10. Question No. 10—EducationERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 10—Education10. ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays) to the Minister of Education: How many decile 1 students passed the writing assessment for the second 2022 literacy and numeracy pilot released last week and what advice if any has she received on the number of students next year that will leave school with no qualifications? Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education): The number of decile 1 students who achieved the writing assessment for the overall 2022 pilot was 33 which is 11.7 percent of decile 1 students who attempted the trial assessment. To the second part of the question the maths and literacy co-requisite is intended to sit along the NCEA qualification as an endorsement of foundational knowledge. We have been piloting the draft assessment in around 200 schools kura and tertiary providers to determine the settings for the assessment material and conditions. Advice has been given that if it is implemented as currently planned the assessment could disadvantage some students particularly those already faced with inequity which is why we have put in place a $24 million tutoring programme to help the students whose learning was most disrupted by COVID-19 and it is why I am investigating transitional options that balance the need for a fair and equitable implementation but without reducing the credibility of the qualification. Erica Stanford: Before implementing the numeracy and literacy pilots did she expect that 90 percent of decile 1 students would fail a basic writing assessment? Hon JAN TINETTI: The bottom line here is that 10 years ago we weren't testing or investigating literacy or numeracy in this particular way because we didn't have this ability. It would be probable that we would have got exactly the same results 10 years ago. It would be hard to know where those young people would be actually achieving in those assessments because we did not have visibility of it. Erica Stanford: In light of the answer she just gave that she wasn't expecting that level of failure why didn't she in the last six years implement some form of assessment—Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Make things up. SPEAKER: The Hon Carmel Sepuloni stand withdraw and apologise. You can't say that. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: I withdraw and apologise. Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order Mr Speaker. I accept obviously your ruling on Minister Sepuloni. But this is as we discussed earlier in the week another example of an assertion in a question which I know what you want is for us to say nothing until the Minister gets up. But when virtually every question other than the primary coming from the Opposition contains assertions it is extremely difficult for order to be maintained in the House. SPEAKER: Well further to the ruling that I made last week which was that at least one part of the question needed to be in order I'm going to leave it to the Ministers. If it's your feeling that it's out of order to the extent that you don't wish to—I mean I'm happy to intervene but I don't want to intervene until the question has been asked. I think we all know when there are far too many assertions—we've already had at least two today. One of them had four assertions. I would have been quite—I would have accepted it if the Minister just remained seated and did not want to answer it and I would rule it out of order. I can do that but it's really up to the House. As I have said before if the House wants to tolerate out-of-order questions and address them it can but if it doesn't—because we have had a situation where I think they should be ruled out of order. So in that respect I agree with the Hon Grant Robertson. But as I have said before this House has told me that it wants more robust question time—OK. That's entirely up to this House. Erica Stanford: Why is it then that over the last six years she didn't put in place measures to allow students to master the basics in literacy and numeracy before they were required to sit this high-stakes national standard in numeracy and literacy to ensure they had a better chance of success?Hon JAN TINETTI: That's exactly what we are doing. This is a package. This is not cherry-picking off one part or another. This is a whole package that we are doing to make sure that we are lifting literacy and mathematics achievement in this country.Erica Stanford: What things has the Minister put in place in the last six years specifically to allow students to master the basics before they had to sit this exam?Hon JAN TINETTI: We have put more teachers into the classroom. We have put in the Better Start Literacy Approach. We are putting more professional learning and development into the classroom. We have a strategy that's coordinated across. We are working with the sector; the sector are on board with us with that. We are absolutely laserfocused on lifting literacy and numeracy.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Point of order. I apologise for taking a little time to find the relevant Speaker's ruling but I think I heard you say that it would be over to the Minister to decide whether the question was in order and not answer it which seems to be at odds with the rulings of Speakers Gray and Mallard 175/7. I would be the last one to advocate for a change in the approach that you are taking to things like assertions and so on but I don't think it would be in order for the Minister to determine and therefore decline to answer which has been the rulings of previous Speakers.SPEAKER: The alternative would be for me to intervene on every question that's out of order. If that's what the House is telling me then I will do it.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point that's not what I'm suggesting. It's not a binary choice I would suggest. You have done a very good job of allowing the flow of questions and it would be a shame if an answer would be denied by the Minister simply because he or she in their own mind felt that it was out of order.SPEAKER: Can members consider then—perhaps at the next Business Committee. Can members consider and come back to me about at what point how many assertions rules out a question. We've had one today—I mean I counted three and when you consider that one is out of order at what point does this House want me to rule those sorts of questions out of order? Bring that back to me. I also point to Speaker's ruling 186/4 as well: the Speaker cannot force the Minister to answer. Have you got further supplementaries?Erica Stanford: Only if you'd like to give me one.SPEAKER: Pardon?Erica Stanford: Only if you'd like to give me an extra one.SPEAKER: I don't want to do that.