Teachers, parents protest revised NSW maths and English curriculum

Opposition to a proposed new school curriculum is building with hundreds of parents, teachers, and academics claiming the reforms will further dumb down our kids.

Opposition to a proposed new school curriculum is building with hundreds of parents, teachers and academics signing open letters pleading with authorities not to go forward with the reforms. They say they would further dumb down classrooms and put Australian children that much more behind their global peers.

More than 600 people have signed a letter by cognitive neuroscientist Max Coltheart urging the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority to drop its use of controversial “whole language” methods in the English curriculum to teach reading.

Professor Coltheart, who was awarded an Order of Australia for his work with children with learning difficulties, writes of the proposed curriculum’s attempt to blend whole language with phonics saying: “If this is an attempt by ACARA to keep everyone moving forward together, it is a failure of leadership by the national body.”

Opposition to a new school curriculum is building.

A separate letter also circulating online said the proposed maths curriculum was full of basic mistakes as well as being “shallow” and “systemically flawed” and has attracted more than 130 signatures from self-identified teachers, education experts, and parents.

The letter, which went online last week, claims the proposed revised curriculum for mathematics dumbs down the subject by pushing multiplication tables back to year 4 and the solving of linear algebra equations back from year 7 to year 8.

“There is simply no valid argument for these, and many other, dilutions and delays,” it states.

The letter slams the curriculum’s emphasis on what it calls “problem solving” over teaching basic skills, claiming “the further elimination and weakening of fundamental skills will contribute to the root cause of Australian students’ slipping in international comparisons: the students end up knowing less mathematics.”

Among the errors in the curriculum, the letter said: “there is no purpose, for example, in directing students to ‘investigate … Fibonacci patterns in shells’, since such patterns simply do not exist.”

“Such errors and confusions would typically be caught during a proper review by mathematicians; their existence in the draft curriculum places into serious question the nature and the extent of ACARA’s consultation process.”

University of NSW emeritus professor of educational psychology John Sweller. Picture: Nikki Short

University of NSW emeritus professor of educational psychology John Sweller signed the letter and said the draft curriculum’s belief that “inquiry learning and discovery learning rather than explicit instruction is the best way of learning” was doomed to condemn students to failure, leaving them to work things out for themselves rather than giving them the tools they need to go on to further study.

“There is not one iota of evidence that it is superior. In fact it is quite the reverse.”

“If we were to follow this curriculum we would simply go further back in the international rankings, because the previous curriculum also put so much emphasis on inquiry learning.”

Greg Ashman, Head of mathematics and Head of Research at Ballarat Clarendon College in Victoria, agreed.

“The teaching style that is being promoted is less effective than explicit teaching … inquiry learning is associated with worse scores in the international maths and science PISA tests run by the OECD,” he said.

ACARA chief executive officer David de Carvalho.

Mr Ashman also said ACARA’s claim that the new maths curriculum will make Australia more like top-performer Singapore doesn’t stack up.

“Singapore insists on students learning how to do many mathematical operations without a calculator. The draft curriculum does not,” he said.

“Of the many factors that vary between Singapore and Australia, I think that Singaporean students knowing more actual mathematics is a more likely explanation of their superior performance than any emphasis on problem solving,” he said.

But ACARA CEO David de Carvalho disagreed.

“The proposed revisions to mathematics and English were developed with extensive consultation and input from subject experts in both mathematics and English, including qualified mathematicians and literacy specialists as well as curriculum experts and teachers. It is understandable that there will be different perspectives on the curriculum.

“ACARA welcomes all views and will be carefully considering those contributions that are submitted through the consultation website in fulfilling the terms of reference given to us by Education Ministers,” he said.