A Comparison of the Change Process in States&apos; and Territories&apos; Implementation of the Australian Curriculum
Author: Watt, Michael G.
Date: 2018-00-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Comparative Analysis,National Curriculum,Geographic Regions,Foreign Countries,Teaching Methods,Articulation (Education),Content Analysis,Classification,Curriculum Implementation,Elementary Secondary Education,Instructional Leadership,Budgets,Communication (Thought Transfer),Outcomes of Education,Educational Strategies,Educational Theories,Educational Research,Decision Making,Educational Change,Faculty Development

The purpose of this study was to examine and compare key elements of the actions that states and territories are taking to implement the Australian Curriculum, and what innovative processes and products they are using to facilitate implementation. A rubric adapted from a diagnostic tool, developed by Achieve and the U.S. Education Delivery Institute, was used to analyze the strength of strategies employed by states and territories to implement the Australian Curriculum. The analysis of state-level implementation focused on the preliminary phase, 'organize to implement', and the first two implementation actions: 'align instructional practices'; and 'train educators'. Content analysis was used to analyze educational literature and research studies investigating state- and local-level implementation of the Australian Curriculum, and to describe and classify the strategies reported by eight Australian states and territories. The results showed that the strengths of states' and territories' capacities to implement the Australian Curriculum varied widely across the preliminary phase and the two implementation actions. The preliminary phase sets out a process for a state or territory to organize implementation based on seven building blocks: aspiration; internal leadership team; time line; budget; gap analysis; guiding coalition; and communications. The capacity of the states and territories was equal and strong for aspiration and internal leadership team, equal and moderate for time line, equal and weak for budget, and varied from weak to moderate for gap analysis, guiding coalition and communications. Implementation action I sets out a process for a state or territory to disseminate aligned instructional practices to teachers by undertaking three critical actions: identify strategies to achieve success; understand how the strategies will be implemented through the field to the classroom; and connect strategies to expected outcomes. The capacity of states and territories ranged from moderate to strong for identifying strategies to achieve success and understanding how the strategies will be implemented through the field to the classroom, but weak for connecting strategies to expected outcomes. Implementation action II sets out a process for a state or territory to train teachers by undertaking three critical actions: identify strategies to achieve success; understand how the strategies will be implemented through the field to the classroom; and connect the strategies to expected outcomes. The capacity of states and territories were strong for identifying strategies to achieve success and understanding how the strategies will be implemented through the field to the classroom, and ranged from weak to strong for connecting strategies to expected outcomes. The findings identified important implications for educational theory, research and practice relating to the four objectives for the study. First, planning, structuring and implementing decisions made during the change process were effective in producing a national curriculum that satisfied the expectations of most stakeholders. Second, each state and territory engaged with stakeholders on various strategies to align instructional practices to the Australian Curriculum and train educators to implement the Australian Curriculum. Third, states and territories showed some variation in the strength of plans for aligning instructional practices to the Australian Curriculum, but little variation in the strength of plans for training educators to implement the Australian Curriculum. Fourth, there was no evidence that states and territories use delivery approaches, although several states have created new structures at the local level conducive to adoption of a delivery framework.