Hipkins ChrisCHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): Lest anybody in the House thinks that my lack of volume in this contribution is a reflection of some kind of acquiescence to this bill it is simply a reflection of the fact that I have a cold. I have several other speeches to get through this afternoon and I am having to ration my vocal chords.Carmel Sepuloni: I'll make up for it.CHRIS HIPKINS: Carmel Sepuloni will I am sure fill in the blanks. I would like to thank the Minister for her acknowledgment of the work of the Education and Science Committee. It was by and large a collegial process. It was a shame however that it was a complete waste of time because the Government by majority rejected almost every substantive amendment that was proposed by those who took the time to submit to the select committee. Their voices may have been heard but they were not listened to and as a result we have got a bill that does not in any way really reflect the voices of the people who took the time to submit and I think that is a shame.This bill is a disappointing bill and I do not say that just because I am an Opposition member of Parliament. I have followed the genesis of this bill very closely from the beginning including the consultation hui that were held around the country when the previous Minister of Education Hekia Parata announced her intention to review the Education Act 1989 and I know that there were some incredibly useful and positive discussions that came out of that consultation process.I also know that there was some enthusiasm for some of the initial proposals that were incorporated into this legislation. For example there was widespread support for the notion that the Education Act should have a purpose clause. It seems rather odd that we have this very substantive piece of legislation that does not actually have a defined purpose. People working in education welcomed the notion that there would be a purpose clause and I think engaged with that very closely during the submissions process and made some very practical suggestions for how that purpose clause could be inclusive and all-encompassing and genuinely reflective of the needs of students of today and of tomorrow. Again they had all of that very constructive feedback that they provided through the select committee process ignored.I will not hesitate to support Government policy where it is based on sound research and evidence and where it has been thoroughly worked through and there are examples of that in this legislation. I think for example of the changes to the statutory interventions process which had been called for by schools which are sensible and which will provide new levels of intervention that are less Draconian than those currently in the law and I think that that is a very welcome development. But there are also examples where that is not the case—where the evidence has not been presented where the details have not been worked through and where there are significant risks.Cohort entry has been well canvassed over the past week and I am certainly open to the debate around cohort entry. I do not have a philosophical opposition to it. I think that any decision that we make around cohort entry must be driven by what is in the best interests of the child not by what is most administratively efficient or is most financially beneficial to the Crown.So I asked the Ministry of Education for the literature that it had based its decision on in recommending cohort entry and the advice the select committee was given back was that allowing children to start in a cohort after their fifth birthday rather than this 4 years 10 months situation that we have in the bill—the only advice that it could present to the committee was that it would cost more because it would mean that kids stayed in early childhood education for longer which is more expensive than primary schooling and that they would end up staying longer at the other end of primary schooling because of the later start. That was the only argument it could produce against having children start in a cohort after their fifth birthday. It could not produce any evidence that it was better for the child to start at 4 years and 10 months.But the evidence that we did get was from the Education Review Office which found that in terms of the way we support the transition from early childhood education into primary schooling we are among the best in the OECD. We do it very very well. Schools take a real pride in supporting each individual child in their transition from early childhood to schooling. So what is the mischief that we are trying to fix here if it is not simply an administrative or a financial driver that is behind this?The communities of online learning (COOLs) puzzle me somewhat because the details simply are not there about how they will operate. You look at other parts of the Education Act which prescribe in great detail how every part of the sector will operate and yet with the communities of online learning it is pretty much We're going to set it up. We're going to allow for it. Just trust us—we'll sort the details out later." And yet we have seen enormous amounts of evidence at the Education and Science Committee of the risks of that approach and the risks of online learning.The COOLs as defined in the legislation seem to be starting from a blank page and yet there are things happening in our education system at the moment that should be embraced. I think of the Virtual Learning Network which is well embraced by schools around the country. I think it has got something like 40 schools around the country at the moment that are in the Virtual Learning Network and yet they may become COOLs but it seems that the learning and the evidence that has been generated through that process has not been considered when the COOLs were developed.I am all for modernising Te Aho o Te Kura Pounamu or The Correspondence School—I think that is long overdue in fact. But there was some interesting research put forward by it including research that shows that its online learning—the online learning that it is already delivering—is not delivering as good results as the traditional correspondence learning that it has been providing. That was Te Kura's own advice to the committee. So I thought that was interesting. It is the main provider of distance schooling at the moment and yet it is finding that the online learning that it is delivering is not delivering as good results as the traditional correspondence learning.Then we have seen evidence from overseas that the people that the Ministry of Education engaged to provide advice produced a summary of international research and highlighted all of the risks. One of the studies that we were alerted to was produced in the United States by a pro - charter school foundation. So these were people who were pro - charter schools and pro - online charter schools and their evidence found that those students attending those schools lost an average of about 72 days of learning and reading and 180 days of learning and maths during the course of a 180-day school year. In other words they made about half the progress they were expected to in literacy and they made no progress in their numeracy. That is the risk of getting this wrong which is why I think it is reasonable for the House to expect more detail from the Government around how COOLs are going to work before we rush ahead and put them into legislation.On the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities I think that this could be a very welcome development. I think that this could be a very powerful thing for the education community for students for parents for teachers for principals for school administrators and for school trustees. I think having a clear vision statement which is what I think the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities could be could be a very positive thing. But there is a huge amount of trepidation within the education community about how this might look because the current Government's focus is very much on the measurables and not on the broader vision. So the measurables are national standards and NCEA level 2 and yet we know that those are not good measures of the students' overall progress within the education system. There is so much more to what goes on in schools and early childhood centres than simply literacy and numeracy which is what the current Government's targets are all about.So if we have a statement of National Education and Learning Priorities that is well developed and is broadly embraced by people it could be very powerful. If we have a statement of National Education and Learning Priorities that reinforces the narrowing down of the focus of the system it could actually be very powerful but very damaging. And so if it is powerfully positive that is good. If it is powerfully negative I think it could be disastrous. So there is a reasonable degree of trepidation about how this is going to pan out.I do not agree with the Minister of Education's boasting about the current Government's track record when it comes to education. Let us look at some realities. On every one of the major Programme for International Student Assessment measures—that is an objective international study—New Zealand has gone backwards during the term of the current Government. The number of people leaving school who then go on to be not in education training or employment has increased. The per-child funding in early childhood education and the per-student funding in schools is going backwards. Early childhood education participation is up but the quality is declining. Parents are paying more than ever before for their kids' education and kids are feeling more measured analysed poked and prodded than ever before and they are not being given the chance to be kids and grow at their own rate and to develop their own strengths.I think we need an education system that is about drawing out the very best in young New Zealanders—and older New Zealanders who are re-engaging with education—rather than trying to stuff things into them. And unfortunately that is the process that this current Government seems hell-bent on—stuffing things into young people and making them conform and be standardised as if schools and early childhood centres are factories rather than a creative diverse vibrant school and early childhood system which is what we really need if we are to ensure that every New Zealander has the opportunity to reach their individual and unique potential."