Jenni+Hogan

I found this article online regarding what should be taught in schools. It goes under the heading **“//Draft national school curriculum a disaster waiting to happen, says Opposition Education spokesman Christopher Pyne.”//** From AAP, Herald Sun, by Phillip Hudson, Steve Larkin, March 01, 2010 12.00 AM. []

The article expresses Christopher Pyne’s disgust in the draft national curriculum and Julia Gillard’s explanations of why topics have been included. Christopher Pyne said that the coalition supports a national curriculum but not what the present government has included in it. He states that the draft national curriculum “has been skewed to a black armband view of Australian history.” Mr Pyne is unhappy with the large content of Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander culture contained in the draft history curriculum and the lack of more important aspects of Australia’s history. He goes on to express his concerns to include Sorry Day, which is to be taught to year 3 students. There were reports suggesting Sorry Day be given the same significance as Anzac Day. I was pleased to see both parties agreeing that there was a need for a national curriculum. My concerns are every time there is a shift in leadership; will there be changes in what our children are to be taught? Kevin Rudd was the “Sorry” leader so the Labor government wants to include this. Was this a politically motivated statement and not an historical one? I do agree we should include a more balanced history curriculum including our aboriginal history but keep the politics out of it. What really concerned me was My Pyne’s statement “A coalition government would review the curriculum and if the review confirms our very serious doubts, then we will scrap the national curriculum and will start again.” I hope he doesn’t mean the lot, surely they can agree on some aspects. I don’t think it is hard to see the impact this would have on our curriculum and purse.
 * Do I agree with this Claim? Why/why not? **