Na­tional cur­ricu­lum raises se­ri­ous ques­tions

Townsville Bulletin - - Voice Of The North -

I AM study­ing for my Bach­e­lor of Ed­u­ca­tion de­gree at James Cook Univer­sity. Like most of my col­leagues and peers I have been watch­ing, with in­ter­est, the for­mu­la­tion and in­tro­duc­tion of a Na­tional Cur­ricu­lum for Aus­tralian school stu­dents.

Like most of my col­leagues and peers, I have a num­ber of con­cerns about the cur­ricu­lum. The largest flaw that im­me­di­ately stood out to me is the lack of plan­ning for a na­tional teach­ing de­gree.

If we are all ex­pected to teach the ex­act same cur­ricu­lum, shouldn’t all teach­ers be trained through the ex­act same pro­gram?

Shouldn’t my de­gree through JCU be iden­ti­cal to the de­gree of my south­ern coun­ter­parts?

When this is­sue was dis­cussed with univer­sity aca­demics the stan­dard re­sponse was: ge­og­ra­phy.

Our unique ge­o­graph­i­cal lo­ca­tion means our teach­ing has to dif­fer to cater for the cul­tural and cli­matic sub­tleties of our re­gion.

So my un­der­stand­ing is this; we have such di­verse dif­fer­ences in our stu­dent de­mo­graph­ics that the ed­u­ca­tion de­gree has to be in­di­vid­u­alised by lo­ca­tion, yet our Na­tional cur­ricu­lum is be­ing de­signed as a one-siz­e­fits-all.

Does this seem ab­surd to any­one else? Teach­ers are be­ing trained to a spe­cific univer­sity course regime that is in­di­vid­ual and non­trans­ferrable, yet when we all grad­u­ate we are to sub­scribe to a uni­ver­sal teach­ing agenda. I hon­estly think this is a ma­jor over­sight of the Aus­tralian gov­ern­ment and would like some an­swers. I’m not against the Na­tional Cur­ricu­lum, I too can see the ben­e­fits, but shouldn’t it start with the foun­da­tions of ed­u­ca­tion first? NAME AND AD­DRESS SUP­PLIED

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.