David Lillis: Shakespeare in the English Curriculum?

A Draft Curriculum for Comment

The Ministry of Education has made available its draft New Zealand Curriculum for English, Years 7 – 13 and for Mathematics and Statistics, Years 9 – 13. Each is a knowledge-rich curriculum and so we can be very encouraged that New Zealand is now receiving subject-level curricula that will help to enable first class education for all students of every background and across all schools. However, the capability of teachers to deliver a knowledge-rich New Zealand Curriculum across all subjects may need further development and possibly we must address Initial Teacher Education. At present, the underlying philosophy of university teacher education may not provide the best fit with the new curriculum approach.

The draft curriculum for English is available for comment until 13 June 2025 (Ministry of Education, 2025a). That for Mathematics and Statistics has a more limited timeframe, and is available for comment until 28 April (Ministry of Education, 2025b). A description of the design of the draft curriculum for English is given in the appendix to this article.

Criticism of the Draft New Zealand Curriculum  

Last year and early this year we heard concerns that Shakespeare had been excessively prominent in our English curriculum (e.g. Gerritsen, 2025; Matthias, 2025; Roxborogh, 2025 and Rubin, 2025). Rubin suggests that tragedies in general, and therefore Shakespeare’s tragedies too, are arguably overrated. She does not offer her own explanation as to why this might be the case, but does provide a link to a piece by Tichenor (2021) who apparently believes so. Rubin does not think that any government should be in the business of telling the people what they must or must not read. But should such logic apply to a nation’s curriculum? Surely, curriculum developers and their advisers, as a proxy for government, have duty of care to do exactly that; to prescribe the best readings for each and every subject in the national curriculum.

In addition, Moss (2025) has written an opinion piece on the prior release of the curriculum for Years 0 - 8 in Mathematics and Years 0 - 6 in English. Here she voiced concerns about particular people who are involved in creating the New Zealand Curriculum – people she sees as right wing and one of whom she claims to have aligned with anti-trans rhetoric and backed anti-trans groups. I believe that she is mistaken on both points and here we have an issue relating to the quality of debate on education in this country. From neither side of the national conversation is extremism in any way productive, nor are willful attempts to undermine the credibility of particular people, nor casting doubt on their integrity in public.  

Moss expressed the view that anti-Māori, libertarian ideology is increasingly determining what our “tamariki”, or children, are and are not learning at school, and that this particular ideology is pushing Māori knowledge out of the curriculum. However, the Purpose Statement for English includes the lovely saying “Whaowhia te kete mātauranga”, or “Fill the basket of knowledge”. Given that approximately 83% of our population is non-Māori, perhaps inclusion of a few equivalents from our Pacific, Asian or other minority communities would be appropriate too.

One Secondary Student Perspective

Evidently, Matthias is a secondary school student who does not feel that compulsory Shakespeare is a good choice for “Aotearoa” and who believes that much culture and experiences are not being heard because the perspectives of white men are repeated over and over. This view is one that we must consider very carefully because there is historic truth here, but are other perspectives truly not being heard in 2025? Matthias reminds us that Shakespeare is a white man from 400 years ago and asks whether he really represents the New Zealand teenagers of today. Surely, this is a fair question.

Matthias says that if the curriculum shapers insist on including Shakespeare, they need to make sure that there are lots of newer writers, women and New Zealanders in high school English classes as well. I agree, and the curriculum shapers have committed to doing exactly that. On page six of the draft curriculum we read: New Zealand authors make an important contribution to the development of language and literature at home and around the world. | E tino rahi ana te takoha mai a ngā kaituhi o Niu Tireni ki te puna o te reo me ngā momo tuhinga i te kāinga nei, ā, puta noa ki te ao.

On page seven we are told that by exploring carefully selected texts from around the world (including from New Zealand and the Pacific), students gain insights into themselves and others.

However, in English class Matthias has been writing about the themes of activism and colonisation in Māori women’s work. Matthias enjoyed studying Tayi Tibble, a female Māori poet, and Coco Solid, a female singer, songwriter, director and producer, of Māori, Pacific and German heritage. Surely such authors should have a place in our curriculum.

Matthias’ use of the word “Aotearoa” has become quite normal these days but why study activism and colonisation in English class when schools deliver social studies, history and Māori Studies classes. What perspectives on social and political issues are discussed and which of them are considered acceptable? 

I see no evidence of bias or racism in those who call for first class education for our children and nor is matauranga Māori being pushed out of the New Zealand Curriculum. But no form of Indigenous or traditional knowledge should be accorded equal status with science in any national curriculum, anywhere in the world of the twenty-first century. In any case, the fears of Moss and others should be allayed by both the English Years 7 – 13 and the Mathematics and Statistics Years 9 – 13 draft curricula. In my view the English curriculum provides an excellent basis for students to master English. The ideology behind the new curriculum is neither discriminatory in a general sense, nor specifically Eurocentric, but instead seeks to ensure world class education for all.

One New Zealander’s Perspective

Here in New Zealand Peter Winsley (2016) writes that Shakespeare believed in individual uniqueness, in human rights and dignity, and in the universality of human consciousness. His works cannot be captured by any cultural, religious, political, ethnic or other identity group that divides people. Winsley regards Shakespeare as the supreme poet and dramatist of humanism; humanism as a belief system and as a guide to how to live. He says that Shakespeare judged people as individuals, but not on their race, ethnicity, wealth, status, family affiliation or gender. He understood that individuality is almost infinitely variable, even within the same family.

Winsley believes that Shakespeare valued honesty, integrity and loyalty and that, for Shakespeare, the worst sins are cruelty, deception and flattery. Shakespeare values compassion and despises its absence. William Shakespeare is the poet, dramatist, psychology and philosopher of the humanist world view. He is above cultures and above race. He understood that language, music and high culture are what distinguishes humanity from base nature. He loved life for itself and within its bounds. He accepted the conditions of life, and that it is there to be lived.

Winsley sees Shakespeare’s attacks on tyranny as enduring and everlasting, taking new forms as new tyrannies emerge, and that his histories and tragedies show kings, nobles and other aristocrats in a human and often unflattering light. However, the common grievances that all censors and book burners bring to Shakespeare have to do with his humanism, the unbounded nature of his intellect, his love of life and belief in human potential. There is also jealousy from minds inferior to Shakespeare’s.

Finally, Winsley tells us that Shakespeare is the supreme poet of love, with its complexity, power, its focus on the bond between unique individuals that overrides all else, its ineffability, its immunity to other’s understanding, and its relationship with the mind’s imaginative powers.

One Teacher’s View of the English Curriculum

The draft English curriculum is well positioned to underpin command of the English language and enhance literacy. Students are to be exposed to fiction texts, non-fiction texts, seminal world texts from different places and times that have shaped literature and ideas around the world, texts by New Zealand authors, texts from popular and youth cultures, and texts that students have chosen for personal interest and enjoyment. Helpful teaching sequences are provided.

The English curriculum requires texts that embody rich language, when the primary purposes are to build students’ enjoyment of reading, vocabulary, knowledge of text structures and comprehension skills. These resources include sophisticated picture books, classic and contemporary literature, stories from New Zealand that include kupu Māori, stories from the Pacific and stories from around the world, texts that model the modes, conventions, or structures being taught; for example, prose, poetry, plays and novels.

In early April Tania Roxborogh, a teacher of English who has Māori ancestry, wrote as a warning that the new draft English curriculum proposed making Shakespeare compulsory for senior high school students (Roxborogh, 2025). She says that while there is nothing wrong with Shakespeare, there is a problem with setting his work up as the only pinnacle of excellence. However, is Shakespeare in fact positioned as the only pinnacle of excellence?

Roxborogh sees Māori knowledge as a standard of excellence against which the accepted classics can be measured - not just the other way round. I agree that Māori knowledge also provides one standard of excellence but perhaps all of us should avoid drawing comparisons that are inherently subjective and that cannot be proved one way or other. She wants teachers to imbue their teaching of Shakespeare with mātauranga Māori in order to celebrate the complexity and excellence of both, and wants Shakespeare to be taught through a kaupapa Māori lens. Unfortunately, yet again we hear a conversation about education and many other aspects of public life, that advance matauranga Māori and address the needs of Māori people, but pay scant attention to other populations. Maybe we can achieve something positive by viewing Shakespeare through a kaupapa lens, or through other cultural lenses, but sometimes divergent forms of art, music and literature, and indeed science, do not mix so well. Perhaps there is value in letting each stand on its own merits.

Regrettably, Roxborogh does not mention specifically the literature of our Pacific People nor our Asian people, nor that of other communities that are growing in number in this country. I agree that making Shakespeare a priority, but not other voices, would be problematic. However, we are talking here about the English curriculum rather than a curriculum for Te Reo, Māori Studies, History or Social studies, and students are indeed encouraged to read and assimilate a wide variety of literature, including the works of Māori and Pacific authors.

The Supplementary List of titles is still to be fully developed, but it will include both prescribed and suggested readings. So far, the only Text Requirements are Shakespeare for seniors and the 19th century novel, while other titles are suggested only. There is now an opportunity for the public to make submissions on other works or titles that they believe should be required.

Equality of Everything?

Evidently, Roxborogh desires mana ōrite, or equality of mātauranga Māori with other systems of knowledge, in education. However, why not equality between each and every form of Indigenous knowledge and the accumulated knowledge, across all domains, of the world of the twenty-first century? She believes that when we treat Te Reo Māori as decoration rather than as a central vehicle of thought, metaphor and philosophy, we diminish its power. I agree, but we live in a predominantly English-speaking nation and does not the same logic apply to every non-English language? Why the exclusive focus onTe Reo?

She believes that Shakespeare’s works can thrive alongside mātauranga Māori. In this regard we recognise the very fine 2002 production of The Merchant of Venice in Te Reo, directed by Don Selwyn (see Barnes, 2022). We must also acknowledge Meremere Penfold’s very highly regarded translation of nine of Shakespeare’s sonnets (Penfold, 2000). Perhaps we could say that many Māori writers and actors who revere their Māori traditions also revere Shakespeare, who they recognise is also part of their tradition!?

But surely Shakespeare can thrive along with many other world views too. Why only mātauranga Māori? She says that when taught through a kaupapa Māori lens, Shakespeare’s works can foster critical conversations about identity, power, and cultural exchange and can also provide a platform for validating mātauranga Māori within the classroom. But fully one quarter of New Zealand’s school-going population is neither Māori nor European. Where do they fit in with Tania Roxborogh’s world view? Why not a Pacific lens or an Asian lens? And why only conversations about identity, power and cultural exchange? Why not also about love, passion, kindness and selflessness, as well as about greed, ambition and deception?

Specifically, the Purpose Statement for English recognises the unique contributions of global literary traditions and acknowledges the special character of New Zealand English and its relationship with Te Reo Māori.

Too Much Shakespeare?

If I have any concern about the draft English curriculum it is that, far from a dominating presence in the English curriculum, as suggested by Rubin, Roxborogh and others, Shakespeare is mentioned only once in the entire curriculum document, where in Years 11 and 12 students will read a single work by Shakespeare and a text from the 19th century. Other works will become required reading too.

Of course, Shakespeare is difficult, but the difficulty is worth it. Possibly, no other writer in any language tries to make words do so much, to pack in so much emotion, imagination, character, nuance, situation, and story. He takes bold risks, which ever since have encouraged others to risk more in the ways that they use words (Professor Brian Boyd, Pers comm, 2025).

Rubin, in particular, sees the inclusion of one work of Shakespeare as taking up a huge amount of curriculum space. Further, she asserts that mandates such as those that make his works compulsory in education are about maintaining control, rather than about celebrating literary merit, though she does not tell us how or why she arrived at that opinion.  

Given the stature of Shakespeare within English literature and indeed in world culture, surely there is a case for greater, rather than less, exposure of his works, provided that the inclusion of the best literature of Māori, Pacific, European and minority authors is not compromised.

Shakespeare on the International Stage

Why was Shakespeare popular in pre-Soviet Russia and why were his works approved subsequently within the Soviet Union (Morris, 2017)? Morris tells us that it was in the nineteenth century that Shakespeare became really popular when the poet, Alexander Pushkin, began to adapt his plays and the first collection of his works was published in 1841. Productions of Shakespeare’s plays, particularly Hamlet, were staged in Moscow and Petersburg, and in the 1850s and 1860s the coloured American-born British actor, playwright and theatre manager, Ira Aldridge, toured Russia, presenting both Othello and The Merchant of Venice.

Dickson (2016) reveals that Catherine the Great adapted The Merry Wives of Windsor and Timon of Athens and that she, though head of state, was an enthusiastic translator of Shakespeare. He says that since the early 18th century Shakespeare was very important for writers such as Tolstoy and Pasternak, who translated Shakespeare as a way of continuing to write when Stalin was operating against him.

There have been claims that Shakespeare's international reputation owes much to the promotion of the British Empire. Roxborogh, for example, asserts that texts such as Shakespeare’s works have been used to justify and reinforce racial and social hierarchies, have become instruments of cultural dominance and that, around the world, Shakespeare has served a dual purpose as a literary icon and as a symbol of empire. Most probably there is some truth here but, although Britons had good reason to be proud of Shakespeare as part of their heritage, the general claim that his fame is owed substantively to his promotion by the British Empire is false, as demonstrated by, for instance, the fact that Germany, often militarily at odds with England, took him to heart, considered him in a sense their writer - and also Russia and Japan. In addition, many Hungarians have spent more time on Shakespeare than on any Hungarian writer in their high school years (Professor Brian Boyd, Pers comm).

Shakespeare in Communist Countries

Why did Soviet writers, actors, scholars and theatre critics state that they found strength and inspiration in Shakespeare’s words to continue fighting fascism (DeBold, 2017). Why did they write:

“. . . today the sublime idealism embodied in the works of Shakespeare serves as a living bond for the unity of all progressive mankind in the tremendous battle against the dark forces of violence and falsehood.” (DeBold, 2017)

Lu Xun (1881 - 1936), a well-known figure in modern Chinese literature, considered Shakespeare and others as "fighters in the spiritual realm" who were needed for the revitalization of China (Shakespeare around the Globe, 2016). In 1922 the first full translation of a Shakespeare play was completed. Following translations of Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet, other Chinese scholars made direct translations of several of his plays. Subsequently, many significant Shakespeare productions were delivered using complete translated texts, including The Merchant of Venice in 1930, Romeo and Juliet in 1937, Hamlet in 1942, Romeo and Juliet again in 1944, as well as an adaptation of Macbeth in 1945 (Shakespeare around the Globe, 2016).

Makaryk and Price (2006) report that the works of William Shakespeare have long been embraced by communist and socialist governments. Shakespeare became established early as the Great Realist whose works should be studied, translated and emulated. This view of Shakespeare as a humanist and realist was transferred to many other countries, including East Germany, Hungary, Poland, Serbia, China and Cuba after the Second World War.

Sokolova and Valls-Russell (2022) tell of the popularity of Shakespeare in Germany, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Romania and other nations.

Surely there are good reasons as to why Shakespeare’s works have been translated into over one hundred languages (Estill and Johnson, 2015). Possibly these reasons have to do, not only with his genius for composition of magnificent and timeless literature, but also with his rich insight into the human condition. We must respect Jessica Rubin’s opinion that one work of Shakespeare takes up too much curriculum space, and Tania Roxborogh’s assessment that Shakespeare is wrongly positioned as the only pinnacle of excellence. However, we must balance such views against those of numerous literary and political figures over the last three or four centuries, many of whom judge the works of Shakespeare as enduring masterpieces from a towering genius of world literature.  

Overreacting to Shakespeare?

Rubin wants to believe that English teachers, even those who love Shakespeare, can read between the lines here. But what exactly are we to see if we read between the lines? She writes that by naming the knowledge they possess as the most important, people in positions of power get to believe that this is where they belong and that it is their right to make the rules. Surely the same objection could be raised in relation to any committee or advisory panel that creates any curriculum.

Professor Brian Boyd has this to say:

I concur with the Ghanaian-American philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah that we approach art “not through identity but despite difference. We can respond to art that is not ours; indeed, we can only fully respond to ‘our’ art if we move beyond thinking of it as ours and start to respond to it as art . . . My people - human beings - made the Great Wall of China, the Sistine Chapel, the Chrysler Building: these things were made by creatures like me, through the exercise of skill and imagination.” Boyd (2009)

I ask why such a negative reaction to the compulsory inclusion of one work of Shakespeare when the curriculum of necessity will embody the work of many others, including Māori and Pacific authors. Surely, we name critical knowledge, including familiarity with Shakespeare, because it is the knowledge that makes humanity powerful. A knowledge-rich curriculum is emancipatory and seeks to ensure that all children are equipped with knowledge that improves their lives, materially, intellectually and aesthetically.

Ideology in the Curriculum

Moss believes that the curriculum should reflect the range of values and knowledge of the society that it serves. I agree. However, she asserts that, despite our Pacific geography and Indigenous inhabitants, our education system remains epistemically and culturally specific to Western society. I disagree, because over many years our education system has made ongoing efforts to address the needs of students of all ethnic and cultural backgrounds. We must always remember that fully 25% of our total population is non-Māori/non-European and configuring our national curriculum around one particular ethnic and cultural group and its world view is both unfair and very poor pedagogy, especially if we proceed to teach scientific untruths as truth.

Moss asks whether Education Minister, Erica Stanford, will defend a “backward-looking, Te Tiriti-inconsistent curriculum rewrite”, or whether she will be “brave in preventing further damage” and commit to working with teachers and Māori for a Tiriti-based curriculum. Here we must question the meaning of consistency with Te Tiriti in the context of education and, more precisely, whose interpretation of Te Tiriti. Which interpretation is most closely aligned with the needs of Pacific or Asian people or with the cultures of immigrants from the Ukraine, Africa or the Middle East? And if Ms. Stanford and the Ministerial Advisory Group are to work with Māori, then why does Moss not mention any need to work with other ethnic and cultural groups?

Moss says that under this government, we have seen the de-prioritisation of Te Tiriti o Waitangi throughout the education system and the whitewashing of the curriculum itself by removing references to Te Tiriti as a guiding kaupapa (Moss, 2025). If anything, many people, including myself, were deeply concerned about the heavy Treaty-centric orientation of the refreshed curriculum of 2022 (Ministry of Education, 2022). We had further concerns about the stated expectation that both students and teachers should hold themselves accountable for delivering on Te Tiriti, the presence of only one form of traditional knowledge as central to each and every subject, and the teaching of false ideas as science (Lillis, 2024).  

The general notion that traditional knowledge has value is not at all controversial, but extending this idea to insert it everywhere in education as high priority is another matter entirely. Surely, a national curriculum should constitute a vehicle for ensuring equality of opportunity for effective education and teaching, and support the delivery and acquisition of learning. A curriculum should never be seen as a chance to advance anyone’s political views or ideologies. Our children and their education are much too important to be used in that manner  . . . (Lillis, 2024)

Marie and Haig (2006) believe that there are good reasons why political and moral issues ought to be kept distinct from epistemic claims about what constitutes reliable and coherent knowledge. They say that the tension that is evident within New Zealand regarding rights-based versus evidence-based approaches to research is one such reason for insisting on this distinction.

Thus, the New Zealand Curriculum of 2025 represents a welcome departure from the ideology-based refreshed curriculum of the Labour Government of 2022.

The Decolonization Project

Indigenous knowledge and the accumulated scientific, technological and literary knowledge of the twenty-first century encompass vastly different categories and qualities, and serve completely different purposes. They should never have been conflated, especially at a time when New Zealand’s educational performance had been in long-term decline.

I do not subscribe in any way to the ongoing global “decolonization project”, very evident in New Zealand and in other countries, but I am prepared to accept that attempts on the part of certain groups to decolonize education and other domains of public life, have at least some positive intent; that is, to repair disparities and heal those fractures that so often divide communities. However, in calls to reduce the presence of, or even excise completely, Shakespeare from our curriculum, we can only hope that no other agenda is at play.

Roxborogh says that English teachers are in a powerful position. The stories they teach, and how they teach them, shape how students see the world and their place within it. She says that this is not about adding more to an already heavy load but instead it is about changing how we carry it and who gets to decide where we’re going. It seems to me that the primary purpose of English teachers is to teach English, though morals and ethics must play a part too. Is there a decolonization agenda here – perhaps or perhaps not. Only Tania Roxborogh herself can answer that question. But where does Roxborogh want us to go? If the intent is to free our society of those negative burdens of colonization that included racism and supremacist thinking and to ensure the rights and obligations of non-European people, then I agree. However, if the intent is in effect to force the world view of one minority ethnic and cultural group on each and every citizen, irrespective of background, and on every aspect of public life, then we are being taken down a very dangerous path. 

We need no negative, vindictive or otherwise potentially damaging agendas that involve grasping for power and control over not only natural resources and our public service and regulatory bodies, but over science and education as well. Nor do we need one that seeks retribution primarily, nor the tearing down or replacement of the many contributions to the world of today that are perceived to have emerged from Western society.

In my view, the 2022 refresh continued a diminishment of knowledge and basic skills, the notion of identity brought to prominence, and a focus on emotions rather than on intellect. However, New Zealand had been heading down such a trajectory for at least two decades before that refresh. The result has been a marked decline in the quality of New Zealand's education system and consistently worsening performance in international tests such as PISA, both by comparison with other countries and in absolute terms (e.g. Long and Te, 2019). Removing Shakespeare from our national curriculum, or simply to diminish his presence, would put us even further out of step with other countries.

A Desired National Curriculum

Any national curriculum sets the aspirations for learning for the nation and to some extent captures society’s vision for its young people. It can indeed inspire and guide the kind of education that enables young people to be confident, connected and actively-involved members of society. It is not the role of our national curriculum to push Eurocentric thinking into every aspect of the education of our young people who, of course, come from a very wide variety of backgrounds. However, neither is it the role of our national curriculum to indoctrinate or advance political change outside the domain of education (Lillis, 2024). Finally, it should never be acceptable to debase education by establishing artificial and false equalities or by throwing out the very finest literature that the world has to offer.

Our New Zealand Curriculum, as it applies to all subjects, should set the direction for student learning and provide guidance for schools (Ministry of Education, 2007). It must provide the requisite skills and knowledge at each year-level and support the necessary assessment tools. While accommodating some local knowledge, it should encompass rich content knowledge that is both identical for and accessible to all students, irrespective of ethnicity, social or cultural background, religion or country of origin. For good reason Stewart et al. (2024) support a knowledge-rich and competency-based curriculum, and Surma et al. (2025) see richness of content as critical for imparting knowledge and complex skills. In English, Shakespeare is one pinnacle of excellence that enhances the existing richness.

The New Zealand Curriculum should teach how to think but not what to think in relation to social and political issues, perhaps especially in our discourses on race, justice and gender issues. Configured to meet the needs of all students equally, it should maintain a clear separation between world science, mathematics and literature as the most widely accepted approaches to generating and communicating knowledge yet devised, and the Indigenous knowledge of small communities of the distant past.

The New Zealand Curriculum should take account of research on how humans process information, and on teaching practices that enable effective learning. Teaching sequences should support students in their learning and minimize cognitive overload which can affect learning and give rise to anxiety, disengagement and sometimes to disruptive behavior (Ministerial Advisory Group, 2024).

Based on a robust New Zealand Curriculum, teaching approaches should also take account of current research literature on cognitive psychology, or the science of human information processing.

Conclusion

Our New Zealand Curriculum must be open equally to all students, be evidence-based, ideology-free and portable to other nations. It must provide a pathway to further learning and enable fulfilling lives and rewarding careers. It should be written in simple language and be accessible to everyone, especially to teachers, parents and students.

All subjects within the New Zealand Curriculum, including English, should be knowledge-rich and configured on the basis of the existing research evidence on effective pedagogy, especially on the science of learning. It should indeed reflect our diverse and cosmopolitan society and make available the best of science, technology and literature that the world has to offer. That is exactly what Minister Erica Stanford and the Ministerial Advisory Group have delivered for English, and the New Zealand public expects nothing less for every other subject.  

Appendix: Design of the English Curriculum

Phases 1 – 3 pertain to Years 0 – 8, Phase 4 to Years 9 – 10 and Phase 5 to Years 11 – 13. Each of the five phases for each subject provides a description of what students should know and can do by the end of the phase, an introduction to the teaching sequence that highlights how to teach during a particular phase, a year-by-year teaching sequence that highlights how to teach for each year within the phase, and teaching considerations for particular content in phases 1 – 3. In both curricula, we see helpful detail on the use of assessment in informing teaching.

Within each subject, one progress outcome is provided for each phase, and each of the progress outcomes outlines expectations in relation to students’ learning. We are informed that they act as signposts at the end of each phase of learning and indicate what students should have achieved at key points in their education.

The framework, ‘Know-Do’, is used in English but may involve ‘Understand-Know-Do’ in the final version. Each outcome reflects the critical focus of the phase. In English, ‘Know’ describes the language knowledge and literary analysis knowledge students should learn, while ‘Do’ describes the capability required to use that knowledge.

The Purpose Statement indicates that the subject, English, equips students with knowledge of the codes and conventions of literacy, language and texts. It goes on to say that, through this knowledge and understanding, students can explore the beauty and richness of classic and contemporary literature across a range of forms and genres. It says that literacy in English is critical if students are to engage successfully with all curriculum subjects, and that being literate and mastering the foundations of oral and written language enable students to be confident and competent learners. This Purpose Statement is exactly what we need and the proposed curriculum appears to deliver on this statement.

Of course, students will engage in oral language, reading and writing, where the objective is to develop as confident communicators, readers and writers. Grammar, punctuation, spelling, etymology and handwriting will all be there.

References

Barnes, Angela (2022). Indigenising the screen: Te Tangata Whai Rawa o Wēniti -The Māori Merchant of Venice (2002). The Maori Merchant of Venice Director: Don Selwyn (2002) 
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/11771801221126254 

Boyd, Brian (2009). On the Origin of Stories, 2009, 335.

DeBold, Elizabeth (2017). From the Archives: Shakespeare in the USSR 
https://www.folger.edu/blogs/collation/archives-shakespeare-ussr/

Dickson, Andrew (2016). With Shakespeare across Russia 
http://gazeta.sfu-kras.ru/node/5137

Estill, L. and Johnson, E. (2015). Fun international facts about Shakespeare 
https://www.britishcouncil.org/voices-magazine/fun-international-facts-about-shakespeare#:~:text=Other%20popular%20plays%20in%20translation,into%20more%20than%20100%20languages.

Gerritsen, John (2025). To be, or not to be? Draft English curriculum proposes compulsory Shakespeare for seniors 
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/556760/to-be-or-not-to-be-draft-english-curriculum-proposes-compulsory-shakespeare-for-seniors

Lillis, David (2024). An English Curriculum for Education and Teaching - not for Ideology 
https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/07/david-lillis-english-curriculum-for.html

Long, J. and Te, M. (2019). New Zealand top-end in OECD's latest PISA report but drop in achievements 'worrying' 
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/117890945/new-zealand-topend-in-oecds-latest-pisa-report-but-drop-in-achievements-worrying

Makaryk, Irena and Price, Joseph (2006). Shakespeare in the World of Communism and Socialism University of Toronto Press 
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3138/j.ctt5hjxh9

Marie, Danette and Haig, Brian (2006). Kaupapa Maori research methodology: A critique and an alternative New Zealand Science Review Vol 63 (1) 2006

Matthias, J. J. (2025). Should Shakespeare be compulsory? A student’s perspective 
https://thespinoff.co.nz/books/02-04-2025/should-shakespeare-be-compulsory-a-students-perspective

Ministerial Advisory Group (2024). Initial Report. Ministry of Education. 
https://assets.education.govt.nz/public/Documents/Curriculum/Report-from-the-Ministerial-Advisory-Group-March-2024.pdf

Ministry of Education (2007). The New Zealand Curriculum Learning Media Limited.

Ministry of Education (2022). Te Mātaiaho Draft for Feedback 
https://curriculumrefresh-live-assetstorages3bucket-l5w0dsj7zmbm.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/2022-09/Te%20Mataiaho%20draft%20for%20feedback.pdf?VersionId=NcP2C6bv8ElasJlXbg7oZJLFRqlkef.E

Ministry of Education (2025a). Years 7 to 13 English learning area released 
https://www.education.govt.nz/news/years-7-13-english-learning-area-released

Ministry of Education (2025b). The New Zealand Curriculum 
https://newzealandcurriculum.tahurangi.education.govt.nz/new-zealand-curriculum-online/new-zealand-curriculum/new-zealand-curriculum-refresh/consultation-on-mathematics-is-now-open/5637239082.p

Morris, Sylvia (2017). Shakespeare in Soviet Russia 
https://theshakespeareblog.com/2017/10/shakespeare-in-soviet-russia/

Moss, Jessie (2025). Ideology is pushing Māori knowledge out of the curriculum 
https://e-tangata.co.nz/comment-and-analysis/ideology-is-pushing-maori-knowledge-out-of-the-curriculum/

Penfold, Meremere (2000). Nga Waiata Aroha A Hekepia / Love Sonnets by Shakespeare Holloway Press 2000, second edition January 2001. Designed and printed by Tara McLeod.

Roxborogh, Tania (2025). What gets excluded when we centre Shakespeare? 
https://e-tangata.co.nz/comment-and-analysis/what-gets-excluded-when-we-centre-shakespeare/

Rubin, Jessica (2025). This conversation about compulsory Shakespeare is actually about something else 
https://nzareblog.wordpress.com/2025/04/08/conversation-about-shakespeare/

Sokolova, Boika and Janice Valls-Russell, Janice – Editors (2022). Shakespeare’s Others in 21st-century European Performance The Merchant of Venice and Othello BLOOMSBURY, THE ARDEN SHAKESPEARE.

Surma, T., Vanhees, C., Wils., M., Nijlunsing, J., Crato. N., Hattie, J., Muijs, D., Rata, E., Wiliam, D. and Kirschner, P. (2025). Developing Curriculum for Deep Thinking. SpringerBriefs in Education. ISBN 978-3-031-74660-4 
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-74661-1

Shakespeare around the Globe (2016). A collection of essays published by the University of Victoria, 2002-2004. ISBN: 1-55058-302-6 
https://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/Criticism/shakespearein/index.html

Stewart, G., Eames, C., Hipkins, R., Cheng, M., Birdsall, S., Buntting, C., Carpendale., Edwards. R., Hunt, D. and Swanson, C. (2024). What’s the Future for Science in the New Zealand Curriculum? New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies (2024) 59:371–375

Tichenor, Austin (2021). "Woeful tragedy," indeed 
https://www.folger.edu/blogs/shakespeare-and-beyond/woeful-tragedy-indeed/

Winsley, Peter (2016). Why Shakespeare is important for young people 
https://winsleys.wordpress.com/2016/12/19/why-shakespeare-is-important-for-young-people/

Dr David Lillis trained in physics and mathematics at Victoria University and Curtin University in Perth, working as a teacher, researcher, statistician and lecturer for most of his career. He has published many articles and scientific papers, as well as a book on graphing and statistics.