New Zealand Education and the "Back to Basics" Campaign

There is a movement in educational circles these days which aims to get New Zealand schools "Back to the basics". It has not received much support from those actually working in the education system, but it does have backing further up the political scale. In fact, from those elements who display particularly marked tendencies towards bigotry and reaction it has received a great deal of praise.

Is this just a coincidence? Is the back to basics movement an attempt to safeguard education from wishy-washy liberalism, or is it part of a concerted drive to restrict people's educational potential; to restrict their abilities to think, gain knowledge, question, and widen their economic prospects?

The Narrow Approach

No-one is going to claim that the New Zealand education system is perfect. Nor is anyone going to suggest that to be perfect, it would have to be 100% successful in turning out children who have reached "satisfactory" levels in reading, writing, music, etc. Yet it would seem that underlying the rhetoric of the back to basic pundits are these very beliefs. Find a child who can't read properly and you'd better find the teacher responsible, quickly. Find the teacher and the chances are you'll find the system has put her/him up to it in the first place. Worse and worse.

Some people involved in the "basics" movement have quite literally taken this tack. A Hutt Valley woman went on television a few months ago to tell the country she had personally met some children who suffered serious problems in reading. But she said, their school introduces a new course in "Values" nearly every week.

Quite apart from any speculation about what these courses might possibly contain, there are two serious points of misunderstanding that such an attitude immediately reveals, The first is that our education system is not in the business of operating such a flexible approach to the syllabus even it educators wanted it to.

The second concerns the attitudes of teachers, To assume that teachers are so out of touch with the basic schooling requirements of their students, so poorly trained as to have so little idea of what their job involves, and so irresponsible as to sacrifice basic requirements for "irrelevant frills", is to display a singular lack of understanding about what goes on in schools.

The State of the System

Let's look at the evidence. In July of this year the Department of Education published "Educational Standards in State Schools", a report commissioned in July 1977 by the Minister of Education. Drawing on reports of inspectors and other departmental officers, research conducted in dome specific fields and various other recognised sources, it is already proving a valuable source document in the continuing debate over the aims and conditions of New Zealand education. Its findings are summarised below. (Thanks to Education News for doing some of the hard slog for us).

Reading

According to the report, reading provisions are now much wider, richer and more appropriate than they used to be, and "standards in reading are at least as good as they ever were" (p.25). Average and above average students do well and have better levels of achievement than their predecessors. Many of the below average readers had a significantly retarded level of language development when they entered school. Their rate of progress is slower than the more advanced students, but when materials match abilities the results are generally reasonable.

The trend for the least advanced in develop at a [unclear: lessen] rate than others is common to a number of fields, and must be counted one of the major problems of the present system. In relation to this, the report notes that, "At the primary level, some teachers are over-emphasising the recognition of words, and in the lower streams of secondary schools, too much emphasis is placed on interpreting factual material. A more balanced approach to the teaching of reading for understanding and pleasure would achieve better results" (p 26). In other words, the sort of approach demanded by back, to basics proponents has proven to be unsatisfactory.

The report says, "All these developments mean that schools and teachers are better equipped to teach reading then ever before" (p32).

Riting

Greater extremes between the most able and least able students are also evident in writing skills. "Inspectors have not been able to detect any significant downward trend in the standards of written English. Students today are generally more versatile than they were in the past, and many can convey complex and subtle ideas with considerable skill." The report notes the broadening purposes of writing, and says, "the writing of poetry' has become an important feature of many primary classrooms. It is effective in developing a student's ideas and vocabulary" (p36).

The teaching of English as a second language is g owing rapidly, and this has been recognised in the expansion of in-service courses, language programmes, and special qualifications. Spelling has not shown the improvements of reading and some other aspects of writing. "Standards remain much the same" (p37).

Standards of spoken English have improved, more students are being given the opportunity to improve their speaking skills, there appear to be fewer shy and reluctant speakers. On the other band, it appears that listening skills may be declining slightly. Handwriting, too, seems to be suffering in a minor way.

Back to basics supporters will be interested to learn that at least half the time set down for instruction in primary schools is devoted to work in maths and English, and in secondary schools much more time is given to these subjects than is required by regulation. Research shows that attainment is directly related to the amount of time devoted to the skill, and on this basis, students are being given every opportunity in mathematics and English.

Rithmetic

"The inspectors are convinced that the teaching of mathematics has made great strides during the last decade, and that there is much excellent teaching going on", states the report. It continues, "Students today have a better understanding of mathematical concepts and they are able to apply their knowledge in a wider range of mathematical situations. Their ability to understand and use mathematical terms correctly has also increased over the last few years." (pp47-8).

There have been problems with the introduction of New Maths, most notably in the fact that the early development of a wide range of concepts on which to base the course caters for the more able students at the expense of others. This is now being recognised, and in many schools the detrimental results of the new maths approach are being whittled away.

More students are taking maths to a higher level: 46.1% of candidates sat School Cert, maths in 1951; by 1975 the figure had risen to 75%. There have been striking increases in the number of girls taking maths to advanced levels. It is now clear that a combination of the new maths' aim to develop students' understanding of how and why mathematical computations work, coupled with a retention of teaching the basic arithmetical skills needed from day to day will see further improvements in this field. There is room for improvement in the examinations secondary students face.

Other Basic Subjects

I have concentrated on the three "R"s, assuming that these are primarily what is meant when people talk of the "basics". The report, however, goes much further, dealing with music, health education, science, art and physical education in a way that makes it clear that these too are considered basic components of the curriculum. Music revealed the greatest range of standards, chiefly due to the shortage of specialist teachers in both primary and secondary schools. In addition it is noted that the emphasis placed on English and maths has meant the downgrading of these other areas.

The stated aims of music education are worth repeating: "to promote enjoyment, understanding, sensitivity and discrimination, to provide opportunities for self-expression, and to develop skills through a wide variety of musical experiences" (p58). Similarly, it is claimed that "Art and craft activities help students to develop powers of self-expression, of communication, of perception and of appreciation. Art programmes play an important part in the balanced development of students' awareness, understanding, inventiveness and enjoyment of themselves and of the world around them" (p62). Clearly, these subjects are seen as crucial to the development of character.

Research throughout the world has reinforced this idea, and it has been noted that only in art can a child use his/her mind in concert with hands and eyes. (see "Frills are basic to learning", in National Education, August 1978). Still, there are otherways of building character as every Sergeant Major knows. "I was beaten every day of my school life and it did me the world of good," as some are prone to announcing.

Student Values

The report states that students today show greater independence of thought and action, more initiative, are more spontaneous than their predecessors and seem generally to enjoy their schooling.

Some of the common characteristics of students have a special bearing on the back to basics debate. The report says, "Most students., have decided views on justice, display a greater interest in the world than their predecessors.... In some schools, especially intermediate and secondary, students show a keen desire to participate in decision-making and administration" (p77). These are not the best attributes to have in a social system which would rather you voted once every three years and stayed out of trouble the rest of the time.

The report does not mean the above qualities to be taken as euphemisms, and is fully cognisant of the growing problems of truancy, "vandalism", drinking, "promiscuity", etc. Two points come up again and again in relation to this. The first is that it is often difficult to delineate between school, social and parental resoponsibility, especially when looking for causal factors. The second is that students are becoming increasingly less tolerant of teachers and/or a system which does not offer a challenge, is boring, repetitive, and contains little in the way of fulfilment or reward.

Weaknesses in the System

The report does not pretend that New Zealand's education system is without fault. If I have highlighted the positive findings and tended to gloss over the negative ones it is because in regard to the crucial question of declining standards of the "basics" in schools, the findings are quite conclusive. Standards are not always improving as one might hope, but they are certainly not dropping. In the areas of reading and mathematics, considerable advances are claimed to have been made.

Education Minister Les Gandar has identified "four main messages" in the report. Firstly, that standards are being maintained despite many changes and influences that make it difficult for teachers to keep pace, let alone improve the situation. Secondly, that less able students are not being catered for as well as others. Thirdly, that schools cannot be held solely responsible for failure and low achievement. Fourthly, that significant increases in expenditure wall be needed if problems of low attainment are to be overcome.

The Director General of Education, Bill Renwick, has noted five areas for improvement. In addition to Gandar's fourth point, he lists: better balance between teaching for understanding and regular review and practice of skills; more training of school staff in organisational skills; more attention for cultural minorities; and more publicity in the school system for work of a good standard. Renwick also states that the coming years will see a slower rate of development than any time in the last 20 years, as innovations are consolidated and methods of teaching are improved.

Defining Character Sties of the System

Some of the traits of our education system, and some of the problem areas demanding rectification (as defined in the report), run counter to these basic characteristics. The need to improve the educational opportunities for the less able is the most obvious example of this.

Education Cuts?

As Gandar has quite correctly pointed out, if this need is to be answered considerably more money will be needed. Now one of the battle cries of the back to basics movement is that education is too often a waste of the tax-payers money. The cry is usually raised against "fringe" subjects, especially liberal studies and the like. If education spending is cut (and it always is in a crisis) this will certainly be one of the areas which suffers.

There will be less music and art, those subjects which it is claimed in the report provide valuable experience in character development. There will also be less informal teaching, away from the desk and the blackboard. In other words, the hierarchical structure in the schools (which reflects the hierarchical structure in society) will be kept more intact. Perhaps most significantly, there will be less attention given to the three great bogeys: sex, politics and religion. Thus a potentially very direct threat to the social value structure will be decreased.

These appear to be some of the motives of parents and others who have adopted the back to basics slogan. But for those further up the scale of authority and power, additional motives emerge. For if education spending is cut, there is no way that extra and specialised staff, expanded resources and increased research will be allocated to increasing the levels of less able students.

In the universities we are already seeing the effect of potential graduate unemployment in restrictions being placed on entry to some courses, introduction of pass/fail ratios based on artificially deflated records of achievement, and the like. The same thing is likely to happen at the other end of the scale, among the working class (and particularly among Maori and Pacific Island school students). School Certificate failure rates are stabilised at about 40% for the economy still needs a large working force with the minimum education. It doesn't need any significant increase in the number of people wanting to gain university qualifications.

How Back to Basics Works

The back to basics movement is not common only to New Zealand. It seems to have originated in the United States, and in fact has reached a high stage of organisation in that country. In Queensland, Australia (where Premier Bjelke-Peterson, the most openly fascist leader in Australasia rules supreme) the movement has virtual control of the education system. Teachers have very little freedom in their choice of materials and their syllabi are subject to tight supervision.

This is an important fact to remember; for given the developing enlightenment of the people working in our education system, attempts to revert to the old style would have to be accomanied by rigid policing, banning of books and effective action against teachers who do not tow the line. Such measures would undoubtedly lead to considerable resistance.

If you don't believe it, remember that if fascism comes to this country it will need to control the education system, and as in every other field where there have already been signs, its influence will not immediately be the most open-faced.

The Good Old Days

Finally, what is this good old system that Muldoon, Rowling, Gill and others have expressed such a yearning for? Forty years ago schools in New Zealand were ruled by terror. (Probably everyone reading this has come across a teacher who still believed that a little bit of fear went a long way.) Corporal punishment, often quite indiscriminately administered, was rife. And no soft flicks with the strap either. These kids were beaten.

Muldoon has remarked that fewer people entered secondary school unable to read or write. The fact is, proportionally fewer people entered secondary school at all. Many were held back until they were 14 or 15. Many couldn't afford a secondary education and had to leave. Until quite recently, most working claw children went to Technical High Schools (even now receiving praise from the back to basics leaden). But guess what? These schools had limited facilities, offered limited educational and employment prospects and effectively ruled out higher education for the mass of the people who attended them.

Conclusion

Everyone has the right to be concerned about the education of their children. Everyone should have such a concern. If our education system is to develop, it must do so by taking account of this. The onus is on schools to involve parents in their children's education, and on parents to respond to such attempts on their behalf.

The back to the basics movement is not the voice of legitimate concern, but stems from narrow-mindedness and fear. Its leaders, who display many of the worst social qualities, are playing on people's legitimate concern, and seek to reassert the rule of reaction. The movement is linked to our economic system through the threat that liberal education poses to economic and social stability. It represents a dangerous attack on our freedoms and in its fully developed form bears many of the hallmarks of fascism. It must be exposed as such.

Simon Wilson