An Unwelcome Tone: The Patronising and Presumptive Attitude of the Ministerial Advisory Group Report

The recent report from the Ministerial Advisory Group (MAG) on redesigning the English and Mathematics & Statistics learning areas in the refreshed New Zealand Curriculum adopts a narrow view of evidence and is of significant concern as a document presenting the argument for a change in our curriculum direction in New Zealand. A recent review of this report, published on the Aotearoa Education Collective's Substack, highlights these concerns in detail. While this review raises a number of issues, further examination also reveals an undercurrent of patronising assumptions about teachers and an overconfident belief in the infallibility of the MAG's own solutions.

The Patronising Tone Towards Teachers

The report frequently adopts a tone that suggests teachers are not up to the task of educating our children without stringent oversight and detailed directives. For instance, the introduction states, "Teaching practices have not kept pace with research from cognitive psychology and other disciplines" and "Teaching practice for literacy and maths in New Zealand’s schools also requires attention." These statements imply that teachers are unaware of or disregarding contemporary educational research, a sweeping generalisation that undermines their professionalism.

However, this view fails to recognise the significant number of schools and teachers who have, over the past 3-5 years, committed to costly and extensive professional development related to the Science of Learning. As part of their professional growth cycles, teachers, not only working full time in the classroom, are also engaged in postgraduate study, teacher inquiry, and are often involved in academic research initiatives. To flippantly comment that teachers have not 'kept up' is a sweeping statement and disrespectful to those working hard to continue to refine and improve their classroom practices.

Further, the report asserts that "Teachers need clear, knowledge-rich, and well-sequenced curriculum documents," and that these sequences "should be prescriptive enough to serve this purpose, but not so prescriptive that teachers lose agency." This suggests that without detailed, top-down guidance, teachers will fail to provide effective education. It overlooks the reality that teachers are highly trained professionals who are capable of adapting and innovating in their teaching practices.

The repeated emphasis on the need for teachers to follow prescribed methods, such as "Teachers must be given a clear signal that students should be writing by hand as much as possible during their primary school years," adds to this narrative. It insinuates that teachers are not currently prioritising essential skills and need to be directed on fundamental aspects of their job.

The MAG as the Sole Source of Solutions

Equally troubling is the MAG's apparent self-assuredness that their recommendations are the panacea for New Zealand’s educational challenges. The introduction claims, "The work of the Ministerial Advisory Group (MAG) will strengthen the national curriculum and its supports by advising the Minister of Education on new curricula and teaching advice for literacy, English, and maths." This positions the MAG as essential for strengthening the curriculum.

Recommendations such as "It is recommended that the Minister: Approves the amalgamation of the in-scope areas of Te Mātaiaho, the Common Practice Models and the teaching sequences into a single document, issued as part of schools’ curriculum regulatory requirements" further this narrative. By advocating for their document to become a regulatory requirement, the MAG effectively claims that their model is the definitive solution that schools must follow.

The report frequently highlights the necessity of the MAG's involvement at every step, from drafting documents to post-testing processes. Statements like "The MAG recommends that the Minister authorises the MAG to draft the in-scope documents for testing in schools, with support from suitable experts" and "The MAG would also like to be involved in the post-testing process (reviewing and responding to feedback)" suggest a lack of trust in other stakeholders' ability to contribute meaningfully to the process.

A Call for Collaboration, Not Condescension

It is important to provide a robust review of how the science of learning, including the cultural and relational components of evidence, informs best practices for teachers. However, the tone and approach taken by the MAG risk alienating the very professionals who are pivotal to implementing any effective change: the teachers.

Instead of dictating terms and assuming a superior stance, the MAG should foster a collaborative environment where teachers' insights and experiences are valued and integrated into policy-making. Recognising teachers as partners rather than subordinates will lead to more sustainable and impactful educational reforms.

As we move forward, it is crucial to remember that successful education reform is not about imposing top-down solutions but about empowering those on the front lines with the respect, resources, and support they need to thrive. Only through genuine collaboration can we hope to see the meaningful improvements that our students deserve.