KEY POINTS:
The late July release of the Curriculum Draft for consultation 2006 resulted in an almost deafening media silence. This is a worry, considering the considerable power likely to be, and already being, invested in the document.
Steve Maharey, Minister of Education said the document set out "expectations for all students so they can reach their potential and develop the competencies and knowledge that will prepare them for adaptation and change, as they meet the complex demands of an increasingly diverse and interconnected community and globalised society".
The Herald produced early articles and comment, largely focusing on the inclusion of learning languages in the newly structured eight learning areas. In October a representative of Ngai Tahu expressed concerns regarding the lack of bi-cultural references, the omission of Maori language and concepts, and the absence of reference to the Treaty of Waitangi. The deputy principal of St Paul's College then discussed what he described as a "contradictory strategy foisted on schools".
Discussion has taken place in most schools; teachers were given a teacher release day to discuss the draft. Various discussions have taken place in my university and in other tertiary institutions.
Denis Lawton of the London Institute of Education describes curriculum as "a selection from the culture". If we use this definition as a basis for reflection, many questions arise. Whose culture is the preferred culture in the 2006 draft? On what basis was the selection of content made? What consultation occurred during the draft's development? What format is consultation taking? Whose views are of most significance and why? Whose interests will be served by the draft?
My first observation concerns the place of Maori in the curriculum. Ngai Tahu are justified in their criticism. Their concerns have been endorsed in many school and tertiary discussions. Many professionals are disappointed that the Treaty of Waitangi, arguably the defining document for our country, is virtually ignored in the draft.
If explicit content can be included amongst the mathematics and statistics objectives ("relate three-dimensional models to two-dimensional representations and vice-versa"), then the Treaty deserves a public place within social sciences objectives. Knowing, understanding, and being able to critique the Treaty are arguably essential elements of what it is to be a New Zealander.
Next year, Maori will have a distinct curriculum which will reflect a Maori world view. It will support Maori teaching, include aspects of the draft, and will be designed to meet the needs of children who are educated in Kura Kaupapa Maori, bilingual or immersion education. I commend and support Te Kaupapa Marautanga o Aotearoa.
My concern is that it is planned to address the needs of only 20 per cent of Maori children, those who choose te reo and tikanga-based education. Most Maori parents (80 per cent) choose to educate their children in the mainstream.
All students (Maori, Pakeha, Pacific Island, Asian) need to understand tangata whenua perspectives and te reo. The planned splitting of Maori content and perspectives does not bode well for bicultural and cross-cultural understanding. The selection of culture for the draft should encompass Maori world views and the Treaty.
Another observation concerns the draft's requirements. The draft may be smaller than the 1993 document (there are fewer pages), but the requirements appear more complex.
Eight learning areas, rather than the current seven, are envisaged with some areas enlarging (mathematics becomes mathematics and statistics, language and languages transforms into English and learning languages). New sections include: A Vision - our young people will be confident, connected, lifelong learners and actively involved; and Key Competencies - managing self, relating to others, participating and contributing, thinking, using language, symbols and texts. The fold-out sheets at the back provide eight outcome levels for each subject area. These continue to bear little relevance to either student ages or year levels.
The questionnaire design and feedback system are problematic. The feedback questionnaire ensures a rigid response, set within tightly defined parameters.
Its current structure means that the 10 questions are likely to confine respondents into not thinking beyond the draft, to the possibilities of curriculum per se. This is in sharp contrast to the 1986 Curriculum Review which was arguably the most consultative in our education history.
Everyone in New Zealand was invited to contribute; 21,000 submissions were received from individuals and groups, and many thousands were involved in focused discussions around the country. Though the findings of that consultation were largely ignored when the direction of the then Labour Government changed, that consultation process did inform the 1993 curriculum.
The Curriculum Review process was arguably the antithesis of the current process.
With this draft there is an erroneous assumption that all who wish to can respond. Many community people, parents in particular, do not know about the draft's existence.
Those parents least likely to join the consultation process and yet with perhaps the greatest vested interest are those with children in low-decile schools. If parents do not know about the process how can they engage? If they do not have access to the web then how can the parents have a say?
Evidently focus groups of 15000 students, teachers, principals, advisers and academics contributed to the draft, but there were no students from Decile 1 or 2 schools. Why not? Can there be legitimate consultation if students and families of over 10 per cent of the population are ignored or excluded?
There is a lot that people can find and like in this document. In a way it attempts to address, albeit in a minimal way, the needs of every sector group in the country. There is something for everyone in this pot-pourri.
My sadness is that an opportunity has been missed. Will the draft take New Zealand's children through to the 21st century? Perhaps. From my perspective there is still far too much prescription - it has the illusion of freedom for schools and teachers, but hides the "same old, same old". While some innovative people, including principals and teachers will search for and find the freedoms implied, most will revert to the tried and true lock step recipes first trialled throughout the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s. Added to this, an opportunity to involve New Zealanders in curriculum construction has been lost.
We all need to read and critique this document - it is not just relevant to school professionals, parents and students. We all have a vested interest in what counts as knowledge, and what is selected from whose culture.
Cast aside the feedback questionnaire, ignore the specified closing date, truly reflect on what this draft curriculum means for our future, and ensure the Ministry of Education knows your thoughts.
* Dr Vicki Carpenter is a principal lecturer, Faculty of Education, University of Auckland.
