Ryan Kiely

ID: 1203264
The Curriculum Working Paper
When we think about curriculum it is important to understand that it is embedded amongst
societal structures and political changes beyond that of the classroom and education sector.
The New Zealand Curriculum (NZC) is a policy document and we must therefore not just
look at how it came to be, but the basic assumptions, beliefs and values underlying the
policy process must themselves be brought to light (Codd, 2005, p.xvii). Like all policy, the
NZC is the result of a process involving negotiation, contestation, and a struggle between
competing groups (Ozga, 2000, p.42) as they each vie for their own agendas, beliefs, and
values to be prioritized. As such, the NZC is not value free and reflects disputable claims
about what is worth knowing (Pinar, 2012). These competing ideologies have the potential to
distort the reality of social problems and issues in society, and it is only by understanding the
origins of these ideologies that we may hope to reduce distortions and clearly address the
reality of the issues currently facing us. In acknowledging that education is a contested
terrain where struggles take place, we can see that the recipients of policy: schools,
teachers, and students, are not merely reproducers of the social structure but are
possessors of agency, able to resist and restructure policy (Levinson, Cookson, & Sadovnik,
2002). By questioning the values embedded in the NZC and the context within which it came
to be, we as teachers can ensure we protect children from an ideology that may not have
their best interests at heart.
The Creation of the New Zealand Curriculum
The NZC came to be out of an intensive revision of The New Zealand Curriculum
Framework [NZCF] and was adopted throughout the country in 2010 after its release in
2007 (Brown, 2006). Prior to the creation of the NZCF, in 1984 to be precise, a new agenda
began to show itself in the political sphere of New Zealand with the election of David Lange's
Labour party. This ideology, called neoliberalism, values market freedom and entrepreneurial
individualism, seeing people as rational, autonomous, self-interested, and actively
competing individuals [emphasis added] (Codd, 2008). Neoliberalism advocates a reduction
in state involvement and an increased role for markets that sees economic efficiency given
priority over human needs (Olssen, Codd, & ONeill, 2004); It has been a dominant force
upon educational policy, reshaping what was once a policy for democratic citizenship that
valued collective responsibility and egalitarianism (Codd, 2008). This transformation was first
proposed by the Picot Report in 1988, where the market focussed ideology can be seen in
its appointment of a businessman, Brian Picot, to head the educational reform task force
(Sullivan, 1993). This report formed the basis of a document, Tomorrows Schools, which
emphasised neoliberalisms values of decentralization and efficiency, and went on to shape
the NZCF (Codd, 2008).
The NZCF, under the influence of neoliberalism, directed education's focus towards
delivering the skills and attitudes required for New Zealand to compete in an increasingly
competitive international economy (Minister of Education, 1991, p.2). Emphasising the
economy as the main reason for the states involvement in education has persisted into the
NZC under the new phase of political reform in 1999, often called the Third Way (Codd,
2008). This new ideology evident in the NZC purports to have moved away from such a
neoliberal emphasis, claiming instead to be a return to education for democratic citizenship
(Codd, 2008). However because of its welcoming of individualism, economic freedom, and
globalisation, many critics see it as simply neoliberalism with a softer face (Callinicos, 2001).
Vision of the 21st century learner

Ryan Kiely
ID: 1203264
This neoliberal ideology with a softer face can be seen in the Vision statements expansion
of its final point for young people, who will be confident, connected, actively involved, and
lifelong learners (Ministry of Education [MoE], 2007, p.8). Focus on this point accentuates a
view of the 21st century learner who is enterprising and entrepreneurial, an international
citizen, and a contributor to the social and economic well-being of New Zealand (MoE,
2007, p.8). The economic focus seen here also reflects the Third Way's commitment to
globalisation, seeking to create a student that is capable of taking their skills and knowledge
anywhere in the world. Samu (2011) points out how this commodification of knowledge, and
the characteristics of a 21st century learner, supported by the NZC echoes statements made
by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], a powerful
proponent of globalisation and the ideals of neoliberalism. This NZC vision, and the hidden
views it embeds in school curricula, influence the understanding that students have of
society and their role in it (Mutch, 2011). While the generic statements made in the vision do
allude to a want of citizens who live full and satisfying lives (MoE, 2007, p.8), the
understanding of how they are to accomplish this is seen primarily through an economic
lense. Socialisation under this hidden ideology lends itself to creating the kinds of individuals
who can function effectively and efficiently within a market environment, lending themselves
to categorizations of either consumers or producers.
Discourses in the New Zealand Curriculum
Much like the contradictions found in the Third Way that emphasise both cooperation and
competition, the NZC contains within it competing and possibly incompatible conceptions.
These conflicting discourses mean that there exists the potential for teachers, especially
those new to the profession, to interpret the NZC in very different ways. In identifying the
predominant discourses embedded in the language of the Principles, Values, and Learning
Areas statements, I hope to understand those same discourses present within my own
pedagogical thinking and how they might influence my engagement with students learning.
The major discourses identified in the NZC are: Learner-centred, Traditional Scholar, and
Social Reconstructionist.
The Learner-centred Discourse
The learner-centred approach involves the belief that a student's own needs and interests
should shape their education, a distinction is made here between the self-expressed needs
of the child and the needs of the child as inferred by adults (Schiro, 2013, p.105). The
teacher is seen as the creator of contexts in which students own unique growth can occur as
they construct meaning for themselves (Schiro, 2013). This point can be seen in the
Effective Pedagogy section that describes actions teachers can take to promote their
students learning such as creating a supportive learning environment (MoE, 2007, p.34)
and reflects the discourses view that students construct meaning by interacting with their
social, physical and intellectual environments (Schiro, 2013). This discourse is made
explicitly clear in the principles of the NZC that, instead of focusing on knowledge and skills,
assert that we must put students at the centre of teaching and learning (MoE, 2007, p.9).
The principle of inclusion resonates with the value placed on an understanding that each
student possesses their own unique attributes, while the principle of cultural diversity
respects the distinct histories and traditions that students come from (MoE, 2007, p.9).
Amongst the learning areas this discourse stands out the most in the Social Sciences where
students are encouraged to clarify their own identities in relation to their particular heritages
and contexts (MoE, 2007, p.30). The idea of constructing meaning for oneself is also
implicitly conveyed through the social inquiry approach students use in this learning area.
The Traditional Scholar Discourse
In stark contrast to the learner-centred discourse above, traditional scholar discourse puts
subject matter at the centre of education; relegating the learner and understandings of their

Ryan Kiely
ID: 1203264
environment to a place of secondary considerations (Schiro, 2013). Curriculum is a means
by which the accumulated knowledge of a discipline and its specific ways of thinking and
feeling can be transmitted to a student. It is an approach that intends to acculturate children
into a discipline, not merely to inform them about a discipline (Schiro, 2013). The clearest
expression of this discourse in the NZC is its outcomes-based nature and the structuring of
learning areas into autonomous disciplines, each with their own knowledge and ways of
knowing. The specialised language used in the Science (MoE, 2007, p.28) and
Mathematics and Statistics (MoE, 2007, p.26) sections are telling of the traditional scholar
discourses want for curriculum to be an epitome of its parent discipline (Schiro, 2013,
p.19). While the principles and values sections avoid explicit use of this discourse, implicitly
we can still the remnants of its once strong hold on the curriculum through ideals such as
excellence and high expectations (MoE, 2007). The traditional scholar discourse is clearly
challenged by the nature of the front end of the NZC (2007, pp.4-17) that asks educators to
first consider the context of society, the individual learner, and the learning process itself.
Even in the learning area of mathematics and statistics a shift is evident through language
that encourages learning which helps students to make sense of the world in which they
live (MoE, 2007, p.26).
The Social Reconstruction Discourse
These traditional tendencies to focus on what and how have been combatted by the front
end of the NZC with a strong social reconstruction discourse that focuses on asking for
whom is curriculum intended (Mutch, 2009, p.2). In doing so, a social reconstructionist
discourse believes that the purpose of education is to direct and assist social reform that
creates a more just society for all (Brown, 2006). It comes from the viewpoint that students
experiences and meaning are shaped by our cultural and social experiences and as such,
curriculum needs to be aware of the societal problems originating from racial, gender, social
and economic inequalities (Schiro, 2013, p.6). The principles of the Treaty of Waitangi,
cultural diversity, inclusion, and a future focus are explicit examples of the NZCs
involvement with this discourse and its targeting of the issues facing our society (MoE,
2007, p.9). High expectations (MoE, 2007, p.9) implicitly acknowledges that students
experience the NZC under different individual circumstances, alluding to its understanding of
the issue of poverty. Not surprisingly this discourse is most evident in the social sciences
(MoE, 2007, p.30) learning area with a focus on concepts and ideas that develop
understandings about how societies are organised and function as well as how students
can participate as critical, active, informed, and responsible citizens. The Technology
learning area wants students who will make a difference in the world (MoE, 2007, p.17)
and encourages the method of thinking required to reconstruct society, identifying the issue
or problem, a vision of the future, and implementation of that vision through a solution
(Schiro, 2013). As a beginning teacher, it is important for me to remember that this vision the
NZC has of a future society comes from a particular, neoliberal, point of view that may not
align with my own internal social reconstruction discourse.
Learning Areas and the Key Competencies
This section will unpack the knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes emphasised in each
learning area of the NZC. These factors will be connected to the key competencies of the
NZC to gain a deeper understanding of how the curriculum impacts on, and is experienced
by, students in New Zealand.
English
This learning area focuses on using language, symbols, and texts of the English language
and literature in a variety of forms and ways, be it orally, visually, or written. This focus
develops critical thinking that encourages students to deconstruct texts and understand the
power of language to shape their personal lives, that of their communities, and to develop a

Ryan Kiely
ID: 1203264
sense of identity as a New Zealander. Here we can see how English can develop the key
competencies of managing self, relating to others by understanding our multicultural
identity, as well as participating and contributing through speaking, writing, and presenting
(MoE, 2007, p.18).
The Arts
The Arts in the NZC aims to engage students to stimulate creative and intuitive thinking that
they can then link to their own direct action in dance, drama, music, and visual arts (MoE,
2007). By learning in the arts area, students are able to participate as active and reflective
listeners/viewers of the rich bicultural and multicultural art forms our society has to offer.
Each strand in this learning area offers its own verbal and nonverbal language for students
to make meaning through and contribute works to their communities. This is in line with the
key competency participating and contributing and also provides an array of opportunities
for the key competency using language, symbols, and texts to be developed. Making such
meaning with others allows students a deeper understanding of the world around them and
how they relate to its diverse members. This encourages the key competency relating to
others and by developing these skills, students ability to manage self is grown as their
confidence to take risks is increased (MoE, 2007, p.20).
Health and Physical Education
This learning area has the clear imperative of developing the managing self key
competency by aiming to create students who possess a responsible and positive attitude
towards their own well-being (MoE, 2007). This responsible attitude is hoped to extend to a
sense of social responsibility in which students will contribute to the wellbeing of their
communities and that of wider society also. Encouraging students to understand ways
wellbeing can be promoted involves thinking about specific health and movement contexts.
A commitment to developing the key competency relating to others is made clear under the
strand relationships with other people, focusing on developing the attitudes necessary to
work as a team (MoE, 2007). This learning areas overt focus on the individual seems to miss
a rich learning opportunity in which students could critically think about the societal
influences impacting upon low levels of wellbeing in our society.
Learning Languages
The inclusion of this learning area in the NZC reflects the neoliberal idea of globalisation and
its impact upon the very nature of society. Learning languages involves students using
language, symbols, and texts to understand different ways of interpreting and thinking
about the world and where they sit in it (MoE, 2007). Relating to others is fostered by
students learning that other languages have their own unique ways of expressing meanings,
each with no more or less value than their own (MoE, 2007). Through the process of
learning a language, students discover new ways of learning and strategies to overcome
challenges that can help them to manage themselves in other areas of their lives (MoE,
2007). Through this whole process, students are left with an enduring skill like no other, the
ability to participate and contribute in a whole different way, to a completely new group of
people in a potentially far away land. The intrinsic value in this to help students live a happy
and fulfilling life is clear; for the 21st century learner, this opens students up to a whole new
economy where their knowledge becomes a commodity that can cross borders and
overcome language barriers.
Mathematics and Statistics
These two similar but different disciplines encourage students to think creatively, critically,
strategically, and logically so that they can gain the knowledge required to investigate,
interpret, explain, and make sense of the world in which they live (MoE, 2007, p.26). Pivotal
to gaining this knowledge is for students to be able use specific language, symbols, and
texts in order to find patterns and relationships in real-life and hypothetical situations (MoE,

Ryan Kiely
ID: 1203264
2007, p.26). Such thinking means students learn to enjoy intellectual challenge as well as
how to structure and organise, key features of managing self. With a main emphasis on the
thinking key competency, and no attempt to address those of relating to others and
participating and contributing, mathematics and statistics clearly reflects the traditional
scholar discourse. As a teacher, taking care to incorporate these missing key competencies
will ensure students receive the best possible learning experience.
Science
In science we find a more implicit version of the traditional scholar discourse with its
overarching strand nature of science stressing students learn how scientists work (MoE,
2007, p.28) and how they carry out investigations; to do this, students need to learn about
specific language, symbols and texts. Thinking in science promotes investigating ideas so
that students can understand and be able to explain them; this requires logical and
systematic work but also values the creative insight students can bring (MoE, 2007, p.28).
Opportunities to interact and relate to others are presented by sciences value placed on
communicating and debating with others to seek out better understandings. This learning
area teaches students about problem solving and decision making that provides transferable
skills to other areas of their lives in such a way that they might manage themselves better.
The learning area statement does not suggest how the key competency of participating and
contributing might be developed, but as a teacher I would incorporate local contexts that are
relevant to students in which they might use their scientific knowledge to address an issue.
Social Sciences
The key competency shortcomings of the above two learning areas are not to be found in
the social sciences. With its emphasis on exploring the bicultural, social, cultural, and
economic nature of New Zealand society, and its aim to help students better understand the
society of the wider world, the social sciences firmly develops the key competencies of
relating to others and participating and contributing. Critical thinking is encouraged
through this engagement with societal issues in a wide range of contexts. Learning to see
the different perspectives and values communities hold enables students to clarify their own
identities (MoE, 2007, p.30) and abilities when managing themselves. Extensive
opportunities are present in this learning area for students to engage with language,
symbols, and texts of a varying nature, as they explore and present their understandings of
society.
Technology
A social reconstructionist discourse can be seen in this learning area with its opening words
intervention by design (MoE, 2007, p.32) and an awareness of its ability to impact on the
cultural, ethical, environmental, political, and economic conditions of the day (MoE, 2007,
p.32). This reflects a strong commitment to the key competency of participating and
contributing, allowing students to address needs and realise opportunities in their own
communities. An encouragement to use outside knowledge and skills from other learning
areas shows an inclination towards an integrated curriculum and learning experience for
students.
At the beginning of this paper we examined how the dominant ideology of a society can be
unconsciously reproduced through the values embedded in the NZC; looking to the learning
areas we can see this reproduction explicitly as the dominant ideology puts forward what
constitutes knowledge in the different disciplines (Levinson et al., 2002). These traditional
scholar conceptions of knowledge, as something brought down to students across the
centuries, create a variable notion of the definition of knowledge that is discipline specific
(Brown, 2006). The key competencies offer us as beginner teachers an opportunity to
critique these notions and rethink curriculums purpose and pedagogy. They are best
described as capabilities for living and lifelong learning (MoE, 2007, p.12) and were

Ryan Kiely
ID: 1203264
developed out of the OECDs (2005) project Definition and Selection of Competencies. The
OECD (2005, p.4) project argued for their importance and inclusion in frameworks because
of the forces of globalisation and modernisation that have created an increasingly diverse
and interconnected world. With the overwhelming access to information students have
today, the key competencies acknowledge a need for learning how rather than learning
what (Kennedy, 2008). A challenge I will face as a teacher is maintaining a balance
between these two ideas that maximises students learning; I will need to recognise my
position of power in the classroom to decide what constitutes knowledge and appropriate
ways of thinking.
The New Zealand Curriculum as an Outcomes-based Policy
These two understandings of learning reflect the divide found in the NZC between a front
end that encourages school involvement in curriculum design and a back end that focuses
on compliance and assessment (Begg, 2008). The learner-centred front end contrasts with
the social efficiency discourse found in the achievement objectives that emphasises
economic concerns, measurable outcomes, and an alignment with the national standards
(Abbiss, 2014). This situation only works to draw a distinction between curriculum and
assessment, positioning assessment as somehow not curriculum, missing the vital
interrelation between the two (Abbiss, 2013). The outcomes based nature of the NZC can
also be seen by looking at the number of pages dedicated to the achievement objectives in
relation to that of the front end. This stance is in line with the neoliberal ideology identified in
the NZC that values the market approach, where education is seen as a production process
in which resource inputs are used to produce measurable educational outputs (Codd, 2008,
p.18). This marketization of the curriculum sees the outcomes of learning being valued
rather than the processes.
Focusing on learning outcomes undermines the exploration encouraged in the front end of
the NZC and replaces it with a reduced scope of curriculum for teachers. Carpenter, Jesson,
Roberts, & Stephenson (2008) believe that this shifts accountability for low performance
away from societal issues and on to teachers, leaving them responsible for the outcomes,
but not the purpose of education. A curriculum preoccupied with performativity can fail to
engage with those aspects of students development that are not as easily measured but are
still key to their growth (Codd, 2008). As a beginner teacher, we need to focus on the
process component emphasised in the NZC vision and key competencies to combat this
culture of performativity that treats teachers as functionaries rather than as professionals
(Codd, 2008). The neoliberal view found in the NZC that believes teachers need to function
efficiently and be externally accountable can have a negative impact on our role as teachers,
fostering less, rather than more, trust between us and the public (ONeill, 2002).
By understanding the ideologies and discourses operating in the NZC my role as a teacher
will not be a passive one; engaging with and critiquing the curriculum policy as it reaches my
classroom will develop a learning environment that encourages students to question all
knowledge they are presented with. Understanding the ways discourses can hide
themselves in the language we use has pushed me to examine my own understandings of
curriculum and pedagogy. When the time comes to seek out a school to continue my career
in, I hope to find an environment that doesnt simply take the NZC at face value but
challenges its very beliefs.

Ryan Kiely
ID: 1203264
References
Abbiss, J. (2013). Making sense of curriculum. Curriculum Matters, 9, 1-7.
Abbiss, J. (2014). Curriculum Matters 10 years on: A window on curriculum. Curriculum
Matters, 10, 1-10
Begg, A. (2008). Curriculum options: Being, knowing, and exploring. Curriculum Matters, 4,
1-6.
Brown, G. (2006). Conceptions of curriculum: A framework for understanding New Zealand's
curriculum framework and teachers' opinions. Curriculum Matters, 2, 164-181.
Callinicos, A. (2001). Against the third way. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Carpenter, V., Jesson, J., Roberts, P., & Stephenson, M. (2008). Ng kaupapa here:
Connections and contradictions in education. Melbourne: Cengage Learning.
Codd, J. (2005). Introduction: Is there a 'Third Way' for education policy? In J. Codd & K.
Sullivan (Eds.), Education policy directions in Aotearoa New Zealand (pp.xiii-xviii).
Southbank, VIC: Thomson Learning.
Codd, J. (2008). Neoliberalism, globalisation and the deprofessionalisation of teachers. In V.
Carpenter, J. Jesson, P. Roberts, & M. Stephenson, Ng kaupapa here: Connections
and contradictions in education (pp. 14-24). Melbourne: Cengage Learning.
Kennedy, K. (2008). Globalised economies and liberalised curriculum: New challenges for
national citizenship education. In D. Grossman, W. On Lee & K. Kennedy (Eds.),
Citizenship curriculum in Asia and the Pacific (pp. 13-26). Hong Kong: Comparative
Education Research Centre.
Levinson, D.L., Cookson, P.W., & Sadovnik, A.R. (2002). Education and Sociology. New
York: Routledge-Falmer.
Minister of Education. (1991). Education policy: Investing in people, our greatest asset.
Wellington: Government Printer.
Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.
Mutch, C. (2009). Curriculum: What, how and for whom? Curriculum Matters, 5, 1-4.
Mutch, C. (2011). Crisis, curriculum and citizenship. Curriculum Matters, 7, 1-7.
OECD. (2001). Definition and selection of competencies from a human development
perspective Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Olssen, M., Codd, J. & ONeill, A-M. (2004). Education policy: Globalisation, citizenship and
democracy. London: Sage Publications.
ONeill, O. (2002). A question of trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ryan Kiely
ID: 1203264
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2005). The definition and
selection of key competencies: Executive summary. Retrieved 23 March 2016, from
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development:
http://www.oecd.org/edu/statistics/deseco
Ozga, J. (2000). Policy research in educational settings. Buckingham: Open University
Press.
Pinar, W. F. (2012). What is curriculum theory? Routledge.
Samu, T.W. (2011). Understanding the lines in the sand: Diversity, its discourses and
building a responsive education system. Curriculum Matters, 7, 175-194.
Schiro, M. (2013). Curriculum Theory: Conflicting Visions and Enduring Concerns (2nd Ed.).
London, UK: Sage Publications.
Sullivan, K. (1993). The Myth of Partnership: Educational Reform and Teacher
Disempowerment. New Zealand Annual Review of Education, 2, 151-165.
Wood, B.E., & Sheehan, M. (2012). Dislodging knowledge? The New Zealand curriculum in
the 21st Century. Pacific-Asian Education, 24(1), 17-30.