Is Erica Stanford Ignoring Education Law?

Recently, without any prior notice or consultation, another new primary school mathematics curriculum was suddenly released.  This flies in the face of decades of sector involvement and contribution to curriculum development. Given what we know about Erica Stanford and her links to overseas influences, I guess we shouldn’t be surprised.

Dr Lisa Darragh, a senior lecturer of mathematics education at the University of Auckland, has written an in-depth article about this, published both on Newsroom, and on the Aotearoa Educators Collective website. 

If the curriculum ain’t broke, don’t fix it

“How much did the Government pay for a curriculum that is so inferior to the version already mandated in our schools? And how else might we have spent that money?”

When education academics (with the exception of Elizabeth Rata) from all over New Zealand are raising concerns over the direction of education policy, we really should take notice that the situation is very serious. 

I encourage you to read the article. 

This new Mathematics Curriculum is the third one to be introduced in three years – did you know that? Why has this happened?

“Ironically, the 2023 curriculum was just what we needed. The 2024 version was almost as good. This 2025 curriculum seems to have been written by an offshore consultant who knows little about the context of Aotearoa New Zealand. And it shows.”

This section in particular needs to be noted:

“The minister is keeping under wraps just who she paid to write this latest version of our curriculum. We can only hope that private consultants based overseas, who have no real understanding of our country and culture, aren’t profiting from our limited educational funds.”

I’ve written at length about Stanford and her agenda, and now we are seeing it being implemented in plain view. 

I’ve read that a new Social Studies Curriculum is on its way – this too is being written overseas and so will have very little relevance to our New Zealand situation. 

You can bet your fortune that it will include very little or nothing about the multicultural basis of of our country. I also read that it is heavily fact based (not surprised at that given the ‘Knowledge Based Curriculum’ agenda) and that I can surmise it will have a very Eurocentric (i.e, Anglo-Saxon) world view that reflects Elizabeth Rata’s influence.

But underpinning all this is something far more serious. Stanford appears to be ignoring education legislation in her hectic rush to impose these changes. 

Recently Bevan Holloway published his findings about this, and I encourage you to read the full article:

Early Warning Signals: Curriculum Change That Bypasses Democracy

As Bevan has explained previously, curriculum changes, such as the new mathematics curriculum discussed above, and other ministerial directives, are viewed as secondary legislation under the Education and Training Act (2020).

“Secondary legislation, often called regulations or rules, is the legal instrument that brings an Act of Parliament into life in everyday situations. It sets the precise policy guidelines and statements that allow people — including schools — to act in accordance with the overarching primary law, known as the empowering Act.”

Stanford is apparently basing her decisions on Section 90 of this act.

“When we look at Section 90 in isolation, it is highly troubling. It seems to grant the Minister near-unilateral powers to issue education directives without needing extensive consultation. It shortens the distance between a policy idea and its enactment.”

Bevan goes on to explain what that means. The key point he makes is:

“Practically, this means any statement issued using the powers granted under Section 90 must be consistent with the NELPs — these cannot be disregarded because they represent the Act’s higher-level objectives and purposes.”

Note: NELPs are the National Education and Learning Priorities. 

Note Bevan’s explanation of their intent.

“These objectives — which cover attainment of educational potential, dispositional development, and social, cultural, and Te Tiriti awareness — are linked by the use of the word “and”. This makes them cumulative objectives of equal importance, consistent with the holistic spirit of Section 4.”

As Bevan points out, Stanford is legally bound by this legislation to operate under its requirements, and it is very questionable that she is doing this.

“The key legal question we must ask is: Have the Ministerial statements issued under Section 90 had the effect of implicitly changing the NELPs?”

In the rush to implement new curricula, is this section being ignored?

“Mandatory Consultation: Any statement that has the effect of altering these objectives implicitly requires the extensive consultation set out in Section 5(6), which includes consulting children, young people, and numerous national bodies.”

In practice, 

“… this means any statement issued using the powers granted under Section 90 must be consistent with the NELPs — these cannot be disregarded because they represent the Act’s higher-level objectives and purposes.”

Bevan then asks a key question:

“Have the Ministerial statements issued under Section 90 had the effect of implicitly changing the NELPs?”

For example:

“Consider the removal of the compulsory teaching of Māori and Pacific authors, and its replacement with Shakespeare, in the senior English curriculum. This action, reportedly influenced by the Minister’s office, directly undermines the explicit requirement in Section 5 to instil an appreciation of diversity and Te reo Māori.”

It is seems that Stanford (and the Ministry of Education on her behalf) are not following the legal requirements set out in the Act. 

She is, however, appears to be aware of this, and this will be addressed in a coming amendment bill, a classic case of changing the legislation after the event to prevent legal problems. Ethical? Principled?

“What it signals is a Minister changing the law to fit non-compliant regulations. This is how democratic scrutiny is bypassed. It is a tactic used by elected autocrats such as in Hungary, and is identified by democracy scholars such as Levitsky and Ziblatt as an indicator of democratic backsliding.”

Welcome to democracy in New Zealand, 2025 version.

A recent post by Brie Elliot is also significant.

Brie Elliot:

“I just got my OIA back – and the Ministry of Education has ZERO records about major NCEA changes to Outdoor Education and Agribusiness. Everything is apparently held only by Minister Erica Stanford’s office.

Decisions that shape Kiwi students’ education should not exist outside of ministry records. There’s no oversight, no audit trail, and no accountability. This is exactly why transparency laws like OIA exist – and this is a governance failure.”

I had a similar response when I requested documentation from the Ministry over the decision to remove te Reo words from junior readers. 

Stanford has previous history of being caught out using her private gmail account rather than her official email address. This means that any of this correspondence is not available for public scrutiny under the OIA system. 

Shady?

Furthermore, Bevan tells me that Ministry of Education staff have been told to write nothing down and to do their best to not release anything. 

What is being hidden?

Apparently the situation is worse than we realise, as there is a lot more going on than we know.

Have you got the message yet? Stanford is trampling all over the legislation in order to implement her agenda. 

This is very serious and needs to be stopped.