From Ivan Snook to Anne Tolley

I am sorry to bother you again but I have seen reports of your recent speeches on National Standards and would like to make two points:

1. You continue to say that the ERO report (2009) found that 30% of teachers are less than adequate in their approach to reading. In the early days, I assumed that you were relying on the "careless?" summary put out by ERO but, as you have been directed several times to the table on page 8, I have to now think that you intend to deceive your listeners, for the data do not support such a conclusion. This is a serious charge and I hope that I am mistaken.

2. When asked about the role of poverty in low achievement you said "that is political." (As if it has no real significance). Early on in the national debate you said it was "an excuse" for poor teaching. I have to telll you that NOTHING is better established in educational research than the influence of home background on school achievement. eg Gray, Jesson and Jones (1986) summarised their large scale research in GB: "Around 80% of the difference can be explained by the intake" and they say that "this has held up over all the schools and LEAs studied." This leaves 20% to be explained by in school variables. Based on his research in New Zealand Richard Harker has claimed that “anywhere between 70-80% of the between schools variance is due to the student ‘mix’ which means that only between 20% and 30% is attributable to the schools themselves” (Harker 1995, p 74). According to a recent OECD volume: “Three broad conclusions emerge from research on student learning. The first and most solidly based finding is that the largest source of variation in student learning is attributable to differences in what students bring to school – their abilities and attitudes, and family and community. Such factors are difficult for policy makers to influence, at least in the short-run.’ (OECD 2005 p 2). Even John Hattie, well known for focusing on "within school differences" concedes that 60% of the variance in the achievement of individuals is due to what the student brings to school (Hattie 2003, pp 1-2). This somewhat lower estimate still leaves only 40% for all the within school differences (curriculum, leadership, class size, quality of the teachers etc).Your own ministry supports this in one of its “Best Evidence” publications:“There is overwhelming evidence that literacy resources in the home, both materials and experiences, are crucial for children’s literacy development and achievement.” (Bidulph, Bidduph and Biddulph, p. 93). So, "political" it may be; it is also clearly true.

Notwithstanding all this, of course, teachers can and do make a difference. A major reason for my opposition to National Standards is that the inevitable "league tables" will encourage people to mistake "schools for the poor" with "poor schools" when in fact in many schools attended by children of the poor, teachers make great efforts to improve achievement and in fact often "add value" to the students which is much greater than that of teachers in higher decile schools.These are the dedicated teachers whose morale will be undermined by mindless comparisons between schools.

I can provide full references for the research cited if you wish.

Yours sincerely
Ivan Snook