Like many of my readers, I have enjoyed the work of Dr Guy Hatchard throughout the Covid debacle. He has demonstrated himself to be a non-conformist and a man who can think outside the government constructed ideological box. That being said, I want to disagree with Dr Hatchard on a post he wrote recently entitled ‘The Pandemic was Yesterday Today we have a Serious Problem‘.
In the article, Hatchard points out that non-conformists are often the creatives that drive progress. I think we all know this from experience to be the truth. However, where he goes wrong is when he explores how the New Zealand education system is leading to fewer non-conformists and creatives.
Hatchard writes, “we have a highly prescriptive education system that can stifle creative thought.” Unfortunately, I think he is mistaken in this analysis. The New Zealand curriculum is not a prescriptive curriculum, and that is precisely why it stifles creative thought in many of our children. I know that sounds like heresy to many of you, so let me explain. First, let me show you that our New Zealand curriculum is not prescriptive and then I will suggest why a more prescriptive knowledge-based curriculum will lead to more creative thinkers.
Take Level three of the New Zealand Curriculum for the learning area Mathematics and Statistics. Level three covers about two years of learning (approximately Year 5 and 6). There are 17 learning objectives. These are fairly broad and open to school and teacher elaboration and interpretation. Compare this to the current Cambridge Year 5 and 6 primary curriculum framework which has 105 learning objectives.
Now consider the Level 3 New Zealand Curriculum learning area for Science where there are 19 broad learning objectives. In Cambridge for Year 5 and 6 there are 78 learning objectives. Even worse is Level Three of the New Zealand curriculum for the Social Science learning area which has just 7 learning objectives designed to be so broad that anything can be studied. A sample of these learning objectives include:
- Understand how cultural practices vary but reflect similar purposes
- Understand how people view and use places differently
So I take issue with Hatchard’s suggestion that the NZ curriculum is too prescriptive. It is not prescriptive at all. This is what the promoters of the curriculum (and I am not one of them!) trumpet. They celebrate it because it allows teachers the freedom to make learning ‘relevant’ to their communities. Unfortunately, this in essence means that our poorest children get ripped off as well-meaning teachers limit their horizons by doing just as Hatchard complains – assume they cannot handle Shakespeare and it is not relevant to them. So our poorest do not receive their birthright – the treasures of our Western Civilization – because of this foolishness which holds all facts and learning as equally important and no one body of information as essential to success in our world.
Hatchard moves on to critique an education system that focuses on filling minds with facts. He writes, “Our education system has taken on the character of a Dickensian schoolroom where brains are viewed as a row of empty pots to be filled by a limited set of prescriptive facts.” He sees this as inimical to creative thought.
Nothing could be further from the truth. You cannot teach creative thinking to people who have no knowledge. Primary schools ought to be the place where broad knowledge is developed. In secondary schools, a deeper knowledge in more specific areas ought to be developed. After years of study in a particular field you are more likely to become a true master who can think creatively. Without deep knowledge in a particular topic, people are unable to think critically or creatively about that particular topic.
Cognitive Scientist Daniel Willingham in his excellent book “Why don’t students like school?” tackles the question of how we can get our students to think like real scientists, mathematicians or historians. The simple answer is that you can’t. This is because cognition early in training is very different to cognition later in training. Perhaps an example is in order. Musicians all start by learning scales. They don’t jump straight into improvisation. The knowledge they build up by learning scales, arpeggios and finger strength and dexterity from boring drills enables them to become creative musicians. You can’t do this in your first year or two of learning music. To think innovatively about problems, you have to have a large body of knowledge in your long term memory, freeing up your working memory to respond to the situation. Daniel Willingham puts it this way. “For problems to be solved, the thinker needs adequate information from the environment, room in working memory, and the required facts and procedures in long-term memory.”
Dr Hatchard is an excellent example of the point we are making. It is because he has a rather deep knowledge of Science that he has been able to think critically and creatively and provide us with helpful insights throughout the covid pandemic.