Engaging in the bigger picture: The importance of the Key Competencies in 21st Century Learning

In terms of curriculum design, the NZC states:

Curriculum is designed and interpreted in a three-stage process: as the national curriculum, the school curriculum, and the classroom curriculum. The national curriculum provides the framework and common direction for schools, regardless of type, size, or location. It gives schools the scope, flexibility, and authority they need to design and shape their curriculum so that teaching and learning is meaningful and beneficial to their particular communities of students. In turn, the design of each school’s curriculum should allow teachers the scope to make interpretations in response to the particular needs, interests, and talents of individuals and groups of students in their classes. (Ministry of Education, 2007, p. 37)

The NZC challenges us to think very deeply about core values and beliefs and how these might look in practice.  Engaging with the major philosophical thrust of the NZC has proven to be a complex and challenging task for school organisations.  For many schools, the introduction of the new curriculum in 2007 required leaders to rearticulate (rather than question or reinterpret) what they were doing in order to meet requirements. The deeper philosophical changes that were gifted to us in the NZC were not fully explored and grasped through this implementation period.  There appeared to be little interest in exploring alternative organisations of curriculum at the time and for most of the schools, the greater part of their curriculum continued to be organised along subject/discipline lines.  I believe this was an opportunity lost.  

School leaders turned towards 'strong' leaders and look for quick fixes, rather than engaging critically with the big picture questions, examining the kinds of knowledge that schools and students needed to engage with.  Few school leaders saw the enormity of the shifts in society, and therefore the curriculum that were needed, and of those even less felt they have the knowledge and confidence to administer the possible changes.

This was complicated with some political scepticism; certainly confusion over mixed educational priorities emerging as a result of political transitions.  In my opinion, the national standards continue to stand for different values to the NZC.

The social, economic, cultural and political arrangements that surround us are changing and these changes require teachers to see themselves as leaders.  Geijsel and Meijers (2005) suggest that today’s innovations require changes in teachers professional identity.  We need to not only see our role as leaders differently, but we must also engage differently in our teaching and learning.  We need to take ownership of this change.  Although we cannot change another person, a person may change as a result of something we do.

We need to teach our students to speak in an environment where their voices have traditionally been silenced. How can school staff learn to listen carefully to these voices without imposing convenient interpretations or forcing students to express only what is expected? How can students learn to articulate their needs in the language of school staff? How can school staff learn to interpret the messages of students if they do not fit the words, categories and protocols in their own language? How can we start thinking about student participation in decision-making processes if teachers’ voices are still not fully incorporated into those processes?  We need to see our students as partners in their learning, and empower them to hack education.

Paraphrased from Freeth, W. & de Oliveira Andreotti, V. (unknown).  "Towards Reconceptualising Leadership: The Implications of the Revised New Zealand Curriculum for School Leaders."

Reference List:

Geijsel, F. & Meijers, F. (2005). Identity learning: The core process of educational change. Educational Studies, 31(4) 419–430.