Uncertainty

Teachers and Schools are facing an uphill battle; one that is seemingly never ending in the current climate.

We have a government hell-bent on reforming every aspect of education. Thankfully for them, they inherited the beginnings of a curriculum change from the previous government. However, rather than continuing in the same vain, they chopped it up and replaced it with their own ideology, jumping on the “structured literacy” bandwagon that many schools had begun moving to, invented a phrase “structured maths” to fake legitimacy in the idea and rewrote the curriculum in both areas, somewhat overnight with very little consultation. It comes as no surprise to those who have unpacked the new new curriculum that it was heavily written by AI and this explains the speed in which the revision happened.

I could spend a whole series of essays outlining the motivation behind these changes, but that is not the objective of writing this.

No. This article is to outline the plight of the teacher.

Teachers got told about the changes to the draft curriculum at the end of August of 2024, whilst of course, we were still familiarising ourselves with the ‘old’ draft curriculum. Somewhat hilariously, schools were still receiving professional development from the Ministry of Education around the Mathematicss curriculum when the curriculum changed. During the course of Term 3, teachers were somehow expected to continue teaching from the old curriculum, prepare for reports, carry out assessments, and now review and give feedback about the new draft curriculum.  The shut off for consultation happened and in October 2024 the ‘draft’ was finalised. 

It was then announced that primary schools would have to begin teaching Reading, Writing and Mathematics from the new curriculum in Term 1 of 2025, giving mere months for the changes to be implemented school-wide. In those months, teachers would be focussed on end of year activities, conducting final assessments, finalising reports, organising end of year activities, organising transition to next years classes, prize givings and senior end of year functions, finishing off the year and farewelling the students leaving. Add in the only ACTUAL break teachers have due to rules around when leave is allowed to be taken, with Christmas and New Year taking priority. If teachers granted themselves two weeks “off”, this would leave a mere 3 weeks before beginning school. Thats three weeks to get your new class organised, synthesise assessment to get an understanding on where your class sits, read notes on the students in your class, arrange desks and implement new or better refined routines, class lists, seating plans, wall displays, and begin to formulate unit plans for the first term.

Somewhere in all of that, teachers were expected to read and implement a new curriculum for the two biggest subjects in the curriculum. Let’s not forget as well, that not only did the content of the curriculum change, but how it is formatted changed as well. Curriculum Levels are out and ‘Phases’ are in. No longer did we have a curriculum that spanned two years per level, but now every single year had a series of expectations of what was to be taught (despite most schools in the country running composite year classes). On top of this, for the first time in recent history (this century at least!) the curriculum not only outlined WHAT teachers had to teach, but HOW they were to teach it. Whole class, explicit instruction, exposure to many concepts instead of mastery of a few, all methods inspired by the ‘Science’ of Learning ideology that is the latest concoction of pedagogy. If you could ever set up an entire workforce to “learn on the job”, the government had just done it with the entire primary school sector. Teachers were literally teaching from a curriculum that they were still reading and coming to grips with. It is no wonder that teachers were ill equipped for this change, and there was zero confidence in what they were teaching or how they were teaching it, relying heavily on intuition if they had any left, and additional hours spent watching webinars and video clips to try and best follow the curriculum they’d been dealt. 

Before you knew it, the next lot of curriculum changes were being pushed into draft, and suddenly the ball continued rolling, as well as expanding the existing new curriculum to include Years 7 – 10, completely confusing the entire procedure. Furthermore, with the expansion of the English and Maths curriculum for Year 0-10 came with it amendments and changes to the existing curriculum that Year 0-6 had already been teaching from! So now teachers had a new, new curriculum to unpack; but now they had to figure out what the changes were and make the changes themselves to what they had been teaching. 

Why would teachers invest their energy in getting to know a curriculum and implement it if there is a high likelihood it is just going to change on them as soon as they do?

The uncertainty of this very thing leaves teachers in no man’s land.

Then there’s the uncertainty around the messaging schools receive from the Minister and the Ministry of Education.

When ‘Structured Maths’ was dreamt up on the coattails of ‘Structured Literacy’, the Minister announced four providers that schools could choose from to implement this new venture. 

Certain programmes schools were using were discarded and millions upon millions of dollars went into providing workbooks and teacher guides and online subscriptions around the country. Schools didn’t want to miss out on the funding for these resources, and had to decide fairly quickly as to which provider they were going to go with.

However, looking into it, this was never mandated. The language used was never legally binding, instead this was announced at the same time as Minister Stanford gazetted the implementation of the new Maths Curriculum for Term 1 2025. It was stated that the Ministry would provide supplementary, Ministry-funded classroom workbooks, sourced from four suppliers. So you can see how it would appear that use of the resources was mandated, when in actuality, it was not. They were merely provided to support the mandate that was made regarding the curriculum.

This has lead many principals to now check with any of the changes being made (mostly to protect themselves, their staff and their schools from unnecessary changes given the sheer volume of changes there have been) whether the change has been gazetted (mandated) or is it merely a suggestion or recommendation by the Ministry?

The mere fact that this due diligence needs to be done over Ministry announcements just goes to show the complete distrust, lack of faith and complete uncertainty that exists throughout the sector.

The Minister announced in Term 2 of 2026 that she has pushed back the roll out of the other curriculum areas, to give teachers the time that they have been asking for.

Unfortunately, this does nothing except delay the inevitable. It doesn’t give teachers more time to study the curriculum and get their heads around it. Why would any teacher do that when the track record would suggest that they’re just as likely to change it between now and then. So instead, just as with the current changes that have already been implemented, teachers will simply have to continue to learn on the job, teach on the fly, given they complete uncertainty and zero faith they can have in the curriculum changes. 

The uncertainty that exists is stress inducing. It’s additional workload and time-based pressure that could all be alleviated with proper implementation plans that aren’t being rushed through. Carefully implemented plans that work with the sector would go a long way in actually making a difference. However, the whole process has been forced and rushed, and an insurmountable about of pressure out on schools and teachers to just get on and do it.

Solution Focussed

A more considered approach is required.

Measured steps need to be taken instead of rushing widespread changes.

The changes in curriculum implementation I want to see are as follows:

Draft curriculum released in its entirety for all to see. 

Appropriate avenues of feedback provided and actively engaged with the sector – not just giving deadlines for feedback that are adverse to what else teachers are required to do.

Once a draft is finalised, provide the sector with the finalised version. It should be legalised that this then needs to be in printed form. (One of the reasons I believe they are so prolific with changes is that it doesn’t cost anything much to update content on a website, which is currently all they have to do to change the curriculum. By having to print it, the Ministry will be less likely to make changes, given the cost that it would take)

Once the curriculum is finalised, give the sector a year to begin exploring the curriculum and implement it during that year if they’re comfortable with it, and only mandate teaching from it in the following year.

That would provide a clear, and certain plan for schools and teachers to work to. It provides fair and legitimate time for implementation and confidence can return to the sector because of the lack of uncertainty.