Same Skeleton, Different Closet: Why Is the Ministry Not Being Investigated Like the Teaching Council?
- 6 days ago
- 5 min read
by ELV
Back in September, the Teaching Council was put under the microscope.
After a formal complaint, Minister Erica Stanford asked the Public Service Commission to investigate how the Council handled a procurement process and conflicts of interest.
The investigation launched. Headlines were written.
Council Chair David Ferguson fronted with a carefully worded statement: no staff had been stood down, and they wouldn’t comment while the process was underway.
It was serious. It was public.
Apparently a report would be ready by December.
Anyone seen it?
Meanwhile — and somehow with far less attention — the Ministry of Education appears to be mishandling a procurement process that raises even more serious questions.
And yet... no one is holding them to account.
Let’s rewind: The SMART Tool
The Student Monitoring, Assessment and Reporting Tool (SMART) was supposed to bring coherence to progress tracking across the system.
On 15th July Erica Stanford reassured parents that Janison Solution Pty Ltd was its successful Tool supplier for assessment in 2026 following a competitive tender process (7 March – 8 April).
On October 19, a straightforward Official Information Act (OIA) request was lodged, asking for basic transparency, after all the contract was won 6 months ago:
In a healthy system, that request would be acknowledged, assigned, tracked, and answered.
Instead?
And while the Ministry stalls, others are doing the work.
Philip Fry, who first lodged concerns about SMART, has followed up — asking:
Where and how student data will actually be stored
What the projected costs of SMART are
Why multiple OIA requests have been ignored
And where the internal records are that explain the Ministry’s delay
All of these questions remain unanswered.
They are now officially overdue.
And this isn’t just one OIA gone missing — it’s a significant number, all related to the same topic: SMART procurement, transparency, and accountability.
This isn’t just evasion — it’s obstruction.
And when senior officials appear at Scrutiny Week with no knowledge of the growing OIA trail behind them, you have to ask:
Who’s managing the truth in this process?
Ellen MacGregor-Reid, one of the Ministry’s most senior officials, sat before MPs with no awareness of the request.
Pauline Cleaver attempted to explain the SMART procurement process, but what we got was evasion — not answers.
In just 30 seconds, she stumbled through a vague, non-committal response, peppered with over ten instances of “um” and “er.”
There were no specifics.
No dates.
No decisions.
She didn’t describe what did happen, only what usually happens.
That’s not good enough.
We are talking about a tool, designed in Australia, that will impact thousands of tamariki and schools across Aotearoa — and the best we got was a hesitant, unprepared deflection.
Watch the clip for yourself — Did it come across as clear and transparent and genuine?
This isn’t just about a clunky process.
It’s about data — and power.
Despite the Ministry reassuring us that students’ scores will be stored here in Aotearoa — not Australia — and “held” by them, let’s pay closer attention.
There is still plenty of data in this for Janison.
Because ed tech companies don’t just profit from test results.
They profit from everything else they can track:
How long a learner pauses before answering
Where the mouse hovers when a question is culturally or cognitively loaded
What types of questions disproportionately trip up Māori and Pacific students
How second-language learners navigate unfamiliar formats
What patterns of struggle, hesitation, or success emerge over time
These are not neutral insights — they are behavioural assets.
And in an age where AI, adaptive testing, and machine learning drive billion-dollar global markets, Janison stands to profit immensely from how our tamariki interact with this tool.
Especially if they can claim "evidence" of progress gains for Māori and Pacific learners — even if those claims are based on superficial or decontextualised metrics.
So yes — We expect more than stammered generalities.
We expect a full explanation of:
Who has access to this data
How it’s being used
And who benefits from it
Because our learners’ behaviours — especially those from communities historically underserved by this system — should not be a pipeline for private profit.
It also raises serious questions about the wider procurement landscape — particularly in maths.
We’ve been told that local PLD providers are once again being shut out of the Maths Resources RFP process, while:
Australian companies are ushered in, and
PLD providers with cosy ties to the Ministry — including those who write “favourable” reports on so-called “extraordinary” maths results — seem to be receiving special treatment.
It’s hard to ignore the pattern:
Mate’s reports. Overseas vendors. Local voices locked out.
Double standards in plain sight
While the Teaching Council is still under active investigation, the Ministry — which is now assuming many of the Council’s former functions — is skirting real scrutiny over its own procurement conduct.
Issue | Teaching Council | Ministry of Education |
Complaint Filed | ✅ Yes | ✅ Yes (via OIA and public scrutiny) |
Procurement Questions | ✅ Under Investigation | ✅ Evasive and Unanswered |
Conflict of Interest Allegations | ✅ Yes | ✅ Yes — a possible known Ministry figure linked to Janison |
Public Service Commission Involvement | ✅ Full investigation underway | ❌ Nothing. Silence. |
Transparency Under Scrutiny | ✅ Forced to front | ❌ OIA ignored, extended, lost |
Leadership Impact | ✅ Council integrity questioned | ❌ No Ministerial accountability |
So... what’s really going on?
Why is the Teaching Council investigated — but the Ministry of Education given a free pass?
Why does Erica Stanford call in the Public Service Commission for one body — but not the other?
Why are OIA requests being extended on vague grounds, ignored by senior officials, and left to quietly expire in a digital drawer?
And most importantly:
There are credible concerns that well-placed officials inside the Ministry have known connections to Janison.
If this is untrue, then the Ministry should say so — publicly — by releasing an OIA response that confirms no conflicts existed.
This is power protecting itself.
When it’s convenient, the system is hyper-accountable.
When it’s inconvenient, it forgets its own rules.
We saw it in the Teaching Council saga.
We’re seeing it again in the Ministry’s SMART evasion.
But only one of those is being investigated.
Only one of those has made the news.
Only one of those is shaping the future of assessment and teacher regulation in Aotearoa.
And we’re supposed to believe the demise of our Teaching Council wasn’t politically convenient?
Lol.
Let’s not pretend this is coincidence.
We all need to start asking:
What actually happened at the Teaching Council to warrant its dismantling?
Who benefited from that vacuum?
And if the same procurement patterns, conflicts of interest, and culture of silence exist within the Ministry — why hasn’t the Public Service Commission already stepped in?
This isn’t just a matter of process.
It’s a matter of public trust.
And if that trust is to mean anything, then people must be held accountable — and some stood down.
Because what’s happening behind closed doors in the Ministry is starting to look a lot like the very thing they used to justify pulling apart our Teaching Council.
And we’re not buying the silence anymore.
Comments