Comment: Review is reverse of ‘back to basics’

The review of the Australian curriculum published this week has frequently been described as a proposal for a ‘back to basics’ curriculum. Even federal education minister Christopher Pyne has repeatedly talked about ‘the basics’ in media commentary about the review.

It is easy to see why the report has been characterised in this way. It recommends placing more emphasis on traditional, teacher-directed teaching methods — especially in early literacy — and it favours reducing the number of subjects required to be covered in primary schools. It advises that curriculum documents be made less complex and unwieldy.

Yet the term ‘back to basics’ fundamentally misrepresents the nature of the report’s proposed changes to the Australian curriculum. ‘Back to basics’ suggests a stripped-back, hollowed-out curriculum that is utilitarian and skills-based. What is proposed in the report is in fact quite the reverse.

A large part of the report is devoted to a discussion of the importance of content — facts, knowledge, experiences and concepts — arguing strongly that school curricula should not be shallow statements of ‘learning outcomes’ and themes. It is a call to recognise the importance of intellectual rigor and depth to the subjects studied in school, providing a persuasive counterpoint to the trend over recent years for schools to focus on ‘21st century skills’ and ‘learning how to learn’.

To do this, report authors Kevin Donnelly and Ken Wiltshire liberally quote some of the best thinkers on education, who hail from all parts of the political spectrum. Among them is ED Hirsch, who has been hugely influential in curriculum development in the United States through his Core Knowledge program. Hirsch argues that the development of so-called general capabilities does not occur in an abstract way. Rather, thinking and reasoning skills are best learned in the context of specific and concrete knowledge.

It is, of course, essential for children to learn how to think; but first they need something to think about. While this principle applies to all children, Hirsch further argues that not providing a content-rich curriculum most disadvantages children from low socioeconomic backgrounds whose parents are less likely to have exposed them to a broad range of facts and concepts at home.

The teaching of reading is a prime example of where traditional, well-structured teaching is mistakenly construed as being ‘drill and kill’ — that is, lifeless and content-free. In fact, research on reading instruction shows that while phonic knowledge (the relationship between letters and sounds) must be taught explicitly and systematically, the most effective literacy programs then integrate phonic skills into the reading of text in a purposeful way. The very best reading programs also use inspiring and entertaining children’s literature to help develop vocabulary and comprehension. All of these elements are necessary for a child to become a proficient and enthusiastic reader.

International studies are showing that what works for reading instruction also works for maths. Analysis of data from OECD’s Program for International Student Assessment found that high achievement in mathematical literacy (maths questions framed as word problems) among 15-year-olds was strongly related to exposure to formal mathematics education rather than applied mathematics or word problems. Another recent study of primary school students found that children’s mathematical knowledge was greater when they were provided with explicit conceptual instruction prior to attempting to solve problems — the opposite of the constructivist approach.

While pedagogy (the way teachers teach) is often considered separately to content, they are linked inasmuch as the importance of a strong curriculum (and related syllabi) becomes paramount when you have a deficit of subject specialist teachers. The less expert the teacher, the greater the need for a detailed curriculum. In Australia, this is unfortunately the situation, especially in science, maths and economics — subjects that are vitally important to our country’s progress.

Educationists talk about the intended curriculum versus the delivered curriculum. The Australian curriculum is the intended curriculum. The delivered curriculum is what children are actually taught. The convergence of the two is highly dependent on the ability and motivation of teachers. Without expert teachers, both in subject knowledge and pedagogy, the intended curriculum can only penetrate so far.

Notwithstanding the teacher quality qualifier, the curriculum review is a critical juncture in Australian education. The report contains much of value and substance and deserves deeper analysis and discussion.

Jennifer Buckingham is a Research Fellow at The Centre for Independent Studies.