The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) have recently released their draft updates to the 7 – 10 History curriculum. Some of the most important aspects of this review and the drafts as they relate to the History material are listed below and are important reading before submitting feedback ahead of the July deadline.
Curriculum Review (General): https://www.acara.edu.au/curriculum/curriculum-review
Terms of Reference: https://www.acara.edu.au/docs/default-source/curriculum/ac-review_terms-of-reference_website.pdf?sfvrsn=2
HSIE general: https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/consultation/humanities-and-social-sciences/
History specific: https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/media/7031/hass_history_all_elements_7-10.pdf
Now that I have had the opportunity to read the draft 7-10 History material more thoroughly, I thought I'd pose a few quick questions for which I don't have firm answers yet but which seem to me to be important to discussions about the draft.
1. Has the content been 'decluttered'?
Surrounding the release of the draft material in late April, ACARA's CEO leading the review, David De Carvalho claimed, and indeed the terms of reference for the review claimed, that one of the central features of the review was to be a 'decluttering' of the curriculum. In an address to the Sydney Morning Herald's School Summit on 17 February 2021, he more specifically explained that:
But what do we mean by decluttering? Obviously, it will entail some reduction in content, but that is not the only focus, and arguably not the main one. I’ve heard some stakeholders say that we should be “taking a chainsaw to the curriculum”, but chainsaws are not particularly subtle and can leave an awful mess behind.
I prefer to use the analogy of a hedge-trimmer and pruning secateurs, which not only cut back, but also tidy up, reshape and clear out old and redundant branches to make room for new growth or the grafting on of new elements.
Another way to describe what are hoping to achieve is that we want to give the Australian Curriculum the Marie Kondo treatment, so that – regardless of how much content is left in the curriculum at the end of the process – it is properly organised, logical in its presentation and sequence, coherent, clear and easily accessible.
I'm not sure I find a lot of joy in all of the analogies used here but they at least make the point clear enough: this was not to be an overhaul of the content of the curriculum, rather a refining of it.
The draft 7-10 History material seems to broadly fit this vision at first glance. In Year 8, 9 and 10, students are no longer required to study as many topics (for example, in Year 8 where they were previously required to study three topics, they are now required to study 'at least' two leaving the option for a reduction in the content covered in that year). There has also been an attempt to draw on the disciplinary 'concepts' and 'skills' explicitly in the content to attempt to bridge some of the gap between knowledge and skills and make it clearer how and where these disciplinary ideas might be used to shape teaching and learning – I would consider this an attempt to refine the content within the material.
At the same time, most of the 'overviews' have been expanded and some now cover quite expansive periods and themes. In addition, some of the specific content descriptions have become quite lengthy and verbose. Consider, for example, the fist content description for the new mandatory topic in Year 7 ('Deep Time History of Australia'). It reads:
The causes and effects, and responses of the timing, arrival, and routes taken by early First Nations Peoples of Australia into and throughout Australia
I'm not exactly sure that I could confidently explain what this actually means to an adult, let alone a 12-13 year-old. What are the 'responses of the timing, arrival and routes taken by early First Nations Peoples of Australia'? The point is: a properly refined curriculum would be sharper in my opinion and easier to decode. The bulk of the thinking should be done considering what to do with a content description, not to decode it.
Or, consider one of the content descriptions from the Year 10 Overview:
The causes and effects of the Cold War and Australia’s involvement in Cold War and post-Cold War conflicts (Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf Wars, Afghanistan), including the rising influence of Asian nations since the end of the Cold War.
These do not immediately strike me as 'refined' or 'rationalised' descriptions of what students should be engaging with in these topics. For an overview – presumably meant to be dealt with at some speed – these could be problematic, especially with students who have little pre-existing knowledge of the conflicts listed. Were students just required to learn about the fact of Australian engagement in those conflicts it would seem less intimidating but exploring the 'causes and effects' of each would require some very complex teaching since the causes and effects of Australia's involvement in Korea and Afghanistan differed greatly.
2. Have the skills and concepts been refined?
The disciplinary skills that are supposed to underpin the teaching and learning of history in 7-10 in this draft are the following:
Asking historical questions
Sequencing chronology
Using historical sources as evidence
Identifying continuity and change
Analysing causes and effects
Evaluating historical significance
Communicating
These have been changed from the currently version published in 2012 but it is unclear if the new list marks an obvious improvement on the old.
The key question here seems to be why directive terms of differing complexity have been added to some skills. For example, this reads as though students need to simply 'identify' when it comes to 'continuity and change' but that seems very basic, especially once students reach Year 9 and 10. It is also clearly different to 'analysing' (linked to 'cause and effect') and 'evaluating' (linked to historical significance). Surely we would want students to be getting to a much more analytical level with continuity and change especially by the later years of 7-10 than this implies.
There is also no explicit reference to 'research' in these skills though it could obviously be implied by 'asking historical questions' and 'using historical sources as evidence'. It will be interesting to see how that is received in the feedback to this draft.
To be fair, these skills and concepts are outlined more thoroughly for each year level in later parts of the draft. For example, in Year 9 it requires students to:
evaluate the broad patterns of continuity and change over the period to demonstrate the relationship between events, ideas, people, groups, movements and developments (p. 64)
This suggests much more than simply 'identifying' causes and effects. In Year 10 the draft also requires students to:
locate and identify relevant primary and secondary sources of evidence such as archaeological, written and audio-visual sources (p. 81)
One of the elaborations on this description for Year 10 suggests that students might be involved in:
selecting relevant and useful historical sources from data bases such as Trove and state libraries (p. 81)
In sum, the detail suggests that students are required to do much more with the skills than is implied in the early sections of the document. This could be seen as a little confusing and might benefit from some more careful refining.
3. Has post-war history been devalued?
In the current version of ACARA's 7-10 History curriculum, students are required to engage with a topic called 'The Globalising World' by choosing one of three focus areas: a. popular culture (1945-present), b. Migration Experiences (1945-present) and; c. The Environment Movement (1960s-present).
In the new draft, this 'Globalising World' topic has been retained but only as an optional area of study. In addition, the three focus areas have been removed leaving a very large and undefined topic in their place. By making this topic optional, the curriculum draft, if implemented without alterations, could mean that many students do not study any in-depth history beyond the end of the Second World War. The students would touch on some of the major themes in the Year 10 Overview (which is a mandatory part of the course) but this hardly compares to the depth that at least some of these themes could be covered in a dedicated topic.
Working on the assumption that many schools will opt not to complete what is optional, this could mean that many students do not engage much at all with themes that have quite directly and immediately shaped the world in which they are living.
4. Is Year 7 the best place for a study of 'Deep Time Australian History'?
The decision to include a mandatory study of Australia's First Nations peoples (First Nations is the term used in the draft) will undoubtedly take up much of the public discussion about this draft. The recent public discussion around the work of Bruce Pascoe might be the first rumblings of this (for example, see this, this and this). If precedents in the media's coverage of Pascoe's work over the last several years are anything to go by, much of that discussion will, regrettably, be little more than political in nature.
Even if we set aside the debate about whether a topic like this should be included in the 7-10 History curriculum, one could raise the reasonable question about where it might best be positioned to ensure it achieves what it is designed to achieve. Should it be placed in Year 7 or in Year 10 when more students will have the ability to grapple with it in greater complexity? If Year 10 is the answer, then that would require a significant restructuring of the content which may move beyond the parameters of the terms of reference.
For the record, the content descriptions for this topic are the following:
The causes and effects, and responses of the timing, arrival, and routes taken by early First Nations Peoples of Australia into and throughout Australia
The development of innovative technologies by early First Nations Peoples of Australia, including the earliest known examples, and how they developed in different places and contributed to daily life
How the First Nations Peoples of Australia are the world’s oldest continuing cultures and have responded to change over deep time.
Early First Nations Peoples of Australia’s innovative solutions such as sustainable land, water, and resource management.
The sophistication and significance of First Nations Australians complex societies and cultures changing social organisation and political and economic systems.
The key cultural practices of early First Nations Peoples of Australia and how they contributed to societal development and their continuity and change over time.
The organisation of deep time according to archaeological evidence found and the archaeology of early First Nations Peoples of Australia.
First Nations Australians cultural sensitivities as they relate to heritage sites of significance, including ancestral remains, material culture and artefacts, and how collaboration with First Nations Australians ensures cultural integrity and protocols are followed.
The revised interpretations and views of Early First Nations Peoples of Australia
On first reading of this topic, it is quite complex. It has ten content descriptions that all students are required to engage with. In my view, all of them raise important and fascinating question but could be too dense and complex for the majority of Year 7 students? I'm undecided.
5. Does the 7-10 History curriculum still favour Modern History?
There has been much public discussion recently about the declining number of students taking Ancient History in NSW. The figures published by New South Wales Education Standards Authority (NESA), show that 7,316 students completed the HSC Ancient History course in 2020 compared with 11,053 students who completed HSC Modern History. In 2010 the numbers were 12,086 (Ancient History) and 10,054 (Modern History). For a very general overview of this, see this older post.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, most of the analysis of this trend offered in the media has left much to be desired, but I can attest that, anecdotally, it is a discussion that is prominent in the history teaching community in NSW and beyond. One of the many plausible arguments offered for the changes in candidature over the past few years, at least as they relate to NSW, is that the ACARA 7-10 History curriculum, which either shapes or is entirely adopted by the states, does not include any ancient history content in Year 9 or 10 when students are making their decisions about senior subjects.
If this is part of the explanation for declining numbers in senior Ancient History, and a good case could be made that it is one important factor among several, then this draft ACARA 7-10 History material does nothing to redress the issue.
Why has the ACARA 7-10 History curriculum been designed this way when there are other alternatives? Perhaps the 7-10 History curriculum could be redesigned so that the final (required) topic in Year 10 allowed for greater freedom in the choice of topics across a broad period of the past? For example, it could centre on themes of representation and contest (maybe call it something like 'Representing and Contesting the Past') but allow teachers and students to select case studies from Ancient, Medieval and Modern periods to design a rich and balanced topic.
I'm not suggesting that this particular suggestion would solve any problems but it is an example of an alternative that could at least be discussed.
Five questions hardly begin to explore this draft in any depth. They should be read as entry points to a discussion about this draft update to ACARA's 7-10 History material. Hopefully, they help to identify some of the broader issues that will be important to discuss but there are many more. I have not, for example, even touched on the 'performance descriptors' for the draft which will no doubt include some points worthy of discussion.
If the original process of creating and implementing a new national curriculum can be used as even a rough guide, many states such as NSW are likely to adapt ACARA's 7-10 History material for a state-based curriculum. Nevertheless, those state-based curriculums will be informed by the ACARA material. The important point to take away here is that it is important to be involved with whatever ACARA produces because it may shape what we have to teach in important ways.
If you are interested in providing feedback to this draft, ACARA have advertised that consultation will remain open until early July 2021. For further information, see: https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/consultation
Comments