Thanks for evaluating this “programme”, Sarah. The issue you raise about disconnect with the English curriculum is really important. Michael Johnstone and co seem to believe that oral language and written language are mutually exclusive to a large extent and need to be taught separately - all on the basis that they’re different (as in biologically primary vs biologically secondary). So I don’t hold out hope that ENRICH will permeate the first few school years and support our tamariki to see and explore the connections between modes and skills in a meaningful and enjoyably productive way.
Another really interesting read. Both my kids are past this stage but I can see the benefits of having lower ratios in the development of our children’s ability to communicate orally. One of investment to get the ratio down. Also agree in the apparent contradiction in the primary setting.
My concern is that with this and the earlier resourcing of the Kōwhiti Whakapae on oral language and maths is that such tools will rely on teacher led, rather than child led interaction and on demonstrating progress through assessment.
While the tool uses terms such as 'scaffold', it is developed and adapted from an international speech language pathology model. Parents need to refer to speech language teachers. ECE kaiako are not SLTs.
This at a time where recruiting ECE teachers is difficult, where there is discussion on the numbers of qualified staff needed and ratios that rarely allow for in depth turn taking interactions.
I cant thank you enough for highlighting this. As one of the teachers who took the MOE through the Parliamentary Regulatory Review Committee process, and had our complaint that regulations not backed by evidence and research cannot be found to uphold children's rights for health, safety and wellbeing upheld, it is so reassuring to see others bringing this into focus.
We took this claim after finding through the OIA process, that regulations for ratios and space per child had ‘no available evidence’ and had simply been rolled over.for more than 20 years. More than 20 years. How much has the ece landscape changed in that time?? Astounding.
In 2021 when the finding was made, the MOE responded by saying addressing the regulations was complex, because it would adversely impact the current business model.
Let that sink in.
They would not address health, safety and wellbeing concerns for children because businesses would be impacted.
What happened as a result of that finding? Nothing. Five years on and conditions have simply become worse.
In early childhood, as teachers and as services we have a legal responsibility to make sure the descions we make are backed by research and evidence. That what our review systems ensure from policy and proceedure, to internal and self review, there is a constant requirement to back our choices, our actions and identity our intent and evaluate the outcomes.
So what is missing from MOE policy and practice that they can implement massive change without having to ensure any change upholds the regulations and is supported by the regulations.
Some things that have been introduced without addressing the regs:
Te Whāriki
The update of Te Whāriki
Fundamental changes to ERO
NELPS
Qualification standards
Across center licensing
Across centre ratios.
On and on and on.
I believe that the position that political neutrality is one issue. MOE is at the whim of passing governments and i think that needs to be addressed by a change in legislation that absolutely requires the rights of children to sit outside and above any political party, with a standard embedded that ensures quality research evidence and Across sector consultation is underpinning changes to regulations.
Teachers need representatives on boards looking at change. Not just large groups representative of corporate centres who need to make profit, but the actual teachers.
Not only is it a pointless exercise implementing new training untill the regulations are addressed, it is actually demoralizing and disheartening.
Knowing how you can bring about real change, how you could be supporting children in need, how you could be supporting families but being unable to implement the actions due to ratios, group size, noise, its really heartbreaking.
Thank you again for this great post. Its a really important message to get out into communities.
The ENRICH programme formpre=schooers -- ending with formalisations at school is E]exactly what makes higher education in the arts & humanities a barrier to tertiarybeducation. The new curriculum installs formalisation as its primary tool in the worst possible way in learning painting drawing sculpture and craft. In critical study of the arts it leads to dismissal of work that is judged to be eternally technically incorrect because the rules are those of God-0given rationality. -- irrespective of the eternally changing social context and its decidedly ungodly uncharitable class and race ridden condition. That was exactly where public education. I. the arts was disastrous in the 1870's in England and Wales and Northern Ireland -- because of lack of recognition if the wide variety of local cultures that were thus STANDARISED. In Music the /rotyal academy and the royal College decided what the standards were & these were the models forth Biritsh Empire. The universities decided on grammar and v metric versification and correct prose style. Those are the standards adopted in the New Curriculum in art and in Art history and -- same in Music -- eliminating all of the changes that have taken place in practice of the arts in the 'modernism and post-modernism and post-structural arts of the past 150 years. Yes , that long. In the 1960's in the Canterbury art school nd in the earlynyears t Elam set school in Auckland this were the standards the teacher shad been taught in the early 1900's -- & tho e were the standards in the press and in. broadcasting and remain so. The New Curriculum comes from rejection of any modern arts as models and the rejection of history of those arts and his they new came into being and for what social reasons -- I mean seriously REJECTION -- by the FREFUSAL to let modern arts history teaching in University of Auckland in the 1970's -- because it violated those 1900's standards in British academies. I'm sitting here writing this on my laptop remembering the REFUSAL in real terms of having political disturbance by o'trditionalists' in department meetings to the point -- and the failure to intervene by the administration -- because they been told by the Prime minister - M Muldoon and his friend Robert Jones that Art History was a waste of public money -- & it supported anti-government activity in public galleries -- meaning Elam art teaching and the two major culprits my colleagues Colin McCahon & Jim Allen -- & Public gallery Auckland /city /art /Gallery and the curator Hamish Keith &their connection with the LPrinces Street Branch of the Labour Party. Mr Keith was responsible for the Labour Party's policy yon the Arts , eventually became Chairman of the still fairly new fund g body QE2 Arts Council. Mr Keith;s greatest triumph ws getting Mr Muldoon to gift one of the most memorable and effective McCahon pinto g to the Australian National Art Galleryn -- 'Victory over deth' that iftennhangs in. the same room with their Jackson Pollock.The destruction. of the modern arts teaching of the art history department was the workmen the people who took it over with privatisation & their triumph is the creation of the New Curriculum in ART the relegation of history to inclusion as a component of social studies. In Britain it was regarded as as an essential new component subject for the /Curriculum by the great creator of art history education for ll, not only you g artists, hi favoured the Bauhaus model,, Nicolas Pevsner -- who was also the editor of the Pelican History series on ethic modern public education in the ghistorynof arts depends. Having tried to teach withof]REFUSED in auckland-- and this New /Curriculum is the result. Iknow d]from my years teaching g in Iceland that a similar story can be told about the other arts. t it in early 1960's in Edinburgh, -- there was nothing adequate for teaching about the history of Dutch 17th century painting for instance -- I know the difference nce it made. All this was effort has not been in vain, because the new generation of teachers is now ready to accept it and take it into the classroom-- not in Privat schools and Universities but in all stages of Education -- because it is built on the same premises of children's development & their social needs.
Thanks for evaluating this “programme”, Sarah. The issue you raise about disconnect with the English curriculum is really important. Michael Johnstone and co seem to believe that oral language and written language are mutually exclusive to a large extent and need to be taught separately - all on the basis that they’re different (as in biologically primary vs biologically secondary). So I don’t hold out hope that ENRICH will permeate the first few school years and support our tamariki to see and explore the connections between modes and skills in a meaningful and enjoyably productive way.
Another really interesting read. Both my kids are past this stage but I can see the benefits of having lower ratios in the development of our children’s ability to communicate orally. One of investment to get the ratio down. Also agree in the apparent contradiction in the primary setting.
My concern is that with this and the earlier resourcing of the Kōwhiti Whakapae on oral language and maths is that such tools will rely on teacher led, rather than child led interaction and on demonstrating progress through assessment.
While the tool uses terms such as 'scaffold', it is developed and adapted from an international speech language pathology model. Parents need to refer to speech language teachers. ECE kaiako are not SLTs.
This at a time where recruiting ECE teachers is difficult, where there is discussion on the numbers of qualified staff needed and ratios that rarely allow for in depth turn taking interactions.
I cant thank you enough for highlighting this. As one of the teachers who took the MOE through the Parliamentary Regulatory Review Committee process, and had our complaint that regulations not backed by evidence and research cannot be found to uphold children's rights for health, safety and wellbeing upheld, it is so reassuring to see others bringing this into focus.
We took this claim after finding through the OIA process, that regulations for ratios and space per child had ‘no available evidence’ and had simply been rolled over.for more than 20 years. More than 20 years. How much has the ece landscape changed in that time?? Astounding.
In 2021 when the finding was made, the MOE responded by saying addressing the regulations was complex, because it would adversely impact the current business model.
Let that sink in.
They would not address health, safety and wellbeing concerns for children because businesses would be impacted.
What happened as a result of that finding? Nothing. Five years on and conditions have simply become worse.
In early childhood, as teachers and as services we have a legal responsibility to make sure the descions we make are backed by research and evidence. That what our review systems ensure from policy and proceedure, to internal and self review, there is a constant requirement to back our choices, our actions and identity our intent and evaluate the outcomes.
So what is missing from MOE policy and practice that they can implement massive change without having to ensure any change upholds the regulations and is supported by the regulations.
Some things that have been introduced without addressing the regs:
Te Whāriki
The update of Te Whāriki
Fundamental changes to ERO
NELPS
Qualification standards
Across center licensing
Across centre ratios.
On and on and on.
I believe that the position that political neutrality is one issue. MOE is at the whim of passing governments and i think that needs to be addressed by a change in legislation that absolutely requires the rights of children to sit outside and above any political party, with a standard embedded that ensures quality research evidence and Across sector consultation is underpinning changes to regulations.
Teachers need representatives on boards looking at change. Not just large groups representative of corporate centres who need to make profit, but the actual teachers.
Not only is it a pointless exercise implementing new training untill the regulations are addressed, it is actually demoralizing and disheartening.
Knowing how you can bring about real change, how you could be supporting children in need, how you could be supporting families but being unable to implement the actions due to ratios, group size, noise, its really heartbreaking.
Thank you again for this great post. Its a really important message to get out into communities.
The ENRICH programme formpre=schooers -- ending with formalisations at school is E]exactly what makes higher education in the arts & humanities a barrier to tertiarybeducation. The new curriculum installs formalisation as its primary tool in the worst possible way in learning painting drawing sculpture and craft. In critical study of the arts it leads to dismissal of work that is judged to be eternally technically incorrect because the rules are those of God-0given rationality. -- irrespective of the eternally changing social context and its decidedly ungodly uncharitable class and race ridden condition. That was exactly where public education. I. the arts was disastrous in the 1870's in England and Wales and Northern Ireland -- because of lack of recognition if the wide variety of local cultures that were thus STANDARISED. In Music the /rotyal academy and the royal College decided what the standards were & these were the models forth Biritsh Empire. The universities decided on grammar and v metric versification and correct prose style. Those are the standards adopted in the New Curriculum in art and in Art history and -- same in Music -- eliminating all of the changes that have taken place in practice of the arts in the 'modernism and post-modernism and post-structural arts of the past 150 years. Yes , that long. In the 1960's in the Canterbury art school nd in the earlynyears t Elam set school in Auckland this were the standards the teacher shad been taught in the early 1900's -- & tho e were the standards in the press and in. broadcasting and remain so. The New Curriculum comes from rejection of any modern arts as models and the rejection of history of those arts and his they new came into being and for what social reasons -- I mean seriously REJECTION -- by the FREFUSAL to let modern arts history teaching in University of Auckland in the 1970's -- because it violated those 1900's standards in British academies. I'm sitting here writing this on my laptop remembering the REFUSAL in real terms of having political disturbance by o'trditionalists' in department meetings to the point -- and the failure to intervene by the administration -- because they been told by the Prime minister - M Muldoon and his friend Robert Jones that Art History was a waste of public money -- & it supported anti-government activity in public galleries -- meaning Elam art teaching and the two major culprits my colleagues Colin McCahon & Jim Allen -- & Public gallery Auckland /city /art /Gallery and the curator Hamish Keith &their connection with the LPrinces Street Branch of the Labour Party. Mr Keith was responsible for the Labour Party's policy yon the Arts , eventually became Chairman of the still fairly new fund g body QE2 Arts Council. Mr Keith;s greatest triumph ws getting Mr Muldoon to gift one of the most memorable and effective McCahon pinto g to the Australian National Art Galleryn -- 'Victory over deth' that iftennhangs in. the same room with their Jackson Pollock.The destruction. of the modern arts teaching of the art history department was the workmen the people who took it over with privatisation & their triumph is the creation of the New Curriculum in ART the relegation of history to inclusion as a component of social studies. In Britain it was regarded as as an essential new component subject for the /Curriculum by the great creator of art history education for ll, not only you g artists, hi favoured the Bauhaus model,, Nicolas Pevsner -- who was also the editor of the Pelican History series on ethic modern public education in the ghistorynof arts depends. Having tried to teach withof]REFUSED in auckland-- and this New /Curriculum is the result. Iknow d]from my years teaching g in Iceland that a similar story can be told about the other arts. t it in early 1960's in Edinburgh, -- there was nothing adequate for teaching about the history of Dutch 17th century painting for instance -- I know the difference nce it made. All this was effort has not been in vain, because the new generation of teachers is now ready to accept it and take it into the classroom-- not in Privat schools and Universities but in all stages of Education -- because it is built on the same premises of children's development & their social needs.
Excellent logical analysis Sarah.