"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.

You know when you are dealing with a rough argument when the writer of the lead article could not have bothered to get his information checked.

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

Pretty much everyone knows that is wrong. The ACT clones the NSW curriculum and uses its public exams. The NT almost always uses SA curriculum materials, save for adjusting some units for meteorological, geographical and local relevance.

So it's six or fewer curricula, people!

You know the problem really isn't in the curriculum. The problem is the fact that the age/years do not correspond from state to State. The student having to either repeat a year or skip a year when they move States. Why cant these ages/years match?

There is also the problem that within the grades in any given year, in all states, there is an easy 2 year plus difference for some in age and development. That is significant. The range can be just as huge as it can be small.

I believe that the system is set up to deliberately jumble and confuse so as to make it easy to manipulate outcomes to suit certain groups and agenda's.

Jolanda, you have to be pulling our leg. or are you serious.

No Tootsie I am not kidding I am dead serious and I have even got significant evidence to support what I say.

Jolanda, so you have proof that the system is set up to deliberately jumble and confuse so as to make it easy to manipulate outcomes to suit certain groups and agenda's.

Yeh right, like to see that

Deliberately - so you think THE GOVERNMENT and the DET are doing this.

WOW - I see.

Great I am glad that you see Tootsie. It's about time you saw the light.

Yes Jolanda, saw the light. discussing with you is banging head against brick wall.
second insight. unfortunatley you for whatever reason are bitter about the world and everyone in it except you and your children. you spit bile at whatever comes your way. maybe you need some grief mangement or something. it must be sad to be like you and see everything so negative. i am sad for you.

good bye

Tootsie that you choose to bang you head against a brick wall instead of stopping to consider the world we live in and the fact that the system is full of bias and corruption is beyond me. I guess my standards are higher than yours. I don’t accept corruption and I speak out, using my full name. I stand by what I say.

I am not bitter at the world. I am bitter at the Government because their only concern is to ensure that they live like Kings. I am also upset with society because they stick up for them either by attacking those that speak out or staying silent.

I am very happy that I live in such a beautiful country like Australia where I can express how I feel and what I think without being physically bashed or killed. I like the fact that I can dress how I like, and protest if I like. That is something that I hold dearly and I don’t want this to change!

You might stop to re-read your posts, you are the one that gets personal and spits bile.

I feel empowered. I have avenues and the strength to stand up against the things that I believe will destroy this country. I have a wonderful family, I live in a beautiful home, I have friends. Speaking out doesn’t make a person sad or angry, it makes them resilient.

Don’t be sad for me. Be sad for you, as it is a concern that you have been brought up in a manner that you don’t want to even consider the world is such a corrupt place and this is despite the fact that it is blatantly obvious. That you don’t care so long as it doesn't impact on you shows that you are selfish.

I am not hiding under some false name. I am proud of who I am and I will stand up and speak out if I feel somebody or something will harm my beloved Australia and impact on real Australians. You know the ones that put Australia first!

I appreciate Marshall's clarifying comment. I misconstrued the meaning of the word "curriculum".

I doubt that any one has deliberately set out to confuse or mislead on curricula, despite the claims of some op-ed writers on the subject. The different Australian railways did not deliberately set out to confuse or mislead when they used different gauges. Fortunately, the resultant difficulties have been resolved.

May it also be likewise with the varying requirements of Australia's states' education systems and curricula.

As I said in my original comment, I do not believe the current federal government is committed to meaningful curriculum reform. There may, of course, be other explanations for the current pattern of educational funding - .

But I do not think anything lasting will be accomplished without the involvement of all stakeholders, and that includes teachers and their representative bodies, as well as the rest, including students.

I have lived as a school student and parent in all the eastern states. One of my children has attended primary schools in three different states. My experience is that the curriculums used in these states are very similar already and to a non-professional it seems that we are well-placed to introduce one national curriculum.

The difficulties faced by the many children moving interstate each year are well-documented. They have to learn new hand-writing styles even if they already have neat, legible writing. The various mathematical concepts are taught at different stages of the curriculum resulting in those moving interstate missing out on some basic understanding. Even though children the world over physically and psychologically develop at very similar rates and ages, we seem to feel that children in each state of Australia are sufficiently different to require different ages before commencing school.

An argument used to oppose a national curriculum is that the educational standard of the particular state may drop. Why can't all states have the same educational standards? Is this just an excuse to resist change and promote state rights above the welfare of students?

At work I was recently required to provide support to people who were working with education departments around Australia. Basic things such as the different phrase used for the first year of school or the varying names for the social sciences curriculum provided unnecessary difficulty in communication. I had to have some knowledge of the some aspects of each state's education act and regulations. Fortunately I didn't need to become familiar with the different child protection requirements of each state as well. What do teachers face when they move interstate?

Instead of each state developing their own curriculums, these resources could instead be diverted to providing extra assistance to those children who need it.

Arguments exist for and against a national curriculum. And those who move about during the course of their children's schooling have a case for standardisation (although I must say it took just two weeks for my two children to adjust to another State's curriculum - there were no significant differences).

But on the other side of the argument? For example, if we replace the curricula of the six States (discounting NT and ACT) with one curriculum, and it is mediocre or worse, we condemn all Australian children to mediocrity or worse.

If one curriculum is regarded as superior to all others in Australia, why wouldn't the argument extend to one national curriculum being better than another national curriculum? So, e.g. Australia could adopt the national curriculum of the USA (this is hypothetical because there is no such curriculum in the US - and no likelihood of one).

We could then go further and have all the English-speaking nations adopting one curriculum in that language. This would align the international schools' curriculum with the international culture brought to us through mass media. Once we've got everyone learning the same thing we could do away with diverse media. One mass media outlet would be much more efficient than the current untidy arrangements. And across the world discontent with the way things are organised and run would be minimised - producing a massive saving in police and other organs of control.

FrankGol

You are being silly!

If we have a population of only 20 million it is logical and reasonable to think in terms of a national curriculum.

Maybe not in the US with 300m, but they do in the UK with 100m.

The resources that are wasted in the states and territories (because the NT and ACT still have curriculum departments adapting curricula) is shameful and while we hear bleating from the unions about resources, they hypocritically support six (or eight) diffrent curriculum efforts in this country at the expense of improvements elsewhere.

Australia has become a mobile society. People move interstate more now than at any other time in Australia's development.

Yet, it is not uncommon for children to be confronted with widely varying education pathways which can either be too easy or too baffling. University and trade entry standards vary. A single national curriculum will streamline education and help close gaps which are contributing to skills shortages and early exits from the workforce.

It will make the Australian workforce more flexible and competitive in a tough and uncompromising global economy.

Even Kevin Rudd has announced that a federal Labor government would remove curriculum anomalies from the state-run education systems in the key disciplines of maths, science, English and history.

His policy broadly mirrors the plan outlined by Liberal federal Education Minister Julie Bishop.

Whichever party wins government at the end of this year, a national blueprint for education looks certain

Simon

Shall I go stand in the naughty corner?

Do you know why there is no national curriculum in the USA? The argument about size of population won't do - after all, you're the one arguing about efficency. Now the US is by most standards the most efficient nation on earth. And the mobility argument doesn't hold up - the US is a highly mobile society.

My children moved during childhood and weren't baffled - nor were their teachers.

The argument about varying University and trade entry standards won't work. Why would universities positively seek to recruit year 12 students from other ststes?

Your argument about skills shortages and early exits from the workforce is without empirical substance. Shortages are caused by failure of human resources planning - nothing to do with variety in tertiary training.

Now tell me again Simon: how exactly will a single uniform education "make the Australian workforce more flexible and competitive in a tough and uncompromising global economy"?

I wouldn't rely on Kevin Rudd or Julie Bishop to introduce a national curriculum - that daydream has been dreamed in Australia for more than 40 years.

Now think about why the USA has hundreds of education systems. Until then, come on into the silly corner.

Dear Mr Townsend,
Have another look at your remark:

"The [curriculum related]resources that are wasted ... is shameful and while we hear bleating from the unions about resources, they hypocritically support six (or eight) diffrent curriculum efforts in this country at the expense of improvements elsewhere."

Your remark focuses on the inconsistencies of one body of stakeholders in the curriculum reform process. Principals, parents, administrators and employers all are groups considering and proposing positions regarding a national curriculuum.

For example, the Australian article excerpt below suggests the current intent of the APPA, based on its current policy. But the APPA does not represent all primary school principals, nor would its hypothetically successful campaign necessarily meet your concerns, or those of the community at large. However beneficial their reforms appear, they represent the views of only one group of stakeholders.

Given the complexity of the political problem, I wonder how it helps for you to diminish the concerns of the teachers unions by picturing them "bleating about resources". How does that language help you achieve your aim?

-
=
-

"Primary schools 'swamped' by cluttered curricula
By Justine Ferrari

March 27, 2007 02:00am

Article from: The Australian

"PRIMARY schools are swamped by a cluttered curriculum that places equal importance on issues traditionally taught by parents, such as awareness of dog attacks and nutrition, rather than the core skills of literacy and numeracy.

"The Australian Primary Principals Association, representing more than 7000 government and non-government primary schools, will today release a position paper calling for a charter to redefine the role of primary schools and cull the curriculum to focus on education rather than social welfare

It’s good to hear that the late Garth Boomer had a change of heart in the 80’s, but it doesn’t exonerate him and the rest of the left, for the damage they caused during the years before and after his epiphany, and the credit you appear to give him, along with the adulation heaped on his memory, to this day, is undeserved.
The ideas on which Garth Boomer , Dale Spender ( who, with Boomer wrote a little book called ‘The Spitting Image’, and others of the Left made, for themselves, prodigious reputations, were full-on Marxist ideas, replete with the jargon …schools as sites of political struggle….children were not be made to jump through middle class hoops…. ‘rebellious illiteracy’ was fine if it was the child’s choice.
It was all about the curriculum ‘guru’ himself ( or herself)…never about the children, and providing for them the benefit of being fully literate and numerate…the benefit that Boomer et al themselves had enjoyed.
They called…in the 70’s… for the teaching of English grammar to be banished from the curriculum of Australian schools…and so it was.
Consequently, the children of a whole generation were deprived of the fundamental knowledge they needed , in order to be fully literate in their own language…. and to this day, that situation has not been fully rectified.
The Left wrought enormous damage on Australia, and one of their most prominent and revered ‘gurus’ should not be given credit for finally admitting they had been wrong…with the justification ‘to learn is to move on’.
The matter on which he and the Left were wrong was too important, and too many lives were damaged….and there were many of their contemporaries who knew those ideas were wrong at the time, but were ridiculed, howled down, and had to watch while the ‘gurus’ went on their destructive way…..it is those who were ignored back then, and the Federal Coalition government that has tried to change things over recent years and now, who deserve the credit….they were resisted by Labor State governments at every turn.

real, there's just one word for your ignornat diatribe against Garth Boomer - but I won't be able to use it here. Mr Boomer was never one to hide behind a cowardly nom-de-plume. He was one of the most intelligent and sensitive of men - and a great educational thinker.

Go slander a living person.