Stanford Knew the MAG Was Violating Public Service Guidelines

On 6 March, 2024, a Curriculum Deep Dive Session was held in the Ministry.’s executive wing. In attendance were Iona Holstead, Pauline Cleaver, Kiritina Johnstone, Julia Novak, and Ruth Shinoda, as well as Minister Stanford.

An annotated agenda helped to frame that meeting. That included an update on where things were at regarding the refresh of the curriculum. In that update we find this regarding the English and Maths curriculum: “Currently being reviewed and rewritten by the MAG”.

This is a violation of Public Service Guidelines. The Ministry knows it. That is why Ellen Mac-Gregor Reid denied it had happened when questioned in select committee, but was forced to admit it did occur under questioning by Lawrence Xu-Nan. Why mislead Parliament if it is a small matter of no consequence?

But of course, it is a matter of significant consequence. The curriculum is secondary legislation. It sets out how a school will meet its obligations under the Education and Training Act. Therefore, only a government agency has the authority to write it.

The MAG is not a government agency. It is a collection of private individuals contracted to offer advice to a minister within a defined scope.

Even more damning, the Minister knew and did not stop it. Is that because she had lost control of the MAG, or because they had her consent? One thing we can refer to that suggests the latter is more likely, is the text message Stanford exchanged with Johnston, the MAG’s chair, on 22 December, 2023. In that exchange, she gives him the green light to start “second part of the work”.

Is rewriting the second part?