Annual Review Debate — Education

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to kick off this annual review debate as the acting chair of the Education and Workforce Committee. I’d also like to thank the staff and the clerks and the officials who prepared the reports.

The Education and Workforce Committee has conducted the 2021-22 annual review of the following entities: the Ministry of Education, the Education Review Office, the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, the Tertiary Education Union, the Tertiary Education Commission, Education New Zealand, Education Payroll Ltd, and the Network for Learning Ltd. Alongside the annual reviews, we have also considered the reports of the Ombudsman on the Minister of Education’s compliance with the Official Information Act 1982.

We met with the Minister of Education and officials to discuss the 2021-2022 annual reviews of the education sector. The topics covered in the hearing with the Minister were the effects of COVID19 on the education sector, the emergency readiness of schools, school attendance, the Ministry of Education restructuring, student achievements in literacy and numeracy, and Te Pūkenga.

Now, I do not have the time to summarise and comment on everything covered in that report but I would like to highlight some. In regards to Te Pūkenga, the Minister acknowledged her disappointment at the initial slow progress of Te Pūkenga. However, she noted that she was feeling more confident and much more happy with the recent progress. The Minister also noted that the Eastern Institute of Technology is very pleased, for example, with Te Pūkenga, having a nationwide entity supporting them throughout the flood-recovery efforts, which is going to make a big difference.

Attendance officers and attendance services: during COVID-19, the ministry started collecting weekly attendance data, rather than doing it by term. The Minister noted that attendance data collection is mandatory for schools, but it is not common knowledge, and said that more work is needed to be done on attendance data. The Minister also spoke about the new registered attendance officers and attendance service introduced into schools. More than two-thirds of this service are school-based; the remainder are NGO- and iwi-led. The select committee welcomed these changes to the design of the attendance services.

Pay parity for early childhood education (ECE): the ministry officials acknowledged that ECE teachers are often paid less than their counterparts in kindergarten. We looked at the pay parity scheme. The aim is to close the gap and have access to more funding, if agreed, to pay teachers in line with the kindergarten collective agreement. The ministry informed the committee that 54 percent of ECE centres had opted in—predominantly the larger centres. A pay parity advisory group had been set up to provide advice on the funding model.

In regard to Māori and Pasifika participation rates in ECE, it is 62 percent and 65 percent, respectively, and the nationwide average is 76 percent. The ministry noted that wider access to childcare subsidies would lessen the financial barriers to participation in ECE for Māori and Pasifika children. It also noted that the more effective ECE climate also helped.

Like I said in my introductory remarks, the list is long. But I will just leave it here and I look forward to the rest of the contributions and the debates for the rest of this afternoon. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll start off this debate on the topic of staffing allocations, and I’ve got around about five questions. So I’ll give these all to the Minister in one go and let her answer afterwards, if she’s able to.

I guess my first question to the Minister is: what is the total value of the inquiry time funding that is allocated to kāhui ako for the 2022 period? The reason that I’m asking that—I’m sure the Minister is aware of where this is heading—is that in her recent announcement to give schools some staffing allocation to the value of $130 million, or about 320 teachers, I believe, in two years’ time, I’m keen to see what the difference is between these two numbers.

The reason that I’m asking—and there are a number of other questions I want to ask the Minister around this—is that there is a plan to disestablish the inquiry time, and it’s been signalled in the New Zealand Educational Institute (NZEI) agreement. Communications from the NZEI to its members recently said, “For financial reasons, the Ministry of Education insisted that it is essential for them to disestablish inquiry time.”, and “To be clear,” it was the bargaining team’s preference for the “inquiry time to remain.” I want to ask the Minister: were these financial reasons that the NZEI speaks about the financial reasons for finding $130 million to fund the 320 teachers in two years’ time in an attempt to reduce class sizes? Because what this seems to be is a sleight of hand, switching out one staffing allocation for another.

My next question to the Minister is: how does she explain it to a principal in the middle of the North Island who contacted me to say that in two years’ time, he will gain 0.2 of a teacher, but lose 0.15 of a teacher for his inquiry time allocation through kāhui ako for his 330 children?

My third question to the Minister is: of the 1,942 intermediate and primary schools, 999 of those have fewer than 175 students. In her recent announcement, those schools with fewer than 175 students will not be eligible for any of the additional staffing allocations she announced, yet many of those schools, if they’re in a kāhui ako, will be eligible for the inquiry time. So my question to the Minister is: how many of those 999 schools that do not get any allocation from her latest announcement will lose out and be worse off because they lose their inquiry time allocation in what seems to be a switching of one staffing fund for another?

Those are the questions that I have around the switching of the inquiry time for what seems to be her latest announcement. So the questions were: what is the total value, how does she explain it to the principal who’s going to be only 0.5 percent of a teacher better off, were the financial reasons the NZEI spoke about the fact that she needed to find that money for her latest announcement, and how many of the 999 schools with less than 175 students will actually be worse off because they don’t qualify for anything under her announcement, and yet they lose out under the inquiry time.

So inquiry time is worked out where a school’s guaranteed minimum formula staffing or assured staffing is greater than 10 full-time teacher equivalents (FTTE). We calculate the inquiry time by dividing the school staffing by 10 and multiplying that result by 0.06 to give an annual FTTE allocation. That will be how you work that out, and that’s available on the website if the member would like to go and check that out.

Erica Stanford: The total values?

Hon JAN TINETTI: So the—well, I’m just saying that the member can go and check that out on the website.

Reducing class sizes, and the announcement around that—it was very clear at the time when that announcement was made that this is not related to the current bargaining rounds at all. So we have heard the stressors that teachers are under, and we announced—which was probably, well, I believe the more important part of the announcement was the ministerial advisory group. We had to back that up with an announcement as well. And so that announcement was made. But it is very separate to bargaining. Reduction of class sizes should never come into bargaining; it should always fit separately. But we do have to have that oversight at the ministerial advisory group level, which will let us look at all areas of the system, not just one part in isolation. However, we did make that announcement because we do know that the year 4 to 8 staffing entitlement does sit as a bit of an anomaly to the rest of the system. So we do know that it is very likely that a ministerial advisory group will come up with some sort of recommendation in that area. So we were able to lean into that in the first instance.

There is no settlement yet, so what the member is relating to and referring to as far as what was being bargained in the settlement does not exist. There is no settlement. And as far as that is concerned, as Minister—and I have said this time and time again—I cannot comment on that because we are in the middle of good-faith bargaining happening and I will not lean in any further other than making high-level statements around them.

The NZ Educational Institute (NZEI) was at pains, Minister, to explain that, in fact, the loss of the inquiry time was nothing to do with the offer and the negotiations. So, in fact, the Minister can talk about it because it has nothing to do with the pay and conditions of the staff, and it’s actually said to its members, “It is outside that; we just noted it in our summary agreement.” but it has nothing to do with the actual bargaining.

So it sounds like the ministry has told NZEI that they are going to disestablish the inquiry time, but in fact it has nothing to do with the actual bargaining. That’s what the NZEI has said to its members—I’ve got a copy of it in my hand. So the question that she hasn’t answered remains is: if—and when, I should say, because it looks like it’s happening—the inquiry time is being disestablished, what are the calculations that she has made of the 999 schools that have less than 175 students that will not gain anything from her recent announcement but will lose inquiry time?

Finally, I think the question that wasn’t answered, which is very important—which the Minister can point me to calculations on websites—but in terms of the 2022 Budget year, what was the total value in millions of the inquiry time funding? So that relates to that financial year. What was the total value, in millions, of the inquiry time funding?

Now, the Minister can say, “This is how it’s worked out” and point me to a website, but I’m asking her directly—with all her officials behind her—what is the total value in millions of the inquiry time funding allocated to kāhui ako for the 2022 year. She’s explained how it’s all worked out and I can go to a website and look how it’s worked out, but the fact is there’s no mention anywhere on that website of the total allocation in millions, and that’s what I’m asking her with all the officials behind her.

I’ll move on while she gets advice on it: learning support coordinators (LSCs). The sector has been asking why the roll-outs stopped, and I guess my question to the Minister is: there was the first tranche rolled out and then in the 2022 year there was no further roll-out. Now, schools have been upset about this because the evidence has shown that schools with learning support coordinators do end up being allocated more learning support funding, and the schools that missed out in the first roll-out—which I think the previous Minister did indicate was rather shambolic and not done on need at all because some schools who were higher-decile, or even were State integrated schools, got LSCs and lower-decile schools didn’t get them at all.

So my question to the Minister is: why did the roll-out stop after the first tranche, and why was nothing allocated in that financial year?

I thank the member for questions about learning support coordinators, because this is an area that I’m absolutely passionate about. As I’ve been quite publicly saying for a couple of years now, part of the reason for the slower roll-out has absolutely been about the fact that we need to make certain that they are making a difference—and not just anecdotally—to the sector, and part of that has been around the three tranches of evaluation that did cover off different areas and do absolutely point to the difference that they are making.

So it backed up what we were hearing anecdotally. It has been signalled within the Highest Needs Review; you can see that when you are reading in the Highest Needs Review about the changes in the system that we want to see to make certain that all learners are experiencing success within our system. While it might not say “learning support coordinators” specifically, you can definitely see where the role sits within the results of that review. As far as future roll-outs are concerned, that is subject to future Budgets.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Given the dramatic increase in youth crime in terms of ram raids and the amount of children—very young children—that we’re seeing involved in those, given the number of unenrolled children who aren’t enrolled in school at all, which is, I think, sitting around 7,500 at the moment. And also, I suppose given the very high unjustified absence rate and very high chronic truancy rate that the Minister is well aware of, I know, my question to her is: in the last financial year, what was done in terms of alternative education? What additional funding, what outcomes were gained from alternative education? What improvements did she see?

My question to her around alternative education is: does she think that the Government’s efforts in the last 12 months, or in that period, made a difference in that sector? And has she heard anything to the opposite to suggest that alternative education, in fact, is creating more harm than it is doing any good?

Another area that I’m absolutely passionate about because I believe that the education system needs to be inclusive of alternative education. And just on that, my officials know that I absolutely hate the words “alternative education” because it makes it sound like it sits outside the system, and we need to make certain that it is part of the system and that young people who do have alternative education as their preferred way of providing their learning pathways feel like they’re very much part of the system and don’t see themselves as failures.

So in Budget 2022, we did have an increase into the alternative education—basically their operational grant—just like schools, and that will mirror going forward, or that’s what we had said at the time. The intention was for that to mirror what schools’ increase would be. We’ve also re-signed, in the alternative education space, the contracts for delivery. They were re-signed at the end of 2022.

I know personally that there are some absolute pockets of excellence in this space. I have visited many of them, where I’m seeing absolutely outstanding results and young people who are highly engaged in their learning. It has turned their life around, and they are experiencing way stronger outcomes than they have ever experienced in the past and feeling good about themselves as learners.

So I’ve just been told that it was a 2.75 percent increase in 2022, and that equates to $2.25 million over the five years. So that’s quite a significant increase when you’re talking about the numbers of young people that are in there. But I do acknowledge that there’s more to do in this space. Again, I feel that we see too many times where people position alternative education as outside the system, and we need to always position it as part of the system so that young people feel like they are being included and that they’re, as I said, not seeing themselves as failures.

So, again, it’s subject to future Budgets. We do have an ideal state that we have developed—and Cabinet has agreed upon that ideal state. That preceded me, but we’re constantly looking at that about how we can bring forward that work. I also do a lot of work with the national boards in this area. I’ve presented to and talked with conferences—the alternative education conferences—to make certain that we are keeping in contact with those people that are doing that very, very important work of really working with some of our hardest-to-reach young people.

But as I said, I have seen some amazing results in this area, and I strongly believe that we are well on the path of making certain that we’re getting the answers right for all our young people.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just moving on to staffing issues in the secondary sector. To the Minister, I guess the question is: what have been the plans in the last financial year to address the critical staffing shortages in secondary schools? I’m particularly concerned because in 2010, the University of Auckland were training 350 secondary school teachers; last year, that was 165; I hear that this year it’s about 130. Waikato in 2010, 225; last year, 160. Victoria in 2010, 245; last year, 85. The Secondary Principals’ Association of New Zealand and secondary school principals across the country are screaming out because they cannot get staff in any areas, not just in those usual hard to staff areas of science and maths but actually they can’t find physical education teachers, English teachers, and they are very, very worried that this year but also next year it is going to get much, much worse.

So my question to the Minister is: what planning was done to address this? What do the numbers that she knows about look like this year in terms of the overall numbers that are training and need to be training? Or she could give last year’s figures if she likes. But what is the planning that the ministry have done to improve this and what plans has she got going forward?

Firstly, I’d just like to say that the Ministry of Education’s forecasting and how they project teacher numbers shows that as a system we’re not too badly off. We know that there are shortages, but the shortages are often in locations or in subject areas. Like in the primary system, for example, we have the number of teachers there because we’ve had that bubble that have moved through the school. But it’s around the location of where people might want to move to. So we do have to do some work around that.

But what I will say is that in September 2022 we invested an additional $24 million over three years to fund initiatives to grow teacher supply. This additional investment boosted our total teacher supply spend to $64 million in 2022-23. This was used to provide funding to test new approaches to reaching new sources of potential teachers, including funding 100 places in a school-embedded initial teacher education programme. This is something that principals had been advocating and lobbying for. The Secondary Principals’ Association of New Zealand had been talking to us about that for quite some time. That has proven to be very, very popular. In fact, I’ve had a number of principals who have been involved in that, who have come back to me and said that this is a game-changer for them. They see that it is something that we might be able to expand upon, and those are discussions that we are having in that—how we can grow some of these programmes.

That was also used to expand successful teacher programmes which have experienced strong demand, such as increasing the number of Te Huawhiti Career Changer scholarships from 85 to 185 and expanding the BeTTER Jobs Programme, which was previously the Beginning Teacher Vacancy Support, which I have to say that in my previous role that was something that I took advantage of as well, and it does make a difference to the numbers of teachers that you are able to recruit and sustain. That was the big part of that particular part of the programme is that teachers didn’t just do a year and move on somewhere else; they actually stayed with us. I think that that’s something that many of our principals are really appreciating as well.

But I think the big part of this is that we can’t just do it from our internal pipeline. We have to make certain that we’re looking to overseas recruitment as well, and in the short term—we have to grow our pipeline for the long term as well—looking to overseas recruitment. So the money was used to support overseas teachers’ recruitment and making it easier to move to New Zealand. And we had—I think it was as of April, might have been March—over 1,700 visas approved for either work visas or residence visas for teachers. Not all taking up jobs at this stage, but we have had them that have come through the borders since the borders have opened. So that has been a big part of it.

What I do also want to point out in this space is that two weeks ago I was with the union presidents and vice-presidents in Washington at the International Summit of the Teaching Profession. We are absolutely not alone in this issue. In fact, we’re probably one of the better-off jurisdictions that were at that particular summit. What I found really interesting in that was that as union heads and as the Minister, we were able to get together with those other countries to talk about possible solutions going forward. They were very much looking at our solutions just as much as we were looking at theirs, so we need to put into context that this is a global issue and it’s something that isn’t going to go away overnight, but we have definitely used that funding to make a difference in the short term while we’re planning out what we’re going to be doing in the longer term.

Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break in the House, and this debate will resume at 7 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 6.01 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Right, members. We resume. We have 35 minutes left for this debate.

There was a question from Ms Stanford before the break, asking about the total value of inquiry time in 2022. That is $20 million per year. As far as anything else is concerned, I cannot discuss inquiry time, because unlike what the member said, it is part of bargaining.

Thank you, Mr Chair. This Government has overseen incredible increases in the cost of early childhood education (ECE) fees. We set the highest fees in the OECD countries. This is having significant economic impact on women—and on businesses, with regard to skill shortages. And we all know that women coming back late into the workforce impacts upon their confidence, their KiwiSaver amounts, and the salaries they come back into.

I’d like the Minister of Education to let us know: of the 54 percent of the sector who have opted into the pay parity—and we know they are mainly larger centres—what modelling has been done on how much that pay parity has been subsidised by increases in fees? Also, can the Minister, given that all the consultation with the ECE sector that carried on in 2022 and the options that were worked up for pay parity funding from that consultation—will the Minister give an absolute and categorical ruling out of removing the 20 hours of free ECE for age three and over? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll begin my contribution by first of all acknowledging all of our teachers, who are on the front line supporting our children to be the best that they can be in our school situations. My question relates to the ongoing strikes that are happening. It’s been with us for quite some time, the issues, and teachers have continued to highlight over this week—but also previous months as well—about the agreement and how it is still falling far below inflationary costs. So my question to the Minister of Education is: where is this at, at this particular point? What is the block, and what does she see as the strategy for moving forward to make sure that teachers feel supported to do the work that they need to do? I do want to acknowledge the Minister’s vast experience as being a former school principal as well, so I know that she gets it, but I think this House needs some clarity as to where this is at and what the blockages are and what we can do as a House to support moving those blockages out of the way.

Minister, in that it relates, of course, to the 2021-21 appropriations year.

Yes, it does, because collective bargaining was part of those appropriations as well, so it does relate to that year. There’s not a lot that I can say, other than the fact that at this point in time, there is an offer that is out with New Zealand Educational Institute Te Riu Roa for both their kindergarten and their primary teachers. They are looking to take that to ratification from their members, so we will know more this week. Post Primary Teachers’ Association are in the middle of facilitated bargaining with the Ministry of Education, and that’s about as much as what I can say.

I will say, though, that I am surprised that industrial action is continuing at this point in time, because we are in a process, and, as the member knows, facilitated bargaining is part of our industrial processes in this country. We have to work through that process and that’s really important. It is a process that I as Minister—and even before that time, as a union advocate—take really, really seriously. So I really look forward to some positive outcomes that will come out of that. I think that I’m waiting to see what will happen this week as far as the ratification of the other agreements are concerned.

Oh, sorry, Mr Chair—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Carry on, the honourable Minister.

Hon JAN TINETTI: Sorry, I did mean to address the questions there. I am waiting to see if there is modelling around the subsidy, the fees. I will come back to the member on that. But I also would like to let the member know that there are absolutely no plans to take the 20 free hours away.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I wonder if the Minister could tell us about the modelling that has been undertaken for the pay parity, and how many early childhood education centres will be worse off by achieving pay parity through impacting other aspects of provision and operations? What vulnerability for under-twos provision has been exposed by that modelling? And also if any disincentives for employing additional inexperienced teachers and teachers in training if a weighted average of all teachers’ salaries is used?

Thank you, Mr Chair. To the Minister, 50 percent of students did not fully attend school in term 4, 2022, and 62 percent of Māori students were not attending school in term 4, 2022—20 percent of which were labelled as chronically absent. What is an acceptable full attendance rate for the Minister by Māori attendance, and when does the Minister consider that such a rate would be achieved?

Thank you, Mr Chair. Just following on that initial question, my understanding is that there are different issues with our area schools as opposed to what’s happening in our secondary schools, and I wonder if the Minister could give us a sense of which set of issues is closer to meeting the satisfaction of the sector.

And my second follow-up sort of question is around the early childhood education wider questions that have been canvassed around the House: how will early childhood teachers be better off if early childhood centres opt in to those pay bumps, and what would that mean for the cost of living crisis that many of our early childhood teachers are under? Thank you.

A couple of questions there, or three questions to go through. I just wanted to go back to that first one from Ms Simmonds there. We don’t have the numbers of early childhood education (ECE) fees that are not regulated outside of the 20 hours’ free ECE. They have not been monitored since 2015, those fees, so we can all probably have a discussion around that.

We are doing some work at the moment and are out for consultation around the pay parity, and we’re looking at exactly that. We don’t want to incentivise one way of employing younger teachers, for example, and that’s exactly why we’re going out for that consultation around having a better way of delivering pay parity with our centres. It’s really important that we get the sector input into this, and it’s really important that we don’t do to the sector but that we’re working with the sector in that respect, which is why we’re going out for that consultation.

There has been a model that has been shown to them. I’m not actually going to presuppose that that’s the model that we’ll actually even end up with. It is a starting place for our early childhood sector to be able to look at—and I’m just going to jump there and come over to that one around the pay parity at the same time, and I’ll come back to the attendance one.

So the pay parity: we know that when people are paid more, it’s going to make a difference, not just to that person but it’s generations that it makes a difference to. It’s not just the worker who’s in the centre; it’s their children and it’s their whānau, and so that is why it is absolutely important that we get this right and that we do deliver in this area. So that’s exactly why we’re going out for consultation on the best model for pay parity.

You’ve asked about what’s going to make a difference. Again, I know that we all want to have this conversation, but there are principles of good faith in bargaining, and I know that sometimes other people that are involved in that will lean into that space and talk about that and even talk about it in the media. I’m not going to break those principles of good faith. I think that that’s something that I hold to very dearly, but I’m always open to having those parties talk to me.

So I’m very open to having those parties talk to me, and I’m also very open, if you have heard something as a member, to you feeding that information back to me, as well. I think that’s really important that we keep those communications, because you will all have people coming to you who are teachers that will all have certain ideas. I’m very open to listening to those and hearing them, just as I was open when I was in the sector to having pathways to be able to let people know what the issues were. I think that’s really important. So, please, I encourage the member: if you’ve got some ideas, please be in contact and we can have those discussions.

Coming back to attendance, and around there, I want to see every young person attending school every single day—that’s the bottom line—but we have set targets. We’ve set targets of getting up to that 70 percent, and then getting up to 75 percent of regular attendance. Do I think the measure is absolutely perfect? No, I don’t, because it’s inclusive of medical absence, as well.

We know that our Māori students have probably some of the highest figures there. Now, there’s possibly a wider issue there that we need to be investigating as well about what the schooling system is doing to meet the needs of Māori. We need to be absolutely looking into that, and when I say “we”, I’m talking about all of us, and that’s all of the schools, etc., as well. But we want to make certain that people feel like they belong in the schooling system and that they are engaged in the schooling system, and to do that they have to be proud of their sense of identity within the system, too. That goes for all our cultures in this country, but particularly our mana whenua.

The Minister is expecting the early childhood education sector to give feedback within three weeks without having access to the pay parity working group calculator and, therefore, without being able to work out the actual figures for their individual centres. How does the Minister see that that’s going to be reasonable consultation for the sector?

Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you, Minister. I just wonder if we could have just a brief update on how you think the curriculum refresh is going, and maybe what the cost is to date, the projected cost by the time it has been fully rolled out, and how many fulltimeequivalent staff are working on the refresh, and how long have they been working on it?

Thank you, Mr Chair. This question is around our kura kaupapa and our wharekura. I do want to acknowledge the pay bump within kōhanga reo—that was very significant for many of our teachers, so I do want to acknowledge the work done there. There have been calls within kura kaupapa for greater autonomy. I wonder if the Minister of Education has heard of or has any reflections of a Harvard report which points to that when you give indigenous peoples more autonomy, rangatiratanga, that they do better, that when we have control over our own resources and our own destinies—if I can put it that way—that they do better. This is what kura kaupapa are calling for in terms of the latest Waitangi Tribunal hearings that are happening at the moment. What is the Minister doing to ensure that greater autonomy for our kura kaupapa, our kura, our iwi, and our wharekura?

I’ll start there, because, again, there’s not a lot I can say because it is in front of the tribunal at the moment, but what I can say is that, certainly, the kōhanga reo board worked very closely with the Ministry of Education to reach their aspirations for their mokopuna and tamariki. I met a kaiako from a kōhanga reo in the Waikato on Saturday night who was absolutely fizzing about the pay increase that she was going to get. Again, it goes back to the pay parity conversation that we’ve just had before of the difference that it’s not only going to make in her life but her four tamariki as well. It’s going to change their outcomes and what they’re doing. So I’m so excited about that piece of work, and I’m so excited about the changes that it’s going to make in their lives. As far as kura kaupapa, I will let that work through in the tribunal, but I am a huge advocate of Māori medium and huge advocate for our young people to go through that pathway, because I’ve seen firsthand the difference that it makes to those young people.

The curriculum refresh: I haven’t got the numbers—and I will get them—of staffing involved there, but the spend to date up to 2022-23 across all costs, just from 2022-23 to 31 March, is $5,825, 558, that I’ve got in front of me. If that’s not quite correct, I will correct that with you—I’ll get that from my officials at the back—but I will say that it is progressing really well. While it’s been a very stressful time for our teachers, and particularly stressful, there is a lot of excitement about the changes that the curriculum is making and the refreshes it is making to them in their settings and what it will mean for their understanding of how to teach curriculum. You, like me, will know that we do have a world-leading curriculum in this country, but it has been one that sometimes has meant inconsistency across the country. What teachers are very excited about in this refresh is that it’s giving them a clearer idea of what to teach and when to teach it. Teachers throughout, teachers that I’ve interacted with over the years but even new people that I’m interacting with out in schools, are saying it will make a difference.

However, I was very aware of the work pressures that our teaching workforce are under, which is why I’ve extended out the year now for it to be gazetted and mandated that they have to be teaching the new curriculum refresh, apart from literacy and mathematics. We know that we have to get that right, and so we have not changed the time lines around that all, but it gives our schools another year to get it implemented, to get it right, which they really do appreciate.

I also say, and the member might appreciate this having come out of the secondary system, that my professional advisory group, when I first took over the NCEA change programme, were very adamant that we had a once-in-a-generation opportunity to get the curriculum in front of the NCEA programme. We know that NCEA has been driving the curriculum in those senior areas of the school, and the people that are on my professional advisory group are principals and teachers, and highly regarded teachers, who said it would be really good for the curriculum to be driving the teaching and learning rather than the assessment to be driving the teaching and learning. So that is one of the other reasons why I looked to extend that date out at the other end, so that we have that opportunity to try and get the two aligned better than what they are currently.

Up until 2017, the NCEA level 2 achievement rates for Māori had risen 18 percent to 75 percent—Māori 18-year-olds who had NCEA level 2. They have since dropped to 72 percent. What’s the main strategy, Minister, that you have to make sure that you reverse that trend?

Thank you, Mr Chair. Turning now to the tertiary education sector and vocational education: Te Pūkenga, the mega-merger of 16 Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics of New Zealand (ITPs) and nine industry training organisations, in 2021 had a revenue of $1.17 billion. Te Pūkenga were forecasting in 2022 a $58 million deficit, then they reforecast to a $110 million deficit, then they reforecast to a $63 million deficit that was premised on the sale of assets and, in particular, two pieces of land which the Minister would have to have signed off for that to have occurred. Can the Minister inform us what the actual deficit is for Te Pūkenga for 2022?

Can the Minister also tell us whether the $8 million of savings that were identified in head office were achieved, whether all ITPs across the network that were required to make a 3 percent saving achieved that saving, and what the deficit actually was for Te Pūkenga for 2022?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I wonder if the Minister could give us some detail in terms of her reflections of last winter and the winter plans that were advocated for on behalf of the ministry, in terms of COVID and other winter respiratory illnesses. And given that reflection, what would she advocate putting in place today to get that support?

Some of the things that I’m hearing from teachers and from school communities is that it is having an impact on teachers being able to do their jobs, because when teachers get sick they can’t be at work. People may have moved on from COVID, but COVID hasn’t moved on from us. So a bit of a looking back in terms of what was in place, there’s been quite a lot of movement in the COVID settings. So what does it mean moving forward? Thank you.

For Ms Simmonds, I’m just getting some figures for you, so I’ll come back to that.

In part of the COVID settings and what has happened in this space, can I first acknowledge how tough it has been for our schools—all our education settings, but particularly our early childhood centres and our schools. I think that most people in this House would know that kids are very good at sharing, and that includes COVID and winter illnesses as well. It has not been easy and it has not been easy for our teachers, but we have put out air monitors and air purifiers into schools.

Now, I also know that this is hard for people to hear, but the research—and it’s very strong research—shows that the best way of keeping the air clear is by opening windows. Now, I know again that people are going to say, “But winter’s coming.” I taught in South London winter, and I can tell you that I wouldn’t have taught in my year 7 and 8 classroom in the afternoons in the middle of winter without my windows open. There are wet socks and year 7 and 8 smells that we had to deal with, and I know that you can deal with the fact of how cold it is. There are other ways to deal with that, but it is really important that people understand that that is the research.

Having said that, I hear what people are saying and those are things that we continue to support schools with. We’ll continue to monitor the situation. We continue to give advice; the ministry will continue to give advice through their Te Mahau to individual schools that want that support, and where the best settings for those individual areas are. Because not everybody’s going to need them at the same time. Just because of the way that we’re dealing with COVID at the moment, you’ll have one school where it might be a little bit more prevalent, and so the advice was that school or that setting is going to be different to the one down the road that doesn’t have any cases in it whatsoever at that point in time.

But it’s just to be really mindful of that public health advice. Appropriate mask wearing is still an appropriate method to help minimise the spread, and just keep mindful of what’s happening at your school, and your setting, at that particular point in time.

Just regarding the Minister of Education’s answer earlier about the inquiry time not being part of the NZEI negotiations, the NZEI have written to a number of principals, saying, “Regarding the removal of inquiry time, members should note the following: The removal of inquiry time is a Ministry action that they notified us about during the course of negotiations. Because of the way inquiry time is provided to schools, it is not necessary for our team to agree to this action in order for the Ministry to implement it. Inquiry time is not a feature of the Primary Teachers’ Collective Agreement but it is instead a staffing allocation provided for in the [Ministry of Education] Order 2022.” So my question still remains: of the 999 schools who are at less than 175 students, how many of those will lose out staffing allocations because of the removal of the inquiry time?

That might be the case, but it is part of bargaining this time, and so therefore I can’t actually talk about it. But I can tell the member Erica Stanford that if I get different advice, I will make certain that she gets that information back to her, and I will give her that guarantee. I have been told that it is part of bargaining, and, while it is sitting as part of bargaining, as the Minister, I will not break good-faith principles. But, as I said, if I hear different and get different advice after this session, I will make certain that the member gets that.

The Te Pūkenga—the mega-merged 16 polytechnics and nine industry training organisations—the Tertiary Education Commission and the Auditor-General have consistently expressed their concerns about the financial performance of Te Pūkenga, and the lack of an operating model for long-term viability of Te Pūkenga. The long-term operating model will determine what Te Pūkenga delivers, where it delivers it, what assets, infrastructure, and capabilities it needs to deliver it. Where has the Minister got to in terms of her discussions with Te Pūkenga about the operating model, their ability to forecast their surplus or deficit?

Te Pūkenga premised their budget with a 10 percent growth in domestic students; it has been a 10 percent reduction in 2022, and a further 10 percent reduction in 2023. What monitoring is the Minister doing of Te Pūkenga and where is its financial forecasting at the moment in terms of its deficit?

Te Pūkenga continues to be monitored through the Tertiary Education Commission. There are clear expectations that I have given—and even last week when I had a meeting with the chief executive (CE) and the chair of the board—that the operating model and the organisation is to be prioritised; I have said that. I am happy with the progress that has been made since the new CE and the board has had some new members on it, what has been made since that time. We have an executive leadership that are in place. There have been key appointments that have been made. But I have made it clear that we need to see that progress and see it through to the nth degree, the end—and I am satisfied that we are getting there and that the progress is being made, and we can see it and everybody can see it because we can see the achievements that they have had to date, as I’ve said, with the key appointments that have been made and some of the direction that has been given out.

Can I go back to the early childhood education consultation: it’s high level, how to shape the funding to better align the funding to salaries, so we cannot build the calculator until we have the wages and funding data in place. So it’s at a high-level stage at this point in time, and that’s why the calculator can’t be there.

The budget—there is $120 million for the full programme, and that’s the NCEA and the Curriculum Refresh, and we have spent $30 million to date. But remember this is a programme that’s based over a number of years. There are 40 staff on the curriculum change programme that are currently employed doing that work at this point in time.

Mātauranga Māori is being built into every aspect of what we’re doing in the NCEA achievement, particularly in the NCEA Change Programme. It’s really important in the curriculum refresh that we are building a truly bicultural curriculum that is addressing those young people that have not been achieving well over time.

So there is also professional learning and development that’s really focusing in on cultural capacity that we’re delivering to staff members and teachers throughout the country.

Can I remind members, just before I take the next call, that we are considering, in this debate, the financial statements of the Government for the year ended 30 June 2022. Any questions that fall outside the period of the Appropriation (2021/22 Confirmation and Validation) Bill time period does not need to be addressed by the Minister in the chair.

I just wanted to also address the question about Te Pūkenga’s deficit for 2022. That’s something that hasn’t been finalised at this point in time, or at least it’s not public at this point in time, so I am unable to give that information.

Te Pūkenga is an entity that, as I said before, forecast a $58 million deficit, then reforecast a $110 million deficit, then a $63 million deficit. The Tertiary Education Commission received the draft results for Te Pūkenga in February of this year. The Minister herself would have to sign off any sale of land assets for Te Pūkenga, therefore the Minister must know that draft figure at the very least—

Hon Grant Robertson: She doesn’t have to give it.

PENNY SIMMONDS: —and the Minister—no. Well, can the Minister confirm whether she doesn’t want to or is not able to give the deficit?

At this point in time, I’m unable to give that deficit. It’s not been made public but I’m also unable to give it.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just in relation to the NCEA level 2 question that I asked earlier that has not been responded to—perhaps because of your comment, Madam Chair. Can the Minister please point to the relevant appropriation within the 2022 accounts that actually drive towards reversing the trend, the falling trend, downward trend of Māori 18-year-olds with NCEA level 2 equivalent?

Just a quick question: I was wondering if the Minister could tell us what the job description of the 82 attendance officers that she announced on 21 February this year is, and what their duties are expected to be.

Can the Minister confirm whether it’s a statutory obligation for Te Pūkenga to have lodged their annual report with the Minister at the beginning of May and if they lodged it at that time, and what an indicative deficit for Te Pūkenga for 2022 is if she can’t give the final figure?

I just want to address the attendance officers. The attendance officers’ job description—although I haven’t got it right in front of me, but, broadly speaking, the 82 attendance officers that we announced are working with young people, or working to increase attendance in young people, who are at risk of falling into that chronic stage of non-attending. These are generally the moderate non-attenders at this stage. There are two parts to their job descriptions, so while it’s not a heavy focus on the caseload, that certainly could be part of it. So I have heard that there are some people agitated that there’s no caseload component; that’s not right, and I’ve asked officials to clarify that with Attendance Service throughout the country as well that that could be part of it. But, really, what we’re looking at is around working with schools to develop their plans and identifying the resources that they need to bring those levels of attendance up. I’m all for early intervention in the attendance space, but I think that sometimes we leave it to the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, and I really believe that we need to get in sooner. But I also know that the Attendance Service and those that are working really well in this space are the experts in this area and that they’ve already made connections and that they already have relationships with the families and many of the young people too—because they might have come across them through their siblings as well. So we need to look at their expertise in this area to be able to turn some of the issues around that we’re seeing in the attendance space.

Members, the time has come for me to report progress.

I move, That the committee report progress.

Motion agreed to.

Progress to be reported.

House resumed.

The committee has considered the Appropriation (2021/22 Confirmation and Validation) Bill and reports progress. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.