The Myth of Significant Change/Improvement in Education under the Coalition.

After 34 years of working in Education in New Zealand I am desperate for Erica Stanford to make truly meaningful and substantial change.

I want every Minister of Education to be highly successful and would have loved Hipkins and Tinetti to be so. They were not and Stanford is a little better – but in the way that Mt Eden (at 196m) is higher than Mt Wellington ( at 135m). Everest is a very long way off. Some comments on her first two years:

The Good

– We have small sample test indicators that phonics checks are showing marginal improvements.

– We have small sample indicators that dedicated tuition in a narrow range of maths strands produces improvement.

– The secondary teachers have finally accepted their new collective contract that started with the Ministry of Education offering a ridiculous 1% per annum for 3 years. Students lost teaching through strikes, rostering home, etc.

The Not So Good

– Not a single secondary school subject association has endorsed the proposed new curriculum in their area. In fact, they have actively written to oppose the changes and the process used. Here is a direct quote from one of NZ’s truly outstanding teachers and a dedicated advocate for quality curriculum in their area (p.s. this is by no means a “lefty”.)

“The curriculum writing process that was meant to have a significant contribution from the teacher associations was a complete farce.  Instead of monthly opportunities to critique draft materials, the various review groups were lucky if they got one opportunity and certainly no chance to fix the obvious bloopers that went out in the draft. We have given feedback to that effect to both the Ministry (who described it as “brutal”) and the Minister. From our early discussions we have high hopes that there will be a significant improvement in the writing process with considerably more input from teachers – both directly and as a critique/review role. But time will tell if the senior management has learnt their lesson.”

– Term 3 attendance data for 2025 dropped below the 2024 levels – from 51.7% of 50.3%. In terms of improvement for those who most need it – full-attendance for Maori students was down to 36.5% and Pasifika to 38.6%.

– 90 secondary schools wrote an open letter to challenge the proposed qualifications changes. 64 schools wrote to support them.

– There are very significant questions re the Ministry’s procurement processes for resources, Professional Development contracts, and contracts for systems like the SMART assessment tool).

– The Minister has proposed altering the terms of the Teachers Council to bring some of their functions into the Ministry and also to make a majority of Board appointments political. There are two HUGE problems with his. 1. Centralisation to the Ministry is never a good idea and the current members of the coalition government deeply opposed them under the “Haque Report” with the last government. 2. Political appointments seem great when “your team” is in power. Having the Green Party making appointments to the Teachers Council in the future may not be so flash.

– The Ministry of Education has been a MASSIVE handbrake to the progress of education in NZ. They have been so bad that, prior to the last election Oliver Hartwich (NZ Initiative) suggested TNT as the solution. Many Principals – including Tim O’Connor of Auckland Grammar – has suggested a full disestablishment and re-purposing.

Stanford has done the complete opposite. The coalition government pledged to reduce the Full-Time-Equivalents of the Ministry of Education to the pre-Hipkins era of 2,700. At the end of the September quarter the number stood at 3,939 and was up 2.7% on the previous quarter.

Stanford also proposed significant Ministry directional change. She has done none of it. Her first step as the new Minister was to bring a Deputy Secretary of Education into her office (Ellen MacGregor-Reid) who was a HUGE component of the previous six years of failure. Stanford then appointed her Acting Secretary for Education and – during 2025 – made her the Secretary of Education. IE – endorsing the long-term bureaucratic status-quo that has served NZ children and young people so poorly.

The NZ Initiative – previously outspoken on the poor performance of the Ministry of Education  – have become silent with complete self-interest as – and I quote – they consider themselves to be in the “tent”.

– The Charter School roll-out has been poorly managed and significantly under-whelming. At the recently Select Committee “scrutiny week” the outgoing CEO, Jane Lee, had to declare that only 427 students are attending (at an exorbitant cost – 25% of which has been spent on the Charter School Agency itself). That is less than 10% of the Mt Albert Grammar School roll. This is what David Seymour meant when he explained to Mike Hosking and Jack Tame that he was “going hard and fast”. Add to that that few of the approved schools have anything to do with improving the outcomes of NZ’s most needy students – the international purpose of the development of the Charter School model.

– The Minister made a monumental error by removing the clause in the Education Act for schools to give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi. No good could have come from it and I would imagine that the choice to do it was through the coalition agreement and through pressure from the people of Hobson’s Choice. This would not have been helped by Stanford’s choice to have Elizabeth Rata in her Minister’s Advisory Group and her highly embarrassing email rants to the Prime Minister – et al – about re-colonising the curriculum (let alone her bizarre reading lists for the senior English curriculum). I have it on very good authority that she is now well outside “the tent”.

The effect of the removal of the Treaty clause from the Education Act is that – as of yesterday – 1,823 (73%) of schools (Boards of Trustees/Principals) have said that, regardless of the Minister’s decision, they will continue to give effect to the Treaty in the delivery of education in their school.

Stanford (and people of the likes of the Sam Uffindell – who really should NEVER comment on education) have made matters so much worse by saying that sending these letters of support and signing up to the pledge is “DISGUSTING” and that these are lists created by “activists”. As an indicator – schools like St Cuthbert’s College, Kings College, Kings High School, Diocesan School for Girls, Hutt International Boys High … have written letters to declare that they will give effect to the Treaty. These are hardly left-wing radical establishments.

Like the great majority of NZers – I want the NZ education system to be the very best in the world … for every-child. Therefore, I want Erica Stanford – and all subsequent Ministers – to be outstanding and fully carry the parents/sector with them.

The Minister told Kerre Woodham on Newstalk earlier this week that she would spend a couple of weeks lying on the beach over Summer to think through next steps.

The key things are:

– a vision for how to get almost all NZ children (regardless of wealth, ethnicity, family structure) through a great first 5 years of life and arriving at schools ready to thrive.

– a plan of how to have families fully involved in our education system and convinced of the worth of getting their children to school every-day. This involves school and teacher quality development and a great deal of communication.

– how to improve the outcomes for those within our qualifications system over the next three years. They cannot be the lost generation as schools focus on all of the transition and change. I am very interested in the school leavers results for 2025 – they are on Stanford’s watch. NZ is the country in the OECD with the greatest gaps between the highest and lowest achievers. There is nothing substantive happening to change that and in fact, Stanford has stated that results may even move to incrase the gap for a while.

– how to get the sector on her side and reduce the HUGE amount of division that has been created – in part through the policy and processes. This should involve reviewing all of the proposed curriculum and qualifications changes that can only succeed if she has – like any great leader – convinced the sector of both the need for change – and the direction and detail. Few people believe in change for changes sake.

alwyn.poole@gmail.com

The post The Myth of Significant Change/Improvement in Education under the Coalition. first appeared on Kiwiblog.