This article comes at the perfect time, and I'm just wondering if the Teaching Council directly approves government funding for private institutes, or if their approval is more about program accreditation that then unlocks funding from a different ministry, cause that part's a bit of a head-scratcher for me.
Kia ora Rainbow Roxy—that's an absolutely crucial clarification to make, and you're right to push on it. The devil here is in the institutional architecture, and understanding it matters for grasping why this conflict is so serious.
You've nailed the distinction: The Teaching Council doesn't directly allocate government funding to private institutes. That power sits with the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) (https://www.tec.govt.nz/funding/fund-finder), which provides funding through various mechanisms (SAC funding, DQ3-7 funding streams, etc.).
The conflict: Ferguson chairs the body that controls Step 1—the initial gateway. If the Teaching Council refuses to approve the Teachers Institute's programme, it can't proceed to seek TEC funding. If the Teaching Council approves it with conditions or delays approval, that affects the institute's viability.
So while Ferguson doesn't directly hand out cash, he chairs the council that determines whether his own institute's programmes meet professional standards—which is the precondition for accessing TEC funding. That's regulatory capture: the person being regulated controls the regulator.
And as the Office of the Auditor-General noted in 2012 (https://oag.parliament.nz/2012/teachers/part2.htm), the Teaching Council's role in approving ITE programmes is specifically designed to ensure professional requirements are met before academic and funding bodies get involved. Ferguson now sits at the chokepoint.
Does that clarify the mechanics? You're right that it's not direct funding allocation—but it's the regulatory approval that unlocks funding. And that's still a massive conflict.
This article comes at the perfect time, and I'm just wondering if the Teaching Council directly approves government funding for private institutes, or if their approval is more about program accreditation that then unlocks funding from a different ministry, cause that part's a bit of a head-scratcher for me.
Kia ora Rainbow Roxy—that's an absolutely crucial clarification to make, and you're right to push on it. The devil here is in the institutional architecture, and understanding it matters for grasping why this conflict is so serious.
You've nailed the distinction: The Teaching Council doesn't directly allocate government funding to private institutes. That power sits with the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) (https://www.tec.govt.nz/funding/fund-finder), which provides funding through various mechanisms (SAC funding, DQ3-7 funding streams, etc.).
But—and this is where Ferguson's dual role becomes genuinely problematic—the Teaching Council approves Initial Teacher Education (ITE) programmes (https://teachingcouncil.nz/en/for-teacher-education-providers/setting-up-an-ite-programme/applying-for-programme-approval) before they can operate. Programme approval is the gateway that determines whether a provider can:
1. Operate legally as an ITE provider
2. Seek TEC funding (you can't get TEC funding without Teaching Council programme approval)
3. Have graduates eligible for teacher registration (which determines whether your programme attracts students)
So the sequence works like this:
Step 1: Teaching Council approves the programme design (checks it meets ITE Programme Requirements (https://teachingcouncil.nz/en/for-teacher-education-providers/setting-up-an-ite-programme/ite-programme-requirements) and Graduating Teacher Standards)
Step 2: NZQA or Universities NZ separately approves the programme for academic quality (https://www2.nzqa.govt.nz/tertiary/approval-accreditation-and-registration/programme-approval-and-provider-accreditation/)
Step 3: TEC decides whether to fund it (based on delivery classifications and funding categories (https://www.tec.govt.nz/assets/Publications-and-others/2024-Delivery-Classification-Guide.pdf))
The conflict: Ferguson chairs the body that controls Step 1—the initial gateway. If the Teaching Council refuses to approve the Teachers Institute's programme, it can't proceed to seek TEC funding. If the Teaching Council approves it with conditions or delays approval, that affects the institute's viability.
So while Ferguson doesn't directly hand out cash, he chairs the council that determines whether his own institute's programmes meet professional standards—which is the precondition for accessing TEC funding. That's regulatory capture: the person being regulated controls the regulator.
And as the Office of the Auditor-General noted in 2012 (https://oag.parliament.nz/2012/teachers/part2.htm), the Teaching Council's role in approving ITE programmes is specifically designed to ensure professional requirements are met before academic and funding bodies get involved. Ferguson now sits at the chokepoint.
Does that clarify the mechanics? You're right that it's not direct funding allocation—but it's the regulatory approval that unlocks funding. And that's still a massive conflict.
Arohanui,
Ivor
Unsurprising from ministers of this mafioso govt but appalling nonetheless. Thanks for your coverage.