аЯрЁБс>ўџ MOўџџџLџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџьЅСq ПB>bjbjt+t+ 3VAA::џџџџџџ]RRRRRRRffff8žК$fЙ4ђЪМ(фффффф~€€€€€€$э єс pЄRфффффЄ RRффђ   фЦRфRф~ffRRRRф~ о ~RR~фоа0сaСffЊі~EDITORIAL COMMENT Dr. Vicki Carpenter, (Lecturer in ACE Masters module ‘Curriculum: Theory, Issues and Practice). Curriculum: Theory, Issues and Practice What should count as knowledge? How do we define curriculum? Who should control the selection and distribution of knowledge? How is the curriculum best organised? What influences from society lead to curriculum change? Which theories are useful in illuminating curriculum? How and why has curriculum changed in New Zealand? How political is curriculum? The writers in this special student edition were all enrolled in an ACE Masters module ‘Curriculum: Theory, Issues and Practice’ in either 1998 or 1999. The writers all work in education, they are currently either teachers, senior managers, advisers or principals. Curriculum change in New Zealand education has impacted on each of these writer’s working lives. Some began their teaching career in the 1970s when the curriculum was not explicitly defined. Considered ‘professionals’, teachers then had significant freedom in deciding on the knowledge to be learned within classrooms. Today this freedom is considerably more restricted, curriculum is more prescribed. Beginning teachers graduating from today’s tertiary institutions leave armed with a set of documents which comprise the National Curriculum Framework. These documents are all structured in a similar way. Eight arbitrary levels have been inserted into the thirteen years of schooling. Within each particular level, achievement objectives are prescribed. Examples are provided of ways to achieve the objectives, and there is considerable focus on the assessment of these objectives. There is nothing very innovative in the way the New Zealand documents structure knowledge. Over fifty years ago, Tyler  ADDIN ENRfu (1949) produced a plan for curriculum development using an objectives model. Tyler’s model has four steps, each based on a particular question: What educational goals should the school seek to attain? How can learning experiences be selected which are likely to be useful in attaining these objectives? How can learning experiences be organised for effective instruction? How can the effectiveness of learning experiences be evaluated? Kliebard  ADDIN ENRfu (1970:260) simplifies Tyler’s model to: ‘stating objectives, selecting “experiences”, organising “experiences” and evaluating’. Kliebard expresses concerns about Tyler’s model. In particular Kliebard has reservations regarding the source of the objectives. Why are certain objectives chosen over others? Who makes the decision regarding choice of objectives? Is an objectives model the best way of organising knowledge? Is a particular lesson or programme a failure if the stated objectives are not met? Marsh  ADDIN ENRfu (1992) also indicates concerns regarding an objectives model. One of his reservations centres on the fact that only intended instructional objectives are evaluated; unintended learning is ignored. Why was Tyler’s model used as a template for curriculum development in New Zealand? Stenhouse  ADDIN ENRfu (1973:83), describes the large scale use of objectives ‘laid down from the centre’ (central government in New Zealand’s case) as a kind of ‘teacher proofing’. In other words, the more prescribed the curriculum, the more control there is over what is actually learned in individual classrooms: ‘(T)he curriculum is to tend in the same direction whatever the knowledge and talents of the individual teacher and indeed of the individual student’  ADDIN ENRfu (Stenhouse 1973:83). Undoubtedly there was political motivation behind the decision to adopt an objectives model. Teachers as professionals need to understand that political motivation, as well as the political context. What was the source of the objectives in the New Zealand curriculum? As part of the ‘Curriculum: Theory, Issues and Practice’ module, students met with a selection of writers of the Curriculum statements. The writers shared with the students the pro forma to which they were expected to conform. They also shared some of the tensions they as individuals felt during the development processes. Stresses emerged, in many cases, because of the limited consultation permitted by the Ministry of Education during the development of the objectives. Teachers, BOTs and parents, generally, were not consulted. Selected groups were invited to comment on the ‘draft’ objectives, which were then published in a Draft statement. Few changes were made between the Draft statements and the final documents. What ultimately emerged was a series of ‘top-down’ objectives-based documents which will attempt to prescribe the direction of education for perhaps the next decade. Does this matter? Yes, it does matter. Do we want a ‘cloned’ system of education? Are teachers prepared to be, and should they be, mere executors of what other people have decided they should teach? Are teachers in danger of becoming dependent on ‘objectives recipes’, set textbooks, and curriculum packages? Will teachers become technocrats rather than reasonably autonomous professionals? We need to address these questions because, with teacher workload increasing, it is becoming far more difficult for teachers to take the time to be creative and reflective in their practice. Despite these pressures, many teachers are taking the opportunity for new forms of professional development. These new forms are often at the post-graduate level, and they generally have a strong theoretical base. While much system provided professional development focuses on how to ‘deliver’ curriculum, theory based courses encourage critical reflection on curriculum and related practice. Theory based courses, with considerable emphasis on reflection, are crucial if teachers wish to retain any form of professional autonomy over their work. Freire  ADDIN ENRfu (1993), a very strong advocate of the permanent professional development of teachers, maintained ‘(T)he educator is the subject of his or her practice; it is up to the educator to create and recreate this practice’  ADDIN ENRfu (Freire 1993:74). Professional Development is a means to the creation of a truly professional practice. The writers were undertaking a new form of professional development. These papers in this edition were selected from the assignments of students enrolled in the ‘Curriculum: Theory, Issues and Practice’ module. My intention in developing the module was that the content would be generic. Considerable leeway was therefore given to students regarding the direction of their studies. What bound the module was an eclectic theoretical base, with a focus mainly on critical theory. The ‘issues’ covered depended on the then contemporary contexts, and the ‘practice’ depended on the interests and expertise of the professionals who enrolled in the module. It was a privilege to work alongside these writers and others enrolled in the module. While each person brought considerable professional and practical experience to the module, most brought limited experience in the field of academic study and pursuits. My suggestion is that, as a consequence, the work of these writers is refreshingly different. The writing herein combines new knowledge and understandings with the passions of those newly able to theorise their day-to-day working lives. The papers are arranged to take the reader from the macro through to the micro context. Roger Shearer and George Payne indulged their passions for politics, and their work sets the scene for the latter papers. Shearer traces curriculum change from the Currie Report  ADDIN ENRfu (1962), through to the Curriculum Framework  ADDIN ENRfu (Ministry of Education 1993). He questions why the 1993 document, generally, was not seen as problematic. Payne examines the political context and uses this, combined with philosophy of education, to contextualise a critique of the Mathematics Curriculum  ADDIN ENRfu (Ministry of Education 1992). The introduction of Technology into the New Zealand Curriculum Framework is arguably the aspect of the curriculum within which teachers have faced the most challenges. Three writers chose to look at particular issues surrounding Information and Communication Technology. Deborah Fisher, a high school teacher of history, puts forward a case for using computer software, CD Roms and the Internet to enhance the teaching and learning of history. Sandie Gusscott explores the 1999 status of the subjects within the Technology Curriculum. Gusscott looks at the history of technical subjects, and gives some suggestions regarding the future status of Technology. Liz Rosie investigates the opportunities for girls in computer literacy and examines reasons for inequalities which have emerged. Rosie examines recent literature regarding gender and technology and contends that policy makers and teachers have a significant role to play in ensuring that girls are treated fairly regarding computer access and use. Gender, and in particular issues for girls, is a theme continued by Anne Bradstreet and Clare Hocking. Bradstreet challenges the recent media and ERO focus on the needs of boys, and contends that girls remain disadvantaged in schools. Hocking examines gender role stereotyping in literature and maintains that this has led to the undervaluing of women and girls. Like other writers in this issue, Hocking sees teachers as having the power to make a difference. Hocking contends that teachers have the potential to break through the ‘illusion of inclusiveness’ to reveal and expose the structures which support exclusion. Finally, Barbara Strong discusses some of the reasons why corporate involvement in curriculum has increased. She argues that business becomes involved in education for primarily one reason; to increase business profits. Strong contends that teachers need to critically examine all curriculum content. In particular, Strong asserts that teachers need to question the motives of all providers of ‘free’ curriculum resources. References:  ADDIN ENBbu Currie. 1962. “Report of the Commission on Education in New Zealand.” . Wellington. Freire, Paulo. 1993. Pedagogy of the City. New York: Continuum. Kliebard, H. 1970. “Reappraisal: The Tyler Rationale.” The School Review February: 259-272. Marsh, C. 1992. Key Concepts For Understanding Curriculum. London: Falmer Press. Ministry of, Education. 1992. Mathematics in the New Zealand Curriculum. Ministry of Education. 1993. The New Zealand Curriculum Framework. Wellington: Learning Media. Stenhouse, L. 1973. “A Critique of the Objectives Model.” in An Introduction to Curriculum Research, edited by L Stenhouse. London: Heinemann. Tyler, R. 1949. Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Contributors Anne Bradstreet Anne Bradstreet is the newly appointed Principal of Kauri Park Primary School in Birkdale on the North Shore. Anne has held both AP and DP positions and has taught for over 20 years at all levels of primary schools. Anne has been doing Ad Qual papers for the past 10 years, completing her Advanced Diploma, Diploma of Education Management and her Postgraduate Diploma of Education. Deborah Fisher Deborah has been a teacher of History and Social Studies for the past 17 years. She began her teaching career in England, but has spent most of it teaching in New Zealand, with her most recent appointment at Lynfield College. Her main teaching interest is in using her subject to encourage the development of well-rounded, educated, thinking individuals. Sandie Guscott Sandie Gusscott is Contracts Manager at the Auckland College of Education. Sandie is interested in curriculum change and how teachers and schools cope with implementing these changes. She has taken a leading role in providing professional development in the Auckland and Northland area for the curriculums of Science, Technology and Health and Physical Education. Sandie has been involved in technology education since the writing of the curriculum in 1995. Clare Hocking Clare is Principal at Lincoln Heights School in West Auckland. She has been involved in education for over 25 years, has taught all levels of the primary school and held AP and DP positions in both South and North Island schools. Clare has a strong interest in the Quality Schools Philosophy (Glasser) and is currently Training Officer for the William Glasser Institute in Aotearoa, New Zealand. George Payne George Payne is a senior manager in an Area School of approximately 500 pupils. He teaches a year six class and has administrative responsibility for eight staff and 180 pupils from year 0 to year 6. He has an Advanced Diploma in Teaching and the Diploma of Education Management. Currently George is working towards completing his Master of Education degree with the Auckland College of Education. Liz Rosie Liz Rosie teaches year one and two children at Fairburn School in Otahuhu. She is studying for an MEd for the personal interest and intellectual challenge it brings, and has found it very rewarding. She is firmly committed to the concept that “girls can do anything,” and this has influenced her choice of topics. Roger Shearer Roger Shearer is the principal of Birkdale Primary School, a multicultural school on Aucklands North Shore. His academic interest is in the politics behind the curriculum and the New Zealand Curriculum Framework. Barbara Strong Barbara Strong is currently senior teacher with responsibility for junior classes at a South Auckland school. Her professional development interests are in curriculum and enhancing practice through this. She has gained her higher and advanced diplomas of teaching through A.C.E. and is currently working on her Master's. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Professor Clive McGee (University of Waikato), and Dr Colin Gibbs (Auckland University of Technology), were moderators for the ‘Curriculum: Theory, Issues and Practice’ Masters module in 1998 and 1999 respectively. Both of these academics provided extremely worthwhile feedback on the module, and in their moderation role they are partially responsible for this selection of papers. Thanks to both of theses colleagues. Lecturers at ACE were also a part of the moderation process. I thank the following colleagues for reviewing student work: Fran Baker, Helen Dixon, Dr. Bev France, Dr. Mavis Haigh, Dr. Joce Jesson, Dr. Libby Limbrick, Glynn Lorrigan, Dennis McGrath, Roz Palmer, Trevor Thwaites, Margaret Turnbull and Ruth Williams. Thanks also to Ursula Walters and Jane McGavin for providing editorial assistance. Dr. Vicki Carpenter Guest Editor, Lecturer of ACE Masters Module Curriculum: Theory, Issues and Practice ACE Papers  PAGE 6  PAGE 6 ACE Papers u       з и х ц ч ё ђ ьэњћќ$%234=>ёђџ"#01289  *+"""" "&"'"M"N"["ћјћјёјчёјёјёјнёјёјёјгёјёјёјЩёјёјёјПёјёјёјЕёјёјёјЋёјёјёјЁёјёјёјjNCJUj‚CJUjШCJUjіCJUj6CJUj|CJUjКCJUjCJU jCJUCJOJQJ>)tuž‹ Œ ФХрсЈЉєѕ…†Ы!!Ž#§ћјјјђјјјјјјјјјјјјјјјјјјјјјј$d№$)tuž‹ Œ ФХрсЈЉєѕ…†Ы!!Ž##‚'ƒ'є)ѕ)Ÿ+ +Ќ+,P,Ќ,§,F-Ѕ-4.Ÿ.­.Ў.О.>0?0N0Г1Д1У133ž3,5-5:5Ъ6Ы6е688!8ї8ј89K:L:M:N:^:_:`:<<C=D=—=˜=™=š=›=А=н=>>> >#>=>>>?>ўўўўўўўўўўўўўўўўўўўўўўўўўћјѕјђјјјј№ўўэээ ^["\"]"y"z"^#_#l#m#n#Š#‹#Ќ+­+К+Л+М+%,9,‡,˜,М,х,-D-c-‡-т-.D.r..ž.Ÿ. .­.Ў.О.>0?0N0Д1У133ž3-5:5Ы6е688!8ј89K:N:^:u:“:Ё:ѕюыюыюысюыюымдмвввввввмыаЭЩТИЩГЋГИыЋТыТЅЋœЋТȘØы˜5CJ5B*CJhnH  CJhnH B*CJhnH OJQJB*CJhmH nH  OJQJmH 6CJCJ56jМU jUjьCJUCJ jCJUjCJU<Ž##‚'ƒ'є)ѕ)Ÿ+ +Ќ+,P,Ќ,§,F-Ѕ-4.Ÿ.­.Ў.О.>0?0N0Г1Д1ќќќќќќќќііііііііѓнкинвии$d№$ Ц& а p@ рА€P №Р!$„а„0§$Д1У133ž3,5-5:5Ъ6Ы6е688!8ї8ј89K:L:M:N:^:_:`:<ќњфтњњќњњќпњњњњќњзззеззњ„[ Ц 1$ Ц& а p@ рА€P №Р!$<<C=D=—=˜=™=š=›=А=н=>>> >!>">#>=>>>?>@>A>B>§§§ѕя§§§§§§§§ыц§цсдЯ§§§$„Эџ $„Эџ&d Цr Ќ $„h&d„h Ц9r „[ Ц Ё:‚<C=S=a=e=r=—=˜=›=А=>>>>>>> >#>$>*>+>,>->?>A>B>§љ§ѓ§ѓ§ь§љ§шнзнЯнЬнзнЯнш§CJ0J5CJmH 0J5CJj0J5CJU5CJ OJQJmH  56CJ5CJCJ?>B>1 000&P PАƒ. АШA!А"А# $n%ААКD8970C1BF006AA3685610000832CF656E726600396961180000000D0200000006000007BE020000000E5B2C203139343920233237375D000C000000ТDE3C52D9F0072A3685610000832CF656E726600396961190000000E020000000A000070D602000000125B2C203139373020233237383A3236305D000C000000КDE132C5BF006AA3685610000832CF656E726600396961190000000F020000000600000766020000000E5B2C203139393220233237365D000C000000РD5C4E8D920070A3685610000832CF656E7266003969611A00000010020000000900003BE602000000115B2C203139373320233631333A38335D000C000000вDCFDE42C80082A3685610000832CF656E7266003969611A00000011020000001300EF29D6020000001A5B5374656E686F7573652C203139373320233631333A38335D000C000000КD1D3A2C4F006AA3685610000832CF656E7266003969611A00000012020000000600000776020000000E5B2C203139393320233631305D000C000000ЬD0A158C18007CA3685610000832CF656E7266003969611B000000130200000010001DFCD402000000175B4672656972652C203139393320233631303A37345D000C000000КDC12C204A006AA3685610000832CF656E7266003969611B0000001402000000060000071E020000000E5B2C203139363220233436335D000C000000фDDE18DAAD0094A3685610000832CF656E7266003969611C00000015020000001CD6A2BB9702000000235B4D696E6973747279206F6620456475636174696F6E2C203139393320233331315D000C000000аD5676A2040080A3685610000832CF656E7266003969611C00000016020000001200747B9602000000195B4D696E6973747279206F662C203139393220233535335D000C000000’D5753EF400042A3685610000832CF656E6262003969611F0000001702000002E19AF141EB000000 [$@ёџ$NormalmH J`J Heading 1$$dh@&5CJOJQJmH B`B Heading 2$@&5B*CJhmH nH @`@ Heading 3$Є№Є<@& 5CJmH P`P Heading 4$$„[@& Ц 5CJOJQJmH <A@ђџЁ<Default Paragraph Font&)`Ђё& Page Number<`<Header  Ц9r CJOJQJmH <J`<Subtitle$5CJOJQJmH B:Vџџџџ99999<["Ё:B>"%)Ž#Д1<B>#&'(?>B>$*зцёь ћ  $ 3 = ё "18 *&M\y^mŠЌ'Л'*B:QџŒQџŒQџŒQџŒQџŒQџŒQџŒQџŒQџŒQџŒQџŒ#%<!џ•€!”џ•€Южi q Љ Б  # € †  !!cjип! !("-"Ї"Ќ"М'Т'((P(X(я(ѕ(Ѕ)Ў)**-'-Х0Ь011Ы2Ю2Я2д2й2о23 3334 4'4.4C4K4v44j6o6œ6Ё6k9r9:@:C:ЭнVbOYЃЊчg Y c ) 3 ” — N Y ^ a AJFU—š2;}Ш…"—"Џ#ш#''М'У'((((((%(:(P(b(Ќ(Л(Щ(Ь(§())E)F)\)c)ˆ)Ѕ)И)4*C*D*s*…-‘-5373!6$6M6N6:::-:0:@:C:џџ research1a\\aceadmin01a\uwalters$\Web Items\ACE website\ACE Papers Editorials for Web\Issue 7 Editorial.docџ@€N6N6$yЙN6N6B:p@G‡ŸTimes New Roman5€Symbol3& ‡ŸArial9“CG TimesCCG Times (W1)"qˆаh*ћZf.ћZfdй/f!ЅРДД€20Т:џџEDITORIAL COMMENT research1 research1ўџр…ŸђљOhЋ‘+'Гй0|˜ДРдрьќ  8 D P\dltфEDITORIAL COMMENTdDIT research1COeseeseNormalh research1CO1seMicrosoft Word 8.0@вIk@ xœaС@,aСdй/ўџеЭеœ.“—+,љЎDеЭеœ.“—+,љЎX hp˜ ЈА ИРШа и іфAuckland College of EducationITfТ:1 EDITORIAL COMMENT Title˜ 6> _PID_GUIDфAN{2F2FD58D-CD70-11D5-98C0-00D0B7AF9586}  !"#$%&'()*+ўџџџ-./0123ўџџџ56789:;ўџџџ=>?@ABCўџџџEFGHIJKўџџџ§џџџNўџџџўџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџRoot Entryџџџџџџџџ РFpБ@ЧaСрСљaСP€Data џџџџџџџџџџџџ,1Tableџџџџџџџџ4WordDocumentџџџџ3VSummaryInformation(џџџџџџџџџџџџ<DocumentSummaryInformation8џџџџџџџџDCompObjџџџџjObjectPoolџџџџџџџџџџџџрСљaСрСљaСўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџўџ џџџџ РFMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.8є9Вq