Education Ministry Defends Draft Curriculums Amid Criticism Over Reduced Māori Content
The Ministry of Education says the reduced presence of Māori language and concepts in New Zealand’s new draft school curriculums is not the result of any government directive, but a byproduct of making the documents more specific about what teachers must teach.
Deputy secretary Pauline Cleaver, who oversees the curriculum centre, said the ministry is taking widespread criticism seriously and will spend the next six months consulting with teachers, principals, and subject associations.
“We’ll consider all feedback — we always do — and then provide advice to government on what should be changed or considered,” Cleaver told RNZ.
The drafts, which cover six learning areas for Years 0–10, have drawn backlash from educators who say they include too much content, too little Māori, and too much prescription.
Ministry Rejects Claims of Political Interference
Cleaver said there was no instruction — written or verbal — to reduce Māori content or Treaty of Waitangi references. Instead, she said, the change stemmed from efforts to make expectations clearer.
“It may be that in places, in that specificity and clarity we’ve given teachers, we haven’t used as much Te Reo as we’ve used in the past,” she said.
Cleaver stressed that the overarching framework, Te Mātaiaho, still reflects Treaty principles and that teachers remain expected to use te reo Māori and teach students to pronounce kupu Māori correctly.
“If through the feedback people think we can strengthen that in areas, I’ll be really interested to see those examples,” she said.
Ministry Denies Foreign Contractors Wrote Drafts
Cleaver also dismissed rumours that foreign consultants were behind the new curriculums.
“The ministry holds the pen on the curriculum and makes all the decisions about what content is in it,” she said.
She confirmed the ministry consulted New Zealand subject associations and benchmarked against overseas systems, but emphasised:
“We’re writing a New Zealand curriculum for New Zealand kids.”
Cleaver denied that sections of the Social Sciences curriculum were copied from the UK, saying similarities exist only because “the chronological order of history doesn’t change.”
Teachers Voice Strong Criticism
Teacher associations across multiple subjects have condemned the drafts. Many say their input has been ignored and that references to Māori knowledge, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and Te Ao Māori have been significantly reduced.
Te Akatea, the Māori principals’ association, called the framework “recolonising” and accused it of perpetuating racism and inequity.
The Aotearoa Social Studies Educators’ Network said the social sciences document reads “like a collection of facts,” not a meaningful, knowledge-rich curriculum.
The NZ History Teachers Association described the approach as “an explicit recolonisation,” warning that iwi and hapū histories could disappear from classrooms.
Arts and Technology educators said the new focus is too narrow, overlooking Māori arts, creative thinking, and practical skills.
Health and PE teachers criticised a return to “drills and skills,” saying the broader intent of physical education has been lost.
Language teachers were “appalled” that language learning — including te reo Māori — would remain optional in primary years.
Even maths and English teachers, who have already implemented earlier versions of their curriculums, expressed frustration over new rewrites that they say undo months of progress and reduce Māori perspectives.
Ministry Promises to Rebalance After Feedback
Cleaver said the ministry wants to ensure the curriculum sets clear national expectations while still allowing local flexibility for schools to reflect community values and histories.
“We want that knowledge to build over time and for teachers to notice when there are gaps,” she said. “The result we’re looking for is much more equitable outcomes for all students across Aotearoa.”