Yeah, so this could go into Religious Debates, but I have a background of education, and am more interested in arguing this from an educational perspective than a religious one. However, happy to hear any comments, since I'm probably going to struggle for an audience given the Australian-ness of the topic.
We have recently had a review of our education curriculum conducted under the direction of our friendly Conservative Government. (Personally, I think our PM is an assclown, just to declare bias).
First off, the review was conducted by 2 men, which seems woefully inadequate. When asked about this, the Education Minister (who I personally think is an assclown) offered the following;
Some of their findings are sensible (eg. the current curriculum is overcrowded) and some are more questionable (very, very limited references to any academic research in supporting negative positions on holistic learning, or constructivist theories of learning), but my main concern is twofold.
1) They flagged PRIOR TO THE REVIEW that we needed to get Back to Basics. Why not perform the review, and then make recommendations? Equally, this message matched the Liberal Party political message, designed to appeal to parents/voters. It's the education equivalent of toughening up gaol sentences for murderers an rapists.
2) They flagged PRIOR TO THE REVIEW that we needed to return to a greater emphasis on our Judeo-Christian roots. There is a limited explanation of what that means, near as I can tell, or why that terminology is used. Practical implication seems to be that we should focus more on our British roots, including British literature, history of settlement and modern Australian days of importance such as Gallipoli (WW1), etc.
Christopher Pyne, with his normal lack of ability to look outside his own worldview in the least sense, then goes on with this;
Ugh.
My take;
1) Don't flag, or preconceive the results of a review prior to the review.
2) Put in place an independent review group, with expertise in the area, and no formal ties to the polticial party implementing the review.
3) Don't use value-laden terms where they are not required. There is nothing about 'Judeo-Christian heritage' that is required in our National Curriculum. If you want British history and literature taught, then for frig's sake, put British history and literature on the page. Unless we're about to teach about the Council of Nicea or something. Phht.
4) Teachers need to get educated or active. They'll happily rail against standardised testing for a while, then fall into line, but seem to have no interest in national curriculum development, and the politicising of it. I'm viewing this from a distance, so I might be wrong, but they are too commonly interested in petty local issues effecting only their own school. Teaching is a profession, and there needs to be professional discussion and interaction about things which have far-reaching (if slowly realised) consequences.
Oh, and thinking that any National curriculum document isn't ideological is either outright lying, or naivety. I'd much prefer people to declare bias or thoughts on their ideology than claim they are ideologically neutral.
We have recently had a review of our education curriculum conducted under the direction of our friendly Conservative Government. (Personally, I think our PM is an assclown, just to declare bias).
First off, the review was conducted by 2 men, which seems woefully inadequate. When asked about this, the Education Minister (who I personally think is an assclown) offered the following;
Source : Christopher Pyne appoints critics of school curriculum to review system
Some of their findings are sensible (eg. the current curriculum is overcrowded) and some are more questionable (very, very limited references to any academic research in supporting negative positions on holistic learning, or constructivist theories of learning), but my main concern is twofold.
1) They flagged PRIOR TO THE REVIEW that we needed to get Back to Basics. Why not perform the review, and then make recommendations? Equally, this message matched the Liberal Party political message, designed to appeal to parents/voters. It's the education equivalent of toughening up gaol sentences for murderers an rapists.
2) They flagged PRIOR TO THE REVIEW that we needed to return to a greater emphasis on our Judeo-Christian roots. There is a limited explanation of what that means, near as I can tell, or why that terminology is used. Practical implication seems to be that we should focus more on our British roots, including British literature, history of settlement and modern Australian days of importance such as Gallipoli (WW1), etc.
Christopher Pyne, with his normal lack of ability to look outside his own worldview in the least sense, then goes on with this;
Ugh.
My take;
1) Don't flag, or preconceive the results of a review prior to the review.
2) Put in place an independent review group, with expertise in the area, and no formal ties to the polticial party implementing the review.
3) Don't use value-laden terms where they are not required. There is nothing about 'Judeo-Christian heritage' that is required in our National Curriculum. If you want British history and literature taught, then for frig's sake, put British history and literature on the page. Unless we're about to teach about the Council of Nicea or something. Phht.
4) Teachers need to get educated or active. They'll happily rail against standardised testing for a while, then fall into line, but seem to have no interest in national curriculum development, and the politicising of it. I'm viewing this from a distance, so I might be wrong, but they are too commonly interested in petty local issues effecting only their own school. Teaching is a profession, and there needs to be professional discussion and interaction about things which have far-reaching (if slowly realised) consequences.
Oh, and thinking that any National curriculum document isn't ideological is either outright lying, or naivety. I'd much prefer people to declare bias or thoughts on their ideology than claim they are ideologically neutral.
