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.

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.