Guide to Submitting Feedback on the Draft Health and Physical Education Years 0–10 Curriculum

The Ministry of Education is currently seeking feedback on the draft Health and Physical Education (HPE) curriculum for Years 0–10. Feedback can be given until 24th April 2025 here.

We have provided suggested points for consideration for each of the questions in the consultation. These points are intended as guidance and include the rationale behind each suggestion. Submitters are strongly encouraged to write their own unique responses. Copy-and-paste responses are less likely to be read or considered. Your personal perspective, examples, and reflections will make your submission much more impactful.

Please note: You do not need to answer all questions. Each question is an opportunity to provide input on specific aspects of the draft curriculum. Some people may wish to focus on a particular phase, topic, or area of expertise.

Question 8. Purpose statement

We are concerned the purpose statement does not adequately capture important conceptual understandings of Health and Physical Education in the context of Aotearoa New Zealand. There is nothing in the purpose statement that links this to our country; it reads as generic and decontextualised, and could apply to almost any education system internationally. This represents a missed opportunity to ground the learning area in our unique social, cultural, and environmental context, including connection to place, belonging, and Te Tiriti o Waitangi responsibilities.

Health and Physical Education in Aotearoa has previously been underpinned by the concept of hauora, recognising the interconnected nature of physical, mental, emotional, social, cultural, and spiritual wellbeing. The absence of this grounding framework weakens the purpose of the learning area and risks positioning health as an individualised set of skills or behaviours rather than something shaped by relationships, communities, culture, and environment.

We also see that the purpose statement places emphasis on students becoming “informed citizens,” which suggests a focus on information transfer. We recommend this be strengthened to reflect learning that enables action and agency, for example by referring to students as “informed, active, and empowered citizens.” Health and Physical Education should support learners to feel confident to participate meaningfully in decisions about their own wellbeing and to contribute positively to the wellbeing of others and their communities.

Suggested points for inclusion:

• The purpose statement does not reflect Aotearoa New Zealand’s unique social, cultural, and environmental context, including Te Tiriti o Waitangi responsibilities.

• Hauora is absent as a guiding framework, weakening the holistic understanding of wellbeing.

Question 9. Learning area structure

The learning area structure does not clearly articulate the relationship between health education and physical education: the two knowledge strands are currently presented as largely separate and parallel, rather than as interdependent and mutually reinforcing. This separation undermines a holistic understanding of wellbeing and does not reflect how physical activity, identity, relationships, emotional wellbeing, and social context are interconnected in young people’s lives.

The absence of a unifying framework, such as ‘hauora’, weakens the learning area structure: without a clear conceptual foundation, the learning area risks becoming a collection of disconnected topics rather than a coherent progression of learning that builds students’ understanding of wellbeing across physical, social, emotional, cultural, and relational dimensions.

There is also a significant omission of relationships with the environment, outdoor learning, and connection to local place. These are central to both physical and mental wellbeing, and in Aotearoa are deeply connected to concepts of belonging, whakapapa, and relationships with te taiao. 

Suggested points for inclusion:

• Health education and physical education are presented largely separately, rather than as interconnected strands. Hauora is not used to unify the learning area.
  
• Relationships with environment, place, and community are missing or peripheral.

Question 10. Introduction

The introduction does not adequately capture the intent, breadth, or contemporary relevance of Health and Physical Education teaching and learning across different phases. In contrast to previous guidance, including the 2020 Relationships and Sexuality Education guidelines, this introduction lacks a clear acknowledgement of the rapidly changing social, cultural, and environmental context in which young people are growing up. For example, there is no meaningful recognition of the diversity of learners in Aotearoa New Zealand, including changing family structures, diverse genders and sexualities, the influence of social media and digital technologies, climate change, or the lasting impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. These realities significantly shape students’ wellbeing, relationships, and sense of identity, and their absence makes the introduction feel disconnected from learners’ lived experiences.

Additionally, the introduction does not sufficiently acknowledge students’ growing sense of self across phases, including the development of personal, relational, and social identity. Understanding who learners are, where they belong, and how they relate to others is central to effective Health and Physical Education and should be clearly named as part of the learning progression.

The introduction also fails to clearly articulate the values underpinning teaching and learning across the phases. Previous guidance explicitly centred human rights, inclusion, social justice, equity, and Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations, and recognised the importance of mātauranga Māori and Pacifica worldviews. These foundations are not reflected in the draft introduction, nor is there a strong emphasis on a whole-school approach to wellbeing that includes policies, practices, leadership, culture, and learning environments.

Suggested points for inclusion:

• Contemporary realities of learners are not addressed, including (rainbow and other) diversity, changing family structures, digital engagement, climate change, and post-COVID impacts.
  
• Values such as inclusion, equity, social justice, and Te Tiriti obligations are not clearly articulated.
  
  
• Students’ identity, sense of belonging, and self-development are not foregrounded.

Question 12. Phase 1 Teaching sequence

The Phase 1 teaching sequence is generally organised in a logical order. However, the language and framing used throughout are not consistently clear, strengths-based, or inclusive. There is a recurring deficit-based perspective that positions diversity as something learners may find unfamiliar or difficult to understand, rather than establishing diversity as a normal, positive, and valued aspect of human experience from the outset. This framing risks ‘othering’ and does not align with inclusive, developmentally appropriate practice for young learners.

For example, in Relationships year 1 knowledge, “People live in different kinds of families and homes, and learning to understand and respect these differences can take time, especially when someone’s way of living feels unfamiliar” assumes students will struggle to understand and accept diverse ways of being, rather than setting a baseline of acceptance and celebration.

Another example is in Relationships year 2 knowledge, “People can look, move, sound and act in different ways. Some of these differences come from medical conditions or disabilities and all people should be treated with respect and kindness”. The focus here on disabilities is othering, and implies ‘the rest of us are normal’ and the same as each other, however the reality is people look, move, sound and act in diverse ways, and for many different reasons. Both here and throughout the curriculum, we would like to see inclusion from a baseline that recognises our diversity as a strength, and that this is the time to explore what it may look like.

Additionally, there are several key areas of missing content that would significantly strengthen the Phase 1 sequence:

• Exploring self and belonging: Learning about identity should be extended to include a child’s relationship with both themselves and others, including in their family, communities, culture, place, and their sense of belonging. This would support early development of self-understanding and wellbeing.
• Body knowledge: The growing bodies content would be strengthened by naming body parts and their functions in age-appropriate ways, supporting body confidence and foundational health knowledge.
• Online safety: Learning about staying safe online should begin in Phase 1 and be revisited across later phases, reflecting children’s early and increasing engagement with digital spaces.
• Safe relationships and consent: Understanding what safe relationships look and feel like, including early concepts of consent and bodily autonomy, should be introduced in Phase 1 and built on progressively across the curriculum.

Suggested points for inclusion:

• Language is deficit-based and positions diversity as something unfamiliar or difficult, rather than normal and valued.
• Diversity is described in broad terms without specificity. Rainbow identities and diverse family structures are not normalised.
• Missing content includes self and belonging, body knowledge, online safety, and early concepts of consent and bodily autonomy.

Question 13. Phase 2 Teaching sequence

The Phase 2 teaching sequence is generally organised in a logical order. However, the language and framing are not consistently clear, strengths-based, or inclusive. As in Phase 1, diversity is often positioned as something to be noticed or managed, rather than established as a normal and valued part of human experience. This deficit-based framing risks reinforcing dominant norms as the default and can result in some learners and whānau not seeing their lives and experiences reflected in the curriculum.

Across the Phase 2 sequence, learning related to identity, relationships, and inclusion is often described using broad, non-specific language. For example, references to respecting “differences” or recognising that people and families “may be different” are not accompanied by clear examples of what those differences might be. This lack of specificity increases the likelihood that diversity (including, but not limited to, rainbow identities and experiences) will be inconsistently addressed or omitted in practice.

While some learning appears to build across the phase, it is not always clear how proficiency is intentionally developed over time, particularly in relation to identity, relationships, and safety. Phase 2 is a key developmental period where learners are forming a stronger sense of self and belonging, yet the teaching sequence does not clearly support this shift or build explicitly on the foundations established in Phase 1.

There are several areas where content is under-developed in Phase 2, including:

• Identity and belonging: Learning continues to focus largely on relationships with others, rather than supporting learners to explore their own developing sense of identity. The curriculum should intentionally support students to understand themselves within families, cultures, and communities, including recognising diversity in identities and experiences.
• Relationships and inclusion: While relationships are addressed, there is limited explicit acknowledgement of diverse family structures or relationship types. The curriculum would benefit from naming and normalising this diversity, thereby reducing stigma and supporting inclusion. 
• Consent and bodily autonomy: Concepts related to safety and respect are present, but consent is not clearly named or developed as a concept in its own right. The absence of explicit consent learning in Phase 2 weakens progression and delays essential safeguarding education.
• Online safety and relationships: As learners’ engagement with digital spaces increases during this phase, learning about online relationships, boundaries, and safety should be more clearly embedded.

Suggested points for inclusion:

• Language is deficit-based and positions diversity as something unfamiliar or difficult, rather than normal and valued.
• Diversity is described in broad terms without specificity. Rainbow identities and diverse family structures are not normalised.
• Consent is not clearly named or developed as a concept.
• Missing content includes identity and belonging, inclusion, consent and bodily autonomy, and online safety.

Question 14. Phase 3 Teaching sequence

The Phase 3 teaching sequence is not sufficiently clear, comprehensive, or developmentally appropriate, particularly in relation to puberty, identity development, relationships, and consent. While the sequence is presented as a progression from earlier phases, it does not adequately build on prior learning or reflect the realities of students’ lived experiences during this stage of development. The language and Phase 3 sequence continues to lack a strengths-based approach and grounding in hauora. 

The learning related to pubertal change is limited in scope and framed in a narrow, individualised way. It does not adequately acknowledge that people experience puberty differently, nor does it reflect the diversity of bodies, identities, and cultural understandings of adolescence. Intersex experiences are entirely omitted. We recommend reviewing the content provided in Sexual Wellbeing’s ‘Navigating the Journey’, which provides a more comprehensive and nuanced approach to pubertal changes, including how these changes can affect people emotionally, socially, and relationally, and how experiences of puberty may vary across individuals, cultures, and genders.

There is also a notable absence of learning about gender identity, gender diversity, and sexual orientation. While Phase 3 is a time when many learners are beginning to question or affirm aspects of their identity, the draft curriculum does not name or normalise this exploration. Broad and non-specific language is used instead; increasing the likelihood that dominant, binary, and heteronormative assumptions will remain unchallenged in practice. 

Consent and relationships education in Phase 3 are insufficiently developed. Consent is touched on briefly within relationship contexts but lacks depth, clarity, and practical application. There is limited exploration of what consent is, how it is communicated, how it can be withdrawn, or how power dynamics and pressure can affect decision-making. Again, we recommend reviewing the content provided in ‘Navigating the Journey’, which introduces consent, body ownership, decision-making, and help-seeking strategies earlier and revisits them in increasingly complex ways, better reflecting the developmental needs of learners at this age.

The Phase 3 sequence also lacks a strong focus on collective responsibility, inclusion, and peer culture. Learning is framed primarily at an individual level, with little attention given to how students can support one another, challenge exclusion or bullying, or contribute to safer and more inclusive school environments. This limits opportunities for developing critical thinking, empathy, and collective action.

Overall, the Phase 3 teaching sequence lacks sufficient depth, clarity, and progression in relation to puberty, identity, relationships, and consent. This Phase needs to be strengthened by:

• Puberty: Broadening learning about pubertal experiences, and more closely aligning with the comprehensive, strengths-based approach used in ‘Navigating the Journey’
• Identity and inclusion: Explicitly naming and normalising gender and sexuality diversity
• Consent, bodily autonomy and collective responsibility: Increasing depth and clarity of content relating to consent, including harm reduction.

These changes would significantly improve its relevance, effectiveness, and developmental appropriateness for learners.

Suggested points for inclusion:

• Language is deficit-based and positions diversity as something unfamiliar or difficult, rather than normal and valued.
• Puberty, identity development, and relationships are addressed narrowly; intersex experiences are omitted.
• Rainbow identities, gender diversity, and sexual orientation are not named or normalised
• Consent is touched on but lacks depth, practical application, or exploration of power and pressure.
• Collective responsibility, peer culture, and inclusive practices are limited.

Question 15. Phase 4 Teaching sequence

The Phase 4 teaching sequence is not consistently clear, coherent, or sufficiently detailed in relation to relationships, consent, identity, and sexual health. While physical education content is described in highly specific and explicit terms, learning related to relationships, gender, sexuality, and consent is presented using broad, non-specific language. Phrases such as “diverse identities,” “inclusive practices,” and “people experience sexual desires in many ways” lack clarity and specificity, increasing the risk that rainbow identities and experiences will be omitted in practice. Cultural understandings of gender and sexuality are notably absent. While the draft curriculum recognises culture as shaping other aspects of health, such as nutrition, this understanding is not extended to relationships and sexuality. Cultural frameworks must be embedded throughout the curriculum rather than treated as optional or supplementary. Without this, the curriculum risks reinforcing a narrow, Eurocentric understanding of identity, relationships, and sexual health. 

It is not clear that the teaching sequence builds proficiency in a developmentally appropriate way across the phase. Critical concepts such as consent, power dynamics, decision-making, and help-seeking strategies in sexual relationships are introduced too late, despite many students already navigating sexual relationships or potentially experiencing abusive dynamics by this stage. Consent is primarily framed through legal concepts and discussions of what consent is not, rather than teaching what consent is. There is insufficient emphasis on consent as voluntary, enthusiastic, mutual, and ongoing, or on strategies for saying no, being rejected, and respecting bodily autonomy across contexts – not just sexual contexts. Limiting consent education in this way places responsibility on those who may experience harm rather than addressing behaviours that cause harm.

The Phase 4 sequence continues to lack a strengths-based approach and grounding in hauora. The emphasis on observable outcomes, risk, and problem-focused learning leaves little space for critical thinking, inquiry, or exploration of identity, relationships, and sexual health as interconnected aspects of wellbeing. Research demonstrates that a strengths-based, inclusive approach – celebrating diversity, body positivity, and healthy relationships – is more effective for learning and harm reduction.

There is significant missing content in Phase 4. The sequence does not explicitly address gender identity, gender diversity, or different sexual orientations, nor does it explore homophobia, transphobia, interphobia, discrimination, sexual abuse, coercion, or violence (including, but not limited to, from a rainbow perspective). While it mentions recognising exclusion or unfair treatment based on “identity,” it does not define which identities are included or provide guidance on fostering inclusion and belonging. Cultural, religious, and family influences on consent are referenced, but there is little guidance on what consent looks like in practice or how it is enacted within relationships.

Sexual health education is also insufficient and introduced too late. Information about STIs, safer sex strategies, condoms, and contraception largely appears in Year 10, with limited revisiting and no clear instruction on condom use. Contraception is presented alongside abstinence, despite abstinence not being a contraceptive method, and the content is not consistently relevant for all genders or relationship types. Given that students often seek information outside school if it is not provided, this delay and lack of specificity increases the risk of unsafe health and relationship outcomes.

Overall, the Phase 4 teaching sequence lacks sufficient depth, clarity, and progression in relation to puberty, identity, relationships, and consent. This Phase needs to be strengthened by:

• Consent, bodily autonomy and collective responsibility: Increasing depth and clarity of content relating to consent, including harm reduction
• Identity and inclusion: Explicitly naming and normalising gender and sexuality diversity
• Sexual health: Inclusion of accurate, specific information that will support learners of all genders and in diverse relationship types understand safer sex strategies
• Harm reduction: Broadening and deepening content relating to identity (including marginalised and minority identities), experiences of exclusion and unfair treatment, fostering inclusion and belonging, and the role of individual and collective responsibility.

Suggested points for inclusion:

• Language is deficit-based and positions diversity as something unfamiliar or difficult, rather than normal and valued.
• Relationships, consent, identity, and sexual health are described broadly, lacking specificity, clarity, and developmental progression.
  
• Rainbow identities, gender diversity, and sexual orientation are not named or normalised
• Consent and sexual health education are introduced too late and framed narrowly.
• Cultural frameworks for understanding relationships and sexuality are absent.

Question 16. Overall comments

The draft curriculum presents teaching sequences that are in part organised in a logical order, however the clarity, specificity, and progression of learning are inconsistent and in instances insufficient. While physical education content is described in detailed and explicit terms, learning related to relationships, identity, sexuality, and consent is frequently vague, broad, and non-specific. This imbalance reduces the curriculum’s effectiveness and risks normalising binary, heteronormative, and Eurocentric frameworks.

The sequences do not consistently build proficiency in a developmentally appropriate way. Critical concepts, including identity, consent, power dynamics, help-seeking, sexual health, and boundaries, are often introduced too late or in insufficient depth, despite many students already navigating relational or sexual experiences by those phases. Consent is predominantly framed as what it is not, rather than taught positively as voluntary, enthusiastic, mutual, and ongoing, with strategies for giving, refusing, or negotiating consent in diverse contexts. Sexual health education is introduced late and unevenly, with limited teaching on STIs, contraception, condom use, and safer sex strategies, and little relevance for all genders and relationship types.

There is a consistent deficit-based perspective throughout the curriculum, where diversity is framed as something learners must learn to tolerate or might struggle to understand, rather than celebrated as a normal and positive aspect of human experience. This approach contrasts with a strengths-based framework, which research has shown is more effective for learning, harm reduction, and wellbeing. Opportunities to foster body positivity, self-acceptance, and inclusive relationships are not embedded in a meaningful way.

Key content omissions across Years 0–10 include:

• Rainbow identities and experiences: gender identity, gender diversity, sexual orientation, and rainbow-focused bullying are not explicitly addressed; this increases the likelihood that these experiences are excluded or invisibilised in practice.
  
• Cultural frameworks: although culture is acknowledged in relation to nutrition and physical health, there is minimal integration of cultural understandings in relationships, identity, or sexuality education. Cultural frameworks must be embedded, not treated as optional.

   

• Consent and boundaries: teaching about consent, bodily autonomy, and safe relationships should begin in early phases and progressively build, including strategies for negotiation, refusal, and recognising coercion.

   

• Sexual health education: STIs, contraception, condom use, and safer sex strategies are introduced too late and insufficiently, with content framed in ways that risk reinforcing shame and heteronormativity.

   

• Exploration of identity and belonging: opportunities for students to explore their sense of self, connection to whānau, community, and place, and to reflect on personal and relational identity are limited or absent, particularly in the early phases.

   

Suggested points for inclusion:

A more effective HPE curriculum would:

• Embed cultural and rainbow perspectives throughout

   

• Introduce key relational, sexual, and identity concepts earlier and build them progressively

   

• Celebrate diversity and promote body positivity, critical thinking, and harm reduction

   

• Integrate learning about physical, relational, and emotional wellbeing holistically; reflecting the interconnected nature of hauora

   

Use precise, consistent, and inclusive language throughout, ensuring clarity for teachers and equity in student learning.