Comments on: Home

By: Mary

Mary — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 02:07:35 +0000

@Rachel Bolstad Oooooh! *squeals with excitement* Thanks Rachel! I shall go listen to it now.

By: Rachel Bolstad

Rachel Bolstad — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 00:09:43 +0000

@Mary, as you mentioned democratic schools, there was a radio programme about the democratic schooling movement that aired on RadioNZ National this weekend. Not sure how long the link stays up, but for now you can find it here, look for the heading “ideas” http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/sunday

By: Janet Akhurst

Janet Akhurst — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 23:53:45 +0000

@Mary PS I should have said that this is a huge challenge and, for many, a step into the unknown! The Neutral Zone!!!

By: Janet Akhurst

Janet Akhurst — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 23:52:18 +0000

@Mary I don't think I disagree with anything you have said, the issue is around getting some school leaders to encourage/lead their students/teachers to go on that journey. They need to encourage their teachers to take that risk and have the confidence that the end results are just as good and hopefully better that at present. Many struggle with student engagement, or lack of, but they do not see that giving the students the opportunity to be self directed will probably lead to improvements. One of the biggest challenges is to step away from the formal timetable of prescribed subjects. I am lucky in that I have been teaching ICT in the Technology context and the students are very much directing their own learning. All I have to do is to make sure they meet the necessary criteria for E, M or A. They bring much of their own learning to the course, so much so that the technical aspects are often new to me!

By: Mary

Mary — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 23:27:16 +0000

@Janet Akhurst
Hi, Janet – yes, I think you are right to a large extent, although I would question more than the delivery.

I think there is a fundamental question to be addressed about the nature of curriculum and its place in our education system. Yes, there is “most agree that there is base knowledge all students need”, but…

- which people (or groups) are given the power to decide what that information is, is a political / ideiological issue as much as an educational one.

- how that ‘core curriulum’ is defined carries a whole bundle of tacit assumtions about, for example, the value of “knowledge” as opposed to the value of “knowing”; the cultural approach to the value and validity of knowledge, where it comes from, how you validate it, etc

- the competence of learners (and by extension any other “non-professionals” – i.e. non-teachers) to determine what is in their own best interests, and what they need and want to know to promote those best interests…

Let me fly a kite here and ask: why are we so sure that students would be worse off if we let them genuinely direct their own learning theythan they are when we direct them arbitrarily to learn what we say is good for them and give them an illusion of choice as we do now? It seems to work okay in the democratic school model – and the students there typically cover the core currculum and more over the course of their schooling without being directed to do it.

In fact, if we have the courage of our convictions about curriculum wouldn’t we argue that the core curriculum is essential knowledge therefore it will by definition be the content that learners would choose to study?

This emergent / evolved curriculum would then be what is known as a “spontaneous order” (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_order)

Wouldn’t that potentially have the effect of wiping out all the issues with disengagement we struggle with under the forced curriculum model?

(And yes, I know the revised NZC is incredibly flexible, and I like it a lot – as I say, I’m flying a kite here, testing the boundaries…)