Turei Metiria: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
Turei Metiria: Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee 
[Volume:651;Page:590] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I have been quite interested in the genesis of this policy which comes from national standards. It has been very interesting listening to especially Allan Peachey talk about it in the context of the US and the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act which was part of the Bush administration’s major educational reforms. I will talk about those especially in the context of the policy and how it impacts on disparities in education. I will talk particularly about the gaps between what in the US would be described as black and white populations and about the way in which such reforms might impact here on Maori and Pakeha populations and the difference in educational achievement between the two. 
Normally of course in a second reading speech we would be talking about the submitters who had come to the select committee to tell us about their experiences with regard to the legislation and their views of it. Just as an aside I have always enjoyed that part of the select committee process. It is the most valuable and probably the single most democratic process that this Parliament has—the opportunity for direct engagement by the public with MPs where people can tell us about their experiences and about the way they think the legislation will affect them. I find that process extremely valuable and I think it is disgraceful that legislation of such import as this Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill has not gone to the public. We have not had families the Secondary Principals Association teachers unionists the Post Primary Teachers Association or even school students tell us how they think this bill will impact on them. They are the ones of course who are affected by it. But I guess we might expect more of this from National—the secret rapid passage of legislation and policy that is actually based on ideology and I will go through that now. 
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 introduced standards and testing in US schools along with a whole range of Draconian measures—which National has not yet implemented but we will wait and see. For example schools that fail to reach the target standards and tests have a graduated level of punishments inflicted against them. In some circumstances they might be required to transfer or provide for the transfer of students from their school to another school to replace teaching staff or to remove or to decrease management in their schools if they did not meet the standards. Schools that fail to meet the standards can even be required to turn over their school administration to private companies which would then be able to run their schools for them. 
This is the part of the No Child Left Behind legislation based on the standards and testing regime. Because that policy has been in place for some time there has been quite a lot of analysis of its impacts. In particular I just point members to two reports. One is “Exacerbating inequality: the failed promise of the No Child Left Behind Act” which was produced in a race and ethnicity education publication. There was another one “Testing and Social Stratification in American Education” and I will just look at some of that analysis. 
The research done on the policy found for example that urban schools—predominantly poor schools and predominantly black schools—suffered the most from the policy suffered the most in terms of punishment as a result of failing to meet the test and had therefore the graduated levels of punishment enacted against them. There was a real concern that the standardised testing was unreliable had major negative consequences and was highly politicised. I think it is worthwhile remembering that with the Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill the Minister has the right to define these tests and standards so it is a politicised process or standards test whichever way the Minister wants to spin it. The fact is that it will be a politicised process here just as it is in the US. 
The testing and standards regime set a benchmark so that even the schools that were demonstrably improving over time were still considered to be failures and therefore they suffered the consequences. That then impinged on their ability to keep on improving over time. So those schools that were trying to do better were being punished for their success at trying to do better to the point where many of them failed completely. 
There was an obvious correlation between the test scores and income. This system did not remove the disparities between test scores of the poor or low-income families and more wealthier families. In particular—and I note this for the benefit of the Maori Party which is considering supporting this legislation—the research has proved that the testing and standardised regime resulted in fewer students of colour and fewer students with disabilities completing high school. The dropout rate for the students of colour and students who had some form of disadvantage if you like increased by 17 percent in just 2 years after this legislation was passed. 
Teachers were required in effect to teach to the test and there has been some discussion of that with regard to this bill. Even in coloured schools poorer schools and urban schools where there was an attempt to teach to a much higher level of achievement the teachers had to teach to the test to make sure that their kids would get through it. So instead of having a more expansive and intuitive form of learning and teaching between teachers and kids teachers were forced to teach those children how to write five-paragraph essays so that they would meet the requirements of the standardised test. This led to a downgrading in the achievement levels and the downgrading of the quality of teaching of those kids particularly those from the poorest and the most discriminated against communities. 
Many schools had to reduce the resources for non-tested subjects and divert those resources into the subjects that were being tested in order to help make sure that their kids would reach those standards. Children for whom the standards or that area of learning was not their strong point and was not where they had their talent were then discriminated against because the schools had to divert resources away from other areas. Those children lost out in the process because the test took over from what was best for those students. I remind members that this research has been done on this policy over many years and members will have access to it when I table these papers soon. 
The other consequence—and we have seen it here in New Zealand with some schools—is that academically weak students were forced out of school or were kept back in their classes until the school determined that they were more likely to pass. That has happened here. I think that was what happened in Cambridge and there have been other places where it has happened too. In fact it still happens in secondary schools where schools will not allow students to sit exams if they do not think they will meet the high standards the school sets in order to keep those schools high up on what is the New Zealand version of the league tables. The dropout rate for the students who needed the most help to succeed and to pass the tests increased as well. There was a higher dropout rate for the students who needed the most help and who were the most disadvantaged. 
I repeat for the benefit of the Maori Party that in relation to the situation in New Zealand we are talking about the poorest students from low-decile communities. They are predominately Maori and Pacific Island students and they often have special needs because lower-decile schools have a higher ratio of special needs children than high-decile schools. They will be the kids for whom the policy fails and the research proves it. This policy increases the difference and discrimination disparity between those communities. It focuses advantages and privileges on wealthier kids in wealthier schools and it discriminates against poorer kids Maori kids and poorer schools. The research has proved this point. 
National’s policy is ideological. That is why it has not taken it out to the public. It really does not want there to be any real scrutiny of this analysis at all because this kind of research which proves shows and demonstrates the failure of this policy in other jurisdictions would come to light in the public eye here. Parents would know about it. The teachers in schools would know about it. They would know that this policy is a failure and that it is an ideological approach not one based on proper evidence proper science and proper research about what works best for the children at the bottom end. This policy will push our Maori kids who are at the bottom. 
I find the Minister’s condescending sycophantic description about how fabulous National will be for Maori students absolutely sickening when the policies and the law it has passed in the last few days absolutely discriminates against them. This keeps them poor keeps them in jail keeps them out of work and keeps them out of school.