School Lines Life after Death – but what kind of life? Changing something that was into something that is new – but how new? Lester Flockton
lester.flockton@gmail.com
The word ‘death’ conjures up dark and gloomy spectres of and achievement across the curricula, for students in the grim reaper. But in the context of this article it refers to what Years 1 to 10. was and no longer is, whereas’ life’ refers to what now is. For A focus on progress and achievement across the example, politician Hekia Parata is no longer (thank goodness, curricula will mean tamariki have the support and learning you may or may not say), whereas Chris Hipkins is (thank opportunities they need to develop the key capabilities for goodness you may or may not say). As with poppies, dandelions success in life, learning and work. and thistles, such people bloom and put on quite a show, then ultimately wither, disappear and die away. But before doing so, Will they indeed? What is this support, and what are the they leave a trail of deposits: seeds and seedlings. These are never opportunities that the Ministry has in mind? Seems like it’s all to fully extinguished unless, of course, they are stamped out with be done with a focus on progress and achievement – as if schools something like glyphosate found in Roundup. National standards for decades haven’t been awake to the importance of this. But are dead, for the meantime anyway, but seeds are being gathered beware, a focus on progress and achievement invariably means for what might “replace” them. assessment, measurement, and the The gatherers are 13 Ministry Consistent with its stance system’s unquenchable thirst for data! friendly people appointed (clearly In the last edition of this magazine, of bending and blending NZCER on the Ministry’s advice), called assessment manager, Charles the Ministerial Advisory Group with political whim and will, Darr, usefully draws us back to on Cur r iculum, Prog ress and ‘Assessment for Learning’ (AfL) as a Achievement. It’s not a fantasy to the Ministry’s latest counterbalance to summative testing suggest that a number of them clearly of Learning). AfL was singsong is nonetheless (Assessment carry seeds on their shoes. And it’s not very much the assessment discourse unreasonable to say that it is hard to set to the familiar tune, called in New Zealand some years ago, and see the alignment of the qualifications it all sounds very nice and familiar, of most committee members with the “Data, Glorious Data”. although in practice the prepositional top two criteria the Ministry says were split between assessment for and used to select them: assessment of is somewhat illusory. Moreover, if you thoroughly read AfL people like Paul Black of the UK, you will find reservations about its universal efficacy for ■■ Contribution as curriculum and assessment thought leaders/ improving learning outcomes. Darr also takes the opportunity experts e.g. involved in the development of significant papers such as ‘Directions for Assessment in New Zealand’ and in his article to do a plug for the literacy/numeracy assessment ‘Rukuhia, Rarangahia’. tool, PaCT that he helped develop. But let’s not be naïve. Like so ■■ Contribution to significant curriculum design and many ‘tools’ that look good and smart, this one also has some implementation in New Zealand schools and classrooms. significant limitations. It is no silver bullet because the progress dynamic is not a unidirectional linear affair. But fear not, it is much easier to see their alignment with the I am of the mind that we (i.e. they) have been constantly playing third of the five selection criteria: around with the wrong end of the stick with so much emphasis ■■ Ability to understand that each level of the system requires on assessment. All of the repetitive and simplistic spin around data in order to improve. a focus on progress and achievement, usually accompanied by Consistent with its stance of bending and blending with political exaggerated claims about glorious data, has completely missed whim and will, the Ministry’s latest singsong is nonetheless the real issue that needs to be acknowledged and addressed. Any set to the familiar tune, called “Data, Glorious Data”. that was focus on progress and achievement should first of all clarify numbingly chimed during national standards. The difference and define what it is being gauged against. To simply say The New Zealand Curriculum is highly problematic, because it is this time is that it’s not just literacy and numeracy: intentionally a broad framework, and as such eludes clarity or Following the removal of National Standards . . . the precision for guiding consistent interpretations and judgements Ministry of Education is working with schools, students, of progress and achievement. The achievement objectives in the parents, whānau, iwi and communities to focus on progress
hindquarters of the NZC, like the national standards criteria, are even more problematic. They are supremely problematic, as I have illustrated and proven elsewhere, time and again. So, this is where we really need to put the focus of attention. First and foremost, it should be on greater clarity and sensibility around what we want children to be learning in successive years (not ‘levels’) of their schooling. To do this is no simple task. It needs to avoid silly expectations scripted by those who seem to know or understand little of children’s development and learning – a common deficit among too many education ‘experts’, as evidenced in the prescriptions of achievement objectives. Clearly, new thinking and a new model is needed if we are to have a respectable and consistent basis for monitoring children’s progress and achievement across the breadth of The New Zealand Curriculum. Those expectations somehow need to avoid contrived specificity and semantic incrementalism, yet give clear and uncomplicated guidance. Perhaps two or three (no more) broadly stated focus goals for each year level in each curriculum area accompanied by plain English ‘examples’ of learning relevant to the goals for the year (not exemplars, benchmarks or achievement objectives – terminology creates a culture, and we desperately need a culture shift). Amidst all of this, Mr Hipkins has committed to reducing so much of time-consuming and wasteful bureaucratic industry that attaches itself to curriculum and assessment (and ipso facto measures of progress and achievement). In this regard, we would do well to take a leaf out of the Scottish authority’s recent guidance to schools which is dealing to very similar issues as ours, including responses to their Government’s Tackling Bureaucracy report:
Despite the recognition of these issues in the Tackling Bureaucracy report (the growth of over-bureaucratic approaches to planning and assessment in many schools and classrooms across the country) progress has been far too slow. As a result, we are taking steps to significantly streamline all of our support and guideline materials . . . Teachers should be empowered to use the flexibility that the CfE (Scottish Curriculum) provides to organise learning for children and young people in ways that best meet learners’ needs. Moreover, HM Chief Inspector for Schools (Scotland), has laid out what schools and teachers should do and what they should avoid in order to rid themselves of the pestilence of bureaucratic burdens, which he believes are counterproductive to teaching and learning. His key messages include: Do not over-assess learners or the same content repeatedly in different ways. Do not create portfolios of evidence. ■■ Avoid duplication and keeping evidence of every detail within a benchmark. ■■ Avoiding spending too much time collecting a wide range of evidence for moderation purposes. ■■ Do not track and record progress against individual Es and Os (i.e. achievement objectives). ■■ Do not spend time writing long reports for parents which describe lots of classwork and use professional jargon. ■■ Do not tick off all the Es and Os (achievement objectives) separately. ■■ Avoid unnecessary bureaucracy creeping back in over time. ■■
■■
Avoid doing too many things at the same time.
I am sure we could draw up our own advice on do’s and don’ts that over-ride some of the insistences of our more zealous commandants who operate at all levels within our system including, I am told, those in leadership roles in many schools. National’s last Minister of Education, Ms. Parata, at every opportunity proclaimed that all she was interested in was raising achievement (in national standards). Labour’s current Minister of Education, Mr Hipkins, has repeatedly stated that his interest is in the progress students are making. But of course, progress and achievement belong together – they are inseparable – you can’t determine progress without determining achievement. All of this aside, wouldn’t it be wonderfully refreshing to hear a Minister of Education come out and repeatedly say, “I am first and foremost concerned with breathing life into a curriculum that gives our children rich and relevant learning experiences provided by caring and imaginative teachers.” This all brings me back to the issue of life after the death of national standards, and the very odd question, “What should replace them?” After all, what did national standards themselves replace: a bright vision of a curriculum for the 21st Century.
References https://www.education.govt.nz/ministry-of-education/specificinitiatives/progress-and-achievement-across-the-curriculum-forstudents-in-years-1-10/terms-of-reference-for-the-curriculumprogress-and-achievement-ministerial-advisory-group/ https://education.gov.scot/improvement/documents/cfestatement.pdf
Alsco supports a wide range of non for profit, sporting and local community organisations initiatives. We provide funding and assistance to four key partners Medical Aid Abroad, Auckland City Mission, Westpac Rescue Helicopter and Shine (making homes violence free). For more information on our community service programmes or how we can help your school visit our website www.alsco.co.nz or call 0800 4 ALSCO (0800 425 726)