As part of it's agenda of reform, the
National Government is placing a lot of value on the recommendations
of 2011's ECE Task Force An
Agenda for Amazing Children.
See my earlier post here for a wider discussion on the report. Most merely rubber-stamped existing policy
moves, but a couple indicated future challenges for a sector already
shell-shocked from attacks that were ideological rather than based of
positive educational outcomes. The curriculum document Te
Whāriki
is one such area.
Essay six of the report deals specifically with this area. All quotes are from this essay.
Now
I would say that Te
Whāriki
is
considered
a
model
of
best
practice,
nationally
and
internationally. That is
exactly what the Taskforce authors state – but they continue with:
"but
could
benefit
from
a
comprehensive
review
of
its
implementation."
The obvious
question is why? Let's go exploring shall we?
Again from the Taskforce:
"Research
shows
curricula
that
address
motivational
aspects
of
learning,
focused
on
learning
dispositions
rather
than
static
skills
or
competencies,
are
associated
with
better
performance
in
later
schooling
than
those
that
are
overtly
‘academically’
oriented
or
standards-base.
Examples
of
learning
dispositions
are
to
communicate,
to
be
curious,
and
to
persist
with
learning
despite
difficulties.
Non-cognitive
skills
such
as
these
have
been
shown
to
have
a
direct
effect
on
future
earnings
and
educational
success.
(Te Whāriki's) approach to learning, and the principles, goals
and strands it contains, align well with recent research and
evidence. We
therefore
do
not
believe
that
the
content
of
Te
Whāriki
requires
review."
Yes they like the document. But that's hardly surprising. While many champion the document's 'liberalism', Iris Duhn (2006) argues that Te Whāriki is in fact a tool of neoliberalism with its portrayal of an 'ideal child':
"Learning is defined as the ability to continually seek opportunities for problem solving, which involves lateral thinking, a sense of self in relation to a variety of others, and the willingness to search for solutions from different angles" (Duhn, 2006).
Ahh, the undefined ever-changing future that leaves children with low expectations of achieving anything tangible in the here and now and just waiting for life to begin...
To
be fair, Te
Whāriki
and the 'ideal child' was informed by the perspectives of adults who
themselves were immersed in neo-liberal rhetoric of the time so it's
no surprise that the language of Te
Whāriki resonates
with the language of neo-liberalism and contemporary discourses
around education. Such rhetoric
stresses independence, choice, process over product, rooted in local
communities but global in aspiration. Learners invest in their
education to be part of the knowledge wave – the door is open to
all, but success depends on cultural and social capital to compete.
Unlike the conservative // neoliberal battle that shaped the
curricula of the compulsory sector which left us with mixed messages,
Te Whāriki can almost
be considered pure in its aspirations. Hence:
"We
have
found
nothing
to
detract
from
the
widely-held
national
and
international
view
that
Te
Whāriki
is
a
profoundly
important
document
that
is
fit
for
purpose
and
meets
our
society’s
needs
as
well
as
the
needs
of
a
diverse
early
childhood
education
sector.
We
do,
however,
believe
that
its
implementation,
which
began
in
1996,
should
be
reviewed
in
order
for
strengths
and
weaknesses
to
be
identified
and
learned
from."
Implementation has long been the thorn in the side. It was like an own-goal. The document was designed to be descriptive, educators would weave their own curriculum based on its guidelines that best suited their local community - arguably an essential stance for a country as diverse as ours. This ability for interpreting and constructing curriculum is a powerful tool for educators, but is a double-edged sword as it places the onus on personal discourses held by educators (Nuttall, 2003; Duhn, 2006). Traditionally, New Zealand has favoured a free-play approach to learning, a position that drew upon Piaget's constructivist theories of a naturally occurring, lineal process of development which assumes children have the perquisite skills and abilities to make choices. This discourse of learning through free-play remains powerful today (as you well know Pikler is increasingly popular in infant care) and sees teachers adopting a hands-off role (Nuttall, 2003).
Play? Ha, this is not acceptable in a 'homogenised' world that demands literacy and numeracy standards regardless of individual context! Yet they also discuss the failings of standardised testing - are we once more witnessing a clash of ideology and educational research?
Despite the in-built faults of the document, support from the sector is unanimous as the Taskforce reports:
"The
majority
of
submissions,
including
academic
submissions,
supported
Te
Whāriki
in
its
entirety
and
the
New
Zealand
Educational
Institute
(NZEI)
highlighted
a
2010
sector-wide
forum
in
which
attendees
showed
unanimous
support
for
it.
Many
submissions
appreciated
the
model
for
its
innovative,
bicultural,
holistic
and
contextual
nature
and
the
broad
support
it
enjoys.
However,
one
submission,
also
from
an
academic,
was
critical
of
Te
Whāriki,
saying
it
contained
little
in
the
way
of
activity
planning
guidelines
and
lacked
performance
measures,
including
assessment
of
learning
outcomes."
Has
one right-wing academic provided 'official' support and thus
justification? Politicians and their fucking mandates eh? will we see more emphasis on 'activities with measurable outcomes'? The antithesis of play and natural learning...
The Taskforce:
"The
successful
implementation
of
Te
Whāriki
requires
that
teachers
are
well
qualified
so
that
they
can
understand
and
implement
a
socioculturally-based
curriculum
and
have
good subject
knowledge
in
a
range
of
domains.
Tertiary
education
for
early
childhood
education
teachers
is
therefore
essential."
Yet
they have reduced the minimum number of qualified staff required in a
centre and cut funding for professional development. University funding cuts are seeing degree qualifications cut in favour of one-year post-grad courses. With the foundations cuts out they resort to using the stick: monitoring outcomes.
So
while some aspects of the Taskforce's recommendations are positive -
resources in languages other than English; working with children with
special educational needs; assessment practices; self-review;
creating and supporting aspirations for Māori children etc; the
focus is on “a
need
for
a
monitoring
framework
to
be
developed
to
capture
the
extent
to
which
the
outcomes
of
Te
Whāriki
are
being
achieved:
at
a
sector
level,
a
service
type
level,
a
service
level
and
at
a
child
level.”
It
will be interesting if the 'measurable outcomes' get linked to funding.
“The Taskforce attempted to consider how well Te Whāriki was working to:
- support children’s well-being, learning and development now and in the future
- provide support for families in their primary role in caring and educating their children
- promote the assessment of learning
- promote learning in centres and at home
- encourage an effective transition to school
- align with the National Curriculum for schools.
This assessment
has
been
difficult
because
of
the
lack
of
evaluative
information.”
So really the whole report is a load of
hot fucking air driven by ideology.
