History of education in New Zealand

Before the arrival of Europeans in New Zealand, Māori had a system of knowledge sharing and application that was learned from elders. This ensured that there were enough people with the skills to fish, hunt, maintain communities and develop crafts such as weaving and basketry. Specific skills such as those for wood carving were taught by experts and tribal law was passed on in whare wananga or houses of learning.[2] In Māori society at the time, understanding, respecting and appropriately applying the restrictions around tapu was seen as an essential aspect of education. Waiata, whakataukī (proverbs), pūrākau (stories) and whakapapa (genealogy) transmitted "history, values and models of behaviour."[3] This educational system has been described as "sophisticated and functional...[with a]...strong knowledge base, and a dynamic ability to respond to changing needs and new challenges."[4]

It has been said that when Māori first made contact with a Western European education system, the relationship was characterised by tension as different world views, and at times contradictory, ways of teaching and learning needed to be negotiated.[5] The first school along European lines for Māori in New Zealand was established in 1816[6] by the missionary Thomas Kendall of the Anglican Church Missionary Society, at Rangihoua, in the Bay of Islands. The school had 22 students when it opened and the roll peaked at 70 within a year. The curriculum was described as "mainly rote learning of the alphabet and syllables, missionary-constructed Māori grammar, and catechisms". Due to issues with attendance and food supplies, the original school closed in 1818 but resumed a year later at Kerikeri.[7] While the missionaries saw literacy as the way to teach the scriptures, Māori were said to have become "increasingly interested in learning to read and write...[and]... understanding the new European world with its tall sailing ships, firearms and iron tools."[6]

This divided New Zealand into provinces and provincial councils were given responsibility for education, with some financing denominational schools rather than establishing public schools.[8] The six provinces, Auckland, New Plymouth, Wellington, Nelson, Canterbury and Otago determined funding for curriculum and enrolment matters. It has been said that provincial councils managed education differently because each had challenges in "developing a regional infrastructure to support settlement."[9]^: p.74

In 1847, the governor of New Zealand, George Grey, took steps to support the existing network of mission schools through the Educational Ordinance 1847. This outlined the principles for education in New Zealand, including provision for government inspection and a requirement that "English language would become an integral part of the New Zealand education system for all, including Māori whose first language was Māori."[10] It has been said that the intention of this was to assimilate Maori based on the "prevailing belief at the time was of the superiority of British civilisation with education seen as a way of "pacifying Maori...[and in]...providing a potential labouring class to help build the young colony."[6] Another researcher described The Education Ordinance Act [as] a "way of disguising a policy, with aims of social control, assimilation and a means to further establish British rule in New Zealand...[and]...the first of several policies which would serve to see the Mäori language being pushed out of schools in favour of English."[11]^: p.17

This Act enabled income for the mission schools, while stipulating that Māori students must attend as boarders. Numbers of Maori attending these schools were not high by 1850, and because the government struggled to find the funds, most of the mission schools were closed in the 1860s.[6] In the 1850s about 25% of Pākehā could not read or write, and another 14% could only read. Some schools were set up by religious groups, and others by provincial governments. Nelson and Otago had more efficient and better funded education systems than northern provinces such as Auckland.[12] However the Auckland Board of Education was set up 1857[13] under the Education Act of that year,[14] and had 45 schools by 1863.[15]

Under this Act a system of secular village primary schools controlled by the Department of Native Affairs was established. Māori communities could request a school for their children and contribute land and pay toward building costs and teachers' salaries. In spite of this cost, many Maori communities saw the value of learning English and there were 57 Native schools in the country by 1979.[16] In establishing secular, state-controlled schools, The Act took responsibility for Māori schooling away from the missionaries. To some, the lawmakers were seen as having good intentions to "civilise" Māori and teach them "Pākehā ways and knowledge", and the process could be seen as supporting Maori in "developing and rebuilding their language, beliefs and values and creating the initiatives to do that."[17] Paul Moon said the Act was an "assimilationist measure" by the government, in response to pressure from missionaries to replace te reo Māori in schools with English.[18]^: p.4 Another researcher noted that "readings of the Māori Schools Bill in 1867 had received much debate in parliament but received acceptance as it appeared that some politicians had genuine concern for Māori interests, but the bill was accepted for purely economic reasons and as a further means of social control."[11]^{: pp 18-19} Historian Alan Ward said that while the Act continued the "ideas of racial and cultural superiority", there was an element of altruism in it being an attempt by the government to "develop a system of integrated, rather than segregated schooling based on race."[19]

In 1979, Native schools came under control of the newly created Department of Education, rather than the Native Department, and effectively operated within a system separate from public schools.[11]^: p.18 The Department of Education was briefed with focussing on curriculum issues and teaching quality, with the goal of assimilating Māori into a state education system that to some extent reflected an 1879 report to the Minister of Education which explicitly stated that Te Reo Māori "ought to be very little, if at all, used" in any schools.[20] This along with concerns about the quality of teaching, led to the establishment of the Native Schools Code in 1880 by James Pope, the organising inspector of schools. Pope's vision for the future of Māori education in the country was for the establishment of state schools, requiring Maori communities to contribute land and money toward their maintenance. A curriculum was established that consisted of reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, but with a strong focus on the importance of English and publications that were disseminated [and] "designed to set expectations in the Native Schools and their surrounding Māori communities as to what the cultural, literary and social ideals were to which Māori should aspire."[18]^: p.9 Teachers were expected to be "role models for the entire Māori community, therefore linking with the assimilation policy".[11]^: p.20

In 1876 the provinces were abolished, resulting in a move toward a "centralist education system",[9]^: p.75 and the passing of the Education Act 1877 which established New Zealand's first secular, compulsory and free national system of primary education. Under the Act it became compulsory for Pākehā children from ages 7 to 13 to attend primary school and while the Act did not apply to Māori children, they had the option of attending these schools.[21] The Act also sought to establish standards of quality of education as schools varied greatly in their resources and approaches. Before this time children attended schools governed by provincial governments or church or private schools.[22] As with all legislation, the Act's effectiveness depended on its practicability and the resources to enforce it. Many children continued to face difficulties with attending school, especially those from rural areas where their manual labour was important to families. There was a standardised curriculum [that]..."consisted of reading, writing, arithmetic, history and geography, plus sewing and needlework for girls and military drill for boys."[21] The School Attendance Act 1894 confirmed "every child between the age of seven years and the age of thirteen years is hereby required to attend some public school at least six times a week, morning attendances and afternoon attendances being separately counted."[23]

The 1877 Act made some difference to Maori and women, enabling a small proportion to proceed to higher education. For example, over 500 Maori girls went to Hukarere Native Girls' School in the Hawkes bay between 1877 and 1900. Apirana Ngata went to Te Aute College at the age of 10 in 1884, won a scholarship, and became the first Maori to graduate in a New Zealand university and became a leading politician.[24]^: p.378

The Act effectively distinguished primary from secondary education: learning in the early years was a universal right, and access to secondary schools was strictly limited.[25]^: p.18

During the 1970s there were increasing calls to review the nature and direction of the centralised education system. The two-year Educational Conference completed in 1974, convened by the then Minister of Education Phil Amos, was a consultation process [involving]..."50,000 parents, teachers, administrators and interested laypeople...debating many aspects of the education system." It encouraged more participation by parents and the wider community in educational decision-making and concluded that there were issues of alienation and frustration within the bureaucracy which they felt was "vast, ponderous and unresponsive, particularly to the special needs of women and girls, Maori and other minorities all of whom were gaining a new assertiveness in this period."[45]^: pp17-18 The Conference also questioned whether there was equality of opportunity and suggested targeting funding to support the groups in society who were being disadvantaged.[39]^: p.20 Emanating from the Conference was The Working Party on Organisation and Administration (1974) chaired by Arnold Nordmeyer. In their report, some of the key recommendations, which were effectively calls for devolution of the centralised system, suggested more involvement by parents in primary school committees and secondary boards of governors, which should have a role in the appointment of staff.[46]

Other reports raised concerns about education in New Zealand. Towards Partnership, known as the McComb Report (1976), said that "flaws" in the system included the lack of parental involvement and "concentration of power in the Department of Education"; and the Scott Report, An Inquiry into the Quality of Teaching in 1986, noted that for teacher training to be effective, there needed to be research-based "theoretical and practical components...[and ]...the required teaching skills and competencies should be clearly identified."[25]^{: pp 29-30}

Against this backdrop New Zealand education underwent major reforms in the 1980s. One historian said these came about because "a combination of economic difficulties, societal polarisation and the rise of a new post-war generation to political power saw the creation of a common discourse emanating from all parts of the political spectrum, demanding radical educational reform."[47]^: p.4 This has been described as a challenge to the consensus of the time that the state was beneficent and efficient, by both a "radical left-wing critique that highlighted the continuing inequalities of education" and a 'New Right' perspective that "questioned the character and effects of state involvement".[48]^: p.4 These positions emanated from the perception at the time that within education there was "provider-capture by self interested state sector professionals".[47]^: p.5 But the challenge to the concept that the state mechanisms were "disinterested upholders of the public good...[allowed]...an ideologically disparate coalition of interests [to articulate] a common policy discourse centering on the need for radical structural reforms in education...to threaten the educational status quo."[49]

The 1984 - 1990 Labour government led by David Lange introduced a range of free market, neoliberal economic reforms[39]^: p.24[50] and some of the briefings and documents at the time indicated this approach was likely to be reflected in the education reforms. In 1987 New Zealand Treasury produced a brief to the Labour government, the second part of which dealt exclusively with education.[51] The paper acknowledged that there was "much in the state system with which to be satisfied", but identified concerns related to "significant numbers of children and young people [who] are disadvantaged in terms of the present institutional and financing structures... structures [being] inequitable in that they involve a transfer of wealth from lower to higher income groups...[and]... that some educational outcomes are either declining or not improving to an extent commensurate with increasing educational inputs."[52] For primary school education, government intervention was seen as necessary in the interests of equity of outcomes, equality of opportunity and "values clarification".[53]^{: pp 93-94} Attention was drawn to the importance of a strong partnership between families and schools to support successful implementation of the four functions of education: to fulfil, integrate and provide children with skills and a custodial role to "lesson the burden of child-rearing on parents."[53]^: p.84

The document also noted significantly that..."in the technical sense used by economists, education is not in fact a 'public good', that it is "never free...[and]...educational services are like other goods traded in the market place."[54]

In April 1987 the Labour government released The Curriculum Review after two years of community consultation and debate. It proposed guidelines for a national curriculum to be "accessible to every student; non-racist and non-sexist; able to ensure significant success for all students; whole; balanced; of the highest quality for every student; planned; co-operatively designed; responsive, inclusive, enabling, enjoyable."[55]^: p.76 While the document was viewed favourably within the education sector, the Treasury said that it did not deal with the relationship between education and the economy or have an approach to manage the issues of consumer choice. One commentator noted that this Review was not acknowledged in any way in what was to become a major reform process beginning with the establishment of The Taskforce to Review Education Administration that produced Administering for Excellence, known as the Picot Report.[55]^: p.77

With an upcoming general election later in the year, The Taskforce to Review Education Administration announced on 21 July 1987 was said to be a response by the Labour government to increasing public pressure to radically reform education after "intense parliamentary debate...[and]...an increasing number of articles highly critical of education" in the media.[47]^: p.5 The chairperson, Brian Picot, had a high profile in the retail industry, having served as a director of several major New Zealand companies. He was also involved in public service being president of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce in 1975 and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Auckland University in the 1990s and in 2001 was "inducted into the Fairfax Business Hall of Fame in 2001 and made a distinguished fellow of the Institute of Directors in 2007."[56][57] The other Taskforce members were: Associate Professor Peter Ramsay a prominent educational researcher and critic of "bureaucratic conservatism"; Margaret Rosemergy a Wellington Teachers College lecturer and chair of the Onslow College Board of Governors; Whetumarama Wereta from the Department of Māori Affairs, a "social researcher of Ngāi Te Rangi-Ngāti Ranginui descent who had served on the Royal Commission on the Electoral System"; and Colin Wise, a Dunedin businessman with "educational experience as a University of Otago Council member and a past member of a secondary school board of governors."[47]^: p.6

Organisations initially invited to meet with the Taskforce were the New Zealand Māori Council, the Kohanga Reo Trust and the Māori Women's Welfare League, while the teachers' union was excluded because of concerns from some organisations about possible "provider-capture".[47]^: p.7

By the time of the Taskforce's first meeting on 31 July 1987, the members had viewed relevant briefs, key policy documents, recommendations and student achievement data, specifically 1986 data that showed poor exit qualifications of Māori students. It is recorded that at this initial meeting, there was agreement the proposed report was to be more than a discussion document and expected to be acted upon quickly by the government,[58]^{: pp 71-76} and it would be necessary to radically change an education system identified as "too complex and too unresponsive."[47]^: 7

The final report, Administering for excellence, was released in April 1988.[59] The Report identified five main issues of concern in New Zealand's education system: "over-centralisation of decision-making; complexity; lack of information and choice; lack of effective management practices; and feeling of powerlessness among parents, communities and practitioners."[60]^: pp2-3 The Taskforce recommended the replacement of the Department of Education by a Ministry of Education and the abolition of regional regional education boards. It further suggested that "all schools to become autonomous, self-managing learning institutions, controlled by locally elected boards of trustees, responsible for learning outcomes, budgeting, and the employment of teachers...[and]...produce a charter outlining the school's mission in relation to its clientele and community, incorporating centrally prescribed requirements of safety, equity and national standards."[49] The Report acknowledged the role of biculturalism in education and claimed "that the new structure it recommended would help achieve Māori aspirations."[47]^: 14

In August 1988 the newly re-elected Labour Government, with David Lange as Minister of Education, published Tomorrow's Schools which accepted most of the recommendations of the Picot Report.

The government replaced the Department of Education with new bodies. The Ministry of Education (MoE) was to provide policy advice to, the Minister of Education without becoming a direct provider of educational services. Other functions of the MoE included reviewing the curriculum, establishing national guidelines for education, approving charters and managing capital works in schools.[60]^: p.6 The Education Review Office (ERO) was to be an independent review agency that ensured charter goals were achieved and the Boards of Trustees were to be responsible for establishing charters as a "contract between the community, the school and the state" with the goal of establishing more autonomy for schools.[39]^: p.26 Other bodies that later came to be recognised included the New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) and The Tertiary Education Commission. The changes reflected concerns expressed in the Picot report about too much middle management in education and the new system was said to "enable greater community involvement" because Boards of Trustees, drawn from the community, would directly administer schools.[39]^: p.26

Legislation giving effect to the changes came with the passing of the Education Act 1989. Under this Act Regional Boards, which had been set up by Provincial Governments and split into 12 (reduced to 10 by 1966) Education Boards in 1877, were abolished.[61][62] Schools became autonomous entities, managed by Boards of Trustees and as of 2022, this model continues.[63][64] In 1989, the school leaving age was raised from 15 years to 16 years taking effect from 1 january 1993.[65]

The New Zealand Government commissioned an independent history of the reforms in 1998. The authors acknowledge that while the changes were radical, they did reflect a debate about the role of the state in providing education that had been ongoing in the country since the 1877 Education Bill. Issues of financial accountability, standards of performance, centralisation versus devolution and whether the purpose of education is to benefit mainly individuals or society, had always been a concern and the 1989 Taskforce led by Picot dealt with these in a way described as "philosophically conservative, in that they were built on one of the founding traditions of public education in New Zealand."[45]^: p.10 The Picot Report of 1988 has been seen as a "high-level initiative" that acknowledged and responded to increasingly complex social political issues which had led to criticisms of the education system from a variety of interests, including those with a neoliberalism agenda to radical Marxist.[48]^: p.1 While this commentator sees that to some extent there was a divergence in the Picot Report from the "liberal-progressive assumptions" strongly reflected in the Currie Report of 1962, the work of the Taskforce to Review Education Administration, in producing Administering for excellence, is seen as "an important attempt to restore public confidence in the ability of the state education system to create social equality...[and in this sense]...is squarely in the dominant tradition of educational policy in twentieth century New Zealand."[48]^: p.1

One school of thought holds that the changes were driven by free market ideologies that had been imported into New Zealand following similar reforms in the United Kingdom and Australia and which aligned with the neoliberal reform programmes of the 1984 - 1990 Labour government. One paper claimed that, driven by the New Zealand Treasury, it was a battle between "New Right agencies" and the principles of "Welfare Labourism" that had originated with the first Labour Government of 1935–1949, "as part of its political commitment to the creation of a just and more equitable society...[with]...education at the centre of its plans for social, political, and economic transformation."[66]^: p.28 This author continues that Treasury was by the 1980s "the ideological agency for the propagation of the principles and concepts of the New Right into areas of social and educational policy...[and their brief to the incoming government in 1987]...demonstrated an unprecedented attempt by Treasury officials to influence the direction and nature of future education policy in New Zealand."[66]^{: pp 29-30} Supporting this position, another commentator holds that New Zealand has an historical commitment to establishing an educational system based on fairness, equality of opportunity and choice, yet the reforms highlighted a paradox between the "apparent commitment to the social goals of both equity and choice in the pursuit of greater efficiencies" that created a dilemma for the government when designing and implementing such radical changes.[55]^: p.78

Although representatives from the New Zealand Treasury and the State Services Commission(SSC), two agencies that review and assist coordinating government policies, were only invited to participate in the Picot Taskforce from the second meeting and then without voting rights,[47]^: p.7 the impact and influence of both organisations on the reforms of the New Zealand education system has been a source of debate. A paper by two academics maintains that while Treasury had an ongoing interest in education, the SSC had a "far more powerful and direct influence on the education system", a perspective that the authors say was "neglected in the face of the neo-liberal argument."[67]^: p.8 The argument followed is that while the Treasury saw "responsiveness, choice and competition" as the key elements of educational reform, the brief of the SSC was for more accountability and effectiveness of the State education system, with little overlap between the two positions.[67]^{: pp 10-11} In moving in the direction of reforming education by changing the machinery of government, the SSC took a strong position that the problem was one of "producer capture" in the sector and its brief was to advise on how this could be overseen by performance management of staff and other good employer provisions. This became relevant to education with the passing of the State Sector Act 1988 which effectively positioned schools as "government departments headed by CEOs who were to be engaged on 5-year contracts and to take full responsibility for appointments to and the performance, of their department", [67]^: p.14 and the SSC as the de facto collective employer of teachers. This was a situation that was problematic for the authors of this paper because they saw that "the central importance of the SSC's intervention in education...[meant that]...the education reforms...[were]...much more marked by the reform of public administration than they [were] to do with direct changes to education."[67]^: p.26 Another paper took the view that this changed the position of teachers within the system from being professionals to "just employees of individual schools" but without access to any "policy-making decisions...[in a role]...limited to operational matters."[68]^: p.99 Geoffrey Leane, from the University of Canterbury School of Law, noted that under such a system the "professional context for teachers – including matters of discipline, classification, training and working hours – now lay in the hands of the new managers, the Board of Trustees". According to Leane this could led to a "low-trust model... arguably at the expense of more subtle qualities (such as commitment, loyalty, sense of public duty, collegiality) that imbued the professional model." The writer concludes that "accountability is now a formal, externally imposed thing reflecting low trust in the professional teacher."[69]

There have been other challenges to the theory that the educational reforms of the late 1980s were only a reflection of imported neo-liberal ideology, [48][47] with one commentary noting that this [ignores] "the cumulative impact of indigenous factors."[47]^: p.3 Some of these factors resulted from challenges to a centralised bureaucracy, with claims from feminist groups that it was a "male-dominated, hierarchical structure". Māori activists said the system was failing Māori students and this led to the National Advisory Committee on Māori Education (NACME) advocating for the creation of a "bicultural society whereby much educational decision-making would be devolved from a largely Pākehā bureaucracy to Māori"...[which because of the rise of Te Kohanga reo]... "further highlighted the case for educational reform along the lines of devolution and consumer choice."[47]^: p.4 A paper was published in 2001 that examined how Tomorrow's Schools reforms had affected the development of Kura Kaupapa Māori.[70] The author noted that key principles of the Picot Report were effectively aimed at devolving more decision making to schools in the interest of meeting community needs, but while this appeared to offer an opportunity for Māori, the philosophy of Picot did not offer "pluralism...[and]...was essentially a mainstream initiative geared to the needs and aspirations of Pakeha and arguably the middle class." [70]^: p.107 The paper contends that while Kura Kaupapa Māori are acknowledged directly in the Tomorrow's Schools document, they are defined as 'special character schools' rather than an initiative reflecting a partnership under the obligations of the Treaty of Waitangi.[70]^: p.109 Pita Sharples framed this as: "Kura Kaupapa Māori does not equate with any of the school types outlined in Tomorrows Schools and accordingly it is not catered for- in the proposed transition of schools in the current reform of education administration."[71] Tuhiwai Smith sees it as "disappointing" that 'whanau' is one of few Māori words in the Tomorrow's School document because Kura Kaupapa Māori were "designed by Māori for Māori...and many of its key elements are situated in a different framework" [from] other special or mainstream schools.[41]^: p.308 Significantly, in 2014, the Education Review Office (ERO) released a framework for reviewing Kura Kaupapa Māori with a methodology that:

• acknowledges the diversity of Kura Kaupapa Māori
• recognises culturally specific features
• values observable behaviour and whānau practice.
• aims to empower kura by strengthening their methods of internal evaluation.[72]

In 1999 a group of New Zealand educationalists wrote a paper discussing the process that resulted in Tomorrow's Schools as "an interaction between two agendas: one for more equity and the other for more choice...[and]... The Picot Report was released on 10 May 1988 with only 6-7 weeks allowed for public submissions", seen as insufficient time to process over 20,000 submissions that had been received.[73]^{: pp 1-3} This paper also contends that there were no clear aims of the reforms and it was difficult to find data - other than that submitted by Treasury in their 1987 brief to the government which justified the position that the aim of equality had not been met and the system therefore needed reforming. The authors conclude that led to an inference the proposed new system, likely to be market driven, would improve educational equality, but the debate was clouded by a reluctance of those in favour the reforms to analyse them and those opposed, to criticizing perceived underlying ideologies of the government.[73]^: p.3

The "marketizing" of education in New Zealand as a result of the reforms has been discussed by several commentators. One said that not only were parents' needs unmet, but they actually felt their children could be at risk in a "climate of intensived competition."[74]^: p.204. A common strand in the discussion has been to challenge the idea that the market is the fairest way of distributing resources and competition ensures the provision of services that are sensitive to the needs of stakeholders as "consumers" in a process claimed to reflect "the neoliberal advocacy of economic efficiency over social need."[39]^: p.25 Further comment noted that because neoliberalism supports individualism, and a belief that "all citizens are motivated mainly by self interest", any interference by the state will threaten individual freedom.[68]^: p.91 The writer continues that after Tomorrow's Schools education in New Zealand was a commodity that could be brought or sold and which operated in an environment of "market signals" to indicate levels of satisfaction by parents but which could only be truly contestable if all schools had "no zones, no special state protection, and the same level of state funding"[68]^: p.96 Writers in the Journal of Economic Literature however, after reviewing an assessment of the reforms in New Zealand, agreed "that predicted benefits were overstated, that there were both losers and winners, and that educational nirvana did not result...[but]...the main impact was to make schools' problems more transparent, creating discomforting pressures and attempts to undermine this transparency.[75]

Understanding how schools could be marketed in a country like New Zealand, with a history of state control of education, has been explored through the concept of quasi-market. This can be seen a rationale for managing what one commentator calls an "insoluble contradiction" for any state that uses neo-liberal policies but wants compulsory education. The quasi-market model legitimizes continued state funding of education while allowing choice and competition.[76] Following the educational reforms in New Zealand in the late 1980s, schools are funded on the basis of student numbers, so within a quasi-market environment, a focus priority of schools becomes to build and maintain high roll numbers. This leads to a variation of funding amongst schools. Those better able to promote themselves are in areas of the country that reflect the culture of middle-class European and wealthy immigrant families, while schools where the population is of a lower socio-economic status have less funding and often a transient student body. It has been claimed therefore, that the main driver of parent choice under a free market, is related to "the class and ethnic nature of the area in which the schools are located."[76]^: p.71

Two reports in 2009 assessed the impact of Tomorrow's Schools on New Zealand education twenty years after their implementation. Cathy Wylie, Chief Researcher at the New Zealand Council for Educational Research (NZCER), positioned the education system as still coming to terms with the complexities of self-managing schools and looking to develop relationships to build capacity and efficiency through support that focussed more on teaching and learning than administration. Wylie describes the beginning of a "coherent" developmental approach to professional development with ongoing evaluation or self-review that could shift schools "from thinking about accountability in terms of compliance...[and more]...in strategic terms of ongoing development - real self-management."[77] Another publication collated essays that considered several issues that needed to be resolved before the goals of Tomorrow's Schools could be realised.[78]

The Labour government on 12 December 2017 announced the abolishment of the national standards in reading, writing and maths. Education Minister Chris Hipkins said parents had lost confidence in the standards and from next year schools would no longer be required to report their students' results in the standards to the Ministry of Education. The announcement had been anticipated since the Labour-led government took power as all three parties involved in the government campaigned on promises of getting rid of the benchmarks for primary and intermediate school children.[100] The decision was welcomed and widely supported.[101][102][103]

While there were conservative curriculum reforms completed in the 1990s, followed by more comprehensive and contemporary reforms updating what was taught in schools for the 21st century, there were later calls to review the model put in place under Tomorrow's Schools.[104][105][106] On 21 February 2018, the media reported that it was likely Chris Hipkins, as part of an "enduring 30 year approach to education", would announce a review of many aspects of the education system, including Tomorrows Schools.[107][108] When the review was confirmed, one commentator said that success depended on the initiative reflecting a "genuine partnership model with the Government and the ongoing political tinkering needs to be kept to a minimum."[109] The Terms of Reference for the review state: "The primary purpose of the review of Tomorrow's Schools will be to consider if the governance, management and administration of the schooling system is fit for purpose to ensure that every learner achieves educational success"[110] and the independent taskforce was appointed on 3 April 2018.[111][112]

By 2018, the focus on educational change by the government had moved toward a review of the curriculum. In 2019 a report from the Curriculum Progress, and Achievement Ministerial Advisory Group,[113] provided advice on improving the curriculum, identifying "focus areas for Māori medium and English medium settings which shaped the recommendations to Cabinet, including addressing aspects of trust and equity."[114] As a response, in September 2019, Chris Hipkins confirmed that "Aotearoa New Zealand's histories would be taught in all schools and kura from 2022, which has now been revised to 2023 to give schools and kura more time to engage with curriculum content."[114][115] Pressure for this to be compulsory had come from petitions to the New Zealand parliament in 2015[116][117][118] and 2019,[119] and ongoing academic and public debate.[120][121] An extensive process of consultation[122] began in 2020 when two Curriculum Writing Groups drafted content for Aotearoa New Zealand's histories in The New Zealand Curriculum and Te Takanga o Te Wā in Te Marautanga o Aotearoa, with the content being surveyed, trialled and reviewed in 2021[114]

There was mixed reception to the draft documents. Some concerns were expressed about possible gaps in the history to be covered,[123] there were questions raised about the focus on content rather than the process of how students learn,[124] and the point raised by a politician that the emphasis on studying colonisation was likely to cause divisions amongst New Zealanders,[125] was discussed in detail by one academic.[126] Positive responses included comments from the New Zealand Historical Association[125] and a review by the New Zealand Council for Educational Research that indicated feedback from the public that the content was timely and "overdue".[127]

The final version of the documents were launched on 17 March 2022.[128] Aotearoa New Zealand's histories, while a standalone document,[129] is aligned with the English-medium New Zealand Curriculum.[130] The structure and content involving focusing on "big ideas" in New Zealand history[131][132] was challenged by Brooke van Velden as being over focused on colonisation and promoting a narrative that ignores the multiethnic nature of New Zealand Society and is just about "two sets of people, Māori and Pākehā".[133] James Shaw however said it is important to deal honestly with the past; an academic noted the new approach as reflecting New Zealand had matured as a society; and the president of The Maori Principals' Association, saw the curriculum as potentially transformational.[133] Te Takanga o Te Wā is a new strand in the Māori-medium curriculum, Te Matauranga o Aotearoa[134][135] which recognises that students explore history by learning about themselves and connections to the world, "to understand their own identity as Māori in Aotearoa."[114]

Lesley Longstone was recruited from Britain where her last role was overseeing the introduction of a UK version of charter schools in Britain.[136] She was appointed as chief executive for the Ministry of Education in New Zealand with a five-year contract starting in July 2012 and a salary of $660,000 a year. She was recruited from England and given a "relocation payout" of $50,000 which "covers flights, freight, up to eight weeks' accommodation and visa expenses".[137]

Chief executives recruited from overseas only have to repay the grant if they leave the job within a year. Longstone held the position for 13 months before she was pushed into resigning after her relationship with Education Minister Hekia Parata became 'strained'.[138] She was paid $425,000 in severance pay.[139]

In May 2012, Education Minister, Hekia Parata, announced changes to the education sector which would raise the level of qualification required by teachers - including a minimum requirement of postgraduate degrees for teacher trainees. Because of proposed budget cuts, she also announced there would be a loss of specialized teaching staff in intermediate schools and a corresponding increase in class sizes. However, it was Treasury rather than the Ministry of Education which was responsible for promoting this strategy "which essentially rates teacher quality as a more critical factor than class size".[140]

As Education Minister, Parata was given the job of selling the policy to the sector. She claimed the changes would save $43 million a year and that: "About 90 per cent of schools will have a net loss of less than one full-time teacher equivalent as a result of the combined effect of the ratio changes and projected roll growth."[141] Over the next few months, teachers and parents alike voiced their concerns about the proposed changes especially when it was revealed that the new ratios would cause some schools to lose up to seven teachers.[142] Because of public backlash, in June 2012 Parata announced the Government would not go ahead with the policy and acknowledged it had caused "a disproportionate amount of anxiety for parents".[143]

In 2012, the Ministry rolled out a new payroll system for teachers and other school staff called Novopay run by the Australian company Talent 2. From the outset, the system led to widespread problems with over 8,000 teachers receiving the wrong pay and in some cases no pay at all;[144] within a few months, 90% of schools were affected.[145]

The 'Novopay débâcle' as it was called[146][147] received almost daily media attention, causing embarrassment for the new Minister of Education Hekia Parata, and leading to the resignation of newly recruited Education secretary Lesley Longstone. The Australian Financial Review says: "The débâcle bears similarities to the botched $500 million payroll implementation at Queensland Health by IBM" which is expected to end up costing $1.25 billion.[148]

Hekia Parata was relieved of her duties towards Novopay by the prime minister and replaced by Steven Joyce but problems continued and prior to the September 2014 election Joyce admitted that Novopay would be taken over and run by the government as he saw no hope that Novopay could be made into an efficient, viable organization.

In 2014 the National Government announced that it was terminating the Novopay contract and would be forming a new government-run organisation to take over. This was implemented in October 2014.

In September 2012, newly appointed Education Minister, Hekia Parata, announced that 13 schools in Christchurch would be closed and 18 would be merged following the earthquakes the previous year.[149] In an editorial, the New Zealand Herald said: "Of all the mishaps in education this year, the Christchurch school plan was the most telling. To read the plan was to see a Ministry utterly out of touch with the people its schools are supposed to serve. The earthquakes had left a number of schools damaged and some of their communities decimated. Some closures would be required. But not nearly as many as the ministry decided."[150]

After further consultation, the Government backtracked. On 18 February, Ministry of Education staff visited the 31 schools under the Ministry's spotlight to tell teachers and principals in person which schools would be closed.[151] Seven schools would close and twelve would merge creating another five closures. Another twelve schools originally proposed for closure or merger would now remain unaffected.[152] In March 2013 the Ombudsman announced an investigation would be held into the way the Education Ministry conducted its consultation process on schools closures and mergers to see if they were done in "a manner that adequately ensures fair and meaningful participation by affected parties".[153]

The National government agreed to the introduction of charter schools in 2011 as part of its arrangement with John Banks for the support of the ACT Party after the election. Catherine Isaac, a former Act president, says charter schools would not have to follow Ministry of Education requirements but would be free to set their own timetables, school terms and teacher working conditions.[154]

The proposal for charter schools aroused considerable opposition, not just from teachers groups. Speaking to a parliamentary committee, New Zealand Principals' Federation president Philip Harding said: "There is no public mandate to pursue this policy."[155] The New Zealand School Trustees Association expressed concerns about allowing people to teach who are not registered teachers.[156] The Chief Ombudsman, Dame Beverley Wakem, expressed concern that making charter schools exempt from public scrutiny was "unconstitutional" and would detract from public confidence.[155] In February 2013, visiting American Karran Harper Royal told the education and science committee in Parliament that "charter schools have been a failed experiment in New Orleans" and the Government should not proceed with them.[157]

John O'Neill, professor of teacher education at Massey University's Institute of Education says the Bill proposing the establishment of charter schools is "undemocratic and patronising". The Education Amendment Bill euphemistically refers to them as 'partnership' schools - but O'Neill says "the so-called partnership will only be between the Government and a private 'sponsor' which may be for-profit and have no prior connection with the local community". He says parents will have no right of representation on the school's governing body as they do in state schools, and the Minister of Education can set up a charter school without even consulting the local community.[158]

By March 2013, 305 schools were reported as having problems with cladding and weather-tightness issues which is expected to cost the Ministry up to $1.4 billion to repair. These schools were built or modified between 1995 and 2005, and are an extension of the leaky homes crisis which has affected many New Zealand homes of the same era. At Te Rapa school (near Hamilton) so many of the classrooms were affected the entire school was "forced to play musical classrooms" for over a year while repairs were being done. Principal Vaughan Franklin described it as a 'massive disruption' which threatened the quality of teaching. So far only 61 schools have been repaired.[159]

In 2013 the Ministry was involved in legal action over 87 schools to rectify damage caused by "poor design, workmanship, quality control, and materials failure" and is holding architects, designers and builders liable for the cost of repairs. Contractors are liable for the cost if the building work was undertaken within the past 10 years.[160]

Weathertightness issues have also been identified with several 1970s-built secondary schools constructed to the "S 68" design. These schools were designed with low-pitched roofs and protruding wooden clerestory windows in pre-1977 schools (schools built from 1977 have skylights), which in recent years have started to cause problems in areas with relatively high rainfall. The original prototype buildings at Porirua College (opened in 1968, hence "S 68"), have progressively been replaced with modern building since 2007, while extensive re-roofing projects have taken place at other schools, including Waiopehu College in Levin and Awatapu College in Palmerston North.[161]