Twyford Phil: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Twyford Phil: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:651;Page:598] 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I congratulate the National Government and I call on my colleagues not to be quite so harsh on them because they are on a literacy crusade. I think I am on a crusade to give credit where credit is due. This is a kind of turbocharging of education in the first 100 days and education is very important—there is no argument from this side of the House that it is not important. We can listen to all the maiden speeches; I think every one of us so far has talked about how education is the most important thing we can do as a nation. 
Moreover the members on that side of the aisle are right to focus on the problem of underachievement. In spite of the very creditable performance of our young people in the OECD rankings in science literacy and maths the so-called long tail of underachievement is one of the major challenges this country faces. About that there is I hope no disagreement on our side of the aisle. So I congratulate the National Government for focusing on an extremely important issue. 
However it is not enough to identify the problem. It is not enough to campaign up and down the country spreading fear and anxiety. The members opposite are in the Government now and they need something more than slogans and fearmongering. They need good sound practical ideas that can be turned into policy and law but I have to say that at this point the National Government falls down rather badly. It is sad to say it but I would have thought that 9 years was long enough to come up with better ideas than are contained in this bill. 
What is the National Government’s response to this problem of underachievement? It is national educational standards. On the surface that is an interesting idea. We all want standards right? But let us think about this. There is no point having standards unless we test. Otherwise how do we know whether we are reaching those standards? What we are really talking about here if we are honest is standardised testing. That is the conceptual basis of this bill. The National Party has pulled a page from George W Bush’s playbook and his No Child Left Behind Act policy as Metiria Turei has explained. 
Paul Quinn 
: Saviour of the free world! 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: I say to Paul Quinn that standardised testing is the tired old cliché policy of conservative politicians all around the world. This bill is a Trojan Horse for standardised testing. I will say more about standardised testing but first let me make some other comments. There is a very interesting thing about this bill: it does not actually do anything. It is the National Party’s idea of virtual Government. It is very modern it is like a hologram it looks real and it gives the appearance of substance but in fact there is nothing there; it is a complete illusion. In this respect it bears an uncanny resemblance to the dreary bail bill that we spent the afternoon discussing. It is campaign rhetoric in drag. It does not introduce anything new it does not provide any resources for literacy programmes and actually it acknowledges— 
Paul Quinn 
: They won’t like that in Mt Albert. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: It acknowledges—I say to Mr Quinn—that some very effective assessment tools are already at work in our schools. 
This policy caused quite some confusion on the campaign trail. At a candidate debate in Devonport my opponent the honourable member for North Shore was asked by a very nice woman in the audience whether National would introduce standardised testing. He said that no they would have assessment. She asked what the difference was. I have to tell members that there was a lot of huffing and puffing but not much light shed on the issue. I had some sympathy for my opponent the member for North Shore. It is not surprising that he found it difficult to explain the difference because after all how does one assess without testing? Assessment is simply another kind of testing. 
I was talking recently with a literacy and numeracy specialist who works at a school in Auckland. She said that the real question about this debate asks why we are testing. What is the purpose? Is it so we can improve the quality of teaching and learning or is it so the school can publish league tables and market itself as being better than the school down the road? I think that that comment was very perceptive. The bill in fact requires State schools to assess and report student performance against national standards. This will inevitably lead to the establishment of league tables of winner and loser schools and compound the challenges that lower-decile schools are already struggling with. That is exactly what has happened under standardised testing regimes in the UK and the US. 
I lived for 4 years in the United States which is a happy hunting ground for standardised testing regimes. My son was 9 years old and in middle school in Maryland. He did four different sets of exams every year and all the teachers and all the parents complained that all they had time to do in the academic year was prepare for an endless round of exams and testing. After 6 years of George W Bush’s No Child Left Behind policy one commentator at the National Center for Fair and Open Testing said there was overwhelming evidence that the law was deeply flawed and doing more harm than good. It relies on “limited one-size-fits-all tools” that “reduce education to little more than test prep.” We hear exactly the same story in the United Kingdom. Introducing national standards and making schools accountable sounds good on a bumper sticker. It is very much like ACT’s “three strikes and you’re out” policy or the Bail Bill that we discussed this afternoon. It looks good on a bumper sticker but it is not really based on sound policy is it—is it? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What’s your answer? Give us an answer. Give us a policy. Give us a single idea. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: If this is the rigour the innovation and the depth that the National Government will bring to education policy the children of New Zealand should be very afraid I say to Mr Smith—very afraid. [ 
Interruption 
] Standardised testing I say to Mrs Parata is against fairness it is against accuracy and it is against quality. I will tell members why. For decades educationalists have complained that standardised tests are unfair because the questions so often require a set of knowledge and skills that is likely to be possessed only by children who come from a privileged background. And the member should know that. Can members guess which kinds of children are best able to prepare for the tests? Can members tell me? It is the kids who come from privileged families who are best able to prepare for those tests. The quality of teaching suffers inevitably. Testing encourages the temporary acquisition of skills and information— 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This bill is about national standards. It has nothing to do with national testing. I ask you to remind the member on his feet to speak to the bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: That is not a point of order. It is a debating point and the member knows that. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: The so-called long tail of underachievement is indeed a very serious problem and it is one that I do not doubt that every member of this House on both sides of the aisle cares about. But this bill has nothing to offer. It is all sizzle and no sausage. It does not introduce anything new—actually it recognises explicitly that effective assessment tools are already at work in our schools. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Half of them aren’t doing it. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: But worse than that I say to Mr Smith the bill is based on shonky educational theory. It dignifies the concept of standardised testing as a valid educational tool for children as young as 5 years old and it lays the groundwork for a National Government to impose national standardised testing on our schools. And that is the objection I have. 
Finally the National Party has been dining out for months—actually years—on a line it got from Crosby/Textor about the nanny State. This bill demonstrates how shallow that rhetoric is. This bill is about the governess State. Do members know what? It is the National Government wanting to impose Victorian values of education on our children. It flies in the face of international best practice and everything we know about personalised learning. Next the members on the other side of the aisle will have us lining up in the classrooms rote learning.