
‘Major trade-offs' allow for learning support boost
Experts and educators say the investment in a sector crying out for help is welcomed, but question whether it's truly transformational – and at what cost.
Stanford is describing this as the 'most significant investment in learning support in a generation', but those in the sector note that it's only been possible because of significant reprioritisation and pay equity changes expected to hit those in the education workforce.
It comes the same week as a new report painted a picture of a system at breaking point, with almost every educator describing the situation in classrooms as dire. One principal even said they feared a child would die on their watch because of the lack of supervision for children with additional and complex needs.
Between 15 percent and 20 percent of people are neurodivergent, but only 6-7 percent of students receive publicly funded learning support, with Māori, Pasifika, English second-language speakers and those attending rural and high equity index schools most affected by the underfunding and fragmented system.
Decades of reviews have left successive governments with no doubt as to the problems plaguing the under-resourced system which is supposed to provide timely, appropriate support to neurodivergent children, or those with disabilities, health needs or trauma. And under-resourcing, paired with a critical workforce shortage, mean schools often name complex and behavioural needs as the number one challenge they face.
The learning support budget included $266m to extend the early intervention service through to the end of Year 1, which was expected to fund more than 560 additional full-time equivalent early intervention teachers and specialists. This should allow for 4000 children with additional needs to receive support for their transition to primary school.
That funding would also cover an additional 900,000 teacher aide hours a year, phasing in from 2028 – an admission of the workforce shortage.
But Stanford said she was confident they would find the teachers needed from the now cut Kāhui Ako programme, which would release about 600 teachers into the workforce.
There was also $122m to meet increased demand for the Ongoing Resourcing Scheme, for students with high and complex needs. This funding was geared towards getting such support to an additional 1700 learners over the next four years.
The money also included a commitment to get learning support coordinators into every primary school in the country, with an additional 300,000 students benefiting from this uplift.
There was also extra in the Budget for speech and language therapists, targeted professional development for teacher aides, additional educational psychologists and learning support satellite classrooms and necessary changes to school buildings.
'The key message for parents today is we've got your back, not only if your children need help in maths or literacy, but also if they have additional learning needs. This is the largest investment into learning support in a generation, and it will be transformational,' Stanford said.
Meanwhile, Nicola Willis told Newsroom she and Stanford were 'in cahoots' on this one.
Willis had personal experience with additional learning needs, and said early intervention and guaranteed support for children who needed it would make a significant difference.
She had seen situations where children had struggled to get a diagnosis or hadn't received the support they needed and it affected that child, the school and, in some cases, it had torn families apart.
Willis said the early intervention services were a no-brainer in terms of her focus on social investment. Getting support to children and students as soon as possible would help them fulfil their potential.
Dr Sarah Aiono, author of the recent Beyond Capacity report and a former complex needs specialist teacher, told Newsroom there were encouraging aspects of the learning support investments that showed the minister had heard 'the sector's consistent calls for better support'.
Though the roadmap outlined a long-term, staged expansion of services, the sector's need was urgent and immediate. Meanwhile, a report released by NZEI Te Riu Roa union last month estimated $2.5b was needed for learning support in the next five years.
Moreover, these 'promising steps' fell short of a 'true reset', she said.
It was also important to temper the language that this was 'transformational' or 'the single largest investment in a generation', she said.
Much of the funding in this package had been reprioritised, not newly allocated – meaning some roles in the sector would be lost.
Within the savings section of the Budget was $614m of cuts and reprioritisations. There were 22 initiatives listed in the savings section, including under-spending on charter schools and the Kāhui Ako programme.
Among the cut programmes was $13m from resource teachers for learning and behaviour for Years 11-13. In its documents, Treasury noted there had been no evaluation of the effectiveness of the scheme and there was 'minimal assurances' on what it is used for. 'The funding will be reinvested in learning support to deliver targeted multi-tiered, in-school learning support for students with additional needs.'
Aiono and the NZEI teachers' union noted the uplift also came along with the changes to pay equity, which directly affected learning support staff and other educators.
'These are significant trade-offs that should not be glossed over,' Aiono said.
This week's big spend on education marked one of the Government's top priority areas, but it was somewhat overshadowed by the Government's pay equity changes and leaks.
Late Budget eve, the Government was granted an urgent injunction to stop RNZ publishing a Budget-sensitive document, which the Attorney-General's office said contained 'commercially sensitive information that would prejudice the Government's ability to engage effectively in collective bargaining'.
Teachers are in negotiations about pay increases, with the Public Service Commissioner taking the reins on collective bargaining in May.
Ahead of Thursday, Finance Minister Nicola Willis confirmed the Budget would have money set aside for the teacher pay settlement. But these figures were not revealed as they could be seen to undermine the Government's ability to negotiate with the unions.
The bargaining – as well as at least four leaks of Budget-sensitive education material in the lead-up to Thursday – were taking place against a backdrop of strikes and protests from teachers, union leaders and Ministry of Education staff over pay.
Teaching is one of the sectors affected by the Government's pay equity changes, with a claim covering 95,000 early childhood, primary and secondary teachers being wiped as part of the overhaul.
Unions expect secondary teachers would be particularly disadvantaged by the changes to the thresholds in the new Equal Pay Act, as the workforce had to prove it was at least 70 percent female (a shift from the earlier 60 percent threshold). Though early childhood and primary teachers easily met this bar, secondary teachers didn't.
At the same time, union pay equity experts said they thought the new changes could make bringing a future claim 'virtually impossible' because of the new rules governing the use of comparators as well as the need to prove a claim's merit at the outset (rather than 'arguability').
Hashtags

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


NZ Herald
21 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Why are we more likely to buy when our options are limited?
Listening to articles is free for open-access content—explore other articles or learn more about text-to-speech. Why are we more likely to buy when our options are limited? Good business sense using consumer psychology. Photo / Getty Images Every city has its signatures. In Ho Chi Minh City it was someone pointing at my sneakers and offering to clean them. In Da Nang it was, 'Taxi, sir?' and in Hội An it's been, 'Want a boat ride?' We have resolutely fought off all efforts to part us from our money. Well, most efforts. It was our first afternoon in Hội An, a historical port city in central Vietnam, home to a Unesco world-heritage ancient town. We'd gone in search of a particular tailor, recommended to us by our hotel and breathless English tourists on TikTok. At the first street corner, I got out my phone to check directions, and 15 minutes later we were at a completely different tailor, having been expertly waylaid by one of their 'scouts', who'd seen us and asked if she could offer directions … The next day we did a lantern-making class at our hotel, led by the ever-patient tutor, Moon. Moon asked us what we had planned and made a few recommendations, including one for dinner at the Citadel restaurant at which a friend of hers worked. That evening, we followed her advice and had a frankly delightful evening marked by fantastic food, an absolutely lovely waitress, Anna, and regular check-ins from Gray, the manager (who also happens to be a Kiwi). As with every restaurant we visited, we had to force ourselves to sit back and enjoy the experience; at no point did we ever feel like we had to rush to finish, pay, and give up our table to the next customer. Not like, ahem, at home in Wellington. What do these latter examples have in common? Bloody good business sense based on friendliness and strategic use of consumer psychology. Having recently hosted friends visiting Wellington from overseas, my heart was warmed by hearing them say how friendly New Zealanders are, but it's a step change to Vietnamese hospitality. For example, first and last impressions count or, in technical terms, primacy and recency. We make impressions incredibly quickly and largely unconsciously, and research shows that, while we care deeply about how good the chef is, we have to be drawn in first to find out. That can hang entirely on the rapport we sense from our first encounter. When we left the restaurant, Anna farewelled us by our names (which she remembered several days later when we happened to pass by). That's a personal touch that leaves a positive impression. Ever started to feel tense because wait staff check in on you a little too frequently? Or neglected because they don't check in at all? That's another tricky balance, and one that requires a bit of intuition about the best time to stop by. Another thing Citadel did well, but almost every other restaurant we ate at didn't, was a sensibly curated set of options. Ever eaten at the American restaurant chain The Cheesecake Factory? The menu runs to more than 200 items and around 20 pages. It is frankly exhausting. You get to a point where you no longer care what you order, you just want to make it stop. Psychology researchers Sheena Iyengar and Mark Lepper are probably best associated with the notion of this 'paradox of choice'. In a particularly well-known experiment they showed that people may be more likely to head over to a counter offering 24 types of jam than a counter with only six, but people were 10 times more likely to buy jam when the number of types available was reduced from 24 to six. Why? Because what if you make the wrong choice? The more choices, the harder the decision, and the greater the likelihood of buyer's remorse. So in keeping with this research, we broke our holiday rule and went back to the Citadel and its more limited number of choices a second time.

NZ Herald
a day ago
- NZ Herald
Facing prospect of election defeat, Government tries to change the rules
There's no good reason to remove election-day enrolment, which has been in place since 2020. And there's certainly no reason to remove the ability to enrol during the advance voting period. You've been able to enrol up to the day before election day since 1993. The idea that election-day enrolment was delaying the official results is also nonsense. Whether people update their enrolment details two weeks before the election or on election day, that form still has to be processed and their information updated. It's the same amount of workers' time, either way. The Government can just hire more people to do it after election day, rather than before, and the job will get done on time. Don't give me the 'well, they should sort out their enrolment details earlier' line. I thought National and Act were against bureaucracy? And now they're saying you should lose your right to vote unless you know about the bureaucracy of voter enrolment and tick the state's forms well ahead of time? We should be making it as easy as possible for people to exercise their right to vote. Aotearoa New Zealand has a good record in that regard. We were world leaders in votes for Māori, votes for women, removing the property-ownership test. We don't have people queuing for hours like in the United States. But now the Government wants to use bureaucracy to trip people up and stop them voting. Even Judith Collins has said it is wrong: 'The proposal for a 13-day registration deadline appears to constitute an unjustified limit on s12 of the NZBORA [the right to vote]. The accepted starting point is the fundamental importance of the right to vote within a liberal democracy. A compelling justification is required to limit that right.' The Deputy Prime Minister says you're a 'dropkick' if you don't get your registration sorted well before the election. But why shouldn't a person be able to come along on election day or in the early voting period, cast their vote, and, if their enrolment details need updating, do it at the same time? Why force us to use an inefficient, two-step process? Since when has the supposedly libertarian Act Party loved bureaucracy? Truth is, we know why the Government is doing this. It's a Government that's failing to deliver and fading in the polls. In most recent polls, Labour has been ahead of National. Forty-eight per cent of voters say it's time for a new Government. Only 38% want to give this Government a second chance. So they're trying to screw the scrum in their favour. David Seymour let it slip with his 'dropkicks' comment. Act MP Todd Stephenson put it even more bluntly: 'It's outrageous that someone completely disengaged and lazy can rock up to the voting booth, get registered there and then, and then vote to tax other people's money away.' Trying to make sure only the 'right' people are voting is dangerous, anti-democratic thinking. We all know this change is about setting up barriers for people who are young, Māori, disengaged or alienated from the structures of power and wealth in this country – because those people are unlikely to vote for a Government that works in the interests of the wealthy and powerful. The Government knows full well that these New Zealanders, who have the same right to vote as anyone else, are less likely to be familiar with the rules around registration. The Government also knows there will be many people, Kiwis not as politically engaged as you and me, dear reader, but no less worthy of the vote, who will turn up to a polling place on election day or during the advance voting period thinking that they can update their registration at the same time as they vote – because that's how it has been and they haven't heard about the change – and be turned away under this new law. Democracy is meant to be a contest of ideas. And it is fundamental to democracy that the voters choose the Government, not the other way around. If the Government wants to be re-elected, it should give people a reason to vote for it, not try to exclude voters it doesn't like.


Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
Comments On The Equal Pay Amendment Bill
The group's chair, Gail Duncan, said: 'The Social Justice Group have sent in their submission to the Peoples Select Committee on Pay Equity. This Select Committee was the brainchild of Marilyn Waring and we were very grateful to have the opportunity to submit ' The Bill was deliberately passed in full with no public consultation, no accompanying Regulatory Impact Statement, no exemption from the Ministry of Regulation, and did not meet Cabinet's requirements. Breaching all requirements with no regard to the long term impact on women or regard that these roles underpin the wellbeing of communities, ignoring that many women in these roles are the sole income earner for their families – they are the breadwinners - and all deserve appropriate recompense for their service and labour. Discrimination is what it is, and this Act embodies and perpetuates it, taking us backwards. The Government introduced the Equal Pay Amendment Bill to the house under urgency on Monday 5 May 2025 and it was passed on Wednesday evening 7 May 2025. The approach not only breached the Bill of Rights Act, but was inconsistent with the international Sustainable Development Goals requirements for delivery of fair pay for women. This government starkly says to New Zealand employers (including the government) that while we can't afford to pay women at pay equity rates, we can afford to deliver tax cuts to landlords and concessions to some industries such as the tobacco industry. The impact of this reduction in due process is being paid for by women across New Zealand as they strive to support themselves and their families. This Bill limits their capability to pursue claims by extinguishing existing cases and denying back pay. The removal of pay equity from the books has undermined the future prosperity of all women in New Zealand, particularly Māori and Polynesian, reducing the productivity and economic contribution of half of New Zealand's workforce. This in turn contributes to child poverty, holding back the next generation. Furthermore, it forces the women of New Zealand to sacrifice their pay equity claims to balance the books for Budget 2025. This, we submit, is unprincipled and ruthless. The National Party has always backtracked on any improvements to women's pay parity . It removed the Employment Equity Act, passed under the Labour government in 1990. That Act aimed to address pay equity and inequality in employment for women, Māori, Pasifika, and workers with disabilities. It also established the Employment Equity Office. The Act was repealed by the incoming National government later that year (1990). Again following Kristine Bartlett and the Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota winning the case for care workers in the Court of Appeal in 2014, and a pay equity settlement in June 2017 the National Party publicly stated that its intention was to write off the compensation from the ledger, and rewrite the Bill such that no woman would ever be able to make such claims again. In July 2017 the National Government introduced the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill 2017 (284-1), to repeal the Equal Pay Act 1972, and create a process for raising pay equity claims within the structure of the Employment Relations Act 2000. The Bill lapsed following the general election. Source: In 2025 the Coalition Government has now achieved this intent with the Equal Pay Amendment Bill. The redacted Cabinet Paper 'Reviewing policy settings' (1 May 2025), justifies pay equity changes on the grounds of the Government's commitment to improve the quality of legislation, reducing complexity and costs. The Equal Pay Amendment Bill was promoted as providing a better pay regulatory framework for a pay equity process, based on the concepts of the Regulatory Standards Bill. New Zealand is not a basket case economically, New Zealand has head space. Policy decisions should enhance wellbeing across the population and this is not evidenced. Instead, the austerity measures being applied are counterproductively pausing the economy against public messaging that growth is the answer. The government is forging a pathway to hardship for hardworking New Zealanders. The Equal Pay Amendment Bill is one strategic part of these austerity measures and their ongoing plan to lower wages across the whole spectrum of workers. This began with the rescinding of Fair Pay Agreement Act, effective from 20 December 2023, by the Fair Pay Agreement Repeal Bill introduced on 12 December 2023 by MP Hon Brooke van Veldon, Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety. The same minister then reviewed the Equal Pay Act 1972, one of the most important pieces of legislation for women on the statute book in New Zealand. The Equal Pay Amendment Bill has set New Zealand back over 50 years, abandoning international obligations to ensure pay parity for women and is another contractionary measure. Treasury has already warned of a slowing economy, slowing spending and lowering business revenue leading to a reduction in the Government's tax take. Taking $12.8 billion out of the economy by reneging on obligations to value women's work appropriately will backfire. This government has introduced a new framework for the use of parties to assess whether there is sex-based undervaluation. The government has raised doubts about the comparison between jobs conducted predominantly by women and other roles of similar responsibility, and implied that prior claims had no merit and determined a reset is required. Differences in remuneration for reasons other than sex-based discrimination? The only one given is the employer will struggle to pay and the Government is threatening that it will reduce funding for those activities concerned. This is as bad as saying businesses and farmers will struggle to make changes to meet our climate change obligations, so we won't foist any requirements upon them. This is setting New Zealand up to fail. St Peter's on Willis Social Justice Group opposes the legislation which has passed giving Brooke van Veldon the power to adjust and further discriminate against women without consultation either publicly or with cabinet. To conclude, St Peter's on Willis Social Justice Group will justify our stance by quoting scripture, as we were asked in the oral hearing for the Regulatory Standards Bill. Jesus is clear about our need to care for the poor and disadvantaged, for instance: in Matthew 25:34-46. He is scathing about influential people who circumvent justice with trickery, for example in Matthew 25:23, 'But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees! For you tithe mint dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practised without neglecting the others.' And Luke 11:46, 'Woe also to you lawyers! For you load people with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not lift a finger to ease them.' Using the words of Dr Martin Luther King, quoting Amos 5:24, 'Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.' This government is making decisions which put them on the wrong side of history. Basically, we must pay women what they are worth and reinstate the pay parity obligations lost in the passing of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill.