Issues around the Australian Curriculum

Implications for future teaching

The decisions about what and whose knowledge is valued and perpetuated in the curriculum, have
outcomes that impact on students’ life chances (Teese & Polesel 2003 p. 17). Moreover, these
decisions have social implications that cannot only reinforce but entrench social disadvantage
(Kenway 2013, p. 286). The research of Teese and Polesel (2003) highlights that historically, the
hierarchy of the Australian curriculum was so ‘marked by the social rank of its users that its
conservative and retarding actions could not be mistaken’ (Teese & Polesel 2003, p. 17). Simply put,
not only was there are hierarchy amongst curriculum learning areas, but this hierarchy had the
potential of entrenching (and expanding) social power. Those who already had access to economic
and social resources (privileged) asserted superiority, ensuring that those without power continued to
be disadvantaged (Teese & Polesel 2003, p. 29). It is clear that the curriculum involves decision-
making that combines action and intention in specific circumstances and contexts at particular times.
These decisions reflect the interests, beliefs, orientations and ideologies of the decision-makers (Lovat
& Smith 2003, p. 24). Hartley (1997, p. 43) states that in this sense, the curriculum is a political
process.

Literature continues to highlight that the former construction of the curriculum (whether intended or
actual) has protected and enhanced the interests of the dominant group(s) in society (Fletcher 1989;
Lovat & Smith 2003). For instance, prior to the abolishment of the ‘White Australia’ policy, the
history of colonisation was dominated by a heritage of non-Aboriginal people (Craven 2011, p. 5).
Messages of ‘bringing civilization’ and ‘white settlement’ have therefore been more prominent in the
social science curriculum, rather than those of ‘planned extermination, genocide, domination and
invasion’ of the Aboriginal peoples (Carter 2006, p. 85). Stereotypes and misconceptions about
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have thus been persistent, based on misinformation and
historical attitudes (Lovat & Smith 2003, p. 24). In order to overcome these challenges, literature
highlights the significance of teachers’ knowledge, conceptions, beliefs, and attitudes as they can
undoubtedly influence their method of instruction (Bourke, Rigby & Burden 2000, p. 9). Furthermore,
their preparedness and willingness to overcome their own biases, are imperative when including
Aboriginal studies in classroom practice (Burridge & Evans 2012; Yunkaporta & McGinty 2009). It is
therefore noted that students access to knowledge regarding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
histories and cultures lies entirely on the enthusiasm, energy and commitment of the individual
teacher, school and principal. For this reason, educators must realise that their actions have the power
and potential to hinder the reconciliation process (Bourke, Rigby & Burden 2000; Godfrey et al.
2000).

The above discussion serves as an illustrative example of how curricula can act as an agent of cultural
reproduction (Print 1993, p. 6), as well as disengagement that can result for Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander students (Handelsman 2011 p. 94). Another key issue around the Australian
Curriculum however, is based on the great national challenge of ‘Closing the Gap’. Within the
overview of ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Histories and Cultures’, it is stated that the
Australian Curriculum recognises the need ‘to provide every opportunity possible to ‘close the gap’’.
This terminology places Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as deficient in education
(Harrison 2011, p. 9). Moreover, it suggests that Aboriginal students need to be brought up to
standard, in which non-Aboriginals have already attained (Harrison 2011, p. 9). Once again,
discourses of deficit about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people within education are built on
historical and contemporary ways of talking and thinking about Aboriginal peoples. This discourse of
deficit can have profound effects on future education as they can permeate the way in which educators
tackle and approach concepts (for example, disadvantage, constitutional recognition and educational
attainment) (Fogarty et al. 2018, p. 2). The conversations educators then have, begin in the problem
(narratives of failure) and fail to address the strengths of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
students.