Technical Advice – CRT Eligibility Threshold and Curriculum Refresh Workload Modelling
SPENCER JONES made this Official Information request to Ministry of Education
The request is waiting for clarification. If you are SPENCER JONES, please sign in to send a follow up message.
From: SPENCER JONES
To: Ministry of Education
Subject: Technical Advice – CRT Eligibility Threshold and Curriculum Refresh Workload Modelling
Dear Ministry of Education,
I write under the Official Information Act 1982 to request the following information. This request is limited to existing documents.
Timeframe: 1 January 2022 to present.
⸻
1. CRT Eligibility Threshold (≥0.8 FTTE)
Please provide:
1. All policy papers, internal advice, aide-memoires, reports, and briefing documents discussing the ≥0.8 FTTE classroom release time (CRT) eligibility threshold under clause 3.28 of the Primary Teachers’ Collective Agreement.
2. Any analysis, modelling, or advice assessing:
• The operational impact of the ≥0.8 FTTE threshold;
• The effect of that threshold on teachers employed below 0.8 FTTE;
• Equity implications associated with differential CRT eligibility.
3. Any advice or modelling estimating the fiscal impact of extending CRT eligibility below 0.8 FTTE during the curriculum refresh implementation period.
⸻
2. Curriculum Refresh Workload Assessment
Please provide:
1. Any formal workload impact assessments prepared prior to or during implementation of the refreshed English and Mathematics curriculum.
2. Any internal modelling estimating:
• Additional planning or programme redesign hours per teacher;
• Additional assessment redesign hours;
• Implementation workload associated with structured literacy or structured mathematics requirements.
3. Any internal risk assessments concerning:
• Workforce retention risks;
• Wellbeing impacts;
• Industrial relations implications arising from curriculum implementation timelines.
⸻
3. Implementation Mitigation Measures
Please provide:
1. Any documentation assessing whether existing CRT allocations were considered sufficient to support curriculum redesign workload.
2. Any advice comparing:
• Direct remuneration approaches (e.g., principal change allowances);
• Non-remunerative supports (e.g., PLD, resources, guidance materials);
• Additional staffing or release-time funding options.
⸻
Administrative Clarification
This request is for existing documents only.
If any part of this request may be refused under section 18(f), please contact me so that scope refinement can be considered.
If information is withheld, please identify the precise statutory grounds relied upon and the public interest considerations applied.
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.
In the interim, if you have any questions about your request, please email
[1][email address].
Ngā mihi,
Enquiries National Team | Te Tāhuhu o te Mātauranga | Ministry of
Education | JH
[2]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
[3]Te TD huhu o te MD tauranga
Dear Ministry of Education,
I write under the Official Information Act 1982 to request the following
information. This request is limited to existing documents.
Timeframe: 1 January 2022 to present.
⸻
1. CRT Eligibility Threshold (≥0.8 FTTE)
Please provide:
1. All policy papers, internal advice, aide-memoires,
reports, and briefing documents discussing the ≥0.8 FTTE classroom release
time (CRT) eligibility threshold under clause 3.28 of the Primary
Teachers’ Collective Agreement.
2. Any analysis, modelling, or advice assessing:
• The operational impact of the ≥0.8 FTTE threshold;
• The effect of that threshold on teachers employed below
0.8 FTTE;
• Equity implications associated with differential CRT
eligibility.
3. Any advice or modelling estimating the fiscal impact of
extending CRT eligibility below 0.8 FTTE during the curriculum refresh
implementation period.
⸻
2. Curriculum Refresh Workload Assessment
Please provide:
1. Any formal workload impact assessments prepared prior to
or during implementation of the refreshed English and Mathematics
curriculum.
2. Any internal modelling estimating:
• Additional planning or programme redesign hours per
teacher;
• Additional assessment redesign hours;
• Implementation workload associated with structured
literacy or structured mathematics requirements.
3. Any internal risk assessments concerning:
• Workforce retention risks;
• Wellbeing impacts;
• Industrial relations implications arising from curriculum
implementation timelines.
⸻
3. Implementation Mitigation Measures
Please provide:
1. Any documentation assessing whether existing CRT
allocations were considered sufficient to support curriculum redesign
workload.
2. Any advice comparing:
• Direct remuneration approaches (e.g., principal change
allowances);
• Non-remunerative supports (e.g., PLD, resources, guidance
materials);
• Additional staffing or release-time funding options.
⸻
Administrative Clarification
This request is for existing documents only.
If any part of this request may be refused under section 18(f), please
contact me so that scope refinement can be considered.
If information is withheld, please identify the precise statutory grounds
relied upon and the public interest considerations applied.
Kind regards,
Spencer Jones
show quoted sections
SPENCER JONES left an annotation ()
Public Annotation – Technical Advice on CRT Thresholds and Curriculum Refresh Workload Modelling
This request seeks existing technical advice and internal modelling relating to:
• The CRT (Classroom Release Time) eligibility threshold;
• The interaction between CRT eligibility settings and curriculum refresh implementation workload;
• Any quantitative or analytical work undertaken to assess workload implications across different staffing configurations.
This request does not seek bargaining positions or negotiation strategy. It seeks documented technical advice or modelling used to inform policy settings.
⸻
Why this request is governance-relevant
The refreshed curriculum represents a system-wide implementation change. Implementation decisions typically require:
1️⃣ Workload estimation
2️⃣ Cost modelling
3️⃣ Workforce impact analysis
4️⃣ Risk identification
5️⃣ Mitigation planning
CRT eligibility thresholds function as a technical policy lever. If curriculum refresh increases planning, assessment, and adaptation workload, then eligibility thresholds directly influence:
• Which teachers receive additional release time;
• Which staffing structures absorb additional workload without adjustment;
• How impacts differ between large and small schools;
• Whether part-time staffing models experience disproportionate burden.
This request seeks to clarify whether those interactions were technically assessed.
⸻
What a substantively complete response would include
A complete response would ideally identify:
• Technical modelling papers or spreadsheets examining workload implications;
• Advice to senior leadership or Ministers analysing CRT threshold effects;
• Scenario modelling comparing threshold adjustments versus alternative mitigation mechanisms;
• Risk assessments referencing curriculum implementation workload;
• Any analysis distinguishing principal workload from classroom teacher workload;
• Advice referencing differential impacts across rural, small, composite, or area schools.
If no such technical advice exists, confirmation of that absence would also be informative.
⸻
Clarifying scope (to prevent drift)
This request:
• Does not require new modelling to be created;
• Does not request teacher-specific personal data;
• Does not seek union bargaining detail;
• Does not request policy redesign;
• Does not seek anecdotal stakeholder summaries.
It seeks only existing technical or analytical records relied upon in setting or maintaining CRT eligibility thresholds during curriculum refresh planning.
⸻
Interaction with related workload requests
This request complements other inquiries into:
• Curriculum implementation workload modelling;
• CRT eligibility threshold advice;
• Engagement with NZEI;
• Equity analysis concerning staffing thresholds.
Together, these requests aim to clarify whether workload implications were:
• Quantified;
• Modelled;
• Assessed for distributional impact;
• Or assumed without documented technical analysis.
⸻
Governance significance
When policy thresholds materially affect workload distribution, transparency around technical advice promotes:
• Public confidence in decision-making;
• Clarity regarding equity considerations;
• Understanding of how system-wide changes are implemented;
• Clear distinction between administrative continuation and evidence-informed review.
If technical advice exists, release will clarify the analytical basis of CRT settings.
If it does not exist, that absence is itself relevant to understanding how implementation workload was evaluated.
I will update this thread once a substantive response is received.
From: Enquiries National
Ministry of Education
[IN-CONFIDENCE - RELEASE EXTERNAL]
Tēnā koe Spencer
Thank you for your four emails of 25 February 2026 requesting information
from the Ministry of Education (the Ministry) relating to CRT and
Curriculum Refresh Workload Modelling. Your requests have been considered
under the Official Information Act 1982 (the Act), and have been combined
and treated as a single request for the purposes of responding, as allowed
under section 18A(2) of the Act.
The combined information sought is as follows:
GEMS-47008
Timeframe: 1 January 2022 to present.
1. CRT Eligibility Threshold (≥0.8 FTTE)
Please provide:
1. All policy papers, internal advice, aide-memoires, reports, and
briefing documents discussing the ≥0.8 FTTE classroom release time (CRT)
eligibility threshold under clause 3.28 of the Primary Teachers’
Collective Agreement.
2. Any analysis, modelling, or advice assessing:
• The operational impact of the ≥0.8 FTTE threshold;
• The effect of that threshold on teachers employed below 0.8
FTTE;
• Equity implications associated with differential CRT
eligibility.
3. Any advice or modelling estimating the fiscal impact of extending
CRT eligibility below 0.8 FTTE during the curriculum refresh
implementation period.
2. Curriculum Refresh Workload Assessment
Please provide:
1. Any formal workload impact assessments prepared prior to or during
implementation of the refreshed English and Mathematics curriculum.
2. Any internal modelling estimating:
• Additional planning or programme redesign hours per teacher;
• Additional assessment redesign hours;
• Implementation workload associated with structured literacy
or structured mathematics requirements.
3. Any internal risk assessments concerning:
• Workforce retention risks;
• Wellbeing impacts;
• Industrial relations implications arising from curriculum
implementation timelines.
3. Implementation Mitigation Measures
Please provide:
1. Any documentation assessing whether existing CRT allocations were
considered sufficient to support curriculum redesign workload.
2. Any advice comparing:
• Direct remuneration approaches (e.g., principal change
allowances);
• Non-remunerative supports (e.g., PLD, resources, guidance
materials);
• Additional staffing or release-time funding options.
GEMS-47010
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).
GEMS-47013
Please provide:
1. Any formal workload impact assessments undertaken prior to
curriculum refresh implementation (English, mathematics, structured
literacy).
2. Any internal estimates of average additional planning hours per
teacher per term attributable to the curriculum refresh.
3. Any advice comparing workload recognition provided to principals
(e.g., $15,000 allowance) with workload mitigation measures for classroom
teachers.
4. Any risk assessments relating to teacher workload, retention, or
industrial relations impacts arising from implementation timelines.
GEMS-47015
Please provide:
1. All policy papers, briefings, internal advice, and Cabinet papers
(2022–present) that discuss classroom release time (CRT) eligibility
thresholds under clause 3.28 of the Primary Teachers’ Collective
Agreement.
2. Any analysis, modelling, or advice undertaken regarding the impact
of the ≥0.8 FTTE CRT eligibility threshold on:
• Part-time teachers below 0.8 FTTE;
• Curriculum refresh implementation workload;
• Workforce retention or wellbeing.
3. Any consideration given to temporarily extending CRT eligibility
below 0.8 FTTE during the 2024–2027 curriculum refresh period.
4. Any quantified estimates of additional planning/redesign hours
anticipated for teachers due to curriculum refresh implementation.
Your request, as currently worded, is very broad in scope, covering a
significant volume of official information, and contains significant
crossover of subject matter. In the hope that we may be able to avoid
refusing your request, we would like to invite you to refine the scope by
restricting or consolidating the various parts and removing any
duplication, as well as focusing your request on key identifiable
documentation.
We look forward to hearing from you. Once we have your refinement, we will
commence work on your request.
Please note 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.
Nāku noa, nā,
Official and Parliamentary Information | Ministry of Education | ED
[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
From: SPENCER JONES
Dear Enquiries National,
Tēnā koutou,
Thank you for your message inviting refinement.
To assist the Ministry in responding efficiently, I am happy to narrow the scope as follows.
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.
Kind regards,
Spencer Jones
SPENCER JONES left an annotation ()
Public Annotation – Context of the CRT / Curriculum Refresh OIA Series
The Ministry has requested that this request be refined due to the potential volume of information involved. I will submit a narrowed version focused on decision-level documentation.
For context, this request forms part of a small series of Official Information Act requests examining how workload implications of the curriculum refresh were assessed and how those considerations intersect with Classroom Release Time (CRT) eligibility settings, particularly the ≥0.8 FTTE threshold under the Primary Teachers’ Collective Agreement.
Related requests include:
• CRT eligibility threshold (≥0.8 FTTE) – equity and workload modelling
• Technical advice regarding CRT eligibility thresholds and curriculum implementation workload
• Curriculum implementation workload modelling
• Cost modelling relating to curriculum change allowances and release time
These requests are not intended to duplicate information or generate unnecessary collation work. Instead, they seek to understand whether the following types of governance documentation exist:
• workload impact assessments prepared prior to or during curriculum refresh implementation;
• modelling estimating additional planning, assessment, or programme redesign hours required by teachers;
• analysis of the operational or equity implications of the ≥0.8 FTTE CRT eligibility threshold;
• advice provided to Ministers or senior leadership regarding workload mitigation measures.
Where system-wide curriculum change occurs, it is common for agencies to undertake some level of implementation planning, including workload estimation, risk assessment, and consideration of workforce implications. The purpose of these requests is simply to clarify whether such documentation exists in this case.
To assist the Ministry in responding efficiently, I will refine the request to focus on key policy or decision-level documentation rather than all underlying working material.
I will update this thread once the refined scope has been submitted and the Ministry has responded.
SPENCER JONES left an annotation ()
Public Annotation – Governance Significance of the ≥0.8 FTTE CRT Eligibility Threshold
A brief additional note to clarify the governance context of this request.
The ≥0.8 FTTE threshold for Classroom Release Time (CRT) eligibility is an operational mechanism contained within the Primary Teachers’ Collective Agreement. While it functions as a technical eligibility setting, it can have broader implications where system-wide change affects teacher workload.
During periods of significant curriculum reform, such as the current curriculum refresh, agencies commonly consider how implementation workload interacts with existing workforce settings. This can include consideration of:
• whether existing release-time allocations remain sufficient to support programme redesign and planning requirements;
• whether eligibility thresholds have differential effects on teachers employed below a particular FTTE level;
• whether workforce wellbeing, retention, or equity considerations arise during implementation.
In many schools, particularly smaller or rural schools, teaching staff may work below the ≥0.8 FTTE threshold due to staffing structure, roll size, or job-sharing arrangements. Where eligibility thresholds interact with system-wide implementation workload, this may create differential impacts across the workforce.
For this reason, the request focuses primarily on whether policy-level documentation or decision-level advice exists concerning:
• the operational implications of the ≥0.8 FTTE CRT eligibility threshold;
• workload modelling associated with curriculum refresh implementation;
• any risk assessments relating to workforce workload or retention.
To assist the Ministry in responding efficiently, the refinement will focus on policy papers, briefings, or summary analyses rather than large volumes of underlying working material.
The intention is simply to understand whether documented consideration was given to how curriculum implementation workload interacts with existing CRT eligibility settings.
I will update this thread once the refined request has been submitted and the Ministry has responded.
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
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
Minister of Education Erica Stanford rejects claims Treaty being removed from school documents
To Erica Stanford by Thomasirving
SPENCER JONES left an annotation ()
This Official Information Act request seeks technical advice held by the Ministry of Education relating to two intersecting issues:
1. The ≥0.8 FTTE classroom release time (CRT) eligibility threshold under the Primary Teachers’ Collective Agreement; and
2. The workload implications of implementing the refreshed curriculum (including structured literacy and mathematics changes).
Recent settlements have publicly recognised the leadership workload of principals through targeted implementation allowances. At the same time, classroom teachers are responsible for day-to-day programme redesign, assessment alignment, and instructional delivery under the refreshed curriculum framework.
The public interest questions are:
• Was formal workload modelling undertaken prior to rollout?
• Was the CRT eligibility threshold analysed in light of curriculum redesign demands?
• Was the impact on part-time teachers (below 0.8 FTTE) assessed?
• Were fiscal options for additional release-time support considered?
• Were workforce retention or wellbeing risks formally evaluated?
The purpose of this request is not adversarial. It is to clarify whether technical modelling and equity analysis underpin implementation decisions affecting thousands of classroom teachers.
The refreshed curriculum represents a significant system-wide change. Transparent disclosure of workload modelling and equity assessment contributes to:
• Informed public understanding;
• Workforce sustainability discussions;
• Evidence-based education policy debate;
• Accountability in public expenditure decisions.
The request is confined to existing documentation and does not seek creation of new analysis.
Given the scale of curriculum reform and its implications for teaching practice, there is a clear and ongoing public interest in understanding the evidentiary basis for implementation settings.
Link to this