Section One: Background

Introduction

The curriculum encompasses all learning, both formal and informal, occurring in educational settings, including social values, attitudes and norms of behaviour as well as a body of knowledge. In practice, however, curriculum is commonly misconstrued as a plan for teaching, in which knowledge and procedures are isolated from the socio-cultural context of the school and classroom (Cornbleth, 1990).

Curriculum development is a dynamic and iterative process. Carr, McGee, Jones, McKinley, Bell, Barr, and Simpson (2000) refer to a `cascade' of interpreted curricula from the official curricula down to the students' interpretation of the curriculum as a consequence of teaching and learning activities. National curricula are developed as `intended' curricula, changed through regulation to `planned' curricula, become `taught' as they are interpreted, reformulated and internalised by teachers. Finally, curricula are `experienced', `learned', and `internalised' by students (Harland, 1988). Curriculum reform involves reflection and change at all the different levels of curriculum, `intended', `planned', `taught', `learnt' and `internalised'.

While `taught' curricula define specific intentions for a specified group of students, `intended' curricula define the expected outcomes for the entire student population (McGee, 1997). In this context, the government is responsible for specifying the `intended' or `planned' curriculum. A national approach facilitates consistency of opportunity of outcome and ensures that although New Zealand's population is highly mobile, New Zealand students will be exposed to consistent expectations of what they should learn.

Curriculum reform by the government includes `an analysis of what a nation wanted its citizens to gain from school and the nature, characteristics and needs of society' (McGee, 1997, p. 42), formulation and reformulation of the aims, goals, objectives, content, `pointers about contemporary knowledge about how people learn and how this can influence curriculum decisions' and broad assessment policies of the curriculum (McGee, 1997, p. 43). Evaluation of the New Zealand curriculum and te marautanga o Aotearoa also needs to be in terms of the stated outcome of the curriculum/te marautanga o te motu to raise the achievement of all students.

Historical Context

From 1961 to 1986, the New Zealand curriculum was specified, in English, through more than a dozen syllabi and guidelines[1]. Following a major public consultation on the curriculum in the mid-1980s, the Department of Education began work on an overall framework for a revised school curriculum. The `Report of the Curriculum Review' (1987) proposed eight 'curriculum aspects'[2]: culture and heritage; language; creative and aesthetic development; Mathematics; practical abilities; living in society; Science, Technology and the environment; and health and well-being. Key ideas were represented as strands and developed as achievement objectives at five levels. The achievement objectives in many of the statements were not expressed as outcomes, but in terms of typical learning experiences, activities, and content to be covered. The intention was that schools would develop programmes to suit their students as long as their programmes covered all of the aspects.

The reform of the administration of education in 1989 and a change of Government in 1990 meant the work did not proceed beyond a draft document. Curriculum development resumed in 1991, under an `Achievement Initiative' policy, and from 1993 under the umbrella of The New Zealand Curriculum Framework[3] and Te Anga Marautanga o Aotearoa[4].

With the publication of The New Zealand Curriculum Framework and Te Anga Marautanga o Aotearoa, curriculum policy shifted from a focus on content, experiences and activities to curriculum policy based on outcomes. This was, in part, due to pressure on government to account for investment in education by demonstrating what students achieved during schooling[5].

Since 1993, curriculum statements and ngä tauäkï marautanga mö te motu[6] have progressively replaced syllabi. They have been published initially in draft form for consultation and trialling, published in final form. The curriculum statements have been gazetted for mandatory implementation in years 1-10.

Table 1: Timeline for the Publication and Gazetting of the Curriculum Statements and Ngä tauäkï Marautanga mö te Motu[7]

In 1994-1995, the Ministry of Education published curriculum statements for optional programmes in the senior Sciences and languages, and started a contestable second language funding pool for programmes for students from year 7 onwards. The funding for this pool has increased over time.

Table 2: Publication of Curriculum Statements for Languages other than English or Te Reo Mäori

In 1996, the development and implementation of new curriculum statements and ngä tauäkï marautanga mö te motu was paused by the then Minister of Education in response to widespread concern across the school sector about the pace and scale of change. New timelines for the New Zealand curriculum and te marautanga o Aotearoa were announced in July 1997, introducing a transition period of at least two years between the publication of a final statement and its mandatory implementation.

Alongside the introduction of new curriculum timelines came an undertaking that, following the publication of the full set of curriculum statements and ngä tauäkï marautanga mö te motu, a time of consolidation and reflection would occur. That point was reached with the publication of Hauora i roto i Te Marautanga o Aotearoa in 2002.

This report takes stock of the last decade's curriculum developments and their implications for teaching and learning, and considers the implications for future curriculum policy development. It does not, however, undertake a review of the curriculum from first principles.

Sources of Information

The Ministry of Education collated data on student outcomes over the period of curriculum/te marautanga implementation from international studies and from National Education Monitoring Project reports. This information was analysed to determine the contribution of the curriculum/te marautanga in improving student outcomes.

Data on teacher perceptions of curriculum implementation was collected through the establishment of the National School Sampling Study. This project involved focus group interviews and a quantitative questionnaire with teachers in 10% of schools and kura Mäori (about 4000 teachers in total) about their experiences using The New Zealand Curriculum Framework, Te Anga Marautanga o Aotearoa, the curriculum statements and ngä tauäkï marautanga mö te motu. Analysis of the research findings of 2002 is cited as McGee, Jones, Bishop, Cowie, Hill, Harlow, Oliver, Tiakiwai, and Mackenzie (2002) and McGee et al. (2002) in this report. In 2002-2003, this study will provide further analysis of material from quantitative questionnaires and case studies to inform the work of the Ministry of Education.

The Ministry sought critical comment on The New Zealand Curriculum Framework and the curriculum statements from two organisations recognised as having international curriculum expertise, the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) UK and the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER). The NFER commentary is cited as Le Métais (2002) and the ACER commentary as Ferguson (2002) in the body of this report.

A representative group of major stakeholders in education met with the Ministry of Education in November 2000, March, June and October 2001, March and May 2002 (The Curriculum Stocktake Reference Group). The group acted as a sounding board and gave critical comment and advice on policy directions. The meetings have provided opportunities for the interests of those with key roles in curriculum implementation to be heard.

Essential learning area meetings to discuss Mathematics/Pängarau, Science/Pütaiäo, English/Te Reo Mäori occurred in 2001. The meetings brought together representatives from the teaching profession, teacher education, tertiary education, and employers related to the area of learning. Meetings are to be held for the other essential learning areas.

The Ministry consulted with regional and national principals' meetings, the Education Review Office, and the business sector.

Although no formal call for public submissions was made, the Ministry of Education received a number of communications and submissions from individuals and other organisations. A discussion group was also established on the Te Kete Ipurangi Curriculum Stocktake community web page. However, use of this forum for discussion has been limited.