History of education in New Zealand facts for kids

Kids Encyclopedia Facts

The way schools developed in New Zealand has been shaped by how Māori, missionaries, early settlers, and the government worked together. In 1852, the New Zealand government took on a big role in making laws about education.

At first, the aim was to teach Māori in a European way and encourage them to adopt European customs. However, Māori actively joined in. They wanted to keep their traditional knowledge and language alive. They went to mission schools, questioned some parts of the Native schools, and later created their own schools called Kura Kaupapa Māori.

Over the years, many laws were passed to try and make education fair for everyone and help people improve their lives. In the late 1980s, there were big changes. Schools became more self-managing, and the old Department of Education was replaced by the Ministry of Education. This new Ministry helps carry out government plans for education. These systems are still mostly in place today.

How Primary Schools Started

Traditional Māori Learning

Before Europeans arrived, Māori had their own way of sharing knowledge. Elders taught important skills like fishing, hunting, building communities, and crafts such as weaving. Special skills like wood carving were taught by experts. Tribal laws and history were passed down in whare wānanga, which were like houses of learning.

Understanding and respecting tapu (sacred rules) was a key part of Māori education. Songs (waiata), proverbs (whakataukī), stories (pūrākau), and family trees (whakapapa) helped share history, values, and good ways to behave. This old system was very clever and worked well for Māori society.

Mission Schools

When Māori first met the European education system, there were some differences in how people thought about teaching and learning. The first European-style school for Māori was set up in 1816 by a missionary named Thomas Kendall. It was in Rangihoua, in the Bay of Islands.

This school started with 33 students and grew to 70 within a year. Students mostly learned the alphabet, simple Māori grammar, and religious lessons by repeating them. The first school closed in 1818 because of problems with students attending and getting enough food, but it reopened a year later in Kerikeri. Missionaries wanted Māori to read the Bible, but Māori were also keen to learn reading and writing to understand the new European world with its ships, guns, and tools.

Early Government Laws for Schools

Constitution Act 1852

This law divided New Zealand into different areas called provinces. Each provincial council became responsible for education. Some councils helped fund church schools instead of setting up public schools. The six provinces (Auckland, New Plymouth, Wellington, Nelson, Canterbury, and Otago) decided how to pay for schools, what to teach, and who could enroll. Each province managed education differently because they all had their own challenges in building up their areas.

Education Ordinance 1847

In 1847, Governor George Grey made a law to support the existing mission schools. This law, the Educational Ordinance 1847, said that the government would inspect schools. It also made English a key part of the New Zealand education system for everyone, including Māori. The idea behind this was to encourage Māori to adopt British ways, as many believed British culture was better. Education was seen as a way to make Māori more peaceful and to train them for jobs to help build the new colony. Some people saw this law as a way to control Māori and reduce the use of the Māori language in schools.

Native Schools Act 1858

This law provided money for mission schools, but it said that Māori students had to live at the schools. Not many Māori attended these schools by 1850. Because the government struggled to find money, most mission schools closed in the 1860s. In the 1850s, many European settlers (Pākehā) couldn't read or write. Some schools were started by religious groups, and others by provincial governments. Areas like Nelson and Otago had better-funded schools than northern areas like Auckland. However, the Auckland Board of Education was set up in 1857 and had 45 schools by 1863.

Native Schools Act 1867

This law created a system of non-religious primary schools in Māori villages. These schools were controlled by the Department of Native Affairs. Māori communities could ask for a school for their children and help pay for the land, building costs, and teachers' salaries. Even with these costs, many Māori communities saw the value of learning English. By 1879, there were 57 Native schools. This law took control of Māori schooling away from the missionaries and gave it to the state.

Some people thought the lawmakers wanted to "civilise" Māori and teach them European ways. Others believed it was a way to help Māori develop their language and culture. However, some historians say the law was meant to make Māori more like Europeans and replace the Māori language with English. It was also seen as a way to control Māori and help the economy.

Native Schools Code 1880

In 1879, Native schools came under the control of the new Department of Education. This meant they operated separately from public schools. The Department of Education focused on what was taught and how well teachers taught, aiming to make Māori part of the state education system. A report in 1879 even said that the Māori language "ought to be very little, if at all," used in schools.

Because of this, the Native Schools Code was created in 1880 by James Pope. He wanted state schools for Māori, where communities would help pay for them. The curriculum included reading, writing, arithmetic, and geography, but with a strong focus on English. Teachers were expected to be role models for the whole Māori community, supporting the idea of Māori becoming more like Europeans.

Education Act 1877

In 1876, the provincial governments were removed, leading to a more central education system. The Education Act 1877 created New Zealand's first national system of primary education that was non-religious, compulsory, and free. This meant Pākehā children aged 7 to 13 had to go to primary school. Māori children could also attend these schools, but it wasn't compulsory for them.

The law also aimed to improve the quality of education, as schools varied a lot. Before this, children went to schools run by provincial governments, churches, or private groups. The law's success depended on whether it could be put into practice and if there were enough resources. Many children, especially those in rural areas who helped their families with farm work, still found it hard to attend school. The curriculum included reading, writing, arithmetic, history, and geography. Girls also learned sewing, and boys learned military drill. The School Attendance Act 1894 later made it clear that children aged 7 to 13 had to attend school at least six times a week.

The 1877 Act helped some Māori and women go on to higher education. For example, over 500 Māori girls went to Hukarere Girls' College between 1877 and 1900. Āpirana Ngata went to Te Aute College at age 10 in 1884. He won a scholarship and was the first Māori to graduate from a New Zealand university. He later became an important politician.

This law also clearly separated primary and secondary education. Primary school was a right for everyone, but getting into secondary school was much harder.

Early Secondary Schools

The 1877 Act didn't cover secondary schooling. At that time, secondary schools were set up by groups like the New Zealand Company, provincial councils, private donors, and a few Māori church boarding schools that used to be mission schools. Some primary schools that added higher classes were also recognized as District High Schools under the 1877 Education Act.

Nelson College, which opened on April 7, 1856, is considered the first state secondary school in New Zealand.

Around 1900, secondary education was mostly for wealthy families whose children planned to go to university or have professional careers. It wasn't free. In 1901, less than 3% of 12- to 18-year-olds went to public secondary schools. Opportunities improved around 1902 when secondary schools received money to accept more students.

Changes made by the Secretary of Education, George Hogben, raised the school leaving age to 14. The Secondary Schools Act 1903 said that secondary schools had to offer free education to students who passed a certain exam. The Education Act 1914 created a national system for grading teachers and confirmed that secondary schools had to offer free education to those who passed a proficiency exam. By 1921, nearly 13% of 12- to 18-year-olds attended a secondary school, and by 1926, this number was 25%.

Most schools continued to teach traditional subjects and had strict rules. They tried to balance teaching culture and morals with practical job training.

Technical High Schools Introduced

In the early 1900s, technical high schools were created to help train people for jobs. They offered practical, job-focused training. However, they weren't very successful. Parents often saw traditional secondary schools as a better path to high-status jobs and a better life. Technical schools were sometimes seen as being for less-able students.

The Manual and Technical Institutions Acts of 1900 and 1902 did lead to the creation of technical high schools and provided money to all schools that taught subjects like cooking, woodwork, and agriculture.

During the 1920s and 1930s, there was a growing focus on job training. This was part of a wider trend in Western countries to shift education from spiritual and cultural learning to training people for the workforce.

Before the 1940s, students in different types of secondary schools learned different things. In 1926, a quarter of secondary students went to technical schools, 2% to Māori schools (which focused on practical skills), 12% to district or agricultural high schools, 10% to private schools, and just over 50% to state secondary schools.

The Thomas Report, 1944

The Atmore Report of 1930 was an important document. Many of its ideas were finally supported by Labour Prime Minister Peter Fraser, who brought in major changes in the late 1930s and 1940s.

From 1944, as part of the Labour Government's "Cradle to Grave" social reforms after the Great Depression, secondary education became free and compulsory up to age 15.

The Thomas Report of 1944 created a common, core, and free secondary school curriculum for everyone. This curriculum stayed in place for 50 years. It introduced School Certificate exams, taken at the end of Fifth Form, and replaced Matriculation with University Entrance exams, taken at the end of Sixth Form. The curriculum included both practical and academic subjects. It aimed to help students with different abilities, interests, and backgrounds.

However, even with this core curriculum (which included reading, writing, maths, science, social studies, physical education, and arts and crafts), students were often separated into different ability groups. Teachers believed students learned better when grouped by ability, based on intelligence tests. These groups were divided into academic, business, and home economics or trades. Students in different groups received different versions of the core curriculum.

After World War Two, it was still hard to achieve equal educational opportunities for everyone. Many students' experiences were still affected by their social class, race, gender, religion, and where they lived. For example, in 1953, 40% of Māori still attended Māori primary schools. A study in 1969 showed that only 1% of students at the private Auckland Grammar school came from working-class families.

The Currie Report

In 1960, the government set up a group called the Commission on Education in New Zealand to look at many parts of the country's education system. The Commission, led by George Currie, was asked to "examine primary, secondary and technical education in relation to the present needs of the country." After hearing from many people, they found eight main areas of concern. These included teacher training, school management, the need for Māori education to offer "equality of opportunity," checking school work quality, religious education, and government help for private schools.

In 1962, the Commission released its findings in the Currie Report. This was an important policy statement with suggestions for new laws, including the Education Act (1964), which later lowered the compulsory school starting age from 7 to 6 years old. Some people later said the report covered too many areas and was too expensive to put into practice. However, almost a quarter of its suggestions were about recruiting, training, and working conditions for teachers.

Later experts agreed the report generally supported the existing education system. The Commission's findings were agreed upon by everyone and showed no disagreement with the main goals of New Zealand education. These goals were that schooling should provide equal opportunities, that the system was improving, and that the government should continue to "provide and control education." This showed a common belief in the 1950s and 1960s that education was a key part of New Zealand's identity, reflecting a desire for fairness and equality.

Education Conference 1974

During the 1970s, more and more people called for a review of the central education system. A two-year Educational Conference, led by Education Minister Phil Amos, finished in 1974. This involved "50,000 parents, teachers, administrators and interested laypeople" discussing many parts of the education system. It encouraged more involvement from parents and the community in education decisions. The conference concluded that there were problems with the system being too big and slow, especially for the needs of women, girls, Māori, and other minority groups who were becoming more vocal at this time. The conference also questioned whether everyone had equal opportunities and suggested giving money to help disadvantaged groups.

More Reports

Other reports also raised concerns about education in New Zealand. The McComb Report (1976), called Towards Partnership, said that problems included a lack of parent involvement and too much power held by the Department of Education. The Scott Report, An Inquiry into the Quality of Teaching (1986), said that for teacher training to be good, it needed to be based on research that clearly identified the necessary teaching skills.

Māori Education 1960 to 1990

In the 1960s, people became more aware that the education system wasn't meeting the needs of Māori children. The Hunn Report in 1961 showed that Māori were not achieving as well in education. The report suggested a shift from assimilation (making Māori like Europeans) to integration (bringing Māori into the system while respecting their culture), but little changed. At the time, many believed the problems were because Māori came from "culturally deprived backgrounds." It was suggested that the government should focus on improving English programs to fix this.

The Hunn Report also said that because more Māori were moving to cities, the separate schools set up under the Native Schools Act 1867 were no longer needed and should become part of the state school system. The Currie Report in 1962 supported this idea, and by 1969, all Native schools had either been "absorbed or closed." Politician Matiu Rata was surprised how smoothly this happened, but Hirini Mead, who had taught in Native Schools, felt it was a "shock and betrayal." However, Linda Tuhiwai Smith argued that while native schools did try to "Europeanise" Māori, Māori themselves fought back. They used education to improve their lives, showing great determination and hope.

While the Currie Report supported the idea that New Zealand's education system was making good progress towards equal opportunities, it also noted that Māori were not being well served. However, it didn't make specific suggestions to fix this. One reviewer pointed out that the Commission that created the Currie Report wasn't specifically asked to look at Māori education, but it found that Māori children and schools faced special difficulties everywhere.

In the late 1960s, there was growing support for recognizing the Māori language, led by groups like Ngā Tamatoa. A petition in 1967, organized by Patu Hohepa, stated that the Māori language "forms part of our national heritage."

By the 1970s, the government started to recognize different cultures by creating multicultural programs and introducing taha Māori (Māori culture and language) into some schools. This was an attempt to "quieten Māori resistance" but didn't change the unequal power between Māori and non-Māori. The Educational Development Conference in 1974 concluded that there were unfairness in society reflected in the education system, meaning "equality of opportunity was not being realised."

Māori protest grew, and the creation of the Waitangi Tribunal in 1973 showed that little was known about the Treaty of Waitangi in schools. As Māori questioned how the state could protect their culture, the importance of language became very clear. In 1982, the first Te Kōhanga Reo (Māori language immersion pre-school) opened. The Waitangi Tribunal recognized that the language needed to be protected under the Treaty in 1985. In that same year, the first Māori language school, Kura Kaupapa Māori, was set up at Hoani Waititi Marae in Auckland. These schools were officially recognized by the Education Amendment Act 1989.

While Te Kōhanga Reo and Kura Kaupapa Māori initially aimed to save the language, they became part of a larger movement. This movement, supported by the Ministry of Education's Māori strategic plan in 2003, aimed to help Māori have full access to their culture, language, resources, and customs (tikanga). Graham Hingangaroa Smith saw this as a big change in how Māori thought, becoming more active and motivated to bring back the Māori imagination that had been held back by colonization.

1980s and 1990s Reforms

Background

Because of the issues raised in the 1970s, New Zealand education went through big changes in the 1980s. There was criticism from both left-wing groups, who pointed out ongoing unfairness in education, and right-wing groups, who questioned if the government was always fair and efficient. This led to a common discussion about the need for big changes in education, supported by different groups.

The Labour government from 1984-1990, led by David Lange, introduced many free-market economic changes. In 1987, the New Zealand Treasury (the government's financial advisors) wrote a report for the government that focused on education. The report said that while much of the state system was working, some government actions had created unfair structures and funding that disadvantaged many students. It concluded that government action was needed in primary education to ensure fair results and equal opportunities, and it stressed the importance of families and schools working together.

The report also noted that, in economic terms, education was not truly a "public good" and was "never free." It said that "educational services are like other goods traded in the market place."

In April 1987, the Labour government released The Curriculum Review after two years of public discussion. It suggested guidelines for a national curriculum that would be "accessible to every student; non-racist and non-sexist; able to ensure significant success for all students; whole; balanced; of the highest quality for every student; planned; co-operatively designed; responsive, inclusive, enabling, enjoyable." While educators liked this document, the Treasury felt it didn't address the link between education and the economy or how to manage student choice. One expert also noted that this curriculum review was not mentioned in Administering for Excellence, also known as the Picot Report, which was a key part of the reform process.

Administering for Excellence

A businessman named Brian Picot led a special group called the Taskforce to Review Education. Other members included an education researcher, a college lecturer, a social researcher from the Department of Māori Affairs, and another businessman.

Their final report, Administering for Excellence, was released in May 1988. It pointed out five main problems in New Zealand's education system: decisions were too centralized, the system was too complicated, there wasn't enough information or choice, management wasn't effective, and parents, communities, and teachers felt powerless. The Taskforce suggested replacing the Department of Education with a Ministry of Education and getting rid of regional education boards. It also recommended that all schools become independent and self-managing, controlled by locally elected boards of trustees. These boards would be responsible for student learning, budgets, and hiring teachers. The report also recognized the importance of biculturalism (two cultures) in education and claimed the new structure would help Māori achieve their goals.

Tomorrow's Schools

In August 1988, the newly re-elected Labour government, with David Lange as Minister of Education, published Tomorrow's Schools. This document accepted most of the Picot Report's suggestions.

The government replaced the Department of Education with the Ministry of Education (MoE). The MoE's job was to advise the Minister, review the curriculum, set national guidelines, approve school plans (charters), and manage school buildings. The Education Review Office (ERO) became an independent agency to check how well schools were doing. Boards of Trustees were made responsible for creating school charters.

The changes became law with the passing of the Education Act 1989. Under this Act, the Regional Boards, which had been set up by provincial governments and later divided into 10 Education Boards in 1877, were abolished. Schools became independent, managed by Boards of Trustees. This model is still used today. In 1989, the school leaving age was raised from 15 to 16, taking effect from January 1, 1993.

National Standards

On April 10, 2007, the National Party government announced a policy for National Standards. This required all primary and intermediate schools in New Zealand to focus on clear standards in reading, writing, and maths. They also had to use good assessment programs and report clearly to parents. The idea was to have shared expectations about what students should achieve and to find students who might be struggling with basic skills.

The Education (National Standards) Amendment Bill, introduced in December 2008, gave the Minister of Education, Anne Tolley, the power to talk with the education sector about setting and designing national standards. Schools would report to parents on their child's progress using these standards. Schools could choose different assessment tools, and parents would have the right to see all assessment information and get regular, easy-to-understand reports. In August 2009, Tolley announced a timeline for putting the Standards in place. She said that from 2012, school annual reports would include data showing progress and achievement related to the standards.

Early concerns were raised about how quickly the Standards were being introduced and that they hadn't been tested. Some principals asked for a "robust trial" to prove they were accurate and helpful, and that there would be no school ranking lists. The idea of schools being ranked was also seen as a problem by some experts. Other principals' groups had concerns, such as the idea that "all children can achieve at the same level at the same time each year." They worried the Standards might make the curriculum too narrow, focusing only on reading and maths. Some Māori educators also felt the Standards didn't reflect a Māori worldview and would disadvantage Māori learners.

Academic experts questioned why the Minister was focusing on reading and maths when there were assessment issues in other subjects. They also suggested there was no proof the standards would work, that they were complicated, and that it would be hard to compare data from different sources. An open letter from academics to Minister Tolley saw some good in clearly identifying student achievement levels but noted "flaws," including the possibility of labeling students as "failures" and harming the curriculum.

Between May and July 2009, the Ministry of Education received feedback on the proposed National Standards from parents, teachers, principals, and Boards of Trustees. A report on these findings in August 2009 showed that parents generally supported the idea of learning goals for their children. They also liked getting information about achievement, with many saying that schools could best help them by sharing information about their child's progress in a timely way. However, 38% of parents expressed concerns.

Feedback from the education sector showed worries about "labeling" students, how the standards would work for students with special needs, a possible narrowing of the curriculum, and fear that data could be published in league tables comparing schools. However, this group also stressed the importance of parents getting clear, timely, honest, and accurate information about their child's progress, covering "the whole child as an individual."

Initially, some schools did not follow the assessment and reporting process. In 2012, Hekia Parata, the Minister of Education at the time, said this was "unacceptable." In June 2013, Parata said that National Standards data showed some "concerning trends," including achievement being "significantly lower for Māori and Pasifika learners than for others" and boys falling behind girls.

A survey in November 2013 found that only 7% of principals and 15% of teachers thought the standards themselves were strong. However, trustees and some parents said they understood the standards well. The survey concluded that "there has been no marked difference in student achievement since the standards were introduced and no evidence that standards have spurred parents of low performing students to become more engaged in their children's learning." A 2016 survey also found that while National Standards were used by schools, questions remained about their role in student learning.

Educational Reforms 2017-2023

National Standards Removed

On December 12, 2017, the Labour government announced that National Standards in reading, writing, and maths would be removed. Education Minister Chris Hipkins said parents had lost trust in the standards. From 2018, schools would no longer have to report student results using these standards to the Ministry of Education. This decision was expected, as all three parties in the Labour-led government had promised to get rid of the benchmarks for primary and intermediate school children. The decision was widely welcomed and supported.

Review of Tomorrow's Schools

Bali Haque, who led the review of Tomorrow's Schools.

From 2009, there had been calls to review the Tomorrow's Schools model. On February 21, 2018, the media reported that Chris Hipkins would likely announce a review of many parts of the education system, including Tomorrow's Schools. When the review was confirmed, some said its success depended on it being a "genuine partnership" with the government and avoiding too much political interference. The review aimed to see if the way schools were governed and managed was still working to ensure "every learner achieves educational success."

An independent taskforce was appointed on April 3, 2018, with Bali Haque as its leader. Between May and October 2018, the Taskforce met with many people involved in education. A report was released for public discussion in December 2018.

The Taskforce's final report was given to the government in July 2019 and released to the public in September 2019. The report said that school boards spent too much time and effort on things they weren't equipped to handle, like managing school property and hiring principals. The Taskforce also found no proof that the self-governing model had improved student achievement or fairness. It made many suggestions that would change the relationship between schools and the Ministry of Education.

In September 2019, a government review of schools, Ngā Kura o Aotearoa New Zealand Schools (2018), noted that the government's response to the Tomorrow's Schools review was one of the "staged and sustainable improvements" still to come.

On November 12, 2019, the government released Supporting all schools to succeed: Reform of the Tomorrow's Schools system, its response to the Taskforce's suggestions. This document set five goals to meet the Taskforce's recommendations: Learners at the Centre; Barrier-free access; Quality teaching and leadership; Future of learning and work; and World-class inclusive public education.

The Education and Training Act (2020) was passed on August 1, 2020, replacing all previous education laws.

On August 10, 2020, during the Covid-19 pandemic, Chris Hipkins, as Minister of Education, updated the government on the Tomorrow's Schools reforms. He noted that the Education and Training Act would put many of the Taskforce's suggestions into action. He also said that dealing with COVID-19 had required everyone in education to work together.

After the 2020 New Zealand general election, where the Labour Party won by a lot, Labour's education policy confirmed plans to set up an Education Service Agency. This agency would support schools and encourage them to work together rather than compete, aiming for fair results for all students.

In March 2021, the government approved the Education Work Programme (EWP) 2021, with "Reform of the Tomorrow's Schools system" as a key goal. The 2022 Budget proposed money to develop leadership advisor positions to provide more direct support to schools, as suggested by the Tomorrow's Schools Taskforce.

Curriculum Review

By 2018, the government's focus on education change shifted to reviewing the curriculum, starting the Curriculum, Progress, and Achievement programme. In 2019, a report from an advisory group suggested ways to improve the curriculum. They focused on making it stronger, clearer about student progress, and meeting the information needs for all students in years 1-10 in New Zealand schools.

In 2020, the Ministry of Education asked the New Zealand Council of Educational Research (NZCER) and two universities to do research for this project. They completed several reports, including one on how well the current curriculum's leveling system worked.

A full refresh of the curriculum was confirmed on February 11, 2021. The Associate Ministers of Education said the goal was to make the curriculum "clearer, more relevant, easier to use, and more explicit about what learners need to understand, know and do." This would start with Aotearoa New Zealand’s histories in the Social Sciences learning area. A former politician, Peter Dunne, suggested there should have been more immediate public discussion about what the refresh would involve. He questioned whether it would ensure "access to and learning about the latest and best knowledge" from around the world, not just local factors. Dunne concluded that the curriculum refresh needed to be broad and inclusive, avoiding being controlled by specific education groups.

History Curriculum

The advisory group's report in 2019 had specifically identified areas for Māori and English-speaking schools, including addressing trust and fairness. In response, in September 2019, Chris Hipkins confirmed that Aotearoa New Zealand's histories would be taught in all schools from 2022, later changed to 2023 to give schools more time. Pressure for this to be compulsory came from petitions to Parliament in 2015 and 2019, and ongoing public discussion. A wide consultation process began in 2020, where two groups wrote content for Aotearoa New Zealand's histories (for English-medium schools) and Te Takanga o Te Wā (for Māori-medium schools). This content was then surveyed, tested, and reviewed in 2021.

There were mixed reactions to the draft documents. Some concerns were raised about possible gaps in the history covered. Questions were also asked about the focus on content rather than how students learn. One politician worried that focusing on colonization might cause divisions among New Zealanders. Positive responses included comments from the New Zealand Historical Association and a review by the New Zealand Council for Educational Research that indicated public feedback found the content timely and "overdue."

The final versions of the documents were launched on March 17, 2022. Aotearoa New Zealand's histories is a separate document but matches the English-medium New Zealand Curriculum. Its structure focuses on "big ideas" in New Zealand history. Brooke van Velden challenged this, suggesting the curriculum focused too much on colonization and only on "two sets of people, Māori and Pākehā," ignoring New Zealand's multiethnic society. However, James Shaw said it was important to be honest about the past. An academic noted the new approach showed New Zealand had matured as a society, and the president of The Māori Principals' Association saw the curriculum as potentially transformative. Te Takanga o Te Wā is a new part of the Māori-medium curriculum, Te Marautanga o Aotearoa. It recognizes that students learn history by exploring themselves and their connections to the world, to understand their identity as Māori in Aotearoa.

First Draft of Te Mātaiaho

In March 2022, progress on the full refresh of the New Zealand curriculum was confirmed with a detailed timeline. In March 2023, the draft document Te Mātaiaho was released. It included updated purpose statements and overviews for teaching Social Sciences, English, and mathematics. These three areas kept the "Understand, Know, and Do" approach from the reviewed History curriculum. A process for feedback on the English and Mathematics & Statistics learning areas was confirmed on September 28, 2023, and schools received a Curriculum and Assessment Forward Planner.

The Literacy & Communication and Maths Strategy, published by the government in March 2022, said that a key part of the refresh was making literacy, communication, and numeracy clearer within the New Zealand curriculum. However, two academics claimed this strategy document didn't identify the necessary strategies to meet the English curriculum's requirements.

A group of academics wrote a letter to Chris Hipkins, then Prime Minister and former Minister of Education, asking for the education reforms to be canceled. They raised concerns about a "radicalized curriculum" with "identity categorization" based on children's racial classification. They also worried about the danger of "culturally responsive pedagogies" leading to stereotypes about how Māori and Pasifika students learn.

Educator Stuart Middleton welcomed the refresh as "a significant and long awaited development in New Zealand Education."

Political Changes 2023

As New Zealand approached the 2023 New Zealand general election in 2023, the country's education system and the policies of the different political parties were discussed in the media. One expert noted different opinions among education researchers about how much student achievement data showed the system's strength, especially when international test data differed from local assessments. Nina Hood from the University of Auckland said that data from the PISA test showed a widespread decline in achievement. She noted that by the time students reached their final year before high school, "only 56 per cent at or above the curriculum level in reading, 45 per cent in maths and down to only 20 per cent in science."

In the same article, another academic claimed that the number of New Zealand students achieving at the highest level was above average compared to other developed countries. However, the problem was addressing unfairness to improve the performance of students in the lowest 20%. Charles Darr, a chief researcher with the New Zealand Council for Educational Research, stated that a national study he was involved in did not show a major decline. He cautioned against "jumping straight into crisis mode." However, the article did note that a summary from the Ministry of Education concluded that international data showed "New Zealand had one of the largest gaps between the highest and lowest-scoring students, who generally came from disadvantaged backgrounds, and this had not improved over time."

Another journalist pointed to achievement data for New Zealand students from 2009 to argue that there had generally been a downward trend in achievement, especially for Māori, Pacific learners, and those from lower-income backgrounds. This raised concerns that for these students, "the status quo [would] entrench inequitable outcomes." The same article used information from a government paper to analyze the positions and policies of each main political party in the election.

Early in the election campaign, Christopher Luxon released an education policy for the New Zealand National Party. It was based on a proposed review of the curriculum and a greater focus on basic reading, writing, and maths skills. Luxon said it was about addressing underachievement and having a curriculum that clearly showed teachers and parents what students should learn each year. He acknowledged that the current government's Literacy and Communication and Maths Strategy did not suggest narrowing the curriculum by focusing only on basic skills. However, he explained that his party's policy differed by "tightening up the year bands" (making expectations clearer for each year level).

The president of the Principals' Association claimed the policy was a return to National Standards and would not focus on unfairness or supporting students with high needs. Chris Hipkins suggested that National and Labour could work together and reach a "bipartisan consensus" (agreement between two main parties) on a curriculum rewrite. Jan Tinetti questioned the lack of consultation with the education sector and whether the policy was properly funded. However, National's education spokesperson, Erica Stanford, responded that the policy was based on feedback from curriculum experts. She said that while "maths, reading, writing and science...[would be prioritized]...over everything else," it was not a return to National Standards. The president of the New Zealand Educational Institute stated the union's position was to focus on providing more resources rather than increasing standards or changing the curriculum, as this would create "more work for the teachers." An academic said National's policy was built on a "manufactured crisis," blamed "failing schools and failing teachers," and "undoes much of an informal pact between National and Labour to depoliticise education at a time of genuine struggle."