The curriculum rewrite is in red status, with ongoing challenges and risks identified by the ministry. Photo / 123rf
By John Gerristen of RNZ
Internal Education Ministry documents sighted by RNZ reveal serious problems plagued the rewrite of the school curriculum earlier this year and managers were considering using AI to help with the work.
The latest leak from the organisation shows only a few months ago it lacked a clear definition of the core concept underpinning the entire rewrite – “knowledge rich” – even though it had already published primary school maths and English curriculums by that time and had nearly completed draft secondary school English and maths curriculums.
It was also struggling with repeated requests for changes.
Primary school principals and the secondary teachers union told RNZ they were worried about the curriculum development process.
They said they still had not seen a clear definition of the term “knowledge-rich” as it applied to the New Zealand curriculum.
The Education Ministry told RNZ content of the English and maths curriculum was “consistent with knowledge-rich curriculum design principles” but it failed to provide a definition of knowledge-rich despite being asked for one.
The latest leak followed a series of disclosures of internal documents that prompted the ministry to hire a KC to investigate where they were coming from.
A “programme status report” sighted by RNZ said the introduction of a new process for developing the curriculum posed an “extreme” issue to the work.
“The new delivery process is adding complexity to both internal and external delivery and review procedures as we do not have a clear definition of a knowledge-rich curriculum and what it looks like in a NZ context,” it said.
“There is no international comparison we can pick up and use.”
Elsewhere, the document said lack of an agreed definition was affecting all learning areas of the New Zealand Curriculum (NZC) and Te Marautanga o Aotearoa (TMoA), the curriculum for Māori-medium schools.
“Both the NZC and TMoA curricula lack a clear design framework for defining a knowledge-rich curriculum. This absence of a design point is impacting the development of all learning areas, as continuous refinement and clarification are required,” it said.
“Options are now being looked at to bring in overseas experts to help us develop templates and frameworks for the curriculum which we can then apply.”
The report said the programme was in red status for the month of February.
It said the key challenge was the lack of a constant template for the work it was producing.
The document said even if the ministry resolved that problem it still faced challenges including having to revise its work due to changing expectations, lack of a clear and consistent understanding of the term “knowledge rich”, and lack of a design framework.
The status report warned that governance groups associated with the rewrite were ineffective because they provided conflicting advice and their feedback was not always followed.
It said stakeholders had different expectations about the use of mātauranga Māori in the curriculum and contributing groups lacked skills and experience.
The ministry told RNZ it was developing the curriculum framework, Te Mātaiaho, to be consistent with a knowledge-rich curriculum.
It said since last year its work on defining a knowledge-rich curriculum was informed by several sources and a literature review had been commissioned.
However, it did not provide any definition, despite being asked for one.
The ministry told RNZ the curriculum rewrite was currently at red status after being in amber status in the previous two months.
“Due to the scale and complexity of this work, shifts between Amber and Red status are expected. The Ministry actively manages programme risks using its risk management framework, with mitigation strategies in place, regularly monitored, and escalated when necessary,” it said.
It said the work had 10 high risks, 25 moderate risks and five low risks.
Post Primary Teachers Association vice-president Kieran Gainsford told RNZ teacher subject association leaders met recently and were worried about a lack of clarity about key terms such as the “science of learning” and “knowledge-rich curriculum”.
Gainsford said teachers had been saying for some time it was critical that the curriculum was clear.
“If even officials aren’t sure of what they mean by the terms of science of learning and knowledge-rich curriculum, knowledge-rich in particular, then it leads to the question of how on earth are schools and teachers supposed to know what they mean by that,” he said.
He said the ministry was yet to publish a clear definition of the term knowledge-rich and it needed to be crystal-clear.
“At the moment we’re trying to respond in many cases to stuff that’s poorly defined and that leads to debate or discussion that isn’t particularly fruitful,” he said.
Principals Federation president Leanne Otene said it was clear to primary and intermediate principals the curriculum was “being built as the plane was flying”.
She said a knowledge-rich curriculum would define what needed to be taught at each level of learning, but the ministry had not delivered on that.
Otene said parts of the published curriculums read like they had been cut and pasted from elsewhere.
Association of English Teachers president Pip Tinning said the problems outlined by the ministry documents were not normal for curriculum development.
She said the ministry had not explained knowledge-rich in terms of the English curriculum or its definition of the science of learning.
Meanwhile, a separate Education Ministry document from December last year titled “Options for change to the curriculum regulatory system” showed plans to allow the Education Minister to set different curriculum expectations for different types of schools.
The document said the power could be useful to help schools better support their students.
“For example, there could be a pedagogy that only schools and kura with technology hubs must use, or a curriculum statement that applies specifically for kura kaupapa Māori,” the document said.
The document said education sector groups were largely supportive of the plans, which would ensure the curriculum was reviewed and updated regularly.
A document about the Science curriculum outlined shortcomings with the existing curriculum which the ministry said resulted in overcrowded lessons and few children enjoying the subject and continuing it at university.
It said the curriculum needed to be revised to help students understand science in day-to-day life and other countries were changing their science curriculums for similar reasons.
A senior manager’s briefing to ministry staff raised the possibility of using AI to write some of the material underpinning the curriculum.
The manager said they could use AI to synthesise the curriculums of countries such as Singapore, NSW, British Columbia, with New Zealand information almost instantly.
They said it could also ensure the use of consistent language between curriculum documents.
Asked about the use of AI, the ministry told RNZ: “The ministry is exploring how artificial intelligence tools can support curriculum development, particularly by analysing and synthesising information from international curricula and related knowledge frameworks. AI is not being used to directly write curriculum content but may assist with background research and insights.”
-RNZ