Well as all of my colleagues in New Zealand are aware, Te Whāriki - New Zealand's early childhood curriculum document is getting an update. The update came as the result of a 2015 advisory group requesting the update of Te Whāriki "so that it better reflected shifts in educational thinking and social change." The timeline for the update as well as the panel of writers that were updating the document came as a surprise to many. In total there were to be 7 writers overall with input from the original writers when necessary.
This brings me to my first critique of the process as well as the draft version of Te Whāriki:
A lack of representation
There are 7 writers - 4 of whom are Academics, the remaining three being practitioners. Of the three practitioners, two are involved in Te Kohanga reo/Kura Kaupapa and one being involved with home-based ECE in He Whānau Manaaki Kindergartens in the Wellington region. All are women and all based in the North Island. Here is the representation that is missing:
11.8% New Zealand Asians (deriving from various Asian nations)
51% men/boys
Perspectives from those identifying as being from the Pacific Islands (with the exception of Tokelau)
Those from the South Island
Those who have been identified as having diverse or additional needs
In fact, given the rise of access to early intervention services since 1996, the exclusion of anyone with a background in early intervention or extensive research related to inclusive practice is perhaps the most glaring of all. Though it makes sense after reading the updated version of Te Whāriki.
So to simplify - the panel of writers consisted of no men, no 'Asians', no more than one Pacific Island contributor, no one based in the South Island, and no representation for the thousands of adults and children in New Zealand who have diverse or additional needs.
The next heavily contentious point is of course the timeline. The draft update was released in November 2016 with the deadline for contributions toward the 'consultation process' being 16 December 2016. One of the ways to contribute to the consultation process was through attending local Hui which began on 11 November and will end on 7 December. There will be 32 Hui in total with 4 being held in December. That means that there would have been 28 Hui out of 32 held during the month of November - which would lead the casual follower to conclude that the process seems a little.....rushed. Why would they be rushing the update of a document, a national curriculum which will probably stand for another 20 years? Call me skeptical but it seems a little odd. If they were looking for a robust and thorough consultation process, why not have the time-frame extended to 6 - 12 months?
Onto the draft....
I have to admit, I was a little late to read the draft of the update. Mainly because I was concerned that I would be ultimately disappointed by a document that is much the same as its predecessor....I wasn't disappointed.
Near the beginning of the draft, under the heading About this Revision, the writers make this statement - "This revision is the first in 20 years. It recognizes and reflects societal changes, shifts in policy and considerable educational research around curriculum, assessment, pedagogy and practice." Though as we get to the more recent early childhood perspectives, things begin to sound a bit familiar. Again, the writers make very clear that the underpinning philosophy of Te Whāriki is a socio-cultural one, paying their usual homage to the theorists of old - Lev Vygotsky and Urie Bronfenbrenner. The writers make it clear that Bronfenbenner's ecological model of human development is the fundamental philosophy from which Te Whāriki has been woven by saying "The ecological systems model theorised by Bronfenbrenner remains fundamental to this curriculum." There are of course a few new, very small additions - Critical theory and the advances of neuroscience as it relates to child development. The two new additions were well worth putting in, though both weren't described in detail as they should have been and both ultimately being over shadowed by the enormous weight of socio-cultural, socio-political influences.
There are three more aspects of the update that I found myself questioning the actual intention behind the revision...
The Strands
Communication, Exploration, Belonging, Well-being, Contribution. The 5 strands have been integral to our practice, education, and assessment processes since 1996. 20 years on and the team of writers have been able to condense them, and that's about it. The goals are relatively the same, there are still learning outcomes attached to each strand, and proposed evidence that would suggest children are meeting those learning outcomes. For a progressive document focusing on the societal and pedagogical shifts over the past two decades you would have thought that one of the main staples - It's not about the product, it's about the process would have been considered when updating the curriculum. Especially in the face of so much angst and frustration throughout the ECE teaching community with regard to standardized testing and assessment. Teachers after reading the draft will begin to think that perhaps we should be focusing on the result, the outcome. What makes it worse is that more than once, the writers suggest that the evidence and learning outcomes give prompts to writing assessments for children....it is all becoming a bit clearer.
I personally feel if they removed the learning outcomes and the evidence suggesting that children have reached those learning outcomes, the document as a whole would be a lot better and more in line with contemporary thinking about 'how children learn.'
I didn't mind the considerations for teachers, leaders, and management. I also didn't mind the small parts at the bottom of each strand where it gives a brief overview of the development that happens for Infants, Toddlers, and Young Children under each of the strands. In fact I would have preferred a more detailed overview for those three age groups over the learning outcomes.
Reading the strands, as well as the Principles made it clear what the intention of the document actually is - a preparation model. According to an article I read a short while ago, it was the vision of Hekia Parata (Minister of Education) for education in New Zealand to be fluid, beginning at age 0 and ending at age 18. That was the impression I got from reading the strands and then the few pages after which spoke of the transition to Primary School, the New Zealand School Curriculum, and the examples of links between the learning outcomes and the key competencies from the NZC. In fact there are more pages dedicated to the effective transitioning between ECE and Primary and the links between Te Whāriki and the NZC than there is to Inclusive Practice, Diversity, and Physical development.
Something that also struck me throughout the draft was the heavy emphasis placed on 'identity building.' A child's identity to me is only one facet of their 'whole self'. A child's identity has more to do with their values, beliefs, experiences, and aspirations where a child's view of themselves encompasses more of their capabilities - their strengths, their weaknesses, their physical and cognitive capabilities. I personally think if we are trying to empower children through viewing them holistically and having them view themselves as holistic learners, we need to focus more on the 'self' while including the developing 'identity.' With that in mind, if I were one of the writers during the initial drafting of the update, I would have suggested changing the Strands completely from what they are to:
The Cognitive Self
The Physical Self
The Spiritual Self
The Emotional Self
The Social Self
Those five dimensions of 'self' offer more opportunity to explore all aspects of a child's development while continuing to include aspects of the former e.g. safety and well-being etc.
For example, the cognitive self could feature aspects of the Strand - Communication which includes language learning, storytelling, non-verbal communication but also speaks to the importance of brain development from 0 - 3 and what teachers could utilize to support children in developing their cognitive self. The spiritual self could link to belonging, emotional with well-being, social with contribution, physical with exploration but they could offer so much more in the way of exploring new perspectives and include a lot more about what is missing from the current Te Whāriki e.g. Physical play.
Planning is an unnecessary staple in both editions of Te Whāriki, a term that I personally think should be scrapped altogether. Instead I would like to see more terms like child-centred, child-led, play-based being used throughout the document. As it is, they are all rarely mentioned and when they are the writers are quick to remain as balanced as possible by suggesting it is up to individual centres to create their own contextual curriculum which when removing the veil of word wizardry generally means 'we will remain ambiguous so you can continue to use an academic focus in communities where parents are looking for it.' Te Whāriki as a curriculum and the writers of the update need to take a stand, a stand with research - advocating for the pedagogy of play.
Finally as is with the current version of Te Whāriki, there is a noticeable lack of any mention of the importance of the physical environment. As those who follow the Reggio Emilia approach will so readily contend - the environment is the third teacher. A part of traditional theory I actually agree with. In the triangle of early childhood education, there is the child, the teacher, and the physical environment. Therefore, the physical environment should have been given as much mention in the update as children and teachers were! No mention of natural play spaces, functional play areas, loose parts, open ended resources....not even in the part about learning dispositions and working theories. It is my strong view, and I believe I am not alone that the four Principles should ultimately become 5 with the physical learning environment becoming the fifth.
Diversity
I have always been an advocate for bicultural practice, particularly around te reo Māori and the Māori world view. I have also spent 90% of my time as an early childhood specialist in areas where the children attending my centre are predominantly of Pacific Island descent. I absolutely understand the need to include the tangata whenua and Pasifika children in the document, but I do not believe that it should be to the exclusion of all others. Inclusion should mean the inclusion of all people regardless of age, gender, sexuality, religion, ability, or ideology and yet the writers have seem to exclude a huge portion of those that will be impacted by the implementation of Te Whāriki as a national curriculum. Those notably missing from the document were Asians (broad term meaning those deriving from the Asian nations), adults and children with additional or diverse needs, and adults and children who have entered New Zealand as refugees. Diversity and multiculturalism should be an integral part of the updated version of Te Whāriki considering the primary reason for there being an update was to 'reflect societal shifts.' Which there has been since 1996, significant shifts in those three areas. To include Maori and Pasifika children and then throw a blanket over everyone else is not only symbolic of the make-up of writers for the update but in my view, also anti-equity.
Inclusive Practice
If I were a child considered to have an additional or diverse need in high school 10 years from now and I was looking back at how 'inclusive' Te Whāriki - the updated version was, I would be left wondering why it didn't have anything that represented me in it. We have a fairly huge problem with funding for early intervention services in New Zealand, as well as teacher education providers that aren't focusing on it enough and now added to that we have a curriculum document that considers inclusive practice not important enough to include or integrate to any great depth. Sure we have several pages dedicated to transitioning to school, but not inclusive practice? There is not even specific mention of children with additional or diverse needs in the Principles of Te Whāriki, though a lot mentioned about 'culture' and the need for teachers to respect the values, beliefs, and views of child rearing/development when considering the local curriculum! Again I will repeat, I was perhaps most gob smacked by the lack of reference to inclusive practice than any other shortcoming the draft of the update might have. A bit of a travesty if you ask me.
All in all for me, the draft of the update was a bit of a rough read. Considering I am someone who believes in the importance of the physical environment, in open ended play, child-centred, child-led, play-based learning. I even became slightly frustrated seeing the word activity being mentioned numerous times through the draft. Newsflash to the writers of the update: activities are as relevant as planning is.
Someone on the ECE Teachers Facebook page asked what my opinion of the draft is and my ultimate response is this - Much the same about nothing. All it really is is a compact version of the initial version - one that we can keep in our glove compartment. The design is nice, the Whakatauki are novel, but the content is still as exclusively inclusive as it has always been and it basically seems like a watered down version of the first, an easy to read transition to school guide for parents - driven home by the abundance of images of children through the draft. Photos are great; I just don't think they're that necessary in a curriculum document.
