Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Pursuing quality and equity Pursuing quality and equity through a national curriculumthrough a national curriculum
Barry McGawMelbourne Graduate School of Education, University of MelbourneChair, Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority
Bridging divides: ensuring access, equity and quality in literacy and Bridging divides: ensuring access, equity and quality in literacy and English education - AATE/ALEA Conference, Hobart 12 July 2009English education - AATE/ALEA Conference, Hobart 12 July 2009
There is a rising demand for high-level There is a rising demand for high-level skillsskills
Mel
bour
ne G
radu
ate
Sch
ool o
f E
duca
tion
3
Changed demand for skills in the US
40
45
50
55
60
65
1960 1970 1980 1990 2002
Routine manual Nonroutine manual Routine cognitive
Nonroutine analytic Nonroutine interactive
The dilemma for schools:The skills that are easiest to teach and test are also the ones that are easiest to digitise, automate and outsource.
Autor, D., Levy, F. and Murnane, R. J., (2003) The skill content of recent technical change, Quarterly Journal of Economics 118, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, pp.1279-1334.Levy, F. and Murnane, R.J. (2006), “How Computerized Work and Globalization Shape Human Skill Demands”, working paper, available at: http://web.mit.edu/flevy/www/computers_offshoring_and_skills.pdf.
How good is our literacy education?How good is our literacy education?
What do international comparisons tell us about What do international comparisons tell us about the quality of Australian education?the quality of Australian education?
Mel
bour
ne G
radu
ate
Sch
ool o
f E
duca
tion
6
Coverage of world economy 77%81%83%85%86%87%
OECD’s PISA assessment of the knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds
Mel
bour
ne G
radu
ate
Sch
ool o
f E
duca
tion
7
Finl
and
Can
ada
New
Zea
land
Aus
tralia
Irela
ndH
ong
Kon
g-C
hina
Kor
eaU
nite
d K
ingd
omJa
pan
Swed
enA
ustri
aB
elgi
umIc
elan
dN
orw
ayFr
ance
Uni
ted
Stat
esD
enm
ark
Switz
erla
ndSp
ain
Cze
ch R
epub
licIta
lyG
erm
any
Liec
hten
stei
nH
unga
ryPo
land
Gre
ece
Portu
gal
Rus
sian
Fed
erat
ion
Latv
iaIs
rael
Luxe
mbo
urg
Thai
land
Bul
garia
Rom
ania
Mex
ico
Arg
entin
aC
hile
Bra
zil
FYR
Mac
edon
iaIn
done
sia
Alb
ania
Peru
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
Mean reading results (PISA 2000)
Australia tied for 2nd with 8 others
among 42 countries.
OECD (2003), Literacy skills for the world of tomorrow: Further results from PISA 2000, Fig. 2.5, p.76.
Mel
bour
ne G
radu
ate
Sch
ool o
f E
duca
tion
8
Australia’s ranking in OECD/PISA Reading
Reading ranks PISA 2000: 4th but tied for 2nd
PISA 2003: 4th but tied for 2nd
PISA 2006: 7th but tied for 6th
FinlandKorea
CanadaNZ
Hong Kong
KoreaCanada
NZHong Kong
Finland
PISA 2000 PISA 2003 PISA 2006
Ahead of Australia
Same as Australia
Behind Australia
Finland
KoreaCanada
NZ
Hong Kong
Mel
bour
ne G
radu
ate
Sch
ool o
f E
duca
tion
9
Trends in reading performance
500
510
520
530
540
550
560
PISA 2000 PISA 2003 PISA 2006
Australia
Finland
Hong KongChina
Canada
New Zealand
KoreaHigher performers in Korea improved.
Lower performers in HK improved.
OECD (2007), PISA 2006: science competencies for tomorrow’s world, Vol. 1 - analysis, Fig. 6.21, p.319.
Changes for Finland, Canada & New Zealand are not significant.
Mel
bour
ne G
radu
ate
Sch
ool o
f E
duca
tion
10
Trends in Australian reading performances
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
PISA 2000 PISA 2003 PISA 2006
95th %ile
OECD (2007), PISA 2006: science competencies for tomorrow’s world, Vol. 1 - analysis, Fig. 6.21, p.319.
5th %ile
90th %ile
10th %ile
75th %ile
25th %ile
Mean
The impact of raising expectations of low The impact of raising expectations of low performersperformers
Mel
bour
ne G
radu
ate
Sch
ool o
f E
duca
tion
12
-80-70-60-50-40-30-20-10
0102030405060708090
100110
Belg
ium
Germ
any
Hun
gar
y
Aus
tria
Pola
nd
Gre
ece
Czech
Repub
lic
Ita
ly
Sw
itzerl
and
Mexic
o
Port
ugal
Uni
ted S
tate
s
Lux
em
bou
rg
Uni
ted K
ingdom
Aus
tral
ia
New
Zeal
and
Kor
ea
Denm
ark
Can
ada
Ire
land
Spai
n
Nor
way
Fin
land
Sw
eden
Ice
land
Variation in reading performance (PISA 2000)
Variation of performance between
schools
Variation of performance within schools
OECD, UNESCO (2003), Literacy skills for tomorrow’s world: further results from PISA 2000, Table 7.1a, p.357.
Mel
bour
ne G
radu
ate
Sch
ool o
f E
duca
tion
13
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
Tur
key
Hun
gar
y
Jap
an
Belg
ium
Ita
ly
Germ
any
Aus
tria
Neth
erl
ands
Czech
Repub
lic
Kor
ea
Slo
vak R
epub
lic
Gre
ece
Sw
itzerl
and
Lux
em
bou
rg
Port
ugal
Mexic
o
Uni
ted S
tate
s
Aus
tral
ia
New
Zeal
and
Spai
n
Can
ada
Ire
land
Denm
ark
Pola
nd
Sw
eden
Nor
way
Fin
land
Ice
land
Variation in mathematics performance
Variation of performance between
schools
Variation of performance within schools
OECD (2004), Learning for tomorrow’s world, Table 4.1a, p.383.
Mel
bour
ne G
radu
ate
Sch
ool o
f E
duca
tion
14
Trends in reading performance
470
480
490
500
510
520
530
540
550
560
PISA 2000 PISA 2003 PISA 2006
Australia
Finland
Hong KongChina
CanadaNew Zealand
Korea
OECD (2007), PISA 2006: science competencies for tomorrow’s world, Vol. 1 - analysis, Fig. 6.21, p.319.
Changes for Finland, Canada & New Zealand are not significant.
Lower performers in Poland improved.
Poland
Lower and higher performers in Poland improved.
Mel
bour
ne G
radu
ate
Sch
ool o
f E
duca
tion
15
The storyline so far…
There is a growing labour market demand for higher level skills.
International comparisons show that:
• Australian students are relatively high performing.
• The competition is not standing still.
• Setting high expectations for all can improve low performers.
What do international comparisons tell us about What do international comparisons tell us about the equity of Australian education? matters toothe equity of Australian education? matters too
Mel
bour
ne G
radu
ate
Sch
ool o
f E
duca
tion
17
Finl
and
Can
ada
New
Zea
land
Aus
tral
ia
Irela
nd
Hon
g K
ong-
Chi
na
Kor
ea
Uni
ted
Kin
gdom
Japa
n
Swed
en
Aus
tria
Bel
gium
Icel
and
Fran
ce
Nor
way
Uni
ted
Stat
es
Den
mar
k
Switz
erla
nd
Spai
n
Cze
ch R
epub
lic
Italy
Ger
man
y
Liec
hten
stei
n
Hun
gary
Pola
nd
Gre
ece
Port
ugal
Rus
sian
Fed
erat
ion
Latv
ia
Isra
el
Luxe
mbo
urg
Thai
land
Bul
garia
Rom
ania
Mex
ico
Arg
entin
a
Chi
le
Bra
zil
FYR
Mac
edon
ia
Indo
nesi
a
Alb
ania
Peru
-100
-90
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
% at each reading proficiency level: PISA 2000
Level 5
Level 4
Level 3
Level 2
Level 1
BelowLevel 1
Source: OECD, UNESCO (2003) Literacy skills for the world of tomorrow, Table 2.1a, p.274
Korea had relatively high mean but with few very high performers and very few low performers.
Australia’s mean is high because of its relatively high percentage of
very high-performing students.
Australia has somewhat more low performing students than some high-
performing countries around it.
Mel
bour
ne G
radu
ate
Sch
ool o
f E
duca
tion
18
Socioeconomic status & reading literacy (PISA 2000)
SocialAdvantagePISA Index of social background
HighR
eadin
g lit
era
cy
Low
Source: OECD (2001) Knowledge and skills for life, Appendix B1, Table 8.1, p.308
Two indices of relationship:Social gradientCorrelation or variance accounted for
Social gradient: Magnitude of increment in achievement associated with an increment in social background (on average)
Correlation: How well the regression line summarises the relationship
Mel
bour
ne G
radu
ate
Sch
ool o
f E
duca
tion
19
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
- 2 - 1.5 - 1 - 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
SocialAdvantagePISA Index of social background
Low
Readin
g lit
era
cyHigh
Finland
Germany
Canada
This gap is in the order of 3 years of
schooling.
Steeper slope = less equitable results
Source: OECD (2001) Knowledge and skills for life, Appendix B1, Table 8.1, p.308
Social gradients for reading literacy (PISA 2000)
Australia
Mel
bour
ne G
radu
ate
Sch
ool o
f E
duca
tion
20
Spain
JapanKorea
Iceland
Finland
Sweden
CanadaIreland
NorwayAustria
New ZealandAustralia
FranceUnited States
Belgium
United Kingdom
Italy
Mexico
PolandGreece
Portugal
Denmark
Luxembourg
SwitzerlandCzech Republic
HungaryGermany
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
490
500
510
520
530
540
550
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Social equity (OECD regression slope - country regression slope)
Read
ing
litera
cy
Social gradients for reading literacy (PISA 2000)
OECD (2001) Knowledge and skills for life, Table 8.1, p.308.
High qualityLow equity
High qualityHigh equity
Low qualityLow equity
Low qualityHigh equity
Mel
bour
ne G
radu
ate
Sch
ool o
f E
duca
tion
21
Germany
United States
Luxembourg
Mexico
Hungary
Belgium
Switzerland
Portugal
United Kingdom
New Zealand
France
Czech Republic
Australia
Greece
Denmark
Norway
Poland
Austria
Ireland
Spain
Canada
Italy
Sweden
Finland
Iceland
KoreaJapan
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
490
500
510
520
530
540
550
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Social equity (% variation accounted for: OECD-country)
Re
ad
ing
lit
era
cy
SES-science literacy correlations (PISA 2006)
OECD (2001) Knowledge and skills for life, Table 8.1, p.308.
High qualityLow equity
High qualityHigh equity
Low qualityLow equity
Low qualityHigh equity
Mel
bour
ne G
radu
ate
Sch
ool o
f E
duca
tion
22
The storyline so far…
There is a growing labour market demand for higher level skills.
International comparisons show that:
• Australian students are relatively high performing.
• The competition is not standing still.
• Setting high expectations for all can improve low performers.
• They are among the best in the world, but slipping.
Australian students’ performance in reading:
• Low performers are left somewhat further behind than in other high-performing countries (though not in mathematics or science).
• The disadvantaged are over-represented among low performers.
Challenges for a national curriculumChallenges for a national curriculum
Mel
bour
ne G
radu
ate
Sch
ool o
f E
duca
tion
24
Challenges for a national curriculum
To raise the quality of learning even higher Stretching the high performers Setting high expectations for low performers
To improve the equity of learning Reducing the impact of socio-economic differences
Scope and governance of the national curriculumScope and governance of the national curriculum
Mel
bour
ne G
radu
ate
Sch
ool o
f E
duca
tion
26
Scope of work on national curriculum
Initial brief English, mathematics, science, history from 2011
An early addition Geography and languages other than English
Added in April 2009 The Arts
Report requested by October 2009 on implications of making the entire curriculum
national
Mel
bour
ne G
radu
ate
Sch
ool o
f E
duca
tion
27
Governance of the national curriculum
Interim National Curriculum Board Appointed by COAG in April 2008
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority Replaced National Curriculum Board in May 2009 Responsibilities
•National curriculum
•National assessment: NAPLAN and sample surveys
•Data analysis and transparent reporting on school performance
Shape of the national curriculumShape of the national curriculum
Mel
bour
ne G
radu
ate
Sch
ool o
f E
duca
tion
29
Mel
bour
ne G
radu
ate
Sch
ool o
f E
duca
tion
30
Shape of the Australian Curriculum
Document setting out form of the curriculum Draft in late June 2008 Revised version on website October-December 2008 Final version published 6 May 2009
Principles and specifications include Make clear what has to be taught and learned -
entitlements Set high standards for all assuming all can learn Build firm foundational skills and basis for expertise Be feasible for teachers:
•In terms of time and resources available•In terms of language in documents
Value teachers’ professional knowledge Reflect local contexts
Mel
bour
ne G
radu
ate
Sch
ool o
f E
duca
tion
31
Mel
bour
ne G
radu
ate
Sch
ool o
f E
duca
tion
32
Development of K-12 framework for English
Initial advice for each learning area Lead writer: Professor Peter Freebody Team of collaborators to review initial draft
National forum in October 2008 150-250 diverse participants Subject associations provided advice on following
day Consultation on revised versions
On website for advice 20/11/08 to 28/02/09 Final versions published on 6 May 2009
Framework for development of curriculum detail Report on consultation setting out advice received
and responses
Mel
bour
ne G
radu
ate
Sch
ool o
f E
duca
tion
33
Development of detailed curriculum
Features 3 strands: language, literature, literacy Issues:
•Getting balance across strands, across years
•Meeting needs of students learning to read– Phonological and phonemic awareness– Sound-letter correspondences– Using of semantic and syntactic clues to make meaning
•Building grammar into language strand
•Articulating development in literature strand Authors
Writers
•10 - classroom teachers, academics from across Australia
•Expertise - early years to teacher education Advisory Panel, Curriculum Committee and Board
Mel
bour
ne G
radu
ate
Sch
ool o
f E
duca
tion
34
Work plan
First 10 weeks K-10
•broad outline of the scope and sequence K-10
•content descriptions of what student will be taught
•Placement across strands
•Language strand:– oral proficiency– grammar, spelling, punctuation, handwriting, word processing
11-12•Aims, rationales and broad outlines for four courses
Next phase content elaborations achievement standards.
Mel
bour
ne G
radu
ate
Sch
ool o
f E
duca
tion
35
Some key issues
Reducing clutter to achieve depth Strategic choice of content, e.g. big ideas in science
Access to supporting resources Curriculum primarily electronic and layered
•Links to resources for teachers who need them
•Annotated samples of students’ work to show standards
Teacher professional development Need for good links with responsible agencies
Evaluation Curriculum fidelity in implementation Curriculum effectiveness in elevating student
achievement
[email protected]@unimelb.edu.au
