1) Kevin, it is my understanding that Australia is going to a "national curriculum".  What prompted this?

During the lead up to last year's federal election, held in November 2007, both major political parties advocated developing an Australian national curriculum.At the moment the 8 state and territories develop their own school curriculum and, while there are some national programs and initiatives, education is not controlled by the Commonwealth Government.

Arguments in favour of a national curriculum include:

• students moving interstate are disadvantaged because of the 8 different state and territory approaches to curriculum,
• the existing system involving 8 different bodies responsible for curriculum is costly and inefficient,
• in an increasingly competitive and challenging international climate, Australia needs to have a unified, rigorous and demanding national curriculum,
• a national curriculum would help to raise standards, and
• concerns about the quality, effectiveness and rigour of Australia's existing outcomes-based education (OBE) approach adopted in varying degrees by the different states and territories.

2) In your mind, what are the pros and cons of a "national curriculum" ?

While having a national curriculum is more cost effective and efficient, plus, hopefully, more academically rigorous than what we currently have, there are a number of concerns, including:

• centralizing power can be dangerous, especially in education.With 8 different systems there is less danger of any one fad or innovation taking control and in diversity there is strength,
• the national curriculum, to be implemented at the start of 2011, is being developed by the very groups and individuals responsible for the current parlous state of Australian education.As such, I am not optimistic about the quality of the outcome, and
• Australian teachers have been exhausted by the rate and complexity of curriculum change over the last 20 years or so, embarking on another major curriculum initiative, most likely, will further alienate teachers.

3) I believe that England has a national curriculum- would Australia's be modeled after theirs?

As development has only begun in relation to a national curriculum, it is early days as yet and what model will be adopted is uncertain.In the international benchmarking I have done I distinguish between a syllabus, an outcomes-based and a standards approach.Each model has its unique characteristics, strengths and weaknesses.Similar to the US, Australia experimented with an outcomes-based education model since the middle 90s, but such have been the criticisms and flaws in the approach that OBE is rarely, if ever, mentioned.

In Australia, once again similar to the US, the talk is now of a standards model of curriculum.A background paper to the national curriculum talks of content and achievement standards and the need for curriculum documents to be clear, concise and teacher friendly.While admitting the need to include what are termed perspectives and competencies, there is also the recognition that the subject disciplines must be properly dealt with.

I would hope that whatever model is adopted, it follows the advice of the American Federation of Teachers and the Thomas B Fordham Institute when they argues that curriculum should be:

• based on the academic disciplines,
• be benchmarked against international best-practice,
• be related to year levels,
• be specific, easily understood and manageable,
• incorporate regular testing and consequences for failure, and
• include a common core curriculum.

4) Now, what about kids with mental retardation, vision impairments, hearing impairments, children with autism and children with head injury or brain damage. What kind of curriculum would they follow? ( or haven't the powers that be thought that far ahead?"

At the moment debates relate to what a national curriculum might look like and how it might best be developed – in a general sense.Students with special needs, as yet, have not been considered.

5) In terms of changes like these - somebody is going to make some money somewhere - whether it be the testing companies, or the book publishers or someone... In you opinion, who benefits from a national curriculum?

In an ideal world, I'd like to believe that a national curriculum would most benefit students and teachers – and society, more generally.I'm not optimistic that such will be the case.The curriculum is being developed by a National Curriculum Board, appointed by the left-of-centre federal government and made up of the usual vested interest groups and individuals.Such groups represent Australia's education establishment and while, unlike publishing companies, they are not driven by profit, they have invested a good deal in the status quo.

Two of Australia's leading curriculum groups are the Curriculum Corporation and the Australian Council for Educational Research, they are both close to government, rely on government for most of their income and have been chosen to develop a national curriculum.Obviously, they are beholden to governments as their main source of income and are not independent.

6) Who gets to pick and choose the main people in the history of Australia that would be studied? The main writers, the main artists, the main musicians? (And I must admit that I am very lacking in terms of knowledge in this regard, so you opinion would be most welcome !)

The first stage of the national curriculum involves English, history, mathematics and science and the national Curriculum Board's intention is to establish curriculum committees and take the advice of so-called experts in developing each subject.History is especially controversial, given the history wars in Australia that involve debates about the degree to which the subject has been politicized by the cultural-left.

Such are the debates about history that the previous conservative government, under the leadership of Prime Minister John Howard, organized a history summit to discuss how the subject should be taught and what a model curriculum would look like.The conservative approach was attacked by the cultural-left for being too much about dates, facts, important individuals, events and historical issues and not enough about social critical issues and the rights of oppressed minority groups.

Based on a cultural literacy argument, I would argue that it should be possible to identify the key people and events that have impacted on the nation and to teach such things in a balanced, objective way.

7)  Is there any apparent focus in terms of this "national curriculum" ? By this I mean will the focus be on math and science, or reading and social studies or some other domain?

The first stage of Australia's national curriculum will involve English, mathematics, science and history.While the National Curriculum Board has stated that the subject disciplines will be centre stage, there is also a commitment to teach cross-curricula issues and deal with what are described as perspectives.As such, I imagine that any new curriculum will be politically correct and adopt an ideological line on matters related to the environment, social justice, feminism, gender and multiculturalism.

I also imagine that there will be a focus on what is called personalized learning, where teachers will be expected to shape their teaching to suit the apparently unique interests, demands and needs of individual students.

8)  Are there opponents to this "national curriculum" and if so, what are they saying?

Given that the education establishment has control over developing a national curriculum, there is little criticism or complaint.The fact that all governments, state and federal, are no controlled by the left-of-centre Australian Labor Party – natural allies of the cultural-left education establishment – also means that those in charge of the agenda believe that they will get their own way in terms of the new curriculum.

Published July 22, 2008