Executive Summary
Full Report: PDF 
(408KB)
What is the research topic?
The past 35 years have seen various attempts at national curriculum collaboration in Australia. These have been largely shaped by the Constitutional reality that the States and Territories have responsibility for curriculum – a reality that has tended to restrict the range of possibilities for national curriculum approaches. The research project aimed to explore (a) whether the concept of national curriculum collaboration for the compulsory years of schooling is still relevant in a globalizing world, and (b) if so, how it might be advanced in more educationally productive ways, whilst recognizing the constitutional realities of Australia’s federal system.
What research methodology and methods were used?
The research was conducted within the critical inquiry research tradition. It involved:
- Literature review: This included an extensive review of Australian and international curriculum literature; and the history of previous approaches to national curriculum collaboration.
- Policy analysis: This included an analysis and critique of the official curriculum of all Australian States and Territories; and
- Interviews and seminars: This included discussions with leading Australian curriculum scholars and educational bureaucrats, individually and in groups.
However, this is not a research report in the conventional sense. It is an elaborated argument that seeks to build a case for a national approach to curriculum using the insights gained from the literature, interviews and the analysis of official curricula across Australia obtained in the course of the research. As the research proceeded, an approach to national curriculum collaboration began to be conceptualized. The emerging ideas were then tested through seminars, talks and focus groups, progressively refined and then subjected to further critical scrutiny. This report describes and makes an argument for the capabilities-based approach that was developed from this process. It seeks to promote discussion and debate about the official curriculum and about approaches to developing a distinctively Australian curriculum in ways that address the obstacles that have historically hindered such an important goal.
What are the key findings?
After establishing some foundational definitions in the Introduction, a brief history and critique of previous attempts at national curriculum collaboration in Australia is constructed in Chapter 1. This critique is then used to develop a number of principles that should inform further national work. These are that:
A national approach to curriculum should be based on and consistent with:
- a clearly articulated rationale, purposes and philosophical reference points
- a theorized and articulated view of curriculum
- a strong research and conceptual base
- a process that engages the professional community in the conceptual phases
- a process that seeks to build a constituency of support
- a recognition of the political realities produced by the Australian Federal system
The history of national curriculum collaboration demonstrates that these principles have rarely been in evidence, and so the principles are used as the basis for developing an alternative approach in subsequent Chapters. Thus, in Chapter 2, the challenges of the contemporary world and their impact on schooling are described, and this context is used to develop a rationale for a national approach to curriculum that goes beyond the traditional ‘railway gauge’ argument. In Chapter 3 dominant approaches to the curriculum are critically analysed and alternative approaches to these are proposed, using democracy as the reference point for the argument. The alternative approach starts with the identification and description of capabilities rather than knowledge-content.
This theoretical work is grounded in Chapter 4 with a proposal for an Australian curriculum made up of two parts: one part organised around richly described capabilities and operating at the national level; the other part comprising the official curriculum of the States and Territories. The model proposes that educators teach THROUGH the knowledge-content of the States/Territories curriculum, FOR the capabilities. This contrasts strongly with the dominant model of official curriculum which focuses on the teaching of subjects/Learning Areas as ends in themselves. Thus the capabilities and the procedural principles which describe them are the common national elements of an approach which offers national curriculum consistency while allowing significant room for local interpretation.
What are the policy implications?
The approach suggests a way to achieve a national curriculum for the compulsory years of schooling
The proposed capabilities-based Australian curriculum provides a means by which the Australian government might take a leadership role in achieving genuine national curriculum collaboration in the compulsory years of schooling. Importantly, it does not threaten the curriculum autonomy of the States, and yet it engineers a comprehensive approach to national curriculum work that goes beyond the traditional model to better meet the challenges of the contemporary world. Other advantages are that the approach uses much of the current curriculum architecture although in a different way; provides a common and educative focus for an approach to national accountability (capabilities); will encourage an exciting and ongoing curriculum conversation across the profession; and suggests a way to conceptualise the curriculum in equity terms.
Any such development must engage the profession and the broader community in deep and ongoing discussion and debate. National curriculum collaboration can only succeed if participation in the conceptual issues is open to many, not just a selected few making decisions behind closed doors. It is crucial therefore that consideration is given to the process that will be employed in its development. In relation to the
concept of a capabilities-based curriculum, the Australian Government could sponsor an initial broad-ranging professional discussion about the nature and type of capabilities. This could start with a re-examination of the National Goals of Schooling, but would obviously extend much beyond these. The curriculum conversation might be led by a body like the newly formed National Institute for Quality Teaching and School Leadership (NIQTSL).
At the same time as a broad professional conversation is occurring, it would be important to establish some research projects on different aspects of the model as it developed. These might be funded through the Australian Research Council’s Linkage Grants Scheme, involving partnerships between Universities, Departments of Education and teachers. The outcomes of these research projects would feed back into the development process. Once the approach has been conceptualised it would be crucial to consider such matters as the implications for teacher education, professional development, resource and materials development, processes for sharing experiences and insights within and across jurisdictions, forms and processes of accountability and so on. The strategies developed for each of these should be consistent with the philosophy of the overall approach.
The approach suggests a way to achieve national consistency in the post-compulsory curriculum
There could be an Australian Certificate of Education that records student achievement against each of the capabilities at the end of Year 12. Since the capabilities would be the same as those for the compulsory years of schooling, this approach would produce a seamless curriculum, albeit with the post-compulsory phase being at a greater level of complexity. A part of a student’s record would include the pathway through which she/he has travelled to develop each of these capabilities, whether that has been through so-called academic subjects or through vocational education subjects and work experience. Since such an approach would take the emphasis off the subjects themselves (i.e., the organisation and teaching of knowledge-content) and onto the capabilities, it would alter the dynamic that creates hierarchies of subjects. That is, the capabilities suggest a way to achieve parity of esteem. Once again each State/Territory would decide on this part of the curriculum. The process of subject accreditation would require course developers to demonstrate which of the capabilities the subject will develop and how.
The approach suggests a way to ground the concept of life-long learning in and for a knowledge society
Since the capabilities define what people are able to do and be, in a knowledge society they are capabilities that need to be developed throughout a person’s life, not just during the years of schooling. Put another way, in a knowledge society the idea of curriculum must go beyond the formal institutions of education to embrace workplace, community and recreational settings. The capabilities-based approach is one way by which to ground the concept of life-long learning in a knowledge society. The development, maintenance and enhancement of capabilities is something that should be a common community aspiration, and there are any number of ways that might happen. For example, why should processes for the development of government policy not require an educational impact statement (will this policy enhance or hinder the process of capability development?) in much the same manner as environmental impact statements are required? Could those who develop public spaces be required to consider how the space might be used to enhance certain capabilities? Whether or not these are practical ideas, the point remains that an always provisional list of capabilities provides a focus for the rhetoric of life-long learning.
The approach suggests a way to organise the work of DEST
If the concept of capabilities is common to formal, semi-formal and informal education in Australian society, then it might be one way to conceptualise the work of the Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST). This could happen in a number of ways. For example: (a) capabilities could provide a framework for connecting up the work of DEST, linking the various Groups and their many projects by providing a common language and set of conceptual tools for mapping what is already happening and charting new directions; (b) particular Branches could be organised around capabilities rather than specific programs. This would provide an educational rather than a programmatic rationale for organisational structure; (c) cross-Group teams could be organised to coordinate the tracking and development of specific capabilities. This would provide a mechanism as well as logic for across-DEST communication and coordination.
Conclusion
National curriculum collaboration is crucial to the future of Australia as it seeks to grapple with the complexities of globalisation, the speed of knowledge production, and the challenges of diversity. If Australia is genuinely to become a knowledge society, then the curriculum of its educational institutions is a matter of public importance. But traditional concepts of curriculum and models of national curriculum collaboration that look for lowest common denominator answers will not serve Australia well in the 21st century. This report argues that there is a better way, one founded on a commitment to fully developing the capabilities of all citizens to participate actively in the shaping of a learning society and to live enriching and productive lives.
Full Report: PDF (408KB)