Bills Digest no. 60 2008–09
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority
Bill
WARNING:
This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as
introduced and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest
does not have any official legal status. Other sources should be
consulted to determine the subsequent official status of the
Bill.
CONTENTS
Passage history
Purpose
Background
Financial implications
Main provisions
Concluding comments
Contact officer & copyright details
Passage history
Australian
Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority
Bill
Date introduced:
23 October 2008
House: House of Representatives
Portfolio: Education, Employment and Workplace
Relations
Commencement:
Royal
Assent
Links: The
relevant links to the Bill, Explanatory Memorandum and second
reading speech can be accessed via BillsNet, which is at http://www.aph.gov.au/bills/.
When Bills have been passed they can be found at ComLaw, which is
at http://www.comlaw.gov.au/.
The purpose of
the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority Bill
2008 (the Bill) is to establish the Australian Curriculum,
Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA).
ACARA, which will be an independent statutory
authority, will manage the creation and implementation of the
national curriculum, national student assessment and reporting of
school education outcomes. Specific functions, as provided in
Clause 6 of the Bill, will include:
- developing and administering a national school curriculum,
including content of the curriculum and achievement standards, for
school subjects as specified in its Charter
- developing and administering national assessments
- collecting, managing and analysing student assessment data and
other data relating to schools and comparative school
performance
- facilitating information sharing arrangements between
Australian and state and territory governments bodies in relation
to the collection, management and analysis of school data
- publishing information relating to school education, including
comparative school performance
- providing school curriculum resource services, educational
research services and other related services and
- providing information, resources, support and guidance to the
teaching profession.
The structure and operations of ACARA will be
overseen by the Australian and state and territory governments
through the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training
and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA), which will frame ACARA s Charter and
approve Board appointments.
ACARA s Board membership will comprise a
Chair, Deputy Chair, one member nominated by the Minister, one
representative each from the Catholic education and independent
schools sectors, and a representative for each state and
territory.
The Bill s explanatory memorandum states that
the proposed governance model for ACARA accords with the MCEETYA
agreement reached on 12 September 2008.[1]
Back to top
ACARA s establishment was agreed to by the
Council of Australian Governments (COAG) at its October 2008
meeting.[2] The
decision is the result of current COAG negotiations regarding the
new National Education Agreement and National Partnerships which
will set the framework for the government s education revolution in
school education.[3]
The Government is committed to establishing the final governance
arrangements for ACARA s Board by 1 January 2009.[4]
Consequently, ACARA will supersede the
National Curriculum Board and the National Schools Assessment and
Data Centre which the government established earlier this year. The
National Curriculum Board was an ALP election policy
commitment.[5] The
2008 09 Budget provided $20 million over four years to establish
the National Curriculum Board, which was to develop a national
curriculum from kindergarten to Year 12 in the areas of English,
mathematics, the sciences and history.[6] The National Curriculum Board has
already begun its work Professor Barry McGraw is its Chair;
national forums have been held; a broad directions paper produced;
and initial advice papers for English, mathematics, the sciences
and history released for discussion.[7]
The 2008 09 Budget also provided $17.2 million
over four years to establish a National Schools Assessment and Data
Centre. The Centre, which was scheduled to commence operation from
1 January 2009, was to collect data and report on key performance
measures for schools, as agreed to by COAG, to ensure transparent
and timely national assessment and reporting of literacy and
numeracy outcomes for Australian school students. [8] The proposed Centre arose from the
Government s commitment to greater transparency and its
determination to target resources to where they are needed most,
based on better sources of information:
Our approach is to recognize and respect the
diversity of schooling in Australia and to put forward the
proposition that high quality education should be available to all
children, wherever they live, whatever background they come from
and whatever sector their school is in.
we believe this new approach requires a new era
of transparency and accountability.
For parents to fully understand the choices
they can make for their children, we need a more transparent and
consistent basis for them to examine the options.
To target resources in a way that will best
improve our education system, we need richer sources of
information. We need to know where efforts are bearing fruit and
where they are not so we can take effective action.
For schools, teachers and education authorities
to learn which strategies work in which circumstances, we need
comprehensive information about both the performance and the
circumstances.[9]
The establishment of ACARA is the culmination
of a long period of policy debate in the case of the national
curriculum the debate dates back to the 1980s when John Dawkins,
then Minister for Employment, Education and Training, called for a
common curriculum framework that would set out the major areas of
knowledge and the most appropriate mix of skills and experience for
students in all the years of schooling .[10]
The debate about, and policy focus on, a
national curriculum, student assessment and school reporting was
invigorated from 2005 when the previous Government mandated, as
conditions for its funding, the development and implementation of
Statements of Learning in certain subject areas, which had
previously been agreed to by MCEETYA; and student assessment and
school reporting requirements.[11] The Schools Assistance Bill 2008, which provides
Australian Government funding for non-government schools and which
is currently before the Parliament, contains similar conditions of
funding. These conditions will also be a feature of the forthcoming
National Education Agreements for Australian Government funding for
government school systems. What is significant in the new
arrangements is the additional requirement for reports about
individual school performance, as determined by the
Minister.[12]
Under the previous government, the national
curriculum debate was spurred on by a series of
government-commissioned reports that highlighted curriculum
inconsistencies and proposed a national Australian Certificate of
Education for Year 12 students.[13] The debate about the teaching of Australian
history in schools was particularly vigorous, driven by an
Australian History Summit, convened by the previous government; the
release of a Guide to Teaching Australian History in Years 9
and 10; and the then Prime Minister s commitment to mandate
the teaching of at least 150 hours of Australian history in high
school.[14]
The commitment to a national curriculum is now
entrenched and will be required to be implemented from
2011.[15] In the
lead-up to the 2007 federal election both major parties made policy
commitments in relation to the development of a national
curriculum. In its last budget, the previous government provided
$13 million over two years to work with the states and
territories to develop curriculum standards in English, maths,
science and Australian history for Years 10 to 12.[16] The then Education Minister also
made an election commitment to appoint a panel of experts to write
curriculum guides.[17]
However, debate remains about the pedagogical
implications of a national curriculum. The release of the National
Curriculum Board s initial advice papers for English, mathematics,
science and history unleased considerable debate, with regard to
both their content and those responsible for preparing the
documents.[18]
In response to the previous government s
proposal for a national curriculum, Associate Professor Tony Taylor
from Monash University, suggested that a national curriculum could
not be justified by international experience or research, citing
Britain and France, both of which have national curriculums but
which have, on the one hand, failing schools and, on the other, a
poor economy.[19]
However, according to the Minister for
Education, a single national curriculum:
will ensure that every young Australian has
access to the highest quality education regardless of where they
live or their socioeconomic background.
... It will also facilitate greater student
mobility for some 80,000 school aged students who move interstate
each year
... [it] will benefit teachers by giving them a
clear understanding of what needs to be covered in each subject and
in each year level during each phase of schooling.
[it] will also bring benefits to parents. It
will give them clear and explicit agreement about what it is that
young people should know and be able to do.[20]
There is some apprehension about a national
curriculum from elements of the independent schools sector. The
concerns focus on how prescriptive the national curriculum will be
and, consequently, the implications for schools offering
alternative curriculums, such as the Montessori and Steiner systems
and the International Baccalaureate; and for certain faith-based
schools.[21] The
Chief Executive of Christian Schools Australia has given voice to
the concerns of faith-based schools, calling for assurance that the
national curriculum would allow them to teach legitimate faith
perspectives .[22]
The Opposition, in moving a motion in response to the Schools
Assistance Bill 2008, which is providing funding for non-government
schools, is of the view that the Government has a hidden agenda
by:
requiring adherence to a national curriculum
without flexibility that puts at risk
the uniqueness of Steiner, Montessori, International Baccalaureate,
University of Cambridge International Examinations and special
needs schools [23]
However, the national curriculum and how it is
to be implemented, is a long way from being finalised.
Nevertheless, there is consensus that it should not be too
prescriptive and that there needs to be flexibility to cater for
local needs.[24]
The states and territories, in their proposal for a national
curriculum, explained:
a national curriculum will benefit if there is
flexibility for states and schools to innovate and adapt and to
share their experiences of what approaches achieve the best
results. A level of autonomy for individual schools and teachers to
make professional decisions about curriculum drives the high
performance level of a large number of government, Catholic and
Independent schools across jurisdictions.
whatever common curriculum standards (that is,
what students are expected to achieve in mathematics, science etc.)
are adopted by jurisdictions, it is important to allow for
flexibility in schools catering for different groups of students to
achieve these standards in different ways. This is not an argument
for lower standards for some students. On the contrary, it is an
argument for flexibility in teaching approach and, in some cases,
content in order to reach the standards in different
settings.[25]
The Minister has moved to address these
concerns, assuring schools that the national curriculum will allow
teachers the flexibility to shape their classes around the
curriculum in a way that is meaningful and engaging for students.
[26] She has also
recognised particular concerns:
The national curriculum, once agreed and
completed, will be compulsory. But it will not mean that every
school will be required to teach the same subjects, line by line,
in the same way.
I recognise that some schools use a specialised
curriculum such as the International Baccalaureate and that some,
such as Steiner and Montessori schools, have educational
philosophies which involve a particular approach to curriculum.
Clearly there are a number of approaches that
are internationally and educationally recognised and used by
schools that can show their approach to curriculum is well
structured and high quality. I will ask the National Curriculum
Board to advise in due course on the most effective method for
confirming this recognition of well-established alternative
curriculum frameworks.[27]
There are indications that the national
curriculum is gaining broader acceptance; most recently, with the
NSW government now reversing its previous opposition.[28] However, the future of
the national curriculum remains uncertain with Family First Senator
Steve Fielding saying, in relation to the Schools Assistance Bill,
that he is still undecided about how he will vote in the wake of
calls he has had from schools concerned about signing up to an
undecided national curriculum:
The Rudd Government is saying trust us, we will
give you the detail but most Australians would like to see the
details first because education is such a cornerstone The last
thing schools want to feel is a gun to their head dictating what
they can teach kids.[29]
Back to top
National student assessment is now entrenched
and has routinely occurred since 1999 when the first annual
literacy tests (reading and writing) for Year 3 and Year 5 students
were conducted and the results assessed against national
benchmarks. Since then the testing regime has been progressively
extended. As from 2008, as part of the National Assessment Program
Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN), Year 3, 5, 7 and 9 students now sit
the same national tests in reading, writing, spelling, grammar and
punctuation and numeracy.[30] National Assessment Program assessments are also
occurring. These involve triennial sample assessments in science at
Year 6, civics and citizenship at Years 6 and 10 and ICT literacy
at Years 6 and 10. Australia is also participating in the OECD
Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) in reading,
mathematical and scientific literacy for 15-year-olds and the
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS) at
Years 4 and 8.[31]
As part of the Australian Government s current
conditions for school funding, established by the previous
government, schools are required to provide parents with their
child s national literacy and numeracy test results against the
national benchmarks. They are also required to provide reports to
all parents on their child s performance relative to their peer
group at the their school. Schools performance information is also
to be made publicly available by both government and non-government
education authorities.
Aggregated school performance information by
state and territory and school sector is currently provided through
MCEETYA. However, now the Rudd Government s proposal is to solicit
comparable individual school performance information to better
target resources where they are most needed. As the Minister
explains in her second reading speech:
to lift performance and direct new resources to
where they will make most difference, we need unprecedented rigour
and openness in the collection and publication of schools data.
we need a basis for fair, consistent, and
accurate analysis of how different schools are doing.
Accurate information on how students and
schools are performing tells teachers, principals, parents and
governments what needs to be done.
This means publishing the performance of
individual schools, along with information that puts that data in
its proper context. That context includes information about the
range of student backgrounds served by a school and its performance
when compared against other like schools serving similar student
populations.[32]
The Minister s regard for New York City s
school reporting system as a basis for the proposed school
reporting framework and for its Chancellor, Joel Klein, has
received much attention. According to the Minister:
We can learn from Klein's methodology of
comparing like schools with like-schools and then measuring the
differences in school results in order to spread best
practice.[33]
However, Minister Gillard has stopped short of
endorsing league tables, which rank and compare individual schools
performance, and A to F reporting which is a feature of the New
York system.[34]
The New York City system uses annual school
progress reports which compare students' performance from year to
year and compare schools within a group of 40 peer schools with
similar populations. Schools are then graded from A to D and F
based on student test results, the progress of students in a year
and the school environment as determined by attendance and a survey
of parents, students and teachers. Schools rated as A or B receive
financial rewards and are used to demonstrate good teaching
practices. Schools graded D or F are given assistance to improve
and if no progress is made the school is restructured, the
principal changed or it is closed.[35]
According to the latest results for 2007 08,
nearly 60 per cent of schools either improved their grade or
maintained an A-level from the previous year, 50 schools received a
D grade compared to 86 for the previous year, and the number of
F-rated schools dropped from 35 to 18 schools. Accompanying these
results were the results of a pilot school-based merit pay scheme,
whereby teachers at 89 of the 160 participating schools will
receive bonuses as the result of improved student test
scores.[36]
However, the New York City system has been
assessed by some as unreliable and producing misleading comparisons
of school performance and student progress. In his analysis of the
system, Trevor Cobbold, Convener of Save our Schools, concludes: It
is incoherent, can be used to produce league table[s], fails to
compare like with like and is statistically flawed. [37]
Australian Education Union (AEU) President,
Angelo Gavrielatos, has questioned Australia importing flawed
approaches from the US, a nation that has been consistently
outperformed by countries such as Finland which does not publicly
rank schools. He has also asked how the Minister will stop the
production of simplistic league tables .[38]
Concerns have also been raised about the
impact of school reporting on struggling schools. Professor Peter
Mortimore, a former director of the London-based Institute of
Education, anticipates, based on the experience in England, that
struggling schools will suffer from an exodus of students and
standards will drop:
The trouble is that this transparency has been
tested now in England for 20 years and actually the outcome is not
good at all. It's not an improved education system, it's actually a
very bad system
You end up with mania, or chasing the best
school which is what's happened in England, where parents are
obsessed with it and the league table is the thing that drives
them.
It can actually increase the gap between those
who do well and those who [do] badly, which is bad education.
Schools that take students from disadvantaged areas look bad in
league tables.[39]
While these concerns persist, there are
regular reminders about the inequality of school education
provision and outcomes. Most recently, from Brian Caldwell and
Jessica Harris, authors of a new book about best schools :
While 80 per cent of Australia's schools are
"among the best in the world", they say, there is "no question that
a number are struggling, especially when they are in remote
locations with large numbers of indigenous students or in
disadvantaged areas in urban settings".[40]
Meanwhile, Tasmania has already embarked on
ranked performance reporting of schools, becoming the first state
to publicly release ratings for every government school. The
individual school reports include information about students
literacy and numeracy achievement, student and staff attendance and
parent satisfaction.[41]
The establishment of ACARA has significant
implications for the role and functions of MCEETYA.[42]
Firstly, MCEETYA will be responsible for
framing ACARA s charter, which will set the work program for ACARA.
It will also approve the appointment of Board members, at the same
time ensuring that between them the members possess the range of
expertise to cover ACARA s functions. MCEETYA s oversight of ACARA
will be conducted by way of resolution.
Not only does ACARA bring new administrative
responsibilities for MCEETYA, but also some of its work will either
overlap or possibly take over work currently done by or through
MCEETYA. Certainly, MCEETYA will shed some to its current work to
ACARA as some of its funding will be diverted to the new body for
its work. However, it can only be conjectured at this stage how
this will happen. It is likely that MCEETYA will continue, in some
form, the collecting and reporting of aggregated data which is
currently provided through the National Report on Schooling in
Australia[43];
and it may be the case that ACARA will focus on reporting
individual school information. In any event, the data collected
under ACARA s auspices should feed into the former and the National
Report on Schooling continue in some form.
One question to be resolved is the future of
the Curriculum Corporation, which is a partnership of Australian
education ministers. It also provides curriculum and assessment
services, which includes managing NAPLAN.[44]
Back to top
The Explanatory Memorandum states that the
estimated financial impact of the Bill will be $37.2 million over
four years from 2008 09 to 2011 12.[45] This funding was originally provided
in the 2008 09 Budget for the National Curriculum Board ($20
million) and the National Schools Assessment Data Centre ($17.2
million).
The Minister advises in her second reading
speech that this commitment will be matched through existing
contributions made by the states and territories.[46] These payments are currently
provided to MCEETYA for assessment and reporting purposes.
This funding will be augmented by fees that
ACARA will be able to charge for its commercial services.
Clause 4 establishes the
constitutional basis for the Bill and sets out the heads of power
relied on to support the validity of the Bill. These include the
Commonwealth power to legislate with respect to:
- interstate and foreign trade and commerce (section 51(i))
- postal, telegraphic, telephonic, and other like services
(section 51(v))
- collection of statistics (section 51(xi))
- external affairs (section 51(xxix))
- the Territories (section 122) and
- the executive power of the Commonwealth (section 61).
This drafting approach has been adopted to
ensure that the Bill does not go beyond its power and to ensure
that the heads of power listed may be relied upon.
Clause 5 establishes ACARA as
a body corporate with a seal. It would operate as an independent
statutory authority under the Commonwealth Authorities and
Companies Act 1997 (CAC Act).
Clause 6 sets out ACARA s
functions, outlined at the beginning of this Bills Digest.
Subclause 7(1) requires ACARA
to operate in accordance with written directions from MCEETYA and
that, according to subclause 7(3), ACARA must also
undertake its functions and powers in accordance with this Bill,
the CAC Act and regulations, and with its Charter. According to the
definition in Clause 3, ACARA s Charter will be
determined by MCEETYA.
Clause 9 would allow ACARA to
charge fees for work done in performing its functions.
Subclause 9(2) clarifies the provision will apply
only to the extent that the fee is not
a tax. This clarification is necessary
because of constitutional requirements that require a separate law
to impose a tax.[47]
Clauses 11 to
20 provide for the establishment of ACARA s Board,
including its role, membership, appointment and remuneration of
members. Significant measures include:
- Clause 13 which mandates the
composition of the Board membership which will include the Chair
and Deputy Chair of the Board and eleven other members comprising:
- one member nominated by the Minister
- one member nominated by the National Catholic Education
Commission and representing Catholic systemic schools
- one member nominated by the Independent Schools Council of
Australia and
- eight members, each nominated by their respective state and
territory education minister and representing government education
systems.
- proposed paragraph 14(2)(a)
which requires that the appointment of members must be approved by
MCEETYA
- proposed paragraph 14(2)(b)
which requires that MCEETYA agrees that any appointment ensures
that the members of the Board collectively possess an appropriate
balance of professional expertise in:
- matters relating to school curriculum
- school assessment and data management
- analysis and reporting in relation to school performance
- financial and commercial maters in relation to the management
of educational organisations and
- corporate governance.
- proposed paragraph 14(5)(b)
which stipulates that a person cannot be appointed as a member for
longer than six years in total and
- Clause 20 which enables the
Minister to set any other membership terms and conditions not
covered by the Act.
Clauses 21 and
22 govern meeting procedures and decision making
procedures. Clause 22 allows for decision making
outside of meetings.
Clauses 23 to
34 govern the role and appointment of the Chief
Executive Officer (CEO) and allow for the appointment of staff.
Under Clause 25, the CEO is to be appointed by the
Board by written instrument, after consultation with the Minister.
Subclause 25(3) stipulates that the CEO cannot
hold office for longer than three years and subclause
25(4) requires that the CEO not be a Board member.
Clauses 35 and
36 provide for the establishment of committees.
The provisions include subclause 35(2) which
allows for committees to be comprised only of board members, only
of persons who are not Board members or a mixture of the two.
Clause 42 requires that any
direction to ACARA by MCEETYA must be by means of a resolution by
MCEETYA.
Clause 44 requires that a
review of ACARA be conducted six years after its commencement.
Back to top
Concluding comments
The Bill presents the latest instalment of the
Government s package of reforms for school education, albeit mostly
a repackaging of two earlier Budget measures which will now be
combined in the one authority under the combined auspices of the
Australian and state and territory governments though MCEETYA.
Still to come is the National Education Agreement for the provision
of Australian Government funding for government schools and the
National Partnerships covering teacher quality, raising achievement
in disadvantaged school communities and improving literacy and
numeracy levels.[48]
However, the Bill provides only the broad
framework within which the development of the national curriculum,
collection and analysis of student assessment data and the
reporting of school performance will occur. There is considerable
work to be done in not only developing and implementing the
national curriculum and determining the methodology for collecting,
reporting and comparing student and school performance, but also in
achieving stakeholder consensus about these matters.
Still remaining and underpinning the success
of the goals towards which the Bill s main measures are directed
that of raising the educational performance of all students
regardless of where they are located and their socioeconomic
background are the critical issues of teacher supply and teacher
quality.
It is well accepted, and supported by
research, that teacher quality is the paramount factor influencing
student outcomes. Typical of this research is that conducted by
Michael Barber, former adviser to British Prime Minister, Tony
Blair. His research into why the world s best-performing school
systems outdo other school systems, concluded the three most
important factors were: getting the right people to become
teachers, developing them into effective instructors and ensuring
they deliver consistently for every child. Ultimately, the quality
of an education system cannot exceed the quality of its teachers
.[49]
Professor Barry McGraw, Chair of the National
Curriculum Board, has been reported as saying that the new
curriculum will have to be backed up by a surety that there will be
enough properly trained teachers to teach the revamped
subjects:
There will be some quite interesting
differences proposed in the curriculum, so there's an important
professional development activity that needs to go on. It will be
partly about professional development, and it will be partly about
recruitment.[50]
The forthcoming National Partnership on
Quality Teaching and how it will address these issues will
therefore be of great interest.
Back to top
Marilyn Harrington
19 November 2008
Bills Digest Service
Parliamentary Library
© Commonwealth of Australia
This work is copyright. Except to the extent of uses permitted
by the Copyright Act 1968, no person may reproduce or transmit any
part of this work by any process without the prior written consent
of the Parliamentary Librarian. This requirement does not apply to
members of the Parliament of Australia acting in the course of
their official duties.
This work has been prepared to support the work of the Australian
Parliament using information available at the time of production.
The views expressed do not reflect an official position of the
Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal
opinion.
Feedback is welcome and may be provided to: web.library@aph.gov.au. Any
concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary
Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the
contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff.
To access this service, clients may contact the author or the
Library’s Central Entry Point for referral.
Back to top