To the Ministry of Education,

Request for Information:

In April, the Ministry released on Tāhurangi a list of individuals identified as ‘writers, contributors and reviewers’ for the updated curriculum areas. Among those listed, only two had previously been involved in the development of the history and/or social sciences curriculum. The remainder were not part of the original teams. Notably, the current group does not include anyone who is Māori, Pacific, or from the primary education sector.

Under the Official Information Act, I would like to request the following details regarding the rewrite of the social sciences learning area:

1. Involvement of Previous Curriculum Contributors:

1A) What process was followed to determine which members of the original writing group would take part in the rewrite?

1B) How were the two returning individuals selected?

1C) Were others invited but chose not to participate? If so, what reasons were provided for declining?

1D) Were some members of the initial team not invited to take part in the rewrite? If so, please explain why.

2. Selection Process for Current Team Members:
Please outline how the current group (as listed on Tāhurangi) was assembled, including:

2A) Who was consulted or asked to nominate individuals for roles as writers, contributors, or reviewers?

2B) What were the selection criteria for the writers, contributors or reviewers?

2C) How many individuals were approached in total for these positions?

2D) Of those approached, how many identified as Māori, Pacific, or came from the primary sector?

2E) Could you provide a description of who was approached from each of these three groups - Māori, Pacific and primary people (e.g., 'a Pacific historian', 'a primary teacher with curriculum development experience')?

3. Absence of Māori, Pacific, and Primary Representatives:
Given the lack of representation from Māori, Pacific, and primary sector voices on the current team, please explain:

3A) If individuals from these groups were recommended but not approached, why that was the case.

3B) If individuals were approached but are not part of the group, the reasons for this (e.g., did they decline, and if so, why; or was the decision reversed by the Ministry, and if so, why).

3C) How the Ministry is addressing and justifying the absence of these perspectives in the writing group.

I understand that naming individuals may not be appropriate. If necessary, I am happy to receive descriptions of individuals’ qualifications or backgrounds in place of names (e.g., ‘a Māori academic with expertise in history’, or ‘a Pacific primary teacher with curriculum review experience’).

If any part of my request is unclear, please do not hesitate to contact me. If any of the information that I have requested is unavailable or would be difficult to retrieve, but similar information might be readily available, I would be happy to discuss altering or refining my request.

Yours faithfully,

Ken Robertson