Comments on: A curriculum market

By: Sacha

Sacha — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 00:00:06 +0000

David Kemp writes on competitive curriculum in The Australian here: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20551901-7583,00.html

By: Proposed national curriculum for Australian schools « Sachi’s hyperbolic space

Mon, 09 Oct 2006 23:55:31 +0000

[...] Update: Andrew Leigh writes on how national tests, not the curricula, should be standardised, and Andrew Norton puts forward the idea of competitive curricula rather than national or regional curricula. [...]

By: Andrew Leigh » Blog Archive » Standardise the test, not the curriculum

Andrew Leigh » Blog Archive » Standardise the test, not the curriculum — Mon, 09 Oct 2006 05:30:15 +0000

[...] Update: Andrew Norton calls for a “curriculum market” and brands the Bishop plan “the worst of the three” curriculum options that could be chosen. [...]

By: BLOGS AND COMMENTS « DUCKPOND

BLOGS AND COMMENTS « DUCKPOND — Sun, 08 Oct 2006 16:09:11 +0000

[...] Now the go-to bloggers in relation to such matters for me are Andrew Norton and Andrew Leigh. [...]

By: Sacha Blumen

Sacha Blumen — Sun, 08 Oct 2006 13:04:15 +0000

Ah - thanks Andrew, that makes sense. BTW the point against regional curricula that people from different states are taught different things leading to problems in further education has never struck me as very strong. It’s not that difficult to deal with (eg people can learn the material they don’t yet know).

In Qld, kids are taught matrices in Yr 11/12 but aren’t in NSW. They have to learn about matrices in 1st year uni in NSW but don’t in Qld (except for those who have moved). While it might seem a bit of a mismatch, it’s hard to know whether it’s better to teach kids matrices at school or at uni.

I read that in the furore about the new WA curriculum, that people were upset that kids doing music at school weren’t going to have to learn an instrument, and previously they had to. I finished Yr 12 in Brisbane in 1990 and did music all through high school, and we never had to learn a specific instrument, although I think that probably everyone did anyway. Differences across states are ok unless there are some “core” things that people must know and aren’t being taught. Perhaps there’s a role for “core” things to be common to all states.

In any event it’s important that standards be high.

By: Andrew Norton

Andrew Norton — Sun, 08 Oct 2006 11:45:43 +0000

Sacha - That is why I think a Commonwealth curriculum would be worse than the existing multiple state-based curricula. Take them partly as creating a larger learning process (you can’t copy good ideas if nobody else is generating them), partly as risk management (stopping failed experiments spreading nationwide).

Bishops says that the curriculum development process costs $180 million a year - expensive duplication. Or another way of looking at it is that on a $30 billion annual investment in schooling, this is a cheap way of looking for changes that might get better outcomes.

By: Sacha Blumen

Sacha Blumen — Sun, 08 Oct 2006 11:32:08 +0000

Hey, when I wrote “8″ in my last comment, it turned into a smily face!

By: Sacha Blumen

Sacha Blumen — Sun, 08 Oct 2006 11:27:19 +0000

Andrew, I’m not sure why you think a centralised curriculum is worse than state curricula, unless it’s that any problems with a centralised curriculum affect more people than with a state curriculum. In theory, having state curricula means that you can see how the effects on learning of different curricula and learn from them. A similar thing could happen with a centralised curriculum if there was scope for variations eg from region to region.

If the choice is between regionalised and centralised curricula, I’m not sure that having 6 (or replications of the curriculum development process is necessary. I would have to be convinced as to its advantages.

By the by, in my work I’ve attempted to interpret some of the South Australian math curriculum documents. I am not trained as a teacher and perhaps that’s the problem, but it’s not unusual for statements in the documents to be quite unclear.

By: Andrew Norton

Andrew Norton — Sun, 08 Oct 2006 07:59:40 +0000

“But isn

By: wpd

wpd — Sun, 08 Oct 2006 06:36:56 +0000

Conrad I don’t disagree with what you say. IB is being offered more widely, but I am not up on the detail of what is involved.

Certainly, there is a ‘decline’ in the ‘hard’ subjects but these ‘hard’ science subjects are also less popular at the university level. Even fee paying students from Asia show more interest in ‘business’ related subjects than science.

But isn’t it the case that the IB direction is the exact opposite to ‘competitive’ curricula.

In QLD, the local Universities seem happy with the present arrangements because they have such a significant input into curriculum development