Constructing Crisis to Justify Reforms of Control in Education

Crisis Narratives and the Centralisation of Educational Control in Australasia

Half of politics is 'image-making', the other half is the art of making people believe the image."
— Hannah Arendt, Crises of the Republic

Across Australia and New Zealand, a troubling pattern is emerging in education policy: the deliberate construction of crisis narratives to justify sweeping reforms that tighten governmental control over teaching and learning. This manufactured sense of urgency is not rooted in genuine educational improvement but rather in an ideological drive to standardise pedagogy, enforce compliance, and sideline teacher expertise. By framing education as being in perpetual crisis—whether through misrepresented student achievement data, teacher shortages, or claims of declining standards—policymakers create the conditions to push through reforms that centralise decision-making, favour top-down mandates, and weaken professional autonomy.

Crisis as a Political Tool

The rhetoric of educational crisis is a powerful political tool. In Australia, recent media reports have exaggerated the supposed decline in student literacy and numeracy, leading to policy shifts that prioritise rigid, test-driven curricula over teacher-led instruction. Misinterpretations of NAPLAN data, for instance, have been used to argue for increased testing and pre-packaged learning programs, despite evidence that such approaches do little to address educational equity or student success (The Conversation, ABC Education).

At the end of 2024, in New Zealand, the government seized on selective interpretations of national and international assessment data to continue to justify their ‘back-to-basics’ agenda. A recent National Monitoring Study of Student Achievement (NMSSA) report was framed as evidence of a dramatic drop in student mathematics proficiency—without acknowledging that curriculum benchmarks had changed, distorting year-on-year comparisons (NZ Herald). Similarly, while PISA results indicated that New Zealand’s performance in mathematics remained stable, media headlines painted a picture of systemic failure (RNZ). This manufactured crisis has become the pretext for introducing mandated and fictitious ‘structured maths’ programs, despite an absence of robust research supporting their efficacy, along with a rushed roll-out of new workbooks for schools. As the new school year begins in 2025, continued media coverage focuses on the school system and its failings, (RNZ) with little coverage of schools who continually present excellent student outcomes across a wide range of markers.

The Disregard for Teacher Retention

While policymakers claim to be addressing educational challenges, their solutions consistently ignore one of the most pressing issues: teacher retention. In both Australia and New Zealand, attrition rates are alarmingly high, with many educators citing unsustainable workloads, lack of professional autonomy, and low salaries as key reasons for leaving the profession (AITSL). Rather than addressing these structural problems, governments have opted to introduce standardised teaching approaches that further erode teacher agency and add to their burdens.

The introduction of structured literacy in New Zealand has been positioned as a way to support students’ foundational literacy development. However, concerns remain around the lack of adequate professional learning and development (PLD) for teachers, as well as unrealistic implementation timeframes. Without sufficient support, teachers are expected to adapt quickly to new approaches without the necessary time or resources to embed best practices. The arrival of new mathematics resources has further highlighted the challenges of standardisation, as there is a pervasive assumption that the workbooks provided to schools match students’ year levels rather than their developmental stages. For many students who are three or more years behind, these workbooks are simply not accessible, making it difficult for teachers to bridge the gap effectively (NZ Herald, RNZ), rendering these resources unhelpful in supporting teachers to target learners and their individual needs.

In Australia, similar trends are evident. State governments have increasingly turned to external ‘experts’—often those advocating for highly scripted, phonics-heavy literacy programs—rather than consulting with experienced educators (The Age). These policies not only diminish teacher professionalism but also create additional workload pressures, making the profession even less attractive to prospective teachers. The crisis narrative thus serves a dual purpose: justifying tighter control over pedagogy while distracting from the systemic failures that drive teachers out of the profession.

Standardisation Disguised as ‘Equity’

One of the most insidious aspects of these reforms is how they are framed as being in the interest of educational equity. Governments claim that increased testing, structured teaching approaches, and rigid curriculum frameworks will ensure that no child is left behind. However, these policies often exacerbate inequities rather than addressing them.

In New Zealand, Māori and Pasifika students, along with neurodiverse learners, are disproportionately affected by the emphasis on standardised assessment (RNZ). Policies that prioritise literacy and numeracy checkpoints over holistic, strengths-based learning approaches ignore the systemic barriers these students face—such as socioeconomic disadvantage and lack of culturally responsive teaching. Despite the government’s rhetoric of ‘fairness,’ recent policy shifts have actively undermined Māori education initiatives, redirecting funding away from kaupapa Māori-based and Pasifika learning models, and towards generic, overseas-produced teaching resources.

Australia faces similar issues, with the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement (BFSA) failing to address the structural inequalities within the education system (Save Our Schools). The country’s heavy reliance on standardised testing disproportionately impacts schools in lower socioeconomic areas, where students face greater challenges outside the classroom.

The Bigger Picture: Ideological Control of Education

Ultimately, the construction of crisis in education is not just about policy—it is about power. By manufacturing a sense of urgency, governments can introduce reforms that would otherwise face resistance. These policies are rarely about improving education for students; rather, they serve to consolidate control over curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment, ensuring that schools align with political and ideological agendas.

This pattern is not unique to Australia and New Zealand. Around the world, conservative education policies have increasingly sought to limit teacher autonomy, emphasise ‘knowledge-rich’ curricula, and reduce education to a series of measurable outcomes (The Interruption). The result is an education system that is less dynamic, less inclusive, and less responsive to the needs of students and communities.

If we are to resist this trend, educators, researchers, and policymakers must challenge the crisis narrative and demand evidence-based, contextually relevant approaches to reform. Education should not be about control; it should be about empowerment—of teachers, students, and communities alike.