While we are dealing with continuing aspects of the NSW Government’s GTIL, the Federal Government’s NPSI and the rollout of the Australian Curriculum in NSW, Federal Education Minister Christopher Pyne has announced a ‘review’ of that Curriculum for little more than ideological reasons. Someone it seems has determined that aspects of the Curriculum lack rigour and that there is insufficient emphasis on conservative Prime Ministers and the role of business and entrepreneurs in the teaching of Australian history. Perhaps the Alan Bond Empire and the James Hardie Company are to be included as instructive and compulsory studies. The Federal Government runs no schools and employs no teachers. They can and do influence schools and the work of teachers only by making their dictates a condition of school funding.
IEU General Secretary John Quessy
Chief among many concerns is the time frame adopted. To assume wide consultation, redevelopment of syllabuses and planning can occur in 12 months is extraordinarily hopeful. Schools thrive on certainty and the review potentially erodes this. The fact that some 150 academics have questioned the ‘review’ should send a cautionary signal to the Education Minister. If, as reported, the purpose of the ‘review’ is to “consider the robustness, independence and balance of the Australian Curriculum” the task is more than fine-tuning. It also has the capacity to accentuate the differences between the various states and territories that have charge of implementing curriculum in their respective jurisdictions.
IEU Assistant Secretary Mark Northam
The Minister’s dismissive attitude towards the three years of concerted effort by the thousands of contributors in developing the syllabus is disappointing. The seeming indifference to the time and energy spent over the last 12 months in programming and resourcing for the 2014 implementation shows little appreciation for teachers and fuels diminishing respect for the profession. As Mr Pyne himself wrote recently, “Partisan politics is at its worst when dressed up as public concern”.