‘Riddled with errors’: How AI has been used in drafting the new school curriculum
Monday, 27 July 2026
The Ministry of Education planned to use AI to generate and check content during the rewrite of the new curriculum, though disputes it was used for any writing, The Post can reveal.
It comes as a primary school music teacher has flagged major errors in the draft music curriculum - including misplaced definitions, factual mistakes and American spelling - which he believes show “all the hallmarks” of AI.
Internal documents from 2024 on the curriculum process note “AI tools will be used to check and generate content”.
“Additionally, we will look to use AI tools and curriculum stocktakes where possible to pull together curriculum content from international curriculum frameworks.”
Read more:
‘Unusual’: Inside the last-minute back down on homeschooling law change
Erica Stanford defends ‘coffee on Gold Coast’ before $2m education ministry contract
Erica Stanford corrects written answer as questions mount over $2m curriculum deal
The Government’s own internal AI policy says agencies should publicly disclose when AI systems are used, however its only communication about use was in responses to media.
Ministry of Education curriculum centre deputy secretary Pauline Cleaver said Microsoft’s Copilot was used in a limited way to help compare curriculum content from other countries, review related research, and generate summaries and analytical material to support officials' work.
AI was used to “help identify similarities and differences in how learning is organised across different education systems, and to summarise large amounts of research and curriculum material so staff could review it more efficiently”, she said.
“AI did not write the curriculum or decide what should be taught,” she said. “Ministry staff and subject experts reviewed all AI-assisted work before it was used. People were responsible for the decisions and the content at every stage”.
Education Minister Erica Stanford deferred all questions about AI use in the curriculum to the ministry, however she said it was not used to write the curriculum.
‘Riddled with errors’
Pulse, legato, harmony, tone colour, rhythm, triads, tuning.
Each appeared in the draft curriculum with incorrect definitions, often a misplaced definition for a completely different musical term, says music teacher Tim Carson.
The definition of a musical metre, for example, was used to define the word pulse, while the word metre itself, was misspelt using American spelling “meter”.
Carson, who teaches at St Michael's School and Our Lady of the Sacred Heart School, wrote to Stanford about the errors in March, urging her to stop consultation on the curriculum to review the draft.
“We deserve the opportunity to review a curriculum that is recognisable from here and at the very least does not require navigating around foundational errors, omissions, and misunderstandings of basic musical terminology,” he wrote.
He told The Post the draft was “riddled with errors,” which he believed had “all the hallmarks” of AI.
He said the errors suggested the ministry had ignored its own advice: “AI can create content that seems plausible but contains nonsensical or incorrect detail. Whenever you use AI, make sure that you are reviewing and checking the outputs.”
He argued Mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge), was treated as an add-on in the curriculum, which he said reflected the kind of cultural bias the ministry itself warned could arise when using AI tools.
Cleaver said the ministry had reviewed the issues he raised and had changed the draft as a result, but said it did not indicate AI generated errors in the curriculum.
“This feedback demonstrates the value of the consultation process in helping refine content and make sure it is clear and accurate.'
A formal complaint
Former ministry lead writer for the Arts Dr Claire Coleman lodged a formal complaint with Parliament's regulations review committee in May over the curriculum rewrite, demanding detail about the use of AI.
The document which details the AI use was released to her, and she drew concerns to the fact it was never publicly disclosed.
“Teachers, subject associations, whānau, and the public who submitted on the draft curriculum were not informed that AI tools had been used to generate or check the content on which they are being asked to comment.”
In her complaint, she said there was “no description” of which AI tools were used, what content they generated, what human-review was in place to check AI-generated content, or what quality assurance framework governed their use.
Labour education spokesperson Ginny Andersen said claims from the minister that AI was not used in writing the curriculum were “unravelling” and parents had every right to ask what else they hadn’t been told.
Urgency overriding best practice
Post Primary Teachers' Association Te Wehengarua president Chris Abercrombie said the sense of urgency in overhauling the curriculum had overridden any commitment to best practice reform.
“The haste with which the curriculum has been written has resulted in considerable changes to the implementation timeline and rushed decisions and communications that have resulted in errors, confusion and an incoherent plan, especially for the learner.”
He said the lack of visibility around most of the process, including who were involved in the writing and decision making, and the rationales behind “large, unexpected” changes in direction had “eroded trust” in the ability of the ministry to deliver on the goals of the reforms.
“Across Phases 1-4 in particular, teacher voice was limited or marginalised; subject associations and professional networks were hardy involved and decisions appeared to have been made in advance of consultation.”
He said curriculum legitimacy depended on trusting teachers as knowledge experts, and excluding their professional expertise undermined effective implementation and educational quality.