The Draft Visual Arts 7-10 Syllabus (Draft) represents many of the syllabus features we have known and valued in our current syllabus, however, VADEA considers the Draft to be:
● disappointingly reductive and reliant on assumed knowledge
● contrary to reform objectives
● lacking in consistency, clarity or careful sequencing
● lacking in opportunities for students to apply knowledge and skills within frameworks that support their growth in a Visual Arts context.
The Draft represents an erosion of the quality, depth and academic rigour that has been fostered through our current Visual Arts 7-10 syllabus, over the last 20 years. The current Creative Arts K-6, Visual Arts 7-10 and Visual Arts Stage 6 syllabuses provide a coherent, well sequenced and comprehensive Visual Arts curriculum. VADEA asserts that this Draft will diminish the high standard of Visual Arts education fostered in NSW. This syllabus cannot facilitate a continuum of learning into Stage 6 and VADEA encourages all NSW Visual Arts educators to reject this Draft and advocate for significant improvement.
VADEA identifies the following areas as key issues with the current Draft Visual Arts 7-10 Syllabus and offers the following recommendations:
1. Limited scope & misalignment of learning progressions
● The Draft must reassert a continuum of learning across 7-10 that does not rely on verbs and that articulates shifts and progression in knowledge, skills and understanding
● There are significant concerns about how this leads to the high standard of the Stage 6 syllabus (yet to be written, due for implementation 2028)
● Concerns about overlap of learning expectations between Stage 3 (Draft Creative Arts K-6) and Stage 4 with similar verbs used to describe learning expectations
Recommendation: Ensure the continuum of learning is coherent across K-6, 7-10 and 11-12
2. Narrow outcomes
● Outcomes underestimate student achievement in both stages
● Each outcome needs further elaboration to ensure clarity, depth & breadth (as is done in new English & Music syllabus)
● Instead of collating three outcomes together, each outcome needs to be articulated as content separately (as is done in other new syllabuses)
● Student intentionality and praxis is absent
● ‘Representation’, ‘resolution’ and ‘conceptual strength & meaning’ are absent from Draft outcomes, critical for teachers to assist students in understanding their achievements
Recommendation: Adapt the existing 7-10 outcomes which clearly articulate learning and include representation, resolution and conceptual strength and meaning; ensure outcomes represent a shift in learning across each stage.
3. Reductive content
● Descriptions of learning are under-explained and reductive
● Content is now provided in short dot points and diminishes the rich and nuanced nature of our current syllabus (despite much more elaborated content points in other new syllabuses)
● Explanation of how content functions (content overview) is alarmingly absent and relies too heavily on assumed knowledge that may not be the experience of all teachers, including preservice teachers
● Core and essential knowledge is entirely absent from this document
● References to student representational intentionality in artmaking is missing
● Use of example footnotes to elaborate on core concepts/content is inappropriate
● Depth of content misaligned across Focus Areas of Art making and Critical and historical studies in each stage
Recommendation: Provide thorough content overview of each content group in the Course Overview section which articulates the relationship between content and include headings for each agency (e.g. Artist, Artwork etc; Cultural Viewpoint, Structural Viewpoint etc); Include essential elaborated content that allows teachers from all contexts to clearly understand the content they are required to teach.
4. Content groups should be interrelated
● Claims of interrelated Content Groups (art concepts, viewpoints & practice) are not evident in the Draft – despite the provided graphic and statements advising of the interconnectedness of key aspects, the simplified articulation of the content groups within the content points treats them as separate entities and provides no explanation of their interrelatedness and function
Recommendation: Art Concepts should be renamed to reflect the relational function of these core concepts; Rewrite content points that explain the interrelatedness of content groups; Reinstate the current Conceptual Framework diagram to support student learning and clearly articulate the relational nature of core art concepts
5. Viewpoints are inadequate and confusing
● Viewpoints disregard the primary function as an interpretive tool for students and teachers to engage with, adopt and apply in artmaking and critical and historical interpretation
● Viewpoints ignore the significant depth of research and their philosophical underpinnings due to limited elaboration and poor articulation
● Viewpoints are positioned narrowly in Critical and Historical Studies e.g. “artists use a cultural point of view”
● Contemporary viewpoint is confused. In its current form, it has no academic integrity and needs to be an adequate critical structure to interpret and account for emerging artworks and new modes of practice
● Cultural viewpoint represents a narrow view preoccupied with inequity, at the expense of other perspectives
Recommendation: Add clear headings for each viewpoint; Viewpoints need to be elaborated upon in greater depth to reflect function as interpretive tool; NESA should seek advice to strengthen the new contemporary viewpoint to ensure it has academic integrity and then clearly articulate it in a way that explains its focus and use so that teachers can use it as an interpretive tool with students; Remove the narrow reference to ‘inequity’ in the Cultural Viewpoint.
6. Inconsistent and inaccurate use of language
● Issue of language throughout – slippage and inconsistent use of terminology and capitalisation eg: conceptual / practical (conceptual / material & intellectual / practical) and critical & historical studies and/or investigations
● Confusion is generated where language of concepts from current syllabus is misaligned in similar content in the draft eg. language of practice within viewpoints
● Interpretation in Critical and Historical Studies is missing and denies student agency
Recommendation: Revisit language and terminology across the Draft and decide on consistent use of terminology to ensure coherence, clarity and a progression of learning; Identify misaligned language across content groups and rectify.
VADEA asserts that:
● The timing of both the Draft Visual Arts 7-10 and Creative Arts K-6 Syllabus in the middle of the HSC Visual Arts Body of Work has significantly impacted engagement from the broader Visual Arts community
● The structure of the Have Your Say survey is narrow and does not allow for a deep engagement with the Draft syllabus document
● The rationale is less than adequate and it is a lost opportunity to provide clearer articulation of the content groups and their relationships; identify career pathways in the arts & needs to have language tightened up for clarity and coherence
● The aim does provide a succinct statement of the purpose of the syllabus
● The outcomes are NOT clear statements of the essential knowledge, understanding and skills
● The content is NOT appropriate for the outcomes as it is under-explained and reductive
● There is NOT clear progression for learning
● The draft Visual Arts 7-10 syllabus does identify essential facts, concepts and principles but has omitted significant content elaboration that does NOT allow for depth
● The learning sequences are NOT informed by the evidence base on which it declares itself
● Subject specific skills are NOT clearly or explicitly articulated adequately
● The writing content is NOT appropriate for the subject and greater emphasis on writing should be in Critical and Historical Studies, not just in footnotes
VADEA is developing an extensive response to the Draft syllabus and really needs its members to complete their survey.
Make sure you HAVE YOUR SAY, by 11 September 2023, because every voice counts! Individual responses from teachers are critical. When you complete NESA’s HAVE YOUR SAY, make sure you do not copy and paste text from our advice. Any statements made must be in a person’s own words.
