Education Amendment Bill

When I was interrupted last night, I was talking about the great shame it is that this Government is prepared to close down partnership schools. They do so on the premise, I suppose, that all State schools are delivering great results for students, when everybody in this House knows that that is not the case. There are still far too many children being failed in our mainstream system, and it is incumbent on all of us to embrace those innovations which make a difference for children and are proven to be getting results.

Let us take the example of Vanguard Military School, which has a 96 percent pass rate for NCEA level 3. This compares with the national pass rate at NCEA level 3 of 76 percent. So Vanguard is achieving better NCEA results in level 3 than other schools, and it is doing so even though it is required to deal with the children that are most at risk of failure—the priority learners who are most likely to be failed by the mainstream school system. So we can understand the comments from the leader of Vanguard Military School when he says, “As a school, Vanguard has delivered. It’s a bitter pill to swallow that a school like this will be forced to close while others happily go on, year to year, failing more students than they pass.”

We have had the ridiculous argument from members opposite that partnership schools aren’t closing; they’re just becoming special character schools. This is an embarrassing argument by members opposite, because, of course, as special character schools, these schools will lose the very things that have allowed them to innovate, that have allowed them to be different: the fact that they are allowed to pay teachers a slightly bigger salary, the fact that they’re bulk funded, the fact that they have more flexibility over their governance arrangements, and, yes, the fact that Vanguard Military School employs someone with an army background, with great skill with children, who is not a qualified teacher.

So this is a bill—the Education Amendment Bill—that tells us a lot about that Government’s priorities. What the Labour-led Government is focused on is how it can ensure ideological purity, and what we on this side of the House are focused on is how we can get results for children and young people that have been, historically, failed by the education system.

It is not just Vanguard Military School; we are talking about a group of schools that have been set up by amazing New Zealanders who believe that their community has within it the solutions to help those children who have previously been failed, whether it’s South Auckland Middle School, Pacific Advance Secondary School, or any of the other partnership schools. They should not be closed. This is what that bill does, and the Government should hang its head in shame.

I am delighted to have the last say in the second reading of this particular bill. I am delighted that this bill is coming back to the House for the second reading, because this is a great day for public education. This makes right the attacks that were made to break the public education system by privatising a system by the corporation of our schooling system. This makes right what that side of the House tried to break.

Last night, during this debate, we heard about some children—or some young people, I should say. One of them—her name was Paris—was doing well in charter schools. Well, Paris was a young mum, and we heard that last night in this debate.

I want to talk about Mauria. Mauria was a young mum. Mauria is now a top chef in Sydney. I want to talk about the two “Shyans”: Cheyne and Cheyenne. Both are young mums under the age of 16. Both are passing level 3 with excellence in NCEA, both through the teen parent unit. All three of those students are ex-students of mine.

The teen parent unit is a State-funded education provider. The State education system is where we can make a difference for our children. An alternative education system—let’s talk about the alternative education system and the lack of funding that that side put into that education system.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, let’s not talk about it, because it’s not in the bill.

Well, can I talk to it being an alternative to charter schools, because that is the bill—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, no. What you can talk about is that there may be alternatives—

OK, I will talk about that.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: That’s right.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We’ve talked about those young people that they talked about last night, and here we’ve got people in the State-funded system that are doing really, really well. We do not need an alternative. We can do this through the State-funded system.

Repealing National Standards is seen as a move back to creativity and a child-centred focus—this is what this bill does. The voice of the professionals in this system matters. The voice of the professionals, when National Standards were put in, was taken away. My voice, as a professional, at the time mattered, and I felt that my voice had been taken away. We are a Government that is listening to our professionals, and we are proud of that.

I want the final say in my contribution to go to Diane Ravitch, a former US Secretary of Education in the 1990s, who was once one of the strongest proponents of charter schools. On 12 February this year, in her blog, she said, “Hurrah for New Zealand!” When she heard about this bill, she said “Hurrah for New Zealand! … My hunch is that New Zealand has a strong tradition of good public schools and [very strong] common sense.” I am proud, I am excited, I am happy, and I am any other superlative that I can think of to commend this bill to the House.

The question was put that the amendments recommended by the Education and Workforce Committee by majority be agreed to.