Erica Stanford: Education Minister on scrapping the requirement for schools to give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi

The Education Minister says requiring boards to implement the Treaty hasn't made any difference in practice. 

Erica Stanford has confirmed plans to scrap a clause which requires school boards to reflect local tikanga Māori in the curriculum and offer te reo Māori instruction. 

The changes will go to Parliament today and are expected to pass before the end of the year. 

Stanford told Mike Hosking she’s not certain what school boards were expected to do under the requirement. 

She says they've clarified that school boards must work to raise outcomes for Māori students and teach te reo Māori to students who want to learn it. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
One of the great cultural and educational frauds is at
last being undone by the government. So the Education Minister
is written to all school boards explaining her rationale for
removing the requirement for school boards to give effect to tetility.
O WAITANGI. So the twenty twenty change, it was implemented
in a labor of course, made no measurable difference. What
a surprise to MARI achievement and distracted boards from their

(00:21):
court duties. Anyway, Erica Stamford's with us a very good
morning to.

Speaker 2 (00:23):
You, Good morning mate.

Speaker 1 (00:25):
Was this virtual signaling signaling nonsense?

Speaker 2 (00:30):
Well, it certainly didn't make any difference. I mean, if
you are laser focused on raising achievement and raising achievement
for Mary students, you undertake the reforms that we're undertaking,
which have already for the first time in two decade,
seen a measurable improvement in mariy early Mary reading data.
Those are the things that you do. But just putting

(00:50):
some words that are relatively difficult to interpret it onto
a school board isn't going to make any difference. And
we've seen that, right.

Speaker 1 (00:57):
Can you interpret them? What is it that they were
expected to do? Specifically, in recognizing tetidity. Oh White, honey, Well,
that's a good question.

Speaker 2 (01:09):
I'm not entirely certain. There were some things that the
board were told they had to do, and we've clarified those.
You must work to raise MARI achievement and ensure equable outcomes.
You must teach today omari in your school for those
who ask for it. And you must be culturally competent
to the needs of your students in the school. Those

(01:30):
things are very important, but they are very clear, and
they tell a board exactly what to do. But just
a vague statement that is conferring a treaty duty from
the crown where it rightfully sits to a board of
trustees of volunteer, well meaning parents is not reasonable.

Speaker 1 (01:46):
Correct me if I'm wrong. So what then happened, And
having been through this myself with kids and your parent
as well, what then happened is everyone panicked and didn't
want to be caught out or had a finger pointed
at them, so they just just spread liberally all over
there fronment something they thought would be right to no
great end. Is that fair?

Speaker 2 (02:07):
Well, what they didn't do, Mike, was teach structured literacy.
Do an hour a day of reading, writing, and maths,
make sure that we're assessing early literacy to see if
children are improving and if they're not intervene early having
a clear curriculum. I mean, those are all of the
things that raise achievement. And now for the first time,
we're seeing that achievement is rising, and that's what we need.
School boards to be focused on raising achievement, getting kids

(02:30):
to school, keeping them safe.

Speaker 1 (02:31):
Right are you do you think going to get a
welcome sigh of relief from boards or are you expecting pushback?

Speaker 2 (02:42):
I think what will happen is the usual suspects in
the unions will have a go. But actually I'm just
out here fighting for kids and what is the best
for them, and I'm interested in outcomes and not what
the unions have to say.

Speaker 1 (02:56):
Okay, so material, does it change or not?

Speaker 2 (03:05):
I think that will be a stronger focus on boards
on raising achievement, getting our kids to school. That's what
these changes do. There is still a requirement. We still
want schools to make sure that they are being culturally
relevant and that they are offering today a Mary for
those children who want it, and that they are raising
Mary achievement. But we're being very clear about those things.

Speaker 1 (03:27):
Those schools would do that because a good school does
what the community wants. I mean, you don't have to
spell it out, do you.

Speaker 2 (03:35):
Well, some boards will. I think we do need to
be clear about some of those things because the look,
my belief is still that the Crown has an obligation
to the Treaty of White Angy to make sure that
we are providing good education and that there are good outcomes,
and also that we're protecting today Amari as well. So
it is important that we do have those outlined in

(03:57):
what a board has to do. But we're very clear
and precise about those things rather than a vague statement
that is difficult to interpret.

Speaker 1 (04:04):
On related matters, you're in Sydney last week, so you
may have missed it. I don't know anyway, this moaning
about the curriculum, they were the people. They seem to
be going, Look what they're expecting a five year old
to understand. Five year olds don't understand that. So have
you missed the mark or have they teachers unions just

(04:24):
dumbed kids down to a point where we have no
great expectation anymore.

Speaker 2 (04:29):
I think it's definitely the latter, But also, I mean
you teach to the age of the child. Right. There
are for example, in the science curriculum you learn about
and I've forgotten his name. His name's Carl. He was
the one who worked out how bees danced to communicate.
You know, you're not expecting five year olds to remember

(04:50):
his name. Gosh, I can't even remember it. But I mean,
how interesting is it that bees dance and that's how
they communicate to each other. I mean it's fascinating. And
you've got the left in the in the Union saying, oh,
don't teach kids facts because it stifles creativity. You can't
be creative, and you can't think critically, and you you know,
you can't problem solve if you don't have a base
of knowledge and facts and know how to use those

(05:13):
facts and when to use them. Otherwise you're just an
empty vessel. I've seen so many people say, oh, kids
don't need facts, they can just use AI are ridiculous,
You can't comprehend. Yes, that's right, cold on fresh. Also
their Frastus, I think he's also in there about he's
the father of botany. He decided what is a tree,
what is a bush? What is a shrub? I mean,

(05:33):
you can get five year olds to have a whole
bunch of pictures in front of them and like, you know,
sort these into which ones are trees, which ones are herbs,
and say, hey, there was a guy who thought of this,
and it was a long time ago, and his name
was the Ephrastus, and he decided that these things would
be grouped. I mean, you can teach five year olds
that sort of thing, you know, because it's interesting and fascinating,
and we're just limiting them if we think we can

(05:54):
just get them to sit there and randomly think creatively
without having some basis of knowledge to think creatively and
critically about.

Speaker 1 (06:02):
Very well, SAE appreciate your time as always, eric A,
Stamford Education Ministers. For more from the My Asking Breakfast,
listen live to news talks. It'd be from six am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.