by Steve Saville
Interesting times…
Confusing times…
As educators in Aotearoa /New Zealand we seem to be in a very unusual and uncomfortable space right now.
In many respects it feels a bit like we are treading water, in something of a holding pattern waiting for something to happen, but in reality we are in a position where we are ‘being done to not done with'. To make things even more confusing I have started to mix metaphors already and that is after using a line from a punk rock anthem as the title of this blog. But bear with me please.
We have recently had delivered to us the draft Math Curriculum [0-8] and the draft English Curriculum [0-6].
Now most of us engaged with teaching would agree that in both of these areas we can do better by our ākonga, we should do better and we want to do better. Conversations I have had with teachers across a variety of schools confirm this concern and desire.
Taking that into account we should be extremely happy that we now have draft curricula that seem quite specific in what needs to be covered /mastered by students and when. We should be extremely happy that we have the prospect of a more defined set of learning progressions that are intended to give all akonga the basic foundational skills needed to realize their academic potential.
We should be extremely happy that words like ‘joy’ are peppered through the draft documents.
Surely the retention of the Te Mātaiaho whakapapa is another cause for celebration?
Surely these draft documents provide us with a framework to enhance equity of learning across all schools.
Indeed there is considerable merit in much of what is presented in these documents. Personally, I am all for a guiding curriculum that improves the writing, reading, the appreciation of and joy for English language and literature.
So why are we so uneasy?
Why are we so suspicious?
Why then on the DisruptEd chats do we have respected educators like Robin Sutton talking about something being rotten in the state of Denmark? [Trust Robin to get all Shakespearean on us.]
Why is a curriculum expert like Tania Roxborogh, painting terrifying pictures about bolting horses?
Why is Claudia Rozas Gomez highlighting the changes that have been made to the original whakapapa of Te Mātaiaho as being cause for concern?
Why is educational consultant and current student advocate Bee Thomas, calling for a pause and independent inquiry into the process used in the creation of these drafts?
Why has Bevan Holloway taken the time to write a detailed report of how a special interest group has taken over the refresh of the NZ Curriculum? (If you haven't done so already, please read this, but not just before bedtime, it is not a comforting read.)
This morning he has followed up with another searing dive into the implications of what is happening [here].
Why has Dr Sanjana Hattotuwa, research director from the Disinformation Project given us a perspective built on Holloway’s report that looks at the wider picture?
Why the fear?
Why the paranoia?
Why am I starting to see rabbit holes opening up in front of me?
Why can't we just be grateful?
Why?
Because what is at stake here is too important to ignore.
It seems from what I have heard and read from educators here and abroad (please read Claxton’s comments at the end of Bevan Holloway’s report), our concerns can be summed up with two words.
Transparency
Inclusion [which also covers respect]
There has been a noticeable lack of transparency about this whole process. The draft curriculum has been written by a small group and delivered to us [and no, providing a few short weeks to give feedback is not a consultation process, it is tokenism and quite frankly shows a complete lack of respect for the profession].
Somehow a ministerial advisory group morphed into the curriculum writing group. Seemingly sidelining the Ministry of Education and ignoring established processes on the way. Apart from a hand picked small [and fairly unrepresentative group] teachers and their associations have been dismissed.
Then again we shouldn’t be surprised I guess, there was an earlier comment from one of the advisory group along the lines that the curriculum was far too important to be left to teachers. The implication was that teachers are just too busy, or maybe not clever enough to be able to produce a meaningful document. Yet, the English draft appears to have been produced in haste. There is obviously more than one voice in the draft as the style changes from one section to another. Some comments are overwritten to the point where they lose meaning. All of this feels like a hastily produced draft lacking the necessary brutal editing process.
This is important because I shouldn’t be concerned about this. I should be able to trust in the system and the process, confident that all the concerns will be rectified and everything will be ‘OK on the night.’
The absence of transparency and consultation however, means that such confidence wanes, in its place we suspect, we second guess, we fill in the gaps. It is a climate where fear and mistrust is bound to fester and grow.
If this continues then the curriculum refresh is bound to fail because it will have lost the support and trust of the very people who will be expected to make it work and thrive.
It will lose the trust and support of the very people that will give these pages life.
Let us be quite clear, a curriculum is just words on a page, it means nothing. It achieves nothing without the magic of teachers. It depends on teachers weaving their magic in the classroom. Without that magic it is nothing. Without the support of teachers it can not and will not thrive, you can’t dictate this support, you can't demand this, it is only gained through collaboration, through discussion, through trust, through due process and consideration, through listening and through transparency.
It is not enough to take a phrase like the 'Science of Learning' and assume it is the silver bullet that, if we would only follow it and do as we are told, then all will be right in the state of Denmark. Looking at the components of this ‘Science’ [an approach that is severely criticised by Claxton as being almost meaningless] we can observe the importance of acknowledging previous learning and providing deliberate and specific feedback to students. Well prior learning and feedback and feedforward were key components of the Te Kotahitanga research project and that was launched over 20 years ago. They are approaches that have been around for ages, acknowledged and implemented in classrooms then and now. The concept of addressing cognitive overload does not sound a million miles away from scaffolding. The need to use knowledge in different situations is very similar to approaches like ‘Learn, Solve, Create’ developed by George Couros. In other words, repackaging is not inventing.
We are not stupid.
We know the importance of all of this.
Teachers are doing all of this on a daily basis. What we lack is the support, the time and the space to consolidate. Which brings me to the second key word, inclusion.
The phrase “Nothing about us without us” has its origins in political movements going back to Poland in the 1500s. It's been a rallying cry for democracy ever since and it works here.
The main reason why this curriculum refresh seems doomed is because the process has been deficient.
Significant and sustainable change requires ownership by all participants. In teaching terms this means that there has to be an obvious process that is similar to what has been followed in the past.
The koha is offered and accepted. There follows time to trial, unpack, reflect, provide informed feedback, revision and review. There has to be a loop of implementation that includes delivery nurturing and returning. Approaches need to be trialed in the field, teachers need to live with proposed approaches by trialing them. These trials need to be timed and specific. Without this process there is no deep understanding, no ownership, no contextualisation, no life, no impact and definitely no significant change.
If there is no intervention at all then nothing is likely to change, so that is not an option.
You can easily change a person's knowledge by telling them something, or instructing them [that seems to be what we have here], but that rarely results in anything more than compliance. You can change practice by observing teachers in the classroom - but this is also unlikely to result in sustainable and owned change, as you are likely to have presented to you a lesson that shows you what you want to see with no guarantee that the change will be sustained when you exit [ERO visits being examples of this].
If you want to change habits then you have to realize that that can only take place when a teacher is engaged, heard and valued.
This then is one of the main reasons why initiatives have failed in the past. They appear in a blaze of glory. There is short term funding and provision for professional development and then, all too quickly, the support and funding is scaled back and eventually removed. It is assumed that the change is now sustainable. Well it hasn't worked in the past, and it wont work now. Habitual change takes time and until we realize that, and invest time and money to enable teachers to reflect, collaborate, share and refresh then any initiative, no matter how good, is unlikely to take root.
Everything about this current process seems destined to repeat the errors of the past - but that seems inevitable as the alternative is expensive and long term and requires us to give teachers time and space, and therefore goes beyond the three year election cycle. This though is what successful education systems do internationally, they invest in time so teachers can grow, nurture and own change. The rushed and dictated approach that we are seeing unfold before us is destined to struggle because there does not appear to be a plan to allow for this.
It is not too late though. It is not too late to save any of this.
If we just paused and implemented a meaningful and transparent process that allowed for trial and revision, that allowed for collaboration between the reality of the teaching classroom and the theories of the writers to meet as equal, then maybe we could aim at not worrying so much about the science of learning but instead ensure we nurture the joy of learning.
We need the loops, we need to test and trial and debate and develop something that will live in the classroom and in the hearts of students and teachers.
When I look at the weight of the detail outlined in the draft English curriculum I see precious little space for joy, I fear a series of joy sapping task sheets and meaningless assessment points.
This brings me back to the title of this blog.
We [teachers and students] are the flowers in all of this. We are the colour, the life, the beauty of learning. We can not be consigned to the dustbin in this process, nothing about us without us.
And yes, I am sure that is exactly what Johnny Rotten and his mates had in mind when they wrote those lyrics.
Comments