Another Giant Leap For Government Schools

What's That Scribble On the Wall?

Regular readers of this blog will be aware of the student-centric pedagogical philosophy dominating the NZ government school system.  Drawing substantially upon the pragmatism of William James and the pedagogical theories of John Dewey, the NZ school system is striving to build a student-centric educational model, where the child is at the helm of the educational ship.

One top-down, hard and fixed approach is the physical redesign of classrooms.  The NZ taxpayer is being filched to the tune of $517m  to enable (rebuilt, refurbed, or newly constructed) open-plan classrooms to be rolled out throughout the entire government school system.  There are numerous justifications for this radical development, but underlying them all is the fixation upon pupil-centric learning.

In this pedagogical utopia, the pupil is a unique individual, with distinct desires, aptitudes, maturity, and interests.  Sophisticated and superior pedagogy will involve teaching what the child is interested in learning, when the child is motivated and ready to learn that topic/subject, and in the manner they prefer.  As children get older this peculiar pedagogical theory develops into having "teachers" (who are really just facilitators and coaches) discussing the interests of the students, discovering what they wish to learn, then working assiduously to facilitate a learning environment and experience consistent with the students' interests and wishes.

One application of this pedagogical utopia is open-plan classrooms.
  Teaching space needs to allow for many different nooks and crannies because each child is unique in their learning style and readiness.  Furthermore, there have to be several teachers in each open plan room because it is impossible for just one contortionist teacher to cover off all the variations and permutations presented by a class room filled with unique learners.

Amesbury School in Wellington opened just four years ago and is typical of recently-constructed schools and of many classroom rebuilds and renovations.  Classrooms are big with glass doors to divide them into smaller spaces, plenty of low tables and chairs, white boards and acoustic tiling to keep the noise down. The rooms are in the style known as a modern or innovative learning environment.

School principal Lesley Murrihy was enthusiastic about the rooms, and the type of teaching and learning they enable.  She said teachers could work together to figure out the best way of teaching individual students, and children themselves can find the teacher who can best help them on a particular subject or problem. She said children who find it hard to keep still find it easier to work in such spaces. [Radio NZ News]

Ah, yes.  The buzz words: "modern", "innovative learning environment".  What a cluster of stupidities is nestled under these trendy adjectives.  Amidst it all is an education philosophy which draws, albeit carefully disguised, upon atheism, secularism, and materialism--the West's unholy trinity.

Our certain expectation is that it will end up in gratuitous failure.  The whole enterprise rests upon doctrines of man and humanity which are wrong and the pedagogy which flows out from these doctrines is doomed to devolved and disintegrated learning.  The immaculate child is a perfectly conceived student--able, eager, hungry to learn.  The best thing which the modern teacher can do is get out of the way--or, at worst, clumsily "facilitate" learning. How does that coincide with reality?

Here are some of the rejoinders made by defenders of this brave new pedagogical world:

Principal of Westmere School in Auckland Carolyn Marino said parents there had similar concerns when the school was renovated and rebuilt, but they were unfounded.  "Some parents worry that their child will be lost or ignored in a studio of 50-85 children. However they don't really understand the huge amount of planning for learning that occurs behind the scenes in all our classrooms. In fact we find children are less likely to be 'lost' as there are more teachers in the room to group children in different ways, to cater for the range of learning styles."

Head of the Education Ministry's education infrastructure service Kim Shannon said the feedback it is receiving from teachers, students and families using innovative learning environments is overwhelmingly positive.  "Innovative learning environments includes the whole physical, social and teaching environment. It allows students to study on their own, work with their peers in groups, be independent learners, and to develop skills that help them collaborate with others. They enable teachers to work together too supporting each other to deliver the curriculum.

These sentiments sound like they are being read out of Mao's Little Red Book.  They represent nothing more than a "Dear Leader" chants at the commencement of the working day in our government schools uttered by loyalist believers.  What could possibly go wrong?

Here are a few thoughts from some school principals:

The 'innovative learning environments' include moveable walls and furniture, glass and breakout spaces but Sandy Pasley, president of the Secondary Principals' Association New Zealand, says principals are not convinced there is enough research behind the idea to back it up.  "The big barn-like spaces haven't been researched as to whether they improve achievement," she says.  [3News]

So, a radical move based on ideology, not experimental research or hard evidence.

"What principals are concerned about is the noise-factor, the focus, the [teachable] time when really students need to focus on what the teacher is saying."

Nah, say the ideologues.  That's so old school.  The really critical factor for superior, modern educational practice is that  teachers need to focus upon what the immaculate students are saying and wanting, not what the teachers want to say.  The best teacher is the silent, invisible facilitator, who allows the inner glories of the pupil to emerge like a butterfly from the chrysalis.

Here is another glimpse of where this modernist mania may well lead.  One of the poster schools for the teaching and learning revolution in government schools is Hobsonville Point Secondary School.  It has decided to ditch the Level I external NCEA examinations.

Hobsonville Point Secondary School says the first year of the NCEA qualification is unnecessary as it doesn't lead to anywhere except further schooling.  The school, which opened last year, said it made the decision to switch to a two-year NCEA Level 2 programme after reviewing a national report on student wellbeing which found schools were over-assessing children, leading to anxiety, depression and eating disorders.

"Why would we do that to them?" said principal Maurie Abraham. "We found the kids weren't enjoying learning, and were instead ticking boxes. Our approach changes the focus to deep learning, rather than chasing credits." [NZ Herald]

Deep learning. Yup, that's it.  And the poor little dears!  Exams create anxiety, depression, and eating disorders. Well, may we observe respectfully that if these terrible consequences of sitting exams at Level 1 justify suspending the exams altogether, why not at Level 2?  If anxiety, depression and eating disorders justify scrapping exams one year, they must inevitably justify it a year later.  After all, eating disorders are eating disorders and have to be taken very, very seriously.

Of course a modicum of common sense would tell you that practice is an invaluable mechanism for dealing with anxiety.  As Lizzie Bennett tartly reprimanded Mr Darcy when he attempted to justify his shyness when speaking with others he did not know: "You should take your aunt's advice and practise."  It turns out that practice not only makes perfect, it also calms the nerves.  Year 1 "practice" exams may just well be invaluable in preparing students for Year 2 exams.  Who would have thought?  Not our modernists pedagogues.  They insist upon coddling maturing teenagers with ideological cotton wool.

To illustrate how deeply this folly has wormed and insinuated itself into government schools, no more powerful a demonstration is possible than to refer to the quality control agents reviewing government schools--otherwise known as the Education Review Office ("ERO")

The report on wellbeing was published by the Education Review Office this year. It said students in all schools were experiencing a very assessment-driven curriculum and assessment anxiety.  "Very few schools were responding to this overload by reviewing and changing their curriculum and assessment practices," it said.

Its author, Chief Review Officer Iona Holsted, said the ERO was always pleased to see schools evaluating their circumstances and changing their practices to meet the needs of their students.  "We applaud Hobsonville Point Secondary School for putting their students' wellbeing and learning at the heart of their decision."

What the Chief--aka Sharkey--was hinting at was something the government education system has lusted and worked for over many decades.  Examinations and testing do not fit with student-centric pedagogical theory.  In the end, the student is always right at one level or another.  In this case, the students were right to be anxious, bulemic, and depressed as they contemplated exams.  The school was applauded for putting the student's wellbeing and learning at the heart of its decision.  No examinations.  Throw them out.  Thus the student's well being and learning is preserved.

To add insult to injury, let us remind all our New Zealand readers: you are paying for all this foolishness.  And before you ask, no--there is no money-back guarantee available.

Meanwhile more and more astute parents are taking their children out of government schools.  They can see the writing on the wall.  Moreover, they can still actually read the writing, even if their immaculately conceived children, courtesy of modernist pedagogical theory, cannot.