Curriculum reform is often presented as the most direct answer to learning poverty: revise the syllabus, introduce competency-based outcomes, and expect classrooms to improve. Yet for children aged 3–8, a new curriculum cannot by itself create the everyday conditions through which young children learn to speak, read, count, reason, and make sense of an increasingly AI-shaped world. Curriculum reform is necessary, but insufficient; it must be accompanied by changes in teacher support, language environments, family engagement, assessment, and equity-oriented provision.
The problem of learning poverty
Learning poverty describes children who are either out of school or enrolled but unable to read and understand a simple, age-appropriate text by around age 10. The concept combines schooling deprivation with learning deprivation, thereby drawing attention not only to access but also to whether time in school produces meaningful learning (World Bank, 2019; Azevedo, 2020). Reading is used as the central indicator because it is a gateway to learning across subjects and a practical proxy for broader foundational learning (Azevedo, 2020).
The scale of the problem is substantial. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, an estimated 53% of children in low- and middle-income countries could not read and understand a simple story by the end of primary school (World Bank, 2021; Goldemberg et al., 2021). This is not simply a late-primary problem. Children’s early language experiences, preschool quality, teacher-child interactions, and opportunities for play-based learning shape the foundations on which later literacy and numeracy depend.
For Pakistan and other contexts with linguistic diversity, uneven access to quality early childhood education, and large differences between home and school resources, learning poverty cannot be understood as a failure of children or teachers alone. It reflects systemic conditions: under-resourced classrooms, limited instructional support, crowded curricula, weak assessment feedback, and discontinuities between children’s home languages and the language of schooling.
Why curriculum reform matters
Curriculum reform can play an important role when it clarifies priorities, reduces overload, and gives teachers a coherent progression of foundational skills. A focused curriculum that prioritises literacy, numeracy, and transferable skills can help teachers allocate instructional time to the capabilities children most need for later learning (World Bank, 2022). In the early years, this should include oral language, vocabulary, phonological awareness, early number sense, problem-solving, social-emotional development, and opportunities for children to explore and question their environment.
However, curriculum documents do not teach children. Teachers translate curriculum intentions into daily interactions, materials, questioning, feedback, and classroom routines. Research on curriculum reform consistently finds an implementation gap between official policy and classroom practice, particularly when teachers receive vague guidance, inadequate professional development, or insufficient school-level support (Ramberg, 2014; Yan, 2015; Pauw et al., 2018). In early childhood settings, teachers also adapt curriculum according to children’s needs, local cultures, available materials, and their own professional judgement (Ghunu & Utari, 2025).
This does not mean teachers resist reform. Rather, it means that reform succeeds only when teachers are treated as knowledgeable actors with the time, resources, and authority to interpret policy in context. Research on teacher participation finds that involving teachers as co-designers can strengthen ownership and improve implementation fidelity (Chimbunde & Moreeng, 2024). Similarly, research in early childhood education shows that teachers contribute directly to setting instructional approaches, selecting content, and shaping learning experiences, even when formal policy spaces do not adequately recognise their expertise (Chen et al., 2024).
The limits of a curriculum-only response
A curriculum can state that children should develop foundational literacy and numeracy, but it cannot ensure that a teacher has training in early language development, that a classroom has age-appropriate books, or that a child’s home language is valued as a resource for learning. It also cannot ensure that assessment practices support learning rather than narrow teaching to test preparation.
The evidence on reform implementation points to several conditions beyond the written curriculum:
- Teacher capacity: Teachers need sustained professional development focused on early literacy, numeracy, child development, play-based pedagogy, and formative assessment—not one-off training events (Defise, 2013; Pauw et al., 2018).
- School leadership and collaboration: School-based conditions, including leadership, collaboration, and locally developed curriculum materials, influence whether reforms alter teaching practice (Ramberg, 2014).
- Assessment alignment: Where examinations reward memorisation, teachers may face pressure to prioritise test-oriented practices over developmental and child-centred approaches (Yan, 2015).
- Materials and language: Curriculum reform must be matched by accessible, linguistically appropriate materials and support for children’s home languages, particularly in multilingual settings.
- Family and community engagement: Young children’s learning is distributed across homes, communities, and schools; reform that ignores these settings risks widening existing inequalities.
These conditions are especially important between ages 3 and 8, when children are developing the dispositions, language, and conceptual foundations that make later learning possible. A curriculum that introduces ambitious expectations without investing in the adults and environments around children may simply relocate responsibility for failure from the system to the classroom.
From coverage to learning opportunities
The central limitation of curriculum-centred reform is that it can confuse coverage with learning. A syllabus may be completed, textbooks may be distributed, and teachers may be trained briefly, yet children may still lack sustained opportunities to talk, play, read, solve problems, receive feedback, and connect learning to their lives.
A more useful question is not only, “What should children learn?” but also, “What opportunities do children have to learn it?” This shift moves attention from policy text to children’s lived experiences: whether a child has a caring adult who talks and reads with them, whether the classroom language is intelligible, whether materials are meaningful, and whether teachers can respond to different starting points.
This perspective also creates space to think beyond conventional literacy and numeracy. As artificial intelligence becomes part of children’s homes, schools, and public environments, early education must help children develop the habits of noticing, questioning, and interpreting technological systems. This does not require teaching young children to code or use complex tools. It requires an early, relational form of AI pre-literacy: helping children understand that some technologies respond, recommend, generate, and sometimes make mistakes.
What must change beyond curriculum
If learning poverty is to be addressed meaningfully, curriculum reform must be embedded in a broader strategy:
- Prioritise foundational learning without narrowing childhood. Literacy and numeracy should be central, but not at the expense of play, language, relationships, creativity, and well-being.
- Invest in teachers as curriculum interpreters. Provide continuous, practice-based professional development and create structured opportunities for teachers to collaborate.
- Align assessment with learning. Use low-stakes, formative assessment to understand children’s progress and guide instruction, rather than relying primarily on high-stakes testing.
- Design for linguistic and social diversity. Recognise children’s home languages, family practices, disabilities, rural-urban differences, and unequal access to resources.
- Extend learning beyond the classroom. Support parents, caregivers, and communities in creating language-rich, playful, and responsive learning environments.
- Prepare children for an AI-shaped world. Introduce AI pre-literacy through conversation, play, storytelling, and guided exploration rather than device-centred instruction.
Conclusion
Curriculum reform is a necessary component of improving early learning, but it cannot carry the full weight of addressing learning poverty. A revised curriculum may define what children should learn; it cannot by itself transform the relationships, language environments, teacher capacity, assessment systems, and material conditions through which young children actually learn. The next blog examines these conditions more closely by asking what enables young children to develop language, number sense, and early understanding of AI-shaped environments.
Continuity statement: The next blog, “Making Foundational Learning Work for Young Children: Teachers, Language, and Everyday Contexts,” will move beyond the limits of curriculum reform to examine the everyday conditions—teachers, families, language, play, and guided experience—that make foundational learning possible for children aged 3–8.
About the Authors
Prof. Dr. Shaheen Pasha & Prof. Dr. Muhammad Anwar-ur-Rehman Pasha
Authors and education researchers working on children’s development, education, and the implications of artificial intelligence for the emerging AI-driven society.
References
Azevedo, J. P. (2020). Learning poverty: Measures and simulations (Policy Research Working Paper No. 9446). World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-9446
Chen, D., Chen, Y., & Chi, J. (2024). Early childhood teachers amid China’s curriculum reforms: From a literature review. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 18, Article 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40723-024-00135-w
Chimbunde, P., & Moreeng, B. B. (2024). The sustainability of curriculum reform and implementation through teacher participation: Evidence from social studies teachers. Journal of Curriculum Studies Research, 6(1), 83–98. https://doi.org/10.46303/jcsr.2024.6
Defise, R. (2013). Supporting the implementation of curriculum reform through learning communities and communities of practice. Prospects, 43(4), 473–479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-014-9301-5
Ghunu, N. M. S., & Utari, A. L. (2025). Negotiating policies and practices: A systematic review of curriculum enactment in early childhood settings. Business Economic, Communication, and Social Sciences Journal, 7(3), 381–395. https://doi.org/10.21512/becossjournal.v7i3.14458
Goldemberg, D., Azevedo, J. P., Montoya, S., Nayar, R., Rogers, H., Stacy, B., & Saavedra, J. (2021). Will every child be able to read by 2030? Defining learning poverty and mapping the dimensions of the challenge (Policy Research Working Paper No. 9588). World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-9588
Pauw, K., Motala, S., & Joubert, M. (2018). South African teachers’ perspectives on support received in implementing curriculum changes. South African Journal of Education, 38(Suppl. 2), Article 1484. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v38ns2a1484
Ramberg, M. R. (2014). What makes reform work? School-based conditions as predictors of teachers’ changing practice after a national curriculum reform. International Education Studies, 7(6), 46–65. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v7n6p46
World Bank. (2019). Ending learning poverty: What will it take? World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1450-0
World Bank. (2021). Learning poverty measure. World Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/en/brief/2021/07/01/learning-poverty-measure
World Bank. (2022). The state of global learning poverty: 2022 update. World Bank.
Yan, C. (2015). “We can’t change much unless the exams change”: Teachers’ dilemmas in the curriculum reform in China. Improving Schools, 18(1), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480214553744