New P-12 CARF implemented
Queensland Teachers' Journal, Vol 127 No 1, 11 February 2022, page no.6
The new P-12 Curriculum and Reporting Framework (P-12 CARF), which includes a number of changes around reporting, is now being implemented.
The new framework was released by the Department of Education (DoE) in Term 3 of 2021, to give teachers and educational leaders a semester to consider the new document and to determine what, if any, changes might need to be made to their school’s curriculum and reporting processes.
The improvements to the CARF relate particularly to the requirements around reporting – sending a clear message that twice a year is all that is required and that reporting more than twice a year should only be undertaken after consultation with staff via the LCC. In addition, a school’s approach to comment banks can be locally decided (and workload minimised). This is a significant improvement for schools that have been reporting four times a year, with all the associated workload.
Schools are no longer required to undertake the reviewing and adoption of new pedagogical frameworks. They can work with what they have in place if that suits their purpose. In addition, there is agreement that consultation will occur before any centrally or regionally generated systemic initiatives are implemented.
The revised P-12 CARF reiterates the flexible approach that underpins curriculum delivery in Queensland.
While there was some work involved in considering the new P-12 CARF, a couple of factors need to be considered.
The Australian Curriculum being taught remains the same. Therefore, the units of work to be taught do not need any significant review/alteration. Stacie Hansel, then Acting Assistant Director-General, emailed all principals in early November to advise that the revised Australian Curriculum (version 9) will not be implemented in 2022 until consultation with stakeholders is undertaken. As such, there is no need to review curriculum unit plans.
The time allocations included in the new P-12 CARF are recommendations only, as was the case previously. For example, the previous P-12 CARF allocated 18.5 hours of recommended curriculum time in prep. The new P-12 CARF allocates 17.5 hours (30 mins less in both science and HASS). However, as there are 24 hours and 10 minutes a week of face-to face teaching time, most schools will continue with the same allocations of time as previously. Schools will continue to have the discretion to teach above the recommended hours in a way that suits the delivery of the curriculum and the school’s programs. As an example, the recommended time for teaching science in P-2 was reduced from 60 to 30 minutes. However, it is unlikely that schools will reduce the time that they teach science in these year levels, as the time needed to teach this subject is greater than the recommended time, which is not mandated.
Consideration of when to report on the units of work is the main factor to be considered.
In some instances, reporting requirements have been reduced for some subjects, and questions were raised as to the possibility of subsequent changes to the delivery of the curriculum. However, schools can continue with teaching these subjects in the way they currently do. Primary schools could continue to teach geography and history in two different semesters, for example, in the subject of HASS. They would not need to provide a report on HASS until they had completed the teaching of both geography and history in semester two.
An option could be to provide a generic interim report comment in the first semester, outlining that the subject (HASS) is taught across two semesters and that the final assessment will be awarded in Term 4. Teachers could, if they wanted, report more frequently than once a year, but this would require agreement at the school level. If teachers want to report under two headings at the end of the year they could do so. But, if they want to report under HASS, they would need to consider a process for combining evidence of student achievements across geography and history into a single global result.
I would stress that the intent is not to force a rewrite of your school’s curriculum, programs and planning, but to promote a reconsideration of how to align the reporting periods.