Changes to the Post Compulsory Curriculum in Western Australia
by Education and Health Standing Committee [29 June 2006]
MINORITY REPORT [verbatim but highlighting added]
The undersigned members of the Standing Committee on Education
and Health feel compelled to submit this Minority Report as we disagree with
certain statements, findings and recommendations in the Committee Report.
General Comments
While the Committee Report, Changes into the Post Secondary Curriculum, covers
the details and complexity of the inquiry, it has not been an easy task to produce
a Minority Report in the time available. The Committee Report was not finally
adopted until the meeting of the Committee on Wednesday, 28 June. While the
bulk of the Committee Report is supported by the undersigned, it is not intended
that this Minority Report address all issues with which we disagree in the Committee
Report.
The Minority Report deals only with the second Term of Reference: The Readiness
of the education system for the proposed changes.
Specific Issues
Inconsistency with the recommendations of the Interim Report of the Committee
tabled in the Legislative Assembly on 22 December, 2005.
The undersigned have concluded that the major flaw in the Committee Report is
its inconsistency with the recommendation of the Interim Report which reads:-
The central theme of the Interim Report was the matter of readiness of Courses of Study. Indeed, the recommendation of the Interim Report only dealt with the issues of readiness of Courses of Study and the timely provision of support material. The conclusion of the Committee which led to the Interim Report was based on the evidence of a number of witnesses but particularly on the evidence of the Director General of the Department of Education and Training, Mr Paul Albert. The following is quoted from the Committee Report at pages 55 and 56:
Paul Albert, made a very clear and unambiguous statement about readiness.
He said:…we are not prepared to support the introduction of a new course if that new course is not ready for introduction. We have made that very clear to the Curriculum Council.
He also told the Committee that:
It makes sense to delay a specific course of study that is not ready.... my strong view, is that if a course is not ready - that is, the assessment materials are not ready and there have been some delays or whatever with the schedule for the development of teachers - the readiness factor would apply. That is the issue and that is when you would delay.
Mr Albert also went on to say in a response to the question of when such material should be provided, that:
I would want it at least a year beforehand...
Thus, the Interim Report
clearly recommended that if a Course of Study, due to be introduced in 2007,
was not ready by the end of First Term 2006, then it should be delayed for one
year.
No new evidence presenting a contrary view to that which led to the recommendation
in the Interim Report has been presented to the Committee since 22 December,
2005.
Indeed, events since the end of First Term (13 April, 2006) support the recommendation
of the Interim Report.
Firstly, on May 10 the Curriculum Council published significant changes to the
assessment procedures for Years 11 and 12.
Secondly, following negotiations on 12 June and 18 June (between the Premier,
the Minister for Education, the Director General of the Department of Education
and Training, the A/Chief Executive Officer of the Curriculum Council, the Director
of Catholic Education Office of WA, the Executive Director of the Association
of Independent Schools WA, the President of the State School Teachers’
Union WA, and the Secretary of the Independent Education Union,), further changes
to the new courses of study and professional support, were agreed. These changes
were published in a two-page document by the Curriculum Council on 18 June,
2006, and form the basis of Finding 9 of the Committee Report.
Teachers will have to wait until Day 4 of Professional Development on Monday
24 July for further information about these changes to assessment and course
content.
This is three and a half months later than the deadline set by the recommendation
of the Interim Report of the Committee. Teachers will then have the time consuming
task of reworking the Courses of Study for the beginning of the 2007 school
year.
Finding 9
Finding 9
There have been significant adjustments to the proposed reform of the curriculum for Years 11 and 12 to meet teachers’ concerns. These include:
- There will be a syllabus for each course.
- The existing TEE [Tertiary Entrance Examination] syllabus format will be used for all new courses. Course specific refinements will be made.
- Teachers will be able to use their existing teaching programs or lesson plans for those new courses that have been derived from existing TEE subjects.
- Some adjustments will be made to content to allow for the semester unit structure and to ensure that content is updated.
- No new content will be assessed in the examination for the first cohort of Year 11 and Year 12 students for those courses replacing TEE subjects.
- Course design will be modified, where necessary, to suit specific course disciplines.
- Language used in each course syllabus will be discipline specific.
- Content will be made more explicit and clear for teachers.
- The nature and weighting of outcomes will be clarified and adjusted on a course by course basis.
- Course standards will be refined to guarantee clarity of student progression.
- Schools will submit a mark out of 100 for a unit and provide an indicative judgement of a level and band for the unit.
- Teachers will not be required to submit assessment evidence plans; however they will still be required to have evidence of their students’ achievements during school moderation visits as they do now.
- Teachers will be provided with specific exemplars of assessment items, work samples and a template program for each new course, which will set out the teaching program for the course content, together with appropriate assessment items.
- Teachers may choose to adapt the template program as they see fit.
Each one of these points raises more questions than
it answers. Of particular concern to the undersigned are dot points 2, 4, 5,
6, 9, 10, 11 and 12, all of which create a high degree of uncertainty and imply
the arrangements for the first cohort of students undertaking Phase I and Phase
II Courses of Study are merely a stop-gap measure and further change is certain
to occur.
The consequence for teachers, students and parents is a sustained period of
uncertainty and unrelenting change. This means that schools will be dealing
with the following variations over the next four years as follows:-
1. In 2006:
Year 11, 2006 - most students taking the existing TEE or VET or WSA subjects (except for those studying English, Media Production and Analysis, Aviation and Engineering).
Year 12, 2006 - almost all students taking existing TEE or VET or WSA subjects
(except for a few students studying Aviation).
2. In 2007:
Year 11, 2007 - (presumably the ‘first cohort’ referred to in Dot Point 5 above) – students studying the four Phase I subjects, the now modified (June 18) Phase II Courses of Study (total 17) and some existing TEE and VET and WSA subjects.
Year 12 2007 - students taking the mostly existing TEE or VET or WSA subjects (except for those studying English, Media Production and Analysis, Aviation and Engineering).
3. In 2008:
Year 11 2008 - all students will be studying Phase I, Phase II and Phase III courses of study. Schools will also be able to offer new Curriculum Council endorsed subjects. Because of the uncertainty in the information provided by the Curriculum Council in its 18 June document, it is likely there will be significant differences in the content, course design and assessment of courses of study taken by Year 11, 2008 compared with the previous year.
Year 12, 2008 - (presumably the first cohort referred to in Dot Point 5 above) - students will be able to study a combination of the four Phase I subjects, the now modified (June 18) (hybrid) Phase II Courses of Study (17) and some existing TEE and VET and WSA subjects.
4. In 2009:
Year 11, 2009 - course content, course design and assessment will presumably be as for 2008.
Year 12, 2009 - this will be the first year that Year 12 will be entirely run on the new system.
The above summary indicates the phasing in of the new system for Years 11 and 12 will occur over four years. These arrangements may provide some short term relief to some teachers. However, in the end it will mean four years of changes (euphemistically referred to by the Curriculum Council as adjustments and refinements) for teachers, students and parents. Every year for four years will be fraught with change, creating extra work for teachers and apprehension and stress for students and parents at a time which is already very demanding. The changes announced on 18 June have effectively added an extra year to the phasing in of the new system.
The undersigned conclude that a delay of one year,
with all Phase II and Phase III courses of study introduced in Year 11 2008,
would simplify the implementation for teachers, students and parents.
This would mean the following program of implementation:-
1. In 2006:
Year 11, 2006 - most students taking the existing TEE or VET or WSA subjects (except for those studying English, Media Production and Analysis, Aviation and Engineering).
Year 12, 2006 - almost all students taking existing TEE or VET or WSA subjects (except for a few students studying Aviation).
2. In 2007:
Year 11, 2007 - as for 2006
Year 12, 2007 - students taking the mostly existing TEE or VET or WSA subjects (except for those studying English, Media Production and Analysis, Aviation and Engineering).
3. In 2008:
Year 11, 2008 - all students will be studying Phase I, Phase II and Phase III courses of study. Schools will also be able to offer Curriculum Council endorsed subjects.
Year 12, 2008 - As for 2007
4. In 2009:
Year 11, 2009 - As for 2008
Year 12, 2009 - This would be the first year of the new tertiary entrance system and TAFE entry.
The
above timetable indicates that a delay of one year would result in a much smoother
and less complicated transition from the existing TEE/VET/WSA system to the
new curriculum for Years 11 and 12.
The significant adjustments referred to in Finding 9 were negotiated
in a highly charged political environment and, in our opinion, amount to major
changes. Details of exactly what these changes will mean for teachers, students
and parents remain unknown at the time of writing this report.
As a consequence of the above considerations we reject the Findings 18 and
Recommendation 5 of the Committee Report.
Finding 21
Finding 21
In addition to the issues outlined in Finding 1, a delay in implementation of the new curriculum would also result in:
- Disruption to schools which have published handbooks, counselled students and commenced timetabling on the basis of the implementation of the new curriculum;
- Disruption for Year 10 students who are making their subject choices for Year 11 in 2007;
- Year 12 students in 2008 who undertake current non-TEE (non- Tertiary Entrance Examination) subjects will remain ineligible for a Tertiary Entrance Rank (TER); and
- The potential for an unmanageable roll out of 37 new Courses of Study in 2008 which would place too many teachers outside of the schools on professional development at any one time.
Finding 21 argues against delay because of the supposed disruption it would
cause teachers and students. On the contrary, we conclude a delay of 12 months
would simply mean business as usual for schools. We believe that the 2007 Year
11 teachers, students and parents would be relieved as they would be dealing
with the current system which they understand. A delay would provide the time
required to prepare for all the changes on May 10 and in June this year.
The assumption in Finding 21, that delaying Phase II would mean an unmanageable
roll out of 37 new Courses of Study in 2008, is fallacious. On the one hand,
when the new system was introduced in New South Wales all new courses of study
were introduced quickly with minimal disruption. This is the preference of the
undersigned.
On the other hand, a delay in implementation does not necessarily imply that
Phase II and Phase III courses of study would all have be to be introduced in
2008. A delay in implementation could result in both
Phase II and Phase III being delayed for one year allowing for a staggered introduction.
Recommendation 5
Recommendation 5
The Committee recommends that the current timetable for the implementation of the proposed new Courses of Study for Years 11 and 12 should continue and be closely monitored, particularly in the area of assessment processes. If necessary, adjustments must be made before the implementation of Phase III in 2008.
The undersigned have concluded that Recommendation 5 is inconsistent with the Recommendation in the Interim Report. The changes announced since the end of Term 1, 2006, mean that the Phase II Courses of Study do not meet the readiness test. Core support material is now being prepared to take account of the changes announced in June and will not be available to teachers until Term 3, fully one term later than the Recommendation in the Interim Report. We therefore reject Recommendation 5.
Conclusion
The undersigned conclude that the ‘adjustments’
announced on 10 May and 18 June would create far more disruption to teachers,
students and parents than a 12 month delay in implementation. We also conclude
that these ‘adjustments’ are, in fact, major changes, the details
of which were not available at the time of writing this report. Teachers will
not have any further information about the recently announced changes until
the beginning of Term 3. They will then have the time consuming task of rewriting
and reorganising their teaching programs for next year.
In keeping with the Interim Report of the Committee the writers of this Minority
Report concludes that the students, teachers and parents of Year 11 and Year
12 students would be best served by delaying for one year any further introduction
of the new curriculum. A 12 month delay would provide sufficient time for the
orderly and proper consideration and adoption of the substantial changes which
have been announced since the end of First Term 2006.
We have, therefore, concluded that the better way forward would be to delay
the implementation of Phase II courses of study until the beginning of 2008.
Only in this way will the risks and disruption to students and teachers be minimised.
A twelve month delay would provide teachers and students with the opportunity
to be properly prepared for a smooth introduction of the new Courses of Study
and the new tertiary entrance and secondary graduation system.
Dr Elizabeth Constable, MLA Member for Churchlands
Hon Dr Kim Hames, MLA Member for Dawesville
Mr Terry Waldron, MLA Member for Wagin
For a more printer-friendly form, the Minority Report is the last 6 pages of the Ful Majority Report 149 page .pdf file.