Estimates Debate — Vote Education

What a difference a day makes when it comes to Vote Education.

💬 Hon Member: There’s a song in there.

There is a song in that, I think, but I will not sing. Instead what I am going to do is recite exactly what happened last week in this House when the Minister of Education refused, after I had put the question to her on two occasions, to rule out funding cuts to Playcentre that were being proposed by the task force she appointed. That was on Wednesday of last week. By Thursday she was issuing a press statement ruling out those funding cuts. I am delighted with that result, because playcentre parents up and down the land were horrified that the Government was even prepared to contemplate the prospect of funding cuts of up to 70 percent for playcentre children. It was the pressure put on by those playcentre families, and also by Phil Goff, the Labour leader, and by me during question time that turned the Government round on that one and had it backing down within a matter of 24 hours. What that means is that question time does work. Question time does work to hold the Government to account in this House, and it can make a difference. I was very, very pleased indeed to see that.

But, sadly, that is not the end of the story. The Government-appointed Taskforce on Early Childhood Education is proposing further funding cuts to New Zealand families. Today I sought to get the Prime Minister to rule out those funding cuts, and he would not do that. The funding cuts proposed, I say to those interested and listening to this debate, are the cuts to 20 hours’ early childhood education. Funding cuts are being proposed by that early childhood education task force to the subsidy for that. If those funding cuts were to be implemented, that would cost New Zealand families $50 more per child per week. We already know that this Government has caused fees to be increased in the early childhood education sector, with its funding cuts from last year’s Budget. Although the Government has tried really hard to make it look like it has restored those funding cuts, in fact it clearly has not. What we were able to ascertain through the estimates process was these facts: the centres that lost funding in 2010 lost 13 percent of their funding when the Government cut funding for 100 percent - qualified staff to the sector. They lost 13 percent in funding in the previous round. In the current Budget round, what did they get back? Their funding rate increased by, wait for it, 1.1 percent. They lost 13 percent and the Government has returned 1.1 percent to them, and they are supposed to feel grateful. They are supposed to be fooled into thinking that the Government has closed the funding gap it created in the previous Budget, and that is absolutely not correct.

Not only has the Government not closed the funding gap, but it has not even given centres enough to break even. We all know that in the last year CPI costs went up by 5.3 percent—5.3 percent. Here is the Minister of Education thinking that the early childhood education sector and the families served by that sector should feel grateful because a 1.1 percent increase is going into those funding rates. Well, it will not make ends meet. Even by the Minister’s own reckoning, by her own argument at the estimates hearing before the Education and Science Committee, she said that inflation would be going up 2.92 percent. So inflation is going up 2.92 percent for all of those early childhood education services, yet there is a funding rate increase of just 1.1 percent. That is without even adding more children into the mix. It is not hard to see that the funding cuts have not been fixed up for early childhood education. The funding cuts have not been fixed up. Early childhood education services are going to struggle to make ends meet. When that happens we know that families end up paying more. Families end up paying more, just like they have over the last 12 months. Statistics New Zealand told us that the costs for early childhood education have already gone up by 12 percent. They have already gone up by 12 percent in the last 12 months. This Government is underfunding early childhood education. We have established that there is not enough funding going into early childhood education even just to make ends meet. The Minister came to that conclusion herself during the estimates hearing. But that is not the end of the story. We know that further funding cuts are being proposed by the early childhood education task force. We are yet to hear a commitment from that Government that it will rule out those huge funding cuts—apart from those for playcentres.

I want people to understand the numbers we are talking about. The number of people who use centre-based early childhood education is 140,000 children and their families. That is the number of people to whom the Prime Minister refused today to give any comfort about what their costs might look like for 20 hours’ early childhood education in the future. In fact, I think he was so flustered as he tried to shimmy his way out of the question that he reverted to calling it “20 hours free”. [Interruption] He did. He reverted to calling it “20 hours free”, even though that phrase—the “free” part—has been banned by the Minister. Yet here was the Prime Minister standing up today, using the word “free”, which was banned by the Minister, because he got so flustered as he tried to shimmy his way through giving no commitment to New Zealand families about what their costs for early childhood education will be in the future.

I also want to talk about the compulsory sector in education, because it is also facing a funding squeeze as a result of this Government’s underfunding of Vote Education in this year’s Budget. Although the primary sector has a forecasted roll growth of 5 percent, there is just a 4.2 percent funding increase for it. The funding that has gone into the sector does not meet even the predicted roll growth, let alone, on top of the roll growth, the inflation rate, which the Minister herself accepts is true. She talked about an inflation rate of 2.92 percent. That is what she said, but she did not give enough money to the sector to pay for that inflation and to pay for the roll growth that her own ministry predicts for that sector. So, again, we know where that is going to fall. When schools’ budgets get squeezed, then they will look to the parents to try to make up for that shortfall.

💬 Moana Mackey: I bet she called it an increase, though.

Well, she did actually call it an increase. But, look, the smoke and mirrors are not working any more, because what New Zealand parents know is that costs in education are going up and up for them, and they want to know the reason why. I can tell them the reason why: it is because the Government’s contribution to education is reducing. The contribution is not keeping up with inflation, it is not keeping up with roll growth, and that is why it is costing New Zealand families more and more just to send their children to our “free” education system in primary and secondary schools.

Another area where money is being spent in Vote Education this year is to implement the shambles that is national standards—$30 million just this year alone and $66 million over the next 4 years is being put into the shambles that is national standards. We know that national standards are not national, because about 400 schools have refused, despite the Minister’s bullying, to implement them. So they are not nationwide. The Minister also told us that, at best, 80 percent of assessments will be similar to each other, so they are not standard. So if they are not national and they are not standard, what is the point? None the less, $66 million is going down the tubes in a system that the educators—the people who know about this—do not believe in. We have about 400 schools refusing to implement national standards. They know that one-size-fits-all education does not work. How do we know this? We can look overseas and see the failure of education systems that have used exactly this approach. We know we outperform them already, so why would we take up that failed approach? Labour certainly understands that every child is unique and every child has their own ways of learning. Putting them into little boxes called national standards, a policy that was developed by a Minister who I do not think has spent a day in a classroom, is not the way to have our children educated.

Goodness gracious me, education is one of the keystone policies of this Government, and that was the best that Labour could offer in return! If ever a speech in this Chamber shattered forever the self-delusion that Labour members operate under that, somehow, it is the party of education, that speech from Sue Moroney did it. That speech, combined with the estimates, the Budget of 2011, put together with the Budgets of 2010 and 2009, should end once and for all the self-delusion of members opposite that, somehow, Labour is the party of education. It is not.

There is one figure in this Budget that must not be overlooked—$12.2 billion. That is a record. It is a massive $4.4 billion increase in investment since the Government took office. I will repeat those figures—

💬 Sue Moroney: Is it going to cover inflation and is it going to cover roll growth?

I tell Ms Moroney to repeat after me: $12.2 billion. That is an increase of $4.4 billion.

Let us take a moment to examine to its logical conclusion what the Opposition spokesperson on education said about early childhood education. What, in effect, the member said—speaking directly to what Labour would claim to be its natural constituency, such as the people who live in the Glen Innes suburb of the Tāmaki electorate, which I represent in this Chamber—was that Labour is opposed to the efforts this Government is making to extend the early childhood education provision into those communities. Yet that is a priority of this Government. Why Labour and its spokesperson have not been able to get their heads around the logical extension of what they are saying is beyond me.

I invite Miss Moroney, when the Labour Party finally finds a candidate for Tāmaki, to go out with that person, knock on a few doors around Glen Innes, and explain to the good people there why Labour does not support the actions of this Government in this Budget and these estimates to extend the early childhood education provision into that community. The natural consequence of the arguments that the spokesperson opposite is putting up is to deny that expansion. I invite that member to go out with whoever the Labour Party candidate is, knock on those doors, and counter what I have been telling them about the expansion of early childhood education in their community.

I will now take a few moments to refer to the schooling sector and, in particular, to some of the innovations and the expansion of programmes that are occurring. An extra $621 million is being invested over the next 4 years. There is $118.1 million for school operational funding and $77.9 million for roll growth—and remember that this is at a time of fiscal constraint. Such is the importance that this Government places on education that spending not only is being maintained but is being increased. This includes $66.5 million over 4 years for Youth Guarantee and five new trades academies, in addition to the eight existing ones, with a further four academies to open next year, and 4,000 places by 2014.

One might be forgiven for reflecting on the neglect of trade education when Labour was in Government.

Tēnā koutou e te Wharenui. We face an extraordinary spectacle in terms of education at the moment. It is depressing to have looked at the Budget estimates and heard the speeches saying that the Government absolutely prioritises education, when, in fact, the Government has declared war on the education sector.

There is a whakataukī that is commonly used, and it has been used in an education document that I have here: “Nāu te rourou, nāku te rourou ka ora ai te manuwhiri.”—“With your basket and my food basket the well-being of the people is assured.” If we take that and think about our children, we see that there is no well-being in introducing a system of measurement into the compulsory sector and funding it through Vote Education to the tune of $66 million over 3 years when the sector has asked the Government to trial it, when parents are signing petitions against it, and when schools—20 percent of boards of trustees—have not been prepared to put it into their charters.

The Minister, instead of having a debate over the merits of learning, is attacking a sector and declaring war on those academics, boards, teachers, and parents. It is not a positive move for the children of this country to see this waste of resources in this Budget. Will more money be spent in pursuing these people? Will more money be spent on sacking boards and appointing commissioners—400 of them, if we look at the schools that are not prepared to introduce national standards?

It is really important to go back to look at what we are expecting from schools over the next couple of years. What we really need in the education sector is some collaboration, some solidarity, and some respect from the Government. It is not a political game, when we start to label children as “losers” by age 6. That is what is implied by the model that is being resourced. When one talks to teachers, as I do, and parents who have received reports they have been really distressed by, we hear of reports that have labelled their child as a loser. That is not an appropriate way to treat children.

The Green Party has 10 major concerns about national standards, and one of them is about the way in which children are being labelled. Many teachers are lifting children’s achievement—for example, if English is a second language—and although those children may not reach the national standard, they have actually been lifted in their literacy and numeracy.

There is also a complete failure to understand how learning works, because we have cut professional development to the arts, to science, and to anything except the narrow, mechanistic definitions of “literacy” and “numeracy”. We have cut the funding for drama and science teachers, but for many students those areas are the pathway into literacy and numeracy. If we recognised child-centred learning as the fundamental basis of the education system, why would we do that—unless we wanted to create league tables?

That is the failure that has happened in other countries. What we have had in the United States and in the UK is a privatisation of a quality public education system. That is where we will go, if we create league tables. The media would really enjoy that, but it will not help.

One of the concerns is that national standards do not support the diversity of our children, because, guess what, they do not all learn through just one definition of learning. They learn at different rates: some 6-year-olds are ready to read, and some 6-year-olds are not ready to read and are learning in other ways. They are all valuable ways. We know that, because asTTle and the progressive achievement test identified that issue. The tests that exist already are absolutely fine. [Interruption]

I have struck a nerve, because people know that the implementation of national standards, without the support of the education sector, is causing mayhem out there in the sector. This will require a serious attempt by the Government to whitewash the issue in order to get those 400 schools to put it in their charters—and the schools do not want to. A lot of other schools have put it in their charters, but with the most minimal references, because it does not work.

We know that assessing and reporting tools already exist. We know that refusing a trial is always an indication of ideology.

My question this afternoon to the Minister of Education is when we are actually going to start tackling the causes of our educational problems that we have in this country and not the symptoms. The fact is that schools fail the bottom 20 percent of pupils. The fact also is that 40 percent of Māori leave school without basic qualifications. The fact also is that we currently spend 50 percent more educating a secondary schoolchild than we did in 2000, yet over the same period more Māori failed National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 3 than they did previously. The result of our educational failure is that New Zealand faces a crisis. The fact is that we have 330,000 New Zealanders on one form of benefit or another—unemployment, sickness, or domestic purposes. The one fundamental characteristic of those 330,000 people who are on a benefit is that they failed, or, to put it better, the education system failed them. So 90 percent of people who end up unemployed or on low wages have that one uniting factor.

Yet that does not need to be the case. We have some exceptional schools in New Zealand where young people achieve, but there are many others where young people do not succeed. I could take members to a large number of them. There are four or five characteristics of those schools that achieve. The first characteristic of schools that achieve, and the most fundamental, is that they have an outstanding principal. If we want New Zealand schools to achieve, then that is where we need to start. If we have to have more immigration to achieve it, we should. The reason that those schools achieve is that that principal will demand, and get, the best out of the teachers. But, more particularly, it is an expectation. There is an expectation that the children will achieve—and they do. Another characteristic of those schools is that when the kids fall behind, the school brings them up to date. I recently visited a Māori total immersion school in Ruatōria, which has 132 pupils, and the expectation of that school was that every child who went through that school would go on to tertiary education—and they do. I tell members they were the smartest-looking kids I have seen around. I started looking at my shirt and wondered whether it came anywhere as close as those ones. We see there are schools where these children can achieve.

A study was done in an Australian school, but it applies here in New Zealand; it is the same sort of thing. In that school 87 percent of its pupils came from homes of beneficiaries, solo mothers, and the like. It was so bad that the equivalent of the education department put in a new headmaster, and basically said it would leave it to him. In 5 years that principal took that school from scoring 20 percent below the average in Australia to scoring 20 percent above. The point there was that that principal ensured that he got the most out of the teachers, and there was an overall expectation that the children at that school would succeed. They went from 20 percent below the average level of scoring, which they do in Australia, to 20 percent above. That school was well ahead of many private schools, and the fundamental reason was about expectation, and about ensuring that when a child actually fell behind, they were brought up to date.

We know what to do, and it is a disgrace that we allow in this country a situation where 20 percent of young people come out of our school bound for the scrap heap. Over 20 percent of youth are unemployed. Then probably another 20 percent barely make it, and are likely to work on the minimum wage. We can do something about that, because we know what to do. It starts by having an exceptional principal, and that is where we have to go. When I visited schools recently, what were the requests that principals made to me? The first was that they would like to train their own teachers. They would like to be able to employ and train their own teachers on the job, and then send them off for the theoretical work they might require. I think this country simply cannot afford to continue with a situation where 20 percent of kids come out of school unable to read or do simple maths. We know that these kids can learn, and it is a tragedy that we do not do something about it. There is clear evidence of a number of New Zealand decile 1 and 2 schools in which the kids are achieving, yet at others they are not. It seems to me that we know what to do; let us get on with the job and do it.

I am really pleased to be able to stand here on behalf of the Māori Party today to address the estimates for Vote Education, and, in particular, to address the section from the report of the Education and Science Committee regarding charters. That report advises that about two-thirds of primary and intermediate schools have submitted valid charters, and that the Secretary for Education has written to schools that have not submitted charters, requiring the information that must be legally provided under section 144A of the Education Act 1989.

At the risk of reverting to legalese, I highlight the significance of charters for every school and, indeed, every community, and our nation as a whole. The charter is the legal instrument between a board and the Minister that outlines how that school will give effect to the National Education Guidelines, and all that falls within them.

This includes the New Zealand curriculum, which is what I will refer to in my kōrero today. The charter is a key report for every community, which outlines the directions schools want to take and the plans they have to get there. It is critical for lifting performance, and provides a plan that enables each student to achieve.

Well, actually, that is how it is meant to work in theory, but in practice what happens makes for very depressing reading. I am particularly saddened by a recent Education Review Office report, which tells us that the performance of far too many schools across key principles of the curriculum is less than it could be. That report, Directions for Learning: The New Zealand Curriculum Principles, and Teaching as Inquiry, reveals that the least-evident principles were the Treaty of Waitangi, cultural diversity, coherence, and future focus.

I will read two key lines from that report. “It would be useful for schools to gain a more comprehensive view of the implications of the Treaty of Waitangi for school policy and practice. It would also be useful for schools to develop their understanding about the nature of the Treaty of Waitangi and cultural diversity principles,”.

Last Tuesday I released a member’s bill to ensure that any person signing up to any oath set out in statute may elect to state that they will uphold the Treaty of Waitangi. The rationale behind the bill is to recognise that the Treaty of Waitangi is New Zealand’s founding document, and that the Government is committed to fulfil its obligations as a Treaty partner. Every school has an opportunity to lift up to the promise of the Treaty, to make Treaty understanding and cultural awareness come alive in their classrooms.

I highlight the significance, also, of the relationship to cultural competency. Learning to understand and value one’s own culture base is an important step towards being able to respect and value other people’s. That is why the Māori Party has been promoting, in every sector we can, the importance of cultural diversity, associated with factors of quality and excellence.

The Education Review Office report tells us that “Where there was evidence that schools were thinking about and incorporating the principle of cultural diversity into their curriculum, students had opportunities to celebrate some of their cultural practices and to share knowledge of these with other students. By contrast, where this principle was not highly evident, there was little acknowledgement of students’ cultural heritage in school programmes and in the [school] environment.” Perhaps the most sobering statement in the whole report is that “A more inclusive approach to curriculum management would make learning more relevant for students from diverse cultural backgrounds.”

This is exactly why we need to keep a vigilant overview on schools submitting charters, so that we can see exactly how much progress is being achieved towards making learning relevant and meaningful to all students. Because Pākehā culture is so strong and secure, it can sometimes be taken for granted. One might ask whether a fish can describe the sea in which it swims. Cultural competency recognises that there are many seas feeding into our global oceans. We must respect the unique cultural framework that each of us brings to the mix, and there is no better place to do that than in our schools. Nō reira, tēnā koutou katoa.

Budget 2011 was good news for the 750,000 New Zealand school children, and excellent news for all of those thousands of children in early childhood education. I was interested to hear the Green member say that this Government had declared war on education. Well, I stand here as a Minister of Education who is part of a John Key - led Government elected at the end of 2008, and we did declare war. We declared war on poor results for kids in our schools. We said we were fed up with 10 years of standing back and watching while 20 percent of kids failed in our schools. In fact, those kids were failed by our schools. So we have put an extra $4.4 billion into education since this Government was elected. We are spending this year more than any Government has ever spent—$12.2 billion—on education. It is a major plank for this Government.

What does that money actually provide? Well, it was interesting to hear the poor maths from the Opposition over there. They obviously cannot read Budget documents, because we have provided a cost of living increase on top of roll growth. We had that in the estimates. I tried again and again to explain to Opposition members that they were two separate figures. Those figures did not coincide. They were not in the one. But we still have difficulty and we get it here in the House today.

We are putting an extra $550 million into early childhood education. We have increased the spend on early childhood education by 38 percent since we became the Government.

💬 Hon David Carter: That’s an increase.

That is an increase. There have not been cuts to early childhood education funding. We have increased the funding. More important, we have increased the number of places. We have targeted 3,500 more places for Māori, Pasifika, and children from poorer backgrounds to get access into early childhood education. They are the ones we want to make sure get those good services. And we have said that 80 percent of teachers must be qualified in our teacher-led services. We have said that we want everyone to have 80 percent, not just a few over here having 100 percent. We want everyone to have 80 percent of teachers qualified in teacher-led services. But at the same time we value our parent-led services. This Government has shown, in contrast to the previous Government, that we value parent-led services.

So what else have we done to try to effect better education results for young people? There has been $51.5 million allocated in this Budget for the network upgrades. That is upgrading schools’ infrastructure so that as the broadband fibre is rolled out past their gate, they are capable of connecting into that and using that modern technology, which youngsters are so used to using, and which we need in order to keep up with the 21st century type of learning. The $66 million that was bandied around about national standards is actually for the Youth Guarantee. Opposition members cannot even read the Budget. Whoops!

This Budget had $7 million in it for national standards, and, despite what Opposition members might say, 400 schools have not refused to submit their charters. In fact, we are probably down to a couple of hundred out of 2,000. That shows how many Labour-led schools there are that are promoting the view that they are not going to comply with the law. But the rest of them are getting on with it and doing very well. No more do we have parents getting reports saying that their child is a delight to have in the classroom. Actually, it is not labelling a child if we say that the child is strong in one area but a bit more work is needed in another area, and parents can help by doing some things and the school will do other things. That is what national standards are about. It is about making sure that children progress as they need to, so that when they reach high school they can read and write and take part in that wonderful national curriculum. We put $7 million into the national standards to support those wonderful leaders out there in the education sector who have picked up national standards and are running with them, and we want to spread that good practice. I want to make special mention of my two Associate Ministers. Before I do that, I will say that alternative education languished under Labour for 9 years. For the second year running we have increased the funding for alternative education.

Vote agreed to.

Vote Education Review Office agreed to.

Vote Arts, Culture and Heritage agreed to.

Vote Attorney-General