The Australian Educational Researcher

, Volume 39, Issue 3, pp 349–361 | Cite as

Prevailing pedagogies for classes in low SES contexts and the implications for standards-based reform in Australia

Article

Abstract

Current curriculum and assessment reform for schooling in Australia is based on ideas and practices associated with the setting of standards. Detailed descriptions of levels of achievement for each year of schooling are being ascribed the dual role of measuring the effectiveness of school systems and helping teachers to ensure all students are supported to gain common outcomes. The use of standards to inform teaching and learning has developed from research on differentiation practices and is associated with specific pedagogies designed to support students at risk of not succeeding in schooling. This project aimed to investigate the extent to which the ideas and practices associated with standards-based curriculum reform are currently influencing teachers’ thinking and practice in three Victorian primary schools situated in low socio-economic status contexts. Teachers’ beliefs and practices associated with supporting students from backgrounds traditionally linked with low achievement were collected before and after trialling units of work designed by pre-service teachers. The results reveal that the ideas and strategies currently used by teachers in three schools largely conflict with the pedagogies associated with standards-based reform and the findings question the extent to which current national agendas in Australia will influence classroom practices and student outcomes.

Keywords

At risk students Achievement gap Curriculum design Pedagogy 

References

  1. Abu El-Haj, T. R., & Rubin, B. C. (2009). Realizing the equity-minded aspirations of detracking and inclusion: Toward a capacity-oriented framework for teacher education. Curriculum Inquiry, 39(3), 435–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ACARA. (2009, November). Curriculum design. Retrieved March 4, 2011, from ACARA Web site: http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/Curriculum_Design_Paper_pdf.
  3. ACARA. (n.d.a). Information sheet: A world-class curriculum for the 21st century. Retrieved March 4, 2011, from ACARA Web site: http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/Information_Sheet_A_world-class_curriculum_for_the_21st_century.pdf.
  4. ACARA. (n.d.b). Information sheet: Diversity of learners. Retrieved March 4, 2011, from ACARA Web site: http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/static_20110301143956/docs/Information%20Sheet%20Diversity%20of%20learners.pdf.
  5. ACARA. (n.d.c). Information sheet: Structure of the Australian curriculum. Retrieved March 4, 2011, from ACARA Web site: http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/Information_Sheet_Structure_of_the_Foundation_to_Year_10_Australian_Curriculum.pdf.
  6. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–148.Google Scholar
  7. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2004). The formative purpose: Assessment must first promote learning. In M. Wilson (Ed.), Towards coherence between classroom assessment and accountability (pp. 20–50). Chicago: The National Society for the Study of Education.Google Scholar
  8. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2006a). Assessment for learning in the classroom. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (pp. 9–25). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2006b). Developing a theory of formative assessment. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (pp. 81–100). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Bohrnstedt, G. W., & O’Day, J. A. (2008). Introduction. In A. R. Sadovnik, J. A. O’Day, G. W. Bohrnstedt, & K. M. Borman (Eds.), No child left behind and the reduction of the achievement gap: Sociological perspectives on federal education policy (pp. 1–10). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.-C. (1990) [1977]. Reproduction in education, society and culture. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Brown, P., & Lauder, H. (2010). Economic globalization, skill formation and the consequences for higher education. In M. W. Apple, S. J. Ball, & L. A. Gandin (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of the sociology of education (pp. 229–240). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. COAG. (2008a). National Indigenous reform agreement (closing the gap). Retrieved December 7, 2009, from COAG Web site: http://www.coag.gov.au/intergov_agreements/federal_financial_relations/docs/IGA_FFR_ScheduleF_National_Indigenous_Reform_Agreement.rtf.
  14. COAG. (2008b). National partnership agreement on low socio-economic status school communities. Retrieved December 7, 2009, from COAG Web site: http://www.coag.gov.au/intergov_agreements/federal_financial_relations/docs/national_partnership/national_partnership_for_low_socio-economic_school_communities.rtf.
  15. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs. San Francisco: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Dellit, J. (2011). The quest for quality and equity in SA curriculum. In L. Yates, C. Collins, & K. O’Connor (Eds.), Australia’s curriculum dilemmas: State cultures and the big issues (pp. 148–162). Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Ferrari, J. (2010a, May 1). National survey ranks our best classrooms. The Australian.Google Scholar
  18. Ferrari, J. (2010b, May 1). On the honour roll-the nation’s top schools. The Australian.Google Scholar
  19. Gamoran, A. (2010). Tracking and inequality: New directions for research and practice. In M. W. Apple, S. J. Ball, & L. A. Gandin (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of the sociology of education (pp. 213–228). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Hargreaves, D. H. (1967). Social relations in a secondary school. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Hopmann, S. T. (2008). No child, no school, no state left behind: Schooling in the age of accountability. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(4), 417–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kenway, J. (2007). The ghosts of the school curriculum: Past, present and future. The Australian Educational Researcher, 35(2), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Knapp, P. (2010, May 4). NAPLAN data first step to better education for all. The Australian.Google Scholar
  25. MCEETYA. (2008, December). Melbourne declaration on educational goals for young Australians. Retrieved December 8, 2009, from MCEETYA Web site: http://www.mceetya.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_the_Educational_Goals_for_Young_Australians.pdf.
  26. MCEETYA. (2009, March). MCEETYA four-year plan 2009–2012: A companion document for the Melbourne declaration on educational goals for young Australians. Retrieved December 8, 2009, from MCEETYA Web site: http://www.mceetya.edu.au/verve/_resources/MCEETYA_Four_Year_Plan_(2009_2012).pdf.
  27. McGarvey, B., Marriott, S., Morgan, V., & Abbott, L. (1997). Planning for differentiation: The experience of teachers in Northern Ireland primary schools. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29(3), 351–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McGaw, B. (2010). Statement from ACARA chair Professor Barry McGaw. Retrieved March 4, 2011, from ACARA Web site: http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/Statement_from_ACARA_Chair_Professor_Barry_McGaw.pdf.
  29. Oakes, J. (2005) [1985]. Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Oakes, J., Gamoran, A., & Page, R. N. (1992). Curriculum differentiation: Opportunities, outcomes, and meanings. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 570–608). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  31. Productivity Commission. (2011). Overcoming Indigenous disadvantage: Key indicators 2011. Retrieved 10 March, 2012, from Productivity Commission Web site: http://pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/111619/01-key-indicators-2011-preliminaries.pdf.
  32. Productivity Commission. (2012). Report on government services 2012. Retrieved 25 March, 2012, from Productivity Commission Web site: http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/114926/10-government-services-2012-chapter4.pdf.
  33. Starkey, L., Yates, A., Meyer, L. H., Hall, C., Taylor, M., Stevens, S., et al. (2009). Professional development design: Embedding educational reform in New Zealand. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 181–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Teese, R., & Polesel, J. (2003). Undemocratic schooling: Equity and quality in mass secondary education in Australia. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Terwel, J. (2005). Curriculum differentiation: Multiple perspectives and developments in education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(6), 653–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Thomson, P. (2008). Lessons for Australia? Learning from England’s curriculum ‘black box’. English in Australia, 43(3), 13–20.Google Scholar
  37. Yates, L. (2011). Re-thinking knowledge, re-thinking work. In L. Yates, C. Collins, & K. O’Connor (Eds.), Australia’s curriculum dilemmas: State cultures and the big issues (pp. 25–44). Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Yates, L., Collins, C., & O’Connor, K. (2011). Australian curriculum making. In L. Yates, C. Collins, & K. O’Connor (Eds.), Australia’s curriculum dilemmas: State cultures and the big issues (pp. 3–22). Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Australian Association for Research in Education, Inc. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Victorian School of EducationAustralian Catholic UniversityBallaratAustralia
  2. 2.University of BallaratMt HelenAustralia

Personalised recommendations