NSW curriculum reform a success, but will other ministers follow?

The NSW government has thrown down the gauntlet to the rest of the nation on education policy reform. It’s an opportunity for counterparts to lift their achievements.

There were two major education developments last week that deserve credit. First, the long-awaited launch of the revised NSW state curriculum makes what teachers are expected to teach clearer, and is more supportive of effective teaching practice. Add to this NSW Education Minister Prue Car’s call to better identify children who might struggle with maths early in school.

These are profound policy developments for a portfolio that too often has failed to top the class. Although education ministers often talk a big game, their policy decisions score poorly with outcomes.

Most policy attention is dedicated to resourcing — endlessly increasing funding levels, smaller classes, new and upgraded physical infrastructure of schools, promises to hire more teachers and to up pay and conditions.

The other tiresome trope is to undermine the testing regime — debating the use of NAPLAN as a national benchmark and the ATAR as the method for making university-entry decisions.

Although these are generally high priorities for the union movement and out-of-touch education academics, they are not the core of what many teachers really want or need most. Nor do they do much to improve student performance.

By focusing on the right policy directions on curriculum and early screening, education ministers can lift outcomes.

Curriculum reform is regularly on policymakers’ wish lists, but it can be messy, requires compromise with the sector, and takes a long time to make an impact. The previous federal government’s national curriculum review became encumbered by predictable history and culture war debates.

Following the first draft prepared by the Australian Curriculum and Assessment Authority, the then minister graded it a C, demanding it needed to be A+. The resulting national curriculum (approved in 2022) has since received generally mixed reviews.

The NSW curriculum review hasn’t been without incident. Beginning in 2018, it was intended to “tailor the national education reform agenda” but instead produced some radical proposals that the then government ultimately distanced itself from. This included plans for an “untimed curriculum”, emphasis on so-called “project-based” learning, and going soft on the use of the ATAR.

Despite the challenges, policy commitment on curriculum is worth the effort, because it can meaningfully improve the work of teachers. The work of the NSW Education Standards Authority in redirecting and improving the curriculum review is commendable.

Previous policy favoured a flexible approach to the curriculum where teachers are left to interpret and adapt content. But there’s now greater emphasis toward explicit and consistent definitions and guidance for what students should know and how teachers can best ensure they’re succeeding. This ‘knowledge-rich’ approach is consistent with the world’s best and follows the recent path from English school system reformers.

Arguably, even more promising is the commitment toward early numeracy screening.

Screening in school is the first line of defence in the educational safety net. Identifying children at risk early is the best chance of limiting educational disadvantage.

Although NAPLAN is a valuable marker of overall student achievement and progress, it’s not sufficient to provide the early intervention many children need. After all, it’s too late (starting in Year 3) and too broad (on its own) for this purpose.

Over recent years the adoption of phonics screening checks — a quick but informative early reading assessment in Year 1 — across most Australian states is showing the benefit for schools, students, and parents. But there is not yet an equivalent tool for numeracy widely used in Australian schools.

Last year, an independent review to the federal government highlighted this gap. And recent CIS research showed how this can be addressed by focusing on key foundational early numeracy skills that can provide an accurate and efficient indicator of whether children are on track or at risk.

A universal Year 1 numeracy screening tool would be a significant boost for schools that often face challenges in supporting children with maths — particularly because there are fewer available resources for teachers in numeracy compared to literacy. Although schools do the best with what they have, many concede there is room to improve maths teaching and testing in the early years.

It’s no secret that Australia’s education outcomes have generally disappointed in recent years.

On some measures, such as the OECD-run Program for International Student Assessment, Australian students have suffered among the steepest and most consistent declines in achievement.

On others, such as our NAPLAN tests, students’ results have largely been flat. Policymakers rarely get graded down (or up on occasion) for their role here. But the successes and failures of education ministers are consequential for the outcomes of the education system.

Australia’s education ministers have generally scored a mixed report card, but the nation would benefit greatly from leadership on policy that can lift outcomes. Will other Australian education ministers rise to this challenge?

Glenn Fahey is education program director at the Centre for independent Studies.

Photo by Katerina Holmes.