New Zealand Curriculum: A Working Paper

Introduction
The New Zealand Curriculum (NZC) is a conceptual national policy document that
is designed to guide English medium schools teaching and learning based on local
context (MOE, 2007; McGee, 2008). It provides educators with a broad framework of
educational ideals and offers limited restrictions around its implementation within a
schools context. For the purposes of this report, curriculum is defined in an open sense,
as formal or informal learning within the
learning environment (Ross, 2000). However,
there are a number of distinct levels of
curriculum within the education system. The
NZC is referred to as national curriculum;
Figure 1. Curriculum Hierarchy (MOE,

however there are also school and classroom

level curriculum (Ross, 2000; McGee, 2008; MOE, 2014a). This report will discuss the
NZC as an educational policy document and the consequences for 21 st century learners
and teachers. The report will consequently discuss the links and interactions between
NZC and learning theories and discourses, in relation to principles, values and learning
areas. It will further go on to deconstruct the NZC learning areas knowledge claims,
attitudes, values and key competencies. There will be an examination of outcomebased education and a balanced perspective of
implications for beginning teachers. Finally, the report will
discuss how the NZC educational policy influences
teachers pedagogy.
New Zealand Curriculum
The NZC is an educational policy document that in
encased by The Education Act 1989, as well as the National
Education Guidelines (Ministry of Education (MOE), 2007). There are five key sections of

the National Education Guidelines that influence the NZC and consequently the school
curriculum, these include: Foundation Curriculum Policy statements, National
Curriculum Statements, National Standards, National Education Goals (NEGs) and
National Administration Guidelines (NAGs) (MOE, 2015).
Due to the broad, non-descriptive nature of the NZC there are many key features
highlighted that define its intention. The NZC outlines the

Figure 2. Educational Policy

primary purpose of the educational policy document as to provide directions for

teaching and learning, with an emphasis on a future focus and all-inclusive context
(MOE, 2007). However, there is also two underlying purposes that need to be
integrated and simultaneous: learning for knowledge and skills (intellectual) and
learning for living and learning (relational). Contributing to these purposes are the NZC
five directions for learning: vision, values, key competencies, learning areas, and
principles (MOE, 2007; Hunter, Keown & Wynyard, 2010). As an educational policy
document every school curriculum must align with the NZC intent, principles, values,
key competencies and learning areas, however schools are provided flexibility in their
implementation (MOE, 2007). Each of these areas interconnect to form a holistic
perspective on education and learning, emphasising students development as a whole
is greater than the sum of its parts. A conceptual link throughout the five directions for
learning is the focus on preparing students through conceptions of 21st century
citizenship ideals, to be actively involved and connected participants and contributors
to society (MOE, 2007). The NZC vision demonstrates a focus on citizenship ideals
through its a long term aim for New Zealanders 21st century learners to develop social,
cultural, emotional, academic, creative and spiritual ability and awareness to ensure
successful participation, contribution and engagement in society (MOE, 2007). The NZC
vision also highlights the development of a bi-cultural future through the Treaty of
Waitangi's recognised partnership between Maori and Pakeha (MOE, 2007). Jones
(2015) and Boyd (2013) affirm that the needs of 21st century learners are diverse and
complex in fostering the capabilities required in an uncertain, dynamic and continuously
changing future. The NZC outlines an overall educational vision of 21st century learners

to be lifelong learners, who are confident, connected and actively engaged (MOE,
2007).
It is important to note that national curriculum is highly influenced by political,
cultural and economic factors of the current
government and society (Thrupp & Easter,
2012; Chakif, 2013; Margrain & Dharan,
2011). For example, the New Zealand
government has power over curriculum and
its structure, including the inclusion of
citizenship ideals, discipline based teaching
and learning, outcome-based education,
national standards and other controversial
educational initiatives (MOE, 2007; Young,
1972). Additionally, the recognised bi-cultural

Figure 3. Directions for Learning (MOE,

nature of New Zealands society influences

content and pedagogy, including cultural diversity, Treaty of Waitangi principles and Te
Reo Maori, as essential knowledge and skills for New Zealands 21 st century learners.
Finally, economic factors influence the NZC through the reiteration of education for
citizenship in order to maintain a prosperous social and economic society (MOE, 2007;
Lee, 2003). This is also evident through the Neo-liberal reforms between the late 1980s
and early 1990s, where New Zealand moved into a competition based society and public

entities were expected to proceed as a businesses (Lee, 2003). The emphasis was on
efficiency of the organisation, however this had major implications for the nature of
education, funding and school priorities.
The NZC instigates a number of implications for beginning teachers. Firstly due to
the non-descriptive, broad nature of the curriculum, beginning teachers lack adequate
resources and knowledge to understand the specifics of what and how to teach within
each learning area and strand. It has been argued that without prior knowledge and

experience in the previous 1993 curriculum, beginning teachers struggle in the

curriculums implementation. I question where I can find resources that support my
application of the curriculum? Another challenge for teachers is the need to be adaptive
and flexible with the consistent shift in curriculum, for example the shift from
knowledge education to skills based education.
Curriculum Discourses and Learning Theories
The NZC has developed from diverse learning theories that triggers
contradictions in a number of curriculum ideology and implementation including:
behaviourist, constructivist, and socio-cultural learning theory model. Behaviourist
learning theory is based on the assumption that learning is observable and teachers
actions influence students learning (Bourke & St. George, 2008b; Harasim, 2012). This
is explicitly evident in the NZC policy document, through the use of outcome-based
education ideology (MOE, 2007). Outcome-based education is a component of social
efficiency discourse, where the purpose is to increase efficiency through removing
decision-making from teachers responsibility and increasing their surveillance and
accountability (Hendry, 2011; Lee, 2003). Additionally the NZC is centred on
behaviourist learning theory through the application of an individualised one-size-fits-all
approach, where each individual student must start with the same knowledge, learn the
same ways and progress in the same manner (Crombie, 2011).
Constructivist learning theory is also evident in the NZC policy through eight
curriculum principles as foundations of curriculum experiences and decision making,
including: high expectations, Treaty of Waitangi, cultural diversity, inclusion, learning to
learn, community engagement, coherence and future focus (MOE, 2007). These
principles represent a number of understandings, attributes and features considered
important in curriculum development and are provided to assist and guide the school
and classroom curriculum development (MOE, 2007). Constructivist acknowledges a
learner-centred approach to teaching and learning and accepts that learners come to
the learning environment with prior knowledge, understandings and experience, in

which new information can be added (Pritchard, 2013; Harasim, 2012; Bourke, & St.
George, 2008b). The implicit assumption behind these principles is that students bring
individuality, diversity, community and prior knowledge to their learning (MOE, 2007).
Despite the Constructivist approach there is also evidence of a Social Reconstructionist
perspective, through the acknowledgement of living within a community and society.
The NZC also outlines a number of broad values that are encouraged, modelled
and explored within curriculum implementation. Some of the values espoused within
the NZC include: excellence, innovation, inquiry, curiosity, diversity, equity, community,
participation, ecological sustainability, integrity and respect (MOE, 2007). The purpose
of value education is to explore students identity, recognise others identities and
effectively make ethical decisions (MOE, 2007). The values of NZC are grounded in
sociocultural learning theory. Sociocultural learning theory is constructed through the
ideology of learning as a social process that involves interactions and participation with
others and groups (Bourke & St. George, 2008b). The NZC values explicitly emphasise
student participation, student responsibility for self and learning and exploration of
learning, as well as recognise the student as part of a wider community and society,
which are central to sociocultural learning theory (MOE, 2007).
The NZC outlines eight key learning areas that contribute to the foundation for
teaching and learning, including: English, the arts, health and physical educations,
learning languages, mathematics and statistics, science, social sciences, and
technology (MOE, 2007). Each learning area statement provides a different perspective
and are underpinned by a variety of implicit and explicit learning theories and
discourse. The English learning area is discussed in the NZC within a scholar traditional
discourse. Scholar traditional discourse is defined as areas of knowledge that is
considered foundational (Hunter, 2015). This is evident within the NZC through the
claim that English is essential to most learning with the English medium NZC and the
importance of literacy in English cannot be overstated (MOE, 2007, p. 16). Each of the
learning areas imply a sociocultural foundation through the inclusion, acknowledgement

or reference to others, a
community, society or global
perspective (MOE, 2007).
Additionally the arts,
mathematics and statistics,
science and social science
learning area statements
demonstrate a Constructivist
perspective, through a learnercentred discourse that
encourages student exploration.
In contrast English, health and
physical education, learning

Figure 4. Learning Areas (MOE, 2007)

languages and

technology learning areas assume a behaviourist learning theory perspective through

the implied acquisition of knowledge and skills. This assumption is based on the use of
language, such as, study and learn to (MOE, 2007). Finally, science, social science
and technology learning areas imply a Social Reconstructionist discourse, through
reference to citizenship to better society (Brameld, 1977).
An implication for teachers and beginning teachers is the variety and conflicting
learning discourses and learning theories embedded into the NZC. The conflicting
learning discourses within the learning areas provide a contradictions for the teachers
role as knowledge giver or knowledge facilitator (St. George & Bourke, 2008a).
However, it also provides a range of perspectives and opportunities to create rich
learning environment regarding others perspectives and values.
Purpose of Learning Areas
The curriculum is structured as discipline specific teaching and learning of eight
curriculum areas. Each of the learning areas form a general foundation of subject
learning, while also opening opportunities for future specialisations. Consequently each

learning area has a specific structure and purpose of knowledge claims, skills, values
and indications of attitude. For the purposes of this report, four diverse learning areas
will be deconstructed in depth: English, the arts, social studies and technology.
English learning area is structured as two strands: making meaning for self and
creating meaning of others. The focus of these two strands is on receiving information
through listening, reading, and viewing and transmitting information through speaking,
writing and presenting (MOE, 2007). The purpose of this structure is to develop
confident and effective oral, written and visual communication skills, who can
successfully participate in society. The English curriculum encourages the enjoyment
and appreciation towards text, in order to enrich students application within their lives
(MOE, 2007). The English curriculum highlights the integration of a number of the NZC
key competencies: thinking, using language, symbols and texts, relating to others, and
participating and contributing. These competencies are demonstrated through the
students development of knowledge, skills and abilities to deconstruct, critically
interrogate, understand and apply texts and language within a variety of contexts in
society (MOE, 2007).
The arts learning area is structured as four distinct disciplines, Visual arts, Dance,
Drama and Music, which are categorised within four strands: understanding the arts in
context, developing practical knowledge, developing ideas and communicating and
interpreting (MOE, 2007). The aim within the arts curriculum is to encourage holistic
development of students and enriching their lives within a diverse and multicultural
society. The arts curriculum also values innovation, diversity and participation, as well
as the development of positive attitudes towards personal well-being (MOE, 2007). The
arts curriculum integrates five of the NZC key competencies to create a holistic arts
education: thinking, using language, symbols and texts, managing self, relating to
others, and participating and contributing. These competencies are demonstrated
through the active exploration of creative expression in a variety of mediums,
independently and collaboratively, in order to develop skills in creating meaning,

responding to unexpected outcomes, valuing others contributions and exploring a

variety of solutions (MOE, 2007).
Social science learning area is structured as four conceptual strands: identity,
culture and organisation, place and environment, continuity and change, the economic
world. The purpose of this structure is its links to four knowledge specialisations: Social
studies, History, Geography and Economics (MOE, 2007). Within the four strands, the
social science curriculum values inquiry, diversity, equity, community and participation
and ecological sustainability. There is also an indication of attitude development of
acceptance and understanding of others and their diversity (MOE, 2007). Three key
competencies are implied with the social sciences curriculum: thinking, relating to
others, and participating and contributing. The thinking competency is demonstrated
through students development of knowledge and skills to understand, critically engage
in and evaluate social, economic, political and environmental practices and issues. The
participation and contribution and relating to others competencies is recognised
through the teaching and learning identities, as well as the participation and
contribution to students communities and society (MOE, 2007).
Technology learning area is structured as three separate strands, however it
emphasises the need to integrate the three in practice: technological practice,
technological knowledge, nature of technology. The purpose of this structure to
knowledge claims is highlighted through the emphasis of knowledge and skills learning
within context, therefore each of these strands form a triad of practice (MOE, 2007).
Technological curriculum values innovation, curiosity, participation and integrity, as well
as indications of appreciation for technology and its pathways. Technology curriculum
has clear links to three key competencies: thinking, using language, symbols and texts,
and participating and contributing. This is evident through the development of
technological literacy to aid students participation in society as informed citizens, as
well as the teaching and learning of a wide range of context applications (MOE, 2007).

Key competencies are significant knowledge, skills and attitudes are that has
been determined to help students success socially, in employment and through tough
situations. This is to enable an adaptive education system that provides students with
skills that help them adjust to the changing demands of information, technology, work
and social conditions (MOE, 2014b). Key competencies need to be integrated into all
areas of teaching and learning, to ensure a holistic education for students.

Figure 5. Integration of key competencies into Literacy and Numeracy

Outcomes-based

curriculum
A persistent and controversial curriculum discourse relevant to NZC is social
efficiency, located within the behaviourist learning perspective. Social efficiency is
defined by Hunter (2015) as an outcomes perspective of education. In 1993 the NZC
changed to an outcome-based education model, where students learning is aimed and
measured against a scale of predetermined goals (achievement objectives) outlining
what knowledge, skills and abilities are expected to be learnt at each curriculum level
(MOE, 2007; Lee, 2003). The intended purpose of the implementation of NZC outcomebased education is to improve students skills and enhance the economic outcomes and

international competitiveness of education (Lee, 2003). However, Lee (2003) also

highlights the underlying political agenda in creating an accountable education system
of monitoring, bench-marking and comparing achievement, to increase teachers
responsibility for future economic and social efficiency. This is particularly important
within the context of NZC policies with a heavy emphasis on levels of learning, level of
achievement, achievement objectives and assessment in relation to the eight learning
areas (MOE, 2007). Achievement objectives are provided within each level of learning
and learning area strand, to provide progressive guidance for teaching and learning. For
example, an achievement objective for level one, Mathematics, Statistic strand, with a
focus on probability is "investigate situations that include elements of chance,
acknowledging and anticipating possible outcomes" (MOE, 2003). This is progressively
linked with the achievement objective for level five, "compare and describe the
variation between theoretical and experimental distributions in situations that involve
elements of chance" (MOE, 2003).
Within outcome-based education is standards-based education, which was
introduced through national standards in 2009 (Thrupp & Easter, 2013). Standardsbased education is defined by the MOE (MOE) as assessments for teachers to make
judgement on students achievement, based on shared bench-mark standards (MOE,
2007). The general purpose of assessments is to measure students knowledge and
ability against levelled achievement objectives, to establish their achievement level as
above, at, below or well below national standards (Thrupp & Easter, 2013). This
carefully considered, evidence-based process, provides opportunities for reflection and
improvement of teaching and learning (MOE, 2003). However, the labelling process can
be seen as inappropriate and harmful for some students due to the nature of their
circumstances. Consequently results can provide limited information on a student's
external influences and learning progress as well as being discouraging for children's
motivation for learning (Lee, 2003; Thrupp & White, 2013; Crombie, 2011).

10

The implications of outcome-based education for teachers and beginning

teachers is wide ranging and far reaching. Lee (2003) expresses that outcome and
standards-based education takes a narrow viewpoint on a child's achievement. Lee
(2003) and Crombie (2011) raise concerns that through the labelling and ranking of
achievement, inequalities are exacerbated. Additionally Thrupp and White (2013) and
Lee (2003) recognise that as a result of outcome-based education and poor assessment
implementation, the curriculum is
narrowed towards key assessment
areas of reading, writing and
mathematics (English, 2006). It is
therefore essential that as a
beginning teachers, I am aware of
these implications of outcome-based
education to ensure efficient time and
Figure 6. Teaching as Inquiry (MOE,
2007)

work-load management, as well as development

of effective strategies in teaching inquiry to increase success of outcome-based

education in practice (Thrupp & White, 2013). For example, embedded within outcomebased education is the opportunity for students to develop self-assessment strategies
and skills, to aid in students reflective practice (Absolum, Flockton, Hattie, Hipkins, &
Reid, 2009). As a beginning teacher I need to ensure that I provide opportunities for
students to develop this skill, which is combined with NZC key competencies. It is also
essential that, as a beginning teacher I am aware of educational language and ensuring
language is used appropriately to support students and parents understanding of
learning (English, 2006).

Policy and Pedagogies

11

Bernstein (1977) outlined a triad of key interconnecting educational practices.

The pillars of this triad comprise of curriculum, assessment and pedagogy, where each
relate, interact and influence the others. For example, a change to national curriculum
knowledge claims or achievement standards, alters the teachers pedagogy and the
assessments content and/or process employed. Lee (2003) also argues that teachers
pedagogy is not only influenced by but constrained by national curriculum philosophy.
Teacher M (personal communication, March 19) explains that the administration aspect
of the teaching role, through the requirements of teaching and learning evidence, is
increasingly negatively affecting her ability to plan and implement engaging and
effective lessons. She explains that she is paid for 2-3 hours a day to plan for 6 hours of
effective teaching in eight distinct learning areas, for 24 highly diverse students. Within
that 2-3 hours she is also required to assess and provide feedback and administrative
evidence for each students learning, progression and achievement against
benchmarked achievement objectives (Teacher M, personal communication, March 19).
She stresses that because of time pressures, the collaboration and time spent building
relationships with colleagues has decreased. This is evidence of how the pressures and
requirements of national curriculum can place time-pressure on teachers and
consequently influence teachers attitudes, ambitions, time-management, relationships
and teaching and learning pedagogies. The implications of time pressures on
experienced teachers is immense, however pressures increase for beginning teachers
who are less time-efficient when planning and assessing tasks.
In addition to the national curriculum placing time pressures on teachers, the
NZC also determines foundational knowledge areas and teaching and learning
priorities. The consequence is that teachers have reduced flexibility and freedom in
designing their classroom curriculum and pedagogy, as relevant to their students and
community context. Teacher M (personal communication, March 19) explains that these
constraints effect the quality of teaching and learning, by providing students with a
highly narrow education and demoralising teachers.

12

Conclusion
This report has critically examined the NZC and its implications for beginning
teachers. It discussed the NZC as an educational policy document, embedded within
political, social and economic agenda in developing students as contributing citizens to
New Zealands 21st century society. It also looked at the nature and features of the
broad NZC document and the implications for teachers. The report then looked at the
links between NZC and learning theories and discourses and how they are
demonstrated through and related to curriculum principles, values and learning areas.
The report explored the curriculum structure, as well as a deconstruction of learning
areas knowledge claims, attitudes and values and how they relate to the NZC key
competencies. The report further investigated outcome-based education, its purpose
and place within NZC and the implications for teachers. Finally, the report discussed
how the NZC educational policy influences teachers pedagogy.

13

References
Absolum, M., Flockton, L., Hattie, J., Hipkins, R., & Reid, I. (2009). Directions for
assessment in New Zealand (DANZ): Developing students assessment
capabilities. Wellington: Ministry of Education. Accessed at:
http://assessment.tki.org.nz/Media/Files/Directions-for-Assessment-in-NewZealand
Bernstein, B. (1977). Class, codes and control. Boston; London: Routledge & K. Paul.
Bourke, R., & St. George, A. (2008b). Understanding learning through theory. In R.
Bourke., A. Lawrence., A. McGee., J. ONeill & J. Curzon (Eds). Talk about learning.
Working alongside teachers (pp. 1326). Auckland: Pearson Education.
Boyd, S. (2013). Student inquiry and curriculum integration: Ways of learning for the
21st century? (Part B). Set, 1, 3-11.
Brameld, T. (1977). Reconstructionism as radical philosophy. Educational Forum, 42(1),
67.
Chakif, A. (2013). Policy and practice in New Zealand primary mathematics: Listening to
two teachers stories about the impact of education policy on their classroom
programmes. Curriculum Matters, 9, 139-155.
Crombie, N. (2011, October 5). School ditches 'elitist' National Standards. Retrieved
from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10756735
English, B. (2006). Time for Commonsense Curriculum. Retrieved from
https://www.national.org.nz/news/news/media-releases/detail/2006/07/31/timefor-commonsense-curriculum
Harasim, L. M. (2012). Learning theory and online technology. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hendry, P. M. (2011). Engendering curriculum history. New York: Routledge.

14

Hunter, P. (2015). Module 4: The nature and purpose of Curriculum [Lecture Notes].
Hamilton, New Zealand: University of Waikato, School of Education.
Hunter, P. A., Keown, P. A., & Wynyard, J. (2010). Connecting key competencies and
social inquiry in primary social studies pedagogy: Initial teacher education
students' planning decisions and reflections. Waikato Journal of Education, 15(1),
49-64.
Jones, P. (2015). 21st century learners. Christian Teachers Journal, 23(1), 28-31.
Lee, H. (2003). Outcomes-based education and the cult of educational efficiency: Using
curriculum and assessment reforms to drive educational policy and practice.
Education Research and Perspectives, 30(2), 60-107.
Margrain, V., & Dharan, V. (2011). Connecting Curriculum. In Margrain, V., & Macfarlane,
A. H. (Eds.), Responsive pedagogy: Engaging restoratively with challenging
behaviour (pp. 64-82). Wellington, New Zealand: NZCER Press.
McGee, C. (2008). Understanding curriculum. In McGee, C., & Fraser, D. (Eds.), The
professional practice of teaching (pp. 81-99). Melbourne, Australia: Cengage.
Ministry of Education (2007). The New Zealand Curriculum: For English-medium
teaching and learning in years 1-13. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media
Limited.
Ministry of Education (2014a). About: School Curriculum. Retrieved from
http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/Reviewing-your-curriculum/About/School-curriculum
Ministry of Education (2014b). Key Competencies. Retrieved from
http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/Key-competencies

15

Ministry of Education (2015). National Education Guidelines. Retrieved from

http://www.minedu.govt.nz/Boards/LegalObligations/NationalEducationGuidelines.
aspx
Pritchard, A. (2013). Ways of learning: Learning theories and learning styles in the
classroom. Oxfordshire, England: Routledge.
Ross, A. (2000). Curriculum: Construction and critique. New York; London: Falmer Press.
St. George, A., & Bourke, R. (2008a). Understanding learning to inform teaching. In A.
St. George., S. Brown & J. ONeill (Eds), Facing the Big Questions in Teaching:
Purpose, Power and Learning (pp. 123133). Melbourne, Vic.: Cengage Learning.
Thrupp, M. & White, M. (2013). Research, Analysis and Insight into National Standards
(RAINS) Project Final Report: National Standards and the Damage Done.
Hamilton, New Zealand: Wilf Malcom Institute of Educational Research.
Thrupp, M., & Easter, A. (2012). Research, analysis and insight into national standards
(RAINS) project. First report: Researching schools enactments of New Zealands
national standards policy. Retrieved from
http://www.waikato.ac.nz/wmier/research/projects/the-rains-research-on-nationalstandards
Thrupp, M., & Easter, A. (2012). Research, analysis and insight into national standards
(RAINS) project. First report: Researching schools enactments of New Zealands
national standards policy. Retrieved from
http://www.waikato.ac.nz/wmier/research/projects/the-rains-research-on-nationalstandards
Young, M. F. D. (1971). An approach to the study of curricula as socially organised
knowledge. In M. F. D. Young (Ed.), Knowledge and control: New directions for the
sociology of education (pp, 19-46). London: Collier Macmillian.

16

17