The hypocrisy of Robin Duff

We are well used to unionists telling us one thing and doing another. Robin Duff, head of the PPTA is no different. The PPTA and NZEI have fought the government to a stand still over National Standards.

Just yesterday they were calling for the data to be kept secret. Trevor Mallard even, bizarrely, tried to have National Standards data made more secret than SIS briefing papers.

Then Robin Duff in an opinion piece has this to say in opposition to Charter Schools:

Charter schools don’t have to follow the New Zealand curriculum or use the New Zealand qualification system and even though politicians mandate attendance at school for all children between the ages of 5 and 16, parliament will have no right or duty to scrutinise the activities of these schools.

The Official Information Act won’t apply, so it will be difficult for the media to enforce transparency. The other moderating influence on corrupt management practices in schools – unions – will be kept well clear.

The teachers union have opposed transparency every step of the way in education and now they are moaning that private training institutions should somehow be subject to the Official Information Act. They make out like this is a revelation and somehow evil ignoring the fact that every integrated and private school already enjoys freedom from busy bodies like him.

They don’t need the scrutiny of the OIA because their results speak for themselves.

To cap off his hypocrisy he then carps about an Act official being appointed to chair the committee to oversea implementation of Charter Schools.

Not mention the fact this educational experiment will be monitored by a committee led by a woman whose sole qualifications appear to be that she “loves education” and has served on a school board. The appointment of former ACT president Catherine Isaac is clearly politically motivated and shows that the implementation of charter schools is not evidence-based, but ideologically driven.

Of course it is politically motivated, it is Act policy, why wouldn’t they want someone in tune with the policy overseeing the implementation. If the situation was reveres you don;t think Labour would be appointing a neutral person to oversee their key policies do you? Mike Williams when president of Labour had 6 government appointed directorships after all.


Do you want:

  • Ad-free access?
  • Access to our very popular daily crossword?
  • Access to daily sudoku?
  • Access to Incite Politics magazine articles?
  • Access to podcasts?
  • Access to political polls?

Our subscribers’ financial support is the reason why we have been able to offer our latest service; Audio blogs. 

Click Here  to support us and watch the number of services grow.