Big fan of this investment, but it's a stretch calling it 'practical'.

So back on track

And then let’s come back to where this started. The Minister wants to set teaching standards because they’re “failing to exit non-performers.” With the standards of performance set at the say-so of the Minister – that’s a deeply worrying space for the teaching profession. /end

Remember this govt just removed the obligation on schools to give effect to Te Tiriti, saying that it’s the Crown as a whole that the duty sits with (and look how they’re doing at that…). How long will it last in the teacher standards when the Minister can set them directly?

So why would Stanford be bothering with this? Well, look at what’s in the middle of this graphic representation of the current code and standards:

Despite big promises – where these papers end is that they don’t think it will make any quantifiable difference - knowing that there are *many* other variables that impact both student performance, and then teaching quality – and none of those will be held constant

Along with it being justification for basically every policy flip-flop (introducing Kāhui Ako, then removing them, the 2020 curriculum changes, and then the 2024 ones that bulldozed them, teacher education changes etc..) the Ministry has *no idea* about the impact of any of them

Here’s some of the problem definition. This is the same argument that the MoE has been making to Ministers for over 20 years.

The teachers must be pretty terrible for Stanford to have to take control directly, right? There's no evidence in the papers MoE gave her. They rely on 2003's BES, PISA reports which don't comment on tchr quality, & achievement data, which has *lots* of factors influencing it

Imagine if they did this to, eg lawyers, engineers, social workers – other regulated professions? How would doctors respond if instead of their peers determining what it means to be a doctor, Simeon Brown did? Compare to how lawyers are regulated:

This bill is govt is taking control of the teaching profession in a way even Hekia Parata or Lockwood Smith didn’t try. When it passes, professional standards and code of the teaching profession won’t be set by teachers, but will be set by the MoE, for the Minister of the day

https://t.co/ogqwFyitO2

The changes to teacher workforce regs though are really, really bad. I worked in the ‘Quality Teaching’ policy team that did this mahi in the MoE til 2023, and earlier on this issue with PPTA & as a teacher, & have been through iterations of change in this space over two decades

This is a big complicated bill, that includes changes to ECE (weird & bad), system monitoring changes (probably OK) & breaking up the MoE to set up a property agency (risky long term).

I’m back into NZ ed policy for a thread that that’s been brewing since talking to old friend & PPTA comrade Angela Roberts last week, & reading the MoE papers on a bill currently at Select Committee

There’s a lot going on in schools rn, a new curriculum partly in place, a new senior qualification coming, a focus on ‘teaching the basics’ + getting kids to class. Now Stanford wants to start dealing with that perennial bogeyman of National education ministers: bad teachers

And in NZ EV sales in 2025 remain way below 2023, more closely matchng the US than anywhere else. Thanks Luxon govt, you really have decided which team we're on when it comes to the energy transition.

Luxon started 2025 promising this was the year of growth. Now it's clear - growth in 2025 was the lowest since the GFC. And Treasury makes clear, this wasn't about the global economy

So National's big policy idea means less money in the pocket at the end of the week for workers,and isn't funded for the public service, meaning real terms cuts. Consistent with current trajectory then

Oh this is a connection I love & am very excited to listen to