But in a letter to members dated February 5, the association said that after a follow-up meeting with the ministry it could not work any further on the document.
“Due to the unreliability of the MOE, the ad hoc directives they seem to be issued with, and the increasing concern that NZATE will be represented as agreeing to what is being developed, we have decided to step back from working with the MOE at this time,” the letter said.
“The process for the development of a revised curriculum continues to be of concern to NZATE. We began working with the MOE as a way to advocate for English teachers and to give feedback which we hope will be useful. However, what has happened is a line-by-line rewriting of a document in order to make it ‘palatable’.”
The association also published its feedback on the early version it was asked to comment on late last year.
The feedback said the document was too complicated and had unrealistic expectations about what teachers could cover with their students in a single school year.
It warned of “the potential for cognitive overload where students are required to digest a significant number of texts in a single year, where timetables are often restrictive on the time teachers have to meaningfully engage with texts”.
Association president Pip Tinning told RNZ the association’s relationship with the ministry had not broken down and it had a lot of sympathy for ministry staff who seemed to be working in difficult conditions.
But she said the ministry’s recent interactions with the association had been “a little bit jarring”.
Tinning said the ministry gave the association an early version of the draft curriculum on December 9 last year with a nine-day turnaround for feedback, and a revised version on January 17, one day before a meeting to discuss its content.
She said the association’s feedback appeared to be going through other groups before changes were made to the draft, but she did not know what those groups were.
Tinning said the association also learned that the ministry was using a book list compiled by association members to create a list of recommended texts.
She said that was not appropriate because the association’s list was designed to take stock of what teachers were using and gauge the extent to which the texts teachers were using were changing.
“It’s not a guide, it’s not a how-to, it’s not a ‘here go and take some of these texts’. It’s there to become an artefact. So when the explanation that they were under a lot of pressure to get a recommended text list together meant that they were going to go and use that list to collate one, I was horrified because that was never, ever, ever the intention of that list.”
“My biggest concern is if the curriculum comes out with a list of recommended texts, people will start absolutely fixating on the texts list and miss what is sitting in that curriculum.”
Tinning said the association decided there was no point trying to further refine the draft and wanted the document published for general consultation.
She said the process for rewriting the curriculum had been chaotic.
“It does feel like an absolute shambles.”
Tinning said the revised version the association saw last month did not appear to address concerns about the complexity of the curriculum and the amount of content teachers were expected to cover each year.
“It would appear there was a bit of doubling down on ‘you will teach all of these things.”
Tinning said at her school, students had four hours of English classes a week and there was no way she could to cover everything expected in the early draft of the curriculum without more classes.
The Education Ministry said it respected the association’s decision and valued its contributions to date.
“We acknowledge and thank the NZATE representatives for their professionalism and commitment to students and English teachers throughout the country,” it said.
It said it was not using the association’s “Book Room” list as the basis for recommended texts.
“We are considering how we best guide teachers to make choices to ensure students get a chance to read rich and varied texts. We reached out to NZATE in order to work collaboratively on this approach.”
In response to the association’s description of the rewrite as shambolic, the ministry said it had been “an iterative process with a lot of input from different experts”.
“Consultation has not yet begun and is planned to commence later this month and will continue through to April 28. Updated content will then be released in Term 4, 2025 and is planned to be required for schools to use from the start of 2026.”
Post Primary Teachers' Association president Chris Abercrombie said the situation was serious and, as far as he was aware, unprecedented.
“When you’ve got the English teachers association saying we are not confident in the ministry to work with the sector to deliver a curriculum, it’s a real credibility issue for this new curriculum.”
Abercrombie said the curriculum was becoming increasingly political, and featured in the coalition agreement.
He said other subject associations had also complained about problems with curriculum development.
“We’ve been hearing similar concerns raised by other subject associations as well. About timing of things, the speed that they’re expected to work. And you have to remember these are all volunteers. These are all teachers who have a fulltime job of being a teacher, who are just trying to do their best to make the best curriculum for the young people in front of them.”
Sign up to The Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
