Seymour David: Education (Charter Schools Curriculum) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSeymour David: Education (Charter Schools Curriculum) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 14 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7222. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in opposition to this bill. We in this House have great privileges and a great deal of time and opportunity to use them with the ultimate product supposedly being better public policy for all New Zealanders. I am afraid to say that this bill and the speech by the member sponsoring it Phil Goff last time we met for a members’ day fails dismally on that test.If I was to try to characterise the argument made by the member and also in the explanatory note of the bill it would be No. 1 partnership schools kura hourua are not succeeding as a public policy. No. 2 is the premise that the reason for that failure is the lack of a requirement to follow the New Zealand Curriculum. In conclusion the passage of this bill may improve the policy of partnerships schools kura hourua by forcing partnership schools to adopt the New Zealand Curriculum.In order to make this argument the member gave a large amount of energy—I think it was a vein-popping speech which might have been aided by a little bit more brain and a little less heart not to put too fine a point on it. He tried to argue that there are litanies of failings—most of them imagined in his own mind—and these were a consequence as his argument goes of partnership schools kura hourua not being required to follow the New Zealand Curriculum.If I could introduce just one piece of information to this debate that shows how wrong that argument is it would be this: every one of the nine partnership schools kura hourua currently in operation is voluntarily following Te Marautanga o Aotearoa or the New Zealand Curriculum. So if it is true that there are terrible problems with the partnership school model and terrible failings occurring then it cannot also be true that the member’s bill would help to alleviate those problems because the remedy that the bill brings is already in place.The logic of the bill’s introductory statement and also the argument made by the member in its introduction fails the very first and most basic test of logic. But let us suppose it was true that there were partnership schools not using the New Zealand Curriculum or Te Marautanga o Aotearoa. What specifically would this bill do? Well primarily it would alter section 158G “Sponsor’s duties” of the Education Act 1989 and specifically section 158G(b) which says: “A sponsor of a partnership school kura hourua must— … (b) ensure that the school delivers a curriculum that is in line with any foundation curriculum policy statements published under section 60A(1)(aa);”. We go to section 60A(1)(aa) and we find that partnership schools kura hourua funnily enough are required to follow “ ‘foundation curriculum policy statements’ which are statements of policy concerning teaching learning and assessment that are made for the purposes of underpinning and giving direction …”.And so we look to the latest edition of these statements and what we find is that there are parts of the New Zealand Curriculum the highest-level parts—the vision the values the key competencies—and the principles of the New Zealand Curriculum or the Māori equivalent Te Marautanga o Aotearoa that partnership schools are already required to follow.What for instance is that vision? Well young people who will be confident connected and actively involved lifelong learners. What are those values? Excellence innovation inquiry and curiosity diversity equity community participation ecological sustainability integrity and respect. They are the key competencies that partnership schools are already required to follow under the legislation this bill seeks to amend—thinking using language symbols and text managing self and relating to others and participating and contributing. Finally the principles are high expectations Te Tiriti o Waitangi cultural diversity inclusion learning to learn community engagement coherence and future focus.These are the principles of the New Zealand Curriculum—the vision the values and the key competencies that the schools are already required to follow. That might lead one to ask what exactly this bill would achieve. It tells us that it would ask for “that is in line with any foundation curriculum policy statements published under section 60A(1)(aa)”—i.e. what I have just discovered—to be replaced with “… any applicable national education guidelines published under section 60A(1)”. In other words there would be a wider range of education goals applied.What would be the practical effect of that? All it would mean is that it would reduce the flexibility that partnership schools kura hourua have to develop either their own curriculum that fulfils all of the criteria that I have already mentioned as the current law puts it or it would reduce the ability for partnership schools kura hourua to adopt a different curriculum that none the less—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! Excuse me Annette King could you sit down? It is not particularly polite.DAVID SEYMOUR: All it would allow them to do is it would prevent partnership schools from adapting to a new curriculum and would reduce flexibility.Given that the public interest and the interests of the students are already well protected under the law by the requirements that the existing Act puts on it we find ourselves with two possible hypotheses as to why the member brought this bill to the House and why he is so keen to make such a trivial change that would marginally reduce the flexibility that partnership schools kura hourua enjoy. One is that he simply does not appreciate the creativity the diversity the innovation the “ertia” the alacrity and the energy that people in the New Zealand education system bring to innovate and create new opportunities for their students. He perhaps simply does not appreciate the value of a decentralised education model such as partnership schools kura hourua and such as the Tomorrow’s Schools model I might add which the member had something to do with once upon a time. He does not appreciate what those things can do for the education of New Zealand students.Perhaps he does not understand exactly how well partnership schools are currently doing. Perhaps he is not aware that with one exception—which follows the New Zealand Curriculum and whose operation would not be changed one bit by this bill which has been canvassed—every single partnership school kura hourua is performing at least slightly above average and in some cases well above the expectations that New Zealand generally has for kids who are at those schools. They are an outstanding success and it is a pause for reflection that we consider another possible hypothesis for why the member brought this bill to the House. It is that it was simply a stunt—and I tend to believe this version because I watched the member shuffling his notes trying to work out what to say next when he made his introduction of the bill.I tend to believe that it is a stunt designed to create the impression that partnership schools need this bill—need to be forced to follow a curriculum that they are not succeeding in—when I have shown in this speech that none of those things are actually true. It is an insight into New Zealand and a very sad one that a pilot of an educational model that seeks to do new things to engage kids who have not been well engaged in the system elsewhere—instead of looking at it as something that uses 0.1 percent of the education budget that is trying something new and that is having overwhelmingly positive results and instead of celebrating that and embracing it or at least giving it a chance we choose to bring out the great Kiwi knocking machine and knock it down. I think that is a shame. I oppose this bill. Thank you.