Dumbed down and politically correct – the Australian history curriculum
Dr Kevin Donnelly
On release, the proposed Australian history curriculum, similar to the English document, was warmly received by commentators and the media, especially The Australian newspaper.
Many argue it represents a welcome return to history as a discrete subject, the end to the culture wars in areas like black armband history and that it imparts a rigorous and impartial knowledge of significant historical events, ideas and people.
The ex-communist and historian, Stuart Macintyre, strongly defends his new creation as balanced and impartial and argues that critics have failed to analyse the history curriculum in any detailed way.
Chris Pyne, the shadow Commonwealth Minister for Education, disagrees with this favourable reception and criticises the history curriculum for privileging indigenous and Asian content and perspectives to the detriment of Australia’s Anglo-Celtic tradition, the debt we owe to Western civilisation and the importance of our Judeo-Christian heritage. In an opinion piece in the SMH (22nd March), Senator Brett Mason also criticises the proposed curriculum for lacking balance when he states:
Indeed, the Curriculum contains 118 references to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, culture and history (with Grade 5s studying “White Australia” and Grade 9s Aboriginal massacres and displacement).
But there is only one reference to Parliament, and none to Westminster or the Magna Carta, the aspects of our political and cultural heritage that have made Australia perhaps the most peaceful, successful and prosperous democracy in the history of humanity.
Chris Pyne and Brett Mason (the Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education and Curriculum Standards) are correct to express misgivings about the new curriculum. Concerns about the history curriculum include:
• In the years K-2 and 3-6, the curriculum adopts a child-centred view where learning centres on what is immediately accessible and relevant. Ignored is the importance of introducing children to the strange and exotic.
• In relation to 7-10, comments like, students “look for and value learning that is perceived as relevant (and) is consistent with personal goals” (p 3) and that history should “engage students through contexts that are meaningful and relevant to them” (p 3) provide further evidence of this child-centred view.
Jerome Bruner’s criticism of progressive education made nearly 40 years ago could well be applied to the history curriculum, Bruner argued, “A generation ago, the progressive movement urged that knowledge be related to the child’s experience and brought out of the realm of empty abstractions. A good idea was translated into banalities about the home, then the friendly postman and trashman, then the community, and so on” (The Relevance of Education, p 63, 1971).
• Apart from one mention of Australia’s debt to Britain (see Year 6 content, p 16), when compared to the detailed treatment of indigenous and Asia and Pacific cultures, the curriculum fails to do justice to Australia’s debt to the United Kingdom and Ireland. The curriculum makes no mention of key documents like Magna Carta, concepts like habeas corpus, institutions like Westminster Parliament or safeguards like separation of powers. The document suggests that students should develop an awareness of “justice and fair play” (p 3) and argues that civics and citizenship “is strongly linked to history” (p 6), but fails to detail the knowledge and understanding needed to achieve such outcomes.
• Teachers will be forced to teach the “significance of Dreaming and the perspectives and meaning in Dreaming stories” (p 12), the “contribution of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to the Australian nation” (p 12) and to “explain the key features of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander societies” (p 13) without any requisite treatment of Australia’s Anglo-Celtic heritage or what we owe to Western civilisation. Suggesting that events like Australia Day, ANZAC Day and Sorry Day are equivalent and that the Australian flag has the same historical importance as the Aboriginal flag illustrate this sense of cultural relativism.
• In opposition to the view that Australia is predominately a Western nation, in terms of language, legal and political institutions, education and history, the document defines Australia in terms of a “diversity of values and principles” (p 5) and “intercultural understanding” (p 5). While reference is made to “moral and ethical integrity” (p 5) and the “common good” (p 5), on reading the history curriculum there is little sense of what is unique about Australia’s history and culture that leads to privileging such values and way of life.
• Australia owes a great deal to Christianity and much of what defines us as unique (political and legal systems, culture and moral values) arises from our Judeo-Christian heritage and teachings. The history document refers to Christendom once (p, 22) and Christian also once (p, 22) but only in the context of studying other religions, including Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, Judaism and Islam. Studying Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Asia/Pacific history, beliefs and culture receives greater emphasis.
• The integrity of history as a discipline is weakened as a result of teachers having to teach cross-curriculum dimensions like Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives, the history of Asia and sustainable patterns of living (p 5). In addition, schools have to teach seven general capabilities (including ICT, thinking skills, literacy, numeracy, creativity, intercultural understanding and ethical behaviour, p 4). Adopting an “inquiry based model of teaching” and the documents preference for child-centred learning are further illustrations of how content has been sidelined.
• Similar to Australia’s much discredited OBE, many of the history descriptors are vague, generalised and fail to give teachers clarity as to what should be taught. In addition, many of the curriculum descriptors when describing skills, instead of growing in complexity or difficulty as students progress through school, are either exactly the same from year to year or so similar that they are indistinguishable from one another.
• At some year levels, there are so many topics that teachers and students would find it impossible to deal with what is expected. Instead of promoting so-called deep learning, the curriculum promotes a sketchy and shallow approach (see Year 7 and Year 8, in particular).
• Many of the topics at Years 9 and 10 are left-of-centre favourites and lend themselves to enforcing a new-age and left-wing view of sensitive social and political issues. Topics like, “The motivation, behaviour and legacy of individuals and groups who rebelled against social conditions and society” (Year 9, p 26) and “White Australia policy, exclusion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, voting rights for women and the introduction of the basic wage” (Year 9, p 26) are generally taught from a left perspective.
Similarly, at Year 10, the following topics are generally presented in a one-sided fashion:
• “Significant social movements and changes concerning women, migration, religion, land rights and the environment” (p 27);
• “The transformation of the modern world as a consequence of radical political actions and ideas, global conflict and attempts to deal with these through international cooperation…” (p 27);
• “The origins and consequences of anti-colonial movements and civil rights movements” (with students choosing one of the following, India’s struggle for independence, the U.S. civil rights movement, the anti-Vietnam war movement or the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, p 28) and
• “The civil rights struggles of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with reference to government policies (including protection, assimilation, integration, reconciliation and self-determination, the 1967 Referendum, the Mabo decision and the Apology to the Stolen Generations, p 29).
One doubts whether students will learn about the failure of socialism as an economic system, the millions killed by communist dictators (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot), the success of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Regan in staring down totalitarian regimes, the corruption of the United Nations and the fact that democratic ideals like “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” are uniquely Western in origin and steeped in Christian commitment and belief.
Dr Kevin Donnelly is director of Education Standards Institute. He taught for 18 years in Melbourne government and non-government schools and is the author of Australia’s Education Revolution: How Kevin Rudd Won and Lost the Education Wars and Dumbing Down : outcomes based and politically correct – the impact of the Culture Wars on our schools.
Wow this article is so funny. I would love to comment on the whole thing but I’ll just analyze the last paragraph -
“One doubts whether students will learn about the failure of socialism as an economic system, the millions killed by communist dictators (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot)” well actually those leaders were never communists and their societies were never self-proclaimed ‘communist states’. If you look at the constitutions of China and the Soviet Union, you’ll actually see that the nations under the stage of “dictatorship of the proletariat” (and that means rule by all workers not one man leadership in Marxist terminology) not “in a state of communism”,
…”the success of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Regan in staring down totalitarian regimes” You’ve got to be joking right. They tried their “new right” economics which failed and funded new totalitarian regimes, like in Chile and Venezuala
…”the corruption of the United Nations” due to America is worthy of discussion surtainly.
…”and the fact that democratic ideals like “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” are uniquely Western in origin and steeped in Christian commitment and belief.” You are kidding right, oh seriously come on! God is not a liberal. The Pope is not a libertarian. Christian teachings are not liberal. They do not support “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness” I mean just look at the Acien Regime of France – you’re out of your mind!
You don’t seem to know what you’re talking about mate.
According to the Australian Curriculum for Year 8 History, the Medieval Period extends from c 500 to 1750.
Historians have suggested a number of dates for the conclusion of the Medieval Period – usually 1500 give or take a few years. As far as I know, 1750 has never been suggested until now. According to this definition, Australia was ‘discovered’ only 20 years after the Medieval Period. James Cook and Arthur Phillip were both born in medieval times.
In order to cover post-medieval geographical discoveries, the title of the Year 8 History could be “The Medieval World and the Early Voyages of Discovery”.
For Year 8 students to learn about the period between c.500-1500 would be a huge task in itself. The additional study of the period between 1500 and 1750 with its enormous changes should be left for more mature students.
According to the Preface “This span of human history was marked by significant … religious … changes.” Relatively speaking, the traditional Medieval Period was marked by significant religious stability. The new definition of the Medieval Period includes the Reformation. Present textbooks “Humanities Alive 2″, “Humanities Alive History 1″, “SOSE Alive History 1″ and “Big Ideas 2″ demonstrate well that the Reformation is a fertile field for the cultivation of sectarianism and biased misrepresentations even though the Reformation is not on any Year 8 curriculum. The Reformation should be excluded and a statement in the Australian Curriculum to that effect should be made.
ACARA must have a body that can adjudicate disputes. Complaints could be dealt with by this body and not by disinterested Ministers of Education or self-interested publishers. Publishers may then be less inclined to give complete freedom to bigots who call themselves ‘Historians’.
I have three degrees in history, and flatter myself that I have a sound grasp of history and historiography for most of the world since the time of Herodotos in the 5th century BC. Most of this history is Eurocentric. But given that no other cultures have ever developed the capacity for self-examination or perspective, as distinct from mere chronology, historical Eurocentrism is not surprising. In keeping with European generosity, many European historians have tried to apply perspective and objectivity to other cultures, constrained as they are by demands by cultural sensitivity. Usually though, such efforts are a waste of time, either because the presumed custodians of such cultures are ever ready to take umbrage, or because the well-meaning historians are not able to apply the same objectivity they would to European history. Of course, it is important to distinguish historians from apologists and revisionists.
But I have never heard the date 1750 used as the delineator for modern history. Normally, the innovations of Henry the Navigator and the Age of Exploration mark the onset of the early modern era, simultaneously with the European Renaissance, ushered in by the Sforzas, Medicis and other enlightened Northern Germano-Italians, who were not so enlightened as to despise their histories. I believe those who promote 1750 as a turning point are thinking of the Encyclopaedists, like Voltaire, Diderot and Rousseau, the privileged parasites who were celebrated as sages for inventing disrespectful humour. And a very political Encycloppaedia.
Hey mate Rousseau is an absolute legend. You should be thanking him for the rights you’re exercising right now.
Education is the greatest weapon yet developed by man, it can liberate or it can oppress, in this instance i fear it is intended to oppress.
This is not a true left versus right problem, the steady erosion of education for political reasons has continued under many different governments of different political leanings for decades now.
The idea is simple, disengaged people from their history and identity are docile, people who know no better will seek no better, people who are taught or indoctrinated in regards to singular belief will only ever follow that belief. The intention of this new education curriculum is to further the creation of a placated peacefull if not willfully ignorant people who know no better in order to opose what the governing elite impose upon them.
This is an insurection by non-violent means, the government destroying the will of the people before the people decide to use that will to create something better for this nation and themselves.
You can’t aspire for greatness if you know not what greatness is.
I for one am not fooled and do hold my aspirations for something better and those who share a vision of something better should seek to do whatever it takes to ensure that Australia reaches for better before what is left of our nation’s free will is lost in the know nothing swamp threatening to drown us all.
Regards,
Crimson
Greg Melleuish likened Macintyre’s appointment to the Howard government appointing Keith Windschuttle. Now imagine the uproar had that happened…
Even worse was the attempt to inject leftist favourites like Aboriginal dreamtime stories into the science (yes, science!) curriculum. Again, imagine the outrage had they tried the same with Creationism. More on this at my blog http://www.blognow.com.au/hisblogship/297070/Creationism_left_and_right.html
I am seriously considering removing my kids from the NSW system and moving them onto the International Baccalaureate. Alas because no state school teaches this, it would involve forking out for private schooling.
Not happy Kevin.
Can someone please tell me where I can read this proposed curriculum in full?
Can you also tell mke i9f I can register an opinion on it?
Also, has anyone drafted a detailed opinion on the curriculum that we can all use to tell the relevant authority what we think of the curriculum?
The NSW Board of Studies has files of the different curricula.
The national curriculum portal is available here, Keith:
http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Home
Whatever happened to the teaching of real history, as recorded for posterity by those with an interest in advancing our culture, therefore cementing a cohesive society that we all can share in?
Who has been responsible for undermining a fair and balanced system which used to be open to active debate to those who wished to be objective?
By what authority have school boards allowed the watering down of a subject that is of paramount importance to a nations cultural base?
Why is a self styled ex-communist/historian personally involved in the creation of a school curriculum without oversight and input from those with less extremist views, and has he really given up his socialist leanings?
Is this a by-product of our self confessed socialist Federal Education Minister, whose upbringing was heavily influenced by her committed communist father?
Have those who would teach our nations young already forgotten the lessons from history that socialism which leads to communism, does NOT work?
Thank you for drawing our attention to more examples of brainwashing. It is hard to keep up.
The curriculum is obviously of no educational value, but only a political one, where there is no basis in fact. Krudd himself announced when he made his autocratic apology to Aborigines that there were 10,000 or more children in the stolen generation. The number he refers to is closer to a few hundred, and their condition as stolen is far from fact. The ‘Rabbit Proof Fence’ the bulk of English students have been forced to study for several years is exactly the sort of fictive, self-contradictory nonsense that will be presented as a ’source’ in history studies.
Herodotos, the father of history, realised that historians cannot be objective, or maintain an impersonal perspective whenever they strive to write history. But they must be willing to examine, from the Greek histein, their various, available sources, and to come to terms with their own reflexive biases.
But Gillard’s curriculum is the very opposite of Herodotos’ ideals. It is a deliberate attempt to politicise and to build a sense of shame in students, to turn them away from the cultures that spawned them. The new curriculum studiously ignores the contributions that Europe, and particularly Britain, has made to the world. There is no acknowledgement that only the United Kingdom and the United States fought wars against the slave states of the Barbary Coast; that only they used their navies to end the slave trade from 1807. There is no admission or celebration of the prosperity and advances in literacy, health and law and order that Britain, the US and other European states have made not only in their own countries but also in every other country where they have been involved.
The new school curriculum will be happy to dwell on the enormities of the Germans in World War II; or give a lopsided account of General Dyer in Amritsar in 1923; or the factoid that Jane Austen wrote about British slaveowners in her novels; or what they construe as the evils of the Catholic Crusaders to retake the Holy Land that Muslim armies had seized from the Byzantine Empire. But there will be little, or no mention, of the Russian enormities in Germany in 1945; or the deaths of 75 million Chinese under Mao-tse Tung; or the million plus European slaves taken by Muslim corsairs between the 14th and 16th centuries; or the millions of Europeans killed by Mongol raiders in their pillaging raids in the 12th to 14th centuries.
Nor will the curriculum celebrate the early settlers like John MacCarthur, or Gregory Blaxland, or William Cox who turned the Australian wilderness into one of the wealthiest and most stable and innovative countries on earth. Instead, it will merely condemn early European Australia as a brutal prison settlement.
This curriculum has nothing to do with history; it is merely a political device, just like the global warming scam, designed to shift wealth and confidence from the countries that produce to countries and groups that do not. There will be no real Herodotan examination.
Greg Deane you have said it all – and very well have you put the matter straight. I congratulate you.
Political Correctness is so evident in this education manouever of the leftist elements in our government.
“The Barbarians are already among us”.
When forced by argument into embarrassment, the radical liberals responds with slogans, which are meant to stop debate.
They treat their own vision as unfalsifiable. The slogans include,
“All education is political.”
“The literary canon is a means of domination.”
“All cultures are equal.”
“Objectivity is a `noble lie.”‘
“It’s not really happening, anyway.”
These examples of “political correctness”, hailing from academia , are enough to show what “multiculturalism” means .
It is no more than the politico-moral agenda, of the 1960’s radicals.
Of them, one can say what Hilaire Belloc wrote , almost ninety years go about their earlier incarnation.
“The Barbarians, believes themselves superior to the gift of reason, and free to maintain that definition, limit, quantity, and contradiction are little childish things, which they have outgrown.”
The Barbarians hopes, and that is the very mark of them, that they can have their cake and eat it too. They will consume , what civilisation has slowly produced after generations of selection and effort, but they will not be at the pains, to replace such goods, nor indeed have they, a comprehension, of the virtue that has brought them into being.
We less “enlightened” people, so often apatheticaly sit by, and watch the Barbarians perform, we indulgently tolerate them, and in the long stretches of peace, we are not afraid.
We are even amused by their irreverence, their comic inversion of our old certitudes and our fixed creeds.
Such antics, refreshes us, we laugh.
But as we laugh, we are watched by large and awful faces from beyond, and on these faces, there is an absence of smiles.
Thank you, David. The time of Double-Speak is upon us. Pol Pot had nothing on Krudd.