Enough About Erica: What Does Labour Have to Say?

Labour’s education policy finally gives voters something beyond the endless Erica Stanford culture war: a chance to ask whether schools need more ideological experiments, or the stability teachers, parents and kids have been begging for.

Over the past year I’ve railed at length about the current government’s education agenda. This shows no signs of abating, nor does Erica Stanford show any indication that she is listening, or is prepared to listen, to anyone who wants to point out the deficiencies in her ‘vision.’ 

As is the case with the bulk of Labour’s policies, we’d not heard anything from them as to the alternative way ahead, should they be able to lead the next government. Likewise with the Green Party, although their education spokesperson Lawrence Xu-Nan has used questions during a parliamentary select committee process to ask Stanford if she was working on behalf of the Atlas Network. That didn’t go down well.

What Labour’s education policy actually says

Yesterday, however, Labour Education Spokesperson Ginny Andersen published a substack article in which she laid out Labour’s approaches to education, should they be in a position to do so.

Labour’s response to education reforms

As you will see, the next government will have to walk a line between undoing the things that can readily be undone, and trying to make the rest more workable. After all, the last thing the education sector needs is another three years of turmoil with change after change being imposed on schools and teachers.

‘Every parent wants the same thing: a school where their child is supported, and given the tools to build a future in the world they’re going to live in.

New Zealand’s schools were building towards that. What they needed was continued, steady investment, not a wrecking ball. This National Government has chosen disruption over progress, and our kids are paying the price. They promised to fix the education system, instead they are making it worse.’

Indeed. One further thing that parents want is for their child/children to be happy at school, to enjoy the learning process and to feel that they are succeeding. The curriculum changes, the requirements to provide evidence of achievement, are killing that. 

An example – my 11 year old granddaughter, who started at intermediate this year, is now struggling with mathematics, feels she is failing, and becoming very negative towards it. Why, you may ask? Because the new curriculum has suddenly raised the levels that students must reach in order to ‘achieve.’ There is no actual educational justification for this, just the implementation of Stanford’s agenda. 

Yesterday I found myself sitting next to a very experienced teacher who was telling me about the challenges of implementing structured reading, and especially structured mathematics, in her year 2 and year 3 classroom. Not good. She was particularly concerned for less experienced teachers who don’t have an educational toolkit derived from decades of experience. 

‘National’s so-called “knowledge-rich” curriculum isn’t a solution. It’s an idea imported from a book written in the US in 1987, which argued that students should absorb a fixed series of facts, recite them, then be tested on them. That approach prepares our students for the past.’ 

This book, ‘Cultural Literacy’, by E.B. Hirsch, is the one Erica read over the summer of 2023/2024, that turned her into an educational expert, and that she has used to develop her knowledge based curriculum. You may wonder why a 39-year-old book is relevant in 2026, given that it was written before home computers were a thing, before the internet was invented, before mobile technology was developed, and when the concept of ‘artificial intelligence’ was something you found in science fiction books. 

‘Young people need to be able to analyse, problem-solve and critically assess what is true and what is not. In a world where AI can generate a convincing answer to almost anything, the ability to think independently has never been more important – and it’s precisely what a curriculum based on rote learning doesn’t teach.’

Precisely. 

‘The stakes are highest for the children who need the most from school. Not every student walks through the school gates the same. Some arrive cold, hungry, or tired. Some struggle to concentrate in class. A curriculum that demands every child learns the same fact at the same time and sit the same test will leave many children behind.’

This isn’t rocket science either, except that this concept seems way too hard for this government.

Ok, so that is Andersen’s take on the current situation. What is Labour planning to do?

‘The next Labour Government will be pragmatic. We will keep what is working and any changes we make will be alongside parents, so schools have time and stability. 

We’d start by being honest about what’s actually in front of us. The English and Maths components of the curriculum need time to bed in – and we’d let them. For everything else, Labour will take stock, move at a pace that works for schools, and make sure no further changes are rushed out before they’re ready.’

Hooray. Common sense at last, practicalities before ideology.

‘The Social Sciences and Science components of the curriculum appear to have been rushed and developed without enough input from New Zealand experts. These areas need to be rewritten by New Zealanders, for New Zealand classrooms so they are relevant, and realistic for teachers to deliver.’

This is correct, these documents were written overseas, to meet overseas agendas that ‘coincidentally’ meet the eurocentric Atlas Network ideologies.

‘It’s vital that young people learn about our history and our culture – so they can grow up with a strong sense of belonging and pride in being Kiwi. 

The Treaty of Waitangi is part of who we are. There is no hiding from this by trying to remove the legal requirements for schools, as Erica Stanford has attempted to do. Close to two thousand schools across New Zealand have stood together in opposition to this. Labour will reinstate the commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi in our schools because it matters.’

Absolutely. 

Ending the testing obsession in New Zealand schools

The next section is vitally important, following on from a similar approach taken by then Education Minister Chris Hipkins when the Labour led government came to office in 2017.

‘We need to end the obsession with testing. Parents deserve clear, regular updates on how their child is progressing at school, but not at the expense of real learning. 

Labour will ensure parents get straightforward, consistent reporting on their child’s progress. On NCEA, parents and teachers are still waiting for the Minister to tell them what she plans to do. Labour will end that uncertainty: any reforms will be introduced gradually, year by year, so schools can plan ahead.’

The primary reason for testing in primary schools is diagnostic, aiming to find out what a child is able to do, to identify areas of need, and to assist the teacher in planning the next steps in the learning programmes. That is real learning. The secondary reason to inform parents on their child’s learning progress, and this can be readily and more accurately done using information gained from diagnostic testing, rather than achievement against narrowly defined standards – read my last article about SMART for examples. 

Any standards based testing, ranking of achievement, is a distraction from learning and also risks making children feel like failures, as in the case of my granddaughter.

‘National has too often played politics with the education system and our children pay the price. Our schools don’t need imported ideas, rushed reforms, or one-size-fits-all thinking. They need stability, trust, and a curriculum that reflects who we are as a nation, while ensuring parents get clear, regular information about their child’s progress. 

Labour’s approach is simple: back our teachers, partner with parents, and focus on what works for every Kiwi kid.’

National has used education as a vote winning ploy for several decades, and especially since 2007, playing on parents’ natural concerns for their children, and creating false perceptions that our education system is failing, in order to win votes. Dishonest and unprincipled, yes – what did you expect?

Further information about Labour’s policy was outlined in an article on Newsroom.

Labour vows to reinstate school boards’ Treaty obligations

‘Andersen says Labour would keep some changes, like the English and maths curriculums which are already bedded in, though she is less sure about the mandated hour a day each for reading, writing and maths.

She is concerned the policy doesn’t allow enough time for other subjects like music, art and PE, and fails to recognise that reading and writing components are embedded within other subjects like social studies.’

This addresses a major criticism of the current agenda, one that I and many others have raised over the past year or so. There’s far more to education than the basics.

The next section is a big one and should be well received by everyone except those who for some reason think David Seymour is the best thing since sliced bread.

‘It would also bring back the previous Ka Ora, Ka Ako healthy school lunches programme and contract local businesses rather than a centralised provider, although the party is yet to commit to a per-meal budget for schools.’

This alone should be enough to win the parental vote for Labour. No more slop being served up to our children.

Here’s another slap for Seymour:

‘If elected, Labour will also get rid of charter schools by reintegrating the current ones back into the state system as special character schools, as it has done in the past.’

So common sense and sound education policy would return, once again. 

The tragedy is that at some future stage, National will succeed with yet another attempt to scare parents into believing the education system is failing, and institute yet another version of standardised education, continuing on from their failed National Standards of the Key years, and the absolute farce of Stanford’s knowledge-based curriculum and associated agendas.

Wouldn’t it be nice to have some consistency between the political parties, a shared educational vision, so that this game of educational ping pong can finish? Back and forth, back and forth, we seem to be doomed to go. If there is any reason why there are problems with education, then it is the politicians who are to blame, not the schools and teachers.

Let’s end with the education vision espoused in 1939 by Dr Clarence Beeby and Peter Fraser, the Minister of Education of the first Labour government (excuse the sexist language of the time).

‘The Government’s objective, broadly expressed, is that every person, whatever his ability, whether he be rich or poor, whether he live in town or country, has a right, as a citizen, to a free education of the kind for which he is best fitted, and to the fullest extent of his powers. So far is this from being a mere pious platitude that the full acceptance of the principle will involve the reorientation of the education system’

Eighty seven years later, this remains a powerful vision. This was revolutionary then and remains so to this day.