Words fail me. This has to be both the worst performance by a minister in this failed regime, and the best performance by a Speaker. The whole charade will leave you dumbfounded.
Jan Tinetti used to be a teacher and a union hack. This is the sort of imbecile that teaches in our schools. You might be thankful that she is no longer teaching, but you’d be wrong, given that she is a minister lording it over the education system.
Even putting it in writing leaves you gobsmacked at the idiocy of this utter fool.
Question No. 11—Education (School Operations)
11. ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays) to the Associate Minister of Education (School Operations): What percentage of decile 1 students achieved each assessment in the 2022 NCEA Numeracy and Literacy pilot, and what specific questions, if any, were not culturally “appropriate” in this pilot, as she claimed yesterday in question time?
Hon JAN TINETTI (Associate Minister of Education (School Operations)): In regards to the first part of the question: in reading, 195 students participated, with 24.1 percent achieving; in writing, 135 students participated, with 2.2 percent achieving; and in numeracy, 179 students participated, with 10.1 percent achieving. Now, these numbers stand in stark contrast to the decile 10 students, who achieved 84 percent, 61 percent, and 77 percent, respectively. This does point towards the Government’s approach to tackling inequity in the system through our barrier-free access suite being the right one when combined with targeted plans to lift maths and literacy attainment across the country. In regards to the second part of the question: as I said in the House yesterday, feedback we have received from some teachers who participated in the pilot was that—in their professional opinion, which I will not second-guess—the assessment wasn’t culturally appropriate.
Chris Bishop: Point of order. Mr Speaker, I think you know what I’m about to say, which is that the second part of the question is extremely specific, which is about the specific questions, if any, that were not culturally appropriate in this pilot. And as the next part is “as she claimed yesterday in question time”, which has been authenticated and accepted—it’s on the yellow sheet—the Minister is required to answer that question.
SPEAKER: Yes. The Minister should—you definitely addressed it, but considering the answer that you gave yesterday, you haven’t answered it.
Hon JAN TINETTI: As I’ve already said, it’s important that we consider the views of all stakeholders and experts. And as Minister, it would be completely inappropriate of me to second-guess their opinions. About half the teachers who participated in the pilot thought the assessment wasn’t equitable for all learners in reference to the content. I will not second-guess their opinions.
SPEAKER: Just a minute; I’m going to read exactly what was said yesterday. I’m going to give the member two extra questions, and she can ask questions around that, if she wishes.
Erica Stanford: Can she please provide us with one example of the type of question that she believes, or she was told about, that was culturally inappropriate?
Hon JAN TINETTI: As I’ve said yesterday, as a former teacher—and you’ve asked about the type of question—we know that some students, if you put the reading text in front of them and they don’t understand the context, they will struggle to attempt to solve the issue that was put in front of them—as I’ve said, if they don’t understand the context. Obviously, we have people on the other side of the aisles here who don’t understand education at that level. So let me give a specific example. When I was a teacher, there was a PM reader called “Treasure Hunt”. Many times we’ve struggled with our young people understanding the word “clues” because they had no context of what a “treasure hunt” was. That’s an example of what that might be in that assessment.
Erica Stanford: Is she seriously saying that she doesn’t expect 15-year-olds, after 10 years of compulsory schooling, to be able to use the knowledge they’ve gained to write about something they may have not experienced firsthand?
Hon JAN TINETTI: I think that if people even in this House had to look at an area that they had not been involved with—and obviously I can use the example of education, because that’s very obvious from the questions that are coming from the other side—they would struggle to write about it at the in-depth level. We need to contextualise learning. It is a fundamental part of education to contextualise it.
Hon Kelvin Davis: Would she expect somebody who had never been on a marae before to be able to stand up and write about an experience or understand the experience of being on a marae?
Hon JAN TINETTI: That’s a very good question, because, no, I wouldn’t. I would actually, if I was a teacher in that situation, want to contextualise that with our young people first. I’d also want to contextualise it with adults first.
Erica Stanford: What specific support will she implement next year for the 98 percent of decile 1 students that failed the co-requisite to ensure they pass this foundational literacy and numeracy assessment before they leave school?
Hon JAN TINETTI: We’ve already announced some work in this area with our $20 million loss of learning package, and that will work towards and go towards assisting those pupils who are struggling in this area with targeted tutoring. Already, a number of schools have taken that up and are reporting early on that they can see that this will be a support to them. But this is also something that I want to talk about with the teachers a bit more, because they are the experts in this area about how we can support them as a Government.
Erica Stanford: What sort of questions in the numeracy exam were not culturally appropriate?
Hon JAN TINETTI: We have heard from teachers that there has been a lot of reading in those exams. And if you are an English learner who is second language and struggling to read, it doesn’t give you an accurate understanding of your numeracy level.
Erica Stanford: Isn’t it her Government and under her watch that the Ministry of Education set these exams and have piloted them now twice; and why is it that she is standing up here today telling us that they are not appropriate for children who are unable to read?
Hon JAN TINETTI: That’s exactly what a pilot is. I’m not sure that the member understands the concept of a pilot, but it’s to work through what these exams will look like. What I will say is that this Government is committed to our young people achieving and the integrity of the exam remaining high. To question that integrity is a little bit concerning from the Opposition, who have in the past put in failed experiments as their answer to declining levels of literacy and numeracy over the past few decades.
Erica Stanford: How is she going to ensure that the exams are culturally appropriate to cater for the many different cultures in this country; and is she considering multiple different exams based on the culture of the person taking the exam?
Hon JAN TINETTI: That’s exactly what the pilots are for. And I am concerned the member’s understanding of that word “culture” seemed to go straight to race, and I am not prepared to be race-baited by that member.
Chris Bishop: Point of order. We have been listening very carefully to the Associate Minister’s answers.That’s now the fourth time, in response to very straight, very serious questions about a matter of extreme public importance, that the Minister has had a political flick—in the most recent case, an unparliamentary flick—at the Opposition. My colleague Erica Stanford is asking very serious questions in a very straight manner, and she’s entitled to expect straight answers, not political attacks, from the Minister.
Hon Grant Robertson: Mr Speaker, I take Mr Bishop’s point. However, I also take the rulings that you’ve made in recent days. Throughout the Minister’s answer, there were interjections, continuously, from members opposite, and in that environment it is highly unsurprising that there might be some political flicks coming back.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Mr Speaker, whether or not that is the case, nothing excuses a Minister breaching Speaker’s ruling 44/1 by accusing a member of race-baiting, which is strictly prohibited in this House.
SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon Michael Woodhouse—that is absolutely correct, and on that matter I will require the Minister to stand, withdraw, and apologise. On the issues raised by Chris Bishop, that’s also correct. I’ve listened carefully. There were elements of out-of-order interjections, yes, but the questions were straight up. They were straight-up questions, and they did not need some of the comments that were made, but on the last one, that was definitely out of order, and so I will require the Minister to stand, withdraw, and apologise. I will award one more supplementary question.
Hon JAN TINETTI: I withdraw and apologise.
Erica Stanford: Does she agree that the purpose of education is to expand a child’s mind outside of their own localised experiences, and, if not, how does she ever expect New Zealand children to succeed on the world stage?
Hon JAN TINETTI: That’s why we are putting these pilots in place: to improve our education system so our children will not only survive but thrive.
Hansard
There will be no thriving with these idiots in charge.
Just 2 per cent of decile 1 students passed the writing component of new standards that from 2024 will be required for NCEA assessments.
Ahead of the nationwide rollout the Ministry of Education has conducted pilots last year and this year.
The report – released on Friday – showed overall just 64 per cent passed the reading standard, 34 per cent writing and 56 per cent numeracy, Te Reo Matatini (Maori language literacy) at 24 per cent and Pangarau (Maori language numeracy) at just 18 per cent.
But a deeper dive into the data shows the differences between deciles, or socio-economic markets, are stark.
At decile 1, the lowest decile, just 2 per cent passed the writing component – compared to 62 per cent at decile 10, the highest.
In reading the difference between decile 1 and 10 was 24 per cent to 85 per cent, and in numeracy 10 per cent compared to 78 per cent.
NZ Herald
These clowns have been in charge for five long years, and this is the result.
On the plus side, you can’t dumb down the system much further than 2%. Another year of this government and the last 2% won’t be able to write at all.
The election can’t come soon enough.
Help Fund Our NewsDesk
We are building a NewsDesk, hiring journalists and taking the fight to the mainstream media. Will you help fund our NewsDesk?
Registered before? Log in to use your saved details.
If you registered an account, please enter your details below to login. If this is your first time, proceed to the donation form.
Please share this article so others can discover The BFD.