MECI project May 2009 milestone: executive summary
18/01/10
In November 2007 The New Zealand Curriculum (NZC) was launched in New Zealand. That policy statement provides direction and guidance for teaching and learning in New Zealand’s state (including integrated) schools. This report summarises a national evaluation of the implementation of that curriculum being undertaken by researchers at the Faculty of Education, the University of Auckland, for the Ministry of Education. That project is called MECI: Monitoring and Evaluating Curriculum Implementation.
Overview
In 2008 data was gathered through both web-based (n= 579) and paper (n=2578) surveys, from educators in more than 450 schools. Respondents to the surveys were from stratified random samples of English-medium state and state-integrated schools. In both surveys the schools respondents came from are similar to the population of English-medium state/state-integrated schools in terms of region and decile. The surveys were complemented by focus groups with educators from a range of settings, including the school sector and pre and in-service teacher education. Data has been gathered around four key aspects of the evaluation framework:
- Support - the kinds of support educators are encountering (including people within and beyond their schools, publications and web) and how valuable they perceive those supports to be.
- Receptivity - the extent to which educators value the curriculum, their confidence in implementing the curriculum in their own context, and the degree to which they perceive implementation to be feasible.
- Understanding –how educators understand a range of key elements of the NZC (including effective pedagogy, values, principles, key competencies, the vision, and the learning areas) and their views about the extent of shift required or offered under the new curriculum.
- Practice - the extent to which practices that reflect the intentions of the new curriculum are becoming evident in both leaders’ and teachers’ practice.
Much of the evidence about educators’ efforts to give effect to the NZC is positive, especially when the one-year timeframe since the launch of the new curriculum is considered. There is, for example, wide-spread engagement with the curriculum –most schools have begun a process of curriculum review; the majority of teachers have begun thinking about implications of the curriculum in terms of change to their practice; and many key aspects of curriculum are continuing to be, or becoming, evident in practice. Educators also hold a generally positive view of the curriculum. There are, though, a number of themes that are less positive that can usefully inform priorities and decisions about the next phase of implementation support. Findings that signal both key areas of progress, and important issues/priorities, are summarised below. The findings reported below are drawn from the paper survey data that was collected in October 2008, unless otherwise stated. A second round of surveys, both paper and web, has been administered during October/November 2009. Data from these will be analysed to determine implementation progress in the year following the first survey round.
Summary of Findings: Support
Progress
Nearly all respondents (more than 99%) reported encountering support of some kind at least once. The most frequently encountered support types were the document itself and colleagues from respondents’ own schools. More than 75% of respondents encountered these three or more times.
Many respondents had encountered Ministry of Education provided publications at least once – 82% in the case of print material, and 50% in the case of the NZC online website.
While a relatively small percentage of respondents (24%) had encountered advisory support in a sustained way (more than 3 encounters), access to school support services provision does not vary considerably by region.
Issues/Priorities
Support encounters
In relation to people supports - More than 75% of respondents reported that they had encountered support from advisors, colleagues at other schools, and facilitators from other initiatives only once or twice or not at all. Eight percent of respondents had encountered support from private consultants more than three times.
In relation to print/web supports - 50% reported that they had not yet viewed the NZC website at all, and a further 25% had viewed it just once or twice. Eighteen percent reported that they had not seen any Ministry of Education publications relating to the NZC.
Support Quality
Educators’ views overall about the quality of the support they have encountered to were slightly below the mid-point on a 0 – 5 scale (2.41). While some respondents report encountering support that is relevant, stimulating, productive and sound, these reports are not yet widespread. The responses from secondary schools are less positive than those from other school types. There are significantly higher ratings of support quality for respondents in Auckland/Northland than from those in other regions.
Support quality is proving to be a particularly important consideration. A relationship has been found between the quality of support respondents report, and the extent to which they are receptive to, and are implementing, the new curriculum. Respondents were grouped according to whether they reported experiencing high or low quality support. When the receptivity and practice scores of those two groups was compared, statistically significant and large differences were revealed - lower receptivity and practice scores were associated with those who reported lower quality support, and higher receptivity and practice scores were associated with those who reported higher quality support.
Secondary
Secondary educators indicate that they have had fewer support encounters than educators in all other school types (Primary, Composite and Special) and they rate the value of the supports they have encountered much lower than primary educators.
Summary of findings: Receptivity
Progress
Value
New Zealand educators generally consider the NZC (2007) to be better, and more flexible, than the previous curriculum. The mean on the 0 (negative) to 5 (positive) scale was 3.4 for the value items.
Issues/Priorities
Feasibility and Confidence
While they value the curriculum itself, educators are much less likely to report that they feel confident in implementing it, or that it is feasible to do so. The mean on the 0 (negative) to 5 (positive) scale was 2.9 for the feasibility and confidence items.
Receptivity ratings were significantly lower for teachers than school leaders, lower for secondary than primary/special/composite respondents, and lower for mid-decile than low or high-decile respondents.
Ratings about the extent of support provision, though, indicate that educators view it to be more miserly than generous - the mean on the 0 (negative) to 5 (positive) scale was 1.9.
Difficulty
The median response to items about how difficult respondents consider key NZC practices (including key competencies, values, student agency, teaching as inquiry, partnerships) show that none of the aspects are yet considered ‘easy’. The mean response for most aspects was closer to the ‘difficult’ scale point than to the ‘easy’ scale point, and all of the aspects were rated more difficult by secondary than primary respondents.
Secondary
Educators working in secondary school contexts responded with statistically significantly lower ratings on all aspects of receptivity than educators working in all other school types. The difference between secondary and primary was large.
Summary of findings: Understanding
Progress
Shift/Change – recognition of possibilities
The majority of respondents report a view of the NZC that recognises the potential of the curriculum as a framework to support change and improvement in educational practice. More respondents (53%) tend to view the curriculum as ‘complicated’ than ‘uncomplicated’, more (69%) view it as ‘different’ than ‘same’ and more (63%) see it as requiring ‘major shifts’ than ‘few shifts’. There are, though, about a third who still trend toward viewing the curriculum as more the ‘same’ as the previous one and requiring ‘few shifts’.
Key competencies as complex and life-long
When asked to explain the difference between essential skills (from the previous curriculum) and key competencies (in the NZC) the predominant themes related to key competencies being complex, broad, and about deep learning (15% of responses), and about key competencies as important for lifelong learning (19% of responses).
Flexibility in local curriculum
When asked to explain the main difference between the NZC and the previous curriculum, nearly half of the teacher comments (44%) related to the theme of flexibility, autonomy and school-based curriculum. Most educators have recognised this as a significant shift that has implications for their practice.
Issues/Priorities
Clarifying and deepening understandings
It is not sufficient in a review of curriculum implementation, such as this one, to only seek reports from teachers about which aspects of curriculum they are addressing in their practice. It is critical to also find out what educators understand about those curriculum aspects. Finding out what they understand enables consideration of how accurate and deep those understandings are, and the extent to which they reflect the intentions of the curriculum.
The overall findings in this area suggest that there are wide-spread weaknesses in the accuracy, depth and complexity of educators understanding about many key aspects of the curriculum. The data suggest the need for supporting and developing educators’ understandings in relation to the following:
- Key competencies: how these differ from the essential skills of the previous curriculum framework; the importance of integration of key competencies and learning areas; and the role of dispositions, student agency and context in the key competencies
- Partnerships with parents/whanau/wider community: how partnerships relate to teaching and learning; how partnerships extend beyond informing and consulting parents to include collaboration with parents/whanau and the wider community
- Teaching as inquiry: how ‘teaching as inquiry’ is distinct from inquiry learning approaches; how ‘teaching as inquiry’ involves prioritising in a focusing inquiry, attention to both practitioner and research evidence in a teaching inquiry, and examination of the relationship between teachers’ practice and their students’ learning in a learning inquiry
- Values: how ‘values’ in the curriculum extends beyond the commonly carried out first-step of determining and developing shared understanding of a school community’s own values, to also involve developing values exploration skills and understandings about the nature of values
- Local curriculum in the context of national curriculum: The focus on school-based curriculum is recognised and valued by educators and an important underpinning of the curriculum. The flexibility associated with this does present challenges. In particular, there is a need for attention to how educators perceive the role of the national curriculum in relation to the flexible/local/autonomous curriculum context. To what extent do local curricula override national curriculum aspirations where those aspirations differ significantly? What do the regulations about giving effect to national curriculum aspirations mean in local curriculum practice.
Summary of Findings: Practice
Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which a range of practices are evident in their own practice, and the degree to which they find those practices difficult or easy. Practices related to various aspects of the curriculum, including curriculum review, practice changes, key competencies, partnerships, teaching as inquiry, values, and student agency.
Progress
School curriculum review
Curriculum review has been widespread. Principals’ responses indicate that values have been reviewed in 75% of schools. Key competencies have been reviewed in 68%, principles in 66%, pedagogy in 63% and learning areas in 52% of schools.
Shift/Change – recognition of possibilities
Many educators are beginning to make changes to their day to day practice in response to the NZC (Note that some may not have reported ‘change’ since they consider their existing practices to be already consistent with the NZC). The changes referred to next reflect respondents who indicated making either ‘moderate’ or ‘substantial’ changes to their practice.
One in five has made changes to the reports to parents (the content and process), the role students take in class, and the resources they use for teaching and learning. One in four has made changes to the resources they use, and one in three has changed content/topics/themes, approaches/activities and planning documentation. Primary respondents were about twice as likely to have made these kinds of changes as their secondary colleagues.
Values
More schools have reviewed the values aspect of the curriculum than any other aspect. In addition 74% of educators report that they ‘often’ or ‘consistently’ encourage students to hold the values listed in the NZC; and draw out knowledge, attitudes and values during learning experiences.
Key competencies
Reports about the extent to which each individual key competency is evident in practice are relatively high compared to other aspects of practice - 78-85% of respondents report that each key competency is evident ‘often’ or ‘consistently’ in their practice. The Relating to Others key competency is three times more likely to be ‘consistently’ evident in practice (49% of respondents) than the Managing Self competency (14% of respondents). The Thinking and Participating and Contributing competencies are ‘consistently’ evident in more than a quarter of respondents’ practice (26%) and Using Language Symbols and Text in more than a third (34%).
Issues/Priorities
Partnerships
The items about partnerships (which asked, for example, about the extent to which parents/whanau/communities are informed, consulted and collaborate in teaching and learning) were rated both the most difficult, and the least evident of all the aspects of practice. The mean response for importance indicated that partnership practices are not yet considered to be something important to embed in practice. The mean of 1.3 (on a 0 -3 scale), the lowest mean of all the practices considered here, indicates that partnerships in teaching and learning are generally only evident in respondents practice ‘at times’ rather than being ‘strongly evident/often done’. Most educators ‘often’ or ‘always’ inform parents/whanau/communities on teaching and learning matters (52%), but fewer consult (34%) and fewer again collaborate (16%) with parents/whanau/communities in teaching and learning.
Student agency
A number of survey items were designed to indicate the extent to which students have agency and are afforded an active role in their learning. These asked, for example, about the extent to which students participate in decisions about what and how they learn and about assessment, and whether they are involved in discussions with teachers about the key competencies. Student agency practices, like partnerships practices, were generally rated as difficult and as yet only evident in respondents’ practice ‘at times’ rather than being strongly evident or considered important enough/feasible to do often. For instance, only 14% of respondents reported that having their students participate in decisions about what and how they learn is ‘strongly/consistently evident’ in their practice. Only 7% report that having students participate in decisions about how they are assessed, or in discussions about key competencies is ‘strongly/consistently evident’.
Key competencies approach
While the extent to which each individual key competency is evident in practice is relatively high, the more challenging aspects about approaching the key competencies are evident much less. For instance, fostering students’ own disposition to recognise when and how to use the key competencies was reported as evident in practice ‘often’ by 42%, and ‘consistently’ by 11% of respondents, and integration of the key competencies and the learning areas was reported as evident in practice ‘often’ by 49%, and ‘consistently’ by only 19% of respondents.
Teaching as Inquiry
Three aspects of teaching as inquiry are reported by most respondents as being ‘often’ or ‘consistently evident’ in their practice (modifying practices as result of learning about student response, 83%; drawing on experience of colleagues to inform possible changes to teaching, 80%; and engaging with evidence about students; needs and abilities to prioritise next learning steps, 82%). Two other key aspects are evident to that extent by fewer respondents – systematically collecting and analysing data to understand students’ response to teaching (65%); and reading and using published research to inform changes to practice (55%).
Secondary
Educators working in secondary school contexts responded with significantly lower ratings on the practice aspect of the framework than primary educators. Ways of working deemed desirable under the new curriculum are both considered more difficult, and less evident in their practice.
Group Comparisons
School-type differences
The most marked differences between the various groups were between primary and secondary. Educators working in secondary school contexts responded with significantly lower ratings on all aspects of the framework than primary educators. Secondary educators indicate that they have had fewer support encounters, they rate the value of the supports they have encountered much lower than primary, they are less receptive to the new curriculum, and ways of working deemed desirable under the new curriculum are less evident in their practice.
Decile group differences
Educators working in mid-decile school contexts responded with significantly lower ratings on all aspects of the framework. Mid-decile educators indicate that they have had fewer support encounters, they rate the value of the supports they have encountered much lower than low or high-decile respondents, they are less receptive to the new curriculum, and ways of working deemed desirable under the new curriculum are less evident in their practice. While the differences between the decile groups are statistically significant, the magnitude of the differences is smaller than the differences revealed in the primary/secondary group comparisons.
Role differences
Principals and non-teaching leaders responded with significantly higher ratings on all aspects of the framework than classroom teachers. School leaders have had more support encounters, they rate the value of the supports they have encountered much higher than teachers, they are more receptive to the new curriculum, and ways of working deemed desirable under the new curriculum are reported as more evident in their practice.