Bremer Story (as in EQ website)

Bremer State High School
Implementing an individualised negotiated curriculum in Science
Contacts
Story contact: Mark Gould, HOD, Bremer State High School
Phone: (07) 3432 5200
Context
Bremer State High School is in an area with a wide range of socio-economic groupings. Particularly, there is
a reasonably large proportion of students with specific learning needs, but most importantly with poor
attitude to the school context and consequent lack of success at school and behaviour management
difficulties.
As a school we have put considerable emphasis on relationships at all levels. We have adopted Glasser as
a model for behaviour management and believe that behaviour is linked inextricably with all other aspects
of the school context, including curriculum.
Many teachers at Bremer have made the observation that students:
• often appear to be more able than their results indicate
• do not engage with some or all aspects of the curriculum
• particularly do not engage with assessment processes.
From these observations, we inferred that for many of our students:
• their attitude was a profound barrier to success
• persistent failure was a significant issue in their attitudes
• the existing assessment system was inappropriate in that it implied a pass/fail paradigm
• existing curriculum was failing to meet their needs and/or interests.
One of the long term emphases at Bremer has been the development of a supportive environment, focusing
especially on relationships. While this helped it did not seem to be enough to change students’ attitudes to
schooling. We determined that while students’ relationships with individual teachers were generally good
and they seemed to like Bremer as a place to go each day, many still voiced their unhappiness with ‘school’.
This led to the conclusion that there exists an independent relationship between students and the ‘discourse
of schooling’. From this idea, three underlying principles that would facilitate a change in our students’
perceptions of themselves within the discourse of schooling were determined:
• individualise curriculum and assessment
• focus on success
• create a coherence between curriculum, pedagogy and assessment.
The rollout of the Science KLA 1 - 10 syllabuses provided the vehicle for the Science department at Bremer
to attempt to better meet the obvious needs of our students through a reconceptualisation of curriculum,
pedagogy and assessment.
Aspects of the New Basics trial and Productive Pedagogies reinforced the framework that we had
developed.
What is your story?
In 1999, the science department at Bremer State High School recognised that the Science Key Learning
Area (KLA) syllabus provided a vehicle for (and in fact required) a reconceptualisation of curriculum,
assessment and pedagogy.
The three principles: to individualise curriculum and assessment, focus on success and create a coherence
between curriculum, pedagogy and assessment were enacted through the following framework:
/mnt/temp/unoconv/20150223001626/546d9318-d5ea-4bab-bfff-2606e58a13c4-150222181626-conversion-gate01.doc
Page 1 of 9

Bremer State High School: Implementing an individualised negotiated curriculum in Science
Curriculum
Curriculum is individualised as much as possible. This means that each teacher’s main responsibility is to
negotiate a curriculum with each student that is in the student’s interests. In other words, curriculum:
• is enacted through meaningful tasks that are of inherent interest to the student
• provides opportunities for the student to develop the most appropriate concepts and demonstrate them
at the most appropriate level
• supports the development of cross curriculum priorities and the attributes of a life-long learner.
A consequence of individualisation is that there can be no fixed work program. Each teacher could and
should be enacting a curriculum that suits each student at that point in time.
Assessment
Assessment is seen as a natural consequence of a task. In the completion of a task teachers look for
evidence that a student has demonstrated outcomes. There are always a range of qualities that could be
assessed in any student performance. However for the purposes of reinforcing students’ perceptions that
they can succeed at school, we focused primarily on demonstration of outcomes, a collection of which
indicates a student’s working level.
Students are engaged in managing the assessment process as much as they are able and willing to do so.
All students have a full list of the core learning outcomes as indicators of ‘the things that we value in
Science’. From the beginning, they are encouraged to engage directly with them by purposefully planning
their task to demonstrate outcomes at the best level for them.
Because of the individualised approach, students cannot fail except when they do not engage. This
message is reinforced constantly and is a significant positive influence on students. As a result of this
message there is no benefit for the student to opt out. They are unable to hide behind the self-protective
thought ‘I only failed because I didn’t try’. Simply by being involved they succeed.
Throughout the performance of a task, teachers have regular discussions with each student. They use their
prior knowledge of student weaknesses and strengths, combined with active listening during discussions to
constantly adjust their judgment of each student’s ability to perform in that context. As a result students are
encouraged through conferencing processes to perform at their very best at all times.
Pedagogy
Pedagogy is a direct consequence of this construction of curriculum and assessment. The stages of any
module/task could be generalised to initiation, learning and completion. In essence the teacher’s job is to:
• inspire the students
• develop meaningful tasks with them
• assist them to develop knowledge, skills and understandings needed for the completion of the task
• help assess the product of the task
• celebrate the completion of the task.
The Productive Pedagogies are a good description of teacher behaviours that support the approach and can
be used as effective professional development material.
Frequently asked questions
What is Bremer High like?
Bremer is an old school with standard classrooms, in need of paint and repair. Some of the science
laboratories are modern but the majority are old. We have a new resource centre that is quite small. Bremer
has a very active IT section and a large number of computers in class sets and in small groups.
What are the rest of the KLAs at Bremer doing?
Bremer still has a traditional structure. People teaching the subjects at Bremer are approaching their subject
differently depending on the nature of their discipline. Those subjects that have engaged with the KLAs
have taken on board many of the issues concerning individualisation and are keen to maintain levels-based
Page 2 of 9

reporting and the middle school approach. Others that have not yet taken on board the outcomes approach
are uncertain. As a school we have regular discussions regarding our future direction in middle schooling.
How do you manage resources?
The short answer is that resources are always limited and teachers have to find creative ways around the
limitations. There is never enough access to computers and the multimedia centre so modules of work are
adapted to make the most of what is available. Teachers collaborate on timing to minimise duplication of
resources. We have collected old textbooks and other books to provide each class with a small library of old
but serviceable resources for day-to-day use. For practical materials, we have active and dedicated
scientific assistants who enjoy meeting the often unusual needs of classes performing a range of
experiments. When resources get really tight we fall back on textbook work until materials become
available.
Bremer has about 20 classes total in Years 8 and 9. Over a four year period working in this framework we
have not encountered a resourcing issue that could not be resolved satisfactorily
What does the classroom look like in action?
The major difference in the classroom is that teachers are more likely to be found sitting and talking with
individuals and groups than standing at the front. Students are more likely to be talking, writing,
experimenting and constructing than listening to the teacher.
How do contract teachers cope?
Assisting contract teachers is a significant problem. While they have usually learned to be flexible in their
approach, and usually accept the ideas of framework, the assessment process is usually quite new to them.
To assist them we prioritise the issues that they must cope with:
1. Task-based curriculum
We provide many examples of suitable tasks and where possible we work within the teacher’s area of
strength, e.g. many Physical Education teachers take contracts in Science. We encourage them to start
with tasks related to the human body or sports and once the task is underway we assist them to extract
appropriate outcomes from the task.
2. Assessing for demonstration of outcomes
We use existing work samples to demonstrate the process and as soon as possible mentor the process
with their own students’ work.
3. Prioritising individualisation.
Most important is individualisation of assessment so that students always have some success as long
as they put in some effort. Next comes individualisation of task difficulty and finally comes
individualisation on the basis of interest.
Are your classes smaller than normal to cope with the individualisation?
Years 8 and 9 classes at Bremer number 30 or near to that. This framework would be more successful with
smaller classes, but that is not a necessary prerequisite for it to work. The task increases in difficulty with
more students but is not impossible.
Whether the workload of teachers increases or just changes is an interesting question. Because students
are constantly working on longer term projects, our day-to-day activity is more relaxed in that we spend our
time helping/teaching individuals and small groups. Planning is in some ways easier and in some ways
harder. The ‘marking’ process is more intense but also more positive in that we are actively trying to catch
our students being successful.
Doesn’t guaranteeing success mean ‘dumbing down’ the curriculum?
No. In fact, there is more opportunity for excellent students to be developed further in this framework than in
older frameworks. Each student is always moving forward from wherever they are. In Year 8 we have
students working as high as level 6 and as low as level 2. Because student success is redefined as progress
and engagement we are getting many more students developing and resubmitting their tasks than
previously.
Page 3 of 9

What do you do with students who have completed the levels?
Students who have demonstrated (all of) level 6 before they complete Year 10 have a range of options,
including acceleration and more complex tasks.
There is really no sense of ever completing the levels. Because our course is task-based, we can always
negotiate another task that is meaningful to the student.
So far at Bremer we have not seen the need to accelerate any students. No student has yet shown any
tendency to consider that they have ‘finished’ the work. They have always accepted one more task and
worked to complete it satisfactorily.
Don’t levels make it harder to distinguish between students who put a lot of effort in at school and
those that don’t?
Our report is constructed to value improvement. We have included a concept we call ‘Micro-improvement’
within the levels. Students who constantly put in a good effort tend to move through each level faster than
those who don’t.
As well there is the option for other forms of assessment to be added on. We have found that some
measure of each student’s skill development and approach to working in school in this subject, which we
labelled ‘Valued Attributes of a Life-long Learner’ added value to the level decision.
How do you ensure that students cover the curriculum?
We describe coverage as ‘engaging with each of the 15 Key Learning outcomes in the Science KLA
syllabus at the appropriate level for that student’. In this framework the core learning outcomes and the
level statements are seen as intersections between the 15 Key Learning Outcomes and a cognitive level.
Each teacher has the responsibility to assist their students to have some opportunities to demonstrate each
of the 15 Key Learning Outcomes several times over the whole course.
The Head of Department is responsible for monitoring that this is happening.
All teachers try to develop good relationships with their students. How does this differ?
In this framework we consider that there are actually three relationships that students have with school.
They are:
• a relationship with each teacher
• a relationship with this school
• a relationship with the discourse of schooling
All teachers and schools work hard to develop the first two. However the third is more dependent on the
students’ perception of themselves in the general schooling context. In other words it involves their notion of
whether schooling has anything to offer them or not. Previous frameworks created a negative perception for
a number of students. Many of those who, for whatever reason, felt that they had not succeeded at school
became locked into this perception.
In essence, once they became a ‘D’ student they stayed a ‘D’ student because the standard for ‘D’ became
harder each year. A framework that uses a fixed scale (the levels are in the KLA syllabuses, often called
‘milestone standards’), through which students progress at their own pace is inherently more inclusive.
Unless a student has profound difficulties, they will progress, albeit at different rates.
When past students have been asked about their feelings regarding different rates of progress, they
commented that it didn’t matter so much to them that others were progressing faster, as long as they were
getting better themselves.
How do you come up with lots of different tasks?
We share everything, including successes and failures. Each of us benefits from the work of the others.
Over the years we have collected a bank of ideas, modules and tasks that form the basis for our day-to-day
curriculum.
Every task is seen more as a springboard than a recipe so in many cases all we need is a rough interesting
idea to take to class, and the students themselves develop the task. Once a task is initiated, it is likely to
change for each student anyway, as individual needs and interests become more apparent.
Page 4 of 9

Not all teachers are as creative as others. How do less creative teachers cope?
Apart from the sharing that is an important aspect of the framework, it is surprising how most teachers revel
in the freedom to engage the students in interesting activities. Some teachers have taken longer than others
to develop confidence in this framework. However, all are taking more pleasure in day-to-day interactions
with students than previously.
How does constructivism fit into this framework?
In the school context, constructivism means, in essence, ‘to consider the learner’s existing ideas and where
necessary provide assistance to change those ideas into those deemed more correct/appropriate/useful by
society’.
One of the most interesting observations of students in this framework is that in discussions they are more
willing to tell you what they really think. From a constructivist perspective this is invaluable and the difficulty
is in judging whether the ideas need changing and if so, how to provide experiences that assist the change.
This process works much better in the one-to-one context that is inherent in this framework.
How do you guarantee standards across a range of teachers?
It is never possible to guarantee standards. In Science at Bremer, we use a range of strategies to reduce
difference in interpretation of standards. Strategies are either ‘front end’, for developing common
understandings of standards or ‘back end’ for testing teachers’ understandings of standards.
Front end strategies
• Core Learning Outcomes and Level Statements are combined to form our standards. These seem to be
adequate for teachers to make reasonable decisions concerning demonstration of outcomes.
• We have provided generalised descriptions of levels from a range of perspectives.
• We discuss and describe the levels in a range of ways to aid our understanding.
Back end strategies
• We share and discuss our students’ work constantly.
• We ensure at least one opportunity in the year to have a formal moderation process.
• Results are managed centrally. Certain patterns of results indicate possible teacher misconceptions
which can be discussed either one-to-one or during meetings.
Evaluations/reflections
How have we made a difference?
All of our data is anecdotal. Reasonable coincidence of data from various sources is encouraging:
Classroom observations
• Teachers report that more students are positive about their chance of success.
• Students demonstrate greater comfort in science than in other classrooms.
• A reduction in behaviour management issues has been observed.
• Teachers and students smile more than previously.
Staffroom observations
• Teachers are more positive about their teaching experiences.
• Teachers tend to talk more about their students’ successes than previously.
• Teacher comments are indicative of their own pleasure in the classroom, e.g. ‘I’m working too hard but I
couldn’t go back to the old way any more. I like what I’m doing too much.’
Page 5 of 9

Administration observations
• The Principal commented that he is finding more students who are keen to undertake science than
previously.
• Administration team members have commented on the cheerful activity of students in a wide range of
science classes and their willingness to discuss their current task.
Beyond the school
• In interviews, parents indicate positive feelings about the framework with comments like ‘It’s a pity
science wasn’t like this when I was at school. I might have tried harder.’
What were the supports to your success?
• Bremer’s emphasis on a supportive environment encompassing the total community made facilitating
the change possible. The Administration team in particular supported our efforts to change through
‘permission giving’ and positive feedback.
• The up-front nature of our students supported our change. They could always be relied on to give us
frank and fearless feedback on our efforts.
• The structure of Bremer’s timetable supported the change. Longer period times enable students to
engage deeply with tasks.
• Support of staff in other subject areas engaging in the same process of change was invaluable.
• The KLA syllabuses themselves supported our change. They provide enough flexibility to allow a task-
based curriculum but enough detail to scaffold teachers’ understandings. As well, some of the
constructs are inherently supportive of our framework. The two most important constructs include:
• ‘milestone’ standards (or indicators of standards)
• nested outcomes.
• The willingness of the science staff at Bremer to experiment in the interests of benefiting our students
was essential.
• Science staff were willing to share the benefits of their high level skills in areas including:
• module development
• ideas generation
• understanding student psychology
• Information Technology
• risk management.
• The Head of Department’s Information Technology skills supported the change by creating:
• a repository of tasks to be shared
• an assessment database
• an appropriate reporting system.
What were the barriers?
• Time constraints are a problem. At schools like Bremer, most teachers already work long hours.
Developing materials for a major curriculum change is time consuming. On top of this is a greater
assessment demand. Teachers are having to take more work home, more often than previously.
• The two by two rollout of KLA syllabuses created a barrier.
• Limited understandings of standards by students, parents, teachers and administrators.
What would you do differently?
From the Head of Department’s point of view, I would negotiate more time for staff to develop materials in
the early stages.
Page 6 of 9

Background research
Summary
• The New Basics trial has shown teachers the value of changing pedagogy and creating meaningful
contexts and richer tasks for learning.
• Separate research by Margaret Forster from ACER and adolescent psychologist Andrew Fuller,
suggests that students respond more positively to assessment designed to tell them where they are and
where they are going, as opposed to whether or not they are meeting a preset standard.
• Key Learning Area syllabuses provide a useful scaffolding for teachers to change their teaching and
assessment in ways that benefit all students.
• Effort may need to be put into preparing teachers and students for quality assessment and reporting in
this regime.
• A levels-based assessment and reporting scale as used in the KLA syllabuses is meaningful to students
and parents and actively encourages students to continue learning.
• A levels-based assessment and reporting scale encourages teachers to meet the demands of the
Middle Phase of Learning State School Action Plan to:
• individualise their teaching
• design rich and meaningful tasks
• help each student to reach their potential.
Significant ideas
• Adolescents need (considerable) positive feedback to develop resilience and stability. (Fuller, p4)
• Students should be expected to demonstrate high standards but (in quality schools) there is no ‘failure’
either implied or explicit. (Glasser 1998, p6)
• The school environment must encourage lifelong learning (Bryce and Withers 2003, p1)
• Increase the sense of belonging, safe social environments and meaning (to the student) and ensure that
every child receives affirmation.
• To what extent can it be said that all students in the school have positive pictures of
themselves as learners?
• Are students grouped according to ability? Are some made to feel that they are ‘failures’?
• Do assessment exercises take account of different styles of learning?
• Is most assessment formative rather than summative?
• How much self-assessment takes place? Are students able to discuss their progress with a
mentor?
• Is it safe for students to take risks/to expose lack of knowledge?
• Assessment design principles include (Masters and Forster 2000, p7):
• designing assessment procedures primarily to establish where all students are in their
learning
• incorporating assessments of higher-order skills and thinking
• including a variety of assessment methods and procedures to provide information about a
range of valued learning outcomes
• reporting results in ways that encourage high achievement.
• Meaningful assessment and reporting must always be based on well-understood continua. (Forster
2001, p3)
• Students with deficits in literacy and numeracy (especially written) areas are multiply penalised by their
deficits. Assessment practices should be designed to test meaningful continua separately.
Page 7 of 9

• KLA syllabuses describe a small number of key concepts for each syllabus, under which core learning
outcomes (CLO) describe the development of each key concept and indicate the standard (level) at
which that key concept is being demonstrated. (KLA syllabuses, QSA)
• The current KLA curriculum is not as cluttered as it appears. There are in reality only about 70 key
concepts across the eight KLAs.
• Student/teacher relationships; constructivist learning involving students in negotiation and decision-
making; presenting students with authentic learning tasks; and providing for diversity (cf inclusive
education) are considered. (See the future: The Middle Phase of Learning State School Action Plan, p8)
• Allowing time for in-depth study by reducing the amount of content; developing problem-solving tasks;
using authentic assessment tasks; and involving students in deciding content, structure and
assessment. (See the future: The Middle Phase of Learning State School Action Plan, p8)
• Curriculum needs to be uncluttered, to be reduced in breadth and allow opportunity for depth of study
(See the future: The Middle Phase of Learning State School Action Plan, p8)
• Curriculum needs to engage students' needs, interests and emotions and has connection to students'
world (See the future: The Middle Phase of Learning State School Action Plan, p8)
• Truly inclusive education means understanding and valuing each student’s individual strengths and
weaknesses, not just making allowance for some students with special needs.
Implications
• Persistent perception of failure does not teach students to be resilient.
• Classroom curriculum should be task-based, negotiated and individualised.
• Success should be defined as engagement and progression.
• Day-to-day assessment should be of clearly defined outcomes and should be framed as ‘opportunities to
give credit’.
• Continua of knowledge, processing and values need to be clearly defined for each subject, e.g. levels 1-
6 define standards from approximately Year 1 to Year 10.
• For progression to be measured, school assessment and reporting should be of positions along
defined continua.
• Systemic assessment and reporting should be of standards drawn from a collection of students’
positions along various continua.
Page 8 of 9

Bibliography and reading list
• Bryce, Jennifer and Withers, Graeme 2003, Engaging secondary school students in lifelong learning,
Australian Council for Educational Research, Camberwell, Vic.
http://www.acer.edu.au/research/Research_reports/documents/LifeLongLearning_Engaging.pdf
• Forster, Margaret 2001, A Policy Maker's Guide To System-wide Assessment Programs, Australian
Council for Educational Research, Camberwell, Vic.
http://www.acer.edu.au/research/documents/SystemwideAssessProg.pdf
• Forster, Margaret 2004, Address to Educators, Brisbane City Hall, Q.
• Fuller, Andrew 2003, Don’t waste your breath: An introduction to the mysterious world of the adolescent
brain, Inyahead Press, Queenscliff, Vic.
http://www.inyahead.com.au/Research/ResearchDocs/Don%27tWasteYourBreath.pdf
• Fuller, Andrew 2002, Valuing Boys, Valuing Girls: Celebrating Difference and Enhancing Potential,
Centre of Excellence in Teaching conference, Fremantle, WA.
• Glasser, William 1998, The Quality School: Managing students without coercion, HarperPerennial, New
York.
• Masters, Geoff N & Forster, Margaret 2000, The Assessments we need, Australian Council for
Educational Research, Camberwell, Vic.
http://www.acer.edu.au/research/documents/Theassessmentsweneed.pdf
• See the future: The Middle Phase of Learning State School Action Plan 2003, Education Queensland,
Brisbane, Q.
http://education.qld.gov.au/etrf/pdf/midaction03.pdf
• Productive Pedagogy and Assessment, Education Queensland KLA syllabuses, QSA
Page 9 of 9

Bremer Story (as in EQ website)

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (18)

Similar to Bremer Story (as in EQ website)

Similar to Bremer Story (as in EQ website) (20)

Bremer Story (as in EQ website)