A CASE STUDY OF IMPLEMENTING CURRICULUM OUTCOMES (A Paper delivered at the Australian Association for Research in Education Annual Conference at Hobart on Monday 27 November, 1995) LAURIE BRADY UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, SYDNEY P.O. BOX 222 LINDFIELD. 2070 ABSTRACT This article examines the extent to which teachers are incorporating curriculum outcomes into teaching practice in a sample of four primary schools, each from a different administrative region for schooling in N.S.W. Australia. Using a grounded theory approach, the study involved analysis of interviews with teachers and principals, and observations of classroom activities. Data are reported in relation to teachers' understandings of outcome based education and its benefits; the ways in which teachers are incorporating outcomes into planning and classroom practice; the means of facilitating the implementation of outcome based education; the perceived barriers to implementation; and aspects of best practice. CASE STUDIES OF INCORPORATING CURRICULUM OUTCOMES INTO TEACHING PRACTICE INTRODUCTION In Australia the national curriculum agenda involves the restructuring of traditional subjects into eight new learning areas (English, Mathematics, Studies of Society and Environment, Languages other than English, Science, Technology, the Arts, and Health including physical education and personal development). There is a statement or agreed national position for each of these learning areas, and each area contains a profile indicating outcomes that students have to acquire at each of eight levels of proficiency. To assist in determining if outcomes have been achieved, `pointers' are provided to signal the achievement of outcomes. It was proposed that each state adopt the national framework, and develop state profiles consistent with the national profiles. The profiles would support quality teaching and learning through the identification of desirable learning outcomes. When the state ministers of education failed to unanimously support the establishment of the national framework in July 1993, there was concern that years of work in developing both the new areas and operation of outcomes might be lost. However in May 1995 the Curriculum Corporation surveyed the state departments of education on the extent to which the national profiles had been adopted. The Curriculum Corporation had been established in 1990 to reduce unnecessary differences in curriculum between states and to facilitate collaboration between government and non-government systems in curriculum development. The results, reported to the ministerial council, suggested moderate support: ....almost all States and Territories are using statements and profiles as a basis for their curriculum development while incorporating variations which reflect local policies and priorities. The report further suggests that: There is general acceptance of the outcomes approach to teaching and learning, with most respondents indicating that....they are regarding the next few years as a trial of an outcomes approach. All systems acknowledged the need for gradual implementation, and have chosen a variety of approaches involving concentrating on learning areas, year levels, or a combination of the two. Maths and English have been most frequently selected as priority areas, and primary schools have been targeted. A more detailed description of the current curriculum development position of the Australian states is reported in Brady (1995), and reflects an evolving commitment to outcomes based education. There is a large body of literature on the more general concepts of outcomes in education. This arguably derives from Tyler's (1950) Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction, which emphasised the importance of beginning the process of curriculum design with precise objectives. Once these are delineated it is argued, the selection of content, method and assessment strategies is facilitated. The taxonomies of educational objectives developed in the fifties by Bloom (1956) and Krathwohl (1956) provided a framework in which to state objectives and thereby strengthened the objectives movement. The notion of precise objectives and indicators of achievement was appealing to the accountability movement of the seventies which developed from a dissatisfaction with schooling, and a belief that schools should prepare students individually for success and collectively for national prosperity. The Finn Report (1991) and Mayer Committee (1992) recommendations are current expressions of the need for schools to be more accountable. From the sixties there have been several other precursors to outcomes based education. These include competency based education, criterion referenced learning and mastery learning, which focus on competencies or criterion levels of performance that are achieved by carefully sequenced teaching. A brief account of their evolution is reported in King and Evans (1991). There is however very little research on outcome based education as currently implemented. Commenting upon the rarity of this research, Evans and King (1994 p12) indicate that it is "largely perceptual, anecdotal and small scale". This study endeavours to add to the scant knowledge base, by examining the degree to which a sample of teachers in Australian schools has incorporated outcomes into teaching practice. This analysis involves determining teachers' understanding of outcome based education, the ways those understandings are integrated into practice; the difficulties encountered; the support that has been sought or offered; and the commitment to change that exists. The literature A number of areas of educational literature are pertinent to teachers' incorporation of outcomes into teaching practice. While the literature on self managing schools, teacher autonomy, and teacher participation in curriculum development may illuminate various issues, the two areas of literature with arguably most relevance are those relating to outcome based education, and the nature of the change process that facilitates and hinders implementation. Outcome based education As previously indicated, outcome based education has emerged in different forms over the last few decades. The outcomes that guide teaching in the emerging Australian national profiles are what Spady (1994 p12) defines as "high quality culminating demonstrations of significant learning in context", though these outcomes exist at eight levels of proficiency. Of Spady and Marshall's (1991) three outcome based designs, viz. traditional, transitional and transformational, it is the traditional curriculum alignment style that typically characterises the Australian national curriculum framework. Traditional outcome based education emerges from existing curriculum and details subject content and applications in terms of outcomes. Thus the content and structure of the curriculum remains the same, though with a clearer focus. One perceived problem of such a design is that the culminating demonstration is often confined to small units of instruction which makes each an end in itself. The term `outcome based education' has currency in Australia and the U.S.A., though it is a term that is rarely applied to the national curriculum in England and Wales. The relative recency and uncertainty of implementing outcome based education in Australia, and the consequent dearth of data, explains the predominantly American literature in the field. Definitions of outcome based education provided by Towers (1994, 1992), Glatthorn (1993), Hansen (1989) and Abrams (1985) suggest that it is characterised by: .the development of clearly defined outcomes .the design of learning activities to assure the demonstrated performance .the monitoring of individual performance through the use of criterion referenced assessment .the provision of remediation and enrichment Several reports from the United States extol the merits of outcome based education (McGhan 1994, Haack 1994, Mitchell, Hoyle and Martin 1994, Jasa and Enger 1994, Fitzpatrick 1991, Abrams 1985). Benefits claimed include the elimination of permanent failure and compromised standards (McGhan 1994), the focus on learning achieved rather than time served (Haas 1992), the involvement of the educational community (Stephens and Herman 1984), and the all subsuming advantage of improved test scores. While such claims have a prima facie appeal, they are problematic. The problem of failure may be heightened as students fall further behind in achieving an outcome, and the involvement of the educational community is no more a concomitant of outcome based education than non-outcome based approaches. There are also strong criticisms of outcome based education (Evans and King 1994, Pliska and McQuaide 1994, Schwartz and Cavener 1994, Towers 1994, Glatthorn 1993, McKernan 1993). Some express serious reservations; others state unequivocal opposition; and some approach hysteria. The most common criticisms involve an interpretation of outcome based education as narrow, fragmented, mechanistic and behaviouristic (Schwartz and Cavener 1994, Towers 1994, Glatthorn 1993, McKernan 1993); as limiting creativity and inquiry (Towers 1994, McKernan 1993); as devaluing the affective dimension (Towers 1994, Zlatos 1993); as discriminating against the capable students (Evans and King 1994, Towers 1994); and as involving enormous demands on teachers to individualise teaching, plan remediation and enrichment, administer diagnostic assessment and keep extensive records (Schwartz and Cavener 1994, Towers 1994). Marzano's (1994) plea for research to determine the validity of outcomes based performance tasks, raises the more general issue of whether the nation is sufficiently `assessment literate' to evaluate outcomes, when evaluation of traditional curriculum has arguably been in need of improvement. Thus attention to the assessment implications of incorporating outcomes into teaching practice is one focus of the study. Teachers and change One section of this literature, notably the earlier writings, presented a view of the teacher as recalcitrant and resistant to change. Jackson's (1968) classic study reported that teachers are opinionated rather than open-minded when confronted with alternative teaching strategies, and that they base classroom behaviour more on impulse and feeling than on reflection and thought. Other studies analysed teacher resistance in terms of school/classroom norms or restraints (Duffy and Roehler 1986, Lortie 1975). Lortie (1975) claimed that the norms of `individualism' and `presentism' (concentrating on short range outcomes) influence teacher change, whereas Duffy and Roehler (1986) identify curriculum constraints, instructional constraints, organisational constraints, and constraints associated with milieu. The more recent literature is more sympathetic to teachers and examines the characteristics of teachers and schools that affect change. The studies of Little (1987) and Rozenholtz, Bassler and Dempsey (1986) indicated the importance of the school characteristics of instructional coordination and goal setting, school level management of student behaviour, teacher collaboration with colleagues, and the school norms of collegiality and experimentation. Doyle and Ponder's (1977) study of the `practicality ethic' involving `instrumentality' (whether the change allows for classroom contingencies), `congruence' (whether the change fits the classroom situation) and cost, underline the importance of teaching beliefs in implementing change. In 1988 Smylie attempted to differentiate the aspects of school structure and teacher beliefs that account for change, and concluded that the major factor was personal teaching efficacy. Other writings like those of Connelly (1988) and Clandinin and Connelly (1986) base their beliefs on the highly personal nature of teaching. They focus on helping teachers acquire practical knowledge that is "embedded, experiential and reconstructed out of the narratives of their classroom lives" (Clandinin and Connelly 1986 p383). The largest body of literature examines the nature of change (see Fullan 1994, 1993, 1992, 1991). There are numerous case studies of change (Fullan 1992, Huberman and Miles 1984, Gross et al. 1971, Smith and Keith 1971) and several themes: the requisite of teacher commitment (Rudduck 1991, Sarason 1982); the importance of management support (Huberman and Miles 1984, Gross et al 1971); the need to move beyond the classroom to the school and community (Fullan 1993, Sarason 1982); and demonstrations of the complexity of change (Fullan 1993, Huberman and Miles 1984, Gross et al. 1971). In a summary of the overall theme of the change literature, McLaughlin (1987, p172) claims that "perhaps the overarching obvious conclusions running through empirical research on policy implementation is that it is incredibly hard to make something happen, most especially across layers of governments and institutions". This notion of the complexity and difficulty of implementing a change justifies the examination of the change process that teachers' experience in incorporating outcomes into teaching practice. The method A case study approach was adopted as description and explanation rather than prediction were required, and because it was not possible or feasible to manipulate the causes of behaviour or to identify the variables. As Merriam (1988 p16) claims, the case study is `an intensive, holistic description and analysis of a single entity, phenomenon or social unit'. The study involved interviews of teachers supplemented by examination of programming documents and observations of classroom practice to determine the nature of the understandings teachers have of learning outcomes; the ways these understandings inform teaching practice, and the problem and support involved. These three techniques, viz. interview, documents and observation, comprise Merriam's (1988) essential forms of data collection for a case study. The sample consisted of eight teachers from four different schools in N.S.W. The schools were identified by directors of Schools in each region, as being progressive and active in implementing the state profiles. As each administrative unit for schooling differs in its promotion of implementation and support, four of the ten regions in NSW were used. The principals in each school were also interviewed to obtain further data, and to ascertain the degree of support provided at region and school level. The principals also nominated their two staff for interview: one experienced staff member, and one relatively junior staff member. Each interview lasted approximately 90 minutes, and was taped and transcribed Thus the major data source was the interview transcriptions. Interviews were analysed using the `grounded theory' approach of Glaser and Strauss (1967) and the analytic induction of Lofland (1971), a theory based on the view that `face to face interaction is the fullest condition of participation in the mind of another human being' (p.11). Interview reports were written using predetermined categories, and new categories were developed as themes emerged. Additional data were obtained from observing classroom practice. Each teacher was observed for two lessons, each of approximately 40 minutes duration, and these were followed by informal interview. The focus of the observations and interviews was the extent to which pre-stated outcomes were influencing the direction of teaching practice. The objectives of the study were: .to investigate teachers' understandings of outcome based education and its benefits; .to examine how teachers are incorporating outcomes into their planning; .to analyse how teachers are incorporating outcomes into classroom practice; .to determine means of facilitating the implementation of outcome based education; .to identify barriers to the effective implementation of outcome based education; The interviews and observations took place from May to July 1995. Findings Teacher understandings of outcome based education The concept of outcomes was clearly and uniformly understood as specific targets indicating what students should achieve at different levels. The notion of students being able to demonstrate the achievement, and the place of outcomes in a developmental progression within the profiles was also volunteered in definitions. However, there were marked differences in teachers' understandings of the relationship between outcomes and objectives. These interpretations included objectives as statements of teacher intent and outcomes as statements of student achievement; objectives as statements of short-term intent and outcomes as statements of long-term intent; and objectives as the specific steps to achieving the broader outcome. One teacher explained the difference in terms of degree of conviction: "objectives say you hope it will be achieved; outcomes say you will". In N.S.W., the Board of Studies (1991, p6) defines the difference: `while objectives are usually stated in relatively general terms...statements of outcomes clarify and explicate objectives'. Such differences in interpretations are possibly an indication of the shift in nomenclature, and the resulting limited use of the concept of objectives. There were numerous claimed benefits of outcome based education, particularly in relation to the provision of sharper teacher direction; the increase in parental understanding of student performance; and the facilitation of assessment and planning. Following are the main claimed benefits ranked according to frequency of response: .it provides a clear focus for teachers. A number of respondents claimed that while teachers are adept at planning activities, they are not always focussed on what they want to achieve. One teacher expresses this common view as follows: "Before, you did things without thinking why you did it. Now planning relates to outcomes. I'm constantly thinking "Why am I doing this". .it focuses assessment, as the outcomes become the performance criterion. One teacher succinctly summarised the perceived change: "it isn't just a grab-bag of tests...it is clearly based on set outcomes". .it enhances parents' understanding of what their children are achieving. One principal reported that while parents claimed to understand outcomes, they claimed not to understand assessment (that is not linked to outcomes). So outcomes facilitate reporting to parents. .it facilitates teacher planning and programming, as the precision of outcomes gives direction to the remainder of the planning process. One teacher expresses the common view: "Once I've identified the indicators, it becomes easier to program". .it empowers the students by allowing them to set their own targets. One principal claimed that "it puts the focus on the learner, and increases the success level and kudos of the learner as never before". .it ensures that teachers are more comfortable with accountability, as the achievement of outcomes can be clearly demonstrated to parents and students. .it requires teachers to know their students better (the level at which individual students are performing). .it supports teachers in providing a framework of incremental steps in learning. Teachers argued that the previous problem of conceptualising desirable performance for students in all key learning areas, and clear understanding of learning between teachers, is promoted in the profiles. .it eliminates the notion of failure, as every student performs at his/her level. Questions re the perceived benefits and shortcomings of outcome based education elicited very few broader conceptual or epistemological concerns. Assumptions that knowledge could be carved up into eight bundles or earning areas, or that there is a single universal path from less knowledge to more (as implied in the profiles) were unchallenged. Implications for planning There was general agreement that outcome based education had potentially far-reaching implications for schools. Yet while there was consensus that it had implications for planning, most teachers believed that it had not changed the nature of teaching. Teachers claimed that they programmed by starting with the outcomes (predetermined in the state profiles), and then developed teaching/learning activities and selected resources to achieve the outcomes. Whereas lesson planning had been traditionally content-driven, teachers argued, it had now become outcomes-driven. One teacher claims: "A weakness in teaching was teachers not being able to say what they wanted to achieve. Lessons were content driven". There was also a shared belief that the outcomes provided a framework for assessment that facilitated planning. There was negligible questioning among teachers of the validity of the developmental sequence in the profiles or outcomes, a finding that lends credence to Collins (1994 p15) prediction that teachers "will treat the sequence of school knowledge as given, and the children as the entities who must adapt to it, rather than the other way round". Beyond individual teacher programs, the schools had planned for the implementation of outcomes by linking them to the need for assessment and reporting. The schools allowed different amounts of teacher release time (up to three days) to initially benchmark the students in their respective classes, and introduced different means for teachers to demonstrate or be accountable for student performance. For example, one school developed a spiral bound book for each child, containing the state English profile (foundation to level five), formatted by strand (talking, writing, reading), outcome, and `evidence of progress' (pointers to which teachers could add). There was provision for dating the achievement of outcomes, and a graph or `summary of outcomes achieved' that simply involves highlighting levels as they are demonstrated. Two other schools had developed individual student folders, substantially larger than the conventional book, which involved both the assessment and reporting process. The folders contained outcomes at the relevant levels, and samples of students' best work that demonstrated the achievement of the outcomes. One of the schools linked the outcome in the folder to the appropriate work sample that demonstrated it by a coloured line. The other school utilised `annotations' or personalised letters to students, in the folder, acknowledging the achievement of outcomes. One such annotation in a year one folder reads: Dear Sophie, You have written an excellent story including two or more relevant ideas. You are attempting spelling by matching sounds with words and using your knowledge of sounds and letters. You have spelt some common words accurately, writing known words, and copied words from the word bank. You are experimenting with some punctuation marks such as full stops. You are leaving a space between words, and always write from left to write. Keep up the fantastic writing. Implications for teaching The majority of teachers indicated that there had been no change in the way they taught, suggesting that the introduction of outcomes has few implications for classroom method. One teacher, acknowledging the centrality of assessment in outcome based education, suggested that her techniques may have changed slightly to meet assessment needs. Her response to the question of whether there were implications for teaching, of `no, but yes for assessment' reflects the general view that assessment techniques do not govern the nature of teaching/learning activities. Yet the use of the folders to demonstrate student work and monitor achievement at different levels, may be viewed as both an expression of planning and teaching. One school significantly changed teaching method with the advent of outcome based education, but the selection of those strategies was arguably related to shifts in educational thinking about the learning needs of students, and not specifically to any interpretation of the methodological requirements for implementing outcome based education. The teachers in this school claimed that outcomes provided both a framework in which the new methods could operate, and a means of demonstrating progress. One teacher stated that `outcomes with the right strategies opens the door to a vast network (of methods)'. The methods referred to are based on de Bono's (1987) Six Thinking Hats, and Buzan's (1993) mind mapping. The former provides a successful working model for problem solving, conflict resolution, research and discussion; and the latter shows how ideas can be mapped, explored, linked and amplified. Colour plays an important part in both strategies which have been extended to include flow charting, lexical chains, delphi; networking, and many student-centred methods. Apart from planning with folders or books that specify the outcomes, many teachers suggested that while their teaching methods were not informed by the outcomes, they did state for students at the beginning of lessons the outcome to which their teaching was directed. It appeared that the profiles (outcomes) did matter for the teachers, and that they were operating according to their blueprint. Collins (1994 p.12) foreshadows the danger: "when this happens the teacher literally learns to see the children through the promulgated construct", and the "whole ideological edifice becomes reified". Only one teacher posited a direct link between outcomes and the teaching/learning strategies adopted, indicating that she derived specific strategies from outcomes relating to talking and listening. To promote talking, she would dress children in a variety of costumes, and encouraging them to enter the appropriate role, would ask questions like `who are you', `where do you come from', or `why are you wearing that'. While the use of this strategy derived from this teacher's examination of the outcomes, it may equally have been developed by teachers wishing to promote student talk outside an outcomes framework. While lessons observed were creative in the selection and variation of teaching/learning strategies, there was nothing distinctive about the method that would be related specifically to outcomes. Such a claim is based on the researcher's extensive experience in previous classroom observations. There was certainly no evidence of behavioural methods that are often linked to a mastery learning interpretation of outcome based education. It was significant though that several of the teachers suggested, without prompting, the outcomes to which they were directing their teaching in the observed lesson. Others acknowledged that they had taught much the same lesson before the introduction of the profiles, but in the light of outcome based education, were now using a greater variety of methods. One such lesson involved examination of issues in environmental education. Students classified by matching specific issues cards with broad areas (home, school, area, state, national, global) displayed on the board; shared ideas on the issues in pairs; rephrased designated issues into questions for investigation in small groups, identified arguments for and against specific issues using a proforma provided; and developed a set of recommendations in small groups that were reported to the class. Facilitating the implementation School 1: The principal characterised outcome based education as `the most exciting thing that has happened in all my teaching career', and in facilitating its implementation, has told teachers to `jettison your baggage', or eliminate conventional ways of doing things. Each student has a large work folder which contains the state profiles for all learning areas in which the profiles are available, and students do their best work (which demonstrates the outcomes) in the folder. Teachers annotate the work by writing personalised letters to the students. Thus the folder is the vehicle for assessment and reporting. The teachers meet all families (the parents with the student) two or three times a year, and the process of evaluation is regarded as one of articulation between students, parents and teachers as equal partners. A multi-cell graph, organised by profile strand and sub-levels, is shaded by the teachers to indicate how the student is performing in relation to the grade. As the folder is the assessment and reporting document, no end of year report card is considered necessary. In fact, other documentation is minimised, and the number of student work books is reduced. Creative, student centred methods (mind mapping, the six thinking hats) are recommended as strategies that facilitate student achievement in an outcomes framework. School 2: This school has produced a spiral-bound book (approximately 72 pages) for each child, containing the English state profiles from foundation to level five. Each page is formatted by strand (reading, writing, talking and listening), outcome, and `evidence of progress' (pointers which can be supplemented by teachers). As the outcomes/pointers are demonstrated, the teacher enters the date of achievement. The one book is passed on to the student's successive teachers as a record of achievement. The book which currently operates for English only, also contains sections for recording standardised assessment in reading and spelling; additional support provided, and the outcomes achieved. This `summary of outcomes achieved' is a multi-cell graph relating levels (foundation to five) to strands (reading, writing, talking and listening). The cells are colour shaded as students demonstrate their achievement. School 3: Each student in this school also has a folder (approximately 42 by 30 centimetres) which becomes the reporting process for each student. The state profile outcomes and pointers are entered in two columns to the extreme right and left of each page, leaving a large blank section approximately 28 centimetres in width on which students can present their best work which demonstrates the achievement of outcomes/pointers. This work is often linked by a coloured line to the outcome/pointer it demonstrates. The nature of the folders promotes students' understanding of desired performance, and parents may visit the school twice a year to examine their child's folder. The principal claimed that this system is `a positive framework for children to see what they achieve'. The folders however don't eliminate the need for the conventional number of exercise books. There is also a graph or `registration of learning outcomes' similar to that of the previous two schools to monitor individual progress School 4: While this school has not produced folders or books, or equivalent methods of assessment and reporting, it has been very active in the provision of support for implementing the profiles. Notably, all teachers have been allocated regular release time to form self-nominated teams to write units of work based on the outcomes in the English profiles and to subsequently teach together; and the `levelling' of students is being matched by the provision of resources through the rationalisation of storerooms involving the organisation of reading material according to levels which match those in the profiles. There is also a school resource folder for teachers comprising practical hints for implementing outcome based education. The teachers in all four schools praised the quality of school support, demonstrated by weekly staff meetings, full staff development days, and release time, usually at the beginning of the year to benchmark or place students on appropriate levels. One school has an assessment committee which meets weekly to monitor implementation of the profiles. However, teachers and principals in three of the four schools, believed that the degree of support beyond the school was not sufficient. In N.S.W., each administrative region for schooling provides intensive in-service for three days for selected teachers who then return to schools in their cluster as presenters of eight training and development modules which purport to assist teachers to understand and implement the profiles. Three of the four schools had received training in at least five of the eight modules. Some teachers believed that the modules were not sufficient to skill teachers; other teachers were critical of the quality of the modules, and claimed that they should be `presented' by experts, rather than volunteer teachers who received a time allocation to do so. Some omissions in training were also indicated. One of the schools, itself funded for in-service by the Disadvantaged Schools Program was critical of the fact that there was no in-service on the ESL scales, and consequently conducted in-service by combining neighbouring schools. The support material developed by the Department was generally commended as helpful, if variable in quality. One of the schools was delighted with the amount of region support, with the principal suggesting that `it won't be the English syllabus that will overwhelm people, it will be the support'. This obvious satisfaction, given the dissatisfaction of the other schools may reflect different expectations of the nature or degree of system support, or variation between schools/regions in terms of its quality. Barriers to implementation Teachers and principals identified a number of barriers to the effective implementation of the profiles. In relation to the system, there was some criticism that the quality of staff professional development needed to be improved, and that system implementers needed to be more familiar with the operation of schools. The pace of the implementation time frame was also criticised. At the school level, time was perceived as the greatest barrier both in terms of the speed of implementation, and the time needed to determine student levels and assess. These concerns reflect the findings of Schwartz and Cavener (1994) and Towers (1994) that more demands will be placed on teachers to further individualise instruction, plan remediation and enrichment, use a variety of assessment tools, and keep extensive records. Principals highlighted the importance of staff receptiveness to the change, indicating that staff were generally responsive to change, and not guilty of `individualism' and `presentism' (concentrating on short-term outcomes) (Lortie, 1975). One principal though, did suggest the need for a `critical mass' of staff to accept the challenge of change, and lead others. At the personal level, time, augmented work load, and the pace of change were cited as barriers. A number of respondents referred to the magnitude of change as involving a complete rethink of teaching, a view exemplified by one principal's remark that `putting it on top of what already exists won't work'. While there may be agreement in the literature that teachers' thinking will have to change, Collins (1994) suggests that the very structure of the Australian national curriculum which aims to map school knowledge, cannot succeed in an `objective sense' as it is embedded in `modern pseudo-scientific assumptions' that are no longer tenable. Such a view implies that changes in teachers' thinking is not the answer. Apart from these barriers, two conceptual problems with the profiles as an expression of outcome based education, were identified: .the perception that the outcomes are too broad. For example, the outcome `recognises the effects created by different patterns in spoken texts' was cited as not sufficiently explicit for student demonstration. While there are pointers to indicate the achievement of outcomes, a number of teachers believed that there should be pointers to indicate teaching progress towards outcomes. .the belief that the breadth of outcomes challenges time-cherished notions of progress by academic year. As the levels now span approximately 20 months (eight levels from K-12) a student may well perform at the same level at the end of fourth grade and the beginning of sixth grade. Such a perception has implications for skilling parents in understanding the profiles. One teacher, while generally supporting outcome based education, expressed the reservation that an approach that is purely driven by outcomes is so structured that it may constrain creativity in teaching/learning activities. Another cautioned that outcome-based education could be mechanistic in its insistence on the demonstration of behaviour, and thereby ignore `the whole person'. One teacher states: "I spent a lot of time talking to parents about achievement (of outcomes), not about the whole person. I sounded impersonal, repetitive and boring". Such a statement reflects the concern of Schwartz and Cavener (1994), Towers (1994), Glatthorn (1993 and McKernan (1993). Managing change The case studies support the contention of Little (1987) and Rosenholtz, Bassler and Dempsey (1986) that the characteristics of schools affect change. All four schools were characterised by a high level of instructional coordination and goal setting, and the norms of collegiality and experimentation. They shared a commitment to high quality support for profile implementation, including full school development days and regular staff meetings. All schools discussed the profiles in full school staff meetings, practised their implementation in classrooms, and returned to the full staff forum for further discussion. In one school, self-nominated teams would write and teach together, and then report back to all staff. Such collegiality was demonstrated within the context of massive professional development programs. The schools were also characterised by an organisational climate conducive to sharing and innovation. The comment of one teacher that "this is a really innovative school...anyone will sit down and help you" reflects the typical expression of collegiality and innovation within the context of a positive organizational climate. Such a positive climate may be attributed to management support in general, or the quality of principal leadership in particular. A common factor was the leadership of excellent principals who possessed a vision, and who worked collaboratively to institutionalise that vision. The principals in all four schools had fully considered how change could best be implemented. At interview, one principal posed the rhetorical question `do I change practice first, or teaching beliefs', and answered by indicating that both would be addressed concurrently. Tye (1974) posited a relationship between the principal, the climate of the school and group decision making, a belief confirmed by Brady's (1984) study of 20 systematically selected primary schools in NSW Australia which focussed on curriculum decision making. Within this ethos, teachers were not recalcitrant or resistant to change. They exhibited apparently genuine commitment, an essential requirement for change (Rudduck 1991, Sarason 1982) and were vitally concerned with the congruence (Doyle and Ponder 1977) or `degree of fit' of outcome based education in classrooms. All interviewed teachers claimed high commitment, and indicated that both they and their students would gain a great deal from outcome based education. Only one school conceded the existence of a few staff who were resistant to change. CONCLUSION This research involved a case study approach of four schools that were nominated by directors of schools as active in the implementation of the state profiles. As such they are not typical or representative. It was apparent that in each outcome based education, expressed through the profiles, is guiding planning for teaching, with outcomes-driven programming replacing content-driven programming. Outcome based education ipso facto may not have changed classroom pedagogy in any overt way, except perhaps by making assessment more central and ubiquitous, though in one school it has prompted a significant reconsideration of teaching/learning strategies. There remains a need for system administrators to clarify the concept and implications of outcome based education as it is represented in the state profiles, particularly in relation to recommending creative and flexible student-centred classroom practices that can operate in an outcomes framework. Furthermore, all teachers require support in the form of time and opportunity to reflect within the context of vigorous quality professional development. While the study supports McLaughlin's (1987) contention re policy implementation that `it is incredibly hard to make something happen', the four schools in question have made substantial progress. References ABRAMS J.D. (1985) Making outcome based education work, Educational Leadership, 43,1, 30-32. BLOOM, B.S. (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals: Handbook 1, Cognitive Domain (New York, David McKay). BOARD OF STUDIES (1991) Curriculum Outcomes North Sydney, Board of Studies. BRADY, L. (1995) Curriculum Development (Sydney, Prentice Hall of Australia). BRADY, L. (1984) Principal behaviour and curriculum decision making. The relationship between organizational climate and methods of curriculum decision making, The Journal of Educational Administration, 22,1,pp.15-23. BUZAN, T. (1993) The Mind Map Book (Great Britain, BBC Books). CLANDININ, D.J. and CONNELLY, F.M. (1986) `Rhythms in teaching: the narrative study of teachers' personal practical knowledge of classrooms, Teaching and Teacher Education. 2,4, pp.377-87. COLLINS, C. (1994) Curriculum and Pseudo-Science : Is the Australian National Curriculum Built on Credible Foundations (Canberra, Australian Curriculum Studies Association). CONNELLY, F.M. (1988) Teachers as Curriculum Planners, (New York, Teachers College Colombia University Press). CURRICULUM CORPORATION (1995) Take-up of Statements and Profiles. Summary Report (Victoria, Board of Studies). DAWKINS, J. (1988) Strengthening Australia's Schools (Canberra, AGPS). DE BONO, E. (1987) Six Thinking Hats (Penguin Books). DOYLE, W. and PONDER, G.A. (1977) The practicality ethic in teacher decision making, Interchange, 8,3, pp.1-12. DUFFY, G. and ROCHLER, L. (1986) Constraints on teacher change, Journal of Teacher Education, 37,1, pp.55-58. EVANS, K.M. and KING, J.A. (1994) Research on O.B.E. : What we know and don't know, Educational Leadership, 51,6, pp.12-17. EVANS, K.M. and KING, J.A. (1994) Outcome based and gifted education: Can we assume continued support, Roeper Review, 16,4, pp.260-64. FINN, B. (1991) Young People's Participation in Post Compulsory Education and Training, Report of the Australian Education Council Review Committee, (AGPS, Canberra). FITZPATRICK, K.A. (1991) Restructuring to achieve outcomes of significance for all students, Educational Leadership, 48,8, pp.18-22. FULLAN, M.G. (1994) Teacher Leadership: A Failure to Conceptualise. A Paper, (Toronto, University of Toronto). FULLAN, M.G. (1993) Change Forces. Probing the Depths of Educational Reform (London, The Falmer Press). FULLAN, M.G. (1992) Successful School Improvement (Toronto, OISE Press). GLASSER, B.G. and STRAUSS, A.L. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, (Ilinois, Aldine Pub. Co.). GLATTHORN, A.A. (1993) O.B.E. Reform and the curriculum process, Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 8,4, pp.354-63. GROSS, N., GIACQUINTA, J.B. and BERNSTEIN, M. (1971) Implementing Organisational Innovations: A Sociological Analysis of Planned Educational Change (USA, Basic Books). HAACK, M.K. (1994) Defining outcomes for guidance and counselling, Educational Leadership, 51,6, pp.33-37. HAAS, J. (1992) Issues in outcome based schooling, NASSP Bulletin, 76 Dec, pp.97-100. HANSEN, J.M. (1989) O.B.E. : A smarter way to assess student learning, The Clearing House, 63,4, pp.172-4. HUBERMAN, A.M. and MILES, M.B. (1984) Innovation Up Close. How School Improvement Works (USA, Plenum Press). JACKSON, P.W. (1968) Life in Classrooms (New York, Holt Rinehart and Winston). JASA, S. and ENGER, L. (1994) Applying O.B.E. to arts education, Educational Leadership, 51,6, pp.30-32. KING, J.A. and EVANS, K.M. (1991) Can we achieve outcome based education, Educational Leadership, 49,2, pp.73-5. KRATHWOHL, D.R. (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals: Handbook 2, Affective Domain (New York, David McKay). LITTLE, J. (1987) `Teachers as colleagues' in Richardson-Koehler, V. (ed) Educators' Handbook: A Research Perspective (New York, Longman). LOFLAND, J. and L. (1984) Analysing Social Settings. A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis. 2nd edition. (California, Wadsworth Publishing Co.). LORTIE, R.C. (1975) Schoolteacher, A Sociological Study (Chicago, University of Chicago Press). MARZANO, R.I. (1994) Lessons from the field about outcome based performance assessments, Educational Leadership, 51,6, pp.44-50. MAYER Committee (1992) Employment Related Key Competencies. A Proposal for Consultation (E. Mayer-Chair), (The Mayer Committee, Melbourne). McGHAN, B. (1994) The possible outcomes of outcome based education, Educational Leadership, 51,6, pp.70-72. MCKERNAN, J. (1993) Some limitations of outcome based education, Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 8,4, pp.343-53. MCLAUGHLIN, M.W. (1987) Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9,2, pp.171-78. MERRIAM, S.B. (1988) Case Study Research in Education. A Qualitative Approach, California, Jossey-Bass. MITCHELL, L., HOYLE, C., and MARTIN, C. (1993) Designing successful learning: staff development for outcome based instruction, Journal of Staff Development, 14,3, pp.28-32. PLISKA, A.M. and MCQUAIDE, J. (1994) Pennsylvania's battle for student learning outcomes, Educational Leadership, 51,6, pp.66-69. ROSENHOLTZ, S. J., BASSLER, O., and HOOVER DEMPSEY, K. (1986) Organisational conditions of teacher learning, Teaching and Teacher Education, 2,2, pp.91-104. SCHWARTZ, G. and CAVENER, L.A. (1994) Outcome based education and curriculum change: advocacy, practice and critique, Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 9,4, pp.326-38. SMITH, L.M., and KEITH, P.M., (1971) Anatomy of Educational Innovation. An Organisational Analysis of an Elementary School (U.S.A., John Wiley). SMYLIE, M.A. (1988) The enhancement function of staff development: organisational and psychological antecedents to individual teacher change, American Educational Research Journal, 25,1, pp.1-30. SPADY, W.G. (1994) Choosing outcomes of significance, Educational Leadership, 51,6, pp.118-22. SPADY, W.G. and MARSHALL, K.J. (1991) Beyond traditional outcome based education, Educational leadership, 49,2, pp.67-72. STEPHENS, G.M. and HERMAN, J.J. (1984) Outcome based education planning, Educational Leadership, 41,8, pp.45-7. TOWERS, J.M. (1994) The perils of outcome based teacher education, Phi Delta Kappan, April, pp.624-7. TOWERS, J.M. (1992) Some concerns about O.B.E., Journal of Research and Development in Education, Winter, pp.89-95. TYE, K.A. (1974) The Culture of the School, in Goodlad, J.I. (ed) Toward A Mankind School : An Adventure in Humanistic Education (New York, McGraw Hill). TYLER, R.W. (1950) Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction, (Illinois, Chicago University Press).