Warnings of ‘political interference’ as Govt looks to move oversight of teacher training

The education minister is proposing the Ministry of Education oversee teacher training – a move that would put the profession out-of-step with nurses, lawyers, doctors, social workers and psychologists.
The proposal to shift decisions about how and what teachers are taught, and by whom, away from the independent Teaching Council to a ministry under direct political control has been described as a “really dangerous precedent” by the chair of the Council of Deans of Education.
Meanwhile, a collection of education organisation – including NZEI Te Riu Roa, PPTA Te Wehengarua, NZ Principals Federation and Te Akatea (Māori educators) – have described the plan to remove this function from the teachers’ professional body as “an overreach” and “tantamount to political interference”.
Similar to other professions – doctors, nurses, lawyers, social workers, speech and language therapists, and psychologists – teachers have a professional body that oversees training, standards and registration. These functions are expressly set out in the Education and Training Act 2020.
The education minister already has a say in who is appointed to the council’s governing board and can lay out her expectations to the council. But unlike the ministry, the council (theoretically) has the option to say ‘no’ to the minister.
This proposal comes off the back of a round of policy shifts by the Government related to its focus on lifting achievement standards – particularly in literacy and numeracy – alongside curriculum changes and discussions about the preparedness of beginning teachers.
But the sector says moving oversight of teacher education and training from an independent professional body into the ministry will lead to a further politicisation of education; teacher education and training will likely be based on political priorities rather than best practice and robust evidence, and a further devaluation of the profession may occur.
In a joint statement sent to Education Minister Erica Stanford on Wednesday, NZEI Te Riu Roa, PPTA Te Wehengarua, NZ Principals Federation and Te Akatea (Māori educators) said the oversight of initial teacher education should be “by the profession, for the profession”.  
“Direct political control of professional programmes and standards by ministers through the ministry would be an overreach and is tantamount to political interference,” the group said.  
“Such Ministerial direction does not occur with the training of lawyers, doctors, nurses or other professions and would be inappropriate for the teaching profession.” 
Moving that oversight function would reduce partially or wholly both the professional independence and voice of teachers in terms of who determined teacher education standards, they said.
The group added that the more than 100,000 teachers who paid council fees and voted for representatives had fought for an independent professional body.
“No evidence has been provided by the ministry about how it could improve initial teacher education and it has neither the capability, capacity or confidence from the profession to take on this role.”
Council of Deans of Education chair Alison Kearney told Newsroom “this is a huge precedent here that’s being suggested … a really dangerous precedent that I don’t think we would want in Aotearoa New Zealand”.
Kearney reiterated that other professions used the same structure to oversee registration, training and professional standards, in order to provide independence and separation from politics.
This move would provide “huge, increased ministerial power”, she said.
“It will irredeemably politicise initial teacher education.”
The council was accountable to teachers, while the ministry was accountable to the minister, meaning this change would result in a shift of power and control over teachers.
“It’s most unusual, I think, that politicians think they can tell teachers how to teach and what to teach, and that’s what we’re seeing at the moment. You wouldn’t see the minister of health telling doctors how to operate, or speech language therapists, how to conduct speech language therapy, but it’s something that we’ve seen in education for many, many years; this interference in education and now in initial teacher education.” 
Initial teacher education programmes are approved and accredited by the Teaching Council, through a rigorous process, and are designed alongside stakeholders, including teachers and principals.
But Stanford has been critical of the state of initial teacher education since early in her tenure. 
Earlier this year, the minister said she had met the Teaching Council to discuss her expectations for teacher training and quality. 
Last month, Stanford made a series of changes in a push to raise maths achievement, which included asking the Teaching Council to change entry requirements for those going into teacher training to include at least 10 numeracy credits at NCEA Level 2 or above.
At the time, the Teaching Council said it shared the Government’s concern that too many new primary teachers were not confident in maths teaching.
Stanford said: “To build a pipeline of great teachers we also need to lift the standard for new teachers. That’s why it’s good news that the Teaching Council has agreed that anyone wanting to train to become a teacher must have at least NCEA Level 2 maths.”
In announcing these changes to teacher education and training, Stanford frequently cites an ERO report released in May, which found nearly two thirds (60 percent) of principals reported their new teachers were unprepared, and less than a third (29 percent) reported being prepared.
But educators have raised concerns about the methodology of the report, which surveyed 10 percent of the country’s beginning teachers and less than 12 percent of principals. The research was also conducted on a cohort that came through training during the Covid-19 pandemic, which further affected the results.
In 2023 libertarian think-tank The New Zealand Initiative also released a report criticising the way teachers are trained and oversight of initial teacher education. 
Again, education experts have questioned part of the author’s methodology in what one called a “desk study”. For part of the evaluation of what was being taught in university teaching courses, Michael Johnston looked at university websites, reading the course descriptions posted online.
In a written statement, Teaching Council chief executive Lesley Hoskin said until any laws were changed, initial teacher education standard setting and programme approval functions remained responsibilities of the council.
“It is our obligation and intention to continue to diligently carry out those responsibilities,” she said, adding that the council would “actively advocate for and support the profession” throughout the consultation process. 
In March, following Stanfiord’s comments regarding the need to enhance teacher training, Hoskin told Newsroom the council was focused on strengthening initial teacher education and the process of becoming a teacher. In particular it would focus on the two-year induction and monitoring programme undertaken by provisionally registered teachers once they’re employed by a school.
In 2019, the ITE system was reformed, but the changes were designed to be self-reinforcing so the programme would evolve over time.
Hoskin acknowledged the Government was placing a greater focus on specific curriculum changes, including things like structured literacy.
Therefore, should the system bring more specificity to things like structured literacy, the council would work with ITE providers to also align their programmes. 
Hoskin said becoming a teacher was a complex, five-year journey. And the council would work collaboratively with ITE providers, schools, ECE services and the Government to achieve a system that was effective, provided assurance to the Government and the public, and was workable to implement.
“Ensuring that our children and young people receive safe and high-quality teaching is a key function of the Teaching Council, and something we believe to be critical to our future success as a nation,” she said.
Stanford was not able to respond to Newsroom’s request for comment before publication, due to travel commitments.