The teaching workforce did what was asked of them when the NZ Curriculum was published in 2007. Every school generated its own unique curriculum reflecting the localised sense made of the generic National Curriculum. Over time consistent curriculum content knowledge was compromised as each school delivered its own localised curriculum, and taught what they judged to be important. Schools did not do so inappropriately, such an approach was expected.
Confirming this reality was a major outcome of the 2021 New Zealand Principals’ Federation (NZPF) curriculum road trip. As the National President of NZPF at the time, I seized the opportunity to discuss localisation with principals across a series of meetings throughout the country. The absence of a definition of localisation and its impact on curriculum coherence and consistency became self-evident on this road trip.
When principals were asked to define localisation, two responses were common:
- Localisation enabled an emphasis on what schools chose to focus on. It enabled schools to sift and sort national curriculum priorities,
- Localisation enabled local contexts to be used to teach national curriculum goals. The National curriculum was in essence, local, or different from school to school.
The concept of localisation was not described sufficiently in the 2007 NZ Curriculum and so it is no wonder that there are vastly different definitions. The impact of this lack of clarity was most keenly felt in curricula dominated by specific content such as science or mathematics. National achievement rates have suffered for a lack of a consistent national focus on the learning that matters.
If we are to lift achievement, then we need to be much clearer about nationally consistent achievement goals and define localisation to eliminate any misunderstanding that the National Curriculum should be taught in all its fullness.
It is the intent of the current National Curriculum refresh to do this. The effectiveness of the refresh in achieving this goal will be a telling factor in the build-back to improved achievement.
So, let’s run the ruler over the revised National Curriculum and check if it is clearer about the definition of localisation and the importance of knowledge fundamental to being nationally coherent. After all, principals indicated they urgently needed such clarity.
Unfortunately, a definition of localisation is not given in Te Mātaiaho, the refreshed NZ Curriculum, although there are multiple references regarding the centrality of localisation.
Explicit references are found in the revised curriculum’s whakapapa - MĀTAIAHIKĀ | To focus on local curriculum or the ‘Obligation to learning through relationships with mana whenua and local communities’ (p.6).
It can be further found in the whakapapa statement, MĀTAIOHO | To focus on taking action or the ‘Role national curriculum plays in local curriculum design and implementation, and decision making in which ākonga learning is paramount’ (p.6).
So, educators are asked to continue to focus on the local curriculum, but it isn’t clear as to the nature of the relationship between the local and the national, or indeed exactly what is meant by local.
Local curriculum is further illuminated in the revised curriculum’s Key Shifts and Calls to Action (p.11-12).
Under the heading Key Shift 1 – Realising the Intent of Te Tiriti, two actions for school leaders are relevant:
- Leading kaiako to design local curriculum that includes content about Te Tiriti, covering local and national contexts and the significance of Te Tiriti in highlighting and responding to persistent inequities and disadvantages for Māori,
- Leading kaiako to incorporate te reo Māori and mātauranga Māori in the co-design of localised curriculum with whānau, hapū, and iwi.
Under the heading Key Shift 2 – Broadening Our View of What Success Looks Like, one localised curriculum action is mentioned:
- Leading kaiako to gain the trust and support of ākonga, whānau, and communities in order to draw on the richness of local knowledge, stories, and histories in shaping a broad, locally informed curriculum.
And finally in the final Key Shift 3 – Setting High Expectations for All:
- Leading kaiako to set high expectations of themselves and to be courageous in designing rich coherent pathways and local curriculum that disrupt the status quo and ongoing inequities for many ākonga.
To understand what defines local and national curriculum, an inference must be gleaned from the curriculum whakapapa and key shift statements. A clear descriptor is not provided.
In summary, the local curriculum appears to be about focusing energy on Te Tiriti; engagement with whānau, hapū, and iwi; and the richness of local knowledge, stories, and histories. Such a focus is important.
But for all the focus on local curriculum, the glaring anomaly lies in the unspoken.
Where is a corresponding statement about nationally consistent content knowledge, the knowledge specific to each Learning Area that must be learned by all learners irrespective of local context or content?
It is here that we must consider the draft Mathematics and Statistics Curriculum Statement to check to see how local and national curriculum is dealt with and the nature of the relationship between them.
The most relevant statement is found in the ‘Understand’ descriptor, one of the Big Ideas. The descriptor reads, ‘Mathematics and statistics have a continuous, evolving human history. Mathematics and statistics have been constructed over thousands of years across the globe, as people have grappled with notions of quantity, numerical representation, measurement, dimension, and pattern. They continue to be constructed from ideas drawn from many cultures. In Aotearoa New Zealand, they are informed by their location in Te Moana Nui a Kiwa’ (p.24).
This descriptor seems to imply that mathematics and statistics in our curriculum are informed by our Aotearoa New Zealand context. Who would disagree with that?
What isn’t clear is the value Te Mātaiaho places in curriculum content and context that isn’t local.
This refreshed curriculum walks a brave path in charting a step change for curriculum to ensure it is culturally sustaining. But the pathway forward to improved achievement rates would be significantly strengthened if we value all relevant knowledge systems for our young people and make clear the obligations for our educators to pay attention to them.
Clearly describing a definition of the local and national curriculum and then validating teachers’ adaptive expertise to work in complex ways between the two, focusing explicitly on one or the other and, when appropriate, weaving them together, is the talent that this refreshed curriculum should aim to grow.
Such an approach is critical if we are to resolve the confusion caused by failing to clearly define local and national curricula in the 2007 National Curriculum. The profession isn’t served well by muddy or absent definitions. As it stands, the refreshed curriculum seems to be stating that the National Curriculum is the local curriculum. This in essence takes us back to the very dilemma principals reported on the 2021 NZPF curriculum road trip.
