Monday 14 July 2014

#NZCTech day two

One thing that has been a factor of the Technology Curriculum, is its intensive use of resources.

Technology is a resource intensive curriculum, in part due to the requirement to cover three strands across seven technological areas, and also because students and teachers value the learning that can be gained through practical hands-on activities.

The materials required for practical activities cost both money and time to obtain and prepare. The rooms and equipment are also resource intensive. Teachers expressed concern about inadequate classroom support, preparation time, budget, equipment, buildings/spaces and classroom materials including assessment materials.

Sadly, the government approach to professional development and resourcing the curriculum has been to promote the curriculum as flexible and non-prescriptive and able to be delivered through existing school resources.

PPTA released a report in 2006 around the New Zealand Curriculum and in particular the Technology Curriculum. 
The source for this is PPTA.

Reading through the report, I still find of the issues that were outlined still very prominent today.

I include the summary of finding below, as well as the recommendations

Snapshot of Findings
Curriculum
Technology is a complicated curriculum with three strands and seven areas, and allowing diverse methods of delivery. Many teachers say it is difficult to make sense of the various elements of the curriculum and to weave those understandings into their classroom pedagogy.

Some are disillusioned with the shift of emphasis away from the 'doing' side of technology to the academic process. The curriculum document requires of students a reasonably high level of literacy and abstract thinking and teachers see this as hindering the development of technology as a subject that combines and values both practical and theoretical knowledge.

Others are having success by reclaiming technology in a more traditional way to meet the needs of their students and their school community. In the senior area in particular, a growing number of schools are opting for courses with a strong practical and trades focus and with close links to industry.

PPTA believes that the revised technology curriculum should balance theory with applied concepts and use language that is accessible and clear in intent.

Status
Technology teachers believe that the subject they teach is as worthwhile and valuable as any other in the school curriculum. They enjoy working with students and seeing student success. They say the undervaluing of the technology curriculum in some schools reflects a lingering prejudice about the relative value of academic and vocational subjects. A lack of understanding of the curriculum, by some teachers of non-technology areas and by some school communities, also persists.

PPTA believes that professional development for school communities, that includes explanation of, and resource support for, the curriculum, would help resolve some of the issues about the status of technology.

Professional development & resourcing
Teachers have been disappointed by the lack of professional support for the technology subject. The provision of teacher professional development and support in technology appears to have been shifted to industry bodies such as IPENZ (Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand), some of whom received initial funding from government rather than via the education sector where teachers would seek to access this support in the first instance.

Technology is a resource intensive curriculum, in part due to the requirement to cover three strands across seven technological areas, and also because students and teachers value the learning that can be gained through practical hands-on activities. The materials required for practical activities cost both money and time to obtain and prepare. The rooms and equipment are also resource intensive. Teachers expressed concern about inadequate classroom support, preparation time, budget, equipment, buildings/spaces and classroom materials including assessment materials.

Sadly, the government approach to professional development and resourcing the curriculum has been to promote the curriculum as flexible and non-prescriptive and able to be delivered through existing school resources.

PPTA believes technology teachers need access to funded, ongoing professional development to enable them to keep pace with the developments in a constantly changing curriculum area with multiple fields of knowledge, as well as appropriately skilled ancillary support that frees them to focus on teaching.

The draft revised technology curriculum has been published for comment. PPTA believes it is essential that the problems to date are acknowledged as part of this consultation and teachers and schools should be fully involved in any change.

Technology facilities & class size
Teachers’ concerns about their school technology facilities ranged from inadequate size and/or layout for the number of students in the class and a related shortage of equipment, to a complete lack of equipment and facilities, or – of even more concern - unsafe facilities. One of the focus group schools had a new purpose-built technology block and another had gradually managed to bring all the disparate technology areas together. However, in other schools visited the facilities ranged from modest to poor.

PPTA believes that all technology facilities should be subject to a full health and safety audit and where necessary non-compliant facilities should be brought up to standard to meet guidelines in the ‘Safety and Technology Education’ (1998) manual as well as the requirements of First Schedule to the Health and Safety in Employment Regulations 1995, as referred to in the Ministry of Education Health and Safety Code of Practice for State and State Integrated Schools.

Assessment
Technology teachers say that the volume of assessment and associated paperwork undermines their ability to focus on teaching and learning. They are also concerned about constant changes in standards and in interpretation leading to inconsistent marking.

Difficulties interpreting achievement standards and their perceived lack of a hands-on focus are also prompting teachers to opt for unit standards. Many say the unit standards are often easier for students to understand, support a more practical focus involving less written work and clearly identify the skills and outcomes required. However, they reject the view that unit standards are an easy option.

PPTA believes that consistency in the interpretation of standards supported by clear documentation including exemplars, timely feedback and ongoing professional development, would go a long way to supporting an improved environment for the teaching and learning in technology.

G3 – degree equivalence
The 2003 decision by the Alternative Disputes Resolution panel abolished degree- equivalence and left more than 2000 teachers, many of them in technology, facing a salary disadvantage of some $3000 a year because they could no longer reach the top step 14 of the salary scale.

This decision has had repercussions for the recruitment and retention of technology teachers and for the status of the subject itself. It has formalised the academic/vocational divide in secondary schools and made the specialist skills and knowledge that teachers of woodwork, metalwork, clothing, home economics and typing appear less valuable than other subjects.

Teachers who had been teaching for many years and were involved in, if not leading the implementation of the new curriculum, felt particularly disenfranchised in being told their qualifications were no longer good enough to access the top salary step.

The G3 diploma (Diploma in Secondary Specialist Subjects) offered a pathway for about 1000 teachers to gain access to step 14 and many believe the diploma had been valuable. A second diploma is currently under development for teachers who were ineligible for the first one and should be available next year.

Recruitment and retention
Recruitment and retention of technology teachers is clearly problematic. The seven technological areas require a degree of specialisation at senior levels that is not readily available in the teaching workforce.

There is also a declining number of teacher education courses offering the full range of technology specialities and this may be reflected in respondents’ views that many of the student and graduate teachers of technology do not have the practical skills or experience required to safely operate the equipment in technology workshops.

Teaching, as a career, also cannot compete with the superior employment conditions of most qualified technologists and tradespeople. An experienced trades professional or technologist wishing to move into a teaching career and to be able to move to the top of the teacher salary scale would usually need to upgrade their technology qualification to a level 7 qualification (equivalent to a degree) as well as completing a full year of teacher education, the equivalent of two years’ full-time study for many trades people. Currently there is no course available that enables people to complete both of these requirements, and there are no financial incentives.

The G3 issue has made it abundantly clear to current and potential teachers entering teaching from a trades professional background that they will not be valued by policy makers or compensated in the same way as a person entering teaching with a bachelors degree.

Technology teachers in intermediate/manual/technology centres
The teaching of technology in years 7 to 8 provides an essential grounding for students learning in years 9 to 13, as well as providing valuable life skills for students.

But technology teachers in manual, intermediate and technology centres at these year levels say technology, and the specialist knowledge required to teach it, is perceived as less valuable than other subjects. Many say that their curriculum time is constantly being cut back or used by their schools for other activities. This reduces their ability to teach the six required curriculum areas as well as limiting the kinds of projects they can carry out.

The inadequate focus on skills and the breadth of the curriculum are also difficult to cover in the time available. Some say their schools even discourage the teaching of basic skills (for example how to use a ruler, a file, a screwdriver, or a sewing machine), despite the fact that parent communities expect and ask for these skills.

The teachers also feel that despite being specialists they are not provided the same opportunities as their colleagues in secondary schools to undertake professional development.
PPTA believes that it is essential that specialist technology teachers be employed in technology centres and intermediates. The employment of these specialist teachers would help to ensure that students have learned the basic skills and knowledge necessary to move from year 7 and 8 on to senior secondary school. 

11. Recommendations

1. That the Education and Science Select Committee urgently initiate an inquiry into the staffing, resourcing and delivery of the technology curriculum. 

2. That the Ministry of Education urgently develop a strategy that ensures: 

a. The establishment of a well-funded two-year pre-service teacher education course designed to produce technology graduates with a level 7 subject qualification and teacher education. 

b. That students in years 7 and 8 in technology centres are taught by specialist technology teachers. 

c. That the revised technology curriculum balances theory and applied concepts/skills and uses language that is accessible and clear in intent. 

d. That high quality curriculum exemplars across the full range of technological areas in levels 3 to 8 of the revised curriculum are produced and made available to teachers. 

e. That priority is given to improving the range and quality of assessment exemplars for NCEA technology. 

f. That adequate professional development along with in-school support in all aspects of technology is provided for technology teachers throughout New Zealand. 

g. That priority is given to covering the full range of technological areas in the allocation of senior subject advisor positions over at least the next three years. 

h. That tagged funding is provided to schools to resource ancillary support for technology departments. 

 i. That technology facilities in all schools are subject to a full health and safety audit, to ensure compliance with Occupational Safety and Health requirements, followed by appropriate funded remedial action. 

No comments: