This week it was reported by Radio NZ that the “School curriculum rewrite had serious problems, managers considered using AI to help”
“Internal Education Ministry documents sighted by RNZ reveal serious problems plagued the rewrite of the school curriculum earlier this year and managers were considering using AI to help with the work.
The latest leak from the organisation shows only a few months ago it lacked a clear definition of the core concept underpinning the entire rewrite – “knowledge rich” – even though it had already published primary school maths and English curriculums by that time and had nearly completed draft secondary school English and maths curriculums.
It was also struggling with repeated requests for changes.
Primary school principals and the secondary teachers union told RNZ they were worried about the curriculum development process.
They said they still had not seen a clear definition of the term ‘knowledge-rich’ as it applied to the New Zealand curriculum.
The Education Ministry told RNZ content of the English and maths curriculum was “consistent with knowledge-rich curriculum design principles” but it failed to provide a definition of knowledge-rich despite being asked for one.”
Words fail me. I’ve been railing on about the government neglecting to consult education experts when formulating educational policy, and here they go to a new level. Using AI to help write a school curriculum? Do they not understand how an AI works?
What’s wrong with consulting experts such as Professor Peter O’Connor of Auckland University?
There’s an underlying reason why the Ministry of Education is struggling to develop a ‘knowledge-rich’ curriculum – it’s pedagogical nonsense
“Pedagogy is the art and science of teaching, encompassing the methods and practices used to facilitate learning. It involves understanding how students learn and applying various teaching strategies to meet their educational needs” (Wikipedia).
There’s no research or theory of learning behind ‘knowledge-rich curriculum’, it’s merely yet another neoliberal catchphrase designed to sound impressive. No wonder the Ministry can’t write a curriculum.
Let’s see what prominent New Zealand educators have to say:
Post Primary Teachers Association vice-president Kieran Gainsford:
“If even officials aren’t sure of what they mean by the terms of science of learning and knowledge-rich curriculum, knowledge-rich in particular, then it leads to the question of how on earth are schools and teachers supposed to know what they mean by that.”
Principals Federation president Leanne Otene:
“… it was clear to primary and intermediate principals the curriculum was “being built as the plane was flying”.
And:
“… parts of the published curriculums read like they had been cut and pasted from elsewhere.”
Association of English Teachers president Pip Tinning:
“… the problems outlined by the ministry documents were not normal for curriculum development.”
And:
“… the ministry had not explained knowledge-rich in terms of the English curriculum or its definition of the science of learning.”
Indeed.
They don’t know what ‘knowledge-rich’ means. They might think they are knowledge-rich themselves and we see what a huge mess they all are, so it doesn’t seem to be a very useful state to be in.
One doesn’t need to have a huge amount of knowledge. You need to know how to apply the knowledge you have and adapt to meet the requirements of what you are attempting to do.
The Wikipedia definition describes it well.
I think teaching is more of an art than a science. The science of teaching is taught in our teacher’s colleges but it’s not until one of faced with actual people/children that you must find a way to ‘get through to’ those children. Each child being an individual, makes it an art. That’s the bit where your creativity comes into play and you find out if your own knowledge can be adapted sufficiently to have an effect on individual children’s learning.
AI isn’t known for creativity, only the ability to follow an established pattern. Sounds like another way of saying, one-size fit all, to me.
Also sounds like a lazy tactic being called a ‘solution’ when it most definitely isn’t.
However, as I’ve said before, we don’t expect anything better from Stanford and Seymour. They are both amateurs, neither is well-versed in the art of teaching and they don’t appear to be very good learners either.
Whatever knowledge they feel they are rich in, it’s not education.
I doubt if Stanford or Seymour do the heavy lifting. That’s left to the officials and consultants. The ministers just get the brief. But you’re right Joy, neither Stanford nor Seymour appear to gave any particular expertise in education and are driven by the ideological positions of their respective parties. That in itself would appear a space for conflict.
Their officials and consultants won’t stand a chance against ideology. Ideology is a mental block to them ever coming up with anything useful. They don’t want to know if it’s against their ideology. Yes, conflict and high staff turn-over. Get the yes-people in.
We don’t need much knowledge. We need to know where and how to find it if it’s wanted.
I think you are great Joy as you seem to think as I do. But I don’t think we are wrong and it is good to meet someone who thinks things through and seems to be knowledgable and experienced. Maybe we will meet another similar two people each and start a moovement, a new herd of Kiwis who can handle confusion and find the good way through the fog.
That’s it Greywarbler, finding your way through the fog, a lot of it generated by people who are paid to know better.
We may as well pat ourselves on the back and yes, I like the idea of forming a herd. Sounds much more emphatic than forming a group.
There’s only one thing that Seymour’s interested in as far as children go. Or three if you count the holes instead of the activities (perhaps two if he’s like his mate ago).
Knowledge is defined as “facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.”
So me “knowledge-rich education” is merely a tautology.
But does the government really mean “Fact-rich education”?
That risks becoming an oxymoron.
Facts need to be elicited and tested, and skills are necessary to that end.
Education based on “facts” is not an education at all. It is indoctrination.
It’s understandable that the Ministry are tying themselves up in knots. Ideological deliberations notwithstanding. For most of us ‘knowledge’ as a concept is pretty straightforward but put a few experts and Ministry staff in the same room and it’s a recipe for indecision.
Half the issue now is the recognition that ‘knowledge’ is contestable. Who’s knowledge? What historical and cultural origins? How did it come about? Witness the debate a few years back about Matauranga Maori. Striving for a ‘knowledge-rich’ curriculum in the 21st C would have to encompass multiple world views, right?
Then there’s the delivery, the science of learning. I’ve heard it said that a curriculum is simply a blueprint until it is brought to life in the classroom. If the content is contestable and somewhat ill-defined little wonder teachers are nervous.
I wouldn’t have an issue with push back on the equality of ‘traditional’ science and indigenous knowledge. They’re not quite the same. Although to be fair back in the day those indigenous peopes living in the South Pacific as well as in Australia and other places used context-based scientific knowledge to successfully live in ther respective environments. I think my point was ‘knowledge rich’ entailed multiple world views, be that history, literature, science or whatever. I was wondering if the difficulties in constructing the new curriculum were in large part related to what to put in and what to leave out. Ministry officials and their consultants most likely have a different view to the two Ministers – who probably dont agree anyway.
We had a Social Studies teacher who came into the room almost every day and issued a statement which usually left some of us gasping at the idiocy of it. Immediately someone would challenge it and a discussion would ensue. It was a bit exhausting but if you could take part in the discussion it was exhilarating.
Even simply to listen and digest the ideas swirling around was hard work.
I won’t say we ever came to a factual conclusion and not a lot of knowledge was on show, we were kids.
That wasn’t the point, and it took me some time to grasp that. It was uncomfortable feeling that there was no ‘right’ answer. We were so used to facts and copying them down to regurgitate in exams.
Those discussions enabled us at a very immature and low level, to formulate some possible conclusions and be satisfied that with the information available at that point, we were making reasonable assumptions.
We had to think in those classes and come the exams, we had excellent ways of explaining ideas using a few known facts. It served us well as we went on to university or other tertiary ed. If not, it still proved useful in interpreting the world and all the ‘strange’ people we’ve encountered, some of whom have arrived on this blog.
There isn’t much in human existence that boils down to facts which are incontrovertible. Most of the time we have to stretch our imaginations and develop our understanding of things, events and people, more than simply knowing facts. We don’t argue with facts but recognise there’s more to learning than just facts. There’s comprehension as well and getting bogged down trying to tell us facts and knowledge are all that matter wastes half our brains, which are capable of so much more, if trained to be.
It’s good to read you Joy – thoughtful and so on. Ta.
Something on ed that I noticed. What the heck?
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/567882/polytech-changes-will-cost-1000-jobs-500-courses-cabinet-paper-reveals
Mister-Miz-Minister leave our schools and polytechs alone!* It’s time we people, we citizens paying for the stuff (education) supposedly, need to look ourselves at what we need instead of having this game of battledore and shuttlecock between us and the corporate-driven authority. Polytechs are where our unemployed people should be, under some sort of discipline to learn though, and then given time working for some months at their chosen skill. The learning has to be for a purpose! (I turned round in one of my computer- learning classes with conversations behind me and asked them what they were there for, as I was there to learn.) Grumpy so and so, but I had problems with work and money I was trying to surmount.
Even those decades ago the gummint was mucking round with schooling, destroying the business and job market gradually. We will have to save ourselves folks – those that don’t get all their impulses and guidance from their devices, cellphones or Facebook so have an individual brain and appreciation of a good working society and can pick themselves up and walk. (Gummint was quick to employ tech, microsoft programs, advanced cellphones, to dealing with our public business and concerns.) We have to gather and think together and build a workable interactive, co-operative and practically tolerant group; in a wide way, not narrow sect-like, but ensure that everyone is honestly on track and not just empty- headed or time-wasters.
* Pink Floyd you know what 3.18m https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrxX9TBj2zY
We’re very much on the same wavelength.
my nearest poly tech was 20 km away .Now the nearest one is 101km away and there is no public transport .Where are the 100000 Indians going to be educated now we have halved the number of poly techs and are locals going to have to make way for the 100000 under the trade deal ?
Some of the things being rolled out as industrial training/adult education need to be seen to be believed. Far from being knowledge rich, they are written by people that lack basic knowledge in the field, but tested hard, which is absurd given the paucity of content.
It’s true that Labour’s Te Pukenga reforms were ill-conceived and badly or not executed. But what replaces appears to be no better, and will need to be rebuilt from the ground up as soon as these clowns are gone.
Yes, I agree and also feel as you do. This lot are not capable of doing the rebuilding. Labour’s effort may have been poor, but these people are worse and will do a worse job. Why??? Because they have such huge arrogance that causes them to always think they are correct.
Wisdom is lacking by the Left, their comments a string of profanities.
Wisdom is lacking by the Right, their comments a string of lies, idiocy and trolling .
Wisdom is lacking by the Left, their comments a string of profanities.
Without trying to insult anyone because it’s water off a duck’s back, what are your thoughts on this topic – being knowledge-rich.
Retardation is saying the same thing twice.
Most people are a product of their upbringing, no original thought.
Does that mean YOU have no original thought? So, in fact you are forever waiting for the govt. to tell you what to do, now that your family is no longer doing that job.
Yes Joy, the common term for Bob troll is a sheep, he is a follower with no individual thought and is always waiting what to be told by right wing politicians
I suspect “knowledge rich” means lots of rote learning.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/life/culture/the-celebrity-halo-effect-why-abuse-allegations-against-powerful-men-like-brad-pitt-are-so-easily
Jamilla Rosdahl Logo that reads “The Conversation 2 August 2025
The celebrity halo effect: why abuse allegations against powerful men like Brad Pitt are so easily forgotten
This young? journalist is still beating up the sex and violence angle for women as victims, very self-importantly. Perhaps she should take a break from using her education on middle class women and expand her horizons. For a while, get concerned about women and violence in Gaza. Do that now before there isn’t one left standing to be concerned about. Leave off caring about celebrities, and come back later to those suffering in this country. You could give something to Oxfam who might be in a position to force some aid through to a spot wheret he Israeli army aren’t trialling new weapons.
The biggest issue ahead in education is AI. Everyone uses this. A 5 year old could write betterer than I am now by using chatgpt.
So for maths-probably all you need do is scan the problem on the page and it pops out the answer.
So chatgpt is knowledge rich but how do we use it moving forward in education?
This report shows the depths we have sunk to in politicians coming forward to run the country on behalf of the body politic.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/568975/parents-cautiously-optimistic-about-waving-goodbye-to-ncea
They can play around with education because they don’t take it, or the people, seriously. They are living proof of Shakespeares lines that he came up with in the 16th16th16th16th16thcentury. All the world’s a stage, And all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts,…https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/56966/speech-all-
Now we are in the 21st century we have managed to turn ourselves into tech slaves, governed by machines and people are merely glove puppets; at elections with two main protagonists in the political sporting contest, really a Punch and Judy show.
Keep reading, keep thinking around the problems, not adopting knee jerk regular answers to irregular problems. Do be daffy when there is a good reason, be prepared to unsettle the easter island-stone administrators – force them back to life – follow the Douglas Mawson determination. The age of polar exploration – the participants put their all in and some died, went mad. For what – just to endure, explore.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Mawson#Antarctic_expeditions
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rphIs_VrEfo 11.08m
Great presentation by a boffin.
Learn, think about what you learn, appreciate, cohese, unite – think up your own goals and slogans. Rise above our ‘Stygian gloom’.
Now we have the exploration of our minds, how to use them, appreciate the heights and depths, we are losing lives from not doing that, by controlling the malign forces, we have to pull ourselves together and gather other explorers and move together as the last hope of humankind. And make sure that women who come forward and are involved stay on their own parallel task, side by side, and all care for the children who must be prepared and will be strong.
You could also read Catherine Cookson’s life and her books where people, nen and women, strive to find a good life for themselves overcoming huge social and physical difficulties, if you can contain your mind and heart, you can win. Also R.F. Delderfield’s
A Horseman Riding By trilogy – his social history interest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._F._Delderfield#Early_20th_century_social_history_as_a_subject_of_his_writing
Just reading the many short comments above. It seems likely to me that there are AI comments included, though which? They may serve to be like dud matches, striking against the surface of others, not firing, just a wisp of smoke. So they may be useful to some extent to awaken thought, but we will have to get an understanding, a sense of them.
This reminds me, being prone to analogy, of the book by Danish author Peter Hoeg, Miss Smilla’s feeling for Snow. It has another title as Miss Smilla’s Sense of Snow.. English being so nuanced, it’s a case of personal decision as most appropriate
The character Smilla could draw on her deep experience of snow to assess the environment. A quote: During her Greenland childhood, Smilla developed an almost intuitive understanding of all types of snow and their characteristics. As an adult, she worked for a time as a scientist whose speciality was snow and ice. Her certainty about the manner of a child’s death is due to this visceral “feeling for snow”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Smilla%27s_Feeling_for_Snow
We may need to develop a ‘visceral’ response when confronted with AI. I think ‘visceral’ is the exact word for this!
Comments are closed.