An Australian company paid over $2 million as part of Aotearoa’s education curriculum overhaul told Education Minister Erica Stanford it could help her “win hearts and minds” within schools.
Opposition MPs have accused the Government of withholding the true extent of its work – but during an at times tense Scrutiny Week appearance, Stanford swatted away questions about Learning First’s involvement in the curriculum rewrite and her own relationship with the firm.
The contract with Learning First – a Melbourne-based company founded by Ben Jensen, a knowledge-rich curriculum advocate – has been largely shrouded in secrecy. Costs had previously not been released, and a formal complaint about the wider curriculum reform process has been laid with Parliament’s regulations review committee.
The firm was brought on to assist with international benchmarking, which ensures the local curriculum aligns with international best practice.
However, documents released under the Official Information Act have revealed the extent of its involvement, including extensive advice provided to ministerial staff by Jensen.
Ministry of Education documents also revealed officials did not believe local experts working on the reforms fully understood the shift to a knowledge-rich curriculum which was holding up the process, and it was focusing on the design with Learning First’s support, direction, and input.
Ginny Andersen, Labour’s education spokesperson, said it was clear from the communication between the minister’s office and Jensen that there was “far more being actively discussed than just benchmarking the curriculum”.
“There are serious questions over whether this was a backroom deal,” she told Newsroom. “The minister needs to explain why her office was in direct contact with Learning First on what they could deliver, especially given they were awarded a contract worth more than $1 million, with no open tender process.”
On Wednesday, Andersen asked whether Learning First had written any of the curriculum content, with Ministry of Education associate deputy secretary Pauline Cleaver saying they had not.
The company had helped “source content” to ensure it met the criteria of the knowledge-rich curriculum, Cleaver said, finding specific examples that New Zealand writers were struggling to source which were then brought into the writing process.
“That is now out, the draft, and subsequently we are working through feedback and … our writers will finalise that content.”
Stanford similarly told Andersen: “As far as I’m aware, Learning First was contracted to be able to help us internationally benchmark.”
When asked why the contract was not put out for open tender and instead given to Learning First, Cleaver said the ministry had already been working with the company.
Procurement was based on the availability of a provider “who could do the job in the timeframe”, she said.
Andersen then questioned the minister on whether a meeting with Jensen in the Gold Coast for coffee was before or after the contract was inked, to which Stanford said she could not remember. “I meet lots of people,” she said.
The minister also said she did not have anything to do with procurement which was up to the ministry, but that few people could compare curriculums internationally and provide an accurate benchmark for New Zealand.
Learning First’s advice on ‘winning hearts and minds’ of teachers
Conversations between Stanford’s office and Jensen have been running since mid-2024, according to correspondence released to Labour under the Official Information Act.
The Learning First founder offered support, not only with international benchmarking, but with curriculum implementation – “how you now get the reforms effectively implemented in schools”.
In one email, he said Learning First could help with curriculum design and data collection on the implementation of curriculum and benchmarking.
In October 2024, Jensen sent a follow-up email to a staffer in Stanford’s office, discussing the projects they could get started on “quite quickly” and others in need of more planning.
“I am happy to come over and start working with you and/or others on this when it works for you,” he wrote.
The email detailed how the company’s previous work on internationally benchmarking the science curriculum could “directly feed into the development of your science curriculum”.
“As discussed, we can undertake benchmarking of the Mathematics and English curriculum that is about to be released. This can feed into any revisions to be made next year.”
The benchmarking would involve “extensive analysis”, including overall content, sequencing, depth and breadth of topics, followed by options for revisions.
“For other subjects such as science, our benchmarking work could be used in the development of the curriculum. This will be much more efficient rather than waiting for it to be completed for our review.”
In an April 2025 briefing to the minister, Cleaver said contributing groups did not fully understand the shift to a knowledge-rich curriculum, which had “negatively impacted on timeframes for writing work”.
The groups, which provide guidance, input and expert knowledge to the ministry, were too focused on a refresh of the 2007 curriculum as opposed to the new approach, she said.
Work with Jensen had helped the ministry realise that its curriculum design needed to improve and include more detail.
“We are focusing on this design now with Learning First’s support, direction and input. We will update you on this design once completed,” the document said.
It showed Learning First had reviewed and advised on the years 0 to 10 curriculums and their release timelines.
Review groups were to look at the material once it had been revised by Learning First and the coherence group, operating under non-disclosure agreements “to minimise the chance of versions of the documents being shared prior to the full release”.
Communication between Jensen and the ministerial office also showed him offering advice on the resources being provided to schools, professional learning development and messaging as part of the reform.
“As you know, so much of this is about getting the change in teacher belief and practices in and across schools,” Jensen wrote.
“So, there are things we can do on messaging, winning hearts and minds, and giving the minister the data so she can show she is responding to what teachers are saying they want.
“We would also recommend different ways of building knowledge and understanding of quality knowledge-rich curriculum, why it’s important for students and equity, and what is quality curriculum implementation.”
Stanford did not respond to direct questions about why her office had been communicating directly with Jensen, instead reiterating that contracts were an operational matter handled by the ministry.
“My office is regularly contacted by range of education experts. Where appropriate we refer them to the Ministry of Education,” she told Newsroom.
Stanford said her Gold Coast meeting with Jensen was “a catch up over coffee at an education conference and a range of education topics were discussed”.
Former staffer lodges complaint
It comes as Parliament’s regulations review committee prepares for a hearing next month, following a formal complaint made by a former Ministry of Education staffer over the reform process.
Claire Coleman quit her job at the ministry last February and lodged the complaint over what she alleges were incoherent and inappropriate processes that lacked transparency, as well as a use of “unexpected powers”.
“I’m an arts academic and it became quite evident they didn’t actually want my expertise … They wanted to do what they wanted to do and I was either going to get on board with that, or leave. So, I left,” Coleman told Newsroom.
She had also been trying to obtain a figure for how much had been spent on Learning First’s contract, to no avail.
It became unethical to continue working under the current direction, she said.
“You should be able to trust that a proper rigorous process has been engaged with and that real expertise and research has been brought in.
“I feel like this is too important – the curriculum, this is the heart of why I do what I do, for children, and it’s too important to be mucking around with it and be doing a bad job … just lots of very dodgy behaviour.”
Part of her complaint was also about the lack of transparency around the ministry’s use of AI. One of the documents released to her following an Official Information Act request said the ministry would “look to use AI tools and curriculum stocktakes where possible to pull together curriculum content from international curriculum frameworks”.
In Coleman’s eyes, AI use was reflected in some of the “randomness of content” and phrasing in the draft curriculum. “I’m not the only person who’s said it,” she said, echoing concerns raised by many subject experts who don’t recognise the content of the draft curriculums they helped produce.
The ministry responds
In a response to Newsroom, Cleaver said Learning First provided advice on aspects of curriculum development and their role was advisory only.
“The ministry retains full control over all content decisions and the curriculum has been designed and written in New Zealand, by New Zealanders,” she said.
The ministry spent roughly $2.2 million with Learning First: just under $1.6m on services for the national curriculum refresh and a little over $600,000 for learning area resources.
Cleaver disagreed with the characterisation that the process has been secret, saying the ministry had partnered with 95 schools and universities, 76 education suppliers, and over 95 subject matter experts, the vast majority of whom were New Zealand-based.
“The refresh has involved extensive engagement, public consultation, and ongoing publication of draft materials and feedback summaries.”
She confirmed AI had been used for mapping and comparing curriculum content across jurisdictions and at times to “get content succinct or for clarity” which were reviewed and validated.
The ministry was aware of Coleman’s complaint and did not accept the characterisation of the curriculum development process, “but we will engage constructively with the committee”, Cleaver said.
“The ministry stands by the curriculum development process. The refreshed curriculum is being developed in line with legislative requirements and consistent with the approved approach, and is informed by the expertise of New Zealand educators and communities.”
