PDF (Whole Thesis) - USQ ePrints - University of Southern ...
PDF (Whole Thesis) - USQ ePrints - University of Southern ... PDF (Whole Thesis) - USQ ePrints - University of Southern ...
Government in the rundown to the end-of-year federal election” (Milne & Passmore, 2007, p. 20). This section on national curriculum has highlighted some of the debates from the period beginning 2006, as a way to contextualise the broader impacts of the history/culture wars on education, and more specifically, the History curriculum in schools. Any national curriculum of history, or more realistically an insistence of a requirement for funding that the states adopt a compulsory, discreet and separate History curriculum can be seen as a failure of the John Howard government to implement. Although funding was linked to a very hasty adjustment of student achievements’ reporting, which all the states complied with; the History curriculum (whether separate or as part of the SOSE KLA) remained unchanged throughout the time it entered sustained public interest in the mid 2000s. Linking of a History curriculum to funding was an issue others thought would happen, with Salusinszky writing one week prior to the national history summit, Bishop wants compulsory, stand-alone history subjects from kindergarten to Year 10, with Australian history the focus in the final two years. If the states hear the message, well and good. If not, it will be amplified through the megaphone of the next quadrennial education funding agreement, which will deliver them about $40 billion of commonwealth money. Just as it has with report cards and flagpoles in school grounds, the Howard Government is prepared to micro-manage the way state education systems do history. (2006, p. 25) A1.9 Queensland Contexts: Historical Background of Development of SOSE Curriculum framing document, The Adelaide Declaration on National Goals of Schooling in the Twenty-first Century (commonly known as The Adelaide Declaration) (MCEETYA, 1999) superseded the previous agreement, the Hobart Declaration of Schooling (MCEETYA, 1989); which was an attempt by the Education Ministers of Australia’s states and territories under the direction of the Commonwealth Government to provide “a framework for cooperation between schools, states, territories and the Commonwealth” (MCEETYA, 1989, p. 2) and in doing so provide common elements in school curriculum across the various education jurisdictions. The Adelaide Declaration developed these statements further, with agreed curriculum and other education goals for all states. This Declaration saw all states and territories agree to collaborate on a number of national schooling goals. 494
Of significance here is Goal 2 of the Declaration which includes curriculum directions, in terms of eight national key learning areas (KLAs). One of the curriculum areas agreed to by all Australian states and territories was Studies of Society and Environment (SOSE). This Declaration can really be seen as a watershed in initiating public discussion of the SOSE curriculum and related topics. Since this time, there has clearly developed different and often opposing perspectives on the relative merits of SOSE and its value in schools. It is important to know and understand that the specific subject are, called SOSE as it is taught up to Year 10 in Queensland schools, is supported through and based on the goals of The Adelaide Declaration. Replacing the former Social Education strand in Queensland schools, SOSE, as a core subject, was introduced in Queensland schools as a result of the recommendations made in the Shaping the future—Review of the Queensland School Curriculum Report (commonly known as Shaping the future) (Wiltshire, McMeniman & Tolhurst, 1994), chaired by Kenneth Wiltshire. Here, it was recommended that all eight KLAs be implemented as “core areas of the curriculum” (Wiltshire et al., 1994, p. xi), with the eight KLAs having originally been agreed on in The Hobart Declaration (1989). Elements of the structural elements and inclusions of the SOSE syllabus such as the “futures perspective” and “critical thinking skills” (Wiltshire et al., 1994, p. ix) came from recommendations made in Shaping the Future. SOSE continues to form a part of the core learning areas of school education in Queensland, and continues to provoke considerable interest, controversy and disagreement. A1.9.1 Queensland SOSE, History and Geography debates. Direct connections between the history/culture wars debate and school curriculum entered the public domain in Queensland with conservative journalist Andrew Bolt’s article in the only state-wide newspaper, The Courier Mail, starting a Queensland-specific debate by focusing on the then-new school syllabus for the Key Learning Area (KLA) of Studies of Society and Environment (SOSE). The impact of this article was widespread, influencing opinions of the general public, including parents of school age children, and providing a reference point for commentators, academics, journalists, and persons with prominent public profiles to enter and contribute to the debate. The article, Class Revolution, criticised the ideology Bolt believed to be behind the syllabus, calling the syllabus writers “ideologues” (2000, n.p.) in an attempt to cast suspicion on the motivation of the writers, particularly within the Queensland School Curriculum Council and the Queensland Department of Education. Beyond the 495
- Page 458 and 459: particular, this includes taking on
- Page 460 and 461: The mapping of these debates conclu
- Page 462 and 463: A1.1.4 Terminology. The term histor
- Page 464 and 465: The similarities of the debates acr
- Page 466 and 467: over...an overrun of divisive multi
- Page 468 and 469: political cartoon satirist, Peter N
- Page 470 and 471: A1.5.1 April 23, 1993: Geoffrey Bla
- Page 472 and 473: After an initial furor, this curric
- Page 474 and 475: A1.5.4 October and November 1996: J
- Page 476 and 477: I take a very different view. I bel
- Page 478 and 479: history/culture wars in the public
- Page 480 and 481: parallels between ideologies presen
- Page 482 and 483: into “politically correct new age
- Page 484 and 485: Root and branch renewal of history
- Page 486 and 487: Further in his lecture, Manne then
- Page 488 and 489: Throughout the years that the histo
- Page 490 and 491: A people with a sense of a fair go
- Page 492 and 493: "There's real anger about that," ag
- Page 494 and 495: Instead, from the nation's Parliame
- Page 496 and 497: asis for critical (and often deriso
- Page 498 and 499: valid reasons for living and hoping
- Page 500 and 501: “centrally prescribed curriculum
- Page 502 and 503: elativism in school curriculum, spe
- Page 504 and 505: supporting PM Howard’s call for a
- Page 506 and 507: The politicisation of the curriculu
- Page 510 and 511: oversimplified and shallow analysis
- Page 512 and 513: than the combination of history, ge
- Page 514 and 515: Language used by opponents of the c
- Page 516 and 517: invades school curriculum” (Lane,
- Page 518 and 519: 504
- Page 520 and 521: 506
- Page 522 and 523: Appendix D: Sample Data Analyses Ti
- Page 524 and 525: (p. 110) Passage 6: (pp. 110-111) P
- Page 526 and 527: probably good that this was not cas
- Page 528: Overall, a very unemotional account
Of significance here is Goal 2 <strong>of</strong> the Declaration which includes curriculum directions, in<br />
terms <strong>of</strong> eight national key learning areas (KLAs). One <strong>of</strong> the curriculum areas agreed to by<br />
all Australian states and territories was Studies <strong>of</strong> Society and Environment (SOSE). This<br />
Declaration can really be seen as a watershed in initiating public discussion <strong>of</strong> the SOSE<br />
curriculum and related topics. Since this time, there has clearly developed different and <strong>of</strong>ten<br />
opposing perspectives on the relative merits <strong>of</strong> SOSE and its value in schools. It is important<br />
to know and understand that the specific subject are, called SOSE as it is taught up to Year 10<br />
in Queensland schools, is supported through and based on the goals <strong>of</strong> The Adelaide<br />
Declaration.<br />
Replacing the former Social Education strand in Queensland schools, SOSE, as a core<br />
subject, was introduced in Queensland schools as a result <strong>of</strong> the recommendations made in<br />
the Shaping the future—Review <strong>of</strong> the Queensland School Curriculum Report (commonly<br />
known as Shaping the future) (Wiltshire, McMeniman & Tolhurst, 1994), chaired by Kenneth<br />
Wiltshire. Here, it was recommended that all eight KLAs be implemented as “core areas <strong>of</strong><br />
the curriculum” (Wiltshire et al., 1994, p. xi), with the eight KLAs having originally been<br />
agreed on in The Hobart Declaration (1989). Elements <strong>of</strong> the structural elements and<br />
inclusions <strong>of</strong> the SOSE syllabus such as the “futures perspective” and “critical thinking<br />
skills” (Wiltshire et al., 1994, p. ix) came from recommendations made in Shaping the<br />
Future. SOSE continues to form a part <strong>of</strong> the core learning areas <strong>of</strong> school education in<br />
Queensland, and continues to provoke considerable interest, controversy and disagreement.<br />
A1.9.1 Queensland SOSE, History and Geography debates.<br />
Direct connections between the history/culture wars debate and school curriculum entered the<br />
public domain in Queensland with conservative journalist Andrew Bolt’s article in the only<br />
state-wide newspaper, The Courier Mail, starting a Queensland-specific debate by focusing<br />
on the then-new school syllabus for the Key Learning Area (KLA) <strong>of</strong> Studies <strong>of</strong> Society and<br />
Environment (SOSE). The impact <strong>of</strong> this article was widespread, influencing opinions <strong>of</strong> the<br />
general public, including parents <strong>of</strong> school age children, and providing a reference point for<br />
commentators, academics, journalists, and persons with prominent public pr<strong>of</strong>iles to enter<br />
and contribute to the debate. The article, Class Revolution, criticised the ideology Bolt<br />
believed to be behind the syllabus, calling the syllabus writers “ideologues” (2000, n.p.) in an<br />
attempt to cast suspicion on the motivation <strong>of</strong> the writers, particularly within the Queensland<br />
School Curriculum Council and the Queensland Department <strong>of</strong> Education. Beyond the<br />
495