Bills Digest no. 60 2008–09
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority Bill
WARNING:
This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as introduced
and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest does not have
any official legal status. Other sources should be consulted to determine
the subsequent official status of the Bill.
CONTENTS
Passage history
Purpose
Background
Financial implications
Main provisions
Concluding comments
Contact officer & copyright details
Passage history
Australian
Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority Bill
Date introduced:
23 October 2008
House:
House of Representatives
Portfolio:
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations
Commencement:
Royal Assent
Links:
The relevant
links to the Bill, Explanatory Memorandum and second reading speech
can be accessed via BillsNet, which is at http://www.aph.gov.au/bills/. When Bills
have been passed they can be found at ComLaw, which is at http://www.comlaw.gov.au/.
The purpose of the Australian Curriculum,
Assessment and Reporting Authority Bill 2008 (the Bill) is to establish
the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA).
ACARA, which will be an independent statutory authority,
will manage the creation and implementation of the national curriculum,
national student assessment and reporting of school education outcomes.
Specific functions, as provided in Clause 6 of the Bill, will include:
- developing and administering a national school curriculum, including
content of the curriculum and achievement standards, for school subjects
as specified in its Charter
- developing and administering national assessments
- collecting, managing and analysing student assessment data and other
data relating to schools and comparative school performance
- facilitating information sharing arrangements between Australian and
state and territory governments bodies in relation to the collection,
management and analysis of school data
- publishing information relating to school education, including comparative
school performance
- providing school curriculum resource services, educational research
services and other related services and
- providing information, resources, support and guidance to the teaching
profession.
The structure and operations of ACARA will be overseen
by the Australian and state and territory governments through the Ministerial
Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA),
which will frame ACARA’s Charter and approve Board appointments.
ACARA’s Board membership will comprise a Chair, Deputy
Chair, one member nominated by the Minister, one representative each from
the Catholic education and independent schools sectors, and a representative
for each state and territory.
The Bill’s explanatory memorandum states that the proposed
governance model for ACARA accords with the MCEETYA agreement reached
on 12 September 2008.[1]
ACARA’s establishment was agreed to by the Council of
Australian Governments (COAG) at its October 2008 meeting.[2] The decision is the result of current COAG negotiations
regarding the new National Education Agreement and National Partnerships
which will set the framework for the government’s ‘education revolution’
in school education.[3] The Government is committed to
establishing the final governance arrangements for ACARA’s Board by 1
January 2009.[4]
Consequently, ACARA will supersede the National Curriculum
Board and the National Schools Assessment and Data Centre which the government
established earlier this year. The National Curriculum Board was an ALP
election policy commitment.[5]
The 2008–09 Budget provided $20 million over four years to establish the
National Curriculum Board, which was to develop a national curriculum
from kindergarten to Year 12 in the areas of English, mathematics, the
sciences and history.[6] The National Curriculum Board has
already begun its work—Professor Barry McGraw is its Chair; national forums
have been held; a broad directions paper produced; and initial advice
papers for English, mathematics, the sciences and history released for
discussion.[7]
The 2008–09 Budget also provided $17.2 million over four
years to establish a National Schools Assessment and Data Centre. The
Centre, which was scheduled to commence operation from 1 January 2009,
was to collect data and report on key performance measures for schools,
as agreed to by COAG, to ‘ensure transparent and timely national assessment
and reporting of literacy and numeracy outcomes for Australian school
students.’[8] The proposed Centre arose from the Government’s
commitment to greater transparency and its determination to target resources
to where they are needed most, based on better sources of information:
Our approach is to recognize and respect the diversity
of schooling in Australia and to put forward the proposition that high
quality education should be available to all children, wherever they
live, whatever background they come from and whatever sector their school
is in.
… we believe this new approach requires a new era
of transparency and accountability.
For parents to fully understand the choices they can
make for their children, we need a more transparent and consistent basis
for them to examine the options.
To target resources in a way that will best improve
our education system, we need richer sources of information. We need
to know where efforts are bearing fruit and where they are not so we
can take effective action.
For schools, teachers and education authorities to
learn which strategies work in which circumstances, we need comprehensive
information about both the performance and the circumstances.[9]
The establishment of ACARA is the culmination of a long
period of policy debate—in the case of the national curriculum the debate
dates back to the 1980s when John Dawkins, then Minister for Employment,
Education and Training, called for a common curriculum framework that
would set out ‘the major areas of knowledge and the most appropriate mix
of skills and experience for students in all the years of schooling’.[10]
The debate about, and policy focus on, a national curriculum,
student assessment and school reporting was invigorated from 2005 when
the previous Government mandated, as conditions for its funding, the development
and implementation of Statements of Learning in certain subject areas,
which had previously been agreed to by MCEETYA; and student assessment
and school reporting requirements.[11]
The Schools Assistance Bill 2008, which provides Australian Government
funding for non-government schools and which is currently before the Parliament,
contains similar conditions of funding. These conditions will also be
a feature of the forthcoming National Education Agreements for Australian
Government funding for government school systems. What is significant
in the new arrangements is the additional requirement for reports about
individual school performance, as determined by the Minister.[12]
Under the previous government, the national curriculum
debate was spurred on by a series of government-commissioned reports that
highlighted curriculum inconsistencies and proposed a national Australian
Certificate of Education for Year 12 students.[13]
The debate about the teaching of Australian history in schools was particularly
vigorous, driven by an Australian History Summit, convened by the previous
government; the release of a Guide to Teaching Australian History in
Years 9 and 10; and the then Prime Minister’s commitment to
mandate the teaching of ‘at least 150 hours of Australian history’ in
high school.[14]
The commitment to a national curriculum is now entrenched
and will be required to be implemented from 2011.[15] In the lead-up to the 2007 federal election both major parties
made policy commitments in relation to the development of a national curriculum.
In its last budget, the previous government provided $13 million
over two years to work with the states and territories to develop curriculum
standards in English, maths, science and Australian history for Years
10 to 12.[16] The then Education Minister
also made an election commitment to appoint a panel of experts to write
curriculum guides.[17]
However, debate remains about the pedagogical implications
of a national curriculum. The release of the National Curriculum Board’s
initial advice papers for English, mathematics, science and history unleased
considerable debate, with regard to both their content and those responsible
for preparing the documents.[18]
In response to the previous government’s proposal for
a national curriculum, Associate Professor Tony Taylor from Monash University,
suggested that a national curriculum could not be justified by international
experience or research, citing Britain and France, both of which have
national curriculums but which have, on the one hand, failing schools
and, on the other, a poor economy.[19]
However, according to the Minister for Education, a single
national curriculum:
will ensure that every young Australian has access
to the highest quality education—regardless of where they live or their
socioeconomic background.
... It will also facilitate greater student mobility
… for some 80,000 school aged students who move interstate each year
…
... [it] will benefit teachers by giving them a clear
understanding of what needs to be covered in each subject and in each
year level during each phase of schooling.
… [it] will also bring benefits to parents. It will
give them clear and explicit agreement about what it is that young people
should know and be able to do.[20]
There is some apprehension about a national curriculum
from elements of the independent schools sector. The concerns focus on
how prescriptive the national curriculum will be and, consequently, the
implications for schools offering alternative curriculums, such as the
Montessori and Steiner systems and the International Baccalaureate; and
for certain faith-based schools.[21] The Chief Executive of Christian
Schools Australia has given voice to the concerns of faith-based schools,
calling for assurance that the national curriculum would allow them to
teach ‘legitimate faith perspectives’.[22] The Opposition, in moving a
motion in response to the Schools Assistance Bill 2008, which is providing
funding for non-government schools, is of the view that the Government
has a ‘hidden agenda’ by:
… requiring adherence to a national curriculum without
flexibility that puts at risk the uniqueness of Steiner, Montessori,
International Baccalaureate, University of Cambridge International Examinations
and special needs schools …[23]
However, the national curriculum and how it is to be
implemented, is a long way from being finalised. Nevertheless, there is
consensus that it should not be too prescriptive and that there needs
to be flexibility to cater for local needs.[24]
The states and territories, in their proposal for a national curriculum,
explained:
… a national curriculum will benefit if there is flexibility
for states and schools to innovate and adapt and to share their experiences
of what approaches achieve the best results. A level of autonomy for
individual schools and teachers to make professional decisions about
curriculum drives the high performance level of a large number of government,
Catholic and Independent schools across jurisdictions.
… whatever common curriculum standards (that is, what
students are expected to achieve in mathematics, science etc.) are adopted
by jurisdictions, it is important to allow for flexibility in schools
catering for different groups of students to achieve these standards
in different ways. This is not an argument for lower standards for some
students. On the contrary, it is an argument for flexibility in teaching
approach and, in some cases, content in order to reach the standards
in different settings.[25]
The Minister has moved to address these concerns, assuring
schools that the national curriculum will ‘allow teachers the flexibility
to shape their classes around the curriculum in a way that is meaningful
and engaging for students.’[26]
She has also recognised particular concerns:
The national curriculum, once agreed and completed,
will be compulsory. But it will not mean that every school will be required
to teach the same subjects, line by line, in the same way.
… I recognise that some schools use a specialised
curriculum such as the International Baccalaureate and that some, such
as Steiner and Montessori schools, have educational philosophies which
involve a particular approach to curriculum.
Clearly there are a number of approaches that are
internationally and educationally recognised and used by schools that
can show their approach to curriculum is well structured and high quality.
I will ask the National Curriculum Board to advise in due course on
the most effective method for confirming this recognition of well-established
alternative curriculum frameworks.[27]
There are indications that the national curriculum is
gaining broader acceptance; most recently, with the NSW government now
reversing its previous opposition.[28] However, the future of the national curriculum remains uncertain with Family First Senator Steve Fielding saying, in relation to the Schools Assistance Bill, that he is still undecided about how he will vote in the wake of calls he has had from schools concerned about signing up to an undecided national curriculum:
The Rudd Government is saying ‘trust us, we will give
you the detail’ but most Australians would like to see the details first
because education is such a cornerstone …The last thing schools want
to feel is a gun to their head dictating what they can teach kids.[29]
National student assessment is now entrenched and has
routinely occurred since 1999 when the first annual literacy tests (reading
and writing) for Year 3 and Year 5 students were conducted and the results
assessed against national benchmarks. Since then the testing regime has
been progressively extended. As from 2008, as part of the National Assessment
Program—Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN), Year 3, 5, 7 and 9 students now
sit the same national tests in reading, writing, spelling, grammar and
punctuation and numeracy.[30] National Assessment Program
assessments are also occurring. These involve triennial sample assessments
in science at Year 6, civics and citizenship at Years 6 and 10 and ICT
literacy at Years 6 and 10. Australia is also participating in the OECD
Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) in reading, mathematical
and scientific literacy for 15-year-olds and the Trends in International
Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS) at Years 4 and 8.[31]
As part of the Australian Government’s current conditions
for school funding, established by the previous government, schools are
required to provide parents with their child’s national literacy and numeracy
test results against the national benchmarks. They are also required to
provide reports to all parents on their child’s performance relative to
their peer group at the their school. Schools performance information
is also to be made publicly available by both government and non-government
education authorities.
Aggregated school performance information by state and
territory and school sector is currently provided through MCEETYA. However,
now the Rudd Government’s proposal is to solicit comparable individual
school performance information to better target resources where they are
most needed. As the Minister explains in her second reading speech:
… to lift performance and direct new resources to
where they will make most difference, we need unprecedented rigour and
openness in the collection and publication of schools data.
… we need a basis for fair, consistent, and accurate
analysis of how different schools are doing.
Accurate information on how students and schools are
performing tells teachers, principals, parents and governments what
needs to be done.
This means publishing the performance of individual
schools, along with information that puts that data in its proper context.
That context includes information about the range of student backgrounds
served by a school and its performance when compared against other ‘like
schools’ serving similar student populations.[32]
The Minister’s regard for New York City’s school reporting
system as a basis for the proposed school reporting framework and for
its Chancellor, Joel Klein, has received much attention. According to
the Minister:
We can learn from Klein's methodology of comparing
like schools with like-schools and then measuring the differences in
school results in order to spread best practice.[33]
However, Minister Gillard has stopped short of endorsing
league tables, which rank and compare individual schools’ performance,
and ‘A to F reporting’ which is a feature of the New York system.[34]
The New York City system uses annual school progress
reports which compare students' performance from year to year and compare
schools within a group of 40 peer schools with similar populations. Schools
are then graded from A to D and F based on student test results, the progress
of students in a year and the school environment as determined by attendance
and a survey of parents, students and teachers. Schools rated as A or
B receive financial rewards and are used to demonstrate good teaching
practices. Schools graded D or F are given assistance to improve and if
no progress is made the school is restructured, the principal changed
or it is closed.[35]
According to the latest results for 2007–08, nearly 60
per cent of schools either improved their grade or maintained an A-level
from the previous year, 50 schools received a D grade compared to 86 for
the previous year, and the number of F-rated schools dropped from 35 to
18 schools. Accompanying these results were the results of a pilot school-based
merit pay scheme, whereby teachers at 89 of the 160 participating schools
will receive bonuses as the result of improved student test scores.[36]
However, the New York City system has been assessed by
some as unreliable and producing misleading comparisons of school performance
and student progress. In his analysis of the system, Trevor Cobbold, Convener
of Save our Schools, concludes: ‘It is incoherent, can be used to produce
league table[s], fails to compare like with like and is statistically
flawed.’[37]
Australian Education Union (AEU) President, Angelo Gavrielatos,
has questioned Australia ‘importing “flawed” approaches from the US, a
nation that has been consistently outperformed by countries such as Finland
which does not publicly rank schools.’ He has also asked how the Minister
will stop the production of ‘simplistic league tables’.[38]
Concerns have also been raised about the impact of school
reporting on struggling schools. Professor Peter Mortimore, a former director
of the London-based Institute of Education, anticipates, based on the
experience in England, that struggling schools will suffer from an exodus
of students and standards will drop:
The trouble is that this transparency has been tested
now in England for 20 years and actually the outcome is not good at
all. It's not an improved education system, it's actually a very bad
system …
You end up with mania, or chasing the best school
which is what's happened in England, where parents are obsessed with
it and the league table is the thing that drives them.
… It can actually increase the gap between those who
do well and those who [do] badly, which is bad education. Schools that
take students from disadvantaged areas look bad in league tables.[39]
While these concerns persist, there are regular reminders
about the inequality of school education provision and outcomes. Most
recently, from Brian Caldwell and Jessica Harris, authors of a new book
about ‘best schools’:
While 80 per cent of Australia's schools are "among
the best in the world", they say, there is "no question that
a number are struggling, especially when they are in remote locations
with large numbers of indigenous students or in disadvantaged areas
in urban settings".[40]
Meanwhile, Tasmania has already embarked on ranked performance
reporting of schools, becoming the first state to publicly release ratings
for every government school. The individual school reports include information
about students’ literacy and numeracy achievement, student and staff attendance
and parent satisfaction.[41]
The establishment of ACARA has significant implications
for the role and functions of MCEETYA.[42]
Firstly, MCEETYA will be responsible for framing ACARA’s
charter, which will set the work program for ACARA. It will also approve
the appointment of Board members, at the same time ensuring that between
them the members possess the range of expertise to cover ACARA’s functions.
MCEETYA’s oversight of ACARA will be conducted by way of resolution.
Not only does ACARA bring new administrative responsibilities
for MCEETYA, but also some of its work will either overlap or possibly
take over work currently done by or through MCEETYA. Certainly, MCEETYA
will shed some to its current work to ACARA as some of its funding will
be diverted to the new body for its work. However, it can only be conjectured
at this stage how this will happen. It is likely that MCEETYA will continue,
in some form, the collecting and reporting of aggregated data which is
currently provided through the National Report on Schooling in Australia[43]; and it may be the case that
ACARA will focus on reporting individual school information. In any event,
the data collected under ACARA’s auspices should feed into the former
and the National Report on Schooling continue in some form.
One question to be resolved is the future of the Curriculum
Corporation, which is a partnership of Australian education ministers.
It also provides curriculum and assessment services, which includes managing
NAPLAN.[44]
The Explanatory Memorandum states that the estimated
financial impact of the Bill will be $37.2 million over four years from
2008–09 to 2011–12.[45]
This funding was originally provided in the 2008–09 Budget for the National
Curriculum Board ($20 million) and the National Schools Assessment Data
Centre ($17.2 million).
The Minister advises in her second reading speech that
this commitment will be matched ‘through existing contributions’ made
by the states and territories.[46]
These payments are currently provided to MCEETYA for assessment and reporting
purposes.
This funding will be augmented by fees that ACARA will
be able to charge for its commercial services.
Clause 4 establishes the constitutional basis
for the Bill and sets out the heads of power relied on to support the
validity of the Bill. These include the Commonwealth power to legislate
with respect to:
- interstate and foreign trade and commerce (section 51(i))
- postal, telegraphic, telephonic, and other like services (section
51(v))
- collection of statistics (section 51(xi))
- external affairs (section 51(xxix))
- the Territories (section 122) and
- the executive power of the Commonwealth (section 61).
This drafting approach has been adopted to ensure that
the Bill does not go beyond its power and to ensure that the heads of
power listed may be relied upon.
Clause 5 establishes ACARA as a body corporate
with a seal. It would operate as an independent statutory authority under
the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 (CAC Act).
Clause 6 sets out ACARA’s functions, outlined
at the beginning of this Bills Digest.
Subclause 7(1) requires ACARA to operate in accordance
with written directions from MCEETYA and that, according to subclause
7(3), ACARA must also undertake its functions and powers in accordance
with this Bill, the CAC Act and regulations, and with its Charter. According
to the definition in Clause 3, ACARA’s Charter will be determined
by MCEETYA.
Clause 9 would allow ACARA to charge fees for
work done in performing its functions. Subclause 9(2) clarifies
the provision will apply only to the extent that the fee is not
a tax. This clarification is necessary because of constitutional
requirements that require a separate law to impose a tax.[47]
Clauses 11 to 20 provide for the establishment
of ACARA’s Board, including its role, membership, appointment and remuneration
of members. Significant measures include:
- Clause 13 which mandates the composition of
the Board membership which will include the Chair and Deputy Chair of
the Board and eleven other members comprising:
- one member nominated by the Minister
- one member nominated by the National Catholic Education Commission
and representing Catholic systemic schools
- one member nominated by the Independent Schools Council of Australia
and
- eight members, each nominated by their respective state and territory
education minister and representing government education systems.
- proposed paragraph 14(2)(a) which requires that
the appointment of members must be approved by MCEETYA
- proposed paragraph 14(2)(b) which requires that
MCEETYA agrees that any appointment ensures that the members of the
Board collectively possess an appropriate balance of professional expertise
in:
- matters relating to school curriculum
- school assessment and data management
- analysis and reporting in relation to school performance
- financial and commercial maters in relation to the management
of educational organisations and
- corporate governance.
- proposed paragraph 14(5)(b) which stipulates
that a person cannot be appointed as a member for longer than six years
in total and
- Clause 20 which enables the Minister to set
any other membership terms and conditions not covered by the Act.
Clauses 21 and 22 govern meeting procedures
and decision making procedures. Clause 22 allows for decision making
outside of meetings.
Clauses 23 to 34 govern the role and appointment
of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and allow for the appointment of
staff. Under Clause 25, the CEO is to be appointed by the Board
by written instrument, after consultation with the Minister. Subclause
25(3) stipulates that the CEO cannot hold office for longer than three
years and subclause 25(4) requires that the CEO not be a Board
member.
Clauses 35 and 36 provide for the establishment
of committees. The provisions include subclause 35(2) which allows
for committees to be comprised only of board members, only of persons
who are not Board members or a mixture of the two.
Clause 42 requires that any direction to ACARA
by MCEETYA must be by means of a resolution by MCEETYA.
Clause 44 requires that a review of ACARA be conducted
six years after its commencement.
Concluding
comments
The Bill presents the latest instalment of the Government’s
package of reforms for school education, albeit mostly a repackaging of
two earlier Budget measures which will now be combined in the one authority
under the combined auspices of the Australian and state and territory
governments though MCEETYA. Still to come is the National Education Agreement
for the provision of Australian Government funding for government schools
and the National Partnerships covering teacher quality, raising achievement
in disadvantaged school communities and improving literacy and numeracy
levels.[48]
However, the Bill provides only the broad framework within
which the development of the national curriculum, collection and analysis
of student assessment data and the reporting of school performance will
occur. There is considerable work to be done in not only developing and
implementing the national curriculum and determining the methodology for
collecting, reporting and comparing student and school performance, but
also in achieving stakeholder consensus about these matters.
Still remaining and underpinning the success of the goals
towards which the Bill’s main measures are directed—that of raising the
educational performance of all students regardless of where they are located
and their socioeconomic background—are the critical issues of teacher
supply and teacher quality.
It is well accepted, and supported by research, that
teacher quality is the paramount factor influencing student outcomes.
Typical of this research is that conducted by Michael Barber, former adviser
to British Prime Minister, Tony Blair. His research into why the world’s
best-performing school systems outdo other school systems, concluded the
three most important factors were: getting the right people to become
teachers, developing them into effective instructors and ensuring they
deliver consistently for every child. Ultimately, ‘the quality of an education
system cannot exceed the quality of its teachers’.[49]
Professor Barry McGraw, Chair of the National Curriculum
Board, has been reported as saying that the new curriculum will have to
be backed up by a surety that there will be enough properly trained teachers
to teach the revamped subjects:
There will be some quite interesting differences proposed
in the curriculum, so there's an important professional development
activity that needs to go on. It will be partly about professional development,
and it will be partly about recruitment.[50]
The forthcoming National Partnership on Quality Teaching
and how it will address these issues will therefore be of great interest.
Marilyn Harrington
19 November 2008
Bills Digest Service
Parliamentary Library
© Commonwealth of Australia
This work is copyright. Except to the extent of uses permitted by the
Copyright Act 1968, no person may reproduce or transmit any part of this
work by any process without the prior written consent of the Parliamentary
Librarian. This requirement does not apply to members of the Parliament
of Australia acting in the course of their official duties.
This work has been prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament
using information available at the time of production. The views expressed
do not reflect an official position of the Parliamentary Library, nor
do they constitute professional legal opinion.
Feedback is welcome and may be provided to: web.library@aph.gov.au.
Any concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary Librarian.
Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the contents of publications
with Senators and Members and their staff. To access this service, clients
may contact the author or the Library’s Central Entry Point for
referral.
|
