Students need richer curriculum

The Australian school curriculum, The Australian wrote in February 2014, must prioritise “rigour and quality teaching”, not social engineering and political correctness. Ten years, several reviews and billions of extra taxpayers’ dollars later, it still needs major reform. No less an authority than the Australian Education Research Organisation, the nation’s official education research body that reports to education ministers, is warning the national curriculum does not provide sufficient guidance to teachers, who should not be required to “invent their own’’ syllabus resources. “It could contain more specific detail about the knowledge students are expected to attain, and the means by which this learning should be demonstrated,” the organisation has warned the federal and state governments.

AERO’s criticisms coincide with a comprehensive study that reveals schoolchildren in Australia are being taught only half the science content that is taught in comparable countries. Education consultant Ben Jensen, of Learning First, spent a year comparing Australia’s “narrow and shallow” science curriculum to that of England, the US, Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore and the Canadian provinces of Quebec and Alberta. Dr Jensen was “shocked about how big the holes are in the science curriculum’’, he told education editor Natasha Bita. In biological sciences, for example, the Australian curriculum includes almost 70 per cent less content compared with the average. “Australia performs relatively better in chemical sciences, where it has just under a third less content than the average of other systems,’’ the report said. “In physical sciences and Earth and space sciences, Australia has 56 per cent and 43 per cent less content respectively than the average of other systems.”

It also lacks depth. Just five science topics are covered in depth across the first nine years of schooling, compared to an average of 22 topics covered in other systems. The shortfalls help explain why the system produces too few year 12 school-leavers with the right subjects to enrol in science, technology, engineering and maths courses at tertiary level. It is becoming clear that curriculum content reform, the methodology for teaching it, as well as improvements to teacher training, must be at the centre of efforts to lift standards.

While attempts have been made, at least in theory, to declutter the curriculum of extraneous material, it remains a problem. It’s hard to think of any other reason why teachers can waste time, for example, on making videos during the current “Week of Action, Solidarity with Palestine”, advertised by a raised fist in Palestinian colours, and sponsored by the Australian Education Union in parts of Melbourne. Turning students into activists is offensive. It is not the role of schools, especially when students are being short-changed by not being taught the knowledge and skills needed in our society and economy. Employers are deeply frustrated by the inability of young people to perform tasks that require basic literacy and numeracy skills. That is partly due to an inadequate curriculum, and exacerbated by teaching degrees that spend little time teaching future teachers how to teach. What is needed, subject by subject, as the Learning First report advocates in regard to science, is richer content, well sequenced, with guidance on how to teach it. The Australian has long championed better curriculum content, efficient testing and transparent reporting. NAPLAN (National Assessment Program Literacy and Numeracy) results have signalled serious problems. In preparing the new school agreement, curriculum content and clarity must be a prime focus of Education Minister Jason Clare and state ministers.