Stanford’s Commercialisation of Public Education

ByAllan Alach

Subtext: beware what you believe from her carefully crafted press events.

I’ve mentioned Bevan Holloway’s excellent website in previous articles and once again I stress that this is a must read.

‘I have been researching and documenting the curriculum change process in Aotearoa New Zealand since July 2024.

In combing through hundreds of pages of OIA and official documents, I have uncovered a coordinated subversion of democratic process that suggests Aotearoa New Zealand is experiencing democratic backsliding.’

Bevan’s latest article Stanford’s Action Plans and the Commercialisation of Public Education reveals that she breached the Cabinet Manual in recommending Prime Maths as a supplier of mathematics textbooks.

But there’s more, as Bevan outlines:

  • “Prime Maths had an established relationship with Stanford.
  • Stanford did not disclose this relationship to Parliament when given a chance to via a Parliamentary Written question.
  • Stanford signed off on the procurement criteria for the maths textbooks.
  • Prime Maths became one of four successful tenderers, all of whom are off-shore publishers.”

Has she changed and is now following the cabinet manual?  Going by this week’s announcement over the writing curriculum changes, it would appear not.

“$150 million is going into the commercial provision of the structured literacy PLD to support this action plan. There are a number of individuals who were on the MAG and curriculum writing teams who are also commercial providers of structured literacy PLD.

A “few million” are going to the digital writing tool: is that a Ministry developed tool, or a commercially provided one? Remember: the maths textbook procurement was run as a closed tender, justified under urgency.”

And, as Bevan has pointed out, the whole writing curriculum revamp that was presented with such fanfare is rather suspect, being based on on similar manipulative processes as was followed for mathematics.

“Today’s announcement of the Make it Write action plan echoes the Make it Count action plan: a reference to alarming data; a solution based on structured approaches and ‘resources’.

But is that data valid? As Stanford said, “the results were measured against the new curriculum expectations which were higher, because “it’s where children need to be”.” Remember, that is the curriculum that ERO’s quality assurance process deemed to be unfit for use.”

When the Education Review office flag concerns then we should all take notice. Bevan has also written on this, in this linked article:

Early Warning Signals: ERO Reports Highlight Failures in the English Years 0-6 Curriculum

ERO wrote:

“A key concern raised was that these materials were originally written by the Ministerial Advisory Group (MAG) with the purpose of being a sample for the MOE writing group. ERO welcomes the opportunity to QA this again when the writing group has progressed this area and material is more reflective of the most up to date evidence around effective pedagogy, as some of this is currently outdated.”

Before I discuss more of Bevan’s article, I need to point out that the Ministerial Advisory Group (MAG) mentioned here is made up of New Zealand Initiative members including Dr Michael Johnston and Professor Elizabeth Rata. As we’ve seen previously Rata was a key person in the development of the English Curriculum. A significant question, yet to be examined, is why Stanford chose to appoint her own advisory group, rather than use the resources of the Ministry of Education? Surely curriculum development is their responsibility?

Bevan’s next section gets to the heart of the issue and I will quote it in full:

“In other words, even if the purpose of writing them was an honest one, those materials were now being positioned as the proposed curriculum. This is a violation of Public Service Guidelines, there to ensure democratic process is adhered to, which includes separation of power, the maintenance of legal accountability, and guardrails against corruption. In short, when you have private individuals doing the work of government, your democracy is on shaky ground, and that is exactly what we have happening here. This violation was done with the knowledge of the Minister. She had known about it since at least 15 March and had done nothing to stop it. Ellen MacGregor-Reid lied to Parliament about this fact in the December Select Committee, until she got caught and had to backtrack and admit the MAG did begin writing curriculum material. Why lie if this violation doesn’t matter?”

It needs to be stressed, repeatedly, that Erica Stanford has proven very close connections to the New Zealand Initiative (may even be a member although I’ve not gone looking for evidence) and the New Zealand Initiative make no secret of their affiliation to the Atlas Network, nor of their links to big business. You may have heard of them in their previous incarnation as the Business Roundtable and you will surely recognise many of the business people who are members. 

In August 2024 ERO advised that the curriculum was still unsuitable and not fit for purpose. While some changes were made, the final document was essentially the same as the one that ERO had major concerns about and it is this document that formed the basis for Stanford’s press release this week. Note that only two full terms have passed since it was released, yet children’s achievement is already being assessed against it. The same thing happened with the mathematics curriculum.

If children are assessed against faulty curricula, that they have not been taught, is it any surprise that they are found not to be achieving?

One has to wonder why this is being done, and the answer would seem to be obvious: the aim is to gather evidence that proves New Zealand education is failing and that this would then justify major changes to the provision of schooling, to meet an ideological agenda that, coincidentally, matches very closely with the aims of the New Zealand Initiative, something I will discuss in a coming article.

I will leave the conclusion to Bevan:

“This Minister is happy to oversee the development of education regulations that occur in a way that violate Public Service Guidelines and fail to respond in a meaningful way to a QA process, even when she has knowledge of both things happening. That is a sign of an ideological project being carried out, in a way that erodes our democratic foundations.

The curriculum change process serves as an early warning signal of what we can expect with the NCEA ‘consultation’ and change process. If you’re joining her chorus, just be clear what song you’re actually singing, because it isn’t an education one.”



Similar Posts

- Advertisement -

17 Comments

    2. Thanks Joseph. For those who dare look, it’s sad reading. Anti-corruption was something a few of us were proud of. Looks like those days are over.

      1. The people assessing what was corruption and wot not, were not completely objective.

  3. So what are we going to do with place names in Aotearoa .?
    Perhaps Whangarei will become Fongaray
    Whanganui will become Fonganuy
    What will Piopio become Whitey ville perhaps
    Then we have Tauranga ?retieredville perhaps .

  4. These people need to remember where we live .We live on a small group of islands in the south pacific .We are not suburb of London or Washington nor a state or county of any other country .Like it or not we are planted in the pacific island group of which we are a poorly performing neigbour as we found out when the Cook island decided enough of just being a source of cheap labour for NZ and AUS .
    All of our Pacific Island neighbours speak two languages ,their own and english as a second language so why cant we do the same ?Why do we need to cling to the misguided belief that we are part of some other country far away on the other side of the world ,all while forgetting about our own back yard .We can pearl clutch as much as we like about the threat from China ,but we have let it happen because we are so busy kissing arse in the UK and USA and have abandoned our real freinds because they are seen by us as inferior beings and perhaps in the current governments eyes as bottom feeders .How do we know that our so called freinds on the other side of the world dont see us in the same light untill they need canon foder for one of the many wars they start and never finish .

  5. Therefore, the idea of having children become ‘knowledge-rich’ has flown out the window this week.
    Can’t let them get confused with Māori bird names. Or tree names or people’s names. Street names, town names.
    It’s Emperor’s new clothes thinking all over again. ‘Don’t show me the evidence, I don’t want to know!’, which was key’s plan for everything.

    Great picture, I’ve sent it on to people who want to be well-informed.

    1. Actually, Joy – let me inform you – having Maori words in English language junior decodable texts just confuses young learners who are trying to learn consistent English literacy patterns. They also have separate Maori language decodable texts. There is no need or benefit with Maori words in English decodables, just like there is no need or benefit with English words in Maori decodables. Texts for older learners can mix words without causing such confusion.

      1. Do decodable texts have any use in helping children with learning difficulties such as dyslexia or Irlen Syndrome, the only two I’m familiar with, but there are more?

      2. Oh Commenter, you are reciting known rules but nothing remains set these days. One English text I have learned came from Karl Marx and Engels about everything in capitalism being fleeting. So no use saying you know all and thinking if only they let you at the problem, you would succeed.

        It used to be television was the great teacher for say 10 and up. But little children are being given mechanical devices that tell them things and if we wanted them,to learn somethihg you might have to carry the message on a screen, whatever language you use.

        I find as an adult that so many things come with cartoon figures though aimed at adults, and the messages are not formal, not ‘Your transaction was successful’ but instead its Yay, that went through okay. Gives me the pip. Everything is being dumbed down and is decided by the ideology of the learning entity that the initiator of the program went to. All very complex. I find words that aren’t yet in the immense files of the computers. I know I know them, but they are too distant or too nuanced to have been picked up. Everyone has a lot to learn and most don’t seem ready for deep objective thinking.

  6. “A significant question, yet to be examined, is why Stanford chose to appoint her own advisory group, rather than use the resources of the Ministry of Education? Surely curriculum development is their responsibility?”

    Because the MoE is hopeless and 4000 of them can’t achieve any noteworthy improvement in education outcomes. We’d be better to get rid of 50% of them, adopt an international curriculum with a proven track record, and hire 2000 more teachers instead.

    Government has dozens of separate education-related entities. Most of them could be merged, downsized or terminated with little impact on education outcomes, with the benefit being a greater budget for actual teaching! Yes, we would need to bolt-on some New Zealand and Maori specific curriculum content, but otherwise a proven international curriculum and qualification system would be superior to our island-exceptionalism experimentation.

    1. She has her own mates because they will tell her every day that she is the greatest thing since sliced bread .The ministry will not tell her what she wants to hear so she choses to ignor them and have a few drinks with her mates ad do the opposite to the professional advice we are paying for.This whole government has forgotten that they were elected to serve the population not their rich donners .

    2. You just want to over-professionalise education instead of nurturing enquiry. It’s the factory system, or Oliver lining up with his bowl of large wooden letters and numbers that he had as a baby. Why don’t you give them Rubik’s cubes for dexterity and self-challenge pr teach using scrabble etc – the kids would get excited about learning.?

      But the rules have are used to keep learning in check, doing it the prescribed way. I was an adult coach with adult literacy now called something else. Went back some years later with some great graphic cancelled library books with picture and words together and more interesting than the usual. But no, everything had to be new because all the patronising tutors had decided it was nicer for the poor people who never had anything new. The peeps were not asked what they preferred themselves. It seems just playing with people and their minds, to a formula with the teacher at the apex of a triangle – the learner and …don’t know what the third point is?

      1. You appear to have a beef with the Ministry.
        To be honest this phrase ‘decodable texts’ means nothing to me. I’ve been out of the system too long and missed a lot of jargon.
        What I know, and I don’t think it’s changed, is that children are sponges, as someone else said, and soak up a huge amount of information without even trying. Your worry about Māori words is misplaced. Most are too smart to get confused. Pre-schoolers aren’t that rigid or naive.
        I know this will annoy you, but I doubt phonics will be necessary for many either. You cannot make children wait while you faff round teaching them phonics when they are more than capable of teaching themselves to read and will simply get on with it.
        To infer they would be confused is to appear to be deliberately with-holding useful information. You have no control what they do, learn or read outside your narrow permissible programme. Give up and accept that children will learn despite your limited ability to teach them things.
        The Ministry may not have had ‘any note-worthy improvement’ because children’s lives are tough these days, lots of distractions and problems. Not least, the constant tinkering and throwing the baby out with the bath-water from politicians.
        I agree that reading, writing and maths achievement is far from ideal. International curriculum, fine. However, the point all of us have been trying to make, is that we don’t think Stanford is the person to successfully carry out the changes that must be made. She is utterly unqualified and led by ideology only. She thinks one method, text, system, size will fit all. She wants to surround herself with people who say, ‘Yes, you are right’. Not by people who might suggest workable alternatives.
        So far, she’s failed to mention children with dyslexia and other specific learning difficulties. Her special text books and your decodable books will make very little difference to them.
        I hope you’ll continue to watch this site and come back in a few years to tell us how it’s all going.

Comments are closed.