Chapter 1 - Introduction
Education systems are often like vehicles that have been to the
panel beater too many times. After 15 years they need a new fender, the engine
needs repairs to keep running, the tyres need changing and woops it's time to
replace this sparkplug. But governments have to keep these cars on the road
even if sometimes the wheels don't align and the windscreen is broken. And it's
a remarkable testament to the fortitude and commitment of teachers that they
keep the vehicle on the road even when both the road and the map keep changing.[1]
1.1
This introductory chapter deals broadly with the two issues addressed in
the terms of reference: the quality of teaching, and the quality of curriculum.
The committee has attempted to deal with both these issues. The most balanced,
rigorous and user-friendly curriculum that can be devised still requires skilled
and dedicated teachers to implement it. Good teachers will bring to bear their
knowledge, skill and experience to manage or improvise with a poorly designed
curriculum so as to achieve their objectives.
1.2
Schooling in Australia has traditionally placed emphasis on individual
achievement and personal fulfilment. A great deal of evidence to this inquiry
has pointed to the declining standards in school mathematics, and its flow-on effects
on the viability of university enrolments in engineering and science and, in
due course, an industry sector starved of skills. On another level, we see the
strong but relatively recent trend toward vocational education in schools,
mainly in service industries. It is claimed that one of the most useful aspects
of school-based VET courses is the inculcation of a work ethic, as part of a
transition to work, as distinct from an expectation that schools will be able
to teach immediately marketable skills in technical fields. Yet there is
intermittent criticism about the inherent bias in the school curriculum and
even among teachers and principals, in favour of an academic emphasis in school
education rather than skilling students for entry into the trades.
1.3
It is apparent to the committee that those most worried about declining
standards are those who take the long view as to the purpose of education. The
committee has an old-fashioned view that knowledge, skills and values are
accumulated, practised and assimilated in stages corresponding to an
individual's capacity to grow. Thus, every stage of education is crucial from
the beginning. There is a time to learn to read, and for children who miss out,
the chance of catching up, even despite costly remedial work, is minimal. There
is an optimum time to learn the basics of algebra. Missing out means that
calculus, and further scientifically based training, is beyond most students.
Concern about standards of school education is in large measure a concern about
whether Australia will have sufficient 'critical mass' of appropriately skilled
and educated people to run the businesses and the services of the country in
years to come.
1.4
An inquiry into the quality standards of schooling is complicated by the
fact that in this federal democracy, states and territories have responsibility
for staffing and running schools, and where, across the country, an average of
35 per cent of students are enrolled in wide diversity of non-government
schools. Added to this is the fact that while on a global level of comparison
schools in this country perform at the top levels of achievement, there are
worrying signs of Australian educational under-achievement which advanced
countries in Europe do not exhibit and which leading Asian nations are
overcoming.
1.5
Public commentary about curriculum issues has filled press columns and
the airwaves regularly, if intermittently, over the past 15 years or more. But
the relative quality of teaching is seldom under the spotlight. The school is
at once the most visible and most public of our institutions, but the classroom
remains a private place. Fair measurement of the effectiveness of teachers is a
challenge that will need to be taken-up, as is the effectiveness of their
training and further professional development.
1.6
As for curriculum, the committee notes a general agreement that school
curricula should be standards-based, rather than, as in the past,
outcomes-based. The constructivist tendencies of the 1990s are being reversed in
those states which adopted them, most dramatically perhaps in Western Australia.
The changes will be obvious to teachers as new syllabuses are written. The
Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) has submitted that future
school curricula should begin with an analysis of the kinds of learning likely
to be needed in the future. It should make clear what students are expected to
learn and to do, as well as specifying minimum standards.[2]
1.7
The 'back to basics' movement may have led some commentators to believe
that the development of basic skills is the main objective of schooling. It is
not. They are a means toward learning higher order skills and deeper
understandings.
The quality of education debate
1.8
This inquiry was announced at a time when a great deal of commentary was
issuing from some elements in the press. The commentary alleged an agenda being
pursued by those who aim at radically stripping core cultural traditions from
the curriculum.
1.9
The committee believes that this is a difficult issue because public
perceptions of the school system deserve a public airing. What is being alleged
is not constructive. What is often remarkable is the generalised nature of much
school criticism. Individual schools are rarely criticised. As one academic rhetorically
asked the committee when this phenomenon was raised:
Why are people satisfied with what they experience at their
local school with their children but are somewhat dissatisfied, it seems, with
the education system at large...[even though]...that is not generally based on any
immediate experience? You could postulate a whole set of things, but I would
suggest that one of the strong reasons would be the sort of campaign that is
being waged in the media, which would tend to influence people, and yet their experience
at the local level, quite clearly, is highly satisfactory.[3]
1.10
The committee notes these comments from Professor Alan Reid. He states that
a quality educational discussion and debate in a healthy education system will
be of a constructive nature, not only within the profession but within the
community, and between the community and the profession. Such discussion should
be civil and respectful, recognising the complexity of the educational task of
preparing young people for life in a contemporary world. He continues:
Unfortunately, the last five years in Australia have witnessed a
debate which bears none of these characteristics. The so-called culture wars
have indeed produced the opposite, thus rather than stability and respect. Rather
than recognising the complexity of education today, the debate operates in
simple binaries. For example, it seems that you cannot study a contemporary
cultural phenomenon, such as Big Brother, and Shakespeare. It seems to
be argued that it has to be one or the other.
Rather than being evidence based, there is a narrow and
selective use of evidence to confirm an already established view—for example,
critics seem to trawl through curriculum documents looking for examples of
things with which they take issue, assuming that because it is written on a
page it is translated into action, as though teachers behave like automatons;
there is no recognition that the formal curriculum, the official intended
curriculum, is only a smart part of curriculum itself—or generalisations are made
on the basis of partial evidence.[4]
1.11
It is the responsibility of those elected to parliaments to support the
improvement of education standards through whatever influence they have, and to
ensure that debate about education needs and reforms is constructive and well-informed.
Hence this report. The teaching profession is especially vulnerable to blanket criticism
of its work. Yet a sense of vocation that energises and sustains the core of
the profession. The committee does not regard schools and school systems as
being 'sacred cows', immune from criticism, but because schools survive and
thrive on the basis of public trust, that criticism must be constructive.
Quality teaching
1.12
'Quality' is a relatively new descriptive concept in its application to
schooling. It embraces notions of a sense of enjoyment in learning a rich
mixture of content and ideas which are stimulating and appropriate and which
therefore add to intellectual growth, as recognised by the examiners or
assessors, leading to a further stage of learning post-school. The 'quality
inputs' are the curriculum or syllabus, the teaching materials, and most
importantly the skill and knowledge of the teacher. The 'output quality'
depends on the degree to which the student is motivated and able to respond to
this stimulus.
1.13
In considering the issue of quality, the committee has focussed on four
main areas: the quality of teaching; the quality of curriculum and resources;
the quality of teaching and learning outcomes; and the quality of assessment
instruments by which achievement is measured. In this introductory chapter, the
committee sets out a synopsis of its findings and its views on the key matters,
which will be elaborated on in following chapters.
1.14
There is a considerable range of opinion among educators as to the
determinants of quality teaching. Some witnesses, as well as academics,
researchers and commentators writing in sources which the committee has drawn
on, place a great deal of emphasis on the need for innovative teaching methods,
and relevant, accessible curriculum and materials. On the face of it, these
would appear desirable and even essential requirements. For instance, in the
recent ACER publication, Re-imagining Science Education, Professor Russell
Tytler reviews the nature of what he describes as the 'current crisis in
science education'. Professor Tytler urges a re-thinking about the nature of
science knowledge dealt with in schools, moving away from authoritarian
knowledge structures to more flexible, challenging conceptions of classroom
activity, and more varied ways of thinking about knowledge.[5]
Yet the committee is also impressed with findings that show successful science teaching
based on more conventional characteristics of quality teaching, namely clear
and high expectations, essential knowledge, a fair degree of teacher direction
and security, teacher knowledge, and a structured teaching and learning regime.
These are findings from very recent research, undertaken as part of the University
of New England's AESOP project, which put a different perspective on the view
expressed above.[6]
Although they may bear out the observation of Professor Tytler that traditional
school science is 'resilient', there may also be less conflict between these
perspectives than may first appear.
1.15
The committee is reluctant to engage in the arguments that rage about
curriculum philosophy, but notes that the evidence it received, or consulted,
indicates that among educators, those at the chalk-face favour pragmatism and
practicality over vision-based theory any day. There also appears to be a
divide between those like Professor Tytler and representatives of the
Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers who are concerned or conscious
about student attitudes and the effects of social change, and those who tend to
hold on to concepts which emphasise knowledge and rigour, and who are sceptical
about the need to adjust to what is perceived to be in the interest of
students.
1.16
The views expressed in testimony, in submissions, and in the selection
of research and commentary the committee has consulted, have provided the
committee with a great deal of empirical evidence and an even larger number of
perceptions and opinions. The latter should not be underrated. Public debate is
informed by facts and their interpretation. Education is highly contested
ground, and provokes sharp differences of opinion about how education is best
delivered and for what purpose. No-one the committee spoke to was indifferent
to the need for quality schooling, and everyone was able to relate it to
personal fulfilment and the common good.
The importance of teaching quality
1.17
Most education authorities appearing before the committee rated teaching
quality as the most important determinant of successful schooling outcomes.
There is good evidence for this.
1.18
The committee notes the research carried out in New Zealand by Professor
John Hattie on the major source of variance in student achievement. Over
several years Professor Hattie has looked at factors which influence academic
success and his conclusions are as follows:
- The
ability and application of students accounts for 50 per cent of the variance of
achievement. Bright students will have steeper trajectories of learning than
those who are less bright.
- Home
influences account only for about 5-10 per cent of the variance, in part
because parental influence does not bear on the management of the classroom.
- Schools and school principals account for 5-10
per cent of variance.
- Peer
pressure can be positive or unfavourable to performance but is less influential
than generally believed, and accounts for 5-10 per cent of variance.
- Teachers
account for about 30 per cent of variance. It is what teachers know, do, and
care about which is very powerful in the learning process.[7]
1.19
A wealth of other research supports these conclusions. A four year
longitudinal study carried out by ACER in 1993-96 called the Victorian Quality
Schools Project confirmed evidence from other counties that teachers have the
most significant influence on educational quality. The Victorian study sampled
nearly 14 000 students drawn from 90 public, Catholic and independent
primary and secondary schools. One of the ACER researchers on the project, Dr Ken
Rowe noted:
Of particular interest was the finding that whereas students' inattentive
behaviours had significant negative effects on their progress in literacy and
numeracy, achievement mediated by quality teaching had notably stronger effects
on decreasing their early and subsequent inattentive behaviours in the
classroom (or increasing both their early and subsequent attentive behaviours).
Above all the findings underscored the importance of teacher quality by
highlighting the crucial role that teachers have in meeting the cognitive,
affective and behavioural needs of all students, as well as providing normative
classroom environment conditions that are conducive to learning.[8]
1.20
The committee also notes research published in 2007 by Andrew Leigh of
the Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian National University,
which was a mathematically-based assessment of teacher performance against
literacy test results. The sampling was very large, with 10 000 primary
teachers included in the research field. Dr Leigh's research showed a wide
variation in teacher performance, which is a result consistent with other ways
of measuring performance.[9]
The training of quality teachers
1.21
Teacher quality is linked to the quality of teacher training, but there
appears to be no settled opinion on how strong this link is or how it can be
measured. A recent report on teacher education accreditation states that its
implementation is not yet well established. University courses are approved by
academic boards, having first been developed by faculty members, usually with
some limited contribution from references groups, or course advisory committees
outside the university. There is no national system of accreditation, although
a variety of state processes exist since registration bodies have been
established in all states, mostly at the endorsement or approval level.[10]
The emphasis is on 'collaboration' and 'liaison' rather than formal
accreditation. In theory, employing authorities, that is, state education
departments, diocesan Catholic education offices and independent schools, have
some influence on the content of teacher training courses, but there is no
formal way in which this is exercised.
1.22
Deans of education have expressed support for national accreditation.
They argue that current arrangements result in unnecessary duplication of work,
especially for universities preparing students to work in different states.
This will not be a straight-forward task. National accreditation will need
agreement on professional principles as well as subject specialisations,
content and pedagogical knowledge. However, MCEETYA already has a national
framework for professional standards for teaching as a basic document. The
committee believes that national accreditation is a worthwhile goal in building
the professional profile of teaching and facilitating improvements to
professional standards.
1.23
It appears to the committee that state and territory education ministers
have retained considerable powers, as in the instance of the NSW Minister
recently instructing teacher training institutions to ensure that teachers in
training are taught the formalities of English grammar. This has occurred since
the establishment of the NSW Institute of Teaching in July 2006, which has
taken over from the Department of Education and Training (DET) in the
accreditation of teachers.
1.24
In this report the committee has expressed concerns about perceived
weaknesses in teacher training. Some of these may be the consequence of factors
outside the control of universities, namely the academic quality of
school-leavers wanting to become teachers, although it might be argued that
entry levels should be raised to keep out those whose literacy and numeracy are
of doubtful standard, and who barely managed to achieve a minimum TER score.
But this relates to the main complaint; that teacher training neglects subject
or discipline content. This is especially true with mathematics and language
and literacy study. Evidence was almost overwhelming that without a safe level
of subject content teachers lack confidence in their ability to teach, and this
is obvious to school students.
1.25
The committee noted also that there appeared to be a divide between
educationists in universities and academics who are in a position to advise and
contribute to subject or discipline specific content. Compared to this, other
issues which have received attention in other inquiries, like inadequate practicum
time, can usually be attributed to financial constraints or administrative
problems. The infusion of more rigorous content would, however, appear easier
to achieve.
Professional entry levels and
training standards
1.26
Teaching has long ceased to attract its fair share of the best and
brightest intellects entering universities around the country each year. Some
of the biggest teaching schools are accepting entry-level students with TER scores
so low as to be equivalent to failure in other states.[11]
The House of Representatives committee inquiry into teacher education, which
reported in February 2007, received submissions showing various indicators of
declining academic entry standards for students entering education faculties. For
instance, only four out of 31 universities required Year 12 mathematics at any
level, with another eight being content with Year 11 mathematics levels. The University
of Melbourne claimed in its submission to the House inquiry that an insistence
on Year 12 mathematics would have resulted in half of the currently accepted
applicants being rejected. Many universities appear to place a great deal of confidence
in their ability to instil an adequate component of academic rigour over the
four years of the B.Ed degree, sufficient, that is, to cover the gap between
poor or mediocre school results, and what is expected at graduation.[12]
The committee doubts whether the community can be reassured that this
confidence is not misplaced.
1.27
The committee heard a great deal of adverse comment on the performance
of teacher training faculties in universities. It was said that in many
institutions, discipline content was minimal, and that subject method was
largely concerned with the interpretation of curriculum documents and with
course planning. It was also claimed that language teaching did not, in many
institutions, include any systematic instruction in phonemic awareness as part
of teaching children to read. There was an implication that constructivist
philosophy of learning was deeply embedded in the education faculties, which
inhibited the study of phonemic awareness, and appeared to affect attitudes to
the teaching of mathematics as well. The committee acknowledges that much of
this evidence is anecdotal, and off-the-record. There is reluctance by
academics to engage in open discussions of their issues.
1.28
Another major issue concerns the superficiality in which subject content
is dealt with in education faculties. In the case of mathematics and science
this is well-documented. It is a problem recognised in some education faculties,
as Professor Michael O'Neill from the University of Notre Dame told the
committee in Western Australia:
We do our level best, but we are faced with that perennial
tension: we have an absolute obligation not only to give to our students sound
content knowledge in the disciplines in which they will teach but also to give
them the pedagogical skills that enable them to teach well. So we have to try
to get that mix right. Where we cannot go is to deny them content, to give less
content, in favour of more pedagogy. That is an absolute anathema, in my view.
I think a deep knowledge of your discipline is utterly vital to be a good
practitioner, and you can then perfect the ‘how to teach’ once you are mentored
properly in the school system after graduation. But we have to get that balance
right in the preservice degrees.[13]
1.29
The committee did not take this to infer that Notre Dame was failing to
maintain this balance, only that it is a matter of concern, as it is at Edith Cowan
University. As Professor Greg Robson explained:
Our challenge is a flow-on from the general curriculum challenge
that we face. We have to prepare our primary school teachers for the curriculum
as intended, and getting the time available to get people really well versed in
eight learning areas is a heck of a challenge. Instead of having curriculum
that, as people have often said, is a mile wide and an inch deep, I think we
would do better if we focused on depth. I think that would serve our interests
and the interests of the youngsters far better.[14]
1.30
Finally, the committee refers to the findings of the DEST-appointed
Committee for the Review of Teaching and Teacher Education, chaired by Professor
Kwong Lee Dow, and which reported in 2003. This inquiry made a comprehensive
study of the needs of teacher education, with particular reference to science
and mathematics teachers. This committee notes with interest that two of its
conclusions were that attention was required in regard to: first, changes in
program content and course requirements [in teacher training] to ensure that
all future primary school teachers have a trained capacity to teach the
science, mathematics and technology components of the primary school curriculum
and that there is a sufficient number of teachers with expert knowledge to
provide school leadership roles in these areas of the curriculum; and second,
that there should be more collaboration between education, science and
mathematics faculties to enhance quality through maximising use of resources
and to increase the numbers of students specialising to become science,
technology and mathematics teachers.[15]
The committee believes this may be an acknowledgement that relations between
academics in education faculties and these in the relevant subject disciplines
have become estranged in recent years, though it is hard to elicit comment 'on
the record'.
1.31
The committee takes the conventional view that both subject content and
method are important, but understands that classroom management and teaching
method may preoccupy the minds of trainees and beginning teachers. The
committee takes most seriously the comments that are made elsewhere in the
report of subordination of content to method, to the extent where a great deal
of essential knowledge is not covered at all in a four year long degree course.
The committee believes that Professor Robson's view on specialisation has much
to commend it.
1.32
Over 100 separate inquiries have been conducted into teacher training
over the past several years. One of the most recent comprehensive inquiries was
done by the Education and Training Committee of the Victorian Parliament, which
reported in February 2005. It found that in Victoria there were significant gaps
in the current content of education courses, including classroom management
skills, student assessment and reporting methods, time management and
organisational skills, and methods of dealing with students who have learning
disabilities.[16]
It is unlikely that deficiencies identified in Victoria would be confined to
that state.
1.33
There were also a number of criticisms made of practicum arrangements
for B.Ed and Dip.Ed. students obtaining experience in schools. It was stated by
the Victorian parliamentary committee that the teaching practicum was a key
area of contention because of the inadequate time given over to practise
teaching. There were also complaints about lack of adequate supervision from
university faculty staff. The House of Representatives report on teacher
training gives considerable detail of similar findings. The main problem has
been clearly identified as one of inadequate funding, which has seen a dramatic
decline in the number of academics employed in education faculties at a time of
greatly increased enrolments. The committee notes that the Government has
responded in some measure to this deficiency with additional appropriations for
teacher training in the 2007-08 budget.[17]
Investment in teacher quality
1.34
As noted in the previous section, concern about teacher quality has
resulted in the establishment in all states and territories of accrediting
agencies to ensure that training institutions and universities produce teachers
who are competent to practise soon after their graduation. The committee notes
that it will take some time to develop agreed models for professional teaching
standards. It strongly commends the likely support to come from such bodies to
the professional knowledge content of teaching courses, and recommends
that agencies take the lead in co-ordinating an effective program for
professional development and continuing education for the profession.
Becoming serious about professional
development
1.35
The committee does not believe that professional development has ever
been established, in any jurisdiction, on a properly professional level. The
anecdotal evidence suggests that courses are mandated only when important new
curriculum or assessment initiatives are being introduced, or when identified
school or system-wide problems need to be addressed in areas such as legal
responsibilities of teachers.
1.36
Following its inquiry into the status of the teaching profession, this
committee reported in 1998 that much of the evidence it received referred to
the ad hoc and piecemeal nature of professional development, and to its
poor intellectual quality and lack of conceptual framework. It was often
crammed into busy times of the year, had no official accreditation and no
official recognition.[18]
1.37
While the committee received little evidence on the current state of
professional development for this inquiry, it received a strong impression that
nothing much has changed over the past nine years.
1.38
One particular issue closely related to professional development is that
of incentive. Quite simply, the committee has been told of poor incentives for
teachers to raise their level of knowledge, and broaden their skills via
professional development. There is neither a strong market for highly
accomplished practitioners, nor is there a profession-wide system by which teachers
can gain a respected and portable certification of their accomplishments. The
issue of teacher pay, which is addressed in Chapter 6, does not assist in this
regard and could be construed by some people as a disincentive.[19]
Teachers need constant motivation to stay abreast of the
changing and growing scope of science knowledge and professional opportunities,
yet the reward for this is sometimes obscure and the means of achieving this
unclear (who pays, who replaces staff on study leave, secondment or
placements).[20]
1.39
Some witnesses told the committee that the Commonwealth could assist
teachers in obtaining further formal post-graduate qualifications and removal
of the Fringe Benefits Tax (FBT) requirements for teacher training
scholarships. Extending the FBT concessions that apply to health employees to education
employees would make teacher employment packages significantly more attractive
and comparative to those of other professions.[21]
1.40
However, the committee notes that possession of a post-graduate degree
may not necessarily improve a teacher's performance. Recent research has not
identified any improvement in learning outcomes of students as a result of
teachers having post-graduate degrees,[22]
although there is clearly a need to have additionally-qualified teachers in
special-needs education. Whether obtaining higher degrees for the purposes of
promotion or professional satisfaction should attract a tax-payer subsidy is
another matter. As the Australian Education Union submission pointed out, there
has been criticism that some of the post-graduate courses are not directly—or
even indirectly in some cases—applicable to the classroom. The committee
accepts the Union's view that some of the best professional learning for
teachers is actually collective and school-based, and that what teachers
particularly like in their professional learning is to deal with the problems
they are encountering in the classroom every day.[23]
It would be a bonus, according to the Union if teachers could get a university
credit for school-based professional learning in collective ways.
Remuneration and reward
1.41
A number of submissions, and not only those from teacher unions, noted
that while pay scales for beginning teachers were as good, or even better, than
in comparable occupations, the progression to the top increment was rapid:
teachers reached their salary peak in their mid-thirties. The salary structure
did not place much value on teacher quality, but rather encouraged promotion
out of the classroom in graduated stages to administrative positions. The
committee believes that the current incremental scale may be one reason for the
poor retention rate.
1.42
The committee was interested in the views of teachers and employing
authorities on the matter of performance pay for teachers. However, performance
pay is not the only way of recognising and rewarding the dedication of
teachers. The committee was told of practices used in independent schools in Western
Australia to recognise outstanding service. This can be done by organising
exchange postings at other schools, including interstate and overseas schools,
professional development through paid leave to work in industry, or assistance
with HECS/HELP fees for a higher degree. The committee believes these reward
mechanisms should become more general, and should be afforded by schools and
school systems.
That of course costs schools. It costs money to send a teacher
to wherever you are going to send them and also to replace that teacher in your
school, if you do not have an exchange. But that one works very well. We have
other schools that have actually said to teachers: ‘If you can find a placement
in industry, we will pay you while you do four to six weeks in industry,
working in SFIA and IT. You can go and work for a computing company for four to
six weeks to get some industry experience and we will cover you.’ Again, that
is a really valuable way of doing it. It is really the schools and the teachers
in the schools who know best who the good teachers are and who perhaps should
get rewarded—rather than an outside person saying, ‘If you can tick all these
boxes, we will give it to you’.[24]
1.43
Ticking the boxes is a reference to reward schemes which exist in a
number of jurisdictions whereby teachers apply for a special classification
carrying a salary bonus which recognises their higher level of teaching skill.
It is inevitably a highly bureaucratic process, with successful attainment
often dependent on the weight of supporting documentation. Nor does the outcome
always carry much benefit for the school. Finding an appropriate role for
teachers with a higher teaching classification is often difficult.
1.44
The committee formed a view that a system of performance based
remuneration for teachers is both desirable and inevitable. The committee also
formed the view that the system of performance based remuneration that is
introduced needs to ensure that individual classroom teachers have the
necessary incentives to improve all areas of their teaching practise, including
student academic achievement, and also a system which gives school principals
the greatest ability to attract and retain the best teachers.
The curriculum debate
1.45
At the time the committee commenced this inquiry, it was under the
impression that quality standards in school education hinged on curriculum
settings. The current debate on standards drew much of its heat from
interpretations of curriculum documents, and the statements of educators and
others on course content. As well as concern expressed about content and
rigour, there was much talk of the need to ensure some nationally uniform
pattern of core subjects, assessed in a way which would give assurance of
uniform standards of learning achievement across the country.
1.46
Following consideration of submissions and other evidence, the prevailing
opinion is that it is teachers, and not curriculum structures or frameworks, which
truly make a difference. What drives improvement in schooling are good teachers.
Good schools are the schools with lots of good teachers.[25]
It was clear that the value of even the best curriculum that could be devised
and agreed to can only be realised through quality teaching. But it was also
clear that aspects of the current curriculum make the task of effective
teaching more difficult. Decisions about an effective curriculum for the 21st
century are yet to be made, and there is as yet no consensus about how we
should negotiate a curriculum which addresses the task of national development
for the decades to come. So while the committee has agreed that teaching
quality is its main topic in this report, it believes that quality curriculum
development is also essential in setting and maintaining standards. The two
requirements are linked throughout the report.
1.47
The literature defining the limits and scope of the term 'curriculum' is
voluminous. Some educationists have variously taken the term 'curriculum' to
refer only to setting the objectives of learning and measuring the outcomes.
There is evidence of this thinking in the curriculum frameworks that were
argued over in the 1990s. For others, the curriculum embraces the process of
learning inside the classroom, as well as extraneous experience which
influences classroom learning. As in so many perspectives on schooling, the
temptation to adhere to only one side of a binary divide is ever present, and
the committee is mindful of this.
1.48
Between these two approaches is the mainstream view of curriculum as a
document or set of documents which set out learning objectives, indicating, to
a greater or lesser extent, the content and subject matter of learning, with
some indications of appropriate treatment of the material in the classroom, and
suggested teaching methods. Accordingly, for the purposes of this report, the
committee has taken curriculum to refer broadly to what is being taught, and
learned, and how this knowledge or experience is conveyed to the student. The
committee believes that is what most people would understand a curriculum to
be, and how it would work.
Recovering from the 1990s
1.49
The proponents of major curriculum development changes in the early
1990s did not quite manage to achieve their goal of establishing a national
curriculum. Those efforts did, however, leave a legacy of eight key learning
areas (KLAs): English, mathematics, science, languages other than English (LOTE),
studies of society and its environment (SOSE), technology, and health and
physical education. Each of the key learning areas had a 'statement' which defined
the learning area and provided the framework for what would be taught. In
addition, each KLA had a 'profile' which set out what skills and knowledge
students were expected to learn. These had been developed co-operatively by the
state education agencies and attendant educationists. By July 1993 the spirit
of co-operation between the states had eroded, and they went their separate
ways, although carrying a great deal of shared experience with them. The
terminology and philosophical approach to curriculum developed in those years
hangs on in some states.
1.50
In retrospect, political influences had less to do with rejection of a
national curriculum than differences in educational philosophy. New South Wales
appears to have had deep-seated suspicions of the constructivist foundations of
KLA statements and profiles, and preferred a standards-based curriculum
supported by detailed syllabuses. Victoria appears to have shared these views
in large measure. Both states have a traditional outlook on matters of
curriculum and assessment, which is largely impervious to political influence,
and, essentially, the view they held in the early 1990's they hold today.
Mathematics teachers were also unhappy with the foundational underpinnings of
their KLA documents. A contemporary researcher, Professor Ken Eltis, who chaired
a committee appointed by the NSW Minister for Education to look at outcomes and
profiles, found that there were serious doubts among maths teachers about the
validity of what was being proposed at the national level. One head of a
mathematics department submitted to the Eltis committee that 'while knowledge,
argument, proof and understanding should be fundamental to the teaching of
mathematics, in conformity to the national profiles, every attempt was made to
remove the words 'prove' and 'know' entirely from the advanced syllabus.'[26]
1.51
Overall, there was barely-suppressed fury and frustration felt by
teachers all over the country at decisions being made without their input or
consent, but which they would be responsible for implementing.
1.52
The committee notes that the experience of the 1990s has illustrated the
importance of process in the quest for greater national consistency in
curricula. Greater national consistency should be achieved by establishing
core standards that all education systems must meet.
1.53
Comprehensive negotiation of the curriculum means enlisting the direct
participation of teachers and principals' councils, in a painstaking and
lengthy process of discussion about rationales, objectives, resources, and
other practicalities. All this must be accompanied by public debate. In
essence, the leaders of any future debate on a national curriculum will need to
take charge of an inclusive modus operandi if success is to be achieved.
The crowded curriculum
1.54
One of the legacies of the 1990's has been the conscientious attempt to cover
the key learning aims in primary education.
1.55
The committee heard much about the problems teachers and students have
in fitting the curriculum into the limited class time available. As is
described in a later chapter, there is often only a perfunctory attempt to do
justice to the eight KLAs in the primary schools, and specialisation in
secondary school means that few students will cover this field. Outside the
core 'learnings' in primary school, English, mathematics and SOSE, are optional
'learnings' and skills which, although desirable, may not be taught at a
satisfactory level of depth. Some senators thought that SOSE, an amalgam of
history, geography and economics, to name a few, fails to provide a proper
basis for later studies in these disciplines. The core curriculum is relatively
easy to agree on, except when it comes to the 'trimmings' to the core, and that
point of argument is usually reached quickly.
1.56
The committee canvassed the views of teachers and teacher educators
about decisions about what to teach and in what depth. Professor Robson of Edith
Cowan University in Perth told the committee that:
The first problem is the level of mandate that has now been in
place for some little while that has basically said that each of these learning
areas is of equal importance. That bumps up against the reality in primary
schools, in particular, where the bulk of the time that is actually spent, and
should be spent, is in literacy and numeracy. So you have teachers beavering
away, trying to do their best, and the pressures that are coming down on them
are around those other things that they somehow have to fit in. I think the
first thing we have to do is pull back from that mandate, which says that these
eight areas are all equally important. They are not, in the context of primary
schooling, in my view. Some things are more important than others, and that is
what we should recognise and make clear. That also applies to, if you like, the
content within learning areas. In getting these developments in place, you have
had these ‘curriculum experts’ who invest in each of their learning
areas—again, more stuff, more things to be covered than most teachers could
think of in a career. Again, take the English learning area. My view is that
reading and writing is actually more important than the viewing strand. If
youngsters do not get those through their formal schooling, they will not
progress.[27]
1.57
The committee would agree with Professor Robson that schools pressed for
time need to concentrate on the essentials necessary for students' further
intellectual growth. After consideration of the needs profile of local students
and the resources available, this is a decision for a school community.
Outcomes-based education
1.58
The committee became familiar with controversy over the teaching theory described
as 'outcomes-based teaching and learning'. Some comments on outcomes-based
education are necessary in the light of the submissions which the committee
received.
1.59
Outcomes-based education was given its opportunity in the early 1990s
when it became the basis for national curriculum statements and profiles
developed at that time. As will be discussed, outcomes-based education has been
blamed for falling standards across all subject areas. Most academics when
asked about outcomes-based learning appeared reluctant
to commit their views to Hansard, except to point out that both the learning
theory in question and the debate over its effectiveness should now be regarded
as passé. This is especially the case in New South Wales and Victoria
where the adoption of outcomes-based learning was never taken seriously, beyond
the adoption of some useful classroom teaching methods. The syllabuses in New
South Wales were never driven by outcomes-based theory, although there was
some genuflection to it in key competency statements. It is noteworthy that the
approach in New South Wales was to use the syllabus as a starting point for the
development of outcome statements, rather than the other way round as in the
national statements and profiles.[28]
1.60
Nonetheless, the committee is aware that support for constructivist
theory is strongly entrenched in some university faculties of education. There
is evidence of constructivist thinking in some submissions, and as recently as
2004, DEST commissioned the Catholic Education Office in South Australia to
undertake an investigation into effective constructivist teaching methods in
the teaching of numeracy. The committee notes also that some criticisms of outcomes-based
learning have little to do with the theory itself. The committee received
evidence on recent controversies surrounding outcomes-based education in Western
Australia and of the imminent reintroduction of syllabuses that provide
curriculum support for teachers.
1.61
The committee is reluctant to take sides in a technical debate. It
accepts, however, the evidence that outcomes-based education has been difficult
for teachers to come to grips with, and has been especially stressful for
teachers who have to cope without a solid content-based syllabus. It notes that
many teachers lack sufficient content knowledge to make their own way through
unhelpful outcomes-based curriculum documents which may list a bewildering
number of learning outcomes but not much else. While noting that some teaching
methods based on constructivist theory, like discovery-based inquiry methods of
learning, have solid and lasting value, the committee is generally convinced
that a return to standards-based curricula, supported by user-friendly syllabuses,
is essential. As ACER advised in its submission:
Standards-based school curricula should make clear what teachers
are expected to teach and what students are expected to learn and do as a
result of schooling, as well as specifying minimally acceptable standards for
skills in areas such as literacy, numeracy and science. This focus on the
desired outcomes of schooling is in welcome contrast to an earlier
preoccupation with inputs and processes.[29]
1.62
The committee concurs that this is likely to be more conducive to
improved achievement standards.
A national curriculum: how far do we go?
1.63
In 2007, a consensus appears to have developed that the national
curriculum, still-born in the 1990s, has in principle approval for further
development, with the added encouragement that progress toward uniformity and
harmonisation should proceed where there is agreement. The committee found a
general readiness by stakeholders to agree to an 'edging-forward'. Some of the
old wounds have healed, and as MCEETYA has recognised, there is work to be
done. For some stakeholders in education, there is already enough common ground
in what is taught in schools to suggest that we may already have a national
curriculum. For MCEETYA and the Commonwealth, there are areas of advancement which
contain the seeds of dispute.
1.64
As noted earlier in this chapter, any serious attempt to develop and
implement a national curriculum will be a task requiring a great deal of
political finesse, particularly at the Commonwealth level. The committee agrees
that there are several matters in relation to a national curriculum which have
to be agreed to before significant progress can be made.
Creating a process for negotiation
1.65
The first is an agreed national curriculum rationale. There must be
agreement on why it is needed. The reason will have to go further than matters
of technical consistency and practical convenience, such as that it is easier
for children who belong to mobile families to transition to different education
systems.[30]
The committee believes that raising academic standards nationwide is a
sufficient rationale and agrees with Professor Reid, who has done much thinking
on this issue, that this rationale will need to include consideration of the
kind of knowledge and the set of skills that will be needed to deal with
national challenges.[31]
Associated with this is agreement on national principles and values we need to
preserve. A national curriculum must serve the nation and promote its identity
and prosperity. Its nationalist rationale becomes even more necessary in an era
of globalisation, when the country is in most need of an educational benchmark
to protect its standards, and to underpin its democratic credentials.
1.66
Second, if a rationale is agreed to, there must be robust commitment to
define the scope of what a curriculum might mean and what it will cover. To
proceed to a negotiation stage will require agreement in principle to place on
the table for debate such currently contentious issues as commonality of
achievement assessment scales, defined by a common set of descriptors. It may
be necessary for states and territories to agree on a standard proportion of
external assessment.
1.67
Third, agreement on the rationale for a national curriculum and its
scope will also contain the seeds of agreement on how the process is to
proceed. In all likelihood a conservative consensus will emerge when issues are
debated. If unacceptably radical or impractical views are to be marginalised or
discarded—as they will be—this can only be done through a transparent public
process. MCEETYA will need to ensure that a climate of trust is maintained in
order that technical and theoretical pedagogical contributions are given their
due weight, and that the agenda is not threatened by populist dissention.
Agreement can only be confidently accepted following an ample period of informed
debate, in which professional advice is given due regard.
Current policies
1.68
The Commonwealth has announced measures in the current budget that will
require states and territories to comply with certain matters relating to
standardisation of curriculum-related decrees. Non-compliance will presumably
result in states and territories foregoing certain Commonwealth direct grants.
1.69
The committee agrees with the policy thrust of measures on which the
Commonwealth is insisting. These include decisions about compulsory Australian
history, a Year 10 core curriculum, requirements for schools to hang values
posters, benchmarking for numeracy and literacy, and the imposition of A-E
reporting. The committee found that most of these measures receive general
support among educators, but recognises that these should be part of a more
systematic and strategic approach.
1.70
The committee's earlier comments about the need for respectful debate
are apposite in this context. Governments, too, are participants in the perpetual
debate on schooling and they should be careful that their long-term reformist
goals are not compromised by bluster and confusion about where and how the
effects of reform will be felt.
Measuring the quality of learning and certifying the outcomes
1.71
Broad agreement on common curriculum frameworks and content has been
relatively easy to achieve. Negotiation and drafting processes involve a range
of skilled and experienced educators across sectors and jurisdictions, most of
them well-known to one another. The results of continued work will certainly be
shown in the production of more common-use teaching materials, and less time
spent by officials in different agencies all engaged in doing the same work. A
matter which is far more contentious, even though directly related to the
curriculum, is the measurement and recording of student achievement in meeting
curriculum objectives.
1.72
There has so far been no agreement on standardised terminology for describing
or classifying achievement levels at the end of Year 12, enabling valid
comparison of students across states and territories. In this regard, DEST has
commissioned ACER to do some work developing a common assessment framework. The
committee covers these issues in two of the chapters that follow.
1.73
The committee believes that negotiations and arrangements for comparable
assessment instruments across states and territories will be difficult. Final
year assessment decisions are difficult enough to negotiate within states—to
note the recent experiences in Western Australia as an instance of this—and to have
Queensland and the ACT include an external examination component will require
them to act in ways which will be very unpopular within those jurisdictions.
But as the committee reports, a common assessment framework will go far toward
ensuring compliance with any standards-based national curriculum which finally
emerges. On balance, the committee believes that an external examination
component to a final Year 12 assessment is the only way to guarantee
comparability of standards and ensure the integrity of a national Year 12 certificate,
as well as ensuring rigorous academic standards.
1.74
The committee has heard views about the standardisation of Year 12
certificates. Despite the availability of published research commissioned by
DEST, the issue appears to be remote from the consciousness of most
school-based educators. There are some large hurdles to jump before such a
certificate could have any credibility, and these have to do with the
assessment arrangements previously discussed.
The long tail of underachievement
1.75
A third issue or theme which arises from this inquiry is evident in the
research data reporting the relative performance of Australian schools against
international benchmarks. That is, the presence of a long tail of under-achievement
shows the difference in performance quality across the country.
1.76
A number of references are made to the problem in submissions and
testimony. First, there are some difficult political issues to note. The most
significant issue is the declining status of local high schools in lower middle
class localities which have seen the establishment of more systemic and
independent schools. A baby-boomer generation of people who were sufficiently
well-educated at local high schools to attend university have chosen to send
their own children to independent schools, thus reducing the aspirational
middle-class cohort in local high schools. Professor Louden made some pertinent
remarks in his submission about the effects of what he terms 'residualisation',
where local public high schools are left with a residue of students after many
local parents have opted to send their students to independent schools:
In working class neighbourhoods, where we used to have strong
government schools that gave working class kids a terrific opportunity to get
into tertiary education, many of those schools now struggle with an academic
program because the kids who live in the neighbourhood do not go to the
government school, they go to the local low fee Anglican school. Fees are only a
couple of thousand dollars, but they have all the advantages of private
schools, that is, the selection for caring about education.
I am sure that is an unintended consequence of federal policy
but it is a serious one. More and more I worry about whether government schools
such as Mt Druitt or Koondoola can manage to provide a decent program, because
the able kids, the ambitious kids from working class neighbourhoods, have just
gone next door, often on the same block of land, but when they get there they are
wearing uniforms and doing home work. That makes it harder and harder to
maintain high standards in the other school. So residualisation is a real
problem and has the seeds of very serious social unrest over time. In Australia,
traditionally, we have not had the dreadful sink schools that there are in the
Midlands of Britain or in inner cities in the United States. We have not had
schools where nobody is successful. The impact of residualisation is a matter
of time. I am very gloomy about that.[32]
1.77
The committee recognises the danger of standards in a school declining
as a consequence of it losing a critical mass of students with high
aspirations. There were no suggestions made as to how this social movement can
be reversed. In the committee's view it is too simplistic to attribute this
problem to the significant increase in the number of non-government schools. It
may well be the case that parents make their choices on the basis of finding a
suitable peer group for their children; one which can support their own and
their children's educational aspirations.
1.78
There are countervailing initiatives and influences at work. Efforts are
being made in some states to improve the academic performance of government
schools. The continued success of the selective schools in New South Wales is
significant enough to have an effect on real estate values. The gloom that the
committee may share with Professor Louden would be the knowledge that good
teachers are not in plentiful supply, even if there is funding to attract them
to under-performing schools. The real equity challenge over the long-term will
be to attract high-achievers into the teaching profession and to keep them
there.
Education is local - A final note
1.79
It is remarkable that most submissions to this inquiry, and most
representations from teachers' professional and industrial organisations,
system agencies and individual schools as well as a high proportion of
academics, had little to say about the need for nationally consistent
curriculum and assessment arrangements. No one opposed these ideas: it was
simply that they were not very high on the priority list of education needs.
For all the continued interest on the part of successive Commonwealth
ministers, and initiatives and directives signalled through DEST programs,
those at the sharp end of education continue to look at problems and solutions
from a state and local perspective. The committee believes that with six state
governments the national perspective must not be forgotten.
1.80
In one of its past inquiries into indigenous education funding the
committee found that government school principals in the Northern Territory and
Queensland, accustomed to dealing with their own district and head office
managers, objected to the application of lengthy and complicated processes, and
unfamiliar protocols.[33]
For all its use of funding power to drive initiatives, states and territories
remain preoccupied with their own policies and agendas, and afford them a high
priority. As state and territory governments run the schools and employ the
teachers, this is scarcely surprising.
1.81
There are lessons here for the Commonwealth about the level at which it
works best, but there are also encouraging signs that in several respects the involvement
of the Commonwealth is having a desirable effect. There has always been a view
that it is a Commonwealth responsibility to keep other jurisdictions up to the
mark. As further chapters of this report indicate, some of the most crucial
decisions involving quality outcomes will require much more negotiation than
direction.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page