For Whose Benefit? The Politics of Developing A Health Education
Curriculum
Conclusion
Phase one and two of the development process for a Draft Health
and Physical Education Curriculum Statement (1996) as part of
the New
Zealand Curriculum Framework (1993) have been described.
According to this model, phase three would be the release of the
draft document to schools for discussion and feedback to the Ministry
of Education leading to phase four, the distribution of a final
statement, gazetting and a requirement for full implementation in
all schools. However, at the time of writing and one year after
endorsement by the PAG of the draft material, which had been developed
through the complex and comprehensive process described, a draft
document has still not been released to schools. The official notice
relating to timelines for curriculum reforms from the Ministry of
Education (Education Gazette, July, 1996) stated that the
release of this Draft Health and Physical Education Curriculum
Statement (1996) had been postponed pending decisions on timelines.
Moreover, a consultative group on teacher workload has been established
by the Minister of Education and has held a preliminary meeting
to consider a range of issues including timelines for the implementation
of the new curriculum.
For practitioners of health and physical education this time-lag
is disturbing and raises a number of questions. Are some essential
learning areas deemed to be more essential than others? English,
mathematics, science and technology all have final curriculum statements.
Delays for the remaining three essential learning areas (social
sciences, health and physical well-being and the arts) exacerbate
the existing school subject hierarchy. They further marginalise
health and physical education in terms of access to resources such
as curriculum time and teacher development opportunities. One has
to ask whether New Zealand educational policy will be influenced
by a movement similar to the British "back to the basics" one, or
by the kind of challenge to the concept of seven essential learning
areas mounted by Michael Irwin (1996), the education policy analyst
for the Business Roundtable? Equally, if health and physical education
are considered to be of lesser importance in the school curriculum,
will there be resistance to providing the necessary financial resourcing
to ensure effective implementation of this particular curriculum?
The health issues that influenced the initial development of this
essential learning area and which are major educational issues for
young New Zealanders have not changed since the curriculum development
process began. The public data that we have about some of our more
highly publicised health and social issues (e.g. suicide rates,
teenage pregnancy, automotive fatalities, drug use and adolescent
mental health problems), and the frequency of their coverage in
the news media, would suggest they are acute for secondary school
practitioners. When considered alongside other major classroom concerns
relating to negative influences on learning (such as a lack of appropriate
interpersonal skills, disruptive behaviours, negative self concepts,
harassment and bullying), these make comprehensive implementation
of this curriculum urgent.
This paper has discussed the theoretical underpinnings of a health
education curriculum which is designed to facilitate a personally
liberating pedagogical process. Such a document will inform and
encourage a health-literate society where the critical analysis
of public policies and practices is encouraged, and where the learning
outcomes generated by health education contribute to the nurturing
of autonomous individuals and an empowered populace. The aim of
such a society would be to promote health and wellbeing for all
its people. The tension between these analytical foundations in
health education and the current political climate of economic rationalism
and fiscal restraint which shapes all education policy has also
been acknowledged. When the curriculum document is finally released
one has to ask, Will the pressures impinging upon health educators
in this climate be similar to those exerted by the New Zealand Business
Roundtable in 1996 following the publication of the social studies
revised draft. This group argued that the subject should revert
to its discipline bases of history and geography, so as to deflect
attention away from what was claimed to be the critique of equity
and social issues encouraged by the document.
Health education attracts controversy by its very nature. Current
curriculum developments and concerns can be summarised by asking
a number of broad questions. How strongly can the vested interests
of pressure groups compete with the pressing educational needs of
our children and adolescents? When it finally emerges from
the Ministry of Education, will the Draft Health and Physical
Education Curriculum Statement (1996) demonstrate a commitment
to the integrity of the extensive consultative process that led
to its development? Will the statement reflect a theoretical commitment
to health for all in the twenty first century or will it be a step
backwards to the individualism of the past? Perhaps the key question
to ask in a context in which the development of market relations
in all areas of our social and economic life appears paramount is,
Whose interests will it serve?
previous /
back to index / next
|
