Correction
" This person teacher our children at university "

Steven >>Which of these could reasonably be themes that are suitable for high school level projects? To me the ones mentioned in the article in The Australian look appallingly narrow and unimaginative.<<

When you look at the three vaunted areas of study in the Australian article, popular culture, environmental movements and mass migration it is not particularly surprising to find that they address human impact and novelty cerebral distractions.

This is in line with UN mandates that put the responsibility of human impact onto the consumer rather than the manufacturers or processors and the government body given authority over the activity. I have no doubt that the guidelines for the subjects will guide the students towards currently politically correct conclusions.

Steven, if they ran with syllabus you presented, the sponges of brain that adolescents and young adults possess may begin cross referencing and realize that they really have no real control of their or their nation’s destiny. The Syllabus of globalization as you proffered is too encompasing, it gives them a holistic view. The UN wants them focussed on their own habits. Just another brick in the wall comes to mind.

What a shambles we have made of the primary and high school syllabuses. In the 1970’s we had more tertiary students doing subjects that required higher math than we do right now. The population has grown by a third in the past 40 years and we have fewer students doing subjects that are essential to the prosperity growth and strength of the country.

Academia is manipulated by the same thing that manipulates us all, money, and all money comes from the global monetary system. In exactly the same way they pulled manufacturing from under us, they are dumbing us down, making us reliant on others skills pool.

Perhaps firstly we need to ask the question: WHY DO WE STUDY HISTORY?

Some of the reasons I have heard banded about have been:
1) As an aid to reasoning/arguing between different propositions.
2) To provide some background/foundation with regards to our institutions/values

However, it seems to me that the learning/teaching of history gives us nothing that we might not better learn through other avenues.

So why don’t we do something really iconoclastic and revolutionary ( a word much loved by our history teachers) and dump history
altogether --or if we must, give an elementary grounding in history in primary school but dump it from secondary school.

And in its place insert:
1) Lateral thinking classes
2) Science/technology classes

Much of what passes for the teaching of history nowadays is just teachers and authors --the vast majority of whom, just coincidentally, seem to lean the same way -- imprinting their own narrow agendas on impressionable minors.

The point of learning history is to understand how Australia, and more broadly the world, came to be how it is. Much of this is not pretty or any where near politically correct, but to understand ourselves we need to know it.

The new curriculum focuses on much that is largely irrelevant.

Steven writes..
"I'd like to encourage contributors to this thread to think beyond the increasingly sterile "Left versus Right" paradigm and take a look at global developments since 1945."
I do not think the simplistic terms left and right apply, certainly not today in Australian politics if they ever did. I much prefer the notion of one being "conservative" on issues or "progressive". Support for a particular political party in itself does not make one conservative or progressive although the overall thrust of that party may be seen as being the one way or the other. The Liberal Party can be seen in general terms as being conservative, that is not to say all Liberal Party members or supporters are conservative on all issues.
For a long period after WWII the only difference in main stream Australian politics was The Labor Party supported a socialist objective in broad terms whilst The Liberal Party supported the free market approach. On social justice issues there was little difference between the two parties. There was little desire in the general community for 'change', this seen years of Menzies conservatism. As Labor never achieved government during this period its impossible to say what changes in society they would have implemented, if any.
After a brief flirtation with Labor under Whitlam, which did show a progressive spake on many social justice issues, Australia returned to conservatism. Labor abandoned the notion of socialism in favor of populism under Hawke and Keating and a concentration on economic issues with little regard to social justice. The Howard years were again dominated by the economy and then Rudd and Gillard carried on in much the same vain, always talking economics and nothing much else.
It still remains very difficult to implement change in Australian society, although I thing many are questioning far more than they once did, and this in itself will lead to long term change.

History is studied to know what was done in the past that caused adverse events to happen later.
The trouble is the Australian Government has failed to study the multicultural experiments in England and there adverse effects on that country. Major city riots and bombings crime rates out of control, Muslims trying to introduce there laws,whole classes of people on welfare.
What are we seeing in Australia gang violence, riots, crimes by Lebanese and African gangs, Muslims sex offenders claiming the Taliban tortured them that is why they sexually assault young children. We have 85% being here more than 5 years and are still on welfare. Very large families all supported by the taxpayer.
You failed to see Howard"s lesson on boats now we have over 20,000 welfare for lifers and that number growing daily.

Juliar and Rudd you get a big " F " for your failure.