The Ministry of Education Admits They Are Probing For Evidence Of School Compliance, Not Student Achievement

In the December 2023 Select Committee, Jan Tinetti asked the Ministry of Education leadership team what evidence they would be collecting in relation to the impact of the Maths textbooks, curriculum, and PLD (circa 54 minutes).

Pauline Cleaver replied: “We’ll be evaluating the use of the resources alongside the PLD and of course the implementation of the new curriculum”.

Note that word use.

For Ellen MacGregor-Reid conceded a couple of minutes later that, while they have ERO doing “evaluation probes”, Tinetti had raised an important point (the bolding is mine):

“it does bring to the fore the need for that evaluation, sorry the assessment information at some level. You will have seen the auditor general’s report on equity and the importance of that information around actual student progress and achievement and I think if we’re really going to know if this is making a difference the information you have needs to move to the level of, are we seeing the shifts for students as well?“

At some level. As well.

This regime is not, first and foremost, probing for effectiveness. It is probing for compliance.

Is that because they are certain these changes will lift achievement? If so, where have they got their information? Given Erica’s undisclosed relationship with PRIME Maths, and their effective lobbying of her, I think we are within our rights to raise an eyelid here.

Because, given the reliance on commercial products and support to drive the Maths curriculum, the probe for compliance is actually a way of driving commercial profits from the public purse by ensuring schools have no choice but to use them.

Have you experienced this probe for compliance in your recent dealings with ERO or your Ministry Advisor?