The reform New Zealand cannot afford to botch
New Zealand’s most significant curriculum overhaul in a generation came into force on 1 January 2026. The stated goal is to lift achievement in literacy and numeracy, close yawning gaps in student performance, and ultimately produce school leavers equipped for a modern workforce. The government has committed serious money: $70 million for structured literacy, $20 million for maths resources in every primary classroom, and a $750 million boost to learning support.
BusinessNZ’s Director of Education, Skills and Immigration Rachel Simpson called the investment what it is: “Investment in education is ultimately an investment in New Zealand’s productivity, competitiveness, and long-term prosperity.”
Nobody disputes the need. What should alarm business owners is the growing evidence that the implementation machinery is not up to the task.
An Australian firm, no open tender, and a minister who can’t remember coffee
Australian consultancy Learning First was engaged by the Ministry of Education to contribute to the curriculum rewrite. OIA documents released in November 2025 showed the firm provided suggestions and feedback on final curriculum content for English, draft content for social sciences, science, and health and PE, as well as feedback on the strengthened New Zealand Curriculum as a whole.
The arrangement drew scrutiny at the Education and Workforce Select Committee. Ministry officials maintained Learning First helped find content but did not write the curriculum. Education Minister Erica Stanford reportedly said she could not remember whether she had coffee with the head of Learning First before or after the contract was awarded. Labour’s education spokesperson noted the benchmarking contract was not put out for open tender, and that the NZ Council for Educational Research, a domestic body capable of doing the work, was not given the opportunity to bid.
The Ministry’s justification was availability and timeframe. That is not procurement best practice. That is convenience dressed up as urgency.
A formal complaint alleges the process broke the law
Former Ministry staffer Claire Coleman lodged a formal complaint with Parliament’s regulations review committee alleging the curriculum-making process departed materially from the requirements of the Education and Training Act 2020. The complaint cited the use of AI tools without public disclosure and the direction of an undisclosed external Australian consultancy without formal mandate or documented ministerial approval.
Whether the complaint has legal legs remains to be seen. But it adds another layer of procedural doubt to a reform that desperately needs credibility with the people who must deliver it in classrooms.
Teachers are not on board
Thirty-nine local and regional principals associations and six teacher subject associations signed a letter stating six draft curriculums for Years 0-10 were not fit for purpose. This is not union posturing from the margins. These are the principals and subject specialists responsible for making the reform work in actual schools.
Stanford’s position has been to press on regardless. A Newsroom analysis from May 2026 quoted an unnamed sector representative making the financial case against the current approach: “Given there has been limited input from educators and sector experts into the design of the new senior curriculum and new assessment framework then this is a massive financial risk.”
Reform imposed against the profession’s wishes can still succeed, but only if the early results are compelling enough to convert sceptics.
The early results are not compelling
The first national data from the Curriculum Insights and Progress Study showed limited impact. In reading, there were no statistically significant changes at Years 3, 6, or 8. Only 53% of Year 3 students, 52% of Year 6 students, and 45% of Year 8 students met curriculum expectations. Maths showed small gains, with Year 6 improving from 30% to 36% meeting expectations.
The government’s target is 80% of children achieving at curriculum-expected level by 2030. The gap between 45-53% in reading and 80% is not a gap that modest annual improvements will close in four years. It is a chasm.
What this means for the workforce pipeline
BusinessNZ’s Simpson framed the stakes clearly: “Strong foundational education is critical for the future workforce New Zealand businesses depend on.” She is right. Employers absorb the cost when school leavers arrive without adequate literacy and numeracy. They pay for remedial training, accept lower productivity, or simply cannot fill roles that require basic competence.
The curriculum reform is the right idea. Structured literacy works. Higher expectations in maths are overdue. But good policy implemented badly is just expensive failure. A reform designed partly by an undisclosed foreign consultancy, facing a formal legal complaint over process, opposed by the profession that must deliver it, and showing no reading gains in its first year of data is not a workforce fix. It is a bet, and right now the odds are not improving.
For business owners watching the 2030 target, the honest assessment is this: plan as though it will be missed.
Sources
- NZ Gazette: Foundation Curriculum Policy Statements and National Curriculum Statements (2025-12-11)
- FYI: Feedback from Learning First on curriculum – OIA request (2025-11-01)
- RNZ: Australian firm’s involvement in school curriculum rewrite comes under scrutiny
- RNZ: Former Education Ministry staffer lodges formal complaint over school curriculum rewrite
- RNZ: Dozens of principal, teacher associations sign letter opposed to government’s curriculum changes
- RNZ: New English, maths primary curriculums had little effect on achievement, first results show
- BusinessNZ: Announced investment in education will bolster reform (2026-05-28)
- Newsroom: Stanford forges ahead, with or without her sector’s backing (2026-05-29)