Not only is this book completely absorbing, but it also brings forward stories that I don't think are (or were) too widely known or at least stories that are not very well-understood (I certainly learned a lot reading it!). 2/7
More importantly in the context of this discussion, it raises crucial Qs around how the story of modern Australia is often told (with a major focus in school history on Federation, early social reform and WW1). Australian women were on the world stage before any of this. 3/7
How we often structure that underlying 'narrative' of Australian history deserves a rethink and this book makes a strong argument for how it could be reassembled to tell a unique story of Aust. and one that might even be a (wait for it) more optimistic version of our past. 4/7
I think this is also important for another reason and that is that I think school history is one part of the wider discipline and it can be strengthened by drawing on good scholarship (i.e. specific works of history) to constantly update and revise what and how we teach. 5/7
The current Aust. Curr. (History) includes an option to study 'progressive ideas and movements' covering the period 1850-1918 (roughly the same as YDOF) but it does not specifically mention the efforts to gain women voting rights though it is tucked away in 'Making a Nation'. 6/7
Again, there is plenty more to say about this book and how it might contribute to discussions about history curriculum in Australia but, at the very least, I think it’s an important read that also happens to be very enjoyable. 7/7
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Thread: My current take on the discussions around the draft Australian Curriculum is that an incredibly narrow set of voices is getting all the airtime. Real teachers – the ones who will need to actually make the curriculum work – are being largely ignored 1/21
Part of the problem with this is that we are seeing readings of that draft amplified through the media that seem to me to be highly selective and, I would argue, misleading in important aspects 2/21
E.g. Alan Tudge has been continuing to push the idea that the draft Australian Curriculum (History) is promoting a negative view of 'Anzac Day' and implying that 'contestability' is a negative feature of the curr. (see his comment at about 13.00 in the ABC Hack interview). 3/21
6th recommendation for exploring what school history is for (emphasis on Aust.) is this essay in Historical Encounters by Tony Taylor from 2020. Brief thread 1/7: …e-49d9-9754-bcd4dea0d882.filesusr.com/ugd/f067ea_628…
I think the essay was timely and touches on some important questions and themes that seem to have only intensified in the past 12 months. On page 6, he highlights four themes that have been recurring in discussions about history curricula that should raise questions. 2/7
1. Essentialism: 'a belief that a nation’s ... past can be summarised by a fixed chronicle of key past events that are to be remembered commemoratively and/or spiritually rather than analytically'. 3/7