Whoever Thought Fixing Education Would Be So Easy?

Recent developments in education have given me a really good idea how the government can cut millions off its educational expenditure budget and instead shuffle this money off to the poor property investors (like National and ACT MPs) and other suffering rich people. 

It’s has become very clear that all is needed to develop an education policy is to read one book while at the beach. Hallelujah, this means we can dispense with all these ‘overpaid’ and ‘underworked’ academics in the education departments of our universities. 

After all, if all the required education knowledge can be obtained from one book, as is the case with Erica Stanford, then who needs to have academics carrying out extensive education research into how children learn and how teachers should plan and teach accordingly?

What a cost saving. 

Added to this, given that educational enlightenment is available at no cost from influencers like the New Zealand Initiative, and behind them, the Atlas Network, why do we need to maintain expensive education departments at our universities? Erica will go down in history as our greatest minister of education for this realisation.

And there’s yet more savings to be had – again since reading one book is all that is needed, why do we require teachers to spend four years of their lives on academic study, followed by two years of practical classroom work, before they receive their full teacher registration? 

Just hand them ‘THE BOOK,’ tell them to read it over the summer, and they will have all they need to provide children with the wonders of the ‘knowledge rich curriculum’. What a cost saving. Then toss them in the classroom to follow the very restricted structured reading and structured mathematics programmes, and wondrous things will happen.

You will, of course, have noted that the New Zealand Initiative has, as one of its education recommendations, a policy of allowing untrained teachers in classrooms. 

What a utopian world.

Not to be outdone, David Seymour also has the solution to education, in this case allowing for aggressive charter school applications that centre around the undoubted educational genius of a disbarred medical practitioner and convicted criminal, as Martyn Bradbury highlighted a couple of days ago in this article.

Attempted hostile take over of Kelston Boys by cavalcade of political circus freaks as horrific as it is hilarious

Charter schools are also free from the requirements to use trained and registered teachers, so there’s another cost saving. 

How easy is that? 

Hey, that means YOU can go and teach. What are you waiting for? After all we keep being told it’s such a cruisy job.

And there is still more. Erica has made another cost saving discovery, this time over the development costs of new curricula. Why pay for experts to develop these, when she can just do it herself, as Bevan Holloway recently discovered.

Stanford Admits Involvement in the Development of the Senior English Curriculum

“That’s right: Stanford played a role in the writing of the senior English curriculum, reviewing documents and providing feedback to Ministry officials on at least 10 February, 14 March and 27 March. This is highly unusual, for a good reason. Having separation between governance and operational roles helps limit political interference in the development of curriculum. It allows the experts to do their job. It allows for consultation to work through proper processes and not be unilaterally overruled.

March 2025 saw at least two versions of the senior English curriculum. We now have an admission from Stanford she was involved in them. One stipulated the inclusion of Māori and Pacifica authors, and Shakespeare was not included. In the version released to the sector at the start of April, Shakespeare was back, and Māori and Pacific authors erased.

It is hard to escape the conclusion that Stanford had something to do with the switch.”

Stanford has also found another way to avoid costs, by avoiding actually consulting with the education sector, in spite of her claims to the contrary. This article by Bevan is rather intriguing. The link is here, but as the article is worth reading I will paste it in full below.

Inventing Knowledge (or, The Erica’s New Clothes)

“In an interview on Morning Report on 29 October, 

Just after the surprise new new curriculums 

Were dumped on the sector, 

Erica Stanford claimed 

“there are a lot of academics who love this curriculum”. 

However, when I asked in an OIA for the number 

And how she gathered that data, 

Erica Stanford said 

Her office doesn’t hold that information as

It doesn’t exist.

And yet, there Erica Stanford was 

On a national radio show 

Referring to what we now know is invented knowledge 

To justify the surprise 

New new curriculums.

In the same interview, 

Erica Stanford claimed she had 

“spoken to a number of principals who have unpacked it in the last week who love it.” 

However, when I asked in an OIA for the number 

And how she gathered that data, 

Erica Stanford said 

Her office doesn’t hold that information as 

It doesn’t exist. 

So we have the Minister, 

On a national radio show 

Referring to what we now know is invented knowledge 

To justify the surprise 

New new curriculums.

But Erica Stanford did say she 

“spoke to a number of principals at curriculum road show events who expressed support for the refreshed curriculum and broader education work programme.” 

Phew!

I was curious: 

How did Erica Stanford know 

Those views were representative of the sector? 

Erica Stanford refused to say; 

Her office doesn’t hold that information.

Does it exist?”

So given all this, what exactly is Erica Stanford using to substantiate her claims?

Her office certainly seems to be an evidence free zone. 

However, given her genius in basing her entire education agenda on ‘THE BOOK’, who needs evidence?

What will it take to convince you that she is very dangerous to our present and future children’s education?