6. Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) Link to this
to the Minister of Education
What public statements or formal reports has he seen as evidence for his statement in relation to the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) “that every assessment expert whom we have had available to us, including people like John Hattie who has been part of the ministerial reference group, has said that this year the variation is fine.”?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) Link to this
The New Zealand Qualifications Authority reported to me regularly over the exam season about variability, assuring me that the level was acceptable. I have also seen reports from the Post Primary Teachers Association, principals’ groups, the Ministry of Education, and various groups of that nature who indicate the same. I note recent comments made by Professor John Langley, the principal of Auckland College of Education, who has stated that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority has worked hard to iron out the early inconsistencies. I would include in these reports the meeting I had on 15 February with the Scholarships Processes Advisory Group—which includes Professor Hattie—during which the discussion turned to NCEA exams. We agreed that NZEA had enjoyed a better examination season and that we could have more confidence in the results this year. It was also noted that some of the practical steps taken this year to improve scholarship had also been applied to NCEA.
Can the Minister now confirm that, actually, there is no evidence from any assessment expert saying that NCEA variation is fine, and that nothing he said in his answer backs up the statement he made to this House, which was untrue?
Moana MackeyHon STEVE MAHAREY Link to this
Arthur Graves, chair of the New Zealand Secondary Principals Council, has said: “I am one hundred percent supportive of NCEA.”, and Post Primary Teachers Association president, Debbie Te Whaiti, has said: “The 2005 NCEA results showed a big improvement.”
Hon Dr Nick SmithHon STEVE MAHAREY Link to this
They teach the students, I say to Nick Smith. The overall reduction in the variation between years shows the New Zealand Qualifications Authority’s better processes. Just this morning I received an email from a principal who commented: “Will some of the good news about education ever get into the media or will we have to keep putting up with negative comments, like the ones from Bill English?”, and Pat Newman, from the New Zealand Principals Federation, has said: “Bill English should stop grandstanding.”
Hon Brian Donnelly Link to this
Is it correct that some achievement standards are two-tiered; for example, for right-angle triangles at level 1 a standard includes both verbal problems and 3-D problems, and that much of the year-to-year variation in the NCEA can be explained by the relative difficulty of the particular tier assessed?
Why did the Minister tell this House last week that there is a ministerial reference group on NCEA, when there is not; that he has opinions from assessment experts that the variation is fine, when he does not; he implied John Hattie had said the variation in NCEA was fine, when he had not said it, when he had not been asked to investigate it, when he had done no analysis, and never made such a statement; and why should this House believe anything this Minister says when he was willing to mislead it over a matter as important as the integrity of exams sat by hundreds of thousands of young New Zealanders?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY Link to this
As I have said, there are a large number of people, including the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, who have proved that we have, this year, had better assessment systems. I called John Hattie myself prior to coming down to the House and he confirmed the exact words I said in my answer to the member, and I tell the member that if there is anybody in this House whose word I would not take, given his track record over the last few months, it is him.
Can the Minister confirm that he said to the House last week that every assessment expert the Government had had available to it, including people such as John Hattie, who had been part of the ministerial reference group, had said, in reference to NCEA, that this year the variation was fine—and none of that statement is correct, and he cannot verify any of it?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY Link to this
I said last week that everybody who was available to us agreed that we had a better season and I stand exactly by that. John Hattie came in as part of the scholarship process and talked about NCEA. I rang him before to confirm his remarks and I have just given them again.
Why did the Minister try to give the House the impression that assessment experts had been consulted over variation in NCEA and that they had said the variation was fine, when assessment experts have not been consulted over NCEA, when John Hattie has not been asked to do analysis and therefore has not come to the conclusion that the variability is fine, and why should we believe anything he says when he came to the House and said that every assessment expert said it was fine, when none did?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY Link to this
As I said in answer to the primary question, every assessment expert available to us through the New Zealand Qualifications Authority who had reported to me regularly during this process has said that the variability is fine. I said that John Hattie came to see me as part of the expert group that has been involved with scholarship. We talked about NCEA during that meeting and he said—[ Interruption] I never said he did. I said that he came to a meeting where we talked about this, and John Hattie has told me again today that I can use those remarks.
Has the Minister seen the analysis by one assessment expert, Professor Warwick Elley, that shows that—actually, the New Zealand Qualifications Authority does not disagree with it; it just avoids the question—in 140 mainstream standards sat by tens of thousands of students, over half of them fell outside the benchmarks set by the authority for fairness and consistency; that is, 87 out of 140 standards failed to reach the authority’s benchmark for consistency?
Hon STEVE MAHAREY Link to this
According to Warwick Elley, 40 out of 140 standards in 10 large subjects have had variable failure rates. He wrote about that. The member should go to the New Zealand Education Review this week—I am sorry that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority disagrees with Mr English, but it does. It disagrees with Warwick Elley, and it provided a very, very good response to his criticism.
Madam SPEAKER
Maryan StreetHon STEVE MAHAREY Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Bill English, who routinely lies, has just accused me of lying. I take exception to it and want an apology.
If the member said that, would he please withdraw and apologise to the member. It is unparliamentary.
I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think you heard what the member said, and I am very disappointed that you did not take action yourself to enforce the Standing Orders of this House. When the Minister rose to make a point of order, he accused me of routinely lying.
That is the rule, if the member takes offence. That is exactly what I did in this instance. I am being even-handed here. Would the Minister please rise, withdraw, and apologise.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I used unparliamentary language, and withdrew and apologised. I sat here and watched you sit in the Chair while a member made a point of order, in the hearing of the whole House, in which he accused me of routinely lying, and you left it to me to enforce that Standing Order. I think the House deserves an explanation, because I would hope that other members will not be treated in the same way by the Chair.
I was listening to question No. 7. I did not hear the exchange of those comments. Could we please now proceed to question No. 7.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You asked me to withdraw and apologise after the member had raised his point of order, which means that you did hear his point of order. The point remains that in that point of order he accused me of routinely lying. You left it to me to enforce the Standing Order instead of calling him to order. Will it now be the practice of the Chair that members can raise a point of order and in the course of it accuse other members of lying, and you will listen to that and do nothing?
I apologise to the member. I thought the Minister had made his comment, which I did not hear, before the point of order.
Hon Phil GoffI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Given that the member insists on order being upheld, that member interrupted the questioner after she had begun the question. He should not even be in the House.