The purposes of history? Curriculum studies, invisible objects and twenty-first century societies

A new intellectual epoch has generated new enterprises to suit changed beliefs and circumstances. A widespread sentiment in both formal historiography and curriculum studies reduces the “new” to the question of how knowledge is recognized as such, how it is gained, and how it is represented in narrative form. Whether the nature of history and conceptions of knowledge are, or ought to be, central considerations in curriculum studies and reducible to purposes or elevated as present orientated requires rethinking. This paper operates as an incitement to discourse that disrupts the protection and isolation of primary categories in the field whose troubling is overdue. In particular, the paper moves through several layers that highlight the lack of settlement regarding the endowment of objects for study with the status of the scientific. It traces how some “invisible” things have been included within the purview of curriculum history as objects of study and not others. The focus is the making of things deemed invisible into scientific objects (or not) and the specific site of analysis is the work of William James (1842-1910). James studied intensely both child mind and the ghost, the former of which becomes scientized and legitimated for further study, the latter abjected. This contrast opens key points for reconsideration regarding conditions of proof, validation criteria, and subject matters and points to opportunities to challenge some well-rehearsed foreclosures within progressive politics and education.

Futures for Australian curriculum studies: metaphors, genres and complicated conversations

My specific brief for the conference presentation on which this essay is based was to speak from the standpoint of a 'curriculum theorist'. However, I rarely use the terms 'curriculum theory' or 'curriculum theorising' other than in the company of US and Canadian colleagues. I prefer to speak of 'curriculum inquiry' or 'curriculum work' and I think of my work as a university teacher and researcher as being directed towards understanding curriculum. From this standpoint I interpret the theme of this Point and Counterpoint, 'Futures for Australian Curriculum', as a focus for speculation on the possible and desirable ways in which the arts of curriculum inquiry can be developed, tested and renewed. In other words, how can we sustain rigorous, vigorous and generative forms of curriculum work?
I will respond to this question by referring to three artefacts of Australian curriculum studies, the first two of which come from the Australian
Curriculum Studies Association's (ACSA) own material history; the third is (arguably) the major synoptic text of North American 'curriculum theory' published during the past decade. I will use these artefacts to illustrate three key issues concerning futures in curriculum inquiry, namely:
• the significance of metaphor;
• questions about genre and a renewed role for
the arts in our work;
• the idea of 'complicated conversation'.

“I am a secondary teacher and I teach history and SOSE” : negotiating pre-service teacher identities in times of curriculum change

Secondary social education in Australia is set to change with the new national history curriculum but integrated social education will continue in the middle years of schooling. Competing discourses of disciplinary and integrated social education approaches create new challenges for pre-service teachers as identification with a teaching area is an important aspect of developing a broader teacher identity. Feedback on a compulsory, final year curriculum studies unit revealed the majority of secondary pre-service teachers identified with at least one social science discipline. However, only a small number listed the integrated social education curriculum of Studies of Society and Environment (SOSE), even though SOSE was an essential part of their brief. More complex identities were revealed in post-teaching practice interviews. In times of curriculum change, attention to pre-service teachers’ disciplinary knowledge is critical in developing a stable subject identity.

“I woke up and realised the ground had shifted”: the shifting terrain of English curriculum

The theme of this conference comes from the epitaph on the Lewis Carroll’s gravesite. “Is All our Life then But A Dream?” This seems fitting for a time when so much change in the terrain of English makes us feel as if we are somnambulating through a surrealist landscape. Like Lewis Carroll’s Alice, (Carroll, 2003) we might find ourselves at strange tea parties with bureaucratic mad hatters, and just when we think we have a grasp of applying new theory in our teaching, we fall down another rabbit hole, to swim in confusion as some queen calls out, ‘off with their heads!’. The shifting ground in English inevitably moves in response to waves of theory influencing classroom practice. Each new paradigm has claimed to liberate language learners from the flaws of the previous model. Each linguist or literary theorist who shaped the new paradigm no doubt dreamt of a new population emerging from school as more powerfully literate citizens than the previous generation.

High quality/high equity systems of education: Curriculum, teachers and reform in the search for equitable outcomes for all students

The issue of what an effective high quality / high equity education system might look like remains contested. Indeed there is more educational commentary on those systems that do not achieve this goal (see for example Luke & Woods, 2009 for a detailed review of the No Child Left Behind policy initiatives put forward in the United States under the Bush Administration) than there is detailed consideration of what such a system might enact and represent. A long held critique of socio cultural and critical perspectives in education has been their focus on deconstruction to the supposed detriment of reconstructive work. This critique is less warranted in recent times based on work in the field, especially the plethora of qualitative research focusing on case studies of ‘best practice’. However it certainly remains the case that there is more work to be done in investigating the characteristics of a socially just system. This issue of Point and Counterpoint aims to progress such a discussion. Several of the authors call for a reconfiguration of the use of large scale comparative assessment measures and all suggest new ways of thinking about quality and equity for school systems. Each of the papers tackles different aspects of the problematic of how to achieve high equity without compromising quality within a large education system. They each take a reconstructive focus, highlighting ways forward for education systems in Australia and beyond. While each paper investigates different aspects of the issue, the clearly stated objective of seeking to delineate and articulate characteristics of socially just education is consistent throughout the issue.

Will the Australian national curriculum up the intellectual ante in classrooms?

A critical review of the current and potential impacts of the Australian National Curriculum on the enacted curriculum in primary schools, with specific attention to issues of equity and social justice.

Struggles Over Difference: Curriculum, texts and pedagogy in the Asia-Pacific

Struggles over Difference addresses education, schools, textbooks, and pedagogies in various countries of the Asia-Pacific, offering critical curriculum studies and policy analyses of national and regional educational systems. These systems face challenges linked to new economic formations, cultural globalization, and emergent regional and international geopolitical instabilities and conflicts. Contributors offer insights on how official knowledge, text, discourse and discipline should be shaped; who should shape it; through which institutional agencies it should be administered: and social and cultural practices through which this should occur.

Role and purpose of standards in the context of national curriculum and assessment reform for accountability, improvement and equity in student learning

In this article our starting point is the current context of national curriculum change and intense speculation about the assessment, standards and reporting. It is written against a background of accountability measures and improvement imperatives, and focuses attention on standards as offering representations of quality. We understand standards to be constructs that aim to achieve public credibility and utility. Further, they can be examined for the purposes they seek to serve and also their expected functions. Fitness for purpose is therefore a useful notion in considering the nature of standards. Our interest in the discussion is the ‘fit’ between how standards are formulated and how they are used in practice, by whom and for what purposes. A related interest is in the matter of how standards can be harnessed to realise improvement.

Civics and citizenship education in the national history curriculum : conducting the same music or rehearsing an incomplete tune?

This paper raises some questions about teaching and teacher education in the social sciences in response to the decision to implement a national curriculum in Australia. In particular, it contends that the decision to focus on discipline-specific knowledge in the social sciences will not necessarily meet the hopes of the Melbourne Declaration and deliver a 21st century curriculum that prepares students for the future. In doing so, it suggests that social educators need to engage with the broader discourse and political context shaping the push for curriculum reform in Australia and makes reference to the marginalisation of civics and citizenship education in the latest draft of the Australian curriculum: History.

Challenging teachers’ assumptions in an era of curriculum and assessment change

Significant responsibility has been given to schools and sectors to interpret and plan for assessment within the Australian Curriculum. As schools take this opportunity to review and renew their school curriculum, it is important for teachers and school leaders to take the time to work out whether there are any assessment myths lurking in the conversations or assumptions that need to be challenged. Outdated myths or cultural narratives of learning can limit our thinking and student learning, without us being aware of it.