Erica Stanford, the Dictator of Education, has been steadily making moves to centralise power, and the details of this were set out in the recent introduction of ‘The Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill’ into parliament.
Claire Amos and the Aotearoa Educators Collective have reviewed this bill and have published their findings. As is my usual practice I will highlight and comment on selections, however I encourage you to also read the article.
IMPORTANT UPDATE – System Reform Bill: When Reform Isn’t Really Reform
“Over the past few months, many of us have been watching the Education and Training Amendment Bill developments with growing unease. On the surface, it promises “efficiency,” “clarity,” and “better outcomes.” But when you look closely (really closely) you see something far more significant unfolding.”
And also:
“This Bill is not a tidy tune-up of the system we know. It represents a fundamental philosophical shift in who controls education in Aotearoa, whose voices matter, and how schools are expected to operate.
And if it passes, the implications for teachers, school leadership, and our young people are profound.
This is not scaremongering. This is an evidence-based reading of what the Bill actually does.
So let’s talk plainly about what’s at stake, and why teachers should care deeply.”
Surprised? You shouldn’t be. It’s hard to think of any decision made by this government that is democratic and that takes account of public opinion – the Regulatory Standards Bill being the most obvious example of this.
The first concern has been discussed previously.
“The Quiet Undermining of the Teaching Profession
Perhaps the most troubling change is the transfer of responsibility for teaching standards, registration criteria, practising certificate criteria, and even the teacher Code of Conduct from the Teaching Council to the Secretary for Education.
What does this mean in reality?
It means teaching standards become political instruments.
It means registration requirements can shift with the ideology of the government of the day.
It means the independent, profession-led voice that should shape our values and expectations as educators is reduced to a compliance arm of the Ministry.”
The desire of the right to remove teacher agency is long standing – I’ve previously discussed the concept of professional capture. A dictator can’t have professionals, who actually know what they are talking about, challenging educational policy that they know will be harmful to children. This is in comparison to an educational agenda gained through reading a book at the beach, which we know is an excellent way of developing knowledge and understanding.
“This is not reform. This is centralisation. This is about control.”
The next section has been discussed previously but when it is set out in the bill, it’s purpose becomes far more ominous,
“Curriculum Control Shifts to the Beehive
The Bill gives the Minister sweeping powers to amend curriculum statements, even without a review, even without consultation, and allows different curriculum statements for different types of schools or groups of students.
We should all pause at that.
A differentiated national curriculum? One that can vary depending on school type or student grouping?
This opens the door to tiered schooling and the quiet erosion of equity. It is also a significant shift away from the spirit and flexibility of the 2007 New Zealand Curriculum, one of the most progressive, student-centred frameworks in the world.”
What happened to the days when governments set the overall goals for education and curriculum development was the responsibility of professionals? For decades this was the task of the Department of Education, then post 1990 this role was taken over by the Ministry of Education.
In any field, the day the politicians believe they know more than the professionals, is a day when we should all be very concerned. There’s plenty of evidence to support this – just look at the Health sector for a start.
“The Rapid Expansion of the Charter School Model
The Bill makes it easier for charter school operators to run multi-school contracts, essentially enabling charter chains. It also ensures that if a charter operator pulls out, a new State school must be established in its place, smoothing the pathway for rapid turnover and expansion.
International evidence tells us this is how large-scale privatisation of public education begins: quietly, administratively, through “efficiency frameworks” that shift decision-making away from local communities.
And once it starts, it is very hard to unwind”.
Guess which minority party leader is behind this section? This is an idealogical project, not based on sound research and evidence.
Did you vote for that?
I guess an upside is that the aggressive takeover of Kelston Boys High School has crashed in flames, showing that people power still has agency, and proving that we can stop all this.
The next section has a major fishhook buried in it:
A New Super-Agency for School Property
The creation of the New Zealand School Property Agency (NZSPA) lifts property control out of schools and the Ministry and places it into a new Crown entity. This agency will have authority to:
- enter school sites
- carry out maintenance and charge schools for it
- issue interventions for property issues
- require schools to provide information
- influence capital planning and development
In other words, another layer of oversight and compliance, without addressing root causes like chronic under-funding of maintenance, ageing stock, seismic requirements, and the sheer complexity of running a modern school.
Property is not just infrastructure. It is culture, identity, safety, and belonging. When decisions are made far from the people who live in our spaces, we lose the ability to shape environments that reflect our communities.”
On the surface, some of this seems reasonable. I always felt that expecting Boards of Trustees (a group of well meaning volunteers) to handle property was too much, meaning that in many cases this job landed on the principal’s desk. I can’t see the logic in charging schools for maintenance – surely it would be much more efficient just to do the job?
But the big fishhook, not mentioned in this article, but which is consistent with this government’s ideology – having all school property invested in a separate agency makes it much easier for a future right wing government to sell it, as part of their privatisation/asset sales agenda.
If this government (or a variation of it) is re-elected in 2026, then selling off the property portfolio, either as a whole, or in sections, is a real possibility.
The present government have already given enough clues as to their desire to sell assets, and school property would be a goldmine for them.
Stanford is very consistent – if we look to the UK we find that they went down this road in in 2016:
Councils decry government’s academy schools ‘land grab’
“The new plans, however, will see all school land transferred directly to the education secretary, Nicky Morgan, who will then grant leases to academy trusts.
The government says the controversial change has been made in order to speed up the process of academy conversion by avoiding time-consuming negotiations over land, but critics are concerned it represents a major handover of local authority land worth billions of pounds.”
Academy Trusts are the UK’s version of charter schools. As with everything Stanford does, it pays to look overseas to see where the ideas originate.
Combine this property section to the charter school section, and we can see where this is headed. The agenda is obvious.
The tightening of power continues. Having clamped down on teacher autonomy, the next section focusses on ensuring school compliance.
“ERO Becomes Faster, Stronger – and Potentially More Punitive
The Bill requires ERO to notify the Minister within two days if they believe a school is “of serious concern,” and to recommend an intervention within 28 days.
This accelerates the path from review to intervention and significantly increases the role of the Minister in the life of individual schools.”
ERO (Education Review Office) has had a very chequered history ever since it was established in 1989. For a brief moment it had a reviewing and supportive role, tasked with both reviewing school performance and also offering guidance. This died with the election of the National government in 1990, which its function was changed to be a purely review role, with a heavy focus on ensuring schools had the correct policies in place, working on a ideological assumption that having all the necessary policies would guarantee school performance. Rubbish.
A major review of ERO carried out by the Clark Labour led government about 2001 was excoriating. ERO got what it deserved and big changes were made, in my opinion still well short of ideal but at least it was an improvement.
The wheel is now turning and once again ERO is being placed in the policing mode.
“When schools are pressured to avoid negative judgements at all costs, they stop taking risks. Creativity suffers. Innovation suffers. Equity suffers.
And most importantly, learners suffer.”
If we look overseas, the school review model that I suspect Stanford has in mind in is that used in England, where the school review agency is called OFSTED, and which causes mayhem in its school review programme. We know that Stanford has met with former UK Secretary for Education Michael Gove, so adapting their school review model is a logical development.
We can see that this new ERO function gives the dictator of education a tool to jump on any school who doesn’t follow her prescriptions.
So much for allowing principals and teachers to use their professional knowledge and judgement, with the support of Boards of Trustees, to develop the best possible learning opportunities for the children of their community.
The bill also tightens up requirements and accountability for school attendance. I’ll leave it to you to read that.
This concluding statement sums it all up.
“Together, these reforms signal a clear, deliberate shift in the philosophy underpinning our education system:
- from local to central
- from profession-led to politically led
- from flexible to prescriptive
- from partnership to compliance
- from public to increasing privatisation
- from holistic wellbeing to measurable outputs
This Bill is not a response to what currently challenges our system; it is a re-engineering of the system to reflect a narrow ideology that is increasingly out of step with evidence about effective learning, equity, and the future of work.
The philosophy underpinning the provision of education in New Zealand is one of the most important considerations. The education of present and future children depends on a sound, coherent, educationally valid education system, that takes into consideration, and is based on, the best educational research.
Mandating a major centralisation of educational power, based on an educational agenda developed by Stanford reading one book at the beach, is most definitely not a sound way to proceed.
If it goes belly up, as I fear it will, then it’s your children and grandchildren who will pay the price.
Happy with that?
“Because the future of education in Aotearoa is too important to leave to politics alone.”
P.S.
This article just arrived in my inbox – it’s worth reading.
Spoiler Alert: Erica’s Next Move Isn’t the Win She Thinks It Is
Allan Alach is TDBs Education Blogger
My 13 year old grand daughter has a message for the minister .You are shit 75% of the kids at school are not engaging now and that will become worse when your new program kicks in fully .Todays students want to learn more than the 3 Rs .Take away options like out door education and others that you want to cut and half of the students are lost .We have employers moaning daily that kids are leaving school not work ready .Well they will be less work ready than our grandparents were back in the day when you could walk out the school gate and have a job by the afternoon with no skills what so ever other than the 3 Rs .
gw makes up another story.
Stanford will also have the power to force a school to become a charter school – this could follow on from a negative ERO report, but could also be done for a number of reasons eg. when a community such as Kelston Boys High rejects an aggressive takeover, or if she wakes up in a bad mood! Thanks to Brie for this information.
It appears that Stanford cares little for local knowledge of education and believes the entire sector is simply a feeder for employers generating folk who don’t care about learning rather see it as an end to a mean of generating wealth (or avoiding poverty). How could any leader of the education sector be so ignorant?
Excellent article. Let’s ponder the phrase, “absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Par for the course with Stanford and her cohorts. She has been humiliated so is striking back to try to salvage her reputation. She is true to the CoC form – a control freak, despot, dictator and bully. What makes it worse is she has no expertise or experience in the Education field so relies on sifting what she is sent, without too much comprehension of how it will fold out in the future. Again the lack of consultation or transparency is glaringly obvious. Her changes will detrimentally affect the whole future of NZ education and cause a digital divide between the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ leaving us open to massive exploitation and privitisation. Is that really what we want – have we become that undemocratic? NZ has always been one of the top educators of children but clearly we can see that a large part of the downfall in our children’s education has been the replacement of the phonics method, mobile phones, social media, and with internet /AI, a laziness to actually put in the hard yards researching and investigating, as we had to in our day. It’s too easy to just copy and paste without absorbing the info.
Erica continues to make positive progress, she’s an outstanding Minister.
Hardrive in need of reboot again
The personal vendetta gains pace.
Also a thorough virus check
“Todays students want to learn more than the 3 Rs”
Sorry. It’s not up to kids to decide what they get to learn. How the heck would they know what is good for them?
It’s not about kid’s FEELINGS. It’s about inculcating SELF-DISCIPLINE. Indeed, if kids like to do something, it’s probably an indicator that we should not be letting them do it.
They can do what they like to do in the school holidays. At school they develop skills to contribute to society and like it or not that means to the economy and productivity 90% of the time. That’s regardless of whether one lives in a capitalist or socialist society.
You are not brought into this world to be happy. You are brought into this world to contribute. And if someone leaves school not knowing the 3Rs they will be able to contribute next to nothing, indeed they will probably be a net drain on society.
Can’t believe that I am agreeing with Mark ..
I thought we were brought into this world because we are animals and animals reproduce.
There’s nothing that says we have to contribute. We may choose to contribute because we see it as a way to organise ourselves and live more comfortable iives.
There’s no logic in ideology.
FFS … Of course kids should have some say in what they learn. And more as they get older. They learn better when they like what they’re doing, and eventually what they learn should tie in with their aspirations in life. Otherwise we might as well just put them through the Spartan Agoge, or the Hitler Youth. And even the Hitler Youth had a few things that kids liked doing.
Sorry. It’s not up to kids to decide what they get to learn. How the heck would they know what is good for them? – from Mark’s comment.
Haha. The reverse now must be true. Kids need to want to learn, so start on things that interest them, then widen the scope. Because as at present it is obvious that the adults who think like you Mark have no bloody idea of how to think, analyse, and actually many don’t do anything requiring physical dexterity, nous and skill, they are jsut finger tappers. They don’t have any concept of human strengths and imaginations or foibles that so often lead us personally astray or to vote for people and things that will lessen the quality of our lives and deny others life while not breaking laws; smarts.
Here is a fact about an apparently excellent educational institution I found, and source.
United World College of South East Asia (UWCSEA) in Singapore. This school incorporated a lot of outdoor activities and “learning by doing”.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Jarvis#Early_life_and_education
and
Learning – UWCSEA | International school in Singapore
https://www.uwcsea.edu.sg › learning
UWCSEA’s learning programme consists of five interlinking elements: academics, activities, outdoor education, personal and social education, and service.
With 5 of my kids presently in either primary or secondary school I welcome any changes because the current situation is a virtue signaling shitshow.
From reading these articles I’d assumed that our education system is extraordinary and that our kids were getting a gold plated education.
That education standard was firmly put in place between the years 2017-2023
If you had kids at school at the moment you would know better.
Well, you better define what these virtue’s are.
Because for all we know it could be the virtues the Nazis or the child raping Greeks believed in.
I have a feeling you’re upset they’re being told that other people and perspectives deserve respect
And as someone paying through taxation for your children’s education, I also want a say in what our children are being taught.
I’d rather they were taught to respect others than be made into unquestioning drones to serve the interests of the New Zealand Initiative.
5 kids… Ever thought of putting it away mate? Maybe you’d stop whining.
A couple of my kids recently went through one of the most liberal schools in the country. Their 3R’s were good enough to achieve NCEA Level 3 in Calculus, Statistics and English. Maybe yours are focusing on the wrong things or looking for excuses like their father
Oh dear, Frank full of Wank strikes again.
EVERY “western” country has seen it’s educational outcomes basically stagnate.
Meanwhile, all the other countries have dramatically improved theirs.
Which has crowded out the top of the table.
Thus the “drop”.
Oh, I know,I know…. It hurts because maths and statistics are hard for you. That’s why you believe Erikas lies about the stats, which were debunked months ago. Do keep up…
I’m sure you’re hearing plenty of anecdotes when washing windscreens at the intersection, but maybe leave the tough stuff to the professionals in future.
“Feminise” standards…
You’re a fucking joke.
Cinder you are foul mouthed.
Yes, yes I am.
Because ignorant fuckwits need to be mocked until they start exercising their brains. Ignorant fuckwits like you Bob.
How do you prefer to be mocked? Politely?
No comment on international PISA ratings I see. Where those facts too confronting for your frontal lobes?
Golly the Cinder loses it, I’m worried about her/him.
The insults thrown at me I find most amusing mainly because they say more about Cinder than they do of me.
Sometimes we get sick of trying to make our point with FACTS because we get no facts in return, just silly comments and smugness oozing from every word, from Btf anyway.
Your comment Frank was much longer than usual and much more interesting. You aren’t immune to playing the man rather than the ball, however,
NCEA is a national party invention which hasn’t been tinkered with much by Labour.
Why was it started? Oh now I remember, achievement results were dropping and something needed to be done!
What we can say is, that both styles of teaching have been tried within the memory of people commenting here and neither seems to have stemmed the decline in reading or maths standards. Can we conclude that the system isn’t really the problem.
The problem may have more to do with poverty, lack of permanent housing causing children to be moved a lot. Families unable to provide for their children’s needs because of pay not keeping up with costs. That would also cause lack of supervision of homework and reading at home with parents too exhausted to do their jobs properly as parents. It’s a vicious cycle when your standard of living declines and never catches up again. Everything suffers, including our ability to take advantage of what’s offered.
I know you and Bob and a few others will only see a very Black & White version of what’s going on, bootstraps and all that.
The Minister is not a teacher, therefore she has almost no understanding of what goes on in a classroom. She sees only Black & White too. The results of what happens in the classroom will only be measurable after about 10 years. There are too many variables in play for it to be accurate now.
Let’s look at it all in say, 5 years. When everything is averaged out, I don’t think you’ll see much change except the continuation of what’s happening now, falling standards.
Cinder knows more about the process of teaching and learning than either of you. She/He has no need to play the man, she/he has the facts. Perhaps we’re all just sick of idiotic nonsense comments generated by failed ideology and not backed up by reality or sense.
Frank The Tank, absolutely.
Bob self-amuses himself again…
Thanks T Pro.
Comments are closed.