From the President

Learning progressions

concern By Pat Byrne President

The federal government’s report Through Growth to Achievement – Report of the Review to Achieve Educational Excellence in Australian Schools (otherwise known as Gonski 2.0, due to Malcolm Turnbull’s cynical use of his childhood friend David Gonski to chair the review panel) was delivered in March 2018; a report which flagged huge changes to school education in Australia. Of most immediate concern to teachers are the findings and recommendations in relation to the Australian Curriculum. In particular, Finding 4, which states: Teaching curriculum based on year or age levels rather than levels of progress leaves some students behind and fails to extend others, limiting the opportunity to maximise learning growth for all students. And also Recommendations 5 and 6: Revise the structure of the Australian Curriculum progressively over the next five years to present the learning areas and general capabilities as learning progressions.* Prioritise the implementation of learning progressions for literacy and numeracy in curriculum delivery during the early years of schooling to ensure the core foundations for learning are developed by all children by the age of eight. The proposal to shift to learning progressions sparked significant concern in WA, given our experience with Outcomes Based Education (OBE) over nearly 15 years until it was (thankfully) abandoned in 2009. There is no support from any of the main stakeholder organisations within public education in WA – unions or professional associations – for a return to any aspect of OBE. A glance at the draft progressions on the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority website is enough to convince WA educators that, however described, what is being proposed is indeed OBE. That is why recent reports from NSW of a rewrite of the Australian Curriculum, portrayed as “de-cluttering the curriculum” raise the question of the extent to which this decluttering exercise will be a Trojan Horse for the introduction of learning progressions. While few teachers would disagree with the notion that the curriculum – especially in primary schools – is overcrowded, there has been no agreement from the profession as to the introduction of learning progressions. Certainly, the level of consultation to date has been minimal – a national working group of 27 people in 2019, increased to 34 people in 2020 as a result of AEU agitation about a failure to properly consult. When one remembers the level of consultation with the profession which occurred prior to the introduction of the teaching standards, this is laughable. Yet what is being proposed here will have arguably more impact on teachers’ day-to-day work than do the teaching standards. Given that the proposed timeline for this review is to have the rewritten curriculum available from the commencement of 2022, and that Gonki 2.0 recommended the introduction of learning progressions within five years from 2018 (including priority for the early years), it is logical to assume that this review will indeed present the Australian Curriculum in the form of learning progressions. As we know, this will have ongoing implications for reporting and both will greatly increase teacher workloads. This is why the commitments from the Department of Education in regard to Australian Curriculum and Support are such a significant gain in the 2019 General Agreement. What has been agreed to is the provision of, in the primary years, a 32-week syllabus document which comprises the core elements of the eight learning areas. This addresses the overcrowding of the curriculum while at the same time ameliorating teacher workload through the provision of teaching and assessment strategies. The conceptual framework for the secondary years is currently being developed and the intention is to have all documentation for K-10 ready by the end of Semester 1 2022. While the timing of the national decluttering process is not ideal, it is imperative that the General Agreement commitment proceed immediately. Any inconsistencies between WA and the national review as to what constitutes essential content are likely to be minimal and the WA materials can be adjusted, if necessary, post 2022. The SSTUWA has also secured a half day of professional learning for all teachers to be available upon the release of the new curriculum materials. The General Agreement clause also provides for any decisions relating to the implementation of learning progressions or the use of formative assessment tools, as per the Gonski 2.0 review, to be made within the Western Australian context. This is a very strong message from the WA public education community that it has no intention of having the views of a tiny bureaucratic minority, with no experience of OBE, imposed on us from afar. * Since the report was written the decision has been made not to proceed with learning progressions in the general capabilities.