REFORM IN AUSTRALIA To: The LOOP:; From: "James Kilpatrick" Subject: Fwd. ECC: national curriculum and assessment in Australia Date sent: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 18:39:35 -0600 >Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 10:05:26 +1000 >From: Dr Kevin Donnelly >Reply-To: kevind@netspace.net.au >Organization: Education Strategies >MIME-Version: 1.0 >To: education-consumers@tricon.net >Subject: national curriculum and assessment in Australia >X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by >hurricane.netspace.net.au id KAA16130 >Sender: owner-education-consumers@tricon.net >Precedence: bulk > >Hello from Australia! > >I joined the Clearinghouse some weeks ago and I have very much enjoyed >following the debates about American education. Just about all the >issues in the US have their counterparts in Australian education; >whether it is literacy, school choice or fuzzy maths the problems are >very much the same. > >Some years ago Australia experimented with a national curriculum and >assessment system; similar to what is now happening in the US. Below ia >an article which I wrote at the time criticising what was about to >happen and supporting the various state governments for knocking back >the national initiative. Hopefully, you might be able to learn from our >mistakes. > >Best wishes, >Dr Kevin Donnelly > >Louise Watson argues that the reason why the Ministers of the >conservative states failed to endorse the national curriculum was >because of a conflict over states’ rights. Watson describes the events >in Perth as representing “a policy failure that can be traced to >Australia’s federal system of government” and “the latest triumph of >parochialism over the national interest”. > >While Watson is entitled to her beliefs, it is important to note that >not all of those who have expressed an opinion on the national >curriculum agree with her point of view. Dr Alan Barcan, for example, in >the current edition of News Weekly, describes the decision as “welcome” >and characterises the national curriculum as representing a “confusion >in content and standards”. During the months leading up to the Perth >meeting there was also widespread public comment raising significant >doubts as to the nature, quality and standard of the curriculum material >being put forward. > >In the areas of science and mathematics, for example, a great deal of >criticism was directed at the national profiles and statements by >professional bodies and educationalists. The Australian Institute of >Physics attacked the science curriculum for containing “serious >educational mistakes”. Not only had subjects like physics, chemistry and >biology disappeared to be replaced by the more generalised subject of >science, but much of the material appeared to be based on the premise >that education had to be immediately entertaining and accessible. > >The Royal Australian Chemical Institute also stated that the national >curriculum documents were unsound. The institute argued that the >documents offered an impoverished view of science, that chemistry as a >subject was not properly dealt with and the statements and profiles >failed to adequately meet the needs of the “academically able”. The >institute also pleaded that, in attempting to promote participation, the >school curricula must not be “diluted to the uniform standard of >mediocrity”. > >The mathematics curriculum was also roundly criticised. Some months >before the Perth meeting over 200 senior academics across Australia >signed a petition describing the work in mathematics as a “disaster”. >The documents were described as “substantially flawed” and incapable of >properly preparing students for tertiary studies. > >Such was the intensity of the criticisms in relation to mathematics and >science that an editorial in one of Melbourne’s daily newspapers argued, >in relation to the curriculum material, “Frankly, their credibility is >shot. Even allowing for what CURASS believes is a certain narrowness and >conservatism among the ranks of the critics, the weaknesses are so >manifest that the statements in their present form cannot be allowed to >proceed”. > >The study Studies of Society and the Environment has also suffered its >fair share of criticism. Kevin Andrews, the Federal Shadow Minister for >Schools, Vocational Education and Training, in a speech to the National >Catholic Education Commission Curriculum Conference, described the >document as embodying the worst examples of “politically correct >thinking”. Andrews argued that the profile, in particular, was biased in >that it emphasised the study of indigenous Australians to the detriment >of Australia’s mainstream Anglo-Celtic culture. Much of the curriculum >material also appeared to reflect the Labor Government’s cultural agenda >with its preoccupation with matters of gender, ethnicity and class. > >Within one of the six areas of study that make up the profile, one third >of the outcomes relate specifically to Aboriginal people and Torres >Strait Islanders. Andrews described the approach embodied in the >curriculum document as reflecting “a massive cultural cringe” and >observed that one looked “throughout these documents in vain for any >consideration of European History”. Significant is that Bill Hannan, who >was closely involved in the work of CURASS, has stated that of all those >who have criticised the national curriculum, it is those with >“ideological objections” who have a “defensible case” (The Australian >Education Review, August 7-8). > >Whenever criticisms are made of the way in which curriculum has been >politicised by the left, the reply is that education has always been an >instrument for social engineering. Academic studies, a belief in >meritocracy and the ideal that education should be impartial are simply >elements of what Althusser termed the ideological state apparatus and a >key instrument in supporting the dominant class. Progressive and radical >teachers argue, in reconstituting the curriculum to achieve their >social, economic and political goals, that all they are doing is >redressing the imbalance. > >That this view of education is both contradictory and dangerous should >be obvious. If education is simply controlled by the ruling class to >enforce its ideology, then how can one explain that the most strident >critics of the status quo have arisen from the education system. It must >also be remembered that if the role of education is simply to >indoctrinate students into whatever the government of the day thinks is >acceptable, then individuals would no longer have an independent, >critical viewpoint from which to evaluate conflicting social, economic >and political agendas. > >Rather than schools and universities being made the plaything of >whatever political party is in power, education should be concerned with >the autonomous ideals of inquiry and truth. As argued by Matthew Arnold >in Culture and Anarchy: “But, in truth, the free spontaneous play of >consciousness with which culture tries to float our stock habits of >thinking and acting, is by its very nature, as been said disinterested. >Sometimes the result of floating them may be agreeable to this party, >sometimes to that; now it may be unwelcome to to our so-called Liberals, >now to our so-called Conservatives; but what culture seeks is, above >all, to float them, to prevent them being stiff and stark pieces of >petrifaction any longer”. >EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE > Jimmy Kilpatrick Phone 713 520-9715 Coordinator of Community Programs Fax 713 520-7214 Advisor for Reading and Reading Disabilities University of Texas at Austin Home 281 265-2368 Charles A. Dana Center Mobile 281 536-4713 1723 Westheimer Road Houston,Texas 77098-1611