Te Tiriti, Not Te Mandate: The Legal Limits of Section 127 in Education

A school board affirms its right to apply Treaty obligations lawfully—supporting Māori students without mandating cultural content for all.

MAKE A DIFFERENCE – STAND FOR YOUR CHILDREN’S SCHOOL BOARD ELECTION THIS YEAR.

Opinion (this is not a legal advice, only a hypothetical scenario): There are moments in public life where a quiet legal clause becomes the scaffold for a much louder cultural transformation. Section 127(1)(d) of the Education and Training Act 2020 is such a clause. It tells school boards to “give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi,” and in doing so to integrate tikanga Māori, mātauranga Māori, and te ao Māori into school policies and curriculum. It also calls for te reo Māori and tikanga instruction to be made available and for equitable outcomes for Māori students to be pursued.

On the surface, this may sound reasonable, even noble. But what happens when a well-meaning clause begins to function as a stealth mechanism—not to elevate Māori students, but to restructure the entire curriculum, governance culture, and pedagogical foundation of our schools?

That’s the question we must now face—especially with the Government proposing an amended version of s127, which elevates these duties into a sharper, more prescriptive form while subtly reorganizing their priorities.

This article sets out the foundation for a legal and moral position that is respectful, reasoned, and clear: boards are responsible for outcomes for Māori students—not for the wholesale cultural transformation of all students through compulsory ideological programming. We welcome voluntary learning about te ao Māori; we reject mandates. And the board of Mount Compromise Primary is now ready to act.

The Legal Fork in the Road

The original 2020 version of s127 instructed boards to:

• Reflect local tikanga Māori in policies and curriculum (127(1)(d)(i)),

• Make Māori instruction available (127(1)(d)(ii)),

• And achieve equitable outcomes for Māori students (127(1)(d)(iii)).

The natural, literal reading of this clause is that subclauses (i) and (ii) are instrumental—tools to achieve (iii). That is, Māori cultural integration and instruction are important only insofar as they support equitable Māori student achievement. To generalize them into mandatory practices for all students exceeds both the intent and the authority of the law.

Now, the amended s127 restructures the priorities:

• The “paramount objective” becomes “educational achievement for every student.”

• Treaty obligations shift to a supporting objective (s127(2)(e)), and notably, “equitable outcomes for Māori students” becomes the lead clause under the Treaty section (127(2)(e)(i))—confirming its primary purpose.

Even under the new structure, the logic remains intact: cultural and curriculum changes are valid only as tools to achieve that equity for Māori students, not as standalone mandates for everyone else.

The Danger of Expansion by Interpretation

Let us be frank: the pressure on schools to apply s127 to all students—to make te ao Māori, tikanga, and te reo an integrated, universal, often ideological curriculum—does not arise from the text of the law. It arises from policy guidance, bureaucratic expectation, and sometimes activist reinterpretation.

But the law remains the law. And in law, the principle of ejusdem generis applies: general clauses (like curriculum reflection or language instruction) must be interpreted in light of the specific purpose they serve—here, equitable outcomes for Māori students.

The courts have long held that Treaty obligations are Crown obligations to Māori, not generalized cultural obligations to be transferred to citizens or local boards. The landmark SOE case (New Zealand Māori Council v Attorney-General [1987]) made clear that Treaty duties are fiduciary in nature, owed by the Crown to Māori. They are not open-ended licenses to restructure society by executive whim.

Similarly, in Ngāi Tahu Māori Trust Board v Director-General of Conservation [1995], the Court held that the Crown's obligation under the Treaty must be understood in terms of the parties involved—the Crown and Māori—not the general public or third parties like schools, unless explicitly delegated.

The Canadian analogy is also instructive: under Section 35 of Canada’s Constitution Act 1982, Indigenous rights are group-specific, not universalized into the mainstream curriculum unless to support Indigenous learners. Mandating cultural instruction for all would, in Canada, risk being struck down as exceeding the state’s mandate.

A Respectful, Legal, and Clear Response

To avoid this creeping overreach, our school board has adopted a targeted, legally compliant approach. We will support Māori students. We will offer Māori language and culture instruction. But we will not impose it on all students.

Here is our draft board resolution:

*******************************

Submission to the Minister of Education: Application of Section 127(1)(d) of the Education and Training Act 2020 for Māori Students Only

Introduction

We, the Board of Trustees of Mount Compromise Primary (a state primary school), present this formal submission and resolution regarding the implementation of our obligations under Section 127 of the Education and Training Act 2020. In particular, we address Section 127(1)(d) – the Te Tiriti o Waitangi clause – and outline our decision to apply its requirements specifically to Māori students (with voluntary access for others), rather than mandating these measures for all students. This proactive stance is intended to pre-empt potential disputes or resistance in our school community while still complying with the law. We respectfully seek the Minister’s acknowledgement of this interpretation.

Legal Framework: Board Objectives under Section 127

Section 127 of the Education and Training Act 2020 defines the primary objectives of school boards. Relevantly, the Act requires boards to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi by doing three key things:

• Reflect Local Māori Worldview: “Working to ensure that [the school’s] plans, policies, and local curriculum reflect local tikanga Māori, mātauranga Māori, and te ao Māori.” This means the school’s guiding documents and curriculum content should incorporate local Māori customs, knowledge, and perspectives.

• Offer Māori Instruction: “Taking all reasonable steps to make instruction available in tikanga Māori and te reo Māori.” This obligates boards to ensure Māori language and cultural instruction is available (i.e. provided when practicable) to students. Importantly, the statutory language is about making such instruction available (an opportunity), rather than compelling universal participation.

• Achieve Equitable Outcomes for Māori: “Achieving equitable outcomes for Māori students.” Boards must endeavour to ensure Māori learners succeed to the same level as others, removing barriers to their achievement. In practice, this may entail targeted support for Māori students so that “all ākonga (Māori and non-Māori) achieve the same level of success in their learning”.

These obligations exist alongside other board objectives (e.g. ensuring every student can attain their highest possible achievement in a safe, inclusive environment free from discrimination). The purpose of the Act explicitly includes establishing an education system that “honours Te Tiriti o Waitangi”, underscoring the importance of the above duties.

Section 127(1)(d) Text: For clarity, we quote the pertinent Treaty clause in full as currently in force:

Education and Training Act 2020, s 127(1)(d): “A board’s primary objectives in governing a school include ensuring that the school gives effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, including by – (i) working to ensure that its plans, policies, and local curriculum reflect local tikanga Māori, mātauranga Māori, and te ao Māori; and (ii) taking all reasonable steps to make instruction available in tikanga Māori and te reo Māori; and (iii) achieving equitable outcomes for Māori students.”

This submission focuses on an interpretation and implementation of these requirements that confines their active application to Māori students (and any others who opt in), rather than embedding them as compulsory for the entire student body.

Board’s Resolution and Interpretation of Section 127(1)(d)

Resolution: “That Mount Compromise Primary Board of Trustees will fulfil its obligations under Section 127(1)(d) of the Education and Training Act by providing Māori-focused educational opportunities exclusively for Māori students, with any other interested students welcome to participate on a voluntary basis. The Board will not mandate Māori language or tikanga instruction for students who do not opt into these opportunities.”

In essence, we are applying Section 127(1)(d) to Māori students only – meaning the programs and curriculum content designed to give effect to Te Tiriti will be concentrated in dedicated learning spaces serving Māori learners, while remaining open (but not compulsory) for non-Māori students who wish to attend. We formally advise the Minister that this is the Board’s adopted policy interpretation.

Legal Basis for Interpretation: This approach is grounded in the wording of the Act and supporting curriculum guidance:

• The statute requires making Māori instruction “available”, but does not stipulate it must be integrated into every class or taken by every student. By establishing dedicated Māori-medium or Māori-focused instruction blocks, we are indeed making such instruction available to those who seek it. All students “have the opportunity to acquire knowledge of te reo Māori me ōna tikanga” as mandated by the national curriculum, but we interpret “opportunity” to mean it is offered, not forced upon unwilling participants. Our approach thus hews to the letter of “taking all reasonable steps to make instruction available” – we will offer high-quality tikanga Māori and te reo classes – while respecting individual choice.

• Nothing in Section 127 explicitly requires that Māori content be imposed school-wide or embedded in every subject for every student. The law’s emphasis is on equitable outcomes for Māori learners and on honouring the Treaty. We believe a targeted approach can better serve this equity objective: by focusing resources on Māori students (who have historically been underserved, hence the need for equity measures), we can more effectively lift their achievement without diluting the effort across the whole cohort. This is consistent with the Act’s intent to “support Māori learners to achieve success on par with others”. It does not breach any provision to concentrate assistance where it is needed most.

• Our interpretation still “gives effect to Te Tiriti” in the school’s operations, but does so through a model of voluntary participation. The Treaty principles include active protection of Māori language and culture as taonga; by creating a space for Māori students to learn and celebrate their language/culture, we are actively protecting and promoting those taonga. At the same time, we uphold the principle of options – non-Māori families who do not wish for their children to receive this content are not compelled, addressing potential community concerns. We note that Te Tiriti also guarantees “same rights and privileges” to all New Zealanders; offering Māori content as an option to all (not restricting it by ethnicity) ensures no student is denied access, preserving equal rights.

In summary, the Board’s stance is that Section 127(1)(d) obligations can be met by offering robust Māori-focused education on an opt-in basis. This fulfils the legal requirements (by providing the opportunity and support for Māori learners and any others who choose to engage) while avoiding any undue imposition on those who might object. We believe this is a reasonable and lawful interpretation of the Act’s requirements, balancing Treaty obligations with community expectations.

Implementation Plan: Separate Māori Learning Spaces (Opt-In Model)

To give practical effect to the above resolution, the Board outlines the following implementation plan. These measures demonstrate how our interpretation will operate in the school environment:

• Dedicated Māori Curriculum Module: We will establish a separate learning module or class for Māori language, culture, and history. For example, the school will run a regular “Te Ao Māori” class (e.g. one afternoon per week) focusing on te reo Māori, tikanga Māori (cultural practices), and local Māori history (including content specific to mana whenua of our area). This class will be taught by qualified staff (or invited kaiako/experts) competent in Te Reo and tikanga. Attendance will be compulsory for Māori students (to ensure they receive this opportunity and support), and voluntary for all other students. No student will be prohibited from joining; any non-Māori student with interest or whose parents wish them to participate may opt in. Conversely, those who do not opt in will be excused to alternative activities.

• Alternative Activities for Non-Participants: Students who do not attend the Te Ao Māori sessions will continue with other constructive learning during that time (such as general literacy or project work supervised by other staff). This ensures that no child is idle or missing out on required curriculum learning. Core subjects and mandatory national curriculum content (for instance, the new New Zealand Histories content in Social Sciences) will still be taught to all students as required. We emphasize that our plan complements the national curriculum – it does not remove Māori perspectives from the curriculum entirely, but rather concentrates the in-depth Māori language/culture content into a special opt-in module. All students will still learn the basics of New Zealand’s bicultural heritage as part of the standard curriculum; the dedicated module provides extended learning for those who need or want it.

• Consultation with Māori Community: In developing this separate Māori program, the Board will consult with our local Māori whānau and iwi. This follows from our obligation to reflect local tikanga and mātauranga Māori in our policies. We will seek input on the content of the Māori module, appropriate pedagogical approaches (e.g. incorporating kapa haka, local history, marae visits, etc.), and how to best support our Māori learners. This consultation and co-design process will ensure that our plans do align with local tikanga and Māori aspirations, satisfying Section 127(1)(d)(i) even if the delivery is in a distinct setting. The resulting strategic plan and school policies will explicitly reference these Māori-focused provisions, thereby embedding Te Tiriti principles in our planning (albeit via a targeted approach).

• Resource Allocation and Support: We will allocate appropriate resources (staff time, budget for materials or specialist tutors) to the Māori module to ensure it is high-quality and effective. By doing so, we are directly investing in measures to “achieve equitable outcomes for Māori students.” For example, if data shows Māori learners are underperforming in literacy, the Te Ao Māori class can integrate literacy skills through te reo Māori contexts, or provide mentorship and confidence-building grounded in cultural identity. This targeted support is aimed at boosting Māori achievement, helping fulfil the equity objective of Section 127. We will also monitor outcomes (e.g. Māori student engagement and progress) to evaluate the success of this approach.

• Open Access Policy: The Board affirms that while this initiative is designed for Māori students, it does not exclude others. Any student, regardless of ethnicity, may join the Māori class if they or their parents/whānau wish them to learn in that space. In practice, we anticipate primarily Māori uptake (as it is intended to support Māori learners’ identity and success), but the door remains open – this ensures we are not “restricting access to any benefit” on prohibited grounds like race. Our policy will be clearly communicated to all families: participation is optional for non-Māori and guaranteed for Māori. We believe this approach upholds both the letter and spirit of inclusivity and non-discrimination laws. Every child has equal access to learn te reo and tikanga Māori; the difference is only in whether it is mandatory or optional for them.

Through these measures, Mount Compromise Primary will meet its Treaty-related objectives in a manner that is culturally responsive and focused, without forcing curriculum changes upon those who may not embrace them. We will effectively have a “Māori stream” or enrichment program within our English-medium school, analogous to existing bilingual units or kapa haka groups, which have long been accepted methods of incorporating Māori education in a voluntary way.

Addressing Potential Challenges and Counterarguments

We recognize that our approach – applying Section 127 obligations only to Māori students (plus willing others) – may prompt questions or challenges from the Ministry or other stakeholders. We address the foreseeably significant issues below:

• Challenge 1: “Does this comply with the requirement to reflect Māori in the whole curriculum and school policies?”
  Response: Yes. The law asks boards to “work to ensure” plans, policies and curriculum reflect Māori perspectives, but it does not prescribe how this must occur. Our school charter and strategic plan will explicitly include goals around Māori achievement and cultural engagement (thereby reflecting local tikanga and mātauranga Māori). The presence of a dedicated Māori module, developed with iwi input, will be a core part of our curriculum plan – this is evidence that Māori knowledge is valued and provided for. While we are not mandating Te Reo in every classroom, our overall school policy will still acknowledge te reo Māori as a valued language and encourage staff to use it where appropriate. In other words, Māori content will have a prominent place in our school’s curriculum structure (via the special program and general encouragement), satisfying the intent that the school’s curriculum does not ignore te ao Māori. We submit that concentrating the Māori content in a specific program does not equate to excluding it from the curriculum – it is simply a different delivery method. No provision in Section 127 forbids a school from meeting its Treaty duties through a separate program. Indeed, Section 127 gives boards freedom to shape the curriculum according to the needs of the school community. Our community’s needs (and, frankly, diverging views on compulsory Māori content) are such that this tailored approach is the most practical way to honour Te Tiriti while maintaining broad community support.

• Challenge 2: “Does making Māori content optional undermine the principle of partnership or bicultural education for all?”
  Response: We maintain that our approach still upholds the Treaty partnership in good faith. Partnership is reflected in our collaboration with Māori whānau to design the program, and in our commitment to lifting Māori student outcomes. The Treaty principle of active protection of Māori culture is met by dedicating time and resources to Māori language and cultural education – arguably a stronger commitment than minimal token inclusion across all classes. We acknowledge that some interpretations of partnership in education call for bicultural competency among all students and staff. However, we note that even under the current law and curriculum, all students have the opportunity to acquire knowledge of te reo Māori me ōna tikanga, but not an absolute requirement. Our model ensures the opportunity is there (indeed, in a richer form for those who take it). We are not preventing non-Māori from learning – in fact, we welcome them – but we respect the choice of those who may decline. In terms of staff, we will continue to provide professional development on Te Tiriti and basic te reo/tikanga for our teachers (as per the Teaching Council’s Code and Standards requiring teachers to integrate Treaty principles into practice). Thus, the school as an institution remains committed to biculturalism; we are simply adjusting the student-facing delivery to be optional beyond core requirements. We believe this nuanced approach still demonstrates partnership (by supporting Māori aspirations directly) while avoiding coercion that could breed resentment – which in the long run could be counterproductive to genuine partnership.

• Challenge 3: “Could separating Māori instruction be seen as segregation or discriminatory?”
  Response: No, because participation is not exclusive by ethnicity and the intent is remedial and supportive. Segregation implies a forced separation or denying certain people access to the general education program. That is not the case here. All students remain together for the vast majority of the curriculum; we are only creating a specialized class which students self-select into. This is comparable to offering, say, an advanced maths pull-out class or a special education support class – grouping by educational need or interest, not by imposed segregation. Māori students are encouraged to join because it benefits them (much like English-language learners might be pulled out for ESL support), but they are not being removed from any rights or opportunities; on the contrary, we are adding an opportunity for them. Non-Māori students can join if they wish to benefit from that content, so there is no racial bar. Moreover, our approach is consistent with the Human Rights Act 1993 in that we are not denying anyone access to services nor treating anyone less favorably on prohibited grounds. We are mindful that creating a positive, culturally safe space for Māori learners is actually a step toward substantive equality, not unlawful discrimination – it recognizes the unique status of Māori as Tangata Whenua and the reality of historic inequities. We draw a parallel to kura kaupapa Māori and bilingual units in other schools, which law and policy explicitly allow to serve Māori learners’ needs; our plan is modest compared to a full Māori-medium program, but operates on the same principle of providing targeted educational pathways.

• Challenge 4: “Will this truly achieve equitable outcomes for Māori students, or could it isolate them?”
  Response: We believe it will enhance outcomes. Research and experience have shown that culturally responsive teaching boosts engagement and success for Māori learners. By providing instruction in an environment that validates their identity (with Māori peers and culturally relevant pedagogy), we anticipate higher engagement, confidence, and ultimately achievement for those students – directly supporting the equity objective of Section 127(1)(d)(iii). Far from isolating them in a negative sense, this approach creates a supportive affinity space. Māori students will still interact with their peers in all other classes; the Māori module is simply an added support where they can bring their whole selves to learning. In fact, voluntary participation by interested non-Māori could foster positive integration – those non-Māori students effectively act as allies, and their presence can enrich the experience for all and promote mutual understanding. The Board will of course monitor the impacts. If we found any sign of stigma or unwanted division caused by the separate class, we would address it (for example, by messaging that the Māori class is a privilege/enrichment, not a remedial or “segregated” group). Our overarching goal is to lift Māori student achievement and well-being; we are confident that a program designed for that purpose, with input from Māori families, will do more good than harm. Notably, the Ministry’s own Māori education strategy Tau Mai Te Reo encourages providing pathways for learners to strengthen te reo and tikanga Māori – our plan is in alignment, as it creates such a pathway within our school.

• Challenge 5: “Is this approach consistent with current government policy and the National Education and Learning Priorities (NELP)?”
  Response: The current NELP emphasizes success for Māori and incorporation of Te Tiriti in school practices. Our approach is consistent with those aims. We are prioritizing Māori learners’ success (NELP Objective: ensuring Māori achieve and enjoy educational success as Māori) by tailoring a program to them. We are incorporating Treaty principles by actively protecting Māori language and involving Māori community voice. We acknowledge that some policy guidance (including the Community Law guidance and others) suggests integrating Māori knowledge across the curriculum. Our Board’s view is that our chosen method still achieves the ends those policies seek – namely, increasing Māori language usage and improving outcomes – just through a different means. We also note that the Government is currently reviewing Section 127 and related provisions. This debate includes questions about the extent of Treaty obligations in schools. Until any law change says otherwise, we stand within our right to implement the present law in the manner we judge will best meet our students’ needs. We will, of course, adjust our approach if future legislative or regulatory changes require a different method. For now, we submit that our plan not only complies with the law but also aligns with the spirit of partnership and equity underlying the law.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Board of Mount Compromise Primary is committed to honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi and improving outcomes for our Māori students, while also maintaining the confidence of our wider school community. We have resolved to meet the requirements of Section 127(1)(d) by focusing Māori language and cultural instruction on Māori learners (and others who opt in), rather than mandating it school-wide. We believe this interpretation is well-founded in the statutory language – which calls for making such instruction “available” – and is a pragmatic solution to potential tensions around curriculum content. Our approach ensures no student is denied the opportunity to learn Māori content, and it provides targeted support to those who need it most, thereby driving equitable outcomes.

We respectfully request that the Ministry of Education and the Minister acknowledge this approach as a lawful and acceptable implementation of Section 127. We have acted in good faith and with careful consideration of our legal duties. The Board also welcomes any guidance or dialogue with Ministry officials to refine our plan if necessary. Our ultimate shared goal is to see tamariki Māori thrive academically and culturally, which in turn benefits our whole school community. We are confident that this focused, opt-in model will contribute to that goal, and we stand ready to adjust course if it does not deliver the intended results.

Thank you for considering our submission. We look forward to your response and to continuing our partnership with the Ministry in delivering quality education that respects Te Tiriti and serves all students well.

Signed,
Board Chair – on behalf of the Mount Compromise Primary Board of Trustees
Date: 5 July 2025

Sources Cited:

• Education and Training Act 2020, s 127(1)(d) – Board objectives (Te Tiriti clause).

• Education and Training Act 2020, s 127(1)(a)–(c) – Board objectives (student achievement, safety, inclusion).

• Community Law Manual – “Te Tiriti in schools” (summary of board’s Tiriti obligations and examples).

• NZCER Report “Growing Te Reo Māori in English-medium Schools” – noting statutory duty to offer tikanga and te reo Māori instruction and that “all students have the opportunity to acquire [te reo and tikanga]”.

• Ministry of Education – NELP/Board Objectives Consultation Document (2024) – confirmation of equitable outcomes for Māori as a focus.

• Newstalk ZB (27 Jun 2025) – Minister’s comments on Section 127 being an existing Treaty clause (context of current policy discussions).

• Human Rights Act 1993, s 57 – non-discrimination in educational services.

*******************************

Why This Matters Now

The proposed amendments to s127 do not weaken the case for our interpretation. They strengthen it. By making the paramount objective “educational achievement for every student,” and placing Treaty duties into the supporting objectives, the law now makes explicit what was implicit before: all Treaty-based educational obligations must be judged by their ability to support learning outcomes.

This opens the door for school boards to adopt targeted Māori programs that deliver real benefit to Māori students, without descending into coercion or ideological uniformity.

It also offers protection: a school board that refuses to impose te ao Māori content on all students is not breaching its duties if it has made meaningful provision for Māori learners and is achieving improved outcomes.

What Next?

The Minister of Education, ERO, and other policy arms must now clarify: Is the goal of Treaty implementation in schools the improvement of Māori student outcomes—or the cultural reshaping of the entire school population?

If the answer is the former, our approach is a model of lawful compliance and educational focus.

If the answer is the latter, then it is not the school board that is acting unlawfully. It is the Ministry.

We call on boards across the country to consider adopting similar resolutions and to begin asserting their right to interpret the law faithfully, justly, and in a way that protects all students—Māori and non-Māori alike.

The time to draw a line—legally, respectfully, and firmly—is now.