Why Dismantling Kāhui Ako Isn’t the Fix We Need

by Rebecca Thomas

A false choice: This binary oversimplifies a complex issue

I’ve said it before: my Kāhui Ako is broken.

Meetings feel hollow. Engagement is patchy. True collaboration is rare. 

It’s easy to see why people say the model doesn’t work. But breaking something isn’t the same as throwing it away. And yet, that’s exactly what’s on the table.

The ‘leaked’ Ministry of Education report revealed the government is considering cutting the Kāhui Ako scheme in next month’s Budget. The document proposes redirecting $118 million a year away from these networks and into learning support — a move that, on the surface, feels like it prioritises the needs of learners. But dig deeper, and the framing of this decision — and how it's being made — raises more questions than it answers.

The report itself admits there’s “a high risk of legal or industrial challenge,” yet handwritten notes from Minister Erica Stanford confidently claim that “most teachers and principals would support the decision.” If that’s truly the case, then why wasn’t the plan announced transparently and directly to the sector? Why was it leaked? 

This wasn’t transparency — it was a temperature check.

A strategic leak, not an honest conversation. It feels less like leadership and more like political gamesmanship: soften the blow, test the waters, see who pushes back. But educators don’t need hints dropped through the media. We need to be spoken to, not about. If this decision is really about improving outcomes for learners, why not front it properly? Why not have the courage to name it, explain it, and own it?

Yes, Kāhui Ako have flaws. 

I wrote recently about the empty seats at meetings, the vague goals, the lack of shared ownership. But at their best, Kāhui Ako were built on a solid idea: schools working with each other instead of against each other.

Cutting the scheme without a true alternative doesn’t fix collaboration. It just risks pushing us back into silos — where schools compete for enrolments, for reputation, for survival. When schools operate in isolation, the children who fall through the cracks are often the ones who already face the most barriers.

If Kāhui Ako haven’t improved achievement “overall,” maybe it’s because we didn’t invest properly in the conditions collaboration needs: trust, time, relational leadership, and culturally grounded practices. Maybe the model was flawed — but the idea was worth holding onto.

Here’s what also doesn’t sit right with me: the binary being created in this conversation.

As if we have to choose between investing in learning support or collaborative networks. As if educators only win when others lose. 

It’s a clever political move — who wouldn’t want to back learning support? But it positions Kāhui Ako as the villain in a story that’s far more complex.

What if the real issue is that we’ve been underfunding inclusive education all along? 

What if we’re setting up a false choice — one that pits teachers and communities against each other, instead of asking why we’re being forced to choose at all?

Collaboration Needs Reimagining, Not Scrapping

We should be asking how Kāhui Ako can evolve — not how quickly we can shut the door on them.

How do we design networks that actually reflect te ao Māori values like whanaungatanga and manaakitanga? 

How do we build trust across schools that are often in quiet competition? 

Collaboration isn’t a spreadsheet problem. It’s a people problem.

A culture-building challenge.

And if the solution is to erase what little cross-school collaboration exists, we’re missing the point entirely.

Now’s the Time to Speak

So this is a call — not to defend Kāhui Ako as they are, but to defend the possibility of something better.

Don’t let a scribbled margin note become the story. Share what’s worked and what hasn’t.

Push for a vision of schooling that lifts all of us — not just through funding shifts, but through systemic shifts that are co-designed with those of us in the work.

Because our kids deserve more than a broken system or a scrapped one.

They deserve one that listens. 

One that reflects who they are. 

One that invites us to collaborate because we belong to each other — not in spite of it.