Chapter 2 Notes – The Australian Curriculum: Past, Present & Future

Learning Objectives (LOs)

  • LO 2.1 Identify major developmental stages and weigh advantages/disadvantages of a common Australian curriculum.
  • LO 2.2 Evaluate development progress and the social-political forces shaping it.
  • LO 2.3 Review state/territory implementation processes and judge their effectiveness.
  • LO 2.4 Explain links between the Australian Curriculum (AC) and national assessment.
  • LO 2.5 Forecast future directions and school-level implications.

Curriculum, Democracy & Public Policy Context

  • Curriculum sits alongside trade, health, transport as a public-policy arena in democratic societies.
  • Transparency & inclusiveness in decision-making safeguard democratic values; all stakeholders must have a voice.
  • School curriculum is traditionally a state/territory responsibility (federal constitution) ⇒ 8 independent systems.
  • Federal push toward national consistency often read as power shift to Commonwealth.

Historical Evolution Toward an Australian Curriculum

  • 1960s–1980s: Talk of a “national” or “nationally consistent” curriculum; political resistance strong.
  • 21st century: Resistance dissipates—greater acceptance of shared standards across jurisdictions.
  • Political cycles influence curriculum momentum (e.g., Rudd’s 2007 “Education Revolution”, Abbott Govt. 2013 review).

Policy Trajectory: Soft ↔ Hard Continuum (Table 2.1 condensed)

  • 1969–1989 (“Soft policy–soft measures”)
    • Commonwealth funds subject-specific curriculum projects (Australian Science Education Project, etc.).
    • Early phase: grants to individuals → subject committees → statutory authorities.
  • 1990–2004 (“Soft policy–hard measures”)
    • MCEETYA leverages cooperation; outputs = National Curriculum Statements & Profiles → National Assessment Program samples.
  • 2005 (“Hard policy”)
    • Commonwealth financing to states tied to legislative requirements (Schools Assistance 2004 Act).
  • 2008–2013 (“Hard policy” consolidated)
    • 2008: ACARA Act establishes Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA).
    • 2009: ACARA takes over National Report on Schooling, creates MySchool website, assumes NAPLAN.
    • 2013: Australian Education Act (amended 2017) links federal funding to AC support.
  • 2014 (“Soft policy” retouch)
    • National curriculum review released—no legislative change; existing hard frameworks remain.

Key Institutions & Legislative Framework

  • ACARA – develops curriculum, runs NAP & NAPLAN, reports outcomes.
  • Education Council (formerly MCEETYA) – ministerial forum endorsing measurement frameworks.
  • Core statutes: Schools Assistance Act 2008, Schools Assistance Regulations 2009, Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority Act 2008, Australian Education Act 2013/2017.
  • Compliance condition: Federal funding⇒Support for AC + national assessment\text{Federal funding} \Rightarrow \text{Support for AC + national assessment}.

ACARA Curriculum Development Process (Table 2.2)

  • National Curriculum Development Paper (2008) – rationale & early roadmap.
  • Curriculum Development Process v6.0 (2012) – step-by-step workflow incl. stakeholder consultation.
  • Curriculum Design Paper v3.1 (2012) – detailed guidance for writers (structure, cross-curriculum priorities, general capabilities).
  • Shape of the Australian Curriculum – overarching philosophy, definitions, and design specs.
  • Explicit stages: writing → stakeholder review → trial/piloting → revision → ministerial approval → publication.

Benchmarks for Judging the Australian Curriculum

  • Gilbert (2010) expects:
    • High intellectual quality, relevance, attention to diversity.
  • MCEETYA Goals for Young Australians (2008) – learners to: think critically, engage civically, collaborate, pursue lifelong learning.
  • Luke (2010) litmus test: avoid “back-to-basics” narrowing; should elevate dialogue on intellectual demand & cultural meaning.
  • Combined, these provide a comprehensive rubric for quality assurance.

Stakeholder Reactions & Consultation Dynamics

  • Dissenting voices: Australian Curriculum Coalition (consultative depth), Institute of Public Affairs (History content), Australian Education Union (resources for implementation).
  • ACARA’s online portal (http://consultation.australiancurriculum.edu.au/) allows open feedback, including from youth.
  • Authenticity requirement: publish submissions & ACARA’s responses to maintain two-way dialogue (ACC, 2010).

State & Territory Implementation Patterns (Excerpts from Table 2.4)

  • NSW & VIC: maintain strong curriculum-development agencies; embed AC content within bespoke syllabi.
  • Smaller systems (SA, TAS, ACT) adopt ACARA documents with minimal change.
  • NT reconstructed its Curriculum Framework into AC-aligned achievement standards to avoid dual reporting.
  • Implementation acknowledges constitutional authority of states, distributes resource-heavy rollout locally.
  • Senior secondary: 15 AC subjects approved for further state development.

Curriculum Representation Options at School Level

  1. Use ACARA documents “as-is”.
  2. Integrate AC content into state frameworks and re-brand (e.g., “Victorian Priorities”).
  3. Augment AC with local adaptations for Indigenous, EAL/D, or special-needs cohorts.

Curriculum & Assessment Nexus (LO 2.4)

  • ACARA houses curriculum, assessment, and reporting functions ⇒ vertical integration.
  • Measurement Framework for Schooling in Australia 2015 defines key performance measures.
  • NAP = umbrella program; NAPLAN = literacy–numeracy tests Years 3, 5, 7, 9.
  • Potential risk: high-stakes testing could drive curriculum coverage (teaching-to-test). Currently unproven but must be monitored.
  • Alignment question: should poor NAP performance trigger curriculum revision? Debate ongoing.

Future Directions & Gonski 2.0 (LO 2.5)

  • AC asserts mandate to specify “essential” or “core” learning for all students.
  • States retain capacity to contextualise: curriculum is NOT “one size fits all”.
  • Gonski 2.0 (2018) challenges age-based curriculum; advocates personalised learning trajectories, differentiated assessment.
    • Could herald end of standardised tests like NAPLAN; emphasises growth metrics.
    • Raises staffing implications—teachers need data-literacy & adaptive pedagogy skills.
  • Ongoing tension: national consistency vs. local flexibility & individualisation.

International and Funding Implications

  • Global testing regimes (PISA, TIMSS, PIRLS, ICCS) shape perceptions of educational quality.
  • US example, No Child Left Behind: Test Scores→Funding\text{Test Scores} \rightarrow \text{Funding} pathway demonstrates dangers of assessment-driven curriculum.
  • Preferred model: Use data diagnostically to channel extra resources where standards unmet; avoid punitive funding links.

Case Snapshot: Australian Primary Principals Association (APPA 2008)

  • Supports national curriculum but demands:
    • Tight scope to prevent overcrowding; literacy & numeracy priority, especially in early years.
    • Limit History (Years K-2) & keep Science minimal in first three years.
    • Entire primary curriculum requirements ≤ 40 pages for usability (≈2 pages/year for English & Maths; <1 page for Science & History).
    • National curriculum should leave space for local content, pedagogy choices, integration.
  • Implicit belief: teachers/schools must retain professional autonomy within national parameters.

Ethical & Philosophical Considerations

  • Curriculum as cultural artefact: should reflect shared national values yet respect diversity.
  • Danger of political instrumentalisation—curriculum should not merely shift power federal-ward or serve assessment bureaucracy.
  • Democratic accountability: inclusive consultation and transparent revisions vital for legitimacy.

Practical Implications for Schools & Teachers

  • Need for professional learning on new content structures, cross-curriculum priorities, general capabilities.
  • Variation in timelines requires local planning; teachers in NSW/VIC see fewer format changes but must map AC content into existing documents.
  • Monitoring test–curriculum alignment important to balance instructional time.
  • Future shift toward personalised pathways demands data systems, differentiated materials, and flexible staffing models.

Chapter Summary Highlights (condensed)

  • Curriculum debated publicly; governments view it as key social-capital lever.
  • Commonwealth has leveraged funding to gain influence, culminating in ACARA.
  • AC, assessment, and funding now interlinked nationally.
  • States remain responsible for on-ground implementation; patterns differ by capacity.
  • National assessment integral; must not over-determine curriculum.
  • Gonski 2.0 poses major strategic questions (personalisation, end of NAPLAN?).
  • Success criterion: positive life impact for students across Australia’s geographic & cultural spectrum.