Irony

Written By: - Date published: 11:22 am, December 21st, 2011 - 71 comments
Categories: accountability, education - Tags:

Irony will be if Anne Tolley gets sacked over a portfolio she no longer holds. And if she’s fired, not for turning one of the world’s most successful education systems into an ideological warzone over performance pay but, for lying to Parliament about a principal turned ministry expert with a sleazy husband being suspended.

71 comments on “Irony ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. logie97 1
    21 December 2011 at 11:41 am

    Just like Professor Delorus Umbridge before her, she has simply been absorbed back into the Ministry of Magic. She will not fall on her sword unfortunately. (And Voldemort just simply doesn’t have the guts to overcome her either.) Worth was not one of his appointees. Tolley is. Unfortunately the straight talking leader does not exist and as with his weasel words over GST, so will it be with her. She may get a quiet warning from behind closed doors.

    And anyway, she achieved what NACT wanted her to do and that was create a perception that we have a failing education system.

    • Draco T Bastard 1.1
      21 December 2011 at 1:01 pm

      And anyway, she achieved what NACT wanted her to do and that was create a failing education system via the perception that we have a failing education system.

      FIFY

  2. Janice 2
    21 December 2011 at 11:42 am

    I am going blue in the face holding my breath waiting for the trolley to apologise to RNZ for saying they made the news item about Mrs Motu up. I’ll have to give in soon.

    • Fotran 2.1
      21 December 2011 at 2:18 pm

      Janice –
      do you not think perhaps that her Ministry kept the relevant information from her ?
      What she said at the time was what she had been told by the Ministry.
      They are not known for supporting her, and perhaps mischieviously not updating her, so that shit can now be thrown at her. That’s politics.

  3. mickysavage 3
    21 December 2011 at 11:44 am

    She needs to be censored by the Privileges Committee and Key’s statements suggest that something will be done.
     
    She was too cute by far in saying that the person in question “has never been suspended” when clearly this was not the case.
     
    Good job.
     

    • alwyn 3.1
      21 December 2011 at 3:48 pm

      Do you seriously mean censored, as in we will limit what she can say?
      Perhaps censured is a bit more what you have in mind.
      On the other hand the idea of censoring ALL the MPs does have a nice ring to it.

  4. Sweetd 4
    21 December 2011 at 12:07 pm

    “..turning one of the world’s most successful education systems…”, hmmm, so long as you don’t worry about the 20% failure rate its okay then?

    FFS, I would hate to see you defination of sucess applied to industry, “Enjoy you new car, don’t worry, you only have a 1 in 5 chance of the brakes failing, but the steering will have stuffed up before then so the tree you have hit will have stopped you”.

    • mickysavage 4.1
      21 December 2011 at 12:12 pm

      Yep the bottom 20% of students are in the bottom 20%.  The education system should be that good that no one should be in the bottom 20%.
       
      You do understand how bizarre the claim is don’t you sweetd?

      • Sweetd 4.1.1
        21 December 2011 at 12:24 pm

        Mikey, report straight to the bottom 20% and read again what I wrote.

        20% fail in the current system, that is not being able to read or write. Ie, the brakes and steering are fuxked.

        • KJT 4.1.1.1
          21 December 2011 at 12:35 pm

          Shows how memes stick, no matter how untrue.

          Look up the statistics on our adult literacy rate.

          16% do not meet the expected minimum literacy and numeracy standards on leaving school, the real number, is a lot different from 20% fail totally.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1.1.1.1
            21 December 2011 at 12:44 pm

            “16% do not meet the expected minimum literacy and numeracy standards on leaving school”

            No. 16% do not pass NCEA level 2, and that isn’t quite the same thing.

            • Georgecom 4.1.1.1.1.1
              21 December 2011 at 9:09 pm

              So one person is claiming there is a 20% failure rate whereas the rate of those who do not pass NCEA level 2 is actually 16%.

              Anne Tolley keeps using a 20% failure rate so we must assume her figure was at some point accurate, whereas now it’s 16%.

              In recent years that amounts to a 20% reduction in the rate of underachieving. WOW.

              ‘Productivity’, if you like, up 20% amongst our state schools.

              That speaks volumes for a successful education system, some hard work and quality teaching and some quality learning.

              Our education system must be getting even better. I suspect that given a few more years of teachers doing the same thing they have in recent years that the 16% figure will be lower still.

              Well done NZ schools and staff in those schools.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                22 December 2011 at 6:06 am

                “We must assume” link to the data or she’s lying. But you knew that.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                22 December 2011 at 6:19 am

                PS: What was the point of wasting your time coming up with such a transparently ridiculous response? Are you trying to confirm the impression of National Party supporters as several sandwiches short of a picnic?

                • felix …
                  22 December 2011 at 7:43 am

                  But Georgecom makes a very good point.

                  Our schools and our teachers are clearly doing excellent work and any meddling with education will be very hard to justify.

                  If Tolley’s 20% figure was ever true, that is.

                • Georgecom …
                  22 December 2011 at 6:08 pm

                  One of your suggestions will be true.

                  If lies, well, the Minister can speak for herself on that.

                  If the 20% was actually correct, at some point and I don’t know what source Tolley would be using, it shows then that schools have done a really good job in recent years reducing that figure. They have reduced underachievement by 20%, despite being sidetracked by having to try and grapple with the flawed and poorly thought through National Standards.

                  Therefore:

                  1. Either the former Minister of Education has some explaining to do
                  or
                  2. She needs to acknowledge the praise the great work schools have done in reducing the tail of underachievement and the new Minister needs to do likewise.

                  Seems a reasonable conclusion eh.

        • dv 4.1.1.2
          21 December 2011 at 1:16 pm

          AND how does MEASUREMENT in primary schools improve pass rates for 17 year olds?
          AND is the MEASUREMENT accurate and reliable?

        • Alan 4.1.1.3
          21 December 2011 at 2:07 pm

          “…one of the world’s most successful education systems…”
          It’s true!
          Of the 65 countries or economies participating in PISA 2009, only two OECD countries, and two non-OECD partner economies performed better than New Zealand.
          http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/topics/research/pisa_research/pisa_2009
          http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/6091397/NZ-near-top-in-OECD-education-figures
          Get your head out of the sand.

        • mik e 4.1.1.4
          21 December 2011 at 6:49 pm

          swede brain Bulls hit children that are failing are from dysfunctional desperate homes until that is fixed we will continue down this path of blaming the education system the worlds 4 th best going down because of being conned by the right wing who want to make it another profit centre because the right have run out of ideas to build new enterprise.

    • logie97 4.2
      21 December 2011 at 12:13 pm

      Sweetd – Can see that you are one of the 20 % judging by your command of the English language…

    • Annette H 4.3
      21 December 2011 at 12:26 pm

      To keep the record straight –

      http://www.facebook.com/groups/237491956316493/

      Lie 3: 20% of children are failing with the current system

      These figures are quoted in Education Aotearoa from Emeritus Professor Terry Crooks – the 20% failure rate that gets bandied about is the number who don’t pass NCEA level 2.

      The actual fail rate at this level is 16%, and of these;
      – 3% with disabilities (ie can’t hold a pencil)
      – 6% can pass, but are choosing not to go forward as candidates
      – 7% who do need extra support

      http://www.educationaotearoa.org.nz/all-stories/2010/4/14/its-just-politics.html

      • felix 4.3.1
        21 December 2011 at 1:30 pm

        Then I guess in a year or so we’ll have Hekia using those numbers and proudly announcing that she’s got the failure rate down from 20% to 7%.

        These fuckers only get away with it because no-one’s paying attention.

        And no-one’s paying attention because there’s so many more important things to think about. Between Xmas, NYE, Masterchef, XFactor, and the Rubber Wool Cup it’s no surprise that education isn’t considered important anymore.

      • In Vino Veritas 4.3.2
        21 December 2011 at 3:24 pm

        Firstly, your link (aotearoaeduication) doesnt appear to attribute the numbers you mention to Terry Crooks. Secondly, are you comparing apples with apples? Probably not since you are quoting NCEA level 2, what was Tolley quoting.

        You appear also appear to be saying that 7% is acceptable, which is bollocks, and if this is the attituide of teachers and their principals, then they should find new jobs.

        I would also point out that Crooks also says that the tail of underachievement is 14 – 15% for primary schools. I assume this is also acceptable to you since it puts us 5th in the OECD.

        As always, the whingers are mainly those who escew excellence and accept the mediocrity of being “above average”. It’s about time teachers were paid for performance, and those that don’t or can’t perform, find a new job.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 4.3.2.1
          21 December 2011 at 3:29 pm

          Another lie. Teachers can only get promoted, and earn the higher salaries on offer, by passing work assessments.
          As for your attempts to twist the truth, either quote figures Tolley used or give up.

          Who said 7% is “acceptable”? Oh, that’s right, it was you, lying, again.

          Your “facts” are pure bullshit, your arguments are strawmen, your agenda is showing.

        • mik e 4.3.2.2
          21 December 2011 at 6:54 pm

          You a plonker ivvy leaguer countries that have gone down that road are behind us in educational achievement.
          Cambridge tests that the right claim are the way to go show our education system to be far ahead of all others not because of the other 10 years that they have been taught in our mainstream schools

    • One Anonymous Bloke 4.4
      21 December 2011 at 12:38 pm

      The 20% figure is a lie, pure and simple. Here are the facts.

      Now we have evidence that The Right Honorable John Key, Prime Minister, misled the house on 9th December 2008, when he said “while one in five young New Zealanders do not enjoy the benefits of a good education. Their literacy and numeracy skills are so poor that they have no future” – Hansard

      So he is the last person who can sit in judgement of Tolley’s lies.

    • Ianupnorth 4.5
      21 December 2011 at 1:11 pm

      I know for a fact there is a very popular car, built in Australia, that has a 1 in 5 failure rate of its steering column on pre delivery inspection.
       
      Failure is a fairly subject and pejorative terminology to use; they do not fail everything, but they do not achieve at the same level as others on one or more subjects – and this can be for more reasons than just the education system (e.g. health, attendance, parental support)

    • Peter Martin 4.6
      21 December 2011 at 3:44 pm

      Och, remember the good old days of school cert and UE?
      Scaling.
      Where fifty percent failed each and every year.
      *wistful*

      • felix 4.6.1
        21 December 2011 at 4:21 pm

        zOMFG!!

        You mean 50% were below average????

        Disgraceful!!!

      • Lanthanide 4.6.2
        21 December 2011 at 4:24 pm

        Scaling never made the slightest bit of sense to me. Yay, lets punish a whole lot of kids because we must enforce the idea that 50% of everyone does worse than some standard?

      • Kennif 4.6.3
        21 December 2011 at 5:11 pm

        @Peter: Even worse, 50% of those who made it through to sit School certificate were failed. This takes no account of those who were failed earlier and denied the opportunity to even sit the exam. (I think it was 49% failed actually – scaled to that level every year)

  5. tsmithfield 5
    21 December 2011 at 12:08 pm

    In the first instance, it looks like she just passed on advice she had been given from her department.

    According to the article, her offence appears to be not correcting her original statement when the new information came to light.

    I am not sure it will be a hanging offence. However, I can see her being consigned to making the tea for the rest of her political career.

    • Macro 5.1
      21 December 2011 at 12:29 pm

      She was the Minister responsible at the time, and at the time it was her responsibility to make sure that the advice she gave to parliament was correct. She clearly failed to do that. “Slack” is the only word for it, and “ineffectual” and “inefficient” are the words that describe not only her but this whole festered administration.

      • tsmithfield 5.1.1
        21 December 2011 at 12:48 pm

        Can’t say I disagree with you. However, I don’t think it is a serious enough infraction for her to be kicked out of parliament on. However, as I said, I don’t think she should be planning on any promotions in the foreseeable future.

        • Colonial Viper 5.1.1.1
          21 December 2011 at 2:07 pm

          She lied to the House. Or rather, she read out lies to the House. Personally I don’t see the difference.

          • Sweetd 5.1.1.1.1
            21 December 2011 at 2:13 pm

            Its a lie if you know what you are saying is not the truth. Comes down to what she knew about the event. Its another story as to whether she was competent in her handling in the matter.

            • felix 5.1.1.1.1.1
              21 December 2011 at 2:28 pm

              “Its a lie if you know what you are saying is not the truth.”

              It’s also a lie if you say you know something to be the truth when in fact you know no such thing.

          • In Vino Veritas 5.1.1.1.2
            21 December 2011 at 3:06 pm

            Hmm. I recall Helen Clark signed a painting she didnt paint and it was represented as her painting. She survived as Prime Minister didn’t she Viper?

            [lprent: more of this crap. 8 weeks. ]

            • Colonial Viper 5.1.1.1.2.1
              21 December 2011 at 3:19 pm

              Did she sign it in the House did she?

              • In Vino Veritas …
                21 December 2011 at 3:53 pm

                My bad Viper. I see now that it’s OK to sign a painting and have it passed of as yours when you are Prime Minister (forgery\fraud), and a minister in parliament acting on advice given from her department. The picture is clear Viper, hypocrisy.

                [Diversion/troll argument. Repeat this and you will get banned…RL]

                [lprent: I am really really tired of hearing that old set of lies. Anyone that is stupid enough to bring that antique troll line up here needs time to think it all through again.

                Being generous, I think we should help him learn to research before writing. Banned for two weeks so he can use the search function to find out why those spin lines are ridiculous. ]

                • the pink postman …
                  21 December 2011 at 4:05 pm

                  It was nothing like that asyiou well know .It was signed on the back and then person who purchased it knew full well that HC did not paint it herself. What these Tory sleaz bags forget to tell isthat it was sold for charity. I belive for child cancer. Where do these people come from are they watching Labour members covertly nonnstop. Dont forget the Nat member who complained about HC speeding gto arrive on time.This was the

                • the pink postman …
                  21 December 2011 at 4:08 pm

                  It was nothing like that as you well know .It was signed on the back and the person who purchased it knew full well that HC did not paint it herself. What these Tory sleaz bags forget to tell is that it was sold for charity. I belive for child cancer. Where do these people come from are they watching Labour members covertly nonstop. Dont forget the Nat member who complained about HC speeding to arrive on time.This was the PM.In any other country a police escort would have been available.

                • mik e …
                  21 December 2011 at 6:56 pm

                  Ivvy leaguer It was raising funds for charity ivvy not a SCF $1.7 billion dollars govt rip off engineered by the double dipping dipstick.

            • McFlock 5.1.1.1.2.2
              21 December 2011 at 3:20 pm

              Even taking your interpretation of the painting affair (i.e. the worst possible interpretation, so bad that to this day it keeps tories awake at night with the tragic injustice displayed by the communist occupiers), what does it have to do with blatantly misleading the House?

            • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.1.1.2.3
              21 December 2011 at 3:20 pm

              Tolley has technically or perhaps deliberately perjured herself, broken her oath to Parliament, and in any other court she’d be facing criminal charges.

              Knowing that this is precisely how the Prime Minister has conducted himself, piling deceit upon mendacity, I expect Tolley to face no sanction, for if she must then so must Key. If she is censured for it and he is not, she will be right to feel aggrieved. She followed orders, used the Prime Ministers own methods, and if she should face this humiliation then how can lying Shonkey avoid it?

            • prism 5.1.1.1.2.4
              21 December 2011 at 7:16 pm

              In vino veritas –
              Paying for Helen Clark’s signature alone would be worth it without the painting. She has (nearly) the equivalent standing of Michael Savage – an able leader in troubled times for Labour and the country.

              So have a few more wines and come back in a two months and give us feedback on whether you have decided to be a chardonnay socialist or whatever. Perhaps your opinion on that is worth paying attention to.

            • In Vino Veritas 5.1.1.1.2.5
              23 December 2011 at 11:13 am

              lprent, hypocrisy seems to be running rampant. Why is it that many left wingers who post to this site can bring up John Key’s history regarding foriegn currency trading and banking (much of it untrue or at best, unproven) and not be banned, yet I am for bringing up an incident involving Helen Clark that the police investigated and actually found a prima facie case against her? And in this instance, comparing it with alleged lieing in the house?

              Perhaps on reflection, I would respectfully ask tha you reconsider your banning, or at the very least, be consistent and dish out equal punishment on both sides of the political spectrum.

              [lprent: You missed three crucial factors.

              1. The ‘signings’ were for charity to enhance the take for the charity, and the arsehole who laid the complaint was aware that there was no intent to defraud. A prima facia case could also be that you did attempted murder when you last went over the speed limit, or that John Key caused the GFC. It doesn’t mean that any of those were true. There was merely the opportunity. If you don’t understand a legal expression, then don’t use it. As far as I can tell the complaint was laid purely for mischief – probably political. I believe Helen and Joan when they describe what happened more than I trust some arsehole or you. But that is merely my opinion. However it is a topic that has been extensively chewed over here for years.

              2. But I have seen this type of stupid comment used around around the site for years now purely for diversion reasons – as you were so eloquently were using it. It is used at the top level in comments to divert against the topic of the post. That pisses me off because it deliberately tries to derail discussions. The John Key comments do not – typically they come up in open mike or way down in a thread as the debate drifts that way. Diversion trolling has a whole different pattern. After decades around the net, It is almost boring seeing someone using it yet again..

              3. I am not ‘fair’ in the sense that you mean it. I have no intention of ever being so. My responsibility is to the site – it is not to you. That means that I stomp on the types of things that is likely to cause it or has caused it problems or is causing it problems. The kinds of things that are looked for are listed in the policy. It is your responsibility to avoid them and to not do anything to awaken the moderators or the sysop. It really isn’t that hard because we are kind of lazy. You have to do new tactics and avoid the ones out of the ark that we saw years ago – we let those ride and see how they pan out. You spectacularly failed.

              The punishment is always excessive, highly idiosyncratic and deeply personal. Quite simply we don’t want people gaming the system so there is a pretty random factor in what the consequences are to increase the risks.

              However I will be generous. I’d usually at least double up the ban at this point for wasting my time. but I won’t increase it this time. It is clear that you haven’t understood the basic relationship between commentator and moderators. That is that if you don’t annoy us as moderators, then we won’t annoy you. If you can’t do that, then at least keep us amused. ]

        • Frida 5.1.1.2
          21 December 2011 at 4:37 pm

          @tsmithfield

          If she lied to the House of Representatives, that’s a huge deal not a minor infraction! If the Privileges Committee decides she misled Parliament, then she is gone-burgers.

          Not soon enough IMHO. But, yes, ironic that it should happen over this rather than her inept and dogmatic bully approach to National Standards.

      • Macro 5.1.2
        21 December 2011 at 4:42 pm

        It is the RESPONSIBILITY of a MINISTER of the crown when answering a question to ensure that the house is NOT MISLEAD. Despite tssmithfield’s claim that it was a minor incident, IT WAS NOT. This was a matter of the Ministry FOR WHICH SHE IS RESPONSIBLE, employing someone who has covered up child molestation, in a sensitive role where that person was to be an adviser to schools, and paid a large sum of money to do so! The Minister was (or should have been) well aware of the seriousness of the allegation should that allegation have been true. She had adequate time to ensure that the answer she received from her Department was accurate. She either failed to do so, or decided to cover up – in either case, she is equally culpable. In any other Parliament she would now be falling on her sword. This administration is a disgrace.

    • ianmac 5.2
      21 December 2011 at 12:40 pm

      I think that when Newman made the first complaint on radio days passed before it was raised in Parliament and therefore given the seriousness, surely Tolley and MOE would have flurried to check. Tolley has a record of just ignoring anything that conflicts with her agenda.

    • Ianupnorth 5.3
      21 December 2011 at 1:13 pm

      TSmithfield – defender of the dumb!! Ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law!!

    • Brooklyn 5.4
      22 December 2011 at 7:39 pm

      By the John Key S&P standard ie citing an anonymous tip you wont release which, even by your telling proves you made shit up, as proof you didn’t make shit up, Tolley’s been a paragon of virtue and is doubtless due a return to the front bench for this performance.

  6. Tiger Mountain 6
    21 December 2011 at 1:09 pm

    Tolley was the Sergeant Schultz of the last administration, her blinkered “I know nothink” and “don’t vant to know anythink more”…. approach may better serve the Police whose members are not as prone to reflection, let alone self examination (and I don’t mean complaints) and sticking together as unionists, like teachers.

    The 20% is bullshit. National plays fast and loose with the truth on student achievement and then shifts sideways funding needed to deal with the “tail” such as special needs and reading recovery.

  7. Georgy 7
    21 December 2011 at 1:39 pm

    The 20% failure rate of the NZ education system is one of the myths created by Anne Tolley.

    It is UNTRUE.

    These figures are quoted in Education Aotearoa from Emeritus Professor Terry Crooks – the 20% failure rate that gets bandied about is the number who don’t pass NCEA level 2

    The actual fail rate at this level is 16%, and of these;
    – 3% with disabilities (ie can’t hold a pencil)
    – 6% can pass, but are choosing not to go forward as candidates
    – 7% who do need extra support

    What Tolley demonstrated in Parliament with her responses to Sue Moroney was the belief that she could do what she liked, how she liked and nobody else’s opinion is relevant.

    • Colonial Viper 7.1
      21 December 2011 at 2:04 pm

      What Tolley demonstrated in Parliament with her responses to Sue Moroney was the belief that she could do what she liked, how she liked and nobody else’s opinion is relevant.

      And now she can rinse and repeat in the law enforcment and criminal justice arena.

  9. randal 9
    21 December 2011 at 2:12 pm

    I think tolley aspired to be something that she never could be because she just plain doesn;t have the grunt upstairs.
    just like the rest of the ignorati in the nashil gubbint..
    as it is she has begun to hyper ventilate and she could implode.
    watchout.

  10. Tiger Mountain 10
    21 December 2011 at 2:23 pm

    Stomach stapling can have unexpected consequences according to medical literature.

  11. Roy 11
    21 December 2011 at 3:48 pm

    I hope Tolley’s groundless attack on Radio NZ does not go unnoticed by the rest of the MSM. It might help them to fall out of infatuation with this National government. That could be a silver lining to this…if it happens.

  12. DJL 12
    21 December 2011 at 5:32 pm

    I wonder how all this is related to the small piece I red in the Times on monday. Looks like the govt wants to take hiring of principals out of the control of the board of trustees, and start a new ministry for that job (and presumably firing) .

  13. randal 13
    21 December 2011 at 6:59 pm

    djl.
    you catch on fast.
    we about to be restructured by a group of idiots that kweewee has to pay off fo rtheir support of his “DREEM”.
    when we need sane people at the helm we have ended up with a gang of f*cking idiots.
    wot the hell is going on?

  14. Georgecom 14
    22 December 2011 at 9:00 pm

    I listened to Hekia Parata on National radio this morning trying to defend school mergers in Kawerau, namely the Intermediate and College.
    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport

    She kept repeating the term ‘excellent/high quality education’. Pity she didn’t actually focus on the work the Intermediate is currently doing.

    Had she done so she would’ve had to admit that the school is providing a quality education and achievement results.
    http://www.ero.govt.nz/Early-Childhood-School-Reports/School-Reports/Kawerau-Intermediate-11-05-2009

    I guess if you repeat vague terms like ‘excellent education’ and ‘enhancing achievement levels’ you don’t have to bother with the reality that the Intermediate already seems to be doing that.

    She is already sounding like Anne Tolley after only a few days in the job.

  15. Geoff 15
    23 December 2011 at 11:34 pm

    Exactly Janice – where does a Minister of the Crown get off by attempting to avoid the story
    by saying the public broadcaster MADE IT UP ??!! RNZ should sue her for defamation of its reporter.

    Everything RNZ said at the time has been proved correct .. so lets just apologise Tolley and we cn get on dealing with the actual issues raised by the story .