{"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.