The Routledge Handbook of Language Education Curriculum Design

Peter Mickan, Ilona Wallace, Peter Mickan, Ilona Wallace

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9781032474885
• eBook ISBN: 9781317338895
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Linguistics
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Curriculum design options cover a continuum from regional and school-based programs to national and international frameworks. How does policy speak to practice? What have teacher-researchers discovered through in-classroom studies? Where do you begin to describe or measure 'effective' language education curriculum design?

The Routledge Handbook of Language Education Curriculum Design presents a comprehensive collection of essays on these issues by 31 established practitioners and new researchers. Informed by experienced scholarship and fresh studies, this handbook shares international perspectives on language education from policy and curriculum to teacher training and future directions.

The handbook addresses language education curriculum design across five sections:

• Language curriculum design: perspectives, policies and practices
• Designs across the curriculum
• Curriculum designs in language education
• Curriculum resources, evaluation and assessment
• Teacher education, research and future projects

With contributions from Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, Switzerland, Timor-Leste and more, the handbook represents the breadth of research into and the global implications for sound language education curriculum design. It considers equally the needs of students and policy makers from urban metropolises and remote communities. It is designed to reinvigorate discussions about education policy, curriculum management and the role of teacher-researchers.

Section 1
Language Curriculum Design

Perspectives, Policies and Practices

2
Freedom and Authority , Success and Failure in Australian Education

Disruptive Designs in Curriculum Policy and Practice

Peter Mickan and Ilona Wallace

Introduction

In this chapter, we discuss the potential impact of educational policy on curriculum practices. The chapter is not an evaluation of the impact of contrasting policies on education. The evaluation of significant policy and curriculum changes is technically problematic because the consequences and impact of curriculum change are not evident in the short term. A fundamental evaluation of curriculum implementation requires documentation over at least the years of compulsory schooling and some years beyond in order to obtain evidence for the impact of educational practices on students’ lives. At the same time, curriculum discussions are necessary for consideration of the potential impact of different policies and curriculum designs on teachers and children, taking into account the formative role of compulsory years of schooling. The following is a preliminary discussion for situating curriculum design in the context of policy. The educational outcomes of the disruptive policies discussed in this chapter are not amenable to objective evaluation. Curriculum research is difficult to carry out, as policies change and a lack of documentation makes it difficult to compare educational outcomes without studies of large cohorts of students across different levels of schooling. The case of devolution of authority in South Australia has not been extensively documented, but some consequences of the implementation are suggested in this chapter. In the alternative case of centralisation of curriculum and school testing, there are some detailed reports but not comprehensive documentation. The discussion of the two cases in this chapter situates language education curriculum in the wider context of organisational policy.

The Context

In this chapter, we discuss contrasting Australian cases of policy and the potential impact on curriculum practices. The cases illustrate the disruption of system-level decisions on curriculum design and implementation. The first case study is of the implementation of the policy document Freedom and Authority released to schools by the Director-General of Education in South Australia in 1970 (Appendix 1). This document devolved curriculum decision-making to school principals. The second case study examines the influence of a policy of centralising curriculum management since 2008 in a national curriculum and assessment scheme. The chapter reviews consequences of contrasting policies on educational practices in systems and schools. The review relates to the present context of national and international reports on curriculum and testing, which document declining literacy and numeracy standards in Australian education. The documentation suggests that, according to testing scores, literacy and numeracy achievements in Australian schools have declined and this has occurred over a period of ten years. The period corresponds to the implementation of a national curriculum and the application of a national testing system. The chapter considers the influence on curriculum, on literacy and numeracy instruction and on outcomes in Australian schools.

The issue of educational standards is serious for a nation with a small population like Australia, which is attempting to achieve international status as a global leader in education (Department of Education and Training 2018). The reported decline in standards has taken place in a period of exceptional economic prosperity, social stability and investment in education intended to reduce social inequality and advance children’s literacy and numeracy achievements. Australia is a federation and, under the federal system of governance, each state and territory has authority over and responsibility for education. In the state education system, curriculum directorates oversee policies and practices, evaluate programs, select teachers, develop resources and manage assessment. Educational managers have direct influence on schools with involvement in teacher selection, in the preparation of curriculum guidelines and assessment and in the evaluation of the experiences of teachers and children. Since the middle of the 20th century, and specifically in the past ten years, there has been increasing involvement of a federal department of education in schooling through funding of teachers in private and public schools and through the allocation of resources to selected areas of educational disadvantage.

Since 2008, state and federal ministers of education have negotiated a centrally managed national curriculum and assessment procedure, with the comparison of schools’ achievements published in national league tables. This is a disruption of curriculum practices managed by state education departments and a monumental shift in educational policy and practice. The contrasting case studies examine factors in the disruption of decision-making—from a central state department to school principals and from states to a nationally managed curriculum and assessment system. The Australian perspective gives insights into the tensions between local and central responsibility in curriculum design and implementation and into the potential consequences for the quality of teaching stemming from local—compared with centralised—decision-making. What is of particular interest in Australia is that literacy and numeracy standards have either declined or not risen during the period of direct national involvement in curriculum since 2008. After ten years of centralisation, it is important to reflect on the system changes and to consider factors that stand out as influential over the past decade with the increase of federal involvement in curriculum, assessment and reporting.

Curriculum Disruption in the South Australian Education Department

In 1970, the Director-General of Education disrupted curriculum management procedures in South Australian schools with the release to school principals of a memorandum, entitled the Freedom and Authority Memorandum (Jones 1970; Appendix 1). It introduced a dramatic change from a centrally directed curriculum model to a system of local school decision-making. It triggered administrative changes with direct effects on curriculum processes from policy to classroom practice. It set in train the need for school community consultation, curriculum negotiation and renewal and teachers’ professional development. The purpose of this section is to discuss consequences for policy and practice triggered by the promulgation of the memorandum, which delegated power over the management of schools to principals, entrusting curriculum decisions to schools and teachers. Through this document, principals gained leadership authority over school organisation, curriculum and pedagogy.

Jones (1978), in a study of the impact of the Freedom and Authority Memorandum, concluded that the tenor of policy after the memo was toward openness, school-based decision-making, school-based curriculum, community involvement, cooperation in change, professional development and trust. In another study of the memorandum, Kaminsky (1981, p. 188) notes that ‘schools were granted relief from the strictures of teacher assessments, rigid and inflexible attendance procedures, excessive examinations, restraints on physical movement, and gag-rules that forestalled professional criticism of educational practices’. Thomson (2017, p. 61), in a study of school leadership at the time, writes that, through the memorandum, ‘head teachers had the legitimate power to make a number of important decisions about their schools—school rules, how curriculum guidelines were to be implemented and organisational and school ethos issues, including student groupings, setting and streaming, length of school day and timetables’. Principals had agency to act in the interests of their school communities. Thomson (ibid.) writes they had ‘autonomy from interference from central authorities in order to have the autonomy necessary for running their schools’. This structural and policy change set up conditions for school communities to be involved in curriculum processes of evaluation, negotiation and development and for teachers in collaboration with colleagues to focus on and respond to their students’ needs by determining content and teaching approaches.

The shift in responsibility for curriculum management from state system to school principals and teachers was accompanied by expansion of professional support services for teachers. The support services comprised appointment of subject-specific advisers, writing and publication of curriculum guidelines and resources and funding for teacher in-service programs. Teachers’ centres (Wattle Park Teachers Centre and The Languages and Multicultural Centre) were designated sites for building curriculum expertise and for subject-specific curriculum teams and advisers to develop curriculum guidelines, to conduct professional development activities and research and to provide advice to teachers. Curriculum writing teams and a research unit developed local expertise by reviewing international educational reports, by comparing and sharing initiatives with other Australian education departments in a competitive process and by documenting effective practices in local schools. Subject-specific advisers worked with teachers in schools, prepared teaching materials and assisted teachers’ investigations of teaching practices. Subject-specific teachers trialled and evaluated curriculum guidelines. The processes of consultation built local expertise in the analysis of children’s learning, which was applied in development of resources across the curriculum and in teacher education. The validity of the curriculum was achieved through consultation, research, trialling of materials in reference groups and evaluation of the daily experiences of children working under the direction of their teachers.

The consultative processes directly influenced teachers’ work, from participation in curriculum development to involvement in planning and negotiating the curriculum (Boomer 1992). The direct links between curriculum writers and teachers created conditions for successful application in classrooms and, as Jones (1978) claimed, added to the professional status of teachers. Teachers’ involvement in curriculum processes gave them agency to prepare and negotiate programs of work relevant to children and their communities, to undertake further studies and to apply their individual expertise to respond to children’s needs and local community interests.

At the time, Australian educators participated in international discussions and research into the role of language in learning. They engaged in international discussions about language learning with influential international researchers (Barnes 1969, 1976; Holt 1970; Halliday 1973; Heath 1983). Teachers’ orientation to professional learning fostered classroom research and inquiry into their own practices as a model for building teachers’ knowledge and skills and for implementing change (Burton & Mickan 1993a, 1993b). The state Language and Learning Project and the national Language Development Project organised seminars for teachers’ knowledge-building with time release to attend in-service programs and to carry out investigations into classroom teaching. The combination of teachers’ insights gained through professional development, together with the engagement of national and international collaborators, advanced understanding of children’s learning, built local expertise and leadership and encouraged teachers to take initiatives and pursue interests in research.

Teachers’ curriculum expertise fostered through the devolution of decision-making had longer-term outcomes in education in response to identified cultural priorities and to the changing profiles of children. Projects developed in the 1980s included the ESL in the Mainstream project, which supported teachers working with new arrivals learning English as an additional language. In the program, teachers took part in a series of knowledge-building workshops followed by the investigation and documentation of their own teaching as information for discussion in workshops. The introduction in 1985 of the policy to teach languages other than English in primary schools responded to the specific needs of Khmer and Vietnamese children of refugees. Seconded teachers prepared curriculum documents and provided advice in schools for instruction in French, German, Greek, Indonesian, Italian and Vietnamese. In the Languages Inservice Project for Teachers (1988–1990, Languages and Multicultural Centre 1990), teachers attended seminars on language learning and teaching and were supported to undertake working in networks and reporting their findings in publications (Burton & Mickan 1993a, 1993b). The theoretically informed and school-based approach to professional development has continued to influence teachers and teacher educators’ involvement in classroom research informed by functional linguistics (Custance et al. 2017; Mickan et al. 2006; Mickan & Lopez 2017; Shum & Mickan 2018). Teachers’ engagement in curriculum processes built their expertise and inspired personal involvement, initiative and responsibility. These processes contrast with teachers’ enactment of a national curriculum. The following section examines the alternative case and discusses the potentially disruptive effects of national curriculum and testing on teachers’ work, on children’s learning and on literacy and numeracy standards.

National Curriculum

A national curriculum and tests managed by a federal authority, which compares the literacy and numeracy performances of schools and children, is a radical change from a decentralised, state curriculum. State ministers of education authorised the federal government’s intervention in curriculum with the introduction of a national testing system in 2008 and an agreement on a national curriculum in 2012. The decisions have consequences for teachers’ professionalism and teaching.

In the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians (Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs 2008), state and territory ministers of education delegated to the federal education department responsibility for a national curriculum, national testing (National Assessment Program–Literacy and Numeracy, NAPLAN) and management of a national league table comparing schools’ and children’s literacy and numeracy scores. Curriculum and testing responsibilities were assigned to the ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Contributors
• Acknowledgements
• Table of abbreviations
• Introduction
• Section 1 Language Curriculum Design
• Section 2 Designs Across the Curriculum
• Section 3 Curriculum Designs in Language Education
• Section 4 Curriculum Resources, Evaluation and Assessment
• Section 5 Teacher Education, Research and Future Projects
• Conclusion
• Index