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