Point of Order: How daft is the draft?

Educationalists concoct a science curriculum without chemistry, physics or biology

The outlook for education and science in this country is looking grim, according to our newspaper and blog reading this morning.

Kiwiblog features an article by Alwyn Poole headed The Real Apology that should come from Tinetti (and Hipkins).

A report in the New Zealand Herald (reproducing an RNZ report) is headed School science curriculum: Teachers shocked at leaked draft – ‘Where’s the science?’

All New Zealanders concerned about the education of our children should be disquieted if not dismayed.

Alwyn Poole notes that the Minister of Education, Jan (“I have been a PRINCIPAL you know”) Tinetti, recently apologised to 119 people for being incompetent in the house.

Poole asks:

When will she apologise for her deep incompetence and harm caused as New Zealand’s Minister of Education? Hipkin’s definitely owes a longer, wider, deeper apology but has clearly chosen to put his performance as Minister of Education on the “bonfire” and not look in the rear view mirror.

The article records the two latest issues needing mea culpas:

The Term 1 2023 attendance stats – while bouncing around a bit – still languish 13% below 2019 figures. Note: The do not include strike days which count as non-school days.

Term 1 Attendance 2019 – 2023

Term 1 2019: 72.8%

Term 1 2020: 50.5%

Term 1 2021: 66.8%

Term 1 2022: 46.1%

Term 1 2023: 59.5%

The latest Curriculum debacle under her watch has a Science curriculum being written that is – according to very high credibility people – devoid of Science.

“Science teachers are shocked that an advance version of the draft school science curriculum contains no mention of physics, chemistry or biology. The so-called “fast draft” said science would be taught through four contexts – the Earth system, biodiversity, food, energy and water, and infectious diseases. Teachers who had seen the document told RNZ they had grave concerns about it. It was embarrassing, and would lead to “appalling” declines in student achievement, they said. One said the focus on four specific topics was likely to leave pupils bored with science by the time they reached secondary school.”

I think I know what Tinetti is doing here. Because of the decline in our education system – accelerated to maximum velocity (“physics”) – over the last 6 years our State school students are struggling to compete at all internationally so – lets take our bat and ball and go home and play academic tiddlywinks instead.

 Simply appalling and the apology/fix needs to come well before this “Science Curriculum” gets anywhere near students.

The report by RNZ’s John Gerritsen in the New Zealand Herald says:

Science teachers are shocked that an advance version of the draft school science curriculum contains no mention of physics, chemistry or biology.

The so-called “fast draft” said science would be taught through four contexts – the Earth system, biodiversity, food, energy and water, and infectious diseases.

It was sent to just a few teachers for their feedback ahead of its release for consultation next month, but some were so worried by the content they leaked it to their peers.

This article includes reassurances from the director of the Wilf Malcolm Institute of Educational Research at the University of Waikato, Cathy Buntting, who was one of the curriculum writers.

She “rubbished” suggestions key areas physics and chemistry would not be taught.

Teachers who have seen the document nevertheless told RNZ of their grave concerns about the draft.

Some say it is embarrassing and will lead to “appalling” declines in student achievement.

Association of Science Educators president Doug Walker said he was shocked when he saw a copy.

“Certainly, in its current state, I would be extremely concerned with that being our guiding document as educators in Aotearoa. The lack of physics, chemistry, Earth and space science, I was very surprised by that.”

New Zealand Institute of Physics education council chairman David Housden said physics teachers were not happy either.

“We were shocked. I think that physics and chemistry are fundamental sciences and we would expect to find a broad curriculum with elements of it from space all the way down to tiny particles.”

Institute president Joachim Brand said he was worried teenagers would finish school without learning fundamental knowledge about things like energy and matter.

He warned the draft was heavy on philosophy and light on actual science.

“There is too little science content. Science needs to be learned by actually doing it to some degree. You need to be exposed to the ideas of how maybe atoms work, how electricity works, how electric forces and if that is not specified and you’re only given these broad contexts, then I’m really worried there will be huge gaps,” he said.

Secondary Chemistry Educators New Zealand co-chairperson Murray Thompson said after he read the document he was left asking where the science was.

“The stuff in there is really interesting, but we have to teach basic science first. Where’s the physics and chemistry and why can’t we find words like force and motion and elements and particles, why aren’t those words in there?

“It’s the same mistake that they made with maths and literacy. They said ‘here’s the system, here’s the way’ and the maths was all about problem-solving and written problems and all that stuff without the basic skills,” Thompson said.

The draft document was leaked to Michael Johnston, from the New Zealand Initiative, who said – if the curriculum did not change – much would depend on the content of the achievement standards used to assess students for the NCEA qualification.

“It would be a very strange situation where the standards for NCEA didn’t reflect the curriculum but if they did still have those key concepts, then those key concepts would obviously be taught. The assessment system will trump the curriculum every time if there’s some kind of conflict,” he said.

Schools can still teach physics and chemistry if the draft becomes final, but Doug Walker says this should not be left to chance.

Defending the curriculum, Cathy Buntting said students will be taught “the chemistry and the physics that you need to engage with – the big issues of our time – and in order to engage with the excitement of science and the possibilities that science offers.”

She also said the document was intended to encourage change.

“What we are pushing towards with the current fast draft is more of a holistic approach to how the different science concepts interact with each other rather than a purist, siloed approach.”

Buntting said the draft was very high-level, as were curriculum documents for other subjects but it was clear it needed more clarity about where teachers should expect to teach various science concepts.

The Ministry of Education says it is still finalising the draft document.

More thoughts on the issue can be found in an article by Dr Michael Johnston headed School science curriculum changes: The Ministry of Ignorance strikes again – Dr Michael Johnston

Jerry Coyne, on his blog, Why Evolution Is True, has been alerted to what is happening by scientists and teachers who tell him they are two fearful to speak out in New Zealand.

He writes:

I’m not going to weigh in on how to fix this problem: it’s enough to recognize that it exists and it is severe. What I will say is that the government of one of my favorite countries is doing precious little to fix it; in fact, it’s exacerbating it in two ways.

First, if a “child-centered” curriculum involves enhancing children’s local knowledge at the expense of general or worldwide knowledge, it’s parochial. And surely giving indigenous “ways of knowing” (Mātauranga Māori or MM) equal billing with the “ways of knowing” taught in comparable OECD countries will not help literacy, science, or math—the three areas in which NZ is especially behind. By making itself more parochial, and sacralizing the indigenous people, the NZ government and educational establishment will only guarantee that they continue to drop to the bottom.

Further, the constant sacralizing of the indigenous language won’t help with literacy either, particularly compared to other Anglophone nations.It’s nice that Crown people can speak some Māori words, but local language is dominating to the point where foreigners can’t read a lot of stuff supposedly written in English.

Second, by chilling speech around these issues (as I said, most Kiwis who write me don’t want their names used), the government can go ahead and do what it wants without getting any pushback. What I predict will happen is that well-off Kiwis will increasingly put their children in private and independent schools having more rigorous curricula. That will, of course, only enhance the disparities in education between rich and poor, and make state-run schools much worse than private ones. It will also enhance general inequality.

Education, along with many other aspects of NZ’s national welfare, are being held hostage by fealty to beliefs and demands of the Māori , people who most need the benefit of better education. But nobody dare mention the likely effects of indigenizing or “decolonizing” national education.

I see no way to stop this, particularly because those in higher education and the government must hold to their virtue by adhering to the ambiguous 1840 Treaty of Waitangi, the basis for claims that everything Māori, including science, must get attention and money equal to those given matters of the “crown”, as Europeans are called.

Coyne concludes it is sad to watch the self-destruction of this country.

He cautions that the greatest dissolution is down the road, when undereducated Kiwi children grow up and run the country.

Point of Order is a blog focused on politics and the economy run by veteran newspaper reporters Bob Edlin and Ian Templeton