supporting tiriti-based curriculum delivery in mainstream early ...

implement Te Whāriki (May, 2001; Nuttall, 2003a; Ritchie, 2003; Ritchie & Rau,
2006a, 2006b). In the 14 years since Te Whāriki was first published in 1996, there
have been concerns about effectively implementing Tiriti-based curriculum. There
continues to be a gap between the espoused curriculum and what teachers do in
practice (Argyris & Schön, 1974).
However, such matters may be more complex than issues of espoused
curriculum versus “curriculum-in-action” (Nuttall & Edwards, 2004, p. 17), as Te
Whāriki may, in fact, not be a curriculum as stated in Ministry documentation
(Ministry of Education, 1996, 2006) but may instead be representative of a
philosophy. It can be asserted that the very absence of prescription in Te Whāriki
makes it inconsistent with what a curriculum is traditionally thought to be. A
curriculum, by definition, prescribes what is to be taught and what is to be achieved
by way of educational outcomes. Te Whāriki, because of its “non-prescriptive”
framework lends itself, therefore, to the assertion that it is more akin to a
philosophy than a curriculum. This was not the perception, however, in the few
critiques that were forthcoming when Te Whāriki was first launched.
There was a lack of scholarly critique of Te Whāriki for two reasons. First
there was a perceived vulnerability of Te Whāriki at each stage of development;
those who had championed its introduction were reluctant to have any form of
criticism become an excuse for it being undermined or perhaps even jettisoned.
Second, the document had been positively received; as Nuttall noted “the warm
welcome Te Whāriki received from the early childhood community (in stark
contrast to the way some curriculum documents were received by the compulsory
sector)” (Nuttall, 2003b, pp. 8-9).
When the draft of Te Whāriki was introduced in 1993, I was a co-ordinator
with Barnardos Home-Based Care programme. My recollection of early
discussions about Te Whāriki was that a curriculum had been produced in
partnership with Māori and reflected Māori world views. A familiarity with these
world views existed in terms of how the principles and strands matched early
childhood teachers‟ beliefs about how we related to children. Indeed support by
teachers for Te Whāriki was borne out in research by Murrow (1995).
57