I agree that the process is less than transparent. On the other side, there are too many stories of woe from those who have moved interstate. It is time for the states (and their various bodies and eductaors) to put aside their pettiness and work together to achieve a national standard.

Obviously that part of the NSW curricula that needs immediate overhauling is English!

I would take a wild guess that Jenny Allum is also an entrenched unionist.

A national curricullum would also require 8 less boards developing the same thing (less jobs for mates), and worse provide measureable standards against which different states can be measured.

While I understand that some states might prefer some leeway on local history and geography, the 3Rs should be common.

Shadow Minister at this point in time Queensland performs badly on most measures. In fact Queensland is so poor at maths that the Australian Defence Academy at Duntroon teaches its Queensland intake remedial maths to bring them up to standard with recruits from other states.
Clearly a national curriculum would force South Australia and Queensland to adopt 6 years secondary schooling.

If you bothered to read the article you would see that the author teaches in a private school SCEGGS and the author noted that participants had to make their own way to the conference so biasing participation towards well off schools who could pay for emergency teachers to cover classes and pay for the participants travel interstate

Just because she teaches at SCEGGS where the fees are about $30K per year doesn't preclude the writer from being a member of the AEU - true, it's unlikely.

What the nation would give for a national curriculum instead of half a dozen patch work documents which have been reviewed, repaired, reviewed, recast and reanalysed a dozen times in the past 20 years.

There should be a place for regional differences but not so dramatic as a student in Townsville in year 12 could easily sit a year 12 final exam in Perth.

Where are the comments from the shrill left saying it's not what students learn, it's the process ... of holding the country to ransom over 21 percent pay hikes during a recession!

Jenny says she would support a national curriculum subject to several reasonable and sensible conditions, including that it was at least as good as the current NSW curriculum. Of course, there will be different views as to what is as good as, or better than, existing curricula - witness the disputes over teaching of English, where the NSW approach has come in for great criticism.

That does suggest that the curriculum should not be produced by a small group of political appointees with little opportunity for varied inputs and views, from people with both technical expertise and "coal-face" experience. Given the Prime Minister's passion for control and Kevin-ness, a broader approach was never likely. While I tend to think that a "good" national curriculum would be advantageous, the main argument against it is that it is likely to be politically-driven and reflect a narrow range of views. Given that no single curriculum is likely to be "correct" and intrinsically superior to all alternatives, it may be better for society to have a number of differing curricula which collectively provide a broader and richer environment which is less likely to be captured by a particular group or passing fad.

And, Jenny, has the plural word "syllabi" passed from the language?

Some states certainly do not have curricula that are anywhere as good as those from NSW. Outcomes based education in WA has really dumbed down performance and curricula seem to have been abolished. In these straightened circumstances any move to a national curriculum seems highly desirable.

That said, I do agree with the author's provisos.