Equity, curriculum form and state differences in Australian senior secondary education

This article considers differences and similarities in curriculum form between the senior secondary certificates offered across Australia and offers some starting points for reflecting on the implications of these for equitable access to educational opportunities and outcomes. It draws on three different understandings of curriculum form, one focused on the grid or map of the curriculum and its core categories and levels of specification (Luke et al., 2013), one on the cultural assumptions underpinning significant policy reforms (Collins & Yates, 2011), and one on the internal relations between curriculum contents and the divisions evident in the curriculum assigned to particular groups of students (Goodson, 1992; Teese, 2013). Drawing on these perspectives, the article argues that the certificates are different in multiple ways but at an overview level these differences are to some extent rhetorical and arbitrary, with limited resonance with previous arguments about state differences. There are also common patterns in relation to the knowledges valued and the distinctions enforced between university and non-university pathways but these are obfuscated by the highly complex rules and requirements evident in each jurisdiction. Further research and analysis considering the enactment of these requirements within schools is therefore needed to better understand the equity implications of different requirements and approaches and to think about what kind of curriculum form might be needed to enable an equitable educational system.