Having just returned from the HTAA conference in Perth, which was opened by the Federal Minister for Education, Julie Bishop, I have developed a number of concerns about the proposed national curriculum for a secondary Australian history course. Much of the initial response to this proposal focused on fears that there would be an attempt to impose a particular ideology on what was taught. By contrast and perhaps naively for someone with some experience of history curriculum development, my initial feeling was that here was a wonderful opportunity to do two things: firstly, to develop an inclusive national story; secondly, to improve the status of Australian history at the primary and secondary school level. This, it seemed to me, would be a very worthwhile national project that was capable of inspiring and exciting the broad history community. Unfortunately, there are now indications that the project will simply peter out, produce an easily subverted compromise or, most worryingly, result in a divisive stand-off. Some reasons for this gloomy conclusion are:

-         The recent national history summit did not deal with Australian history K-10. If we ignore the primary sector then we are deliberately failing to deal with one of the most common reasons students offer for disaffection with Australian history, the perception that they keep doing the same thing each year.

-         If we ignore the primary sector and focus only on Years 9-10, then the very best that we can hope for nationally is what we already have in NSW. This is a worry, especially when it must be assumed that other states will need to be offered at least a few periods in which to cover state and local history. Teacher initiated topics, on the other hand, will be difficult to squeeze in.

-         The federal minister came to the Perth conference with no vision to offer educational professionals who had come from around Australia to hear what she had to say. Indeed, her speech, as pre-released to The Australian, was short on detail and long on the sort of silly populist right rhetoric that suggests that she and her advisors sit well to one side of the ‘sensible centre’, a mantra that seems to have been offered in lieu of any sort of well thought out philosophy.

-         The lack of any clearly outlined history/pedagogical philosophy is a major concern. While I am happy to admit that, like many colleagues I suspect, I always turn to the content outline of any syllabus first, I would also suggest that no history syllabus is worth teaching unless it sits within a well thought out philosophical framework. Do we go survey or depth, content or issues, chronology or themes, enquiry or exposition, exam assessed or otherwise? Probably we should operate with some sort of balance. But why not take some time to sort this out? Assessment, in particular, I have found to be a major problem when it is supposed to be articulated with teaching but is actually an afterthought.

-         Why the hurry and the lack of information? Anyone with any experience of syllabus development will realise that we will eventually be offered proposals to comment on. What about the broad ranging debate that should come before this stage? My fear is that we are already up to the ‘content auction’ stage where ‘stakeholders’ will be asked to make choices within narrow confines. In this situation the fallback position is to insist upon the inclusion of cherished content. Vision, imagination and large mindedness will have no place at this stage.

-         If the primary sector is important so too is the tertiary sector. If there is a perception that Australian history is unpopular, does it have anything to do with the preparation of teachers to teach the subject in schools? Surely, the whole notion of a national history curriculum cannot go forward without urgent consideration of teacher training. Not unless we want to perpetuate the problem of putting stuff in schools that teachers are simply ill equipped to deal with. Perhaps it is the tertiary sector that needs a national Australian history curriculum first.

-         What about the different states and their diversity of both history and educational practice? While NSW seems positioned to fare well out of any change, minimalist as it will probably end up being, I wonder if there is anyone who is really in a position to take a national perspective and able to mediate the legitimate interests of the eight different jurisdictions in what is, surely an important historical concept, a federal system.

 

What to do? Do this:

-         Take longer. Have a long, inclusive, transparent discussion of both historical and pedagogical matters. Include both those from the ‘sensible centre’ and those from either side. To be genuinely inclusive in developing a national history curriculum would seem to be of utmost importance, both from a philosophical and practical point of view. 

-         Aim at an optional national curriculum rather than a mandatory one. I notice former Federal Education Minister David Kemp advocating a similar approach (The Australian 10 Oct 2006). I do it for somewhat different reasons. Firstly, it would take the heat out of the issue and assist compromise. Secondly, it would have a better chance of being adopted, in whole or part, by states that were able to incorporate it into their own systems at a time and in ways that suited them.

-         K-10 (or 12) must be approached together. Not only do we need to map out where topics and stages of skills development ‘belong’, it will be impossible to ‘cover’ Australian history in any meaningful way in Years 9-10. 

-         Teacher education courses must be directed towards any national curriculum.

 

Anyone who feels that taking the time (long educational time, rather than short political time) to develop an optional national history curriculum would be a waste of effort lacks imagination. On the other hand, an imposed quick fix will do nothing to improve the teaching of Australian history.