Head of curriculum defends controversial changes to education

Teachers have slammed changes made to the geography course, saying students will be left with a “significantly reduced” knowledge of the world – but the exec in charge disagrees.

A Department of Education executive has defended the changes to the geography curriculum which some teachers say will leave students with a “significantly reduced” knowledge of the world.

Department of Education head of curriculum Deonne Smith has refuted the claims as she said the new material will allow for a deeper study of the subject.

She said the curriculum, which runs from reception until year 10, lets students build upon their knowledge each year.

“ACARA (Australian Curriculum and Reporting Authority), following advice from experts, has made sure teachers have an opportunity to teach the national geography curriculum in greater depth,” Ms Smith said.

The education executive said the change came after teachers advised there was too much content.

“Primary school teachers have previously indicated the curriculum is overcrowded, making it hard to teach all the content in sufficient depth.”

Education Department executive director of curriculum and learning Deonne Smith. Picture: supplied

But the new curriculum has been heavily criticised by geography teachers.

A former senior Flinders University academic who helped write the existing curriculum has written to Education Minister Blair Boyer urging him to intervene.

Associate Professor Alaric Maude has accused ACARA of “dumbing down” geography in the new curriculum – designed to lighten the workload on primary and secondary students.

In his letter to Mr Boyer, Professor Maude said it needed to be rewritten “before it is suitable for use in Australian schools”.

“Students’ knowledge of the world will be significantly reduced,” he said.

“They will now only learn something about Australia’s neighbouring countries and Asia, and nothing about the continents and countries of Africa, South America, Europe and North America.”

Mr Maude said primary school children also no longer would be taught the difference between climate and weather, while there were “problems with content that has not been removed, but rewritten”.

While ACARA had described the new curriculum as “more stripped-back and teachable”, he believed it contained “errors that are frankly embarrassing in a public document”.

Professor Maude has been supported by the SA Geography Teachers Association, Australian Geography Teachers Association and Institute of Australian Geographers.

The three organisations will write to federal Education Minister Jason Clare to urge him to review the geography curriculum before it is rolled out to schools across the country.

Australian Geography Teachers Association vice president Simon Miller said members were “extremely concerned” about the proposed changes.

“With reduced subject content in the primary years it is so vital that what is included is relevant and comprehensive,” he said.

“A lack of any explanation of climate is particularly worrying, and the removal of an examination of all continents also reduces our ability to produce informed global citizens.”

Mr Miller said it was “absolutely vital” there was a “clear and easy to follow” curriculum, especially for teachers who were not trained in geography.

“This curriculum is a downgrade on the previous version in this regard,” he said.

“The range of errors in the documentation is also very worrying and suggests a lack of specialist geographers involved in the final writing.”

Institute of Australian Geographers president Jennifer Carter said her membership was “most disappointed” with the reduced content in the geography curriculum.

“We are even more concerned that the rewritten curriculum contains concepts that are incorrect, and has inconsistencies and confusing statements,” she said.

Ms Carter said her association believed the consultation process was flawed.

“We are aware there was pressure to reduce content,” she said.

“If given the opportunity, we could have provided advice about the draft curriculum that was produced from that consultation process, while simultaneously meeting the goal of reduced content.

“As it currently stands, we believe this version of the curriculum needs to be revised to provide a more internationally comparable geography curriculum.”

An ACARA spokesman said development of the new curriculum involved input from education experts, state and territory education authorities, public consultation and “rigorous” research.

“It was approved by all education ministers, who had asked that the amount of content be reduced considerably to make the curriculum more manageable as a whole,” he said.

“In the revised curriculum, students are provided opportunities to learn about different continents and countries, and climate and weather continue to be taught as part of the natural features of a place.

“The specificity of continents and countries has been removed to allow flexibility to schools about the contexts chosen to develop content and skills.”

The spokesman said individual state and territory jurisdictions determined “when and how they implement the curriculum”.

An Education Department spokeswoman confirmed the new national curriculum, including geography, would be rolled out across SA schools next year.