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

In order to critically appraise how well (or not) Tiriti-based Te Whāriki
matched definitions of curriculum I mapped both McGee‟s and the Ministry of
Education‟s (1996) definitions of curriculum against the principles strands and
goals of Te Whāriki. In order to review the definitions of curriculum against the
document, I created a comparative matrix.
There are 29 Tiriti-based statements contained within Te Whāriki‟s
principles, strands, goals, reflective questions, and experiences (see Appendix B).
Only 11 of the 29 statements (or 17, if statements that can be in two places on the
grid are counted twice) fit within McGee‟s two definitions of curriculum. Instead,
many of the statements are about attitudes and the knowledge base of adults in the
centre, rather than about how they engage with children in learning about Tiriti-
based curriculum. Because the majority of the principles and strands of Tiriti-
based aspects of Te Whāriki fit most closely with the intention and objectives from
McGee‟s curriculum model, (and, therefore, not the other dimensions), I propose
that Te Whāriki is predominantly a vision that lends itself to being an espoused
philosophy, rather than a curriculum in action.
Furthermore, Nuttall and Edwards (2004) contend that “curriculum
guidelines are just one factor in the relationship between theory, context, and
practice. We argue that it is at the intersection of these three aspects of teachers‟
experience that the curriculum is constructed and enacted” (p. 17). When content
is missing from curriculum guidelines, as it is in regards to Tiriti-based curriculum,
it becomes problematic for teachers.
A number of academics (Broström, 2003; Duhn, 2006; Nuttall, 2003a;
Ritchie, 2002b) have noted that Te Whāriki is a descriptive curriculum which
enables teachers to weave their own curriculum and select their own content.
However, the “consequences of having a non-prescriptive curriculum document are
a constant challenge for teachers…” (Nuttall, 2003a, p. 179). In addition, Broström
(2003) considers “Te Whāriki is much more concerned with educational principles”
(p. 234). I would, therefore, argue this approach is more consistent with Te
Whāriki being a philosophy rather than a curriculum.
64