Submission guide for proposed changes to the Education Act

The Government is proposing changes to the Education Act which would deprioritise tikanga Māori, mātauranga Māori, te ao Māori, and te reo Māori instruction to focus on achievement outcomes instead. They are planning to remove the statement of National Education and Learning Priorities (NELP) from the act and all references to student rights, the Human Rights Act (HRA), and New Zealand Bill of Human Rights Act (NZBORA).

Submissions on these proposed changes are open until the 14th of October, with a survey available here.

Alternatively, you can email your feedback on the proposed changes to legislation.consultation@education.govt.nz

If you want to learn more about NELP and what these changes will mean, here are some useful links:

• Have your say on changes to school board objectives and NELP provisions (MoE short explainer)
• The Statement of National Education and Learning Priorities (NELP)
• Education and Training Act 2020

Making a submission against the proposed changes can feel a bit overwhelming, especially if a lot of jargon has been used, and at first glance, some of these proposed changes might not seem too bad. However, from the actions we have already witnessed from this government, we know that these changes are driven by a similar agenda which is super harmful to marginalised communities such as our takatāpui and rainbow whānau.

We have created this guide for the submission process to help you decipher what these changes could mean for our communities. History tells us that it will be our Māori, Pasifika, disabled and rainbow communities who will be negatively impacted by these changes the most.

We appreciate you taking the time to support us in standing up against these changes.

Preview of the survey & suggested points to touch on

We have copied the sections of the survey below, followed by some suggestions to consider when writing your response.

Proposal 1

Make educational achievement the primary objective for school boards with the other current objectives retained as necessary for the achievement of the primary

Section 127 of the Act currently sets out four primary objectives for all State schools.  In summary, these are that:

• Every student is able to attain their highest possible standard in educational achievement.
• The school is physically and emotionally safe.
• The school caters to different learning needs.
• The school gives effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi | the Treaty of Waitangi.

These are legislative obligations and schools are required to give effect to them. See the school board objectives in full in the annex or on: Education and Training Act 2020 No 38 (as at 30 June 2024), Public Act 127 Objectives of boards in governing schools – New Zealand Legislation

The Government proposes to make educational achievement the primary objective for school boards (i.e. the first current objective listed above). The other objectives would be expressly retained as necessary to the achievement of the primary objective. In other words, to meet the primary achievement objective, school boards would still need to give effect to Te Tiriti/ the Treaty and the other objectives that will be included in section 127.

This is intended to refocus schools on their primary role, which is to provide every child with the opportunity to achieve to the best of their ability.

Question 1

Do you agree with the proposal to make student achievement the primary objective, with the other objectives included as necessary to achieve the primary objective?

• No, the focus should be on removing barriers to education, not creating more.

Question 2

Do you have any views or comments to make on this proposal?

• Shifting the focus away from wellbeing could allow for more punitive measures to occur if students do not attend school or meet achievement targets.
• Minoritised students such as our takatāpui, rainbow, Māori, Pasifika, disabled and/or neurodivergent rangatahi are often overrepresented in lower attendance and achievement figures due to the discrimination they face.
• The current focus on removing barriers alongside increasing safety and equity should continue to be prioritised.
• Learning cannot occur in unsafe environments, it needs to be the focus if we wish to reduce disparity.

Proposal 2

Introduce a new objective for school boards to take all reasonable steps to ensure the attendance of the students enrolled in their school

Lifting regular attendance is a top priority for this Government. There is a clear correlation between going to school regularly and doing well in the classroom. Regular attendance rates in New Zealand have declined since 2015 and this decline accelerated further during and since the COVID-19 pandemic.

School boards are currently required by section 36(2) of the Act to take all reasonable steps to ensure that all the school’s students attend the school when it is open.

To strengthen the focus of school boards on their attendance responsibilities, the Government is proposing to add this requirement to section 127 of the Act. Placing this requirement in section 127 would require schools to focus on attendance in their strategic planning and reporting processes.

Question 3

Do you agree with the proposal to introduce a new objective for school boards to take all reasonable steps to ensure the attendance of the students enrolled in their school?

• Potentially, but “reasonable steps” are not to be punitive ones, they need to be focused on removing barriers particularly those as a result of colonisation and discrimination. We are not convinced that this is the intention here. Plus, schools are already doing this.
• There would need to be more specificity around what would be considered to be “reasonable steps” i.e. making access to education equitable, not just increasing reporting requirements as has currently been mandated by the government.

Question 4

Do you have any views or comments to make on this proposal?

• We are concerned that this narrow focus does not take into account the very real barriers students might face when it comes to attendance – illness (parental or personal), financial barriers, discrimination etc.
• Minoritised students, such as rainbow students, are overrepresented in lower attendance statistics due to the barriers they face such as unsafe school environments and prejudice (racism, queerphobia, ableism etc.).
• Minority stress has an impact that affects students above and beyond educational demands and this impacts attendance due to the high levels of mental and emotional stress that they experience.
• Reasonable steps should include free transport, kai, mandatory sensitivity training (anti-racist, inclusive of rainbow and neurodivergent folks) – not fining parents as has been suggested by this government.

Proposal 3

Introduce a new objective for school boards to ensure that the school’s principal and staff use good quality assessment and aromatawai information to monitor and evaluate students’ progress and achievement, including from any assessment and aromatawai specified in a foundation curriculum policy statement.

Regular and robust assessment is crucial to understand student progress and lift student achievement. Implementing consistent modes of monitoring student progress and achievement is a key education priority for the Government.

Schools are currently required to monitor and evaluate student performance through other provisions in the Act and regulations, including the Education (School Boards) Regulations 2020 and the Education (School Planning and Reporting) Regulations 2023.

Including this objective in section 127 will make assessment more visible to school boards as a clear focus area for lifting achievement. It will also link the board objectives to the use of these standardised assessment tools once these requirements come into effect.

Question 5

Do you agree with the proposal to introduce a new objective for school boards to ensure that the school’s principal and staff use good quality assessment and aromatawai information to monitor and evaluate students’ progress and achievement?

• No. Good quality assessment practices and information should already be in place, this change feels unnecessary and has the potential to be weaponised as a punitive measure without taking into account the many complex factors that contribute towards achievement.

Question 6

Do you have any views or comments to make on this proposal?

• It is concerning that the rationale for adding this clause is to increase the visibility of assessment despite other provisions already in place within the act. Yet, the opposite applies to student rights – the proposal is to take that clause away because it already exists elsewhere. This highlights the disingenuous nature of this change, as it wrongly implies that the emotional wellbeing and safety of students and staff needs to be deprioritised in order to increase achievement.
• More testing and reporting causes stress, adds to workload and does not improve achievement. What would help instead would be to focus on making sure schools are adequately resourced.
• Standardised testing is set to Pākehā standards – setting everyone else up to fail. Contextualised learning is important and mātauranga Māori should be given equal weighting – there is nothing in this clause that suggests that.

Proposal 4

Remove the objective that requires school boards to give effect to relevant student rights set out in the Education and Training Act 2020, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Human Rights Act 1993.

The current requirement for the school board to give effect to relevant student rights is unnecessary. School boards already have to comply with requirements under the Education and Training Act 2020 that relate to student rights and those in the Bill of Rights Act 1990 aspects of the Human Rights Act 1993.

The Government proposes to remove this objective to simplify the obligations in section 127. However, school boards will continue to be legally required to protect the rights set out in these Acts.

Question 7

Do you agree with the proposal to remove the objective that requires school boards to give effect to relevant student rights set out in the Education and Training Act 2020, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Human Rights Act 1993?

• No! It is essential for this to remain in order to keep school boards, staff, and proprietors accountable to the NZBORA and HRA along with the current protections in the Education Act, especially because boards are responsible for school policies alongside the management team. These people in power often need reminding about student rights due to the endemic bias within traditional structures/systems such as schools.

Question 8

Do you have any views or comments to make on this proposal?

• Some would argue that trangender, gender-diverse, and intersex people currently have protections under HRA within the prohibited grounds of discrimination related to sex. However, sex and gender are not the same, and this protection has not yet been proven in court, whereas within the ETA (through the NELP provisions that are linked to it), the LGBTQIA+ term is used, which offers explicit protection from discrimination for our trans, gender-diverse, and intersex whānau within the school environment.
• No other current legislation requires schools to be inclusive of all students and their unique needs as individuals within their communities currently. The proposed changes will remove this requirement.
• Considering the high rates of bullying towards rainbow students in schools (more than four times more likely to be bullied than their non-rainbow counterparts), schools must be held accountable to continue working towards ensuring that school is a physically and emotionally safe place for all students and staff, and that they are taking all reasonable steps to eliminate racism, stigma, bullying, and any other forms of discrimination within the school, as well as being inclusive of, and catering for, students with complex needs. This clause should remain in place as the board needs to be accountable in upholding their obligations in this area.

Proposal 5

Moving the requirement for schools to achieve equitable outcomes for Māori students to the front of the Tiriti/Treaty clause in section 127

The Government has clear expectations for strengthened educational outcomes and achievement for tamariki and rangatahi Māori.

As part of giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi, section 127 requires schools to achieve equitable outcomes for Māori students.

To increase the visibility of this requirement and clarify that schools are required to deliver equitable outcomes for Māori learners, the Government is proposing to shift the requirement up to the front of the clause. This is intended to clarify and strengthen schools’ focus on lifting educational achievement for Māori students.

Question 9

Do you agree with the proposal to move the requirement for schools to achieve equitable outcomes for Māori students in a more visible place in the Tiriti/treaty clause in section 127?

• No! We should not prioritise achievement over mātauranga Māori, te ao Māori, tikanga, or te reo Māori. Achievement comes from honouring mātauranga Māori and Māori ways of learning. We will see achievement rates plummet if we prioritise “Māori achievement” within a te ao Pākehā framework.

Question 10

Do you have any views or comments to make on this proposal?

• The prioritisation within the current legislation is set up to be reflective of what is required to create equitable outcomes, so no change to the order of priorities is necessary. Te reo Māori is a taonga and should be treated as such – it should not be deprioritised. Te reo Māori is crucial to raising achievement.
• This change in focus reflects a coloniser mindset putting the product before the process and ill-informed views of how educational achievement actually works. The proposed changes shift away from culturally responsive practices by putting targets before tāngata and will actually be counterproductive to raising achievement.
• Achievement is often centred within te ao Pākehā and does not give the same weight to mātauranga Māori.
• It goes against all current best practice evidence in education which show us how crucial mātauranga Māori, te ao Māori, tikanga Māori, and te reo Māori are to Māori achievement.

Proposal 6

Strengthening the focus on the national curriculum by replacing the term ‘local curriculum’ in section 127

Section 127(1)(d) requires schools to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi by working to ensure that its plans, policies, and local curriculum reflect local tikanga Māori, mātauranga Māori, and te ao Māori. The Government is proposing a minor change to wording in this section¹ to replace “local curriculum” with “teaching and learning programmes”.

There are concerns that the term ‘local curriculum’ may cause confusion and lead some schools to think that ‘local curriculum’ is separate from the national curriculum – meaning they may not be adequately covering the national curriculum in their teaching and learning programmes².

The proposed change updates the language in section 127 so that school board objectives are better aligned with board responsibilities for teaching and learning programmes. It does not change the meaning of the section. Boards must still work to give effect to Te Tiriti/The Treaty, including working to ensure that schools reflect local tikanga, mātauranga Māori, and te ao Māori in their teaching and learning programmes.

Question 11

Do you agree with the proposal to change the term ‘local curriculum’ to ‘teaching and learning programmes’?

• No! We believe honouring indigenous knowledge should remain the top priority. By centralising a national curriculum, it erases diverse local knowledge in favour of dominant narratives, colonising the system further.

Question 12

Do you have any views or comments to make on this proposal?

• Often so much of the most meaningful learning is the learning done about your local area, and not just from a coloniser viewpoint. Understanding the history of the ground you stand on is so powerful. Changing this would mean that the focus on local tikanga Māori, mātauranga Māori, and te ao Māori would be deprioritised.
• “Teaching and learning programmes” implies standardisation – this was a term used in the 1980s, we want to go forwards not backwards.
• Prioritising a “national curriculum” will contribute to the ongoing erasure of indigenous knowledge and histories that differ region to region, iwi to iwi, and hapū to hapū which is a result of colonisation. There is no one “knowledge” or correct way of teaching/learning, by enforcing a national curriculum we would uphold the Pākehā worldview as the “one correct way” of understanding the world, our environment, and our histories.
• Teachers are not confused by the term ‘local curriculum’, this is just an excuse to mask the wider political agenda of this current government to undermine all things connected to te ao Māori in favour of whitewashed standardisation. The statement “local curriculum’ may cause confusion” underestimates and is disrespectful towards teachers’ capacity for understanding simple instructions! If this was a genuine concern, clarifying statements could be added to ensure teachers are aware that the local curriculum is in addition to the national curriculum.

Proposal 7

Remove the Statement of National Education and Learning Priorities from the Act

The Act enables the Minister to issue a statement of National Education and Learning Priorities (NELP) for early education and schooling.

The Government proposes to remove this from the Act as we consider there is sufficient strategic direction provided, including through:

• Section 5(4) which specifies the overall objectives for education and learning.
  The school board objectives in section 127 of the Act.
• Curriculum statements (section 90 for schools) and frameworks (section 23 for early childhood services).

The NELP’s introduction in the Act in 2017 was in response to an identified need at the time for greater strategic direction for the sector. Since then, the school board objectives in section 127 have been further refined and clarified, and the Curriculum statements are being increasingly used to provide the detailed direction schools need. In early learning the full framework for Te Whāriki (Early Childhood Curriculum) has since been issued providing greater direction on early learning programmes. Any additional priorities in a NELP have the potential to over-burden and confuse the sector and detract from a school’s primary focus on student achievement.

The Minister of Education can consider and determine for themselves whether they have any need for any other strategic statements to the sector. These do not need to be enabled by provisions in the Act. The existing NELP (as issued by the previous Government) will expire in 2025.

Question 13

Do you agree with the proposal to remove the Statement of National Education and Learning Priorities from the Act?

• Unequivocally no! This suggestion puts the safety of minoritised students and staff in danger.

Question 14

Do you have any views or comments to make on this proposal?

• School boards are made up of the parent body within the school community; firstly, they are not representative of all of the opinions within the school community and members may enter their position with an agenda or biases that could contribute to the discrimination of minoritised students, secondly, while members may be trained professionals in other sectors they are not usually trained in education, wellbeing, or social services and as a result may further contribute to systemic oppression through policy making without clear guidance from frameworks like the NELP.
• The first objective of the current NELP is: “Learners at the centre: Ensure places of learning are safe, inclusive and free from racism, discrimination and bullying”. It suggests the following steps:
  • Ask learners/ākonga, whānau and staff about their experience of racism, discrimination and bullying, and use that information to reduce these behaviours.
  • Have processes in place to promptly address and resolve any complaints or concerns about racism, discrimination and bullying.
  • Create a safe and inclusive culture where diversity is valued and all learners/ākonga and staff, including those who identify as LGBTQIA+, are disabled, have learning support needs, are neurodiverse, or from diverse ethnic communities, feel they belong.
  • Have high aspirations for every learner/ākonga, and support these by partnering with their whānau and communities to design and deliver education that responds to their needs, and sustains their identities, languages and cultures.”
• The NELP guides the strategic direction of the sector and is formed in consultation with educational experts. The proposed changes would leave the strategic direction of schools in the hands of individual boards who will not necessarily be guided by educational knowledge/expertise in their decision making.
• The directive to protect minoritised groups from discrimination will be at the mercy of the bias of board members if these guidelines are removed and would likely be deprioritised.
• InsideOUT school coordinators and other community support workers often refer back to the NELP in their advocacy work with schools; if it were removed it would make our advocacy efforts more difficult.

We may need to ask schools to update or renew their strategic plans.

Every three years, schools develop strategic plans in which they set out their goals for meeting these primary objectives. If changes to section 127 are enacted by Parliament, the Government may want to ask schools and kura to update their strategic plans outside of their standard three yearly cycle. This would enable schools to plan to achieve the new board objectives sooner than when they are next required to develop their strategic plans.

Depending on when any changes to section 127 are enacted by Parliament, this may require (for example):

• the 2026 strategic plans to be delayed by a year to 2027. This would mean the current strategic plan will remain in effect until December 2026 and the 2027 strategic plan would need to be in place for a two-year period (rather than the usual three). This is so we can realign the strategic planning cycle with the school board elections, which take place around six months before a strategic plan comes into effect; or
• schools and kura could be asked to update their strategic plans to take account of the new objectives once the proposed changes become law. This would likely mean that schools would complete their 2026 strategic plans and shortly after, would be required to update them again.

Question 15

What do you think would be the best way to get schools to update their strategic plans to reflect any changes to the school board objectives?

• This question is very loaded towards the objectives being changed as noted above, and we wholeheartedly reject the ideology driving these changes and are deeply concerned about it. Our overall concern with all of the suggested changes is that if achievement and attendance become the primary focus and the best parts of the act which aim to protect the inalienable rights of those within the education system (as outlined in te Tiriti, the NELP, HRA, and NZBORA) are removed or deprioritised, strategic plans will likely read like KPIs from a corporation, rather than a plan that takes into account the humanity and complexity inherent within the education system. This is especially ludicrous when all of the relevant educational research within Aotearoa points to the fact that these moves would actually be counterintuitive to raising achievement levels. We must focus on removing barriers, not adding more. These changes are regressive and extremely harmful.
• Use this question as an open space to tell them what you really think – they should update their plans to include more protections for marginalised groups, not remove them.

¹And as a consequence, from section 9 of the Act.

²Section 164 of the Act requires schools to develop and implement teaching and learning programmes that give effect to the national curricula. Schools can give life to the national curricula using global, national, and local contexts.