Spring 2007

Curriculum for the 21st century

A timely idea

The current discussion about national curriculum is timely and appropriate, but Andrew Blair argues that it has generated both predictable and generally inadequate responses.

The current discussion about a national curriculum generated by the Federal Minister for Education, Science and Training, Julie Bishop, has caused State and Territory Ministers’ to react with the age-old defensiveness that school curriculum is the States’ business and that a national view is both unnecessary, not constitutional and is a power grab by Canberra. Some Ministers have responded that their State’s curriculum is near perfect and is sacrosanct. A discussion about a national approach would therefore be ‘a backward step’: ‘why break what’s not broken’; it’s ‘a cure looking for a disease’ and it ‘will dumb down our rigorous curriculum and standards’.

On the other hand, Minister Bishop has pragmatically, in my view, concentrated the debate of national consistency in a narrow band of curriculum interest. By focusing only on the ‘core’, we find the debate addressing areas that are easily measured and reported by national testing. The discussion as a result is housed in a standards and a back to basics agenda. This is clearly evidenced by the recent Federal budget announcements, which have focused on working with States and Territories to develop core curricula standards in English, maths, physics, chemistry, biology and Australian history for years 11 and 12; and English, maths, science and Australian history for year 10, to assist in raising standards in schools. Adopting the resulting standards will be a condition of Australian Government funding from 2009 onwards.

The Australian Secondary Principals Association is far more interested in an expansive discussion about what constitutes an appropriate and relevant curriculum for all Australian students in the context of the 21st century and how that can be nationally consistent.

There is some sense and logic behind the move towards the implementation of a national curriculum, provided that it is built on an agreed national curriculum framework. It is difficult to seriously advocate for eight individual and varying approaches in a population of just over 20 million, when in England there exists a national curriculum in a population of over 60 million. By generating a framework rather than mandated content we will ensure a validation of local contexts (Gove versus Balwyn) and an interest in meeting today’s and future challenges and not just a return to the basics. The basics, while important as fundamental building blocks, are not alone sufficient in addressing the serious challenges this nation faces in producing a workforce that is creative and capable of competing globally in new and emerging industries.

In a paper prepared for the Curriculum Standing Committee of National Education Professional Associations (CSCNEPA) entitled ‘School Curriculum for the 21st century: A rough guide to a national curriculum’, Peter Cole proposed that the key ingredients should be:

• A national curriculum that attempts to only minimise State and Territory differences, while generating significant efficiency benefits, will be of marginal impact in improving student learning.
• A national curriculum should be concerned with the common learning undertaken by all students.
• The national curriculum should not consume all of a school’s learning time.
• The national curriculum’s impact should be largely confined to the compulsory years.
• National Subjects (and common credentialing requirements) should be developed for the senior years.
• national curriculum subject content should support interdisciplinary study and promote ‘big picture’ general knowledge.
• The national curriculum should be taught in ways that enable students to appreciate the distinct contribution that each of the disciplines/subjects makes to enrich their understanding of society.
• The national curriculum should promote global perspectives, incorporate the development of ‘soft skills’ and include second language learning that is confined to only a few common second languages.
• Assessments of the national curriculum should be intra-and cross-disciplinary; more concerned with reasoning than with recall and be concerned with what students can do as well as with what they know.

A recent report by Professor Alan Reid titled ‘Rethinking National Curriculum Collaboration: Towards an Australian curriculum’ concluded that:

National curriculum collaboration is crucial to the future of Australia as it seeks to grapple with the complexities of globalisation, the speed of knowledge production, and the challenges of diversity. If Australia is genuinely to become a knowledge society, then the curriculum of its educational institutions is a matter of public importance. But traditional concepts of curriculum and models of national curriculum collaboration that look for lowest common denominator answers will not serve Australia well in the 21st century There is a better way, one founded on a commitment to fully developing the capabilities of all citizens to participate actively in the shaping of a learning society and to live enriching and productive lives.

Both writers are focused on what really matters in this debate. The lowest common denominator of what can be agreed or imposed is to forgo an important opportunity for education in Australia.

It is fair to say that the debate to this point has been driven by politics and politics alone. The Curriculum Standing Committee of National Education Professional Associations is attempting to put some propositions on the table that represent the views of the profession. The view from those within the industry, those with the curriculum expertise and knowledge, is crucial. Unless we put forward positive contributions to the discussion, we will achieve the outcome we deserve.

Our politicians rightly espouse that they are accountable to the voting public of the country. It is my gut feeling that the Australian public are heartily sick and tired of the defensiveness and same old rhetoric of the States versus Canberra in matters of vital national importance. Most Australians think of themselves as Australians first and Victorians or West Australians second. They want consistency, equity of opportunity and equivalence for their children—not because they support Canberra versus States and Territory authority, but because we are a single nation with a population that is proudly Australian first and pragmatic second.

The real question here is not who controls the curriculum, but is the curriculum in our schools one for all Australians no matter where they live in the country, and does that curriculum give our young Australians a chance at being world leaders in their post school endeavours.

Andrew Blair is president of the Australian Secondary Principals Association.

The author owns the copyright in this article. For information related to the reuse of this work in any form please contact the publisher denise.quinn@curriculum.edu.au