{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02259475218658892, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.538095238095238, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Learning not borrowing from the Queensland education system: lessons on curricular, pedagogical and assessment reform

ABSTRACT This paper provides a detailed account of the Queensland education system's engagement with reforming curriculum, pedagogies and assessment. In so doing, it responds to the University College London's Institute of Education report on ‘high-performing’ jurisdictions, of which Queensland, Australia, was identified as one. In this report, nine issues and choices in relation to ‘instructional systems’ confronting a new education minister (or secretary) are considered. This paper details the strengths of the Queensland education system in relation to curriculum, pedagogy and assessment, whilst acknowledging that particular aspects of the global and national Australian contexts, alongside internal Queensland politics, can inhibit the ongoing work of the very processes that led to Queensland being identified in the Institute of Education report as a ‘high-performing jurisdiction’. We conclude by arguing that minsters of education need to take a longer view of educational reform than is currently the case and that quick fixes determined by electoral policy cycles need to be avoided. Learning about and from one's own system as well as from others requires a depth of analysis and time that is often not conducive to such policy cycles.