Andrew Rogers: Science curriculum was and still is part of the problem

Many science teachers are upset because the leaked draft curriculum document is too broad. Photo / Getty Images

Opinion

I once read that the definition of crazy is continuing to do the same thing multiple times but expecting a different outcome.

I am not sure who is crazy: me for banging on about the demise of New Zealand science education and getting nowhere, or the Ministry of Education for continuing to push their ideology with complete disregard for best practice as they present yet more of the same. The proposed curriculum refresh is not fit for purpose.

Many science teachers in New Zealand have been upset over the past few weeks because the leaked draft curriculum document is too broad and it doesn’t include the kinds of words an ordinary person in the street would assume it should contain.

Sadly, the ministry hasn’t applied the same critical thinking skills they demand we teach. In science speak, they have not compared the results of the last 20 years with what they expected would happen (their aim) and concluded their approach to the curriculum hasn’t worked.

Instead, they proposed something broader still. Personally, I think the authors and the bureaucrats have no skin in the game and they don’t wear the consequences of their decisions, made worse by the fact many have spent limited - if any - time in a science classroom. There is no accountability.

Wikipedia defines ‘curriculum’ as “the totality of student experiences that occur in the educational process”. The curricula from around the world range from very prescriptive to general guides; NZ’s current draft leans towards the latter approach.

The national curriculum represents the key document from which teachers develop courses to address a particular subject or topic. In days gone by, NZ’s science curriculum was quite prescriptive, and personally, that’s how I like it; trust me to weave my magic using appropriate contexts to link theory and the real world, but please tell me exactly what you want me to teach.

One reason why our curriculum refresh is particularly important this time around is that it will communicate the centrality of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in NZ’s vision for education. It is critical that this document has meaning, as it will help those who are expected to deliver the vision.

I have a reasonably strong background in chemistry, and I have taught enough biology and physics that I will be able to cobble something together, but I still don’t know what I am meant to teach.

The issue is exacerbated in the case of mātauranga Māori - I know very little about how to incorporate it in the case of chemistry and physics. Mātauranga Māori is very important and it needs to be treated with appropriate dignity and not become tokenism.

It is now that we need clear objectives, and having a more detailed curriculum would make a world of difference as we deal with the day-to-day problems faced in the post-Covid classroom. If they want this curriculum to succeed, then we need to bring people along with us on this journey. I respect the ministry wants to give freedom to allow local context in the case of internal assessments, but externals are a different beast.

If you have to read additional instructions on how to interpret the “instructions”, then the document is not fit for purpose. What’s lost on the bureaucrats is that there is a continuum of teachers; their styles, experiences and skill level. There are those who can call on their life experiences and use context to help explain the key fundamental concepts; many others can’t and will end up copying an exemplar.

If the ministry wants us to teach certain things, then why not specify them? Personally, I don’t want some loose nothing statements giving me the freedom to do what I want. I want someone from the ministry to put their money where their mouth is, step up and actually tell me what they want to see. Please do not give me the link to a website. Please commit the time to outline specifically what you want from me.

For example, there appears to be a general expectation that “absolutely physics will be taught”, but not what aspects of physics or at what level. I think that is a massive assumption. The reality is the proposed curriculum will allow some teachers to give more emphasis to topics they are comfortable with and downplay the rest.

If I were the parent of a primary school student or a primary teacher, I would feel let down as this document does nothing to guide the primary school teachers who openly admit struggling with science. This will be true of any teacher who is teaching outside their specialisation or is new to teaching. The foundations that are laid in the earlier years have important ramifications for the high-stakes assessments in the final years of secondary school.

Even though it is a first (leaked) draft, it goes some way to illuminate the thinking of the writers. I anticipate that some of the words will be changed to appease the science community, but I doubt there will be any change to the philosophy that seeps through the ministry.

At some stage, there needs to be a reckoning and they need to accept as the gatekeepers of our education system, they not only ignored the literature and best practice, but they have misread the very community they expect to deliver this new and exciting programme. The reckoning comes when the public realises the emperor has no clothes.

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