#notourcurriculum

I think I have seen all I want to see of the 2025 Stanford Curriculum.

Today the remaining learning areas of the New Zealand Curriculum were released.

At the time of writing I have only seen the Science Curriculum https://newzealandcurriculum.tahurangi.education.govt.nz/new-zealand-curriculum-online/new-zealand-curriculum/learning-areas/science-curriculum/5637165588.c and the overview document: Te Mātaiaho https://files-au-prod.cms.commerce.dynamics.com/cms/api/qwxsnqcpfm/binary/MLeDUy?download=1

But already it is clear:

This is the curriculum that Michael Johnston and the NZI advocated for.

This is the recolonisation that Elizabeth Rata promoted.

This is the knowledge that Nick Gibb recommended.

This is the whitewashing that E.D. Hirsch inspired. (For more on Hirsch see: https://aecnz.substack.com/p/a-curriculum-designed-by-new-zealanders )

Like the recently released English and Mathematics curricula the Science document is packed with an unwieldy collection of knowledge objectives. Good luck to Year 9 and 10 students and their teachers who have around 336 learning objectives to fit into the allocated 3 hours a week, over a two year period.

The Knowledge teaching objectives are titled: The facts, concepts, principles, and theories to teach and include references to scientists throughout history, from Aristotle in Year 1 to John Daniell (1790–1845) in Year 10.

This curriculum is clearly rich with knowledge: but whose knowledge? You judge… I’ve done the counting for you:

Of the highlighted scientists:

• 3 are European New Zealanders

• 1 is Arab

• 3 are Māori

• And there are no Pacific scientists mentioned.

How many Europeans? 75!!

Yes 75, mostly male, mostly dead.

What a travesty that only three scientists from te ao Māori could be included - and I dread telling my Pacific colleagues that there is not a single mention of their scientists, nor of their wealth of Samoan, Tokelau and Kuki Airani knowledge - I think particularly of biology, navigation, astronomy and meteorology, but there is so much more.

What could have inspired such a departure from our previous curricula and the rich local contexts that many of our teachers have expertly woven into their teaching and learning programmes?

It is now no secret that Erica Stanford views Sir Nick Gibb, former UK Minister for Schools, as a key mentor. Stanford and Gibb both refer to American education reformer E.D. Hirsch as their mentor (and in fact both read his book The Schools We Need and Why We Don’t Have Them at the beach - different beaches and twenty years apart).

All educators and parents in Aotearoa should be aware of Gibb’s preference for a Western, classical style education where European knowledge prevails. In a July 2021 speech to the Social Market Foundation thinktank he said:

A curriculum based on relevance to pupils is to deny them an introduction to the ‘best that has been thought and said. And, of course, there is no reason why the work of a ‘dead white man’ is not appropriate for children from ethnic minorities to learn about.”

I have no problem with teachers or students choosing to include Aristotle, Pasteur or Galileo in their science programmes, but let’s include some balance, some local context and let’s provide opportunities for the teaching to be responsive to the backgrounds and interests of our learners.

Te Mātaiaho provides a range of introductory and explanatory statements to accompany the separate learning areas. There is a diagram that sets out what subjects should be taught and the suggested number of hours each week. Unlike all the other Learning Areas, Learning Languages is optional. It appears that te reo Māori is just one of the fourteen languages included in this area. If this is our curriculum, where is the paramountcy of our indigenous language? Where is the expectation that all schools in Aotearoa should be fostering and giving life to te reo. Perhaps that expectation has met the same fate as the kupu: kai, karanga, hongi, wharenui, karakia and koro.

With the 2007 New Zealand Curriculum we saw te reo and te ao Māori given increased mana. Youth in Aotearoa who have been at school over the past 18 years have become so much more proficient in our indigenous language than previous generations; in general their knowledge and pronunciation of te reo and their respect for te ao Māori has eclipsed that of their parents and grandparents. Relegating te reo Māori to an option within a list of fourteen languages risks reversing the progress we have seen.

I have yet to see the other five curriculum areas but I am sure we will see these patterns of recolonisation repeated as the remaining curricula are released.

I think I have seen all I want to see of the 2025 Stanford Curriculum.

It is the curriculum of dead, white men.

It is not our curriculum.