But it does not tell us who will teach mātauranga Māori
A follow-up to reports about the draft science curriculum, focusing on concerns about who will teach mātauranga Māori in the new curriculum, has been broadcast by RNZ today.
Non-Māori science teachers are questioning how they’ll teach mātauranga Māori in a proposed new curriculum, according to the RNZ report.
This follows the leaking of a draft of the new science curriculum, which caused a stir because – according to those who have seen it – there is no mention of physics, chemistry or biology.
RNZ then says:
It’s inclusion of mātauranga Māori is being welcomed, but there are concerns about who’s going to teach it.
This suggests the science teachers are concerned there is no mention of physics, chemistry or biology, but they welcome the teaching of matauranga Māori in science classes.
Really?
Why aren’t they pressing for it to be taught elsewhere in the curriculum – such as social studies (or whatever such studies are called these days).
Professor Jerry Coyne has tackled this in an article he has written on Why Evolution is True headed Leaked curriculum proposal shows further degradation of science in New Zealand.
Coyne acknowledges that one of the curriculum writers, director of the Wilf Malcolm Institute of Educational Research at the University of Waikato Cathy Buntting, has rubbished suggestions key areas physics and chemistry would not be taught.
“Absolutely not. But they will be teaching 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 said.
However, Buntting 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.”
Coyne writes that Buntting is not a scientist but a specialist in education, and her concentration appears to be largely on “citizen science”.
He adds that Wikipedia says the founders of the University of Waikato “From the beginning. . . . envisaged that Māori studies should be a key feature of the new university. It appears to be the centre for Māori studies among New Zealand universities, and its webpage says this:
The world is looking to Indigenous knowledge to solve modern-day issues. Rated as one of the leading Mātauranga Māori centres in the country, we represent innovation and tradition in teaching and research, and provide global leadership in sustainable development and Indigenous issues.
Our students are armed with the knowledge and attitude to advance Indigenous peoples and provide cultural perspectives in contemporary environments. Create positive change. Learn from the best.
Coyne challenges this:
No, the world is not looking to Indigenous knowledge to solve modern-day issues (I’ll name two of these issues: development of vaccines and global warming).
Indigenous knowledge, if relevant, can surely be folded into the science mix to solve problems, but it’s usually more tradition-based than forward looking. And the mention of Mātauranga Māori (MM), or Māori “ways of knowing” is a bit disturbing, for MM that’s more than just empirical, trial-and-error based knowledge that can be taken as part of science.
MM includes, as I keep saying, religion, ethics, morality, tradition, and superstition. It is not a “way of knowing” but a “Māori way of living.”
Coyne acknowledges the leaked document that has triggered the furore was a draft – but he muses that it doesn’t bode well for Kiwi science education.
National has responded to the leaked draft by saying Labour’s new science curriculum will have a detrimental impact on student outcomes and achievement.
It should be scrapped immediately, National’s Education spokesperson Erica Stanford says.
She notes:
“Right now, only 20 per cent of Year 8 students are meeting the expected standards in science.
“Despite these dire numbers, education experts say that Labour’s leaked new curriculum lacks any meaningful detail on the fundamental knowledge that students need and will worsen the situation. Science teachers say it makes no mention of physics, biology or chemistry.”
Stanford says the curriculum should be explicitly stating what, how and when to teach certain science concepts to students.
“A loose curriculum without a focus on the basics is one reason for New Zealand’s 30-year decline in international measures of student achievement.”
And:
““We need to harness the amazing Kiwi ingenuity that is baked into our kids’ DNA and allow them to be the great thinkers and scientists of the future. This requires a robust national science curriculum that specifies clear, structured learning outcomes for each year group.
“National will rewrite Labour’s curriculum to include clear requirements about the specific knowledge that students should be learning, and when. In science, this means a focus on chemistry, physics and biology.”
Where matauranga Maori should sit in the school curriculum is not addressed in the press statement.
Point of Order is a blog focused on politics and the economy run by veteran newspaper reporters Bob Edlin and Ian Templeton
This suggests the science teachers are concerned there is no mention of physics, chemistry or biology, but they welcome the teaching of matauranga Māori in science classes.
Really?
Why aren’t they pressing for it to be taught elsewhere in the curriculum – such as social studies (or whatever such studies are called these days).
Professor Jerry Coyne has tackled this in an article he has written on Why Evolution is True headed Leaked curriculum proposal shows further degradation of science in New Zealand.
Coyne acknowledges that one of the curriculum writers, director of the Wilf Malcolm Institute of Educational Research at the University of Waikato Cathy Buntting, has rubbished suggestions key areas physics and chemistry would not be taught.
“Absolutely not. But they will be teaching 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 said.
However, Buntting 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.”
Coyne writes that Buntting is not a scientist but a specialist in education, and her concentration appears to be largely on “citizen science”.
He adds that Wikipedia says the founders of the University of Waikato “From the beginning. . . . envisaged that Māori studies should be a key feature of the new university. It appears to be the centre for Māori studies among New Zealand universities, and its webpage says this:
The world is looking to Indigenous knowledge to solve modern-day issues. Rated as one of the leading Mātauranga Māori centres in the country, we represent innovation and tradition in teaching and research, and provide global leadership in sustainable development and Indigenous issues.
Our students are armed with the knowledge and attitude to advance Indigenous peoples and provide cultural perspectives in contemporary environments. Create positive change. Learn from the best.
Coyne challenges this:
No, the world is not looking to Indigenous knowledge to solve modern-day issues (I’ll name two of these issues: development of vaccines and global warming).
Indigenous knowledge, if relevant, can surely be folded into the science mix to solve problems, but it’s usually more tradition-based than forward looking. And the mention of Mātauranga Māori (MM), or Māori “ways of knowing” is a bit disturbing, for MM that’s more than just empirical, trial-and-error based knowledge that can be taken as part of science.
MM includes, as I keep saying, religion, ethics, morality, tradition, and superstition. It is not a “way of knowing” but a “Māori way of living.”
Coyne acknowledges the leaked document that has triggered the furore was a draft – but he muses that it doesn’t bode well for Kiwi science education.
National has responded to the leaked draft by saying Labour’s new science curriculum will have a detrimental impact on student outcomes and achievement.
It should be scrapped immediately, National’s Education spokesperson Erica Stanford says.
She notes:
“Right now, only 20 per cent of Year 8 students are meeting the expected standards in science.
“Despite these dire numbers, education experts say that Labour’s leaked new curriculum lacks any meaningful detail on the fundamental knowledge that students need and will worsen the situation. Science teachers say it makes no mention of physics, biology or chemistry.”
Stanford says the curriculum should be explicitly stating what, how and when to teach certain science concepts to students.
“A loose curriculum without a focus on the basics is one reason for New Zealand’s 30-year decline in international measures of student achievement.”
And:
““We need to harness the amazing Kiwi ingenuity that is baked into our kids’ DNA and allow them to be the great thinkers and scientists of the future. This requires a robust national science curriculum that specifies clear, structured learning outcomes for each year group.
“National will rewrite Labour’s curriculum to include clear requirements about the specific knowledge that students should be learning, and when. In science, this means a focus on chemistry, physics and biology.”
Where matauranga Maori should sit in the school curriculum is not addressed in the press statement.
Point of Order is a blog focused on politics and the economy run by veteran newspaper reporters Bob Edlin and Ian Templeton
1 comment:
How can you re-write something that doesn't meet the qualifications to even be a science curriculum?
Maybe re-writing could just include a look overseas at countries with strong science curriculums and borrowing, begging or buying theirs.
Sack the people that 'thought' this garbage up as they clearly are not capable of activating a thought process that incorporates anything other than their ideology and then vacuum the Ministry of Education of all the rot and then maybe we can get back to teaching basic common sense scientific (and historic) fact instead of pretending these are rooted in 'feelings'.
Post a Comment