"M (daughter) participated in the Numeracy Support Programme in term 1 2015.
I am writing to you to express our appreciation to J (specialist teacher concerned) and yourself for this opportunity as it proved to be a fantastic programme and has helped M greatly; not only in regards to improving her maths skills but also for her finding a love of numbers and "how they work".
As stated in her letters home it is definitely a partnership between school and home, and for a little effort at home you get to see some great results. According to the report sent home at the end of the programme and after speaking with J, M started at a Year 1 level (beginning) and finished at almost "where she should be". It is a shame the she is not able to continue the programme until she is fully up to speed even if this means it would have to be "self funded". We were however disappointed that we were never informed that she was so far behind, this was only mentioned in the last week of term 4, 2014 that she may need a "little help".
I hope this programme may continue into the future for other children who have not yet had the opportunity to participate as we have found it to b extremely worthwhile."
My response (also slightly edited):
"Thanks for taking the time to write - I always suspected that I'd get one of these queries one day.
Yes the programme is very powerful. It is a local initiative...and we commit a serious amount of resourcing to have this programme in the school; one only the trained specialists can take. Participating schools 'buy' a percentage of the experts' time - which results in one of them being in our school every day for the number of weeks we can afford over a year. In that time, they work with the sorts of 'target' kids the programme is designed for: students below (but not well-below) the National Standard (maths) applicable to their age.
As to the timing of you being informed about Monique's being below (the National Standard for maths): let me explain why and how that would have happened.
National Standards (NS) were formulated on the basis that all kids could progress at a similar rate: "by the time a kid is six they will be able to do this, this, and this; and by the time they are seven it will be this, this and this!" (It is a very rare parent with two or more kids who has found that their kids hit all the same development milestones at exactly the same ages - it doesn't happen in a family and it certainly doesn't in a classroom either).
According to the Minister of Education at the time of their introduction, the NS were created by "mapping backwards from NCEA level 2" - the concept being that if every kid makes exactly "this much" progress in twelve even steps from age five to the end of year 12; then every kid will pass NCEA level 2. That concept never took into account much in the way of how child development and learning actually happens.
Hand in hand with the introduction came a legal requirement for progress to be reported to parents (against the NS) in terms of being above / at / below / well-below any given standard - which mark out only where a child is; 'expected' to be at the end of a year (for years 4 and up). For the troops in their first three years at school, the NS specify where they should be after 40 / 80 / 120 weeks of tuition; but still an assumption that everyone progresses at exactly the same rate to be able to achieve the relevant prescribed standard. Such progress is then required to be reported to parents using "clear language" and maybe even graphs; "like the graphs in the Plunket books."
Plunket graphs recognise kids' development as being "within" ranges - rather than specifically "at" a required level. Nobody ever told a mum that their otherwise normal baby was 1.1Kg underweight or exactly 5 millimetres too short for their age. So it should be with NS. Kids whose progress is indicated as being "below" NS are simply just off making the standard - a bit like being 5mm too short for their age.
The "below NS" kids will still make progress often reaching "at" with a bit of an extra support (eg: the numeracy programme provides); and sometimes with just being allowed a little more time and time to develop. In M's case, our records show her to be "at" the NS at the end of 2013; and "below" at the end of 2014. Because final NS judgements are only made at the end of the school year, for you to be told "below" any sooner would not necessarily have been valid. Further to that; you would have been told that she needed only "a little bit of help" because that indeed was all that was required to give her the boost required.
I can assure you that should for any reason a child needs a second or third boost further down the track - we have no hesitation in putting them back in the experts' hands again.
Thanks again for your well-considered letter guys; I have appreciated the opportunity to try and clarify things for you and, potentially, others too."
