Transcript Slide 1
Pursuing quality and equity through a national curriculum Barry McGaw Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne Chair, Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority Bridging divides: ensuring access, equity and quality in literacy and English education - AATE/ALEA Conference, Hobart 12 July 2009 There is a rising demand for high-level skills Changed demand for skills in the US Melbourne Graduate School of Education 65 60 The dilemma for schools: The skills that are easiest to teach and test are also the ones that are easiest to digitise, automate and outsource. 55 50 45 40 1960 1970 1980 Routine manual Nonroutine manual Nonroutine analytic Nonroutine interactive 1990 2002 Routine cognitive Autor, D., Levy, F. and Murnane, R. J., (2003) The skill content of recent technical change, Quarterly Journal of Economics 118, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, pp.1279-1334. Levy, F. and Murnane, R.J. (2006), “How Computerized Work and Globalization Shape Human Skill Demands”, working paper, available at: http://web.mit.edu/flevy/www/computers_offshoring_and_skills.pdf. 3 How good is our literacy education? What do international comparisons tell us about the quality of Australian education? OECD’s PISA assessment of the knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds Melbourne Graduate School of Education Coverage of world economy 83% 81% 77% 87% 86% 85% 6 Melbourne Graduate School of Education 550 350 300 Finland Canada New Zealand Australia Ireland Hong Kong-China Korea United Kingdom Japan Sweden Austria Belgium Iceland Norway France United States Denmark Switzerland Spain Czech Republic Italy Germany Liechtenstein Hungary Poland Greece Portugal Russian Federation Latvia Israel Luxembourg Thailand Bulgaria Romania Mexico Argentina Chile Brazil FYR Macedonia Indonesia Albania Peru Mean reading results (PISA 2000) 600 Australia tied for 2nd with 8 others among 42 countries. 500 450 400 OECD (2003), Literacy skills for the world of tomorrow: Further results from PISA 2000, Fig. 2.5, p.76. 7 Australia’s ranking in OECD/PISA Reading Melbourne Graduate School of Education Reading ranks PISA 2000: 4th but tied for 2nd PISA 2003: 4th but tied for 2nd PISA 2006: 7th but tied for 6th PISA 2000 PISA 2003 PISA 2006 Finland Finland Finland Korea Canada NZ Hong Kong Korea Canada NZ Hong Kong Korea Canada NZ Ahead of Australia Same as Australia Behind Australia Hong Kong 8 560 Trends in reading performance Higher performers in Korea improved. Korea Melbourne Graduate School of Education 550 Finland 540 Lower performers in HK improved. Hong Kong China 530 Canada New Zealand 520 Australia 510 Changes for Finland, Canada & New Zealand are not significant. 500 PISA 2000 OECD (2007), PISA 2006: science competencies for tomorrow’s world, Vol. 1 - analysis, Fig. 6.21, p.319. PISA 2003 PISA 2006 9 Trends in Australian reading performances Melbourne Graduate School of Education 700 95th %ile 650 90th %ile 600 75th %ile 550 Mean 500 25th %ile 450 400 10th %ile 5th %ile 350 300 PISA 2000 PISA 2003 PISA 2006 OECD (2007), PISA 2006: science competencies for tomorrow’s world, Vol. 1 - analysis, Fig. 6.21, p.319. 10 The impact of raising expectations of low performers Variation of performance within schools OECD, UNESCO (2003), Literacy skills for tomorrow’s world: further results from PISA 2000, Table 7.1a, p.357. Iceland Sweden Finland Norway Spain Ireland Canada Denmark Korea New Zealand Australia United Kingdom Luxembourg United States Portugal Mexico Switzerland Italy Czech Republic Greece Poland Austria Hungary Variation of performance between schools Germany 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 -70 -80 Belgium Melbourne Graduate School of Education Variation in reading performance (PISA 2000) 12 OECD (2004), Learning for tomorrow’s world, Table 4.1a, p.383. Iceland Finland Norway Sweden Poland Denmark Ireland Canada -80 Spain -60 New Zealand Australia United States Mexico Portugal Luxembourg Switzerland Greece Slovak Republic Korea Czech Republic Netherlands Austria Germany Italy Belgium 80 Japan 100 Hungary Turkey Melbourne Graduate School of Education Variation in mathematics performance Variation of performance within schools 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 Variation of performance between schools 13 560 Trends in reading performance Korea Melbourne Graduate School of Education 550 Finland 540 Hong Kong China 530 Canada New Zealand 520 Australia Poland 510 500 490 Lower and higher performers in Poland improved. Lower performers in Poland improved. 480 Changes for Finland, Canada & New Zealand are not significant. 470 PISA 2000 OECD (2007), PISA 2006: science competencies for tomorrow’s world, Vol. 1 - analysis, Fig. 6.21, p.319. PISA 2003 PISA 2006 14 The storyline so far… There is a growing labour market demand for higher level skills. Melbourne Graduate School of Education International comparisons show that: • Australian students are relatively high performing. • The competition is not standing still. • Setting high expectations for all can improve low performers. 15 What do international comparisons tell us about the equity of Australian education? matters too % at each reading proficiency level: PISA 2000 Korea had relatively high mean but with few very high performers and very few low performers. 100 90 Level 5 Australia’s mean is high because of its relatively high percentage of very high-performing students. 70 Level 4 60 50 40 Level 3 30 20 Level 2 10 0 -10 Level 1 -20 -30 Australia has somewhat more low performing students than some highperforming countries around it. Peru Brazil Chile Argentina Mexico Romania Bulgaria Thailand -100 Source: OECD, UNESCO (2003) Literacy skills for the world of tomorrow, Table 2.1a, p.274 Luxembourg Israel Latvia Russian Federation Portugal Greece Poland Hungary Liechtenstein Germany Italy Czech Republic Spain Switzerland Denmark United States Norway France Iceland Belgium Austria Sweden Japan United Kingdom Korea Ireland Australia -90 Canada -80 New Zealand -70 Hong Kong-China -60 Albania Below Level 1 Indonesia -50 FYR Macedonia -40 Finland Melbourne Graduate School of Education 80 17 Socioeconomic status & reading literacy (PISA 2000) Reading literacy Melbourne Graduate School of Education High Two indices of relationship: Social gradient Correlation or variance accounted for Social gradient: Magnitude of increment in achievement associated with an increment in social background (on average) Correlation: How well the regression line summarises the relationship Low PISA Index of social background Source: OECD (2001) Knowledge and skills for life, Appendix B1, Table 8.1, p.308 Social Advantage 18 Social gradients for reading literacy (PISA 2000) 600 550 Reading literacy Melbourne Graduate School of Education High Finland 500 Canada 450 Australia This gap is in the order of 3 years of schooling. 400 Germany 350 Steeper slope = less equitable results 300 -2 Low -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Social PISA Index of social background Source: OECD (2001) Knowledge and skills for life, Appendix B1, Table 8.1, p.308 Advantage 19 Social gradients for reading literacy (PISA 2000) 550 Finland New Zealand Australia United Kingdom 530 520 Reading literacy Melbourne Graduate School of Education High quality 540 Low equity 500 490 Germany 480 Canada Ireland Hungary Korea Japan Sweden Belgium Austria France Norway United States Denmark Switzerland Czech Republic 510 High quality High equity Iceland Spain Italy Poland Greece Portugal 470 460 450 Luxembourg 440 430 420 -25 Low quality Low equity -20 Low quality High equity Mexico -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 Social equity (OECD regression slope - country regression slope) OECD (2001) Knowledge and skills for life, Table 8.1, p.308. 20 25 20 SES-science literacy correlations (PISA 2006) High quality 540 Low equity Finland Canada New Zealand Australia Ireland Korea United Kingdom 530 520 High quality High equity Japan Sweden 510 Reading literacy Melbourne Graduate School of Education 550 FranceBelgium United States 500 490 480 Hungary 470 Austria Norway Denmark Switzerland Spain Czech Republic Germany Poland Greece Portugal Iceland Italy 460 450 Luxembourg 440 430 420 Low quality Low equity -10 Low quality High equity Mexico -5 0 5 10 15 20 Social equity (% variation accounted for: OECD-country) OECD (2001) Knowledge and skills for life, Table 8.1, p.308. 21 The storyline so far… There is a growing labour market demand for higher level skills. Melbourne Graduate School of Education International comparisons show that: • Australian students are relatively high performing. • The competition is not standing still. • Setting high expectations for all can improve low performers. Australian students’ performance in reading: • They are among the best in the world, but slipping. • Low performers are left somewhat further behind than in other highperforming countries (though not in mathematics or science). • The disadvantaged are over-represented among low performers. 22 Challenges for a national curriculum Challenges for a national curriculum Melbourne Graduate School of Education To raise the quality of learning even higher Stretching the high performers Setting high expectations for low performers To improve the equity of learning Reducing the impact of socio-economic differences 24 Scope and governance of the national curriculum Scope of work on national curriculum Melbourne Graduate School of Education Initial brief An early addition Geography and languages other than English Added in April 2009 English, mathematics, science, history from 2011 The Arts Report requested by October 2009 on implications of making the entire curriculum national 26 Governance of the national curriculum Melbourne Graduate School of Education Interim National Curriculum Board Appointed by COAG in April 2008 Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority Replaced National Curriculum Board in May 2009 Responsibilities • National curriculum • National assessment: NAPLAN and sample surveys • Data analysis and transparent reporting on school performance 27 Shape of the national curriculum 29 Melbourne Graduate School of Education Shape of the Australian Curriculum Document setting out form of the curriculum Melbourne Graduate School of Education Draft in late June 2008 Revised version on website October-December 2008 Final version published 6 May 2009 Principles and specifications include Make clear what has to be taught and learned entitlements Set high standards for all assuming all can learn Build firm foundational skills and basis for expertise Be feasible for teachers: • In terms of time and resources available • In terms of language in documents Value teachers’ professional knowledge Reflect local contexts 30 31 Melbourne Graduate School of Education Development of K-12 framework for English Melbourne Graduate School of Education Initial advice for each learning area Lead writer: Professor Peter Freebody Team of collaborators to review initial draft National forum in October 2008 Consultation on revised versions 150-250 diverse participants Subject associations provided advice on following day On website for advice 20/11/08 to 28/02/09 Final versions published on 6 May 2009 Framework for development of curriculum detail Report on consultation setting out advice received and responses 32 Development of detailed curriculum Melbourne Graduate School of Education Features 3 strands: language, literature, literacy Issues: • Getting balance across strands, across years • Meeting needs of students learning to read • • – Phonological and phonemic awareness – Sound-letter correspondences – Using of semantic and syntactic clues to make meaning Building grammar into language strand Articulating development in literature strand Authors Writers • 10 - classroom teachers, academics from across Australia • Expertise - early years to teacher education Advisory Panel, Curriculum Committee and Board 33 Work plan Melbourne Graduate School of Education First 10 weeks K-10 • broad outline of the scope and sequence K-10 • content descriptions of what student will be taught • Placement across strands • Language strand: – oral proficiency – grammar, spelling, punctuation, handwriting, word processing 11-12 • Aims, rationales and broad outlines for four courses Next phase content elaborations achievement standards. 34 Some key issues Melbourne Graduate School of Education Reducing clutter to achieve depth Strategic choice of content, e.g. big ideas in science Access to supporting resources Curriculum primarily electronic and layered Need for good links with responsible agencies • Links to resources for teachers who need them • Annotated samples of students’ work to show standards Teacher professional development Evaluation Curriculum fidelity in implementation Curriculum effectiveness in elevating student achievement 35 [email protected]