Section Three: The Nature of the New Zealand Curriculum and Te Marautanga O Aotearoa as Policy

This section considers the nature of the New Zealand curriculum and ngä marautanga o Aotearoa as policy, including:

• the purposes of national curricula that the New Zealand curriculum and ngä marautanga o Aotearoa should reflect; and
• the current legal status of the New Zealand curriculum and ngä marautanga o Aotearoa, and possible options for change.

Part 1: The purposes of the New Zealand Curriculum and te ngä marautanga o Aotearoa

The official purposes of the current New Zealand curriculum and ngä marautanga o Aotearoa are not explicit in current curriculum policy. It can be argued that the purposes of the curriculum are reflected in the National Education Goals and the principles of The New Zealand Curriculum Framework and Te Anga Marautanga o Aotearoa.

In order to best support positive student outcomes, the purposes of the New Zealand curriculum and ngä marautanga o Aotearoa, defined in the stocktake, should be to:

• clarify expectations for all New Zealand students; and
• develop the human capability necessary for a prosperous and inclusive New Zealand society.

Purpose 1: To clarify expectations for all New Zealand students

The outcomes of national curricula need to reflect higher level thinking and be goals for learning, rather than benchmarks or minimum standards. It is important that these outcomes are expectations that most students can achieve with purposeful teaching, that teachers develop specific differentiated tasks that are targeted to their learning needs of their students and that teachers have high expectations of all students.

There is consistent evidence that clear expectations that focus on educationally significant learning and high but attainable standards raise achievement. Clear expectations that discourage deficit explanations of student performance based on cultural and social class stereotypes support teachers in focusing on the next learning steps for each pupil regardless of their background, and lead to more equitable learning outcomes for students (Chamberlain, p.20, 2000).

The mandatory achievement objectives of the New Zealand curriculum are broad goals for learning. The curricula provide the broad expectations and help schools to set goals for specific groups of students. With the help of more specific advice from the National School Assessment Strategy, schools/kura are able to gather achievement data and measure the progress of these groups of students. While the performance indicators and guidance on student-teacher interactions provided by the National Assessment Strategy are not mandatory, the measurement of progress allows schools to identify specific learning needs of groups to plan strategies to meet these needs.

Other countries use prescribed, mandatory performance indicators or benchmarks against which to evaluate student achievement at the school level (Ferguson, 2002; Le Métais, 2002). This approach narrows the `taught' curriculum in schools to the `assessed' curriculum and teachers tend to adopt standardised programmes, which prepare students for assessments, rather than using contexts for learning which reflect students' needs and interests (Le Métais, 2002).

Purpose 2: To develop the human capability necessary for a prosperous and inclusive New Zealand society

The adults of tomorrow are likely to work in more open, competitive, flexible labour markets with increased migration flows, rapid growth in human capability and more open and competitive international education and research markets. Continuous technological, social and economic change will mean continuous change in the level and types of capability needed, the range of opportunities and career pathways available, and the relative wages offered for different sets of skills and capabilities. In the face of this change, the national curriculum has a role in safeguarding and promoting social cohesion[1]. New Zealand is not as explicit as other countries in the role education plays in developing national identity through `teaching about different cultures, using a range of cultural contexts in teaching, promoting positive attitudes towards diversity, and making differentiated provision for different cultural/ethnic groups' (Le Métais, 2002).

Curricula have a role in contributing to the well-being of New Zealand society through:

• building social capital;
• using diversity as a strength; and
• developing an innovative, knowledgeable and capable workforce (including unpaid employment).

In particular, Mäori students have specific rights and responsibilities as the indigenous people of New Zealand. In order for Mäori `to live as Mäori, to participate as citizens of the world, and to enjoy good health and a high standard of living', education [and therefore the curriculum] must be guided by the principle of `indigeneity' and `best outcomes' for all students (Durie, 2001, p.5.). New Zealand's national curricula, therefore, must take account of the Treaty of Waitangi and recognise Mäori as tangata whenua.

In order for diversity to be used as strength, the outcomes of national curricula need to expressed so that they recognise difference. The outcomes of national curriculum need to recognise that students develop at different rates, and that student's learning may be asynchronous. Curricula also need to be inclusive and reflect how student learning progresses in the socio-ecological context of the classroom environment (rather than as a lock-step process). Curricula also need to be viewed alongside support materials, which may help teachers meet the needs of the diverse student population.

Recommendation: That a section on the purposes of the New Zealand curriculum and ngä marautanga o Aotearoa is developed

The New Zealand Curriculum Framework and Te Anga Marautanga o Aotearoa should include clear statements about the purposes of the New Zealand curriculum and ngä marautanga o Aotearoa. These purposes are to clarify expectations for all New Zealand students and contribute to developing the human capability necessary for a prosperous and inclusive New Zealand society.

Rationale

Curricula help schools/kura to address issues of cultural relevance, indigeneity and to address disparity, such as that due to social class.

Curricula help develop a creative and innovative citizenry, developing life-long learners and safeguarding and promoting social cohesion.

Curricula that reflect current learning theory are flexible, inclusive and recognise that student learning progresses in the socio-ecological context of the classroom environment.

The outcomes of the curriculum can be expressed as both aspirations that reflect higher level thinking, and expectations of what students should learn at different levels.

Part 2: The legal status of the New Zealand curriculum

Currently, the national curriculum is regulated under the Education Act 1989 through the National Education Guidelines[2] which have four components:

• National Education Goals;
• Foundation Curriculum Policy Statements[3];
• National Curriculum Statements; and
• National Administration Guidelines[4].

In common with a number of other education systems (Australian states, Canadian provinces and South Africa), the legislation pertaining to the New Zealand curriculum specifies expected or desirable learning outcomes for students, rather than content. These curricula outline progress in achievement levels, rather than year/class levels. This policy recognises that children learn and develop at different rates, that children of the same age will be at different levels of development and that a child may be further along the continuum of development in one area than another.

In New Zealand, the regulation of seven essential learning areas for years 1-10 is designed to protect students' entitlement of opportunity to achieve and to provide a broad, balanced, general education rather than a vocationally or academically narrowed/specialised one.

Until December 1998, the junior secondary curriculum was regulated through the Secondary Instruction Regulations (1975) which outlined minimum time allocations for 'core' subjects in years 9-11. Although these regulations were revoked in 1998, they continue to impact on secondary school practice[5] by determining a perceived hierarchy of subjects.

In response to workload and administration concerns, the National Administration Guidelines were amended in 1999, with effect from 1 July 2000. The changes sought to:

• improve schools' responsiveness to Maori students and improve the achievement of Maori students;
• ensure that schools give priority to achievement in literacy and numeracy, especially in the early primary years;
• ensure that schools identify and respond appropriately to students with special needs;
• clarify requirements for schools to assess and report on student progress in relation to the national curriculum statements; and
• link schools' analysis and use of assessment information with strategic planning, self-review, and teacher professional development.

The changes have gone some way to prioritising what schools are required to do and to correct the misconception that the Education Review Office expects schools to show evidence of teaching and assessing every achievement objective.

To give effect to changes introduced by the Education Standards Act 2001, particularly in respect to requirements related to planning and reporting, further amendments to the National Administration Guidelines will need to be considered.

There is widespread sector concern that the curriculum is overcrowded and needs to be reduced. Others, however, wish to increase the size of the regulated curriculum by developing and gazetting further essential learning areas.

Options for changing the current regulatory framework were considered in terms of the purposes of the curriculum and the quality of the curriculum. Completely deregulating the curriculum places the provision of opportunity of achievement at risk. At the other extreme, international experience indicates that highly regulated curricula with mandatory outcomes, benchmarks of achievement and content deprofessionalise and demotivate teachers, reducing achievement to minimum standards for all and removing any flexibility for teachers to meet the needs of their students (Le Métais, 2002).

Options for altering the regulation of the national curricula

Gazetting The New Zealand Curriculum Framework

Sector feedback[6] and the international commentaries give support for The New Zealand Curriculum Framework to have the status of a foundation curriculum policy statement (Ferguson, 2002; Le Métais, 2002). . However, feedback on the quality and purpose of the New Zealand curriculum suggests that the framework would need to be revised before it was mandated.

Gazetting Te Marautanga o Aotearoa

Ngä marautanga o Aotearoa have not been gazetted and this has caused a legal inconsistency, where kura Mäori should, in theory, be using the New Zealand curriculum. In Mäori immersion settings, over half of teachers use either the curriculum statements in English, or a combination of curriculum statements and ngä tauäkï marautanga mö te motu. Both the English and Mäori medium curricula could be gazetted, with Kura Mäori/immersion units being able to use either or parts of both curricula.

Using the essential skills/ngä tino pükenga as the structure of the regulated curriculum[7]

A focus on essential skills/ngä tino pükenga instead of essential learning areas/ ngä tino wähanga ako reflects OECD research which indicates employers are more interested in employee skills and dispositions rather than domain specific knowledge. A focus on skill development can promote metacognition and the use of authentic, interdisciplinary contexts, both of which are necessary in a knowledge society. However, progression in skill development is difficult to define and teachers may teach the essential skills in isolation from conceptual knowledge. Teachers are also more likely to stay within their knowledge and experience thus narrowing the curriculum.

Decreasing the number of essential learning areas/ngä tino wähanga ako

This option may allay teacher concerns about workload associated with the current curriculum. However decreasing the number of essential learning areas may not decrease workload, as curriculum content may remain the same, with one essential learning area being integrated into another. Many New Zealand schools already integrate the essential learning areas[8]. Integrating curricula, however, poses both advantages and risks. Less sophisticated approaches to integration pose greater risks to learning; more sophisticated options require greater teacher capability and possibly increase workload.

Increasing the number of levels in the curriculum statements/ngä tauäkï marautanga mö te motu

There has been some discussion in the Exemplar project that students progression is more clearly represented in some essential learning areas by more levels than those in the current curricula. Increasing the number of levels, however, would increase workload and manageability for teachers. This option may also change the specificity of the achievement objectives from `broad expectations of learning' to `specific performance indicators'. The adoption of specific mandatory performance indicators has educational risks that are outlined in the section two of this report.

Decreasing the number of levels in the curriculum statements/ngä tauäkï marautanga mö te motu

Some teachers assume that most students in a classroom are working at the same level and plan programmes accordingly. The intention of the current New Zealand curriculum and ngä marautanga o Aotearoa is that teachers should plan programmes for students at their actual and different levels. Multilevel teaching is one way teachers can cater for gifted and talented students and students with special needs.

If the number of levels were decreased, most students in a classroom would be defined as working at the same level. It is likely, therefore, that fewer teachers would adopt multilevel teaching strategies. Decreasing the number of levels, therefore, presents risks that the needs of gifted and talented students, and students with special needs students will not be met in more New Zealand classrooms.

Decreasing the number of achievement objectives in the curriculum statements

This option offers possibilities for reducing the complexity and increasing the clarity of the curriculum statements and addresses workload concerns. A significant number of the achievement objectives may need to be rewritten, as they do not always represent progression of concepts, processes and functions.

The outcomes could be targeted to the different learning needs of students at different levels.

• The first two levels could reflect only the outcomes critical for foundation learning.
• Level three and four outcomes could reflect those outcomes that are critical for the embedding foundation learning into a wide variety of contexts that are relevant to the learner and essential for future learning.
• From level five onward outcomes could reflect what is critical for future learning, whether this is life long learning or learning for qualifications.

Other options for reducing the number of achievement objectives include:

• reviewing whether each of strands of the essential learning areas need to operate at each level;
• reviewing whether other mandatory requirements in the curriculum statements, such as the number of technological areas can be removed.

Development of a core content

Within this option, the curriculum statements remain much as they are, but a required content core is identified that must be taught during certain periods of schooling. This would reduce the number of achievement objectives and help teachers to establish teaching priorities.

a. Mandating only the English and Mathematics curriculum statements in years 1 and 2[9]

This is could be seen as being consistent with the literacy and numeracy strategy and reflects the focus of the NAGs on literacy and numeracy. However, literacy and numeracy skills can be developed through a variety of learning experiences, not just in English and Mathematics. Analysis of Level 1 achievement objectives across the essential learning areas shows they are heavily focused on students developing language skills within the context of the learning area. Another approach might be to ensure that the outcomes of the first two levels are critical for foundation learning.

b. Reducing the regulations in years 9 and 10

Most of the sector feedback on the `crowded' curriculum has come from secondary schools, who find that implementing the Health and Physical Education, Technology and the Arts curriculum statements is causing significant timetabling difficulties. There is also evidence that some secondary schools are not implementing these curricula because of timetabling and workload problems and because of the desire of some subject teachers to maintain their subjects, eg, Home Economics. De-regulating some of the essential learning areas would give secondary schools more flexibility to meet the needs of their students.

However, it can be argued that junior secondary students are the group that has the highest needs for a balanced and broad curriculum, as students are making decisions about senior subjects which in turn affect their career choices. Much of the knowledge and skills required for participation in a knowledge society is reflected more strongly in the Social Studies, Health and Physical Education, Technology and the Arts curricula than in English, Mathematics and Science. While some may dispute that these essential learning areas do not meet the needs of individual students, they are essential for meeting the needs of society. Deregulating these curricula in years 9 and 10 may, therefore, create a knowledge-gap in the New Zealand population.

c. Minimal Core

English, Maths and Science, or literacy and numeracy, could be mandated for all year levels, so that schools/kura focus on doing these things well. Adopting a minimal core, however, is teacher rather than student focused.

In some countries, the development of `teacher proof' schemes, intended to improve basic skills has had a positive result, but these may encourage the pursuit of short-term outcomes rather than long-term learning ... a high degree of documentary prescription demotivates and deprofessionalises teachers and prevents the organic development of the curriculum in response to changes (Le Métais, 2002).

d. Redefined core built around 'new literacies', such as innovation, creativity, problem solving, ICT and teamwork

Queensland's New Basics project[10] is an example of a redefined core. Reasons for adopting an approach similar to New Basics include the movement from the industrial age to the knowledge age, where the old order is no longer regarded as sufficient or appropriate. Reasons against adopting an approach similar to New Basics include that the approach may be too far out of step, or ahead of, schools, parents/whänau and society. Adopting an approach similar to New Basics would represent a radical departure from New Zealand's current curriculum, and as the New Basics programme has not yet been evaluated, it poses considerable risks.