Resource teacher funding: You don’t fix an education system by tearing it apart - Opinion

THREE KEY FACTS

• The Ministry of Education has asked all schools for feedback on a plan to switch funding for resource teachers to a “more efficient” teaching support service.
• A resource teacher is a specialist, itinerant teacher who provides support to schools and kura to help students with learning.
• Education Minister Erica Stanford says the Government is not looking to defund expert teachers who support literacy or te reo Māori, her concern is they are “used efficiently”.

Erica Stanford has made some bold moves as Education Minister, but her “cut things and see if they break” approach risks leaving those most poorly served by our education system further behind – and ultimately puts her own targets at risk.

The latest episode is a proposal to cut two highly valued – but under-resourced – positions within the education system’s arsenal of support: resource teachers of literacy and resource teachers of Māori.

These teachers provide valuable and tailored support to schools so they can better meet the diverse needs of ākonga (students). Losing these positions would leave a huge gap in our system’s ability to respond to this need.

Resource teachers of literacy support students who are most challenged in areas such as oral language, reading and writing, and for whom the usual support isn’t sufficient. There are 111 of them across the country. The 53 resource teachers of Māori provide wide-ranging support to bilingual and immersion programmes.

The thing is not all children learn in the same way. Stanford has put a lot on mandating structured literacy to improve literacy outcomes. This universal approach might work for many, if not most, students – but experience shows that it will not work for all.

Education systems work on varied levels of support, from the most general, such as teaching the national curriculum, to more granular supports that help specific cohorts of students with specific needs. This is where resource teachers of literacy can come in and have an impact, providing tailored instruction and support right where it is needed.

It is a nuance that is missing from Stanford’s approach to the portfolio.

Though too early to tell, the minister has good reason to be hopeful about the impact of structured literacy.

But it would be naive to think that mandating a pedagogical approach will achieve her goal of 80% of Year 8 students at or above the expected curriculum level for their age in reading, writing and maths by December 2030. To achieve that, she will need to engage the system in all its complexity.

It is for this same reason that learning support is Stanford’s weakest point. The learning support system in Aotearoa has failed to keep up with the needs of learners for some time. The former Government’s “Highest Needs Review” revealed major shortcomings with the system that are unfair on ākonga and their whānau, as well as the teachers and education workers at the “chalk face”.

That review identified that for every seven students receiving support, three may have unmet needs, meaning that far too many students in Aotearoa are falling through the cracks. Insufficient and insecure funding, chronic workforce shortages, and increased student needs all contribute.

The Highest Needs Review found several areas for improvement that were still being worked out when the Government changed in 2023. It would have been easy for Stanford to continue this work and make real improvements in a short time, however, the unit responsible was disestablished in a slash-and-burn cost-saving exercise in early 2024. Now it is back to square one.

"Education systems work on varied levels of support, from the most general, such as teaching the national curriculum, to more granular supports that help specific cohorts of students with specific needs."

Then there’s the slashing and burning in education for tamariki Māori.

The proposed cut to resource teachers of Māori comes after Stanford pillaged $30 million per annum from the Māori language education budget by cutting the well-regarded Te Ahu o Te Reo programme in September last year.

Resource teachers of Māori are critical in providing specialised teacher education and programmed support, alongside other in-school programmes, for bilingual and immersion programme students. These programmes represent only a small fraction of the sector – just over 3% of students are in level 1 or 2 immersion programmes – but are vital to the health of Māori language education.

Resource teachers of Māori have been open to change in their roles. In fact, they lobbied the Government to take a look at the service they provide more than a decade ago, arguing, among other things, that they needed to be properly resourced.

The Education Review Office then evaluated the service and its 2008 report made recommendations. Among them was the development of performance standards, investigating a suitable tertiary qualification to support the teachers in developing language acquisition pedagogy and establishing a new national co-ordination role to lead training. But those recommendations were largely ignored by successive governments.

Stanford seems to have done the same. Instead of actioning any of those recommendations or, indeed, new ones that would hone the service, she has opted for the nuclear option.

Again, the nuance is missing.

You don’t fix an education system by tearing it apart.

Resource teachers of literacy and resource teachers of Māori serve an important function in meeting the needs of learners. Cutting their funding and redirecting it to an undisclosed initiative is likely to do more harm than good.

If Stanford hopes to achieve the ambitious goals she has set for herself, and for our education system, she will need to pay far more attention to the important and nuanced work already happening in our schools and kura.