the New Zealand Government's National Science Challenges have recently generated renewed activity on how education, science and the public can better engage with each other, for the benefit of Aotearoa New Zealand society now and in the future.this work resulted in a key document: A Nation of Curious Minds-He Whenua Hihiri i te Mahara (Curious Minds).First, this article examines what Curious Minds means for science education and in particular for primary teachers, concluding that more thinking is required about the aims of classroom science learning programmes.the article takes up this challenge, drawing on scholarship by Jonathon osborne to argue for a distinction between the knowledge required by a scientist as opposed to the knowledge a primary classroom teacher needs to teach science well.osborne delineates the difference between the dominant model of "science as inquiry" and a new concept of primary science which he terms "science as a practice".these distinctions provide a basis for clarifying the role of teachers in the context of likely outputs from Curious Minds.

The recent revision of a national writing assessment tool, e-asTTle: Writing, is viewed from theoretical, design and implementation, and practice perspectives, and considered in relation to the original assessment concept and design. Aspects of the revision are questioned. These include a reduction in the scope and complexity of writing, with fewer functions or communicative purposes for writing included, and narrowing of the dimensions of writing. Arguably, these changes limit the diagnostic information available for teacher and student learning and, importantly, opportunities for valuable content learning about writing for teachers. Regarding design and implementation, questions relate to the necessity for statistical manipulation of teacher judgement. The increased emphasis in scoring on the more technical aspects of writing risks sending inappropriate messages to teachers and students about what is valued in quality writing and curriculum implementation.

A primary purpose of educational research is to provide new or different understandings of educational structures and processes. Research aims to support educators to critically explore, develop, and change educational policy and practice in ways that will encourage positive outcomes for learners, communities, and nations. In educational research related to curriculum, the use of metaphor, the construction of metaphorical understandings, and the examination of the efficacy of particular metaphors, can support critical engagement with curriculum policy and development, teaching and learning, pedagogy and educational research practices (Midgley, Trimmer & Davies, 2013). Metaphors can also assist individuals-leaders, teachers, and students-to describe how they view their roles and responsibilities within the educational system.

This research project developed from my concerns around visual arts programmes in New Zealand primary schools. Visual arts are an important expression of personal and cultural values and identity. Making art has been found to have a range of personal, social and developmental benefits for children (Efland, 2004a; Eisner, 2002; Jarvis, 2004; O'Connor & Dunmill, 2005) as well as developing valuable workplace skills for the growing sphere of creative industries. I felt there had been a reduction in time spent teaching visual arts over the last 10 years or so, and informal enquiries found many teachers agreed that they taught visual arts less than they used to or would like to. When I asked one teacher why this was so, she replied: It's too hard. The school day is so full, and everything has to be justified. (Personal contact) The effect of such pressures on visual arts education must be considered alongside a long-standing problem identified by research in New Zealand and internationally: many primary teachers lack the knowledge or confidence to teach visual arts beyond first steps. The Education Review Office found that less than half of New Zealand's primary school classroom teachers are able to provide good visual arts programmes (1995, 2004) and, although art is often children's favourite subject, the National Education Monitoring Project found that their art-making skills are generally not well developed (Flockton & Crooks, 2008). Primary teachers in Britain and the United States have reported feeling inadequately prepared for teaching visual arts (Ford, 2003; McCoubrey, 2000), but the problem does not seem to be simply one of adequate preservice preparation. A review of research literature in the area of primary visual arts education suggests that there are multiple, interrelated factors behind this problem. Teachers are at the epicentre of learning (Schwille & Dembele, 2007, p. 11) and central authorities ... depend upon teachers to implement (McGee et al., 2004). It is, therefore, vital to understand how teachers interpret the curriculum and why they make certain decisions about teaching rather than simply focusing on classroom outcomes. I began by considering the historical, political, professional and personal circumstances that may determine teachers' daily decisions around what, when and how they teach, as preparation for an inquiry into the perspectives of teachers on teaching visual arts as part of the classroom programme. The challenges for generalists teaching visual arts in primary schools A. Curriculum reform and the visual arts curriculum While art has been a core subject throughout the history of New Zealand's state education system (Collinge, 1978) the content and purpose of art curricula have changed to fit prevailing values and social and economic aims for the nation (Smith, 2007). The political impulse behind curriculum development indicates the origin of some significant challenges for teachers. Curriculum reform has been constant and substantial since the 1980s and a world-wide focus on quantitative measures of student achievement, influenced by neoliberal views, has had a major impact on what kinds of knowledge and achievement are valued (Biesta, 2010; Middleton, Codd, & Jones, 1990). When curriculum reform runs counter to teachers' beliefs as to desirable outcomes for students, and undermines what they know to be effective pedagogical practice, this creates a dissonance which reduces their effectiveness (Harker, Gibbs, Ryan, Weir, & Adams, 2003) and can produce resistance to mandated change (George, 2009; Stokrocki, 2004). As primary teachers are generalists they must accommodate change in all curriculum areas. Standen (2002) found that teachers' approach to teaching is determined by a coherent belief system which is composed of various interdependent elements including beliefs about self, relationships, knowledge, change, teaching and learning. …

Introduction The official document that is The New Zealand Curriculum (NZC, Ministry of Education, 2007) reflects shifting ideas about teaching and learning in the 21st century and about teaching and learning in the social sciences. The following discussion is underpinned by the assumption that official curricula are inherently sites of ideological contestation, created within specific political and social contexts and informed by different disciplinary traditions. These traditions reflect different notions of what constitutes valuable knowledge and what learning could and should entail within different subjects. Social Sciences in NZC is a learning area rather than a specific subject. It is an amalgamation of subjects under a broad disciplinary umbrella. This raises questions about the messages provided in NZC about what constitutes valuable knowledge in the Social Sciences learning area, about similarities and differences between constitutive disciplines and about how these messages might be interpreted in practice. Curriculum development is a process of ongoing negotiation that takes place at different sites and within different contexts. It involves both top-down (policy-directed) and bottom-up (practice-defined) processes. Contests between ideas take place during the creation of the formal curriculum that is official policy, in the interpretation of that policy via enacted curricula and in the hidden curricula of daily interactions and classroom life (Apple, 1999; McGee & Fraser, 2001). Goodson (1988) describes the process of curriculum creation as the collision of current practice with the historical inheritance of official curriculum guidelines and previous practice. To this collision might be added the actions of teacher practitioners, who may seek to maintain the status quo or to change, reform or transform the curriculum that is enacted and experienced in classrooms. The official curriculum provides policy direction for teaching and learning in social sciences classrooms, as decided by those who were engaged in the production of officially sanctioned curriculum documents. Policy developments can be expected to reflect both new educational ideas and older practices and disciplinary traditions, and these policy directions are interpreted and enacted by teachers in schools. Social sciences teachers are thus central to the development of curriculum in practice in as much as they are actively engaged in curriculum construction and negotiation in schools and classrooms (Bruner, 1996; Hargreaves, 1994; McGee & Fraser, 2001). Policy in the form of NZC is important, though, for the way it enables teaching and learning processes, signals shifts in purpose and meaning and influences the sense making of those who implement the curriculum (Aitken, 2006). Also underpinning this discussion is the notion that the knowledge that is defined through curriculum documents as being valuable and worth knowing is neither absolute nor arbitrary. This idea is articulated by Young (2010), who argues that the knowledge that is passed on in educational contexts constitutes 'available sets of meaning', which in any context do not merely 'emerge' but are collectively 'given' (p. 37). He further argues that academic curricula involve assumptions that some knowledge and some knowledge domains are much more worthwhile than others, and that syllabus (curriculum) construction involves efforts to enhance or maintain academic legitimacy. This article focuses on the official curriculum and the signals it provides to social sciences teachers. It asks what is new or different in the Social Sciences learning area in NZC and how these developments might be understood. It draws together various threads from the literature to explore the shifts in thinking that are signalled in NZC in relation to social sciences. The purpose is not to present answers, but to reflect on broad issues relating to the social sciences curriculum that may be relevant for teachers and the training of teachers of social sciences, teacher educators and other academics as they seek a theoretical understanding of recent curriculum developments. …

This paper conceives history in the New Zealand curriculum as a curriculum problem. In exposing this problem, history's identity is thrown into question. I outline a motif of disturbance in light of my professional experiences of history curriculum and assessment policy shifts (1990s to 2010). From a critical pedagogy stance, I conceive the national curriculum's events-based orientation to history as traditional and played out in pedagogy as exclusive cultural reproduction. From a critical pedagogy stance, I consider a counter approach to history curriculum that engages teacher agency and frees up possibilities for students' historical thinking.

Introduction During this time of active change in education, and in a world that is becoming characterised by super complexity (Barnett, 2004), initial teacher education (ITE) programmes are under the spotlight internationally. ITE programmes are accommodating changes in school and early childhood curricula and are trying to address the diverse needs of future learners more explicitly (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005) through ongoing reviews. This is a huge challenge, given the competing demands to provide content, theory and experiences for participants in ITE whilst simultaneously ensuring that beginning teachers demonstrate the multiple competencies or required for graduation and induction into the profession. The level of quality of ITE is often considered from a works or pragmatic perspective. Research about works in ITE tends to promote research that gathers evidence about what has worked in the past. Given that this is a relatively new field of inquiry and that the field of education is changing rapidly, what may have worked five years ago may not be appropriate now or for the future. A futures approach to research can include what we already know about what works, as well as providing a place to develop theory related to future needs. Such an approach was used in the Teacher Education for the Future Project. It opened up possibilities for thinking about what could be emphasised in ITE, given our predictions for the future. Influences on the ITE curriculum and its implementation often come from opposing perspectives and therefore create tensions for ITE provision, especially in times of great change. These influences include: traditional and historical concepts of what ITE should provide; teachers' beliefs about teaching and learning (and the aims of education more generally); pressures to get more teachers qualified; and a range of new theories about teacher education and its implementation. This paper discusses these tensions with a focus on the New Zealand context. Firstly, it describes the influences of the New Zealand context on ITE. Then it elaborates on the tensions related to changes to traditional views of teaching and learning, the pressing need for more teachers and how and why new theories about teacher education need to be taken into account. It also outlines some key findings from the Teacher Education for the Future Project (Conner, 2008) and discusses how the process used in this project could be used to inform future ITE programmes. The New Zealand context In New Zealand there are currently more than 27 ITE providers (early childhood, primary and secondary) that compete nationally for students. By 2005, 85 different qualifications were being offered and implemented through a large variety of delivery modes. In New Zealand, these requirements for ITE are determined by the government and are guided by standards for developing programmes (New Zealand Teachers Council, 2005). The Graduating Teachers' Standards (New Zealand Teachers Council, 2007) identify the competencies that graduates of ITE qualifications need to achieve in terms of professional knowledge, professional practice and qualities such as professional values and relationships with students, colleagues, whanau, fono (1) and guardians. ITE programmes need to be closely tied to the more general directions of the education system and must address current Ministry of Education initiatives. Currently, these initiatives target Maori and Pasifika student achievement, literacy and numeracy, sustainability, gifted and talented students and engagement of senior students. These initiatives require teachers to be mindful of what is best for their students when they plan and make pedagogical decisions. The understanding, espousal and advocacy of sociocultural approaches to learning have been given more emphasis in The New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007) than in previous curriculum documents. …

Introduction We are what we remember--a is what it remembers or chooses to remember. And education plays a crucial role in the creating/storing/and transmitting of those memories. (Wendt, 1985) Just over a decade ago, as a secondary school social studies teacher taking some time out of the classroom for postgraduate studies, I saw an opportunity for in-depth study that combined my areas of experience as well as commitment: social studies and the education of Pacific learners. Encouraged by my supervisor, I analysed several aspects of the newly developed social studies curriculum statement (Ministry of Education, 1997) for my master's thesis (Samu, 1998). With the release of New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007), which will become mandatory in 2010, I believe it is timely to revisit and review one aspect of that analysis--the location of Pacific and experience in the New Zealand social studies curriculum. In this article I will describe and discuss where and how Pacific was located in the social studies curriculum statement of 1997, and how this has changed with the revised New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007). I will set out a rationale for the legitimacy, validity and even necessity of Pacific being knowledge in the New Zealand school curriculum via social studies. I will then describe two approaches that encourage teachers to include Pacific in their social studies curricula. Curriculum as valued Part of my academic journey involved engaging with theories and ideas about the socially constructed nature of and the political nature of curriculum change. I found the work of radical education sociologists Young (1971) and Apple (1990, 1996) to be particularly challenging to my taken-for-granted beliefs about the neutrality of curricula. Apple (1996), for example, argued that curriculum statements are official knowledge, and what is official is what is legitimate knowledge, therefore rendering what is absent as not official. If is not officially sanctioned in the curriculum, Apple argues, it is viewed as not as important, legitimate or valid. selectivity of is a vital feature of curriculum development and design. Apple stated: curriculum is never simply a neutral assemblage of knowledge, somehow appearing in the texts and classrooms of the nation. It is always part of a selective tradition, someone's selection, some group's vision of legitimate [italics added]. (1996, p. 22) An important question is--which groups get to decide, to select? Why are some groups' visions of what counts as held over others? Regardless of the specifics of the processes involved, The decision to define some groups' as the most legitimate, as official knowledge, while other groups' hardly sees the light of day, says something about who has power in society (Apple, 1996, p. 22). Such ideas caused me to scrutinise my taken-for-granted assumptions. Because of my commitment to Pacific peoples as a multiethnic minority in Aotearoa New Zealand, I became anxious to find out how curriculum change in social studies would affect the ways Pacific peoples' and experiences would be legitimated in the New Zealand curriculum. Even more fundamental--would Pacific and experience see the light of day as social studies topics? Locating Pacific in the 1997 New Zealand social studies curriculum statement 1997 New Zealand social studies curriculum statement identified a number of compulsory settings for units of learning--New Zealand, the Pacific, Europe, Asia, Other Settings and Global Settings. According to the statement: Settings in the Pacific, Europe and Asia have been emphasised because of their particular significance to New Zealand. …