In November 2007, Kevin Rudd was elected Prime Minister on a platform in which an “education revolution” was a central promise. A few weeks after taking office he announced that a board to develop a national curriculum for Australian schools would be instituted by the beginning of 2009. Distinguished educator Professor Barry McGraw was appointed chairperson, to be joined in due course by a representative from each of the States and Territories and three from the Catholic and Independent education sectors. After several decades of debate and effort this was welcome news, but some major issues still bounce in the debating arena.
The History of the National Curriculum
As far back as the 1970s governments and the education community were discussing the concept of a uniform curriculum for Australian schools in all States and Territories of the nation. Efforts to put it into practice at federal level failed repeatedly.
In its last year of office the Howard government, amid pressure to prescribe a core curriculum, made a commitment to implement the concept if it could win a second term. Following the Labor victory in the 2007 election, the new Australian Government of Kevin Rudd is moving to devise and establish a national curriculum.
2011 is set as the deadline for implementation. In favour of the project is the fact that the level of collaboration among states, territories and federal government is at its highest for many years.
A national curriculum may well help Rudd’s “education revolution” to succeed. Nevertheless the justifications for the project given by most of its backers have been criticised.
Waste of Resources
Proponents assert that separate curriculum development by each of the States is a waste of resources. Critics reply that they don’t know how much the States will have to expend to deliver and resource the curriculum developed at national level. Until this is known how can it be said that nationalisation will reduce expenditure?
Transient Population
Proponents say that Australian families are increasingly itinerant and meet obstacles to learning when shifting from one school curriculum to another across State borders. The opponents answer by saying only about 2.5% of the school-age population is in transit across borders each year. Is it fair to use all the time and resources involved in establishing a national curriculum just for such a tiny proportion of students?
Disparities among States and Territories
Another reason proponents give is that the disparities in academic achievement between States are alarming. The opposing case holds that to counter this with a nationalised curriculum will not necessarily result in a higher standard. It could just as easily fall! Furthermore state curriculum differences can be used to compare and compete in order to yield higher performance.
International Comparisons of Performance
Proponents cite the falling performance of students in Australian schools in comparison with their international peers. Again, reply the critics, how does further centralising curriculum act as a counter to unsatisfactory academic performance? Anything the State-level curriculum developers do wrong can just as easily be done wrong at a national level.
Who Should Be on the Board?
The appointment of Barry McGraw has its critics. They brand him as one of the “establishment” who will be blinkered by his history of specialisation in educational psychology and psychometrics. They hold that the board should be headed by someone who would better represent Australian teachers, acknowledged as the key to effective education. His critics fear that his perceptions and priorities will result in a curriculum doomed to fail.
The argument is not convincing. McGraw has been involved in Australian education so long and so deeply that he is fully aware of the multi-faceted nature of the beast. His public interviews suggest that he is not at all blinkered by his history of specialisation and expects the Board to consider the full range of viewpoints.
Teacher unions have complained that they should also be represented on the Board. The claim is invalid. Teachers as a sector are essential to the design and implementation of a curriculum, but not unions. The Board must not be too big to operate effectively. Highly experienced and competent teachers can be seconded to develop curricula without being members of the Board.
While on the same grounds other interest groups should not be directly represented on the Board, there should at the same time be clear and accessible channels to encourage their input. Parents – and even grandparents! – have valuable insights into what sort of curriculum Australian schools should provide their children.
Stephen Crabbe - Stephen Crabbe is an Australian writer with ample experience in a number of other fields. Stephen holds a Diploma of Teaching and a ...
