In the practice of some teachers, parts of the New Zealand Curriculum are lightly grazed, parts not covered, and sometimes parts are not revisited so that learning may be consolidated and deepened. Combine this with the mistaken view that requiring students to fully ‘cover’ curriculum reduces choice and agency, and we have the nub of a professional problem that needs urgent resolution.
When the NZC (2007) was in its infancy, the teaching workforce was never helped to fully understand its unique design, and how to teach it. The tension between the previous curriculum where teachers imparted knowledge and the NZC (2007) where teachers were called to coaching and facilitation roles, was never resolved.
Discipline-based curriculum knowledge was never located in a teacher’s toolkit. No one explained to the profession their responsibility to keep ‘teaching’ content and ensure coverage. Teachers were explicitly told that the key competencies were the way of the future, and that content was to be contestable and negotiated.
In short measure, the teaching workforce embraced the local curriculum, as required, and every school grew a distinctively different perspective on the New Zealand Curriculum.
Our innovative workforce picked up that ball and ran hard with it! However, an emphasis on local choice is likely to chip away at students understanding of the National Curriculum. As a result, the national consistency of discipline-based curriculum knowledge has suffered.
The response now must be carefully nuanced so that teaching is rebalanced towards a deep teacher knowledge of curriculum but not to the extent that student agency and local content is thrown out. We must avoid the propensity to take a binary perspective and risk pivoting to tight prescription. Such an approach would not be appropriate.
The Ministry of Education recognises the critical nature of this juncture. They want teachers to clearly understand what the curriculum requires of them. We can see it in the current Curriculum Refresh and its catch-cry to clarify “the learning that can’t be left to chance”.
The implications for principals have never been clearer. The principal is the senior educationist in their school community, and it falls to them to articulate and lead pedagogical change. Principals must grasp the importance of kicking the managerial ball to someone else and step forward as pedagogical experts and leaders.
For some principals that will require a re-engagement with current best practices and for many, particularly in large schools that will require stepping closer to curriculum experts, Heads of Departments and key middle leaders.
The primary role of the principal is to exercise school-wide learning design and pedagogical leadership to ensure young people flourish. The principal is not always the practising expert, but enough depth of expertise must be held to make the critical leadership calls.
Let’s reflect on what it takes to recalibrate our work as principals and engage with the essence of the job-the leadership of learning.
It is important, urgent, and necessary.
