More Than Subjects: Why Trust Matters in Curriculum Change

When curriculum is reduced to a subject list, we miss the bigger story about purpose, assessment, and trust.

Today I downloaded the Ministry of Education’s document outlining a new set of subjects for Years 11–13 which went live on their site this morning. On the surface there’s some encouraging stuff here. The list of subjects that are proposed for years 11 -13 includes some exciting areas – Electronics & Mechatronics, Media and Communication, Music Technology, Civics and Philosophy, Te Mātai i te Ao Māori, Pacific Studies, and new Pacific language options. It feels good to see subjects that recognise culture, creativity and emerging technologies.

But as I read further, I was left with some unease. Not so much about the individual subjects –  many of them make a lot of sense –  but about how this announcement has come about, and what it says about our approach to curriculum more generally.

Trust matters

Firstly, decisions like this shape the daily work of teachers, the opportunities available to students, and the experiences of families. That’s why the way these decisions are made is just as important as the outcomes themselves. A new curriculum shouldn’t simply be announced; it has to be built with those who will bring it to life. Granted, there’s been talk of a new curriculum for some months now – but little evidence of what I’d call authentic consultation or transparent communication designed to build trust. Teachers, school leaders, iwi, Pacific communities, students – all deserve to be trusted as partners in this work, not just as recipients of a policy package.

When subject lists appear without any real sign of consultation or co-design, it feeds a growing sense that the profession is being asked to “deliver” reforms rather than shape them. In times of significant changes in direction and strong political mandates, building trust and shared ownership is critical. Without this, the implicit messaging comes across as ‘we need to work this way because teachers can’t be trusted.’

A curriculum or a list of subjects?

The announcement begins with a note reminding readers about this government’s commitment to two priorities in education, the first being the establishment of a knowledge-rich curriculum grounded in the science of learning. But I have to say I’m yet to be convinced there is a shared understanding in the sector of what a knowledge-rich curriculum is – and this announcement doesn’t help (in my view) as what we are actually given is simply a list of subjects – some old and some new. Important as subjects are, they don’t on their own constitute a curriculum. Curriculum encompasses more than content; it involves purpose, coherence, progression, pedagogy, and assessment – how all these elements interconnect to support meaningful learning experiences. A subject list tells us little about those things.

There’s another question that comes to mind here – that is about what is valued. When “knowledge-rich” is equated with more academic subjects, where does that leave vocational pathways? There’s a risk of reinforcing a divide between “academic” and “vocational” learners, rather than designing a curriculum where every young person has access to deep, powerful knowledge and meaningful pathways. I’m not suggesting this is necessarily what is planned, but the fact I feel the need to ask the question suggests a lack of clarity – taking me back to the comments made above about the importance of building trust.

The “science of learning” – more complicated than it sounds

Throughout the document there are repeated references to the “science of learning” as if it is the newly discovered key to fixing everything. For parents and many educators, this can sound like a compelling argument. Who wouldn’t want a curriculum underpinned by science?

Despite the way in which it seems to be talked about, the concept of the science of learning has been around for some time – in fact, it’s embraced in a word we use frequently “Pedagogy”, which simply defined is the art, science or profession of teaching. Some years ago I had the privilege of contributing to a publication titled Aligning Education Policy with the Science of Learning and Development, from the Aurora Institute. They have also published a review of the literature on the science of learning and development which highlights again the fact that this is a very nuanced area, and there is not a single recipe to be applied to all. It is a broad field, with different perspectives, often debated. To present it as a settled doctrine risks closing down the rich conversations we need about how young people learn best – conversations that must also take account of culture, identity, relationships, and context.

This morning, for example, I participated in a 90 minute webinar hosted by the Brookings Institute, featuring two panels of educational leaders who described activity across a number of US states in the area of Active, Playful Learning – a new name it seems for play-based learning. I’m planning a separate post with my thoughts on that – but add it here simply because throughout the webinar different panelists referenced research on the science of learning that supports this pedagogical approach. Sadly, I wouldn’t see those perspectives aligned with the current, narrow definition we seem to be being fed here in NZ.

Curriculum and assessment – joined at the hip

One of the lines that really concerned me was tucked away on the final page: “We will be making sure that our national qualification aligns to the new subjects, so that students and teachers can be confident it accurately assesses what students have learnt.”

At first glance, that seems sensible – there’s no mention of assessment in this document, so it makes sense to add a comment that assures readers it is being addressed. But in curriculum design, assessment shouldn’t be bolted on afterwards. If curriculum is designed in one silo and assessment in another, assessment inevitably ends up driving the learning – usually in narrow, reductive ways. We’ve seen this before.

Recent research continues to affirm the importance of aligning intended learning outcomes, teaching and learning activities, and assessment tasks to ensure that students are engaged in a meaningful learning experience. For instance, a 2024 study highlights the significance of aligning these components to provide clarity and coherence, aiding students in understanding the connection between their learning activities and assessments with the overall course objectives.  A curriculum designed without integrating these elements may risk becoming fragmented, potentially leading to a disjointed educational experience for students.

The truth is, curriculum and assessment shape each other. If assessment relies on end-of-year exams and one-off tests, then the curriculum is experienced as something to memorise and reproduce under timed conditions. But if assessment is conceived as ongoing progressions – where students present evidence of their learning over time, demonstrate capability in authentic contexts, and build portfolios of understanding – then the curriculum itself looks different. Teachers design for depth, for application, for growth. Learners experience more choice and agency.

This is why the work on new subjects can’t be separated from the work on how we assess them. The two must be developed together, or we risk building a curriculum that says one thing but functions as another in classrooms.

What’s with the “new” VLN?

Finally, I noticed reference to the development of a “new Virtual Learning Network” to offer specialist subjects online in te reo Māori. For those who know me and my involvement in this area within the NZ education system you’ll know this is a cause close to my heart. I was involved in the creation of the original VLN almost three decades ago and have maintained a strong interest in it since. While I’m pleased to see online networks back on the agenda, it is disappointing to see no acknowledgement of the history and the lessons learned. For 30 years, the VLN has existed without the policy settings or funding models needed to thrive. To present it as a “new” idea risks repeating old mistakes, rather than building on what we already know works.

Why this matters

As someone who has worked at times within the Ministry of Education I am well aware of the time-pressures placed on those working there to produce what’s required – particularly in response to demands from the politicians to whom they are answerable. It’s easy to become drawn into a narrow vortex of meeting deadlines and forget about what good change management research tells us about how to achieve effective and large scale change.

The concerns I’ve shared here aren’t intended to criticise the idea of new subjects or to diminish the genuine intent behind this announcement. I raise them because curriculum is too important to be treated as a list of options decided in Wellington. A curriculum should grow from dialogue, from trust, and from collective wisdom.

I’m sure an obvious answer from the MoE to such concerns will and politicians driving this change will be that this is purely a summary document and there’s more detail to follow. I get that. But I’d also say that very statement belies the lack of understanding about how an effective change strategy should work.

What our learners need is not just more choice of subjects, but a system that is coherent, responsive, and aligned. That requires our learners, their teachers, leaders, whānau and communities to be part of the journey – not spectators of it.