FOCUSTNG ON LEARNING: REPORT OF THE REVIEW OF OUTCOMES AND PROFILES TN NEW SOUTH WALES SCHOOLING

UNIVERSITY OF BALLARAT

ISBN: 0 7310 6436 4 ll,"! B4441962495 Ballarat. main coll NSW DEPARTMENT OF TRAINING AND EDUCATION CO-ORDIJVATJ

Level 16, 55 Market Street, Sydney 2000 370 ± i 09 August 1995 9 ls -I K325.f I Ballarat main coll (KfE Mntiierstiu. of j^oney. 370.1109944 FACULTY OF EDUCATION R325f

From Ihe Dean SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES 11850035 Professor Ken Ellis AUSTRALIA 2006 B4441962495 The Hon John Aquilina, MP Telephono: (02) 351 4796 Fax: (02) 351 4177 Minister for Education and Training DXI161 Level 16 Email: eluskOcdfac.usyd.edu.au 55 Market Street August 25, 1995 SYDNEY NSW 2000 '

Dear Minister - i

i I have pleasure in providing you with the final report of the Review of outcomes and profiles, which you established on May 14, 1995. We have entitled the report, Focusing on Learning: Report of the Review of Outcomes and Profiles in New South Wales Schooling. The report has the full support of the Panel established by you to assist with the conduct of the Review. I would like to record my thanks to all members of the Panel for their thoughtful contributions, and for their commitment to the processes of consultation and open debate that characterised this Review.

The Review process was enhanced by the contribution of the representatives of the major educational interest groups and authorities in New South Wales, who met as an Educational Community Committee to work with the Panel in identifying issues and suggesting areas for discussion and recommendation.

If the Review has a central theme, it is that schooling depends more than ever on the quality and professionalism of teachers, and that this needs to be incorporated in strategic planning for major directions in education policy. The Panel was impressed by the high degree of concern and commitment shown by teachers and other educators in the course of the Review. This ensured that issues were addressed in ways that were in the best interests of students and their learning.

I wish to record my thanks for the co-operation we received from all educational authorities in the course of our inquiries. Senior officers of the Department of School Education and the Board of Studies were especially helpful in providing information and advice at critical stages of the Review. Wc also appreciated the support of the portfolio officers who made up the Review Secretariat, managed by the Department of Training and Education Co-ordination.

The P.ancl is grateful for having had the opportunity to address these important issues for our schools and their students in a spirit of collcgiality and open debate. We look forward to your response to the advice set out in this Report, which wc believe makes a constructive contribution to further curriculum development in this State.

Yours sincerely TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS i

1. BACKGROUND TO THE REVIEW 1

1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Definitions and Terminology 3

2. PROFILES AND OUTCOMES IN EDUCATION: 6 HISTORY AND RESEARCH

2.1 Introductory 6 2.2 The National Agenda and New South Wales 6 2.3 The New South Wales Scene 9 2.4 the Impetus for Outcomes 11 2.5 The Research Base for Outcome-based Education 12 2.6 Conclusion 20

3. THE REVIEW PROCESS 23

3.1 The Review Panel 23 3.2 The Educational Community Committee 23 3.3 Data Gathering 25 3.4 Elements of the Review 25

4. REVIEW FINDINGS 29

Introductory 29 4.1 Basic Understanding 29 4.1.1 Shared commitment and concerns 29 4.1.2 Effective use of teachers' time 30 4.1.3 Effective Teaching Methods 30 4.1.4 Difficulties Accompanying Outcomes and Profiles 31 4.1.5 Change understood as "action research" 31 4.1.6 Difference Between Primary and Secondary Schools 32 4.1.7 Understanding of Basic Terms 33 4.2 Curriculum 38 5.4 Relationship between Outcome and Curriculum Documents 83 4.2.1 Content and rigour 38 5.4.1 Syllabus Development 83 4.2.2 Language 39 5.4.2 Support Documents 84 4.2.3 Relationship to National Statements and Profiles 40 4.2.4 Levels 41 5.5 Assisting Teachers with Implementation 85 4.2.5 Key Learning Area (KLA) Structure 43 5.5.1 Teacher Workload 85 4.2.6 Strand strucrur: 44 5.5.2 Introducing New Syllabuses and Support Documents 85 4.2.7 Equity 45 5.5.3 Multiple Demands 86 4.2.8 Comments on Currently Implcmcntablc Documents 47 5.5.4 Syllabus Implementation Cycle 87 5.5.5 Respecting Teacher Professionalism 91 4.3 Teaching and Learning 52 4.3.1 Teachers as Professionals 52 5.6 Assessment and Reporting 91 4.3.2 Fostering Teaching Strategies/Pedagogy 53 5.6.1 Getting Assessment and Reporting into Perspective 91 4.3.3 Impact on Stuc'ents and Classroom Practice 55 5.6.2 Assessment and Reporting Practices 92 4.3.4 Teacher Education 57 5.6.3 Reporting and Levels 94 5.6.4 Using Technology 94 4.4 Implementation 58 5.6.5 Timeline 95 4.4.1 Timelines for Implementation 58 4.4.2 Delivering National Professional Development Program 5.7 Professional Development 95 Modules 60 5.7.1 Setting Priorities 95 4.4.3 Impact on Tea;bers Workload 63 5.7.2 Delivery 96 4.4.4 Community Contributions and Understanding 65 5.7.3 Initial Teacher Education 97 5.7.4 Professional Development and Community Involvement 98 4.5 Assessment and Repo:1ing 66 4.5.1 Introductory Comments 66 5.8 System Issues 98 4.5.2 Understanding Profiling and the Processess 68 5.8.1 Board of Studies 98 4.5.3 Validity of Assessments Using Outcomes 69 5.8.2 Department of School Education 99 4.5.4 Reporting to Farents 71 5.8.3 The Board of Studies and Education Authorities 100 4.5.5 System-Wide and National Monitoring 73 5.8.4 National Professional Development Program (NPDP) 100 4.5.6 Links with School Certificate and the Higher School 5.8.5 National Reporting 101 Certificate 74

4.6 Industry and Employment 74 5.9 Future Work: Evaluation and Research 102

4.7 Concluding Comment 76 REFERENCES 103

S. CONCLUSIONS ANU RECOMMENDATIONS 77 APPENDK A List of Educational Committee Members 107 5.1 Background to the Review 77 5.1.1 Terms of Reference 77 5.1.2 Conducting the Review 77 APPENBLX B List of organisations and individuals that provided submissions to the Review Panel 109 5.2 Strategic Recommendations 78

5.3 Outcomes and Profiles: What do wc mean? 81 5.3.1 Confusion with Outcomes and Profiles 81 5.3.2 Development and Use of Outcomes Statements 83 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

CURRICULUM CONTENT

RI: that in relation to curriculum content: • the Minister affirm the prime role of NSW syllabuses in describing the curriculum content - knowledge, skills and understandings - in each subject area; • the expected learning outcomes in syllabuses be the basis for the development in school settings of: teaching programs for school and classroom use, and data on students' learning achievements, including samples of students' work.

SYLLABUS FRAMEWORK

R2: that NSW syllabuses be developed according to the following framework: o syllabus outcomes, to be explicit statements of the knowledge, skills and understandings expected to be learned from teaching programs developed from NSW syllabuses. These would serve a number of purposes: to provide a reference for schools and teachers in developing their teaching and learning programs to help schools and teachers, in negotiation with school communities, to develop and apply manageable assessment and reporting strategies for individual students, and to enable, through sample surveys, system monitoring at state and national levels. • statements of syllabus outcomes for each of the five stages of compulsory schooling (ie Years K-2, 3-4, 5-6, 7-8, 9-10) to be developed by the Board of Studies for each subject, and replace the current use of such terms as "profiles" and "levels" in NSW • the Board of Studies no longer be required to incorporate the National Profiles directly into NSW syllabuses. NATIONAL CURRICULUM FRAMEWORK PRIMARY CURRICULUM R3: that in terras of national curriculum initiatives, NSW should: o on the basis of its experience with outcomes and syllabus development, influence the R6: that for the English K-6 Syllabus: development of further national initiatives in curriculum collaboration o the existing syllabus continue to be implemented in 1996 and 1997, with Functional o continue to contribute to national objectives in curriculum, through participation in Grammar no longer being mandatory national studies and surveys of learning outcomes o the experience of schools in using the English K-6 syllabus is to inform a revision of o refer the findings of this Review to other Ministers, through the Ministerial Council the syllabus by the Board of Studies, which will review and reduce the number of for Education, Employment, Triining and Youth Affairs, and to the Curriculum outcomes and lead to the development of a replacement syllabus and support Corporation, to assist in the evaluation of the national curriculum framework. document(s) based on stages, for introduction in 1998 o the Board of Studies review the use of "Functional Grammar" in English K-6 with a view to: supporting the functional approach to language that underpins the syllabus replacing the "Functional Grammar" terminology with conventional EQUITY terminology developing a document to include sources for teachers relating to R4: that priority be given by the Boa rd of Studies and relevant authorities to developing conventional grammar and its use in the classroom syllabus outcomes and support materials that meet the needs of the full range of students, including those who need additional support to complete their schooling o in the process of developing and tnailing the replacement syllabus and support successfully. document(s), full consultation occur with teachers and schools.

SUPPORT DOCUMENTS

RS: that to accompany syllabus documents and to emphasise the potential significance of R7: that, in order to bring the Mathematics K-6 Syllabus into conformity with the NSW a focus on outcomes as an approach to teaching and learning, support documents be Education Reform Act 1990: developed containing units of work and work samples, across the five stages, and o a suitable range of manageable outcomes be derived Irom the current syllabus for indicating how the units of work and work samples relate to corresponding material each of the stages in terms of knowledge, skills, and understandings contained in national profile statements. ° work be undertaken with teachers to develop and trial these outcomes so that they are based on best practice o syllabus, outcomes be provided in a support document, which indicates how they might assist teaching, assessment and reporting in Mathematics K-6 ° the preparation of these outcomes be completed during 1996, with professional development to occur in preparation for full implementation in 1997.

ii R8: that the Board of Studies: RIO: that as an integral part of the developmental work for Science 7-10, a Science • continue to develop syllabuses as they are due for revision, with a limited number of Symposium be held, involving teachers, including country teachers, academics, and others with professional interests in (his area, to give advice on: syllabus outcomes as they relate to stages, using a process of thorough consultation with teachers and schools; the content and approach of the Science 7-10 Syllabus • release these syllabuses to schools beginning with the following suggested schedule: revision of the current draft Science 7-10 Syllabus English K-6 1998 links between Science 7-10 and the Science 11-12 Syllabuses.

Mathematics K-6 1997 Rll: that where any syllabus comes up for review, outcomes be derived from the syllabus PDHPE 1997, for optional implementation for each stage. Work samples and other units of work should also be prepared as 1998/1999, for full implementation part of the support materials, and include indications of how the work samples and units of work relate to corresponding material in the national profile statements. HSIE 1998, for optional implementation 1999/2000, for full implementation R12-. that: • consider the integration of Citizenship Education as part of this developmental work, • until they are reviewed, those syllabuses issued incorporating national strands and • investigate the possibility of developing a small number of generic outcomes across outcomes be used according to the best judgement of teachers the primary curriculum, which would encompass all key learning areas. • those syllabuses now in draft form incorporating national strands and outcomes be reviewed, consistent with Recommendation 2.

ASSESSMENT AND REPORTINC SECONDARY CURRICULUM that in relation to assessment and reporting practices: R9: that, as they come up for review, for each of the Year 7-10 Syllabuses in the areas of English, Mathematics, Science, History and Geography: schools and their communities be responsible for devising their own procedures, with opportunities for community members to express views' and indicate then- • a limited number of outcome statements, related to stages and derived from expectations in relation to reporting, taking into account issues such as: individual syllabuses, be developed to focus on knowledge, skills and understandings the need for assessment and reporting practices (o be time-efficient, and not • illustrations of the standard of performance relating to outcomes be provided in detract from teaching and learning support documents to guide teachers' understandings, these to be in the form of work samples, units of work and other exemplars, and include indications of how the acknowledging differences in terms of the development of individual children work samples and units of work relate to corresponding material in (he national the general well-being of the student profile statements standards of comparison to enable parents to know how their children are • the relationship to the School Certificate subject descriptors of the syllabus outcomes, progressing especially of Stage 5, be clearly established, with revision of the current descriptors where necessary diagnosis of areas of strength and need, including those where students might be given additional support • the integration of Citizenship Education be considered as part of this developmental support be given to schools during 1996 through the provision of thoroughly work considered guidelines and options, which assist in the development of reporting • (hat realistic timeframes be set for (he development of these syllabuses to enable procedures, and give indications of what constitutes valid, reliable, informative and teachers, schools and academics to contribute fully. manageable reporting to parents.

iv v PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT: COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

R14: that to contribute to the professional development of teachers, schools across the R18: that in relation to the community's role in professional development: State be invited to participate in the development of syllabus outcomes and support c that the community participate in the preparation and delivery of materials for use documents by offering examples from their own experience and by trialling materials in schools with their communities developed in 1996 and 1997. o that schools be encouraged to ensure wider community participation in the development of strategies that enhance understanding of new syllabuses.

R1S: that materials be developed to explain clearly the intentions, purposes and rationale for introducing outcomes, so that schools can be informed and assisted in developing their own approaches to the incorporation of syllabus outcomes into their teaching BOARD OF STUDIES PROCEDURES and learning programs.

R19: that the Board of Studies review its procedures for developing and trialling syllabus and support documents so that productive input from teachers and academics with expertise in the area(s) is assured at all stages. RI6: in the provision of professional development: o there should be very strong input from a range of schools, based on identified "best practice" o support materials be written so that adequate provision is made for teachers to identify and discuss implications for their own circumstances NATIONAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT a schools be the focus for delivering professional development, to ensure that the principal and staff can deteiTnine how initiatives relate to their existing needs, R20: having noted the benefits of collaboration between school sectors and profession priorities and their workload and community groups that is evident from the operation of the National • diverse and flexible strategies, including the use of technology, should be adopted to Professional Development Program, that Commonwealth and State Governments cater for all teachers, including those in small schools and remote areas should continue to support this type of collaboration in their consideration of present and nature NPDP submissions. o schools be encouraged to wo rk with one another and with other relevant groups (universities, professional associations, community groups) as they explore new approaches and determine what is best for them in their own context

R21: that in future NPDP work more opportunities be provided for schools to gain direct access to funding to support local initiatives to incorporate outcomes into INITIAL TEACHER EDUCATION teaching/learning and assessment programs.

R17: that the Minister ask the Ministerial Advisory Council on the Quality of Teaching to consider ways in which teacher education institutions can be assisted to give student teachers adequate prcpara: ion with regard to current syllabuses and their implementation, including assessment and reporting.

vi vii 1. BACKGROUND TO THE REVIEW

1.1 INTRODUCTION On April 27, 1995, the Minister for Education and Training, the Hon. John Aquilina, announced a pause in the implementation of profiles and outcomes in New South Wales schools, to enable current progress to be reviewed and to consider future directions. The Minister stated that this Review fulfilled the Government's pre-election commitment to provide a breathing space for the Government to review fully the existing policy. The Minister said that he was committed to major aspects of a profiles and outcomes approach: syllabuses should specify the content to be learned; clear standards should be set for each level of schooling; and student progress should be reported to parents in terms of whether those standards are being achieved'. He also stated, however, that the Government had concerns about plans for implementation of profiles and outcomes, including: • the quality of some of the outcomes statements, which are imprecise and lack contmt the amount of work expected of teachers in recording student performance and implementing the approach, and the speed of implementation'. Terms of reference for the Review reflected these commitments and concerns: Terms of Reference Preamble The review will be conducted against the background of. The Government's commitment to the highest quality school curriculum for NSW. Curriculum content must have rigour, value and significance. It must enable student tnastery of theoretical and applied knowledge;

' Minister's Press Release, Review of Implementation of Profiles and Outcomes, April 27, 1995

' ibid.

Focusing on Learning: Page 1 The Government's support for outcomes statements that are developed from appropriate subject content - in terms of knowledge, skills and dear standards should be set for each level of learning understandings that specify clear standards about the content to be student progress should be reported to parents in terms of learned and provide a clear basis for reporting to parents on progress; whether those standards are being achieved

Community and professional concern about the implementation of These strategies must be able to be managed by schools and their teachers, outcomes and profiles in New South Wales schools. and do not inordinately shift the focus of classroom activity from teaching and learning to assessment and reporting." Tasks The Minister also recognised "that schools have been developing programs of Against the above background, the Review will investigate, consult and work for their students based on an outcomes approach for some time. Some report on: of this work may prove to be valuable in contributing to the further development of our knowledge on best practice in teaching and learning." 1. Tfie quality of curriculum documents that utilise outcomes and profiles, including:

(a) their consistency with principles of high quality subject content and 1.2 DEFINITIONS AND TERMINOLOGY best practice teaching methods

(b) the need to ensure that syllabuses are written in a language that is A range of definitions in relation to profiles and outcomes has been in use in appropriate and natural to the particular subject and are easily recent years in New South Wales and in national documents. The definitions understood and interpreted by teachers, students and parents. presented below have been taken from a variety of documents including, Curriculum Outcomes (Board of Studies, 1991), Shared Understandings: The 2. The appropriateness of the current implementation arrangements for Language of an Outcomes and Profiles Approach (Department of School outcomes and profiles in NSW, including: Education, 1994) and the National Statements and Profiles (1993).

(a) the speed of change required by the timeline and Outcomes 1990-1993 (b) implications for schocls of new assessment and reporting arrangements as well as their effects on teachers' work. The initial definition of outcomes was developed in response to the NSW Education Reform Act, 1990, which states that any syllabus developed or 3. Recommendations for further action and review in the above areas, endorsed by the Board for a particular course of study: including relationships between curriculum development, leaching and learning outcomes in schools and teacher training and development. is to indicate the aims, objectives and desired outcomes in terms of knowledge and skills that should be acquired by children at various The Minister subsequently also advised that Government policy affirmed the levels of achievement by the end of specified stages in the courses, and requirements of the NSW Education Reform Act that require all syllabuses any practical experience that children should acquire by the end of such endorsed by the Board of Studies to indicate the aims and objectives for each a stage - Section 14 (3). course and the outcomes expected of children at each level. In this regard he stated: The Board of Studies stated that syllabus outcomes: "While I am not committed to any particular approach to profiles and were not meant lo be in the form of an exhaustive, behavioural list. outcomes, including its terminology, I am concerned that the review should They could be viewed as being on a continuum between the very focus clearly on identifying strategies that address the Government's general aims of core knowledge, skills and attitudes in the syllabus to commitment to achieving the following goals: the much more detailed and specific outcomes expected from classroom activity (Curriculum Outcomes, Board of Studies, 1991). syllabuses should specify the content to be learned and maintain the integrity of ;i curriculum based on high quality subject In 1993 the introduction of an "outcomes and profiles" approach based on a content national framework resulted in new terminology.

Focusing on Learning: Page 2 Focusing on Learning: Page 3 2. PROFILES AND OUTCOMES IN EDUCATION: between systems". In 1989, Ministers for Education across the country signed an agreement referred to as the "Hobart Declaration: the Common and HISTORY AND RESEARCH Agreed National Goals of Schooling in Australia", which emphasised in its preamble that the States and Territories have constitutional responsibility for school education.

2.1 INTRODUCTORY Having set national goals, the Ministers also approved the undertaking of extensive curriculum initiatives at a national level, with a view to exploring a The major drive to introduce an "outcomes and profiles approach" into New possible common curriculum framework. This work was begun by Directors South Wales schools came from a Ministerial decision in October 1993 when of Curriculum in 1988 who continued work on the development on National the then Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs requested the Curriculum Statements in each of eight areas of the curriculum. NSW Board of Studies to incorporate, as appropriate, outcomes from the national curriculum profiles into New South Wales syllabuses. The New As well, in early 1990 the Australian Education Council established a South Wales decision in late 1993 had its origins in collaborative curriculum working party to report on student achievement. That working party work that had begun in the mid-1980s. It is important to understand these advocated student profiles. In May 1990, the Australian Cooperative origins as they explain the parameters within which the current New South Assessment Program (ACAP) planned a number of significant projects which Wales initiative in relation to the "outcomes and profiles approach" has been also involved work with profiles. The Australian Education Council, in operating. December 1990, approved proposals from ACAP to develop profiles in Mathematics and English. The Curriculum Corporation, established in the same year, began to publish nationally-produced curriculum materials. 2.2 THE NATIONAL AGENDA AND NEW SOUTH WALES In April 1991, the Australian Education Council launched curriculum projects In 1988, the Commonwealth Minister for Employment, Education and in eight areas of study and approved the development of Statements and Training, the Hon. John Dawkins, issued the Statement Strengthening Profiles covering the eight areas: The Arts, English, Health and Physical Australia's Schools: A Consideration of the Focus and Content of Schooling. Education, Science, Languages Other than English, Mathematics, Studies of Society and Environment, and Technology. In June 7991, the Curriculum and In his statement, Minister Dawkins invited cooperation from all education Assessment Committee (CURASS) was set up to manage this work for the systems in undertaking a more concerted national effort "to strengthen the AEC and was given two years to complete this enormous task. CURASS capacity of Australia's schools". The areas he identified as requiring focus at accordingly presented the Statements and Profiles to the July 1993 meeting of a national level were: the Australian Education Council. The processes set in train to accomplish the task in the time limit were criticised by some as being too highly • the purposes, objectives and priorities of schooling centralised, leading to the marginalisation of educational practitioners and • increasing school retention discipline experts with inadequate opportunities for consultation and public critique (Allen, 1993). Although attempts were made to trial and validate the • education and equity framework, it was seen to be "fast tracked", there was "limited time for • a common curriculum framework development and consultation" (Scarino, 1994); "deadlines were unrealistically short" and consultation was "selective" (Broughton, 1994). For • a common approach to assessment many, there was a perceived "poor consultative process" (see e.g. Ellerton • priorities for improving the training of teachers and Clements, 1994). • maximising investment in education, including determining ways to enhance cooperation, joint undertakings and remove At the July 1993 meeting of the AEC, it was decided "that a further period of unnecessary differences in schooling across Australia. review is warranted". The Council referred the documents back to the States and Territories "for further work involving consultation with their own Following the Dawkins statement, the Australian Education Council (AEC) educational communities, so that each State and Territory can determine if resolved to "strengthen further the effective collaboration which has occurred the initiatives should be proceeded with". In December 1993 the AEC to date to enable greater effectiveness and efficiency in curriculum through resolved to continue national curriculum collaboration and reaffirmed State the sharing of knowledge and scarce curriculum development resources and Territory responsibility for their schools' curriculum. The Curriculum across systems ... and .... remove unnecessary differences in curriculum Corporation was given the task of reporting to the AEC on the use of the national statements and profiles by state systems. The then NSW Minister for

Focusing on Learning: Page 6 Focusing on Learning: Page 7 Education and Youth Affairs had made clear her support for the use of the national curriculum materials in June 1993, in the following press release: are a framework of what might be taught to achieve these outcomes. (English - A Curriculum Profile for Australian Schools, 1994, pi) The Board of Studies is working on incorporating the national profiles in all future and current syllabus documents. Once this work is complete, NSW is more ihan willing to make these documents available In a submission to the current Review from the NSW Department of School to other States. NSW already has an exceptionally high quality and Education, the Director-General noted: marketable curriculum product. Once the national profiles are incorporated into these documents, we will be well placed to make the Statements and profiles were designed to assist in the improvement of product available to other states. It is important that the profiles are teaching and learning and to provide a common language for reporting used to the best advan 'age of teachers and students Australia-iuide. student achievement. The learning area profiles are not 'perfect'... (28/6/1993) The above account highlights what has happened recently in New South In the following October, the Minister requested the NSW Board of Studies to Wales and in Australia to promote greater collaboration in school curriculum incorporate the outcomes of the National Profiles into NSW syllabuses. There initiatives across State borders and systems. What is missing from the then followed a period of in;ense activity on the part of the Board of Studies, account is an educational rationale for the adoption of outcomes and profiles in particular, to see that the Minister's request was put into effect. The to underpin all areas of the school curriculum in the State. This matter is Department of School Education began a similarly intense program in its taken up below. schools to prepare the way for the introduction of an outcomes and profiles approach. Other school sysiems and organisations in NSW became involved when a joint consortium was established to develop implementation 2.3 THE NEW SOUTH WALES SCENE materials using Commonwealth funding provided through the National Professional Development Program (NPDP). AS stated in 2.2 above, the NSW Board of Studies had begun including outcomes statements in NSW syllabuses in 1991, following the NSW It should be noted that the eight curriculum statements were not intended to Education Reform Act (1990). These outcomes were closely related to the represent syllabuses. As indicated in the Mathematics Statement, "the objectives of the Syllabus and described "the knowledge, understandings and purpose of the National Statement on Mathematics for Australian Schools is skills that should be acquired by children ... by the end of specified stages in to provide a framework around which systems and schools may build their the courses" (Section 14.3). The K-12 curriculum in NSW is organised into six mathematics curriculum. Il does not provide a syllabus or curriculum and, stages with each stage representing usually two years of chronological time, indeed, its structure makes it inappropriate for direct use in that way". for example Years 5 and 6, Years 7 and 8. In a paper issued in September 1991, Curriculum Outcomes, the Board of Studies stated that "the stages are a Whereas the statements we::e seen as providing a framework for curriculum convenient way of structuring syllabus outcomes, and syllabuses will indicate development, the curriculum profile in each curriculum area was seen as outcomes for each stage of the course. Rather than being rigidly defined, the providing a map of typicai student progression. The original intention in stages should be regarded as overlapping because students will not only having the profiles developed was to provide a series of descriptive achieve outcomes at differing levels within each stage but they are likely to statements or indicators, arranged in progressive levels of achievement, to be achieve some outcomes from different stages" (Curriculum Outcomes, p4). It is used subsequently as a means of reporting on student progress and worth noting that the Board's paper makes it explicit that the outcomes are achievements in given areas, of the curriculum. not seen as a set of statements providing an indication of linear progression in learning. The Board also mentioned that the outcomes would allow for The following extract frorr. the introduction to the national English profile different qualities of achievement. It should also be understood that the basic sums up the position: planning structure in New South Wales syllabuses, of six stages, would inevitably come into conflict with the externally designed eight levels in the Profiles describe the orogression of learning typically achieved by national profiles. students during the compulsory years of school (Years 1-10) in each of the areas of learning. Their purpose is twofold: to help teaching and The Board of Studies explained the rationale for these syllabus outcomes in learning, and to provide a framework for reporting student the following terms: achievement. Profiles and Statements are linked. Vie profiles show the typical progression in achieving learning outcomes, while Statements

Focusing on Learning: Page 8 Focusing on Learning: Page and Profiles), May 1995. The Report stated that while there was general Outcomes can assist teachers by:. support for the inclusion of outcomes in syllabuses, many difficulties had inviting focus upon the product as well as the process of been highlighted in responses including the interpretation of the outcomes, teaching the consistency of standard of the levels, outcomes and pointers between and providing specific guidance for planning the learning across subjects, and their appropriateness to the subject. The Report also environment, programming learning activities, selecting stated that some respondents requested access to the research supporting the development of outcomes-based syllabuses in New South Wales. appropriate teaching resources, and evaluating courses providing a focus for assessment It was at this point that the incoming Minister for Education and Training announced his review. defining the content level of the syllabus more precisely assisting in determining student needs whether it be for consolidation, extension activities, remediation, or progress to 2.4 THE IMPETUS FOR OUTCOMES another stage clarifying the type of student achievement to be assessed by The impetus for an outcomes approach has come from a number of factors. helping teachers make realistic decisions about appropriate There are the. requirements of the Education Reform Act of 1990 with its reference to outcomes. The development of the National Profiles reflected a knowledge, skills and values for students in each stage new political will in the States towards collaboration and rationalisation of providing concrete means of establishing whether or not an State activities. The NSW decision to introduce national outcomes through objective has been achieved Board syllabuses was related to those national moves for closer collaboration. assisting reporting of student achievement These developments partly relate to the drive for national economic providing students with a clear perception of goals to be efficiency, which in turn reflected the global economic climate of the 1990s. A achieved world-wide emphasis on accountability required that public investment in giving parents, employers and the wider community a clearer schooling be matched by a comparable "output" in terms of the measurable understanding of the instructional intent and likely improvement in the performance of students. The Department of School Education included among the goals of the NSW Outcomes and Profiles "to achievements cf students. (Curriculum Outcomes, p7) account to the government and the community for the effective expenditure From 1991-1993, the Board developed syllabus documents which included of public monies on education", and this purpose has been repeated in Board outcomes defined in terms of objectives and stages. These included Science statements. and Technology K-6, Geography 7-10, History 7-10 and a draft Personal Development, Health, and Physical Education (PD/H/PE, K-6). Schools in the 1990s have been subject to pressure to adopt business-style approaches to accountability.and management. Knowledge is often spoken Following the Minister's request of October, 1993, the Board incorporated the of as an industry. It is no longer acceptable for teachers to speak of the national profile outcomes, with NSW additions, into English K-6, PD/H/PE "unknowable consequences of teaching and learning". The output is to be K-6, HSLE K-6 (consultation draft), Music 7-10, Visual Arts 7-10, Studies of measurable in quantifiable terms, hence the demand for precise level-related Religion 7-10, Aboriginal Studies 7-10 and Mathematics 9-10 (draft). To outcomes. "The introduction of an outcomes and profiles model in NSW State achieve this in the given timeframe required considerable haste, as the schools represents a move...to an output-focused model ...the kinds of outputs President of the Board of Studies commented to the Review. The lack of which [teachers] should ensure students take out of the system" (Department content in die national profiles meant that the connection of the national of School Education Paper submitted to the Panel, 1995). This "reflects the outcomes to NSW syllabus objectives could not be clearly elucidated and trend in the business world to be more outcomes-based rather than input- comment has been made already that there was inevitable conflict between based" (Professor Peter Hill, University of Melbourne, in a presentation to the the eight levels of "typical achievement" of the national profiles and the six Review Committee). stages of NSW syllabuses. Outcomes are also appealing to many in a context of rapid diange, where For all subjects other than those in the Creative Arts Key Learning, the Board there is an increased search for certainty. Metaphors like growth, nurture issued. Outcomes and Profiles documents independently of their syllabuses, and art are sometimes said have passed out of the educational discourse of for consultation. The consultation period ended in April, 1995 and the results the 1990s. "This may not appeal to the romantic in us, who would like to were issued in Report on the Responses lo the Board's Consultation (on Outcomes follow the child in an exploration of the universe, but it makes sense when

Focusing on Learning: Page 1 Focusing on Learning: Page 10 you have to plan lessons and structure activities for twenty-five students." became known as mastery learning (see Guskey's work, eg. 1985, 1994). (Hannan, first Chair of CURASS, in Why Teach To Outcomes", IARTV, May Spady's contribution to Outcomes-Based Education (OBE) may be seen as his 1995). framework for "transforming" the curriculum alongside these instructional strategies. Guskey (1994:37) has put it this way: Responsibility for economic competitiveness, the employabiliry of the school- leaver and inequities in educational achievement have been sheeted home by Outcomes-based education is principally a goal-driven curriculum some to the quality of teaching. Teachers are being asked to define their reform model with definite implications for assessing student learning. desired outputs, to focus on the individual, to run student-centred classes, to Mastery learning is primarily an instructional process to help teachers believe that all students car. succeed. It is suggested that this reform in enhance their teaching procedures and thereby improve student teaching and learning can be brought about in schools, as in business, by learning. Combining these distinct approaches offers great potential. focusing on measurable outcomes.

The drive to achieve equity has also become outcomes-based. Where Defining Outcome-Based Learning educational sociologists twenty years ago saw the middle class toncept of knowledge as the cause of failurei n non-socially advantaged groups, today An outcome is a culminating demonstration of the attire range of the cause is seen more by same as the failure to deliver essential learning learning experiences and capabilities that underlie it. It occurs in a outcomes to disadvantaged groups. performance context that directly influences what il is and how it is carried out. The word 'based' means to direct, define, derive, determine, The adoption of explicit outcomes places a responsibility on teachers to take focus and organise what we do according to the substance and nature of students into their confidence to ensure that there is a shared understanding the learning result that we want lo have happen al the end. (Spady, of the purposes and processes of learning programs. This educational rationale 1993:5) for outcomes-based education is explored in more detail below. Spady has suggested seven aims of outcomes-based education. What he proposes is not new to those teachers who have been experimenting with 2.5 THE RESEARCH BASE FOR OUTCOMES-BASED EDUCATION ways to individualise instruction and maximise opportunities for all students to learn at their own pace. The aims he puts forward for OBE are: An important question still needs to be asked (and quite a number of those who forwarded submission:; to the Review Panel raised the issue): is there a lo create more flexible delivery systems so that students of different strong research base for the wholesale adoption of "an outcomes and profiles ages can learn cooperatively; approach"? While there rnny be considerable merit in ensuring some consistency exists in curriciium requirements across Australia (though some to replace the averaging systems and comparative grading with the of those who spoke to the Review Panel disputed this idea), the question concept of culminating achievement; remains whether there is a strong research base that bears out the claimed benefits of establishing a large number of outcomes coupled with detailed to ensure all students experience success; assessment and reporting mechanisms at a number of levels. to avoid a process whereby "passing" requires a given amount of time to be spent attending a particular class; Background to equip teachers to focus more on the learning capabilities of students and less on covering a given amount of the curriculum; Outcomes-based theorists (eg. Mamary and Spady) have traced the evidence for using this approach back to the work of John Carroll (1963) and running to focus all instruction on a higher level of learning and make accessible on through the work of B.oom and his colleagues (1981). These researchers lo all students methods used in gifted and talented programs; have challenged die notions that only some students have the innate ability to do well, and that ability is normatively distributed; they have claimed that to place less reliance on norm-referenced standardised tests as indicators one of the tasks of education is to maximise opportunities to assist all of either student or teacher accomplishment (Spady, 1993:6-7). students to learn. Carroll's work suggested that all students could achieve higher order skills if given enough time and high quality instruction to do so. A key feature of the OBE approach is that outcomes can be demonstrated and Bloom similarly has hypothesised that all students could achieve at a high assessed. This raises one of the frequent criticisms of an outcomes-based level if the learning conditions were right. This approach to instruction approach. It can be very difficult to demonstrate or observe values and

Focusing on Learning: Page 12 Focusing on Learning: Page 13 attitudes. In addition, in particular curriculum areas it is seen to be difficult The National Curriculum in the United Kingdom to demonstrate or measure learning, particularly in the creative and performing arts. The attempt to identify, observe and measure discrete A further influence on thinking about curriculum in terms of specific outcomes of learning separately from the context and content of what is outcomes and levels has come from the United Kingdom through efforts to learned is considered by many to fragment knowledge and prevent a holistic introduce the National Curriculum as a result of the UK Education Reform understanding of the student's learning and progress. Act (1988). The National Curriculum introduced foundation subjects and an associated system of attainment testing of children at ages 7,11,14 and 16. Proponents of OBE argue that there is no single model for outcomes-based Attainment targets and programs of study were developed and provided on education. Frameworks which have been developed emphasise systems-level the basis of advice from the National Curriculum Council to the Government, change and outcomes that are both observable and measurable. Spady has which saw to it that curriculum requirements were enshrined in legislation. defined three different models to describe current interpretations of The Government's hope was that the National Curriculum would overcome outcomes-based learning in the United States: what it perceived to be long-standing inequities in education by ensuring all students were entitled to the same curriculum which made explicit what was traditional, which restate as outcomes what is identified as required of them. 'truly important' in existing curriculum documents;

transitional, which begin to consider future role priorities of There have been problems with the UK scheme. At the beginning of 1994, the current students and so involve some curriculum rethinking and Chairman of the School Curriculum and Assessment Audiority, Mr Ron restructuring to focus on higher order competencies at the exit Dearing, submitted a major report to Government after a review had been level of schooling; and, commissioned in April 1993. The major concerns to emerge related to workload (for teachers and students) imposed on schools, difficulties with the transformational, which focus on the competent future citizen 10 levels which had been proposed for the curriculum structure, and and devise learning and assessment strategies around the problems with assessment practices. Dearing commented: "We have created challenges and opportunities students will face after leaving an over-elaborate system which has, at times, reduced assessment to a school. meaningless ticking of myriad boxes" (Times Education Supplement, 7/1/94). Dearing found it necessary to recommend reductions in the prescribed Spady urges schools to generate transformational outcomes and then "design curriculum for both primary and secondary schools along with a reduction in down" from these. Mamary's Outcomes-Driven Developmental Model attainment targets and statements. The ten levels are also to be revised. stresses the need for a "transformational" leader to enable this model to be Dearing's report suggests considerable disquiet among teachers as a result of developed (McNeir, 1993). the imposition upon them of a highly prescribed curriculum bringing with it what they see as unreasonable levels of assessment. The outcomes incorporated from the National Profiles into NSW syllabuses appear to be more traditional in Spady's terms - they are a restating of current curriculum understandings as outcomes. Boston (1992) defines outcomes as Are the Claims for an Outcomes-Based Approach Realisable in Practice? "an emphasis on what students are expected to achieve". (p30). The NSW outcomes and profiles approach has been criticised for its technical emphasis A search of relevant ERIC3 literature from 1993 until the present reveals (see eg. Grundy, 1992). According to Grundy they "misrepresent the numerous entries (close to three thousand) under the umbrella term" complexities of the educational endeavour" (pl57). Such a view has been outcomes-based education". A closer inspection of some three hundred of stated by Schwarz and Cavener (1994) who conclude more generally that these reveals that most provide a description or definition of the approach "outcomes-based education theory ignores the complexity of schools and the alongside other restructuring reforms. Alternatively, they provide arguments standardised prescription for reform relies on the power of hierarchical for or against the approach. Few demonstrate substantive support for their structures - a powerful bureaucracy to ensure implementation" (p334). use beyond general statements about improved test performance or better Towers (1992) says "OBE assumes that all academic success is observable and attitudes to learning by students, and about increased accountability. Evans can be measured ... OBE and business seem to share the same rigidity, and King 1994(a) comment, for example: objectivity and result-orientation" (p94). Apple (1992) has warned that "OBE is a simplistic solution to very complicated problems" (p7). The strong message to note here is that we should be wary about accepting outcomes-

based approaches to the curriculum as being a panacea for resolving all the 3 inherent complexities of curriculum. Educational Resources Information Centre, a data base of educational research and literature

Focusing on Learning: Page 14 Focusing on Learning: Page (i) An outcomes and profiles approach will help teachers improve Despite OBE's apperl, however, research documenting its effects is rare. their teaching because the outcomes are clearly defined and the OBE is an umbrella concept under which various reform efforts can be language of achievement has been standardised. Programming. placed and people who ask 'what exactly is. outcomes-based education' assessment, teaching methods and reporting can be based around the may receive several answers (pl2) outcomes statements. Similarly, McNeir (1993:3) writes: The importance of the quality of staff development programs emerges as a Vie lack of a compiehensive research base is of concern.... although dominant theme in the US research (eg. Guskey, 1991). A report written by many schools thai have implemented OBE programs report the Minnesota State Department of Education in 1991, for example, evaluated improvement, the evidence of its ultimate success is inconclusive. ten projects which had been developed using outcomes-based principles. It suggested that teachers were confused about the concept of outcomes-based It would seem that very few research investigations have studied the education and without collegial support sensitive to the individual school implementation and effects of using OBE models. This lack of supporting contexts the approach would not be successful. An evaluation of a evidence may be because it is too early to evaluate these special projects, Washington school district which had adopted "outcomes driven education" especially if they have developed broader "transformational" outcomes. It in 1989 concluded, after interviewing district administrators, school may also be because it is difficult to measure the success of using broadly principals and teachers and analysing documents, that this approach had led based outcomes in conventional performance terms. Some of the findings to to positive changes in educational practice because of the collaborative nature emerge in the literature are summarised below. of the project (Furman, 1994).

Glatthorn (1993) seeks to clarify the effectiveness of OBE, by asking whether Marzano in 1994 polled 62 teachers who had been using outcome-based the model is coherent or comprehensive, and concludes that the model performance tasks for at least six months, over a K-12 spectrum. Of these "seems flawed, because il: ignores several elements considered essential in a teachers, 74% rated the approach useful or highly useful. In addition, 67% comprehensive approach to reform" (p355). Like Evans and King, he indicated that such tasks provided them with better assessment information includes concerns about gifted and talented and "at risk" students, and than did traditional classroom assessment practices. When asked how many concludes that "until more conclusive research is available, it would be such tasks they could administer in a month, however, the average rate unwise to include this instructional model as an essential part of school involved a very limited number of "proficiencies". The work of Marzano reform". highlights the need to reduce the number of outcomes for use in assessment processes to manageable proportions. The following themes an; central to the arguments offered to support an outcomes- based approach, to'teaching and learning: Hansen (1989), an enthusiastic supporter of OBE, argues that "OBE ensures that the taught curriculum is also the tested curriculum" and using an OBE (i) an outcomes and profiles approach will help teachers improve their approach "improves the teaching-learning function in the classroom". teaching because the outcomes are clearly defined and the language According to Hansen, "Another distinct advantage of OBE is that it of achievement has been standardised. Programming, assessment, encourages the assessment of higher-level and more varied learning teaching methods and reporting can be based around the outcomes objectives, rather than the simplistic, lower-level ones that characterise statements; traditional testing practices". Hansen concludes by claiming that OBE's (ii) students will improve their learning because they will have better "advantages are many and unique" although virtually no data are provided to support these claims. Hansen has been quoted as this level of enthusiasm information about their actual achievements and next steps; and is typical of what can be found in the literature and in the field - great (iii) parents will be able to support their children better because they will exuberance and commitment, without necessarily providing substantive have more accurate information about children's progress and future evidence. directions. (ii) Students will improve their learning because they will have better It is important to consider evidence for an outcomes-based approach as it information about their actual achievements and next steps relates to each of these claims.

Various articles (eg. Abrams, 1985) cite an improvement in the basic skills scores above the national norms after outcomes-based education was

Focusing on Learning: Page 16 Focusing on Learning: Page 17 introduced. Preliminary standardised and criterion referenced tests from quote Fonken, (1993), who in another Minnesota-based study, noted three school districts in Johnson City (USA) suggest that student performance examples of teacher concern that "advanced students [are] neglected and not improved when outcome-based learning was introduced (Fitzpatrick, 1994). challenged enough and it makes the top students lazy". Evans and King also Other schools and districts which claim successful implementation include Alhambra (Phoenix, Arizona) Lake Whitmore (Michigan) and those in the quote a number of other researchers in support of the view that low aptitude Sparta School District in Illinois (McNeir, 1993). It is not clear, however, that students may derive a relatively higher learning gain than do those of high an improvement in test scores equates with an improvement in learning and aptitude, and that gifted students may lose motivation waiting for the overall other assessment tasks may be more appropriate. group. Finally, a major criticism of OBE as an approach in the United States is that In a study of community college students, Webster (1994) found that when broader outcomes will de-emphasise the learning of specific content in students assumed responsibility for their learning and were involved in particular curriculum areas (McNeir, 1993). This concern is reflected in the determining their own outcomes, they worked at a higher performance level Terms of Reference for the current review. and were keen to take extra optional classes. Similarly, Burke (1993) writes about the need for tasks which allow students to plan and monitor their own learning.

A related area of study has looked at the effects of goals and self-evaluation (iii) Parents will be able to support their children better because they will on student achievement (eg Schunk, 1995 and Schunk and Swartz, 1993). It have more accurate information about children's progress and future appears that when students are provided with specific goals, they are able to directions. regulate and evaluate their performance more carefully and an increase was evident in both skills and self-efficacy (ie. belief in one's capabilities to The literature on OBE does not discuss assessment and reporting aspects in perform skills at designated levels). As Schunk (1995:8-9) concludes: any great detail. The argument that OBE provides more accurate information about children's progress assumes that learning typically occurs in definable Emphasising to students that their goal is to learn to solve problems and observable sequential steps. Research work has been undertaken by Hill can raise their self-efficacy for learning and motivate them to regulate and his colleagues in Melbourne (see e.g. Rowe, Hill and Holmes-Smith, their task performance and work diligently. Self-efficacy is 1994) who have developed a standards framework for reading which consists substantiated as they observe their progress in skill acquisition. .Higher of defined stages of progress in reading skills. It is likely that similar self-efficacy helps to sustain motivation and increase skill acquisition. standards frameworks can be developed in other areas of early learning that are based on developmental patterns that provide a foundation for "typical Similarly, a goal-based approach to learning in which tasks are joindy performance". Such work and the researdi required to underpin it is not yet negotiated by teacher and students (Boomer, 1982, 1992) postulates that done to any substantial extent, though some progress is being made (see e.g. students are more motivated and interested in work they own. Assessment, Masters, 1994). too, can become a negotiated process. Some have claimed a link between the notion of a negotiated curriculum and outcomes-based education. At higher levels where more complex cognitive functioning is involved, the Glatthorn (1993) claims that OBE literature does not confront the difficulty of potential for identifying standards frameworks based on developmental having students "master objectives before they move ahead". Rather he factors is more uncertain. The outcomes written for the National Profiles and claims that such a practice is "discredited by the research", for example, that incorporated into NSW syllabuses, in areas other than reading and early of Shepard and Smith (1990). Glatthorn also believes that with its learning, were based on what is typically taught and expected of students fundamental focus on individualised learning, OBE "may not result in around Australia. They reflect current syllabus expectations rather than any optimal learning", especially in "elementary, middle and high schools". He identified inherent pattern of learning, although they do incorporate suggests that "such an emphasis risks minimising use of cooperative behaviourist taxonomies such as that of Bloom in their use of a hierarchy of learning". skills as in the transition from "describes" to "synthesises". The definition of outcomes and their allocation to levels in these areas are based on a Evans and King 1994(b), in the context of daeir concern for gifted and talented judgement by the profile and syllabus writers and not on research. The children, contend that specific programs for such students are rarely ACER undertook a pilot study of the allocation of national profile outcomes mentioned in OBE literature, but that data analysed from 37 different schools to levels. The results were mixed and the Review Panel was advised that in Minnesota included a finding that "OBE appeared to create advantages for ACER would not represent them as a validation of the levels or outcomes. slower students but disadvantages for higher achieving students". They

Focusing on Learning: Page 18 Focusing on Learning: Page The Review Panel was; frequently asked by teachers and organisations, their students should know and understand (the content) and should be able including those representing business and industry, to provide details of the to do (the skills) and what might be expected at the next level. research base that would validate reporting based on outcomes. We were While it may be argued that the model suggests a move away from so-called unable to establish an)' definitive evidence at this time. We did note, "softer" approaches, it does not seem reasonable to argue that the underlying however, that work is proceeding to develop comprehensive profiles of principles of OBE are different. What is different is the attempt to specify student achievement wliich indicate a child's performance relative to that levels and a continuum of attainments. These are the very areas the UK child's own rate of progress, relative to classmates and relative to norms experience has shown to be highly problematic. Much work is still needed to established by system-wide surveys (see e.g. Griffin, 1995). determine the validity of levels before we can confidently accept the idea that there is a well-established standards framework. While data-gathering has begun (e.g. evaluations being undertaken on Early Learning Profiles in New 2.6 CONCLUSION South Wales) we are a long way from having clearly defined standards at various levels of schooling. To sum up: the researci picture is inconclusive. There are accounts that speak in positive terms, of the advantages of outcomes-based "education, What diis analysis has shown is that much of the literature emphasising including (in addition to diose cited above) the perceived potential to either the benefits or the dangers of outcomes-based education does not minimise die notion of failure (McGhan, 1994) and a focus on learning include a great deal of hard evidence to support the claims being made. We accomplished rather than on time spent to achieve learning success (Haas, can also conclude that much of the research is not research at all, but a 1992). continuing dialogue based on beliefs, judgements and experiences. This, of course, is normal in social policy, where policy objectives and imperatives There are counter-views, with the most common criticisms (also to emerge in cannot always await research timetables. our submissions - discussed below) being: Yet the dialogue about outcomes-based education is now entering its third ° outcomes-based education can be very narrow, fragmented and decade. That it has endured for so long without a strong research foundation behaviouristic in its emphasis (see Schwarz and Cavener, 1994; or effort is testimony to the apparent power of the idea to teachers and Towers, 1994; Glatthorn, 1993); education professionals; and to the apparent lack of coordination between ° outcomes-b.ised approaches, when the focus becomes too education research and policy formation. narrow, may stifle creativity and the spirit of inquiry (Towers, 1994; McKernan, 1993), and lead to a lessened emphasis on Of the research that has been undertaken, it is also clear that it has necessarily development in the affective domain (Towers, 1994); been limited in scope, and distant from the political, economic and educational contexts in which outcomes-based education operates. That ° outcomes-based approaches, with their emphasis on catering for research has also related, in the main, to educational structures and processes, individual differences, place very heavy demands on teachers rather than the educational content of the outcomes that teachers, students who come under increasing pressure to think about how to plan and communities are being asked to address. remedial and extension programs, undertake regular assessment in order to diagnose how well students are progressing and Outcomes-based education also responds to the concerns of education become more proficient at record-keeping (Schwarz and professionals about the normative basis of assessment and reporting in Cavener, 19)4; Towers, 1994). schooling. Normative approaches to assessment also lack a research base, but are clearly popular among many parents, and some students, as the Review process revealed. The comment was made to the Review Panel that New South Wales deliberately coined the term "an outcomes and profiles approach" to mark a We are left with the beliefs and judgements of education professionals and differentiation from wh£t was seen to be the "softer" approach in existing policy-makers. A common view of the leadership of school systems and syllabuses, where there was no standards framework, and from the OBE authorities and professional associations in this state and nationally is that approaches described in the U.S. literature: The New South Wales approach there are at least potential benefits from a systematic approach to outcomes was to be more explicit in the way knowledge, understandings and skills and profiles in schooling: coherence between curriculum, assessment and were to be defined in curriculum documents and the eight (national) levels reporting; assistance for teachers, students and parents to develop and apply embodied in the standards framework were seen as significant. These explicit teaching and learning strategies; provision of a common language, to standards were intended, to set clear expectations for teachers about what improve communication between professionals and to focus system support

Focusing on Learning: Page 20 Focusing on Learning: Page for teachers and schools. This common framework also potentially provides 3. THE REVIEW PROCESS an external standards reference for teaching and reporting, and for reporting and accountability in a number of local, state and national settings.

Whether these potential benefits were being addressed and realised in New South Wales schools is tested by this Review. 3.1 THE REVIEW PANEL

The Review has been conducted by Professor Ken Eltis, Dean of the Faculty of Education, University of Sydney, working with a broadly based Review Panel whose membership is as follows:

Professor Ken Eltis, Chair Dean of the Faculty of Education, University of Sydney

Mr Ian Feneley Principal, Marayong Primary School Ms Janet Freeman Principal, Mercy College, Chatswood Professor Garth Gaudry Professor of Mathematics, Uni versify of NSW

Ms Jo Karaolis Principal, St Catherine's School for Girls, Waverley Ms Gail Lorvnon Parent

Ms Adele Mazoudier Principal, Westdale Primary School, Tamworth Mr Gus Plater Principal, Kincumber High School

3.2 THE EDUCATIONAL COMMUNITY COMMITTEE

Further advice to the Review was provided by an Educational Community Committee, whose members were drawn from a range of academic, professional, teacher union, community and employer bodies, as follows (the full membership of

Focusing on Learning: Page 22 Focusing on Learning: Page 23 worked with the Panel to identify the major areas in which recommendations would the Educational Community Committee is set out in Appendix A): need to be made. Association of Catholic School Principals Association of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (ATESOL) Australian College of Education (NSW Chapter) 3.3 DATA GATHERING Australian Council for Educational Administration, NSW Inc. Catholic Education Commission, NSW In conducting the Review, the Panel was concerned that it should listen to the widest possible cross-section of views from school authorities, schools, education Chamber of Manufactures of NSW professionals and the broader community. Evidence available to the Panel has been Early Childhood Education Council of NSW provided through: Ethnic Affairs Commission of NSW copies of syllabuses and support materials provided to schools; Federation of Parents and Citizens' Associations of NSW Joint Council of NSW Professional Teachers' Associations copies of materials used for professional development programs; NSW Aboriginal Education Consultative- Group Incorporated public meetings; NSW Federation of School Community Organisations visits to schools; NSW Independent Education Union meetings with authorities responsible for implementation of various NSW Parents Council Inc. aspects of the incorporation of the National Profiles and NSW Primary Principals' Association implementation of the outcomes and profiles approach in New South Wales; NSW Secondary Principals' Council NSW Teachers Federation discussions with experts in the field of curriculum and assessment and NSW Vice Chancellors Conference educational research; and State Chamber of Commerce (New Soulh Wales) advice from the Educational Community Committee. The Association of Heads of Independent Schools of Australia (NSW Branch) The Association of Independent School:; of New South Wales Ltd The Ethnic Communities Council of NSW The NSW Teacher Education Council 3.4 ELEMENTS OF THE REVIEW During the course of the Review, the Review Panel met with the Educational Submissions: Comrnunity Committee on four occasions to consider the directions for the Review, Questions which needed to be addressed cr. school visits and in public meetings, The first formal step in the Review process taken by the Panel was to advertise issues raised in submissions and possible ::ecommendations to be included in the widely for submissions. Notices were placed in all major metropolitan and some final report The Review Panel acknowledges the assistance of the Educational rural newspapers inviting submissions to the Review, consistent with the terms of Community Committee in its work by analysing all the submissions, providing reference set out in the advertisements. School authorities assisted in this process by detailed summaries and written papers. sending facsimiles of the advertisement direct to schools and to their own administrative offices. Interaction between the Review Panel and the Educational Community Committee was positive The Review Panel is convinced that its deliberations were enhanced Following the placement of a public notice in the press, the Review received 568 bv having regular opportunities to hear the views of, and receive advice from, such submissions from government and non-government schools, individual teachers, • KadTyrep8resentative group. It was pa, ticularly helpful for the Review Panel to community groups and individuals, professional bodies and tertiary institutions. received detailed written summaries from the individual members of the The Review Panel also read 168 registered Ministerial letters. Educational Community Committee of the major and complex issues being raised in the many submissions received. The Educational Community Committee also Table 1 (below) summarises the general characteristics of respondents to the Review. These data show that the greatest number of submissions was received from the

Focusing on Learning: Page 25 Focusing on Learning: Page 24 4. REVIEW FINDINGS s t0 discuss and record their impressions and concerns. Participants were then povided with an opportunity to present their views of the discussions in a plenary session. Meetings with Central Agencies: Officers from the Department of School Education's Curriculum and Training and INTRODUCTORY Development Directorates met with the Panel, to explain their programs and

teeies for the introduction of outcomes and profiles in schools. Input ,was also In this Section of the Report, the findings from the various data-gathering processes ovided by the Director-General of School Education and the President of the are presented to indicate the range and depth of the issues that emerged. We have Board of Studies. not reported separately on the findings to emerge from submissions, school and regional visits, public meetings and presentations, but have presented a The Panel also met with a number of professional and community members of the consolidated picture under the following headings: basic understanding; M South Wales Consortium associated with the development of the w curriculum, including comments on currently implementable documents; teaching Commonwealth's National Professional.Development Program (NPDP) materials, to and learning; implementation; assessment and reporting; and industry and h ar their views on the support materials, their difficulties and the directions taken employment. • the NPDP program. This discussion was undertaken in the. context of the

Commonwealth having withdrawn $2m of the $3.8m that had been allocated for the The summary includes, where appropriate, comments extracted from various H velopment of curriculum profiles and outcomes in New South Wales schools in submissions to support the general points being made and to give an indication of

?g95- with the remaining $1.4m subject to the findings of the present Review (the the flavour of responses on particular issues. Commonwealth has already allocated $0.4m to non-government schools for the development of profiles and outcomes in 1995). The Panel also received advice from representatives of the management group for 4.1 BASIC UNDERSTANDING the New South Wales Key Competencies pilot project. Meetings with Regional Representatives:

p ! members also met with Department of School Education representatives from 4.1.1 Shared commitment and concerns rhree regional offices. These meetings provided an added perspective from those responsible for implementation of the outcomes and profiles approach at regional In all submissions, school visits and public meetings, it was apparent that teachers share a strong commitment to improving teaching and learning, mingled with level. concern at the increasing complexity of teaching and demands on teachers' time. Presentations by Education Experts: Schools commented on the following: Academics education consultants and representatives of educational authorities The school environment is becoming increasingly troubled by social problems ere invited to address the Panel to present national and international perspectives (a primary school). n the direction of educational change; the rationale supporting, the current movements in curriculum policy; and national progress on the implementation of Education to my way of thinking is becoming increasingly complex in its own outcomes and profiles. right (principal of a rural primary school). The comprehensiveness of the Review process demonstrates .the Panel's commitment to inclusiveness in its consultations and information-gathering. The pace of change has been accelerating. We have been fully occupied, absorbing new computer technologies and trying to adapt our teaching methods to an ever-changing student population (a science coordinator).

Focusing on Learning: Page 29 Focusing on Learning: Page 4.1.2 Effective use of teachers' time Other criticisms of the outcomes and profiles paradigm were a concern that "the use of profiles is an attempt to impose one teaching style upon the teaching profession" Respondents varied in the degree of impartance they placed on classroom (a secondary teacher) and a belief that: interaction with children compared to other responsibilities such as assessing, recording and reporting their progress. A primary school principal saw the latter as programs using acfruities based on strings of outcomes do not necessarily "clerical work", whereas other submissions from primary school respondents saw it provide logical and reasonable teaching sequences while programs based on as integral to teaching. content are not seen as in the spirit of profiles and outcomes (rural high school principal). Teachers have found that by investing time and articulating the outcomes of the lesson that studctU learning, speed and understanding have increased. There was also a plea for an equal emphasis on input as on output: On this issue, however, one country primary teacher wrote: ... (emphasis) on high quality lessons which involve thorough preparation and which interest and involve all students...The concern for outcomes can take the During inservicing we were told that assessment is part of teaching, ie. you spontaneity and creativity out of teaching (primary school principal). can do most of it in the classroom while teaching. However, I do not find it possible to teach effectively while writing notes on my students as I am fully occupied with assisting individual students with their learning activities. 4.1.4 Difficulties Accompanying Outcomes and Profiles

The great majority of respondents, advocates as well as opponents of outcomes,, 4.1.3 Effective Teaching Methods were concerned about difficulties they had experienced with them, ranging from workload to the quality of the outcomes and the quality of training. Some Respondents differed in what they understood to be effective teaching. Many who understood these difficulties as teething problems to be expected in the early stages supported an outcomes approach did so because they saw it as a paradigm-shift of such a major reform in education. from teacher-centred to student-centred learning and/or from content-oriented to process-oriented teaching. The process will become more streamlined as the skills of students, teachers and parents develop (primary school teacher). When implemented to its fullest potetttial ii requires a major move away from our traditional teacher-centred classrooms to dynamic learning communities Others saw them as endemic to the outcomes and profiles approach and believed that assist all who learn there to create a bet'.erfuture. We cannot return to the that the present difficulties would increase as implementation became more general. past. We must move on. A personal submission noted:

Profiles promote engagement of students in their learning, encourage risk No-one really knows where they will lead us. It is not a question of outcomes taking and allow for students to undertake responsibility for their own learning working in theory but not in practice, they don't work in theory. Good (primary principal). educational theory takes a systemic approach, considers all the consequences, takes account of the availability of real life resources especially that rarest of all Others wondered whether the promised improvements would come with the teaching resources, time. outcomes and profiles approach. The question of whether the situation would be likely to get better or worse if the Tliere is a deceptive simplicity and seduclivmess about offering a minimum set approach with outcomes and profiles in New South Wales continued unchanged of descriptors which...seem lo provide solutions to a range of problems (staff of became a crucial one for the Panel in its investigation. a high school).

The Board of Studies units and the Department of School Education units...do 4.1.5 Change understood as "action research" not address individual abilities but rather ire focused on a whole class/group approach. More effort needs lo be focused on individual approaches (primary One view among respondents was that a major change should not be introduced principal). into schools until the needs, methods and materials of the change had been fully trialed. Others advocated that change be tested in practice and amended as use One leading teacher noted that outcomes assessment "gags student-centred learning shows necessary. Some officers of the Department of School Education referred to preferred by the staff". this as the "action research model of change". A perceived difficulty with this approach

Focusing on Learning: Page 30 Focusing on Learning: Page 31 possible punishment from' parents who don't understand or who have is that the inadequacies and shortcomings in statements of outcomes and levels may unrealistic expectations for their children (high school principal). have affected the credibility of curriculum documents with teachers and, by implication, the whole outcomes approach. Genuine confidence in current educational principles and practices provides 4.1.7 Understanding of Basic Terms the platform for effective teaching and consequently learning. Whatever benefits exist in the profiles and outcomes approach have been largely negated Fundamental differences in the understanding of die basic terms used in relation to by the factors mentioned herein...The current package possesses too many outcomes and profiles were apparent in the submissions. This lack of clarity or shortfalls to be acknowledged a success (primary school staff). consensus has led to different perceptions and different practices throughout the State. Much of the questioning about the full extent, scope and implications of the (i) Outcomes: concept has been met by uncertainty, promise of clarification in future modules, leading to a general feeling that 'nobody really knew because the Outcomes have been described variously by respondents to the Review Panel as: modules hadn't been written yet' (high school Teachers' Federation (1) a map. of probable student learning; representative). (2) a common language for describing student achievement; (3) a description of what is typically achieved by students at particular 4.1.6 Difference Between Primary and Secondary Schools stages of learning; In general, primary school teachers were more positive about the outcomes (4) ' a description of what should be achieved by students at particular approach than their secondary colleagues. Both were equally concerned about stages and ages; workload, assessment and reporting issues and time taken from teaching, but (5) a checklist of what a teacher's students should achieve; secondary school teachers also focused on subject-related concerns. Primary teachers worried about having to assess in six KLAs while secondary teachers worried about (6) a standards framework; the number of students they had to assess in relatively few periods. (7) a benchmark; All teachers are concerned about the amount of time and work involved in (8) a measure for monitoring the performance of particular student groups assessing, recording and reporting under the new regime and feel they will and schools and allocating resources. have trouble finding time to teach (primary school principal). . There are subtle but significant differences in the implications of each of diese We wish to write in support of the outcomes and profiles approach. We think interpretations. If, for example, outcomes are understood as no more than a map of this is an excellent approach lo assessment and reporting ... we feel that il is a probable student learning," then there are no grounds for die fear of many reasonable expectation for teachers to use this approach in English and respondents that diey will become a strairjacket that limits learning. If, however, Mathematics. However, lo then have lo also use this approach for each of the diey are interpreted as a checklist of what students should achieve, then they other key learning areas would be repetitious and overburdetting (primary become a teaching and assessment program and there is a view that a narrowing of school staff). the curriculum will result. If outcomes are used for system monitoring and national comparisons, then respondents are concerned that teachers will teach to the A high school teacher would teach up lo and sometimes exceeding 300 outcomes in order to ensure that students achieve diem. The Review Panel also • students. How are they to track progress, store work annotations and generally found that a number of schools was interpreting outcomes differently from the manage such numbers ? (rural high school teacher) . Board and Department of School. Education, for example as checklists, learning targets or mastery outcomes. Current syllabus documents reflect a richness and diversity of knowledge, skills and altitudes, in many cases outcome statements do not fit well in the present In the submissions, school visits, public meetings and presentations from groups, syllabus and can trivialise the course (high school head teacher). the Review Panel found examples of all of these interpretations, which had affected these practices. We are very concerned that students' self-esteem will be lowered jf they are labelled as, for example, Level 3 in Year 11 and they may then be subjected to

Focusing on Learning: Page 33 Focusing on Learning: Page 32 How will outcomes be used in terms of a student's progression through the processes of the discipline area, and conforms to the 1991 Board guidelines. A school? (rural high school head teacher). further important dimension to this comment is that the teacher who made it felt that professional independence and individuality could be exercised effectively Outcomes is a flawed philosophy if it means handing down targets which must within the details and parameters of the syllabus. These opinions on the 7-10 be met (primary school principal). Geography Syllabus were consistent with those of the Geography Teachers' Association. Each one has to be achieved before moving on to the next although there is some The Panel recognised that broad outcomes statements such as those given on page 6 overlapping in some areas (personal submission). of Curriculum Outcomes are, if expressed out of context, somewhat vague, as in the A particular variation favoured in some regions., is "exit outcomes". following extract: "and the objective to develop skills in practical investigation of physical phenomena can be expressed in terms of the outcomes: Assessments are completed on the Year 0 exit outcomes which focus on citizenship, conflict resolution, teamwork, independent learning, leadership, o uses techniques which will permit effective observation and recording sportspersonship and information access (president of a government » manipulates equipment effectively." primary school council). At a formal level however, most submissions used the word 'outcome' as referring If read as an integral part of the syllabus, however, and illustrated with one or more to the Outcomes appearing in recently produced syllabuses, the Modules, the Board well-chosen examples in support documents and through in-service programs, this of Studies 'Outcomes and Pointers' documents. (1995) and other (post-1993) notion of outcome appears to be workable and capable of broad support by teachers. curriculum documents. (ii) Strands: A further comment on outcomes and the Board of Studies is warranted. As pointed Many respondents, especially from primary schools, understood strands to be out earlier, in its document Curriculum Outcomes (September, 1991, p5),.the Board natural elements of a learning area and were grateful for the way they helped them stated: break-up learning into measurable parts. A number of respondents from the Syllabus outcomes are the intended results of teaching and learning expressed secondary area and from organisations such as the Association of Heads of as a set of broad, comprehensive, assessable and observable indicators or Independent Schools of Australia and from universities; saw strands as artificial benchmarks of student achievement at each stage of a course. Taken together divisions that unnaturally fragment learning. Concern was greatest where Key they cover the range of knowledge, skills and attitude expectations of the Learning Areas combined a number of subjects. syllabus. (iii) Levels:.

The Board envisaged the outcomes as being developed simultaneously with, and Some respondents saw outcomes and profiles as a way of individualising teaching from the content and processes integral to die particular subject. The Board said and learning, and saw Levels as the horizontals in a grid of outcomes that maps that the Outcomes would allow for different degrees or qualities of achievement, as learning. They spoke positively of the Levels as freeing up students from the lock- judged by the teacher. step progression of age-based syllabuses. Some tended to oppose the use of Levels Syllabus outcomes are more usefully thought of as implying differential levels in reporting because it requires subsuming individual differences into a globalised of performance and that students will experience varying degrees of judgement of the overall standard of achievement. achievement. In broad terms, syllabus outcomes will be written so that at a Those respondents who interpreted outcomes and profiles as a standards particular curriculum stage a typical student is able to demonstrate framework emphasised the Levels as giving comparative meaning to the outcomes. achievement of most of the outcomes at an 'average' level of achievement. It was apparent from submissions and school visits that many primary schools are reporting students' achievement on a graph with a scale of between three and five The viewpoint and emphasis here are quit; different from those implied by the levels and a marker to show where the student is on the Level he or she has 1994-95 documents. It is worth noting that a number of submissions that were achieved. This requires a judgement more precise than that provided by the critical of the outcomes and profiles approach expressed strong support for the outcomes and profiles (which have a 20 month range). A number of schools also Board's approach in the period 1991-93. indicated the range of Levels demonstrated by the class, the student is in and a few During school visits the Panel was made aware of support for the 7-10 Geography indicated the percentage of children on each. Level. This use of Levels gives the Syllabus (1992). This syllabus contains outcomes germane to the content, skills, and

Focusing on Learning: Page 34 Focusing on Learning: Page 35 specificity of reporting that those schools seek but the question has to be considered given in Board and Department documents, but it would seem the position arises for some teachers because the outcomes are precise only if they are related to context whether descriptions as general as the outcomes can make such specificity accurate. and syllabus content. The Panel found that a number of schools had begun to group students on the basis of Levels, which one very enthusiastic primary school described as "grouping for The following extracts illustrate the range of views about pointers: learning success" and stated that: Pointers are'spec fic in determining the needs and abilities of students, but students are experiencing success all of the time. Tliis is maximising high self- they still allow for flexibility and teacher discretion...The pointers are very useful when reporting to parents as they enable the teacher to state exactly esteem. what the students can do and what they are working towards (primary school At another primary school, the Panel was told how: principal). Early learning profiles were introduced by the K-l teacher [who] used them to Pointers should be organised so that they can be used as a checklist. Tlie ...level children in Kinder and graph their progress. argument is not clear as to why this cannot happen as so many teachers find it a logical use for the pointers (primary school staff). Others deplored the use of levels for grouping purposes: Die danger in using a level system is the popular perception that the level Perhaps suggest a number of pointers children must achieve as a minimal attained has been objectively assessed and awarded land] the perception that a indicator of achievement al a particular level (primary school staff), level awarded al one school is objectively comparable with the same level awarded at any other school in NSW (high school Teachers' Federation Tliere is a danger of pointers becoming the curriculum (high school staff). representative). There is a real danger oflockstep progression through the pointer's (which will There have been some instances where I have felt that the differences between for the inexperienced or tired teacher become little more than a checklist) which levels reflect learning style preferences (high school head teacher). is likely to be detrimental to real learning (high school principal).

There is a problem of those students who will arrive at High School at a certain (v) Profiles level and effectively remain at that level. This will be difficult to justify to the The term "Profiles" was used by teachers, consultants and administrators in six parents and the community (high school staff). different ways in the submissions, visits and public meetings, as: One further question raised was: a) the National Profiles; Will the public/industry have confidence in reporting levels? (high school b) a report on a student expressed in outcomes; leading teacher). c) a portfolio of a student's work said to give a "profile" of the student's (iv) Pointers learning; A number of respondents asked what research base connects pointers and outcomes. d) a graph of the performance of a class or school on the outcomes; They were uncomfortable about the discrepancies they could point to in the degree of difficulty of pointers. e) the outline of a subject curriculum expressed in outcomes; On the other hand, many respondents found the outcomes too vague to be useful and preferred die specific descriptions of tasks contained in the pointers. They used 0 the assessment aspect of outcomes. pointers both for programming and assessment. A particular problem with this Again, the degree of confusion over the term was a source of difficulty. The approach, as several respondents pointed out, is that the curriculum may become distribution of the national profiles to all schools had ca'used considerable confusion reduced to the pointers, with a narrowing effect that prevents reflection of for some respondents who did not realise that they were to be comprehensively individual interests and needs in the class. In such instances, assessment can become incorporated into NSW syllabuses. As far as they were concerned, they had two largely a matter of ticking off the outcome as soon as a certain number of pointer- competing documents to handle. A number of schools visited had the National tasks-is satisfactorily completed. The question was asked, how many pointers were Profile KLA documents in use in their classrooms or staffrooms. then needed to achieve an outcome. Using pointers in this way is contrary to advice

Focusing on Learning: Page 36 Focusing on Learning: Page 37 It was not uncommon for respondents to accept outcomes as a guide to teaching and The Department of School Education also outlined what it saw as the major issues learning, and reject profiles. They believed that outcomes on their own. would needing to be addressed by the Board of Studies when it considered its further work remain sufficiently flexible to be a support and not a straitjacket and that the major on the development of Draft K-10 syllabus outcomes, including: part of the increased workload for teachers came with the assessing, recording and K-10 continuity reporting which they saw as Profiling. the quality and rigour of the outcomes statements Teaching and learning cannot be divided into units of input and output-like production on an assembly line. Learning...is organic, dynamic, often consistency of standards in the outcomes across all KLAs mysterious and totally dependent on interact ions... Growth is not sudden and • the inclusion of levels statements •permanent, but expanding and sometimes contracting over a period of time presentation of the outcomes framework with syllabuses that cannot be assigned with the rigidity of- rocket stages being jettisoned at prescribed moments inflight (primary school staff). attitudes and values outcomes the quality of pointers.

Other submissions, having stated their support for the kind of outcomes that had arisen through syllabus development in the pre-1994 period, expressed criticism of recent documents. They argued that the Outcomes were in many cases "content- 4.2 CURRICULUM free", and the outcomes statements were often vague, inconsistent and arbitrary, and oriented toward process rather than understanding. There were other submissions, however, that stated strong support for an outcomes 4.2.1 Content and rigour and profiles approach with an appropriate balance being struck between curriculum content and the needs of learners, such as the following extract from the submission Most respondents saw the need for an appropriate balance of rigorous subject of the Federation of Parents' and Citizens' Associations: content and process. Views, differed markedly, however, on the extent to which the various curriculum documents met such ideals. In this regard, a distinction needs to We believe that a profiles and outcomes approach to education has the potential be drawn between syllabus and support documents produced in the period 1991- for achieving a substantial improvement in the quality of teaching and

1993 and the 1994r95 documents, which incorporate outcomes from the National learning in NSW. A rejection of this approach .that entailed a return to an Profiles. Generally speaking, respondents were supportive of the 1991-1993 approach to teaching and learning which is 'content-centred rather than documents, even if certain points of detail and omission were criticised, For learner-centred, which sees teachers as transmitters of content arid which instance, Mathematics K-6 (1989) and Science and Technology K-6 (1991) were praised equates subject rigour with the acquisition of large amounts of specific subject for their content, clarity and 'teacher-friendliness'. content would be a mistake. Tlie preparation of young people for the future must concentrate on their.ability lo be effective learners more than persons who The comments below refer to documents produced by the Board of Studies in 1994 are simply well-informed in terms of currently available knowledge. and 1995, including the Draft K-10 Key Learning Area (KLA) Outcomes and Pointers. The views of the Department of School Educa.tion are summed up in the following 4.2.2 Language extracts from their submissions to the Review Panel: 77ie Department fully supports the Government's commitment lo a strong core Many respondents stated the need for curriculum documents to use technical curriculum which has content rigour and subject integrity. An Outcomes and language, appropriate to the subject matter. Others stressed the importance for Profiles approach in NSW syllabus documents can provide this. syllabus documents to be made as clear as possible in their language so that students and parents can understand them. In making these kinds of observations, It is an approach which values both content and process. It is an approach that respondents frequently emphasised the need for syllabuses to be free of jargon. emphasises rigour, both in terms of catering for individual student needs and Respondents also recognised the need ,for separate curriculum guides for parents, the overall needs of society. written in non-technical language, which would provide information about the teaching program and expectations as they affected their child.

Focusing on Learning: Page 38 Focusing on Learning: Page 39 These points being accepted, the question to resolve is whether present syllabuses has been comparatively less, though the Strand structure of the Profiles is largely are in fact written in a language that is easily understood by teachers. On this point, borrowed from that of the National Statements. In the case of NSW, the over-riding there was a variety of responses. One of the principal causes of difficulty was that influence of the National Profiles since 1993 can be traced to the request in mid-1993 descriptions were susceptible of so many interpretations: referring to the English K-6 to the Board of Studies from the then Minister to incorporate National Profiles in Syllabus, the following comment was made by a primary school principal: NSW syllabuses. Teachers who have undergone up to ten week courses on the new syllabus are A number of submissions, from quite diverse perspectives, commented on the still struggling to find meaningful classroom interpretations of some outcomes generally unfavourable influence of the National Profiles (and of some Statements), because of the user-unfriendly terms in which they are written. and indicated doubts about their quality. For instance, a major parent group wrote: Tlie haste with which the existing statements and profiles were developed and The frequency of such comments in responses is disturbing, and points to the need the perfunctory nature of the trialing, validation and consultation when they to examine carefully whether the framework and language of outcomes, as presently were developed have made us extremely uneasy about their quality. We realised, are capable of clear interpretation. believe that work should be undertaken to improve the quality of these Members of the Panel took advantage of presentations to the Review, and visits to curriculum materials before they are incorporated in a wholesale and Regions, to explore understanding of the terms being used in connection with the systematic way in NSW syllabuses- Outcomes and Profiles approach. The Panel also attempted to elicit from those involved with implementation their meanings of terms, and their own conceptions Speaking of the influence on the development of the Draft Mathematics 9-10 of how outcomes, as expressed in the English syllabus, might ideally be used in the syllabus, a Subject Master from an independent school wrote: classroom. Such questions brought forth a variety of responses, indicating Knowledge, argument, proof and understanding should be fundamental to the uncertainty and a lack of clarity about the meaning of Outcomes and Profiles teaching of Mathematics. ... Yet in conformity lo the National Profiles, every terminology. Such admissions of uncertainty lend weight to one government attempt was made to remove the words 'prove' and 'know' entirely from the primary teacher's remarks, indicative of many similar concerns: Advanced Syllabus. The National Profiles' 'choose and use' attitude to As teachers have attended many in-services in English K-6 Outcomes, we have formulae prevails.... so that the subject can become simply a bag of tricks in the noted that instructors were poorly prepared and lacked expertise, proving pupil's mind. mostly umbie to answer our questions. We concluded that we had wasted valuable time in attending. The outcomes themselves are worded vaguely and Criticism by some academics of the Board of Studies Draft Outcomes and Pointers in jargonistically, requiring much time to interpret them and providing problems Science was particularly severe. in delivering outcomes-based assessment lo parents. One of the regrettable features of'Outcomes and Pointers' is that the ideas in it are not new. They are a re-hash of the 'National Statement, Curriculum and It is reasonable to conclude that, at this stage of the implementation of Outcomes Profiles' which was proposed some years ago and which, after widespread and Profiles, there remains considerable confusion about its terminology and discussion, was roundly trashed by the majority of the Australian scientific language. community Among the bodies which firmly rejected them was the NSW Science Syllabus Committee of the day.

4.2.3 Relationship to National Statements and Profiles It has to be said that there are doubts about the quality, content, rigour, interpretation and validity of NSW curriculum documents produced since 1993 as a By July 1993, National Statements had been produced in all Key Learning Areas. result of the impact of the National Profiles, and to some extent, the National The Statements were originally intended to inform curriculum development at the Statements. The Panel was therefore led to question the wisdom of continuing to tie State level, and were not meant to be regarded as syllabus or assessment documents syllabus development and revision so closely to the National Profiles. in their own right. The corresponding National Profiles were completed by the end of 1993. Given the speed with which they were produced, it is not surprising that . the quality of the Profiles has frequently been brought into question. 4.2.4 Levels It became apparent to the Review Panel in die course of its deliberations that the influence of the National Profiles on NSW curriculum documents since 1993 has One of the assumptions underlying the National Profiles, and their realisation in been decisive. The influence of the National Statements on curriculum development NSW syllabuses, is that student learning and achievement can be described by using a matrix of levels, strands, and substrands together with their associated

Focusing on Learning: Page 40 Focusing on Learning: Page 41 of development, eg. HSIE Outcome 8.1b "Organises data to address issues of pointers. Assurances were given to the Panel that the National Profiles, in some cause and effect."... subjects, had been validated, in the sense that the Level ascribed to a given outcome accords well with the age-band and developmental stage of the pupil, The Outcomes do not generally provide pr qualitative differences in based on their use in classroom teaching and assessment. Work on validation of performance. Students' progress frequently consists of learning to do outcomes in the Victorian context was th; subject of a presentation to the Panel at something better.... one of its early meetings. Expert advice provided in a presentation to the Review Panel indicated that much still needs to be done about validation of levels in the The Levels which define progress in each strand do not have a known research National Profiles, and that earlier work had been limited in scale and scope. base but appear to be arbitrary. In New South Wales, education authorities generally adopted the Outcomes and Profiles structure, subject to fine-tuning of detail, and concentrated on issues of The Panel found it necessary to question whether it would be justifiable, and implementation. Some teachers, who had iccepted this general approach, expressed feasible, to recommend continuing with an approach so strongly linked to the confidence that, given time, teachers, parents and students would arrive at a structure and concepts of Levels and Outcomes, as derived from, the National common understanding of Outcomes and Levels. A teacher at a primary school said: Profiles. Such an approach, it believed, would be unlikely to command widespread support. On the other hand, the majority of submissions gave support to the general Given the right support, children, and :hrough them, parents, can be led to an idea of outcomes and helpful illustrative examples as an aid to teaching and understanding of what the outcome stctements mean Teachers should be learning, and as a guide to student progress. The Panel was therefore led to encouraged to adopt a systematic approach, ensuring that teaching and consider alternative approaches that would realise the perceived benefits without learning situations clearly support the achievement of a particular, identified compromising subject integrity, clarity, practicability or the professional judgement outcome. of teachers. The same respondent expressed a need to review some of the Outcomes and Levels. Outcome statements, however, whih deliberately, and understandably, 4.2.5 Key Learning Area (KLA) Structure 'imprecise', may need to be reviewed in order to make the differentiation The Education Reform Act (1990) defines six Learning Areas for primary education between particular levels more obvious to both parents and teachers. and eight for secondary education. The Act does not specify that syllabuses be In consideration of the question of Levels and their use, the Review Panel noted written for the KLA (possibly applying to more than one discipline), rather that fundamental issue's relating to the rationale for adopting the approach. Some there be "courses of study". Within these broad specifications, individual syllabuses submissions approached this indirectly, .and expressed their views in terms of in Geography, Music, History and so on have been developed. teaching experience. A rural high school noted: The advent of the National Statements and Profiles introduced a complication into It (O &P) assumes that teaching is a series of hierarchical steps instead of a the notions of Key Learning Area and courses. Discrete subjects were absorbed into complex set of interacting relationshivs.... It asks for invalid, unreliable the National Statements and Profiles in a variety of ways, sometimes spread across student records of levels obtained. several strands. This resulted in a loss of identity and integrity which appears to have been keenly felt by teachers and others. The NSW Teachers' Federation Other submissions, and teachers met during school visits, approached the question submission noted: directly. The Anglican Education Commission argued that: If we lump all of the subjects which have been allocated to KLAs into one group Ttiere appears lo be an underlying assumption that all students will progress for the purposes of Outcomes and Profiles the possibility exists that we are from a lower level to a higher in eaai of the substrands. We doubt the stretching some fairly long bows when it comes to common outcomes. educational validity of this assumption. Similarly, a university academic submitted: Similarly, the Association of Heads of Independent Schools of Australia noted: It has become painfully clear for those involved in the development of curricula Learning is not linear, yet the outcomes (like the National Profiles) assume and syllabus materials in New South Wales that the Key Learning Areas as that it is. Much learning is spiralled. A child re-visits its skills and its combinations of subjects is incorrect and threatens the unique and particular understanding at increasingly complex and abstract levels. ... Many outcome knowledge, skills and values of individual subjects. statements in many of the KLA Outcome documents could apply at any level

Focusing on Learning: Page 42 Focusing on Learning: Page 43 In the case of Science, the National Profiles, and the NSW Draft Outcomes and 4.2.7 Equity Pointers, refer little to individual disciplines such as Biology, Chemistry and A range of equity issues was raised with the Panel through submissions, school Physics. The approach is via strands and sub-strands such as Making Decisions visits and hearings. A number of submissions, starting with those from the (Sub-strand: Acting Responsibly), Natural Interactions (Sub-strand: Transferring Department of School Education and Board of Studies, stated that an outcomes Energy). The omission of important conceptual structures and the appropriateness approach promoted equity because it individualised teaching, and could take of the Strands has been brought very much into question, (it needs to be said that account of matters such as personal and cultural background. Outcomes were also this kind of development had been going on prior to the National Profiles.) seen as enabling students to progress with dieir learning, and to be able to take The view was expressed forcefully to the Panel by senior teachers in areas such as responsibility for their individualised learning. Geography, Visual Arts and Music, that the unique qualities and perspectives of The following quotation is from Module 1: Introducing an Outcomes and Profiles their disciplines were not recognised adequately through Outcomes for single KLA Approach in the Department of School Education's training and development aggregations. The merit of these arguments is such that the Panel was led to program: consider whether KLA Outcomes were appropriate, and more generally, the inter­ relationship between studies in cognate disciplines which are grouped together in a An outcomes and profiles approach has the potential to benefit disadvantaged single KLA such as Human Society and its Environment or Creative Arts. groups of students in a number of ways, such as: promoting inclusivity, because the same set of learning outcomes applies lo all groups of students, while allowing some flexibility in the rale of progression. '4.2.6 Strand structure Teachers of disadvantaged groups may need to formulate additional pointers A number of submissions to the Review raised questions about the strand that acknowledge students' cultural, social and economic backgrounds, structure, either directly or by inference. Respondents sometimes criticised the fostering dignity and self-esteem because achievement is focused on allowing "atomisation" of disciplines, and the loss of cohesion due to the large array of all students io succeed. This is different to norm referenced systems m which discrete outcomes. Such remarks did not always make explicit mention of strands, achievement is defined in terms of a competitive ranking (Module 1, p.16). though some of the atomisation could reasonably be attributed to inappropriate The Board of Studies, in its submission, stated: strand choice. Comments on the strand structure were in accordance with those relating to the difficulties of applying National Profiles to those within New South The advantages (of an Outcomes and Profiles approach) are that they : Wales syllabuses. As a senior Mathematics teacher wrote: focus on student growth and progress and avoid the concept of student failure One would expect the structure of a syllabus to follow the natural structures of These submission extracts raise fundamental questions, which go to the heart of the Mathematics. The National Profiles' structure of strands and substrands lias achievement, of equity goals through the education system. It is clearly of the been a constant source of distortion throughout discussions, linking things utmost importance that students should have access to curriculum, including that should not be linked and separating things thai should not be separated. content, that has value and significance for them and for others; and provides a ... It is very difficult to hold onto the integrity of the Mathematics in the face sense of identity and worth. There may be dangers, however, in justifying outcomes of the strands. and profiles on the grounds that they , "avoid the concept of student failure . Acceptance of such a principle could conceivably lessen die commitment to These remarks bear directly upon the issue of subject integrity and rigour, as raised providing appropriate resources and support for students with special needs. A in the preamble to the Review's Terms of Reference. They highlight how adherence stronger rationale would appear to be one of promoting success in learning by all to the strand structure, KLA and content of the National Statements and Profiles students and providing appropriate resources and other support for students with have, in the view of a number of submissions, damaged the integrity and special needs. These are complex and enduring issues in education, which the Panel naturalness of subject syllabuses. could only begin to address in the time it had for this Review. A somewhat different issue related to strands is the degree of overlap between the A number of submissions asked whether an approach that focuses only on the Outcomes in different KLA strands. This point was raised by a number of positive, and reports only the positive, might give unbalanced information to submissions, frequently in the context of perceived excessive workload in using parents, or lead to a decline in expectations and standards over time. Differing Outcomes for assessment. The overlap manifests itself primarily in generic domains opinions were expressed on this point. such as communication, working together and acting responsibly. The New South Wales Aboriginal Education Consultative Group (AECG) presented a detailed submission and made a presentation to the Review Panel. They

Focusing on Learning: Page 45 Focusing on Learning: Page 44 sThS SUPrn ,11"* °f °UtCOmeS' and exPlored a "umber of other issues 4.2.8 COMMENTS ON CURRENTLY IMPLEMENTABLE DOCUMENTS such as the uiclusion of Aboriginal Studies as a mandatory course. Tlie NSW AECG Inc supports the use of outcomes in NSW syllabus and cumculum development and is avare of the potential of oulLes as an English K-6 instrument to ensure equity for ^original students in schooling. The use of outcomes is also supported as conducive to more holistic forms of assessment The majority of primary school responses dealt with this syllabus since this is where The submission laid stress on outcomes as a vehicle for advancing equity At the most work in implementing outcomes and profiles has been done. There was a same time, there was a provisional aspect to the support expressed W" range of response from "excellent" to "unusable" with a large number of critical responses. Some of these commented on poor implementation strategies. For Aboriginal communities the test of profiles and outcomes will be to what extent they can contribute to enhancing the participation and outcomes of Specific criticisms made in submissions included the "difficulties of rural schools Aboriginal students, and to what extent Aboriginal Studies is mandated as al when suggested activities include museum visits and visits by experts" and P f CUrrkU Um NSW Stude tS m "bunching of skills at Level 4". Some felt that "...sequencing in Stage 1 needed to be YTl2. ° ' & " f" ^dergarten to revised as there seem to be wide gaps between die levels for some of the concepts" . In subsequent discussion in the Educational Community Committee the view was One of the difficulties in assessing reactions to this syllabus is that it confronts expressed that acceptance and teaching of Aboriginal language ^nTeSnaH, teachers with many new concepts. Some of these are directly related to an outcomes

Abongmal children were to realise their full potential in English Zueh and profiles approadi such as individualised, student-centred learning, criterion- reinforcement of language skills, expressiveness, imagery and story-telling 8 referenced assessment and the use of outcomes. Others are related to the nature of the syllabus itself, sudi as the specific teaching of text types and Functional V 3 rUral S 01 With 3 W h SrilT/ - ?° 8 ^original enrolment. This school had Grammar. decided to .mplement an English program from another State, using an outcomes and profiles approach. The success of this program in meeting thf needs ofX There was an almost universally negative reaction to the terminology associated 6Vldent 33 high leWl f 3CCe tanCe d with Functional Grammar. This influenced the comments on the syllabus as a Set ' "* ° P - —Wtt; whole. The Primary Principals' Association advised: Through visits to Schools for Specific Purposes (SSPs), and through submissions the A majority of Principals has major concerns with the language of 'functional Panel gamed an appreciation of certain aspects of outcomes and profiles relevant to grammar'. An example of complicated language is 'selection of component in children with severe disabilities: The Panel had limited opportunities howevT o Tlieme position to change meaning'. Terminology such as 'lexical cohesion' explore the impUcations of outcomes and. profiles for the education S''sniS wiS and 'dictagloss are new to primary teachers. Much more professional v nous forms of disability. What was apparent, however, is that speciXducaToS development support must be provided for teachers. have for some time adopted models similar to outcomes-based teacS and earning programs These educators ar, clearly concerned to promoteTucfesSul Staff from two primary schools commented:

Abolish Functional Grammar. It is a bad idea to introduce a system of grammar that is not universally accepted within English speaking countries. The Panel is also aware of controversy within special education about rh P Secondly, a system which disadvantages parents who may wish to assist with JESS t IS Ttcomes rithinKe yLearnin g ^eas *s= ^ -et their children's work cannot be beneficial. disabilities m SSPs. Some teachers at these schools believe that a statewide Knowing ffiaf verbs are processes in Functional Grammar is arguably curriculum framework must be available to all students, both as a matter oSce acceptable but the classification of these as being material, mental or relational and or the practical reason that this helps to integrate students with dTsabTuEui processes seems to be needlessly complex and confusing. Other terms such as regular schools and in society generally.. Others however, believed tSa it was "collocation", "modal adjuncts" and the like would surely be more appropriate ^appropriate artificially to apply statewide outcomes and Key Learning Arts tTai to a University linguistics course, not in a syllabus in K-6. students with severe disabilities, who require individually-tailored p^grams This is a major matter, which the Review Panel believes requires further Another teacher in a primary school argued that: q investigation by school and system authori ties. so much of the language of grammar does not have any real English meanings. Instead of verbs, we have processes, only three of which-are explained in the

Focusing on Learning: Page 46 Focusing on Learning: Page 47 English glossary of grammatical terms. There are material, mental and relational processes, despite verbal processes being in the body of the document. the ESL Scales would provide a bridge to the KLAs, especially English, as well as providing a common language between English as a Second Language and Unfortunately, as a neiv language of grammar has been built up and is mainstream teachers. expected to be taught when there are no meanings to be found in the The Association of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (ATESOL) dictionary, I feel we are putting'students at a disadvantage. For many there advised: will be no support at home especially when little or no English is spoken and ^ dictionary of explanations is able to be used. We are again moving into the The ESL Scales exist as an adjunct to the profiles and outcomes. They have the potential to provide ESL and mainstream teachers with a shared language to edLatongmiSUC ^ * ^ mmin8 outside f describe LBOTE (Language Backgrounds Other Than English) student achievement and to inform teaching and learning in all Key Learning Areas. Some respondents advocated a return to traditional grammar. Others pointed out ATESOL expressed general support for the scales but had a concern with the that this would cause problems as large numbers of the current teaching force are implementation delay caused by the review process. ,ust as unfamtkar with traditional grammar as they are with functionaTg^amma^ Li general, there was broad support for the syllabus and support documents and the There was some concern about comparability of the ESL Scales with the English functional language approach. Apart from functional grammar ScTsm was outcomes and with the Early Learning Profiles. There was also evidence in both primary and secondary schools with large LBOTE populations of anxiety at the tSrmin0l0Sy and the se uence EnglisSSn h Teachers'AssociatioST* 'i *" n commented as follows1 : of outcome^ CpTim" 7 difficulty of combining ESL scales into KLA profiles. There was also some concern that outcomes and profiles were essentially Many teachers have commented on the jargon of the syllabus, particularly in the outcomes. The size of the document is also overwhelming to some We "monocultural constructs". An understanding of the ESL scales was thought to be know of many instances in which teachers have not persisted in reading the essential to ensure that teachers measure the achievements of the LBOTE students in syllabus for these reasons. s terms of their understanding of the subject content rather than their facility with the English language. It was felt that they were an important adjunct to achieving equity Problems with teachers reaching consensus in assigning levels...without the for LBOTE students. provision of exemplars. Some teachers commented that the scales were complex, that ESL training was variable and that it was difficult for mainstream teachers to become familiar with Other specific criticisms included the fact that some recommended texts were out of the ESL scales while they were implementing English K-6. There was a strongly print or not ava.lable m rural regions, but more fundamentally that there was a lack expressed need for sound professional development for ESL and mainstream of emphasis on creativity, enjoyment of language and reading for pleasure SoS teachers. It is important for mainstream teachers to understand the role the Scales Primary schools commented on the quality of work units: P^ure. borne may play in identifying individual students' learning needs. Most of the English units of work provided were not well-received by teachers The Review Panel met with officers and teachers responsible for developmental because topics were not inspiring or interesting. work on the ESL Scales for use in schools. They demonstrated the value of their work, and an understanding of implementation issues in schools: There was strong support for the document Choosing Literacy Strategies that Work and *"* ^ «"» *" «* ^us^ontainedtre Aboriginal Studies

The Aboriginal Studies 7-10 syllabus was issued in February 1994 and contains ESL Scales outcomes in knowledge, skills, values and attitudes as well as additional outcomes for each elective theme. The Aboriginal Education Consultative Group (AECG) 2^*re fef«Ily designed for a range of students with language backgrounds advised the Review Panel that Aboriginal Studies needed to be locally-based and other than English whose starting point in English is different from their pSmd locally negotiated with maximum community involvement. They also presented who may enter school at any year along the K-12 continuum. They were deSd strongly the need for professional development of teachers: nauonauy as a supplement to the learning areas and were trialed consumed on vahdated and revised before being released for implementation. It wasTughftJJt' A major problem in Aboriginal education is the deficiency of teacher education programs.

Focusing on Learning: Page 48 Focusing on Learning: Page 49 On the grounds that "indigenous Australia needs to become an integral part of the Human Society and Its Environment (HSIE) K-6 frame of reference of mainstream society" the AECG also recommended that Comments on the HSIE K-6 draft syllabus document indicate that it has not been Aboriginal Studies be mandatory for K-6 schooling for all students. Ssa ly wSl-received at this slage. Concerns included that die content was Comment has already been made above (section 4.2.7) about the support of the uSficiem and vague, that there were too many outcomes the degree of Aftauhy AECG for the use of outcomes in New South Wales curriculum. of Level One in particular was inappropriate, and the links with other KLAs K 6 were poor. A government rural primary school commented: Visual Arts Staff fell the content too broad and the suggested activities too difficult and above the level of understanding al this age This syllabus was mentioned only in a small percentage of submissions. There was general support for the syllabus its;lf but strong opposition to the inclusion of The draft HSIE document is not a useful one. We have found the units of work outcomes based on the National Profiles: "...the National Profiles and Statements are and outcomes impracticable for small country/rural schools. inappropriate, incoherent and conflict with the methodology used in the Visual Arts syllabus. The HSIE Council expressed the view that many of the concerns with HSIE K-6overe typical of the early stages of any implementation and that the syllabus did in fact Other criticisms included the vagueness of the outcomes and their perceived effect provide a foundation for the secondary courses. in inhibiting creativity in classrooms. Opposition was also expressed to standards- related referencing in this KLA. Some schools valued the guidance provided by the outcomes. A large metropolitan Early Learning Profiles comprehensive High School stated thuit the new syllabus had value particularly for These were the most strongly supported of current documents being Ascribed as non-elective students and appears to "successfully combine outcomes and profiles at ^ser fTiendly" and "well-received". The following comment from a government the same time as promote high quality and be consistent with the Arts." primary school was typical: The submissions also pointed out feathers' concern with the concept of the single The Early learning Profiles have been keenly accepted. Although in some ways KLA of Creative Arts which embraces sub-groups or strands for which it is seen to confusing, it has still provided a very clear framework for our early educators be inappropriate to have common outcomes. This is confirmed by responses to plan their teaching/learning activities. received by the Board of Studies (summarised in Outcomes and Pointers - report on the Responses to the Board's Consultations, May 95): The Early Childhood Education Council reported that the Profiles gave focus and The generic nature of the model for national profile outcomes, and the outcome direction for teachers and made it easier to identify strengths and needs. pointers remain problematic for teachers in Music, Visual Arts, Drama and It should be noted that these were developed by the Department of School Dance

to successful im iementahon Music 7-10 P - There were few comments in submissions and on school visits, but concerns appear they were considered by teachers to be user-friendly and practical to be similar to those on Visual Arts: he vagueness of the outcomes, the lack of they contain an eclectic approach to methodology substantial differentiation between levels and the negative impact of their derivation from a melding of the creative arts in die National Profiles. Stringent criticism was . Regions gave them a high priority in their training and development made of the perceived inability of th; music outcomes to distinguish between immature and mature performance, and mediocrity and excellence. programs.

cnmp roncerns were expressed to the Review Panel about the relationship between

initially time-consuming.

Focusing on Learning: Page 51 Focusing on Learning: Page 50 43 TEACHING AND LEARNINC A teacher from a country high school elaborated on the importance teachers place on "their professional autonomy":

4.3.1 Teachers as Professionals. This autonomy cannot be dissolved, nor should it be. Curriculum documents which, deliberately or not, attempt to control the teaching/learning process will fail. iSS^JS^^S^^^.ta NSW their Lk and having .erespecr It was apparent from many submissions that teachers feel that a further threat to their professional standing comes from the changes in direction imposed as political decisions. A typical comment was the following from a country primary school: Teachers need to feel that they are in control of all aspects of their teaching and We believe that education should not be political, changing with each change of the community needs to have trust in the proficiency of their teachers government, as it increases the instability of educational practices and A regional city primary school expressed concern rrnr rhn c,f

This situation has not enhanced home-school relationships, nor has it improved 4.3.7. Fostering Teaching Strategies/Pedagogy parents perception of teachers as being competent professionals. The Panel received representations from schools and teachers who were very Where schools prepared the ground early for the introduction of outcomes and enthusiastic about the impact of an outcomes-based approach on their pedagogy. profiles and experienced success, it was evident that there was an i^crLsXnse of The Panel was told that: pride and professionalism. One small rural primary school w!! ^ t °f The outcomes and profiles initiative inspired and motivated teachers to rethink community is happy with what has already been ^Uedlf ZsLoI^^01 what they teach, how they teach, what students learn and how to identify what of profiles and outcomes and looks forward* further de^JmtSK^ has been learnt (a regional secondary principals' council).

Others felt a competition between teachers and schools to be "fh« r« SM of a p ma,y d Some welcomed the greater certainty they felt came with outcomes and profiles. A SES^* " " ^* ™—™ primary principal wrote: Some schools are very guarded about what they have done or develop whn, Clear expectations have the capacity to allow teachers more certainly regarding '-PP^'osharin^ both the boundaries of their task and their capacity to communicate the nature in the present model (rural primary school staff). 'earning of their work lo their commun ity as well as colleagues.

Others felt that outcomes and profiles had the opposite effect: The same principal, however, considered that the outcomes-based K-6 syllabus documents (English and HSIE): They encourage and build collegiality, collaboration, peer support and public Are less devoted to pedagogy than to outcomes. Pedagogically, the syllabus Pr°^SSmWh We'COme such (Primary sAool deputy documents rely on effective training or assumptions about teachers' experience.

Not all teachers felt that their professionalism was enhanced by the emphasis on Other schools also commented that an emphasis on outcomes does not ensure quality of curriculum if sufficient attention is not paid to the content of syllabus ^^en^^ - documents. A teacher from a rural primary school wrote: "Quality outcomes outcomes .d pointers for assessment as a lacl™^ =^feS require quality inputs!". A number of submissions referred to the outcomes and profiles approach as "best

We believe the essence of the matter is the question of professionalism and practice" and appreciated its impact. trusl...Should we have to prove that a child has reached a level Iby] Zl Z every pointer? (a small schools support group). mazing Teachers were forced to analyse their teaching practice and the "fit" between this and pupils' outcomes (a personal submission).

Focusing on Learning: Page 52 Focusing on Learning: Page 53 The outcomes and profiles approach has forced secondary teachers (many of whom have not attended any professional development activities outside school There were many demands for increased release time to enable teachers to do justice in their attire teaching careen) to enter a great debate about leaching and to the new demands. These comments from the staff of a country primary school learning (group of high school principals). were fairly typical: It is a great deal of work for already stressed teachers... We feel that we would be Some submissions were suspicious of the term "best practice" and warned that care unable to cope across KLAs unless the process is simplified and/or more release must be taken not to accept everything given diis label: time is provided. The principles of best practice teaching method need to be defined and clarified as they will vary widely depending on experience and philosophy (countrv In this context, the moratorium on outcomes and profiles, while it frustrated many primary school teacher). r 3 y teachers who were successfully implementing the approach, was welcomed by this school among many others: Often the words "best practice" are used simply on the basis that if something Even though our directive was to proceed slowly we felt pressured to keep up is said to use best practice metho.is, then il must be all right and that it need with other schools and some very atthusiastic colleagues dragged many along not be subject to scrutiny or question (a personal submission). at a pace they could not cope with...It has been wonderful to have the breathing space of the last couple of months to review the changes we have already Respondents to the Review included those who warned that any curriculum implemaited. approach must allow for the individuality of teachers. One primary school that saw much value in outcomes and profiles also wrote: Hie use of outcomes and profiles gives an excellent focus for teaching and 4.3.3 Impact on Students and Classroom Practice learning. They provide a standard and support framework and they give positive feedback of what students have mastered (including knowledge In submissions and during school visits, many teachers expressed positive views of skills/altitudes). However, ... there are many teachers in NSW and all of outcomes and profiles because of the focus on individual students and their learning than have differing abilities and talents as well as professional expertise It which the approach provides: seems a shame to coerce all of these gifted people into following one mandalorv y Outcomes are not grade-based therefore children can be seen at their own level, teaching/programming style. rather than locked into particular grade expectations - the time spent at each level is not prescriptive, but given informed leaching and assessment, it is Good teaching and pedagogy must be supported by high-quality professional inevitable that children will move through these levels, ensuring mastay of a development. Many submissions argued that this should be managed by schools core of knowledge. That children will achieve this mastery at different times of themselves: their life should not be seen as a problem because the 'big picture' is there. The most successful curriculum development that ensures real change is that provided in schools and in the classroom over time (Discussions with This submission was also positive about the way explicit outcome statements Regional Representatives). helped ensure coverage of the syllabus: ... the Outcomes framework has encouraged us to think more carefully about One of the impediments to achieving improved teaching and learning was the speed what we wish to achieve in using particular activities in our lessons. with which "this major change" was introduced into schools. One deputy principal Awareness of the need to assess progress in all Outcomes has also ensured that spoke of the negative effect this had had on school climate. A primarv schLl principal warned that it was: r > all substrands are covered rather than concentrating on familiar or comfortable areas, thus giving children access to a broader understanding of all aspects of A recipe for the closed classroom syndrome where the teacher retreats into the literacy (primary school staff)- classroom, closes the door not only physically but mentally and continues on in the knowledge that this aberration wili go away. It will eventually be modified A submission from a country school summarised the positive impact on students in and a status quo of some sort will prevail. the following terms: for students - teachers are able lo guide learning in a specific manner and sludatls should be able to take more control of their learning through the use of Outcomes.

Focusing on Learning: Page Focusing on Learning: Page 55 of profiles and outcomes. I feel that here once more the teacher will be chained Not all submissions spoke in such positive terms; however. to a desk doing paper work... (high school teacher). As practising classroom teachers we feel we can give an accurate assessment of the practicality of implementing this approach... / have always maintained a work sample folder for each child and kept anecdotal records, standardised tests results and running records for all The outcomes approach, we believe, will take us away from our primary roles of children in my class. I found the work involved m the profiling of each leaching which are preparing interesting lessons, motivating children, Kindergarten (child) was extremely lime consuming, especially considering classroom teaching and interacting with children individually. As we attempt thai it only covered the English KLA. ... 1 am always prepared lo work many to implement the outcomes approach, there will be little time for any of these hours at home on school mailers, however I feel that I spent many hours more important activities. Most of our time will be taken up with observing assessing al the expense of lesson preparation time (a teacher of years K--£). and recording outcomes (primary school staff). Doubt was frequently expressed about the impact, on students and classroom practice, of the kind of assessment associated with outcomes and profiles: Opinions are mixed at this school about the effects on best teaching practice of Profiles and Outcomes. While their introduction should focus the efforts of the JUSS! yea^levS are clearly of a different kind, and can be particularly acute. teacher and help establish the child's achievement levels and needs, concerns were expressed about the amount of time the assessment procedures would take and a possible unhealthy concentration on the achievement of prescribed 4.3.4 Teacher Education outcomes at the expense of best teaching methods (rural primary school The Review Panel had direct advice from the tertiary sector through four avenues: a principal). SbmS o^from the New South Wales Teacher Education Councd; a heanng by £e Sw PaneTwith two members of the Council Executive; vtews expressed at the Some expressed a fear that too great an emphasis on assessment would inhibit the ^J^aSm*** Committee meetings; and participation a heanng w.th natural interaction between teacher and student, so essential to good learning. m the NPDP Consortium. We agree that education is student-centred and relationship-centred. Students The Review Panel was informed that outcomes and profiles have been treated as: must be allowed to learn in natural interaction, not in an environment dominated by constant and burdensome assessment. Tliey must not be afraid Core material in both the generic professional and education foundation studies to make errors (high school leading teacher). units ZI specific curJlum units in both pre-service and in-service teacher education. Others questioned whether using outcome statements in reporting would convey meaningful information. At the pre-service level: Using the Profiles and Outcomes method would involve a wordy and, in my Considerable attention is being given to the study of ^^Ta^Se opinion, basically meaningless and potentially misleading system of reporting the relationship between the slate documents and the national profiles, and the tuhereby a bulky report will be issued which contains much written implications of these statements for teaching, assessment and learning. information, which looks and sounds good but can be used to cover up areas of weakness. In other words, I feel it encourages misleading or even dishonest At the in-service level: reporting (primary school teacher). Units are being offered in Conversion and M Ed courses zfch include a study fcunZluinaZs from the perspectives of profiles and outcomes .... Staff One of the greatest preoccupations expressed by teachers was with the impact of (from universities) assist in in-service courses as schools request. outcomes and profiles assessment on the allocation of their time, and whether time was being profitably spent from the students' and parents' perspective. 77iis year 1 wrote one lot of profile reports. 1 found they took more lime and yet From the point of view of the New South Wales Teacher Education Council: I felt the parents were receiving a product inferior to the one they had received The moves to profiles and outcomes is a welcome balance °™ ^ V™™ in the past. ... Another matter to consider is the writing of programs in terms nerZpLis on norm-referenced assessment procedures within the State.

Focusing on Learning: Page 57 Focusing on Learning: Page 56 However, the new emphasis cannot be an exclusive focus upon criterion- Federation and the Department of School Education. The Agreement was to cover a referenced assessment. Tlie purpose of these procedures is to facilitate learning period of two years. in students. Die emphasis adopted needs to be suited in any particular situation to the individual students involved and their characteristics. Both the Department and the Federation were aware by April, 1994 that the timelines in the Agreement were demanding. A very strong point made by the Naw South Wales Teacher Education Council was The timelines which were included in the Enterprise Agreement were very that it did not wish to be "margine Iised from the planning and implementation of quickly seen to be inoperable, and they were withdrawn in April 1994. change procedures and strategies". In particular, it wished to become a "more equal However, the message which the Agreement contained remained the prevailing partner in further government funded professional development activities focused message within the system (NSW Teachers' Federation). on profiles and outcomes." The Council also indicated willingness to assist in research and evaluation projects in relation to the role of profiles and outcomes and This latter point is significant as the earlier messages remained despite a their implementation in schools and school systems. memorandum to all Principals, (DG94. 2932) issued on July 8, 1994 and jointly In many submissions reference was made to the importance of ensuring that young signed by the Director-General of the Department of School Education and the teachers are well prepared for the job they have to do. This means that the content President of NSW Teachers' Federation. The intent of the memorandum was clearly of teacher education courses should be in tune with current curriculum documents. stated as being to clarify the implications of the Enterprise Agreement for the On school visits, beginning teachers suggested that they had not been sufficiently implementation of profiles and outcomes throughout 1994-95. prepared in all areas of the curriculum they were asked to implement. On several The broad objective is that: occasions comments were made by these teachers about "poor teaching" styles being used and the "lack of relevance" in regard to the tasks they were given and content • K-6 teachers will begin programming around outcotnes in English K-6 presented as part of their profession il preparation. during 1995;

The comments of beginning teachers point to a major problem, referred to in the . Kindergarten teachers zvill begin to assess and report in terms of the submission of the New South Wales Teacher Education Council. The contribution of Early Learning profiles in term 1, 1995; teacher education to the facilitation of change through pre-service and in-service education is an important factor to consider. all other primary teachers will begin to assess and report in terms of the profiles in English K-6 by the end of 1995.

At the end -of 1995 a joint Department of School Education and NSW 4.4 IMPLEMENTATION Teachers' Federation Review will determine the extent lo which these things have happened.

4.4.1 Timelines for Implementation A similar statement was contained in the memorandum regarding implementation in Year 7, with the same concluding sentence. It may be that it was the presence of In the submissions and in hearings conducted with various organisations, it was that sentence overshadowed other statements in the memorandum such as: very apparent that the pace with which outcomes (and profiles) were being The emphasis, however, is on the quality of implementation not speed. introduced aaoss the different sectors, varied greatly. In the case of the non­ government sector, some Catholic schools were moving into outcomes and profiles Full implementation of an outcomes and profiles approach across K-10 will take as a result of system imperatives or exposure to the training modules produced by a number of years and will proceed at a pace which teachers find comfortable. the National Professional Developrr.ent Program (NPDP). Other non-govemment schools confined their activities more to "exploring the possibilities of outcomes", There was a difference in the pace of implementation between the government and rather than move into rapid acceptance. nongovernment sectors. A major factor in this difference appears to have been the The Department of School Education, by contrast, moved rapidly. Undoubtedly, influence of the Enterprise Agreement on government schools. It is fair to conclude one of the major factors in their implementation timeframe was the Enterprise that the precise proposals contained in the Agreement, and in the subsequent advice Agreement, signed on December 10, 1993 by the New South Wales Teachers' to government schools, were not fully appreciated.

Focusing on Learning. Page 56 Focusing on Learning: Page 59 4.4.2 Delivering National Professional Development Program Modules The modules were perceived by most people to be overly prescriptive and not open for modification to suit local circumstances. Despite this, there were perceived A further important factor which impacted on all schools implementing profiles and benefits in several of the English K-6 courses: outcomes was the funding available for inservicing through the Commonwealth- funded National Professional Development Program (NPDP). A highly significant Again, the train-the-trainer delivery underpinning these modules was influence was the training package, Introducing an Outcomes and Profiles Approach criticised by some teachers. However, they appeared to be generally well- (Modules 1 and 2), and the various modules for implementing English K-6. supported in schools, probably due to their KLA specific nature and the fact that teachers had an approved syllabus from which to work (a regional The NSW NPDP Consortium, which managed the development and delivery of the office). training packages, had Commonwealm-determined restrictions on the proportion of the funds available for teacher relief and the timeframe for expenditure of funds. A further issue is that the availability of NPDP funds had been critical in These restrictions resulted in some modules being hastily developed, and n-aining development of support material for teachers. It is also important to point out that programs being undertaken before schools were in fact ready for them. The training in a hearing with the Review Panel, all members of the NPDP Consortium packages were based upon the train-the-trainer model of delivery. Most training commented on the value of co-operation between the sectors in co-ordinating took place in the afternoon after school finished. professional development programs for teachers. The NPDP Consortium calculated that its programs have readied 21,397 primary teachers and 988 secondary teachers across the State and across systems. Ninety percent of government schools had some or all of their staff trained in English K-6. Regional and System Strategies The train-the-trainer model used was criticised by both facilitators and teachers as The Department of School Education's stated position was to "encourage leading to inadequately trained presenters who were using packages not based on participation of key stakeholders in the change process" through "the development adult learning strategies. A variant of the model using selected facilitators was of regional and school implementation plans" (Department of School Education: adopted for English K-6. Despite this, the following comment summarises a point Additional Document Paper 3 submitted to the Review Panel: An Outcomes and often made: Profiles Approach - Implementation Issues). Regional responses varied widely, reflecting different levels of discussion and planning already commenced in regions Inservicing arrangements to this point have been seriously inadequate. They before system-imposed timelines and strategies were made known. have been largely addressed outside of school hours and at school expense. The train-the-trainer approach adopted with implementing the new English All Department of School Education regions developed an implementation plan syllabus modules is seriously flawed in that trainers are not sufficiently trained which included time frames for the delivery of in-service modules. Some plans themselves and do not appear to have a full understanding of the document. generally appear to focus more on quantitative matters such as costing rather than Further, the large groups being inserviced leave little opportunity for on the more fundamental issues of change management. Regional plans which were meaningful practical activity and discussion (rural primary school). developed in the context of schools' reviewing their purpose and directions, with consultants and schools working together, were reported as being most successful. Some facilitators, too, were uneasy with the model and their role in it: This collaboration sometimes included action research on outcomes and profiles in classrooms with the provision of relief funding. Some regions worked closely with We delivered the modules feeling insecure and uncomfortable, hoping like hell schools as schools developed their own "exit-outcome" statements. no-one would ask questions (regional consultant). It emerged in'discussions diat some regional personnel who adopted a more liberal Facilitators suggested that the delivery of Modules 1 and 2 would have been more approach with Modules 1 and 2, tailoring this approach more to regional concerns, successful if they had been involved with the development and if modules had felt a "sense of frustration" and "some guilt" that they may not have been following, recognised that schools and teachers all had different levels of existing knowledge or "were even undermining", the centrally-produced guidelines for implementation. and readiness. Adult learning strategies needed to be recognised and acted upon. The Training and Development Directorate of the Department of School Education Not all members of the NPDP Consortium proceeded at the pace of the Department acknowledged to the Panel that evaluations indicated that the "train-the-trainer" of School Education. For some, implementation, when it occurred, was at a rate model had not worked well in this instance and a review of the approach was determined by individual schools. needed. The Diocese had already made a decision not to adhere to the timelines of the other NPDP Consortium members (Parramatta Diocese, CEO).

Focusing on Learning: Page 60 Focusing on Learning: Page 61 Schools which are neither government nor Catholic systemic schools made decisions At Primary School we believe the rate of implementation for profiles and on implementation quite independently of any system initiatives. outcomes in 1994 and 1995 was entirely appropriate. 1994 provided our It should be pointed out that, while there may have been a feeling that the school with the opportunity to discuss, debate, trial and reflect on the benefits introduction of outcomes and profiles was very "centrally driven", there is a of an outcomes approach for teachers, students and parents (primary school positive side in that government schools were being asked to re-examine their teacher). current practices and consider hew teaching and learning programs might be modified. Undoubtedly, change ard the need to think about change have occurred On a similarly positive note; as a result of the steps taken as part of the Enterprise Agreement. We cannot t/iinfc of any other initiative in recent history which has inspired or motivated teachers to think about what they teach and what students learn and how to identify what has been learnt (high school principal). Schools

Government schools were almost unanimous in their rejection of the timeline followed. It was seen to be undesirable, beyond reasonable expectation for change 4.4.3 Impact on Teachers' Workload management, did not take into account other significant demands being placed on Submissions which mentioned the impact on workload largely focused on changes schools and it was imposed from above. The combined effects of the Enterprise in assessment and reporting. Some primary teachers saw the work associated with Agreement, the NPDP guidelines, die introduction of new syllabuses (English K-6 implementing English K-6 multiplied six times! Secondary school teachers, and relevant secondary syllabuses), and the focus on outcomes and profiles which questioned the management of profiles and outcomes for the large number of raised questions about assessment and reporting, overwhelmed many teachers and students taught and with whom they had limited time each week. Fewer secondary schools. schools had begun implementation and frequently their anxieties were anticipated In submissions, schools regularly called for more time: rather than experienced: Teachers need time lo experiment with new ideas, methods and practices before A high school teacher in a teaching area with a relatively small teaching load.... they become mandatory (primary school principal). would only have access to a-class group on 1 or 2 occasions per week. This limited access would obviously impact on a teacher's ability to observe and Most principals felt that schoo.'s need much more time to consider the new assess the progress of individual students. These teachers would also teach up syllabi and the use of profiles, 10 change beliefs and to educate staff, parents to, and sometimes exceeding 300 students (the average for any high school and students (NSW Primary Principals' Association). would be 200). How are they to track progress, store work annotations and generally manage such numbers? Too many changes coming in far too quickly (country primary school principal). Typical responses from primary teachers were: The announced timeline appeared to operate independently of the release of ..the lime involved in the administration and application of the outcomes to appropriate support material and proposed structures. English K-6 presented each of my students in that ONE Key Learning Area is impossible tofind...(l) teachers with a new syllabus, functional grammar, outcomes and profiles. Support already spend four hours most nights on preparation, programming and documents were developed much later. The general view of many submissions was evaluation... that: The time needed to write these assessments and reports is absolutely Too many initiatives were attempted simultaneously (primary school horrendous. principal). As indicated by these comments, a considerable number of teachers saw outcome Submissions raised the need for th; support of appropriate technology, materials, and profile-based reporting as time consuming and diversionary. The increased skilled personnel and high quality professional development. School-based need for recording and meetings was seen to detract from teaching time. It was a implementation which was flexible and focused on the individual needs of all frequently expressed view that a previously balanced teaching cycle could give way teachers was seen as essential. to one dominated by assessment. By contrast, a small number of school submissions approved of the timeline:

Focusing on Learning: Page 62 Focusing on Learning: Page 63 Will our work day become one of trying to spot the evidence that a particular Professional educators in schools have not been provided with any significant outcome has been achieved? Will we be reduced to checklists and form filling? degree of professional t ime to properly consider/reflect upon and discuss with (A primary group within the Independent Education Union response). colleagues the enormous implications for curriculum change that the profiles/outcomes are proposing. Some submissions mentioned the concern expressed by one teacher as a "loss of the joy of teaching". Many teachers questioned whether their professionalism was valued, believing their skills and experience had been ignored. Conversely, one high school staff member A few responses expressed an anticipation that the process of assessment and reporting will become more streamlined in future and that the current increase in responded: workload is temporary as teachers become familiar with a new approach. It was not This school has developed significant maturity in the implementation....The a view widely shared in submissions or heard during school visits. learning experience has been painful al limes but judged as worthwhile.

Many submissions highlighted beneficial changes in work practices: the It was obvious that teachers feel that their workload and stress levels have increased development of collegial and collaborative work was a significant change for a in dealing with a rapid change which has often challenged long-held beliefs about number of respondents who felt less isolated as a result. teaching and learning. The intermittent, uncertain nature of the implementation has done litde to help morale and stress levels, nor have the perceived poor quality and rushed nature of the training and support programs. Morale

Comments in section 4.3.1, on teachers as professionals, are also relevant to the 4.4.4 Community Contributions and Understanding discussion which follows. There is also a need for schools to take up the challenge to inform their parent Interestingly, the timing and method of implementation of profiles and outcomes body before, and as change is taking place, in a spirit of partnership rather than and the pause associated with this Review have all been mentioned as adversely regarding it as the last stage in implementing change. (Federation of School affecting teacher morale: and Community Organisations).

There was a stop/start/yes/no approach to implementation evidenced by false While there are excellent exemplars of successful collaboration and communication, starts and failed timelines. Ultimately some teaching staff disregarded the it is not evident that this is as pervasive as it might be. Some school communities whole process (or) became convinced it would never happen (high school have worked together successfully to develop shared understanding, but generally principal). it was believed: The community is seen as the recipient rather than the participant in the Tlie learning experience has been painful at times but judged as worthwhile. It implementation of Outcomes and Profiles (primary school council). would be disappointing and demoralising to see the approach abandoned (high school staff). A major problem was that parent and community support materials in outcomes and profiles education, generally in support of English K-6, although developed and The 'top-down' approach to determining timelines and implementation, combined trialed were not released prior to the freeze on implementation. with the lack of consultation with teachers about the value of a profiles and outcomes approach, led to expressions of a lack of ownership by the profession. An obvious need for communication and dialogue arises with the development of Teachers called for an approach to implementation which: new reporting processes. Of particular concern is difficulty by parents in understanding the language and complexity of outcomes. Some schools went so far ... would recognise the professional status of teachers and encourage as to state that for reporting: involvement in and ownership of implementation (Human Society and Its Environment Council). Teachers have to spend time translating outcomes into simple, intelligible language (primary school principal). Another significant issue was the lack of preparation for educational leaders in schools so that they could lead their communities in change. An English Head Teacher in a secondary school commented: These problems are obviously compounded for non-English speaking parents:

Focusing on Learning: Page 64 Focusing on Learning: Page 65 The problem becomes more acute in those schools where there is a large number for many teachers "a great fear of the unknown", a view put in one of the of parents with non-English speaking backgrounds (primary school Department of School Education submissions: principal). It has been clear that much of the debate centred on assessment and reporting with an outcomes and profiles base has been made by teachers who Parent groups, particularly in primary schools, were obviously attracted to the are still to understand the teaching and learning implications of the approach concept of regular formal and informal meetings with teachers, and consultation as (Regional Director, Teaching and Learning). new syllabuses are introduced. Peak organisations gave very strong support for the way they are being involved in developing materials for use in schools to support Comments in submissions and observations on school visits revealed that much the introduction of outcomes and profiles. attention is being devoted in schools, especially primary schools, to improving Several responses endorsed the provision of short, plain-English guides to assessment practices and reporting procedures to parents. Experimentation is syllabuses. They also requested access to Board of Studies syllabuses and occurring both with assessment processes designed to assist teaching and learning, documents. and with ways to make reporting to parents more helpful. Many schools are trying out new approaches to the way they manage interviews with parents including The point was made repeatedly that any realistic consultation with peak bodies, some experimentation with student involvement in the process as students talk associations or country parents, needs to be held over an appropriate timeframe . about work samples contained in portfolios developed over a given assessment Consultation and education to date were seen to be rushed, inadequate and, period. consequendy, largely ineffective. Below, particular aspects associated with assessment and reporting are dealt with in Publicity campaigns using a range of public media were suggested as necessary to some detail. Overall, however, the following emerged in the Review as the most inform parents, employers and the general public of significant educational changes. frequently cited advantages and disadvantages of an outcomes and profiles This was particularly relevant for parents in isolated areas. approach to assessment and reporting. Reporting outcomes provides more information to parents about what students are learning than previously and gives more scope for the 4.5. ASSESSMENT AND REPORTING teacher to treat students as individuals. When teachers report in terms of outcomes they are showing parents and students what students are achieving, not what they have failed to 4.5.1. Introductory Comments achieve. Problems and issues associated with assessment and reporting featured very There will be a substantial impact on teachers' workload arising from strongly in the data gathered as p.irt of the Review. For many teachers, in both the large number of outcomes to be assessed and reported on. primary and secondary schools, there was a clear perception that the outcomes and profiles approach was assessment rather than curriculum-driven. Demands placed Time spent on assessment of syllabus outcomes will be excessive and on teachers to assess individual students across a wide range of outcomes, will be at the expense of pupil-teacher interaction potentially across a range of KLAs and/or classes, resulted in valuable preparation and teaching time being given over to assessment. The following comment from a . Teachers' differing interpretations of achievement of outcomes are a secondary teacher was not uncomnun: major problem Assessment and evaluation will dominate the curriculum and take away from . There needs to be consistency in approach in the transition from productive teaching time. primary to secondary school. It is not an unreasonable conclusion to suggest from the evidence gathered that, Teachers are finding difficulty in reporting in levels and many teachers along with the pace of introduction, assessment and reporting are the issues and parents do not wish this to occur. associated with outcomes and profiles causing the most concern. It would be equally reasonable to suggest that there is much confusion as to how assessment and Schools were concerned at the disparity between the 20 month time reporting might be managed as pari of an outcomes and profiles approach. There is frame for levels and the school year grade pattern.

Focusing on Learning: Page 67 Focusing on Learning: Page o Many teachers appear to support an outcomes-based approach to teaching, without its necessarily being accompanied by profiles putp0se c , - HESSE JSa^'SSSSf reporting, especially in levels. 1 from Ed ,ion What emerges clearly from the Review is the need for considerable work to be done zs&FZi^^r" "" in relation to assessment and reporting. The following comment from a non­ Commission sums up well views put generally: government primary school teacher highlights this need: Assessment should be dynamic, intrinsic to learning, encourage learning / have been 'profiling' children for years but am now confused as to where •nlZletlion and description of student perforce, lead to infold outcomes and profiles fit into my usual teaching practice. 1 want to keep my decision-making about students, curriculum policy and the further focus on individual children but not drown in a sea of paperwork. development of assessment and reporting. A similar view was put in a Department of School Education response: 4.5.2. Understanding Profiling and the Processes Vie main reason teachers assess their students is to improve the teaching and ZrZs v ocess in the classroom. This has to be the major reason. Tlie Teacher understanding of how assessment and reporting might be managed as part S 7aZs,ng and reporting should be what is needed to inform good of an outcomes and profiles approach appears to be very confused, and yet appears teaching programs. in teachers' minds to be the driving force behind the Outcomes and Profiles- Considerable disquiet was expressed ^ bas^of'asMs^^w^^e'particitor approach. taposed on syllabuses '^XSZa *e %m«s Assessment is the point where all of the teachers' concerns come together. Some teachers appear to interpret 'profiling' as the need to assess each outcome separately SsS.Xr^^^ and report on student achievement in a similar way and are overwhelmed at the prospect. For primary teachers the issue of the number of strands, sub-strand outcomes and pointers across Key Learning Areas is a significant one - on how S=4t^T»i» many dimensions will they be required to assess and report? Clearly, workload even greater if outcomes written into syllabuses are seen to Dimp e . issues arise here, with teachers concerned that reporting on such a broad range of section 4.2). , , outcomes would involve them in hours of additional work at school and at home. Primary teachers acknowledged that the support document Reporting to Parents in English and Mathematics is helpful, but much more assistance is needed in schools to make assessment and reporting both comprehensive and manageable. For secondary teachers there is considerable concern at the prospect of profiling £STJL £ Sa^ Second Pr,„c,pa, students across a number of classes (and in many cases, for the one teacher, across a number of subjects). In particular, attention was drawn to difficulties in profiling argued that the outcomes and profiles approach: students where teachers had only a limited number of periods in a week. For them is essential a teaching and learning agenda (which) allows us to focus on gaining sufficient data as well as finding rime are seen as highly problematic. luZSZents' liming and to chart progress in all dimensions of the Parents and the community see a need for a "planned, systematic, thorough in- subject across a teaching week, whole year programs and beyond. servicing of the community" to ensure changes in assessment and reporting are understood. What also emerged from submissions and discussions is a need for Ue avvroach does not mean abandonment of rigour, content and academe greater community involvement in discussions about desirable assessment and s ndardl ll s plbably the best way we have of ensuring a rigorous approach reporting procedures. (This matter is discussed below in 4.5.4). Tteachlg and learning and monitoring what students have learnt.

All of this points to the need to "get ^^Z^l£s^^^ 4.5.3. Validity of Assessments Using Outcomes

In the data considered by the Review Panel there was general agreement that p^«^ assessment is an integral part of the teaching-learning process and that the main

Focusing on Learning: Page 69 Focusing on Learning: Page 68 and national monitoring are ones lhat should complement rather than complicate 4.5.4 Reporting to Parents teachers' work. Several critical issues, arising from both the community and school perspectives, Those who have been working with outcomes to develop student profiles for emerged in relation to reporting needs. There is a need for more consultation within reporting purposes also talked about the need to develop moderation processes that the community by individual schools as they determine what reporting processes promote discussions with others on the quality of student work. They pointed to they will adopt, reasons for the directions taken, and consider how to enhance increased time demands involved in such discussions and the need for work community understanding of the schools' intentions and procedures in reporting on samples to assist diem to make valid judgements about the quality of student work. individual students. It is evident from die submissions that, where new modes of With so much emphasis in recent curriculum materials on levels of achievement, reporting are introduced, more traditional components of school reports, well teachers are conscious of a need to be more precise in their assessing. This has understood by the community, need to be considered as well. meant the gathering of work samples for discussion with colleagues and parents. Inevitably the need was raised for sufficient time for teachers to work collegially across grades as the school develops expertise in determining standards, linking of Reporting by Levels teaching and assessment, and identifying ways to short-cut administrative dimensions. A country primary school commented: The majority of teachers and parents did not favour reporting in terms of levels. The Parents Council advised that reporting in level statements would not be Questions were also raised about the cost-benefits of the time spent; acceptable to parents. on die other hand - Data from the submissions suggest that experience in reporting student progress, using levels related to the national profiles has been much more widespread in the collegial process of establishing common standards has been beneficial. primary schools than secondary schools. Responses on this issue of levels appear to be somewhat divided. The Review Panel did form an impression that, for most of One primary school made the following positive observation: the schools using levels for reporting, the levels were accepted as given and their Teaching, which has been historizally such an isolated and isolating experience, appropriateness and validity were not questioned. This is a cause for considerable is opening up to a new profe.;siotmlism as teachers seek clarification and concern, given that much more needs to be undertaken to validate the levels. verification of their judgements from their colleagues. This is regarded as a very positive development which has had its genesis in the Profiles and A major worry for schools which have attempted to report in levels is the notion that Outcomes approach. each level covers a suggested time frame of twenty months. This means that some students may be still at a given level for three or four reporting periods and teachers Notwidistanding the positive aspects of this comment, it will be necessary to are concerned diat parents may feel that little is being done to assist student learning monitor the impact of changing assessment practices on teacher workload. Some so that progress can be registered. Some teachers feel very threatened by this submissions argued that, over tirm;, processes will become more streamlined as prospect. (See also discussion in section 4.1.7 on this issue.) teachers come to understand how to manage better. Not everyone would share the Other concerns with levels include: following comment made by the staff of one primary school, but it is well worth noting as a point of view: validity: what research has been undertaken to demonstrate the levels are tied appropriately to outcomes and that they are therefore a valid While it lakes time to collect, annotate, file and present work samples to basis for reporting students' progress? This work is only in its infancy. parents and complete ongoing assessments, this is offset by more efficient use of teacher time spent programming due to: progression: do the levels, in fact, represent an appropriate progression • collaborative programming in learning and is diere a danger that they suggest all learning is linear? • working from given structures - we're given the what, we only need to decide the how and when "once and for all judgements": reporting by levels suggests that once • programs are more succinct and more used. a student has been assessed as performing at a particular level there will be no need to revisit aspects of learning encompassed by that Some schools that had begun to use the approach held the view that workload issues level. will "balance out". Schools also were concerned at the implications for their workload when more KLAs were involved.

Focusing on Learning: Page 70 Focusing on Learning: Page 71 While appreciating reports expressed in positive terms, parents also stated a wish and annual assessment outcomes. °nth levels for comparative information on performance and indications of areas of need.

Emphasis in Reporting and Use of Language Reporting Formats The issue of whether or not schools should be using standardised formats for ISe^ »- Piffle, has heen die reporting purposes is also a contentious one. There appears to be a general consensus amongst teacher organisations that, at the very least; detailed guidelines schools have adopted prc^Z^^T^^^^^ ^ 8 n any 0utcome and frameworks are needed to assist reporting. It must also be said tliat there are statements which relate to what an individual ^/TK ° CCOm strongly held views on the need for more standardisation in reporting processes. It argument was put consistently to tne SneTmS nJ" ? f ^ was noted in submissions, and in discussions with schools, diat there is an equally . just what their children can r\r, h.,f .hf * ! 3t parcrUs need t0 ^ow not strong view that schools should negotiate with their communities on how they will see where and how tneyIght b^abt oh^r T& "f^ S° *" ca" P y nCed to know how we report. The joint Council of NSW Professional Teachers' Associations and the NSW student has achieved a^art Jul,, " u '1° » the Primary Principals' Council both supported customised reporting and a range of performance has ^ slS^l^^ ^ ^ ^^ation that school-based formats to provide guidance. Whatever process is followed, diere is considerable concern among the community and teachers, that a heavy emphasis on. Ee^K reporting by outcomes may lead to less individual reporting in favour of computer- school reports on ZUsh) Te ?„^7°? ?' * C3Se with some P™4 based reporting which relies heavily (if not solely) on the use of readily f UtCOme has understandable by parfnt ° ° ™ been readilj, programmable generalised comments able to be tapped in at will.

Comparisons and Norm-Referenced Reporting 4.5.5. System-Wide and National Monitoring

^1^1^^^^ d6tail -hould provide to Some schools are concerned that the focus of the Outcomes and Profiles approach is whedier in the class, ' - rdati°n » ^ related more to accountability at a system/State wide level than on improving teaching and learning in classrooms. It will be evident from comments made earlier in this section that, for teachers and the community more generally, the major rhefollowiifrornT^^S concern is how using outcomes and profiles might assist individual teadiers and students in schools. State and national level reporting on school performance should complement this fundamental purpose.

0Ur ldra Wilh A number of respondents commented that, at this stage, much of what has been dWM*. in tetoJZnl^uZL^ f" l ^ implemented is very tentative and would not provide a sound basis for national reporting. Other authorities have made their own adjustments to the national standards framework to suit their own circumstances (eg. Victoria and Western Australia). Much more exploratory work on outcomes and levels needs to be done schemes, and parnclrt^' uS r !/ V*™ IJleir reP°^g by individual systems, especially in New South Wales, before we could be confident submissions suggest Swten S ' Evide"ce that we have an appropriate basis on which we can report with confidence. At activities relatinFtorepor^Xvh^ in Staff development present, system-wide initiatives for monitoring student performance (eg. the Basic and reporting arrangement * P ^ appr0vaJ of new assessment Skills Testing Program, the School Certificate and the Higher School Certificate) are available for monitoring purposes, including implications for resource allocations to meet equity provisions. ^rXl^S c^Z5^ ^ Parem eXpeCtari°"S -re not Federation and pe k ^T^^r'T " ^ ^ Teacher*' particularly in terms of equTty nd ffiLTSSn ? Criteri°n refe"™ing, H^ry ana tne lack of information provided by marks.

Focusing on Learning: Tage 72 Focusing on Learning: Page -73 4.5.6. Links with School Certificate and the Higher School Certificate Key Competencies

The matter of links between outcomes and profiles and the School Certificate was A committee established by Ministers to examine the notion of "entry-level" not mentioned in any significant way throughout the Review, including in competencies reported to the Australian Education Council in July 1993. That submissions. This was probably due to the fact that the bulk of submissions came Committee, chaired by Eric Mayer, proposed a set of eight generic, "employment- from primary schools, and the fact i\at the implementation of outcomes and profiles related" Key Competencies, which are briefly stated as: in secondary schools was at a very early stage. 1. Collecting, Analysing and Organising Information It is clear, however, there are implications for the way current reporting arrangements for the School Certificate are managed, especially the relationship 2. Cornmunicating Ideas and Information between formative outcome statements and summative subject descriptors. 3. Planning and Organising Activities Similarly, there was virtually no mention of the Higher School Certificate, probably 4. Working with Others and in Teams for the reasons stated above and be:ause the terms of reference made it clear that the 5. Using Mathematical Ideas and techniques focus for the Review was Years K -10. The findings from this present Review will need to be made available for the Review of the Higher School Certificate 6. Solving Problems announced recently by the Minister. 7. Using Technology 8. Cultural Understandings

4.6 INDUSTRY AND EMPLOYMENT In NSW, a pilot project, involving 45 Secondary schools is investigating "...the claim that relevant statements on learning outcomes can provide an appropriate framework for Written advice was received direcdy from the two industry members of the Educational reporting on students' achievement of the Key Competencies". The project also focuses Community Committee. No submissions were received from this sector in response to on "proposals for explicit reporting on Key Competencies.... (for) Year 10, Year 12 and the general advertisement calling for submissions. the equivalent in the Vocational Education and Training Sectors". The project team is due to report in mid-1996. The key issue relating to industry and employment is the nature and format of student reports as exit credentials. The Review Panel was advised that most employers are in The Review Panel met with members of the NSW Key Competencies pilot project team small businesses and that they generally prefer "reports that provide an assessment during the course of its investigations. While it was not possible to carry out an in-depth based on comparative ranking". The adoption of criterion referenced-reporting would analysis of the approach presendy being adopted, the Panel did form some preliminary require education of employers and ihe use of clear and unambiguous language. views.

Employers are already attempting to understand the structure and implications of the The Panel agrees with the assumption that, if Key Competencies are to be developed in developing national vocational education and training system, including the Australian school settings, they must be integral to existing syllabus outcomes, and emerge from Standards Framework, the Australian Vocational Training System, the Australian such outcomes. The Panel does not support a position that would force any syllabus to Qualifications Framework. They are also responding to school reports based in New fit an externally-imposed outcome or competency. The Review has made apparent the South Wales on the School Certificate and the Higher School Certificate and associated difficulties that arise from attempting to incorporate abstract statements of competencies Tertiary Entrance Rank (TER). into existing Syllabuses. Any outcomes of learning must be defined in terms of the syllabus and arise naturally from it. This should be a fundamental principle adopted Indications are that more research needs to be undertaken to determine the use made by with any use of the Key Competencies in schooling. employers of school reports and the linkage between school reports and other school exit credentials. In the development of the national vocational education and training The Review Panel appreciates the importance of developing linkages between the system, a major element is the identification of generic related competencies that outcomes of schooling and pathways into vocational education and training. Properly- provide entry into vocational pathways. These have been described as Key developed Key Competencies may be one way of contributing to this. The Panel has Competencies. some disquiet, however, about some aspects of the processes being undertaken by the pilot project. In particular, it has concerns about the criteria diat are being used to judge whether the Key Competencies are being achieved, and how they have been arrived at - in particular, whether their meaning has been fully explored with teachers. The

Focusing on Learning: Page 74 Focusing on Learning: Page 75 processes and outcomes of the Key Competencies pilot need to be assessed in the light 5. SUMMARY: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS of the recommendations contained in this Report.

4.7 Concluding Comment 5.1 BACKGROUND TO THE REVIEW

It is fair to conclude from the vast array of data emanating from so many sources that the picture to emerge is a complex one. There are lots of positives and lots of 5.1.1. Terms of Reference negatives in the story. The Review of New South Wales Outcomes and Profiles was established with three To assist confirmation that the Review Panel and the Educational Community Committee had extracted from the submissions the salient or most frequendy areas for investigation. occurring issues, an analysis was carried out independently by two research The quality of curriculum documents that utilise outcomes and profiles, assistants who then cross checked their findings. It has to be said that they were not including: analysing responses given in a carefully structured survey instrument, such as a questionnaire, so the task was not an easy one. The results of this additional (a) their consistency with principles of high quality subject content and analysis are nonetheless helpful for the insights they provide and additional best practice teaching methods, confirmation of what was of most concern to respondents in submissions. (b) the need to ensure that syllabuses arc written in a language that is The two most frequently mentioned concerns were: the pace of change introduced in (W Appropriate and natural to the particular subject andI are easily schools was too rapid; and the perception that increased attention to assessment and understood and interpreted by teachers, students and parents. reporting was resulting in less time being available for teachers to concentrate on teaching and learning programs. On the other hand, a significant number of The appropriateness of the current implementation arrangements for respondents indicated that a focus on outcomes facilitated the quality of teaching outcomes and profiles in New South Wales, including: and learning and the monitoring of individual student progression. Other major concerns to emerge included the following: (c) the speed of changes required by the timeline and, o the language of outcomes is not clear (d) the implications for schools of new assessment and reporting arrangements as well as their effects on teachers work. • increasing workload for teachers o the terminology associated with functional grammar o the number of outcomes (too many) ^^^^^^^ o the negative reaction to the training and development model adopted » whether there should be standardised or customised reporting.

All of these issues have been thoroughly addressed throughout this section of the Report. The next and final section provides a summary of the findings of the provide a clear basis of reporting to parents on progress. Review along with a set of recommendations for future action.

5.1.2 Conducting the Review

The taiew „.s conduced wnhin a vety Sghl: Jme-fam. ^fr^"°™^

Report on August 25,1995. Some meetings were held over several days.

Focusing on Learning: Page 77 Focusing on Learning: Page 76 Theater also approved the establishment of an Educational Community Corrunitree At the outset, the Review Panel makes a number of strategic recommendations, seen as wrth the role of acting as the vehicle or mechanism for communicating die vfew75 fundamental and as providing a frame of reference for the detailed recommendations representational groups of the outcomes and profiles". Representative organisation! which follow. Underpinning these recommendations is the Review Panel's view that a rom the educational community w-re invited by the Chair of the Review Panel to join focus on the outcomes of learning, derived from syllabuses, combined with an this Committee which met on four occasions during the course of the Review. emphasis on the content and delivery of learning programs has potential benefits for students, teachers, schools and their communities. A focus on outcomes has the The Review Panel established an exiensive program to ensure that it received informed potential to address some important aspects of equity in schooling: the Review Panel advice from those responsible for implementing the outcomes and profiles approach agrees that the school curriculum should contribute to a fairer society by building on (whether in schools and the community or in a system, or at the Board of Studies) students' own experiences, cultures and values while also enhancing all students' Submissions were invited via public advertisement and through an invitation sent to participation and success in valued areas of learning. In summary, while the research schools, resultmg in 568 responses. In addition, there were 168 registered Ministerial letters. A number of strategies was adopted to ensure face-to-face discussions with base for an outcomes-based approach is yet not well developed, it is clear that the relevant systems, organisations and individuals, including: teaching profession generally sees potential value in outcomes as a way of assisting teachers to give a dearer and more explidt focus to dassroom teaching and learning, visits to schools provided that they do not place unreasonable constraints on time and flexibility. Indeed, flexibility and endorsement of teachers' judgements are keynotes of our public meetings in three country and three metropolitan locations recommendations. direct discussions with key interest groups By addressing systemic and dassroom practices, the Review Panel has made visits to three Regional Offices of the Department of School Education one recommendations that will enhance the teaching and learning process. In doing this, the metropolitan and two non-metropolitan issue of teacher workload has been a prime consideration. discussions with the Director-General of School Education and the President of the Board of Studies The review process revealed, however, widespread concern about the direct insertion of national outcomes and profiles into NSW syllabuses. The Review Panel believes it is presentations by: appropriate to use NSW syllabuses as the starting point for the development of outcomes statements. These statements should be linked to the stages already defined officers of the New South Wales Department of School Education by the Board of Studies courses for the basis of curriculum development in this State and around which teachers develop work programs. As syllabuses are written, the members of the National Professional Development Program Management Committee assodated outcomes will emerge naturally. They should be written in a way that is appropriate to the particular subject. Their number should be manageable. officers responsible for tne implementation of the ESL Scales academics conducting research in relation to outcomes and profiles Outcomes in curriculum should be dear and explidt statements of the expected content - knowledge, skills and understandings - to be achieved in an area of learning. Syllabus educational consultants. outcomes state what students will be able to do if the syllabus objective has been achieved. Their origin in the syllabus and their close relationship to it.as the context and vehide of what students leam should prevent any atomising, fragmenting or "check 5.2 STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATIONS listing" effects of an outcomes-focus. The syllabus context will provide a concrete reference for outcomes that will make dear to what the outcome refers. Work samples In the sections.wWch follow, detailed recommendations are made to address issues that and other exemplars will assist in the darification of the level of difficulty and the emerged during the Review and cover the areas: quality of performance intended. The links to stages will remove the need to prescribe learning as following a predictable sequential pattern. relationship between outcomes and syllabuses assessment and reporting The Review Panel believes it is important for NSW to continue to cooperate in the development of National Curriculum frameworks and to bring its experiences and implementation understandings to bear on the refinement of current statements and profiles. professional development responsibilities of the Board of Studies and school and system authorities equity issues.

Focusing on Learning: Page 78 Focusing on Learning: Page 79 Consistent with these principles, the Review Panel recommends: National Curriculum Framework

Curriculum Content R3: that in terms of national curriculum initiatives, NSW should: RI: that in relation to curriculum content: • on the basis of its experience with outcomes and syllabus development, o the Minister affirm the prime role of NSW syllabuses in describing the influence the development of further national initiatives in curriculum curriculum content - knowledge, skills and understandings - in each subject collaboration area; • continue to contribute to national objectives in curriculum, through • the expected learning outcomes in syllabuses be the basis for the development participation in national studies and surveys of learning outcomes in school settings of: • refer the findings of this Review to other Ministers, through the Ministerial teaching programs for school and classroom use, and Council for Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, and to the Curriculum Corporation, to assist in the evaluation of the national curriculum data on students' learning achievements, including samples of students' framework. work.

Equity Syllabus Framework

R2: that NSW syllabuses be developed according to the following framework: R4: that priority be given by the Board of Studies and relevant authorities to • syllabus outcomes, to be explicit statements of the knowledge, skills and developing syllabus outcomes and support materials that meet the needs of understandings expected to be learned from teaching programs developed the full range of students, including those who need additional support to from NSW syllabuses. These would serve a number of purposes: complete their schooling successfully. to provide a reference for schools and teachers in developing their teaching and learning programs to help schools and teachers, in negotiation with school communities, to develop and apply manageable assessment and reporting strategies for individual students, and 5.3 OUTCOMES AND PROFILES: WHAT DO WE MEAN? to enable, through sample surveys, system monitoring at state and national levels. 5.3.1 Confusion with Outcomes and Profiles • statements of syllabus outcomes for each of the five stages of compulsory From the outset, the Review Panel became very aware that diere is considerable schooling (ie Years K-2, 3-4, 5-6, 7-8, 9-10) to be developed by the Board of confusion in regard to terminology associated with outcomes and profiles. Studies for each subject, and replace the current use of such terms as "profiles" and "levels" in NSW. « the Board of Studies no longer be required to incorporate the National Profiles Outcomes direcUy into NSW syllabuses. The major point of confusion concerns whedier the outcomes being referred to in discussions are those to be found in documents commissioned originally by the Australian Education Council or those introduced into New South Wales syllabuses

Focusing on Learning: Page 80 Focusing on Learning: Page 81 following the passing of the Education Reform Act, (1990), or both. It is important 5.3.2. Development and Use of Syllabus Outcomes Statements to note that those outcomes originally introduced in NSW syllabuses following the Education Reform Act were not suddenly imposed but were introduced as The Review Panel has noted the impact of the National Curriculum Statements and syllabuses came up for review. They were an integrated part of syllabuses, clearly Profiles on developments across Australia. It has been especially conscious of the related to syllabus aims, objectives, and classroom and lesson outcomes. Such fact that individual States and Territories have found it necessary to develop their outcomes may be seen as a logical extension of curriculum development in own approach to the incorporation of national materials in their own syllabuses. particular subject/learning areas. For example, the Panel is aware of the development in Victoria of the Curriculum Standards Framework (CSF), launched in February 1995 for all Victorian Schools, There are those outcomes produced for incorporation in national curriculum profiles and designed to provide the basis of curriculum planning for years P-10. Victoria (not syllabuses), however, that were taken over and incorporated in New South has seen the need to make significant changes in the areas of Languages other than Wales syllabuses by the Board of Studies. Clearly, not all of these outcomes have English, Science and Studies of Society and Environment as a result of feedback and been seen as relevant or appropriate End their validity has been questioned. In his trialling of documents. Significantly, the number of levels has been reduced from presentation to the Review Panel, Professor Peter Hill indicated: eight in the national documents to seven in the CSF, related to year levels in schools.

Assessments of content validity wry depending upon the processes used to The Review Panel believes that it is important that teachers be assisted to build on generate outcome statements. Where a top-down process involving only curriculum development and expectations as they were outlined in Excellence and subject experts is involved, there lends to be criticism from teachers of overly Equity (1989) and pursued as a result of subsequent decisions by the Board of abstract and ambiguous language. Also where there is no empirical validation Studies following its establishment in mid-1990. This would involve the continuing of the outcome statements, then is widespread criticism regarding iheir incorporation of outcomes statements in syllabuses as they relate to the five stages to placements into bands or levels. Year 10, with due emphasis on content and processes. They should also be derived, within particular subjects (eg. History, Geography) and focus on relevant content Content validity is maximised when both top down and bottom-up processes and processes. In developing suitable outcomes, full consultation should occur with are used to generate outcome statements and where empirical validity is used to schools to confirm their appropriateness and, in due course, their validity. Syllabus establish those outcome statements which are useful in discriminating between outcomes should have the prime intention of promoting effective and exciting performance al different levels and to assign outcome statements lo appropriate teaching, rather than be seen as a way of establishing "precise" standards for levels or bands. broader monitoring purposes.

A major problem appears to have occurred as a result of attempts to blend outcomes The Review Panel believes it is unfortunate that the national materials have become arrived at through one process (ie. a sequence of curriculum development that such a driving force in curriculum development in New South Wales. The original relates the outcomes to content and learning processes in a given subject area) with intention of having statements available to systems as a guide to what might be those produced outside the specific framework of the development of particular taught in Australian schools has been distorted with the promulgation of the view syllabuses in particular subjects. While some outcomes from the latter source may that the profile statements can provide detailed sequences of learning, linked to be appropriate, the method of imposed introduction is not seen as an appropriate levels, which can be used to assess accurately and precisely student progress in one to adopt. The point applies generally, but is accentuated when the requirements learning. In due course, it should be possible to make links between suitably of specific subject areas (eg. Geography/History) in broader Key Learning Areas are modified national level statements and the New South Wales syllabus outcomes. taken into account.

5.4 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SYLLABUS OUTCOMES AND CURRICULUM Profiles and Profiling DOCUMENTS

There is confusion between "profiles" as they refer to the nationally developed curriculum statements designed "to provide a common language for reporting 5.4.1. Syllabus Development student achievement", and reports prepared by teachers on students, also often referred to as "profiles". A full discussion of die confused understanding of the The Review Panel is of the view that we should talk of outcomes only in relation to terms "profiles" and "profiling" is found in section 4.1.7. Reporting and assessment syllabus documents (see Recommendation 1). The term 'profile' should be used to are important issues, which are addressed in section 5.6 below. refer to descriptions of achievements (which refer not just to learning but to a broader range of accomplishments). These would be developed by teachers and schools to assist discussions with students and parents as part of an on-going

Focusing on Learning: Page 82 Focusing on Learning: Page 83 process of assessment and reporting. As indicated above, outcome statements set 5.5 ASSISTING TEACHERS WITH IMPLEMENTATION out in a syllabus document should be derived for specific syllabuses and be related to the five stages up to Year 10 already defined as a framework for New South Wales Syllabuses. Syllabuses should provide detailed specification of content - 5.5.1 Teacher Workload knowledge, skills and understandings - appropriate to the various stages and suggest desirable teaching approaches for teachers to adopt. Throughout die data gathering processes associated with the Review, it was readily apparent that teachers felt they were being asked to manage too many changes at It is important that syllabus documents provide teachers with sufficient detailed once. While the emphasis, from systems' perspectives, may have been on having advice to enable them to program readily for their classes while at the same time teachers begin to program using outcomes and to move into the development of leaving scope for die development of creative teaching and assessment practices. To profiles as part of their reporting processes, the message was not received this way this end, it is important that outcomes written into syllabuses should not be so by many schools. Many schools, particularly government schools, generally numerous that they become ends in themselves, dominating teacher thinking and speaking were of the view that they had to get on as quickly as possible with re­ stifling innovative approaches to teaching and learning. writing work programs to incorporate outcomes and move to a new system where ultimately levels would be used for reporting purposes. The latter brought with it all sorts of fears concerning how teachers can be expected to make detailed and 5.4.2 Support Documents precise judgements on student performance as it related to levels. The Review Panel found considerable evidence to suggest that teachers rely heavily For many teachers and schools, the perception has grown that teachers are being on support documents to guide them in their interpretation of syllabus confronted with too much to manage on too tight a time-line. An air of urgency has requirements. prevailed in many cases, particularly in government schools, where the idea that schools needed to get on with things "pretty quickly" gained currency. It was noted, too, that when support documents contain student work samples and suggested units of work they are particularly helpful, both for the inspiration they It should be stated that when new curriculum initiatives are introduced they need to provide in relation to the kinds of work students may be asked to do, and also as a be phased in gradually to become embedded in school practices. The Review Panel guide to the standards of work able to be achieved by students. In this regard, the saw examples of good practice both at regional and school level, where a context Review Panel agreed that there is a need for further illustrations of the standard of had been created-over a period of time (begun before die present drive with performance relating to outcomes. These should be provided in support documents outcomes and profiles) to enable teachers to reflect upon what they had been doing to guide teachers' understandings. They could be in die form of work samples, units and identify how they might be adjusting procedures and practices to make more of work and odier exemplars. Such an approach would enable the removal of levels adequate provision for student learning. In these instances, due emphasis was from syllabuses, although broad indications of any relationship with national levels placed on teaching and learning approaches and their implications for both teachers could be included in support documents for those wanting to refer to them. and students. In such a climate, consideration of how to respond to using outcomes in the classroom to promote individual learning was a natural extension of each It should also be noted that syllabuses that are less cluttered and do not contain school's broader agenda concerning its goals for students. What diis shows is that it complicated structural bases (involving levels and stages etc.) will become more is possible for schools to negotiate the optimum way for them to proceed with the accessible to teachers and the community. It is essential that all curriculum management of change. Greater reliance on the professionalism and judgement of documents be written in language that is easily understood. The Review Panel those involved in change implementation will result in greater readiness on their understands, however, that it is not always possible to write syllabuses in such a part to manage change in what is an appropriate way in their setting. way as to avoid some technical and other specific terminology. It is of the view that when syllabuses are written, specific documents should be prepared to explain the intentions and underlying features of syllabuses to the community. 5.5.2 Introducing New Syllabuses and Support Documents

In summary, it is recommended A major criticism in the Review was that planning for curriculum changes in schools is made more complicated than it need be because of a failure to coordinate the R5: that to accompany syllabus documents and to emphasise the potential release of Board syllabus documents and support documents. It was noted that in significance of a focus on outcomes as an approach to teaching and learning, support documents be developed containing units of work and work samples, across the five stages, and indicating how the units of work and work samples relate to corresponding material contained in national profile statements.

Focusing on Learning: Page 84 Focusing on Learning: Page 85 the case of English K-6, for example, teachers felt much more confident about working with the syllabus when the y had support documents.

Decisions about what support documents are to be developed need to be made as 5.5.4 Syllabus Implementation Cycle early as possible and, to accommod.ate the request being made by teachers, support documents should be prepared at least in time for release with a new syllabus. Especially in the case of K-6 syllabuses, special attention should be given to the Primary preparation of support documents for use with parents and the broader community. These also should be prepared in ti:ne for release with the new syllabus. The view The Review Panel believes that there are two priorities for Primary Schools: to gain was generally expressed that syllabuses need to be written in a language and style more experience with and to review English K-6; and to make adjustments to that make them readily understandable by teachers, but they may also contain Mathematics K-6 by developing syllabus outcomes and support documents. The specific terminology and content not readily accessible to the broader community. Review Panel considers it appropriate to respond to the suggestion, made frequently Additional explanatory support documents (of the kind produced for Mathematics K- in submissions, that schools focus on these two curriculum areas in the exploration 6) are seen as an appropriate answer to this problem. of best practice in teaching, learning and assessment.

Acknowledging that there is, by and large, good support for the English K-6 5.5.3 Multiple Demands syllabus, although not for Functional Grammar, the Review Panel recommends:

A major problem with the introduction of the outcomes and profiles approach has been the way schools have been confronted with a number of changes, each with its own levels of difficulty but, which taken together, compound into a daunting R6: that for the English K-6 Syllabus: prospect. To manage the successful introduction- of a new syllabus is always a • the existing syllabus continue to be implemented in 1996 and 1997, with demanding task as teachers come to grips with suggestions about new content and Functional Grammar no longer being mandatory teaching approaches they are expected to incorporate in revised programs. In the present exercise, the release of new syllabuses for implementation has been coupled • the experience of schools in using the English K-6 syllabus is to inform a with revision of the syllabus by the Board of Studies, which will review and reduce the number of outcomes and lead to the development of a replacement the introduction of a new wa.y of conceptualising the curriculum in terms of syllabus and support document(s) based on stages, for introduction in 1998 outcomes and profiles • the Board of Studies review the use of "Functional Grammar" in English K-6 the need to understand a corpus of new terminology, some of which has with a view to: confused teachers supporting the functional approach to language that underpins the syllabus the need to begin revising approaches to assessment and reporting. replacing the "Functional Grammar" terminology with conventional This latter change on its own has critical implications for the kinds of decisions terminology schools need to make. developing a document to include sources for teachers relating to Solutions need to be found that enable schools to focus tiieir energies on a specific conventional grammar and its use in the classroom and limited number of matters at a ;»iven time and not feel overwhelmed by what is • in the process of developing and trialling the replacement syllabus and asked of them to the point where they come to feel they are performing support document(s), full consultation occur with teachers and schools. inadequately. Insights into these difficulties, arising from submissions, visits to schools and discussions with teachers have led to recommendations on the release of documents, and priorities systems might set, to ensure schools do not suffer from "change overload."

Focusing on Learning: Page 86 Focusing on Learning: Page 87 The Review Panel recommends: R7: that, in order to bring the Mathematics K-6 Syllabus into conformity with the NSW Education Reform Act 1990: R8: that the Board of Studies: o a suitable range of manageable outcomes be derived from the current syllabus • continue to develop syllabuses as they are due for revision, with a limited for each of the stages in terms of knowledge, skills, and understandings number of syllabus outcomes as they relate to stages, using a process of u work be undertaken with teachers to develop and trial these outcomes so that thorough consultation with teachers and schools; they are based on best practice • release these syllabuses to schools beginning with the following suggested « syllabus outcomes be provided in a support document, which indicates how schedule: they might assist teaching, assessment and reporting in Mathematics K-6 English K-6' 1998 o the preparation of these outcomes be completed during 1996, with Mathematics K-61 1997 professional development to occur in preparation for full implementation in 1997. PDHPE 1997, for optional implementation 1998/1999, for full implementation The above work can proceed while teachers continue to implement English K-6 and HSIE 1998, for optional implementation use Mathematics K-6. It will be recommended below that, while this work is under 1999/2000, for full implementation way, schools be given more time and support to concentrate on reviewing their assessment and reporting practices in these core areas of the curriculum and thereby • consider the integration of Citizenship Education as part of this come to a better understanding of the changes being suggested and how to achieve- developmental work. informative and manageable assessment and reporting processes. • investigate the possibility of developing a small number of generic outcomes Timeline for developing Key Learning Area syllabuses across the primary curriculum, which would encompass all key learning areas.

Below in Recommendation 8 is a proposed timeline for developing primary syllabuses. The timeline needs to be kept under review, to ensure its feasibility, and Initially, work should be undertaken to develop and trial in 1996/7 an integrated to avoid the situation where schools become overburdened by too many demands framework based on a small number of outcomes to be addressed across all the Key being placed on them in too short a time. Learning Areas. This should be followed by an evaluation in 1998. In this developmental work, full consultation should occur with schools. As work proceeds/ it will be possible to determine when to begin the development of new syllabuses in the Key Learning Area of Creative and Practical Arts. This is The Review Panel cautions against asking schools to become involved in detailed not seen as urgent matter, as the current syllabuses developed by the Department of reporting across all Key Learning Areas; the proposal for investigating generic School Education, prior to the establishment of the Board of Studies, are widely outcomes is made in the belief that it has the potential to reduce assessment and used and accepted. reporting demands on teachers.

Secondary

Integration across the primary curriculum The Review Panel considers that the approach being suggested in the first instance for the K-6 curriculum, to concentrate on the core areas, should apply in Year 7 to 10 Many submissions spoke of the need to rationalise the number of outcomes teachers in the subjects of English, Mathematics, Science, History, Geography. might potentially be asked to address across the six Key Learning Areas. Various suggestions were made, including the possibility of generic outcomes across the curriculum such as communication skills, information skills and problem solving skills. Considerable work needs to be undertaken to address this issue. 'See Recommendation 6

2See Recommendation 7

Focusing on Learning: Page 88 Focusing on Learning: Page 89 The Review Panel recommends: The Review Panel recommends:

« R9: that, as they come up fo:: review, for each of the Year 7-10 Syllabuses in the areas of English, Mathematics, Science, History and Geography Rll: that where any syllabus comes up for review, outcomes be derived from the syllabus for each stage. Work samples and other units of work should also be • a limited number of outcome statements, related to stages and derived from prepared as part of the support materials, and include indications of how the individual syllabuses, be developed to focus on knowledge, skills and work samples and units of work relate to corresponding material in the understandings national profile statements. » illustrations of the standard of performance relating to outcomes be provided in support documents to guide teachers' understandings, these to be in the form of work samples, units of work and other exemplars, and include The Review Panel recommends, in relation to secondary syllabuses already released indications of how the work samples and units of work relate to with national outcomes included in them: corresponding material in the national profile statements R12: that: • the relationship to the School Certificate subject descriptors of the syllabus outcomes, especially of Stage 5, be clearly established, with revision of the • until they are reviewed, those syllabuses issued incorporating national current descriptors where necessary strands and outcomes be used according to the best judgement of teachers « the integration of Citizenship Education be considered as part of this • those syllabuses now in draft form incorporating national strands and developmental work outcomes be reviewed, consistent with Recommendation 2. • that realistic timeframes be set for the development of these syllabuses to enable teachers, schools and academics to contribute fully. 5.5.5 Respecting Teacher Professionalism

As with Primary, schools should be given opportunities to participate fully in the The suggestions put forward in this part of the report reflect a strongly held view development of syllabus outcomes and their trialling, including help with the among members of the Review Panel that teachers need to feel they are able to make provision of annotated work samples and units of work, and their use in assessment professional decisions at the classroom level, and provide input into curriculum and reporting practices. development more generally. For these things to happen, teachers need time. The suggestions made-are designed to provide more time for reflection pn current practice so that new practices evolved are to the particular advantage of both The Review Panel received very strong advice on the content of die current Science 7- students and teachers. Consultation with and participation of teachers are 10 Syllabus and recommends: fundamental to effective curriculum development and implementation.

RIO: that as an integral part of the developmental work for Science 7-10, a Science 5.6 ASSESSMENT AND REPORTING Symposium be held, involving teachers, including country teachers, academics, and others with professional interests in this area, to give advice 5.6.1 Getting Assessment and Reporting into Perspective on: It is very clear to the Review Panel that issues related to assessment and reporting the content and approach of the Science 7-10 Syllabus are greatly troubling teachers in both primary and secondary schools. For many, the revision of the cuiTent draft Science 7-10 Syllabus introduction of the outcomes and profiles approach has been seen to be "assessment driven". The emphasis on teachers' adopting assessment procedures, which were links between Science 7-10 and the Science 11-12 Syllabuses. said to enable a more comprehensive and more precise analysis of learning achievements by each individual student, has led many teachers to feel that valuable While the suggestion has been made that developmental work should be planning and teaching time is being lost to accommodate assessment and reporting concentrated on particular subjects, oiher syllabuses may come up for review. demands.

Focusing on Learning: Page 90 Focusing on Learning: Page 91 Other major concerns about assessment included the following: their communities want by way of reporting on their children and how schools can match expectations. This underlines the importance of schools having flexible the need to think about assessment in relation to levels that are not dearly options available to them, enabling school communities to determine their own understood or suffidendy validated approaches. the relationship between assessment in terms of levels and annual (or half-yearly) assessments There was considerable debate over the kinds of reports that schools might be expected to prepare. At issue is whether there should be a standardised approach die use and interplay of outcomes and pointers in assessment and how much for schools to follow. Although there was strong support for customised reporting, weight should be assigned to them in deterrnining levels. the idea of standardised reporting was seen by some as one way of resolving uncertainties about what teachers should be doing. Resolving uncertainties would It is important to emphasise that assessment should be seen as integral to classroom also, presumably, address work load issues. teaching: good assessment practices will enable teachers to diagnose how well students are learning, where different teaching approaches may need to be The Review Panel is of the view that when schools devise their own teaching and introduced and where additional assistance might be needed for particular students. learning programs, designed to meet the needs of students in their particular In other words, the formative aspect of assessment needs to be understood and drcumstances, they should also focus on developing their own assessment emphasised as we attempt to establish more clearly the relationship between procedures, linked first to the curriculum being taught, and second, leading to teaching and assessment. appropriate reporting mechanisms. The latter should be discussed with the community to enable parents to understand what their school is doing and why, and Turning to reporting, major concerns to emerge from data gathered included: to enable community members to express views on their expectations in regard to » how much detail to provide in reports to parents; reporting. Again, such an approach rests on assumptions about the professionalism of teachers and their ability to manage these key aspects of their work. Accordingly, • should we be reporting using outcomes statements or should we use grades, the Review Panel recommends: numbers and comparative indicators of performance, to enable parents to see how their children are faring in relation to peers; R13: that in relation to assessment and reporting practices what should be the place of levels in reporting, espedally as the levels proposed • schools and their communities be responsible for devising their own cover such a broad time frame; procedures, with opportunities for community members to express views and • the time required by teachers to give comprehensive feedback on student indicate their expectations in relation to reporting, taking into account issues performance, both through interviews and in written form; such as: how much evidence does a teacher need to demonstrate the grounds for the need for assessment and reporting practices to be time-effirient, and deterrnining the level of performance of individual students. not detract from teaching and learning Until the above issues are addressed systematically, there will continue to be major acknowledging differences in terms of the development of individual concerns in die minds of teachers about assessment and reporting. Much will now children need to be done in the light of the Recommendations in this Report. Given the the general well-being of the student concerns expressed by teachers and the community (during school visits and at public meetings), this is an urgent matter and hence, has been given a priority in the standards of comparison to enable parents to know how their children timeline for action suggested in the recommendations being put forward. are progressing diagnosis of areas of strength and need, including those where students might be given additional support 5.6.2 Assessment and Reporting Practices • support be given to schools during 1996 through the provision of thoroughly The Review has shown that considerable experimentation is occurring with considered guidelines and options, which assist in the development of assessment and, especially, with reporting to parents. During school visits, members reporting procedures, and give indications of what constitutes valid, reliable, of the Review Panel were presented with examples of student work folios informative and manageable reporting to parents. (sometimes with students being invited to explain their significance and indicate how well they thought they were progressing), with examples of various styles of reporting, and with details of various approaches for interviews with parents. It is clear that much innovative work is occurring as teachers and schools explore what

Focusing on Learning: Page 92 Focusing on Learning: Page 93 5.6.3 Reporting and Levels 5.6.5 Timeline

Given concerns about assessment and reporting, it is important to give schools as In the discussion above on the proposed syllabus implementation cycle (see 5.5.4), it much individual help as possible in order to clarify the central role assessment has is suggested that, while work is being carried out during 1996 to reshape English K-6 to play in teaching and learning and to assist them to strengthen the links they make and Mathematics K-6, schools should be asked to set as a priority the review of between assessment and comprehensive reporting. It seems reasonable to suggest current assessment and reporting practices. Such work would involve the provision that it would greatly assist many schools if they were to concentrate their efforts on of samples of reporting procedures and options available for community improving assessment as it relates tointentions for learning (ie. learning outcomes) consultations on reporting. In such developmental work, a range of assessment and and not be seen to be pre-occupied w: th trying to determine whether or not they are reporting approaches, including the use of syllabus outcomes in assessment and in a position to comment on a student's performance in relation to more broadly reporting, should be considered. Similar work should continue in secondary defined levels. Some schools are attempting (and managing) to link their assessment schools. and reporting to the national levels and doubtless will negotiate with their communities to continue the practice in an agreed format, as part of their regular reporting. Consistent with Recommer dation 13, however, the Review Panel advises 5.7 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT that reporting in terms of national levels should not be mandatory for schools.

5.7.1 Setting Priorities 5.6.4 Using Technology A constant theme to emerge from the Review is that teachers have been asked to Considerable work has been done to develop computer software packages to assist' address too many issues in too short a time frame. The central thrust of the- teachers. In the context of the Review, advocates of the use of such packages said recommendations being put forward has been to offer solutions that will enable that they would enable teachers to menage a large range of outcomes with a view to teachers to see more clearly what matters they might profitably work on as diagnosing learner progress and assisting with assessment and reporting. Although immediate priorities and determine how they might address them. In this process few submissions addressed this issue, there appeared to be a mixed response from they will identify professional development needs to which systems should those teachers in schools involved in trialling computer packages such as KIDMAP. respond.

The Review Panel had direct experience of some major concerns. The first related to It has been recommended that work now needs to be undertaken to arrive at parental disquiet at reporting that relied heavily on statements from a computer. A syllabus outcomes in the core K-6 Learning Areas of English and Mathematics and further issue was the way outcomes built into software packages could contribute to for Years 7-10 in English, Mathematics, Science, Geography and History, with the "checklist syndrome". As well, many teachers indicated a lack of confidence in attention also being given to Citizenship Education. Schools should be involved in their ability to use computer packages to assist with student assessment and the development and trialling of these materials, and in the development of support reporting. Despite these concerns the Review Panel recognises the potential of documents. It is recommended: computer technology in assisting teachers in their teaching and learning programs, especially in the analysis and diagnosis of students' learning needs and achievements. Realisation of such aims, however, appears to be a long way off. R14: that to contribute to the professional development of teachers, schools across Following discussion in schools, the Panel has considerable reservations about KIDMAP in its present state. the State be invited to participate in the development of syllabus outcomes and support documents by offering examples from their own experience and There are also potential benefits in die use of computers and multimedia by trialling materials developed in 1996 and 1997. technologies in the sharing of information about curriculum, which could include information about syllabus content, teachers' work programs and students' work samples (to support Recommendation 1). These technologies could also be used to A major difficulty with the approach adopted so far to introducing outcomes and support training and development programs for teachers and parents. profiles has been the absence of a clear rationale for what is being attempted (this was a common complaint heard by the Review Panel).

Focusing on Learning: Page 94 Focusing on Learning: Page 95 It is therefore recommended: broader professionalism and recognise the need to address issues from the R15: that materials be developed to explain clearly the intentions, purposes and perspective of schools. rationale for introducing outcomes, so that schools can be informed and This suggests the following recommendation: assisted in developing their own approaches to the incorporation of syllabus outcomes into their teaching and learning programs. R16: in the provision of professional development • there should be very strong input from a range of schools, based on identified "best practice" Such preparatory work will help schools prepare a context for what will follow when revised syllabuses and support documents are issued to schools. • support materials be written so that adequate provision is made for teachers to identify and discuss implications for their own circumstances • schools be the focus for delivering professional development, to ensure that 5.7.2 Delivery the principal and staff can determine how initiatives relate to their existing A major point of criticism with the implementation of the outcomes and profiles needs, priorities and their workload approach has been of the way materials were presented to teachers. A principal • diverse and flexible strategies, including the use of technology, should be concern was the way the "train the trainer" model was inappropriate for a system- adopted to cater for all teachers, including those in small schools and remote wide strategy of this complexity. A further issue was that materials often did not areas arrive at the time professional development was to occur, and they arrived so late that the facilitators themselves did not feel in command of what they were asked to • schools be encouraged to work with one another and with other relevant, present. A major concern with the model followed was that it was too rigidly groups (universities, professional associations, community groups) as they applied and did not provide sufficient opportunity for teachers to express their own explore new approaches and determine what is best for them in their own needs. Repeatedly, the Review Panel heard the phrase that the presentation of context Modules 1 and 2 of Introducing an Outcomes and Profiles Approach was "death by overhead". The Modules as written indicate a high level of rigidity. Despite the suggestions about being mindful of working with teachers as adult learners the modules do not reflect adequate consideration of ways in which teachers and 5.7.3 Initial Teacher Education schools might have a more productive input into discussions. It was noted during the Review that more needs to be done to ensure that beginning The Review Panel was often told that school needs were not sufficiently addressed teachers are aware of changes in curriculum. During school visits it was regularly in the presentation of modules. Professional development was seen to be set up as a pointed out that all too often teachers entering the profession are not sufficiently program to deliver information rather than explore ideas and identify possibilities aware of the syllabuses schools are now implementing. Beginning teachers for implementation. It was also suggested by those who had developed new complained of inadequate preparation in their introduction to current syllabuses materials not yet released that the presentation of Modules 3, 4 and 5 would be and how to work with them in schools. Teacher educators should provide new different, resulting in improved delivery. Others who had participated in the teachers with knowledge of current educational strategies and debate. development of die Modules (The Outcomes and Profiles Approach to the KLA: Implications for Teaching and Learning, Issues in Assessing and Reporting) expressed It is essential that courses include opportunities for students to work directly with concerns diat they might end up being managed in the same way. Given the poor the most recent curriculum materials and gain experience in how to implement response to die way Modules 1 and 2 were presented, the impact on schools and them. teachers could be highly negative. In any case, acceptance of the recommendations of this report will mean a need to reconsider the appropriateness of Modules 3, 4 It is recommended: and 5. Attention needs to be given in any redevelopment to ways in which the school can become a focus for professional development. R17: that the Minister ask the Ministerial Advisory Council on the Quality of Teaching to consider ways in which teacher education institutions can be assisted to give student teachers adequate preparation with regard to current It is important to recall that schools now have, as a result of devolution, enhanced powers to make all manner of decisions relating to their operations. They have been syllabuses and their implementation, including assessment and reporting. given new opportunities to operate in fully professional ways. Any moves to introduce new curriculum assessment and reporting initiatives should respect this

Focusing on Learning: Page 96 Focusing on Learning: Page 97 In pursuing this recommendation, ways need to be found to enable those who the K-10 draft outcomes and pointers proved to be very confusing. Secondary provide initial teacher education to work co-operatively with teachers in schools, so teachers raised considerable concerns as they were presented with a long list of that they become fully aware of current curriculum and teaching emphases. As well, outcomes and pointers that were not integrated in any way with syllabus it would seem teacher educators would benefit from discussion of "best practice" in documents. schools and universities, as it relates to new directions in curriculum and assessment. It became very clear to the Review Panel that much work still needs to be undertaken to arrive at outcomes that are appropriate to individual syllabuses. Such work will not be accomplished in a very short time frame, especially as considerable 5.7.4 Professional Development and Community Involvement input will be needed from teachers and those with academic expertise in relevant subjects. Secondary teachers in schools visited indicated very strongly that they An essential component of professional development will be the involvement of the could not be expected to work competently with outcomes until they have fully community in the preparation of suitable support documents to facilitate broader integrated documents in schools . Hence the suggestion that the Board should understanding of new syllabuses, assessment and reporting issues. Similarly, concentrate on developing syllabuses as proposed in Recommendations 6, 7 and 9. appropriate opportunities need to be provided to enable community involvement with schools as they review their learning programs and reporting processes. In submissions and discussions with the Review Panel, objections were raised about the way syllabus documents are now being written. If syllabuses and support It is recommended: documents are to be sufficiently rigorous in terms of content, and are to reflect and promote best teaching practice, then it is important that those with academic R18: that in relation to the community's role in professional development: knowledge and those with high levels of teaching expertise come together to develop documents which are dien trialled, critiqued and reviewed before they are . that the community participate in the preparation and delivery of materials for released for wider implementation. use in schools with their communities , that schools be encouraged to ensure wider-community participation in the Consultative processes and timelines set by the Board of Studies for comment on development of strategies that enhance understanding of new syllabuses. draft documents also were die subject of widespread criticism. The view was put that teachers felt, when asked for comment, the parameters within which advice was to be provided were too tightly set. Scepticism was expressed about the sincerity behind consultation processes adopted.

5.8 SYSTEM ISSUES It is recommended:

R19: that the Board of Studies review its procedures for developing and trialling 5.8.1 The Board of Studies syllabus and support documents so that productive input from teachers and academics with expertise in the area(s) is assured at all stages. Throughout the Review there was much comment on the quality of Board syllabus documents, the procedures adopted by the Board in developing those documents, and the processes of consultation. Th;re was also considerable comment on the timing of the release of documents to schools. 5.8.2 Department of School Education In the particular context of this Review, the major concerns raised included: It has been difficult in the course of the Review to unravel some of the issues being although there had been a raticnale for their earlier work, as explained in raised in terms of who is responsible for various demands being placed on schools. Curriculum Outcomes (1991), there was no further clarifying statement providing a For teachers in government schools it remains difficult to draw a line between rationale for die introduction of the national outcomes, pointers and levels into responsibilities of the Board of Studies and of the Department of School Education Board syllabuses and also to single out the role and significance of the National Professional Development Program (NPDP). the consultation mechanisms used by the Board of Studies to introduce outcomes did not sufficiently take into account the understanding and experience of What can be said is that, when it came to the actual implementation of an outcomes teachers and academics able to comment on the appropriateness of what was and profiles approach, government schools did not feel they received sufficient being attempted evidence to support the move of the whole system as it adopted this whole-scale

Focusing on Learning: Page 98 Focusing on Learning: Page 99 change. Similarly, many teachers were highly critical of the timeline that had been provided and the process was seen as too centrally driven. There was very strong agreed to with the NSW Teachers' Federation as part of the Enterprise Agreement, support for the work on parental/community support documents to be accelerated. despite the caution about the timeline expressed by both parties. It was suggested to die Review Panel that a fundamental change in approach is There was one major criticism that surfaced generally: the approach was centrally- warranted, leading to the recommendation: driven and highly structured. There appeared to be little room to move, and schools (and regions) did not feel at liberty to adapt materials to suit their needs. In R21: that in future NPDP work more opportunities be provided for schools to gain discussions, the term "compliance culture" was heard. direct access to funding to support local initiatives to incorporate outcomes into teaching/learning and assessment programs.

5.8.3 The Board of Studies and Education Authorities

Major problems were experienced when the Board of Studies was not able to provide syllabus documents that had incorporated outcome statements in keeping with the time-lines the Department of School Education had established for 5.8.5 National Reporting implementation of an outcomes and profile approach. There is clearly a need for closer liaison between the Board and Education Authorities when implementation The Review has recommended that New South Wales should continue to programs are devised so that realistic time-frames can be set and schools and incorporate into its syllabuses outcomes that are derived from the content and teachers do not hold false hopes about what is likely to occur. processes embedded in the relevant subject areas. It has also proposed that outcomes should relate to particular syllabus areas rather than broad Key Learning Areas. Further, the recommendation has been made that reference to national profiles 5.8.4 National Professional Development Program (NPDP). should be made in support documents where diey can be linked to appropriate work samples. All of this means that the close alignment with the current set of The Review Panel appreciates that the consortium established to manage the NPDP outcomes included in the national profiles may diminish. There certainly should not brought together major stakeholders to determine how to develop materials and be a total infusion of the national outcomes into New South Wales syllabuses. introduce an outcomes and profiles approach. The proposals put forward are seen as the most educationally sound and effective The Review Panel recommends: way to proceed with syllabus development in New South Wales. What is learnt in the process in developing syllabus-based outcomes can be used in turn to address R20: Having noted the benefits of collaboration between school sectors and the content of national statements and profiles in the way originally proposed when professional and community groups that is evident from the operation of the national collaboration began. National Professional Development Program, that Commonwealth and State Governments should continue to support this type of collaboration in their A major reason for introducing outcomes and levels through the national profiles consideration of present and future NPDP submissions. was to facilitate system and national reporting. The Review Panel does not see that its proposals will impede reporting processes if it is decided to monitor performance at each of these levels. Within the state we also have data on Basic Skills Testing (in A wide range of materials was produced through the NPDP in a very short time to government and some non-government schools), the School Certificate and the enable implementation to proceed. Higher School Certificate.

The Panel noted that not all systems saw the need to proceed at the same rate. While If national comparisons are proposed, using outcomes derived from the national the Department of School Education pressed on quickly to honour arrangements in profiles, it is possible for systems to provide data on die basis of sampling. This the Enterprise Agreement, other systems chose to move more slowly and "to explore approach is already being used in other systems. Such sampling could be managed issues associated with outcomes and profiles". by testing and by using examples of student work provided by schools. Data gathered in this way would help to establish a clearer conceptualisation of what While the establishment of a joint group is highly desirable, there are problems might be considered an agreed "standards framework". Such an approach would when materials are produced very rapidly with, at least in some cases, insufficient certainly contribute in a concrete and constructive way to a review of the national input from teachers and schools. There was a very widespread view that inadequate statements and profiles. time and opportunities were provided for comments on draft documents to be

Focusing on Learning: Page 100 Focusing on Learning: Page 101 References

Abrams, I.D. (1985), Making outcome-based education work Educational Leadership, 43(1), 30-32.

5.9 FUTURE WORK-. EVALUATION AN D RESEARCH Allen, S. (1993). National curriculum: a parent perspective. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 18(4), 3-8.

It is important, as New South Wales schools begin to implement the Apple, MW. (1992) Issues in OBE, in Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Update, 34 (December). recommendations of this Report with regard to the use of outcomes in teaching, learning, assessment and reporting, that appropriate research and evaluation Bloom, B. S., Madaus, G.F. and Hastings, J.T. (1981). Evaluation lo Improve programs be established. This would ensure that essential data are gathered to Learning. New York, McGraw-Hill. inform future planning. As far as possible, such programs should be conducted independently of those responsible for implementation. Fundamental research is Boomer, G. (1982). Negotiating The Curriculum: A Teacher-Student Partnership. required into Australia's experience with outcomes, and there could be a national Gosford, NSW: Ashton-Scholastic. effort to which New South Wales should contribute. Boomer, G. (1992). Negotiating The Curriculum: Educating For The Twenty-First Century. London: Falmer.

Boston, K. (1992). Working for the possible. Curriculum Perspectives. Newsletter, November, 1992,30-31.

Briggs, A. (1988). Alhambra High: a 'High Success' school. Educational Leadership, 46(2)

Broughton, D. (1994). Education, Politics and Pragmatism in the Art Classroom of the National Profiles. Paper presented to the Australian Institute of Art Education National Conference, 1994.

Burke, K. (1993). The Mindful School: How To Assess Thoughtful Outcomes. Palantine, Illinois: Skylight Publishing.

Carroll, J. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64, 723-733.

Ellerton, N. and Clements, M.R. (1994). The National Curriculum Debacle. Perth, Meridian Press.

Evans, K. and King, J. (1994(a)). Research on OBE: What we know and don't know. Educational Leadership, 51(6),12-17.

Evans, K. and King, J. (1994(b)). Outcome-based and Gifted Education, in Roeper Review, 16(4), 260-264.

Fitepatrick, K. (1994). The leadership challenges of outcome-based reform. School Administrator, 51(8), 20-23.

Furman, G. (1994). Administrators' perceptions of outcome-based education: Outcomes, outputs and professional accountability. Paper presented to the

Focusing on Learning: Page 102 Focusing on Learning: Page 103 Annual General Meeting of the American Educational Research Meeting, New Orleans, April, 1994. Rowe, K.J., Hill, P.W. and Holmes-Smith, P. (1994). Assessing, Recording and Glatthorn, A. (1993). Outcome-based education: Reform and the curriculum Reporting Students' Educational Progress: The Case for Profiles. Paper process. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 8(4), 354-363. presented at the Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Newcastle, December, 1994. Griffin, P. (1995). Reporting with Profiles: Trends for the Future. Paper presented at the biennial conference of the Australian Curriculum Studies Association, Scarino, A. (1994). The National Statements and ProfUe for Languages Babel Melbourne, July 1995. 29(1), April-June.

Grundy, S. (1992). Beyond guaranteed outcomes: Creating a discourse for Schunk, D. (1995). teaming goals and self evaluation: Effects on children's educational praxis. Australian Journal of Education, 36(2), 157-169. cognitive skill acquisition. Paper presented at AERA Annual General Meeting, San Francisco, April 1995. Guskey, T. (1985). Implementing Mastery Learning. BelmonnWadsworth. Schunk, D. and Swartz, D. (1993). Goals and progress feedback: Effects on self- Guskey, T. (1991). Complexities in evaluating the effects of staff development efficacy and writing achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 18, programs. Paper presented at AERA Annual General Meeting, Chicago, April, 337-354. 1991. Schwarz, G., and Cavener, L. (1994). Outcome -based education and curriculum Guskey, T. (1994). Defining the differences between Outcome-Based Education change: Advocacy, practice and critique, in Journal of Curriculum and and Mastery teaming. School Administrator 51(8), 34-7. Supervision, 9(4), 326-338.

Haas, J. (1992). Issues in outcome-based schooling. NASSP Bulletin, 76, Shepard, L.A., and Smith, M.L. (1990). Synthesis of Research on Grade Retention, December, 97-100. Educational Leadership, 47, May, 84-88.

Hansen, J.M (1989), OBE - A Smarter Way to Assess Student Learning, in Vie Spady, W. (1993). Outcome-Based Education. Belconnen, ACT: Australian Clearing House, Curriculum Studies Association.

Marzano, RI. (1994). Lessons from the field about outcome-based performance Spady, W. and Marshall, K. (1991). Beyond traditional outcome-based education. assessments. Educational Leadership, 51(6), 44-50. Educational Leadership, 49(2),. 67-72.

Masters, G. (1994). Setting and Measuring Performance Standards for Student Towers, J.M, (1992) Some Concerns about OBE, in Journal of Research and Achievement. Paper presented at a Conference sponsored by the Schools Development in Education, 25, Winter, 89-95. Council and the Centre for Economic Policy Research, Ginberra, March 1994. Towers, J.M., (1994). The perils of outcome-based teacher education. Phi Delta McGhan, B., (1994). The Possible Outcomes of OBE, in Educational Leadership, Kappan, April, 624-627. 51(2), 70-72. Webster, M (1994). Try, try again. For this post secondary teacher, OBE means McKeman, J., (1993). Some limitations of outcome-based education. Journal of refusing to let students fail. Vocational Educational Journal. 69(8), 30-32. Curriculum and Supervision. 8(4), 343-353.

McNeir, G. (1993). Outcome-Based Education. ERIC Digest No.85, ERIC ED 363914.

Minnesota State Department of Education (1991). After one year: implementation issues for ten transformational R& D sites. Paper presented at AERA Annual Genera! Meeting, April, 1991.

Focusing on Learning-. Page 104 Focusing on Learning: Page 105 APPENDIX A

Nominees of organisations for the Educational Community Committee

• Mr D. J. Ah Kec/Nigcl Parbury Aboriginal Education Consultative Group

• Mary Armstrong Joint Council of NSW Professional Teachers' Association

° Mr Joe Calabresc Chamber of Manufacturers of NSW

• Ms Helen Cannon Catholic Education Commission, MSW

• Mr Ray Cavenagh/Ms Pat Simpson NSW Teachers' Federation

• Mr Tom Croker NSW Primary Principals' Association

- Mr John DeCourcy Association of Catholic School Principals, NSW

• Ms Edwina Deakin Ethnic Affairs Commission

• Dr Kathie Forster Federation of Parents and Citizens Association of NSW o Mr Peter Kaye NSW Chamber of Commerce

. Ms Jenny Lewis Australian Council for Educational Administration, NSW

• Mrs Lesley Ljungdahl Association of Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages

•> Mrs Josephine Lonergan/Mr Duncan Mclnncs NSW Parents Council Inc.

Focus on Learning: Page 107 APPENDIX B

Schedule of Organisations Who Provided Subm issions to the Review Panel Ms Edna McGill Abbotsford Public School Birchgrove Public School The Ethnic Communities' Council of NSW Inc. Albion Park Public School Birrong Girls' High School Albury North Public School Blackalls Park Public School Mr David Mulford Alstonville Primary School Blacktown South Primary School Anglican Education Commission Blaekwell Public School The Association of Heads of Independent Schools of Australii - Diocese of Sydney Board of Studies NSW Anna Bay Public School Bombala Public School Annandale North Public School Booragul Primary School Ms Anne Murphy Appin Public School Boronia Park Public School The NSW Federation of School Community Organisations Ardlethpn Central School Bossley Park Public School Prof. Judith Parker/Prof Clem Annice Ariah Park Central School Botany Primary School NSW Teacher Education Council Art Education Society of NSW Bourke Street Public School Bradbury Public School Mr Anthony Rac Ashmont Public School Association of Heads of Independent Schools of Briar Road Public School Australia - NSW Branch Brisbania Public School The Association of Independent Schools, NSW Association of Independent Schools of NSW Ltd. Broken Hill North Public School Association of Teachers of English to Speakers of Budgewoi Public School Ms Alex Sharp Other Languages (NSW) Inc Burke Ward Public School Athelstane Public School Buronga Public School Council Cabramatta Public School NSW Secondary Principals' Council Auburn West Public School Australia Street School - Preschool Cabramatta West Public School Australian Book Publishers Association Cambridge Gardens Public School Ms Pam Smith - Schools Educational Publishing Committee Camden Cluster - English K-6 Facilitators Australian Council for Education Administration Camden Public School NSW Independent Education Union - NSW Branch Campbelltown Primary School Australian Council for Educational Canterbury Girls' High School Canterbury Public School Prof. Alan Taylor Administration NSW Inc. Australian Early Intervention Association NSW Canterbury South Public School Chapter Inc Caringbah High School NSW Vice Chancellor's Conference Australian Education Network Inc. Carlingford West Public School Australian School Library Association NSW Inc Cartwright Primary School Dr Lyle Whan Bald Face Public School Casino West Public School Balgowlah Heights Primary School Catholic Education Commission NSW Australian College of Education, NSW Chapter Balgowlah North Primary School Catholic Education Office - Diocese of Parramatta Ms Suzanne Zicms Bankstovvn Girls High School Catholic Education Office - Diocese of Sydney Early Childhood Education Council Bankstown Public School Caves Beach Public School Bankstovvn Senior College Cessnock High School Bankstown South Infants School Charlestown South Public School Bargo Public School Chester Hill Public School Barkers Vale Public School Chipping Norton Public School Barnsley Public School Chipping Norton Public School Council Baulkham Hills High School Chittaway Bay Public School Bayldon Primary School Classical Languages' Teachers Association Inc Beaumont Road Primary School Cobar Public School Bega Eurobodalla Primary Principals' Council Colo Vale Public School Belair Public School Condell Park Primary School Belmont Public School Conservatorium High School Belmore Public School Coogce South Public School Belmore South Public School Coonamble Primary School Berry Public School Cootamundra Public School Bert Oldfield Public School Copacabana Public School Bilgola Plateau Public School Corindi Public School

Focusing on Learning: Page 108 Focusing on Learning: Page 109 Corowa High School Forster Public School Kotara Public School Murrumburrah High School Crestwood Public School Frank Partridge VC Primary School Kurrambee School Murrumburrah Public School Cromer High School Frcemans Reach Public School Kyogle High School Murwillumbah East Primary School Croppa Creek Primary School Galston High School Lake Macquarie Education Resource Centre Nambucca Heads Primary School Crown Street Public School Galston Primary School Lane Cove Public School Narara Public School Culcaim Public School Garah Primary School Lane Cove West Public School Nareena Hills Public School Daceyville Public School Geography Teachers' Association of NSW Inc. Languages in Primary Schools Inc Narellan Public School Dawson Public School Glenhaven Public School Lansvale Public School Narrabri West Public School Deniliquin North Public School Glenorie Primary School Lansvale Public School Council Narranga Primary School Denistone East Public School Glenroy Public School Lavington East Public School Narrawccna Public School Department of School Education: Gloucester High School Leumeah Cluster Narrandera East Infants School Director- General Gol Gol Primary School Lisarow High School Narwee High School Hunter region Goulbum Primary School Lismore Public School Nelson Bay High School Metropolitan East region Governor Philip King Public School Lithgow Primary School New Lambton Public School Metropolitan North region Grafton Public School Lucas Heights Community School New Lambton South Public School Metropolitan South West region Greenacre Public School Lugarno Public School North Rocks Public School. Metropolitan West region Haberfield Primary School Macarthur Education Resource Centre North Sydney Boys High School North Coast region Harrington Street Public School Malvina High School North West Region Primary Principals' Council North West region Hastings Public School Macintyre High School Northmead High School NSW Management Committee for the National Hay Public School Macksville Primary School Noumea Primary School Professional Development Program Heaton Public School Maclean Public School NSW Aboriginal Education Consultative Group Riverina region Holbrook Public School Macquarie University Inc. South Coast Holroyd Special School Manning Cluster Primary Principals NSW Independent Education Union Special Education Directorate Homebush Boys High School Manning Gardens Public School NSW Parents' Council Inc Specific Focus Programs Directorate Homebush Public School Martin's Gully Public School NSW Primary Principals' Association Teaching and Learning Directorate Hoxton Park Public School Mathematics Teachers and Co-ordinators from NSW Secondary Principals' Council Training and Development Directorate Human Society and Its Environment Council Catholic High Schools in the Parramatta Diocese NSW Teacher Education Council Western region Hume Primary School Mathematical Association of NSW Inc NSW Teachers' Federation Dubbo Distance Education Hunter Valley Education Resource Centre Matthew Pearce Public School Nuwarra Public School Dulwich Hill Public School Hunters Hill Public School Mayfield West Demonstration School Nymboida Public School Early Childhood Education Council NSW Hunters Hill Public School Parents and Citizens' Mayrung Public School Oatley West Public School Eastlakes Public School Association Menai Public School Old Bar Public School Eastwood Heights Public School Institute of Early Childhood Mercy College Old Guildford Public School Eastwood Public School - Macquarie University Merewether Heights Public School Open Training and Education Network Economic & Business Educators NSW Institute of Technology Education Merrylands High School Ourimbah Public School Edith Cowan University - Mathematics Education International Grammar School Sydney Metropolitan East Primary Principals' Association Oxley High School Education Strategies Irrawang Public School . Metropolitan North Primary Principals' Council Oyster Bay Public School Eglinton Public School Isolated Children's Parents Association of NSW Metropolitan West Region Primary Principals' Pacific Hills Christian School Elderslie High School Inc (NSW Council) Council Padstow North Public School Empire Vale Public School J J Cahill Memorial High School Miller Public School Parkcs High School Equity Program Unit- NSW Disadvantaged James Meehan High School Milton Primary School Parramatta High School Schools Program Committee Jamison High School Mimosa Public School Pearces Creek Primary School Eureka Public School Council Jasper Road Public School Modem Language Teachers Association Pendle Hill Public School Eurongilly Public School Joint Council of Professional of NSW Teachers' Moorebank Primary School Pennant Hills High School Evans Head Public School Associations Morisset Primary School Pennant Hills Public School Fairfield Heights Public School Junee North Public School Mortlake Public School Penshurst Girls High School Fairfield Public School Kadina High School Moulamein Public School Picton Public School Fairvale High School Kanahooka High School Mount Annan Public School Pomona Public School Fairy Meadow Demonstration School Katoomba North Public School Mount Brown Public School Premer Public School Federation of Australian Scientific and Kellyville Public School Mount View High School Pretty Beach Public School Technological Societies Kent Road Public School Mt Kuring-gai Public School Primary English Teaching Association Federation of Parents and Citizens' Associations Killara Primary School Mulbring Public School Principals of the Taree Cluster of NSW Killarney Heights High School Mullaway Primary School Principals of the Upper Western Cluster Fedc-iation of ochooi Community Organisations Killamey Heights High School Council Mullumbimby High School Putney Public School NSW Kincumber Primary School Mullumbimby Primary School Pymble Public School Finley Public School KooringaJ Primary School Mulwaree High School Quakers Hill High School Parents and Citizens' Floraville Public School Kootingal Public School Murrarru Public School Association

Focusing on Learning Page 110 Focusing on Learning: Page 111 Queanbcyan South Primary School Tambar Springs Primary School Wiley Park Public School Woy Woy Public School Quirindi High School Tamworth Public School Wilkins Public School Wyong Public School Quirindi Primary School Tarro Public School Willala Public School Parents and Citizens' Yamba Public School Ramsgate Public School Tea Gardens Public School Association Yass High School Randwick Girls' High School Teachers Federation Branch William Dean Public School Yates Avenue Public School Ravcnswood School for Girls - Randwick Boys' High School Willoughby Girls High School Yoogali Public School Raymond Terrace High School Tcralba Public School Windsor Public School Raymond Terrace Public School Tharbogang Public School Windsor Public School Parents and Citizens' Rcvcsby Public School The Grange Public School Association Revesby South Public School The Oaks Public School Winmalee Public School Richmond High School Thomas Reddall High School Wollondilly Public School Riverina School for Specific Purposes Thurgoona Public School Wollongbar Public School Riverina Secondary Deputy Principals' and Tighcs Hill Public School Wollongong High School of Performing Arts Leading Teachers' Association Tintinhull School Council Woodenbong Primary School Riverside Girl's High School Tintinhull School Parents and Citizens' Woodport Public School Riverwood Education Centre Association Woolgoolga Public School Riverwood Public School Toormina Public School Rookhurst Public School Tower Street Public School Roselea Public School Tuggerawong Public School Written submissions were received from the following individuals: Roseville Primary School Tulloona School Council Rous Cluster Tumut Public School Abbott, C Hogan, H - Summerland Education Resource Centre Tuncurry Public School Amcry, Hoggan, D Rozelle Public School Turramurra Public School ] Rukenvale School Ulladulla Primary School Archer, J Holberton, S Baker, M Horder, Ryde East Primary School University of New England J Balcomb, S Hoy, BG Ryde Primary School - Science, Technology and Maths Department Bowie, W Hughes, Saint Joseph's Primary School, Merewether GJ University of Newcastle Bradford, Ireland, Samuel Gilbert Public School J J - Department of Mathematics Brown, D Jones, J Sandy Beach Public School University of New South Wales - Burnett, Kaladelfos, J Santa Sabina College J College of Fine Arts Byers, F Kitching, L Science Teachers' Association of NSW School of Applied Geology Chamley, D Lamb, B Scone Public School Council School of Chemistry Shalvey Public School Ciraldo, N Lawler, M School of Education Studies Coady, R Lesser, H Shoal Bay Public School School of Mathematics Shoalhaven Small Schools Coulton, G Louis, Y School of Physics Cullen, D Lynch, C South Grafton Primary School University of Sydney Davy, V Malone, M South Wagga Wagga Public School - School of Chemistry Specific Learning Difficulties Association of NSW Dawson, J Marsden, G University of Wollongong Deland, M Martin, D Inc. - Faculty of Education Dwyer, Mason, G Speers Point Public School Urunga Public School J Easom, J Mcllish, D St. Brigid's School Valley View Primary School Eather, G Millar, V St. Clair High School Vardy's Road Public School Enright, Millard, 1 St. Clare's High School Parents and Citizens' Villawood North Public School J Wade High School Evans, B Mitchell, JL Association Farrell, K Morton, IC St. Dominic's College Waitara Primary School Fensom, M Ogburn, St. John The Evangelist Primary School Wardell Public School J Gabbott, Mr & Mrs Page, G St. Mary's College Warners Bay Primary School Ginns, GD Paget, D St. Patrick's Parish School Wattawa Heights Public School Goulding, D Paige, R St. Scholastica's College Wauchope Public School Stanwell Park Public School Graham, P Paterson, I Wellington Primary School Green, R Pearson B Strathfield South High School Wentworthville Public School Griffiths, Pender, W Stroud Road School JR Werrington Public School Grover, P Rennie, West Bathurst Public School c Summerland Education Resource Centre Haines, G Rigby, A Sutton Primary School West Ryde Public School Hannah, D Roberts, Aj Whalan High School Sydney Girls High School Healy, D Rogers, L Sylvannia Heights Primary School Whian Whian Public School, Hill, C Tahmoor Public School Wiangaree Public School

Focusing on Learning Page 112 Focusing on Learning: Page 113 Vs, * f 'l

Library Digitised Collections

Author/s: Review of Outcomes and Profiles in New South Wales Schooling

Title: Focusing on Learning: Report of the Review of Outcomes and Profiles in New South Wales Schooling (Eltis Report)

Date: 1995

Persistent Link: http://hdl.handle.net/11343/115479