curriculum and assessment

a 'typical learning' progression?

At the time that ‘outcomes’ based curriculum was first introduced in Australia, it was claimed that the subject profiles described ‘the progression of learning typically achieved by students during the compulsory years of schools (Years 1-10) in each of the areas of learning’ (see A Statement on English for Australian Schools, Carlton: Curriculum Corporation, 1994, p.iii). Although the statement then acknowledged the linguistic diversity of Australian communities, and the importance of ‘respecting students’ home languages’, it also asserted that ‘English teachers have a responsibility to teach the forms and usages generally accepted in Australian English’, claiming that ‘the development of increasing proficiency in the uses of standard Australian English should be treated as an extension of, and an addition to, a student’s home language’(p.4) .

How do you react to these claims? Can a notion of ‘typical’ learning progression meaningfully capture the diversity of the communities that constitute Australian society? Is it possible to ‘respect’ students’ home languages, while also accepting the ‘responsibility’ to teach standard Australian English? Is standard Australian English an ‘extension’ of a student’s home language? Or do students sometimes experience a tension between their community literacy practices and the literacy practices in which they are expected to engage at school? How can we as English teachers help them resolve this tension?

Gunther Kress describes curriculum as a ‘design’ for the future. [See Kress, G. (1995) Writing the future: English and the making of a culture of innovation, NATE: Sheffield.] This view of English curriculum not only reflects a theory of language and learning; it also makes a statement about the kind of people we would like our students to become. Kress argues that it is vital that English teachers (indeed, all teachers, in their own fields) ought to critically evaluate existing English curriculum with both these dimensions in mind.

Does the existing English curriculum in your particular setting do justice to the complexities of language and learning? How well does it prepare students to meet the challenges of the future? Does it appear to match the complexities of postmodern society? Does it respond in any productive way to the tensions which we are currently experiencing between our local communities and globalising economic trends? How well does existing English curriculum respond to the expectations and values of our students?

Victorian readers of this website should consider these questions with respect to the recently released 'Progression Points' for students in English (DE&T, 2006). Click here:



	"The subtext of our literary education was the continuance of our moral education. It was organised around the premise that the complex world of personal relationships was our primary focus and interest, and fundamental to our developing feminine identity. It was stifling, and it did not for me open up the worlds.” SS Pre-service teacher (’05)