Summarised by Centrist
The government’s draft Years 0-10 curricula are drawing strong criticism from specialist teachers.
Many objections focused on reduced Treaty, Māori and identity-based framing, alongside a more prescriptive return to subject knowledge and measurable skills.
The drafts would replace a curriculum many considered too vague with clearer year-by-year requirements for what teachers must teach.
Submissions from music, physical education, science, technology, arts and history teachers all raised concerns, with every submission it saw objecting to a lack of “meaningful Māori content”.
Drama New Zealand said there was “very little, if any, indigenous knowledge” in performing arts, calling what remained “tokenistic”.
Bay of Plenty science teachers said the draft’s guiding kaupapa of “excellent equitable outcomes, reflecting the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi” was “not evident anywhere in the science draft”.
The New Zealand History Teachers Association went further, saying the social sciences draft breached principles derived from Te Tiriti and had a “eurocentric positionality”. It warned the new curriculum will “harm” Māori students.
Physical Education New Zealand also objected to a shift back toward physical competency and sport-based instruction. Managing director Heemi McDonald said the draft “drives physical education back down to a skills-and-drills kind of approach”, comparing it to the 1950s and 1960s.
He said PE should teach more than sport, including “identity and relationships”.
Science teachers said the draft had “far too much content”, with some material too advanced for younger children. One reference to Greek scientist Theophrastus for Year 1 students was called “just silly” and “ridiculous”.
The government wants the new documents finalised later this year.
