MORE DETAILS - Announcements, Developments & Media

• HTAA 1 March Statement on Draft K-10 Document Release
To view statement click here

• March 2010

On Monday 1 March 2010, the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) will publish the draft K-10 Australian Curriculum in English, mathematics, science and history for a period of national consultation. The consultation period closes on 23 May 2010.

The draft curriculum and all the resources required to provide feedback are published at: www.australiancurriculum.edu.au
At this address, you will find the draft curriculum which you can comment on, a survey which you can complete and other resources such as videos, information sheets and frequently asked questions.

On visiting the website, you will need to register your details in a simple process that will provide you with an ongoing login and password and ensures you the opportunity to save and return to your feedback over time and as often as you wish.

The draft curriculum in the same four learning areas, for the senior secondary years, will be published online and available for public consultation between April and June 2010. More details on consultation on the senior years’ curriculum will be provided in March.

HTAA and its state and territory affiliates will be gathering feedback from members in various forums during the consultation period.

• February 2010

- HTAA Pre-service Statement
On the capacity of current pre-service training programs to prepare history teachers capable of successfully implementing new national courses.
To read statement please click here

• December 2009

- National Curriculum Update
Writers are currently finalising a draft for K–10 national history courses. It is expected that this document will be released in February 2010. After a period of consultation and piloting the final version of the K–10 curriculum document is due to be published in July 2010, with implementation of the new courses to begin at the start of 2011. There will be some delay for senior courses, with publication of final documents set down for September 2010 and implementation not expected until 2012. The most up to date information on these timelines will be available on the ACARA’s website:
www.acara.edu.au/home_page.html

It is not possible to comment in any detail on draft course material. Nevertheless, it is clear that the consultation and writing process to this point has resulted in significant improvements on earlier drafts. With regard to the senior courses, in particular, HTAA has been very encouraged by ACARA’s willingness to embrace a HTAA proposal aimed at developing imaginative options that have the potential to combine a range of existing interests with some fresh ideas. It will now be interesting to see how much imagination is brought to the task when this proposal is scrutinised during the consultation period.

While the quality of draft curriculum documents continues to improve, the timelines remain tight and this gives rise to a number of concerns. The period of consultation beginning in February 2010 obviously needs to be productive. The documents presented need to be fully developed. They must have a clear rationale and be presented with specific explanation. The consultation events need to be well-structured and certainly more subject-specific and less open-ended than they have been previously. At the moment there must be some anxiety about a timeline that has an essential period of sustained writing scheduled during December-January, while ACARA is moving office from Melbourne to Sydney. It is also not clear how piloting of the draft material will work at the same time as consultation.
Beyond the writing and consultation, everything is as uncertain as it has been since the start of the process. HTAA’s consistent support for the national curriculum project has been based upon a concern for the whole process – the development of new national courses and their successful implementation in schools. Our frustration has been that it has proved very difficult to locate either organisations or individuals who share this larger concern. While there is no shortage of rhetoric, there is very little detail available on how national curriculum will actually work. At the moment it appears that states and territories will have considerable flexibility in how they implement new courses. Some have given a little indication of their intentions. Most have not. There has certainly been no commitment to the allocation of teaching time and it is not even certain that history will be mandatory. All of this raises questions about the extent to which we will actually have a national curriculum. There is also the danger that truncated courses or tokenistic implementation will be counter-productive rather than, as some may hope, at least a step in the right direction.

HTAA’s oft-stated concerns about resourcing, teacher preparation and professional development remain largely unaddressed. Indeed, recent comments addressed to a gathering of association representatives by a federal bureaucrat on professional development and teacher training were complacent and disturbingly ill-informed.

Well over eighteen months into this long march, I would like to acknowledge the work, good sense and support of the HTAA national executive. From the beginning, we have had a unity of purpose that has underwritten the success of our commitment to inform, consult and represent.

Spare a thought for our colleagues working through the holiday period as ACARA officials or on the writing teams.

Paul Kiem
President, HTAA

• September 2009

- National Curriculum Update

K-10 Courses
In early September practitioner representatives from around the country were invited to offer feedback on a first draft of the national curriculum history document, K-10. This feedback will be used to fine tune the document prior to its release for public consultation at the start of 2010. According to ACARA’s timeline, the new courses are due for national implementation in 2011. Further details are available on ACARA’s website: www.acara.edu.au (ACARA – the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority – is the new title for the national curriculum body formerly known as NCB – the National Curriculum Board.)

It is not possible to comment on the draft material until it is released for public consultation. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that nothing has been said over the past three months to address concerns about implementation. While ACARA’s position has been that implementation is ‘beyond its remit’, we have now well and truly reached a point where teachers are seeking answers to a range of questions concerning how the new courses will be implemented in the various states and territories. Even when it is possible to find someone willing to deal with these questions, the responses are stalled at the stage of vague reassurance and platitudes about the important role of classroom teachers.

A particular concern is the fact that there has been no commitment to the allocation of teaching time for the new courses. This is already a significant issue for anyone attempting to evaluate the draft material. In summary, what they will be attempting to judge is whether what is proposed is too ambitious or not ambitious enough. No matter what insight or perspective is brought to the task, it is hard to see how such judgments can be made when there is no common understanding of the time that can be reasonably expected to be given to the courses.

Senior Years

At the end of August ACARA released a draft Position Paper on National Curriculum in the Senior Years. This paper has been posted on ACARA’s website (www.acara.edu.au) and feedback has been invited until the end of September.

HTAA feels that the Senior Years Position Paper proposes a number of sound guidelines for the development of senior courses. These include (numbers refer to clauses in the document):
• States and territories will continue to offer senior courses that complement national courses (22 & 25).
• Senior courses will be developed as four sequential semester units (30). Presumably, this will allow schools or local authorities to specify the study of the courses as semester, one year or two year courses.
• Each semester unit will be developed to be taught in 50-60 hours (31). This is realistic and, assuming that it has been agreed to by states and territories, provides a degree of certainty about teaching time that is lacking in the junior years.

On balance, however, there are many significant concerns:

• This paper was developed in consultation with state and territory curriculum bodies but has no practitioner input (4). This is very disappointing. Not only does it tend to undermine commitments to consultation and transparency and ignore the passionate interest teachers have in senior courses, it clearly affects the quality of what has been produced.

• In outlining a range of factors that will need to be taken into account in the development of senior courses, no mention is made of teacher training, professional development etc (6).

• There is acknowledgement of the range of students that will undertake senior year courses (9-13 & 14c.) However, there is no clear commitment that history will be given the opportunity to cater for the full range of students and there is considerable qualification about the ‘capacity of providers to deliver a range of courses’ (14c & f). It seems that while English and Maths will be able to offer differentiated courses, History will only be able to offer two specialised courses – Ancient and Modern History (23, 24). The assumption that either History course is able to cater for ‘students with a wide range of achievement in previous years of schooling, interests and future intention for study and work’ even though Maths and English need four differentiated courses to do this, is obviously open to challenge. While HTAA is not proposing a proliferation of differentiated senior history courses, we would like to see wider discussion and some imagination addressed to the task of ensuring that senior courses are accessible to the full range of students.

• The attitude towards elective topics is not clear. While ‘a range of optional contexts’ is proposed, it is also suggested that ‘electives are to be kept to a minimum’ (24, 37). While HTAA expects that senior courses would specify ‘core content’, we would also expect there to be substantial opportunity to offer options. This is not only consistent with the way History is best taught by passionate experts but it would offer a way of building on the best of what is currently offered in the different states and territories.

• There are very brief proposals for Ancient and Modern History (24). In the absence of any elaboration in the previous Shaping and Framing Papers, this offers very little guidance to teachers attempting to understand what is being considered. Terms such as ‘themes or topics’, ‘contexts for learning’ and ‘optional contexts’ are imprecise and require discussion.

• Most disappointingly, the discussion of implementation matters completely overlooks the role of teacher professional associations in supporting implementation. This oversight might be addressed by inserting a statement such as the following as a necessary complement to clauses 53 and 54:
When new courses are introduced, professional associations generally play a major role in providing information, producing resources and organising professional development to support teachers with implementation. Important features of such support include the classroom expertise involved, cost-effectiveness, timeliness and responsiveness to classroom practitioner concerns. It will be critical to the success of implementation for all curriculum authorities and funding bodies to recognise the significant role played by professional associations.

• Other statements about implementation and governance, for example clauses 56, 58 and 60, provide very little in terms of concrete detail. While it is encouraging to learn that states and territories will develop an implementation plan, it must be suggested that this process should be more advanced. There is certainly a growing concern amongst teachers and those responsible for planning at a school level about how little information is being passed on by state and territory authorities. This does little to address uncertainty about the extent of commitment to national curriculum and its implementation around the country. Nor does reference to the requirement for a ‘governance partnership’ adequately deal with anxiety about the potential for national curriculum to become politicised or fall victim to buck-passing between various agencies.

Paul Kiem
President
HTAA

- ACARA welcomes inaugural Chief Executive Officer
The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) today welcomed Dr Peter Hill as the authority’s first Chief Executive Officer.
The full press release is available under ‘Latest News’ on the ACARA website – www.acara.edu.au

Back to topics

• August 2009

- ACARA has recently posted its Senior Secondary Years Curriculum Position Paper and is inviting feedback -
For more details see: http://www.acara.edu.au/position_papers.html

• June 2009

- The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) has commenced its work. It replaces the National Curriculum Board (NCB)

The ACARA website is now live: www.acara.edu.au
The new board is listed and a number of new documents have been posted, including a Curriculum Design Paper that sets out hours for history courses.

- The National Curriculum Board Update

In early May the National Curriculum Board (NCB) published a number of important documents including the Framing Paper Consultation Report: History, which summarises the consultation feedback on the original Framing Paper, and The Shape of the Australian Curriculum: History. This second document, the Shaping Paper, is an updated version of the Framing Paper and it will now be used as a brief for the curriculum writing team. The writing team came together in mid-May and has now begun the task of producing a national history curriculum. The National Curriculum Board’s timelines envisage a K-10 writing period that will take up most of the remainder of this year. It will be followed by a period of consultation. Implementation is due to begin in 2011. At the moment, it appears that curriculum development for the senior years will be delayed by at least some months. The board’s documents and timeline are published on its website: www.ncb.org.au

Years K-10: Optimism
In relation to Years K-10, the Shaping Paper is encouraging. While it retains the rationale and many of the features that were welcomed in the original Framing Paper, it has also taken into account much of what came through in the consultation. In particular, suggestions for topics have been trimmed, the need to be mindful of student engagement has been taken into account and there appears to be an acceptance of the need to provide for options and school developed courses. What is proposed for the primary years is certainly more attractive. There is room for more clarity around what is actually meant by Depth Study & Overview and the approach to sequencing and setting achievement levels for skills development needs more thought. Nevertheless, the Shaping Paper now presents writers with a manageable task. HTAA has confidence in our colleagues engaged in this work. If they are given appropriate flexibility and support, the outlook for K-10 is optimistic.

There are two significant qualifications to this optimism. Firstly, there is a tremendous weight of expectation on the 7-10 years. Every interest group wants to see its topics included. In the end, difficult choices will have to be made if we are to have a feasible and coherent curriculum rather than a bunch of topics that need to be ticked off to satisfy the interest groups. Secondly, while the original Framing Paper suggested 400 hours for a 7-10 course, the Shaping Paper does not specify any hours. This is discussed below.

Years 11-12: Uncertainty
HTAA’s submission on the Framing Paper noted that the section on the senior years was so inadequately developed as to make meaningful feedback impossible. The board’s Consultation Report noted that this inability to comment due a lack of detail was a widespread concern. What is now very puzzling is that the Shaping Paper contains even less detail on the senior years. A proposal for a range of courses, welcomed in the consultation, has been cut back to two courses: Ancient History and Modern History. Even though the Shaping Paper expresses a hope that ‘the majority of students will continue with history’ in the senior years, this complex and important area of the curriculum is dealt with in six sentences. Mention of a ‘first phase’ and other courses being continued by individual jurisdictions raises more questions than it answers. While some delay in the development of senior courses will be welcomed by most teachers, there is an expectation that this time must be used to promote widespread discussion in an area where there is intense interest. At the moment, the Shaping Paper tells us that the writers will receive ‘further advice’ but there is no indication of where this advice will come from or how it will have been developed. This is a good deal less than transparent.

Uncertainty about the senior years means that it is difficult to see how articulation between the 7-10 course and the senior years will be addressed. There is a danger, for example, that large slabs of a senior Modern History course could be written into a Year 10 course. The fact that we seem to be operating without a genuine K-12 continuum in mind also raises questions about the skills development sequence and the matching of topics and concepts to the cognitive development of students – uncertainty about the senior years may serve to encourage those who seek to load everything into the 7-10 course, irrespective of appropriateness.

There was support from around the country for an Extension course. There are also compelling arguments for the development of both an Asia-Pacific course and a senior course for less academic students. Any such proposals have now been consigned to a vague future. This will disappoint those of us who saw the national education revolution as an opportunity to not only preserve the best of what we have but to apply some imagination to the development of exciting new courses. Such a proliferation of courses would present its own challenges but, again, there may be imaginative solutions such as creating semester or yearly modular courses that different jurisdictions could adapt to their own systems.

‘Outside the Remit’: Urgent Action is Needed
In its conclusion, the original Framing Paper emphasised the fact that its proposal was ‘premised on schools making a substantial commitment to teaching history’. It went on to specify the hours that would be needed for courses and highlighted major concerns around teacher training and professional development. Despite HTAA’s strong endorsement of this conclusion, we now find that all such references have been deleted from the Shaping Paper. Indeed, the Consultation Report responds to these concerns by repeating what threatens to become an annoying mantra: serious issues relating to implementation are ‘outside the remit of the Board’. We are at the stage where this response needs to be challenged. What is the point of putting energy and expectation into curriculum development when there are no guarantees around implementation? How confident can we be that even well-developed national curriculum courses will not fall victim to buck-passing between various state and federal agencies when we see no evidence of timely planning for implementation?

Urgent action is now required in each of these areas:

1. Timing of Courses – While writing teams are now working on courses that are meant to be taught in a certain number of hours, at the moment there is no guarantee that states and territories will be committed to these hours. The number of hours envisaged for English, Maths and Science, the fact that more national curriculum courses are being planned in other disciplines and legitimate fears about an already crowded curriculum make this a very complex issue. Nevertheless, unless we can get some agreement there is a danger that we will see a variety of truncated versions of national history courses being introduced around the country. At the very least, we would like to see curriculum documents specify the minimum number of teaching hours they have been written for.

2. Teacher Training – The historical understandings outlined in the Shaping Paper assume that students will be presented with a relatively sophisticated understanding of history. It is difficult to see how this can happen merely by putting a sophisticated syllabus in the hands of a non-specialist teacher. Indeed, it might be suggested that the result could be entirely counter-productive. Nevertheless, the urgent issue of teacher training has yet to be addressed. HTAA’s statement on teacher training is available on its website: www.historyteacher.org.au

3. Resourcing – At the moment it is still not clear whether we will be given prescriptive curriculum documents or somewhat minimalist guidelines. If it is the latter, then there is a distinct possibility that the first resources produced will become a de facto syllabus. This must raise some concern about the sort of history teaching that will result, especially when it can be predicted that there will be a good deal of reliance on the first resources that are rushed out. Nevertheless, even though it emerged as a popular proposal during consultation, the NCB insists that ‘the provision of templates and model units to guide teachers’ is beyond its remit. This is particularly disappointing given the situation of Year 7, which is taught in primary school in a number of states. The provision of templates, model units and best practice examples would be one obvious way of assisting primary teachers of history in Year 7.
4. Professional Development – Professional Development will be critical to the successful implementation of new courses. Nevertheless, there has been no planning in this area and certainly no discussion with HTAA. At the moment there is only vague talk about bureaucratic and commercial involvement. This does not inspire confidence.

HTAA feels that it is now time for the NCB to begin pushing energetically beyond its remit. At the same time, we acknowledge a complex educational environment – it is also time we saw more transparency and commitment from state and territory agencies, politicians at all levels and the universities.

Paul Kiem
President HTAA

Back to topics

• May 2009

- The National Curriculum Board Update

The following documents have just been posted on the National Curriculum Board's website:
- 'The Shape of the Australian Curriculum: History' (revised framing paper) click here
- 'Framing Paper Consultation Report: History' click here
- 'The Shape of the Australian Curriculum' click here
For further reports visit the NCB website: click here

• March 2009

- The National Curriculum Board Update

The period for consultation on the National Curriculum Board’s (NCB) History Framing Paper concluded at the end of February 2009, and responses to the Framing Paper are being processed. It is expected that a brief for curriculum writing teams will be prepared for the beginning of April. HTAA’s response to the History Framing Paper has been posted on the National Curriculum page of the HTAA website: www.historyteacher.org.au

During March the NCB called for expressions of interest from those interested in being part of curriculum writing teams or advisory panels. These two groups are expected to be finalised by early April. In the meantime the NCB has published on its website (www.ncb.org.au) the following timeline:

Stage	Activity	Timelines K - 10	Timelines Senior years
Curriculum Framing	Confirmation of directions for writing curriculum	April, 2009	April, 2009
Curriculum Development	2 step process for development of curriculum documents: Step 1 – broad outline; scope and sequence Step 2 – completion of ‘detail’ of curriculum	April – Dec 2009	June, 2009 – Jan 2010
Consultation	National consultation on curriculum documents & trialling	Jan– April 2010	March – June 2010
Publication	Publication of national curriculum documents in print and digital format	June – July 2010	July – Sept 2010

While the long development process and provision for more consultation are very encouraging, there must be some concern about the speed with which we are moving from curriculum framing to curriculum development. The time given for ‘confirmation of directions’ in response to submissions on the Framing Paper is very tight. It is to be hoped that the major concerns highlighted in HTAA’s submission will be dealt with. Many of those concerns have been echoed by other organisations and individuals. Most obviously, there is a need to gather more input on both the primary and senior secondary years. Across all years, the major concern is that we will be given courses that allow us to engage student interest and be able to present them at a level that allows us to build skills and aim at depth of understanding. For this to happen, there needs to be considerable imagination and expertise brought to bear on the challenge of creating curriculum documents that combine mandatory topics with the opportunity for optional studies and school or locally developed units.

Unfortunately, while HTAA has argued that each of the following areas must be addressed, we have been told that they are beyond the NCB’s ‘remit’. Even so, each will be critical to the effective implementation of courses:
• At the secondary level, sophisticated new history courses will need to be taught by history graduates who have completed a full year method program in history. Primary teachers who are asked to teach history as a discrete discipline will also need to have completed a significant history component in their training.
• Effective professional development will be essential in supporting teachers, particularly during the early years of national curriculum. Professional development programs need to be well-planned, well-targeted and cost-effective. We would expect HTAA and its affiliates to be closely involved in the planning and delivery of such programs.
• In consultation, teachers have consistently focused on the need for the timely provision of resources to support new courses. HTAA has urged the NCB to consider the development of model units and templates as part of the curriculum development process.

HTAA will continue to post updates on its website.
Paul Kiem
President HTAA

Back to topics

• February 2009

- HTAA Response to the National Curriculum Board's History Framing Paper
Download by clicking here

• January 2009

- HTAA Releases 'Pre-Service Statement'
Download by clicking here

• November 2008

- National Curriculum Board has posted the consultation draft of the History Framework Paper on its website
Click here for more details

• October 2008

- National Curriculum Board releases History Framework Paper
Click here to read paper

To go to National Curriculum Board website click here

Related article in The Age Newspaper 13 Oct 08 "New History Curriculum Proposed"
Click here

Related article in The Australian 13 Oct 08 "Curriculum to Scale Back Aussie History"
Click here

Article in The Age 20 Oct 08 "Politicians should leave history to the teachers"
Click here

- HTAA Statement - National Curriculum
The HTAA Committee met at their AGM in Brisbane during the National History Teachers' Conference. To read their statement on the National Curriculum click here

• September 2008

- September Update
Last week The Australian contributed to the national curriculum discussion with a suggestion that Professor Stuart Macintyre’s appointment to oversee the writing of the history framework paper was ill-advised. A headline spoke of a reigniting of the history wars. An editorial concluded that ‘the appointments [of Macintyre (history) and Freebody (English)] reflect poorly on the National Curriculum Board and its chairman, Professor Barry McGaw.’ (10/9) In amongst some of the apocalyptic correspondence that came in on cue, Dr John Hirst provided a voice of reason: ‘The appointment of Stuart Macintyre to draw up the history section of the national curriculum should not re-ignite the history wars. I have seen his first draft and can assure you that the fears expressed in your pages about his appointment are misplaced.’ (12/9)

A few points need to be made:

1. Professor Stuart Macintyre has been asked to oversee the drafting of a history framework paper that will then be subject to discussion. HTAA has endorsed this as a necessary and sensible first step in an extensive consultative process.

2. HTAA has also welcomed the involvement of a historian of Professor Macintyre’s stature in the earliest stages of the development of national courses. What must be emphasised is that he is working collaboratively. For those for whom the labels are important, the radical Stuart Macintyre is working with the conservative John Hirst. In fact, both are respected historians whose aim is produce feasible courses that will engage school age children. Classroom practitioners and teacher educators are also involved.

3. While Australian history is important and, it could be argued, stands to benefit most, the development of national history courses embraces all history. It is not helpful to focus the discussion only on Australian history. Indeed, the so-called history wars may have very limited relevance if we are concerned with developing appropriate courses that will engage the average student across all years, K-12.

4. At this point HTAA has not promoted any particular point of view regarding topics, pedagogy or assessment. What we have strenuously called for is a consultative process that aims at the widest possible input and recognises the important role of the classroom practitioners who will be ultimately called upon to engage students with the new national curriculum courses.

5. Not every history teacher in Australia is a member of a state HTA. Even if they were, it would be impossible for HTAA to speak with an absolutely clear voice for all teachers, particularly with the different emphases and traditions across the states and territories. Given this reality, HTAA has devoted considerable effort to passing on information about national curriculum development and gathering feedback from history teachers across the country:

• The National Curriculum section of HTAA’s website has attempted to provide an up to date record of developments, updates and commentary. Affiliate associations have duplicated this in various ways.

• In early September NSW HTA, in association with Macquarie University, sponsored a National History Forum. Teacher input from this event will be passed on to the National Curriculum Board.

• In the first week of October Q HTA will host the national conference, where a morning session has been set aside for discussion and input on national curriculum.

• All state and territory HTAs have nominated delegates to attend the National Curriculum Board forum scheduled for mid-October.

History is a critical study and inherently contentious. It follows that the development of history curriculum will also give rise to vigorous debate. Even so, the recent polarisation of the discussion has been disappointing, particularly as it appeared to be in anticipation of outcomes on the basis of misinformation. Inevitably, there will be some torrid times ahead but the hope must be that the discussion can move to a rational and productive middle ground and be conducted with the goodwill that the potential outcome deserves.

In the meantime, HTAA feels that it is important to reassert its endorsement of the way in which the National Curriculum Board is addressing the challenge of developing national curriculum courses.

Paul Kiem
President
HTAA

To read original article in The Australian click here

Back to topics

- Professor Stuart Macintyre interviewed on national curriculum Changes ahead for history, WA today - Perth, Australia, 22 October 2008
In his first interview since being engaged as a consultant to the National Curriculum Board, Professor Stuart Macintyre argued for a broader curriculum with ...
Click here to read more

- Tony Taylor 'National Curriculum, History and SOSE: an Evidence-Based Perspective' (Monash University)
This article first appeared in Teaching History, June 2008
Click here to read

- Tony Taylor 'Learning from the Past: History and the National Curriculum' (Monash University)
This is an edited version of an address given at the NSW HTA/Macquarie University National History Forum, held at Macquarie University on 6 September 2008
Click here to read

• August 2008

- Primary Principals Draft Paper
Click here to read

Back to topics

• July 2008

- July Update
The past few months have seen a good deal of activity on the national curriculum front and, with consultation scheduled for the remainder of 2008, this activity will only intensify. While national curriculum may still be somewhere over the horizon for the vast majority of teachers, by early 2009 the development of national courses in history will become an increasing focus of attention for all of those concerned with the future of our discipline. This update has been divided into two sections, a report and a discussion. The discussion has been presented to provoke more discussion.

Report
• On 27 June the National Curriculum Board (NCB) held its first forum, for 200 stakeholders, in Melbourne. HTAA was represented by Paul Kiem.
• On 21 July, representatives of key subject associations met with NCB Chair Professor Barry McGaw, Deputy Chair Mr Tony Mackay and members of the NCB Secretariat. HTAA was represented by Paul Kiem and Vice President Louise Secker.
• The NCB is holding its meetings around Australia and taking the opportunity to arrange consultation forums at the same time. This has already happened in Brisbane, where QHTA and HTAA were represented by Kay Bishop.
• QHTA has invited Professor McGaw to attend HTAA’s national conference in Brisbane in October. This will provide another opportunity for discussion and input.
• Some state HTAs are scheduling national curriculum discussion sessions as part of professional development activities and in NSW there are plans to organise a forum on national history courses with Macquarie University.
• Late in 2008 the NCB plans to hold major forums focusing on each of the four disciplines. HTAA will be invited to nominate delegates.
• Prior to these subject forums the NCB plans to produce a Position Paper on the development of national curriculum courses and individual subject Framework Papers.
• The NCB’s website will be a significant forum for information sharing and discussion: www.ncb.org.au
At the moment the National Curriculum Development Paper, produced for the June forum, is available on this site.

Discussion
There are some encouraging aspects of the early stages of the national curriculum development process. The NCB appears to be made up of well-qualified individuals who should be capable of providing the sort of educational leadership that will be required. The board members have made a point of making themselves accessible. The NCB’s Development Paper uses some reassuring language: ‘the curriculum should make clear to teachers what has to be taught’, ‘the curriculum needs to be feasible’, ‘the curriculum needs to be flexible’ and ‘the curriculum needs to be developed collaboratively’. Most importantly, there will be a lengthy period of consultation. There seems to be a genuine desire at the outset to engage with those who will be ultimately responsible for implementing national curriculum. This can only help to engender goodwill.

While it is clear that the 27 June forum was a necessary first step in the consultation process, the diversity of the 200 stakeholders represented and the lack of any clear parameters meant that the discussion was very wide-ranging. Smaller, more focused groups and the NCB’s plan to produce a Position Paper and subject Framework Papers should greatly assist future discussions. What the 27 June forum did do was to offer many groups the opportunity to raise concerns or promote particular aspirations for national curriculum. Allowing for issues of individual perception, the following responses to the broad discussion are worth highlighting and may prompt further discussion:
• There is a divide between secondary and primary. On the one hand, this can raise fears amongst primary teachers about ‘secondary discipline specialists’ seeking to impose their own methods and priorities on the primary timetable. On the other hand, there is significant support for a more generalist, inter-disciplinary, ‘whole child’, ‘middle schooling’ approach to the junior high school years.
• In some quarters there are negative attitudes towards the traditional subjects that have been nominated for the development of national courses. This can range from support for an inter-disciplinary rather than subject based approach to concerns about the creation of national courses adding to a crowded curriculum and squeezing out those subjects that may be perceived as having a lower status.
• There are some very sophisticated aspirations out there for the digital age, the child of the 21st century, a futures orientated curriculum etc. Too often, such rhetoric also assumes an uncritical acceptance that the traditional disciplines are not the way to go if we are aiming at higher order competencies. Not only does this betray a worrying ignorance of what a subject like history can achieve, it raises the prospect of teachers being given a set of noble goals without any context or methodology with which to develop them.
• The national curriculum project has already given rise to some fierce jostling by lobbyists of all kinds. The concern is that too many agendas will be allowed to run. Not only would this compromise what must be the priority goal – the creation of ‘feasible courses’ – but there would be the risk of too much change being imposed upon schools too quickly.

It is now time for the NCB to focus the discussion by clarifying some of the issues. Are we talking about the traditional discipline of history? Does ‘national’ mean ‘mandatory’ and will courses be prescribed for particular years of schooling? How many hours will national courses take up? Will history be able to offer additional electives or will the national courses themselves be electives? Some of these questions will already have been answered at the political level, presumably on ‘evidence-based’ criteria.

Not surprisingly, within the history teaching community we do not have absolute agreement about what we want. However, the challenge of presenting some form of reasonable consensus at a national level may be quite achievable. Most would agree, for example, on the need to improve the status of Australian history, the need to introduce more Asian history and the need to retain (or perhaps pool) the best of our senior courses. Very few would be seeking to impose hundreds of hours of history on primary school timetables and many would react with horror at the prospect of mandatory history in the senior years. All would agree on the need to apply expertise, vision and imagination to the creation of new courses (or the adaptation of existing courses).

We may have some issues in terms of SOSE v History and divergent approaches to assessment. Ultimately, this could be catered for by allowing states to develop their own approaches to implementation and assessment. While there are strong arguments in favour of a uniform approach to pedagogy, assessment and curriculum, it is possible to envisage an early stage of national curriculum where local decisions were made regarding pedagogy and assessment. At the same time, supporting national courses with quality resources could be a way of encouraging consistent approaches.

It is hard not to see how a national approach to history curriculum does not present a great opportunity for primary and secondary teachers to work together, particularly for the benefit of Australian history. This would come from communication, resource sharing and, most urgently, the scoping and sequencing of topics and skills development.

Some of the anxiety surrounding national curriculum may arise out of the government’s commitment to go ahead with the development of national courses in subjects other than Maths, English, Science and History. This may contribute to a jostling for perceived status and timetable space and fears about a crowded curriculum. It could reasonably be asked why we need more national courses beyond the four subjects already nominated. There is no reason, for example, why state developed courses could not operate beside national courses without there being any concerns about status or quality. At another level, there are also questions about evaluation. Will the national courses in the first four subjects be introduced incrementally or in one go? Will this implementation be evaluated and carefully supported or will we have already moved the focus on to the development of more national courses?

The NCB has a brief from government and may regard questions about the development of more national courses as having already been decided at the political level. Surely, however, the NCB will be capable of reporting back to government and suggesting changes to its brief. At the moment, for example, it is not clear that the development of curriculum requires the NCB to take account of resource development, teacher training and professional development. All would seem to be critical areas if the goal is to engage students with worthwhile courses presented by passionate experts.

In the meantime, teachers are encouraged to engage with the process. It needs to be emphasised that we are in a long stage of consultation. While the NCB will be issuing statements and conducting forums over coming months, it may be well into next year before any firm decisions are made. The discussion will remain dynamic. Opportunities for input have been outlined above. Teachers are also encouraged to make submissions to their state HTAs and to keep in touch through the National Curriculum section of HTAA’s website: www.historyteacher.org.au

Paul Kiem
President
History Teachers’ Association of Australia (HTAA)

Back to topics

• June 2008

- The National Curriculum Board’s website is now online at: www.ncb.org.au

- A statement on national curriculum from the national peak professional associations in English, History, Mathematics and Science
Click here to read statement

Back to topics

 

• April 2008

- Anna Clark 'A Comparative Study of History Teaching in Australia and Canada' (Monash University)
Anna Clark is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Faculty of Education, Monash University. She has recently completed the final report of her research project 'A Comparative Study of History Teaching in Australia and Canada' .

To read the full report click here

Back to topics

- Full National Curriculum Board Announced
Minister for Education, Julia Gillard today confirmed the membership of the National Curriculum Board, which will see a national curriculum be delivered within three years.

As promised, the new National Curriculum Board is comprised of representatives from each of the States and Territories, and three representatives from the Catholic and Independent sectors.

The Board will oversee the development of a rigorous, world-class national curriculum for all Australian students from kindergarten to Year 12, starting with the key learning areas of English, mathematics, the sciences and history.

The Board will draw together the best programs from each State and Territory into a single curriculum to ensure every child has access to the highest quality learning programs to lift achievement and drive up school retention rates.

The timetable will see:

* The National Curriculum Board hold its first meeting on 23 April 2008;
* The Board start consultations on the development of a national curriculum by mid this year;
* The secretariat and governance arrangements for the National Curriculum Board be established by 1 January 2009;
* A national curriculum for all Australian students from kindergarten to Year 12 be developed by 2010, starting with English, mathematics, the sciences and history, and underpinned by a renewed focus on literacy and numeracy; and
* A national curriculum publicly available and which can start to be delivered in all jurisdictions from January 2011.

Membership of the National Curriculum Board

Professor Barry McGaw - Chair
Mr Tony Mackay Deputy - Chair
Tom Alegounarias - New South Wales representative
Mr John Firth - Victorian representative
Mr Kim Bannikoff - Queensland representative
Professor Bill Louden - Western Australian representative
Ms Helen Wildash - South Australian representative
Mr David Hanlon - Tasmanian representative
Ms Rita Henry - Northern Territory representative
Ms Janet Davy Australian Capital Territory representative
Mr Garry LeDuff Non-government sector
Dr Brian Croke - Non-government sector
Professor Marie Emmitt - Non-government sector

To read the full media release click here

Back to topics

• February 2008

– National Curriculum Board Deputy Appointed
On 8 February Julia Gillard announced the appointment of Mr Tony Mackay as Deputy Chair of the National Curriculum Board. Mr Mackay is the President-elect of the International Congress on School Effectiveness and Improvement. He is currently the Executive Director of the Centre for Strategic Education in Melbourne, and President of the Australian Curriculum Studies Association.

Some comments, views and responses:

30 January - McGaw to Oversee National Curriculum - SMH
click here to read article

29 February - National Curriculum to Rate Performance - The Australian
click here to read article

Back to topics

 

• January 2008

- Rudd Government Announces Plan for national curriculum & appoints National Curriculum Board Chair
On 30 January the Prime Minister and Minister for Education announced the appointment of Professor Barry McGaw as Chair of the government’s new National Curriculum Board. The board, which will take some time to constitute, will oversee the development of national curriculum, K-12, in English, mathematics, the sciences and history.
Professor McGaw is currently the Director of the University of Melbourne’s new Melbourne Educational Research Institute, and formerly Director of Education in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development based in Paris.
The board will comprise representatives from each of the states and territories, and three representatives from the Catholic and Independent sectors.
While there is much speculation but little in the way of firm detail at the moment, two points could be highlighted:

- The establishment of a board and the long time frame involved suggests that this is a serious attempt to develop national curriculum.
- The scope of what is envisaged for history (addressing years K-12 and all history courses, not just Australian history in Years 9&10) is much more ambitious than what had been proposed by the previous federal government.

Click here to read media release

Back to topics