What happened to inclusion in the 'Stanford' curriculum?

Over the past few weeks, teachers and teacher educators have learned that the Government has released yet another new curriculum for primary school – the re-refreshed, refresh of the original refresh of the 2007 New Zealand curriculum.

With barely time to catch our breath, on October 21, Education Minister Erica Stanford explained that an ‘Expanded New Zealand Curriculum’ was being launched for around 12,000 students with “high and complex needs” – the neurodivergent and disabled students in our specialist schools who meet the criteria for Ongoing Resourcing Scheme funding.

This ‘expanded’ curriculum will be introduced in Term 1, 2026. It is needed, Stanford says, because teachers (in the past) have had to adapt the national curriculum for students with complex needs so they can learn meaningfully.

These developments are all part of the minister’s urgent drive for a refreshed New Zealand curriculum that is ‘knowledge rich’ and based on the ‘science of learning’. The urgency has led to rushed changes that principals and teachers have described as extremely difficult.

When changes are rushed, there is a risk that curriculum ideas are poorly developed and poorly understood by teachers, with negative effects for children. A closer look at these changes suggests that the one in four children in our local schools who are disabled and/or neurodivergent could be collateral damage from the minister’s refresh, and little is being said about that.

My question is why do we need a separate curriculum for students with complex needs? Isn’t the refresh an opportunity to ensure the curriculum is inclusive, designed for everyone, including students with complex needs?

We know there are benefits for disabled, neurodivergent and all children, their whānau, teachers and society generally when education is inclusive, supporting everyone to learn well and belong in their local school community. Our current education laws and policies support inclusion for all disabled children in Aotearoa in our education system.

And importantly, inclusion and the curriculum work together. The curriculum is a central policy document that gives teachers the knowledge, guidance and support they need to teach every child well. A curriculum designed for everyone supports disabled and neurodivergent children’s learning and belonging in their local school, and inclusive schools contribute to an inclusive society.

We also know that the national curriculum, designed well, is relevant for all students. Our own research has shown how teachers in both local and special schools could use narrative assessment and the 2007 New Zealand Curriculum to recognise, respond to and celebrate the learning of their students with complex needs.

While the details of the separate expanded curriculum are yet to be revealed, its very existence makes me wonder why Stanford’s refreshed ‘knowledge-rich, science of learning’ curriculum has not been designed to include all children and young people.

A few days after the expanded curriculum announcement, the draft curriculum framework was announced, and the ideas that support content in the learning areas became clearer. Although named ‘The New Zealand Curriculum|Te Mātaiaho’, there is an original 2023 curriculum framework called Te Mātaiaho, so for clarity I refer to this recent 2025 ‘rewrite’ as ‘the Stanford curriculum’.

A critical read confirms that the Stanford curriculum is not for every student despite the minister’s claims to the contrary. I would argue it aims to deliver on narrow content and a narrow set of outcomes that are not considerate of every child. That is why it is being ‘adapted’ for students with complex needs.

There is a back story to these developments.

The Stanford curriculum is an unrecognisable rewrite of the original Te Mātaiaho, the refreshed bicultural and inclusive curriculum framework developed between 2020 and 2023 by Māori, Pacific and Tangata Tiriti experts in education. The original Te Mātaiaho has been sidelined by the present Government.

Bruce Jepson, president of Te Akatea, the National Māori Principals’ Association, has aptly described the Stanford rewrite as an appropriation of the original Te Mātaiaho and an act of recolonisation.

What does the Stanford curriculum offer all disabled and neurodivergent children, including those who don’t have ‘complex needs’?

To begin with, inclusion no longer has a place as a concept or aspiration in the Stanford curriculum. There is no mention of disability or guidance for schools to develop as inclusive communities. It’s a departure from our inclusive education policies and ignores the government’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to develop an inclusive education system.

Rather than valuing children’s diversity and responding to their unique ways of experiencing the world, all children are expected to access “the same rich (disciplinary) knowledge”. Critics have already questioned whose knowledge will count given the curriculum’s focus on a Eurocentric world view, and what the effects will be for children. Set alongside a coordinated rollback of Māori language, knowledge, and representation across the education system, the picture is one of exclusion for tamariki and rangatahi Māori.

Similar questions need to be asked on behalf of neurodivergent and disabled children. Will a one-size-fits-all approach be relevant and engaging, build on children’s strengths and interests, and support them to belong and learn well in their local school?

The Stanford curriculum does not recognise diverse ways of learning. Instead, it refers to a set of “key characteristics of how people learn, based on what we know best from the science of learning and insights from education professionals”.

Will teachers understand the complex physical, social and attitudinal barriers that get in the way of disabled children’s learning? We can only hope that the ‘insights’ referred to are based on an understanding of the experiences of disabled and neurodivergent people in education.

The 2007 New Zealand curriculum was ready for a refresh, but the Stanford curriculum walks us backwards from a curriculum that almost 20 years ago was written for all children and had inclusion as one of its six principles.

The Stanford curriculum process has been shrouded in secrecy, we don’t know who rewrote the framework or what the writers’ aims were.

The real Te Mātaiaho, in contrast, followed transparent processes. The framework was crafted by named individuals and groups. I was fortunate to be part of that, and to experience the time, care, extensive sector-wide consultation and authentic Māori input that led to a coherent curriculum designed with every child in mind.

Te Mātaiaho doesn’t need adapting. It respects children’s cultures, abilities and disabilities, gender, sexual orientation, and religion. It gives effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and commits to education that recognises and responds to children’s uniqueness and diversity.

The exclusion of disabled children from the Stanford curriculum can be added to the list of problematic ministerial decisions in education. Disabled people and their allies also have good reason to join the coalition of professional organisations demonstrating unprecedented collective resistance to this approach.

Jepsen and Te Akatea are calling for the Government to return to Te Mātaiaho. Isn’t that the aspirational curriculum and inclusive learning environment we want for all children and young people in Aotearoa?