NZAEE Submission on Draft Learning Areas Yr 0 - 10

Consultation on Draft Learning Areas for Yr 0 - 10

As part of the curriculm consultation process in late 2025 - April 2026 NZAEE has submitted feedback on the draft curriculum for these learning areas:

• Science
• Social Sciences
• Health and Physical Education
• Technology
• The Arts

Copies of this feedback will be published here as they are finalised, with Science, Social Sciences, Health & PE and Technology now available. We have also published a copy of our feedback on the draft curriculum framework Te Mātaiaho here.

We submitted our feedback using the forms provided, so have used the format of the questions to structure our response. For your own feedback, you can just skip ahead to the Overall Comments section.

Science Yr 0 - 10 Feedback

Purpose 

This draft purpose statement points towards a one-way transfer of knowledge from teachers to students, with the only reference to application of knowledge being “investigating real-world phenomena”. We are disappointed at the lack of reference to real-world issues and how science can be used to address these (e.g. climate change and biodiversity loss). We recommend a return to the 2007 NZC focus on students using “scientific knowledge and skills to make informed decisions about the communication, application, and implications of science as these relate to their own lives and cultures and to the sustainability of the environment”. We also note the demotion of te ao Māori / mātauranga Māori within this purpose statement, and find it unacceptable that the statement “enrich scientific thinking and practice” has been used. Indigenous knowledge systems hold equal importance when learning about our world and solving problems. We will not solve the complex environmental problems we face now and in the future without using a genuinely collaborative and respectful approach. We acknowledge the complexity of working towards mana ōrite / equal status for mātauranga Māori within our curriculum, but do not accept this step backwards in the work that has already begun across science departments and schools in Aotearoa. 

Learning Area Structure 

We strongly disagree with the removal of the Nature of Science strand and the reduction of knowledge strands into only two main areas (Physical and Biological), along with the siloed approach to each sub-strand within these. Nature of Science has not been woven through the Practices and is also not covered sufficiently by the newly introduced Capabilities. In particular, the removal of “Participating and Contributing” (from both the Nature of Science and Key Competencies) is a massive blow to environmental education within this learning area. Teaching and learning must include opportunities for students to apply their knowledge and skills to relevant issues, with actions that can be carried out by individuals, groups and the whole school. This builds agency, critical thinking and hope for students who are confronted with very real environmental issues such as water pollution, biodiversity loss, climate-induced weather events and more. We also disagree with the binary that has been created between the Physical and Biological sciences, with sustainability only included in the Biological strand. Sustainability fits strongly within the Physical sciences in areas such as renewable energy, use of materials and Earth systems (although we note that Earth and Space Science sits uncomfortably within the Physical sciences strand). 

We also disagree with the highly siloed approach to knowledge within this draft, which does not allow for meaningful connections to be made within the learning area, let alone across learning areas. Quality environmental education includes a focus on relevant learning contexts, helping students integrate the foundational knowledge they have learned. The previous Te Mātaiaho structure with “Understand” contexts / big ideas addresses this balance, and still allows for a focus on knowledge and skills progression. We highly recommend a return to a science curriculum structure that includes a balanced approach to knowledge and skills, with sufficient time and guidance for developing action competence.

Introduction

The Introduction includes statements that sound good, but are not implemented through the learning sequences or practices. For example, “Knowledge has been selected to reflect everyday phenomena and systems students can directly experience, ensuring relevance and accessibility within the context of NZ.” We disagree with this statement when reviewing the knowledge across the learning phases, with relevant, local contexts only included occasionally at some levels. There is a lot of content that is not accessible or relevant to learners in Aotearoa NZ and there is also knowledge that is currently included within many NZ school science and environmental education learning programmes that is not included explicitly in this draft curriculum e.g. school vegetable gardens, composting, waste free lunches, active transport to school, renewable energy in schools, ethical and low waste fashion etc. 

Phase One (Yr 0 - 3)

Environmental / sustainability learning: This phase includes a lot of learning ABOUT plants / animals but very little related learning IN or FOR the environment e.g. nature connection, sustainability or environmental issues. The exception is Yr 1 using all the senses / observing, which is good to see but should also be included in Yrs 2 and 3. ‍

Practices don't include much about curiosity, exploring, hands-on despite this being mentioned in the Phase One Introduction text as a focus for this phase. 

Taking action for the local environment or school? NONE included despite many schools using environmental actions with students of this age group e.g. creating homes for insects/birds, looking after vegetable gardens, collecting litter within the school and local community. 

Links to te ao Māori are very small - only naming plants/animals and one example using kūmara.

Phase Two (Yr 4 - 6)

There are some small but positive inclusions of environmental education in Yrs 4 and 5 (seasonal learning, maramataka), but they are at risk of being lost within the huge amount of content. Yr 6 is very problematic for a few reasons: high level biology content (genetics / evolution), nothing related to environmental issues, despite Yr 6 Social Sciences including climate change and human environmental impacts. There is a lot of high level content included in this Phase, which will likely lead to misconceptions and confusion. There is also a lot of repetition of some knowledge (soil at both years, lots about reproduction / inheritance), but then whole concepts / contexts are missing such as Ecosystems, with nothing about interactions between humans and environment e.g. there is a missed opportunity to link learning about plant life cycles to school and community gardens / food. 

Phase Three (Yr 7 - 8)

This phase is the most problematic for environmental education. Lots of key concepts and experiences that are currently used in schools during Yr 7 - 8 are completely missing. Yr 7: Despite there being some important knowledge covered (biodiversity / kaitiakitanga) this is not backed up with real actions or skills in the Practices: E.g. The wording is “Evaluating ways humans can positively impact ecosystems and communicating actions that support kaitiakitanga (e.g. planting trees, composting, recycling, growing food, planting native species).” So students will learn ABOUT actions by evaluating and communicating them, but not actually DO them? Even if teachers decide to add this layer of authentic action, there is very little space in this curriculum draft to allow the time for any meaningful actions during school hours. 

Yr 8: Doesn’t include anything related to sustainability, climate change, or other environmental issues, despite this being a key developmental stage for this learning. There is a missed opportunity in Energy to explore renewable energy sources and link this to climate change. 

Phase Four (Yr 9 - 10)

We are pleased to see the focus on human impacts on ecosystems in this phase, but unfortunately this is mostly limited to learning ABOUT the issues and not taking any actions to address them, as we have noted in Phase 3. We are also pleased to see the inclusion of Indigenous knowledge systems in Year 9 Ecosystems, but the wording used in the Practices section seems confusing when trying to integrate this within the western ‘ecosystem model’ framework. We recommend working closely with mātauranga Māori experts to ensure this knowledge is embedded meaningfully and in ways that will support teachers to apply the curriculum to their local area. 

There are some really strong aspects of environmental education included in this phase, such as climate change, conservation etc, but the content needs to be spread more evenly across Yr 9 and 10 and lots of content removed to make space for action projects and interesting case studies. Lots of the chemistry, physics and biology content is too high level, with a huge amount of content included that will never get covered and likely lead to disengagement or misconceptions. We recommend moving some foundational concepts related to climate change / carbon cycle down into Yr 7 / 8 and then aligning this with appropriate content in Social Sciences. Again, we encourage you to engage meaningfully with climate change education experts who can advise the best progressions for knowledge and practices across these year levels. The current approach is not aligned with best practice and will lead to young people feeling hopeless and disempowered when it comes to climate change and other human impacts. 

Overall Comments:

The New Zealand Association for Environmental Education (NZAEE) comprises individuals, organisations and networks involved in environmental and sustainability education across Aotearoa New Zealand. Our members are teachers and educators, researchers and academics, professional development providers, community action groups, and more. NZAEE’s mission is to connect and inspire educators, ākonga and communities to learn, collaborate and take action for te taiao.

We have many concerns about this draft science curriculum, along with the wider Te Mātaiaho draft released in 2025 and feel it is unfit for use in its current form. Our feedback for all of the learning areas relates to the following key areas that are essential for quality environmental education:

• Integration of Indigenous worldviews and knowledge, which in Aotearoa means upholding Te Tiriti o Waitangi and giving equal status to mātauranga Māori.
• Environmental and place-based issues as rich contexts for learning, including knowledge and skills that reflect a future-focused curriculum.
• Student agency and action competence, with young people having multiple opportunities to contribute meaningfully within their school and community. 
• Cross-curricular and whole school learning, based on a progression model that is developmentally appropriate.

As we have noted in the detailed feedback submitted about the Purpose / Learning area structure / Introduction and Phases 1 - 4, the criteria above are not currently present in this draft curriculum. 

Our particular concerns for science include:

- Removal of the Nature of Science and a lack of meaningful action within the Practices.

- The huge amount of content and the move towards knowledge acquisition, rather than centring science learning around socio-scientific issues, critical thinking, curiosity, and agency. 

- The demotion of mātauranga Māori, at a time when scientific / environmental issues will only be solved by working in collaboration with Indigenous knowledge and practices.

- A structure that silos knowledge both within science and across learning areas, with very little thought put into how the science progressions will align with learning in social science, maths, technology etc. 

‍

We do not support the current structure or content of this draft curriculum for science, and remain open to working meaningfully, within realistic timeframes, to provide expert guidance on how to authentically incorporate environmental education within the science learning area and our wider curriculum framework. 

We encourage you to engage with the following OECD / PISA frameworks, which signal the science knowledge and capabilities that are recognised internationally as being important: https://pisa-framework.oecd.org/science-2025/ 

The key aspects measured in the PISA Environmental Science competencies:

- Explain the impact of human interactions with Earth’s systems

- Make informed decisions to act based on evaluation of diverse sources of evidence and application of creative and systems thinking to regenerate and sustain the environment

- Demonstrate respect for diverse perspectives, and hope, in seeking solutions to socio-ecological crises

With this supporting document about Agency in the Anthropocene: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/agency-in-the-anthropocene_8d3b6cfa-en.html

‍

Social Sciences Yr 0 - 10 Feedback

Purpose

While there are some concepts included in this purpose statement that we support (participation, multiple perspectives, curiosity, exploring places), we note that these are not meaningfully woven through the knowledge and practices at every phase. We also note the absence of environmental issues, sustainability, climate change, social justice, problem-solving and student-led action (which is different from participation). Te Tiriti o Waitangi is also not explicitly included in this purpose statement, or acknowledgement of our bicultural society, which is a huge step backwards from both the 2007 NZC and recent refreshed Social Sciences. We recommend a return to a more aspirational purpose statement that recognises learners as critical thinkers and agents of change, within their unique communities and Aotearoa NZ. 

Learning Area Structure

We are very concerned at the structure used in this draft curriculum, with significant changes from both the 2007 NZC and the recent Te Ao Tangata | Social Sciences curriculum. We strongly disagree with the move away from interdisciplinary contexts such as “Place and Environment” towards a siloed / senior specialist approach with Geography, History etc. This is completely inappropriate for learning in Yrs 0 - 10 and not supported by research and evidence about learning in the social sciences. 

We also disagree with the removal of Social Inquiry as a key framework / pedagogical approach and note that it is not explicitly included, or woven through the Practices in this draft. We also note the move away from exploring values and perspectives, which is a vital aspect of addressing complex environmental issues. 

For the sake of clarity, if this current structure is used for the final version of the curriculum, we would like to add this comment: The draft wording includes: "For History and Geography, local examples and contexts should be drawn on". Why not all strands? Civics and Economic activity should absolutely include local contexts and examples. 

Introduction

Referring to the Introduction text: “Students explore civic, geographic, historical, and economic knowledge to make sense of and participate in their communities and the wider world.” We like the inclusion of “participate in” but don’t see this reflected in the phases / progression of practices. E.g. there are no “action” words in the Practices, just words like interpret, explain, evaluate. In many cases the Practice statements are actually just knowledge statements. We will highlight a few more specific examples in our feedback about each Phase. 

Phase One

We support the inclusion of some important environmental / sustainability topics such as: Kaitiakitanga, pollution, water, wildlife, connection to place, Māori food practices, weather events (not linked to climate change yet). However, these are likely to be lost amongst the huge amount of content included in this phase and don’t seem to follow a logical progression. There are also issues with a lack of alignment between science knowledge in these year levels. E.g. Yr 3: “Factors affecting climate” is not developmentally appropriate or supported by any prior learning in Science (e.g. tilt of the Earth for seasons, with no prior learning about Earth and Space - starts in Yr 4) 

Practices: we are really disappointed to see no explicit wording related to actions / social inquiry / application of knowledge. Across Aotearoa we know that teachers and learners are currently taking part in a variety of meaningful social and environmental actions that are age appropriate for Yrs 0 - 3, such as reducing waste, improving native habitats in their school and local parks, connecting with nature through outdoor play etc. 

Phase Two

We support the inclusion of a range of relevant environmental education concepts within the Knowledge sequences for this phase: civic participation, Māori values, connection to land/place, environmental sustainability, deforestation, climate change, local council rubbish/parks, kaitiakitanga and sustainability for businesses / work options. However, we have concerns about the placement and progression of this knowledge, and links to other learning areas (especially science). E.g. Yr 6: Climate change should be moved to Yr 7 or 8 and align with Science learning, to provide depth and understanding - currently not included in Science until Yr 10 carbon cycle (so needs to shift levels in both SS and Sci). It’s developmentally inappropriate and also irresponsible to introduce climate change to this age group, without the knowledge and skills to take meaningful action to address climate change. This is a huge risk here of discouraging both teachers and students from engaging with climate change through a hopeful, action-based process. 

Practices in this phase: Again, we note the complete lack of social action or environmental action, with very little that is practical. The siloed approach to the learning area also means that obvious links between aspects of learning have not been made. E.g. Yr 5 Geography Practices: Opportunity to include social and environmental action when looking at deforestation - give examples of how students could research fair trade products, consumer habits etc (link explicitly to Financial Education strand, which currently just mentions “sustainability”).

We also note that the huge amount of content in this phase, along with a general lack of relevance, local context or social action, will lead to a reduction in meaningful environmental education taking place in schools. 

Phase Three

As noted in our feedback on the Science draft, Phase Three is particularly concerning for environmental education knowledge and practices. Yr 7 - 8 is developmentally significant for learners, with the ability to start seeing themselves in the wider community and world, and a strong desire to plan and take action for issues that are important to them. We are hugely disappointed at the content within this phase and have struggled to give helpful feedback since there are so many issues. For example, this draft does not include any learning about climate change in Yr 7 or 8, despite this being taught in many primary and intermediate schools around Aotearoa, with a focus on students taking positive action in their schools and communities. These students are capable of leading significant change, with examples including submissions on local and national policy changes, rather than just ‘simulated civics’ as has been included in this draft. In Yr 7 the knowledge section includes references to learning ABOUT Indigenous knowledge, citizen participation, protests, volunteering etc, but the corresponding Practices section uses words such as “features of” or “the importance of” rather than actually including real actions or skills. Why not “take part in local consultation processes” or “plan and organise civic education or action through a protest, event or project”. 

At Yr 8 there is NOTHING practical included in the Practices (apart from one case study about hazard management), with a complete lack of thought about any skills progression related to social action. We highly recommend that climate change education is incorporated within both Yr 7 and 8 (rather than Yr 6), with a clear progression of knowledge and actions that carry through into Phase Four. 

Phase Four

The knowledge included in this phase for Geography and Civics has strong links to environmental education and we like the inclusion of sustainable urban development, place-making, future-planning, climate change and Indigenous knowledge. However, as mentioned in previous phases, the sheer amount of content included in Yrs 9 and 10 will mean that teachers will struggle to include any of this in a meaningful way, and will definitely not have time to undertake student-led inquiry and action projects. Which again leads to the very real risk of teaching young people about complex environmental and social issues, without providing the necessary balance of hopeful actions that are age appropriate and backed up with cross-disciplinary understanding from other learning areas, such as science, technology and maths.

Also, the Practices in this phase are not action-based (teachers could choose to turn the ideas into actions, if they are experienced and confident and can find the time). There are so many missed opportunities to give examples of real actions. E.g. Civics: missed opportunity to include something like "engage with local/regional council to solve a problem in your area or take part in a consultation process to share your views and ideas (creativity)". Especially since the Geography section includes a case study on a sustainable urban initiative, but then nothing in the Practices section to imply that students would actually do anything practical as part of the case study... 

Climate change should be included progressively at both Yr 9 and 10, with previous knowledge and skills built up in the previous phase. 

Overall Comments

The New Zealand Association for Environmental Education (NZAEE) comprises individuals, organisations and networks involved in environmental and sustainability education across Aotearoa New Zealand. Our members are teachers and educators, researchers and academics, professional development providers, community action groups, and more. NZAEE’s mission is to connect and inspire educators, ākonga and communities to learn, collaborate and take action for te taiao.

We have many concerns about this draft social sciences curriculum, along with the wider Te Mātaiaho draft released in 2025 and feel it is unfit for use in its current form. Our feedback for all of the learning areas relates to the following key areas that are essential for quality environmental education:

• Integration of Indigenous worldviews and knowledge, which in Aotearoa means upholding Te Tiriti o Waitangi and giving equal status to mātauranga Māori.
• Environmental and place-based issues as rich contexts for learning, including knowledge and skills that reflect a future-focused curriculum.
• Student agency and action competence, with young people having multiple opportunities to contribute meaningfully within their school and community. 
• Cross-curricular and whole school learning, based on a progression model that is developmentally appropriate.

As we have noted in the detailed feedback submitted about the Purpose / Learning area structure / Introduction and Phases 1 - 4, the criteria above are not currently present in this draft curriculum. 

Our particular concerns for social sciences include:

- Lack of meaningful connection to Aotearoa at some year levels, including local, place-based learning contexts, and only token inclusions or references to Indigenous knowledge / mātauranga Māori

- No opportunities for students to plan and take actions based on their learning, or issues / values that are important to them. 

- Huge amount of content that will lead to less time spent on inquiry and action projects, including less time exploring the local environment and taking part in community initiatives. 

- Lack of coherence with other learning areas (particularly science) and no clear progression of knowledge and skills across the phases. 

We welcome further, meaningful engagement as the curriculum is developed and would be pleased to provide connections with experts in environmental, sustainability and place-based learning. 

‍

Health and Physical Education Yr 0 - 10 Feedback

Purpose / Learning Area Structure / Introduction

NZAEE is concerned that the purpose statement does not reflect Health and Physical Education in the context of Aotearoa New Zealand. As written, it is broad and generic; missing an important opportunity to offer learning that reflects the distinct social, cultural and environmental context of Aotearoa. 

There are no mentions of our commitments under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and the introduction lacks clarity around the core values that should inform teaching and learning across all phases. There is also little acknowledgement of the complex and rapidly evolving social, cultural, and environmental contexts shaping young people’s lives today. We recommend restoring content included in previous guidance that emphasises Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations, social justice, equity and inclusion, and that recognised the importance of mātauranga Māori. 

We notice the absence of a unifying framework in the purpose, learning area structure and introduction of the proposed curriculum. The current curriculum for Health and Physical Education draws on the concept of hauora, using models such as Te Whare Tapa Whā (Sir Mason Durie). This provides an holistic approach, recognising the interconnections between physical, mental and emotional, social, cultural, and spiritual wellbeing, with a foundation based on the whenua / Papatūānuku. We recommend restoring this so that the learning area reflects the lived reality of learners: that emotional and physical wellbeing, social context and environmental health are all closely intertwined. We also support the feedback from Education Outdoors NZ that Outdoor Education should be given its own strand, rather than falling within Physical Education as a context, to recognise its distinct body of knowledge, skills progression and pedagogy.

*We did not provide feedback on the specific teaching progressions / Phases for HPE

Overall Comments

From an environmental education perspective, we note a significant gap in the lack of any explicit references to human relationships with nature and the environment in the Health strand, with this currently limited to Outdoor Education. Regular time in nature, building meaningful connections with te taiao and local places, is fundamental to both physical and mental wellbeing, and should be explicitly recognised and meaningfully embedded throughout the learning area, across all strands. 

We also support the recommendations provided by Education Outdoors NZ, specifically the suggested changes that support delivery of nature-based learning within school grounds and local green spaces, and removing the need for specialised equipment at the primary school level. We strongly believe that all young people should have access to high quality outdoor learning across all year levels and encourage you to engage meaningfully with experts who work in this area. 

‍

Technology Yr 0 - 10 Feedback

Purpose 

The draft purpose statement for Technology includes some really strong links to environmental education, such as sustainable futures, critical thinking, how choices affect the environment, and applying learning to real-world contexts. However, we do not agree with the demotion of te ao Māori, which has previously been centred within the Technology learning area. This purpose statement lacks a strong connection to Aotearoa NZ learners and is a step backwards from the existing Technology curriculum. 

Learning Area Structure 

We are disappointed that the three overarching strands from the current Technology curriculum, including the Nature of Technology, have been removed in this draft. These are currently woven through all of the five technological areas of the learning area, ensuring that core values and capabilities are present in all learning contexts. For example, the current Nature of Technology includes a focus on sustainability, human impacts and ethics. In this draft, there are links to these concepts within some strands (particularly the Design strands), but they are missing or very weak in strands such as Digital Technologies. 

Introduction

Sustainability learning is strongest within the Design strands of this draft and particularly within Phases 2, 3 and 4. However, there is not a logical progression of knowledge or skills, and the time allocated to the Technology learning area will not allow for meaningful projects and skill development. 

(not submitting detailed feedback on each phase)

Overall Comments:

While there are some aspects of this draft curriculum that support environmental education, our overall feedback is that this draft is a step backwards from the existing Technology curriculum that was only recently updated in 2019. We respect the analysis and feedback of our specialist technology education colleagues from organisations such as Technology Education NZ (TENZ) and would like to see meaningful engagement with these experts as this curriculum development progresses. 

Our main concerns with the current draft include:

• Demotion of mātauranga Māori and Te Tiriti o Waitangi within the learning area
• Lack of integration of sustainability and design thinking, for solving environmental issues
• Lack of connections with other learning areas, particularly science and social sciences (other than a small mention within Yr 9)
• Too much content at some levels and not enough time allowed for projects / action-based learning

‍

‍