Review of the Ministerial Advisory Group Report March 2024: Redesigning the English and Mathematics & Statistics learning areas in the refreshed New Zealand Curriculum

Sarah Aiono, Jodie Hunter, Vivienne Anderson, Raewyn Eden & Susan Sandretto Aotearoa Educators Collective

Introduction

The Ministerial Advisory Group (MAG) Report: Redesigning the English and Mathematics & Statistics learning areas in the New Zealand Curriculum (March 2024) proposes several recommendations aimed at redesigning the English and Mathematics and Statistics learning areas of Te Mātaiaho, New Zealand’s refreshed curriculum for primary, intermediate and early secondary school students and revising the Common Practice Model and related documents. This comprehensive review by members of the Aotearoa Educators’ Collective evaluates the recommendations of the MAG's report while also addressing counterpoints, particularly in relation to the limited and biased research base of the report, potential eurocentric biases, evidence based pedagogies and indigenous models of thinking, Additionally, it scrutinises specific points raised in the MAG report, providing rebuttals based on scholarly research.

Contribution of MAG Report to the Development of Te Mātaiaho 

The MAG's report includes several points that might add to the ongoing development of Te Mātaiaho and related educational frameworks.

1. Amalgamation of Curriculum Documents:

The MAG's recommendation to amalgamate Te Mātaiaho, the Common Practice Models, and the teaching sequences into a single document aims to simplify curriculum requirements for schools. This effort to streamline documentation can potentially reduce complexity for educators, allowing for clearer guidance and a more cohesive educational framework.

Contribution: Simplification of educational documents can help teachers focus more on instruction and less on administrative tasks, ultimately benefiting student learning.

2. Focus on Foundational Skills:

The emphasis on foundational literacy and numeracy skills in the early years is a critical component of the MAG's recommendations. By ensuring that young learners acquire essential skills in reading, writing, oral language, and mathematics, the report reiterates the importance of establishing a strong academic foundation.

Contribution: Research indicates that early mastery of basic skills is crucial for later academic success. The MAG recommends additional guidance on how to teach these skills which will be helpful for teachers.

4. Inclusion of Cognitive Science:

The MAG flags the potential value of the cognitive sciences to inform the work of teachers.  This reflects what is already well understood in initial teacher education. 

Contribution: Integrating cognitive science in teaching practices will continue to add to teachers’ toolkits of expertise in ways that support student learning.  

5. Delineation Between Literacy and English Subject:

The report makes a clear distinction between literacy and the teaching of English as a subject. This delineation is particularly important for clarity in the senior years, where literacy skills are foundational across all subjects, and English is recognised as just one of New Zealand's (un)official languages.

Contribution: Acknowledging this distinction is a crucial step towards recognising the multilingual nature of New Zealand. However, if this recommendation was to be adopted, literacy needs to be understood much more broadly than in relation to English language literacy.  For example, the compulsory inclusion of Māori as a subject of study, recognising te reo Māori as one of New Zealand’s official languages would add to students’ literacy skill development.. This will reflect similar practices in other bicultural nations. For instance, successful Scandinavian countries legislate for compulsory instruction in both the indigenous language and additional languages, including the study of texts in these languages (Vančo & Efremov 2020; Leppänen et al., 2011). This ensures that students not only develop strength in subject English in the earlier years, but also develop a strong linguistic and cultural foundation, which is vital for their personal and academic development.

6. Provision of Practice Guides:

The MAG report includes lists of practice guides aimed at informing teachers in their practice. The provision of quality resources that support teaching and learning, along with adequate and relevant PLD, would be strongly welcomed by the education sector.

Contribution: Any resources or documentation that inform teachers’ practice are invaluable. If developed by people with recognised research and practice expertise in a learning area, practice guides can provide teachers with practical strategies and tools to enhance their instructional methods. When coupled with effective PLD, quality resources can significantly improve teaching quality and student outcomes.

7. Writing by Hand in the Early Years:

The recommendation that writing be done by hand in the early years has been widely called for by junior school teachers for some time. This aligns with research highlighting the importance of fine motor skills development and the potential dangers of early technology use for children not yet able to write by hand. Experts have raised concerns about young children’s overexposure to technology, which can negatively impact neurological development (Muppalla, Vuppalapati, Reddy Pulliahgaru, & Sreenivasulu, 2023).

Contribution: Encouraging handwriting in the early years supports the development of fine motor skills and cognitive abilities associated with the physical act of writing. However, the report also includes a recommendation in Appendix 3 for teaching cursive handwriting in years 4-6, without explaining why this is necessary once children can form letters by hand.

8. Focus on good quality practice activities in mathematics

Practice is essential for developing cognitive skills and deliberate practice that also sustains the interest of learners is recognised as a way of developing procedural fluency and conceptual understanding (Rittle-Johnson et al., 2015). Fluency in mathematics is regarded as a central aspect of mathematics learning and supports efficient problem-solving. However, it is important to note also that if children are only given retrieval type practice or drill tasks, this will only support them to become faster at the thinking that is already being used rather than supporting them to solve transfer problems. 

Contribution: Encouraging good quality practice activities and tasks is an effective way of supporting children to develop fluency in mathematics. 

Counterpoints and Rebuttals to MAG Recommendations

While aspects of  the MAG report are likely to support good practice in education, many of its recommendations can also be critiqued. These counterpoints emphasise the need for a more nuanced approach that incorporates evidence-based pedagogies, respects indigenous models of thinking, and addresses potential eurocentric biases.

1. Amalgamation of Curriculum Documents

Report Recommendation: The MAG recommends the amalgamation of Te Mātaiaho, the Common Practice Models, and the teaching sequences into a single document to simplify curriculum requirements for schools.

Counterpoint: This approach risks creating a one-size-fits-all framework that fails to accommodate the diverse needs of different schools and communities. Research by Hargreaves and Fullan (2012) suggests that overly centralised educational systems can stifle teacher creativity and responsiveness to local needs. A more flexible framework, allowing for local adaptations, could better serve the diverse student population in New Zealand.

2. Removal of Progress Steps in Favour of Checkpoints

Report Recommendation: The removal of progress steps in favour of checkpoints for assessing progress in reading, writing, oral language, and mathematics.

Counterpoint: The proposed use of checkpoints may raise concerns due to their negative impact on teaching and learning. The implementation of standardised checkpoints or benchmarks can lead to a narrow focus on measurable outcomes, often at the expense of broader educational goals. This approach can pressure teachers to "teach to the test," limiting their ability to tailor instruction to the needs of individual students. Furthermore, it can create stress and anxiety among students, potentially hindering their overall learning experience. Research indicates that while benchmarks can provide a framework for assessment, they often fail to accommodate the diverse learning trajectories of students and can undermine teacher autonomy and creativity in the classroom (Thrupp & White, 2013).

3. Structured Approach to Teaching Literacy and Mathematics

Report Recommendation: Implementing a structured approach to teaching literacy and mathematics, including specific sequences, methods, and checkpoints based on cognitive psychology.

Counterpoint: While structured approaches can standardise teaching practices, they may also limit teacher autonomy and the ability to tailor instruction to individual student needs. Effective teaching requires a balance between structure and flexibility, allowing teachers to use their professional judgement to meet students' needs (Darling-Hammond et al., 2008). Moreover, a strictly structured approach might not accommodate the varying developmental rates of children, particularly those from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds.

4. Recognition of Oral Language:

Report Recommendation: The report briefly acknowledges the lack of expertise in the group related to oral language development in the early years (preschool). The MAG comprises one member with oral language expertise. The report recommends the exploration of ways to ensure national consistency of oral language instruction in the early childhood education sector in an attempt to raise successful oral language skills prior to school entry.  

Counterpoint: The report does not go far enough in acknowledging that children who do not begin school with strong oral language skills will struggle to adequately access and meet any expected reading and writing checkpoints. This is despite early intervention in the preschool years, or the impact of wider familial or societal implications on early literacy development. There is an underlying assumption in the report that reading and writing will naturally occur upon entry to school, with little regard for a child's baseline oral language ability. Children who enter school with underdeveloped oral language skills are at a significant disadvantage and are less likely to meet early reading and writing benchmarks (Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998). This gap in oral language skills can lead to ongoing difficulties in literacy and overall academic achievement.

To address this issue effectively, it is essential to implement comprehensive assessments of children's oral language skills upon school entry and provide targeted interventions for those who need support. Education policy should prioritise oral language development in the early years of school, ensuring that all children have the foundational skills necessary to succeed in reading and writing, particularly those from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds. A lack of consideration as to the ongoing relationship between strong oral language skills as children progress through school and literacy acquisition and overall academic success in school is apparent in the report.

4. Professional Learning and Development (PLD)

Report Recommendation: Enhanced PLD for teachers to support the adoption of new curriculum and practices.

Counterpoint: While PLD is essential, the quality and relevance of professional development are critical. Desimone (2009) asserts that effective PLD should be ongoing, collaborative, and directly related to teachers' work in the classroom. Drawing on comprehensive research about the science of learning and implications for practice, Darling-Hammond et al. (2022) conclude that "concentrated efforts are needed to create professional learning opportunities that can help educators develop the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to enact these insights'' (p. 18).

5. Involvement of Additional Experts and Focus Groups

Report Recommendation: Engaging additional experts and establishing focus groups, including teachers, to provide feedback on draft documents.

Counterpoint: Broadening the base of input can enhance the relevance and effectiveness of the curriculum. However, it is crucial that this process remains inclusive and genuinely considers the voices of a broadly representative group of stakeholders, particularly classroom teachers who are directly affected by these changes. Fullan (2007) underscores the importance of meaningful teacher involvement in curriculum development for successful implementation.

6. Engagement with the Education Sector

Report Recommendation: The MAG report acknowledges the need to explain the evidence base for the indicated changes and offers their availability to engage in meetings with schools, teachers' organizations, and other stakeholders. 

Counterpoint: There is an increasing concern among the sector regarding the credibility of some MAG group members and their wider socio-cultural and political affiliations (Walters, 2024). This report also raises concerns about the MAG’s selective use of evidence as a basis for recommendations (see point 1 under ‘general comments’ below).   It is crucial for the success of the proposed changes that the education sector trusts and respects the expertise of the advisory group. Ensuring transparency about the backgrounds and qualifications of MAG members will help build this trust and address any potential biases that could influence the recommendations. In relation to mathematics, the lack of expertise in mathematics education was evident with only one member of the MAG having qualifications in mathematics education and the majority of the MAG with qualifications in pure mathematics. A collaborative approach, incorporating feedback and insights from a broad range of educators and New Zealand researchers with internationally recognised expertise in relevant areas, will be vital in achieving meaningful and sustainable improvements in the curriculum.

7. In the mathematics recommendations, there is a heavy focus on procedures and teaching procedures, based on the argument that conceptual understanding comes from gaining fluency with procedures. 

Report Recommendation: The MAG report heavily emphasises procedures and developing children’s use of procedures as the most important first focus in mathematics education. The argument in this part of the report is unsubstantiated; no research references are provided for the claims being made. The report argues that, as children gain fluency with a procedure, they will then also develop conceptual understanding. However, the report suggests that first and foremost, the focus should be on procedures. 

Counterpoint: The MAG report continues the dichotomy of framing of procedural skills vs conceptual knowledge which has been increasingly challenged in mathematics education research literature (e.g., Kieran, 2013; Rittle-Johnson et al., 2015). Both procedural skills/fluency and conceptual understanding are recognised as important for success in mathematics education (Gilmore et al., 2017). Research studies have shown that there are bidirectional relationships between procedural skills/fluency and conceptual understanding. Improvements in procedural knowledge can support improvements in conceptual understanding, however, likewise improvements in conceptual understanding can support improvements in procedural fluency. While the research base for whether conceptual to procedural or procedural to conceptual is optimal in instruction is limited, Rittle-Johnson and colleagues highlight that the few studies (Perry, 1991; Matthews & Rittle-Johnson, 2009; Rittle-Johnson and Alibali, 1999) focused on this area show the post-test knowledge is greater for children who receive brief instruction on a concept first and then a procedure. 

General Comments of Concern from the MAG Report:

1. Selective Use of Research Evidence

The MAG report uses ‘evidence’ selectively to set up an argument that change is needed and to justify its recommendations for change. Ironically, the MAG’s use of evidence contradicts its own recommendations for what "Standards of Evidence" should guide educational practice (Appendix 2). For example, the MAG makes causal claims about the outcomes of whole language instruction based on an observation that X and Y happened at the same time (observations are not grounds for claiming causality). The MAG makes claims about initial teacher education programmes based on a cursory survey of web information published in a NZ Institute report that was not quality assured. Elsewhere, the report prioritises quantitative studies, ignoring the wealth of rich, quality-assured, internationally-recognised  qualitative studies that provide deep insights into educational practices and students’ learning, particularly those related to indigenous learning methodologies. The MAG’s recommended “Standards of Evidence” in Appendix 2 ignore the important insights afforded by qualitative research into the relational and cultural aspects of learning, which are crucial for understanding and implementing effective educational practices in diverse and complex contexts. For instance, studies by Smith (1999) and Bishop and Glynn (1999) highlight the importance of qualitative data in capturing the complexities of Māori educational experiences and the significance of culturally responsive pedagogy. The MAG’s selective use of evidence throughout the report, and their narrow definition of “quality” evidence in Appendix 2, raise questions about bias and intent. 

2.  Assumption that Curriculum Can Adequately Be Accessed by All Five-Year-Olds

The report assumes that all five-year-olds arriving at school can adequately access the curriculum, with minimal attention given to the role of oral language development. While the report acknowledges the relevance of oral language to foundational literacy skills, it largely places the responsibility for this development on the early childhood education (ECE) sector. This assumption overlooks the significant impact of family dynamics on language development and the impact of a lack of this on the new entrant student’s ability to access the reading and writing curriculum. Research indicates that disparities in oral language skills at school entry are influenced by various factors, including socio-economic status and parental engagement (Hart & Risley, 1995). Effective strategies must therefore consider family and community involvement to support children's language development comprehensively.

Furthermore, the report does not include acknowledgement of other factors responsible for the successful development of writing proficiency, including gross and fine motor skills, trunk control and muscle development, and dexterity. There is increasing concern that these areas of development are impacted by modern societal changes, such as increased screen time and reduced physical activity among young children. Research has shown that motor development is closely linked to handwriting skills and that declines in physical activity can negatively affect children's handwriting proficiency (Feder & Majnemer, 2007).

3. Assumption About Teaching Informed by Science

The report states, "While teaching must be informed by science much more than it has been (p.4)," implying that teachers have not previously been guided by educational models based on scientific exploration. This assumption requires clarification of what is meant by 'science.' Historically, education has been informed by multiple scientific theories, including behavioural sciences, social learning theories, developmental theories, and cognitive sciences. For example, Piaget's developmental stages, Vygotsky's social development theory, and Bandura's social learning theory have long guided educational practices. The assertion that teaching needs to be more scientifically informed fails to recognise the existing integration of these well-established scientific models in educational settings.

Additionally, in relation to mathematics as noted on page 37: “the research base supporting science-of-learning-based teaching of maths is weaker than that supporting early literacy”. This is evident in the reference list of the MAG report, where there is no reference to any research literature to support the recommendations of the MAG in relation to mathematics education. Consequently, the recommendations in relation to mathematics are not based on evidence as none is provided.  The premise of the MAG report that “The ‘science of learning’ may be broadly construed as application of cognitive psychology in educational settings” is not supported and ignores the comprehensive literature base for the science of learning that points to a dynamic, contextualised, holistic view of learning.  Taking a singular focus on cognitive aspects risks “important knowledge remain[ing], underutilised, contributing to persistent disparities, challenges, and inadequacies in our education systems, other child-serving systems, and the supports that we provide to families, practitioners, and communities” (Cantor, et al.,  2018: p.307).  

4. Risk of Checkpoint Assessments Being Perceived as Summative

On page 23 of the report, the MAG acknowledges the "substantial risk of checkpoint assessments being perceived by teachers as summative in nature." This risk can lead to unintended consequences such as 'teaching to the test' and the narrowing of the curriculum. While the recognition of this risk is an important step, the report does not go far enough in recommending approaches to mitigate this significant risk to teachers and learners.

Research shows that when assessments are perceived as summative, teachers may focus narrowly on tested content at the expense of broader educational goals (Au, 2007). This can result in a reduction of instructional time for subjects not included in the assessments and limit students' opportunities for a well-rounded education. Additionally, 'teaching to the test' can undermine the development of higher-order thinking skills and creativity (Popham, 2001).

To address this risk, it is crucial to hold to the formative use of checkpoints and provide strategies for integrating assessment into regular teaching practices. Incorporating multiple forms of assessment is critical to capture a wide range of student skills and knowledge can help mitigate the narrowing effect of checkpoint assessments. Furthermore, ensuring adequate expertise to design such assessments that achieve the intended goals, are contextually relevant to New Zealand schools, and mitigate the risks identified, will be required.  

5. Critical Analysis of England's English Curriculum

The report acknowledges England's English curriculum with all the objectives listed on one page for years 1 - 6. While the simplicity and clarity of listing objectives on a single page might seem advantageous, it is crucial to examine whether this approach has been effective in improving educational outcomes.

Additionally, the relevance of England's curriculum to the New Zealand context must be considered. Do we need to keep reforming models of learning based on our English heritage, or are there other, more successful models of curriculum available that would better align with our bicultural heritage? We have examples of highly successful education contexts designed with and for local communities - including kura kaupapa - that could be drawn upon as a basis for designing our education system.  Furthermore, exploring alternative curriculum models from countries that have successfully integrated indigenous knowledge and practices, such as Finland or Canada, could provide valuable insights for developing a curriculum that truly reflects New Zealand's unique cultural identity.

6. Inclusion of Shakespeare in the Curriculum

The MAG report identifies the inclusion of Shakespeare as a separate programme of study for the proposed English study area of the curriculum for Year 7 and above, yet there is no justification for its inclusion. While Shakespeare's works are undoubtedly significant in the context of English literature, the report does not provide a rationale for why his works are singled out over other literary figures or traditions.

Assuming there is evidence supporting the inclusion of Shakespeare as an important aspect of literature study, this raises a crucial question: Should there not also be compulsory instruction in Māori studies that includes specific literature or oracy studies in a similar fashion? The recognition and integration of Māori literature and oral traditions are essential for a curriculum that aims to be inclusive and reflective of New Zealand's bicultural heritage. If Shakespeare's works are to be mandated, then equivalent importance and structure should be applied to the study of Māori literature and oracy to ensure cultural equity and representation in the curriculum.

7. Cursive Handwriting in Years 4-6

The report's recommendation for writing by hand in the early years aligns with the widely supported view among junior school teachers that handwriting is essential for developing fine motor skills and cognitive abilities. 

However, the inclusion of cursive handwriting in years 4-6, as referenced in Appendix 3, raises questions. While some studies suggest benefits in terms of fine motor skills and reading fluency, others indicate that cursive writing may not be essential for academic success (Berninger, 2012). The report does not provide a rationale for this recommendation, necessitating further clarification.

Wider Concerns of the MAG Report

1. Eurocentric Reporting and Indigenous Ways of Being

The recommendation to amalgamate curriculum documents also presents challenges in terms of respecting and incorporating Te Ao Māori principles and values. Indigenous education systems emphasise holistic learning and community involvement, which may not align with a standardised, amalgamated document. Durie (2011) argues that educational frameworks integrating Māori knowledge and practices are more likely to support Māori students' success.

The focus on cognitive science and structured teaching often reflects individualistic and Eurocentric theories of learning, potentially overlooking the communal and relational aspects of indigenous education. Bishop and Glynn (1999) stress the importance of relationships, community, and the integration of cultural practices into the learning process. Over-reliance on cognitive science may marginalise these essential aspects of education for our Māori and Pasifika students. Science(s) of learning include the science of relationships.  Cantor et al. (2018) propose that consistent and supportive relationships serve as significant factors in maximising children's developmental potential, integral to the science of learning, not at odds with it.  

Implementing standardised assessments and checkpoints can fail to account for the diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds of students. For Māori students, assessments should be culturally responsive and reflect their language and worldview. Macfarlane (2004) highlights the need for assessments that recognise and validate indigenous knowledge and ways of knowing.

While ongoing PLD for teachers is essential, programmes must include comprehensive training on culturally responsive teaching practices and the incorporation of Māori and Pacific perspectives. Professional development including cultural competence training can significantly improve educational outcomes for indigenous students.(Mayer et al., 2010)

Finally, while structured learning to manage cognitive load is important, it is equally crucial to integrate holistic and relational teaching methods that resonate with Māori ways of learning. Māori education frameworks, such as those described by Smith (1999), and Durie (1994) emphasise the interconnectedness of knowledge, culture, and identity, which should be reflected in teaching practices. Furthermore, attention should also be paid to Pacific values (Rimoni et al., 2021) and ways of being to ensure belonging in classrooms. 

2. Evidence Based Pedagogies and Individual Learning Pace

The MAG's emphasis on structured teaching practices to manage cognitive load and ensure foundational knowledge is well established in long-term memory must be balanced against the developmental needs of children. Evidence based pedagogies suggest that learning activities should align with the child's developmental stage, promoting exploration and play (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009). Excessive structure can lead to cognitive overload and disengagement, particularly for younger children who benefit from hands-on, exploratory learning experiences (Elkind, 2007).

Checkpoints can help identify struggling students early, but they must be flexible enough to accommodate different learning paces. Research indicates that children develop at varied rates and that a one-size-fits-all approach can be detrimental (NAEYC, 2009). Formative assessments allowing for continuous feedback and adjustments to teaching strategies are more effective in catering to individual learning needs (Black & Wiliam, 1998).

Focusing heavily on foundational literacy and numeracy skills in the early years, with explicit teaching of decoding, spelling, handwriting, and sentence work, while crucial, can neglect the importance of social, emotional, and physical development. These are equally important for overall learning and development (Heckman, 2006). Evidence based pedagogies advocate for a balanced approach integrating academic learning with opportunities for play, social interaction, and physical activity (Ginsburg, 2007).

Finally, applying uniform teaching sequences and methods across all students to ensure consistency and reduce cognitive overload may not be effective for all learners. Children learn at different paces and have diverse needs. Vygotsky’s (1978) concept of the Zone of Proximal Development emphasises the need for individualised teaching that challenges students just beyond their current abilities while providing appropriate support. Differentiated instruction and flexible grouping are essential for addressing individual learning differences (Tomlinson, 2001).

3. Lack of research or evidence for mathematics recommendations

As noted previously, there is a lack of evidence or research base for the recommendations being promoted for mathematics education. Recent reviews of mathematics education in New Zealand have drawn on a comprehensive body of research and provide well-documented recommendations. These include the Royal Society Pāngarau Mathematics and Tauanga Statistics in Aotearoa New Zealand report in 2021 which took a holistic and broad approach and generated 14 recommendations across four key themes. To date, the recommendations from this report have not been addressed. Given the lack of connection to research evidence in the MAG report and the overall lack of representation of qualified mathematics educators in the advisory group, it is unclear how the MAG report adds any value beyond the previous reports. We argue that rather than continuing to use funding on further reports, the evidence-based recommendations of the Royal Society report should be addressed in a holistic manner.   

Conclusion

In conclusion, the recommendations from the Ministerial Advisory Group (MAG) for revising New Zealand's educational curriculum aim to standardise and streamline teaching practices. However, this review highlights significant areas of concern including the marginalisation of indigenous perspectives, the risk of neglecting developmental appropriateness, and the need for accommodating individual learning paces. Additionally, the selective use of evidence to argue for the need for change, the apparently narrow conceptualisation of “the science of learning”, the apparent privileging of quantitative research and the eurocentric tone of suggested curriculum changes require careful reconsideration. To ensure an inclusive, effective, and holistic educational approach, it is crucial to balance the potential benefits of structured teaching with the flexibility required to meet diverse student needs effectively and respect their cultural contexts. Incorporating insights from scholarly research, this review advocates for a more nuanced and culturally responsive framework grounded in a wider range of (quality-assured) evidence, that recognises local expertise, and prioritises both academic achievement and the well-being of all students.

References

Au, W. (2007). High-Stakes Testing and Curricular Control: A Qualitative Metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258-267.

Bishop, R., & Glynn, T. (1999). Culture Counts: Changing Power Relations in Education. Dunmore Press.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and Classroom Learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7-74.

Berninger, V. W. (2012). Evidence-Based, Developmentally Appropriate Writing Skills K-5: Teaching the Orthographic Loop of Working Memory to Write Letters So Developing Writers Can Spell Words and Express Ideas. Applied Neuropsychology: Child, 1(2), 79-89.

Cantor, P., Osher, D., Berg, J., Steyer, L., & Rose, T. (2018). Malleability, plasticity, and individuality: How children learn and develop in context 1. In The science of learning and development (pp. 3-54). Routledge.

Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2009). Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs. NAEYC.

Darling-Hammond, L., Schachner, A. C. W., Wojcikiewicz, S. K., & Flook, L. (2023). Educating teachers to enact the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 28(1), 1–21.

Darling-Hammond, L., Schachner, A. C., Wojcikiewicz, S. K., & Flook, L. (2024). Educating teachers to enact the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 28(1), 1-21.

Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2008). Professional Learning in the Learning Profession: A Status Report on Teacher Development in the United States and Abroad. National Staff Development Council.

Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving Impact Studies of Teachers' Professional Development: Toward Better Conceptualisations and Measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181-199.

Durie, M. (1994). Whaiora: Maori health development. Oxford University Press.

Durie, M. (2011). Ngā Tini Whetū: Navigating Māori Futures. Huia Publishers.

Elkind, D. (2007). The Power of Play: Learning What Comes Naturally. Da Capo Press.

Feder, K. P., & Majnemer, A. (2007). Handwriting development, competency, and intervention. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 49(4), 312-317. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2007.00312.x

Fullan, M. (2007). The New Meaning of Educational Change. Teachers College Press.

Gilmore, C., Keeble, S., Richardson, S., & Cragg, L. (2017). The interaction of procedural skill, conceptual understanding and working memory in early mathematics achievement. Journal of Numerical Cognition, 3(2).

Ginsburg, K. R. (2007). The Importance of Play in Promoting Healthy Child Development and Maintaining Strong Parent-Child Bonds. Pediatrics, 119(1), 182-191.

Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional Capital: Transforming Teaching in Every School. Teachers College Press.

Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experience of Young American Children. Paul H Brookes Publishing.

Heckman, J. J. (2006). Skill Formation and the Economics of Investing in Disadvantaged Children. Science, 312(5782), 1900-1902.

Kieran, C. (2013). The false dichotomy in mathematics education between conceptual understanding and procedural skills: An example from algebra. In Vital directions for mathematics education research (pp. 153-171). Springer.

Leppänen, Sirpa & Pitkanen-Huhta, Anne & Nikula, Tarja & Kytölä, Samu & Törmäkangas, Timo & Nissinen, Kari & Kääntä, Leila & Räisänen, Tiina & Laitinen, Mikko & Jauni, Heidi & Lähdesmäki, Salla & Jousmäki, Henna. (2011). National survey on the English language in Finland: Uses, meanings and attitudes. 

Macfarlane, A. H. (2004). Kia Hiwa Ra! Listen to Culture: Māori Students' Plea to Educators. NZCER Press.

Matthews, P., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2009). In pursuit of knowledge: comparing self-explanations, concepts, and procedures as pedagogical tools. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 104, 1–21.

Meyer, L. H., Penetito, W., Hynds, A., Savage, C., Hindle, R., & Sleeter, C. (2010). Evaluation of Te Kotahitanga: 2004-2008: Report to the Ministry of Education. Wellington: Ministry of Education. Retrieved from https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/91416/english-medium-education/evaluation-of-te-kotahitanga-2004-2008/executive-summary

Muppalla, S. K., Vuppalapati, S., Reddy Pulliahgaru, A., & Sreenivasulu, H. (2023). Effects of Excessive Screen Time on Child Development: An Updated Review and Strategies for Management. Cureus, 15(6). doi:10.7759/cureus.40608. PMID: 37476119; PMCID: PMC10353947.

NAEYC. (2009). Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children from Birth through Age 8. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Perry, M. (1991). Learning and transfer: instructional conditions and conceptual change. Cognitive Development, 6, 449–468. doi:10.1016/0885-2014(91)90049-J

Popham, W. J. (2001). The Truth About Testing: An Educator's Call to Action. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Rimoni, F., Glasgow, A., & Averill, R. (2022). Pacific Educators Speak: Valuing Our Values. New Zealand Council for Educational Research. PO Box 3237, Wellington 6140 New Zealand.

Rittle-Johnson, B., & Alibali, M. W. (1999). Conceptual and procedural knowledge of mathematics: does one lead to the other? Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 175–189.

Rittle-Johnson, B., Schneider, M., & Star, J. R. (2015). Not a one-way street: Bidirectional relations between procedural and conceptual knowledge of mathematics. Educational Psychology Review, 27, 587-597.

Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonising Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. Zed Books.

Thrupp, M., & White, M. (2013). Research, Analysis and Insight into National Standards (RAINS) Project Final Report. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 48(1), 143-157.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to Differentiate Instruction in Mixed-Ability Classrooms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Vančo, I., & Efremov, D. A. (2020). Revitalizing Saami through Education in Finland. Yearbook of Finno-Ugric Studies, 14(4), 617-627.

National Survey on the English Language in Finland (2011). Uses, Meanings and Attitudes. Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English, 5.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Walters, L. (2024, May 8). Meet the man behind the government's education policy. Newsroom. Retrieved from https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/05/08/meet-the-man-behind-the-governments-education-policy/

Whitehurst, G. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (1998). Child Development and Emergent Literacy. Child Development, 69(3), 848-872.