Some schools left in the soup over curriculum

A rural school principal says the new schools curriculum could hurt children's education and leave some schools floundering because it does not give enough guidance on what has to be taught.

Peter Fitzgerald, principal of Awakeri School near Whakatane, says the Government was introducing a "run your own curriculum" which could lead to students at different schools getting very different educations.

"I think there will be a decline. It's a backward step. I can see pupils going into secondary school and the secondaries pulling their hair out about what these kids actually know and what has been taught."

The draft curriculum released this week was widely welcomed by teacher unions and education groups because of the extra freedom it gave to schools to develop curriculum that suited their own students within the eight learning areas, such as science and maths.

Mr Fitzgerald said the new curriculum was "exciting, but it's too dangerous".

Large and strong schools had the expertise to set up a curriculum, but small or underperforming schools would struggle.

Mr Fitzgerald said teachers had complained the old curriculum - developed in the 1990s - was too crowded and had to be simplified.

"But the response has been overboard. It's like hitting something with a shotgun when all that was required was a little peashooter.

"You can't dick around with kids' education and their futures. There needs to be more direction and more specific requirements of what needs to be taught and when it needs to be taught."

Mr Fitzgerald said Awakeri School would stick to the current curriculum as much as possible because of its certainty.

The draft curriculum is open for consultation for the next three months and is scheduled to be introduced in September 2007.

Malcolm Milner, head of the Auckland Primary Principals Association and head of Freemans Bay Primary School in the inner city, disagreed with Mr Fitzgerald's argument that the curriculum was too broad and said it was a welcome move from the crowded curriculum of the 1990s.

"It confirms what many schools were already doing, so in a way the ministry has caught up with the schools."

Mr Milner said numeracy and literacy projects were nationwide, providing some set standards for schools, but he acknowledged that a good curriculum would rely on good staff at a school.

"It probably will be a lot of work for schools to come up with their own school-based curriculum, and I suppose the challenge for the ministry and [the Education Review Office] is to make sure it's not outcomes-driven like the 1990s were."

Educational Institute national president Irene Cooper said the curriculum was developed in consultation with more than 2000 teachers.

Although the current curriculum would no longer be gazetted, it could still be used as a resource and schools could revise their curriculum to make sure it met the new one.

Ms Cooper said the ministry had also promised extra advisory support and professional development time.

The Minister of Education, Steve Maharey, said all schools were supported with professional development, resources, advisers and assessment tools.