The best Education Minister NZ ever had

There were many Ministers of Education during my teaching career, mostly National seeing as they were in government for longer periods, and some from Labour. The distinguishing factor about most of them is how bloody ignorant and hopeless they were (and are…)  

You’d think that a minister, in whatever portfolio, would put in the hard yards to school themselves about all the details of their portfolio. It seems that in education this hasn’t been the case, and, by extension, that would seem to apply to most ministers, irrespective of party, about their portfolios. There are obvious exceptions, of course, again irrespective of party. 

As far as education is concerned, the Minister of Education who stands out as having developed a real grasp and insight into the education portfolio was Steve Maharey, the best Minister of Education this country had for decades and arguably ever.

As I wrote some articles back it was a real shame, an inexplicable move, when Helen Clark removed him from Education and replaced him with Chris Carter, a minister who clearly didn’t have the same knowledge and insights.

An example – in 2007 there was an International Principals Conference in Auckland.  Maharey had a prime speaking slot and naturally spoke really well, demonstrating his educational understanding and insights. 

International principals I spoke with later in the day (some from Brazil as I recall) were amazed that New Zealand had such a knowledgeable minister, in comparison to their own, and wanted to kidnap him and take him home with them. Having heard a number of presentations by other New Zealand and Australian ministers of education over the years, I knew how they were feeling. 

Mind you, Helen Clark, as Prime Minister, as also spoke to the conference and International visitors felt the same way about the quality of her talk, again in comparison to their political leaders back home. They were amazed, not only about her knowledge, but that the Prime Minister would see a principal’s conference as worthy of their time. 

What a pity that our voting system discards leaders of Clark’s quality without a second thought. As the song does, “You Don’t Know What You’ve Got (Till It’s Gone)” 

Over the weekend an insightful article by Steve Maharey about current education policies was published in the The Post:

The education pendulum swings again

Unfortunately this is behind a paywall so isn’t available to all. However I will highlight selected sections so you can get the gist.

“It is hard to disagree with the Minister of Education, Erica Stanford when she says she is ambitious for all New Zealand young people and wants them to achieve their best. Who thinks otherwise?

It is, however, much easier to disagree with the direction in which she is taking our education system as demonstrated by her reforms to assessment.”

He acknowledged that there are issues with NCEA, an assessment programme developed by National in the late 1990s and fully implemented by Labour in the early 2000s – that’s nearly 25 years ago so no wonder flaws have developed. 

“Let’s accept then, that NCEA had problems and these needed to be addressed. But not by introducing policies that will take us back to the last century. Standardisation, national exams and competition between schools is the direction the minister is taking us in. Get ready for league tables.”

League tables have been a dream of National led governments for decades, supposedly as a way to force schools to lift their game. The previous National led government had aims of using their very educationally suspect National Standards regime to do the same. I’ll not go into all the reasons why standardised testing and league tables are a failed ideology, they’ve been tried in numerous countries including Australia with their NAPLAN testing regime.

Anyone with any educational understanding and vision will realise that there has to be a better way, to develop an education system that will meet the needs of our children’s future, and that is not based on ideas from our past.

“If we accept we live in the knowledge age (the unconvinced need only to bone up on what AI is doing to us), it is clear that everyone now needs the higher order knowledge, skills and dispositions that were formerly thought to belong to “higher learning“.

Learners can’t just “fill up” at school with all the knowledge, skills and dispositions they will need to participate in the workforce and society: they need to be provided with the foundations for life-long learning. They need to be innovative problem solvers who can put what they learn to use.”

A one-sided fits all ‘knowledge rich’ curriculum will not address the learning needs of all students. Sure it may really suit those who are well fitted to an academic career, which, I suggest, is a minority of students. 

“Critics might say that what I am saying sounds like pandering to the learner. A slippery slope to mediocrity or worse. It is true a personalised system does foreground the needs of the learner. But only in the sense that what is relevant and of interest to a learner is used to motivate them to engage. In short, it is just good teaching.”

Which is a huge contrast to the one sided ‘knowledge rich’ curriculum taught (if that’s the right word) to children by through didactic lectures from the front of the classroom, known colloquially as ‘chalk and talk’. 

Maharey then asks the reasonable question – where is there an education system that we could learn from? The answer, as it has been for a couple of decades, is Finland:

• “The national curriculum must be followed, but teachers choose their own teaching methods and learning materials.

• A Masters degree is the minimum teaching qualification and well-funded professional development is ongoing.

• Schools operate in a culture of trust (meaning no equivalent of the Education Review Office) because standards are high across the sector.

• Teacher/learner ratios are low, allowing for innovations such as open-plan classrooms.

• Formative assessment is preferred to continuous assessment, the grading of performance or competition between pupils.

• Schools have access to a wide range of support services allowing teachers to focus on teaching.

There is much more, but the difference between what the minister aspires to and what Finland does is clear. They practice personalising learning. The minister is going in another direction.”

That is a huge contrast to Stanford’s/New Zealand Initiative’s education agenda. One is proven, the other is ideological rubbish, aimed at sifting out the ‘achievers’ from the ‘drop kicks’ (Seymour) or ‘bottom feeders’ (Luxon).

On another topic, the Aotearoa Educators Collective (AEC) have a petition to save NCEA:

Press Release: AEC Petition – Save NCEA!

“NCEA is not perfect but it has proven strengths, flexibility, and the ability to serve all learners across diverse pathways, whether academic, vocational, or community-based,” says the AEC. “Instead of scrapping it, we call on the Government to work alongside educators, students, whānau, and industry to strengthen NCEA through curriculum alignment, a standards review, and genuine co-design.”

Please click on the link, read the supporting information, then sign the petition. As with other issues with the government’s education agenda, the future of present and future children’s education is at risk.