Extract from The Guardian
Coalition-commissioned
report could reignite Australia’s ‘history wars’ after recommending
greater emphasis on ‘morals, values and spirituality’ and ‘the
contribution of western civilisation’
Australia’s national school curriculum is “overcrowded” and neglects
the importance of western civilisation, an Abbott
government-commissioned review has found.
A report by the conservative education commentator Kevin Donnelly and the public administration professor Ken Wiltshire endorses the widely expressed concerns of teachers that the curriculum, particularly in the primary years, is too hefty.
But the reviewers also weigh in to the politically contentious area of “balance”, suggesting that western civilisation and Judeo-Christian heritage had been played down.
The report, released by the education minister, Christopher Pyne, on Sunday, could reopen the so-called history and culture wars in Australia.
It calls for “more emphasis on morals, values and spirituality” and better recognition of “the contribution of western civilisation, our Judeo-Christian heritage, the role of economic development and industry and the democratic underpinning of the British system of government to Australia’s development”.
“Another criticism is that whereas the history associated with western civilisation and Australia’s development as a nation is often presented in a negative light, ignoring the positives, the opposite is the case when dealing with Indigenous history and culture,” the report says in a section on the history material.
“The curriculum needs to better acknowledge the strengths and weaknesses and the positives and negatives of both western and Indigenous cultures and histories. Especially during the primary years of schooling, the emphasis should be on imparting historical knowledge and understanding central to the discipline instead of expecting children to be historiographers.”
The report calls for “some significant recasting” of civics and citizenship teaching, saying “serious gaps” have been identified.
“A well-balanced emphasis on the virtue of patriotism – pride in being Australian – along with being a citizen of the world is needed,” it says.
The review found problems with the operation of the three existing cross-curriculum priorities: Indigenous histories and cultures, Australia’s engagement with Asia, and sustainability. It says these areas should be embedded “explicitly, and only where educationally relevant, in the mandatory content of the curriculum” rather than being seen as themes across the board.
Other recommendations include:
• reducing the amount of content to a narrow core required to be taught, especially in the primary years, with foundation year to year 2 focusing on literacy and numeracy;
• revising the English curriculum to place greater emphasis on phonics, or sounding out words;
• ensuring that students in the early to middle years of primary school create less of their own literature and instead become familiar with literary texts;
• overhauling the geography curriculum to introduce much more content on “physical geography” and less “human geography”;
• giving schools greater flexibility to determine the level at which sexuality and drugs education are introduced “and the modalities in which they will be delivered”;
• reforming governance of the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (Acara), shifting to a “company format” so it is at arm’s length from education ministers and education departments;
• developing a “smaller, parent-friendly version” of the national curriculum which clearly explains the intended curriculum a child will be learning in each year they are at school.
Pyne told reporters the review had made “a good fist” of the issues but implementation would require agreement with state and territory governments.
“Politics is too trivial for getting the curriculum right. Australia can’t take for granted our very high quality education system. This review gives us a pathway forward to build on the good work the curriculum authority has already done in establishing a national curriculum,” Pyne said on Sunday.
“We do want to see a less crowded curriculum particularly in the primary school years.”
He said the review had indicated more breadth and depth was needed in areas such as literacy and numeracy; and the curriculum needed to be more “parent friendly”. He said the review indicated there was no crisis in education, but the system could do better.
“It is a very balanced review. There is no attempt to criticise what’s gone before. We want to build on the foundation that is already there,” he said.
“We don’t want any politics in schools … I don’t get the sense that this [review report] is an ideological document and I don’t feel the national curriculum is an ideological document.”
The minister said if we wanted Australian children to be international in their outlook and be able to be participants in a global labour market, then much of the review would need to be adopted in order to improve standards and proficiency.
Pyne said today was not the day for him to pick and choose bits of the review he liked. “There’s lots of good parts of it,” he said, but he said the government was putting the review out there to generate discussion and debate. He said the government continued to support national testing and the publication of results.
Labor’s education spokeswoman Kate Ellis told reporters “tinkering” with the national curriculum would not offer much progress given the Coalition had cut funding to Australian schools.
Ellis said Labor would work productively on sensible improvements to the curriculum but would not endorse funding cuts to education. “This minister is all about distraction. It is a game of distraction, and today is no different,” Ellis said.
The argument about funding was echoed by the Australian Education Union. “This entire exercise has been a distraction from the Abbott government’s abandoning of needs-based Gonski funding agreements and its refusal to properly fund schools,” said AEU federal president Angelo Gavrielatos.
The Greens were more scathing. Greens schools spokeswoman, Penny Wright: “This review has told the education minister exactly what he wanted to hear, from hand-picked reviewers whose values were well-known to him.”
“The education minister is using the problem of a crowded curriculum as an excuse to get rid of things he has ideological disagreements with,” Wright said.
But the review was welcomed by Independent Schools Queensland.
“Independent schools highlighted the overcrowding issue in a submission to the Review, as teachers were having difficulty in covering all of the subjects and all of the content in each subject,” said executive director, David Robertson.
“The recommendations to reconceptualise the Australian curriculum, as well as to reduce the amount of content to a narrow core required to be taught, especially in the primary years, should resolve the overcrowding issue.”
When Pyne launched the review in January he said it could address concerns about the history curriculum “not recognising the legacy of western civilisation and not giving important events in Australia’s history and culture the prominence they deserve, such as Anzac Day”.
He said at the time that he wanted the curriculum to “celebrate Australia”.
Groups representing parents and teachers argued the review was premature given the new content had not yet been fully rolled out in schools. Concerns were also raised that Donnelly and Wiltshire were on the record as vocal critics of the national curriculum.
The review received 1,600 submissions.
A report by the conservative education commentator Kevin Donnelly and the public administration professor Ken Wiltshire endorses the widely expressed concerns of teachers that the curriculum, particularly in the primary years, is too hefty.
But the reviewers also weigh in to the politically contentious area of “balance”, suggesting that western civilisation and Judeo-Christian heritage had been played down.
The report, released by the education minister, Christopher Pyne, on Sunday, could reopen the so-called history and culture wars in Australia.
It calls for “more emphasis on morals, values and spirituality” and better recognition of “the contribution of western civilisation, our Judeo-Christian heritage, the role of economic development and industry and the democratic underpinning of the British system of government to Australia’s development”.
“Another criticism is that whereas the history associated with western civilisation and Australia’s development as a nation is often presented in a negative light, ignoring the positives, the opposite is the case when dealing with Indigenous history and culture,” the report says in a section on the history material.
“The curriculum needs to better acknowledge the strengths and weaknesses and the positives and negatives of both western and Indigenous cultures and histories. Especially during the primary years of schooling, the emphasis should be on imparting historical knowledge and understanding central to the discipline instead of expecting children to be historiographers.”
The report calls for “some significant recasting” of civics and citizenship teaching, saying “serious gaps” have been identified.
“A well-balanced emphasis on the virtue of patriotism – pride in being Australian – along with being a citizen of the world is needed,” it says.
The review found problems with the operation of the three existing cross-curriculum priorities: Indigenous histories and cultures, Australia’s engagement with Asia, and sustainability. It says these areas should be embedded “explicitly, and only where educationally relevant, in the mandatory content of the curriculum” rather than being seen as themes across the board.
Other recommendations include:
• reducing the amount of content to a narrow core required to be taught, especially in the primary years, with foundation year to year 2 focusing on literacy and numeracy;
• revising the English curriculum to place greater emphasis on phonics, or sounding out words;
• ensuring that students in the early to middle years of primary school create less of their own literature and instead become familiar with literary texts;
• overhauling the geography curriculum to introduce much more content on “physical geography” and less “human geography”;
• giving schools greater flexibility to determine the level at which sexuality and drugs education are introduced “and the modalities in which they will be delivered”;
• reforming governance of the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (Acara), shifting to a “company format” so it is at arm’s length from education ministers and education departments;
• developing a “smaller, parent-friendly version” of the national curriculum which clearly explains the intended curriculum a child will be learning in each year they are at school.
Pyne told reporters the review had made “a good fist” of the issues but implementation would require agreement with state and territory governments.
“Politics is too trivial for getting the curriculum right. Australia can’t take for granted our very high quality education system. This review gives us a pathway forward to build on the good work the curriculum authority has already done in establishing a national curriculum,” Pyne said on Sunday.
“We do want to see a less crowded curriculum particularly in the primary school years.”
He said the review had indicated more breadth and depth was needed in areas such as literacy and numeracy; and the curriculum needed to be more “parent friendly”. He said the review indicated there was no crisis in education, but the system could do better.
“It is a very balanced review. There is no attempt to criticise what’s gone before. We want to build on the foundation that is already there,” he said.
“We don’t want any politics in schools … I don’t get the sense that this [review report] is an ideological document and I don’t feel the national curriculum is an ideological document.”
The minister said if we wanted Australian children to be international in their outlook and be able to be participants in a global labour market, then much of the review would need to be adopted in order to improve standards and proficiency.
Pyne said today was not the day for him to pick and choose bits of the review he liked. “There’s lots of good parts of it,” he said, but he said the government was putting the review out there to generate discussion and debate. He said the government continued to support national testing and the publication of results.
Labor’s education spokeswoman Kate Ellis told reporters “tinkering” with the national curriculum would not offer much progress given the Coalition had cut funding to Australian schools.
Ellis said Labor would work productively on sensible improvements to the curriculum but would not endorse funding cuts to education. “This minister is all about distraction. It is a game of distraction, and today is no different,” Ellis said.
The argument about funding was echoed by the Australian Education Union. “This entire exercise has been a distraction from the Abbott government’s abandoning of needs-based Gonski funding agreements and its refusal to properly fund schools,” said AEU federal president Angelo Gavrielatos.
The Greens were more scathing. Greens schools spokeswoman, Penny Wright: “This review has told the education minister exactly what he wanted to hear, from hand-picked reviewers whose values were well-known to him.”
“The education minister is using the problem of a crowded curriculum as an excuse to get rid of things he has ideological disagreements with,” Wright said.
But the review was welcomed by Independent Schools Queensland.
“Independent schools highlighted the overcrowding issue in a submission to the Review, as teachers were having difficulty in covering all of the subjects and all of the content in each subject,” said executive director, David Robertson.
“The recommendations to reconceptualise the Australian curriculum, as well as to reduce the amount of content to a narrow core required to be taught, especially in the primary years, should resolve the overcrowding issue.”
When Pyne launched the review in January he said it could address concerns about the history curriculum “not recognising the legacy of western civilisation and not giving important events in Australia’s history and culture the prominence they deserve, such as Anzac Day”.
He said at the time that he wanted the curriculum to “celebrate Australia”.
Groups representing parents and teachers argued the review was premature given the new content had not yet been fully rolled out in schools. Concerns were also raised that Donnelly and Wiltshire were on the record as vocal critics of the national curriculum.
The review received 1,600 submissions.
No comments:
Post a Comment