Something Smells at the Teaching Council of Aotearoa

Three elected teacher representatives have resigned early while the Government moves to strip elected teacher voices from the Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand. The question hanging over this whole mess is brutally simple: who is actually making the decisions?

I and many others have written about Erica Stanford’s dictatorial control of education. Hopefully this message is starting to gain traction. The agenda is clearly far greater than the usual shibboleth of ‘raising achievement’ and in fact is aimed at ensuring a right-wing takeover of all things education in New Zealand, to meet the imported agenda emanating from organisations such as the Atlas Network. You can be very sure that the aims of these organisations haven’t been developed in the best interests of the general public in New Zealand and in other countries. Scoff if you like; the evidence is clear for those who want to see it.

Teaching Council governance is now the real question

Recently Brie Elliott, who is doing a sterling job of uncovering the goings-on in the education sector, posted the following statement on Facebook. I’m quoting it in full as no further elucidation is needed.

‘Something is seriously wrong here.

I requested the resignation letters from three elected teacher representatives who left the Teaching Council before the end of their term.

And now I have them.

To understand why this matters, you need to understand what is happening to the Teaching Council.

The Teaching Council is the body that regulates teachers in Aotearoa New Zealand.

It deals with registration, practising certificates, professional standards, conduct, competence, and the rules teachers are expected to meet.

Until recently, teachers still had a majority voice on that body.

There were 13 governing members:

7 elected by teachers.

6 appointed by the Minister.

But the Government is now changing the Teaching Council.

At first, the proposal was still going to keep some elected teacher representation: one ECE teacher, one primary teacher, and one secondary teacher.

But then a last-minute amendment changed even that.

Now the proposal is for the entire Council to be appointed by the Minister.

Zero elected teacher representatives.

So the body that regulates teachers is being shifted from a profession-led model to a minister-appointed model.

Because while this shift was happening, three elected classroom teacher representatives resigned early from the body that regulates teachers.

The primary teacher representative.

The early childhood teacher representative.

The secondary teacher representative.

So when three elected classroom teacher representatives resign early, that is not a minor staffing issue.

That is a serious governance issue.

These were the people teachers voted for until 2028! 

So I asked for their resignation letters.

And they are concerning.

The primary teacher representative said he strongly disagreed with the direction the Teaching Council was taking.

He said the Minister was setting a new direction through legislation, but he was disappointed in how the Council had responded.

He said losing the Council’s ability to set its own professional standards would weaken teaching’s ability to be seriously considered as a profession.

That is huge.

That is an elected teacher representative saying the profession is losing power over its own standards.

But then it gets even bigger.

He refers to the two recent reports being used to justify major changes to the Teaching Council.

Those are the Debbie Francis review and the Public Service Commission investigation.

These reports raised serious concerns about the Council.

But according to this resignation letter, the reports had not been discussed or formally accepted by the Governing Council.

And yet the Teaching Council was already moving forward with implementing their findings.

Without the Governing Council’s direction.

He called that a failure of governance.

Then he said it raises important questions about who is making decisions.

That is the whole story.

Who is making decisions?

Because the Governing Council is supposed to govern.

If the Governing Council had not formally accepted these reports, but the organisation was already implementing them, where was the authority coming from?

Management?

The Chair?

The Minister?

Somewhere else?

Then there is the early childhood teacher representative’s resignation letter.

She said the role was not the role she put her name forward for.

She described increased demands, more complex and sensitive information, and said she had felt uncomfortable contributing to significant decisions with limited or partial information.

Again, that is not just someone being busy.

That is another governance concern.

Elected teacher representatives should not be asked to contribute to significant decisions without the information they need.

She also said the Council was going through changes to the makeup of the board, requiring elected members to be stood down and re-elected, with no timeframe.

Then there is the secondary teacher representative.

Two of his stated reasons for resigning are redacted.

But the unredacted part still says that when he was elected, he never imagined the end of 2025 would bring such a “catalogue of issues.”

So across the three letters, we have:

A disagreement with the direction of the Council.

A warning about teaching losing control over its own professional standards.

A claim that major reports were being implemented before the Governing Council had discussed or formally accepted them.

A direct question about who was making decisions.

Concern about significant decisions being made with limited or partial information.

And a “catalogue of issues,” with two reasons redacted.

This is not normal board turnover.

This is happening while the Government is changing the body that regulates teachers and reducing elected teacher control.

And then the OIA process made it worse.

The Teaching Council extended my request, saying it needed more time to consult affected individuals.

But in its response, the Council confirmed that David Ferguson, the Chair of the Governing Council, held the information I requested.

And because he held the information, he was also the primary contact for the people involved and undertook the consultation process.

That is why I complained to the Ombudsman.

OIA requests should be handled by staff with proper processes, delegations, and records.

The Chair can hand over documents.

The Chair can answer factual questions.

But the Chair should not be personally managing consultation with people who resigned from the board he chairs.

Especially when the resignation letters raise concerns about governance, direction, decision-making, and limited information.

And especially when the first two reasons in one resignation letter are redacted.

I am not saying he personally made the redactions.

I am saying this is exactly why the process should have been independent.

Because the same question keeps coming up:

Who is making decisions?

Who decided to implement reports before the Governing Council had formally accepted them?

Who decided elected members had enough information to make significant decisions?

Who decided the Chair should personally handle consultation on an OIA about resignations from his own board?

This is not just about three resignation letters.

This is about whether the body regulating teachers is being governed properly.

Teachers deserve answers.

The profession deserves answers.

And the public deserves to know who is actually making decisions inside the Teaching Council.’