Source: Radio New Zealand
123RF
The Auckland Primary Principals Association says there is qualified support for the government’s curriculum changes, but it needs to slow down.
The association was one of many signatories to a letter calling for a pause in the changes published in newspapers this week.
Association president Lucy Naylor told RNZ that despite a widespread desire for a slowdown, many principals in the Auckland region supported the intent of the curriculum overhaul.
Primary schools introduced new English and maths curricula last year, and consultation would close on Friday on draft curricula for six other learning areas to be introduced next year and in 2028.
The new curriculum would bring much greater prescription about what teachers must teach each year, and initial reaction to date suggested they covered far more content than schools could teach in a year, and that introducing three next year and three in 2028 was unworkable.
Naylor said there was great diversity of views among the association’s 420 members, and it was a tricky time for principals.
She said most agreed the government was trying to introduce too much too fast, and the association was hopeful the timeline would change.
“Opinions are very varied. We are hearing generally the call for a slowdown, which has been there for a while. We are also, again, very generally hearing that there is support for the content,” she said, adding the support was tempered by a view that the curriculum had flaws and too much content.
However, Naylor said the association understood the drafts were deliberately “over-filled” with content so it could be cut back if necessary.
She said the association and its members were participating in advisory groups to improve the timeline and the curriculum.
“In my experience as an association, the ministry and the minister are open to listen to constructive feedback and to solutions to slow the pace of change,” she said.
“I think to call a stop is a big call. I think we’re so far down the track now.”
Naylor agreed that by moving too fast, the government risked ruining changes that would otherwise be successful.
“If we want that world-class education system, we have to make sure that the changes that we’re making are not superficial,” she said.
“To embed a curriculum, truly, takes three to five years, I would say, and that’s a long time.”
She said schools needed to concentrate on the new English and maths curricula this year and did not have the capacity to prepare to introduce new content for three other learning areas next year, with three more in 2028.
“What would be acceptable at the moment is for this year, we really do need to focus on the English and maths curriculum,” she said.
“Schools are time poor in that we don’t have the capacity to then start looking at three other curriculum areas ready for implementation next year.”
Naylor said schools that had been using for some time the structured literacy approaches mandated by the English curriculum would be better placed than other schools to move on to the other curriculum areas.
She agreed that last year’s surprise decision to axe school boards’ treaty obligations was a “straw that broke the camel’s back” moment that turned many teachers and principals against the government’s plans.
Firm supporter
Auckland teacher Callum Baird told RNZ he 100 percent supported the direction of the curriculum changes.
A teacher since 2013, he said the inclusion and sequencing of specific knowledge was an improvement on the current curriculum, in which some learning objectives spanned two or three years.
Baird said the previous government began work on curriculum change, so he did not agree that the overhaul happening now was too fast.
“You’re looking at nearly a decade of discussion around reform,” he said.
“Yes, a bulk of it has come in the last sort of year to six months, so the torrent that’s coming at the sector at the moment, you could probably argue it’s too fast, but I would say that if you look longer-term, it’s actually long overdue.”
Some critics said the draft curricula had more content than teachers could cover, but Baird said he did not believe they would be expected to teach everything.
“You have to have a breadth and coverage, but it’s up to school leaders to design a curriculum that meets as much of the curriculum as it can within practical constraints,” he said.
“I don’t imagine anybody from ERO’s going to be coming around schools with clipboards and ticking off an entire curriculum. That’s not how the system has ever worked.”
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand
