NSW Ed-Reform – An Opportunity Squandered

I hate to see wasted opportunities, and this is one of the worst. As a former principal and now Director of an organisation that works with more than fifty of the most innovative schools in Australia and is in regular dialogue with the most innovative schools in the world, I was optimistic when the NSW Curriculum Review was announced promising a future ready curriculum.

Here is my assessment…

 “More time for teaching by 2022 by reducing the hours teachers spend on extra-curricular topics and issues, as well as compliance requirements”

Australian students have more compulsory hours of instruction than any other country in the world. Along with Denmark, our young people already have the equivalent of an extra two whole years of education, but for what benefit? Falling PISA scores. Even more teaching time is certainly not the answer. A big yes to reducing time on compliance but get your enjoyment sapping hands off extra-curricular topics. It is the only thing that makes learning bearable for many young people.

 “Strengthening post-school pathways by 2022 with new learning areas for Years 11 and 12 that clearly link learning to future employment and study options.”

This report reinforces the assumption that the primary role for all young people is to become units of production. In the wealthiest country in the world as measured by median wealth, is this as much we as a nation can aim for? Is this our aspirational future for young people? Forget what your passion is, what interests you or makes your heart sing, if it doesn’t produce, doesn’t add to national GDP, then we will discriminate and diminish the standing of this area of endeavour. Reference the recently announced full cost recovery for Humanities Degrees and now apparently seek to reduce the time for these subjects in schools, further discouraging critical and divergent thinking and intellectual creativity.

 “To stay engaged students need learning challenges that give the appropriate ‘stretch’ – too much and they disengage and fall behind; too little and they become bored, failing to reach their full learning potential.”

No, actually to stay engaged young people need to be interested in the learning and feel some sense of control. The review will seemingly make the curriculum far more narrow and prescriptive.

 “Setting clear standards for every student will provide a basis for monitoring student progress and identifying students who are not on track to achieve these standards.”

Sounds like a lot of standards to me (mentioned 9 times in the report). A lot of monitoring (5 mentions). A lot of mandatory requirements. (6 mentions).

 “Both theoretical knowledge and applied skills are needed to meet the future challenges faced by the NSW economy”

We still have one of the BEST economies in the world. How successful do we need to be before we can pursue our dreams? What is beyond first place in the world? Perhaps sustainably and happily first?

 “By 2021, review and reduce by approximately 20 per cent the number of school-developed elective courses in secondary school.” and “By 2022 reduce extra-curricular issues and topics and compliance requirements.” and “Reduce 20 per cent of elective courses in high school e.g. puppetry, leather and wearable art to free up study for core subjects.”

To be frank these electives sound a whole lot more interesting than the things in most curriculums. Why would you single these out? To mock the efforts of those who wrote these courses and the students who gave their all in studying them? The report talks about raising the status of practical learning and yet the report singles out these two quite practical courses. If these electives were offered and sufficient young people presumably took them, and made an effort to study them, VOLUNTARILY, that means they ARE relevant. This further makes the point that in ‘high quality education’ there is apparently some learning that is valued and some that should be derided. I can tell you that for the self employed person selling their own handmade leather goods in markets around Australia, I would be offended by this slight on their skills and talents. If the author of this segment had any working knowledge of schools they would know that getting girls into practical subjects is difficult. Particularly in terms of overcoming stereotypes. Offering jewellery or leatherwork is one of the most succesful ways to engage female students in practical subjects and get them into the design and technology area. Similarly puppetry is an exceptional way for students to apply their literacy. For students with a disability, those with anxiety or autism in particular the medium of the puppet lets them practice their oral skills, with some degree of concealment and through an external object rather than being the focus of the classes’ attention. I am amazed that these specific subject titles made it through the strict review process and rather than prove a point regarding the frivilous nature of some electives shows a complete ignornace in engaging young people in learning beyond English and Mathematics.

The only bright spot was this… the possible abolition of ATAR which it is widely agreed amongst educators that it has distorted and narrowed the whole of secondary education, and yet this was only ‘noted’ with no commitment.

I think the best way to conclude this report on the report on the report, is using a frequency word count.

Skills (38)

Mathematics/Numeracy (20)

English/Literacy (16)

Achievement (10)

Assessment (10)

Standards (9)

Performance (8)

Targets (7)

Mandatory (6)

Technology (6)

Monitoring (5)

Compliance (5)

Science (2)

Engagement (1)

Empower (1)

Personal (1)

Individual (1)

Exciting (1)

Values (0)

Qualities (0)

Passion (0)

Trust (0)

Enjoyment (0)

Dreams (0)

It seems ironic that the only other word to make a signficant appearance was “Future” (14) and yet when I read the list of words most commonly used I see the reinforcement of the same old compliant/ dependent paridigm of education. That of the factory model, where if we tweak the process, set tougher, clearer, more rigid standards the outcomes of young people as units of production will improve. Such a shame and a lost opportunity that our largest educational jurisdiction has reinforced the same old, inflexible culture that caused the problems and disqueit that emerged so clearly from the consultation meetings. Things like freedom, student engagement, professional trust and judgement, love of learning appear to have been totally ignored.

Sarah Mitchell may have signed off her introduction with “It is an exciting time.” Which is quite true, it is. Outside the school gates, but this curriculum response certainly does not reflect this exciting future potential. I christen the next stage of the NSW educational journey as the BORING CURRICULUM. It does not reflect the hopes and aspirations of the people who took part in focus groups. It talks about reducing compliance, but is filled to the brim with the language of control, regulation and prescription, rather than professional trust in educators, which does not even rate one mention. Let’s see if the regulatory bodies can do any better after the next review after another decade of stagnating educational results.

Engagement and empowerment are what motivates young people to learn, that is the key to supporting young Australians to be happy, creative agile, responsible contributors to a dynamic society. This ain’t it.

Peter Hutton

Director – Education Transformation

Future Schools Alliance

https://futureschools.education/