The discussion focused on some other particular issues related to the curriculum in all learning areas.

1.       Values. There is little in the curriculum that mentions values, except in history. Yet values must underpin the whole curriculum and should be part of all curriculum areas.

2.       Core curriculum. there is ambiguity in the preamble itself about the status of the National Curriculum, whether it is ‘the whole’ (point 12) or ‘not just a core around which other things will need to be developed by schools or systems’ (point 31).

3.       Learning areas. There is no educational reason why curriculum should be based in learning areas and, in particular, on history, mathematics, English and science. For example, our increasing knowledge of the importance of developing skills in the areas of art, music, dance and drama as other ways in which children learn and can demonstrate their learning would suggest that the Arts would be a vital learning area focus. A similar case could be made for health and physical education. We are concerned that this focus will again narrow the education offered to students and be a retrograde step which recent state curricula have tried to remedy.

4.       Year level descriptors. Although most children in Australia progress through schools in year levels they do not (and should not) simply progress through curriculum in the same way. Most curriculum frameworks in Australia and internationally recognise that children of a single age are not at the same level, able to learn at the same level or will progress at the same rate. Year level specifications risk undermining good practice. Whether the curriculum is ‘represented’ or ‘developed’ year by year, we believe that it is a retrograde step in the education of our children to describe curriculum in year levels and strongly urge that broad stages described in the learning area framing papers be retained.

5.       Sequencing content: The recent WA experience of writing year level content demonstrates the farcical nature of this attempt. It is simply unsupportable to stipulate specific content areas for one year level and not another. Content is the vehicle for children to learn concepts. Repeating content, if teachers are respectful of the current knowledge, skills and abilities of the children, enables children to explore different concepts at different levels of understanding and enhance their learning overall.

6.       Literacy and numeracy are the foundations for other learning but they are also concepts and skills that need to be developed in the context of meaningful content and we strongly endorse the English Curriculum Statement for making this clear.

7.       Joy: Research into learning indicates that laughter and enjoyment are vital in the learning process. There is little if any recognition in the curriculum of this.

8.       Assessment: The experience of other countries and of curriculum initiatives in Australia is that assessment can become the driver for curriculum rather than an integrated part of the learning cycle. The WA Curriculum Framework describes five principles of assessment: that it should be valid, fair, explicit, educative and comprehensive. National testing as it is conducted at present is none of these, yet national tests are increasingly driving the teaching and learning program. Describing content to be taught may link with assessment that is easier to formulate, since it is easier to test content than concepts. However, this does not mean that achieving well in tests on content demonstrates the learning of skills, values or understandings that is actually required. Reducing learning to grades and numbers does not describe the learning either. If we are to have a 21st Century curriculum, we will need 21st Century methods for making judgements about children’s learning. These strategies need to include information from the people who are working most closely with the children and know them well: their teachers.

9.       More than standardised testing: This group endorses the understanding that assessment is more than standardised testing. We note with concern and dismay the narrowing of definitions of literacy and of the teaching and learning programs as NAPLAN becomes more important. We are concerned about parallel narrowings as other standardised texts are produced.

10.   Moving from ‘standards descriptors’ to ‘exemplars: This group endorses the importance of moderation and making consistent judgements, despite the poor implementation of these processes in some WA schools. When teachers are confident in their own assessments, they become more confident in the assessment made by other teachers.

11.   Using work samples: Our experience in WA is that making judgements on work samples sometimes leads to the production of written tasks which are not reflective of the learning the children achieve. A lot of work is required to understand what ‘samples’ can be documented that enable teachers to make judgements about children’s learning. We therefore urge the Board to continue to explore the use of more sophisticated strategies for assessment of students’ learning and emphasise the need for resources to be devoted to on-going teacher professional development in these areas.