Creativity or back to the past?

If you haven't heard Sir Ken Robinson speak about creativity you have missed a treat. A great antidote to the current back to the past diversion of national standards. Google him and listen to his TED Talk video.

Teachers' attention seem to have been taken up of late by the issue of national standards where all students in the future will be reported on to their parent about where they stand in comparison to their age group.

There is little research or evidence that students actually achieve better when such testing is in place as in the United Kingdom. The opposite is almost true as initial improvements have plateaued and are now trending down. And to make matters worse students attitudes towards the tested subjects is falling and , as well, considerable anxiety has been created for teachers, students and parents alike. Those who are interested in some in depth thinking around the topic should read the UK Cambridge Review summary which is very critical of national standards.

And it is not even that UK students outperform kiwi kids. The big issue, as in most countries, is the so called 'achievement tail'. Evidence suggests that this 'tail' is the result of poverty combined with ethnicity. Schools can only do so much when the playing field is so uneven for the students who enter. New Zealand assessment expert Terry Crooks has written that the answer isn't measurement it is one of motivation.

Let's be honest national standards is more about populist politics than education.

But it is a done deal and teachers will have to cope with the consequences.Overseas the collateral damage has been : the narrowing of the curriculum; teaching to the tests; and stress and anxiety all round. Simplistic as it all is it is a good vote winner for a society trying to survive in difficult times. The worst aspect has been the sidelining of the highly regarded 'new' New Zealand Curriculum before it even got started.

The good thing is that overseas teachers who have kept faith with creative integrated inquiry teaching, based around relevant learning challenges, have done well in the 'high stake tests' -with of course a little bit of teaching towards the tests!

The answer is for schools to keep their nerve and think hard about developing positive engaging inquiry learning and integrating literacy and numeracy skills into such learning. This once was the New Zealand way. It is now at risk. Do we have the leadership to ensure teachers are not overwhelmed by all the pressures involved with national standards? Time will tell?

Sir Ken Robinson, an international expert in creativity is well aware of the consequences of such a narrow back to basics movement and he believes the emphasis needs to be placed on developing every learners creativity and love of learning. He writes that creativity and critical thinking are as important as literacy and numeracy in the 21stC; they are, he says, 'the crucial 21st C skills we'll need to solve pressing problems'.

He says, in an interview in the recent ascd magazine ( Sept 09),' You can be creative in math, science, music, dance, cuisine, running a family, or engineering ...because creativity is a process of having original ideas that have value...looking at new ways of doing things.' And, he makes the point, it is wrong to associate creativity with being totally free and unstructured. 'An essential bit of every creative process is evaluation.If you are working on a mathematical problem , you're constantly evaluating it, thinking ,"does that feel right?"'Does that work?" "Is that going in a good direction?"'

And it important he says to realize creativity it not just for "special people" and that "everybody has tremendous creative capabilities".

Now developing all students creative capabilities, their specialist of gifts and talents, would be true 21st challenge - it is the basis of our new curriculum. Wouldn't parents, if asked want this for their children -along with literacy and numeracy? We live in 'and' not an 'either or' world!

Creativity,Sir Ken says, 'is not about letting yourself go, kind of running around the room and going a bit crazy. Really , creativity is a disciplined process that requires knowledge, and control. Obviously it also requires imagination and inspiration...but it is a disciplined path of daily education'.

As for the unprecedented environment and economic challenges we face now we will need, he says, 'every ounce of ingenuity, imagination, and creativity to confront these problems.' He say , 'we are living in times of massive unpredictability...no one has got a clue what the world will look like in in five years, or even the next year actually, and yet it is the job of education to help kids make sense of the world they're going to live in.'

And that is the real challenge ; the future orientated 'key competencies' of our new curriculum.

And Sir Ken says currently, with our literacy and numeracy emphasis, 'we are systematically educating ( creativity) out of them'

Speaking about the school failure rate - the 'underachieving tail' -the disengaged students - he says, 'there is something wrong with the system'...students are 'not discovering the things that impassion them or invigorate them or turn them on.'

And this brings him back to the culture of standardized testing ( he is talking about the USA). This approach he says is totally counterproductive. 'You become alive', he says, 'when you do things you are good at, you tend to get better at everything because your confidence is up and your attitude is different' As Kelvin Smythe would say, students get a 'feeling for' learning.

'Too often' Sir Ken continues, ' now we are systematically alienating people from their own talents and, therefore from the whole process of education....It is a fundamental human truth that people perform better when they're in touch with things that inspire them.'

'We know human culture is so diverse and rich - and our education system is becoming dreary and monotonous' ( referring to the USA but this is the track we are heading down in NZ). He is 'not surprised so many kids are pulling out of school. Even the ones who stay are detached Only a few people benefit from the process.But it is far too few to justify the waste.'

Education , Sir Ken says, 'is becoming dominated by the this culture of standardized teaching, by a particular view of intelligence and a narrow curriculum..we're flattening and stifling some of the basic skills and processes that creative achievement depends on'.

And in New Zealand we are being led down the standardized track.

Sir Ken talks about teaching for creativity where he says, 'the pedagogy is designed to encourage other people to think differently. You encourage them to experiment, to innovate, by....giving them the tools they need to find out what the answers might be or to explore new avenues.'

You can't reduce all learning to a number ( or a simplistic 'plunket type graph).

Standardized teaching has led us to believe everything can be measured. This is a myth of past thinking.

We need creativity as much as we need literacy and numeracy even if it is harder to quantify.

This is what makes teaching a creative art - or did until national standards came along.

If teachers lose their creativity the students will be the real losers.

Future competencies - beyond the 3Rs!

The universe is continually evolving - as are societies and individuals.

Our populist government is rushing ahead to return us to the limitations of a Victorian education system.This is not to say literacy and numeracy are not important, they obviously are, but they are at best 'foundation skills' for more expansive learning competencies.

And if the government's intention is to find out, and focus on, those students who are falling behind ( the so called 'achievement tail') we know where these students are already. And, as well, we have very efficient national monitoring systems in place to uncover areas of weaknesses across the system.

It all boils down to simplistic political promises and tapping into, or creating, parent worries without any appreciation of the success, or otherwise, of national national standards ( testing) in other countries.

What we need as a country, if we are to thrive in these challenging times, is to develop the talents of every student in the school system. If we have a problem it is one children disengaging from learning ; the real problem is one of motivation - of providing exciting programmes across the curriculum . And these programmes need exciting and realistic literacy and numeracy programmes.

It was interesting to read future competencies as outlined by a professor from the Harvard Graduate School of Education .The professor identified five core competencies we should be helping our students acquire.

First is the ability to manage ambiguity. Managing ambiguity is the tension between rushing in to take the first thought that come to mind and, instead, manage or live with the ambiguity. Creative people can cope with messy situations without falling apart .

The second is for learners to take responsibility for their own actions.We need to develop students with the attitude that they have the ability to deal with it.

The third is finding and sustaining community.This competency is about connecting and interacting.About maintaining community and maintaining links with people. This is about recognizing that we are part of a larger community , not just our own private world.

The fourth is managing emotions. This means getting away from the idea that emotions and reason are separate; that they work in combination.

And finally managing technological change - learning to use the new tools to change the ways we do things.

These all sound very much like the Key Competencies of our new curriculum!

As Guy Claxton , the English educator has written, 'learnacy is more important that literacy and numeracy. Resilience , he writes , is an important part of all learning.

How we achieve such things with the national standards in literacy and numeracy is beyond me. It is ironic that, just as our school have been given a 21st Century new curriculum , the new government seem to want to drag us back to the past.

We live in strange times.

Qualities required for creativity by Claxton

Guy Claxton is aways worth a read.

It is important for anyone interested in developing and new ideas to appreciate the creative process. One thing is certain it is not as simple and as easy as many think. Studying creative individuals in any field involves dedication and good old fashioned practice and personal effort.

Guy Claxton proves some guidance. Creative people, Claxton writes, draw on a great deal of prior knowledge and experience. Creativity , writes, Guy Claxton ‘is an advanced form of learning that involves a finely tuned sympathy orchestra of mental attitudes and capabilities playing together in complicated rhythms… it builds on basic skills and habits of more familiar kinds of learning.’ Creativity, as such, is a long way away from the current formulaic ‘best practice’, ‘intentional teaching’ and ‘success criteria’ which all too often crushes student creativity.

Claxton outlines eight main ‘sections of the learning orchestra’ that contribute to creativity. Many will recognize his ideas as another form of an inquiry approach. All begin with the letter ‘I.’

The first is learning through Immersion involving steeping yourself in experiences. Creative people are good noticers.

The second is learning through Inquisitiveness. To be creative you have to have a questioning disposition and be able to tolerate the not-knowing that goes along with this. This is what the poet Keats called ‘negative capability’ the ability to ‘be in doubt... without any irritable reaching after fact and reason.’

The fourth is Investigation: the skills of research. ‘You have to know what to do when you don’t know what to do’, as Jean Piaget puts it.

The fifth, sixth and seventh are Imagination, Intuition and Intellect. Imagination to seek out possibilities; Intuition to let things just come to you; nod Intellect, knowing when to put them all together. The eight, oddly enough, is Imitation .All creative people, says Claxton, stand on the shoulders of learning of other people. Some call this ‘creative swiping’! We all pick up our ‘habits of mind’ from those who with whom we collaborate. Claxton quotes Albert Einstein who said, ‘the only serious method of education is to be an example’ and Einstein adds ruefully, ‘if you can’t help it be warning example’. Claxton writes, ‘like all coaches, a creative coach has to walk the talk.’

These qualities provide a challenge for teachers and schools.

It is idealistic to expect that schools will suddenly become creative and place their focus on developing every child’s gifts and talents as there is still a strong sense of conservatism in education to overcome. The power and pull of the status quo will ensure that it will require teachers who are prepared to take the necessary risks and, more importantly, courageous principals who are able to create the conditions to protect such teachers. Ideally creative schools ought to network with others to share their expertise. Creating such networks (but not controlling them) could be a creative role for the Ministry. A study of creative people in any field shows that challenging accepted thinking is a risky business but also that it is to such individuals that we need to look to provide real breakthroughs.

With the publication of the 2007 New Zealand Curriculum, not withstanding the recent intention of the new government to introduce reactionary national standards, the scene is set for another burst of creativity. The standards may well ensure that we do not get into another bandwagon scenario? Creativity ought not to be too easy! Some are saying it will be like returning the excitement of the 60s but hopefully this time doing it right. Creative teaching is also encouraged by those calling for a more personalized approach to learning as against the current standardized ‘one size fits all’.

Only time will tell if school have the courage to take a lead in developing creativity in their students - or as Sir Ken Robinson has written not killing it off. Robertson believes that in the future creativity will be as important as literacy and numeracy.

Will someone tell our Minister of education!

Rip van Winkle would be pleased with National Standards

At least Rip would feel at home in many secondary schools!

All is not well in our current education systems as more and more students fail to leave the ‘confident, connected, creative life long learners’ equipped with the necessary future competencies, our new New Zealand Curriculum asks of schools to deliver. Failure seems endemic in educational systems worldwide. The new curriculum provides a ‘more informed vision’ of what could be but our current system, particularly our secondary schools, remains caught up in a web of educational thinking that was set in place over a 100 years ago. The assembly line mentality of such schools needs to give way to more enlightened ideas.

If Rip van Winkle were to awaken in the 21stC after a hundred year snooze he would be utterly bewildered by what he would see. Every aspect of the world would baffle him until he found his way into a secondary school. There he would know exactly where he was – ‘we used to have these in 1909’- although her might be a bit confused with electronic whiteboards and computers, the bells and fragmented transmission style learning would be familiar.

Obviously secondary schools are not frozen in time it only seems like this when compared to every other aspect of life. Kids still spend most of their time sitting in rows, listening to teachers drone on, using outdated textbooks, shifting from class to class as if in some factory assembly line.

For many students a yawning gap (with the emphasis on yawning) separates them from the reality of the world outside. Bill Gates has written that American high schools are obsolete – missing is relevance, reality and rigor.

In 2007 the Ministry of Education introduced a new innovative curriculum that has the potential to begin a dramatic transformation of our schools but it could be ‘stillborn’ as the new government has diverted focus to implementing the failed concept of national standards. Rip van Winkle would be pleased.

We need to focus our attention on what our students need to thrive in the future; to move from a standardized mass education to a personalized approach that develops the gifts and talents of all our students. Literacy and numeracy, as important as they are, are a meager minimum - ‘foundation skills’ - at best they are means to an end so as to allow all students to become ‘active seekers, user and creators of their own knowledge’. Future students must leave with the initiative to think ‘out of the box’ as the future success will place a priority on creativity and innovation. Such students will have to know how to manage all the overflowing information available. They will need good people skills to be able to work well with others and with people of different cultures.

Can schools, developed in Rip van Winkle’s time to educate students for an industrial age, able to make the shift to future requirements? It doesn’t look good so far. Schools will have to dramatically change or risk being bi-passed entirely by the use of modern information technology. The pressure is on to change but the resistance is strong. History, as Galileo’s round earth ideas shows, changes over time but time is one thing that is not on our side, as sustainability issues indicate.

Time for a transformational vision?

As Einstein said 'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.'

We are a battle between populist politics of national standards and creative education. Time to speak out!

It is at the ‘edge’ that all new learning occurs but it is not always a comfortable place to be. New ideas, in any area of life, are by their nature unsettling and to those in power can even be seen as heretical. Mind you, nothing wrong with heresy –all it means is having an alternative point of view.

I think now is the time for a bit of courageous heresy as the current government is determined to impose National Standards in schools no matter the professional opposition and even though NZ currently does well in International literacy and numeracy testing. The government is well aware that National Standards have a wonderful populist appeal, along with crushing boy racers cars and locking people up in prison. Interestingly NZ is currently second internationally to the USA for incarcerating prisoners – and we even have 20% more per head of population in prison than our neighbours the Australians. The government believes there is a connection between literacy, numeracy and imprisonment – this may be true but it is just too simplistic.

The implementation of National Standards will move NZ school away from the creative future that our ‘new New Zealand Curriculum was heading towards and will lead us back into the restrictive ‘Three Rs’ mentality of Victorian times. This reactionary shift, along with bulging prisons, will be the legacy of our current conservative government.

No one is arguing against literacy and numeracy although, if you listen to media commentators and newspaper editors, you would think no one teaches reading and maths these days. If anything the true is the opposite – literacy and numeracy in many schools have all but ‘gobbled up the entire curriculum’.

Thoughtful schools need to argue that literacy and numeracy need to be seen as ‘foundation skills’ necessary to allow all students to realize their gifts and talents and, in the process, their confidence to become ‘lifelong learners’. If schools are to be judged solely by their scores in literacy and numeracy (this is the spectre of ‘league tables’) this will divert teacher’s time and energy and narrow the curriculum. The argument ought to be that the real need for schools is to develop exciting and challenging programmes to tap into and amplify every student’s talents and for this to include literacy and numeracy. To judge achievement solely on reading and maths will be to demean many otherwise creative students. Do parents, if they were well informed, want this? Don’t they want schools to capture their children’s imagination and individual creativity? Have we asked them?

To develop innovative programmes, and to resist the temptation to narrow their curriculum, teachers will need courageous leadership from their principals and their collective organizations.

The alternative to inevitability of narrowing the curriculum is to put faith in the developing of exciting, authentic programmes to tap into and amplify all students’ innate desire to learn. There is no shortage of research to back up such a creative personalized approach to learning. New Zealand has been always well served by creative teachers, past and present, to provide inspiration for schools to follow. Research shows students engaged in such programmes do well on standardized testing. Powerful learners, driven by a need to explore challenging areas of interest in depth, become powerful readers as they ‘see the point’ of learning to read and do maths. In contrast the Ministry apologists, presenting the government’s position as part of their ‘consultation’ process, have little research to back up their hollow words and overseas examples fail to impress. This is simply populist politics determining policy.


To develop creative schools will require intellectual courage (or heresy) by principals and teachers. Without courageous leadership the vision of the ‘new’ New Zealand Curriculum, of developing all students as ‘confident creative life long learners’, is at risk. It is important for all to appreciate that the ‘new’ curriculum does not neglect literacy and numeracy but it does requires such learning to be achieved through meaningful contexts.

I recently read an enlightening paper by Andy Hargreaves called ‘The Fourth Way of Change: Towards an Age of Inspiration and Sustainability 2009’. Hargreaves’ paper is not only just ‘from the edge’ it also provides a ‘helicopter view’ of the past few decades to put things into perspective

His paper outlines the development of the ‘First Way’ – the creativity and freedom of the 60s remembered by some as the ‘golden age of education.’ Success or failure in those days depended on the ‘lottery’ of creative teachers and principals. As economic conditions worsened in the 70 and 80s a ‘market forces’ ideology was imposed on schools based on competition and choice resulting in standardized curriculums with their strands, levels, and the ‘measurable’ objectives, we are now leaving. This ‘Second Way’, with its almost incoherent curriculums, was found wanting in practice and ‘morphed’ into the ‘Third Way’ of the last few years with its more focused ‘targets’ and Ministry formulaic ‘best practice’ contracts. As a result of the ‘second and third ways’ there has been an erosion of professionalism with principals becoming more managers than leaders, and teachers more technicians following prescribed ‘best practices’. Education has been well and truly captured by a corrosive surveillance and accountability culture. Schools have learnt to be complaint rather than creative.

The current government’s National Standards, with their requirements to pass on data to the Ministry, is a throwback to this controlling agenda of the ‘Third Way’. Schools, it would seem, have exchanged a ‘nanny state’ for an ‘Orwellian ‘big brother’ environment. The relentless emphasis on standardized testing in literacy and numeracy is an agenda which taps into the uniformed general public’s desire to return to the nostalgia of past certainties.

Hargreaves ‘Fourth Way’ is a ‘view from the edge’. He is calling for schools to be more innovative and creative. To succeed, he writes, will require the articulation of an inspiring and moral and sustainable purpose for education rather than a narrow literacy and numeracy one. To achieve this, Hargreaves believes, it is necessary to have a ‘Great Public Debate’ about the future of education in, say, 2020. This transformational approach, rather than compliance to the governments top down imposed standards, is the future schools and their communities should fight for. Hargreaves suggests the need for networks of like-minded schools, and the development of partnerships with parents and students, to work together and to share ideas; tapping the expertise that lies within school communities.


I am with Hargreaves. We need to develop a new coalition between the wider community and the schools. Education needs to be seen as the responsibility of all – not just to be determined by the short term vision of politicians and for the ‘achievement tail’ to be solved by schools alone.

Hargreaves sees creative teachers as the ‘ultimate arbiters of change’ and the key to his ‘Fourth Way’. ‘The classroom door’, he writes, should be seen as a ‘golden gateway’ rather than a ‘drawbridge’. Our new curriculum is such a ‘golden gateway’ but will only be realized if teachers have the courage to stay with it. Unfortunately the imposition of the National Standards has the potential to encourage the opposite – for teachers and schools to ‘pull the drawbridge’ up for their own survival and, in the process, narrowing the ‘rich’ educational opportunities our students deserve.

The ‘Fourth Way’, based on teachers and their communities creating teaching and learning programmes, offers a creative alternative and a real opportunity for the expression of professional leadership. This is in direct in contrast to the demeaning current depressing scenario of compliance.

Such a transformational vision is definitely a powerful view from ‘the edge’ but, as Einstein wrote, ‘Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.’

Are school leaders, and their communities, up to the challenge?

Reclaiming the joy of learning

Painting from the cover of Elwyn Richardson's book 'In The Early World' re-published by the NZCER.

The ideas of Elwyn have been a strong influence in my own thinking particularly in trying to place curiosity, creativity, environmental awareness and imagination at the centre of learning. Once someone said I was ,'locked into the 60s' ( when this book was published). At the time I reacted against this but now I no longer mind. Ever since the 'experts' have imposed national curriculums on schools creativity has been at risk. Recently someone said ( but not to me) that my recent book was old fashioned . No apologies from me. The best of education is as much back to the future as it is reaching forwards. Only the status quo is unacceptable - and the imposition of National standards. We need to do the 60's again but this time properly!

It seems proper when thinking of creativity our classrooms to reflect on the writings of 1950s pioneer creative teacher Elwyn Richardson. His ideas are to be found in his inspirational book ‘In the Early World’ first published by the NZCER in 1964 (reprinted 1994).

In the forward to Elwyn’s publication John Melser writes that the book, ‘gives a vivid picture of a school full of vitality in the pursuit of values deeply rooted in the children’s lives and capable of serving them lifelong’. ‘Oruaiti School’, Melser continues, ‘functioned as a community of artists and scientists who turned a frank and searching gaze on all that came within their gambit. Curiosity and emotional force led them to explore the natural world and the world of their feelings…..Studies and activities grew out of what preceded them. New techniques were discovered and skills practiced as each achievement set new standards.’

From such environmental inquiries Elwyn’s students learnt answers, Melser writes, to the question ‘who am I? They gained respect for their and others achievements, taking great pride in their craftsmanship or artistry.’ It was a form of disciplined personalized learning set in a ‘community of artists and scientists.’ Elwyn’s work was based on an awareness of the natural world involving careful scientific observation and a demand for personal and excellence of their ideas in whatever medium used.

Elwyn’s role in achieving personal and artistic excellence was a delicate and encouraging one, always humbly ready to learn from the children. Elwyn has written elsewhere that ‘the children were his teachers as much as he was theirs’. The results were certainly not the standardization of product that one sees today; the result of over teaching. Believing in high standards to Elwyn each new creative product mattered as much as the process.

Elwyn, along with all the other creative teachers I have had the privilege of working with, responded to all children’s efforts and achievements with sincere interest and pride. His book is a testament to his love of children’s ideas and imagery and, the respect he gave their work, respect that was returned in kind to Elwyn. Elwyn gave his students Melser writes, ‘an opportunity to reach their full heights as artists, as craftsmen, as scientists, and as students’ in a ‘community of mutual respect’.

Creative teaching is not new it has just been sidetracked.

It is this vision of creative teaching that has inspired me and one reinforced by the all the creative teachers I have seen over the years. Creative teaching ideas though have a long history leading back to such writers as John Dewey who wrote about similar ideas in early years of the 20th C in such books as ‘Education Through the Arts’ and ‘Education through Experience.’ In the United Kingdom, after the dark days of World War 2, innovative teachers made a break from the arid formalism of pre-war days, and developed child centred programmes leading to official approval expressed in the 1967 Plowden Report. In the US an ‘open education’ movement added to the impetus. Ironically official approval was a kiss of death as teachers scrambled to get on to the bandwagon. Creativity it seems works best when working for a change. In New Zealand, under the leadership of the then Director-General of Education Dr Beeby, similar ideas were being encouraged – ideas that were also soon under attack from conservatives but not before creative teaching was at least established. Richardson was working in these times. Creative ideas were spread throughout New Zealand by means of art advisers led by their charismatic National Director Gordon Tovey. The art advisers ran Related Arts courses, spreading the idea of integrated learning. I was lucky enough to become involved in the mid 60s and during this time assisted a local teacher to develop the first six week integrated unit in our province based around exploring the life in a local stream.

And today our reactionary Education Minister is dismantling the last of the Art advisers to focus on literacy and numeracy not realizing the problem is engaging learners not measuring them! 'Learnacy', to quote Guy Claxton, 'is more important than literacy'. And Sir Ken Robinson who says, 'creativity is as important as literacy or numeracy. What is really required is to return to the approach of Elwyn Richardson and to integrate it with the power of ICT.

The Taranaki approach to creativity.

In the 70.80s group of Taranaki teachers became well known for what was called ‘environmental’ or ‘quality’ education. Encompassing many of the above ideas the teachers involved believed strongly in making use of the immediate environment, and the need to value effort and perseverance so as to achieve quality work. A particular feature was the stimulating room environments featuring displays of student’s research, language, observational and creative art. Key phrases used by such teachers were the ‘need to do fewer things well’ and to ‘slow the pace of students work’ so as to allow time teachers to come ‘alongside the learner’ to provide assistance. Aspects of this quality learning are still to be seen in local schools today but now as whole school approach. One important idea creative teacher’s hold is that process of achieving success is itself a powerful transformational experience – providing such experiences is the challenge for teachers.

Real change depends on creative teachers.

From my experience, then and now, I believe that all real lasting educational change will only come from such creative classroom teachers particularly if it is a whole school ‘learning community’ approach. Unfortunately, since the late eighties, the climate has changed against such creativity as we entered recent decades of standardized curriculums and imposed compliance requirements. It is reassuring to still find creative teachers working away ‘under cover’ throughout New Zealand and it is to them that we must look for a creative revival.

Tapping the learners default model of learning.

The students in this class are following a river from source to sea ( possible in our part of NZ) and are following up their research questions and, as well, with sensitive teaching, making full use of mathematics to measure and calculate, poetic writing, drawing and art. This approach to teaching builds on the natural default mode of the students. It is based on in depth learning; doing fewer things well This is the type of learning that has been lost with the emphasis on covering content.

There is no doubt far too many students do not ‘achieve’ as well as we would like in our education system.

Populist politicians, their supporters, and the media see the answer in simplistic terms – what is required are National Standards ( tests) to identify the students at risk and to focus teachers to correct the situation. Like all simplistic solutions it is not as simple as such people would think.

The conventional wisdom sees that teachers and students deserve most of the blame and that a little bit of ‘market forces’ (pressure to improve or face the consequences) will do the trick. Test. Rank. Reward. Punish. Publicize. Penalize.

The irony is that we already know which students are failing and the suggested cure will be worse than the problem – it certainly will narrow the curriculum even more than it currently is but, worse still, it will put at risk teacher creativity and the unrealized potential of the new curriculum. The National Standards will become the curriculum!

And all this totally ignores how students learn.

Students are born with an innate desire to make sense of their experiences. This is their default mode and it is putting this mode at risk which is creating the so called achievement tail and the eventual disengagement from learning.

There is a lot of talk about complexity theory, or system thinking that seems to have bypassed school totally yet it is the system that young learners make use of from birth. Not for them the need to fragment learning into subjects – they simply make use of whatever is required to solve their problems. Only, it seems, do scientists and artists retain this facility. Young children, artists and scientists are drawn by their intense curiosity and need to express what they discover. For such learners there is no such thing as a need for motivation or any worries about failure – these concerns only begin when adults interfere with their learning process.

They are system thinkers, creating connections as they learn; continually revisiting and revising their theories about how the world works. It is a process of enlightened trial and error – the essence of life long learning.

Trouble happens when this systems approach to learning clashes with the conventional subject fragmentation of the school system. The students who fail are those who cannot cope with such fragmentation, or more basically, lose faith in their personal systems of learning that, up until formal learning, has suited them well.

At school they have to achieve according to what adults presume they ought to be able to do. Many children arrive at school with the appropriate experiences to cope with school in place, and obviously succeed, but at the price of their individual creativity. For others, with less school orientated backgrounds, it is the beginning of losing faith in their own ability to learn for themselves.

Imposing National Standards will not help such students –what is required is for adults to appreciate how children learn. This is the real challenge. Teachers need to appreciate that their efforts to assist learners can both help or hinder.

The problem with ‘failing’ students is one of motivation – motivation they had before they reached school. Their intrinsic motivation is replaced by this thing called the curriculum. It is the curriculum that is causing poor achievement. The educational reformers have been immersed in the traditional curriculum all their lives – they literally can’t imagine alternatives to it. As the saying goes the fish are the last to discover water.

There is already a curriculum available for teachers to tap into –every student brings with them their own lives, their curiosities, their concerns , their questions, their sensory impressions, their theories, their environment, all available to be utilized, amplified and extended by the teachers. In the past creative teachers did exactly this. It was the bread and butter of innovative primary teachers until curriculums were imposed – particularly the incoherent learning objective curriculum of the 80s Today the early education Emilio Reggio schools of Milan continue this tradition as does the writings of James Beane for middle school students.

In this emergent and personalized learning approach traditional subject area are not simply dismissed they are still vital but must be used in context of the child’s learning. By means of internal motivation children will want to talk about, write and use number to describe and express what they see, imagine, do and feel. If they see the point of writing , reading and maths they will happily make use of the power of each to express what it is they want to say or do. As mentioned this was the basis of the child centred learning of the 60s – until ‘our’ curriculum got in the way. And of course music, dance, drama and the visual arts, and modern ICT, all will be used if students see the point, or if it is to their learning advantage. It is a world of connections and relationships – which is the basis of complexity theory or systems thinking.

As system thinkers, students use whatever they need to satisfy their curiosity or to solve a problem; they will happily cross traditional subject barriers. They come to school (well all except those whose experiences have been less than wonderful) as ‘confidant, connected, active life long learners’, already able to ‘seek, use and create their own knowledge’. This is the vision of the New Zealand Curriculum. The challenge it is not so much to develop these future competencies but instead not to crush them.

National standards will distort this natural way of learning. So will well intentioned ‘best practice’ teaching’ based on ‘expert teachers carefully shepherding their students to achieve outcomes defined by external criteria, pre planned teaching intentions and required evidence of success. Such formulaic teaching will develop competent conformist learners. Standards simply standardize and create winners and losers; all a time when creativity and talent development is at a premium.

Those children who currently succeed under this imposed technocratic model of learning may well be competent but they certainly won’t be creative. And, as well, we will still have our ‘achievement tail’. Problems of boredom, discipline, disengagement and burnt out teachers will still be the inevitable consequences.

The role of the teachers is to help every student recognize and amplify their natural gifts and talents and their ability to work with others. This is a creative and hopeful challenge. It will require teachers who will still to know their content so as to provide help as required; but ‘just in time rather than just in case’.

Students have an organic ‘system’ of learning hardwired into their brains. The teachers role is, as Jerome Bruner has written, ‘the ‘canny art of intellectual temptation’. We need to expose our students to all the forms of learning that make us human. As teachers we have to surface, acknowledge and cultivate our students’ knowledge making frameworks. This desire to learn is one of our deepest drives. That this love of learning is lost to many students need not be the case if we changed our own minds about learning and worked with their default mode of learning.

It is our curriculum based fragmented thinking that is the problem. A curriculum that ignores the natural thinking capabilities that students bring with them contributing to school failure – but who is failing who? It is conventional wisdom that is the problem. Learning is not simply passed on, and tested, it is created individually by each student. This is the basis of constructivist teaching.

We ought to be developing the full potential of all our students – not judging them by their success at curriculum that holds so little meaning for so many students.

Who would want to learn if one can't see the point of it?

New book published by Bruce

I have put together a book of ideas ( 240 pages) I have gained from creative teachers I have worked with over the years. It has always been a concern of mine that the ideas of creative teachers are all too often neglected as schools do their best to put into practice ideas imposed by outside experts.All too often such people have little experience of what they are asking teachers to do!

A critical view of the NZ Curriculum by Kelvin Smythe.

Recently I was asked to present at the Westcoast Principals Conference held at Franz Joseph. It was a conference with inspiring ideas to match the scenery. Kelvin Smythe is a long time supporter of New Zealand teachers and believes that they need to hold true to their hard earned beliefs.Kelvin's view of the new curriculum is worth a read. To read his full talk visit his site but the below is my interpretation of his views - views I am happy to align myself with.

Kelvin titled his talk 'Colonising the Curriculum' and his presentation provides valuable insight into both positive and negative aspects.

As for the Vision he says 'enough already', And for the Learning Areas, Values and Competencies he says, 'yes they pass my test'.

His overall view of the curriculum is that if everything else had been even, it could have been a useful document.

But everything isn't even. Curricula, he says, doesn't matter much it's the context that matters. While teachers may be buoyed up by the curriculum Anne Tolley has little regard for the curriculum. She is busy pursuing what will be the real curriculum: national standards, standardized tests; collecting data for school reports; and a narrow view of literacy and numeracy.

Welcome to your new world!

Teachers will have to keep the true spirit of education alive and to do this they will have to 'colonise' the new curriculum.

If learning is going to mean something to children is has to cater for the affective side of learning as well as the current cognitive bias. Both work together. When children change the way they see and respond to the world it is a transformational experience. As a result children get a 'feeling for', or a positive attitude towards, whatever is being learnt. This 'feeling for' is not measured by those who rely on quantitative measurement but it is vitally important, particularly if we want learners to love whatever they are learning.

Valuing students feelings attitudes as well as the cognitive is the holistic or learner centred approach to teaching that Kelvin believes is the core of good primary teaching.

It is this creative integrated approach that Kelvin want teachers to protect from the those who want to reduce learning to what the politicians have selected to be measured. When teachers become fearful of hierarchical pressures they tend to look past the needs of their children to focus on complying to the imposed requirements of others.

Kelvin is very critical of some of the conformist 'best practices' being imposed on schools by academics and literacy and numeracy contracts. He worries about the post modernist view of knowledge that says content doesn't really matter it understanding the inquiry process that counts. Correctly, he says, that without real knowledge students are not able to develop the love of learning that comes from such knowledge.

Back to the curriculum Kelvin is supportive of the advice to 'cover less but cover in greater depth (p34), that the the curriculum 'allows teachers the scope to make interpretations in response to particular needs, interests,and talents of individuals and groups of children in their classes' ( p37) and that the 'curriculum is ...a framework rather than a detailed plan....And that schools have considerable flexibility when determining the detail'(p37).

All good stuff.

Kelvin is also very supportive of learning area statements and the advice that 'these statements, rather than learning objectives , should be the starting point for developing programmes of learning...schools are then able to set achievements objectives to fit these programmes'. (p38)

As for the strands being covered on the basis of a yearly rotation policy Kelvin just says 'Yeah right!'

A real concern, for Kelvin, is the assessment statement that says that learning objectives 'should be stated in ways that help teachers, students, and parents to recognise, measure, discuss , and chart progress.' Kelvin sees these as 'chilling words' and if followed will result in 'the withering in schools of imagination, creativity, intuition, the divergent, the aesthetic, the immanent, and the affective.'( p39)

'We have in this one statement', he writes, ' the enemy of our holistic education tradition made clear. We have the triumph of the technicists, the atomists, the bureaucrats, the contemporary Gradgrinds, the measurers, the controllers'.

What might ERO make of all this?

There is though, on page 39, a statement about assessment Kelvin believes is of considerable elegance but, he believes, the damage has been wrought - and this without considering the damage to be done by national standards. The following elegant statement should feature in school documents , 'the primary purpose of assessment is to improve students learning and teaching.' And, even better, the statement continues, 'much of the analysis and interpretation often takes place in the mind of the teacher.'


Is there a conflict with the earlier statement? This contradiction, Kelvin writes, is the fundamental flaw in the curriculum.

Kelvin is also critical of the nonsensical way the learning objectives are expressed in the 'pull out' sections and writes that why could not the level four statement encompass all levels. I totally agree. While many teachers 'feel' that the learning objectives have less influence it must be noted that the proposed national standards are to be defined by achievement objectives for particular levels.

Kelvin is really enthusiastic about the Arts Learning Area statement but feels there is no need for a separate technology statement before level four. Not that much is being done - or science for that matter!

As for the competencies Kevin believes that they should be integrated into the everyday functioning of student learning. To do this seamlessly would be a mark of success. A simple phrase to represent each competency would help teachers nad studnts keep them in mind.

Kelvin sees the holistic ( Creative) approach as an alternative to WALTS etc.

Kelvin is, at all times, aware of the need to protect time for creative education and also in giving space for children to be divergent rather than focusing on the 'right answer'. In this Kelvin believes (and I am right with him) that the creative approach is preferable to the WALTS now in vogue - combined with such thing as predetermined 'success criteria', 'teaching intentions' and feedback. All of which , if not used wisely, can result in conformist teaching and learning. In a holistic approach the teacher does not discuss in detail with the children what they are to learn, then after the lesson discuss with them what they did learn ( making the process venerable to parroting). By not defining the objectives before the activity plenty of time is left for the children to be divergent, intuitive and imaginative, and for the teacher to learn alongside the child.
At the very least teachers can broaden the WALTS to allow for, or encourage, divergent thinking.

looking at the current emphasis on an inquiry approach.

The curriculum, on page 35, has given emphasis to an inquiry approach but all too often this has been interpreted as students gathering information and 'cutting and pasting', courtesy of google. This is a shallow version of inquiry. Real inquiry needs to be based on real problems, first hand or experimental activities. By such inquiries students challenge their 'prior ideas' and come up with the best conclusions they can - conclusions that are always open to further questioning. Kelvin believes such 'hands on' investigations are rare in schools. I have to agree - there is simply not time to do so. Good inquiries (and associated expressive work) ought to be the driving force for much of the school day.

Teaching, in Kelvin's view (and I might add mine as well) is as follows:

'Look -I'll get straight to the point.Teaching, in my view, is about providing an environment that increases the likelihood of children being involved in powerful transformative experiences; by definition that means that the affective must be central part of the process. The affective, however, only occurs with genuine effect, I argue, when it is grounded on detail, information, and reality - so I am talking airily effective teaching.'

Kelvin asks if people remember the 'feelings for' approach he developed in socail studies? It was, he writes, about developing in children a 'feeling for' other cultures based on real detail,information and reality. Such teaching in science as well, was once feature of creative classrooms. And the results showed the idiosyncratic ideas of the students involved as they expanded their knowledge.

Kelvin is making a strong plea for teachers to value children's emotions, attitudes and feelings and for valuing the diverse expressive abilities of all children. This approach is in contrast to the formulaic 'best practices' classroom that are all too often seen today.

Kelvin recommends that the learning structure should include: Introduction, Developing understanding,Expressing understanding and Conclusion. The key stage, he writes, is developing understanding - this is the area children should say on until a strong affective response is evident. In social studies look for a 'feeling for' the people in the human situation under scrutiny and in science where children express a compelling curiosity to want to push on, in mathematics a keenness to apply idea gained from their learning.

Kevin comments that 'science and social studies are in serious trouble in our school ( this is reported on in recent NEMP findings) because there is simply not enough time for the emotions to be engaged, their curiosity aroused, and divergent imaginative thinking to emerge'.

I am with Kelvin.

Teachers need to fight to return creativity as central to all learning.

'Don't be a chameleon on the plaid'!

View from conference room looking towards Mt Cook /Maunga Aoraki. Aoraki in Maori means the 'cloud piercer' -an attribute all creative principals need to see through all the compliance nonsense and curriculum confusion that gets in the way of leadership. Kelvin Smythe opening the conference on a very philosophical note; it was my role to close the conference.

To read Kelvin's full message visit his site

Kelvin's main message was about the morality of being a principal - that principals need to be in charge of their own destiny. That advice needs to be contestable and that Principal need to focus on the important things -as for the rest just get them done.

Principals, he said, need to take a moral stance. Research shows that NZ Principals now work 50% harder than ever but that most of this time is not spend focusing on teaching and learning. The moral decision is to focus on teaching and learning and the best advice, Kelvin believes, is to 'colonise' the New Zealand Curriculum document and to keep integrity with their own beliefs. Curriculum, he said, doesn't really matter -all too often it gets in the way as past decades have shown. If principals cannot keep true to their beliefs they will become as confused as a 'chameleon on a Scottish plaid!'

The new curriculum, he said, gives plenty of latitude for principals to manoeuvre and 'colonise' the official curricula - indeed all official polices - for the benefit of the children. 'Any curriculum needs to be transformed by teachers to make it work for them.'

Kelvin worries that curriculum screws are being tightened by the review office and the research of quantitative academics by their imposition of so called 'best practices' leading to a sameness in schools and classrooms. I couldn't agree more.

The moral position is to act on what one thinks is right for teachers and students although, Kelvin admitted, few principals would stand on a moral position come hell or high water! 'Standing out from the plaid', though he said, ' can be refreshing and a relief.'

Kelvin made a strong stand for the inclusion of the affective, the aesthetic, the symbolic and the intuitive, as being the heart of successful classrooms. It is these areas that are currently missing or being pushed to the periphery. Kelvin argues for the holistic duality of the affective and the cognitive. He wants to see a renaissance of the arts in our classrooms so students can gain transformational growth by expressing themselves through the arts. So students can gain 'feeling for', or a positive attitude towards all areas of learning. I wonder how many schools are including such things in their educational 'targets' - and such creative learning will be put at even greater risk by the reactionary imposition of national standards!

The education review office has created in principals' minds a persuasive perception of what the review office wants creating a moral dilemma for principals - what one writer calls 'corrosion of character' as principals try to guess what the review office want. National standards will add to this distortion. Because of such pressures, Kelvin believes, that a balanced curriculum is at risk. Ethics, Kelvin said, is to ensure no harm is done to the students in ones care.

Kelvin made a plea for primary teachers to stick to their beliefs about holistic education and to resist impositions that get in the way of the teacher learner relationship; that we need to see that the affective side ( the 'feeling for' something) is not neglected by centralised standardized 'evidenced based' approaches. All learning, he said, relies on a powerful meaningful contexts to be sensible to the learners. The best evidence we share should come from our own classroom practice, informed by other sources, and that we must avoid being in the thrall of qualitative academics ( John Hattie). Such academics, he said, are 'the witch doctors of contemporary life'.

Another aspect of moral leadership is the guidance you give and this should be informed by exceptional teachers. Exceptional teachers need to be protected from conformist influences. Such teachers have the ability, he said, to recognise in a flash the ideas you proffer that provide them integrating insight. Such teachers make such ideas their own and move on.

When you find such teachers cherish them - it is the easiest way to maximize the good you do.

Kelvin made the point that while learning is complex teaching should not be. Students questions provide intrinsic ideas to explore with the students. Teachers need to be hugely sensitive of children's responses. Teaching ought not to be the peak of theory; it is something straightforward and naturalistic.

Everything a principal does has moral implications - you need to shield your teachers from the worst of current directions. It is a contradiction that while the new curriculum is freeing things up other policies are screwing things down. You have to walk the line between latitude and control.

This paradox asks you to 'stand out from the plaid' if you do not want the false premise of national standards, the obsession with literacy and numeracy, the neglect of the arts to call the tune.

Kevin's main message is that the price of silence for not acting decisively and morally is that politicians and the educational bureaucracies will conduct conversation with themselves, interpreting your silence as acceptance.

This is why, he said, you must not only 'colonise' official policies but morally you must make your voices heard.

Principals doing some real learning

Northland principals learning how to paddle the canoe at Waitangi.Impressive to observe the growth in their co ordination and style. Next step onto the water!


The past month has seem me presenting at Principals Conferences from the Bay of Islands to Franz Joseph but the best lesson I learnt was watching a group of Northland principals learn how to to handle the paddles for the big war canoe.

Watching them learn how to paddle and move from un co ordinated individuals to working in harmony was truly impressive. It made me think of the research of Graeme Nuttall's written up in his book 'The Hidden Lives Of Learners'. In this book Nuttall records that learners need at least three experiences of any learning event for it to become part of their thinking.

First principals had to 'volunteer' - so only the brave ( or the slow) came forward. Learning obviously involves an element of risk taking. Earlier others 'volunteered' to enact Mrs Busby landing on the foreshore while others came forward to pull up the first New Zealand flag. During these role plays our teachers informed us of the history involved, including the story of Hone Heke chopping down the flagstaff. One of our guides also dressed up as Mrs Busby to take us through her house explaining construction details. All very enlightening. History coming alive.

Back to the war canoe.

First the 'expert' tutor lined up the 'novice' paddlers and explained what was going to happen and then he demonstrated the movements of the paddle and the chants involved for each movement. It was all , at first, quite complicated. He then took them through the movements slowly paying attention to vital points. One one point of the practice half were paddling followed by the second group. After three or four practices the end results to those watching was very impressive. For the paddlers their first awkwardness and lack of confidence was transformed into a powerful demonstration of learning. For those involved it was a transformational experience, by paddling and loud chanting - they gained a real 'feeling for' the art of paddling.

The 'next step' would be on the water.

For us all a great example of powerful teaching -and we all learnt a lot about the history of New Zealand.

Learning by doing. Seems like a good idea!

Perry Rush -educator

It was great to listen to Perry Rush present to the Westcoast Principals' Conference earlier this month. Perry is not just implementing the New Zealand Curriculum he is well ahead leading teachers into true learning centred education.


The vision for Island Bay school is 'Our Way, Island Bay'.

Perry has a great story to tell and is an inspiration to others who might wish to emulate the spirit of learning that he represents. It is clear that Perry leads by example and that those that work with him have trust in him to take them into an exciting future.

He comes to Island bay following time at Discovery One a innovative independent Christchurch School. A brief conversation with him indicated that Perry has had to work hard to get to where he is now. I first heard of him years ago when he was the teacher of a year 7 and 8 Tawa school based in downtown Wellington.

Perry has taken advantage of the opportunity to develop a local curriculum offered by the New Zealand Curriculum. During his presentation he encouraged principals to follow his example and feel free to develop ideas that suit their community.

He see the New Zealand Curriculum as a visionary document and one that demands real changes from schools. He asked do schools really want be involved in such transformational change?

Island Bay has taken a 'learner centred' approach: 'Our Way, Island Bay,Integrated learning'.

He asked his audience to consider what things tend to be 'fixed' in their school? Often things they assume to be 'fixed' are only 'fixed' because no body has really questioned the assumptions behind how their school is organised. We all too often just assume current ways of working to be appropriate. These, he said, 'are the cultural traditions and mores of a school'. To move into the future we need to uncover and challenge such assumptions so as to consider what it is that can be changed?

The key is to find the time and space to focus on the needs of the learner.

Three issues to consider:

1 What are our beliefs as these determine our actions? And what is the basis of our beliefs and can we articulate them?

2 What is our culture - our educational environment? Culture is critical. The key competencies of the curriculum indicate the kind of behaviours we wish to encourage; how we wish to live and learn together.

3 What is our pedagogy? What are the strategies, approaches and techniques we agree to use?

A school that wishes to change needs to bring in new ideas and also needs to get rid of unnecessary things. But most important of all the teaching team needs to be able to articulate their beliefs.

At Island Bay the staff work to see learning from child's perspective, to appreciate that the students role is to make meaning, and that the teachers role is to support and challenge the learners to deepen their understanding.

Also as part of developing appropriate pedagogy the staff have studied all the available research.

The Best Evidence Synthesis (BES) has reinforced the valuing of diversity, of being responsive to differences, and the need for quality teachers to pose real problems - problems that result in active research. For students, as the NZC states, to be their own active 'seekers, users and creators'.

Graham Nuttal's book pointed out the power of the hidden curriculum; that we all construct our own meaning according to our prior experience; the power of peers on influencing learning and the need for kids to talk to each other about the right stuff. Nuttal's research pointed out to the staff the need for each child to be helped to make their own 'unique pathways'.

From Jane Gilbert ( author of 'The Knowledge Wave') a researcher at the NZCER the idea of the changing shape of knowledge. That knowledge is not seen as a noun ( to store) but as a verb (a doing word). Learning is about 'performativity' - the ability to do something with what you know. The deeper children learn the more they can apply what they know. As well there is the idea that knowledge is 'owned ' by the group - the idea of 'collective intelligence'.

And of course John Hattie's idea of 'expert teachers'.

Back to Island Bay's Culture.

A quote about culture Perry shared was , 'what we care about, what we are willing to spend time on doing, what we celebrate, and what we talk about.'

The practices that underpin Island Bay School are:

The learning is to be integrated
learning is to be conceptual and based around big ideas.
The NZC's Key Competencies are to be connected with Art Costa's habits of mind'.
Based on inquiry learning.

Perry outlined how Island Bay had 'grown' their curriculum.

The first challenge is to figure out the intent of the NZC;what does it mean?

Student learning and not about coverage.
An emphasis on local meaning.
A participatory view of learning.
Excellent 'essence' statements for each Learning Area.

The NZC provides both an opportunity and a challenge as it requires what Perry called a 'seismic shift' and not merely 'tinkering'.

Perry shared Five Change ideas:

1 Engage powerful speakers. Island Bay have used John Edwards, Mary Chamberlain, Jane Gilbert, Kath Murdock and Lane Clark.

2 Link theory to practice. 'Improvisation is the hallmark of a creative teacher'

3 Consult widely with the local community.Island Bay only selected 3 or 4 questions from those suggested by the Ministry.What problems/issues are worth engaging students in? What would make an ideal graduate profile for our learners? What ought to be our core beliefs? And what do the Key Competencies actually mean? Reduce them to five points.

The school felt it needed to 'unsettle' what parents and teachers think and sent out a 'provocative' newsletter based on ideas from Jane Gilbert. Focus groups were held with parents selected randomly ( about 15 in each group?). Each group was asked a key question e.g what do students need to thrive in the 21stC?

4 'Explode' teacher thinking. Teachers visited a range of 'best practices' schools and inquired into 'best practice' in areas of literacy, ICT, pedagogy and developed action plans to undertake inquiry. Action times had to research 'best practices'; attend appropriate professional development of their own choice; be mentored by a recognised expert and finally to provide the school with recommendations.

By this means the staff made their own shift and out of all the thinking emerged the new vision for the school.

5 The school kept 'wall stories' about staff inquiries.These displays made explicit the idea being explored and were a way of deprivatising teacher practice and contributed to the development of a shared pedagogy. This was 'low tech' approach that was achievable by all.

Drawing his presentation together Perry explained the Island Bay School Inquiry approach, a model largely based on the writings of Kath Murdock.

(1)When inquiry topics are decided upon they are linked to a 'host' learning area.
(2) Finding out. For each inquiry the main area are identified from the host Learning Area - the main strands and selected learning objectives are identified.
(3) Sorting Out. Learning tasks are mediated and appropriate key competences are identified but most units incorporate most, if not all, of these competencies.
(4) Going Further. Learning is expressed through a range of Learning Areas as appropriate
(5) Refection. Making connections, and 'now what so what'?


It all comes down , Perry concluded, to developing a curriculum that is living and breathing.

All in all an inspiring and practical presentation.

Thank you Perry.

PS Apologies for any misinterpretations but I think I captured the 'essence' of what Perry said.

It is all about motivation

The New Zealand Curriculum states that 'intellectual curiosity is at the heart' of the thinking competency. For all that it is hard to find a direct reference to the word motivation but it is motivation that is the key to engaging learners. I have always liked Jerome Bruner's quote that 'teaching is the canny art of intellectual temptation.' If we want to solve the problem of disengaged students it is toward motivation must turn not the reactionary and simplistic national standards!


While waiting my turn to present at the West Coast Principals Conference held at Franz Joseph I had the opportunity to listen to Otago University educationalist Terry Crooks of NEMP fame.

In all his years in education Terry said he had come to the conclusion that the most important issue in education is motivation.'Motivation', he said, 'is at the heart of learning.' 'Motivation', he added, 'is far more important than the introduction of such things as National Standards ( testing). This coming from an educationalist who has dedicated much of his life to the testing of students achievements was worth hearing.

It is not that students cannot learn it is just that we have spent too much time on focusing on thing we think they should know rather that focusing on what motivates them. Young people are born with an innate drive to learn , to make sense of things, and to inquire about whatever capture their curiosity and imagination.


Terry talked about the centrality of students interests - what they like to learn about and about how teachers can capitalize on this desire to know.

Referring to the effective pedagogy of the New Zealand Curriculum Terry noted that motivation didn't even make it as a heading. Nor, I would add, did inquiry, but both are implicit. He regretted that motivation 'was not highlighted as as an important issue as it is the prime goal of teaching'.

As teachers we need to know what interests them, what they love so as to turn such interests into education growth in knowledge and positive attitudes. 'We need' , Terry said, 'to cherish and support such interests and to build on the enthusiasms kids bring with them'.

And he said 'we need to find ways to complement their interests and find ways to broaden them'. To me this is the prime purpose of education - to amplify the gifts and talents all students bring with them to the classroom. It seems we have made education far too complicated with our focus on 'our' curriculums! We need, as Sir Ken Robinson reminds us, 'to find each learner's medium'. 'What is it that makes individuals', Terry said, 'fall in love with learning'. When learners are totally involved, learning at the optimal level, he said they enter, what some writers have called, 'flow'

For teachers, Terry continued, the challenge is to make appropriate demands on students so as to match tasks to their ability. This aligns well with Vygotskys's 'zone of proximal development' or the personalisation of learning agenda. This are the areas of teacher artistry. If teachers do not match tasks to students competence students adopt the habits of 'learned helplessness' - they learn to give up and become disengaged; this in turn creates the so called 'achievement tail'.

'To develop enthusiastic learners', Terry said, 'you need build motivation through success with what students regard as significant challenges'. 'Time spent on motivation', he said, ' is time well spent'.

With reference to the New Zealand Curriculum Terry was pleased to see that it takes the long view about achieving learning objectives giving teacher time to focus on presenting engaging learning challenges. Doing fewer things well, as the curriculum states, is good advice.

With regard to his work with the NEMP testing Terry noted that vitally important subjects like science are showing to be of less interest to students. He puts this down to less experimental activity in school science programmes as a result of the the growing emphasis on literacy and numeracy. These areas are taking up too much of the available learning time that would be better used undertaking enjoyable activity based learning.

NEMP research points out the importance of attitudinal data - how students feel about subjects they are learning as feeling are at the centre of further involvement. I would bet that few school target student's feelings and attitudes in their selected school targets? In our current managerial and rational approaches to learning such subjectivity, or soft data, would seem to many to be unimportant?

It is interesting to see what areas of learning NEMP research shows students like - PE, sport, hands on technology. It would seem that to engage students learning needs to be 'hands on', a 'doing' thing ( learning as a verb not a noun). The teacher's emphasis should centre on maintaining motivation not covering the curriculum.

Terry's advice was not to worry about the curriculum so much and get students doing things that make sense to them. Real science. Real maths. Real inquiry. As an example Terry talked about a project children enjoyed in his wife's primary class - a study of possum population in an urban setting. Students set and checked traps, worked alongside experts,recorded data about what they found and this was reported on their findings appropriately. It would have been a great opportunity to integrate information technology in a realistic setting. Terry suggested the need for students to study significant environment and social issues - such things as exploring the health of a stream or variation in plant life( mix of species and their conditions) from the coast to a few hundred metres inland. These are wonderful examples of both real content and process and, as well, as examples of teachers learning alongside their students.

This experiential learning was once a feature of active primary classrooms but all to often , due to the over emphasis on literacy and numeracy, is not as common as it ought to be. Ironically NEMP research show students losing interest in reading and lacking in comprehension skills. Terry gave examples from his wife's teaching where students' reading had improved through working with students in a realistic way.

'Motivation is', he repeated, 'the most important issue in education today'.

'The answer', he believes, 'is to tap into and extend motivations students bring with them'.

'We need', he says, 'to consider what turns individual students on to learning'.

'We need to value the experiences the children bring with them'.

'The big three things we need to do', Terry concluded, 'is to combine motivation, real experience, with the appropriate skills, so as to ensure success. And we need Io give our students time to come to to terms with their learning and to provide them with relevant choices'.

It would seem we have allowed schooling to be removed from the real life concerns and needs of our students.Reconnecting with such personalised learning is the answer to student achievement not by imposing blanket national standards( tests).

A return to such 'learner centred' teaching would make learning more fun for both teachers and students - and in turn both would gain areal 'feeling for' the power of learning.

All good to me.

The process product dilemma

This chart, from earlier days, illustrates the information the learner discovered about the Sioux Indians. It also represents a sense of aesthetic appreciation of Sioux design and doing something really well. Something to be proud of or too great an emphasis on product?


There seems to be view in education these days that the process of learning is more important than worrying about the quality of the learning itself,and particularly the physical products of student learning. Classroom walls in such rooms emphasize that the teacher and students are aware of a wide range of 'thinking processes' that are often grouped under the phrase 'Higher Oder Thinking' or HOTS.

This emphasis on process includes the key competencies of the new curriculum. Content seem of less importance.

That students need to appreciate that the process of learning is educationally significant what they create, or learn, is equally important.

This splitting into process and product is wrong. In the first place there can be no product without some sort of process. The processes used, at whatever level of skill, shapes the quality of the product, or depth of thought that will be realized.

Similarly the product or end in view that we aspire to create shapes the means we employ and provides the criterion against which choices in present are made. What is seen is the manifestation of those processes.It is from those processes that we are able to make certain inferences about processes. It enables judgements to be made and provides opportunity to provide feedback if necessary.

Process and product therefore cannot be dichotomous. They are two sides of the coin. Processes can be improved by attending to the product and products improved by making inferences about the processes. Students respect thoughtful attention to their work because it testifies to them that their teacher are taking them and their work seriously. Achieving worthwhile products, using any media, provides great satisfaction and feelings of competency to the learner. And done really well provides aesthetic satisfaction that comes from personal excellence.

If teachers focus on higher order thinking, or key competencies, as the most important aspect then we will get 'higher order thinking for thin learning'.

Importance of observation.

Skilled student observing fellow student completing an observational drawing of a tree as part of a bush study. Involved in such a 'slow' activity who know what thoughts were running through both their minds?

Drawing is an ideal way to break through habitual ways of thinking. All too often our students see but they do not look. Observational drawing has long been an important means for some teachers to develop deeper consciousness in students - to assist students see through their habitual ways of seeing and to develop new awareness.

Such drawing develops qualities of perception and understanding of whatever is drawn. Drawing can be seen as the mind asking question and the hand drawing answers.It involves a simple strategy - look hard- imagine -and then draw, and continue until the drawing is finished.

German philosopher Goethe had thoughts about studying plants through drawing, 'It takes time.You have to slow down.You see and you follow ever detail - of a leaf for example - in your imagination...you look at a leaf , and you create the shape of the leaf as precisely as possible in your mind. You move around the shape of the leaf in your mind until the leaf becomes an image in your mind.You do this with one leaf, with another leaf, and so on, and suddenly you begin to see dynamic movement.' The mind wonders about how the leaf was created.

Questions will emerge which can lead to intensive study. Thoughts arise that can be shaped into poems. As artists take in what they can see metaphorical thought might come to mind. Imagination can extend images into amazing interpretations.

A few leaves can provide a lot of deep thoughts. Such contemplation, Goethe believed, developed a new ways to see.

For teachers who understand this observation is not a simple task but one that truly develop deeper understanding and sense of wonder.

Until you look you never know what you can't see.

To slow students' looking the first thing is to encourage concentration through focus. To pay attention without judgement. To slow the pace of thought so as to see all there is to see. To think of connections.

Such observation is away to break through our conventional, or conditioned, way of thinking.

Focused observation, and ensuing imagination, may well be the missing 'basics' in our hurried school system.

A powerful study for your students?

Newsreader on TV introducing items about the 7O th Anniversary of World War Two. An aware teacher surely would've take the opportunity to introduce the importance of World War Two to their students? At least for students in year 5 and above. In many classes it would build on the ideas they may have gained from earlier ANZAC studies?

It would be interesting to gather from your students what they already know about World War Two. If this 'prior knowledge' were recorded in same way it could be used later to show students how much they have learnt.

Researching World War Two would make a idea language arts unit.

What are their 'first questions' and the current answers. Use these question to direct student reading and search for information.

Some questions that might emerge are:

Why was it called World War Two? Was there a World War One?
who was fighting who?
Why was New Zealand involved?
How did it start?
Where was it fought?
Who won?
Was it a necessary war? Why?

It would be interesting to gather students' views on war? Such a study would introduce the ideas of sacrifices involved by soldiers and citizens alike.

Who knows where such study would lead. Even if it were just studied as language unit for a few day it would provide food for thought for students. At the completion students could reflect on what they have learnt as well as their own thoughts about wars. If a more extended study students could research various topics in study teams.

As they uncover resources ideas will flow. Many students will have grandparents who can share what they remember from their fathers who may have served in the war.