Gonski legacy to dumb down the curriculum

Central to Gonski 2.0’s recommendations is the argument the curriculum should focus on the future by emphasising general capabilities

Central to Gonski 2.0’s recommendations on how to raise standards is the argument the curriculum should focus on the future by emphasising general capabilities instead of the essential knowledge, understanding and skills associated with established subjects like history, science, literature and mathematics.

The report also recommends an online diagnostic test called Teaching Tools that measures a student’s development over time.

Despite the government’s promise that investing additional billions will raise standards, the Gonski 2.0 report, if adopted, will condemn students to failure as it represents a continuation of Australia’s dumbed-down and substandard curriculum. By emphasising general capabilities instead of what Jerome Bruner describes as teaching “the structure of the discipline” the report condemns students to a superficial, patchy curriculum.

As noted in the 2014 report of the review of the Australian curriculum I co-chaired, generic capabilities cannot be taught in isolation. As E.D. Hirsch notes, they are subject-specific and must be grounded in essential content.

Creativity with language requires a thorough knowledge of grammar, syntax, punctuation and language use exemplified by the finest literature — unlike music or mathematics, that require a very different initiation.

A futurist approach is also flawed as education by necessity is grounded in the past. As argued by Michael Oakeshott, the skills, knowledge, understanding associated with what it means to be educated forms a conversation that has gone on for centuries.

Subjects such as mathematics, science, politics, literature and philosophy can be traced to the ancient Romans and Greeks and to the Enlightenment. If students are to address future challenges they must know about the past.

There are basically two ways to assess a student’s progress and the Gonski 2.0 report adopts a developmental approach where the focus is on individuals and how they performs over a period.

Students are not ranked against each other or told they have passed or failed. Instead, teachers use statements such as “consolidating” or “not yet achieved”. What is ignored is that if performance is below that expected for their year level, they are very much at risk. Promoting self-esteem is delusional if it means students float through school without an objective measure of progress.

The opposite approach is summative assessment; students tested as a class and given a grade that tells them, their teachers and parents, whether they passed.

That the Gonski 2.0 report promotes a flawed model of assessment over content-rich exams where students are ranked should not surprise. Since the mid-80s, the education unions and like-minded academics have argued summative assessment unfairly promotes competition and meritocracy.

Gonski 2.0 epitomises all that is wrong with the system — yet another example of government ineptitude in education.

Kevin Donnelly is a senior research fellow at the Australian Catholic University.