I will try and get the video from the house on this because I don’t think the words alone show the level of despair on the government side. Not sure if there will be a shot of Key with head in hands or English looking to the ceiling. It is a classic case of a Minister being too scared to say “I don’t know.” Always the best approach when that is the case – especially if followed by, “and I will table the information the member seeks when it is available.”
Not sure if Gerry helped much either.
4. LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taup?) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made about national standards?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) : Today I have announced the appointment of a national standards independent advisory group. The group is comprised of five respected figures who have an outstanding mix of education and public policy experience. I am looking forward to receiving their ongoing, independent, free and frank advice on the implementation of the standards and on any refinements that can be made to enhance their effectiveness.
Louise Upston: Who are the members of the national standards independent advisory group?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The group will be chaired by Professor Emeritus Gary Hawke, who is a very well-known expert in the field of public policy. It has a strong core of education sector academic experience from New Zealand, with the inclusion of Professors Tom Nicholson and John Hattie, and of Tony Trinick. Finally, Dr Avis Glaze is a well-respected Canadian educator who has played a pivotal role in education reform in a number of countries, and he will bring a useful outside view to the group.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Does the Minister understand the difference between a ministerial committee and an independent committee; if so, what is it?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have set up this group by asking its members to give me their independent, free and frank advice on the implementation of the national standards.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Does she still claim to fully understand the national standards system, and, in particular, does she fully understand inter-school moderation of her literacy standards?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Yes.
Hon Trevor Mallard: What is her best estimate of the cost of her inter-school moderation of literacy standards?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I well understand that that is a concern that has been expressed by people such as Professor Hattie.
Hon Member: What’s the estimate?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have no estimate on the cost of inter-school moderation. The actual difficulty New Zealand has, and the reason for our national standards policy, is supported by the Programme for International Student Assessment data, which shows that the greatest variation in student achievement in New Zealand schools is within schools, not between schools.
Hon Trevor Mallard: In light of her reply to my second to last supplementary question, how does the inter-school moderation of her literacy standards work?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am sorry, but I cannot—
Mr SPEAKER: I think it was perfectly fair. The Minister did not hear the question. I ask the Hon Trevor Mallard to repeat it.
Hon Trevor Mallard: In light of her answer to my second to last supplementary question, how does her system of inter-school moderation of her literacy standards work?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: It is not “my” method of inter-school moderation that is at stake here. What we have put in place to examine the implementation and monitor the implementation of the national standards over the next several years, to be carried out by the Ministry of Education, is a contract that will evaluate and monitor the implementation, including between-school differences if there are any. Also, the Education Review Office will have direct responsibility for examining the basis on which teachers are making their judgments. The Opposition members cannot have it both ways. On the one hand they argue that if we use assessment we run the risk of teachers teaching to the test; the minute that we allow teachers to use their judgment and their relationship with the students, then the members opposite start worrying about inter-school moderation. We want to have professional judgments from professional teachers about the progress that students are making against the standards. This Government is determined to address the one in five students whom the previous Government left to fail in our education system.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Can the Minister now explain to the House how the inter-school moderation of literacy standards will work?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I take you back to the primary question. I have engaged with and tried to answer the member, but the primary question was about recent announcements that I have made. I have made no recent announcements on inter-school moderation.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: I am not sure that I need the member’s assistance. [Interruption] I am on my feet. The dilemma I have is that the Minister was asked a question, if I recollect correctly, about her understanding of how the moderation of national standards will work. The Minister—if I recollect correctly; it was about three supplementary questions ago—said “Yes.” The Hon Trevor Mallard therefore, under our Standing Orders, is entitled to question further about that answer. That is what he has done; he has asked for an explanation of how the standards will work. My dilemma is that the member’s question therefore is absolutely in order.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Notwithstanding the fact that the Minister of Education is dealing with these questions very factually and in a very direct manner, I think it is worth noting that although the Standing Orders control the way in which the House operates, they are moderated by Speakers’ rulings. If I take you to Speaker’s ruling 160/2, you will see it states: “Supplementary questions must arise directly from the Minister’s reply; they must be related to it not indirectly but directly.” Now, that, of course, relates to the primary question, which was, as the Minister quite rightly pointed out, about the announcement of the ministerial committee to give her free and frank advice on the implementation of the standards. To start running down the track of how we are doing inter-school moderation is the sort of thing we might have at a select committee, quite appropriately. It is fascinating that the member opposite needs to ask those sorts of questions, but none the less they do not really comply with the direction by Speaker Algie.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I probably do not tell you this, because you are absolutely aware of the fact that the replies referred to are replies not only to the primary question, but to supplementary questions also.
Mr SPEAKER: My dilemma is that the Standing Order and the particular Speaker’s ruling that the Hon Gerry Brownlee has referred to are quite clear that supplementary questions that relate to answers given are perfectly in order. In fact, if one goes to the Standing Order—I think it is Standing Order 378—on supplementary questions, one finds that it states that further questions can be asked about either the primary question or the answers given. My dilemma is that the member the Hon Trevor Mallard asked a very specific question about the Minister’s understanding of the moderation system, to which the Minister said “Yes”, and now the member is pursuing that answer further. I would like the Minister to see whether she can answer that further question, because it is absolutely in order. I would feel that I was not doing my duty if I did not ask the Minister to answer. I would appreciate her doing that.
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am perfectly happy to answer; I just really wanted to point out that we were heading off down a different track from the primary question. I say to the member he is concerned about inter-school moderation, but, actually, the national standards, at their heart, are to address inter-school moderation. Currently a large number of assessment tools are used by schools, and no one standard applies across them. That is what national standards are. So the existing assessment tools will remain in place, and the national standards will go right across all those tools, so that it will not matter which school a child goes to, or which assessment tool a particular school uses, because there will be a standard that is national. That is the essence of national standards, so the inter-school moderation is exactly that. Parents will know, whichever school their children attend—
Hon Trevor Mallard: This is embarrassing.
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Well, it just shows that you do not understand—[Interruption] It just shows that you do not understand what national standards are—
Mr SPEAKER: The Speaker is on his feet, and as a former Minister of Education, the Speaker might understand. The Minister should not be saying “you do not understand”. I think we have heard a sufficient answer.
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I should have said that the Opposition members, who continue to put misinformation out into the community about what national standards are, do not understand. It is not a new test; it is not a new assessment tool. It is a common standard across them.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I now ask the Minister not how national standards will work and not about the fact that there is going to be moderation, but how will that moderation work?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I say to the member that I give him the same answer. It is exactly as I have explained it. That is how it will work. If the member would like to come and have a briefing, I am quite prepared to provide it.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I say this with some reluctance. I have not quite counted the number of attempts that I have had to have that question answered. Offering a briefing is not an explanation of how moderation will work.
Mr SPEAKER: Serious issues are being addressed here; this is question time working. I have to say to the honourable member that I have supported the quite clever questioning he has pursued, but I have a dilemma now. He rightly used supplementary questions to highlight that he wanted to dig into an answer he was receiving that, to him, was unsatisfactory. But he is now asking me to intervene, and my dilemma is that the primary question was broad. Had the primary question been more specifically in respect of the moderation of national standards, I could have gone further in supporting the member in his questioning. But, given the nature of the primary question, I believe that in the interests of fairness I have gone about as far as I reasonably can in supporting the member’s questioning. I think that in fairness to the Minister, with such a broad primary question it would be unreasonable for me to expect any more specific answer than has been given.
