Imagine school students developing confidence and connectedness, being actively involved in society and autonomous learning, and demonstrating abilities in thinking, using language, managing themselves, relating to others, and participating and contributing. Would society think that schools were achieving the major educational goals? Would they recognise the role of schools in this process? Would parents want to have these abilities measured and reported? Alternatively, are parents and society more concerned with reports, certificates, and grades for achievement in traditional school subjects? Linked to these questions are two for educators: What is the relative importance of the vision, aims, and competencies compared with the importance of subject knowledge, and what should be done about it? It is interesting to analyse The New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007). The vision and key competencies statements are covered in three pages. The general discussion of learning areas (or subjects) covers about 11 pages. There are eight levels charts, each covering six pages, a total of 48 pages, presenting subject-based achievement objectives. One possible conclusion from this 3:11:48 page split is that the learning areas are nearly four times as important as the vision and competencies, and specific achievement objectives are more than four times as important as the process of and the general learning within each subject. Faced with these weightings, together with the traditions of schooling and the currently accepted emphasis on assessment, only confident teachers are likely to significantly change the focus of their work. It seems the best that might be achieved in curriculum development is that some teachers might make some small changes as they work within subjects to emphasise the vision and the competencies. Even as these teachers make changes, their efforts may be undermined by the assessment regime (school reporting and leaver qualifications) that affects schools. This emphasis on subject outcomes may be exacerbated by the fact that there are no achievement outcomes for competencies. Perhaps this is because assessment has traditionally been concerned with things (recall of facts and simple procedures that are remembered as though they were facts), while competencies are processes (described by verbs)--it is always easier to measure things than processes. From my perspective the current assessment regime serves no educational purpose; indeed, our current assessment is demotivating. It tells students what they do not know and cannot do, rather than what they do know and can do, and it measures the outcomes of learning rather than the process. Assessment could be changed to focus primarily on formative purposes for guidance, and emphasise self-assessment (a desirable metacognitive thinking skill related to learning). Even within existing assessment traditions it is interesting to note how other educational systems emphasise more than traditional school subjects. For example, the French Baccalaureate examination includes a compulsory philosophy examination that focuses on thinking, while the International Baccalaureate Diploma schools include two compulsory subjects--thinking is addressed by theories of knowledge and participation, contribution, and by creative action and service (K. Hara, personal communication, 12 August 2008). During my time in education in New Zealand there have been official curriculum changes every 10 to 15 years, but these changes are only part of the real change process. Lead teachers have always explored possibilities and tried new alternatives, and when their explorations seem to be successful other teachers have followed (and finally the ideas are often accepted at the official level). Currently the Curriculum, with less specificity than its predecessor, is seen as encouraging exploration, though I am concerned that the emphasis on compliance, assessment, and reporting might work against this freedom. …
Read full abstract
Oct 1, 2009
Christina Madix + 1
Open Access