Losing the art of play

Are young children too busy 'achieving' to play?

Early childhood programmes are being set up in America to 'teach' children to play!

The reasoning behind such programmes is that today's young people are too busy to play ( being taken to endless classes by their ambitious parents). Or, just as bad , according to New Zealander Brian Sutton -Smith ( a world wide expert on children's play and games), is the image of isolated play - of young children sitting alone in front of a screen.

A cultural historian, Howard Chudwell, believes that from 1955 , due to the marketing of toys, children's play became focused on the toys themselves. Toys have replaced imaginative improvised activity as the focus of play. New commercial toys provide restricted scripts 'shrinking the size of children's imaginative space' -and owning such toys becomes all important.

Modern parents are increasingly becoming concerned about safety and prefer their children to 'play' in secure safe environments or classes; add to this middle class parents obsession for their children to succeed and free play is seen as waste of time. Such parents prefer extra work for their children on 'learning fundamentals' so as to get ahead.

Psychologist, Elena Bodrova, has researched children's diminishing capacity for self regulation, 'Today's 5 year olds were acting at the level of 3 year olds 60 years ago, and today's 7 year olds were hardly approaching the level of a 5 year old 60 years ago...the results are very sad'.

In earlier times young children played in groups engaging in free wheeling imaginative play, often being 'supervised' by older children.They were pirates or princesses, heroes and villains. While this play might have looked like time spent doing not much at all it built up all sorts of social and thinking skills. What the 'Tools of the Mind' call 'executive functions' including 'working memory and cognitive functions'. The most important being 'self regulation' - the ability for kids 'to control their emotions and behaviour, resist impulses, and exert self control and discipline.' This also includes resiliency - the ability to bounce back after setbacks that occur naturally while playing.

The lack of this ability to self regulate ones behaviour and demonstrate resiliency is associated with high school dropout rates, drugs and crime rates -'good executive behaviour is a better predictor than a child's IQ'.

The changing nature of play means that today's young children are not developing the executive self regulating behaviour they used to, according to many psychological researchers.

This is the reasoning behind the establishing in America of the 'Tools Of the Mind' programmes.

It seems to me that the cure is almost bad as the problem. Young children are being asked to think about their learning 'intentions' and then to write and draw what they plan to achieve during their programmed play!

I guess it is preferable to early childhood centres that are based on inappropriate age based academic programmes in order to push students to achieve. Some call such centres 'kinder factories' where students are directed to endless literacy and numeracy activities.

In 'mind 'tools' centres children are asked the question of the week and 'play games to develop the missing 'executive ' processes to help children learn to listen and control impulsive behaviours. Not even recces is fun, children are asked, 'What do they want to do, and how do they want to do it?' It is suggested that this lack of self regulation shows up in the growing number of students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.

Play has never seemed more like work!

Well planned developmentally appropriate programmes, one would have thought, would be the answer. According to Thomas Armstrong , in his book 'Best Schools', believes that lots of free play is the best form of learning for young children and that such play is in line with early brain development. The idea of structuring every minute of a child's time must be stressful for the teachers involved.

The best kind of play costs nothing and only has one main requirement - imagination. When children play together, improvising, making things up, exploring, playing games, they are developing the all important self regulation behaviours. Such activities naturally involve children in facing up to choices and consequences, and to consider others if they want to have as much fun (learning) as possible.

Adults of course play an important role in establishing the conditions and material to entice students to play ( learn) together and their intervention's, if sensitive, are valuable.

There must be line between the structured play of 'Mindtools' and free play - particularly if young children are missing vital 'executive functions'. Well trained teachers will aways be needed to provide learning experiences and to help the students develop appropriate learning habits.

What is required is for students to become so involved that they learn the advantage of sustained concentration rather than flitting form activity to activity. Ensuring students develop such intelligent behaviours is the task of the teacher but does it need to be formalised to pre-planning everything? All children gain pride from doing things well but, in their hurried lives, they often do not have the encouragement or the time. When children want to do something well then this is the time for a bit of help from an adult.

Many teacher of young children in New Zealand express a worry that their students find it hard to keep on task at school and that children with some form of attention deficit disorder are almost epidemic.

Developmentally appropriate programmes, that stimulate, enrich and encourage 'self regulatory' behaviours ought to be a greater priority than literacy and numeracy before overly structured play becomes the new thing to do in New Zealand.

I am all for more play and creativity - activities that lead to the on uncovering of every learners' talents, gifts and passions.

Back to the future.

Bill Guild working with students 25 years ago.

Twenty five years after retiring Bill Guild has been invited back to his old school to share his ideas about quality teaching and learning. It is a half a century since Bill took up his appointment at the school.

As well, it turns out, Bill taught the aunt of the current principal who wants to learn about, from Bill, the ideas that first gained the school it's creative reputation. Tapping into the wisdom of the past is a powerful idea - and it turns out Bill's wisdom is very current.

Bill was part of a small group of teachers who worked hard to develop creative classrooms in the 1970s. Today the challenge is for whole schools to work together to share their expertise.

When Bill retired he gave me notes of talks he had given and, in this this blog, I share a few of his ideas to indicate the thinking of the day.

'To me the teachers' role is vastly different.No longer the font of all knowledge but rather a counsellor, adviser, partner, guide, questioner, prompter and confidant.'

'I believe that schools must be learning communities where students learn, with our assistance, the things they want to learn; when they want to learn them; how they want to learn them; and why they want to learn them; all through their own curiosity'.

'As a group we were disillusioned with the traditional pre-packaged approach ...largely adult conceived....including ability grouping.Attributes such as co-operation, understanding and sharing were largely given lip service. We believed that learning should stem from the natural but vital curiosity of children and it should centre around real experiences'.

'Skills...such as focus, concentration, craftsmanship, introspection and independent inquiry need to be introduced.' 'Presentation and display skills need extra special attention and the creative areas given new emphasis.' We felt such independent self motivated learners would be more able to cope with the future with assurance and zest.People who are responsible for their own learning, able to make relevant choices, seem to be the kinds of people best suited to cope with future society.'

'To achieve work of high quality, which gives satisfaction and a feeling of personal success, there is a need to slow down the pace of work so the enjoyment is experienced as the work progresses and the finished piece reflects, not only thought, but pride of craftsmanship.Slowing down the working pace of children and allowing them time to reflect and and saviour their discoveries and achievements.'

'The role of the teacher is to encourage and stimulate pupils to seek knowledge for themselves.'

'Carefully arranged teacher displays', are a feature, and were based on, 'environmental, language, or maths topics'.'As the topic progresses the work of children is added to the display until it becomes an amalgam of both the children and the teachers efforts.' 'It is most important to acknowledge, in a meaningful way, the value of a piece of work.' 'These displays provide a window to the world revealing the work being done in literature, individual interests, the environmental and experiences shared by the class or as individuals.'

'There is an emphasis on the immediate environment.It is the teachers role to reveal the unknown in the familiar and to help children to discover the unnoticed world within their environment.' However, the interests of the children cover a wide range from fact to fantasy.' 'The school is a base from which to explore their environment.'

'Gradually, with experience and growing confidence in their own abilities, children are given some choice within a very wide topic and finally many children may reach a stage they can be given a complete choice.'

'Questioning techniques must be suited to the needs of the learner ...and should be framed in a way as to stimulate greater powers of thought.' 'Plenty of time must be given the children to talk, discuss,disagree, argue, and revise opinions, all of this while refining and defining their solutions.'

'Teaching observation is important. I believe we look at so much and see so little.Hence my belief that if we slow down our pace and allow ourselves the gift of observation.''Without the input of looking ..no future artistic or intellectual output is possible.' 'But drawings must go further than factual information, they are also able to convey feelings, impressions, and emotion.People who look harder, see more and understand more.' 'Drawing is a way of asking questions and drawing answers.'

Drawing involves the, 'outward eye, which is our observing eye, and an inward eye, which looks at feelings, memory, and imagination.' 'Observational drawing is not concerned with mere reproduction'... but result in, ' drawings which are uniquely yours.'

' A sense of design and beauty is an obvious need in our society and very little emphasis, and even scarcer recognition, has been placed on this area of visual education,'

Along with my colleagues I have tried to develop classroom programmes where children are exposed to a variety of ideas and situations.We have tried to take into account the backgrounds and interests of the children as well as they ways in which they learn. All children need success and we feel that this best achieved by children having confidence in themselves to select their own tasks, and through the development of necessary skills and abilities, to complete them to a deep sense of satisfaction in a task well done.'

Bill worked with group of creative classroom teachers working in different schoools. The challenge today is for whole schools and, better still, groups of creative schools working together making use of the teacher expertise in their own schools. And also, as Bill illustrates, the wisdom of past creative teachers.

The 'new' NZ curriculum provides an opportunity for the beginning of new creative era of education.

Learning styles

Classroom management and the four basic types of learners: Heart, head, hands, and the mind's eye.


In traditional teaching teachers presented their ideas to the whole class. Those who were aligned to the teacher's style managed to retain enough of whatever was presented to succeed . 'Successful' students, in such a academic environment, were those were those successful in the linguistic and logical- mathematical areas of learning.

Today, with an appreciation of the diversity of student learning styles, the idea of multiple intelligences, the modern emphasis on active learning, and the need for all students to gain success, such a simplistic pedagogy will no longer do.

Developing a 'personalised learning' approach, tailoring learning to the needs of each students ( as against the 'one size fits all'), is not as easy as it sounds. In the real world, outside of school, people make use of whatever ways of learning that do the job. For many such people school learning is of little use to them.

Developing a 'personalised approach' begs the question of, 'What do we do with the others?' Many teachers of junior classes have already solved this problem - group work - but all too often this resorts to ability grouping which goes against the premise of personalised learning. In secondary schools students are often 'streamed' to assist teachers cope with diversity but this is, all too often, at the expense of the so called 'slower' learners ( the less academic). 'Once a weka always a weka'!

By using a mixture of learning styles and group work all students can be assisted to achieve a high level of in-depth learning.

The four styles are :

1 The Interpersonal Style ( represented by a heart).This conversational style allows the teacher an opportunity to listen to the views of the students as in sharing a 'big book' with readers but it could equally be a science discussion to access 'prior idea' or learn from, and how to write up, an experiment.

2 The Thinking- Reasoning Style ( represented by the head). Students research ideas, using key question and appropriate resources, to extend their understanding -and possibly to develop further questions.

3 The Mastery Style ( represented by the hand). This group features making or doing. Practical 'hands on' tasks.

4 The Imaginative Style(represented by the minds eye).This group is involved in tasks extending the ideas imaginatively, making use of various forms of expression and media.

The above groups styles fits comfortably with the 'multiple intelligences' of Howard Gardener that many teacher make use of. Gardner believes that students need rich topics that utilize the appropriate intelligences. This idea also aligns well with an integrated approach making use of in depth knowledge from the various disciplines. The key is to do fewer things well - to study a topic in-depth.

When teachers plan their studies to cover all learning styles (and intelligences) it allows success to be a reality for all students. The four group styles are to be seen in any primary reading programme although, as mentioned, these are still ability groups.

In a class setting a topic could be introduced in week one. Students initial questions can be gained and their 'prior ideas', answering such questions, noted. Ideas for activities, and ways of communicating findings, could be discussed. Experiences could be introduced to provide background material for the students to think about.

Before the next week teachers could pull idea together and assign to the four group task for students to rotate around. This rotation might last up to two weeks making use of an hour a day; four sessions a week. Skills required in group work need to be taught prior to the tasks e.g. how to write up their research, or how to use the digital camera. Group work is not the time to teach new skills. Such skills could be taught in the language programme. Special attention needs to placed on assisting students develop design/presentation skills. Some schools develop design 'scaffolds' to assist students.

All the groups could contribute ideas to place on students completed booklet or web page etc; or they could be stand alone tasks.

By the end of the third or fourth week students would be expected to completed all tasks and then to evaluate and share negotiated tasks with others in the class, or their parents. By now the wall displays will feature the key questions and completed research tasks, art and creative language.

Such a group programme allows students a variety of opportunities to develop and share their talents. Not all students enjoy all styles but all need to experience the insight each offers.

It is best to keep group task specific and to encourage doing things well rather than rushing through task with an, 'I'm finished - first is best', attitude. Extra extension activities can be included for those 'fast finishers'.

When a group work pattern is established students will be able to apply themselves more positively and teachers will be able to find the time to interact with students to challenge, give encouragement and assess progress.

As time progress students will be able to see what their preferred styles are along with a growing awareness of the particular talents and strengths they have.

At this point 'personalisation' of learning is a real possibility.

For further ideas. Booklets 4 and 5

Developing an Inquiry Approach across the curriculum

Developing the school as a 'community of inquiry' is a theme running through the 'new' New Zealand Curriculum.


All learning is based on curiosity - a need to make personal meaning.It would be a great idea for schools to develop a inquiry approach across the curriculum that all teachers and students are able to articulate.

Not that there needs to be cut and tried approach ( all Learning Areas have their particular emphasis) but more that the spirit of inquiry should underpin all actions.

Some scientists prefer to call scientific thinking 'enlightened trial and error' - trying things out and keeping what works for 'next time'. Homer Simpson has the opposite point of view, 'Trying is just the first step towards failure'. In contrast basketballer Michael Jordan says, 'I've tried over and over again in my life and that is why I succeed.' Effort, practice,'stick-ability', or perseverance, are all important attributes

The New Zealand Curriculum, states in it's section in the Thinking Key Competency, that students need to be seen as, 'active, seekers, users and creators of knowledge'. Learning is to be, 'constructed', driven by, 'intellectual curiosity', as the students are encouraged to ,'ask questions,and challenge the basis of their assumptions and perceptions'

Under the Managing Self competency it is stated that, students need to have a, 'can do' attitude, able to , 'establish personal goals, make plans, (and) manage projects.'

Under the English Learning Area it states that, students need to be able to, 'make meaning of ideas or information'; in the Arts area students are, 'to use their imagination to engage' in expressing their interpretations; in Mathematics, 'students are to develop the ability to think creativity, critically, strategically and logically' and to carry our procedures, 'flexibly and accurately to process and communicate information'; Science includes students, 'making observations and carrying out investigations'; while in the Social Sciences students are to: ask questions, gather information, explore and analyze, and reflect and evaluate their learning. Technology is about designing products' and states that it is better to do fewer things well in depth.

The inquiry emphasis is highlighted in the Effective Pedagogy section where teachers are asked to help their students in the ability to, 'assimilate new learning, relate it to what they already know ( their 'prior knowledge') and learn to think about their own thinking' ( 'meta cognition'). Effective teachers are to, 'stimulate the curiosity of their students, require them to search for relevant information and ideas, and challenge them to use or apply what they discover' by means of 'learning conversations'.

With all the above in mind it is a wonder that Inquiry Learning didn't have section of its own?

Essentially Inquiry learning follows the following process ( remembering learning is not a linear sequence and that new ideas can emerge at any stage that could alter the course of the learning.)

1 A question or challenge arises that requires action to explore.( At this early stage it is a good idea for students to express what they already know - their 'prior ideas').

2 Students sort out the key questions to research (as individuals or groups). Teachers need to gather relevant information and resources, and also to consider relevant experiences that might be useful to provide greater depth of understanding. Teachers need also to consider what 'big idea' they want their students to achieve from the study.)

3 Students to undertake observations, research possible answers to their question and to carry out activities and experiments that might offer them greater insight. Simple tests might need to set up

4 Students to draft ideas out and to then present them to others for critical evaluation.

If the essence of the inquiry approach is communicated to students at every appropriate time it will become ingrained and transferred from situation to situation. This is not to say some processes will be subject specific.

The essence of Inquiry Learning is to question everything and be open to new possibilities. A mind disciplined by inquiry considers all forms of evidence that validates new ideas and delivers deeper and more insightful understanding.

Reclaiming the lost art of pedagogy

John Dewey -time to apply his pedagogical ideas.Pedagogy - the art of teaching.


Pedagogy has long been a neglected area in most countries.

In recent yea the emphasis has been on providing technocratic curriculums for teachers to follow and to be held accountable to.

Now the ‘evidence’ suggests that it is the quality of the individual teachers that makes the greatest difference to ensure students learn. It seems the ‘experts’ have been looking in the wrong place for answers the past decades overlooking, in the process, the successful ideas of creative teachers in the schools.

The ‘new’ New Zealand Curriculum now places emphasis on effective pedagogy and outlines conditions that support positive teaching including; creating a supportive learning environment emphasizing the importance of relationships; the need to encourage reflective thought and action in students; ensuring learning is relevant to students by tapping into the curiosity and desire to make meaning that is innate in all students; that learning is a social activity emphasizing the importance of 'learning conversations'; building on the ‘prior knowledge' students bring to any learning; to encourage connections between learning areas; and the important of giving students time to 'do fewer things well'.

Nothing really very new in all the above.

The question is why such ideas are not widespread through our schools.

The conservative nature of schools makes changing teaching practice difficult. New ideas are also opposed by even more conservative parents and the media. The impossible curriculum and accountability demands, that have been placed on teachers the past decades, have diverted teachers from placing an emphasis on pedagogy.

Assumptions about pedagogy rest on theories about how students learn. Traditional teaching is based on a transmission approach to learning – teachers know best (or rather those who design the curriculums do). At the other extreme is the belief that students best learn through their own actions. Developing a balance between the two is very important, not either or.

Ideas about teaching and learning have changed over during the 20th century.

The view of the learner as an empty vessel to be filled with useful information had moved towards encouraging the development of students’ ideas (often called ‘constructivism’). This is a movement from a ‘one size fits all’ to a ‘personalization’ of learning. This shift sees the process of learning as important as the content. Teachers, to assist their students, would still need to have an appreciation of the ‘big ideas' that students need to learn; guided discovery rather than letting students learn for themselves.

In earlier days an excess of progressive ‘students know best’, and learn through activity, resulted in less than wonderful learning. Today the role of the teacher in assisting learning is now better appreciated. The writings of Lev Vygotsky and Jerome Bruner placed a greater interactive role of the teacher and the need for an appreciation of importance of the ‘big ideas’ involved in any learning. Such thinkers are referred to as ‘constructivists’ valuing both reflective understanding and problem solving strategies. Today teachers working alongside their students to challenge their thinking are often called ‘co-constructivists’. This is the essence of 'personalization'.

The general assumption is that students develop their abilities when they try to solve intellectual problems in any area of learning.

Another reason for lack of success of ‘new’ pedagogy is teachers having low expectations of students. When it comes to expectations teachers get what they expect. Teachers need to appreciate the importance of effort in learning (and practice) and to present learning challenges that confront children’s’ current knowledge. Teachers need to help their students ‘think about their own thinking’ (metacognition) by asking them to explain their actions and to reflect on thinking processes. Teachers assist by ‘scaffolding’ learning (providing temporary help), introducing thinking strategies, and by assisting students see patterns and connections between learning areas.

The biggest change in pedagogy is the move from concentrating on needs of classes and groups to individuals. Once again this is the essence of personalization of learning. The variation of students in any class make the use of flexible group work necessary but, to be successful, students need to be ‘taught’ to work in groups - how to listen, share and discuss things constructively. Teachers also need management skills to be able to work with individuals, or small groups, while others work independently. All too often group work results in individuals working alone in groups, or activities being completed for their own sake.

Personalization of learning is made difficult by the wide range of student abilities. Flexible grouping is required to help those in need. This is compounded by research that indicates teachers over estimate low achieving students and under estimate high attainers. A personalized pedagogy is not an easy one.

Traditional approaches make use of ‘streaming’, ‘setting’, or ability grouping, to solve the problem of student diversity. This is to miss the point – personalization requires flexible grouping which value each students learning style. This leads to the ideal of every student having their own 'individual learning plan'; one allowing them to learn at their own pace to solve their particular learning problems and to extend their talents and gifts.

This aspect of learning styles and classroom management is a difficult issue. Personalization can be taken too far and could result in teachers having no time left for teaching. The key is to develop independent learning and self managing capacities (‘key competencies’ in the NZF) from the earliest years. Secondary students ought to be capable of independent study.

Such personalized independent ideas are not made easy by the number of non self motivated students currently in our schools.

Another change in pedagogical thinking is the move from a single fixed intelligence to a growing acceptance of multiples intelligences (Howard Gardner). The traditional academic curriculum has limited student success and we need to be looking for abilities and talents in all students. This could well be the key to motivating ‘failing’ students.

These are a few reasons why introducing ‘new’ pedagogy is no easy task. It requires teachers not only to challenge their assumptions but for schools to challenge their traditional organizational structures.

Pedagogical approaches come down to the culture of the schools.

It is changing cultures – the shared beliefs that underpin all teaching – that hold the key to developing 21st century schools. New ideas are available that work if teachers know what they are doing. The 'new' cuuriculum challenges teachers to, 'inquire into the impact of their teaching on their students'

The future requires that all students leave school with positive learning identities as ‘active seekers, users, and creators’ of their own knowledge. (NZF p 4)

This is the challenge facing schools as they come to term with the implications of the ‘new’ New Zealand Curriculum.

The NZF curriculum nautilus

The shell of the nautilus is a symbol, or metaphor, for beauty and proportional perfection. First used on a New Zealand Curriculum in 1993 it has become a famliar symbol for New Zealand teachers. Or has it?

The ‘new’ New Zealand Curriculum introduced to schools in 2007 comes with a redesigned nautilus shell.

To introduce the ideas of the curriculum to students (and teachers) it might be worth giving thought to the reason for the selection of the image.

If it were possible to show students a nautilus shell (or a series of pictures) this might inspire some insightful thinking. We all seem to have a fascination for sea shells, most homes have a shell or two on display, and capitalizing on this fascination would result in an equally fascinating study at any level of learning.

The NZF states, on its inside cover: ‘In real life the nautilus is a marine animal with a spiral shell. The shell has as many as thirty chambers lined with nacre (mother- of- pearl).The nautilus creates a new chamber as it outgrows each existing one, the successive chambers forming what is known as a logarithmic spiral’ .This kind of spiral appears elsewhere in nature, for example, in sunflowers and cauliflowers, cyclones, and spiral galaxies.’ The nautilus (in Greek ‘sailor’) as survived relatively unchanged for 450 million years.

Even from such a brief summary creative teachers ought to be able to envisage a range of lines of inquiry covering a number of learning areas from natural history, mathematics to the development of aesthetic interpretations of shells.

The NZF continues: ‘Physician, writer, and poet Oliver Wendell Holmes (1809- 96) saw the spiral shell of the nautilus as a symbol of intellectual and spiritual growth. He suggested that people outgrew their protective shells and discarded them as they become no longer necessary; ‘One’s mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimension’. It is as a metaphor for growth that the nautilus is used as a symbol for the New Zealand Curriculum.’

Sensitive teachers would easily be able to evoke poetic writing and descriptions of shells from their students after an opportunity to study then closely. Older students could ‘dig’ deeper into the meaning of Wendell Holmes’s poem he called ‘The Chambered Nautilus’

Holmes imagined the nautilus shell as a symbol of evolution; that in order to begin a new stage of in our growth, we have to think ‘outside the box’. This ‘outside the box thinking’ may be the real challenge for schools and teachers in implementing the NZF as we are always in danger of claiming that the chamber we are now in is the ultimate one. The spiral shape (itself a symbol of unfolding energy) suggests the shell can grow forever and that there is no final chamber; the nautilus must keep on building new chambers as long as it lives. It cannot go back to a previous one as it would no longer fit. It has no choice but to grow and move on. It is a symbol for renewal.

An excellent metaphor for life long learner!

A shell study could start by having students complete close observation drawings of real shells, or from photos. Such an activity will spark student curiosity and will provide their minds time to think of ideas about shells and, also, to generate questions and queries they might have. Such an activity is intrinsically rewarding providing immediate feedback; the more you look, the more you see, the more you see the more interesting the object will become.

By encouraging looking carefully students will notice more nuanced details and some will become aware of interesting poetic thoughts and metaphors to share. Such close observational reflection is sound education practice and helps students construct their own knowledge.

From such ‘first’ questions and ‘prior ideas’ students could undertake individual or group research.

From observational drawing students could be encouraged to develop creative interpretations or designs based on shell ideas.

Teachers could introduce ideas from science, mathematics and literature to enrich their students' perceptions. Secondary teachers could share their individual subject knowledge to develop an integrated cross curricula study.

Such a study, not only provides an opportunity for students to make used of a range of frameworks (NZF Learning Areas, or ‘multiple intelligences’) to explore any object, but it also provides the inspiration to for students to express their interpretations using a variety of creative media.

The nautilus metaphor was a good choice.

Personal view of the New Zealand Curriculum

Schools are now beginning to focus on implementing the ‘new’ New Zealand Curriculum.

I guess my first reaction is one of relief in that it is move away from the impossible demands of the previous document by drastically reducing the impossible, all but incoherent, lists of learning objectives. The technocratic nightmare imposed in the 90s has all but gone but what is in its place?

Already conservative opponents, who reside in the traditional secondary schools, are calling the ‘new ‘document ‘woolly’. They of course would want to revert to some golden age of exams and academic excellence for the few.

The ‘new’ document is clear: ‘Curriculum design should begin with the premise that all students can learn and succeed’ (p29). The vision of the document states that students need to be, ‘creative, energetic and enterprising’. Key vision words are: ‘Confident, Connected, Actively involved, and Lifelong learners’. All students are to develop positive, resilient, learning identities that reflect ‘New Zealand’s ‘unique identity’.

I particularly like the phrase is that students should be, ‘active seekers, users, and creators of knowledge’.

I would have liked an even greater emphasis in the document on identifying, affirming and amplifying the talents and gifts of all learners.

Who can argue with the desire for all students to, ‘achieve personal excellence’, and that students should be, ‘encouraged to reflect on their own learning processes and to learn how to learn’, and that defining school values are vitally important.

To achieve the vision of the NZC students need to be engaged and challenged by a range of real life and future orientated contexts. What is required is a, ‘curriculum that has meaning for students’ ; ‘connects’ to their own environment and communities; and one that ‘makes links within and across learning areas’.

Key Competencies (a term that seems to reflect a technocratic mindset) are ‘capabilities for living and lifelong learning’ and are to be seen as ‘the key to learning in every Learning Area and, along with the Learning Areas, are ‘both a means and an end’. Key competencies are to be learnt in context to become part of each students ‘learning identity’.

Students, the NZF repeats, are to be seen as competent thinkers who, ‘actively seek, use and create (their own) knowledge. To do this students need to develop a ‘metacognitive’ understanding of their own learning – being able to think and reflect about their own learning processes. ‘Managing self’ is about having a ‘can do’ attitude and being able to, ‘set personal goals, make plans, manage projects, and set high standards’. The document values working in teams and being able to relate to others empathetically.

It would have been valuable if there had been a section clearly defining the need for a basic inquiry approach to learning. A range of references to inquiry teaching are to be found in the various Learning Areas sections. Defining a basic inquiry approach across the curriculum would be a valuable exercise for schools to do

The teacher’s role is to develop their classes as learning communities, accepting and connecting to all learners – a classroom where all students develop ‘a sense of belonging and confidence’.

Providing challenging learning experiences in all area of learning is one of the main tasks of the teacher so students can ‘construct’ their own learning; ‘Intellectual curiosity is at the heart’ of powerful learning it is obviously stated.

The Learning Areas section provide guidance for the selection of authentic contexts. The emphasis on making, ‘use of natural connections that exist between learning areas’, is welcome. Advice is given that each learning area has its own language, or discipline, or perspective, and students should learn to appreciate the essence of each. Integrated programmes can all too easily neglect the importance of real content.

Selected learning contexts need to be interpreted and expressed by a range of language and creative media. Creative teachers will recognize the ideas of ‘multiple inelegances in these ideas.

Schools have the freedom to develop their own curriculums within the guidelines provided. The levels statements are problematic to me. I would’ve preferred more specific core requirements for each developmental level (early primary, primary, middle school, and early secondary) and find the repetitive statements on each level diverting.

It is the opportunity for schools to develop such creative programmes that make me so supportive of the NZF. For older teacher it is all a little bit, ‘back to the future’

The Effective Pedagogy section is most valuable but does everything but say it is based on a ‘co –constructivist’ approach. Teachers are asked to value students ‘prior learning’; to value relationship between teacher and learner; to involve students in their own learning, including self assessment; and to include ‘parents and caregivers as key partners.’ Students are also asked to reflect on new learning and relate it to what they already know – ‘to think about their own thinking’.

To achieve such progressive ideas teacher will need to involve themselves in ‘learning conversations’, so as to, ‘provide encouragement, challenge, support and feedback’, ‘building on what students know’; and to assist students ‘make connection between learning areas. Such conversations provide opportunities for realistic assessment. Assessment, the NZF suggests is, ‘an ongoing process that arises out of the interaction between teaching and learning’; ‘integral to the inquiry process’; ’much of evidence is of the moment’, and ‘takes place in the mind of the teacher’.

The suggestion to, ’cover less but cover it in greater depth’ is most welcome, as is the need for teachers to inquire into, ‘the impact of their own teaching’. This reflects the research that states that it is the quality of the individual teacher that is the key factor in student success.

The NZF gives great freedom for schools to respond to, ‘the particular needs, interests and talents of students in their classes’. By asking teacher to place students at the, ‘centre of their own learning’, the NZF is a welcome move toward a future orientated ‘personalized learning’ agenda.

I see little to stand in the way of primary schools implementing the requirements of the NZC but it will be problematic for the timetabled subject specialist secondary schools; with their genesis in a past industrial age. Such schools will need a structural and cultural change to be able to provide ‘authentic learning experiences’ and success for all their students.

The NZF is by no means a perfect document but compared to its predecessor it provides a relief from past requirements. It vindicates the ideas of creative teachers, who have had a battle the last decade or so, and, best of all, it provides a starting point to develop a truly creative 21stC education system

Curriculum Controversy

Conservatives always look to a past golden era for answers.

The latest NZ Listener believes our students ‘deserve better’ than ‘a reliance on woolly ideas’ that they seem to believe underpins ‘new’ New Zealand Curriculum. One of their main points is that accountancy seems to have been dropped!

While I agree with the editor, that change itself is nothing new, the pace of change has increased the past decades as a result of the power of modern communication technology. The Listener seems to believe that past approaches to education provided a ‘sound broad education’ and that the answer lies in the imposition of a ‘consistent’ detailed centralized curriculum.

The trouble is the disaffected and alienated youth we worry about today have never gained much from traditional schooling and, in earlier days, left to get a job as soon as they could. If such students are to able to make a full contribution to our society, becoming ‘self managing’ (which the Listener sees as a ‘woolly idea’) then our schools need to develop innovative relevant curriculums to engage such learners.

The Listener, it seems, has done little in depth research on modern educational trends and relies on conservative secondary ‘headmasters’ who worry that the ‘new’ (and the previous) curriculum focuses to much on the assumption that process, or ‘learning how to learn’, is more important than knowledge.

This of course depends on how knowledge is defined. Traditionally it has been seen ‘stuff’ to learn for an exam; all too often soon to be forgotten. Today modern thinkers see knowledge as something students ‘create’ through their own actions and, in the process, remember

The conservative Education Forum, of whom the traditional ‘headmasters’ quoted belong to , provides another commentator, an Australian, who is pushing for tightly controlled state education guidelines as seen in Singapore and Korea.

It is agreed by all that the previous New Zealand Curriculum was a disaster, the brainchild of technocratic thinkers who wanted to control what schools throughout NZ were achieving. It was a NZ version of an accountability model that had been imposed throughout the Western World to provide information to allow parent choice. It was premised on defined outcomes, prescribed levels, and an impossible list of learning objectives. A supporter of the ‘new’ curriculum Lester Flockton comments, it was a ‘mile wide and an inch deep’

Progressive educators are pleased to see it go. It made assessing and recording of achieved content an exhausting task leaving little time for teacher or student creativity.

The suggestion of the ‘new ‘curriculum to ‘do less’ to greater ‘depth’ proves the inspiration to ensure students learn both ‘process’ and meaningful content. Surely this is preferable to ‘plodding’ through an imposed traditional curriculum as the Australian ’expert’ would have us do. Ironically his Asian models are now looking to develop a more creative education system. Content is not lost in the ‘new’ curriculum as it outlines a core of learning that needs to be covered, emphasizing literacy and numeracy in the primary schools.

In a modern democracy schools need to ‘personalize’ learning experiences to suit the needs and talents of all their students. The paternalistic critics, who still believe in the transmission ‘mass production approach’ to learning find it hard to believe that students can create their own knowledge and happily ignore all that has been learnt about how the human brain is innately programmed to make sense of experience.

The quoted critics seem worried that the ‘periodic table’, ‘Shakespeare’ and Pythagoras theorem will no longer be taught. Not withstanding their secondary academic bias there is no reason why teams of creative teachers cannot devise exiting contexts that cover such areas of learning in realistic ways. Lester Flockton gives an example in the article of ecological understanding that resulted from an intensive estuary study. The article writer herself mentions an exciting learning experience of her own based on a creative teachers production of a Shakespearean play.

The ‘new ‘ curriculum provides an opportunity for creative teachers, who in the past have either been overwhelmed by the previous ‘crowded’ curriculum, or locked into their curriculum straitjackets and timetables, to be innovative.

While the quoted critics see the ‘new’ curriculum as a ‘continuation of the previous curriculum’ more future orientated educators see as it as an opportunity for a new creative era of personalized learning to evolve; one that accommodates all students, something traditional academic education has failed to do.

The design of challenging curriculum contexts that allows students to develop and contribute their individual talents, developing in the process, not only important knowledge, but the ‘competencies’ required in a modern economy.

These ideas seem beyond the critics (who seem to be hankering for some past golden age) and the writer of the article.

Lester Flockton is right to hope that the ‘new’ curriculum, ‘will free teachers to find greater depth and satisfaction’.

Teachers will have to develop their ‘pedagogy’ if they are to achieve the ambitious vision of the ‘new’ curriculum. Creative teachers, rather than imposed curriculums, are the key to the future – particularly if we are to tap the talents of all students and not just the academic few as at present.

The ‘Curriculum Stock-take’ described several factors that influence students learning including the home environment, the capacities of the students and the quality of the teaching. The latter is within the scope of the school to develop.

Trevor McIntire, a secondary principal, proves hope that not all secondary ‘headmasters’ are nostalgic for a lost past. He supports the ‘new’ curriculum and, ‘believes good education is about good relationships…Thank goodness in New Zealand we still have predominantly passionate, enthusiastic’ teachers’

The ‘new’ curriculum provides the opportunity for school to develop students who will be able to thrive in what will be an exciting and challenging future; students able to make a full contribution to our society.

My mark for the article 4/10: ‘Could do better, very poor research. Secondary biased. Next time focus on schools achieving with students who in the past have been failed by their dysfunctional industrial aged schools. Forget the ‘headmasters’ and Australian critics

Re -imagining schools to tap student talents.

I read a quote the other day that said, ‘Every student is an expert in their own life. They therefore are an invaluable resource for providing evidence about their own learning.’

The thing is, who is listening?

The trouble is in our schools the only students who succeed are those who home backgrounds, or cultures, are aligned with achieving success in traditional academic learning. The remaining students leave with their potential talents unrecognized. This situation is understandable as secondary schools were originally established to cater for the academic students; the remainder being absorbed, in earlier times, into the workforce.

Times have changed. All students are now obliged to say at school until they are sixteen and, even if they leave, there are fewer positions available without school qualifications. The trouble is schools haven’t changed to accommodate these less academic students. In the UK such students are in the ‘three D s’: disappeared, disaffected and disappointed. These 'categories' cover up to 40% of all students.

This is a tragedy in the making. Things need to change. As Einstein said, ‘it is nothing short of a miracle that modern methods of instruction have not yet entirely extinguished the holy spirit of curiosity.’ By ‘modern methods’ he was referring to mass standardized ‘one size fits all’ schooling based on the assembly line.

When one considers the number of successful entrepreneurs who failed school it becomes obvious that schools are unable to build on the full range of native talents. Such individuals were not seen as ‘customers’ at their school with idiosyncratic needs and many felt inadequate throughout their school days.

Imagine, though, if schools were to systematically assess the particular capabilities of every learner and then set about to enhance each student’s capabilities while, at the same time, exposing them to experiences that might uncover hidden interests. To achieve this schools would need to expose their students to a diverse range of adults to act as role models and not just expose students to narrow academic subject bound teaching. During such experience the possibility that a students might have, what some call a ‘crystallizing experience’ that would then become the central purpose of their lives.

If we want our students to be clever, secure , inventive , independent and focused the trick would be to unconditionally accept each learner as he or she is and then giving thoughtful support to help each student be a better person. This means learning with students as well as teaching.

This, perhaps, is what is meant by ‘personalized learning’ and ought to be the focus for school in the 21st Century? Certainly the vision of mass education has failed the masses.

Everybody who leaves school needs to feel capable at something – feelings of failure are corrosive. The failure is that of the school. Those who have some say in education, at any level, ought to question why so many entrepreneurs were not encouraged by schooling and, more importantly why so many students still leave with little to show for their time but a destructive disaffection with learning. How many good people have we lost?

A ‘personalized school’ would need to meet each incoming student at least half way by adapting its curricula and methods to reflect any particular combination of abilities. Schools, according to Howard Gardner (of ‘multiple intelligences’ fame), would need teachers expert in assessing students needs to identify the talents they bring with them; teachers who are expert in brokering courses to suit the needs of their students (while ensuring core requirements are still being covered); and teachers who have expertise in making use of community expertise to match students needs.

The success of each school would be seen by the demonstrations, performances, portfolios and exhibitions created by learners. The process is obviously important but, as the entrepreneurs, scientists, sportspeople and artists know, so is creating, or making, or achieving, something worthwhile.

Such examples, resulting from talent development represents effort, perseverance, dedication and positive learning values no matter what field of endeavor. And student success ought to be judged against each individual’s previous personal best.

School at the very least ought to remove obstacles that block the development of personal talents. The biggest obstacles to achieving success for all learners are the current school structures and the assumptions and beliefs of the teachers themselves.

We can no longer accept a school system that fails so many of its students and rely on those who escaped to become entrepreneurs capable of thinking of new ways of doing things.

Harvard Professor Rosabeth Moss Kanter has written that, ‘We change when it hurts too much not to change’ and that, ‘change is inevitable’.

Better to be leading change than to be forced to follow!

Now is the time for fresh thinking in education.

Ed Hillary - Tapping enthusiasm

Sir Edmund Hillary :the adventures and good works of a modest New Zealand hero.

A State funeral was held today to celebrate the life and achievements of Sir Edmund Hillary.As one commentator said, it was not what Sir Ed would've wanted but it was what he deserved.

Sir Edmond's life represented what a person with a real enthusiasm, or passion, can achieve if ones mind it put to it. Discovering and amplifying such passions and talents ought to be the focus of any education system.

Unfortunately it is not as the focus on academic success almost blinds us celebrating any other form of human achievement.

Most of our talented citizens, those who make the new trails in any endeavour, all to often have less than fond memories of their secondary schooling. Many, of course, achieve their success in spite of a school experiences which neglected their natural interests but far to many do not with disastrous social consequences.

No country, especially one as small as New Zealand, can afford to sacrifice any of its human talent on the traditional alter of academic achievement.

Sir Edmund, in his own words, struggled at Auckland Grammar and gained very average marks. One of his physical education teachers despaired of him saying Hilary would not amount to much in his particular area!

Schools, to be fair, have never been good at spotting talent in their students other than in traditional conformist subject areas, and, possibly, rugby. Talent spotting is not their focus as their reputations depend on showing success in narrow academic fields.

Nothing wrong with this as long as an equal emphasis were to be placed on all the various forms of endeavour - the multiple intelligences, for example, of Howard Gardner.

And, even then, they must be careful not to pass premature judgement about their students' future success as was the case of Hillary's physical education teacher.

Hillary represented attributes just as important for future success as good exam marks. As he wrote, 'I was just an enthusiastic mountaineer with modest abilities who was willing to work hard and had the necessary imagination and determination.'

And, more than that, he had an empathy for others unusual in this current 'me first' world. Equally importantly he was able to express this empathy by helping others while still preserving the dignity of those being helped. 'I have never tried to impose projects on people...we responded ( to the expressed needs of the local people'). A lesson here for educationalists, politicians and bureaucrats, who always presume to know better.

Students' interests and talents should determine their educational and life pathways.

As Sir Edmund also wrote, 'It is not hard to find a man who will adventure for the sake of dream or one who who will search for the pleasure of searching and not for what he may find.'

Education ought to be about helping every learner find their own dream, no matter how small, and then to set about help them develop the skills and confidence to 'give it a go'.

Sir Edmund forgave good attempts that failed as part of the learning process - as long as what was learnt was made use of next time. He was a meticulous planner who quickly changed his plans as circumstances demanded.

He had a reputation, one of his friends said, that was, 'based on decency, kindness and a stylish simplicity' . And, as an adventure and trail blazer, one distrustful of unnecessary red tape or protocol.

I could think of no better memorial to Sir Ed than to gather partisan men and woman of similar directness, common sense and integrity to get together and to map out ( responding to peoples concerns as did Sir Edmund) future directions for our country.

It seems to me that we have lost our way socially and environmentally and that we need a new future view so as to blaze new routes for the 21st century if we are to ensure a fair and sustainable planet

What are the challenges we face as a country? The task is far too important to leave to political parties and big business.

We all need to be involved so as to build on the example Sir Edmund has left us.

The power of learning conversations

The discovery of a wasp nest provides ideal inspiration for a focused learning conversation ; one that deepens, in the process, the learner's knowledge and also the teacher's appreciation of the students thinking.

Our current school system is still trapped in the grips of objectivity. When it comes to assessing students personal or research writing predetermined rubrics, or criteria, are used to assess the quality of student efforts.

The trouble is that these rubrics, even if they are negotiated with the students, as they ought to be, can blind teachers to important idiosyncratic or creative features.

Van Gogh never made it into the Academy in his day because his art wasn't up to current expectations! The same could be said for a number of creative thinkers in a range of fields. Stravinsky's Rites of Spring was laughed at in 1914 because it bore no resemblance to the tastes of the day.

Too many students in our school fail to appreciate the power of their own thoughts because of such faulty measurement ideas. This loss of 'voice' leads, for some students, to disillusionment with their school experience and, in some cases, develops into an anti learning identity compounding into social isolation.

Such students, if they were to be asked, would say no one cares about what we really think; teachers don't listen to us a common complaint.

This needn't be so.

Teachers need to treat this so called objectivity ( which distances them from their students) with care and come along side their learner to hear what their students really think and then to interact with them to help them clarify their thoughts.

By doing this they would gain the trust and respect of their students and, in the process, learn a lot about how their students think.More so for students who are showing signs of disengaging themselves from learning process.

Learning is about satisfying curiosity and making meaning by constructing or expressing ideas that make sense to them.

The trouble is that for too long teachers subjectivity has been neglected as the reliance on objective testing has become the norm; this situation is seen at its worst in the United States. As well the simplicity of testing has an unfortunate appeal to politicians and parents.

Teachers need to trust their own perceptions and professionalism ( wisdom) and focus on developing a greater appreciation of how students learn, the dynamics of the creative thinking and their role in the process.

There are still creative teachers about for them to learn from.

Just by including originality into current rubrics would make difference if they want to avoid the blandness that results from rubric overuse. Currently compliant students may score highly because they cover all the criteria but what results may not be inspiring or memorable - and, worse still, like Van Gogh, vice versa.

Student creative thinking, in any field, should be appreciated holistically before looking for particular attributes. It takes judgement to see the value in what students at first present but by coming alongside the learner, and entering in a respectful conversation, such germs of ideas can be developed into major pieces of creative thinking.

In this process meaning and value 'evolves' through the collaborative relationship that develops between the teacher and the student. What finally 'emerges' may surprise both of them.

By such means assessment is integral to the process. The Latin root of the word assessment is to sit beside. Teachers who make the time to sit down with their students to listen and question, in order to help gain a better view of student needs.

The dialogue is the assessment.

The process used can be seen in positive conversations where perspectives are shared and responded to and in the process the two perspectives are blended often resulting in ideas only dimly appreciated beforehand. Through such conversations new insights are developed and minds literally changed.

This process is in contrast to a strict use of criteria to mark work. It is a 'personalised' subjective approach that depends on the teacher's skill to see value in the half formed ideas of their students.

The teacher's role is just as creative as the students.

The creative thinking that results, whether in science,mathematics art, dance or language, is the 'proof of the pudding' - not ticking off lists of criteria.

This approach symbolizes the 'artistry' of teaching and is not to be reduced to a list of key indicators on a teacher's performance appraisal.

It is about the power respectful relationships of teachers towards their students; teachers' whose challenge is to continually improve their insight in how to respond to their students efforts sympathetically.

Escaping from past thinking.

We have almost completed the best part of the first decade of the 21stC but what has changed - and are we changing fast enough to survive?

The trouble is we are still trapped inside the boxes created by the highly successful industrial age. It is apparent as we move into, what some call the 'information is power age', that industrial type thinking is now holding us back.

The industrial age has had a long run ( a couple of centuries or so replacing the earlier agricultural era) but it is well and truly past is use by date.

The problem is someone forgot to tell the educational establishment - more likely they are too busy protecting their own positions of power to even listen.

To make things worse it seems that most in the world of education have mutually accepted the status quo as all there is.

As a result schools still reflect the factory era in the way they are structured and timetabled - students moving through the assembly line to the sound of bells. This image might have been dented at the early education and primary levels but it is certainly alive and well in all secondary schools worldwide. Well, except for those few heretical pioneers who have realized that the 'one size fits all' fits no one!

Even the recently delivered 'new' New Zealand National Curriculum will be impossible to implement at the secondary level unless there is a giant shift of thinking ( followed by new sympathetic structures). We wait for miracles.

Traditional education is 'fundamentalist' in that it sees the past as the way to the future. What is needed is some courageous heresy from educational leaders so as to provide a diverse range of ideas, some of which may evolve into a future orientated system.

Just as the industrial age put paid to the ways of working and living, when it replaced the agricultural era, so will, what some now call, the 'Age Of Ideas or Creativity', or the 'Second Renaissance'.

Until this occurs our schools will continue to be full of teachers who are paid to mass produce learning and, in the process, marginalize the very competencies and talents that will be needed in the future. This factory approach, premised on a narrow academic diet, has no place in a fast changing global world . Failure is endemic in such a dysfunctional system.

Students sitting in rows facing the chalkboard ( or just as pedagogically dated, an electronic whiteboard) should, no longer, be the main image of learning.

Destroying the traditional transmission 'just in case' you'll need it knowledge approach and replacing it with an emergent ' just in time' learning environments is a priority.

Students and teachers need to escape from their conformist boxes.

New approaches to learning requires the cross pollination of ideas and be based around students solving realistic problems assisted by learning advisers ( a new image for teachers). In the future the teachers main role will be to ensure that every student develops their own successful 'personalised' learning pathway. These approaches will fundamentally change the way students learn and teachers teach and would reflect what is happening in the real world, where the lines between the arts and the sciences are now blurred, as new innovative ideas are being explored.

Teachers will have to learn to get out of their subject boxes so as to collaborate with others to to be able to introduce realistic cross disciplined learning challenges. Only then will the various talents of individual students be recognised and amplified. When this happens learning would move away from the four walls of the restrictive classroom boxes and enter both the local and virtual environments.

By means of such realistic challenges students will begin to acquire the learning 'competencies' and become 'seekers , users and creators of the own knowledge' , ideas which underpin the 'new' New Zealand Curriculum. The future requires students who are able to make informed and ethical choices about the problems that currently face the world.

Most importantly this 'new learning' for a new 'creative age' is premised on all students learning not just those biased towards academic subjects as at present.

Every learner needs to leave school as a a 'life long learner'. Achieving this is the challenge of future schools.

Once you begin to think of the attributes of creative individuals it soon becomes apparent that our present schools are not healthy places for such people to develop. Creativity needs to replace academic conformity!

It might be easier to start from scratch than to try and change our current schools. This is what happened when the industrial age took over the world changing forever how we lived, worked and thought.

Now is not the time to defend the past!

Now is time to escape the limits of past thinking that has boxed us into a corner and to face up to the solving problems created by industrial aged thinking that are putting humankind at risk.

The best advice is to start listening to the heretics!

Or better still be one!

The power of the creative spirit.

 

Two artists,one once a teacher now a full time artist, the other a teacher being creative during his vacation.

Every second year Te Kupenga invite artists to take part in a stone carving symposium along the waterfront of our city.

Over a period of two weeks each artist completes a couple or more pieces of work which are later auctioned.

I am always impressed with the creativity of all involved. The local volcanic andesite stone is very hard and it takes considerable effort, let alone artistic skill, to finally realise whatever each artist eventually creates.

Some artists, no doubt, have a fair idea of what they hope to achieve before they start while others work more intuitively; working in partnership with the stone to let the carving evolve.

It is this magic of creativity which is all too often missing in out modern society where, mass produced thinking, produces mass produced products - and waste. Value is all too often placed on how much one can acquire - the price paid indicating prestige.

If only creativity was the theme underpinning our society we could be more hopeful of developing a sustainable future.

It would seem obvious that if we want to develop the world as a more sustainable and fairer place then what we do need is creative thinking and to achieve this we need to focus on developing the creative talents in every person. Understanding the creative process and valuing the power of imagination would be, at the very least, needed by all if we are to thrive in the future.

The creative process is an elusive one and every artist brings to it their own way of working. Whatever approach is used great satisfaction is there to be gained by those who involve themselves.

If we appreciated the power of creativity in all area of life then we would have less conflict and violence in our society.

Just imagine if we had an education system that was based on recognising, developing, and amplifying the creative potential of every student in whatever area that they were attracted to. This is the very opposite of what happens in our current schools with their genesis in the mass production era of the last century. In our current system only the academic survive while many students leave feeling either a failure or unfulfilled.

It needn't be so.

If the school system valued the innate contributions of every student it would result in developing a positive learning identity for all rather than the academic few. Such a positive identity would contrast with the anti social, and often self destructive, means of expression that many alienated young people currently gain satisfaction from.

Maybe that is the real lesson to be learnt from watching the works of art slowly emerging through the creativity of the artists involved?

All children are born with creative spirit and a need to make and express meaning.

It is a shame that that so few do.

Lose stress get creative

It is now time to leave behind the impossible demands of last century's poorly designed curriculums and and begin to be creative!

Talking to a number of teachers since the school year ended I have sensed a growing feeling of frustration and stress by all of the expectations imposed on them.

This is ironic in many ways because the 'new' New Zealand Curriculum is giving schools the freedom to develop programmes to cater for the real needs of their students. It asks teachers to develop students as 'seekers, users and creators of their own knowledge' and focuses on helping all students develop, what they call, future orientated 'key competencies'.

Teachers seem to be so tired by the unending pressure past demands to notice the new opportunities!

The use of term 'personalised learning' ought to give such teachers some hope. 'Personalised learning' suggests the need to replace the mass eduction vision of the past century. A mass education ( 'one size fits all") system that has become a nightmare for the creative and/or less academic students.

Our current school system is simply dysfunctional.

Even in the most friendly of Junior classrooms learning is determined by teachers not based on the 'emergent' interests and talents of the students. As students move through system their schools resemble what they were based on, the factories of the past century. Only the academic survive.

What is required now is courageous leadership by school principal to inspire teachers and also for them to network up with other schools to share local expertise.

The question to ask is what kind of society do we want to be, and what qualities will future students need to thrive in their future not our past? The challenges of the futures cannot be solved by so called 'experts' telling others what to do, it will depend on releasing the creativity and tapping the energy of every person.

Diversity not standardisation will be required.

Leadership is about creating conditions for ideas to generate and and then spreading positive ideas as they emerge.

Such creative ideas have aways been in our system but all too often they have been ignored or 'standardized' in ways which 'water down' their power.

In the early 1950s Sylvia Ashton Warner realized the importance of connecting with her students lives. She made full use of her Maori students rich out of school experiences to base her language programme on. Sylvia taught us how important it was to make seamless connection between reading, writing, talking, reflecting, thinking and imagination. Sylvia was a controversial figure but her ideas are still valuable. How much of students real lives are reflected in our current classrooms?

Forget following imposed curriculum's. Make use of what exists already in children's minds. As Sylvia wrote: ' there is so much inside already.So much locked in.If only I could get it our and use it as working material.Their first books must be made out of the stuff of the child's mind'.

This message applies to teachers at all levels. We need to respect the ideas of our students, to value their experiences and interests. We need to stop teaching and listen to our students.

Today creative teachers appreciate the power of respectful relationship's and the need to work alongside their students, making use of a 'co- constructive approach', to personalise learning. Such teachers recognise students strengths and prior ideas, value discussion, integrate learning areas, and the value representation of students idea through a range of creative media.

All a little hard to do in schools designed for a mass instruction era! No wonder so many students become 'disengaged'.

in the 50s another important early creative teacher was Elwyn Richardson. Instead of following syllabuses, and sticking to timetables, he turned to the natural environment and the creative arts. Together, he and his children, explored the real world creating in the process their own rich problem solving science, social studies and environmental programmes. They created poems and stories, made poetry, lino cuts and paintings.

How many authentic 'emergent' integrated programmes do we see today?

I wonder how many alienated and anti-social youth would we have today if we had fully developed the promise of such a creative approach to education, particularly as the students reach secondary schooling?

A society, clinging to outdated hierarchical institutions, is the dysfunctional element.

School have an opportunities to take the lead.

A creative eduction system is the key a positive inclusive future.

Being part of such revolution would be exiting -and any stress would be worth the effort. More than can be said for today's compliant schools.

Teaching as a creative act

This book outlines the power of a creative teacher in the 1950s and has been recently reprinted by the NZCER. Inspirational and not a curriculum in sight.


Life is creative; we make it up as we go along.

What we attend to, and the choices we make, are determined by what we choose to notice. This in turn is determined by the prior experiences we have have had. Our learning identity, for better or worse, 'emerges' from the sum of our experiences. And, of course, this includes our school experience. To confuse the issue our views are also effected by the larger culture we live in - a culture that is continually changing.

Traditional cultures can limit exploration. Today the current, but dated world view, blinds us to new opportunities. Until our basic beliefs and assumptions are challenged little will change.

Every few centuries new ideas emerge to challenge previously held assumptions. The discovery that the earth was round and went around the sun, plus the invention of the printing press, challenged the power of previously held religious views. Today we are in the midst of another dramatic shift in consciousness as we move from a scientific mechanical view of the world, based on predictability and the printed word, into one of an continual change amplified by the development of the world wide web.

Changing world views effect all organisations, including education. Our school systems were established in an industrial era of 'top down' hierarchic power. Basic skills, and obedience for the masses, were early requirements that persist to this day.

Successful in their time such 'top down' and fragmented organisations ( both public and private) now are under stress as they are unable to cope with the new challenges of a fast changing interconnected world.

Students live in this new 'emerging' world but their schools are locked into outdated mindsets and structures. This is a recipe for stress We have been wasting too much energy trying to plan and control our students rather than tapping into the inbuilt desire to learn and make sense of their experiences. We need to go 'with the grain' rather than against it!

Schools can no longer prescribe what student need to learn but instead must be willing to to be involved with student led discovery. Students need to engage with real life tasks rather than be asked to cover what they may never use. We need a 'just in time' curriculum rather than a 'just in case' one! This will requires a new creative role for teachers who will need to be skilled, in what Jerome Bruner calls, 'the canny art of intellectual temptation'.

Creative learners begin any endeavour with a desire established by purpose. In most cases such learners don't know how things will turn out and to learn will require an 'enlightened trial and error' approach. Teachers and students will need to develop new powers of attention to notice what is happening so as to make changes as learning unfolds, often in unpredictable directions. Learning in such an environment is less about transmission and more about 'co-contracting knowledge in action' by both teachers and students.

All learners need to be helped to develop powerful learning identities from an early age. Such positive identities are built up from past successes and provide the courage and confidence for learners to accept new challenges with enthusiasm. New capabilities ( competencies and talents) 'emerge' as part of this process. Learning is an act of faith. Developing positive learning identifies for all students is the responsibility of teacher working in tandem with parents or caregivers.

The acceptance of such a personalised creative approach would make life more exciting for teachers and their students. Schools and teachers would be judged on what their students can do

This creative approach needs to replace the current fragmented teacher determined programmes with their endless, and impossible, accountability requirements and increasingly failing students

All we see today are stressed teachers trying to make sense of demands made by a system that has well past its 'use by date'.

We all need to escape from the shadows of our old thinking and, when we do, a different world will appear. A world that is continually evolving' a world that will welcome our endeavours to take advantage of whatever learning opportunities come our way.

We need to replace control with creativity. We need 'new minds for a new millennium'.

Just watch a two year old in action. They are creative; making it up as they go along. All they need are the conditions conducive to growth, and experiences to choose from, to let them grow.

The opportunity for creative education has aways been there for the taking.

Looking back

Dr Beeby.Director General of Education in the first Labour Government.





I came across an old magazine in my shed which had an address given by Dr Beeby in 1983 to mark one hundred years of the primary teachers union.

I couldn't resist a quick read. Having some sort of insight into the past can put the present into perspective and better still give ideas for future directions.

All too often we can get so mired in the present that we are unable to see beyond whatever is taking our attention. Teachers, trying to interpret what is currently expected of them, are in such a position. All it causes is stress and confusion.

Paul Gauguin was in this position in the 1890s when he was depressed and painted what he intended to be his last painting. He called his painting:'Where are we coming from? Where are we now? Where are we going? His creativity must have worked because he continued to paint.

Education is also about creation - the creation of positive learning identities for all students.

This is what teachers should be focusing on. Educationalist Guy Claxton calls this 'learnacy' and considers it more important than either literacy or numeracy. It is about preserving ( and amplifying) the love of learning that we are all born with.

Currently we have not achieved this.

Dr Beeby's address was about looking back as well as looking forward but, he said, that he had always been more interested in the future but that you have to look back to see where you have come from to see where you are going.

Today teachers need to look back to ideas that have been sidelined by the imposition of the current technocratic curriculum's of the 90s and to appreciate that it is these curriculums that have caused our current confusion and distress.

Dr Beeby believed in a creative role for education. He reminded those present in 1983 that the most important thing realized about education in the previous decades had been the discovery of the individual child. It is not that individuality wasn't appreciated earlier but that the school system was based on a mass education vision which made realizing such an idea impossible. A system, developed in the 1870s, couldn't conceive of individualising learning. This view persisted right up to the thirties when some felt schooling should only be for the select few after standard four. Mass education, large classes, prescribed standards were the order of the day. School was a devise for, 'selecting bright kids and for discarding the failures'.

Today, he reminded his audience, things have changed. Junior classes, in particular, reflect new 'child centred' understandings.

Dr Beeby an take credit for this development and, in particular, for placing importance on developing each child's creativity and individuality. Unfortunately it did not infiltrate the more traditional exam orientated secondary schools.

Developing all students 'learnacy',talents, and their creativity, by 'personalising' learning is where we need to go in the future.

Every child, Dr Beeby said, 'should leave with a sense of achievement'. We need teachers who refuse to accept that the failure of any child is inevitable. Teachers, to achieve this, need to be sensitive to the needs of every learner. If you can turn failure around, he said, 'you might get a glimpse of of the school of the future'. He wondered whether the very structure of school is the failure.

Dr Beeby questioned why we still segregate children by ages as it is not the kind of group human beings, or animals, normally form.

Dr Beeby concluded his presentation with few thoughts about the future.

'Every child should finish school with a sense of achievement, a knowledge of his own worth, and a generous acceptance of the worth of others. Every one should experience a deep sense of satisfaction...by doing better that they had done the day before, better than they had ever expected. If a kid doesn't get that by 12 or 13, the chances are that he'll never get it.' 'Teach them the three Rs, but essentially they must get this sense of their own worth'.'A school for everyone'. A school, he said, should be centre for the community where, 'people would bring their children to the creche and kindergarten, come back as teacher aides..or to continue their own education- I am not talking about just the primary school.'

Such a school would realize his forty year old dream of a school system in which, 'every New Zealander, whether his or her level of academic ability, whether she be rich or poor, whether she lives in the town or the country, will at last, have a free education best fitted to the fullest extent of her powers'.

'What would such a school look like', he challenged.

We would be well advised to rediscover the creativity of earlier days and develop schools as places where all students are able to develop the innate gifts in caring and democratic communities.

We have long way to go but it is worth thinking about.

Be more fun that trying to do what others in their ivory towers suggest. And more creative and, as a result, more satisfying as Gauguin found out all those years ago.

Anita Roddick on education

I was recently sent an article which included a quote by Anita Roddick, founder of the Body Shop. As I result I 'googled' her site and enjoyed reading a variety of articles expressing her ideas to make the world a fairer place..

Anite Roddick is a unashamed activist. Her site states,'Get informed.Get outraged Get inspired.Get active.'

Now in her early sixties she believes the older you are the more radical you can become.

Her 'entrepreneurialship', she says, is a result of her dysfunction. An entrepreneurs dream is almost a kind of madness.The difference, she says, between a crazy person and the delinquent mind of the entrepreneur is that the latter can convince others to share in the vision. Entrepreneurs act on what they see,think and feel. Entrepreneurs are often loners, vagabonds and troublemakers. Success is simply a matter, she says, 'of surrounding ourselves with those open minded and clever souls who can take our insanity and put it to good use'.

Back to the quote about learning.

Education ought to about giving all students the freedom of thought, judgement, feeling and imagination they need to develop their talents and take control of their lives as much as possible.

Anita's quote is as follows:

'Let's help children to develop the habits of freedom.To encourage them to celebrate who and what they are.

Let's stop teaching children to fear change and protect the status quo. Let's teach them to inquire and debate.To ask questions until they hear answers.And the way to do it is to change the ways of traditional schooling.

Our education system does its best to ignore and suppress the creative spirit of children. It teaches them to listen unquestioningly to authority. It insists that education is to get a job.What's left out is sensitivity to others, non- violent behaviour, respect, intuition, imagination, and a sense of awe and wonderment.'

Education, according to Anita, is about getting a life rather than just getting a living.

Anita's site.

Where, or who, are our education entrepreneurs?