With the recent announcement that “Professor Barry McGaw” has been appointed as the head of a “new National Curriculum Board” there has been much debate among Australians, particularly parents and “educators” on the appropriateness of a national curriculum. In response “Stephen Buckle”, the deputy principle at Narrenwood Secondary college published an article contending that “a national curriculum for all Australians” would be beneficial and sensible. In response an article published by an unknown author condemns the idea that a “single curriculum” should be introduced suggesting it is “generic”. Moreover Job’s also criticizes the introduction of a “national curriculum”
Buckle immediately positions readers to question “why should schooling change at every state border” promoting reader’s to question the lack of consistency within Australia’s national curriculum and encouraging readers’ to be more receptive to the introduction of a “national curriculum”. Moreover, by suggesting that students in cities alike “Bunbury … and Bundaberg” learn different curriculum highlights to reader’s the absurdity of a state run-curriculum whereby students in cities that sound alike are learning “entirely different curriculum”.
Furthermore, sourcing the report from the “Australian Council of education research” which revealed school syllabuses in key areas such as “English and history” are as consistent as “our 19th century railway gauges” immediately aims to portray to reader’s how Australia’s curriculum across our states and territories is not ‘uniform’ and as such something must be done to reintroduce consistency into Australia’s varying curriculum.
Utilising emotive language such as “frightening” when describing the “opportunities for fads and fashions” to be “imposed on children”, immediately aims to make parents and educators, receptive to possible implications of a lack of a national curriculum and suggests to reader’s especially parents that their children are subject to such ‘fads’ unless a national curriculum is introduced.
In addition, Buckle directly argues that “there is no need” for state run curriculums, citing that “the laws of physics” and “the rules of grammar” don’t change upon crossing states. This simple argument engages with a reader’s sense of cohesion, as it doesn’t seem logical for curriculum to across states, as the key knowledge is all the same no matter what state on is in. Further encouraging readers to agree with the introduction of a “national curriculum”.
Furthermore, stating that a “national curriculum” will reduce the “embarrassment” Australia’s 80 000 children who move “interstate” each year face when moving schools after being told “we don’t do things that way in this state”, reinforces to reader’s the logical nature of a “national curriculum” and especially appeals to families who may need to move states on a regular basis as a result of work commitments, suggesting that their children’s education will no longer be affected by the move as it may have previously been in the past.
In Response to buckle’s argument the unknown author objectively contends that “a single curriculum is not the answer” to Australia’s “dropping achievement rates and lower school retention figures”. The author immediately begins by outlining that children along with their local area, work potential, and “teachers” are different among different states, and as such it would be unreasonable for their “lesson content and delivery to be the same”. Appealing to the logical nature of a state-run curriculum, the author reasonably suggests that “wool-classing, land management, irrigation programmes and stock handling should feature more prominently within a rural education”, encouraging readers to agree that different states have different educational needs and as such it would be insensible to employ a national curriculum.
Moreover, the author argues that a national curriculum will enforce a “single mind-set” rather than promote “innovation”, positioning readers to agree that they don’t want their children to grow up to be alike everyone else and promote a country with a lack of “diversity”, and “choice”. Further through suggesting that the decision for a “national curriculum” is motivated by the power of “control” “politicians” could gain from such a program positions readers to question the motives behind the decision to introduce a “national curriculum” and inclines them to condemn its introduction.
Furthermore through outlining the benefits of keeping the remaining such as that “a mistake made by one state only” only affects those people “living in that state” and that it provides an “incentive” for a state to improve it’s curriculum when it is seen as “inferior” to another’s states, outlines to parents and educators that their students and children would garner a more balanced and superior education through the current state-wide curriculum program rather than the “national curriculum”.
Concluding the set of arguments for and against the potential introduction of a “national curriculum” was a cartoon by Jobs which criticised the potential introduction of such a program. The black and white nature of the cartoon emphasises to reader’s the harsh and disruptive outcome of implementing such a program. Moreover through depicting children going through a factory convery belt whereby the “enter” the “Australian national curriculum” as young, diverse children and “exit” as men and women of the “same” appearance aims to portray to reader’s the lack of diversity such a program would create and positions them to agree that the introduction of such curriculum would not be very beneficial to the future generations of Australia. Moreover the depictions of books floating out of the factor with titles such as “Ethics, independence, poetry and science” suggests that such a program will rid our future generations of key skills, prompting reader’s to take on the author’s viewpoint that is a “national curriculum” will retrogressive rather than progressive.
Overall all pieces of text utilise a range of literary technique in aiming to persuade readers to take on their viewpoint.
Home
Help
Search
Login
