The Parliamentary Library
The Herald reports:
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Mrs Tolley wants the paper withdrawn and rewritten.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 in question is here.
The full paper is not too bad, but the summary of key points is definitely unbalanced I would agree. In the summary assertions from unions etc are reported almost as fact, rather than as an opinion. The full article provides footnotes, but someone going just off the summary would get a rather polarised view. It would be improved if the opinion was clearly marked as opinion, and by whom.
Even in the full article, there are valid criticisms in my opinion. The paper should certainly outline the concerns and criticisms by the unions. However there are also responses to those concerns that have not been included. And views of groups such as the NZ School Trustees Association (which effectively represents parents) are absent.
This does raise a wider issue around the Parliamentary Library, which I had been intending to blog about at some stage, and this story provides a context for it. I should preface my remarks by saying I am a huge fan of the services provided by the Library. As a former parliamentary staffer I was a heavy user of their services, and it is probably the thing I miss most about having left Parliament. They generally have provided a first class service, where you can have absolute faith in their professionalism and impartiality.
When I first started in the late 1990s, the Library had a strict policy that its staff could not be partisan in any way. Someone like me (for example) would never ever be considered suitable to be a staffer, because of my political background. Nothing to do with one’s professionalism – the Library has to be trusted 100% by all parties, MPs and staff, which means any partisan activities in one’s background made you unsuitable.
This policy was applied rigorously. In fact I recall one library staff member had to get permission just to date someone who worked in the ACT parliamentary office. That’s how rigorous they were.
At some stage (I am not sure when) this policy seems to have changed, and the Library no longer excludes partisan activists from its staff. Now I am not linking this at all as related to the particular research paper, or its author. It is a separate issue, but one I raise in the context that a decade ago the Library was seen to be like Caesar’s wife – above suspicion. Sadly, this is not the case today.
June 30th, 2010 at 9:03 am
I wonder where you’re going with this DPF. Surely you’re not suggesting that the Parliamentary Library has employed partisan staff since, for example, the 2008 election.
June 30th, 2010 at 9:06 am
Does “Steve Pierson” not work in the Parliamentary library?
June 30th, 2010 at 9:12 am
The link doesn’t work DPF; the paper must have already been withdrawn.
June 30th, 2010 at 9:12 am
So, what is the political or union background of (deleted by DPF)?
June 30th, 2010 at 9:16 am
Anyone got a copy of the paper?
June 30th, 2010 at 9:17 am
It is part of the left’s plan to politicise all of our public institutions. This library is merely the tip of the iceberg. In fact they’ve done it to the whole of the education system, and I’m sure that Anne Tolley already knows the home truths revealed in this very interesting article on the subject-
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/opinion/steve-farrell/3891-rescuing-our-kids-a-country-from-karl-marx
It needs to be stopped, but the rot is far too deep.
June 30th, 2010 at 9:27 am
What a legacy the radical left has gifted us. We are not allowed to aspire to greatness. Mediocrity better serves the Clarkian vision of a compliant society bereft of individual thought. It is time that we depoliticise education and allow the system to nurture achievement in every area of human endeavour. I agree that as purely accademically biassed system is not for everyone, so lets allow specialisation of schools instead of constraining everyone to the pace of the lowest common denominator.
This is a debate about the parliamentary library I know-but the debate on education deserves air time. As indeed does the “Three Strikes” headlines in Dim Post
June 30th, 2010 at 9:30 am
And that’s part of the problem Red; the rot is too deep for it to be dealt with in one fell swoop. It’s endemic. Likewise mechanisms of the state such as Working for Families, which have become entrenched simply by virtue of the number of people who benefit from them. That’s why nine years of Clark’s rule cannot be undone overnight.
June 30th, 2010 at 9:54 am
Please leave the names of individual staffers out of this. I don’t want a witch hunt. My comments are aimed at the policy.
June 30th, 2010 at 9:55 am
You mean someone dared criticise Tolley’s Follies and she gets the hump?
How DARE anyone criticise our overlords!!!
June 30th, 2010 at 9:59 am
Redbaiter’s link is brilliant-we in NZ are faced by the same internationalism that is discussed. Individual though must be killed at all cost. Have you noticed how hard the left has worked to crush ACT…they fear individualism because we in ACT are just that: cranky, contoroversail at times, but fiercely independent and lovers of personal freedom.
June 30th, 2010 at 10:21 am
@Inventory2 9:12 am
Yes, the link DPF provided doesn’t work anymore, but the pdf is still on the Parliamentary site:
http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/6AA160CB-02AD-4A89-ADC9-64B928B45FFA/144400/NationalStandardsforpdf3.pdf
June 30th, 2010 at 10:23 am
The Standard has a link to the paper that appears to work. Censoring a paper isn’t a particularly good look though neither is employing a partisan.
June 30th, 2010 at 10:33 am
This is just a smear by DPF. None of the Standard writers are Labour Party activists or at all partisan. Please read the Standard’s about page if you are unclear. The Standard is a machine. It is not a group blog of Labour Party hacks hiding behind a masquerade of anonymity.
June 30th, 2010 at 10:35 am
@ Robert Mapplethorpe
“How DARE anyone criticise our overlords!!!”
No greater adherent to this notion that Helen Clark (very ably abetted by Heather Simpson of course.)
Robert – people in glasshouses…
Leftists just don’t get it do they? They try fling muck at others without first pausing for thought and realising that it applies equally (if not, in fact, more so) to themselves
June 30th, 2010 at 10:38 am
For goodness sake David, don’t be so precious.
You’ve published a link to the paper which clearly states the name of it’s author.
June 30th, 2010 at 10:41 am
Anyone got a copy of the paper?
Parliament still appears to for the moment:
try here
hat-tip: r0b @ The Standard
June 30th, 2010 at 10:47 am
In DPF’s comments:
“The full paper is not too bad, but the summary of key points is definitely unbalanced I would agree. ”
This statement, as a generality, struck me as being incongruous. Does a summary of key points have to balance, if the conclusions of the paper are generally for or against the topic?
Perhaps (not having read the paper), what was meant was that the summary did not match the conclusions?
If they did, what is the problem? That the paper did not agree with some or all of the premise of the policy? I am sure the Minister is well used to criticism.
I am just struck by the resonance of “This paper says there is a problem with the policy, therefore the paper is politically biased, because it is a political policy”. The policy could just have problems. But, of course, that is politically unacceptable, so attack the author instead.
FM
June 30th, 2010 at 10:48 am
Rather than bandying labels about, would those who have read the paper and disagree with it please state the basis for their displeasure. It is not enough that you don’t like or disagree with the conclusions. Nor is it reasonable to merely smear the author with words like “unprofessional” unless you are capable of arguing with the evidence and arguments presented.
Which facts are wrong? Which conclusions are unwarranted and why? What evidence contradicts it? It is the only useful way to disagree with a paper such as this.
June 30th, 2010 at 11:03 am
Just read the paper.
It doesn’t say national standards are bad, indeed in the conclusions:
“National Standards provide an opportunity for all schools to identify struggling students earlier to enable them to be given the support they need to successfully engage with learning. It is effective teaching and learning support that will lift the educational achievement of low achieving students.”
= policy potentially good
but then it points out (rather reasonably) faults in the implementation, in terms of lack of trials, resourcing and time frames.
My precis:
The policy has potential advantages, but may (should?) have been better implemented (i.e. not throwing the education system of the nations children in the deep end to see if it floats or sinks).
I can see why the Minister doesn’t like it. But it is a well thought out, well referenced paper. I am sure it will survive this attempt to drown it by the Minister.
FM
June 30th, 2010 at 11:08 am
Well, this was in the bloggeur’s post:
A question of balance, i suspect.
June 30th, 2010 at 11:13 am
Who is the writer Christine Oakley?
June 30th, 2010 at 11:14 am
So does C*******e O****y have any political affiliations as implied in the blog post ? Or has sher just written a paper that disagreeswith Anne Tolley’s stance ?
June 30th, 2010 at 11:17 am
The summary points:
The first two are fact
The second two are valid concern
The last two are scare mongering
June 30th, 2010 at 11:20 am
come on you lot – wake up.
The programme for national standards (NS) was watered down due to union pressure. And what the union wants to do now is to show that the programme doesnt work and it doesnt help children and that it cant be moderated and that its meaningless and is a waste of time, etc, etc.
Which is just what Mrs Tolley wants.
Because when this activity goes on long enough she will announce that the looseness of the programme isnt working and that specific standards that mean the same across all schools will have to be implemented.
The union is doing Mrs Tolleys work for her.
June 30th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
“The last two are scare mongering”
From the paper
“- Students assessed as not achieving the Standards could lose motivation for learning, affecting their achievement. Enhanced student achievement is an aim of the Standards, yet National Standards themselves do not raise achievement levels; it is the teaching and learning that is invested in students that improves achievement levels. This may not be adequately provided for under the Standards.”
FM – I don’t see what is wrong with this. It is pointing out that national standards are a metric, and measuring something more accurately does not change what you are measuring. How does identifying a problem (or a success) enable improvement? It shows where there are issues, not how to fix them.
“- Schools are concerned that their results may unfairly categorise some schools as failing”
FM – This is a statement of fact as per a few published/broadcast interviews in which such concerns have been raised. Are such concerns invalid because the Minister feels threatened by them? Only time will tell, and perhaps a trial would have.
Cheers,
FM
June 30th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
I agree, it seems like an orderly and detailed piece of work. It’s not the job of a researcher to keep the minister happy, it’s to gauge the impact of a policy — which includes consulting the organisations that will be affected by the policy.
Implying that someone who has written something the minister doesn’t like is a “partisan activist” is really out of order.
And Tolley’s attempt to make the paper disappear isn’t a good look.
June 30th, 2010 at 12:20 pm
What was that comment Michael Cullen made about the treasury?
June 30th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Russell – DPF explicitly says that he is not saying that the the author is a partisan activist but in doing that he is in some peoples minds.
June 30th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
This is ridiculous.
Gotcha is also just a machine so why is Cameron Slater before the courts?
Why are you cowardly lot so ashamed of yourselves?
June 30th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
FM –
I agree to a point however there seems to be an (over?) reliance on this argument (re: that MEASUREMENT doesn’tt equal CORRECTION) as you need to know the current state before applying any corrective action.
The failing school part is out and out scaremongering, national standards don’t make a school fail, poor performance makes a school fail (even if it is hidden under some levels of measurement).
I see the library has pulled the .pdf document as well now.
June 30th, 2010 at 1:54 pm
expat > ‘The failing school part is out and out scaremongering, national standards don’t make a school fail, poor performance makes a school fail (even if it is hidden under some levels of measurement).’
I don’t see how even this conclusion (which says: ‘Schools are concerned that their results may unfairly categorise some schools as failing’) can be construed as scaremongering. It is not as if the paper says ‘There is a risk that the metric may cause schools to be incorrectly categorised as failing’; rather the conclusion reports a concern that schools themselves have variously been quoted in the media as voicing.
The summary does not state whether the schools’ concern is valid or not, only that the hold the concern. Seems like fair enough reporting to me. To conceal the concerns of schools would be a far worse error of bias in my opinion.
June 30th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
Russell Brown suggests:
I agree on both points. Having worked with Winston for so long has kind of innoculated me to conspiracy theory thinking, but I find this chilling.
I can attribute only two motives to Tolley and I don’t like either of them:
- Either she genuinely believes the papers conclusions are wrong but holds that anyone reading it are too stupid to reach an independent conclusion. Yet look what we’re doing here – DPF has listed the facts, drawn his conclusions, and we’re -*gasp*- taking issue rather than blindly believing them. So does Tolley think the IQ of the average Kiwiblogger is above that of her fellow MPs and their staff?
- Or she knows the conclusions to be valid and this is an antidemocratic heavy-handed attempt at censorship.
If she is concerned about the proliferation of a viewpoint then the appropriate response is to promote her own, opposing viewpoint – backed by research, of course. Think tanks do it all the time. So do governments. Many a time the Minister of Finance of the day has rejected some looney policy paper written by Treasury without attacking Treasury itself, the writer, and the whole basis of our open democracy by insisting the paper “disappear”.
Tolley’s problem is that she’s not capable of producing the paper I’ve suggested or of grasping the complexities of the debate, so she’s retreated to a fixed ideological position which she can only defend through misuse of power rather than intellectual engagement.
June 30th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
This paper came out weeks ago. I recon just about every school board of Trustees has read it.
June 30th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
…and you can read it here