Re above comment - don't they learn the 3 R's as part of their learning in science and social studies etc etc.

Also what Key and Tolley are not acknowledging regarding the students who leave school unable to read or write, is the part parents play in keeping children home from school to look after the other children in the family, or to keep the parent company whilst they go to town or an appointment, or say their children are sick and can't go to school, but they are to be seen outside in the backyard bouncing on a trampoline. The stories could go on. Is it any wonder we have so many children leaving school unable to read or wtite!

As a parent, I'm pretty sure it's obvious when the school/teachers/my children are doing well academically or not - all that's needed is time with my children; reading, writing, doing some math.

I don't see the point in the government wasting more money just so they can look busy and 'on to it' - fiddling with a system that seems to be working fine.

I've heard people complaining that the system is 'stupid', that teachers are being 'slack' because NCEA assigns no marks, and 'anyone can pass', etc.

Perhaps this is just a sign of a particular teacher or school being 'stupid' or 'slack', because of the schools that my children attend A-B-C grades are still applied - students are quite clear on how well they did or did not.

It seems clear to me that it's parents who need marking - if so many are failing to understand or otherwise be aware of how well their children are doing.

Richard #7, research indicates there are not better outcomes for the childrens education. Apparently the negative effects - of teaching to the assessment, outweigh the potential gains from identifying problems. Possibly because the problems are not that resolvable - lack of education funding for special need children, lack of resourcing, lack of teacher development and support and smaller class sizes, children in poverty etc.

It is preferable that those posing that they can reinvent the wheel, where it has failed around the world, at least do trials and prove their case before bringing in a programme nationwide. Rushing it in anyway speaks to a trojan horse and ulterior motives.

Bob #5 money has been allocated to help teachers who are struggling. The reason I cannot understand people opposition to this is simplye - don't we want to know what schools/teachers/students are struggling? How can we help if we refuse to even identify the problem in detail? Unions see it as a tool that is going to be used to sack them or whatever. However I see it is a tool that can be used to help children, teachers and schools that are struggling. Why do they view it so negatively rather then viewing it this way?

National Standards are not progress. When a child is identified as weak and poor what then? "There is no more money for education", Anne Tolley has been quoted as saying. So what are we going to do with this info? There will be no extra support through staffing or resources as Anne has made it clear there is no more money. If you fire the 30% of 'bad teachers', which is a statistical joke made to spread fear amongst the community by the way,that means roughly 7100 teachers. Whats that in actually schools, roughly 450 to 500? MAybe more? Good luck finding new teachers (that will be superteachers to take up the slack!) in this political nightmare we all find ourselves in.

Anne Tolley(demoted), John Hattie (the NS designer) voicing that the current structure is not what he intended, and the 2IC in the Education Ministry voicing concerns and then getting muzzled. These are not good signs and show that there is a lot of second thought mentality going on behind closed doors.

We all want the best for our kids. Can we stop name calling, and get over which party did what to whom which caused this and that! This whole thing should be about your kids, not party politics and browny points. National standards, in their current form, are a step back, not progress.

As a teacher, I have to say National Standards will not improve students' learning. National Standards are definitely important for reporting students' learning, but they are not the "answer" to the problems Key is saying they are. The answer is more teacher development, smaller classes to help those 25% that are not up to Key's Standard. Telling a teacher they are doing a bad job will also not help them do better, it will just create animosity. A National Standard system should be as simple as a report home to parents, it will not in itself help any results - the results are already known.

So we compare favourably (internationally) at Standard 3 level in the primary school where there is no national standards in place - this despite us starting behind many others in numbers in pre-school education. So what exactly is the problem, current performance is very good.

As has been mentioned research has not shown national standards to improve the education outcomes (which is why we do poorly at secondary school - students constantly ranked below others lose motivation and essentially give up). So why this option, where there is no problem and even if there were this would be not the answer shown by research into educational performance?

All national standards do is

1. Create more bureaucratic workload for teachers - reducing time preparing lessons.

2. Rank pupils to others, rank achievement between schools.

They have nothing to do with pupils and their education and everything to with the elephant in the room. This change is required to bring in pay for teachers based on performance (and related bulk funding - creating teacher competition for available money and reducing mutual teacher support and co-operation) - which is why the advocacy for standards is the idea that where children perform below others of their age this is a sign of poor teacher performance.

In actuality, performance has been and will remain a function of deciles. And if anything such national standards will reduce teacher motivation to go into certain schools and try and make a difference. It will therefore result in some schools losing pupils and closing and consequently creating a need to bus children out of their neighbourhoods to get them to school.

IMO, the most important change required (in primary schools) is teachers trained to teach children with dyslexia and there to be classes for these children so they learn to read and write despite their problem as soon as possible and then return to the mainstream. The money promoting party political propaganda could be better spent.

National standards have a place, to assess the performance of a school across years of their student’s enrolment - intake and final output. The same sort of outcomes tested by NCEA for individuals used for primary and intermediate schools. Anything more is more a control device placed on union workers by there would be political bosses for ideological reasons.

No one would dispute that we want our children engaged in a holistic curriculum. Or that clear, achievable goals are necessary to teaching. We also want teachers who can assess children for the purpose of planning a good next step for them, as an individual learner.

To do this our schools already have benchmarks in place. We have a great new curriculum that has taken a number of years to get to the point of implementation this week. What we need is funding for those that cannot assess with the next steps in mind. Give them professional development. Make adequate funds available for resources, teacher hours and teacher aides. Keep funding the programmes that are proven to work for children who are struggling.

We have a huge amount of good teachers in New Zealand. Many great teachers and some that are not great.

What we don't need is national standards which do nothing to help a teacher who is struggling with assessment. National standards which serve the purpose of identifying those children who are struggling, failing or not making the grade. It's not about sugar coating and turning a blind eye. It's not about telling them so they can 'make it up'. It's about labelling children which is proven to have a detrimental effect on their wellbeing, confidence and ability to see themselves as successful learners.

Read the research. There is plenty advising us to be very cautious of going down this road. Research which sets out clearly what can be done to raise achievement. National standard setting does not feature here. Research which shows the horrible outcome of national standards and the enevitable 'stuff' that comes with them, first hand from an education style that has caused mayhem in America, England and now Australia.

Show us the research and or evidence that national standards will raise achievement in our children. It is not enough any more to say that there is evidence and hope that we will believe it.

What measures are we using to moderate this pass and failure rate? If you refer to test based system of School Certificate then 50% of children were expected to fail the minimum exam. 25% failure seems like an improvement. Allowances should made for these 'good' teachers that take on these 'failing' lower quartile kids otherwise no teacher will want to take them on.

you omitted science and social studies from your list above 'They want their children exposed to the joys of art, sport and theatre' wouldn't you agree that these are just as important as the 3 R's?