Beware of Stanford’s Education & Training (System Reform) Bill

I’m going to start this article off by writing something beyond comprehension, so brace yourself…

You will be, I’m sure, well aware of my opinions of our New Zealand Initiative/Atlas Network affiliated Minister of Education, Erica Stanford.

However, I now have to eat a little bit of humble pie and give her credit for one aspect of her performance as Minister.

She has only been Minister of Education for a little over two years, not long really. However in that time she has completely upturned the education and schooling system in this country, arguably causing damage that will be hard to undo. 

She has shown what a determined minister can do in a very short time and I can only hope that Labour, in particular, have taken note, given their incremental decision making and implementation process when last in government.  

See, Labour, it can be done. If Erica can do it, so can you, and not just in education. All you need is a vision and a determination to implement it.

So well done, Erica, even if I totally disagree with everything you’ve done to date. 

Having done that, I now need to turn my attention to her ‘Education & Training (System Reform) Bill’ that has been making its way through the select committee stage. Don’t be fooled by its innocuous name, this bill is the educational equivalent of Seymour’s Regulatory Standards Bill, and will have similar disastrous outcomes.

As Professor Professor Susan Sandretto said in her submission to the select committee,

‘This bill is undemocratic, bestowing unprecedented powers to the Minister of Education, ignoring Te Tiriti o Waitangi, discouraging collaboration, and converting teachers from professionals to technicians.’

This submission is very detailed, too much for this article, so I will select sections for discussion.

One of the aims of this bill is to change the foundation of the New Zealand Teachers Council, supposedly based on research findings, which the Professor outlines. 

‘The Minister likes to cite a 2024 Education Review Office Study to justify changes to the Teaching Council and Initial Teacher Education. In the Minister of Education’s press release from November 2025, she claimed “the Education Review Office (ERO) found nearly two-thirds of principals report their new teachers are unprepared” (Stanford, 2025, para. 3). However, there is no context for these claims. The study surveyed 278 principals and the nearly two-thirds refers to 60 per cent. 60 per cent of 278 is 167 respondents. There are currently about 2500 principals in New Zealand, according to Figure.NZ. So the study is actually referring to the 6.68% of principals who reported their new teachers were unprepared.’

We’ve seen before that the Minister has trouble with statistics before (that’s a kind way of looking at it) so I guess this misuse of data to justify her actions isn’t surprising.

‘Despite these unacknowledged limitations, it is used to claim that the work of the Teaching Council in “setting teacher standards and setting requirements for teacher training… isn’t working” and to justify “legislative changes to ensure stronger oversight and clearer policy direction in ITE” according to the Minister’s press release (Stanford, 2025, para. 4). My point is not to discredit this one study. It is to highlight the urgent need to make explicit the research base that is being used to justify sweeping changes to education.’

Stanford is using the changes to the Teachers Council to provide levers that she can use to force teachers to comply with her curriculum and teaching dictates, very necessary for her as she knows that the sheer weight of educational experts and teacher professional opinions are against her. Comply or else. Reminiscent of a certain president?

This is only possible because the government has always had input into, and control over,  the Teachers Council. This is in contrast to all other professional bodies for other professions, such as Lawyers, Doctors, Nurses, Counsellors, Social Workers and and so on, who are able to set their own professional standards for their members.

Bit wait, there’s more, in this submission by Jesse Moss:

Education reform or political control?

‘If not stopped, this Bill will unravel the public education system. Its narrow definition of success and its focus on compliance will create more learning barriers for tamariki, while its encouragement of private interests could increase social inequities.

Stanford claims the Bill provides ‘efficiency’ and ‘clarity.’ Instead, it centralises power in the Minister by stripping educators of their autonomy. It gives the Minister unprecedented power to bypass the Ministry of Education and directly amend curriculum statements without formal reviews or reports.’

Are you happy with a Minister of Education, whoever it may be, having a ‘Muldoonist’ level of control over the nation’s education system. What if was a Labour or Green minister – would you be happy with that? 

‘An education system that upholds Te Tiriti o Waitangi trusts and empowers educators, Māori, and communities to contribute to and localise the curriculum. This Bill presents risks to the aspirations that whānau, Māori and communities hold for their tamariki, paving the way for a system that serves political and commercial interests. A narrow, highly prescribed curriculum translates perfectly into ‘off the shelf’ products driven by private profit, as seen in the recent rollout of mathematics resources.’

And as Shakespeare wrote, ‘there’s the rub.’  The underlying agenda is privatisation of education, as it is with provision of health. Once that genie is out of the bottle it will be very hard to put back. Just look at the big profits being made by companies providing pre-school care, and the donations being made to parties on the right by some of those companies.  “You scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours.” Cronyism.

‘The Bill also targets the independent Teaching Council – one of 10 radical changes designed to dismantle the public education system. Rather than the profession setting its own standards, this role shifts to the Ministry under Ministerial control. This is a direct attack on professional autonomy and another clear politicisation of our education system.

Stanford’s proposed changes to the Teaching Council’s purpose reveal her attitude towards the sector. She intends to remove “raising the status of the profession” from the Council’s purpose statement and its function “to identify and disseminate best practice” and “foster continued development.”

Just like doctors or lawyers, teachers require a robust, independent body free from political interference to ensure professional integrity. A strong education system must be based on Te Tiriti o Waitangi and trust educators to prioritise the interests of our tamariki.’

The next article discusses Stanford’s presentation to the select committee:

Teachers Apparently Begged for This

According to the Minister, the sector is in despair over initial teacher education. She cited ERO data suggesting 60% of new teachers feel underprepared. The well-worn maths preparedness statistic made a cameo. OECD comparisons were dusted off. The usual suspects.

The conclusion? The only available lever — the only lever — is to bring the Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand closer to the Ministry.

Because when teachers cry out for help, what they obviously mean is: “Please centralise more authority.”’

As discussed above, her data for these claims is dubious at best. As Mark Twain is said to have written, ”There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” 

At one point, she described how she has been “separating out” functions across the system.

It sounded important.

It also sounded suspiciously like rearranging the furniture and calling it structural reform.

And somehow — naturally, seamlessly, inevitably — this means teacher standards should sit inside the Ministry.

Because nothing says professional independence like reporting to the Minister.

But again — this is what teachers asked for. Apparently.’

Using claims/requests made by unknown persons to justify decisions is an old trick, so why are we falling for it again?

‘We were assured the curriculum reforms are carefully sequenced. World-leading. 

Knowledge-rich. Non-disruptive.

No new powers. Business as usual.

There was, however, a small linguistic slip: “When we write — or the Ministry writes…”

A reminder that authorship matters.’

We know, as detailed in my previous article, how problematic the writing of the new curriculum has been and how flawed it is. There is something ‘trumpian’ about her grandiose statements.

‘According to the Minister:

Those opposing the Bill are largely those aligned with the previous government.

The happy experts didn’t complain.

The unhappy ones are predictable.

And child protection demands urgent action.

And so the solution — naturally — is consolidation of regulatory authority closer to the executive arm of government.’

See what I mean?

‘The Bill is framed as:

• Raising standards

• Increasing accountability

• Protecting children

• Improving teacher training

Those are aims few would dispute.

The question is not whether improvement is needed.

The question is whether centralising control is the only way to achieve it (a question that was asked twice but never answered) — and whether dissenting voices can be dismissed as partisan simply because they disagree.’

Exactly. 

To conclude, please watch this excellent video from Australia which predicts the probable outcome of the knowledge rich curriculum, and dictated teaching using provided programmes planned, naturally, by the private sector, and that makes no allowance for teacher professionalism and the best interests of children. 

You will have course noted that Australia is facing the same issues, and this is not a coincidence. The dumbing down of learning isn’t just a New Zealand problem. Those of you with open minds may like to wonder why.