Davis Kelvin: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Davis Kelvin: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:635] 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 Last night I spoke about what is currently available in schools—notably the curriculum levels and the achievement objectives for each level. Part of my point was that we already have standards in schools. 
If we look at an intermediate school year such as year 8 it is reasonable to expect that a child in that year will be learning and functioning at level 4 of the curriculum. In fact in each curriculum level there are three sub-levels. It is relatively easy for a child who comes into a school and is operating at say sub-level 11 to progress through one sub-level in the course of a year and reach the benchmark. A relatively mediocre teacher can achieve that. It is a lot more difficult for a teacher who receives a child who is working at sub-level 5 to progress that child through five or six sub-levels to reach the benchmark. A teacher who gets a child at sub-level 5 and progresses him or her through four sub-levels is actually doing a fantastic job—a better job than the mediocre teacher who gets a child to move just one sub-level and reach the benchmark. That excellent teacher could be penalised and called a substandard teacher although he or she has actually done a better job in raising a child from a lower level. 
If that teacher and the school do a fantastic job in raising achievement to a greater level but still fail to meet the benchmark the school could be deemed to be a failing school in the league tables. The effect of a school being deemed to be failing is that parents tend to vote with their feet the school suffers a falling roll and that affects resourcing. Good teachers who see the writing on the wall then get out of that school because they can while they can and lower-quality teachers tend to remain. There is a downward spiral effect on the quality of achievement. In effect the school starts to suffocate through the good teachers leaving and through the resourcing leaving with the kids whose parents vote with their feet and there is a detrimental effect on education overall. There are alternatives. It is reasonable to expect—and this is something our school worked with last year—a child to progress two sub-levels in the course of a year. I suggest that instead of setting a benchmark or a standard we look at alternatives such as minimum progress over the course of the year. 
However because the bill is not going to go through the select committee process we are unable to explore all the various options. Members have spoken about getting the truants to come in; well how about getting the parents of truants to come in? We could get all manner of people within the sector to come and talk about truancy and we could hear the various options that are available. It is arrogant of us to believe that we sitting here have all the answers and know what the various options are. 
So that is the effect of comparing schools’ results—the league tables that will inevitably happen if we have national testing. My biggest concern about this whole process and the lack of transparency is that we are neglecting to bring people in to give them an opportunity through the select committee process to have their say and put forward alternative systems and ideas. 
The bill is not going to raise achievement whatsoever—which of course is the goal of the bill. I keep going back to the point I made last night that we will not raise achievement until every child in every class in every school has an excellent teacher in front of him or her. I believe that it is the role of the Government to provide the conditions where excellent teachers can weave their magic. Generally a child will truant because he or she is disengaged unmotivated and disenfranchised from the classroom. It is imperative that we give the teachers the skills the training and the opportunity so that they can weave their magic for the kids.