Introduction by RM: After this rather brief post touching on the introduction of a national curriculum for Australian schools, Susan Zivcec has kindly contributed a piece on some important aspects of that curriculum. Susan is an environmental health and safety consultant, student teacher, and mother of two.
Leading education consultant Brian Caldwell has published an education scorecard based on a five-year study of school reforms from around the world. In this study, the Government’s education revolution scored well on only one criteria – the national curriculum for students in kindergarten to year 12. Whilst there are clearly a range of aspects impacting on education, this article explores the national curriculum and what is it aiming to achieve.
The national curriculum represents a shift in thinking from a “cram it all in & test” model of teaching to one which recognises that it is better to build a deep and comprehensive knowledge of fewer things. The idea is that by focusing on these few well selected “big ideas” we can teach kids how to think critically and make them self-reliant learners…people who will be able to apply their thinking and communication skills in the real world of work, home and university.
For example in science, the reform recognises that there is a need to refashion science education so that people can make informed judgments about issues such as their own health, or climate change. To do that, people need to understand how science works, the “language” of science – or even the history of scientific thought as opposed to being able to memorise a few generic facts.
If you want to judge the relevance of these ideas, there is no more powerful test than how well students understand Darwin. For all its importance and wide popularisation, various studies [* # ^] indicate there remains a surprisingly low level of understanding of natural selection amongst those who have taken secondary studies in biology. One particular study by Ferrari and Chi [^] suggests that after instruction, less than 10% of secondary students have a complete understanding of the five key principles of natural selection. The reasons why are that not only is there little time in the curriculum for these important ideas, but that foundational concepts such as equilibrium theory have not been taught effectively prior, and so students are likely to misinterpret what they are being taught. Spending longer on the few “big ideas” would allow students to fully explore and understand the necessary theories, testing them in practicals… rather than memorising a few facts and never understanding the fabric of the argument those facts rest in. Charles Darwin needed a whole book to spell out his argument- how can a teacher do it justice in 2 lessons?
Let’s not forget climate change…anyone who has heard the way that climate change skeptics such as Tony Abbott misrepresent the science would understand the need to ensure our future generations know how science works so they are not taken in by the cherry picking of facts out of context.
All this is not news to teachers. Spend any time in a staff room and you will hear the same lament- teachers are resigned to having to cram a large amount of content, and struggle to engage students interest. The two are connected- for we are interested in what we have a chance to understand and make our own opinions about. Last June I sat in on a history lesson lasting 90 minutes in which a teacher attempted to cover the entire Vietnam War in preparation for a test 1 week away. Suffice to say the teacher tried her best to engage the students, but could achieve nothing more than spoon feeding key facts for students to mindlessly wrote learn. The teacher of that class remarked to me that she would rather have spent a whole term on the Vietnam war, allowing students the opportunity to become immersed in it, using popular culture as a hook to inspire interest so they could form opinions that would enrich their ability both to interpret historical events shaping our times and make sense of the present.
The best aspects of the national curriculum are the ideas of taking the time to get the most out of learning using a few well chosen topics, and giving teachers the flexibility to chose how they teach and assess. However, Caldwell talks of a tension between the well respected education specialists (architects of the national curriculum) who advocate fewer topics and professional freedoms; and an existing education bureaucracy. Caldwell fears that against the will of the architects, bureaucratic processes may lead to the curriculum being too tightly prescribed to be of any use.
Caldwell also expresses concern about the Government’s national literacy and numeracy tests which will be taken each year by students in years 3, 5, 7 and 9. This is tricky, because it is obvious that if we want to improve the education of our young, then we need to measure our progress, and we can all see the importance of literacy and numeracy. The trick is that what you measure will have an impact on how teachers teach. Implementing these types of tests coupled with school league tables can force teachers to ”teach to the test”, neglecting the other aspects of the curriculum that build critical thinking and communication skills ( just think about our history teacher). If you are interested in fostering a generation of kids who have the life skills to be the next leaders, academics and good citizens, then this type of testing is not going to cut it.
Another interesting idea in the national curriculum is the move away from different classes for students with different rates of development. Whilst clearly we could all support the aim of giving all students an equal quality of education, there is no doubt there will be increased burden on teachers who are trying to accommodate both kids who struggle with the basics and those who are advanced learners. Anyone who has taught a classroom where students are doing a number of different activities will agree these classes are more time consuming to prepare, more demanding of teachers time for individual student attention, and require more access to resources such as IT. To this, the Shape of Australian Curriculum poses that tools and professional development will be made available to teachers.
As I watch with interest, I can’t help but wonder if the national curriculum intentions will really translate into a classroom where teachers are empowered and resourced to enhance the thinking skills of students. Will these intentions be undermined by the Government’s over-simplistic testing? Or will teachers revert to what is easier as they are over-whelmed by the complex competing demands of a mixed classroom? What will be done to ensure this national curriculum is more than an aspiration document?
[*]
Bishop, B. and Anderson, C. (1990). Student conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27 (5) 415-427
[#]
Demastes, S; Settlage, J and Good, R. (1995). Students’ conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution: Cases of replication and comparison. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,32 (5) 535-550
[^]
Ferrari, M. and Chi, M. (1998). The nature of naïve explanations of natural selection. International Journal of Science and Education.
Looking through that document, I can’t help but wonder what methodology they use to actually make their marks and remarks. There a numerous comments which appear entirely unfounded and show massive bias. For example:
.
“A promising start has been made in only one of the 10 strategies, namely, the creation of a long overdue national curriculum. Australia is one of just three nations in the Asia Pacific region that does not already have one.”
.
Who cares what happens in the Asia Pacific region — especially when Australia is already at the top in literacy and it’s hard see whether something that happens in, say, Singapore, has any real relevance here. I also don’t see why they assume Canberra will do a better job than the states.
.
“It is inexplicable that we have not followed the lead of Finland that requires all beginning teachers to have a master’s degree to which only 10 percent of applicants are admitted. Observers consider this to be the most important factor in explaining why Finland is the top-performing nation on international tests”
.
As far as I’m aware, most studies that have looked at it in Australia and the US have found that having a Master’s degree does not actually do anything to teaching performance. So it’s completely understandable why we haven’t followed Finland — because that aspect of their model doesn’t actually help teaching performance here. In addition, they don’t actually tell us how we could get enough of these better qualified teachers if that really was the entry prerequisite.
.
“There is modest engagement with the wider community, especially business and industry (score of 6). There are some outstanding initiatives but many still believe that public schools should be built, owned, operated and funded exclusively by government”
.
I could be wrong on this one, but I believe that Finland, their best-case scenario for another argument, has their schools almost entirely publicly funded. So all that’s happening is cherry picking evidence of what they believe in one case and ignoring evidence in another .
.
“We are heading for disappointment in the national testing program unless the current strategy is revised. It is astonishing that Australia is one of a handful of nations around the world that subjects its Grade 3 students to nation-wide, machine-scored, error-prone tests despite the fact that a large majority of parents have high levels of trust in their local primary schools”
.
National testing works fine in most of Asia, including Singapore, the country that has the highest maths scores on Earth. It doesn’t happen in Finland as they note, so really the evidence is mixed.
.
“Finally, to use the language of a revolution, we have barely loaded our rifles for 4 of the 10 strategies that are essential to achieve a successful outcome. Top performing nations are leaving us behind in each instance.”
.
To use the language of tests, this statement is incorrect. Australia is near the top in literacy, so if other nations are doing something that is so much better, it isn’t affecting that outcome or leaving Australia behind (only in Maths and Science).
.
“We are still wedded to a ‘one size fits all approach’ to secondary schooling where there is little diversity (score of 3). We abandoned technical schools whereas Finland has kept them at the senior secondary level”
.
I went to a technical school, and I’m glad they got rid of them. That’s because the technical schools in Victoria at least were frankly hopeless and got bad outcomes at all levels. Even plumbers need to read.
.
“We copy England’s worst features such national testing that allows ‘league tables’”
.
Why is this a bad feature?
.
“We persist with an obsolete ideology in a highly discriminatory approach to the funding of schools (score of 2). It has been cast as a public v private issue when who owns and operates the school should not be a factor. In the Netherlands it is illegal to discriminate in this fashion”
.
This is a really weird statement given that they complained about lack of diversity before. Surely private schools, differential funding etc. lead to more diversity.
.
“Barack Obama and his administration are placing a high priority on the creation of charter schools — publicly funded no fee privately-operated schools — that are proving popular and effective in disadvantaged communities.”
.
Again, they hold other countries up as role models in one situation, but when it’s convenient, the fact that many other successful countries don’t have such a model is simply ignored.
.
“It will take 10 years for an education revolution to succeed, as it did in Finland, but the Rudd Government’s efforts are faltering with a progress score of 43 out of 100″
.
Perhaps the authors arn’t very good with numbers, but I believe the reforms in Finland took over 15 years. Whether similar reforms would work in Australia (or reforms so that Australia is like, say, Singapore) is also an entirely empirical question.
“the lead of Finland that requires all beginning teachers to have a master’s degree…”
A master’s in the subject being taught, or a master’s from a School of Education? Because I think that would make somewhat of a difference.
Mixed classrooms eh? Poor suckers, teachers and students both.
Unintentional irony alert.
I write as someone who helped contribute to the numeracy questions in the first NAPLAN when employeed at ACER. My view of NAPLAN came from that (at a distance) involvement.
In relation to the numeracy part of NAPLAN, I’m not sure how teachers would be incentivised to teach “to the test”, as the subject areas of the test questions were pretty core material. I didn’t see anything which might be considered unusual. There were “calculator” and “non-calculator” elements to the test for later years (yr 9 and maybe yr 7?) but that’s hardly a stretch if it isn’t already part of the curriculum.
Most importantly, different state curriculums may have taught different things in different years, and this may change. I don’t see why this should necessarily be a negative thing.
Personally, I like the idea of schools being able to choose whatever curriculum they wish subject to certain minimum standards.
Honestly, kids are not going to be able to be leaders if they don't know the core areas of mathematics and language – which these tests appear to me to be designed to assess across whole school systems. I hope that kids do learn the basics – many kids don't currently.
…”or equivalent”…I think, is the phrase you’re looking for there..?
In crude terms, an American Masters, or an Australian/British Master’s, Japerz?
Serious question, ‘cos we all know that degrees ain’t degrees…I’ve seen plenty of people in Australia with 4-year undergraduate degrees that look to me equivalent or even moreso than a ‘Masters’ from many U.S. State universities…not being parochial, just sayin’ that these degrees aren’t so neatly internationalised as many like to believe.
BTW, what other profession requires a Master’s degree for entry-level positions? And how’s their starting salaries compare?
Lemme put it this way: if you’re serious about the Master’s idea, you’re effectively arguing for:
a) No teachers under (about) age 25 in any high school
b) Teachers have had about 20 years of institutionalised, formalised education before they then go back into an institutionalised, formalised environment to institutionalise and formalise the next generation…
c) Paying teachers like Masters-qualified professionals, or saying it’s OK to pay teachers far less for an equivalent qualification than accounting, law and other professional and semi-professional settings.
d) Massive shortages in most if not all teaching subjects, mass-cancellation of many subjects, or otherwise mass-rorting and short-cutting of the system when schools find there aren’t enough Masters-qualified staff to go around.
Just checkin’ – those are some of the general parameters you’re invoking, yes?
I’m not invoking parameters or endorsing any particular policy, I was just curious about what was meant in the comment. In general I think degrees in an actual area of expertise are preferable to Ed. School/Teachers College degrees, which (in the US at least) can be fairly comical, although perhaps you have a different experience with them there. As for the rest, it ain’t none of my business.
Hi all, Fantastic to see the discusson which has been far broader than the artice I wrote. Not sure of interest, but perhaps there is room for another artlice covering some of the other aspects of the Education Revolution/ Scorecard- (rather than a really long reply).What I would like to focus on 2 areas
1) National Testing
2) Teacher Qualification
I’m for national testing- but I think we have to re-design the testing so that it truly reflects the outcomes we are trying to achieve. Literacy and Maths skills – yes, but also let’s test how well our students are learning to anayse, their understanding of scientific ideas, their understanding of the world around them.
There is no doubt national testing has an impact. It has the impact of focusing the teaching toward what is being tested. So if you are testing only 2 areas, it is highly likely these areas will be preferentially treated – especially if linked to a league table which is percieved to have consequences for schools reputation.
When testing ( and therefore Schools) are focused on numeracy & literacy, time for measured debate and self-directed activities (Say in Science or History) which are required to foster critical thinking skills could be constrained.
2 Factors which help to overcome this is the un-cluttering of the curriculum and provisions for greater teacher control.
On the issue of Teacher qualification, many teachers these days arrive at teaching like I have- as a second career/after a general Undergrad Degree. They do a Grad Dip Education( 1 year) which provides both content on the principles of learning and education, and content related to teaching their chosen specialist areas.
Personally, before I started my Grad Dip, I put far too much emphasis on content knowledge. Now, I truly understand that education is a complex field in itself, and has a great body of evidence based research about how students learn, and how educational organisations function.
I believe that the current qualification system is not the key issue – but that iprovements could be made in providing ongoing support, training and resources to teachers. For example- I know teachers that have fabulous deep content knowledge and great teaching skills, but no idea when it comes to technology- so they can’t “switch on” to the things that get today’s generation of kids engaged and it seems not enough time is spent helping them get from fear to competence… not to mention that for most schools IT resources are not any where near what they need to be to keep up with the way we use technology in our everyday world.
I hope we get the chance to discuss some of the other important areas of the Education Revolution soon ( if there is the will and the interest)
PS Craig, enlighten me – I love a little irony.
Speaking as a high school teacher, the fasciantion with “national curriculum” always amuses me. I’m not saying that there isn’t adavantage to be had in having a more pervasive and portable pedagogical core across the country, but compared with the many other issues bearing upon service quality in education, it is failry secondary — no pun intended.
I’m off to volunteer in Bradfield for Ms Gemell today, but I’ll probably post some observations of my own on this later.
Susan, I’d like to take up one point you briefly raise:
I’m unconvinced of the idea that putting “students with different rates of development” is necessarily the best, or even a good, way to achieve “giving all students an equal quality of education”.
I’ll come at this from two perspectives. The first was as a schoolkid myself, which pretty much coincided with the Cain-Kirner government in Victoria. Joan Kirner was, if I recall correctly, Education Minister before she became Premier. In any case, maybe it’s entirely coincidental that Kirner, somebody who went to University High and went to university at 16, presided over an era of “mixed ability classes” where any kind of streaming was effectively squashed.
I don’t think it served anyone well – the more academically-gifted students who were bored witless and in some cases spent a fair bit of their time as de facto assistant teachers, the ones who struggled who were also bored and frustrated (though I recall there being much more done for that group than the “gifted” ones), and finally that large group in the middle who got neglected.
I understand that there are many problems with streaming. But trying to cater for students with vastly different levels of ability in a particular area in the one classroom, without compromising the education of some of those students, is going to be very hard to achieve.
Robert Merkel@11, Couldn’t agree more.
Recently I ran a year 10 Sciene class teaching acceleration. Whilst some student struggled to understand the concept, others had already completed a workbook of example problems.
Knowing up front that this class had diverse levels of scientific and mathematical understanding, I relied heavily on IT resources. For those struggling I used models and films ( on computer) to help visualise and test the concepts. For those advanced, I prepared “self diredted” tasks.
Lots of prep work ( up till eleven the night before) lots of logistics, lots of one-on-one time to diagnose where students were at and direct them to the right resources…. and I am sure a number of students still felt they did as get much of my time or attention as they needed…. and in this example there were no students with serious behavioural issues.
Now I am only a student teacher- but I think we are asking too much of teachers, and if we are to keep the single classroom approach, I look forward to seeing a model that looks at how we would support teachers through this. Otherwise we have to expect mediocre results & burnt out teachers.
BTW, rereading the comment, I forgot the “other perspective”, which is as a university educator.
I remember a Geography prof arguing the case for retaining geography at school on the ground that kids needed to know how glaciers affected landforms. It is twaddle like this that gives us an education system that wastes a lot of time learning a little about a lot instead of the real core skills.
I would put it to you that the real core skills for someone who has to live in this rapidly changing world are the ability to learn new things, solve new problems, find new information, deal with new ideas and think critically. We are not going to learn these core skills without learning how to read, write etc. We are also not going to learn them if we don’t spend much time actually using these core skills to deal with real learning, real concepts etc.
This doesn’t mean that there aren’t some things we need to learn that have nothing much to do with the core skills. For example, we do need to learn about things like road safety, civil responsibilities, using maps etc. Somehow we also need to develop curiosity and a love of learning – If we learn this we can do what I did – find out about the effect of glaciers after leaving school.
The core skills should have much more influence on what goes into the curriculum. Some subjects provide a good basis for learning one or more of the core skills and developing our intellectual muscle. Other subjects don’t.