Educational Review, Vol. 52, No.

2, 2000

Curriculum and Assessment Policy in New Zealand: ten years of reforms

DAVID PHILIPS, Research Division, Ministry of Education, New Zealand

Since the administrative restructuring of 1989, major curriculum and assessment reforms affecting primary and secondary schools have taken place in New Zealand. These reforms had political and educational origins, and were in uenced both by local and overseas developments, in particular from the United Kingdom and to a lesser extent Australia. Three aspects of the reforms are analysed: curriculum changes, the introduction of new assessment programmes and changes in quali cations in the senior secondary school. The paper examines some of the issues raised by the reforms, and looks forward to the challenges of the next decade suggested by recent international developments in curriculum and assessment.
ABSTRACT

Introduction In common with many countries, New Zealand has reformed its curriculum, assessment and quali cations systems over the past decade. These reforms have been part of a wide-ranging series of educational reforms, including funding and regulation changes, and have occurred within the context of a broader raft of social, economic and political changes within New Zealand. While much of the drive for these reforms has come from within New Zealand, overseas in uences have also played a strong role, as shown by comparing developments in England, Scotland and Australia. In 1989, a major administrative restructuring of New Zealand education was implemented which involved disestablishing the former monolithic Department of Education and creating several new, independent education organizations such as the Ministry of Education, the Education Review Of ce and the New Zealand Quali cations Authority. The decisions were announced in a Government policy document Tomorrows Schools (Lange, 1988), based on original recommendations in what became known as the Picot Report (Administering for Excellence). Although the administrative reforms, which were in uenced by public choice theory and managerialism (Boston, 1991), marked a sharp change from the previous system, they had their roots in developments of the previous few years. Since the advent of the 1984 Labour Government there had been an increasing focus on a market-based approach towards social policy, including education. Social expenditure was considered too high, so ef ciency gains were sought through various measures such as restructuring of government agencies, devolution of functions (e.g. through contracting services) formerly carried out centrally, a more contestable policy environment and increased accountability for meeting de ned outcomes. The educational reforms with a curriculum, assessment and quali cations focus
ISSN 00131911 (print)/ISSN 14653397 (online )/00/020143-11 2000 Educationa l Review

144

D. Philips

have been consistent with this overall trend. They have aimed to reduce disparities in student achievement, improve the proportion of students with quali cations and, at a national level, enhance New Zealands economic competitiveness by reducing the costs of educational provision and increasing the proportion of skilled workers. Curriculum changes have therefore been characterized by much tighter speci cation of what students are expected to learn, an extension of assessment programmes and related initiatives aimed at monitoring students learning, and closer control by the state of teachers performance. In addition, professional development funding has been increasingly contracted out and tied to speci c priorities, rather than being provided and managed by the central agency for all teachers on the same basis. Aspects of the reforms have been strongly criticized throughout the 1990s by academics and others because of the extent to which they re ect the in uence of the ideas of the New Right, based on a mixture of Thatcherism, concepts such as the self-interested rational consumer and a market-based approach towards educational provision, with increased state control, surveillance and accountability (e.g. Codd et al., 1990; Codd, 1994; Snook, 1997; Lauder et al., 1999; McKenzie, 1999). Such critics have highlighted the likelihood of increased disparities between different groups in society from the implementation of such policies, and the states distrust of educational professionals because of the purported fear of capture by vested interests, at the same time as educational professionals are expected to modify their practices. Many educators have considered the pace of change over the past ten years to have been too rapid, and have queried the usefulness of some of the reforms. New requirements for schools have been de ned at the same time as emphasis has been placed on local self-management of schools. Principals, teachers, boards of trustees and others involved with education have had to deal with simultaneous changes in the administration and funding of education, and in the curriculum, while for secondary schools changes in the nature of quali cations have also had to be addressed. The reforms are still incomplete in terms of the original vision of the National Government elected in 1989, which governed throughout the 1990s, apart from a brief coalition in 1997 and 1998. Although this allowed considerable continuity in educational reform, the election of a new Labour/Alliance Government at the end of 1999 means that the reforms are likely to be modi ed. Nevertheless, the 1990s reforms provide a foundation for further development of curriculum, assessment and quali cations in the new millennium. Curriculum New Zealand has had a national curriculum for well over 100 years, and reforms have been made from time to time during this period (McCulloch, 1992). However, the curriculum reforms carried out by the National Government were more extensive than any of these, beginning with the Achievement Initiative, which led to the development of national curriculum statements and the provision of a range of curriculum resources and other related support for teachers. They also included the announcement in late 1998 of a new literacy and numeracy goal by the Government, that By 2005, every child turning 9 will be able to read, write and do maths for success, and new national education guidelines towards the end of 1999. The curriculum and assessment policies in the 1990s have focused upon specifying

Curriculum and Assessment Policy in New Zealand

145

through achievement objectives what students are expected to know and do, and how their learning is to be monitored during their schooling. The transition from a loose syllabus for each subject to lengthy documents with sets of achievement objectives has raised a number of issues for educators and policy makers. A draft discussion document on the national curriculum circulated in 1991 laid out the proposed new structure and, after consultation in 1993, the New Zealand Curriculum Framework was published. This document describes the main features of the national curriculum, with seven essential learning areas (language/s, mathematics, science, technology, social sciences, the arts, and health and physical wellbeing), and eight groupings of essential skills (such as communication, and problem solving), sets of achievement objectives describing what students are supposed to know and be able to do, arranged according to a progressive series of eight levels covering the 13 years of learning from Year 1 (New Entrants) to Year 13 (Form 7), and associated assessment programmes. Although parts of this document are now out of date, the basic structure remains intact, although the pedagogical soundness of the eight-level structurein particular whether it represents a progressive sequence of learninghas been queried (Elley, 1996). National curriculum statements have been published for the seven essential learning areas, and schools are required to implement these. There are also parallel curriculum statements in Maori. Each national curriculum statement lists eight levels of achievement objectives according to strands (main subcomponents of a learning area), and provides suggestions for teaching and learning, and for assessment activities. At the same time, schools have been required to follow national requirements (as laid out in the national education guidelines, rst promulgated in late 1989, and modi ed in 1993 and 1999) for the implementation of the curriculum and the monitoring of student achievement. One of the main functions of the Education Review Of ce (ERO) has been to review on about a 3-year cycle whether schools are meeting national requirements. The resulting reports are publicly available and have sometimes generated controversy about EROs role as a public watchdog, in particular those concerned with failing schools in impoverished areas, such as South Auckland (Thrupp, 1997), and about its review methodology and the compliance burden on schools (Thrupp & Smith, 1999). Responses to the new curriculum have varied. Most schools have adopted it without serious reservations, partly because they are obliged to implement it, although issues about increased workload and monitoring by ERO have been raised. These led to two extensions to the timeframe for developing the curriculum due to action by teacher unions. The most recent revision of the national education guidelines (to take effect from July 2000) makes clearer the governments expectations of schools in implementing the curriculum and monitoring student achievement. Some schools have argued that substantial additional resources are required, in particular to help with the implementation of new learning areas such as technology. As each new curriculum statement was being developed controversies occasionally ared about the balance which should be given to different components of the learning area (e.g. the place of media studies and literary study in English, compared with the basics of reading and writing), or the conceptual framework underpinning the document (e.g. the alleged constructivist bias of the science statement). The processes used to develop the new curriculum have been questioned. During the 1980s a more overtly consultative approach had been adopted whereby Department of Education curriculum of cers and teacher groups played key roles when

146

D. Philips

revisions were made to syllabuses. In the 1990s, however, a major concern was the perceived lack of consultation with teachers and academics by the ministerially appointed policy advisory groups and the contractors who developed the statements (Philips, 1993), and claims were made of covert decision making re ecting the governments reform agenda. Other groups, such as the New Zealand Business Roundtable, noted the lack of key discussion papers setting out the rationale for reform (Irwin, 1999); their critiques, however, have generally not been accepted by academics because of their embedded assumptions and a technocratic approach towards education (Snook, 1996). The Ministry of Education is likely to review the content of the curriculum from 2000 now that all the nal national curriculum statements have been published. It is possible, for example, that some of the achievement objectives in the national curriculum statements will be reduced and that all the objectives will be published in a single document. The proposed review may therefore engender additional controversy about what should be in the curriculum and the balance among different components. However, it is unlikely that there will be major changes for the foreseeable future, and more likely that there will be a period of consolidation of the existing curriculum. One trend to watch will be the emergence of stronger calls for an increased Maori language content in the primary school curriculum. Assessment As with curriculum, during the 1990s new assessment policies and programmes have been implemented to ensure that student learning is more effectively recorded and reported. Several important reviews were carried out in the 1970s and 1980s, culminating in Tomorrows Standards (Ministerial Working Party on Assessment for Better Learning, 1990). However, the main difference in the 1990s has been to ensure that students achievements have been described more accurately in relation to the more tightly speci ed outcomes of the New Zealand curriculum. As a result, at a systemwide level, a new form of monitoring has been implemented, and for the classroom teacher a wider range of assessment tools has been developed to assist with formative and summative assessment related to the achievement objectives in the New Zealand curriculum. While schools/teachers can develop their own methods for assessing the progress of individual students against the achievement objectives of the New Zealand curriculum, and a range of practices is followed, the Ministry of Education has provided schools with assistance to help monitor the progress of individual students, including examples of assessment activities in the national curriculum statements; support materials (for example Assessment: Policy to Practice issued in 1994); and teacher professional development in assessment through a series of contracts. However, some commentators have queried the success with which new forms of assessment and expectations on teachers have been carried through; Hill (1999) refers to the assessment frenzy besetting primary school teachers as they have tried to meet new requirements for monitoring student achievement. School Entry Assessment/Aro matawai Urunga-a-kura (SEA/AKA) tasks focusing on reading readiness, oral language and numeracy have been designed to provide teachers with an indication of how new entrants perform in these areas. These became available for teachers to use from July 1997. Professional development was also carried out to assist new entrant teachers administer school entry assessment. School entry assessment has three uses: to provide teachers with valuable diagnostic

Curriculum and Assessment Policy in New Zealand

147

information about individual children to complement existing assessment information; to provide school management with information about their new entrant cohort for planning and resource allocation within the school; and to inform policy development and monitoring, and resource allocation. The Ministry of Education also collates and analyses the assessment data from SEA/AKA at a national level and a report was sent to schools in early 1999 (Gilmore, 1999). National baseline data are especially important to enable analysis of the achievement of subgroups, e.g. to evaluate the progress of Maori students or identify the language competencies of children for whom English is a second language. Assessment Resource Banks (ARBs) are also being developed, which can be used to benchmark classroom assessments against the achievement objectives in the national curriculum statements. The Ministry has contracted the New Zealand Council for Educational Research (NZCER) to develop banks of standardized assessment items in mathematics, science and English. Teachers can use the items when they choose, particularly with students in Years 4 to 9 (i.e. ages 8 and up). Although full-scale use of the banks has not yet occurred, schools are being encouraged to use them. As at early 2000, more than 1500 resources (groups of assessment items, mainly in a multi-choice format, but with some constructed responses and practical tasks) for mathematics, science and English were available in the ARBs. The main mechanism currently used by Government to obtain information on student achievement at a system level is the National Education Monitoring Project (NEMP), which focuses on the achievement in different curriculum and skills areas of a sample of students in Years 4 and 8. NEMP has been well received by schools. It involves only a 3% sample of all students in the cohorts being tested each year. Participating schools and teachers who administer and mark the tasks (released from their normal duties for several weeks) gain considerable bene ts through enhanced understanding of assessment procedures. Reports from the rst cycle (four rounds of assessment over 4 years) have now been produced and distributed to schools. In late 1999 the rst round of assessment took place based on the same learning areas as in 1995. The stated purpose of NEMP is to provide a national picture of trends in educational achievement, which may assist policy development, resource allocation and review of the New Zealand curriculum. Although NEMP provides a comprehensive picture of achievement in particular learning areas, covering the whole curriculum over a 4-year cycle through use of intensive assessment procedures, until information from the second cycle becomes available for the rst time in 2000 which will enable conclusions to be made about changes in student achievement over time, it is unlikely to signi cantly in uence changes in policy. Findings to date have tended to con rm other studies of students achievement, for example, that Maori students tend to achieve at a lower level than non-Maori students, and that girls tend to achieve higher than boys in the majority of learning areas. However, from 2000 a series of probe studies will be commissioned to examine ndings from NEMP more closely. These may add value to future reports. Information from participation in international studies such as the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) allows comparison of the achievements of New Zealand students with those in other countries, and has occasionally been used to support national policy makers in identifying areas of the curriculum which may need further resourcing, for example in relation to the improvement of literacy and numeracy in the early years.

148

D. Philips

On 7 May 1998 the Government published a Green Paper, Assessment for Success in Primary Schools, designed to promote discussion on Government proposals for an assessment package of new resources. The package was developed to provide the teaching profession with the assessment information necessary to establish and monitor expectations and to help identify where improvements might be needed. Multiple copies of the Green Paper were sent to every school, with extra copies for interested parents. Each school also received booklets to send to all parents. The main issue which the Green Paper sought to address was how best to ll the current lack of national information on student achievement at primary school which would allow a school to compare its students achievement with national and subgroup pro les of achievement for purposes of self-review. The Green Paper stated that schools need better information on: national expectations of student achievement in relation to achievement objectives, which teachers can use to benchmark or check their own professional judgements; how well their students are achieving compared with aggregated data for groups of similar students nationwide, which schools can use to evaluate the effectiveness of their programmes for speci c groups of students within their schools; the achievement trends of subgroups of students that Government can use to monitor the effectiveness of policies. The Green Paper set out a proposal for an integrated national assessment package to strengthen and support the assessment activities currently undertaken by teachers. It was proposed to develop: additional diagnostic tests that teachers can use to provide detailed information on the learning needs of individual students in speci c areas; national exemplars of student work that would set out assessment tasks with associated samples of student work, along with discussion of how a teacher marked that work and the conclusions the teacher drew about the childs learning in relation to selected achievement objectives. The exemplars would help teachers to decide whether the judgements they are making about student achievement are consistent with national expectations; new externally referenced tests would enable teachers to identify how well their students are achieving compared with national and group levels of achievement. This information could help teachers to identify how effective their programmes are for speci c groups of students. As proposed, the tests, which would be mandatory, would occur during Years 6 and 8, consist largely of multiplechoice questions, and focus on the essential learning areas of language and mathematics; and modi cations to the National Education Monitoring Project to include in-depth probe studies to focus on the achievement of speci c groups within the school population. This information would enable Government to identify the achievement of groups of students in order to develop policy and monitor its effectiveness. Over 1600 submissions received in response to the Green Paper were analysed by an independent researcher (Gilmore, 1998); while the three proposals for extra diagnostic tools, exemplars of students work and modi cations to NEMP were supported, the proposal for national testing was not supported by about 75% of respondents on a number of grounds, such as the potential for narrowing the curriculum, the possibility of league tables being produced with misleading comparisons of schools performance, and the high stakes associated with a single externally referenced indicator of a students achievement. Similar issues were raised during the period of consultation, when of cials from the Ministry of Education attended meetings throughout New Zealand to discuss the proposals. In addition, a National Assessment Reference Group was convened to provide further comment on the

Curriculum and Assessment Policy in New Zealand

149

proposals and how they could be developed. The same objections to national testing were also raised. The consensus of this group was that teachers should be allowed to choose from a range of assessment tools, but that no particular tool should be compulsory. The Governments decisions about the proposals were announced in late September 1999 (Government of New Zealand, 1999). These were to develop further diagnostic tools, publish exemplars of students work, to modify NEMP and to implement a pilot whereby 10% of primary schools would receive assistance in analysing and using achievement data based on half of the schools using new tests of literacy and numeracy and the other half using existing tools. However, with the election of the new, center left, Labour/Alliance Government this last proposal was rejected in favour of developing new assessment tools but making them available to all primary schools so that there would be no implication of national testing. This may have been a response to the consistent criticism by New Zealand academics and many teacher groups to the proposal to implement national testing in any form. New assessment tools will be developed and implemented to assist schools better analyse which students are achieving and where their efforts should be placed in helping to raise student achievement. It is intended that the tools will supplement existing diagnostic tools such as SEA/AKA and the Six Year Net (a series of tasks administered to children around the time they turn 6), provide more diagnostic information about students strengths and weaknesses, and provide benchmarks against which student achievement can be monitored. Given the Governments literacy focus, these tools will assist teachers and principals in determining how many students are meeting this goal. Overall, the policy intention is that there will be a heightened emphasis on the use of high-quality data on student achievement; as schools are provided with more assessment tools, teachers, principals and boards will need to become more skilled in using the data to inform their strategic decision making. However, as studies such as Thrupps (1997) and Lauder et al.s (1999) have shown, curriculum and assessment policies alone are insuf cient to improve students achievement if other policies (e.g. concerning funding and zoning) exacerbate existing divisions in schools between high achievers and low achievers. Senior Secondary School During the 1980s reviews of tertiary education and post-compulsory education were carried out acknowledging the divide between academic and vocational quali cations, and the obstacles within the system preventing students from easily moving from one type of course to another; thus, by 1989 when the administrative structures of education were reformed, it was apparent that a new body was required to reform the existing array of quali cations into a more coherent national structure. In 1990 the New Zealand Quali cations Authority was established. One of its main responsibilities was to develop a national quali cations framework (NQF), which would incorporate all national quali cations irrespective of the provider offering them. All quali cations were to be developed using a standard procedure, with individual componentsif successfully met through approved assessment tasksearning credit towards a quali cation. The basic building block of each quali cation was intended to be unit standards, or speci cations of the outcomes students needed to meet in order to gain credit towards a quali cation. The intention

150

D. Philips

was to include school-based quali cations, largely academic in orientation, in the framework as well as more vocational quali cations such as those developed by industry training organizations. One of the main features was that students would be able to keep accumulating credits irrespective of where they were studying, so even if a national quali cation was started at school it could be completed elsewhere. While many of the fundamental ideas on which it was based were derived from other countries, translating these into the New Zealand context proved to be dif cult (see, for example, Philips, 1998). From the start the vision of a comprehensive framework encountered problems, and the New Zealand Quali cations Authority (NZQA) was frequently criticized for the way it went about developing the NQF. For example, there appeared to be a sharp divide between educators supportive of a more integrated approach which allowed vocational subjects equal status with more traditional academic subjects, while others such as principals involved with more academic schools did not want to see the existing examinations system devalued. Many teachers complained about the atomization of knowledge and skills into almost meaningless clumps and the workload implications associated with continuous assessment and retesting. However, many critics believe that the criticisms fell on deaf ears as arguments put forward by tertiary educators (Codd, 1997; Roberts, 1997) about the dif culties of applying unit standards to many university courses appeared to be ignored. Eventually mounting public criticism and concerns expressed by Government agencies such as the Ministry of Education were such that the Government developed a public discussion document proposing changes to the NQF. Following the consultation, new policy decisions were announced, including the establishment of a Quali cations Development Group (QDG) with particular responsibility for the development of school quali cations under the name of Achievement 2001 (Ministry of Education/NZQA, 1998). This means that the development of school quali cations has been removed from NZQA and assigned instead to the Ministry of Education. Whether this change will reduce the tensions associated with a more atomized approach towards granting students credit towards quali cations remains to be seen. From 2002, senior secondary school students will be aiming at a new set of national quali cations called the National Certi cate of Educational Achievement (NCEA). The NCEA will be available at four levels, covering the last 3 years of secondary school and the rst year of tertiary education approximately. In each school curriculum subject there will be a mix of internal (including written examinations and other assessments such as portfolios of student work) and external assessment using achievement standards, based on a mixture of knowledge and skills. These standards will specify what students have to achieve in each subject to earn credit towards NCEA, with about ve to eight achievement standards at each level for each subject. Subject experts, working from the achievement objectives in the national curriculum statements, current unit standards, and examination prescriptions in school subjects, are progressively de ning these standards. However, it remains to be seen whether this reform will be completed according to the scheduled timeframe, as the events of the past 10 years in New Zealand, as in many countries, have shown that quali cations reform has entailed considerable con ict between the advocates of more traditional, academic education and highstatus examinations, and those who argue for a more competency-based regime with a high proportion of internal assessment and recognition of smaller units of learning.

Curriculum and Assessment Policy in New Zealand Overseas In uences

151

The emphasis on tighter speci cation of learning outcomes is common to many countries which have revised their curricula over the past decade. While some countries such as Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia have issued new curricula at the same time for all subjects, New Zealand chose a more sequential approach with new curriculum statements released on a progressive basis over several years. Nevertheless, common features include the focus on de ning objectives or learning outcomes according to key subjects (or learning areas), by strands (or key components or areas of study of a subject), and by levels (in some cases with one level equating roughly to a year of learning, in others with wider bands of up to 2 or 3 years). The content and number of learning areas in New Zealand are broadly similar to those in other countries although there is less focus on other languages as part of the mandatory curriculum and on citizenship, or national identity (for example, compared with the United Kingdom). In short there has been an increasing trend worldwide towards de ning what students should know and be able to do. There has been a parallel trend in the development of assessment programmes. Most countries in the OECD have moved increasingly towards more extensive testing regimes whereby student achievement in core learning areas and at speci ed ages has been assessed. National testing has become more common. In Australia, for example, as part of a federal initiative, all states now test students in Years 3 and 5 in language and mathematics. Unlike many of its trading partners, however, New Zealand does not have a system of compulsory national testing but, in common with many other countries, schools in New Zealand can participate in different assessment programmes, and use a wide range of voluntary tests or assessment tools. Formative assessment, as described by Black and Wiliam (1998), has had an important place in New Zealand schools where national testing is unlikely to be implemented. In terms of quali cations, there appear to be strong moves in many countries towards continuing the amalgamation of academic and vocational quali cations. However, despite the change towards achievement standards in New Zealand, few other countries have matched the comprehensiveness of New Zealands national quali cations framework. In New Zealand there appears to be less resistance to the notion that internal assessment has a valuable role to play in determining students achievement for the purpose of awarding credit towards quali cations compared with, for example, in the United Kingdom and some states in Australia. The common features touched upon above suggest that there may be mechanisms which encourage countries to adopt similar approaches towards curriculum, assessment and quali cations. Although the phenomenon of how countries borrow ideas from each other has been investigated from time to time, there has been little systematic study of policy importation. In an era of increasing globalization (but also of moves towards protecting local self-identity), it is likely that this process will continue (Green, 1997; Philips, 1998). 2000 and Beyond In the year 2000 a number of challenges remain. In 1999 the Ministry of Education commenced a strategic research initiative designed in the rst instance to provide up-to-date reviews of research in different areas such as early in uences on learning, resourcing, curriculum and assessment, post-compulsory education and training. The

152

D. Philips

purpose of this initiative is to provide information which will assist with policy making but also to determine where further research is required. The policy implications of the state-of-the-art research papers will be analysed and used to inform decisions about what research should be funded by the Ministry in the medium term. However, while this appears to be part of a conscious effort to bring about better integration of research and policy, questions are likely to be raised about increased control by the state of the research agenda of tertiary institutions. The development of curriculum, assessment and quali cations policy in New Zealand over the past 10 years has shown that the focus on outcomes of the educational reforms continues to be hotly debated, just as administrative and funding reforms are still resisted by many educators. While some changes for the new millennium have been signalled, it is likely that debates will continue to rage in New Zealand over what should be in the curriculum, how students learning should be assessed and the best ways of attesting students competence for gaining credit for quali cations. As curriculum, assessment and quali cations developments move on increasingly similar tracks, and governments continue to strive for economic dominance, the opportunities for countries to learn from each other may diminish. Correspondence: David Philips, Research Division, Ministry of Education, Private Box 1666, Wellington, New Zealand. REFERENCES
BLACK, P. & WILIAM, D. (1998) Inside the black box: raising standards through classroom assessment , Assessment in Education: principles, policy, and practice, 5(1), pp. 5774. BOSTON, J. (1991) The theoretica l underpinning s of public sector restructurin g in New Zealand, in: J. BOSTON, J. MARTIN, J. PALLOT & P. WALSH (Eds) Reshaping the State: New Zealands bureaucrati c revolution (Auckland, Open University Press). CODD, J. (1994) Educationa l reform and the contradictor y discourse s of evaluation , Evaluation and Research in Education, 8(1/2), pp. 4154. CODD, J. (1997) Knowledge, quali cations and higher education : a critical view, in: M. OLSSEN & K.M. MATTHEWS (Eds) Education Policy in New Zealand: the 1990s and beyond (Palmerston North, Dunmore Press). CODD, J., GORDON, L. & HARKER, R. (1990) Education and the role of the state: devolutio n and control post-Picot, in:, H. LAUDER & C. WYLIE (Eds) Towards Successfu l Schooling (London, Falmer Press). ELLEY, W. B. (1996) Curriculum reform: forwards or backwards?, Delta, 48(1), pp. 1118. GILMORE, A. (1998) Assessment for Success in Primary Schools: report of the submission s to the Green Paper (Wellington , Ministry of Education). GILMORE, A. (1999) School Entry Assessment: the rst national picture, July 1997May 1998 (Wellington, Ministry of Education). GOVERNMENT OF NEW ZEALAND (1998) Assessment for Success in Primary Schools: Green Paper (Wellington, Ministry of Education). GOVERNMENT OF NEW ZEALAND (1999) Information for Better Learning (Wellington , Ministry of Education ). GREEN, A. (1997) Education, Globalisation and the Nation State (London, Macmillan). HILL , M. (1999) Assessment in self-managing schools: primary teachers balancin g learning and accountabilit y demands in the 1990s, New Zealand Journal of Educationa l Studies, 34(1), pp. 176 185. I RWIN, M. (1999) A decade of curricular reform, New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 34(1), pp. 156166. LANGE, D. (1988) Tomorrows Schools: the reform of educatio n administratio n in New Zealand (Wellington, Government Printer). LAUDER, H., HUGHES, D. et al. (1999) Trading in Futures: why markets in educatio n dont work (Buckingham, Open University Press).

Curriculum and Assessment Policy in New Zealand

153

MCCULLOCH, G. (Ed.) (1992) The School Curriculum in New Zealand: history, theory, policy and practice (Palmerston North, Dunmore Press). MCKENZIE , D. (1999) The clouded trail: ten years of public education post-Picot, New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 34(1), pp. 817. MINISTERIAL WORKING PARTY ON ASSESSMENT FOR BETTER LEARNING (1990) Tomorrows Standards (Wellington, Ministry of Education). MINISTRY OF E DUCATION (1993) The New Zealand Curriculum Framework (Wellington , Learning Media). MINISTRY OF EDUCATION (1994) Assessment: policy to practice (Wellington , Learning Media). MINISTRY OF EDUCATION/NEW ZEALAND QUALIFICATIONS AUTHORITY (1998) Achievement 2001: quali cations for 16 to 19 year olds (Wellington , Author). PHILIPS, D. (1993) Curriculum developmen t in New Zealand, Educationa l Review, 45(2), pp. 155164. PHILIPS, D. (1998) The switchmen of history: the developmen t of a unitary quali cations framework, unpublishe d PhD thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. PHILIPS, D. (1999) Recent development s in national assessment policy in education , New Zealand Annual Review of Education, 8(1998), pp. 147166. ROBERTS, P. (1997) A critique of the NZQA policy reforms, in: M. OLSSEN & K.M. MATTHEWS (Eds) Education Policy in New Zealand: the 1990s and beyond (Palmerston North, Dunmore Press). SNOOK, I. (1996) The educatio n forum and the curriculu m framework, Delta, 48(1), pp. 4756. SNOOK, I. (1997) Democracy, education and the New Right, in: M. OLSSEN & K.M. MATTHEWS (Eds) Education Policy in New Zealand: the 1990s and beyond (Palmerston North, Dunmore Press). THRUPP, M. (1997) Shaping a crisis: the Education Review Of ce and South Auckland schools, in: M. OLSSEN & K.M. MATTHEWS (Eds) Education Policy in New Zealand: the 1990s and beyond (Palmerston North, Dunmore Press). THRUPP, M. (1999) Schools Making a Difference : lets be realistic! (Buckingham , Open University Press). THRUPP, M. & SMITH, R. (1999) A decade of ERO, New Zealand Journal of Educationa l Studies, 34(1), pp. 186198.