There’s no time for this. I’m busy and the secret exam business begins tomorrow. But, when the blog gods call you gotta answer.
A couple days ago, I got a text from Jezza, flagging an article about some goings on in New Zealand. It seemed noteworthy enough, a continuation of the NZ maths ed battles that I wrote about a year ago. I decided to let it pass but the goings kept going on, and a news report I read today pushed it over the line.
In brief, the New Zealand government is continuing its push for school education reform, particularly in mathematics. A couple weeks ago, the NZ Education Minister, Erica Stanford, announced an “updated” curriculum, with a draft released soon after. This has apparently pissed off everyone in New Zealand other than Jonah Lomu (who didn’t offer an opinion). Readers can check out the complaints here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.
I have no real idea what is going on. I have only skimmed the news reports and I have not looked at the draft. A few year ago, I looked a little at New Zealand’s mathematics curriculum when prepping for ACARA’s abomination, and it seemed pretty nuts. So, my instinct is to side with Minister Stanford. Nonetheless, even good reform can be done badly and perhaps the whiners have good reason to whine.
But probably not.
A couple days ago, an anti-curriculum report appeared, titled,
New, new curriculum setting kids up to fail – maths experts
Maths experts. That’s always promising. Others can read the report, and everything else, and give their opinion. I’m just going to quote one part:
This latest update had gone too far [according το “Τhose who spoke to Newsroom”], expecting students to learn knowledge and skills years ahead of where they were previously taught.
For instance, algebraic equations currently taught in Years 9-10 will now be taught in Years 7-8. And students in Years 4-6 would now learn multiplication and division facts up to 12×12 (as opposed to 10×10).
That’ll do it for me. Perhaps there is some merit to the whining. But unless and until someone provides some contrary evidence, I will assume that it is all madness, that Minister Stanford is on a winner and that these “maths experts” are the self same lunatics who created New Zealand’s mess and that no one should pay them any attention until it is time to wave good bye as their iceberg slowly sails away.
Why would Jonah Lomu offer an opinion? He’s been dead for ten years.
I wrote that he didn’t offer an opinion.
Let the man rest in peace, he had a rough go of it. Regardless, I suspect your instinct to trust Erica Stanford is deeply misguided, even if she occasionally looks like she is doing the right thing. Your assertion that the “experts” in NZ are lunatics that created this mess is bang on the money though. Our country and our teachers are really struggling right now.
It was a joke. I don’t think Jonah is gonna object.
I’m open to the idea that Stanford should not be trusted. Why do you suggest it?
What politicians seem not to realize is that, whatever the merits, the constant stirring of the curriculum pot creates a lot of instability that in and of itself will virtually ensure that nothing good will happen. First off, any changes have to be consistent with teacher beliefs, and where these are deficient needs a lot of dedicated work at conferences, workshops and and teacher publications in order for them to appreciate what the issues are. Then there is the question of support through publication of materials and teacher development sessions. All of this take appropriate consultation, time, money and careful planning; stinting on any of this invites waste and confusion.
I do not think it is practical to reform the curriculum in any decent way at intervals less than at least a decade, by the time you get all your ducks in a row. Since the 1970s, it seems that every change of government takes a whack at it, and i have seen
efforts consistently fail for these rather technical reasons.
What if the “teacher beliefs” are nuts? What about the quote?
Of course you have a point, and a lot of the whining seems to be about the rapid change and rechange. Fair enough. But there is a big difference between “new” and “updated”, and a lot of the opposition seems to be simply the bitterness of loss from the losing side, whose losing appears to be a very good thing and long long overdue.
Screw them.