The delayed introduction to elements of the new NCEA framework can be interpreted as a confused (and confusing) landscape on which our next generation of students and teachers must walk. Mātauranga Māori, the new history syllabus, and the prioritising of STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering and maths) at the expense of the humanities are recognised contours. Our poverty in literacy and numeracy, along with the opportunities and risks of AI, loom on the horizon of our conversations. Well, at least, they should.
Every point of view is a view from a point. I teach at a large Auckland high school, but I do so solely within the International Baccalaureate (IB) programme. I therefore look at NCEA from the outside. I am in charge of the Theory of Knowledge course. This is a course in knowing, ways of knowing, methods of knowing, and specific exploration of various disciplines’ approaches to knowing (including indigenous knowledge, in which we can engage richly with mātauranga Māori). Essentially, it’s a course in critical thinking.
When I explain this to those who ask what I do, they inevitably bemoan the lack of critical thinking in New Zealand education generally, and more specifically within the NCEA framework. Granted, often these are only perceptions. Nonetheless, their curiosity about the course I teach illustrates a growing ambivalence, even frustration with NCEA. This may or may not be justified. However, I have also taught in the tertiary sector for some time and note that among both STEM and humanities students there is too often a paucity of basic literacy and elementary critical-thinking skills.
I would not be surprised to see an increase in parents seeking alternatives to NCEA, searching specifically for critical thinking courses. We have a number of International Baccalaureate World Schools here as well as schools that offer the Cambridge International Examination. Anecdotally, parents are looking for – as one recently put it – “an integrated education shaped by critical thinking” for their children.
By “critical thinking”, I mean both a posture within the classroom and explicit taught courses. It includes organising data and information into meaningful patterns, shaping information into embodied knowledge and critiquing that knowledge using different perspectives: the tools include reason, memory, imagination, language, ethics and the likes. Critical thinking maps a path to dispassionate and respectful dialogue rather than a retrenchment to warring polarities. The poverty of critical thinking in our curricula leads to poor public discourse. And civil public discourse must surely undergird all that is good and valued in a liberal democracy. Shouting at each other rarely achieves much.
This is why we must preserve, even prioritise the humanities, for it is in history, English, classics, philosophy and even religious studies (to name only a few) where critical thinking is explicitly taught. In an increasingly pluralistic world, one ironically plagued with polarities, we must – paradoxically – find ways to disagree well, so we can get along. Our education system should teach our kids how to have good arguments.
Theory of Knowledge has much to offer prospective students and parents. Indeed, the whole of the IB curriculum invites students into a global learning context where critical thinking skills are explicitly named, taught and learnt. Those reshaping the content and priorities of NCEA would do well to look over at the Theory of Knowledge syllabus and consider introducing explicit courses on critical thinking. Whenever universities and schools restructure, we are all the worse off when yet another humanities discipline is cut. If we can find ways to have robust and respectful civic discourse and teach our ākonga (students) to do the same, we will all be the better for it.
Hugh Kemp has extensive experience in education in Asia, the UK and New Zealand. He teaches in a private Auckland high school.
