.Curriculum legislation surprises educators

Press, 12 June 1984, Page 19

.Curriculum legislation surprises educators

By

JACQUELINE

STEINCAMP

While the attention of educators and parents had recently been focused on the substance of the core curriculum review, there is now growing surprise at the intention of the Minister of Education, Mr Wellington, to have the review recommendations embodied in law.

An Education Amendment Bill, which will set out the curriculum as recommended in the core curriculum review, is expected to go before Parliament at the earliest opportunity. It will be referred to the Select Committee on Labour and Education, at which stage further representations will be possible. “I had not anticipated there would be a need to amend the Education Act,” said Mr John Murdoch, principal of Cashmere High School. “If we are to have a change as a result of the legislation, the important thing to me is the way in which it will be controlled by the inspectorate. The way the act will be interpreted is the crunch issue.”

Mr Murdoch said’that in the past, although there had been centralised input regarding the curriculum local schools, boards, and inspectors all had a hand in tailoring what was appropriate to the students’ needs. “I am concerned that this is all too hasty,” he said. “Parents and teachers need

more time to think it through. I am also concerned that in the end our future relationship with the inspectorate will be affected.” Although there is public concern at the speed of the whole process, Mr Wellington’s view is that early legislation is necessary if schools are to phase in the new core curriculum from the beginning of 1985. The Education Department considers that existing legislation does not provide the Minister with sufficient powers in this case. “Legislative changes are needed because the Education Act of 1964 does not give adequate power to bring down a curriculum in the shape and form outlined in the core curriculum review,” said Mr John Ewall, assistant director of administration in the department. Lawyers for the department have looked at the act and consider that if the review is to be implemented, the act will need to be changed. The act does not specifically provide the Minister with such powers, although it requires that all secondary schools should provide “such courses of study in secondary education as may be prescribed in Regulations under the Act.” According to Professor Graham Nuthall, of the education department at Canterbury University, the power to regulate is very clear and the tradition of amending the curriculum by Regulations is well established. “The need for legislation appears even more puzzling in view of legislation only two years ago, which amended the Education Act of 1964 to give the Minister

powers to prescribe syllabuses, courses, studies or activities through Regulations or notices in the ‘Education Gazette’,” Professor Nuthall said. It will be the first time since 1877, when the first New Zealand Education Act listed subjects to be taught in primary schools, that curriculum matters will be covered by legislation. Curriculum amendments are normally promulgated through the “Education Gazette,” in the case of primary schools, or by Regulations, in the case of secondary schools. Regulations were used to introduce the big changes recommended in the Thomas Report of 1943. This introduced School Certificate, replaced matriculation with University Entrance, and made some major curriculum changes. The changes recommended in the 1984 core curriculum review are minor, by comparison. Teachers say that many of the requirements of the review are already being met, and they point out that there are no changes to the examination structure. Terms used to describe the review range from “supports the status quo” to “an essentially conservative iocument.” Professor Nuthali says that it is much harder to change laws than it is to challenge Regulations. “The Minister seems to want to encase everything in concrete so that every student in every school will be doing the same thing at :he same time,” he said. Deficiencies in the areas sf sex role stereotyping and -acial discrimination in the ■eview have been pointed sut by the Human Rights

Commission, reports the ?.A. In the review it is said ‘schools are . . . expected to maintain traditional standards of behaviour and values,” says the commission. Such standards involved large elements of sex role and racial stereotyping, and in that context the statement needed to be changed, the commission said. Equal access to subjects by both boys and girls was insufficient without active encouragement. Encouragement of equal use should be included whenever reference is made to equal opportunity, it said. The commission said a handbook on career information to be prepared by the Education Department should be called “A Nonsexist and Non-racial Handbook on Career Information.” While welcoming the appreciation of Maoritanga in the school programme, further recognition of Maori and Pacific cultures could be made. These were in the following areas: ® Mention of Polynesian cooking and craft skills in reference to home economics and craft courses. © Mention of the social disadvantages faced by Maori people in taha Maori (Maori dimension) classes and the need to correct these in the interests of social and educational justice. © Concern that the review could be regarded as condoning only minimal time for the taha Maori. ® Acknowledgement be given to encourage students towards Maori language as those most in need of bicultural understanding are those least likely to seek it.