Background to the curriculum guidelines

In the New Zealand education system, three different agencies have primary responsibility for different aspects of schooling - the Ministry of Education (MoE); the New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) and the Education Review

Office (ERO). The MoE is responsible for oversight of the development and delivery of the national curriculum; the NZQA is responsible for developing policy and procedures relating to national educational assessment; and the ERO is responsible for reporting on the quality of education in schools, including evaluation of the effectiveness of teaching and learning.

The early 1980s saw the beginning of an attempt to achieve consistency in New Zealand language documentation within the context of the emerging New Zealand Curriculum Framework (Johnson, 2000, p. 197). All of the language syllabuses and curriculum documents that have been released by the New Zealand Ministry of Education (formerly, Department of Education) from 1987 onwards claim to be communicative in orientation. In 1980, French and German syllabus committees were charged with reviewing the prescriptions for the School Certificate and University Entrance Boards. Out of their deliberations emerged what were referred to as 'syllabuses'. These had the dual function of (a) providing specifications for national examinations, and (b) outlining the overall approach to the specific languages with which each was concerned. These documents listed the minimum linguistic content considered appropriate (something that is entirely consistent with an approach that has been widespread since the development of Le Français Fondamental and is in line with, for example, English language specifications developed under the auspices of the Council of Europe (see for example, Van Ek (1975), Van Ek & Alexander (1977), Van Ek & Trim, 1991a & b and 2001) and, more recently, developments relating to the production of RLDs (Reference Level Descriptions) (see 2.2.2.1 above).

In 1990, Tihē Mauri Ora! (Ministry of Education (New Zealand), 1990) appeared, having been in preparation for ten years. This is a syllabus document intended for use with students in the New Zealand education system from Junior classes (age 5+) through to Form 2 (age 12+). Its overall aims were to provide (a) a coherent and consistent framework for the teaching of Māori language in primary schools, and (b) a basis for the inclusion of appropriate Māori language and culture in all studies and activities across the curriculum. This was no simple task in view of the fact that the document was intended to (a) be of use to teachers steeped in Māori language and culture as well as those with little or no competence in these areas,

and (b) meet the needs of a very wide audience - from English-medium classes in which the predominant language was English, through bilingual classes, to classes held in Māori immersion educational settings. As in the case of the French and German syllabuses, the writers aligned themselves with CLT, noting in a section headed A Communicative Approach that "children learn best when they see a real point in what they are saying and doing – they need to communicate real information for authentic reasons" (p. 18). Even so, there are some fundamental differences between this documemt and the others, one of the most significant being the fact that there is no clear outline of linguistic content, the authors preferring to focus primarily on themes, settings and suggested topics (presented at three different levels), rather than language specifics. Whatever the reasons for this, one of which was, no doubt, related to the breadth of the target audience18_{, Tihē Mauri}

Ora is closer in this respect to a range of later language curriculum documents than are the French and German syllabuses.

The New Zealand National Curriculum Framework, produced in 1993 and revised in 2007 (Ministry of Education (New Zealand), 1993, and 2007c), outlines the official policy for teaching, learning and assessment in New Zealand schools. A critical aspect of the New Zealand school curriculum is the fact that primary and secondary education comprises eight levels for all subjects (with Level 1 being the lowest level). These eight levels do not necessarily correspond to particular years of schooling since it is accepted that the length of time needed to reach each level necessarily depends on a number of factors. This is explained/ exemplified in the following way in the curriculum guidelines document relating to French (Ministry of Education (New Zealand), 2002a, p. 20):

The [eight curriculum] levels described in these curriculum guidelines do not coincide with traditional year levels or with students’ years of schooling. The age at which students begin learning a language will be one factor in

18 _{Other possible reasons, according to Crombie, Johnson & Te Kanawa (2001) are (a) the influence}

of the strong form of CLT that was prevalent in its early stages of the development of the syllabus, and (b) the influence of the writings of Steven Krashen who argued that language could be ‘acquired’ in classroom contexts by the simple device of talking meaningfully in the target language, making sure to challenge the students by using language that is a little in advance of their current level of competence (see, for example, Krashen, 1981). For objections to Krashen's position, see Gregg (1984, p.94).

determining what level or levels a class might work within in the course of one year. For example, many students in a year 7 class might work towards level 1 objectives only, but many students beginning to learn French in year 9 might be able to meet the achievement objectives for levels 1 and 2 within one year.

The last three of the eight levels (Levels 6 to 8) are associated with levels 1 to 3 of the National Qualifications Framework (with Level 8 often, but not necessarily, corresponding to the last year of secondary education (Year 13 of the New-Zealand system).

Prior to the introduction of the revised Curriculum Framework in 2007, there were seven curriculum areas, with ‘language and languages’ covering both the languages of instruction (generally English or te reo Māori) and additional languages. In 2007, ‘language and languages’ was split into two areas. One of these, ‘learning languages’, is concerned with languages which are additional to the language of instruction.19 _{Since 2008, schools have been required to offer a language other than}

the language of instruction to pupils in Years 7–10.

Māori first became available as a School Certificate subject in 1945, te reo Māori has been an official language of Aotearoa since 1987 (Māori Language Act 1987) and more than three quarters of all Māori students currently attend schools where the main language of instruction is English. Even so, there is no requirement that te reo Māori should be included in the Year 7 - 10 additional languages offerings of schools. Furthermore, it was not until 2003 that work began on a curriculum guidelines document relating to the teaching of te reo Māori in English-medium schools and not until 2009 that the final version was made available (Ministry of Education (New Zealand), 2009). Interestingly, however, curriculum guidelines documents relating to a number of other languages had been made available much earlier. Thus, for example, curriculum guidelines documents for Spanish and Chinese were made available in 1995 (Ministry of Education (New Zealand), 1995a & b), for Korean and Japanese in 1998 (Ministry of Education (New Zealand),

19 _{Te reo Māori is treated differently depending on whether it is the language of instruction or a}

1998a & b) and for French and German in 2002 (Ministry of Education (New Zealand), 2002a & b).

The curriculum guidelines documents that are currently available are fundamentally different from the earlier French and German syllabus documents referred to above in that they do not include any clear indication of the linguistic range expected at any of the eight curriculum levels. They either (a) list language content in the form of suggestions and/or examples (as in the case of, for example, the French and German curriculum documents which appeared in 2002 (Ministry of Education (New Zealand), 2002 a & b) or (b) provide no linguistic specifications at all (as in the case of the curriculum guidelines document relating to the teaching and learning of te reo Māori in English-medium schools (Ministry of Education (New Zealand), 2009). This raises issues relating to how the terms 'curriculum' and 'syllabus' are generally defined and, in particular, how they are used by the New Zealand Ministry of Education, issues that are of fundamental significance in relation to teaching, learning and assessment.

The term 'curriculum' is sometimes used in a way that is synonymous with 'syllabus'. More often, however, the term 'curriculum' is used to refer to all aspects of a programme (including materials, methodology and assessment) and the term 'syllabus' (generally considered to be part of the former) to refer to the content of learning, as indicated in the following extract from Finney (2001, p. 70):

The term curriculum is open to a wide variety of definitions; in its narrowest sense it is synonymous with the term syllabus, as in the specification of the content and ordering of what is to be taught; in the wider sense it refers to all aspects of the planning, implementation and evaluation of an educational program, the why, how and how well together with the what of the teaching- learning process.

What the New Zealand Ministry of Education refers to as 'curriculum guidelines' documents in the case of languages do not incorporate a syllabus component. In the case of the French and German curriculum guidelines documents, however, sections including what are referred to as 'suggested language focus' and 'suggested

vocabulary' associated with each of the eight curriculum levels, as well as examples of the ways in which achievement objectives (AOs) (e.g. recognise, express and enquire about location) might be realized in practice, provide some indication of the linguistic expectations associated with different curriculum levels. It is, furthermore, made clear in the French and German curriculum guidelines documents (and in the te reo Māori one) that AOs, once introduced, will be recycled at higher levels:

At each curriculum level, a range of new achievement objectives is introduced. They represent core expectations for that level. However, the achievement objectives are not intended to be associated only with the curriculum level at which they are first introduced. Each achievement objective should be revisited from time to time as learners progress through the curriculum levels. In this way, learners can be introduced gradually to a range of ways of achieving the same objective. (Ministry of Education (New Zealand), 2002a & b p. 21)

As Johnson (2004, p. 10) explains:

This [the recycling of AOs] is possible because achievement objectives refer not to language specifics but to communicative outcomes and these outcomes can generally (except in the case of formulaic functions such as greetings) be expressed in a range of different ways involving different levels and types of complexity.

In spite of this, and in spite of the fact that NCEA certification20 _{can be achieved or}

achieved with 'merit' or 'excellence' (which presupposes different competency levels, something that must relate, at least in some measure to linguistic range in the case of languages), indications of the ways in which certain AOs might be realized linguistically when recycled at different levels that were included in early

20 _{There are three levels of NCEA certificates, students must achieve a certain number of credits at}

each level to gain these certificates. Level 1, 80 credits (at either level 1, 2 or 3), including literacy and numeracy, Level 2, 60 credits at level 2 and 20 credits from any level, including level 1 literacy and numeracy, and Level 3, 60 crdits at level 3 or above, plus 20 credits from level 2 above, and level 1 literacy and numeracy.

versions of the French and German curriculum documents were removed before the final version was produced.21 _{In the case of the te reo Māori curriculum document,}

language specifics (examples accompanying AOs, suggested language focus points, suggested vocabulary, etc.) included in earlier versions were removed (although examples of assessment activities were not) before the final version was produced (in 2009).22 _{This is in spite of the fact that report on the trialling of the curriculum}

document prepared by Lift Education for Learning Media in April 2005 (see Appendix 15: Trialling Report), in which there appears, on occasion, to be a curious lack of consistency between detail and summary, clearly indicates that most of those involved in the trialling wanted more of this type of material, particularly in the case of the higher levels where "[g]uidance was . . . requested about the alignment between NCEA and the curriculum and the specific vocabulary and grammar that is required" (p. 4).23 _{What this suggests is that Rata's claim (2012) that there is a}

notable absence of references to content knowledge in the New Zealand school curriculum would appear to be true in the case of additional languages.

All of this would indicate a progressive move away from including any syllabus- type specifications in language curriculum documentation, a move which culminates in the 2007 revision of the Curriculum Framework as it relates to additional languages. In that revised Curriculum Framework, which is the only document whose content is mandated, there are Achievement Objectives (AOs) at eight levels which are intended to apply to all additional languages (Ministry of Education (New Zealand), 2007b, p.18; 2007c, pp. 50-51). For each level, there are three ‘strands’ (referred to as ‘communication’, ‘language knowledge’ and ‘cultural knowledge’) with which each of which AOs are associated. However, it is noted that only the AOs associated with the communication strand provide the basis for assessment (the AOs associated with the other two strands contributing to it indirectly). There are only four of these, each of the four relating to two different curriculum levels. These four AOs are described as ‘proficiency descriptors’ and are said to be adapted from the CEFR's global scale descriptors. Thus, the two AOs

21 _{Personal communication from one of the the Principal Writers.}

22 _{Personal communication from one of the the Principal Writers.}

23 _{The issue of whether the Ministry of Education's later provision of a grammar progression outline}

associated with Levels 1 & 2 and Levels 3 & 4 of the NZ curriculum are said to be adapted from the CEFR's A1 (Basic User) global scale descriptor; the AO associated with Levels 5 & 6 of the NZ curriculum are said to be adapted from the CEFR's A2 global scale descriptor (Waystage) and the AO associated with Levels 7 & 8 of the NZ curriculum are said to be adapted from the CEFR's B1 global scale descriptor (Independent User). An example is provided below:

Levels 7 & 8: Students can use language variably and effectively to express

and justify their own ideas and opinions and support or challenge those of others. They are able to use and identify the linguistic and cultural forms that guide interpretation and enable them to respond critically to texts. (Adapted from Common European Framework for Languages, Global Scale Level B1: Independent User; Council of Europe, 2001.)

It is interesting to note that this descriptor is, in fact very different from the CEFR's B1 global descriptor (printed below):

Can understand the main points of clear standard input on familiar matters regularly encountered in work, school, leisure, etc. Can deal with most situations likely to arise whilst travelling in an area where the language is spoken. Can produce simple connected text on topics which are familiar or of personal interest. Can describe experiences and events, dreams, hopes and ambitions and briefly give reasons and explanations for opinions and plans. (Council of Europe, 2001, p. 24)

As Valax (2011, p. 253) has indicated with reference to a Table in which he includes CEFR global descriptors alongside the Ministry of Education's communication strand descriptors:

[Although] there appears to be some relationship between the A1 CRL [Common Reference Level] global scale descriptor and the 2007 Framework descriptor for levels 1 – 4, it is difficult to detect any relationship between either (a) the A2 CRL global scale descriptor and the 2007

Framework descriptor for levels 5 & 6, or (b) the B1 CRL global scale descriptor and the Framework descriptor for levels 7 & 8.

This raises a significant issue. Only the content of the 2007 revision of the New Zealand Curriculum Framework is mandated (officially recognized as having binding authority) and only the four proficiency-style AOs associated with the communication strand included in that framework are said to provide the basis for assessment (for all additional languages). Presumably, therefore, it is these four AOs (only two of which relate to the two curriculum levels that are associated with the New Zealand Qualifications Framework) that guide national assessment. However, a review of the Ministry's guide to effective assessment in the case of te reo Māori clearly indicates that achievement standards are intended to relate to the achievement objectives included in the curriculum guidelines document (Te Kete Ipurangi, n.d.i). Thus, for example, it is noted with reference to an example provided in relation to Achievement Standard 91089 (Waihanga tuhinga i te reo o tōna ao), in which students are required to produce two pieces of crafted writing of at least 300 words in total (each of a different text-type), that (a) "[b]efore assigning this task, [teachers should] ensure that [their] students have had sufficient opportunity to acquire and practise the vocabulary and language structures that they will require", and (b) "students’ writing should reflect their cultural understanding as well as language structures and vocabulary from level 6 of Te Aho Arataki Marau mō te Ako i Te Reo Māori – Kura Auraki/Curriculum Guidelines for Teaching and Learning Māori in English-medium Schools: Years 1–13". It would not be surprising if teachers were to find this confusing. After all, the curriculum guidelines document does not actually include structures and vocabulary at Level 6 (or, indeed, at any other level). No further reference is made in the task referred to above to vocabulary. However, it is noted later that '[g]rammar progression tables for each curriculum level of Te Reo Māori are available at Te Kete Ipurangi, (n.d.j). In fact, however, it is difficult to detect any clear relationship between these tables and the achievement objectives included at different levels in the curriculum guidelines document. Furthermore, although these tables appear to attempt to include almost all aspects of Māori grammar, the 2007 Curriculum Framework associates Level 6 of the New Zealand curriculum with CEFR's A2 global scale

descriptor (Waystage: Basic User).24 _{In addition, although the writing of connected}

text associated with particular text-types requires some understanding of discourse structure, the Ministry provides no advice in this area although one of the principal writers of the curriculum document, Ngaire Houia-Roberts, a native speaker of te reo Māori, and others have conducted extensive research on genre and text-type in written Māori discourse (see, for example, Crombie, Bruce & Houia-Roberts, (2005); Crombie & Houia, (2001); Crombie & Houia-Roberts (2001); Greensill, (2007); Houia-Roberts, (2003; 2004)).

All of this raises a significant question. Since the curriculum guidelines documents (which are, in any case, not mandated) do not include linguistic indicators, how does the NZQA decide on expected linguistic content so far as national assessment (including 'merit' and 'excellence') is concerned and how are teachers made aware of these expectations? The following extract from an NZQA Internet site appears to sidestep this issue:

Field Māori unit standards are developed, reviewed, and maintained by recognised Māori experts in partnership with standard setting bodies NZQA's Māori Qualifications Services team works with expert groups, known as Whakaruruhau, to set national Māori standards and ensure providers are equipped to deliver these standards. (New Zealand Qualification Authority, (n.d.))

What all of this suggests is that there may be both a visible curriculum (in which the emphasis is on flexibility) and, particularly in relation to Levels 7 - 8, a hidden one (driven by assessment).

2.3.1.2 The curriculum guidelines

In collaboration with a Māori colleague, a linguist and speaker of te reo Māori as a second language, one of the principal writers of the curriculum guidelines for French and German contacted the Ministry of Education shortly after the French and German guidelines documents were published in 2002 suggesting that a curriculum document for te reo Māori in English-medium schools was urgently

needed and indicating that applying the same overarching curriculum design