English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:630;Page:2054] 
5.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What agreements if any exist between schools and education agencies that limit the use of data presented in the Ministry of Education’s SchoolSmart website? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The understanding is that the data is made available to inform schools of statistics of their own performance in a range of areas and to allow them to benchmark themselves against other schools. Parents can get this information from their local school along with other important information such as the sort of environment the school has the kind of teacher programme it operates and what actually happens in the classroom to benefit students. That gives context of course to that data. 
Hon Bill English 
: If the Minister has agreements that limit the use of the data why has he publicly released to me as a result of parliamentary questions some of the data available on the SchoolSmart website such as teacher turnover rates and suspension and stand-down rates but continues to keep secret other bits of the data such as a school’s spending on administration and student retention rates? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As I said in my answers to a number of the member’s many questions on this topic we are not releasing data that identify individual schools but aggregate data that allow us to look at categories of schools. 
Moana Mackey 
: Can the Minister elaborate on SchooolSmart and the benefits of running such a system? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: SchoolSmart is a website that displays information about individual schools compared with data from similar schools. Thirty-six reports are available covering such areas as academic information annual teacher turnover expenditure on property and depreciation roll change comparison by school type and area ethnic and gender information school-leaver information and school retention to year 13 for secondary schools. I agree with the Secondary Principals Association of New Zealand the New Zealand Principals Federation the School Trustees Association the New Zealand Educational Institute and the Post Primary Teachers Association that the information is best released by the schools themselves so that they can give context to the raw data. For the information of members of the House I have here for example raw data on the turnover of teachers per school. It does not mean a lot to people unless it can be put into context and that is why everybody in the education sector apart from the lone critic would like it done the way it is done. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister not surprised to find that all teacher groups are opposed to parents seeing this information and why does he refuse to allow parents access to this website so they can see a range of data about the performance of their child’s school? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It may be helpful to the member if I explain once again that teachers are not opposed to this. Parents can get access to this data through talking to their local school. What teachers are opposed to is having the data out of context. That is why they like to have it explained to parents within the local school. Mr English people understand wants to create league tables. Teachers see no value in that in relation to the education of people. They want to do it on the basis of good education not league tables. They can get that information and they can get the context of the school wrapped around it. 
Moana Mackey 
: What other information is available to parents to allow them to make informed choices about their children’s education? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: A number of sources of information are available for parents. The best way for parents to make choices about their child’s education is to look at things like the reports of the Education Review Office and to visit their local school to talk directly to teachers and principals who will tell them about the school. They can make use of SchoolSmart information if they are talking with their local school but because—and I repeat this for the member’s edification—the sort of data I have in my hand is the kind of data they will get it is best that they make use of that SchoolSmart data in the context of the school they are talking about. 
Hon Bill English 
: Could the Minister confirm for the House that what he has just said is not correct and that if parents go to the SchoolSmart website they are not in fact presented with pages of detailed data but with clear graphic illustrations that compare the performance of their child’s school with other similar schools—and that parents are not stupid and could quite easily digest that information? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: That is what I have just said. If parents talk to a local school they will gain access to that kind of information about their school but they will also have the advantage of having it in the context of that school. The data I have here was in fact pulled off the website so yes it is the data they could get. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is it the Government’s view that the school principal should be allowed to look at this information that the teachers in the school should be allowed to look at it that the Ministry of Education and the Education Review Office should be allowed to look at it that he should be allowed to look at it and that Opposition spokespeople who can find a friendly principal can have a look at it and that the only people who are not allowed to look at it are parents—the people who have the most vital interest in the progress of that school; and what does he say to parents to explain why he regards them as too ignorant to deal with this dangerous information? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The first thing I would say to members is not to listen to the member’s characterisation of SchoolSmart because it is not true. The way that this data is used— 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I take offence at the Minister making a statement that a statement I made in the House was not true. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member has taken offence. Would the Minister withdraw and apologise. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member has just told me that what I said was untrue. So it is OK for him but not OK for me. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member has asked for the statement to be withdrawn and for the member to apologise. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I withdraw. Can I say to the member— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: And apologise. 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I sat here and listened to Bill English call across this House: “That’s not true.” several times when the Minister was on his feet. He has double standards. He does not like it when the Minister says it back. I took offence. I believe he ought to withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No you cannot ask for another member to do that. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: We are in a difficulty here because simply saying that a statement is not true does not imply that somebody is lying; it merely means that he or she got something factually incorrect. We continually get into this trouble in the House when people assert motives and implications behind a statement that is a simple statement of interpretation. If we rule out saying the statement is not true then I think we are in an awful lot of trouble in this House because we would have to find convoluted ways of saying the same thing. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I agree with Dr Cullen to the extent that to say something is not true is to say it is not correct—that it is not right. It does not mean that the argument is taken further to personalise that the person making the statement is seeking to lie to the House. If we have this lily-livered behaviour from National members every time they do not like something then this House will be a very—[ 
Interruption 
] This is a point of order I should be heard in silence. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. Would the member please just come to the point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I am entitled to make my points of order without a barrage from National members something which is all too frequently happening. Can I be heard in silence? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes and would you please make your point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: My point of order is this: to say that something is not true that it is incorrect or that it is false does not imply that the person is a liar or deliberately setting out to mislead the House. The other point I am seeking to make is that we have countless points of order being taken here that have no precedent in the past and if they were to be supported as your initial ruling suggested this House would be a thoroughly antiseptic and insipid place. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the members. The member is entitled to ask for a personal reflection to be withdrawn and I understood that is what the member was doing. If in fact a member does take offence then of course objection has to be taken by that member at the time. But the Rt Hon Winston Peters is correct: “untrue” does not imply lying—a point also made by Dr Cullen—but it can be taken as a personal reflection. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I would say to parents what I said in my original answer and I repeat it for the member: what we have here is a data source that allows schools— 
Brian Connell 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You made your ruling. You asked the Minister to withdraw and apologise and the House is still waiting for that to happen. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry. I heard the Minister withdraw— 
Brian Connell 
: You made a ruling Madam Speaker. You directed the Minister to withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister please affirm that he withdrew and apologised. If he did not would he please stand and do so. I am sorry I thought I heard the Minister say that. The Minister has said he withdrew and apologised. His word is taken. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: To make life a whole lot easier for the House I withdraw and apologise. In answer to the question I would say to parents what I said in my original answer to the original question—that is the data is made available to inform schools about their own performance in a range of areas which allows them to benchmark against similar kinds of schools. Parents can get access to that information by approaching the school and that is a good way to do it because then the information can be placed in context. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister now saying that he is happy for parents to have the information in any context except the context of comparison with another school and does he believe that it is evil intent on the part of parents to want to see comparisons between their child’s school and other schools? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No and no. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can I take it from what the Minister has said that if schools agree to have their parents accessing this information then he will direct the Ministry of Education to allow access by those parents with the agreement of the school to the SchoolSmart website which is by far the easiest way for parents to get hold of the information? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No I will not direct the Ministry of Education to do that for the very simple reason that we have a very workable system now. Schools can be approached by parents to talk about this. We will not buy in to league tables which is what Bill English is arguing for with his privatisation agenda. No one in the education system agrees with the lone critic. He remains the lone critic.