This photo is at the media conference where John was showing how much confidence he has in Anne.
Tolley has trumpeted a Herald poll from last weekend when 88% of those polled said they didn’t fully understand her system.
I asked her in Parliament a pretty simple question and here is the farce that followed:
Hon Trevor Mallard: Going back to the primary answer, is she in the group of 11.9 percent who claim that they fully understand her system or in the 88 percent who acknowledge that they do not?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: In answer to that question, I think the member should think very carefully, being 20 points behind—
Mr SPEAKER: The member asked a very simple question, and the Minister has made absolutely no attempt whatsoever to answer it. The Minister seems to want to make a statement that bears no relationship to what the member asked. The member asked whether the Minister was in the percentage who believe they understand the proposal fully or the group that does not. People can have their own judgement about the question, but it should be answered.
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Parents know what they want, and this Government is delivering what they want. Labour does not seem to know what it wants.
Mr SPEAKER: I am on my feet, and there will be silence. The member asked a very simple question. The Minister may not think it is a very good question; I have no problem with that. But it is a fairly easy question to answer. I think the House deserves to hear an answer, and I invite the member to repeat the question, since we asked the Minister to answer it twice.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Is the Minister in the group of 11.9 percent who claim that they fully understand her system or in the 88 percent who acknowledge that they do not?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I understand perfectly well what the national standards are and what they can do to lift student achievement for the 150,000-odd students whom the previous Labour-led Government left to fail in the education system.
Leaving aside the obvious point that a system that everyone passes has no standards at all, everyone that has half a brain knows that no one can fully understand a system that vital components of, including what will be an expensive and time consuming moderation system, have not been designed yet.
So, once again, Tolley is a liar. Or she is even less able to understand basic education policy than we all (inc Key above) thought and I just don’t think that is possible.
This shows what a good job Lockwood Smith is doing
He did do well on this supplementary. Though given her first two attempts it wasn’t like he had any choice. She was truely hopeless.
A good job from the Speaker ?
Please tell me what was her answer ?, she merely ‘addressed’ the question, the time honoured way of avoiding an answer. Even when the Speaker asked her point blank.
As I understand it Trevor some schools are already effectively using standards that measure ability against age-expectations and the results are relayed to the parents. So why aren’t the available existing testing regimes rolled out nationally? And will ‘performing’ schools be required to change what they do now? Because based on the letter sent to parents it looks like National’s scheme will provide some parents with less specific information about their child’s progress than is currently the case. Elsewhere I have read that Tolley will allow schools that already test to carry on doing what they do now. So I can’t see how anyone can claim to “fully understand” what is happening.
Lindsay – don’t think I’ve ever totally agreed with you before. You’ve got it.
And for many schools even the NZEI compromise of a trial would result in poorer info for parents.
I listened to this and could not believe it. Tolley should have said “yes” to the question and moved on to the next question. The fact that she did not do so suggests either that she did not understand the question or that she does not understand National Standards. In either case we should be very concerned.
Oops I meant to say that Tolley should have said she was in the group that understood. I should have read the question more carefully myself!
If the National Standards eventuate (god help us if they do, though Tolley seems to making a right royal hash of it), will teachers still be required to report to parents on science, PE, social studies, technology, health, music, drama, dance, art achievement or are her plunket style graphs and reports just focused on the three R’s?
For a lot of primary-aged students, especially in Years 3-8, it is through the ‘rich’ curriculum areas (social studies, science, music, etc) that students develop and integrate literacy and numeracy skills.
Sadly, Tolley has sacked all the school advisors in these curriculum areas and will no doubt begin demanding that university teacher education programmes focus on the three R’s, which will equate to further sackings of teachers’ colleges lecturers who specialise in curriculum areas. Sad for everyone, especially the kids in the end.
Great photo – the eyes have it.
How many parents today still don’t understand NCEA?
Something else has happened to last weeks Q+A interview with Tolley. All the show is there except the Tolley bit. The chapter 5 simply has an ad and then hops to panel discussion ?
I know shes avoiding questions but using her ‘wand’ to make her previous appearances disappear?
Yes. narrowing the curriculum is the stupid move. National standards when we have a testing system is place is stupid.
It is stupid to take the money away from childrens reading recovery to pay for it, there won’t be enough money left for this.
It is stupid to think that they all learn at the same pace.
What will happen to the children that are ahead? Will teachers keep them back and not move them up so they can sit tests to make school and class look good? I only ask this as people are tending to focus on the children that are behind and not asking questions about the children that are ahead? Don’t these children need to have their learning needs met too?
I noticed the same thing ghost…
Yes, that is a problem with this sort of system. Schools will want to get as many children as possible to the standard. This will pressure them into focusing on those just above (to keep them there) at (again to keep them there) and just below to get them there. Those well above will likely miss out, and so will those at the very bottom because they won’t get there with all the will in the world and will take up time that those in the first two groups.
More needs to be made of Nationals gift to private schools when they are not subject to these standards – how can this be right/moral/fair?
mickysavage: “I should have read the question more carefully myself!”
No, you were right the first time, micky. An answer of “yes” would have fitted the question.
LOL
That’s a great shot of Tolley.
Glad Smith made her answer.
@A Mother – good point about the gifted kids.
@Ghost that sounds dodgy.
“suggests either that she did not understand the question or that she does not understand National Standards. In either case we should be very concerned.’
Yep – not smart and yes, we should be VERY concerned.
@Kane – my understanding, from reading the Nat stds info, is that schools can choose to report on the other areas – however, given the massive amounts of info requried to report on the stds themselves,its likely to take the form of a small book for each child – and if they report on other key areas of learning, it will have to be in the form of a massive book – which will be unmanageable in the forms it currently takes (portfolios etc aside)
What it actually says in the guidelines is:
“Reporting can also include information about the Learning Areas and Key Competencies in The New Zealand Curriculum.”
So, I imagine that this will have to take a backseat for the timebeing while schools grapple with the other requirements -so some may but I suspect others will not.
ps – not the same paul as above, but the other one
@Paul
They have given the boot to the teachers advisers that help implement the other curriculum. This I feel will mean soon subject that interest children will soon be gone, which is really stupid as this is something that encourages children to read. If they enjoy and want to understand more in a subject this in turn propels them to read. Its so intertwined that National Standards can only do harm.
If they concentrate solely on reading then learning about how plants make food, space and all those wonderful stuff gone. Children do not learn just by giving them a book and being told to read. They have to want to read and what better motivation than a subject that interests them.
I don’t think there will be anything else to report on as if they have given the boot to these advisers… Well…
Suggestion for supplementary question. Page 28 of the Mathematics Standards of the Curriculum re a 3-section matchstick fence. Put it to her and if she has trouble it would suggest she has does not meet the standard required of a student at year 4 and if she cannot how can she claim to fully understand her system. By the way the publications I have in front of me refer only to the mathematics standards and reading and writing standards. Narrow curriculum if you ask me.
@Monique Watson
Scary isn’t it?
I wish I could afford to send my children to private schools where I wouldn’t have to subject them to a second rate education. I would like them to well rounded and be able to think.
What publications have you got? Are you a teacher?
Oh I read my last post.
To clarify what I’m saying about second rate education, I’m saying that National Standards will make schools second rate, not the schools as they are now.
@ A Mother
I have a National Standards Information Pack that I obtained from my local School Principal. I believe they are also available from the Ministry. I have a son who is in Year 2. I don’t agree with National Standards and am involved with a parents petition called One Size Does Not Fit All. Copies are available from the facebook group Parents Against Labelling and are being emailed to all primary School Principals this week.
I’ll have a look. Thanks.
My children are not yet in primary school so will have to look on the MoE website and look on facebook too.
Have you a link or is it by invite only?
Link for Parents aginst Labelling.
http://apps.facebook.com/groupsplus/wall/all.php?gid=7877
The following is a slideshow for arguments aginst National Standards.
http://www.slideshare.net/gadgitgirl35/national-standards-in-new-zealand-schools-2523860
The ‘New’ New Zealand Curriculum is fantastic, but it is the amount of time and resources that will be spent assessing how children measure up against other children that is offensive.
[...] he basically called John Key a racist because John criticised Hone Harawira, now he calls Anne Tolley a liar because she claimed to fully understand a policy, and Trevor proclaimed that no living person can [...]
“Tolley has trumpeted a Herald poll from last weekend when 88% of those polled said they didn’t fully understand her system”
Trevor, I think you’ll find that Stuart Nash will not agree with you reading too much into these polls….
No I reckon people admitting they don’t understand a system is more likely to be an under than over statement.
So Trevor.
Heres a question for you.As the shadow Minister,are you in the group of 11.9 percent who claim that they fully understand her system or in the 88 percent who acknowledge that they do not?
If you are then you are a liar also.
If not then why dont you understand? And if you dont then how can you comment on these standards until you do?
@ David. No I don’t fully understand the system.
I don’t understand the moderation system, not surprising because it is yet to be designed but a vital component in any “national” system.
I can however comment on the mistakes in the already released material and the NEw Zealand and international evidence on what happens when a curriculum is narrowed – bright and average kids miss out badly as teachers focus on teaching a very small group of well below average kids to pass a test.
Some of you may be interested in a discussion on the Assoc Min of Ed, Heather Roy’s blog: http://www.roy.org.nz/royters/guest-blog-tracy-riley-%E2%80%9Cwhat-about-our-gifted-and-talented-kids%E2%80%9D
@Tracy
Very intresting. Same concerns as what I have. It really concerns me. Why aren’t these children caterted for? What deems them to less important? So angry.
Look at Tolley she looks like an evil bitch. And John, well, a bit spaced out to be announcing a HUGE policy.
Gee Martin, tone it down buddy. By all means dislike what they say or do, but “evil bitch”? Chillax man.
What credentials does Anne Tolley bring to her portfolio as Minister of Education?