Editor
This year’s NZPF Moot was an uplifting occasion. Regional presidents had turned out in force knowing that the major discussion of the day was a topic close to their collective hearts. The day would be dominated by the recently announced ‘Curriculum Refresh’. Teaching and learning have been in the public spotlight of late, given the sliding performance of our young people in literacy, mathematics and science. Whilst international league tables, rating OECD countries in these subjects, show New Zealand students slipping down the order, we are quickly reminded that comparing different countries and their students’ academic performance is of little value. They are of little value because they take no account of the different contexts of countries. Some countries are largely homogenous, others highly diverse. Some are ensconced in testing regimes, teaching to tests and subjecting students to extra tuition outside of school hours, to ensure they will pass, whilst others are more interested in deep inquiry approaches to learning and monitoring individual progress. Some take a standardised, age-based approach whilst others see learning as a continuum. Some are highly content driven, others more strategic. The measure that makes more sense for Kiwi students is our own country’s national monitoring results and these too are showing decline over time. So, what is the problem, is there a solution and what would it take to implement it? Those who have had long careers in teaching recall how Aotearoa New Zealand frequently held the top spot in educational performance. So, what has changed? Discussions at this year’s Moot revealed several possible culprits. The New Zealand Curriculum (NZC) launched in 2007, was hailed as world leading. With its set of key competencies at the front end, supported by subject level expectations at the back. It promoted delivery of a broad and rich selection of content, based on local priorities. This was an innovative and ground-breaking document. What happened next was less so. Before the NZC could be embedded, and before any PLD was established, a monumental shift took place with the 2008 Government’s adoption of the national standards regime. All focus was now on the three core subjects of reading, writing and mathematics and relentless measuring of these against agebased standards. The results became high stakes and were used to compare schools’ performance. The excitement of delivering a rich and broad curriculum quickly faded. The national standards prevailed for a decade before the election of a new Government in 2017 which had campaigned on throwing them out. Whilst the profession joined in collective celebration, there were now many teachers who knew no
alternative way. They struggled to adapt and embrace the NZC which had never been fully implemented. Couple that with a system of self-managed schools and no central provision of curriculum advisors, many teachers were left floundering. The Ministry had been gutted of curriculum expertise and leadership leaving schools to seek curriculum PLD from private providers, who came in a range of guises, expertise and quality. Whilst some schools had the experience, curriculum knowledge and resources to transition out of a national standards-based system, not all schools had these luxuries. With no national or central provision of support, inevitably there would be inconsistencies across schools. A further issue canvassed by the Moot was Initial Teacher Education (ITE). This too was seen as a contributing culprit of the slippage. It was noted that the shift from delivering teacher training through Teacher Training Colleges, which were places filled with expert curriculum practitioners and lecturers with years of practitioner experience, training was now delivered mostly through a lecture-based model at universities. Whilst arguably capable of delivering well on theories of learning, teaching and thinking critically, the universities fall short on teaching practice routines. The ‘how’ of teaching and exciting young people about learning has been conspicuous by its absence. That means beginning teachers require far more mentoring and coaching in the practice of teaching than many schools can support. Despite these obvious barriers to curriculum delivery, principals enthusiastically engaged with the opportunity to contribute their ideas to refreshing the curriculum. Enough of them have deep curriculum knowledge and know about good teaching practice. They brought their experiences to the debate with passion and enthusiasm. Deciding on a framework and model for a truly bicultural curriculum was the easy part. Even looking at the complexities of content did not phase most, nor did the challenge of meshing the national curriculum priorities with the local. What remained problematic and largely beyond the reach of the regional presidents to solve, were the issues all principals know are critical to successfully delivering an exciting curriculum. They are ongoing centrally provided PLD, expert curriculum advisors, central curriculum leadership and well-trained teachers. These are all dependent on political will and in a COVID environment are unlikely to get traction in the next Government Budget. Schools might just have to wait a while longer.