Financial Review Debate — Ministry of Education

Firstly, I congratulate the Minister who was previously in the chair, Judith Collins, on the invention of having the bell not work—presumably she could have talked for ever. That was a good trick, and I think everyone should at least try to do that.

In turning to the financial review of the Ministry of Education can I first of all, with your indulgence, Mr Chairperson, speak outside the period that is under review and thank the Ministry of Education for the work it has done in Canterbury in supporting the schools and early childhood services in that city to get to a state where many have been able to reopen in such a small amount of time. I think all members would like to thank the people in the ministry who have worked to support parents, teachers, and educators in that respect.

The period under review is the one where the Government’s flagship education policy was being developed. The 2009-10 financial year was when the national standards policy was being worked through by the Government as the answer to all the problems in primary education. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister an admission that in the end the national standards policy was never actually a policy; it was a slogan. As the work that has gone on in schools since the time of the work the ministry has done in trying to implement national standards has come to pass, it is absolutely clear that it was a slogan about something to say on the election campaign trail, rather than an actual educational policy that could be introduced. We see that through much of the research that has been done, which has come forward to show that the policy is not standing on the merits that members opposite campaigned on at the last general election.

There is no more clear sign of that than the fact that the person at the Ministry of Education who was charged with implementing the national standards policy has upped sticks and left the position. It is interesting that a policy that we were told was designed to assist parents, and was being demanded by parents has been rejected by a number of parents who serve on boards of trustees in New Zealand. There are 300 boards across the country, made up of parents, that are refusing to implement the national standards policy. That is a phenomenal number of boards, made up of parents of children and students in our country who do not believe that this is the right thing educationally for their school.

Tomorrow’s Schools was about ensuring that schools could fit the delivery of the curriculum in a way that best suited their community. The curriculum document that was developed under the previous Government, in a non-partisan fashion, has received widespread support across the education sector and from parents who see it as being an innovative and courageous curriculum, designed to bring out the best in all of our students. We should have trust in our parents and in our boards to choose a range of assessment tools that are available to them in order to report back against the curriculum. Instead, the national standards policy has been imposed on parents, boards, and schools in the country by the Government in a way that runs totally contrary to the way that the curriculum was developed as a way of unleashing potential in our schools.

We see it with the way that 500 boards of trustees chose not to lodge their charter with the Ministry of Education this year. These may seem like small things. In fact, Anne Tolley described it as a “petty protest”. But they show that committed parents who care about their children’s education enough to serve on boards of trustees are trying to express their frustration that these standards have been imposed on schools, untested, without research, and without the work done on such critical issues as moderation. The Minister, during the period of the financial review, was very gung-ho about this. She was convinced that she was right. She said that there would be no concessions, there would be no trials, and that the national standards would be enforced on all primary schools and intermediate schools in the country. That was during the period of the financial year.

This year John Key, the Prime Minister, said: “Oh well, there have been some major teething problems with the national standards and one of the reasons for that is that the first year was just a trial.” So that reinforces the point that under this Minister’s leadership of the sector, education has been allowed to fall into a mess because the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. That is nowhere more obvious than in the implementation of national standards.

There is another issue I would like to raise, because I am sure we will hear about it from Government members, and it is that 20 percent of New Zealand children cannot read and write. Government members say all the time that 20 percent of our children cannot read and write at a level that will get them through life, and that is why national standards are in force. I would like Government members opposite who say that to let us know whether that is happening in their electorate. Members opposite always tell us how well schools are doing in their electorate, yet there is this mythical electorate around the country where 20 percent of children cannot read and write. I am sure if members go on school visits and they see children who cannot read and write, they would be very keen to draw that to the Committee’s attention, but I guarantee not one member opposite will give us the name of a school in their electorate where 20 percent of children cannot read and write. This is why we think the national standards policy is a mess. It detracts from the curriculum, which is an excellent document for transforming the lives of young people in our country.

I guess it would be gracious of me to begin my remarks by congratulating the young list member opposite on his appointment as the Opposition spokesperson on education. I think that was probably his first substantive address on education in this House since his appointment. Well, there is quite a bit of work to be done. But I can recommend a book or two to that member who previously spoke that he may well find instructive. In fact, there is one in particular he may like to take as his Bible.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: I’m one step ahead of the member.

Ha, ha! If I could be so bold, in speaking to this review, to say to the member who has just spoken that he has nothing to build on, that his party—the Labour Party—has not really brought any education policy to the table in the last 2½ years, and that, on reflection, I think that the best place to start would be to go back to 1999 and draw a parallel to where the economy was in that time. The Government that was elected in 1999, the Labour Government, had the very best of times. Never in the memory of most New Zealanders has there been the opportunity to grow and develop this country, and the same comment could be made and is being made now about the schooling system. When old dogs like myself get together and reminisce about our years of leading schools in the 1990s and that sort of thing, we talk about that time as having been a dream time to lead schools. Those were times when we were free of the controlling and the ordering and the bossiness that became a feature of the last Labour Government’s education policies.

It has to be said that schooling did not move forward in those 9 years. But at least there is a fresh face now. He was even at school, probably, during those dream years in the 1990s, if the truth is known. I urge that member to take a completely fresh approach, and, as I said, to read the right books.

There are a couple of specific things that I want to talk about, and one relates to special education. Special education stood still in a mire of ideology and argument, and ultimately a refusal to come to grips with some pretty hard questions during the first 8 years of this century. Now, at least, we are getting some movement as a result of this Government. I invite any of the members opposite to get up and say that they oppose the increase in Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme funding for the highest-needs children in our schools. They should get up and say that they do not support that. Those members should not sit there and scream and shout across the floor; they should get on their feet and tell this House that they do not support the increase in Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme funding for the least fortunate of our children. I suspect I will wait a long time.

I invite members opposite also to get up and say they do not support the actions of this Government in reinforcing and developing the role of special schools for our children. They should get up and say that the Labour Party does not support special schooling education. They should not shout across the floor at me; they should get up and say it so the people of New Zealand can hear them.

I would like also to make a brief comment about the relevance of early childhood education, because I suspect we will get a flurry about that in a moment. I invite the member who will deliver that little flurry—and it will be a little one—to explain to the people of Glen Innes in the Tāmaki electorate that I represent in this Parliament why the Labour Party does not want their children to have a fair crack at early childhood education funding.

In rising to speak to the report of the Education and Science Committee on the 2009-10 financial review of the Ministry of Education, I am faced with a not unusual predicament. That predicament is that my greatest concern—the issue of Māori disengagement and underachievement in education, which is arguably the most significant issue facing education—is barely mentioned in this financial review. I make it blatantly clear that the Māori Party is absolutely committed to enhancing Māori educational success. We want to see faster and more comprehensive improvement for Māori right across the sector.

There have been some key achievements in education that we must take the time to celebrate. These milestones include the following: an increase in the percentage of Māori children participating in early childhood education from 87.9 percent in 2006 to 89.4 percent in 2010, a 21 percent increase in Māori students gaining a National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 qualification, and a 5.5 percent increase in the retention rate at secondary school for Māori from 40.3 percent in 2008 to 45.8 percent in 2009. These are all significant advances, and I want to take the time to congratulate the Hon Dr Pita Sharples on his role as Associate Minister of Education, in his relentless drive to lift educational outcomes for Māori.

There are still some glaring omissions that I would have thought the financial review would bring up. The main areas of focus for the review were early childhood education, the new curricula, the national standards, and the review of special education. One would think from reading this review that there is only one language operating and only one curriculum in place. Well, it may be breaking news to some but there is another curriculum, Te Marautanga o Aotearoa—the Māori-medium curriculum. It is the partner document of The New Zealand Curriculum. It has been developed for Māori-medium setting levels 1 and 2, but all New Zealand schools can use this document. It is all a matter of the value we place upon ensuring excellence for Māori across all educational settings. It is not a translation of The New Zealand Curriculum; its development was based on Māori philosophies and principles.

In my second bout of breaking news for the day, there are also national standards in Māori. Ngā—

💬 Kelvin Davis: Whanaketanga.

I thank the member. Ngā Whanaketanga Rumaki Māori shows the ongoing progress of tamariki in years 1 to 8 in te reo matatini, which is literacy, and pāngarau, which is maths, within Māori language immersion education. Why is this so important? It comes down to the evidence that tells us that 40 percent of Māori school leavers from Māori-medium schools qualified for direct entry to university compared with 20 percent of Māori at English-medium schools. Let me repeat that: 40 percent of Māori school leavers from kura qualified for direct entry to university compared with 20 percent of Māori at other schools. That is a powerful statistic. If we want to do something about lifting Māori educational performance, then we should be looking at those results and learning from them. If one group has a proven success rate that is 20 percent higher than another group, would we not take up every opportunity to study the success of the first group and modify practice accordingly?

There is another point in the financial review that I will highlight. The Ministry of Education claims that barriers to accessing early childhood education vary considerably, and that fee increases are only really a barrier for solo parents or parents on benefits. The House will be aware, of course, that numerous studies have shown the huge importance of a child’s first 5 years. Surely we should be able to support solo parents or parents on benefits to support their children in their right to participate in early childhood education, rather than just accepting it as a barrier and leaving it at that.

Finally, I want to highlight that in the coming year the Government will be facing a task of appointing new chief executives across various departments, including the Ministry of Education. Our call to the Government would be that if we really want to achieve progress and improve educational outcomes for Māori, we must ensure that management at its highest level is culturally competent and committed to the immediate implementation of Ka Hikitia—Managing for Success, in order to plan and manage for Māori educational success. Thank you.

If one issue in the last financial year has personified this Government’s lack of a plan for the future, it has to be its funding cuts to early childhood education. I know that the National backbenchers have all been told that they must deny that there have been funding cuts to early childhood education, but I invite every National backbench and front-bench member to visit any one of their local kindergartens and find out from them why they have $50,000 less of Government funding this year than last year—or $20,000, or $60,000, or whatever it may be. I want those National members to look the people at those kindergartens in the eye and tell them that they are making it up.

💬 Paul Quinn: Kōhanga reo—9,000.

Paul Quinn should look them in the eye and tell them that they are making up their funding cuts. Every time I debate this issue with any National member, that member tells me that there are no funding cuts and they do not know what the kindergartens are talking about.

It is even worse than that. Not only are National members in denial about it but also the Prime Minister has demonstrated that he is completely out of touch on this issue—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Continued barracking across the Chamber is not acceptable. I ask the member to tone it down. You have had a fair go. It is one all.

As I was saying, the Prime Minister has absolutely demonstrated that he is so out of touch with ordinary New Zealanders on this issue. He does not understand the cost pressures on families. On more than one occasion he has said that he would be very surprised if fees increased for families. In fact, he said on national television that fees would not increase, but he is absolutely wrong.

Has he talked, for example, to Gemma Greig? She has said that she will pay an extra $60 per week for her two children—Kaydyn, who is aged 4, and Kelsy, who is aged 21 months—to continue to go to the Redwood Early Childhood Centre. Has he talked to people like Gemma Greig? Has he spoken to Debra Bullock, who reports that she has two preschoolers who attend Durie Hill’s Polson Park Kindergarten? Her fees are going up by $35 a week. That is an extra $35 that that family has to try to find from somewhere. Lisa Kingsford’s child Caitlin goes to Newlands Childcare right here in Wellington. It will cost her family an extra $25 a week just to stand still.

Under this Government those families are paying more but they are getting less. Many of these early childhood education centres have told Labour members, in a survey that we did, that they are taking a range of measures to deal with the savage funding cuts to early childhood education by this National Government. They are doing things that affect the quality of early childhood education. They are reducing the number of staff. In particular, they are reducing the number of qualified staff. They are reducing the children’s access to field trips and a whole range of things. They are also having to put up fees. Because of the short-sightedness of this Government, families are being left in the position of paying more and getting less. That is happening in many, many neighbourhoods and communities in New Zealand at the moment.

Has the Prime Minister spoken to Megan Ross, who is the manager of the Motu Weka Neighbourhood Early Learning Centre? She was reported as saying that that centre is putting its fees up by 50c per hour for every child. She said that for some families that will mean an additional $30 a week per child. I do not know whether the Prime Minister understands this, but many people do not have just one preschool child; sometimes they have two or three under-fives, because that is the stage of their lives they are at. They are at the stage where they have young children. A fee increase of $30 a week at the Motu Weka Neighbourhood Early Learning Centre will cost some families an extra $60.

Megan Ross goes on to say that that cost increase is very significant, with the price of petrol and food going up. We know that one of the main causes of the price of food going up was the GST increase by this Government. Megan Ross says that everywhere they turn they are getting hit with increases. That is what she said about the families who are using the Motu Weka Neighbourhood Early Learning Centre in Nelson. I think many families from throughout the country, in lots of different neighbourhoods and communities, will be able to relate to that statement. Under this Government, everywhere they turn they are being hit with increases.

💬 Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: So what answers can you give them?

The member wants to know what Labour would do. I thank him for asking that question. Labour has pledged to put back into early childhood education the funding that his Government has stripped out. We get it. On this side of the Chamber we get that early childhood education is one of the best investments we can make in this country’s future.

The member asks why that is. He does not seem to have read any of the research regarding this issue. All the research tells us that for every dollar spent in early childhood education, this country saves up to $17 in the future. That is a great return on investment. If we spend $1 on early childhood education we save up to $17 in the future. It is a perfect investment in the future. But it requires a Government that actually has a plan for the future, a Government that thinks further than the end of its own nose, and a Government that understands about investing in small children and what that means for the future. It requires a Government that understands that if we get it right in early childhood education then we do not have extra remedial costs in our education system, and we do not have to keep building the prisons that Judith Collins was so proud of before. We do not have to keep spending money in that area if we get it right in this area.

It is no mistake that in the Budget the Government announced last year it cut funding to early childhood education and it increased the money being spent on building prisons. New Zealanders will get used to that style of Budget if they want to keep this National Government in power, because that is exactly what the future will look like for this country if we have such a short-sighted Government.

National members claim that they had no choice. They say they had no choice but to cut the funding to early childhood education—that is, when they admit they have made cuts—because of the recession. Next they will start blaming the earthquake. We will wait for that one! It is utter rubbish that they had to cut funding because of the recession. We know that as the Government cut $400 million out of early childhood education it also gave $9 billion away in tax cuts to just the top 10 percent of income earners in New Zealand over that same period of time. Does that not expose the lack of truth in the statement—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I say sorry to the member. Speaker’s ruling 43/1 states that members cannot use the phrase: “Tell the truth.” I do not know where it came from, but I am warning members not to use that phrase. It is unparliamentary and it leads to disorder. I do not know where it came from, but I did hear it.

I am absolutely prepared to tell the truth because this is from the Budget documents. The Budget documents tell us that the Government cut $400 million worth of funding to early childhood education at the same time as it gave away $9.1 billion of taxpayer funding to the top 10 percent of income earners in tax cuts. That is where the money for early childhood education has gone.

Government members would have us believe that they have taken the money out of some centres and put it into creating participation in some other areas. Let us just explore that for a moment, because the numbers do not add up. Government backbenchers need to understand that they are being fed a line by their Minister. The Ministry of Education website will tell them that $400 million of funding has been cut out of early childhood education in the last financial year, and $93 million, as opposed to $400 million, is planned to be used to boost participation in early childhood education. There is a discrepancy: $400 million is being taken out and $93 million is being used to fund increasing participation.

Where has the rest of it gone? I can tell members that it has gone into helping to fund the $9.1 billion of tax cuts given away—frittered away—to the top 10 percent of wage earners in this country. Those tax cuts did nothing to stimulate economic growth. Government members said that they were giving that money to the wealthy because it would stimulate economic growth. We now know that that stimulation never happened. Before the Christchurch earthquake even happened the Government was already admitting that there had been no growth in the economy.

This Government has got it right in relation to education. When we look at the situation in early childhood education, we see that it is all about giving people the opportunity that early childhood education offers. We recognise that lifting achievements in education is very important, and that starts at the earliest of stages. Directing nearly $100 million towards increasing participation is about getting it right, and for those people who would normally have the door of opportunity to early childhood education closed on them, it is opening the door up and giving them that opportunity.

When we look at education, we see that it has been central to this Government’s plan for lifting economic potential in the long term, and we see that plan starting with early childhood education. It was quite interesting that I had a small number of staff from early childhood education centres come to me early on when the policy came out for capping teacher-led services at 80 percent. For a while, I was led to believe that the policy was a terrible thing. But then Louise Upston came down, the wonderful MP from Taupō, and we went around the rest of the early childhood education centres in Marlborough and we got a totally different story. We got a very positive story about how capping teacher-led services at 80 percent was wonderful, that education centres were able to bring in very capable, senior, mature people who could meet those needs, and that we could make the funding go so much further, so much more effectively.

I also want to concentrate on the transition from schooling to work. It is an area in which the last administration failed miserably. It threw heaps of money at it and achieved nothing. The National Government has implemented the Youth Guarantee programme. It is a fantastic policy. It has enabled children who have not really been able to find a schooling environment that meets their needs to be given a universal entitlement of free access to wānanga, polytechs, and suchlike, in courses such as automotive engineering, tourism, travel, business administration, carpentry, and suchlike. It is such a common-sense approach for ensuring that those children who have a hands-on learning style are hooked into education for as long as possible, because if you can see the relevance of what you are learning, you will be passionate about it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

Sorry, Mr Chairperson. So one will see the wisdom of education, and be quite passionate about it. The 4,000 places that have been made available under the Youth Guarantee are a great step forward, and the policy is making sure those young ones—16 and 17 year olds—do not fall between the gaps.

Adding to that, this Government is working to create a number of trade academies. This, too, is a further enhancement for young people who will not necessarily go to university but who will be wonderful citizens of New Zealand, and who need the literacy and numeracy skills to be able to complete a trade. They, therefore, need to be tied into education for as long as possible, so that when they commence their trades, they will have the level of literacy, numeracy, and maths to be able to complete the distance-learning aspects of their trades. It is an area where we have been void in this country in relation to education for many, many years. Too much of our focus has been on a single academic pathway leading into university.

The biggest challenge this Government faces now—and we will address it—is how we can attract the right teachers to do the training. If we do not get the right teachers to inspire, build up, and create the passion we need in our students, then we will have failed them, which is a point that National is very conscious of. It is good to see now that the Government has allocated $36 million to support those children under national standards who are identified as being the below the Plunket line, if members want to describe it that way, so that we can lift them up with the skills we have.

Report noted.

Ministry of Culture and Heritage