20/05/2025
Ken Robertson
[FYI request #30745 email]
Tēnā koe Ken
OIA: 1346538 – Social Sciences learning area writers, contributors and reviewers selection
process
Thank you for your email of 17 April 2025 to the Ministry of Education (the Ministry) requesting
information regarding the Social Sciences learning area. Please refer to
Annex one below for a
copy of your full request.
Your request has been considered under the Official Information Act 1982 (the Act).
The Ministry needs to extend the timeframe for responding to your request, pursuant to
section 15A(1)(b) of the Act, as consultations necessary to make a decision on the request are
such that a proper response cannot reasonably be made within the original time limit. You can now
expect to receive a response to your request on or before 11 June 2025, which is an extension of
15 working days.
You have the right to ask an Ombudsman to investigate our decision to extend the timeframe for
responding to this request, in accordance with section 28 of the Act. You can do this by writing to
[email address] or Office of the Ombudsman, PO Box 10152, Wellington 6143.
Nāku noa, nā
Emma Drysdale
Manager Official and Parliamentary Information
Government, Executive and Ministerial Services
8 Gilmer Terrace, Levels Ground floor, 1, 2, and 6-14, Wellington
PO Box 1666, Wellington 6140 Phone: +64 4 463 8000
Annex one
Request for Information:
In April, the Ministry released on Tāhurangi a list of individuals identified as ‘writers, contributors
and reviewers’ for the updated curriculum areas. Among those listed, only two had previously been
involved in the development of the history and/or social sciences curriculum. The remainder were
not part of the original teams. Notably, the current group does not include anyone who is Māori,
Pacific, or from the primary education sector.
Under the Official Information Act, I would like to request the following details regarding the rewrite
of the social sciences learning area:
1. Involvement of Previous Curriculum Contributors:
1A) What process was followed to determine which members of the original writing group would
take part in the rewrite?
1B) How were the two returning individuals selected?
1C) Were others invited but chose not to participate? If so, what reasons were provided for
declining?
1D) Were some members of the initial team not invited to take part in the rewrite? If so, please
explain why.
2. Selection Process for Current Team Members:
Please outline how the current group (as listed on Tāhurangi) was assembled, including:
2A) Who was consulted or asked to nominate individuals for roles as writers, contributors, or
reviewers?
2B) What were the selection criteria for the writers, contributors or reviewers?
2C) How many individuals were approached in total for these positions?
2D) Of those approached, how many identified as Māori, Pacific, or came from the primary sector?
2E) Could you provide a description of who was approached from each of these three groups -
Māori, Pacific and primary people (e.g., 'a Pacific historian', 'a primary teacher with curriculum
development experience')?
3. Absence of Māori, Pacific, and Primary Representatives:
Given the lack of representation from Māori, Pacific, and primary sector voices on the current
team, please explain:
3A) If individuals from these groups were recommended but not approached, why that was the
case.
3B) If individuals were approached but are not part of the group, the reasons for this (e.g., did they
decline, and if so, why; or was the decision reversed by the Ministry, and if so, why).
3C) How the Ministry is addressing and justifying the absence of these perspectives in the writing
group.
I understand that naming individuals may not be appropriate. If necessary, I am happy to receive
descriptions of individuals’ qualifications or backgrounds in place of names (e.g., ‘a Māori
academic with expertise in history’, or ‘a Pacific primary teacher with curriculum review
experience’).
If any part of my request is unclear, please do not hesitate to contact me. If any of the information
that I have requested is unavailable or would be difficult to retrieve, but similar information might be
readily available, I would be happy to discuss altering or refining my request.
