A blueprint for narrower, more ideological education

“The direction in which education starts a man will determine his future life.” In the unlikely event that many of today’s junior primary students encounter Plato in the course of their education, they will realise they have been short-changed. The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority’s review of the national curriculum, open for public consultation until July 8, warrants careful scrutiny and feedback by parents, teachers, employers and school authorities. It back-pedals on important reforms in the comprehensive review by Kenneth Wiltshire and Kevin Donnelly finalised in 2014. It also fails to build on good progress made in some states in the wider use of phonics in teaching reading. Initiatives by NSW and South Australia, for example, in the use of phonics rely on irrefutable evidence. The proposed curriculum revisions, while acknowledging phonics, also lend credence to whole-language practices. Poor literacy, and its detrimental effects on subsequent learning, has been a serious stumbling block in Australian schooling for decades. This debate should be done and dusted.

Stakeholders will applaud ACARA’s goal to address curriculum overcrowding. Parents know that plenty of school time is wasted on extraneous activities. But the proposal to slash basic history teaching is a bad idea. As always, the children who will suffer most are those whose families do not or cannot fill in the gaps, as many parents have been doing for years. As the Institute of Public Affairs’ foundation of Western civilisation program director Bella d’Abrera says, much of what is to be removed is not clutter; it is knowledge that every Australian child should learn. The removal of references to Christianity and institutions and values of Western culture under the guise of decluttering is not acceptable.

We welcome the inclusion in Year 7 of a Deep Time History of Australia covering 60,000 years of Indigenous history. Those millennia offer a treasure trove for discovery. There is no reason, however, to promote them over other areas of ancient history, such as Greece, Rome or other civilisations. At least ACARA is proposing that students study two ancient societies, with one of those being the early First Nations peoples of Australia. A broad knowledge of ancient history is a foundation for understanding Western civilisation. Without it, later study of ancient history at HSC level will founder. It also would be a mistake to exclude, as proposed, the study of at least one world navigator, explorer or trader up to the late 18th century and their contacts with other societies. Many people regard Captain James Cook charting our east coast as a “must cover” topic.

For many families, classes and schools, the use of terms such as invasion, frontier warfare and genocide in relation to the First Fleet and British settlement would be divisive and highly offensive. A history curriculum to Year 10 should focus on what happened, not emotive, dubious interpretations of it. Cultural relativism is not the purpose of schooling, which is why the proposed elimination of references to Australia’s Christian heritage is also unacceptable. As Rebecca Urban reports, secondary students will no longer be taught that Australia is a secular nation and a multi-faith society with a “Christian heritage”. They will be told we are a “culturally diverse, multi-faith, secular and pluralistic society with diverse communities, such as the distinct communities of First Nations Australians”. No faith-based school worth its salt could tolerate such bias; they are entitled to reject it and teach students why.

For years, three cross-curriculum priorities — Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures; Asia and Australia’s engagement with Asia; and sustainability — permeated education. It was sensible, as Professor Wiltshire and Dr Donnelly recommended, that these themes be embedded “only where educationally relevant in the mandatory content of the curriculum”. ACARA’s revisions largely reverse that position, unfortunately. They propose adding a hefty dose of social justice and greenery, even to mathematics: “The cross-curriculum priorities of most relevance and meaning to the mathematics curriculum are Sustainability and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Histories and Cultures,” the proposal says. “Both cross-curriculum priorities … offer opportunities to add depth and richness to student learning.” Maths is a significant trouble spot. Too few senior students study it to an advanced level, leaving the nation short of engineers and other STEM professionals. And while Australia was once a top-10 nation in maths, we have fallen to 29th place in the world in Program for International Student Assessment testing. ACARA also wants to incorporate similar themes in English. But teachers and schools must ensure students master some of the Western canon of classic literature as well as competent written and spoken English.

Writing in The Australian on Thursday, ACARA chief David de Carvalho made some valid points. Reviewing the curriculum every six years, he says, allows it to meet the needs of students, now and into the future. Making the content clearer to teachers and more accessible for students makes sense. Mathematics, as he says, needed additional work. The review has achieved some of that and more. But because it opens the door too wide to ideological extremism that would not serve the national interest, it rates a D — for back to the drawing board. We welcome Mr de Carvalho’s view that national curriculums are nation building and therefore everyone’s business. Education Minister Alan Tudge says he wants quality and high standards. Bravo. He and his state counterparts have plenty of homework ahead, with red pencils in hand.