or capacity building).
  2. Teachers have had no meaningful, funded, national professional development in health and sexuality education for well over 15 years. Supporting teachers will ensure meaningful learning for years to come (not just one year).
  3. Mates and Dates is not proven to be effective in terms of linking to the curriculum or building capacity in schools.
  4. International research suggests that sexuality and health education are both important and sensitive subjects. They are best delivered by classroom teachers who are experts, well connected with their communities, and are able to provide pastoral support for students.
  5. The programme has been evaluated, with the evaluation throwing up issues with the facilitators not being able to “control” classes, the lack of curriculum links, and many teachers feeling it is inadequate and distracting

The sexuality and health education national experts group (of which I am a member) are strongly opposed to this initiative. In fact, the decision to expand the investment in Mates and Dates by such a large sum has come as a complete surprise to the health education sector. Key stakeholders and experts were apparently not consulted in either the development of the teaching resources, nor the teaching approaches used. I am aware of many teachers having contacted the New Zealand Health Education Association complaining that the programme does not connect well with young people, that facilitators are not trained teachers, and that the programme is inadequate in terms of content and curriculum links.

The real issue here is that we do absolutely need good quality sexuality and health education in schools. Best practice suggests those programmes should be year-long, taught by teachers, in consultation with communities, and linked to other forms of support in schools (such as counsellors and nurses) because teachers are able to develop long term relationships with their students. $18 million would buy a great deal of support and resourcing for schools and could make a long term impact. But not if it is spent on outside providers delivering five meagre lessons. This approach needs rethinking before the money is wasted.

This content is entirely funded by Flick, New Zealand’s fairest power deal. Their customers save $350 on average, annually – with no tricks or traps. Support the Spinoff by switching to Flick now!

Keep going!
Pixabay
Pixabay

ParentsAugust 8, 2018

How to have a sensible discussion about early childhood education

Pixabay
Pixabay

There’s been a lot of talk about the state of early childhood education in New Zealand over the last few days. Most of it has been shit. Here’s Dr Jess Berentson-Shaw doing what she does best – cutting through the crap so we can have a rational conversation.

I imagine a world where childcare is for all parents a place which meets their needs as a family, no matter what type of family they are. Where children feel safe, challenged at times, and connected to the world.  Where teachers are known to parents and happy in their work. Where tears (from everyone) were seen as a normal part of the development of both the children and parents. I imagine a world where childcare is a universal provision much like school, planned by policy makers because it actually matters for its own sake not just as an adjunct to ‘getting more workers’. A world where there is real choice for families (not some shitty version of choice that makes everyone think ‘have I missed something here?’)

In this world parenting is valued as one of the many roles we might play at different stages in our life and so everyone who parents is supported so it can be done well. 

I am tired of the narrative around early childhood education and most parents are tired of it too. They are sick of being manipulated by people with judgements they are holding on to or a profit to make. The commentary about ECE is polarising and over simplified; it focuses on individuals not systems, and often carries an undercurrent (occasionally turning into a proper tsunami) of gender stereotyping.

And while people who create these commentaries (or push them) want us point the finger of blame at each other, we can choose instead to focus on restructuring a system that isn’t working for all of us.

We need to start asking: what really matters here?

Here are three things that really matter when it comes to childcare and early childhood education:

  1. Are we letting families decide what work/childcare arrangement is best for them?
  2. Are we ensuring that the decision is made in the context of high quality early childhood education that meets the emotional, developmental, physical and financial needs of children and parents?
  3. There is no number 3. Because that’s it.

What does not matter in this conversation is anyone’s views on women (or men) in the workplace or home; nor whether children should cry about being separated from their parents; nor whether ECE are a blight on society.

And once we concentrate on what really matters, we can talk about what is going wrong and how to restructure the system to be better and more equitable.

So on that note, here are five things we should ask about early childhood education and childcare:

  1. What are the prime minister, the minister for education, and the minister for business development (that is, Jacinda Ardern, Chris Hipkins, and David Parker) doing to ensure families living in communities with the fewest resources get the childcare centres they need? What are people in government going to do to ensure the “market” does not continue to ignore them and their needs?
  2. What is finance minister Grant Robertson doing to ensure unpaid labour makes it into the new well-being framework? When will the substantial value that caring for children brings to the economy be measured, forcing policy makers to focus on creating sound policy to support the people who do it?
  3. What is the minister for social development (Carmel Sepuloni) doing to ensure families on the lowest incomes, working precarious jobs, bouncing between paid employment and income support, know that the cost of their ECE and after-school care will be totally covered regardless, to give them the best chance to make employment work for them?
  4. What is the social welfare working group going to do about the draconian and ridiculous rule (one of many) that says parents in receipt of a benefit must put their children at age three (or in some cases at 12 months) into ECE? Why, when we know these children have a greater chance of being in a poor quality centre?
  5. What are managers across New Zealand workplaces doing to ensure that parenting is valued and supported as such? What policies do they have in place that show they understand people they employ have different needs – and that being flexible and responsive to those needs (i.e more time off to care for sick children, supporting men to be primary caregivers, rewarding people who return to work after having a child) is an investment in great staff? And this does not simply apply to parents: there are people caring for elderly parents, people running community organisations in their spare time, people with a disability…. all of them need responsive workplaces. What action on diversity, flexibility, and inclusion in the workplace is your manager or employer taking?

So those are some constructive things to talk about the next time the ECE issue is raised, things that really matter when it comes to caring for children and adults in this country. Let’s try talking about that sort of thing instead – it’s the only chance at real change that we have.

Dr Jess Berentson-Shaw is co-director of The Workshop, a research and policy collaborative, and a research associate at the Public Policy Institute at Auckland University.

Follow the Spinoff Parents on Facebook and Twitter.


This content is entirely funded by Flick, New Zealand’s fairest power deal. They’re so confident you’ll save money this winter that they’re offering a Winter Savings Guarantee. So you can try, with no fixed contract – and if you don’t save, they’ll pay the difference. Support the Spinoff by switching to Flick now!

But wait there's more!