There is news today that the Coalition will consider changes to the national school history curriculum, while maintaining its support for the principle of national school curricula.
In fact, the Coalition should reconsider its support for national school curricula as it was always based on the flimsiest of rationales and underestimated the potential downsides.
The principal reason given for introducing a national school curricula is that families move interstate – all 80,000 or so – and it is confusing for their children. This number is actually trivial and the differences between the states are not so great as to bamboozle anyone who would not be bamboozled by staying in the same state.
When discussing a national school curricula, I always ask those involved in the conversation to hark back to the days of Madam Russia (aka Joan Kirner) in Victoria and the changes that were made to the final years school curricula. It was an absolute disaster – ridiculously politicised subject material, CATs – the school assessed projects that were subject to cheating, disquiet from the higher education sector as to integrity of the rankings that emerged and the list goes on. Then think that this Madam Russia experiment could have applied Australia-wide.
Luckily, through the power of competitive federalism and public exposure of the folly of the Victorian experiment, it was short-lived and the Victorian school curricula returned to a more mainstream version.
A final question is why New South Wales is going along with the idea of a national school curricula. In a state that does not have much going for it, its standard of school education and its Year 12 certificate stands head and shoulders above the other states. Why would it want to get dragged down to the lowest common denominator? My guess is: money from the feds.
I agree, and it will be a good test of how desperate/corrupt the NSW government is (and the Victorian one, for that matter). The other thing that is amusing is how stupidly political this all is — in the end, who cares about history as a subject apart from a bunch of zealots? Far more useful would be for them to tell people how they are going to fix maths and science instead. I think the answer to this is that they won’t because they don’t know.
conrad
31 Aug 10 at 2:49 pm
Those who don’t care about history are ignorant twats.
This is not a zero sum game, Conrad. If history is bolstered it doesn’t mean that science and maths are downgraded.
Rococo Liberal
31 Aug 10 at 3:15 pm
I agree. I wouldn’t want my kids to have to be dumbed down to Victorian levels, let alone QLD!
Peter Patton
31 Aug 10 at 3:15 pm
Well said, Judith. When people talk in favour of a national curriculum, there is always an assumption that it will be a good one. If we got lucky, maybe. But what are the odds? And good by whose criteria?
Jarrah
31 Aug 10 at 3:16 pm
It would be great if schools could opt out of the state curricular and choose something like the Cambridge pre-U, which a lot of the UK public schools have opted for, as A level have dumbed down so much.
Peter Patton
31 Aug 10 at 3:17 pm
It is simply appalling that we live in a polity where not only do politicians presume they can write school curricular, but we also just lie down and accept it!
Peter Patton
31 Aug 10 at 3:24 pm
Rocco, it’s not that i think history is unimportant, but things like maths and science are where the current problems are. If you look at historical trends, then Australia is actually really good on literacy (almost the best in the world), but maths and science have been degrading for quite some time. Thus complaining about history and English is complaining about what is currently done well when stuff that isn’t done well and is also important exists.
It’s also the case that people inevitably focus on later years of schooling, when the real problems emerge much earlier. If your kid can, for example, write an essay based on a Marxiset perspective of gender relations (or whatever crazy thing you can think of), then they arn’t having trouble with literacy. If they can’t read well because they wern’t taught well when they were 6, then that really is serious.
conrad
31 Aug 10 at 3:32 pm
oops, typo, that should obviously been Marxist.
conrad
31 Aug 10 at 3:33 pm
Another factor is that a national curriculum will almost certainly stifle innovation. Conservative though most of us here might be, we would accept (I hope) that an education system should change and develop. Experiments can be made on a state level without a debate in federal parliament.
And it’s also less likely to become political if its kept out of federal hands.
ken n
31 Aug 10 at 4:09 pm
Another factor is that a national curriculum will almost certainly stifle innovation.
Bingo.
Can you imagine how hard it would be to reform, if the system was run nationwide, and needed the agreement of all states?
daddy dave
31 Aug 10 at 5:49 pm
Then think that this Madam Russia experiment could have applied Australia-wide.
More like France.
Adrien
31 Aug 10 at 6:01 pm
Conrad – who cares about history as a subject apart from a bunch of zealots?
Me. History gives you a sense of meaning. One that everyone can plug into. It also teaches you to comprehend and analyze actions and their consequences; lessons that never get learned. The problem with the Science/Arts divide is produces people who learn to dismiss what they may not fully appreciate or excel in.
The problem with history is the problem with maths and science and the rest of it: lack of basic skills and actual knowledge. It’s become an ideolgical shitfight. And before that it became irrelevant pretty much because the history curricula did not apply to kids whose entire experience is of the modern world. It needed redesigning but not in the way that happened.
The market for popular history (which can be shaky) demonstrates its relevance.
Adrien
31 Aug 10 at 6:06 pm
But like Conrad said, history isn’t a problem. Maths and science are. An advanced economy needs armies of people who are numerate.
daddy dave
31 Aug 10 at 6:32 pm
DD – But not literate? According to the information that’s a problem. And from my limited experience wuth today’s undergrads they know nothing.
As RL said. Bolstering history doesn’t come at the expense of maths/science. It ain’t either/or.
Adrien
31 Aug 10 at 6:35 pm
Adrien, using history as a reason to change everything is just using a strawman to appeal to people. It’s even worse because people almost inevitably complain about content and not skills — both are important (and what happens when Labor gets back in and is in full control of the content?).
So if you want to change everything, then the least you can do is take all the areas we know are problems and explain what you are going to do about them first. Once the government has done that and we know they know what they are talking about, their proposal might be worth considering. Until that time comes, it’s just a bit of hot air from charlatans.
conrad
31 Aug 10 at 6:51 pm
“t would be great if schools could opt out of the state curricular and choose something like the Cambridge pre-U, which a lot of the UK public schools have opted for, as A level have dumbed down so much.”
Precisely.
Let a hundred curricula flowers bloom!
Dandy Warhol
31 Aug 10 at 8:07 pm
“It would be great if schools could opt out of the state curricular and choose something like the Cambridge pre-U, which a lot of the UK public schools have opted for, as A level have dumbed down so much.”
Precisely.
Let a hundred curricula flowers bloom!
Dandy Warhol
31 Aug 10 at 8:07 pm
Conrad – Adrien, using history as a reason to change everything is just using a strawman to appeal to people.
I’m not trying to use History to change everything. But it can help you avoid dumbarse mistakes. In the future if Australia is tempted to do what the US did in Indochione in the 50s we might resist if our leaders remember the lessons of the Vietnam War.
It’s even worse because people almost inevitably complain about content and not skills — both are important (and what happens when Labor gets back in and is in full control of the content?).
Yes and as I say to Labor people: what happens when the Tories get in? History is not propoganda. Properly taught it will not take sides in the Culture War.
Adrien
31 Aug 10 at 8:13 pm
I’m not trying to use History to change everything.
There’s been a misunderstanding here. Adrien, you’re talking about history itself, but Conrad was referring to the school history curriculum. He meant, they’re using the history curriculum as an excuse for wholesale reform.
(I think that’s what he meant, anyway)
daddy dave
31 Aug 10 at 8:19 pm
So if you want to change everything, then the least you can do is take all the areas we know are problems and explain what you are going to do about them first. Once the government has done that…
Yeah this is why the National Curricula is a bad idea. The government won’t do that. I wouldn’t change history teaching in the sense of ‘let’s forget the Romans and have the kids instead appreciate the contribution of the good basket-weaving fisherman of West Botswana’ or something.
The way I learned history started with Ancient Wgypt/Mesopotamia. Then Greece and Rome etc. The content isn’t wrong it’s the (sorry) narrative structure.
If you’re some X-Boxed Mall Rat stuff like ancient Rome is just a theme park to you. It’s difficult to appreciate that what happened then has an effect on their lives. The way I’d get kids interested is by starting in Greenfield, Michigan in the 1860s. I’d describe the town how it ran. Thenn I’d jump forward to the early 1900s and explain how much a car cost in today’s dollars.
Then I’d tell a story about a dude that was born in Greenfield who changed all that. They can relate to that. You then go backwards. That’s all.
Not suggesting it for the National Curricula. I just think it’s worth trying. If there wasn’t a state controlled curricula I probably could try it. At this rate I have to get a useless Diploma and work for an arsehole top even have a crack./
Adrien
31 Aug 10 at 8:20 pm
With degrees in both Arts and Science, my experience is that it is the Arts degree that has the most fire power, and is more socially useful at the top end. Very few straight scientists ever contribute more than technological fodder.
An Arts graduate without either a very solid HSC science load, or at least one or two years of undergrad, will be hamstrung. But there are more historians than scientists who move mountains politically than pure scientists.
Watching science students in compulsory Arts undergrad in history tutorials, for example, is like listening to fingers down a chalkboard.
Ideally, potential Arts high-flyers would have to take compulsory elementary science loads.
Peter Patton
31 Aug 10 at 8:37 pm
Of course, the best education is to augment a solid science and Arts education with 2 or 3 history of philosophy and science subjects in 2nd or 3rd year uni. For straight science students, make that 4; especially history of science.
Peter Patton
31 Aug 10 at 8:40 pm
Very few straight scientists ever contribute more than technological fodder.
What the hell?
And what’s a “straight scientist?” Does Judith fall into that category, for instance?
daddy dave
31 Aug 10 at 9:25 pm
A curriculum that is national isn’t a bad idea, but a curriculum that is a national monopoly is dangerous for the reasons stated above. In a curriculum market where schools could choose between competing curricula the same curriculum could be found in schools around the country (if it was popular enough) without the danger of monopoly.
Andrew Norton
1 Sep 10 at 8:58 am
Absolutely, Andrew, all monopolies are bad. I guess the IB creates some sort of competition at the upper school years, although it is expensive for schools to participate and generally favours the more intellectually gifted students.
I understand that non-government schools will be bound to follow the new national curricula as well as government schools.
Judith Sloan
1 Sep 10 at 10:30 am
Judith – Yes, the non-government schools are required to participate in the national curriculum.
Andrew Norton
1 Sep 10 at 5:47 pm