On the same day that Jacinda Arden’s flight to Antarctica got turned back due to inclement weather, two deep low-pressure systems combined off the coast of southeast Australia to create a huge, cyclone-esque storm. The next day, as we approached, our pilot told us things were ‘a bit rough’ below - thunder and lightning storming away - and we wanted no part of it. Up we went, bouncing over the top. Looking down at the huge, swirling greyness, I was pleased he’d made that call.
Are these events related? Put together, do they represent a coherent set of information that we might call a body of knowledge to draw an understanding from?
I bet you don’t have to go too far to find someone who would understand them to be evidence of climate change. Equally, I bet you’d easily find someone, possibly on Fox, or your uncle, who would poo-poo that understanding.
The NZ Curriculum refresh worries me. I haven’t been able to put my finger on why until very recently.
When it comes to great first lines in a novel, it’s hard to go past how Jane Austen starts Pride and Prejudice
‘It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.’
The comedy in that novel is found in the absurdities and contortions the characters find themselves in when acting in accordance with that truth, either out of belief or necessity.
The tragedy in that novel is how adherence to this truth blinds characters from seeing what is real.
The triumph is in the overcoming of what adhering blindly to this truth results in: prejudice.
The New Zealand Curriculum refresh worries me because of the way it puts the emphasis not on knowledge but truths. In adopting the framework Understand-Know-Do, it is explicitly anchoring itself in truth, and thus becomes a document for indoctrination.
We can get all philosophical and muse about the nature of truth - for what is true after all? Is it something that is observable and a fact? — e.g. I understand that this stone is heavy. This is to take an empirical position regarding what is true: i.e., it can be proved because there is evidence for it. But this means that truth can shift and evolve, as new evidence comes to light. This is how science works, and we’ve had a front-row seat to this process during the pandemic.
But then, truth can be found in beauty too, which is rather subjective and personal.
How long is an understanding true? Are we arrogant enough to think we have reached the pinnacle of intellectual understanding and enlightenment, that all previous understandings are inferior and misguided, that now what we have are eternal understandings?
The State Library in Melbourne has an interesting exhibit on at the moment called Handmade Universe: from craft to code and the spaces between.
“Handmade Universe celebrates the rewards of making and the limitless scope it offers for invention and enquiry.
Ranging across disciplines – from craft to coding and from astronomy to botany – the works in this exhibition show how quiet and intimate self-led discovery can be a powerful way to connect with the universal themes of place, culture and identity.”
Walking around the exhibit, I linger over the maps. I think about how they reveal how we see the universe and our place in it. There’s a map from the 13th century with man/earth firmly at the centre. Next to it is one from the 17th century that shows the earth orbiting the sun. And then, nearby, a contemporary Aboriginal map in the form of a stingray that shows man as an interwoven entity, the stars and people and happenings in the land inseparable.
Which one of the three is true?
There are two I’m drawn to, but only one of them moves me.
And as I read and re-read the blurb to the exhibition, the phrases ‘self-led discovery’ and ‘universal themes’ lodge themselves in my brain. I think I’m attracted to the space they carry for exploration and personal sense-making, essential if we are to respect the autonomy of the individual.
The Aotearoa NZ Histories curriculum is our first taste of the new framework, with understand laying the foundation for learning. These are the four big understandings we must accept as true:
Māori history is the foundational and continuous history of Aotearoa New Zealand
Colonisation and settlement have been central to Aotearoa New Zealand’s histories for the past 200 years
The course of Aotearoa New Zealand’s histories has been shaped by the use of power
Relationships and connections between people and across boundaries have shaped the course of Aotearoa New Zealand’s histories
Now, it just so happens that I believe these to be true. Many people do. But that does not mean they are universal, objective, and neutral statements of truth. I don’t have to think too hard for people to come to mind who would have an issue with the use of the word continuous in the first understanding, for example. And 70 years ago? —good luck to you getting that one past the powers-that-be.
This is the danger of this framework. There is nothing stopping the understand statements from being changed, except what is acceptable politically. And we’ve seen how quickly things can change there.
For instance, what might they be if they were written in Florida?
And what happens to the kid who doesn’t ‘understand’ these to be true? Is it the school’s job to ‘set them straight?’ If they don’t shift their understanding, can they even pass? This is dangerous territory we’re in here.
Doesn’t this framework undercut agency? — which is a worry because the rewrite is big on student-led inquiry. I’m not sure how that can happen when what is to be understood is settled in advance.
Take, for instance, this understanding:
Capitalism is the most effective means for organising resource allocation and human societies.
There are plenty of very respectable people who would agree this is true. When I think about how economics is taught in secondary schools, I wouldn’t be surprised if something like this understanding becomes one of the four that will guide the learning in that area. Given that, what knowledge is required to be learned for this to be understood? What knowledge must be excluded, or ridiculed? — e.g. is there a place for Kate Raworth’s work?
We’re not in the realm of critical thinking here. For this framework to work, there must be a linear flow from understanding to knowledge to doing. That’s how we persuade, right? You can talk all you like about ‘weaving the framework’s strands’, but you’re tying yourself in justificatory knots. What we have here is a framework that leads to uncritical, ideological learning.
Are you comfortable with this? Is it what you want for your kids? We must be careful that we don’t fall into the trap of thinking it’s ok because we agree with what’s to be understood. For that can change.
Look, I get the urge to ensure kids know what is deemed essential. I’m not going to rehearse those arguments, nor the ones that ask - how do you decide what is and isn’t essential? It’s the framework for learning that I have a problem with.
It’s not like it’s the only one that could have been used, either. I know it’s too late, but if we really want a framework that supports lifelong learning, not lifelong believing, here are some I think have more potential:
Act - Contemplate - Inquire
or
Learn - Implement - Reflect
or
Interact - Wonder - Conclude
or
Experience - Create - Refine
or
Observe - Mimic - Transform
What combinations would be in your framework?