The glaring flaw in this article is that the author does not explain why it's not "partisan" for the left-wing dominated academia, drenched in Marxist fables and Keynesian myths, and statist to their marrow, to control the school curriculum, but all of a sudden it become partisan when anyone else tries to impart a different perspective. As if all the minds of all the children of Australia in every generation are the private property of the socialists and fascists and statists to mould as they please.

He also fails to distinguish between the nation and the state, the people in general, versus the tiny elite minority claiming a monopoly of the use of coercive power. To the extent that he has a valid point - that the curriculum can only ever be a political instrument of indoctrination - he establishes and argument for abolishing the national curriculum, not conserving it.

"Policy-makers have always utilised the national history curriculum as an instrument to construct a collective national identity that ensures the continuation of the system by instilling future citizens with certain social and cultural values."

There lies evil.

Attempting to impose a collective national identity on young souls, or any other identity for that matter, is the crime.

The rest are minor details. Whether the narrative sides with this or that party, or both perhaps, is not much of a comfort.

We are already beset by a host of identities, layer upon layer of falsehood, each taking us further and further away from the truth of who we really are. A responsible school should assist its students to de-identify with things, rather than burden them with further identifications.

Jardine K. Jardine has already pointed out the missing aspect of the article. History is now taught from a "progressive" perspective, which includes viewing almost every act of the British "invasion" and subsequent settlement as evil incarnate.

History requires a middle ground perspective between the "black armband" version and the glorification of British settlement.

The other important point is that how do you teach history without inducing into students some idea of national culture and the values contained therein? I know teachers and students ought to be as impartial as possible, but knowing where we come from contributes a great deal to understanding who we are. It's a timeless question. How do you teach the student (and teacher) to ignore their ancestry? At present the two perspective are - despise your ancestry (the "progressive" black armband view) or glorify it (the far right view). Both are value laden, not value free.

I just noticed Tim Pascoe is doing a Masters in International Law and International Relations. Well, I'd say it's a given he's an international socialist who desires to devise laws on a global scale and erode national sovereignty.

Dear Aristocrat,

<<The other important point is that how do you teach history without inducing into students some idea of national culture and the values contained therein?>>

Very true. Certainly good values are to be taught, but the credit should be given to the values themselves rather than to the culture which happened to carry them.

<<I know teachers and students ought to be as impartial as possible, but knowing where we come from contributes a great deal to understanding who we are.>>

If even teachers do not understand who they are, how then would the students? We have not come from anywhere - it's only our bodies which did, out of a womb. That has nothing whatsoever to do with who we are.

<<It's a timeless question. How do you teach the student (and teacher) to ignore their ancestry?>>

Indeed, how is that possible when even teachers believe that they have an ancestry, completely confusing between themselves, their bodies and the culture they have inherited, all being three different things.

<<At present the two perspective are - despise your ancestry (the "progressive" black armband view) or glorify it (the far right view). Both are value laden, not value free.>>

The answer is in the understanding that this ancestry is not YOUR ancestry. Once the teacher understands that they are not their body, that while the body has an ancestry, themselves they do not, then and only then are they able to teach their students to be impartial and objective, neither despising nor glorifying the plain facts.

History is an art, it's not a science and it's all about teaching values as opposed to facts, there's no practical difference between "Left" and "Right" ideology anyway since all the players have the same core values.