Frederick Irwin Anglican School

							                                                                                               Pcc--        Su6-   33


              Frederick Irwin Anglican School
                                     A School of The Anglican Schools Commission Inc.
                                                                                           LEGISLATYEASSMBLY

                                                                                                20 JUN2005
                                                                                          RECE WED

17 June 2005




Mr Michael Baker
Principal Research Officer
Education and Health Committee: Legislative Assembly
Parliament of Western Australia
GPO Box All
PERTH WA 6000




Dear Mr Baker

Please find attached a submission to the Inquiry into Change to the Post-Compulsory
Curriculum in Western Australia.

Yours sincerely




Geoffrey Arnold
Principal




 Gordon Road, Mandurah, Western Australia. Postal Address: P.O. Box 687, Mandurah, Western Australia 6210
                         Telephone 08 9581 6777 Facsimile 08 9581 6323
                                          ABN 18708 185 908
Submission to:         Education and Health Committee
                       Legislative Assembly
                       Parliament of Western Australia

Re:                    Inquiry into changes to the Post-Compulsory Curriculum
                       in Western Australia

From:                  Mr Geoffrey Arnold
                       Principal
                       Frederick Irwin Anglican School
                       Post Office Box 687
                       MANDURAH WA 6210

Date:                  17 June 2005




I make the following submission:


1.0     The merit and basis ofthe proposed changes

        We see no merit in the proposed changes and no reason to change to meet the needs
        of our students who are adequately provided for with the current structure and the
        current TEE and non-TEE courses.

        In writing this we recognize that, in spite of our misgiving, the changes may still
        proceed. What is written below are our concerns, presuming the changes go ahead.


2.0     The readiness of the education system for the proposed changes

2.1     Our School is not ready and therefore not confident about implementing the changes
        effectively.

2.2     Our teachers are coming to grips with levelling in Years 8 to 10, and they need time
        to consolidate this before moving to post compulsory courses of study.

2.3     We are concerned about how we can plan and support the great professional
        development needs of our teachers to implement the changes.

        The current plan of 5 days of teacher Professional Development of which only two
        are funded places a huge financial and organisational burden on our School. We
        are not certain that we can access quality relief teachers, and therefore we have real
        concerns about the impact on the educational programme of our currently enrolled
        students.
          We are concerned for the workload of our teachers as they continue to teach full
          loads of their current courses, while preparing for the new courses.

2.4       The lack of definite information on assessment processes       -   school based and
          external, moderating across subjects and schools, tertiary entry, transitional
          arrangements when some Courses of Study and some TEE subjects are being
          offered etc. has just added to the uncertainty and delayed our readiness.

          We have no idea what the final picture is going to look like and we can not plan
          definitely for the future of our School.

          We would support shifting the implementation timeline out so that English,
          Media and Engineering can be implemented and the changes assessed
          effectively, and the remaining Courses of Study shifted out to a simultaneous
          implementation in 2008/2009 when all the questions have been answered, and
          all teachers have had their new Course of Study, support material, assessment
          procedures etc at least 18 months prior to implementation.


3.0       The financial implications of the proposed changes

We are concerned about the following impact on our School:

      *   Financial impact of the proposed 5 days Professional Development for all teachers
          teaching a Course of Study, of which only 2 days are funded.

      *   Our School is not in a financial position to reduce the teaching load of teachers to
          provide them implementation time.

      *   We are concerned about the impact on the educational programme of current
          students when large numbers of teachers will be out of the School undertaking PD.

      *   We are concerned about whether we can access sufficient quality relief teachers.

          In short we are very concerned about the impact of the proposed changes on the
          operation of our School for our current students and their educational programme.

          We would support the full funding of the whole PD programme, and to reduce
          the impact on the current students, we would support teachers being paid to
          attend PD during the School holidays.


4.0       The effect of extending to upper secondary education the outcomes-based
          curriculum, assessment and reporting

4.1       We believe that outcomes based curriculum and assessment is not appropriate for all
          subjects. Teachers at our School believe that Mathematics, LOTE and Economics
          in particular are not well suited to an Outcomes approach.

4.2       We believe an Outcomes approach will lead to a "dumbing down" of the Upper
          Secondary courses.
4.3   We are concerned that the absence of grades will have an adverse impact on the
      education of lower achieving students who are destined to be at levels 4 and 5 for
      the duration of the Post Compulsory years.

      We would support the re-instating of Grades so that hard working students of
      any ability can aspire to achieving an A Grade which is universally recognized
      as very good achievement.


5.0   The effect of the amalgamation of TEE and non-TEE subjects and assessments

      We are concerned with the following:

5.1   Serious doubts about how the open-ended external assessment for all Courses of
      Study is going to work as we have not seen what the assessment will look like.

5.2   How can you compare an academic subject like Physics with a practical/theory
      subject like Physical Education Studies?

5.3   The proposed system of External Assessment over four weeks at the end of each
      year will take a large amount of time away from teaching and learning, and mean
      that for both Year 11 and Year 12, class attendance will cease at the end of October.

      TISC states that the external assessment will contribute to 50% of the final result,
      and this will lead, as is currently the case, to a focus on the external assessment and
      preparation for it.

5.4   The staggered implementation timeline means students will be taking new Courses
      of Study as well as "old" TEE subjects, and we are concerned about how these are
      going to be combined equitably to achieve a Tertiary Entrance Rank and WACE.

5.5   Without a strong, large and fully funded Moderation system we would question the
      integrity of all results from all Schools, and in the first few years, question teachers
      ability to assess accurately and consistently across the State.

      We would support a strong, fully supported School based Moderation system
      with an Aptitude type test to do the final ranking for Tertiary Entry which
      would alleviate the need for loss of teaching time and school attendance while
      students do external assessments.

      We would support shifting the timeline to simultaneous implementation of all
      Courses of Study in 2008/2009 to overcome the problems of transition
      arrangements.
6.0   Any related matters that the committee considers necessary to investigate

      We believe that there are too many unanswered issues. The process of evolution
      that the Curriculum Council has chosen to follow has meant we do not yet have
      definite information about what will happen, what the assessments will be like, how
      the moderation will work, and will it be enough, etc., etc. This lack of definite
      information has made it difficult to plan for the future.

      We are not sure, not confident and not convinced that the huge amount of time,
      effort and work required to prepare for and implement the new Courses of Study are
      going to deliver substantial benefits to future students.

      We are also concerned that the implementation method adopted by the Curriculum
      Council will adversely impact on the education of our current students as their
      teachers prepare for the new curriculum.




Geoffrey Arnold
Principal