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 dropper 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.
Republished with permission from the author’s Substack.
Image credit: Getty Images
Schools are little more than socialist-infused Kindergardens.
Check the writing, reading or maths skills of any pupil, let alone their ideas about history.
But hey, government certainly does not intend to raise educated people who ask questions or think for themselves.
I agree with many of Alwyns musings but his criticism of Stanford leaves out a few key facts.
1. No-one wants the education portfolio because of the need to deal with unpleasant teachers and their unions.
2. Giving failed nz teachers the ability to make extensive changes to a cirriculum copied from successful overseas school systems would simply be a repeat of previous nz education disasters.
3. Pretending that nz teachers will help Stanford create a better school system when said teachers are responsible for the dismal nz education system is ridiculous.
4. Bemoaning the removal of the treaty of waitingi from board responsibilities is an insult to most parents who are sick of maori jumbo jumbo being used to detract studebts, parents and teachers from productive tasks.
5. Asking the minister to take on the enormity of an entire education reset and also take on years 0 to 4 is nonsense.
6. Keeping the sector onside is what created the useless and expensive nz education system Stanford is fixing.
I do agree with Alwyn that the MOE should disappear, especially education secretary McGregor Reid who attends press conferences with the minister but cant answer any questions about her department. “I’ll have to come back to you on that”.
MccGregor Reis should be moved to finance minister, that way both portfolios improve.
1. I believe Stanford genuinely wants the portfolio and wants to do well with it. Yes – dealing with a range of “players” is tough and the unions do her no favours.
2. Many of the potential curriculum writers are genuienely good. Having Elizabeth Rata lead with English writing was/is a disaster and her book-list would send the most dedicated student to sleep.
3. It is not whether teachers will “help her” – many are already doing a very good job and it is her responsibility to work out how to drag up the rest. They are help only mechanism for implementation. As Aslan says in The Silver Chair: “There is no other stream.”
4. I am not bemoaning the removal of the Treaty clause. I am stating that it was an unwise political act that has allowed 75% of schools to create a problem for her – for no educational gain.
5. Erica Stanford prmised me directly that National would have a parenting policy. I am not saying she should have sole responsibility but many of her curriculum and qualifications changes will have marginal benefits if, as a nation, we do not work out how to improve parenting through pregnancy and the first 5 years … this also flows into the appalling attendance statistics. How can you make substantive change when only 50% of students are attending school fully?
6. There is no other delivery mechanism and she is unwilling to challenge the powers by fully backing a “professional association” and removing the unions from the bargaining table. She also is clearly unwilling to challnge the Ministry in and significant way.
1. Tough players add time so we should give her more of it.
2.if nz curriculum writers are so good why was our education system a multi decade long disaster?
3. Stanford is dragging the entire education system along and up “jul 2025. NCEA numeracy and literacy results surge”
4. Unwise political act…..
The Curia poll, , shows 46% in support of Seymours proposed TOW principles as agreed by Cabinet, versus just 25% opposed and 29% unsure. Parents have had enough of counter prodictive TOW BS.
5. See point 1. Rome wasn’t built in a day.
6. Unwillingly to challenge the ministry? Stamfford replaced curriculum, material; and measurements, the biggest MOE challenge the minister could make and all.in 2 short years.
Alwyn, I think youre asking too much too soon. The work Stanford completed in 2 years has been huge and successful. She has another 7 years to go (if the dishonest dullard Willis doesn’t let Labour in early)
You must be one of her press people to believe what you are writing.
1. She new this before should took on the role and needed a strategy to deal with it.
2. The “curriculum” has very little to do wth the demise of the NZ education system – and the range of proposed currucula will have very little to do with any resurgance. Change – in and of itself – is pointless – it needs to be the right change through the right mechanisms.
3. I know that data sets very well. Yes – there are some very modest and narrow scope improvements. Let’s see what the leavers results for 2025 show.
4. The lack of wisdom with this change – that will not improve outcomes not a smidge (and may cause decline) – and has further added to the perception that National is anti-Maori. It gace 75% of schools and a Green party candidate a gold plated opportunity – and they have taken it.
5. There are many other changes that were “stroke of the pen” that Stanford has available – e.g. requiring high schools to set NCEA/UE leavers goals for the next three years.
6. If she had any intent of challenging the Ministry they would not still have nearly 4,000 employees – and increasing – not EMR as Secretary.
The young people of NZ needed high quality – well through through – urgent action. Not anyone saying 7 more years.
I always find your articles interesting and support for Erics Stanford however you frame it is good to read. In my particularly humble opinion the intense focus on maori content when not particularly grounded in correct pronunciation or recognising differences in regional dialect has been detrimental to overall cultural respect. Academia ties itself in knots over defining cultural mores and standards while ignoring the realities of life for those on the ground who would probably like to bulldoze their ivory towers for ignoring requests for a reality based education ( by which I mean the ability to deal with the fractured world of a surveillance state and a multi cultural approach to recognising the laws of the land).
1. The state should not be involved in ‘education’.
2. How a child is raised is a matter which belongs solely to the sphere of the family, and is no one else’s business.
3. If a family wishes to make the bad decision to abrogate their responsibility and pass the job of raising children onto some ‘hired professional’, then this should have nothing to do with taxing someone else to pay for this bad decision.
4. If you don’t like the way someone else is raising their children, talk to them personally about it. The power of coercion (i.e. the state) has no role here.
5. There would, therefore, be no NZ education system, no pseudo-scientific measuring of the ‘education standards’ of a nation as if this was a commodity to be controlled and manipulated (for no such commodity would exist). Every family would be in charge of what they do. They would have only themselves to complain about, if things were not going as they desired, for the buck would stop with them. And for all the educational zealots who wished to ‘raise the educational standards’ of others: rather than complaining to a centralized authority (for such has no business in how children are raised), they could actually talk to families, and students, themselves, and convince them why their (i.e. the zealot’s) preferred method should be adopted. If they don’t convince the family of this, then present a better/more attractive argument.
Or I’m a concerned Kiwi/Parent who has watched NZ’s wretched education leaders ruin the future success of many Kiwi Children.
1. Stanford is dealing with the MOE and teachers by excluding them. Why would anyone in their right mind waste time asking the architects of an embarrassingly abysmal education system to play a significant role in creating a new one?
Stanford created an advisory group to sidestep the MOE. The MOE CEO’s inability to answer ANY questions about her department illustrates she should never have been made CEO in the first place and that she has little or no involvement in Stanfords change program. Dealing with mass staff layoffs whilst designing and implementing significant change would be managerial suicide and wouldn’t help NZ’s recovery from a deep recession. The layoffs will come when the time is right!
2. The “curriculum” sets out what our children learn which is obviously vital.
Spending hours learning Maori Mumbo Jumbo doesn’t help anyone achieve excellence in a modern work place which is why the new curriculum demotes Maori mumbo jumbo learning to its rightful frequency and importance, a tenet Elizabeth Rata admirably stood up and promoted knowing she would be vilified by the Ardern government for doing so. Its a shame a few more principals didn’t have the balls nor will to do the same!
3. What improvement do you expect after 2 years? Adapting successful international education systems / curriculum / material / teaching guidance to the NZ context, then rolling them out successfully, against the background of an incompetent, politically hostile MOE and teaching staff is a remarkable achievement
4. See point 2.
5. relying on high schools to set NCEA/UE leavers goals for the next three years is simply a repetition of the decentralized disaster of Labour’s 6 years. A centralized education system which Can be rolled out across all schools, with standardized goals, material and measurements is the only way to transform NZs education system.
Leaving our kids education up to idiot principals who leave lunches to go mouldy to falsely claim the lunches arrived mouldy, or principals who use school budgets for holidays in Queenstown; is a recipe for continued disaster
6. see point b1. Stanford has sidelined the ministry.
There are some excellent schools with fantastic principals but they are the exception.
Anyone with a skerrick of management knowledge will know Stanford’s changes / approach is the best and only way to maximize the chance of excellent schools becoming the norm!
I can assure you that the Ministry is anything but sidelined – an the increase in employees is just one indicator.
I beg to differ.
One reason Stanford and Roche will be changing the management and operational systems first is to allow them to assess the staff at the MOE. Its very costly to let the wrong staff go and keep the bad ones!
If MacGregor-Reid isn’t gone by 2027 then ill contact you to help write a genuine Stanford criticism article.
Until then could you hold fire and give Stanford more time to progress a very difficult task?
Our kids futures depend on Stanford succeeding.
There are plenty of clowns in nzs education system for you to report on instead.
e.g., Im sure Peggy Burrows’ student’s progress and performance would be very interesting.
The problem is – all the evidence I see – and the people I respect – contrdict your assertions. e.g. why emply EMR if she wants to get rid of her.
To assert that keeping Ministry employee numbers up is to prevent further economic decline is absilute nonsense. the 1,300 roles that should have already gone is a tiny fraction of the economy plus – the economic burden of these people should not be caried to the detriment of the education of NZ young people (deeply immoral).
I have a major outlet piece in late January titled: “Erica Stanford and Education: An open goal to own goals.” I have a lot of gathered evidence for the article.
If you have genuine contrary evidence it is easy to find my contacts.
I will contact you.
These contacts you respect.
Were they vocal like you when the H Clark / R Hipkins advised Ardern hierarchy was wrecking our education system and providing scores of illiterate and innumerate Brown kids to the only organisations in nz who could employ and make money out of them….. gangs?