
$266 Million To Expand Early Intervention And Clear Waitlists For Children With Additional Needs
Minister of Education
'Every child deserves the chance to thrive and today I'm proud to announce a $266 million investment in Budget 2025 to clear waitlists, expand the Early Intervention Service, and reach thousands more children with the support they need to succeed,' Education Minister Erica Stanford says.
'For too long, families have faced unacceptable delays accessing the Early Intervention Service. This investment will fix that by clearing the backlog, expanding support to the end of Year 1, and significantly increasing our workforce capacity,' Stanford says.
'We are not only expanding the size of the service, we are changing how it's delivered,' Stanford says. 'We will contract NGOs and private providers to deliver specialist services alongside the Ministry, ensuring children with additional needs get the support they need faster.
'This Government is absolutely focused on getting help to the child, wherever they are, and however it's needed. If that means using trusted private providers and NGOs to deliver services at pace, that's exactly what we'll do,' Stanford says. 'Families don't care who employs the speech-language therapist or the psychologist, they just want the support their child needs. And we are determined to do whatever it takes to make sure they receive it.'
As part of the Budget 2025 package, the investment will deliver:
More than 560 additional full-time equivalent specialists, including educational psychologists, speech language therapists, occupational therapists, and early intervention teachers.
An expansion of the Early Intervention Service through to the end of Year 1, reaching around 4,000 additional children with learning and behavioural needs.
Reduction of existing waitlists, ensuring more than 3,000 children currently waiting will receive support sooner.
Increased support for the 7,100 children already in the service, with greater access to specialists and interventions.
900,000 additional teacher aide hours per year from 2028, to assist young learners receiving EIS support.
This investment reflects the Government's commitment to a social investment approach by targeting resources early, where they will make the greatest long-term difference. 'The evidence is clear: the earlier we intervene, the better the outcomes for children, families, and New Zealand. Early intervention reduces the need for more intensive support later and gives every child that needs it the best possible start.
'To parents across the country, this is my message to you: help is on the way. We are clearing the backlog, building a stronger and more responsive service, and putting your child's needs at the centre of our education system. You shouldn't have to fight to get support—and with this investment, we're making sure you won't have to.
'This is a transformational shift,' Stanford says. 'We're building a future-facing service that keeps up with demand and delivers for kids. Every child deserves that chance and this Government is backing them from day one.'
Notes:
Learning support funding – detailed breakdown
Budget 2025 includes a total of $2.5 billion for Vote Education.
The Learning Support Budget has $645.8 million in operating funding and $100.9 million capital for learning support initiatives. This includes:
$266.0 million to extend the Early Intervention Service (EIS) from early childhood education through to the end of Year 1 of primary school. This will fund more than 560 additional full-time equivalent (FTE) over the next 5 years for EIS teachers and specialists. This investment includes:
$74.9 million to extend the Early Intervention Service (EIS) into Year 1 of primary school
$127.7 million to reduce wait times and meet the growing demand for the EIS
$40.0 million for 900,000 additional Teacher Aide hours for young learners in the EIS
$23.4 million for early intervention specialist service providers and specialist workforce development.
Overall, there is funding for more than 2 million additional teacher aide hours into the system, every year, from 2028.
Budget 2025 also provides:
$192.5 million so that all state and state integrated schools and kura with Year 1 to 8 students get access to a Learning Support Coordinator (around 650 additional FTTE), enabling improved identification of, and response to learner needs.
$122.5 million to meet increased demand for the Ongoing Resource Scheme (ORS), for students with high and complex needs. This includes a structural change to the funding model so every child who is verified for ORS funding receives the support they need. This investment will also increase the number of specialists and teacher aide time to support the more than 1,700 additional learners forecast to access ORS over the next 4 years.
$41.5 million of operating and $1.4 million of capital funding for an extra 78.5 FTE speech language therapists, 6.2 FTE psychologists, and supporting teacher aide hours to help meet the growing demand of students with communication and behaviour needs. This will provide specialist suppxxxorts to around 2,500 students over the next 4 years.
$7.3 million for 45 more places in the Intensive Wraparound Service | Te Kahu Tōī (a 7.5% increase), so more learners with the most complex social, emotional and behavioural needs can get tailored supports.
$4.2 million to employ 25 intern education psychologists each year to enable a more sustainable pipeline of locally trained workforce.
$3.0 million of investment in our teacher aides with targeted professional learning and development to help them support learners with social, emotional, wellbeing and behavioural needs associated with disability and neurodiversity.
$90.0 million of capital funding and $18.4 million of operating funding for 25 new learning support satellite classrooms to provide around 225 new student places across the Ministry's specialist school network, and up to 365 property modifications to make schools more accessible.
Useful links

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


NZ Herald
20 minutes ago
- NZ Herald
Trump taps Palantir to compile data on Americans
The Trump administration has expanded Palantir's work with the government, spreading the company's technology - which could easily merge data on Americans - throughout agencies. In March, President Donald Trump signed an executive order calling for the federal Government to share data across agencies, raising questions over whether he might


NZ Herald
32 minutes ago
- NZ Herald
Inside Economics: Should you take New Zealand Superannuation if you don't need it ... plus, is the Reserve Bank's focus too narrow?
This hit home for me since it's a bit of a bone of contention in our family. I'm a Gen X-er and my Baby Boomer parents both get the pension despite owning assets worth millions. It's not a case of the family home skyrocketing in value – they both own very large, very expensive properties (separately; they're divorced), nice vehicles and live very comfortable lives. I'm really happy they're healthy and enjoying life, but I – and my siblings – think it's a bit gross that they draw the pension when they very obviously don't need it. My Dad's a bit embarrassed about it, but says he's asset-rich but cash-poor. My Mum gets defensive and says she's worked all her life and deserves it. Both my parents are smart and socially aware, so I'm surprised by their stance. My question is: how many retirees actually choose not to take NZ Super? Is there a mechanism to opt out? – Name withheld A: Fascinating question, thanks. I was curious about the numbers too and asked at the Ministry of Social Development (which administers New Zealand's pension scheme). There is no specific mechanism to opt out. But the way the scheme works is that you have to sign up (or opt in) when you turn 65. So, essentially, if you don't need the money, you can just do nothing, and you won't get it. I'm also told you that when you do apply, the registration process does point you to various charities you can donate it to if you think you don't need the money. is one such charity organisation purpose-built for the task. The Ministry of Social Development didn't have any numbers to hand as to how many Kiwis over 65 haven't signed up even though they are eligible. So I've put in an Official Information Act request and hopefully someone in the system will dig that out (watch this space). Benefit or right? The bigger question is the one you implicitly raise with your parents: should people take the super payment if they don't really need it? Framed in even more basic terms: is the super payment a benefit or a right? Everyone who is eligible does have the right to claim it. But the money is also part of the consolidated pool of Government revenue. It isn't held in a special fund, like the New Zealand Superannuation Fund (the Crown investment fund with the annoyingly similar name). That fund will be used eventually to help fund the cost of NZ Super as it balloons, based on the ageing population. NZ Super is also very different to KiwiSaver, which is actually your money that you have worked for over the years. Ultimately, the existence of the state pension (and how generous or universal it is) remains at the mercy of Parliament. It is a benefit, but for many Kiwis, especially those of a certain generation, it feels like a right. It has been promised to us by politicians over the years. That's one of the reasons even changing the age limit or means-testing it has been seen as a political no-go zone. But that seems to be changing as the sheer weight of the cost to the economy becomes apparent. According to Budget 2025 data, NZ Super costs $4352 per person per year, making it the third-largest area of government spending after welfare ($6181 per person) and health ($5804 per person). From the Treasury's long-term fiscal projections, spending on NZ Super is projected to grow from 4.3% of GDP in 2010 to 7.9% in 2060, an increase of 3.6 percentage points. National under Sir Bill English first proposed lifting the age to 67 in the election campaign of 2017. And National campaigned on a similar platform in 2023 with a commitment to keep the age at 65 until 2044, when it will be gradually lifted to 67. This change wouldn't affect anyone born before 1979. Finance Minister Nicola Willis has suggested National will campaign on a similar policy again in 2026. In my view, it will inevitably have to rise. I also understand why people are inclined to accept it as a right. It is free money, right? It will eventually pass through the generations. Perhaps those who want to enjoy the extra cash but feel some guilt could look to spend it with local businesses or support local artists. Does the Reserve Bank need a wider focus? Q: Kia ora Liam, I was reading your column on the future of the Reserve Bank under a new governor. I wonder how the bank can set its policy direction without a clear national economic strategy to work within. New Zealand doesn't seem to have one that I could clearly identify, the closest being the Reserve Bank's inflation target and that's about it. Is this because the nation is happy to muddle along on the global currents of laissez-faire economics instead? After watching a documentary recently on Xi Jinping and his 'China Dream' policy that has seen China become a global economic force, I found myself asking: where is the (suitably less authoritarian) New Zealand equivalent that I think we actually need? A more orderly economy could be highly beneficial in underpinning the woeful state of our physical and social infrastructure, but only if the politicians involved were actually competent enough to plan and execute successfully over multiple decades. Which begs another question: we had decades of stable government in the 20th century that built all the infrastructure, which we have failed to keep updating. If it could be done then, why can't it be done now? Regards, Steve-Tipene Callagher A: Some really interesting thoughts there, Steve. I agree that a more structured and orderly economic approach would benefit New Zealand. But I'll start with your point about the Reserve Bank (RBNZ) and try to explain why it has such a limited scope. The main reason that the central bank primarily targets inflation is that it is the one thing that monetary policy has some real control over. US economist Milton Friedman once said: 'Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.' What he meant was that at some point, we can always trace inflation back to the supply of money in an economy. If we create too much money (unbacked by an increase in real physical wealth), then we always get inflation. By moving the cost of borrowing (and saving) up and down, central banks can control the money supply. When interest rates are low, there is less incentive to save and more incentive to borrow and spend, so the money supply expands. When interest rates are high, there is more incentive to save and it is harder to borrow, so the supply contracts. This has proved to be very effective at controlling inflation over the years. But even the world's top central bankers will admit that monetary policy isn't particularly effective at controlling more nuanced aspects of the economy. It is often described as a 'blunt tool'. Unemployment is sometimes included in central bank mandates because there is seen to be a correlation between unemployment and inflation. But even that is debatable and we've seen the new Government reverse Labour's policy, which had added unemployment to the mandate. The argument is that keeping inflation stable is such an important platform for an economy that central banks should do that one thing and do it well. The rest of the economic equation is left to the Government and/or markets to sort out. I don't want to completely dismiss any criticism of the monetarist approach to central banking. There are alternative ideas out there, like Modern Monetary Theory. I'm not going to do it justice here, but it effectively argues that Governments should focus on real resource constraints rather than financial constraints. It says Governments aren't the same as businesses or households and they can print money and ignore deficits and get away with it. Perhaps it might work in a world where it was universally adopted and well-regulated by efficient Governments around the world. It requires more trust in efficient Government than I have. Regardless, the current system is so deeply embedded in the global economy that even US Presidents are wary of messing with it. So we're kind of stuck with it. I wouldn't like New Zealand's chances of going it alone with a new system. More structure Ultimately, when it comes to the lack of coherent strategy in New Zealand's economic approach, I think a lot of it has to do with the inability of the two major parties to find a bipartisan agreement on big areas like infrastructure. So I agree that it is frustrating, given that we built so much amazing infrastructure in the 20th century, that we seem so bad at it now. Quite why is hard to say. Perhaps it is MMP? There is a lot more trading-off of policy than there used to be under First Past the Post. It also seems to take much longer to get construction started on things, which means we often see Governments change before plans come to fruition. Perhaps we need longer political terms. Or perhaps we just need to streamline the process to get construction under way sooner. I know I'm not alone in wishing we could get some sort of bipartisan accord done on a long-term infrastructure pipeline. Liam Dann is business editor-at-large for the New Zealand Herald. He is a senior writer and columnist, and also presents and produces videos and podcasts. He joined the Herald in 2003. To sign up to my weekly newsletter, click on your user profile at and select 'My newsletters'. For a step-by-step guide, click here. If you have a burning question about the quirks or intricacies of economics send it to or leave a message in the comments section.

RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Labour leader Chris Hipkins on latest RNZ-Reid Research poll
media politics 27 minutes ago According to results out on Wednesday morning, the left bloc would have enough support to govern. Labour leader Chris Hipkins spoke to Corin Dann.