Spring 2007

Curriculum for the 21st century

Curriculum, capabilities and nation building

Alan Reid argues that a national approach to curriculum is a good idea, provided that it goes beyond the current approach of identifying a limited number of subjects and making these common across the country.

When the matter of national curriculum collaboration entered the educational landscape in the last third of the 20th century, the arguments (mainly put by successive Federal Ministers of Education) related to student mobility and the efficient use of resources. It was argued, for example, that the different State curricula disadvantaged children of military personnel when their parents moved States. Such arguments continue today as the official justification for a national curriculum. This technical rationale rarely extends to broader philosophical considerations, such as the contribution of the school curriculum to nation building, and so invariably the debates about approaches to national curriculum have focused on the question of States’ rights. That is, a narrow rationale has produced a technicist response.

Since 2003, the Liberal Federal Government has been pursuing an increasingly interventionist agenda, proposing a national certificate of education, compulsory (narrative) history at every year level, common ‘plain-English’ report cards, national benchmark testing, nationally consistent curriculum in ‘key’ areas of learning and so on. Predictably the States have either resisted on the grounds of local autonomy, reluctantly agreed (especially where they have been threatened with the loss of federal funding) or compromised by taking a lowest common denominator approach, such as adopting ‘national’ approaches that identify what is already common in State curricula.

In my view, if Australia is genuinely to become a knowledge society in the 21st century then it must move beyond limiting curriculum development to a demarcation dispute based on geographical boundaries drawn up in the 19th century. In short, I support the idea of a national approach to curriculum. However, the ways in which a national curriculum has been conceptualised so far, the strategies which have been proposed, and the processes that have been employed, must change if Australia is to achieve a national curriculum approach that genuinely meets the challenges of the 21st century. This will need to go beyond the current approach involving an identification of a limited number of subjects and making these common across the country.

The complexity and ambiguity of the social, political, cultural and economic shifts that are shaping our world suggest that such an impoverished rationale and associated strategies are no longer adequate. The debate about approaches to national curriculum demands a richer rationale and set of responses. What might this look like, and can the constitutional constraints to national approaches be overcome? What follows is one possibility.

Towards a new approach to national curriculum

Australian society, like the societies of other nation–states, is undergoing a radical transformation, as established ways of organising and working and living are under challenge. In such an environment, people have to adjust to new ways of understanding the world, doing things and living together. It demands moving well beyond the nation building phase of the 20th century and into a process of nation re-building, involving a reconsideration of many established practices and institutions. But how do people develop the knowledge and skills to meet these challenges? This is a curriculum question par excellence.

At a time of significant change in the nation–state, the curriculum presents itself as the major means by which the citizenry, collectively and individually, can develop the capabilities to play a part in the democratic project of nation rebuilding. As Edwards and Kelly (1998) argue, the curriculum should:

cater appropriately to the growth and development of every capacity …, promote the acquisition of those understandings which will facilitate intelligent participation in democratic processes…, offer genuine social and political empowerment, and …in general enrich and enhance the life potential of every individual.

Edwards and Kelly, p. 16

Edwards and Kelly are suggesting that the key role of educational institutions is to work with young people to develop these capacities or capabilities so that they can live enriching and productive lives in the many arenas in which they will function, as citizens of the Australian nation–state and as global citizens; as workers in regional, national and global economies; as contributors to local and national cultural life; and as family and community members. Thus, it includes capabilities for communication, civic participation, health, work, wellbeing and personal development and so on. Although these capabilities will be brought to bear differently in different geographical, cultural and social contexts, they are capabilities that all citizens will need to live productive and enriched lives.

If this analysis is correct, then identifying these capabilities is an ongoing task for any democracy. Given that the national arena is the common denominator for Australian citizenship, then the question of what capabilities we want our young people to develop is one that is preeminently a national question, being one that goes right to the heart of Australian democracy.

If it is accepted that educational institutions are key sites for the development of these capabilities in a democracy, then the argument for a national approach to curriculum starts to take shape. From this perspective, one aspect of an official curriculum might be the development of those capabilities identified from a continuing national conversation, albeit ongoing, unfinished and tentative. But there would need to be another part of the curriculum—that is, the vehicles through which the capabilities are developed. These are traditionally known as subjects, Learning Areas or disciplines.

These two parts of a capabilities-based curriculum could form the foundation of a national approach to curriculum. Thus, a set of richly described capabilities could be common across the country. That is, all States and Territories would agree on the capabilities that would become the focus of teaching and learning in each jurisdiction, through a process perhaps led by the Australian Government and starting with a review of the National Goals of Schooling. However, the vehicles through which the capabilities are developed would be the province of the various State/Territory jurisdictions. Thus the other part of a national curriculum would be the existing official curricula of the States and Territories (i.e. Learning Areas/subjects/disciplines) organised in a manner agreed within each jurisdiction. Instead of the teaching of subjects as ends in themselves, teachers would teach through subjects for the capabilities.

The proposal offers a practical approach to national curriculum collaboration because it takes account of many of the political impediments that have hitherto hampered national initiatives. In particular, by using the existing curriculum architecture (e.g., State/Territory frameworks, National Goals of Schooling), it doesn’t threaten the curriculum autonomy of the States/Territories—indeed, the existing curriculum frameworks of each jurisdiction are central to the approach. They are not under challenge.

At the same time, the capabilities provide the Australian Government with a mechanism to directly influence the curriculum agenda, and for there to be a common national approach. This has a number of practical consequences. For example, it dissolves the State versus Australian Government binary that has for so long impeded national collaboration. In this model, the official curriculum is not a single entity—it involves an interaction between different components in different arenas. It respects the importance of discipline-based knowledge, and allows for the possibility of transdisciplinary work. At the same time, it opens up the possibilities for a rich national conversation about the sorts of capabilities that are needed for young people to be active and productive members of their communities.

References

Edwards, G & Kelly, A V (1998). Experience and Education: Towards an alternative national curriculum, Paul Chapman, London.

Reid, A (2005). Rethinking National Curriculum Collaboration: Towards an Australian curriculum, DEST, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, pp. 1–72.

Alan Reid is professor of Education at the University of South Australia.

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