Professional Educators Should Determine Curricula
24 September 2005
A major international conference was held at the University this
week thanks to the hard work of two of the Coast's most dynamic
professional women, Lyn Winch as a leading primary school principal
and Jenny Nayler from the University.
The Australian Curriculum Studies Association conference
attracted 200 people from all over the world and many were
impressed with their first but not last visit to the Coast and the
University. Minister Welford officially opened the Conference and
Jean Clandinin from the University of Alberta, Canada, gave the
initial keynote address. Jean is widely acknowledged
internationally as one of the world's best published and most
perceptive researchers working on curriculum issues in schools.
I found her address quite fascinating as she recounted some of
her current research in Alberta and commented on some of the trends
that link government policies on testing with their impact on
teachers and children. Much of what she said seemed to me to have
application to what is happening in schools and even universities
in Australia.
It is quite clear that over recent decades governments
everywhere have become more interventionist and have sought input
into curricula. Alberta is the Canadian province that has probably
gone furthest in introducing, for example, a testing regime into
schools, not unlike those being introduced into Australian
schools.
Of particular interest in Clandinin's address, however, were her
cautionary remarks about the unexpected outcomes of these
government policies and interventions.
Quite clearly, politicians, education authorities, and parents
in particular want to see proof of progress of children as they
proceed through tests in Grades 3, 5 7 and beyond, and that is
eminently understandable. The danger, however, is that a
preoccupation with test performance which is increasingly being
linked to subsequent public funding, can distort a broader
curriculum that serves the needs of a wide spectrum of learners
with different backgrounds and needs, each with their own 'story'
as Clandinin put it.
In Alberta there is emerging evidence that this increasingly
mechanical and political education environment is resulting in
student and teacher drop-out rates that are causing considerable
concern.
If this link between curriculum inflexibility and drop-out rates
can be proven, then it may contribute to the Australian debate
becoming more informed.
In the Smart State, for example, one of the emerging threats to
our status in that respect is that school leavers are in large
numbers already dropping out after Grades 10, 11 or 12, choosing
not to progress to courses in skills acquisition or in
universities. To date, there have been no definitive studies that
explain this worrying drop-out phenomenon, but Clandinin's views
suggest we ought to be reexamining curriculum to allow for more
individuality or risk 'burn-out' from students and teachers
alike.
It may be that with schools and universities, politicians and
managerial bureaucrats have wrested too much control over the
curriculum from professionally trained educators. There may well be
a need to reassess the balance that has to be struck between
operating education politically, as a business, and a contributor
to societal advancement on the one hand, and the diverse 'stories'
and needs of those individuals within education organisations on
the other.
At least there were some cautionary and salutary warnings about
excessive intrusion into education in Clandinin's address that need
to be taken seriously if we are to avoid the wastage occurring in
Alberta, and progress Queensland as the Smart State, driven by
professional educators.
Professor Paul Thomas is Vice-Chancellor of University of
the Sunshine Coast