Education review reveals what we already knew

For all the initial dire predictions concerning the national curriculum review undertaken by Professor Ken Wiltshire and Dr Kevin Donnelly the final report delivered findings that most educationalists have acknowledged for some time, namely the current curriculum is too crowded especially for primary school years, and students with special needs and learning difficulties require additional support.

When the two-person review panel was appointed early in 2014 critics assumed the notably right wing views of Dr Donnelly would prevail over the more conditioned education specialisation of Prof Wiltshire.

Dr Donnelly was roundly regarded as a political appointee hired to convey the Abbott government's directive to realign standards and values towards a more conservative curriculum line. The review was demeaned as an exercise in political expediency.

For all the huff and bluster at the time following the review's release most commentators have acknowledged its balance and broad acceptability. The review generally confirms the reality by most leading educationalists that curriculum secularisation that has occurred progressively over decades.

Accompanying that indulgence has been the proliferation of curriculum content. Increasingly students have faced mounting subject material some of which may be of marginal significance to actual learning.

The review recommends the national curriculum should be more broadly centred based on the following key findings:

i) Overhaul the curriculum framework to better determine subject time allocations notably for the primary curriculum which has long been acknowledged as over crowded.

ii) Remove the emphasis of cross-curriculum themes involving indigenous, sustainable concepts and Asian perspectives in subjects. The love affair with applying indigenous traditional culture to mathematical calculations may have provided soft education learning options but had little practical implication for student performance in an increasingly global learning environment.

iii) Assessing best practice international school performance and its applicability for Australian teachers.

iv) Generalised learning attributes – critical and creative thinking, personal and social capability, ethical understanding and intercultural evaluation – should be more selectively applied to relevant subject content.

v) Morals, values and spirituality – including stronger recognition of Australia's Judaeo/Christian heritage – should be more strongly acknowledges in curriculum content. This is perhaps the most contentious influence Dr Donnelly may have exerted in repositioning school curriculum back to its historical antecedents rather than aligning with post-modernism ideology.

vi) More adequately addressing the learning needs of disadvantaged learners or students with learning difficulties. This curriculum aspect was highlighted within the Gonski Review so it is hardly a trend setting recommendation.

Other recommendations include changes to achievement classifications, plans to better inform parents of a student's education performance and a generalised expectation to more closely involve the community in schooling and curriculum reform.

Is the report as contentious as critics would have anticipated? Probably not for these area of curriculum application have been acknowledged for some time by leading educationalists and teaching professionals.

Widespread acknowledgement of the review's findings failed to dampen politicisation that accompanied its release. While accepting the review's broad recommendations opposition education spokesperson Ms Kate Ellis said the review provided a distraction from the coalition's funding cuts to schools from 2018.

Ms Ellis ignores the reality that the ALP could not promise such funding projections which are beyond the forward estimates financial timeframe. It seems the opposition cannot forgo its blind adherence that additional funding alone will automatically provide better schooling outcomes. The review carried no mandate to examine school funding.

Comments from the Greens spokesperson Senator Penny Wright – that the review sidelined teaching of indigenous heritage and culture - show how removed the party remains from education reality.

While the review provides a fillip to education writers and news media certain realities remain unresolved:

i) Although the review was mandated by the commonwealth – and naturally was endorsed by the Abbott government – the primary responsibility for school curriculum remains a state and territory responsibility. It remains to be seen how these parliaments and their accompanying education bureaucracies accept the findings and/or selectively or wholeheartedly implement the review's recommendations.

ii) Changing school curriculum is akin to redirecting the Titanic. Changing course occurs slowly and methodically with the ship inevitably travelling a long way before any redirection is noticeable. It will take years to assess if implemented changes positively improve student outcomes. Processes to improve learning in many south-east Asian countries commenced more than a decade ago. Such changes were accompanied by a strong socio-parental imperative regarding education's importance for young people and its significance for a nation's economic future. Some of these imperatives are less apparent in Australian schools and Australian society generally.

iii) For many states the national curriculum roll-out remains in its infancy noting that the work of ACARA commenced from 2009. Five years later and there remains contention regarding the full implementation of national curriculum guidelines. Imposing any further curriculum changes are likely to be minimised at state level notwithstanding the glib platitudes given by state leaders towards the current review report.

iv) Although the terms of reference for the two-person review panel excluded the role of ACARA the federal government clearly has this over-arching body in its political sights. What role and function will ACARA perform within a service industry that continues to be increasingly politicised? Some argue that an independent education authority remains the most effective body to oversee school change. The Abbott government may adopt a different approach should it move to increasingly centralise education management noting that the commonwealth provides the lion share of financing schools through COAG agreements for public education and contentious recurrent funding for non-government schools. Most financiers demand at least some influence in the performance of their capital investment. Education cannot avoid that categorisation within a national economic climate that will become increasingly stringent and more strongly evaluative of taxpayer funds.

v) Although the review's terms of reference narrowed on curriculum issues the federal government has yet to determine a policy on probably the most critical aspect of schooling, namely, how to develop better teachers and improve the professionalism of classroom teaching and learning practices. Innumerable national and international studies confirm the fundamental significance of teachers to enhance student learning. Any federal initiative involving teacher quality will require discussion and agreement with the states/territories, a process not dissimilar to the national curriculum roll-out that required time and money to be effectively implemented.

The curriculum review remains an important albeit perhaps logical result of known curriculum limitations and conditions for teachers and students alike.

It remains to be seen how and when its recommendations will be implemented.