Timeline
IHC’s founding families believed their children belonged in their local schools, learning alongside siblings, cousins and neighbours. From the beginning, IHC has advocated for education as a fundamental human right for people with intellectual disability – a foundation for full participation in community life and access to other rights. This work now spans more than 75 years.
The 1988 Picot Report – Administering for Excellence described the education system as “inefficient and unresponsive” and a case of “good people, bad system”. Its findings led to the Tomorrow’s Schools reforms.
Before the Education Act 1989, disabled children had no legal right to attend their local school and many were excluded from education altogether.
The Act changed that. Section 8 gave disabled students the legal right to enrol and receive education on the same basis as their non-disabled peers. But while the law changed, resourcing did not. From the outset, schools lacked the funding, training and specialist support needed to make inclusion real.
Families quickly told IHC that legal rights meant little in practice. Their children were still being excluded from learning and participation.
IHC began sustained advocacy with the Ministry of Education, political parties, and organisations across the education and disability sectors. A change of government in 1990 did not resolve the underlying policy problems.
The Ministry of Education Special Education Guidelines (1995) concluded:
“Special education is characterised by a confusion of purpose… a diffusion of responsibilities… and a lack of ability to hold anyone to account for outcomes.”
Cabinet approved the development of Special Education 2000 (SE2000), introducing:
- Individualised funding for around 2% of students with high or very high needs
- Bulk funding for 4–6% of students with “moderate” needs
Ministry-commissioned research warned against rigid cut-off points and estimated prevalence at 2.7% for high/very high needs.
SE2000 was introduced in 1996 as a “world-class” inclusive model. By 1997, $55 million had been allocated through the Special Education Grant (SEG) – based on the flawed assumption that needs were evenly spread across schools.
Cabinet approved Phase Two in 1998, but only $101 million of the promised $189 million was funded.
Components included:
- Special Education Grant (4–6%)
- ORS funding (~1%)
- Speech Language Initiative (~1%)
- Behaviour Initiative (~1%)
- Resource Teachers: Learning and Behaviour
Treasury warned early that ORS funding might be inadequate for students in local schools.
Daniels v Attorney-General (1999) challenged the impact of SE2000 and the removal of specialist supports:
A 2000 Ministerial Review – Picking Up the Pieces found:
- Moderate-need students were missing out
- Needs were not evenly distributed
- The system worked better for specialist schools due to economies of scale
A University of Canterbury review found speech-language therapy was too infrequent to be effective:
“Current services are providing for less than 10% of the children who require therapy.”
A 2001 independent review concluded:
“Criteria are set too high… more than 1% of the school population have high or very high ongoing needs.”
(These criteria have not been independently reviewed since.)
Cabinet acknowledged in 2003: “A fundamental redesign of Special Education resourcing policy is needed.”
A 2003 settlement ended long-running litigation, with commitments to better data and oversight.
Local Service Profiling (2004–2005) found:
- Chronic underfunding and staffing shortages
- Lack of coordination
- Complex systems that failed families.
Parents and educators called for more accountability, better funding and improved training.
Despite ongoing engagement, barriers persisted. In July 2008, IHC lodged a formal complaint with the Human Rights Commission, alleging systemic discrimination.
This was the first time disabled students’ school experiences were challenged as a human rights issue in New Zealand.
At the handover, Commissioner Robyn Hunt said: “It’s time this is challenged.”
In September 2008, New Zealand ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Article 24), recognising the right to inclusive education.
Despite an increase of 1,100 ORS places in Budget 2009, problems remained. A nationwide review led to the Success for All policy, with commitments that:
- 80% of schools would be inclusive by 2014
- Boards would evidence how they supported disabled students
- Disputes processes would be strengthened
- Specialist outreach would expand
Multiple independent reports found serious gaps.
Cognition Consulting (MoE):
- Moderate/high needs were 11.26% – far above the 4–6% funding assumption
- 14.3% of students were identified by schools as needing support
NZIER:
“Resourcing frameworks can support or work against policy objectives.”
Called for monitoring, accountability, and mixed funding models.
Office of the Auditor-General:
Found the Ministry did not reliably identify or monitor students with high needs and risked leaving eligible students without support.
Education Review Office (ERO): Including Students with High Needs
ERO reviewed 229 schools. Only half demonstrated mostly inclusive practice. A further 30% had “pockets of inclusiveness”, while 20% showed few inclusive practices. The gap between policy and practice was now visible in national data.
Success for All – Every School, Every Child, launched by Hon Rodney Hide, Associate Minister of Education:
“Parents should have the right to choose where their child goes to school.”
The policy promised more ORS places, more early specialist support, and better coordination of services. The vision was clear:
- Every school welcoming every child
- Every child learning and succeeding
- Parents receiving information “without having to fight for it”.
Families’ Choices – Choosing Schools for Disabled Children, Carol MacDonald & Lesley Gray, commissioned by CCS Disability Action.
A survey of 204 families whose children received Ongoing Resource Scheme funding found:
- Over a third had delayed school starts
- One third felt their child’s potential was not being reached
- One quarter of families who moved schools said previous teachers lacked knowledge of their child’s needs.
For many families, the cost was significant: stress, declining health, financial pressure, moving house, and the constant fight for support. Parents called for legal guarantees that their child could receive a quality education at their local school.
Education Review Office asked schools to self-report on inclusion. Results looked positive (88% reporting mostly inclusive practices), but ERO observed:
- “Schools’ ratings . . . are not well supported by evidence that these students have actually been achieving their potential.”
- Only 15% of schools reported achievement data to their boards.
The Ministry of Education rejected IHC’s Human Rights Commission complaint and declined mediation.
In December 2011, the Director of Human Rights Proceedings, Robert Hesketh, accepted IHC’s application for legal representation.
In 2012, IHC filed its claim in the Human Rights Review Tribunal (HRRT), alleging systemic discrimination and failure to reasonably accommodate disabled students.
Making Disability Rights Real (Independent Monitoring Mechanism)
Key concerns:
- No enforceable right to education
- Lack of learning outcomes data
- No comprehensive plan toward a fully inclusive system.
A new Director of Human Rights Proceedings, Robert Key, declined to continue representation in its existing form. IHC maintained its focus on systemic change, rather than action against individual schools.
In 2013, IHC instructed Frances Joychild QC to progress the case.
IHC filed an amended claim in the Human Rights Review Tribunal, alleging discrimination under s19 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
In June 2014, the New Zealand Disability Survey reported that 11% of school-aged children had a long-term impairment.
A second amended claim documented systemic failures:
- Lack of accurate prevalence data
- Inadequate and misaligned funding frameworks
- Weak monitoring and accountability
- No independent review of decisions
- Gaps in teacher education and professional development.
The Crown sought to strike out the claim. After hearings in 2015, the Tribunal confirmed it had jurisdiction.
The Ministry of Education’s Special Education Update (2015) acknowledged a fragmented system lacking oversight.
IHC’s submission to the Select Committee on learning challenges.
Cabinet papers in 2016 confirmed the need to modernise learning support, but noted:
“No change to overall funding is proposed…”
Reports from the Independent Monitoring Mechanism and the Ombudsman confirmed:
- No legislated right to inclusive education
- Weak coordination between sectors
- Poor data collection and use
- Systemic barriers to full inclusion.
Education Review Office reported that newly graduated teachers lacked confidence to teach diverse learners.
A new Government committed to: “A high quality, fair and inclusive education system”
The Tomorrow’s Schools Independent Taskforce (2018) concluded: “The system is not currently serving students with disabilities or additional learning needs well.”
Key proposals included stronger national education agencies and improved resourcing.
In 2019, the Government announced 623 new Learning Support Coordinators and $217 million in funding.
The Education and Training Act 2020 came into force, introducing dispute resolution panels and stronger expectations on Boards of Trustees – but still without explicit rights for disabled learners.
Ministry research confirmed disabled learners:
- Were 1.5–3 times more likely to be stood down or suspended
- Were less likely to achieve NCEA
- Had high levels of unmet need
Ombudsman: making disability rights real
The Human Rights Review Tribunal confirmed it had jurisdiction to hear IHC’s case.
In 2021, the Office of Human Rights Proceedings confirmed it would represent IHC.
In 2022, Associate Minister of Education Jan Tinetti said: “We know that this is one of the most broken areas in education.”
IHC’s 2022 survey showed deep ongoing frustration.
One parent wrote: “After nine years . . . it’s mostly babysitting . . . I’m ashamed and appalled.”
One parent wrote: “After nine years . . . it’s mostly babysitting . . . I’m ashamed and appalled.”
The survey showed some gains, but overall outcomes remained poor. Read more here.
Joint IHC submissions to the UN highlighted slow progress, weak enforcement, and gaps in justice. Independent monitoring continued to identify education as a priority human rights failure.
ERO’s 2022 report concluded:
“Education is not delivering for all disabled learners.”
In December 2022, the Human Rights Review Tribunal set hearing dates for 2024.
In June 2023, IHC and the Ministry of Education agreed to pause proceedings to begin confidential settlement discussions.
Through 2024, discussions focused on aligning system reform with IHC’s claim of systemic discrimination.
In 2025, IHC and the Ministry of Education entered the final phase of confidential settlement discussions, both committed to resolving the case without court action.
In November 2025, IHC signed a landmark settlement with the Government that acknowledges the education system does not work for disabled learners and starts a long-term programme to fix it.
The settlement is the starting point for change and a milestone following decades of advocacy.
