Teachers and Performance Pay

Its a brave politician to mess with the teachers and their very powerful union. It is seldom there can be a rational and emotion free debate about teaching and the education system.
Dilbert said, "Change is good, you go first." I hadn't realised he was a teacher advocate.

I have talked about change in previous blogs so it is not my intention to repeat myself, and occasionally I have had a tilt at education and its importance. With the election looming, education is playing a large part in the campaign rhetoric. Of course there are many good points but anything one party mentions apparently can't be acknowledged as good sense by another party.

Education and community are featuring and I think it extremely courageous of National to be talking about performance pay and more professional management of schools. And in my next blog I'll talk about the misnomer of smaller class sizes (a radical change from my earlier views).

My initial work experience was as a teacher. My first year was in a great school where everyone worked as a team. However my second year was a very different story. The team spirit was not there and some of the teachers clearly wished they weren't there also. They turned up just before the 9.00am start bell and were in their cars and gone as soon as the last bell rang.

Apart from the first year teacher, I would have been the lowest paid there. I always made sure I was there by 8.00am at the latest to prepare the room, set up the day's programme and in particular look out for and greet the children who were dropped off early because their parents had to head off to work in the factories.

At the end of the day I would spend an hour or so most days visiting homes so parents saw me at least once during the term and a couple of times a year. I always had a great turnout at Parent/Teacher evenings and great support from parents for class trips. I organised their first ever gala day and the PTA were elated at the great support and especially the money we raised.  

You are probably getting my drift by now. My colleagues got paid way more than me because pay was service or time served based. Regardless of how much time and energy I put in, I would never earn as much as these less than enthusiastic colleagues until after long service their salaries would begin to plateau, and my service would mean that I would be an old man.   

You won't be surprised to know that when the offer came from Whitcombe & Tombs to join the private sector, I grabbed the salary and company car with both hands.

I loved teaching so much and what I learnt in training and experience has stood me in good stead for a variety of subsequent career opportunities. Wherever else I have been since, I have always felt effort, energy and more importantly performance was always well recognised.

The Prime Minister recently said, "We can all remember a good teacher." He is absolutely correct, but do the really good teachers remember being especially rewarded for being really good? In my opinion, probably not.

Is the debate really about Water or Farming?

Agriculture will be having to think there may be alternatives to our traditional approach to farming.

Recently I wrote a response to an article, ‘Dirty Dairying’ in our local paper. It was another episode in the barrage against dairying led by the Fish & Game Council. In the response I questioned the integrity of the urban based critics noting that whilst they wanted diary companies to take responsibility for all of the organisations they deal with, we weren’t told what responsibility those critics were taking for their environment.

How many of them went out to clean up the rubbish in their street, or recycled their grey water instead of using high quality drinking water to water their garden, wash their car and flush their toilet? Did any of them collect water from their roof? How much recycling did they do? Were they putting out less rubbish bags? Did they only buy items in their supermarket that are packaged in recyclable material? How often did they drive when there were public transport options available? How many of them are subject to similar standards and penalties on water management and emissions as are demanded of farmers?

The waterways of urban Auckland illustrate my point well – there are many, many ‘dirty’ waterways which have nothing to do with farming.

An agricultural commentator wondered after an encounter with a Greens Party supporter recruiter, why anyone would consider there is a world without science, logic and where economic and social realities are irrelevant. You could be forgiven for thinking there might be given the nature of main stream media on dairying, associating water issues solely with that industry.

Of course there is no reasoned, scientific or logical debate about water in the main stream media. In constructing my response to the dirty dairying article, all of my information came readily via the rural/farming papers including the revelations about the pollution of Lake Wakatipu and Auckland Harbour.

Queenstown, the poster town for New Zealand’s 100% Pure campaign, has been responsible for repeated sewage spills into pristine Lake Wakatipu. Apparently in the past 12 months there have been spills on average once every 6 weeks and twice in January of this year.

And the ferry operator in Auckland who was emptying ferry sewage tanks in the harbour. They dodged prosecution and claimed ignorance about the law. What makes matters worse, the operator had failed to use a $400,000 rate-payer funded pumping station to handle their sewage.  

I have suggested, the defensive and name calling counter attacks on the Fish & Game Council in the rural media were not the answer because whilst it may make the farming community feel better, no one else sees that, let alone cares.

A better tactic would be to render Fish & Game irrelevant in the debate. Another tactic would be to get a wider debate going on water and its quality as it is affected by urbanisation, especially in areas with fast growing urban populations, and more especially in areas where that growth is at the expense of first class productive agricultural land.

In short, rather than reacting, all of us advocating for agriculture should be working collaboratively from a strategy to (a) change the fundamental platform of the debate away from dairying to water quality and availability generally; (b) break Fish & Game’s throttle hold on the debate in the media and relegate their engagement from prime authority to that of minor stakeholder; and (c) urbanise the debate in the mainstream media.

Whilst the time might be right to ‘engage positively’, the farming sector need’s to set the plan and direction. Set it in a world where science, and logic apply and ‘where economic and social realities are relevant’. I would place a caveat on that philosophy of course.

What we learn from successful entrepreneurs is they ‘believed’ or had a vision long before there was any proof solid. If we relied solely on scientific proof, nothing could or would change quickly. Excitement and daring vanishing. So we might need to consider alternative views and ideas with open minds.

However, that will not be about cementing our traditional view of farming. The other side of this coin for agriculture will be having to think there may be alternatives to our traditional approach to farming.

And in my opinion, I suspect that might just be the real issue here.

Change – What’s the Big Deal?

I have often heard it said that people do not like change. If that is the case, it is probably more to do with how ‘those people’ have experienced change before, and the people who did it to them.

I am not a regular flyer, but when I do, I pull up the Air NZ magazine and look for the advertisement by 3 Wise Men Shirtmaker.

Whoever writes their adverts are clever. There is usually an introduction such as this in the March issue: “Change means to be different, to transform, to try something new. Sometimes change is scary, like when your voice dropped at Intermediate and you changed from a soprano to an alto between morning tea and lunch. Sometimes change is hard, like promising to do something about your Christmas belly, and now it’s March already. But every now and then when you embrace change, good things happen.”

What a refreshing take on change. I worry we have created an industry to scare the bejeebers out of everyone contemplating the prospect of some change.

Having policies and procedures is no doubt helpful for people who are in charge and have no empathy with those they seek to change, or are being done to. The problem with these policies and procedures is that they become automated and mechanical, with the major concern being to have ticked procedural boxes. In short the procedure becomes the focus not the people.

I have often heard it said that people do not like change. If that is the case, it is probably more to do with how ‘those people’ have experienced change before, and those who did it too them.

Henri Bergsen was a significant French philosopher, influential especially in the first half of the 20^th Century. He convinced many thinkers that immediate experience and intuition are more significant than rationalism and science for understanding reality. He said, “To exist is to change, to change is to mature, to mature is to go on creating oneself endlessly.”

We are pretty good at change as the shirtmakers pointed out. We have had lots of it and adjusted to it. In my case I was born. I didn’t have a chance to plan or have a say in that. I just had to go with it. That’s a pretty big change! For a while I was the complete and entire focus of my parents life. Pretty cool really. Then they had my brother. What was that all about? All of a sudden I am second fiddle. That’s a pretty big change.

Apart from a couple of minor incidents and with careful management by my parents, I adjusted to the change then damn it, they delivered another brother. Now I was third fiddle. Not only that, I was expected to take on big brother care and guidance responsibilities. What the…! All that and I was still getting the hang of this school thing. That was a bunch of change.

And so it goes on. Any one of us can tell similar stories of lives packed with change. Change is everywhere and by the time we get to work we are pretty experienced. So why is change so suddenly different because we are at work?

It becomes a problem at work when we are subjected to the insecurity of the manager who finds solace in the prevailing command and control model of management.  We don’t like change being done to us really so let’s just hold that simple thought and work from there.

Of course the greater issue is the sector of our community that is disadvantaged for one reason or another and those youngsters who do not get to use new technology and understand the exciting prospects in change from an early age.

There are those who can ensure their children get a quality education. There are a large portion of the population who have to rely on the public education factory system, and it’s a miracle they learn anything.

In my opinion, to ensure the quality of our ability to live and work in life where change is not an operational variable but a constant, we should start by dumping command and control managers whose first reaction to any issue is to restructure, but more significantly, ensure all of our kids get a quality education.

The Urban Pots calling the Dairying Kettle Black

An article under the heading “Kiwis dirty on dairying” appeared in our local paper claiming the results of the survey commissioned by the Fish & Game Council would shock many in the agriculture sector where “... the long held presumption has been that farming enjoys popular support of the wider public.”

That comment could only be described as naïve and stupid.

The Fish & Game Council have been running a campaign against dairying for some time so the latest attack would come as no surprise to the industry. And their campaign has obviously been successful with a sustained main stream media campaign described in Straight Furrow as ‘Farmers victims of overheated media’.

This particular survey and news piece is political in that it is driven by a political party to provide a focus on their agenda, and also by an environmental organisation whose favourite pastime is criticising the major economic provider in this country. There is nothing quite like creating an ‘enemy’ image to draw people to your safe political haven.

Don’t get me wrong, the significance of agriculture and the growth of dairying have presented challenges which are being addressed to meet all the various sensitivities we have become aware of through scientific development. Just as we have to face the negative impacts of intensive urbanisation and residential development on productive land. There can be no argument with those respondents who want to know political party policies on economic growth and the subsequent impact on the environment.

It was interesting that 73% or the respondents wanted diary companies to take responsibility for all of the organisations they deal with. What we weren’t told was what responsibility those respondents were taking for their environment. How many of them went out to clean up the rubbish in their street? How many recycle their grey water instead of using high quality drinking water to water their garden, wash their car and flush their toilet? Did any of them collect water from their roof?

How much recycling do they do? Are they putting out less rubbish bags? And do they only buy items in their supermarket that are packaged in recyclable material? How often do they drive when there are public transport options available? How many of them are subject to similar standards and penalties on water management and emissions as are demanded of farmers?

If you don’t grow all your own food and meet all of the same standards and requirements, there is the risk that your negative view of farming is hypocritical.

The Primary sector is predicted to increase exports by $5billion this year. That’s a 16% increase for the benefit of the entire country. Putting that increase into perspective, that is more money than the Government will generate from its entire asset sales programme. As one agricultural commentator has noted, “Farmers have achieved that largely on their own and after a severe drought. Along the way farmers have fenced waterways, done their best in tight financial times to maintain and improve soil fertility, increased the breeding efficiencies of their animals and put up with a tonne of media angst.”

The questions of the survey were clearly pointed towards a preferred answer, and also we do not know whether the respondents were urban dwellers or not, or what knowledge base respondents were drawing their answers from.

The perception of the respondents of the environmentalist’s survey of dairy farming in particular and agriculture in general is probably determined by what is largely a negative media focus on farming. 

How many read about Nuffield Scholar Natasha King’s goal to run Fonterra’s tanker fleet on fuel created from dairy cow effluent using algae technology? Her research found that algae driven bio-fuel production could be the most promising long-term solution to the problem of diary effluent. That technology would also help to make New Zealand more self-sufficient in fuel. The fact is you didn’t read or hear about it in mainstream media.

How many read about Shayne and Charmaine O’Shea who won the LIC Dairy Farm Award, the Northland Council Water Quality Enhancement Award and were the Supreme Award winners for the Balance Farm Environment Awards in 2013? Judges said that all aspects of their business were sustainable and profitable and there is an obvious balance of the financial, environmental and social aspects of their farming model. The fact is you didn’t read or hear about it in mainstream media.

Recently, in the NZ Farmers Weekly, Neal Shaw highlighted the disparity between how farmers and others are dealt with in pollution matters. He noted that Queenstown, the poster town for New Zealand’s 100% Pure campaign, has been responsible for repeated sewage spills into pristine lake Wakatipu. Apparently in the past 12 months there have been spills on average once every 6 weeks and twice in January of this year.

Because the spills were deemed to be caused by a third party – Joe public – Queenstown District Council has dodged a fine. “Any farmer smarting from an effluent fine could rightly expect the council to be hunting down the culprits blocking town sewers with fatty waste, just as offending farmers are quickly identified  when polluted waterways are detected,” wrote Shaw. However it appears it was simply too difficult for the council to deal with.

And how many heard about the ferry operator in Auckland who was emptying ferry sewage tanks in the harbour excusing it because they were busy over the summer. They dodged prosecution and claimed ignorance about the law. What makes matters worse, the operator had failed to use a $400,000 rate-payer funded pumping station to handle their sewage. Did you read or hear about it in mainstream media?

Subsequently there have been articles in the local paper by John Allen which provide a much more sensible and considered approach to sustainable dairying. He notes that the label ‘dirty dairying’ has more to do with unsustainable regulations around managing dairy effluent than it has to do with dairy farmers compliance with those regulations. Yes there are issues with water quality and the intensification of dairying. The challenge, he says, is to find solutions that are workable and to do it reasonably fast.

In my opinion we have to acknowledge the significant economic contribution of Agriculture in general and dairying in particular, get solution focused and stop the pointless name calling.

 

 

Collaboration rather than Political Combat

As the politics begin in the lead up to the election we hear the Green Party talking about using the school as a hub for services and a base for community engagement. It is a great idea, however the Education Department is already onto that and could probably do with a bit more support.

We hope to develop such a model at the Pukekohe North School in Franklin, based on the Victory School model in Nelson. Already at the North School they have been doing great work on their community issues with the help of the education department and hope to get some health service resource back which was siphoned off from our people to go elsewhere.

That aside, it is unfortunate a political collaboration to give this policy life for communities will be sacrificed for the sake of political combat. The Greens, National and Labour have all announced what could be components of a great strategy but of course they have to criticise each other rather than work together - oh dear how sad for us. Score, Politics 1; The People 0.

It was amidst commentary by the investment guru Brian Gaynor the warning came for the dairy industry based on the experience of the forestry industry. This industry which has been reduced to a foreign owned non value added production under pressure to produce volume. That pressure, he argues, could be at the heart of the recurring deaths. It made interesting reading, but what was more startling was his warning that dairying may be headed the same way.

As we seem to be focusing on more mechanised high volume production Brian raises concerns that we would lose sight of the qualities we valued and like forestry just become a high pressure, little value added industry.

Whilst at the Brisbane Royal Agricultural Show (EKKA) late last year I was asked to present ribbons to the state winners of the Dairy Cattle young paraders class. I had noted that compared to a couple of years ago when I had last visited the show, entries in the dairy cattle classes seemed to have dropped significantly. 

With me were the bank sponsor representatives, and others such as farmers and agricultural industry suppliers. I mentioned my observation and they assumed grim faces and told the industry was disappearing in Queensland. Not only did they think there would be no diary section at the show within the next couple of years, that milk production was decreasing rapidly in the state as dairy farmers began converting their operations to crop growing. Queensland was not producing enough milk to meet its consumption requirements.

I asked why that was and was told, in unison, one word, Coles.

Let me digress for a moment to talk about the news that was widely reported recently about Australian supermarkets stocking only Australian produced consumer goods. The NZ Farmers weekly reported the Coles supermarket chain had marked Australia Day by replacing all of its house brand and Buy Smart frozen vegetables sold across the nation with 100% Aussie grown vegetables.

That would sound like great news for the 240 growers in Tasmania and New South Wales who will be signed up for a five year contract which also mean they will need to plant more crops. They should perhaps have a chat to the Queensland dairy farmers who found themselves initially supplying Cole’s new house brand milk product which was then on an aggressive path to dominate the market.

What happened when it achieved market domination – ask the diary farmers who have quit dairying in droves, so much so there will be no dairy industry to speak of in Queensland.

In my opinion, the NZ Dairy Farmers should ask what happened to NZ’s Forestry products industry. Perhaps the vegetable growers in Tasmania and NSW should ask what happened to the dairy industry in Queensland. And NZ consumers might ask, “Where is the dominant and a key player in the supermarket industry in NZ based?”

What does hand washing and courage have in common?

One of my New Year commitments is to get back to blogging more regularly. Whilst I was GM of the Franklin Locality Clinical Partnership I wrote a monthly column for the local paper and enjoyed the experience, although sometimes I was scrambling to hit the deadline.

Whilst working for the DHB I felt it was inappropriate to express personal views publically in any way so welcome the 'freedom' to express my opinion.

However my return to the DHB (I had worked there in a previous life as the GM responsible for Patient and Staff Health & Safety and Infection Control, among other things), saw me paying greater attention to hand cleaning. No, this is not a lesson on hygiene. Persevere and you will see the signficant leadership lesson.

There is no arguement now about the importance of hand cleaning, especially in a clinical setting. Attention was brought to this aspect of clinical hygiene back in 1847 by a Hungarian born Physician who made striking observations. Unfortunately when he presented his findings and recommended compulsory regimes of hand washing he faced considerable opposition. ln fact he ended up leaving the hospital in which he was working and it wasn't until later, and after a campaign with the support of his new employer did the requirements become compulsory.

In their book, 'It Starts with One: Changing Individuals Changes Organisations', authors J. Stewart Black and Hal B. Gregersen asked, "Why do we fail to see the need for change?" and noted, "Fundamentally, we fail to see because we are blinded by the light of what we already see."

In January, I was speaking at a conference on the Gatton Agricultural Campus of the Queensland University. My topic was 'Power and Conflict are Ubiquitous in Organisational Life.'

The audience were members of the Next Generation of the Federal Chamber of Agricultural Societies (FCAS) of Australia. This is the movement started by FCAS about four years ago to ensure engagement of younger people and future succession in their organisation. They, like our equivalent in New Zealand (The Royal Agricultural Society), have many people who have contributed significantly to these organisations. Unfortunately in the process new comers have felt they are unwelcome or they can not get a look in. The support of the Australiians for their nex generation is simply impressive.

These young people have a passion but what they do not have often are the street smarts experience often brings to deal with what they encounter. That is, the apparent resistance to new or different ideas and the dodgy tactics people use in debate and arguement. How do they deal with the 'This is the way we have always done it' and the 'We are different' statements?

They, like the Physician not only need to be prepared to question and challenge, they need the courage to carry on and not melt away at the first sign of resistance. The more we can support that courage the better. I argued that wherever there is confusion, conflict, turmoil  or disagreement, there exists the opportunity to create a new understanding and future.

In 1930, a Robert H. Thouless published 'Straight and Crooked Thinking', which describes the thirty eight dishonest tricks of arguement people employ in order to assert what in fact cannot be asserted on the basis of the available evidences alone. His work is as relevant today as it was way back then.

There are only two intellectually honest debate tactics; pointing out errors or ommissions in facts, and, pointing out errors or ommissions in logic. Given that often statements used by opponents to prove them wrong will be of the intellectually dishonest variety and that almost all arguements consist of one intellectually dishonest debate tactic after another, they will need not only courage but patient and considered perseverence. They will need to resist the seemly urgent need these days to take any arguement personally and get emotinally overwrought.

I finished off with John Schaar's words: "The future is not a place to which we are going; its a place which we are creating. The paths to the future are not found, but made. And the activity of making them changes both the maker and the destination."

One the way home, the RAS Youth representative our district sponsored to the conference wanted to know what they should do. I simply told him that in My Opinion, they should not wait to be told what to do next but own the opportunity to begin designing their view of the future. Then ask us oldies to help them build it.