What is “Tomorrow’s Schools”?

In 1989, the government introduced the Tomorrow’s Schools reforms, which meant all schools became much more independent, giving Boards power over almost all school decisions, including those to hire staff, make policy and manage school property. 

Education minister Chris Hipkins says the legislation was good for the time, but a lot has changed in 30 years.

“It empowered local communities and modernised an overly bureaucratic system but also led over time to uneven outcomes between schools.”

Following an independent taskforce review into the system, the government will be making some changes to how some decisions are made for our schools.

What’s wrong with the current system?

The review, which occurred in two parts in 2018 and 2019 and was carried out by an independent taskforce, found that the “current system has failed to address the persistent disparities in educational outcomes and continues to leave some groups of learners/ākonga underserved”.

Hipkins says the groups that have been underserved are those already commonly disadvantaged in our societies. 

“It’s been particularly challenging for Māori, Pacific peoples, and people with disabilities and additional learning needs. This is reflected in a 2018 UNICEF report ranking New Zealand 33rd out of 38 developed countries for overall educational equality.”

It also found that isolation of schools from central government played a huge role in the outcomes of a child’s education. The government’s review says the autonomy of the board-run system has “left schools to operate largely on their own and without sufficient support.”

The third finding highlighted by the taskforce was a lack of trust in the system. The review found parents and staff were sceptical of support from education agencies. It found some of this was “caused by a relative lack of ministry staff at the front line, the need for stronger, more focused relationships with schools, and greater clarity about the respective roles in the sector,” stated the government review.

So what’s next then? 

The government will start implementing some or all of the 52 actions proposed by the taskforce in charge of the review. One of the major changes will be the creation of an Education Service Agency (ESA) which will be in charge of school zoning and the planning of new school buildings.

With this change, the ministry hopes to stop schools from “manipulat[ing] the zone based on areas they may wish to take students from; for example, including high socio-economic neighbourhoods while excluding closer, yet more disadvantaged, neighbourhoods.”

Hipkins says the ESA will have a “strong local presence with new decision making and funding powers,” and “will provide central expertise and services, including new curriculum and leadership services” as part of a redesigned Ministry of Education. 

Will the changes help Māori students? 

Associate Minister of Education Kelvin Davis says the changes will support better outcomes for Māori students by “giving practical effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi” and holding “the system to account to deliver more and better for Māori.”

Changes are occurring from the board level to the ministry level to increase outcomes for Māori students, including Board of Trustees being asked “to take all reasonable steps to eliminate racism, stigma, bullying and discrimination within their schools,” and developing advice from the Ministry of Education about how to strengthen Māori and iwi engagement in school governance by next June.

Is there much criticism towards the changes? 

The changes are to be rolled out over the next five-to-10 years, so schools won’t see any dramatic shifts overnight, but National’s Education spokesperson Nikki Kaye says they’re a step too far.

“Some of the changes proposed by the taskforce including school zoning and school property management will marginalise parents and school boards and further reduce parental choice in education.

“Parents will have real concerns about the changes proposed around school enrolment zoning which will have a significant impact upon parental choice.”

She’s compared the implementation of the ESA to “rearranging the deck chairs” and expressed concern for ministry staff “who are now facing significant uncertainty around their jobs.”

There was also criticism for one of the initial proposed changes, which would have transferred many board responsibilities to “regional hubs”, or groups which looked after regions rather than individual schools. 

The government rejected this suggestion after feedback from those within the education sector, including a 43-school, $20,000 campaign which was formed against the hubs by schools such as Auckland Grammar and Massey High School.

The candidates to tackle Donald Trump are very keen on the New Zealand prime minister.

It could be because Vogue called her “the anti-Trump”. It could be the desperate shortage of tolerable left-leaning leaders in the Anglosphere. Or it could be because everyone knows it’s illegal to be mean about people from New Zealand. Whatever it is, our humble South Pacific nation has become a recurring reference point in the mud pit of American politics. And not just because of the cavalcades of people threatening to move here in protest, but also the repeated name-checks for Jacinda Ardern in the contest to win the Democratic Party nomination to take on actual president Donald Trump.

The most recent example is Bernie Sanders. Having previously praised gun control reforms, he linked on a website called Facebook to a story acclaiming Ardern for the Carbon Zero Bill, issuing his congratulations, and writing, hoarsely: “When I am president, we will be a leader in this fight.”

Another leading candidate, Pete Buttigieg, who is more often described as “Mayor Pete” because spelling is difficult, cited Ardern as an inspiration as far as youth was concerned. Buttigieg, who is 37 and could be the grandchild of most candidates in the race, said: “I do think it matters we have a new generation of leaders stepping up around the world,” offering by way of example Ardern.

“I actually think it’s good the prime minister of New Zealand has gotten a lot of attention in Democratic debates,” he said. “She’s masterful, she’s younger than I would be when I take office.”

That’s factually wrong (Ardern is 39), which is very on-brand for contemporary American politics.

Certainly and by some distance, however, the greatest invocation of the New Zealand PM came from an outside runner for the presidency – the karmic author and spiritual advisor to Oprah, Marianne Williamson, who shouted out Jacinda Ardern during the primary debate in Miami in June.

She had gotten wind of the New Zealand prime minister’s ambition for children.

When asked for her first action as president, she said: “My first call is to the prime minister of New Zealand, who said that her goal is to make New Zealand the best place in the world for a child in the world to grow up.”

What might she say?

“I will tell her, ‘Girlfriend, you are so on, because the United States of America is going to be the best place in the world for a child to grow up’.”

We’re only a few candidates away from the royal flush. Joe Biden, whose CV includes being vice president and playing rugby, has a clear affection for New Zealand, so the shout-out can only be days away in the event he can assemble the words in the right order. Probably he’s waiting for Obama to tweet about us. It’s only been 600-odd days.

Which leaves (please let’s just agree to ignore Michael Bloomberg for now) Elizabeth Warren. According to current projections by The Spinoff’s binders full of psephologists, she’s going to win the Democratic nomination. She’s praised Ardern, along with everyone else, for her response to the March 15 tragedy. But if you’re looking for omens, there’s also this: she unseated Scott Brown, Trump pal and current US ambassador to New Zealand, as a senator in 2017. Everything is falling into place.