Who – or what – is driving the curriculum bus?

Ms Jodie Doble Pakenham Secondary College Pakenham, Victoria, Australia

The school is nestled between traditional country Victoria and the more modern metropolitan areas of the State. It stands on the main arterial access between the two areas, with the rapidly growing south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne encroaching on its boarders and into its culture. Due to the expansion of suburban housing within the government-approved growth corridor, the school has seen a dramatic rise in the provision for Educational Maintenance Allowance (EMA) within the social mix of the school. At the same time, lush fields and bush land become thriving new housing estates and independent villages within the township itself.

Although not exhaustive, initial research indicates that there is a close link between student socioeconomic background and student achievement. Gelsthorpe and West-Burnham (2003) identify social disadvantage as an explanation for poor achievement. This concept was further explored by Diane McClellan and Lillian Katz’s research, which suggested that social and emotional adaptation and a child’s sense of citizenship impacts on their acceptance and ability to learn. Socioeconomic influences on a child’s academic achievement is also supported by Sandra Mahar and Maddy Harford, in their research on human learning.

‘Further, acknowledgment that students’ academic and cognitive development is shaped through peer and social relationships and out of class experiences, as well as formal academic experiences'
(Mahar, Harford, 2005)

The association between socioeconomic circumstances and student performance is also emerging as a clear indication in performance within the study school’s diagnostic data. A similar pattern is also reflected in the results of the Victorian Department of Education’s state-wide comparison data.

This evidence is also seen in the state-wide Achievement Improvement Monitor (AIM) tests and data. The observable results in both of these documents would place the school as underachieving in maths and English. However, looking closely at the cohort of student intake, students are achieving, but not when analysed next to their peers across the State.

The EMA proportion for each given year is a direct result of the intake of new students in each year, with significant percentage increase from 2000 with the initial development of the new growth corridor.

The link between students’ socioeconomic background and their achievement is well documented and is the basis of the new resource allocation model for school funding. While there are a significant number of students that would allow is to make valid judgement of AIM attainment, the number of years that the data has been collected is insufficient to conclude any specific trends. However, an initial ‘value’ judgement on the available data suggests that the most likely conclusion regarding the intake of students at the secondary college level is that, in order to reach a comparative level of education in line with state figures, the school will require more resources. How this resourcing will be allocated, and under what model, will depend upon a number of variants. These include the student cohort, teaching staff, the curriculum model adopted and the school’s targets and goals, based on the information and analysis of data.
The historic population of the area viewed the land, and working the land, as more important than academia. It was more important to gain a profession for life, a trade, stability and family security than certificates of educational achievement.

With the growth of the population as a result of the current housing program, and the implementation of self-sustaining industrial and economic programs, the school is beginning to see a change in the socioeconomic trends.

Families and parents are taking a more justified and informed interest in the school and its pedagogy. This is seen clearly in the parental attitudes survey conducted by the then Department of Education and Training (now the Department of Education) over the past three years.

One area of recorded data within the school is that of teacher and student evaluations. This data has been collected under Middle Years Pedagogical Research and Development (MYPRAD) and the Department of Education and Training data, in the school’s diagnostic surveys. Both of these show early signs that underachievement has pedagogical aspects beyond the socioeconomic cohort of the school.

Student’s need to feel valued, and they need to feel that they have ownership of their learning. It is also understood through the Middle Years of Schooling research that students learn through realistic and relevant opportunities. This research is well documented and clear in the MYPRAD literature, as well as on the Department of Education and Training’s website Sofweb (under the ‘Middle Years Matters’ links and the ‘Middle Years Reform Program’ (MYRP).

Hill and Russell’s (2000) research, as well as the Victorian Schools Innovation Commission’s research report investigating the restructuring of year 9, also supports this view.

Perhaps pedagogy and curriculum engagement are the more likely reasons for the school’s underachievement?

‘Research indicates that social and emotional competence is integral to successful learning and that students are therefore most likely to succeed within a supportive and engaging environment that links learning to wellbeing.’
(Mahar, S & Hardford, M, 2004)

Eva Cox, an Australian social scientist, develops this idea in her paper ‘Creating socially competent and ethical schools’, by exploring aspects of social competence and learning. It is understood that she believes that success in educational settings is not about students achieving high scores and formal assessment credits, but rather that success is found is sociability and self-esteem. If we are to follow Cox’s model, then this would tie in both aspects of a child’s life – socioeconomic influences and engagement through valuing a child’s ability to learn through the curriculum.

The new Victorian Education Learning Standards (VELS), which is replacing the former curriculum standards, shows depth. VELS places high importance on interpersonal skills, found as citizenship and integrative strands within the curriculum. These strands unpack the need for teachers to ensure that ‘thinking’ theories, such as Gardiner and Blooms, are delivered in the classroom through the curriculum model.

Ron Ritchhart (2006) considers these theories, exploring how thinking can be fully embedded into all areas of teaching and learning, in work through the Project Zero research. The integrative strands also weave into the curriculum information, communication and technology, creativity, design and technology and communication. It is expected that aspects of civics and citizenship, as well as interpersonal development, will also weave through pedagogical practice.

Looking back at the secondary schools data and reading into the sociability and intrapersonal skills necessary for a student to succeed, the school’s pedagogical practices could possibly be in need for change. A more challenging and rigorous approach to curriculum planning and documentation may be needed. Further discussions into this aspect of student learning are identified and explored through the work of Charlton, Hannan, Herrick, Landy and Mahar (2005).

‘Socio-cultural theory has therefore been an important catalyst for re-thinking curriculum and pedagogy. These developments are in line with a general worldwide trend in education.’
(Charlton, Hannan, Herrick, Landy & Mahar, 2005)

Research shows that greater participation in meaningful and realistic education not only engages the student but also enables learning to take place. This would satisfy the findings of Mahar, Hardford, Cox, Katz and McLellan. Griffin (2002), along with Lewis (2000), who also supports this case by discussing at length curriculum policy, social impact and the need for partnership in practice when developing new curricular practices. Gentilucci (2004), interestingly enough, explores learning through engagement as a child-centred focus, one which can empower the student to challenge and seek out their own interest through the curriculum models provided by the teachers.

‘Students are powerful determiners of the learning that occurs in the classroom.’
(Gentilucci, 2004)

When discussing this further with school leaders, one question comes to mind: ‘What do we mean by academic engagement?’ Academic and student engagement are areas that have been covered in huge numbers of in-depth studies and papers, from all around the world. As a school, it was felt that ‘engagement’ needed to be fully unpacked and understood, if indeed, that was the key pedagogical area in need of improvement. As Caitlin, Lewan and Perigon (1999) discussed in their research:

‘Engagement is difficult to define operationally, but we know it when we see it’.
(Caitlin, Lewan and Perigon, 1999)

I would actually disagree with this statement and side, with caution, with the numerous authors who state that they know what student engagement is. The State of Queensland’s Department of Education and the Arts, for example, provides a statement in the New Basics project (2003) when academic engagement is discussed:

‘On- task behaviours that signal a serious psychological investment in class work; these include attentiveness, doing the assigned work, and showing enthusiasm for the work.’
(State of Queensland, Department of Education, 2003)

Yorks and Follo (1993) also support this view, in the paper they presented to the Department of Education:

‘Engaged time is that portion of the allocated time during which the child is actually working or paying attention’.
(Yorks, Follo, 1993)

Karen Osterman (2000) fully explores student engagement in her paper, ‘Students’ need for belonging in the school community’. She delves into a range of topics, including academic attitudes, beliefs and behaviours, and draws conclusive patterns in recognising achievement, social belonging and engagement as fundamental to student’s ownership of school. 

Time on task is one measure that teachers often use when trying to assess student engagement. Like many, academic and cognitive engagement is an area of concern within the school, and an area that is rarely understood.Reflecting upon all that has been discussed, and after a range of meetings with the principal class, leadership team and teaching staff, the focus school in question has became aware of the need to develop an holistic approach to curriculum development and planning. The middle years of schooling was targeted, as it was indicated by the data collected this was the main area of disengagement and underachievement.

Over the past few years, there has been a renewed interest in the provision made for education and learning in early adolescence, particularly in the wake of findings from MYPRAD, as well as from the Victoria Quality Schools Project (VQSP), and the research work carried out by the Innovations and Excellence branch of the Department of Education and Training, in Victoria, Australia.

Research shows that one of the most frequent comments made by middle years students is that education is ‘boring’. This comment reflects students’ desire for a more interesting approach to teaching and learning, one that is more realistic and more exciting. In the world of multimedia and ‘instant’ everything, pedagogy is in need of a very serious shake-up.

‘The research tells us that many students are not engaged in their learning because, too often, the tasks they are given lack challenge and intellectual demands.’
(State Government of Victoria, DE&T 2003)

The realisation of the task ahead for the school is becoming more apparent. New pathways, concepts and models are being discussed and analysed critically, with implementation of change in its early stages. This, in turn, has lead to the need and development of a new approach to curriculum design and implementation. The ongoing project will focus on middle years students, exploring issues of curricular models, teaching and learning pedagogy and exactly how the school interprets ‘engagement’.

References

Caitlin, KS Lewan, Perignon, BJ (1999). ‘Increasing Student Engagement through Goal Setting, Cooperative Learning & Student Choice’. Master’s Action Research Project, Saint Xavier University and IRI/Skylight. Chicago, Illinois. USA
Carr-Gregg, M (2001). ‘Generation Next – the health and welfare of middle adolescents in 2001’. Keynote presentation at the Middle Years of Schooling Association 2001 conference in Brisbane, Australia. See: www.mysa.org.au and www.michaelcarr-gregg.com
Charlton, S, Hannan, B, Herrick, C, Landy, M & Mahar, S (2005). Research on learning: implications for teaching. Department of Education and Training. Victoria, Australia. 2005.
Department of Education and Training (2003). Blueprint for government schools. Victoria, Australia.
Department of Education and Training (2004). Innovation in the middle years. State Government of Victoria, Australia.
Department of Education and Training (2003). Middle years matters: pedagogy. State Government of Victoria, Australia.
Department of Education and Training (2003). New Basics. Productive pedagogies, rich tasks. State of Queensland, Australia.
Department for Education and Skills (2002). ‘Best practice, raising standards in middle schools: National Literacy Strategy: case studies’. UK. See: www.standards.dfes.gov.uk
Gelsthorpe, T, West-Burnham, J (2003). Educational leadership and the community: strategies for school improvement through community engagement. Pearson Education Limited.
Gentilucci, JL ‘Improving School Learning: The School Perspective’. In The Educational Forum, Volume 68, Winter 2004.
Griffin, Colin (2002). ‘Lifelong Learning: Policy, Strategy and Culture’. Colloquium Paper, University of Surrey. UK.
Hill, PW, Russel, J (2000). Systemic, whole-school reform of the middle years of schooling. Centre for Applied Educational Research. University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Howard, BC (1996). ‘Cognitive Engagement in Cooperative Learning’. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Educational Research Association. Boston, MA. USA.
Katz, L, McLellan, D (1997). Fostering children’s social competence: the teacher’s role. National Association for the Education of Young Children, Washington, USA.
Lewis, G (2000). Rethinking social policy. Sage Publications. London. UK.
Mahar, S, Harford, M (2004). ‘The importance of learning in the knowledge economy’. Background paper. Office of Learning and Teaching. Department of Education and Training, Victoria, Australia.
Osterman, KF (2000). ‘Students’ need for belonging in the school community’. In Review of educational research. Fall 2000; 70, 3; Academic Research Library. Hofstra University. USA.
Osterman, KF (2000). ‘Students’ need for belonging in the School Community’. Review of educational research. Fall, Vol. 70, No. 3, pp. 323-367.
Ritchhart, R (2006). Project Zero. Harvard Graduate School of Education. See: www.pz.harvard.edu
Ritchhart, R, Perkins, D (2006). Cultures of thinking. Project Zero, Harvard Graduate School of Education, Harvard. USA. See: www.pz.harvard.edu/PLs/RR.htm
Rowe, KJ (2004). The importance of teaching. Australian Council for Educational Research. Sponsored by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economics and Social Research, Australian and Faculty of Education at the University of Melbourne. Australia.
Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (2004). Victorian Curriculum Reform 2004 Consultation Paper. ‘A Framework of ‘Essential Learning’. Victoria, Australia.
Yorks, M, Follo, EJ (1993). ‘Engagement rates during thematic and traditional instruction’. Action Research presented to the Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Department of Education. USA.