3/07/2025
Ken Robertson
[FYI request #31279 email]
Tēnā koe Ken
OIA: 1349408 – Follow up questions regarding curriculum contributing groups
Thank you for your email of 11 June 2025 to the Ministry of Education (the Ministry) requesting
information regarding the curriculum contributing groups, further to the Ministry’s response to your
previous request, reference number 1346538. A full copy of your request is included below at
annex one.
Your request has been considered under the Official Information Act 1982 (the Act).
In respect of requests for information around the ethnicity of members of the Ministry’s various
groups, including the Contributor, Coherence, and Writing groups, that information is neither
sought, nor recorded. Candidates for membership in different groups are evaluated based on
relevant skil s and expertise, against the criteria previously shared with you.
This is therefore technically a refusal of this part of your request in accordance with section 18(g)
of the Act, because the information requested is not held by the Ministry and we have no grounds
for believing it is either held by of more closely connected to the functions of another agency
subject to the Act.
Additionally, we note that your previous request indicated you were happy to receive descriptions
of individuals’ qualifications or backgrounds in place of names, to protect their privacy. However,
the disclosure of individual qualifications and backgrounds would likely still identify the individuals
involved and therefore this information was withheld under section 9(2)(a) of the Act. As required
under section 9(1) of the Act, we considered the public interest in releasing the information
withheld and did not consider it outweighed the need to withhold, at this time.
In respect of your question regarding subject associations and their nominations, the Ministry
evaluated the candidates put forward based on relevant skil s and expertise against the same
previously shared criteria.
In respect of your question regarding experts other than subject associations, the Ministry applied
the same criteria to identify relevant expertise from across tertiary education, spanning universities
and Professional Learning and Development providers.
Wellington National Office, 1 The Terrace, Levels 5 to 14, Wellington 6011
PO Box 1666, Wellington 6140, DX SR51201 Phone: +64 4 463 8000
Thank you again for your email. You have the right to ask an Ombudsman to review my decision
on your request, in accordance with section 28 of the Act. You can do this by writing to
[email address] or to Office of the Ombudsman, PO Box 10152, Wellington 6143.
Nāku noa, nā
Julia Novak
General Manager, New Zealand Curriculum and Te Whāriki
Te Mahau | Te Poutāhū (Curriculum Centre)
OIA: 1349408
Annex one
A) This request is to clarify my previous request, which is copied below. You made the
following statement in your reply: "In respect of questions 2d, 2e, 3a and 3b, this information
is withheld under section 9(2)(a) of the Act, to protect the privacy of natural persons. "
A1) I would like to highlight this section in my request:
"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’)"
A2) As explained in the quote above (from my initial request), I am not seeking identifying
information so there is no risk to the privacy of natural persons. 2d is simply asking for the
numbers of people approached to participate in the contributing group from each of those
backgrounds, eg 5 primary experts. 2e is simply seeking general information to understand
the expertise or background of the people approached. 3 a and b is asking why they did not
end up being part of the group. The reasons can likewise be generalised, for example,
declined with no reason, conflict of interest, not available in the time frames etc.
B) In your response, you stated "Regarding questions 1a – d, 2a and 2b, membership of the
contributing groups was decided by evaluating proposed members that were nominated by
subject associations and other experts.
The Ministry evaluated the nominees based on the following criteria:
• Relevant curriculum knowledge.
• Relevant content knowledge.
• Understanding of best practice pedagogy and the science of learning.
• Experience working in or with the NZ school sector.
• Expertise in designing inclusive curriculum, including progressions.
• Understanding of how to integrate key competencies, and literacy and numeracy, into
teaching and learning design.
• Experience and expertise of NZ contexts, including the use of te reo Māori, tikanga Māori
and contexts specific to Pacific learners."
B2) Given that there are no Māori, Pacific, or primary people in the contributing group that is
currently published on Tahurangi, I would like to know - how many of each group (Māori,
Pacific, primary sector) were nominated by subject associations and other experts, and what
were the reasons for them not being selected for the contributing group.
C) given that the subject associations are overwhelmingly secondary specific, how did you
ensure that the nominations reflected the primary sector, which is the majority of the sector
for which this curriculum is written and therefore should be a major focus in your first criterion
"relevant curriculum knowledge"
D) How did you decide which "other experts" to ask for nominations for the contributing
group? Which groups or general categories were these "other experts" from? What social
studies curriculum experience do these "other experts" have?
My original request follows:
OIA: 1349408
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’).
OIA: 1349408
