New Zealand's Historical Curriculum in Education - Literature review Example

Nеw Zеаlаnd’s Histоriсаl Curriculum in Eduсаtiоn (1877-1970) Your name: Course Name:  Professors’ Name: Name of University: City, State: Date: Introduction Since 1877 to date, the New Zealand’s national education curriculum has been revised at regular intervals. Consequently, from time to time schools were forced to accommodate the new changes in the curriculum. Since the mid 70s, the education system has witnessed far-reaching and radical educational changes which are similar in their scale, nature and scale to those that have transformed the education curriculum in the U.K. Successive governments from both side of the political divide attempted to introduce reforms to update the education curriculum developed in the light of the post-war consensus of the 1942 Thomas Report. It is not just politicians and governments who attempt to bring reforms in the curriculum from a range of ideological standpoints (Ministry of Education, 1993). The private sector, curriculum reformers, parents, researchers, teachers and students, these groups also tried to influence the New Zealand’s curriculum development for many years. Two recent publications have analyzed the whole process of curriculum development and these publications have draw attention on how the process of curriculum development operates (Openshaw, 2004). The content of a curriculum development is contestable and ideological, selective, and privileges some people over others. According to Pinar et al (1995), curriculum development is a changing terrain and dynamic” (p.7), it is developed from society’s traditions of language and beliefs, ideas and practices, and becomes the site on which people struggle to defend themselves in the world. According to O’Neill, Clark & Openshaw (2004), “Curriculum development is shaped by its political and social context, and can be understood as: a political, cultural and social construct or process, assumptions, embracing values, basic knowledge, fundamental beliefs about the world and visions of utopia which may or may not be obvious” ( p.24). Curriculum development is shaped and informed by views of the world and society. This paper demonstrates ways in which political and world events have influence curriculum development in New Zealand. According to Lee & Lee (2003), governments have used learning institutions to transmit important values to its citizens. It is through curriculum development that these ideologies and values are passed on from one generation to another. Clarence Beeby and Peter Fraser transmitted their beliefs and ideologies through the curriculum development in the 1930s and 1940s; Thomas Report is also another example of this (O'Neill, 1996). The 19th and early 20th centuries Curriculum Development The first curriculum in New Zealand was developed after the Education Act of 1877, included geography as a core subject, and history as a subject which students were at will to withdraw if they wanted to avoid racial bias (The Education Act, 1877). By 1928, the social aspect of curriculum development was seen in the topic suggested because they emphases on social service, responsible citizenship and the worth of a person. Also included in the curriculum were business methods and character training. Some of the history topics included: rules; clubs; care of public property; laws everyone had to obey; the flag; conduct in the street; Parliament; councils and taxes; mayors; the national debt; government departments; and the meaning of true citizenship (O'Neill, 1997). In 1937, conference for curriculum development was held in New Zealand, named as “the New Educational Conference. A number of overseas educators were invited to participate in the conference, and the theme of that conference was “education for a better society”. The significance of that conference has been recorded by Barr et al. (1997): The concept of education and relevance for change was established in the country. The Thomas Committee’s (1944) report that was instigated by Beeby in a recommendation in 1942 made a major change in direction in the education system. One major recommendation was that social studies was to become a core subject in the New Zealand’s Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 1993). Three key historical issues that need to be considered in this period, the first one is that social science in learning institutions has always envisaged as serving a political purpose. Secondly, those who develop New Zealand’s curriculum failed to recognize the incompatibility of preferred outcomes and how these outcomes could be achieved (Barton & McCully, 2007). And lastly, the way knowledge has been historically conveyed is, in itself, a political construct (Barton & McCully, 2007), although the general term for social science was not used. After the 2nd World War, there were a number of curriculum innovations where social science issues were introduced and addressed which caused extended debate (Clandinin et el. 2006). The Thomas Report (1940s) and Social Studies Towards the end of 1942, NZ’s Minister for Education established the Thomas committee to investigate post-primary education (Ministry of Education, 1993). The findings of that report were known as the Thomas Report (1942). This report led to a number of curriculum reforms in the education system that provided a framework within which topics and approaches were addressed. The Thomas Report proposed the country should adopt a core post primary curriculum that will culminate in the School Certificate examinations (Ministry of Education, 1993). In addition, the report recommended that social studies should be introduced in secondary education as core subjects (O'Neill, 1997). The form it was to take was as “an integrated course of civics and history, geography and descriptive economics” (Mutch, 2004, p.36). This recommendation was made on the ground that history and geography should be retained as a separate option. However, the final report was rejected by the committee because. “The existence of geography and history as separate options will not encourage either the methods we think desirable or the general attitude. Therefore, geography and history courses were made to be examined differently at the School Certificate level. The curriculum that was developed in 1928 was finally revised in 1994. The 1928 curriculum development had recommended “a vivid, lively treatment of local geography and of human and history” (Whitehead, 1974), but the committee in the Thomas Report (1944) found that there was a weakness in the freedom of choice between history and geography. The committee found that while many teachers had combined geography and history, many others had not. The committee recommended that the new curriculum should be combined as “social studies in geography and history” (Whitehead, 1974). Finally, in the 1960s, the terms geography and history were done away with and the new subject was named social studies. The introduction of social studies into the curriculum was a major controversial and innovation in teaching and learning, with many critics regarding the loss of geography and history as a decline in education standards (Whitehead, 1974). The term social studies in the Thomas Report had different senses. The first meaning was a group of subjects which focused on social relationships and human societies (Mutch, 2004). Used in this way the term referred to history, social studies, economics, and geography as well as the pre-World War II civics course. The second meaning of the term social studies was for a new subject that focuses on the training on a new post World War II generation in citizenship (Lee & Lee, 2001). The definition of “the effective citizen” was well defined. It meant and effective citizen was the one who has a lively sense of responsibility towards civilized values, a citizen who make important social judgments, and a citizen who will act intelligently and in the common interest” (Whitehead, 1974). The new curriculum faced opposition from the already established discipline, geography and history. Critics claimed that the new curriculum was soft and lacked scholarly integrity, and was entwined with the difficulty of defining its citizenship aims (Openshaw, 1992). From 1994 to 1997, these issues re-emerged, when there was a fierce public debate that touches on the Social Studies in the New Zealand Curriculum. But, “it took three versions to finally get an approved core statement” (Openshaw, 1992). Curriculum Development in 1950’s and 1960’s Before being reprinted in 1959, the Thomas Report was limited in circulation. Implementation of this report received a lot of resistance from teachers, and the resources that was to be used to support this report was little. The effect of citizenship did not have an impact on the education sector until the early 1960s, when the syllabus, the Social Studies in the Primary School was published (Ministry of Education, 1993). In 1961, this syllabus was revised, updated and expanded series of handbooks entitled Suggestions for Teaching Social Studies in the Primary School. These series of handbooks was revised and expanded in 1962, and it emphasized that learning institution- i.e. the school- was an instrument of society. Educationists argued that New Zealand societies required schools to produce “competent and responsible citizens who support the value of the societies” (Stone, 1963). According to Stone (1963) argument, a society will require schools to bring up a competent and responsible citizen who support the values of a society. A competent citizen is the one who is aware of democratic values and both able and ready to do what is required to uphold those values of a society, and to operate the institution that upholds these values, and to maintain and develop the democratic aspects of his country” (Openshaw, 1992). The term “citizenship” that was linked to the curriculum development brought controversies, although a consensus on curriculum system was reached among many educators, there was still some criticism of what and how it was taught (Stone, 1963). For example, Lockstone, R.H, a secondary teacher in Auckland and a longstanding social studies critic, argued that, the revised curriculum shielded the students from learning, from intellect, but this system encourage students to think they are acquiring knowledge, what really happening to a student is what we call conditioning (Stone, 1963, p.27) . Stone’s argument were shared by Gorrie, Averilda, an early curriculum development advocate who stated that an increasing emphasis on students presenting and selecting information and a corresponding lack of the intellectual integrity that characterized geography and history (Gorrie, 1963). Curriculum development in the 1970’s and 1980’s Towards the end of 1960’s, the country’s economy became worst. A renaissance of Māori culture and a rising feminist movement created protests that brought tension into the country. In the mid–to late–seventies, further public protests were held, and civil strife about the 1981 Springbok rugby tour that brought into focus the cultural and social inequalities within New Zealand society (Barr et el., 1997). In other parts of the world, social sciences concept was being implemented in many places through the “new social studies” movement because it was believed that social studies concept was helping students to take part in, and to make sense of, an ever changing society. In the mid 1960’s McNaughton Tony was among the New Zealand’s education delegation who visited the U.S. He was part of the Taba Project that advocated in-depth coverage of a few areas of content, and focused pupils on learning through discovery and inquiry (Barr et el., 1997). This project was not established in the U.S but it was reviewed, and discussed in New Zealand. McNaughton being a leading figure in the process of curriculum and professional development in the country, saw the re-emergence of the “new social studies” in a NZ context in the form of the Social Studies Syllabus Guidelines, Forms 1-4, that was published by the Department of Education in 1977. The late 1970’s was the period in which steps were taken to create a unified curriculum system in NZ since the 1961 syllabus. The Social Studies Syllabus Guidelines, Forms 1-4 document brought changes to the teaching and learning in schools (Barr et el., 1997). The languages of anthropology, sociology, economics and political science were included with those of geography and history. Concept such as roles, culture behaviour, interdependence and responsibilities became part of the curriculum. In addition, changes to mode of teaching were implied in the new concepts. Interests and need of pupils were considered and the start of an inquiry approach was introduced in learning. Students were encouraged to give, to ask why and justify their own views and to respect the views of other students. Group work and discussion were also popular teaching strategies, and open-mindedness, tolerance, and attitudes of curiosity were encouraged. Questions were open ended, activities to clarify values were popular, and divergent view was encouraged as to students were required to develop their understanding of how society work. However, subsequent controversies over nuclear issues, introduction of the Man: A Course of Study program, foreign policy issues such as Apartheid in South Africa, the treatment of NZ’s colonial past, together with ongoing controversies that social studies represent a soft option for pupils, signaled that these problems were not going to end soon. Arguably, there were many problems during the 1980s, when the pendulum swung back to the inclusion of specific values derived from Maori and feminist activists together with pressure from American social anthropology (Openshaw, 1998). Schools in the 1970s followed pedagogical focused approach where student’s interests, moral development and stages of cognitive were in line with the views of Piaget (Piaget & Inhelder, 1969). Conclusion Many teachers and students are not free to choose their curriculum system: the government, program, or funder are the ones responsible for that choice, or time and resources that are available present so many barriers that the choices in curriculum development is virtually made for these group of people (Barton & McCully, 2007). It should be understood that curriculum designing will reflect someone’s beliefs and values, and those who have the opportunity of making decision about curricula have the responsibility to ensure that their choices on curriculum reflect their beliefs about the purpose and goals of education (Barton & McCully, 2007). It can be said that the lines between the approaches used to develop curriculum system have been blurred. Many learning materials were developed with input from learners, some pose critical questions about issues of power; others include activities that help students bridge the real life/classroom divide. References Barr, H., Graham, J., Hunter, P., Keown, P., & McGee, J. (1997). A position paper: Social studies in the New Zealand school curriculum. Hamilton: The School of Education, University of Waikato. Barton, K., & McCully A. (2007, June). Teaching controversial issues…where controversial issues really matter, Teaching History, 31–37. Clandinin, J., Huber, M., Huber, J., Murphy, M., & Orr, A. (2006). Composing diverse identities: Narrative inquiries into the interwoven lives of children and teachers. New York: Routledge. Gorrie, A. M. (1963). Jam for breakfast, dinner and tea, Education, 10(12), 17–23. Lee, G., & Lee, H. (2001). Looking Back: Reflections on the 1877 Education Act. Teachers and Curriculum, 5, 62-67. Ministry of Education. (1993). The New Zealand curriculum framework. Wellington: Learning Media. Mutch, C. (2004). Curriculum construction as a social field: Mapping the process of the development of the New Zealand social studies curriculum. Curriculum Perspectives 2(3), 22-33. Openshaw, R. (2004). How curriculum history can enhance teacher understanding, and why it may ever get the opportunity to do so. Access. Critical Perspectives on Communication, Cultural and Policy Studies, 23(1), 11–18. O'Neill, A.-M. (1996). Curriculum Development In Aotearoa New Zealand: An Editorial Introduction. DELTA, 48(1), 3-10. O'Neill, A.-M. (1997). Curriculum Reform. Development Issues in Aotearoa New Zealand: An Editorial Introduction. DELTA, 48-49(2-1), 127-140. Stone, R. C. J. (1963). Humane studies are not enough. NZPPTA Journal, Vol.X, (6), 27–121. Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books. The Education Act, 1877, Part IV: Public Schools and Management Thereof (Extract from the Education Act, 1877). New Zealand Statutes, 1877, No. 21. Wellington: Government Printer, p. 126. (1p.) July 21 – 27. Whitehead, C. (1974). The Thomas report – A study in educational Reform. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 9(1), 52-64. (RB.p. 148) Read More