However the Ministry of Education denies the claims and said there had been ample time to develop the curriculum, and it had been taking feedback every step of the way.
New Zealand Principals’ Federation vice-president and Dunedin North Intermediate principal Heidi Hayward said while the old curriculum needed a refresh, much of what had been announced was ‘‘unteachable’’.
It was also going to be introduced into schools too quickly, she said.
Primary schools introduced new English and maths curriculums last year, and consultation on six other subjects including science, the arts and social sciences closed last week.
Ms Hayward said a refresh had been in the works for some years, and before 2023 there had been widespread sector involvement.
‘‘That curriculum never saw the light of day because the government changed between-times — since then, the curriculum that we have been delivered has just appeared out of nowhere.’’
She accepted there would always be some political direction, but there needed to be a balance.
‘‘That’s what’s really lacking — this curriculum’s been written in secret.’’
Those involved in creating the new curriculum had been required to sign non-disclosure agreements, she said.
‘‘We can’t talk to our sector, can’t provide feedback. So the notion of consultation is in name only.’’
She said when teachers described the new curriculum as ‘‘unteachable’’ they meant there were far too many objectives to reasonably be able to teach a classroom of children.
For science, there are about 20 achievement objectives that are taught over years 7 to 9.
In the new proposed curriculum, that number has grown to more than 140.
‘‘We already struggle to find time to teach all of them, so we kind of do it in succession ... but we do our best to provide balance with 20.’’
‘‘The ministry don’t call them achievement objectives ... but the reality is, whatever you call them, we’re not going to be able to do justice to that. It turns into a flip-top curriculum where you just lift a kid’s mouth open and pour knowledge down.’’
Ministry of Education deputy secretary in charge of its curriculum centre Pauline Cleaver said the claims did not reflect how the draft curriculum was developed.
She said work to refresh the national curriculum had been under way for several years.
‘‘[It] has been well communicated throughout, with clear timeframes and opportunities for sector engagement — the refreshed curriculum was not developed in secret, nor did it ‘appear from nowhere’.
‘‘Its development has included research, analysis of existing curriculum settings, advice from a range of teachers, school leaders, curriculum specialists and subject-matter experts, alongside consideration of international evidence.’’
She said draft content in the proposed curriculum was open for consultation for six months before it closed last month.
That feedback was now being analysed.
Ms Cleaver said it was standard with government policy development that individuals involved worked under ‘‘standard confidentiality arrangements’’.
There was no intention to prevent people or the wider sector from providing feedback on the draft curriculum.
‘‘It is incorrect to suggest that these arrangements were used to restrict sector consultation.’’
