This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/19/national-curriculum-christopher-pyne

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Is the national curriculum biased? Let's have a classroom debate Is the national curriculum biased? Let's have a classroom debate
(6 months later)
While still shadow education minister Christopher While still shadow education minister Christopher Pyne let the cat out of the bag about what he’d like to see from a review of Australia’s national schools curriculum – especially regarding the teaching of history.
Pyne let the cat out of the bag about what he’d like to see from a review of He said he’d like to see more emphasis on Anzac Day (the government, with opposition support, has pledged $150m-plus to Anzac centenary commemorations) and that he’d review parts of the curriculum that presented a “black armband” view of our history.
Australia’s national schools curriculum – especially regarding the teaching of “We think that of course we should recognise the mistakes that have been made in the past. But ... we don’t want to beat ourselves up every day,” he said.
history. Ah, the good old “black armband”. It’s a term appropriated by Australian conservatives since John Howard to refer to the guilt that some progressive historians would purportedly have us feel about those pesky “mistakes”. Mistakes, perhaps, like the theft of traditional Indigenous lands by colonial settlers and the wholesale massacre of thousands of Aborigines by British imperial troops, Australian soldiers, police and militias well into the 20th century.
He said he’d like to see more emphasis on Anzac Day The black armband has really always been a straw man – a paradigm constructed by the right and apportioned to the “leftists”, along with a fallacious overriding intent to foment guilt.
(the government, with opposition support, has pledged $150m-plus to If Christopher Pyne feels the need to beat himself up when confronted by the ugly truths of Australia’s extremely dark past, than he’ll long live in a world of pain. But the present curriculum – with its mention of the Myall Creek and Pinjarra massacres along with Eureka and the impact of colonisation – seems geared more to probing harsh, uncomfortable truths than breeding guilty children.
Anzac centenary commemorations) and that he’d review parts of the curriculum Of course, another way to ensure kids aren’t forced to beat themselves up over the nasties of the past is to just abolish the national curriculum altogether.
that presented a “black armband” view of our history. This is what the ultra-conservative think tank, the Institute of Public Affairs, has recommended in its submission to the curriculum review of Pyne now that he’s education minister.
“We think that of course we should recognise the While the IPA’s submission argues that the curriculum is politically biased to the left (elsewhere the institute has argued the curriculum was devalued by political meddling from both the left and right) the subtext is rather less headline-grabbing, more complex and worthy of argument.
mistakes that have been made in the past. But ... we don’t want to beat Naturally the history curriculum is singled out; what we take from our country’s history determines how we see ourselves, individually and as peoples, nations, tribes and cultures.
ourselves up every day,” he said. The IPA says the history curriculum overemphasises the environment, colonialism, multiculturalism, social history, class and minority, and anti-modernism at the expense of the history of ideas, Liberalism, economic growth, political history, western civilization and religion.
Ah, the good old “black armband”. It’s a term And if you needed proof of how unbalanced and “hostile to economic growth and technological development” the curriculum is, the IPA cites “for example” a year seven history book that “asks students to debate whether ‘modern humans should return to the hunter-gatherer way of life?’. Another history textbook emphasizes the damage that the industrial revolution did to the environment, noting that it ‘left humanity dependent on carbon fuels’.”
appropriated by Australian conservatives since John Howard to refer to the Sounds like the starting point for a pretty good classroom debate.
guilt that some progressive historians would purportedly have us feel about Good teachers will always spot the dogma inherent in a national curriculum no matter who has written, meddled with, or politically compromised it.
those pesky “mistakes”. Mistakes, perhaps, like the theft of traditional
Indigenous lands by colonial settlers and the wholesale massacre of thousands
of Aborigines by British imperial troops, Australian soldiers, police and
militias well into the 20th century.
The black armband has really always been a straw
man – a paradigm constructed by the right and apportioned to the “leftists”,
along with a fallacious overriding intent to foment guilt.
If Christopher Pyne feels the need to beat himself
up when confronted by the ugly truths of Australia’s extremely dark past, than
he’ll long live in a world of pain. But the present curriculum – with its
mention of the Myall Creek and Pinjarra massacres along with Eureka and the
impact of colonisation – seems geared more to probing harsh, uncomfortable
truths than breeding guilty children.
Of course, another way to ensure kids aren’t forced
to beat themselves up over the nasties of the past is to just abolish the
national curriculum altogether.
This is what the ultra-conservative think tank, the
Institute of Public Affairs, has recommended in its submission to the
curriculum review of Pyne now that he’s education minister.
While the IPA’s submission argues that the
curriculum is politically biased to the left (elsewhere the institute has
argued the curriculum was devalued by political meddling from both the left and
right) the subtext is rather less headline-grabbing, more complex and worthy of
argument.
Naturally the history curriculum is singled out;
what we take from our country’s history determines how we see ourselves,
individually and as peoples, nations, tribes and cultures.
The IPA says the history curriculum overemphasises
the environment, colonialism, multiculturalism, social history, class and
minority, and anti-modernism at the expense of the history of ideas, Liberalism, economic growth, political history, western civilization and
religion.
And if you needed proof of how unbalanced and
“hostile to economic growth and technological development” the curriculum is,
the IPA cites “for example” a year seven history book that “asks students to debate
whether ‘modern humans should return to the hunter-gatherer way of life?’.
Another history textbook emphasizes the damage that the industrial revolution
did to the environment, noting that it ‘left humanity dependent on carbon
fuels’.”
Sounds like the starting point for a pretty good
classroom debate.
Good teachers will always spot the dogma inherent
in a national curriculum no matter who has written, meddled with, or
politically compromised it.
They’ll notice and seek to fill the omissions, too.They’ll notice and seek to fill the omissions, too.
I’m reminded of Henry Reynolds (a historian I’m reminded of Henry Reynolds (a historian loathed by the right for his focus on frontier violence) as a university teacher in 1964, trying in vain to find mention of Aboriginal Australians in the main textbook for his Australian History course.
loathed by the right for his focus on frontier violence) as a university Things have come a long way. But they can just as easily revert.
teacher in 1964, trying in vain to find mention of Aboriginal Australians in The national curriculum is the worthy subject for fierce ongoing cultural debate. But ditching it in order to end the perpetual arguments about what our children should learn about their country’s past, thereby leaving it up to individual schools, would be counterproductive.
the main textbook for his Australian History course.
Things have come a long way. But they can just as
easily revert.
The national curriculum is the worthy subject for
fierce ongoing cultural debate. But ditching it in order to end the perpetual
arguments about what our children should learn about their country’s past,
thereby leaving it up to individual schools, would be counterproductive.