We Warned You About Erica Stanford

Many articles have been written about the nefarious deeds of Erica Stanford, and her take over of education, based on nothing more than her very limited understanding of education, derived in the main from one book, but also influenced by the UK’s education policies, and, we now find, by a private firm in Melbourne.  

Have you taken notice yet? Or are you still blinded by her spin? What will it take to open your eyes? Or are you so hidebound by ideology that you are unable to accept the reality?

During scrutiny at the Education and Workplace Select Committee, it was revealed that an Australian firm, Learning First, was involved in the rewrite of the new curriculum.

Australian firm’s involvement in school curriculum rewrite comes under scrutiny

‘Education Ministry officials told MPs the firm – Learning First – helped find content for the new maths curriculum, but did not write it.

They also told the Education and Workforce Select Committee New Zealand companies were not offered the job because the ministry was already working with Learning First.’

Ponder on that – why was the ministry already working with Learning First? We’ve talked before about the new curriculum being developed to meet an overseas agenda. What happened to the days when our curriculum documents were developed in New Zealand and which then attracted favourable attention from overseas?

But wait, there’s more.

“Meanwhile, Education Minister Erica Stanford said she could not remember if she had coffee with the head of Learning First before or after the company was given the contract.’

Eh? What is this? I seem to recall Labour minister Claire Curran being hammered and eventually forced to resign because she hadn’t recorded a meeting in her diary. One rule for her, one rule for the other side?  Or is this because Curran had a leader with a spine whereas Stanford has a jellyfish for a leader?

Whatever, this smells of corruption, but given the way this government behaves, who is surprised?

‘The responses were made following questions from Labour education spokesperson Ginny Andersen during the select committee’s session for scrutinising the government’s recent Budget.

Andersen asked why a contract for benchmarking the maths curriculum against curriculums in other countries was given to Learning First and not to a New Zealand company.

Stanford said she was not involved with contracting decisions but there were very few people who could compare curriculums internationally and provide an accurate benchmark of where New Zealand should sit.

Andersen said the New Zealand Council for Educational Research could have done the work and would have loved to bid it but did not get the opportunity.

She said the benchmarking contract was not put out for open tender.’

Shouldn’t a prudent government have a policy for putting contracts like this out for tender? That certainly was a requirement in my school principal days.

Mind you, I’d also suggest that a prudent government would establish a curriculum writing division of the Ministry of Education so this could be done in house – hang on a tick, that used to be the case. What happened? Was this dispensed with as part of the slashing back of public servants? 

So let’s get this right. Stanford has a coffee with the head of Learning First, either before or after awarding the contract, and doesn’t bother to record it on her diary. So we know straight away that Learning First were going to get the contract regardless. 

As for her statement that ‘there were very few people who could compare curriculums internationally and provide an accurate benchmark of where New Zealand should sit,’ why can’t we set these things for ourselves? 

I know for sure that the expertise exists in this country to develop quality curriculum documents. Well, that was certainly the case before I retired, and I doubt things have changed. 

So why, then, does Stamford deem it necessary to import overseas standards? Once we were very proud of our New Zealand education system, sadly this is no longer the case. 

And don’t feed me the crap that this is necessary because our schools and children are failing educationally. That is a myth promoted by people like the New Zealand Initiative who have their own agenda and by right wing politicians seeking to frighten parents into voting for them.

I remember attending a presentation, possibly about 2008, where a prominent education academic (may have been the late Ivan Snook) presented categorical data that showed that any deterioration in New Zealand performances in the dubious overseas tests such as PISA had a definite correlation with the introduction of the neoliberal ‘Tomorrow’s Schools’ in 1990. 

So instead of blindly following overseas neoliberal ideology, as Stanford, et al, are doing, maybe we should go back to pre-1990 and build upon that? But that wouldn’t serve the overseas string pullers behind this government. 

This country is stuffed until neoliberalism is buried – are you listening, Labour? That includes any artificial budget constraints such as debt being limited to 30% of GDP, or the need to have a budget in surplus (ask Professor Steve Keen about that),  but that’s another story.

Labour education spokesperson Ginny Andersen posted this comment on Facebook:

‘New documents raise serious questions about Erica Stanford’s direct involvement in what increasingly looks like a backroom deal. 

The Minister claims that Australian provider Learning First was only engaged to benchmark the New Zealand curriculum. Yet emails show the company offering advice on curriculum design, implementation, teacher messaging, professional development, and even how to “win hearts and minds” in schools.

Erica Stanford can’t remember whether she had a coffee on the Gold Coast with Learning First Chief Executive before or after their contract was finalised.  Learning First received more than $2 million without an open tender process. At the same time, its founder, Ben Jensen, was in direct contact with the Minister’s office, discussing work programmes, curriculum development, and implementation plans. 

If this was simply international benchmarking, why was Learning First providing direction and input into curriculum design?

Our children’s education is too important for secretive deals and closed-door decision making. New Zealand has world-class educators. They should be leading curriculum reform, not being pushed aside while overseas consultants call the shots over a flat white on the GC.’

Exactly.

At the select committee meeting Stanford also addressed the issue of struggling schools.

‘Stanford told MPs the government would intervene faster in poorly-performing schools and stop students’ family means from becoming their destiny.

Andersen said schools in South Auckland were worried changes to Education Review Office reports would result in their schools being “ranked” badly compared to other schools.

Stanford said there would be no ranking and the changes were aimed at identifying “schools of concern” so they could be helped to improve.

She said governments had waited “way too long” to intervene in schools and too few improved following an intervention.

“We need to act more quickly because we’re waiting way to long to intervene,” she said.

“The reality is in this country your means do determine your destiny. We have to shift that and part of that is being open and transparent about the state of education,” she said.’

Yes, there are far too many schools that can be labelled as struggling. What do most/all of them have in common?

Have you guessed? 

They will all be in lower socioeconomic areas, that means the children come from deprived backgrounds. There is a long and well established body of evidence that the biggest factor that determines educational success is the family income, i.e., children from wealthier families generally do better at school than those from impoverished backgrounds.

So it doesn’t matter how much money and effort is put into helping struggling schools, little will be achieved until the huge inequality problems in this country are addressed.

But that would take a government committed to raising the income of all, including paying adequate benefits rather than the current pittance,, so that every child in New Zealand had a nice house to live in, good food, comfortable clothing, free medical and dental care,  and a quality life style. 

Where have we read this before? Any guesses?

That was the vision of the first Labour government which was in office from 1935 to 1949 – this included the years of WWll, yet they still managed to make big progress in achieving  this.

Any reason why the next Labour led government can’t have the same vision, especially as they will have the full support of the Green Party?

I’ll look out the window to see if I can see a flying pig go by.