Three sets of numbers, one scrapped subject: Hopes for a U-turn on art history

The Education Minister is being accused of being “selective” with the numbers she’s using about how many students take the soon-to-be-scrapped subject of art history.

And the numbers quoted by the minister, her ministry and the national assessment body don’t match up.

Last week, Erica Stanford said art history would be culled as a standalone subject because of the numbers of students who take it.

When questioned by The Post, Stanford focused on how many students achieved NCEA, which requires 14 or more credits in a subject.

Stanford said last year art history NCEA level 2 was achieved by 251 students and at level 3 was achieved by 543 students.

Students who achieved the same in visual arts numbered 5000 and 10,000 respectively.

“So this is not about removing that [art history] knowledge. It's about taking the knowledge out of a subject that very few students are taking, and let's be clear, it's less than one per school, and taking it and putting it in other areas, like visual design, where you've got thousands and thousands of kids taking it.”

Stanford went on to say: “We have to rewrite all of these curriculum. We have to resource them, and we have to provide professional learning and development.

“When 251 students are taking the subject, I think most New Zealanders will think that it's reasonable that we take that knowledge - it's not disappearing - and we put it into other subjects with thousands of children and students will be able to access the knowledge, and that's the ministry's decision.”

But the president of the New Zealand Arts History Teachers' Association, Dr Barbara Ormond, said the numbers Stanford used were not actually reflective of how many students learn about art history.

Last year, according to NZQA, there was total of 783 students who took art history at level 2 and 1026 who took it at level 3 - twice as many as who achieved NCEA in the subject.

“I think she’s being quite selective,” she said.

“The numbers are much higher overall of students sitting in classrooms doing art history than the 251 students that are being quoted.”

'When contacted for a response, Stanford’s office referred The Post to the Education Ministry.

The ministry provided a third set of figures, which focused on how many students attempted to achieve NCEA. It said there were 763 level 2 students, of which 322 were assessed in a full programme of 14 or more credits.

And it said there were “just over 1000 students” at level 3, with 675 assessed in a full programme.

Acting deputy secretary at the ministry’s curriculum centre, Pauline Cleaver, said: “Art History continues to be a valued and enriching part of our education system. However, participation in Art History has declined.”

Ormond remained optimistic the Education Ministry would reverse its decision.

The ministry was also set to drop agriculture and horticulture studies from the school curriculum, but after pressure from the farming sector quickly did a U-turn.

“I do have optimism because I think that it’s misunderstood,” she said.

Art history students often didn’t take art but loved learning the history about it.

“It’s not that they are able to do that creative visual arts themselves. They can interpret it but they can’t necessarily do it.”

NZQA figures also show there were 23 subjects with fewer students at year 13 than art history (1026) last year, including visual arts (859), Chinese (796), Japanese (684), French (462), Spanish (456), German (194) and Korean (77).

A question to the minister about why subjects with lower participation rates than art history were being kept was not responded to.

Ormand said the focus should be on keeping art history, especially in light of the Government’s push for knowledge-rich curriculum and a focus on critical thinking.

“It’s really a great fit for exactly what the Government is wanting to do.”

- Amelia Wade / The Post