The Dictator of Education Makes her Move

Erica Stanford, the Dictator of Education, has been steadily making moves to centralise power, and the details of this were set out in the recent introduction of ‘The Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill’ into parliament.

Claire Amos and the Aotearoa Educators Collective have reviewed this bill and have published their findings. As is my usual practice I will highlight and comment on selections, however I encourage you to also read the article.

IMPORTANT UPDATE – System Reform Bill: When Reform Isn’t Really Reform

“Over the past few months, many of us have been watching the Education and Training Amendment Bill developments with growing unease. On the surface, it promises “efficiency,” “clarity,” and “better outcomes.” But when you look closely (really closely) you see something far more significant unfolding.”

And also:

“This Bill is not a tidy tune-up of the system we know. It represents a fundamental philosophical shift in who controls education in Aotearoa, whose voices matter, and how schools are expected to operate.

And if it passes, the implications for teachers, school leadership, and our young people are profound.

This is not scaremongering. This is an evidence-based reading of what the Bill actually does.

So let’s talk plainly about what’s at stake, and why teachers should care deeply.”

Surprised?  You shouldn’t be. It’s hard to think of any decision made by this government that is democratic and that takes account of public opinion – the Regulatory Standards Bill being the most obvious example of this. 

The first concern has been discussed previously.

The Quiet Undermining of the Teaching Profession

Perhaps the most troubling change is the transfer of responsibility for teaching standards, registration criteria, practising certificate criteria, and even the teacher Code of Conduct from the Teaching Council to the Secretary for Education.

What does this mean in reality?

It means teaching standards become political instruments.

It means registration requirements can shift with the ideology of the government of the day.

It means the independent, profession-led voice that should shape our values and expectations as educators is reduced to a compliance arm of the Ministry.”

The desire of the right to remove teacher agency is long standing – I’ve previously discussed the concept of professional capture.  A dictator can’t have professionals, who actually know what they are talking about, challenging educational policy that they know will be harmful to children. This is in comparison to an educational agenda gained through reading a book at the beach, which we know is an excellent way of developing knowledge and understanding.

“This is not reform. This is centralisation. This is about control.”

The next section has been discussed previously but when it is set out in the bill, it’s purpose becomes far more ominous,

“Curriculum Control Shifts to the Beehive

The Bill gives the Minister sweeping powers to amend curriculum statements, even without a review, even without consultation, and allows different curriculum statements for different types of schools or groups of students.

We should all pause at that.

A differentiated national curriculum? One that can vary depending on school type or student grouping?

This opens the door to tiered schooling and the quiet erosion of equity. It is also a significant shift away from the spirit and flexibility of the 2007 New Zealand Curriculum, one of the most progressive, student-centred frameworks in the world.”

What happened to the days when governments set the overall goals for education and  curriculum development was the responsibility of professionals? For decades this was the task of the Department of Education, then post 1990 this role was taken over by the Ministry of Education. 

In any field, the day the politicians believe they know more than the professionals, is a day when we should all be very concerned. There’s plenty of evidence to support this – just look at the Health sector for a start.

“The Rapid Expansion of the Charter School Model

The Bill makes it easier for charter school operators to run multi-school contracts, essentially enabling charter chains. It also ensures that if a charter operator pulls out, a new State school must be established in its place, smoothing the pathway for rapid turnover and expansion.

International evidence tells us this is how large-scale privatisation of public education begins: quietly, administratively, through “efficiency frameworks” that shift decision-making away from local communities.

And once it starts, it is very hard to unwind”.

Guess which minority party leader is behind this section?  This is an idealogical project, not based on sound research and evidence. 

Did you vote for that?

I guess an upside is that the aggressive takeover of Kelston Boys High School has crashed in flames, showing that people power still has agency, and proving that we can stop all this.

The next section has a major fishhook buried in it:

A New Super-Agency for School Property

The creation of the New Zealand School Property Agency (NZSPA) lifts property control out of schools and the Ministry and places it into a new Crown entity. This agency will have authority to:

• enter school sites
• carry out maintenance and charge schools for it
• issue interventions for property issues
• require schools to provide information
• influence capital planning and development

In other words, another layer of oversight and compliance, without addressing root causes like chronic under-funding of maintenance, ageing stock, seismic requirements, and the sheer complexity of running a modern school.

Property is not just infrastructure. It is culture, identity, safety, and belonging. When decisions are made far from the people who live in our spaces, we lose the ability to shape environments that reflect our communities.”

On the surface, some of this seems reasonable. I always felt that expecting Boards of Trustees (a group of well meaning volunteers) to handle property was too much, meaning that in many cases this job landed on the principal’s desk. I can’t see the logic in charging schools for maintenance – surely it would be much more efficient just to do the job?

But the big fishhook, not mentioned in this article, but which is consistent with this government’s ideology – having all school property invested in a separate agency makes it much easier for a future right wing government to sell it, as part of their privatisation/asset sales agenda.

 If this government (or a variation of it) is re-elected in 2026, then selling off the property portfolio, either as a whole, or in sections, is a real possibility. 

The present government have already given enough clues as to their desire to sell assets, and school property would be a goldmine for them. 

Stanford is very consistent – if we look to the UK we find that they went down this road in in 2016:

Councils decry government’s academy schools ‘land grab’

“The new plans, however, will see all school land transferred directly to the education secretary, Nicky Morgan, who will then grant leases to academy trusts.

The government says the controversial change has been made in order to speed up the process of academy conversion by avoiding time-consuming negotiations over land, but critics are concerned it represents a major handover of local authority land worth billions of pounds.”

Academy Trusts are the UK’s version of charter schools. As with everything Stanford does, it pays to look overseas to see where the ideas originate.

Combine this property section to the charter school section, and we can see where this is headed. The agenda is obvious. 

The tightening of power continues. Having clamped down on teacher autonomy, the next section focusses on ensuring school compliance.

“ERO Becomes Faster, Stronger – and Potentially More Punitive

The Bill requires ERO to notify the Minister within two days if they believe a school is “of serious concern,” and to recommend an intervention within 28 days.

This accelerates the path from review to intervention and significantly increases the role of the Minister in the life of individual schools.”

ERO (Education Review Office) has had a very chequered history ever since it was established in 1989. For a brief moment it had a reviewing and supportive role, tasked with both reviewing school performance and also offering guidance. This died with the election of the National government in 1990, which its function was changed to be a purely review role, with a heavy focus on ensuring schools had the correct policies in place, working on a ideological assumption that having all the necessary policies would guarantee school performance. Rubbish. 

A major review of ERO carried out by the Clark Labour led government about 2001 was excoriating. ERO got what it deserved and big changes were made, in my opinion still well short of ideal but at least it was an improvement. 

The wheel is now turning and once again ERO is being placed in the policing mode. 

“When schools are pressured to avoid negative judgements at all costs, they stop taking risks. Creativity suffers. Innovation suffers. Equity suffers.

And most importantly, learners suffer.”

If we look overseas, the school review model that I suspect Stanford has in mind in is that used in England, where the school review agency is called OFSTED, and which causes mayhem in its school review programme. We know that Stanford has met with former UK Secretary for Education Michael Gove, so adapting their school review model is a logical development.

We can see that this new ERO function gives the dictator of education a tool to jump on any school who doesn’t follow her prescriptions.

So much for allowing principals and teachers to use their professional knowledge and judgement, with the support of Boards of Trustees, to develop the best possible learning opportunities for the children of their community.

The bill also tightens up requirements and accountability for school attendance. I’ll leave it to you to read that.

This concluding statement sums it all up.

“Together, these reforms signal a clear, deliberate shift in the philosophy underpinning our education system:

• from local to central
• from profession-led to politically led
• from flexible to prescriptive
• from partnership to compliance
• from public to increasing privatisation
• from holistic wellbeing to measurable outputs

This Bill is not a response to what currently challenges our system; it is a re-engineering of the system to reflect a narrow ideology that is increasingly out of step with evidence about effective learning, equity, and the future of work.

The philosophy underpinning the provision of education in New Zealand is one of the most important considerations. The education of present and future children depends on a sound, coherent, educationally valid education system, that takes into consideration, and is based on, the best educational research.

Mandating a major centralisation of educational power, based on an educational agenda developed by Stanford reading one book at the beach, is most definitely not a sound way to proceed.

If it goes belly up, as I fear it will, then it’s your children and grandchildren who will pay the price.

Happy with that?

“Because the future of education in Aotearoa is too important to leave to politics alone.”

P.S: This article just arrived in my inbox – it’s worth reading.

Spoiler Alert: Erica’s Next Move Isn’t the Win She Thinks It Is

Allan Alach is TDBs Education Blogger