To the Ministry of Education,

Request for Information:

This request is to clarify my previous requests.

You mention that giving background information would mean individuals are identifiable. In this regard, I would be happy for individuals' data to be aggregated into groupings, therefore I would like to know:
1. How many people with a primary background were asked to be part of the social science writing/ contributing/ reviewing groups.
2. How many people with expertise in Māori history were asked to be part of the social science writing/ contributing/ reviewing groups.
3. How many iwi representatives were asked to be part of the social science writing/ contributing/ reviewing groups.
4. How many people with expertise in Pacific history were asked to be part of the social science writing/ contributing/ reviewing groups.
5. How many people with expertise in Māori history were asked to be part of the social science writing/ contributing/ reviewing groups.
6. How many people with a secondary background were asked to be part of the social science writing/ contributing/ reviewing groups.
7. How many people with experience writing primary curriculum were asked to be part of the social science writing/ contributing/ reviewing groups.
8. How many people on the social science writing/ contributing/ reviewing groups requested their names be removed from the records.

I am aware that this may mean some people are counted more than once in different categories which is okay as it will remove any possibility of identification.

I would also like to know the numbers of people who were approached who declined participating in the writing/ contributing/ review groups, and the number of reason categories given? Eg 5 people declined because they did not have the time to participate. Please include in this the number of people who the Ministry declined after issuing an invitation, and the reasons given for this change of mind.

I am happy to be contacted if you wish to clarify any of this. I have copied my two previous requests below.

Faithfully
Ken.

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:
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.

Yours faithfully,

Ken Robertson