As you are probably aware
of, the Norwegian government has announced a major school reform that is
scheduled for the autumn of 2019, which primarily revolves around changes in
the national curriculum. Needless to say, this is a big deal for the educational
sector in Norway in general, and for pupils, parents and teachers in
particular. It has been a while since the last big reform (K06), 12 years to be
precise, and given the ever-increasing rate of globalization and technological
development (unprecedentedly influencing communication, understanding and knowledge)
many consider the need for reform to be highly due.
Of course, there are
always pros and cons regarding reforms like this: they are time-consuming,
extremely expensive and success is hardly a guarantee. Still, the possible end
result can potentially improve the whole concept of Norwegian education on a
national level in profound ways. Furthermore, the process the Ludvigsen
committee has gone through during the last years in the planning seems open,
fruitful and well-communicated. Therefore, I give the curriculum changes a warm welcome. Here is one reason why:
In an article at Khrono.no, published in 2016, math-teacher and prof.
Bjørn Smestad has a very optimistic take on the forthcoming reform. He
highlights the fact that the government has ordered fewer competence aims,
which implicates more “depth-learning” and cross-curricular subjects. At the very
core of what we as teachers are supposed to teach our pupils are the competence
aims, and as of now, simply, there are too many of them. At worst, this can
lead to nerve-wrecking “time trouble” for teachers (and pupils) during year 10,
wondering if they have covered all the aims sufficiently prior to the spring
exams, and hereby jumping from topic to topic in order to get them all “done”.
At best, it seems as if the pupils experience a subtle alienation in regards to
both the often vague nature of the competence aims and the shear amount of them.
Of course, one could argue that the pupils are not necessarily supposed
to relate to the competence aims on a day-to day basis, rather they could be
regarded as useful tools for the teacher to use in planning her lessons and
semesters. However, working in a year 8-10 school, I often see examples of
teachers using competence aims directly as learning aims on weekly schedules
etc. This practice has been advocated by some (Egil Hartberg), but is in my
opinion seldom beneficial for the majority of the pupils in a given class.
Frankly, using the aims from K06 in practice seems highly teacher-dependent,
reflecting the fact that the level of freedom in the competence aims of
today is a blessing, but also a curse.
There are many reasons to look forward
to the changes in our curriculum. However, the reform certainly also provides
some challenges. Bjørn Smestad briefly mentions one (probably the greatest one?):
what to leave out? This question orbits what we regard as important when we imagine
our future society and consider what aspects of knowledge and methods we think
should be a priority in preparing our pupils on what to come.
In my opinion, the curriculum changes are most welcome!
Curious to hear your opinions on this!
Sources:
https://khrono.no/debatt/gleder-seg-over-mye-i-nye-laererplaner
Denne kommentaren har blitt fjernet av forfatteren.
SvarSlettDenne kommentaren har blitt fjernet av forfatteren.
Slett*Due to restrictions on the length of comments, I had to post my first comment in two portions. This is part 1/2.
SvarSlettI would be remiss if I did not begin by thanking Jakob for laying out so clearly some of the main aspects which must be considered when debating the upcoming changes to the curriculum. Achieving any sort of clarity in this context is no easy task, as there are numerous diverging, if not downright conflicting, interests involved. At times it seems to me that everybody wants to use school as a vehicle for their own interests. I find this frustrating, as it has contributed to the development of bloated subject curriculums with too little time for in-depth learning and too much focus on learning more or less useful facts. It seems, then, that I should welcome the new curriculum with open arms, and to a large degree I do. However, I am not ready to break out the champagne quite yet. In the following paragraphs I will seek to explain my scepticism and point at a few reasons for optimism.
There are a few reasons why I do not particularly look forward to the introduction of the new curriculum. Firstly, there is the cost reforms like this carry. In Jakob's words, "[reforms] … are time-consuming, extremely expensive and success is hardly a guarantee." This is a very interesting statement because it acknowledges that cost in this context is not merely a question of funding. When politicians think about making changes in the curriculum, they probably think of the funding as the main cost. To teachers, cost can also be measured in additional work and, it must be said, varying degrees of frustration for a substantial period of time. Part of me is looking forward to the fruitful discussions and the positive development a revamping of the curriculum will bring to our school, but previous experience suggests that there is going to be some bickering and time-wasting as well.
Secondly, there is the question of who decides what and how it is decided. Tarjei Helland claims that there is too much bureaucratic language involved when the subject curriculums are written, and that there is a real danger of learner friendly aims losing out to formalistic requirements and impenetrable sentences. I find this observation fascinating. If we really want to help our students become autonomous learners capable of monitoring their own development, surely we cannot provide them with competence aims which can only be understood by professionals.
Lastly, I think there is a real danger that this revision leaves out subjects which should be taught in school. When I hear talk of home economy being taken out of social studies, I feel a certain degree of unease, considering the context. For one thing, consumerism threatens our very existence through its effect on climate change. It is also noteworthy that household debt played a substantial part in the financial crisis of 2008, the effects of which we have not yet seen the end. And in this country, TV3 runs a popular show which has as its premise that there are enough people who cannot pay their credit card debts to allow the channel's experts to help another poor couple every week. I realise that home economy is merely one example from one subject, and that other teachers would probably react to other aims being dropped. My point is simply that slimming down the subject curriculums will inevitably entail the loss of important competence aims along the way, and that the new curriculum must somehow compensate for this.
*Due to restrictions on the length of comments, I had to post my first comment in two portions. This is part 2/2.
SvarSlettWhat are the reasons to be optimistic? I certainly like the idea of having more time for in-depth and cross-curricular learning. To the extent the subject curriculums are written with this in mind, I am really hopeful that we can facilitate better learning for our students. Another thing which fills me with hope is that it seems politicians and bureaucrats understand that some subjects are crowded, and that if something goes in, something else must come out. I also believe a strengthened focus on skills and competences can help prepare students for life after school in a world which will increasingly require the ability to learn and adjust to the changing needs of the work market. Finally, I think it is about time that we update the subject curriculums. The last wholesale revision of the curriculum was introduced in 2006. Since then, we have lived through events such as the credit crunch, the Arab Spring and the dreadful terror of 22 July. 2006 was also the year before the introduction of the iPhone. Our students can hardly remember a time before the smartphone, yet the curriculum was written in blissful ignorance of Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram and all the other things which reside inside mobile phones these days. All of this serves to illustrate that the world is changing. It seems self-evident that if we do not keep the subjects up to date, they will become stale and irrelevant to the students. For this reason alone, I agree with Jakob that the curriculum changes are most welcome indeed.
This is part 1/2
SvarSlettCurriculum changes – welcome!
In the autumn of 2006 the school reform called The Knowledge Promotion was
introduced. Time goes by and changes along so as the boys wrote it is very much welcome this new school reform. These are the people who have the responsibility for the new school reform: The Norwegian Parliament and the Government define the goals and decide the framework for the education sector. The Ministry of Education and Research is responsible for carrying out national educational policy. National standards are ensured through legislation, regulations, curricula and framework plans.
Norwegian Ministry and of Education and Research says this:
“The Norwegian educational system aims to be among the best in the world with regards to both academic levels and breadth of participation and completion rates.”
With these aims there will be exciting to see how the new school reform will try ty achieve these statements and I will look at some few here. As we can see Norway use more money on our school system than the OECD countries, and we will like to see that it “pays off”.
“Education in Norway costs 6.6 per cent of the gross domestic product, while the average for the OECD countries is 5.9 per cent (2003)”.
From year 2019-2020 the schools will get the opportunity to convenient the new reform. This year schools can organize good processes and make themselves known with the school reform. This school year the schools will have time to work with the reform and prepare themselves to use it. School Year 2020 – 2021 will the new school reform be used in the classrooms. Personally, I hope that one year is enough to understand and use the new reform. Earlier experiences have told me that we need more time. Last school reform put a strong emphasis on the quality of the owners. Teachers sat on each school and worked out their own aims for their school. At our school, we did it three times, because we were not happy about the two first editions. Teachers worked three times with each subject with all their aims…. Time consuming as both Jacob and Trygve wrote about. Therefore, I hope the new reform is easier to adapt and work with.
We read that it is a “subject improvement”. That means renew curricula and make them more relevant for the future. The world has changed a lot the last decade, for example many jobs have changed or disappeared. To meet new technology teachers need to change the way they teach and also the content of the lessons. More than ever is it important that teachers follow the time they live in so they can teach students what they will meet them in the society. But, teachers can not do this alone and I am happy that our Government has given us the opportunity to educate us more and also helped us economic to do this.
This is part 2/2
SvarSlettTrygve wrote that he is concerned that they will take away home economy as an aim. We have seen the last years, that there are many people, who struggle with their personal economy. It seems that it is very easy to get credit cards, and overspend money that actually are not yours. But, as I can understand the reform will retain this aim:
“2.5.1 Folkehelse og livsmestring
Aktuelle områder innenfor temaet er fysisk og psykisk helse, levevaner, seksualitet og kjønn, rusmidler, mediebruk, og forbruk og personlig økonomi.»
I was glad to see this aim. Further will they maintain subjects we have today but renew the content. Critical thinking and reflection will become an important part of what the students will learn in school. In additional, the practical and esthetic subjects will be enforced. The reform wishes more creativity in the school and that students should learn in new ways. We have different types of students who learn differently so I think this change will help many students to feel more accomplishment.
Education must be organized in a lifelong learning perspective if we are to meet changes in society constructively. I hope that Norwegian Ministry and Education and Research have looked back in time and tried to see what changes that this school reform will need and also tried to see what the future will “bring”. Jacob wrote that there will be pros and cons with a new school reform and I do agree with him, but I am also agree with Trygve, he writes that he is mostly optimistic. During some years we will get the answers.
Sources:
https://www.udir.no/laring-og-trivsel/lareplanverket/fagfornyelsen/hva-er-fornyelse-av-fagene/, 12. March 2018.
https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/37f2f7e1850046a0a3f676fd45851384/overordnet-del---verdier-og-prinsipper-for-grunnopplaringen.pdf , 12. March 2018
This is turning into a very interesting debate, and it is fascinating to see how we come at this topic from somewhat different angles. Discussions like these are interesting exactly to the extent that we are challenged and forced to refine our arguments. I would like, therefore, to start this post by giving a tip of my hat to Corina, who points out that personal economy will not be removed from the curriculum, as I claimed there have been reports of in my previous post. I appreciate this opportunity to clarify my point.
SvarSlettIt is indeed true that personal economy has been retained in the general part of the curriculum as part of one of the proposed cross-curricular subjects. Depending on how the new curriculum is implemented, this may well be a better way to make sure our students learn about personal economy. However, I am wary that much of the initial work on deciphering the general curriculum and the purposes of the subjects may be left to the schools, potentially causing major local variation. It is an added problem that those in charge of schools seem to make decisions based on measurable and specific aims rather than the general principles in the curriculum. It is, therefore, of consequence what is excluded from the subject curriculums. On 6 March Aftenposten reported that social studies is among the subjects considered most crowded, and that personal economy has been suggested as one of the topics to be axed to create space for in-depth learning. I appreciate the thought of slimming down subject curriculums, but I fear that moving competence aims concerning personal economy from the subject curriculums to the general curriculum will muddle responsibility. There is a possible pitfall here. We run the risk of losing focus on some of the key topics when it comes to equipping our students for the future if we leave these out of the subject curriculums because we satisfy ourselves that a mention in the general curriculum will do.
I agree strongly with Corina that it would be preferable if the new curriculum requires less work than LK06 did. I started teaching in 2008, and my colleagues at the time were still making sense of it all, endlessly trying to decode competence aims and tweaking the local plans. Everything was very new to me back then, but in retrospect I realise that all of this added to the stress of being a “newbie.” Furthermore, I agree with Corina that it is good news that subjects such as PE, arts and music seem to develop in the direction of emphasising practical skills more. I think all teachers can think of students they have had who were slow learners, yet very good at doing arts or playing an instrument. There must be somewhere for these students to thrive as well.
While I did not intend to come off as being very optimistic about the new curriculum, I am pleased that I could be interpreted that way. To me, this means that I have been able to check some of my initial scepticism, which is just as well. Surely, the best way forward is to embrace change and make the most of it.
Sources:
NTB. (2018, March 6). Utvalg vil ha mindre idrett, norrønt og religionshistorie i norsk skole. Aftenposten.
https://www.aftenposten.no/norge/i/WLelwg/Utvalg-vil-ha-mindre-idrett_-norront-og-religionshistorie-i-norsk-skole Retrieved 13.03.18
Let me start by thanking you for your insightful replies, Trygve and Corina! You certainly touched upon a ton of vital aspects regarding the shift to a new curriculum. I loved how you effortlessly went from “the very small and detailed” to some rather larger picture-frames in your posts. It was particularly interesting reading the actual development on your thoughts on the matter, Trygve. It perfectly illustrates that discussions like this help clarifying and refine ones meanings, while we also influences each other.
SvarSlettIt seems to me we mostly agree there are both pros and cons regarding implementing the new curriculum, and I think we have identified what those pros and cons are. In my opinion, perhaps the most important reason for a new curriculum has to do with the increasingly rapid -moving world we live in. I think Trygve pretty much nailed it when he mentioned social media, the Arab spring, etc. before concluded: “It seems self-evident that if we do not keep the subjects up to date, they will become stale and irrelevant to the students”. Well put! Your worry seems highly likely to happen if not addressed. And if it`s one thing no one disagree with, is that we want (and need) actively engaged pupils, learning the curriculum with a feeling of relevance for themselves, precisely to make themselves ready for the future.
The changes are of course definitely happening, whether we like it or not. To an extent, one could argue that it`s not particularly fruitful to discuss if we welcome that or not. It`s going to happen, we can`t change it. However, reflecting on the forthcoming change between curriculums to come and putting down on paper (AKA gaining a clear mind) as to what we do appreciate and what we dislike about the current curriculum seems important facing the inevitable changes. Also, participating in the forthcoming discussion, primarily locally, about how to make the transition as smooth and efficient as possible (for all parties involved) might enable us to help shaping the way the implementation is going to take place on our local schools respectively. In this regard, it is an opportunity for the updated teacher to practice influence at his/her workplace. Let us hope revising and tweaking the local plans three times won`t be necessary this time when the transition is done, Corina! And, yes, Trygve, it is maybe a little early to break out that champagne at this point. But why not keep it in the cooler, I have a feeling we are going to need it.
Denne kommentaren har blitt fjernet av forfatteren.
SvarSlettDenne kommentaren har blitt fjernet av forfatteren.
SvarSlettTrygve wrote earlier about in depth learning. I do agree with him that we have had to little time to in depth learning and the Ministry says that this new reform will give us that. Deep learning means that students gradually develop their understanding of concepts and contexts. Students will learn to learn and build skills over time. This means that they see how single parts of what they learn in one subject can form a whole, and how this can be transferred to other subjects and contexts. Many students find it boring to have the same topic each school year. One example is religion and let us take the topic Buddhism. The students are supposed to learn a little bit more each school year, but the students say that they feel there are so much repetition. In depth learning, will give the students more time to each topic so they do not need to learn about it every school year.
SvarSlettJakob started this blog writing about the Norwegian government had announced a major school reform. One education reform, has not been introduced, before it is replaced by the next reform. In retrospect, it has been discovered that neither the M87, Reform 94 nor the Knowledge Promotion from 2006 have provided satisfactory solutions for Norwegian schools. Politicians should only set a framework for what is expected of the Norwegian school, while the teacher´s professions should determine the content, both academic and educational. The goal is not to make grand reforms, but to give Norwegian students a world-class education.
I will say thank you to Jakob and Trygve for a conducive and enlightening debate. And boys let´s have the champagne anywhere else but in the freezer because I am optimistic for a new school reform.