The narrowing of the curriculum "winners and losers"
Over recent years, significant changes have taken place within New Zealand’s education system under the banner of improving “achievement.” These shifts—often framed around The Science of Learning and promoted as best practice—have driven widespread curriculum reform and reshaped and narrowed professional development. While we all would acknowledge that change in pursuit of improvement is both necessary and expected, concern arises when its direction is leading us down a path where only certain achievement is valued and the gap between those winning and losing only widens.
It is very apparent that these reforms appear to be influenced by perspectives that prioritise standardisation, comparison, and measurable outcomes over the complex realities of teaching and learning. I know that many educators (myself included) who put their hands up to be part of this conversation were ignored in favour of those with little understanding of the classroom.
This has fostered an environment where schools are positioned within narrow parameters of success, reinforcing distinctions between “winners” and “losers”—where those that win, were already winning and those that lose maintain their position. In fact the changes have only served to put those schools who prioritise actual achievement for all, actual progress and take time to understand and nurture individuals at a further disadvantage. Current approaches risk overlooking the lived experience of classrooms and the professional expertise of educators working directly with diverse learners.
The consequence has been a significant narrowing of the curriculum, where certain domains are elevated at the expense of others, and learning is treated as a series of discrete components rather than a deeply interconnected process. In striving to measure achievement, we risk losing sight of the broader purpose of education: to support the growth, curiosity, and success of every learner in a holistic and meaningful way.
There are many concerns with the current direction of education that could be explored at length. However, rather than attempting to address everything at once, this post focuses on one key issue: coverage.
Despite a growing emphasis on literacy and mathematics, the number of expectations—of “boxes to tick”—has only increased. The pressure to demonstrate coverage has become a dominant theme in professional conversations.
The Problem with “Coverage”
Every day, educators are asking the same questions:
“How do I cover everything?”
“Has anyone created an overview?”
“How many weeks should I spend on this?”
These are understandable concerns. If we are dedicating substantial blocks of time each day to reading, writing, and mathematics—often under the assumption that more time equals better outcomes—then it becomes increasingly difficult to meaningfully address the rest of the curriculum.
The only way to “cover” everything, under this model, is to reduce learning to a checklist: to move quickly through content, ticking off areas without truly engaging with them. In this sense, we are not uncovering or discovering learning—we are simply skimming its surface.
Rethinking What It Means to Cover the Curriculum
It may seem counterintuitive, but genuine coverage requires a shift in thinking. A curriculum, no matter how well designed, is ultimately a collection of knowledge and priorities determined at a particular moment in time. To truly meet it, we may first need to step back from it.
This is not about disregarding the curriculum. Rather, it is about temporarily setting it aside in order to focus on how learning actually occurs—then returning to it with a deeper understanding of what has been achieved.
Learning Is Connected, Not Siloed
Learning does not happen in isolated boxes. It is interconnected, layered, and built through experience.
Consider the child who enters the classroom with a deep passion for living things. That passion was not developed through isolated lessons or pre-determined units. It emerged through rich, immersive experiences—moments that sparked curiosity, built knowledge, and led to further questions.
An interest in the beach may lead to a fascination with shells. That fascination may evolve into curiosity about the creatures that inhabit them, their habitats, and their life cycles. From there, the child begins to understand ecosystems, interdependence, and environmental impact. Along the way, they develop a genuine desire to read, write, and communicate what they are learning.
This is what connected learning looks like. One idea leads naturally to another, and knowledge builds in meaningful, lasting ways.
By contrast, working through a curriculum as a sequence of isolated experiences—designed primarily for the purpose of coverage—does not produce the same depth or engagement, in fact it is highly likely what has been learned, is quickly forgotten. Meaningless.
The Reality for Many Learners
Unfortunately, fewer children are arriving at school with these kinds of rich, real-world experiences. This is a reality we must acknowledge.
The question then becomes: Can we recreate these immersive, connected experiences within the classroom?
The Role of the Arts in Creating Experience
The answer is yes—and the arts provide a powerful way to do so.
Through the arts, we can place students inside experiences they may never otherwise have. A child may never participate in a whale rescue, but through drama and creative exploration, they can step into that world—experiencing its urgency, emotion, and complexity. This fosters curiosity and builds knowledge in a way that is both engaging and memorable.
Similarly, a child may never have the opportunity to snorkel on a coral reef. Yet through carefully designed dramatic moments we can immerse them in that environment. They can develop an emotional connection to the place, understand the ecological pressures it faces, and even explore the perspectives of those whose livelihoods depend on it.
Drama, in particular, allows students to:
- Step into different roles and perspectives
- Explore past and future contexts
- Engage in dialogue with characters and ideas
- Consider cultural viewpoints and complexities
These experiences naturally integrate multiple areas of the curriculum, while also building deep understanding along with a desire to learn more.
Planning for Connected Learning
Planning in this way begins not with the curriculum, but with clear end goals for learning. These goals focus on what we want students to be able to do and understand, rather than what content must be “covered.”
Examples might include:
- Exploring multiple perspectives
- Forming and justifying opinions using evidence
- Revising viewpoints in light of new information
- Understanding ecosystems and their interdependence
- Recognising the significance of environments such as coral reefs
From these goals, a flexible sequence of experiences can be developed. Some elements will be carefully planned, while others will emerge organically as students engage with the process.
Teachers might:
- Build foundational knowledge before entering an imagined context
- Move in and out of dramatic scenarios
- Introduce problems, texts, or perspectives to deepen thinking
- Use literature or visual prompts to extend understanding and further pique curiousity.
As these experiences unfold, connections between areas of learning begin to form naturally.
Returning to the Curriculum
At the conclusion of such learning, the curriculum can be revisited. What often becomes clear is that far more has been “covered” than initially expected—across multiple learning areas and competencies.
Coverage, in this sense, is no longer about ticking boxes. It is the result of meaningful, connected learning experiences that engage students deeply and authentically.
And perhaps most importantly, it brings us closer to the true purpose of education: not simply to cover content, but to cultivate understanding, curiosity, and a lifelong capacity to learn. Developing children with emotional connections, knowledge and competencies that will later mean they become adults that can and will make a difference in our world.
P.S - One of the best things about teaching this way is that 'management' is not an issue. This approach sees children immersed in the learning process, in control, the balance of power is shifted and the dynamic changes. Those children often most 'disengaged' become your most avid participants.
