Vadea Response Senior Curriculum Paper


 Visual
Arts
and
Design
Educators
Association
(VADEA
NSW)
Response
to
the
ACARA
 'National
Curriculum
in
the
Senior
Secondary
Years
Position
Paper'
September
2009
 VADEA
(NSW)
welcomes
the
opportunity
to
respond
to
ACARAs
proposals
regarding
the
curriculum
in
the
 senior
secondary
years.

 This
report
considers
some
broad
points
and
more
specific
issues
as
they
relate
the
visual
arts
and
design
 education
in
the
senior
years.
 1.


 2.

3.

4.

VADEA
observes
that
this
paper
is
essentially
concerned
with
a
technical
approach
to
curriculum
and
 assessment
at
the
national
level.
For
instance,
the
paper
goes
to
some
lengths
to
differentiate
national
 and
state/jurisdictional
responsibilities
in
regard
to
curriculum,
assessment,
and
credentialing
and
 recognises
the
legislative/regulative
authority
of
the
states,
which
is
welcomed.

 
 However,
whether
the
paper
provides
a
‘position’,
other
than
a
technical
one,
about
curriculum
in
the
 senior
years
is
debatable.
The
assumption
that
curriculum
is,
above
all
else,
about
‘delivery’
and
the
 teaching/learning
of
topics
(an
uncontested
means‐ends
relation)
and
the
acquisition
of
achievement
 standards,
is
questionable.
While
a
technical
view
of
the
curriculum
and
its
assessment
is
a
natural
 bedfellow
with
a
competency
approach
to
education,
the
curriculum
at
any
stage,
and
particularly
in
the
 senior
years,
needs
to
project
a
range
of
values
beyond
the
acquisition
of
competencies.
We
hope
that
 ACARA
may
broaden
its
scope
in
future
iterations
of
this
model.

 
 VADEA
also
observes
that
when
the
curriculum
is
discussed,
the
focus
is
on
curriculum
structures.
For
 instance,
how
subjects
will
be
divided
into
courses
in
some
subjects
and
how
subjects/courses
will
be
 organised
into
a
hierarchy
of
units
(1‐4).
While
this
focus
on
structures
is
very
welcome
and
a
necessity,
 there
seems
to
be
little
attention
given
conceptually
to
a
more
serious
discussion
of
what
kinds
of
 knowledge,
skills
and
values
matter
in
subjects,
perhaps
because
subject
content
is
believed
to
be
self‐ evidently
true?
This
point
is
elaborated
on
in
more
detail
in
point
3
below,
and
again
we
hope
ACARA
 may
address
this
issue
in
the
future.
 VADEA
questions
why
the
detail
of
the
recent
agreements
between
the
states
in
regard
to
tertiary
 entrance
ranks,
which
have
attracted
some
public
comment,
have
not
formed
part
of
the
context
of
this
 paper.
It
is
clear
that
any
proposed
changes
to
the
senior
curriculum
would,
at
least
to
some
extent,
be
 predetermined
by
what
statistical
information
is
available
and
how
it
is
valued
in
regard
to
students
 performances
in
subjects
and
their
relative
performance
across
subjects.
We
anticipate
that
ACARA
may
 address
this
point
more
explicitly
in
the
future.
 
 VADEA
seeks
clarification
from
ACARA
in
regard
to
how
it
distinguishes
the
difference
between
a
 learning
area
as
described
in
the
earlier
ACARA
documents
that
relate
to
K‐10
and
subjects
and
 courses
as
described
in
this
paper.
At
this
stage
the
distinction,
if
any,
does
not
appear
to
be
well
 articulated
and
we
look
forward
to
clarification
or
a
reconceptualisation
of
the
language
used
which
 accommodates
the
thinking
of
the
full
spectrum
of
subjects
in
the
curriculum.

 
 VADEA
is
not
at
all
convinced
that
the
proposed
structure
of
subjects/courses
into
hierarchical
units,
 each
unit
of
around
50‐60
hours,
will
produce
the
optimum
teaching/learning
scaffold
for
students
and
 their
teachers.
Nor
do
we
support
the
curriculum
in
subjects
being
organised
into
core
content
and
 elective
topics.
Our
objection
is
twofold:
 
 a. The
model
assumes
that
the
acquisition
of
knowledge
and
skills
in
subjects/courses
is
hierarchical.
 Practice
based
subjects
such
as
the
Visual
Arts
are
not
easily
reducible
to
sequential
rules
or
 principles
that
apply
in
axiomatic
disciplines
such
as
mathematics.
It
is
debatable
whether
there
is
 any
essential
law
like
content
in
practice‐based
subjects
that
is
unquestionable
other
than
that
 perhaps
associated
with
the
acquisition
of
technical
methods
or
the
brute
facts
of
time
and
place,
but
 these
important
forms
of
knowledge
form
only
part
of
any
practice.
It
would
be
regressive
to
believe
 that
the
Visual
Arts
obeyed
a
law
like
structure
which
is
counter
to
how
the
visual
arts
exists
in
the
 world.
In
the
Visual
Arts
learning
is
critically
navigated
and
highly
inferential,
and
rarely
occurs,
if
 ever,
through
deductive
reasoning
where
inferences
of
particular
cases
are
drawn
from
general
laws.



VADEA
(NSW)
response
to
ACARAs
position
paper
on
the
senior
secondary
years
300909



1


b.

5.


 The
model,
as
proposed,
would
be
unlikely
to
capitalise
on
students’
achievements
in
that
it
has
little
 way
of
accommodating
the
point
that
practical
skills
in
the
practice
of
artmaking,
but
also
in
art
 criticism
and
art
history,
need
to
be
rehearsed,
coached
and
judged
within
a
framework
of
values.
 Currently
teachers
have
considerable
choice
in
selecting
content
for
case
studies
and
assisting
 students
with
possibilities
for
their
artmaking
drawing
on
the
concepts
of
the
frames,
practice
and
 the
conceptual
framework
as
set
out
in
the
Stage
6
Visual
Arts
syllabus.
This
flexibility
enhances
 rather
than
diminishes
the
quality
of
students’
learning,
performances
and
the
works
they
make,
and
 sets
expectations
for
future
possibilities
in
teaching
and
learning.
Thus,
it
would
be
a
regressive
step
 to
support
the
proposed
curriculum
model,
under
its
catch
cry
of
transparency
and
accountability,
if
 it
were
to
over
determine
the
relative
degree
of
informed
choice
that
is
currently
available
which
can
 be
navigated
with
in
the
classroom
context
to
facilitate
students
learning
in
the
Visual
Arts
under
the
 Board
of
Studies’
curriculum
and
assessment
structures.

 
 From
VADEAs
perspective,
the
concept
of
topics,
while
appearing
to
be
equitable
and
offering
some
 degree
of
certainty,
would
present
as
a
regressive
step
that
might
take
visual
arts
teachers
back
to
 'recommended
areas
of
study'
which
developed
during
the
period
of
implementation
of
the
1987
 Visual
Arts
syllabus,
or
to
even
earlier
syllabus
and
examination
constructs.
In
regard
to
the
practice
 of
artmaking,
the
proposed
model
could
inadvertently
mean
that
this
practice
could
become
more
 project
like,
less
sustained
and
promote
a
reduction
in
standards,
attributes
that
would
run
counter
 to
the
purposes
and
practices
of
visual
arts
education
and
ACARAs
intended
goals.

 
 While
writers
of
the
model
has
in
mind
a
future
workforce
that
will
be
well
prepared
to
engage
in
 critical
and
creative
thinking,
the
model
itself
appears
to
have
little
elasticity
for
recursive
learning
 and
little
way
of
accommodating
the
practical
reasoning
involved
in
practice
based
subjects
such
as
 the
Visual
Arts.
A
practice
based
subject
‘shifts
the
emphasis
from
deriving
and
instantiating
 conclusions
relative
to
beliefs,
to
the
making
and
framing
of
solutions
relative
to
desires
(Brown,
 2005,
p.11).
As
Brown
states
‘actions
are
performed
at
particular
times,
and
within
a
relational
 patterns
of
motives,
intentions,
…
commitments
and
obligations’
within
the
constraints
of
 institutional
frameworks

(Brown,
2005:
2).
These
actions
take
time
to
evolve
and
are
responsive
to
 circumstances
as
they
unfold.
Any
diminution
of
the
power
of
practical
reasoning
in
students’
 emerging
practice,
which
might
occur
through
the
proposed
model,
could
potentially
lead
to
a
loss
in
 deep
learning
and
a
reduction
in
standards
which
would
not
be
welcomed
educationally
or
 professionally.




 The
proposed
curriculum
model
assumes
that
if
students
were
to
undertake
study
of
a
subject
in
the
 senior
school
they
would
have
prior
knowledge
and
skills
developed
up
to
year
10.
VADEA
notes
that
 mandatory
and
elective
options
for
years
7‐10
have
not
been
set
by
ACARA
and
is
concerned
about
the
 validity
of
this
consultation
round
for
Phase
2
subjects
without
this
requisite
detail
being
in
place.
In
the
 case
of
the
Visual
Arts
there
is
no
agreement
about
the
shape
of
the
Australian
Curriculum
in
the
arts
and
 thus,
to
some
extent
we
are
running
blind
as
the
constraints
in
which
our
comments
are
made
are
not
 known.
The
proposed
model,
at
this
stage,
appears
to
privilege
Phase
1
subjects
only.

 However,
VADEA
notes
that
Visual
Arts
attracts
a
number
of
students
in
senior
years
who
have
not
 studied
the
Visual
Arts
since
their
Mandatory
course
in
NSW.
(It
would
be
expected
that
there
would
be
 no
diminution
in
this
provision
of
a
Mandatory
course
for
Visual
Arts
with
ACARAs
prospective
plans).
 Many
students
who
have
undertaken
the
elective
course
prove
to
be
very
committed
students
and
we
 anticipate
that
these
students
would
be
able
to
elect
the
subject,
even
when
they
may
have
little
prior
 learning,
other
than
their
mandatory
studies.
ACARA
makes
the
point
that
decisions
like
these
would
be
 left
up
to
schools.
This
could
prove
difficult
in
regard
to
what
one
school
might
see
as
reasonable
but
 another
may
not.
We
would
expect
that
state
authorities
would
have
something
to
say
on
these
matters,
 rather
than
schools
alone.



























































 1
Brown,
N.
C.
M.
(2005a).
The
relation
between
evidence
and
action
in
the
assessment
of
practice.
In
Critical
thinking
and
learning,


values,
concepts
and
issues:
Proceedings
of
the
Philosophy
of
Education
Society
of
Australasia
Conference,
Hong
Kong,
2005.
Retrieved
 November
26,
2007,
from
http://www.pesa.org.au


VADEA
(NSW)
response
to
ACARAs
position
paper
on
the
senior
secondary
years
300909



2