IELTS and the hidden curriculum : Reassessing the evidence

1
www.thefreeschool.education free@thefreeschool.education Tel. + 61 2 888 00 300
IELTS and the hidden curriculum: Reassessing the evidence
Jericho, J. (2015), IELTS and the hidden curriculum: Reassessing the evidence, Sydney,
Australia: The Free School Occasional paper series No.2, May 2015.
Jay Jericho D.Soc.Sc Syd
jay@thefreeschool.education
Introduction
This research essay evaluates whether the International English Language Testing System
(IELTS) enforces a hidden curriculum and is an unfair framework to assess a migrant’s English
language skills. The context examines how most applicants for an Australian 457 sponsored
vocational work visa must attain minimum IELTS scores for their reading, writing, listening and
speaking skills as a prerequisite criterion.
I undertake an analytical literature review of scholarly publications using principles from the
“critical applied linguistics” (Kumaravadivelu, 2006, p. 70) subfield. I aim to contribute to
knowledge by debunking the myth that the IELTS enforces a hidden curriculum and that it is an
unfair way to quantify these visa applicants’ English language proficiency.
This paper contains three discussion parts. The first part explores the historical and theoretical
context. I build on this foundation to show how the IELTS treats the vast majority of visa

2
applicants equally. I next demonstrate how the IELTS does not enforce a hidden curriculum.
Finally, I consider alternative perspectives and conclude that no English language testing system
is flawless. For this reason, much of the criticism directed towards the IELTS exam applies to
other universal English language assessment frameworks.
Context
During the early 1990s, the Hawke-Keating Government mandated that skilled work visa
applicants must demonstrate minimum English language competencies prior to entering
Australia. Following the severe recession in Australia from 1991 to 1993, many skilled migrants
became jobless and could not find paid work. This Government attributed this outcome mostly to
these migrants’ weak English language skills (Berg, 2011, p. 111).
Prior to 2001, visa applicants could choose from several international English language tests,
such as the Pearson exam and the IELTS. The Australian Government calibrated the unique
grading systems of these tests. In 2001, the Australian Government listed the IELTS as the only
accepted English language exam, with the exception of certain healthcare professionals, who
may be required to sit the rigorous Occupational English Test (OET) because of the life-and-
death consequences of their duties (Ahern, 2001, p. 42). As of 1 July 2013, sponsored vocational
workers may obtain a 457 visa if they can attain a B score for all four English language skills in
the OET test. They may opt to take the IELTS general exam, and must score at least 5.0 for each
language skill (Department of Immigration and Border Protection, 2015a, NP).
On 18 March 2015, Australia’s Assistant Immigration Minister Michaelia Cash announced that,
in principle, the Australian Government supported a policy change requiring sponsored
vocational workers to attain a minimum average of IELTS band 5.0 across the four English
language skills (Woodley, 2015). This policy change should appease those critics who argue that
the IELTS test has a major flaw because it excludes suitably skilled and qualified applicants who
are relatively weak in only one English language skill that does not affect their work

3
performance (e.g. Berg 2011, p. 113). This policy proposal does not address the argument that
the Australian Government supports a hidden curriculum, as the IELTS remains one of only two
Western centric tests that applicants for a 457 visa may elect to take (e.g. Berg 2011, p. 114).
Theoretical framework
In the field of pedagogy, and the sub-field Teaching English as Foreign Language (TEFL), the
term ‘curriculum’ refers to the corpus of knowledge that concerns a particular context. Examples
include the teaching and assessment practices that occur within a school, an academic program
or a unit of study (Richards, 2001, p. 39). The course content (e.g. instructional materials) and
assessments are components of the curriculum.
Jackson (1968) was the first scholar to use the term “hidden curriculum”. He was also the first
theorist to formulate a contemporary account of the reasons that explain why this phenomenon
exists in primary schools in the United States. The hidden curriculum refers to subtle messages
that appear in the official materials that support a teaching program in a specific educational
context. These communications normally aim to create, replicate or resist a particular social
order in a nuanced manner (Guddmundsdottir, 1990, p. 46). Scholars who study the hidden
curriculum tend to focus on the ways in which institutions and individual teachers act with
purpose to promote a political agenda, an ideology or some other unstated cause (Anyon 1980;
Dreeben 1976; Dreeben and Gamoran 1986, p. 662).
The existence of a hidden curriculum causes pupils to learn about social norms and expectations
that extend beyond the subject that they are officially studying. This occurs because educational
institutions are a location where elites and those on the margins contest the status quo of power
relations (Wrigley, 1993, p. 458). For example, educational institutions may grant or deny access
to knowledge by accepting or rejecting applicants. Moreover, they may bestow qualifications
(e.g. a TEFL certificate) on those whom they assess as fit to graduate from a programme of study
(Tomlinson, 2008).

4
TEFL
Auerbach and Burgess (1985) are widely credited as the first scholars to put forward a
sophisticated theory that shows how and why a hidden agenda exists in curriculum designed for
TEFL instructors (e.g. Kubota, 2002, p. 86). These scholars show how the coursework materials
that support TEFL instructors who teach survival English language competency skills contain
coded messages that stereotype the life courses of their students. For example, exercises in
training manuals invariably depict the non-native English language speaker working in low-
paying unskilled work roles that are subordinate to managers who are native speakers of English
(Auerbach, 1986, p. 480).
Scholars continue to identify the existence of the hidden curriculum in the TEFL sub-field (Gray,
2013, p. 3). In recent decades, most research that examines the hidden curriculum, in TEFL
contexts, focuses on how the education system may construct or dismantle social hierarchies that
marginalise women, racial minorities, immigrants and those from the lowest socio-economic
groups (e.g. Benesch 1996; Booher-Jennings 2008). For example, TEFL course materials
repeatedly use illustration examples that depict the student as dark-skinned and from a lower
socio-economic class than native-English speakers, who they portray as white and culturally
superior (Kubota, 2002). TEFL course materials may also unfairly diminish the status of women
by ignoring them or presenting them in social roles and occupations that are subordinate to men
(e.g. Pattalun, 2006, pp. 15–20).
Fairness
Literature that aims to evaluate the “fairness” of English language tests is an underdeveloped
area and in-depth studies have only recently started to explore this issue (Karami, 2013, p. 158). I
concur with Karama (2013, p. 158) who argues that there is no consensus of the “fundamental
aspects” of fair language testing. Due to the word limit imposed, it is impossible to examine the
numerous approaches that scholars may use to explore the fairness of testing requirements that

5
exist in the education system generally or in the IELTS immigration context specifically. As this
is an underdeveloped topic, it is imperative for short studies to centre on whether a language
testing system treats people “equally” (Karama, 2013, p. 159). This approach aligns with
Australia’s liberal democratic values as espoused in this nation’s political system and its civilian
society (e.g. McNamara, 2006, p. 505).
I argue that the IELTS is fair and promotes the notion of a meritocratic society, as the need to
attain minimum English language testing scores applies to the bulk of all applicants. Only a
handful of exemptions exist that excuse applicants from needing to obtain minimum language
scores, and genuine public policy factors justify these provisions (Campbell and Tham, 2013).
For example, very high-income earners are exempt from the need to pass an English language
exam (Department of Immigration and Border Protection, 2015a, NP). I argue that this particular
exemption is logical and fair. Those who earn executive salaries are more likely to be able to
sustain themselves economically should their employer retrench them.
The requirements for meeting special exemptions are stringent and are onerous to demonstrate
(e.g. Campbell & Tham, 2013, p. 254). This means that relatively few visa applicants qualify for
special treatment under the 457-subclass program. Since 2001, the minimum bands set for
sponsored vocational work visa applicants have ranged from 4.5 to 5.0 for all language skills.
Furthermore, changes to labour marker supply and demand are genuine factors that explain this
negligible variation (Berg, 2011, p. 111; Department of Immigration and Border Protection,
2015b, NP; Tham & Campbell, 2009, pp. 36–37).
The Australian Government has been unfairly criticised because the IELTS cannot deliver
identical testing conditions in different assessment centres. For example, some examiners may
have ‘thick’ accents (e.g. Scottish accents) that may confuse non-native English speakers,
notwithstanding that the examiner is qualified and is a native speaker of English. Furthermore,
some examiners lack developed interpersonal skills and this may intimidate the candidate,

6
undermining the performance of those examinees who engage face-to-face with assessors who
lack congeniality (Brown, 2003, p. 20).
I acknowledge that the shortcomings that I discuss above exist in the IELTS global framework.
However, I reject that they are legitimate grounds to criticise the fairness of the Australian
Government’s 457-subclass program for two reasons. First, no two language teachers or
examiners will ever have identical accents or personalities. Wide variation of accents and
personal style among English language teachers/examiners is a universal phenomenon. Second,
these testing biases occur in all international English language tests to at least some degree (Foot,
1999; O’Loughlin, 2002). Furthermore, academic staff affiliated with the IELTS consortium
argues that regional variations between the accents of individual examiners offers proof that the
IELTS exam is a bona fide international assessment (Uysal, 2009, p. 4; e.g. Craven, 2010, p.26).
I argue that the IELTS framework incorporates multiple safeguards that empower their
customers and these mechanisms offer a near-universal experience across testing centres (Adams
& Peck, 2000, p. 8). For example, all test centres use the same exam content and format.
Furthermore, centre management routinely double ‘blind’ mark a random sample of audio and
documentary records. All exam scripts and speaking tests are subject to random audits by head
office scrutineers. Students may also elect to sit an examination at any test centre worldwide.
Moreover, all students have the right to have their assessments double-marked by an independent
examiner, although this is normally subject to an additional fee (Davidson & Pollock, 2012; Yu
et al. 2012, p. 386–387).
I argue that the IELTS aims to treat all examinees fairly – notwithstanding that certain persons
who take this language examination have economic advantages that other candidates do not
enjoy. The Australian Government have been unfairly criticised for selecting an English
language testing system that favours those from higher ranked socio-economic groups outside of
Australia. Salameh (2012) documents how there are numerous deeply entrenched economic
factors that explain why candidates who come from the wealthiest families consistently over

7
perform on international English language exams such as the IELTS. For example, empirical
evidence shows that wealthier applicants can afford to buy all of the official exam preparation
training resources whereas poorer candidates cannot. Furthermore, candidates from higher
ranked socioeconomic groups are also more likely to be in a position to afford the services of
private English language tutors (e.g. Salameh, 2012).
It is disingenuous to argue that the IELTS promotes economic inequality globally or in Australia.
Economic equality has never existed in any Western nation in recent centuries (Petras 2000).
Furthermore, few tutors can legitimately take full credit for a language student’s success. A
pupil’s motivation, work ethic, social support network and their linguistic aptitude are major
drivers of success (Salameh, 2012, pp. 1, 3 & 12). If the Australian Government were to switch
from IELTS to another test (e.g. Pearson) or revert to multiple (i.e. more than two) test options,
this will not automatically neuter the reality that wealthier applicants can invariably afford to
purchase goods and service that advantage them.
I conclude that the IELTS exam offers a near-universal uniform experience and note that
Australia’s universities accept the IELTS and numerous other international English language
tests such as the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL). Furthermore, these institutions
calibrate the English language admission requirements of these assessments (e.g. University of
Technology, Sydney, 2015, c.f., University of Sydney, 2015). This cross-institutional consistency
implies that Australia’s universities consider the IELTS curriculum and assessment to be on par
with different scaling systems offered by other international English language examinations.
Hidden curriculum
I reject the popular argument that the enforcement of the IELTS as a mandatory assessment, for
Australia’s immigration purposes, enforces a hidden curriculum on those who choose to sit this
language exam (e.g. Khan, 2006). It is natural that the vocabulary, grammar, lexical selection
and illustration examples that appear in IELTS’s training materials and assessments is Western

8
centric. The consortia of founding partners that design and administer the IELTS are English and
Australian institutions (Charge & Taylor, 1997, p. 374). Furthermore, the intention of the IELTS
examination aims to measure the English language proficiency of students who seek to study in a
host institution and country where English is the official language. The IELTS organisation is
transparent, and its policy research reports openly focus on issues that concerns international
students and migrants who live and study in wealthy Western nations where English is the
official language, such as Australia, Britain, Canada and the United States (e.g. Merrifield and
GBM & Associates, 2008). For example, in 2010, the British Council, a founding member of the
IELTS consortium, notes that 45% of international pupils who study a course where English is
the language of communication, are enrolled in “just [my emphasis] four countries: USA,
Australia, UK and Canada.” (Coleman, 2010, p. 8)
The IELTS speaking and writing tests offer candidates vast scope to think critically. Examinees
may offer their own personal viewpoint or speak neutrally in the voice of a third person by citing
the opinions of scholars or other authorities. To illustrate this argument, Figure 1.0, lists a sample
examination question contained in an official IELTS study guide.

9
The question shown in Figure 1.0 clearly has a multinational focus. Candidates may choose to
discuss any aspects that concern any two or more countries. Furthermore, this is not a leading
question. Candidates may offer any explanation to defend their argument. Examinees may
determine how they prefer to discuss the nature and degree of social problems that transpire from
ageism. One could argue that the last question is a leading question as it informs the candidate
that social problems result from ageism. On the other hand, I posit that the examinee may argue
that no problems transpire from ageism in the societies that they discuss, as they may choose to
challenge the premise of this question.
Alternative perspectives
The question shown in Figure 1.0 is representative of the few systemic flaws that are inherent in
the IELTS. To some extent, the IELTS imposes a hidden curriculum as exam content examines
more than the candidate’s English language skills. The vast majority of IELTS questions require
examinees to be willing and able to think and communicative in a critical manner and they must
Figure 1.0
Sample IELTS writing test
IELTS General and Academic Writing Test, Part 2:
In many countries today, insufficient respect is shown to older people.
What do you think may be the reasons for this?
What problems might this cause in society?
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from
your own knowledge or experience.

10
possess a broad general knowledge about a range of topics, such as ageism (Ostrowska & Ryan,
2009, p. 130).
The cultural profiling that exists in the IELTS assessment reflects the wishes of the dominant
demographic who sit the IELTS test. For example, most persons who sit IELTS exam wish to
migrate to Western countries such as Australia. Furthermore, empirical research shows that a
large percentage of IELTS candidates prefer to sit an exam that reflects the social and cultural
norms of the host nation where they plan to work and reside (e.g. Sambell and McDowell, 1998,
p. 397–398). I argue that the IELTS promotes the beneficial outcomes associated with the
negotiated curriculum because it purposefully incorporates its clients’ objectives into the design
of learning materials and the examination (e.g. Shohamy, 2007).
Conclusion
Despite a small number of systemic flaws built into the IELTS, I concur with Birrell (2006, p. 61)
who argues that this exam provides a “reasonably objective confirmation” of a person’s English
language proficiency. No language curriculum can ever be entirely neutral as numerous factors
determine the creation of English language teaching content in the Western context (Pennycook,
1994, p. 178). It is unrealistic to expect any large-scale commercial language testing system to
negotiate a curriculum that accommodates all of their customers’ life courses and language
proficiency skills, as these vary widely (Benesch, 1996, p. 711).

11
References
Adams, G. and Peck, T. (2000), 101 Helpful tips for IELTS academic module, Sydney, Australia:
Adams and Austen Press.
Ahern, S. (2009), “Like cars or breakfast cereal”: IELTS and the trade in Education and
Immigration, TESOL in Context, 19(1), 39–51.
Anyon, J. (1980), Social class and the hidden curriculum of work, Journal of Education, 162(1),
67–92.
Auerbach, E. and Burgess, D. (1985), The hidden curriculum in survival ESL, TESOL Quarterly,
19(3), 475–495.
Auerbach, E. (1986), Competency-based ESL: One steps forward or two steps back?, TESOL
Quarterly, 20(3), 411–429.
Benesch, S. (1996), ESL, ideology and the politics of pragmatism, TESOL Quarterly, 27(4),
705–717.
Berg, L. (2011), Mate speak English you’re in Australia now: English language requirements in
skilled migration, Alternative Law Journal, 36(2), 110–115.
Birrell, B. (2006), Implications of low English testing standards among overseas students at
Australian universities, People and Place, 14(4), 53–64.
Brown, A. (2003), Interviewer variation and the co-construction of speaking proficiency,
Language Testing, 20(1), 1–25.
Campbell, N. and Tham, J. (2002), Labour market deregulation and temporary migrant labour
schemes: An analysis of the 457 visa program, Australian Journal of Labour Law, 26,

12
239–272.
Charge, N, and Taylor, L. (2002), Recent developments in IELTS, ELT Journal, 51(4), 374– 380.
Coleman, H. (2010), The English language in development, London, England: The British
Council.
Craven, E. (2010), The quest for IELTS band 7: Investigating English language proficiency
development of international students at an Australian university, IELTS Research
Reports, 13, 1–61.
Davidson, M. and Pollock, A. (2012), Introducing IELTS, IELTS Research Reports, 11, 1–2.
Department of Immigration and Border Protection, (2015a), Changes to the subclass 457
program: Employer sponsored workers, <http://www.immi.gov.au/skilled/changes-457-
program.htm>. Accessed 2 May 2015.
–––––– (2015b), Frequently asked questions about English language requirements: Employer
sponsored workers, <https://www.immi.gov.au/skilled/skilled-workers/faq.htm>.
Dreeben, R. (1976), The unwritten curriculum and its relation to values, Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 8(2), 111–124.
Dreeben, R. and Gamoran, A. (1986), Race, instruction, and learning, American Sociological
Review, 51(5), 660–669.
Foot, M. (1999), Relaxing in pairs, ELT Journal, 53(1), 36–51.
Graddol, D. (2006), English next: Why global English may mean the end of ‘English as a
Foreign Language’, London England: British Council.

13
Gray, J. (2013), Introduction, in Gray, J. (Ed), Critical perspectives of language teaching
materials, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–16, Basingstoke, England.
Guddmundsdottir, S. (1990), Values in pedagogical content knowledge, Journal of Teacher
Education, 41(3), 44–52.
IELTS (2013), Official IELTS practice materials: Volume 2, London, England: IELTS.
Jackson, P. W. (1968), Life in classrooms, New York, USA: Holt, Rinehart & Wilson.
Jennings-Booher, J. (2008), Learning the label: socialisation, gender, and the hidden curriculum
of high stakes testing, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 29(2), 149–160.
Karami, H. (2013), The quest for fairness in English language testing, Educational Research and
Evaluation: An International Journal on Theory and Practice, 19(2), 158–169.
Khan, R. (2006), The IELTS speaking test: Analysis of speaking bias, Malaysian Journal of ELT
Research, 2, 60–79.
Kubota, R. (2002), (Un)Raveling racism in a nice field like TESOL, TESOL Quarterly, 36(1),
84–92.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006), TESOL Methods: Changing tracks, challenging trends, TESOL
Quarterly, 40(1), 59–81.
McNamara, T. (2006), Managing authority: Language and learning assessment, Language
Teaching, 44(4), 500–515.
Merrifield, G. and GBM & Associates, (2008), The use of IELTS for assessing immigration
eligibility in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United Kingdom, IELTS Research
Reports, 13, 1–32.

14
O’Loughlin, K. (2002), The impact of gender in oral proficiency testing, Language Teacher,
19(2), 169–192.
Ostrowska, S. and Ryan, R. (2009), World knowledge or word knowledge: The influence of
content schemata on the formal assessment of reading skills, Abu Dhabi, United Arab
Emirates: Higher Colleges of Technology.
Pattalun, P.N. (2006), An analysis of sexist language in ESL textbooks by Thai authors used in
Thailand (Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy Thesis), University of North Texas, Texas,
USA.
Pennycook, A. (1994), The cultural politics of English as a Foreign Language, Essex, England:
Longman.
Petras, J. (2000), Myth and reality: The third way, Monthly Review, March 2000, 19–35.
Richards, J. (2001), Curriculum development in language teaching, Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Salameh, W. (2012), The Impact of Social and Economic Factors on Students’ English Language
Performance in EFL Classrooms in Dubai Public Secondary Schools (Unpublished
Master of Education Dissertation), The British University in Dubai International
Academic City, Dubai.
Sambell, K. and McDowell, L. (1998), The construction of the hidden curriculum: messages and
meanings in the assessment of student learning, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 23:4, 391–402.
Shohamy, E. (2007), Language tests as policy tools, Assessment in Education, 14(1), 117–130.
Tham, J. and Campbell, I. (2009), Temporary Migrant Labour in Australia: The 457 Visa
Scheme and the Challenges for Labour Regulation, Paper prepared for the Conference on
‘Regulating for Decent Work – Innovative Labour Regulation in a Turbulent World’,
Geneva, Switzerland, 8-10 July 2009.

15
Tomlinson, M. (2008), The degree is not enough: Students’ perceptions of the role of higher
education credentials for graduate work and employability, British Journal of Sociology
of Education, 29(1), 49–61.
Uysal, H. (2009), A critical review of the IELTS writing test, ELT Journal, April 2009, 1–7.
Woodley, N. (2015), Federal Government announces changes to 457 skilled visa program after
review into rorts and abuse, <http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-18/federal-
government-announces-changes-to-457-visa-program/6328900>. Accessed 2 May 2015.
Wrigley, H. (1993), One size does not fit all: Educational perspectives and program practices in
the US, TESOL Quarterly, 27(3), 449–465.
University of Technology, Sydney (2015), English language requirements,
<http://www.uts.edu.au/future-students/international/essential-information/entry-
requirements/english-language-requirements>. Accessed 2 May 2015.
University of Sydney (2015), English language skills test concordance,
<http://sydney.edu.au/cet/courses_dates/testcon.shtml>. Accessed 2 May 2015.
Yu, G. et al. (2007), The cognitive processes of taking IELTS: Academic writing task one,
IELTS Research Reports, 11, 373–449.

IELTS and the hidden curriculum : Reassessing the evidence

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (13)

Similar to IELTS and the hidden curriculum : Reassessing the evidence

Similar to IELTS and the hidden curriculum : Reassessing the evidence (20)

More from The Free School

More from The Free School (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

IELTS and the hidden curriculum : Reassessing the evidence