Lessons for today have whiff of 80s nostalgia

Anybody watching Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Education Minister Erica Stanford speaking about the cellphone ban in schools would be forgiven for wondering if they had been overcome by nostalgia.

Both are Gen Xers who went to school in the 1980s (a few years apart) and were clearly a bit nostalgic about those days before cellphones and social media came along.

On Monday, Stanford proudly reported principals had told her the joyful sounds of children laughing and playing in recesses had returned since they banned cellphones, and children were even going to libraries.

Out with notifications, in with hopscotch and books.

It was as if they had set up some sanctuary of the 1980s school environment — and a rose-tinted glasses version of it at that.

Stanford’s education announcements this week were overshadowed by various political dramas: from Green MP Julie Anne Genter’s fraught bid to show National MP Matt Doocey some transport data to Winston Peters finding himself at the end of lawyer’s missives from former Australia foreign minister Bob Carr.

They deserve more attention. Stanford released her priorities and followed up with her longheralded announcement that structured literacy would be returning to all state schools.

Many other countries have already moved back to structured literacy. Stanford made her case, pointing to evidence showing structured literacy was effective and to the low rates of Year 8 students at the level expected for reading and writing.

She also plans to revamp the curriculum into a more prescriptive, easy-to-understand form. Even Labour agreed it needed to be clearer. That should make it easier both for teachers and students.

It is part of National’s attempt to get the education system back to basics, hoping to boost student achievement. If that requires going back to the ways of the 80s, so be it. All of this caused some debate among the education sector, including the argument about whether politicians should be telling schools how to teach children.

However, it will likely be welcomed by parents, many of whom were schooled in the 80s themselves. Parents agonise over when and whether to bestow a digital device upon their children. They worry about cyber bullying and worse. They know how they learned to read, and may think what served them well will also serve their child well.

National is also planning to bring back simpler school reports and some form of standardised testing.

The cellphone ban might test her claim she would be data and evidence driven, but Stanford has so far resisted falling into ideological traps and went to some lengths to convince the education sector she would be listening to them.

While other ministers are avoiding talking about anything that might be specifically for Ma¯ori, Stanford talked about her plans to work with Ma¯ori education providers on a Ma¯ori education work programme.

She even revealed she gave her cellphone number to some principals who contacted her, telling them to call to discuss any concerns.

Meanwhile, NZ First’s Shane Jones was busy on his own structured literacy project.

“Coal, coal” Jones boomed, apropos of not much and very loudly, during Question Time this week.

It was the latest in an ongoing eruption of monosyllables from the usually polysyllabic Jones.

Despite appearances, Jones is not simply amusing himself by taunting the Green Party. There is a method to his madness, and it is not pandering to mining companies so much as pandering to those who work for mining companies.

In a fortnight, Jones will head to the capital of coal, Blackball, on the West Coast, to deliver a speech.

He has chosen that place partly because of its history with mining, but mainly for political mischief: it was the Labour Party’s birthplace.

Labour Party leaders return there every now and then to mark that link. But in Jones’ view, the party is a far cry from what it was then.

He considers it has abandoned its traditional provincial blue-collar working-class voters for the sake of pursuing identity issues, “woke” things and has become city-focused and union-dominated.

He has clearly determined there is a potential pool of votes there for NZ First.

His job is to get them. NZ First needs a back-up pool of voters should the ones it wooed in the last election (the Covid-angry ones) disappear on them. The 1News Verian poll out this week was not encouraging in that regard, putting NZ First at 4 per cent.

Jones is a former Labour politician himself who harked to the workingclass end of Labour rather than the progressive end. The way he wants to get voters is by creating jobs in industries such as mining, and the parts of the country that once relied on them.

His vehicle for doing this is as one of the Three Musketeers of the Fast Track Approvals Bill, along with Transport Minister Simeon Brown and Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop.

Jones’ previous vehicle, the Provincial Growth Fund, was a hotchpotch of small projects sprinkled around.

It was small fry compared to the likely fast-track projects, which are quite large and will be jobs generators.

Jones has taken some opportunities to set out his position in a more nuanced fashion, admitting he has taken a theatrical approach when it comes to pushing for frogs to get out of the way of development.

He has said he would not do anything that meant a species became extinct, but he is “pro-human” and believed some critters should cop it if the cost-benefit ratio stacked up.

Meanwhile, National’s Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop has upped his efforts to try to cancel out some of Jones’ rhetoric.

The word “mining” has not passed his lips. Instead, he has only talked about noble projects such as renewable energy.

Bishop at least has recognised that if something isn’t done it risks being an ongoing headache of headlines for the Government as local communities start to respond to projects they don’t like in their areas, and motives behind the decisions are questioned.

He has promised to look at changes. Surprisingly, he mentioned reviewing whether ministers should have the final sign-off on fast-track projects, or whether it should be left to an independent panel.

That was prompted by submissions raising concerns ministers might be politically motivated.

It is probably safe to say that won’t happen, not least because Jones would not give up his sign-off powers lightly and if NZ First won’t agree to it, it won’t happen. If you don’t give the sign-off, you might not get the credit.

More likely are changes around the mix of ministers and the processes around the way ministers’ conflicts of interest are handled.

It was the first week of the submissions on the Fast Track Approvals Bill. There were 27,000 submissions on it. Not all were opposed, but a vast chunk were. Even some major industry players were concerned about the environmental effects (especially if they were the ones who copped it).

Forest & Bird appeared and warned if the legislation proceeded in its current form, the Government would see protests it had not seen the like of in some time. Iwi and Ma¯ori groups were also concerned.

Several of the submitters — even among industry bigwigs — thought either the Environment or Conservation Minister should be included in the group of ministers with sign-off powers. They included gold mining company OceanaGold.

As it is, there are three ministers involved, all with economic-focused portfolios. May the fourth be with them.