One other aspect of the curriculum I really like, which covers life long learning, higher order thinking and modern learning practice is the Nature of Science. This really gets learners thinking - higher level, why they are doing things and includes a purpose for learning (including future focus).

It was an interesting thing in the media about teaching numeracy. While it may be necessary to review some of our maths teaching, I don't think we should be looking at "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." We would have to dig a little deeper than the media (which likes to sensationalise things) and reports - which have proven to be wrong in the past. Instead, could we be looking at how we include the KCs and principles in our maths teaching. (And many teachers will already be doing this very effectively).

I agree that the basics are definitely still there.

I believe that it is a shift in mindset. Now aspects such as Key Competencies and the Nature of Science are central to the planning.

They are the horse that are put before the cart. To take the analogy further, the KCs, Principles and NOS are the driving force behind the planning and teaching.

The basics, therefore, are actually taught more effectively.

So this shift in mindset is not devaluing the basics - it is making them (the cart) travel further.

(Apologies if I pushed the horse and cart thing too far in that last sentence ;-) )

Thinking about this debate made me remember something I had read. There is the explicit curriculum - what we actually plan and teach. Then there is the implicit curriculum - what we unintentionally teach. This includes aspects such as where we position ourselves as teachers, e.g., at the front of the room implicitly teaching that we are the "sage on the stage". Then there is the null curriculum. What we don't teach can also contain a powerful message. If you focus on the basics at the expense of (or ahead of) aspects such as the Key Competencies and Principles of the NZ Curriculum, not only are you missing a learning opportunity to teach these life skills - you are actually teaching that they are less important.

I like the way you say that we need to remember that we are teaching the person, not a subject. That is so true!!

When it comes to not focusing on the "correct answer" I too enjoyed the Guy Claxton reading. Carol Dweck is also someone I have really enjoyed reading (and watching on YouTube). I have used her ideas about fixed mindset versus growth mindset in my classroom of 5-year-olds. We like to say we have a classroom of "yetis" in our room, as we never say we can't do something - we just can't do it ....yet! When children don't know an answer or are confused we celebrate that and say that that means that learning is going on.

(Interestingly I read something recently from Carol Dweck that said that she didn't want the growth mindset idea used simply as a self-esteem booster, and I get what she means). Here's the link .... http://schoolsweek.co.uk/why-mindset-is-not-a-tool-to-make-children-feel-good/

All this doesn't mean that we don't focus on the basics. They are still important.

It just means that the basics are not the be all and the end all.

We are fortunate with the New Zealand Curriculum.

We have a great curriculum, which enables us (indeed requires us!) to plan work that enables confident, connected, actively involved, lifelong learners.

The curriculum goes even further than that, with the 8 Principles, meaning that aspects such as Learning to Learn and Future Focus are absolutely embedded.

It takes nothing away from the basics .... but these other aspects must be the power behind the planning and teaching.