School science curriculum changes: The science is being minimalised - wake up, writes Andrew Rogers

Science teachers are shocked that an advance version of the draft school science curriculum contains no mention of physics, chemistry or biology. Photo / 123rf

OPINION

A recent interview between the Education Minister and broadcaster Jack Tame on TVNZ’s Q+A would have had many listeners assuming that, even if there were issues, these are largely under control.

For the record, I am right behind a focus on reading and literacy; our school used to have a big sign over one of the prefabs that said: “kids that read, succeed”.

Reading, and particularly when whānau are involved, makes a massive difference in all that follows.

We have spent billions of dollars over the past 20 years being the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff trying to fix the backend, i.e., NCEA and all its trappings, rather than focusing on the fence at the top; what we do in ECE and primary will make a measurable difference if we get it right and reading will help.

That said, the minister made some generalisations that do not follow in the case of science, and I was surprised to hear that the science refresh had been finalised.

Importantly, the curriculum refresh isn’t in play yet therefore her common response “we are starting to see” has no meaning. She needs to read the room. The science community is very concerned by the curriculum refresh of the level 1 science standards.

Bizarrely, the curriculum doesn’t even include words like chemistry, atom or compound among many others.

It is strange they didn’t bother to include the words that any typical person in the street would probably assume should be included.

I admit I laughed when I first read this and the television series Yes Minister came to mind, except that this is serious. It reinforces my worry that the science programmes are being dumbed down, best practice is being ignored and the changes are being dictated by ideology.

Illustration / Rod Emmerson

Of more concern, those who worked on the Level 1 science standards, did so without any idea of what the Level 2 or Level 3 programmes would look like as no curriculum existed.

The silos were justified on the grounds of confidentiality even though everyone signed confidentiality agreements and the pilot studies couldn’t be shared with the teams because of, you guessed it, confidentiality (go figure).

Many of the experienced classroom specialists with an understanding of international best practice, were sidelined or, at best, managed.

I suspect they were seen as difficult to work with because their reasoning didn’t support the ministry’s narrative.

New Zealand science education is being minimalised and the public is oblivious to what is happening.

Those in positions of authority feign interest because the reality is, science is just another subject to them.

I have been asked by many people over the past week what needs to change but before we get to that we need some “backstory”.

Twenty years ago, after Tomorrow’s Schools was implemented, we looked to address the growing tail of disadvantaged students. Internationally, we actually do well if we look at the top end of the cohort, but we do miserably at the bottom end. This was and still is a problem.

Unfortunately, Tomorrow’s Schools fragmented our teaching community and increased the gap between the haves and the have-nots. Some idealogues were able to peddle their wares on the largely science-bereft bureaucrats.

Together, they hatched a “one-size-fits-all” plan resulting in considerable change; you would be forgiven for assuming everything must have been broken.

The idealogues were fixated on the student-centred approach because teacher-directed is bad (as if education was so binary). Good teachers will always find a way to transition students towards the former when they are ready and sometimes rote learning is a very efficient learning strategy.

I hope I never fly with a pilot who was taught in a student-centred class. Equally, I expect my surgeon to have been taught using very clear instructions with little wriggle room.

Andrew Rogers.

But all of this is moot if we don’t have the right people in the classroom.

We introduced key competencies and got rid of prescribed curriculum objectives; apparently having a clear understanding of what to study is old school. The overwhelming evidence says otherwise but this was ignored.

We decided that percentage marks (out of 100) were a bad thing as this is the way we used to do it. We created unit standards: pass or fail, but this came unstuck rather quickly and was changed to Not Achieved, Achieved, Merit and Excellence (NAME).

The grownups in the room knew that learning for the sake of learning was a beautiful and honourable thing; students should be happy to reach a “standard”. We were trialling on the fly and didn’t understand the student psyche.

One of the reasons I like percentages is that it is easy to celebrate small improvements. If a student gets 56 per cent and then moves to 60 per cent I can sell the idea that they have improved. NAME doesn’t allow this (20-25 per cent spread).

I know students who walked out of the exam because, in their minds, they wouldn’t get Excellence, so why bother?

No wonder a growing number of students struggle with anxiety.

What needs to change?

Let’s use the new vernacular and focus on the big ideas. Openly admit that all our students do not have access to the same specialist teachers therefore their dreams are immediately limited. International best practise should be implemented and those dealing with the day-to-day pressures of the classroom given every bit of help so that they can do what is a very difficult job.

This should include a national curriculum that specifies clear learning outcomes for each age group, a professional development programme and then trust us to get on with it professionally.

The new draft science curriculum refresh is heavily weighted towards the natural sciences at the expense of the physical sciences. It is difficult to imagine how humanity can fix current and future global issues such as green energy or disaster-proof housing without understanding the physical sciences.

This needs to change.

There is almost no coverage of science pedagogy in the primary or secondary teaching institutions. We need to pair trainee teachers with experienced mentors in the school system itself.

If we are serious about attracting the best and brightest then we should also bite the bullet and pay accordingly. Finally, the paper-pushing bureaucrat’s remuneration should be commensurate with their role.

Professional development should include reasonable-length stints in rural New Zealand and struggling schools. They may well have some little gems they can share with the battle-hardened teachers or maybe a timely reminder of what they got from teaching in the first place.

- Dr Andrew Rogers is the head of the chemistry department at St Peter’s College in Auckland and chairman of ScienceOlympiaNZ.