Abstract
What happens in classrooms may seem far away from the politics of Canberra, but since the early 1980s there have been concerted attempts on the part of successive Commonwealth governments to influence directly what happens in classrooms. The problem with this is that education in general was never intended to be a responsibility of Federal governments. In the division of roles and powers between different levels of government, the Australian constitution made it clear that education was reserved as a responsibility for State (and eventually Territory) governments. Thus what Commonwealth governments have tried to do over time is gradually shift this responsibility so at the very least it is regarded as shared. This shift has taken place gradually with Commonwealth governments inching their way forward making a little progress with each move. While the move has been supported by both major political parties, major strides were made by the Australian Labour Party with a succession of Minsters for whom “national” approaches to education had a particular attraction. Sometimes the motivation was equity, at other times it was about linking the curriculum to the economic needs of the nation, and for form; it was about efficiency in both the development and delivery of curriculum. These three motives have been present throughout the last four decades. This paper examines the evolution of what was initially conceived of as a “nationally consistent curriculum” then became a focus on “national curriculum” and eventually morphed into the Australian Curriculum. While this process is linked to three particular government Ministers – Susan Ryan, John Dawkins and Julia Gillard – it is a nation’s story about the importance of learning and attempts to transform “the lucky country” into “the clever country”.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This paper was first published as Kennedy, K. (2009). The idea of a national curriculum in Australia: What do Susan Ryan, John Dawkins and Julia Gillard have in common? Curriculum Perspectives, 29(1), 1–9. It is reproduced here with the permission of the author and the Australian Curriculum Studies Association (ACSA).
References
Australian Education Council and the Department of Employment, Education and Training. (1988). Mapping the Australian curriculum: Preliminary document: Volume 2: The mathematics curriculum. Canberra: Department of Employment, Education and Training.
Bishop, J. (2006). Address to the History Teachers’ Association of Australia Conference. Fremantle.
Brady, L., & Kennedy, K. (2007). Curriculum Construction. Sydney: Pearson Education.
Commonwealth of Australia (2008). Schools Assistance Bill (2008). Retrieved 4 January 2009 from http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/Bills1.nsf/0/64EA2130969C3B5FCA2574CE0010AF70/$file/R3069B.pdf.
Curriculum Corporation. (1990). National statement on mathematics for Australian schools. Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation.
Curriculum Corporation. (1994). Mathematics — A curriculum profile for Australian schools. Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation.
Dawkins, J. (1988). Strengthening Australia’s schools: A consideration of the content and focus of schooling. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Gillard, J. (2008a). Delivering Australia’s first National Curriculum. Retrieved 3 January 2009 from http://media-centre.dewr.gov.au/mediacentre/gillard/releases/deliveringaustraliasfirstnationalcurriculum.htm.
Gillard, J. (2008b). Speech — 2008 Curriculum Corporation Conference. Retrieved 3 January 2009 from http://mediacentre.dewr.gov.au/mediacentre/Gillard/Releases/2008CurriculumCorporationConference.htm.
Green, M. (2008). Minister’s movement on national curriculum welcome but schools still need certainty. Retrieved 4 January 2009 from http://www.ais.vic.edu.au/independent/pubs/mediarelease/mr_mg_comment_jr _curriculum_shift.pdf.
Harrison, D. (2008). Private schools winners as senate stand-off ends. Retrieved 4 January 2009 from http://www.theage.com.au/national/private-schools-winners-as-senate-standoff-ends-20081204-6rp3.html.
Kennedy, K. (1989). National initiatives in curriculum: The Australian context. British Journal of Educational Studies, 37(2), 111–123.
Kennedy, K. (1992). Towards a national curriculum in Australia: Policy developments as a prescription for action. In F. C. Crowther & D. Ogilvie (Eds.), The new political world of educational administration (pp. 31–40). Hawthorn: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Kennedy, K. (1993). National curriculum policy development in Australia: A review and analysis of commonwealth government involvement in the school curriculum. In O. Watts, K. Kennedy, & G. McDonalds (Eds.), Citizenship education for a new age (pp. 7–18). Toowoomba: University of Southern Queensland Press.
Kennedy, K., Chan, J.K.S. & Fok, P.K. (2006). Theorizing Curriculum policy implementation: The dimensions of ‘soft’ policy and their application to Hong Kong’s reform agenda. Paper presented at the Biennial Conference of the Asia Pacific Association for Research in Education. Hong Kong, November.
McKinsey & Company. (2007). How the world’s best education systems come out on top. London: McKinsey & Company.
Nelson, B. (2004). Dr Brendan Nelson — Archive. Retrieved 26 December 2008 from http://www.dest.gov.au/Ministers/Media/Nelson/2004/03/ntscript240304.asp.
Torenvlied, R., & Akkerman, A. (2004). Theory of ‘soft’ policy implementation in multilevel systems with an application to social partnership in the Netherlands. Acta Politica, 39(1), 31–58.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
A version of this paper was originally delivered as an address to the Symposium on National Curriculum held at the University of Sydney on 12 December 2008.
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kennedy, K. The idea of a national curriculum in Australia: what do Susan Ryan, John Dawkins and Julia Gillard have in common?. Curric Perspect 39, 117–124 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41297-019-00081-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41297-019-00081-5