SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT
Citation Information : Journal of Educational Leadership, Policy and Practice. Volume 32, Issue 1, Pages 48-61, DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/jelpp-2017-005
License : (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
Published Online: 09-June-2019
Curriculum integration in secondary schools appears to be difficult to achieve in schools that are built on traditional models of single classrooms and a compartmentalised curriculum. The relatively insular nature of secondary school classrooms is, however, being upended in the design of new schools in New Zealand, which disrupt the single-cell classroom tradition. One principal of a new school labels this old model as the “paradigm of one”: a shorthand descriptor for the single-classroom, single-teacher, singleclass, single-subject, single assessment arrangements generally prevalent in such contexts. The aim of this principal and this new school is to provide responsive, connected, collaborative, and deep learning. This article outlines efforts of that secondary school to restructure the “structuring structures” usually underpinning secondary schools, and organise learning. To that end, staff have interrogated, pulled apart and reconstituted the national curriculum document to provide an integrated learning structure. In rethinking conventional views of curriculum implementation in a secondary school, the school has created an innovative “logic of practice”. I examine the thinking behind curriculum decision-making in this school and provide a glimpse of how this is played out in the first two years of its existence.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology. 84(3), 261-271. Retrieved from: http://www.unco.edu/cebs/psychology/kevinpugh/motivation_project/ resources/ames92.pdf
Amos, C. (2014, 3 February). A beginner’s guide to Hobsonville Point Secondary School. [blog post]. Retrieved from: http://www.teachingandelearning.com/2014/02/a-beginners-guide-to-hobsonville-point.html
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (2007). The learning compact redefined: A call to
action. A report of the commission on the whole child. Alexandria, VA: Retrieved from: http://www.ascd. org/ASCD/pdf/Whole%20Child/WCC%20Learning%20Compact.pdf
Bolstad, R., & Gilbert, J., with McDowall, S., Bull, A., Boyd, S., & Hipkins, R. (2012). Supporting future-oriented learning & teaching — a New Zealand perspective. Report to the Ministry of Education. Wellington:
New Zealand Council for Educational Research. Retrieved from: https://www.educationcounts.govt. nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/109317/994_Future-oriented-07062012.pdf
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. (Trans. Richard Nice). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1980). The logic of practice. (Trans. Richard Nice). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Core-Plus Mathematics CCSS Edition. (n.d.). retrieved from: http://www.cpmponline.org/ccss/CCSSEdfeatures. html
Deed, C., & Lesko, T. (2015). ‘Unwalling the classroom’: Teacher reaction and adaptation. Learning Environment Research. 18(2), 217-231.
Denscombe, M. (2012). Pupil strategies and the open classroom. In P. Woods (Ed.), Pupil Strategies (RLE Edu L): Explorations in the sociology of the school. (50-73). Abingdon, Oxon & New York, NY: Routledge.
Education Review Office. (2013). Secondary schools: Pathways to future education, training and employment:
National Report. Retrieved from: http://www.ero.govt.nz/National-Reports/Secondary-SchoolsPathways-for-future-education-training-and-employment-July-2013/Findings/Challenges-facing-allsecondary-schools/Curriculum-innovation
Finnerty, C. (2015, 18 September). Making the very very big, small. from inFinnerty and beyond. Blog post. Retrieved from: http://frominfinnerty.blogspot.co.nz/2015/09/making-very-very-big-small.html
Giddens, A. (1986). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2012). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction.
Goodson, I. F. (1992). Preface to the Anniversary Edition. School subjects and curriculum change. (pp. 18-19).
Third Ed. ebook 2002. Bristol, P.A: & London: Falmer Press.
Grouws, D. A., Tarr, J. E., Chávez, O., Sears, R., Soria, V. M., & Taylan, R. D. (2013). Curriculum and implementation effects on high school students’ mathematics learning from curricula representing subject-specific and integrated content organizations. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 44(2), 416-463.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York, NY:
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research. 77(1), 81-112. DOI:
Hobsonville Point Secondary School. (2015). Foundation programme overview. (unpublished internal document).
Karweit, N. L. (1983). Time on task: A research review. Report No. 332. Baltimore, ND: Centre for Social
Organization of Schools. Retrieved from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED228236.pdf
Lichtman, G. (2015). High School of the future? Retrieved from: http://www.grantlichtman.com/category/21cskills/page/2/).
Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand Curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.
Newman, R. S. (1994). Adaptive help seeking: A strategy of self-regulated learning. In, D. H. Schunk, & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications. (pp. 283-301). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Nolen, S. B., Ward, C. J., & Horn, I. S. (2012). Methods for taking a situative approach to studying the development of motivation, identity, and learning in multiple social contexts. European Journal of Psychology of Education. 27(2), 267–284. DOI 10.1007/s10212-011-0086-1
Organisation for Economic and Co-operative Development (OECD). (2005). The definition and selection of Key Competencies: Executive summary. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/35070367.pdf
Priestley, M., Edwards, R., Priestley, A., & Miller, K. (2012). Teacher agency in curriculum making: Agents of change and spaces for manoeuvre. Curriculum Inquiry. 42(2), 191-214. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-873X.2012.00588.x
Sewell, W. H. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98(1), 1-29. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2781191
Siefert, E. H., & Beck, J. J. (1984). Relationships between task time and learning gains in secondary schools. The Journal of Educational Research. 78(1), 5-10. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27540085
Slade, S., & Griffith, D. (2013). A whole child approach to student success. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy. 10(3), 21-35. Retrieved from: http://eng.kedi.re.kr
Stalling, J. (1980). Allocated academic learning time revisited, or beyond time on task. Educational Researcher. 9(11), 11-16 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1175185
Tobin, D. (2015). School success as a process of structuration. Educational Administration Quarterly. 51(4), 640– 674. DOI: 10.1177/0013161X15569346
Treadwell, M. (2011). Whatever happened? In, G. Wan & D. M. Gut (Eds.), Bringing schools into the 21st century. (pp. 7-40). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-0268-4
Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1993-1994). Synthesis of research: What helps students learn?.
Educational Leadership, December-January 1994, 74-79.
Woolner, P., Hall, E., Higgins, S., McCaughey, C., & Wall, K. (2007). A sound foundation? What we know about the impact of environments on learning and the implications for building schools of the future. Oxford Review of Education, 33(1), 47–70.
Wright, N., & Adam, A. (2015). The ‘critical friend’ role in fostering reflective practices and developing staff cohesion: A case study in a new secondary school, New Zealand. School Leadership and Management, 35(4), 441-457.