Stanford’s Drive to Impose an Overseas Developed Curriculum in NZ Schools
Minister of Education Erica Stanford is continuing with her drive to change the whole nature of New Zealand schooling. I don’t recall anything about this being included in the education policies National presented to the electorate at the last election. There was the usual rhetoric about raising achievement, setting standards, focussing on the basics, ensuring the bulk of the primary school days was spent teaching the three core subjects (too bad about Science, Social Studies, Music, Art, PE and so on), but nothing about the agenda Stanford is now implementing.
When we look at the people she has chosen to work with, and seeks advice and guidance from, it’s very clear what she wants to do.
I’ve focussed quite a lot of attention on Dr Michael Johnston and Professor Elizabeth Rata, but have only mentioned in passing a third member of the Ministerial Advisory Group (MAG) that Stanford established shortly after taking office. Bevan Holloway has published many articles that demonstrate the influences of these two on curriculum development, but so far little attention has been given to Dr Melissa Derby.
Over the weekend she was interviewed on Q & A by Jack Tame. Martyn Bradbury has reviewed her performance, and if you’ve not read it, I recommend you do so.
MEDIAWATCH: Q+A Free Speech Union stooge gets roasted over Alt-Right culture war talking points
“Watching Derby get roasted by Jack over her previous race baiting where she claimed there is no systemic racism against Māori was possibly the best 20 minutes of TV you can hope for.
She actually drowned live on air as she attempted to gloss over her previous culture war bullshit.”
What is beyond belief is that she was appointed as Race Relations Commissioner, a move welcomed by the so-called Free Speech Union (free speech being defined as anything that fits in with their agenda), and then also to Stanford’s MAG, alongside the other anti-Maori academic Elizabeth Rata. Given these appointments, it’s not surprising that we’ve seen anti-Maori decisions being made by Stanford.
But there’s more – as previously highlighted Stanford is strongly influenced by, and is working with, a group of overseas educators and it is their policies that she is implementing.
Here’s what has been implemented so far, summarised by the Aotearoa Educators Collective:
“Curriculum progress explained in 176 words
The Minister takes office, and:
- Throws out years of curriculum development work built on extensive consultation in favour of the ideas of a few.
- Pushes those ideas through by violating public service guidelines and subverting democratic process.
- Encourages advisory group members to become curriculum writers, some of whom are private providers of PLD.
- Has a personal hand in writing procurement criteria that leads to a company she has an undisclosed relationship with winning a contract for maths textbooks.
- Approves the erasure of Māori words from early readers.
- Approves the erasure of Māori and Pacific authors from the senior English curriculum in favour of the inclusion of Shakespeare and 19th century texts.
- Sits on stage at an event hosted by a far-right think tank in the US and, echoing the language of Elizabeth Rata, says that cultural responsiveness is a misdiagnosis.
- Says she’s going to remove Te Tiriti from the Education and Training Act in one go”.
- Outsources the rewrite of the curriculum to overseas parties.
But that’s ok… school leadership have been invited to a curriculum roadshow where they get to to ask pre approved questions.”
And yet people are comfortable with this?
Who assented to our school curricula being written overseas? Example – the new mathematics curriculum is being written in England.
Next month the Ministry of Education is holding a Curriculum Roadshow. The list of overseas speakers includes those who were present at the far right think tank that Stanford attended in the USA.
I will select key details from this Aotearoa Educators Collective Article, but please read it for yourself to get the full picture.
A Curriculum Designed by New Zealanders for New Zealanders
“More critically, do we know who is shaping the future of education in Aotearoa? A closer look reveals that many of the key influencers are not from New Zealand, and their philosophies are often not reflective of our diverse society in Aotearoa. Many of these voices are not teachers…
Figures like Elizabeth Rata and Michael Johnston are known to us, but the influence of international voices such as Nick Gibb (UK), Ben Jensen and Nathaniel Swain (Australia) and E.D. Hirsch and Natalie Wexler (US) is becoming increasingly significant.
The line up of speakers for next month’s Ministry of Education Curriculum Roadshow reveals many of the voices that our politicians and education officials are listening to.”
To keep this article to a reasonable length I won’t copy and paste the biographical details for these speakers, as the AEC article goes through these in depth. Again, I recommend you read it, before proceeding.
However this comment about Nick Gibb should be noted:
“In a July 2021 speech, Gibb argued that children—including those from ethnic minorities—should learn the work of the ‘dead white men.”’
Ah, that coincides with Elizabeth Rata’s education agenda.
The AEC article observes:
“It’s notable that these key individuals are all Pākehā, and few have direct classroom experience. Yet, their collective influence on New Zealand’s education policy appears to outweigh that of our own academics, teachers, principals and kaupapa Māori educators.
These influencers advocate for a Hirschian “knowledge-rich,” standardised curriculum, presenting it as a universal solution to educational disparities. Hirsch’s book The schools we need and why we don’t have them appears to have become the biblical playbook for education reform for education ministers Stanford and Gibb.”
Many have warned, and as explained further in this article,
Teachers warn ‘one-size-fits-all’ school reforms risk harming students
this is resulting in a very one size fits all education policy, that makes no allowance for individual student differences, and that is clearly targeted at Pakeha (i.e., ‘white’) education – how else would you explain the removal of all te Reo and Pasifika references?
“Sector leaders warn the blanket changes risk disadvantaging already vulnerable students, and say strong parts of the system are being dumped unnecessarily.
But Stanford said the changes were grounded in evidence and in response to what the sector had been calling for.”
Excuse me, Erica, given this article, could you please explain exactly who has been calling for these changes?
Seems to me that the sector has been very vociferous in expressing their concerns.
Also, Erica, where is the evidence to which you refer?
As Post Primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA) President Chris Abercrombie says
“…the reforms ignore how differently students learn.
“Many of the changes the current Government is making don’t seem to acknowledge individual learning needs, the fact that children and young people learn differently, and the fact that there is no such thing as a level playing field for students. Some kids are hugely disadvantaged compared with others,” he said.
Abercrombie admits no system is perfect and initiatives should be regularly reviewed, but argues the current approach goes too far.”
And also:
‘NZEI delegate Liam Rutherford said the Government’s narrow view of education was out of step with expert advice.
“They’ve gone really heavily down this knowledge-only approach, which is a massive swing of the pendulum.
“It seems to be at odds with really important ideas like problem solving, creativity, teamwork. Those skills that we know future employers are going to need, and we want to see in our kids, seem to be missing in action in the Government’s approach to curriculum.”’
The AEC article also discusses the concerns over the current direction of curriculum development.
“Where is Aotearoa in all of this? Where is te Ao Māori? Where is Fa’a Pasefika? Where is our local context?
Bruce Jepsen and Therese Ford have recently drawn our attention to the absence of Māori voice in current curriculum reform in their recent report written with the support of the PPTA: The Recolonisation of the Aotearoa New Zealand Curriculum in 2025.
They describe the dismissal of 50 years of curriculum progress under the policy of biculturalism as unbelievable… “
Indeed. Where are the protests from the wider community? This government is aiming to change the whole structure of our country – they’re not hiding it.
Jepsen and Ford write:
“The inferior status of Māori knowledge and people is reinforced by the MAG’s recommendations that Te Tiriti o Waitangi, our nation’s founding document, be removed from the curriculum and replaced with the science of learning. Additionally, it is difficult to fathom how this group has rationalised the exclusion of Te Tiriti while sanctioning the inclusion of 20 Shakespeare (from Elizabethan and Jacobean England) in the 2025 fundamental roadmap of teaching and learning in Aotearoa.
The recolonisation of the New Zealand Curriculum is not an inevitable outcome. It is a political choice that can be resisted through informed, courageous, and principled leadership. By protecting and advancing Te Tiriti o Waitangi, we can ensure that the curriculum truly serves all learners in Aotearoa, fostering a future where tangata whenua and tangata tiriti flourish and the promises of Te Tiriti o Waitangi are fully realised. This is not merely an educational imperative; it is a moral obligation for a just and equitable society.”
Apart from the racists out there, who can disagree with that?
The AEC article concludes:
“Current curriculum reform and political ideology risk erasing decades of kaupapa Māori and Aotearoa-based research and teaching. They threaten to eradicate years of expert teaching where we have learned to let the uniqueness of the learner guide our work; nuanced pedagogy tailored to individuals and not delivered in bland one-size-fits-all approaches where teachers are no longer regarded as skilled professionals but as learning technicians.
As educational leaders in Aotearoa we need to wake up and critically examine the influences and voices shaping our curriculum right now. We must advocate for a curriculum informed by local educational experts that truly serves all our students. A curriculum designed by New Zealanders for New Zealanders.”
Educators are doing their best to fight this but can not do it alone. It is imperative that all concerned New Zealanders take action to stop this, for example lobbying your local MPs (regardless of party) or writing directly to Erica Stanford and Christopher Luxon. Spread the message to your friends and extended family members.
This must be stopped.
Thankyou Allan for another insightful piece. The topic certainly needs close scrutiny and your thoughts do justice to the task. To be sure it appears to goes beyond raising achievement, setting standards, and focusing on “the basics” – all of which could be said to be an ongoing bilateral concern – to now some kind of ideological focus on standardization of the curriculum. I have probably missed it but what does “knowledge-rich” really mean anyway? What kind of knowledge is it? And where’s the evidence that it is, as claimed, a universal solution to educational disparities?
With the world changing – the nature of work, globalism, the post-truth world and all that – and education struggling to keep pace, “knowledge” has been a bilateral focus for some time. Back in the day I recall the catch phrase “catching the knowledge wave” and if I recall the focus here was the need for schools to change to prepare new generations to participate in the knowledge-based societies of the future. Knowledge was presented as a technical solution – but I also seem to recall my tutors presenting it as a positive development, a new way of looking at knowledge, not as something we possesses but as performative, some we do.
I was curious so I looked back at the web reviews of Jane Gilbert’s book of the same name, Catching the Knowledge Wave? (but with a question mark suggesting the proposition doesn’t have a definitive answer), now published two decades ago but born of the Knowledge Wave Conference held in New Zealand in 2001. It was a concern of the new millennium:
“The knowledge society is an idea that is widely discussed, but not well understood. Knowledge is developing a new meaning, one that is quite different to the one our schools were built on. Because of this, knowledge society developments are a major challenge for our schools. We cannot address this challenge by adding more ideas to our existing structures. We need a completely new framework—one that takes account of knowledge’s new meaning, but also gives everyone an equal opportunity to succeed”.
It is unlikely Gilbert is still an academic force let alone a sought-after consultant – if indeed she ever was – with current “expertise” now being drawn from who knows where. And with very dubious backgrounds it seems. But Gilbert too was arguing for a new framework for knowledge in schools, one that offers the promise of equal opportunity to achieve. Its clearly been a focus for a while.
Same same but different? Or something completely different? As someone with their finger on the pulse Allan do you have a view?
Thanks for your comment. Digging deeper into the ‘knowledge rich curriculum’ is on my to do list – other things that need a quick response keep popping up! I’d forgotten about Gilbert’s book – from memory it has nothing to do with the current ideology,
“the new mathematics curriculum is being written in England”
What’s the problem with this? Mathematics is the same the world over.
Almost all the engineering textbooks I used at university were written by Americans.
Almost all texts written by Americans have metric editions.
We appear to be going backwards in our country the colonisers are at it again same old shit just another day
I hope that Erica isn’t thinking of following in Eva Peron’s footsteps, modelling her stylish approach and avowing greater good for women etc. I don’t think Erica would reflect a real concern and sincerity and have people responding as they did to Eva. Erica might aim to be Elaine Paige – beautiful – but we wouldn’t cry for her absence.
Don’t Cry for me Argentina.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbxILa_T0F4
A point about Eva’s history – do people know about this?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26126398/
A lot of noise here.
The final verdict will be based on whether kids leaving school have better reading, writing, and mathematics skills. Period.
Unless she’s going to figure out how to get children with learning difficulties to learn, there won’t be much difference.
Children with Dyslexia, Irlen Syndrome and even sight and hearing problems, are not necessarily unintelligent.
What provision is she making for them?
You’ll notice I haven’t mentioned children from poor backgrounds with little home support. I know this govt. is making no effort on their behalf, so BAU, I reckon.
So NCEA is producing great results for Maori and Pasifika and disabled students?
As for children from ‘poor’ backgrounds, the poorest New Zealander is wealthier than most people around the world. Learning to read and write and do maths with the prerequisites to get into a good trades or engineering programme is the best way to reduce poverty.
The assumption that basic skills > educational achievement > qualifications > employment > reduction in poverty is a fair one. On a global scale its said to have lifted many third world countries out of extreme poverty, although it is also the case that many in these countries still live on less than a few dollars a day. Logic would tells us that the poor have not benefited from universal education.
Shift to NZ. We have had universal education for ages. Everyone gets the chance of gaining basic skills, attaining qualifications, finding employment and avoiding the social welfare / poverty trap (the so called ‘working poor’ is another thing). Yet, it’s not that simple. It’s as though poverty for many is self-perpetuating. And why this is so has puzzled folk for a long time, although a good many say the answers are structural – and in NZ, deeply related to colonialism. We all know the arguements and I guess one’s position depends on what side of politics you identify with.
Evidence for self-perpetuating poverty is supporting by some large scale research with primary aged kids in Australia. This found that kids who performed worst on standardized tests were from families where parent(s) had few or no qualifications. The income levels of famlies per se was not a factor, but it’s fair to assume that ‘no qualifications’ = poverty.
So yes the mantra of “education, education, education” has common sense appeal. It works for the professional classes and for the middle classes and for many of the working classes, but not for the intergenerational poor.
Apologies, a long winded way to say its not all that easy for ‘disadvantaged kids’ to become tradies let alone professionals. But no doubt a few exceptions.
“A long winded way to say its not all that easy for ‘disadvantaged kids’ to become tradies let alone professionals.”
So what’s the alternative—give up on them entirely? Stop caring whether they master reading, writing, and arithmetic?
“On a global scale its said to have lifted many third world countries out of extreme poverty, although it is also the case that many in these countries still live on less than a few dollars a day.”
Yes, poverty is relative. But one reason China has outpaced India economically since the 1980s is its higher literacy rate, which accelerated modernization.
Imperialism left deep scars, but that doesn’t justify surrendering to them. Blaming the past while neglecting education only perpetuates disadvantage.
The Soviet Union and China both prioritized mass education. Within decades of 1917, the USSR launched a satellite into space. Today, China is rapidly closing the technological gap with the West—if not surpassing it in some areas—thanks largely to rigorous training in mathematics and science.
No, I’m not suggesting we give up on the long tail of achievement. Some kids simply dont do all that well in formal education – but arguably grasp the basics – and given the right environment after they leave school cope well enough. Although with employment security now so precarious for many its getting hard to predict life outcomes.
But many in the long tail really do struggle after schooling. Why is this? Learning difficulties? Home life? Poor role models? Intergenerational poverty? Or is the long tail of underachievement really a long brown tail and noone wants to say it out loud – except for TPM – for fear of retribution or for fear of admitting the legacy of colonialism hasn’t worked for a good many. It’s a puzzle that But surely that lots of brown kids do perfectly well at school. Not only those in kura. Like all kids they come from different backgrounds.
No we can’t give up on any of them – irrespective of who they are – but you’d have to say the long tail of underachievement is a ‘wicked problem’, not easily understood, with many parts and with no easy solution.
I fear that people will go for your straightforward approach but it was set in the 20th century and now in the 21st our lifestyle is going off apace into space and there is a growth in inner space in brains viewing others ideas. The internet is here, we are almost back to moving pictograms for – communication and that is or should be, an ‘in’ word. Learning how to chat, to banter. how to amuse others or click into their world for a few seconds might save humankind. Maybe that instead of geography, more sociology and social anthropology.
I’m reading a detective story by Colin Dexter and liked his quotes at the beginning of chapters. Reading for personal fascination rounds off personal growth., and even the instruction books with devices are useful. There is a desire to do away with material, physical writings and what could be more ephemeral than the cloud etc. And the limited investment in a few words at this moment in time and only then.
*All that mankind has done, thought, gained, or been, it is all lying in magic preservation in the page of books. (Thomas Carlyle)
*What a convenient and delightful world is this world of books – if you bring to it not the obligations of the student, or look upon it as an opiate for idleness, but enter it rather with the enthusiasm of the adventurer. (David Grayson ‘Adventures in Contentment’)
*’Pon my word, Watson, you are coming along wonderfully. You have really done very well indeed. It is true that you have missed everything of importance, but you have hit upon the method. (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, ‘A Case of Identity’)
So much misinformation here!
Let’s start with the AEC post: is there evidence to back up all these statements? I’m curious because the claim that having Shakespeare in the curriculum leaves Māori and Pacific authors out is demonstrably false. I’m also curious about the ‘far right’ think tank that hosted the Core Knowledge Foundation Conference. I thought the Core Knowledge Foundation hosted its own conference, and they are neither far right nor a think tank.
Is the maths curriculum being written in England? I have not seen this.
The curricula coming out are not one-size-fits-all, and of course, there is room for individual differences. It’s just that the differences that matter aren’t about how students learn, but rather their prior knowledge, interests, and backgrounds. Saying that the reforms ignore how differently students learn perpetuates disproven myths about learning styles.
There is no such thing as a knowledge-only approach.
Finally, we let the uniqueness of the learner guide our work, with nuanced pedagogy tailored to individuals, and didn’t deliver a ‘bland one-size-fits-all approach’ for years. Our academic attainment has been in decline since the introduction of the ’07 curriculum.
The fact is while there are different learning styles, some things are indisputable:
*The basics have to be coached and instructed.
*You need a certain baseline level of skills in some particular subjects before you can express yourself
*A lot of these higher level skills can be learned in ‘real life’ in any case.
*The first responsibility of schools is to provide the basic skills for survival. Learning to read and write and do basic maths is not ‘academic’. These are survival skills. Then there are practical skills like woodwork and metalwork, and technical drawing. These set kids up for the trades and engineering. For kids of a more academic bent they should do physics and chemistry and maths.
*But the starting point is the three R’s.
*Before we get the three R’s nailed down, don’t even talk about the other stuff.
Repeating a learned skill, academic or practical, is also a universal. The more times one repeats a task, the better and smoother one gets at it. That is why, all other things being equal, I would prefer to get in the plane piloted by someone with thousands of hours of flying rather than hundreds of hours.
A lot of knowledge has to be internalised, so that expression and creativity can be built on top of that.
That is the core responsibility of the schools.
There are different learning preferences, not different learning styles. Catering to students learning styles has been shown to be ineffective time and time again.
agree
I wonder how much influence those elite schools who already use foreign exams and prescriptions have had on this. Pretty sure they use those outside qualifications because it suits their business model of intense competition and individualism.
It’ll be interesting to see the outcome.
Back when NZ schooling was world-leading that was not based on the secondary curriculum, but on superior results achieved earlier on. For a while we enjoyed high PISA rankings, chiefly by omitting our lower quartile, which Japan & Korea do not. We have fallen away from that comfortable position.
NCEA is an untidy system that produces unpredictable results. Though we certainly do not want the folly of US style high stakes multiple choice, AP & Cambridge exams are reputable, and uncontentious.
As successive governments consign NZ to an unproductive housing ponzi, internationally recognized qualifications will become important – there will be no decent jobs or pay to be had here.