One evening last week we went to our daughter’s school’s art trail. All the classes had been studying different kinds of art, working hard to bring what they created to exhibition stage. It was wonderful to walk through the school and see the imagination, thinking and craftsmanship on display. The art works had been used to deepen the learning in other areas: some ecological and connected to the local area, others explored historical contexts, some supported the telling of written stories, and others used to develop a growing awareness of self. To be explicit, the learning was cross curricular and I could tell the kids had engaged with it deeply because what was on show was so carefully finished. 

The school was busy. Kids roamed across classrooms, played outside or sat at some of the art stations that were open on the night, busily creating more art. Parents loved the chance to see their kid’s learning in a context that was less formal and more celebratory — nothing warms a parent’s heart more than to see their child do something well. As we wandered around, smiles meeting smiles, stopping to chat here and there, the conversations wrapped us in a warmth that protected us from the quickly descending chill of the early spring evening.

And yet, our Prime Minister thinks there is no place for art in school. Instead, he thinks we’d be better off using that time getting the kids to do maths. I’m not sure he’d be so certain of that idea if he had been at this art trail, where it was very clear how open the kids’ eyes were. All of them had studied the subjects of their art really hard, and doing that had helped them see possibilities beyond the grade. What they created as a result was fantastic. And it was enabled because the teachers had the scope to be responsive and create contexts for learning that reflected the people and place in front of them. A laser focus on outcomes means we are in danger of forgetting about all the things that make a subject worthy of study. 

The glossary the Ministry has provided with the English curriculum reflects this looming obsession with outcomes. The terms and definitions in this glossary limit the way we are to think of and determine what a successful outcome in English looks like.

Emeritus Professor Terry Locke has taken the time to edit the Ministry’s glossary, and he would like your help. This is not to say that the things in the Ministry provided glossary are not important, but to point out that there are other aspects of subject English that are missing. This lack of balance is a key feature of what the MAG and their small, self-appointed curriculum writing groups have produced. 

Terry’s edited version of the glossary makes me think of the difference between a subject being worthy of study versus a programme that needs to be got through. Please, read his edited version and email him with your thoughts and ideas (his email is on the document). He offers this enriched glossary in the interests of helping to bring another vision of what education might be into view, one we almost had before the actions of the MAG and their subversion of democratic process, one where diverse voices work together to create something that gets close to making English a subject worthy of study.

Kia kaha,

Bevan & Terry.