3.2 Development of the Australian Curriculum in Music
3.2.3 Sequence of documentation
The development of the Arts Learning Area was traced using a combination of resources from the ACARA website, documents sourced through private correspondence with ACARA, and supporting contextual sources. The key documents, appearing over four years, are presented in Table 2. Supporting materials include publicly available interviews with reference/advisory group members, published opinions of the reference/advisory group members, and documentation relevant to the design of the entire Australian Curriculum.
3.2.3.1 The Arts Position Paper (ACARA 2009a)
The initial Position Paper clearly stated what ACARA intended for the Arts at the beginning of the curriculum design process and is based on several key policy documents. These included the National Review and the Melbourne Declaration, although there were others relating to visual arts as well.9 All policy documents that ACARA referenced suggested some variation
9 These other documents include the National Education and the Arts Statement (Ministerial Council on
Education and Cultural Ministers Council 2006), the Australia 2020 Summit: Final Report (Department of the Sequence of ACM development documentation
Phase Year Document title
Shaping 2009 The Arts Position Paper (ACARA 2009a) The Arts Reference Group (ACARA 2009b) 2010 The Arts Advice Paper (ACARA 2010a)
The Arts Advisory Group (ACARA 2010b)
Draft “Shape of the Australian Curriculum: The Arts” (ACARA 2010c)
2011 Draft “Shape of the Australian Curriculum: The Arts”—Consultation Report (ACARA 2011b)
Shape of the Australian Curriculum: The Arts (ACARA 2011c)
Writing 2012 The Arts Curriculum Advisory Group (ACARA 2012a)
Draft “Australian Curriculum: The Arts—Foundation to Year 10” (ACARA 2012b) Draft “Australian Curriculum: The Arts—Foundation to Year 10” Consultation Report
on increasing the amount of time that students spent learning Arts subjects, improving teacher training and support, and improving the status of Arts subjects in schools. For example, the key quote sourced by ACARA from the National Review regarding the objectives for music is as follows:
…improving the status of music subjects in schools; improving the equity of access, participation and engagement in school music for all students; improving teacher pre- service and in-service education; improving curriculum support services; supporting productive partnerships and networking with other music organisations, musicians, the music industry and the Australian community; improving music education in schools
through supportive principals and school leadership, adequately educated specialist teachers, increased time in the timetable, adequate facilities and equipment; and improving
levels of accountability (Department of Education, Science and Training 2005, p. xxvii, in ACARA 2009a, p. 15, emphasis added to indicate key points for the present thesis).
As ACARA highlighted these objectives, the ACM’s success or failure in meeting or enabling them, in addition to its alignment with praxial approaches to music education, can be used as a measure of its overall effectiveness. Despite the initial intentions articulated in the
Position Paper, I argue that it failed to do so.
The initial approach proposed for the Arts was very similar to what has eventually been delivered. The five Arts subjects were already defined, as were the structural elements of generic organising strands and compulsory Arts learning from Foundation to Year 7 or 8 (pp. 1–2). A praxial approach to the arts was clearly articulated: “a unique and distinct
characteristic of Australian Arts education is the development of knowledge, skills and understandings of the arts through practice—young people creating and working artistically” (p. 1). The praxial characteristics of learning practically and in a way that approximates real- world engagement with the arts were indicated by the phrase “creating and working artistically” (p. 1) that was present from the outset.
The degree of arts-specific knowledge held by generalist teachers was another key issue that was raised in all subsequent discourse surrounding the development of the Arts. Despite my initial attempts to limit the scope of this thesis to secondary music study, it became apparent that an understanding of primary music delivery was necessary to fully contextualise secondary music in the ACM (see Chapter Four). In the position paper, ACARA clearly stated that Arts learning was to be compulsory, and provided by generalist teachers
Prime Minister and Cabinet 2008), and the National Review on Visual Education (Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations 2008).
in primary school (F–6/7). After this point, the Arts subjects became electives, and were to be treated as specialist subjects (ACARA 2009a, pp. 1–2). There was further specification about how learning should be implemented in the early primary years, as Arts learning in F– 2 was proposed to be entirely integrated, with no separation between the different
disciplines (p. 2). ACARA stated that the “Australian arts curriculum should enable both generalist and specialist teachers to engage confidently with the design, implementation, and evaluation of quality arts teaching…” but offered no indication of how it would cater for these two different approaches to curriculum (p. 2). This remains a primary point of tension between primary and secondary teachers and the ACM to the present day.
3.2.3.2 The Arts Reference Group (ACARA 2009b) and the Initial Advice Paper (ACARA 2010a)
The reference group for the first draft of the Arts curriculum came together in 2009 and worked towards developing the Initial Advice Paper (2010a). There were several high-profile members of this reference group, and for music the most notable name was that of Richard Gill, OAM. The other contributors directly associated with music were Margaret Barrett, Peter Dunbar-Hall, David Forrest, Jane Holmes a’Court, and Richard Letts, AM. This group represented a range of perspectives on music and music education (ACARA 2009b). The lead writer of the Arts Learning Area, drama specialist John O’Toole, was contractually employed by ACARA to lead the early stages of curriculum development, advise the later stages of curriculum development, and participate in publicity events (2012c, pp. 12–13). O’Toole’s considerable influence over the direction of the Arts curriculum was seen by some teachers to prioritise the position of drama over that of other Arts subjects (Australian Broadcasting Corporation 2010).
The Initial Advice Paper was intended to do three things: define the Arts Learning Area, define the subjects within the Arts, and explore structure and pedagogy. There were few significant changes between the Position Paper (2009a) and the Initial Advice Paper,
although there was further clarification of terminology. For example, the term aesthetic was defined as the “perceptual and contextual fusion that is at the heart of all arts,” which clearly indicated that students’ perceptions of art forms, and the contexts surrounding them, were of equal importance (2010a, p. 26). This differentiated the Australian Curriculum version of aesthetic from the MEAE interpretation, which was primarily concerned with the
abstract and disinterested appreciation of artistic objects with little recourse to context (see Chapter Two). This was the first example of a shift in meaning for problematic Arts
terminology and has been used consistently in subsequent curriculum documentation. The Initial Advice Paper proposed an outline of the Arts that is very similar to the final product. The five Arts subjects were all present, and Arts-wide strands of knowledge were proposed whereby the same language was used to describe activities in all of the Arts subjects—here referred to as “generating, realizing, and responding” (p. 7).10 This document
also introduced a trend of stating the importance of the Arts without clarification or reference. For example:
Though not all young people will become career artists, nor even pursue every art form as a significant leisure activity, for practical reasons young Australians need to feel like they have confidence and permission to access art, and to know how (p. 9, emphasis added).
There was no attempt to articulate these practical reasons. In the context of music, this was problematic, as the National Review clearly stated that one of the actions that could
strengthen the position of music was the presence of accurate and supportable claims about the benefits of music (pp. 8–11).11 Therefore, vague statements about the benefits of the
arts, like those in the Initial Advice Paper, were not helpful.
Despite this issue, the Initial Advice Paper did provide the clearest statement of the range and scope of Arts engagement of all the developmental documents. This statement is praxial in nature, and is presented as a question: “What do humans do when [they] engage in the Arts?” (p. 7). The parallels between this question and Elliott’s praxial ideas are evident, and suggest that the influence of praxis was apparent at this early stage of ACM
development.
10 The use of an Americanised spelling of realizing was a conscious choice that met considerable resistance
from respondents and was later removed.
11 Websites that advocate for music education in schools often reference scientific studies to back up their
claims. For example, see Collins (2018), who is also referred to heavily by Fulloon (2019). Some of the benefits listed in the National Review include:
1. “Developing the full variety of children’s intelligence; 2. Developing the capacity for creative thought and action; 3. The education of feeling and sensibility;
4. The exploration of values;
5. The understanding of cultural change and differences; and
6. Developing physical and perceptual skills” (Department of Education, Science and Training 2005, p. 9, adapted from Robertson 1982).
Accordingly, the definition of music within this document was broad and abstract: “music is the process of creating, performing and responding to sound and silence as personally and collectively meaningful experience” (p. 6). Although a broad definition is necessary for a praxial music curriculum (see the praxial characteristics, Chapter Two), its comparison to the drama definition highlighted a point of tension between lead writer O’Toole, and others in the Arts teaching community. Drama was defined as “a collaborative performing art where a group of participants agrees to imagine and actively construct a world which is known as the dramatic or human context,” (p. 5) which seems to be considerably more detailed than the definition of music. O’Toole’s background is in drama, and he received criticism for
strengthening the position of his preferred subject to the detriment of music and visual arts (Australian Broadcasting Corporation 2010).12 Indeed, O’Toole alluded to the fact that music
and visual arts teachers would be unhappy about what he saw as an equalisation of arts subjects in a radio interview.
O’Toole: The people who are afraid of the new syllabus are those for whom one art form…has been given a little bit of extra privilege, and they’re frightened [that] they’re going to be losing a bit of that privilege…They’ll certainly, a few of them, be losing a little bit of time…It’s not necessary to think in terms of driven discipline thinking in a few areas…because inevitably, if you do that, other people will lose out, and as usual dance, media arts and drama are the ones likely to be most at threat…(Australian Broadcasting Corporation 2010, emphasis added).
O’Toole’s attempts to equalise all Arts subjects were met with substantial criticism throughout the entire curriculum design process, particularly from teachers in music and visual arts (see ACARA 2011b, 2012d, below). Therefore, his sense that he was helping to “raise profile of the Arts” (Australian Broadcasting Corporation 2010) was obviously not shared.
3.2.3.3 The Arts Advisory Group (ACARA 2010b), the Draft “Shape of the Australian
Curriculum: The Arts” (ACARA 2010c), and the Consultation Feedback Report on the Draft “Shape of the Australian Curriculum: The Arts” (ACARA 2011b).
Following the Initial Advice Paper, the Arts curriculum design process entered the shaping phase, and a second consultation group set out to draft a shape paper of the Arts
12 Within a spirited comment section, one of the more articulate examples of criticism against O’Toole comes
from the user teacher_gal: “[John O’Toole] has a drama/primary background and has a vested interest in seeing drama more privledged [sic] in the Australian curriculum [sic] and he has no compunction [sic] at doing this at the expense of Visual Arts and other subjects that already ‘do it well’” (Australian Broadcasting Corporation 2010).
curriculum. The music specialists were Barrett and Gill, with the four school teachers included receiving no subject specification. Their combined efforts resulted in the Draft
“Shape of the Australian Curriculum: The Arts” (2010c), and this was the first Arts curriculum
design document that was circulated for feedback from the public. There were several alterations between it and the preceding paper, although these changes were not
substantial. Rather, they appeared to be simplifications or clarifications of terms and issues that were previously introduced. For example, after explaining the scope and definition of aesthetic in the Initial Advice Paper (2010a), the Draft Shape removed any explanation of the philosophical positioning of the term (2010c, p. 25). The quest for concision also affected the question that defined all activity in the Arts: taking away reference to human activities, the question became “what do we do when we engage in the Arts?” (p. 7). This is indicative of an approach to curriculum design that permeated the remaining design documents and affects the current version of the ACM, as the writers attempted to simplify their drafts at the expense of qualifying features or definitions.
The Draft Shape paper introduced the concept of bands of learning. Instead of having learning in the Arts based on individual year levels, it was conceived as a continuum across bands of years: Foundation–Year 2, Years 3–4, Years 5–6, and Years 7–8 (p. 10). At this stage of curriculum development, the writers did not elaborate on the content or focus of each of these bands of learning, but instead indicated general focuses for each subject through three groups of school years: Foundation–Year 2, Years 3–8, and Years 9–12 (pp. 11–20). These groups were indicative of the proposed organisation of the Arts curriculum:
Foundation–Year 2 reflects the early years framework; Years 3–8 was initially proposed as where compulsory Arts learning was to occur; and Years 9–12 was indicated as specialised elective Arts learning (p. 10).
This paper also gave the first indication of the anticipated provision of time for Arts learning, which was stated as 160 hours per band (p. 10). This equated to 80 hours of Arts learning per year from Year 3 onwards, and although it suggested that each of the five Arts subjects should receive an equal allocation of time, there was no mandate or guidance for how the 80 hours should be divided.13 This lack of instruction was problematic when
13 As the Foundation–Year 2 band includes three years of learning, the provision here was for 53.3 hours of Arts
considering the proposal for student engagement with music. In this document, best practice for music is described as being “frequent and cumulative” (p. 17), implying that music should be taught frequently across the entire year, so students can build on their past experience. A frequent and cumulative approach to music learning is encouraged by music education experts, including Elliott and Silverman (2014, pp. 195–235) and Reimer (2003, pp. 271–272), thus aligning with praxial and synergistic music education frameworks. However, if all Arts subjects were to be implemented for the same amount of time per year, and assuming a 40-week academic year, students would be studying music for 24 minutes per week. The lack of clarity surrounding the allocation of time, and the distinct lack of time available to the Arts, was raised by many of those who provided feedback about the Draft
Shape paper.
The Consultation Feedback Report for the Draft “Shape of the Australian Curriculum: The
Arts” (2011b) was published in August 2011, in the same month as the following document,
the Shape of the Australian Curriculum: The Arts (2011c). The Consultation Feedback Report gave a detailed outline about what respondents liked about the Draft Shape paper (2010c), and what was deemed necessary for improvement. There were four key strengths identified, and by contrast there were ten areas identified as “matters for improvement” (2011b, p. 4). The strengths were: the Arts as a stand-alone Learning Area; the five individual subjects; the proposed entitlement for all students to access the Arts; and the connections highlighted between the Arts and professionals within arts industries (p. 8). By contrast, the matters for improvement were: the terminology was deemed to be unclear, vague, and inconsistent; the proposed organising strands (generating, realizing, responding) were not considered
appropriate for every subject; the definition of aesthetic knowledge was not strong enough; the “realms of experience” were considered too simplistic;14 the integration of Arts subjects
in primary years was seen to undermine the individuality of each art form;15 the learning
entitlement (time allocation) was considered confusing and inadequate; the organisation of
14 There were three “realms of experience” described in the Draft Shape paper (ACARA 2010c), and these were
used to define knowledge in the Arts. These were “the realm of personal experience, the realm of our relation to others and the society we experience, and the realm of people, places and objects which lie beyond our direct experience” (ACARA 2011b, p. 9).
15 For example, in their response, the National Association for the Visual Arts stated that “what is currently
proposed attempts to manage the complexity of the different art forms in a way that appeals to generalist primary teachers and school systems but weakens the value of individual subject knowledge, even in the early years of schooling” (National Association for the Visual Arts, in ACARA 2011b, pp. 22–23).
the document in age ranges of Foundation–Year 2, Years 3–8, and Years 9–12 was seen to ignore the cognitive development that occurs in students between Years 3–8; and the inadequacies relating to teacher training were highlighted (p. 4). Interestingly, although unsurprisingly, approval for the Draft Shape was largely dependent on which years of schooling respondents were experienced in. The primary generalist teachers tended to be supportive of most of the Draft Shape paper proposals, while secondary specialist Arts teachers were opposed to them (pp. 20–21).
Two of the notable matters for improvement were the allocation of time for Arts learning, and the training of Arts teachers. The time constraints—80 hours per year—were deemed “insufficient for in-depth and sustained learning” (2011b, p. 4), and had a significant effect on secondary teachers. They indicated that secondary Arts learning required a “solid foundation of knowledge” in the Arts, and the current proposal did not allow for this foundation to be laid in primary school (p. 30). Other respondents who agreed with the overarching intention of the Arts curriculum noted that teacher training, professional learning, resources, and equipment at the time were unsatisfactory if “the intention of the Arts curriculum is to be realised” (p. 4). This body of feedback echoes statements made in the National Review (2005), indicating that the issues had yet to be resolved at a systemic level. It also reveals that despite attempting to align with best practice by employing up-to- date pedagogic theory, the Arts curriculum is limited by issues beyond its control.
For music, the major points of tension were found in relation to language used and the inadequate representation of the sequential nature of music learning, with calls for the “sequential, developmental and continuous” nature of music to be built into the definition (p. 18). There was no consensus of opinion regarding the language choices, but rather a stark difference of opinion between primary generalists and secondary specialists.16 Primary
generalists were in favour of broad, non-specific language that allowed for clear reporting, and in some cases they highlighted a preference for a fully integrated Arts teaching program (p. 22).17 By contrast, specialists opposed generic, all-encompassing language, and preferred
16 I refer to primary generalists because the overwhelming majority of generalist teachers were situated in
primary schooling. The term secondary specialists reflects the fact that the majority of music specialist respondents were secondary teachers, but the definition also includes academics and music industry professionals.
17 A primary generalist respondent wanted the Arts curriculum to enable a program that could have “a