Smoke and mirrors.

Ideologically grounded "evidence-based" policy in education.

Science cannot tell you what you should do - Guy Claxton

Photo by CHUTTERSNAP on Unsplash

---

So, it is here that we come to our third and final¹ collaborative post between CuriosityCreator and

The Interruption

in our series exploring the ideological parallels in educational policy making between Australia and Aotearoa (New Zealand).

Thus far, we have explored the ways in which educational policymaking in both New Zealand and Australia reflect an increasing disrespect for teacher agency, professionalism and judgment in their field of expertise.

We have shown how teachers are becoming increasingly “gaslighted” by education reform 👇

Gaslighting teachers.

We then interrogated the rhetoric of crisis constructed to justify reforms of control in education 👇

Constructing Crisis to Justify Reforms of Control in Education

In this post, we will explore how the discourse used for educational policy in our respective countries attempts to hide its ideological grounding behind the advice of “experts” and a veil of “evidence-based” rhetoric, reflecting a fear (or ignorance?) of engaging with the ideological nature of education.

Far from achieving ideological neutrality, educational policy is becoming blindly tied to specific ideas of how schools, teachers, students and education as a whole ought to function.

With a bit of examination, we may find that such perspectives aren’t actually in the best interests of our students, teachers, schools and communities.

They may in fact work to hinder the very possibilities there can be for education.

Here we go.

Appropriating expertise.

Co-opting “expert” has become a central strategy in legitimising education policy reform in Australia of recent. This favours top-down approaches to educational policy change, where the “experts” (politicians) determine what and how teachers are to teach. It provides justification for ignoring alternative perspectives and visions for education. After all, when the “science is settled” who cares what teachers have to say on the matter?

In New Zealand, a similar trend is occurring where politicians adopt the terms “expert” and “evidence-based” selectively, promoting certain voices while sidelining others. This is particularly evident in the debate over structured literacy, where proponents of structured methods are given more airtime than those advocating for more flexible, student-centered approaches. The privileging of certain forms of expertise, often tied to think tanks or external organizations, has been a key part of New Zealand’s current educational reform narrative.

This is not about being an “anti-expert” but calling into question why certain experts, with particular ideological perspectives, are privileged over others that have valid evidence and challenges to current policy directions.

Fear of ideology.

Framing reform as “evidence-based” has become an increasingly popular strategy to justify top-down control of Australian education. We see examples of education reformers proudly declaring their perspectives as based upon “evidence”, whilst alternative perspectives are caricatured as ideological or “wishful thinking”.

This has become an increasingly popular tactic by networks and think tanks seeking to gain dominance over the shape of education reforms (not to mention the direction of funding for programs).

When it comes to education, we must keep in mind that “evidence” is always tied up in ideologies of how schools should function and how teachers ought to teach and far from being “neutral”, Australian politicians have often used education reform as a tool to push ideology onto teachers.

The recent shifts within New Zealand’s updated curriculum marks a stark departure from Te Tiriti o Waitangi-informed foundations established by the work of Dr. Wayne Ngata and his peers on Te Mātaiaho. The revisions signal a move away from bicultural commitments and suggest a dismissal of Māori perspectives in favour of a supposed “evidence-based” approach.

However, this evidence has been selectively interpreted and ideologically driven, favouring colonialist narratives that marginalise Te Ao Māori as “not science-based” or as lacking a place in a so-called objective, knowledge-based curriculum. Portraying these changes as neutral and solely evidence-driven not only disregards the rich foundation laid by experts like Dr. Ngata but also uses “evidence” as a mechanism to sideline diverse educational philosophies.

Framing Te Ao Māori as “not science-based” serves to delegitimise bicultural approaches and diminishes the role of Māori-centered perspectives, positioning them as ideological outliers rather than integral parts of the curriculum.

Much like that of Australia, the trend in New Zealand illustrates a growing discomfort with acknowledging the inherently ideological nature of curriculum choices.

The result is an increasingly standardised, measurable curriculum that risks undermining critical thinking, creativity, and cultural respect—values crucial for a dynamic and inclusive education system.

Looking in the mirror.

Educational policy has been, and always will be, an ideological endeavour.

Regardless of whether such policies are declared as “evidence-based” or not, decisions that influence the functioning of schooling and education are ultimately drawn from a perspective of what education is to be for.

We need to carefully examine the ideological perspectives directing educational policy and challenge these when they stand in the way of policy decisions that can make a real difference.

Like equitable funding.

Rather than buying into rhetoric leading to more policy decisions that ultimately erode their agency, teachers ought to carefully consider whether such policy decisions actually serve the interests of their students, communities and education itself as a social project.

If they don’t, it’s time to get political.

Till next time,

1. For the time being…