Smith Lockwood: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Smith Lockwood: Education Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:630;Page:2635] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I rise to support with all the sincerity I can the amendment to insert a new clause 5A which is proposed by my good colleague the Hon Bill English. 
I suppose I have a real interest in this matter because the National Education Guidelines and the National Administration Guidelines were matters that I was very heavily involved in in the early 1990s as Minister of Education. Over the years it has been a cause of some concern to me that although the new school curriculum documents established at the time set out achievement goals across the core school curriculum the concept of developing those into standards that in certain of the key areas could be perhaps more appropriately monitored was something that I am not sure ever developed quite to fruition. I think most schools continue to say that the National Education Guidelines and the curriculum statements that form part of them are still pretty useful bases for our curriculum but I think many people feel it is time now to see whether we can find a way in the key areas of literacy and numeracy to move forward. 
I note that the amendment my good colleague the Hon Bill English is moving is very wisely worded to make sure it does not try to impose inappropriate standards on schools. This amendment is a very generalised statement. It states: “national standards which are standards for literacy and numeracy applicable to all students in an age or year group:”. It leaves to further development the actual specific identification of those standards. What is also vital is his amendment to insert a new clause 6A which proposes that “schools provide an analysis of the progress of students measured against any national standard in literacy and numeracy published under section 60A(ba):”. That is the bit covered by the first part of the amendment. 
So I urge the Committee to give the amendment its support. I think it is a carefully worded amendment. It is not trying to impose a whole new thing on our schools. It is a sensible development out of the existing National Education Guidelines. It leaves flexibility for appropriate standards to be developed out of the current national curriculum statements—the relevant ones for literacy or English language and for numeracy. I think it has been very carefully thought through. I would like to congratulate my colleague Bill English on the work that has gone into it. I hope members will see fit to support it. 
This issue is so fundamentally important. So much learning is simply limited if students do not develop at an early age capability in literacy and numeracy. I do not think that is being in any way unrealistic. Most people who think sensibly about education would accept that education is very important. Let me give an example to show what I mean. If one thinks about it one realises that one cannot think without language. Someone once said that it is only through finding the words that one discovers what one thinks. I suggest that the Minister of Education tries to think without language tries to think without words. It is not possible. If we want a thinking citizenry if we want people who are able to think and work through their lives and to lead their lives to the fullest they must have literacy—they must have language. The sophistication of one’s ability to think and think clearly depends totally on one’s language. We cannot think in a vacuum of language. Likewise we cannot think about mathematical concepts without having the numeracy framework within which to think. 
I am not saying this based on some obscure view of someone who has not been involved in education. I was Opposition spokesperson on education for 3 years and Minister of Education for almost 6 years. On the basis of all that experience and also 13 years at university myself I urge the Committee to give this amendment its support. It is a wise amendment.