Principals' boss and minister trade insults over speech

A welcome speech at an international education conference has turned into a public slanging match between the country's education minister and the head of the primary principals' union, with both accusing the other of bad behaviour.

Erica Stanford was invited to open the International Confederation of Principals Convention on behalf of the New Zealand Principals' Federation (NZPF), which hosted the event. What was meant to be a short, non political welcome has instead produced a bitter exchange, with NZPF president Jason Miles calling the minister's speech "disappointing" and "disrespectful", and Stanford calling Miles' conduct afterwards "rude, aggressive and unprofessional".

The row matters because it plays out against a wider backlash this week, with Stanford also facing accusations of withholding her personal feedback on curriculum changes, and the Ombudsman investigating separate allegations that Ministry of Education officials tried to get around the Official Information Act. Relations between the minister and one of the sector's key voices now look openly strained.

The record

NZPF hosted the convention after what Miles says was three years of work to bring it to New Zealand. He invited Stanford to give the opening welcome, a slot he describes as intended to acknowledge the convention's significance rather than promote party policy.

According to Miles, the convention coordinator told Stanford's office in writing that the slot was "not an opportunity for a policy or political speech" and should run five to ten minutes. He says this was followed up with further correspondence, including his own request to the secretary of education to reiterate the non political, welcoming nature of the speech.

In the speech itself, Stanford spoke about the Government's education reforms and pointed to improvements in achievement. She did not, per the article, reference National Party policies. She named nine education associations and groups she said had been helpful, but did not mention NZPF, her host.

Separately, NZPF has been pushing for an independent curriculum and assessment council, which it argues would let experts rather than politicians drive changes and reduce what it calls disruptive reform. Miles says he has sought meetings with Stanford on this proposal but she has not found the time.

What doesn't add up

Miles says the speech breached explicit, written instructions about its non political purpose. Stanford says her speech is online for anyone to read and that Miles' account "does not accurately reflect" it. The article does not record whether Stanford's office responded to the coordinator's written request, or whether Stanford disputes that the request was made. That leaves a basic factual question unresolved: did the minister's office acknowledge or push back on the brief before the speech, or was it simply not addressed?

There is also a gap around the omission of NZPF. Stanford says she thanked NZPF and acknowledged other groups. Miles says NZPF, the host organisation that spent three years securing the convention, was not among the nine groups named, and that the International Confederation of Principals' president and executive, seated in front of Stanford, were not recognised either. Whether that was a deliberate choice or an oversight is not addressed by either side in what's reported.

On the confrontation itself, Miles says he asked Stanford why she kept declining to meet him, and she replied it was "because you go to the media". Stanford has not, in the article, addressed that specific exchange directly, only that she found Miles' behaviour immediately after the speech inappropriate. What exactly was said and how it escalated is described very differently by each side, and there is no independent account of the moment to test either version against.

Finally, on the independent curriculum council proposal, Miles says repeated requests for a meeting have gone unanswered because of the minister's schedule. Stanford says she has met NZPF before and understands it wants more opportunities, but that isn't possible given her workload. Neither account, as reported, explains whether any meeting date has been offered or when the substantive policy proposal might actually get a hearing.

The other side

Stanford's position is that her speech simply reported on the Government's reform programme and its results, and that she did thank NZPF and other groups for their work. She says she was "surprised and disappointed" by Miles' conduct straight after she spoke, and stands by the content of the speech, which she notes is publicly available for anyone to judge for themselves.

On the wider complaint about access, Stanford says she has previously met NZPF and recognises it wants more engagement, but says the volume of her ministerial commitments makes that difficult to accommodate as often as the federation would like.

What happens next

The article does not report any planned meeting, apology or further statement from either side, so the dispute currently sits as two competing public accounts with no resolution. Whether NZPF's independent curriculum and assessment council proposal gets a formal hearing with the minister remains an open question.

The stand off also arrives while Stanford faces separate scrutiny this week over her personal feedback on curriculum changes and the Ombudsman's inquiry into how the Ministry of Education has handled OIA requests. How those parallel issues land may shape how much weight either side's account of this speech carries with the public and the wider education sector.