Recent moves in Australia to institute a national curriculum emanated from federal governments of ostensibly different political persuasions in the period from 2003, building on developments that go back over 25 years. This article traces continuities and new developments, meditating on two questions: whether the current moves are politically likely to move along federalism in Australian education and whether the current approach to national curriculum is educationally sound. Lack of infrastructure to support teachers and schools, lack of necessary feedback loops into policy and development, and lack of appropriate evolving and specified relationships among levels of government may well undo all the important educational work on national curriculum. On the educational front, the overcrowding of specified content, its specification at age levels, and the disjuncture between content, assessment and pedagogies do not bode well for providing practicable and well-resourced support for teachers. But, given other national partnerships and work on federalising many spheres (including the two big spending areas still under states' control: health and education), it may be that national curriculum is a project whose time has come. If so—and this is still not certain—it signals major shifts in the governance of curriculum and particularly has implications for the role of teachers in the core of their work.
BallS. (1990). Politics and policy making in education: Explorations in policy sociology. London, UK, and New York, NY: Routledge.
5.
BallS. (1994). Education reform: A critical and poststructuralist approach. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
6.
BallS. (2010). New voices, new knowledges and the new politics of education research: The gathering of a perfect storm?European Educational Research Journal, 9(2) 124–137.
7.
BernsteinB. (1971). Theoretical studies towards a sociology of language: Vol. 1. Class, codes and control. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
8.
BrennanM. (2001). A new generation of high schools for the ACT. A discussion paper developed for the ACT Department of Education and Community Services as part of their project, High Schools for the New Millennium. Canberra: Department of Education and Community Services.
9.
BrennanM. (2009). Steering teachers: Working to control the feminised profession of teaching. Journal of Sociology, 45(4), 339–359.
10.
BrennanM.ReidA. (2009). Education, equity and the Hawke government. In BlousteinG.ComberB.MackinnonA. (Eds.), The Hawke legacy (pp. 57–69). Adelaide: Wakefield Press.
11.
BrunerJ. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
12.
ClarenceK.BrennanM. (2010, November—December). Unpacking relations of ruling in the new Australian English curriculum policy documents: Who is the imagined teacher? Paper 2510 presented at the Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE), Melbourne.
CollinsC. (1994). Curriculum and pseudo-science: Is the Australian National Curriculum Project built on credible foundations?Belconnen, ACT: Australian Curriculum Studies Association.
15.
Curriculum Corporation. (2003). Curriculum provision in the Australian states and territories. Research report for the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment Training and Youth Affairs. Melbourne: Author.
16.
Curriculum Development Centre. (1980). A core curriculum for Australian schools: What it is and why we need one. Canberra: Author.
17.
DawkinsJ. (1988). Strengthening Australia's schools: A consideration of the focus and content of schooling. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
18.
DelorsJ. (1994). Learning: The treasure within. The report to UNESCO of the International Commission on Education for the Twenty-first Century. Retrieved 16 May 2011 from http://www.unesco.org/delors/index.html
19.
DengZ. (2008). School subject and academic disciplines: The differences. In A. Luke, K. Weir & A. Woods, Development of a set of principles to guide a P–12 syllabus framework: A report to the Queensland Studies Authority, Queensland, Australia (pp. 86–99). Brisbane: Queensland Studies Authority.
GrumetM.YatesL. (2011). The world in today's curriculum. In YatesL.GrumetM. (Eds.), Curriculum in today's world: Configuring knowledge, identities, work and politics (239–247). World Year Book Education Series, Volume 2011. Oxon, UK: Taylor & Francis.
22.
HargreavesA. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
23.
HayesD.MillsM.ChristieP.LingardB. (2006). Teachers and schooling making a difference: Productive pedagogies, achievement and performance. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
24.
HurshD. (2008). High-stakes testing and the decline of teaching and learning. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
25.
KeatingJ. (2009). A new federalism in Australian education: A proposal for a national reform agenda. Melbourne: Education Foundation.
26.
KennedyK. (1989). National initiatives in curriculum: The Australian context. British Journal of Educational Studies, 37(2), 111–124.
27.
LingardB.PorterP.BartlettL.KnightJ. (1995). Federal/state mediations in the Australian national education agenda: From the AEC to MCEETYA 1987–1993. Australian Journal of Education, 39(1), 41–66.
28.
LukeA.WeirK.WoodsA. (2008). Development of a set of principles to guide a P–12 syllabus framework. A report to the Queensland Studies Authority, Queensland, Australia. Brisbane: Queensland Studies Authority.
29.
MarshC. (1994). Producing a national curriculum: Plans and paranoia. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
30.
MayerE. (Chair). (1992). Key competencies: A report of the Committee to advise the Australian Education Council and ministers of vocational education, employment and training on employment-related key competencies for postcompulsory education and training. Melbourne: Australian Education Council.
MCEETYA (Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs). (2008). Melbourne declaration on educational goals for young Australians. Melbourne: MCEETYA Secretariat and Curriculum Corporation.
PiperK. (1997). Riders in the chariot: Curriculum reform and the national interest 1965–95. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.
35.
PowerM. (2003). Evaluating the audit explosion. Law and Policy, 25(3), 185–202.
36.
ReidA. (2005a). Rethinking national curriculum collaboration: Towards an Australian curriculum. Research Fellowship Scheme Report. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training.
37.
ReidA. (2005b). Rethinking approaches to national curriculum: Beyond the railway gauge metaphor. Occasional Paper Series. Canberra: Australian College of Educators.
38.
RizviF.LingardB. (2010). Globalizing education policy. Brisbane, Oxford, UK, & New York, NY: Routledge.
39.
SchleicherA. (2008). Seeing schooling systems through the prism of PISA. In LukeA.WeirK.WoodsA. (Eds.), Development of a set of principles to guide a P–12 syllabus framework: A report to the Queensland Studies Authority (pp. 72–85). Brisbane: Queensland Studies Authority.
40.
StenhouseL. (1975). An introduction to curriculum research and development. London, UK: Heinemann.
41.
TrippD.WattA. (1984). Core curriculum: What it is and why we don't need one. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 16(2) 131–141.
42.
TyackD.TobinW. (1994). The grammar of schooling: Why has it been so hard to change?American Educational Research Journal, 31(3, Fall), 453–480.
43.
TylerR.W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
44.
WithersG.TwomeyA. (2007). Australia's federal future: Delivering growth and prosperity. A report for the Council for the Australian Federation. Retrieved 15 May 2011 from http://www.caf.gov.au/federalism_repository.aspx
45.
YeatmanA. (1996). The new contractualism: Management reform or a new approach to governance? In DavisG.WellerP. (Eds.), New ideas, better government (pp. 283–292). Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
