30 January, 2024: that is the day that agreement was sought from the Minister to update the terms for the MAG.

That is 2 weeks after their first meeting.

The updated terms effectively reposition the work of the MAG from reviewing the existing refresh work to directing the rewrite of the curriculum, including its knowledge-rich direction. It represents a re-centring of a dominant culture, as represented by the tight ideological unity amongst the MAG. This is in direct contrast to the wide-ranging, inclusive, and exhaustive curriculum refresh work that had been done up until late 2023.

The Education Report that sought that agreement states the following:

The Literacy Contributors Group (LGC) was one of two groups formed by the Ministry for the purposes of “developing principles and identifying pedagogical approaches” for the Common Practice Model that was to underpin the refreshed curriculum by incorporating “evidence-informed pedagogical approaches and practices that will better support all educators and address inequities in education”.

What we have here is the MAG seizing control of the work of that group.

This is beyond the bounds of what is authorised for a MAG by Public Service Guidelines, and it is agreed to and signed off by Stanford on 1 February, 2024.

Previously, I have questioned whether Stanford lost control of the MAG. This suggests that is not the case.