On 30 May, 2024, ERO wrote an “update note” to Minister Stanford about the Independent Quality Assurance they were providing for the curriculum rewrite. In that note, we find this bombshell, written in relation to the English Years 0-6 curriculum:

“A key concern raised was that these materials were originally written by the Ministerial Advisory Group (MAG) with the purpose of being a sample for the MOE writing group. ERO welcomes the opportunity to QA this again when the writing group has progressed this area and material is more reflective of the most up to date evidence around effective pedagogy, as some of this is currently outdated.”

In other words, even if the purpose of writing them was an honest one, those materials were now being positioned as the proposed curriculum. This is a violation of Public Service Guidelines, there to ensure democratic process is adhered to, which includes separation of power, the maintenance of legal accountability, and guardrails against corruption. In short, when you have private individuals doing the work of government, your democracy is on shaky ground, and that is exactly what we have happening here. This violation was done with the knowledge of the Minister. She had known about it since at least 15 March and had done nothing to stop it. Ellen MacGregor-Reid lied to Parliament about this fact in the December Select Committee, until she got caught and had to backtrack and admit the MAG did begin writing curriculum material. Why lie if this violation doesn’t matter?

In an update provided to the Minister on 16 August, 2024, ERO still considered the Years 0-6 English curriculum unusable and not fit for purpose, with further significant work required in the Writing strand from Year 1 and the Oral strand from Year 4, and the Reading strand was working towards being internationally comparable, but requiring of a “critical revision”.

On 26 September, 2024, a note to the Minister detailed the key messages from an international review panel. In relation to the English Years 0-6 curriculum, three key messages were provided:

• Greater clarity was needed.
• That “concern about learners from diverse backgrounds was noted in particular when considering pedagogical approaches that can lack an acknowledgement of what learners bring to a classroom”.
• There was concern about the narrow focus.

That curriculum went out to the sector for consultation on 26 August and closed on 20 September.

So, a curriculum deemed by ERO to be unusable and unfit for purpose, requiring further significant work and critical revision days before being put out for consultation, was what the sector had the opportunity to feed back on.

And yet, on 31 October it was released to the sector in its final form.

Why so keen to get it out there?

You can read the ERO documents here.

This Minister is happy to oversee the development of education regulations that occur in a way that violate Public Service Guidelines and fail to respond in a meaningful way to a QA process, even when she has knowledge of both things happening. That is a sign of an ideological project being carried out, in a way that erodes our democratic foundations.

The curriculum change process serves as an early warning signal of what we can expect with the NCEA ‘consultation’ and change process. If you’re joining her chorus, just be clear what song you’re actually singing, because it isn’t an education one.