The following are responses received yesterday from Minister Stanford to questions tabled by the Hon. Jan Tinetti.

---

Question: How much detail remains of the refreshed curriculum as it was in September 2023?

Reply: The refreshed New Zealand Curriculum is built on earlier work informed by sector feedback, and is designed to be knowledge-rich and grounded in the science of learning. Key aspects from the draft New Zealand Curriculum materials released in 2022 and 2023 that remain present in the latest versions include: • The New Zealand Curriculum framework (Te Mātaiaho) • The Understand Know Do (UKD) model • Phases of learning • Progress outcomes. As at September 2023, updated curriculum area content for Te Marautanga o Aotearoa had not been released, with the exception of Te Takanga o te Wā (currently sitting within the tikanga ā-iwi wāhanga ako).

My comment:

The party line one this one. But she’s also trying to have it both ways. Yes, the key aspects remain, and they were informed by sector feedback (which was extensive), but the detail within those key aspects has changed considerably, even fundamentally. Remember, the Ministry tried to get all of those key aspects out of scope of the MAG, but failed to do so. The result has been a rewrite of the refresh, not a continuation of the refresh. The Minister insults the sector with this reply because she is assuming we are foolish enough to think keeping the headings is sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement for consultation on the regulatory framework for schools. Can the Minister identify the detail that remains in those aspects? I know she is going line-by-line through the budget. Perhaps a better use of her time would be to go line-by-line through the two versions of the curriculums.

The foundation phrases — ‘knowledge rich’ and ‘the science of learning’ — are trotted out with a confidence that is unwarranted. As Terry Locke has pointed out, in its restrictive narrowing of what is to be done and how, this is actually a knowledge impoverished curriculum. And as Guy Claxton showed in his webinar for the AEC on Tuesday, there are many learning sciences and working out which one is desirable is a question of values and aims, which is an ethical and moral question. This Minister has not asked that question nor had that conversation with the public or the sector. So why the one she has selected for us? Who has influenced her thinking?

---

Question:

Why was Michael Johnston chosen to lead the MAG over the person recommended by the Ministry?

Reply:

Prior to the MAG being established, the Ministry recommended a number of potential members, including one to be considered for the role of chair. The MAG was then established, and through the process, the person suggested for consideration for the chair was not selected for group membership. The member may be interested to note that Dr Michael Johnston was one of the people recommended by the Ministry for the oversight group within the MAG.

My comment:

I think it’s worth wondering why a person the Ministry deemed to be of sufficient experience and capability to lead the MAG did not even make the group. And why did the MAG need an oversight group when there were only 12 of them? We do know that the majority of the group had previous professional relationships with Dr Michael Johnston. Were they just his team of willing workers?

---

Question:

What was the “project” Michael Johnston was looking to start in his email to the Ministerial Advisory Group on 15 March, given the MAG hadn’t published its report?

Reply:

I don’t know what Mr Johnston was referring to as I was not included in the distribution of this email and I have not seen it.

My comment:

This is a cop-out answer. Someone in the Ministry had given approval for the project and we know that because in the email Michael Johnston says the Ministry are going to provide a project manager for them (the MAG). So who gave approval? Is this the Ministry going rogue? Or has the instruction to get started come from somewhere else? What is concerning here is public service guidelines are explicit in stating MAG’s are for advice, not the creation of regulations (like a curriculum), which given Michael is excited about the fact they are writing and have “strong input” [ie, control] into who is in the writing groups. So what this project is, is important.

And remember, the MAG have not published their report on March 15, so is the project within the scope of the terms that define what they can and can’t do? Also, and I think of concern, in this same email, Michael Johnston says to the MAG he is going to email the Minister to “find out exactly what detail” she wants to see in the report — is this how advice from a ministerial advisory group works?

---

Question:

Who gave the Ministry the authority to resource the project Michael Johnston was looking to start in his email to the Ministerial Advisory Group on 15 March?

Reply

I refer the member to my answer to 66474 (2024). [ie, the one above]

My comment:

Again, a cop-out.

---

Thanks to everyone for your support.

And a big thanks the Dr Rae Si’ilata, who shared with me the readings I posted yesterday. She is one of the driving forces behind the Pasifika Early Literacy Project, and they found out yesterday their funding has been cut a year early. So much for evidence.

Bevan.