Integrated curriculum: an N.Z. education first

Press, 29 March 1984, Page 2

Integrated curriculum: an N.Z. education first

Parliamentary reporter The new recommended core curriculum for primary and secondary schools being considered by the Minister of Educcation, Mr Wellington, represents the first integrated school curriculum New Zealand education has had.

Two separate working parties to consider the primary and the secondary curriculum two years ago came together once the benefits of doing so were realised, said Mr J. A. Ross, the chairman of the curriculum working parties. This integration was in accord with the policy of having bridging syllabuses within schools, but how much difference the new core curriculum would make would vary from school to school, he said.

Mr Ross said it was not possible to give a blanket measurement of changes from the old to the new, as there was still considerable room for flexibility by schools in how they implemented the new core curriculum.

For secondary schools, the core curriculum had risen from the 50 per cent required in the 1945 Regulations to 70 per cent recommended now, he said.

A survey of secondary schools in 1983 had shown that most already met the 70 per cent minimum recommended to the Minister.

Comparisons between the 1945 and 1984 situations had to be made in the context that 1945 laid down minimum blocks of time for a three-year period and 1984 was looking at two-year blocks. The decision to recommend a calculation of time per subject based on hours a week set over two years meant there would in future be great flexibility for each school to work patterns of blocks of time to suit itself, he said.

The mix of core curriculum subjects would vary between schools. The new secondary core curriculum had made substantial changes to the obligations of schools, although it was tricky to try to quantify

these exactly, he said. Schools were now required to spend more hours on the four “basic” subjects (English, social studies, mathematics, science) and physical education than before, although not perhaps more than they were already spending, Mr Ross said.

They were also required to spend more time on the practical and aesthetic subjects (music, art, home economics, and workshop craft). The notion that secondary schools must provide either home economics or workshop craft was quite new, he said.

Mr Ross said that even though no specific time had been allocated, making subjects such as taha Maori (literally “a Maori dimension”), computer awareness, career education, and health compulsory was also new. Making these required studies and activities only reflected the changes in social attitudes which had occurred. They were already part of what most schools offered, he said.

Primary schools had never had a core curriculum before; they had only had subjects laid down in 1928.

At primary schools, the core curriculum tended to be more inter-disciplinary, without a rigid demarcation about what had to be taught when, Mr Ross said. The school programme had to be well balanced, and it was the responsibility of school inspectors to ensure it was. He said that it might seem that reducing the teaching of “basic subjects” from 100 per cent to 88 per cent was loosening rather than tightening obligatory subjects, but that was not the case, as the 12 per cent had been left for schools to top up subjects as necessary for pupils, he said. There would be no reduction in the time spent on the basics.

Having no specified time for the taha Maori did not mean any reduction in its importance. Schools would be expected to integrate taha Maori into other subjects wherever feasible, Mr Ross said.