Education Minister Erica Stanford is refusing to release the full feedback received on controversial curriculum changes, as scrutiny intensifies over allegations that Ministry of Education staff were told not to put certain information in writing because it could become subject to the Official Information Act.
NEW ZEALAND, 25 September 2026: A dispute over New Zealand’s sweeping curriculum reforms has moved beyond what children will be taught and into a much bigger question: how transparent should the Government be about the advice and criticism it received while designing those changes?
Education Minister Erica Stanford has declined to make public the complete feedback provided during development of the curriculum, according to RNZ, despite growing scrutiny of how information was recorded and handled inside the Ministry of Education.
The issue comes after leaked footage showed a senior Ministry official telling staff not to record certain information in writing because of the possibility it could be requested under the Official Information Act.
The Ministry has said the comments in the video did not meet its expectations and it is investigating the incident.
Stanford has rejected suggestions that her office attempted to circumvent the OIA.
The dispute now raises a separate but closely related question.
If thousands of people were invited to provide feedback on one of New Zealand’s most significant education reforms in years, how much of that feedback should ultimately be available for public scrutiny?
Nearly 3,900 submissions were received
The scale of the consultation is significant.
The Ministry of Education says it received nearly 3,900 submissions on the draft Years 0–10 curriculum.
The volume was substantial enough that the Ministry previously said it had taken additional time to ensure the feedback was carefully considered.
The Ministry has since published analyses of consultation feedback alongside individual curriculum learning areas, including summaries explaining what people said and what changes were made as a result.
Official curriculum information is available here:
https://newzealandcurriculum.tahurangi.education.govt.nz/
But publishing a summary of consultation is different from releasing the underlying submissions, internal analysis and communications showing how competing views were assessed.
That distinction has become more significant following the allegations about OIA practices within the Ministry.
What is the Official Information Act and why does this matter?
The Official Information Act 1982, commonly known as the OIA, is one of New Zealand’s main government transparency laws.
It allows people, including journalists, researchers and members of the public, to request information held by government ministers and public agencies.
Not everything must be released. The law contains legitimate grounds for withholding information, including privacy, confidentiality and certain government decision-making interests.
But the basic principle is that official information should be made available unless there is a lawful reason to withhold it.
The controversy surrounding the Ministry is therefore not simply about whether every email or document should automatically become public.
The more fundamental issue is whether public servants were deliberately avoiding creating records because those records might later become discoverable through an OIA request.
Whistleblowers allege avoiding written records was not isolated
The controversy began with leaked footage showing a senior Ministry manager apparently instructing staff not to record certain information in writing.
Since then, further allegations have emerged.
RNZ has reported that Ministry whistleblowers claimed staff were on other occasions told not to write information down because it could be obtained under the OIA.
One person also alleged that a Ministry manager instructed staff to stop taking notes during a meeting involving around 60 teachers while issues including the place of te reo Māori in curriculum material were being discussed.
These remain allegations from unnamed sources and should not be treated as established findings.
The Ministry has said the behaviour shown in the original video was inconsistent with its expectations and OIA obligations.
It is investigating.
Stanford rejects claims involving her office
Stanford has strongly rejected suggestions that her office attempted to circumvent official-information requirements.
She has also challenged allegations that Māori terminology was deliberately reduced from curriculum material for political reasons.
The Minister previously described the whistleblower behind some of the claims as ideologically motivated.
That response is important because there are effectively two separate issues under scrutiny.
The first concerns what happened inside the Ministry and whether staff were encouraged to avoid creating records.
The second concerns whether Stanford or her ministerial office had any involvement in, knowledge of, or responsibility for such behaviour.
At this stage, allegations about Ministry practices do not by themselves establish that the Minister instructed staff to circumvent the OIA.
But the curriculum-feedback question is broader
There is another issue that does not depend on proving those allegations.
New Zealanders were actively encouraged to participate in consultation on the curriculum.
The Ministry said the feedback would help shape the final documents.
Its official consultation material for the senior secondary curriculum similarly states that feedback will be considered before the final curriculum is published.
That creates a legitimate public-interest question around how consultation is documented.
For example:
What did teachers, principals, parents and subject experts actually say?
Which recommendations were accepted?
Which were rejected?
Where feedback was strongly divided, how was the final decision reached?
And what role did the Minister’s office play in changes between draft and final versions?
Those questions become particularly relevant when a consultation process is being cited as evidence that the sector was heard.
The Ministry has published feedback reports
It is important to acknowledge that curriculum consultation has not disappeared into a black box.
The Ministry has published feedback analyses and “what you told us and how we responded” material alongside the refreshed curriculum.
When announcing the release schedule in July, the Ministry said nearly 3,900 submissions had been received and that additional time was being taken to consider them.
The final Years 0–10 New Zealand Curriculum was completed this month.
The Ministry says the refreshed curriculum is intended to provide clearer, year-by-year guidance about what children should know and be able to do.
It describes the approach as “knowledge-rich” and grounded in the science of learning.
Parents can find the Ministry’s explanation of the changes here:
https://www.education.govt.nz/parents-and-caregivers/schools-year-0-13/parent-portal/changes-curriculum-and-why-they-matter
Feedback summaries are not the same as raw feedback
This is where the transparency debate becomes more nuanced.
A government agency receiving thousands of submissions cannot reasonably reproduce every submission in every public report.
Summaries and thematic analyses are normal ways of explaining consultation results.
There may also be legitimate privacy, confidentiality, copyright or other considerations affecting whether individual submissions can be released in full.
But when an agency summarises consultation itself, the public is relying on that agency to accurately represent the range, strength and substance of the feedback it received.
Access to underlying information can therefore provide an important accountability mechanism, particularly when the reform itself is contested.
The question is not necessarily whether all 3,900 submissions should simply be uploaded unredacted.
It is whether enough information is available for the public to independently understand whether the published summaries accurately reflect what participants told the Government.
Why this matters beyond education
The controversy also raises a wider issue about government record-keeping.
Official-information laws can only provide access to information that actually exists.
If important discussions, instructions or decisions are deliberately kept verbal because participants are concerned about future information requests, there may be little or no documentary record available for journalists, Parliament, watchdogs or future decision-makers to examine.
That is why allegations about avoiding written records are potentially more consequential than an ordinary disagreement about whether a particular OIA request should be granted.
When an agency withholds an existing document, that decision can potentially be challenged and reviewed.
When a document was deliberately never created, the accountability problem is different.
Curriculum changes are already moving into classrooms
This is not an abstract debate about a policy that may never be implemented.
The refreshed curriculum is already moving through New Zealand’s education system.
According to the Ministry’s current implementation timetable:
2026: English, Mathematics and Statistics, Te Reo Rangatira and Pāngarau.
2027: Years 0–8 Science, Social Sciences, Pūtaiao and Pūmanawa Tangata, while all Years 9–10 learning areas and wāhanga ako are required.
2028: The new curriculum begins for Year 11.
2029: Remaining Years 0–8 learning areas are required, alongside the new Year 12 curriculum.
2030: The new curriculum reaches Year 13.
The Ministry’s rollout information is available here:
https://www.education.govt.nz/news/new-timeframe-years-0-8-final-national-curriculum
That means decisions being debated today will progressively affect what students are taught across New Zealand.
Consultation does not mean Government must accept every submission
There is also an important distinction between consultation and decision-making.
Inviting feedback does not mean a government is required to implement whatever view receives the greatest support.
Governments are elected to make policy decisions and can legitimately disagree with teachers, academics, unions, parents or other submitters.
Likewise, disagreement between the education sector and the Government does not establish that consultation was meaningless.
But meaningful consultation should allow people to understand, at least at a reasonable level, what feedback was received, how it was assessed and why significant decisions were ultimately made.
That is where transparency becomes important.
Three different questions now need to be separated
As the controversy develops, three issues risk becoming blurred together.
Was curriculum consultation genuine?
The Ministry says thousands of submissions were considered and has published reports showing how feedback influenced final material.
Were Ministry staff deliberately avoiding the Official Information Act?
Whistleblowers have made serious allegations, while the Ministry says the conduct captured in leaked footage was inconsistent with its standards and is being investigated.
Did the Education Minister or her office direct or encourage such behaviour?
Stanford denies attempts to circumvent the OIA. The existence of allegations about Ministry staff does not, by itself, establish ministerial involvement.
Keeping those questions separate is important until further evidence or official findings emerge.
What happens next matters
The curriculum itself is now largely published, but the argument about how it was developed may continue.
The key questions are likely to include what the Ministry’s investigation concludes, whether further documents or feedback are released, and whether independent oversight produces additional findings about the handling of official information.
For parents and teachers, there is also a simpler question.
When thousands of New Zealanders are asked to participate in a major public consultation, can they clearly see what happened to the views they provided?
The Government does not have to agree with every submission.
But confidence in consultation depends in part on people being able to see that their feedback was recorded, considered and dealt with transparently.
In the middle of an already significant overhaul of New Zealand education, that question may now become almost as important as the curriculum itself.
Source: RNZ; Ministry of Education. Additional reporting and context by Webfit News.
