Curriculum reform is underway in NSW, including the development and implementation of new syllabuses from kindergarten to year 12. Recent media coverage presents this reform as a ‘silver bullet’ for improving teaching and student outcomes. But there is a troubling undertone regarding teachers’ curriculum work in general – a subtle gaslighting of teachers’ curricular expertise and professionalism.

This builds on what Nicole Mockler describes, as a gaslighting of the teaching profession as a whole, in her forthcoming discussion paper “On Gaslighting, Moral Purpose, and Trust: Some Reflections on the Future of Teaching” Monash University Inquiry into the Future of the Teaching Profession.

Here’s what I’ve discovered from my own research engaging with early career teachers. They want to be curriculum-makers, not just curriculum deliverers.

Misunderstanding teachers’ curriculum work

Syllabuses are important materials in teachers’ day-to-day experiences in schools. Ensuring these official materials are clear and detailed for teachers is important and necessary. But we must also recognise teacher’s engagement with curriculum is a complex social practice.

It goes further than just listing content and outcomes in a document and believing that ‘delivery’ of these with ‘fidelity’ will resolve issues regarding teaching quality. Teachers are more than just passive conduits of curriculum.

Their curriculum work is a dynamic interpretative process. The quality of educative experiences in a classroom is dependent on teacher capabilities and opportunities that support them in transforming content into meaningful learning experiences.

Recent media coverage is largely and notably silent on this vital aspect of teachers’ curriculum work.  The focus has been on the troubled nature of past NSW syllabuses being “more open to interpretation”. These comments reveal a misunderstanding by some regarding the importance and value of teachers’ curricular interpretation in ensuring a classroom curriculum that is local, contextually relevant, and responsive to student needs and lived experiences. The silence surrounding teacher expertise and interpretation of curriculum points to a broader issue – the outsourcing of teachers’ curriculum knowledge and expertise in the name of a ‘teacher proof’ curriculum.

Gaslighting teachers’ curricular expertise

Underpinning current commentary on the new NSW syllabuses is a troublesome devaluing of teachers’ professional judgement and expertise with curriculum. This is apparent in recent conversations suggesting that teachers need access to externally vetted curriculum materials, and “directions on which lesson plans to use”. 

Here, mistrust in teachers’ knowledge and professional judgement is rife, disguised among seemingly innocent concerns for lessening the curriculum ‘burden’ on teachers’ workloads. 

This is nothing more than gaslighting; an attempt to convince teachers that they lack the required capacity to make such decisions or are too busy for curriculum matters and therefore it is ok for this important work to be outsourced to others. In reality, teachers value this curriculum work highly. They want more time for collaborative planning with their colleagues – not less, not outsourced. 

Don’t get me wrong – all teachers need supporting materials and shared resources, but they also need time and space to build their curricular expertise. This is about strengthening their understanding of the curriculum and the adjustments and transformations needed in ensuring best fit with their students and chosen pedagogical strategies (not just explicit teaching!). Time is of the essence here in how we respond to this gaslighting, raising awareness that attempts for further prescription and outsourcing of teachers’ curriculum and pedagogical work does little more than deskill our profession.  

What are we wanting? Teacher as deliverer or curriculum-maker?

While the NSW Curriculum reform proposes greater clarity and guidance for teachers, the implementation of these new syllabuses should offer us pause for thought. 

What kind of role do teachers want with the curriculum? What do they need to maintain strong curriculum identities? My own research with early career teachers points to their strong motivations and aspirations to be more than just curriculum deliverers, but curriculum-makers who are trusted and respected to make necessary and responsive curriculum choices within their local context. 

My research also suggests that the same goes too for our preservice teachers entering the profession. Critical dialogue is crucial, then, within this current reform context. School leaders, teacher educators, and the concerned public should respect the curricular aspirations of our teachers. This requires us to push back against concerning trends for ‘cookie cutter’ approaches to teaching, and with that, an outsourcing of teachers’ curriculum expertise to others as an attempt for greater ‘fidelity’ between schools and classrooms. 

Re-frame conversations

We need to re-frame conversations between teachers, school leaders, policymakers, and the broader public, moving beyond assumptions that changes to official curriculum materials offer the best and only solution. We need to listen more carefully to teachers’ voices and what they want to achieve in their curricular practice:

If I could just spend my time how I wanted to, I would obviously work hard, but if I could just spend my time planning lessons that I thought were really awesome, were really good for my learners and great for the content I was teaching, and then I could evaluate them properly, then I think I would feel like ‘ok I am benefiting society and doing the big picture thinking and fostering a love of learning in these students’ and these are the things that you go into teaching for. (First year teacher, public school in Sydney)

Creating conditions that enable this kind of work remain largely absent in conversations surrounding the implementation of the new NSW syllabuses. 

Teachers need time

Teachers need time, space, and support (not prescription or centralised materials), to help them sustain curriculum as a recognisable tenet of their professionalism. The implications of enabling school-level conditions to do this are immense, not only in promoting greater trust and regard for teachers, but importantly, for student learning and equity. A curriculum made by teachers, not others, shapes the quality of students’ access to knowledge and new ways of thinking for their future.