The Expanded NZ Curriculum: Progress or Missed Opportunity?
A Step Forward for Some — But Not Yet for All
The Government’s announcement of the Expanded New Zealand Curriculum (NZC) marks a significant milestone for learners with high and complex needs. Launched quietly earlier this month, the curriclum-aligned resource is designed to support around 12,000 ākonga to access meaningful learning in English and Mathematics.
Until now, specialist educators have had to significantly adapt the national curriculum and use it to create localised and individualised curricula, drawing on international work, so their students could learn meaningfully. The Expanded NZC aims to change that — outlining what to teach, how to teach it, and how to recognise progress in our tino taonga (precious ones).
This is progress worth acknowledging. It signals a shift away from deficit notions of ceilings, where students are seen as working perpetually within Level 1, towards authentic ākonga engagement in the curriculum. That shift matters deeply.
But while we can celebrate that our learners are finally being acknowledged, it is important to recognise what this development is not. The Ministry of Education does not view this work as ‘righting a wrong,’ nor has it been undertaken in the areas identified by participants in the author’s* current Master’s research — including whānau and senior leaders of specialist day schools — as priorities for our tino taonga.
How We Got Here
The Expanded NZC was not the result of a strategic plan or long-term policy direction. Instead, its origins can be traced back to what has been described within the sector as “an incidental, happy accident.” Towards the end of 2024, informal conversations between the Special Education Principals’ Association New Zealand (SEPANZ) and the Ministry of Education set this work in motion.
While the Education Review Office (2024) had already recommended “increased support for specialist day schools through better curriculum and assessment tools and specialist professional development,” the creation of the Expanded NZC was not born out of this recommendation. Rather, it emerged through aleatory conversations — chance exchanges — rather than a transparent, planned, and consultative process.
Curriculum as Law — and Why That Matters
A curriculum is not merely a teaching tool; it is secondary legislation. It gives life to the Education and Training Act, setting out how the law is realised in classrooms across the motu.
Because of that legal status, curriculum development must be undertaken lawfully, guided by due process, consultation, and democratic accountability. When those processes are bypassed — when curriculum is created through informal or opaque channels — we risk normalising a way of working that undermines trust in our public institutions.
We are all vulnerable, no matter our political position, when that becomes the way things are done.
Fit for Purpose? Voices from the Sector
When the draft Expanded NZC for English and Mathematics were shared with specialist schools for consultation in July 2025, they were widely deemed not yet fit for purpose.
Feedback from the author’s own team of specialist teachers reflected what many across the motu were saying:
· There were gaping holes in the scope and sequence of learning progressions.
· Greater clarity was needed around pedagogical approaches that recognise what learners bring to the classroom.
· The diversity of need among our tino taonga had not been adequately represented.
· There was a narrow academic focus, privileging concepts, content, and competency while sidelining emotions, identity, and holistic learning.
These concerns echoed the feedback received by the national curriculum working group, reinforcing that the Expanded NZC remains a work in progress — one that has not yet achieved coherence or inclusivity.
A Narrow Lens and Limited Vision
While the front end of the curriculum — the part that articulates vision, principles, approaches, and key competencies — was not shared for consultation, it is evident that the Expanded NZC does not yet engage in a broad cultural approach.
It remains anchored in an English-driven space, reflective of the current political moment, rather than Aotearoa’s bicultural foundations. The dearth of references to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the limited use of te reo Māori appear, intentionally or not, to honour the vision of our colonial forebears more than the aspirations of a decolonising nation.
While this may not have been a deliberate exclusion, it is telling that Māori have not been invited to the table — even though the Ministry had access to Māori advisors and frameworks that could have informed this mahi. This omission represents not only a missed opportunity but also a failure to uphold the principles of Te Tiriti partnership.
The Need for Democratic Guardrails
The current process exemplifies a concerning trend: groups within the education system being enabled to override established processes, guidelines, and policies that act as democratic guardrails. This allows curriculum to be shaped by a limited set of perspectives — in this case, those of a small, unelected group of paakehaa women from SEPANZ and the Ministry of Education — without broader community mandate or cultural balance.
The resulting document reflects a particular ideology about the purpose of education for our tino taonga. Yet these ideas are not settled — not in research, not in ethics, and not in values.
The veracity of this kaupapa must be challenged.
Reimagining What Inclusion Means
Inclusion cannot be achieved by adaptation alone. It must be co-constructed with those whose lives are most affected. That means designing curriculum with, not for, ākonga, whānau, and kaiako — especially those from Māori, Pasifika, disabled, and neurodiverse communities.
An inclusive curriculum must also go beyond narrow academic conceptions of learning in English and Mathematics. It should affirm identity, nurture belonging, and recognise that learning is relational, emotional, and embodied — not merely cognitive.
As the author’s research participants consistently shared: inclusion is not a programme or a product. It is a practice of relationship and recognition.
Equity as Entitlement
Our tino taonga deserve the same entitlements as every other learner in Aotearoa:
· A quality curriculum that reflects and values who they are.
· Quality teaching practice informed by research and responsiveness.
· Quality assessment that measures meaningful progress — not simply proximity to mainstream norms.
Kaiako and leaders also need the tools, professional learning, and support to embed these practices sustainably. Without that investment, even the most promising curriculum remains just words on a page.
Where to From Here?
The launch of the Expanded NZC is a moment of possibility. But possibility alone is not enough.
For it to realise its potential, the Ministry must:
· Honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi not only in principle but in process.
· Centre the lived expertise of disabled and neurodiverse communities.
· Value holistic, identity-based learning alongside academic achievement.
· Protect democratic curriculum design processes that ensure accountability and shared ownership.
All ākonga deserve to see themselves reflected in the national curriculum — not as an afterthought, but as its beating heart.
He waka eke noa — we are all in this together - But to move forward justly, every voice must be in the waka, and every hand must hold a paddle.
References:
Education Review Office (2024). 'Built in, not bolted on': Evaluation of education at specialist day schools. Summary of findings. Retrieved from https://evidence.ero.govt.nz/media/xzsoyos3/built-in-not-bolted-on-evaluation-of-education-at-specialist-day-schools-summary.pdf
*This article has been published on behalf of the original author, a school leader currently completing post-graduate research focused on inclusive curriculum design for ākonga with significant intellectual disabilities. The work explores how curriculum development can uphold mana ōrite mō te mātauranga Māori, equity, and inclusion in practice.