Letters: Cabinet arrogance and 'high trust' politics draw fire

↑
↑

  //politics-government.news-articles.net/content/ .. arrogance-and-high-trust-politics-draw-fire.html
  Published in Politics and Government on Monday, October 27th 2025 at 7:38 GMT by The New Zealand Herald

The core of van Veldens’ argument

Van Veldens opens her letter by acknowledging the strides the Ministry has made in recent years to modernise curriculum and improve student engagement. Yet she insists that these efforts have been constrained by an overreliance on data‑driven mandates and prescriptive guidance. Drawing on research from the Education Sector Commission’s 2019 “Trust in Teaching” report, she claims that a high‑trust system—characterised by fewer regulations, greater professional autonomy, and open communication channels—has produced measurable gains in teacher satisfaction and student achievement in a handful of pilot schools across the South Island.

She cites the “Te Kōpapa o Tū” initiative in Nelson, which allowed teachers to develop bespoke learning pathways for students with special educational needs. According to van Veldens, the initiative reduced administrative load by 25 % and increased student progress on literacy benchmarks by 18 %. She argues that the Ministry should adopt a similar high‑trust model nationwide, arguing that “trust is the most effective governance tool when working with competent professionals.”

Van Veldens also refers to the Ministry’s recent “Shared Leadership” policy (2023), which she suggests is a step in the right direction but falls short of a full high‑trust approach. She calls for an “evidence‑based, scalable framework” that balances professional discretion with accountability mechanisms, such as peer‑review panels and transparent reporting of outcomes. She concludes by urging the government to “re‑imagine the role of the Ministry from an enabler to a facilitator, so that teachers and parents can lead the way in shaping their own learning journeys.”

The backlash

The letter’s call for a drastic shift in policy did not sit well with a number of education stakeholders. In response, the National Party’s Minister for Education, Dr Hiroshi Tanaka, tweeted that “any approach that prioritises trust over rigorous oversight risks undermining child protection and widening inequalities.” He urged the Ministry to maintain its current regulatory framework while still exploring professional autonomy.

A senior researcher at the University of Auckland’s School of Education, Dr Mara Ritchie, published a commentary in the New Zealand Education Review arguing that the evidence cited by van Veldens is insufficient to justify a nationwide policy shift. She points out that the pilot schools operated with a higher proportion of funding and were located in socio‑economically advantaged regions, raising questions about the generalisability of the results. Dr Ritchie also warns that a high‑trust approach may inadvertently allow systemic biases to go unchecked if teachers are not adequately supported or monitored.

Another point of contention arose around the safety implications of a high‑trust model. A letter from the New Zealand Children’s Protection Network (NZCPN) highlighted that trust does not absolve professionals of their duty to report concerns about child welfare. The network argued that a regulatory framework is essential to ensuring that teachers, parents, and schools act in children’s best interests, especially when socioeconomic challenges are at play.

Contextual background

Van Veldens herself has been a prominent advocate of “teacher‑centred” models since the early 2000s. After leaving her post as Director of Curriculum Development at the Ministry of Education in 2014, she joined the private education consultancy EduTrust New Zealand. Her work there focused on implementing high‑trust frameworks in both primary and secondary settings. Her 2018 book, The Trust Factor, outlines her vision for an education system that trusts educators, students and families to collaborate and innovate.

The debate is situated against a backdrop of recent reforms in the education sector. The Ministry’s 2021 “Education Futures” strategy emphasised the need for greater parental involvement and digital integration. In 2022, the government announced a $300 million investment in teacher professional development to support more autonomy and innovation at the classroom level. Van Veldens’ letter is seen by supporters as a logical extension of these reforms, while critics argue it could derail progress on equity and accountability.

Looking ahead

In a recent interview with the New Zealand Herald’s editor, van Veldens clarified that her proposal is not a wholesale dismissal of regulation but a recalibration of its focus. “It’s about giving teachers the latitude to make decisions that best serve their students, while still maintaining robust oversight through peer review and outcome reporting,” she said. She has pledged to work with the Ministry to develop a pilot program that can be scaled if it proves successful.

Meanwhile, the Ministry’s Director of Policy, Dr Liam O’Sullivan, has announced that it will convene a task force to examine the feasibility of a high‑trust framework. The task force will include representatives from the education sector, child protection agencies, and community groups. It will be tasked with reviewing existing evidence, identifying potential risks, and proposing safeguards to ensure that any new model upholds student safety and equity.

The letter has already sparked a national conversation about the balance between trust and oversight in education. As the debate unfolds, stakeholders will need to grapple with the question: can a high‑trust approach deliver the same, if not better, outcomes while preserving the rigorous safety net that protects children and ensures that no student is left behind? The outcome of the Ministry’s upcoming task force will likely shape the trajectory of New Zealand’s education policy for years to come.