By Allan Alach,Bevan Holloway

Copyright thedailyblog

Professor Elizabeth Rata Is Determined to Remove Ti Tiriti From the Education Act

Over the past months I’ve written a number of times about the pernicious influence of Professor Elizabeth Rata on the current government. Rata makes no bones about her belief in undoing what she calls ‘the decolonisation of education’ or as she also says to ‘recolonise education.’ Hard to see this as anything else except outright racism.

Much of the work in exposing Rata’s influence has been done by Bevan Holloway, who has been skilfully using OIA requests to pull back the covers over what is really happening in the government, especially Rata’s role.

His latest article reveals more of her influence.

As always I encourage you to read the article for yourself, but in the meantime I will highlight and comment on various sections.

“Elizabeth Rata has had a significant influence on the direction of education over the last 18 months. So, what she believes is important, especially given those changes have been driven and done by a small group of ideologically aligned people.”

Bevan refers to, of course, the New Zealand Initiative and behind that, the Atlas Network that is working hard to shape the policies of western countries, especially the USA, Canada, United Kingdom (given recent events over there, that’s a misnomer), Australia and New Zealand (you’ll note that these countries also comprise the ‘Five Eyes’ network).

These as you will notice are the English speaking countries that are the remnants of, and inheritors of, the British Empire, even if the USA stepped outside that in the late 18th century.

If you want to go down a rabbit hole, research Cecil Rhodes and his beliefs about ensuring the continual dominance of the Anglo-Saxons so they maintain what Rhodes believed is their rightful place as the true leaders of the world. It’s not hard to draw a connection between Rhodes in the early 20th century and the Atlas Network.

But I digress: back to Bevan’s article.

“We know of their connections to the NZ Institute, part of the Atlas Network. The question is, how has that impacted the work of that group? One place we can look is their actions as individual citizens, including how they interact with the democratic process in that capacity.”

Rata is using her influence with the government, especially Erica Stanford, and Christopher Luxon, to do everything she can to water down or even remove the Treaty of Waitangi. Her submission to the amendments to the Education and Training Act are very blatant.

“Some New Zealanders believe fervently that the Treaty must be honoured. Others do not – equally fervently. For some the Treaty is our nation’s founding document. Not so for others. It is a sacred covenant with a timeless spirit for some, but merely an historical document for others. Some believe it is the nation’s constitution. Others believe it is not. As with all beliefs, there is no proof either way, no right or wrong. You either believe or you don’t.

It follows, therefore, that when “belief is inserted into legislation however, the belief acquires the status of doctrine. It is then treated as if it were a true fact.”

As I understand it, as the Treaty is enshrined in New Zealand law (please correct me if I’m mistaken) it’s not a matter of believing in it or not, and it is a fact.

Bevan comments:

“To be clear, Rata believes that Te Tiriti has enabled a decolonising approach to education that, with its focus on cultural responsiveness, is nothing more than a doctrine.

It is worth remembering that Rata is someone who has been at the centre of Stanford education changes: on the curriculum MAG, leader of the English Years 7-13 writing group, on the Charter Schools Establishment Board. She has been an active presence in Stanford, Seymour, and even Luxon’s, inbox.”

Bevan includes copies of two emails from Rata, one to Erica Stanford and the other to the Prime Minister. Both emails are about her desire to have Sections 9 and 127 removed from the Education and Training Act – both sections are about the role of Ti Tiriti.

As Bevan concludes:

“The issue, as I see it, isn’t that Rata has these beliefs about Te Tiriti and its place in our education system. We are all entitled our opinions.

The actual issue is this. At the heart of our Government we find someone who considers Te Tiriti a belief system not a fact being granted continual access and influence. Who is granting that? And why?”

Those, Bevan, are two very good questions.