So, which approach to education are we supporting?
The Government’s new curriculum shows it values consistency and a firm hand. There are clear expectations on what students should learn each year, as well as compulsory teachings, such as financial literacy and consent education.
The changes are a tool to reduce variation between schools so students have access to foundational knowledge.
“Many teachers are already doing great work,” Education Minister Erica Stanford said.
“However, we know what is taught varies from school to school and not all young people have the same opportunity to engage with the foundational learning they need.
“These changes provide a nationally consistent framework that sets out the essential knowledge every student deserves to be taught.”
But then why revitalise a second system that has its own set of rules? If the curriculum is so crucial to upgrading our young learners’ education, then why not include charter schools?
The latter is praised by the Government as a way to offer flexibility and choice, especially for those students who have tapped out of mainstream education.
Proof of whether charter schools are successful in their efforts in New Zealand is often contested.
Associate Education Minister David Seymour last year said charter schools give educators the chance to “free themselves from the shackles of the state system”.
Charter schools have autonomy over curriculum, governance and staffing. They are able to hire unregistered teachers, operate with minimal Ministry interference, and most ironically – bypass the new curriculum.
While the new charter school model promises tougher performance targets and more oversight to ensure they are held to higher standards than state schools, it pales in comparison to the shock of the new curriculum.
Educators have hit back against the latest education reform, saying the curriculum is a rushed political football that is Eurocentric and underfunded.
It may feel like a slap in the face given the $153 million the Government has committed over four years to support the expansion of charter schools, which have greater flexibility in how their money is spent than state schools.
Critics say why not give that money to the country’s public schools so they can fund innovation themselves without having a shock overhaul?
New Zealand is left with a paradox – a Government that believes in a strict education full of rigour, while at the same time advancing a model that sidesteps that.
