So what conclusions can be drawn.
"Someone" is angry at opposition of the standards and has asked for a list to be drawn up.
"Someone" has asked a big gun to do an investigation and place pressure on these schools.
"Someone" formed the cunning strategy of saying the cold call list is random.
So who in the Ministry or in Parliament has the power to make this happen.
You draw the conclusions.
So its law, just do it. What do you do when the law is an ass. What did Maori do when they weren't allowed to speak the beautiful language in schools? The law changed in the 30's but the practice continued through to the 70's. Those that complied lost their language. Those that didn't comply, well you draw the conclusion.
Are we going to wait twenty years to look back and say "that experiment with our kids" was a lemon? Are we going to sit by and accept a law written on an election slogan?
The letter that our leading academic researchers wrote to the minister saying these can have the effect of actually doing damage. The research is saying no. The law, yes.
I wouldn't mind seeing the law tested for lacking evidence.
If I was to grade the standards thus far, and gave those who strung them together, then the "Mary team" would be "below" but thats an OTJ.
I challenge all schools who are going mad designing Nat Standards to share their living local curriculum NZC first please.