Why are so many people are concerned about Education & Training (System Reform) Bill?

I could write for many weeks about the Education & Training (System Reform) Bill that is making its way through Parliament, however I’m sure you will be relieved to know this will be my last article unless something new turns up.

I intend to highlight comments made by many people/organisations about this bill, just in case some of you feel I’m running my own personal agenda. I’m not. There are a significant number of people speaking out, in addition to those that I’ve discussed in my previous two articles.

If you’ve got the feeling that opposition is widespread and vociferous out there, you’d be right. What does that tell you? And given the range of the opposing people/organisations, the accusation of teachers protecting their vested interests cannot be made. 

An aside here, in over 40 years of working in education, I rarely came across a situation where teachers were selfishly working on their own interests – teachers are very dedicated to the needs of their students. This even applies in situations where they’ve been left with no option but to go on strike for better pay and conditions, knowing that sufficient pay and better working conditions are essential to attract new people to the profession.

This article was published on the RNZ website on January 29th:

MPs urged to stop education bill said to have unprecedented ministerial over-reach

‘Thirty individuals or organisations made submissions to Parliament’s Education and Workforce Select Committee on Wednesday and nearly all spoke against the Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill.

The bill proposed changes including putting teacher regulatory body, the Teaching Council, under the control of ministerial appointees, giving the Education Minister the power to change the curriculum at will, and speeding up intervention in failing schools.’

The old adage, ‘where there’s smoke, there’s fire’ seems to be applicable here.

‘Principals’ Federation president Jason Miles told the committee unprecedented ministerial over-reach ran throughout the bill.

“This bill represents a coordinated shift of decision-making power away from educators, communities and Māori and into the hands of the minister and ministerial appointees,” he said.

“This bill assumes that unfettered political control can replace our schools’ professional expertise and their partnerships with communities.”’

This is contrary to the principles undermining the ‘Tomorrows’ Schools’ format that was introduced in 1999, one of its aims being to provide parents and communities with much more input into their local schools. 

While there are plenty of problems with the now very outdated and creaking ‘Tomorrows’ School’ structures, the underlying principle of fostering parental involvement is still very valid. Through one of her well known sleight of hand tricks, Erica Stanford is chipping away at that, taking the power for herself and her Minister of Education successors.

‘Te Akatea spokespeople Tracy Fraser and Ronald Nolan-Waaka said the organisation was in “absolute opposition” to the bill.

“To be blunt this bill is a project of recolonisation. It trades decades of progress in equitable Ti Tiriti-led partnership for a model of centralised Euro-centric control that marginalises Māori authority and reverses decades of progress toward an equitable system.” Fraser said.

“This bill promises reform but delivers marginalisation. It is an unsafe piece of legislation that ignores what has worked in the past – local solutions, Te Mataiaho [the curriculum framework]… professional independence and treaty-led partnership.”

Nolan-Waaka said the bill’s transfer of standard-setting powers from the Teaching Council to the Education Ministry was a power grab that politicised teaching.

“This move risks turning teaching into an ideological tool,” he said.

“No other profession would accept such direct political interference in their standards of practice.”’

Exactly, I’ve made that clear in my previous articles.

‘Researcher and teacher Fiona Ell told the committee the proposed Teaching Council changes would deprofessionalise teachers and have long-term negative effects on the school system.

“Instead of teachers defining their own professional standards and deciding how new teachers will be educated, the Ministry of Education will decide what teaching is, what good teaching consists of, and how people should be prepared for teaching – this is a massive shift and it effectively deprofessionalises teaching,” she said.

“The international research evidence is clear – if we deprofessionalise teaching teacher expertise will decline and so will recruitment and retention.”’

Yes. When we look at the proposed curricula and supporting documents, it’s clear that teachers will be reduced to following set procedures outlined in relevant documents. This is a well known practice in the litigation crazy USA, where schools and teachers religiously follow supplied teaching programmes laid out in purchased textbooks. This gives them protection from being sued by litigious parents over a child’s failure to ‘learn’ – the blame can be passed on the suppliers of the textbooks. 

Is that what we want here? Is that quality teaching? Will teachers now be judged on their ability to follow dictates in curriculum implementation documents?

Currently teachers are able to use their professional knowledge and their teaching skills to plan learning experiences that best fit the needs of their classes. It’s not rocket science that class needs in an affluent area will vastly differ from needs in a socially economically deprived area, yet mandating a set curriculum and teaching methodology assumes all children learn the same. Arrant nonsense.

‘Secondary school teacher Kate Halls said the government’s changes risked making New Zealand’s schools like those in her home country, the United Kingdom, and that would be a mistake.

“I feel that if I don’t speak up now I will regret it forever,” she said.

“The proposed changes alongside the curriculum and qualification changes signal a shift in New Zealand education away from this responsive and high-trust model that I have seen work so successfully, to the rigidity and micromanagement and repeated experience of failure for teachers and learners which drove me and all of my adult students in the UK into the ground and ultimately drove me out of the country,” Halls said.’

Given Stanford’s adulation for the English schooling changes hammered through by then Secretary of Education Michael Gove about 15 years ago, it’s sad to see her taking our schools down the same road. And, in case you are wondering, Gove’s changes have not brought about miraculous improvements in children’s learning.

“The president of Te Whakarōpūtanga Kaitiaki Kura o Aotearoa – New Zealand School Boards Association, Meredith Kennett, told the committee the government had lost the trust of many in the education sector by failing to consult on many of its proposed changes.

“Our education professions know what they are doing and to simply be ignored or gone around and have all this stuff come out, it’s concerning and people are now just really losing trust and really becoming suspicious of anything even it is good.”’

Even the organisation representing school boards of trustees is expressing its concerns. 

What does that tell you about this bill?  Just whose needs are being served? What do you think?

Brie Elliot has been keeping track of this bill, especially the changes to the New Zealand Teachers Council. Recently she posted on her Facebook page about an email sent to teachers from the new Teachers Council chair David Ferguson – consider the points she makes to those outlined in my previous articles. (Note that I’ve edited her post slightly as I’ve not attached the email to which she refers.)

 You will recall that concerns over his appointment were raised in my last article.

‘This isn’t a random admin update.

This is David Ferguson, Governing Council Chair of the Teaching Council.

If that name rings a bell, it should.

He’s the same person whose text messages with Education Minister Erica Stanford were publicly reported – messages where he asked her for “advice or support” during a live funding application connected to a private provider he was involved with, and later sent a “thank you” once funding was confirmed. That’s already on the public record. That context matters.

Now look at the timing.

On the exact day the Public Service Commission releases findings that the Teaching Council had procurement failures and unmanaged conflicts of interest, this email goes out to teachers from the Chair himself.

So the person fronting the “we acknowledge conflicts weren’t managed properly” message…

…is also someone whose own proximity to ministerial funding conversations has already drawn scrutiny. Nice.

Now read what the email actually does, not just what it says.

Step 1: Admit the procurement/conflict issue

He opens by acknowledging the PSC investigation found procurement didn’t comply with internal policy and conflicts weren’t properly identified or managed.

Clear. Straightforward. Accountability language.

Step 2: Immediately broaden the frame

Within a few paragraphs, he links that investigation to a separate review about performance, culture, and direction.

And then comes the pivot:

“Protecting and safeguarding children.”

“Clearer regulatory approach.”

“Transformational opportunities.”

“Important and necessary change.”

Notice what just happened?

A paper-trail governance problem (procurement, contracts, conflicts) is being emotionally bundled with child safety and structural reset language.

Those are not the same issue.

But once they’re merged, the conversation shifts from “who signed off on contracts?” to “how can you question change when children are involved? THINK OF THE CHILDREN!” 

Step 3: Position the future under the same leadership

He doesn’t step back.

He doesn’t say “independent oversight will take the lead.”

He says we will implement the change, we will reset, we will move forward.

So the same leadership acknowledging conflict failures is also positioning itself as the architect of the solution?

Why this matters:

Because conflicts of interest aren’t just about rules – they’re about trust.

When the response to “we didn’t manage conflicts properly” is led by someone already publicly linked to ministerial funding conversations, and that response also pivots into a wider regulatory overhaul using “protecting children” as the emotional anchor… people are going to ask whether this is reform, or narrative control.

I’m not saying don’t fix procurement.

I’m not saying don’t improve child safeguarding.

I am saying: watch how the issues are stitched together, and who is stitching them.

When conflicts of interest are the headline problem, the solution needs to look independent, transparent, and beyond reproach.

Otherwise, it doesn’t read like clean reform.

It reads like damage control. 

Are we talking about procurement failures – or hiding behind ‘protecting children’ so no one questions the reset? 

Are we fixing the problem – or just moving the spotlight off his conflicts? 

Honestly. Wow.’

The Education & Training (System Reform) Bill is just another example of the damage Erica Stanford, on behalf of her influencers, is doing to New Zealand Education.

Got the message yet?