UNLEASH

ED

Tag: curriculum

  • Uncertainty

    Uncertainty

    Teachers and Schools are facing an uphill battle; one that is seemingly never ending in the current climate.

    We have a government hell-bent on reforming every aspect of education. Thankfully for them, they inherited the beginnings of a curriculum change from the previous government. However, rather than continuing in the same vain, they chopped it up and replaced it with their own ideology, jumping on the “structured literacy” bandwagon that many schools had begun moving to, invented a phrase “structured maths” to fake legitimacy in the idea and rewrote the curriculum in both areas, somewhat overnight with very little consultation. It comes as no surprise to those who have unpacked the new new curriculum that it was heavily written by AI and this explains the speed in which the revision happened.

    I could spend a whole series of essays outlining the motivation behind these changes, but that is not the objective of writing this.

    No. This article is to outline the plight of the teacher.

    Teachers got told about the changes to the draft curriculum at the end of August of 2024, whilst of course, we were still familiarising ourselves with the ‘old’ draft curriculum. Somewhat hilariously, schools were still receiving professional development from the Ministry of Education around the Mathematicss curriculum when the curriculum changed. During the course of Term 3, teachers were somehow expected to continue teaching from the old curriculum, prepare for reports, carry out assessments, and now review and give feedback about the new draft curriculum.  The shut off for consultation happened and in October 2024 the ‘draft’ was finalised. 

    It was then announced that primary schools would have to begin teaching Reading, Writing and Mathematics from the new curriculum in Term 1 of 2025, giving mere months for the changes to be implemented school-wide. In those months, teachers would be focussed on end of year activities, conducting final assessments, finalising reports, organising end of year activities, organising transition to next years classes, prize givings and senior end of year functions, finishing off the year and farewelling the students leaving. Add in the only ACTUAL break teachers have due to rules around when leave is allowed to be taken, with Christmas and New Year taking priority. If teachers granted themselves two weeks “off”, this would leave a mere 3 weeks before beginning school. Thats three weeks to get your new class organised, synthesise assessment to get an understanding on where your class sits, read notes on the students in your class, arrange desks and implement new or better refined routines, class lists, seating plans, wall displays, and begin to formulate unit plans for the first term.

    Somewhere in all of that, teachers were expected to read and implement a new curriculum for the two biggest subjects in the curriculum. Let’s not forget as well, that not only did the content of the curriculum change, but how it is formatted changed as well. Curriculum Levels are out and ‘Phases’ are in. No longer did we have a curriculum that spanned two years per level, but now every single year had a series of expectations of what was to be taught (despite most schools in the country running composite year classes). On top of this, for the first time in recent history (this century at least!) the curriculum not only outlined WHAT teachers had to teach, but HOW they were to teach it. Whole class, explicit instruction, exposure to many concepts instead of mastery of a few, all methods inspired by the ‘Science’ of Learning ideology that is the latest concoction of pedagogy. If you could ever set up an entire workforce to “learn on the job”, the government had just done it with the entire primary school sector. Teachers were literally teaching from a curriculum that they were still reading and coming to grips with. It is no wonder that teachers were ill equipped for this change, and there was zero confidence in what they were teaching or how they were teaching it, relying heavily on intuition if they had any left, and additional hours spent watching webinars and video clips to try and best follow the curriculum they’d been dealt. 

    Before you knew it, the next lot of curriculum changes were being pushed into draft, and suddenly the ball continued rolling, as well as expanding the existing new curriculum to include Years 7 – 10, completely confusing the entire procedure. Furthermore, with the expansion of the English and Maths curriculum for Year 0-10 came with it amendments and changes to the existing curriculum that Year 0-6 had already been teaching from! So now teachers had a new, new curriculum to unpack; but now they had to figure out what the changes were and make the changes themselves to what they had been teaching. 

    Why would teachers invest their energy in getting to know a curriculum and implement it if there is a high likelihood it is just going to change on them as soon as they do?

    The uncertainty of this very thing leaves teachers in no man’s land.

    Then there’s the uncertainty around the messaging schools receive from the Minister and the Ministry of Education.

    When ‘Structured Maths’ was dreamt up on the coattails of ‘Structured Literacy’, the Minister announced four providers that schools could choose from to implement this new venture. 

    Certain programmes schools were using were discarded and millions upon millions of dollars went into providing workbooks and teacher guides and online subscriptions around the country. Schools didn’t want to miss out on the funding for these resources, and had to decide fairly quickly as to which provider they were going to go with.

    However, looking into it, this was never mandated. The language used was never legally binding, instead this was announced at the same time as Minister Stanford gazetted the implementation of the new Maths Curriculum for Term 1 2025. It was stated that the Ministry would provide supplementary, Ministry-funded classroom workbooks, sourced from four suppliers. So you can see how it would appear that use of the resources was mandated, when in actuality, it was not. They were merely provided to support the mandate that was made regarding the curriculum.

    This has lead many principals to now check with any of the changes being made (mostly to protect themselves, their staff and their schools from unnecessary changes given the sheer volume of changes there have been) whether the change has been gazetted (mandated) or is it merely a suggestion or recommendation by the Ministry?

    The mere fact that this due diligence needs to be done over Ministry announcements just goes to show the complete distrust, lack of faith and complete uncertainty that exists throughout the sector.

    The Minister announced in Term 2 of 2026 that she has pushed back the roll out of the other curriculum areas, to give teachers the time that they have been asking for.

    Unfortunately, this does nothing except delay the inevitable. It doesn’t give teachers more time to study the curriculum and get their heads around it. Why would any teacher do that when the track record would suggest that they’re just as likely to change it between now and then. So instead, just as with the current changes that have already been implemented, teachers will simply have to continue to learn on the job, teach on the fly, given they complete uncertainty and zero faith they can have in the curriculum changes. 

    The uncertainty that exists is stress inducing. It’s additional workload and time-based pressure that could all be alleviated with proper implementation plans that aren’t being rushed through. Carefully implemented plans that work with the sector would go a long way in actually making a difference. However, the whole process has been forced and rushed, and an insurmountable about of pressure out on schools and teachers to just get on and do it.

    Solution Focussed

    A more considered approach is required.

    Measured steps need to be taken instead of rushing widespread changes.

    The changes in curriculum implementation I want to see are as follows:

    Draft curriculum released in its entirety for all to see. 

    Appropriate avenues of feedback provided and actively engaged with the sector – not just giving deadlines for feedback that are adverse to what else teachers are required to do.

    Once a draft is finalised, provide the sector with the finalised version. It should be legalised that this then needs to be in printed form. (One of the reasons I believe they are so prolific with changes is that it doesn’t cost anything much to update content on a website, which is currently all they have to do to change the curriculum. By having to print it, the Ministry will be less likely to make changes, given the cost that it would take)

    Once the curriculum is finalised, give the sector a year to begin exploring the curriculum and implement it during that year if they’re comfortable with it, and only mandate teaching from it in the following year.

    That would provide a clear, and certain plan for schools and teachers to work to. It provides fair and legitimate time for implementation and confidence can return to the sector because of the lack of uncertainty. 

  • Primary school Science results poor

    Teachers lack the confidence and resources to deliver meaningful science lessons, an expert says.

    A leading science educator is shocked by a study that shows just 20 percent of children in their final year of primary and intermediate schooling are reaching the expected level of the curriculum in science.

    The National Monitoring Study of Student Achievement said the figure for children in Year 8 was the worst of any subject in the curriculum.

    The founder and chief executive of science education trust, the House of Science, Chris Duggan said the result had huge implications for society.

    “It’s shocking and I’m sure that there’ll be a lot of people very disappointed,” she said.

    “The Year 4s have improved slightly but the Year 8s it’s still really, really bad. To look at that and see that 80 percent of our Year 8s are going into secondary school with insufficient science to allow secondary teachers to start teaching where they should, that’s a real worry.”

    Ms Duggan said many years ago science teaching was well-supported with government-funded science advisors who worked with primary school teachers and specialist resources for use in science lessons.

    But that support had not been available for a long time and in addition the introduction of the national standards in reading, writing and maths had sidelined other areas of the curriculum, including science, she said.

    Read full article here.

     

  • Digital Curriculum: Destiny or Disaster?

    From the first day of full time employment at a school, I was put in charge of “Technology”, not for my design process skills, but for my knowledge of ICT and computers. I became the go to guy in fixing problems with teacher laptops, sound systems and projectors. That soon became student Chromebooks and student iPads. Of course, the school had external support as well, but having someone onsite is incredibly convenient, especially when ICT can be problematic at the drop of a hat, and is becoming more and more relied upon by teachers to bring learning to today’s learners.

    You’d think I’d be incredibly excited and enthusiastic about the announcement of the new ‘digital curriculum’ being implemented around the country in 2020. What an opportunity to share my passion and knowledge of ICT with the next generation and prepare them for the world of tomorrow as we delve deeper into the digital age.

    However, I’m not.

    You see; I’m also a self-taught programmer myself. I design and code websites. This site was built by me, though largely a theme, it has been modified to suit my own tastes and coded to reflect that. I have built my own personal website from the ground up on the back of WordPress. I dabble in CSS (with SASS / LESS), PHP, HTML, and Javascript.

    There’s not many teachers (especially primary school) who can say that!

    I know that behind every code, there is a whole bunch of trial and error, refreshing, and testing. Programming is largely just problem solving.

    My issue is that in my current job, that we are having trouble enough teaching students to read, write, and do math, let alone be able to create a simple script that includes tags, if/else statements, or simple calculations.

    In 2015, I taught a class with one-to-one Chromebooks, and we spent the first term learning how to spell our last names, because the school email address for students is firstname.lastname@schoolname.ac.nz.
    Then it was time to remember our passwords.

    Sure, the curriculum itself isn’t going to be getting students to create complex code or learn any particular language, just like Year 1 students won’t be learning their 8 times tables. However, it would seem to me that certain priorities need to be addressed first – such as basic literacy and numeracy skills. Something tells me that for many students, it will become a matter of running before they can walk.

    My other gripe is that the Ministry can announce a digital curriculum and implement it within a few years, and yet there still isn’t an actual Māori / Te Reo Māori curriculum. I guess it shows where the priorities are.

    Fun and Games?

    So then, what will they be doing? And will it be at all relevant to what they need in the future? Or is it all just a little bit of fun and games and doing something “cool”?

    The curriculum document says:”

    In years 1–8, these two areas are usually implemented within other curriculum learning areas, integrating technology outcomes with the learning area outcomes. These two areas also significantly contribute to students developing the knowledge and skills they need as digital citizens and as users of digital technologies across the curriculum. They also provide opportunities to further develop their key competencies.

    – NZC Online, TKI. 

    It goes on to outline exactly what “Computational thinking for digital technologies” and “Designing and developing digital outcomes” mean for the students, and a lot of it is around raising awareness of what computers are capable, what their limitations are, what problems can be solved with them, and what possibilities there are. It ranges from programming to digital media and safety online.

    So it might not all be so doom and gloom – especially considering that for the most part, I already try to integrate digital technology throughout all other areas of learning.

    Those of you who have ever been around children and technology, you’ll know at how quickly they pick things up and run with them. I remember my 2 year old nephew taking photos on my phone and then flicking through them all after he’d taken some!

    Are you Ready?

    I have to give the Ministry some credit here too. Unlike National Standards where they were inflicted upon us without any kind of preparation or support, they have gone above and beyond to provide schools with resources and support through their Kia Takatū ā-Matihiko – Digital Readiness programme. Schools wanting to up-skill and get on board with the new digital curriculum should head over there now and check out the resources on hand to support you and your staff in getting up to speed with the new curriculum area.

     

  • Coding in the Curriculum

    In 2018, the New Zealand Curriculum is destined to have a new addition to its subjects.

    From the age of five, children will now be taught about coding, logic, problem solving, if-else statements, app making, social media analytics, and probably hacking as well.

    But there is a lot, a LOT, of apprehension about this, even as a techie myself (for instance – I design websites, and have coded for much of my adult life). Put it this way; I’m not jumping up and down about this announcement.

    Who?

    I don’t know about you, but the first thing I asked was who is going to do this? I have met many a good soul who dedicate their lives to teaching students, but who’s computer literacy is extremely limited.

    And while the content knowledge required to for Level 1 of the curriculum will be very basic, it still requires a great deal more teaching knowledge to be able to teach it effectively. What are students getting stuck on? What are the next steps? How do I solve the next problem?

    Take for example Level 1 of the Reading curriculum. It’s fairly straight forward. Most, if not all (fairly presumptive, I know) adults could achieve this. Now think of the teaching knowledge you would need in order to teach it effectively. The sounds, the blends, the phonics, digraphs, vowel sounds and rules around their usage, the common pitfalls and sticking points as well as the various strategies required to assist and help students to progress to level two. And that’s just scraping the surface of teaching students to read.

    Imagine the level of teaching knowledge that is going to be required to effectively teach digital literacy.

    And now take that to level two, and level three of the curriculum.

    My current estimate, based on my current place of employment and the various other schools I have worked in, would be that about 10% of teachers would have the skill set required to teach digital literacy if it was introduced tomorrow. And that 10% is probably generous. Most of what makes a good programmer, coder, or even just a ‘tech guru’ is the ability to solve problems. When something goes wrong, you need to know what to do to fix it, systematically, step by step, eliminating variables as you go. From experience, many teachers struggle to problem solve why their projector isn’t connecting, or why the sound isn’t working on their laptop. How do we then get to a place where teachers are teaching students even more complex problem solving when you introduce if-else statements that don’t work!

    Many non-tech-savvy people turn to one demographic for help. Young people. Why? Because they’re already up with the play on technology. Their desire to explore, to learn, to develop skills with technology seems to happen automagically, and I can only see teachers and schools getting in the way of that. As well as this, I read an interesting post about ‘future-proof’ learning, predicting what the future holds for our students, and how we can’t and shouldn’t be including things in the curriculum that are a phase, or a fad.

    (Note: I realise that schooling exists past primary school; but we already have specialist subject teachers at Intermediate and High School level, and so schools would merely employ a specialist ‘digital literacy’ teacher.)

    How?

    Another aspect that may or may not have been considered is how schools are going to teach it. You know, the practical side of it. You see; I’ve only once had to write down a piece of code on paper (during a Comp101 exam I took in Uni). It was nigh on impossible not being able to check and edit the code to improve it or to see if it worked. A lot of coding is trial and error.

    Essentially, if digital literacy is to be taught, then students will need devices. Doing it with pencil and paper will only last so long.

    Now I’m not sure about your school; but our decile 2 school has only just got to the point of having 1 device between 2 in the senior school, and 1 to 4 in the junior school. Yes; we can combine sets of these devices to allow every student to have access to one, but my point is, there are lots of schools out there who wouldn’t have this level of technology in their school yet.

    With more devices comes more problems. More students who run into connection issues, which in turn requires the teacher to know how to solve that problem (many of which once again, don’t know how to go about doing this on their own laptops as it is).

    When?

    Ultimately though, when are teachers going to fit this in? Or is it going to be integrated throughout the day? I guess that comes down to the individual teacher. But I know for one, I would love to spend more time teaching students how to use the Chromebooks, how to code a website, and more; but the reality is that I have a hard enough job covering the rest of the curriculum sufficiently, as well as the ever increasing demand on Maths, Reading, and Writing, without adding more to that workload.

    Gripe

    Don’t get me wrong. I’m not having a go at my colleagues or other teachers. They all have strengths and are all marvellous teachers. I merely see a massive gap between adding a subject to the curriculum and the current knowledge of those that have to deliver content about that subject. Massive gap.

    I can see my job as a tech-savvy teacher becoming more than it already is, as I can see me having to assist with other classes tech problems more than I already do, provide support for when tech devices go wrong, and provide ongoing P.D. as teachers encounter problems or inspiration that they want to explore.

    Once again – not sure when I’m going to actually get to teach my own class.

  • The White and Blue National Standard Box

    This week the internet world was bombarded with seemingly pointless debate around the colour of a dress. To me, it was quite clearly white and gold, and impossible for me to see how it could be any other way. While I could see how people saw the blue, the suggestion that the darker strips could be black was preposterous. But then when my wife commented on the black and blue dress, I was flummoxed. Seriously? I’ve stood by my artistic eye for my entire life; and now it starts to play tricks on me?

    dress-615x342

    For those wishing to find out about the dress and why it is blue and black, please read this article and this from the NYTimes.

    However, when I was thinking about this, it immediately made me think of each and every classroom around the country. We have many, many students who would answer “white and gold” to this question in a test, and many, many students who would answer “blue and black”. Some are restricted by the colours they see from the photo, and others are able to translate that and see the actual colour that the dress would be, based on the white balance of the background. And yet, because of this, many, many students would end up failing this test, through no fault of their own mind you.

    Many teachers all around the country would argue for and against the correct answer, and many, even when faced with evidence, would find it hard to fathom that they too, got it wrong.

    And yet we would continue to use a faulty system. A test that labels students as wrong, as failures, through no fault of their own, purely and simply because their brains aren’t wired that way. It puts everyone in the same box, and only those who are wired a particular way are filtered through to the top of success.

    The National Standards Box

    National Standards is the same. While we’ve come to accept them and we’ve had to work with them since 2010, it doesn’t make them any less flawed. Yes, we have come to manage them and get used to them, but deep down, I am still morally opposed to them. I’ve seen too many fantastic students with so much potential get labeled as “Well Below” or “Below” purely because their brains aren’t wired to think in terms of Reading, Writing, and Maths. They are considered unsuccessful, and targeted programmes are put in place to monitor and try and make these students fit into the box of the National Standards. We’re trying to make them see the dress as blue and black, when all they can see is white and gold. Even if we reason around it, and show them evidence, their eyes will still see white and gold, because thats how their brain is wired.

    Case in point is an ex-student of mine, who at age 9 was reading at an age of a 5 year old (that’s when you could get him to read), and writing not much better. Maths was passible, but only through drawing diagrams rather than numbers, of which many he wrote backwards. However, put a blank page on his desk and a pencil in his hand, and he would draw the most wonderful creations I’ve seen from a child. He had depth of tone, shading, details, feeling and mood, emotion and passion compressed into the graphite lines of his art. At times, he would draw beyond anything I’ve come to expect, even from myself. His talent was incredibly well developed, and I would have loved to continue to work with his drawing and develop it, honing his skills, and encouraging his internal well of creativity that was bubbling away inside. Instead, I spent 80% of the year fighting to get this child on task with his writing, force feeding him books with pictures which he just wanted to draw, and trying to get him to fit into the National Standard box. The other 20% was made up of 15% of me trying to think creatively about how to use art as a means of developing his reading and writing, and the remaining 5% giving up on anything structured and letting him do what he wanted – draw! It was a year filled with frustration, torment, arguments, negotiations, and ultimately, very little progress.

    We label them as they head into the prime of their learning and into the big wide world. They may be genius artists, or fantastic sportsmen, and will be incredibly successful in these fields once they leave high-school. But while they are in primary school, they have to fit into a different box and be measured. And they fall short. The message they get is negative. The internal self talk begins and the possibility of them reaching that potential lessens. Of course some will make it, but many will self combust and be filled with self doubt and lack of confidence in their ability, whether ‘academic’ or not. They call themselves dumb, and they know it. Because that’s all they’ve known since 2010.

    And teacher’s have their hands tied. On the one hand we have a beautiful and wonderfully wide curriculum full of opportunity and wonder, and in the other, the narrow field of vision as we peer into the National Standards box. “Integrate these through the other learning areas” they say, but the desired effect isn’t as easy to come across. As with last year, I never found a way to integrate reading through art, and I’m unsure whether I had, whether it would have made a difference in raising this child’s reading ability. Regardless of this, the dress was still white and gold for him, because that is how his brain is wired.

    As a teacher, what I want to teach is the ability for all students to see the dress as white and gold and blue and black, and accept the differences, while knowing deep inside that no matter what they actually see, that they are right in their own way, and that others are also right. I want them to be able to see them as successful, even if that’s just in one subject or curriculum area. Obviously they still need the basics, but labelling them a failure just because they don’t see blue and black isn’t the way forward to a successful future.

     

  • Charter Schools: The Future of Success

    Managed to catch the encore screening of 3rd Degree (TV3) this week which had an exposé on the 5 trial Charter Schools being run in Auckland at the moment.

    3rdDegree

    3rd Degree: Charter Schools

    All in all Charter Schools have been portrayed as the greatest thing happening in our education system. We obviously think that just because they’ve failed overseas in the UK and the US, that they won’t fail here.
    There are many benefits to the charter schools; ones that the staff, parents, and children are more than aware of, and make these school incredibly popular on paper.
    Lets have a look at some of the benefits:

    Smaller Classes

    With State Schools often bursting at the seams with 30-35 students in a class, a class size of 15 is brilliant for those who are struggling with aspects of their learning. They get to work more intently with their teacher and receive help more regularly.

    Before Charter Schools, the Government wanted to save money by increasing class sizes across the country. Obviously the government is trialling small class sizes with these Charter Schools so that they can see if it works for the State sector as well…right?

    Not Just Teachers

    How much more invigorating and real would learning be if you had a skilled professional accountant running the economics class. Or heavyweight boxer David Tua running a boxing class for fitness. What amazing engagement and opportunities would be presented to the students at the school, to have people at the top of their professions giving back into the learning. They don’t have to be a registered teacher at all in order to be able to inspire the next generation of society.

    Of course, one does take a little precaution, because as it turns out, even with tight registration guidelines from the Teacher’s Council, there were a few cases of inappropriate conduct.

    But I’m sure getting rid of registration for Charter School teachers will instil a new sense of trust for employees and employers, and in turn, parents and students.

    Freedom of Curriculum

    At Charter Schools, the staff are able to offer a flexible and selective curriculum for their students. They’re able to pick and choose what they teach. So many students have failed the state system because they don’t like the prescriptive nature of the learning and all of the subjects that gets crammed in every day. At Charter Schools, you can rely on real life experiences, like going to the beach, exploring, and learning through hands on activities.
    Charter schools are also exempt from having to report against National Standards, and so will be able to focus on other areas of learning, rather than get burdened into Reading, Writing, and Maths that the State schools have to focus on, even though the National Standards, of course, have been given honorary status as raising kids achievements.

    New Zealand has one of the best curriculums in the world, and was designed over countless hours, weeks, months, years, to be flexible and to encourage creativity, to allow students to engage with a rich learning that was unprecedented anywhere else in the world. Of course, it only has that freedom if Teachers are empowered to do so, and aren’t hog-tied by the constant monitoring and assessing required of them by the National Standards in Reading, Writing, and Maths.

    In Conclusion

    Charter schools are wonderful. They take kids who dropped out of state school and re-invigorate them with learning in various different ways. They allow parents to make choices for the future of their children’s education.

    But questions linger in my mind. Why do we need to set up a new breed of schooling, with private investors running schools for a profit, or picking and choosing their students? If all of these great things are happening in these 5 trial schools, why can we not make it a reality in our current state schooling?
    If smaller class sizes is such a big draw card in raising student engagement, why not have smaller class sizes in ALL schools across New Zealand, instead of charter schools?
    If access to the wider New Zealand Curriculum (which already exists by the way) is what gets kids enthused about learning and engaging them with the big wide world, then why do we narrow teacher’s minds by getting them to focus on National Standards so much? If it’s good enough to ditch the National Standards for Charter Schools, then why not ditch it for ALL New Zealand schools, seeing as it doesn’t seem to make a difference on student’s ability to learn.

    Note: In essence, we could return education to the way it was before National implemented all these changes, and we would have a wide and rich curriculum that teachers felt empowered to choose from, and the freedom to make that choice. We would have a set of registration requirements that drive so many good teachers out, and yet somehow keeps some bad ones in. We would have less focus on Reading Writing and Mathematics that narrows and stunts the grown of learning in the classroom. And after the comments of students, parents, and staff regarding class sizes at the Charter Schools in the 3rd Degree exposé, I truely hope that one John Hattie doesn’t give this government any more advice, and that they might use the $359 million they are spending on the new career roles (IES) to put towards more classes in schools with less students in each class.