Charlotte Pezaro

In a report released on Monday 27 November, 2023, educational reform consultancy Learning First claims to have conducted the first detailed benchmarking of the content of the Australian science curriculum against seven high-performing and comparable systems around the world.

The claim that this is the first benchmarking activity is just one of many errors in the report, which is rife with unsubstantiated claims, incomplete evidence, and gross assumptions, the most disturbing of which is that more “content” is a key indicator of quality curriculum (with the implication that good teaching is all about transmission of content).

Learning First is a company that claims to “build relationships… based on honesty, integrity and deep experience and expertise” and whose clients “include federal governments in various parts of the world.” Given their activities and clients, this report is worth scrutiny.

In this post, I worry that an emphasis on evidence-based practice would lead to prescribed practice, which would narrow teachers’ opportunities and options for making their own decisions about practice. I will discuss the role of a teacher, and the purpose of education. Next, I will discuss the role of cultural and instrumental research, and suggest that education research holds a unique role for informing education practice. I will take a closer look at what ‘evidence’ is, what forms of data are collected, and some of the limitations of evidence. Finally, I will look at the other sources of information teachers can use to make decisions, caution against taking evidence at face value, and plead for the time, space, and access to research that teachers require to make decisions.