Child-friendly or employer-friendly?

Interesting to hear John Key reported on RNZ's Insight programme on poverty in NZ as saying National Standards is one of the ways the National government is tackling child poverty.

Don't believe there is one bit of research available to support this assertion. All research I've seen in this area (child poverty in the context of standards-based ed reforms) suggests 'greater accountabilility' reforms only further entrench child poverty by stigmatising those who are poor and behind as failing, and thereby creating a self-fulfilling downward spiral.

Nowhere near enough resources have been allocated by National to help those children who are identified as failing by National Standards (something like $135 per failing child per year).

More interesting is a new book out by Otago Ed professor Helen May called, I am five and I go to school. It traces the history of early years education in NZ from the late 19th century to present day. The parallels between late 19th century/ early 20th century education and the National Standards reforms (and the rhetoric that supports them) are extraordinary. There was even an examination for 8 yos back then, called the New Zealand Standard.

May characterises the move away from Victorian-style education (lots of testing that favoured the children of the rich) that took off in the early part of last century, as signalling 'The century of the child' That is, education became more child-centred - children actually came to enjoy education, rather being bored witless or terrified of the draconian methods used to drill children ahead of high-stakes examinations.

Needless to say it was - and still is - the doyens of the business community who espouse standards-based education. The question remains just far we will go on the road to Back to the Future.