IHC settlement a long-overdue chance to right some wrongs

In early December we received some good education news: IHC’s Human Rights Review Tribunal claim from 2012 – alleging government education policies disadvantaged disabled students in schools – was settled.

The day has rightly been described as historic, with IHC’s chief executive, Andrew Crisp, signing the agreement at Parliament alongside Education Minister Erica Stanford and Secretary for Education Ellen MacGregor-Reid. The moment held real hope for a better deal in education for disabled students in this country, their whānau and teachers in local schools.

Decades of reports and research documenting the inequities and challenges faced by disabled children and young people and their whānau in our education system sit behind this moment. The inclusive education promised in education legislation and policy has too often relied on the goodwill of teachers and school leadership in the face of systemic barriers, including poor resources and supports for local schools, and overly large class sizes.

The Framework for Action proposed by IHC, and agreed to by the Ministry of Education, addresses well-known education system barriers, which the ministry says it will now take reasonable steps to address. These cover the collection of data on disabled students’ learning; effective funding structures continuing with a dual ‘regular-special’ system that may affect equitable access to resources; quicker access to specialists; an inclusive curriculum and school environment; and policies and funding that focus on disabled children’s capabilities and what they need for learning rather than their perceived deficits.

The question now is how to make this work, and what opportunities could this partnership present?

The framework involves a partnership between IHC and the ministry. Collaboration is the heart of inclusion, so this is a refreshing standpoint from which to build an inclusive education system. But it is also a very different approach from the top-down, fast-paced strategies with barely a nod to consultation favoured by the coalition Government. The minister and ministry staff will now be listening to a range of perspectives, particularly those of disabled people, to recognise and address the barriers that get in the way of disabled students’ sense of belonging and learning.

IHC has been a steadfast ally for whānau who have wanted the same rights in education for their disabled children as their brothers and sisters and peers – to belong, to be valued for who they are, and to fully participate in a quality education in their local school community. Inclusive schools build inclusive societies. They are democratic places where children care for one another and disability is valued as an ordinary aspect of being human. The research is clear: all students, including disabled students, benefit as children and adults from an inclusive education in their local school as opposed to being segregated in special schools.

Initial teacher education programmes will prepare teachers to develop the values and capabilities they need to include and teach a diverse student group in their classroom. This is a complex task that requires tertiary level knowledge of equity and disability, and inclusive approaches to assessment and pedagogy based on the principles of universal design for learning. This is an opportunity for the minister to learn more about the work being done in some New Zealand universities in this space, and to also consider whether the 25 percent of staff in charter schools who do not need to be trained teachers will be equipped for this level of complexity.

The framework includes taking steps to ensure the curriculum reflects and includes all learners, is responsive to and documents every student’s learning. But what I call ‘the Stanford curriculum’ (signed off by Stanford and MacGregor-Reid) is an unrecognisable rewrite of the bicultural and inclusive curriculum framework, Te Mātaiaho, developed between 2020 and 2023.

In a previous piece for Newsroom, I questioned the changes that have left teachers with a curriculum based on a narrow body of knowledge and assessment and a one-size-fits-all pedagogy that excludes disabled students. I also questioned the development of an alternative curriculum for students in specialist schools with high and very high needs which, I argued, was further evidence that the Stanford curriculum is not written with every child in mind.

It is essential that the curriculum as a central policy supports the development of an inclusive education system and the partnership is an opportunity for the minister to return to the original, authentic, inclusive Te Mātaiaho.

Stanford believes that the coalition Government is on track, noting that Budget 2025’s $750 million investment in learning support is “directly tackling the long-standing inequities IHC has raised”. But as my colleague Missy Morton argued on Newsroom, among the smoke and mirrors that went with this announcement, the additional teacher aides to be funded equated to less than one per school across the country, when the primary teachers’ union was calling for one teacher aide per classroom.

Andrew Crisp has also highlighted that systems change takes time as well as money. And the money needs to go in the right place. The stakeholder group tasked with monitoring the changes in education coming out of the framework will no doubt be aware of the Government’s responsibilities under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to shift money from segregated education to inclusive education.

We can celebrate the fact that IHC has reached this milestone agreement on inclusive education for disabled students. It’s a long overdue opportunity to right some wrongs. It’s also an opportunity for the Government to ensure all of the changes being made in education foster the development of an inclusive education system.