Funding Allocation and Equity Analysis
SPENCER JONES made this Official Information request to Ministry of Education
Response to this request is long overdue. By law Ministry of Education should have responded by now (details and exceptions). The requester can complain to the Ombudsman.
From: SPENCER JONES
Funding Allocation and Equity Analysis
To: Ministry of Education
Request:
Please provide:
1. Total cost modelling for principal curriculum/NCEA change allowances.
2. Any cost modelling for additional teacher release time to support curriculum refresh implementation.
3. Any analysis of cost implications if CRT eligibility were extended to teachers below 0.8 FTTE.
4. Any advice regarding the fiscal trade-offs between direct remuneration (allowances) and non-remunerative supports (PLD/resources).
This moves the debate into the fiscal domain.
Kind regards,
SPENCER JONES
From: Enquiries National
Ministry of Education
Thank you for your email to the Ministry of Education.
This is an auto generated response confirming your email has been received.
Please do not respond to this message.
We will respond to your email as soon as possible.
Tēnā koe mō tō īmēra mai ki te Tāhuhu o te Mātauranga.
He urupare aunoa tēnei hei whakaatu kua tae mai tō īmēra
ki a mātou. Kaua noa e whakautu i tēnei karere.
Mea ake nei ka urupare tonu atu mātou ki tō īmēra.
show quoted sections
From: Enquiries National
Ministry of Education
[IN-CONFIDENCE - RELEASE EXTERNAL]
Kia ora Spencer
Thank you for the information request below. The Ministry will consider
and respond to your request in accordance with the Official Information
Act 1982 (the Act).
Under section 15(1) of the Act, we are required to make and inform you of
our decision on your request as soon as reasonably practicable and in any
case not later than 20 working days after the day on which your request is
received. You can therefore expect to receive our decision on your
request on or before 25 March 2026. If more than 20 working days are
needed due to the potential workload and/or consultations involved in
answering your request, we will notify you accordingly.
Please note, the days between 25 December – 15 January (inclusive) are not
considered to be “working days” for the purposes of calculating the 20
working day timeframe for providing a response under the Act.
In the interim, if you have any questions about your request, please email
[1][email address].
Ngâ mihi,
Enquiries National Team | Te Tâhuhu o te Mâtauranga | Ministry of
Education | JH
[2]education.govt.nz
We shape an education system that delivers equitable and excellent
outcomes
He mea târai e mâtou te mâtauranga kia rangatira ai, kia mana taurite ai
ôna huanga
[3]Te TD huhu o te MD tauranga
Funding Allocation and Equity Analysis
To: Ministry of Education
Request:
Please provide:
1. Total cost modelling for principal curriculum/NCEA change
allowances.
2. Any cost modelling for additional teacher release time to
support curriculum refresh implementation.
3. Any analysis of cost implications if CRT eligibility were
extended to teachers below 0.8 FTTE.
4. Any advice regarding the fiscal trade-offs between direct
remuneration (allowances) and non-remunerative supports (PLD/resources).
This moves the debate into the fiscal domain.
Kind regards,
SPENCER JONES
show quoted sections
SPENCER JONES left an annotation ()
Public Annotation – Clarification of Completeness and Search Expectations
For transparency, I wish to clarify what would constitute a complete and substantively adequate response to this request.
This OIA seeks existing fiscal modelling, costings, and advice relating to curriculum refresh implementation funding and equity impacts. The request is directed at documents that should reasonably exist within normal public-sector decision-making processes (e.g., internal briefings, cost models, scenario analysis, trade-off advice).
To avoid ambiguity, the following points are noted:
1️⃣ “Information Not Held” (s18(e))
If the Ministry relies on section 18(e) (“information does not exist”), it would be helpful to confirm:
• Whether fiscal modelling was undertaken at any stage;
• Whether scenario analysis was performed but not retained;
• Whether advice was verbal rather than documented;
• Whether modelling was commissioned externally.
If no modelling exists, this itself is material to public understanding of how funding decisions were reached.
⸻
2️⃣ “Not Centrally Collated”
If information is said not to be centrally collated, this does not necessarily mean it does not exist. It may exist:
• Within individual business units,
• Within Ministerial briefings,
• Within Treasury coordination papers,
• Within Cabinet or Budget bid documentation.
Confirmation of where searches were undertaken (business units or systems) would assist clarity.
⸻
3️⃣ “Substantial Collation or Research” (s18(f))
This request seeks:
• Existing modelling outputs,
• Existing scenario analysis,
• Existing advice or briefings.
It does not seek creation of new analysis.
If collation concerns arise, partial release of identified documents, or release of high-level modelling summaries, would meet the intent of the request.
⸻
4️⃣ Equity Analysis Expectations
Given that the request explicitly references equity impacts (e.g., CRT eligibility thresholds, staffing profiles, rurality), it would be reasonable to expect that any internal advice considered distributional impacts across:
• School size,
• Geographic context (including rural schools),
• Staffing composition (e.g., part-time teachers),
• Implementation workload variance.
If no such equity analysis was conducted, that fact would be informative in itself.
⸻
This annotation is not adversarial. It is intended to clarify scope and ensure the response addresses the substantive fiscal and equity dimensions of the request, rather than providing high-level narrative descriptions.
I will assess the forthcoming response against these completeness criteria.
SPENCER JONES left an annotation ()
Status Update: Multiple Related Requests Now Overdue (CRT Policy & Equity Analysis)
This request forms part of a series of Official Information Act (OIA) requests concerning:
• CRT eligibility thresholds (0.8 FTTE)
• funding allocation mechanisms
• equity and workload modelling
This request has now exceeded the statutory 20 working day timeframe under the Official Information Act 1982, and no decision or extension has been received.
As such, it is now effectively in a position of:
deemed refusal due to non-response**
Related Request (Also Overdue)
CRT eligibility threshold and modelling:
https://fyi.org.nz/request/33854-crt-eli...
Emerging Pattern
Across these related requests to the Ministry of Education, a pattern is now evident:
• multiple requests on the same policy area exceeding statutory timeframes
• absence of decisions or extensions
• delays affecting requests focused on modelling, equity, and funding
Why This Matters
These requests seek information central to:
• how CRT funding is allocated
• whether equity impacts were analysed
• how workforce policy decisions were informed
The absence of responses raises questions about:
• whether such analysis exists in a coherent form
• whether information is fragmented across teams or systems
• whether there are delays due to complexity or sensitivity
System-Level Interpretation
Taken together, this is no longer a single delayed request, but a **cluster-level delay** affecting:
> policy modelling, equity analysis, and funding allocation transparency
Next Steps
Given the statutory timeframes have now passed, the requester may:
• follow up with the agency
• or seek review by the Ombudsman
Summary
This request, alongside related OIAs, is now:
• overdue
• unresolved
• and part of a broader pattern affecting access to policy modelling and equity analysis information
Further responses will clarify whether this reflects:
• administrative delay
• absence or fragmentation of analysis
• or broader issues in policy transparency and recordkeeping
From: SPENCER JONES
Dear Enquiries, National,
Tēnā koutou,
I am writing to follow up on my Official Information Act request regarding CRT funding allocation and equity analysis.
This request has now exceeded the statutory 20 working day timeframe under section 15 of the Official Information Act 1982. I have not received a decision, nor any notification of an extension under section 15A.
Accordingly, the request is now overdue.
Could you please:
• confirm the current status of this request
• advise when a decision will be provided
• clarify whether any extension has been applied
I note that this request is part of a series concerning CRT eligibility, funding, and equity modelling. Given the importance of these issues to workforce policy and resource allocation, I would appreciate this being progressed as a priority.
If I do not receive a response within a reasonable timeframe, I may consider seeking a review by the Ombudsman under section 28 of the Act.
I am happy to engage if any clarification or refinement would assist in progressing the request.
Kind regards,
Spencer Jones
From: Enquiries National
Ministry of Education
Thank you for your email to the Ministry of Education.
This is an auto generated response confirming your email has been received.
Please do not respond to this message.
We will respond to your email as soon as possible.
Tēnā koe mō tō īmēra mai ki te Tāhuhu o te Mātauranga.
He urupare aunoa tēnei hei whakaatu kua tae mai tō īmēra
ki a mātou. Kaua noa e whakautu i tēnei karere.
Mea ake nei ka urupare tonu atu mātou ki tō īmēra.
show quoted sections
From: Enquiries National
Ministry of Education
[IN-CONFIDENCE - RELEASE EXTERNAL]
Kia ora Spencer
Thank you for your emails of 26 March 2026 to the Ministry of Education
(the Ministry) regarding your requests under the Official Information Act
1982 (the Act).
On 6 March 2026 the Ministry emailed you seeking clarification regarding
your four requests and advised that, in line with section 15(1AA) of the
Act, if refinement or clarification of a request is sought within seven
working days of the date on which the request was received, the Ministry
may treat the amended or clarified request as a new request that replaces
the original request for the purposes of calculating the timeframe.
Your request was clarified to the following. As such, the 20 working day
timeframe was reset to a due date of 7 April 2026.
Please provide only decision-level or summary documentation (2022–present)
relating to the interaction between the ≥0.8 FTTE CRT eligibility
threshold and curriculum refresh implementation.
Specifically:
1. Any briefings, policy papers, or Cabinet papers discussing whether the
≥0.8 FTTE CRT eligibility threshold affects curriculum refresh
implementation workload.
2. Any modelling or summary analysis estimating additional teacher
workload associated with curriculum refresh implementation.
3. Any advice to Ministers or senior leadership discussing whether
existing CRT allocations were considered sufficient to support
curriculum redesign workload.
4. Any risk assessments or briefing material identifying teacher
workload, retention, or wellbeing risks associated with curriculum
refresh implementation.
For clarity, this refinement excludes:
• draft working papers;
• internal email correspondence;
• detailed modelling spreadsheets.
Please be assured that we are processing your request and will have the
requested information provided as soon as possible.
Nāku noa, nā,
Official and Parliamentary Information | Ministry of Education | AM
[1]education.govt.nz
He mea tārai e mātou te mātauranga kia rangatira ai, kia mana taurite ai
ōna huanga
We shape an education system that delivers equitable and excellent
outcomes
[2][IMG]
show quoted sections
SPENCER JONES left an annotation ()
OIA Response Analysis – CRT Funding Allocation and Equity Analysis
Request:
https://fyi.org.nz/request/33856-funding...
Summary of Response
This request sought information relating to:
• how CRT (Classroom Release Time) funding is allocated
• whether equity impacts were analysed
• any modelling or analysis underpinning funding decisions
Current Status
At the time of this update, the request has:
• exceeded the statutory 20 working day timeframe under the Official Information Act 1982
• not received a substantive decision or response
As such, it is now effectively:
> overdue / deemed refused due to non-response
Related Request (Same Policy Area)
CRT eligibility threshold and modelling:
https://fyi.org.nz/request/33854-crt-eli...
Emerging Pattern
Across related requests to the Ministry of Education, a consistent pattern is emerging:
• delays beyond statutory timeframes
• lack of responses on modelling and analysis
• multiple requests focused on the same policy area affected
Why This Matters
These requests go to the core of:
• how public funding is distributed across schools
• whether equity impacts were assessed
• whether decisions are supported by formal modelling
The absence of responses raises questions about:
• whether such modelling exists in a structured form
• whether information is fragmented across teams or systems
• whether delays relate to complexity, collation, or sensitivity
System-Level Observation
Taken together, this is no longer a single delayed request, but part of a broader pattern affecting access to:
> policy modelling, funding allocation logic, and equity analysis
Next Steps
The requester may:
• follow up with the agency regarding the overdue status
• seek a review by the Ombudsman under section 28 of the Act
Summary
This request remains:
• unresolved
• overdue
• and part of a wider cluster of requests concerning CRT policy and equity
Further responses will clarify whether this reflects:
• administrative delay
• absence or fragmentation of analysis
• or broader issues in policy transparency
From: Enquiries National
Ministry of Education
[IN-CONFIDENCE - RELEASE EXTERNAL]
Tēnā koe Spencer
Thank you for your emails of 25 February 2026 to the Ministry of Education
(the Ministry), the Minister of Education, Hon Erica Stanford, and the
Treasury, the latter two of which were transferred to the Ministry. Your
request was amended on 6 March 2026 to the following:
Please provide only decision-level or summary documentation (2022–present)
relating to the interaction between the ≥0.8 FTTE CRT eligibility
threshold and curriculum refresh implementation.
Specifically:
1. Any briefings, policy papers, or Cabinet papers discussing whether the
≥0.8 FTTE CRT eligibility threshold affects curriculum refresh
implementation workload.
2. Any modelling or summary analysis estimating additional teacher
workload associated with curriculum refresh implementation.
3. Any advice to Ministers or senior leadership discussing whether
existing CRT allocations were considered sufficient to support
curriculum redesign workload.
4. Any risk assessments or briefing material identifying teacher
workload, retention, or wellbeing risks associated with curriculum
refresh implementation.
For clarity, this refinement excludes:
o draft working papers;
o internal email correspondence;
o detailed modelling spreadsheets.
Your request has been considered under the Official Information Act 1982
(the Act).
The Ministry has sought advice from multiple business units within the
Ministry to determine if any information in scope of your request can be
identified.
I can confirm that no information has been identified as in scope of your
request. As such, I am refusing your request in full under section
18(g)(i), as the information requested is not held by the Minister and the
person dealing with the request has no grounds for believing that the
information is held by another department subject to the Act.
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 [1][email address] or to
Office of the Ombudsman, PO Box 10152, Wellington 6143.
Nāku noa, nā,
Official and Parliamentary Information | Ministry of Education | CM
[2]education.govt.nz
He mea tārai e mātou te mātauranga kia rangatira ai, kia mana taurite ai
ōna huanga
We shape an education system that delivers equitable and excellent
outcomes
[3]Te Tāhuhu o te Mātauranga
show quoted sections
From: SPENCER JONES
Dear Enquiries National,
Thank you for your response.
I seek clarification regarding record existence.
Given that the curriculum refresh and CRT eligibility settings are established policy positions, please confirm whether the following records exist in any form:
• any briefing, advice, or summary prepared for Ministers or senior leadership on teacher workload associated with curriculum refresh implementation
• any analysis, modelling, or estimation (even at a high level) of teacher workload impacts
• any consideration of whether CRT allocations were sufficient to support implementation
• any identification of risks relating to teacher workload, retention, or wellbeing
If no such records exist, please confirm whether this means that no analysis, advice, or risk assessment was created at any stage of policy development or implementation.
If records do exist but were not identified, please confirm what searches were undertaken, including:
• business units consulted
• systems searched
• search terms used
Kind regards
Spencer Jones
From: Enquiries National
Ministry of Education
[UNCLASSIFIED]
GEMS-47590
Kia ora Spencer
Thank you for the information request below. The Ministry will consider and respond to your request in accordance with the Official Information Act 1982 (the Act).
Under section 15(1) of the Act, we are required to make and inform you of our decision on your request as soon as reasonably practicable and in any case not later than 20 working days after the day on which your request is received. You can therefore expect to receive our decision on your request on or before 6 May 2026. If more than 20 working days are needed due to the potential workload and/or consultations involved in answering your request, we will notify you accordingly.
Ngā mihi
Enquiries National Team | Te Tāhuhu o te Mātauranga | Ministry of Education | AG
education.govt.nz
We shape an education system that delivers equitable and excellent outcomes
He mea tārai e mātou te mātauranga kia rangatira ai, kia mana taurite ai ōna huanga
show quoted sections
From: Enquiries National
Ministry of Education
[IN-CONFIDENCE - RELEASE EXTERNAL]
Tçnâ koe Spencer
OIA: GEMS-47590 – CRT eligibility threshold and Curriculum Refresh
implementation
Thank you for your email of 7 April 2026 to the Ministry of Education (the
Ministry) requesting the following information, which we have numbered for
reference:
I seek clarification regarding record existence.
1. Given that the curriculum refresh and CRT eligibility settings are
established policy positions, please confirm whether the following
records exist in any form:
• any briefing, advice, or summary prepared for Ministers or senior
leadership on teacher workload associated with curriculum refresh
implementation.
• any analysis, modelling, or estimation (even at a high level) of teacher
workload impacts.
• any consideration of whether CRT allocations were sufficient to support
implementation.
• any identification of risks relating to teacher workload, retention, or
wellbeing.
2. If no such records exist, please confirm whether this means that no
analysis, advice, or risk assessment was created at any stage of
policy development or implementation.
3. If records do exist but were not identified, please confirm what
searches were undertaken, including:
• business units consulted.
• systems searched.
• search terms used.
Your request has been considered under the Official Information Act 1982
(the Act).
Regarding parts one and three of your request, we can confirm that the
Ministry does not hold any of the requested documents. As such, your
request is refused under section 18(g) of the Act, as the information
requested is not held and we have no grounds for believing that the
information is held by another department or Minister of the Crown or
organisation.
In accordance with part two of your request, this work is underway,
however no complete documents that you have requested exist.
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 [1][email address] or to
Office of the Ombudsman, PO Box 10152, Wellington 6143.
Nâku noa, nâ,
Official and Parliamentary Information | Ministry of Education | CM
[2]education.govt.nz
He mea târai e mâtou te mâtauranga kia rangatira ai, kia mana taurite ai
ôna huanga
We shape an education system that delivers equitable and excellent
outcomes
[3]Te Tâhuhu o te Mâtauranga
show quoted sections
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence (note: this contains the same information already available above).
Offensive? Unsuitable?
Requests for personal information and vexatious requests are not considered valid requests for Official Information (read more).
If you believe this request is not suitable, you can report it for attention by the site administrators
Report this requestAct on what you've learnt
Similar requests
CRT Eligibility Threshold and Curriculum Implementation Workload – Advice and Engagement with NZEI
To Erica Stanford by SPENCER JONES
Evidence that the ministry is effectively performing its core role.
To Ministry of Education by Lewis T
SPENCER JONES left an annotation ()
This request is intended to move the curriculum refresh / workload debate into the fiscal and equity domain, using actual modelling and advice rather than anecdotes.
Why this OIA matters (equity + implementation reality)
Across schools—particularly smaller and rural settings—implementation workload lands heavily on classroom teachers and small leadership teams. In Paula’s case (a rural primary teaching context), the operational reality is that:
• staffing is tight,
• release time is harder to source,
• part-time teachers (below 0.8 FTTE) can carry significant planning and delivery load,
• and “non-remunerative supports” (PLD/resources) often do not compensate for the time/capacity constraints on the ground.
Against that backdrop, this request seeks the Ministry’s internal cost modelling and trade-off advice on four specific issues:
1. total cost modelling for principal curriculum/NCEA change allowances;
2. any modelling for additional teacher release time supporting curriculum refresh;
3. analysis of cost implications if CRT eligibility extended below 0.8 FTTE;
4. advice on fiscal trade-offs between allowances vs PLD/resources. 
What “good” looks like in a response (completeness criteria)
To be substantively complete (and not just a high-level narrative), the response should ideally identify and, where possible, release:
• the actual modelling outputs (spreadsheets, tables, scenario runs, costing assumptions);
• the inputs/assumptions used (eligibility populations, rates, unit costs, timeframes);
• any equity impact analysis (distributional effects by school type/region/decile or equity index, staffing profile, rurality);
• any options analysis comparing:
• direct remuneration (allowances),
• release time expansion,
• PLD/resources,
• hybrid packages; and
• the decision trail (briefings, aide memoires, internal advice) explaining why one approach was chosen over alternatives.
If the Ministry states “no modelling exists”, then the public-interest question becomes: what evidence base was used to decide funding settings for implementation workload?
Why a Treasury mirror request exists
A parallel request has also been lodged with Treasury to test whether fiscal modelling and trade-off advice exists outside the Ministry, and whether any cross-agency advice informed the design of implementation supports. 
Procedural note (status)
As of now, the Ministry has acknowledged the request and advised a decision due on or before 25 March 2026. 
What I will do next
Once the substantive response is received, I will annotate again to record whether:
• the request has been answered in full,
• modelling/advice has been provided (or withheld/refused),
• any gaps remain (e.g., missing assumptions, missing scenario analysis),
• and whether a targeted follow-up OIA is needed to obtain specific modelling artefacts.
Link to this