Thread by @jvdallimore

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

I've just done a quick check in the doc and there are 5 references to 'Anzac' all of which refer to the 'Anzac legend', not 'Anzac Day' (see screenshots). The two are connected but they are not the same thing. Nowhere are students specifically asked to contest 'Anzac Day'. 4/21

If there is any doubt that the meaning of Anzac (i.e. the legend) has varied since the early 20th century, it pays to read some history. To start, I'd recommend 'Anzac: The Unauthorised Biography' by @SigmundMarx or 'Consuming Anzac' by @history_punk (among many others) 5/21

In the interview, Tudge also criticises the word 'contestable' claiming that it is used 19 times in the draft. A brief word check shows 17 mentions + 3 of 'contestability'. In 6 cases, it is not linked to specific content – just the basic idea that interpretations differ. 6/21

To put that in perspective, the term 'sources' comes up 136 times in a word search, 'change' comes up 163 times, 'continuity' 40 times, 'perspectives' 67 times ... and so on. Contestability has hardly taken over. 7/21

To be fair, Tudge does acknowledge (14.15 in the interview) that there should be opportunities to 'reflect' on history from 'different perspectives' which makes it difficult to see why he has such an issue with 'contestability'. I think he hasn't explained that very well. 8/21

When contestability is linked to content, the majority of the links made are to very legitimate (even 'safe') historical debates and differences of interpretation. This is a core and inescapable (read that again: inescapable) aspect of what history is in the real world. 9/21

Let's take a couple of examples of what students are asked to 'contest'. The first specific example mentioned in the document looks at the evolution and 'migration' of homo sapiens. Hardly an issue without legitimate debate among scholars. 10/21

The second specific mention asks teachers/students to explore 'contested' understandings of an aspect of an ancient civilisation such as an event or individual. Hardly something foreign to historical scholarship? E.g. The Trojan war. 11/21

The 3rd specific mention of contestability asks students to consider 'competing' interpretations of 'ideas, individuals ... groups and movements' in the modern world. The suggestion for class activity benignly says that students might 'compare 2 diff. interpretations' 12/21

The 4th asks students to explore and understand why different terms used to describe European arrival in Australia are 'contested' including 'invasion'. Surely important for Ss to be aware if they are going to participate in Australian society? 13/21

The 5th asks students to examine debates around the 'Anzac legend' (not Anzac Day). One elaboration for this suggests that students will examine different historians' interpretations of the Anzac legend (cf. Holbrook and Hawkins). 14/21

Skipping ahead, another mention of contestability suggests that in exploring Australia's post-war history, students might look into debates about nuclear issues – relevant, legitimate and real. 15/21

The point I'm making is that the caricature of 'contestability' as a negative force is not supported by the evidence. Contestability simply refers to historical debate and that is crucial to a mature understanding of the past (insert a million different references). 16/21

Facts are important and a careful, factual rendering of what is actually in the draft Australian Curriculum (History) is crucial before any useful and constructive public discussion can take place about the curriculum. Selective soundbites don't help, they hinder. 17/21

Many teachers, myself included, have been openly critical of the draft but for a wide variety of reasons. From what I can tell, however, these are mostly different to those we're seeing amplified in the media – this is a crucial problem imo. 18/21

For what it's worth (among other things) I don't think the draft sufficiently 'decluttered' the history content. I think the inclusion of the 'deep time' topic in Year 7 is misplaced (it's too complex for most Year 7 students) and I think the post-1945 history is a mess. 19/21

To return to my main concern, I think what frustrates many Ts about all this is that weak and selective readings of the draft get the most airtime rather than the real concerns of actual teachers who will be left to implement whatever is handed down to us. 20/21

In sum, there is a lot to discuss with this draft but most of the crucial issues are not cutting through because the public fixation has been on an intellectually, politically and educationally narrow set of concerns and so 'we go round and round in the circle game'. 21/21