Sunlight not secrecy needed for curriculum reform

A video has surfaced showing a Ministry of Education official advising colleagues not to put certain discussions with the Minister's office in writing because they could be subject to the Official Information Act.

The OIA is one of the main ways New Zealanders can see how government decisions are made and hold those in power to account. Any suggestion that officials have been encouraged to avoid creating a paper trail will not however be a surprise to many teachers.

Teachers have repeatedly raised concerns about the process used to develop and implement the Government's curriculum changes. Last week, the Waitangi Tribunal reinforced many of those concerns. The Tribunal found that the Crown breached multiple Treaty principles in its approach to curriculum reform, including partnership, active protection, equity and good government.

Throughout the development of the curriculum, teachers, curriculum experts, iwi, Māori educators and many others have asked for greater openness about how decisions were reached. We have questioned why collaborative work undertaken through the curriculum refresh was discarded. We have asked why expertise developed over many years appeared to be sidelined. We have asked what evidence supported particular changes and why so many concerns raised by the sector seemed to have little impact on the final outcome.

The Tribunal's findings show we were right to be asking these questions. Evidence presented to the inquiry highlighted concerns that major policy and curriculum decisions were advanced without transparent processes, adequate consultation, or proper documentation.

One of the recurring concerns raised throughout the Tribunal inquiry was that curriculum policy itself appeared to be driven by predetermined ideological preferences rather than evidence, partnership and educational expertise. Evidence before the Tribunal described concerns that practitioners and curriculum experts were sidelined while a much narrower group of advisers exerted greater influence over the final product.

Whether one agrees with every aspect of that critique is beside the point. In a healthy democracy, claims such as these should be open to scrutiny through public records, documented advice, and transparent decision-making.

If decisions are sound, evidence-based and developed through good process, officials and ministers should have confidence that those decisions can withstand public examination. If discussions have occurred, records should exist. If advice was given, it should be available for scrutiny subject to appropriate protections.

The curriculum shapes what future generations learn about themselves, their country and the world. The public deserves to know how these decisions were made. Teachers deserve to know. And the students who will live with the consequences of these reforms deserve nothing less.