Curriculum alignment is a complex and dynamic process that is impacted upon by a range of factors that are both internal and external to classrooms. This study focused on the alignment of expectations of performance type that were evident in the intended, enacted and assessed curriculum in grade 5 mathematics classrooms. The six performance type categories that were used to analyse curriculum alignment were knowing, performing procedures, communicating, non-routine problem solving, reasoning and making connections. The performance type categories for this project were developed following a comprehensive review of categories used in Porter’s Cognitive Categories (Porter, Smithson, Blank & Zeidner, 2007), Webb’s Criteria for Alignment (Webb, 1999), TIMSS Performance Categories (Robitaille et al. as cited in Garden, 1997) and the PISA Key Competencies (OECD, 2009). The primary research question is: What is the degree of alignment, as evidenced through the analysis of performance types, between the intended and enacted curriculum and assessment practices at all levels of the education system (classroom, school, state and national) for selected topics in mathematics? The performance types that were most evident in the standardised national testing program for mathematics in Australia (NAPLAN), diagnostic testing chosen by the schools, classroom activities and teacher designed classroom assessment were ‘knowing’ and ‘performing procedures’. More sophisticated performance types concerned with mathematical understanding or non-routine problem solving were either not evident, or in one case, evident in a group task during the unit, but not explicitly addressed through classroom instruction. The results revealed that standardised testing at the national level and published standardized tests utilised by schools have a critical role in influencing curriculum development and implementation at the classroom level. It was found that the performance types that are an expectation in the mandated curriculum are not consistently aligned with the performance types that are privileged in standardized testing. If standardised tests that are not adequately aligned with the mandated curriculum are used as ‘sources of authority’ for curriculum planning, there will inevitably be significant consequences for curriculum alignment and the performance types that are valued and privileged in classroom practice. This paper demonstrates the nexus of influences, centring on the mathematics classroom, of which assessment is one of the most potent, and the way in which these influences shape the performative realisation of the mathematics curriculum in the classroom.

Garden, R. (Ed). (1997) Mathematics and science performance in middle primary school. Wellington: Ministry of Education. OECD (2013). PISA 2015 Draft collaborative problem solving framework. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Collaborative%20Problem%20Solving%20Framework%20.pdf. Porter A. C., Smithson J., Blank R., & Zeider T. (2007). Alignment as a teacher variable. Applied Measurement in Education, 20(1), 27-51. Webb, N. (1999). Research monograph No. 18. Alignment of science and mathematics standards and assessments in four states. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School