Favouritism concerns and heavy workloads found in Ministry curriculum team
The Education Ministry ordered a review of Te Poutāhū | Curriculum Centre, the team leading the government's curriculum rewrite, after concerns were raised through confidential channels. The review spoke to 107 people, according to reporting published on 24 September. RNZ
The review found widespread concern about favouritism by senior leaders, centred on temporary appointments. It also found widespread concern about public sector values being applied, including fair and open hiring and managing conflicts of interest.
The review found concern that the duty to give free and frank advice to the minister was not being met. Free and frank means officials give ministers honest advice, even when it is unwelcome. Many staff did not believe senior leaders were giving the government honest advice about how long changes would take to put in place.
Workload drew the strongest response. Almost all participants said workloads were "unsustainable", pointing to constant urgency and short deadlines.
The review also reported deep concern about speaking up, including fear it would harm careers. Many described the Centre's leadership as "outdated and authoritarian". RNZ
Ministry managers have been asked to write an action plan to address the problems. The reported findings gave no further detail on timing or who will own the work.
The broader context here is that these findings connect. Temporary and acting roles are normal in a policy team under pressure, like this one. But they are also where staff watch fairness most closely. If staff do not trust those appointments, or how conflicts are handled, they are less likely to trust other decisions.
The implication for the Beehive is fairly direct. Ministers rely on officials to say plainly if a timetable is unrealistic. Curriculum change depends on sequencing, teacher capacity and whether schools are ready. If advice about time is watered down, the risk lands with schools.
In my view, the test now is practical rather than political. The measure will be whether temporary appointments are documented and open to challenge, whether advice about timing is written down, and whether staff start using normal channels instead of confidential ones because those channels work.
