Drafting questions
Here are the unfiltered questions I have after spending time today putting together part 2 of my initial report into the education change process.
I'm sharing them so you can have a glimpse into my process as I work towards writing the report. [^1]
These questions come from emails released from an OIA request into communication between MAG members, and cover emails from January 17 to 22. So, a week: that's all I looked at today. The emails cover months, so I'm only just starting. But what's good is these emails shine a light on a time that I had very little to go on in the first report.
Christine Braid kicks things off by sharing documents from the English (as in, country) national curriculum in an email to most MAG members with the subject 'a model that may be helpful'. The model meets with unanimous approval.
What are the parts of the English national curriculum that Elizabeth Rata likes?
- Have they appeared in our new curriculum? (I'm going to have to go and do a comparison of both to answer that, and I will).
Christine Braid likes the English national curriculum because it gives her hope that a "clear and detailed curriculum is possible"
- What wasn’t clear or detailed about what was proposed in the refresh this group are supposedly reviewing?
- How can someone review something by looking at something else and getting inspired?
- Is "clear" a synonym for something else, perhaps cultural?
- Why are they only looking at England's curriculum, and why so soon in the process (ie, after their second meeting)?
Elizabeth Rata thinks they should take the best of what others have done to "fit it to our needs".
- What are those needs, exactly?
- What other 'bests' did they look at?
- Why isn't this said in relation to what's here, in New Zealand?
Doesn't the fact that Melissa Derby says Helen Walls is "working with a sample" and ask what others are doing (to which the answer is: yes, others are doing) contradict the claim by Ellen MacGregor-Reid in December 2024's Select Committee that there was one MAG member who got a bit carried away and started writing?
Why all this constant reference to "our work" and writing the documents?
- Who has given them the assurance that this is what they're all good to start doing? Public Service guidance is very clear: these kinds of groups are NOT to do this kind of work.
Where is there evidence they have reviewed the existing curriculum refresh documents? That was their main purpose, as set out in the terms of reference approved by Cabinet.
To answer these, I'll be looking at answers in the House, Select Committee recordings, curriculum documents this group have created, and various other sources.
But, still heaps of just digging and organising the OIA docs, and letting my mind slowly make connections and have wonderings, to go. Plus the squaring off with what I found in the first report. There a lots of holes being filled already.
One thing is clear: this group came in with a plan, and reviewing the refresh work done to date was not a big part of it.