As the Government rolls out the biggest overhaul of New Zealand's school curriculum in nearly two decades, five high school teachers explain why the reforms have them very concerned. Mava Moayyed reports.
New Zealand is implementing the most significant education overhaul in a generation, replacing the national curriculum across every year level from primary through to secondary school.
Some educators and politicians argued the previous 2007 curriculum gave schools too much flexibility, leading to inconsistencies in what students were taught and achieved across the country.
The new curriculum aims to address that by setting out in much greater detail what students should learn at each stage of their education.
Education Minister Erica Stanford says the reforms, alongside changes such as replacing NCEA, will raise standards and better prepare young people for the future.
"If you get a quality curriculum that's consistent across the country, if you have quality teachers [and] the right teaching practices... you can change their circumstances," Stanford previously told TVNZ.
The creation of the new curriculum has attracted much controversy. There was criticism of the Government’s “flip-flop” approach to the Treaty of Waitangi – removing then reinstating references to it in the curriculum. Also criticised was its alleged use of AI in the writing process and its contracting of an Australian company to help create maths content, with the latter two issues prompting a formal complaint from a former Education Ministry employee.
Nevertheless, the curriculum is in various stages of completion and rollout is already underway. The junior English and maths curricula are in place, with all remaining subjects to follow by 2030. While many teachers agree the old system needed updating, some warn the new version is being rushed through with too much content and too little support.
Five high school teachers spoke anonymously to 1News about what they believe the changes mean for their subjects.
Watch this story on TVNZ+.
Maths: 'It's unrealistic, will lead to failure'
A maths teacher with 10 years' experience says the sheer volume of content sets students up to feel like failures early on.
“My first reaction when I was looking through the new curriculum was, ‘oh no’.
“There's just way too much at every single year level, from new entrants all the way up to year 13. There isn't a single year where the students could have a little bit of wiggle room or revisit some old concepts if they didn't get them.
“When we look at some of the early primary teaching, they introduce concepts that we actually know students are not ready to understand. What do you think is going to happen to those students? They're probably just going to end up with a hatred of maths. We don't need more people who fail at it and hate it.
“I've seen the vast majority of my classes not meet expectations relative to this new curriculum, and I just saw their faces drop. They're starting to just see themselves as failures because they're being measured on something that isn't realistic
“What [the Government] is doing now is going to have the largest negative effect on our country that I've seen in my lifetime and they need to stop.”
History: 'Almost a return to the 1980s'
A history and social sciences teacher with 18 years' experience fears the new approach strips away core analytical skills.
“There were issues with the old curriculum. It was maybe a bit too flexible and kids were not getting the same basics at the start, but I think we have swung the pendulum way too far the other direction.
“It is almost taking us back to the 1980s. It's a very rote learnt style curriculum. Any of the deeper thinking was just removed from it.
“There is no real value in being the pub quiz champion of the school, learning every single fact and date. You need to know how to research, and how to think critically.
“We're going to lose out on that critical thinking ability, which is absolutely vital for democracy.
“I can tell you right now that the majority of students are going to be harmed by it. They're going to get less understanding.
“Will they want to take senior history after 10 years of memorising facts and information? It's going to turn them off.”
English: ‘I was struck by how boring it was’
An English teacher with ten years' experience worries unengaging material will push students away.
“This curriculum has an extreme degree of cognitive load. We've gone from around 200 total outcomes in the old curriculum to almost 600 in the new curriculum. So it actually triples the number of things which a teacher needs to make sure they're teaching.
“English is already a pretty hard learning area. If you set your standard too high, you're going to watch a whole bunch of students smack into it and find they can't pass, and it's going to be deeply demoralising.
“The thing which really struck me was how boring [the content] was. I wouldn't be surprised if we see a drop off in the number of students taking English as a subject.
“I think a lot of students are going to find themselves failing English, whether through finding that the content is too challenging, or that it's so uninteresting and unappealing that they can't engage with it.”
Science: 'School won't be ready’
While high aspirations are welcome, a science and chemistry teacher of 10 years warns that tight deadlines and lack of resources leave schools facing an impossible scramble.
“There's something to be said for having high aspirations for our young people and what they can learn in science, because I don't think New Zealand students are any less capable of learning difficult science than students in Singapore or Estonia or England or Australia.
“[But] there's a risk that the sudden increase in challenge and difficulty results in a lot more students feeling worse about school, and that's a real concern.
“We've got to implement for year nine and 10 all of the new learning areas as of next year and, as far as we know, we aren't going to get those curriculum documents until probably September.
“We need things like teaching resources to use in classrooms, we need time and professional development days in school. In many cases, schools are going to need additional staffing, or even additional rooms.
“School won't be ready, to put it bluntly.
Media Studies: 'Students are going to be spoon-fed’
A media studies teacher of six years argues that without proper professional development, students are simply being "spoon-fed".
“There's too much content.
“I think there's going to be major long-term impacts in terms of students who are going to be just spoon-fed content versus being able to critically think for themselves.
“We're also just being given content without the professional development needed in order to make sure that teachers are ready to teach the subject to students.
“We are not seeing adequate resourcing to ensure that this curriculum is going to be done in a way that helps our students.
“I think the number one thing is to take on the feedback and actually to recognise the feedback of the teachers who are giving it, because they are in the classroom every day, and they understand what they're talking about.”
Erica Stanford: ‘Can’t afford to sit around’
In May, Education Minister Erica Stanford, appearing on Q+A with Jack Tame, said she knows there has been pushback and says she is willing to listen.
“I’m always prepared to listen to the sector… and I’m always willing to pump the brakes slightly.
“It's a careful balance between understanding that 60,000 children start school every year, and we can't afford to sit around and talk about it forever while we fail another generation of young people.
“[The reforms] will ultimately mean that parents and students can have confidence that they are receiving a world-leading education through a curriculum that is knowledge-rich and sets out the skills and knowledge that they need to be successful in the subject that they're studying.
“No matter if you're at a school in the South Island, a school in the North Island, you're getting a great education.”
Ministry spokesperson responds to teachers' fears
In light of the fears expressed by teachers, 1News put a series of questions to the Education Ministry and received written responses from Pauline Cleaver, deputy secretary at the Ministry's Te Poutāhū (curriculum centre).
Asked about concerns that too much content had been crammed into the new curriculum, Cleaver said the Ministry had included comprehensive draft content in the consultation so teachers could help identify what was most important for students to learn. "And we are carefully considering feedback on the amount of content as we finalise the curriculum," she said.
With regard to teachers' saying the curriculum encouraged students to rote-learn excessive facts at the expense of their critical thinking skills, Cleaver said: "It is not about memorising facts – it is about developing understanding and making meaning, while building strong foundations for future learning."
More than 300 subject advisers, including teachers, had contributed to developing the curriculum, she said.
Questioned about concerns that the curriculum would increase student failure and disengagement, Cleaver said the Ministry had invested in resources, professional learning and acceleration programmes to support students who needed extra help.
And with regard to teachers feeling their feedback had been ignored, Cleaver said the feedback had been welcomed. "We have already changed the rollout timeframe in response to feedback from teachers and school leaders.
"The final curriculum will be published later this year and implemented progressively from 2028 to 2030, giving schools time to prepare and plan for change," she said.
Watch this story on TVNZ+.
SHARE ME