Has Erica Stanford Been Negligent or Deceitful?

Over the past week Bevan Holloway has been digging deeper into the mysterious world of Erica Stanford’s curriculum development processes, in particular the rewrite of the senior English curriculum, and the role of the Ministerial Advisory Group (MAG).  He especially focuses on the very single minded determination of Elizabeth Rata to ‘recolonise’ the curriculum (i.e., remove all traces of indigenous influences such as te Reo and Pasifika). 

As you’ll find later in this article, she has a rather unique viewpoint of the historical influences and of the time period when English influences offered what she believes are the ideal.

As always, I encourage you to read Bevan’s article; he goes into things in quite some depth, beyond the scope of this article. As usual I will highlight particular sections to give you the gist of his findings, which reveal a situation of significant concern to our democracy.

Sunday Read: Recapturing the Senior English Curriculum

“2024 had been a good year for Stanford. The speed bump that was the outcry over the senior English curriculum and the lack of consultation had been smoothly managed by her, and she was on a roll with the ‘Make it Count’ maths plan and the impending rollout of the junior English curriculum. Rata, too, had experienced the kind of year she had long desired, playing a key role on the MAG, then leading the senior English curriculum writing team and putting her curriculum writing framework into use.

But when I close my eyes and think of the days in late October, 2024, I see swirls of elation contrasted with heaves of desperation.

Because, by 28 October, things had turned. While Stanford was on a high at the Consilium conference in Australia, Rata feared she had lost control of the senior English curriculum. That fear was justified. But, with everything she had worked for at risk, Rata did not stand down. Instead, she stayed on message with Stanford and her office: the curriculum needed to be saved.”

Note that Rata believed she had lost control of the curriculum – one can immediately ask whose curriculum is it?  Stanford’s? Ministry of Education’s? Or Elizabeth Rata’s?

Immediate question: why would Rata feel this way? It seems to me, from Bevan’s article, her fear was that the new curriculum had veered away from her recolonising agenda and also her drive to change the way the subject was taught in schools. 

This would fit in with her teacher dominated, didactic beliefs of information being delivered to children rather than allow them to develop their own understandings through skilful teaching. Numerous research over decades shows how pedagogically unsound her approach is.

In a subsequent article I will give you a wonderful example of this that an obviously very skilled secondary teacher published on social media – including it now would make this article too long.

“Her fear turned out to be short-lived. Two draft English curricula dated March 2024 exist. One, approved by the Curriculum Coherence Group, while still a highly structured, knowledge-rich document, contained no Shakespeare and stipulated the inclusion of Māori and Pacifica authors. The other, the version the sector saw and was out for consultation, included Shakespeare and the stipulation around Māori and Pacifica authors had been removed.”

Guess which version Rata promoted?

“Who made those changes?

There is no direct evidence. However, there are a number of things we can look to to help us draw conclusions. One is that Stanford’s term as Minister has been characterised by the continual disregard of public service guidelines as she has pursued the embedding of a knowledge-rich curriculum. Another is that there are key, prominent individuals Stanford has brought into the Ministry’s work who are accustomed to operating in that way. Another is that during a curriculum change process it is usual for a Minister to have all the different versions produced as well as the detail of why the changes were made.”

The sentence that I have put in bold text is very important – the implications of a cabinet minister, especially a senior one like Stanford, disregarding guidelines to pursue her own agenda are worrying. Guidelines are there for a reason. 

Mind you, ignoring guidelines, such as the Cabinet Manual, seem to be the way this government functions, and I would suggest to you that this is directly due to the fact that the leader of the government, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, is running a ‘hands off’ approach while he focuses on…. not sure what actually….  

Think back to any prime minister of the recent decades – can you think of anyone of those who would have tolerated their ministers ignoring proper procedures? 

Bevan makes some very key points, which I will highlight separately so they stand out.

“Therefore, it is not out of the realms of possibility that the changes made to the senior English curriculum before it went out for consultation were done in a way that violate the processes in place that are so important in protecting our democratic institutions.”

Yes, that is a reasonable assumption.

“Furthermore, it is of significant concern if the changes were done without the knowledge of the Minister – this would be a major departure from usual practice and suggest there are undemocratic forces at work in the Ministry.”

Another reasonable assumption. If this is so, either Stanford knew and was complicit, or she didn’t know and was negligent. Take your pick. 

 “Even worse, if the changes were made and the Minister was aware, this is a violation of regulatory process so egregious is it hard to see how the Minister can remain in her role.”

 But if this was the case, who would hold her to account? Mr Relaxed?

Why does Bevan feel so strongly?

“For we are not just talking about a pedagogical difference of opinion here. A curriculum is secondary legislation – it is the legal document that sets out how the Education and Training Act is realised in a school. Therefore, it must be developed lawfully. If it hasn’t been, those responsible must be held to account for subverting the processes and institutions essential to our democracy. We are all vulnerable, no matter our political position, when that becomes the way things are done.”

As I noted earlier, ignoring set proper procedures appears to be the hallmark of this government.

As Bevan has found out, changes were made, in Rata’s favour and so it is relevant to enquire how this happened, and so Bevan continues.

“From the very first email chains it is clear that Rata is keen to get underway with “our work”. But it’s not the work that one expects an advisory group to be doing. There is very little review of the existing curriculum happening. Instead, the group are quickly examining England’s curriculum and finding much in it they like.”

So much for developing a curriculum with a NZ focus. It appears that this work was being undertaken by the MAG, something which is not in their brief. 

“Tim O’Connor, Headmaster of Auckland Grammar, is in the loop, having given his approval for two of his teachers to be on the proposed eight-strong writing team. There is clearly a sense of this being a done deal.”

Why is Auckland Grammar involved in a curriculum development process? As Bevan has noted, curriculum development, given its legal nature, is the responsibility of the Ministry of Education, not Stanford’s MAG and definitely not Auckland Grammar’s or any other secondary school.

“Stanford was aware that the MAG was operating beyond its terms and in violation of public service guidelines. A 15 March, 2024, briefing paper to her detailed the curriculum development the MAG was involved in, working with and directing the Literacy Contributors Group – this is before they submitted their report and well outside the bounds of permitted actions by an advisory group. It may even be possible Stanford gave the green light to them operating in this manner.”

It is also clear that the Ministry of Education was not comfortable with this process.

“Rata, despite the reservations of the Ministry’s procurement team – one of whom asked to be put on a different piece of work because “it seemed to be quite difficult to find justification for some of the writers who were proposed to be hired” – eventually was able to start writing the senior English curriculum with her team in early May, holding two writing workshops at Auckland Grammar. 

It is worth noting that Stanford said in an RNZ interview on 12 June that “The MoE have now gone and put writing groups together which are quite separate from the MAG … they’ve used their own processes … I didn’t even know who the people were until just recently … and they’re now putting together some ideas … they’ve only just started writing”.”

So Stanford said she didn’t know exactly what was happening and who was involved? 

“However, the veracity of the claim the Ministry is in control here must be challenged. In a meeting Johnson has with senior Ministry officials on 14 March, it is clear the MAG is in the driving seat. An email from Pollock to Johnson the following day makes it clear the advisors have become the implementers. A small group of unelected individuals, none of whom are employed in the Ministry, are directing the work of a government agency, a clear violation of public service guidelines.”

Who is in charge here?

At some point the Education Review Office (ERO) was asked to oversee the work, to ensure the resulting curriculum met quality standards. ERO refused to review the first sample for the following very pertinent reason.

“…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.”

 Remember Rata’s drive for didactic teaching – that’s the outdated pedagogy that ERO referred to.

Further:

“concern about learners from diverse backgrounds was noted in particular when considering pedagogical approaches that can lack an acknowledgement of what learners bring to a classroom”; there was concern about its narrow focus.”

Elizabeth Rata? Narrow focus?  Nothing surprising about that.

On October 19th 2024 Rata presents a speech at a National Party Northern Region Policy Day. In her speech,

‘she attacks the ‘Learning Approach’ – with its open plan classrooms and culturally responsive practice – as part of expounding on the four features and necessity of a knowledge-rich curriculum. It is, she argues, the Learning Approach and the “unholy alliance” it has with decolonisation that has led to the decline in our “once first-class education system”’.

She appears obsessed with the so-called decolonisation and the decline in education. As I’ve mentioned a number of times previously this so-called decline exists only in the heads of those who have an agenda to make changes in educational policy for ideological purposes. 

It doesn’t exist, outside of the known impacts on children’s learning by inequality and poverty, not that anyone from the right of politics would want to admit that.

She also said

“Earlier this year I was privileged to be the Lead Writer for the years 7-13 knowledge rich English curriculum (and yes – Shakespeare and Grammar are there). It will be, I hope, along with still-to- be-written Science and History curricula, the circuit breaker in replacing the Learning Approach and ending decolonisation’s success.”

So actually failing students aren’t her main concern – that is her racist agenda to remove anything Maori and Pasifika from the curriculum – and instead to ensure a very narrow and conservative curriculum, one that fits her 19th century view of the role of education.

After some panic about whether she was losing control (as outlined in Bevan’s article) Rata was eventually relieved to find out that a draft curriculum had been approved that included Shakespeare and grammar, and no te Reo component.

However, as Bevan explains:

“But the draft out for consultation, the one she is congratulating Stanford on for her leadership in helping to bring forth, is not the draft approved for consultation by the Curriculum Coherence Group.”

Bevan analyses the two documents in his article and summarise the key differences.

“Gone is the stipulation teachers must include Māori and Pacific authors. But Shakespeare is a must – teachers have no discretion here, aside from the text of his they choose to teach. Note, also, the teaching of a text from the 19th century, absent from the signed -off version, is now a must”.

Teaching a 19th century text is a must? Why? 

Rata’s justification should raise your eyebrows.

“Subject English has a very particular role – that of creating society’s cultural repertoire. When we study English at school we are taught, or should be taught, the content and conventions of our nation’s language. New Zealand’s institutions, social practices and values were developed in English. It is the language of the 19th century colonial era and of 20th century nation building. The most effective way to decolonise the nation is by removing English ‘that dangerous language of the eurocentric coloniser’ from the school curriculum”.

Yet Stanford approved the draft curriculums, that was based around these beliefs? 

Some excellent questions raised by Bevan:

• Who made the changes to the version signed off by the Curriculum Coherence Group?

• Why were they made? 

• Did the Minister (or her office) make the changes? 

• Did the Minister (or her office) know about the changes?

In his review of this situation, and why it matters, Bevan writes:

“While that is, in some ways, an ideal that will never be fully realised, one of the great developments in our democracy over the last 50 years has been the move to decolonise this place, which has meant embracing diverse perspectives and purposefully including Māori and Pacific peoples in the democratic process. Decolonisation has been a process of enfranchisement.” 

And:

“It literally erases Māori and Pacific authors and the perspectives they bring. It literally replaces them with texts strongly tied to our colonial foundation: Shakespeare, 19th century texts.”

To reiterate, Stanford approved this, through the use of small group (with vested interests) that ignored the proper procedures. Why?

She must be asked to explain this and held to account if necessary. 

And in the end, as Bevan’s conclusion states  – whatever the curriculum, NCEA or whatever, it’s the agenda underpinning it that is the issue.

“And so, really, this is not about pedagogy. It is about a choice we must make about how we want power to operate in this country. If there is one thing history teaches us, in places where power rests in the hands of the few, that few is smaller than you think.”

Don’t bet your kids’ future on them being one of them.