The release of the Australian curriculum: Mathematics has generated considerable debate in the education community. Some educators warn that this debate has centred on mathematical content and skills, setting the conditions for a ‘back to basics’ movement in line with the political rhetoric that accompanied the national curriculum development. But the Shape of the Australian curriculum: Mathematics document contains a commitment to provide a futures-oriented curriculum. This article provides a critical analysis of the released curriculum document in the light of these claims. It questions whether the direction taken in the curriculum demonstrates a futuristic view of mathematics education. It considers whether the document is aligned with a national focus on education for citizenship, identified in past government declarations on education as the basis for the development of the national curriculum, and the role of technology in teaching mathematics based on decades of theorising and research in this area.
AppleM. (1979). Ideology and curriculum. London, UK: Routledge.
2.
ArtigueM. (2010). The future of teaching and learning mathematics with digital technologies. In HoylesC.LagrangeJ. (Eds.), Mathematics education and technology—Rethinking the terrain: The 17th ICMI Study (pp. 462–475). New York, NY: Springer.
3.
AtwehB.BradyK. (2009). Socially response-able mathematics education: Implications of an ethical approach. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology, 5(3), 267–276.
BiestaG. (2010). Good education in an age of measurement: Ethics, politics, democracy. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
6.
ChristieP. (2005). Towards an ethics of engagement in education in global times. Australian Journal of Education, 49(3), 238–250.
7.
ColeP. (2008). Aligning curriculum with the goals of schooling. Stimulus paper prepared for the Curriculum Standing Committee of National Educational Professional Associations. Retrieved 4 August 2011 from http://www.acsa.edu.au/pages/images/cscnepa_3.pdf
8.
D'AmbrosioU. (1985). Sociocultural basis for mathematics education. In CarssM. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on Mathematics Education (pp. 1–6). Boston, MA: Birkhäuser.
DownB.DitchburnG.LeeL. (2008). Teachers' ideological discourses and the enactment of citizenship education. Curriculum Perspectives, 28(2), 1–27.
11.
ErnestP. (2002). What is empowerment in mathematics education? In ValeroP.SkovsmoseO. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International MES Conference (pp. 1–12). Copenhagen, Denmark: Centre for Research in Learning Mathematics.
12.
FrankensteinM. (1983). Critical mathematics education: An application of Paulo Freire's epistemology. Journal of Education, 165(4), 315–339.
13.
GeigerV.DoleS.GoosM. (2011). The role of digital technologies in numeracy. In UbuzB. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 35th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 385–392). Ankara, Turkey: PME.
14.
GeigerV.FaragherR.GoosM. (2010). CAS-enabled technologies as ‘agents provocateurs’ in teaching and learning mathematical modelling in secondary school classrooms. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 22(2), 48–68.
15.
GoosM.GalbraithP.RenshawP.GeigerV. (2000). Reshaping teacher and student roles in technology-enriched classrooms. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 12, 303–320.
16.
GutsteinE. (2006). Reading and writing the world with mathematics: Toward a pedagogy for social justice. New York, NY: Routledge.
17.
HoylesC.LagrangeJ. (Eds.). (2010). Mathematics education and technology—Rethinking the terrain: The 17th ICMI Study. New York, NY: Springer.
18.
KennedyK. (2009). The idea of a national curriculum in Australia: What do Susan Ryan, John Dawkins and Julia Gillard have in common?Curriculum Perspectives, 29(1), 1–9.
19.
KilpatrickJ.SwaffordJ.FindellB. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
20.
LakoffG.NúnezR., (2000). Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. New York, NY: Basic Books.
21.
LukeA. (2010). Will the Australian national curriculum up the intellectual ante in classrooms?Curriculum Perspectives, 30(3), 59–64.
22.
MarshC.J. (1994). Producing a national curriculum: Plans and paranoia. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
OliveJ.MakarK.HoyosV.KorL.K.KoshelevaO.StraesserR.. (2010). Mathematical knowledge and practices resulting from access to digital technologies. In HoylesC.LagrangeJ. (Eds.), Mathematics education and technology—Rethinking the terrain: The 17th ICMI Study (pp. 133–177). New York, NY: Springer.
27.
PierceR.StaceyK. (2010). Mapping pedagogical opportunities provided by mathematics analysis software. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 15(1), 1–20.
28.
PopkewitzT. (2004). The alchemy of the mathematics curriculum: Inscriptions and the fabrication of the child. American Educational Research Journal, 41(1), 3–34.
29.
PowellP.FrankensteinM. (1997). Ethnomathematics: Challenging Eurocentrism in mathematics education. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
30.
ReidA. (2005). Rethinking national curriculum collaboration—Towards an Australian curriculum. Canberra: Australian Government.
31.
RombergT. (1992). Thoughts on the standards: A reaction to Apple. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23(5), 432–437.
32.
SkovsmoseO. (1994). Towards a philosophy of critical mathematics education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
33.
SkovsmoseO. (2009). In doubt: About language, mathematics, knowledge and life-worlds. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
34.
YerushalmyM.BotzerG. (2011). Guiding mathematical inquiry in mobile settings. In ZaslavskyO.SullivanP. (Eds.), Constructing knowledge for teaching secondary mathematics (pp. 191–207). New York, NY: Springer.
