Key Takeaways
- Consultation on six draft curriculums for Years 0‑10 closed last week, with teachers from music, PE, science, technology and history voicing strong concerns.
- The drafts aim to replace a vague national curriculum with year‑by‑year specifications, but many educators say they are overcrowded, poorly sequenced and lack meaningful Māori content.
- Physical Education New Zealand calls the health‑and‑PE draft “not fit for purpose” and argues it would revert the subject to a 1950s‑style focus on sport skills.
- Technology Education New Zealand flags vague purpose, confusing terminology, uneven time allocations and the problematic bundling of textiles, hard materials, food and biotechnology into a single strand.
- Drama New Zealand and Music Education New Zealand criticize the arts draft for tokenistic Māori inclusion, the forced merger of dance and drama, and a music curriculum that assumes specialist teachers and neglects creativity.
- Bay of Plenty science teachers describe the science draft as “just silly” in places, overloaded with advanced concepts, lacking a New Zealand flavour and dropping the “nature of science” emphasis.
- The New Zealand History Teachers Association warns the social sciences draft is euro‑centric, chronologically fragmented and undermines Māori students, while also noting the pace of change creates unsustainable workloads.
- Across all submissions, a common theme is the insufficient integration of mātauranga Māori and Treaty‑based principles, with many calling the current drafts tokenistic at best.
- Implementation timelines—planned rollout for science, social sciences and health‑PE in 2025 and the arts, technology and languages from 2028—are deemed unworkable by many principals and sector leaders.
- The Ministry says it is finalising submission numbers and will announce decisions soon, but stakeholders urge a major rewrite rather than minor tweaks.
Overview of the Draft Curriculum Consultation
The Ministry of Education’s consultation on six draft curriculums covering Years 0‑10 concluded at the end of last week. These documents are intended to replace the existing, often criticised, national curriculum with clearer, year‑by‑year expectations for what must be taught from the start of primary school through the first two years of secondary school. The government plans to finalise the curriculums later this year, with schools using the new science, social sciences, and health and physical education frameworks in 2025, and the arts, technology and learning languages from the start of 2028. While the aim is to provide more prescriptive guidance, the feedback received suggests the drafts have missed the mark in several key areas.
Physical Education: A Call for a Total Rewrite
Physical Education New Zealand’s (PENZ) submission bluntly states that the draft health and physical education curriculum “is not fit for purpose” and requires a complete reworking rather than minor tweaks. The submission argues that the current draft centres narrowly on performance and measurable competencies, leading to a fragmented approach that fails to build coherent learning progressions. PENZ managing director Heemi McDonald warned that the draft would push PE back to a 1950s‑style model focused on sport skills and drills, neglecting broader learning about movement, identity and relationships. He emphasised that five‑year‑olds need to understand how they move, how to cooperate with others and how to navigate different environments—concepts absent from the draft. While acknowledging sport’s value, McDonald cautioned that prescribing specific activities like netball or hockey risks turning teachers into sports coaches and excludes students who do not engage with those sports.
Technology: Structural and Practical Concerns
Technology Education New Zealand highlighted significant structural, pedagogical, cultural and practical problems with the technology draft. Members reported a vague overall purpose, difficulty interpreting intended outcomes, and inconsistent use of design‑thinking terminology. The curriculum’s sequencing is described as poorly coordinated, with expectations that rise sharply between year levels, creating confusion about what should be taught when. A particular point of contention is the proposed time allocation: roughly one hour per week for Years 0‑8 and 1.5 hours for Years 9‑10, which many teachers say is insufficient for deep, meaningful learning. At Years 7‑10, the draft bundles textiles, hard materials, food and biotechnology into a single “Materials and Processing Strand,” a combination that association chair Hamish Johnston argues is untenable given the specialised spaces, equipment and teacher expertise required. He also noted that the draft reduces time for technology while increasing it for English and maths, adding to teacher workload amid years of continual curriculum change.
Arts: Creativity Marginalised and Māori Content Tokenistic
Drama New Zealand’s submission criticised the decision to combine dance and drama into a single “performing arts” area, calling it problematic and devaluing both disciplines. The draft contains very little, if any, authentic Māori knowledge, with what is present described as tokenistic. The submission argued that the document does not reflect international research on effective arts curriculum design and fails to nurture creativity. Similarly, Music Education New Zealand Aotearoa warned that the music component is overly focused on formal lessons and assumes the presence of specialist music teachers, which most primary schools lack. Association chair Kat Daniels said the curriculum would exacerbate existing inequities, as students without dedicated music time in primary school would enter secondary school at a disadvantage. She stressed that the draft must be teachable by generalist teachers and pointed out numerous basic errors that the Ministry would need to correct before implementation.
Science: Overcrowded, Advanced and Lacking Local Context
A submission from Bay Science, representing teachers in the Bay of Plenty, revealed that 80 % of respondents felt the science draft contained far too much content, while 84 % wanted significant changes. Teachers’ notes highlighted that many concepts are pitched at an inappropriate level for the intended age group, with comments such as “way too early for this” and “difficult concept at this level.” The inclusion of the Greek scientist Theophrastus for Year 1 students was labelled “just silly” and “ridiculous.” Beyond the volume, the draft is criticised for lacking a New Zealand flavour; it aligns closely with UK and US curricula but omits the local “nature of science” emphasis that has been a cornerstone of New Zealand science education for over a decade. Intermediate school science specialist John Marsh acknowledged some useful clear principles and exemplars but warned that the draft’s reliance on textbook‑driven, content‑heavy approaches would be less engaging for New Zealand learners, who benefit from hands‑on investigation and discussion.
Social Sciences and History: Euro‑centric and Fragmented
The New Zealand History Teachers Association’s submission on the draft social sciences curriculum argued that the document, as written, would undermine effective teaching and student learning. It accused the draft of being euro‑centric, presenting New Zealand history in a cursory, monocultural manner that reinforces outdated myths and marginalises Māori perspectives. The association criticised the chronological sequencing of topics, saying it creates a disconnected experience rather than a cumulative pathway of understanding. It also noted that, while the draft references “Science of Learning” principles, it does not enable them in practice, leading to excessive cognitive load due to dense, unprioritised content. The submission warned that the rapid pace of curriculum change is layering multiple demands on schools, increasing workloads and threatening teacher recruitment and retention.
Māori Content and Treaty Obligations: A Persistent Gap
Across all subject‑specific submissions, a common refrain was the lack of meaningful Māori content and the failure to honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Drama New Zealand described indigenous knowledge in the performing arts as tokenistic; the Bay of Plenty science teachers said the draft’s guiding kaupapa of “excellent equitable outcomes, reflecting the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi” is nowhere evident in the science document. The History Teachers Association claimed the social sciences draft breaches Treaty‑derived principles, while Physical Education NZ argued the health‑and‑PE curriculum weakens the bicultural foundations that underpin learning in Aotearoa. These critiques underscore a sector‑wide concern that the drafts treat Māori perspectives as an add‑on rather than an integral, woven‑through component of the curriculum.
Implementation Timeline and Sector Strain
Many principal groups and sector leaders have labelled the proposed rollout timeline as unworkable. The Ministry intends to have the science, social sciences and health‑PE curriculums in use by 2025, with the arts, technology and learning languages following from 2028. Critics argue that this schedule layers major change atop years of ongoing reform, leaving teachers little time to adapt, develop resources or undertake necessary professional development. Education Minister Erica Stanford has said she will announce decisions on the curriculum soon, but stakeholders urged that the current drafts require substantial revision rather than minor adjustments, warning that attempting to “tweak” the documents would produce incoherent, difficult‑to‑implement frameworks that fail to deliver meaningful outcomes for learners.
Conclusion
The consultation feedback reveals deep dissatisfaction with the six draft curriculums for Years 0‑10. While the goal of providing clearer, year‑by‑year expectations is welcomed, the drafts are seen as overcrowded, poorly sequenced, insufficiently resourced and lacking authentic Māori content. Subjects such as physical education, technology, the arts, science and social sciences each face specific structural and pedagogical challenges that, according to the sector, would require a fundamental rewrite rather than superficial fixes. As the Ministry moves toward finalising the curriculums, addressing these concerns—particularly the integration of mātauranga Māori, realistic time allocations, and coherent progression of learning—will be essential to ensure the new framework supports effective, equitable teaching and learning across Aotearoa New Zealand.