Cautious approach needed to National Standards – Part Two

by Martin Thrupp

This is an opinion piece from Martin Thrupp of the University of Waikato, the second part of two looking at the consultation of the National Standards that are currently underway.

In the last election National had difficulty differentiating its policies for schools from Labour. National Standards may be seen as crucial for putting this government’s reforming stamp on the education sector.

There is also a poor record of National wanting to listen to concerns about National Standards. The minister of education, Anne Tolley, has often argued that the sector is largely supportive, although the NZ Council for Educational Research has provided research evidence to the contrary.

The minister has also been dismissing concerns based on the experience of national testing in other countries on the grounds that National Standards will allow for a range of tests rather than a single one. But this doesn’t mean National Standards would not set up the kinds of perverse consequences evidenced under other national testing regimes and it would be Mrs Tolley’s folly not to recognise this.

It is also of concern that while there is to be consultation now, the Bill establishing National Standards was pushed through under urgency before Christmas, bypassing the need for select committee consultation in the first instance.

Mrs Tolley is so far offering few assurances about the way the National Standards will be used by government. While she was recently forced to state in the House that the MoE would not create league tables from the data, some of her comments suggest that the minister does not really understand the concerns of the sector in this area.

Other reasons for concern revolve around the wider views expressed by the minister. These often suggest this government is operating with simplistic notions of poorly performing teachers needing to be made more accountable.

For instance on a recent National Radio interview, Mrs Tolley was arguing that poverty is too often used as an excuse for underachievement. Good teachers are clearly expected to win through irrespective of the socio-economic contexts they operate within.

It is hardly realistic and could easily see a return to the politics of blame we saw in the 1990s where schools in low socio-economic areas were publicly castigated by ERO.

Finally, the government’s rationale for bringing in National Standards remains unclear. For instance there is an obvious mismatch between National Standards for all NZ children and the claim that National Standards are most needed to address the problem of the 20 per cent of children, especially Maori and Pasifika, who make up NZ’s so-called ‘long tail of underachievement’.

If the primary intention of the policy is really to address the achievement of these students, it would make sense to take a more targeted approach.

This approach should go beyond education to recognise the wider context of child poverty the ‘long tail’ undoubtedly reflects.

Overall the National Standards consultation will be one to watch – and take part in (it closes 3rd July).

This is an area where there are powerful lessons from mistakes made overseas which should not be ignored. Parents, communities and educators should demand a cautious, critical approach from policy makers.

•    Martin Thrupp is Professor of Education at the University of Waikato and a spokesperson for the Quality Public Education Coalition and the Child Poverty Action Group. E-mail: thrupp@waikato.ac.nz