Framing a Social Sciences Learning Area in the New Zealand Curriculum Draft for Consultation 2006 Philippa Hunter Introduction School of Education, The In this article I respond to and critique the framing of the social sciences learning area in the New Zealand Curriculum Draft for consultation (Ministry of University of Waikato Education, 2006). This is informed by a critical conception of the political shaping of curriculum that reveals socially constructed values and beliefs and power relationships. I develop the context of the Draft’s framing of the learning area in relation to the New Zealand Curriculum Framework’s postmodern orientation of a learning area (1993, p.14) and its subsequent articulation in the Social Studies Abstract in the New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 1997a). Ideas about the The New Zealand Curriculum Stocktake, constructed nature of social sciences, the reshaping of knowledge, and current concerns and preferences are discussed to link the school curriculum learning area undertaken between 2000 and 2003, within the wider field of social sciences in Aotearoa New Zealand. signalled a more coherent and fluid approach to curriculum processes, and The Curriculum Marautanga Project’s “reframing, refocus and revitalisation” support for school-based decision- presented opportunities for social sciences constituencies to ask the key questions making around curriculum design and of: What is the nature of social sciences in the school curriculum in 2006? What should social sciences in the school curriculum aim to achieve in 2006 and implementation. beyond? I consider the consultation around the revision and co-construction of The subsequent Curriculum Marautanga the learning area, and briefly highlight the concerns and preferences of differing Project (Ministry of Education, 2004) constituencies involved in the curriculum revision process. An analysis of the promised a “reframing, refocus and Draft’s social sciences learning area takes into account the orientation of the current Social Studies in the New Zealand Curriculum (SSNZC) that is, in my view, revitalisation” that seemed positive for analogous to developing a social sciences curriculum, and considers the Draft’s the social sciences learning area of the positioning in relation to key features of what constitutes social sciences in the curriculum. school curriculum. I employ ideas of “framing” to argue that the development I looked forward to a strengthening of and construction of the Draft social sciences learning area has framed a one- dimensional curriculum. I draw on critical and postmodern curriculum perspectives the social sciences, a reduction and of Doll (1993), Hinchey, (2004), and Kincheloe, (2005a, 2005b) to develop the clarification of achievement objectives, notion of a monological framing of a worldview about what constitutes a social and support for exciting opportunities sciences learning area in the New Zealand curriculum. The Drafts’s privileging of opened up by the Years 1-13 Social uncritiqued and positivistic conceptions of Years 11-13 social sciences subject Studies in the New Zealand Curriculum specialisms, rejects the multi-dimensional opportunities offered by the SSNZC (Ministry of Education,1997a) for Years across Years 1-13 of learning. This contrasts with the researched findings of the 11-13 social sciences options. social studies A Position Paper (Barr et al, 1997) and, in my view, sits uncomfortably within the wider context of tertiary and academic social sciences. Differing social This article argues that The New sciences teaching constituencies need to make sense of and pose questions about Zealand Curriculum Draft (Ministry of the aims and elements of the Draft’s social sciences learning area in relation to Education, 2006) frames a politically today’s learners, new teachers, and pedagogies. adjudicated and limiting conception The Curriculum Marautanga Project (2003-2006) has framed communication of a social sciences learning area. It about the social sciences curriculum development through the use of carefully is my view that this framing rejects crafted and upbeat “curriculum speak”. In a recent radio New Zealand interview the dynamic and interrelated nature (October 29, 2006), Howard Fancy, the Secretary for Education, discussed of social sciences, invalidates social the revision of the New Zealand curriculum and reiterated the policy driven studies, and suggests an unquestioning “curriculum speak” of the Draft being ‘simpler, elegant, and more visionary’. This positioning of teachers and learners. masks significant and uncritical changes to the social sciences learning area and may by design or by default limit teacher discourse about the extent of curriculum reorientation. Curriculum as political activity, contest and power relationships A national curriculum as educational policy reveals social, economic, and political influences of the times (Edmondson, 2004, p. 14). The publication of the New Zealand Curriculum Draft (MoE, 2006) posits national directions for education. A Vision (p.8), articulates hopes and ideals of citizenship participation, economic growth, sustained national development, and transformation to a knowledge-based society. Howard Fancy, Secretary for Education, comments in the Draft’s Foreword, that the process of curriculum revision takes account of economic, technological, global, influences and changes in New Zealand society since the implementation of the existing New Zealand Curriculum Framework: Te Anga Marautanga o Teachers and Curriculum, Volume 9, 2006 19 Aotearoa (MoE, 1993). In introducing the Draft, the Hon. Steve Maharey, Minister of social studies syllabus (DoE, 1961) was Education, in his letter accompanying the draft, presents the government’s position updated in a series of documents called on the place of the curriculum in fostering traits of national identity in children Faces. Alongside curriculum reviews of thus ensuring a ‘vibrant future for this country’: the 1980s, the history, geography, and This government wants to ensure that all New Zealanders can take pride economics syllabi were updated (MoE, in who we are, through our culture, film, music, sports, literature, our 1989-1990). The 1977 Social Studies appreciation of our natural environment, our understanding of our history Syllabus Guidelines Forms 1-4 (Department and our stance on international issues . of Education, 1977) were revised for secondary social studies programming The political values and ideas expressed by Fancy and Maharey and emphasised with the publication of a Handbook (MoE, in the Draft’s vision illustrate Codd’s assertion (2005) that policies of education 1991). These primary and secondary mediate power. Codd cites Bowles and Gintis’s “robust notion” of policy as power: curricula embed a curriculum tradition of … policy is not simply about the manner in which power adjudicates integrating elements of knowledge and competing claims for resources. It is also a contest over who we are to understandings, skills processes, values become, a contest in which identity, interests, and solidarity are as much and attitudes, participation / decision- the outcome as the starting point of political activity (1986, p.8, cited in making. The 1980s -1990s reviews Codd, 2005, p.28). and successive developments of social Curriculum as policy reflects contested political activity. Curriculum is also sciences curricula reflected attempts to constructed and shaped by social, political and cultural processes “embracing align with prevailing academic theoretical values, assumptions, fundamental beliefs about the world, basic knowledge and perspectives in the social sciences and visions of utopias which may or may not be overt” (O’Neill, Clark & Openshaw, humanities. Postcolonial, feminist and 2004, p. 26). postmodern perspectives and discourses influenced in part the revisions and Curriculum change is culturally and politically mediated and is situated within an developments of history, geography historical context. A decade ago (1994-1997), the social sciences learning area (Hunter & Farthing, 2004; Chalmers, Keown of the New Zealand curriculum was a site of political activity through contested & Kent, 2002;Hunter & Keown, 2001), and developments of a Years 1-13 social studies curriculum (Openshaw, 2000; Hunter economics syllabi in the late 1980s. & Keown, 2001). The curriculum construction of the Draft’s social sciences learning area also frames overt and covert beliefs about the nature of New Zealand The New Zealand Curriculum Framework’s society and what constitutes knowledge in the social sciences. Any vision of an (NZCF)social sciences learning area Aotearoa New Zealand society reflects competing interests and raises issues of statement (1993, p.14), reflects this power. In linking ideas about power to the Draft’s conception of social sciences, response to social change. Changes we need to understand the forces that shape curriculum constructions and the over this period have been referred to interrelationships directly related to power such as: curriculum policy making as a domestic process of decolonisation and stakeholder co-construction; differing beliefs of social sciences curricula – a “coming out” of new influences and constituencies and the hegemony of perceptions of elite, “academic” subject new migrations (Belich, 2001). Maori status, and the controls around what belief systems and ideas of citizenship educational initiatives such as Kohanga count. The construction of a social sciences learning area reflects the Ministry of Reo and Kura Kaupapa challenged a Education’s campaign to win hearts and minds, but important questions need to be beleaguered status quo (Fleras & Spoonley, asked in this Draft consultation phase of what policy was determined for the social 1999). The establishment of the Treaty of sciences learning area? By whom? For whom? Waitangi Act (1975) and its amendment (1985), the commemoration of the Treaty The existing social of Waitangi sesquicentennial (1990) and sciences learning the centennial of women’s suffrage (1990) area in national contributed to the Ministry of Education’s commitment to gender inclusive and curriculum bicultural policies (Hunter & Keown, 2001). and assessment Whilst the NZCF’s social sciences learning frameworks area emphasises diversity of experience The NZCF (MoE, 1993) and multiple perspectives, it contains established the social conflicting political ideals and values within sciences Tikanga–a- its strong citizenship tenor, a response to iwi learning area. In a changing economy, Treaty of Waitangi development, this understandings, cultural critique and drew from existing understandings, Maori perspectives and syllabi and national New Zealand histories. The learning area course statements for reflects sociocultural underpinnings, an primary and secondary emphasis on conceptual understandings curricula aligned to the guiding pedagogies and outcomes, the broad field of the social socially constructed nature of knowledge sciences. The social in the social sciences, and the holistic yet sciences learning area complex interrelationships of knowledges, as an organising frame skills processes, values and attitudes, and of reference attempted social decision-making. to align social sciences The existing NZCF’s social sciences syllabi and guidelines learning area has social studies as its developed before 1993. core curriculum through Years 1-10, In the 1980s, the primary and a range of subject studies, including 20 Teachers and Curriculum, Volume 9, 2006 social studies, aligned to disciplines and socially informed research interests, ways of knowing, academic inquiry, ways interdisciplinary studies drawn from the of maximizing academic interests and expertises, and loose organisational humanities and social sciences. These frameworks. In shifting university landscapes in New Zealand, social sciences are are implemented across Years 9-13 often placed within humanities disciplines because of the rich opportunities offered dependent on school-based programming for study, research and collaboration. decisions (Hunter, 2005). The learning area These complementary arrangements widen knowledge frontiers and break down encompasses a range of studies including knowledge boundaries. As an example, they may draw on the socially constructed history, geography, economics, sociology, disciplines and studies of anthropology, Asian studies, cultural geography, environmental education, tourism, New demography, environmental studies, gendered studies, history, Maori studies, Pacific Zealand studies, and cultural studies. studies, political studies and international relations, media studies, psychology, The National Qualifications Framework religious studies and sociology. overlaps with the Curriculum Framework The unique nature of Aotearoa New Zealand society and its relationships and for the three senior years of schooling. interconnectedness to global society presents new social dynamics, issues and The National Certificate of Educational concerns that inform contemporary social sciences research emphases. The report Achievement (NCEA) has a social sciences Coming of Age: Social Science Research and the Contribution to Wealth and Well- domain within which achievement being in New Zealand, 2006-2016 (MoRST, 2005), provides an insight into the ways standards have been written and registered. New Zealand universities and academics construct meaning about many views Achievement Standards for Levels 1, 2, 3, and expectations of social sciences. The report describes the frontiers of knowledge and Scholarship assessment in the social as becoming more inter-, multi-, and cross-disciplinary (p.9) and how social sciences learning area were formulated sciences lead and participate in these worlds. Social sciences research concerns and from syllabi and related prescriptive directions are articulated as follows: statements within the context of the • Social issues and concerns, and their influence on environment and social sciences learning area. The NCEA culture; qualification in the social sciences • How people capitalise on diversity in society; presents rigid standards-based assessment outcomes, but supports a flexibility of • Provision of an independent critical commentary; social sciences subject constructions • Informing a more civilised, globally aware and tolerant nation; and options in the senior school. • Communicate and foster constructive debate about values; Interdisciplinary and trans-disciplinary • Understand the unique social dynamics of New Zealand society to social sciences programmes are developing, help us to maximize our potential across diverse and interlinked social based on school-based preferences and dimensions, our people’s, cultures, values, connections, and social staffing issues (Hunter, 2001; Hunter & structures; Farthing, 2004). • Understand the increasing importance of indigenous knowledge and Three significant curriculum tensions are Matauranga Maori. revealed in the design and framework of These social sciences directions cannot be detached from historical contexts and the existing social sciences learning area: they represent the dynamic, fluid, and changing nature of Aotearoa New Zealand i. Compartmentalisation of a society. Kincheloe (2001) and Luke (2006) offer similar views about the reshaping learning area within the New shifts in knowledges and the diversity of knowledges. Kincheloe offers a useful Zealand curriculum; comment about the shifts away from disciplinary demarcations. “What we refer to as the traditional disciplines in the first decade of the 21st century are anything ii. Establishing the nature and but fixed, uniform, and monolithic structures” (p.683). In contrast, the Draft’s social constructs of knowledge, sciences learning area of the New Zealand curriculum in 2006 appears to have concepts, and contexts to be retreated to a static reframing of traditional conceptions of knowledge boundaries. understood and applied through skills processes, values and There appears to be little resonance with current directions in the wider field. dispositions; “Reframing, refocusing and revitalising” a social sciences iii. Compartmentalisation of learning area knowledge into strands or The Ministry of Education’s Curriculum Stocktake 2000-2003 was a major subjects in an interrelated social review of the New Zealand curriculum. A large-scale research project gathered sciences frame of reference. information about teachers’ perceptions of their implementation experiences and These issues remain problematic for today’s their views of the national curriculum documents. The Ministry of Education’s curriculum renewal because of the learning Curriculum Stocktake Report (September 2002) included evidence about social area’s subjects, cultures and pedagogies, studies achievement from the National Education Monitoring Project (Flockton & and outcomes-based frame of reference. Crooks, 1998, 2002) and national sampling surveys. International critiques of the New Zealand curriculum (Ferguson, 2002; Le Metais, 2002) included commentaries Social sciences in the wider field and critiques of the SSNZC and social studies implementation Years 1-10. An Challenges presented for the renewal of the unfavourable Educational Review Office report (2001), focusing on the primary years social sciences learning area are concerned of social studies in the second year of full SSNZC implementation, proved influential with: What and whose knowledge practices in driving Ministry of Education changes to the social sciences learning area. and methods count? and How should Subsequent to the Stocktake’s findings, the Ministry of Education’s Curriculum current revision align with new ways Marautanga Project offered teachers the opportunity to be involved in the of thinking and reshaped conceptions curriculum redevelopment process. The curriculum project aimed to reframe, of knowledge and societal concerns of refocus, and revitalise the current curriculum (MoE, 2004a). The Ministry of academic social sciences offerings? Social Education facilitated a process of curriculum consultation and co-construction sciences beyond the school curriculum are that began with bringing groups of teachers and stakeholders from various social collective constructions of interconnected sciences subject communities together to be informed of the project’s purpose, and related human centered and Teachers and Curriculum, Volume 9, 2006 21 future focus themes and the research supporting the development of new values are needed to pull together curriculum and key competencies elements across the national curriculum. Ministry of and assessment information; ideas about Education discourse suggests that participation of subject communities within pedagogy and the place of assessment in curriculum social sciences fosters an inclusive process of consultation. pedagogy; NCEA qualifications information; curriculum resource information; new By working through the development as a community, there should be themes and contexts for study; and professional growth that ensures the social sciences are moving towards information about ICT and E-learning. shared understandings about social studies / social science learning area (Cubitt, 2005, p. 15). The Ministry of Education’s endeavours to bring diverse groups of social sciences I had anticipated that the social sciences consultation and revision process would teachers and stakeholders together be iterative, building on the previous SSNZC developments, and the researched for curriculum renewal has proved rationale of the social studies Position Paper (Barr et al., 1997). It appears that these problematic in terms of primary and were rejected in framing the social sciences learning area. The co-construction of secondary teachers understandings of the learning area focused mainly on the development of an “Essence” statement outcomes-based curriculum. Consultation and Achievement Objectives and does not appear, to date, to have involved new around the developing Draft indicates and deep research, a literature review or questioning about what a social sciences secondary teachers immersed in the learning area aims to achieve in 2006 and beyond. Questions about epistemology NCEA Achievement Standards, validated and knowledge production do not appear to have been given weight in the revision or invalidated by their subjects’ results, process. find it difficult to consider the conceptual It is my view that the Ministry of Education’s attempts to bring together social nature of social sciences sets of outcomes. sciences subject communities across Years 1-13 was ambitious, given the differing Likewise, primary teachers burdened with qualifications, experiences and curriculum needs of the teaching constituencies a myriad of Achievement Objectives engaged in social sciences curriculum and pedagogy. Through the consultation across the curriculum want to focus process it became apparent that many teachers were unfamiliar with the purpose on familiar outcomes that support and positioning of a social studies learning area in the national curriculum. The their current social studies pedagogy. 1993 NZCF’s framing of a social sciences learning area seems to have been Consultation has revealed tensions bypassed. This bypass is a significant national curriculum issue and calls into around subject conceptions and capture, question teacher education, professional development, resourcing strategies, and and the curriculum revision appears to initiatives around curriculum development in the 1990s (Hunter & Farthing, 2004). have become more of a professional The Social Sciences Reference Group assumed a leading role in the framing and development exercise than a coherent writing of the social sciences learning area. This large group of social sciences curriculum critique and refinement. It is stakeholders changed in composition over 2004-2006, and included stakeholder my view that the curriculum project’s representation such as the Electoral Commission, social studies exemplars best intentions to bring disparate social developers, Years 11-13 subject specialists, primary teachers, teacher educators and sciences subject communities together to teacher professional groups*. The Reference Group’s discourses reflected curriculum co-construct a learning area as curriculum conceptions supporting ideas of citizenship transmission, emphasis on democratic has overshadowed the complexity of processes and national identity. It is my view that the curriculum project’s future curriculum processes where contested focus themes of social cohesion, citizenship, and enterprise and innovation were issues of the last decade do not appear to given far more attention in shaping the social sciences learning area than focus have been revisited or problematised. themes of cultural literacy, bicultural and multicultural awareness, and education Analysis of the draft social for a sustainable future. Throughout the consultation process to date the Reference sciences learning area Group has appeared unresponsive to expansive ideas around the concept of culture, This partial analysis the Draft’s social new literacies, ideas around multi-layered life worlds, new citizenship, cultural sciences learning area is informed by my pluralism, and new constructions of community and ethnicities. This countered the identification of key features and processes interrelated nature of ideas and multiple perspectives of the existing SSNZC, and of social sciences. invalidated its positioning as the core social sciences curriculum, privileging instead • Social sciences attempt to make narrow unquestioned conceptions of subject specialisms, particularly history and sense of society and human social economics. issues. The framing of the social sciences learning area has largely been shaped by the • Social sciences are conceptually subject specialisms of the senior school. The Draft’s statements about coherent based and deal with ideas and pathways of learning (p.32) seeks to align learning in the early years to Year representations, interrelationships 10 with specialised learning in Levels 6 and above attached to recognised and making connections in qualifications (p.31). The framed nature of subject specialisms determined by meaning. curriculum consultation and co-construction in the social sciences learning area is • Social sciences deal with values, contradictory to the Draft’s statement about flexible school-based design. worldviews and perspectives. The Qualifications Framework has opened up new possibilities to schools. The • Social sciences deal with multiple modular nature of the assessment process supports flexible, school-based ways of thinking about and curriculum design and allows for integration of the key competencies…(p. 31). investigating social practices and issues. I question the influence of the Levels 6-8 subject specialisms in framing the social • Social sciences deal with ways sciences learning area’s ideas and outcomes when the National Administrative people perceive, interpret, and Guidelines state that it is the Years 1-10 outcomes that will be mandated. The record experiences. Ministry of Education may view this framing as a form of curriculum critique and • Social sciences deal with critique, review by default at Levels 6-8: Years 11-13. However, subject specialisms including confronting assumptions and history, geography, economics, urgently require new curriculum guidelines that views, and reflexivity. are informed and supported by recent theoretical and researched understandings The analysis also contrasts the Draft’s of the nature of the disciplines and the reshaping of knowledges. New guidelines 22 Teachers and Curriculum, Volume 9, 2006 “modernist” and one-dimensional part of the statement signals the omissions and contradictions of the learning worldview of social sciences in its linear area. “The unique nature of New Zealand society and its bicultural heritage” is framing of limitations, with the SSNZC’s expressed, but the omissions of Maori as Tangata Whenua, the Treaty of Waitangi more postmodern orientation and spatial and colonising processes contradict the inclusion of “histories”. The inclusion of matrices of opportunities. The analysis “bicultural heritage” and omission of Maori as the indigenous people of Aotearoa focuses on the Draft’s page 22 - Social New Zealand perpetuates a dominant cultural worldview. Cultural and gendered Sciences and the Levels 1-8 Achievement roles, perspectives and experiences are not included in the statement’s wording Objectives located at the end of the and intent. The idea of an “economic world” is introduced, but in this world, ideas document.. I acknowledge that this partial of access to resources, people’s work, cultural practices and gendered activities are analysis of the social sciences learning also scarce. Mention of a critical approach and focus on social issues, cultures and area does not consider the relationship histories is nominal and not developed or supported by the Achievement Objectives. with other learning areas in the curriculum, The statement explains the structural elements of the learning area. This represents alignment with the Draft’s principles, a significant framing of an unproblematised conception of social sciences. Four and links to key competencies, values, conceptual strands are structured to frame the learning area around four subject pedagogies and assessment. specialisms in the senior school: “Identity Culture, and Organisation” (social Both the NZCF’s social sciences – tikanga- studies), “Place and Environment” (geography), “Continuity and Change” (history), a-iwi (1993, p.14), and the Draft’s (2006, and “Economic World” (economics). The narrow conception of social studies at p. 22) social sciences learning area Levels 6-8 represents a significant structural flaw in the framing of the learning statements are frames of reference that area. This may look tidy in a diagram of the learning area, but has no relation to embed sets of values and ideas about the holistic and interrelated nature of year 11-13 social studies. The new strand society that will be transmitted and “Identity, Culture and Organisation” is not social studies as we know it currently. perpetuated through interpretations of The rejection of the SSNZC’s “Culture and Heritage” strand indicates a lack of Achievement Objectives and pedagogies. understanding of the expansive concept of culture in making meaning in social The Ministry of Education’s Setting the sciences pedagogies. Likewise, the absence of key concepts of time and heritage in Direction for Learning: The New Zealand the Draft’s structure limits ways of thinking. At Levels 6-8 of the social sciences, the Curriculum Marautanga Project (October, geography Achievement Objectives are open-ended but sit uncomfortably with the 2005), informed principals and teachers mainly New Zealand settings of history and economics. This suggests that discrete about the New Zealand Curriculum Project. subject communities defended territories rather than seeking inter- and trans- It describes changes to the social sciences disciplinary social sciences opportunities. learning area as follows: The statement’s social inquiry process Little has changed – we’ve just rearranged the curriculum so that The social inquiry process developed for the Levels 1-5 social studies exemplars it will be much easier for teachers (MoE, 2005) has informed the Draft’s framing of a learning area. This approach to use. We have incorporated has a strong democratic and participatory citizenship orientation. It is my view economics, geography and history that the dominant positioning of social inquiry across the learning area loses alongside social studies at levels rich opportunities for critical pedagogies opened up by the SSNZC processes of 6-8. (p. 6). “Inquiry, Values Exploration and Social Decision-making”. Issues, perspectives, time and place settings are collapsed within this mega-process of social inquiry in This is patently at odds with the significant contrast with the SSNZCs design where all Achievement Objectives are open to changes across Years 1-13 of the Draft perspectives, time and place setting, and learning about Aotearoa New Zealand social sciences learning area signalled in society. Social inquiry lacks a critical orientation because of its “one size fits all” the social sciences statement (p. 22) and assumptions. This undermines the scope for learner engagement with multiple embedded in the structural framing and methods (e.g. historical, historiographical, geographical, indigenous, cross cultural), intent of achievement objectives. particularly in the Levels 5-8 (Years 9-13) of the learning area. Social sciences statement Achievement objectives It appears that “easier to use” equates The Draft’s description of structure reflects Ministry of Education discourse about with a static and simplistic articulation of achievement levels and “learning progression” in the statement: a learning area. The prosaic language of The achievement objectives at levels 1-5 integrate the four strands to the statement is disappointing in the light show interconnections and provide learning progression from the simple to of the dynamic nature of learning about the more complex concepts (p. 22). human social behaviour in multi-layered life worlds in the past, present and possible This is revealing, and may account for the set of Achievement Objectives devised futures. The statement is a culmination of to be measures of learning outcomes. Learning contexts, settings, perspectives, and a series of developing “Essence” statements pedagogies create either simplicity or complexity in conceptual understandings. over 2004-2006 that reflected strong Arguably, concepts can be understood at any level if the context has meaning participatory and citizenship transmission for learners, and pedagogy draws on learners’ experiences and ways of knowing. discourse. The explanation of what Another contrary aspect of the statement is the final paragraph that states that social sciences are about is limited to whilst Achievement Objectives are provided for social studies, history, geography unsupported ideas of how society operates and economics, “the range of possible social sciences disciplines in schools is much and social participation. broader, including for example, classical studies, sociology, psychology, and legal studies” (ref). This is a curious contradiction in the light of the rigidly framed and The heading “Why study the social non-integrative subject boundaries structured through Levels 6-8. sciences” is an example of how a standardised approach to the Draft’s The Draft’s social sciences Achievement Objectives are not placed together formatting can confuse meaning - we do from Levels 1-8 in the document. They are placed in levels sets of Achievement not study social sciences, rather we learn Objectives across all learning areas. This may be helpful for ease of programme in the social sciences. The wording in this development but disguises the rejection of two thirds of the existing Years 1-13 Teachers and Curriculum, Volume 9, 2006 23 Fig.1 Achievement Objectives: From the SSNZC to the Reframed NZC Draft Curriculum SSNZC SSNZC AOs SSNZC AOs SSNZC AOs NZC Draft NZC Draft Levels Number of Remaining Reworded Rejected in Number of Number of AOs in NZC Draft /changed NZC Draft Soc. Sci. AOs NEW Soc. Soc. Sci. intent in NZC Soc. Sci. Sci. AOs (Includes change Draft Soc. Sci. framing of Level) Level 1 10 1 4 6 5 0 Level 2 10 1 2 4 7 4 Level 3 10 2 2 6 7 3 Level 4 10 1 2 8 7 4 Level 5 10 2 2 4 8 4 Level 6 10 1 1 9 8 6 Level 7 10 0 1 9 8 7 Level 8 10 0 2 8 8 6 80 AOs 8 AOs 16 AOs 54 AOs 58 AOs 34 AOs SSNZC’s Achievement Objectives and the reorientation of an almost entirely new and innovation” (p.x). The “economic set of learning outcomes. world” as conceived in the Draft is exclusive and monological and does not invite Figure 1 illustrates the extent of changes to the social sciences learning area’s critical thinking around issues, values, Achievement Objectives across Years 1-13 through Levels 1-8. A reduction from perspectives and gendered experiences in a the SSNZC’s 80 Achievement Objectives to the Draft’s 58 seems at a superficial range of settings. glance reasonable. However, the rewording in intent of sixteen SSNZC objectives and insertion of thirty-four completely new objectives represents a rejection of 54 A major shift in the nature of Achievement of the SSNZC’s Achievement Objectives. Examples of concepts and ideas rejected Objectives through Levels 1-8 is the include: way some achievement objectives are exclusively situated within New Zealand • Level 1: Cultures and heritages, time and change, and important life events; contexts and settings. This is a departure • Level 2: People’s interactions, descriptions of places, impacts of past from the SSNZC array of achievement events, work and resources; objectives that were open to New Zealand • Level 3: Leadership of groups, rules and laws, ideas and actions that or other contexts and settings. The changed people’s lives, differing systems of economic exchange; SSNZC’s expectations of “Essential Learning about New Zealand” that were open to • Level 4: People’s responses to challenges, differing experiences of events, all levels of learning have disappeared differing views of resources and their use; in favour of predictable and traditional • Level 5: Cultural and national identity, human rights, seeking social justice, emphases of New Zealand-focused studies. changing nature of work; Curious decisions abound. As an example, a specific focus on Tangata Whenua is built • Level 6: Reviewing systems and institutions, changing rights, roles and responsibilities, cultural critique; into an achievement objective at Level 2 (communities) and Level 3 (migration), but • Level 7: Cultural values, critical affiliation, regulation of place and there is no mention of Tangata Whenua at environment, conflicts over resources; any other level. The Treaty of Waitangi is • Level 8: Challenges to identity (communities / nations), cultural diversity, mentioned in only one objective at Level contrasting economic systems and resource allocation, policies, change 5: “The Treaty of Waitangi is responded to and social consequences, interpretation / revision of historical record. differently by people in different times and places” (p.x). Such a sanitised token stance SSNZC Achievement Objectives that related to ways people view, record, interpret is difficult to comprehend and it highlights revise events and / or places and environments have largely disappeared. We need a lack of coherence between the learning to ask the question of why these ideas have been discarded in the Draft’s framing area’s statement’s rhetoric and the limited along with the SSNZC Indicators (The detailed unpacking of conceptual elements intent of the learning outcomes. and ideas for selecting contexts and settings)? Hunter and Farthing (2005) queried The Draft’s “Economic World” strand replaces the SSNZC’s “Resources and the rationale behind the ideological Economic Activities” strand. It presents a dominant capitalist free market approach shift in policy that plays down the in an entirely new set of Achievement Objectives shaped by the Year 11-13 Treaty of Waitangi in the developing economics curriculum. For social studies and social sciences this reflects an draft curriculum. They commented on uncritical acceptance of any means to advance the ends of greater wealth. Hinchey the loss of significant ground made in (2004) has referred to this thinking as “casting citizenship as consumerism” (p. the development of SSNZC in relation 116). For example, at Level 5 a new Draft Achievement Objective states: “People in to situating historical perspectives in New Zealand seek and have sought economic growth through business, enterprise 24 Teachers and Curriculum, Volume 9, 2006 integrated or discrete social, cultural, consensus of opinion has been gained through contributing, participating and co- geographic and economic contexts and construction, but operates to mask the tensions, the issues, the contests, capture settings. Opportunities provided in the and political adjudication around the social sciences learning area’s revision. SSNZC to engage learners with New Zealand histories and Treaty of Waitangi Final comment contexts, issues, and perspectives have As a teacher educator of social studies and history I feel alienated by the Draft’s been favourably commented on by framing of the social sciences learning area, and find its fundamentalist response Consedine and Consedine (2001) and (Luke, 2004), to secure “safe “ and neutral outcomes of learning disturbing, Brooking (2001). The Draft’s social particularly in the light of graduate pre-service teachers’ knowledges, research sciences framing limits understandings interests and decisions to become teachers of social sciences. I query whether about processes of colonisation and consultation will be transparent, and offer a catalyst for open and critical dialogue. decolonisation, and the dynamic nature of “Curriculum speak” of “revitalisation” feels like an empty promise. I do not feel the Treaty of Waitangi in shaping cultural revitalised by the social sciences revision and I ponder the energy it will take relations in Aotearoa New Zealand. to mediate the contradictions embedded in the learning area in my pedagogy. I ponder how the existing SSNZC and all the supporting research literature There is an underlying set of assumptions and resources for pedagogy can be used alongside this framing. I query how through the Draft’s Achievement teachers in the social sciences field perceive the changes and will be supported Objectives that everyone in society has with professional development opportunities and resourcing to make sense of a choices, that everyone can participate as a learning area. The impacts on teachers and learners have significant implications citizen in the same way, that communities for learners’ understandings of human social behaviour, and their informed and nations meet their responsibilities, participation in a complex and increasingly diverse Aotearoa New Zealand society. that reform is good, the idea that social justice is possible, and that cultures are seen as “different” in relation to the Phillipa Hunter is a teacher educator at the School of Education, University dominant culture. In thinking about the Draft’s social sciences framing and the of Waikato. She may be contacted at [email protected] potential shaping of culturally appropriate Note pedagogies (Luke, 2006), ways of knowing and making meaning, we need to question *The writer was a member of the Social Sciences Reference Group over late 2004 the challenges presented by the learning -April 2005. She chose to withdraw her participation from the group in order to area: Diversity or monological? Critical critique the developing statement in her role as a social studies and history teacher reflexive learners or unquestioning learners educator, and as a member of social sciences professional associations. unable to confront assumptions? Teachers as interpreters of others ideas and values or teachers as enforcers? References Barr, H., Graham, J., Hunter, P., Keown, P., & McGee, J. (1997). A position paper: social Communication framing of a studies in the New Zealand school curriculum. Prepared for the Ministry of draft curriculum and social Education, School of Education, The University of Waikato. sciences learning area Belich, J. (2001). Paradise reforged: A history of the New Zealanders from the 1880s Communication framing or “curriculum to the year 2000. Auckland: Penguin Press. speak” of the Curriculum Marautanga Brooking, T. (2001). State propaganda or balanced professional histories? The project is upbeat and uses selective Historical Branch and the production of history. In B. Dalley & J. Phillips language to suggest support for the (Eds.), Going public: The changing face of New Zealand history. (pp. 187- development. In a Ministry of Education 204). Auckland: Auckland University Press. newsletter (October, 2005) communication framing is apparent in relation to Chalmers, L., Keown, P., & Kent, A. ( 2002). Exploring different ‘perspectives’ in consultation within the social sciences secondary geography: Professional development options. International learning area: Research in Geographical and Environmental Education 11 (4), 313-324. Codd, J. (2005). Politics and policy making in education. In Teachers’ work in The participatory process has also Aotearoa New Zealand, (Eds.) P. Adams, K. Vossler & C. Scrivens, Auckland: led to the creation or growth of Thomson / Dunmore Press. professional communities and the forging of new connections Consedine, R., & Consedine, J. (2001). Healing our history: The challenge of the between groups. For example the Treaty of Waitangi. Auckland: Penguin. revision of the Social Sciences Cubitt, S. (2005). Understanding social studies. Addressing the challenges posed by curriculum brought together people recent reviews of the curriculum statement. In P. Benson & R. Openshaw from the disciplines of history, (Eds.), Towards effective social studies. Palmerston North: Kanuka Grove economics, geography, social Press. studies and classics. Department of Education. (1961). Social studies in the primary school. Wellington: I question whether the social sciences Government Printer. development and consultative process Department of Education. (1977). Social studies syllabus guidelines forms 1 – 4. has been genuinely responsive to all its Wellington: Author. constituencies needs to date. “Disciplinary Department of Education. (1983). Faces 6: Social studies in the primary school. intermediaries” who build bridges between Wellington: Government Printer. social sciences territories (Kincheloe, 2001), appear not to have had a voice in this Doll, W. (1993). A post-modern perspective on curriculum. New York: Teachers revision. “Curriculum speak” suggests a College Press. Teachers and Curriculum, Volume 9, 2006 25 Edmondson, J. (2004). Understanding and applying critical policy study: Reading Ministry of Education. (2004a). The educators advocating for change. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University. curriculum marautanga project: Issue 1. Wellington: Author. Education Review Office. (2001). The New Zealand curriculum: An ERO perspective. Wellington: Author. Ministry of Education. (2004b). The New Zealand Curriculum Exemplars Fleras, A., & Spoonley, P. (1999). Recalling Aotearoa: Indigenous politics and ethnic Social Studies. Wellington: Author. relations in New Zealand. Auckland: Oxford University Press. Ministry of Education. (October 2005). Ferguson, S. (2002). Report on the New Zealand National Curriculum, 2002 Setting the Direction for Learning: – Australian Council of Educational Research. Contract research for the New The New Zealand Curriculum Zealand Ministry of Education. Retrieved 7/07/2004 http://www.minedu. Marautanga Project. Wellington: govt.nz/index.cfm?layout=document Author. Flockton, L., & Crooks, T. (1998). Social Studies assessment results 1997: National Ministry of Education. (2006). The New Education Monitoring Report 8. Otago: EARU. Zealand curriculum draft for Flockton, L., & Crooks, T. (2002). Social Studies assessment results 2001: National consultation 2006. Wellington: Education Monitoring Report 22. Wellington: Ministry of Education. Learning Media. Hinchey, P. (2004). Becoming a critical educator: Defining a classroom identity, Ministry of Research, Science & designing a critical pedagogy. New York: Peter Lang. Technology. (2005). Coming of age: social science research and Hunter, P., & Keown, P. (2001). The New Zealand social studies curriculum struggle its contribution to wealth and 1993-1997: An “insider” analysis. Waikato Journal of Education, 7, 55-73. well-being in New Zealand, 2006- Hunter, P., & Farthing, B. (2004). Talking history: Teachers’ perceptions of their 2016. Report of the social sciences’ curriculum in the context of history in the New Zealand curriculum, 1980- reference group to the Ministry of 2003. Hamilton, WMIER Research Science and Technology (MORST): Wellington, Author. Hunter, P., & Farthing, B. (2005). Conceptions of history and historical Retrieved October 12, 2005 from understandings in the social sciences learning area: A response to the http://www.morst.govt.nz Curriculum Marautanga Project’s developments. The New Zealand Journal of Social Studies, 13, 15-20. New Zealand Qualifications Authority. (2001, 2002, 2003). The national Hunter, P. (2005). Essential skills, key competencies and the social sciences Tikanga- certificate of educational a-Iwi learning area in the New Zealand curriculum. (Commissioned by the achievement: economics, history, Ministry of Education: Unpublished). and geography achievement Kincheloe, J. (2001). Describing the bricolage: Conceptualising a new rigor in standards (Level 1 2001, Level 2 qualitative research: Qualitative Inquiry, 7 (6), 679-692. 2002, Level,3 2003). Wellington: Author. Kincheloe, J. (2005a). Classroom teaching: An introduction (Ed.). New York: Peter Lang. New Zealand Qualifications Authority. Kincheloe, J. (2005b). On to the next level: Continuing the conceptualisation of the (2001). Appendix to the Level bricolage: Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 11, (3), 323-350. 1 NCEA history achievement standards. Wellington: Author. Kincheloe, J., Bursztyn, A., & S. Steinberg. (2004). (Eds.) Teaching teachers: Building a quality school of urban education. New York: Peter Lang. New Zealand Qualifications Authority. (2002). Appendix to the Level Le Metais, J. (2002). New Zealand stocktake: An international critique. Background 2 NCEA history achievement paper prepared for the Ministry of Education stocktake project. Retrieved standards. Wellington: Author. on 24 August 2004 from http://www.minedu.govt.nz/ O’Neill, A.M., Clark, J., & R. Openshaw, Luke, A. (2004). New Basics, pedagogy, futures. Powerpoint presentation at the R. (2004). Mapping the field: An National Institute of Education, Singapore. introduction to curriculum politics Luke, A. (2006). Editorial introduction: Why pedagogies? Pedagogies. An in Aotearoa/New Zealand. In A.M. International Journal, 1 (1), 1-6. O’Neill, J. Clark, & R. Openshaw (Eds.). Reshaping culture, Ministry of Education. (1989). History forms 5 - 7 syllabus for schools. Wellington, knowledge and learning: Policy Learning Media. and content in the New Zealand Ministry of Education. (1990). Syllabus for schools: Geography forms 5-7. curriculum framework (pp. 25-46). Wellington, Learning Media. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press. Ministry of Education. (1990). Economics forms 3 - 7 syllabus for schools. Openshaw, R. (2000). Culture wars in Wellington: Learning Media. the Antipodes: The social studies curriculum controversy in New Ministry of Education, (1991). Social Studies forms 3 and 4: A handbook for teachers. Zealand. Theory and Research in Wellington: Learning Media. Social Education 28 (1), 65-84. Ministry of Education. (1993). The New Zealand curriculum framework. Te anga Openshaw, R. (2005). “…Nothing matauranga o Aotearoa. Wellington: Learning Media. objectionable or controversial”: Ministry of Education. (1997a). Social studies in the New Zealand curriculum. The image of Maori ethnicity and Wellington: Learning Media. “difference” in New Zealand social studies. In Y. Nozaki, R. Openshaw Ministry of Education. (1997b). Social studies in the New Zealand curriculum: & A. Luke (Eds.), Struggles over Getting started. Wellington: Learning Media. difference: Curriculum, texts and Ministry of Education. (2002). Curriculum stocktake report to Minister of Education, pedagogy in the Asia-Pacific (pp. Wellington. Retrieved September 28, 2005 from http://www.minedu.govt. x – xx). New York: SUNYP. [not nz/index.cfm?layout=doc mentioned in text] 26 Teachers and Curriculum, Volume 9, 2006