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

According to McNaughton (1996, p. 194) a curriculum is “a format for
guidance of emerging expertise”, which he says can be placed on a continuum from
being specifically open to closed. Nuttall places Te Whāriki at the open end of the
spectrum, stating that it “rejects more traditional notions of curriculum as a set of
prescribed aims and content” (Nuttall, 2003a, p. 162) such as those described by
McGee (1997). However, it is precisely that lack of specificity which causes
implementation difficulties for teachers.
Several international curriculum models designed for early childhood do
illustrate that it is possible to have more of a subject focus such as health and
physical development, communication (literacy and language), mathematics,
personal development, knowledge of the world and creative development.
Whereas aspects of Te Whāriki can fit with these, content is not explicit. (See
Appendix C for a comparative table of early childhood curriculum models).
McGee (1997) explored definitions of curriculum and concluded that “all
of them regard the curriculum as something that results from deliberate planning
and decision-making” (p. 11). His exploration spanned several decades. With
respect to this thesis, therefore, I contend that if McGee‟s exploration is valid, then
content becomes just as important as overarching philosophies. The problem,
however, is that Tiriti-based aspects of Te Whāriki require prior knowledge and
understanding of te reo Māori me ōna tikanga and such content is not explicit in the
document. I assert that this is a primary reason why teachers struggle to plan and
make decisions about what and how to implement Tiriti-based curriculum.
More recent definitions of curriculum in early childhood, however, appear
to have shifted; they have de-emphasised (subject) content to instead emphasise
holistic notions. In that sense, curriculum has become far less prescriptive, which,
as Nuttall has noted, is consistent with Te Whāriki (Nuttall, 2003a). As Nuttal and
Edwards (2004, p. 17) noted “the curriculum-in-action therefore represents a
melding of theory, context, and practice that is not necessarily fully described, or
recognised in curriculum documents...”.
In a manner that was consistent with Nuttall, Laevers also investigated the
nature of curriculum. He found that:
62