logo
Labour's Education Spokesperson Defiant After Ignoring Stanford's NCEA Meeting Requests

Labour's Education Spokesperson Defiant After Ignoring Stanford's NCEA Meeting Requests

Scoop5 days ago
Labour's education spokesperson is defiant after rejecting offers to engage with the government about education reforms, saying she does not see it as a missed opportunity.
Documents show Willow-Jean Prime rejected Education Minister Erica Stanford's offers to work with her on changes to NCEA and curriculums until after decisions had already been made.
That's despite her, and Labour leader Chris Hipkins, criticising the government for not taking a more bipartisan approach with more consultation over proposals to scrap the NCEA secondary school qualifications system.
Stanford announced the plan to scrap NCEA this week, saying she would consult the sector on the idea over the next six weeks.
Minister's requests to work together went ignored for months
The documents released under the Official Information Act show Stanford approached Prime via text message the first day she was named as Labour's education spokesperson in March, taking over from Jan Tinetti.
"Congrats on your new role! Will need to get you up to speed with the NCEA change process. Jan and I had started working cross party on this given the importance of our national qualification. Would be good if we could meet first and I can run you through were we are at and what the process is."
Stanford continued to try to contact Prime, but the emails show she could find no response - eventually emailing Hipkins instead on 1 July.
"Dear Chris, I've sought on multiple occasions to get input from your Education spokesperson on NCEA curriculum reform, with no response. It is important to have cross-party collaboration regarding a national qualification, and the offer remains open to arrange a briefing from officials or from the Professional Advisory Group. I look forward to hearing from you," she said.
A response came from Prime's office the following day, saying she considered the email and was declining the invitation to be involved.
On 25 July, Prime sent a letter asking to meet and discuss curriculums and assessments on seven specific points.
Stanford responded on 3 August saying she had reached out on multiple occasions, but "key decisions have now been taken to formulate proposals for consultation".
"These decisions have been informed by months of evidence-based advice and professional input from the Professional Advisory Group. Having received no response to my emails and then a decline to my invitation in July, unfortunately the opportunity to influence the substantial direction of the proposal is no longer available.
"Work has continued and we are now ready for broader sector consultation. I am committed to working constructively, and I would like to arrange for you to receive an official briefing on the NCEA proposal and our curriculum work programme, as has been previously offered."
She offered to meet with Prime after that briefing and to discuss "the next phase of work".
Prime defiant, calls for more consultation
At Labour's caucus retreat in Christchurch, Prime told reporters she had been prioritising engaging with the sector rather than speaking to the minister - and did not see it as a missed opportunity.
"It was really important to me to understand from the sector what the issues are with NCEA and other things, and what the potential solutions to that are before engaging with the minister.
"I wanted to engage with experts. I wanted to talk widely in the sector, so not take something I had heard from one conversation in one group and run off to the minister's office and, you know, make some claims about something. So I have spent a lot of time engaging with the sector so that I am informed."
Prime said she had done her engagements with the sector, and come away with the impression they did not know what the government was doing.
"It was very secretive, and nobody knew what was going on. That concerned me," she said.
"Nobody knew anything or could not speak to anything because they had to sign NDAs."
Asked if she regretted not engaging with Stanford, she acknowledged she could have been more proactive.
"Oh, look, I probably could have said 'this is why I need to take my time and please assure me that I can have the time that I need to do this'," she said.
"But I was not given any timeframes from the minister that 'we have only this amount of time to engage, because I'm going to announce and there's only six weeks subsequent to that'."
"The minister has a timeframe and is rushing this."
She called for a longer consultation period with the sector, and to take the feedback on board.
"Is this genuine consultation or not? Has the decision been made or is the minister open to the feedback from the sector, from myself and from others, or is it simply notifying that this is what is going to happen?"
Labour leader backs his MP
Labour leader Chris Hipkins said he first became aware Prime had ignored Stanford's engagement requests in July.
He stood by his MP, though he said she could have replied to the Minister.
"Willow-Jean Prime indicated that she wanted to meet with the stakeholder groups before meeting with the minister, I don't think that's unreasonable.
"I did indicate to her I think it would have been better if she'd gone back to the minister and told her that that was what she was doing."
Hipkins, who has talked up the importance of bipartisanship, denied Labour's position on the process of overhauling NCEA was hypocritical.
He said the coalition had not engaged in good faith and he knew this from experience, having involved National in Labour's NCEA review when he was Education Minister.
"Something as important as a big change to our national qualification system should follow significant consultation and deliberation and consensus building.
"I think this has been a very closed process that Erica Stanford has operated, and I think that now we need to make sure that it's opened up, that people have meaningful and genuine consultation."
'I would sack her' - Deputy PM Seymour
Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour said he would sack one of his MPs if they ignored a meeting request.
"If I was in Chris Hipkins' position I would sack her but of course, I'm used to having quality ACT Party MPs who could fill a role.
"Chris Hipkins may be in the invidious position that she's the best he's got," he said.
Seymour said he didn't buy Prime's explanation that she wanted to engage with the sector before talking to the Minister.
"If you're in opposition and you get such an invitation, you're generally very grateful. I received very few such invitations in opposition, but when I did, I jumped at them for the opportunity to have a briefing and have some input."
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Andrew Little's Housing Policy Will Further Destroy Wellington
Andrew Little's Housing Policy Will Further Destroy Wellington

Scoop

time2 hours ago

  • Scoop

Andrew Little's Housing Policy Will Further Destroy Wellington

Wellington mayoral candidate Andrew Little has unveiled a Labour Party housing plan that will further destroy Wellington and make the city even more unaffordable for residents. The Labour Party's proposals for housing will not stimulate the local economy, and will see a continuation of high rates that hurt those on fixed incomes, students, pensioners and first home buyers most, and drive residents and businesses to leave. 'In his council housing policy, Andrew Little says Wellington 'simply isn't an affordable place to live' yet he is proposing policies that will only make the problem worse,' Wellington City Councillor and mayoral contender Ray Chung says. 'The most damning aspects of Labour's plan for Wellington are two fold: continuation of the charade that it's ratepayers' responsibility to subsidise new housing and that the city council needs to expand social housing. Both of these are the responsibility of central government and are already paid for by our taxes. Wellington ratepayers should not be paying twice for these.' 'The Labour Party candidates know their policies will cause hardship because they're busy promoting schemes like cheap loans and reverse mortgages to help homeowners pay their rates. That's how bad it's got. The ratepayer assistance scheme is another way to steal your wealth. The council should not be looking at extra ways for ratepayers pay their rates, the council should be lowering the rates take.' Social housing is set to cost Wellington ratepayers $1 billion over the next decade, which is an absolute travesty. People can barely afford to live in the city as it is. If elected mayor, I will get social housing off the council's balance sheet and back to central government, Ray says. Eastern ward candidate for council, Michelle McGuire says, 'the local economy will be stimulated by cutting the financial rates and compliance demands of council, lowering the commercial differential, and streamlining the regulatory process for building (which most councillors agree with but haven't done anything substantive about it since being elected). Wellington's population has stagnated. Until we make Wellington more affordable for residents and businesses, no one will be rushing to move here.' Michelle McGuire is one of the Independent Together candidates along with Paula Muollo (Southern ward), Ken Ah Kuoi (Eastern), Stuart Wong (Lambton) and Guy Nunns and Ray Chung (Western Onslow). These candidates have agreed on a set of pillar policies that include getting a zero rates increase for ratepayers, bringing the council back to core priorities and services, and ensuring that party politics is kept out of council decision making. 'The Independent Together candidates are the only team with policies that will ease the financial burden of ratepayers. Andrew Little's housing policies are more tax and spend. His policies will add to the cost-of-living crisis for Wellingtonians and lead to further population degrowth,' Michelle says. 'It's time to elect people who will put Wellingtonians first, not their political party. It's time to end party politics around the council table.'

Removing te reo Māori from children's books 'damaging step backwards'
Removing te reo Māori from children's books 'damaging step backwards'

RNZ News

time3 hours ago

  • RNZ News

Removing te reo Māori from children's books 'damaging step backwards'

The Education Ministry canned At the Marae for containing "too many Māori words. Photo: Screenshot / Ministry of Education A leading Māori studies academic says Education Minister Erica Stanford's decision to remove te reo Māori from new early-reading books is "a dangerous move" that breaches both Te Tiriti o Waitangi and human rights. University of Auckland Professor of Māori Studies and linguist Margaret Mutu (Ngāti Kahu, Te Rarawa, Ngāti Whātua) believes erasing te reo Māori from children's everyday learning is "an attempt to maintain the doctrine of discovery" and "inculcate white supremacy". "It's a very, very dangerous move and I feel really sorry for the mokopuna [grandchildren], who are being grossly misinformed and educated wrongly." Last week, the Education Ministry canned early-reading book At the Marae from its Ready to Read Phonics Plus (RtRPP) series, because it had "too many" Māori words. Documents released on Wednesday revealed that decision was part of a wider policy, approved by Education Minister Erica Stanford in October 2024, to exclude all Māori words , apart from character names, from any new books in the series. The pukapuka (books) are used in primary schools to help five-year-olds learn to read. At the time, the decision affected 13 books in development, all of which only included Māori words in character names. The wider series, which currently has 27 books featuring Māori words, could still be reprinted once finished. The report showed the move was driven by concerns from some literacy experts that including Māori words alongside English could confuse tamariki (children), although evidence on this was "mixed". Officials advised the minister that "limited" research existed on the impact of kupu Māori in early reading books. Professor Margaret Mutu claims exposure to more than one language is extremely beneficial. Photo: Supplied / University of Auckland Mutu, who has a PhD specialising in linguistics, said exposure to more than one language at a young age was extremely beneficial. "Children are particularly capable of obtaining a number of different languages up to the age of six," she told RNZ. "At that stage, there is just no difficulty, no complication or anything about a child learning multiple languages. It actually gives them much greater intellectual flexibility to be able to understand a whole lot of different things, because they have access to more than one language. "Being restricted and being monolingual is actually severely detrimental to children," she said. "To deny them this exposure at the age of five is not only stupid, it's very dangerous." A page from At the Marae, an early reading book that the Education Ministry removed from its Ready to Read Phonics Plus (RtRPP) series for having 'too many' Māori words. Photo: Screenshot / Ministry of Education She also accused the Minister of "falsifying what New Zealand English actually is". "New Zealand English is full of Māori words and most speakers don't even think about it. It's just part of who they are, as people living in a Māori country." Mutu pointed to the Dictionary of New Zealand English and the New Zealand Oxford Dictionary as evidence, both containing hundreds of kupu Māori (Māori words) that are neither place names nor rare. "What on earth is she trying to do here? Teach five-year-olds a different version of English than the one that actually exists in this country?" "It's long past time Māori and English were given equal attention in the entire schooling system, so people can be comfortable in this country." Education Minister Erica Stanford's decision has sparked backlash. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii The minister's decision has sparked backlash from literacy experts , principals , teachers and Māori education leaders. Te Akatea, the Māori Principals' Association, called the move "an act of white supremacy" and "an act of racism". Mutu agreed and said the change was part of a broader pattern of what she claimed was a "strongly anti-Māori and extremely racist" government. Despite this, Mutu hoped tamariki would still hear and use te reo Māori in their daily lives, but said removing them from what they read in school was "shameful". "This is denying the natural intellectual growth of a child. You rob them of the ability to learn multiple languages that starts when they're very young and fades after the age of seven. "It's a crying shame." She said, if the purpose of removing te reo from children books was to give access to five-year-old children of the words that they hear on an everyday basis, "then this is not the way to do it". "It's just silly. Linguistically, it's quite bizarre." Education Minister Erica Stanford insists she will not remove Māori words from existing books. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii RNZ approached the Minister's office for a response, but was declined. However, on Wednesday, Standford said she would not remove Māori words from existing books and more titles in the series would still include Māori names and place names. She had also directed the ministry to ensure Māori vowel sounds were taught explicitly in the English curriculum, so they were "not left to chance". Stanford also pointed out her part in releasing Rangaranga Reo ā-Tā , a new set of structured literacy books entirely in te reo Māori, earlier this year.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store