Equity, curriculum form and state differences in Australian senior secondary education

Kate O’Connor, Philip Roberts, Elisa Di Gregorio
{"title":"Equity, curriculum form and state differences in Australian senior secondary education","authors":"Kate O’Connor, Philip Roberts, Elisa Di Gregorio","doi":"10.1007/s13384-024-00752-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This article considers differences and similarities in curriculum form between the senior secondary certificates offered across Australia, drawing on three different understandings of curriculum form, one focused on the grid or map of the curriculum and its core categories and levels of specification, one on the cultural assumptions underpinning significant policy reforms, and one on the internal relations between curriculum contents and the divisions evident in the curriculum assigned to particular groups of students. It highlights differences between these perspectives and the value of engaging them collectively to understand the various senior secondary systems operating across Australia, how they have changed over time and their equity implications. It shows that the certificates continue to be different in multiple ways despite decades of standardising reform but that shifts have occurred within states once defined as progressive, with practices changing to align with larger states’ conservative agendas. The differences which do continue are also shown to be in some respects arbitrary, with common patterns evident in relation to the knowledges valued and the distinctions enforced between university and non-university pathways which are obfuscated by the highly complex rules and requirements evident in each jurisdiction. Further research and analysis considering the enactment of these requirements within schools is needed to better understand the equity implications of different requirements and approaches and to think about what kind of curriculum form might be needed to enable an equitable educational system in Australia.</p>","PeriodicalId":501129,"journal":{"name":"The Australian Educational Researcher","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Australian Educational Researcher","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-024-00752-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article considers differences and similarities in curriculum form between the senior secondary certificates offered across Australia, drawing on three different understandings of curriculum form, one focused on the grid or map of the curriculum and its core categories and levels of specification, one on the cultural assumptions underpinning significant policy reforms, and one on the internal relations between curriculum contents and the divisions evident in the curriculum assigned to particular groups of students. It highlights differences between these perspectives and the value of engaging them collectively to understand the various senior secondary systems operating across Australia, how they have changed over time and their equity implications. It shows that the certificates continue to be different in multiple ways despite decades of standardising reform but that shifts have occurred within states once defined as progressive, with practices changing to align with larger states’ conservative agendas. The differences which do continue are also shown to be in some respects arbitrary, with common patterns evident in relation to the knowledges valued and the distinctions enforced between university and non-university pathways which are obfuscated by the highly complex rules and requirements evident in each jurisdiction. Further research and analysis considering the enactment of these requirements within schools is needed to better understand the equity implications of different requirements and approaches and to think about what kind of curriculum form might be needed to enable an equitable educational system in Australia.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
澳大利亚高中教育的公平、课程形式和州际差异
本文从对课程形式的三种不同理解出发,探讨了澳大利亚各地高中证书课程形式的异同,其中一种理解侧重于课程的网格或地图及其核心类别和规格水平,一种理解侧重于支撑重大政策改革的文化假设,一种理解侧重于课程内容之间的内部关系以及分配给特定学生群体的课程中的明显划分。报告强调了这些视角之间的差异,以及将这些视角结合起来以了解澳大利亚各种高中制度的价值,它们是如何随着时间的推移而变化的,以及它们对公平的影响。报告显示,尽管经过数十年的标准化改革,这些证书在多个方面仍然存在差异,但曾经被定义为进步的州内部也发生了变化,其做法发生了改变,以便与较大州的保守议程保持一致。在某些方面,持续存在的差异也被证明是任意的,在所重视的知识以及大学和非大学途径之间的区别方面,有明显的共同模式,而在每个司法管辖区,这些模式都被非常复杂的规则和要求所混淆。为了更好地理解不同的要求和方法对公平的影响,并思考在澳大利亚建立一个公平的教育体系可能需要什么样的课程形式,我们需要对这些要求在学校内的实施情况进行进一步的研究和分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The interplay of context and need: unravelling the interwoven threads of teachers’ professional learning/development The roles of AI and educational leaders in AI-assisted administrative decision-making: a proposed framework for symbiotic collaboration Teacher produced video tours of classrooms: what matters for their teaching of writing? Addressing the hidden labour of mentoring preservice teachers Responding to children’s voices: the new frontier in education policy reform
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1