The inherent vulnerability of the Australian Curriculum’s cross-curriculum priorities

Abstract

National curriculum development is a complex and contested process. By its very function, a national curriculum serves to organise diverse interests into a common framework, a task fraught with cultural and political tensions and compromises. In the emergent Australian Curriculum these tensions are manifest in and around the cross-curriculum priorities (CCPs): sustainability, Asia and Australia’s engagement with Asia, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures. These priorities have been under fire since their introduction to the curriculum and the announcement of a review of the emerging curriculum prompted fears of a renewed attack. Studies from diverse fields of education research suggest that a lack of high-level institutional support for initiatives such as the CCPs places them in jeopardy. This paper focuses on two priorities: Asia and Australia’s engagement with Asia, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures. It employs interest convergence theory as a framework to understand connections between the intentions behind the inclusion of the CCPs and the outcomes of the Review of the Australian Curriculum. Furthermore, this paper draws on interview-based research that explores how the priorities are constructed by those who are expected to work with them, from pre-service through to experienced teachers. This theoretical framework provides an explanation for the perennially precarious nature of these kinds of curriculum initiatives.

Keywords:

• Australian Curriculum
• cross-curriculum priorities
• interest convergence
• problem construction

Acknowledgements

We thank Kevin Lowe for his thoughtful feedback on an early version of this manuscript, and the anonymous reviewers for their critical and insightful responses.

Notes

1. The seven general capabilities are literacy, numeracy, information and communication technology capability, critical and creative thinking, personal and social capability, ethical understanding and intercultural understanding.

2. Including the Review of National Competition Policy Reforms (Productivity Commission, 2005), Council of Australian Governments (COAG) and Council for the Australian Federation (CAF) meeting communiques, The Federalist Paper 2: The Future of Schooling in Australia (Review Steering Committee, 2007) and various National Curriculum Board and ACARA publications.

3. While it should be noted the teachers in the study were self-selecting, suggesting a possible predisposition towards supporting the priority, self-selection also allows the option for those that feel strongly in the negative to come forward, which none did.

4. Enrolment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students at the school is significantly above the figure (8.4%) recorded for state school students within Queensland (Queensland Government, 2011).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Peta Salter

Peta Salter has worked in both the government school and tertiary sector. She has recently completed her doctorate of philosophy on the topic of Asia literacy policy. She has given presentations in both national and international conferences. Her research interests include Asia literacy, policy, service learning and multicultural education.

Jacinta Maxwell

Jacinta Maxwell is a lecturer at the University of Southern Queensland, in Giabal and Jarowair country. Her doctoral thesis explored the intentions underpinning the inclusion of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures initiative within the Australian Curriculum. Jacinta’s research interests include critical race theories of education, policy and curriculum. Jacinta is a Pākehā New Zealander and a non-Indigenous Australian.