Changing Senior School Certificates:
a story of visions and revisions
prepared by Jane Figgis, AAAJ Consulting Group
for Dusseldorp Skills Forum
22 August 2005
If an investigative journalist (or a politician) wanted to find a striking example of an apparent wasteful duplication of effort in Australia having eight separate States/Territories, they would need look no further than to the cascade of formal and resource-intensive reviews of senior secondary schooling and its certification over the last decade. Almost every jurisdiction has undertaken one, some lasting years and most at considerable expense. What is more, they have all been triggered by the same underpinning concerns:
§ changes in the external environment:
- in the economy, globally and locally, with shifting demands on the technical and imaginative skill of the workforce and the uncertain path of these economies;
- in the notion of who we are as Australians now that our backgrounds are so much more diverse, possibly exacerbated by the terrorism of the last four years;
- in the way we construct or define our individual identities.
§ changes in the secondary schools’ internal environment:
- in the growing diversity of the student population;
- in the recognition that senior schooling has not been meeting the needs of many of its students, although some reviews focused their concern on the ‘at risk’ student, others saw a more general mismatch between what was on offer and what the whole non-university bound cohort needed;
- in a conviction that the senior phase of schooling needed to be more flexible with broader student pathways in order that young people remain in formal education through Year 12 or its equivalent.
Such an investigation would also reveal, however, a feature that may be the great strength of having so many jurisdictions. It is that the processes followed for the reviews and the outcomes which result are strikingly different. If diversity is a virtue, we have it here in abundance.
The differences lie in three principal (or, indeed, principle!) areas:
(i) the approach taken to the review process: All the reviews involved some formal document designed to stimulate discussion about changes that might be made, and why, followed by consultations with stakeholders about the ideas in the paper. The ‘stimulus’ document itself was sourced in quite different ways;
(ii) the way academic and vocational studies are valued in the Senior Certificate: there are jurisdictions which agonize over how to equate one with the other and struggle to move past the historic fact that senior secondary school had traditionally been home only to the academic, with the consequence that the vocational intruder has somehow to be matched to the former in certification. There are others, however, where the distinction between vocational and academic (sometimes called ‘general’) education is not an issue: each is valued in its own right, independent of the other;
(iii) the extent to which senior curriculum standards are framed by discipline knowledge or by broader overarching understandings, dispositions, capabilities, as in key competencies, ‘essential learnings’, the ‘new basics’.
A summary of the ways these three elements have been (or are being) resolved is set out in the following table
REVIEWS OF SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOLING AT A GLANCE:
review process / changes to Senior Certificate / changes to senior school curriculum structure / date of full implementationproposed / adopted / proposed / adopted
ACT / incremental / none / NA / none / NA
New South Wales / 1995
extensive review by external expert (McGaw) / move to a standards referenced HSC / yes
1997 / none / NA / 2000
Northern Territory / 2003
extensive review by external consortium
(led Ramsay) / none / NA / new Learning and Teaching Framework for Years 10-12 be developed / possibly, not an immediate priority
Queensland / 2002
two parallel expert external reviews (Pitman and Gardner) / replaced old one with one based on quantum of learning / yes / none / N/A / 2008
South Australia / 2004
external panel to craft discussion paper (chaired by Crafter) / the Panel’s final report has not been released yet / NA / the Panel’s final report has not been released yet / NA
Tasmania / 2000
consultative process in spirit of Tasmania Together / a new Completion Certificate to denote adequacy of learning / yes
but implementation some way off / wholesale change including link to Essential learnings / will depend on what exactly is proposed / uncertain
Victoria / 2000
Review Panel (chaired by Kirby) / VCAL qualification available to students as well as the VCE / yes / 2002
Western Australia / 1999
consultative process conducted by the Curriculum Council / to match the new curriculum / yes / outcomes based with courses of study that merge VET and general subjects / yes / possibly 2009
Fuller descriptions of way the Senior Certificate has been reviewed, the outcomes of the reviews and the thinking underpinning both (processes and outcomes) for each State and Territory are set out below.
A word first about the approach used in putting these descriptions together. Given the power of the Internet, it was not difficult to identify and locate key documents. In a number of cases I have called the jurisdiction concerned to check specific points, several involved rather long conversations, in two instances face to face. None of these informants is identified but I would like to say how helpful each was.
The brief from Dusseldorp Skills Forum was to produce a paper which would enable DSF to see how much progress was being made in ensuring that all young people had available to them a curriculum (and a certification regime) that would engage them through Year 12 and would lead on to meaningful next steps for them – a regime that would, to put it simply, bring out the best in them and recognize their diverse interests. DSF also said that pointers to the philosophy, values, and mindset that underpinned the changes (and, indeed, that underpinned the non-changes) would be helpful.
This is, therefore, not a paper that sets out the specific programs and formal requirements that lead to achieving a Senior Certificate – for example, that a student must satisfactorily achieve 6 units from a type B program, 4 from a type C, etc, except in the few cases where it illustrates the thinking behind some of the changes. ACACA (Australasian Curriculum Assessment Certification Authorities peak body) maintains a website which provides a summary of each jurisdiction’s exact requirements for a student to achieve a Year 12 Certificate: http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/acaca/index.html
What I have tried to tried to do here is tease out what I thought best met DSF’s needs from the plethora of documents reviewing/reforming senior secondary schooling in each jurisdiction. My account of the way each jurisdiction is positioned is necessarily a partial one: these are, after all, complex, politically sensitive and multifaceted changes – each worth detailed research in its own right. The ‘stories’ of the separate jurisdictions is followed by a section, Concluding Comments, which draws out some of the key similarities and differences across the States/Territories and makes a few suggestions as to the directions available to Dusseldorp Skills Forum.
ACT
The ACT has not found it necessary to undertaken a high profile review of Years 11 and 12. This may be partly attributable to the size of the ACT and the fact that the Board of Senior Secondary Studies meets every two months with all College principals. So ideas for change can be discussed as the need for change arises (or appears to). Implications for schools and students (or for the Board) can be jointly considered and issues resolved.
It is an incremental approach to change. A pertinent example is the way the system has gradually absorbed the diversification of students’ programs, in particular the vast increase in VET studies. The ACT Year 12 Certificate details the units which a student has completed to a satisfactory standard and, within a certain set of distribution requirements, it makes no difference whether the units are VET or ‘academic’. The Board issues several forms of documentation on a student’s completion of Year 12: a Year 12 Certificate, a Tertiary Entrance Statement, and/or a Vocational Certificate or Statement of Attainment.
New South Wales
In 1995 Barry McGaw, at the time Director of the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER), was invited by the NSW Government to review the Higher School Certificate (the HSC). The decision to review the HSC at that time was partly in response to the significant “increase in the range of young people who now wished to study for the HSC”. Much of that increase could be attributed to a cohort of students that had traditionally not stayed at school through Years 11 and 12 because their interests lay outside academic subjects and/or their chosen pathway to employment was not via university study. This is the same stimulus that led other jurisdictions to introduce or expand vocational education and training opportunities for school students and then to review senior secondary education.
The McGaw review was prompted by a second concern unique to New South Wales. It was the press to ensure that the HSC maintain its intellectual rigour and its role as the spur that drives students to aim for the very highest academic achievement. There was evidence the HSC was failing to fulfill this traditional role as there had been a significant decline in the number of students studying courses at an advanced level. The government was determined to reverse this decline in advanced study.
The McGaw review was, thus, aimed at making the HSC both more inclusive and more rigourous, a combination which many still see as almost incompatible – certainly as competing rather than simply multiple – demands[1]. The review was based on a set of educational values (high standards and equity), but the review cannot be said to have stimulated profound debate about the meaning of senior secondary education (nor was it intended to). Although the eventual reforms were substantial they rested within the fairly narrow domain of educational assessment and reporting.
The process McGaw followed was to first produce a Green Paper, Their Future: options for reform of the Higher School Certificate. Intended as a stimulus to public discussion, it admirably achieved its aim. On the basis of that discussion, he wrote a final report in 1997, Shaping Their Future: recommendations for reform of the Higher School Certificate. The process has been described as an investigative-iterative-consultative one. In this instance the initial investigation largely relied on McGaw’s technical expertise and his personal standing. He was, and is, highly regarded as an expert in the field of assessment and in educational research more broadly.
The model McGaw developed, which was subsequently accepted, focused on using standards-referenced assessment and reporting instead of measuring (and reporting) the student’s performance relative to that of other students in his/her cohort. The government’s White Paper, Securing their Future: the New South Wales Government’s reforms for the Higher School Certificate, released in September 1997, described this change as an absolute break-through.
The White Paper describes the purpose of the Higher School Certificate program of study in fairly pragmatic terms. It is to:
· provide a curriculum structure which encourages students to complete secondary education;
· foster the intellectual, social and moral development of students, in particular developing their:
– knowledge, skills, understanding and attitudes in the fields of study they choose,
– capacity to manage their own learning,
– desire to continue learning in formal or informal settings after school,
– capacity to work together with others,
– respect for the cultural diversity of Australian society;
· provide a flexible structure within which students can prepare for
– further education and training,
– employment,
– full and active participation as citizens;
· provide formal assessment and certification of students’ achievements;
· provide a context within which schools also have the opportunity to foster students’ physical and spiritual development.
In 2001, to coincide with the first cohort of students completing the new standards-referenced HSC examination and marking, an independent review of the process was undertaken by Geoff Masters, the current Director of ACER. He found, through a detailed analysis of the 2001 examinations and extensive consultations, that there was widespread support for the HSC examination system and for the reforms underpinning the new HSC. There was also a general expectation that further refinement would be required.
On the issue of flexibility as to when and where students undertake their HSC studies:
when The HSC pathway can be done over five years (the case even before McGaw) but very few students take the option of taking even three years, even students in part-time work or part-time traineeships where it appears to be an attractive option. School organization probably does not encourage much divergence from the two-year HSC;
where The Board of Studies likes to point out that it offers VET for school students not VET in schools. Approximately 25 percent of VET in the HSC is delivered by TAFE, primarily in industry sectors not covered by the nine industry curriculum frameworks and/or where the numbers of students involved would make it unrealistic for the schools to provide the unit. TVET (TAFE delivered HSC VET courses) are courses developed or endorsed by the NSW Board of Studies and in principle allow any senior secondary school student to study at a TAFE NSW institution while completing their HSC at school. TVET courses usually contribute 2 units of study towards a HSC although students may study between one and five units. If the student meets TAFE requirements he/she will receive (in addition to a HSC) a testamur from TAFE NSW.