Peter Garrett: encouraging signs (a Kiwi perspective)

To be honest, at first reading, encouraging signs in the auditor-general's report seem to be few and far between. Indeed, to be even more honest seem to be none and none between.

'Yet to make a statistically significant improvement' has a certain definitive and end-of-argument ring to it.

But perhaps, I'm relying too much on statistics and not seeing it as just a matter of language.

Perhaps, it is just a matter of language.

After all, why should we choose the auditor-general's language over Pete's; after all did the auditor-general ever have an Australian No.1 or even more significantly a New Zealand No. 1?

Why should we go with the auditor-general's no 'statistically significant improvement' as an expression of where NAPLAN is over Pete's assurance that overall results 'remained steady'?

What Pete is really saying is that we're looking in the wrong place for signs of improvement: instead of looking for signs of improvement in improvement we should be looking for signs of improvement in avoiding going backwards. In that sense, 'staying steady' or, if you insist, no 'statistically significant improvement', is an encouraging sign of the most encouraging sort.

Finale

Peter Garrett you have done badly. You listened to the wrong voices, as so many politicians have done before, because those voices are the beguiling ones suggesting power and aggrandisement.

The way to help Australian children is to empower schools and classroom teachers, not self-serving academics and bureaucrats. I suppose they pulled the evidence-based trick on you did they?

To help Australian children go Australian, not American corporate.

As a Labour politician and an idealistic songwriter why didn't you go to the people, the teachers, the people who work with teachers?