5th May 2026
Educators have criticised Year 0-10 draft curriculum documents, saying they’re overloaded, confusing and in some cases unteachable.
Teachers across music, physical education, science, technology, arts and social sciences have shown concern that the proposed Years 0–10 curriculum, which would replace the current framework with more detailed year-by-year expectations, risks reducing teaching quality while increasing workload for already stretched schools.
The Government plans to begin rolling out new science, social sciences, and health and physical education curricula next year, with arts, technology and languages to follow in 2028. However, many education groups say the pace of change is unrealistic and poorly supported.
The Government plans to finalise the curriculum later this year, with science, social sciences, and health and physical education due to be implemented next year, followed by arts, technology, and languages from 2028.
However, principals’ organisations and education groups have repeatedly warned that the rollout timeline is too fast and places additional strain on schools already dealing with staffing pressures and workload challenges.
“The proposed curriculum is not fit for purpose, it’s confusing, it will take students back 60 or 70 years, the time allocations for particular subjects are very unrealistic, and some curriculum documents make totally false assumptions about students and teachers,” says Chris Abercrombie, PPTA Te Wehengarua president.
Physical Education New Zealand said the draft requires a complete rewrite, arguing it narrows learning too heavily towards sport-based skills at the expense of broader concepts such as movement, identity, and wellbeing. Educators also warned that this could reduce the subject to a “skills and drills” approach, limiting its modern educational purpose.
Technology teachers raised concerns about the structure of the curriculum, particularly the merging of distinct disciplines such as textiles, food, hard materials, and biotechnology into broader strands.
They said this risks creating unworkable classroom conditions, especially in schools without specialist facilities or staffing. Concerns were also raised about the limited allocated teaching time, with some arguing it would prevent deep and meaningful learning.
Science educators described parts of the draft as overly ambitious for certain age levels, with content sometimes seen as poorly sequenced or developmentally inappropriate.
Some teachers welcomed clearer guidance compared to previous curricula, but others warned that a more rigid or textbook-focused approach could reduce hands-on inquiry and student engagement.
Arts educators also expressed concern about structural changes, particularly the combining of dance and drama into a single learning area.
Music educators warned that the draft places too little emphasis on creativity and could increase inequities between schools with specialist teachers and those without, limiting access to meaningful music education for many students.
Across multiple submissions, educators raised concerns about the treatment of Māori knowledge and Te Tiriti o Waitangi principles. Many said references were inconsistent or insufficiently embedded, raising questions about how well the curriculum reflects New Zealand’s bicultural foundations.
History and social sciences teachers warned that the draft risks creating fragmented learning experiences due to its structure, arguing that too much content is included without a clear progression of skills and understanding. Some also raised concerns that the pace and scale of change could place additional pressure on teacher recruitment and retention.
Education leaders are now awaiting further announcements from the Ministry of Education as submissions are reviewed and final decisions are made.
However, across subject areas, the feedback highlights a consistent call for greater clarity, improved coherence, and a more realistic approach to implementation in classrooms.
“It is really clear that teachers – the professionals who know their subjects inside out – have been excluded from the curriculum development process and the results of that are extremely concerning,” Abercrombie says.
“We are highly concerned with what the senior secondary (Year 11-13) draft curriculum that is due to be released this month will look like. There is no way the secondary material is going to be able to be changed to reflect the feedback that has been given for the junior curriculum.”
