Opinion & Commentary
Choice is best for curriculum
School curricula and the standards of students seem to be constantly under fire, with discussion over the last six months centring on senior school leaving certificates. Proposed changes to the Western Australian Certificate of Education have copped the most flak, while the NSW Higher School Certificate has managed to escape relatively unscathed.
A report commissioned by the Federal Government recommends the replacement of all state and territory year 12 qualifications with a national assessment and, by default, a national curriculum created by a national standards body. Some state education ministers have responded ambiguously but NSW's Carmel Tebbutt has strongly resisted, believing the HSC is already the gold standard.
According to those in favour, a single national high school qualification - an Australian Certificate of Education - would solve the problems of impoverished curricula, weak standards and state-based inconsistencies by creating a more rigorous benchmark for achievement.
Despite these claims, there is only one sure benefit of replacing the nine existing year 12 qualifications with a single national certificate: a reduction in the cost of producing curriculum and assessment materials. With all states and the ACT producing their own, the duplication of effort is enormous and arguably wasteful. But this benefit is far outweighed by the risk associated with centralising curriculum development.
When centralisation of curriculum and assessment at the state level has failed, does it really make sense to centralise even further?
It is naive to assume that a national standards body will be any less vulnerable to ideological or philosophical bias, or the temptation to embrace educational fads, than the state boards of studies and curriculum authorities. It does not matter who is in charge; many of the heads of state boards of studies seem eminently sensible and intelligent but the subject committees have minds of their own.
The big risk is this: if the national standards body is no better or even worse than the state boards, instead of having the variation in quality we currently have (some states are good at some things), we will have universal mediocrity.
There is a case for developing national curriculum guidelines and standards but they should not be mandated. If the guidelines are any good, parents, teachers, employers and universities will pressure state authorities to adopt them.
It would be preferable to adopt only a national aptitude test, which could be taken alongside the current state qualifications. The ACER report rejects this idea, however, saying that it is not "obvious" how an aptitude test would improve consistency. Certainly such a test would not create consistency in and of itself but it would clearly indicate the comparative strengths and weaknesses of each state and territory. Publishing the information would provide incentive to improve, thereby encouraging comparability if not consistency in standards.
Furthermore, a well-designed aptitude test would be highly useful for both university admissions and for employers who want to know the extent of a high school graduate's literacy skills rather than how well they are able to recognise Marxist themes in the plays of William Shakespeare.
There is a better way forward than an Australian Certificate of Education and it involves more choice rather than less.
Schools should have more freedom to adopt the best curricula and qualifications for their students. They might come from the traditional government sources, or from universities or from the private sector.
The International Baccalaureate is a pertinent example of a curriculum of choice. Because it is not mandatory, it does not have to please everyone and therefore does not compromise. For the same reason it is not appropriate for all schools but there are many other possibilities, some so obvious they have been overlooked.
For example, schools should be allowed to use the curricula of other states and territories (or even other countries) if their own state's curriculum is proving unsatisfactory.
To take the case of Western Australia, if schools that still have substantial concerns about the new WACE were able to adopt the NSW HSC curriculum, for instance, it would remove the inherent difficulties of implementing all-schools-in or all-schools-out reform.
With more choice and a little help, a standard national qualification may well emerge naturally, simply through schools exercising professional judgement about quality curricula and receiving good comparable data about outcomes. Imagine that.
Jennifer Buckingham is a research fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies.
