NZSM Online

Get TurboNote+ desktop sticky notes

Interclue makes your browsing smarter, faster, more informative

SciTech Daily Review

Webcentre Ltd: Web solutions, Smart software, Quality graphics

Viewpoint

The Future of the Curriculum

Andy Begg

Since 1992 we have seen curriculum documents for mathematics, science and technology introduced to schools as part of the Ministry of Education's curriculum initiative. Whether or not we approve of all the details, most of us applaud the fact that curriculum development has been seen as important and that our subjects have been reviewed.

These new documents have been produced since the restructuring of the educational bureaucracy which included the demise of the curriculum development division. In this new environment the development of these curriculum documents was contracted out rather than the projects being lead by permanent public servants.

Again, whether or not we approve of this new system, the process does enable new people to be involved and this seems very healthy.

I am not concerned about the demise of the curriculum development or the quality of the present curriculum documents, or the curriculum writing process. However curriculum development is an ongoing process of which curriculum writing is only a small part. While the writing may occur periodically, perhaps every 8-10 years, what happens in the intervening period is my concern. For many teachers it is a catch-up time or a period for implementation, but for the leaders in the profession it is a time to look forward to more improvements and to ascertain future directions.

I am concerned that the discussion about all aspects of the curriculum continues during the periods between document reviews, that new ideas are trialled, that underlying assumptions are questioned, and that alternative directions are considered. In other words, my concern is that we as teachers, educators or practitioners ensure that the non-writing tasks that curriculum officers used to do continue to be done.

While my interest is in mathematics education, the same concerns are relevant to other curriculum areas. In addition, with "umbrella" documents such as The New Zealand Curriculum Framework, not only do the different subject groups have to consider their own needs, they also need to be part of the debate concerning the overall picture.

Some Alternatives

Curriculum content alternatives (what mathematicians, scientists and technologists know) have been the traditional focus for change. In the present round of developments more emphasis has been put on the processes (or what mathematicians, scientists and technologists do). No doubt both these foci will continue to be debated in the future.

A curriculum is more than a list of content and processes, it is about learning. The present curriculum documents include sample learning and assessment activities that implicitly suggest theories of learning, teaching and assessment. However, difficulties arise when these activities are based on somewhat conflicting theories that are not made explicit. Perhaps more debate on these issues is needed before we rewrite the curriculum next century.

Looking at overseas countries, one sees a range of alternatives to our reasonably specific and compulsory national curriculum. These include:

  • having no national curriculum
  • having national standards that regions can aim for when updating their regional curriculum
  • having a very brief national curriculum and relying on the professionalism of teachers and a rich variety of resources
  • having a very detailed national curriculum which includes considerable guidance for teachers, but with a non-compulsory status.

No doubt other alternatives also exist. Should we debate the preferred status of our curriculum?

While high schools have traditionally been structured with strong subject divisions and primary schools with more integrated learning and some weaker subject divisions, the curriculum framework suggests we look at learning areas which are different from subjects. It also seeks consideration of a range of essential skills that are generally regarded as generic.

I find this fascinating, as from the point of view of mathematics I see it as a learning area with many subjects contributing to it, and as a subject I see it contributing to many learning areas. Mathematics also contributes to some aspects of the essential skills, but all learning areas need to be considered to ensure coverage of these.

Unfortunately, our curriculum reflects the traditional subject-bound view of knowledge. Thus, when we assess mathematics we ignore the measurement skills students demonstrate in technical and scientific subjects, the graph work done in social studies and science, and other aspects of mathematics developed in other contexts. We also ignore the skills that are not mentioned in our curriculum but which all teachers have a responsibility for, such as social skills, self-management skills and study skills.

Another concern is about who should decide on a curriculum. Should the control be political or should it be distanced from politics? Which professionals need to be involved -- subject teachers, other teachers, tertiary educators, relevant professional groups? Should the professionals be the major players or should the clients have some say? And who are the clients -- students, parents, end-users, or the whole community? With New Zealand becoming more multicultural, how do we ensure that the voices of the Maori people and of those from other cultures are also heard and do we expect a mathematics curriculum to take into account their views?

My assumption is that these and many other issues are problematic and that while present documents consider such issues more than previous ones did, the debate must continue so that in future even more consideration will be possible.

The Past and Future

It is interesting to reflect on some of the ways that occurred before the restructuring of the educational bureaucracy to foster the development process. The relevant curriculum officers had time to read professionally and to keep abreast of overseas trends. They ran in-service courses with lead teachers where their findings were shared, where possibilities were discussed and where trials were planned. They fostered exploratory studies which provided opportunities for lead teachers to be proactive and feed ideas and trial results into the debate.

Feedback to teachers that was intended to provoke further debate was provided through newsletters and discussion papers produced by curriculum officers. This was backed up by both their participation and that of lead teachers at forums such as teacher-refresher courses and subject association conferences.

Without leadership from the bureaucracy, some of us within the profession need to take leadership roles. This may be assisted by contracts from the Ministry, it may be facilitated by groups such as the Royal Society or by subject associations, but it is likely that somehow some of us will have to broaden our own job descriptions to include this aspect of service to our discipline with minimal assistance being provided.

One approach would be to establish "think-tanks", but these may exclude many participants and we have seen the value from the contract system and the exploratory studies of having an approach which anyone can participate in. No doubt there are numerous ways that readers will identify as possibilities and I would appreciate your suggestions being sent to me.

The one approach that I am initiating for mathematics involves a cyclic research-development process. At the start I hope to use e-mail between mathematics educators and some teacher interviews to ascertain some of the concerns that other people have. From these responses and from a study of the literature, I will produce a questionnaire that will be sent to all schools and other interested parties. This will provide some alternatives, focus debate between interested teachers, and provide more data.

From these responses, which I assume will be mainly those of concerned and lead teachers, I hope to produce a series of discussion papers. These will be sent back to people who responded with the expectation that they will generate a further round of responses from which I will be able to refine the recommendations from the study.

My time line for this is likely to be two or three years and, during that period, I acknowledge that my work focuses on the voices of teachers while students, tertiary students, school-leavers, drop outs, end-users, employers, parents and other voices also need to be heard. I hope to encourage graduate students to do related research with some of these groups.

Finally I will produce a report which will summarize the findings that will be available for people that are likely to be involved in the next round of curriculum writing. It will also report on the process so that it can be considered for replication in other subject areas.

Andy Begg is Senior Lecturer in Mathematics Education at the University of Waikato. He was formerly an Education Officer in the Curriculum Development Division.