Wait – What??? The New Curriculum Was Written By An Australian Company?

Stepping back from the furore over the removal of Te Tiriti obligations on schools, let’s return to examining the new curriculum documents, as these are the vehicle for implementing the government’s educational policies.

There has been some discussion over past weeks about the origin of these documents, which have been created very quickly without all the usual consultation with the education community.

It has now become apparent that an Australian company was tasked with the writing of these, a fact discovered by Bevan Holloway, as he explains in this article.

An Australian Company Is At The Centre Of Our Curriculum

“Today, I had confirmation in an OIA response that Learning First, an education consultancy based in Collingwood, played a key role in the development of our national curriculum docs.

They provided “insights” to help the Ministry with international benchmarking.

Little more detail was provided, but I do wonder why our Ministry did not have that capability in-house, given the extensive curriculum develop process it has been going through for the last 5 years.”

I can answer that question, Bevan. The Ministry, as you will read later, probably no longer has the expertise. Further, Erica Stanford would have anticipated vehement resistance from the ministry over her proposals. Contracting the process out to a private, Australian company, would ensure that the outcome would meet her agenda. As we’ve recently seen, she does not want to be challenged about the validity of her education agenda.

“It gets worse. When you visit Learning First’s website, what you find is a small consultancy that has produced a few reports and offers programs for “teachers, school leaders, and system leaders”. Has our Minister signed up to a PLD course?

It will not surprise you to learn that Learning First advocate for a knowledge-rich curriculum based in the science of learning. It is this they claim is the answer to educational inequality. And, worryingly given today’s announcement, in 2015 they wrote a report critiquing ITE in which they suggested the autonomy of universities was a problem.”

You will have noted that Stanford’s chosen consultancy has also bought into the ‘knowledge curriculum and science of learning’ ideology. As John Key remarked about 15 years ago, you can always find an ‘expert’ who will tell you what you want to hear.

“Erica Stanford has met a number of times with Ben Jensen. It seems she is convinced enough by his arguments that she has been happy to hand him control over our curriculum development.

A curriculum by kiwis for kiwi kids? Not quite, Erica.”

Another article that discussed the curriculum development process, and that also mentions Learning First is:

How the Ministry Collapsed Trust in Our Curriculum Process

“We can’t help but wonder: What has happened to our Ministry of Education in all this drama? The agency meant to protect, guide, and walk alongside us—where did it go? What has it become?

What do we do when we can no longer trust the Ministry of Education?”

I never trusted the Ministry of Education but that’s another story!

“This Ministry—our Ministry—was meant to walk beside us. It was supposed to be a kaitiaki of equity, a steward of our collective aspirations for tamariki. But in recent months, it’s become something else entirely. First, it acted like a bloodhound—sniffing out every signal from the Minister, charging forward without question. Now, it’s being offered up as the scapegoat.”

As we’ve seen recently Stanford doesn’t tolerate opposition nor accept negative outcomes of her decisions, seeking to shift the blame elsewhere – a common feature of this government.

“Here’s what that actually means.

It means schools caught in limbo—trying to plan for a curriculum they’re not sure they can trust. It means teachers turning up to staff meetings with weary eyes, unsure how to answer their colleagues’ questions because they too feel blindsided. It means school leaders doing quiet risk assessments on whether implementing the ‘refreshed’ curriculum now will make things worse later.”

The problem facing principals is that ultimately they are accountable for children’s education and any perceived failings will be dropped on them. I don’t envy them having to try to find ways to make this work.

I like this section:

“All of this in service of managing the messaging of a Frankenstein curriculum—stitched together, animated by outsiders, and now limping into our classrooms. The Ministry has become Mary Shelley’s ghostwriter, quietly editing out the human fingerprints of real educators to make sure the word count matches the memo.”

Frankenstein curriculum – what a perfect label. 

The article then describes the effects of the government’s public service attacks on the Ministry of Education.

“Remember when this government took office? We didn’t just witness a change in direction—we witnessed a purge. Good, committed people inside the Ministry were pushed out under the guise of restructure. And it wasn’t just poor taste—it was deeply personal. We know. We had friends in those roles. People who had given decades to the kaupapa. People who carried the weight of authentic partnership and community trust.”

Purge – another excellent word. In true Trumpian fashion, that means getting rid of anyone who could possibly be seen as an impediment, and also ensuring that those who remained kept their heads down in order to safeguard their jobs. 

“Now, in their place, new structures and external influences are stepping in.

Australian consultancy Learning First, led by Ben Jensen, has officially been engaged by the Ministry of Education to advise on curriculum development. In The Press on October 28th, it was confirmed that Learning First had been hired “to provide advice on writing clear and specific content across the curriculum.” Jensen noted that his company began its work around August 2025, offering benchmarking insights from high-performing English-speaking education systems. 

In addition, we are reliably informed that Mr Jensen has also been personally involved in ‘training’ Ministry staff. This is not speculation. It’s fact. And still, when pressed on the backlash around the curriculum refresh, Minister Erica Stanford told the public she “doesn’t know who wrote it.”

That statement should stop all of us in our tracks. (You can watch her say it here in this report.)

Whoa, wait a moment, Erica. You can’t get away with that.

“Because it leaves us with only two conclusions: either the Minister is actively deceiving the public, or she genuinely believes that distancing herself from authorship—despite well-documented facts—will somehow shield her from accountability. Neither explanation reflects the leadership our sector deserves.”

There’s a third option – maybe she genuinely doesn’t know who wrote it, but that opens up so many questions of competence, and of not taking responsibility for curriculum, in which case the follow up question would be ‘Who is responsible?” And the possible answer to that question is the New Zealand Initiative, particularly Dr Michael Johnston and Professor Elizabeth Rata.

Any of the three options is inexcusable.

“Minister Stanford has lauded the refreshed curriculum as a bold new step—yet when the sector pushes back, when curriculum writers themselves say they no longer recognise their own voice in the final documents, she claims ignorance. What kind of Minister launches a system-defining curriculum and then denies knowing where it came from?

She knows. 

Or she should know. 

And if she doesn’t, that is an indictment on her leadership.

Further:

“And so, the questions mount:

• • Who really wrote the curriculum?
  • Why is the Minister pretending not to know?
  • What happened to the authentic voices of New Zealand educators?
  • Why won’t the Ministry or Minister own the Australian influence?”

These are questions that I’d like to think the media would pursue but there’s more chance of seeing a flying pig go by.

There’s much more in the article, an excellent read, and as usual I recommend that you read it.

A bit of light relief to end this article.

Earlier this week, during the committee stages of the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2) – the Bill where Stanford slipped in the changes to the Te Tiriti obligations, Green Party Education spokesperson  Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan made a speech in which he said: 

‘So, in many ways, this is very similar to what we’re seeing when we first start to learn about things like phonics, which the Minister has mentioned throughout this debate. When we’re learning about our A, Bs, and Cs, we’re learning that “A is for Antelope, L is for Llama”, and those are kind of the things that, for some students, they may never see in their entire life. So how are students able to relate to that, how are students able to learn best from that if they cannot find the relevance? So my amendment that I would like the Minister to consider is changing the title to the “Education and Training (Antelopes and Llamas) Amendment Bill”.

Finally, I would like the Minister to consider the fact that when we’re looking at the packaging of the changes to section 127 with the removal of giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, we are looking at the changes that we are making to the Teaching Council. We are looking at the fact that we’re introducing a redundant piece of legislation on freedom of expression, as many universities already have a policy on that. A better title of this bill is the “Education and Training (Atlas’s Puppet) Amendment Bill”‘.

Can you imagine the look on Erica’s face?