Are Australia’s curriculum wars heating up again?
In Re-imagining Schools and School Systems I declared that “It is likely that the various curriculum wars, along with interventions by ministers, will ebb and flow in the years ahead, as they have in the past” (Caldwell, 2023, p. 82). The context at the time of writing was the recent adoption by ministers of a revised Australian Curriculum for implementation across the country from 2023, with the next revision due for implementation from 2029 (ministers had confirmed an earlier decision to revise every six years, apart from minor refinements from time to time). The vigorous debate in the years leading up to the 2023 version, including interventions by ministers, had largely centred around history, reading, mathematics and the length of the curriculum. In mid-2023 the federal minister regarded the matter was now “settled”.
Science curriculum
Revisions are now underway in several states, notably New South Wales and Victoria, and it is likely that ACARA will not be able to wait until 2027 and 2028 to get things underway for a new national curriculum in 2029. An impetus for more urgent action was given in November 2023 by Melbourne-based consultancy Learning First that benchmarked Australia’s science curriculum against several nations, including some high-performers, releasing a detailed report on the outcomes (Jensen, Ross, Collett, Murnane & Pearson, 2023). Led by Ben Jensen, Learning First has extensive experience in consultancy in school systems in Australia and internationally. Countries in the benchmarked science study were Canada (Alberta and Quebec), England, China (Hong Kong), Japan and the United States. Canada, Hong Kong and Japan have high-performing school systems.
While acknowledging that many factors explain success, the report placed curriculum near the top. The report is recommended for detailed reading, but the headline findings are that Australia’s science curriculum to year 10 has half the content of the average of other countries, lacking breadth – 44 topics compared to 74, and lacking depth – 5 topics in depth compared to 22. The Australian version was considered to be poorly sequenced and poorly specified.
Learning First generalised the benchmarking of science to the national curriculum as a whole and urged a complete rewrite of the latter, even suggesting that the “rollout of the latest [2023] … may have to be halted”. The report was careful to acknowledge that there is association rather than causation in connecting curriculum and achievement, but the evidence supporting re-consideration of the science curriculum is compelling.
The results of PISA 2022 were released less than two weeks’ later in early December 2023, and my next post in January 2024 sets the Learning First study in this broader context. It is worth noting, however, that Geoff Masters, CEO of the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER), that conducted the Australian component of PISA, attributed Singapore’s outstanding success in PISA 2022 (it topped the rankings in all three categories – reading, mathematics, science) to the capacity of teachers/schools to tailor their teaching to students’ performance in earlier assessments (Masters, 2023). He noted that Singapore is working on ways to do this without formal streaming. While noting the relevance of curriculum, Masters did not single out curriculum as the reason why Singapore’s school system is “beating ours.” [More on PISA 2022 in January]
‘Behaviour curriculum’
Another proposal for change to the “curriculum” is, at first sight, far less compelling, although it is immediately relevant to pedagogy, classroom management and the social context of schools. I refer here to the interim report of Australia’s Senate Standing Committee on Education and Employment. The committee was addressing the issue of increasing disruption in Australian school classrooms, responding in particular to Australia’s ranking of 69 out of 76 countries/economies on the PISA 2018 index of disciplinary climate. Indeed, only four countries (Australia, Canada, Finland, New Zealand) did not report a favourable climate. One of the interim report’s recommendations was “The committee recommends that the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority strengthen the focus on behaviour within the Australian Curriculum by specifically introducing a ‘Behaviour Curriculum.’” (Standing Committee on Education and Employment, 2023).
The reference to “curriculum” proved a distractor because the flurry of responses in the media often referred to the already overcrowded curriculum. Such perceptions, if not experiences, are broadly based so one can expect many responses on these grounds as stakeholders respond to the interim report. However, it is clear that the committee did not place behaviour on the same plane as existing subjects (hence the quotation marks around “Behaviour Curriculum”). Teachers and their leaders should welcome the work of the committee which is addressing issues of wide concern.
Some responders asserted that the foregoing concern would have been evident if teachers had been consulted. In fact teachers were consulted! There was a call for submissions to all stakeholders and there were many responses from teachers including one from the Australian Education Union. There were 83 submissions and three public hearings. While all members of the committee were senators, it is clear that it had substantial support in its work. The interim report is substantial and well-written. It makes links to other reports and other sectors such as health. However, the committee should make clear what it means by “curriculum” or replace the term. The final report is due on 7 February 2024 and I will post a response when it is made public.
References
Caldwell, B.J. (2023). Reimagining schools and school systems. Victoria, BC: Tellwell.
Jensen, B., Ross, M., Collett, M., Murnane, N. & Pearson, E. (2023). Fixing the hole in Australian education: Australian Curriculum benchmarked against the best. Collingwood, VIC: Learning First. https://learningfirst.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/FULL-REPORT-COMBINED.pdf.
Masters, G. (2023). ‘Why Singapore’s school system is beating ours. The Age. 6 December 2023, p. 18.
Standing Committee on Education and Employment (2023) Recommendations in Interim Report. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Education_and_Employment/DASC/Interim_Report/List_of_recommendations.