Jennifer Carter

Chaos in music and drama syllabus

NESA – it’s murder on the dance floor and in the theatre: how educators fought back

drama, Music education, , , , , ,

The Arts have often been agitators in challenging systems. The NSW Educational Standards Authority (NESA – and there are no equivalent bodies in other states and territories) has stirred a hornet’s nest. How? It introduced a new draft drama syllabus for senior school and new draft music syllabuses for senior school with not enough consultation.

The CEO of NESA even recognised the unprecedented outrage reaction from drama and music educators at the emergency additional NSW Arts Education Inquiry hearing in response to the reaction. 

Teachers and academics, so often pitted against one another, have united together for insurgence against the imposed didactics from the authorities. There is the potential for this collective to have a genuine, positive impact.

Speaking out together

On the release of the draft drama syllabus, there were several immediate responses. Academics and teachers communicated through professional organisations, voicing concerns, rather than awaiting a 6 – 18 month research journal publication or relying on the consultation survey alone. Indeed, many teachers are stifled by their employment obligations to speak publicly. 

But those with freedom to speak contacted politicians across the ideological divide, wrote articles here, here and elsewhere and engaged the media. An e-petition was also set up to suspend and remove the draft syllabus from circulation and restart the review process. 

The community of voices grew in unprecedented ways, gaining a rally of responses from former drama students, industry professionals and celebrities, who made their stand against the proposed changes bold and resolute. 

This week was especially momentous. Drama educators numbering in the hundreds united for an expert panel discussion “Our Syllabus, Our Stories” held at the Seymour Centre in Sydney. Courageously, the CEO of NESA, Paul Martin, attended the event, spoke, and answered questions. 

One backflip

Martin has already announced one significant backflip on the proposed changes, shaking the parameters and rigour of the so-called formal consultation period that was otherwise set to end December 20 2024. Specifically, the Group Performance project will once again be externally examined. He also guaranteed that any proposed changes were not economically based. Despite the cynicism of many, if educators and the system are to work collegially with each other, there must be a belief that we are all working in ‘good faith.’  

 But there are still issues to address. The changes to the syllabus will not necessarily improve declining numbers of students choosing drama as an elective. The socially constructed lower ATAR branding is a major disincentive that needs to be addressed. The syllabus changes will not decrease teachers’ workload, though it is promising that NESA recognises that drama teachers sacrifice their personal time outside of working hours to prepare students for assessments. 

No-one said the COVID responses were an improvement

Arguing that the changes suggested are based on positive aspects of the response to the COVID lockdowns is incorrect. Teachers made changes to support students, but no one suggested these were improvements. By limiting materials that can be used in the drama curriculum, by removing methods of submission of material, or even areas to assess, not only will NESA limit the pedagogical potentials for students, but there is also a real fear that students with a disability will be impacted.

Many students with a disability choose the Arts as areas to engage with as they are taught in inclusive ways through the Arts, and offered a variety of methods to demonstrate deep understanding and success rather than solely through the skill of writing. To be a fully inclusive society, we must offer diverse means to assess the curriculum and offer a variety of means to submit assessments. We need to retain the depth in source material for students to work with. 

Educators united

The NSW drama and music syllabuses at the HSC level are highly regarded internationally for offering real world experiences and authentic assessment. Teachers and academics are united in ensuring it remains so.

The NSW Education Standards Authority (NESA)  is responsible for developing and implementing the official curriculum. NESA’s role, in part, is to provide the syllabus documents that outline the content for courses in specific subjects. 

The dismay from all involved in music education also, has resulted in a sustained campaign involving an Open letter to Education and Early Learning Minister Prue Car from renowned academics from all states of Australia, a petition signed by over 5,000 teachers and education lecturers, articles in EduResearch Matters (drama and music), the Sydney newspapers, and an extra Parliamentary Inquiry for both drama and music to present their expert opinions regarding the proposed changes. NESA was also grilled by the Select Committee and refused to make any concessions on the three music syllabuses and only a minor one on the Drama Syllabus.

By uniting across disparate groups that often are pitted against each other, teachers and academics are demonstrating their power as a collective. It also shows the wider community that quality teaching and learning in schools is greatly affected by broader factors. Agencies such as NESA play a major role in enabling or constraining the possibilities for both teaching practice and student learning experiences.

Power as a collective

The inclusive design of the original Music 1 course, for example, was the attraction for students who had previously not had the opportunity to have private music lessons, where typical students can “range from those with beginner instrumental and/or vocal skills to those with highly developed performance skills in a variety of musical styles including contemporary/popular music” (Music 1 Syllabus, 2010, p. 8). 

In 1978, the NSW Minister for Education, Eric Bedford, insisted that ‘society is not made by schools: schools reflect society’ and warned that if ‘society places demands upon schools such that all cannot be met, then the purpose of school loses definition and schools appear to become ineffective.’ Is it Time for an Educational Audit? Introductory Address, Public Seminar, Sydney). The proposed changes to the arts syllabuses suggest that in the supposedly more enlightened times of 2024, NESA has totally disregarded this line of thought and has been intent on revising our NSW syllabuses for the sake of placing their mark on syllabus history (as distinct from the Board of Studies), with disregard for the wisdom of that legacy, intent on insisting that “one size fits all” in arts education.

Highlighting NESA’s failures

Highlighting the failure of NESA to produce robust syllabuses for review and enactment – regardless of the subject – safeguards against wrongly blaming school leaders and teachers for being solely responsible for student learning. Indeed, state level systems must provide conditions for nurturing quality education in school – a view that is applicable in all subjects.  Diminishing the performative aspects of the Arts Assessment, for example, devalues the authenticity of the courses and teaching and learning opportunities in classrooms. 

NESA’s proposed changes to the drama and music syllabuses need to be withdrawn so those with expertise and experience in the teaching of the various artforms can be used to truly create a syllabus that is inclusive, reliable and fit for purpose. 

Biographies


Left to right: Jennifer Carter is a sessional academic at the Sydney Conservatorium of Music after a career as a music teacher and head teacher in NSW schools. She was Chief Examiner of HSC Music in NSW and was a Senior Registration Officer at the NSW Education Standards Authority. She has presented at music conferences both nationally and internationally. Her PhD thesis researched secondary classroom music teachers and the development of music syllabus documents.

Matthew Harper is an early career researcher in the Teachers and Teaching Research Centre at the University of Newcastle. Matt has collaborated with colleagues on a range of research exploring student aspirations, quality teaching in schools and higher education contexts, and curriculum and pedagogy theory and development. His doctoral research compared secondary mathematics and drama in the Australian schooling context.

James Humberstone is a senior lecturer in music education at the Sydney Conservatorium of Music, The University of Sydney. He specialises in teaching music pedagogies, technology in music education, and musical creativities. James publishes traditional research focusing on music teacher worldview, technology and media in music education, and artistic practice as research. He is also a composer and producer whose music is performed in major venues around the world.

David Roy is a lecturer and researcher in Education and Creative Arts at the University of Newcastle (AUS); and was formerly a teacher for 17 years. He uses his research to inform inclusion and equity practices across Australia, with a particular focus on children with a disability, policy, and engagement with the Arts.

Music: Enthusiastic singers

Our nationally-leading music courses are now under threat

Curriculum review, Music education, , , , , ,

The NSW Education Standards Authority (NESA) curriculum review puts music courses at risk, not just in NSW, but across Australia. NSW has twice the number of students taking music than any other state. That makes it a leader.

The proposed changes fall short of research, best practice, and teacher expectations. This is despite NESA’s claims of strengthening post-school pathways and fostering lifelong learning, . 

Worst of all, the “revamped” Music 1 course—the country’s most popular Year 12 offering — severs meaningful ties to further study or the music industry.

The back story

NSW has historically enjoyed the leading music curriculum in the country, when measured by innovations and research internationally.NSW modernised its senior music syllabuses in the 1980s and embraced integrated learning: students performed, composed improvised alongside traditional literacy and aural skills. This inclusive approach reflects real-world diversity and career pathways. It was strengthened in the 90s and in 2000 by a focus on multiculturalism, contemporary Australian music, and student specialisation.

“Music 1” is by far the most popular course. It’s a music-for-everyone course. You don’t need to have studied an instrument privately for years to take Music 1. You can be a Chopin-loving pianist, a shredding guitar soloist, or an Electronic Dance Music producer. You can study any music of the last 1,000 years. You can elect to specialise in performing, composing, or musicology. Or you can balance each of those learning experiences. 

Envy of the nation

This broad choice has made us the envy of the nation. Dr Emily Wilson, senior lecturer in Music Education at the University of Melbourne, usually speaks jealously when she talks about our courses, because she says that at around 7% of the total HSC candidature, it’s twice the rate of student engagement compared to Victoria and Queensland. 

“Music 2”, in its own words, “focuses on the study of Western art music”. Even this more traditional course was really cutting-edge for its time. It insisted all students learn to compose, even if their specialisation was in performance. And in the HSC year , it focuses on contemporary Australian Music rather than classical or romantic repertoire. Music Extension can only be taken by Music 2 students, with a Western art music focus. It has allowed these students to do a further specialisation in one area of their choice.

These courses were far from perfect. They feature outdated elements like requiring song submissions via written scores. Also, the obsolete “Concepts of Music” highlighted the need for more authentic approaches to music theory and literacy. Pedagogical breakthroughs in other countries would benefit NSW. These include  the extensive research and practice in informal learning, and culturally responsive pedagogy.

The problem at NESA

Concerns about NESA’s reform began early. Educators experienced disappointment with the new K-6 and 7-10 syllabuses. They regressed from evidence-based integrated approaches and added rigid content. The opaque process was marked by non-disclosure agreements and vague public feedback summaries. By NESA’s own admission, it left educators guessing how their input shaped the final drafts.

The NSW syllabuses since the 1990s had been based on Swanwick and Tillman’s 1986 Curriculum Spiral model . NSW used to pride itself on a continuum from year 7 to year 12, with skills  built on at each stage of learning. The proposed changes erase the continuity in the senior curriculum, performing, listening, and composing in years 7-10.

NESA relies on a workforce with varied professional backgrounds – rather than subject experts with deep teaching experience. That leads to poor decisions and leaves specialists grappling with flawed syllabuses. Meaningful consultation—such as face-to-face sessions across the state, not just online updates—would boost teacher morale. That’s particularly true in rural areas, where the process currently feels like a steamroller, pushing ahead despite clear deficiencies.

NESA’s shortcomings in understanding music education have been replicated in the recent release of an equally poorly researched and written drama course. All of the evidence (in the syllabuses themselves) suggests this is because of NESA’s intransigent position toward making the Arts subjects fit into the same template and nomenclature as the more “important” subjects such as maths, English, and science.

Attacks on Music 1 – Time Travelling, backwards

Music 1 has been the leading music course in the country because of its breadth of choice and inclusion. The draft syllabus destroys the diversity and inclusivity of the existing course, while at the same time making it weaker against its own evidence base.

Gone are the wide range of topics that can be studied, and in their place a restrictive list of mandatory “Focus Areas”. While many have incorrectly thought of Music 1 as “the pop course”, it actually served as a conduit for many classically-trained musicians in public schools that could not afford to run both courses. Sadly, that is most of them. Under the new mandatory list, this is impossible. Now songwriters, DJs, producers, and other contemporary musicians will be forced to study topics of little interest to them or relevance to their future careers. It is an aggressive narrowing of the curriculum which experts believe will lead to widespread disengagement from the course. Prescribed topics were part of the early music syllabuses for the 1950s Leaving Certificate, carried over to the first HSC music syllabuses, then relinquished in the 1980s in line with leading research and practice.

The proposed examination includes the introduction of a two-hour aural exam with increased weighting. The composition and musicology electives are being binned, reminiscent of the 1970s.

Attacks on Music 2 and Extension

The proposed Music 2 examination allocates 40 marks each to written and performance exams, with restrictive performance options and limited topic choices. That curbs students’ ability to pursue their interests. The composition component, worth 20 marks, mandates a duet, trio, or accompanied solo within a narrow focus on recent Australian art music. While these changes may aim for equity, they undermine the syllabus’s flexibility and breadth. Similarly, the Extension examination now limits specialisations, requiring either two performance pieces (including an ensemble) or two compositions, alongside another 50-mark written aural exam focused on unspecified ‘prescribed’ repertoire—an approach reminiscent of rigid external testing. NESA’s pushing of written exams is a return to post-Sputnik debates about legitimising music in the curriculum in the 1950s. 

We assume – we hope –  NESA does not realise that it is repeating the mistakes of 70 years ago.

What does the research base really tell us?

The current curriculum reform, meant to be based on the Geoff Masters review Nurturing Wonder and Igniting Passion, diverges significantly from its recommendations. The report called for simplifying an overcrowded curriculum but the new music syllabuses introduce more content points and prescriptive structures. It advocated integrating knowledge and skills, yet the new syllabuses prioritise what Elliott & Silverman term “verbal knowledge”—written knowledge about music—over musical knowledge, assessed through music-making. 

Instead of flexibility, the new syllabuses impose mandated content, reducing teachers’ ability to adapt to their students. As Fuller notes, what works best may not work best for music education. Carter critiques NESA’s focus on the HSC, which pressures teachers to prioritize exam preparation over broader learning. Hughes highlights NSW’s fixation on maintaining standards and traditional benchmarks, with assessment driving curriculum changes. Teachers, however, recognise the importance of holistic approaches, and research confirms that successful teaching builds on students’ understanding of the subject.

A restrictive, exam-focused syllabus will inevitably result in restrictive, exam-focused teaching.

We need transparent curriculum reform led by experts

NSW is the biggest education system nationally and has led the way with senior secondary music enrolments for many years. This is due to its focus on active music making and promoting choice for students. That in turn places value on the musical interests of students, their autonomy, agency and inclusion. 

We asked our Melbourne colleague Emily Wilson what she made of the new draft syllabuses and she said “Following a recent major review of the Victorian Certification of Education Music Study Design, we now have ‘Music Inquiry’, a project-based music subject explicitly positioned as music-for-everyone, moving Victoria closer to the existing NSW HSC Music 1 course.

Every student a stakeholder

“We have been looking to NSW for almost 35 years to lead the way with a progressive curricula. It’s important that this continues so that senior secondary music curricula keeps pace with the ever increasing rate of change in the music industry and broader society. Every Australian student and music teacher is a stakeholder in the NSW HSC Music Syllabus.”

James Humberstone is a senior lecturer in music education at the Sydney Conservatorium of Music, The University of Sydney. He specialises in teaching music pedagogies, technology in music education, and musical creativities. James publishes traditional research focusing on music teacher worldview, technology and media in music education, and artistic practice as research. He is also a composer and producer whose music is performed in major venues around the world.


After a career as a music teacher and head teacher in NSW schools, and Chief Examiner of HSC Music in NSW, Jennifer Carter worked as a Senior Registration Officer at the NSW Education Standards Authority. She was a sessional lecturer for primary music and secondary music preservice teachers and has presented at music conferences both nationally and internationally. Her PhD thesis researched secondary classroom music teachers and the development of music syllabus documents.