Curriculum 'Stocktake' or 'Mistake?'
Around the world education ministries are doing their best to save their overcrowded curriculums. In the UK their national curriculum has been 'slimmed down'. In NZ the Ministry is currently involved in a 'stocktaking' exercise. More would be gained if the Ministry admitted what we now need are new ideas, and new conceptions of schooling, to inspire schools rather than a 'stocktake' of failing ideas There are no shortage of new directions available just a lack of intellectual courage to make a real change.

What have we forgotten in the rush to efficiency?
The true complexity of teaching has not been recognised in the rush to impose standardised curriculums. As well the vital role of schools as democratic organisations has been all but forgotten. A common vision of learning to sustain real change was not established by the past government nor yet by those now in power. Too much energy this past decade has simply been wasted in trying to comply with or make sense of a failing curriculum ideology. David Lange said recently that 'NZ is light years away from working out what it is educating people for. I would put more emphasis on educating the mind…we should teach people that they are valuable and that they should try to have a good life and work it out from there. We need a new vision for education all can feel ownership of
As it is schools are struggling to introduce multiple initiatives stacked up one on top each other, each bringing it's own demands. Together they are overwhelming overworked teachers who now need to place the blame for their loss of energy at the feet of those who have imposed the demands. Top down innovation needs to be balanced by bottom up initiatives. It is redressing this balance that any curriculum stocktake should address.

Ministry losing faith in it's own curriculum model?
The current stocktake can be seen as either natural adaptation to changing times or signs of a growing sense of panic from those in charge who are slowly waking up to the fact that they have taken us down the wrong path. The Ministry of course will not admit to any basic fault in their ideology and are letting us believe it is all part of a natural development. The truth is that what we are seeing is the Ministry playing 'catch- up' with innovative schools and in the process the integrity of their original technocratic curriculum is at risk. Ironically at the same the time as the Ministry remains obsessed with improving it's curriculum model the model itself is being seen by many teachers as an impenetrable barrier to student learning.

The reality of the classroom - is the Ministry aware of this?
Teachers are overwhelmed covering assessing and recording the countless (often trivial) learning objectives Teachers are exhausted with demands to show evidence of what has been taught. Much of this administration is time consuming and of little practical value. But most importantly it is diverting teachers from the fun and satisfaction of being a teacher. Teachers are saying there is no time to teach - just too much paperwork All this heavy. duty accountability is destructive of teacher energy and morale and teaching is in danger of losing its creative and emotional heart. The fun and magic of teaching is being lost. What we are experiencing is a crisis of spirit and all we get is a feeble stocktake

What the stocktake has delivered so far.
A browse of the Ministry's TKI Website gives some idea of the confusion that lies ahead.
While one of the aims of the stocktake is 'investigate the philosophical and pedagogical issues' a Gazette statement (Feb. 2001) states that the 'end product will not be a rewritten curriculum' - 'it will be policy advice indicating where and how future curriculum developments might proceed' from 2003! A sense of urgency and appreciation of the concerns of teachers is missing. Another aim is to investigate manageability issues including 'crowdedness'. One would have thought that was painfully obvious if the Ministry had ventured into schools. The stocktake is also 'to investigate the translation of curriculum at the school level, from policy to practice'. After ten years they don't know? They will have trouble finding some of their curriculums in the truly innovative schools!

A History of Curriculum Development
This history is to be found on the TKI Site and makes interesting reading. Excellent ideas it seems were all shelved with the introduction of Tomorrow's Schools. In 1991 the educational landscape was further changed. Influenced by Treasury ideologues and, modelled (but slightly watered down) on the UK National Curriculum, a. 'New Right' philosophy of efficiency, competition and accountability replaced educational ideals. Self-management and democratic ideals of Tomorrow's School were to be diverted by the imposition of an unproven top down rationally planned curriculum. The rest, is as they say, history.
A key phrase in the new model, that was to create much confusion and waste of energy, was that teachers would be 'expected to assess and monitor student progress in relation to achievement objectives' so 'school mangers can evaluate the effectiveness of curriculum implementation'.

Fiction or reality
From 1994 to 2001 Curriculum Frameworks in the Learning Areas were rolled off the assembly line and all had to fit into a prescribed format. Teachers have been struggling ever since to make sense of what was at best a theory. One writer commented that the guides were 'well intentioned fictions contributing to the very problems they were supposed to solve'. 'Bloated and poorly written they are so unrealistic that no teacher can realistically cover them all let alone assess student progress'. 'Ironically, in attempt to create coherence by their complexity they had created incoherence'. What is now needed is 'major surgery' not a 'stocktake'.

Summary of feedback from Curriculum Reference Group.
Feedback expressed well-known and predictable themes: ' overcrowded', 'depth sacrificed for breadth', 'difficult to implement', 'negative implications for teacher workload and student learning', 'concerns about 'assessment difficulties undermining teaching and learning', and 'Essential Skills subverted by compliance to achievement objectives'. Nothing new in all that - and there were few, if any, practising teachers in the reference group. The problems seem clear.
In fact the highest praise was reserved for the 'revised' National Guidelines which were in themselves a step away from the purity of the original model and possibly the best 'stocktake' of all so far. The 'revised National Educational Guidelines' simply acknowledge what schools always believed. That the foundation skills of learning must take priority at the primary levels, and that coverage of all Learning Areas is impossible. The emphasis on giving all students 'success' in the learning areas opens up the importance of developing student's talents and now schools can focus on essential skills of learning. Learning is as much a process as the achievement of learning objectives. Another balance to redress by any stocktake.
The overall impression gained from reading of the Reference Group Report was that the current curriculum model had done little to provide real focus or vision to schools, in fact it seemed to have diverted then form their core function of quality teaching and learning. Schools have already developed their own curriculums by establishing school wide standards/benchmarks to ensure foundation knowledge is in place. The Ministry is once again acknowledging what innovative schools have already done.

Have we already had a stocktake? The ERO view.
Interestedly the most common sense views about the future of education has come from the much maligned Review Office in their booklet 'Time for the Future' (June 2000)
In this publication they point out what the Ministry seems to overlook the uncomfortable contradiction between in all documents between a constructivist approach to learning and an emphasis on teaching towards predetermined behaviourist learning objectives.
The report also questions whether it is possible for teachers to manage all the demand asked of them and considers that many teachers have been put at risk by an overcrowded curriculum. There is a need, they state, to focus content demands and to do fewer things well. The report values the teacher's pedagogical and content knowledge and indicates that too little help has been given in these areas. This is another area to redress.
The ERO publication says what we are missing in NZ is a shared sense of direction for education and also that teachers need to feel ownership of any curriculums they are asked to implement. They indicate that the curriculums themselves, may be barriers to learning, as they are difficult to plan for and implement. They suggest there is a need for one 'foundation curriculum policy' and a possible 're-editing of all the curriculum statements into one document'. Most of all they feel there needs to be greater emphasis placed on the 'art and the craft' of teaching including lesson plan and design
The Ministry didn't include ERO in their Reference Group!

Final Comments on the 'Stocktake.'
The Stocktake could well be a waste of the Ministry's time. By and large innovative schools have completed the stocktake already. All we need is a revised National Curriculum Statement, some core requirements and to leave the rest to the school and their communities to provide. The democratic dream of 'Tomorrow's Schools' might yet be realised. This would be an ideal vision for any reforming government. There is a need to negotiate a path between central direction and school and teacher creativity if teaching is to return to a creative and artistic accomplishment and not just be a measurable skill. The Ministry should then get on with providing the resources and the conditions to develop the creative capacity of local schools. Some of their recent curriculum guidebooks are excellent (even if they replicate some of the booklets produced before the ideological revolution). This is what the stocktake should deliver.
Let's hope the 'stocktake' turns out to be courageous one as currently teachers are being submerged by the demands of an overcrowded curriculum and associated accountability demands. But whatever happens we must not fall into the trap of thanking Ministry officials from rescuing us from their own faulty curriculum model.

A chance for educationalists and their communities to lead educational reform
While the Ministry loses faith in the purity of the original curriculum model teachers have an opportunity to add their voices (long deliberately sidelined as part of the 'New Right' philosophy) to the educational debate. Schools, in this moment of indecision, have a wonderful opportunity to become centres of real innovation. After ten years of curriculum upheaval, teachers may be on the brink of reasserting themselves'. What is needed is a 'preferred vision' of quality education we can all align ourselves behind for the common good of the country and for the realisation of each individual learner's talents and gifts.

It is already happening in NZ schools
There are already principals in schools throughout NZ who are developing school with their own special identity or culture. The balance of power is shifting. All around NZ teachers are visiting schools recognised for their excellence and innovation. Seeing is believing. Lots of new ideas are being tried. Inspiration is contagious
If schools were to work together sharing their energy a real lasting educational revolution could happen. Passion and pride will replace policies, procedures and dull curriculum frameworks. Quality learning and talent development will replace sterile achievement. Concepts of participative inclusive democracy and community will replace isolation, competition, efficiency and accountability. Alignment behind shared visions and beliefs will replace compliance to Ministry requirenmets. Teaching will once again become fun.

bhammonds@leading-learning.co.nz

Wayne and Bruce.