Tolley slams independent parliamentary research paper, then it is withdrawn

Before I get to this topic, the principals at their conference have covered themselves in glory. Well done our bosses. They overwhelmingly passed three right-on-the-button remits. One of them containing the key description of national standards as ‘as irreconcilably flawed, confused, and unworkable’. (Suspicions that they were just down there to wine, dine, and go skiing can now be dismissed.) I urge all teachers and principals to convey to their representatives and principals at the conference their delight and the hope they will stay staunch and united. (Anne Tolley speaks today.) There are good standards, but no good national ones – no good ones of any sort.

If you want further evidence that our education system is corrupted (away from its true purposes), then look at what has happened to the following parliamentary research paper. Such research papers are considered as ‘fact’ papers, but Tolley has taken strong exception to the one produced on national standards. When I first read it, I was disappointed with its limited scope but it was too much for Tolley. Remember, this is the minister who put a lie in the national standards’ legislation. This is the minister who has campaigned on the biggest lie of all: that children with learning difficulties in literacy and numeracy are not being identified in our New Zealand education system.

Anne Tolley

Tolley upset over standards

July 1, 2010

Education Minister Anne Tolley is to complain to the Speaker Lockwood Smith over a Parliamentary Library research paper on national standards in primary schools.

Mrs Tolley said the paper was "unprofessional", "highly political" and so biased it could have been written by the union opposing the policy.

Mrs Tolley wants the paper withdrawn and rewritten.

Library researchers frequently produce papers on topics of the day, on the economy and legislation before the House.

They are displayed in the library, in the Beehive cafeteria and some are available on Parliament’s website:

The paper on national standards says:

‘Schools may not have time and sufficient professional development support to become familiar with national standards.’

‘Students assess as not achieving could lose motivation for learning, affecting their achievement.’

‘Schools and teachers will need professional development assistance and support that may not be adequately provided for under the national standards.’

‘The standards have been designed and implemented in a short time frame that has not allowed a trial to determine whether they have been set at the correct level.’

‘[League table information] does not help parents make an informed choice on what is as good school to send their child [to] and ends up unfairly labelling schools.’

Mrs Tolley said the Ministry of education was contacted in the preparation of the paper.

It asked to see a final draft of the paper but this did not happen.

The surprising thing about these decidedly uncontroversial points is that

they are amongst the same points that her chief national standards’

adviser John Hattie makes in his article ‘Horizons and Whirlpools’. I

know Hattie writes in a manner that reveals to conceal, but it is strange

that the parliamentary paper is derided as like a union paper when her

chief adviser makes the same points (he, of course, concludes in his

typically perverse, superficial, and illogical way). [A highly reliable

source has informed me that Mary Chamberlain and the ministry are out

of favour and John Hattie, Helen Timperley, and Vivienne Robinson

from Auckland University are now the main sources of advice to the

minister.]

The next development is, of course, absolutely predictable.

Anne Tolley

Mallard not to be trusted

July 1, 2010

Education Minister Anne Tolley is warning journalists and the public to treat Trevor Mallard’s statements with extreme caution following his latest untruthful media release.

‘Mr Mallard clearly thinks he can mislead New Zealanders,’ says Mrs Tolley.

‘His claim that I forced the Parliamentary Library to withdraw a research paper on National standards is outrageous and completely without substance.’

‘The truth is that the library contacted my office yesterday morning to explain that the paper, which was full of mistakes, opinions and speculation dressed up as facts, was being withdrawn due to the lack of proper scrutiny.’

‘This was the first contact my office had with the Library or with the Speaker over the issue.’

Education Minister Anne Tolley is warning journalists and the public to treat Trevor Mallard’s statements with extreme caution following his latest untruthful media release.’

‘Mr Mallard thinks he can mislead New Zealanders,’ says Mrs Tolley.

‘His claim that I forced the Parliamentary Library to withdraw a research paper on National Standards is outrageous and completely without substance.’

‘The truth is that the Library contacted my office yesterday morning to explain that the paper, which was full of mistakes, opinions and speculation dressed up as facts, was being withdrawn for lack of proper scrutiny.’

‘This was the first contact my office had with the Library or the Speaker over the issue.’

‘I have since written to the Speaker saying that, while satisfied with the paper’s withdrawal, I am concerned a paper with such significant defects could be published in the first place.’

‘Those are the facts of the matter. Any pathetic attempt by Trevor Mallard to twist these events should be seen as the workings of a man out of touch with reality and public opinion.’

‘I would urge journalists who are tempted to regurgitate his comments to be aware the drivel in Mr Mallard’s statements simply can’t be trusted.’

The minister makes a complaint; her office contacts the Library and the Speaker’s Office – on the same day the paper is withdrawn. What more needs to be said?

Such is democracy as we know it. Democracy, it seems is for the powerful not the people.

And did you note the extravagant, frothing language? I know it would have been written by her press officer, a particularly extravagant, frothing individual, but it indicates a desperate, siege-mentality frame of mind. Her office fiddles while national standards burn.

This is not a personality attack on Tolley; indeed, I want to advise against making personality attacks on her. She complains that I do, but I haven’t. Admittedly, I describe things she does, then characterise her actions, but that is legitimate. Tolley is simply the one who got the hospital pass, if it hadn’t been her, it would have been someone else. To attack her personally wastes energy and diffuses our focus. National wanted a cheap, populist, political stunt. National standards serve that purpose perfectly. Tolley is just the mug who ended up under orders to try to pull it off.

Meanwhile, once again she has been badly advised. The controversy will only serve to bring extra attention to the points made in the parliamentary research paper.