Adoption by the states was slow and inconsistent. A survey of the state departments of education by the Curriculum Corporation in July 1997 indicated that almost all states were using the statements and profiles as a basis for curriculum development though with local variation, and that they perceived the nationally developed documents as providing a common language, a national set of standards, and a framework for planning, assessing and reporting.

As a result of a review, Focusing on Learning in 1995, NSW abandoned the nationally developed statements and profiles for implementation through syllabuses, yet remains committed to 'a manageable number of outcomes'. While the most common modification made to the national profiles by other Australian states has been a reduction in the number of outcomes, outcomes have been adopted nation-wide as a means of system accountability because they are overt, observable and therefore assessable indicators of student achievement.

While student assessment has been a perennial and contentious area of debate among educators in this country, the relatively recently created need to assess within an outcomes framework, has caused a resurgence of interest.

After the initial impact of the national curriculum in the early to mid nineties, there was a hiatus before the implications for assessment were fully addressed. In NSW, the Department of School Education (DSE), restructured as The Department of Education and Training (DET) in 1996, produced publications on assessment in 1996 and 1997, both of which focused on how to assess within an outcomes framework.

This article reports on survey research in a sample of primary or elementary schools in NSW which investigated teachers' assessment and reporting practices in relation to outcomes. As the research is the only study known to the author which has examined assessment and reporting practices within an outcomes framework, it is considered to be of value to curriculum developers as they develop curriculum and support materials for teachers; teacher educators as they skill prospective teachers in current and desirable assessment practice; and policy makers as they determine future directions and staff development.

Second, there is the literature which indicates principles for effective assessment (Department of Education and Training 1997, Board of Studies 1996, NSW Department of School Education 1996, Brady 1995, Broadfoot 1991, Griffin and Nix 1991). Such principles involve assessment as varied, valid, engaging the learner, valuing teacher judgments, being 'situated', being sensitive to 'wholes' rather than discrete elements, and being a continuous and integral part of teaching and learning.

Third, there is the literature which presents assessment strategies. These are most fully itemised in Brady and Kennedy (1999) as anecdotal records, checklists, conferences, contracts, diaries, direct questions, extended writing, extrapolation, interviews, journals, matching, multiple choice questions, peer and self assessment, performance assessment, portfolios, rating scales, running records, sentence completion or cloze and sociometry.

The reporting literature largely parallels the assessment literature in focusing on purpose, principles and strategies. In fact, the two are often addressed together in much the same way as teaching and learning. Again, Brady and Kennedy (1999) provide a comprehensive list of reporting strategies subsumed under reports; parent-teacher interviews; portfolios; homework; written material; curriculum and policy statements; open days, speech nights, assemblies; and public displays.

However, reporting also receives additional coverage. Groundwater-Smith and White (1995) provide a fine analysis of the information needs of parents, suggesting that these needs are cyclical (varying through the year), contextual (involving the community) and social (relating to the processes conducive to sharing information). Recording as the basis for effective reporting, also figures prominently in the work of Broadfoot (1991) and Conner (1991).

Brady (1999, 1997) found that while the prevailing constructivist view in Australia by which learners and teachers are regarded as independent makers of their own knowledge, operated against a strong behaviourist approach to outcome based education, outcomes, as observable benchmarks of student performance, have nonetheless been adopted by teachers in their planning for teaching.

Given the manageable sample of 72 schools, nine school districts from the 40 state districts were selected, predominantly from the Sydney area, with the intention of selecting eight schools from each district.

To ensure representativeness as regards the distribution of different school types, stratified proportional sampling was used. In NSW, primary schools are classified from P1 to P6 depending upon the total enrolment of students (a P1 is the largest in terms of student numbers, and a P6 is the smallest). The Directory of Government Schools in NSW (1996) was consulted to determine the proportion of school types in each school district. As there were six different school types, and only eight schools were required from each district, it was decided to combine the six types into three broader types (P1 and P2; P3 and P4; and P5 and P6) to ensure a more meaningful distribution. Table 1 displays the proportion of school types for each district. The first column displays the percentage of the type in the district sample; the second column displays the numerical equivalent for a sample of eight; and the third column displays the actual number of schools selected.

Take in Table 1

The survey was administered in September 1998 to 1290 teachers, and the response rate from participating schools was 72 percent.

Data were analysed using SPSS (1988) to obtain frequency distributions, T tests for significance and multiple analysis of variance to determine significant differences according to school type, status, teaching experience, age and gender. The major findings follow.

However, teachers indicated that not all areas are amenable to assessment by outcomes. The relatively low means for assessing outcomes for inquiry (2.83) and creativity (2.81) either reflect the difficulty of demonstrating certain learning outcomes, or the need to codify learning in those areas.

Several explanations are possible. Arguably the most persuasive is the nature of current curriculum documents in the respective areas. Since the abandonment of the national statements and profiles in 1995, NSW has been gradually introducing new curricula. Maths and english are two such curricula and are heavily based on the achievement of outcomes.

A second explanation involves a perceived hierarchy of worth in learning areas. English, maths and science have traditionally been dubbed the 'basic skills' and form the basis of state wide testing in literacy and numeracy. Perhaps the use of outcomes in assessing these areas reflects the need for clear benchmarks of student achievement in basic skills areas.

An equally plausible explanation is that such a sequence also comprises a sequence relating to ease of assessment. It may well be more difficult to formulate precise statements of educational intent in affective areas (aspects of society and personal development), or in areas involving greater subjectivity of assessment (personal development and the creative arts). Conversely, outcomes may be more easily demonstrated in subjects like maths and science.

The explanation for the sequence of cognitive, affective and psychomotor may be as simple as the amount of time devoted to each. While the affective component of all learning areas may be difficult to determine, the psychomotor area, which lends itself to demonstrated behaviour, comprises relatively little of the primary school curriculum.

Table 2 displays the means for the use of the various assessment strategies. While not necessarily 'discrete' as strategies, they are derived from the literature reported in the review, and yield useful information.

Take in Table 2

The date of emergence of the national curriculum may well explain this finding. As the national curriculum with its emphasis on outcomes, was introduced in the early to mid 90s, this youngest group of teachers was the first to be appointed under the banner of the new national system. Many may well have been trained in the planning for, and assessment of outcomes, in their teacher education programs.

Assuming an approximate correlation between age and teaching experience, the teachers with least teaching experience were significantly more likely to assess using outcomes in science and technology (0.02), studies of society (0.01), and personal development/health/physical education (0.02). While these findings may be explained in the same way as those for age, the additional fact that the direction for each of these findings was unilinear across six cells of teaching experience requires further explanation that the author cannot provide.

Another unilinear finding involved the fact that the more experienced teachers were significantly more likely to use subjective assessment (0.00). A possible explanation is that intuitive and subjective judgment is the legacy of experience.

There is however some evidence to suggest that the primacy of outcomes relates to cognitive or knowledge and skill dimensions of the school curricula, and that teachers still struggle to assess by outcomes in the less easily demonstrated affective dimensions of schooling; the more subjective and problematic areas like creativity; and the process areas like inquiry. The continuing and concerted outcomes 'push' requires innovative and creative ways of determining demonstrable and desirable student behaviours or products in these areas.

Another assessment revolution of the 90s has been the emergence and consolidation of portfolios or work sample folders as the principal means of assessing student achievement and reporting it to parents. While conventional report card methods incorporating marks and comments still retain a place as a reporting mechanism, the portfolio which clearly demonstrates student work and the extent to which it meets specified outcomes, is both a satisfying assessment and reporting tool, and an infallible demonstration of teacher accountability.