Lester Flockron.Nothing wrong with being critical!

Lester Flockton Research Fellow and Co- director of the University of Otago Educational Assessment Unit. Lester has contributed to many educational projects including the recent New Zealand Curriculum.

I have aways enjoyed listening to Lester's Flockton's views on the New Zealand educational scene. He is one of the few people who is both respected by the Ministry for his expertise and able to be critical of the Ministry as well. This is something I certainly have never enjoyed!

With this in mind it was great to read his comments in a recent New Zealand Principal's Magazine where he was encouraging principals to develop critical reflective thinking about what is 'put before us from on high, or the latest offering from theorists, researchers, policy pushers, advisers, consultants, programme package purveyors and the like'. 'Such people', Lester reminds us, 'often have claims that are incomplete in their perspectives and insights about the working of schools and classrooms'.

As a person who has aways believed that lasting educational innovation always evolves from the efforts of pioneer creative teachers, and not from 'distant experts' whose advice has little to do with 'real time schools', Lester's advice aligns with my own.

The only advice that is worth listening to is advice that, after full consideration, you can turn down; saying no can be a creative act.

Educationalist Michel Fullan has written that 'central governments aways get it wrong' and his advice is worth remembering. Where the Ministry see themselves as 'up with the play' in most cases they are are saving schools from their own previous bad decisions. The current 'new' New Zealand Curriculum is a case in point, an attempt to correct their past misguided effort's.

Lester wisely suggest that we need to reflect carefully on the 'over stated claims' based on this thing called 'evidence'. It is almost impossible these days to avoid 'evidence based', or 'best practice' whatever, in any Ministry document! 'Best practice', when imposed through heavy handed contracts, can 'mutate' into, what educationalist Dean Fink calls, 'educational sects' that make it all but impossible for teachers to develop new creative approaches. If we are to be creative then there will be times that we can't wait for the 'evidence'. Schools must feel free to create their own 'best practice' through their own actions. Such an approach is what some scientists call, 'enlightened trial and error' - or simply common sense.

Lester is careful not to say don't listen to statements like, 'research says', or 'research tells us', but he reminds us that research is 'only part of the story'. Our teaching ought to be 'research informed' not 'research led'. 'All together', Lester says,' educational research has become absurd, out of harmony with good judgement'.

It is with this in mind that Lester believes that it is important that principals exercise critical thinking able to, 'mediate the messages of others in the light of experience, maturity, healthy dollops of common sense, commitment to beliefs, values and aspirations'.

This, Lester says, is all about 'the grit of honesty and integrity' and 'professional judgement'.

The imposed compliance, curriculum and assessment required of schools these past decades have put these qualities at risk.

What is now required, and the opportunity has been given to schools by the 'new' New Zealand Curriculum, is courageous leadership.

It will not be easy to be critical because criticism is not always be accepted by those in power. 'Being critical',Lester writes, 'ought not to be confused with being negative'. There is nothing wrong with saying no if it allows the school to focus on what the school thinks is important or to conserve teacher energy.

It is important for schools to be reflectively critical so as to weigh up what the school is currently doing and to consider whether what is being suggested will add to what is already being done. It is obviously important to question and to weigh up the benefits of any advice.

Lester concludes by stating those who are in the best position to lead the direction of schools are the school leaders themselves.

But, he asks, is this the case? Do leaders 'indiscriminately trail behind so-called gurus and experts who proclaim' that this is the next best thing? Are principals too much 'under the influence'? I would add, as another leadership issue, under the influence of past unquestioned assumptions and structures.

Perhaps the important questions to reflect on are: what is the role of education in a society that is suffering the stresses of 'selfish' materialism and environmental despoliation; are our school outdated?; and do we need to transform our school to meet the needs and to develop the unique talents of our students? Leaders need to reflect on such issues rather than focusing on narrowly based school defined achievement?

What changes do schools need to make to ensure a safer, fairer and more sustainable world?

What we we really need the moral educational leadership by school principals that is asked of us by Michael Fullan.

I apologize if I have misinterpreted Lester's ideas. Read his unadulterated comments in the June Principals Magazine!

The only way to change your mind.

With the aid of a digital camera a visiting teacher collects 'evidence' of quality teaching ideas. Back at school teachers reflect on the visit and consider what ideas the school might implement.


I have aways believed the best way for a teacher develop ideas is to learn off creative fellow teachers. Inspirational teachers as leaders has been ignored as in recent decades as teacher have been encouraged to implement 'best practice' ideas 'delivered' by contracted advisers.

The way teachers interact with their students during the school day depend on the beliefs they hold about teaching and learning.

All too often the assumptions teachers hold are never questioned making it difficult for teachers to evaluate and accept new ideas.

All learning involves changing ones mind but to do this you must be able to articulate what it is you, and your fellow teachers, believe. Following this an openness to new ideas is vital for any learners future success. Learners who are overwhelmed with imposed expectations, or fear failing, easily 'turn' off learning or, in the current terminology, become 'disengaged'.

The best way to change ones mind is to see for yourself what others who are developed exciting ideas. Visiting other schools that have developed worthwhile ideas are by far the best source of inspiration.

For several decades I have had the privilege of taking groups of teachers to observe quality teaching in selected schools in my own area. Such visits involve considerable expense and time and so it is important that schools selected that are worth the visit. There is no point in visiting to see a school that is doing much the same as your own. The schools I choose are ones well known to me that reflect ideas that fit in well with my own beliefs. Obviously there are other schools in our area with things to share but I can only visit schools with confidence that are known to me.

Selecting schools to visit requires some thought so as to be worth the expense. That schools continue to visit schools I am associated with suggests that valuable ideas have been gained.

As mentioned visiting inspirational schools is a far better professional development than implementing imposed 'best practices or' contracts 'delivered' by people who have themselves never put such ideas into practice. Even reading 'best evidence research', cannot match the reality of seeing for yourself creative teachers in action.

This week I watched a group of teachers visit two selected quality teaching and learning schools that I had selected. They had been told about why they might see but it was only when they visited real teachers, with real students, that the ideas became exciting.

The foyers of both schools indicted that something different was in store for them. A short introduction to the school by the principal set the scene but it was the classrooms that made the 'eyes light up'. We visited every classroom to show it was a whole school approach but it was almost impossible to keep the visiting teachers moving as they did their best to absorb, and photograph, what they were experiencing.

Each room visited had the 'wow' factor with quality displays of students research, language and art work. The current class study was an obvious feature of all room each with impressive headings, key questions and finished work. Teacher blackboards were equally impressive with clearly defined tasks, goals and group organisation patterns. With closer observation the visiting teachers were impressed with the quality of students thinking and presentation seen in the individual student books and research charts. What they commented on, in every room, was the 'engagement' of the students.

All the above is the result of clearly thought out school philosophies, or belief system, 'owned' by all teachers.

Such schools are 'philosophy led'. Although they implement the imposed expectations of 'evidence based teaching' and 'best practices' these are secondary to the power of their shared beliefs. Both schools have defined clear expectations in their literacy and numeracy programmes, but they have ensured that such programmes have not 'gobbled up the rest of the curriculum'.

Both schools, while having clearly defined, and owned' shared expectations value the individual creativity of their teachers and students.

Such a visit confirms that it is creative schools and teachers we should be looking towards for developing teacher professionalism, and not taking advice from those distant from the reality of the classroom.

It will be interesting to see what evolves when the teachers return to their own school. One thing is certain, the visit will make a difference.

The next big step in the school change process!

Ever wondered about what an ideal school might be like from your point of view? And what you might say to prospective students, parents and teachers to get them to come along on the adventure? Those in power who try to transform the system have failed, maybe it is your turn?

Schooling as we know it is essentially conservative. The pressures on teachers , real or imagined, are so strong that little seems to have changed over the years.

But there have been real changes if only in the primary years but secondary schools still teach 'five subjects hourly each day', according to a local principal. Maybe the recent government requirement to ensure all students are in schooling, or training, up until the age of 18, will create the pressure to change that so far has been resisted?

I began primary schooling in the 50s. From this perspective primary schooling has changed dramatically. In my day primary schooling wasn't to different from secondary. A lot of sitting still in desks, listening to the teacher, copying things down and the use of the strap but, after World War Two, change was in the air.

When I began teaching in the 60s liberal ideas, introduced by pioneer teachers in the 50s, were beginning to change the face of primary teaching. By the 70s things had changed dramatically. students worked in groups and learning was 'individualised' (if not 'personalised'). Innovative schools introduced integrated or related arts programmes breaking down the tyranny of timetabling. Today, even the promise of technology, hasn't really changed schooling since those heady days.

The lack of real change is not due to a shortage of innovative ideas to make use, both within New Zealand, and worldwide. It seems there simply is a lack vision and educational leadership at all levels. Once again it is time for pioneer teachers to lead the way - or preferably pioneer schools - or, even better still, groups of collaborating schools.


A key phrase in the 'new' New Zealand Curriculum, for me, is for teachers to ensure all students become 'active seekers, users and creators of their own knowledge'.

'Personalisation' is another key idea - tailoring education so as to develop the 'gifts, talents, passion and dreams' of all students.

If I were in position to make changes I would premise education on the following hardly original thoughts but, if they were to be implemented, would transform schooling.

From the beginning education should be seen as a partnership between the learner, the parents, the teacher and the school. The student's potential needs to be central. 'Learnacy' ( the desire to learn) must come before literacy and numeracy. The education system should be premised on the challenge of tapping into the talents and interests of all learners above all else so as to retain the joy of learning. Once the joy of anything is lost - reading and maths are two such areas, learning is lost.

All teaching must focus on developing in every learner a positive learning identity, or attitude, towards learning. With this in mind a profile of interests and potential talents needs to be introduced from day one ( involving parents) and evolve and deepen throughout the students life, leading to future occupations and leisure activities.

To achieve this classrooms would need to centre around each student's questions, ideas and personal concerns. From this an 'evolutionary' curriculum would 'emerge'. As well teachers would need to present 'rich' learning challenges, making full use of the immediate environment, to 'attract' learners attention and curiosity. Students need to be exposed to all the values and key ideas that future citizens need to have an appreciation of. To achieve both quality thinking and 'products' would require students to 'do fewer thing well'.

Students, as 'seekers, users and creators of the own knowledge', need to also become their own judges of quality; aways aiming to beat their 'personal best' and to focus on what they need to do 'next time' to improve. Nothing teachers do must distract the students drive to make meaning of their experiences, or their responsibility to be in control of their own learning.

The teacher's role in such a personalised learning community will be more vital than ever. Not only will teachers need to have an appreciation of the range of human talents ( by making use of multiple intelligences ideas of Howard Gardner) they need to ensure all students achieve the basic skills of literacy and numeracy in ways that preserve student's joy of learning. This will naturally integrate the use of information technology as a powerful learning and expressive tool, along with the other equally important expressive arts. Teachers need to see themselves as diagnostic learning coaches whose success will be judged by student attitudes as much as by their achievements.

All such learning will not only develop whatever talents each individual student has but also the 'learning how to learn' meta cognitive and inquiry skills.

All the ideas above by themselves anything new but, if implemented, from early childhood ( where they are most commonly to be found) through primary up into secondary and tertiary levels they would transform education as we know it. As students grow older the challenges to transform schooling becomes more difficult. Traditional structures and mindsets of teachers at this level are not aways conducive to change.

The 'engagement of all learners' is as vital.if all students are to leave school as 'life long learners' with all the appropriate 'competencies' in place somethings have to change.

The answer is a system based on preserving, in all student, a joy of learning and a desire to continually expand their horizons. If so a system of education, premised on developing each learners special set of gifts and talents, is urgently required.

This would take us on from the gains made in primary and early education in the 70s. If not it will remain a half realized revolution.

We can't continue to tinker with a system developed in, and for, a past industrial age; a system that is well past used its 'use by date'. If we are to thrive, individually and as a nation, in an environment based on a fast pace of evolutionary change, we have no choice. This is particularly so in a environment at risk, full of what seems impossible social and environmental challenges, that simply can't be solved with 'old minds'.

'We need new minds for a new millennium'.

Developing a personalised talent based programme

Student engaged in close observation as part of her research study.


'Every teacher has had the satisfaction of seeing a child 'turn on' to a topic or school experience that demonstrates the true joy and excitement of learning ' says Joseph Renzulli of the US National Research Centre of Gifted and Talented.

Many teachers wonder why these 'high points' don't occur more often; why students are not more engaged in highly positive learning experiences? In contrast teachers are all too aware of student boredom and lack of interest which all to often results in 'difficult' behaviour.

The problem is, according to Renzulli, that teachers do not have the time to tap into potential student interests and talents. All to often teacher energy is dissapated by, 'delivering' imposed curriculum's, by assessment and achievement pressures; and by pressure to 'target' literacy and numeracy areas.

To engage students schools need to focus on developing attractive problem centred learning as a priority. To do this requires students to acquire the vital skills of problem finding and focusing, stating research questions, understanding the tasks selected, identifying appropriate resources ( including web based sites), understanding investigative methods, and research writing skills. And such studies need to result in producing quality products to realistic audiences.

Such a change of emphasis would create schools as exiting learning centres but it would require a dramatic change of 'mindsets' for many teachers. It asks teachers to place talent development and joy of learning ahead of literacy and numeracy.

The first step would be to create a personalised profile for each learner of their strengths, interests, learning styles or preferences, including, naturally, literacy and numeracy. Such a profile would indicate areas of personal interest that students might like to pursue in greater depth. Groups of students will be identified who share the similar interests.

The beginning of the year, as part the parent interview process, would be an appropriate time to gather information from parents about their children's interests and talents. Each year the profile could be added to and each student could keep their profile on a school website. Howard Gardner's eight intelligences would be a useful starting point to share with parents and students.

The goal is to ensure high levels of engagement by providing studies, or by tapping into personal interests, where students can engage in thinking, feeling and doing what practicing professional do, but obviously at an appropriate level. High engagement engagement is the most important single criterion that distinguishes high from low achievement.

Renzulli's model is in line with inquiry learning, constructivist teaching, project based, or integrated teaching. Learning based on students interests cannot be totally planned in advance as ideas, questions and new direction will 'emerge'. As in the 'real world' studies will be 'ill-defined' until students begin to clarify their questions and define their tasks.

The first requirement is expose students to topics that might inspire their interest. Learning that evolves will need to access whatever appropriate subject disciplines, or outside expertise, including the Internet, as required

Teachers then need to provide students with the inquiry skills and resources necessary to acquire an in depth understanding of content. The students, says Renzulli, are to be seen as 'first hand inquirers', or as the New Zealand Curriculum states , their own 'seekers, users, and creators of knowledge'; to do 'fewer things well'.

Opportunities need to created for students to apply their skills in self selected areas of interest, or problem they want to pursue individually , in groups, or as a part of a class project.

To conclude students need to develop authentic products, displays, performances, or reports that are primarily directed to a specified audience.


To work well, according to Renzulli, the problem, or task chosen, must be 'real' to the student, based on a sincere interest rather than one assigned by the teacher. Secondly, whatever is chosen must make use of the investigation methods of the appropriate practicing professional. Students need to do what real scientists, artists or community activists do, even if at a junior level. Finally is is important to be geared towards an audience other than the classroom teacher - other students, parents, a science fair etc.

The teachers role in all of this is vital. Teachers act as a creative coaches, or 'guides on the side'.They: help students retain their focus; provide access to resources; encourage student meta cognitive thinking and self organising skills; encourage reflective thinking; provide research and inquiry skills; and finally, the necessary design and presentation skills to produce work of quality. Diagnostic assessment incuding 'feedback' is a natural part of all interactions but the true value is only fully appreciated after presentations of findings to the selected audience.

Such an approach would transform education and would provide the 'new literacies' and 'key competencies' required for students to succeed in the challenging times ahead. Information technology, both to search and present ideas, defines this generation's experience and is easily integrated into such an approach.

With almost unlimited access to the world's knowledge it is critical for educators access this knowledge wisely and effectively. There are five major skill sets involved in the 'new literacies':

Identifying important questions
Locating relevant information
Critically evaluating information
Synthesizing information
Communicating effectively

These 'literacies' need to be introduced when students start school.

Our current industrial age fragmented schooling has resulted in far too many students being disengaged and bored; all too often alienated from their own learning power.

Renzulli's area of expertise is 'gifted students' but he believes a 'gifted education approach' improves the engagement and achievement of all students. Renzulli has written an article entitled 'A Rising Tide Lifts all Ships'

Working on something that is of personal interest, at any age, develops an infectious enthusiasm for learning. Such an approach challenges students to want to 'stretch' beyond their current levels. Engaged students, with a positive attitude towards learning, would also make teaching more fun and rewarding.

It is this approach that schools should 'target' not more of the same old literacy and numeracy.

Reaching the future down.Yeah right!

Who reaches
A future down for us from the high shelf
Of spiritual daring?

Landfall in Unknown Sea
Allen Curnow



Karen Sewell, Chief Executive of the Ministry of Eduction, introduces her thoughts to Ministry staff in their June newsletter with Allen Curnow's quote above.

The future may be unknown , she writes, but education is critical to ensuring our young people have the knowledge, skills and values to succeed. The Ministry's role is to provide leadership to develop an education system that will equip all New Zealanders for the 12stC.

This is the overarching outcome in this years Ministry's Statement of Intent.


A quick read of this bland document soon puts to rest any vision of 'reaching a future down of spiritual daring'.

After saying 'we' are making steady progress in all areas of learning from early childhood to tertiary level she then goes on to say that the system is still under performing for many Maori Pacifica children.

How 'steady progress' equates with, 'Too many young people are leaving school early with low or no qualifications.Forty percent leave school with less than Level 2 NCEA qualifications', is beyond me. 'Around 20000 15 to 19 year old are not engaged in learning or work', she continues.

We sure are in need of some 'spiritual daring' but little is to be seen.

'In previous years', she says, 'we have focused strongly on the "drivers" of presence, engagement and achievement. While these are still critical we must now direct our resources at critical points in the education system.' 'This means rigorous reporting against targets so we will know how far we have come and how far we have to go.'

Once again that doesn't sound like 'spiritual daring' to me; more like a continuation of the 90s technocratic obsession with efficiency. Lots of time will be sent by schools gathering data, making graphs, and reporting against 'targets', while all about the system keeps steadily failing. The Ministry's Statement of Intent is a political accountability document that subverts the fine aspirations of its own New Zealand Curriculum.

Certainly children need strong 'foundation skills' and 'key competencies' and the 'system must focus on the needs of children' but does this have to be a reactionary fallback to literacy and numeracy?

The most vital 'foundation skill' to be kept alive at all costs is enjoyment of learning.

Engagement is still the big concern. The issue is, how to make learning more engaging? The Ministry seem to want to do this without admitting is might be the antiquated secondary schools, desined for the wrong century, that might be the real problem.

Changing such schools will require real 'spiritual daring'.

Teacher are going to 'trained' to deliver 'best practices' which will certainly take any 'spiritual daring' away from those teachers who 'reach to the high shelf' of creativity. This 'new' literacy and numeracy crusade will be 'personalised', she says, to assist learners. It is a shame that Ms. Sewell hasn't the courage, or daring, to focus on personalising the whole system?

In the UK, the following of such 'targets' has improved children literacy and maths achievement but at the cost of enjoyment and, as well, results are plateauing as teachers lose enthusiasm. As for 'achievement targets' two issues come to mind - the 'narrowing' of the curriculum caused by the targets selected, and the idea that it is often not the targets you hit in life that count, but the ones you miss because you weren't looking!

Placing the focus on an education system on developing every child's, talents, passions and dreams ought to be 'target' for 'spiritual daring'. And this, is turn, might well be the key to retaining student's engagement?

Ms Sewell would have better advised to stay away from poetic thoughts and stick to her technocratic 'best practices', 'evidence based research', outcomes and targets.

'The future is a foreign country they will do things differently there'. There are no targets to report against on the way. What is needed is the wit and imagination to be daring; to have the courage to transform our school system as required.

Curnow's quote was used more appropriately by Peter Biggs, then Chair of Creative New Zealand, when addressing a New Zealand Primary Principals Conference in 2002.

His theme was we need to 'live life like an artist' and to embrace the vision of New Zealand as 'daring, pioneering, creative country'; one that 'celebrates the entrepreneurs of the imagination'.

To do this, he said, we need our schools to 'inspire learning', to tap the talents and gifts of all students so they can see themselves as 'adventurers'; 'people who burn ,people who challenge, people who believe nothing is impossible'.

Now that is reaching for a 'future for us from the high shelf'

Educating for a new Age

It seems ironic that in this hyper fast world what young people need most of all is to experience their world more slowly. Children it seems have no time to stand and stare - to reflect about what it is all about!

A few years ago, when I was a school principal, I felt the pressure from parents to introduce computers. Our school was missing out it seemed to others. I did my best to resist but the pressure and promise of computer education was too great. Once introduced no parent ever asked how they were being used - they were just a felt necessary to keep up with other schools.

Years later, after observing the use of computers in 'technologically advanced' schools I still have my doubts but where they are used well it is no doubt they are a powerful learning tools. Recently a principal on a study leave visited selected schools to see how well they were using ICT, he was disappointed and so changed his emphasis into researching inquiry learning. In this he was also disappointed. ICT is a case of over promising and under-delivering - and at tremendous continual expense.

This rush to give children every advantage at school and at home is becoming counter productive. This is the theses of Carl Honare latest book 'Under Pressure'. His earlier best selling book was called 'In Praise of Slow'. Honare writes about children 'being nannied, pressured and overprotected' by their parents and schools being obsessed with targets, testing, milestones, monitoring, and quantifying and recording achievement in narrow areas of learning. 'The tyranny of tests ,targets and milestones', Honare writes, 'sucks the joy out of learning', and, I would add, teaching. Honare, quoting Einstein writes, 'Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted'.

There is no longer time to stand and stare and to see infinity in grain of sand. Students are losing out on their childhood and becoming anxious, stressful and spoilt, all their time taken up by scheduled activities to maximize their potential. Few children now play by themselves or walk to school. Safety risks are imagined everywhere. It does no good for young people, or their parents, to think the world revolves around their achievement.

This pressure to achieve is squeezing out, time for the creative arts and results in shallow learning. Children have no time to learn through play, to learn from 'messy trial and error', or the opportunity to dig deeply into areas of personal interest. Children either conform to expectations by becoming self centred or by rebelling. There could well be a link, Honare writes, between all this pressure and the growing problem of ADHD and other disorders?

Honare believes it is time to make childhood more about the children -and the same applies to schools.

The early years are not a race. Young people need simple things: lots of interaction with each other and adults; stimulating conversations about things of interest where their views are taken seriously; learning to trust others; to engage playfully in natural world; to test and stretch the boundaries; to play and create imaginary worlds; and to be creative; all without teachers or parents running the show.

Creative educators have always known this.

There are are schools such as the Reggio Emilia that flow a more natural learning centred approach. Reggio schools believe in doing nothing that does not bring joy; they believe in unleashing each child natural curiosity. Countries like Finland have avoided most of the imposed pressures schools feel in New Zealand and still come out tops in the doubtful international tests. Finish students don't begin school or formally learn to read until 7 but still achieve.

Many creative schools schools have no fixed curriculum and allow students to delve deeply into projects that spring from their own interests. In such enlightened environments the teacher's role is to help , challenge , support, but not to teach. Amazing things happen when children follow their instincts Honare writes.

So maybe it isn't computers that are the key to the future? Perhaps it is something far simpler and less expensive? Maybe it is allowing students to follow their questions and interests and to develop them into personal projects? Maybe it is valuing creativity in all its forms? Perhaps most of all it is giving students the time to process their thoughts, to think and dig deeply into what attracts them? Such ideas ensure students learn to take responsibility for their own learning.

You don't have to be a anti technology 'Luddite hold such views?It is a matter of using them well.

Honare quotes Bill Gates as saying, 'If you've ever watched a child with a cardboard box of crayons create a spaceship with cool control panels, or listened to improvised rules...then you know that this impulse to make a toy do more is at the heart of innovative childhood play. It is also the essence of creativity.'

Modern technology, it seems, has it costs. Too much time in front of screens makes a difference not only in limiting time for other activities. Balance is required. An addictive 'high tech diet' may even effect children's weight let alone their minds; we may even be creating generation ADD Honare suggests.! Human brains need time and quiet to absorb the days experiences.

Schools are become to obsessed with academic achievement, which Honare says, 'is squeezing the lifeblood out of schools'.

Honare believes schools 'need to encourage their students to learn to solve problems together in groups, how to distinguish good information from bad, how to connect and share ideas with peers.. and how to think across disciplines.' And there is need , he says, 'to anchor part of the curriculum in Mother Nature'...'to give students an understanding of how the Earth works and how mankind has a role in preserving it'.

I no longer feel the pressure to become a technophile.

The challenge of the future is to recover what we are at risk of losing, an environmental creative education, one that develops students who are well informed, articulate, creative, disciplined and hungry for learning. Creative nimble minded innovators, or in the words of our 'new' New Zealand Curriculum, active seekers, users and creators of their own knowledge'.

It is time for creative schools to rediscover the joy of learning of realizing the the aptitudes and talents of their students. This means Honare concludes, 'giving children structure and guidance along with some of the freedom... it means planning for the future without losing the magic of the present'.

Honare's aim, for hs own children, is to 'encourage my children to stretch their wings but to let them choose the flight path.'

Good advice but, for some of us, it will be a bit 'back to the future'.

Environmental education or 'Ecophobia'!

Several themes feature in the lives of primary aged children. Adventure,exploring, maps and paths,special places, imagination and gathering things are part of their natural play - the best curriculums connect with these themes.Through such activities children develop a strong sense of place and environmental responsibility.

Now and then you come across a book that has the effect of clarifying ideas that you have held for years. One such book for me is 'Childhood and Nature' by David Sobel.

Exploring the natural world has been an important part of my life since boyhood leading to my becoming a Nature Study Specialist and later Science Adviser. As a class teacher, exploring the environment was feature of my programme. Such studies allowed my students to tap into their interests and learn how to research and express their ideas in language, and the creative arts, as a natural learning process.

This, Sobel writes, is the best way to develop a sense of place and and to develop a respect for nature leading to students leading ecologically responsible lives.

Environmental education is preferable to imposing adult studies on students such saving rain forests, whales, polar bears, penguins and studying pollution and global warming. Sobel calls this ' catastrophe' approach 'ecophobia' - placing responsibility on young children to save our 'fragile' world and in the process developing anxiety about the future. He suggest, no 'ecological tragedies before the fourth grade'. Sobel follows environmentalist Rachel Carson's advice, of building through experience 'a sense of wonder and love for the earth', as a more positive approach. 'Early learning is not primarily to educate or inform, but to foster love and caring' of the natural world.

Sobel quotes research that most environmental education does not lead to later environmental actions. Such responsibility develops from people who have developed a true love of nature from an early age.

Sobel believes in 'place based education', making exploring the immediate environment and tapping students curiosity, as the basis of education. It is exactly this sentiment that a group of teachers I worked with years ago believed in strongly.

It is time to return to such a 'creative' approach. Our 'new' New Zealand Curriculum asks teachers to see their students as active 'seekers, users,and creators' of their own learning. Such a curriculum, offering such flexibility, would have been welcome to the creative pioneer teachers I worked with decades ago.

Developing a sense of wonder, educating student's sensory awareness and following up areas of interest is more basic than literacy and numeracy and, indeed, such skills arise out of student centred experienced based environmental programmes.

That our students no longer are 'allowed' to explore their environment without supervision makes such an education through schools even more important.

Sobel outlines a number of deep childhood impulses that could develop into curriculum design themes for primary aged children. For those who can remember their own childhoods they will be familiar.

Students have a thirst for adventure, to expand their immediate geographic horizons - the chance to explore without knowing exactly what is going to happen. Sensitive teachers ( or parents) build on ideas that 'emerge'. Patches of bush, seashore, streams, wild areas, city walks and parks all await exploration.

Students live in their imaginations. Creative teachers create classrooms where imagination is valued. Exploring can be fun and a source of imaginative interpretations. Young children happily enter into a world of pretend and fantasy playing in their environment

Caring for animals is another childhood theme. It is no coincidence, Sobel writes, that animals feature strongly in children's literature. Children have an empathy for animals and caring for them will leads to a desire to protect endangered animals. Lucky the children whose teachers keep small pets in the classroom. As well such animals provide an audience to many a child's secret thoughts!

Another theme is 'maps and paths'. Young children like to get to know their immediate world, exploring paths and making maps. Few are able to do this today without supervision - and many children never walk anywhere, even to school. Making maps from home to school, local geography and exploring the source of streams, are areas to be explored. Making scale maps, exploring with a compass, 'treasure' maps - all lead into maths.

Special places are another feature of young people lives.In our day we all had forts, huts, tree houses or other 'special' places. Even huts made indoors represent this universal theme. All require imagination and creativity. Opportunities for this inventive play outdoors has all but disappeared.

I once visited a rural school that provided hundreds of fence battens which the children developed into forts and huts - new structures each day. Special places would an interesting class theme. The school, and the classroom itself, ought to be a special place for exploring the children's world and imagination. Children can adopt 'special places' in the school grounds to sit and reflect in. The environment is full of special places to study: pas, historic places, and hilltop views.

Another theme Sobel writes about is 'small worlds'. Children have fascination for making models of natural environments and historical places. Small worlds can be created by gardens featuring native plants.

The final theme of childhood is hunting and gathering. Children like collecting and hunting for things and then sorting and classifying them. Rocks , leaves, digital images, all can be collected and studied. Providing it is done sensibly collecting can be taken advantage of as part of class studies. All studies are searches for knowledge and, as in the best hunts, the outcomes are often unpredictable. This is as it ought to be.

All the above develop an ecological literacy by involving students in actions that develop a love and a appreciation of their immediate natural world.

For Sobel , 'hunting for treasure is one of the core metaphors for what education is all about. One of the objectives of schooling should be to engage students in searching for the meaning of life.' When students, he continues, 'get really enraptured in a topic and start to search for pieces of information, see the connections between different ideas, and then glimpse the big pattern, they are really engaged in kind of treasure hunt'. This, he says, is the basis of what theorists call 'constructivist learning' - 'the process of doing research and probing into the hidden recesses of a subject'.

Sobel's 'place based education' is similar to the inspiration for the environmental integrated teaching that I was involved in years ago.

Students who learn to be respectful of the environment, and involve themselves in protective actions, are in a position to practice ecological behaviours in later life. This is better than the 'premature rain forest education for young children', asking student's to solve overwhelming problems.

Developing positive attitudes leads to positive behaviour. We need, Sobel concludes his book, to teach children from an early age to to learn that it that their behaviour that makes a difference.' 'We have spent too much time, he says, focusing on conveying environmental knowledge and way too little time on developing environmental behaviours. By presenting students with 'ecophobia' issues we are breeding a sense of helplessness and anxiety.

It all begins with playing in nature with the help of supportive adults, rather than watching videos about environmental issues. We need to re-connect children with their natural world and develop school communities that care about their environment.

It is all about valuing children's sense of wonder, recognising their inherent fascination with nature, and protecting, at all costs, their love of learning.

Learning is the thing!

I happened to read Mary Chamberlain's speaking notes of a presentation she gave to the 2008 Rotorua Learning@School Conference. Mary is the Ministry Curriculum Manager, or some similar grand title.

I have listened to Mary myself and she has a personable style that appeals to teachers so I was interested to read what she was currently saying to teachers in relation to the 'new' New Zealand Curriculum.

Essentially it was an opportunity for her to share how vital the key competencies are as they relate to realizing the intent of the 'new' New Zealand Curriculum.

What makes each of us 'open the door to learning', quoting her mother, is 'how successful we are at learning and how well we have developed the competencies outlined in the curriculum'. I dislike the term 'key competence's as it reminds me of the industrial age but they certainly aren't anything new, no matter how much the Ministry would like us to think they are.

Acquiring these competencies, she believes, 'influence who we become'.

I think this is nonsense. Who we become is influenced by the talents, gifts and passion we develop that drive us to learn more - the competencies are a means to an end. We are driven by an evolutionary curiosity to make meaning of our experiences. As we explore we focus on the things that really interest us us, and as our interest grows we get better at whatever it is we like doing.

Helping each learner discover and amplify their innate talents is the role of the teacher. Obviously process and product are both important but learning is driven by interests and curiosity and it must result in being able to do something ( performing), knowing and understanding.

Creative schools ought to spend their time working out how that can develop an 'attractive' provocative curriculum that will challenge students and give then the opportunity to develop whatever talents they have - and at the same time the key competencies that will be required. The most creative school will develop learning environments that encourages students to ask their own questions and research areas of interest that appeal to them. Innovative teachers can easily ensure that 'official' requirements are covered!

'Teaching', wrote Jerome Bruner,'is the canny art of intellectual temptation. An 'emergent' curriculum, arising from students concerns and interests, is rich, real and relevant and solves the problem of engagement.

This approach represented the best of creative New Zealand teaching that has been all but lost with the imposition of the incoherent standardised curriculum with all their levels, strand and learning objectives. It is worth keeping in mind this incoherent mess was foisted on us by the same Ministry of Education!

Don't get me wrong the New Zealand Curriculum is giant step forwards - or backwards, from the previous technocratic accountability model. The idea that 'schools have the flexibility to design their own curriculum with their own students at heart' should be taken advantage of but it once what we all believed in.

The 'reinvention' of pedagogy is also welcome, even if the co-constructivist model is only implicit. No matter. I like what Mary says about, ' at heart the teachers role is about learning that expands possibilities students see for themselves and expanding their emotional and intellectual resources so they can live life to the full.' Mary feels the key competencies will do this. I feel it will be providing rich, real and relevant studies to inspire students and to develop whatever talents students have. Competencies are nothing new and are implicit in any worthwhile learning challenge. Later she does say that learning areas are as important as competencies but I think not.

Mary placed great emphasis on the traditional values of effort and perseverance. Ironically the rush to cover the past Ministry curriculums that were 'an inch deep and mile wide' has pushed these important values out of teachers minds. Anyone who understands creativity knows it aways involves such values.

I have to agree with Mary than 'we need to go beyond brain gym, mind maps, learning styles and thinking hats' but I part company with her when she includes multiple intelligences. Developing students talents and gifts is the heart of real learning. When I visit classrooms to see examples of what some call, 'higher learning teaching' (HOTS), all see is 'thin learning; real content being lost in the emphasis on process. And learning is more than setting goals, to persist, to work with others etc it must be about something worthwhile. But knowing what to do when you don't know what to do is obviously a very important 'mindset' - 'can do kids'. But we all know this - or used to.

Mary sends a long time taking about the role of the teachers as a diagnostic learning coach providing focused feedback. But once again creative teachers know this, but is good advice.

It is almost as if the Ministry had 'rediscovered' learning after having diverted themselves, and schools, with less educational goals. There must have been some value for them from their 'best evidence' research - it has uncovered the obvious.

It is also great to see that Mary has listened to Guy Claxton with his idea of 'learning power', 'learning conversations', resilience, resourcefulness,relationships and reflection - that 'learnacy' is more important that literacy and numeracy ( or use of computers). His ideas are compatible with the creative teaching New Zealand was once recognised for.

I guess I am just reminding teachers that developing fascinating learning projects, that are in tune with student's developmental needs, are as important as the key competencies, or learning how to learn. As Elwyn Richardson used to say, 'a study without real content is a study at risk'; or runs the risk of being 'anti intellectual' according to Kelvin Smythe.

I don't think Mary would disagree. Her challenge is to ensure we are all as excited about key competencies as the Ministry is. She will have hard job convincing me.

I did like her quoting, from Margaret Carr and Guy Claxton, that classroom environments can range from 'prohibitive' to student learning, to 'inviting' and, better still, 'potentiating', ones where learning is both appealing and challenging. Classrooms where teachers use 'split screen thinking', one one hand stretching students capacity to learn at the same time as they are developing deeper understanding of important content

It is, as Mary concludes, all about developing an openness and a capacity to learn.

And I agree with Mary, that 'mindsets' will have to change if this is to be realized so that all students leave with their innate learning dispositions still intact able to thrive in a complex world of excitement and uncertainty.

If this does then then the intent of the new New Zealand Curriculum will have been realized.

The exciting area to explore new mindsets will be in secondary schools. When they are transformed from their industrial aged structures and cultures the revolution will have begun.

It began a long time ago with creative teacher in primary schools.

The kiwi way?

What we need us some creative alternatives to current school models.We need courageous leadership to help students to escape the boxes we school them in!

I just had to read 'Kiwi Leadership for Principals' after reading Kelvins Smythe's critical comment on it that it, 'should never have reached the light of day'. Our, so called 'unique system' , even with the addition of a few Maori phrases, is not doing too well , and the Ministry leadership document won't help much.

After reading it who would ever care. Some committee has cobbled together all the latest ideas about transformational leadership without really saying why it is even needed. The simple fact is that our current system is hopelessly failing far too many of our students is not mentioned . The 'one size fits all' mass production academic model developed in, and for, an industrial age is simply past it's 'use by date'.

This is never mentioned honestly in the Ministry document. Little is presented of what a 21st century school might even look like. Whatever, it must certainly be far different that what is currently struggling to survive. Secondary schools, in particular, were never designed for many of the students who are now forced to stay there until they are 16! Compulsory mis- education!

Courageous leadership will be required to set new directions. New leaders will need to have 'respect' if others are to follow them into this continually evolving creative world. Such leaders are able to 'tap' a 'feeling' in others that there has to be a better way. Can't see 'evidence based leadership' inspiring anyone!

The Ministry paper is all just too bland and academic and seems to think that if 'evidence based research' is mentioned often enough all will be well. I can see principals in the future busy documenting classroom observations and gathering endless 'evidence'. There are lots of words about: trusting relationships, lead learners, developing capacity, learning communities, distributed leadership, meeting the needs of all students, developing partnerships with parents and the community and school culture. And, of course, education needs to be 'personalised', and that we have to move away from 'traditional views of knowledge and learning'. They don't mention coping with Ministry compliance demands!

Managing change , the document writes, is the principals key role.

The history of imposed school change and reform is dismal. Read Dean Finks article on Leadspace to get a taste of reality. Changing schools is easy to write about but hard to do - and reality is something those who live in their well paid ivory towers would know little about.

And all this as if it were anything new.

Researchers must be the last to discover anything - I guess it takes time ( that we don't have ) to gather up all this 'evidence'. As Einstein said, 'If we knew what we were doing we wouldn't call it research'. Life is about enlightened trial and error - do something and keep what works! Life, as they say, is next time not a rehearsal.

The Ministry's vision that all students should be, 'creative, energetic and enterprising' and that teachers need to use 'pedagogy that meet all student's needs' are fine words. And, of course the 'key competencies'; now there is a phrase from the industrial age1 These competencies have been presented as if the Ministry' had discovered the 'Holy Grail'.

I would've loved to have seen a vision where all students are given the opportunity to realize and amplify all their potential talents, gifts and passions. The desire to realize a talent creates the desire to learn (and to develop key competencies) and results in old fashioned stuff called knowledge and understanding. Education ought to about developing passionate learners driven by their innate curiosity - an education ensuring all students retain a joy of learning. One phrase in the 'new' NZ Curriculum, that needs to be highlighted, is that all students should be their own 'seekers, users, and creators' of knowledge. This has aways been the premise of creative educators.

That so many students leave without a positive learning identity is the real problem we have to face up to.


Back to Kelvin.

He believes that if principals are not able to fulfil their roles as curriculum leaders this is because of all the compliance and curricula accountability that has been imposed on them by the Ministry. If the Ministry spent more time working out how to reduce this compliance load this would free principals to get with being creative leaders, able to focus on teaching and learning.

Tomorrows Schools - or the curriculum that followed, and the 'naming and shaming' of the School Review Office ( even if it now 'assess and assist') has established a 'big brother effect' in our system. Devolving responsibility to schools, while at the same time creating a 'low trust' culture has led, to what one writer calls a a 'corrosion of character' - principals aways trying to double guess what is required of them by others. This leads to a 'anticipatory dread' settling on a school and with the news of an ERO visit an outbreak of folders outlining all the 'evidence based data' around school 'targets'!

It is this bureaucracy that is blocking creative leadership.

Most of all Kelvin makes the point that, with all curriculum imposition, accountability and regulatory requirements, we have lost the real 'kiwi' approach to learning that began with the work of Ashton Warner, Elwyn Richardson and other such creative teachers.

He mentions such things as: developmental teaching, the NZ balanced reading system, the wonderful work in the related arts and in environmental education, and constructivist thinking in science and social studies. These were all in place before Tomorrow's Schools. Much has been lost. We once had an environment, Kelvin says, where teachers had the freedom to pursue children's interests freely and imaginatively. He also bemoans the replacement of a passionate long tern advisory service with 'contracted deliverers' of Ministry 'messages'.

Kelvin warned us about the danger of losing our creativity, our sense of agency, way back in the mid eighties, but few were willing to listen . Everyone was too busy getting to grips with the new requirements. He, however, has been proved right.

This is why we need new leadership thinking now . Ironically principals are to be 'saved' by the very people who led them down the wrong trail!

It is great that Kelvin has had the moral courage to continue presenting his ideas; ideas I am in full agreement with.

The call for 'personalised' teaching and a focus on pedagogy is all 'back to the future' for creative teachers. New Zealand primary teachers have been leaders in 'personalised learning' for decades.

We must not believe that the Ministry has discovered new ideas to help us; 'best practice' comes from real teachers not 'evidence' gathered, and claimed, by researchers.

The Ministry is playing 'catch up'. Principals, teacher organisations and teachers must learn to lead. If there has been something wrong the past decades it has been with a Ministry that continually revises all procedures ( Ministry C.R.A.P.)keeping all schools in state of confusion. It all boils own who feels empowered - it certainly hasn't been teachers the past years!

Kelvin encourages teachers to challenge the bureaucracies. He makes the point that pedagogy is an art not a science - every school and teacher has to creatively face up to the special mix of circumstances only they can ever know.

At least, Kelvin says, the curriculum has once again been placed as the responsibility of the school.

The 'new' curriculum provides an opportunity for principals and teachers to once again take centre stage in the educational debate.

As Dean Fink writes,'it is about teaching and it is about time.'

Environmental education - the real basics?

After experiencing a spring on the mountain, as part of an intensive study of a river from source to sea, a student expresses her version of a powerful remembered experience. Such students learn, through activity and expression, to appreciate the importance of their natural environment. Such learning, and creativity, takes time and sensitive teaching.


‘..without intimacy with nature we can confuse crimes against the Earth with technological progress’ David Suzuki Naturalist.

Issues of global climate change, and other threats to the planet, are making us all more aware of environmental issues. Increasingly educators are feeling the need to take action. The ‘new’ New Zealand Curriculum has responded to the challenge by introducing ‘issues of sustainability’ as a value, along with ‘ecological sustainability’, and the need to develop ‘a care for the environment’.

All too little and too late some might think?

A real appreciation of the natural world needs to be part of a child’s life from the earliest age and integral to all school learning. Some might call it the real ‘basics’ of being human as young children learn through their senses driven by an innate evolutionary curiosity to make sense of their world. Making sense of the world means using the senses and to do this schools need to focus on sensory education.

In our classrooms today our young people are all to often diverted from being involved in environmental experiences by an exposure to technology based learning. An over emphasis on literacy and numeracy above, what educationalist Guy Claxton calls, ‘learnacy’ doesn't allow much time for environmental studies.

An environmental approach to learning links education to an engagement with the real world and has the potential to develop a love of learning about, and a responsibility for, the environment. As well such an approach provides the opportunity for students to develop language facility, an enriched vocabulary and the development of students' thinking, and problem solving skills.

Children, who have learnt to make full use of their senses through exposure to their intimate environment, are in a position to respond both poetically and scientifically to their experiences.This leads to sensitive oral and written expression (and from this reading their own and others thoughts), observational and creative art work, and for them to be in a position to want to learn more about what has captured their attention. As the New Zealand Curriculum states, ‘intellectual curiosity is at the heart of the thinking competency’ (p12).

I have aways enjoyed this quote from art educator Elliot Eisner:

'To be able to write one must have access to content, one must be open and able to see the world and experience ones encounter with it. To see the world one must learn to attend to it, how to penetrate its deep structure, how to capture what is significant.It is through the literacy of sight,and smell, and touch that literature and poetry, drama, science and dance are given the stuff with which to work.'

Such a language/environmental /related arts approach was once a feature of New Zealand classrooms and was widely admired worldwide. There are still teachers who hold true to such beliefs but recent standardized curriculums, and accountability and assessment requirements, have not made such teachers lives easy in recent years. The ‘new’ New Zealand Curriculum provides a more progressive environment for teacher creativity.

Such a creative and personalized approach to teaching would contribute to the development of a positive sense of self gained through the valuing of their poetic ‘voice’ and for their scientific and artistic accomplishments. Such individual achievements develop, in students, a sense of control over their own lives.

The suggestion, in the New Zealand Curriculum, for teachers to make use of ‘the natural connections that exist between learning areas’ and the powerful idea of seeing students as ‘active seekers, users and creators of knowledge’ (p8) provides inspiration for teachers to develop integrated studies. The suggestion to ‘cover less but to cover it in depth’, is excellent advice to avoid possibilities of superficial learning.


The Curriculum suggests that schools and teachers , ‘respond to the particular needs, interests, and talents of individuals and groups of students in their classes’ (p37) This, with the welcome severe ‘pruning’ of the learning objectives of the earlier curriculums, allows considerable freedom for schools to develop ‘emergent’ programmes based on students need and concerns.

By developing a curriculum based around student needs, interests and concerns, an attitude of care and appreciation of their environment could well develop. If environmental topics chosen are studied in depth this allows students to have time to think and wonder and then to express their thoughts, making use of whatever talents and gifts they have.

If such an approach to education had been in place the past decades, valuing appreciation and sustenance of the environment, environmental issues might have been appreciated earlier. It is never to late to place a greater emphasis on developing an environmental awareness and ‘ecological sustainability’.

It was the late Rachel Carson, in her book ‘The Silent Spring’ published in the 1950s, who first introduced the vulnerability of our planet. Later she wrote in ‘A Sense of Wonder’:

‘Exploring nature with your child is largely a matter of being reflective to what lies around you. It is learning to see with your eyes, ears, nostrils and finger tips, opening up the disused channels and sensory impressions.’

This desire to learn through the senses is an evolutionary drive, or predisposition, that no child should lose. Children are driven by an intense curiosity enhanced by focused experiences of the natural world. Exploring this real world, as a basis for learning, is preferable to passively experience the world mediated through virtual imagery – and less expensive.

Schools ought to face up to environmental challenges that face future generations by helping all students develop a hopeful future for themselves and their planet. We need to start this imaginings early so as to develop an appreciation of the wonder and mystery of the natural world.

The ‘new’ curriculum gives us such an opportunity

A critical view of the New Zealand Curriculum.

Kelvin Smythe has long been a critic of an imposed technocratic ideology and is a passionate supporter of a liberal humanistic progressive creative approach to teaching. Check out his website. Older teachers will remember his Network Magazine.


Teachers , Kelvin advises, before they move to make something of the new curriculum, should look at it clear eyed and not be beguiled by those who devised and presented it.

Compared with its predecessor, Smythe believes, the new curriculum is heading in the right direction but the developers, he writes have fumbled an opportunity to produce a cohesive, powerful and inspiring document.

As such he sees it is a lost opportunity and that teachers will have to step up to correct significant omissions . This he presents as a challenge for teachers to realise.

This is as it should be. Creative teachers are the only ones in a position to appreciate the subtle reality of classroom relationships.

Kelvins verdict on the 07 curriculum is a long read. What follows is my interpretation of Kelvin's views, with a few of my own thrown in for good measure.

If curriculums are to inspire and challenge this curriculum, he believes, only occasionally meets these aspirations.

The problem is , he writes, is that the 'new' curriculum has been shaped to reduce criticism from a range of 'interested' groups while at the same time trying to focus on developing students thinking as a key area. As a result of trying to please all, the resulting document is somewhat flawed.

The various attempts to clarify values has resulted in a 'values morass' and begs the question of which values are most to be most valued. This is challenge for individual schools to negotiate with their communities.

The curriculum, as another writer has suggested, is 'a game of two halves'. Primary teacher are advised by Kelvin, to 'colonise' the parts that appeal to them ( as they have aways done) while finding ways to work around problematic areas'. Kelvin fears that the professional development that will accompany this document will have the 'opacity of an education sandstorm'.


The substantive issues that schools will have to face up to, once the 'guff' has been read, are implementing the key competencies, the learning area statements, and the achievement objectives. Much of the 'guff at the front of the curriculum , Kelvin writes, is far from new.

As far as the key competencies go Kelvin is mildly supportive of them; two, he says are passable ( thinking and language), while the other three are a mess. His main concern about the competencies is the pressure that will come from the Review Office as to how they are being implemented and the professional development time that will wasted on clarifying them. Another of his concerns is the implication that the competences are even new or fresh but he is certain they will become a bureaucratic battleground for schools with the Review Office.

Kelvin is concerned, as I am, that the competencies will be seen as more important than knowledge attitudes and values involved in learning and, as such, will result in anti intellectualism in our schools.

The real debate about about the curriculum will be about the purpose, soundness and practicability of the competences - as well as if they really represent anything new.

Kelvin believes, as I do, that if teachers are teaching well based teaching units all the elements of the competencies will be attended to and, he adds, the 'learning' will result in subtle and incremental learning not easy to 'tick off', or demonstrate, to Review Officers.

Overall , Kelvin writes, he 'cannot take the key competencies seriously

The effective pedagogy section, Kelvin sees, as an example of both the strengths and weaknesses of the new curriculum. The explanations, he writes, under the various learning area headings are 'never less than very good'. He does have concerns about the press for curriculum integration and inquiry learning which could result in content with little intellectual challenge. Learning is about 'what' as well as 'how', as anyone involved in any area of learning would appreciate. Kelvin is strongly in the camp of understanding, attitude and values as against skills and processes. The suggestion to do fewer things well in depth is good advice.

Unfortunately, in my experience, shallow learning is a feature of many class studies ; the process of learning being seen as more important than in depth understanding of the content involved. All sorts of 'higher order thinking' (HOT) programmes are being implemented, all too often resulting in some very 'thin learning'. As well Kelvin is critical of simplistic inquiry based models that many schools use. Kelvin thinks that the developers could well have developed a more generic inquiry model that would apply, with adaptations, to all areas of learning. Inquiry learning, he says, 'is making students curious, getting them thinking, and helping them to develop new and valid understandings'.

The use of computers comes in for some valid criticism from Kelvin ; computer use being seen as a an end in itself and rarely resulting in adding real depth to students understanding. And, I would add, diverting students from studying in-depth environmental studies where sensible use of computers would be a real advantage. The arts,Kelvin believes, have not been accorded the importance they deserve in comparison to computer education; the computers are the 'new arts'?

Kelvin is supportive of the section om assessment while still preferring the tern evaluation. Assessment, he believes, links to an accountability and a surveillance culture which has dominated schools the past decades. This culture has led to a, 'stifling of creativity and individuality, making teaching less attractive to those of a more adventurous mindset'. Accountability also leads to the fantasy that that teachers can predetermine exactly what students should learn and then be able to present 'proof' to others - this was the ideology underlying the previous curriculum. Teacher are still being asked to be able to recognise, measure, discuss and chart the progress of their students - this will cause some soul searching to keep in perspective.

Couldn't agree more.

The prose description of the learning areas are seen by Kelvin as a far better way to comprehend the various learning areas than the 'pull out' pages. These , although containing far less learning objectives, still retain the same faulty thinking of the previous curriculum . Creative teacher are encouraged to select appropriate learning objectives to suit chosen studies although teachers still have to have evidence of covering all the strand over two years!

Kelvin is supportive of the suggestion for schools to use the document flexibly according to the student's' needs and the assessment sections which focuses on improving student learning and teachers teaching.

Kelvin's final verdict is that it is a mixed document. 'It is amiable, generous, mainly non ideological, ingratiating , rambling, confused, flawed and ultimately disappointing.' 'The document continues some of the faults of the past , nevertheless, is heading in a more productive direction'.

The question remains, Kevin writes, is 'will the curriculum provide impetus for transforming any particular parts of New Zealand education. Secondary teachers, he says, will see it as a non event, easily lost in the various subject departments, but they will find that key competencies will give them pause for thought, as it will primary teachers. Primary teachers will find its implementation less of a challenge and it may encourage them to value the 'voice' of their students more. Their real challenge is to involve their students in sustained in depth thinking and understanding.

One phrase that I like, that Kelvin neglects to mention, is the phrase that students should be seen as 'their own seekers, users and creators of knowledge'. And he makes little mention of the need to develop the talents, gifts and dream of all students, which I see as a priority as we enter, what some call, a new creative age, an age equivalent to the first Renaissance.


It may be worthwhile for schools to tale a clear eyed look at the 'new ' curriculum now that it has been in schools for a year?

The 'experts' always get it wrong!

Bruce's view on the 'new' curriculum
John Faire's view on the draft
Assessing competencies.
Inquiry approach and the NZC

A little bit of deja vue

It is all too easy to think what currently passes for new ideas are really new - just another version of ideas often lost when top down 'experts' ignore the reality of true learning.

Recently educationalist Dean Fink wrote that the new models of education are 'deju vue all over again'. He writes, 'as a veteran educator, I find the advocacy of new models of schooling reminiscent of the discussions of the 1960s and 1970s'. He comments that those ideas 'floundered on bureaucratic inertia, political timidity, community nostalgia and teacher resistance'. I would agree but would add that 'official approval' of such learning was the 'kiss of death' as every teacher jumped on the bandwagon without true understanding of the creativity involved .

Perhaps we are in the same position again? The 'new' New Zealand Curriculum states that students should be seen as 'seekers, users, and creators of their own knowledge'.

To translate this to reality would mean dramatic changes even in the most liberal primary classroom - most classrooms have a long way to go to establish 'personalised learning'.

By accident I happened to pick up and read some writings of Henry Pluckrose.Henry was a figure of great importance to those who pioneered a creative arts approach in the 70s. Most importantly he was a school principal who wrote from his own experiences. Check out his writings work on google -all based on practical classroom activities. Who is the modern equivalent of Henry?

In 1969 he wrote that , 'We must begin by examining the needs, interests and abilities of the children we teach.' That, 'creative work can only come from where the teaching situation takes the child's needs aptitudes and interests fully into account i.e. we should begin with the child and build the curriculum round him rather than take a curriculum and fit the child to it.'

Henry describes the child as a workman, 'an embryo scientist, an explorer, an investigator with a great desire to touch and to see, to experience, to understand'. A learner with a 'naturally inquiring mind backed by vast quantities of energy, a love of words , both spoken and written and a vivid imagination for which model making, writing, art and drama provide a natural outlet'.

'Our aim', he writes, 'should be to make the classroom a place which is interesting, provocative, child centred.' Creativity should, 'flow through the entire curriculum, enriching the writing of poetry and prose, from music and movement to the way in which a child arrives at solutions to problems and presents his ideas.'

To achieve, what we now call a 'learning community', a school he writes, needs to be, 'united by common ideals, purposes and philosophy'

Henry believed in an integrated day , one in which the curriculum is not needlessly broken down into quite unrelated subjects.' 'A day in which teacher and child do not live apart on different planes in the same world, a day which provides outlets for the whole child - emotionally, creatively, intellectually and spiritually.The school should of course be orderly, for children need a pattern of living which they understand and can follow.'

The implications of such a philosophy says Henry, 'means the classrooms become exciting places where children learn to read and write, to record, to experiment, to discuss, to search out, to question, to ,manipulate, to play. Sometimes the whole class will work together, sometimes small groups will be the most satisfactory unit, more often it will be the individual child who will require help, encouragement and advice.'

'Creativity- invention with spontaneity and imagination- flourishes in an environment where the needs and aptitudes of the child are regarded as of paramount importance.'

Perhaps this is what is meant by seeing students as 'seekers, users and creators of the own knowledge'?

It may not be new but it is still difficult.

I visited Henry's school in London all those years ago and was shown around by a very insightful five year old. I was impressed with what I observed then and still am today.

Maybe one day we will have our own Henry Pluckrose in New Zealand? One thing is certain, no one at the Ministry really know what to do. It will be over to schools, preferably working together sharing ideas, to achieve such a vision.

The artisty of the teacher

The grave of a Viking Chief buried with his horse and other valuables. Imagine the scene at the time!

It is not that common to see students writing that really deeply expresses their emotions and thoughts about events that may have happened in distant time or place.

All too often what is seen is matter of fact information written out without any real depth of thought.

Many years ago I was impressed with a book on children's language written by Harold and Connie Rosen, 'The Language of Primary School Children'. Such books are not so common these days which is a shame as there is a real need for teachers to help their students think deeply and to express their 'voice' with sincerity and feeling. When emotion and sensory impressions are are involved in any learning it will 'stick' forever. This is how the brain works.

Teacher artistry and sensitivity is required to enter into dialogue with the individual learners to help them develop in-depth thought. Lack of depth and understanding is all too commonly seen today in students' observational or scientific writing as well.

In the example below students have researched deeply and have been exposed to a range of resources about Viking life. An image that caught their attention, imagination, or sense of horror, was the thought of the killing the dead chief's horse.

The teacher appreciating the power involved in such a situation asked the students to write their thought about this event about this distant culture. The teacher was well aware of the the power of the theme of death and dying - a theme all too often ignored by schooling.

The thing to note is how the teacher helped the student 'forge through dialogue and revision' a powerful piece of writing.

The child's first attempt resulted in:

'The chieftain's two saddle horse and hound is killed by a dagger then put in with the chieftain.'

The child, after discussion, was then asked to imagine what it would be like to kill a horse.

The first revision resulted in the following:

'The chieftains saddle horse was killed and his dogs are held by a Viking then one of the other Viking gets the dagger and puts it one by one into the chieftain's animals, then a group of very strong vikings take over by lifting the animals and carrying them to the boat, then they are put into the front part of the ship and they remain in there.'

The teacher, after further discussion, asked what the vikings looked like, and to think about how big horses are, and the sounds they might have heard at the scene if they were there.

'The Viking did not lift the horse easily and clenched their teeth together half toppling over. It strained them but they were used to it. When the dagger killed the animals they lept and screamed loudly with pain and then the sound went suddenly and it died with its last cry.'


The student, now totally involved in the situation, made a final revision and called the piece 'the Horse Sacrifice'.

'It lay there dead, its skin pierced. Blood stained the clay, its legs rested, its eyes closed.It moved not once, its tail layed on its mighty legs. It was good horse, it ran fast, it obeyed every word.Its mighty legs ran swiftly on the on the soft earth. Then a group of very strong vikings lifted the horse to the ship and put it in the front part of the ship. A day of sadness had come, his great life was extinguished.'

Not bad for a nine year old.

As one teacher I used to work with used to say, 'It is about defining and refining'. Another believed strongly in, 'tapping into felt experiences'.

By slowing the pace of work and by encouraging reflective thought the learner has time to develop new associations and by means of this process to move away from cliche thoughts. And as a bonus the student gained a real insight into the creative process.

I once had young student who wrote, after half an hour, 'In the weekend my dad and I killed two pigs'. After reading the viking story above I knew my teaching task had just begun.

The power of teacher dialogue, to explore and deepen the thoughts of students, applies to all areas of learning. It only works however if teacher really value the unique 'voice' of their students. This is the key to the developing true personalised learning

A quick visit to Aussie

An image by artist Ken Done of the New South Wales coastline. Pandanus trees, and sunshine, are a feature.

It has been a while since I last added a blog.

It is just that I have been working with some schools in Coffs Harbour, halfway between Sydney and Brisbane. This was a follow up from my presentation at the NSW Principals Association Annual Conference last November.

It was a wonderful experience, especially as it was an opportunity to escape the beginning of winter in New Zealand. For punishment I returned to New Plymouth on the coldest day so far this year and found that my home had been flooded. None the less it was all worth it.

It is always interesting to meet up with teachers from another country and the chance to visit classrooms of a couple of the schools was great. Teaching is both the same and different in every country one visits. I hope the ideas I shared were of value to the teachers I presented to; but , as I said, I enjoyed the experience.

As for my presentation - really three presentations, I shared my thoughts about quality learning and teaching in the content areas that seem to be neglected in both counties. An emphasis on literacy and numeracy, in both our counties, has diverted teacher energy from inquiry learning in the content areas and also the importance of the creativity in the expressive arts. This 'diversion' has taken the emphasis away from the centrality of the need to develop of every learners' unique talents, gifts and creativity. As one UK commentator has said, 'it is as if literacy and numeracy have gobbled up the rest of the curriculum'. Educationalist Guy Claxton has written that more important than literacy and numeracy is 'learnacy'.

The first of my three presentations covered the big idea that we are in a major 'shift' in human consciousness equivalent to that experienced in the first Renaissance - some are calling this 'shift' the New Age of Creativity or the Second Renaissance. The trouble is, as we a leave the Industrial Age, our schools systems are artifacts of a past age.


New thinking is required; we need 'new minds for a new millennium.

Just as the 'round world' view of human kind created new perceptions and knowledge (aided by the printing press), so the idea of an 'evolutionary' world, aided by the world wide web, creating new, very different, ways of understandings.

Defining the future attributes required by future learners, and focusing all teaching toward realizing such attributes, is the challenge of today's schools. These attributes are defined as 'key competencies' ( a phrase uncomfortably linked to an Industrial Age) in the New Zealand Curriculum.

My second presentation covered what I call the 'artistry of the teacher'. We covered a series of activities to illustrate how teachers can value the 'voice', questions, ideas and opinions of their students. This 'personalization' of learning is a natural replacement of the previous uniformity of the 'mass' education established in an Industrial Age. We covered learning styles, the importance of perception and observation, multiple intelligences, co-constructivist teaching and the use of 'scaffolds' to develop student confidence. The key to quality is to do 'fewer things well' so as to ensure students' 'personal best'.

The 'new' New Zealand Curriculum sees students as, 'active seekers users and creators of their own knowledge'.

My final session was about class organisation, or what to do with others' while teachers are working with groups or individuals who need specific help. A rotation group system similar to one used by teachers for reading was suggested. We also covered the idea of an 'emergent curriculum' based on students questions, integrated learning, assessment through performance, and the creation of celebratory and informative classrooms. One important idea was the need to do 'fewer topics in greater depth' - this is in conflict with current NSW Curriculum requirements.

My visits to classrooms the next day illustrated to me that many of the above ideas were already part of many teachers repertoire. My ideas affirmed what many teachers were currently doing or, in some cases, what they used to do! From discussions with the principals and teachers a number of ideas presented did provide new perspectives that would 'add value' to their school programmes.

All in all a worthwhile experience for myself and a chance to experience some great hospitality and sunshine.

Be great to go back!!

For information on practical details of my presentations see my set of action plan booklets.