Stanford’s Commercialisation of Public Education

Subtext: beware what you believe from her carefully crafted press events.

I’ve mentioned Bevan Holloway’s excellent website in previous articles and once again I stress that this is a must read.

‘I have been researching and documenting the curriculum change process in Aotearoa New Zealand since July 2024.

In combing through hundreds of pages of OIA and official documents, I have uncovered a coordinated subversion of democratic process that suggests Aotearoa New Zealand is experiencing democratic backsliding.’

Bevan’s latest article Stanford’s Action Plans and the Commercialisation of Public Education reveals that she breached the Cabinet Manual in recommending Prime Maths as a supplier of mathematics textbooks.

But there’s more, as Bevan outlines:

• “Prime Maths had an established relationship with Stanford.

• Stanford did not disclose this relationship to Parliament when given a chance to via a Parliamentary Written question.

• Stanford signed off on the procurement criteria for the maths textbooks.

• Prime Maths became one of four successful tenderers, all of whom are off-shore publishers.”

Has she changed and is now following the cabinet manual?  Going by this week’s announcement over the writing curriculum changes, it would appear not.

“$150 million is going into the commercial provision of the structured literacy PLD to support this action plan. There are a number of individuals who were on the MAG and curriculum writing teams who are also commercial providers of structured literacy PLD.

A “few million” are going to the digital writing tool: is that a Ministry developed tool, or a commercially provided one? Remember: the maths textbook procurement was run as a closed tender, justified under urgency.”

And, as Bevan has pointed out, the whole writing curriculum revamp that was presented with such fanfare is rather suspect, being based on on similar manipulative processes as was followed for mathematics.

“Today’s announcement of the Make it Write action plan echoes the Make it Count action plan: a reference to alarming data; a solution based on structured approaches and ‘resources’.

But is that data valid? As Stanford said, “the results were measured against the new curriculum expectations which were higher, because “it’s where children need to be”.” Remember, that is the curriculum that ERO’s quality assurance process deemed to be unfit for use.”

When the Education Review office flag concerns then we should all take notice. Bevan has also written on this, in this linked article:

Early Warning Signals: ERO Reports Highlight Failures in the English Years 0-6 Curriculum

ERO wrote:

“A key concern raised was that these materials were originally written by the Ministerial Advisory Group (MAG) with the purpose of being a sample for the MOE writing group. ERO welcomes the opportunity to QA this again when the writing group has progressed this area and material is more reflective of the most up to date evidence around effective pedagogy, as some of this is currently outdated.”

Before I discuss more of Bevan’s article, I need to point out that the Ministerial Advisory Group (MAG) mentioned here is made up of New Zealand Initiative members including Dr Michael Johnston and Professor Elizabeth Rata. As we’ve seen previously Rata was a key person in the development of the English Curriculum. A significant question, yet to be examined, is why Stanford chose to appoint her own advisory group, rather than use the resources of the Ministry of Education? Surely curriculum development is their responsibility?

Bevan’s next section gets to the heart of the issue and I will quote it in full:

“In other words, even if the purpose of writing them was an honest one, those materials were now being positioned as the proposed curriculum. This is a violation of Public Service Guidelines, there to ensure democratic process is adhered to, which includes separation of power, the maintenance of legal accountability, and guardrails against corruption. In short, when you have private individuals doing the work of government, your democracy is on shaky ground, and that is exactly what we have happening here. This violation was done with the knowledge of the Minister. She had known about it since at least 15 March and had done nothing to stop it. Ellen MacGregor-Reid lied to Parliament about this fact in the December Select Committee, until she got caught and had to backtrack and admit the MAG did begin writing curriculum material. Why lie if this violation doesn’t matter?”

It needs to be stressed, repeatedly, that Erica Stanford has proven very close connections to the New Zealand Initiative (may even be a member although I’ve not gone looking for evidence) and the New Zealand Initiative make no secret of their affiliation to the Atlas Network, nor of their links to big business. You may have heard of them in their previous incarnation as the Business Roundtable and you will surely recognise many of the business people who are members. 

In August 2024 ERO advised that the curriculum was still unsuitable and not fit for purpose. While some changes were made, the final document was essentially the same as the one that ERO had major concerns about and it is this document that formed the basis for Stanford’s press release this week. Note that only two full terms have passed since it was released, yet children’s achievement is already being assessed against it. The same thing happened with the mathematics curriculum.

If children are assessed against faulty curricula, that they have not been taught, is it any surprise that they are found not to be achieving?

One has to wonder why this is being done, and the answer would seem to be obvious: the aim is to gather evidence that proves New Zealand education is failing and that this would then justify major changes to the provision of schooling, to meet an ideological agenda that, coincidentally, matches very closely with the aims of the New Zealand Initiative, something I will discuss in a coming article.

I will leave the conclusion to Bevan:

“This Minister is happy to oversee the development of education regulations that occur in a way that violate Public Service Guidelines and fail to respond in a meaningful way to a QA process, even when she has knowledge of both things happening. That is a sign of an ideological project being carried out, in a way that erodes our democratic foundations.

The curriculum change process serves as an early warning signal of what we can expect with the NCEA ‘consultation’ and change process. If you’re joining her chorus, just be clear what song you’re actually singing, because it isn’t an education one.”