Education Review Office. (2013). Working with Te Whāriki. Wellington: Author.

Dr. Bradley's buzz:

This is a key report from the Education Review Office which builds upon the ECE Taskforce’s recommendation that Te Whāriki be evaluated, and the OECD report which found that there is a need to improve the curriculum approach to parental engagement, children’s agency, and strengthening communication and leadership skills. The study included 627 early childhood settings. It was found that 80% of these were making some use of Te Whāriki in planning and assessment documentation, that 10% were working in depth with the document, and that in 10% there was very limited use.

It was also found that in many services aspects of Te Whāriki were highlighted in documentation but those aspects were not often translated into practice. ERO found that the broad interpretation of Te Whāriki sometimes lead to inappropriate practices. There was a general concern over how services were implementing Te Whāriki with many services found not to be using Te Whāriki as a reflective or evaluative tool. These issues were aligned to the fact that Te Whāriki does not provide clear standards of practice. ERO put out a call for services to evaluate the extent to which they are implementing Te Whāriki. They also raise three specific questions:

·         when the curriculum should be reviewed or revised next

·         whether there is clearer alignment between the framework and the regulated standard

·         the implications of having a non-prescriptive curriculum

ERO’s analysis found six particular themes for curriculum use:

·         philosophical curriculum – many services linked philosophical statements to aspects of Te Whāriki however it was also found that there was often a lack of alignment between the philosophical curriculum and practice.

·         Implicit curriculum – many saw Te Whāriki as a given, as ‘what we do’ and therefore implicit. ERO found that where Te Whāriki was treated as implicit there was not always shared understanding of meaning or how it is put into action.

·         Selective curriculum – this treated the framework is a menu to choose from. It was found that the most popular choices were family and community, relationships, well-being, and belonging. Least favourite choices were found to be empowerment, holistic development, exploration, communication, and contribution. There was diversity in the extent to which the principles and strands were integrated into programs. Learning outcomes were far less evident than principles and strands.

·         Reference point – Te Whāriki could often be seen in artefacts around the setting, the document was often referenced in paperwork but far less observable in practice. For most services there was little evidence of principles and strands being used in assessment and planning documentation. ERO point out is that referencing curriculum does not necessarily equate to implementation.

·         Basis for bicultural curriculum – ERO found that across this sample teachers knew that Te Whāriki is a bicultural curriculum however there was little evidence that this was well understood particularly as a translated into action.

·         Basis for evaluation of curriculum – it was found that very few services used Te Whāriki to evaluate their curriculum or the learning program. There was also a need for ongoing review of how responsive service’s curriculum as to changing communities and changing needs within the community.

In the discussion, ERO point out is that the absence of a prescribed framework may have weakened the link between teaching programs and the principles and strands of Te Whāriki. They thought that perhaps Te Whāriki is too familiar and therefore possibly lacked the challenge for teaching teams. That said, ERO commented that although teachers knew the principles and strands they were not necessarily familiar with the whole document itself. ERO propose that more support and guidance may be needed to improve implementation, to work with goals and outcomes, and to enhance bicultural provision.

On the whole, this is a rather damning report which points to the fact that early childhood education in New Zealand has become complacent and has drifted away from the curriculum framework as a document to guide practice. I suggest that this report is the first step in the review and revision of our curriculum framework.