New courses of study

New courses of study is the term commonly used to describe the review of upper school education in Western Australia. The new courses extend the application of Outcomes Based Education to years 11 and 12. (Almost all Western Australian schools have been Outcomes Based up to year 10 since 2003, with many schools having implemented these changes considerably earlier.) However its future may be in doubt following comments by Mark McGowan, the present Minister for Education, in the media and the abolition and replacement of the state's Curriculum Council.

1 What's new?
2 Structure of courses
3 Proposed benefits
4 Concerns
5 Implementation
6 External links

What's new?

The system being replaced by the new courses consists of three different types of subjects. Some are "TEE subjects" -- subjects that are assessed in part by an external examination and that students can use towards a Tertiary Entrance Rank (TER). Others are "TAFE-directed" -- subjects that are Wholly School Assessed (i.e. there is no external examination) and can be used to qualify for a place in a TAFE college, but not in a University. The remainder are "Vocational subjects" -- subjects that are intended to directly prepare students for the workplace rather than post-secondary studies. Some subjects are designed to be done at year 11 and others at year 12. The number of subjects is large—well over 100—but most schools offer only a subset of these.

The new system replaces subjects with a smaller number (about 50) of courses, where each course consists of a number of units. Each unit represents a semester's work and a course may be taken for a single semester up to all four semesters over years 11 and 12. Different units within a course are aimed at students demonstrating different levels of achievement. This means that students of vastly differing ability may take the same course of study but will be working on different units within the course. The distinction between TEE and non-TEE subjects no longer exists under the new courses, since every course can be used towards University entrance if the level of achievement is high enough.

Structure of courses

The courses all have certain features in common.

Each course has four outcomes.
Each outcome has three aspects.
Achievement in each outcome is measured on a scale of achievement with levels 4 to 8. Achievement below level 4 is not detailed because achievement of levels 1 to 4 is the focus for students in the Years K-10.
Courses are to be delivered in semester-long units, with most units having three pairs of units (Units 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a and 3b). Each pair of units expects students to be able to do work within a range of levels at the start of the unit, and for them to achieve within a range of levels by the end of the units. Typically units 1a and 1b expect students to start at level 2, 3 or 4 and finish at level 4 or 5. Units 2a and 2b expect students to start at level 4, 5 or 6 and finish at level 6 or 7. Units 3a and 3b expect students to start at level 6 or 7 and finish at level 7 or 8. Any units could be offered in either year 11 or year 12.
Each unit has essential content stipulated along with suggested learning contexts
Each unit provides for school-based assessment as well as external assessment that is optional unless students are aspiring for university selection.

Proposed benefits

When first mooted, the new system appeared to offer the following benefits:

a seamless transition from Kindergarten to year 12;
greater flexibility of the new courses over existing subjects;
reduced pressure on students to make decisions mid-way through year 10 that restrict their options for years 11 and 12 and beyond;
removal of the major exam emphasis in year 12, along with the compression of year 12 into three terms to accommodate exams.

However, it has since become clear that many of these benefits are unlikely to be realised to the extent first hoped, if at all. The transition to upper school courses will not be entirely seamless because the outcomes for the new courses do not entirely coincide with those in the progress maps used up to year 10. The greater flexibility proposed in unlikely to be realised in most schools because of timetabling constraints, although it may be achieved in senior campuses. The emphasis on external examination will not be decreased at all as they will still be required for all courses for university entrance.

Concerns

Apart from general concerns with Outcomes Based Education, a number of specific concerns have been raised about the new courses of study:

TAFE-bound students will be disadvantaged by the new courses. The current wholly school assessed and vocational subjects work well for less academically able students, but in the new courses they will be competing with university bound students and as a result some will feel inadequate in their classes. The best of such students currently win awards in their subjects; it seems unlikely that any such recognition will be within their grasp in the new system.
Courses are broad outlines of material to be covered but do not spell out how this material is to be taught. Although this leaves broad scope for individual schools to determine how best to address the course's outcomes, it means that there is necessarily a vast replication of effort as hundreds of teachers in scores of schools are required to simultaneously prepare essentially identical programs and plans for the same courses.
Course outcomes are different from the outcomes from the Progress Maps used in years K-10. Teachers who are just beginning to feel confident with their knowledge of the Progress Maps after two or three years of use need to learn a new set of outcomes for new courses.
Mapping of outcome levels to a score used to rank students for tertiary entrance is not mathematically sound since outcomes with two significant digits of precision are combined to produce a number with four significant digits of precision. The additional digits of precision are meaningless and using them to decide between who gets a place in a University course and who does not is unjust.
Changes and adjustments are continually being made to the new courses and information that is given to teachers in professional development sessions to prepare them to deliver the new courses is subsequently contradicted at later sessions, leaving teachers feeling uncertain as to just what will be expected of them and with no confidence that the ground under their feet will not continue to shift even as the courses are being delivered.
The new system puts courses in the traditional core learning areas of English, Mathematics, Science and Society and Environment on the same footing as all other courses. This means that other learning areas such as the Arts, LOTE or Technology and Enterprise will need more time in lower school than they are currently allotted in order for students to have a chance of achieving level 4 by the end of year 10. Without this, there is little likelihood of any students in these learning areas achieving the higher levels on the scale of achievement. It seems unlikely that this is achievable without it being at the expense of learning in the traditional core areas.
There are concerns about parity between scales of achievement between different courses. For the purposes of University entrance, a level 8 in Physics is treated as equivalent to a level 8 in Dance. Are they really equivalent? How is it even possible to compare such dissimilar disciplines?

Implementation

Implementation is being done in phases, with introduction of a course in year 11 in one year and in year 12 the next year. However, only the Phase I courses and Earth and Environmental Science have actually been implemented.

Phase I courses were introduced in year 11 in 2006 and include English, Engineering Studies and Media Production and Analysis. Aviation is also a Phase I course but was introduced a year earlier (i.e. introduced in year 11 in 2005 and year 12 in 2006).
Phase II courses were to have been introduced in year 11 in 2007. These include Accounting and finance, Applied Information Technology, Biological Science, Chemistry, Computer Science, Drama, Earth and Environmental Science, English as an Additional Language/Dialect, Geography, History: Ancient and Modern, Human Biological Sciences, Literature, Music, Physical Education Studies, Physics, Politics and Law, and Visual Arts.
Phase III courses were to have been introduced in year 11 in 2008. These are all the rest of the courses—Aboriginal and Intercultural Studies, Agriculture, Australian Indigenous Languages, Automotive Engineering and Technology, Building and Construction, Business Management and Enterprise, Career and Enterprise, Children, Family and the Community, Dance, Economics, Food Science and Technology, Health Studies, Integrated Science, LOTE courses, Marine and Maritime Technology, Materials Design and Technology, Mathematics courses, Philosophy and Ethics, Psychology, Recreational and Environmental Studies, Religion and Life, and Visual Communication Design.

In response to the persistent outcry from teacher organisations, the State Government agreed to modify the requirements for the Phase II courses. The key points of the modifications are outlined in a Memorandum to teachers dated 18 June 2006[1] and include:

There will be a syllabus for each course.
The existing TEE syllabus format will be used for all new courses. Course specific refinements will be made.
Teachers will be able to use their existing teaching programs or lesson plans for those new courses that have been derived from existing TEE subjects.
Some adjustments will be made to content to allow for the semester unit structure and to ensure that content is updated.
No new content will be assessed in the examination for the first cohort of Year 11 and 12 students for those courses replacing TEE subjects.
Course design will be modified, where necessary, to suit specific course disciplines.
Language used in each course syllabus will be discipline specific.
Content will be made more explicit and clear for teachers.
The nature and weighting of outcomes will be clarified and adjusted on a course by course basis.
Course standards will be refined to guarantee clarity of student progression.
Schools will submit a mark out of 100 for a unit and provide an indicative judgement of a level and band for the unit.
Teachers will not be required to submit assessment evidence plans; however they will still be required to have evidence of their students’ achievements during school moderation visits as they do now.

These compromises move away from the idealogically pure outcomes base of the new courses and address some of the concerns with the new courses. However the fact that these changes were agreed with only about six months before delivery of Phase II courses is to begin has done little to inspire confidence and many teachers still feel that there would be less risk to student learning if implementation of Phase II and Phase III courses were deferred by at least a year.