The battle for our schools

Newsroom

2 days ago

Comment: There is a familiar pattern to educational debate in New Zealand these days. The Government leaks an idea about a change it proposes, rumours circulate and eventually an announcement is made.
There is a reaction. Principals comment on radio and TV; blogs are written and spread by groups such as DisruptED on social media or the Aotearoa Education Collective, who typically complain that teachers and educational experts weren't consulted.
Pick your issue: the plan to ban phones in schools, the abolition of free school lunches, the halting of the 'curriculum refresh', structured literacy and the science of learning, moves to monitor school attendance, and most recently, Modern Learning Environments and plans to replace NCEA.
Each can be treated as individual battles, or are they part of a wider 'war on learning'?
As I see it, when taken together, these changes are part of a move to challenge the educational formation that has been in place in New Zealand since the millennium, and which itself was a response to the collapse of the consensus around education in the 1980s and 1990s. How can we make sense of these changes, and where might we be headed?
Third way education
The educational formation now on its way out was a product of the economic and cultural changes of the 1980s and 1990s. This was when New Zealand was shifting from a welfare society to a market society. The state didn't become less important, but it stressed competition and innovation. Schools were to be 'self-managing'. Education was less about the common good and more about individual achievement.
These changes were reflected in both NCEA and the New Zealand Curriculum. There was a drive to constant improvement along with projects that came together under a progressive banner, such as 'achievement for all', which was made possible by an assessment system that took note of what students could do rather than what they knew.
Classrooms became more open, teachers more 'open-necked' and teacher-student relations relaxed. The curriculum was built around skills rather than knowledge for its own sake. Overall levels of professionalism improved. New Zealand rose up the Programme for International Student Assessment charts. This small Pacific nation was punching above its weight in education, while also leading the way in renegotiating Treaty settlements.
I call this 'third way' education. It was part of a wider political moment that saw that capitalism had evolved beyond both liberalism and socialism and was now a pragmatic mixture of state and market. Social identities were more fluid, traditions were challenged, and society was seen as diverse and open to change. Knowledge itself was changing, and schools were part of the learning society. It wasn't quite 'the end of history', but there was a sense that older political rivalries were being transcended. In education, the focus was on what worked to ensure that all achieved their potential.
This educational formation cut across political parties and differences. For example, modern learning environments and the much vaunted 'communities of learning' were introduced by a National government. The strength of third way education was indicated by its ability to fight off the policy of National Standards during the John Key years. The election of the Labour government in 2017 represented the high-water mark. Under the title of a refresh, Labour proposed a new curriculum which sought to redefine the nation's story. Most significant was the introduction of the Aotearoa New Zealand histories curriculum, but there was also guidance on sexualities and relationships, which drew upon queer and transgender theory.
The Ministry of Education actually paid teachers to attend professional learning and development courses which explored 'whiteness' and critical race theory. The enlightened values of the educated classes were being spread throughout the land.
What went wrong?
All this seems a long time ago. The third way education formation has been undermined by three forces.
First, there was Covid. The fallout from the lockdowns is still being felt. Jacinda Ardern's government acted swiftly to secure the borders and isolate the population. The lockdowns were long, in part because NZ did not gain access to the vaccine. As time went on, the government was accused of authoritarianism and over-reach.
The 'team of five million' story frayed. The 'laptop classes' – working from home and shopping online had a 'good' Covid, while others – linked to race and social class, keeping hospitals open and delivering takeaways – not so much. School attendance has not returned to pre-Covid levels and there are concerns about the effect of the lockdowns on mental health and wellbeing.
Second, the economic situation creating anxiety about precarity and futures. The longevity of third way could be partly attributed to New Zealand recovering relatively quickly from the 2008 global financial crisis and spared austerity politics. Covid changed that, and the inflationary spiral that followed has eroded confidence and demanded fiscal constraint.
Many of the changes to education are 'cost-saving' (in the short run at least). The 2024 OECD Economic Survey for New Zealand is a sobering read, and much of it devoted to how educational reform is central to improving productivity. Read it: it is the Government's playbook for education policy.
Third, there is a palpable feeling that we are living in dangerous times. The rise of populism, Donald Trump returned to the White House, war in Ukraine and the ongoing crisis in Gaza, not to mention climate breakdown, all make a 'return of history' an appealing concept. Most of us went to school at a time when we could believe our teachers' insistence that the 'world is getting better'. That is not the case now; educators haven't worked out how to deal with that.
These factors have prompted a National-NZ First-Act coalition government to move swiftly to change the direction of New Zealand education policy, including its recent announcement it will be scrapping NCEA in favour of a more exam-based model. The speed has almost certainly been related to the three-year electoral cycle. It has generated a backlash. There is a lot of talk of hurt and upset; some aspects of the education formation have become 'sacred'. Education Minister Erica Stanford's most lasting achievement may be to challenge some of these sacred beliefs.
What next?
The Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci gave us the concept of the interregnum – a time when society is at an 'in-between' stage where 'the old is dying and the new cannot yet be born'. This seems to describe the state of education in New Zealand. We need new ways to imagine the role of education – including what and how we teach, learn and evaluate, as well as the role of the teacher. Both 'sides' need to stop talking past each other and recycling old and dated ideas. We need to find ways to have an intelligent and honest conversation about the real aims and purposes of education.