"Similarly, it is time for much lesser lights in the curriculum arena to move on and be self critical, sufficient to ensure an objective debate on the merits of, and possible framing of, a national curriculum. And that debate must now include the community. The development of curricula that intones what our children will learn, and how it shall be taught, is far too important to be left solely in the hands of teachers."

This is absolutely correct; in the same way that we would not expect a mechanic to design a car we should not expect that teachers are necessarily the right people to design the education of our children.

Unfortunately the baby boomers continue to do what they have done since the sixties reshape every institution to suit the own selfish agenda. The boomers reaped the rewards of a free and open education system and then continued to grind the next generations into the ground by oversimplified and draconian 'reforms' that in the end is all about management rather than education. If only that generation actually followed through with the ideals they apparently stood for in their youth.

Both Julie Bishop and Steven Smith were unconvincing on the 7.30 report debate on education last night. Both seek to narrow the paremeters of education while focussing directly at the bottom line.

For example first the Howard Government starves public schools of funding then holds up a report that parents are abandoning the public school system for private schools. Universities on the other hand are now reliant on corporate sponsorship, full-fee paying domestic and international students. The obvious future outcome is eventually for both schools and Universities to be privately owned and run. With a uniform curriculum and operational structure it is thus easier to transfer over to those future education industry CEOs that currently circle inconspicuously like sharks.

Thats the problem with market economy fundamentalists. Eventually the government will simply act as managers and administrators of all once public services and institutions. I cant wait til the army and police force are privatised. Just let the market work its magic

By taking a step backwards first, this article can give some forward momentum to the establishment of a centralised bureaucracy for the national curriculum.
Let’s go back even further. When I started teaching in the sixties, one of the things I was to learn was the inevitable similarities in the learning experiences of children across the country, for good and for ill depending upon their learning context. The greatest disparities were within states and not between. There were some advantages in provision by the mendicant states but the “rational education debate” was a national debate and innovations like those of Garth Boomer were attempted across the country. We have had a “national curriculum” for decades.
The “present clarion call against Federal Education Minister Bishop’s national curriculum push” is due to her “shallow politicizing.” It is not grounded in rational education debate because in recent times all governments have been engaged in systematic teacher bashing in order to obscure their chronic underinvestment in most of the educational needs of twenty first century children and indeed, all citizens. Their manipulation of the administration of education has been for short term political ends since they lost sight of the enduring and universal values in education.
More is needed. The inevitable national curriculum framework, whatever its form, should go beyond the evolutionary steps in Garth Boomer’s progression. Surely we have now moved beyond globalisation and the perceived need for only a “standards-referenced” approach. Let the dynamic transformations, only possible in national (and international) frameworks, embrace the conservative and the progressive traditions. Let the innovations centre on the learner (not the government) and engage the whole community with the teachers in providing the best for each child.

Here we have it, assumptions unquestioned:

"In June 1986 the Australian Education Council (AEC) called for a national collaborative effort in curriculum development in order to:

1. maximise the positive effects of the nation's scarce curriculum development resources; and
2. minimise unnecessary differences in curricula from state to state.

After all, through what logic do we accommodate eight different curricula in a population of just over 20 million."

Well.

My opinion is that curriculum development resources are scarce because the federal government lacks commitment to curriculum development.

What are these current Cabineteers committed to? Just let your nose follow the money, but don't forget your lavender hanky (or your Geiger counter).

And eight different curricula are too many?
Note my question mark, and the absence of Graeden Horsell's?

I ask Graeden Horsell to list these 8 curricula in order of importance.
And Graeden, don't forget to show where you will do the chop.
Will it be ankles, knees or neck

Here we have it, assumptions unquestioned:

"In June 1986 the Australian Education Council (AEC) called for a national collaborative effort in curriculum development in order to:

1. maximise the positive effects of the nation's scarce curriculum development resources; and
2. minimise unnecessary differences in curricula from state to state.

After all, through what logic do we accommodate eight different curricula in a population of just over 20 million."

Well.

My opinion is that curriculum development resources are scarce because the federal government lacks commitment to curriculum development.

What are these current Cabineteers committed to? Just let your nose follow the money, but don't forget your lavender hanky (or your Geiger counter).

And eight different curricula are too many?
Note my question mark, and the absence of Graeden Horsell's?

I ask Graeden Horsell to list these 8 curricula in order of importance.
And Graeden, don't forget to show where you will do the chop.
Will it be ankles, knees or neck?

Graeden Horsell wants a national curriculum, or at least a rational debate about framing one. I don't see he is arguing for a central bureacracy as such.

Sir Ivor asks where he would chop. What a stupid proposition, but if Sir Ivor can only accommodate the idea of a national curriculum through chopping, then start at the head, that's where the faddish and fuzzie thinking occurs.

As the article author suggests, development of curricula is far too important to be left to the chalkies alone. The community has to be involved because it is on behalf of the community that we educate our children. It is not the private preserve of teachers and the education elite.