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 students with moderate needs were evenly spread across schools.
Cabinet approved Phase Two in 1997, but only $101 million of the promised $189 million was to be funded over the next three years.
Components included:
- Special Education Grant (4–6%)
- Ongoing Resourcing Scheme (ORS) (~1%)
- Speech Language Initiative (~1%)
- Behaviour Initiative (~1%)
- Resource Teachers: Learning and Behaviour
$0.666m was set aside for further research requiring further data collection and analysis into a number of areas including:
- the actual assistance required by children to allow them to effectively participate in school.
- into the needs of students who just missed out on ORS.
- the level of therapy required for students with significant speech-language difficulties including that of Maori.
Treasury warned early that a significant unresolved issue concerning ORS pertained to the appropriate level of funding, as well as whether it was being delivered efficiently in special schools, and if providing the same services in regular schools would be more or less costly.
In 1998 Cabinet approved an additional criteria to be added to ORS to cover students within the autistic spectrum. It was estimated at the time that approximately 200 students would gain eligibility for ORS because of the change.
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:
- A large number of children with moderate to severe disabilities were not receiving support to access the curriculum
- 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 in 1999 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 of the ORS Criteria and Benchmarks 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.
A 2003 Cabinet Paper following the 2001 review of ORS acknowledged:
“a fundamental redesign of special education resourcing policy is needed. But that at present, such substantial policy change coming so soon after implementation of the current policy would be confusing for schools and parents...”
The paper further acknowledged:
“driving the demand for ORRS is the inadequacy of support provided to students not eligible for ORRS and acknowledges that the other special education initiatives are resourced on the assumption that the relevant students do not have ongoing needs, which has not proven to be the case.”
The provision of supplementary learning support was approved in the short term to support students with a high level of need not eligible for ORS.
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: Survey of Special Education Resourcing:
- 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.
The 2021–2022 Highest Needs Review found that the current system is not fit for purpose, with 3 in 10 students with significant needs potentially missing out on support. Key findings emphasised a need for better resourcing, improved teacher confidence, more, consistent communication and a child-centred approach.
Work carried out by the Social Wellbeing Agency to support the Highest Need Review found that about 5% of children have evidence of high learning needs but have not received individualised learning support. This was the first time the size of this group has been quantified, providing an estimate (and supporting evidence) of potential unmet needs.
See Te Atatū – Insights: Children with high additional learning needs
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.”
The survey showed some gains, but overall outcomes remained poor. Read more here.
ERO’s September 2022 report looked at how good New Zealand’s schools are for disabled learners.
The report found:
- Disabled learners are being excluded – 1 in 5 discouraged from enrolling at local schools
- Nearly 1 in 4 parents and whānau have been asked to keep their disabled child at home from school
- Disabled learners are more than twice as likely as non-disabled learners to leave school with no qualifications
- 43% of school leaders and Boards do not have a full understanding of their legal obligations
- Many teachers are not confident teaching disabled learners – over half of school teachers reported they lack confidence in teaching disabled learners
- A third (34%) of teachers thought that expectations for inclusion of disabled learners are unclear and that there are no guidelines
Recommendations included:
- Identify and track enrolment, participation and educational experiences of disabled learners
- Strengthen initial education and training to ensure a focus on disabled learners
- Ensure guidance, standards, codes and inductions include a focus on inclusion of disabled learners
- Better coordination and collaboration between agencies
Thriving at School? Education for Disabled Learners in Schools
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.
