Davis Kelvin: Education Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Davis Kelvin: Education Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:664;Page:12333] 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 First of all Labour will support the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) to the Education and Science Committee as long as we get some sort of referral motion correct. I was not in the House when that was talked about. I disagree with the previous speaker Mr Peachey on one of the points he made about making sure that as many kids as possible get to the most excellent schools. I think that the aim of the New Zealand education system should be for all schools to be excellent and for all young students to have access to excellent schools right in their own backyard. It should not be just the domain of those who are upwardly mobile to be able to attend an excellent school somewhere away from their own neighbourhood. 
In the 20 months that I have been a member of Parliament this is the third education-related bill to come through the House. The first related to the infamous national standards. Even if we are to believe the hype around the national standards that they will be the greatest thing to lift achievement in New Zealand even if we disregard the Auckland Primary Principals Association stance the Southland principals’ support of the Auckland Primary Principals Association stance the Tai Tokerau principals’ criticisms of national standards the Parliamentary Library research paper that the Minister is quick to criticise and the 37000 petitioners who criticised the national standards even if we believe that the national standards are the best thing since sliced bread we would have expected that the second education bill to come to the House would be the second-most important bill. 
Unfortunately this second piece of legislation talked about principals not having to police vet the contractor who goes out and fixes the light switch at the back prefab. It talked about sharing information between the Teachers Council and the Ministry of Education. That legislation was a big let-down because it did not address what all legislation in this House should be about when it comes to education—that is how we raise achievement as quickly as we can as high as we can. 
I was hoping this Education Amendment Bill (No 2) would address that. I was hoping it would address those issues and those strategies that are known and proven by research to raise achievement the most. This is another technical bill. It does not address the most important aspects of education and it does not look to how we will raise achievement. It does not address professional development or making sure the interface between teachers and students is as good as it can be. That is how we will raise achievement. 
When the Minister was thinking about what she wanted to do to raise achievement I guess she decided that she would look at the limited attendance centres and at the places where parents who go to the shopping mall to get their hair cut or get a manicure or buy the groceries or fix the lawnmowers—the places where they can leave the kids while they go off and do those things. There is no way on earth that that section of this bill will address achievement. It just makes things easier for parents to go about their daily business so they can drop the kids off somewhere and go off to buy the groceries get their hair cut or whatever. 
Louise Upston 
: It’s called common sense. 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: But it is not about education. I support the fact that parents can do that. It is a good idea but it does not raise achievement. The Government is focusing on these technical things yet we are neglecting what it takes to raise achievement in schools. I ask that member how many kids will learn to read write and do arithmetic because their parents can drop them off at some day care at a mall. 
Louise Upston 
: Get the focus on education and don’t worry about the creche— 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: That member opposite proves that this Government does not get education. Those members do not understand what it takes to raise achievement. When I look at the secondary-tertiary programme I must say that I have a concern. Again I think it is not a bad thing and we do support the legislation going to select committee. But instead of just saying that some kids are failing at secondary school so let us move them off into some other area we should be looking at what it is that is disengaging those students from secondary school in the first place. Teachers should be resourced in order to work with those kids. Teachers should be provided with the support so that they can be excellent. It is our responsibility as legislators to provide the conditions where those excellent teachers can weave their magic for the kids. 
We cannot simply say that a child has got to fourth form and he or she is a hard-to-teach student so maybe that child can be pushed off to some technical studies at the tertiary level. We all know that some kids may be better at technical stuff but my fear is for those kids who for whatever reason will be pushed off and their academic abilities not stretched simply because they are hard-to-teach kids. 
We can take the instance of gifted education. Gifted education is so misunderstood particularly in this House. There are a number of kids who present themselves as being not particularly academic when in fact they are gifted. Schools do not have the resources the capability or the technology to test true giftedness. Those gifted kids are sitting in classrooms where they are bored and disengaged. The teacher believes that they are not very easy to teach so maybe they would work better with their hands and they can go off to some technical college. 
My son is 11 years of age. He is in year 7 and he is writing at level 5 of the curriculum which is very high. My son is exceptionally bright but he is not gifted. There are a lot of parents who think their kids are gifted when they are actually just bright. The gifted kids in New Zealand are not being recognised. They might be able to sit for days on end and build the Eiffel Tower out of matchsticks or a Porsche out of lawnmower parts but when it comes to writing a couple of sentences they may not be able to do that particularly well in writing that is very legible. So the teacher thinks they have learning difficulties and might encourage them to go to the technical colleges and do something with their hands. I am scared that we will have gifted kids who are academically bright and who are educationally very very capable who will be pushed to the side. 
I am also worried that Maori kids who may be difficult to teach will be encouraged to move off to technical colleges and will not fulfil their true academic potential. I am also concerned that students from rural areas will be disadvantaged because even if they do want to be in those tertiary programmes they will not be available for those students in their areas. Where I live in Kaitaia there are no opportunities for kids to go off to NorthTec in Whangarei to do part of their studies there. 
Labour supports this bill going to select committee. There are a number of parts to it that need further discussion and I take my colleague Trevor Mallard’s points about the part of the bill where boards of trustees members and former students—old boys and old girls—can send their kids to a school and there is the opportunity for them to jump the queue over other people who live in the school’s zone. I think that these anomalies need to be sorted out. With that I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.