Australia and Proposed Federal Centralised Curriculum - Literature review Example

Australia and its proposed federal centralised curriculum Introduction Century has passed and Australia has become known to operate in a federal government. Due to this system of governance, the education system varies from state to state as manifested by different starting age for education, curriculum, methods of assessment and certification (smh.com.au., 2010). This means that each state in the country may preferably have developed the best system of education that is most applicable in their respective set up. The specific move of Australian government with an education system that will shift from the current curriculum to federal centralised version is remarkably important issue to be considered prior to the actual implementation stage. The government needs to carefully understand the prevailing issues that will remarkably take over their place. It is the purpose of this paper to gather important, neutral and objective observation so as to come up with substantial arguments which are objective and neutral to create links between education and social justice and equity. The issue of quality According to New South Wale (NSW) Board of Studies, the draft kindergarten to year-ten curriculum for English, history, mathematics and science lacks overarching framework and overcrowded with content (Patty, 2010, par. 4). This was the general feedback of the NSW Board of Studies after careful scrutiny of the draft of the new Australian curriculum to be implemented from next year. However, this general feedback was not meant to go against or for the disapproval of the current revising of the Australian curriculum. Such response was just part of identifying areas that need to be addressed prior to the implementation of new Australian curriculum (Patty, 2010). Verity Firth, NSW Minister for Education strongly stands on her ground and believes that the quality of education is of great significance. It is in this regard that she emphasised only the acceptance of national education that is as good as NSW curriculum and that would make sense in a country with only 20 million people (Patty, 2010). Firth significantly made her point on the ground that she is making the current NSW curriculum as the standard or basis for her acceptance of the new federal and centalised version of national curriculum. The national government has given NSW until 2013 to implement the new national curriculum (Patty, 2010). It is clear that the national government has its forceful power over the NSW and such is legally binding. Within this frame of time for the lock-in period, there would be enough time for NSW curriculum advocates to essentially evaluate the new national curriculum on the basis of actual implementation as to be observed from the result of other states in Australia. Such would be the time that the NSW Minister for Education can finally have actual grasp of information on the quality of the proposed national curriculum based on the actual implementation. In fact, the proposed pilot implementation of national curriculum in 2011 is a good way to start everything right. However, the question now is how to really ensure success of getting the necessary results if there are many people who are not willing to participate on it in the first place. The issue of student’s need According to Tudball (2010), the government’s narrow focus on innovative and world class approach to its school curriculum may just only deprive students of seeing the entire picture they need to see. This stand was based on the reality she stated about Australia that there are other important areas that the 21st century learners need to understand or learn at the deepest level such as politics, multiculturalism, water shortages, increasing violence and under-age drinking and other relevant issues with great concerns on their lives. According to Tudball these are what the government should focus about since these are what the students need to have skills with in the 21st century. Though Tudball admitted that science, math, history and English are necessary and very important in the education system, she strongly believes that there are still more areas that are not covered by these academic subjects prior to the need of the 21st century learners. What Tudball is simply trying to emphasise is that the students need for the development of their knowledge and skills on how to be active and informed citizens with critical thinking on contemporary issues. For Tudball, the narrow thinking of government on world-class Australian curriculum can hardly do this. The idea of Tudball is in line with the idea of Costello (2010) which emphasises on evaluating the current teachings young people received and what exactly they need to know about. Thus, evidence has shown that Teachers nationwide have growing concerns on what it means to have world-class Australian national curriculum (Tudball, 2010). This concern is specific up to the bottom line and it tries to address and emphasise the actual needs of students. The issue now is to actually find out what are really the needs of students in recent time. It is therefore good to find out if the government really has careful considerations on the actual needs of the students. With regards to these concerns and many others such as on the content of the draft, the finalisation of the national curriculum was decided to be given more time for work prior to dealing with the concerns of states on the draft documents (Harrison, 2010). As it can be clearly observed, this is simply a manifestation of the national government’s willingness to serve the needs of the students and particularly of the country in general. However, the issue does not focus on students alone. The issues must all be substantially focused on the teachers, federal budget, practicalities of making the proposed national curriculum work and the idea itself (Mason, 2010). It is important to consider all of these because clearly, these are all significantly related to the successful implementation of the proposed national curriculum. For instance, it is important to consider the level in which teachers are mentally, emotionally and physically prepared for the change of curriculum. The other thing, it is also important to consider the federal budget involved knowing the fact that teachers will be eventually given with additional load for this system and it is good to know if they will be compensated. These are just some of the probable questions arising today as widely observed. The government needs to clearly consolidate all of these and should remarkably integrate whatever is necessary for the good of the proposed new national school curriculum. After all, in every walk of life there are different sets of reactions on this issue. For instance, experts are critical about the quality, practicality and on the issue of eventual need of a new national curriculum in general. Government move Perhaps one of the most important moves of the federal government in line with the new national school curriculum is to make its draft available to all: for feedbacks involving criticisms, suggestions and oppositions prior to its actual pilot implementation in 2011. The government’s specific move is the case of trial and error. There is nothing wrong about this for as long as this is intended for the good of the people and not for own personal gain that can be successfully implemented within political will and power. The refining stage of the new national school curriculum is a healthy move if what are remarkably essential will be considered. The government is eventually aiming for a world-class Australian curriculum and there is nothing wrong with this vision. However, there must be a necessary consideration of placing everything on the right track so as not to waste everything so much on the trial and error process. With respect to various comments and oppositions against the proposed national school curriculum, there is a need to define what is meant to have a world-class Australian curriculum. It is important to know if there is really a need for that. In line with this, the government needs to show enough bases on the move to go for a world-class Australian school curriculum in the first place. The government needs to critically evaluate and consider the necessary things to be sacrificed prior to the achievement of its vision for a globally competitive Australian education system. The whole point is to actually understand if the juice is really worth the squeeze. There are different stands on revising current Australian curriculum. This is undeniably true and in fact, changes always trigger reactions. It cannot be denied that some people who are used to the current system they are working on will eventually react whenever there is a move to change it with another system. This is just the same with the case of Australian education system which is to be shifted from current curriculum to federal centralised version. Evaluations, criticisms and to the extent of oppositions are integral parts of following the healthy way of dealing the entire process in coming up with a truly world-class Australian education system. The government therefore needs to carefully listen and consider whatever necessary for the benefit of the people. In this way, the government will be remarkably ensuring social justice and equity. If the move is for the good of the people then the government needs to critically consider the voices of the people who among themselves have also important stands to make. References Costello, T. (2010). Geography maps life in an era of global turmoil. Retrieved from http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/geography-maps-life-in-an-era-of-global-turmoil-20100905-14w4y.html Harrison, D. (2010). More time to work on new curriculum. Retrieved from http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/more-time-to-work-on-new-curriculum-20100923-15ovw.html Patty, A. (2010). New curriculum slammed by studies board. Retrieved from http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/new-curriculum-slammed-by-studies-board-20100912-156ze.html Patty, A. (2010). NSW cans ‘inferior’ national curriculum. Retrieved from http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/nsw-cans-inferior-national-curriculum-20100916-15eqw.html smh.com.au. (2010). It takes time to build a nation, and even longer to teach one. Retrieved from http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/editorial/it-takes-time-to-build-a-nation-and-even-longer-to-teach-one-20101017-16p1a.html Tudball, L. (2010). Curriculum’s naroow focus leaves students bereft of big ideas. Retrieved from http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/curriculums-narrow-focus-leaves-students-bereft-of-big-ideas-20100301-pdi2.html Read More